FACES IN THE DARK

UK, 1960, 84 minutes, Black and white.
John Gregson, Mai Zetterling, John Ireland, Michael Denison, Tony Wright, Nanette Newman.
Directed by David Eady.

This is a thriller based on a novel by Pierre Boileau, Thomas Narcejac, prolific writers with many screen adaptations in English, French, German. They are best known for the film versions of Diabolique, Eyes without a Face, Vertigo.

This is a British film about an ambitious industrialist, played with uncharacteristic gruffness and haughtiness by John Gregson, usually in more genial roles. Mai Zetterling, who had appeared in a number of British films (as well as with Danny Kaye in Knock on Wood) plays his wife. American John Ireland plays his brother while Michael Denison (in a very stolid British stiff-upper-lip manner) plays his partner. Tony Wright is the chauffeur. Nanette Newman in an early role plays the servant. The director, David Eady, was best known for children’s films in the 1970s.

The meaning of the title comes from the industrialist pushing an experiment beyond its capacity and being disfigured and blinded, depending on his wife, putting down his partner, relying on his chauffeur. He has a long recovery, is determined to cope for himself, relying on his memory – which begins to falter and he wonders about his mental health.

By the end, the audience can see that there are quite a number of twists and time is needed to reflect on the credibility of the plot, including the wife and partner and the servants taking the industrialist to a mansion in France rather than where he was expecting to go in Cornwall. The climax is rather more intense than might have been expected and the film suddenly ends, leaving the audience to ponder the characters and what has happened.

1. Thriller, psychological drama, obsession and paranoia?

2. The authors of the novel, French, the final scenes of the film in France, mansion, countryside, railway crossing, hospital, lake? The musical score?

3. The title, the issue of blindness, coping with blindness, physically, mentally, emotionally?

4. The ordinary plot at the opening, the factory, Richard and his ambitions, David and his assistance but being looked down on, Richard and his haughtiness, impatience, refusing to go into partnership, the confidence in his bulb, Christiane wanting to talk to him, his neglecting her, the laboratory, the explosion, the disfigurement, his blindness?

5. Richard, continuing impatient, six months in hospital, yet wanting to be busy, his ambitions? His gruff treatment of everyone? Relying on his memory, wanting to cope, to manage? Leaving hospital, going to the office, the clashes with David, the phone calls? His reliance on Clem as his chauffeur? His flight to Cornwall?

6. Christiane, going to the factory, deciding to leave Richard? The explosion, her staying with him? Her care? His wanting the truth from her always? Her continued reassurances? The going away to the mansion, his sleeping all the way, the familiarity, the indications of difference, the extra step, the arrangement of the roses, his smelling of the pines, the ringing of church bells…?

7. Life in Cornwall, his managing to cope, reliance on Clem? The significance of Max, his brother, playing the piano, not having a job, flirtatious, always borrowing money? The visits? Out on the town, with Jeanette? The final clash with Richard? His disappearance, the news of his death? The story of his funeral?

8. Richard, anxious, getting more suspicious, the smelling of the pines, overhearing conversations, the bells, Jeanette and Christiane, the arrangements? Going to the cemetery, fingering the headstone for Max, finding that it was his own?

9. Continuing to be more anxious, David and his visits? The comments from the doctor about his mental health? His becoming more obsessive, paranoia? The meals, the mayonnaise and his refusal to eat, suspicious of the coffee?

10. His hearing David with his tablets? Suspicious? The audience discovering the relationship between Christiane and David?

11. Richard, his escape, on the road, on the railway line, the collapse, in the French hospital, his bewilderment? The doctors and the nuns? David and Christiane visiting? Taking him away?

12. Driving, taking the wheel, the crash, the car in the water, David and hitting his head, Christiane trying to get out, Richard throwing the life buoy the rescue, her drowning? His being left stranded?

13. Audience reflection on Christiane and David and their motivations, using Clem and Jeanette, Max knowing the deception? The sudden climax, ending, the audience sorting out what had happened?

GOOSEBUMPS

US, 2016, 103 Colour.
Jack Black, Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush, Ryan Lee, Amy Ryan.
Directed by Rob Letterman.

Fantasy-writer, Robert Lawrence Stine, R.L.Stine, is a central character in one of his own stories in this dramatisation of one of his many Goosebumps tales, many seen in a television series of the same name). This film was to have a sequel, Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween.

Jack Black is Stine, with some humorous references to rivalry with Stephen King. This role suits Jack Black – though he did rather better as the eccentric magician in The House with a Clock in its Walls.

However, Dylan Minnette plays a teenager who comes to the town, is attracted to the girl next door, Odeya Rush, who happens to be Stine’s daughter.

As with Goosebumps stories, spirits and spectres are unleashed, a menace to the town, and the solution has to be to get the characters back in their book and the cover shut. There is also the ventriloquist’s doll, Slappy, who wants to control everything.

A mixture of mayhem and comedy, perhaps a bit frightening for younger audiences but, the mixture of fright comedy is the point of this kind of storytelling.


1. Popularity of the books? The author’s contribution to the film,? His horror perspectives, monsters and scares?

2. The readers and response to the themes? The title?

3. The setting, the suburbs, the streets and houses, school, the exteriors, interiors, the hall, corridors, assembly rooms, storage? The atmosphere?

4. Danny Elfman’s score, the tone? The special effects, creatures, Abominable Snowman, the Praying Mantis, the little gnomes, zombies, the importance of the puppet and his being in charge? The invisible boy? And the creation of Hannah?

5. Ordinary family people, the situation, the death, grief, moving from New York, the memories of his, the moving the phone, the house? And the next door, the severity of the father and ticking of Zach? At school, his mother’s being deputy, going in separately? The speeches, the reaction to his mother? The kids, the indifference? Meeting Champ, talking with him, Champ’s hopes? Hannah and the visit, her father’s criticism? Hearing the screams, Zach upset, calling the police, the father and his explanation of the audio system? The embarrassment for Zach and his mother?

6. The author going out, Champ arriving dressed in a suit, persuaded to go into the cellar, the bear traps, going up, the library, the books, all by Stine, opening the book, the Abominable Snowman coming out, size, attack, Champ and his trying to save the book, not saving it?

7. The puppet, the voice of Stine, getting out, the plan, creating a new town, havoc, opening all the books, gremlin-like mayhem? Icing the police? The car crashes? The blockade?

8. Zach and Hannah, the attraction, Champ and his mishaps? Zach realising Hannah was a creation?

9. Stine, his story, the rivalry with Stephen King, the type of stories, his loneliness, creating the books, creating the monsters? Locking the books? Wanting to get them back, the confrontation with the puppet? Driving, crash? Going to the school, the dance, the panic, the supermarket and the werewolf? Champ and his rescue of the young girl?

10. The plan to write another book, the search for the typewriter, the continued attacks, finishing his story, the spectacle of all the monsters being swept up in going back into the books?

11. Stine, teaching at the school, creating a new Hannah, Zach and his happiness – and the twist with the Invisible Boy not going back into the book and typing again?

JOURNEY BEYOND FEAR

Australia, 2018, 99 minutes, Coloour.
Directed by Robin Hughan.

"How many Afghan families have we met? Probably never in Afghanistan itself! But what about in other countries? What about in Australia?

Documentary filmmaker, Robyn Hughan has had a long interest in the plight of refugees, especially to Australia. Her documentary, A Nun’s New Habit, stems from her contact with many refugees and the families, her going to Woomera and the exploration of life in detention centres, her contact with a Good Samaritan sister, Carmel Wauchope and her work with the detainees.

Journey Beyond Fear is a more ambitious project. Robyn Hughan, with cinematographer and co-producer, Steve Warne, have spent almost 7 years on this film. While it is a documentary, 99 minutes, it also plays as a humane narrative, inviting and drawing audiences into the life of this family, mother and father and three daughters.
There is no voice-over commentary. Rather, the film relies on the vitality of the personalities of the family, Bismilla and Fatima, the parents, and the three daughters, Zahra, Zeinab and a little girl under ten.

With contemporary news footage, especially from the late 90s, Afghan television and Al Jazeera, the audience learns that the family are victims of a massacre in 1998. While there are violent scenes, there are also glimpses, challenging our responses, of the Taliban harshly beating women.

The family were able to move through Pakistan into Iran where they lived for the best part of 12 years, finding it difficult to settle, the children not being able to be educated, a hard life. This meant that they moved on to Malaysia where this film opens in 2011. It then tracks the family’s life in Malaysia for the next four years. It is hard for Australian audiences and audiences from more comfortable Western countries to appreciate what it is like for a family to be uprooted, to be unsettled, on the list with the United Nations for migration to another country but having to wait, year after year, for any news of progress.

The director had access to the family over these years and filmed them in all kinds of circumstances so that we can feel that we are part of the family - older audiences appreciating the pressures on the parents, younger audiences, especially teenage audiences, able to empathise with the girls, perhaps wondering how they might react in parallel circumstances.

In fact, the strong personality of the oldest daughter, Zahra, begins to dominate the story. At first, she is an enthusiastic girl, especially about the possibilities for education. She excels at a special school for Afghan refugees. However, her father earns his meagre keep with 18 hours a day of bread baking with the daughters on bicycles delivering to hard-won customers, which means that Zahra has to find work, sometimes in the stores at an affluent mall, even selling men’s underwear, but the proprietors of the stores cannot be held accountable and are reluctant to pay her properly.

As the years progress, she grows older, misses out on education, has passing jobs, she is seen as saying she has become tired of life. At one stage, she does contemplate going up onto the roof and jumping. It is sad to see how a vibrant young girl in her mid teens can become so depressed. Her younger sister keeps a calmer approach while the little sister, still under 10, loves to dance, is something of a roly-poly live wire in the family.

And all the time we are seeing the mother and father, he a genial man, having learnt some English, making the bread but regretting he does not have more time for his family, she a rather extroverted and exuberant woman who has a zest for life.

Because of the title, we know where the drama is leading. In fact, so powerful is the presentation of the years without hope and then the sudden emerging of the possibilities of getting visas and air tickets for Australia (which also have their brief but anguishing delays), we could feel that the film will end with the family arriving in Melbourne.
But, as the title suggests, the journey goes beyond fear and we have a need to see where the journey ends as well as where it leads to.

We see the refugees arriving, welcomed, meeting up with fellow refugees, assisted by locals. The big prospect is the girls actually going to school, getting their uniforms, the discussions whether the girls will wear the scarf or not (Zahra not wearing it, like her mother, but Zeinab opting to wear it). Actually, the film shows pretty well how comfortable life can be in Melbourne. Then there are glimpses almost a year on, then almost 2 years on, the girls and their achievement, the father getting a job, the mother learning English, the family saying that have no home now in Afghanistan. Australia is their home.

While there is some information at the end of the film about the plight of refugees and how few actually are settled, this is not a polemical film. Although it shows so many difficulties, the potential for despair, it is a humane look at a family, lively, colourful, hoping for a new life and actually finding it.

Audiences from countries hosting refugees often know about this from television news, Facebook entries, even perhaps newspapers, but they don’t always have direct
contact. This film could serve as a kind of bridge towards involvement with refugees, their coming, their staying, their continuing lives."

DRIVER/ BEFORE MEMORY

Israel, 2017, 87 minutes, Colour.
Moshe Folkebflick, Manual Elkaslassy.
Directed by Yehonatan Indusrsky.

The driver of the title is an Orthodox Jewish man who has suffered the accidental death of his young son, his grieving wife leaving him, his having to take care of his nine-year-old daughter.

We first see the man as a literal driver, with a book of addresses of wealthy Jews, coaching men to tell a story to elicit funds from a sympathetic, if gullible, wealthy man. The driver is dissatisfied with his worker and illustrates how a sob story can be told, quite moving.

In fact, the driver has a list of contacts who also go out on the make, telling stories, getting donations, the money being shared with the driver. There is also a sequence where an old lady is on the phone and is persuaded to tell a story – again a very sad story.

The driver is at home with his daughter, who goes to school, but they lack money and he takes her on his trips, she sitting in the back, listening to the stories, meeting the men who go out to do their story-begging. Often, she is quite shrewd, making astute comments about their situation to elicit sympathy.

There is a sequence when they knock on a rich man’s door, are welcomed, given refreshments, the little girl telling a story, and the father then expanding on the story – and, despite protests, the wealthy man gives him a donation.

As the story continues, father and daughter go for a ride on a Ferris wheel, continue their escapades.

The film is rather slowly paced, especially with the driver and he is unfolding his stories – a film very much of stories.

Note: the poster above bears no relationship to the film!



DAUGHTER OF DARKNESS

UK, 1948, 79 minutes, Black and white.
Anne Crawford, Maxwell Reed, Siobhan Mc Kenna, Honor Blackman.
Directed by Lance Comfort.

The title sounds more sinister than the film actually is. However, the character of the title is a young Irish woman, servant in a parish, disliked by the gossiping biddies of the parish, who put pressure on the parish priest to send her away. One of the criticisms is that men are attracted to her.

In many ways, the servant, Emily, with a film credit introducing Siobhan Mc Kenna, seems very diffident, especially when she goes to the fair, encounters a dashing young boxer, Maxwell Reed, who encourages her and then molests her, she clawing at his face. In the meantime, the parish priest arranges for her to go to Yorkshire to work on a farm.

The family welcome her, she seems at home, competent in her work. Again, she attracts men who presume on her flirting. She is resistant – even meeting the boxer again, resisting him and killing him. Two other men are killed. The lady of the house, played by Anne Crawford, dislikes Emily while the other woman in the house, played by a very young Honor Blackman, is welcoming.

There are also a mysterious sounds of organ playing coming from the church – although the audience has seen Emily playing the organ in Ireland. There are storms. There is a fire destroying the barn.

Eventually, there is a confrontation but also the presence of the boxer’s hound who snarls at Emily – and then savagely attacks her.

The film is not very well known, emerged from the immediate post-war British film industry, offers a fairly sympathetic picture of the parish priest, Liam Redmond, the harshness of Irish bitter Catholics – contrasting with the Anglicans in Yorkshire.

BRANDY FOR THE PARSON

UK, 1952, 75 minutes, Black and white.
James Donald, Kenneth More, Jean Lodge, Frederick Piper, Charles Hawtrey, Michael Trubsure, Alfie Bass, Reginald Beckwith.
Directed by John Eldridge.

This is a very British comedy-drama, anchored in the early 1950s. It has been praised for its views of the British countryside. It has the touch of the kind of British comedy that was being made at the times, especially at Ealing Studios, but not as effective.

The film is based on a story by Geoffrey Household, best known as the author of Rogue Male/Man Hunt. James Donald is always a very solid, rather humourless character. This is an early film for Kenneth More who was go on to great success with comedies like Genevieve, with dramas like Reach for the Sky. Leading lady is Jean Lodge. There are quite a number of veteran British character actors in support. This includes Charles Hawtrey in his pre-Carry On days.

The central couple are middle-class, not embarrassed for money, going on a yachting holiday but immediately crashing into a boat steered by Kenneth More who seems to be up to no good even though he does it with charm. The principal preoccupation of the time was with customs and smuggling. This is a story about how the charmer persuades the couple to continue to be involved with him in going to France, paying over money, having delivery of Brandy, sailing it back to England, unloading it up small rivulet but observed by the officials. The rest of the film is how to avoid detection – with barrels of brandy, with donkeys, with a travelling fair, with superior superiors in London, with local gentry who are eager to have the Brandy…

The titles comes from a rhyme. While the film is pleasant, it doesn’t remain strongly in the memory…

THE OLD MAN & THE GUN

US, 2018, 92 minutes, Colour.
Robert Redford, Sissy Spacek, Casey Affleck, Tika Sumpter, Danny Glover, Tom Waits, Keith Carradine, Elisabeth Moss., Isiah Whitlock Jr, John David Washington.
Directed by David Lowery.

This film was billed as Robert Redford’s last film appearance. In many ways, it is a pleasant swansong (but, one hopes, not necessarily his last film).

Redford is in his early 80s, his face lined, but his basic handsome presence is strong, a genial smile. In fact, this is very much part of his character. Almost immediately we see him, hat and suit, moustache, briefcase, going into a bank and the audience observing at a little distance, an encounter which leads to him walking out of the bank, his briefcase full of money, his driving away. Added to that, he sees a woman trying to fix her truck on the side of the road, stops to help, admits to having little expertise, but he certainly evades any pursuit and gives the woman a lift.

She is Jewel, played with great charm and empathy by Sissy Spacek, a widow, owning some property and tending a stable of horses.

Redford, claiming that his name is Bob, tells Jewel the truth but then backtracks. However, agreeably, they share phone numbers – and, as the audience would hope, they keep in touch, visits, going to diners, his sketching her horses, visiting her home and the stable.

So, who is this Bob? We soon see that he has two associates, played by Danny Glover and Tom Waits, who sometimes act as diversions and lookouts for robbing banks. And rob banks he does, names and dates coming up on screen, all in the latter months of 1981 as he travels across southern states from Missouri back to California. He and his friends are called the Over the Hill group. Unfortunately, we don’t see as much as we would like of Danny Glover and Tom Waits.

And the police? We are introduced to a rather frazzled detective, John Hunt, played by Casey Affleck, on his 40th birthday, his friends giving him a one candle’s cupcake, his wife and children offering him a cake breakfast after his night shift. Thinking of retiring, he is given the case of the gentleman bank robber as people are prone to call him, praising his presence, his charm, his having a gun but not using it, nice threats… And reassuring an upset teller on her first day at the bank.

John Hunt collects boxes of documents, interviews a range of people, builds up something of a picture. He also appears on television discussing the case – and is seen by Bob. There is an amusing sequence where John goes out to celebrate with his wife and Bob and Jewel are also at this restaurant, Bob going into the restrooms to have an ironic and challenging conversation with John.

The police get a name and an identity. His real name is Forrest Tucker. He has been in and out of jail since he was 13 – and has escaped 16 times (and there is an entertaining visual collage of these escapes, even using some footage of Robert Redford in the 1966 thriller, The Chase, and his finally building a small boat to escape from Alcatraz!).

Will he be caught? Will Jewel find out the truth? If he goes to jail will he try a 17th escape attempt?

What we do know is that Forrest is actually incorrigible, not wanting to harm anyone, even willing to pay Jewels mortgage unbeknownst to her, but finding the robberies exhilarating, the driving escapes adrenaline-pumping – and that while robbing banks and escaping he knows that he is alive, is living.

But, strange to say, a film about a bank robber is generally very nice.

1. An engaging film? Despite an incorrigible robber? A film of charm, but…?

2. Robert Redford, his career, screen presence, in his 80s? Allegedly his last appearance?

3. The locations, the range of states, all over the south, to California? The range of banks? Homes, the stud with the horses? Police precincts, on the road? The musical score?

4. The opening, the start with the robbery, the elderly gentleman, moustache, hat, suit, the gun but never using it? Chatty style? Nice, even in threats? Collecting the money, leaving, driving away? His work alone? The collaboration with the Over the Hill friends?

5. Forrest, driving away from the robbery, seeing Jewel, helping with the truck, driving her, the attraction, at the diner, his telling of the truth, then denying it, being charming? Her response? Exchanging numbers? Ringing later, her picking up? The range of meetings, discussions, the bonds, going to her home, the sketch of the horses, with the stables, his decision to pay her mortgage, the visit to the bank manager? A future?

6. Jewel, a widow, the truck, the drive, at the diner, her paying, phone numbers, the meetings, sharing, at home, the horses?

7. The Over The Hill group, their personalities, their work, age, the roles in the robberies? At the end – and the betrayal?

8. John Hunt, celebrating his 40th birthday, the cake, on the job, return home, wife and children, the cake for breakfast, the family bonds? Wondering whether he should resign? Not? The range of fellow officers, their talk, the work of the detectives?

9. John’s quest, getting the boxes of documents, examining, getting the descriptions, the sketches, understanding Forrest’s charm? The range of interviews with the managers and tellers, their experiences visualised, being charmed by Forrest, the girl and her first day?

10. The dates, 1981, the range of travel over all the states?

11. The revelation about his life, the records, the photos, in juvenile detention from 13, the catalogue of his escapes, 16, the variety of escapes, ingenuity, driving the car, arrested? The scene from Robert Redford as young from The Chase? Escape from Alcatraz, the boat, building it, success?

12. John Hunt, on television, talking about the case, his visit to San Francisco, meeting Forrest’s daughter, her explaining the family situation? Not wanting to see him?

13. The irony of the diner, Forrest seeing Hunt and his wife, the chat in the restroom? Cat and mouse?

14. The final robbery, the chase, in jail, dual visiting him, the collage of the 16 escape attempts, number 17, his staying?

15. Getting out, Jewel receiving him, at home, his going out to the shops, the four banks on the one day, incorrigible, the exhilaration of robbery, living?

16. An entertaining portrait of a charming rogue?

HUNTER KILLER

US, 2018, 122 minutes, Colour.
Gerard Butler, Gary Oldman, Common, Linda Cardelini, Michael Niqvist, Toby Stephens, Caroline Goodall.
Directed by Donovan Marsh.

You could hardly have a more direct and blunter title than Hunter Killer. Not exactly subtle. And some of the action throughout the film is not so subtle.

However, it does become more complex in its perspectives, in its military perspectives, in its political perspectives, especially in the confrontation between Russia and the US.

For those who like submarine films, here is another in the tradition of The Hunt for Red October, Crimson Tide, K-19, the Widowmaker. And for those enjoyed these films, this one will be enjoyable, quite satisfying.

Hunter Killer is actually the technical name for submarines which go into action. One is under the water and under the ice in the Barents Sea when it becomes involved with, pursued by, threatened with torpedoes by, Russian submarines. And then the Russian submarine is destroyed – but not by the Americans.

and his advisor, Jayne Norquist (Linda Cardellini). They have a solution to a possible international crisis, even threat of nuclear war. They have a contact, a submarine commander who did not go through the training at Annapolis but learned on the job. He is Joe Glass, played by Gerard Butler, who has already done quite an amount of action-saving in Olympus Has Fallen, London Has Fallen (and another Fallen action drama to follow). (And, once again, Gerard Butler shows what an effective Jack Reacher he might have been.)

Not everything is as clear-cut in the Pentagon as we might have hoped. The main admiral is played by Gary Oldman, prone to be hawkish. And there is a sequence with Madam President (Caroline Goodall) very reminiscent of and looking like Hillary Clinton (maybe the film was in production before her unanticipated presidential defeat.)

Plenty of complications ensue, the discovery that the destruction of the Russian submarine was not the work of the Americans, that something strange is going on at the Russian port, including the Russian President (the tall dark and handsome actor might make Vladimir Putin more than envious!), his Foreign Minister, a coup.

Also in the act are a group of super troopers who are flown in from Turjikistan, parachuting into Russia, able to set up cameras and audio to give the Pentagon info on what is going on and helping them to make decisions. In the meantime, Joe Glass, with criticisms from his second in charge, rescues some Russians from their doomed submarine – which leads to a scenario for sailing through mine-charged depths, the rescue squad in action, helping the Russian President, avoiding an international confrontation.

So, entertaining submarine action and Russian- American conflicts – and the niggling thought throughout as the audience might wonder as they watch this hypothesis and scenario, what might actually be happening in the real world right now.

1. A submarine story? The tradition of submarine films? War films? Echoes of Soviet- American confrontations?

2. The settings, the Barents Sea, the Russian port, ships, submarines, offices? The surrounding forests? The contrast with Washington DC and the Pentagon? The musical score?

3. So much of the action happening underwater, the graphic presentation of the ocean depths, rocks, caves? Dangers for submarines? The interiors of the submarines?

4. The opening, the American submarine, working efficiently, Captain and crew? The Russian pursuit? The torpedoes? The explosions? The destruction of the American submarine? The blowing open of the Russian submarine?

5. The Washington situation, Admiral Fisk and his control of the situation, his personality, determined? Jayne Norquist, advisory, knowledge, female presence amongst the men? Admiral Donnegan and his hawkish stances? The news of the destruction of the American submarine? The information about the Russian submarine? The decision to appoint Joe Glass?

6. Glass, in Scotland, hunting the deer, not killing the stag because of the family? The helicopter, his going to the submarine, his not going to Annapolis, experience? Taking command, getting the men back to the submarine, asserting his authority, the nature of the mission?

7. The voyage of the submarine, into Russian waters, the discovery about the implosion of the Russian submarine? The risks in going down, the squadron rescuing the Russians? Glass’s assistant and his by the book approach? Threats of court-martial? The interrogation of the Russians? The captain, wariness, the explanation of the situation? His willingness to cooperate?

8. The Russian command, the president, the Foreign Minister, their presence at the port, the ship? The sudden coup, the shooting of the bodyguard, thrown into the water, the irony of his surviving? The taking of the president? Imprisoning him? The Foreign Minister taking over, the plan for war? The Russian Navy?

9. The dilemma in Washington, the meeting with the president, her decisions, Donnegan and being ready for war, the setting up of the Atlantic Fleet? The contrast with Fisk and Norquist, the possible rescue of the Russian President? The orders for the submarine? The special squad in Turkijistan, the flight to Russia, their weapons, parachuting in, making their way to the Port? Injuries? Surveillance?

10. Continued communications, the squad setting up the cameras, the audio? The information coming into Washington?

11. The mission to rescue the president, Glass and his decisions, the objections of his second in charge, the dealing with the Russian captain, the maps, guiding them through the caverns, the dangers, suspicions, succeeding?

12. The rescue attempt, getting into the building, scaling the walls, the shooting, getting the Russian President, the help of the wounded bodyguard and his death, the escape down the wall, firepower, grenades, their being shot at? Running along the pier, the vehicle pursuing, death of the men, the president in the water, swimming, wounded, the daring rescue and bringing him into the submarine? His being briefed, the attempts to communicate to the Russians? The rescuer turning back, swimming, the injured man and he is acting as sniper, his been captured, rescued, the return to the submarine?

13. The coup leader, the decision to fire missiles, the ship to fire torpedoes? The imminent possibility of war?

14. Glass, keeping his cool, rising so that the Russian president could communicate, the effect on the ship, the sailors refusing to obey orders? The missiles from the headquarters?

15. The irony of the Russian ship firing on the coup leader and destroying the offices?

16. Washington backing down, Donnegan congratulating Fisk?

17. War averted – and audiences watching hypotheses on screen and wondering what was actually happening in real life and real circumstances?

THE OSLO DIARIES

Israel, 2017, 97 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan.

This is a sobering documentary to watch. Audiences who remember the 1990s, will know of the hopefulness for some kind of peace in Israel-Palestine?, the talks which began in Oslo and continued for several years leading to the signing of peace documents – as well as uprising against the leaders, being and Yasser Arafat.

The makers of this film have gathered a lot of footage of the period, the personalities involved, their role as mediators and negotiators, interviews with them, filming of aspects of the meetings, the ceremonies for signing, the visuals of the uprising, the reactions of the Palestinians, reaction of the Israelis, riots and the number of dead.

Here are excerpts from the diaries of the various participants are dramatised, spoken over visuals of the characters concerned. It opens with two professors commission to go to Oslo secretly and met with three Palestinian representatives. They worked in secret for some time, only lately the media getting the information and becoming the subject for television news headlines.

The film is interesting in the perspectives of the particular diaries, the wariness of meeting the opposition, the steps in negotiation, their getting to know one another, the beginning of friendships. In the film, the Palestinian representatives seem to be initially more open than the Israelis although a number of the Israelis changed during the negotiations.

From the Israeli side, the film indicates how Prime Minister Rabin had promised peace but there was reaction against his not achieving it. Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, was the contact for the negotiations. Yasser Arafat and the PLO were exiled in Tunisia but Arafat embraced the negotiations. Ultimately, agreements were made, there is a ceremony with Bill Clinton in the White House and the signing of documents.

As regards the peace process, it continued despite a number of popular uprisings against it. Ultimately, there is a formal ceremony hosted by Pres Mubarak of Egypt which seemed to falter at the last minute with Arafat not signing a page with a map, Rabin being advised about it, some tension but a final resolution.

The film shows the peace rally, attended by so many, in Israel with singing, including Rabin and Peres both singing – and this was the occasion when Rabin was assassinated.

The peace process lingered for some time but ultimately there was the intifada around 2000, harsh conditions for Palestinians in the occupied territories despite plans for Israel to withdraw.

The situation is complicated by the 1996 Israeli elections when Shimon Peres did not win and the victor was Benjamin Netanyahu, hawkish, righteous about Israel’s traditions, and continuing as prime minister of Israel as this film was released. (Four further information about right-wing religious fanaticism in Israel, The Jewish Underground is well worth seeing, indicating at the end of this film the stances of Netanyahu.)

The director also made the questioning documentaries about veterans of the six day war and retrospect, Censored Voices, and Kings of Captiol Hill a critique of American- Jewish relations, especially in the Trump era.

 

 

 

 

GHOST STORIES

UK, 2017, 98 minutes, Colour.
Andy Nyman, Martin Freeman, Paul Whitehouse, Alex Lawther, Paul Warren, Kobna Holdbrook Smith, Nicholas Burns.
Directed by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman.

The moral of this story, these stories, is that the mind sees and hears what the mind wants. (Perhaps?)

In fact, there are three case studies to be examined in this film but, the film takes us beyond, into the world of the investigator of the cases, quite sceptical, ready and eager to explain every case in ordinary language, in psychological terms.

The investigator is played by actor Andy Nyman who, along with Jeremy Dyson, wrote this piece originally for the stage, for the theatre. They have now adapted it for the screen. Which means then that they can go into all kinds of realistic times and places, into the world of the case studies.

In fact, the film opens with Andy Nyman as Philip Goodman, exposing a mind reader on stage. Philip is also in admiration of another debunker of such ghost stories, Charles Cameron, who is seen showing an episode to be fake. But, Charles Cameron, seems to have disappeared and nobody knows where¦ When suddenly, Philip Goodman, receives a communication from him, summoning him to his smelly and old caravan. Goodman expects some praise but instead is criticised by Cameron and given the folders for three cases and a challenge to solve them.

So, off the audience goes with Goodman, to examine the three cases.

The first concerns a security guard played by Paul Whitehouse, a tough man who nevertheless is terrified by an apparition, the presence, of wife and daughter. Into flashback, into eerie atmospheres of an abandoned site at 4 o'clock in the morning, power going out, doors slamming, connections being pulled, and a man convinced that he has had a ghostly experience.

The second concerns a young man, Alex Lawther, bullied by his mother and father, keeping his door locked – and with all kinds of photos and posters of sinister and demonic presences. Into flashback, his driving along a country road having failed his driver’s test, his father phoning him continually, a sudden crash, fleeing into the forest, ominous presences.

And the third. Martin Freeman is a somewhat suave businessman, taking Goodman on a hike up a country hill. Into flashback, this time a rather spacious and wealthy mansion, the story of the businessman and his wife and her business competitiveness, becoming pregnant at 40, the call from a hospital, ominous.

So, there are the stories, with Goodman and his rational explanations, going back to Cameron who pulls quite a surprise, unmasking himself.

That isn't quite the end of the film there had been home movies at the opening with Philip Goodman and his family, his Bar Mitzvah, his bullying father, and a visit to him in the home for the elderly. And then there is a story about Philip being bullied at school, a simple boy persuaded to go into a stormwater channel with some dire results, especially for Phillip himself who professes that he was helpless to do anything to help the boy.

Actually, the film is not over by any means and to go any further would be an abuse of spoiling the outcome, but, it does have a twist!

1. The film living up to its title? The three cases of the ghost stories? The overall ghost story?

2. The film based on the stage play, opened out?

3. The Yorkshire settings, theatre, television, exposes? The three cases: the building and security, the dark corridors, power failure? The family, the house, the car at night on the road? The walk on the hill, the shed, the mansion, the hospital? The musical score?

4. The focus on Philip Goodman, the importance of the initial sequences of him and the Bar Mitzvah, the Jewish background, the pressures from his father, his place in the family, the later scenes of his going to school, his being bullied by the locals, the simpleton boy and his going into the stormwater channel? The consequences?

5. Philip Goodman and his exposes, going to the theatre, the mind reader and the microphone and the information, the stress of the woman and her story? On stage and the exposure?

6. His admiration for Charles Cameron, Cameron going to the house, the susceptible woman, her story, the breaking of the plate and his engineering it? His later disappearance? Speculation about where he was?

7. The theme of the mind seeing what it wants to see, the consequences? As illustrated by the characters?

8. The summons to Charles Cameron, in the caravan, the number 79, his ailments, his despising of Goodman, yet giving him the three cases to solve?

9. The case of Tony Matthews: the interview with Goodman, visiting the site, security guard, middle-aged, the effect of the experience, his wife, his daughter and the locked-in syndrome, the flashbacks and the story of the haunting, on guard in the early morning, contact with the other guard, noises, power going out, doors banging, the torch, the sense of presence, the effect on him? Goodman and his response, concluding that there were natural explanations, psychological explanations?

10. This case of Simon Rifkind: his being seen at home, his caution, locked doors, the glimpse of his parents in the kitchen, then knocking at the door? The posters and photos on his wall? Diabolical horror? Age, young, timid? The flashback to his driving, his father's anger, the phone calls, the demands? The crash, the mysterious presence on the road? His rushing into the forest? The sense of presence? In the car, the car door? Goodman explaining Simon and his also having natural explanations, psychological?

11. The case of Michael Priddle: the successful businessman, dapper, speech, manner, rifle, climbing the hill, the hut? The flashbacks, his mansion, his wife and her business success, her age, wanting to be pregnant, the hospital, the birth of the child, the mother's death? The continued discussion, the banter with Goodman, brittle suddenly getting the rifle and shooting himself?

12. Goodman, going back to the car, the ghostly glimpse of his face in the car window? His return to Charles Cameron, Cameron denouncing him, removing the mask, the fact that he was Priddle? The defiance? His collapse, taken away, waking in hospital?

13. Hospital sequences, Goodman in bed, the locked-in syndrome, everything happening in his mind? The doctor as Priddle, Simon as the attendant, Tony Matthews and his
cleaning the wards, turning the mirror for Goodman to see?

14. The ultimate ghost story with Goodman, the background of the past, his being bullied, the simpleton boy going into the stormwater channel, counting the numbers, asthma, collapse, his death? Goodman being challenged about what he did, doing nothing, blaming others and his sense of guilt and the reappearance of the hooded boy at various times?