WATERFRONT

US, 1944, 64 minutes, Black and white.
John Carradine, J.Carroll Naish, Maris Wrixon, Edwin Maxwell.
Directed by Steve Sekely.

Waterfront was released in 1944, a contribution of a small studio to the war effort. It focuses on a group of Nazi spies, a ring in San Francisco, edited by J. Carroll Nation as, what he refers to as an oculist, but is described as an optician, with the title optometrist outside his office. He seems respectable, but is unmasked as the leader of the spies and their controller.

There is a mysterious notebook with information about all the spies – and the film opens with its being stolen during a brawl in the streets. There are various other businessmen of German origin in the city who take possession of the book and want to unmask the villains. This makes for quite some complications in blackmailing, an entrepreneur wanting to exploit the book for money (and, of course, getting his comeuppance as do the other men).

The cause of this is a Nazi operator arriving from Germany, played with sinister intent by a tall and gaunt John Carradine. He has a cover of staying in a boarding house, threatening the woman who runs it with danger for her relatives in Germany. Her daughter lives in the house and has a fiance – who is accused by the police of some of the killings.

Tension builds up, the optician is exposed and is killed, the police close in on the boarding house and, after some violent killings, the arch-villain is killed.

Interesting and entertaining in its very modest way.

THE PRICE OF FEAR

US, 1956, 80 minutes, Black-and-white.
Merle Oberon, Lex Barker, Charles Drake, Gia Scala, Warren Stevens, Philip Pine, Mary Field, Dan Riss.
Directed by Abner Bibberman.

The Price of Fear is from Universal Studios in the mid 1950s, a glossy black and white melodrama.

On the one hand, the focus is on Merle Oberon as a successful businesswoman, relishing her success but involved in a hit run accident and deciding that she would escape the scene. Eventually, her responsibility catches up with her.

On the other hand, there is a suave businessman involved in racing, Lex Barker, whose partner sells his share the business to a shady criminal which leads to his murder and the blame coming on Barker. To escape the gunmen, he has taken Merle Oberon’s car and so is blamed for the hit run.

There is the complexity of her falling in love with him, the relationship, his trying to establish his alibi with the taxi driver who drove him at the same time as the hit run. The taxi driver is also killed.

Charles Drake is the policeman, friend of Barker, investigating the case – the melodramatic ending, the woman wanting to go away with the businessman but ultimately confessing, throwing herself from the train, the consequences of the price of her fear.

1. A glossy melodrama? The indicating of gangster murders and a hit-run death?

2. The settings, society, business woman, offices, luxury home? The contrast with clubs, racing, gangsters? The musical score?

3. The title, Jessica Warren and her life, the accident, her decision and the consequences, her fear and the consequences?

4. The focus on Dave Barrett, Lex Barker and his style, the gambling, his partner, betraying him, the sellout, the confrontation with the gangsters, his assured style, the attempts on his life, his taking Jessica Warren’s car, the consequences?

5. The police, the investigations of the hit-run, the anguish of the daughter, the blaming of Dave Barrett, the court hearing, Jessica’s presence?

6. Peter Carroll, his work, friendship with Dave, the interrogation, his belief?

7. Jessica, the success of her business, the glamour of Merle Oberon, driving, carefree, the man on the road and his dog, hitting him, getting out of the car, nobody witnessing, getting in the car, her conscience, the decision to ring the police, the car being taken by Dave Barrett? Her keeping quiet, the hearing, Barrett being blamed? Her meeting him, the attraction, going out with him, in love? knowing the consequences?

8. The picture of the gangsters, the boss, the club, the henchmen, killings?

9. The taxi driver, his drinking, the possibility of his giving the businessman an alibi, Jessica visiting him and his wife, his being murdered, the wife and her trying to blackmail Jessica?

10. The police investigations, alibis, circumstantial evidence, Dave and the taking of Jessica’s car, the evidence of blood on the car?

11. Dave, Jessica wanting to go away with him, her decision to leave the country, on the train?

12. Peter, working in the night, driving to the station, on the train, the confrontation?

13. Jessica, her final confession, leaping from the train?

14. The complexity of the events, appearances, circumstances? the harsh reality of the hit run and the death? Not owning up to the truth, the consequences?

ROBIN HOOD

UK, 2018, 116 minutes, Colour.
Taron Egerton, Jamie Foxx,. Ben Mendelsohn, Eve Hewson, Jamie Dornan, Tim Minchin, Paul Anderson, Ian Peck, F.Murray Abraham.
Directed by Otto Bathurst.

Probably best to forget about most of the stories we know concerning Robin of Locksley, Robin Hood. The action of this film takes place before the outlaws of Sherwood Forest, this episode finishing as Robin, Marian, Little John and the others have to escape from Nottingham.

In fact, the initial voice-over advises audiences to forget all that they knew about the Robin Hood Legends. There is a rather ironic tone taken, tongue in cheek humour, an interpretation of Robin Hood for 21st-century audiences, especially those who have indulged in Marvel and DC comic hero films (reinforced by the style of the final credits, parallel to those used in these films).

With Taryn Egerton (the Kingsman films as well is The Rocket here as Elton John), we have the youngest of actors for Robin. He is the Lord of Locksley, he does encounter Marian who was involved in some shady thieving behaviour, they fall in love. However, he is drafted to go to the Crusades for four years, not to Palestine or Jerusalem, but to Arabia (echoes of contemporary Middle East intentions, the battle against Isis). Robin is a daring hero, Guy is when is a rather dastardly Conqueror, there is a back story of an Arab who opts to be called John – the tall Jamie Fox who becomes Little John.

Meanwhile, back in Nottingham, the dastardly sheriff (Ben Mendelson at his most dastardly) has been taxing the townspeople beyond their being, forcing them to work in suffocating mines. He has confiscated Robin’s Castle and destroyed it. John has appreciated Robin’s help in Arabia and is bent on some kind of vengeance, bonding with Robert, giving him extensive training in archery (introducing an extraordinary machine for firing arrows like a Gatling gun), perfecting Robert’s skill and speed.

We can guess where this is going – however, Robin decides to fawn on the sheriff, pretending to be a donor and all the time robbing the sheriff and recycling his money. Marianne has teamed up with a very earnest reform, Will, but is involved in espionage in rebellion, along with an odd Friar Tuck. It becomes worse when the hypocritical church officials are revealed as plotting with the money – especially in the form of the beyond-Salieri Cardinal, F.Murray Abraham.

Audiences have never seen a mediaeval city looking like this, quite a different set design, including a mediaeval cathedral that looks nothing like a mediaeval cathedral! It all builds up to a dangerous climax, getting the people inside for revolution. All throughout the film, there has been quite a lot of action, excitingly-paced.

And, it turns out, that the critics did not like this interpretation. And, it seems, that many audiences preferred the familiar story rather than this 21st-century version.

However, for the record, this reviewer rather enjoyed it.

1. The Robin Hood Legends? The film history? Audience expectations? Reactions to this treatment? Critical and public dislike?

2. A 21st-century reimagining of the story, the episodes in Arabia and the Crusades, Littlejohn coming from Arabia, the role of the sheriff of Nottingham, the role of Marion, Robin of Locksley? The ecclesiastical and political repercussions? The story before outlaws in Sherwood Forest?

3. The set design, the unusual media will city and its, the buildings, the unusual cathedral, the impact of the coal mines and industry, homes, the Castle, exteriors and interiors? The musical score – and the contemporary song at the end credits? Look at the end credits – and the design similar to those for action hero films?

4. The action, editing and pace, making Robin Hood in action hero?

5. The voice-over, advising audiences to forget all they knew about Robin Hood? The introduction to Robin of Locksley, the introduction to Marion, thief? They’re falling in love? The announcement of Robin being drafted to go to the Crusades? Away for four years, the report of his death, the consequences for Marion, her relationship with Will?

6. A different interpretation of the Crusades, not in Palestine or Jerusalem, the fights in Arabia? The visuals and pace of the action? Arrows, rapidfire arrows like machine guns? Robin and his daring, orders, Guy of Gisborne? The daring, the Arab, his being taken, losing his hand, the execution of his son and the taunts? Robin making a plea? Robin wounded, returning to England?

7. Nottingham, his return, the role of the sheriff, his personality, tyrant, in the castle? Robin is castle destroyed, the ruins? Marion and his seeing her with William? The Arab finding him, his being called John, the bond, John respecting Robin because of the death of his son and his intervention? Their bonding together, to defeat the sheriff and his oppression?

8. The scenes of training, Robin and the arrows, his timing, speed? The motivation of the two men?

9. The plan to confront the sheriff, the sheriff’s character, cruelty, the collection of the money, the role of the church and the ecclesiastical is presence? Marion and her stealing the documents, finding out the truth? Her collaboration with Will, the plan? Robin and the decision that he be part of society, forming on the Sheriff, his donations, getting the Sheriff trust? And the irony of all his stealing exploits, getting the money, giving it to the people?

10. The people of Nottingham, poverty, the slavery in the minds? Will and his earnestness, his methods, within the structures? Issues of Marion and her relationship with him? Her puzzle about Robin, this to his castle? Her own methods, and in collaboration with Tuck?

11. Tuck, ecclesiastic, his role, with the money, seeming a film, the church, his helping Marion, Robin causing him to be arrested, denounced, his being defrocked – and is being able to act for the people and a great sense of freedom?

12. Rome, the Cardinals his visit, ostentatious, corrupt, the issue of power with the sheriff, the role of the money, in league with the Arabs, Robin overhearing what was planned? The role of the Archdeacon of the other ecclesiastics?

13. The plan, the timeline for the money going to Arabia, the need for action, John being called, interrogated and tortured?

14. Robin, revealing himself to the people, the support, Will and his denunciation?

15. The sheriff, bringing the troops, Guy Lisbon and the memories of the past?

16. The steamy the money for the Arabs, Robin and his return, confronting the sheriff, the sheriff hanged? Robin his lips and escapes?

17. The restoring order, Will and his authority, taking the role of the sheriff? The preparation for a sequel?

LADY LUCK

US, 1936, 62 minutes, Black and white.
Patricia Farr, William Bakewell, Duncan Renaldo, Iris Adrian, Lulu Mc Connell, Jameson Thomas, Vivian Oakland, Claude Alister, Arthur Hoyt, Lew Kelly, John Kelly.
Directed by Charles Lamont.

Lady Luck is a light romantic comedy, Mamie Murphy, a manicurist (Patricia Farr) with ambitions to make something of her life and to marry into money, and the inevitable newspaperman to whom she is attracted but with whom she clashes, William Bakewell.

The title refers to a horse that Mamie has drawn in a sweep, receiving some thousands of dollars just by being in the draw – and with prospects of a big win as well as a great number of offers to participate in publicity, becoming an actress… And, with everybody watching, her horse wins.

However, she manicures the nails of some big-time spenders, one of whom sets up a plot with his girlfriend to rob her of her ticket – and the “financial sculptor� (referred to as “a chiseller�) who is after her for her money and she infatuated with him, steps into the plan and is murdered.

Lew Kelly is the nonchalant detective. There is a married woman who becomes involved with the chiseller and he is threatened by her jealous husband – and they become suspects for the murder. The journalist has been shooting his mouth off and he is also under suspicion.

There is an choric relief provided by John Kelly is one of the toughs who is ordered to have his nails manicured, is transformed by the experience and really upset when one of the nails is broken!

The pleasant complication is that Patricia Farr is the wrong Mamie and veteran actress (only five screen appearances and this her last) Lulu Mc Connell is the true Mamie Murphy who wins, a genial elderly dowager. The two women make an agreement, sharing a display apartment together, the older woman keeping the money, the young woman benefiting by the all the offers. They are drugged while the villains steal the tickets – and the gun is left in the young woman’s hand.

While there is a gathering of suspects and non-suspects at the end, the solution is given in flashback where everything is acted out.

Slight but enjoyable.

THE COMING BACK OUT BALL MOVIE

Australia, 2018, 88 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Sue Thomson.

A sound cultural, personal, anti-bigotry principle is that we need to meet people with whom we differ, whom we do not understand and that this leads to respect and appreciation, even allowing for differences in perspective.

This is certainly the principle to be brought to this documentary. The first thing to say about it is that it is about elderly people, a sympathetic look at men and women growing old, reflecting on their past, on the relationships, on their careers, on the deaths of partners. Throughout the whole film, there are a lot of interviews, with these people, men and women telling their story with sympathy, sometimes bravado, always enthusiasm.

And this is the first point of entry to appreciating these elderly people. Then, on this basis, we understand that they are members of the LGBTQI community. “Coming out� was not necessarily a part of their past. Many of them kept their sexual orientation secret, some not even aware of it until later in life and after marriage and family. But, in their old age, with changing social perspectives (in fact, the Coming Out Ball taking place two weeks before the decision on same-sex marriage through the Australian postal plebiscite), an era of greater tolerance has emerged.

A ball? This is the brain wave, creative idea of an entrepreneur, Tristram Meacham, whose creation of the ball is at the core of the film. He is an enthusiast – understatement!

The idea was to have a ball for the elderly so that they could come out in old age, even if they had never come out before. The venue for the ball was to be Melbourne Town Hall. Veteran entertainer, Robyn Archer, was to be the host and there were to be some guest entertainers including Carlotta and aboriginal opera star, Deborah Cheetham. (The latter gets the opportunity to sing “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina� with changed relevant lyrics.)

The film audience is introduced by a quite large range of characters, all going back into their past, describing their lives, the relationships, the fears. Some have known all their lives about their sexual orientation, others discovering it in later life. But they all grew up in a period of secrecy and/or cover-up. A number of the characters have undergone gender change. Because the interviewees are so frank, it gives the opportunity for the audience to listen, observe, reflect, understand.

Quite a lot of preparation goes into the ball, the invitees coming to dancing lessons weeks in advance, getting to know one another, getting to know the steps, a number discovering a flamboyance that had previously not emerged. There are decorations, selections of music, the orchestra, those waiting at tables, the preparation of the venue.

As expected, by the end, there is an extended treatment of the ball, the guests all lining up outside in Swanston Street, the staff waiting, the guests coming inside, eating and drinking, the music, the dancing.

Some of the regulars who were interviewed throughout the film get the opportunity to offer their reflections on the experience. One of the characters interviewed earlier was one of the first female shearers, an expert in her daily day, attending the ball but, at the end of the film, going back to the shearing shed proving that after all these years, she still has the strength and skills. She serves as a symbol for those who were part of The Coming Back Out Ball.

THE MADNESS OF GEORGE III

UK, 2018, 135 minutes, Colour.
Mark Gatiss, Adrian Scarborough, Deborah Gillett, David Houslow, Nicholas Bishop, Stephanie Jacob, Louise Jameson.
Directed by Adam Penford.

The longest-reigning King of England prior to Queen Victoria was George III, from the house of Hanover, who ruled from 1760 to 1820, 60 years. He is famous for having been the reigning monarch who lost the American War of Independence. He was also King for the explorations of Captain Cook in the Pacific as well as the sending of the First Fleet.

But, he suffered episodes which were interpreted as madness. His son George, the Prince Regent, later to be George IV, was in waiting to be proclaimed in his father’s stead.

Alan Bennett, celebrated British playwright (Lady in the Van, The History Boys) became interested in the story in the early 1990s, the nature of mental illness, the relevance to the royal family, the Prince of Wales in waiting to ascend the throne… His play was very successful, being transferred to film in 1994 with Nigel Hawthorne as the king and Helen Mirren as the queen.

This is a filmed version of the play, performed in the Nottingham Playhouse. It is a play full of movement, many scenes, continual motion of the characters, elaborate scene changes, a re-creation of private episodes, the medical treatment (mistreatment in many cases) of the king, the political background and machinations of parliament and the crown.

For those not familiar with the characters and with their history, this is an interesting opportunity to learn as well as to encourage further research.

George III is played by actor-writer, Mark Gatiss, well-known for theatrical performances as well as roles in film and television, including his portrayal of Mycroft Holmes in the television series, Sherlock, which he co-created and for which he wrote a number of screenplays, as well as appearing as Lord Cecil in the television series, Gunpowder. His performance is a tour de force, especially his having to perform the episodes of madness, the medical torture, his confused mental state and ways of communication. One believes, in watching Gatiss as the king, that he is actually experiencing the pain, the torture and madness.

Adrian Scarborough leads the supporting cast as the parson turned Dr Willis, who has his own asylum on a farm in Lincolnshire, taking over the management of the king, trying to master him and command him into subjection and cure (which he achieves), clashing with the bevy of doctors who are intent on their own particular methods, of blistering the legs and the scalp to bring out the poisons, a variety of medications, of examining the kings stools and urine. (In fact, there are many satirical lines on this kind of medical quackery.)

Interestingly, the three main doctors, the quacks, played by female actors, female actors also taking rolls of servants, political advisers, and even of Charles Fox, the Whig leader in the Parliament. Fox wants power despite his overt democratic declarations. In contrast, there is William Pitt the Younger, staving off Parliamentary votes about the king’s madness and the taking over of George as the Regent, a dour man, whose own father had experienced madness. There is also the manipulative Lord Chancellor, Thurlow, changing sides, feathering his own political nest.

There is a sympathetic portrait of Queen Charlotte, Deborah Gillett.

Alan Bennett is always an articulate playwright often with a sense of ironic humour. This is to the fore in this production. It is an opportunity to appreciate Bennett’s theatrical talent, to see quality performances, especially that of Mark Gatiss, and to delve into this 18th-century experience of the British monarchy.

THE NUTCRACKER AND THE FOUR REALMS

US, 2018, 99 minutes, Colour.
Mackenzie Foy, Keira Knightley, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, Matthew Mc Fadyen, Jaden Fowora-Knight?, Omid Djalili, Jack Whitehall, Richard E.Grant, Meera Syal, Ellie Bamber, Eugenio Derbez, Misty Copeland.
Directed by Lasse Hallstrom, Joe Johnston.

There have been quite a number of versions of the Nutcracker story, animated, live action, based on the story by the Russian author, E.T.A. Hoffman, but, probably, the best-known version is that of Tchaikovsky, the Nutcracker Suite. In fact, while this story is based on Hoffman’s tale and the narrative tale for the Nutcracker ballet, there are excerpts from Tchaikovsky’s Suite throughout the film – not entirely integrated with the plot, just a number of excerpts now and then.

This film is rather like an over-rich Christmas cake. Plenty of ingredients, all mixed together, some very tasty, some that you would put aside, some where one wonders why they are there in the first place.

The film was codirected by Swedish director, Lasse Halstrom, who has been directing a wide range of films for the last 40 years, especially in the United States. He is joined by action director, Joe Johnston. One might wonder which sections were directed by which director.

While the opening has the look of London, the family has very Germanic names, and, once the audience is taken into the Four Realms, the main castle looks like the Cathedral of St Basil in Moscow.

Matthew Mc Fadyen is a rather stern father, mourning his wife, trying to make emotional contact with his grieving daughter, Clara (Mackenzie Foy) demanding that she go to a party celebration with her brother and sister and dance with her father. Instead, she goes to the basement, finding a friendly inventor (Morgan Freeman looking and sounding Americanly bizarre in this context), wanting to open the gift of a decorated egg from her dead mother. It has the key to her future – and, we guess, she will be guided to look into herself and her strengths. She is.

For most of the action, she is led into the Four Realms, encountering a sympathetic Captain, going down a hole which is immediately a reminder of Alice in Wonderland, encountering strange and I would characters and Sugar Plum, all eccentric sweetness and light, Keira Knightley. There are some revelations About Clara actually is, the identity of Clara’s mother, the effect of her leaving the Four Realms, and searing power struggles and Sugar Plum revealing sinister ambitions, bringing toy soldiers to life, mischievous mice, battles and some derring-do. And, Mother Ginger appears, played sympathetically by Helen Mirren.

All’s well and ends with but it has been something of a gluggy journey to get there.

1. A film for family audiences? A film for women and girls?

2. Tchaikovsky’s music and the excerpts played throughout the film? Apt? Background?

3. Hoffman’s story, the story forward Tchaikovsky’s ballet? 19th-century stories? Memories of Alice in Wonderland?

4. The setting, the scenes in London, the countryside, the forest, the camp for Realms of the castle, the interiors, the landscapes, mills, waterfalls? The castle resembling St Basil’s in Moscow? The Germanic names of the family – yet in London? An international mixture?

5. The strong cast, straightforward, exaggerated, caricatures?

6. The focus on the family, the Stern father, keeping up appearances, his relationship with his children, their getting ready to go out to the party? The death of the mother and the grief? A little boy and his energy? Louise and Clara? Clara and her grief, not wanting to go out, self-preoccupied, critical of her father? The dress, the coach, the promise of the dances?

7. The party, lavish, the dancing, the walls? Her going to the basement, meeting Dross on, Morgan Freeman (20th-century American)? His inventions, Clara fixing the mechanisms? The gift of the egg from her mother, unable to open it?

8. Her leaving the party, the encounter with the captain? Falling down the hole?

9. The Realms, the range of characters she met, Mother Ginger and the two attendants, the Tweedledum and Tweedledee characters? Sugar Plum? The story of Clara’s mother, the Queen, people deferring to her, wanting her to help them?

10. Travelling through the forest, the encounters with Mother Ginger, her appearance, manner, the seeming threat? The mouse and the stealing of the key? Opening the egg, mystified, seeing her reflection, her learning to rely on herself?

11. The ambitions of Sugar Plum, her manner, her wings, wanting power, condemnation of Clara’s mother? Her bringing to life the soldiers?

12. The battles, the soldiers, the captain and his resistance, the giant conglomeration of mice and their attack? Sugar Plum and her victory? The capture of Mother Ginger?

13. Clara, her enterprise with the captain, down the cliff, onto the mill, coming up into the castle? The buildup to the confrontation? The soldiers collapsing? The mechanical mice? The defeat of Sugar Plum? Liberation of Mother Ginger?

14. Clara returning, reconciliations her father, the dance with her father?

THE GRINCH

US, 2018, 86 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Benedict Cumberbatch, Cameron Seeley, Rashida Jones, Angela Lansbury, narrated by Pharrell Williams.
Directed by Yaron Cheney, Scott Mosier.

The character of the Grinch, green and mean, has been very popular since he was invented by the famous storyteller, who provided so much entertainment for children, Dr Seuss. The Grinch is particularly associated with Christmas because the rest of the title is: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Once upon a time, in 1966, it was Boris Karloff who played The Grinch on television. Some years ago, there was a live-action version of the story using the full title. And The Grinch was played, hairy, green and mean, by Jim Carrey, drawing on all his mannerisms, facial tics, menacing voice… This particular version, simply titled The Grinch, is very much G/ PG rated, very much geared towards children (and pleasing for those who remember the story from childhood). The Grinch is voiced, American style, by Benedict Cumberbatch, Dr Seuss’s verses by singer, Pharrell Williams.

This is an animated film, the background of the town of Whoville situated in the mountains, in the winter, around Christmas. All very colourful. The townspeople are preparing for the celebration of Christmas, three times bigger than usual, the emphasis on gifts and goodwill. Even Angela Lansbury voices the mayor. (There is a pleasing brief sequence with reference to the Gospel story and the singing of carols and the basic meaning of Christmas.)

But, the Grinch! He is a misanthropic type, living in his cave on the mountain, shunning all human company, yet devoted to his dog, Max, who has all kinds of technical skills, especially with all the equipment in the Grinch’s house. Everybody, including The Grinch, likes Max a lot. He also befriends (if that is the word) Fred the large reindeer who actually comes in handily to help the Grinch.

The Grinch comes into town only when he needs food and is completely irritated by the loud and good feelings, made even worse at Christmas. There are amusing scenes about his dislike of people – and his meanness towards them. Then he decides to dress as Santa and steal all the Christmas gifts – which he does.

Happy ending was rather difficult with Jim Carrey and his Grinch weirdness. However, here, there is not only a happy ending but very explicit themes of redemption! The Grinch encounters a little girl, Cindy Lou, who pleads with him about the gifts, help for her mother, the joy that he is depriving the town of. At first, this is not really easy, and The Grinch entangles himself in problems and needs to be rescued.

But, ultimately, with a great deal of heart-thumping, very nice words, The Grinch discovers humanity and humanity within himself. Dr Seuss created what might be called “moral fables� – and this version ends exceedingly happily, exceedingly morally, gifts returned, peace restored, and great hope in view.

1. The popularity of the story by Dr Seuss? For younger readers, parents reading the book, the illustrations? This animated film drawing on the text and using all Dr Seuss’s rhymes? Incorporating the illustrations of the town, the mountain, the characters, The Grinch’s cave, the action? The pleasing musical score?

2. The setting, the town of Whoville, homes, streets, Market Square, shops, chess games, the mayor…? The contrast with the mountain, the winter snow, the cave, The Grinch is home, the technical equipment?

3. The appearance of The Grinch, green and mean? Benedict Cumberbatch’s voice? The background to The Grinch, the origins of his meanness, alienation from the town, from people? His irritability? If his devotion to Max? Max and his devotion to The Grinch? The go…

4. The Grinch living by himself, disdaining noise, colour, happiness? His visits to the town to get food?

5. The sequences illustrating his meanness and treatment of people?

6. The ambitions of the town for Christmas, the church seen in the carols, the memory of the birth of Jesus? It the more commercial Christmas, gifts and goodwill? Bigger and better?

7. The Grinch and his decision to steal the gifts, taking them up the mountain? His glory and satisfaction?

8. Max, his contribution? Fred, reindeer, sleigh, wife and child? The goat and the scream?

9. Cindy Lou, the letter to Santa, the conversation with the Grinch, her mother, Christmas, the gifts?

10. The Grinch touched by Cindy Lou, change of heart, discovering his heart?

11. The drama of the gifts, the sleigh, on the mountain, the danger of the fall, the rescue, Max and Fred?

12. The return of the gifts, the happiness?

13. The Grinch, welcomed by everyone, his dialogue, overcoming his meanness, overcoming his dislike of people, his heart touched?

14. The final lines – the redemption of the Grinch, a moral fable?

WHAT THE BUTLER SAW

UK, 1950, 61 minutes, black-and-white.
Edward Rigby, Henry Mollison, Mercy Haystead, Michael Ward.
Directed by Godfrey Grayson.

There is no particular reason for seeing this film. It plays like a West End farce with a sexual theme and some innuendo, 1950s style. (There was quite a different tone in the West End almost 20 years later with Joe Orton’s play of the same name.)

However, the 1950s style is interesting in its portrait of Britain, aristocrats with airs, colonial government, ‘Great Britain’, attitudes towards colonial countries and the interpretation of the inhabitants as savages and cannibals, and racial prejudice in the upper classes as well as the downstairs classes. There is the haughty sister of the Earl, a snob, a semi-ass grandson in the Foreign Office, ultra-preoccupied with his job, publicity and the press.

Edward Rigby plays an Earl (not like his usual rather more working class roles) who has been a governor in the colonies and returns with his faithful butler (Henry Mollison). They have been out of England for 10 years and are returning to the family mansion. Quite a lot of hunting trophies – but, in one of the boxes, the princess from the Coconut Islands, has stowed away because she is infatuated with the butler.

Needless to say a lot of complications about her relationship with the butler, and her wearing a sarong everywhere but she does take a bath in the kitchen sink! The aristocrats are quite upset. Visiting bishop and general take it much more calmly. The woman in charge of the kitchen is so upset she wants writes a letter to the agony aunt, Aunt Muriel, which tips off a reporter to visit – but fortunately he becomes infatuated with the granddaughter who wants to be a ballet dancer. The kitchen maid and the chauffeur are particularly prejudiced and say outrageously bigoted things.

The only other complication of the plot is that the princess makes a love potion which the journalist and the semi-ass bureaucrat drink and, for some time, are in the romantic pursuit of the Princess.

The solution: the earl and the butler are happy to go back to the Coconut Islands where war has been averted because of the alleged abduction of the Princess, where the butler will become prime minister and the earl will be content to be the butler!

SORRY TO BOTHER YOU

US, 2018, 111 minutes, Colour.
La Keith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Jermaine Fowler, Omari Hardwick, Terry Crews, Kate Berlant, Michael X. Sommers, Danny Glover, Steven Yuen, Armie Hammer, Robert Longstreet, Forest Whitaker.
Voices of: David Cross, Patton Oswalt, Lily James.
Directed by Boots Riley.

This is an unexpectedly striking film. Judging by some blogging comments, a number of viewers have loathed it. But also judging by some blogging comments, many find it quite an exhilarating experience, serious, funny, realistic, imaginative, fantastic. This review will be in support of the latter view.

The film was written and directed by musician, singer and rapper, Boots Riley. It takes us into an African- American world in contemporary Oakland. We see the central character, Cassius (a versatile performance by La Keith Stanfield who appeared in Get Out and was the American official authority in The Girl in the Spider’s Web) is spruiking for a job, false credentials, immediate exposed by the interviewer – but also immediately hired because he is committed to persuasion and that is what is needed for the job, telemarketing.

This is very much a message film about capitalism, oppression and exploitation, and the theme of “what does it profit to gain the whole world…?). But, while the message is familiar, this film communicated in idiosyncratically creative ways.

Cassius is living with Detroit (Tessa Thompson, an artist, who also support herself by creating and wearing big signs outside shops and diners). They also live in a garage. Cassius goes off to work, get his particular booth for phoning, the director using an amusing visual device of Cassius being lowered into the scene where he argues, cajoles, is cut off by potential clients. At first a failure, he is persuaded by his neighbour, the elderly Langston (Danny Glover – who uses his famous old saying from Lethal Weapon for his new situation! – to put on a white American voice and assume that kind of personality (David Cross supplying the voice). He is a great success and is on the verge of promotion.

Actually, there are quite a number of strains and subplots. The main one concerns a company called Worry Free, organised by an entrepreneur, Steve Lift (Army Hammer also at his best). The commercials for Worry Free have to be seen to be believed, people signing away their lives for perpetual work contracts and reduced to living in dormitories, canned food, the commercials praising this way of life and campaigning for others to join. There are some dire consequences as this particular strand is pursued.

There is another subplot concerning an extreme Reality TV show where a host encourages guests to be victims and to be bashed and humiliated on screen. And this will have its place and later consequences.

And, as well, there is a character called Squeeze (Stephen Yuen) who travels around to different workplaces, urging union activity, organising protests and demonstrations, with picket lines outside companies. Cassius and Detroit are caught up in the protests even as Cassius receives his promotion and is taken upstairs to become a Power Caller, living in luxury, and discovering some unhappy truths about contemporary capitalism, arms-deals and people-slavery.

And there is far more to come, far more, Steve Lift and his cohorts planning something even more drastic, moving the film into the realm of science-fiction, science-fantasy (including an unrecognisable Forest Whitaker who is one of the producers of this film).

And, of course, it doesn’t end there and, while for a few moments it looked like a pat happy ending, it certainly isn’t!

If this all seems too much, probably let it go. If this sounds the least bit intriguing, certainly go to see Sorry to Bother You.

1. The title, for telemarketing, the irony?

2. A message film, its image of the world, of exploitation of ordinary people, Worry Free, of capitalism, of capitalistic tyranny, oppression, rebellion and the uprisings? And rebellions being put down? The implication of “what does it profit to gain the whole world…�?

3. The difference with the film and its style of communicating its message, imagination, serious drama, humorous touches, the blend of the real and the fantastic?

4. Oakland, a vision of an ordinary part of a city? Yet the universal implications? The streets, the traffic, homes, living in the garage, offices, phone booths for telemarketing, the brutal television show, clubs and the VIP room, in the streets, art galleries? The Power Callers in the upstairs luxury offices? Parties, Lift’s apartment, the discovery of the cages, the strikers and protests in the street? Creation of an atmosphere?

5. Cassius, in himself, the interview, his photo as employer of the month, his huge trophy from school? Exposed as lying, his being hired, work with his friend, Detroit and his life? Going to work, the boss hiring him because he could sell a point of view? The encouragement, Stick to the Script? The pep talk and its banality, Diana and her enthusiasm? The encouragement by Langston to use a white voice, the supplying of a white voice by David Cross? The other white voices, for Detroit? The tone, the spoof? The encounter with Squeeze, supporting him, the buildup to protest?

6. The comic touch of Cassius being lowered into the phone call interactions with the variety of people, their hanging up, the reactions, conversation, grief?

7. Cassius and Detroit, living in the garage, the comic touch with the garage door? His uncle and his debt? The photo of his uncle and the car? And later paying him back?

8. The inserts from the brutal television show and their effect? The kind of world an audience that watched this show?

9. The working conditions, Squeeze and his protest activity, going for the drink at the bar, the car with the group inside, Detroit and her involvement, or the discussions, Langston and his contribution, building up to the protests from the booths, putting down the phones? The street demonstrations? The pickets? The police, armed guards, the bashings? Letting the scabs through?

10. Cassius, part of the rebellion, the news of his promotion, his reaction? His decision to accept the promotion, the attraction of the money, the conditions? The irony of abbreviating his name to Cash? Going up in the elevator with Diana, the joke about the extended security code, the introduction to the man with the eyepatch? The people lounging around with their phones, work? Guiding him around, getting to work, his getting in through the picket line? The example of his ringing the Japanese, the white voice, his field, the sale, his being acclaimed, developing his technique, being acclaimed as the star salesman?

11. The campaign for Worry Free? The range and frequency of commercials, the speakers, yet the dormitories and living conditions, the handing out of food, cramped slavery, and the genial appeal of more people to sign up to perpetual work contracts?

12. Detroit, her artwork, the show, the pieces, Cassius and his visit, Squeeze, the momentary affair with Detroit?

13. Cassius and his work, his growing reputation, the other callers and their admiration, the party, his being invited to go to Steve’s office, the privilege, the corridor, the office, the discussion? Lift and his explaining his philosophy of life, commerce, the workers, their transformation, Worry Free? His proposal for Cassius, to change, to go five years underground, to observe the workers? And the million dollars for his future?

14. Cassius going to the toilet, seeing the creatures, their plight, the effect on him, his return? Confronting Lift, the offer of the money, the limit of five years – the effect on him and his fleeing?

15. Cassius and his involvement with the campaigns, the background of the brutal television show, his being part of it, beaten and brutalised, the reactions, the commercials – and his situation not being listened to? Commercial considerations overtaking?

16. Connecting with Squeeze, Detroit, the determination to expose Worry Free? The rallies, the police, the demonstrations, the violence?

17. The expose, Cassius in Detroit, thinking that he was safe – after the seeming happy ending and the kiss, the reality of his transformation?