HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA 3: MONSTER VACATION

US, 2018, 97 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Adam Sandler, Selena Gomez, Andy Sandberg, Kathryn Hahn, Mel Brooks, Fran Drescher, Steve Buscemi, Tara Strong, David Spade, Kevin James, Keegan-Michael? Key, Chris Parnell, Jim Gaffigan.
Directed by Genndy Tatatarkovsky.

For audiences who enjoyed the goings on at the comically sinister Hotel Transylvania, this third in the series will be warmly welcomed. In fact, it will be doubly welcomed because the other two films were generally confined to the Hotel and this one moves away, well away.

A new element is introduced with an initial train ride, some of the monsters concealed with the ordinary passages passengers on their way to Budapest. But, who should arrive on the train with his anti--monster gun but the vampire Hunter, van Helsing himself. This means that there is initial confrontation – with, of course, the vampires and the monsters winning and going back to the hotel while van Helsing seems to disappear over a cliff and into the sea forever. (Not exactly, as we discover…)

While life goes on at the hotel, the passing of the decades, Drac becoming rather weary of his work at the hotel, his daughter Mavis, who is now teamed up with DJ Johnny, comes up with a practical suggestion. A holiday – an American style vacation. Just a reminder that Adam Sandler is once again enjoying himself as the voice of Drac with Selena Gomez as Mavis and Andy Samberg voicing Johnny.

They make a decision to go on a voyage – and it is something like a parallel of The Love Boat. The monsters, in all their array and disarray, the jelly blobs, Frankie Frankenstein, the invisible man and the spectacles, her enjoying the voyage and all the deck games.

However, the captain of the boat is Ericha (voiced by Kathryn Hahn). She seems to be doing a line for Drac and he is certainly ready to succumb, feeling a lot of romantic vibes. But, she reveals to the audience that she is intending to destroy Drac and that her name is actually Erica van Helsing.

There are a couple of ports on the way, an undersea volcano, a deserted island where they all have very elaborate picnic, and then the undersea city of Atlantis. This Atlantis is not unlike contemporary Las Vegas!

Everybody is enjoying the occasion, and Drac in some torment about Ericha, Mavis definitely taking a dislike to her. She has to climb a mountain through various obstacles to get a text which will help her achieve her mission., Charming as ever, Drac helps her through the obstacles and barriers, making her very emotionally confused but she delivers the text to Van Helsing who is still alive, connected to all kinds of machinery.

The conflict between the monsters and Professor is amusingly portrayed by a clash of music, Johnny the DJ helping out, Van Helsing playing on old harpsichord trying to drown out the opposition who rely on Good Vibrations and on everyone swinging to the Macarena.

Everyone, being refreshed by a sea voyage, happy to go home, romance and love in the air – and audiences wondering what they will do for Hotel Transylvania 4.

1. The popularity of the first two films? Audience response, relishing a sequel?

2. The style of the animation, Transylvania, the past and the present, the hotel? The voyage, on-board, the parallels with human voyages, The Love Boat? The sea, the underwater volcano, picnicking on the deserted island, Atlantis and the parallel with Las Vegas? The exotic locations?

3. The musical score, these are popular songs – and especially at the end with the confrontation with Van Helsing, Good Vibrations, Macarena and the choreography?

4. The popularity of the characters, Drac, Mavis and Johnny, Frank, the invisible man, the wolves, the jelly creature…? All being given plenty of action, plenty of comedy, plenty of special effects? And the human voice cast?

5. The opening, Van Helsing on the train, the monsters on the train, the confrontation with Drac? The continued pursuit, van Helsing losing, into the water? The irony of his being saved, mechanically reconstructed, still wanting vengeance?

6. Mavis and Johnny, their concern about Drac, his being alone, memories of his wife, family and friends? The work at the hotel? The suggestion of a holiday?

7. The scenes on-board, everybody relaxing, the humour with the variety of monsters paralleling ordinary crews human behaviour? Games on deck…?

8. Ericha, the Captain, Drac infatuated, misinterpreting her? The irony of her being a Van Helsing, her plots to get Drac? Yet the moments of attraction? The scenes together, the dancing, the dates? Mavis and her being unhappy, wanting to get Drac?

9. The experience underwater with the volcano, Drac eluding danger? The details of the picnic on the island? Ericha and her ambiguity?

10. Atlantis, the confrontation with Drac, supported by Van Helsing, her quest to get the emblem which would destroy the monsters? Drac saving her life, helping her to elude all the traps? Her change of heart? Leading to saving his life? Mavis and her suspicions, having to come to terms with reality?

11. Van Helsing, mechanical, his music, the score inside the emblem? His performance? Johnny and his knowledge of music, his tunes, choosing tunes to confront Van Helsing? Everybody responding to Good Vibrations? Then everybody dancing the Macarena despite people saying it was corny?

12. The happy ending, the reconciliation, monsters and monster hunters combining – and Drac remarking that reconciliation is good and that the monsters should not be as bad as their haters?

13. An enjoyable show, adult perspectives, children’s perspectives (for example the garlic sequence and breaking wind…?)

SKYSCRAPER


US, 2018, 102 minutes, Colour.
Dwayne Johnson, Neve Campbell, Pablo Schreiber, Chin Han, Noah Taylor, Mackenna Roberts, Kevin Rankin, Roland Moller, Byron Mann, Matt O' Leary.
Directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber.

Ultra-towering, ultra-Inferno. Back to the spirit of the 1970s and all those disaster movies.

A warning to those who like their films to be absolutely realistic, documentary-like in the detail, all the verisimilitude of truth! They may find Skyscraper rather far-fetched. On the other hand, those who enjoy thrillers, cliff-hanging and the equivalents, won’t be worrying too much about how accurate or truthful it is but will relish the entertainment.

The film doesn’t waste any time getting into the action with a prologue where a special squad has to break a siege with a man holding children hostage. One of the consequences of the action is that our central hero, Will Sawyer, played by the almost-always welcome Dwayne Johnson (with touches of grey in his beard now), losing a leg, tended in hospital by a military nurse who also served in Afghanistan, (Neve Campbell) – then, 10 years on, happily married and two children.

And then to his new job, recommended by his partner during the siege, Ben (Pablo Schreiber), the security in the world’s tallest skyscraper, in Hong Kong. Actually, architectural design seems to have come on since towering infernos 70s. The skyscraper doesn’t look like any building we have seen – yet; and that is only the outside! It is all luxury and IT control inside the building with the IT headquarters some kilometres away (all it very important for the complications of the plot, getting rid of some of the workers, sabotaging the control).

Needless to say, wife and children will be caught in the building when the thugs arrive and set fire. While there is a lot of the expected wife and children in peril, the wife has plenty of experience on her side, is tough in her own way and uses her brains. Of course, Dwayne Johnson has to use both brawn and brains – lucky he has so much brawn because the stunts are not only far-fetched, they seem to be almost impossible! And, not only that, he has to save everyone he can single-handed, sometimes having to take off his leg, and doing things single-legged as well. And he relies on his wits as well as a lot of duct tape.

Sinister villains, a complicated plot has to their motives, a businessman who is seeing his pride and joy skyscraper going up in smoke, some betrayals, and the Hong Kong police standing aghast, misinterpreting the situation, eventually on side. And, crowds and crowds, watching TV broadcasts as well as lots of phone cameras.

The whole thing keeps good pace and, if you are in the mood for this kind of disaster film, it certainly fills the bill.

And, inventively, the credits have the title vertically beside the building,
S
K
Y
S
C
R
A
P
E
R.


1. The 21st century disaster film? Memories of the 1970s? Towering Inferno?

2. The title, the visuals of the skyscraper, built in Hong Kong? The creative design? The height, the number of stories, the engineering, turbines and generation of power, computer control? The penthouse? Admiration for the building, its safety – the threat being sabotaged? The decision to rebuild?

3. The design of the film, the skyscraper absorbed into the Hong Kong cityscapes? Exteriors, ordinary Hong Kong, police precincts, Colour and in the city?

4. The action, the stunt work, the special effects? The excitement for the audience? The pace? The musical score and atmosphere?

5. The introduction to Will Sawyer? The siege, the hostage, the police, exploiting the wall, the confrontation with the father, holding the child, putting down the gun, the explosion? Will and his being injured, cared for by Sarah?

6. 10 years later, the marriage, the children, Will and his happiness? The invitation to Hong Kong, his studying of the security? Ben and his friendship, having been wounded, the wounds on the side of his face? The family in the building? Going out to sea that panders? Will and his going for the interview, the tour of the building, the explanations, the owner?

7. Ben, friendship, betraying Will, his motivations, no promotion in comparison with Will? In league with the criminals? The fight with Will, his death? The effect on will?

8. The executives? The bodyguard, the financial adviser and is being sinister, his betrayal? In the penthouse, the fire, discussions about escape, the thugs arriving, the owner going to the safe, getting the computer stick, the explanation his motivations, being blackmailed, but getting all the names and codes of the money transfers? The criminals wanting the stick – even to the burning down of the building?

9. The criminals, the leader, his motivations, link with criminal gangs, encountering the family, setting up the fire, starting it? The killings after blasting through the wall? Control of the IT? The link with the outside, the woman as criminal leader, the invasion of the IT centre, the killings? The expert, his getting control? Her shooting him?

10. The role of the police, suspicions, the confrontation with Will? Following him, thinking in part of the plan? Sarah and the boy, getting to the fire, their being under suspicion, the explanations? Sarah identifying with the jump would take place? The police overcoming their scepticism? The irony of the crowds watching, the phone cameras, the television coverage, the applause at each step?

11. Will, the fact that he had lost his leg, the artificial leg? The fight with Ben, with the police, taking the motorbike, scaling the wall, the television coverage, the daring of his climb, with the crane, with the hook, swinging in midair, his leap? The piling on of the suspense, the dangers?

12. Encountering Sarah and the children, their escape, through the fire, the girl separated and going to the waterfall? Sarah and the bully, the plank, Will holding, the dangers in falling, is gripping them, going down in the elevator, the calculations, going through the fire, stopping the elevator?

13. Will and his strength, the wounds, is using the duct tape? The encounter with the criminals? Taking the little girl? The owner and his getting into the penthouse and locking the door? Recovering the computer stick?

14. The criminal leader, defining Will, forcing him to find a way to open the door – and the renewed dangers, breaking windows, on ledges, the turbines, the return, opening the door, using his leg to hold the doors?

15. The discussions with the owner, the explanations? The plan? Will wanting his daughter, they’re coming out, the owner with the gun, the stick, going into the hall of mirrors, raising them (and the demonstration early in the film to prepare for this), the confusion, where each individual was? The confrontation with the criminal leader, his holding the girl, the irony that Will was behind him are not in front of him? The fall, saving the girl? And the support of the owner?

16. The end, the hero coming out of the building, the acclaim, being reunited with Sarah and the family?

17. Five-fetched – but that being the nature of the disaster film?

BULLDOG DRUMMOND’s SECRET POLICE

US, 1939, 56 minutes, Black-and-white.
John Howard, Heather Angel, H. B. Warner, Reginald Denny, E.E.Clive, Elizabeth Patterson, Forrester Harvey, Leo Carroll.
Directed by James Hogan.

This is the sixth attempt for Hugh Drummond to marry his fiancee, Phyllis Klavering. Once again it is thwarted.

However, this is the second last film in the series from the mid to late 1930s, generally with John Howard, very comfortable in the role, but Ray Milland playing Drummond in Bulldog Drummond Escapes. Heather Angel generally portrayed the fiancee although Louise Campbell was Phyllis several times. Cololnel Nielsen from Scotland Yard was generally played by H.B.Warner from Cecil B DeMille’s? King of Kings. Sometimes Nielsen is played by John Barrymore – and, sometimes over the top, contrasting with Warner’s much more calm and credible colonel.

The opening of the film goes over the same theme of the impending wedding, Elizabeth Patterson as the impatient aunt insisting, Reginald Denny as Algy getting things mixed up, Colonel Nielsen arriving to participate and, the ever reliable E. E.Clive as Tenney providing some gentlemanly humour.

A new member of the staff arrives, played by Leo G. Carroll (comparatively young and billed as Leo Carroll). The main part of the humour and mixup about the wedding comes from an absent-minded professor (lots of jokes about his absentmindedness, mistaking August for January, wearing warm clothes… Settling into the house as if he owns it for a country visit!). He has documentation to indicate that there is treasure under Drummond’s house.

There is also news that the Professor’s associate, criminal, has just been released from prison. Given the short running time of the film, it is evident that Leo Carroll will be the villain. In fact, he murders the professor, taking his documentation, then Drummond finds a coded message which eventually he is able to understand.

There is a dream interlude which reprises scenes from several of the previous Bulldog Drummond films, especially the final confrontation with villain and lion from Bulldog Drummond in Africa.

The rest of the action takes place in the dungeon-like corridors and rooms under the house, the villain taking Phyllis hostage at one stage but her proving to be, as always, a strong participant in the action.

Drummond’s love is so strong that he does not care whether he gets the treasure or not! And, in the next episode, the last of the series, Bulldog Drummond’s Bride, the marriage actually takes place!

James Hogan did the direction as he did with a number of the films – a quite entertaining series from the 30s.

CURTAIN AT EIGHT

US, 1933, 68 minutes, Black-and-white.
C. Aubrey Smith, Dorothy Mc Hale, Paul Cavanagh, Sam Hardy, Marion Shilling, Russell Hopton, Natalie Morehead.
Directed by E.Mason Hopper.

This is a so-so murder mystery from the early 1930s. Very much a be-budget supporting feature. There is a theatre setting – with some scenes from a play. However, the focus is on the actors, a Kaddish actor played by Paul Kavanagh, promising starring role is to aspiring actresses, allegedly separated from his wife who actually act as his secretary. There is a birthday celebration on stage after a performance, lights go out, the actor is killed. There are certainly plenty of suspects.

There is something different in this one sense – that there is a monkey backstage who gets a lot of camera attention, plays with guns, interacts with various of the characters, especially with his hostile and irritable trainer. Did the monkey do it.

There is an aspiring actress, her sister, her father who does not want her to go off with the actor, there is also a jealous actress.

There are two investigators. Sam Hardy overacts as a self-inflated Detective who shifts with each suggestion as to the culprit but is eager to take every credit for himself. C.cavalry Smith, the British veteran for so many years in Hollywood plays the Detective who is far more sympathetic, understanding, works out what happened, even excuses the young actress who kills the actor with “the monkey did it�.

The main curiosity aspect is seeing C. Aubrey Smith in a leading role and, trying to put aside his British accent with some American intonations and using some American slang (which is not quite credible coming from him).

THE OUTER GATE

US, 1937, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
Ralph Morgan, Kay Linekar, Ben Alexander, Edward Acuff, Charles Brockaw.
Directed by Ray Cannon.

The small supporting feature is something of a moral parable treating themes of revenge, forgiveness and atonement. While it has conventional ingredients, the screenplay is very high-minded.

Ralph Morgan, always reliable, portrays an industrialist, sympathetic to a young man in his employee, played by Ben Alexander (not particularly well or sympathetically, rather stolid even in his manner and walk). The industrialist daughter, Kate Lineker, is attracted to the young man.

The surprise complication comes when the young man is accused of embezzlement, the industrialist being a strict letter-of the-law man is personally sympathetic but very much on the side of strict justice. The young man goes to jail.

In jail, he becomes even more embittered against the industrialist, getting support from a sympathetic- mate. Suddenly, after five years of prison, the culprit commit suicide leaving a note.

When the young man is released, he is bent on revenge, so that the industrialist will know exactly how he felt. The industrialist, meanwhile, is truly repentant and wants to do all it can for the young man, as does his daughter. They even invite him to live in their home. He is turned down from jobs, even though he was innocent, but eventually gets a good job in a fancy restaurant, also enabling his self-mate to get the job as well. The soul-mate has something of a change of heart artery meets the daughter.

However, criminals connected with the restaurant get the key to the safe and steal bonds which the industrialist is keeping before banking having persuaded number of friends to invest in a project.

The industrialist goes to court, does not defend himself, is sentenced to jail. The young man has a certain satisfaction and seems impervious to changing his mind, despite a visit from the daughter. It is only when there is a showdown in the restaurant in the cell-mate is shot, that the young man realises that his vengeance will imprison him for the rest of his life.

The character played by Ralph Morgan is exceedingly edifying, giving at moralising tone to the film.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

US, 1991, 95 minutes, Colour.
Bruce Boxleitner, Billy Drago, Tom Bresnahan, Fabiana Udenio, Meg Foster. Robert Forster, Christopher Neame, Mattias Hues, Sharon Case, Robert Do Qui,
Directed by Peter Maris.

This is the kind of action adventure that was very popular in the 1980s and the 1990s, the type of story that could be a vehicle for Jean- Claude van Damme or Stephen cigar. It is the type of straight-to-video or DVD action show.

The title seems to give the story some dignity. And, it is used for a man from Paraguay who has committed a murder and cannot be held in the US for trial. The idea is used at the end so that the hero, after avenging the murder, is able to get out of Paraguay and return home.

Bruce Boxleitner is a Marine, seen initially with his daughter scuba diving, waving her goodbye as she goes with an artist photographer. The artist takes her to an exhibition, seems to be fascinated by some exotic violence, takes her to a remote spot so that he can photograph her for his future work, then becomes violently aggressive, she resisting, he killing her – and then communicating with his minder from Paraguay to rescue him. He has immunity.

The Marine has gone to the police station, tries to pursue the killer even to the airport. He has a previous government liaison, Robert Forster, who warns him not to take matters into his own hand. Useless advice, obviously. He goes to Paraguay, has some connections with someone who has information and weapons – played by Billy Drago in a more sympathetic role than usual, quite often a villain.

So, the action takes place in Paraguay, the Marine with several attempts to confront the killer, meeting the woman who is his mistress, becoming more sympathetic to the marine as she learns the truth. American government officials are also involved.

The killer’s mother, Meg Foster, is a powerful influence with politicians in Paraguay and lives in a wealthy mansion on an island. This then is the setup for the final confrontation, pursuits, changing situations with weapons – and, instead of shooting the killer, the Marine inserts a bomb in his camera which does the job!
One of many, many similar kinds of stories, routine but, this time, with a better cast.

BULLDOG DRUMMOND IN AFRICA

US, 1938, 58 minutes, Black-and-white.
John Howard, Heather Angel, H. B.Warner, J.Carrol Naish, Reginald Denny, E.E.Clive, Anthony Quinn, Michael Brooke, Matthew Boulton, Fortunio Bonanova.
Directed by Louis King.

This is one of the many Bulldog Drummond short films made in the mid-to-late 1930s. It has the usual popular ingredients – especially Hugh Drummond and his fiancee, Phyllis, on the verge of getting married – but, the marriage put off yet again, but Phil is getting in on the action.

It begins amusingly with Drummond and Tenney without their trousers, not able to use the phone, at home so that they won’t go off on a case instead of going to the wedding. LG has the trousers and the wedding ring. With the two at home, they find some tartan cloth’s and are able then to do some Highland dancing with Tenney playing the bagpipes. John Howard fits the Bulldog Drummond role perfectly and E.E.Clive is excellent as ever, the ever-thoughtful butler and valet, getting getting in on the action.

Once again, H.B.Warner, DeMille’s? Jesus in King of Kings, is: Neil Nelson, much more subdued and sympathetic than John Barrymore, overacting in the role. Nielsen is confronted by an arch spy from the past and abducted from his home, taken to Morocco to get information about scientific weapon developments. He is assisted by Anthony Quinn and an early role – as well is a line that is kept at his hacienda in Spanish Morocco.

Phyllis discovers the secret, lets Hugh Drummond know, who let Scotland Yard know, who summons allergy with the trousers, they hurry to the airport but not able to stop the plane. Despite tactics by the Scotland Yard to prevent them leaving, they will fly off, Phyllis as a stowaway.

Meanwhile in Morocco, the British official is deceived and abducted, Drummond and co taken by the police (character actor for junior bond and over) and to be deported (in a plane with explosives set by Anthony Quinn to go off over the ocean). In the meantime, Nielsen is being interrogated by a group of international spies led by the veteran (J.Carol Nash).

Needless to say, Drummond is shrewd and turns the plane back, landing before the explosion. They hurry to the hacienda where the kernel is tied up and threatened by the lion. Needless to say, a shootout, Tenney helping, Phyllis helping, and the villain being mauled to death by the lion.

Quite some excitement in 58 minutes, a good addition to the Bulldog Drummond films, some directed by Louis King as here, others by James Hogan. Reginald Denny’s allergy is much more involved than usual and less of a silly-ass than usual (although Drummond does call in at one stage a blithering idiot).

BEST F(R)IENDS

US, 2018, 99 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Wiseau, Greg Sestero, Kristin Stephenson Pino, Vince Jolivette, Rick Edwards.
Directed by Justin Mc Gregor.

Tommy Wiseau is back! The perhaps-good news is that he is still a terrible actor and that seems to be what his audiences want of him. Given his performance here, it would seem that he thinks he is a very good actor. Otherwise, this film is bad news for most audiences. It is one of those seeing is disbelieving movies!

An initial appropriate piece of advice. This is a film only for those who liked the cult film, with the attribution that it is one of the worst films ever made, The Room. The star and director of that film was Tommy Wiseau who is the star of this one. His co-star, Greg Sestero, who also wrote the book about the making of The Room, is here again.

The film is directed by Justin Mc Gregor who, on the evidence of this film, might be considered a terrible director, but actually might be a very good director following the instructions of Sesterio, who wrote and produced the film, to make it as deadpan and as amateurish in performance, situations, visual style, editing and pace as possible.

Audiences who haven’t seen The Room may well know it from the James Franco film, The Disaster Artist, a film about the making of The Room, with Franco himself as Wiseau and his brother, Dave Franco, as Sestero. Franco won a Golden Globe for Best Actor for this role and was present at the ceremony at table with Wiseau himself.

One of the troubles is that Wiseau is in no way a sympathetic screen presence. His stilted delivery with a touch of accent (allegedly from Poland many decades ago), his awkward stances, and an unpleasant character, are rather alienating – although, this is the point for those who will enjoy this film. And, Greg Sestero has a very limited range as his friend, Jon. Actually, there are a couple of actors in brief supporting roles who do a decent job and show up the stars!

If you heard that the film was about the manager of a morgue who extracts gold teeth from corpses, especially Chinese in Los Angeles whose mouths seem to be filled with gold fillings, then you’d have a fairly accurate explanation of the basis of the story. He befriends, Jon, a homeless man with corny placards begging for money (Sestero himself). They actually have a scheme going whereby a crooked entrepreneur sells the boxes fall of gold teeth to make a fortune.

With a title like Best F(r)iends, we guess (rightly) that there will be a falling out. This is engineered by John’s girlfriend who gives a better performance than the two men.

And then it stops. It is now revealed that this film is Volume 1 and there is a promise/threat that there will be Best F(r)iends Volume 2 – and, taking a leaf out of the Marvel Universe movies, the final credits have extended highlights of a trailer in which Wiseau, with a wig aping Sestero’s hair, has to be seen to be believed. On the other hand, the film does not necessarily have to be seen!

Undoubtedly, this will also be a cult film, a definite curiosity item.

THE SECOND

Australia, 2018, 97 minutes, Colour.
Rachael Blake, Susie Porter, Vince Colosimo, Martin Sacks, Susan Prior, Megan Dale, Bridget Webb, Will Beasley.
Directed Mairi Cameron.

The Second is not necessarily an enticing title for an audience. However, it does have meaning for the plot which concerns an author who was published her first book, an erotic memoir, and is now working on the second, comment being made about the syndrome for the writing of a second novel, and its being so difficult to write in comparison with the first.

But, we are soon alerted that there is more than one element of complexity in this plot. The author is seen being interviewed, stylishly dressed, impeccable manner, agreeable but aloof, the presumption being that this is a television interview. She is being asked about her book, whether it is completely autobiographical, whether it is accurate – and even whether it is true.

The writer (all the characters owner designated by a title rather than a personal name) is played with a mixture of playfulness and disdain by Rachael Blake. She is in the company of the publisher, Vince Colosimo (wearing glasses and quite different from many gangsters he has played on screen and television). They are travelling to and elaborate mansion in the middle of the bush owned by the writer’s father, an author, now dead. (And the film was shot in the west Darling Downs in and around Dalby and other towns.).

The couple are having an affair, he rather laid-back and urging her on because of financial difficulties, she seen at a computer, writing but having blocks. The complication is that her friend from the past, played by Susie Porter, turns up, partly takes over, relies on the past friendship with the writer when they were girls (shown in quite a number of flashbacks which gradually build up the story of the girls at 14, a young boy attracted to them, his death and the consequences). Also in the vicinity is a sullen tractor driver (Martin Sacks), the brother of the dead boy who seems to threaten the publisher.

The audience has to be on the alert, not only for the flashbacks, but, it would seem, after the publication of The Second, a lot of flash forwards. And then the question arises, and the writer vocalises, what is she actually writing while the audience sees particular incidents that she describes. So, what is actually happening in reality and what is dramatisation of the novel that is being written.

In fact, it becomes quite melodramatic, inconsistencies in the characters of the two women, the bewilderment of the publisher, his becoming a target, the ambiguous role of the neighbour…

So, this is an adult drama about relationships, an adult drama about writing and career as well as publishing, and tantalising questions about memoirs, biographies, descriptions of crimes, what is reality and what is invention, the nature of fiction.

1. The title? An enigma, meaning?

2. The Queensland setting, the countryside, the crops and fields, the roads, vehicles, farms? The mansion, interiors and exteriors, the lavish grounds? The musical score?

3. The flashbacks, the two girls as children, their story, the length of the flashbacks increasing, more information? The flash forwards, the interview, television, the Writers manner? The police interview?

4. The introduction, the Writer, the interview, her dress, make up, manner, the questions? The memoir, biographical? The story of the death of the boy? Leading to the flash-forwards?

5. The Writer, her age, relationship with her father, his being an author, building the mansion, his reputation at the University, his death? The return to the house, her success, planning to write her second book, the trip with the publisher, the relationship? The encounter with the man on the vehicle, his reaction, the Publisher’s reaction? The effect?

6. The two settling into the house? The interiors, the father’s daughter locked, his reputation, going to the room, his portrait, his books? The affair between the Writer and the Publisher? The Publisher enjoying himself, lounging at the pool? The Writer, her room, at the computer? The arrival of the Muse, collecting her at the station, the talk between the two women, the flashbacks, the nature of their relationship? The girls at 14, the boy, his story?

7. The News settling in, flirtatious manner, not having a job, the need for money and support? Her room, playing loud music, drinking, the meals, disturbing the Writer? The Publisher suspicious? The two wanting her to leave?

8. The shift in tone, the Writer, wearing the slip, at the computer, in the corridor is, her voice-over, describing the incidents, writing, seeing the incidents in action?

9. The shift themes to truth/fiction? The reenactments of the stories? The involvement of each of the characters?

10. The Writer changing personality, the Muse, her confrontation with the Publisher, her quoting lines of the memoir, as if she had written it? Her being in Berlin? The sexual encounter, the accusations of the salt?

11. The further threats, the Writer and her threats, the gun?

12. The Publisher, jogging, the encounter with the man of the tractor, the visit of the truth? The story of his brother?

13. The story becoming more Gothic, the Publisher and his running away, the pursuit through the fields, the Writer with the gun, the two women, going to the farmer, the confrontation, his killing himself?

14. The flashbacks of the story, the boy and his sexual behaviour, the girls, the assault on the Muse, the Writer killing him? Reporting it to the father, the courts, the evidence, the body in the lake?

15. The final interview, the Writer, her poise, the police, two different stories about the death, confession or not?

16. The final launching of the book, The Second, reality compared with the fiction of the story?

FAHRENHEIT 451

US, 2018, 100 minutes, Colour.
Michael B.Jordan, Michael Shannon, Aaron Davis, Cindy Katz, Katherine Cullen, Keir Dullea, Martin Donovan.
Directed by Ramin Bahrani.

Fahrenheit 451 was a novel with strong impact, written by Ray Bradbury, prolific author of science fiction books and screenplays. It was filmed by François Truffaut with Julie Christie and Oskar Werner in 1966.

This version is directed by Ramin Bahrani, director of small-budget films but working here with quite lavish budget for a television film. The setting is the future, and near future after apocalyptic civil wars and the taking over by an authoritarian and totalitarian government, using its fire brigade with flamethrowers to destroy books rather than to put out fires. There is an authority figure speaking on Big Brother -like television screens.

While the general population is urged on to fanaticism about the burning of books, the brainwashing of children, the rabble rousing of adults, there are rebels, individuals who memorise complete books, a woman going up in flames who had memorised The Grapes of Wrath and a young man who has memorised all the works of Proust.

Michael Shannon brings his customary sinister severity to the role of the police captain. Michael B. Jordan is the central character, Montag, a long-serving fireman but who has memories of his father in books, who is curious about the books even as he fulfils his duties rigorously. He takes a book, starts to read, is in contact with a rebel who leads him out of the city to a refuge of rebels who want free a bird who is instilled with the DNA of knowledge and soon it to Canada where it could change the world.

Montag himself become something of a martyr. It is interesting to see Martin Donovan and, especially, Keir Dullea in cameo roles.

1. Ray Bradbury and science-fiction, science-future? A totalitarian world? The film version of 1966?

2. The future world, a Blade Runner kind of city? The darkness, the lights, the neon, the huge television screens on buildings? The interiors, police officers, classrooms, the headquarters? Homes and the refuges? The world of books? The burning of the books? Escape to the countryside and the contrast with the city? The mansion in the country? A future world?

3. The title, books burning at 451 Fahrenheit, the fireman with their flamethrowers, their jobs and duty?

4. The background of wars, civil wars, authoritarian government? Big Brother television screens and authorities pontificating? The fire chiefs? The ideology? Ruthless behaviour?

5. The status of books, physical books and the touch, the smell, the feel? All the burning of the books, the denunciation of words, ideas, ideas deemed stupid, the need to destroy? The fanatical children, the fanatical crowds and the burning? The contrast with the rebels and then memorising books, the personification of books, the expert with
Proust?

6. The point of the story in the IT age? The Internet, control of television, news? Promotion of propaganda? The banning and ridiculing books? Yet people’s capacity to read?

7. The character of Montag, his role in the police and the squad, interracial officers? His 16 years of work, working with Beatty, his job, supporting the authorities, his ideology, with other offices, the drills, the children? Is loyalty, no personal life?

8. The flashbacks, the memories of his father, the books, the recurring flashbacks?

9. The city, middle America, Ohio? The young woman, giving the information, leading to the house, the woman personifying Grapes of Wrath? Her defiance? The immolation? The effect? On Montag? The using the word Omnis?

10. The old man, the books, his speech, the interrogation, the arrests?

11. Montag, his doubts, taking the book, Dostoievsky, reading it, getting the woman to read it aloud, the effect on him, his report to the woman? The meetings, personal?

12. Beatty, harsh, yet his knowledge, his way with words, quotations, demanding loyalty, mocking books?

13. Montag and his change, professing his loyalty, his being abducted, the group in the country, testing him to kill the officer? His credibility?

14. The explanation of the Omnis, the young man, Chris, his knowledge, the DNA in the bird, its needing to be rescued and transported to Canada?

15. Montag, Beatty challenging him, the arrest, the flamethrower, defiance, burning the associate?

16. Montag returning to the mansion? The flames, the prisoners? Going inside, finding the bird, getting it ready to fly? Confronted by Beatty, Beatty to fire, hesitating, the bird
released? Montag and the fire, a martyr?

17. The bird flying free – and humanity saved?