OPERATION FINALE

US, 2018, 122 minutes, Colour.
Oscar Isaac, Ben Kingsley, Melanie Laurent, Lior Raz, Nick Kroll, Michael Aronov, Ohad Knoller, Greg Hill, Michael Benjamin Hernandez, Joe Alwyn, Greta Scacchi, Peter Strauss, Haley Lu Richardson, Simon Russell Beale.
Directed by Chris Weitz.

The story of the kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann has been told several times on film, including The House on Garibaldi Street. There have also been quite a number of films about the Eichmann trial, The Man in the Glass Booth, the portrait of Hannah Arrendt, some dramas about the interviewers and the filming of the trial.

This is all presented once again, written and directed by Chris Weitz, who has had quite a range of genre films in his repertoire, ranging from American Pie to About a Boy.

The story is presented here from the Israeli point of view. It has a cautionary opening with an agent, played by Oscar Isaac as the real-life Peter Malkin, raiding the home of an alleged Nazi, his assistance brutalising the man, and then to discover it was mistaken identity. This gives some edge to the portrayal of Malkin and his participation in the finding and taking Eichmann.

The film focuses on the team in Israel, the collaborators in Argentina, their plans, their work, some angry with Eichmann and wanting to kill him, others wanting him to come to trial so that the world will know about the Final Solution.

In the meantime, there are scenes in Argentina with Ben Kingsley portraying Eichmann and Greta Scacchi as his wife, Joe Alwyn as his son. Information comes to the Israelis that Eichmann has been located, so the agents go to his house to verify, to take photographs. A range of agents come from Israel, including a doctor played by Melanie Laurent.

The abduction is well-planned, executed, except for Eichmann's glasses being lost and neglected. The local anti-Semitic population (including a vicious statement mouthed by a priest) become involved, trying to thwart the plan. The abductors rely on collaboration from El Al but this is delayed. Which means a lot of interrogation scenes with Eichmann, his holding firm at first, the expert continuing to try to get him to sign a document, Peter Malkin taking a more personalised approach and, ultimately, getting the signature.

There is some split-second timing and problems in the plane taking off. However, Eichmann goes to trial, sits on the Glass Booth, the various agents watching this combination of all their efforts.

The theme will be perennially interesting in terms of memories of the Holocaust and the cries for justice.

1. A 21st-century view of the Holocaust, the Final Solution, Nazi intentions, the role of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazis in South America, the search for Eichmann, the discovery, the plan to bring him back to Israel for trial? In the light of previous books, television programs, films, both documentary and fiction?

2. Audience familiarity with the Holocaust, the Final Solution, the concentration camps, the gas chambers? The Nazi responsibilities? Eichmann? His trial?

3. The screenplay taking the war years for granted, glimpses of flashbacks, especially Eichmann, his decisions, presence and executions? The appeal of the mother and child from the trench, their deaths?

4. The prologue, Peter Malkin (an actual character), the raid on the family in Austria, the apprehension of the father, the appeal of the mother, the brutal treatment, a mistaken identity and injustice? The effect on Peter in subsequent years? His reputation? Authorities?

5. Israel, 1960, the authorities? The news about Eichmann being in Argentina? The need for positive proof? The decisions about where he should be tried? The plans for getting him out of Argentina, within legal permits, beyond the law, the agents, the locals, the use of El Al?

6. Argentina 1960, the meetings of surviving Nazis, the appeal to local fascists, the presence of the priest and his fanaticism and anti-Semitic statements? The Jews continuing as enemies? Carlos and the local authorities, his making a speech? Eichmann son and his being present, taking Sylvia, her walking out, giving the information about Eichmann to the authorities?

7. Peter, the meetings of the team, their expertise, some of them with anger and wanting to kill Eichmann, others wanting calm and bring him to trial, witness to the world about what it happened? The map with their different routes and covers, passports, to arrive in Argentina, accommodation, meetings, headquarters? The local personalities and their contributions?

8. Sylvia, the cinema, Imitation of Life and the racist themes, the young men laughing, the attraction to, going out with him, bring him home to meet her father, her father and his past, blind? Sylvia and are discussed with the behaviour at the rally? Her being asked to identify Eichmann, going to the house, meeting classes mother, class and his nasty reaction, Eichmann and is coming outside, Peter watching, his being photographed? Eichmann making the sketch of the photographer and its later use?

9. The plan, Israel's permission, the meeting with David Ben Gurion and his endorsement?

10. The planning, the detail, Eichmann and his work in the factory, his regular timetable? His home life, love for his wife, her concern? The group relying on his routine?

11. The cars, in waiting, the dark, the bus arriving, his not being on the bus, ready to give up, the second bus, his getting out, walking, Peter walking past, Eichmann later identifying his voice, the capture, the struggle, his glasses being left behind?

12. Hannah and her role, the injections? His being subdued? His being interned? Blindfolded? His denials, claiming his Argentinian identity? His persevering for many days?

13. The individuals taking it in turn to bring meals, to be on guard? The main interrogator, his techniques, not wanting violence? Eichmann and his shrewdness in response?

14. Peter, wanting a different approach, the blindfold off, talking with him, the meal, gaining his confidence? Eichmann any shrewdness, the discussions about Peter's grief, the story of his sister, her arrest and extermination? Eichmann and his concern about his family? The latter revelation that Peter saw him with his son in the past?

15. The delay, the flight company, having to keep Eichmann, the continued regime? The moods of the various members of the group? Angry threats? Trying to keep calm? Hannah and her control over Peter?

16. The young girl, doing the shopping, her concern about money, seeing the money concealed, wanting to change it, the locals working out who she was, taking her, torturing her, the interrogation? Information? The split-second timing and the group escaping?

17. Eichmann, the experience of internment, isolation, interrogation, some kindness, promises that he would see his wife, his admittance of the situations, wanting to be tried outside Israel? Peter eventually get him to sign the document?

18. The hurry to the airport, the plane, the passports, the documentation, the authorities and the police holding up the plane, Peter hurrying to the office with the documents, his deciding to stay so that the plan could get away?

19. The Eichmann trial, the man in the glass moves, the visuals and footage of the concentration camps, impact in Israel, throughout the world? Eichmann and his seeing Peter, Hannah pregnant?

20. The final information about the verdict, Eichmann being hanged? And the information about Peter Malkin's death in 2005?

21. The value of the story being told and retold?

 

THE LAST LAUGH

US, 2019, 98 minutes, Colour.
Chevy Chase, Richard Dreyfuss, Andie Mac Dowell, George Wallace, Kate Micucci, Chris Parnell, Lewis Black, Richard Kind.
Directed by Greg Pritikin.

This is a comedy made for Netflix distribution. It is obviously a film for the older generations and for those who remember the stars in their heyday.

Chevy Chase was very successful in the 1970s into the 1990s with all kinds of comedies, yet his having to be a straight man, looking bewildered, rolling his eyes, in the face of more explicit comic types. This is certainly the case here as he plays Al against Richard Dreyfuss as Buddy (playing 10 years older than he actually was). Dreyfuss shows what a master of drama he can be as well is in comedy and pathos. He is a stand-up comedian who tells funny jokes and can entertain (except when he misjudges his redneck Texas audience).

The first part of the film is in a home for the elderly, Al going at the urging of his granddaughter, getting manic tour of the establishment only for Buddy to reveal himself as an old friend from 50 years earlier. Al was a workaholic, wants to get on the road, remembers Buddy’s shtick 50 years earlier (retiring from comedy to become a successful podiatrist).

And so the film becomes a road film, quite attractive photography in a range of places including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Chicago, New York City.

There is an expected pathos with Buddy having terminal pancreatic cancer and Al not knowing this until the end.

On the whole, the film is very entertaining although there are some lulls (and a lot of tiring swearing), some audiences more interested in Buddy than in Al’s encountering artist, Doris (Andie Mac Dowell) and a strange surrealistic scene of music, an empty theatre, Buddy seeming to die.

But, allowances made, there are quite a number of entertaining scenes in the film, especially with Richard Dreyfuss and his jokes.

1. A comedy about old-timers, for old-timers – and a wider audience?

2. The comic skills of the stars? Ample opportunity to show their skills?

3. A road film, the range of locations from California to Arizona, to New Mexico, to Texas, to Illinois, to New York City? A colourful scenic tour? Along with a number of small clubs and performances? The musical score?

4. The title, and its fulfilment at the end?

5. The introduction to Al, Chevy Chase and his comic style, the straight man to Buddy, his age, a workaholic, his past as an agent and his success, the discussions about ageing, his loneliness, going to the home, the zany tour guide and the revelation of Buddy? His moving in? The routines, meals, chats, Buddy and his lady friend, the range of performances, songs, magicians? The effect on him?

6. Buddy, his background, stand-up comedy, leaving it behind, a successful podiatrist, his son not knowing this? The man tour guide? Revealing himself? The bond with Al? Life in the home? His enjoying it? The audience not knowing about his terminal cancer, the later revelation?

7. The decision to go on the road, Al and his ideas, Buddy agreeing, his capacity for telling jokes, audiences laughing?

8. The car, the farewell from the other people in the home, Sunshine Johnny and his comments? The old people and their senses of humour, enjoying the concerts, resigned to age or not?

9. The bookings, the wrong Palace, down the road, Buddy and his nervousness, on stage, tentative, cracking the jokes, the repartee with the heckler, success? The effect on Buddy? Al, anxious, applauding, success? Continuing on, the venues, the performances, the motels, the drives, Buddy and the marijuana? The visit to Texas and Buddy completely mistiming?

10. Al, walking around, the encounter with Doris, listening to her reading, a pleasant free spirit personality, having the coffee with him, his confiding in her, advising him to walk with his shoes off, touching the ground? Buddy, upset, at Al’s absence? Yet agreeing to Doris travelling with them?

11. Doris, her background, sharing? Al’s hesitation about spending the night? Buddy urging him? Doris and drugs? Al’s hallucination, Buddies performance, his granddaughter, the empty theatre, Buddy and his leaving? The audience assuming that Buddy had died?

12. Chicago, the granddaughter and the son turning up, their concern? Buddy’s cancer, the drugs? Al not realising? The effect on him? Doris leaving?

13. Al and his phone calls, the deal about the television show, being turned down? Going to New York, his going to see Max, pleading, the bribe? Max and his hypocritical introduction, Buddy going out on stage, the son and the granddaughter applauding, his success, an entertaining performance, the old people watching, Doris watching?

14. Buddy, going out as he would wished, a success, the last laugh? The effect on Al – and his returning to Doris, and his posing for her sculpture?

INSTANT FAMILY

US, 2018, 118 minutes, Colour.
Mark Wahlburg, Rose Byrne, Isabela Moner, Gustavo Quiroz, Juliana Gomez, Octavia Spencer, Tig Notaro, Margo Martindale, Julie Haggerty, Michael O'Keefe, Joan Cusack..
Directed by Sean Anders.

There is a humorous tone in the title in this film about adoption. And there is a humorous tone throughout the film, even though the underlying theme is a very serious.

While the film would be appreciated by an enthusiastic American audience, some of it might feel too much for more reserved cultures and societies. The screenplay is characterised by the American heart on sleeve, emotions all out there, an extroverted society which might be a bit overwhelming for introverts in the audience who are sympathetic to the themes but trying to keep pace with all the emotions, love and angers, everything “out there�.

The film states that it is based on actual events – and, by the sympathetic ending, audiences will be happy to see such a range of photos and families during the final credits.

Mark Wahlberg is Pete and Rose Byrne is Ellie. They are happily married but have no children. This becomes a bit of a thorn when they visit Ellie’s parents (Julie Haggerty and Michael O’Keefe) and get into discussion tangles with Ellie’s sisters and their husbands, issues of pregnancy, children. The pressure is on Pete and Ellie.

They work together very well on reconstructing and redesigning homes. They discuss the children issues and decide to go to an adoption agency. Octavia Spencer is Karen, the sympathetic member of the team. Tig Notaro is Sharon, straight down the line, not blessed with an immediate sense of humour. Pete and Ellie attend a meeting with quite a range of prospective parents, religious couple, mixed-race couple, gay couple, single mother looking for an African-American? boy that she can train to be a sports star! They all attend a gathering where they can look at prospective adoptees, Pete and Ellie a bit put out by the teens all standing by themselves, make their comments out loud (as they perennially do) and find that the teens have been listening in, especially Lizzie, a 15-year-old girl (Isabela Moner).

Between the jigs and the reels – and there are very many jigs and very many reels, the foster phase begins, some initial sweetness and light, then a revelation of tantrums by the little girl, being accident-prone by the little boy, and Lizzie becoming more and more, and more and more, self-assertive (going out with her girlfriends and disobeying curfews, grounded and inviting the girls into the house, and their being ordered out of the window by which they entered by and irate Ellie, Lizzie photographing herself to exchange photos and texts with the young man who works at the school). After the sweetness and light, the mess and the mayhem.

It is getting closer to the court hearing for the adoption, the birth mother of the children, an addict, gets out of prison and meets her children, stating that she is able to take care of them. Lizzie is delighted – but the two younger children have bonded with Pete and Ellie as well as their grandmothers, especially Pete’s mother, Grandma Sandi (Margo Martindale), an exuberant enthusiast, again in the extroverted style.

The question is continually raised, especially by Lizzie, as to why Pete and Ellie have chosen to adopt children. They find it more nor difficult to answer. It is quite clear that prospective adopters need a lot more training to be able to cope with the children let alone help with their education and development. Which, of course, is a sound message for the film.

Happy ending, as if we didn’t know, but the film does offer an opportunity for audiences to appreciate better the motivations for adopting, the needs of children, some of the harshness in foster care, providing the children with a better self-image, especially that they are lovable.


1. The title, issues of adoption, the impact on parents, the impact on children? Based on true stories – and the range of photos in families during the final credits?

2. Audience perspectives on adoption, the perspective of the parents, the desire for children, capacities for raising them? The perspectives on children, in foster care, self-image, the need for bonding and loving?

3. The American town, homes, the dilapidated home initially, the renovation? The adoption centre, offices, support group meetings? School? Fairs? The courts? The world of adoption?

4. The American home, the emphasis on extroverts, hard going for introverts? Boisterous characters, wearing their heart on their sleeves? Their emotions on their sleeves? The impact for more reserved cultures?

5. Ellie and Pete, their life and marriage, at home, renovating homes for a living, their skills, design, craftsmanship, hard work? Getting the house for Ellie’s sister? The family discussions, Ellie’s sisters and their husbands, discussions about children, pregnancy, families? The groups of the grandparents, the exuberant grandmother, the quiet grandfather, the visits, the meals? The contrast with Grandma Sandi, her absolute exuberance? The role of the extended family?

6. Ellie and Pete, the raising of the issues of adoption? Peter and his hesitations? Ellie and her desires? Going to the centre, the encounters with Sharon and Karen? Each of their personalities and ways of communication? Karen laid back, Sharon and her directness? The speeches about realities of adoption? The range of parents of the meeting, their expressed desires, the kind of children they wanted? The elderly couple, Brenda and her speech, Ellie and Pete being moved? The later going to see Brenda’s adoptive parents, finding out that she had relapsed, the strong lesson about tolerance and affirmation from these parents and the effect on Pete and Ellie?

7. The range of adopters, gay couple, single mother wanting a sports child – African- American, the mixed race couple the religious couple? Declarations about children, finding them? Going to the fair, the range of children, cute, the contrast with the teenagers and their gathering together, the harsh stances, Ellie and Pete talking and Lizzie hearing them and commenting?

8. The impact of the teenagers, the prospect of adopting three, meeting the children, and the physical mishaps, especially with one? The visit to the foster parents and their slatternly living?

9. Pete and Ellie and their attitudes, discussions, whether they should or not, motivating forces? Pete and the house metaphors? Ellie and her hopes? Memories of cosmic connections? Their making their decision?

10. How realistic, the prospects for the future, their really not being prepared, the extroverted pressure? The impact on the three children?

11. The three children, Hispanic background, no father, the mother and her addiction, in prison? The young girl, her tantrums, wanting to eat chips only? Juan, accident prone and crying? Lizzie, 15, assertive?

12. The parents trying to manage, getting everything nice, the range of gifts for Christmas, the tree, the children fascinated by the boxes rather than the contents? Lizzie not opening her gift? The meal, the attempts at discipline, the young girl and her crying, the clashes, the mayhem and the mess?

13. Dropping the children to school, Lizzie and her talking about Jacob, identifying Charlie and his being quiet, Ellie charmed by him? The reality of Jacob, 22, working in the school, Lizzie and the infatuation, photographing herself, his photos, exchanging photos? The parents’ reaction? Anger, going to the school, Ellie seeing Charlie, their public attack on him, the vitriolic condemnation, physical violence? The revelation of the truth – their hasty apologies? Finding Jacob, confronting him, punching, the arrests? His being charged? Their being in prison? Leaving the kids in the car? The kids being brought home? The black marks against their being adopters? The imminent court case, the documents?

14. The visit to the grandparents, the doting grandmother, painting her face!

15. The contrast with Sandi, imposing, giving the gifts, freewheeling, going to the fair, the excitement? Their giving her the T-shirt? Her reprimanding her son, the explanation of her own life, not being loved, poor self-image? Urging Pete and Ellie to rewrite their statement for the court?

16. Lizzie and her girlfriends, going off and staying out, not wanting to be accountable? The visit to the room and the girls being ousted through the window? This material later for the court case? Pete, taking Lizzie to the building, getting her to smash things and let out her anger? Ellie, brushing Lizzie’s hair, her putting the brush down the toilet? Denial, later apology?

17. The theory about foster children and adoptees having poor self-image, being put down continually, feeling that they were not loved? Children, and behaving as children?

18. The mother getting out of prison, Lizzie and her eagerness, the visits, the cumulative effect on Lizzie, wanting to be with her mother, the other children bonding more with Pete and Ellie?

19. The preparation for the court, the night before at home? The statement in Sandi’s criticism? Writing a new one? The issue of Lizzie’s question of asking why they wanted to adopt?

20. In the court, the judge, Ellie not able to read her statement? The mother not turning up? Lizzie and her being upset? Sharon and Karen being in the court? The further discussions? (And the irony of Sharon’s morose child, looking unhappy, even in the court?)

21. Four months passing, Lizzie and her acceptance, wearing ordinary dresses, the other children happy? With the grandparents? Going to the court, the sympathetic judge, and everybody getting in the photo?

GLASS

US, 2019, 129 minutes, Colour.
James Mc Avoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Sarah Paulson, Anya Taylor- Joy, Spencer Treat Clark, Charlayne Woodard, Luke Kirby.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

It is almost 2 decades ago that Indian-born, Philadelphia citizen, M. Night Shyamalan, broke through with an enormous hit, critical and box office success, The Sixth Sense, 1999 with his quotable line, “I see dead people�. He followed it with a thriller, Unbreakable, with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. Although he directed, wrote and produced, quite a number of films over the 20 years, he never had quite the same critical appreciation until 2018 with Split.

Split was a winner, a portrait of a man with 24 different personalities. James Mc Avoy gave a tour-to force performance bringing these characters alive, the haughty Patricia, young Dennis, the timid Kevin, and in a rage bursting out as the Beast, a tribute to the Hulk. So, what better than to have a sequel to Split?

And the answer is, introduce James Mc Avoy again and the many personalities, but, as the end of Split suggested, go back to Unbreakable, reintroduce Samuel L. Jackson as the literally brittle character, Elijah Price, Mr Glass, with his fragile bones, tended by his mother, sitting in his chair, masterminding the plots of comic thrillers. And, reintroduce David, Bruce Willis’s character, the security guard who alone survived a devastating train crash, who seemed to be imbued with powers of knowledge, superhuman.

And, not only reintroduce them and link them but also invent an ingenious plot device which brings the three of them together through the train crash, and an explanation of why the young Kevin became the 24 characters. But, one has to wait until the end for this explanation – well worth waiting for.

For security reasons, three central characters find themselves interned in a mental institution. Their progress is supervised by visiting psychologist, Sarah Paulson, who has three days to make a report on them, her main aim seeming to be to “normalise them�. As if this could possibly happen!

Each of the characters has a special person in the outside world and the psychologist summons them to help her, Anya Taylor- Joy as Casey, one of the schoolgirls previously held hostage by Patricia, the Beast and co, Elijah’s mother (Charlayne Woodard reprising her earlier role) and David’s son, Joseph (played in 2000 by the young Spencer Treat Clark and the adult actor now reprising his role).

Audience suspicions might be somewhat aroused by the assured manner of the psychologist and the question of to whom she is responsible.

In the meantime, everything builds up to quite a climax, the three involved in an elaborate escape from the institution, masterminded again by Elijah, his playing on the multiple fears of the personalities, his hostility towards David, established long since.

So, the screenplay is psychologically interesting. It also has touches of horror. It also builds up to a violently confrontative ending. But, there is a postscript, with the three contacts sitting in Philadelphia railway station and all the passers-by suddenly looking at their smart phones. We know what they are looking at, but will there be consequences?

And we have plenty of time to contemplate these questions during the striking final credits, a series of cascading glass shards showing us the characters, their interactions, reinforcing our puzzles.

1. The title? Elijah as Mr Glass? Unbreakable? The shards and their pictures during the final credits?

2. The plot connecting with Split? With Unbreakable? The ingenious links between the three films, the central characters, the disastrous train crash in Unbreakable?

3. Philadelphia, the vistas of the city, the streets and buildings, warehouses, homes, the institution, the cells, corridors, offices, the basement? The forecourt for the finale? The musical score?

4. The film as a sequel to Split? 24 personalities? James Mc Avoy and his skill in portraying each of the characters? Voice, body language, clothing? The introduction, the captured schoolgirls, Patricia and her haughty manner? Their later being freed? The transitions to other characters, to the boy and his skating? The emergence of the Beast? The emergence of Kevin, his having to be protected? The other manifestations? The boy walking the street, passing David, touching him, David and his awareness and the information?

5. David, Bruce Willis, the story from the past, the train and the crash, his survival, his powers, knowledge? The scene with his family, wife, Joseph as a little boy? Joseph growing up, David and his walks, his hood and choose one? His being an avenger? The opening assault, the two running off, David violently confronting them, their punishment? In the shop, Joseph and the work, the customers? The cameo with the director?

6. Elijah, his past, his brittle bones, his focus on comics and stories, mastermind? His being cared for by his mother? His being in the asylum? Her visits? His madness, his rudeness? The flashbacks and the reminder of what Elijah was like? His role in the train crash?

7. The three taken into the institution, each in their cells, isolated, glimpsing each other? The consequences?

8. The authorities, the psychologist, her manner, her role, treatment of the three, the report of the deadline for her report? Her wanting to normalise the three? The range of interviews, talking with them? Her enlisting the help of Joseph, of Casey, of the mother? Her explanations to them? Their willingness to collaborate?

9. Casey, her story, captured, the treatment from the various personalities, her hesitation, her decision to help? Her concern about Kevin, wanting to protect him?

10. The Beast, reminiscent of the Hulk, power, strength, the muscles? The threats, protecting Kevin? The sense of menace to opponents?

11. Each of the characters talking about the other, knowledge or not, the criticisms of the personalities, of Patricia’s dominance? Their concern about Kevin?

12. David, wanting to do good, his being interrogated?

13. The revelation about Elijah, in the institution, his power and determination, the psychologist? The comics and his being the mastermind?

14. The group, the psychologist addressing them, secret group, the tattoo on their wrists, the plan, the range of personnel, the meetings?

15. The ethos of comics, the conventions, the psychologist and her visit to the store, the impact of the comics, the characters, the superheroes? The psychologist wanting to normalise everyone?

16. Kevin and his father, his concern about identity deficit, influence of the mother, the absent father, his being on the train, killed in the crash, Elijah responsible? The impact on Kevin over the years and the multiple personalities?

17. The connection between the three, the plan, to get out? The Beast, Kevin, the range of other personalities? The disguises and wheeling Elijah through the hospital? Elijah and his manipulation? David and his participation? The going to the basement, Elijah working the computers – filming everything, the audience seeing the installation of all the cameras?
The later use, the weapons against the institution?

18. The plan, a suicide plan by Elijah, David and the danger of water,Jjoseph watching, the fight, David in the water, the tank bursting? The Beast, the confrontation is, the vehicle? Elijah observing?

19. The psychologist, her fears, watching, the range of confrontations? Casey and her concern for Kevin? Joseph for his father? His mother and caring for Elijah?

20. The group of three sitting in the railway station, waiting, people beginning to look at their phones, the video of all that had happened in the expose of the group?

21. The end of the series? The beginning of something new?

STORM BOY

Australia, 2019, 109 minutes, Colour.
Finn Little, Geoffrey Rush, Jai Courtenay, Erik Thompson, Trevor Jamieson, Morgana Davies, Chantal Contouri, David Gulpilil.
Directed by Shawn Seet.

Storm Boy is based on a very popular novel, read by adults and children, taught in schools, a novel by Colin Thiele. The 1976 film version with Greg Rowe and David Guliplil is a cinema classic, a significant part of the 1970s revival of the Australian film industry.

This version should have a similar appeal for children’s audiences in the 21st century – and, for those 50 or more who saw it when they were children, and for older audiences who probably took the children to see the film in 1976! A wide-ranging appeal.

To reassure those readers who treasure the original story, it can be said that it is all there. Finn Little is an appealing young Michael, the Storm Boy of the title, given his name by his aboriginal friend, Fingerbone Bill (an engaging performance by Trevor Jamieson who appeared in Rabbit Proof Fence and has featured in the television shows, Black Comedy and Cleverman).

And the perennial appeal of pelicans has been preserved, from Michael finding the chicks and deciding to foster them, finding ways of feeding them, giving them names, especially Mr Percival. The chicks grow up, show their skills in beautiful flight. And Mr Percival becomes Michael’s close companion, on the beach, in the house. Michael’s father, Jai Courtenay (The Water Diviner as well as international action drama is) is a recluse after the death of his wife and daughter in a car accident, spending his time fishing, selling the fish in the local shops. And he is sympathetic towards Michael’s love for Mr Percival.

This is most significant in the famous storm scene, quite some special effects for the lightning in the sky, the waves, Tom’s father out fishing, caught in the storm, the boat overturning – and, without spoiling the scene for those who do not know, Mr Percival playing a significant role.

And this is significant for Michael, journalists and photographers tracking him down – and the friends in the shop in town collecting money for him to go to boarding school, something which he does not want, making him antagonistic towards his father, not wanting to be away from Mr Percival.

So, the core of Colin Thiele’s story is there. However, it has quite an extensive 21st-century framework. Michael has grown up, is a grandfather, has returned from overseas and is caught up in business plans for the Pilbera. His granddaughter, Maddy (Morgana Davies) is highly critical of her father, chairman of the board, vents her anger on her grandfather, who is played by a sympathetic Geoffrey Rush. This is the context of Michael’s reminiscing, his being stirred by the memories, remembering the joys, especially with Mr Percival and Fingerbone, his regrets about his hostility towards his father.

This means that the film is very satisfying in the basic story of the boy and his bird. And, it will touch the ideals of younger audiences concerning the environment and its future.

1. The continuing popularity of Colin Thiele’s novel? The classic status of the 1976 film? The changes for a 21st-century presentation? The basic plot and characters? Environmental concerns?

2. The Coorong settings, the lagoons, the ocean? The 90 mile beach? The bush and the hut, and the shore? The breeding grounds for the birds? Storms at sea? The contrast with the town, the streets, the shops? The musical score?

3. The title, as given to Michael by Fingerbone Bill, the aboriginal words? Michael, his age, the flashbacks to his mother and sister, the picnic, in the car, their being killed in the crash? His father, becoming reclusive, fishing, Michael living with him, the basic style in the house? Michael playing in the water, saving the birds, meeting with Fingerbone?

4. The 21st-century framework and environmental concerns, business and capitalism, exploitation? Malcolm, the businessman, the preparation for the board meeting, his plans, the long preparation? His meeting with Michael, wanting his vote? The other members of the board? The plans for the Pilbera? Discussions with the aboriginal people? The need for Michael’s vote?

5. Michael, growing up, returning home, success in business overseas, his love for his granddaughter, meeting her, her challenge about her father and the business, his remembering, telling her his story? The storytelling recurring through the flashbacks? Michael, the effect of remembering, phoning Malcolm, phoning his friend, the plan to delay the vote, his granddaughter’s reaction, support? Their walking around the beaches, rediscovering the ruins of the hut? Their sitting watching the water, watching the pelicans?

6. Michael and the encounter with Fingerbone, his politeness in not coming into the house without meeting Michael’s father, the later meeting, his coming in? Fingerbone and his story, the arranged marriage, his refusal, his having to leave his home, wandering? The flashbacks and the scenes with his father (and the cameo from David Gulplili)?

7. Michael, the finding the best for the chicks, tending them, the presence of the hunters, ruthless, the shooting, the two men and their campaign against the formation of a sanctuary, in the marshes, their shootings, building up to the confrontation with Mr Percival?

8. Michael, the care for the birds, splattering the fish, his being able to feed the birds, the fish on his fingers? Scenes of the growing, changing, his giving of names, Mr Percival and his continued presence? The bond between boy and bird?

9. Michael’s father, Tom, Hideaway, the effect of his wife’s and daughter’s death, fishing, going into town, the sympathetic shopkeepers? His sympathy towards his son, Fingerbone, the birds? His going fishing, being caught in the storm, the vividness of the effects of the storm, Michael and his plan, the rope, Mr Percival flying, dropping the rope for Tom, his being pulled in and saved?

10. The publicity about the story, Michael in town, sitting on the wooden path, the journalists, photographers, autographs? The couple in the shop and the collecting the money for him to go to school?

11. Michael and his reaction, not wanting to go to school, his antipathy towards his father, and his later regrets at not having reconciled, his going away and never returning?

12. The hunters, Mr Percival, his death, breaking the connection for Michael?

13. The film keeping the basic story from the original? The boy, his father, the bird, Fingerbone, the coast? And adding the further story, Michael and the subsequent history, separation from his father and the coast, business – and his intervening at the board meeting, getting the support to delay the vote? And the bond with his granddaughter?

22 JULY

UK/Norway, 2018, 120 144 minutes, Colour.
Anders Danielson Lie, Jonas Strand Gravli, Jon Ohlgarden.
Directed by Paul Greengrass.

22 July is a significant date in Norwegian recent history. It is July 22, 2011. This was the day when Anders Breivic planted bombs at government buildings in central Oslo and then drove to an island, Utoya, where teenagers were present on a camp, and he hunted them down, killing 69 of them.

In 2018, Norwegian director, Eric Poppe, (Troubled Waters, The King’s Decision) made a film from the point of view of the youngsters, keeping the killer at something of a distance, not giving him the opportunity to watch the film and celebrate his presence in what he had done. It was a carefully constructed film, running for around 90 minutes, in real time, single take, focusing on the young people, their phone calls to their parents, their being hunted in the forests, under the cliffs, until the police eventually arrived and arrested Breivic. It was a powerful re-enactment.

British writer and director, Paul Greengrass, has been involved in many films with social unrest and disasters, focusing on Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland, on the air attacks on 9/11 in United 93, on the disaster in the World Trade Centre. He has also directed Jason Bourne Films.

In fact, compared with Eric Poppe’s film, Greengrass spends only 15 to 20 minutes on the actual hunt and massacre, and very effectively.

However, he is interested in wider issues, focusing on Breivic himself at the opening, the loner, at home, his mother, preparing explosives, having his extreme manifesto on his computer, placing the bombs, driving to the island in the guise of a policeman, beginning his massacre. Greengrass is also interested in his ideology, his extreme rightist beliefs, the purification of Europe and Norway, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islam.

This focus on Breivic continues throughout the film, his surrender on the island, interrogated by the police, discussions with his lawyer, the preparation for the defence and the issue of insanity, consulting experts, Breivic himself wanting to speak in the court.

However, Greengrass has also focused on one of the teenagers and his protectiveness towards his brother, their hiding beneath the cliff, Breivic discovering them, shooting the older boy, the younger able to escape. The screenplay introduces their parents, the concern, the consulting of the lists of survivors, phoning of hospitals, and some detail in looking at the surgery for the young man, the pieces of bullet to his brain, his gradual recovery, his finally being persuaded to speak during Breivic’s trial.

This means that the film is more than just a portrait of Breivic himself, but a look at Norwegian society, social issues, the role of government and security, the judicial implications, the humanity consequences of such an event.

The film is in Norwegian production with a Norwegian cast, however speaking English for a worldwide audience.

It would be best to watch Poppe’s film and then expand the awareness by watching Greengrass’s film.

1. Norway, the event, impact, tragedy, consequences? The political response, social response, judicial response?

2. The Norwegian settings, the city of Oslo, the views, the government buildings, hospitals, recuperation, police precincts, prison cells, the courts? The musical score?

3. The comparison with the film by Erik Poppe? Its 90 minutes focus on the events? The intention of this film, going beyond the events, the perpetrator, the consequences, the political implications?

4. The title, the day, the shootings, the aftermath? Breivic, his preparation, the sabotage of the buildings, the shootings? Arrest? The role of the authorities? The hospital sequences? The action going beyond 22 July, the focus on Breivic himself, the surgery and rehabilitation? The investigation, the preparation for the trial, the trial itself?

5. The introduction, the youngsters, on the ferry, exuberance, meeting friends, the camp, the Labour Party background, the seminar, Viljar and his popularity, his speech, looking to the future? His care for his brother?

6. The into cutting of Breivic and the buildup to his action, at home, the explosives, his look, age, behaviour, relationship with his mother, the manifesto on his computer? Packing the truck, going to the government offices, placing the car, the explosion, the dead and injured?

7. The political background, the Prime Minister, his plans, horarium, his persistence? The disaster, the shock, reaction? The police, the lack of helicopters? The decision to have a review, the hearings, his confessing the inadequacies? The political and national response and repercussions?

8. The drive to Utoya, the children and their phoning their parents, the role of authorities, sudden attack and the terror? Their fleeing? The number of dead? The short space of time? Relentless pursuit?

9. Breivic, going to the island, his police disguise, the ferry, shooting the authorities, the raid on the teenagers, outside in the forest, going into the room, the continued pursuit, his determination, his insulting the kids and labelling with them Marxist, denouncing their families?

10. The focus on the two brothers, the young girl? The action in the forest, taking shelter beneath the cliff, hiding, Breivic discovering them, shooting Viljar, his brother saved?

11. The fact of these episodes taking only 15 minutes on film, compared with the extent in Erik Poppe’s film?

12. The police, coming by boat and ferry, the helicopters, saving the children, the ambulances, the centres and the listings, the parents verifying where their children were? The hospitals? Viljar and his parents, the phone calls, in the city, driving, the roadblock, checking the lists, phoning the hospitals?

13. Breivic, arrested, his easy surrender, keeping him talking, his talk of crusades, the Knights Templars, the right-wing groups, the extreme nationalism, no multiculturalism, no Muslims in Norway? Purifying Europe? His delete, ideologies, the groups, the Internet connections? His personal manner, arrogance, not giving information about further raids?

14. His behaviour and manner in the interrogations, the police, surveillance, listening into the interrogations? His lawyer? His wound, getting food and drink? The interviews?

15. The lawyer, his wife, the puzzle about his being caught, his visiting Breivic in prison, upholding the law, the question is? His visits, planning the defence, insanity, consulting the experts, Breivic’s estimates about himself, his sanity, demanding to testify? The arrest of his mother, the interrogation? The contact with the right-wing expert?

16. The family, the phone calls, the son in hospital, the explanations by the doctor, the further surgery, the close-ups of the surgery, the explanations? All the bullet pieces near the brain? The loss of the eye? His lying in coma? His memories of being on the rocks, the shots, being rescued? The family and the vigils? His waking, understanding? The treatment,
the response of his parents and brother? The demands of the rehabilitation?

17. Therapy, difficult, his mental condition, the visit of the girl, the friendship? His trying to walk, falls? Taking the sled, the crash? The father and his support? The issue of his testifying, his saying he could not walk, reluctance?

18. The information about Breivic and his background, the father, the divorce, his absence, the mother and her care, welfare? The half-sister going to America? Home background, the loner, mental situation? Ideology, absolutely convinced, self-righteous? His declarations?

19. In court, the judges, the lawyers, the public present in the court, the families? Reactions?

20. Viljar and his story, his telling it, the effect, being alive, having a life while Breivic would be in prison?

21. The verdict, its acceptance?

22. The lawyer, his work, not shaking hands with Breivic? His talking about his family, future generations and the world with his children?

23. The political administration, Norwegian society, right-wing groups, issues of multiculturalism, Islam in Norway? Themes of the human spirit?

PIERCING

US, 2018, 81 minutes, Colour.
Christopher Abbott, Mia Wasikowski, Laia Costa.
Directed by Nicolas Pesce.

Piercing is an 80 minute two-hander generally confined to rooms, there are some scenes in a car and at a hospital. It is based on a Japanese novel, adapted to the United States. The author of the novel, Ryu Murakami, has written a number of novels and directed some film versions, including Audition.

This is not exactly an enjoyable drama. Rather, it is a specialist film for arthouse/festival audiences.

In fact, with its confinement, it might have had more effect had it been a theatre piece in a small theatrical space. On the big screen, it seems somewhat extended, melodramatic in its realism, and some prurient fantasies.

The central character, Reed, played by Christopher Abbott with some intensity, is seen initially with a weapon and holding his baby. However, he loves his wife and his child, contacting her throughout the drama. However, there is something strange about him, his look and his demeanour.

He books into a hotel for a rendezvous with an escort, and there is a quite elaborate scene where he mimes in great detail how we will deal with the woman, meeting, undressing, tying her up, violence. It emerges later in the phone call that his wife has encouraged him in this enterprise.

The film then makes a transition to the prostitute, Jackie, Mia Wasikowska, waking up, demands made on her for money, her going to the appointment, the awkwardness of meeting with Reed, his nervous reaction, her responding negatively, going to have a shower, his concern, then discovering that she was stabbing herself in her leg. His careful plan has gone completely awry.

Which makes the audience wonder where this drama will go. There is a hospital interlude, going back to Jackie’s flat, a drama where she turns the table on Reed, he reacts, she gets free – and questions about sexual behaviour, fantasies, sado-masochism, blood, control and consent…

The film stops, leaving the ending open for the audience to speculate about what will happen in the future of each of the characters.

At beginning and end, there are extensive crane shots of the facades of apartment blocks, stylised, the filming of miniatures.

1. Erotic fantasies and realism?

2. A two hander, adapted from a Japanese novel, the American setting? The brief running time? Aspects of reality? Aspects of fantasy? The managers for the facades of the buildings at beginning and end? A rear window approach?

3. The opening, the apartment, Reed and the baby, threatening, the baby crying, his wife, her concern? Asking him questions? His reassurance? Getting up, getting dressed? His work at home, going out? His phoning his wife, the later revelation that she knew what he was up to and encouraging him, even to killing the prostitute?

4. Reed, the hotel, booking in, well-dressed? The sequence of his rehearsing the attack on the prostitute, miming, the attention to detail? Audiences suspecting that it would not work out this way?

5. The crossing to Jackie, the phone call, waking up, getting dressed, the demands for money, driving, the corridor, meeting Reed? Her appearance, clothes? Her manner as a prostitute and the job? The interactions with Reed? Suspicions?

6. Reed, the awkwardness, listening to Jackie, the smile, her reaction, in the shower, his concern, his plan failing, knocking on the door, going in, her stabbing her leg, his concern, the bandage, blood and his own wound? In the corridor, the man searching for his wife? Jackie emerging, her behaviour?

7. Her moods, driving to the hospital, getting Reed’s reassurance, in the hospital, with the doctor, his phone calls in the meantime? Her emerging, her story about riding the bike?

8. The return to her home, lavish and well-kept, Reed’s reaction? The possibility for the plan going ahead? Jackie and the food, the drugs, Reed’s reaction, his collapse? Jackie and her violence, bashing his face? The reversal of roles, his tying her up? His collapse, her getting free?

9. The interactions between the two, who was in control, consent, hopes? The future?

10. The film stopping, the facades, giving the audience time to reflect on what they have seen?

ELOISE

US, 2017, 89 minutes, Colour.
Chace Crawford, Eliza Duschku, Brandon T.Jackson, P.J.Byrne, Robert Patrick, Nicole Forrester.
Directed by Robert Legato.

Eloise is definitely a film that should be seen in a darkened cinema, to maintain a sense of tension, of fear and apprehension. If watched on a television screen with some light, it loses its atmosphere.

Eloise is the title of a mental institution in Michigan. The screenplay introduces a rather sinister history, especially with its expert, Dr Greiss, Robert Patrick with memories of Terminator 2. He believes that patients should confront their fears and not coddle them. There are some very grim scenes where patients are trapped with the creatures that they fear, even a cage over their head, trapped with spiders and other creatures.

At the centre of the film is Jacob, Chace Crawford very much a lookalike for Paul Walker here, who hears that his father has killed himself but has left him a great deal of property investment – but he must verify that his aunt, a patient in Eloise, is dead. He is joined by his friend from juvenile detention, Dell (Brandon T. Jackson), a friend but not really trustworthy. They have both encountered a young woman at a bar, Pia, Eliza Dushku, who turns out to be the sister of the young man they find on the Internet who has an expertise, more than obsessive, about Eloise.

The bulk of the film is the four of them going in the dark into the many buildings that comprise Eloise, the interiors becoming more and more sinister, having a destructive effect on each of them. They also begin to hallucinate, enter into the life of Eloise in the past, ultimately Jacob finding his aunt who turns out to be his mother (and the severe doctor his father). There is some time travel in reality or imagination, where the baby is delivered to the mother’s brother, Jacob’s father as he thought, and Jacob sets fire to Eloise.

There is no real happy ending at all, Jacob seemed to be trapped in his fear of claustrophobia, of being buried alive. Pia has a fear of injections – but is seen at the beginning and the end of the film being interviewed by a detective concerning what happened.

Quite effective in its way – rather difficult to explain Jacob’s presence in the different time phases.

1. A psychological thriller? The focus on a mental institution? The patients, the severe treatment?

2. The title, the young woman giving her name to the institution? The history of the institution, the patients, Dr Greiss’ theories and experimentation, the staff, the patients, the treatment? Confronting fears rather than coddling them?

3. The visuals of the institution, massive exteriors, the interiors, rooms, cells, surgery? The institution at night? Vast, the range of corridors, staircases, rooms, record rooms? The contrast with Jacob and his ordinary life, home, the information about his father’s death?

4. The introduction, the clips during the opening credits, black and white, sepia, then colour? The range of patients? Dr Greiss and his personality, treatment? Sinister atmosphere? The history, reputation, the fire and destruction? The remaining buildings? The office and reception?

5. Jacob, juvenile detention, bad relationship with his father, making sense in the light of the revelations of the screenplay? His father killing himself, the will and testament, land investment, the revelation about the aunt, the need to have her death certificate? His friendship with Dell? Their chatter, possibilities with the money for the future? The decision to go to Eloise, the receptionist, her filling out the form about his claustrophobia?

6. The research, on-line, discovering Scott, going to visit him?

7. The scenes in the diner, drinks, drinks for the birthday, Pia and the discussions? The surprise to find Pia with Scott? The explanation of her background and looking after him?

8. Scott, personality, obsessive, his vast collection? Mental age? The decision to help, his map? The plan and their invasion of Eloise?

9. The dark, the eerie atmosphere, the sense of tension, going through the various buildings, the atmosphere, the torches, Scott and his leading? Going through the various buildings? Scott, venturing on his own, stealing the ashes, their spilling? His camera and the eerie colours? The group beginning to imagine and see things? Scott and his falling through the holes in the floors, his being taken over for experiments, the removal of his eye?

10. Jacob, the bond with Pia, the searching, eventually finding the documentation, the information about his aunt, her pregnancy and death? The concern about Scott, going to find him, the beginning of the apparitions, Pia seeing the girl in red, Jacob and the various patients, the doctors? Life in Eloise? The pursuits, having to avoid the doctors and staff?

11. Dell, light fingered, his taking Jacob’s watch? going with the plan, wary about Scott, Scott touching him? Search, his finding the drugs, taking them, the effect? Hallucinations, seeing people, the gun, firing? His being pursued, the luminous cross, his being destroyed and trapped in the water?

12. The complexities the plot, time travel, Jacob seeing his aunt, discovering that she was his mother, his telling her the name? Seeing the baby taken, the nurse putting it in a box? Sending it to his nominal father? The behaviour of Dr Greiss? His father and the baby? Making sense of what it happened in Jacob’s life?

13. The television interviews with Dr Greiss, his explanations of confronting fears, his examples, his ruthlessness? His trapping Pia, her fear of injections, the multiple injections, getting free, getting the boxes the baby, Pia giving it to the little girl who gave it to Jacob’s nominal father? The contrast with Jacob, claustrophobia, fear of being buried alive, his imagination, fantasy, time travel – and setting fire to Eloise, and his return to the coffin?

14. The audience having seen the detective and his interview with Pia, the return to that sequence – the story, real or imagined?

THE STRANGERS: PREY AT NIGHT

US, 2018, 85 minutes, Colour.
Christina Hendricks, Martin Henderson, Bailee Madison, Lewis Pullman.
Directed by Johannes Roberts.

There seems to be quite some unanimity about this film. Critics and public were against it. It is a sequel to the 2008 thriller, The Strangers.

This is a fairly straightforward slasher movie. It introduces us to a bickering family, the teenage daughter not wanting to go away from home to boarding school, to be away from her friends. She sulks. Her older brother is playing sport but goes along willingly for the trip. She is played by Bailee Madison and he is played by Lewis Pullman. The parents, loving but also quarrelsome at times, are played by Christina Hendricks and Martin Henderson.

The film opens in a sinister way, an old woman in bed, her pet dog, a knock on the door, opening it, suspicious, being attacked by young woman in a mask, her being murdered.

It emerges later that this old lady is host to the family on their way to the school.

After some bickering again, some more sulks, the parents trying to cope, sending out the older brother to speak to his sister, as well as a sinister young woman at the door, there is an attack and, by the 30th minute of the film, Christina Hendricks has been dispatched. By the 50th minute, Martin Henderson, who has been searching for his daughter, coming across the body that his children had discovered, is also murdered.

An older sinister masked man also appears along with the young girl, threatening the children, dispatching a police officer sent to help by the 65th minute.

However, there are a lot of confrontations, car crashes, burning trucks, hold up on the bridge, an attack in a swimming pool… But the young man and his sister survive.

U TURN

US, 1997, 125 minutes, Colour.
Sean Penn, Jennifer Lopez, Nick Nolte, Billy Bob Thornton, Powers Booth, John Voight, Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes, Julie Haggerty, Bo Hopkins, Laurie Metcalf, Liv Tyler.
Directed by Oliver Stone.

U Turn is Oliver Stone's latest, a modest symbolic actioner, compared with his portrayals of Presidents and the Vietnam conflict.

Again, Stone with his visceral stories of tough men and macho stances (which he mocks here) is not to everyone's taste. Stone did not write the film this time; John Ridley has adapted his novel, called (also symbolically) Stray Dogs.

In the dead-end town of Superior, Arizona, petty gambler, Sean Penn, finds both purgatory and hell. It's like a Robert Altman film as he encounters an odd Elmore Leonard collection of characters (with a top cast often in cameos) in serious, violent, amoral/moral and often funny episodes. Desperation in the desert.

1. The title, the American road, American journey? Physical journey? Moral journey?

2. The career of Oliver Stone, his perspectives on the United States, on Vietnam, on society? His perspective on comments? His strong cast here?

3. Arizona, the road, the landscapes, desert, the woods, mountains, water? The town, the streets, shops, diner? Garage? Homes and mansions? The musical score?

4. Sean Penn as Bobby Cooper, young man in debt, the Russian Mafia in pursuit, driving through Arizona, his reliance on his car, the breakdown? The town of Superior, his being
stranded? His missing fingers and symbol of his gambling and retribution? The phone calls?

5. Darrell, his appearance, tone and talking, bizarre, mechanic, spider, as a person, God and idiosyncratic, fixing the car, delaying, the price going up, his demands, his hostile attitudes, the conflict with Bobby?

6. The blind Indian, begging in the street, his comments, advice? The final donation – and whether he could see or not?

7. The sheriff, his place in the town, driving and watching, supervising? Interrogating Bobby? His reactions? His life and his family? The surprise of his relationship with Grace?

8. Toby and Jenny, young people in the town, Toby is spoilt and wealthy, his violence, love? The confrontation with Bobby, the attacks, Bobby’s reaction? Jenny and her reaction?

9. Groceries, the boy, the money and his needs? Grace, the drapes and his helping?

10. The relationship between Grace and Jake, Bobby’s encounter with each of them, the discussions, the issues of money, the hit? Bobby and his needs, his decisions? Driving with Jake, the discussion at the house, the talk, the plan, Jake’s attitude towards money, the availability?

11. Grace, the encounter with Bobby, her decision to use him, the discussions, the plan for the murder?

12. The buildup to the confrontation, Bobby and his double deals, Jake’s death, the body, throwing it over the cliff, Grace and her hostility?

13. The sheriff, his arrival, picking up Grace, together?

14. The bar, the variety of types, the men sitting round, the conversations? Flo and her service?

15. Bobby going to the bus station, trying to get away, the arrival of the Russians? The receptionist, the young girl at the station?

16. Grace, shooting Bobby, his going over the cliff, the irony of his having the keys of the car in his hand? Her going down the cliff, the fight, the injuries? Her death? His climbing
the hill? The car and his driving off – to what? No U-turn?