THE CREEPER

US, 1948, 64 minutes, Black-and-white.
Eduardo Cianelli, Onslow Stevens, Gene Vincent, Ralph Morgan, Janis Wilson, Richard Lane, Philip Ahn.
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

The Creeper is a very slight supporting feature. It is very reminiscent in plot and style to the rather cult-status films produced by Val Lewton at RKO in the early 1940s. With the emphasis here on black cats, there are allusions to The Cat People and Curse of The Cat People, references to islands in the Caribbean.

The film focuses on a young woman, Janis Wilson, who sleeps walks with a gun, woken by a sympathetic father, Ralph Morgan, with revelations that they have been in the Caribbean, that she has been mentally disturbed, has a phobia about black cats. They have returned to the US, the father working on a serum with an unscrupulous doctor which is intended to illuminate the organs during surgery.

There is a sympathetic doctor who provide some romance, his former girlfriend who seems to been affected by the work but is murdered, a foreign gentleman, working in the surgery, immediately stereotyped as a mad doctor or villain, Eduardo Ciannelli. But, with a twist, he is not villainous at all. The villain is the obsessed doctor, determined to get the serum despite his friend destroying the files, the cat phobia daughter getting into all kinds of situations (even in a fashionable Chinese restaurant), the father being killed…

Before the final confrontation and shootout, the doctor, the bad doctor, injects himself with the serum and his hand begins to transform into a cat’s paw. However, he is dead before any other experiments can take place.

BY WHOSE HAND?


US, 1932, 65 minutes, Black-and-white.
Ben Lyon, Barbara Weeks, Kenneth Thomson, Nat Pendleton, Tom Dugan , Dwight Frye.
Directed by Benjamin Stoloff.

By Whose Hand? is an assured supporting feature from Columbia Studios, with quite some effective sets and production values, especially the action taking place on a train.

The film opens with a murder in a sleeping carriage, a poised knife, the reaction of the murdered man only in his face. He is reading a newspaper with the heading that a killer has escaped from jail.

The clock winds back for a flashback, people arriving at the station to take the train. There is quite a range of people in the one carriage that the film focuses on. An eager journalist, flirting with the girl behind a paper stand, sees the police hurrying to the station and hops on the car. He is about to leave when he sees an attractive young woman and decides to go on the train. She responds very favourable to him – and, jokingly posing as husband-and-wife, with some romantic touches, they are engaged by the end of the train ride and then he is sentenced to life! Marrying her.

There is a femme fatale engaged in a conversation at the station, pretending to be French, but interested in a jeweller who has a roving eye even as he is farewelling his wife. They meet on the train, the have a conversation about jewellery, she steals the jewels but hides them in the heroine’s suitcase. There is also a cantankerous man complaining about not getting to sleep. There are the various guards on the train and those in the engine – who are killed by the killer. The police are also guarding a young man who has given up the killer to the police as well as a woman posing as a widow with her husband’s body in a coffin, going to feed her dog but loosening the coffin for the killer’s escape.

The young man who had betrayed the killer gets loose from his guard, gets a gun, travels through the carriages but is himself killed. The cantankerous man turns out to have had a set against the jeweller who gave him up and subsequently served a prison sentence. He did the murder. The young woman set to steal the jewels is recognised by the journalist and arrested.

At a difficult moment, gun trained, the journalist turns the light off, there is a scuffle, some dead, the killer captured.

Not a bad 65 minutes supporting feature.

GOODBYE, GRANDPA!


Japan, 2017, 110 minutes, Colour.
Yukino Kishii.
Directed by Yukihero Morigaki.

This is a Japanese film designed especially for the sensibilities of the Japanese audience. Those not familiar with Japanese culture may find themselves somewhat distanced by the characters, their attitudes and behaviour.

The film concerns the death of the grandfather of the family. His young granddaughter who is the centre of the response to his death is engaged in a sex activity with her boyfriend when the news comes of his death – making her feel guilty throughout the film, eventually talking this over with the young Buddhist priest who attends the cremation ceremony.

She informs her father, a somewhat rough and brutal man, who then responds to his business and in brother who looks assured but has had failure in his life, especially with his job and his wife leaving him. Both of the sons have a son and a daughter each, the son is rather reclusive, the central figure and her cousin who is a high school girl, rather precocious, especially in her cigarette smoking.

The wife of the dead man, dead at 84, has been suffering dementia, a somewhat rough character, behaving embarrassingly, but eliciting some sympathy from the relatives and the audience.

Arrangements are made for the funeral, the two brothers argue, literally fight. They try to make contact with their younger sister, born much later than they were, a miracle baby, who has not been seen for decades.

The funeral arrangements are made for a cremation, everybody turns up after some difficulties, even with clothes, and the ex-wife stating she was not involved and leaving her children at the ceremony.

The family are fairly secular in their attitudes and behaviour but are nominal Buddhists, employing the monks to lead some prayer and respect. So, there are prayer sessions, there is the farewell, the cremation. There is also a dinner at which all gather. And all the time there is a whole lot of rather mundane bickering which may or may not cover up deeper feelings. It is the central daughter who keeps reflecting on the situation and trying to find deeper meanings.

The young monk has some helpful conversation with her but the older monk is seen racing to the car leaping with joy at the financial donations.

There is also an amount of drunkenness, some bad memories, accusations about love, lack of love for the grandfather, care for the grandmother and her being put into care.

The young daughter has a fantasy where there are fireworks and each member of the family is destroyed as they dance in procession.

Further difficulties, one car breaks down, the occupants running to find the other, their eventually meeting, the meal, harsh words, apologies, confessions.

When the young daughter meets her boyfriend, engages with some more sexual activity in the car, a seeming remedy and reconciliation for her to understand what has gone on.

More for Japanese sensibilities.

NEAREST AND DEAREST/ BLIZKIE

Russia, 2017, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ksenya Zueva.

This is a very grim and bleak Russian film, reflecting aspects of contemporary society, adults lacking the ability to put values into practice, handing this on to their children who seem even more lost. This film is in the vein of the Oscar-nominated film by Andrey Zvyagintsev’s Loveless, which explores these themes with greater complexity and power.

The final sequence seems particularly bleak – the four members of the family out in the snowclad countryside, a long shot, a train passing by in the background and then out of sight. What is the family left with? Have they undergone experiences which will lead them to a better life? (This is the tone of the synopsis on the IMDb, indicating that they have gone through a tragic experience which is cathartic – this may be so but it is not quite cathartic for the audience.)

The film focuses on a music teacher, her urging a young student who is nervous and sad to sing better. However, at home, the wife is always angry, continually criticising her teenage daughter, clashing with her husband who then demands a divorce. There is also a son but he seems absent from home so much of the time.

The mother then becomes desperate, mutilates her hands, her husband coming home from an affair with a young woman, but being touched by his wife, bandaging her wounds, taking her out to dinner where he is exuberant with karaoke. The daughter has problems at school, wanting to lie down in the infirmary, wanting drugs, coming home and arguing with her mother, stealing from her mother, going out on the town with a friend, sexual encounter, her pouring out her heart to him and his encouragement but when she goes to his house the next day, he is involved with another girl. And the boy meets his friend, goes to his home and meets a family which is very friendly, a genial vodka-drinking father, but, on the way home, he is bashed and left.

The focal point for the possible catharsis is in the wife’s mother, and 80 feel-year-old lady. Nurses come in an urge that she needs care. She is observant is in what is happening with the family, especially with her granddaughters stealing money. However, she decides to go out, dresses up, leaves a note which actually falls behind a table and is not seen by the family who discover the next morning that she is not at home. They go to the police but are not encouraged because this kind of thing happens often. It has an effect on the two children and the whole family goes out to search for the woman. The mother eventually finds the note goes to the house we she has gone to visit.

It is enigmatic about what happens to the old lady, seen initially in a train, seen at the end in a train (probably that which is passing by the couple out in the countryside).
In many ways, the film seems nihilistic – and makes audiences wonder about contemporary Russian society.

MANILA BY NIGHT

Philippines, 1981, 140 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ishmael Bernal.

Manila by Night is considered a cult classic of Filipino cinema. It was directed by one of the significant directors, Israel Bernal, who made quite a number of films with social concerns, including Nunal Sa Tubag in 1976 and Himala in 1982. The print for this film has been restored, over 3600 hours of work.

In many of Bernal’s films, continuity is not a major concern. There is no dramatic presentation of causality from one sequence to another, but simply the presentation of characters and episodes for the audience to work out the connections.

The film shows the seamy side of Manila through a range of characters and their interactions. It was quite explicit in terms of sexuality and nudity at the time but, 20 years later, had it been made by directors such as Brillante Mendoza, like Serbis, it would have been much more explicit.

In retrospect, it is surprising to find such an amount of sex and sexuality on the screen in the Philippines at this time as well as considerable amount of drug use. There are also the gay themes which became more explicit over the decades.
• There is a respectable family in the suburbs, a fashionable house, roof being restored, the husband working in the courts, rather happy-go-lucky, telling jokes and more tolerant of his children until one of them becomes a drug addict. There is the haughty wife, memories of Imelda Marcos, who used to be a prostitute but, as she explains to another woman involved in prostitution, it is possible to change. She has married into money, has a number of children, fusses about the girls and their presentation as they go to school, concerned about her son, especially the oldest, Alex, who sings at a club but is warned off when there is an explosion in the club. Alex is involved with a young student who wants to marry him, gives her the gift of a pendant which he later demands back when he is short of money, becomes involved in the group with the gay men, sexual encounters with a number of women, especially a blind woman who works at a sauna. Eventually, there is a rather explosive seen where he is rebuked by his parents, especially his mother who goes on a smashing spree in her indignation. Later then she goes to try to find him and reconcile.
• There is a taxi driver who has been married and has children, is involved with a young woman who is seen each night coming from a hospital in nurse’s uniform. He also becomes involved with a young woman from the provinces who works as a waitress at a diner. He is also in a relationship with Sister Sharon, a dominating gay man. He juggles all these relationships but is stopped in his tracks by the young woman who loves him and has become pregnant. He is also suspicious of the nurse and follows her to find that she is a call girl. He also has to deal with the gay man.

• Sister Sharon is a middle-aged gay man, the middle of a coterie, seen at the restaurant when Alex sings, joking with the other men, at home with men, visited by the taxi driver. He also has a very strong scene where he rebukes Alex for his behaviour and his drug addiction.

• As regards the women, the nurse is very affectionate towards the taxi driver, even acting as mother to his children, she goes to hospital in a uniform, changes, goes to a centre where she is a sex hostess. She is murdered in the streets. She contrasts with the young waitress who becomes pregnant, goes to get the help of her parents, the nurse advising her to get an abortion, the patron of the diner setting her up for prostitution with Japanese visitors – but she is sick and runs away.

• There is also a lesbian character, tough, who wanders the streets, has a group of friends, including a blind woman who acts as an assistant in a sauna and also in prostitution – who becomes involved with Alex. The police are after the lesbian and there is a long running pursuit through the city.

The film shows the edges of society rather grimly – but, at the end, there is commentary on the future of most of the characters which is more positive, Alex going to rehabilitation, Sister Sharon getting religion, from of the writing a book, the pregnant girl married to a sympathetic doctor…

The film has to be considered in the context of its times, Filipino society at the beginning of the 1980s and, especially, the experience, very long in the 70s and 80s, of the Marcos dictatorship and Martial Law.

CHARLIE CHAN IN HONOLULU

US, 1938, 64 minutes, Black-and-white.
Sidney Toler, Phyllis Brooks, Victor Sen Yung, Eddie Collins, John King, Claire Dodd, George Zucco, Robert Barrett, Marc Lawrence.
Directed by H.Bruce Humberstone.

This was the first Charlie Chan film for American actor, Sidney Toler. He took over from Warner Oland who established the character on screen and was a memorable Charlie Chan with his presence, appearance, demeanour, manner of speaking. He died in 1939.

Sidney Toler assumes much of the presentation of Charlie Chan as established by Warner Oland. In his first film, the 13 children appear – except for Lee who is said to have gone to art school in New York. This enabled Send Yung to appear as the second son, Jimmy, and he was present in over 10 of the Charlie Chan films. And, in this film, the initial situation is the birth of the first grandchild.

There is a murder on the ship in Honolulu Harbour, Jimmy rushing off to solve the case, his younger brother Tommy secretly in pursuit. There is a complex situation on board and with plenty of suspects. A man has been shot when about to receive a large amount of money. It was being transferred by a young woman. And the dead man’s wife was on board. There is also a San Francisco detective with a criminal in tow (eventually unmasked as thieves). There is also a very eccentric doctor studying the human brain played in his customary fashion by George Zucco. There are also some animals being transferred, including a line (who is actually rather tame) and their drinking supervisor. There is the captain of the ship, Robert Barrett, and the senior officer, John King.

There are many mixed motives but the wife of the dead man is also killed. The captain is insistent that the boat leave Hawaii because of cargo commitments. And, in a rooster Charlie Chan sets up, there is a blackout, someone picks up the gun – and is photographed. It is the captain.

Quite an auspicious introduction to Sidney Toler as Charlie Chan.



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.

THE TITAN

US, 2018, 98 minutes, Colour.
Sam Worthington, Taylor Schilling, Tom Wilkinson, Noah Jupe, Agyness Deyn.
Directed by Lennart Ruff.

The Titan had Netflix screenings and, according to the IMDb bloggers, practically no one liked it at all. It opens as if it is going to be a space adventure, then moves to aspects of science-fiction, and a focus on a medical thriller.

The premise is that the world cannot sustain the human race and there must be further explorations for survival in space. The ring, TItan, of Jupiter, is chosen. The Pentagon finances medical experiments with a group of soldiers so that they will be ready to go to Titan and pioneer settlement.

In fact, most of the action takes place, never in space but glimpses of space, but in a military compound, top-secret. The film was made in the Grand Canary Islands.

Sam Worthington is the main candidate for preparation for Titan. He is married to a loyal wife, medical doctor, played by Taylor Schilling. Noah Jupe, who had impressed in films like Suburbicon and Wonder, is their son. The head of the program, determined and obsessive, is played by Tom Wilkinson.

The action opens cheerily enough, husbands and wives on the compound, going through all kinds of fitness training, experiments being made with enhancing drugs. An early manifestation is that Rick, Sam Worthington, and his wife are able to stay underwater for 30 minutes and more. He can also swim like a dolphin. The efforts are applauded, there are celebrations.

However, the film does darken, Rick finding that his skin is shedding. His wife is very concerned, becoming more suspicious. Then some members of the experiment die violently.

There are Pentagon discussions, blaming of the head for not knowing actually what he was doing but forging ahead nonetheless. This becomes more complicated when there is an experiment on Rick’s eyes enabling him to see in the dark but it completely transforms him into a monstrous looking figure. And other members of the experiment die or are killed.

The climax is the confronting of Rick by the military with guns, his wife persuaded to deliver a fatal injection where she injects saline which enables Rick to go on the loose, a rendezvous in their favourite scenic spot, but he and his wife taken. However, the military leader targets the leader of the experiments rather than Rick – and, the film ends indicating some hope that he can be treated medically, be himself and that the plans for Titan may continue.

GEMINI

US, 2017, 93 minutes, Colour.
Lola Kirke, Zoe Kravitz, John Cho, Greta Lee, Ricky Lake, Michelle Forbes, Nelson Franklin, Reeve Carney, James Ransone.
Directed by Aaron Katz.

This is a very slow-burning, sometimes very very, story from Hollywood, a young successful actress and her agent and friend, there is many women in their lives.

The writer-director also acted as editor, ensuring this slow pace with a touch of contemplation of the environment of Los Angeles.

Zoe Kravitz is the actress, quite wilful, unwilling to continue to make a film according to her contract. Lola Kirke is her friend and agent. An insistent fan intrudes on their meal at a restaurant, asking questions, wanting photos. There is also the actress’s boyfriend, a screenwriter who is offended by the actress and her not cooperating, and an intrusive paparazzo. There is also an Asian- American woman, friend of the actress, as well as a demanding producer.

The actress behaves erratically, going to a restaurant, doing karaoke, returning home, asking her friend whether she had a gun or not, the friend getting it out and it going off accidentally.

This is the setting for the friend returning home and finding the actress lying dead on the floor, five shots. She is immediately under suspicion. Other suspects are interrogated, especially the screenwriter and the boyfriend who has no alibi but asks someone to furnish one.

There is an agreeable detective, John Cho, who investigates and takes a liking to the friend and agent.

The agent has strange behaviour, dyes her hair, goes visiting the screenwriter, searches the apartment of the boyfriend, finding some coins as she also does in the Asian friend’s house.

In many ways this is a red herring. The actress is not dead – it was the intrusive fan that she shot.

The characters are not particularly attractive and the film as a whole is a slow burn. It did screen at the Locarno film Festival but its following might be rather slight.

PRIVATE NUMBER

US, 1936, 80 minutes, Black-and-white.
Robert Taylor, Loretta Young, Basil Rathbone, Patsy Kelly, Paul Harvey, Jane Darwell, John Mian.
Directed by Roy Del Ruth.

Private Number is a strange title for this film. Whose private number?

The film opens as a 1930s US equivalent of Upstairs/downstairs. The butler in charge of the household is a very prim and strict martinet, dressing down the servants in public, yet taking a cut of their wages to support himself – played in very British style by Basil Rathbone before his villains at Warner Bros and his Sherlock Holmes series. Also amongst disturbance are Jane Darwell as the head of the kitchen and an amusing Patsy Kelly.

The family is very wealthy and the son, Richard, played by Robert Taylor in his handsome yet rather stolid manner, returns from college, encounters the new maid, mistaking her for a guest, and is attracted. She is played with charm by Loretta Young, taken on as a servant, the maid to the mistress of the family, favoured by the butler who also has a lecherous eye on her and is subject to jealousy.

At a holiday house, Richard falls in love with the maid and they secretly marry, she returning to work, he returning to college, everything secret including her pregnancy. However, she is denounced by a jealous maid to the butler, reported to the family, blackmail is suspected, news of her being arrested at a raid, though innocently present, and the matter goes to court. And becomes rather serious, the clashes between the couple, the son believing the worst, finally the butler being exposed (and punched out by Richard). And happy reconciliation.

1. The title? Meaning? With reference to whom?

2. The atmosphere of the middle of 1930s? Wealthy families? Households and servants? The background for romantic comedy? And the background for legal proceedings, alleged blackmail?

3. The mansion, interiors and exteriors? The home in the country, the beauty of the countryside? New York City, apartments, fashionable apartments, the courts? The musical score?

4. The opening, establishing the family, its wealth, status, the household and the range of servants?

5. Basil Rathbone as Wroxton, the suave manner, imperious, dressing down the servants, yet taking a cut of their wages? His ruling the household? Indispensable to the family?

6. The comic background of the servants, the criticisms of Wroxton and, Gracie and her cheeky attitude? Mrs Meacham and her ruling the roost, defying Wroxton? The encounter with Ellen at the door, Gracie liking her, offering to help?

7. Ellen, her background, age, wanting a job, coming to the house, the help from Gracie, the interview with Wroxton and, his eye on her, a touch of the leering? His employing her, testing her? The later favouring her, the touch of the lecturers in his eye, he is angry and jealous reactions?

8. Work in the house, the maid to Mrs Winfield?

9. Richard, his return, studies, wealthy, his friends, mistaking Ellen for a guest, dancing? Wroxton observing?

10. Helen and Gracie going out, Gracie’s friend, the sailor date being inarticulate, the fight? Ellen’s escape, the flash man and the early encounter, her purse, taking her money, offering a lift, taking her to the bordello, the Madame posing as grandmother, the gamblers? The raid, Ellen innocent, hiding, the arrest, in jail, owning Wroxton and, his rescuing her, paying the fine, keeping the document?

11. Richard, his manner, plans for future, the personalities of his parents? Going to the holiday house, Ellen going despite Wroxton and his objections?

12. Richard, the romance, Ellen responding, being careful? Her birthday, Richard’s mother and the gift of the dress and the hat? Planning the marriage, keeping it quiet, Richard going to college, Ellen going back to service?

13. Wroxton and reporting that Ellen was pregnant? The interrogations, her explanations, not wanting to take money? Her being ousted? The issue of blackmail, suing? Gracie and her friend helping Ellen? The lawyers? The newspaper headlines, Richard and his comments? Ellen hurt? Going to the wealthy apartment, Richard and his visit, assuming the worst?

14. The court case, the witnesses, the flash man and his being bought by Wroxton and, changing his testimony? Richard, discovering the truth, punching Wroxton? Speaking in court, declaration of love for Ellen, anticipation of the baby – and his going to the apartment and the happy reunion?

THE LOOKOUT

Philippines, 2018, 105 minutes, Colour.
Andres Vasquez, Jay Garcia, Elle Ramirez, Yayo Aguila.
Directed by Afi Africa.

This is quite an intense Philippines thriller. It is both complex and complicated in plot.

The central character is a young gay man who is employed as a hitman, able to commit his killings in broad daylight, disguises, weapons in bags… The film opens with a corrupt judge and a media celebrity arguing about money in a street and, a glamorous woman walking by; they are both murdered.

It is difficult to work out who is engineering the murders. There is the police chief, impatient, with a special squad, hand-picked, who are investigating the killings. The head of the group is a young woman, Monica, also intense, who sees the head of the office as Dad, a father figure. It emerges later that she has some allies in the group but also two who are in the pay of the leader and betray her.

The hitman goes to a lavish centre called The Kingdom where some young men are lined up for his approval – he chooses one, begins a relation with him although the young man seems reluctant but financially dependent on the work. He is intended as an apprentice to the killings.

As with quite a number of Filipino films, there is a very strong gay subtext.

Then there are flashbacks to an impoverished mother trying to bring up two children, a boy and a girl, continually brutalised by their uncle. The mother eventually sells them to get money to support the uncle, always regretting it, with quite a long scene of close-up in her howling grief. Then she becomes blind.

It emerges that the hitman is her long lost son, brutalised by a wealthy man and sodomised, adding to his traumas and his poverty in growing up. But he also searches for his lost sister.

The man who sodomised him is also a powerful presence wanting vengeance on a political rival. He has lost touch with his son.

It all builds up to a climax, the death of the police leader, the desperation of Monica, the young apprentice escaping with the hitman and going to the countryside – where, it is revealed, that the hitman knew all the time that his apprentice was undercover. He is also the son of the brutal authority who is taken, also sodomised by the traitors in the police squad, then shot.

There is a confrontation between the hitman and his apprentice, the hitman wanting to die less painfully but looking at someone he loved, the apprentice shooting him. After his death, his blind mother comes with the police escort and grieves again. And, just as we might have suspected by this time, Monica turns out to be the long-lost daughter.

The film has its graphic sexual moments but has more than its fair share of brutal moments.

Supported by the Cinemalaya Independent Film Foundation as one of the 10 finalists for 2018.