LES MISERABLES

UK, 2019, 372 minutes, Colour.
Dominic West, David Oyelowo, Lily Collins, Adeel Akhtar, David Bradley, Josh O’ Connor, Olivia Colman, Ellie Bamber, Ron Cook.
Directed by Tom Shankland.

Since its publication in France, Les Miserables has been considered a classic, along with Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It has been filmed many times in English as well as in French and Italian. The story received a new lease of life in the 1980s with the musical, still running after many decades.

It seems surprising to have another version after the film version of the musical in 2012 and 1997 version, directed by Bille August, with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. However, this is a BBC television series with six hours at the film-makers’ disposal. The writer is Andrew Davies who for many decades has adapted classic novels for the BBC from Pride and Prejudice through Vanity Fair to War and Peace. The director, Tom Shankland, has worked for some years in television.

Most audiences have been caught up in this version. There is also the experience of remembering the musical score and the lyrics at particular sequences, enhancing the sequences rather than distracting from them.

This version opens with the defeat of Napoleon, the many corpses at Waterloo, introducing Thenardier as a robber encountering a dying colonel and carrying him to safety. The contrast is with Paris and affluent young men, their liaisons with prostitutes, including Fantine who gives birth to Cosette. Those familiar with the story can see the various connections opening up, the colonel’s son being Marius, Fantine leaving Cosette with the Thenardiers. The other introduction is to the work in the galleys and the quarries, backbreaking work with Jean Valjean supervised by inspectors Javert.

The familiar episodes are all present, Jean Valjean’s encounter with the Bishop and the giving of the candlesticks and the conversion effect on him. He is the successful mayor of the town, setting up an industry where Fantine works. Javert arrives, continuing to pursue his quarry, the court case and the mistake about the identity of Jean Valjean and his confession, disappearing, buying Cosette from the Thenardiers as atonement for his treatment of Fantine, the going to Paris, disappearing for years into the convent.

Time passes, criticisms of the monarchy, social revolution, the barricades, the troops and the defeat of the revolutionaries, Jean Valjean going to the barricades, rescuing Marius, the sewer gate being opened by Thenardier, Jean Va;jean freeing Javert, his suicide.

The recreation of the period is excellent. And the performances are very strong, audiences not having seen Dominic West portray such a strong character, David Oyelowo a very different Javert. Lily Collins is Fantine. And, a number of British character actors take the supporting roles, led by Adeel Akhtar as Thenardier and Olivia Coleman as his wife, Josh O ’Connor as Marius.

1. A classic novel? Reputation? The variety of versions on film, on stage, the musical, now television series?

2. The impact for the 2019 audience, worldwide? 6+ hours available to tell the story?

3. Audience expectations, the title and its tone, the poor and oppressed of France in the early 19th century? The familiarity of the plot, of the characters? The musical score? The influence of the musical, contributing to the interpretation?

4. The cast, strong, British? The type of British accent for depicting French society of the 19th century?

5. The 19th century, costumes and decor, buildings, wealth and poverty, the city of Paris? The revolution experience, the barricades?

6. French history, the build-up to the French Revolution, post-revolution, Napoleon and the wars, his defeat at Waterloo? Taking the story of France into the 1820s and 1830s? The death of Napoleon, the establishment of the Republic, the return of the monarchy, social unrest?

7. The poor, crime and punishment, excess of brutality, ordinary people as underdogs? Issues of justice by legislation, by revolution? Victor Hugo, the religious themes, sin, repentance, forgiveness? The importance of the experience of Grace?

8. The opening, the battle of Waterloo, the devastation of the corpses, the Colonel and his dying? Thenardier and his presence on the battlefield, stealing, rescuing the Colonel? The beginning of the links between all the characters, all connected, degrees of separation? The irony of the ending, the recollections of Waterloo, the Colonel’s rescue, Thenardier, Marius as the Colonel’s son, Thenardier and his threats, watching Javert, the final confrontation with John Valjean?

9. Themes of hope, redemption, forgiveness, mistakes and reparation and atonement, the Catholic themes, the Bishop, the hospitality, the candlesticks and Valjean taking them with him? The nuns and Fantine’s death, the convent and a refuge in Paris? The story showing goodness in ordinary human beings?

10. The galleys, Valjean, the backbreaking work in the quarries, Javert watching, dislodging the stone, falling on the soldier, Valjean lifting it? Javert and his reaction, resentment, becoming more obsessed? The indications of the character of each of the antagonists?

11. The nobility in Paris, the grandfather and his being anti-Napoleon? Not receiving his son-in-law, despising him? Marius imbued with these attitudes? The maid, suggesting the Colonel come to see his son a church? The continued attitudes of the grandfather? Marius growing up, learning about his father, changing his attitude? His friendship with the revolutionaries? His seeing Cosette, following her, connecting with her? His lodgings, next to the Thenardiers? His going to the barricades, with the gun powder, his injuries, Valjean carrying him to safety, Thenardier unlocking the grill, back to his grandfather, the grandfather’s change of attitude, arranging the marriage?

12. Thenardier, the robber, carrying the Colonel, setting up the inn, the title, telling the story of his heroism at Waterloo? His wife and their relationship? Their greed, the children in their care, the Dickensian overtones and the treatment? Fantine pleading for Cosette, paying the money, the couple enslaving Cosette, Fantine, going to the town, getting to work, lying about her being alone, her making the toy, her being dismissed? Her resentment towards Valjean after his initial welcome? Selling her hair, her teeth – and the irony of the doll’s made with the hair? The letter writer and his advice about going into prostitution? Illness, treatment, to the Hospice, Valjean and his repentance, going to the inn, buying Cosette, taking her to Paris, Thenardier wanting more money? Going to the convent, the happiness of the years, his being protective, Cosette and her learning? Money, his burying the money in the ground and going to retrieve it? His concern about the revolutionaries, wary about Marius, Cosette exchanging notes, his going to the barricade, scenes of Javert but freeing him, carrying Marius, Thenardier and the gate, the ironies of the connections of the past? Cosette’s success, Eponyme and her poverty, her love for Marius, saving him? Thenardier going to Marius and Cosette, the truth, cassette realisation of what it happened? The going to seek John Valjean, finding him?

13. The famous scene of Jean Valjean and the refuge with the Bishop, his reputation, his housekeeper, inviting Jean to join the meal, the accommodation, Jean and his robbery of the mugs, the police bringing him, the urbane response of the Bishop, defending him, giving him the candlesticks? The effect on Jean, his taking this candlesticks everywhere?

14. Javert and his arrival in the town, his motivations, seeing the Mayor, his suspicions, going to Paris to report, the man arrested, the trial, the witnesses from the galleys and the declaring the innocent man was Jean Valjean? His declaration, confession, disappearance?

15. Javert relentless, his arrival in Paris, continuing to search for Jean Valjean, the house? His relationship with the men in the office? Severe with them? Going undercover to the barricades, his being tied up? The encounter with Jean Valjean? His being freed, going back to the office, allowing John Valjean to visit Cosette? Going to the river, his reflections, falling into the River? Thenardier witnessing this?

16. The revolution, the company, the causes, the introduction of Gavroche, his earnestness, the flag, the barricades, mocking the soldiers, his being shot? At the inn, the revolutionaries, their discussions, the different characters? At the barricades, heroism, at the inn, the leader and his associate lined up, shot?

17. The nuns, helping Fantine, the escape to the convent, the Superior and her doggedness? Jean Valjean and his life in the convent, Cosette and her education, her distaste for the galley prisoners? Jean Valjean on protecting her? Not telling her the truth? Her strength of mind when Marius told the truth?

18. The film’s perception of the character of Jean Valjean, and ordinary man, sinning, a conversion experience, doing good for people, becoming heroic even in his ordinariness?

THE PUBLIC

US, 2017, 120 minutes, Colour.
Emilio Estevez, Jena Malone, Alec Baldwin, Christian Slater, Taylor Schilling, Jeffrey Wright, Gabrielle Union. Michael Kenneth Williams, Richard T. Jones.
Directed by Emilio Estevez.

Have you ever been criticised for being a “bleeding heart�, or find someone mocking you, slinging off, for taking up causes and expressing compassion? If so, this is definitely a film for you. On the other hand, if you are critical of bleeding hearts, if somebody suggests that you are “heartless�, this is probably a film that you should avoid – although the Cincinnati prosecutor played by Christian Slater who is proud to be heartless, campaigning to become mayor on law and order issues, eliminating crime from the streets, might prove something of a mirror/challenge.

The title indicates that this is about the range of ordinary people. More specifically, it is a reference to the Public Library in the city of Cincinnati, a haven for those who want to read, for those who want to go online, a refuge for many of the homeless people who form a kind of sub- community there, using bathroom facilities, going online, going inside to keep warm on wintry Ohio days.

The film has been written and directed by Emilio Estevez who is probably best remembered by older audiences as being one of The Breakfast Club. He is not a prolific film director but, his films in the last 15 years or so include Bobby, a film about the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and The Way, the film he directed about the Camino starring his father, Martin Sheen (a long-time social activist who would be very proud of his son for this film and its themes).

Action takes place over a couple of days, record lows in temperature in Cincinnati. We are introduced to Stuart Goodson (now that’s a symbolic name) one of the librarians (Emilio Estevez himself) – and learn more about him and his previous years on the streets – who lives alone, is friendly with his landlady, Angela (Taylor Schilling), and co-worker, Myra (Jena Malone). We also see him mixing with the range of mainly homeless men, friendly but reticent. His boss, Jeffrey Wright, summons him to warn that he and a fellow worker are to be sued by a homeless man because they asked him to leave the library after many complaints about his smell. The city prosecutor is, as mentioned, Christian Slater, sure and smug running, from mayor against a local black pastor.

So, where is this taking us? To a situation in the library which serves as a fable for concern about those in need and whether the heart should bleed or not.

In fact, a lot of the clientele want to stay in the library because there are not enough shelters around the city. They are to be ousted but they decide to barricade the doors, Stuart and Myra still inside, the media turning up thinking that it is a violent hostage situation, the chief police negotiator (Alec Baldwin) who is on leave to try to find his drug-addicted son, taking command of the situation, calling police reinforcements…

On the one hand, there is plenty to appeal to our bleeding hearts as we empathise and try to work out what we would do in a similar situation. On the other hand, there is a critique of hard hearts, of television anchors wanting to get scoops and ignoring the truth.

In case we should find ourselves in a similar situation, the ending of the film provides quite an original solution as to how to bring the situation to a peaceful end – one might say it forces the authorities to face some bare facts!

In an era where homelessness is becoming more prevalent even in prosperous cities and countries, where cerebral consideration of economic situations and budgeting debate seem more important than stressful realities, here is a humane film which can be proud of its bleedingheartedness.

1. The title? The general public of the city? The Public Library and its symbolism?

2. The setting in Cincinnati, an American city – but universal experience and message?

3. Locations, winter, the cityscapes, the streets, the river, the library and its interiors, offices, police precincts, television crews in the streets? The musical score?

4. Emilio Estevez as writer and director, his perspective, social justice and concern, compassion, protest?

5. The library, the polar bear in the foyer, the vast space, different floors, books and shelves, computers and tests, staff offices, the security?

6. Stuart Goodson, in himself, age and experience, going to work, with the staff, the security, working with Myra and their discussions, repartee? His love of books, their saving his life? Anderson as the superior? Summoned to the office, the issue of the library being sued? Josh Davis as solicitor? His stances, criticisms, getting the information, irritated with Stuart? The amount of money, the issue, the homeless man and the complaints about his smell, his being asked to leave? The later settlement out of court?

7. Stuart arriving, the men in the toilet, washing and shaving, the group and their friendliness, banter, historical information, Hail, Caesar! George and the discussions with Stuart, the other men, their military experience, the silent man and his theory of his laser eyes and killing people? Stuart later giving him the glasses to wear and his seeing normally? The library as the refuge for the men, reading, work at the computers, the cantankerous old lady?

8. Stuart at home, the repairs, Angela and her visit, their discussions, bonding?

9. An ordinary day at the library in the cold of winter? The routines?

10. Officer Ramstead, his asking the chief for leave, his addicted son, the scenes with his wife, their searching for their son? His being called in as a negotiator, the siege in the library, his attitudes, giving Stuart the photo of his son, the irony of the son being inside, causing all kinds of difficulties and upsets? The police arriving, father and son being reunited? Stuart’s role?

11. The issue of the election for mayor, the pastor, African- American, providing food and shelter? The contrast with Josh Davis, looking at his commercials, looking at his image, his stances, Law and Order, crime? Right-wing and authority?

12. The end of the day, the cold outside, the few shelters around the city, the crowd of people inside, the decision to stay? The pressure on Stuart? The pressure on Myra, her eventually getting out, phoning her mother, meeting Angela? Anderson and his watching?

13. The barricades, moving the shelves, the pleasant atmosphere with the company, the pizza man arriving, justifying himself, the sharing of the pizza?

14. The security, watching on the screens, Angela and the phone calls, Stuart taking the photos and videos, sending them to Angela, her going to the television anchor?

15. The media, the anchor and her ambitions, exploiting the situation, sensationalising, drawing conclusions? Angela giving her the film, her displaying it, the phone call with Stuart and her not understanding him, his quoting The Grapes of Wrath and the women telling her off? Her later
change of heart?

16. Josh Davis, present, urging on the police, law and order, intolerant? Stuart asking him to lie in the cold for five minutes? The interactions with the negotiator? His being in two minds?

17. Anderson, his role as authority, his deciding to join the group, sharing with them?

18. The police arriving, ready, the negotiations? Stuart and his idea, everybody getting naked, lining up, the opening of the door, no weapons, everybody rounded up, the bus, including Anderson? Myra and Angela and their support?

19. A message film, compassion film, social concern – for bleeding hearts, criticisms of bleeding hearts?

APOLLO 11

US, 2019, 93 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Todd Douglas Miller.

There will be two quite different responses to this documentary, released at the time of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, the astronauts, ‘the eagle has landed’, stepping on to the surface of the moon, the urging of John F. Kennedy in 1961 to have a vision of such a mission within the decade – and its achievement.

For audiences 60 and over, the experience of the film will be reminiscing, where we were the day of the moon landing, what happened, our responses, the expectations of space exploration, anticipation of the moon landing and the wonder of its achievement. For audiences under 60, there is no actual memory of the experience. Rather, this is a looking back into history, wonder at what was achieved at the time, comparisons with what happened afterwards and what is happening in the present, further missions to the moon, achievements in the future.

A lot of this material has not been seen before. It was stored in archives, well preserved, and the film archivist has a great deal of footage to draw on and has judiciously chosen material that, within the space of 90 minutes or so, enables audiences to experience the mission from day one to day six, the eventual splashdown of the three astronauts, mission accomplished.

One word that comes to mind in the early part of the film is “vast�. It is not the vastness of the enterprise itself but the initial impact of the plant in Cape Canaveral, Florida, as well as the plant in Houston, Texas. It is extraordinary the size of the enterprise in building this station. It is the size, of course, of the spacecraft itself. It is the thousands of personnel who contributed to the building, the maintenance, the banks of experts at their desks, their consoles, giving attention to every detail. The film at the end is dedicated to the thousands who contributed in any way to the design, the building, the maintenance, the management and control.

There is footage to introduce each of the three astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Edwin “Buzz� Aldrin, Mike Collins. Their preparation is taken for granted as we see them go into the spacecraft, but the realisation of how much training, expertise, confidence and self-reliance is needed for this mission – and, with the footage over the days of the mission, seeing how expertly they carried out the details of the mission, Collins piloting the spacecraft, the Eagle landing, Armstrong setting foot on the moon, the one small step and the giant leap, Alden following, the scientific data they collected, the return of the Eagle to Colombia and the return to earth.

For 50 years, we have known the end to the mission and, so, there is not so much suspense as we watch. However, there is enough footage of the experts managing, the crowds in anticipation, the media commentary and build up so that we absorb something of the wonder and the wondering whether everything would be successful.

This is an important record of the most significant event and achievement in human enterprise. It might be time to do some cinema revision, having a look again at The Right Stuff and the initial missions in space at the end of the 1950s, beginning of the 1960s. And, there is the feature film focusing on this mission, especially on Neil Armstrong as a person, his family, Ryan Gosling playing him in Damian Chazelle’s 2018 feature, First Man.

The first moon mission could be achieved 50 years ago – with wonder, we speculate on what will happen in the next 50 years, and more…

END OF WATCH

US, 2012, 109 minutes, Colour.
Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Pena, Anna Kendrick, Natalie Martinez, David Harbour, Frank Grillo, America Ferrera.
Directed by David Ayer.

End of Watch begins with the car chase and the shootout. However, there is an even stronger chase and violent shootout at the end. In between, we are shown the day by day work of two Los Angeles cops, as well as glimpses of their personal life and relationships. This is the kind of thing that was very popular in films of the 1970s (with such titles as Supercops) and on television shows like Starsky and Hutch and, more seriously, Hill Street Blues. Then came the reality TV shows like Cops. End of Watch relies on fans’ experience, and liking, of these films and television programs.

One of the differences is that much of End of Watch is filmed as home/work movie, cameras recording people and events in close-up, some of it on mini-recorders on lapels, much of it with handheld cameras. (This can have some giddying consequences on audiences who prefer few wobbles and twists in what they watch.)

Otherwise this is familiar material, harsh situations, danger, killing, drugs, as well as the more routine patrols of the LA streets. However, this is South Central, Hispanic families (and dealers and killers) moving in on what was once African American territory. These culture clashes are to the fore. As is the multi-cultural make-up of the force itself.

We follow Brian and Mike, their good fellowship and banter, their discussions about all kinds of things, their going into action and the interaction of white and Hispanic. Mike is married, Brian about to be (with Anna Kendrick and Natalie Martinez as the wives). Brian is filming for one of his course projects which gives some reason for the visual style of the film.

Jake Gyllenhaal is always reliable and makes Brian convincing. Michael Pena appears in many films but this one gives him a chance to make a stronger impact.

Needless to say, with the cops but, especially with the criminals, much of the dialogue is monotonously four letter worded but, just when you might feel it is too much, the film comes up for air.

End of Watch is dedicated to the police forces in LA who collaborated with the film-making. The film is sometimes a grim reminder of the risks that the dedicated police are exposed to and take.

1. The title? The police and their work? In Los Angeles, south-central? The demands of each police watch?

2. Los Angeles, the city, the streets, the gangs, homes? The background of the police and their lives compared with the background of the gangsters and the wars? The precincts? The musical score?

3. The documentary style, handheld camera, immersing the audience in the action, with the characters?

4. Audiences and police stories, the watches, the procedures, partners in their work together, the background of families, being with them day-by-day?

5. South-central, Brian Taylor and his work, the marine’s background, the type, enterprising, forward? His personal life, the encounter with Janet, the bonding together, the dates, the buildup to their wedding?

6. His partner, Miguel Zavalos, the Hispanic background, his wife, pregnant, family?

7. The narrative built up from episodes? The various gangs, Bloods, the violence, Tre and their treatment of him, a certain bonding, information? The racial backgrounds of the gains, the fights and shootings? The impact of the gang, Surenos, the drive-by shootings? Big Evil and his impact? The discovery of the trucks, filled with guns…?

8. The rescue of the family, the fire? The ceremony of awards? The background of cartels, human traffic?

9. The difficulties, calls for action, the knife in the eye?

10. The old woman, her house, the drugs and corpses? The connections, the gangs, Tre and his warning?

11. The pair and some gung-ho attitudes, the car chase, the ambush, Tre being shot?

12. Taylor, his being wounded, Miguel shielding him, his death? The rescue?

13. The impact of the funeral, Miguel and his death, his pregnant wife, her future? Brian, his presence, Janet?

14. The contribution of End of Watch to understanding police work and appreciation, especially in difficult circumstances in south-central Los
Angeles?

BE NATURAL/ THE UNTOLD STORY OF ALICE GUY- BLACHE

US, 2018, 103 minutes, Colour.
Narrated by Jodie Foster.
Directed by Pamela B. Green.

This Is an important documentary to be seen by professionals in the film industry but also for the wider public, helping them to go back to the origins of cinema, see the pioneers, technical achievement, difficulties, and, especially with this film, the contribution of Alice Guy-Blache?, whose achievements were underestimated and forgotten for many decades.

The film’s director, Pamela B. Green, has done a great deal of research, even detective work, to discover who Alice Guy-Blache? was, what she did, what she achieved in filmmaking, the reasons for her being overlooked, even by her colleagues, and her not finding her rightful place in cinema history. The style of research and detection keeps the audience interested and involved. And this is enhanced by the fact that Jodie Foster does the voice-over and commentary, even using her fluent French.

Alice Guy-Blache? was French. When quite young, she became involved in the pioneer filmmaking in France at the end of the 19th century, the film providing information about the achievement of the Lumiere Brothers and the exhibition of their films in 1895, the companies that soon emerged, especially Pathe and, for Alice, the Gaumont company and its studios. By the turn of the 19th century, Alice had become very involved and to this film highlights her skills with photography, with direction and performance, with camera angles, with editing and pace. She also created quite a number of the stories.

Fortunately, there have been discoveries and restorations of her films, short films because of the nature of cameras and projectors in those years, but expert storytelling within a number of minutes. Many of the films look pristine with their black-and-white photography and the audience is probably wishing to see more of them.

The voice-over makes many points about the themes of the film is, treatment of both men and women, some feminist perspectives, some risk-taking in being explicit about human nature and relationships.

She was important to the Gaumont studios and then went to the United States, meeting her husband, Henry Blache, also involved in the company, setting up studios in New Jersey, the Solax Company, where she was significantly involved. While busy in the United States, she bore a daughter, became more alienated from her husband who worked with an actress/director, Lois Weber, both getting more attention from their contemporaries and historians leading to the almost-elimination of Alice from the history books. Gaumont himself continually underestimated her and neglected mention of her.

As with all documentaries, there are a great number of Talking Heads, some from the past but many contemporaries, especially women who have achieved in performance and direction, a huge billboard of faces with a camera zooming in for closer of their comments. There are interviews with film historians some of whom come to realise they have to revise their facts and make up for a neglect.

Importantly, the director has access to to important interviews with Alice herself, one with the Belgian film historian Victor Bachy who discusses her career and a more personalised interview with Alice during the 1960s, the interviewer asking the questions for which we want answers and the director skilfully editing them to provide a portrait of Alice, her memories, her achievements, her disappointments, her desire to recover the films – and the disappointment for her and the audience that she did not succeed.

This documentary serves as a belated introduction to Alice Guy-Blache? and an interesting and quite exciting tribute to her.

DANGER CLOSE, THE BATTLE OF LONG TAN

Australia, 2019, 118 minutes, Colour.
Travis Fimmel, Richard Roxburgh, Daniel Webber, Luke Bracey, Nicholas Hamilton, Anthony Hayes.
Directed by Kriv Stenders.

“Danger Close� is a military call when explosives are falling close and there is a need to take cover. There was certainly a lot of danger, getting very close, in the 1968 Battle of Long Tan, symbol of Australian action and involvement in the Vietnam War.

Some decades ago there was a Vietnam War film from Australia, The Odd Angry Shot serious but with some ironic humour. Now, just over 50 years since Long Tan, this is a very serious look at jungle conflict, the large numbers of the Vietcong and their attacks, the inexperience of the young Australian soldiers, the dilemmas for leadership decisions…

While many Australians knew about the Battle of Long Tan at the time, the film points out that the soldiers were given recognition by the United States but it took many decades before they were acknowledged by Australian authorities.

The battle took place two years after the Australian Prime Minister, Harold Holt, decided that we should go “all the way with LBJ�. The war, however, would continue for the best part of another seven years before the fall of Saigon, 1975.

This is film is particularly well made, directed by Kriv Stenders (best known for Red Dog). Queensland locations standing in for Vietnam and are quite convincing. The effects and stunt work for the attacks, the devastating explosions, men killed and injured in action, have a powerful impact.

At the end of the film, there is a list of those men who died at Long Tan, the oldest of them being only 22. And this is one of the impressions from the screenplay, these young men, many conscripted, had had comparatively little training and experience but were being called on to go out on missions, always wary of the continued attacks by the Vietcong. There are some scenes where they reminisce about their background, reminding the audiences of what life was like in Australia at the time. There are also some moments of some of them being cheeky, memories of the larrikin ethos of the Anzacs.

The central character, a professional army major, played by Travis Fimmel, is tough, hard on the young soldiers, demanding – but eventually the audience sees the more humane side of him, leading the men by example, a mediator between them and the commanding officers. The principal officers are played by Richard Roxburgh, the brigadier, and Anthony Hayes, the colonel who is required to make decisions but wants to be personally involved in the action.

The filmmakers are able to immerse the audience in the experience of war, in the small groups heading out from the headquarters (the film giving some vivid impressions of the work done there, phone contacts, calculations and adjustments for firing rockets, finding ways to provide backup, extra weapons dropped from helicopters…).

Many veterans coming home from World War II to the United States and to Australia were not always welcomed, having to shoulder the blame for the involvement, the casualties, the defeats. Danger Close serves as a reminder of the realities of 20th century warfare and a tribute to those who gave their lives, and the many gave their deaths, to the wars.

1. The title? The danger of explosions, the danger of injury in Friendly Fire? The message to take cover?

2. Vietnam, 1968, the film explaining the background of the Civil War, North and South, Communist and free? The American involvement, the 1960s, All the Way with LBJ? Australian support, the draft, conscription, young men in their late teens and early 20s? Short training, no fighting experience, the impact of the time, protests, moratoriums? In retrospect?

3. The Western involvement in Vietnam by 1968 (and the war ending only in 1975)? The battle of Long Tan? The testing of Australian fighting? In unfamiliar situations? Audience knowledge of these times, the atmosphere of 1968, the Vietcong, the American presence, the Australian presence? And whether this activity and successful battle was acknowledged at the time by Australia or not?

4. An Australian perspective on the young soldiers, the Australian spirit, memories of World War I and the Anzacs, North Africa, New Guinea, memories of World War II? Warfare in the tropics? The young men, bravery, fears – and the expressions of the somewhat irreverent and larrikin spirit?

5. Queensland locations for staging these battles in Vietnam? The tropics, the jungle, the establishing of the headquarters and its equipment, the staff and their work, pressures, fighting in the fields?

6. The contribution of the stunt work, the battles, the attacks, deaths? The weapons and explosions? Death and injury?

7. Audience empathy? With the Australians? Attitudes towards the Americans? Relying on them for support? The background of Indochina and the Communist threat, the defeat of the French?

8. The presence of the officers, the brigadier, his attitude, in charge, strong personality? The colonel subordinate to him, strategies, involvement with the men, his wanting to be actively involved? The major and other officers? Headquarters, information coming in, devising strategies, the variety of tactics? Communications and loss of communication? Decisions to be made on the spot? The consequences?

9. Communications, the phone system, measurements and distances, calculations, the planes and the dropping of bombs? The involvement of helicopters and the dangers? The range of rockets and calculations for accuracy? Protecting the infantry on the ground? Risks?

10. The focus on Harry, at the centre, out in the field? His military background, family, his work in Malaysia? As a personality, seemingly harsh, his stances, orders and expectations, his treatment of the young men, reprimanding them, humiliation and challenge? His contact with the authorities?

11. The range of young men, the middle-aged men? The young man from the farm, shooting rabbits, on guard with the younger soldier, drinking, the shot, being reprimanded by Harry? His later daring, crawling through the jungle? Bringing back information? The long talk with Harry, the wedding, the invitation – and his death? The impact on Harry, on the others?

12. The details of the advance, the small platoons, the ever-present enemy, their numbers, being surrounded, strategies, the use of weapons, loss of weapons and backup? Phone contacts, loss of contact? The range of injuries and deaths, the graphic visualisation? The effort to gather the wounded and bring them to safety?

13. The brigadier, strategies, sending out the tanks or not, the limit of numbers of men? The men in the field, the group leader and his suggesting the bombing and their giving their lives? The tanks, the push, the distance, the time? The major and his deciding to go into action?

14. The continued attacks by the Vietnamese, the number of deaths?

15. The achievement of Long Tan, American recognition, lack of Australian recognition for many decades?

16. In the context of this battle for Australian morale and achievement? In 1968 – but with so many years of the war to follow?

A PRIVATE WAR

UK/US, 2018, 118 minutes, Colour.
Rosamund Pike, Jamie Dornan, Stanley Tucci, Tom Hollander, Greg Wise, Nikki Amuka- Bird.
Directed by Michael Heineman.

The central character of A Private War is the American journalist, Marie Colvin, who went into many war zones to report on the actualities of war but also the repercussions of the war on local people, the human stories, especially concerning children, injuries and deaths.

She is played by Rosamund Pike in what is quite a tough performance. Marie Colvin was American but worked internationally, especially for newspapers in the UK, The Sunday Times, with Tom Hollander playing the demanding, even exploitative, editor of the paper). Marie Colvin was an award winner and this is seen in the narrative that the film.

However, and significantly, she went to war zones in Sri Lanka, interviewing Tamils, but being injured in a raid and losing her eye. She tended then to wear a black patch – and this is a challenge to Rosamund Pike for her performance, especially with having to perform with only one eye, in looking at people, in indicating moods, interactions…

After some time and recuperation, she is eager to go back to the war zones, getting help from a friend to go to Afghanistan, experiencing roadside explosions, bonding with a former military now journalistic photographer, Paul Conroy, played by Jamie Dornan. They work together for some years.

In the meantime, she encounters a professional businessman at a party, Stanley Tucci, and begins an affair with him.

The film opens graphically with overviews of the destruction of the Syrian city of Homs. And the film, ends in Homs, with Marie and Paul doing interviews, getting material to be played on CNN to alert the world to the plight of Syria. But, in a bombardment, she and her interpreter are killed.

This film is a tribute to her and her work and motivations.

1. The film based on the career of Marie Colvin? As journalist, as present in war situations? Losing her life in Syria? Audience knowledge of her and her career?

2. The title, with reference to Marie and her activities, her involvement, her going on missions, her independence, seemingly fearless, strength of will?

3. The action taking place from 2001-2010? The framework and visuals of the devastation of the Syrian city of Homs? The place where Marie was killed? The state of war in the world, Sri Lanka, the countries of the Middle East, 9/11, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Syria?

4. Audience response to the role of journalists, getting information, finding stories, raising issues, humanising them? The news, print, radio, television and their particular effects on the public?

5. Marie Colvin, Rosamund Pike’s performance? The background of her life, American, marriage, the initial scenes with the professor, her inability to sustain a marriage and yet her desire for a child? Her hopes, wanting to become pregnant? Demanding? The strength of her inner life, compulsions? The range of her career, the dangers?

6. The Sunday Times? The role of the editor, his personality, his ambitions, achievements? His skills, his demands on his journalists, the winning of awards, Marie and the award ceremony? Keeping in touch, his finger on the pulse, internationally?

7. Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers? Marie’s presence, the talks, the issues, the guides, making connections? The attack? Her being hit, the injury, losing her eye? The return, hospital, finding it difficult to cope, wanting to continue her work? Interactions with the editor? Her wearing the eyepatch – and the challenge for Rosamund Pike to act and communicate with the use of only one eye?

8. The scenes of recuperation, her desire to leave, the situation in Afghanistan, her friendship with Norm, his help? The meeting with Paul, demanding of him, his travelling with her, the roadside bombs, her encounter with children, deaths? Her reports, the deaths Wanting her?

9. Her return home, the party, socialites, the encounter with Tony, the beginning of the relationship, her rapport with him? The time needed for rest and recuperation?

10. The further trips, Paul accompanying her, his character, support? Friendship? His background, the Army, court-martialed, photographer?

11. Afghanistan and Syria, in the hotels, the dangers, basis for excursions, her writing, the interviews, the connections with the London office, break in communications?

12. The importance of the television interviews, the contacts, the impact on the public?

13. Going to Homs, the dangers, her insistence on the interviews?

14. The attack, the death? Tributes to her? Paul and his continued work?

15. The story bringing the reality of war journalists, their hard work, intentions, motivations, concerns, to the media public?

THE DROWNING


US, 2016, 95 minutes, Colour.
Josh Charles, Julia Stiles, Avan Jogia, John C. Mc Ginley, Tracy Thoms.
Directed by Bette Gordon.

The Drowning is a psychological drama, a psychiatrist rescuing a man from drowning and discovering that he is a former client, giving testimony in a trial where the boy is accused of murder and goes to prison.

Josh Charles is the psychiatrist and Julia Stiles plays his wife, an artist. The young man with the past is played by Avan Jogia.

The man becomes more and more dependent on the psychiatrist, experts advising him to take the young man on and try to help him. And the young man also ingratiates himself with the psychiatrist’s wife.

So, this is a psychological exploration of the professional, his past behaviour, his career, the challenge to his conscience and his dealing with the young boy in the past.

On a realistic level, the psychiatrist might have been better warned not to take on the man as a client – because of the potential destruction to his life, marriage and career.


1. The title? The drowning and the rescue? This, the visuals, based on a novel by Pat Barker?

2. The American town, homes, offices, courts? The musical score?

3. The introduction to the character of Tom, psychiatrist, his experience and diving into the water, the rescue, the discovery of than his identity?

4. Danny, his age, in the water? The revelation about his past, in the court, age 11, the crime, whether he committed it or not? Tom and his role in Danny sentenced to prison? Danny and his return to Tom, trying to bond with him? The puzzle?

5. Danny’s adult behaviour, the influence of the past, his demands in the present?

6. Tom, age, experience, personality, his relationship with Lauren, the bonds, her art, her reaction to the rescue? Danny and his visits, her impression, not knowing the background of the past?

7. Tom, going to the counsellor, her urging Tom to take on Danny’s case? The pressure on him?

8. The interactions between Tom and Danny, Danny and his attitudes, intentions? Tom, the interactions, the effect on him?

9. The buildup to the ending, the effect on all the central characters?

10. The professional plausibility of the plot, Tom and his work, the past with Danny, taking on his case and the repercussions?

SAND CASTLE

US, 2017, 113 minutes, Colour.
Nicholas Hoult, Henry Cavill, Logan Marshall- Green, Glen Powell, Navid Neghaban, Beau Knapp, Sam Spruel, Tommy Flanagan.
Directed by Fernando Coimbra.

Sand Castle is one of many films made about the American presence in Iraq. The setting for this film is early after the American invasion, focusing on a group of young American soldiers, especially one played by Nicholas Hoult, a student who had tried to injure his hand so that he would not have to go on active service. He fails. He finds himself in Iraq, working with a group of men, connecting with a special services commander.

The young man is sent out on patrol, seeing a sniper and saving the situation. But the main mission of the men is to supply water for Iraqis in need, discussions with a schoolteacher in a village (who is then killed because of the connection by insurgents). The transport of the water is sabotaged by insurgents, firing at the water tanks and their leaking. The attempted liaisons are difficult because of the hostility of so many of the locals.

There are skirmishes, battles, deaths, explanations of strategies – and the young man finally wanting to stay and not go home but, on orders, sent back to the United States.

The film does not stand out but serves as yet another chapter in the enormous destruction and disruption of life in the Middle East because of the American invasion, the Allies, the ambiguities of their motivations and their inefficiencies in the aftermath of the invasion.

1. The invasion of Iraq? The American presence? Iraqi citizens? Insurgents? The atmosphere post 9/11?

2. The opening in the United States, ordinary life, the transition to the military? Military training, bonding? Iraq, acclimatisation? Headquarters, villages, supplying water, sabotage? Action detail?

3. The locations, Iraq and the desert, the villages, military headquarters? The musical score?

4. The film based on a true story, the experience of the screenwriter? The issue of water in the villages, supply, collaboration, hostility and sabotage?

5. The focus on poker, young, American, his studies, damaging his hand, failing, going to Iraq, awareness of the Sniper and the bombardment? The effect of being in Iraq, the range of friendships, superiors, orders, going into action, changing?

6. , Capt Iversen, command, action, decisions, Special Forces? Lead, the role of interpreters for the Iraqis and the Americans?

7. Missions, hostility, insurgents, driving through the desert, the encounter with the child, the puzzle? The bombings, the attacks?

8. The issue of the water, the pipes, destruction, rebuilding? The need for water, the village? The people in the village, the insurgents and the attacks, the repairs? The discussions with the teacher in the village? His explaining the needs? His being killed? The role of his brother?

9. Dialogue, hostilities, plans, the detail?

10. Crap and his finishing his term, wanting to stay, going home, the range of frustration, the American experience in Iraq, the judgement on the American intervention?

ASTERIX AND THE SECRET OF THE MAGIC POTION

France, 2018, 85 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Christian Clavier, Guillaume Briat, Alex Lutz, Alexander Astier.
Directed by Alexandre Astier, Louis Clichy.

The Asterix comics have been popular for many decades, initially in print, then in a series of animated films and, more latterly, in live action comic adventures.

This film returns to animation featuring many of the voices from the past, especially Christian Clavier who appeared in a number of the live-action films.

This is one of the slightest of the Asterix films. As always, it recreates the life of the village with its many eccentricities. It is also preoccupied with the presence of the Romans and their attack on the Gauls.

However, the focus is on the particular potion and a formula for it. The local magicians are getting old. There are other rivals who want the potion. Asterix and, as always, with the bumbling Obolix, sets out on a mission to find someone who can take the place of the old magician. There are various characters along the way, the thwarting of the journey, the selection of a young man who might become the successor, his initial failures - and the young girl who has the potential to be a successful wizard.

At the end of the film, there are double dealings, especially with the Romans – and even an appearance by Julius Caesar.

So, the plot is rather slight, repetitious of old stories – but, for the fans, there is always the pleasure of meeting Asterix, Obolix and the rest of the characters in the village and share their adventures.