WAJIB (THE WEDDING INVITATION)


Palestine, 96 minutes, Colour.
Mohammed Bakri, Saleh Bakri.
Directed by Annemarie Jacir.

Well, this is one way to spend a day – a father and son driving around Nazareth delivering invitations to a wedding to family, friends, acquaintances.

While there are some comically cheerful sequences, the underlying themes of Wajib are very serious.

The setting is very important. The focus is on a family living in Nazareth, an Arab city in Israel. For those who have a gospel-image of Nazareth, and have never been there, it might be quite a surprise to see it as a contemporary city, the streets and the constant traffic, the range of buildings, the hills (and the number of houses with many images of Mary who, after all, came from there).

The film is a serious reminder of the difficulties for Arabs living in Nazareth – which are less considerable than for the who live in the occupied territories. Nevertheless, the point is made that there are limitations on the freedoms of the Arabs, the schools and staff as well as curricula are kept under surveillance by officials, some issues prohibited, that some occupations are not open to Arabs, the instance mentioned here being pilots. And, while many aspects of life are comfortable enough, the Arabs feel that they are second-class citizens.

The drama highlighting these perspectives involves father and son. The daughter and sister is about to be married, preparations are underway, there is even a side visit to the dress shop where the young woman is trying out a variety of dresses. The father has been a teacher in a local school and has ambitions to be promoted to headmaster. The son, on the other hand, had something of a controversial background when he was growing up, strong political stances through a cinema club, the father feeling that it was best for his son to move out of Israel. The son now lives in Italy, works as an architect, lives with his companion whose father is a former PLO member. The son has no desire to come back to live in Israel.

In fact, the criticisms come through the dialogue given to the son. There is a powerful sequence of verbal and emotional clashes, especially towards the end when both men get out of their car and there is a strong confrontation, especially on the occasion of the father wanting to invite the Jewish representative whom he sees as his friend but In the son denounces as a spy, over the years reporting activities to the Israeli authorities, controlling education.

Along the way, as father and son drive around the city side delivering the invitations, there are quite a number of pleasing vignettes, visits to family homes, discussions about family matters, some socialising, the son having a beer with an old friend who is satisfied living in Nazareth…

The action takes place only over the daylight hours of one day so it is really a drama of raising the issues – but, with a somewhat gentle ending, not entirely a resolution, but some hope, if not for Nazareth, for the father and son and their relationship.

1. A Palestinian film? The Arabs who live in Israel? Nazareth? The political and cultural perceptions? The perspectives of different audiences? In Israel itself, Arabs in Palestine and in Israel?

2. The city of Nazareth, the visits, driving through it for a day, the range of roads, buildings, hills? The musical score and atmosphere? Arabic songs? Quite Shade of Pale? Evoking the past?

3. The introduction on the radio, the listing of the deaths, the ages of those who died, the Interfaith funerals, Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic?

4. A film about the father and son? The preparation for the wedding, Amal and her father, Amal and her brother coming from Italy? The father, the invitations, his being a headmaster and hoping for promotion, teaching in school? Smoking and his health? The revelation that his wife had left him, remarried? His son, political attitudes in the past, the cinema club, his being considered dangerous, his being sent away? Working in Italy as an architect? His father fostering the information that he was a doctor? The son, living in Italy, living with Nada, the PLO father?

5. Waiting for phone calls from their mother, her husband dying, whether she would come not, her former husband’s attitude towards her and her behaviour? The son saying she chose what you wanted to do? The reactions to the final phone call, the husband’s death, her coming to the wedding?

6. A day delivering the invitations, the customs of Nazareth, the range of relations, visits, talking? A series of vignettes of characters in Nazareth? Driving the car, the cousin with the fine and the son agreeing to have his name on the ticket? The family, the visitor and the father going to the car to write him an invitation? The discussions about Ronnie, Jewish, coming to the wedding? The son’s antipathy towards him, accusing him of being a spy, controlling all the curricula, teachers? Suppressing Arabic and Palestinian ideas?

7. The visit to the dress shop, Amal, trying on the dresses, the moment of calm and happiness?

8. The father and son arguing, getting out of the car, the vivid interaction, especially about Ronnie and his role, the hitting of the dog and moving on? The son meeting the neighbour, sitting and sharing a beer, the bread roll, ideas?

9. The son, clashes with the father, ideology, the father saying what it was like to live in Nazareth, comfort, yet the son talking about the oppression, the laws, Arabs not being able to be pilots…? The continued surveillance, humiliation? Yet being at home and surviving?

10. The final visit to the home, the quiet, preparing the coffee, the father and son smoking, the phone call from the mother, the resolve and the anticipation of the wedding?

THE CLEANERS


Germany, 2018, 88 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Hans Block, Moritz Riesewieck.


Cleaners? Actually, the technical title for the people studied in this documentary is “Content Moderators�.

The film asks us to consider the Internet and Social Media, specifically Facebook (and other similar, very popular, social media used throughout the world). And the consideration is the posting of what is considered unsuitable material: whether it be Russian propaganda to influence political elections in the United States, racist bigotry anywhere, violent images, sexual images. We hear about them being “taken down�. But who does this taking down?

The film-makers are from Germany but the centre of attention of this film is the Philippines, Manila. As might be expected, there is material from the United States, a number of journalists, Internet technicians, and sequences from Congressional hearings from 2016 with the representatives of Facebook, Google et cetera attempting to answer their interrogators clearly but not always succeeding. With these interviewees, we are somewhat familiar, having heard or read about their opinions on “taking things down�.

However, interest is more than roused many questions are raised by the interviews with the men and women who are employed by the companies in Manila. They refer to themselves as “Content Moderators�. We see them as ordinary citizens, men and women, different ages, at home, sometimes in poor situations, happy to have a job, going off to work where they will sit in front of computer screens for hours, looking at images, thousands a day, and making a judgement when they make their announcement “Delete� or “Ignore�. These are the people who are making the judgements on what can be seen, what should be removed.

It may not be a consideration that has ever come to mind – our simply taking it for granted that people do the removing of the material. But, as we watch these men and women, listening to their being interviewed, all kinds of questions arise. What are their qualifications? What is their actual training? How much are they influenced by personal attitudes, stances, beliefs? And the answer to that question is that they seem to be in influenced considerably. And then the question arises as to who supervises the Content Moderators?

The Philippines is a Catholic country, people devout, devotional, traditional in their attitudes and beliefs – which becomes very evident from the interviews. And, it would seem, that many of the moderators have led fairly sheltered lives, not familiar with some of the gross sexual images that they are confronted by, even having to learn some basics about human sexuality. We see them learning some sexual vocabulary that they find abhorrent. They see a violent war picture – is it proper reporting? Is it ISIS propaganda? And, confronted by an American cartoon – and the example given is that of a satiric painting by a young California artist of President Trump naked – is it obscene, is it pornographic, is it legitimate sender or spoof?

This is not a long film but, as it progresses, shifting to the Congress, back to Manila, back to journalists and experts, back to Manila, computer graphics illustrating information and statistics, back to Manila, the documentary audience have far more questions and puzzles than they might have anticipated.

Yes, there is unsuitable material on social media. Yes, much of it needs to be taken down. Yes, there have to be responsible people from the companies. But, selection of Moderators, training of moderators, assessing their decisions – who is responsible and how do they exercise that responsibility?

The Cleaners might sound an innocuous title – but the issues are far from innocuous.

JOURNEY’S END

UK, 2017, 107 minutes, Colour.
Sam Claflin, Paul Bettany, Stephen Graham, Asa Butterfield, Tom Sturridge, Toby Jones.
Directed by Saul Dibb.


Journey’s End was first performed on the London stage in 1928, 10 years after the events that it portrayed, six days in the trenches in March, 1918.

The play was written by R.C.Sheriff who also novelised the play with Vernon Bartlett. In fact, a film version of the play was made in 1930, directed by James to 6 who had directed the play on stage (with Laurence Olivier in the central role – but who was not available for the film version). Whale was to go on to make Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, Showboat.

This version comes almost 80 years after the play. The occasion is the centenary of the last year of World War I, once again the events being in March 1918, the expected assault by the Germans in northern France and its being reversed by the Allied troops, leading to the Armistice of November 11, 1918.

There have been a number of striking films about World War I, the psychological trauma effect in King and Country and Regeneration, the incompetency of the authorities in Paths of Glory, the trenches in Turkey in Gallipoli and The Water Diviner, and the Oscar-winning film that came out in the same year as the original Journey’s End, All Quiet on the Western Front.

As regards the portrayal of life in the trenches, this film can take an honourable place. While the opening takes place in San Quentin, in northern France, the British troops at an inn, their assembling and marching towards the trenches (“We’re Here because We’re Here�), going to the one six days, the allotted period for a squad to remain in the trenches before being replaced.


The production design for the trenches is quite powerful, the soldiers walking in the mud and slush, the height of the walls, some of the wood rotting after several years, designed to protect the men from snipers, the paths, the beds and bunks, the officers’ mess and kitchen. The audience is immersed in the trenches along with the men.

This film focuses on a group of officers although the men are seen assembled and, eventually, a squad of ordinary soldiers have to go over the top on a mission to capture a German soldier from their trenches in order to interrogate him and get information about the expected German assault.

We are introduced to a genial older officer, Osborne, who explains to the new recruit, Raleigh (Asa Butterfield), just come from school, asking his uncle, a general, to be assigned to the squad of the prefect that he admired at school, that most of the men call him Uncle. He is played very sympathetically by Paul Bettany – a listener, a man who can calm situations. However, the central character whom we have already seen marching at the head of his men out of the village is Stanhope, three years on service in France, brooding, the victim of wear and tear and responsibility, drinking heavily. He is dismayed that Raleigh, whose sister he had courted, should come and be a witness to his deterioration. Sam Claflin gives a powerful performance.

There are some intense scenes with Stanhope and his clashes with Raleigh, his demands on a fearful officer, Hibbard (Tom Sturridge), being supported by Osborne. However, there is some real light relief for the audience as well as the officers, including Stanhope, with the ever-ready cook, coping with the supplies (mysterious couplets and tins of pineapple which actually contain apricots), a likeable performance by Toby Jones.


The screenplay contains a great deal of the dialogue from the play and the 1930s film version (which is far more talkative and runs longer than this version). But, the action does come, Osborne and Raleigh chosen to go over the top to capture the German, heavy fire, heavy casualties though mission accomplished.

While there is a moment of peace as the audience sees Raleigh’s sister at home reading his complimentary letter about Stanhope, the final image is aerial, over the devastation and destruction of the trenches, the information about the German advance, its being repelled, the memory of the horrifying statistics of so many millions, allies and Germans, killed during World War II.

Direction is by Saul Dibb who made the entertaining historical film, The Duchess as well as a gritty story of East London, Bullet Boy.

1. A memoir of World War I, the trenches in France, 1918? The play, the novel? Earlier film versions?

2. 2018, memories of the centenary of the end of World War I? Commemorating the war in the trenches, the loss of millions of lives?

3. The title, sad, regrets?

4. Audience knowledge of World War I, of the war in Northern France, the trenches, the troops embedded against each other? The role of the British, the Germans? The French? Embedded in the trenches? Millions dead? And World War II 21 years later?

5. The film focusing on a microcosm, the squad, British, officers and men, six days at the front, living quarters in the trenches, the psychological interactions, action, deaths?

6. The Germans, the trenches, the planned attack to end the war? The British being ready? The Germans attacking for three months, the devastation, the Allies in taking over the gained land? The armistice by November?

7. The tone, the opening in the village, the troops, at the inn, friendly, humid and his kissing the girl, spun and his rep remand? Stanhope and he is leading the troops, the march, singing We’re Here Because We’re Here’? The spirit of the troops?

8. The squad leaving, the new squad moving in, the nature of the trenches, the depth, the slush, the living quarters, food, the rotten wood? The officers’ quarters, the rooms and the beds? The meals? The kitchen? The food supplies, supplies being brought in?

9. Raleigh, his arrival, young, going to see the general, his uncle, making the request, the general’s reaction, his being appointed? Stanhope and his not wanting him in the squad?

10. The titles and dates for the six days of March, the settling in, the nature of the mission, the officials and their visit, the plan, the abduction of the German, getting the information about the attack? The choices for the officers to lead, the choices of the men, Stanhope going through the trench and the men being named?

11. Life in the trenches, for the ordinary men, camaraderie, supplies, fears, young?

12. Life in the trenches for the officers, Osborne and his being benign, called Uncle, listening to the men, sympathetic? Stanhope and his drinking, hardened, the memories of school, the relationship with Kate? Trotter, a good and decent man, criticised as having no imagination but doing his duty? Mason, the cooking, waiting, sensitivity to the men? Turner as his assistant? Hibberd, his fears, the touch of cowardice, his sexual preoccupations? Stanhope’s treating of him, challenging him, getting him to lead out into the trenches?

13. Being ready for the assault, Osborne taking the command on the chin, Raleigh and his eagerness? The conversation and the final six minutes, possessions on the table, Osborne writing the letter and then burning it, the conversation about the memories of the woods?

14. The mission, the explosions, the timing, going over the top, the machine-gunning, the run, the deaths and wounding? The German, the trenches, the German shooting, grabbing the soldier, returning, the number of deaths? Raleigh surviving?

15. Raleigh sitting on Osborne’s bed, Stanhope’s reaction, anger, weeping? Raleigh going to eat with the men? Stanhope demanding that he return to the table?

16. The aftermath, Kate at home, the letter arriving, Raleigh and his praising of Stanhope?

17. The aerial view of the trenches, the devastation, massacre? The final information about the retaking of the land by the Allies?

18. A film of war, comment on courage, but a picture of the futility of war?

THE OCTOBER MAN

UK, 1947, 91 minutes, Black-and-white.
John Mills, Joan Greenwood, Edward Chapman, Kay Walsh, Joyce Carey, Catherine Lacey, Felix Aylmer, Frederick Piper, Patrick Holt., James Hayter.
Directed by Roy Baker.

The October Man has fine credential thrillers, written and produced by Eric Ambler, writer of novels as well as scenarios of many films in the 1950s like The Cruel Sea.


There is a pleasant opening with John Mills entertaining a little girl on the bus – but then the bus crashes with the girl being killed and Mills having to spend a long time recovering his physical and mental health. His doctor is played by Felix Aylmer. He is allowed out from the hospital and takes up a job in engineering, working with a friend, Patrick Holt, and is introduced to his sister, Joan Greenwood.

He has accommodation at a boarding house managed by Catherine Lacey. Amongst the guests are a caustic woman, Joyce Carey, a young woman who is a model and is having an affair with a married man from Birmingham, Kay Walsh, a reticent businessman who seemed to be jealous of the young model, Edward Chapman.

When the young woman is murdered on the common, Jim Ackland (Mills) is suspect, the police blaming his mental history. He himself wonders whether he murdered the woman and cannot remember. He starts in investigations himself, supported by Jenny (Joan Greenwood), a frantic drive to Paddington Station and a search for left luggage there because the murderer is planning to leave the country.

Jim Ackland has had suicidal thoughts, with several sequences showing him looking over a railway bridge caught up in the smoke – and this he returns to but decides not to kill himself, is rescued by Jenny and the truth is revealed.

Roy Ward Baker made a number of dramas in Britain the 1940s and 50s and some in Hollywood, including Don’t Bother to Knock with and Bancroft and Marilyn Monroe.

1. A British murder mystery? Detection? Issues of mental illness?

2. The British settings, the mid 1940s, the bus and the crash, the asylum and treatment, the doctor’s office, London, the boarding house and the interiors, the Common, the workplace in the laboratory, homes and flats, the railway lines? Atmosphere? Musical score?

3. The title, Molly and her identifying people, astrology, the months, characteristics? Jim as October, Molly as June?

4. The atmosphere of the opening, Jim and the little girl, the handkerchief and making the ragdoll? The crash and is trying to protect her? His own injuries, the long time in recuperation, therapy, the role of the doctor and his advice, Jim and his suicidal tendencies, blaming himself for the little girl’s death?

5. Jim returning to work, in the factory, the friendship with Harry and the collaboration? Going out to the company dance, meeting Jenny, the immediate attraction, dancing, talking, the dates, every night, the bond between them?

6. The boarding house? Miss Selby, her welcoming? The old lady always wanting more: the fire? The room, the dining room, the group playing bridge and Jim reluctant? Mrs Vinton, the cards, her caustic observations, critical, self-centred? The others at the table? Mr Pope and his presence? The presence of Mr Peachey? His reputation, businessman, keeping to himself? Molly, her modelling, genial, behind in her rent, the clashes with Mr Peachey? Friendly with Jim? Giving him the kiss to annoy Peachey? Calling him darling? The later borrowing the £30?

7. Jim, the burdens of the past, the suicidal thoughts, standing on the railway bridge, the smoke? The culmination of the story with his standing, the train coming, the smoke, Jenny calling to rescue him, his not falling to his death?

8. Jim walking on the Common, Molly and her posting the letter on a Sunday, her being attacked, strangled? The Chronicle cheque beside her?

9. The police, the investigations, the interviews? All the people at the boarding house? Mrs Vinton and her mother’s, listening to Mr Peachey, repeating his observations to the police? Mr Pope by contrast and his friendliness? Miss Selby?

10. The police getting Jim’s background, his own fears that he did the murder without remembering? His denials? Jenny and her continued support? Harriet and his being wary, protecting Jenny – and is later apologies?

11. The evidence against Jim, no alibi, the cheque, the police inspector being particularly hard, his theory about Jim’s mental illness, the records?

12. Jim, confronting Mrs Vinton, her being upset, his getting the evidence about Mr Peachey? Confronting him in his room, Peachey confessing, threatening, leaving?

13. Molly, her relationship with a married man, his alibi, his coming to London, searching the room, hitting Jim? Jim going to the hotel, confront him?

14. Jim and Jenny, their concern, try to track down Peachey? His story about going to class go and his bookings? Discovering the airline ticket? The tension with going to London, tracking the train, the taxi driver mechanic, Jim and his talking with the porters, the tip, going to the luggage, getting the information? The police being trapped off, his being pursued?

15. Jenny, the information, the police making phone calls, trapping Peachey with his correct name, delaying him, his arrest?

16. Jim, in despair, on the railway bridge, not jumping, Jenny rescuing him – and a hopeful future?

THE SHANGHAI COBRA

US, 1945, 63 minutes, Black and white.
Sidney Toler, Mantan Moreland, Benson Fong, James Cardwell, Joan Barclay, Addison Richards, Arthur Loft, Gene Roth.
Directed by Phil Karlson.


This is one of the later Charlie Chan film starring Sidney Toler. The actor was to die in February 1947. It is also one of the many films featuring Mantan Moreland as Birmingham Brown, chauffeur to Charlie Chan, associate of Charlie Chan’s son, Tommy (Benson Fong). They are the comic foil to the serious Charlie Chan, getting themselves caught up in all kinds of adventures and dangers. Mantan Moreland does a lot of bug-eyed comedy of being scared which would seem now to be politically incorrect but provided humour in those times.

The plot is rather complex. Charlie Chan works for the government in the war effort but is called in to advise on some deaths which are in connection with the bank that is holding radium for the government. Some of the action takes place on foggy streets but also in the local diner, with some comic touches by the proprietor who tries to persuade people to eat his stew when all they want is a cup of coffee.

The death and its method is similar to those seen in Shanghai before the war. There is a connection with man accused of robbing jewels from bank, injured, Charlie Chan interviewing him, the man diving overboard when being transported. His head was swathed in bandages.

There are various people associated with the bank. There is a security guard. There is the secretary. At the end, Charlie Chan will reveal that the security guard is the man from Shanghai and the secretary is his daughter – and he will be proven innocent. In the meantime, there is a gang of crooks who had been hired to tunnel under the bank from the sewers in order to steal the radium.

A security guard who is really a police officer is killed. Tommy and Birmingham investigate the laundry with a trapdoor down to the sewers. Even Charlie Chan himself gets trapped in the sewers after an explosion – but is able to tap out in Morse Code a message to the police to trap the robbers and free Chan and the others.

Also helping is a private detective in his first investigation – but he gets sidetracked with his attraction to the secretary.

There is a final showdown in the office, trying to identify who was the brains behind the scheme, Charlie Chan throwing some alleged dynamite and one of the officials of the bank reaching out to catch it, knowing what it is. It turns out that he is the detective from Shanghai who has also disguised himself and is masterminding the robbery.

Direction is by Phil Karlson directed number of the Charlie Chan films, moved into some small and taught thrillers in the 1950s, into bigger budget films and some Matt Helm action is in the 1960s.

TAKE MY LIFE

UK, 1947, 79 minutes, Black-and-white.
Hugh Williams, Greta Gynt, Marius Goring, Francis L.Sullivan, Rosalie Crutchley.
Directed by Ronald Neame.

Take My Life is a brisk British drama from the immediate postwar industry. It was directed by cinematographer Ronald Neame who was to continue in the British industry but then go to Hollywood making bigger budget films, including The Poseidon Adventure and The Odessa File.

There are some distinctive shots, especially during the murder, that might remind audiences of Alfred Hitchcock films.

The film uses a voice-over technique, coming from the chief prosecutor, played in his frequently-pompous manner by Francis L. Sullivan. The action opens at an opera, a nervous diva, her manager husband, with a voice-over throwing suspicion on him for the murder of a young woman who encountered him at the end of the performance but had a relationship with him in the past.

The audience sees her being murdered. The block of flats owner identifies the manager in the lineup and he goes to trial. Circumstantial evidence is against him. The dead woman is played in a very early role by Rosalie Crutchley who was to have much more sinister roles as she grew older. The manager is played by Hugh Williams and his wife by Greta Gynt, a strong role for her as she supports her husband and goes to find evidence to prove him innocent.

The audience soon sees who the murderer is, played by Marius Goring. So, the dynamic of the film is discovering more the motives of the murderer and following the detecting by the wife, leading her to Scotland, to a school, to the evidence of music, recovering a photo identifying the woman, a dangerous train trip back to London but a rescue from a man who claims to be deaf – but, in fact, is a police officer getting evidence against the murderer.


1. Murder mystery? Detection? Court proceedings? Investigations?

2. Atmosphere of 1947? London, Opera, flats, streets? Hospital? Police precincts? The contrast with Scotland, the school, the chapel? The musical score?

3. The opening with the Opera? The voice-over from the prosecutor? Setting the characters, the situation, his own perspective? Anticipating the guilt of Nicholas? Nerves, the performance, the aftermath, the family and applause? At home, Nicholas going out for the phone call, the encounter with Elizabeth, Philippa and her reactions, throwing the object at Nicholas? His wound? His going out for a walk?

4. Elizabeth, in the orchestra, talking with Nicholas, memories of the past, her dress, the Byron quotation? At home, her murder? The flashbacks, the relationship with Nicholas, love for him, disappearance, the Dutch mother, going to the school, the composition of the song? Her defiance of Fleming? Wanting to deprive him of teaching and his career?

5. The murder sequence? The man with the wound, leaving the house, the owner and he is testifying, picking him from the lineup? The police ringing the hospital’s? Nicholas and the doctor? The doctor having to hold him? His being taken to the precinct, his explanations, the inconsistencies with his wife’s testimony about the quarrel?

6. The court, to build up of the evidence against Nicholas? Philippa and her devotion? Her wanting to pursue investigations? Going to Holland, Elizabeth’s mother, the other connections, the orchestra, the agent?

7. The discovery of the music, Philippa playing it? Her later hearing the boy whistling it? The connection with the school?

8. Philippa and her visit to the school, waiting for Fleming, the tour of the school, her playing the music on the organ, his reaction? Her asking about photos? Going to the shop, not on Sunday night, not making money on Sundays, the Presbyterian Church? Going back the next morning, the wife giving her the negative? Fleming pursuing her to the station, on the train?

9. The audience knowing the identity of the killer, but not his motives for the killing?

10. On the train, the death man, Fleming and his confession and motives? The struggle with Philippa? The rescue by the death man?

11. Her going to the police, the detective coming in, posing his death, having confession, Nicholas freed? The new beginning for them?

THE HIDDEN HAND

US, 1942, 63 minutes, Black-and-white.
Craig Stevens, Elizabeth Fraser, Julie Bishop, Willie Best, Frank Wilcox, Cecil Cunningham, Ruth Ford, Milton Parsons.
Directed by Ben Stolloff.


A routine supporting feature of 1942 with some mention of enlistments as America became involved in World War II.

The film is a variation on the haunted house and people arriving to listen to a reading of the will. However, there are some more twists which make it a touch more interesting.

At the beginning, an intense looking character escapes from an asylum, shrewdly getting a lift home in the boot of the police car. He meets his sister, a determined woman, wealthy, who wants to give most of her money to her secretary (and the screenplay seems to indicate that she might be the daughter, the old woman having had an engagement with the girl’s father). There are several nephews and their wives and a district nurse.

Lorinda Channing (Cecil Cunningham quite a dominating presence) has organised her brother to act as a butler and then to get rid of the claimants. There is a new cook who has been paid off to poison some of the food. There is also the typical bug-eyed African- American servant, this time Willie Best, who has to do the being-frightened routine quite a number of times.

The claimants all arrive, so does the secretary who has had a holiday, all expenses paid by Lorinda. The mad brother does his performance as the butler. The plan is that Lorinda will take a potion that renders her lifeless for some time then take the antidote, wanting people to show their true colours after her death. However, the doctor is ambitious and supplies the potion but does not apply the antidote.

There are various deaths, bodies disappearing, a wheel on the wall which opens a trapdoor into the water below – and Lorinda reappears, her having taken the antidote herself. In fact, while the brother does kill off one or two characters, she has been doing the murders herself. But, she becomes a victim to the wheel on the wall and falls to her death.

Fortunately, a young lawyer is also present, in love with the secretary, so happy ending – although it does leave Willie Best turning the wheel, the trapdoor opening, and his hanging on for dear life!

A STAR IS BORN


US, 2018, 135 minutes, Colour.
Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Sam Elliott, Andrew Dice Clay, Rafi Gavron, Anthony Ramos, Dave Chappelle, Alec Baldwin, Marlon Williams, Ron Rifkin, Barry Shabaka Henley.
Directed by Bradley Cooper.


Given the film history of this story, it must be one of the most American archetypal stories, a theme of rise and fall. In that way, it is universal and, in terms of film versions, it has been popular since the 1930s. The first version in 1932 was What Price Hollywood (directed by George Cukor who also directed the 1954. The first A Star is Born featured Fredric March and Janet Gaynor was in 1937, the Judy Garland-James? Mason version in 1954, Barbra Streisand-Kris? Kristofferson version in 1976 and, for some reason, nothing in the 1990s, a 40 year gap until this version.

The buzz about the film has been, of course, about the appearance of Lady Gaga in her first dramatic performance as a lead. (She has appeared on small roles in a number of movies as well as television performances.) And, the first thing that most have commented on is how well she has been cast, how well she performs, her talent for acting, her ability at singing and capturing an audience – and with many of the songs written by her, some in collaboration with Bradley Cooper.

And, Bradley Cooper gives a persuasive performance. He is a rock star, seen performing, engaging an audience, but going off with his chauffeur to find a bar to drink. He finds himself in a drag queen bar but, the performers encourage a friend, Ally (Lady Gaga) to sing. She has ambitions but she works, unsatisfactorily, in a diner, is encouraged by her father who likes to tell people that he has been very favourably compared to Frank Sinatra. She does an Edith Piaf song, La Vie en Rose, impressing the audience and drawing the attention of Jackson Mayne (Cooper) who is drawn to her. Cooper has a pleasing screen presence, an engaging smile, and a credibility that he would be attracted to this singer.

And he is, inviting her to fly in his plane to a performance, arranging her music and lyrics, singing them and inviting her to join him on stage. It is the beginning of her rise, his fall.

While Ally has some confidence, she is conscious of her appearance, appearing only in controlled situations. But, she is gradually transformed, her songs, her vocal talent, appearance and clothes. She is approached by an ambitious British producer. She makes a record. She rehearses with dances. She appears on Saturday Night Live with Alec Baldwin.

And, she is in love and marries Jackson.

The characters in the background remind us of where Ally and Jack have come from. Andrew Dice Clay plays her enthusiastic father, a manager of a car fleet with his driver pals. Jack is supported by his older brother, Bob (Sam Elliot). What might have been idyllic is always threatened by Jack’s drinking. Drink, he does, leading to outbursts, clashes with his brother, hurtful attitudes and words towards Ally.

Where can it end? Rise and fall?

One of the features of A Star is Born that will appeal to many audiences (though some may be living in their past preferred music tastes) is the music. The film does not stint on the music, the songs – an achievement for the stars, their collaboration in the writing and composing and Bradley Cooper proving himself as a singer, matching Lady Gaga.



1. The many versions of this story? From the 1930s, to the 1950s, to the 1970s? 21st-century interpretation of the story, characters and themes? 26 first century music?

2. An American story in the telling? Universal application? A story of rise and fall?

3. The strength of the cast, the musical score, Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga and their writing songs, performance? The filming at live concerts?

4. Los Angeles as a base, the tour of American cities, the clubs, the drag queen club, bars, the venues for the concerts, backstage, on stage? The television background, Saturday Night Live and the studios, the rehearsals for the dances? The Grammy awards? The contrast with Arizona, the land of the desert, properties? A piece of Americana?

5. The range of songs, the lyrics illustrating the characters and the drama? Lady Gaga doing a Piaf La Vie en Rose? The blend of new songs, old songs?

6. Bradley Cooper as Jackson Mayne, his career as a singer, the initial performance, his style on stage, his music, the lyrics? His drinking, the chauffeur, going to the bar, meeting the drag queens, meeting Ally’s friend, meeting Ally in the dressing room, her singing the Piaf song, his delight, response, their talking, going to the bar, his driving her home, the attraction, sending the message, inviting her on the flight to be present at his concert? Talking with her, encouraging her, adapting her lyrics and music? Singing, inviting her to join him on stage? Love for her, fostering her career, their scenes together, building up to the wedding? His relationship with Bob, memories of his father, some resentments? Bob and his assisting him, the older brother? Memories of Arizona, the visit to Arizona? His drinking, Bob helping on the tour, the clashes and Jack being blunt to his brother, the later apology? The Roy Orbison tribute, his being ousted as the singer, playing the guitar? Ally present? His promise to be at the Grammys, in the seat, coming up after her winning, wetting himself, his bad behaviour, the collapse on the floor, covering for him? The continuing problem of his hearing?

7. Ally, the background at home, the father and his friends, the drivers, his encouraging her, with the piano? His own reputation in comparison with Frank Sinatra? At work, clashes with the boss, her friend and his support, going to the club, the performance of the Piaf song? Jack and his reaction, the attraction, staying the night, talking? Her father and his enthusiasm? Leaving her job, getting the plane, her friend going with her and always supporting her, watching Jack perform, joining him on stage?

8. The film tracking her career, the range of songs, composing, her initial reluctance, comment on her nose, the applause and her encouragement, the British agent, the discussions, his taking over her management, transforming her, physically, hair, look, the range of clothes, the touch of the outrageous, the recordings? Her appearance with Alec Baldwin on Saturday Night Live? The dancers in the rehearsals? Her life, love for Jackson? The nomination for the Grammy?

9. Jackson and his drinking, his hurtful words, the experience of the Grammy awards? Her wanting to help, Jack going to AA, his speaking to the group, its effects, off the drink for some months?

10. The encounter with Bob, memories of the past, apology?

11. Her dad, the drivers, the excitement, going to the Grammys, his reaction against Jack?

12. The manager going to talk with Jack, his bluntness, callous, warning him off, his predictions about Ally and her career?

13. The effect, the previous mentions of suicide attempts? Jack and his drinking, deciding to die?

14. Ally, her grief, reaction, the tribute song – and the touches of flashback of the two to round out the film? Joy and sorrow?

A VERY ENGLISH SCANDAL

UK, 2018, 180 minutes, Colour.
Hugh Grant, Ben Whishaw, Alex Jennings, Patricia Hodge, Paul Hilton, Morgan Watkins, Monica Dolan, Michelle Dotrice.
Directed by Stephen Frears.

The subject of this film, screened initially as a miniseries, was politician, Jeremy Thorpe, leader of the British Liberal Party in the 1960s and 1970s. He died in 2014.

The focus of the film is on Thorpe and his plan to have a former lover, Norman Scott, killed. Ultimately, the case went to trial, Scott and other witnesses called, but Thorpe found not guilty as were the other men alleged to have been part of the plan.

The film is a star vehicle for Hugh Grant, still with some of his ingratiating characteristics, but this time portraying a man who was presumptuous, committed as a politician to social causes, homosexual at a time when this was criminalised, covering his homosexuality with respectable marriages, wanting to hold onto his political career when it was threatened by a former lover. There were attempts on the lover’s life, arranged by a friend from school days, hiring some hitmen from Wales. The attempt failed.

Grant is matched in performance by Ben Whishaw as the lover, Norman Scott. Initially, a timid young man who worked in stables, mentally and emotionally unstable, takes up an offer by Thorpe for arranging a job. Thorpe has been attracted and they begin a relationship. Norman wants to break out of the relationship, accuses Thorpe of seducing him to homosexuality, writes a long letter to Thorpe’s mother. Norman also has to get out of England, Thorpe not having got him a card for Social Security and work – and he never did. Norman goes to Ireland, is sometimes successful as a photographic model, but succumbs to dissipation and makes the accusations.

Liberal party friend and colleague, Peter Bessel (Alex Jennings) does a lot of Thorpe’s negotiations and dirty work for him, visiting Ireland, offering payoffs. Later, Peter will be compromised and moves to the United States but is called back by police to witness in the court case but his credibility is undermined because he has sold his story to the newspapers.

While Thorpe marries, his wife somewhat disillusioned by the revelations crashes her car and Thorpe marries again, a member of the aristocracy who supports him right through the trials.

In the meantime, Norman has found a supporter in a woman who owns a hotel (Michelle.Dotrice) who also supports him during the trial. Ben Whishaw’s performance during the trial and his giving testimony, ingenuously since the, does make an impression. At the time of the making of this film, Norman Scott was still alive.

The film was directed by Stephen Frears who had a most successful career in direction for half a century, in England in cinema and for television, also working in the United States, a substantial number of films over the decades.

1. The title and tone?

2. Audience knowledge of the characters in the events?

3. British politics, the 1960s and the 1970s? The Parliamentary scenes, the work of parliamentarians, policies and issues? Speeches?

4. The background of social classes in the United Kingdom?

5. The structure of the film, the main action, the flashbacks, the building of attention about the case and the behaviour of Jeremy Thorpe?

6. Issues of sexual orientation, homosexuality, the law, the years? Changes in the law?

7. The portrait of Jeremy Thorpe, political background, class background, his schooling, living with his mother? A game and, in secret? Relationships? His friendship with Peter Bessell, discussion of the party, Peter’s support, their own sexual proclivities? The occasion in the country, Thorpe going to the stables, seeing Norman, his reaction, the attraction, giving him his card? The issues of the party, Thorpe becoming the leader? Antagonism from his rivals? Norman coming to Parliament house, the visit, Thorpe’s reaction, setting him up? Norman’s continuing concern about having his card and never getting it? Thorpe not wanting to be known to have obtained the card? The night at his mother’s house, the sexual behaviour, the aftermath, the relationship over some years?

8. The character of Norman, working in the stable, a nervous man, his response to Thorpe, getting Thorpe’s card, leaving employment, the clash with his boss? The visit to Parliament House, the flat, the relationship, his mental condition, emotional condition?

9. The writing of the letter to Thorpe’s mother, precipitating Thorpe’s crisis?

10. Thorpe to the one egocentric, his calm exterior and respectability, the problem, his expressions about killing Norman, the discussions with Peter, possible plans, Peter and the others not carrying out the plan? The years passing?

11. Peter, politician, loyalty to Thorpe, sexual orientation and behaviour, the cover, the visit to Norman in Ireland, the money, the issue of the card?

12. Norman, his reaction, saying that he was seduced by Thorpe, the letter to Thorpe’s mother, 17 pages, wanting his card? Wanting work and employment? Going to Ireland, his success as a model, photographs, poses, friends, the young woman? His dissipation, unable to concentrate? Peter’s visit, his holding out on Thorpe?

13. Politics, continuing, Thorpe and his re-election, his rivals, looking for opportunities to bring him down?

14. Thorpe, wanting respectability, looking for a wife, the marriage, the publicity, the birth of the child? His care for the child? His wife getting the news, crashing the car? His second wife, her social position, their loyalty to Thorpe, knowing the truth, in the courts, always for him?

15. Norman’s reappearance, change of name, becoming bolder, the revelations, Thorpe’s rivals and the use of the information, probing it?

16. Peter going to the US, his relationships there, the police coming to interview him? Returning as a witness?

17. Thorpe and his friendship with Michael, the contacts from school, Michael and his loyalty, the plan to kill Norman, the number of contacts in Wales, their personalities?

18. Norman, his friendship with Edna, at the pub, her life, her support of Norman?

19. The hotel, Norman, the attempts on his life, Newton and the meetings, driving him out, the nerves, the attempted shooting, the cover-up? Newton going to jail?

20. Norman bringing the court case, George Carman and his skill as a lawyer, the discussions with Thorpe, confiding his personal life to Thorpe?

21. In court, the prosecutor and the defender, the range of witnesses, the interrogations, Carman and his interrogating skills? The police watching? Peter and his being dismissed for having his story sold to the papers? Norman, his testimony, ingenuous, sincere, people’s reactions?

22. The judge, the jury, the judge’s dislike of Norman, his advice to the jury?

23. Thorpe, waiting for the sentence, his supporters? The sentence and his reaction? The conspirators or fountain not guilty?

LOAN SHARK

US, 1952, 80 minutes, Black-and-white.
George Raft, Dorothy Hart, Paul Stewart, John Hoyt, Helen Wescott, Lawrence Dobkin.
Directed by Seymour Friedman.

Loan Shark is a small feature of the early 1950s combining thriller and gangster aspects along with social concerns of the period.

The setting is a tyre factory where a number of the workers take out loans, sometimes because of gambling, have to pay a high percentage of interest on the loans, cannot repay and experience thuggish violence and extortion. One of the workers is a suspect in enticing the workers to become involved in the gambling.

This is a George Raft film, playing the kind of role that he did frequently. He is just out of prison for assault, wants a job, is attracted to the factory owner’s secretary who gets him an interview. The owner knows his background and asks him to investigate. When his sister’s husband is killed, he becomes involved, going further underground by taking a loan, making contact with the criminals (Paul Stewart and John Hoyt), even suggesting further extortion rackets by targeting housewives and laundry services as a cover.

The film builds up to a confrontation, the revelation of the big boss behind the rackets and a shootout in a theatre.

1. Thriller? Social and social justice issues?

2. Title, the targets for loan sharks, factory workers, housewives? Rackets, money demands and extortion? In the setting of the early 1950s?

3. George Raft and his style, his character, Joe Gargan, emerging from prison, the background of the fight, his experience in prison (even making his suit), the dapper look and style, coming to see his sister, wanting to go straight, the encounter with Ann, the immediate flirting and her reaction, her brother and his being protective? And the factory owner, the offer of the job, the factory owner knowing all about him, wanting to get behind the loan sharks, the rackets and the bashings?

4. The opening, the man trying to escape, the thugs following him, the bashing? The introduction to the factory, making tyres, the men, the discussions about the bashing, their own loans, Thompson and his being on the men’s side, yet his persuading them to borrow the money, gambling and the back room, the various men and their debts? Joe and his unwillingness to take the job? His sister, her husband, his denouncing Thompson, as being killed?

5. The head of the factory, his concern about the men, the work, the bashings, wanting Joe to find out who was behind the racket?

6. Joe at work, tough, letting Thompson take him to the gambling, meeting Donelli, the personality clashes, the borrowing of the money, the interest, taking Ann out, the romance of the dancing? Outings together?

7. Joe and his decision to defy Donelli, the encounter with Phillips, their offering him a job, getting the money back, the various victims? Joe and the suggestion about the laundry, the housewives and the needs for loan? His sister’s experience?

8. Getting on well with Phillips, Phillips and his high lifestyle, the singing and dancing girlfriend? Joe following him? The experience with the accountant, Joe keeping his own books?

9. The test, that Joe should confront Ann’s brother, the bashing, Ann and his sister and their disgust? The plan to go to the police?

10. Joe, shrewd, wanting the money to leave town, getting Phillips to lead him to the factory owner, the drama in his living above the theatre, the discovery that the factory owner was the accountant, the shootout in the theatre?

11. The commendation of the factory owner, the reconciliation With Ann?

12. Social justice concerns and the thriller touch?