MID-90s



US, 2018, 85 minutes, Colour.
Sunny Suljic, Katherine Waterston, Lucas Hedges, Na-kel Smith, Olan Prenayy, Gio Galicia, Ryder McLaughlin?.
Directed by Jonah Hill.

This is the first feature film written and directed by Jonah Hill, very well known for his early comedies and later moving into more serious roles, including The Wolf of Wall Street.

Hill was born in 1983 which makes him 12 to 13 in the mid-90s. He was also born in Los Angeles.

This is a very American story, very Los Angeles, about young boys and about adolescence. It has its parallels, of course, with growing up in other cities, especially in the United States, but also around the world. It also has its parallels with what life was like for adolescents in the middle of any decade.

The focus of the film is on the young lad, Stevie (Sunny Sujik), rather quiet at home, living with his mother, Katherine Waterston, and his older brother, turning 18 (and reference made to his mother giving birth to him at eight). Lucas Hedges (Ben is Back, Boy Erased, Three Billboards) plays Ian, the older brother, a taciturn young man.

Most of the film shows Stevie becoming more and more involved with the older group who hang around, expert in skateboarding (and Stevie is definitely not), but of smoking, issues with drugs, sexual encounters – and plenty of the kind of adolescents boasting. The range of friends is varied, some very gung ho (though they do have some moments), Na-kel Smith, a more sympathetic African- American friend who takes notice of. Then the ups and downs in friendships, and his, some jealousy is. There are also the girls, especially older girls, sympathetic, but interested in initiating the young boys in sexual behaviour – which has quite an effect on Stevie.

His mother intervenes at various times, laying down the law on the young men.

Stevie has an accident, is hospitalised, his mother concerned but also inviting the group into the hospital room to be with Stevie.

The film is most likely to appeal to the age range of the central characters. It may have some appeal to parents who are concerned about their adolescent children and trying to understand them. Larry Clarke did a similar thing for the Kids of his time, the film coming out in the mid-90s, a far more stark film than Mid90s with the behaviour of the characters and the seeming absence of their parents.

THE KINDNESS OF STRANGERS

Denmark, 2019 , 112 minutes, Colour.
Zoe Kazan, Andrea Riseborough, Tahar Rahim, Jack Fulton, Finlay Wojtig Hissong, Jay Baruschel, Caleb Landry Jones, David Dencik, Esben Smed.
Directed by Lone Scherfig.

The title has become a classic quotation from Tennessee Williams, Blanche Dubois telling her relatives how she had benefited from the kindness of strangers. This is an apt title for a film of warmth (not always literal for the characters), a film about the need for kindness and kind people who render it, often without question, just from natural goodness.

This is a film about a brutal husband who is a policeman, preoccupied with Internet images of brutality, who has made his wife and two sons suffer, so the film opens with them getting in a car and escaping their house, driving to New York City, the mother, Clara (Zoe Kazan), a housewife with little experience of the world, and the boys, Anthony (Jack Fulton very effective) and Jude (Finlay Wojtik Hissong). The drama of the film is a very distressing reminder of the ordinariness of male brutality in the home and the consequences for mother and children who have to flee the home and are not sure where to go.

A great variety of characters is introduced but, gradually, all of them become interlinked. The most significant is a dedicated nurse, Alice (Andrea Riseborough) who is also based at a church, has organised a soup kitchen, office space for a children’s choir – and she runs a help group whose theme is forgiveness. She certainly embodies the kindness to strangers. In the Forgive group (quite a random selection of rather prickly participants) is a defence lawyer who is depressed because he usually loses his cases, John Peter (Jay Baruchel), and one of his clients who has just emerged from four years in prison, taking the blame for his addicted brother Marc, (very sympathetic Tahar Rahim). Also drawn into the group is a young man, Jeff (Caleb Landry Jones), clumsy by nature, lacking in good practical judgement, forever fired from all jobs but meeting Alice who sees him as a volunteer for the soup kitchen (even though he uses the wrong utensil to pick up the bread rolls), but, with the response of the strangers in his life, he finds some permanence (though not necessarily any greater skills).

Most of the characters at one stage or another converge on a Russian restaurant in New York City, owned by an American who inherited it from his grandfather but who is also not the greatest manager but a kindly host, Bill Nighy with a strange accent and an amusing explanation about it). Marc becomes the manager.

So, quite a mixture. The main focus, of course, is the young mother trying to manage her children, scrounging food, shoplifting, sleeping in the car, taking refuge in a public library, getting more desperate, especially when they are tracked down by her policeman husband, causing them to flee again.

Most audiences will like this film, a good reminder of outreach of justice and kindness (with a salutary scene where an old homeless man speaks to the mother and then accuses her of looking down on him, even of not looking at him, not her intention but, in fact, what she does). This is the kind of film that many reviewers and audiences who like tough dramas sometimes dismiss as too nice (do they really want the film to end with the mother and children out on the street again!).

1. The title, the quotation from Tennessee Williams? Is applied literally to the situations and characters here?

2. The film’s presupposition about human kindness, optimism?

3. The director, Danish perspective, on New York City and Americans, humane, romantic, critique of the poverty and homelessness divisions?

4. New York City, the vistas, the affluent world, the world of the poor and homeless, living in a car, the mean streets, hospitals, factories, the church and the soup kitchen, the space for the children’s orchestra, shops, parties, the Russian restaurant? The musical score?

5. The introduction to Clara, waiting, getting the boys, leaving in the car, driving to New York City, fleeing her husband? Her husband and the explanation of his story, policeman, Clara had a job, meeting, the date, marriage, the children? His inner violence? The brutal images on his computer and Anthony searching for them? Getting Anthony to brutalise his mother? Hatred by all the members of the family, fear of his pursuing them? As a policeman, his contacts, finding them in the Chinese restaurant?

6. New York is a holiday for the children, sites, the library? Clara pretending, the difficulties, the car, the fines, it is being taken away? Are going to the shops, stealing the dress? Looking for food? The family homeless?

7. The portrait of Alice, the kind character, a devoted work in the hospital, the group in the church, the Forgiveness workshop, the participants? Running the soup kitchen? Self-sacrifice? The interest in John Peter, the attraction? Money and her critique of the group meeting? The meeting with Jeff, inviting him to be volunteer, is using the Waller wrong implement for the bread rolls? Seeing Clara and the children? Offering them shelter in the church, due going outside exploring, freezing? Getting ginger out of the hospital? Phoning Mark, getting the help at the Russian restaurant? It becoming too much for Alice, the long shifts, the appeal from the head nurse? The issue of the group getting a grant and location of the hospital? Her returning? Jeff and his kindness – and the sexual offer? The attraction to John Peter, getting a life?

8. Jeff, hapless, awkward and breaking things, being fired from so many jobs, his tossing the chair out the window – and the irony of John Peter later having it in his office? Homeless in New York, at the church, the soup kitchen, Alice getting in to help, his proposal to Alice, getting a job in the Russian restaurant, the door, the welcome, playing balalaika, his being affirmed but not necessarily better fitted for jobs?

9. Mike, his story, reliance on John Peter, his years in jail, taking the rap for his brother? Kitchen work in jail? At the Russian restaurant, talking with Timothy, the jobs, managing, his success? With the staff? Seeing Clara is against, stealing food, later finding her hiding under the piano, putting trays of food for herself and the children? The personal attraction? The phone call from Alice, his taking them upstairs and the hideout? A genial man, returning to Alice’s group? The discussions with Timothy, getting the rights to manage? The bond with Clara, the future together?

10. Timothy, inheriting the restaurant, his Russian grandmother, his accent – and the later revelation of his ordinary accent and the reasons for his putting it on? Presence in the restaurant, the band, their performance, his sitting back and watching, interventions and Mark tell him not to? Handing over, and his right comments on Jeff at the door?

11. Clara and her wanting a lawyer, getting the help of John Peter, the visits, the discussions? Dude and his staying out on the night, can’t hospital, becoming better, Alice getting amount, his refusal to talk to his mother? The court case, the evidence, the lawyers and their help, the hearings?

12. Richard’s father, Clara going to him for help, his refusal, even money? His son going to, asking for his help on Richard bashing him?

13. The eventual court hearing, in favour of Clara and the children? Compensation? Finding accommodation, a new car? Going back home? The discussions, school for the boys, the decision to move, due to giving his consent? The return to New York City, schools? Clara and her job, with
Mark?

14. A film of kindness, romance, too nice for many hard-nosed critics – and wondering whether they would prefer the family to be homeless again as a satisfying ending for a serious movie!

THE GROUND BENEATH MY FEET

Austria, 2019, 108 minutes, Colour.
Valerie Pachner, Pia Hierzegger, Mavie Horbiger, Michelle Barthel, Marc Benjamin.
Directed by Marie Kreutzer.

A strong Austrian psychodrama, focusing on women, written and directed by Marie Kreutzer.

There are two settings. Central character, Lola (Valerie Pachner) is a young business consultant from Vienna, competent, almost completely involved in work. However, she is on constant call for her sister, Conny, diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, in and out of institutions.

On the one hand, the film is a portrait of Conny’s mental illnesses, and demands on her sister, her erratic behaviour, believing the medical staff are conspiring against her, even hallucinations about their treatment. She is Lola’s older sister and, after the death of their mother, was her legal guardian. However, with the illness, Lola is now Conny’s legal guardian and takes the responsibilities very seriously, interrupting her work with phone calls, flying back to Vienna to see her sister and consult with the doctors.

In the meantime, there is restructuring going on in the company and she has the task of preparing programs to explain what could happen in the various departments as well as attempts to save the greatest number of jobs possible. Her boss, Elise, is a strong minded businesswoman as well – and the audience discovers that the two are in a sexual relationship.

There are various intrigues and plotting is going on in the company, about who will be members of committees, who will do consultations, promotions…

While things get worse for Lola, she fears that she is having hallucinations, phone calls from her sister, a phone call which seems to know all about her behaviour in the situation with Elise. She goes to a doctor but does not continue with the consultation.

The climax is the restructuring, the plan for Lola to go to Sydney for some years, the macho attitudes of one of her co-workers (sexually harassing Lola as does one of the clients).

While Conny seems to be getting better and is released under Lola’s care, there is drama with Conny falling to her death and Lola not getting the promotion that she expected.

A drama exploring the behaviour of paranoid schizophrenics as well as compulsive businesswoman and nervous breakdowns.

1. Psychological drama? A drama about women? Schizophrenia, nervous breakdown? Consequences?

2. The settings in Vienna, in the city of Rostock? City life, apartments, streets, hospitals, psychiatric wards, business offices? The musical score?

3. The story of Lola, waking in the morning, her voiceover about mornings, light and darkness, her age, going for runs, the continual visiting of the gym, the range of exercise? About to fly, the phone call about Conny, her visiting the ward? The relationship with her sister, their parent’s death, Conny as legal guardian for the young Lola? Her disappearance for two years? Conny’s collapse, Lola as legal guardian for Conny? The phone calls, the moods and outbursts, Conny and her erratic behaviour, words, antagonisms? Lola’s visits and the mood swings? The paranoia about listening in on phones, not being fed, tied up, the conspiracies against her?

4. Lola and the phone calls, and the eerie aspect of hallucinations, trapped in the lift, naked with Elise, her being observed and ordered, running out into the square? Her concern about hallucinations, going to the doctor, not following through on the tests?

5. The workplace, the situation, her role as a consultant, her expertise, her reliance on Birgit as a secretary? The relationship with Elise, the boss, the sexual relationship in the visits? The discussions, about the business? The restructuring the business, the talking with the veteran of 27 years? Issues of job loss, new clients, drawing up plans, recitations, the selection of members of the teams, the meetings, the meals with clients?

6. The entries in the office, the various plots, secrecy, the effect? Lola and her continued work? Fatigued?

7. The men, office harassment, at the meal and the guest’s talk about sexual activity under the table? Lola going into the toilet to confront Sebastian, sexuality and the dominance of the penis?

8. The relationship with Elise, telling the truth about Conny, the clash? Her returning to the meeting, Sebastian’s reaction, the plan to go to Sydney, Elise sending Sebastian? The selling of the apartment, packing, the discussions with the agents? The importance of the care of Conny, her being better, coming out and being settled, returning the cat from the care centre?

9. Elise, the sense of betrayal, if the sexual attraction, Lola and her new job as assistant?

10. Conny, jumping to her death, the call to Lola, Lola and her breakdown, behaviour, in hospital, mentioning 48’s in her delirium – 48 hours of continued work?

11. The visit to the cemetery, the deaths of the family? The talk about being an orphan?

12. Back to exercise, the future and the business? And the summary of images during the final credits, and glimpses of Lola, past and future? And the lyrics of Leonard Cohen’s song?

THE GUILTY

Denmark, 2018, 87 minutes, Colour.
Jakob Cedergren; Voices of: Jessica Dinnage, Omar Shagawi, Johan Olson.
Directed by Gustav Moeller.

The Guilty was Denmark’s official nomination for the 2018 Oscars for Best Foreign Language Film. It won many awards and was critically praised – and bloggers seem to be unanimous in their appreciation for the film.

On paper, the film looks fairly straightforward, a police story, cases that they have to handle. At first, this is confirmed with a man ringing in complaining of being mugged – and it turning out that he had picked up a prostitute who mocked him. There is also a drunk who does not know where he is. In this way we are introduced to the Emergency Service in Copenhagen, and the work of the man on duty, Asger.

In fact, the film is not quite as we expected at all. The action does not leave the Emergency Services rooms, concentrating completely on Asger, some interactions with the other members of the staff at the office, his communications by phone with other officials in order to get action going, some communication with a friend (which has serious repercussions by the end of the film).

A number of commentators have been reminded of the film, Locke, with Tom Hardy, the action which takes place completely in a car as the central character drives. Then there is Buried, with Ryan Reynolds, the action taking place in a coffin which has been buried. Quite a challenge for a writer and director to keep audiences interested. But, The Guilty, certainly retains the interest.

It is night. Asger is a sympathetic man though with some tensions which manifest themselves either by his becoming oblivious to his surroundings or being sharp with other officials.

The main part of the film, which is a comparatively short film, concerns a woman phoning in, gradually revealing that she has been abducted, is ringing the police but pretending to be talking to her young daughter. Asger keeps her on the phone, gets what information he can, communicates it to other officers. He also uses his wits, finding the address of the abducted woman, phoning and talking to her little daughter, gaining more information about the father and the parents’ separation, his visit to the house, his violent outburst, the little girl caring about her little brother and concerned about her mother.

Without revealing any of the plot, it can be said that there is quite a twist in this episode, audiences asking themselves how they responded to the interrogations, the evidence, the behaviour of the mother, the behaviour of the father, the repercussions on the little girl, especially when Asger is able to advise police to go to the house.

This development makes the film more involving for the audience, interested in how Asger is handling the situation, the relative behaviours of the mother and the father.

Throughout the film, Asger has been phoning a friend who is to give testimony the next day in a court case – the friend has testified to firing a gun but the revelation is that Asger fired the gun. In a moving conversation at the end, Asger admits the truth in the film leaves him at the door, going home, with the audience speculating on what he is thinking and how we will he will behave in the court the next day, his career, his friend, his conscience.

1. An interesting film? Nominations and awards?

2. A Danish film, the city of Copenhagen? Emergency Services offices, interiors? The film remaining in the interiors? The musical score?

3. The title, the reference to the cases coming in, the drunk man, the man picking up the prostitute, the issue of the abduction, the death of the baby? Asger himself?

4. The confining the action to the interiors, the effect on the audience, the close-ups of Asger and his work at the phone, his movement around the offices, the other members of the staff present? The action going outside with the phone calls, coming in, the phone calls going out, the range of action to be taken because of the abduction case? Asger and his phoning his friend about the court case?

5. The initial cases, the audience getting the feel of the office, the kind of phone calls, how they were handled, information in detail? Collaboration from other offices? Asger and his talking to his superior? Also on phone duty?

6. The key case, the woman ringing, the phone call and her pretending to talk to her daughter, Asger and his asking questions for her to say yes or no, his getting the information, her abduction, her husband, the van? The attempts of the police to locate the van?

7. The emotional effect on Asger, his upset, his reaction to talking to the various other officials on the phone, their being businesslike and doing their duty, his concern?

8. His getting more information about the caller, addresses, phone numbers, his ringing the daughter and having a conversation with her, her shrewdness, her father getting her to memorise the phone number, her being six? The concern about her little brother? Asger phoning the police and their sending officials to the house? The news of the dead baby, the little girl and the blood? The development of the mystery?

9. The information from the little girl, the turning of the expectations, Asger and his information about the husband, phoning him, the husband’s reaction, the truth gradually emerging? The mother and her psychiatric condition, killing the child? The husband taking her to the institution? His grief at the death of his son? Asger trying to help?

10. The mother coming on the phone again, threatening to jump from the bridge, her reaction to her killing the child? Asger trying to talk her down, the call stopping?

11. The news that the mother was safe? Asger and his ringing his friend Rashid, Rashid taking the blame about firing the gun, not wanting to be proven a liar in court?

12. The important discussion that Asger had with the mother, telling her the truth, his killing the young man, vengeful motives, his friend taking the blame?

13. Asger and his going home, the phone call, standing at the door, his hesitation? And the audience speculating as to what he will do?

BREAKING THE WAVES


An OCIC Statement.

Director Lars Von Trier astonished the cinema world by announcing that he had become a Catholic. Opinions were divided about Breaking the Waves. It won the Jury prize at Cannes and was nominated for Oscars. Many Catholic magazines, including Cine & Media, featured it. However, many women found it offensive, a chauvinist view of women, even if Von Trier presented them as saints and martyrs. It was all for the sake of the man (just as in the early Church the male hierarchy honoured women martyrs who were tortured, virgin martyrs who were raped before execution). There is a powerful scene where Emily Watson's Bess is expelled from the church because she did not have uncondition love for the Word of God (she replied in her simplicity that you could not love a word, only a person).

This is a very demanding film to watch as well as to think about and discuss. It won the Grand Prix at Cannes last year and the best European film of 1996. The film, the director and actress, Emily Watson, have won US awards and received many award nominations. However, it is also a film which divides opinions. A number of critics, both men and women, have called it highly mysogenistic and have dismissed it as the chauvenistic storytelling of an eccentric director.

Writer-director, Lars Von Trier, who has recently become a Catholic, is Danish and has made some sombre films about the dark side of European culture like Zentropa and a television min-series parodying hospital soap-operas, The Kingdom. Here he comes into the light but his story is still dark. But it is also strongly religious.

The film's plot would have worked well in the tradition of grim Scandinavian storytelling but, for financial reasons, he has made his film in English and re-set it in Scotland in the early 70s, in a small village, with the sternest of Calvinist religion, which hosts workers on a nearby North Sea oil-rig.

Emily Watson is Bess - and her Oscar-nominated performance is saddenning and moving. She is simple, but has attracted Jan, who works on the rig, and they marry. Bess's story is told in several chapters, beginning happily with the wedding and moving more and more towards tragedy, especially when Jan is severely injured in an accident trying to save a worker.

Here is where the audience begins to have difficulties. What Jan asks of Bess and what she agrees to do is jolting, Bess becoming more and more of a suffering figure, a martyr. The relationships between men and women, the domination of Jan, the loving surrender of Bess and the cruel consequences are ambiguous, to say the least, and really need discussion.

The theme of Bess as martyr is forcefully portrayed as she spends a lot of the film praying, talking to her God (a stern God) but also, in her prayer, speaking what she hears God (sometimes far less stern) saying to her. This confirms that the film is working on the level of a spirituality, but a spirituality that some will identify with (or reject) and that many will find alienating.

During a forum on the film, I heard many people analysing the film as if it were exactly real life or as if it were a report on a current affairs program. If one's response is `realistic', then one misses the nuances of meaning that the film-maker is trying to communicate in images. This is especially true of the ending and the fates of Bess and Jan and the very last pictures and sounds. Not an easy experience, but one worth examining.

THE DAY AFTER I’M GONE

Israel, 2019, 98 minutes, Colour.
Menashe Noy, Zohar Maidan.
Directed by Nimrod Elder.

This is a first film by the director. It is an accomplished piece of work, a portrait of a family in Tel Aviv, entry into the professional world of a veterinary surgeon, an attempted suicide and his response, the support of the extended family.

There is a symbol, photographed at length at the opening, a large hurdy-gurdy in the night, the people on the seat swinging around. This recurs later in the film. It then moves to veterinary work, a leopard brought in for surgery. This is the introduction to the central character, Yoram, a doctor skilled as a vet.

His wife has died a year earlier and he is living with his 17-year-old daughter, a largish girl, upset, not communicating with her father, disappearing for some days, attempting suicide. The police get information from social media and enter the house, taking the girl, her father giving an analysis, her stomach pumped, her being able to leave – with the father having a long conversation with the social worker and her concerns.

The latter part of the film has father and daughter travelling to the town where the extended family live, a factory site, the building of a war memorial which has been attacked by Arabs and the racist comments of the builder, the more sensitive sympathetic members of the family and a meeting where they all say their piece, the father bursting out in desperation.

There is some hope because of the communication, the daughter driving home which she had previously not been allowed to, her being more at home with her father at the end.

A perceptive look at father daughter relationships, death and grief, low self-image and suicide attempts.

1. A focus on Israeli life, families, professions, crises and family support, social conditions in Israel, anti-Arab stances?

2. The title, the emphasis on death, memories of the death of the mother, Roni and her attempted suicide?

3. The opening, the hurdy-gurdy in the night, the people in the seats, the bright colours? The recurring of the image later? And as seen from Yoram’s balcony? The musical score?

4. Yoram, vet, the leopard carried in for surgery, his skills? Being seen in his office, his conversations with his assistant, the story of the rice in jars with good words and bad words? In surgery, his skills?

5. Yoram driving to the animal park, the visuals of the animals, the father wanting to get his son’s ball and his being rebuked by Yoram, more severely by the park ranger, the explanation of the dangers, putting down the animals – but the ranger finding the ball and giving it back?

6. The phone call from Roni, her disappearance, his contacting the police? The interrogation and the range of questions, all about social media – and his ignorance? His concern about her being absent? Her work at school? Not getting into the band? Her sudden return?

7. Her mental condition, her being large, forgetting her key and waking her father up, ignoring him, contact by text?

8. The police arriving, the message about suicide, Yoram’s disbelief, finding his daughter, his analysis, her being taken to the hospital, the stomach pumped, her being saved? His discussion with the counsellor, her advice, especially about talking, communication, issues with her dead mother, the means for healing?

9. Yoram, the decision to go to the extended family, Roni not wanting to go, and wanting to drive? His not allowing her? Stopping on the way, the discussions? The phone call from the grandmother?

10. The picture of the extended family, Yoram and his wife’s family? The grandmother and her concern, the brother, the sister-in-law, the younger generation, the neighbours? The conditions in that area, the sea, the factory, difficulties? The sinkholes?

11. Giving the lift to the magician, his tricks – and his reappearing with the mute boy in the dream, with the Israelis wanting to shoot them?

12. His brother-in-law, the factory, building the memorial for the war dead, the attacks by the Arabs, his racism? His forthrightness in the discussions with Roni? The contrast with his wife, the conversations with Yoram, her concern, gentle in the family meeting, as was the grandmother? The neighbour and his plan, inviting people to talk? The younger people?

13. Roni, her relationship with the family, the children going for the swim, her going and sitting in the sinkhole? Her reaction to the family concerns? Her father and his shouting outburst in desperation?

14. The return home, her driving, the house, her not going to her room, watching the television, her father looking out from the balcony? Their future?

WHAT SHE SAID: THE ART OF PAULINE KAEL

US, 2018, 95 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Rob Garver.

For audiences who have read Pauline Kael’s books and her film reviews, noted over the decades with her very strong opinions, forthrightly given, this is an opportunity to get to know something of the person herself, her background, her journey into film reviewing and comment, devotees and those who are hostile. For those who do not know her, the film opens up the period of film reviewing in the United States from the 1960s to the end of the century.

Pauline Kael was a very strong character. She came from a farming community in California (the film showing scenes of Hud to illustrate this). She watched films from a very young age and decided that this was to be her area – although she did try to write some plays which were not so successful. She had a daughter by an artist, James Broughton, and marriage, briefly to a New Yorker executive. However, she tended to be her own woman – although her daughter was devoted to her, spending a lot of time typing her material because Pauline Kael always wrote in long hand.

She wrote an essay very critical of Charlie Chaplin’s Limelight and that led to further writing, a variety of magazines, losing her job at times because editorial judgements that she was not responding to the current tastes. Eventually, she went to the New Yorker, doing six-month stint with the other six months of the year left to British writer, Penelope Gilliat. At one stage, she went to California to work on a film with Warren Beatty, pulled out, stayed as a consultant. She was also very popular on the lecture circuit.

She was very strong on the role of women in society, commenting how males assume that women could not think as intellectually as they did. She was very strong on the intellectual approach to films, enjoying them, but also analysing how they were made, what they were saying, and the context in which they were made and released. While she was very critical of Andrew’s Sarris and his Auteur Theory, she did take up some favourite directors, taking some credit for their success, especially during the 1970s, including Scorsese, DePalma?, Coppola, but could be very critical about others, taking apart the metaphysics and transcendence of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001.

The film has a great number of talking heads, fellow critics, especially some devoted to her, nicknamed the Paulettes, although one says he was a Paulinista. There are commentaries from the business perspective as well as distribution. There are comments from a number of actors but there are even more comments from directors, especially analysis from Paul Schrader who knew her before he became a film director. Once again, some in favour, some hurt by her criticisms, especially interview sections with David Lean and his reaction to her carving him up at a public meeting.

In some ways, the film is outdated, because Pauline Kael was published in magazines, published critic. The 21st century has seen a proliferation of reviewers as well as anyone having an opinion and having free scope with blogging on particular sites. However, she raises many issues about how a person sees a film, enjoys it, appreciated, criticises it, analyses issues.

THE GOLDEN GLOVE/ DER GOLDENE HANDSCHUH

Germany, 2019, 115 minutes, Colour.
Jonas Dassler, Margarete Tiesel.
Directed by Fatih Akin.

While there is a great deal to commend in the technical aspects of this film, performance, photography, editing, direction, it will be for most audiences a horrible experience. The horror is in the basic story. The horror is in the ways in which brutality is visualised.

Fatih Akin has a strong international reputation and has directed many films, often with harsh and violent themes. He has written the screenplay as well as directed this film, based on the story of a brutal killer in Hamburg, 1970-1974, around the time that the director was actually born in that city of Turkish ancestry, 1973. So, he knows the situations well.

The killer in the film, portrayed as a monster, visually ugly, broken teeth, a stoop when standing and in his walking gait, is a tour de force performance by Jonas Dassler. In the prologue, there is graphic sexual behaviour and violence for quite some minutes, the threat of the killer, Fritz Honka, sawing the limbs of his victim after his anger outburst and killing – but finally, the sawing beginning off-screen. However, there are several murders later presented far more explicitly and graphically, an old woman with her head continually bashed on a table in his room, a large prostitute being strangled by him with a scarf, the scene protracted for quite some time.

So, the question is raised about the limits for the “how� in the presentation of such violence. The scenes can be presented, but the discretion and taste of the director is the issue as well as how it affects its audience.

The initial action takes place in 1970, Honka getting rid of the body parts in the rubbish dump, but some of the missing, wrapped and stored in a sealed space in his attic apartment.

1974 focuses on students coming from school, young girl, Petra, being urged to better things by teachers but her complete ignoring of them, impassive. She gets into conversation with a new student, Willie, has a cola with him and he asks if he can take her out. Honka sees her and she becomes a kind of vision for him as well as for his lust. He will imagine her in various circumstances. In fact, Willie does go to the red light area, venturing into The Golden Glove, with its seedy and drunken characters, later bringing Petra but falling foul of a former SS officer who humiliates him in the urinal, urinating on him, Petra trying to find him but his urging her to go home. She is seen by Honka who follows her out of The Golden Glove only to find when he gets into his street that the building is on fire. He has explained to the police that he lives in the attic – and, when the body parts are discovered, he is arrested and confesses.

Another subsidiary character is Honka’s brother, his marriage failed, his drinking, his range of aphorisms which his brother admires.

There are also the habitues of The Golden Glove, the 79-year-old who drinks gin and tonic and comments, various other old men who have all kinds of nicknames, as well as the men at the bar who are used to the clientele, keep the blind shut because people don’t drink in sunlight, and managers everyone well, even when the cleaning lady comes in. Then, there are other prostitutes, especially the older women, gone to seed, alcoholic, drinking all day, ready for a client if they get the offer.

The most significant of these is an old lady who has no money but is given a drink by Honka and taken back to his house, his trying to force himself on her sexually, in a seedy bedroom, with his main room adorned with photos of naked women. He asks about her daughter and makes a contract that she brings her daughter to see him, but the daughter has gone to Vienna, which enrages Honka. However, surprisingly, she cleans the house, tidying everything, stays on to cook for Honka and his brother. She escapes death because the Salvation Army woman officer who visits The Golden Glove, spurned by a lot of the women, denouncing nuns and their education, takes the old woman to a shelter – one moment of grace in the film.

Other women are not so successful, one escaping after Honka forcing himself on her, her companion being bashed to death, and, later, the big woman who is strangled.

The range of actresses portraying these women is quite extensive, most persuasive performances.

A one stage, Honka is knocked down by a car, comes back from hospital prepared to give up all alcohol, even having a night at home, cold turkey. He gets a job as a security guard in a business firm, proud of his uniform, very conscientious (a touch of the German orderliness). He encounters the cleaning lady and later is invited by her to have a party for her birthday with her husband in the building. This has such an effect on Honka that he feels he is in love with her. She has a conversation about her sad life and he violently approaches her, drinking, all his plans undone.

It is in this context, more drinking at The Golden Glove, that he does have the vision of Petra but is thwarted because of the fire.

Ironically, there is the terrible smell in his apartment of the limbs that are hidden away, people often commenting on the stink but his explaining that it is the Greeks downstairs (and an outpost of hatred towards foreigners) and the continued special cooking. On the night of the fire, the Greek family has assembled and is celebrating when, from the roof, maggots start falling on to them and the family gets out of the house, forgetting to turn off the stove which then sets the fire.

Of course, there is much to intrigue in this portrait of the killer – but the audience left to work out his sanity and madness, his violence and sexual preoccupations by observing him in action rather than and psychological explanations offered.

In the opening prologue, audiences may be reminded of Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang’s 1931 portrait of a serial killer, M. The visuals resemble mad characters in this silent era. When the action is explained as taking place in Hamburg in its seedier aspects, the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder come to mind – with Akin offering some kind of homage to Fassbender’s films. And this is confirmed when the audience who know Fassbender’s work see Hark Bohm as the 79-year-old gin and tonic drinker in The Golden Glove.

Featured at the Berlinale of 2019.

(Deborah Young is a respected reviewer. Her review in The Hollywood Reporter is perceptive, articulate and stylishly written, with such observations:
The film detailed without too many scruples or explanations;
A determinedly seamy reconstruction, unremitting bleakness;
Likely to be too much for most viewers to take – unless they are willing to pay for gruesome slumming.)

ONDOG

Mongolia, 2019,
Aorigelatu, Dulamjav Enkhtaivan, Norovsambuu.
Directed by Quan’an Wang.

While there is a murder at the centre of this story, a dead woman found naked in the open plains, alignment policeman guarding her body until reinforcements return the next day, a suspect and interrogation, autopsy for the woman, the murder and the investigation then go into the background.

The Chinese director offers a perspective on Mongolia, its vast landscapes, the inhabitants and their herding, their tents for their dwellings, some adaptations for the 21st century, a particular way of life in this part of the world. The director has also assembled a number of local performers for his film.

However, the film becomes an anthropological study, long visuals of the open landscapes, of the wild horses, of the sheep, camels and a focus on the herdswoman who lives alone, does a man’s work although she needs her neighbour to help her when a sheep is butchered and a cow experiences a difficult birth. There are discussions about marriage and the traditions. There is a modern focus for testing the woman for her pregnancy, explaining this to the man, her being offered an abortion pill. The mobile phone is also the present in this Mongolian world.

The film offers an opportunity for audiences not familiar with Mongolia to enter into this world, see it, hear it, interpret it, understand and empathise with it.

1. The opening, the police driving, looking through the windscreen, the night, the story of the wolves, the nature of hunting, the horses? Issues of whether to aim or fire with intuition? Daylight, the presence of the wolf and the need to get to get a gun to frighten it away? The move towards the police investigation

2. An anthropological film? Mongolia, the landscapes, the history (memories of dinosaurs), the steps, the vastness of the landscapes, the tents and interiors, farm life, the horses, the sheep, herding, the butchering of the sheep, the birth of the calf? Traditions of men and women, work, relationships? The strong women and their work? Camels and horses?

3. The contrast with the 21st-century, traditional ways of life, yet mobile phones, visits to the city, pregnancy tests, abortion pill, the work of the police?

4. The focus on the dead woman in the field, the suspect and the motivation, the arrival of the police, the presence of the wolf, the herdswoman shooting and frightening off the wolf, the police on duty, young, the woman coming with food, comfort and closeness during the night, the conversations? The covering of the body? The police arriving, the removal of the body, their work in the town, the suspect and interrogation? The preparation for the autopsy?

5. The police story falling away and the focus on the woman, help from her suitor, the butchering of the sheep, the birth of the calf, sexual encounters? His continued proposals? Her backing off? Yet the pregnancy and the possibilities?

6. The visual style of the film, panoramic sequences, close-ups, night and day, light and darkness? The application of the open plains?

7. The discussions, the title and the dinosaur egg, memories of prehistory, the traditions? The lifestyle on the plains – from the past, adaptations to the 21st-century? The future of the Mongolians?

GULLY BOY

India, 2019, 155 minutes, Colour.
Ranveer Singh, Alia Bhatt, Siddant Chaturverdi, Vijay Varma, Kalki Koechlin.
Directed by Zoya Akhtar.


The title refers to the central character, Marud (Ranveer Singh) who has a talent for creating rap lyrics and performing. What holds him back is that he belongs to the lower class, possibly the lowest cast, lives in an impoverished area of the city where it is taken for granted that the inhabitants will never rise to anything in their lives, are servants, and need to know their place.

This is Mumbai USA! Although, perhaps, some American audiences might be rather envious of the talent of these Indian rappers and the opportunities they create for themselves and search for. In fact, the screenplay is very American, a story parallel to rappers in the city neighbourhoods – with English subtitles always referring to homies, bro, the hood. And there are drugs and drug dealers in the area.

As for many Indian films, this one runs for over 2 ½ hours. It is in Hindi. It is set in Mumbai. Although the central characters are all Muslim. Interesting to see that the director taking on these themes and male characters is a woman.

The film opens with three friends at a carjacking, a theme that will recur during the film, an episode of desperation that will jolt the consciences of the men.

Murad is doing some studies, financed by his father who is strongly of the opinion that his son must seize any opportunity, working in an office, because that is the most he will achieve in life. The father is a very harsh and physically brutal man towards his son and towards his wife. This harshness of parents is a strong theme of the film, occurring also in the family of the rather tough young woman, Safeena, studying medicine, ambitions to be a surgeon, who has been in love with Murad since they were 13. In her case, the mother is the one who is rather demanding, more than demanding, also physically brutal at moments, wanting to arrange a marriage and only then to allow her daughter to continue studies.

There is a very genial rapper, Sher, who befriends Murad, with friends, speculate on a name for him – it turns out to be Gully Boy. He records for YouTube? and continues to get many hits, many fans. Included is an American-Indian? young woman who has the money to do a project for the University of Music in Boston, working with Sher, lyrics, rhythms, working in a studio, but a very elaborate and entertaining video of one of the songs filmed in the music-video style, right throughout the streets of the neighbourhood – and everyone in the neighbourhood enthusiastically applauding.

So, many emotional problems, confrontations, Safeena being particularly brutal towards women that she feels Threatened her relationship with Marud. In fact, she has a surprisingly short fuse which does not do her any credit and gets her into trouble.

And, as with this kind of film, there has to be a competition. An American rapper is about to visit Mumbai and the call goes out for auditions amongst rappers to be part of his supporting show. Gully Boy walks out on his office job, performs (a competition of pairs sparking off each other with insults galore) and, of course, well, we know what will happen.

In the last part of the film there is a final performance, everybody in Marud’s life present, including his father, and the possibility that he and Safeena will have a future together, he rapping and she is a doctor

So, a blend of Indian contemporary urban problems as well as an enthusiastic embracing of rap music – a different entree into music and dancing in the home of Bollywood.