GRANDE ECOLE

France, 2004, 110 minutes, Colour.
Gregori Baquet, Alice Taglioni, Jocelyn Quivrin, Elodie Navarre, Arthur Jugnot, Salim Kechiouche.
Directed by Robert Salis.

The Grande Ecole of the title is a Paris Institute for business studies.

The film opens in Carcassonne with vistas of the mediaeval Castle and walls. Two young men are at a party, preparing to go to Paris to study. One is Bernard, his mother, when they get to Paris, insists on the biggest room in the student wing for her son, although it is occupied by the third young man who shares the apartment, Louis-I’m? no. However, the central character is Paul.

While the film is about contemporary business, deals and sales, it is also very much a film about sexuality as well as sexual orientation. Already, at the initial party, the audience has seen Paul valued his parents and go to a room with his girlfriend, Agnes. She is also studying in Paris, concerned about human rights. Bernard has a girlfriend but he is very much the less a character in the story. Louis-Arnaud? becomes the focus of attention, a clever young man, aristocratic and wealthy, who also has a girlfriend, Emeline.

The film is something of a variation on dangerous liaison is. While Paul sees himself as heterosexual, he becomes interested in, then attracted to Louis-Arnaud?. The sexual attraction is highlighted by Louis-Arnaud? and his involvement in watersports with a brief but explicit shower sequence (and later longer one with Paul gazing at the showering men).

A subplot in the film concerns a young Arab worker, the men doing work around the school, his brother involved in music but unstable, later stabbing Louis-Arnaud? when he thinks he has been slighted. The men at work are considered by most as being of a lower class. The young worker is also homosexual, responds well when Paul intervenes for his rights, takes him out to a club, makes an advance which Paul rejects but later makes connection and they begin an affair.

Agnes senses what is happening and she proposes a wager with Paul. Each will try to seduce Louis-Arnaud? with consequences for their own relationship which, in fact, continues quite explicitly.

In the meantime, there are some sequences of social justice, a man imprisoned been interviewed by Agnes, her going to a justice speech, and is trying to get Louis-Arnaud? to intervene in a case to get his parents influence.

Paul is not really interested in the business course. Bernard finds it very difficult.

Ultimately, Paul has to make a decision about his orientation. He breaks the affair with the Arab worker. In the meantime, Agnes Butler behave seductively with Louis-Arnaud? – with affecting results for Emeline.

Very French – the screenplay leaving it to the audience to respond to each of the characters, the wager, attitudes towards sexual behaviour and sexual orientation, with a questionmark at the end rather than everything made clear for everyone involved.

PETER RABBIT

US/Australia, 2018, 97 minutes, Colour.
Rose Byrne, Domhnall Gleeson, James Corden, Elizabeth Debicki, Margot Robbie,
Directed by Will Gluck.

Peter Rabbit is one of the most liked characters from the Tales by Beatrix Potter. Her children’s stories have the touch of the genteel – but Peter, in this version, could in no way be called genteel. He is something of a trickster, something of a leader of the other rabbits, shrewd and often cunning.

This version of Peter Rabbit story is a blend of animation, the drawings very much like the illustrations in the Beatrix Potter books, and live-action. There are some striking scenes of London and its landmarks. But, most of the rest of the film was made in New South Wales, standing in for the English countryside.

Part of the amusement of the film is the recognition of the voices, especially James Cordon who voices Peter with a touch of mischief. His sisters are voiced by Margot Robbie, who also narrates the film, Elizabeth Debicki and Daisy Ridley. With the film being made in Australia, there are assorted Australian voices throughout the film including Ewen Leslie and, for a rather dapper mouse who guides the rabbits around London, David Wenham. Peter’s parents are seen in the picture in Bea’s house – they have words of wisdom for Peter, voiced by Rachel Ward and Bryan Brown.

The setting for the film are the English woods as well as a country house with an artist studio attached. This is where Bea, an artist, played by Rose Byrne, does her work. Nearby is a vegetable garden worked on by a very crotchety old man, Sam Neill. He is the target for Peter and the rabbits, tantalising him and, of course, plundering his vegetable garden. When he dies, his nephew who has suffered a breakdown working at Harrods in London, Alexander, played by Domhnall Gleeson, comes down to get the uncle’s mansion ready for sales. Like his uncle, he is very wary of the rabbits, trying to block up every possible entry, every hole, every fence, every gate.

But, Bea has more than a soft spot for the rabbits and, despite being attracted by Alexander, is upset at his anti--rabbit tactics, especially when there are explosives around the fields. This is not helped at all when Peter actually detonates some of the explosives and one of them uproots an enormous tree which crashes down on Bea’s studio.

So, a visit to London, to find Alexander at Harrods. Peter goes with Benji, gets a tour of London, encounters Alexander trying to do his best again at Harrods but they cause absolute mayhem.

The only possible result is that they all go back happily to the countryside, Alexander returning and is reconciled with Bea – and there is free access for the rabbits to the vegetable garden.

There is probably enough to amuse a children’s audience but there is a lot of frantic action, the old man seen dying on screen, explosions – and a couple of rather rude jokes.



1. The popularity of Beatrix Potter’s Tales? Love for Peter Rabbit and the other characters? Expectations for this film?

2. A contemporary interpretation? The live-action? The animation and the style of the illustrations for Beatrix Potter stories? The musical score and the amusing use of songs?

3. The strong voice cast and the narration?

4. The effect of the animation, the rabbits, the humans, action? Delightful in origin?

5. The impact of the live-action? The locations, Windemere, the countryside, the woods, the artist’s house and studio, the mansion, the gardens, the vegetables? The contrast with the scenes of London, all the sites? Harrods and the interiors? The musical score?

6. The introduction with the birds singing, audience anticipation of sweetness – and then Peter rushing through them? The return of the birds at the end and Peter joining in the song?

7. The story of Peter Rabbit, his appearance, James Corden’s voice, intonations, serious and comic? The interactions with old Mc Gregor? The rights to the vegetables in the garden, going in, Benjamin, getting old, going in with Peter? The sisters as lookouts? McGregor? as crotchety, pursuing the rabbits, the traps, in his beard? Bea and her pleasant manner and reassuring him? His collapse?

8. Bea, by herself, artist? Loving the rabbits? Considering them sweet? The encounter with Alexander, the attraction? Talking with him, wanting to keep the gate open for the rabbits?

9. Alexander, the breakdown in London, at Harrods, wanting to sell his uncle’s mansion, to open a toy shop near Harrods? His work, fixing the gate, blocking all the entries for the rabbits? Ultimately setting up explosives? The attraction to Bea?

10. Peter and his personality, his sisters and their personalities, voices? Benjamin Bunny? The other woodland animals, the pig, and the pig intervening at the end?

11. Peter and his tormenting Alexander, the lengths that he went to, personal? Alexander and his exasperation? Denying the explosions to Bea? Peter and his detonating, the uprooting of the tree, falling on Bea’s studio? Her reaction to Alexander? Defending the rabbits?

12. Alexander, going to London, the manager at Harrods, the possibility of getting his job back, his knowledge of the departments? His taking the job?

13. The rabbits, catching the train to London, Benjamin and his awkwardness? Arriving in London, meeting the rat, very urban British, showing them the sites, the flags and glasses? Their going to Harrods? Talking to Alexander, his not sure whether he was hearing the voices or whether it as all in his mind? The chases, causing the mayhem?

14. The return home, the couple who were buying the mansion, the rabbits setting up the electric shock and the doorbell, the mess in the house? The clients leaving?

15. Peter, his confession, revealing the detonator? His being sorry? And his appeal to his parents – and their talking to him from the picture? Reassuring him? Her love for him and his sisters?

16. The happy ever after, Alexander and Bea? The vegetables and the rabbits? The other animals?

17. Happy fantasy for young audiences – and for those who remember the tales of Beatrix Potter from their childhood?

THE DIVINE ORDER/ DIE GOTTLICHE ORDNUNG

Switzerland, 2017, 97 minutes, Colour.
Marie Leuenberger, Maximilian Simonischek, Sybille Brunner.
Directed by Petra Volpe.

A significant time in Switzerland, the issue of votes for women, February 1971.

Probably this piece of information will come as a surprise to most audiences. After all, New Zealand had votes for women in the late 19th century. The suffragettes of the early part of the 20th century in the UK would have been very surprised to learn that Swiss women would not get the vote until over half a century later. And, the film adds at the end, the last Canton in Switzerland to approve votes for women did this in 1990.

To get us in a frame of mind, the film opens with the feminist movement, especially in the United States, in the 1960s and into the 1970s, glimpses of Gloria Steiner and other feminists, demonstrations and protests.

This is the story of Nora, a housewife in a remote German-speaking village where there was little awareness of feminism. But, of course, with Nora, this was to change.

The screenplay of the film cannot be described as particularly subtle. The patriarchal aspects of Swiss society are very obviously presented and, in case we don’t notice, we are continually nudged to notice. While there is a touch of parody in the presentation of the patriarchal life in the village, the role of men, the acknowledgement of men as superior, The Divine Order, there is also an acknowledgement that this is and has been reality.

The women are expected to stay at home in this village, looking after the children, doing the cooking, the cleaning (and, as Nora hoovers the living room and her cantankerous father-in-law sits reading the paper, raising his feet so that she can hoover under them without any acknowledgement of her besides this) and continually wash socks. She has two sons – who will later assert that they are boys and therefore…

Her husband works in a factory and is summoned to a meeting by an unmarried and rather dominating woman who, surprisingly, promotes him, and then gives a speech against the impending vote about women’s rights and politics. The men all agree. Later she turns up at a meeting of the women’s club, asking for donations for the cause. By this time, Nora has been made aware of the campaign for women’s suffrage and refuses to donate.

While this might cause and shock horror, Nora has read some pamphlets, appreciates how she is put upon by the men in the family, has a compassion for her sister-in-law who is even more put upon, and her sister-in-law’s daughter who wants to get out of the village, is underage, is nicknamed the village bike and who is put into an institution and then, after escaping, into prison.

In collaboration with Vroni, an older woman in the village who was in favour of the suffrage in the 1959 campaign, who has lost the restaurant she worked in for 40 years, and with Graziella, the new owner, an Italian, they plan to have a meeting about women’s rights. Even more shock horror from the men. This is compounded when the three women decide to visit Zürich to look at a protest march, get caught up in it and are photographed with a banner.

The meeting is something of a fiasco, stacked with men, the prim unmarried woman dominating the conversation and asking for a show of hands – almost unanimously against the vote for women. However, some of the women secretly agree and the movement begins to grow, leading to a Lysistrata moment (the women going on strike and leaving their husbands at home to do everything).

Coupled with this is a story about the women of the village, their ignorance about sexuality and their bodies, movements of bodily and sexual awareness (led by a Swedish expert).

On the day of the vote, the women stand outside watching while a procession of men pass through and place their ballots. The vote for women is carried.

The film was released in 2017, the year of the Harvey Weinstein revelations, the Me Too# movement and other vigorous women’s movements – which gives even more of a resonance to this heavily-messaged film.

1. The title? The traditional patriarchy? Feminism? The 1970s? From the perspective of the 21st-century?

2. A Swiss film, the history of Swiss voting for women’s rights, Switzerland’s feminist history in the early 1970s? The protest movement?

3. Suffragette movements from the 19th century, into the 20th century, Switzerland very late? Comparisons with New Zealand, the United Kingdom of the suffragettes? The last Canton voting for women’s rights in 1990?

4. The political movement and the feminist movement coinciding and combining in Switzerland?

5. The screenplay and its direct approach – not subtle? Nudging and forcing audiences to notice the patriarchal style and the subjugation of women?

6. The introduction, the feminist movement in the 1960s, the United States, Gloria Steiner and other leaders? The remote Swiss village not touched by this movement?

7. Nora, her story, her life in the village, growing up there, marrying, having children? On her bike? Her family, the relationship with Hans, with the two boys, her crotchety father-in-law living with them? Her relationship with Theres? Werner, the farm, his father wanting him to manage it alone? Oppressive? Her niece, Hannah and her troubles? The focus on the domestic details? The experience of the patriarchy?

8. The early sequences, the role of women, the role of men, in the home, cleaning, cooking, washing, hoovering, the father-in-law lifting his feet for the hoover, the attitude of the sons, claiming they were boys and had male rights? The comments by the father-in-law?

9. Nora, taking life for granted, seeing the advertisement for the secretary for the travel agency, not allowed to apply without her husband’s permission, by law? The story of Magda, her studying law, giving it up for her husband and his not encouraging her to continue? Graziella, the restaurant, her philandering husband, the divorce, taking him back, his going off at times? The experience of Vroni, her husband, the restaurant, 40 years, losing her home? Nora’s speech at her funeral – the contrast with the speech of the pastor and his completely happy recount of Vroni’s life?

10. The factory, the men, their attitudes, their incomprehensibility about women? Their actions and speech – so much cringeworthy for the contemporary audience?

11. Miss Wipf, her appearance, speeches, her control, spinster, her career? The judgement on the men, Hans and his promotion? Her stance against the vote for women? Her speeches about women and their place, the home and family? Biblical quotes? Her collection for money from the women’s club – and Nora refusing?

12. Hannah’s story, her age, suppressed by her parents, called the bike of the village, talking with Nora, clashes with her mother, the music in her room? Using Nora to meet her boyfriend, going off on the bike, her being put in the institution, transfer to the prison?

13. Nora, her meeting with of Vroni and the street, Magda? Vroni and her story, going to the old restaurant? The true story? Her life, wanting to vote in 1959, tough attitudes, outspoken, the cigars? The decision to hold a meeting, going to make the booking for the meeting? Nora and her meeting with feminists, giving her pamphlets and books?

14. The decision about the meeting, raising the cash, Graziella helping, printing the flyers, putting them around the town, the hostile reactions, Theres and her upset when visiting Hannah with Nora? Changing your attitude? Leaving Werner? His violence? Hans away? Their booking the hall, the proprietor talking about God’s will, Vroni’s retort about adultery? God’s Order?

15. Zürich, the visit, the March, the joining in, being photographed, the men seeing it in thet factory? Going to the party, the workshop with the Swedish leader, reversing repression? Sexual awareness, physical and bodily awareness, the reaction of the women, the mirrors, orgasm…?

16. The meeting, Nora’s speech, Hans arriving, upset, Miss Wipf and righteous interventions? the vote for and against? Nora being pelted? Hans not defending her? The reaction of the town – the boys, school, the little boy not wanting to go because of the attitude of the children?

17. The strike, the experience, more women joining, the solidarity, playing cards, drinking, talking, sleeping in the dormitories? The stone thrown in the window? The attack, the men? Vroni’s collapse?
18. The women going home, resuming chores? Hans and Nora, his buying a ticket for the holiday, her going to the interview for the job, getting the job? The separation? Staying
with Graziella? With the children? Her speech at the funeral – and Hans holding her hand?

19. The impact of the funeral, the town there, Vroni’s memory, Nora speaking the truth?

20. The date the vote, the women en masse, the men walking through the women, their voting?

21. The information about the result, throughout Switzerland?

22. The changes at home, Theres and her changing, reunited with Hannah, Hans going to see Werner and his collapse at the farm, Hans rebuking his father-in-law? Hans and Nora, the sexual discussion and experience?

23. 20th century politics and feminism?

POP AYE

Thailand, 2017, 105 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kirsten Tan.

A film from Thailand. A film about an elephant. And the name of the elephant’s Pop Aye.

This is a very quirky film – although, audiences are not used to see quirkiness from Thailand. It will have a local appeal and, apparently, international audiences have responded very well to the star, the elephant.

We are introduced to a middle-aged man leading an elephant along the road in country Thailand. He needs a rest, hails down a truck with the audience watching how an elephant, lumbering but elegant, steps onto the back of the truck. But soon, the man clashes with the truck driver and is left on the side of the road again. Which means that the audience is wondering what this is all about.

Throughout the film there are a number of flashbacks so we are able to build up the story of the man and his past and his encounters with the elephant. In fact, he first met the elephant as a child, when its mother was shot, and his uncle took the elephant in (while the kids were watching cartoons of Popeye on the television). Later, the elephant was part of a circus.

The man is having something of a midlife crisis, seen on television being interviewed about demolishing of buildings in Bangkok, the building of new high-rise buildings, the achievement of the man in the past – but, the younger generation is coming up, not telling the man that a board meeting was in the morning when he thought it was the afternoon. And, there is tension between himself and his wife.

At this stage, he happens to see the elephant in the street and is moved. He is actually moved to buy the elephant with the quest to take him back to his uncle in the countryside.

Which means that this is what might be called “an elephant road movie.� There are various people to meet along the way. There is a sympathetic beggar and the man takes compassion on him. There is a bar where he is taken by the police who accuse him of having forged papers for the elephant. There is a transgender prostitute, a female prostitute. Then the beggar is found dead on the road and the man decides to take his body to a Buddhist temple (where the monk is interested in the fee and has a Visa card ready as well as a camera to take pictures of the elephant). There is the dead beggar’s love from long ago, she and the man scattering the ashes in a ritual by a tree. Finally, Pop Aye getting back home.

While these are the high points of the story, what matters is seeing the them, appreciating their quirkiness, wondering what will happen to the man and his wife as well as to the elephant.

1. The appeal? An elephant story? A human story? Asia, Thailand?

2. The Thai tone of the film? Serious Thai, comic light? Thai quirky?

3. The title, the name of the elephant? The audience discovering the elephant’s past, with its dead mother having been shot, the kids and watching the cartoon of Popeye on television, going to the elephant, playing in the water? Uncle Peak? Thana as a little boy, his memories?

4. Bangkok, the vistas of the city, modern? The new buildings, demolition, rebuilding? Skyscrapers?

5. Thana, the audience meeting him on the road with the elephant, the puzzle?

6. Thana and his life, his age, his wife and the dildo, the tension between them, the arguments, her leaving? His being interviewed on television, the tribute to his architectural and building skills? The younger generation? The meetings, his not being invited? Becoming part of the older generation? Treatment by the young?

7. Audience response to elephant, enjoying seeing him, in action?

8. Thana, seeing the elephant in the street, memories, buying him, walking through the countryside, the range of countryside and vistas of Thai scenery? The range of the musical score and tone?

9. The encounters on the road:
• the truck stopping, giving Thana and the elephant the lift, the driver story, Thana sleeping, getting out and abandoned?
• The encounter with Dee, a beggar, on the road, the people around him, his story, Thana helping him with money, lending the phone? Discovering that Dee had called him a saint? The police, shooting at the elephant, demanding Thana’s license, the forgery? Phoning authorities? The slow progress along the road?
• The impatient watermelon driver, passing, losing all his watermelons, the policeman eating, Thana eating, the elephant eating?
• At the end? The transgender entertainer, prostitute, customers, befriending Thana, his giving the sunglasses? Lining up the toilet? Later giving him the key to unlock the chains for the elephant?
• The prostitute, her glamour, in the club, in the toilet, the sexual encounter with Thana? His impotence?
• Discovering Dee and the motorbike accident, his death, the elephant spraying him was water? Recovering his phone? The bystanders taking the bike?
• Thana going to the Buddhist temple, the discussion about the burial, the ashes? Taking a Visa card, the monk photographing the elephant?
• Thana and his going to see Ja, her not having seen Dee for many years, his wanting to come and take her for a motorbike ride? Her reaction? Taking the ashes, going to the tree, the ceremony of scattering the ashes?
• Ja’s father and his concern about the elephant, lending the truck?
• The visit to Uncle Peak, the memories?
• And letting the elephant go?

10. Thana’s wife, leaving the house, the taxi, the mirror and the make up, the phone calls, rejoining him, going to the old building and reminiscing?

11. The audience sharing Thana and his experiences, and the experiences of Pop Eye?

THE DEATH OF STALIN

UK, 2017, 109 minutes, Colour.
Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Jeffrey Tambor, Michael Palin, Jason Isaacs, Rupert Friend, Andrea Reisborough, Olga Kurylengo, Paddy Considine, Justin Edwards, Adrian Mc Loughlin, Paul Whitehouse, Paul Chahidi, Diana Quick, Sylvie Le Touzel.
Directed by Armando Iannucci.

Cinema and television stories of the absurd, with an anchor in real life, could be a description of the work of writer-director Armando Iannucci. His satirical television series on British politics, and political minders, The Thick of It and the cinema version, In the Loop, as well as his originating the American series Veep, have had the ability to make people laugh and cringe at the same time.

It is something of the same here with his take on Soviet Russia, Stalin and his tyranny, the Soviet politburo, a 1953 setting, Stalin’s final days and his death.

Iannucci always has a serious underlining tone to his satire. He seems to work on the principle that one way of dealing with harsh realities is to let off steam through jokes.

With Stalin, although the memories of his decades of rule of the Soviet Union are more than 60 years in the past, this film is a tale of ruthlessness as embodied in his politburo. It is all patently absurd – or is it?

Some audiences have found many of the sequences laugh-out-loud. Others have found a great deal of amusement, interior chuckles more than guffaws, and a checking on how this all relates to memories of the historical episodes and characters.

The tone is set with an orchestral concert as the opening sequence, Paddy Considine as the producer discovering, to his horror when Stalin rings asking for recording of the concert, that none was made! What to do given the military, the KGB, Stalin’s own reputation? The producer brings many of the audience back into the concert hall, rounds up people from the street to fill the seats, to record high applause, to bribe the pianist Maria (Olga Kuryenko) to repeat her performance, cope with the collapse of the conductor and do a raid on an apartment to bring and alternate conductor to do the work in his dressing gown and pyjamas.

And Stalin gets the record, plays it, has a stroke, collapses and dies.

Andy Mc Loughlin does a good impersonation of Stalin – though his accent! And this is the case with all the characters in the film, the actors perform with their own natural accents, from American, to broken English, too harsh Yorkshire… Iannucci has said that Stalin’s advisers came from all over the Soviet Union.

Then the film progresses in chapters, coping with the death, the period of mourning, the funeral, and the regulations quoted about all these events especially who is to take over power. There are several contenders. The actual deputy is the rather weak Malenkov, a good performance from Jeffrey Tambor. Then there is Molotov, of cocktail fame so to speak, played as an extreme loyalist to Stalin and the Soviet, even denouncing his wife for torture, and is played by Michael Palin. Extremely prominent, but we know what will eventually happen to him, is Nikita Kruschev played, with his American accent, by Steve Buscemi.

However, as older audiences with memories of Stalinist days and the KGB will expect, there is a central focus on the head of the KGB, Beria. He is played with intensity by Simon Russell Beale, forever making lists of people to be arrested and tortured, executed, manipulating the members of the politburo, especially Malenkov, clashing tactics and ideas with Kruschev. He also has a rather unsavoury private life.

Then there is Stalin’s alcoholic and rather mad son, Vassily, played by Rupert Friend. And his rather hard daughter, Svetlana, played by Andrea Reisborough.

There are meetings, chaired by Malenkov, controlled by Beria, reluctantly agreed to by Kruschev for unanimity, the autopsy (graphic with a saw in Stalin’s cranium), his lying in state, the ceremonial of the funeral, the forbidding of crowds travel by train, and guns fired at them…

And finally, the manipulation of power, the emergence of Kruschev, the arrival of the military in the presence of General Zhukov (Jason Isaacs), the type that takes no prisoners who shoots first and then makes offhand comments.

While this is all set in the past and is an ironic look at tyranny, bureaucratic struggles, ruthlessness and struggles for power, it is interesting to think about subsequent deaths and succession issues, or, perhaps, of Russia in the present, or even the 2017-2018 history of the American President and the turnover of advisers in the White House.

1. The title, audience expectations, live memories of the death of Stalin, historical memories?

2. The role of Stalin, the development of the Soviet Empire, his reign of terror, the long reign, the style of his rule, despotism, the 30s and the gulags, participation in World War II, defeat of the Germans? The 1950s, his age, eccentricities? The Cold War? World fears?

3. The director, the comedy of his writing, wit, irony, spoofs and parodies? And with serious themes?

4. The cast, the range, both sides of the Atlantic, using their ordinary accents? The effect?

5. This treatment as fact or fiction? Both?

6. Audience knowledge of Stalin, after 60 years? Knowledge of Kruschev? The end of the Soviet Empire, the 21st century, Vladimir Putin, his long rule? Bureaucrats in crises? Apt and inept?

7. The parallels with various rulers, history mocking Mussolini and Hitler? 21st-century United States? The treatment of George W. Bush, Donald Trump?

8. The structure of the film: the episodes, 1953 setting, Stalin, his stroke and death? The chapters with the regulations specified?

9. The performance of the orchestra, the Soviet audience, the producer and his anxiety, the people in the recording room – and no record? Stalin’s phone call? Listening to music, his request? The bumbling of the producers? Urging the audience to stay, bringing people from outside with no knowledge of Mozart? The new conductor? His collapse? Raiding the house, the conductor in pyjamas? The audience applauding, the sending of the record, the argument with the military? Maria, her playing, the demanding more money to continue? Her writing of the note denouncing Stalin and putting it in the record jacket?

10. Stalin, appearance, his accent, his room, the guards outside, not to be disturbed, playing the music, his collapse?

11. The introduction to the Politburo? The different actors and their accents? Kruschev, his role, his relationship with his wife? Michael Palin as Molotov, ultra-loyal, denouncing his wife, her torture, her sudden return? Malenkov and his weakness, the Deputy, easily swayed, not understanding? The other members, their appearance, manner, their roles, Ministry? The meal with Stalin, watching the John Ford, John Wayne western, going to sleep? Loyalty to the Soviet, socialism, the desire for power? The jokes, the stories, the risk of being on the list?

12. Simon Russell Beale as Beria, his history, in charge of the KGB, his compiling lists, the frequent arrests, the nature of the torture? His liking the little girls? The range of agents? Exercise of power, his relationship to each of the politburo and intimidating them? The news about Stalin, finding him, getting the keys, the secret cupboards and drawers, getting the documents? Control? Ambitions?

13. Stalin collapsed, the hesitation in getting the doctor? The issue of rules and regulations? Carrying the body, the autopsy, the head sawn open, the reactions? Vasilly and his sudden arrival and reaction? His alcoholism, unreliability? Svetlana, daughter, strong in her attitudes, with each of the politburo, the demands on Beria? The pomp of the funeral, lying in state, Kruschev making the ceremonial move with Molotov? The crowds, Beria forbidding the trains, the reversing of his orders, the crowds coming, the shooting into the crowd, recriminations?

14. Vasilly as mad, his outbursts, his preparing his speech, delivering it with the group on the balcony?

15. Svetlana, her father, controlled, orders, hard, wanting her dead lover? Concern about Vasilly?

16. The politburo meetings, Malenkov and his presiding, Beria and his setting the agenda, asking the questions, insinuations? Hints for Malenkov? Kruschev, his hesitations – and
then Malenkov wanting unanimity? The various decisions?

17. Molotov, the denunciation of his wife, the return, his double standards, fear, his loyalty to Stalin and its traditions?

18. Beria, the guards, the prisoners, Molotov’s wife, reversal of orders, seeming liberal?

19. The plans, the deals, the secrets, the codes? Molotov and his arguments, yes and no? Kruschev and his ambitions? The support of the other ministers? Malenkov and his fears?

20. The arrival of General Zhukov, his manner, control, his medals, his part in the plot, his shooting Beria? The condemnations of Beria, cruel, power, the little girls? And seeing the girl going to his room? The contrast with Malenkov and his wanting to be photographed with a little girl who had been photographed with Stalin?

21. The subsequent history of the Soviet Union? The politburo ruling? Kruschev and his 1956 takeover?

EARLY MAN

UK, 2018, 89 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Eddie Redmayne, Tom Hiddleston, Maisie Williams, Timothy Spall, Richard Ayoade, Mark Williams, Miriam Margolyes, Rob Brydon, Nick Park, Johnny Vegas.
Directed by Nick Park.

Audiences may not know the name, Aardman Studios. But they recognise the animated characters in their films, especially Wallace and Gromit. Over the decades, director, Nick Park, has provided humorous entertainment for audiences worldwide.

Early Man is the latest film from Aardman. It is amusing – but rather slight in scope than a number of the previous films.

And, there is the question of the title and exclusive language, Early Man. And that is what it seems like for the first part of the film. A mother does appear amongst all the cavemen – but soon, there are movements towards gender equality as a young girl, skilled in sport, comes to join the community. And, in the final confrontation in an arena, the ruler is exposed as something of a booby and avaricious while his queen takes command. Early Man and Early Woman.

Actually, the film opens in the Neo-Pleistocene? age, rugged to rains, cavemen fighting each other, prehistoric animals fighting each other. But, down from the clouds comes a meteor destroying the landscapes – but leaving a fiery box which burns the cavemen’s fingers and feet as they touch it, causing them to pass it, kick it around. Perhaps it is an open question but it may be that the origins of football/soccer are prehistoric. This theory is reinforced by the caption that the action in this very ancient world takes place “near Manchester� and “around lunchtime�.

These original football players bequeath their memories to cave art.

Then moving forward a couple of millennia and Ages, the film takes us to the Stone Age. The terrain this time is rather lush. The Stone Age characters are what we might imagine (perhaps thanks to the Flintstones), they are certainly Aardman characters with their protruding teeth and voices from top British actors, with Timothy Spall as the Chief, Eddie Redmayne as the hero, Dug, and the young girl, Goona, who proves herself an ace at soccer, Maisie Williams.

Part of the activities in the Stone Age is hunting – but, as in the previous Aardman film, there is a rabbit, not a Were-Rabbit? but are wary rabbit who is able to outwit the hunters (and who actually has the last laugh of the film).

But, armoured warriors from the Bronze Age invade the cavemen, rounding them up, threatening them with work in the mines. However, these Bronze Age invaders sound as if they come from the continent (even though the Lord is voiced by Tom Hiddleston and his queen, rather like Edith Evans in The Importance of Being Earnest, is voiced by Miriam Margolyes).

And these continental fops, exceedingly vain, are champion footballer’s. The plan is made that they should play the cavemen, with cavemen to lose and being sentenced to all work in the mines. The Lord is persuaded that this match would be worthwhile because he sees all the coins coming in as revenue. Dug is enthusiastic, tries to train his fellows – leading to a lot of bumbling comedy. But, Goona comes to the rescue.

Just when the depressed Dug is about to forfeit the match, the team all arrives on a huge flying duck/goose. The continental Bronzes are a bit shocked when the visitors score. While the match is enjoyable to watch, the parallels with contemporary football matches in England are very amusing, not only a score board, but an hourglass for the timekeeping, a replay courtesy of puppet figures and two commentators in a box, one English, one Scot, both voiced amusingly with jokes and puns by Rob Brydon.

We can guess the result of the match, the final tensions, the victory, the expose of the Lord, the taking command by the Queen and a happy ending prior to the advance of the next prehistoric Age.

(Nick Park voices, a character called Hobnog, a pig who thinks he is a dog and wants to play football! And Park also reminds audiences that the screenplay was in preparation long before Brexit nationalism and voting!)

1. The title? Prehistoric ages? The focus on Man? The later developments on Woman? And the parallels with contemporary life?

2. The popularity of Aardman animation, locations, prehistory, the Bronze Age parallels with the Roman Empire, the characters, their appearance, manner, in action? The musical score?

3. The talent of the voice cast?

4. The focus on Man? The few women present? The gradual changes, the presence of the mother, the arrival of the girl champion, and the presence and authority of the Queen?

5. The neo-Pleistocene age, the look of the men, cavemen, fighting with the animals? The creatures fighting? The arrival of the meteor, destructive? The fireball, difficult to touch, becoming a football? And the drawings to commemorate the experience?

6. The initial setting, “near Manchester, lunchtime�? The British parallels? Football – and the pun on “man united�?

7. The shift to the Stone Age, from desert landscapes to lush? The role of the men, the Chief, Dug, the Chief waking up, shaving? The going hunting, not understanding the Chief’s warnning noises? The rabbit, chasing, tangling them, eventual capture, being tied up? The men as inept and awkward? The presence of the mother? And Mr Rock?

8. The sudden attack of the Bronze Age warriors, conquering them? The blend of farce and fight?

9. The Stone Age men, in camps, behind the barbed wire, threatened for work in the mines?

10. The Bronze Age toffs, arrogant, Lord Nooth, the parallel with the Roman emperors, dress, manner? Courtiers, football players? Accents – and the continent? The tradition of the clash between England and France?

11. The character of Dug, small, in himself, Eddie Redmayne’s voice, as a hunter, proud, the football, introducing the game, the training, the paintings?

12. Training, farcical aspects, jokes, learning how to play, Hobnog being excluded?

13. Lord Nooth, the arrangement of the football match, his wariness, seeing the gold coin and his avarice? His adviser? The message bird arriving from the Queen, the message, the parallel with recordings and telephones? Nooth and his insulting the Queen, the message taken back to her?

14. The challenge, the arrival of Goona, her expertise, a woman becoming significant? The training?

15. Dug, going to the Stadium, his falling down the seats, his beginning to forfeit? The team arriving on the bird?

16. The crowd, the parallels with contemporary football matches, the scoreboard, the hourglass and the timing, the puppets for the replay?

17. Doug, willing to forfeit the match, Chief and the players turning up, their all flying in on the big bird? The play, the goals and their skills? The Bronze Age players being surprised?

18. The commentary box and the jokes and the contemporary references?

19. The Queen, her support, Lord Nooth, his anger at the local team, and the cavemen, dismissing the umpire, taking on the role? His cheating, injury time? The balls penalty? The
Chief fainting, then encouraging Doug, the players forming the ladder, Dug hitting the wall, the bouncing, the win? The reaction of the toof player?

20. The Queen, her granting them the freedom, Nooth trying to escape, as a bird, losing all his money? Refunds? The crowd cheering?

21. Going home, the painting of the players? And the rabbit tricking them all as if he were a mammoth?

BLOCKERS

US, 2018, 102 minutes, Colour.
Leslie Mann, John Cena, Ike Barinholtz, Ramona Young, Kathryn Newton, Gary Cole, Gina Gershon, Geraldine Viswanathan, Miles Robbins, Graham Phillips, Gideon Adlon.
Directed by Kay Cannon.

Another of the increasingly popular raucous American comedies from recent years – especially when they have ‘bad’ or ‘dirty’ in the title or mention Seth Rogen (who is one of the producers here).

This is one of those films where one needs to check one’s sensibilities and sensitivities at the door.

As regards sensibilities – whether one responds well to themes about American teenagers, their difficulties with their parents, their parents even greater difficulties with them, especially concerning sexual relationships and sexual activities.

As regards sensitivities – this always asks the question how are in the themes treated? And then adjectives like rude, vulgar, crass, raucous turn up in connection with the humour. And the treatment of the teens and their behaviour and language. (And, some commentators remark on toilet humour – though this one seems to have more of predilection for extensive vomit and for butt-chugging.

This is a story about three teenage girls, the 24 hours of preparation for the prom night, the prom dance itself and its aftermath, decisions made at the end of high school. It focuses on the girls’ expectations from the prom – certainly not the kind of prim and formal prom of the past! But they spend time discussing sexual relationships, Julie (Kathryn Newton) the central character determined that she will have her first sex experience, which has to be perfect, with her boyfriend, Austin. This involves the perfect hotel room, rose petals, music and quiet… Her best friend Kayla (Geraldine Visnawathan) is a sporting type, plainspoken and ready for random sexual activity. The other friend, Sam (Gideon Adlon) is a closeted lesbian with an eye on one of her fellow students.

That is the story for the teenage audience for the film. It is rather different for the adult audience – depending on their memories of what they were like at the equivalent teenage time.

Julie’s mother, a single mother (Leslie Mann) is hyper-preoccupied with her daughter’s well-being and intentions. Kayla’s father (John Cena) is a big, tough, traditional type. Sam’s father (Ike Barinholtz) gives the impression of being a somewhat sleazy type, but does have his better moments.

So, the action is intercut between the activities of the girls and the various adventures – and mishaps – that the parents go through with their concern, arguments about whether to intervene or not, how permissive they should be, their attitude towards love?

All in all, a somewhat raucous night with a question about the ultimate decisions of the three girls (including Julie’s mother finding herself under the bed in the chosen room in the hotel anxious about whether she should stay or not).

This reviewer has been using for many years a phrase “The Judd Apatow Syndrome�. It refers to this kind of American comedy, seemingly raucously permissive at first but then moving to a more moralising tone. And Julie’s mother here is played by Leslie Mann who happens to be married to Judd Apatow. There is some moralising at the end but not all audiences will agree with the conclusions – and some have remarked that this is rather old-fashioned in its presumption that the girls have to be protected at all costs while the males can do what they like.

And so the question is raised, is this typical of contemporary American society? Of other cultures and societies around the world?

SHERLOCK GNOMES

UK, 2018, 86 minutes, Colour.

Voices of: James Mc Avoy, Emily Blunt, Johnny Depp, Chiwitel Ejiofor, Jamie Demetriou, Mary J. Blige, Dexter Fletcher, Michael Caine, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Matt Lucas, Ozzy Osbourne, Stephen Merchant, Richard Wilson.
Directed by John Stevenson.

We all know Sherlock Holmes. We have read the stories by Conan Doyle. We have seen the films, going back to the 1930s or to Basil Rathbone. We have seen a variety of actors portraying Sherlock Holmes and we have seen the television series with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. There is a certain fascination in anticipating an animated feature film where Sherlock is the protector of all the garden gnomes of London.

But, what about the children who are the target audience for this film. Do they recognise the name? Do they know anything about Sherlock Holmes? Probably not. So, what is the attraction? The filmmakers have prepared a base by making a film some years ago with the garden gnomes, Gnomeo and Juliet. And Gnomeo and Juliet are here again, easing the way into the Sherlock story. Clearly, this is an opportunity for children to learn about the great detective and for parents and adults to explain and share their memories and experiences of Sherlock Holmes.

The setting is this: garden gnomes are being transferred to a London house with a very limited and scruffy garden which horrifies them. They are in the home of Lord Redbrick and Lady Blueberry (voiced momentarily by Michael Caine and Maggie Smith). When the couple go out, the garden gnomes (and a large amorous frog) come alive.

The gnome Capulets nominate in Gnomeo and Juliet as leaders of the gnomes and they work beautifying the garden. However, danger is at hand, and the gnomes are all abducted.

Who would do such a thing? Conan Doyle fans will immediately come up with the name: Moriarty. We are introduced to the clash between Sherlock and Moriarty (who appears on screen in the likeness of the baby doll). They clash in a museum where Sherlock and Dr Watson rescue some of the gnomes. The dinosaur bones collapse and Moriarty is presumed dead. Not a bit of it. He then abducts all the gnomes of London, hiding them in a cavernous area at the base of Tower Bridge, all decked out, and glued to their seats, to form a being colourful capital M.

Sherlock is, as always, self-assured, arrogant in his manner, very superior, even to Dr Watson, upsetting him with the result that Watson wants to prove himself but makes the situation worse. Gnomeo and Juliet are not abducted and they participate in tracking down the gnomes and in the rescue. Moriarty intends destruction – when the bridge opens to let shipping through, the mechanisms will go down on and crush the gnomes.

This means that there is quite a lot of action in the film, searching and sleuthing, Holmes and co aboard a large ship, a helicopter flight, two rather dumb live gargoyles, like dragons, as Moriarty’s assistants, scaling the heights of Tower Bridge, gnomes falling, soap and water to free the glued gnomes, last-minute rescues – but, Dr Watson’s walking stick having a rope and arrow to help escapes…

And, while Juliet has been very bossy, she appreciates more and more than Gnomeo’s love for her. And, Sherlock comes to his senses and apologises to Dr Watson. And as for Moriarty… will he return? (And there is also a guest appearance, courtesy of Mary J. Blige as Irene Adler, but on side this time.)

Very colourful, colourful gnomes, and lots of voices – James Mc Avoy and Emily Blunt as Gnomeo and Juliet, Chiwitel Ejiofor as a very dignified Dr Watson, Jamie Demetriou as Moriarty – and, rather surprisingly, Sherlock, superior accent and all, Johnny Depp voicing Holmes.

THE INTERPRETER

Slovakia/Czech Republic/Austria, 2018, 125 minutes, Colour.
Jiri Menzel, Peter Simonischek.
Directed by Martin Sulik.


The Interpreter proves that there is still plenty of room on cinema screens and on television for stories about World War II, the plight of the Jews, the harshness of the Nazi regime and the actions of the SS.

This film is a collaboration between Slovakia, where a lot of the action takes place, the Czech Republic which at the time of the war was united with Slovakia as Czechoslovakia, and Austria, this film opening in Vienna.

The Interpreter of the title is played by veteran Czech actor and director, Jiri Menzel. At the beginning of the film, he arrives by train in Vienna, seeks help from people of the station, eventually finds his destination and confronts a middle-aged man, George, played by Peter Simonischek (whom international audiences may well remember for his role as Toni Erdmann), accusing his SS father, who had published a book about his exploits, and threatening to kill him. This doesn’t happen and the interpreter decides to go back home, a sense of failure, a sense of failure to his parents, and the mystery where they are buried still unsolved.

But, the visit, has an effect George. He contacts the interpreter and they meet, George proposing that the two of them go on a journey into Slovakia, revisit some of the villages and see the families where his father worked, to try to get some understanding and information. The interpreter agrees but is rather hardheaded and makes a contract as regards payment.

This is certainly rather an odd couple in all kinds of ways. The interpreter is burdened by decades of unhappy memories, of injustices, of memories of the persecution of the Jews. George, on the other hand, leads a rather carefree life, knows very little about the father whom he resents.

And the beginning of the journey is odd. The interpreter very serious, trying to track down people, documents, information. George on the other hand goes to clubs, lives the high life, flirts, drinks… And actually gets robbed by a pickpocket whom he lets go. The interpreter is rather reluctant to go on in this vein. George offers more money.

The latter part of the film has the two actually visiting some of the villages in Slovakia, in the mountains, meeting the farmers, trying to remember the past, but many of the farmers very reluctant to talk about those days. George’s father had left many photos, annotated with names and dates so they have clues to pursue.

So, what follows, is the interpreter at least venturing on his quest. What follows also is George learning more about his father, more about the war, the role of the SS, the persecutions and deaths. Maybe that is all is possible in the early part of the 21st-century.

There are not a lot of answers in this film – the journey and the process is what is important.

1. The title, the focus on The? His quest?

2. The locations: Austria, Vienna, Slovakia, Bratislava, the countryside and villages? The musical score?

3. The theme of the sons of victims and the sons of killers? The impact of murders, especially in the Holocaust?

4. 21st-century, going back into the past, knowledge of the past and World War II, of the high cost? The possibilities for understanding? Healing? Reconciliation?

5. The background of the war, the role of the SS, the ambitious officer, his family, his control and power, responsibility for the deaths? The photos that he kept and annotated? His writing and publishing the book? The reasons? Old age, hospital, the memory of the death of his sickly daughter, his son surviving, detached from his father, not exactly knowing what happened?

6. Ali, aged 80, his life, work as an interpreter, the memory of his parents, the deaths and the Holocaust, not knowing when they were buried? His daughter, contact, her being a teacher? The Jewish background? His quest, at the station, with the gun, asking people the way, going to George’s house? Meeting, going to the toilet, the drink of water, giving him the book, the trading of insults?

7. His disappointment, going home, the phone call from George, the meeting, George proposing their travelling together to discover the past, providing the photos and the annotations? The issue of pay? The motivations for each man?

8. The journey, George and his lifestyle, drinking, women, the swimming pool, the clubs, the thief? Ali and his being more sober, written, involved in the search, the documents, getting information, the photos? His decision to leave? George and the offer of payment and his continuing?

9. Going to meet people, going into the valley, the farmers, killing the sheep, remembering the past, the unwilling to speak?

10. The daughter, with the children, the concert, the Bach music?

11. Travelling further, the questions, interviews, the leads?

12. The effect on Ali, his age, how much satisfaction? His death?

13. George, learning about his father, knowing some of the things that happened and the consequences and effects? Visiting his father in hospital? His sitting in the park, the crane effect and leaving George in the park?

14. The film as a contribution to Holocaust memories and healing?

ELDORADO


Switzerland, 2018, 90 minutes, Black-and-white, Colour.
Directed by Markus Imhoof.


El Dorado is that long-desired for destination, and the finding of riches and gold. There are images of gold during the credits of this film.


However, this is not a film about the search for riches at least in the basic material sense. It is a documentary about contemporary refugees. The El Dorado is a country where they can settle after dangerous flight from their home country and its operation.

The director of this film, Marcus Imhoof, is a German Swiss director who married an Italian and a spent a lot of time in Italy. In 1980 he made a significant film about refugees of the period, The Boat is Full.

The basis of this storytelling is the director’s memory of a young girl, from Milan, who is assigned to his family in Switzerland as a refugee from the war in the mid-1940s. She lived some time with the family then had to return to Italy and suffered ill health and an early death. The director is now composing a verbal and visual letter to her, telling her that she is the reason why he is exploring this contemporary theme of refugees, especially in the Mediterranean and the work of the Italian Navy in rescue.

Significantly, at the opening of the film, there is a celebration of the Eucharist, the priest and some of the Italian Navy personnel at Mass, Communion, scripture readings, personal intercessions and intentions, and the priest commenting on how Pope Francis is very concerned about the refugees, remembering his early visit to the island of Lampedusa in 2013, his pleas for care and concern as well as justice.

While the film does tell the story of the young girl and her influence on the director, her life in Switzerland, her return home, the film moves into documentary mode immediately showing a helicopter shining light on troubled waters, survivors of overturned boats struggling in the Mediterranean.

What follows offers a lot of detail about what happens to the refugees, the initial rescue, sitting in the boats, cold and wet, the welcome from the authorities, their being transferred to a larger boat. Unfortunately, we know that there would be no immediate El Dorado of a country where they can settle. The film indicates there is a rule that whatever our the first steps by a refugee on Europe, that is the country where they will have to stay, even if, as some of them indicate, their families are in other countries.

The film is critical, of course, about the people smugglers and the risks that Africans, especially, coming from Libya, run in their attempt to cross the sea. And, there are also the refugees from the Middle East who come by sea.

Some of the aspects of the film in its later moments are rather depressing. Some of the refugees get their status and are able to stay. Others stay in detention centres, better looked after than in some other countries, but still experienced as a kind of incarceration. There are interviews, questions and tests, rejections.

And, in Italy, when some of the refugees to get work, there is the Mafia influence. The vivid example is given of the growing of tomatoes, the picking, the transport, with everything under the control of the Mafia.

The director remembers the caution that there was during the war but also the important effect of people finding safety, some freedom, a better life. And, this is the hope that many in the audience would have as they watch this moving film. Unfortunately, it is a moving film but the situations in so many countries around the world, northern and southern hemispheres, means that politicians are not moved.

1. An engaging and challenging documentary? Title, focus, refugees, past and present, hope?

2. The title, images of gold during the credits, goal and hope?

3. The director, his story, Switzerland, World War II, refugees in Europe? The comparisons with the 21st century, in the Mediterranean, from Africa, from the Middle East? Refugees and the reasons for their migrating?

4. The director’s own story, his Swiss family, taking refugees from Italy, the young girl, becoming part of the family, the footage from the 1940s, black-and-white, incorporated into the story as memories? Playing with his new sister, her having to return to Italy after the war, her illness, her death, visiting her grave?

5. The Italian sailors at Mass, the priest, the naval chaplain after he took off his vestments? Communion, the men and women, the prayers of intercession? The references to Pope Francis and his concern about refugees in the Mediterranean with memories of his visit to Lampedusa soon after election?

6. The director and his verbal letter to his dead sister, his motivations for exploring 21st-century refugees? In memory of her, inspired by her?

7. The first view of refugees and the sea, from the helicopter, people, objects floating, the rescue, the work of the sailors, the reassurance to the people, the lifejackets, food, their being transferred into the big boat?

8. Issues of identity, documents, the step, the first step into a country which had to be the country of adoption? Refugees with relatives iin other European countries? The background of the Dublin agreement about refugees?

9. The range of men and women, children, the difficulties of travel, the boats, their hopes, the rescues?

10. The refugees being interned, the conditions of the camps, the reactions? The favourable aspects in the care? The sometimes squalid conditions? The angry man who had been refused admittance and his outburst? The representative from the company and his optimistic view?

11. The interrogations by the officials, the translator, the hard decisions?

12. Work for the refugees, help on Italian farms, the small amount of pay, the conditions for the Mafia and control? The example of the cultivation of the tomatoes, the trucking, the prices?

13. The man from Senegal, wanting to return home, with his cows? The regulations from the European Union, tariffs going, the hardship consequences for local industries?

14. The interrogation of the young girl, her time in Libya, imprisoned for a year, not receiving admission? The comments on robots looking after people in the future – and it’s being better for humans to look after humans?

15. The film as a consciousness raiser and challenge?