MUSMOS NA SUMIBOL GUBAT NG DIGMA

Philippines, 2018, 105 minutes, Colour.
Junyka Santarum, JM Salvado.
Directed by Iar Lionel Arondaing,

This is a very beautiful film to look at, an island setting and its forests, the beauty of the river and the streams along with the natural sounds. And it has a beautiful musical score to add to the atmosphere?

Throughout the film there are quotations from the Koran, with a solemn voice-over. The quotations indicate the narrative, which has explicit links with the book of Genesis. This includes the beauty of creation, an allegory of Adam and Eve with two young children and baby, an allegory of Cain and Abel with the two fathers involved in feud, struggle and killing.

The film is framed by a journey along the river by an old man with his grandson. He relates the story of the two children, the family feud, the deaths, the flight down the river, the difficult birth of a young child, the young daughter and the death of the mother, the daughter’s encounter with a boy whose father has been killed, she concealing the fact that she is a girl, the continuing journey, friendship. However, animosity arises when a woman breastfeeds the child during their journey and there is a revelation that the girl’s father killed the boy’s father.

The narrative and the text from the Koran highlight that there needs to be forgiveness, reconciliation – and there is a final revelation that the old man telling the story was the baby born on the river.

Audiences not familiar with Islam and the Koran need to surrender themselves to this kind of storytelling and immerse themselves in the atmosphere and the spirituality of reconciliation.

1. A Filipino- Muslim film? Islam in the Philippines? In Mindanao? The long traditions?

2. The location photography, the island and forests, the rice fields and the fire, the river and travel? The musical score? The creation of an atmosphere of the 19th century in the Philippines, an atmosphere for a folktale?

3. The use of the Koran, the range of texts, the text parallel with the story of creation and Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the links with the book of Genesis? The further quotations from the Koran? The voice-over? The solemn tone?

4. The old man and his grandson, going down the river, telling the tale, his grandson wary, suspicious? The nature of the story, the memoir? The issue of the hat and its burial? The revelation of who the old man was?

5. The family, the burning rice fields, the family feuds? The father staying behind? The pregnant mother? The young girl, guiding the boat? The difficult birth? The young girl fostering the child? Her mother’s attack on her? The prospects?

6. The encounter with the boy, his age, the girl pretending that she was a boy, her mother urging her to cut her hair? The mother dying?

7. The two children with the baby, travelling on the river, the interactions, the difficulties of her concealing her identity, the issue of being? Food? The friendship between the two?

8. The woman, breast feeding the baby? The girl and her reaction? Aggressive?

9. The revelation of the truth, the boy and the death of his father, the visualising, the Cain and Abel references with the the children as Adam and Eve? The nature of the feud? Symbolised by the wearing of the hat, the girl reacting, the burying of the hat?

10. The children coming to terms with their situation, continuing to travel? The move towards reconciliation? And their coming to the settlement?

11. And the revelation that the old man was the baby and continuing with the saga?

MAMANG


Philippines, 2018, 85 minutes, Colour.
Celeste Legaspe, Ketchup Eusebio, Alex Vincent Medina.
Directed by Denise O'Hara.

The main is a story about senility, the consequences of Alzheimer’s, the retreat into memory and loss of memory, into imagination.

The film was written and directed by Denise O’ Hara, quite a prolific screenwriter, but the film was intended to be directed by her twin sister who sadly died before the production could commence.

Veteran Filipina actress Celeste Lagaspe portrays the woman experiencing senility. The audience has to keep asking itself what is happening inside the mind and memory of the woman and what is real.

Her son, who has been studying, comes to visit and to look after her. He is completely loyal – but, at the end, there is information that he is dead. Which makes his presence throughout the film much more complex.

There is also a soldier, silent, whoi keeps intruding, keeping guard – and the question whether he is real or not.

And, into the memories, come the young man with whom the woman was in love in the past, who is arrested and shot. There is also her husband, seeming memories of his infidelity, a young companion, yet his skill in playing the piano. And, there are memories of a little girl, the daughter – and the audience questioning how well the mother loved her daughter.

In many ways the film is glamorous, reminiscent of soap-opera, the portrait of the elderly lady and her tantrums at home, her moods, a range of wardrobe, going for promenades with her son.

Agreeable to watch, but raising serious issues about senility as well as reliving memories.

1. The title? Affection? The mother’s relationship with her son? Ferdie and his care for her?

2. A film of interiors, the house, the variety of rooms, the walks on the streets? The garden in the courtyard? The musical score?

3. A psychodrama, how much reality, how much imagination, how many memories?

4. Suitability and Alzheimer’s, the experience, being in the present, living in the past, the jigsaw of past memories within the present experiences, the jigsaw of emotions?

5. The mother, her age, her beauty, her vanity, in the bedroom, getting up, the make up, the range of dresses, her hair, going out? The promenade with her son? Happy days?

6. Yet the presence of the soldier, his behaviour, not speaking, disturbing?

7. Ferdie, the son, his age, taking care of his mother, the mention that he was gay, dressing his mother, walking with her, the conversations, dancing with her?

8. Her memories, Amado, in love with her, before meeting her husband, being taken by the police, shot? Her husband, playing the piano, the song, the girl at the piano and the
mother’s upset? The little daughter, seen as a little girl, the love of the father, the reaction of the mother? The father and his being against Ferdie, not wanting a gay son?

9. The dramatic jumble of memories and interactions?

10. The neighbour, arriving, her comment about Ferdie dying of a heart attack? The visuals of him after this, as dying?

11. The bewilderment of senility, the struggle of memories in the present, the mother and her succumbing to senility?

SCHOOL SERVICE

Philippines, 2018, 95 minutes, Colour.
Ai- Ai de las Alas, Joel Lamangan, Joe Gruta, Therese Malvar, Kenken Nuyad.
Directed by Luisito Lagdameo Ignacio.

School Services rather an ironic title. While school Service is printed on the exterior of the bus that the central characters travel in, school service is certainly not what they are offering.

At times this is rather harrowing film about children on the streets of Filipino cities. At the beginning, a little girl is abducted, taken unwillingly to the city by a sinister woman who is controlling the children. The motivation of the woman is rather complex, certainly to gain money, but, along with her somewhat official brother, they are both concerned about their ailing and moody father who is also there for the ride. There are some momentary complications with the driver of the bus in the gay relationship with the brother as well as the violent attack on the father.

However, most of the film focuses on the woman and the range of children that she puts onto the street, coaching them how to bake, especially the new girl that she has abducted and is unwilling. There is a little boys, especially a chubby one who attempts at pickpocketing robbery but is quickly discovered. There are two young teenage girls who are on the street, forbidden prostitution but allowed for blow jobs. Characters of the young children are well delineated and it is continually disturbing to see them begging, being exploited, going hungry, and, to quell the hunger, sniffing in bags, including the newly-abducted little girl.

The film is a tour de force performance for Ai Ai de las Alas, with her discoloured contact lens, her pretending to be crippled, travelling the streets, begging but under threat of exposure by someone who will put her picture on Facebook, trying to get some food for the children.

The film will probably remind a number of audiences of Oliver Twist, the woman as a kind of Fagin combined with Bill Sykes – but not a reminder of the musical, Oliver, and its pick a pocket or two.

While the film ends with a death, the final visuals, as with the opening credits, are of pastel designs, bright and colourful. The contrast with reality.

1. The title? The name on the bus? The externals of the bus? The ironies in the title as regards the children and lack of schooling?

2. The dark tone of the film, social problems, the children, begging, sex activity, exploitation, the abduction of children, being homeless, performance for begging, hunger, no prospects?

3. The end, Maya’s dream, pastels and colour, the pastels of the credits, her dream, the images versus reality? The musical score?

4. The situation, the bus in the countryside, Rita and her sinister appearance and manner, harsh tools the children? Robert? The concern about their ill father? Kiko the driver? The motivations? Abducting Maya, her fears and protests? The other children on the bus?

5. Going to the city, Maya unwilling, her being forced out on the street, her reactions, the other children and their being used to this life? The boys, the older girls, the chubby boy? Life on the street?

6. The father, his illness, Rita and her concern, Robert and the sexual encounter with Kiko? Kiko attacking the father, Robert killing him, lack of phone contact, reunited with Rita, her father present? His callous attitudes?

7. Rita, her age, appearance, harsh, the lens disfiguring her? In the chair, her begging, her performances, the range of people in the streets, passers-by, traffic, some giving? The fat boy and his robbing the wallet and his being found out? The children and the various pleas? The woman attacking Rita, having seen her before, the threat of the photo on Facebook?

8. Hunger, Rita going to the shop, getting the rice and soup, the bag of portions, the children being hungry? The children and appeasing hunger by sniffing their bags? Maya and the solvent and getting high? The effect?

9. The girls, their age, the men approaching, for prostitution, Rita forbidding them except for blow jobs?

10. Robert, upset, coming into the city? Bringing the father? Rita and her quiet and brooding?

11. Rita, training Maya, to beg, critical of her? The other children and their reactions?

12. Maya running, through the city, Rita in pursuit, the accident, her death?

13. The ending and the blend of reality and dream?

DISTANCE

Philippines, 2018, 85 minutes, Colour.
Iza Calzado, Therese Malvar, Nonie Buencamino.
Directed by Percy M.Intalan.

While this is a Filipino story, it is particularly universal and the style of the dramatising of characters and issues would be appreciated by audiences beyond the Philippines.

Distance is to be interpreted literally, the film opening with the leading character isolated in Bournemouth, walking along the beach, living in a flat, sitting outside reading. She has to cover the distance in returning to the Philippines. But, there is also the emotional distance, not only between the woman and her husband but also, because of her abandoning her family five years earlier, the distance from her two young daughters. And there is also the emotional distance which comes to light in the Revelation of her motivation and relationships.

The film is very well acted. The woman is convincing even when the audience does not understand her motivations – which are revealed, quite strikingly, breaking an enigma, later in the film. She is well supported by the actor portraying her sympathetic husband, a therapist, willing to forgive and understand, continually loving, trying to engineer situations whereby she can come closer to her two daughters again. The younger daughter is more immediately sympathetic and glad to have her mother’s return while the teenage daughter, caught up in school activities, with a friendship with a fellow student which leads to a drunken seen, find it very difficult to understand and forgive her mother. The film uses the device of the young girls memories to indicate that her mother was involved with her aunt, rather under-stated portrait of a lesbian relationship.

In some ways audiences might feel at a distance from the characters – but it gives them an opportunity for some objective and detached assessment as well as some empathy.

1. The title? Physical distance? Emotional distance?

2. The opening on the UK beach, solitary, the walk, lies and her presence, the UK streets, the flat? Setting a mood? The musical score?

3. The contrast with going home, the house and the interiors, school, restaurants, psychologists consulting room – wealthy but ordinary Philippines?

4. Liza, walking on the beach, her being away from home, isolated, reading, Anton’s arrival, the nature his visit, coming the distance? Telling Liza she should come home? The motivations?

5. Liza’s return, Anton and the daughters, five years absent, no explanations, the sense of alienation on the part of the daughters, their memories, being hurt? Trees and Jung? Carla resentful? And the delight of the maid, Rose, at Liza’s return?

6. Liza’s attempts to respond to the children, to get them responding to her? Cooking meals, reaching out, their difficulties and rejections?

7. Carla story, her age, resentment about her mother’s absence, demanding an explanation and apology, her girlfriend, the performance, drinking afterwards, drunk, returning home, the effect?

8. The enigma of Liza’s behaviour, the revelation with Carla remembering her mother’s interaction with the aunt, deciding to leave the family and go with the aunt?

9. Jen, her love for Eliza, they’re leaving, the declarations of love, her illness, the effect, her death?

10. Anton in himself, devoted husband, father, declarations of love, the scene with his client, the emphasis on forgiveness, over and over? His contriving situations for Liza to meet with the daughters, to find some reconciliation? Trees at school? Collecting Carla, Carla’s girlfriends? Anton and the scene with his sister’s denouncing Liza?

11. Liza sister, Anton arriving arranging the meal, her gash, the food?

12. Themes of love, affection, forgiveness? Liza stands at the end as regards Anton and his loving forgiveness, the daughters?

13. The end, possibilities, the simple domestic scene of Rosa clearing the table?

WAITING FOR SUNSET

Philippines, 2018, 90 minutes, Colour.
Dante Rivero, Perla Bautista, Menggie Cobarrubias, Romnick Sarment.
Directed by Carlo Catu.

This is quite a moving film about ageing.

The film focuses on a couple who have been together for 26 years, not married, because the woman had not been divorced from the husband who walked out on her. But, she has been in a loving relationship with the doctor. She does have a son who does come to visit but there does not seem to be a strong bond with her son as the doctor has a daughter and has to give her advice when the daughter’s marriage is it a breaking point. This couple gives very comfortably, a house, a suburban Street.

Another character is introduced, living in a rather broken down house, not caring for himself, preening cocks for a cockfight. However, he has cancer.

At the core of the film is the former wife’s kindly response to her ailing husband, assisted by the doctor’s ability to diagnose and treat. There is a lot of talk and reflection on what has happened in the past. There is particularly powerful sequence where the ex-husband explains how he fell out of love with his wife and walked out on her, preferring that blindness to any deception. The wife then reflects that she is now out of love for her husband but this will not prevent her from looking after him.

There are a number of episodes, this is to hospital, visit to a cinema to watch a film in 3-D…

However, the final sequence is one of great beauty, eliminating the title, the camera photographing three deck chairs on the sand at the beach, looking out over the water and the setting sun.

1. The title, the final sequence and the three characters pondering the sunset along with the audience? Themes of life, death, preparation for death?

2. A Filipino film, suburbs, pleasant homes, the streets and harsh homes? Hospitals, the cinema, scenes of ordinary life? In the towns and countryside? By the sea? The musical score?

3. The theme of the weather, the opening with the rain, the later flooding of the house and sweeping up the water, rain and moods?

4. Tere and Chelso, their lives together, her exasperation with the hairs on the soap, his nonchalant response, their arguing, together for 26 years? The situation, deserted by her husband, no divorce? Her life, her relationship with her son, Chelso as a doctor, the scene with his daughter and coping with her marital problems?

5. Bene, his friends, preparing the cocks for the fight? His character? Age, illness, contact with Tere?

6. The challenge to Tere, Chelso and his help, care for Bene, coming, cleaning, caring from his illness, the doctrine the diagnosis, his going to hospital?

7. The motivations, Bene and his not having love for Tere, his leaving in the past, blindness, the visit of his son, the son and his critique in anger? Tere and not having love for Bene anymore? Hurt by him, but willing to help?

8. The growing understanding between the three, tolerance, helping illness? The visit to the cinema, 3-D? His collapse?

9. The effect of the marriage breakup on the younger generation, their bitterness?

10. The decision to go to the beach, the van, the chairs, sitting, looking out over the water to the sun?

11. A film with a touch of humanity?

BLACKkKLANSMAN


US, 2018, 135 minutes, Colour.
John David Washington, Adam Driver, Topher Grace, Alec Baldwin, Ryan Eggold, Laura Harrier, Jasper Paakkonen, Robert John Burke, Paul Walter Hauser, Corey Hawkins, Michael Buscemi, Harry Belafonte.
Directed by Spike Lee.

It has an understatement to say that Spike Lee is passionate about race issues in the United States. It is almost 30 years since his tough stand in Do The Right Thing. And, here he is, 30 years later, taking stands. In the meantime, he has made a great range of films, many documentaries, many dramas, even thrillers like Inside Man and Old Boy. But he continues to return to race issues. The tone is set the tone is set by a black-and-white filmed interview from the past, the dignified-looking white speaker being prompted as he is filmed, bigotry and bias pervading the speech. In fact, it is Alec Baldwin playing this speaker.

BlacKkKlansman won the Grand Jury Prize, 2018, in Cannes. It also won an Ecumenical Jury Commendation at Cannes.

A first hearing of the core plot element might indicate that this is an impossible story, an African- American man in the early 1970s infiltrating the Ku Klux Klan and even becoming the head of the local chapter in Colorado Springs. However, this is based on a book by the actual Ron Stallworth, the man behind the plan. What actually happened is that Ron talked to the Klan officials on the phone and his police partner, Jewish and white, taking the same name, did all the visits, attending the meetings. And, it worked, as an undercover police operation.

The two actors are convincing in their roles, even when they act acting. John David Washington is Ron Stallworth. In fact, in real life, he is the son of Denzel Washington and, as we listen to the dialogue in the film, they seem to have identical voices. Adam Driver is Flip Zimmerman, the partner, carrying off his impersonations and his Klan rantings with fabricated enthusiasm, but with growing intensity reflecting on his Jewish background which had had no impact during his growing up.

The film opens with a sequence from Gone with the Wind. There are also some excerpts from D.W.Griffiths classic Birth of a Nation, 1916, based on a novel called The Clansmen, sympathetic to the clan, presenting the slaves and free in stereotypical fashion. There is a sequence where the local members of the Klan watch the movie with catcalls and guffaws.

Ron is a man of his times, but the first black policeman on the Colorado Springs force, seen as something of a pioneer and supported by the authorities, ridiculed by a bigoted policeman in the force. He is sent to infiltrate a black gathering to hear Stokely Carmichael (with his changed name, Kwame Ture), with a microphone and getting information for the police. He meets the president of the Association, Patrice (Laura Harrier). They argue. He is more restrained as regards the issues though getting to enthuse about the cause, especially during the powerful and steering address.

The local to members, of course, are quite a redneck collection, bigoted and uneducated about race relationships, spouting the superior of the white race with their God-given destiny (and completely oblivious of Native Americans). Their meetings are haphazard, but they are eager to go into some kind of action which would now be branded as terrorist, that includes the willingness of the wife of the most bigoted to plant a bomb at Patrice’s house.

And, at the centre of the Klan, is the Grand Wizard of the period, David Duke (Tougher Grace), with suit and tie, political ambitions, external charm, but able to rouse the rabble - despite the Klan wanting to be known as The Organisation.

Spike Lee has a very effective sequence where the Klan having a lively meeting and it is intercut with a veteran recalling his life, the death of a friend, the contempt and humiliation experienced throughout his life – all the more persuasive because the speech is given by Harry Belafonte.

There are a lot of comic touches in this disguise caper, some narrow escapes, Ron being appointed by the police chief to be the security guard for David Duke in his visit to the town… Flip Zimmerman becoming head of the local chapter. And there is a sequence of burning crosses, caps and capes, a ritual of loyalty. But, there are serious moments, images of burning crosses, photos of atrocities, the tension when the woman goes to plant the bomb.

John David Washington is completely believable in the role, engaging as he plays some scenes for laughs. He is nicely counterbalanced by Adam Driver. For those wondering about the character of Jimmy, another police officer, it is not Steve Buscemi but his younger brother Michael.

At the end, the audience sits in rather stunned silence as Spike Lee powerfully incorporates sequences from riots and deaths in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. He shows actual sequences of David Duke speaking there – and, the sequence of Donald Trump as he talks about the good and bad people on both sides of the riots.

Passionate and partisan but tantalising and often very moving.

1. Spike Lee and his films, over 30 years, is attitudes, his stances, race issues? The US? From slaves to pre-? Racism, bigotry, violence? Dramatising his perspectives? Partisan and passionate?

2. A true story, the book, Ron Stallworth and his experiences? The credibility of the plot?

3. The introduction, the long sequence from gone with the Wind, plaintiff, Scarlett O’Hara?, the many dead, the carriers? The aerial shot? The introduction to scenes from Birth of a Nation, the incidents, 1916, The Clansmen, attitudes, the plan members and their commenting on performing? The later talk with David Duke and his conversation about Hattie Mc Daniel, the Oscar, black actors?

4. Introduction with the interview with Alec Baldwin, his character, being prompted, talking to camera, the content and racism of his speech? Setting a tone?

5. A film story, birth of a nation, the comments by Woodrow Wilson, the Ku Klux Klan as heroes? The stereotyping Blacks? Persecution, freedom? The references to 20th century African- American action films? Shaft, Super fly, coffee (and their not having been released at the time of the film’s action?)?

6. John David Washington Is Ron Stallworth, his appearance, 70s, hair, clothes, no background and family? Wanting to join the police, the interview, his being a pioneer, his being hired, the work in the archives and his being humiliated, experiencing the bigotry? 1972?

7. His idea, the phone call to the Klan, talking, expressing the bigotry and rate, everybody in the office listening? The warm response from the Klan? Going with the idea to the chief, his associate, proposing a partner, the two working together, the common name? The plan, rehearsing the information with Flip? Testing his memory?

8. Ron, his style? The contrast with Flip, tall, Jewish but not acknowledging his Jewish heritage much? His presence with the Klan, coping, performing, getting into the spirit, the gusto of his bigotry, his skill with guns, slipups like El Paso and Dallas? Getting round them? His being admired, interactions with water, the other members? Felix and his
suspicions?

9. Ron the phone call with David Duke, the talk, the phone calls as means of highlighting the bigotry as well is a satire? Duke going to Colorado, meeting Ron, Ron and his
security guard, snapping the photo and its effect?

10. Stokely Carmichael in his reputation, his change of name? His being the undercover policeman? The hidden microphone? The discussion of the issues, meeting Patrice, in size, black power, the students in 1972, atmosphere of revolution? Ron and his response to Patrice? The effect of the speech on him? We are laying the information, Flip and the boss and understanding? Flip Torch the students?

11. Ron and Patrice, talking, at the diner? Are being held up, the bigoted policeman, the later encounter in the diner, the bigot, his being taped, everybody in on the act, his being arrested?

12. David Duke, his style and presence, smooth, prejudice – is wanting the Klan to be an Organisation?

13. The members of the Klan, water, generally pleasant but bigoted, Felix and his meeting Ron, intense? The fat member and his drinking, bigotry? The other members, in the bar, drinking, talking, the rifle range and shooting? The men working for the government and getting the explosives? Connie, with the group, her being humiliated by Felix? Are being brainwashed, becoming a terrorist, wanting to kill Blacks? Yet her bond with Felix?

14. The meetings, the pledges, the ceremonies, the sprinkler with water, the roads and woods? The later scene of the burning crosses, the members pledging their loyalties?

15. The into cutting of the Klan celebrations with Harry Belafonte, his character, his narrative, persecution and violence? The response of the students?

16. Flip undercover, his energy, the risks? Ron and Patrice, the threat of the explosives, Ron in the car, calling the police, Felix and his friends in the car, wanting to expose Flip, Connie and her going to the house, the explosives, Plan B, the crash, the explosion in deaths?

17. Ron and Patrice, talking, his explaining his situation, his suspicion of the police, the ideologies?

18. The achievement, the boss and his support, his assistant and concern about the logistics, weapons? Jim and his support, the other members of the team?

19. Ron, deciding to go, the phone ringing, talking to David Duke, telling him off, Duke’s bewilderment?

20. The bar, everybody there celebrating? Patrice and Ron, the possibility of a partnership?

21. The final insertion of the Charlottesburg, Virginia, sequences, the viciousness of the attacks, brutality, deaths, prejudices? David Duke’s actual speech? The speech of
Donald Trump, saying there were good and bad people on a side? The finale for this film?

SUBMERGENCE

Germany/US, 2017, 112 minutes, Colour.
Alicia Vikander, James Mc Avoy, Alexander Siddig, Jannik Schumann, Celyn Jones.
Directed by Wim Wenders.

One of the difficulties in approaching this drama is coming to grips with the title. It is not just about submerging, although there is that in the film, but experience of being submerged, wherever that might be.

The film was based on a novel by JE.K.lead to guard and, given the time available to read and absorb, to reflect, the book might have been a thoughtful experience. However, for some it works very well as a symbolic and philosophical drama. Others, however, have been found to be gripped by it.

We are introduced to Danny, only civic and, walking on the ocean bed in elaborate covering. She is a scientist, wanting to explore the depths of the sea, hoping to discover the secrets in those depths which will help the future of the human race.

This is in contrast to an introduction to James, in a desert African country, imprisoned, his arm reaching out of a hole so that children playing football and passing by could give him something to eat. He is interned in squalor and darkness.

Each of the characters, in their way, are being shown as submerged, different kinds of submergence.

Then the film goes back in time, to a luxury hotel on the Normandy coast, Danny and James there enjoying the holiday, she going back to where she was taken when she was a child, he getting ready to go again on a mission to Africa. They meet on the beach, are attracted, dined together, talk together, begin a passionate affair.

The rest of the film into cuts the two stories, there submergence is. And all the time, there is a longing for the presence of the other, separated, isolated, no communication but a great deal of concern.

Danny’s story is somewhat straightforward. She goes on the expedition, there are various members who dive into the depths of the ocean is beyond island, Iceland and Norway, including her own important experience in going down with a small crew several thousand metres beyond the surface of the ocean.

James’ story is in some ways more conventional. We have seen in being contacted while visiting and art gallery in England, communicating by radio but getting a commission to go to Kenya, and involvement in Somalia. But, on arrival, he is arrested and imprisoned. It is not always clear as to why his being imprisoned, the different ways in which he is treated, starved, left in filth, threatened with execution by rifle, encounters with the doctor who is a compassionate man of healing but also a committed to hardest.

We are asked to identify with their submergence is, be affected by their love for each other and their separation, and, finally, to reflect on the human condition and the different kind of submergence is that people have because of their talents and abilities, but which could also be their fate.

1. The title? Going into the depths of the oceans? Identities and roles? The dangers of submergence, claustrophobia, imprisonment, possible death?

2. The themes of the film, scientific advances and hopes for world development, the contrast with terrorism in Europe, the agents, in Africa, the jihadists?

3. Danny and James, different personalities, initially seeing them in their situation, Danny in the water, hirsute, the team, the plans, the diets? The contrast with James imprisoned, his hand through the hole in the wall, the children playing ball, giving him something to eat, his desperation in the darkness?

4. The occasion for their both remembering? Danny, her background, her father, taking her to the hotel, France, the ocean, enjoying the holiday, preparation for her mission? James, in the Gallery, the agents giving information, his cover, going to Africa, the rest in France before going, jogging, encountering Danny on the beach, the meetings, the affair, the impact on each of them, the romantic attitudes, meals and discussions, on the beach and Danny going into the water, the Normandy coast and the bunkers?

5. The separation, the phone call to the car? The return to the present, Danny and her feeling of loneliness, isolation, no communication from James? James, imprisoned, brutalised, starved, the rotten food, his sickness?

6. The audience being asked to reflect on the links between the two characters? Their roles, their ambitions, their talents? Philosophical ideas underlying their stances and talents?

7. Danny, on the ship, the team, her associates, the captain? The plan of going around the oceans, the range of dives, beyond Ireland, beyond Iceland, Arctic waters? Danny and her pining for James? The team and their concern for her? Her being days aside her writing? The possibility of death?

8. The actual mission, the technology, the depths, getting the samples, seeing the ocean floor thousands of metres below, the difficulties, the technology, rebooting, coming up – and the audience left to speculate whether she survived or not?

9. James, audiences more in tune with this kind of espionage and imprisonment, the treatment by the soldiers, some sympathetic, some brutal, his going out into the sea, to be executed, though not shooting, his soiling his pants in fear, their bringing him back? The encounters with the doctor, treating him, their discussions, the Koran, conversion, the doctor and his work, separating his work and compassion from Jihadist intentions?

10. James, activating the device, on the beach, going underwater, the bombardment of the jihadists? His floating the sea, movement, surviving giving his life for his cause?

11. The adverse reviews, audiences not being gripped – the potential, realised or not, the performances, the career and work of the director?

CHARLIE CHAN CARRIES ON

US, 1931, 76 minutes, Black-and-white.
Warner Oland, John Garrick, Marguerite Churchill.
Directed by Hamilton Mc Fadden.

This is one of four lost Charlie Chan film starring Warner Oland. It was the first of a series which lasted for eight years until Oland’s illness and death and the taking on of Sydney Toler as Chan in the number of films from the late 30s to the later 1940s.

However, the Spanish-language version of the film exists, using the screenplay from the English-language version but with a new cast, Hispanic in appearance, Hispanic in expressions and emotions despite the rather British setting is. And, a Mexican actor appears as Chan, not particularly convincing in appearance or manner. While audiences can imagine how Warner Öland might have played Charlie Chan after seeing the other films, the performance here highlights how dignified Öland was in presence, bearing, movement, delivery of lines, especially his aphorisms.

The story actually comes from a novel by the creator of Charlie Chan, Earl Dear Biggers, whereas most of the succeeding films were written by and screenwriters based on his character (and very effective in their way). In fact, Charlie Chan is mentioned at the beginning and a photo of his family seen, but he does not appear until 40 minutes into the film and has something of a subsidiary role.

The plot is basic, a tour group in London finds of one of their members is murdered, Scotland Yard intervenes, a wide range of suspects. Motivations are suggested. There is also a subplot of romance with one of the tour members and the granddaughter of the man who is murdered.

There is nothing to hold the group in Britain so they continue on their travels, with some sequences in the south of France where there is another murder, an indication of who the murderer is, the estranged husband of an actress who has eloped stealing his bags of diamonds. But, the authorities do not know who the actual identity is. There are suggestions are further travels, including Hong Kong from where they sailed to Honolulu. The English Inspector arrives, engages Charlie Chan in the investigation, there are interrogations, suspicions, attempted murder is, Chan not knowing who exactly the killer is so writing the same letter to each of the suspects forcing the killer into action and his being caught.

A pity that the original is lost, the Spanish-language version being a curiosity item.



CHARLIE CHAN FILMS

Charlie Chan was the creation of novelist Earl Deer Biggers, creator of the popular novel Seven Keys to Baldpate (adapted for the stage in the early 20th century and the plot of many films of the same name and variations). Biggers saw the beginning of the popularity of the films of Charlie Chan in the silent era but died at the age of 48 in 1933, just as the series with Warner Land was becoming more popular.

20th Century Fox was responsible for the early Charlie Chan films with Warner Oland and gave them more prestigious production values than many of the short supporting features of the time. After Oland’s death, Fox sold the franchise to Monogram Pictures with Sidney Toler in the central role. They were less impactful than the early films. There were some films later in the 1940s with Roland Winters in the central role.

The films generally ran for about 71 minutes, and similarities in plots, often a warning to Charlie Chan to leave a location, his staying when murders are committed, displaying his expertise in thinking through situations and clues. He generally collaborates with the local police who, sometimes seem, characters, but ultimately are on side.

Warner Oland was a Swedish actor who came with his family to the United States when he was a child. Some have commented that for his Chinese appearance he merely had to adjust his eyebrows and moustache to pass for Chinese – even in China where he was spoken to in Chinese. And the name, Charlie Chan, became a common place for reference to a Chinese. In retrospect there may have been some racial stereotype in his presentation but he is always respectful, honouring Chinese ancestors and traditions. Charlie Chan came from Honolulu.

Quite a number of the film is Keye Luke appeared as his son, very American, brash in intervening, make mistakes, full of American slang (and in Charlie Chan in Paris mangling French). Luke had an extensive career in Hollywood, his last film was in 1990 been Woody Allen’s Alice and the second Gremlins film.

Quite a number of character actors in Hollywood had roles in the Charlie Chan films, and there was a range of directors.

Oland had a portly figure and the screenplay makes reference to this. His diction is precise and much of the screenplay is in wise sayings, aphorisms, which are especially enhanced by the omission of “the� and “a� in delivery which makes them sound more telling and exotic.

There was a Charlie Chan film the late 1970s, Charlie Chan and the Dragon Queen with Peter Ustinov in the central role.

CHARLIE CHAN AT THE CIRCUS

US, 1937, 71 minutes, Black-and-white.
Warner Öland, Keye Luke, George Brazeau, Oliver Brazeau, Francis Ford, Paul Stanton, J.Carroll Naish.
Directed by Harry Lachmann.

This is one of the later Charlie Chan films with the woman at all and. It is literally set in a circus where Charlie and his quite extended family are attending during a holiday.

The audience is introduced to the circus, the range of Acts, two very lively midgets played by George and Olive Brasno, who appeared in several films. Each of them has quite a personality and enhances the action of the film. There are animals, especially an ape who is dangerous (memories of the recent King Kong), anticipation of a number of stories Room Morgue as well as The ruler at Large.

The film has complexities with the two proprietors of the Circus having clashes, one owing money to the other. One of the owners is linked with the trapeze artist, there are also many complications and some hidden identities. When the owner is murdered and his trailer seems to be locked from the inside, there are various investigations, utilising the talents of the Circus crew to get in (the ultra-tall man lifting of the midget…).

Charlie Chan agrees to investigate the murder, Keye Luke as is over-exuberance son doing all kinds of investigations himself but coming up too late with clues. Jay Carroll nation appears as someone doing a lot of jobs on the set, keeping the books.

For the solution, everybody is gathered together but the a gets loose – and the revelation is, of course, that somebody was wearing a monkey suit to commit the murders.

Standard investigation but enlivened by the circus background.



CHARLIE CHAN FILMS

Charlie Chan was the creation of novelist Earl Deer Biggers, creator of the popular novel Seven Keys to Baldpate (adapted for the stage in the early 20th century and the plot of many films of the same name and variations). Biggers saw the beginning of the popularity of the films of Charlie Chan in the silent era but died at the age of 48 in 1933, just as the series with Warner Land was becoming more popular.

20th Century Fox was responsible for the early Charlie Chan films with Warner Oland and gave them more prestigious production values than many of the short supporting features of the time. After Oland’s death, Fox sold the franchise to Monogram Pictures with Sidney Toler in the central role. They were less impactful than the early films. There were some films later in the 1940s with Roland Winters in the central role.

The films generally ran for about 71 minutes, and similarities in plots, often a warning to Charlie Chan to leave a location, his staying when murders are committed, displaying his expertise in thinking through situations and clues. He generally collaborates with the local police who, sometimes seem, characters, but ultimately are on side.

Warner Oland was a Swedish actor who came with his family to the United States when he was a child. Some have commented that for his Chinese appearance he merely had to adjust his eyebrows and moustache to pass for Chinese – even in China where he was spoken to in Chinese. And the name, Charlie Chan, became a common place for reference to a Chinese. In retrospect there may have been some racial stereotype in his presentation but he is always respectful, honouring Chinese ancestors and traditions. Charlie Chan came from Honolulu.

Quite a number of the film is Keye Luke appeared as his son, very American, brash in intervening, make mistakes, full of American slang (and in Charlie Chan in Paris mangling French). Luke had an extensive career in Hollywood, his last film was in 1990 been Woody Allen’s Alice and the second Gremlins film.

Quite a number of character actors in Hollywood had roles in the Charlie Chan films, and there was a range of directors.

Oland had a portly figure and the screenplay makes reference to this. His diction is precise and much of the screenplay is in wise sayings, aphorisms, which are especially enhanced by the omission of “the� and “a� in delivery which makes them sound more telling and exotic.

There was a Charlie Chan film the late 1970s, Charlie Chan and the Dragon Queen with Peter Ustinov in the central role.

MAN IN THE DARK



US, 1953, 70 minutes, Black-and-white.
Edmond O' Brien, Audrey Totter, Ted De Corsia, Horace Mc Mahon.
Directed by Lew Landers.

This is a brief, very moderate, supporting feature from the early 1950s. However, it is remembered as one of the earliest of the 3-D films, produced by Columbia.

The film takes advantage of audiences being scared by some of the 3-D effects, guns pointing at the audience, the thrills of a rollercoaster ride (although it uses, not particularly effectively, rear projection).

The film opens with Edmond O’ Brien as a cantankerous patient in a hospital, it emerging that he has been a criminal, executing a high-powered robbery, taken by the police, pursued by the insurance company, getting the custody of the doctor who wants to do brain surgery to eliminate his memories.

After the surgery, he is agreeable and spends his time working on the grounds of the institution. However, an insurance agent confronts him and continues to pursue him. His past criminal associates abduct him, not knowing what has happened, confronting him about the whereabouts of the money, willing to torture him. There is also his former girlfriend, something of a moll but ultimately sympathetic and honourable, played by Audrey Totter.

Most of the film is about the criminal trying to recover his memory, various associations and, particularly, a dream about a theme park and a large figure of a laughing woman. He goes to the theme park with his girlfriend, follows up the clue about a number, finds the money at a shooting booth. The criminals are in pursuit – which means that the hero has to go on the rollercoaster and there are lots of 3-D thrills. The criminals pursue but, of course, they fall to their deaths.

The final dilemma is whether the man is truly reformed and will keep the money or be influenced by his girlfriend and give it up. Happy ending – he does.