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?

EN GUERRE/AT WAR

France, 2018, 115 minutes, Colour.
Vincent Lindon Melanie Rover, Jacques Borderie.
Directed by Stephane Brize.

This is a very direct and blunt title. It is not the kind of war that the title might suggest, armed conflict, national or international conflicts, battlefields. Yet, they are all present – in the workplace. (The film received some release in Europe in the wake of the weekends of the yellow-vest protest against the Macron government – and audiences will see some resemblances, especially in the vehemence environment protests and demonstrations against big business and their commercial tactics.)

In 2015, the French film, The Measure of a Man, was nominated for best film at Cannes, where Vincent Lindon received the award for best actor and the film itself one the Ecumenical Award. It was a film about an unemployed factory worker and his trying to survive, make ends meet, find some dignity in his social and financial situation. The film was directed by Stephane Brise.

This film, also directed by Brise, takes something of a step, or more than a step, to the Left. And here is Vincent Lindon once again in an intense performance, and also co-producing the film with the director. It is obviously a heartfelt enterprise.

Lindon plays Laurent, a union leader, caught up in the closure of a factory by an international company whose CEO is German. Over 1000 people will be laid off. There are demonstrations, loud protests, intense feeling. The film also uses the device of showing a lot of the action in protest as part of television news, handheld cameras, the audience taken into the middle of the protest, the directness of this kind of coverage. And, of course, plenty of interviews, plenty of shouting – and then the entry of the police, batons, smoke, protesters being bashed…

Laurent represents the people, is the union representative, speaking to the crowds along with some close associates and officials. These are also the representatives who meet with the business leaders – each side of a long table, the workers looking like workers, the business types looking like business types. There is a lot of harsh expression of dissatisfaction, leading to angry outbursts – as well as condescending remarks from the business leaders and their having to apologise.

The screenplay provides a little bit more humanity for Laurent, his years of dedication to union representation, his wife leaving him, but his daughter being pregnant and his going to the hospital for the birth of his grandchild.

Little seems to be being accomplished. There are demands from the unions to meet with the CEO but he is absent in the United States. Eventually however he does agree to come to a meeting. Once again the two sides of the table. But the situation has become more complicated not just by the clashes with business but some kind of internal warfare within the union. Not everybody agrees with Laurent and his vocal demands. They make their own vocal demands. There are others who look to the way of negotiation, some possible compromise, the companies pledging themselves to some kind of financial subsidy.

But, that is not Laurent’s way and there are quite intense sequences of union conflict.

When the protesters occupy the second French factory owned by the company, there are more clashes with the police, at the meeting with the CEO, he has to be accompanied leaving by bodyguards as there has been verbal attack, physical attack.

The audience might be wondering where this story is going: success for the union members, concessions by the business leaders, the impact on public opinion and support for the protest.

However, the film ends with an action which nobody could anticipate, a shock at the ending with the audience, no matter where it stood in its observations of the confrontation between unions and business, challenged to think again.

1. The title, blunt?

2. A film of social justice, the work of the director and actor in previous films?

3. The recreation of the workers’ life, the factory decision, the protests and demonstrations, realistic, the crowds, the action sequences, anger, the role of the police, arms, conflict?

4. The role of the media, the insertion of news reports throughout the film, the scenes, the captions, the voice-over?

5. The issues, the foreign conglomerate, the French factories, the German CEO? Decisions about closure, job losses, over 1000? The effect on families, income, people dependent on their incomes? Bleak future?

6. The work of negotiation? Laurent as the chief negotiator, his work with the unions, his vigour, championing the cause, intensity of argument, deep feelings? His associate group, the supporting woman and her angers, the men in the group? The argument, principles, attempts to negotiate, anger overcoming negotiation? The arguments, unrelenting?

7. The human face of Laurent, his daughter, his ex-wife? The pregnancy and the birth of the child?

8. The opposing forces in the union, their point of view, forcibly expressed, their attitude towards negotiations? Interfactional fighting? The intensity, taking sides?

9. The presentation of the officials, the French, well-dressed, the arguments, the condescending remarks of one of the group, his apology?

10. The president of the Republic, interest, his officials, support? Legislation?

11. The matter going to the courts, the decision against the unions?

12. The going to the other factory, the continued demands, the crowds, protests? The continuing conflicts, the media coverage?

13. The German CEO, in America, his agreeing to meet the group, the two sides of the tables, arguments, anger flaring? Disagreement? The CEO hustled out of the meeting, his bodyguard, the crowds, the police?

14. The TV coverage, the members blaming Laurent and his anger? His accepting this? His silence, his final words?

15. The factions, the board negotiation, the loss of a compensation package?

16. The shock of Laurent, his attitude, covering himself in petrol, his suicide and the effect on the unions and the management?

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

US, 2012, 103 minutes, Colour.
Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev, Johnny Simmons, Dylan Mc Dermott, Paul Rudd, Joan Cusack.
Directed by Stephen Chbosky.

This is one of those films where it is important to wait until the very end to decide whether you like the film or not. Quite a lot is revealed in the last twenty minutes which makes quite a difference to understanding the central character.

And the central character is Charlie, a high school teenager, who is clever but depressed and low in self-affirmation. Logan Lerman gives a sensitive performance which draws sympathy but is still mysterious until the ending. In the background is his grief at the suicide of a close friend. There are flashbacks to his early childhood and the influence of his aunt who died in a car accident as she went to buy Christmas presents.

Shy, shunned at school, except for some kind encouragement to read and to write by English teacher, Paul Rudd, he meets two eccentric friends, step-brother and sister, who become close and open his eyes to a more bohemian way of life. At home, things are strict, especially with his dominating father who wants him to be more of a man. Charlie has an outlet in writing letters to a fictional friend. In fact, the 1999 novel by Stephen Chbosky who has adapted his novel for the screen, was the series of letters.

In the film, songs from the period become significant.

The real friends are Sam (Emma Watson moving on from the Harry Potter films), with whom Charlie becomes infatuated despite her confused past, and Patrick, who is a closet gay young man in relationship with a very macho student who denounces Patrick. Patrick is played extravagantly but intriguingly by Ezra Miller who was so persuasive and alienating as Kevin in We Need to Talk About Kevin.

This is a portrait of an American family where the public face belies the sadness and confusion behind the scenes. Ultimately, it reveals the realities of mental illness, childhood trauma and the need for serious therapy and a sympathetic psychologist (here played by Joan Cusack) who can empower Charlie to reveal his deep secrets and come to some kind of freedom and hope.

1. The title? Adolescence and coming-of-age? A memoir?

2. 1992, re-creation of the period? Homes, school, church, parties and socials, Hospital?

3. The range of songs, the popular songs of the period and that just proceeding? Insertion throughout the film is, discussions about the songs? The song for Sam and the tunnel? The final reprise and a symbol of Charlie’s recovery?

4. Charlie’s story, Logan Lerman’s performance, his age, his writing letters to his anonymous correspondent, the outpouring of his feelings in memory, lessening with his meeting his friends and changing? His being creative, imaginative? Relationship with his parents, his sister, his older brother? The Catholic background? The prospect of going to high school?

5. His being in an institution, the effect of his friend’s suicide? His memories of his aunt Helen, the flashbacks, her love for him, the bond, the gifts, his being special, the accident and her death? The surface memories and their effect? The later encounter with Sam, the touch, evoking of memories, the effect, a breakdown? A realisation?

6. His experiences in Middle School, the transition to High School? The first day, his parents and their support, his sister, the discussions?

7. His narrative, being by himself, his room and the style, going to classes, the girls and the reaction? Mr Anderson, Charlie knowing the answers to the questions, Mr Anderson and the books, his reading, his writing? His tribute to Mr Anderson – Mr Anderson and his play, in Pittsburgh, the end and deciding to stay?

8. At school, the bullies, the criticisms? The contrast with Patrick and Sam? Their relationship, shared parent? Family? The manner and style, the revelation of their past, the characters? Their stories, spirit of freedom?

9. Sam, her past and Patrick’s explanation, drinking and sex, but her change of spirit?

10. Patrick, eccentric personality, camp, manner, the gay young man in the 1990s? His freedom, his relationship with Brad, Charlie seeing them, sworn to secrecy? The later exposure, Brad and his self-defence, denouncing Patrick, Charlie and his attack, the melee, his fainting?

11. The small group of friends, Alice, Craig, with Sam and Patrick? His being welcomed to the group? The initial party, his going, the brownie, high, his self-manifestation (and the visual linking of communion with the taking of the brownie)? Being rescued by Sam? The effect on him, some opening up?

12. Craig, the Rocky Horror Show? The others participating, Charlie agreeing, the various performances, his exuberance, the appreciation of the audience, the aftermath for him?

13. Alice and her friends, Buddhist, precocious, interested in Charlie, the Sadie Hawkins Dance and his going, the relationship, his feeling trapped, awkward, the spin the bottle and his declaration about Sam as his true love? Alice and her being hurt, the breaking of the relationship?

14. The tunnel sequence, his exhilaration with Sam, falling in love, the discussion about the kiss, the actual kiss, Sam touching him, the reaction, memories of his aunt?

15. Sam, needing to study, Charlie and the tuition, her gift of the typewriter? Her success and acceptance? Patrick and is going to college? The farewell?

16. Charlie and his collapse, his coming home, his suicidal attitude, his sister concerned? Charlie and his attempted suicide, his parents, going to the hospital?

17. The psychologist, her consideration and concern, the discussions, the memories of his aunt, the psychologist enabling him to be free?

18. Sam and Patrick, the return, talking on their experiences, and in the car, Charlie and the David Bowie song, the exhilaration of his being in the car…?

EYNAYIM SHELI/ CHAINED

Israel, 2019, 112 minutes, Colour.
Ezra Naim, Stav Almagor.
Directed by Yaron Shani.

While watching this film, the audience will have a strong impression that it is a deeply felt film. That the writer-director is not only concerned about his characters but also the social situations in which they find themselves.

The setting is Tel Aviv. The central character is a veteran policeman, getting older, putting on weight, getting exasperated.

At home, his wife, who has a teenage daughter causing all kinds of emotional problems for herself in the family, is undergoing processes to become pregnant. But this leads in a direction that the audience was not anticipating, and not happy directions.

At work, the policeman is on night shifts, has to do some substitute work, is asked to investigate a group of adolescents in a park as to whether they are doing drugs and doing drug deals. In the process of interrogation, following the book, there is something of a strip search which leads to the father of one of the boys, prominent in government, to complain to Internal Affairs, leading to interrogations of the policeman, his having to stand down for some time, rather tough treatment from the investigators.

The director has used non-professional actors to portray these characters – who are immediately and strongly believable. This is all the more important as we watch the policeman, love his wife yet becoming alienated because of her manner of dealing with the daughter’s problems, trying to deal with the daughter herself, the policeman moving out of the house to give his wife free rein but this all turning against him.

While all this has been dramatically challenging, there is a finale, even more shocking and challenging.
1. An Israeli story? Tel Aviv?

2. The focus on the police, their work, in action, crime in the city, set ups for interrogations, internal inquiries, pressures? The becoming too much for the individual police officer?

3. The director and his work, employing amateurs in the roles? The effectiveness of the performances?

4. Tel Aviv, the city, homes, the variety of cases, in the streets, in the parks? Police officers? The musical score?

5. Rashi, policeman for many years, burley presence, his age, his marriage to Avigail, love for her, trying for pregnancy, the miscarriage, her grief, the moods? Going to the hospital for further tests, the pregnancy, news of the abortion and its effect on each of them?

6. Avigail, her daughter, age 13, difficult, resentments, defying Rashi? The role of the mother? The father and his stern attitudes? Her going to the photocall, his forbidding the clothing after seeing the photos, the make up, his decision to stay, calling it off, taking her home?

7. Rashi and his friends in the police force, the boss? Internal Affairs in the investigation?

8. Going to the park, the boys, the possibilities for drugs, going to the office, the search, the stripping, their resentment? The boy with the political father? Rashi and the letter of the law?

9. Internal Affairs, the manner, the presumption about innocence? Rashi and his angry reaction, the discussions, his answers? House arrest? Suspension from action? His reaction, lowering morale?

10. The problems with the daughter, her defiance, shouting and clash?

11. The decision for him to be away, going to the hotel, the phone calls, his strict injunctions, his return?

12. Avigail, wanting time with the daughter, to deal with her? Who is right? Who is wrong?

13. The information about his wife, the abortion, the decision to leave, not answering the phone calls?

14. His arrival, confrontation, their discussions?

15. The pressure on Rashi, getting his gun, shooting his wife, shooting himself?

ELISA Y MARCELLA

Spain, 2019, 113 minutes, Black and white.
Natalia De Molina, Greta Fernandez.
Directed by Isabel Coixet.

This film, strikingly photographed in black and white, takes us back to Spain at the end of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century. However, its topic is very much one for the 21st century. The focus is on same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage. And its director has moved comfortable in her career with films in Spanish and in English.

This film is based on a true story – with photographs backing it up.

The film opens with a girls’ school, housed in a convent. Elisa is one of the principal students, at home at school, but highly critical of the nuns. A new arrival, Marcella, is a bit awkward at first but Elisa helps her and they become friends.

The early part of the film establishes their friendship and the basis for their future relationship.

The action then moves on to their lives and career after school, their going to a town, teaching, setting up house together, realising their love for each other, a domestic partnership. They are quiet, discrete, but are caught up in some of the life of the town, especially a social and a dance – although they are seen dancing together quietly out and away from the hall. Given Spanish society at the time, given same-sex relationships at the time, there is a great deal of gossip and criticism.

One of the key elements of the film is the fact that Elisa assumes the identity of her cousin, a young man. She takes on male dress, a false moustache, comes to visit. She also approaches the parish priest to explain the situation and the proposal that the cousin and Marcella should marry. There is a celebratory ceremony.

However, the film also shows the tension that this makes for the couple, especially since Marcella has become pregnant. It doesn’t take very long for Elisa to be exposed, the threat of examination from another priest, the intervention of the local authorities.

With such a scandal, and with the birth of the child, decisions have to be made and separations seems to be the answer, including migration to Argentina. Which takes us back to the opening of the film in Argentina where Elisa arrives at Marcella’s house, some recriminations about what has happened, but a reconciliation.

As with social and moral issues, well there can be discussion at a cerebral level, it is stories which dramatise the issues and are important for nuances in decision-making.

1. A piece of history? 19th and early 20th century? Spain? Hispanic society? Issues of sexuality and relationships?

2. The director, the woman’s perspective? On same-sex relationships, marriage?

3. Black-and-white photography, the countryside, homes, schools, the convent, towns, socials? The musical score?

4. The convent school, Marcella arriving, her background? Elisa, the nuns, star student? The encounter, help, friendship? The bonds? The critique of the nuns in the school?

5. Later, their own careers? At the school? The home backgrounds? The living in the house, their lives, the relationship, the cover?

6. The situations in the town, the bond between the two women, their personalities, quality of the relationship? Socials in the town, the man wanting to dance, his approach? The two dancing in the countryside at night? Their being found out?

7. The neighbours, inquisitive, the censorious reactions?

8. The decision, the discussion with the priest, posing as her cousin? The priest believing her? The preparation, the marriage, the celebration? The later interrogation, the priest examining Elisa, her being exposed?

9. Elisa as the cousin, her disguise, man and wife, the photo? The arrangements?

10. Life in the town, the reactions, the authorities stepping in, the priest and his examination?

11. Marcella pregnant, the issue of the father, the pregnancy over the months?

12. The government, his sympathy, his wife, the Portuguese against the Spaniards?

13. The preparation for their leaving, the issue of the adoption, the taking of the baby? On the boat, the effect?

14. Later in Argentina, Elisa’s return, Marcella and her lifestyle, the reconciliation?
15. Contemporary issues of same-sex marriage? The resonance of the story of the past with the present?

THE KING OF THIEVES

UK, 2018, 108 minutes, Colour.
Michael Caine, Charlie Cox, Jim Broadbent, Tom Courtenay, Paul Whitehouse, Ray Winstone, Michael Gambon, Francesca Annis.
Directed by James Marsh.

Towards the end of The King of Thieves, there is a reference to the 1952 Ealing Studios classic comedy, The Lavender Hill Mob, a surprising heist story, touches of comedy, led by veterans Alec Guinness and Stanley Holloway. There are certainly some old codgers in this one, touches of comedy, an extraordinary robbery from a security venue in London, Hatton Gardens. The present film is also from Ealing Studios. Though not nearly as good!

There are several pleasures to be had from the film, of course, especially from the veteran cast. Come to think of it, Michael Caine has been toplining films for over 50 years. Tom Courtenay’s big movie breakthrough was in 1962 with Billy Liar. Jim Broadbent is almost 70 – but Paul Whitehouse and Ray Winstone are comparatively junior, just over 60. They make a motley crew – but, certainly living in their memories and their criminal achievements.

The film opens with Michael Caine as Brian Reader, out with his wife, Francesca Annis, who is terminally ill. His promises her that he will never go back to prison. But, even at the wake, the old lags join in conversation about past jobs. However, there is a young fellow there, listening into the conversation, going out with Brian and revealing that he has inside knowledge of Hatton Gardens, the layout, IT information. He seems a bit timid, Basil, played by Charlie Cox.

The robbery takes place rather earlier in the film than expected. The screenplay pays a lot of attention to the detail, getting in, Basil turning off alarms, breaking down walls (although their special instrument itself has a breakdown), eventually getting into the vault, ransacking all the safe boxes.

Not that everything goes smoothly although, for such a group to achieve so much given technology and security, the whole thing looks comparatively easy! But, Tom Courtenay has Kenny nods off on the job, Jim Broadbent’s Terry is rather cantankerous and eager for a stoush! At times, Paul Whitehouse as Cal Wood looks as if he would prefer to be back with his vegetable garden. And, they have a difficulty with Basil’s disguise, his wig and his being young.

While the thieves give the impression of general good fellowship, the screenplay reminds us that there is no honour among thieves. We see a falling out, some taking strong stances about Brian’s leadership, dispute about the carving up of the loot – and, poor Basil, a bit overwhelmed by what they have stolen as well by the group, agrees to take a cash handout. But Basil, we find, might look like a blushing violet but underneath (and in his pocket…).

One of the irritations of the film is the continued superfluous swearing which may be authentic but we might say, give us a break! Perhaps the older actors never got the opportunity to swear like this in their earlier films and are making up for lost time – and, as great an actor as he is, Tom Courtenay swearing is not the least bit convincing! (But, of course, other audiences may not notice it at all!).

The film was directed by celebrated documentary maker James Marsh whose feature films are less convincing though their range is interesting, Man on a Ledge, The Mercy. He does include one interesting feature, brief black-and-white clips of each of the main actors from one of their earlier films.

1. The title, the focus? Brian Reader?

2. The story based on fact? The criminals? The robbery? The method? The proceeds? The arrests? The money and to date not completely recovered?

3. The London settings, the city, the streets, homes, Hatton Gardens? The interiors, the methods of the robbery? The musical score?

4. The introduction to Brian, out with his wife, the meal, her not wanting him to go to prison again, his respect for that? Her collapse, her death, the funeral, grief? The friends at the funeral, the talk about robberies?

5. The careers of the criminals? The memories, the boasts, prison? A way of life?

6. Terry, the past, aggressive, interactions with Brian? Arguments? His family? Participation in the robbery, criticisms? Cantankerous, with Brian? The meetings, criticism of Brian?

7. Kenny, his age, deafness, the past? Living alone? Easily swayed? Participation? On the lookout, going to sleep, the warnings, the security guard at the door? His reliance on Billy, defending him, giving him the loot? Talking with Brian, changing sides whomever he was talking with?

8. Danny, younger, tough, gymnastics, his past, tough talking, interactions with Basil, with the others in the group? Participation in the robbery, getting through the hole?

9. Basil, his work in IT, knowing Brian, listening to the conversation during the wake, visiting Brian, going out with him, the proposition? Brian and his resistance, his memory of his wife? Succumbing? Basil, young, disguise, his wig? The reactions of the others? His seeming young and inexperienced? Is ability and turning off the alarms? The plans, getting through the hole, ransacking the boxes and their contents? Going to the meeting, seeming too quiet, the promise of the money, his taking of the diamonds after Brian’s descriptions? His disappearing?

10. The reaction of the police, the media, suspects from overseas? The gradual information, the role of Basil? Taping the meals, getting the evidence? Brian and his visit to Margate? Summoning the others, the giving him the silent treatment? The plans, the meeting? Brian and his
reaction to Billy?

11. Everybody gathering, the police surrounding the house, everyone arrested? Their reputations?

12. The glimpses of the actors in previous films, looking so young?

13. The getting into suits, walking away, proud of themselves?

14. The information at the end, sentences served, Terry’s death, the disappearance of Basil?

GRACE A DIEU

France, 2019, 137 minutes, Colour.
Melville Poupaud, Denis Menochet, Swann Arlaud, Eric Caravaca, Francois Marthouret, Bernard Verley, Marine Erhel, Josiane Balasko, Helene Vincent.
Directed by François Ozon.

The first thing to say about François Ozon’s contribution to the cinema focusing on clerical sexual abuse is that it is quite a significant contribution. It is based on real-life characters, an abusive priest, Father Bernard Preynat, the Cardinal- Archbishops of Lyon, Barberin, lay assistants, and a number of men who raised issues from their past, their experiences of abuse, leading to criminal investigations into the priest. An epilogue indicates that no date for the trial has been set, although there has been work on the investigation for several years, and that the Cardinal and one of his lay assistants have been on trial for not passing on information about the abuse – this film premiering during the 2019 Berlinale with a verdict to be announced on March 7, before the film will go into worldwide release.

Catholic consciousness about clerical sexual abuse has undergone quite some transformation in the last three decades, in some cultures much more developed than in others. The word used by many is that the Catholic response is evolving. And this film will contribute to the evolution. There are early references to Pope Francis and his stances about abuse, investigations by Cardinal O’ Malley for the Vatican, protocols changing concerning trials, priests being laicised, penalties, civil cases and imprisonment. This film, with its focus on serious misdeeds, insufficient response from hierarchy and authorities, is a helpful opportunity for Catholics (and members of other denominations who have experienced abuse as well as other institutions) to acknowledge the realities of the past, express regrets, move towards greater openness.

While Ozon focuses on one diocese and one priest, he highlights the events presented as something local and solitary, in comparison with many of the cases that have occurred in France. The screenplay scarcely acknowledges that there have been cases right throughout the world and for so long. We could be reminded that many other countries have been pursuing the issues of abuse, attempts to rectify situations honestly, acknowledge guilt since the 1990s.

Cases were raised in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s. The first protocols from the official church in Australia were published in 1996. In fact, Ireland has had a national investigation into abuse, Australia had a governmental Royal Commission into institutional abuse, with a thorough examination of the Catholic Church, from 2013 to 2018, with extensive airing by the media. Although the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, 2015, almost seems to indicate that the Americans discovered abuse and dealt with it in the media, their focus was on the years up to 2002. So, for outsiders to France, to see this case coming up in the middle of the second decade of the 21st century seems comparatively late – and it would have been interesting had the men in Lyon had contact with organisations in other countries.

This can be confirmed by the cinema history of films about clerical sexual abuse, the American film, Judgement, 1990, about cases in Louisiana, The Boys of St Vincent, 1992, quite forthright about Canadian cases, and a number of British and Irish films since 2000, and the miniseries from Australia, The Devil’s Playground, 2014. In fact, the film Our Fathers, 2005, was quite explicit in basing the screenplay on actual characters, survivors, lawyers, clergy, and quite specifically naming the Cardinal-Archbishop? of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law.

A note about the screenplay’s use of the word, ‘victim’. Another development over recent years, especially in some English-speaking countries, is the substitution of the word ‘survivor’ for ‘victim’. Victim highlights the perpetrator as well as the abused, while survivor highlights the life of the abused person (acknowledging that so many abused have committed suicide), a more positive perspective on going ahead with life.

As regards the film itself, it is very much a verbal film, voice-overs describing experiences, the texts of letters and emails, words of interviews, reports to the police, family discussions. This means that the director is able to be less detailed in visual representations of abuse situations, relying on the flashbacks, on the age and innocence of the child, the child being selected by the abuser, his taking the child away from the group. In this way, the director is able to avoid any prurient response to the story.

The film is also an effective in its principal focus being on the particular survivors, four of them, one, devoutly Catholic, wife and five children, discovering the offending priest is still in ministry, wanting to act, communicating with the archdiocese, going to interviews, even a meeting with the offending priest. But, with ecclesiastical delays, his growing more concerned and, approaching the police, setting a criminal investigation in process. Another man, now atheist, wife and children, has been moved into action because his mother wrote to the then Cardinal and other clergy in the early 1990s and has kept a file which the police use. This man has another friend who remembers abuse in the past, at the scout camp sponsored by the priest. The fourth man, high IQ but not able to fit into society so well, also joins the group which establishes a website, and an association as more and more survivors emerge.

Again, it would be interesting to compare the networks of survivors in other countries and how they operate, cooperate, and have been significant in giving witness into investigations, especially government investigations as in Ireland and Australia, for instance. This film gives the (perhaps unintended) impression that this website and network was a first in dealing with abusive clergy.

Ozon takes a fair perspective on the events and the characters. There is certainly criticism of the Cardinal, his hesitations, some contradictions in his testimony in press conferences. Worthy of note, is the Cardinal’s faux pas in responding to issues concerning the ending of statutes of limitations, God be thanked (Grace de Dieu), the title of the film. The Cardinal is challenged, acknowledges his loose use of words, apologises (and mistakes like this, unthought-out comments by the hierarchy, have plagued investigations and stirred media upset, flowing over for the public).

In fact, there has been great rage in many of the survivors, the years-long hurt and wounding, the disastrous effect on life, relationships, ability to cope and lead a fruitful life. However, this film has its protagonists angry but more objective, less raging but earnest for justice to be seen and justice to be done, possibilities for reparation, hesitations concerning forgiveness of the offender.

It is interesting that in this film, while there are some lawyers, they play subsidiary roles, different from lawyers’ work in more litigious cultures, with a focus on financial compensation, and a criticism of the church in using lawyers, legal action before expressions of compassion.

One of the directions for another film would be to take up the presentation of Father Preynat (for English-speaking audiences it is ominous that his surname begins with ’prey’, a man who was a prolific predator), his admitting his guilt and responsibility, his apologies to the survivors, but his acknowledgement of his psychological condition which needed much more attention, his attraction towards children, even seen in his emotional response to meeting the survivors, wanting their support and forgiveness, speaking affectionately (until reprimanded by the lawyer), his willingness to pray with the survivors, his affectionate smiles as he left the meetings. We need more probing of the characters, motivations, mental and emotional conditions of the abusers.

This is not a review of the film. That would go into the quality of the screenplay and the direction, the fine performances of the central characters, the relying on strong dialogue to communicate perspectives.

But, for audiences from other cultures, it is a dramatisation of historical and contemporary events, issues for survivors, challenges to churches, which must continue.

1. A French perspective on clerical sexual abuse? An actual case as basis?

2. The film as topical, 20th-century and 21st-century abuse? In Lyon? The investigation, the priest in ministry and further destination with children, a danger to them, the role of the hierarchy, the men and their being case studies? The film based on actual stories and characters?

3. This story as a French story, focused, not considering any other similar stories in France or from around the world? Not acknowledging any the experiences in other countries and continents? The references to the Pope and the Vatican, Cardinals in investigations? (And the film premiered in February 2019, the time of Pope Francis inviting the heads of all Bishops conferences to a Vatican conference on the issue?)

4. The role of the hierarchy, the Cardinals of Lyon, the appeal to the Pope, the role of clergy, the lay assistants working in dioceses?

5. The director, his career, his concern? His being fair, the presentation of the difficulties and the reality of the abuse, the effect on the survivors? A fair tone?

6. The screenplay and the reliance on the verbal, letters, interrogations, meetings? Family discussions? Sons and parents, spouses, children? The ability to enter the realities, the events, the memories, the hurt, the devastating effects?

7. The visuals, the flashbacks, brief and restrained, making sense after hearing the verbal descriptions?

8. The screenplay and the case studies? The focus initially on Alexandre, his memories, surfacing, letters and interviews? His schoolfriend unwilling to participate? The story of François, his brother, family? The contact with Gilles and his wife? Tristan on the phone and his devastating stories? Emmanuel, his background, experience? The portrait of the men and the highlighting their experience, opening it up, the process, the website and the group, the effect?

9. The references to Pope Francis, favourable, the Cardinal and his responses and his investigations? Alexandre writing a letter to the Pope – but so much of this line not then followed up?

10. Alexandre, the introduction, his voice-over, aged 40, his wife, five children, devout Catholic, the scene at Mass, the confirmation of his sons, the cardinal and his reference to the boys and their visiting him? Wanting to reform the church from the inside? Refusing communion from the abusive priest and his family leading? His family and the details of their life, happy lifestyle, his wife teaching at the Catholic school? The later revelation by his wife to Emanuel, that she had been abused by a neighbour and that she had not been able to speak about it? The background her to her support of her husband? The experiences, pre-teen boys, of the scouts in the camps? The role of the priest, his picking his victims, taking them aside, the descriptions of the physical abuse? Psychological abuse? His still being alive, teaching catechism, still in ministry? Alexandre and his letters and emails, the interview with Regine, the meeting with the priest, the impact of the discussion, whether he was able to forgive him, the prayer with the three, the priest taking his hand? The continued letters, the seeming ignoring by the cardinal, the delays, his being dissatisfied, going into action, wanting to write to the Pope?

11. The search for survivors, talking with the police, the possibilities of prosecution, the nature of the investigation? Discussion with his friend from school, his not wanting to participate, his motives, his family? The others on the issues of privacy, shame and embarrassment, the impact on
families, on the professional mob? Having kept silent in such a long time?

12. François, big man, energy, boisterous? His mother and her concern in the 1990s, writing to the cardinal, to the priests, her keeping the file for her son? Her husband’s support? The role of Louis, his feeling that he was not favoured by his parents, yet his success? François and his wife and daughters, atheist? Later talking about public apostasy? His enthusiasm for the investigations? The Christmas dinner, attacking Louis, his resentment, Louis and his response and his resentments for such a long time?

13. François, his contact with Gilles, Gilles and his wife discussing the experiences, participating in the research, talks with the police?

14. The role of police, the interrogations, visits, the files?

15. The cardinal, his press conferences, whether he had concealed the information about the offending priest or not? The plan to go to Lebanon? His faux pas at the press conference in talking about the limitations and thanking God for that? The challenge by the journalist, his admitting his loose phrasing? The discussions with the Vatican? His being the citizen of the city? His going on, with Regine to hear the verdict for March 2090, whether concealing information or not?

16. Tristan, the phone calls to François, the sad stories?

17. Meeting Emmanuelle, his story, his resentment against his father, going to visit him and the rejection, his mother, her volunteering to answer the phones for the group, the clashes with Jennifer and fighting with her, his seizures? His IQ, the zebra, not able to conform? The discussions with the police, his meeting with the offending priest, the priest speaking with affection, the lawyer rebuking him, Emanuel unable to forgive – and the final smiles as the priest left?

18. Establishing the website, the men coming together, the different personalities, the different contributions, reservations, participation? The website, the establishment of the group, the number of followers, the importance of social media, more and more stories?

19. Citizens of the city, the dinner, their reflections and interactions, the aftermath of the four men?

20. An insight into clerical sexual abuse? The portrait of the priest, seeing flashbacks of his behaviour at the camps, the individual boys, eyeing them, choosing them, talking of love, kissing, intimate fondling, keeping a secret? His older age, his confessing that he had problems, needed psychological help? Is it that the hierarchy understood? The film stating that the date for the priest’s trial had not been set?

WHO YOU THINK I AM/ CELLE QUE VOUS CROYEZ

France, 2019, 101 minutes, Colour.
Juliette Binoche, Nicole Garcia, François Civil, Guillaume Gouix.
Directed by Safy Nebbou.

Juliette Binoche has made a number of films about women in midlife crisis. This was true of Claire Denis’s Let the Sunshine In where the central character drifts from one relationship to another – and, finally, consults a clairvoyant played by Gerard Depardieu, a strange 15 minutes conclusion to the film as she listens patiently, absorbing his advice which does not sound particularly insightful or helpful.

In fact, it is a pity that she did not consult the psychologist in this film, a sensible woman played by Nicole Garcia, seen attentively listening and not trying to influence her client with ideas or modes of behaviour.

This time Juliette Binoche is an academic, separated from her husband, in a relationship with a younger man who is rather casual while she is much smitten with him. When she tries to contact him by phone, she encounters his associate who behaves in a dismissive manner. She is upset, does some research on him, that he is a photographer and that he is travelling with her lover.

The gist of the film is that she sets up a character online and communicates with the photographer, sending photos of her niece, creating a young character, a model. He falls for the attractive character online and they began a correspondence. Both of them become rather obsessed. (There is a surprising twist about the niece at the end.)

The question is will she tell him the truth, what will be his response?

The woman is actually recounting her story to the psychologist, building up through flashbacks – and, eventually, with several possible solutions which are also dramatised, including the young man’s disillusionment and suicide, including the woman’s becoming more infatuated and beginning a new and direct relationship with the young man without revealing who she is, or the young man not dying, the former lover having lied about this, and his marrying and having a family.

So, the question is not just to the woman who she thinks she is but who other people think she is.

1. A story of a woman’s middle-age crisis? Her obsession? Consultation with a psychologist?

2. The city setting, apartments, university lecture halls, psychologists office? The various scenes around the city? Authentic – but for fantasy? The musical score?

3. The title, issues of identity, Claire and her creating a new identity on social media, the experience, the consequences?

4. Juliette Binoche as Claire, a woman of 50, the decades of marriage, her husband walking out on her for a younger woman, her being hurt, her two boys and the distance in her relationship with them, their responses to her, at home, with their father, the meals, the football match?

5. The visit to the psychologist, the new doctor, her having to start again, the doctor and her silences, listening? Refusing to be manipulated by Claire, no personal revelations by the doctor? The range of the visits over time? Claire, wanting to tell her story, yet restricting the information? The range of the interviews and Claire’s gradually telling the story?

6. The relationship with Ludo, sexual, his seeming indifference, leaving her? Desperation, his insensitivity? The phone call, Alex on the phone, playing games and hanging up? Her curiosity about Alex? The decision to get some revenge on Ludo and Alex? The decision to set up the page, her name, age, her niece’s photos and videos? Her enjoying playing the game, Alex and his response, becoming further involved, the intimacy of his text messages, the voices on the phone? The growing effect on Claire and her becoming more involved? Making up stories, the fashion, model, her behaviour, eventual relationship with a fiance, consent to marry?

7. Alex, photographer, young, earnest, caught up by the persona on social media, becoming more involved, conversations, intimacy? His travelling to Goa?

8. Claire explaining the story to the psychologist? Eventually writing the book, giving it to the psychologist to read?

9. The narrative of the film, moving towards fantasy? Alex, his return, wanting to meet Claire, her presence at the rendezvous, his searching for his imagined Clara? Her saying she was marrying, going to Brazil? Claire and her meeting with Ludo, his explaining Alex’s death, driving over a cliff? Claire being distraught?

10. Claire, her feelings of guilt and responsibility? Her creating a different story, meeting Alex, making the Ludo connection, their sharing, his photographing her, falling in love with her, her response? Happy? Claire and her setting up for Alex to have the meeting with Clara, his finding the phone, realising her identity, his return to the cafe, her backing out onto the street and her being knocked out? The finale to her story?

11. The psychologist and commenting on her punishing herself even in the story? The question of why she was so angry and reacting? The revelation that Clara was her niece, the liaison with her husband? The resentment that Clara had taken over her life?

12. The psychologist, meeting Ludo, hearing the truth about Alex, marrying, having a child?

13. Claire, the experience as a kind of exorcism, the continuing to work on the manuscript, her imagination, solving her problems and resentments?

HAPPY DEATHDAY 2 U

US, 2019, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jessica Rothe, Israel Broussard, Phi Vu, Suaj Sharma, Sarah Yakin, Rachel Matthews, Ruby Modine, Steve Zissis, Charles Aitken, Missy Yager, Jason Bayle.
Directed by Christopher Landon.

Christopher Landon, who directed the first film, Happy Deathday, has written the screenplay here. He really must have enjoyed doing the original and let his imagination run while writing (he had lots of horror-touch speculation with the Paranormal Activity series). And what about his use of the Flower song from Lakme as background to the central characters being hurled through the air in slow motion and the jauntiness of the Bee Gees’ Stayin’ Alive for the final credits as the heroine of both films, Tree, finally stayed alive!

Technically, Happy Deathday 2 is described as a sequel. However, with all the déjà vu and with all the déjà vu all over again, it is more of what we might call at a meal, seconds, a second helping, the same course but with extra garnishings. Again, it could be called an exercise in recycling, all the key plot elements, the central characters, the murder mystery and the ever-suffering and often-dying heroine. One of the jokes was that in the first film she had never heard of Groundhog Day and this time is bewildered when Back to the Future is quoted!

At first, it seemed that we were going to have an alternate character having the nightmares and being continually killed, quite an entertaining lead-on. But, after getting interested in Ryan, the scientist and inventor, we discover that he was part of Tree’s recurring nightmares. She again was the target. It is entertaining déjà vu, seeing her initial birthday scene from the first film as she walked through the university grounds, our being reminded of those characters she met. And then, there she was of waking up in Carter’s room, same dialogue, the enjoyable repetitions.

One enjoyable aspect was the whole tongue-in-cheek approach to the dialogue, sometimes very corny, at other times witty, the cast playing it for laughs as well as fright, the creative variations on the being murdered every day theme.

There is also a good twist in the plot, the murderer in the first film still alive and not guilty, nor the criminally insane man – but an enjoyable shooting denouement.

And, for the young audience, the creation of the time machine with all its logarithms (and the device of having Tree memorise what she learned every day and communicate that to the inventors who are getting it every day for the first time, cumulative effect for a solution). As regards the multiverse possibilities, we can enjoy the quick demonstration of folding a serviette, poking a pen through it, opening it up and finding six identical pieces with holes. There were other explanations which we wouldn’t try to understand!

This all added up to a pleasing re-visit, enjoyment of the twists in the plot, something akin to those ways of storytelling where the audience has the option of pressing one button, a “what if…? and going in that direction or pressing alternate button and finding a different plot development, a different “what if…?�. So, some sentiment with Tree meeting her mother again, some romance with Carter who was involved with the insufferable Danielle; but the screenplay did capitalise ironically on the character, pretentious pontificating, but utilising her practising acting as a blind person so to distract the Dean with his knitting as an antidote to smoking, get the Dean’s keys to steal back their machine which he had angrily confiscated many times at the zero moment.

A warning for exiters who must leap up to leave soon as the first credit appears, there is a very entertaining episode during the credits.

1. The popularity of the original? In terms of plot, twists, the Groundhog Days scenario, Tree and her deaths, waking up, the other characters? The resolution?

2. The second helping with this sequel? Recycling? Audiences enjoying it? The expansion of the plot, themes, characters? Science and the multiple dimensions?

3. The University campus, the rooms, socials, science laboratory, hospitals? The musical score?

4. The initial focus on Ryan, his nodding off, waking, going across the campus, the encounters, his friend, the work on the Time Machine, the Dean’s arrival, wanting to confiscate, the murderous presence in the cupboard, the same mask? His waking up, audiences expecting him to be the subject of the film? His discussions, retracing his steps, and Tree waking up, her being the centre of the recurring dreams?

5. Tree, the first film, her love for her father and mother, the dead mother, her birthday, the repetitions, her going to the restaurant, the delight in finding her mother alive, their talks?

6. Her waking up, her relationship with Carter, his not being aware of it, his relationship with Danielle and Tree’s reaction? Ryan, his associates, their work on the experiment, his thesis? The Dean and his hostility?

7. The audience seeing Tree walk across the campus – déjà vu from the first film? Her relationship with Danielle? Not attending the sorority meetings? Danielle and her pretensions? Relationship with Carter? Lori as her roommate, memories of the first film, the birthday cake, the murder? Lori as innocent? Her work at the hospital, the relationship with the doctor? The insane man at the hospital? The same policeman on guard?

8. Tree’s Groundhog Day experiences, always waking up the same, Carter and his same words, getting dressed…? Her discussions with Ryan and the others? Time dimensions, multi-verse? The illustration with the serviette and the pen through it, the different time areas? Tree wanting to go back? Where she related well with Carter? But where her mother was dead?

9. Her method, her memories, working with the group each day, testing out the logarithms, seeing which ones worked? Beginning again each day, giving information to the group, their continuing to work? The Dean and his hostility?

10. Tree, her dilemma, as to which era she wanted to belong? The various visits to the hospital, the confrontation with the insane man, the attack on the policeman, the doctor and his presence, Lori and the relationship? The irony of the murderer being the doctor, his wife shooting Tree, shooting Lori, but their getting her and her recovery? The irony of the doctor killing his wife because he wanted a divorce?

11. The buildup to the climax, Tree and her decision, the farewell to her mother? The Dean confiscating the machine, Danielle and her practising to act as a blind woman, their drawing on this, her impersonation with the Dean, the farcical aspects of her blindness and getting the keys, giving them to the group, their getting the machine? Her being unmasked? The Dean and his hurrying to the machine? The split-second timing? Tree returning to the other dimension?

12. Everybody happy? Tree saved? The sequence during the credits, the group being summoned, their being congratulated on the machine? Their needing somebody to be a test case – and Tree contacting Danielle!

COLD PURSUIT

UK/Norway/Canada, 2019, 119 minutes, Colour.
Liam Neeson, Tom Bateman, Tom Jackson, Laura Dern, William Forsythe, Emmy Rossum, Micheal Richardson, David O' Hara.
Directed by Hans Petter Moland.

Here is Liam Neeson again in an action show. However, the origins of Cold Pursuit are in the Norwegian film which screened at festivals, Kraftidioten, which was released around the world and screened on Australian television as In Order of Disappearance. The director was Hans Petter Moland, Norwegian. Cold Pursuit is a North American remake, most if it filmed in Canada, the province of Alberta, with some photography in Norway itself.

This is not a film festival entry. Rather, it is a popular action show for the multiplexes. Liam Neeson has shown an aptitude for this kind of film with the Taken series and many other action films. Once again, he is the strong silent type, physically strong, not particularly communicative, but, when faced with the tragic murder of his son by heroin overdose, he becomes a vigilante bent on vengeance. (If one notices that the actor playing the son resembles his father, that is true, it is Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson’s son, Micheal.)

While there are many, many vigilante films, this one is more complex than usual. While the central character does take justice into his own hands and is quite ruthless in the confrontations, in the killings, and the planned disposal of the bodies, the screenplay also makes points about the power of wealthy criminals, their entourage of thugs, the drug agents and supervisors, the dealers, the exploitation of willing drug customers, especially the wealthy.

Neeson is Nels Coxman, named citizen the of the year in his Canadian town of Kehoe, three hours’ drive from Denver. He explains that he has taken the right road in life, the same road, with his extraordinary snowplough and his commission to make sure the roads are clear. (And, with such a huge snowplough, we know that it will have a significant role in the final confrontation).

Coxman’s wife (Laura Dern) is hit hard by the death of her son and her feeling that they had never known who he really was. She abandons her husband.

In the meantime, there are quite some plot complexities in the portrait of the arch-villain, his nickname of The Viking, a next-generation criminal, well-dressed, well-educated, a health-fanatic imposing extraordinary diets on his young son, who also presumes that there are codes for criminal dealings and that all criminals should abide by them. He is divorced and shares custody of his son who goes to a private school. This, of course, will lead to justice issues with Coxman having lost his son and using the Viking’s son for a confrontation. In fact, the young boy, proves to be an interesting and strong character in himself.

But, that would be too straightforward. The Viking suspects that the killer of his agents is a Native American Indian his father did deals thirty years earlier for territories with The Viking’s father. This leads to strong eye for an eye vengeance, highlighting the drug networks around Denver and in the ski resorts, leading to the death of the chief’s, White Bull’s, son.

And, not only that, Coxman getting advice from his former criminal brother (William Forsythe) about hiring a hitman, The Iceman – who goes to The Viking to sell the information, only to receive The Viking’s lethal disapproval of such a betrayal.

There are some sub-plot elements about race relationships between Native Americans and white Americans – and an ironic verbal mixup when the Indians want to book into a luxury hotel and are told that they should have reservations!

Cold Pursuit honours the English-language title of the original film, In Order of Disappearance, regular cards coming up with the names of the ever-increasing number of the deceased.

The film is much as one might expect from a Liam Neeson vengeance action show – but the morality is more complex than usual.

1. A Liam Neeson action adventure, vigilante story, violent and brutal, complexities of situations and motivations?

2. The work of the director, his Scandinavian version, this American adaptation? The relatively different titles?

3. Colorado, the city of Kehoe, the city of Denver, the mountains, the winter snow, the ploughs, the resorts? Mansions, homes, offices? The musical score?

4. The original title, In Order of Disappearance, and the regular cards coming up throughout the film with the names of the deceased?

5. Nels Coxman’s world? His wife, his being silent, preparing for the award, his speech, his relationship with his son, hunting with him, the news of the death, his grief, his wife and her withdrawal, leaving him? The note with nothing on it? His work, the plough, clearing the roads of snow? His pride in his work, the road that he chose?

6. The information about the drugs, the audience seeing the treatment of the son, the injection, his being propped up dead at the restaurant? Speedo and the other members of the gang, abduction, Dante escaping, the injection, the nightclub and there way of life?

7. Nels and Dante, his going to the garage? The explanation of taking the drugs, his son not involved? The name of Speedo? Tracking him down, the confrontation, killing him, wrapping the body, the waterfall? Further names, Limbo and the shop, bridalwear? His death? The name of Santa, at the airport, his car, confronting him with the plough, destroying the drugs?

8. The further information, going to his brother, information about The Viking? Wanting a hitman? The information about the Iceman? Meeting with him? Handing over the money? The Iceman going to visit The Viking, the money deal, The Viking killing Iceman, disloyalty to contracts?

9. Nels’ brother, Wingman, his wife, from the massage parlour, her dominance, later going to his grave and walking off in a huff? His final ride with The Viking, his past work with the drug dealers, his death?

10. The character of The Viking, his father creating an empire, his ex-wife, his son, the issues of diet, schooling, his achievement, custody issues? His being a psychopath yet his being a stickler for rules? The range of henchmen, the jokey man and the $20 bill and the maids, the homosexual relationship of the two men, the entourage?

11. Drug dealing in Colorado, the region, dividing the areas, the Native American Indians, White Bull and his deal with Viking’s father?

12. The Viking making the wrong decision about the Indians, killing the son, hanging him on the signpost? The Indians and their rituals, revenge? The Viking killing the gay man and, sending his head in a box, White Bull not accepting it, killing the messenger?

13. The issue of sons, Coxman’s son, White Bull’s son, The Viking’s son? The Indians keeping watch, preparing for the kidnap? Nels, planning the kidnap, taking the boy home, telling him stories and reading, let him drive? Hiding him in the house? The boy’s escape?

14. The Indians, going to the hotel, the reaction about the Reservation? Out on the slopes and the skiing?

15. The Viking, the phone call to Nels, driving? His ex-wife thinking he had kidnapped the boy? Taking the thugs?

16. The buildup to the confrontation, the shootouts, the many deaths? Survivors? The Viking killed in his car by White Bull? White Bull and Nels and their driving?

17. A moral world, an amoral an immoral world? Activity within such a world?