THE MERCY

UK, 2018, 98 minutes, Colour.
Colin Firth, Rachel Weisz, David Thewlis, Ken Stott, Mark Gattis, Andrew Buchan, Simon Mc Burney.
Directed by James Marsh.

This film is based on a true story, the experience of sailor, Donald Crowhurst, in 1969. For those who know how the story ends, it is an interesting unfolding of the events. For those who do not remember the story, it is something of a suspense film.

The film opens with a speech by Sir Francis Chichester who broke a record of sailing around the world alone. The British Sunday Times then suggests a competition for sailing around the world, non-stop. It is to be a media event.

In the coastal city of Teignmouth, Donald Crowhurst is something of an inventor who also enjoys sailing with his wife and children. We first see him at a show trying to persuade people to buy an invention which would help in establishing locations while at sea. He fails. Crowhurst makes quite an impression on screen as he is played by Colin Firth. Rachel Weisz is his wife.

However, he is quite excited by the Times competition and decides that he will participate. This means making his own boat, catamaran style. It means that he has to raise money, relying very much on a local businessman played by Ken Stott. He also has an agent-friend, David Thewliss, who helps him with the planning, with the finances, with public relations. The voyage will take at least six months.

The first question raised is why would Donald Crowhurst undertake such an adventure. Did he really think he would win? Was there something missing his life that this voyage would compensate for? As we listen to Crowhurst talking with his wife and his sponsors, we realise that he was at a stage of life where he needed something to prove himself, to himself and to others.

There are many scenes at sea, sailing successfully, becalmed, storms. Not all his equipment works perfectly. And he keeps in radio contact with his wife and family and with those backing him at home.

He experiences a crisis, his sailing progress not as much as he anticipated. And he experiences a crisis in himself, whether he is as good as he thought, whether he can persevere, what would he do if he did not make as much progress as hoped for.

It soon appears that he is not succeeding. His temptation is to alter his log, to create a false impression, to keep going – not necessarily to win, actually realising that had better not, but, at least, complete the course. This is exacerbated after long weeks of sailing because The Times becomes more interested.

The scenes at sea are punctuated by some flashbacks, some scenes of family at Teignmouth, his PR man and assistant doing their best, and the media, somehow rather, getting to hear about him and his becoming something of a headline.

The moral dilemma begins to consume him – and whether there is any mercy or forgiveness for his deception.

A film of endurance, of some heroism, and of some moral ambiguity.

1. The film based on a true story? The records? The publicity? The mystery?

2. A film of the sea, the love of boats and water? Sir Francis Chichester and his circumnavigating the globe? The Sunday Times and a new competition, non-stop around the world? The range of competitors?

3. The town of Teignmouth? The harbour, the town, homes, shops? The screenplay reverting to the town throughout the voyage? The musical score?

4. The open sea, the catamaran on the sea, the range of weather, calm, storms? The quality of the catamaran? The stores, the engineering, the generator, communications, food and water? The accidents?

5. Colin Firth as Donald Crowhurst? Age, experience? His love for Claire? Love for his children? At the exhibition? Electronics, the device for establishing positions at sea? Attempting sales? His sailing, love of the water? Hearing about the contest? Peaking his interest, his abilities? Hopes? For himself?

6. The film described as a version of a midlife crisis? Crowhurst, his age and experience, success in life, failures? His marriage and happiness, his family? His love for sailing? The decision to go to sea, competitive, the prize money? The obsession, the building of the boat, the appeal for funds from Mr Best? The PR connections? Difficulties, delays? His plans in building the boat, the catamaran? Wanting to achieve, to change his life, his personality?

7. The character of Clare, love, supporting her husband, wariness about the journey? The discussions with him? Supporting him? The communications throughout the voyage? Her appearing to him in the boat at the end? Her strong words to the journalists and blaming them at the final press conference? The children, love for their father, sharing with him, sailing? The phone calls, communication, gifts? His wanting to achieve something so that his children could be proud?

8. The details of the journey, his promise, the difficulties, bailing out the water, the balance out of action, the gash in the side of the boat? Dealing with the storms? Communications? Listening to the achievements of the other competitors?

9. Slow progress, his looking at the maps, the temptation, his altering the maps, lying about his progress? Yet the amount of sea that he covered?

10. The gash, landing in Argentina, the authorities, lack of passport, suspicions of being a smuggler, letting him go on? The fact that he went on land?

11. The further journey, the other competitors going out, his wanting the final competitor to win, then his getting out? The dilemmas for Crowhurst, truth, concealment, the sin, not able to justify his win?

12. The media, the Sunday Times, the announcement with Chichester, the competition, the conditions? The local PR and his assistant, eager, helping, publishing stories? The Sunday Times picking them up, amplifying his achievement?

13. Mr Best, caravans, a good friend, the money, extra time, extra money?

14. Crowhurst in Bermuda, facing his reality, the touches of madness, his wife appearing? Cutting the anchor rope? His decision to go into the water, his disappearance? Leaving the logbooks?

15. A story of potential achievement, British achievement? And the reality?

A GENTLE CREATURE

Russia, Ukraine, 2017, 143 minutes, Colour.
Vasilina Makovtseva.
Directed by Sergey Loznitsa.

A Gentle Creature was very successful in festival screenings, including the main competition in Cannes 2017.

The gentle creature of the title is a woman whose husband has been sentenced to prison for murder. She lives alone in a remote village and is surprised when a parcel she has sent to the prison is returned to her. She goes to the post office to make enquiries and this is beginning of a number of bureaucratic impositions on her, a gentle creature who is the victim of society.

The picture of human nature in this film is very harsh. The various personnel at the post office could not care less and are rude in their manner. When she goes to the prison, she is treated very badly by the various officers who reject her petition, keep urging her to return, but given no information.

She studies in the town, hoping to get more news of her husband, whether he is there on not, and is meant by some friendly people but also by local thugs who want to exploit her.

On the one hand, this is a grim picture of Russian society. On the other hand, it is a portrait of a good woman, put upon, suffering all kinds of indignities, but keeping her own integrity.

1. Ukrainian director, Russian-Ukrainian? collaboration? Perspectives?

2. The title, the focus on the woman? Audiences identifying with her?

3. The Russian locations, the village, the house, the streets, the post office? The train? The bigger town, the prison, the headquarters of the thugs, the streets, the social worker? The musical score?

4. The realism of the film? Audiences identifying with the central character? Emotional identification, the puzzle about her situation, the returned parcel, her husband, her quest? Reaction to the way she was treated by officials, the post office, the prison the effect on her, audience response to her? The significance?

5. The situation, the woman, her age, her husband, in prison, explaining that he committed murder? Sending him parcels? The parcel returned? Her going to the post office, the treatment, the refusal to take the parcel, taking it home? Beginning a quest?

6. The significance of bureaucratic treatment of individuals, the harshness, quarrelsome people, complainants? The post office, the railway, the prison officials? Harsh lines?

7. On the train, travelling, listening to the people discuss the situation, socially, politically?

8. Going to the prison, talking with the officials, lining up, the refusal to give her any satisfaction? Staying in the town? The various officers, the connections, motivations? The tangle with the gangsters, the group, wanting to exploit her? The different types in the town, friendly, exploitative? Her attempts to deliver the parcel? Carrying the parcel, opening the contents? The mystery of the location of her husband? No answers?

9. The buildup to the dream sequences, the ending of the film, the effect, the experience of nightmare – in comparison with the waking experiences in real life?

10. The film as a harsh allegory of life in Russia?

WESTWIND: DJALU’S LEGACY

Australia, 2017, 86 minutes, Colour.
Djalu Gurruwiwi, Larry Gurruwiwi....
Directed by Ben Strunin.

At the same time as there was the documentary, Gurrumul, the life of the famed Arnhem land musician and singer, Geoffrey Gurrumul Unupingu.there was this documentary, also from Arnhem Land, about another musician, Djalu Gurruwiwi and his son, Larry.

One of the main breakthroughs for the indigenous people of Australia is in the field of music, song and dance. This film also has a focus on the indigenous musical instrument, the didgeridoo.

It comes as something of a surprise to find that Djalu has been on several international tours over the years and is seen in this film playing in Florence, in Paris, at the British library in London.

Djalu is an elder, taught by his father, attempting to hand over the traditions to his son. However, the son, who at times was a significant footballer, was not so much interested in what his father had to offer but, rather, started his own band, leading it as a popular singer. In later years, there is much more rapport between father and son.

The screenplay offers a lot of information about the tradition of song lines, aboriginal myths – dramatised by a very colourful animation of the rainbow serpent moving through the countryside. Djalu’s wife, sister and other relations provide the talking heads and the comments about the importance of song lines and the holding on to language and traditions.

Djalu is also the maker of didgeridoos. There is a lot of information and visual presentation of the finding of the trees, the chopping down of the trees, the hollowing of the trees, the planing of the surfaces, the range of instruments and the quality of the sounds of the didgeridoo.

The contemporary singers and musicians, Larry and Gottye, visit Arnhem land and they share the musical experiences, the playing of the didgeridoo, the lyrics of songs, their combining in singing the songs. It is a humane meeting of minds and hearts, between Blacks and Whites, through music. And this culminates with the group performing to an enthusiastic audience at the Adelaide music Festival, Womade.

This is a film for the indigenous people to be proud of, Djalu and his talent and achievement. This is a film for the latecomers to the land to see and to appreciate the mythical and music traditions that were here before them.

1. Australian perspective? Indigenous Australians? 20th 21st-centuries?

2. Music to the world, Songlines, myths, preservation of traditions, handing them on, the next generations, the danger of losing the myths?

3. The title, the visual images of the wind in nature? The animation? Indigenous myths? The presence of the Rainbow Serpent pervading the land? The animation for the characters and narratives?

4. The location photography, Arnhem Land, the island, the homes, the modern aspects of the town, interiors of the houses, the bauxite mine? The radio station? The contrast with the visits and performances in Florence, in France, the British Museum in London?

5. The importance of the music, Djalu and his skills? Performance? Larry, moving to more modern music? The combination of the old and the new? His band? His instruments?

6. The importance of the didgeridoo, the felling of the trees, the hollowing of the trees, cleaning and smoothing? Testing? The sound, chant, dance?

7. The character of Djalu, when young, his relationship with his father, receiving the traditions? The inclusion of contemporary footage of the period? Growing up, learning the instrument, playing? The importance of the tours?

8. Djalu, his attitude towards white Australians, the memories of the past, 1788 onwards? Dialogue? Shared music? Reconciliation? As a character?

9. Larry, his story, playing football, being suspended, music, not being ready for the didgeridoo, development over the years, establishing his band?

10. The singer and his friends, coming to Arnhem Land, sharing the experience, the friendship, learning the instruments, learning the language for the songs, singing?
Performance? The climaxing going to Adelaide, Womade, the explanations, the performances, the audiences?

11. The range of talking heads, providing the background? Djalu and Larry? Djalu’s daughter, his wife, his sister?

12. The importance of language, indigenous languages? People speaking English? Taking English for granted – the use of subtitles for the cinema audience?

13. 2017, deaths, funeral, the place of aborigines in Northern Territory society? The difficulties with youth, smoking weed, alcohol? School, the children? Yet modernity, the iPhones and pads, the technology, phones and photos? The challenge?

14. The experience of sharing Djalu’s life and experiences and his music? And his attitude?

MOST BEAUTIFUL ISLAND

US, 2017, 80 minutes, Colour.
Ana Asensio, Natasha Romanova, David Little, Nicholas Tucci, Larry Fessenden, Caprice Benedetti.
Directed by Ana Asensio.

This is a brief film about life and disillusionment in New York City. It is the work of Ana Asensio who stars in the central role but who also wrote and directed the film.

There is an irony in the title about the island of Manhattan and a slogan is seen �The Big Apple: Big Dreams� ironical, of course.

During the opening credits, there are a number of women walking around the busy streets of Manhattan. The focus eventually comes on Luciana who has come to New York after the accidental death of her child, her still being blamed by her mother for the child’s death. She shares an apartment with a young woman from Eastern Europe.

There are glimpses of Luciana trying to make ends meet, various jobs including minding two rather obnoxious children who want to get her into trouble. Also there are continual difficulties with money, her going to a shop and stealing a dress after tearing it and offering $20 for a damaged goods.

However, the central action of the film takes place, first of all, in a Chinese restaurant where Luciana is given directions to go to a mysterious venue. She joins a number of girls in black dresses who are controlled by various equivalent of bouncers. She does not know why she is there and what is to happen. Her roommate is rather sullen, not giving her any information. A well-dressed woman emerges from closed doors at times to take each of the women into a room with a group of wealthy and very well-dressed men and women, rather leering and decadent.

The group make bets at risks to the women who undergo trials, keeping still while spiders walk over them, deadly spiders who might kill them…

The film does not offer any complete ending, any happy ending. The question is what effect it has on Luciana, her being patronised favourably by the woman, the group applauding her survival – and her continuing in this work, taking the risks, for a highly paid fee.

1. The title? New York? Manhattan? “The Big Apple: Big Dreams�? Irony?

2. The director and writer, from Spain, her acting career, writing and directing this film? Based on actual events? The dedication to her parents?

3. The picture of migrants, the difficulties, possibilities for work, unregistered? The need for money, fending for themselves? Reliance on sex, parties, the effect on the women? The different countries and backgrounds? The credit sequence – and the collage of women and the focus in New York City?

4. A portrait of Luciana, in New York, wandering, having left home, the phone call to her mother, the background of the death of the little girl, the accident and acquittal, memories with the toys? Luciana staying with Olga, issues of payment, ownership of goods in the refrigerator, the arguments with Olga?

5. The part-time jobs, the babysitting, the petulant children, her being late, their wanting the ice cream, the carry on, the little girl running away, her being found? Luciana desperate?

6. Issues of money, getting somebody to mind the children, wanting to buy the dress, going to the shop, tearing it, offering $20?

7. Olga and the information about the party, going to the address, the Asian contacts, the orders, not taking her bag, the taxi and her not being able to pay, the venue for the party, getting in? Her fears, the other women and their black dresses? Olga present and her silence? The male supervisors? The woman in charge and her poise? The girls, some silent, some reassured, the one trying to get away? Luciana and her fear, going to the toilet, trying to escape, the clash with the guard and his molesting her?

8. The girls lined up, the clients coming in, their wealth, men and women, degenerate behaviour?

9. The girls coming out, hearing the screams? Luciana going in, with Olga? The games, the bets, the focus on the faces of the clients, their watching the girls and the spiders, coming in the explanation of the spiders, the girls naked with the spiders on them, the hourglass and two minutes, the threats? Luciana succeeding? Olga and her fears? The money? The discussion with the woman in charge, the invitation to come back?

10. Luciana, getting the ice cream, recovering from her experience – but what about her future?

120 BEATS PER MINUTE/ BPM/ 120 BATTEMENTS PAR MINUTE

France, 2017, 143 minutes, Colour.
Nahuel Perez Biscayart, Arnaud Valois, Adele Haenel, Antoine Reinartz, Felix Maritaud, Ariel Borenstein.
Directed by Robin Campillo.

This is a film about AIDS.

It is a French film, screening at several festivals, winning awards including several Cesar awards in France, for the film and for performances.

The setting is the 1980s in France. It is the period when the public, especially in Western countries, was apprehensive about the rise of AIDS and its spread. It is a period when celebrities were revealed as both gay and as infected by AIDS, especially film star, Rock Hudson. There were demonstrations about AIDS and the role of government in responding to the health situation. There was a lot of study going on, research for cures for AIDS and some exploitation by pharmacy companies.

This film opens with a focus on a French group of protesters, ACT UP. They are quite vehement at their meetings, allowing each member to speak but being controlled by the facilitator, agreement being expressed by vigorous snapping of fingers. The film audience is invited to listen to the points being made by the speakers, the passion with which they speak, the effect of the infection and the consequent illness, issues of sexual orientation and behaviour.

The group also goes on various demonstrations, especially targeting politicians as well as invasion of the offices of the pharmaceutical companies, with containers with fake blood which they throw at parliamentarians or throw on the walls of the offices.

Some of the protesters work on organisation for protest and some kind of control. Others are impulsive, especially the young, causing repercussions with the police, with the media and public opinion.

At the initial meeting, the key central characters are introduced so that the audience sees them, hears them, is able to identify with them and/or to criticise them.

One of the most vigorous protesters is Marco (Nahuel Perez Biscayart), a young man from Chile present in Paris with some care from his mother. He is befriended by a newcomer, Nathan, and the two fall in love, living together, working on the protests. The audience sees quite a number of the characters, especially in their dealings with Marco and Nathan.

Eventually, Marco succumbs to the infection, becomes quite ill, hospitalised, then living at home with the care of Nathan and his mother.

Marco’s death and funeral bring the characters together, some kind of reconciliation, still some kind of antagonism between the various members of the protest.

While the film recreates its period, the audience is watching it with the knowledge of the history of AIDS in the succeeding decades, the toll that it took in terms of death and illness, the advances made in medical help, the overcoming of prejudice against AIDS and fear of any blood contact, the commitment of support groups and human rights.

1. Acclaim and awards? 21st-century themes? Retrospective on the end of the 20th century? The French experience of AIDS?

2. The title?

3. The recreation of the period, friends in the 1980s and 1990s, look, costumes, decor? The musical score?

4. The reality of AIDS from the 1980s? The impact worldwide? North America? France? Fears and uncertainties? The effect, health, psychological effects, the unknown origins, little known about the illness itself, the symptoms of the illness, disfigurements, diarrhoea, weakness? The deaths? The young dying? The further developments in medical treatment?

5. The impact on world awareness, the illness, an epidemic, mainly in men, homosexuals? Men and women with blood disorders, transfusions, haemophilia? Addicts and shared needles?

6. The screenplay and issues of government responsibility, pharmaceutical companies? The responsibilities of the community? Individuals?

7. The significance of protests? Of ACT UP in France? The rights for protest, the manner of protests? Issues of violence and non-violence? The spattering of blood? The Seine and blood red? Personal protest? Group protest?

8. The film as a combination of protests and personal stories?

9. The emotional response to all concerned, the uncertainties of AIDS, the illness, the gay men, the gay women, relationships, love, grief?

10. The protests, ACT UP? The group meetings, the intensity of the interventions, the age of the people present? The rules about intervening, snapping fingers for affirmation? The leaders and the control? Decisions? Protests and impulses and their consequences? Members of parliament, speeches, experiencing violence, spattered by fake blood? The pharmaceutical offices, the officials, the walls and the blood? The role of the police, violence, arrests?

11. The individuals and their stories? The members at the protest meetings, their interventions, intensity? Nathan and his being welcomed? Marco and his being young, his mother present? The women present? Sean and his interventions, outspoken? Thibault, his control? Sophie and her role?

12. Nathan and Sean, liking each other, the beginning of the relationship, Sean and his background from Chile, the presence of his mother? Love for Nathan? The meetings, the sexual encounter, the consequences? Sean with AIDS? Nathan not infected?

13. Sean and his getting weaker, going to hospital, his angers and having to cope, his being taken home, the presence of his mother, Nathan and the sexual experience? Giving the morphine? Sean’s death?

14. Nathan, his role in Sean’s death? Sean’s mother, laying him out, the friends all arriving, preparing the body for the funeral? The funeral itself? The individuals and their grief? Communal grief?

15. Nathan, spending the night with Tybalt, his way of dealing with the grief?

16. The story of the past, its relevance at the time, the continuing influence into the 21st-century?

PORK PIE


New Zealand, 2017, 105 minutes, Colour.
Dean O' Gorman, James Rolleston, Ashleigh Cummings, Antonia Prebble.
Directed by Matt Murphy.

30 years earlier than this film, Dir Geoff Murphy made the film Goodbye, Pork Pie, a comic road film.

In 2017, his son, Matt Murphy, reworks the themes in a 21st-century Road movie.

The focus of the film is on John, who is suffering from writer’s block, has jilted his wife at the altar. He is in her bad books and in the bad books of his friends. He encounters a young Maori speeding in a car and finds himself travelling with him. The young man says the car belonged to his mother – but it emerges that it does not, that is stolen it, that he does not have a drivers license. However, he is continually in exhilarated by his manoeuvres and by speed.

At a driving takeaway, they encounter a young girl who is having difficulties with her boss and with the ideology of burgers and meat. She joins the two in the car but photographs a lot of the action on her phone and post them on the Internet – which leads to the police further investigating as well as their having a lot of fans following their progress. When the to react badly to what she has done, she leaves them in a huff.

The drive starts at the top of the North island, goes south and they take the ferry to the South Island, driving, but also getting a lift from truck and train.

In the meantime, John has phoned his erstwhile fiance but only spoken with her angry mother. When he does get in touch, they agreed to meet at a certain time – but, with difficulties including the young Maori driver getting shot and going to hospital, he eventually gets to talk with his fiancee.

Happy ending, the boy and the girl reunited, another wedding ceremony – with the fiance keeping her intending husband to wait for several hours.

The marry is played by James Rolleston who made such an impact in the film Boy and a number of subsequent films as he grew older. The girl is played by Australian, Ashleigh Cummings (Hounds of Love).

1. The 21st century New Zealand road trip? Memories of the original film? The present director and his father’s work?

2. New Zealand, story, locations, characters? Style?

3. A road trip, from north to south, the car and its speed, training, ferry, trucks? The range of scenery? Songs and musical score?

4. John and his story, the wedding and his backing out, stranding his fiancee? Friends and anger? Advice from his friend, going to the party, word about his fiancee? His writing, the novel, writer’s block, the phone call from his agent? Encountering Luke, his personality, participating in the trip, the excitement, the driving? Keira and the hamburgers? Her joining them, travel down the North island, across to the South Island? The police, the chases? uploading the photos, displayed online, the media? People watching? The South Island, Keira leaving, John and his desperation, the dangers, the phone calls? His fiancee, her response? The time for meeting her, the others with their help and the variety of cars? The chases? The meeting, the car exploding? A serious as well as comic character?

5. Luke, his age, Maori, driving the car, speed, skills, reckless, taking his mother’s car – not? Having his licence – not? The encounter with John, the ride? Being pulled up by the policeman, taking off? The talking with John, about his writing? Bonding? Keira joining them, the travel, the sexual relationship? Uploading the photos? Seen everywhere? The decision to leave? Continuing, Luke becoming a popular hero, the police, trapped, his being shot, the ambulance, recovery?

6. Keira, her age, at work in the burger shop, the notice about the horsemeat? Deciding to travel, talking with Luke, the attraction, sexual relationship, uploading all the information? Her being upset, leaving? Joining Luke at the end?

7. John’s fiance, abandoned, her attitude, her mother and her severity, the phone calls, meeting up?

8. John and his friends, the support, warnings?

9. The police, the pursuits and chases?

10. The happy ending, the wedding, the fiancee keeping John waiting for an hour or two?

11. New Zealand larrikin folk hero story?

SMALL APARTMENTS

US, 2012, 86 minutes, Colour.
Matt Lucas, James Caan, Juno Temple, Saffron Burrowes, Peter Stormare, Johnny Knoxville, Rebel Wilson, James Marsden, DJ Qualls, Dolph Lundgren, Billy Crystal, David Koechner, Amanda Plummer, Rosie Perez, Ned Bellamy,
Directed by Jonas Akerlund.

This eccentric film is based on a novel by Chris Chillis. He has adapted the novel for the screenplay.

The setting is an apartment block in an American city. The audience is taken into various apartments but also out into the streets.

One of the most interesting aspects of the film is its very eclectic cast, and the range of well-known actors as characters or in cameos. Interestingly, also, is the fact that Matt Lucas is the central character and that he is British – although there is an international cast with Juno Temple and Saffron Burrows English, Peter Storare Swedish, Rebel Wilson Australian, Dolph Lundgren, Swedish. The film is directed by a Swedish director who has made a great number of music videos.

The author leaves it open as to whether this is realism or fantasy or both.

The film opens with the central character, Franklin (Matt Lucas) playing an enormous horn with Swiss mountains in the background. This is his fantasy. It irks his next door neighbour, Mr Allspice (James Caan). And the audience notices someone prostrate on the floor of the apartment, Mr Olivetti (Peter Stormare)

Franklin has an older brother, Bernard (James Marsden) who is an institution and sends Franklin a tape every month, advising him that God is watching. Bernard has been in the thrall of a Guru, of all people Dolph Lundgren, who has written and gives talks on mental health.

Complications come when Mr Olivetti is seen to be dead and Franklin imagines a variety of macabre ways in which to dispose of the body. Ultimately, he moves it downstairs, puts it in the boot of the car – but is attacked by two thugs who take the car and later use the gun in a hold-up in a local store, killing the attendant, played by Johnny Knoxville, whom we have seen in another of the apartments with his girlfriend played by Rebel Wilson. Across the way are two young women, Juno Temple and Saffron Burrowes, who are sexually provocative for Franklin who watches them with his binoculars.

With the discovery of the body, fire investigators are called in. They are led by Billy Crystal.

There are all kinds of theories as to what happened. However, Franklin is let go – and finds, on a visit to the institution where Rosie Pérez is the receptionist, that Bernard has left him a tape indicating that he had made a lot of money underhandedly and bequeaths it to Franklin for his new life – seen either in reality or in imagination in Switzerland.

1. The title? The novelist adapting his sardonic novel? Sardonic screenplay?

2. The vast and eclectic cast, their roles, characterisations, commuters?

3. The American city, the apartment block, exteriors, interiors? Franklin and his apartment? Mr Allspice and his apartment? Tommy Ball and his apartment? The streets, the fire chiefs, the garages, investigations? The musical score?

4. An American film – and the presence of British performers, especially Matt Lucas?

5. Reality/fantasy? Franklin and the opening, the Swiss background, the mountains, the Swiss horn? His imagining the background? Playing the horn, Mr Allspice and his objections? The end, Is Going to Switzerland, surrounded by the women – fantasy/reality? His life, awkwardness, his relationship to Bernard, Bernard in the institution, Bernard being older, the sequences at the bowling club, sending the parcel, the tapes, suggesting to Franklin that God was watching? Franklin and Mr Allspice and their arguments? His binoculars and watching Simone? Wearing only his underpants, going out with underpants and coat, his range of wigs and wearing them or not? Going to the shop, Simone getting it to open, Artie and his attention, off-hand? The visit to Bernard, the news of his death, the reaction of the woman in reception? The final tape, the explanation of Bernard stealing and the money? Bernard offering him a life?

6. Bernard and his discovery of the book about mental health, reading it, meeting the Guru, the humour of having Dolph Lundgren as the Guru? Attending the talks, confronting the Guru with questions and his being fobbed off? Told that he is mad?

7. Mr Olivetti, the landlord, lying on Franklin’s floor, dead? His imagining different ways of disposing of the body? Dragging him down the steps, putting the body in the car, Mr Allspice and his questions? To dispose of the body, the encounter with the thieves, the gun, his leaving, driving? The investigation? The flashbacks about Mr Olivetti, his lewd behaviour, the reason for Franklin’s attack, the sauce on the floor and Olivetti dying?

8. Mr Allspice, his age, widower, painting, arguing, friendship with Olivetti, the interrogation? His suicide?

9. Tommy and his apartment, his girlfriend and her slouching? As experimenting with the gravity bong? His work in the shop, pleasant? His mother arriving, reprimanding him, wanting him to go to church? The robbery in the store, his being shot? Simone and her being sad?

10. Simone, the dancing, sex and taunting Franklin with his binoculars?

11. Burt Walnut, his staff, fire investigations? His loneliness? The visit of the assistant and his variety of theories? The pubic hair? Getting more information, the robbers from the convenience store, the gun, the arrest? His letting Franklin go?

12. The end, themes of fate, death and life, survival?

L’ECOLE DE LA CHAIR/ SCHOOL OF FLESH

France, 1998, 110 minutes, Colour.
Isabelle Huppert, Vincent Martinez, Vincent Lindon, Marthe Keller, François Berleand, Daniele Dubroux, Bernard Le Coq, Roxane Mesquida, Jean- Louis Richard, Jean- Claude Dauphin, Michelle Goddet.
Directed by Benoit Jacquot.

This is a provocative title. The film is based on the writings of Japanese personality, Yukio Mishima. Mishima was a famous writer, leader in martial arts, organiser of groups, right-wing stances – and his eventual suicide. Paul Schrader made a film about the writer: Mishima. There have been versions of his writings including The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea.

The action is transferred from Japan to France. With the title, there is a question as to which of the central characters it applies. Firstly there is Dominique, yet another intense and persuasive performance by Isabelle Huppert (who was to work with the director, Benoit Jacquot, 20 years later in Eva). She is a middle-aged divorcee, bored with life, doing PR work, enjoying nightlife with a friend. At a suspicious club, she encounters Chris, a man who has decided to become a woman, and frequents the club, having some kind of hold over the young hustler, Quentin. (Chris is played in quite an uncharacteristic way by Vincent Lindon.). Quentin, Vincent Martinez, is young, with some kind of Arab background, a young hustler at the club.

The hustler has been in relationships, especially with a lawyer, played by François Berleand. Quentin is wilful in his relationships and rejections. But, Dominique is attracted, signs a contract with the lawyer and gives him a cheque so that she has full rights to Quentin (not telling him). He moves in with her, there is an intense relationship, affecting her more deeply than it does Quentin who still desires his freedom and to move around, even to hustle.

Also in the picture is a wealthy couple, the Thorpes, with Mrs Thorpe played by Marthe Keller. Eventually, Quentin is attracted to her daughter, Marine, and is engaged to her. There are quite some emotional repercussions for Dominique.

The end of the film, taking place some years later, is rather surprising. Dominique is still herself, standing by a car at the kerb and encountering Quentin whom she has not seen for some years and who is now married and has a young daughter.

1. The title? For Quentin? The Dominique?

2. An adaptation of the Japanese novel? The ethos of Mishima as a writer, martial arts, right-wing, social? His suicide? Adaptation of his themes to France?

3. The cast, the work of the director?

4. Paris, the gym and the boxing, the world of photography, modelling? Apartments and the range of homes? Restaurants? The streets and hustling? Offices? The sequences in Morocco, the touristic aspects, the hotels, the rooms? The musical score?

5. Quentin’s story, the opening with the boxing, his friends? Some coaching? The concern about his brother and his disability? His mother and her work? Hustler, questions of his orientation, bisexual behaviour? The patronage of Soukaz? Breaking with him? Spurning him in the restaurant? His work in the bar, Chris and the friendship and patronage? His dependence? Issues of money? The encounter with Dominique, her friend, meal, the attraction? Her return, the sexual encounter? His moving in with her, the rules, his freedom, the better clothes, modelling for photography? The party, meeting the Thorpes, Marine? The psychological effect of his life? Going out to hustling the streets? The money? The encounter with Soukaz? The attraction to Marine, the engagement, keeping it a secret from Dominique? The arrangement to go to Morocco, his behaviour there, with the Thorpes? At the apartment, David’s presence? The going to the Japanese restaurant, with Marine? David and his reaction? Dominique wanting him to, his sitting on the floor, sitting to stay? His finally leaving?

6. Dominique, her life, the failure of her marriage, age, bored, outings with her friend and discussions with her? The work, photography, PR? The memories of her father, meeting his friends and their praising her? The continued boredom, the attraction to Quentin, the initial encounter, the encounter with Chris? Her return? Their walking, talking, the sexual encounter? Her going to see Soukaz, the discussions, the contract, the cheque? Quentin not knowing, the setup, its effect on him, on her? Her being intense, the film focusing on her face, interior reactions? At home, the meals, going out? The visit to Morocco, her being upset with the Thorpes, wanting to return, staying? With Mrs Thorpe, the dresses and advice, Marine and her engagement? Her happiness with Quentin? Yet the edge, the changes, rescuing him from the hustling? The further discussions with Soukaz? His warning her that Quentin did not like being abandoned? The friendship with David, the discussions, the meal, his staying the night? Quentin’s reaction? The meal, her discovery that Quentin was engaged to Marine after helping her with the dress? The discussions with Mrs Thorpe, the feelings, anger? Her having to let go?

7. Her friend, going out, the socials, the parties, opinions, men?

8. Soukaz, his professional life, the meeting with Quentin, living with him, the breakup, the discussions with Dominique?

9. The Thorpe family, rich, industrialist, the wife, her husband and the issue of bisexuality, men, women? Marine, young, engaged to Quentin, the outings with him, the Japanese meal, the eventual break?

10. David, his role in Dominique’s life, the affair, staying the night then leaving, the meal at the restaurant?

11. Quentin, his mother, Dominique going to see her and her serving food? Home, with the brother?

12. The aftermath? Dominique, the car, waiting at the curb? Quentin arriving with his daughter, his affection for her? Their final discussions, his leaving – and his future?

SUNTAN

Greece, 2016, 104 minutes, Colour.
Efthymis Papadimitriou, Elli Triggou.
Directed by Argyris Papadimitropoulos.

The focus of this film is a 42-year-old doctor, Kostis, who has taken up a position as resident doctor on the Aegean island of Anaparis. He is welcomed by the Mayor and finds that he has many patients and is kept very busy. There is no explanation of what had happened to him before this appointment but he gives the impression that he has had hard times and, perhaps, is escaping his past.

However, things change with the coming of summer and to the coming of the tourists.

After showing the initial work of the doctor and his rapport with his patients, the film veers into hedonistic mode especially with a group of young tourists. The doctor befriends them when one of them has suffered an accident with a bike and has a gash on her leg. He is encouraged to go down to the beach, sees several of them swimming nude and sunbaking nude and is attracted and intrigued. They continue to befriend him.

While there is a lot of suntan, there is also a lot of hedonistic behaviour, on the beach, at nightclubs. The group seems to be carefree and rather sexually permissive.

The doctor seeks out their company, goes early from his practice, to the criticism of the locals, to be on the beach. Some of the locals make frequent lewd remarks about the availability of the women.

What happens is that the doctor becomes obsessed with the girl he treated at his practice. She is very cheerful with him, seeming to lead him on, even to a sexual encounter. It means far more to him than to her. In fact, he becomes completely obsessed, following the group, experiencing their mockery, their going off on a tour for several days without letting him know, his confronting the girl, her telling him off, her later mellowing in her response but urging him that the relationship has no future.

With these significant themes and a telling portrait from the actor bringing the doctor to life, the film suddenly stops. Dramatically, this is something of a letdown – but, of course, it means that the audience has to imagine and speculate about the doctor’s future, especially as he has disgraced himself in the eyes of the people on the island and the mayor and has to leave.

CLOSET MONSTER

Canada, 2015, 90 minutes, Colour.
Conor Jessup, Aaron Abrams, Jack Fulton, Joanne Kelly, Aliocha Schneider,Sophia Banzhaf. Voice of Isabella Rossellini.
Directed by Stephen Dunn.

Rather a disturbing title. Who will the monster turn out to be? And the implications of closet and sexual orientation?

All this is taken up in this Canadian film, filmed on location is in the provinces, written and directed by Stephen Dunn who had been making short films since the age of 19, some television episodes, and then this first feature film, released when he was 26.

As regards the monster, he is Oscar, whom we see as a little boy, hearing a story read by his father who wants him to be tough, not a sissy. The father is a tough man and, suddenly for Oscar, his mother leaves. Later, at school, Oscar will come across a gay boy who has been bashed in a hate crime, his father expressing dislike of gays.

In his teens, Oscar is on the way to being something of a closet monster. He is interested in leaving home, lives with his brutal father rather than his mother, is interested in film, photography and make up, with the help of the school friend, Gemma.

As regards the closet, he has a job in a supermarket, being trained by the woman in charge in how to deal with customers but, is eventually fired. But he does encounter a fellow worker, Wilder (Aliocha Schneider) who borrows his shirt – with an effect on Oscar’s psyche and his sexuality. He becomes friends with Wilder, taking him to his treehouse, going to a party, but sometimes misinterpreting Wilder’s stances.

There are some symbols, especially with spiralled iron emerging from Oscar’s stomach symbolising his disturbance sexually. When young, he was given the gift of a hamster by his parents and the film has him continually conversing with the hamster, sharing his life, getting advice. Later the hamster is brutally killed by his father, leading to a violent confrontation between father and son, the father being seen as monstrous towards his son and his son behaving accordingly.

However, he is reconciled with his mother and finally goes by himself to the coast, experiencing the spiralled iron again and talking with a new hamster (the hamster being voiced by Isabella Rossellini).

A realistic/fantasy exploration of gay sexual awakening and its effect.

1. The title? Oscar and his growing up as a monster? The closet and the allusions to homosexuality? Repression?

2. A Canadian production, filmed in the provinces? The home, the parents, little boy, the introduction? His father being tough, not wanting his son to be a sissy, learning to fight? Arrows? His mother and her love? The father, reading the stories, breathing them into the balloon, putting them on Oscar’s forehead so he could dream? The shock of his mother leaving, the argument between his parents, the father telling Oscar?

3. Oscar, in his teens, as a character? His father’s erratic behaviour, work, the clashes? The brutality of his father? His mother absent?

4. At school, seeing the boy bashed, the hate crime, gay boy, the cemetery? The effect on him?

5. Teenager, at school, working at the supermarket, the woman in charge training him to deal with customers, the effect? The encounter with Wilder, lending his shirt? The interest, sexual rousings, the attraction? His attitude towards Wilder, imaginative? Real?

6. His ambitions, movies, special effects, make up? His working with the girl, helping her? The attraction, her response? Distancing himself from her?

7. Gemma, her ambitions, work with Oscar, meeting with him, helping him?

8. The importance of the hamster, the gift from his parents, the character? The hamster talking, tone of voice, shared life and confidences? The finale with the death of the hamster, his father’s intervention? At the beach, with the new hamster, the explanation that there were several hamsters in his life with his parents buying new ones?

9. Oscar, his imagination, the twisted iron in his stomach, with his homoerotic imagination? At the end and his drawing out the long piece?

10. Wilder, his character, talking of going to Berlin, the friendship with Oscar, inviting him to the party, Oscar at the party, his misinterpreting Wilder? The effect?

11. The treehouse, taking Wilder to the treehouse? The effect? His father’s reaction?

12. The bizarre behaviour of Oscar’s father? The buildup to the confrontation, Oskar abusing his father, the violence?

13. The visit of his mother, her interventions, taking care of him, reconciliation, explanations?

14. Oscar, going away, to the beach, with the hamster? His future?