DESIRABLE LADY

US, 1944, 69 minutes, Black-and-white.
Jan Wiley, Phil Warren, Eddie Dunn, Janet Scott, Betty Blythe.
Directed by Donald Brodie.

This film was also called A Fig Leaf for Eve and had other titles to promote sales. However, it is slight, merely a historical footnote.

This is the story of a dancer, an exotic dancer in what seems a respectable nightclub. However, agent funds the police to arrest her as a publicity stunt. She encounters a bail bond officer, tells him/her story about her active parents dying in a fire and her living in an orphanage. He keeps a dossier on such matters and gets documents to support her claim (it later being revealed, after the agent has a fight with him, the gun struggle and the bond officer is killed).

While the dancer is upset, she is happy with the claim, goes to dinner with the family who are snobbish towards her, discovers a somewhat reprobate aunt they form a friendship. The uncle investigating the case is very sympathetic and sets her up in an apartment along with the aunt. The dancer decides to improve herself, taking all kinds of courses including Shakespeare.

Her prospective cousin takes after her snobbish mother and invites the dancer to participate in Cabo she is putting on – with the dancer deciding to do a scene from Antony and Cleopatra, the audience or laughing. She gets her revenge by doing her exotic dance – to great applause.

The audience actually never learns whether she is the rightful heiress although there is a lot of whistle thinking which may be true. However, she is supported by the aunt and realises she has fallen in love with the agent.

KATIE DID IT

US, 1951, 81 minutes, Black-and-white.
Ann Blyth, Mark Stevens, Cecil Kellaway, Jesse White, Craig Stevens, William H.Flynn, Elizabeth Patterson.
Directed by Frederick de Cordova.

Katie Did It is a frothy comedy from the early 1950s – perhaps harking back to the tone of the screwball comedy is of the 1930s.

The setting is a puritanical and prudish town in Massachusetts, founded by a minister, the town grew proud of its ancestry and maintained in maintaining proper standards with the touch of the prim. The leader of the town is Priscilla, played by Elizabeth Patterson, while Cecil Kellaway is her lawyer brother, prone to miss behaviour, drinking and gambling.

Katie is played by and life, Oscar-nominated for her vengeful daughter in Mildred Pierce, but also known for a range of musicals including The Great Caruso, Student Prints, Rose Marie, Kismet. The leading man is Mark Stevens, a pleasant presence.

Stevens is a commercial artist working on a sign in the town and accidentally dropped paint on Katie’s hat – antagonism follows despite his trying to make amends. He also becomes friendly with the gambling uncle who helps him with legal documents to buy courses and, unwittingly, indicates the rest of the family that the artist has children.

There are lots of misunderstandings in the screenplay, and Priscilla shocked at the sketches of women on a calendar, the uncle wanting to bet five dollars on a horse but interpreted as $495 more, Katie going to pose for a picture to earn the money, her falling in love with the artist, finding out about the horses, but again misunderstanding about the artist’s nephew. She is prepared to marry the banker of the town but discovers that he has discovered how pressurising the author older generation is.

A wedding rehearsal, an interruption, finding the truth – and, of course, a happy ending.

NEW LIFE

US, 2016, 88 minutes, Colour.
Jonathan Patrick Moore, James Marsters, Erin Bethea, Terry O' Quinn, Barry Corbin, Bill Cobbs, Kris Lemche, Irma P.Hall.
Directed by Drew Waters.


New Life has a very positive tone about it – however, while there are themes of life, there are also themes of death and grief.

Many date the popularity of faith-based films on the commercial success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. For more than a decade, many of the faith-based films have been in the top ten box-office films at the time of their release. This has encouraged many similar films, finding an audience especially in the United States with the churches and Evangelical communities. This film fits the pattern of these faith-based films.

However, there is only one brief reference to church in New Life and, nuns are seen at an orphanage at the end of the film. Which means that this film could be described as faith-based, emphasis on faith, lower case. Probably the common denominator word for all of these films is “inspirational�. The film makers believe in values, creating stories which dramatise these values, something the equivalent of cinema sermons. As might be expected, there is a cinema-going public, television and downloading public, who do not like their entertainment to be so explicit in terms of values. Obviously, New Life is not geared towards that audience.

Rather, its appeal is to those one might call the converted, audiences who like films which could be called wholesome.

The narrative is fairly straightforward, much of it easily anticipated. In many ways, the audience knows where the film is going and they willingly go with it. Two children meet when they are seven, one a little American girl, the other a little boy who has come from the United Kingdom. As the years pass, they enjoy their friendship.

The main part of the film shows their friendship, their growing in love, some tensions as Ben (Jonathan Patrick Moore) studies architecture and design, intending to work with his successful father, but also in partnership with a friend, driving limousines. Ava (Erin Bethea) is studying at college away from home, putting some strain on the couple meeting, phoning, he having to drive, meals together, his being busy. Ava becomes friendly with a pleasant young man, an alternative after a quarrel with Ben. She also has a French roommate in whom she confides.

But, of course they reconcile, marry, start a happy home life, he with his architecture work, she with teaching children. When one of Ben’s designs is chosen for an important project, it means that he has to spend long hours at work, travelling to New York, putting a strain on the harmony of married life.

The most important aspect of the film, however, is illness, a dread diagnosis, treatment, concern from the parents of both Ben and Ava, treatment by a stern doctor… As audiences would suspect, there is some temporary respite, the recurrence of the illness…

Ben is very much affected by Ava’s illness and death – but, while he is deeply absorbed by grief, unable to respond to life, there is a providential opportunity offered him, an opportunity to choose life, be more outgoing, be hopeful…

The makers of the film have been connected with inspirational films for many years, the director being involved as an actor, and Erin Bethea, appearing in films with such titles as Fearless Faith, God’s Compass’.

While the film will appeal to its target audience in the cinema, it will have a life on television and other media for downloading and watching films.


1. The title? An inspirational film?

2. The background of American faith-based films? This film as inspirational without explicit church references?

3. An American story, Middle America, sensibilities? Audiences identifying with characters, issues? How universal?

4. An emotional story, life, illness, death?

5. The introduction to Ben and Ava, his coming from England, settling in America? The interactions of children, friendship? Bonding?

6. Their growing up, the friendship continuing, wholesome friendship?

7. Ben, his bond with his father, architect, his working for the limousine company, the range of clients, his friendship with Michael, the sharing?

8. Ava, at college, studies, away from the home town? Her friendship with Noey, French, sharing, confiding?

9. Ben, busy, the meetings, the driving, the phone calls to Ava, going to meet her, the meals, the discussions, tensions? David and his friendship, Ava’s response, Ben’s reaction? Ava realising she loved Ben?

10. Marriage, the wedding, their life together, the touch of the ideal, happiness? Their home life?

11. Ben busy, possibilities in his father’s company, his working on designs, the choosing of his design, his father and the executives, his visiting New York, the long hours, away from home, the effect on himself, on Ava?

12. Ava, her teaching, enjoying her work, relating to the kids? Contact with Noey, Noey and her story of the pregnancy, Ava going to visit her in Paris?

13. Ben, settling down, Ava and her work, the reconciliation, enjoying their life?

14. Ava ill, the visit to the doctor, his stern manner, the consultation with both sets of parents? The discussions? Reactions? The tests, the healing?

15. The recuperation, happy and relaxed, hopes?

16. Ava, the new diagnosis, the verdict of the doctor, fatal? Her illness, hospital, the parents? Her death?

17. Ben, his grief, immobile?

18. The background of the home for the elderly, the characters, interactions?

19. The news from friends, Noey and her death in the accident, the child having no father? The message to Ben, his visit to the nuns in the orphanage, meeting the little girl?

20. Adoption, his coming out of himself, possibilities for New Life?

MURER – ANATOMY OF A TRIAL/ ANATOMIE EINES PROZESSES

Austria, 2018, 137 minutes, Colour.
Karl Fischer, Alexander E.Fenton, Melita Jurisic, Karl Markovics, Roland Jaeger.
Directed by Christian Frosch.

This film is based on a true story. It takes place in Vienna, 1963, in the aftermath of the trials of Adolf Eichmann. The focus of this trial is on Franz Murer, “the Butcher of Vilnius�. Much of the screenplay is based on the actual texts of the trial. Most of the action takes place in the court.

Karl Fischer portrays Franz Murer, seen at the opening of the film with his wife, about to go to court. For those who know the case and its outcome, the material will be familiar and lead to feelings of outrage. For those not familiar with the case, it is intriguing, and also eliciting deep feelings of outrage at the end.

Audiences will take a dislike to the defence lawyer, using all kinds of tactics, insinuations, quibbling with words, with memories, with colours of uniform to upset the witnesses. The prosecutor does not seem to be a strong as he might be. There are quite a number of witnesses, Jews from Lithuania, recounting terrible stories of their experience. Simon Wiesenthal is present in the background, organising the witnesses.

For those who don’t know the story, it is one full of suspense, full of emotions in listening to the witnesses, in their being hounded by the defence lawyer, in Murer’s complacency, his denials, and so many of those in the court, politicians, even the judge having had Nazi connections. His wife vigorously defends him as does his sister.

There is some satisfaction in the defence lawyer and his subsequent denunciation of the wife and sister. There can only be shock in the judgement and the consequences.

1. The title? The case? The process?

2. The impact of the film depending on whether the audience knows the result or not? Suspense or not? Dismay if the ending is known?

3. A film of 2018, reflecting Nazi atrocities in Lithuania in 1941-3, a trial in 1963? Austria, public opinion, the remnant of the fascists and the Nazis, political influence?

4. The screenplay based on transcripts, the conducting of the court scenes, the judges, interrogations, the witness statements? The screenplay going beyond the court scenes, yet the interiors, the streets, the facade of the court? The finale with its sunny happy ending at the farm?

5. The introduction to Murer, his wife and their kissing, the defence lawyer, the issue of the coat, the impression for the jury, coaching the defendant, preparing his wife, the children present and impressing the jury?

6. German occupation of Lithuania, of Vilnius, the history, the Jerusalem of the North, the German officials, the killings, the massacres, the treatment? The defence using the uprisings in Vilnius and Jewish gangs as reasons for official behaviour?

7. The defence lawyer, his appearance, manner, his treatment of the witnesses, issues of mistaken identity, pressing on the colour of the uniform, the effectiveness of his interrogations, his final impassioned speech to the jury? The final sequence with the prosecutor, discovering that the government had influenced the case rather than his defence of Murer?

8. Prosecutor, his tensions, the presence of his wife, his not wanting her to go there? His cross examinations, the touches of hesitancy? His ideology? Impact of the witnesses, his speech from his chair? The revelation of the official threats? And his wife giving him the Nazi notices?

9. The judges, the background of their political affiliations, issues of bias? The conduct of the case?

10. The presentation of the jury, eight, the two women, the woman in church, praying, the other pro Murer? The group who were pro-Nazi, the pressure on the others? The fat man and the quiet man, at meals, their talk? The juror feeling his guilt about his killings with the youth forces? In church, talking to the woman? The sacristan from the jury overhearing him, spying? With his mother? The pressure at home by the visitors? The meeting, excusing himself, the substitute going in? The vote? The later sympathy of the old woman on the street?

11. The people in the courtroom, nationalist, in favour of Murer, laughter, applause, anti-Somatic?

12. The range of Jews, their witness, the harshness of their experience, the telling of their stories, upset, being confused by the defence lawyer, the range of men and women, their sufferings? The young man and the witness to the death of his father? Leon, the disappearance of his wife, seeing the death of his son? The value of their testimony? Condemnations of Murer?

13. Leon, having the gun, wanting to shoot Murer?

14. The journalist, American, her presence, writing, listening, the discussion with the local journalist, his discussions with the editor?

15. Simon Wiesenthal and his Nazi-hunting, getting the witnesses, not wanting to be named, his coaching of Leon? His appeal? His reputation in Austria in 1963? Later reputation? The scene of Ibsen listening to the radio for the verdict?

16. The cinema audience and believing the witnesses? Reaction to the verdict? The role of the prosecutor in eliminating some of the charges?

17. The impact of the final speeches, the two lawyers talking?

18. The revelations about Murer, what he had done, sadistic, cruel, shootings, his white coach, his uniform, the information about his affair? His wife defending him in the court, the gift to the defence lawyer from herself and Murer’s sister, the son and the cake? The defence lawyer indicating that he just did his job and knew that Murer was guilty? The wife questioning her husband about the affair?

19. The final information, Murer and his life, the staunch Catholic background, politics, his long life after the trial dying comfortably at home with his family?

SHELTER

Israel/Germany, 2017, 93 minutes, Colour.
Neta Riskin, Golshifteh Farahani. Yehuda Almogor.
Directed by Eran Riklis.

Sheltered dramatises tensions in the Middle East, especially between Israel and Lebanon, involvement of Hezbollah and of Mossad.

A Lebanese informant, in a relationship with the Hezbollah leader, betrays him to Mossad. Mossad then has to arrange for one of their agents to go to Germany to a safe house where she can babysit the informant for two weeks.

The informant has had plastic surgery and is very irritable. However, she begins to bond with the woman who is caring for her – and who is trying to become pregnant.

There are complications with the Hezbollah leader and his agents trying to track down the informant so that he will be able to get his revenge on her.

There is a range of twists, some rather unexpected, which enhance this espionage story.

Direction is by Eran Riklis, distinguished director films include Lemon Tree, Syrian Bride, Human Resources Manager.

1. The Middle East and thriller? Politics? Betrayals?

2. The liberty settings? The transition to Germany? The city of Hamburg? Cologne? The musical score?

3. The title, the alternate title of “Refuge�?

4. The credibility of the situation, Israel and Mossad, living on in Hezbollah, in form and send information, betrayals? Protection of informants? Hezbollah revenge?

5. Mona, the situation, the information to Israel, her explanation of her background, her mother, her father’s disappearance? The relationship with the Hezbollah chief? The son? The photo, her longing

6. for him? In Naomi’s protection? The apartment in Hamburg? The plastic surgery, the bandages, her irritation with them? A haughty manner, demands, food? Interactions with Naomi, the gradual understanding, liking? Sharing information? Going out for the plumber, Naomi is concerned? A story about her relationship?

7. Naomi, Mossad, her background, her husband, his shielding her and being shot? Her wanting to be pregnant, the injections, the consultation with the doctor? Two weeks with Mona, wary, demanding? The phone calls? Avner as her contact? Mona out into return, the plumber, anxiety? The talking, the friendship, touches of intimacy, sharing stories? Sebastien as the neighbour and her dream about his being an agent? The role of the doctor to take Mona, the gun? The later attack of the Hezbollah agents? Her escape? Contact with Avner, her being wounded? Moved by Mona story, the decision to visit Lebanon on, going to the monastery, the nun, going to the cemetery, Mona’s son and his grave?

8. Niaim, Hezbollah, the search for Mona, the intensity, his orders to his underlings? Tracking her down, the wrong information on the raid? The correct information, the attack, shooting?

9. Naomi, going to Cologne, the Kurdish contact, the information for Naomi?

10. Naomi at the grave, Naim and his arrival, his thinking she was Mona, the betrayal, stopping her to go to Canada, Naomi shooting him?

11. The irony of Mona and her son, alive, flying to Canada?

12. Naomi and her continued planning for the pregnancy?

THE MAN IN THE ROAD

UK, 1956, 80 minutes, Black-and-white.
Derek Farr, Ella Raines, Donald Wolfit, Lisa Daniely, Bruce Beeby, Russell Napier, Cyril Cusack, Frederick Piper, Karel Stepanek, Olive Sloane.
Directed by Lance Comfort.

This is an entertaining Cold War story, the type of story that was popular in the 1950s and continuing on, especially with the influence of John Le Carre and his stories, into the 1960s and beyond.

Russian agents abduct a British scientist as he goes to help somebody lying on the road. He is treated physically and mentally, persuaded he has amnesia, the sinister doctor at the institution hypnotising him, especially in the middle of conversation by his use of a cigarette lighter. The plan is to give a different identity to the scientist, send him to Russia allegedly to meet his mother, and get information from him.

The cast is interesting, an opportunity to see Sir Donald Wolfit as the sinister doctor. Karel Stepanak is once again a sinister foreign presence. There is a cameo by Cyril Cusack as an alcoholic doctor at the institution. The leading lady, from America, is Ella Raines, whose last film this was.

The film is very much of its time, but well done, keeping the interest even in later decades.


1. The Cold War story? The UK and the Soviet Union? Espionage? Developments in the Cold War by the mid-1950s?

2. The gritty settings, the roads, the mansion for the institution, London, the countryside? The musical score?

3. The title, James Paxton driving, the man in the road, stopping, his being abducted? The audience not knowing anything about him? His amnesia? The long time in recovery, the interviews with the doctor, the doctor and the cigarette lighter and the hypnotism, the assistant doctors, Mitzi and her friendship, the attraction?

4. Audiences suspicious of the doctor and his staff, his manner? His insistence on the new name, Ivan Mason, the Russian background, alleging he had a Russian mother, no documents, the amplifying of his injuries, the use of Mitzi to persuade him?

5. Ivan, trying come to grips with memory, suggestions? The landlady coming and her story (and her later being accosted and admitting she had been paid to impersonate)? The Russian official, the providing of documents? The plan for him to go to Russia and to visit his mother?

6. Dr Kelly, alcoholic, the encounter is with Ivan, wanting the drinks, talking? Meeting Ivan at the pub, alerting him? The later encounter in the room, the doctors and their plans, killing him?

7. Ivan, bewildered, getting the lift from Rhona? Her not being suspicious? Listening to his story?

8. Ivan, the escape, going to Rhona, going to London, retracing steps?

9. The ambulance, the police?

10. The visit in London, Ivan and his shrewdness and eluding pursuit?

11. The capture of Rhona, the police, the groundsman and his suspicions and giving them information?

12. Going to the institution, Dr Manning and his being upset, Balinkov and his control, the plan to get Ivan ready to go to Russia and draw on his scientific knowledge? Awaiting
the arrival of the plane, and his shooting the doctor? The shooting, Rhona rescued?

13. Rhona and her work, going to Scotland Yard, the story about the passport, the Scotland Yard inspector becoming interested, recognising Paxton?

14. Paxton becoming himself again, his scientific work, and the bond with Rhona?

SUSPIRIA

Italy/US, 2018, 152 minutes, Colour.
Dakota Johnson, Tilda Swinton, Doris Hick, Malgorzaata Bela, Chloe Grace Moretz, Angela Winkler, Jessica Batut, Elena Fokina, Mia Goth, Clementine Houdart, Ingrid Caven, Sylvie Testud.
Directed by Luca Guadagnino.

This is a remake, a re-interpretation (and then some, to say the least) of the 1977 horror-thriller directed by Dario Argento. It is considered something of a classic, now especially so in the mind and memory of Italian director Luca Guadagnino (I am Woman, A Bigger Splash, Call Me by Your Name).

Whether Guadagnino has created a new classic is not so certain. While there have been some admirers, many who have written comments on this version have felt disappointed in comparison with the original, or have been bewildered, or thought it was just so much rubbish – some even suspecting that the director might have appeared after the final credits to jokingly tell us that it was all a hoax!

The original was made in 1977 and Guadagnino and his cowriter, David Kajganich (whose following film was the remake of Stephen King’s Pet Sematery), have decided that they would like to make many references to what was happening in Germany and Berlin at that time, where the old and the new Suspiria have been set, memories of World War II, memories of camps and betrayals, references to terrorism and the Baader- Meinhoff group, an RAF crisis. While this is significant, the references seem to be merely allusions, suggestions, verbal and visual, rather than explorations of the theme and connections to the characters and actions. (Although, there is an insertion later in the film where the psychiatrist meets his long-lost love whom he had betrayed – and is to be punished; and this interlude provides an opportunity for a cameo appearance by Jessica Harper, the original Susie).

Since the plot is about a coven of witches, audiences certainly expect it to be weird. As weird as this?

The film opens, somewhat frantically, with a dancer from an Academy seeking psychological help, mentally disintegrating before our eyes, Patricia (Chloe Grace Moretz). And then, a new dancer arrives from Ohio, Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson after her 50 Shades films). She is ambitious. She is welcomed. There are memories of her growing among the Amish in Ohio. She makes friends with the other dancers, finds accommodation, shows instantly that she has dance talent. There are complications with her fellow dancer, Sarah (Mia Goth).

Dancing is important to the film. Those who love modern dance, contemporary choreography, may well be delighted by the very long sequences of dance, impressionistic, a work called Volk (‘ People’). There is a frantic score accompanying the dance, dance until one collapses…

And the staff at the dance Academy (a collection of significant European actresses) look and act weirdly (understatement). When it emerges that they are a coven of witches, that the head is a woman called Madame Markos, that there is some rivalry with the teacher who is held on a pedestal by the students, Madame Blanc. So, what is the will of the witches? What did they want with Patricia, to become part of the coven, the discovery of secret powers? What do they want with Susie – and what does she want?

In the performance of Volk, Susie collapses – and some transformation begins, a revelation of the witches, bizarre confrontations and deaths, the visualising of Madame Markos (very ugly fleshy creation) contrasting with the austere beauty of Madame Blanc.

It might be just as well that that there are no quizzes as audiences leave the cinema after 2 ½ hours to test whether they could explain the plot, characters, themes. Most would probably fail.

So, a step in the career of Luca Guadagnino, a reinterpretation of Dario Argento, a display of contemporary dance, an imagining of later 20th century witches (and their depiction and delineation seems more than a little misogynistic).

And the most amazing thing about the film is the presence of Tilda Swinton, extraordinary as always, and the revelation after the event that the make-up artists have been at work because she is also the professor – and she is also Madame Markos.

1. Status of the original? Considered classic? 21st-century reinterpretation?

2. The two directors, both Italian, Italian sensibility, imagination? Aspect of horror?

3. The 1977 setting, Berlin, divided city, the Academy of dance? The references and allusions to World War II, camps, betrayals? The Baader- Meinhof movement? The RAF incident? References and allusions – how much developed?

4. The city, the streets, underpasses, buildings, apartments and offices, the Academy and its rehearsal rooms, performance? The backrooms? The atmosphere?

5. The musical score, the dance, contemporary dance, contemporary choreography? For a performance in 1977, of the work composed in 1948 according to the screenplay?

6. The opening, Patricia, demented, erratic behaviour, seeking out the professor, his interview with her, the questions, the hysterical reactions, the appeal to her, her death?

7. Susie Bannion arriving, from Ohio, the visuals of her Amish background, her mother, ill, the family helping her? The view of the Ohio fields?

8. Susie in herself, her hopes, her arrival and manner, meeting the other girls, reception, the suspicious attitudes? Accommodation? Her wanting to see Madame Blanc, the dancing, Madame Blanc interested in watching? Her being accepted, the quality of her audition? Relationship with the other dancers, Olga, Sarah?

9. The staff, the range of European actresses, their age, appearance, functions in the Academy? The revelation that they were a coven? The depiction of weird behaviour even in ordinary circumstances?

10. The vote, Madame Markos versus Madame Blanc? The various members and their announcing their boat? Madame Markos winning? Her not being seen? The audience focused on Madame Blanc, teaching, supervising rehearsals, the composition of the dance, the choreography, with each of the students? Her being idolised?

11. The range of lessons, dancing, the requirements for the dance and gymnastics? Susie and her agility?

12. The transition in Susie, the passing on of the powers? Her performance, the gestures, Olga in the other room and her being wounded, contortions? The reaction of Madame Blanc and the other members of the staff?

13. Sarah, the experience, in the other rooms, the professor, Are Becoming victim?

14. The police, the questioning, imprisonment, torture, sexual humiliation?

15. The interlude with the professor, the vision of his wife, their recollections on what it happened, his guilt, her disappearance? His punishment?

16. The audience, the performance of Volk, Susie and her experience, the other members of the troupe, Sarah and her entry, intervention? Susie and her collapse?

17. The buildup to the confrontation between the coven and members, the little red atmosphere and histrionics, Madame Blanc and her death? Madame Marcos? The role of the other members?

18. The versatility with Tilda Swinton portraying Madame Blanc, Madame Markos as well is the professor?

19. The continuation of the coven, Susie and the incarnation of the witch, her power?

THE DELAVINE AFFAIR

UK, 1955, 64 minutes, Black-and-white.
Peter Reynolds, Honor Blackman, Gordon Jackson, Valerie Vernon, Michael Balfour, Katie Johnson.
Directed by Douglas Peirce.

This is a small murder mystery from a story by Robert M. Chapman who was also responsible for the very similar story and film, Behind the Headlines, in the following year. Once again there is a journalist running a news agency, this time Peter Reynolds (who migrated to Australia in the 1960s and appeared in quite a number of films and television series). His wife is played by Honor Blackman. The villain turns out to be Gordon Jackson in an unusual role. Also in the cast are Michael Balfour, the journalist’s photographer, and the pleasant presence of Katie Johnson who was to make such an impact as the old lady in The Ladykillers at the same time.

There are complications with the murder of an old religious vagrant, information about jewel robberies and fencing the jewels, police investigations, the revelation about the robber and the murder of his associate, information from his widow, the jeweller who fenced the material and information from his wife, and another investigator who would happily split the jewels when they were recovered by the journalist.

Small but interesting in its way.

MY BROTHERS KEEPER

UK, 1948, 82 minutes, Black-and-white.
Jack Warner, Jane Hylton, George Cole, Bill Owen, David Tomlinson, Yvonne Owen, Raymond Lovell, Beatrice Varley, Susan Shaw, Wilfrid Hyde White.
Directed by Alfred Roome.

This is one of the many films produced in Britain subsequent to the end of World War II, often with small budgets, with serious themes, relying on the many talented British supporting actors of the time.

This is a star vehicle for Jack Warner, who made the Huggett films of this period, a genial father. He was best known for his role in The Blue Lamp and the subsequent television series Dixon of Dock Green.

Here he is playing against type, an older criminal, in prison for many years, doing military service, many prison escape attempts. Handcuffed to a slight young man, played by George Cole, he leaps out of the police vehicle and the film shows their cross-country travels, the police pursuit and, especially, the role of the media and investigation. David Tomlinson is the young reporter forced, even on the day of his wedding, to follow the case, bullied by the editor in London, played by Raymond Lovell.

The older criminal is shrewd, forcing the young man with him, acting sympathetically, then acting most callously, finally abandoning him. The episodes of his escape and his using his brains are quite arresting. Ultimately, despite a certain urbane manner, he is revealed as ultimately callous.

The film was directed by Alfred Roome, a film editor – including at least a dozen of the Carry On films.

1. The title, the final quotation, everyone as brothers, responsibility for others? As illustrated in this film? Ironically?

2. Britain after the war, soldiers, criminal careers, prison?

3. The landscapes, the countryside, the towns, railways, stations, police precincts, newspaper offices, hotels? The musical score?

4. The basic situation, George Martin and his background, age, criminal, in prison, military service, escapes from prison, long marriage to his wife, his relationship with Nora? His decision to escape, handcuffed to Stannard, dragging him with him? Hiding, his plans, shrewd, the military clothes, the plan for the train, pretending to have a deserter in custody, leaping from the train, continually on the run, going to Nora, the saw, his handcuffs off, leaving Stannard’s on? Sometimes praising Stannard and encouraging him, other times disparaging him? The farmer, Martin hitting him over the head, leaving him for dead? At the military camp? Wanted to get Stannard’s motorcycle, his being recognised? His phone call to his wife, going to the town, the shave? Going to the church, the service, the policeman’s wife, bringing him home, his seeing the photo, the police arriving? The police search, tracking him down, his running, the pursuit, at the barbed wire, the police advising him to stop, his defiance, in the minefield, his death? A callous man?

5. The contrast with Stannard, the woman reporting him for molestation, his going to prison, protests, a slight man, a weak man, forced into running, handcuffed, Martin coaching on how to behave, dragging him along, as the deserter in the train, with Nora, still with handcuffs, Martin abandoning him, the dead man and his running, dismayed, handing himself in, interrogated, arrested for the murder?

6. The world of newspaper reporting, Wainwright, boorish, no sensitivity, controlling his journalists, the pressure? Offhand remarks about marriage and honeymoon?

7. Ronnie Waring, the day of his marriage to Meg? The phone call, on the job, the hotel, the name of the police chief, the wife of the policeman, getting the leads? Other reporters, sending in information, spending the night in the rough quarters, wanting to resign, Meg and her accepting his job, eager to be on the job with him? The other journalists, talk amongst themselves, leads, being present at the final moment?

8. Martin’s wife, 22 years, her care for him, lament about his life, the driver and his love for her, driving her to meet her husband, their being stopped? Her being present at his death?

9. Nora, the past relationship, her dead husband, giving shelter, the saw, sympathy for Stannard? Meeting Martin again, talking, blaming him for the death and leaving Stannard? Her presence at the end, meeting Martin’s wife? Her decision to go to the police and saying she had witnessed the murder, freeing Stannard?

10. An offbeat criminals on-the-run story?

THE COUSIN

Israel, 2017, 93 minutes, Colour.
Tzahi Granted, Ala Dakka, Osnat Fishman.
Directed by Tzahi Grad.


The implication of the title is that Jewish and Arab peoples both descended from Abraham, the Jews from the legitimate son, Isaac, the Arabs from the son of the servant, Ishmael, are cousins. This film serves as something of an allegory about relationships, deep antipathies, possibilities for reconciliation.

The basic story is quite simple, a theatre director wants workers to repair the studio that he has rented. He seeks the advice of his Arab gardener who recommends a brother, with an alternate worker turning up. Relationships between the two are generally formal but not disagreeable, the worker having some expertise, not just in repair but also in IT. They go to a store to get material for the repairs.

In the meantime, we see the theatre director, his wife and children and their lifestyle.

When news comes that the niece of the store owner has been sexually assaulted, assumptions are made that it is the Arab who is guilty. The film illustrates immediate presumptions after suspicions, and touches of a lynch mentality. For some time the theatre director defends the worker, then deep-seated antipathies surface and he attacks him, later relenting, allowing him to stay in his house, then confronting those attacking the worker, eventually forcing the truth to be expressed, the Arab worker being entirely innocent.

The film has the device of the director making a clip for television about peace and reconciliation between Jews and Arabs – the worker saying that it was a bit simplistic, the Israeli producers saying that this could never be shown on prime time television.

The hope would be that this film contributes to mutual understanding.


1. The title? Political implications? Israelis? Palestinians? Arabs? The background of descent from Abraham, Isaac and family, Israel and the servant, Hagar?

2. The theme of the building? Naftali and his plans? Young ideal and her decisions? Design, architects, workmen?

3. Israel, the landscapes, outside the city? The hills, roads? Homes? The musical score?

4. Naturally, the recommendation from his gardener, the heads arrival, Naftali and his being wary? The house, the need for repairs, the roof, the floor, painting…? Far ahead and his expertise, Naftali believing him or not? The audience sharing this wariness? Fahed and his expertise with the finding of files online?

5. Going to the store, the owner, the young girl, the nephew? The later revelation about the assault? Assumptions about Fahed, suspicions of Arabs? The girl not identifying her assailant? The intervention of the police?

6. Naftali, the bonding with Fahed, the men coming to attack far ahead and Naftali warning them off? The later returning, brutality? The neighbours and their assembling, the woman and her deep suspicions and expressing them?

7. Naftali at home, with his wife, her hesitations? The children, meeting Fahed, discussions with him, the map? The bonding? The background of Israelis and Arabs being cousins?

8. The mounting evidence, Fahed having returned to the store? Naftali and the pressures, his becoming suspicious, verbally attacking Fahed?

9. His changing his attitude, defending Fahed, letting him stay the night, suspicions during the night, Fahed going to the toilet, having something to eat, the children waking?

10. Naftali bumping his wife, no electricity, her going to hospital, the police suspicious?

11. Naftali taking a stand, with the gun, warning people off? Wanting to get the evidence, the owner of the store, Naftali hitting him, his admitting the truth about his nephew, the
girl admitting the truth?

12. Naftali, his background, director, animator, the video promoting peace, the producers and saying it could not be shown on prime-time television?

13. The film at serving as an allegory about Jewish and Arab relationships – and the possibilities for reconciliation?