MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS

UK, 2018, 124 minutes, Colour.
Saoirse Ronin, Margot Robbie, Guy Pearce, Joe Alwyn, Ian Hart, David Tennant, Jack Lowdon, Simon Russell Beale, Martin Compston, James Mc Ardle, Adrian Lester, Gemma Chan, Ismael Cruz Cordova.
Directed by Jessie Rourke.

It is almost 50 years since the film, Mary, Queen of Scots, appeared with Vanessa Redgrave in the title role and with Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth. In the meantime, there have been many films and television series about Elizabeth, but Mary has been in the background, remembered principally for the fact that she was executed.

This time the focus is quite prominently on Mary, Elizabeth being presented as something of a supporting character. The performances are very good indeed, Saoirse Ronin as Mary, from a young woman in the 1560s to her execution in 1587. Margot Robbie, rather deglamorised, even being seen with the pox, offers an interestingly different interpretation of Elizabeth.

As does the screenplay, based on more recent research on the era and these prominent regal women. In fact, the screenplay also points out that what the two women have in common is that they were monarchs in the 16th century where rulers were kings or emperors, where the expectation was to be married and produce male heirs. Mary succeeded, though not in the way she anticipated. Elizabeth did not succeed.

While the film opens with Mary’s execution, and glimpses of the two women, most of the action is in flashback, very interesting for those who enjoy historical films and their explorations and portraits.

In this interpretation of Mary, there is information about her being a Stuart, her unfulfilled marriage at a young age to the French king, assuming the manners and style of the French court, the significance of her Catholicism in the context of the Reformation (especially with the thunderings of Presbyterian John Knox in Edinburgh and his political machinations and advice), the role of the Church of England in Elizabeth’s reign. The pitting of Catholic against Protestant is a dominating feature of this film.

Early in the film there is a reference to “Matters of State� and “Matters of the Heart�. While there are some of the latter, the relationship between Elizabeth and the Earl of Dudley, Lord Darnley and his relationship with Mary, the marriage, the subsequent marriage to Bothwell, Matters of State are the dominant themes. There are also mail plots, betrayals, murders.

Mary is strong-minded, sometimes capricious, relating well to her half-brother who also betrays her, fascinated by Darnley and his sexuality, enjoying the company of her ladies-in-waiting (who do do a lot of waiting outside the door), the company of Italian courtier, David Rizzio, leading her forces into battle, this is the younger Mary before her imprisonment, the plots against her by the nobles of her court.

Dramatically, the men are somewhat in the background although they wield their power. Elizabeth relies on the advice of Lord Cecil (Guy Pearce), Mary undermined by Lord Maitland (Ian Hart). The English Ambassador to the Court of Edinburgh (Adrian Lester) tries to manipulate for the English point of view. David Tennant is John Knox, bigoted and blustering.

At the end, Mary is a thwarted figure, experiencing disappointment, having a brief encounter with Elizabeth, but taken to execution – and her son, James, King of Scotland but, at Elizabeth death with no Tudor heir, King James I of England.

The film is well directed by Josie Rourke, who is experience has been more in theatre than on screen.

1. The recreation of British and Scottish history? The 16th century? The world of the Tudors? The world of the Stuarts?

2. Audience knowledge of the characters, the events? The initial information in the film? The interpretation of the events and characters? Siding with Mary, siding with Elizabeth?

3. The quality of the re-creation, Scotland, the terrain, the sea, the mountains, Edinburgh and the buildings, the Palace? The interiors? The contrast with the English court? Costumes and decor? The musical score?

4. The focus on Mary, the initial information, her age, married in France, widow, the return to Scotland, contact with her half-brother, the Catholic tradition, the Stuarts? Surrounded by plots? The performance from Saiorse Ronin and her creating the character of Mary? Her age and growing older, the relationship with her brother, betrayal, reconciliation? Bothwell and his protection? The range of men in the court, their contrasting views? Her life, ladies in waiting, speaking French and English?

5. Elizabeth as a supporting character, the background of the Tudors, Henry VIII, the execution of Anne Boleyn, her not being Mary, Protestant tradition, unmarried, not having an heir, the role of her advisers, the Court hostile to the pope? Her reliance on Dudley – but not marrying him? The portrait of Mary, Elizabeth attitude towards Mary?

6. The screenplay highlighting Matters of State, Matters of Heart? Both presented and explored, the domination of Matters of State?

7. The position of women, in authority, the anti-women attitude of courtiers and advisers? The two queens and the role of men in their regimes? John Knox, the Presbyterian reform, his fierceness, denunciations of women? Stirring the powers against Mary? His religious principles of the congregation, anti-papist?

8. Mary, consolidating the throne, her advisers, the suspicions of Maitland? The British ambassador, the discussions, trying to persuade her to yield? Darnley and his father, from the English court, the plan, the Catholic background? Darnley, young, his character? The plan, for Mary, the Catholic tradition, sexuality, sexual issues, the initial sexual behaviour with Darnley? Preserving her virginity? Mary becoming pregnant? The court, the presence of David, musician, at home in the court, with the ladies? The ladies, waiting outside, discreet?

9. David, his role in the court, the sexual encounter with Darnley? The court planning his murder, forcing Darnley to sign the document?

10. The battle sequences, the attention to detail, the troops, the fighting, hand-to-hand, victories?

11. Mary and her pregnancy? The birth of her son? His future role?

12. Plotting against Mary, Maitland and his sinister behaviour, Bothwell escaping? The murder of David, the request for the pardon, Darnley signing it, the murder of Darnley?

13. Mary’s half-brother, his status, plotting?

14. The return of Bothwell, his place in the court, marrying Mary? His violence and aggression?

15. The Tudor court, Elizabeth and her relationship with Dudley, her experience of the pox and its effect on her? The presence of Lord Cecil, continual advice, Elizabeth listening, sometimes disregard? Her sympathy with Mary, the organisation of the meeting, the discussions, the tension, mutual suspicions? Elizabeth ultimately signing Mary’s execution document?

16. The birth of the boy, Mary confined, the passing of the years?

17. The opening and closing of the film, the two queens, walking into courtyards, Mary and the red dress, her execution?

18. The final information about Elizabeth, the reign, the accession of James, King of Scotland, King of England?

 

 

 

 

GREEN BOOK

US, 2018, 130 minutes, Colour.
Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali, Linda Cardellini.
Directed by Peter Farrelly.

Green Book seems an indeterminate kind of title for what is quite a significant film.

In fact, as the screenplay explains, Green Book was the title of a guide for African- Americans travelling in the south, indicating the significance of segregation, hotels and restaurants where they would be welcome and those where they would not be welcome. Many audiences in the 21st-century, perhaps even in the United States, might be shocked to discover the existence and use of this book.

In the late 1950s, Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis appeared in a landmark film about black-white relationships, The Defiant Ones, two prisoners, one black, one white, chained together as they try to escape prison. In some ways, Green Book could be seen as an equivalent of The Defiant Ones. They are not literally chained together, the black man and the white man, but there are bonds and there are bigotries that need to be broken.

The initial focus of the film is on Tony, an Italian-American? working at the Copacabana club in New York City, keeping an eye on security, intervening as a bouncer to break up fights and kick out unwelcome guests when necessary. At home, he has a loving wife and family. He also has a lot of Italian relatives and friends. They are eager to give him a job when the club closes down for several months of renovations. The next focus of the film is on Dr Shirley, who summons Tony for a job interview. Dr Shirley lives in rather lavish apartments, with all kinds of decor, even a throne chair, on top of Carnegie Hall. He is a talented musician. He is also black.

It is 1962.

We have glimpsed some bigotry on Tony's part, putting some glasses used by black tradesmen in the rubbish bin. He is not immediately attracted to the job of driving Dr Shirley, being something like a servant. However, there is some insistence and he accepts the job.

So, this is the film of a journey, physically through some states in middle America and down to the South, the deepest south. It is also a journey of two men getting to know each other as persons, realising prejudices and limitations, learning how to overcome them, having to depend on each other, and beginning a friendship (which the final credits, with photos of the actual men, indicates lasted until their deaths in 2014). One of Tony's sons wrote the screenplay for the film.

The performances are excellent. Viggo Mortensen is at his best as Tony, loud, chain-smoking, chewing fried chicken and advising Dr Shirley to chuck the bones out of the car window, not initially appreciating Dr Shirley's talent. Mahershala Ali, who won his Oscar for Moonlight, is a regal-mannered, self-confidently arrogant, superior who sits in the back of the car (and reminders of a reverse of Driving Miss Daisy).

One of the strengths of the screenplay is the continued conversations between the two, as they drive through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky. And one wonders why Dr Shirley would be travelling America at this stage for performances, excellent as he is, receiving the warmth of the predominantly white audiences. As they venture into the South, there are more troubles and more segregation, more relying on the Green Book.

Dr Shirley is also a drinker, drinking alone, and, when he is arrested one evening, further revelation about him and his aloneness. The two are stopped by the police in Louisiana and are given very bigoted treatment, especially when Tony becomes violent, something that Dr Shirley has advised against. They finish up in jail, Dr Shirley allowed his phone call and, entertainingly as we might expect, his phone call is to Robert Kennedy!

And there is worse in Birmingham, Alabama, the seemingly-civilised manners that put prejudice into practice and the underlying dislike, even racial hatred. However, there is a very engaging sequence where Dr Shirley goes to a black club and wows the audience with his piano playing.

There are many fine touches throughout the film (including Tony trying to write letters to his loving wife, Linda Cardellini, and Dr Shirley taking over the inspiration and composition).

There is so much to enjoy in Green Book as well as so much about prejudice to reflect on.

1. The many awards? Audience popularity awards? Perspective on the 1960s from the 21st-century?

2. The title, the explanation of the book, American segregation, the colour of the book for African- Americans and information about where they could travel and stay in the south? The ingrained racism, white superiority, prejudice? On the eve of Martin Luther King's March on Washington? The role of the Kennedys?

3. The film as a journey, real, symbolic? Two American males? In the US, the North, South? Experiences, suffering, transformation? In the background of an African- American, his race, sexual orientation, skill in the arts?

4. The introduction to Tony, New York City, his age, jobs, his wife, children, the Italian background, community and families? Meals together? His work at the Copacabana, as a bouncer, breaking up the fight in the restaurant and throwing out the offender, his trick with the boss's hat and the hat-check girl, paying her off, producing the hat and getting favours? A good men according to his limited lights?

5. Tony's situation, his real name, those finding it difficult to pronounce, the nickname, education or not, clothes and manner, continually smoking, his prejudices and putting the glasses in the rubbish after the black workers used them? The closing of the Copacabana, the variety of offers for him to have jobs? The phone call to Dr Shirley? The visit, his being rather overwhelmed by the visit, the hunting trophies, Dr Shirley sitting on the throne, his robe? The recording company, his not wanting to be a servant, his final consent? To be away for two months? To return for Christmas?

6. The visuals of the car journey, from north to south, the 1960s? The performance in Pittsburgh and the audience? Middle America, performances in Indiana, Ohio? The crossing of the border into Kentucky, the reactions, received in Tennessee, the Carolinas, Louisiana? Difficulties in Louisiana? The final confrontation in Alabama? 1962, the intervention of Robert Kennedy, the vigil of Civil Rights?

7. Dr Shirley, superior African- American, and look, stature, manner, glasses, clothing, cultured voice, opinions, expectations of superiority? His skill in performances, his decision to go to the South, the other members of the trio and their backgrounds, skill and performance? His story, taught by his mother, love of music, his brother and no contact with him? Education, music training, skill and performance, audiences responding? Carnegie Hall, his address, living upstairs in luxury? His motivation for the tour? Understanding of race issues? The revelation of his drinking, the whiskey each night? His isolation? His going out on the town, drinking, arrested by the police, naked in the cells, the revelation about his sexual orientation and behaviour? His being superior, commanding Tony?

8. On the road, Tony talking, eating, learning that nature is beautiful? The interactions between the two, the revelations of character, Dr Shirley and his haughtiness, and the discovery of and eating of the Kentucky fried chicken, thrown the trash out of the window yet reverting to pick up the cup? The two men sharing their stories, the effect?

9. Tony, driving, cigarettes, confident, not wanting to be a servant, his manners, Dr Shirley's criticisms? Dolores and her wanting letters, his awkward writing, Dr Shirley's help (and Dolores realising this and later thanking him)? His playing cards outside, then his listening to the music, his coming to admire him, to discover more about him? The breaking down of his prejudices, whether realised or not?

10. The experience of the South, the discovery of more prejudices the further south, the concerts in Pittsburgh and Ohio, the contrast with Kentucky? The white families and hosts? Dr Shirley deferring to them? The experience in Louisiana, Dr Shirley going out on the town, his need for alcohol, his being discovered in the jail, naked, the other man? The driving in Louisiana, the police pulling up the car, the treatment of Tony, their treatment of Dr Shirley, the manners of the police, their suspicions, Tony and his violence and the reaction? Dr Shirley and his phone call, the shock (and the humour) of his contacting Robert Kennedy, Kennedy phoning the governor, the police chief and his disbelief, having to let them go?

11. The experience in Alabama, Dr Shirley ready for the concert, not allowed to enter the dining room, the segregation rules? Tony and his being tempted to violence and Dr Shirley warning him off? The manner of the waiters and the manager, the interior and bigotry?

12. Their going to the club, the patrons, the music, Dr Shirley playing, his enthusiasm and skill, the woman at the bar, her surprise, the response of the people? Tony sharing this experience?

13. The return home, Tony welcomed by his family, the Christmas dinner, the enthusiasm, his explanation of his trip? Dolores, her delight in Tony being home, the children? The contrast with Dr Shirley, going to Carnegie Hall, alone? His change of heart, going to Tony's door, his being welcomed, and Dolores thanking him because she realised that he had written the letters?

14. The aftermath, the photos of the characters, Tony's son contributing to the screenplay, the long friendship between the two men into the second decade of the 21st century?

 

 

 

 

 

CAPERNAUM/ CHAOS

Lebanon, 2018, 121 minutes, Colour.
Zain Al Rafeea, Yordanos Sheferaw, Boluwatife Treasure Bankole.
Directed by Nadine Labaki.

This is a very serious film about contemporary Lebanon, about Lebanon at any time and about any society where children are put at risk and brutalised
The alternate title to Caperaum is Chaos. The film is by a talented Lebanese director, Nadine Labaki, her third feature film with her previous two films Caramel, Where Do We Go Now, concentrating on women characters, their lives, and some peacemaking between Christians and Muslims in a village.

This time her focus is on a young boy, age 12, Zain, played with some complexity by Zain Al Rafeea, up till now his only screen appearance. He is completely convincing.

Zain is from a very large family, squatting as a favour in an uncomfortable apartment in Beirut, packed together during the night, the mother angry, the father even angrier, treating the children brutally. Zain does have a job in a shop (and not above some shoplifting). The owner has his eyes on Zain’s younger sister, proposing an arranged marriage. And here we see Zain sensitive to his sister, noticing that she has had her first period and washing her clothes, advising her to be silent, really upset when she is made up for the meeting with the proposed husband.

The screenplay moves back and forth in time, highlighting Zain in prison for young offenders, in court, charged with a physical attack on the husband, unrepentant and acknowledging he had attacked the 'sonafabitch'. The judge listens to his case. There are scenes with the prosecution and the defence.

In the major flashback, Zain runs away from home, and encounters a sad clown on a bus and decides to stay in the town where he gets off, where he works at a large fair.

The opening of the film, there has been a scene where a number of women are gathered and accused of not having documents to stay in Lebanon. There is a focus on one from Ethiopia, Rahil, pregnant. The fair is where Zain and Rahil come together, she sheltering him in her home, relying on him to look after her young baby as she goes to work. There are very tender and moving sequences with a Zain and the baby.

The film moves towards tragic consequences, Rahil arrested and unable to contact Zain, imprisoned and concerned about her child. Zain meanwhile entrusts the baby, unwittingly, to a people smuggler who has promised him and a young Syrian refugee passage to Sweden or Turkey. When Zain returns home to get his papers, he discovers the fate of his young sister which leads to his brutal attack on the husband.

The film is not without hope, the young prisoners listening to a television program where an advocate for children’s rights is suggesting that some children could sue their parents – and, we realise, that this is where we came in at the beginning of the film, Zain declaring that he wants to sue his parents. His parents appear at the trial, an indictment of their brutal behaviour, but also harsh criticism of the conditions which lead to this kind of abusive behaviour.

So, the film is quite an emotional experience as well is a challenge to values and concern about the welfare of children.

1. The title, chaos?

2. The setting in Lebanon, Beirut? The city, overall, the shanty areas, the lives of the poor, streets, stores, prisons, travel outside the town, shelter dwellings, the fair, bureaucratic offices? The musical score?

3. The introduction to Zain, his teeth examined, age 12? The resumption of the scene later, his going to prison?

4. The opening glimpse of the women, as servants, Rahil, from Ethiopian, pregnant? Her names? The treatment of the women, illegal presence in the country?

5. The emotion of the audience in the world of Zain, the city streets, the children and their playing, playing with guns? Zain and his family, the parents, their brutality, illiterate, fending for themselves? The children and the treatment? Debts, dependent on goodwill? The meals, the sleeping arrangements? The verbal and physical abuse? Sahar and her experiencing of her period, Zain noticing? Warning her about Asoud? His working for Asoud in the store, stealing from him? harsh?

6. The court sequences, Zain on trial, the accusation, his admitting the stabbing, his continued referring to the victim are sonofabitch? No regrets? The later trial, the judge, the prosecution, the defence lawyers, his wanting to sue his parents? The parents in the court? His answers about them? Witnesses for him?

7. Sahar and her fate, the decision of the parents, after her period, the lipstick and dress, a Assoud and his coming to view her? Zain protesting, urging her to take off the lipstick? Her being taken away, the marriage? Zain later returning, the news of the hospital, her death, his taking the knife, attacking Assoud?

8. Zain running away, the money, stealing, on the bus, the encounter with the eccentric man – Cockroach? His decision to get off and follow him, going to the fair, wandering? Money, eating?

9. The encounter with Rahil, her work, Ethiopian background, with Yonas and concealing him in the toilet, in the bag, taking him home? Zain accompanying her, the connection, at home, staying with the baby, minding the baby, his devoted care for the baby? Helping with the feeding, cleaning, playing?

10. Rahil, at work, not having the documents, going to the agent, the price for the documents, being raised? The past connection? The need? Aspro and his harshness? The forgeries? His wanting Yonas? Her refusal?

11. Yonas, Zain and his care, audience response to the many sequences of the boy and the child? Selling the goods from the house, stealing the skateboard, finding the young girl from Syria, her work, informing him about Aspro? His going to visit, wanting to migrate, to go to Sweden or Turkey, which ever was more beautiful? His not having the documents?

12. Cockroach, his life, manner, the friendship with the woman at the fair, Zain persuading them to dress up, travel with him, go to the official, make claims about their work, their care for him? The need for documents?

13. Rahil not returning, his desperation, the audience knowing that she had been arrested, believing Aspro, taking the baby to him?

14. Rahil, the women, their being apprehended, in prison?

15. Zain returning home, the reaction of his mother, her pregnancy, the violence of his father, the news about Sahar and her death? Demanding the documents from his father, his father’s anger, the not even knowing the date of his birth? The assault on Assoud? His appearing in the court in a wheelchair?

16. The prison sequences, the women? The boys in the juvenile detention?

17. The television program, getting the information about abuse of children? Zain phoning, the other boys in the prison watching the television? The consequences, the trial, Zain and his suing his parents, the judge listening to the case?

18. Rahil seeing Zain, the information, the social worker recovering Jonas and the release of all the people imprisoned by Aspro?

19. A film of social conscience? A film for compassion?

 

 

LORO

Italy, 2018, 152 minutes, Colour.
Toni Servillo, Riccardo Scarmacio,
Directed by Paolo Sorrentino.

Loro is the Italian for “Them�. And, here, who is Them?

Writer-director, Paolo Sorrentino, has made quite a name for himself in Italy and internationally. In the past he has made some telling domestic dramas, has been highly critical in his portrait of Christian Democrat politician, Giulio Andreotti, in the film Il Divo he also won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film for La Grande Bellezza, The Great Beauty, in 2013, wandering through contemporary Italian society, social, political, ecclesiastical, his working in the Federico Fellini tradition, the 21st-century La Dolce Vita. Then he made the television series, The Young Pope, with Jude Law as Pius XIII, a young American cardinal who firmly believes in his own infallibility and treats the church as such. Quite a record for a decade of film and television-making.

Loro is quite ambitious. Again, one might note the tradition of Fellini, once again the overtones of La Dolce Vita.

The film is in two parts. The first focuses on a young man with entrepreneurial ambitions and dreams, Sergio (Riccardo Scarmacio) who is not afraid of political blackmail and using sexual intrigue to gain his contracts. He comes from the Italian South, is married to an ambitious woman who has been connected with politicians in the past. It is to be noted that his father, of the old school, heartily disapproves of his son and his behaviour. Then Sergio moves to Rome. However, his ambitions is to meet the mysterious industrialist who has a mansion on the island of Sardinia.

In the second part, we see this mysterious figure in his mansion, having succeeded in building up a fortune, in business, in ownership of football teams, in power over several networks on television. He is not a fictitious character (the opening information for the film indicating that it is based on fact – but always on interpretation of fact). And the figure is Silvio Berlusconi.

For Italian audiences, there will be no difficulty in identifying Berlusconi, remembering who he has been, his years in political power, his conservative stances politically but his permissiveness, socially, in his life, in the media. (Italian writer-director, Nanny Moretti, also had a film about Berlusconi, very critical, in 2008, Il Camaino). For non-Italian audiences, the film may be something of a revelation, needing to be checked in some detail with authenticated facts, but certainly fostering a dislike and distain for Berlusconi.

Sorrentino has been very well served in several films by the presence of Toni Servillo. He portrayed Andreotti in Il Divo. He was at the centre of The Great Beauty. He is the embodiment, sometimes with a touch of the grotesque, especially his black-plastered hair, make up, giving something of an impression that he is an embalmed Bella Lugosi.

So, the second part of the film shows his ascent, political coming, the persuasion of six senators to cross the floor and enable him to move into leadership. But, his wife is exasperated and leaves him. And, what about Sergio? He comes into the good graces of Berlusconi, has shown that he is able to organise social events, round up plenty of attractive women, would-be actresses, starlets, the sexy kind of emphasis that was a mark of Berlusconi’s television productions. But, Sergio is no match for Berlusconi. He does his will, but makes a poor judgement in asking about his preferment, falls by the wayside.

The film is long, perhaps indulgent in its portrayal of Berlusconi’s world, perhaps wallowing in the sexy glamour, but always targeting Berlusconi and his treatment of Italy. Probably best to check with a politically-savvy Italian to discover what is accurate and what is satire (or both?).

1. The impact for an Italian audience and its knowledge of Italian politics and Silvio Berlusconi? The impact for a universal audience? Knowledge of Berlusconi or not?

2. The title, the reference to Them? And who is Them?

3. The work of Paolo Sorrentino, style, Italian filmmaking tradition, the influence of Fellini? The range of his films and television series? 21st-century and La Dolce Vita? Humour, irony, satire? His several collaborations with Toni Servillo?

4. The first part of the film focusing on Sergio, contemporary ambition, the visuals like so much of Italian television promoted by Berlusconi? Wanting to encounter Silvio? The second part of the film and the focus on Berlusconi himself?

5. The declarations at the beginning of the film, connection with characters and reality, but adaptable?

6. The visuals, the mansion on Sardinia, the cities of Italy’s South, Puglia, Taranto, the sequences in Rome? Fashion, media, politics? The musical score?

7. The images of Berlusconi’s Italy, lavish style, mansions and interiors, grounds, the island of Sardinia, the TV world, the presence of girls, sex and provocativeness, the atmosphere and decadence behind the cameras, the contrast with Berlusconi quiet at home with his wife? The background of politics, interviews with politicians, loyalty and disloyalty, political situations?

8. The earthquake in L’ Aquila, the devastation, the earthquake as symbolic of Berlusconi and his career, his visits to the town, his promises to the people, the old woman with dentures (and the gift)? The rebuilding of the town – and Berlusconi rebuilding his career?

9. Sergio, go-getter, his relationship with Tamara? His relationship with his demanding father? The episode on the boat, his using Candida and her sexuality, the politician on the boat, the discussion about contracts and politics, lunches for schools, the sexual display, the sexual encounter, blackmailing the politician, his promise? His father’s denouncing him? Tamara supporting him?

10. Sergio, his character, age, entrepreneur, the girls, auditions, the ogling men, sex? Going to Rome? The encounter with Kira, the parties, the insinuations? Her response to him? Promises to introduce him to Berlusconi? Tamara and her past relationship with the politician? An atmosphere of corruption?

11. Sergio, his expressed ambitions, wanting favours from Berlusconi, the adulation, Berlusconi using him to provide the girls, the parties, Sergio and his poor timing of the request? Dependence on Kira?

12. The long sequences of Berlusconi at home, his appearance, hair, the touch of the Bela Lugosi-embalmed look, his vanity? With his wife, the bond with her, her personality, her going away on the holiday, her return and the discussion about the divorce? The effect on him? His exercise of power?

13. Indications of his success in business, television empire, the discussion with the footballer and his ownership of the football club?

14. The political background, the suggestion about winning over six senators, the interviews, discussion about principles, pragmatism? Rejection, the six he accepted? The success and the consequences for his role in government, his being sworn in?

15. The social aspects of his position, the discussions with Sergio, the relationship with Kira, organising the parties, the number of women present? With the politicians? Overtly sexual, sexual innuendo?

16. Sergio, his wrong move in asking for preferment, Berlusconi’s reaction?

17. Symbolism of the earthquake and the collapse of L’ Aquila, Berlusconi and his presence, the encounter with the old woman and her loss of her dentures, later sending the replacements? An opportunity for popular intervention? The devastation the city – and the possible interpretation of it being in symbolic image of Berlusconi, collapse, rebuilt?

18. Audience response to Berlusconi, as a person, businessman, career? His role in Italy, in government for so long? Upfront? Behind-the-
scenes?

19. Audiences discerning Sorrentino’s intentions in this presentation of contemporary Italy and, especially, of the personality of Silvio Berlusconi?

THE MUMMY'S HAND

US, 1940, 67 minutes, Black-and-white.
Dick Foran, Peggy Moran, Wallace Ford, Eduardo Cianelli, George Zucco, Cecil Kellaway, Charles Trowbridge, Tom Tyler, Siegfried Arno.
Directed by Christy Cabanne.

Films about Egyptian archaeology have been popular over the decades. And, from the 30s, through the Brendan Fraser popular films, to Tom Cruise in 2017, there have been popular thrillers featuring the Mummy (starting with Boris Karloff for 1933).

This version is from Universal Studios. While Dick Foran is a genial if unlikely archaeological expert, Eduardo Cianelli as the sinister high priest fills the bill as does George Zucco as his sinister contemporary counterpart. Along for the ride are Wallace Ford as the semi-dumb, humorous sidekick and Cecil Kellaway has a rather dignified magician – plenty of tricks – on tour in Egypt with his daughter, Peggy Moran.

The film opens with some hocus-pocus about a high priest, a professor succeeding him, about a mysterious character who was buried alive but is forever sustained in breathing by a particular plant. The professor wants to become immortal.

With the two Americans out of a job, wandering through an Egyptian market, they come across a broken vase which seems to indicate the burial place of the Princess. Consulting with the sinister professor, he denies that it is authentic. The Americans encounter the magician in a bar, persuade him to finance their expedition, the initially reluctant daughter coming along as well.

There are all kinds of shenanigans in the location for the dig, the finding of the tomb, the local workers all fearfully running away, the resurrection of the long-dead character, the presence of the professor and his associate, whom they had encountered as a beggar in the market. There are deaths, including the guard as well as an accompanying professor. It all builds up to a confrontation, the mummy carrying the daughter in to be sacrificed, the professor wanting to inject her and himself to become immortal, some shooting and a final rescue.

The film is directed by Christy Cabanne, who began work in the silent era in 1914 and continued to make small-budget films, 166 of them, until 1948. Some of the dialogue in this film is rather basic as are the performances of the main characters – so the impact relies on the sinister presences.

RENEGADES

US/Germany, 2017, 106 minutes, Colour.
J. K. Simmons, Sullivan Stapleton, Charlie Bewley, Sylvia Hoeks, Joshua Henry, Diarmaid Murtagh, Dimitri Leonidas, Clement Schick, Ewen Bremner.
Directed by Steve Quale.

This is a film for action fans, produced by the European Europacorps, co-written by its director, Luke is on.

There is an elaborate opening in France, with the Nazis taking as much art and treasure as they can, leaving a deserted Paris, travelling east, wanting to store the treasures in Bosnia but the Resistance bursting the wall of a dam which covers the treasure and destroys the Nazis.

The film then makes a transition from 1944 to 1995 and the war in Bosnia, in Sarajevo.

Two journalists are held up by the hostile forces, stripped and interrogated, but then allowed into interview a significant general, enemy of NATO. Actually, the journalists are members of a group of SEALS, others coming by boat, burrowing under the interview room, exploding the floor, abducting the general who has been drugged, a lot of shooting in fighting off a boat full of military attacking, but finally getting the general to headquarters by commandeering a tank, driving recklessly through the town and the countryside, clearing the way and all before it but, trapped by the enemy on each side of the bridge, going over the side, underwater, escaping.

Sullivan Stapleton plays the leader of the SEAL team. They are hauled over the Coles by their severe commander, J. K. Simmons, perennially blunt in his attack, but, of course, approving of what they have achieved. However, they are to be returned home.

The group meet a waitress at a bar, one of them in love with her, she revealing a brick of gold from the hidden stash, persuading her lover that the men should rescue it and donate the $300 million proceeds to the cause of Bosnia.

Since they are skilled SEALS, they are able to make the arrangements fairly quickly as well as work out the engineering logistics for going underwater, finding the gold, mechanisms to raise it. They have an ally in a helicopter pilot who has helped them, Ewen Bremner.

The latter part of the film shows in some detail the whole process of finding and recovering the gold.

Once again, they are commandeered by their commanding officer, with half of the gold officially being returned to the French government. However, the officer does not reveal the other half of the gold which is then presented to the waitress for the Bosnian cause. Each of the SEALS has received a couple of thousand dollars – but, when they see what has happened with the big cheque for Bosnia, they make their contribution!

Gung ho Americans – and, one hopes, their hearts and consciences in the right place.

EVERY DAY

US, 2018, 97 minutes, Colour.
Angourie Rice, Justice Smith, Owen Teague, Maria Bello.
Directed by Michael Sucsy.

Every Day is based on a young adult novel, more targeted to a teenage audience.

The film begins in a rather realistic way, focusing on Rhianna, a teenager at school, infatuated with a boy called Justin. The film shows him waking up and planning wake-up calls (mysterious at the time but later explained) as well as Rhianna waking up, her relationship with her out of work father, her working mother (Maria Bello) and her sister.

The film seems to be going along dramatic lines when Justin suggests they skip school and they have a happy day together, at the beach, relaxing, talking, confiding. For Rhianna it is one of her happiest days. However, next day Justin doesn’t remember the detail and Rhianna is puzzled. However, she gets a summons by text (texting so important in this film) to meet a young woman at a diner.

The film then moves into magic realism, fantasy, a teenage fairytale.

A mysterious character, A, assumes the body and spirit of a different person every day, male or female, white, Asian, African- American… The person whose personality is taken over does not remember the detail the day after. Rhianna is in disbelief but then becomes attracted to the character A. It is to the credit of the screenplay and the directing that each of the encounters with quite a number of incarnations of A, that the actors are so persuasive and attractive in their short amount of screen time, making the whole situation plausible if not credible.

Australian Angourie Rice (The Beguiled, and her award-winning performance in Ladies in Black) is certainly vivacious as Rhianna. But, A will have to make a decision to let Rhianna live her life even though A is in love with her and she with A.

Director Michael Sucsy also directed Grey Gardens and the version of Nicholas Sparks’ The Vow.

1. An adaptation of a Young Adult novel? For the rather younger range? Teenage audience?

2. The city setting, homes, school, streets, parties, the countryside? The musical score?

3. The focus on Rhianna, her father and his breakdown, loss of his job, working on his art and portraits? Her mother, busy, going to work? Her sister, driving to school, confiding or not? Her friends at school, conversations? The attraction towards Justin?

4. The scenes of people waking up? The use of text messages and their appearance on the screen?

5. Rhianna as a character, strong-minded, her age, experience? Attitude towards Justin, in love? His suggestion of having the day off, running away, to the beach, the collage of their enjoyment, sharing, her telling him the story of her father? The return home? The next day, Justin not able to remember anything of the detail? Her reaction? Further going out with Justin, his tending to ignore her, playing games with his friends, the introduction to Nathan, gay, inviting Rhianna to dance? His disappearance? Justin’s reaction?

6. The encounter with Amy, the messages? Going to meet her, the revelation of the truth? The real name being A? The mystery about his birth, male-female, from Arizona to Michigan? The revelation about the condition, assuming a different character, entering into their body and mind for a day? Knowing the character, acting like the character but beyond? And the character not remembering anything the next day?

7. Rhianna and her disbelief? The further messages? The attraction of A, the personal touches, touching her hair beyond her ear, Rhianna being attracted?

8. The persuasiveness of the plot, the wide range of characters that she met, male and female, black, Asian, white? The personality of A shining through each of the characters? The performances of each character – and their being so persuasive?

9. Happiness, sharing outings, feelings, talk, confiding? The disappointment at A delayed and not turning up at the country house? Her mother and her bewilderment? Rhianna trying to explain the situation to her sister, friends?

10. Meeting Alexander, sharing with him, going out, his forgetting his birthday, the dinner prepared, his mother’s disappointment? A understanding Alexander, explaining that he was Rhianna’s type?

11. The finale, A having to leave, in another person, the African- American woman, driving away?

12. Rhianna’s experience, changing her, her meeting Alexander as himself – and the bonding?

2.0

India, 2018, 148 minutes, Colour.
Rajinikanth, Akshay Kumar, Amy Jackson, Adil Hussain.
Directed by Shankar.

Maybe not so much of an arresting title but an intriguing one.

A bit of background to the reviewing of this film. An Indian confrere sent an email, an alert to the release of this film in India, commenting on its science-fiction story, its interest in technology, its environmental message, writing about it in terms of Gospel messages. By providence and synchronicity, the Australian release was at the same time as the release in India, so off to see the film.

The writer-director is a celebrated Indian director, Shanker. There is some wild imagination that has gone into this film as well as an enormous budget (probably some millions of dollars just for the final credits sequences, elaborate costumes, singing and dancing).

For fans of science-fiction beyond the usual, 2.0 is well worth noting. It is set in the future – but visually it is firmly anchored in the present. Its story and its action are a challenge for the present.

An inventor (Rajinikanath) has been successful with a robot, Chitti, but it has been decommissioned by the government. In the meantime, the inventor has created another robot, an attractive female robot, Nila (Amy Jackson) who acts as his assistant. What immediately happens might send a shudder of terror down the audience spine. Crowds of people are going about their ordinary business, interacting – well, not quite interacting, all on their mobile phones. A lot of details reminding us of all the conversations and preoccupations that people have and their absolute reliance on their phones. Suddenly, all the phones are swooped out of people’s hands, drawn up into the sky like a flock of birds. And the population of the city, Chennai (this is a Tamil film), bewildered, lost, then queueing up to reclaim phones or get replacements.

There are many panicky government scenes, officials trying to deal with the situation, some exposed as exploiting corruption deals.

This is a film that runs for almost 3 hours so there is a lot of detail, colourful detail, the government calling in the inventor, his justifying his participation, his resurrecting Chitti (with something of an Elvis lookalike) and going into action.

Throughout the film there are swarms of mobile phones cavorting through the air, along the roads, destroying villains…

Americans and other international audiences will be very impressed by the special effects – and those who sit through credits remembering that in certain many of the American big-budget spectacles, there are many Indian names contributing to CGI and effects. This film certainly proves that they have great skills.

Things change for the second act, audiences reminded that a man hanged himself at the opening of the film and then flashbacks exploring who he was, his love for birds and their conservation, his denunciation of mobile phones and the effects of radiation destroying birds and creation. He is now an incarnation of vengeance, a power of evil must be combated.

So, not only does Chitti go into action (as well as experiencing some demolitions), but multiple robots are created to confront the daemonic avenger (from 2.0 to 3.0). And, smartly, some mini-Chittis.

For the fans, this is all quite absorbing – although, this may be a Tamil thing, the robot Chitti and his facial expressions are a little stupid and offputting even though he achieves his ends. (The inventor and Chitti are played by the same actor.)

So, as the 2 ½ hour mark is approaching, and we have experienced this world of plot and effects, what about the good intentions of the conservationist, what about his villainy and cruelty in getting vengeance, and what about the role of mobile phones and their indispensability? Fortunately, there is little homily at the end combining all the themes coming out on the side of right.

Here is the comment from our Indian confrere, how he has interpreted 2.0:

“The concerns of this cosmos can carry the creatures away from the Creator. But only the constant compassion of Christ can carry them closer to Him. Luke 21:34-36. 2.0 is a brand new movie of a popular Indian director Shankar. He captures the audience with his catchy message that moderate use of radiation, reduction in the number of networks and moderate use of mobile phones can lead the new generation to a constructive development. Hats off to the VFX. The three digits 2.0: starting from 2 can remind the people of the scriptural passage: "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst"; dot ( .) persuades us to keep a dot not only to radiation but also to all our negativity; and O reminds us of our constant praise and thanksgiving to the Creator for his wonderful and beautiful creation such as birds. Therefore, let us praise God constantly and courageously like the chirping of the birds in the woods: O, Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder...In solidarity pay a visit to Chevalier Bhavan bird sanctuary.�

1. Spectacular science-fiction? Plot, effects? In comparison with other futuristic films?

2. A film from India, a moral perspective? Politics? The environment? Robotics?

3. The skill of the special effects, the spectacle? In the budget of the final credits sequences, the singing of the dancing and the effects?

4. The title, a series of robots, the role of the inventor, the response to the robots, the initial success with Chitti? The inventing of Nila as an assistant? The appearance of each robot, personality?

5. The city of Channai, the vastness of the city, buildings, streets? The continued sequences of the disappearance of the phones?

6. The reaction of people, the details of conversations, people helpless without their phones? The role of the authorities? The plans to retrieve the phones, people queueing outside the stores? Disputes? The shops and restocking? The crooked businessmen and his plans, comeuppance?

7. The role of the phones, swooping and sweeping, like birds, but on the ground, pavement? Leading to destruction and death?

8. The authorities, the meetings, the various officials, the discussions, corruption, saving face? The higher authorities, taking responsibility?

9. The authorities, the inventor, the jealous rival? The role of Chitti in the past? The decision to make a new model? To make a number of the robots?

10. Chitti, his look, the touch of Elvis Presley, the strange grin and giggle? The contrast with Nila and her glamour?

11. The opening with the man hanging from the tower, the explanation of the background, the revelation of his career, his attitude towards the birds? Causes, excessive use of phones, radiation and the effect on people?

12. His death, becoming an evil spirit, the power of the spirit, moving as an avenger, shape shifting, especially with the phones like the birds? The destruction?

13. The buildup to Chitti, the confrontation, various of the robots being dismantled and destroyed? The effect on the inventor? On the authorities?

14. The decision to make a mini-Chittis? Their effect, the combating of the evil spirit?

15. The authorities and their being defeated? The authentic authorities and their decisions? The rival, crimes, dangers, action?

16. The buildup to the climax, the confrontation with the evil spirit, destruction?

17. The final explanations, the moral of the story, the message about the environment and responsibility?

SLUMBER

US, 2017, 84 minutes, Colour.
Maggie Q, Will Kemp, Sophia Wiseman, Kristen Bush, Sam Troughton, Lucas Bond, Honor Kneafely, Sylvester Mc Coy, Vincent Andriano.
Directed by Jonathan Hopkins.

Slumber begins in a rather documentary way, information given about nightmares and difficulties in sleep, sleepwalking. There are also a number of illustrations of sinister presences during sleep. And then, there is a nightmare sleepwalking sequence in which a little girl is unable to save her sleepwalking brother from falling out of window to his death.

Maggie Q is Alice, a wife and mother, working at a Sleep Center, interviewing families, reassuring them about sleepwalking, imagination and fears. However, she interviews a family which is particularly disturbed, deciding to observe them laboratory fashion. This leads to some violent drama, the father being arrested after his violence towards Alice herself, the mother and the children still finding sleepwalking difficulties at home. The cleaner at the Center is helpful and has a grandfather who has had similar difficulties. Alice interviews him and ask for his help.

As with this kind of film, suggestions of horror, there is a buildup and quite some drama to save a boy prone to sleepwalking and threatened by some kind of daemon. The end is ambiguous – Alice, whom the audience has been admiring, being finally seen in some kind of interned hospital situation.

1. The title? The nature of sleep? Sleepwalking? Sleep paralysis? Disturbed sleep? Nightmares? The information given at the opening of the film?

2. The American setting, the city, homes, Sleep Center, observation rooms? The musical score?

3. The opening, the tone, the little boy with the nightmares, his calls and repetitions, his sister asleep, going into the corridor, at the window, the appeal to his sister, falling out of the window? The revelation that this was Alice’s experience of the death of her brother? Her blaming herself?

4. Alice and her husband, her daughter, at home, domestic? Going to work? The Sleep Center? Interviewing families, giving advice, reassuring children? The interview with the Morgan family? Their disturbances? Each member involved? The decision to observe them? The father and his situation? The four and the observation room, Daniel sleeping, the others rising, moving away from Daniel? The issues of violence, the bruises on Daniel? Everyone waking? Cam and his intervention with the father? The father taken away by the police? The threat to Alice, his attempt to choke her, the sleep?

5. The introduction of the themes of demonic presence? The range of art works and illustrations? Demons? Alice’s daughter looking at the book? Alice and her dreams, her drawings?

6. Alice, her work, her collaborator, her being tired, watching the sleepers, going for the coffee, the disturbance? Cam and his role at the Center? His decision to leave?

7. Cam, the back story, his grandfather, age, experience, dark glasses, cutting his eyelids, his past, explanations? Cam and his unwillingness to help? The old man offering?

8. The dilemmas at home, the mother and the bathroom, her teeth, the daughter and her experiences, Daniel?

9. Alice at home, the tensions with her daughter, her husband? His support?

10. Alice and her decision, her theory, that the old man could help, that the father could save his son while he was asleep? The interactions, the drama, the threats? Alice and the repetition of the episode with her brother? Daniel saved, Alice and her collapse?

11. The ending, the phone call, Alice being reassured, the fact that she was an institution…?

12. Diagnoses of sleep paralysis? The scientific background? The introduction of mythology? Issues of sanity and madness? Secular exorcisms?

THE VAMPIRE BAT

US, 1933, 65 minutes, Black and white.
Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Melvyn Douglas, Maud Eburne, George E.Stone, Dwight Frye.
Directed by Frank R.Strayer.

There was a huge popularity for vampire films in the 1930s, fostered, especially, by the version of Dracula with Bella Lugosi. Variations on the theme then abounded.

The setting of this film is the present although it opts for a European setting. There have been several deaths in the village. The police in charge, portrayed by young Melvyn Douglas (30 and 46 years before his two Best Supporting Actor Oscars) is sceptical about mysterious bats, let alone vampires. However, the mayor and the other leaders of the village are far more superstitious.

They asked for the advice of the local doctor, a lunatic man, much respected, played in his superior style by Lionel Atwill. He has his own laboratory and the young woman working there is played by Fay Wray, at the same time as King Kong. She and the police officer are in love. In the house, there is a rather hypochondriac old aunt Gussie who scurries in and out demanding medicine.

There are also some mysterious characters in the town, one played by Dwight Frye, who specialised in this type of role.

After a number of murders and threats, with the main suspect having an alibi away from the village, attention turns to Dwight Frye. However, this is a story about a mad doctor, who wants to create life, draws blood from various characters – and is overheard by his young assistant, building up to a confrontation. He intends to kill the police officer and drain his blood but, the officer not having taken the pills recommended by the doctor, is able to switch roles with the servants who comes to take away his body, confronting the doctor and the doctor then becoming a victim on his own laboratory bed.

Entertaining in its way – a similar kind of theme was found in Jean Yarborough’s 1940 thriller, Devil Bat, with Bella Lugosi himself as the sinister doctor.