LAST DANCE

Australia, 2012,
Julia Blake, Firas Dirani, Alan Hopgood.
Directed by David Pullbrook.

This is a Melbourne story about terrorism. There is murder in a mall. One of the terrorists escapes and finds himself in a suburban street. He goes into the house which is owned by a Jewish widow whom we have seen in a baker’s shop, doing her ordinary shopping, chatting to her neighbours, phoning her niece.

However, the film becomes a two-hander, the widow and the terrorist. While he threatens her, he is wounded. She takes care of him. He becomes less suspicious of her, he is less cold-blooded than she originally thought. He allows himself to become dependent on her.

The film serves as a contemporary urban fable for dialogue between Jews and Arabs. He is less threatening. She is more sympathetic and understanding. She covers up from police and neighbours that he has been in the house. She arranges a ticket so that he can leave Melbourne.

However, the ending his melodramatic, the action of the police, the action of the neighbour, and the audience left with mixed feelings about what they have seen and how they ought to think about terrorism and the action of the widow. New paragraph

The strength of the film is in the performances, Julia Blake, always reliable and dignified, as the window, acts as the terrorist, with Alan Hopgood period as the neighbour.

1. The title? The end and the dance between Ulla and Ari? The value of the symbol?

2. An Australian story, world terrorism by 2012? Extending to Melbourne and Australia?

3. The suburb of Balaclava, Jewish suburb, the meat shop, the cake shop, the streets? Terror in the synagogue?

4. Ulla’s apartment block, the exteriors, the interior of her house? The musical score?

5. The introduction to Ulla, Julia Blake, her age, Jewish, shopping, the meat, the cake? The trouble in the streets, people vanishing, her leaving the money on the counter? Going home, Ari accosting her? Her reaction, going into the house, the cord from the blind and curtain, the rug, her being gagged? Her animosity, expressing the animosity? Her comments on Palestinians and their behaviour? The history of Israel? The phone ringing, the contact for Ari? The phone call from her daughter? The neighbour seeing the cake at the door, his coming in, the reassuring him? Time passing, the news on television, the helicopters overhead?

6. Ulla and her life, the story of her husband, meeting him, 1939, the concentration camps, separation, survival? Coming to Australia, settling in Melbourne, the son, his photographs, in the Israeli army, the news of his death?

7. Ari and his background, Palestinian, the family, the attack and his family killed, his little sister? Decades of hate? Contempt, pushing over the candelabra? Stating that he was a soldier, his justification?

8. The background of the Jews, the state of Israel, Palestinians of the land, issues of justice, occupation and consequences?

9. Ari wounded, his fainting? Ali, the temptation to phone, her being a nurse, the medication, tending Ari’s wound? Letting him sleep?

10. Ari not a killer, unable to kill the children, saying he was a coward, leaving the synagogue? Waiting for the call from the head of the cell?

11. The neighbour, Ulah’s daughter and her concern, his coming to the house, searching?

12. The arrival of the police, the interrogation, the search, Ulla shielding Ari?

13. The talk, the sharing of their stories, the meeting of hearts? Ulla’s decision to buy him the tickets go to Sydney?

14. The haircut, his shaving, her son’s clothes, his playing the music, the last dance? The tax arriving?

15. The taxi, the driver, the gun, the snipers, shooting Ari in the street? Ulah's grief?

16. The effect of watching this story, backgrounds of war, injustice, hatred, the possibilities of reconciliation and peace?

BREATHE IN

US, 2013, 98 minutes, Colour.
Guy Pearce, Felicity Jones, Amy Ryan, Mackenzie Davis, Matthew Daddario.
Directed by Drake Doremus.

Breathe in was directed by Drake Doremus who made Like Crazy, which also starred Felicity Jones. He later made Equal is with guy Pearce.

The story is familiar. A married couple, for 17 years and with the daughter, experienced tension in the marriage. Keith, guy Pearce, is a prostrate teacher who wants to perform in concerts and is seen playing, rehearsing, auditioning. He wants to give up teaching, sell the family house and move to the city. In contrast, his wife, Megan, Amy Ryan, is satisfied with that life and loves the house being in the countryside with its water views. Lauren, Mackenzie Davis, is a champion swimmer, is turning 18, gives up her room for the visiting English student, Sophie, played by Felicity Jones.

Keith is attracted to Sophie, she to him. This is a slow burning relationship, brought to a head by her skill in playing the piano and Keith’s amazement, their being together swimming event and caught in the downpour and returning home together. There is a tender scene by reservoir – witnessed by Lauren. This leads to a crisis, Keith performing on a concert, planning to leave with Sophie. However, Lauren confronts Sophie and, frantic, drives her car recklessly and is involved in an accident.

The key moment is Megan texting Keith about Lauren being in hospital – and Keith makes the decision for his family. The opening sequence in the final sequence consist of family photos.

1. The title? Romance? Age difference? Sophie and her explanation to Keith about how to be calm and breathe in?

2. An American story, universal? Winchester, New York State? Home, school, music room, swimming events, orchestra and concerts? The woods and address of war? The musical score? Classics and background?

3. The American family, 17 years married, love, tensions, the daughter? Lauren and her swimming? The invitation for Sophie, to stay with the family, coming from the UK? The background of teaching, music, performance, regrets? Megan and her loving the house, not wanting to move?

4. Keith, his age, restless, his ambitions, past photos and memories, relationship with Meagan, with a Lauren? The house, his wanting to leave teaching, to sell the house? Performance, rehearsals? Teaching, not wanting to teach, the students in class, encouraging them Western Mark Sophie’s arrival, his attraction to her, her playing the piano in class? The outing, the swimming, touching? The rain, returning home, at the piano, disturbed? Her coming to the class, at the reservoir, the tenderness between the two? At home, the performance, seeing Lauren at school, the performance and planning to leave? The phone, the news about Lauren, the hospital? His return?

5. Sophie, from the UK, student, her age, background, family? Lauren giving up her room? Welcomed into the family, not wanting to go to the music class, Keith inviting her to play Chopin, the applause? Her attraction towards Keith? Friendship with Lauren? The outing, with Aaron, his coming onto her, her resistance? Lauren is wrong interpretation? At the swimming, getting wet, at the piano with Keith? Her conceiving the attraction? Explaining breathing into him? The reservoir, tender, touch, kiss? The effect on her? Lauren seeing her? Attacked by Lauren, saying she was going camping, preparing to leave, waiting for Keith, the phone call?

6. Meagan, the years of marriage, practical woman, loving the house? Her wanting to stay? The discussion about selling the house, no discussion? The buildup to the clash? The truth, her smashing the objects? At the hospital? The final photo of the family?

7. Lauren, pleasant, giving up her room, swimming, with Sophie, the bond with her parents, her relationship with Aaron, the sexual relationship? The party for turning 18, drinking, jealous? Her scratching Aaron’s car? In the woods, seeing her father and Sophie? The bedroom confrontation, slapping Sophie? At school, reassuring her father, her frantic driving, the hospital?

8. The background of the school, the students, Keith and his music friends?

9. The crisis? Commonplace – yet insight? And the final photo of the family?

LOVELESS/ NELYUBOV

Russia, 2017, 127 minutes, Colour.
Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, Marina Vasili.
Directed by Andrey Zyagintsev.

With a title like “Loveless�, audiences would not necessarily be expecting a cheerful entertainment. And, since the film comes from Russia, that might be another indication for very serious themes and treatment. And for those who know the films of the director, Andrey Zyagintsev (The Return, Banishment, Elena, Leviathan), they would appreciate that for 15 years he has been looking very seriously at a Russian society, the post-Soviet era and the transition from totalitarian socialism to the impact of capitalism and individualism in society and, especially in this case, in the family.

The film opens and closes with beautifully bleak fixed camera gazing at forests, lakes, snow – and then the glimpsing of high-rise buildings in the background. We are in a Russian provincial city, the usual location for Zyagintsev’s films. After this invitation to contemplation and reflection, the camera gazes at a building – then doors suddenly burst open, children running out from school, and a focus on one young 12-year-old, walking solitary, finding a long piece of material and tossing it up into a tree branch. This is Aleksey who is then seen at home, doing his homework, finding prospective buyers of the family apartment inspecting. His parents are divorcing. We can see that he is angry, even resentful.

This is compounded when we see his mother and father and the audience is made observers, unwilling participants, in their constant and loud, bitter bickering – with a boy outside the door, weeping.

The film then spends quite an amount of time building up the characters of the mother and father, and the terrible flaws in those characters. There seems to be nothing redemptive about the mother, resenting her marriage, her unexpected pregnancy, her wanting to have an abortion, especially with her harsh mother’s advice, her husband persuading her against it, her feeling her life has been ruined, that she deserves some happiness and comfort – and is willing for her husband to take custody of the son whom she resents. The father, on the other hand, seems a milder character, says that he wants his son to stay with his mother because she is the better nurturing parent for him at that age. She disagrees, saying a father is better for the son.

The next step is to find that each of them is in a new relationship. This is a threat to the father because his company, with leaders who take more fundamentalist Christian approach to morals, does not tolerate divorce. He has also taken up with a young woman, a rather clingy woman who is long-term pregnant. On the other hand, the mother is in a relationship with an older man, wealthy, divorced, with adult children.

While the parents might have forgotten their son, the audience has not. Then the news comes that he has disappeared.

The bulk of the rest of the film is concerned with the details of the search for the boy – rather intense, perhaps a bit long for many audiences who might find this section somewhat drawn out. There are volunteers for the search, groups combing through the woods, calling out the boy’s name, searching a warehouse and basement, printing posters to be put around the city…

There is some suspense, of course, as to whether the boy will be found. And we are made privy to the reactions of mother and father, still some bickering between them, going to the boy’s grandmother who is a severe and condemnatory woman.

In fact, with the atmosphere of the film, it is a microcosm of Russian society, and, of course, a microcosm of world society showing its self-centredness. A pervading atmosphere of lovelessness.

Oscar nominee for 2017, a powerful portrait, depressing and challenging.

1. The title, the tone, meaning?

2. The Russian city, the seasons? The opening winter shots, the trees, the water, the snow? The high-rise buildings in the background? The focus on the school, apartments, searching the city for the lost boy, the woods? The warehouse? The musical score and its tone?

3. This story as a microcosm of Russian society? 21st-century? Dysfunctional families and the effect on children? Selfish parents, angry parents, self-satisfaction?

4. Nature and the opening, and the end? The mood and the insistent music?

5. School coming out, the focus on Aleksey, wandering by himself, the ribbon and tossing it onto the tree? Alone, in his room, thinking, his homework?

6. The visitors to the apartment, examining it, the square metres? The boy shutting the door? The mother explaining the divorce? His father coming home, the fight and the bitterness, the shouting, the discussion about telling their son about the divorce? His standing outside the door? Weeping?

7. The boy at breakfast, his mother and her insistence, asking for thanks? His disappearance? The extent of the search throughout the film? The effect on his parents? His never being found? The lost boy?

8. The mother, with her son, wanting thanks, bitter, the shouting with her husband, the divorce, selling the apartment? The venom in her remarks? Her reflection on her pregnancy, not wanting to be pregnant, her mother urging her to have an abortion, her husband not wanting the abortion? The attitude towards her mother? On the train, going to the beauty parlour, the conversations about her private life, the haircut and styling and her gossip about herself?

9. The father, softer in his personality, the bitter argument with his wife, the issues of custody, and not wanting the boy, his not wanting the boy and thinking it was better with his mother? The car, going to work, the subtext about the coming apocalypse and the date, fundamentalist Christianity and its effect on Russians, even to strict moral guidelines for employees and the company? At work, at lunch, with his friend, asking about concealing divorce, and telling the story of the man hiring a wife and two children for social? The father, the threat of his job loss?

10. Mother and father and their new partners? The father, Masha and her pregnancy, her clingy personality, going home, sex, food and cooking? The contrast with the mother and her new boyfriend, his age, wealth, his daughter working in Portugal and the Skype contact with her, issues of love?

11. The father at work, the phone call, the news about his son’s disappearance, blaming his wife? The initial sense of denial? Hesitation? The mother going to visit her mother – and her abusive attack on her, blaming her for all that had happened?

12. The search leader, the speeches, the participants, their methods, the area covered, walking through the woods, calling out the boy’s name, in the streets, the posters, the large building and the search, the visit to the mortuary and the mother’s breakdown?

13. The effect on parents, their sleeping with their partners? Masha and her clingy phone call from the supermarket? The mother, asleep, the phone call, willing to help and search, visiting the hospitals?

14. The visit to the morgue, the mutilated body, the effect on each parent, the screams of the mother, the weeping of the Father?

15. The parents giving up, surrendered Fate?

16. Years later, the father and Masha, living with her mother, her mother suggesting they were too crowded, moving out? The father putting his young child brutally in the
playpen, the child weeping, calling for its mother?

17. The mother, her new husband, affluence, on the exercise bike – and the question of whether she was fulfilled on not?

18. Experiences of love – and more of lovelessness?

19. The finale, the boy disappeared, the snow, the insistent score, and the audience left with this experience?

WALKING OUT

US, 2017, 95 minutes, Colour.
Matt Bomer, Josh Wiggins, Bill Pullman, Alex Neustadedter, Lily Gladstone.
Directed by Alex Smith, Andrew J.Smith.

The title is to be taken very literally – not a walking out on someone or some difficult situation but rather a frontier story, people trapped in the wilds of nature, and having to walk out for survival.

The setting for this frontier film is the state of Montana, the Rockies and its mountains, the snow and ice, and the billboard at the local airport proclaiming that this is ‘Big Sky’ country.

A 14-year-old boy is on a small plane, with his phone playing computer games, of course, coming up from Texas where he lives with his mother to have an annual holiday with his father who works as a hunter in the region. Josh Wiggins gives a convincing performance as the boy, David.

His father, Cal, is played by Matt Bomer (who doesn’t look and seem quite ruggedly grizzled enough to have grown-up in the area and to be hunter in such terrain).

Clearly, this is going to be a film about father-son-son bonding, the 14-year-old rather unwilling (and having to give up his computer game playing), the father loving but demanding. David is to shoot his first moose. The boy is not such a good shot and, even practising shooting birds, misses more than hits.

This is even more than a father-son relationship film because there are continuous flashbacks throughout the film to Cal and his father, Clyde (Bill Pullman). Cal remembers being a little boy with his father but also as a 14-year-old and, eventually, revealing his own experience in shooting at a moose.

It has to be said that the scenic photography is beautiful, even when it is threatening.

Cal is very careful, noting tracks, instructing his son, confrontation with an elk, coming across a grizzly bear, later finding some wounded cubs. There are talks – and there is a moose (as well as carefree and callous tourists who just shoot for the sake of shooting and leave carcasses around, a contrast with Cal and his believing that hunting is for meat and supply).

Since the title indicates walking out, we know that there will be some difficulties encountered and, at times, these are graphic. In fact, the walking out aspect of the film is very visceral, endurance for father and son which makes some endurance demands on the attention of the audience.

The experience is the making of the boy, not as we might have expected at the beginning, but the boy helping his father, appreciating his father more, which means that in future father-son relationships, David will have much to hand on to his son.

The directors of the film, Alex and Andrew J. Smith, are originally from England but clearly have made their home in Montana.

1. Wilderness story? Montana? The plains, the mountains, the huts? The musical score?

2. The title, expectations, the going in, the experience in the wilderness, walking out?

3. The impact of the train, the opening, Montana, the helicopter scenes of the mountains? The Big Sky area? The plains, the ascent, the trees and streams, the track, the snow and the weather? Audience expectations?

4. David, in the plane, computer games, his estranged father, his relationship with his mother? Visiting his father annually? Waiting at the airport, his father’s arrival in the snow? The house, their talk, closeness of the bed, no phone, no games? His expectations, the hunting, 14?

5. Cal, his age, his experience of Montana? His love for David? The annual visits, hunting, his life in the wilderness, expectations? For David to shoot his first moose? His demands? Love and bonds?

6. The portrait of Clyde, appearing in the flashbacks, his age and experience, his wife, her dying of cancer? Hunter, Cal at 14, shooting the birds, shooting at the moose, missing, its going into the river, floating, Cal shooting it? His father’s reaction, against killing for killing’s sake? The discussions, his father helping him? Fly fishing in the rods? Clyde’s character?

7. The hunt, for meat, not for mere hunting’s sake? Tourists and their massacring animals and leaving them? The bears, elk, deer, moose?

8. David and his relationship with his father, going to the hunt, wary, the shooting of the birds, his missing? The elk? His changing his attitude, wanting to measure up, this standard of his father and grandfather? Sharing with his father, the closeness at night, his father turning off the phone? The car, the tracker, the track?

9. The talk about bears, the encounter with the bear? The dead moose? Shooting the elk, carving the meat?

10. The crisis situation with the bear, the wounded cubs? David getting the water, being bitten by the cub? Climbing the tree, the gun, the safety-catch off, the accidental shot, wounding his father’s leg?

11. The trek, the endurance, the visual experience of the characters, the audience? Dragging his father, treating his wound, stanching the blood? Fires, food, raw meat, cooking, getting the grouse, masticating the food for his father? The decision to carry him? The landmarks, being lost? Getting his father to talk, telling the story of his being 14, killing the moose, his father’s reaction?

12. Coming to the barbed wire, the girl in the house, the getting help, the doctor, declaring his father dead? Knowing that his father had died but wanting to carry him?

13. David, the experience, his future, the heritage of his grandfather, his father – and something to hand on to his own son?

TRUTH OR DARE

US, 2018, 100 minutes, Colour.
Lucy Hale, Tyler Posey, Violett Beane, Sophia Ali, Landon Liboiron, Nolan Gerard Funk, Sam Lerner, Hayden Szeto.
Directed by Jeff Wardlow.

How to review this film? Probably the best way is to respond to the challenge of the title, truth or dare. In this scenario, those who tell the truth generally benefit. Those who dare are asked to do something impossible and/or immoral and suffer the consequences.

So. One of the truths is that this film is geared towards a young adult audience. The main characters are all in their final year at college, going on their Spring Break. It is the 20 plus or minus age group that is the target for the marketing of Truth or Dare. Perhaps those a little older may think it reminds them too much of their past and they would be happy to forget aspects of it. For those even older, the film may seem even younger!.

This is one of those horror films that emerge in rather great numbers every year. There is usually a group of young men and young women, a mysterious character, and they are asked to be involved in something that they normally would avoid – in this case to play a game of Truth or Dare while visiting the ruins of a mission in Mexico. Not a good sign.

In fact, the writers of the screenplay have enjoyed themselves with a whole lot of hocus-pocus. It claims that diabolical entities which can be called up – in this case, Mexican evil entities – can possess not only people but objects and ideas. This time the evil spirit is possessing the game of Truth or Dare.

And, there is a religious dimension to the hocus-pocus. The setting is a Catholic mission set up in the 19th century. There has been something of a massacre in the mid-1960s – where a group of young women had become novices in a religious order and were under the guidance of the local priest (seen only in a photograph and then his face fading from the photograph) who was something of a sexual predator. The spirit was called up so that people might be freed but, in fact, the spirit possesses the game and, from game to game, a player is possessed and continues to find friends who might be able to liberate them – all for them to be in turn possessed and destroyed.

Which means that the group on spring break, having a somewhat wild time drinking, dancing, flirting, are persuaded by their very serious friend, Olivia (Lucy Hale) to respond to the invitation of a mysterious young man to play the game.

Some rather blunt truth is told, and the game follows them home or, perhaps, more realistically, has taken possession of them. What happens is that those who tend to tell the Truth continue to survive whereas those who try the Dare initiative die, gruesomely.

This raises even more tensions amongst the group, their trying to work together, overcome some disastrous truths which are revealed, contact a woman who had been part of the game and whom the audience has seen setting fire to a woman in a supermarket at the beginning of the film. They talk with the police. They also track down one of the original novices from the Mexican mission – who had called up the spirit, cut out her tongue in order to eliminate the presence of the spirit, has a formula for incantation by which the spirit can return from whence it came.

Needless to say, it doesn’t quite work out that way which is part of the entertainment value of this kind of horror exercise. Who will survive? Will anyone survive? Is the spirit still possessing the game somewhere or other in California?

1. The popularity of this kind of small-budget horror film, for young adults?

2. The California settings? Campus, apartments, the open road, border with Mexico? The Mexican settings, clubs, the ruins of the mission? The musical score?

3. The title, the game, the consequences of telling the Truth, the consequences for Dare?

4. Olivia as the central character, working hard, real estate sales? Markie and their friendship, persuading her to go for the spring break holiday? Reluctant? Gathering the other friends? Final year at college? Prospects for the future?

5. Going to Mexico, the night out? Olivia, reticent, the encounter with Carter? His persuading her to get her friends to go to the mission, play the game? His warning her against it?

6. The range of characters: Tyson, truth about his signing prescriptions, wealthy and arrogant? His relationship with Penelope? Markie, her relationship with Lucas? Olivia telling the truth about her fidelity? Brad, closeted, his friends knowing his orientation? Ronnie, obnoxious, intruding?

7. The game, those choosing Truth, those choosing Dare? Truths being told? Carter and his disappearance? The return home?

8. The premise that the evil spirit inhabited games and ideas? Possessing all the characters? The confrontations in real life, the distorted grin on the faces of the questioners? Truth or Dare? Ronnie, the Dare, dancing, falling off the table, his death? The phones and the confirmation of his death? Tyson, the interview, dressed up, the interviewer and her distorted face, his lies, his being impaled? The others being too late to save him? Their concern, their own experiences of truth or dare, Olivia and her relationship with Lucas? The Dare to have sex with him, the attempt, the revelation that he loved Markie?

9. Markie, her infidelity exposed, her anger? The phone images of her father, his death? Olivia finally telling her that she had visited her father, his approaches, his death? Markie’s reaction?

10. Penelope, Tyson dead, on the roof, Lucas trying to rescue, holding the mattress, her fall?

11. Brad, coming out to his father, his being dead, getting the gun to get his father to beg forgiveness, Brad being shot?

12. Tracking down the information about the mission, the novice nuns, the massacre in 1968, Inez as the survivor? Finding her, her tongue cut out, the notes? The formula to send back the Demon, another tongue being cut out? The background of the priest, sexual predator, the photo and his disappearing from the photo?

13. The opening sequence, the woman setting fire to the other woman in the supermarket? Tracking her down, the interview with her, the information, her death?

14. The role of the police, telling the truth, concealing the information?

15. Going back to Mexico, tracking down Carter, his real name, Sam? His explanations?

16. Markie going with them, Lucas, Olivia? The confrontations, the Demon, fights, urging Carter to cut his tongue?

17. The irony of the Demon still possessing them, Markie confronting Olivia, Lucas slitting his throat? The Demon living on – for the games and victims?

JULIUS CAESAR

UK, 2018, 120 minutes, Colour.
David Calder, Ben Whishaw, David Morrisey, Michelle Fairley, Adjoah Andoh.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner.

This is a film version of the production by the National Theatre, at the new Bridge Theatre, the play being staged in the round, the audience becoming participant in the play, especially for crowd scenes.

There is a prologue, a rock concert in the theatre, uniting the audience and their response. While this may have worked very well in reality, unless the audience is really tuned into rock ‘n’ roll, this 10 minutes is rather something of an ordeal – but redeemed by the fact that the players all move into the performance as significant characters.

The film has a very strong cast. It is set in the present day with contemporary dress. It also is rather multiracial in the selection of the cast, Asian background for Calpurnia, Octavius is black, as are some of the rock band and performers. There are several changes from male characters into female characters, most significantly Michelle Fairley as an excellent Cassius.

The principal men very strong. David Calder is an excellently arrogant Julius Caesar. Ben Whishaw, something of a whisp of a man, rises to strong stature as a scholarly Brutus. David Morrisey is a man of the people as Mark Anthony.

There is a very full use of the text and, with the cast, it is expertly spoken, clearly, the verse seeming natural rather than contrived, powerfully dramatic.

The theatre in the round is also used very effectively with the help of lighting, different parts of the stage, enabling wide sequences as well as movement. This is helped for the screen version by judicious use of close-ups and wider shots. This means that there is a powerful focus on the characters, their features, their body language as well as their speeches.

Swords are eliminated as weapons and there is a use of guns – with one verbal change from sword to bullet. There are quite substantial special effects, light and sound for the experience of war – and, if Shakespeare were watching today, he would possibly be very envious of these effects.

For those familiar with the play, they will be very satisfied with this performance. For those not familiar with the play, it serves as an excellent introduction.

The audience is immersed, despite the contemporary costumes, in the atmosphere of ancient Rome, the background of the power struggles, triumvirate, the role of Cicero, the role of Caesar and his foreign wars and conquests, his vanity, the offering of the crown by Mark Anthony and his seeming to refuse it. And, he is warned against the Ides of March. He is seen in triumph, warned by Calpurnia not to go to the Senate, his being persuaded by fellow senator to go. A red cloth is passed over the top of the audience indicating blood just before the assassination – by shooting. Caesar also has the opportunity to lie in state and appear as a ghost to Brutus before the battle of Philippi.

In the early part of the film are strong character is actually Cassius, hostile to Caesar and his ambitions, in earnest discussions with Brutus to persuade him to action. There is an introduction to the conspirators, especially Casca (an attention-grabbing performance by Adjoah Andoh). The audience is able to understand the ideology behind the coup against Caesar and his authoritarian ambitions.

Mark Anthony comes rather later into the play, friend of Caesar, popular, often with his accent becoming very much one with ordinary people. However, David Morrisey’s performance of the Friends, Romans, Countryman speech reminds audiences of how persuasive the speech is and its effect on the Roman people.

In some performances, the latter part of the play seems something of an anti-climax focused on Brutus and the sense of failure, his doubts, Cassius and self-assertion, the presence of Mark Anthony and Octavius and the imminent defeat of the conspirators. Ben Whishaw makes this part of the play quite vivid as does the appearance of Cassius, doubts, deaths, but Brutus is unable to kill himself but relying on the servant Lucius (who has provided some background as well as some comic touches earlier).

This version is a reminder of Shakespeare’s dramatic skills and the quality of Julius Caesar as a play.

IN HER SHOES

US, 2005, 130 minutes, Colour.
Cameron Diaz, Tony Collette, Shirley Mac Laine, Mark Feuerstien, Ken Howard, Candice Azzara, Richard Burgi, Brooke Smith, Francine Beers, Jerry Adler.
Directed by Curtis Hanson.

This is one of those films where it is best to suspend final judgment until the very end credits. It is quite a long film and one is tempted during some of the dramatic lulls to think that up till then the parts were better than the whole. But, by the end, it is quite satisfying and its themes worth reflecting on.

The screenplay, based on a novel by Jennifer Weiner, was written by Susannah Grant who wrote Erin Brockovich and the forthcoming Charlotte’s Web. It is very much a women’s project. The focus is on three women and the emotional issues between them. It is surprising to find that the male director, Curtis Hanson, is better known for some tough thrillers like his best film, LA Confidential, as well as Bad Influence, The River Wild and The Hand that Rocks the Cradle.

This time the shoes are not kinky boots but a wardrobe full of stylish shoes collected by the plain and dowdy sister, Rose (Toni Colette). They are borrowed without permission (and broken) by the attractive and wilful sister, Maggie (Cameron Diaz). The first part of the film is the compare and contrast of the two women and the exasperation of the responsible sister who is sick of mopping up after the thoughtlessness and spoilt-brat behaviour of the other. While Rose can sometimes be annoying as she tries to cope and make good with some unexpected relationships, Maggie is completely frustrating. It is to the credit of both actresses that they are quite persuasive.

When Maggie disappears to Florida to sponge on her newly discovered grandmother, Rose is quietly distraught at having thrown her out and being unable to find her. However, love enters her life and it is wonderful. Maggie, on the other hand, does a deal with her grandmother and is transformed (rather quickly) by working in a home for the elderly, full of genial refugees from the colder northern states, especially the wise and wisecracking Mrs Lefkowitz (Francine Beers).

The reason the Florida sequences work so well is the presence of Shirley MacLaine?. She gives a finely controlled performance as a strong woman with sensible convictions who wants to rectify the mistakes she has made in her past. Watching her, we realise that she could have a powerful influence on changing the fickle Maggie.

The film ends happily (which has brought down the wrath of some critics who deplore hope as sentimentality).

1. The title? The literal focus on shoes? Rose and her comfort buying, her closet? Maggie, envying the shoes, stealing them, breaking them?

2. The title – and being in another’s shoes?

3. The audience in another’s shoes? Rose’s? Maggie’s? Michael’s? Ella’s?

4. The Philadelphia setting, the city, law offices, apartments, restaurants, homes, socials? The contrast with Florida, the home for the elderly, the apartments, the amenities? The weather, the pool? Hospital? Atmosphere? The musical score?

5. A female perspective, the novelist, Susannah Grant as writer?

6. Rose’s story, the older sister, her age, studying law, driven, always at work, her dowdy appearance? The affair with her boss, the plan for the meeting in Chicago, Simon going instead, her disappointment? Her good friend, Amy, the chats, the advice? Her father, his marrying again, the stepmother’s daughter and talk about her? Her memories of her mother? Her mental condition, her death, deliberate? Her love for Maggie, good friend – yet exasperation? Getting her out of messes?

7. Maggie, the story, younger, no memories of her mother, staying with her father and stepmother, the arguments, being ousted? Her irresponsibility? Drinking, stealing the dog and her mess in the dog wash? The sexual encounters, casual? Going to Rose, the clothes and shoes? The applications for the job, the collage, making the CV, not holding down a job? The money, the television interview, her not being able to read quickly? The failure, the sexual encounter with Rose’s boss, Rose’s anger and ousting her?

8. Audience sympathies with two sisters, identifying with them or not? Maggie’s prospects?

9. Maggie discovering the cards from Ella, the money? Her father and the blame? Her father, his marriage, his wife’s mental illness, feeling that Ella was interfering and controlling, banishing her?

10. Maggie, the arrival in Florida, her expectations, Finance? Talking with Ella, at the pool, the men ogling her? Searching for the money, finding the photos? Ella, the
explanations? Making the deal if Maggie got the job, matching her dollar for dollar?

11. Rose, giving up her law job, walking the dogs, the client’s interested in her doing dog-walking? Returning the dog to the dog wash? Simon, his presence in the company, his attention to Rose, taking her out, the meals, his being a gourmet, her relaxing in his presence, the proposal, her acceptance, his family visit, the bridal shower and her stepmother and the images, her being upset? Not being able to tell Simon about Maggie? His breaking off the engagement?

12. Ella writing to Rose, Rose going to Florida, discovering Maggie there? Her reaction, sharing, talking, gradually changing her attitude?

13. Ella as a character, her work, her friends at the centre, chat, Lewis and his attentions? Maggie, the deal, the advice, the business manager for Maggie? The attentive response of the old women? Her telling Rose and Maggie the stories? Regretting how she acted in the past?

14. Maggie, the work at the hospital, the professor, his blindness, the conversation, reading, the poetry, his praising her? The sadness of her discovery of his death? The encounter with the son and his saying his father spoke of her?

15. Bringing Simon to Florida? His being reunited with Rose, the explanations, the planning, the restaurant, the friends, the wedding?

16. The wedding sequence, everybody happy, Maggie and her reading of the poem? The effect on Rose? Michael and Ella and the mutual apologies?

17. Audiences and the changing attitudes towards Maggie, towards Rose? Being in their shoes?

SCANDAL SHEET

US, 1952, 78 minutes, Black-and-white.
Broderick Crawford, John Derek, Donna Reed, Rosemary De Camp, Henry O' Neill, Harry Morgan.
Directed by Phil Karlson.

Phil Karlson directed quite a number of brief tough thrillers in the 1940s and 1950s. This is a good one.

It begins as a story about the tabloids and the reporters exploiting the public, interviews with unwitting participants, photographs, leading to tabloid headlines. John Derek and Harry Morgan are the exploiters. The editor of the paper is played by Broderick Crawford, soon after his Oscar-winning role as Huey long in All the King’s Men, 1949. He is tough, is cool before the board rather prim about his tabloid headlines but he turns the table on them by telling them of their high dividends from his work. His also on the way to a bonus the cause of the increasing circulation.

The paper runs a dense in New York City for those who are looking for partners – pre-on-line dating services. At the dance the editor is found by his former wife, threatened, his going to apartment, a struggle and his accidentally killing her but setting up the situation as if she had an accident in the bath, pawning her clothes and suitcase – with the pawn ticket becoming part of his downfall.

Which means that the film turns into a thriller about a murder. The young journalist, assisted by his sometimes sceptical girlfriend, Donna Reed, is determined to solve the case. The editors decides to support him, making public the paper’s concern about the dead woman and her funeral.

Which means then that the audience is waiting to see how the editor is going to be exposed and how we will handle it – rather interestingly in terms of the Minister who performed the original wedding and cannot remember what the grim look like but remembers his voice. The shootout at the editorial office is a bit peremptory – but, this is quite an interesting film, as thriller and as questioning the ethics of tabloid media.

1. A 1950s drama? The media and tabloids, circulation? Turning into a murder investigation?

2. The New York settings, the newspaper and offices, production? The dance floor? Apartments? The shop? Bars? The musical score?

3. The title, the tone? Tabloids and scandal? Mark Chapman, as editor, ambitions, the type of articles and headlines, sensation for stories, circulation going up, his power, the bonus? Leadership of the young journalists?

4. Steve Mc Cleary, on-the-job, the initial interview, the woman thinking he was the police, his assistant with photographs? The police arriving? Headlines, printing, the papers on the streets, the graphs for the higher circulation?

5. Mark, the Board of Directors, the complaints, talking of scandals, the elitist attitudes, Chapman’s challenge to them, talking about the dividends? Julie and Steve and their bet, going out to dinner, Mark accompanying them?

6. The dance, for the lonely hearts of New York, the crowds there, taking the photos, the prizes, the couple wanting to marry, her doting on him? The contrivance of the dance?

7. Charlotte, recognising her husband, confronting him, at the apartment, the truth, the marriage, his brutality, leaving her, changing his name, his journalistic background, becoming Mark Chapman? The talk at the apartment, his violent reactions, wanting to get rid of her, the threats, pushing her, the accidental death, contriving the death in the bath? The suitcase, the pawnshop and the ticket? The ticket with his money? The encounter with Charlie, giving him the cash, losing the ticket and the consequences?

8. Charlie, his past as a journalist, drinking, wanting a job? Mark fobbing him off? Julie and her concern? At the pawnshop, getting the suitcase, discovering the truth, the ticket and the money, the phone call to the paper, Steve rejecting him? Chapman and Charlie’s death?

9. Steve, capacity for news, pursuit of the case of Charlotte, getting information, going through the photographs taken at the dance? Getting her identity? The background of marriage? The hypothesis of what actually happened?

10. Giving the information to Mark, his fear, his reactions, his going positive, the headlines, offering to bury Charlotte? Offering the reward?

11. Steve, going to the bar, the variety of witnesses, taking witness to Mark, saying that the shadowy figure resembled him?

12. The brochure, circulating amongst judges and celebrants? Julie offering to help? The visit to the judge, bring him to New York?

13. The confrontation, the photos from the wedding, the judge not able to identify Mark, but identifying the voice?

14. Steve, his disillusionment, Julie’s response?

15. The confrontation, Mark and the gun, the police, the shooting?

16. Tabloid themes, journalistic investigations? In the murder investigation?

NIGHTFALL

US, 1956, 78 minutes, Black-and-white.
Aldo Ray, Brian Keith, Anne Bancroft, James Gregory, Jocelyn Brando, Frank Albertson, Rudy Bond.
Directed by Jacques Tourneur.

Director, Jacques Tourneur, made some of the old Val Lewton horror films in the 1940s, including Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie and The Leopard Man. In the 1950s he made a number of genre films including this thriller.

The film focuses on Aldo Ray as a bewildered war veteran, wandering the city, under surveillance from an insurance agent played interestingly by James Gregory. Ray is suspected of having the money from a bank robbery. It means then that he is on the run, has been for some time, taking various jobs, but intending to return to Montana where he had been on holiday with a Dr friend and had encountered the robbers who killed his friend, taking his bag by mistake in leaving the money behind which he then hid.

He encounters a young woman, played by Anne Bancroft, who is charming but has been employed to lead him to the robbers. He is abducted, tortured but will not reveal the whereabouts of the money. He escapes, goes to the young woman, relies on her help – though, interestingly, there is a delay because she has to take part in a fashion parade – and they buy a ticket to Montana, the agent following them on the bus.

The robbers have been their first, confront the group pursuing them, but there is a shootout, one of the robbers, Brian Keith, finding the other one obnoxious. Is a film of the 1950s and there is a happy ending.

1. A 1950s film noir, the work of the director, French background, horror films of the 1940s? The cast in their careers?

2. The title, the title song?

3. Chicago, the city, apartments, the streets, diners? Travel through the states, a bus trip? Wyoming, the countryside, the snow? The hut? The musical score?

4. The focus on Jim, wandering the city, Ben Fraser, talking with him? Going to the bar, the encounter with Marie? The drink, asking for the cash? Having dinner, their being accosted in the street, Marie thinking it was the police?

5. John and Red, the bank robbery? The warehouse, interrogating Jim? John in control? Red and his violence? Jim unable to give an answer?

6. The flashbacks, Jim, the holiday with the doctor, their friendship, seeing the crash, helping, the similarity of the bags, the confrontation, the shooting of the doctor by Red, taking the wrong bag? Jim, hiding the bag, his disappearance? His taking various jobs, returning to Chicago, intending to go back for the money?

7. Marie, model, the touch of glamour, talking with Jim, the money, the dinner, the setup, her return home, Jim coming to her apartment, the truth, the attraction, packing, the bus ticket, the fashion show and the touch of glamour, the escape?

8. Ben Fraser, insurance, on-the-job, becoming obsessed, talking with Jim in the street? At home, the support of his wife? Getting the bus ticket, travelling on the bus? Talking with Jim?

9. Wyoming, the three together, retracing the steps, searching for the bag?

10. John and Red, retrieving the bag, the confrontation, the threats? The discussions, John and his disliking Red, shooting him? Red and his violence, the fight with Jim and the snow plough?

11. The confrontation, Jim and John, the fight, death? Leading to a happy and satisfactory ending?

VENGEANCE: A LOVE STORY

US, 2017, 99 minutes, Colour.
Nicolas Cage, Anna Hutchison, Talitha Eliana Bateman, Deborah Kara Unger, Don Johnson, Charlene Tilton.
Directed by Johnny Martin.

The title of this film sounds like an oxymoron. However, it is based on a novel by noted author, Joyce Carol Oates.

This is one of the many films that Nicolas Cage made in these years, several a year, generally thrillers of this kind. This time he portrays a veteran from the Gulf War, a policeman working around Niagara Falls, the film opening with his stalking a criminal and his partner being killed.

Later, in a bar, he encounters a very forward young woman. She is described as a widow with a young daughter. Later, at a party, with a lot of drink, she leaves her current boyfriend and decides to walk home with her daughter. On the way, she is accosted by a group of men and she is raped by them. The policeman has followed, rescues the little girl, calls the ambulance and the woman is taken to hospital in a coma.

The men are found and arrested. They are redneck types, arrogant in their manner, employing a suave lawyer, played by Don Johnson, supported by their fiercely redneck mother and their more passive father. In the court hearings, the blame is laid on the woman being provocative and the men innocent.

This has dire effect on the woman, needless to say. The men are supremely confident in court, the judge unfavourable to the woman, those in the court, especially the mother (who, surprisingly, has sought the advice of a priest who has put her on to their lawyer).

The film then moves into vigilante mode with the policeman going after each of the men, killing them but supplying framework that blames them, forcing one to kill himself, confronting one on the edge of Niagara Falls and two of the men going over the Falls and an assumption made that they have disappeared.

While the criminals a loathsome, the woman and her daughter victims, there is a questionable issue of vigilantiesm.

1. The title? Expectations? Based on a novel by Joyce Carol Oates, her reputation?

2. The career of Nicolas Cage, many films a year, violent thrillers? This film in that tradition? Beyond the traditional not?

3. The introduction to John? The credit sequences in the background of crime and investigation? Niagara Falls? John and his partner, the discussions, waiting, the pursuit of the criminal, the crashes, the partner being shot? The effect on John? The revelation of his background, service, Gulf War, contributions to the police force?

4. The aftermath, John in the bar, seeing Teena, her dress and manner, the music and dancing, talking to him at the bar? The information about her husband dining and so, the effect on, her daughter? The conversation, the phone number? The bond between the two?

5. Teena, her relationship with her daughter, her age? Living with Teena’s mother? Strong minded woman? The party, the drinking, the music and dancing, the kids on the roof, tender shouting for Bethie to come down, Bethie and her reaction? The reconciliation? The boyfriend offering to walk them home, the short walk, mother and daughter, the encounter with the meaning, drunken, brutal, the gang rape, leaving her injured, Bethie and the escape, watching, walking the road, John picking her up? Teena taken to hospital, coma? Her mother coming to the hospital? Bethie and her injuries? John and his concern?

6. Legal issues, the lawyer, preparing Teena for the court hearing? Agnes and his surliness? The demands?

7. The family, the men, their denials, the mother and father and their two sons, the priests coming to give them advice about a lawyer?

8. Kirkpatrick, well-dressed, successful, the touch of the smug? His explanation of the details, the costs, the mother wanting the case, more digging mortgaging the house?

9. The hearing, the attitude of the judge, overruling the objections of Teena’s lawyer, female and black? The friendship with Kirkpatrick? The witnesses, John and his testimony, Teena and identifying the men? Her breakdown? Kirkpatrick, the plausibility of an alternate scenario with the men as innocent and Teena as the aggressor?

10. Agnes, refusing to help the lawyer? Teena and the preparation for the case? Jury trial? The lawyer not having enough time?

11. The lawyer meeting with Kirkpatrick, his offer of a deal?

12. The member of the gang in the bar, the betting on the fight, the challenge to Teena’s boyfriend? John sitting at a table, observing? Going out of the bar, the member of the gang and his violence, the knife, John shooting him? The internal affairs hearing, John with his plausible explanation?

13. The men at the court hearing, well-dressed, yet self-satisfied, sneering? The mother and her aggression? The condemnation of Teena?

14. The two sons, the phone call, going to the falls, the confrontation with John? Shooting them, kicking them over the side? The assumption that they had fled to Canada?

15. Teena, recovering, with her mother, with Bessie, despair, going to the falls, John saving her, urging her to consider her daughter?

16. The final rapist, John lowering him to the appointment, getting to him to write the suicide note, shooting him?

17. The collapse of the case, the mother and her aggressive speech to the press? Kirkpatrick and his meeting up with John, knowing the truth, the interaction? Bethie coming to
the fence, farewelling John, the glimpse of Teena? His going to his next assignment?

18. Audience response to legal injustice, retribution, the violent vigilante?