RAFIKI

Kenya, 2018, 83 minutes, Colour.
Samantha Mugatsia, Sheila Munyiva, Neville Misati.
Directed by Wanuri Kahiu.

During 2018, there was considerable controversy about this film. It is a Kenyan film, from a country where homosexuality and activity is against the law. There were complaints in Kenya itself and objections for the film being shown at the Cannes film Festival. In fact, it was.

This is a brief film. Its narrative is fairly straightforward, two young women, the attraction, the relationship, their time together. And, it is also fairly straightforward in the reaction of people to the relationship, immediate abhorrent reactions, disapproval from parents, gossip from neighbours, denunciations from pulpits.

Samantha Mugatsia is the central character, Kena, a student who gets very good marks enabling her to move beyond thinking that she would be a nurse to the possibilities of her being a doctor. She is close to her mother, works in a store for her father who has separated and has a new wife who is expecting a child. He is also standing for local politics.

Sheila Munyiva is the other central character, Ziki, from a wealthy family, her father also standing for local politics. She hangs out with girlfriends who enjoy singing and dancing in the streets. Kena is attracted to her, meets her, they spend time together, are in the church when same-sex relationships are attacked. The mothers of both women are upset by the relationship.

There are other characters in the film including a young man, his girlfriend and her gossip mother, a good friend to Kena.

While the film has a message about same-sex relationships, it does not preach but rather makes its case by portraying its characters with sympathy and dramatising the relationship so that audiences can reflect on issues, and nuances in interpreting principles.

1. A story from Kenya? International story?

2. The settings, the city, homes, shops, the streets? Affluent areas? Poorer areas? A 21st-century city? The musical score?

3. A film about relationships? The two young women? In themselves? Realisation of the orientation, the attraction, the meetings, affection, sexual? The consequences for each? Secrecy? The influence of their mothers? The respective fathers and their political ambitions?

4. The personalities of each woman? Kena, her work, in the shop, friendship with Blaksta, seeing Ziki and the girls dancing, the approach? Her ambitions to be a nurse? Good marks, the possibility of becoming a doctor? Her bond with her mother, divorced? Her bond with her father, the store, politics? His new marriage? The wife being pregnant?

5. Ziki, wealthy, the mother, political father? The girlfriends?

6. The visit to the church, the preacher, earlier sermons, his preaching against same-sex relationships, quoting the bible? The denunciations? Two girls holding hands in the church, the leaving?

7. Blakta, friendship, the bike rides? His work? Support of Kena? Her treatment of him? His girlfriend, the shop, her gossiping mother?

8. Everybody knowing, the denunciations, shunning the girls? The parents’ reactions? Kena and her going off to study? The Ziki Going to England?

9. The passing of time, Kena and her accomplishments? Her return home? The future?

LOVE, CECIL

UK, 2017, 98 minutes, Colour.
Narrated by Rupert Everett.
Directed by Lisa Immordino Vreeland.


This is both a biography and portrait of celebrated photographer, artist, designer, Cecil Beaton.

The audience is able to get an overall picture of his life, his birth in England in 1904, his relationship with his parents, the severe business father, loving mother, two sisters and then a brother, Reggie (who, later, suicided). The film traces his school experiences, his interest in drama and theatre, going to Cambridge, avoiding all lectures, again becoming involved in theatre and design.

In his mid-20s, he travelled to New York, bringing his sketches and designs, as well as his skills in photography which he had been developing for some years. Photographing celebrities in his unique style, always the unexpected, he is employed by some of the fashion magazines including Vogue. During the 1930s he travelled annually to the United States building up his reputation, both in England and in the United States and internationally. There is a difficulty when, unwittingly he uses the word ‘kike’ in an article and is accused of anti-Semitism and blackballed.

Professionally idle for a year and a half, he is saved by the outbreak of World War II, hired to photograph the troops, action, his travelling widely as far as Asia, building up quite a portfolio of striking war photographs.

During his life he produced quite a number of books of his photos, designs, and showing his talent for intelligent and clever writing. He also published many diaries.

At the opening of the film, there is an indication of his success with My Fair Lady, the Ascot sequence, doing designs and costumes for its theatrical performances and then for the film itself, winning two Oscars. Previously he had won an Oscar for his design for Gigi and then was to design for Barbra Streisand, On a Clear Day You can see Forever. He also designed for a number of theatre productions.

Beaton was gay, the film showing the different men with whom he was involved, loving them, but breaking with them. The narration indicates that he could be an acerbic personality. His joviality and his sharpness are commented on by a number of talking heads, including photographer, David Bailey, and artist, David Hockney. Andy Warhol also makes an appearance.

Narration makes much of Beaton’s homes, his favourite acquired in the 1930s but seconded by the military during World War II, then his second home, beautiful and isolated in the countryside.

The narration and the quotations from his rather voluminous diaries, all published eventually, is by Rupert Everett, who is able to deliver with a rather Edwardian tone as well as overtones of his performances as Oscar Wilde and in Oscar Wilde’s plays and films.

One of the continued interests and delights of the film is the succession, an enormous range in fact, of Beaton’s photographs over the decades. They are always striking in his use of light and darkness, shadow, angles, unexpected backgrounds and designs.

While Cecil Beaton may not have been always engaging to meet, he left an enormous heritage, photography, design and costumes.

He died in 1980.

HECTOR

UK, 2015, 84 minutes, Colour.
Peter Mullan, Keith Allen, Natalie Gavin, Sarah Solemani, Ewen Stewart, Laurie Ventry, Stephen Tompkinson, Gina Mc Kee, Emily Barker.
Directed by Jake Gavin.

Hector is a brief British film, the story of an older man on the road. He is played by veteran Peter Mullan, always a strong screen presence, commanding our attention as Hector. There is a strong supporting cast of British character actors as well as the well-known Stephen Tompkinson and Gina Mc Kee. The score and songs were written by Emily Barker, quite a number of songs, and she appears as the first entertainer at the shelter.

Hector is a gruff man though with kindly streak, especially towards men and women on the road. The audience does not find out the reasons for Hector’s long absence from his family until the end.

The screenplay follows Hector getting his pension, cleaning himself up in public toilet areas, going for his pension, buying things at the shop, gifts for his friends, going to the doctor, the need for treatment, need for the operation, his going to London to celebrate Christmas as usual at a shelter, tracking down his brother-in-law but finding his sister won’t see him, trying to get information about his brother who finally finds him – and there is final explanation about what had happened to Hector and a reconciliation.

An interesting character study, portrait of a man on the road – and an opportunity to reflect on the lives of the homeless.

1. The title, the focus on Hector himself, his life, his background, on the road, his future? Peter Mullan and his screen presence in the role?

2. The locations, England and Liverpool and the details of London? Glasgow? The English countryside, the roads, truck and car lifts? The musical score, the range of songs by Emily Barker, her performance in the shelter, the male choir and Abide with Me?

3. A portrait of a homeless man? Life on the streets? Shelter and sleeping, cardboard covers? Washing in the toilet areas? Clothes, handouts? Getting the pension? Visits to doctors, treatment, no address and phone numbers? Friendly people at diners? Tossing down a church and the priest giving him a voucher for a meal? The London shelter for Christmas visitors?

4. Hector, his age, on the road for over a decade, separation from brother and sister, no communication? His tracking down his brother-in-law, the car salesman, the arguments, rejection by his sister? Trying to get information about his brother’s address, his brother finding him by going to shelters, the awkwardness of the first meeting, the becoming more friendly, going out for a meal, walking, bicycle ride? His brother contacting their sister, the meeting, Liz and her exasperation and puzzle? A reconciliation with his family?

5. The later revelation of what it happened, the death of his wife and daughter, the situation and the argument, the timing, Is Blaming himself? Talking with Peter and with Liz about this?

6. The range of people on the streets, Dougie and his being cranky, Hector kind to him, the farewell, discovering him dead? Hazel, her age, on the road, relying on Dougie and Hector, her grief at Dougie’s death and blaming herself, turning up in London, angry, the wounds on her face, Sarah finding her a place to stay?

7. The refuge in London, Hector and his annual visit, the old friends, Jimbo in the dormitory, catching up? The former seminarian, his drinking, quoting Scriptures, grace before meals, conducting the choir, falling, starting the fight? Ted, young, silent, yet bonding with Hector?

8. Sarah, the work at the refuge, understanding people, kind, going out of her way to help, a place for Hazel, reminiscing with Hector, looking forward to next year?

9. Hector, his moods, the kind woman at the diner giving him a meal, his exploiting her, getting him out?

10. Finally, Hector on the road again, going north, the lifts, his walking and the final classified his face?

WHAT MEN WANT

US, 2019, 117 minutes, Colour.
Taraji P. Henson, Aldis Hodge, Richard Roundtree, Josh Brenner, Max Greenfield, Kellan Lutz.
Directed by Adam Shankman.

How do you make a romantic comedy when the central character is, as she says later, monstrous? Well, probably develop the monstrous aspects of the character and then contrive her have a conversion experience. This is very much what we might call the Judd Apatow Syndrome, start raucous and possibly objectionable, stage a change of heart and then everything is nice, even explicitly moralising and moralistic, at the end.

The screenplay for this film is based on the 2000 comedy starring Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt, What Women Want. The tagline was amusing “a man is listening to what a woman is thinking, at last!�. So, this time a woman is listening to what men are thinking – and it is generally not very flattering to the men.

Taraji P. Henson’s Ali is, to say the least, a tough cookie. She works for a top sports agency and is expecting to be named a partner in the firm. It doesn’t happen – and the boss condescendingly says that she is very good in her female channel but can’t measure up to the big boys even though she has several contracts to her credit.

She has a group of girlfriends who chatter and who all visit a particularly weird clairvoyant who allegedly reads the future but communicates to Ali, the power to hear what men are thinking. Obviously, it works to great business advantage, knowing what her colleagues and rivals really think but rarely say, knowing what a potential young basketball champion and his aggressive father (whose name is Joe Dollar!, Tracy Morgan) are planning and want. There are internal shenanigans that the company, fawning on father and son, doubledealings to get international contracts. But, the nice lad and Ali knowing his thoughts will help towards a profitable and a pleasing solution.

She encounters an attractive bartender, Will (Aldis Hodge), has a sexual encounter with him, discovers that he is a widower with the young son (intelligently precocious) and, at an emergency moment, pretends that she is married to Will and they are a family. Obviously, this will become a sticking point – and, potential for a change of heart and a happy ending.

Also in the act is her father, veteran Richard Roundtree, a boxer, who trained his daughter to be tough, to box and also serves as a punching bag and a sounding board for her in her problems.

The trouble is, probably, that too much of the long running time focuses on Ali and her unlikable self, only a short time at the end for her change of heart.

For most of the running time, there is a whole lot of unsympathetic stuff going on. But, it does lead to a nice ending.

UNDERMINED

Australia, 2018, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Nicholas D. Wrathall.

This is a significant documentary about the Kimberley. The subtitle of the film is “Tales from the Kimberley�. The perspective is that of aboriginal individuals and communities – with many interviews, both women and men.

One thing to note immediately is the vivid photography, the communication of the variety of locations in the Kimberley, the Fitzroy River, water, the cattle properties, the range of desert images, the towns and communities.

The question is raised as to Australians’ general knowledge of the area, the aboriginal people, the developments in the area, especially mining, cattle and agriculture.

There is comment that the developments of the 20th and 21st-centuries can be considered as a new form of 19th century colonialism, the capitalist companies coming in, the establishment of the Northern Land Council and ambiguities, money dealings, political interference… Examples are given of past exploitation and, particularly, of the setting up of a base to process natural gas from the Indian Ocean. There is also the question of the cattle runs and companies coming in setting up contracts with native owners. There is a critique of the effect of agriculture on the land and the environment.

One of the earliest tales from the Kimberley is that of Leopold Downs. The audience is introduced to the genial manager, Kevin Oscar, a man of experience in flying helicopters as well as knowledge of cattle, managing the property but meeting and working with an executive of a company with the plan for collaborative ownership. This begins well – but, unfortunately, later in the film, the scheme collapses, business difficulties and issues of options, bad timing with the cattle, the workers, including Kevin Oscar’s son, having to move to towns or seek out new jobs in the Northern Territory.

We are also introduced to Albert Wiggan, an articulate man who is seen at various meetings, seen at protests, developing skills in native lore as well as having computer and management skills. He is able to fill in some detail about his parents, his going to Perth to a boarding school, being well educated, his marriage, his return to the North, gradually involvement in courses, suspicions of the Northern Land Council, then working with them. He is a skilled communicator as he talks with the interviewer, someone who will contribute to the future of the Kimberley.

On the other hand, there are stories of the towns, young people, nothing to do, alcohol, drug addiction, and the increasing number of young suicides. There is also the destruction by the Western Australian government of an aboriginal settlement and the transfer of all the inhabitants to the towns, to their further decline.

Also appearing and interviewed is the first aboriginal member of the legislative assembly of Western Australia, a woman with constructive views as well as empathy.

So, there are elements of optimism, but also many pessimistic perspectives. One hope offered is the training of young people in the rituals, the dances, stories of the dreamtime, participation in festivals and pride in their ancestry and traditions. (Kevin Oscar also gives the advice that horses are a great advantage, that recalcitrant young boys can learn a lot by having to ride a horse, relate with a horse, take responsibility…).

THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT

Denmark, 2018, 152 minutes, Colour.
Matt Dillon, Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Sofie Grabel, Riley Keogh, Jeremy Davies, Jack Mc Kenzie, Ed Speleers, David Baillie, Emile Tholstrup,
Directed by Lars von Trier.

Writer-director, Lars von Trier, has encouraged controversy during his long career. And, controversy was raised with the present film, reports of audiences walking out.

It is clear that any audience can choose to see a film about a serial killer or not. If they make the choice, they can expect, at least, gruesome images. In fact, there are many gruesome images here, but not excessively gory (especially in comparison with the multiplicity of horror films in recent decades) not images that an audience who chooses to see the film would walk out of.

von Trier is trying to do something special in this portrait of a serial killer, an evil Everyman character, narcissistic and boastful, both shrewd and naive, misogynistic but not limiting his victims to women. And that something special is to invite the audience to 2 ½ hours of reflection on philosophy and art in the context of the life and the murders by a serial killer. In fact, and the art and the reflections are so interspersed throughout the film that they provide a substantial counterbalance to the gruesome images. One might wonder whether the audience who walked out of this film did not understand all the discussions, the meanings of the visuals and the music, or could not bother to work with them.

On the narrative level, there are five incidents in Jack’s murderous career, a driver with a car breakdown, a widow interested in insurance, a mother and two young children victims of hunting, a seductive young woman murdered in her apartment – and, in the fifth episode, a range of men, multi-ethnic, to be the target of an experiment with a full metal jacket bullet. There is also an epilogue, titled, Katabasis indicating downfall and death.

Matt Dillon is convincing in the central role, initially obsessively fastidious, OCD, but, gradually changing in appearance, feeling freer and becoming more unkempt. He has wanted to be an architect but is an engineer, building a model of a house, visiting the building site, building and then demolishing, a metaphor for his own life.

Throughout the film, there is a voice offscreen, a continued challenge to Jack about his behaviour, and response to his defending himself, a continued judgement on Jack – so that the audience is in no doubt about the film’s moral perspective on serial killing. The voice is referred to as Verge (Bruno Ganz) who eventually appears at the end, the classic Roman author, Vergil, – and Dante’s guide to the inferno in The Divine Comedy. One can hear commentators declaring von Trier as pretentious, in likening himself to Vergil – but, on reflection, this is obviously a 21st-century visual version of The Inferno, especially in its culmination.

And there are so many art references as well as discussions about the nature of art, creating art, Jack interpreting his murderous work as artistic. There are sequences with Glenn Gould playing the piano. There are visuals of architectural frameworks, Gothic cathedrals, the screen filled with a page of letters, an animation allegory about light and shadows for pleasure and pain, a wide range of paintings, especially classical, visuals by William Blake of God, of the Lamb of the Tiger, and a discussion about the symbolisms of innocence and violence.

Which means then that this is no ordinary serial killer thriller. Rather, it is a visualisation of a contemporary phenomenon of men who kill. It is also an invitation to a much wider range of reflection on being human, on good and evil, on depth and banality, and illustration of this reflection by all the arts. The film is a visual and verbal portrait, and visual and verbal analysis.

1. Impact of the film, its reputation, controversies, portrait of a serial killer, violence, terror/horror

2. The career of Lars von Trier? Ambitions? Controversies? Visuals? Themes?

3. The setting, the USA the 1970s, filmed in Scandinavia? Images of towns, streets, homes, the warehouse and the freezer, the countryside, the roads, forests, locations for hunting, apartments? The transition at the end to the world of the imagination – to the inferno?

4. The musical score, the range of songs, classical music, Glenn Gould and the excerpts? The finale and Hit the road, Jack?

5. The title, the house has an image of Jack, Jack as an Everyman of evil, Jack as engineer, wanting to be architect, the model for the house, his building and design, the real house, the land and landscapes, the framework, the bricks – his contemplation, the demolition and rebuilding? This serving as a metaphor for himself? Building and destroying?

6. The narrative, Jack’s story and communicating it to the audience? The offscreen response of Verge? Verge and his critique, moral judgements? Jack and his defence? The overtones of classic Vergil, the later comments on writing the Aeneid? Audiences making the connection with Dante and The Divine Comedy and the Inferno?

7. Jack, a visual portrait, verbal portrait? Visual analysis, verbal analysis?

8. The flashbacks, Jack as a boy, orphan, needing a family, in the reeds, hide and seek, pursuit, escape? The close-ups? His interior attitudes? Behaviour?

9. Jack posing with the cards, the placards, the verbal descriptions of his psychological state and behaviour, tossing them aside? Yet in claiming to be Mr Sophistication – and this reputation with the media?

10. Audience response to stories of serial killers, factual reporting, myths, urban legends? Uma Thurman as the first lady? Her comments on serial killers, descriptions, taunting Jack, his appearance, apologies? And her sudden death? The recurring of the images?

11. The killings, the comment on their being gruesome, but comparatively less gory than many other films? The counterbalancing of the visual images of art, music? Ideas and discussions?

12. The misogyny, the female victims, the family victims, the international group, men? The theorising about misogyny, Vergil asking about his female victims and his thinking them less worthy? His musings about men, women and the way that they were born, expectations?


13. Jack, and his changing throughout the duration of his serial killings? The initial neatness, OCD, cleanliness? The second killing, his imagining bloodstains, his continual returning and checking? Even risking discovery? His later decline, the moustache and stubble out hunting, more dishevelled in his erotic behaviour with the fourth woman? Gradually more unkempt?

14. The intellectual and artistic content of the film and its being spread throughout the film? Vergil and his discussions? The visual arts, the range of paintings, the architecture and the visual illustrations of buildings and framework, the Gothic cathedrals? Classic paintings, the baroque? Glenn Gould and the recurring music? The animation and the discussion about movement, the lights, shadows ahead, shatters behind – and images of pleasure and pain? Light and shadow, the image of the eclipse? Photography and the nature of the negative?

15. The verbal comparisons, the focus on Blake, his visual art, his poetry, the symbols of the Lamb and innocence, the Tiger and cruelty?

16. Verge, voice offscreen, the commentary, the challenge, judgements, accompanying Jack and his career? The final appearance, the conversations, downfall and katabasis, Jack defending himself? Explanations, boasts? Jack having to make the final choices, the decision to go into the Inferno, scale the wall, his falling to hell? Hubris leading to nemesis?

17. Chapters and the incidents and the epilogue?

18. The first incident, the woman and the car breakdown, not able to wield the jack, stopping Jack, the lift, tough talk, serial killers, the repairs, forcing him to drive her back, the continued taunts, his hitting her? Burying her? Near the state line and the car able to be seen?

19. The second incident, the widow in the house, Jack’s performance, the discussions about the police badge, claiming to be an insurance agent, testing her? Offering her more money? The entry, the cup of tea, his attack, choking her, failure, the repetition? Stabbing her, the blood flow? His obsessive cleaning the house? Watching, the police arriving, his interfering and offering to contribute to the case? Continually rechecking about the blood, his imagining there was more blood? Taking the corpse, dragging it through the road, the blood on the road, the rain, his considering it a blessing and providential?

20. The third episode, the family, his being a hunter, looking rougher, the discussions, with the two boys and their moods, explaining hunting and then saying it was cruel? The nature of culling and references to ethnic cleansing? Observing the deer, the rifles, the tower, shooting at the targets? His killing the boys, the concerned mother, shooting her, in the ditch and shooting her again? After the picnic episode with the pie and his forcing her to feed the dead boys? The posing, the framework of the dead crows and the dead people? The taxidermy, the bodies, posing them?

21. Jack and his interest in photography, developing the photos, the reflections on light and the negatives and the images, going back to the second woman, the pictures on the wall, continued photography?

22. The fourth incident, Jack and his erotic behaviour, the woman in the room, his considering her a simpleton, the interchanges, his plans, the phones, cutting the chords? Urging her to scream, his own screaming? The marker on her breasts? Making her choose a knife? His choice and his praising her for it? The terror? The cutting of the breast, making the cup, putting it on the car? The other breast later as a purse? The photos?

23. The fifth incident, the abduction of the African- American man, going into the freezer, the range of men, the ethnic range? Lining them up, the bullet to the heads, the experiment on the eastern front? The issue of the full metal jacket, his going to the store, the arguments with the seller, his phoning the police? Going to the old man, the interactions, the taunts – and his stabbing him? Getting the bullet, the return to the men? The intervention of the police?

24. Vergil, appearing, revealed? The role of the police? Vergil and his room, the discussions? Issues of sin and crime? The hole in the ground, the water? The buzzing sound and Virgil’s explanation, the increasing sound of pain as they approached hell? The barge, the posed men? The ladders into the cavern, the waters, the red atmosphere?

25. Jack and his discussions with Vergil, the concept of icons? The trumpets of Jericho, the visuals of the Stuka and its flights, dropping bombs, its sound during World War II? The images of the 20th century dictators, the visualising of them? Vergil and his image of Buchenwald, the oak tree, the tree under which Goethe sat and wrote? The ironies of good and evil in the world?

26. Jack and his falling into hell – and the irony of the final song during the credits, the irony of the lyrics after what the audience had seen?

27. Visual portrait, visual analysis, verbal portrait, verbal analysis?

GOD EXISTS, AND HER NAME IS PETRUNIJA

Macedonia, 2019, 100 minutes, Colour.
Zorica Nusheva, Labina Mitevska, Stefan Vijisic.
Directed by Tiena Strugar Mitevska.

One doesn’t see too many films coming from Macedonia. This one alerts the audience to the country, countryside, the people, traditions, the role of the Orthodox Church.

The title is certainly provocative – which makes the audience wonder who is this Petrunuiya! And what claims does she have on God!

Well, it is clear by the end of the film that she is not God – but, she is a good stand-in when old religious traditions are challenged, especially by rigid and misogynist men. How could this come about?

Petrunija is in her early 30s, seemingly idle at first, strongly criticised by her dominating mother, loved by her more passive father. She wakes, eats, is a bit on the heavy side, gets a special dress from a friend and goes to a job interview for sewing but gets the male treatment from the boss, critical, touches of sexual harassment.

Disappointed, she wanders home and encounters an Orthodox tradition, the casting of a cross into the sea and the local men, already stripped to the waist, bored with all the prayers, ready to jump into the water and retrieve the cross. She jumps and wins.

While all hell doesn’t necessarily break loose, something akin certainly does. The police take her in and interrogate her. But, it is revealed that she has a degree in history (and hence no employment) and his astute in answering questions. She is also interrogated by the priest and takes her stance. There is a television reporter, a feminist herself, who takes up the cause, does interviews, especially with the mother, and these are seen on television. Her cameraman doesn’t want to continue, she is called back by the studio, but decides to defy them and remain on the job.

The film is strong in dramatising the misogyny of the men, the insults, the verbal abuse with its prostitution overtones, the presumption that a woman has no right to participate in such an activity…

The film builds up its momentum, more audience empathy for Petrunija, and a realisation of the churches’ male dominance and lack of appreciation for the role of women, respect for them. Which may have been some of the motivations for the Ecumenical Jury in Berlin, 2019, to give this film its prize.

1. Provocative and entertaining title? Gender issues? In religion? Male dominance? Male traditions, the place of women? The challenge?

2. Macedonia setting, audience knowledge of the country and its traditions? The town, the surrounding land, the water? Homes, streets, prison? The musical score, religious overtones?

3. Petrunija’a story? Waking up, her mother and her fussing, serious attitude, Petrunija eating, considered fat? Her passive father? The issue of the dress for the interview, her being jobless, at 32, the visit to the manager of the factory, her not being able to sew, no qualifications, her history degree, no jobs for historians? His sex talk, rude, dismissing her?

4. Her state of mind, her expectations, low self-image, talking with her friend, getting the dress?

5. Wandering after the interview, the religious procession, the men in religious garb, processing, chanting, the crosses? The role of ritual?

6. The Orthodox tradition, the clerics, the long prayers, throwing the cross in the water, the men ready, diving in, the competition?

7. Petrunija’s jumping, getting the cross, her reaction, the reaction of the men, the loud denunciations, the sexist and offensive language, their angers? Loud? The clergy and the question for decisions? The policeman and his rules?

8. Petrunija, taken, all wet, the police station, everybody against her, her taking a stand, her shrewdness in her answers, standing her ground, aspects of the law? The interview with the cleric? The sympathetic policeman and the conversations? The coat?

9. Television, the interviewer, her feminist point of view, the hostility of the cameraman and his going? The interviews, the interview with Petrunuija’s mother at home, with the priest, with the police? With Petrunija herself? The journalist and the phone calls, her being called off, taking a risk, staying?

10. Petrunija and the police, the nice policeman, conversation? The conversation with the priest?

11. Some of the men arrested, the crowd outside, the misogyny, the violence, their attitude towards the priest?

12. Petrunija, standing her ground, knowing the law, her decisions, giving back the cross?

13. The effect, her being let go, her challenging the traditions? The significance of this kind of storytelling?

THE MAN WHO WATCHED TRAINS GO BY

UK, 1952, 82 minutes, Colour.
Claude Rains, Marta Toren, Marius Goring, Herbert Lom, Anouk Aimee, Felix Aylmer, Ferdie Mayne, Lucy Mannheim, Eric Pohlman, Gibb Mc Laughlin.
Directed by Harold French.

Georges Simenon was one of the most popular crime writers of the 20th century. There were many film and television versions of his novels, French interpretations, British interpretations, from Jean Gabin as Maigret to Rowan Atkinson as Maigret.

This is a brief British film from the 1950s, written and directed by Harold French who directed many films in the UK, especially a number of Terence Rattigan stories.

The setting is Holland, the train to Paris, Paris itself – and the film made in colour.

Claude Rains is very good as Dutch accountant, faithful to 18 years work, taking walks to the railways to watch the trains going by, knowing all the details, especially the trains going to Paris where he had never been. He seems a good man, trying to help an out of work friend, but dominated at home by a rather rough wife.

He has to face a moral challenge, discovering that his boss, Herbert Lom, was having an affair, and the company was going to ruin. When he confronts his boss, there is an altercation, a case full of money, the boss falling into the river and drowning.

The repressed accountant suddenly feels free, with the money, a ticket to Paris – but encountering the police inspector from France, Marius Goring, in interviews, chess games, then on the train to Paris.

Claude Rains is able to show the change in personality of the accountant, finding his way with the help of a prostitute, hiding in a hotel in concealing the money, tracking down the woman that his boss was having the affair with, but the policeman on his trail wanting to save him.

The film is a kind of moral fable about rigidity and repression, what happens when barriers are removed, the temptation to live the high life but also experiencing the consequences.

1. Georges Simenon story? Psychology? Crime?

2. The Dutch settings, the town, business? The train to Paris? The scenes in Paris, city, apartments, police? The musical score?

3. The international cast?

4. Kees Podinga, Claude Rains’ screen image, age, his work for 18 years, faithfully keeping the books, his relationship with de Koster, trustworthy, the visit of Lucas, the interrogations? His attempt to help Mr Merkemans and the refusal of a job? His life at home, the severity of his wife and her eating manner, his son? Going out, chess, playing with Lucas, De Koster and the wrong move, his losing? His seeing de Koster kissing Michelle? Not telling the truth? Going back to the office, de Koster stealing the money, the confrontation, de Koster falling into the river and drowning?

5. Podinga and his moral dilemma, taking the money, finding the ticket, going to Paris? The satisfaction – and the possibility of breaking out of his staid and repressed life? On the train, the encounter with Lucas, the verbal playing games, the chess, the chess board on the case with the money? His getting off the train?

6. Lucas, investigator, the visit to the town, the interrogation, chests, cat and mouse with Podinga, going to see Michelle, getting her to help? His being on call, his wife, wanting to save Podinga, the confrontation, Podinga on the train line and its approach?

7. Michelle, her plan with Louis, to get the money, seducing de Koster, back in Paris, Podinga’s arrival, her smooth way of manipulating him, discovering where he was from the prostitute, going to see him, smooth talker, their going out, the restaurant, dancing, his being in love? At her apartment, her betraying him to Lucas? His tricking her, her going to Louis, the confrontation, his killing her?

8. Podinga in Paris, getting the information from the prostitute, going to the hotel without a passport? Hiding the money in the car? Out on the town, his excitement, getting back through the window, with Michelle, the exuberance, the restaurant, dancing, the meal, money? Going back with Michelle? Her betrayal? The confrontation with Louis, with Michelle, his killing her? The escape, Lucas and the pursuit, the train and his death?

9. The moral of the story, the rigid and fragile person upholding morality, the break, decisions, breaking out, the consequences?

MR PERRIN AND MR TRAILL

UK, 1948, 86 minutes, Black and white.
Marius Goring, David Farrar, Greta Gynt, Raymond Huntley, Edward Chapman, Ralph Truman.
Directed by Lawrence Huntington.

This is very good character portrait of an elderly teacher, 21 years in a public school, submitting himself to a manipulative and dominating headmaster, repressing his feelings, especially for the nurse at the school, visiting his mother, doing the same thing year after year. This is one of the best performances by Marius Goring as Mr Perrin.

While the tradition is that of Tom Brown’s Schooldays and an image of the disciplines of the public school, the touches of bullying and superiority, lessons and sport, it is also a critique. From a novel by Hugh Walpole, this is a post-war story, David Farrar as Mr Traill being a war hero, a sports hero, wanting to do good in school, discovering the manipulation and dominance of the headmaster, experience of the disdain of some of the staff who thought him too forward, meeting the nurse, going out with her, falling in love and proposing, reacting with carelessness to the sensitive Mr Perrin and his expectations concerning discipline, seniority and the staff…

With school detail, the film creates a picture of education but also is a psychological study of the interaction between the two men, leading to a dramatic ending which was not quite anticipated.

Director Lawrence Huntington made a number of films from the 30s into the 1950s, many routine but some stand out like Nightboat to Dublin, The Upturned Glass and this film.

1. The British tradition of films about public schools? The background of Tom Brown’s School days? Films like Goodbye Mr Chips? The Browning Version? The image of the British public school? Staff, all-boys schools, disciplined, sense of superiority? (And the later influence on the public life of the schoolboys, public service, politics?)

2. The black-and-white photography, the school, interiors, the playing fields, the cliffs, the sea? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on the two men? The role of the headmaster? The other members of the staff? Their holding onto tradition? Wariness of the
new teacher, his military service in World War II, changing post-war world?

4. The focus on the boys, coming back to school, the older boys and the touch of the bully, not being able to use one’s Christian name, the boys in class, eating behind the teachers back, the disrespect, the role of sports? Maths, lessons, homework? The final assembly, the different kinds of applause, the speech by the visitor at the assembly, his cliches, promising a half=holiday? And the final image of the boy wanting to say goodbye to Mr Perrin?

5. The portrait of Perrin, Marius Goring’s performance? Age, experience, 21 years in the school? His appearance, old, hair, glasses, pipe? Going to visit his mother? The attraction towards Isobel, reticent? His mother and matchmaking? His relationship with the headmaster, the headmaster manipulating him, cowering, his giving information? Maths, the boys, teaching?

6. The arrival of Mr Traill, from the war, younger, sports champion, the headmaster’s pleasure in bringing him to the school, the demotion of Mr Perrin and maths, the demotion of the sports coach? The reactions, accepting?

7. David Traill, his war experience, his sports experience, wanting to be in education? Meeting Isobel, the attraction, going out with her, the meals, the algebra proposal? The night out, her acceptance, drunken coming in the window, the conflict with Perrin and the breaking of the crockery? His offhand behaviour, Perrin and the papers and the right place, his priority for The Times, sense of seniority and Traill defying it? The buildup to the fight? His not realising Perrin’s attraction to Isobel? Perrin and his sleepwalking?

8. The role of the headmaster, his personality, control, the traditions, his manipulation, humiliation of the staff? Criticising in the presence of other staff? The buildup to the final confrontation with Traill, Traill accusing him of Perrin’s death, highlighting the reaction of the board and public opinion about his management of the school?

9. Perrin, his disappointment, behaviour in the common room, his reaction and the fight, the news spreading, the boys and the mockery on the blackboard? The effect on him, the chaplain coming to see him and his imagining Traill? His following Traill, on the cliffs, the interchange, Traill going over the cliff? His dismay, his climbing down, the incoming tide, carrying the unconscious Traill, saving his life, drowning?

10. An image of education in the past, the style of British education, its influence on the British upper classes? The film as a critique?

PIMPED

Australia, 2018, 80 minutes, Colour.
Ella Scott Lynch, Benedict Samuel, Lewis Fitz-Gerald?, Heather Mitchell, Robin Goldsworthy.
Directed by David Barker.

Audiences know what to expect when they see a title like Pimped. And, in the early part of the film, expectations are fulfilled. However, along with the partying, the sex, the drugs, there is the introduction of a touch of non-realism which could alert an audience to question what they are seeing.

This is a brief film. It has a strong younger cast, especially Ella Scott Lynch in a dual role, Sarah and her sister, Rachel, Benedict Samuel as the enigmatic young man who pimps, loose, with Robin Goldsworthy as one of his targets. And, for the older generation, Lewis Fitz-Gerald? and Heather Mitchell turn up as Goldsworthy’s parents.

Writer (with Lou Mentor)-director, David Barker, leads his audience on. The opening sequences might be considered as routine in terms of young people partying. But he also introduces the character of Sarah, a quiet woman, egged on by her sister, Rachel. And then the tone changes. While we have seen Lewis preen himself and rehearse his spiel to ingratiate himself with targets, we see Sarah and Lewis in a kind of mutual seduction.

At this point, a review needs to stop in terms of plot development – which is never quite as might be anticipated. But it can be said that the plot development is quite melodramatic, a shift from sex to violence – and further violent and unexpected twists.

This also means that the film is a psychological exploration of Sarah, the inconsistencies in her character, the inconsistency in her behaviour, and the presence of her sister as a kind of alter ego, sometimes pimping, sometimes acting as a conscience. Quite a lot to intrigue here.

As the audience continues to question their understanding of Sarah and her character and behaviour, the film moves to yet another dramatic twist, giving the audience food for thought for further trying to fathom and to interpret what they have seen.

Which means that Pimped finishes as being somewhat better than expected.

1. The title? Expectations?

2. The Australian setting, the city, homes, interiors? The countryside, roads and forests? The musical score?

3. The plot, the opening and the erotic? Lewis and the pimping? The twist in the plot, the violence and death? The change of tone, interactions between Sarah and Lewis, the burial? The arrival of the parents, interactions, murder? The consequences? And the final twists?

4. Sarah and the continued presence of Rachel? Appearing and disappearing? Her alter ego? Her seducer, pimping her? Her sister and concern? Her conscience? Audience response to this break in realism?

5. Audience response throughout the film, questioning the reality of what was happening, character behaviour, development, consistencies and inconsistencies?

6. The final revelation, Sarah’s imagination, her life with her husband and child, ordinary, reading the stories? Yet creating in mind the complete story, a melodrama, behaviour, sexuality, violence? The contrast with the scenes at home with her husband, meal, washing up and drying up, the knife, reading the story to her child… A future?

7. The opening, the party, the young people, dancing, sexuality, the lyrics of the song, couples going upstairs? Lewis, his clothes, manner, style, with Kenneth, the drugs, the twosome upstairs? His observing?

8. Lewis Is a character (and in hindsight as created by Sarah’s imagination)? At the party, financial deals, the drugs, pimping for Kenneth? About golf, the minigolf, letting Kenneth win? His talking to the mirror, his rehearsing his spiel? Going to the bar, using it for Sarah, the drink? His way with words, the touch of rhetoric, philosophical about time travel and identity? Seducing Sarah? Her willingly going with him? At the house, the foreplay, Kenneth suddenly with her – and Lewis downstairs watching?

9. Sarah, her alter ego, the conversations between the two, her reading the book, waking, shower, underwear, dress, going to the bar, attitude of seduction, yet some hesitations, the encounter with Lewis, the drinking, going with him, the sexual play, the discovery of Kenneth, her killing him with the golf club? The aftermath? Her disgust at seeing Lewis watching her? Cat and mouse in the house?

10. Lewis watching, the interactions, the knife, the decision about burying Kenneth, wrapping him, carrying him, in the car, the shovel, the country and the roads, the burial?

11. The return, uncertainty as to what would happen? The arrival of the parents, Michael and his building the house, strong-minded, Sophia and her complaints, superior? Sarah rising to the occasion, the clothes, creating an alternate scenario, Lewis going along with, the bewilderment of the parents? The story of the shovel as being a proper drama? His suddenly stabbing Sophia, her death? Michael shower, the confrontation with Lewis, choking him, Sarah giving him the fork, the death?

12. The effect on Sarah, Lewis saying she was more like him? Getting the noose, hanging him, the confrontation, kicking the chair?

13. Rachel and her observations, conscience, Sarah’s response?

14. And the revelation of the reality, the story in Sarah’s imagination?