INCREDIBLES 2

US, 2018, 125 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Craig T.Nelson, Holly Hunter, Sarah Vowell, Huck Milner, Catherine Keener,
Eli Fucile, Bob, Samuel L.Jackson, Sophia Bush, Brad Bird, Isabella Rossellini, Jonathan Banks, Barry Bostwick, John Ratzenburger.
Directed by Brad Bird.

X-Men? (and X-Women) can relax. Apparently, super heroes have been banned for some years but but there are moves to have legislation to make them legal and acceptable again. Something of this helps to explain what is 14 years since the first Incredibles film came out and won an Oscar for Best Animation. It was highly popular and, at last some might say, here is the Incredibles family again.

These days, one has to be careful about inclusive language, not using super heroes to cover men and women, some finding superheroines to exclusive. The solution here is to call all these characters, Supers.

And, not only issues of inclusive language. There are issues of equality, sometimes the male Super standing aside while the female Super goes on mission. That certainly happens here.

At the beginning, the whole family is involved, mother and father, daughter and son. However, now there is a baby – who turns out to have more superpowers than you can shake a stick at! After the initial adventure, excitingly-paced, with help from an uncle and an agent who cannot only debrief memories but eliminate them, especially after the daughter has been recognised by the boy at school that she has a crush on. When they meet again, he has no idea who she is!

There is also a campaign going on, some villains, wearing special goggles which fixates them, are working for the Screen Saver, trying to get audiences back into real life and not dependent on screens. The manager of the television company, Winston, is the enthusiastic promoter of the cause which is to gather authorities from around the world to sign the document legalising Supers. He has a very talented IT and beyond sister,

The mother, known as the Super, Elastogirl, is sent on a mission to save a runaway train – quite an exciting sequence early on in the film. Since she is out on mission, father has to stay at home doing the domestic duties, nodding off as he reads a bedtime story to the baby, discovering all the powers that the baby has, trying to support his moody daughter, teach his son math complexities for his homework, do all the chores. And by the look of him, he doesn’t have time to shave!

With Elastogirl supporting the family, it is only right that the villain should be female and that there should be a lot of confrontation. There is. Also in the act are a whole range of characters who look as if they had graduated from Monster University, all with their special powers – but taken over by the villain, wearing their fixation goggles, combating the Incredibles.

For the final confrontation, the whole family joins in, and baby joins too.

So, something for family audiences, children with powers, parents with powers, lots of action, themes about media and influence, and equal opportunities for mother and father both professionally and domestically. (Who could ask for anything more!)

1. The popularity of the original film? A claim? Super heroes and superheroine’s – Supers? The in Incredible is being introduced before the Marvel Universe?

2. The work of the director, writing, direction, animation? And his work on a Mission Impossible film?

3. The quality of the animation, the delineation of the characters, features, moods? The range of situations? The media? Action sequences? Special effects for the powers? The musical score?

4. The voices, localising the characters? Idiosyncrasies?

5. The original film, the introduction to the family, their powers, going into action, family life, relationships? Heroes? 14 years passing, the new film? Legislation,?

6. The initial action, the whole family involved, their skills and powers? The secrecy? Tony Seeing and her reaction?

7. The new baby, look, the doom-gout touch, the extraordinary powers, activities and house, the development of the powers?

8. Frozone, Lucius Best, functions, friend of the family, the assistance of the friend who had the power to eliminate memories? Eliminating Tony’s memories?

9. Helen as The Leicester girl? Demure appearance, the transformation? A special car of stretching and the range of uses when she went into action? The mission? The train, the helicopters?

10. Television, the campaign, the villain as this Screensaver? The new legislation? Winston, the salesman, always cheery? The contrast with Yvonne, her brains and intelligence, in the background?

11. The initial villains, the glasses, the fixation? The initial defeat, the action?

12. The range of comic Supers, the different types, the touch of the monsters, comic, and names and powers, their being used by the villain, having the glasses, going into combat?

13. Bob, at home, the baby, going to sleep while reading, the chores, his stubble, dealing with violet and her moods, with – and his maths homework, trying to cope, the baby and all its powers? His being tired? The outing to the diner for violet to meet Tony?

14. Bob taking the baby to Edna, the type, her voice, design, invention, enjoying having the baby?

15. Evelyn, the discussions with Helen, the revelation of the truth, her character, her ambitions, thwarting Winston? Her being the Screensaver? Her cause, fanaticism?

16. Lucius Best and his being caught up in the final action? The signing of the document?

17. The television, the interference, the compere and the glasses? The monsters becoming enemies? The confrontation, the whole family involved, Ellen discovering the baby with powers, taking of the blasters of the Supers, everyone on side, Evelyn being defeated?

18. And, underneath all the action, the happy family?

IDEAL HOME

US, 2018, 91 minutes, Colour.
Steve Coogan, Paul Rudd, Jack Gore, Jake Mc Dormand, Alison Pill.
Directed by Andrew Fleming.

The title sounds like a slogan promoting an estate agent. Is there an ideal home? One of the questions that the title and the film imply. And, more importantly, is there an ideal family?

This is a film, touches of comedy, touches of drama, touches of sentiment, which comes in the wake of discussions and legislation about same-sex marriage and issues of same-sex couples adopting children and bringing them up. Those in favour will respond well to the film. For those not in favour, it is an opportunity to look at a story, listen to real characters, rather than reflect on an abstract concept or a moral question.

The setting is Santa Fe. Audiences will enjoy the scenery in the background. In the foreground, at first, is Erasmus, sitting on a horse, talking to camera – and, eventually we realise that he is being filmed and is advertising. In fact, he is something of a chef, something of a promoter of high life. He is British, did a chef’s course in Oxford, was rather wild in the 1980s, drugs and sexual experimentation. His played by Steve Coogan.

Then we meet his producer, Paul, a bearded Paul Rudd, making him somewhat unrecognisable. He squabbles with Erasmus onset and somebody asks whether they are like that at home. Only worse! The two have been a couple for ten years, depending on each other, arguing with each other.

In the meantime, we have been introduced to a young boy, Angel (later he wants to be called Bill), his father being disturbed by the police in their apartment, getting his son out the window and sending him to Santa Fe to Erasmus. The father goes to jail. We discover Erasmus is his grandfather.

And this is where the ideal home and the not so ideal family come in to play. How do the two men cope with this boy, whose role model has been his criminal father and his addict-mother who fell to her death from a fourth storey window. And what role modelling will Erasmus and Paul offer?

The two men are rather camp in their way and manner. Erasmus could be described as fastidiously, hyper- sensitively self-centred. While Paul is a touch more down-to-earth, he proves himself more capable of being a father than Erasmus does. One of the things about the boy is that he is not one of those cute Americans. He can be very irritating. He also has a passion for Taco Bell – and the film seems at times like and extended commercial for Taco Bell.

Obviously, the two men are going to be challenged in how they relate to the boy and the effect that that has on their own relationship, especially on the cantankerous arguments they have and Paul’s proneness to have panic attacks. And the boy himself is challenged, going to school, eventually making friends. And what about the father? Especially when he is released from jail?

The final credits have a great number of stills of same-sex parents and their adopted children, so Ideal Home is something of a special plea film. When seriously considering same-sex relationships, marriages, same-sex adoption of children, it is important that stances are taken based on experience as well as principles and characters and stories that contribute to the experience.

1. The title? This tradition home, the nuclear family? The different homes in this film, the apartment with the addicted mother and her death? Mansion for the gay men? Becoming the family home with Bill? The final credits and the range of photos of same-sex partners with their adopted children?

2. Audience response, to the gay men, partnership and marriage, adoption? Audience experiences of such situations? Knowing men and women involved in such situations?

3. Santa Fe, the city, the background of the countryside, the mountains? The homes? The ordinary school, hospitals, Taco Bill restaurants? The musical score?

4. The introduction to Erasmus, on the horse, acting, chef, meals? His prissy manner? The introduction to Paul as a producer, the team?

5. Erasmus and his character, his experience in the UK, going to the cooking school in Oxford? The 1980s, drugs, experimentation, sexual encounters, the birth of his son, alienation? His career in the media, celebrity, the fans and their response to him? Celebrity dinners and presiding? Children’s parties?

6. Paul, in himself, in action, the bickering, being with Erasmus for 10 years, his character and manner?

7. The gay men, the camp, the studious, hypersensitive? Gender issues, frankness about sexual behaviour, style? The isolation of the two from the heterosexual community?

8. The boy, his father, the police arriving, let down the window, his father stuck, arrested, his bag, the address? His wandering, arriving, going into the party? His character, not cute? The modelling from his father? Reticence, disliking Angel as a name, choosing Bill? The issue of littering and Paul’s reprimand? His later reprimanding the other boys? His wanting to eat it Taco Bell? His assertiveness and the response of Erasmus and Paul?

9. The opening dinner, going to the room, the men and the decor, sleeping in the car? Going to school, their not knowing his name? The continued visits to Taco Bell – even Erasmus eating there, Paul? The visit to the prison, his father not wanting to see his son?

10. Paul becoming the father figure, practical, taking him to school in picking him up? Erasmus thinking he was the father-figure but his self-centredness?

11. The comedy in the domestic detail, Bill coming to the room? Sexual activity? The meals?

12. The men wanting Bill to make friends, the party, the response of the parents, the cultural style, Indian? Erasmus and his creating other sequences for the television?

13. Bill and his relating to the men, change of heart, school, the church, the Christmas play and his singing and the men’s joyful response?

14. His father out of jail, wanting to take Bill, coming to the house, fleeing during the night?

15. The men, desperate to find Bill?

16. Erasmus and Paul, the domestic situations, the quarrels and bickering, Paul and the offer of a new job, his final exasperation, leaving, the comedy with the car and driving away?

17. Erasmus, his appeal to Paul to come back, their fathering Bill? Going to the court, the custody, the hearing and the decision?

18. And happy family? And the photos of the couples and adoptive children in the final credits?

THE MAN WHO WALKED ALONE

US, 1944, 70 minutes, Black and white.
David O 'Brien, Kate Aldridge, Walter Catlett, Guinn Williams, Isabel Randolph, Smith Ballew, Nancy June Robinson, Ruth Lee.
Directed by Christy Cabanne.

This is a mixture of screwball comedy in the vein of the 1930s along with some war propaganda, released in 1944.

The film offers an opportunity to see David O’ Brien, here billed as David O’ Brien, who worked in the chorus, was a stuntman, appeared in a number of comedies in the 1930s and 40s, became the central character of MGM’s popular supporting feature, Pete Smith Specialties, worked for Red Skelton, and wrote and directed a number of films for television.

He first appears hitching a lift on a country road being advised by an old-timer sitting on the fence. While trying to hail down a car, he causes it to veer off the road. It is being driven by a mysterious woman, played by Kate Aldridge. She is called Will while he is called Marion.

The film shows their continual sparring leading, very obviously, to their falling in love. They are held up by the police, spend some time in jail, meet some hard cases in jail, the police being suspicious.

It turns out, of course, that she is an heiress about to marry a rich politician. And she also has a very, very fussy mother who is prone to have fainting spells as long as somebody is there to catch her. There is also a maiden aunt and precocious younger sister. Will arranges that Marion, who is interpreted as a deserter from the Army because of his military uniform in his case, be the family chauffeur.

When it is clear that Will is in love with Marion, her fiance and her mother go to all kinds of links to prevent the romance and insist on the proposed wedding. The assistant in the house, Wiggins, played in double-take fashion by Walter Catlett, gets involved in comedy routines.

Unbeknownst to mother and fiance, as the wedding ceremony is about to begin, the house is filled with people including the Governor and the mayor. It turns out that Marion is a war hero but had been trying to come quietly into the town. However, he is feted, a parade – and happy ending to the romance.

The film was written and directed by Christy Cabanne who had begun making films in 1916 and was to continue to 1950, making 166 supporting features.

JURASSIC WORLD: THE FINAL KINGDOM

US, 2018, 128 minutes, Colour.
Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Rafe Spall, Justice Smith, Daniela Pineda, James Cromwell, Toby Jones, Ted Levine, Jeff Goldblum, BD Wong, Geraldine Chaplin, Isabella Sermon, Robert M's.
Directed by J.A.Bayona.

This Jurassic film, the fifth in the series, was released at the time of the 25th anniversary of the original film, Stephen Spielberg’s exciting version of Michael Crichton’s story, Jurassic Park. The next two sequels continued the adventures but were not quite as astonishing as the original.

This new series of Jurassic films uses the word ‘World’ instead of ‘Park’. Audiences who saw the 2016 reintroduction of the Jurassic World, will remember that the title is rather literal, that a theme Park had been set up on an island, that the restored dinosaurs had a home where they could roam freely, that visitors could come and share this experience, prehistory in the present. However, human nature being what it is, each of the film has villainous humans who want to exploit the dinosaurs. No empathy, no holds barred. This led to quite some mayhem and destruction at the end of Jurassic World.

What to do with a sequel? The answer is basically, to provide audiences with excitement and with some wondrous special effects to recreate the dinosaurs, their size and menace, the possibility of friendship, the threat, this time, to their very existence.

At one stage, the screenplay has character remarking that the dinosaurs have been with us for over two decades – and, in our imaginations through the films, at times, in our heart of hearts, we probably were under the impression that they actually exist! But, no, they are movie fantasies.

So, with Jurassic World destroyed, where are we to go? There are two ideas behind this scenario. One is that a volcano is erupting on the island with the ruins of Jurassic World. A rescue mission to save as many dinosaurs, as many different species as possible. And, who better to consult than Claire, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Owen, Chris Pratt, from the previous film. And, in their adventures, they are joined by a young girl.

She is the granddaughter of Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), an old collaborator with John Hammond (with a portrait of John Hammond, Richard Attenborough, on the wall for nostalgia’s sake). Lockwood is being advised by Eli (Rafe Spall). But all is not as it seems, there are mercenaries rounding up the dinosaurs to escape the volcano, led by the ambitious and sinister Wheatley (Ted Levine).

The dinosaurs are shipped to Lockwood’s mansion (Claire and Owen and two assistants, one intlelligent, the other nerdish) where there are laboratories, a scientist (BD Wong) experimenting with the species, an entrepreneur (Toby Jones) wanting to sell of the dinosaurs as weapons to international buyers. (As so often, British actors are cast as the villains – but this time there are American characters with American accents!)

The climax is inevitable, Clash of the dinosaurs, goodies helping to save them, baddies coming to disastrous ends (some chomping ends). But, there are always some little dinosaurs at the Lockwood laboratories, possibly eager for a sequel.

1. The popularity of the Jurassic World films? From the 1990s and 25 years on? The appeal of the dinosaurs, the imagination of prehistoric creatures, liking dinosaurs, seeing them as a threat?

2. Back to the 1990s, the novel by Michael Crichton, the work of Stephen Spielberg, opening up the franchise, imagination, special effects? The impact of the sequels? The interest in Pre-history and the present?

3. The new films and the links between the films? 21st-century, dinosaurs, theme parks, the preserving of the diner dinosaurs, the threat to their destruction, their being used and scrupulously, as weapons?

4. The locations, the island, the former Park, the mountains and the Volcano, the to rain, the issue of protecting the dinosaurs and removing them? The Washington hearings? The Volcano and the eruptions? The mansion in Northern California, exteriors and interiors? Museum, basements, laboratories? The musical score?

5. Action sequences and the dinosaurs? The threat to the humans? Transporting the dinosaurs? The computer-generated dinosaurs? The special effects?

6. The cast, reprising their roles? Links with the past, Jeff Goldblum and the testimony and his opinions? The memories of Richard Attenborough and John Hammond and his portrait? His story? Owen and Claire from the previous film?

7. The new plotline, new action? The Volcano threat, saving the dinosaurs, their being exploited, being auctioned as weapons, the experimentation is? Owen and Claire and their care? The involvement of Franklin and, the presence of Maisie?

8. The issue of the eruption, the visuals? The hearings, the government, Jeff Goldblum and his past experience, his opinion of letting the dinosaurs be extinguished again? The government opinions? Claire and her group, watching the television, apprehensions? Audience reaction to the threats to the dinosaurs?

9. The Hammond mansion, Benjamin Lockwood, past Partner with Hammond? The presence of Maisie, his granddaughter? Iris, looking after the household, medication for Lockwood, caring for Maisie? The rooms and the museums in the house? Lockwood, summoning Claire, the mission to save the dinosaurs?

10. , His presence in the house, working with Lockwood? The list of 11 dinosaurs to be saved?

11. Clare, going to see Owen, the memories of the past, attraction, difficulties? Her urging him to come? Franklin and see, Zero being matter-of-fact, Franklin being continually apprehensive? The plane ride? Owen already there?

12. The island, the Volcano, the rampaging dinosaurs? Weekly, the military presence, the opening with the submarine, the remains of the dinosaurs on the seabed, getting the tooth? The threat of the monster underwater, enveloping the submarine, the technician and wanting to shut the gates, the dinosaur pursuit, the helicopter, his climb, death?

13. The collective the dinosaurs, the darts, been used on Owen? C and her having to help, the transfusions? The threats to Claire and Owen, with Franklin? In the glass wall, going into the water, the rescue? Driving, getting onto the ship?

14. The sedation of the dinosaurs on the other creatures? Their going to the Lockwood mansion? Eli and his betrayal, the deal with Ever sold, the scientist and his experiments, the preparation for the option, the dinosaurs as weapons? The auction, the bidding? The dinosaur loose, causing mayhem? Eversole and his being destroyed after escaping in the elevator? Eli and his final attempt to escape, under the car, the dinosaurs fighting over him?

15. Maisie, knowing the truth? The revelation about her being a clone of her mother? Her love for the dinosaurs? Meeting Owen and Claire, her fears, joining with them?

16. The dinosaurs, Blue in the past friendship? The need for the blood transfusion and Claire succeeding? The sea and Franklin in the laboratories?

17. The action of the rampages? The core group getting together, escapes, on the glass roof of the building? Dangers, cliffhangers? The ultimate threats, the dinosaur falling
through the glass and being impaled?

18. Baby dinosaurs remaining, the group saved? And a sequel?

SICARIO, DAY OF THE SOLDADO

US, 2018, 122 minutes, Colour.
Benicio Del Toro, Josh Brolin, Isabella Moner, Jeffrey Donovan, Catherine Keener, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo?, Matthew Modine, Shea Whigham, Elijah Rodriguez.
Directed by Stephen Sollima.

The original film, Sicario, made quite an impact on both critics and audiences. Inevitable, perhaps, that there would be a sequel. And, since the action took place in Mexico, in the world of the violence of that country and the cartels, American interventions, and there has been very little letup in the cartel violence and so, a sequel, the title emphasis on the warriors and the soldiers in these conflicts.

The first filming was released before the election of Donald Trump as was president. This sequel was released in the middle of his second year of presidency. Because he has targeted Mexico, Mexicans coming illegally across the border, at one stage separating parents from children and then going back on this policy, the film, with its visuals of the wall, the people-smugglers and their vehicles through the desert, is more than topical.

In fact, from the very beginning, even more contemporary themes are introduced. We see the American helicopters scouring the border area with their searchlights, the refugees fleeing, one of them going aside, putting out his prayer mat and his suiciding with an explosive. Immediately, we are taken to Kansas City, to a suburban supermarket, everything familiarly ordinary with three terrorists arriving and exploding bombs. And then, suddenly, we are with American secret forces in Somalia, abducting a terrorist, destroying his home and family, trying to get information about terrorists in the Middle East getting boats to Mexico to infiltrate the US. The interrogation sequence takes place in Djibouti.

And this is all within the first 10 to 15 minutes. We know that this is going to be an intense film, but violent film, a challenge to prevailing world attitudes towards migration, towards terrorists, towards secret agencies working outside the letter of the law.

Matthew Modine appears as Secretary of State with Catherine Keener as a rather ruthless advisor. The plan is to foment war against the cartel leaders, especially by the abduction of the daughter of one of them. Josh Brolin takes up his previous role as the head of these official/unofficial mercenaries and he brings back Benicio del Toro from the previous film, still full of anger and revenge for the death of his family.

With this all set out in the film, it is over to the audience to sit, sometimes in amazement, sometimes in horror, sometimes emotionally stirred, sometimes disgusted. But, whether an audience likes this film or not, given the headlines and the stories out of Mexico, given the revelations about past CIA interrogations and torture, this sequel is certainly topical. And, the final sequence means that there is going to be another Sicario film.

I ACCUSE MY PARENTS

US, 1944, 68 minutes, Black-and-white.
Robert Lowell, Mary Beth Hughes, John Miljan, Vivienne Osborne, George Meeker.
Directed by Sam Newfield.

This is an extremely earnest film of 1944, even the judge in the court at the end looking straight into camera to warn parents to care for their children. A screen note also says that the film was to be released for the armed forces overseas.

The film opens with a court case and the accused accusing his parents, present in the court, of neglecting and ignoring him when a boy. The film then goes into flashback, with Robert Lowell as Jim Wilson looking too old for his teenage role.

He is a star student at school, winning an essay competition, the teachers urging him to bring his mother to a meeting and she turns up drunk. He continually makes excuses for his parents, the father going off on staying away allegedly on business, the mother drinking and taunting her husband. They are often busy socialising but he continues to develop good explanations for the behaviour.

After school, he goes to work in a shoe shop and encounters a young singer in a club, Mary Beth Hughes, and is attracted to her. She, however, is the girlfriend of an ambitious gangster, jealous of her. His ploy is to employ the young man secretly on pick up jobs. Jim Wilson is eager to do this and begins to build up his money, taking his girlfriend out.

Needless to say, he is put in a compromising position, even being used as a getaway driver for thugs who just committed murder. His girlfriend is persuaded by the gangster to alienate him and put him off.

Ultimately, he decides to go to the police, is involved in a struggle with the gangster in his office, a fight with the gun, and the gangster being killed.

He is ultimately exonerated by the judge then returns to give his warning to the audience. It would be interesting to know how persuasive this film was when it was first released.

Mary Beth Hughes is not the greatest singer but she is enthusiastic. And the songs, very early in their ultimately successful career were by Jay Livingstone and Ray Evans (later Buttons and Bows, Mona Lisa, Que Que Sera).

BELLE AND SEBASTIEN 3, LE DERNIERE CHAPITRE/ BELLE AND SEBASTIEN, FRIENDS FOR LIFE

France, 2017, 97 minutes, Colour.
Felix Bossuet, Tcheky Karyo, Clovis Cornillac, Thierry Neuvic, Margo Chatelier, Andre Penvern, Anne Benoit.
Directed by Clovis Cornillac.

The Belle and Sebastien books have been very popular in France for many decades, an earlier film version made in 1981. They are based on a series by French actress, Cecile Aubry. She also wrote the lyrics for the songs throughout the film.

Followers of French films will have seen the first two films in this trilogy. In 2013, the first was released, focusing on the experience of the young boy, Sebastien, at the age of six, living in the snowclad Alps, experience in World War II and German occupation and the rescue of French flyers. The role of Sebastian was played by a very young Felix Bossuet who continued in the role in the two subsequent films. His quite an engaging screen presence. Actually, so is Belle, the beautiful, white powerful dog that he befriends.

The second film, Belle and Sebastien, The Adventure Continues was released in 2015. The action moves forward to the end of World War II and Sebastien, again with Belle, anticipating the return of his friend, Angelina, from her flying action during the war.

While this third film does open with Sebastien’s birth, difficult situation in the stormy mountains, his mother dying, the wayfaring shepherd, Cesar (Tcheky Karyo in all three films) rescues the boy and brings him up, a grandfather-figure.

There is some deadpan comedy from Andre Penvern as the Mayor.

This time, Sebastien is 12. Belle has had a litter of pups. Sebastian goes to school but would prefer to be out in the mountains and his ambition is to become a shepherd like his grandfather. However, Angelina is about to marry Sebastien’s father and the boy overhears their plans that they will move to Canada, taking the boy with him. He decides to run away – especially since a very sinister figure arrives, claiming that Belle is his dog and that he will take her and the pups.

The director of the film, actor Clovis Cornillac, portrays this sinister figure, black coat, black shirt, black trousers, black beard, black hat and hair, glowering eyes, towering presence, a frightening figure for children. (It is obvious that the Cornillac is enjoying his role as actor.).

This means that there is quite some tension at the end, the dangers of the confrontation, the risks in testing the villain.

While the film can stand on its own, sufficient explanation is given in the screenplay, it will be more pleasing for those audiences who have seen the previous two films.

1. The popularity of the books? Film versions? This series? For a French audience? International?

2. The Alpine scenery, the mountains, the snow, good weather, the storms, the sheep and the dogs? The home, school, the village? The buildup to the confrontation with the villain? Sebastien and his hiding in the hut on the mountains, his being caught and pursued? The musical score and songs?

3. The prologue, the mother in the snow, the hut, giving birth, Cesar helping her, her death, Cesar taking the boy?

4. Years later, Sebastien growing up with Cesar, his aunt, his father, the household, going to school, his friends, wanting to be a shepherd?

5. Belle, the pups, Sebastien and his bond with Belle? The fate of the pups?

6. His aunt, love and care for Sebastien, her getting married, the wedding ceremony? Sebastien under the table, hearing about the plans for Canada? Cesar agreeing? Sebastien being upset, confronting Cesar, saying that he wanted to be a shepherd like him, not wanting to go to Canada? His decision to run away, with Belle? In the hut?

7. Cesar, a simple man, care for Sebastien, wanting him to have opportunities for travel and education?

8. The villain, Joseph, literally all in black? His vehicle? Claiming the dogs were his? His menacing Sebastien in the hut? His pursuit? His reputation during the war, on the side of the Germans, his being disliked by people in the village?

9. The encounter with Madeleine, her telling the story, her owning Belle’s mother, the reunion between the mother and Belle? The role of the pups?

10. The mayor and comedy, driving slowly, playing the delaying card game?

11. The tactics to deceive Joseph, his violent response, the fight with Sebastien and pursuing him? The role of Cesar and Madeleine?

12. The solution, Joseph going out on the snow in pursuit of Belle, the breaking of the ice, Joseph and his death? Belle going into the water, Sebastien’s grief, her emerging?

13. Sebastien being persuaded that it was best to go to Canada, going to the airport, the farewell?

14. The end of the trilogy about Sebastien and Belle in the mountains?

21 YEARS: RICHARD LINKLATER

US, 2014, 78 minutes, Colour.
Interviews with: alphabetical order, Joey Lauren Adams, Jack Black, Louis Black, Julie Delpy, Jay Duplass, Mark Duplass, Zac Efron, Ethan Hawke, Nikki Katt, Greg Kinnear, Matthew Mc Connaughey, Michael Mc Kean, Parker Posey, Steven Chester Prince, Anthony Rapp, Keanu Reeves, Jason Reitman, Marissa Ribisi, Kevin Smith, Billy Bob Thornton.
Directed by Michael Dunaway, Tara Wood.

This is an especially interesting documentary, focusing on writer-director, Richard Linklater.

The film fills in his background, coming from Texas, a loyal citizen from Austin, especially in his subsequent history of developing the Austin Film Club and its wide consequences. It shows aspects of his family, his education, his early work, his moving into films without doing film school training.

The selection of talking heads is particularly helpful. And many of them are given extended time to talk about their admiration for Richard Linklater but also for the qualities of his filmmaking, his rapport with his actors, and their comments on working with him in their performances. Matthew Mc Connaughey serves as a kind of anchor for the range of interviewees, good-naturedly talking about his performances – and his surprise at not being cast as Bernie. The star of Bernie, Jack Black, also has a lot of opportunity for comment, especially for his role in School of Rock.

The film goes back to Slackers, 1992, making a very good case for its creativity, its way of storytelling, introducing a variety of characters, looking at their stories and then moving on to further stories. The film then moves on to Dazed and Confused and its young cast and its representing the atmosphere of the early 1990s in Texas.

While these films get a good deal of attention, there is also a focus on the casting of the making of Bernie, and Keanu Reeves talking about the animation in A Scanner Darkly.

Ethan Hawke is also one of the major contributors, having worked with Richard Linklater in quite a number of films, especially the Before… trilogy. Julie Delpy also contributes her opinions on these films.

There are a lot of clips from the film’s under discussion and, surprisingly, Linklater’s venture into commercial filmmaking, The Bad News Bears, especially with interventions by Billy Bob Thornton.

This film was completed just as the 12 year project, Boyhood, was in its final stages of production. Linklater won many awards for boyhood and has continued his successful career.

BORDER POLITICS

Australia, 2018, 94 minutes, Colour.
Julian Burnside.
Directed by Judy Rymer.

With the worldwide movements of peoples travelling the world, migrants, refugees, those fleeing from persecution, there has been both a greater consciousness about the plight of those searching for another home as well as a hardening of consciousness against these migrants and refugees, a self-protective attitude and politics from countries in Europe, the United States, and, though with far fewer numbers, Australia.

Prominent Australian lawyer, Julian Burnside, worked in commercial law until he was asked around the year 2000 to become involved in social justice cases. The experience of politicians claiming that migrants were throwing babies overboard from the ship Tampa, and this later proven to be false, led him to a new career in legal cases about border protection and border policies. In this documentary, he is at the centre, speaking to camera, his observations and challenges, visiting several countries around the world to examine their attitudes towards migrants and refugees, sympathetic welcome as well as harsh closing of borders, the construction of fences and walls.

In many ways, this film is preaching to the converted. It will reinforce the views and feelings of those who believe in advocacy for people in need, for empathy and compassion for those who suffer. Many will not find anything new in what Burnside is offering but rather an expansion of consciousness, widening of horizons, literally in his visits to other countries. Those who are not converted will probably have their stances reinforced, more sympathetic to those countries who put up the barriers, the president of Hungary, demonstrations in Poland, and the internment of refugees on Nauru and Manus Island.

Many audiences will be familiar with some of the countries and their reactions – although, it is very sobering to look at the extensive wall cutting off Mexico from the United States and some draconian legislation which separates parents who lived for a long time in the US and their deportation to Mexico, having minimal contact with their children, for short times with only the possibility of finger touching through the barriers. This certainly extends the consciousness about human hardheartedness.

By comparison, Burnside visits the Greek island of Levros, just across from Turkey, receiving thousands of Syrian refugees, and, on the whole, welcoming them, the contrast between three camps on the island, two in the midst of the people who go out of their way for the newcomers and one a wired compound, established by the Greek government, which confines the refugees.

Perhaps most challenging is Burnside’s visit to Jordan, the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have come across from Syria, the reaction of the King, the population, enabling the refugees to find homes, however temporary, amongst the Jordanian people, the possibility of work, of earning one’s keep, of some temporary peace before returning, it is hoped, to homes and properties in Syria.

What most of the attention is on the present, one of the features of the film is to highlight the millions of children around the world who are not getting the education that they need and deserve – and pondering what are the consequences for the coming years for them as adults without this basic education and how they will cope.

At the beginning of the film Burnside highlights the Golden Rule, asking people to think of how they would wish to be treated in the same situations as the refugees. And one of the words that recurs throughout the film is ‘decency’, the kind of human decency that should be exercised to people in need.

This kind of documentary is always sobering. It is an opportunity to reinforce more compassionate attitudes towards those in need and, even if it is unlikely, to challenge those who think they must take hard and harsh stances.

UPGRADE

Australia, 2018, 100 minutes, Colour.
Logan Marshall- Green, Melanie Velejo, Harrison Gilbertson, Benedict Hardie, Linda Cropper, Clayton Jacobson, Simon Maiden, Betty Gabriel.
Directed by Leigh Whannell.

There are so many horror films about these days, some classy like A Quiet Place, many of them routine gore stories, some of them B-grade (or Z-grade). A number of successful films in recent years, like Get Out, like have been produced by Jason Blum, sometimes including Blumhouse in the titles.

Upgrade is actually a Blumhouse filmed in Melbourne standing in for the US. The director is Leigh Whannell, writer and actor, who moves into directing with Upgrade, which he also wrote. Whannell has appeared in a number of films including The Conjuring series. But, at the beginning of his career, with his friend from Melbourne University, James Wan, he invented the Saw franchise. In real life, listening to him in interviews, he seems like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. But, he knows the ins and outs of horror conventions.

This is quite an above average a story. It is futuristic. It is science-fiction. And, it seems to be a variation on the Frankenstein monster theme. It is also a revenge action story.

Logan Marshall- Green plays Grey who likes tinkering with and repairing cars. He is married to Asher, who works in a highly professional firm. The two go together to deliver a repaired car to a whiz kid, Warren (Harrison Gilbertson) who explains that he has a technological device that can be inserted into a human to improve skills.

Very quickly, there is a disaster, with thugs crashing into Grey and Asher, killing Asher, Grey becoming quadriplegic. Obviously, he is a candidate for the device and it is inserted.

At first, this enables Grey to move, to stand, to fight. And, there is a voice inside him, named Stem, who dialogues with him as well is enabling him to move, but soon becomes in, anticipating situations controlling situations. Grey tracks down the thugs and confronts them.

But, obviously there has to be more than just the revenge theme. The complexities star with Stem taking over Grey, the young scientist becoming involved as well is the chief thug who is himself mechanised as well. It is all something of a conspiracy theory – but, the mystery for most of the time is, who is the main controller?

The film is well paced, often exciting, often mysterious, with touches of gory deaths as expected, and an explanation which goes beyond initial expectations – but which also could lead to a sequel.

1. The blend of science fiction and horror conventions? Critical approval?

2. The director, his ideas, his work as a director, writer, making the film in Melbourne – with an American setting?

3. The title, science-fiction and improved technology? The experiments – and the variation on the Frankenstein monster theme?

4. The city, the garage, vehicles? Homes? Laboratories? Underground? The cars, driverless cars, the car chase, the crash? The musical score?

5. Asha, her job, the company, coming home? Grey? The relationship? The delivery of the car, Enron and the car, the delivery and the crash?

6. The thugs, Fisk, the attack, the shooting of Asha, wounding Grey, taking him?

7. Eron, his explanation of his experiments, the technological piece and its possibilities?

8. Grey, in the ward, the insertion of the technology and its effect? Taking control, enabling him to stand and move? The voice, Stem, activated – and controlling Grey’s body?
Threatening his mind?

9. The revenge plot, the search for the thugs? Cortes and the police, the interrogations, the suspicions?

10. Grey’s mother, Pamela, her presence, love for her son, bringing a humane element into the story? Grey, his dreams, sensing Asha’s presence?

11. His quest, finding the thugs, Stem giving all the information, the confrontations, the action sequences, the deaths? The police and their suspicions, his wheelchair being
found? The explanations and the plausibility?

12. Fisk, the confrontation, Fisk and his intelligence? Stem and trying to outwit Fisk? Fisk and his motivations, working for Room?

13. Fisk being used, Grey being used, the human to embody the implant? The confrontation of Eron, and being used?

14. The explanation, Stem, wanting absolute control, controlling eron and Fisk?

15. Grey, the future, Stem and Grey being robotic? Machines controlling humans? The future?