SOBIBOR

Russia, 2018, 116 minutes, Colour.
Konstantin Khabensky, Christopher Lambert, Ivan Zlobin.
Directed by Konstantin Khabensky.

As might be expected, this is a very sobering film. Already, there had been an American tele-movie in 1987, Escape from Sobibor. This Is a Russian Interpretation of the events and the characters, featuring a Soviet officer, one of the key instigators of the escape. The writer-director plays this character.

There is extensive re-creation of the camp, from the opening sequences of the railway station with the German officers and their double-talk and the forced welcome by the Jews, the separation of men and women, the labelling of the luggage for retrieving, the lies. The extent of the camp is shown, the various buildings, the fences and guard houses, the interiors.

While there were many hundreds in the concentration camp, the film focuses on a few, initially a group of jewellers, one of whom discovers that his wife has been gassed, who descends into madness and is eventually killed by a callous officer pouring alcohol over him and setting him alight. There is also the young man, Shlomo, who is disbelieving at first but will eventually shoot the Commandant. (It is a surprise to find the rather-worn Commandant played by Christopher Lambert.). The prisoners are mainly men although there is a focus on young woman who is eyed by the Germans, and a young Russian girl in love with the Soviet officer, Sasha.

There are many sequences of humiliation, one man being continually beaten, counting aloud, being asked to start again. The Soviet officer is ordered by the Commandant to split a large tree trunk within five minutes. And, a rather emotionally unbearable sequence at a German officer party where the prisoners are forced to be the horses drawing the carts of the officers who whip the men, the Commandant himself whipping the Soviet officer.

Ultimately, the prisoners band together, need some kind of military organisation to kill their guards and officers, to break down the gate and escape into the countryside – where quite a number were killed or handed back by the local inhabitants, where some escaped, with the Soviet officer joining forces to fight in the war, we Shlomo for Brazil and is rumoured to have killed their 18 fugitive Nazi officers.

Memories and a tribute.

1. Audience knowledge of concentration camps, the Holocaust, the execution of the Jews? Audience knowledge of the camp at Sobibor? The escape? The consequent history? The obliteration of the campsite?

2. A Russian film, perspective, the focus on the Soviet officer and his leadership of the escape?

3. The reconstruction of the camp, the railway station, the arrival, the showers and the gas, the dormitories, the workplaces, offices, the jewellery, carpentry? The officers mess and the parties? The work outside the camp? The musical score?

4. The arrival, the people on the trains, the alleged welcome, the German officers, the Jewish people welcoming? The attitude of those arriving, the touch of the carefree, men and women, children? Giving up their luggage, the separation, the promises, the luggage tags?

5. The women, the cutting of the hair, naked, going into the showers, gassed, murdered?

6. The men, allotted their work? In the dormitories, the Jews, the presence of the Russians, the immediate dislike, the gradual change? The memories of the Russians and their escape attempts in Minsk, the consequent deaths? Sasha, his leadership, his regrets, the bond with Liuka?

7. The sorting of the jewellery, the jeweller discovering his wife’s engagement ring, his grief, his denunciations, descent into madness, the alcohol poured over him, his being set alight? The young man with his skills, glasses, the officer and his continually beating him, counting aloud, starting again? The humiliation at the party? The young woman and her support – and Is Being forced to kiss her?

8. Shlomo, making the earings for his sister, losing his family? His work? His changing attitudes, the influences? The ultimate challenge, the rifle, shooting the Commandant?

9. The Russians, working together, the focus of the Commandant on Sasha? Out in the fields, the axe and splitting the log in five minutes?

10. The Commandant, his background, control, with the men, with the Jews, with the young woman, his eye on her? The demands, the cruelty, chopping the log in the forest? Presiding at the party, his drinking, the officers and their carts, the Jews as their horses, his confronting Sasha, the whip? His bewilderment at the escape? Shlomo shooting him?

11. The movement for an uprising? Discussions, fears, the need for military precision? The Russians?

12. The plan, the detailed killing of the officers, the little boy and his enticing them for fittings for clothes? Those involved in the killings? The timing of the escape? The rushing of the gates, the guards and the guard tower, guns, shooting? The number getting out of the gate, pushing the gate down, out into the fields? The number shot? Liuka and her being shot, Sasha rescuing her?

13. The focal focus on Shlomo, the long takes of his running to freedom? Symbolic?

14. The information about those who escaped from the camp, those murdered or handed in by the locals, the survivors? Sasha and his fighting against the Germans? Shlomo and his going to Brazil – and the story of his killing 18 officials who had escaped to Brazil?

15. The Germans, the humiliation, the destruction of the camp? The sentences given to those guilty, especially the Commandant?

16. The memorial to the prisoners in Sobibor? The continued memories and tributes?

A ROSE IN WINTER

UK, 2018, 137 minutes, Colour.
Zana Marjanovic, Christian Cooke, Ken Duken, Anja Kruse, Karl Markovics, Alice Krige, Franco Nero, Mia Jexen.
Directed by Joshua Sinclair.

After she was canonised by Pope John Paul II in 1998, Edith Stein was proclaimed one of the Catholic patrons of Europe, along with St Benedict.

Edith Stein was a very strong character during her lifetime, coming from a German Jewish family, born in 1890. An intelligent girl, she was also an avid reader and thinker. At University, she studied phenomenology under the expert, Edmund Husserl. She served as a nurse during World War I.

In her career as a philosopher, she was also a strong advocate of women’s rights, giving speeches around Germany, forthright, experiencing difficulties with the police.

Ever since her childhood, Edith Stein probed questions about the presence of God, the experience of death and grief, especially of her father. In her wide reading and discussions with friends, she was attracted towards the Catholic Church, especially the teachings of St Teresa of Avila, was baptised and considered a vocation to the Carmelites. Eventually, in 1934, she became a Carmelite, Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Holy Cross.

The conversion to Catholicism of a Jewish woman was always controversial, her mother disapproving of her baptism. However, with the rise of Hitler (and Edith Stein writing to Pope Pius XI and to the German Bishops about him, demanding action), she transferred from Cologne to a convent in Holland, making itself known to the authorities, but eventually arrested, transported to Auschwitz where she was murdered.

Given her spiritual and theological life-journey, Edith Stein is a focus for Jewish-Catholic? dialogue.

The film, A Rose in Winter, is a contribution to this dialogue.

The film offers an opportunity, in the length of 2 ¼ hours, to see something of the life of Edith Stein, to appreciate her philosophical, theological, spiritual and social journey. And, it offers dialogue which enables the audience to reflect on the meanings of her journey, the intellectual consequences, the emotional consequences.

While the film opens with shadowy scenes of railway lines, eventually leading to Auschwitz, the structure of the film is as a journalistic investigation. A young writer for the New York Times in 1963 is offered the opportunity to work on a file on Edith Stein. Busy, he is reluctant but sees her photo. This will have quite some dramatic and emotional significance by the end of the film.

The journalist’s name is Michael Prager. He immediately goes to Europe and begins a series of interviews with a number of people close to Edith Stein, beginning with her sister, Rosa. This provides the background for flashbacks showing Edith as a little girl, the Jewish family celebrating a Seder meal (and a reminder of the links with the Catholic Eucharist), her grief at the death of her loving father, her immediately trying to grapple with issues of God. We also see her as a precocious teenager, wanting to skip classes, avid in her reading as well has her questioning of all kinds of issues.

On the emotional level, there are World War I scenes, her work as a nurse, an encounter with a soldier, Hans, to whom she is attracted – and consequent scenes of her coming to him when he was wounded, his proposal of marriage, her rejection, yet the bond that remained even after her rejection of his proposal.

Audiences watching the film and not knowing so much about Edith Stein may be surprised at how powerful she was a presence in the women’s movement, the suffragette movement in Germany, her speeches and rallies around the country, her forthright presentations, even getting her into trouble with the authorities. And in the meantime, she studied philosophy, a top student, especially with the phenomenologist, Edmund Husserl.

Michael Prager’s discussions with Edith Stein’s friend, Anna, led to her interest in the Catholic Church, the attraction to St Terea of Avila, the screenplay having her quotation including ‘I have no other hands but yours…, Edith Stein is also impressed by people going to kneel and sit in prayer in the church while visitors to the synagogue went for ceremonies. Eventually, she approaches a priest, is baptised (to her mother’s dismay), waits for a sign for her entry into Carmel.

Already the film has given a great deal for audiences, Jewish and Catholic, to reflect on.

Michael Prager also visits the priest, now a bishop in the 1960s, who gives the background to Edith’s life as a Catholic, her reading and prayer, feeling that she had found a destination in her spiritual journey, taking the rise of Hitler and his demagoguery as a sign that she should enter Carmel, with a scene of her final profession and its ritual, her commitment (including flashbacks to her family and Hans).

Michael Prager makes a final visit to Hans’s son, find his diary, appreciates Hans’s sadness at Edith’s refusal of his proposal yet her influence on his later life.

There are quite a number of scenes of Edith Stein writing in her cell, her diaries, with substantial quotations from them.

Ultimately, for Edith, it is an acknowledgement of her pride in her Jewish background, her being arrested, sent on the train to Auschwitz. She was killed in 1942.

However, for the film audience, there is a very emotional postscript concerning Michael Prager, his contact with Edith Stein as a little boy of seven, at the station in Holland, on the train, his escape from the train and his subsequent adoption by a Polish family. This means that the audience, moved by the story of Edith Stein and the impact of her death in Auschwitz, continues very emotionally in sharing the story of Michael Prager.

It means that while God may seem absent in the lives of so many people, especially those in the trains to the death camps, God was present in different ways in different people, moving them to outreach and sharing God’s love with unanticipated consequences.

The maker of this film, writer-producer and director, Joshua Sinclair, is an actor and writer with quite an eclectic career, sometime lecturer in comparative theology but his CV notes that at one time with medico background he did some work with Mother Teresa in Calcutta.

The hope would be that with A Rose in Winter, Edith Stein, Sister Teresa Benedicta, Patron of Europe, which is acknowledged in the final captions of the film, would be seen as a significant 20th-century figure for Jews and Christians alike.


1. Audience knowledge of Edith Stein? Jewish, Christian, Catholic?

2. A film for dialogue between Jews and Catholics? The nature of the responses? The conversation?

3. The film as an investigation, a true story, the 1960s, the New York Times? Visits to Germany, Holland, Poland? The atmosphere 20 years after World War II?

4. The work of Michael Prager, the true story, his work at the New York Times, journalist, the folder, the photo, seeing Edith Stein, his decision to take the job? The gradual revelation about his contact, seeing her, at the station…?

5. The introduction, the atmosphere of the trains, the darkness, going to the concentration camps? The folder, the photo falling out, Edith Stein, Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Jewish, Catholic nun?

6. The Stein family, the mother and her strong stances, the loving father, the meal, and the breaking of the bread and echoes of the Catholic Eucharist? Michael Prager meeting Rosa, the discussions on memories? Edith the doll, her father, her father’s love, his death, the funeral, her grief, questioning God?

7. Edith and God questions, the Jewish background of understanding of God, God’s presence, God’s absence, the reality of doubts? At school, her questions, wanting to skip classes, her skills, capacity for reading, philosophical understandings? Growing up, the teenager?

8. The studies, at the University, meeting Edmund Husserl, studying with him? Phenomenology?

9. World War I, the encounter with Hans, her not drinking the Schnapps, his nickname for her, the talk sharing, the kiss? His being wounded, her visiting him? Her attachment to him, the meetings, his proposal to marry Edith and her hesitation, her causes, religion, God, her deciding to become known? Their parting?

10. Edith the strong, philosopher, issues of God, metaphysics? Her cause for women? The speeches and rallies? The reaction of the police, Husserl in the classroom? Her students

11. The growing awareness of Hitler, discounting him at first, the discussions with Rosa?

12. Her friendship with Anna, their discussions, visiting the Catholic Church, picture of Teresa of Avila, the quotation about being on earth the hands of God?

13. The attraction to the Catholic Church? The quality of reading, seeing the woman praying in the church making the contrast with synagogues for ceremonies, the church also as a place for prayer? The visiting the priest, his hesitation about her conversion? The answer with all the references including Thomas Aquinas?

14. The years passing, her waiting for a sign, her life, the courses, her baptism, her mother’s refusal to come?

15. Hitler as a sign, 1934, the joining Carmel, the sequence of her profession? The ritual?

16. Her going home, to visit her mother, her mother’s death? The bond with the family? Rosa and the Catholic Church?

17. The Convent in Cologne, the transfer to Holland, the writing to Piu XI, the scene of the Pope? Her courage? Writing to the German Bishops at the outbreak of war?

18. Her life as a nun, the scenes of cloister and prayer? Her writing her diaries, in herself? Reporting to the authorities in Holland, Rosa and Edith getting the Jewish star? The
arrest? Wanting Rosa to go to the United States? Edith Stein deciding to stay, her motivations?

19. At the station, her being transported, the seven-year-old boy, her looking at him, in the train, the pregnant mother, the birth, the mother’s death? The organising of the escape for the boy, the slats from the wall of the train, getting him out, his running and hiding?

20. Michael and his visits to Rosa and returning? Discussion with Anna and the understanding of Catholicism? Is visiting the Bishop, the bishop and his accident, in the wheelchair, the discussions, understanding Edith’s Catholicism? Further research, authorities and documents? Visiting Hans’ son, his document? Edith and her love for Hans, her love for God?

21. Michael, his escape, at the farm, hunger, being taken in by the Pragers, becoming their son? At the end of the war, the documentation, his identifying himself as Prager? His going to the United States?

22. A portrait of Edith Stein? An exploration of her Jewish identity, her conversion to Catholicism, her being a nun, her philosophy, theology, spirituality? Her willingness to go to death as a Jew? Her being canonised, patron of Europe?

CAPTAIN BOYCOTT

93 minutes, Black-and-white.
Stewart Granger, Kathleen Ryan, Cecil Parker, Mervyn Johns, Alastair Sim, Robert Donat, Noel Purcell, Niall Mac Guinness, Eddie Byrne, Liam Redmond, Maurice Denham.
Directed by Frank Launder.

Captaiin Boycott was a film of the revival of the British industry after World War II, the looking back at the history of Ireland in the 1880s, in the aftermath of the potato famine, the dominance of the English landlords, high rents and evictions of the Irish, the campaigns of Parnell and the Land League for justice. The Irish Free State was established in 1948.

The film was written by Frank Launder, director of many films (and, in his later years, an obvious fan of St Trinian’s cartoons directing several of the films).

Cecil Parker is convincingly obnoxious as Captain Boycott. He belongs to those English landowners who feel that they are born-to-rule. In fact, he is quite unimaginative, relying on his manager played by Mervyn Johns. He is presumptuous, arrogant, evicting people at whim, installing other families in their place. One of such families is played by Niall Mac Guinness and Katherine Ryan. This leads to some confrontations and deaths.

Parnell in his speeches advocates ostracism, shunning people because of their injustice. When this happens, Boycott writes a letter to the Times, gets the British government involved, their sending the military, led by Maurice Denham, who eventually is disgusted with Boycott.

The hero of the film is played by Stewart Granger, landowner, romantic story with Katherine Ryan, owner of a race horse which is bought by Boycott and raced by him – with the farmers all converging on to the racecourse to thwart him in his victory.

There are good performances from Alastair Sim is the sympathetic parish priest and Noel Purcell as the teacher who is also a rebel rouser.

And Captain Boycott is immortalised in his name being incorporated into the English language.

1. Significant events in Irish history? The title and the focus, Captain Boycott, his name becoming part of the English language and its significance?

2. The Irish settings, County Mayo, 1880, the farms and the houses, the village, pubs, meeting places, the church? The rallies in the towns? The musical score?

3. Captain Boycott, the arrogance of the British, born to rule, as distain of the Irish, of the peasants, wanting people to know and stay in their place? Ownership of the lands, his home, servants, managers, workers in the fields? Military background, demanding (, unscrupulous, not listening to his workers? The experience of the boycott? His letter to the Times, the response of the British government, sending the troops to work the fields? Their behaviour, his dissatisfaction? His horse, the race, buying Hugh’s horse for 5 pounds? Riding the horse? The farmers, crowding on the course in protest? His socials, the reaction of the British commander, their withdrawal, his failure?

4. The situation in Ireland, British rule and dominance for centuries, the Irish becoming peasants? Ownership of the land? The presence of troops, the police? The poor crops, the potato famine, paying the rents, unable to find the money? The peasants being convicted, replacement farmers brought in? The desperation? Ready for revolt? The reaction in the 1880s? Later history?

5. The introduction to the family, the father and his coming to take over the farm, Anne and her son, the coach, the bag of grain, the concealed going, Hugh arriving, Anne tying the sack? The past history, the death of her brother? The family stances, taking over the farm, beholden to Boycott?

6. Hugh, his status in the area, his farm, his mother and her work, training the horse? The clash and his argument with Connell? Daniel and the meetings? At the dance, and giving him an alibi, Connell later at his house and not dead?

7. Daniel, the classes, the barefoot children, inciting them with the history, his leadership of the men, at Hugh’s place, relationship with the priest? The evictions, his going into action, the talk at the pubs, the hostility towards Parnell, going to hear him speak? The later angers, at the races, the men going onto the course? In the pub, the lynch mood, the death of Killain?

8. Hugh, the criticisms of Parnell and the Land League, going to hear him, Parnell’s speech, his reputation, the strategy of shunning and isolating people, ostracism? Hugh and the change of heart? The role of the priest, finishing Mass early so that people could go to hear Parnell?

9. The priest, his role in the village, his good advice, shrewd, sermons, discussions with Daniel, with Hugh? His mediation?

10. The men of the village, farmers, Michael Fagan evicted, people rallying for him, the later confrontation with Killain and the death of both?

11. Connell, his work for Boycott, against his own people, controlling Boycott, Boycott’s lack of imagination? The local discussions, his being seen at Mass – along with Hugh and the killer means?

12. The dramatic picture of the evictions and their effect? The racecourse and the demonstration? The lynch mob mentality?

13. Hugh, the touch of the romantic hero, love for Anne, helping her brother, defending the family at the end?

14. The importance of this kind of film to remind audiences about Irish troubles?

 

 

 

 

SPITFIRE

UK, 2018, 99 minutes, Colour.
Directed by David Fairhead, Ant Palmer.

A documentary tribute to the plane which is credited with winning the Battle of Britain and contributing to the Allied victory in World War II.

The film opens and closes with beautiful sequences of the Spitfire and flight, over the British countryside, through the clouds, a rather rapturous framework for this documentary.

There is some history of the Spitfire, the work of R.J.Mitchell, aircraft designer with vision, the team of experts who worked with him developing aircraft during the 1920s and 1930s. There are some interesting clips from the 1943 feature film about Mitchell, The First of the Few, with Leslie Howard (called Spitfire in the US). The Spitfire emerged around 1937, with continual work on it until it entered the war, especially with the Battle of Britain. In fact, there were 24 machs of the Spitfire, the film touching on these towards the end, quite extraordinary developments for combating the German aircraft. The Spitfire was withdrawn from service in 1957 with the emergence of planes, jets.

Many of those commenting throughout the film praise the ingenuity and innovation of the Spitfire, praising it as the most beautiful of planes. One man mentions that it is the most precious of flying machines except for the spacecraft which brought Armstrong and the astronauts back from the moon. There were 22,000 Spitfires produced.

There is language about the Spitfire as an icon, comment that the aura about the Spitfire was developed after the end of the war. In many ways this is a eulogy of the Spitfire, testimonies of the flyers, many clips from contemporary footage from World War II.

There is also an outline of the role of the Spitfire during World War II, the initial flights, conflict with the Germans and their aerial developments, a focus particularly on the battle for Malta, the role of the Spitfires on D-Day?.

And the story is told by quite a number of veterans, all of them worth listening to, interesting and often genial personalities, their love of flying, the exhilaration of flying the Spitfires, some detailed description of confrontations in the air, pursuits, bombings. And some of the memoirs of the Flyers are very vivid, particularly a story about flying to Malta from Gibraltar, losing the lead plane, the pilot not knowing where he was and making the decision to fly back to Gibraltar with the risk of the Allied guns misinterpreting his presence. There is a tribute to the saving of Malta. There are also stories about the night before D-Day?, the number of flights over the channel and back on 6 June 1944, the bombings and fears about the Germans having a secret weapon.

While the film is particularly male-oriented, there is a strong presence of women in this documentary, some of the women who flew planes, including the hundred-year-old Mary Ellis who flew over 400 planes to British airfields, who inscribed her name on one of them and is invited to write her name over 70 years later on the same plane. There are also the women who are expert in tracking the flights, helping in the war rooms with the maps and indicating the planes and their presence.

The narration is by actor, Charles Dance, rather solemn for the occasion, at times a touch sepulchral.

For those who love planes, an obvious must. For those who are not planespotters, nevertheless a very interesting documentary. For those who have a passion about World War II, the role of Britain, touches of nostalgia and patriotism, they won't be disappointed.

 

 

THE PRINCE AND THE DYBBUK

Poland, 2017, 82 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Elwira Niewiera, Piotr Rosolowski.

The prince of the title of this film is a Polish director who flourished in Poland during the 1930s, Michal Waszynski. The film opens with his being buried in Rome in 1965, testimony from his friends, his adopted family, tributes to his urbane manner, generosity, his Catholicism.

The makers of this film beg to differ – at least in some substantial issues.

In some ways, the film is a piece of detection, going behind the facade and reputation of the director, his origins in Ukraine, the town of Kolvel, his belonging to a Jewish family, his leaving home, taking on his professional name, creating a story about his being a Polish Prince, successfully directing number of light films from 1933 but a focus, especially, on his Jewish drama with Yiddish dialogue, The Dybbuk, 1937.

The film provides a great deal of information about Michal Waszynski. It is something like a dossier of visual information, of clips from his films, of interviews with people who knew him, with people who investigated him. While there is a lot of material about who he was, indications of how he behaved, there is much more that could have been made of why he behaved as he did. There are quotations from his diaries which indicate the nature of his introspection about himself.

Waszynski appeared once again in the early 1940s in a Polish squad of military, working with the allies, his role being a film director, making quite a number of documentaries including the taking of Monte Cassno and some feature films in Italy at the end of the war. He had claimed to be a Soviet prisoner in Siberia but it is suggested that he may have created this myth. A graphologist looking at his writing in the 1940s and in the 1960s suggests that he was prone to creating myths about himself and believing them (a lot of the evidence being the use of his writing the letter T).

He established himself in Italy, married an ageing Countess and inherited her fortune. People in the village with long memories at sympathetic recollections of him. He befriended Italian families, stood as godfather to one of the children, is seen in clips with such actresses Ava Gardner (at the time of the making of The Barefoot Contessa in which he appears in a scene), Audrey Hepburn and Sophia Loren. The wife and daughter of Joseph L Mankiewiecz, the director of The Barefoot Contessa give interviews about their impressions of him.

William Bronston, son of the producer Samuel Bronston, is interviewed about the making of The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964), the Prince’s presence on the set, his fastidious attention to detail, and some of the extras commenting on his sexual orientation – but not being accusatory. (A great deal of attention is given to the building of the sets for the film and a later visit to the site, a forest with all indications of the film having disappeared.)

But, the important focus of this investigation is The Dybbuk. There are quite a number of clips from the film, indicating its plot of unrequited love, the self-sacrifice of the young Jewish Orthodox man, his death, transformed into the Dybbuk. Points are made about the Prince’s Jewish and Catholic identities, traditions of Jewish folklore, the young man wandering the world, exploring his identity, his loneliness and isolation.

The range of material in this film would provide a solid basis for further exploration of the career of Michal Waszynski and the puzzles of his personality.

BUDAPEST NOIR

Hungary, 2017, 95 minutes, Colour.
Krisztian Kolovratnik, Reka Tenki.
Directed by Eva Gardos

This film lives up to its title. It is a thriller, set in Budapest in 1936, a journalist doing investigations, the seedy world of crime, reaching to higher places, unravelling the mystery, not without touches of sex and violence.

The film highlights the political situation in Hungary by the mid 1930s, the growing closeness to Hitler and the Nazi regime in Berlin. The situation for the plot is the death of a young woman in the streets, it emerging that she is a prostitute, but has quite a personal story with repercussions.

The press man is tipped off by the police, is aided by a woman with whom he had a relationship and who is a top photographer, interviewing police, getting tips about a brothel and interviewing the Madam, finding political connections to the brothel as well as the connection to the dead woman.

The ideological themes continue throughout the film, especially with the photographer antipathetic to the Nazis and discovering the concentration camps, seeing some young louts attack a singer of Jewish songs in a restaurant, daring to take photos of them.

The press man follows the leads, discovers the truth about the young woman, finds a political connection, the fact that she was engaged to the son of a rabbi, the stances of her wealthy coffee-importer father.

Which leads to the press man confronting the father and the revelation of the truth. With some melodramatic consequences.

An entertaining variation on the noir but also an interesting step back into the atmosphere of pre-war Hungary.

1. The title? Audience expectations, the Noir style, subjects, investigation and methods, tough, the world of crime, partners? The parallels with the films of the 1940s? 21st-century interpretation of the style?

2. 1936, the death of the head of state, the background of the move to Fascism, collaboration with the German government, Nazi philosophy? Anti-Semitism? The arrival of the coffin, the media, the tributes? Providing an ideological perspective to the film?

3. The city of Budapest, the range of views, the streets, travelling in trams, police precincts, political venues, the brothel and its interiors, restaurants, workplaces, boxing centres? The musical score?

4. Zsigmond Gordon, the introduction, the political atmosphere of the time, his working for the press, his connections, the police chief and the past exposure of corruption? At the restaurant, being approached by the young woman, lighting the cigarette, her leaving the bill with him? The note? The air of mystery?

5. His contacts, going home with the girl, the sexual encounter? Krisztina arriving? The past relationship, her disappearance, going to Berlin? Photographer?

6. At work, the information about the dead girl? The role of the press, the information from the police, taking Krisztina, her taking the photos, her skills?

7. The background of the brothel, the information, the visit, the range of girls and their clients, politicians and the comment about upper-class and riffraff, the catalogues and photos, the photographer and his connections? The madam, the interview with her, her giving information?

8. Krisztina, with a camera, at the bar, the singer and the Jewish songs, the young men protesting, her taking the photos, getting in the taxi, the pursuit, getting out and hiding, the manoeuvres of the taxi driver? Her daring with photos, hiding, the signal, turning on the car lights, photos, the identification of the Communist and his return to Budapest?

9. The photographer, the visit to his office, the atmosphere, the mannequins, Zsigmond knocked out, finding the photographer murdered, his cigarette lighter used as evidence against him?

10. His being bashed, identifying the fighter, going to the bout, wanting information, the boxer’s daughter, wearing the dead woman’s scarf? The boxer killing the young woman and stealing from her?

11. The issue of the clothes, the information about the dressmaker, the posing as husband-and-wife for an order, Zsigmond searching, finding the information and the photo, the employment card, Is Going to the archives, his help from the tough woman at the office, spending the hours searching the papers, finding the photo, identifying the murdered woman?

12. The murdered woman, her story, affluent parents, in love with a Jewish man, son of a rabbi, the father organising his transfer to the United States, the stubbornness, leaving home, pregnant, the pimps, working as a prostitute at the brothel?

13. Krisztina developing the photos, Zsigmond and his attraction, their affair? The offer from London, for an exhibition of photos, the ideology, wanting Zygmunt to help her and her choice? On the train, his proposal?

14. Zygmunt, going to the home of the coffee importer, the confrontation, the truth, his Jewish background, marriage, finance, fear, the wife, her being upset, shooting her husband? Zsigmond writing that it was a suicide?

15. Krisztina leaving, Zsigmond going to the station, seeing her on the train, her leaving?

16. The popular ingredients of the film noir and transferring it, in a 21st-century film, to the 1930s.

TO DUST

US, 2018, 92 minutes, Colour.
Geza Rohrig, Matthew Broderick, Leo Heller.
Directed by Shawn Snyder.

This interesting and entertaining film has touches of the theatre of the absurd.

Geza Rohrig, who appeared in the striking Son of Saul, plays Shmuel, a Cantor in a town in the Hudson Valley, his wife dying, his being consumed with grief, making his two sons tense and anxious.

After the funeral, he wants to understand what happens to the body, its decaying and its return, as the title indicates, to dust. He goes to a salesman at a mortuary who recommends a scientist. He goes to the local community College and encounters Albert, Matthew Broderick, who is giving a class about ecosystems. Albert is puzzled but calls back Shmuel and explains from an illustrated book, the decaying processes for a dead pig (along with visual graphics).

What is Shmuel to do but by a pig and bury it – with Albert’s reluctant help. After a month, it does not decay. Albert speaks about a live pig and what is Shmuel to do but by a live pig, bring it to Albert’s apartment, smother it and then bury it. After another month, no success.

Albert desperately continues with Shmuel, finding an Institute which experiments with corruption of bodies, their visiting, failing to get in – and what is Shmuel to do but dig up his wife, with Albert’s help, and bury her so that she will be one with the earth, fertilising the earth.

There is a background theme with the Jewish tradition of the Dybbuk, Shmuel dreaming about his wife’s toe erupting, the information given that that is where the Dybbuk emerges to inhabit a human, the two sons watch a video, try an exorcism, their father taking them onto a lake where they have to profess their love for their mother, but, at the end, at peace with their father.

1. The title? Death? Scriptural background? Burial, bodies, decay, the purpose of decay? Souls?

2. The American setting, the Hudson Valley, homes, the college, laboratories? The woods, the cemetery? The institution? The musical score?

3. The situation, real, unreal? Comic, the touch of the absurd? Emotion, grief, resolution?

4. The focus on Shmuel, orthodox, cantor, clothes, hair, hat? The death of his wife? His relationship with his sons? The presence of his mother? Death, grief, the burial, the discussions about her soul, about the decay of the body?

5. The visuals of the dead wife, the preparation for burial? Her grave?

6. The mother, coping, helping her son to cope, interfering, the stories of second marriage, the invitation for the widow to come and meet her son?

7. Shmuel, his sons, their being puzzled about what was happening to their father, hearing the theory of the Dybbuk? Possession, the breaking open of the two? The soul possessing a human? Getting the film, watching it, the folklore about the difficult? They’re trying to exorcise their mother’s soul from their father’s foot? Going out on the lake, their fears, their father making them declare their love for their mother? At the end, the father’s return, the happy ending?

8. Shmuel, the dust, the puzzle, having to let his wife go, not able to, the impact of the nightmares, the exploding to and the application of the Dybbuk?

9. His decision to make inquiries, going to the mortuary, the discussion about coffins, metal, wood, the effect? His decision to find a scientist, going to the College, not able to speak with the woman, his sense of sin, writing the notes, going into the class, listening to Albert, Stanley and the other students, the students not paying attention, Albert crashing things from his desk? Shmuel asking the question? Albert’s reaction, calling him back?

10. Albert, getting the book, the story of the pig, the visualising of the decay? Shmuel buying the pig? Getting Albert to help, the burial? The visit at night? The effect on Albert? The phone calls, the month passing, the pig not decaying? Shmuel buying the live pig, bringing it to Albert’s apartment, Albert apprehensive, the landlady, the plastic bag, smothering the pig, burying it? Shmuel and Albert’s questions?

11. The failure of the decay? Discovery of the Institute, their travelling together, the interview with the woman, their lack of credentials, ousted? Outside the wall, talking about the experiments with decaying bodies? Stella, security, talking with her, her explanations?

12. The effect on Shmuel, the decision to dig up his wife, Albert helping him, the burial in the woods? Dropping Albert off after his experience? The discussions about ecosystems, bodies fertilising the earth?

13. Shmuel, the ending, satisfied, letting his wife go, coping with his grief? With his sons?

 

 

 

 

STUDIO 54

US, 2018, 98 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Matt Tyrnauer.

Studio 54 had fame and notoriety at the end of the 1970s, a disco nightclub in central New York City, becoming a venue for the rich and famous and for the wood-be rich and famous. Its popularity lasted only a short time but it became part of the consciousness of New York City and its lifestyle. A feature film, 54, was directed by Michael Christopher in the latter part of the 90s, somewhat truncated for release and a longer director's cut released a decade later.

Which means that cinemagoers do have some awareness of Studio 54 and of its flamboyant part-owner, Steve Rubell (played by Mike Myers in the film). The film focused on life in the club, the attraction for young men to work there, friends, celebrities, drugs, sex. At the end of the film, there was an indication of what would happen in terms of the IRS examining the files on the books and Steve Rubell going to prison. This documentary, while highlighting the high life, takes the story on after 1980.

Ian Schrager, the co-owner and manager of Studio 54, was not a character in the feature film. Here he is centre screen. After almost 40 years of reticence, he is prepared to look back to the past, his friendship with Steve Rubell and growing up with him, their venture in buying the CBS studio and redecorating it elaborate, a gala opening which attracted crowds and the media, the continued success, the notoriety, media response, the range of famous people and faces who visited (and these are prominent in the footage and photos of the period).

However, Ian Schrager preferred to work behind the scenes, enjoying the life of the club, caught up in the IRS difficulties, issues of liquor licenses, going to court with Steve Rubell, with the famous Roy Cohn, of the Mc Carthy era (and key character in Tony Kushner's Angels in America) as their defence. Substantial footage of Cohn appears in this film.

Steve Rubell was homosexual, contracted AIDS, died in 1989. Ian Schrager emerged from prison, the two men buying hotels and setting up boutique hotels, Schrager continuing over the succeeding decades and making a considerable name for himself – and, with the advice of the lawyer who prosecuted them, pardoned by President Obama in 2017.

A glittery story of rise and fall.

1. The reputation of Studio 54, in the 1970s, into the 1980s? Disco era, the atmosphere of the club, a landmark in New York City? Symbol of life in New York City? The film moving into the aftermath of its success?

2. The range of film footage from the period, incorporation into the film, the visuals, the range of photos? The musical score, songs in the era, score for this film?

3. This film as a memoir after 40 years, Ian Schrager and his looking back, telling the story? Assessment of his experience of the time and consequently? The range of interviewees, those involved with the management of Studio 54, those who worked there, bouncers (and the introduction of the Velvet Rope at the threshold), barmen, those who frequented the club, the wide range of people are represented? And the visuals of those who with their, especially the younger selves?

4. The focus on in Schrager, in 2017, the explanation of his background, his family, legal connections, the Jewish background, his growing up, at college, his friendship with Steve Rubell? His quiet personality, yet his partnership with Steve, their idea, the purchase of the club area, CBS Studios? The visuals of the transformation, the expense, the design and decoration, the invitation to the opening, the exuberance, the response of the media?

5. The cult of celebrity, celebrities visiting, the bouncer with the crowds, keeping people out, the range of those attending, young people, the photos and memories, opportunities for publicity and the media?

6. Steve Rubell, the film providing a portrait of him, background, studies, his failure with the restaurants, partnering with Ian, his extravagance, people-person, loving the celebrities, his providing drugs, homosexuality, his partner and the interviews? His mother keeping the books but not knowing about her son's personality and behaviour?

7. The background of drugs and drug taking it Studio 54? The later exposure with the White House official? Sexual behaviour? The promiscuity and freedom of the era? The background of gay bars? The providing of the roof? Behaviour?

8. Success, the comments from the media, television news?

9. The law, the issue of the license, having to work on it each day? The report to the authorities? The employment of Roy Cohn, his reputation from the Mc Carthy era, working with Steve and Ian? The interviews?

10. The comment that Studio 54 flourished between the development of the contraceptive pill and the emergence of AIDS?

11. Jealousies, the turning against Studio 54, its eccentricities, Steve is a braggart, going down?

12. Raids, the IRS, the records, the documents in the roof, the two committed for trial, the accountant who went to jail on their behalf (and his later interview)? The trials, the sentences, the media reports, the interviews outside the court? The final extravagant party, the music, dancing and the guests? The cold light of day and going to jail? The jail experience and the interviews at the time with Steve and Ian? His later retrospect? Cohn and his comment about losing the case with so many lawyers working against them?

13. Getting out of jail, the pair working on buying hotels, developing boutique hotels?

14. Steve Rubell, AIDS, his illness, death? The obituaries referring to hepatitis rather than AIDS?

15. Ian Schrager, continuing his life, business success, hotels, his willingness to be interviewed after 40 years, his personality, communicating himself, the experience of Studio
54, the consequences? The lawyer recommending his pardon, being pardoned by President Obama?

16. The world of celebrity, delirium, notoriety, a symbol of the freedoms of the 1970s? A story of rise and fall?

 

THE JEWISH UNDERGROUND

Israel, 2017, 91 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Shai Gal.

This is a very interesting documentary. It is directed towards an Israeli audience but is certainly arresting for those outside Israel. It is a glimpse at ultra-orthodox Jews, their righteous religious beliefs, their being prepared to act fanatically in terms of violence against opposition.

The film is designed as something of a detective story, the filmmakers taking the audience back into the past, identifying characters, showing them in past footage as well as contemporary interviews.

The film is framed with the possibility of a live sacrifice at the Temple site in Jerusalem.

The reality of the Jewish Underground is highlighted by contemporary interviews with two of the major participants in a plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock and re-establish the third Temple. Their beliefs were based on the Bible, God’s Word, the predominance of Jewish law over secular law. They employed a man to build bombs, stole weapons from the police, produced a cache of guns and explosives, hidden on the Golan Heights. Their first action was assassination attempts on several of the measures of Palestinian cities, then an attack on a school in Hebron, the placing of explosives on a number of buses which would wreak devastation in peak hour, finally a plan for the Dome of the Rock.

The film also has interviews with two officials from Shin Bet (who also appeared in the informative and provocative documentary about Shin Bet, The Gateway). The officials explain how difficult the case was, to identify members of the Underground, getting clues, following hunches, making connections, using lie detectors, using bluff. There were eventually able to prevent the explosion on the Temple site.

The film focuses also on the arrests, committal to trial, the hearings, interviews with the judge who later had important roles in Israeli justice, the prison sentences, the continued lenience and pardons, as well as much popular support.

The interviews with the older men involved in the Underground are striking because of their continued beliefs, underlying fanaticism, their access to the Knesset, to politicians willing to appear with them, including Benjamin Netanyahu, rallies for their beliefs even in the Knesset.

An important look back into Israel’s history but an important look at religious and political influences in the present.

1. The impact of the film as a documentary, as history, as a documentary for Israel in 2017?

2. The intentions of the filmmaker, to explore the past, to expose the right-wing fanaticism leading to violence? The relevance for the contemporary audience and the members of the Underground influencing Israeli society, parliamentarians and advisers?

3. The structure of the film – the equivalent of a detective story, tracing the development, finding the clues, following the leads?

4. The Jerusalem setting, the range of scenery, the roads and the views, the feel for the city? The footage from the past? The musical score?

5. The issue of the temple, the Dome of the Rock, the mosques? The Western Wall?

6. The range of talking heads, the plotters, the old men reminiscing, their vigour, rigorous holding to views? The role of the carpenter, his memories about the bombs? Seeing them in the footage? The reality of them talking to camera after the 30 or more years? Their stating the validity of their views after the decades? The basic idea, to destroy the Dome of the Rock, for it to collapse, to rebuild the temple? To oust the Muslims? The planning, the bombs, the construction of the bombs, the role of the carpenter, the cache of ammunition in the Golan Heights?

7. The story of the attacks, the assassination attempts on the mayors? The Underground seeing them as criminals? The attack on the school in Hebron? The plans to put the bombs on the buses so that they would go off peak times?

8. The attitudes, deaths, few regrets, a cause, God’s command, the basis in scripture, the righteous stances, Jewish law and not secular law?

9. The picture of the Shin Bet, the two gatekeepers, their role, the range of personnel for the investigations, the secular perspective, their role in the past and explanations, being interviewed in the present? The difficulties in finding the members of the Underground, the clues, hunches, names, connections, the lie detector, the bluffs? The investigating stating that at the plot succeeded, there was a danger of war in the Middle East, even nuclear war?

10. The visualising of the board, the various names, photos, inscriptions?

11. The Dome of the Rock, the plan for the bombing, the leads, the cars following the Underground, their being apprehended?

12. The case, the accused, going to trial, the judge? Her role in the past? The subsequent responsibilities for Israeli courts? Her being interviewed in the present, her perspective?

13. Public support for the Underground, people cheering them, offering them food, opinions, the media?

14. The trial, the hearings, the sentences, their being changed, more lenient stances, pardons, the men getting out of jail, continuing their work?

15. The Knesset, their presence, their views, the Shin Bet against them? Coming to position of prominence, the meetings with politicians, ministers, with Benjamin Netanyahu, at rallies, even in the Knesset building, the role as advisers? The picture of the enthusiastic young Orthodox and their cause?

16. The framing of the film with a literal sacrifice – symbol of the cause?

17. The impact for Israeli audiences? And beyond?

CONVENTIONAL SINS

Israel, 2017, 70 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Shira Clara Winter, Anat Zuria.

This is a brief documentary in which a young man, Meilech, expelled from his Hasidic community, returns to the place of his upbringing and schooling, an ultra-Orthodox area of Jerusalem. The purpose of his revisiting is to explore what happened to him in his years of growing up, at home, in the yeshiva, in his contact with various men.

The film opens with Meilech interviewing actors who are going to represent him as a child, teenager, 21-year-old. Each of them puts on the Orthodox garb to appear in various re-created scenes.

Meilech’s voice-over, talks about himself personally but often in the third person. In his 30s, he wants to process what happened to him in terms of sexual abuse.

There is an irony in the title, an explanation that in Ultra-orthodox religious interpretation of law and sin, any sexual behaviour, non-consensual, between adults or between adults and children is considered equally in moral terms.

What happens is that Meilech talks the audience through his experience as a young boy, beginning with the brutality of the teachers at the yeshiva, the use of canings and beatings for discipline, attempts to throw away the canes of the teachers and the retribution which ensued.

However, Meilech works on a computer and printer (which is forbidden) and, as payment for the use, a young man sexually abuses him. However, the young man seemed to be a go-between between an older man, Avraham, and his target, the young Meilech.

The film helps the audience understand the process of grooming, the attitude of Avraham, his flattery of the boy, praising him for his music, inviting him home, taking him on outings, a delight for a pre-puberty young boy. However, the abuse continued when Meilech became an adolescent.

Meilech also auditions a man to enact the role of Avraham. It can be noted that the actors auditioned all experience sexual abuse themselves. The film visualises aspects of Avraham’s relationship with Meilech, a re-enactment of the scene in the baths and showers and Avraham’s eyeing the boy.

Eventually, Meilech is able to separate from Avraham who writes him letters, apologising, yet still expressing his love for Meilech.

Within 70 minutes, the film raises the issue of paedophilia for its audience, some understanding of the impact on the abused victim, some perceptions of the abuser, the secrecy in the community – and an opportunity to reflect that sexual abuse and paedophilia occur in all societies, even in Orthodox Jewish societies.