FEAR AND DESIRE

US, 1953, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
Frank Silvera, Kenneth Harp, Paul Mazurski, Stephen Coit, Virginia Leith, David Allen.
Directed by Stanley Kubrick.

This was the first feature film from Stanley Kubrick at the time that he was working as a photographer for Life Magazine. Subsequently, Kubrick tried to destroy every copy of the film. Some remained and the copy available, especially on You Tube, is of good quality and is preceded with an interview with Kubrick about his attitude towards the film, his choice, the writing, the actors, some good scenes, it is heavy limitations.

The film was released in 1953 through art houses and receive some good reviews. Kubrick then went on to make The Killing and Killers Kiss which were much better for his reputation and then he made his classic Paths of Glory. He was sacked from making One-provide jacks with Marlon Brando but achieved worldwide reputation with Spartacus in 1960. He made Lolita, again a claim for Dr Strange and then his masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. His further films were A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and, finally, in 1999, Eyes wide Shut.

Fear and Desire is a war film, a group of soldiers behind enemy lines in unspecified country. The action, on the whole, is somewhat unconvincing, the behaviour of the soldiers, their not being detected, the presence of the Germans – and, while situations were meant to be tense, they are not so successfully tends dramatically.

While there is action, and the deaths of some of the Germans and the brutal killing of a woman, the screenplay is often rather philosophical about the meaning of life, something which appealed to Kubrick.

Four men spent a lot of time talking about what they will do, going to some to complete seeing all his films. And, ultimately, some are successful in escaping, intending to go on a raft along the river to get over into Allied lines.

There is a commander (who also plays the German commander), a fairly stern man. He does the planning, and successfully escapes. Of interest to moviegoers and movie buffs, a young Paul was a risky, later to have a very successful career in Hollywood, plays a young soldier who becomes somewhat demented. A local girl is captured and he is left to guard her. However, he begins to lust after her, accosting her, repeating, and indulging, becoming bewildered, freeing her from her bonds but, ultimately shooting her. He then disappears only to be picked up unexpectedly by one of the soldiers who is travelling along the river on the raft.

There are some confrontations with the German soldiers, an ambush and the Americans shooting the Germans. They also go down to the house without seeing the German commander. That attack and there is a massacre as well.

Ultimately, the leader and the man on the raft survive and escape, the fourth man being shot in escape.

There is no particular reason to see the film itself although it does have some interest in its philosophical dialogue and some aspects of the acting, especially for visits his character. However, it is an unmissable occasion for Kubrick fans and film buffs to complete viewing of all Kubrick’s films.

ESCAPE ROOM

US, 2019, 98 minutes, Colour.
Taylor Russell, Logan Miller, Jay Ellis, Tyler Labine, Deborah Ann Woll, Nick Dodani, Yorick van Wageningen.
Directed by Adam Robitel.

If you are going to make a terror thriller about a group of young people trapped in a range of rooms in a multi-storeyed building, trying to survive, trying to escape, then this is how you could do it well. It could be seen as an up-market, up-up-market, variation on the Saw series (rather more low-key, much more low-key on the violence and more literate in its word choices in the screenplay, opting for intelligence rather than the crass).

The film makers are rather smart. They offer us a prologue in which one of the characters, one of the less sympathetic characters, is trapped in a room with the walls gradually closing in, his being desperate to find a clue and a key to stop the potential crushing. Then, this prologue stops, and, if audience adrenaline is pumping effectively, the decision is made that, yes, this is a terror and threats thriller that I want to watch.

After which the central characters are introduced, a couple of them quite interestingly. Taylor Russell plays Zoe, a very timid young woman who is intelligent, expert in physics, but contained within herself. By contrast, Jay Ellis portrays a very successful businessman, completely confident in himself. Both of these characters are black. Then there is Ben whom we saw originally, rather ineffectual in his jobs and ambitions. In the waiting room in the building where the escape rooms are situated, we are introduced to Amanda, ex-military (with severe scars on her back after time in Iraq), Deborah Ann Woll, and a rather older man, Michael (Tyler Labine) who is interested in the challenge of going into the escape rooms. Then, Michael and Amanda are white. There is also a rather nerdish young man of Asian subcontinent descent who has participated in a huge range of these escape room games.

So that is the setup, the six people hoping for a financial reward in getting through the game, urged to look for clues, having the possibilities opting out when necessary. (Of course, this doesn’t happen.)

These Escape Rooms are like living through video games in real life, or created fantasies life. They are very difficult, extreme heat, cold and ice, a pool room where the floor gives way and the table is upside down, with Petula Clark singing Downtown, a hospital ward with files on each of them, especially concerning survival when somebody close to them has died. The question soon arises whether they have been personally chosen and are to be punished.

Needless to say, not everybody will survive, some dying by accident, some willing to give their lives so that the rest can survive.

At the end, there are some revelations that the Escape Rooms are in the line of reality television but the question is raised of who is the mastermind, who is master of the games and controls the progress of the games, what is the motivation, prurience, placing bets on survivors? There are some final explanations of future plans which are not necessary for this story which is quite well told in its own way, but there is an opening, of course, for more Escape Room stories (after all, how many Saw films have there been, up to eight or nine!).

1. A tense thriller, madness and threats? Terror experience in survival?

2. The underlying themes, the setting up of the escape rooms, the master planners, the nature of the audiences, paying to watch, the networks, the creation and modification of the rooms, punishing the participants? The bets and gambling?

3. The prologue, Ben, in the room, desperate, audience expectations about the terror, his escape? The initial adrenaline for the audience?

4. The range of the cast, the initial glimpses of them, introductions, they are receiving the boxes, puzzle, trying to open them? The identity of the donors?

5. Jason, the businessman, his plans, age, smart, later revelation about being in the cold with his friend, the jacket, survival, the impact of the dead friend?

6. Zoe, interest in science, the Zeno theory, her roommate and discussions, timidity, in class and gently raising her hand, the professor and his interest? Encouraging her?

7. Ben, in the store, the work, low expectations of him?

8. Amanda, the issue of the money, her being military? The marks and burns on her back?

9. Michael, his age, interest in being there, dare?

10. Dan, his expertise, many games?

11. The gathering, the waiting room, the scenario, the creating of the rooms, the nature of the clues, the possibility of opting out – and its being refused?

12. The drama of the various rooms, audiences identifying with each of the characters and how they would act themselves in such situations? What if the audience were in similar situations? Dealing, coping? Opting out?

13. The range of the puzzles, clever, the concealing of the clues, the group working out the clues, the number of keys, the numbers? Rudolph the red nose reindeer?

14. The variety of the rooms, the heat of the fire, the cold and ice and snow (and Dan going underwater to his death)? The floor disappearing, Amanda falling? Balancing on the rims? The music of Petula Clark and Downtown? The circuit? The billiard balls and upside down?

15. Michael, his death, Jason urging them to profit by his death? His stating, the revelation of the past, his death?

16. The room with all the beds, the analyses of their lives, people’s not surviving when they did? Issues of retribution, guilt?

17. Zoe, the room, her collapse?

18. Ben, the reversal to the initial sequence, his fight to survive, almost crushed, escaping?

19. Coming outside, the environment, the Master, the gardens? Zoe alive? The confrontations in fighting?

20. The explanation of the clients, their interest? Zoe and Ben, six months later, fighting to survive? The scene of the flight test and the
explanations?

21. The overall impact of this kind of terror through a film?

STAN AND OLLIE

UK/US/Canada, 2018, 98 minutes, Colour.
John C.Reilly, Steve Coogan, Shirley Henderson, Nina Arianda, Danny Huston, Rufus Jones.
Directed by Jon S.Baird.

If there is anybody not in the know, Stan and Ollie are the famous comedy duo of the first part of the 20th century, in film and on stage, British Stan Laurel and American Oliver Hardy.

For those who remember, this will be a wonderful indulgence in nostalgia as well as an opportunity to have a look behind the footlights and the camera, some of the real life of the duo. For those who do not know them, this may be an encouragement for them to search out Laurel and Hardy films (and, there are quite a few on YouTube).

What is quite remarkable about the film is how persuasively the two stars embody the characters. John C Reilly can do a great range of characters (even Dr Watson before this one). He is in a fat suit building him up to resemble Ollie, very successfully. On the other hand, Steve Coogan needs little make up for him to resemble Stan. While Stan had some funny routines, as they both do, he is the more serious one, writing a lot of their material, while Ollie is just happy performing and pleasing audiences.

The film opens with the couple at the height of their popularity, having started to make films in the 1920s, short features moving into full-length features. They have been contracted by the entrepreneur, Hal Roach (played by Danny Huston) who has a hold over Ollie but not over Stan. Stan walks out, Ollie makes a film without Stan and the two break up. The scene in 1937 at the studio gives the atmosphere of the dramas and conflicts and contracts but also shows them doing one of their routines, rear projection out West, moving to a cinema audience with rollicking laughter.

The main action of the film takes place 1950s, an arranged tour of England and Ireland, to bring them together again, relying on their routines on stage. There is also a plan to raise money for them to make a film about Robin Hood – Stan telling some jokes and stories about aspects of the script (even visualising it later in the film). However, it is 1953, they are certainly living in good memories and, while they are put up in poor hotels and small theatres by entrepreneur Bernard Delfont (Rufus Jones) and are unhappy, he persuades them to do some commercials, some small episodes for television, which they enjoy and which then gets in the crowds.

Both Stan and Ollie were multi-divorced. They had to pay alimony and so needed the money and Ollie had betting on horse races habit. We see their current wives of the time, script writer and editor, Lucille (an unexpected presence and performance by Shirley Henderson) who was married to Ollie for 17 years until his death and who took care of him, as she does here, when he collapses and the doctor forbids him to go on stage again. Ida (Nina Arianda) is, to say the least, a tough Russian cookie, but devoted to Stan.

At one stage, Stan and Ollie have a dingdong verbal argument, surfacing all the resentments each of them had about the other, then not speaking. However, ultimately, they choose to resolve the fight because they were generally devoted to each other, so much so that Ollie decides he will go back on the stage, travel to Ireland with a huge welcome as they dock, and goes for a final performance.

Throughout the screenplay there are some of the physical jokes from their films as well as a lot of the verbal banter – the two doors sketch at a railway station is particularly funny.

Most of the final credits need not have been there because at the side, there are scenes from the films and their famous dance routine which everybody will be watching and laughing with.

Yes, it is probably time to go back and search for Laurel and Hardy films.


1. The portrait of Laurel and Hardy? Personal lives and relationships? Their careers, comedy routines?

2. John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan and their impersonations? Communicating the essence of Laurel and Hardy?

3. Audience awareness of the popularity, their careers, comedy routines? Response?

4. Re-creation of the period, in the US, 1937? In the UK, 1953? Ireland? The musical score?

5. Their Hollywood career in the 30s? The British and Irish tours in the 1950s? The routines in the film, in their stage performances? The narrative incorporating some routines (the trunk going down the stairs)? The scenes during the final credits?

6. 1937, studios, their careers, at the top, their personalities, the combination in comedy routines? The role of Hal Roach, his studios, demanding, his contract with Oliver Hardy, notwithstanding Laurel? Stan thinking of going independent, his business acumen, writing scripts? Oliver Hardy, wanting people to like him? Still under contract? His making the film with another partner, the film about the elephant? Their making Way Out West, the scenes of the filming, the rear projection, the song and dance routine, the transition to the cinema, the applause of the audience?

7. 1953, not together for 15 years, the suggestion of the tour? The silence between them? The planning of the tour, using the routines, the expectations of the finance for the film about Robin Hood? Hopes?

8. Newcastle, the receptionist responding, carrying up the cases, the poor situation, Bernard Delfont and his meeting, the promotion of Norman Wisdom? The poor theatre, thus audiences? Their dissatisfaction with the situation? But the audience response? Their being persuaded by Delfont to do stunts, television, newsreels? Their enjoying them? The promotion of their tour, the audiences increasing? The Lyceum in London for two weeks? The full houses?

9. The issue of the movie, Stan and his phone calls, being put off, the visit to the office, the blunt truth? His creating and rehearsing scenes? The imaginative scene with the jokes and Oliver in the water? Stan finally telling the truth, Oliver saying that he knew this originally – and the routine about knowing, that he knew about knowing…?

10. The picture of Laurel and Hardy and their relationships, their marriages, financial arrangements, alimony? The divorces? Oliver and his betting and need for money? Lucille, script writer, his proposal, their marriage, for 17 years? Her concern about him, care? The comparisons with Ida, the Russian background, managing Stan, love for him, and dominating personality? Their arrival at the Savoy hotel, the cameras?

11. The clash between the two, the argument, the discussions about true friendship, Hardy doing the film with the elephant without Stan, the the bitter expressions of the argument, the silence for days, the visit to Worthing, the beauty competition, Stan announcing, Oliver collapsing?

12. The consequences of the collapse, Lucille taking over? The doctor and his verdict? Oliver not to go on stage again?

13. Stan, Delfont suggesting a British actor to pair with him? The full house, the performance being called off?

14. Stan coming to see Oliver, the apology, warming him, lying on the bed, the bond between them? The tour in Ireland, on the boat on the Irish Sea, the lavish welcome in Ireland?

15. The last performance, their expertise, the final dance? The applause?

16. The information about Oliver Hardy’s illness and death? Stan continuing to write routines for them even after Hardy’s death?

POLAR

UK/Germany, 2019, 118 minutes, Colour.
Mads Mikkelsen, Vanessa Hudgens, Matt Lucas, Richard Dreyfuss, Johnny Knoxville.
Directed by Jonas Ackerlund.

Polar is based on a graphic novel and its main appeal will be to those who are avid devotees of such a novels. It is particularly graphic – more graphic than the average audience might want to watch. This means strong reservations in whether to recommend it to an audience or not.

However, the central idea has its interest. The action take place in a world of hired men and women who perpetrate hits throughout the world. They are part of a company. Mads Mikkelsen plays one of the last of the hitmen of his generation, turning 60, considered too old for his profession.

For Mikkelsen himself, it is something of a return to the style of film in Denmark, the violent Pusher series, in which he made his mark. He seems to be a conscienceless hitman, dressed in black, going into action with complete ruthlessness.

However, the head of the company, played as a caricature of a caricature by Matt Lucas, wants his associates to get rid of him. There are financial incentives involved, eliminating him and so not having to pay his pension. He has his own particular squad, international group, as well as his advisor, Vivian (Kathleen Winnick).

When the hitman goes to execute his target, he finds that he has been expected, that it is a set up, and that he is to be killed. However, with blood and gore and touches of torture, he escapes. He has used a prostitute and her son as cover to get into the hotel as well as to leave without suspicion.

He then challenges the boss, who lives in Chicago in a lavish mansion, with a very prim receptionist, with thugs galore to protect him as well as the sardonic Vivian ready to betray him as well as to warn him.

The first part of the action consists of the vicious squad threatening the hitman’s accountant, getting his financial papers, going to the various properties that he owns, interrogating residents who know nothing about it, protest their innocence, and are all slaughtered viciously – even filmed viciously.

In the meantime, the audience has seen him retiring to a small town in Montana, encountering a young woman who sells her dog to him, living quietly, even sympathetically. The young woman lives nearby and he buys her gifts. He also helps to train her in shooting a gun but she seems afraid and trembling.

Eventually, the death squad arrive, one of the women posing as a hapless driver broken down on the road, his taking her home, having a sexual relationship with her – and then the rest of the group come, guns blazing. In terms of graphic novel exploitation, the hitman’s ability to turn the tables on all his enemies is quite vivid. However, they abduct the girl.

This leads to confrontation in Chicago, the hitman getting into the building, eliminating the members of the death squad one by one, the rest of the boss’s thugs in corridors and stairwells, even the death of Vivian. Her captors have been filling the young woman with drugs to keep her sedated while the boss tortures the hitman, most explicitly (beyond the human torture even of The Passion of the Christ) and in great detail for three days.

His associates fleeing, the hitman confronts the boss – and, surprisingly, off-camera decapitating him although the head is projected out the window into a street close-up.

Actually, that is not the ending – there is an interesting twist. The hitman has had flashbacks to an occasion in New York City. The explanation is the girl who survived is the young woman in Montana, that he has paid for her education, has not recognised her, and she now wants to confront him and get her revenge. He is willing. But she cannot.

Had the film been edited for a lower classification, with the elimination of so much sadistic violence (masochistic for the audience), with the toning down of the sexual scenes and, perhaps, the amount of nudity as the hitman survives, it might have been a film for a wider audience.

 

 

 

 

ARCTIC

Iceland, 2018, 97 minutes, Colour.
Mads Mikkelsen, Maria Thelma Smaradottir.
Directed by Joe Penna.

if you are an enthusiast for powerful stories of endurance, endurance in impossible locations, prospects of rescue diminishing rapidly, then Arctic can be well recommended. It is precisely that. And, is rather visual in its presentation of a man who has crashed in the Arctic.

This is a film from Iceland, and filmed there. The central character, Overgaard, is played by Denmark's top actor, International presence, Mads Nicholson. In most of his films, he is a very serious character, not exactly prone to comedy. Which means, that he is ideal to portray this pilot, alone in the remote Arctic, crashed, the wing of his plane broken.

Needless to say, there is not a great deal of dialogue in this film, focusing as it does on the lone survivor. There is a great attention to detail, his devices for catching fish through the snow and ice, so we know that he is not going to be deprived of food and water. His radio is not working. He sleeps in the plane itself and has some resources, especially some players, some matches…

But, he is alone. Does anyone know what has happened to him?

Suddenly, helicopter circles, and he sets off a flare for of hope. In fact, so was the audience. But, perhaps a necessary spoiler, especially when you see that Mads Mikkelsen is not the sole member of the cast, the helicopter crashes. There is a survivor, a young girl, gashed, in shock, not able to communicate well.

Which turns the film into a double survivor story with the decision by Overgaard to put the young girl on a sled, gather supplies, track over the mountains in the hope of rescue.

So, the film is one of endurance and one of the difficulties with this kind of film, think of those mountain climbing epics, the football team which crashed in the Andes, the audience is the endurance, a hard slog of film viewing, identifying with characters and their situations. Arctic is definitely for this kind of audience but for a comfy night out, better not.

1. The title? The landscapes in Iceland, the mountains, the valleys, the changes in weather? Sun, rain, snow, storms? The musical score?

2. A survival story? Audience interest? Identifying with Overgaard?

3. The situation, the crushed plane, the broken wing? Overgaard and his survival, chipping the rock and the SOS sign, the fishing, his supplies? Inside the plane, his survival equipment? The detail of his routines? Courage?

4. The helicopter, his signalling, the helicopter and its approach, the weather, its sudden crash? The emotional blow? Hurrying to the helicopter, the dead pilot, the young girl and his rescuing her, binding up the wounds? Leaving the message on the helicopter as to where they would be?

5. His care for the girl, her sleeping, not speaking much, her surviving? Overgaard feeding her?

6. The decision to travel, the sled, the supplies? The visual experience of the track, the weather, the mountains, the sled falling back? Exhausting?

7. The site of the planning, the flavour, the signalling? Desperate hopes? The plane rising, leading?

8. Overgaard, the resignation, lying in the snow, with the girl? Hearing the sound of the approaching plane? His hope – and the audience finishing with some hope after such endurance?

 

IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK

US, 2018, 119 minutes, Colour.
Kiki Layne, Stephan James, Regina King, Colman Domingo, Anjanue Ellis, Michael Beach, Teyonah Parris, Finn Whitrock, Ed Skrein, Diego Luna, Bryan Tyree Henry, Dave Franco.
Directed by Barry Jenkins.

Writer-director, Barry Jenkins, shot to international fame with his Oscar-winning film, Moonlight. He has followed the success with an adaptation of James Baldwin’s novel, set in 1974.

Baldwin noted that he was born in Beale Street in New Orleans. But, he adds, there is a Beale Street in every city, the African-American? neighbourhood of the city. This story is set in the Beale Street equivalent in New York City. With his well-respected novel, Baldwin makes his Beale Street talk, eloquently, about the people who live there.

The screenplay demands that the audience pay careful attention as it moves from character to character, and backwards and forwards in time. It is something of a cinema jigsaw puzzle, directing its audience to the attention of one piece, then another, gradually putting them together, getting more understanding in the light of an adjacent piece, and a new look at a situation.

At the centre of the story is a young man and a young woman. Tish (a persuasive performance from Kiki Layne) is the young woman, 18 years old, beginning to tell us her story, of her love for Fonny (Stephan James) whom she has known since childhood. Later, there are glimpses back to this childhood and friendship. However, as she begins to tell the story, the audience seeing the happy couple together, her love for him, his devotion to her, there are some puzzles. He is giving himself up – to prison? Yes, we find out. He has been falsely accused of rape.

And, for Tish, she has to tell her family that she is pregnant. She lives in a warm family, a hard-working and devoted mother (Regina King in an award-nominated performance), a genial father, supportive sister. They toast the coming child. They also invite over Fonny’s family – and quite a different reception of the news, his rogue father joyful, his very prim and proper mother, filled with religious talk and attitudes, disapproving as do his sisters. Tension.

And so, the film goes back, the friendship with the two young people turning into love, a re-creation of what happened on the night, gradually revealed, step-by-step (but not in that order). What seems idyllic, the possibility of getting a loft for Fonny to do his sculptures, all thwarted with the arrest after Tish has been accosted in a supermarket, Fonny attacking the man, the hostile white policeman, told off by the friendly storekeeper, but wanting revenge.

And also, the film goes forward, Tish visiting Fonny in prison, his love, his being upset, the months of the pregnancy. The parents consult a white lawyer, an earnest young man who is warned off taking such a case. Money has to be found to pay for the lawyer – and the two fathers get into some stealing rackets.

The woman who is the victim of the rape and has identified Fonny in a lineup (and we realise that she has been pressurised to do this by the police) has fled to Puerto Rico. Tish’s mother makes the decision to go, tracks the woman down, deals with her protector, pleads for mercy, encounters the woman in the street, and a desperate interchange.

In a way, the narrative just stops. It means then that Baldwin, Barry Jenkins, are asking the audience to reflect on what they would like to happen, how Tish will bring up the baby with the support of her family and mother, what will happen to Fonny in jail…

In many ways, Beale Street could be more effective as the novel and the time taken to read it, perhaps, a theatrical piece. But, as a film, Beale Street talks and has much to say.


1. An African- American story? The background of James Baldwin? Beale Street in New Orleans? The Beale Streets in every American city? The setting of the 70s, Baldwin’s perspective? The story taking place in New York City? The African- American heritage?

2. The work of the director, his adaptation of Baldwin’s book? Baldwin’s perspective?

3. The locations, the Beale Streets of New York City? The black area? The connections with the Whites? The African- American traditions? Extending the case to Puerto Rico? The musical score?

4. The structure and times of the film? Like a jigsaw puzzle, the audience having to put the pieces together, getting clues from flashbacks, interpreting the present? The voice-over by Tish, its effect? Her portrait of the various characters, the perspectives in her narrative?

5. The relationship between Tish and Fonny? The jigsaw puzzle effect about the relationship, moving backwards and forwards, the audience learning more about the present, going back into the past, development of particular sequences throughout the film, more insight? The children and their friendship, the scenes in the bath, the growing up together? Fonny, his jobs, stealing the tools, wanting to sculpt, seeing himself as an Artisan? Taking Tish to see the loft, the Jewish owner and his spiel? Tish and her pregnancy, Fonny going to jail? The flashbacks for the night of the conception of the child, the two walking together, the discussions, the viewing of the loft, going to the cafe, the friendship of the proprietor, going shopping, the man provoking Tish, Fonny’s violent reaction, the police, the defence by the owner of the shop? And the sexual encounter?

6. Tish’s parents, her strong mother and her support, her sister also supportive, her father? Tish telling her mother, her mother putting out the alcohol for the toast? The father’s response? Inviting Fonny’s parents and sisters, their reactions? Frank and his hard style, support? The mother, her premise, her religious background, quotations from Scripture? The two sisters supporting their mother? The interchange between everyone, Tish’s strong stances? Frank hitting his wife? His wife’s denunciation?

7. Fonny, the revelation about his case, the accusation of rape, the jigsaw presentation of the events, the reconstruction? His friendship with Danny, the discussions, the alibi? The set up by the police, the hostile policeman outside his district, the hostility from the encounter at the shop? The rape, the victim, hurtling to Puerto Rico? Giving himself up, his confidence, Tish and her prison visits, her growing desperation, his being upset, his being calm?

8. The pregnancy, its development, Tish being sick, the collapse at the prison? Her strength? Fonny’s anxiety? Tish, her strong stances, the birth and the sequence in the bath, the child, Tish’s mother?

9. Going to see the lawyer, the white lawyer, his understanding of the case, his social status and others’ reactions about his taking the case? Tracking down the victim in Puerto Rico? The need for money, Tish’s father and Frank and their stealing and making money? The mother going to Puerto Rico to find the woman, the encounter with the Hispanic, his assertiveness, protecting the woman? The focus scene on the mother and whether she would wear the wig or not? Going to the club? Having the photo, her plea, meeting with the victim, the exchange, the woman saying that the mother had never experienced a rape, the scene becoming more frantic, the woman running away? The delay of the case because she could not be called as a witness?

10. Fonny’s decision, the plea, its effect? How long would he be imprisoned? The sequence of the visit, his little boy, the drawings, talking with his father? The hope between Fonny and Tish? The future?

11. Issues of race, the African- American heritage, slavery, status in society? Hopes and possibilities?

ON THE BASIS OF SEX

US, 2018, 120 minutes, Colour.
Felicity Jones, Armie Hammer, Justin Theroux, Sam Waterston, Kathy Bates, Cailee Spaeny, Jack Reynor, Steven Root, Chris Mulkey.
Directed by Mimi Leder.

In 2018, a fine documentary made its mark in the United States, award nominations, but also had successful release outside America. The title was simply initials, RBG. For Americans in the know, they were the initials of a significant Justice of the Supreme Court since the 1990s, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The documentary was always interesting, giving the background Ruth Bader, her studies in law in the 1950s, not the time for women to be studying law, especially at Harvard, and her marriage to fellow lawyer, Martin Ginsberg.

The documentary traced her life, her 56 year marriage to Martin Ginsberg, their children. But it also traced her career, lecturing, getting jobs, focusing on equal rights for men and women, especially for women, making her pleas in the court, fighting for progressive issues and, ultimately, her appointment to the Supreme Court.

While she herself appeared in the documentary, many an audience, especially those who don’t see documentaries, would like to know more of her personality and her life, her struggles and achievement, in the form of the feature film. Here it is.

An American would realise the significance of the title. Audiences outside America might be wondering about the emphasis on “sex� and prefer more legal usage, “gender�. In fact, the initial phrase is that used in many legal documents and judgements. And, later in the film, Ruth’s secretary, preparing a brief for the court, suggest to her that there is too much emphasis on the word sex and suggests gender. Ruth agrees. (But, that might not make a sufficiently attractive from title!)

British actress, Felicity Jones (Stephen Hawking’s wife in Theory of Everything, warrior in the Star Wars spin-off, Rogue One) portrays the young Ruth in her early decades. She is small (as was Ruth whom we actually see mounting the steps of the Supreme Court at the end of the film), strong-minded, determined, stubborn. We see her admitted to Harvard, one of the few women there in the mid-1950s, and treated by some of the male staff (especially Sam Waterston as the Dean of Law at Harvard) as something of an unwelcome appendage to the student body which should be male.

However, Ruth has also married Martin (an engaging presence by Armie Hammer) and they have a daughter Jane. Lecturers discriminate against asking questions of women in class, but Ruth is always volunteering answers, writing papers, topping her class. The couple endure a great blow when Martin is diagnosed with cancer, has to go into surgery, with Ruth sitting in on his classes as well as her own, doing his work as he recuperates.

Then there is the irony of her interviews for jobs and, even the most sympathetic interviewers, saying they don’t have a position for her. She becomes a professor instead. In transition to 1970, we see a very changed United States after the growing freedoms and experiences of the 1960s. It is an era of protests and demonstrations, the younger generation speaking out more forthrightly (including Ruth’s daughter, Jane).

Ruth admires Dorothy Kenyon, a prominent female lawyer of the early 1960s, a robust crusty Kathy Bates, and is friends with a leading lawyer in the organisation promoting legal action for minorities. He is played with energy and determination by Justin Theroux.

At the core of the film is a particular case, a bachelor looking after his ill mother, falling foul of some government regulations which presumed that women care for parents at home, with various tax complications. He is played by Chris Mulkey and Ruth takes his case, refusing to do a deal with the old Harvard authorities and professors.

The film shows Ruth’s inexperience as well as her skills. We see her preparing her brief, relying on Martin for his collaboration, rehearsing her defence in front of Judge friends and not being too successful – which leads to the case itself, dividing the 30 minutes of presentation between herself and Martin, the judges grilling Martin, her having a very limited time to make her case but, historically, she did, she won, she changed interpretations and applications of the law.

The way the film was written is that it starts as we might expect in a biography but becomes more and more interesting as Ruth’s character develops, in her work with Martin, and the legal details about the case.

So, 2018 was a most significant year for RBG at 85 and for audiences to get to know her.

1. The title? A legal term? In American jurisprudence? The suggestion to change to On the basis of sex to gender? And the challenge to this legislation?

2. The career of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the documentary, RBG? This film as a portrait, Ruth and her personal story as well as her career? Her relationship with her husband, children? The study in the 1950s? The place of women in law? Her career, collaboration with her husband, becoming a professor? The 1970s and causes? The focus on the particular case, the preparation, the fight in the court? Victory and subsequent career?

3. Boston, Harvard? New York and Columbia? Legal offices, the legal offices for protest groups? The Colorado case? Preparations? The influence of Dorothy Kenyon? The Court sequences? The musical score?

4. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Felicity Jones and her performance? The focus on the steps, the legs, skirt and stockings, the ascent? The recurring image? At the end and the actual Ruth appearing?

5. Men and American law? Privilege? The Constitution and women not being mentioned? The traditions of discrimination, men and women in history, the homemaker and the breadwinner? Payments in proportion? Issues of justice? The culture of an era and its needing to be changed?

6. Ruth and Martin, 56 years married? Their children? Their home, his expertise in tax law and his success, with Ruth, her studies? His cancer, the hospital sequences, prognosis, surgery, recuperation? Ruth and her enrolment, the head of Harvard Law and his chauvinist statements, the dinner, introducing the women, his cutting off their motivations? Ruth going to Martin’s lectures as well, taking notes? Typing up at home? Looking after Jane? Professor Brown and his treatment of the classes, avoiding asking the women?

7. The interview with Griswold, the issue of the transfer to Columbia, his lack of empathy, strictness? The later meetings with Ruth, Professor Brown? Her comment that what he praised her for she what she learned at Columbia!

8. Her degree, the job interviews, sympathetic interviews, but not being able to employ women, motives such as the jealousy of wives…? The study at Columbia, her graduation, coping?

9. 1970, the changes of the 60s, the younger generation being more forthright, protest, legal aid, cases? Ruth and her lectures, the enthusiasm of eager students, the male comments? Her prospects?

10. Matt Wulf and his law firm, taking on cases, social protest? Style, vigorous and strict? Dorothy Kenyon and her visit to him? Ruth taking Jane to meet Dorothy Kenyon, her comments, the past history and the details of her cases? Matt Wulf and his trying to dissuade Ruth? The focus on
particular legislation, the case and the need for change?

11. The Colorado case, Ruth visiting Charlie, his care for his mother, her being demanding, the role of men and women in care, the unmarried man, tax issues? Ruth persuading him that she should take the case? The preparation of the brief?

12. Her work, with Martin, the secretary indicating changing the word sex to gender? The importance of the rehearsal, the judges coming in, Matt and his toughness, the flaws in her argument and presentation? The issue of the deal, the discussion with Griswold and Brown? Charlie and his not wanting to accept the deal?

13. The plan for the case, two speakers? The opposition rally in, employing Jim Bozarth, his expertise, getting him to prepare a file of all the discrimination cases, using them – and Ruth using them as well? Two speeches,

14. The pivotal presentation, Martin and the tax perspective, his being continually interrogated, lessening Ruth’s time? Bozarth, his speech? The judge’s response? Ruth and her time, impassioned argument, the judges listening to her, extending her time?

15. Ruth and Martin, working together, Jane and her growing up, upset with her mother, the clashes? Her mother taking her to see Dorothy Kenyon? Jane’s greater participation and support?

16. Ruth’s achievement, the law, the courts, changes? Her appointment to the Supreme Court and her subsequent career?

THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX

US, 2018, 104 minutes, Colour.
Gugu Mbatha- Raw, David Oyelowol, DanielBruehl?, John Ortiz, Chris O' Dowd, Aksel Hennie, Zhang Ziyi, Elizabeth Debicki Roger Davies, Donal Logue.
Directed by Julius Onah.

There have been several Cloverfield films, some horror Thriller Is, the original with handheld camera, the claustrophobia sequel, Cloverfield Lane. While these films have some producers in common, this seems to have very little link between those films and this present Paradox. A marketing device? And the film not receiving theatrical lists release but going to Netflix?

Basically, this is a space science fiction story, a group in space trying to find a solution for problems on earth, failing, some strange sabotage for the spacecraft, an international crew exercising their skills but some tensions, some being killed, the Irishman losing his arm and finding it alive and writing some suggestions for a solution, a German, a Chinese also members of the crew as well as the American doctor. The commander of the spacecraft, ironically the craft is called Shepherd, is played by David Oyelowo. The chief expert on board, Hamilton, is played by Gugu Mbatha Raw, sympathetic character with a husband and children on earth, discovering that she also exists, as does her family, in a parallel universe.

This information comes through the discovery on board of an injured woman, played by Elizabeth Debicki, who reveals the parallel universe, encourages Hamilton, but is finally treacherous, leading to confrontation and the paradox of where the spacecraft will return, to which universe.

A film for those who like this kind of apocalyptic spacecraft science fiction.

1. An apocalyptic, post-apocalyptic science-fiction action? The destruction of the earth? Search for solutions in space? Parallel universes?

2. The producers and linking this story with the Cloverfield franchise? Any connections?

3. Space , The spacecraft, exteriors, interiors? Authentic feel? Contact with earth? Control?

4. The interview with the scientist on television, his pessimistic forecasts, the response of the group?

5. The introduction to Hamilton, her husband, the children, love and tensions? Her going back on mission? The TV connections with home, breaking?

6. The mission, the search for a solution for Earth’s difficulties?

7. The range of the crew, their personalities, command, skills? The tests, the failures, the repercussions for the spacecraft? For them? Losing contact with Earth?

8. The focus on Hamilton, her skills, personality? Interactions with the other members of the crew? The leader, his sense of responsibility, making decisions? The Internationality the group, leading to tensions, with knowledge of the war on earth, Russia as an enemy? The crew’s fears of infiltration?

9. Schmidt, German, his abilities, personality, decision-making, his links with Tam? German and Chinese? Under some suspicions? Volkov, his suspicions of the Germans? Mundy, the Irishman?

10. The noise, the transformations for the crew, the discovery of Jensen, the rescue, her being rehabilitated? The mysterious goings-on, Mundy and his losing his arm, the independence of the arm, his writing, offering solutions? Tam, her drowning? Volkov and his being taken over, destroyed?

11. The introduction of the theme of parallel universes? Hamilton and her life on earth, Hamilton and her family relationships in the other world? Jensen and her friendship, her explanations, collaboration? The leader trying to cope, to save the spacecraft, to try further experiments? Success and then failures?

12. The building up to the crisis, the mutilations and deaths of the crew? The decisions as to who should return to earth? Hamilton and her dilemma about which world she should be in, seeing her life in each world? Jensen and her influence?

13. The leader giving up his life and the others, Schmidt and the possibility of returning to earth, Hamilton and turning on Jensen and overpowering her? Jensen becoming free, her determining what would happen?

14. Earth, the parallel earth, the wars, peace, Michael and his trying to contact Hamilton, his taking care of the little girl, juxtaposing these stories with Hamilton and the story on the spacecraft?

15. The title, the paradox for Hamilton, the paradox the alternate worlds, the climax?

MARY POPPINS RETURNS

US, 2018, 129 minutes, Colour.
Emily Blunt, Lin- Manual Miranda, Ben Whishaw, Emily Mortimer, Julie Walters, Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Dick Van Dyke, David Warner, Jim Carter,
Directed by Rob Marshall.

Although Julie Andrews first appeared as Mary Poppins in 1964, even winning a Best Actress Oscar for her performance and engaging presence, it is not as if Mary Poppins has been absent for half a century or more. With videos, then DVDs, and always with continuous repeats on television, especially on the Disney Channel, Mary Poppins seems always to be with us. She has been no stranger to succeeding generations. Clearly, there are millions who welcome her return, and who have high expectations.

So, what is Disney to do? Well, there has to be a new Mary, in the tradition of Julie Andrews, also being distinctive. Fortunately, they are in a sound position with Emily Blunt. Some commentators mentioned that Julie Andrews was rather sweet and that Emily Blunt is less sweet – this reviewer’s memories of Mary Poppins right from the 1960s is that she was a very sharp, sometimes severe character, her song reference especially to medicine going down (with a spoonful of sugar). Emily Blunt looks somewhat the same, sounds somewhat the same, is always looking in the mirror and touching her hair, tells us that she is “practically perfect�.

Many audiences poked a bit of fun at Dick Van Dyke’s accent in the original. The setting is now 1935, the Ban’s children have grown up and there are children of the younger generation. And there are no more chimneys to sweep. Composers Lin -Manuel Miranda steps in as Jack, a lamplighter in London, with a whole group of fellow-lighters who can join in song and dance routines like those chimney-sweeps of the past.

And, never fear, Dick Van Dyke was the owner of the bank long ago so, at 92, and able to shake a leg in a dance routine, he turns up as a pleasant bonus towards the end of the film. There is no bird lady at St Paul’s Cathedral this time but, at the end, in the park in summer, there is an old lady, cheerful, who sells balloons – Angela Lansbury at 93!

Actually, the plot outline parallels the original. The oldies are in some financial trouble, Michael has lost his wife, is to work in the bank, is about to lose the family home. Jane on the other hand, like her mother, is very much socially involved, this time with the poor in the Depression-era. There is still the maid at home, this time played by Julie Waters with plenty of energy and some sharp repartee. The admiral is still next-door, this time David Warner, firing his canon on the hour (but now five minutes late).

In fact, the songs are much in the same vein as in the original, with Richard Sherman as a music advisor here. And most have a chance to sing! And, despite P.L.Travers not liking animation in her stories, the children go into their bath and go down into an underwater fantasy and, later, when the children break a Royal Doulton vase which could be sold to pay debts, the characters on the vase come alive and their is an elaborate fantasy, including a Music Hall routine (so, was that Mary Poppins previous career!), with Mary and Jack and some strange creatures who kidnap one of the children. The voice of the main villain in the fantasy is that of Colin Firth who is now the manager of the bank, avaricious, double-dealing, ready to take back the Banks’ home.

Next they take the vase to Mary Poppins’ most eccentric cousin, Topsy (of all people, Meryl Streep, East European accent, her house turning upside down, everybody joining in an athletic song and dance routine).

With the impending disaster, a solution is found at the last minute – and, with time running out to pay the debt, Jack and co climb Big Ben to try to push back the hand to gain more time – but, Mary Poppins, hoisting her umbrella, rises to the occasion and puts back the clock (and the admiral delighted that at last Big Ben has caught up with him!).

As hoped for, pleasing Mary Poppins’ entertainment.

1. The popularity of the books? Julie Andrews in the film? Audiences continued viewings on television over the decades? Expectations for the return?

2. Mary Poppins as an icon, her dress, manner, umbrella? Her bag? As an icon? From Julie Andrews to Emily Blunt? Practically perfect!

3. 30 years on from the original, 1935, the city of London, Cherry Tree Lane, the house and facade, the interiors? The Admiral and his assistant with the cannon on the roof? The lamp lights and Jack’s work? The bank, the offices? The visit to Topsy’s house? The fair and the balloons? Big Ben, the wall, the clockface? The parks?

4. The world of animation, the children in the bath, the underwater fantasy? The live-action moving to the Music Hall, the animals, the performance, Georgie kidnapped, the pursuit, the crash? The delight of the animation?

5. The score, the range of songs, paralleling those in the original? The echoes of melodies from the original? The lyrics, the choreography? The range of dances and performance, Jack and the Lamplighters?

6. Mary Poppins, her appearance, delete in the sky, her clothes, ageless, her clipped speech, with the children, her motives, her denying to the children that there was magic?

7. The plot parallels with the original film? The family, their worries? The children? The housekeeper? The bank and finance? Memories of the suffragettes, contemporary 1930s social concerns of the poor? The admiral and his assistant on the roof? The difference in time with Big Ben? The lamplighters instead of the chimney sweeps? Jack and his fellow workers?

8. The introduction, Jack and his song, London, the London sky, the lamps? His introduction to the Bank’s house, and the admiral firing his cannon?

9. Michael Banks, forgetting his past, his marriage, the death of his wife, the three children and his concerns, the artist but his having to work at the bank? Grieving his wife, breaking down? Jane, her social work and concern, outgoing for the poor, rallies and protests? Helping Michael? The visit from the lawyers and the bank, one nasty, one sympathetic? The news about the house? The memory of the shares, the extensive search everywhere for the documents, unable to find them? Michael going to see Mr Wilkins, his pleasant manner, his extending the deadline? His hypocrisy, the destruction of the documents? The later visit of the children, their overhearing the truth, Georgie intervening, Wilkins’ complaint and Michael apologising and reprimanding the children?

10. The kite, the children in the park, Georgie and his being lost, the arrival of Mary Poppins, her demeanour, dress, hat, umbrella? With the children? Coming to the house, as if nothing had happened? Ellen greeting her? Jane welcoming her, Michael accepting her? In the house, the magic touch with her luggage, the children amazed? The bath, reluctance, going into the bath, the underwater fantasy and delight?

11. The children concerned, the Royal Doulton vase? The fight, the vase breaking? The fantasy with all the characters from the vase, the animation, the range of characters, the broken pieces? The Music Hall? Jack and his asking Mary Poppins to sing and dance? Reluctance, then entering into everything with vigour? Going in, the animals, the sinister plot, kidnapping Georgie, the pursuit, the crash? The children and their experience of this as a dream?

12. The visit to Topsy, Meryl Streep and her appearance, accent, skills, the Wednesdays, the house turning upside down? The song and dance routine? Her willingness to mend the vase?

13. Jack, his help in the house, friendship, Jane attracted? The children lost in the fog, his friends in the song and dance routine?

14. The deadline, the family losing the house, Jack and his friends helping with moving the furniture? The empty house and the sadness? The kite, the discovery of the documents mending the kite? The excitement?

15. The timetable, the hurry to the office? Wilkins and his waiting? The severe lawyer, the benign lawyer and his willingness to help the family? The possibility of going back in time? The realistic solution, Jack and his friends, riding his bike and balancing? The ladders, climbing and Big Ben, the dangers, getting into the space under the clock, his not being able to reach? Mary Poppins deciding to act, floating through the air, putting back the clock hand? The happy that at last cab big Ben was on time!

16. Wilkins, waiting, his watch, the five minutes, Michael and the family arriving? Memories of Mr Dawes in the past? Dick Van Dyke’s appearance, the dance routine, tired, feet on the desk, their having to be lifted off? His explanation of the shares, of the investing of the tuppence (and the theme of “Feed the birds�)? Everything solved?

17. Going to the park, the cherry blossoms in bloom, Angela Lansbury as the old lady with the balloons, everybody choosing their own balloon, Wilkins and his choice – a lead balloon? Everybody up in the air, happy, time for Mary Poppins to leave – and everybody thanking her, her going into the sky, turning and smiling? Another return?

RALPH BREAKS THE INTERNET

US, 2018, 112 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: John C.Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Taraji P Henson, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, Alfred Molina, Ed O'Neill.
Directed by Phil Johnston, Rich More.

Wreck-it Ralph was a very popular animation film from Disney. Here is a sequel, Ralph doing a fair job of wrecking all kinds of things, including a threat to the Internet, in this series of adventures.

The theme of the film and the words and images pull an audience up. What would a children’s audience, 15 years ago, have made of this film? The growth of the Internet, youngsters relying on it, adults relying on it, the possibility of disruption and breakdown, all common themes today. So, what might Disney animation entertainment of 15 years time be like?
Ralph is at his arcade, still friends with Vennelope, their working on games and cars. With a mechanical breakdown, Ralph gets advice to go into the Internet and takes Vennelope with him. It is a bewildering world for him – though modern audiences will be reassured as they recognise all the names, brands, icons and devices – an extraordinary amount of product placement!
There are some interesting characters in the Internet world including the manager of the search engine, Mr Knowsmore, as well as Yess who works on algorithms for solutions. But, Vennelope meets Shank, champion driver, their befriending each other and Vennelope persuaded to join Shank in her racing enterprises – and Ralph, unfortunately, overhearing her comments to Shank and criticisms of Ralph.

Beware resentments in the Internet. While there is a very friendly character, J.P.Shanley who seems a wizard with all kinds of things, always helping out, Ralph is taken to see Double Dan who introduces him to a worm, a virus which could close down the Internet. It is not green with jealousy, but read with envy, feeding on all Ralph’s insecurities (of which there are many), gradually growing in size and strength, producing Ralph clones, the world of technology moving towards a disaster and closure.

Some reconciliation with Vennelope and talking of the truth and their discovering the nature of true friendship. Which means then that Ralph’s insecurities can disappear and the giant red monster can collapse – with the princesses of so many Disney films who have encountered Vennelope and discuss the nature of princesses banding together to catch Ralph as he falls.

John C Reilly is immensely cheerful as Ralph, Sarah Silverman a determined Vennelope, Gal Gadot a commanding heroine, Shank, Alfred Molina as Double Dan.

For those who love IT, there is a recommendation to sit through the final credits, not necessarily t credible o read all the names, but to be amazed at the extraordinary number of emojis, icons, pop-ups, signals that continually trail through the credits – and a preview of Frozen 2 with Ralph singing the theme song!

1. The popularity of Wreck-it Ralph?

2. The nature of the animation, bright style, colours, characters, action, IT?

3. The IT age, themes, from arcades and computer games to the range of the Internet, visuals, the brands?

4. The voices, fitting the characters, the characters from past films, the princesses? The musical score?

5. Ralph, his life, his friendship with Vennelope, the games, the breakdown, the owner of the arcade and his being busy? The developments of the car race, the breakdown, trying to get the replacement? Felix and his advice?

6. Ralph going into the Internet, taking Vennelope? The adventures? Naive, the bets, the numbers, the accountant and discovering they had to pay? The debt? Ralph and the videos, going viral, trying to find the money?

7. The discussions with Mr Knowsmore, the computer search engine? His speed, answers?

8. Vennelope, the cars, the encounter with Shank, her skills, friendship and advice? The discussions with Yess, the algorithms, supplying developments?

9. The IT world, the product placement, all the familiar signs, the emergencies, pop-ups…?

10. Vennelope and her exhilaration, working with Shank, confiding in her, comments about Ralph? His overhearing? His reactions?

11. The character of J.P. Shanley, listening in, inventive, providing solutions?

12. Going to Double Dan, sinister, the worms, infiltrating, corrupting the Internet?


13. Vennelope, her visit to the princesses – and the reminder of all the Disney princesses? The jokes? The later intervening to help Ralph and save his fall?

14. The glitch, the worm, the effect on Ralph, playing on his insecurities, the colour red, the worm infiltrating, the multiplication of the Ralph clones? Feeding on resentment? The rampage? The giant Ralph?

15. Ralph, having to come to terms with himself, eliminating the insecurity, destroying the giant Ralph?

16. The breaking of the medal, his finding the part, reconciliation with Vennelope, her participation in the games? His return home?