HOW TO SAVE A MARRIAGE AND RUIN YOUR LIFE

US, 1968, 102 minutes, Colour.
Dean Martin, Stella Stevens, Eli Wallach, Anne Jackson, Betty Field, Jack Albertson.
Directed by Fielder Cook.

This is one of those typical romantic comedies of the late 1960s, smart dialogue, more suggestive situations than in the past, the portrait of the male wolf, the philandering husband, the mistress, and the big mistake at the centre of the plot when Dean Martin, man about town, wants to help his friend, Eli Wallach and his relationship with his mistress, Anne Jackson. And the trouble is that Dean Martin makes a mistake, thinking that the effective and efficient Stella Stevens is his target. No surprise that there is plenty of battle of the sexes, then falling in love…

In a way, this film is a continuation of the trend which began with Doris Day and Rock Hudson in Pillow Talk and continued with many Doris Day films throughout the 1960s. And there was always the development of the tongue-in-cheek suggestiveness with such films as Secret Life of an American Wife, also with Anne Jackson, and with Walter Matthau.

Easily amusing, and of its time.

1. The title? Romantic comedy? Expectations, tone? The 1960s? The late 1960s?

2. The cast, the popularity at the time, Dean Martin and Stella Stevens, spy dramas, romantic comedies?

3. Eli Wallach and Anne Jackson, husband and wife in real life, working together?

4. The American style, the city, apartments, bars, restaurants, business centres? The musical score?

5. The situation, men and women, marriage, love, sex, betrayal?

6. Dean Martin as David, his style, the nonchalant bachelor, the man about town, in relationships, smooth wolf, his friendship with Harry, Harry confiding him in in him, his deciding to intervene? Going to the apartment, his encounters, making a mistake, presuming that Carol was the mistress, the buildup to a battle of the sexes, yet the attraction, moving deeper, romance, the tangles, the truth?

7. Harry, his situation, his marriage, relationship with his wife, her demands, taking the mistress, Anne Jackson as Muriel, nice, not the “mistress� type? Her neighbour, mix-ups with the apartments, friendship, advice and help? The scenes with Harry, Harry confiding?

8. Carol, pleasant, the background, her work and achievement, the situations, her being misunderstood by David, his attentions to her, his behaviour towards her, her reactions, turning the tables? Friendship, gradually falling in love?

9. The film and women, wives, loving and not, mistresses, genuine falling in love?

10. The familiar plotlines? Tone of the dialogue, romantic, comic, battle of the sexes – and everything right at the end?

THE KID WHO WOULD BE KING

UK, 2018, 120 minutes, Colour.
Louis Ashbourne Serkis, Dean Chaumoo, Angus Imrie, Tom Taylor, Rhianna Dorris, Rebecca Ferguson, Patrick Stewart.
Directed by Joe Cornish.

Once upon a time, there was a king called Arthur, who created unity in his kingdom with his Knights of the Round Table and whose famous sword, Excalibur, was caught in a vast rock, and it could be drawn out solely by an authentic descendant of Arthur. (All this is illustrated quite vividly with colour animation at the opening of this story.)

Now, in the present, what starts out to be a very different story indeed – but which will end up with the Arthurian Legend in the present and appearances by both Morgana and Merlin. Clearly a contemporary fantasy – focusing on two young boys, a film for boys their age as well is a touch younger and attach older (even to fathers). There are some girls in the story but this is mainly a Boy’s Own Adventure!

Alex is at school (Louis Ashbourne Serkis, son of Lorraine Ashbourne and Andy Serkis), living at home with his mother, memories of his father who had given him a book of those ancient tales when he was little. However, not everything is going so well at school. He and his best friend, Bedders (Dean Chaumoo) are picked on every day, eventually Alex retaliating with some punches and a call before the school principal. Alex, not even a hero in his own life!

But, one day he and Bedders are being pursued in an abandoned building and they fall over the open space, landing near a rock in which, you might guess, is Excalibur. And, Alex is able to draw it out. The boys think it couldn’t be what it is – but, it is. And, who should turn up at the school but an extremely nerdish student, Merlin, who puts Alex on the equivalent of a regal pedestal.

The trouble is that in drawing the sword out of the stone, Alex has unleashed the witch of Arthurian times, Morgana (Rebecca Ferguson) an evil woman, serpentine, vowing vengeance now that she has been liberated. On the other hand, the young Merlin disappears and the old Merlin (in the form of Patrick Stewart) pops up every now and again.

As you might expect, the Legend of Arthur lives again, especially in the warrior school children, helped by the magic of Merlin with helmets and warrior arms – and, thank goodness, the two bullies, well-converted and becoming heroes beside Alex and Betters.

Not sure about the title and whether Alex really wanted to be King – but, given the circumstances and the school, he does quite a good job, heroic.

1. The title, the overtones?

2. The Arthurian Legend, the initial summary, the vivid animation? The information about ancient Britain, the kingdoms, Uther Pendragon, the rise of Arthur, unity, Knights of the Round Table, the enmity of Morgana, the sword in the stone, the future king?

3. A film for young boys, older boys, adults? Memories of King Arthur? And the parallels in the contemporary world?

4. Introducing Alex, his being bullied at school, his friendship with Bedders, both being bullied? Alex and the support of his mother? The book about King Arthur, memories of his father? His father from Cornwall and the traditions of Arthur’s origins?

5. The two bullies, ethnic backgrounds, the pursuit of the boys? The boys and the empty building, the threats, the fall? Seeing the sword? Alex able to pull it out? The discussions about Arthur and Excalibur?

6. The background of Morgana, diabolical, her being visualised in a monstrous way, her wanting to control, the conflict with Arthur, Patrick Stewart as Merlin?

7. The move into the world of the myths? The power of Excalibur? Its effects? The effect on the two bullies, their change of heart, becoming friends and support?

8. Merlin and his giving powers to the boys, the school, the children joining in? The emphasis on the modern British school, classes, teachers? Bedders and his powers, reproducing metal, the armour and helmets for the children?

9. Young Merlin, his arrival, nerdish, in class, his respect for Alex? His being bullied? His abilities, crossing his arms and gestures? The transformation?

10. The range of battles, strategies, entities, Morgana’s tactics, Merlin and his appearances, older?

11. The effect on the boys, Alex and his having to become a hero, deeds, rescues, confrontations?

12. The boy’s own adventure, twelves and unders, heroes, battles, confrontation, battles with evil, triumphant?

THELMA

Norway, 2017, 116 minutes, Colour.
Eilie Harboe, Kaya Wilkins, Henrik Rafaelson, Ellen Dorrit Peterson.
Directed by Joachim Trier.

Thelma was written and directed by Joachim Trier who made the International film about war and family, Louder than Bombs.

This is a closely focused portrait of a young woman, studying biology at a university in Oslo, from a religious family, high expectations of herself. However, she suddenly experiences a seizure which many think is epilepsy. She has some later experiences, goes to hospital, discusses the nature of the seizures with the doctor, the effect from personal pressures and imagination.

The film opens with a surprising sequence, hunter father, who is a doctor, with his little daughter on the ice, aiming at a deer suddenly turning the rifle towards his daughter. While he does not kill, there is a difficult relationship between the two although she is very fond of her father. There are further flashbacks which reveal that Thelma has some kind of kinetic powers, especially towards her siblings.

The plot is further complicated by her being unaware of homosexual feelings but their being stirred by her encounter with a fellow student, Anja, who initiates moves towards some intimacy, film is at first repelled, asking God to change her feelings, but succumbing to the relationship with Anja.

Although written by a man, this is very much a film for women to identify with, have empathy with Thelma, probe her character and problems – with a men’s audience more in a position of observing empathetically rather than identifying.

1. A Norwegian portrait of a young woman? Universal portrait?

2. The Norwegian settings, the city of Oslo, apartments, lecture halls, libraries? Social life for students? The contrast with her home in the country? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on Thelma herself? The impact of the opening, the hunter father and his young daughter on the ice, the rifle focusing on the deer, his turning and aiming at his daughter? Symbolic of his attitude towards her? And her behaviour?

4. Thelma in the present, moving out of home, going to the University, studying biology, the lectures, the library work? Socialising? Her religious background, expectations of strict behaviour? Moral attitudes, attitude towards God, prayer? Her age, inexperience? The phone calls to her mother, the mother’s continued interrogations questions, her relationship with her father?

5. The encounter with Anja, friendship, Thelma not aware of her feelings? The party, drinking, the kiss, the intimacy? Thelma hurrying away? Not contacting Anja? The realisation of her feelings? Her prayers for God to take away her feelings?

6. The flashbacks to her childhood? The birth of the other child? Thelma playing, but the child disappearing from the cot, found under the bed, later found outside in the ice? The strangeness of her kinetic powers? The response of her parents? Especially of the father? The reasons for her mother’s concern?

7. Anja, her return, the intimacy between them? The effect on Thelma?

8. Thelma and her future? Her studies and her work? Her kinetic powers? Her understanding herself? Her fits, the diagnoses, the fear of epilepsy, the suggestion that her experiences

SEVEN DAYS AT ENTEBBE

UK/US, 2018, 107 minutes, Colour.
Batsheva Dance Company, Daniel Bruhl, Rosamund Pike, Lior Ashkenazy, Eddie Marsan, Dennis Menochet, Ben Schnetzer, Nonzo Anozie
Directed by Jose Padilha.

There were two films immediately after the hostage situation at Entebbe airport in 1976, pro-Palestinians terrorists hijacking the plane containing a number of Israeli citizens. One was more Hollywood style, Victory at Entebbe, the other with a focus on Israeli themes, Operation Thunderbolt.

This particular version focuses on the terrorists, especially to Germans, played by Daniel Bruhl and Rosamund Pike. Bruhl is a bookseller who follows the ideology and has moments of compassion. Rosamund Pike is a staunch and severe German, no compassion. An interesting performance from her.

The film shows the organisation of the hijacking, the process, landing in Entebbe, the intervention of Idi Amin and his negotiations with France and Israel, emphasising his self-importance, the holding of the hostages at the airport. In the meantime, the action goes to Israel, to Prime Minister Rabin (an interesting performance from Lior Ashkenazy), with Shimon Peres dissenting (Eddie Marsan). The film also shows the young soldiers preparing for the raid on Entebbe as well as the logistics for the attempt for the rescue.

The rescue takes place. The terrorists are killed. The hostages are saved – although a number of Ugandan troops were killed. The only Israeli killed, ironically, was the brother of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Of special interest (though criticised by many) is the Batsheva Dance performance recurring throughout the film, dramatising the siege.

The film was directed by Brazilian Jose Padhilla, an action director of City of God films as well as Robocop.

1. The fact of the raid on Entebbe in 1976, the hijacking, terrorists, intervention of the Jewish government and military, the consequences?

2. The film versions from the 1970s, re-enacting the events, the hijacking, the time in Uganda, the role of Idi Amin, Israel and its government, the range? The terrorists, German background, Palestinian cause?

3. The device of the dance company on stage, the style of dance and movement, corresponding to the action? The performance recurring throughout the film? The audience response at the end?

4. The 21st-century re-enactment? Israel, Prime Minister Rabin? The role of Shimon Peres? The decision, the plans, the military advice, the raid, casualties, Ugandans, the terrorists, one Israeli soldier – the irony of its being the brother of Benjamin Netanyahu?

5. The plane, the interiors, the airports? Jerusalem and the political offices? The locations for military training and practice? The musical score?

6. The terrorists, the casting of Daniel Bruhl and Rosamund Pike as terrorists? The bookseller and his quiet way of life, his motivations, going into action, leadership, but not wanting to kill anyone? His dialogue with the French pilot? The contrast with Ingrid, German national, hating Germany, ideologies? The relationship with the other terrorists? The end and her phoning him on the out of order phone? Her hard stances, firing shots, willing for people to be killed?

7. The flight, the role of the crew, the takeover, the signals, the pilot and reaction? The harsh treatment? The mother wanting the toilet for her little girl? The pregnant woman allowed to leave, her pretence, giving information to the authorities? The range of the passengers, French, Israelis, the presence of the nuns – and the nun offering to stay in place of a hostage?

8. The landing, the reaction of the Ugandan government, Idi Ami, the interviews? Locations at the airport? The separation of the Israelis? The treatment, the threats? The Frenchman and his being presumed to be Israeli, his being tortured? The French and the accommodation, more humane? The guards? The Palestinian guards and their talking, the torture of the Frenchman?

9. The signalling of each day, the growing urgency, discomfort for the hostages? Threats of the Israelis?

10. The Israeli cabinet, the business being interrupted, Rabin and his personality and role, ideas, decisions, consultations? Perez against the raid? The military and their sound advice, creating a scenario, the logistics and preparation, the training, be prepared, the human toll the young soldiers? The day is passing, the boat in the cabinet and Pérez consenting? The raid starting?

11. The days, the Palestinians talking, the Germans and harshness and lenience? The talking with the pilot? The raid, the arrival of the Israelis, the phone call to Germany, the wrong phone?

12. The raid, the Internet the sadness of the execution, the deaths of the Ugandan soldiers, the terrorists being killed quickly, the rescue?

13. Idi Amin, the myths about him, his trying to exercise diplomacy, the various allies, with Israel, with friends? Letting the French hostages go and taking credit?

14. News and television footage, seen in Israel, the families protesting about negotiating with terrorists?

15. The success, Rabin and satisfied?

16. The final comment at the time of making of this film, given the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians?

SKIN

US, 2019, 110 minutes, Colour.
Jamie Bell, Bill Camp, Vera Farmiga, Danielle Macdonald, Mary Stuart Masterson, Russell Posner.
Directed by Guy Nattiv.

This is a film about races in the United States. It is a tough film to watch.

It is also based on a true story, the central character, a young man who is imbued with racist attitudes and violence, adopted into a family who belong to a white supremacist group. The settings are in the American midwest, Ohio, Indiana and down to Tennessee.

The director is originally from Israel and became interested in this story through the influence of his American wife, the producer of this film. He went to New Mexico to interview the man and his wife who were living in witness protection.

20 years ago Jamie Bell was Billy Elliot and made a great impression on moviegoers. Since then he has had quite a significant career and a variety of roles. Here, he plays Babs, covered in tattoos, including his face, all having a symbolic racist significance. He goes along to rallies led by his adoptive father, a grim performance from Bill Camp, supported by his adoptive mother, Vera Farmiga, both caring and sinister. And there are a whole lot of other young men along for the protest, along for the bashings, the film opening with one of these rallies on a bridge in Columbus Ohio.

Of course, the title, Skin, refers to racial differences but also keeps reminding us of the skinhead, which Babs is, as well as his skin covered in tattoos.

By chance, a mother and her two daughters are hired to sing at the rally, and get some boos and insults for their efforts. For some reason, Babs defends them, even physically. And, talking with Julie, the mother, they promise to keep in contact. Julia is played by Australian actress Danielle Macdonald.

There is also a black leader of an organisation against racism, a man whose purpose it is to contact individual racists, discuss with them, try to open their eyes, change them, convert them. At his office, there is a wall full of photos of men who have turned.

Which means and that the drama of this film is focused on Babs and the different struggles he has. There is his love for Julie and her family, his moving out of his own family and living with her. There is the approach from his father and mother, pressurising him to return to the group. And there is the man working hard to try to turn him.

Skin offers an opportunity to look at images of white supremacist demonstrations and race riots, often seen in clips on television news, but here part of a narrative which draws the audience in. The film also offers an opportunity for audiences to assess their stances, any innate prejudices they may have, the challenge to understand those who are particularly vocal and violent.

Not easy watching but seriously worthwhile and challenging.

1. A message film? Race relationships in the United States? Hate? The world?

2. The midwest settings, Ohio, Indiana, to Tennessee? Cities, riots, communities in the woods, the burning of the mosque, police precincts, the unity Association offices, homes, hotels, the hospital and surgery for relieving the tatters? The musical score?

3. The immersion of the audience immediately, the demonstration in Columbus, Ohio, the chanting, the bridge, the races, the African Americans looking on, involvement? The spitting, the bashing, the young man, the chase, bashing him? Audience response?

4. The title, the emphasis on skin, head shaved, skins symbol, race, colour, taxes and their meanings, the extent of the tattoos?

5. Babs, his age, adopted, his name, his relationship with his adopted parents, their leading the group, is willing participation? The father and his political ambitions, speeches? The mother, in the background, yet dominant, her mother? Julie coming the group and the singing, Babs defending them, the contact, his invitation for her to contact him? Babs and his dog, the little girl patting it? His arrest, the police interrogation, is confronted of attitudes, naked, provocative?

6. The far right, ideology, allegedly tolerant but saying any immigrants should not be in America? In practice, their lifestyle, licentious, violent? The recruiting, the young boy who is hungry? The themes of Vikings, prayers to Odin, the codes embodied in the tent to use? The invoking of the Nordic Powers?

7. Julie, with the children, the dog, Babs and his defence, the phone calls, the beginnings of love? The threats, hostilities, ups and downs and the relationship, and then his leaving the community, the wedding ceremony, Julie pregnant, relationship with the girls, the dog was part of the household? The parents and the group visiting, the threats to the girls? The mother and the threats? They’re taking Babs back home?

8. The building of the mosque, the survivors, the challenge to Babs, his previous confrontation with the gang member about the dogs and the fighting? The man getting revenge, the gun, Babs to find him, and and his shooting him? Badly wounded, going to hospital, his father and the Lauren of the pressure, the threats, the mother calling Julie? Her visit?

9. Babs, the experience of the boss, letting the men live, insights? His going to see Daryl, the discussions about changing? Daryl and his association, the wall with the photos of the men turning on the dates? The rendezvous with the hotel?

10. The pool, the daughter with attaches, Babs thinking that she was the tractor? Julie’s reaction, ousting him?

11. Double, the interrogations, his hit history, the war, the photos, the explanations, supporting Babs?

12. The scenes of the removal of attaches, recurring throughout the film, the 600+ days in the surgery?

13. The impact of the film, its message?

FAREWELL TO THE NIGHT

France, 2019, 98 minutes, Colour.
Catherine Deneuve, Kacey Mottet Klein, Oulaya Amamra, Stephane Bak, Kamel Labroudi.
Directed by Andre Techine.

For many decades, French writer and director, Andre Techine, has made a great number of French dramas, typically French one might say. He focuses on families. He focuses on relationships. He offers contemporary interpretations. He also goes back to World War II situations.

And, in so many ways, this is a typically French drama.

The setting is, in fact, 2015, the early days of spring, captions coming up on screen to remind us of this. The setting is a farm as well as a training school for horse riding. The location photography is attractive, the scope of the farm, the cherry trees, as well as scenes of riding and training.

And the farm is controlled by a matriarch. And, there she is, Catherine Deneuve turning 75, still headlining films 55 years after The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. She has been a constant film presence, nationally and internationally, and was one of the images of French symbol, Marianne.

And so, we feel that we are settling into familiar enough material and wondering what Techine will do to make a difference.

The grandson returns home from travels, meeting the girl that he grew up with and intends to marry. But, there is a difference, a 2015 difference: ISIS. But during his being away, he has converted to Islam, is very serious about its doctrines, and very serious about prayer practice, taking his mat out into the farm fields for his worship, and discovered by his grandmother. The family has a Catholic background but, his grandmother is not a believer but is tolerant with her grandson.

At the end of the film there is a reference to the killings of the cartoonists in the Charlie Hebdo office massacre. The setting of this film precedes the terrible mass killings that took place in Paris, the truck driver in Nice…. Once our attention is heightened because of the Islamic themes, there is much more to see, the fiance absolutely committed to causes but, while she works genially at a home for the elderly, she is working online recruiting jihadists.

The grandson and his fiancee are preparing with another friend to leave France for Syria and active involvement, pretending that they are going to Canada. They attend some rallies and the audience gets the opportunity to be reminded of jihadi indoctrination and the intellectual and emotional bitterness to harsh and hostile teaching and action.

The grandmother does not want to denounce her grandson but wants to prevent him going after she discovers the truth and that he has forged a cheque to steal from her at the bank. She goes to visit a former fighter for ISIS, still under government suspicion and with an ankle bracelet, his trying to explain how indoctrination can take place in the French community.

And so, a Techine family drama becomes very topical, an opportunity to consider radical indoctrination in what might be called ordinary French society and to contemplate the dire consequences – and the emotional effect on close family.

What might have been anticipated as material, familiar enough over the years, turns out to have much more substance and challenge.

1. The director and his friend stories over several decades? The French countryside, families, relationships, tensions?

2. A French story of the 21st century, Islamic radicalisation, ISIS?

3. The farm setting, the riding school, the house and its interiors, the wider countryside, the meetings in the countryside, hotels, the bus travel on the highway? Musical score?

4. The captions for the four days at the beginning of spring in 2015? Then one month later?

5. Catherine Deneuve, an icon in French cinema, portraying a grandmother? Muriel, owning the riding school, the orchard and the cherries, the workers, a staff? Her relying on Youssef? Her life, her daughter and her death in scuba diving, the son-in-law married again and living abroad with a new family? The ordinary life?

6. Alex and his return, the long absence, the plan to go to Canada, his problems in the past, meeting Laila, the bond between them, since childhood? Laila working in the home for the elderly? Going for the swim, Alex’s reluctance? The returning to the house?

7. Alex as a Muslim convert, his prayer mat, out in the fields, Muriel seeing him, his explanation? A meaning to life, issues of the afterlife, Laila as being Muslim her work online, revealed to be recruiting? The other member of the group, the plan to go to ISIS together, his being a recruiter? Muriel and her lack of religion, the Catholicism of the past? The radicalisation, the jihad, ISIS, the third member of the group, his influence? The Skype contacts? To join the group, to fly from Barcelona?

8. Laila, as a person, attractive, the long bond with Alex, Muriel knowing her, her work with the elderly, washing them, comforting them, refusing to wash the men? The issue of her contract?

9. Alex, the need for money, forging his mother’s name, going to the bank? The report, Muriel searching her desk, confronting Alex with the truth?

10. The couple, going to the training meeting, the friend anti-smoking, acknowledgement of his past life? Their leaving, the contact and discussion about the marriage, the marriage online? The night together?

11. Muriel, her reaction to Isis, Alex’s farewell letter, meeting him, imprisoning him in the stable? The food and blanket? His refusal to make contact with his father?

12. Muriel, contacting the former agent, his ankle bracelet, their discussions, his willingness to come, talking with Alex, Alex hitting with him with the shovel? (And his later working in the cherry orchard as well as this episode helping him with the government?)

13. Muriel, the information, going to the police, her motives, wanting to save Alex? The couple being on the bus with their associate, police at the border, the arrest?

14. One month later, Muriel and her depression, in hospital? Youssef taking her to the orchard, her finding the former ISIS man, his urging her to write to Alex and her deciding to follow his advice, coming alive again…?

15. The context of terrorism in France, the Charlie Hebdo episode, the later massacres?

MR JONES

Poland/UK/Ukraine, 2019, 141 minutes, Colour.
James Norton, Vanessa Kirby, Peter Sarsgaard, Joseph Mawle, Kenneth Cranham, Febella Woolgar.
Directed by Agnieszka Holland.

Mr Jones seems an innocuously generic title (and there was a thriller some years ago with the same title, featuring Richard Gere). However, this is a historical drama, taking the audience back to the 1930s, introducing an actual character, the young Welshman, Gareth Jones, a political advisor to Lloyd George and seen giving advice to the British cabinet. As those familiar with Winston Churchill’s campaigns against the Nazis during the 1930s, there is no surprise that the cabinet does not welcome the advice from Gareth Jones. On the contrary, Lloyd George has to dismiss him.

This film is been directed by the Polish director with quite an international repertoire, Agnieszka Holland. It continues her interest in stories about World War II in the years leading up to it, especially for some of her Polish films including Angry Harvest and In Darkness,

However, the narrative of Mr Jones ranges far more widely.

Gareth Jones’ mother had worked in Ukraine and Gareth himself was familiar with the Russian language. An earnest man, he is at first put off by his treatment from the British government but then decides to go to Russia and to the Ukrainian to investigate Stalin’s then claims of successful five-year plans, of prosperity, of grain crops. Jones is of the opinion that there is no evidence for the success and wants to prove it.

After eventually getting his visa to visit Russia, he travels to Moscow by train, immediately experiences difficulties with the bureaucracy, the hotel he has to stay at, the limited time there… But, in the meantime, he makes contact with other journalists (one of whom warning him about Stalin and the news coming that he had been killed in an accident), especially the Americans, the Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist, Walter Duranty (Peter Sarsgaard), who lives a comfortably decadent life in Moscow and is a significant spokesperson for Stalin’s regime.

At the core of the film is Gareth Jones’ slipping away from the authorities during the train trip to Ukraine and, in scenes of shock and poverty and famine, the truth of what was happening in the Ukrainian winter, the devastating famine for which Stalin was responsible.

This is a rather long film, the filmmakers certainly wanting to make some devastating points about Stalin’s regime, the public image, the behind-the-scenes devastating realities. On his return to Wales, Jones had to make the decision whether he should publish articles on not (the Russians have taken Mobil businessmen hostage and threatening them if anti-Soviet material were printed).

And, one of the main reasons why we have not heard much about Gareth Jones is that on a journalistic mission to Africa, where there were Soviet authorities, he was killed.

James Norton, best known for Grantchester, is an effective young enthusiast as Gareth Jones. Peter Sarsgaard has both charming and sinister moments as Duranty. Later, an interesting character is introduced into the narrative, Eric Blair (Joseph Mawle), with quotations throughout from his novel, Animal Farm; he is better known as the novelist, George Orwell.

1. A 21st-century look back at the 1930s in Europe? Britain, Russia?

2. The title, Gareth Jones – audience knowledge of him, not? This film filling in gaps?

3. The director, her Polish background, working internationally, her perspectives on Europe, on World War II?

4. The London meetings, the cabinet, the contrast with Moscow, the streets, the hotel, the office of durability? The parties? The comparisons with Ukraine, the train, winter bleak, the dead in the streets, the forests, the village? In the contrast with Wales, home, the newspaper? The musical score?

5. The introduction to Gareth Jones, his age, Welsh background, University studies, Russian, his mother working in Ukraine, his speech to the cabinet, the bond with Lloyd George, the support of secretary, the Cabinet laughing at his ideas, his being fired? The decision to go to Russia? Application for visa, the discussions at the embassy? The train through Europe? The phone call to Klemp, news of his immediate death? The promise of the story? His arrival, the hotel, only for two nights in that hotel, his going to Durability and the discussions, meeting a dinner, the invitation to the party, his reaction, talking with Two Randy, naked? The decadence of the party? His decisions, talking to Ada, playing the recordings to avoid surveillance?

6. The meal with the Russian official, his changing the letter from Lloyd George, valued advisor? The train ride, with the rich man, the meals, getting off, getting onto the other train? The cold, the hunger, the bodies on the train? The town, picking up the bodies from the street? Going to the forests? The poverty of the corn crop? His being accused of being a spy, arrested, deported? The background of Stalin’s five-year plan, the progress and industry in Russia – and the covering up of the Ukraine famine?

7. Moscow, the authorities, Jones going to visit Duranty, his supporting Russia, denying any famine? Ada, her moving out? His being returned to the UK?

8. Industry, progress, the Mobil executives, the friendships, their being held to ransom? Jones and his decision about publication or not? The danger for the Mobil hostages? Duranty and his interventions on behalf of the Soviet Union, American recognition, trade deals? The later history of Duranty, his Pulitzer Prize, dying in 1975?

9. Jones, visiting Lloyd George again, Lloyd George’s letter, his return to Wales, at home, his father, working with the editor, the various jobs, his box of documents, the intervention of the police?

10. William Randolph Hearst, visiting Wales, Jones gatecrashing the dinner, talking with Hearst, persuading him, writing the article, proclaiming the truth?

11. Jones, his integrity, going on further missions – Russian guides, his being murdered?

12. The relevance of his story today?

THE OPERATIVE

US, Israel, 2019, 115 minutes, Colour.
Diane Kruger, Martin Freeman, Cass Anvar.
Directed by Yuval Adler.

Audiences fond of international espionage may have memories of John Le Carre’s novels and of the film versions as they watch The Operative. It is the same territory. There are many of the same issues. There is the role of the operative, the role of the control, the role of the authorities – and the planning of missions, undercover, secrecy, and dangers.

This is a film from Israel with an Israeli director. However, there is quite a lot of British background, especially in the character played by Martin Freeman, a British operative in Mossad, based in Germany.

So, this is a film about Mossad and its activities and, surprisingly, the main location for the operative in question here is, in fact, Tehran and Iran.

The operative in question is a woman with international background, ranging from Britain to Australia to Vancouver. Her father was a British academic. However, it emerges that she wanted to do something more significant with her life and approaches Mossad in Germany. The operative is played by Diane Kruger, credible as an undercover agent, controlled by Martin Freeman, becoming more personally involved in her mission than is safe for her.

So, the film has strong Le Carre overtones.

As the film opens, the operative has disappeared and her controller is summoned by the authorities to explain. Dramatically, this gives the opportunity for the audience to learn about the operative, the background, her character, interpretation of what she has done.

After serving with background tasks, she becomes involved with what is really a political assassination in an elevator – which leads to her being considered for undercover work, a stronger job. She is assigned to Tehran as an English teacher and she fits in well into Iranian society, making friends, teaching children. However, she is commissioned to target a wealthy businessman who will then become an unknowing tool in a Mossad plan to destabilise the Iranian nuclear developments.

It is not necessarily giving away anything of the plot to indicate that the couple will fall in love and that there will be extreme complications.

While the film does have some exciting moments, these are not at the centre of the action. Rather, this is a psychological study of the operative, her response to getting a mission and trying to fulfil it, her trying to deal with the psychological and emotional implications, as well as a picture of her controller and his having to make decisions to be personally involved or not.

While the material could be considered somewhat familiar and the treatment of the story workmanlike, The Operative is successfully interesting and entertaining.

1. Espionage story? The 21st-century? Current situations around the world, the Middle East, Israel? The film going behind the scenes?

2. The German settings, the city of Leipzig and its detail? The presence of Mossad? The contrast with the Israeli settings for the brakes? The emphasis on Iran, the city of Teheran, its vistas, people, way of life, business, socials? The musical score?

3. The title, the working agent? The world of agents, recruiting, criteria, managers, supervision, ways of making contact, covers, missions, dangers, personal involvement?

4. Mossad, Israel, its agents throughout Europe and Asia? The single agent in Iran? The situation with sanctions, nuclear progress, the plan for selling defective material? The agent getting information?

5. Secrets and lies, for everyone involved, for covers for espionage, for interactions within Mossad?

6. The situation, Rachel missing, Thomas and his being urgently summoned, the team, the top stances, interviewing Thomas? Thomas and the occasion for telling Rachel story, the recapitulation, the explanations?

7. Diane Kruger as Rachel, her ancestry, father an academic, the Australian background, British, Vancouver? Her passport? Her life, motivations, doing something worthwhile? Thomas and his recruiting her, training, management? The local work?

8. Her being sent to Tehran, her teaching, this serving as a cover, her adapting to life there, liking it, the frequent returns to Germany? The further mission, identifying the past criminal, the lift and the assassination, the collateral damage?

9. Farhad, Mossad interest in him, his wealth, intentions, playboy style? Rachel, teaching his son, the bonds, the relationship, the attraction, the outings, the sexual contact, the affair? Socials, his ex-wife, his brother and business? The wedding, her being a guest? The effect continuing? Thomas’s reaction? The issue of the abortion and Thomas’s help?

10. The aim of the mission, getting the information about the company, contracts, the defective arms? The office, the plant? The friendly security guard – and her later killing him? Her going to the computers, sending the information? Maintaining her cover?

11. Her mission to drive the equipment, the dangers, her dress, identity, driving the truck, the associates, the military? Returning to Farhad?

12. Her disappearance, Farhad in Germany? The briefings?

13. The plan, Thomas to bring her in, the phone on the table, listening in on the plan, the sniper? Her shrewdness, leaving, Thomas shielding her
from the sniper?

14. Thomas, personalising his work, his future? Rachel and her future?

SYNONYMES

France, 2019, 122 minutes, Colour.
Tom Mercier, Quentin Dolmaire, Louise Chevillotte.
Directed by Nadav Lapid.

A strange film by a Jewish director, allegedly based on his own experiences in Israel and in his coming to France. In some ways it is off-putting. In some ways it is engaging. It was certainly engaging for the international jury at the 2019 Berlinale where it won the Golden Bear.

Tom Mercier, in his first film, quite an exposure of character, body and soul, plays a young man who arrives in Paris, goes to a building, finds a large empty apartment, goes to sleep in a sleeping bag, freezing, gets up to go to the bathroom, returns to find the sleeping bag gone and his being exposed, cold, racing throughout the building, trying to get help.

A young couple upstairs find him in the morning and tend to him.

The young man’s story is that he is angry with his father especially back in Israel, upset at his military service, resenting Israel itself, leaving, hoping to find some kind of future and salvation in Paris, rejecting his own language, fascinated by the French language, buying a dictionary, playing with words, their meanings and synonyms.

The two friends are supportive while he tries to get some security work, visits the Israeli Embassy which he does not want to do, tries to get jobs, answers an advertisement for some modelling which turns out to be an episode of sexual exploitation, pornographic photos. He goes from one event to another, giving over his life stories to the man who helped him and wants to be a writer, becoming more involved emotionally with the young woman who has had a promiscuous background.

So, the series of episodes, trying to find himself, a man trying to find himself in a new country, in a new culture, in a new language – eventually wanting to become a French citizen, going to classes in preparation for citizenship, with a range of men and women from other cultures, especially from Asia, professing loyalty to France and singing the Marseillaise.

An experience of much disillusionment, conflict with his benefactors – and a visit from his father which also continues the conflict. It is the kind of story which one might add: to be continued.

1. The title, language, the buying of the dictionary, consulting it, the various meanings of words?

2. The Paris settings, the streets, apartments, workplaces, the Israeli Embassy, the photo sessions, the lessons for citizenship? A perception of Paris? The musical score, the patriotic songs at the end?

3. Yoav, his arrival, desperate, in the streets, the cold, the apartment, the sleeping bag, going to the bath, its being stolen? Naked, running through the building, the appeal, nobody responding?

4. His being a soldier in Israel, the flashbacks, the treatment, antagonism with his father, leaving, not wanting to speak Hebrew, later being forced, wanting to be French?

5. Emile and Caroline, in the apartment, the morning, the search, finding Yoav in the bath, frozen? Their friendship, sharing, helping him with accommodation, his returning to visit them, perfection? Issues of sex or not? Caroline and her background, the story of her promiscuity, her playing the oboe, the performances? Emile and his wanting to write? Yoav and his telling his stories, giving them to Emile? Emile listening, the gift – and Yoav taking them back? Caroline, the relationship, the preparation for the marriage, ceremony? The clash? Caroline turning against Yoav? The nature of the friendship?

6. The security guard, his friendship, character?

7. The sequences of the Embassy, Yoav disliking going?

8. And seeing the advertisement for the photographer, the pornographic photos and the effect?

9. His desire to be naturalised, the documents, going to the lessons, the teacher, enthusiasm, the variety of those present, nationalities? Growing patriotism, singing the Marseillaies?

10. The growing tensions with Yoav? Emile organising the Father’s visit, the conversation, his rejecting his father?

11. Yoav and his hopes, becoming French – and the story based on the experiences of the director?

ACID/ KISLOTA

Russia, 2019, 97 minutes, Colour.
Filipp Avdeev, Aleksander Kuznetsov.
Directed by Alekxander Gorchilin.

There are different kinds of acid in this Russian film, the work of young actor turned director.

Central characters of the film are young, a group of friends, bonding together, sharing in drugs and drink, issues of sexuality. One young man is found naked, in a distressed state, not getting all the sympathy he might want – and then, standing on a balcony, one of his friends actually taunting him to jump. He does.

This leads to a focus on two of the friends. One, Sasha, seems a rather more quiet type, scenes at home with his family, going to the dead man’s funeral. However, attention is drawn to him because he has had a circumcision operation’ there is a certain curiosity amongst his associates with his being reluctant to communicate about it. The other friend, Petya, is quite different, attends the funeral but opens with an outburst, critical of the dead man, criticising his reputation, letting people know about his personal behaviour.

After spending the night at an artist’s studio, Petya drinks some of the acid that the artist uses for uses for his work. This brash behaviour leads to damage to his vocal chords and to his face, his having to go to hospital, being bandaged. Sasha has an opposite experience leading to antagonism with Petya, a collapse in his own private life and values.

Ultimately, there is a confrontation, not in a place where one might expect it in this Russian film and with these young characters. Some her other, Petya has something of a conversion and agrees to attend a baptism in the church. This has a damaging effect on Sasha who, angry, gets the acid and wants to put it in the baptismal font. There is prayer, the celebration of the sacrament – and the audience attention as to what will happen to the young baby as it goes to the font.

In many ways this is an angry film, the film observant of young people and their behaviour, their moral confusion, the potential for devastating effects.


1. The title, drugs, the fluid used for artwork? A film about Russian youth?

2. Contemporary Russia, the settings, homes, gatherings, parties? The young, their friends?

3. The crisis, the naked young man, the drugs, the reaction of the group, care? His appearing on the balcony? Petya and his careless urging him to jump? His jumping?

4. Petya of the funeral, outspoken, exposing the life of the dead man?

5. The current recession, his girlfriend, his circumcision, the issue of the photo, his wanting to be private? Not having sex? His place in the family?

6. Petya and Sasha, their friendship, the questioning about what happened, Petya and his confessing?

7. Sasha, the effect, his moral collapse?

8. Pete, the night with the artist, his drinking the fluid, the consequences, losing his voice, the effect on his mouth?

9. His decision to confess?

10. Sasha, his reaction, vindictive, getting the fluid, tempted to drink it, pouring it in the baptismal font?

11. The building up of tension, the group coming for the baptism, the priest, words and symbolism, big being late? Sasha and his reaction, turning over the font and spilling the water?

12. The religious symbolism used by the young director? The place of religion and its symbolism?

13. The consequences for Petya, Sasha?