AWAKENING THE ZODIAC

US, 2017, 100 minutes, Colour.
Shane West, Leslie Bibb, Matt Craven, Nicholas Campbell, Kenneth Welsh, Stephen Mc Hattie.
Directed by Jonathan Wright.

This is a rather slight crime drama, capitalising on audience interest in the Zodiac murders in the 1960s, the investigations, the failure to find the killer, the many television programs and feature films on the subject.

There is certainly an audience interest and has been over the decades.

This film capitalises on memories of the Zodiac killer. It opens with a recreation of one of the killings, a young dating couple, the killer disguised as a policeman, confronting them, their deaths.

The film then moves forward with various investigators, and a veteran Canadian cast including Matt Craven, Kenneth Welsh, Stephen Mc Hattie, Nicholas Campbell, and the finding of some film remains which give a lead for the identity of the killer.

A young couple, played by Shane West and Leslie Bibb, undertake the investigation with the help of an expert. This leads to a killer, played by Stephen Mc Hattie. He plays the young couple, eventually capturing them, putting them in danger, leading to confrontations and his seeming death wish.

The film is a thriller exercise in investigation and fiction, what if…?

THE EDGE

US, 1997, 117 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Hopkins, Alec Baldwin, Elle Macpherson, Harold Perrineau, Bart the Bear, L.Q.Jones, Kathleen Wilhoite.
Directed by Lee Tamahori.

Very much a man's film (including the brief appearances by Elle MacPherson? as Anthony Hopkins' wife and their repercussions on the plot). It was written by noted American playwright, David Mamet (American Buffalo, Glengarry Glen Ross) who knows the tough male psyche and tough male competitiveness. Direction is by Lee Tamahori (Once Were Warriors) who gives the film a strong physicality as Hopkins and Alec Baldwin try to survive in the Alaskan mountain wilds and confront, in a real and symbolic struggle, a killer bear (echoes of Moby Dick). One should add that the scenery is magnificent.

It is also Robert Bly, 'wildman' territory with men discovering aggression, their inner strengths and weaknesses, with male bonding and interdependence as well as rivalry.
Hopkins gives a fine performance. Baldwin's is more familiar. The action is too prolonged for an overall powerful impact - and the costume designer and make-up have made the men sometimes too comfortable and neat for their ordeal. But it is often a thoughtful action film.

1. The title? Interest in male characters, heroism, challenge? Nature?

2. The settings, the far north, the aerial shots, the resort, the river, the mountains and snow? Nature? The appearance of the bear? The musical score?

3. Anthony Hopkins as Charles versus Alec Baldwin as Robert?

4. The situation, Charles and his billionaire background, his wife, younger, the model? Persuaded to go on the journey? A man who lived in his head, full of detailed information, seemingly not practical? The journey, the photo shoot? The crew, going to the resort, listening to the manager and his stories about the bears, Native Americans?

5. The range of characters, being on the edge? The importance of the story about the bear, later appearance of the bear? Charles being frightened and surprised by Robert, the birthday celebration? His being a good sport? The gift of the watch from his wife and the engraving?

6. The story of the Native American, confronting the bear? Robert wanting this background for his photo shoot? The decision, the flight, persuading Charles to go? At the hut, nobody home, the decision to go forward? The flight, the flocks and the plane engines, the crash and the injuries? Surviving?

7. Audiences identifying with the characters, asking what they might do in similar situations? The distance needed to go back, differing abilities, the water, waterlogged, the matches, setting the fire, Charles and his working the compass? Their tracking, the difficulties, going in a circle?

8. The bear, listening to the advice, the confrontation, chasing? The photographer, being wounded, his death?

9. The fire, the nights, the two men travelling, the forest, and the water, the possibilities with the canoe?

10. The reappearance of the bear, running, Robert and his saving Charles in the water, saved from the bear?

11. The tension between the two men, Charles thinking the Robert wanted to kill him? The background of the affair, Charles’s wife? His discovery of the watch and the alternate engraving?

12. The confrontation, the canoe, the plan to kill the bear, the various tactics, running, the spears and the spikes, impaling the bear? Charles, the edge, actually killing the bear?

13. Robert, confrontation, not wanting to die, the gun, Charles and his stands, backing Robert into the pit, his death?

14. The return, the manager of the resort, congratulations? The confrontation with his wife?

15. A men’s story?

BETRAYAL FROM THE EAST

US, 1945, 84 minutes, Black-and-white.
Lee Tracy, Nancy Kelly, Richard Loo, Regis Toomey, Abner Biberman, Philip Ahn, Addison Richards, Bruce Edwards, Louis Jean Heydt, Jason Robards sr.
Directed by William Berke.

This is a film very much of its time, released in the year the World War II ended. However, it has a setting from the late 1930s to the early 1940s, the influence of the Japanese as well is the Germans in the United States, the fifth column work.

Lee Tracy, always gung ho, especially in the 1930s films where he was a newspaper reporter, finds a good role here, initially something has-being an managing a carnival but being recruited to work for the American government, undercover. He has been approached by Japanese agents and offered a great deal of money for information – but he is a patriot.

There is a range of Asian actors in the roles of the Japanese, especially Richard Loo as the secret brains behind the conspiracy and the ever-present Philip Ahn.

On the American side Louis Jean height and Jason Robards senior appear as newspapermen who become aware of the espionage and are murdered.

Tracy encounters a young woman who was also an agent undercover. They work together, are attracted, she is seen to be killed in a car accident but this has been staged and, when Tracy is assigned to Panama to get American military information, she appears as a Danish woman the escort of the principal German in Panama.

While there is some heroism, the characters, on paper, seem rather unlikely – there are a great dangers, Tracy risking his life, the girl being tortured and killed.

Interesting to look at it in American retrospective and attitudes towards the Japanese and the Germans during the war. And in the light of subsequent history.

1. A small film from 1945 it a significant theme and characters?

2. The fifth column in the United States, Japanese spies, business people? The repercussions on innocent Japanese and their internment? German spies and the infiltration? Working in the United States, the location for this film as Panama?

3. Small budget, small-budget cast, the American locations, the Panama locations? The musical score?

4. The opening in Japan, the reporters, the information, their being killed?

5. The American authorities, officials, wanting agents, infiltration?

6. The Tracy is Eddie Carter, his background, the military, his friends in the military and connections, the carnival, failure? The Japanese approaching him, the offer of money? Is going to the authorities? They’re commissioning him to go along with the plans? The meeting of the various Japanese personnel? Creating the full agent Jimmy Scott? The agent and the meeting, the discussions, the support? The encounters with Peggy, the attraction? Working with her, her infiltration? The sudden impact of the car accident and her death? Eddie upset?

7. It is signed to Panama, his mission, the agent supplying the plans, their being out of date? The contact with the Japanese, handing them over? The contact with the German agents? Peggy appearing again, and is surprised?

8. Time limitations, Eddy having to get back to the United States, his not yet getting his money, his playing that card?

9. The Germans, the head and his liking for Peggy, his assistant and her dislike, petty Peggy and her infiltration, listening, getting information, arrested, tortured?

10. Eddie, the taxi ride, the orders that he should be killed, being informed about the dangers, going to the airport, his getting away?

11. The rounding up of the spies? The significance of agents during World War II? Even unlikely ones?

MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM

US, 1944, 61 minutes, Black-and-white.
Anne Gwynne, Donald Cook, John Litel, Grace Mc Donald, Betty Kean, June Preisser, Regis Toomey, Ian Wolfe.
Directed by Leslie Goodwins.

There is a murder. There is a blue room. And there is a murder mystery. However, within a few minutes of the opening of the film, there is a song and dance routine – and there are quite number of these song and dance routines throughout the film in its brief 61 minutes.

A group of gathers to seeks together at a house for a party. There are suspicions about the host, his being the business partner of the murdered man and marrying his wife. There is a young woman who had been a singer, the wife’s daughter, her boyfriend, and his friend who is attracted to the singer. There is also a mysterious servant played by Ian Wolfe, a veteran of this kind of role (who even gets a song and dance role with the girls).

The dead man had died upstairs in the mansion, in the blue room, which had been sealed since his death. Some think it is time for it to be opened. The young man, in love with the daughter, volunteers to spend the night in the blue room unbeknownst to the others. In the morning, he has disappeared. The other suitor then offers to spend the next night in the room, despite the warnings of the police. He disappears but the body of the young man is found.

There are various sinister comings and goings.

But the sinister atmosphere is continually undermined by the presence of three young women, a singing and dance group who resemble the Andrew Sisters. They have been invited by their friend, the singer, to perform at the party. They do to enthusiastic applause.

However, when the investigations begin, the police summon them back to the mansion and interrogate them. Which doesn’t stop a few more song and dance routines – which are entertaining in the Andrew’s Sisters kind of way. But, they are under suspicion but have a lot of deadpan and corny humour to illustrate their characters and their responses, the most feisty one being the most afraid.

They decide to go into the room, discover a secret passage…

So, something of a mixum-gatherum of murder mystery and musical entertainment. Released during World War II.

FAME IS THE SPUR

UK, 1947, 116 minutes, Black-and-white.
Michael Redgrave, Rosamund John, Bernard Miles, Carla Lehmann, Hugh Burden, Marjorie Fielding, Seymour Hicks, Tony Wager, David Tomlinson.
Directed by Roy Boulting.

Fame is the Spur is a distinguished British film of 1947, based on a celebrated novel of the time by Howard Spring. It was directed by Roy Boulting, of the Boulting Brothers who, at this time made such films as Brighton Rock.

Winston Churchill had been Prime Minister during World War II but, despite this, was defeated in the elections after the war by Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee. This film can be seen as very strongly supportive of Labour. The screenplay was written by novelist and screenwriter, Nigel Balchin.

The span of the film is from 1870 to the mid 1930s, quite a long span, from rather Dickensian and Victorian times in Manchester, to Westminster politics in the 1880s onwards, the changes at the beginning of the 20th century leading to the outbreak of World War I, the politics of the 1920s and the rise of Labour, the Wall Street crisis, the prewar issues of the 1930s. The central character, played by Michael Redgrave, is said to be based on Labour politician Ramsay Mac Donald.

In 1870, three young boys live in poverty, one, Tom, a rather strong wheeler dealer in selling rats, the two other boys, Hamer and Arnold are more honest.

Later, Arnold (Hugh Burden) will be persuaded to stand for the local seat for government but is not an orator and relies on his friend Hamer to speak on his behalf. Hamer is supported by Anne, Rosamund John, whom he marries and her friend Lizzie, Marjorie Fielding. Soon Hamer himself will be elected – and stay in Parliament from the 1880s to 1935 where, against his basic principles, he requests and accepts the peerage. Which means that his political journey is from activism, very supportive, along with, of miners and strikes, concerned about British industry, but becoming more conservative, supporting the decisions about World War I, settling into the 1920s, siding with Tory government, lobbied by the adult Tom (Bernard Miles).

Hamer is quite unsympathetic to the suffragette movement with which his wife becomes very involved, leading to protests, even during his speeches, her imprisonment, hunger strike and, eventually, her death. Before she dies she urges him to be honest about himself and his motivations – something which he ignores.

There is a symbolic sword, scimitar, in the film, used by Hamer’s grandfather at the battle of Waterloo, then against the soldiers in the strikebreaking at Peterloo. It hangs on the wall of the house, is seen by Hamer as significant but, symbolically at the end, after his peerage rambling speech, he is unable to draw the sword from its scabbard and walks away.

In the same year, So Well Remembered, with John Mills, was released giving a similar kind of story from the end of World War I to the outbreak of World War II. It was based on a novel by James Hilton (Goodbye Mr Chips, Lost Horizon, Random Harvest) who also did the narration.

1. British film of 1947? Looking back over the previous 75 years? British history and society?

2. Audience knowledge of this history? Not? The amount of information given? From the perspective of the 1940s? In the 21st-century? The original novel and its being based on British Labour politician, Ramsay Mac Donald? Hamer and his personifying Ramsay Mac Donald?

3. The title, the quote from Milton? Hamer and his quoting it? As applied to his life, career, motivations?

4. The passing of the years, the film as episodic, dwelling on some years rather than others? The dialogue filling in the background? Enough for a continuous understanding of the history and developments?

5. 1870, the kids, their age, poor, in Manchester, Hamer and his reading, Tom and his selling the rats, the fraud aspects, Hamer and Arnold not following through, their integrity? Poverty and concern?

6. Hamer, his books, going to the bookshop, wanting to change the world, the discussions with the bookseller? Tom growing up, vegetables and markets, offering Hamer the job, paying him, Tom and his prosperity?

7. Arnold, a man of integrity, somewhat timid, being invited to stand for election, his inviting Hamer to the meeting, Lizzie and Anne the meetings – and her French lessons in the past from Hamer? The meeting, Arnold and his timid speech, Hamer and his arresting rhetoric? Their all going to the town to campaign? The Labour movement and principles?

8. The local Lord, his father and his career in politics? The campaign, the tradition of the generations? The father as brash, Lettice and her relationship with her brother? His dithering? Tom and his visit, the bribes? The Lettice and her interest in Hamer? The election results, Arnold losing, the Lord it is driving into town?

9. Hamer, loving politics, marrying Anne, her continued support, the friendship and support of Lizzie? Arnold?

10. The experiences of the 1880s and 1990s, the Tories, Labour, the death of Queen Victoria? Financial issues, Empire, economy? Hamer and his prospering?

11. The miners, the strikes, the social action? Hamer and Arnold and their support of the miners?

12. The 20th century, change, politics, economies, situations in Europe, Sarajevo, the outbreak of war? Government and stances? Hamer and Arnold and their differences?

13. The issue of feminism, the suffragettes, the vote, Lizzie and her campaigning, Anne and her participation? Hamer being old school, his understanding of men and women not having a place in politics? Anne and her protests, her quests, her speech and interrupting Hamer? Demonstrations, arrests, her being in prison, the hunger strike? Hamer getting help from Lettice, the issue of force-feeding? Anne going to the sanatorium, urging Hamer to be honest, that his convictions seemed to be from the outside not from inside himself? Her death?

14. The background of the miners, the strikes, the meetings, social justice issues? Arnold and his continuing to be radical? Hamer rousing the protests? The demonstrations, the troops, the gun, the death? The background of labour ethos with his grandfather, Waterloo and Peterloo, the military and their intervention, the story of his grandfather, seeing him in armour, the scabbard and the sword? The sword on the wall – the family emblem?

15. Post-war England, government, Hamer becoming more conservative, going to the miners and their despising him? The 20s, economic changes? The Wall Street collapse and its consequences? England?

16. Arnold and Hamer continuing to differ? Lizzie and her continued support? Hamer not remembering Anne’s advice? Tom and his lobbying him?

17. The mid 1930s, Hamer and his age, the issue of the peerage, his letter, wanting to accept despite his principles, not having children so therefore an exception? Lettice and her influence?

18. His final rambling acceptance speech, imagining Arnold, Tom and his presence and his sinister smile? Hamer taken away?

19. Hamer, the sword, stuck in the scabbard, his wanting to get it out? Symbol of what happened to his life? His walking away?

20. The film as pro-Labour, the UK after the war, Attlee as prime minister? The traditions from the 19th to the 20th century? The work of Nigel Balchin, the novelist, screenwriter? Echoing this postwar period?

ROMAN J. ISRAEL

US, 2017, 122 minutes, Colour.
Denzel Washington, Colin Farrell, Carmen Ejogo, Linda Gravatt, Amanda Warren, Hugo Armstrong, Tony Plana.
Directed by Dan Gilroy.

Roman J. Israel is an unexpected title for a film featuring Denzel Washington. It must have been a role important for him because he is one of the producers of the film.

This is a film very much for an American audience. It presupposes an interest in American law and its interpretation – not so interesting or comprehensible by other audiences, even those from English speaking countries.

However, it must also have hit an American nerve because Denzel Washington was one of the five nominees for Actor in a Leading Role for the 2017 Academy Awards. (The winner was Gary Oldman for Darkest Hour.)

The film opens arrestingly, if somewhat mysteriously, with Roman Israel accusing himself of acting outside the law and general legal and ethical principles. It then goes back three weeks to portray what Roman had done and then returns to his self-accusation and self-condemnation.

Roman J. Israel, Esq – his explaining that Esquire ranks between a name and knight – works in a law office, the partner of his former professor whom he admires. However, the partnership has not prospered financially and the professor suffers a stroke and soon dies. All might have been well if Roman was an ordinary character. However, he is recognised by other lawyers as something of a savant. He is absolutely methodical, generally uses old-fashioned methods of recording cases and finding them. His knowledge is extensive, well-informed, full of detail about legal information.

Another student of the professor, much younger, George (Colin Farrell) is sent in to take charge on behalf the previous manager and the profesor’s wife. Courteous but firm, he takes an initially dim view of Roman’s methods, cases and his personality. Which means that Roman has to look for another job, meeting a sympathetic lawyer who invites him to give a talk to students (some of whom mock him for his old ideas and manner). She is Maya, played by Carmen Ejogo, who admires Roman and is influenced in her own career by his principles.

Roman is very sympathetic to the accused, working hard on their cases and defence. George realises his qualities and does employ him.

Then Roman undergoes a moral crisis – about which the audience will have to speculate, why it happens, what is the trigger… He chooses to become respectable, get rid of his old clothes and buy smart suits and shoes, leave his old apartment and inspect a very fashionable new building, trim his Afro, a transformation that makes him look like her expectations of Denzel Washington.

The occasion for the change it is his giving information about a murderer and receiving the large reward.

The repercussions on Roman are forceful, affect his work, his conscience, feeling a threat to his life.

Which brings us back to the self-accusation and George and Maya becoming aware of what he had done.

And the film has a rather sombre ending. It was written and directed by Dan Gilroy who wrote and directed the very effective thriller with Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler.

1. 21st-century American story? Law, economy, Justice? The American Heritage?

2. The title, the character, as portrayed by Denzel Washington? The title and Esq, between a name and a knight?

3. The Los Angeles settings, the city, apartments, the new and expensive apartment, legal offices, courts, restaurants? The musical score?

4. The framework: the law, universal law, Roman’s self-accusation, his beliefs, judgement on him? The reprisal of these themes after the audience seeing what Roman had done?

5. Roman, the background of his studies, his admiration for Jackson, 35 years working in law, 26 years with Jackson, the work, his being something of a savant, his attention to detail, old methods, the paper files?

6. Jackson, as a lecturer, his reputation, his collapse, in the hospital, his wife and secretary, the sadness of his death? The consequences for the firm? At his funeral?

7. The phone, its failure, financial difficulties, George being appointed to supervise the transition? The initial impression of George from the audience? Roman’s impression? George and his impression of Roman?

8. Action over three weeks? Roman, needing a job, going for interviews? Meeting with Maya, her sympathies, no job? Her inviting him to give the speech? His going, his topic, the reaction of the students, the feminist and their criticisms? Maya and her reaction? Roman inviting her to go out for dinner? Her confession, her dependence on him? The final meeting? Maya and her future – influenced by Roman and walking in his steps?

9. The application for jobs, failing? Interviewers laughing at him? The savant, the impression? His knowledge? His blunt talk? His having cases, being urged for the continuances, his going to the courts, prisons, arguing the cases? George and his attitude?

10. George as a character, his age, career, memories of his studies, idealistic, business to law, influenced by Jackson? His company, hiring and firing? The case of the murderer, the mother, Roman handling the case, the prisoner’s death in prison?

11. Roman and the re-evaluation of his life and career, the information about Carter, contacting the Armenian, the money, collecting the reward? Shopping, the suits, shoes, changing his hair, the interviews for the fashionable apartment, the contract? Maya and the meal? Going to the shore, eating the doughnuts, allowing the owner to keep the change? His new life?

12. At work, his idealistic approach, the others, joking at him, asking him information about cases? His work, collecting the books, writing papers? In himself, no family, the choice of the career?

13. Going to the prison, the Carter case, the visit, Carter and his threats, Roman and his fear?

14. Moving from his apartment, the Uhaul truck, driving, pursuits, his being paranoid, stalking him on the road, going into the desert, the young men trying to help? Maya ringing him?

15. George and Maya in the bar, Roman and the truth about the reward? His wanting to return it?

16. The hitman, pursuit, his death? George following?

17. George the court? Returning the money?

18. Law, integrity and authenticity – a moralising table?

IN THE FADE

Germany, 2017, 106 minutes, Colour.
Diane Kruger, Denis Moschitto, Numan Acar, Samir Muriel Chancrin, Johannes Krisch, Ulrich Tukur, Ulrich Brandhoff, Hanna Hilsdorf.
Directed by Fatih Akin.

This is very much a film of contemporary times in Europe. It deals with issues of refugees and migrants from middle Eastern countries. It deals with hate crimes from groups of neo-Nazi sympathisers.

The writer-director himself, Fatih Akin, was born in Germany but has a Turkish background. This is very important for his films for the last 15 years, especially his award-winning (including Ecumenical Award in Cannes 2007), The Edge of Heaven.

The film opens in a prison, a tall, long-haired, prisoner is being cheered by all the men standing outside their cells. He is being freed, obviously having become a celebrity inside. On leaving, he is met by young woman and the next scene is of their being married. Already, the audience is being challenged in their attitudes towards the man, his appearance and behaviour, the marriage.

But, the film goes forward six years and everything is respectable. Nuri runs a business, he and his wife, Katia, have a small son. The boy is a perky young fellow, sparring with his mother, enjoying the company of his father. Katia leaves her boy with her husband as she goes with a friend for an afternoon at the sauna, returning to pick them up only to find that a bomb has exploded outside the office and husband and son are dead.

The film is divided into three sections. The first is called The Family, obvious enough. This is a couple who has made good, bringing up their son will, only for devastation. Katia’s mother, a rather unsympathetically aggressive woman, has been critical of her daughter’s marriage. Katia later reveals to the police that the two met when she bought marijuana from as a dealer when she was at college. Nuri’s parents, upset, intend to return to Turkey and want to take their son’s body. Katia refuses.

The next section is called Justice. Most of the takes place in the courtroom. Katia had been able to give testimony about a young woman with a bicycle whom she encountered just after she left her son at the office. The young woman and her husband are arrested, rabid racists and Neo-Nazis?. Katia is defended by a good friend who expects the obvious justice to be done. On the other hand, there is a very skilful defence lawyer, visualised as rather sinister and sounding sinister in his cross-examinations as well as his defence of the accused.

There are various legal complications in the hearings. Katja at one moment loses it and attacks the accused. When the verdict comes in, it is unexpected.

The third section of the film is called The Sea. One of the witnesses called to support the accused couple is a Greek who lies about his not being in Germany at the time of the attack. Katia has tracked him down, goes to visit his house by the sea in Greece, discovers that the two accused have come by caravan and are enjoying a holiday.

So, here comes the moral dilemma. Justice has not been done or seen to be done. Does Katia have the right to execute justice on the couple? Does she let hatred and anger consume her and ruin her life? In this last part of the film, the audience is put on the spot, morally. Are the couple so loathsome that they deserved to die? Has Katia the right to execute justice? (Even her going to a store and buying the ingredients for a nail bomb similar to what the couple and used for their sabotage?)

The questions are asked – but answered, ultimately, in a way that is comprehensible but has not necessarily been anticipated.

The German Academy award nominee for 2017, with Diane Kruger winning the Best Actress award at Cannes 2017.

1. The title? Nothing? Fatalistic and pessimistic?

2. The German settings, the opening prison sequences, the wedding? Apartments, ethnic areas of the city, the background of the Turks? Migration? Business shop, the sabotage and explosion? The courts, offices? The homes and family? The Greek settings, the house, the beach, the caravan? The musical score?

3. The three sections of the film, family, justice, sea?

4. The atmosphere and setting? The prison, Nuri, the applause, his swagger, the background of drug dealing, his business studies in prison? Wedding Katia? Six years, going straight, his prosperity, the office, the birth of Rocco, Rocco and his cheekiness with his mother? Relationship with his father? Katia and her friendship with Birgid? Her being pregnant? At the sauna? The roadblock, the news and the shock for Katia?

5. The police, going to the area with the survivors? News of the death of Nuri and Rocco? Katia, her weeping, her grief? Her mother and the family, a stern mother, softer stepfather, compassionate sister? Nuri’s family? Her being able to answer the police questions? Having seen the woman, the bike, urging her to lock it up and the woman’s response? Giving the description? The police, the concern about Nuri returning to drug dealing? Katia and her upset and denials? The surveillance of Nuri’s phone calls? The issue of whether this was anti--Muslim terrorism or not?

6. Katia, suspecting neo-Nazis? The investigation, the arrests?

7. The aftermath of the deaths, Katia asking her lawyer for drugs, the searching the house, the finding them, later used as evidence against her, indicating her unreliability especially in identifying the woman? The tensions in the house, her mother and the boyfriend? Nuri and his parents, wanting to take his body back to Turkey, Katia refusing?

8. The preparation for the court case, her friendship with the lawyer, his advice, support? In the court, the move to ask Katia to be removed by the defence lawyer, the judges saying she could stay? Her presence? The presence of the two accused, the smugness? The witnesses, the police, the evidence, speculation, forensic aspects? Katia hearing the history of Rocco’s death and wounds? Katia attacking the two in the court? The Greek witness, his lying? The accused and his father, his story, the flashbacks, the evidence? Having the cigarette after with Katia and apologising to her? The assurance that she would win the case? Catches testimony and its being undermined? The role of the defence lawyer, cross-examination, seeming sinister?

9. The verdict, disbelief, the couple and their reaction? The legal technicalities?

10. The third part, the Sea, Katia going to Greece, the villa, the woman warning the Greek and the threats to Katia? Going to the caravan, watching the couple, their jogging along the beach? Her buying the ingredients for the bomb, making it? Placing it under the caravan, the image of the bird on the roof? The change of heart, retrieving the bomb?

11. The lawyer, ringing her about the possibility of the Court of Appeal? Her decision? Going to the caravan with the bomb? The couple going inside? The explosion?

12. Her journey, suffering, issues of conscience and Justice?

TWARZ/ MUG

Poland, 2018, 91 minutes, Colour.
Mateusz Kosciukiewicz, Agnieszka Posdiadlik, Malgorzata, Gorol, Roman Gancarczyk.
Directed by Malgorzata Szumowska.

In English, Mug has several possible meanings. Apart from something we drink out of, mug is slang for somebody stupid. It is also slang for a person’s face – and that is the particularly relevant meaning here.

If anyone was wondering what contemporary Poland is like, the first 25 minutes of the film, with the quite extensive array of quick vignettes, in the city, travelling the countryside, country towns, homes, issues of migration, traditions of the church, all rapidly glimpsed giving an overall impression.

The centre of the film is something of the other mug, foolish man, in himself. The opening scene, is a very amusing exaggerated (we hope) parody of Boxing Day sales with the forces camped outside the shops, the doors opened, a passionate invasion, squabbles and fights to get the goods which, in this case, are underwear. Jacek (Matthieu’s Kosciukiewicz), get his packet, gets into the car to go back to his village in western Poland, speeds through the countryside.

Actually, Jacek has a lot of conversations with his extensive family about the possibilities of migrating to England, obviously a Brexit theme. There are divided opinions. And, it is Christmas, there is a lot of traditional devotion in the town so visits to mass, hymn singing…

Actually, Jacek works on a huge project, (an actual project in western Poland) where the citizens of the town collected enough money to build a statue of Jesus which was to rival Rio de Janeiro – and, in fact, is larger. So, the religious tradition is to the fore, visually, with the head of Jesus standing ready to be lifted up, the body, hands lying on the ground.

And what about mug in terms of face? Jacek has an accident on site, falling down a considerable height, with damage to his face. It is pointed out that he has the first face transplant in Europe. Lest the audience feel over sympathetic towards him, he seems to be a cheerful bloke and not as put out about the injuries to his face as we might expect (or we would have had).

But, it all has its consequences. He had proposed to his girlfriend and they had engagement photos taken. She is put off by his appearance. Jacek’s sister, however, is his main support, while his mother is hugely upset, thinks that he is another person altogether, feels that he is something of a devil – which later leads to the parish priest getting in and exorcist and a parody sequence of The Exorcist. Traditional devotion might still be prevalent in Poland but there are also bizarre superstitions.

We follow Jacek’s troubles, a strong critique with a scene where his application for disability benefits is harshly rejected, where he has problems getting jobs, where he does frighten some people although, the surgeons had done a fairly good job on his face.

In the meantime, the writers introduce some themes about parish priests. At first, the parish priest seems reasonable enough, celebrating Mass, making appeals for the statue, making appeals, in fact, for financial support of Jacek. But, it is where the confessional sequences start that there is something of parody and an audience will realise why a lot of people are put off going to confession. Jacek’s brother-in-law turns up first. He is rather loud mouthed, talking before he thinks… His confession is about sexual temptation (so many thinking that the word temptation has only sexual connotations rather than for sins of anger or exploitation). The priests response is reasonable enough though a touch too curious. Then the mother comes with all that story about her son being a devil, wanting to get the devil out with the subsequent parody of the film of The Exorcist with Jacek screeching only to burst out laughing! Then the fiancee, the ex-fiancee comes and talks about sexual matters with the priest going far too far in wanting explicit detail.

Eventually, the statue was erected and the Bishop and his secretary are called to bless the statue with the Bishop being made to look rather foolish when the statue is looking in the wrong direction and there will have to be subsequent work and he remarks that he is not against Muslims working there (and being corrected to indicate that it is Gypsies who are working there who are not Muslims). So, some direct as well to one tongue-in-cheek criticism of the church.

And what will Jacek do? Is there a place for him and his town? Or, will his solution be in fact to migrate?

1. The title? The face? The slaying? The tone?

2. The Polish film, Polish perspectives? The first 25 minutes and the vast range of vignettes about contemporary Polish life and characters? The so, the crowds, fighting, the countryside, hard life, the car speeding and the music, the fairy, the farms, the cattle, the family and the houses, issues of migrating to England, the jokes with the touch of racism, the celebration of Christmas, the building of the vast statue of Jesus, the engagement, the photographs? The Catholic traditions? Western Poland? The hymns, the musical score?

3. Jacek, his age, in himself, the sale, fighting, with the parcel, driving fast, the rock music, his place in the family, working on the farm, his attention to Dagmar, the proposal, the photos? His working on the site for the direction of the statue? His future?

4. The statue, the vast amount of work, the cosplay by the local community, the information at the end? The building, the plinth, the hands, the placing of the head, the argument about which direction it should be facing, the comparisons with Rio de Janeiro?

5. Jacek and is working, the fellow workers, the collaboration, his sudden fall? In hospital, the doctors and nurses and the discussions about his health? The treatment? The time? The significance of his face in the transplant? The first in Europe? Jacek getting up, looking in the mirror, his cheerful perspective?

6. His coping with his condition, the visuals of his appearance, the surgery, the face of this texture? The limitations of his movement, smiling or not? The media pursuit, questions, that she is from the people, the television interview with the family?

7. Jacek and his sister, her continued support? Going to the board, the disability petition, the harsh attitudes of the board, the discussion, no financial support, considering that he could work part-time? And the range of works available, and the “kiss my ass� situation?

8. The approach of the advertising company, the irony, bizarre? His agreeing, becoming a model, is being photographed, the promotion of the lotion?

9. The role of the Catholic Church, the celebration of Christmas, people attending Mass, their participation, singing of hymns? The priest, his role in the town, his prayers, the financial appeal for the statue added significance? The later taking up a collection for Jacek and his welfare? The later collection people not contributing?

10. The role of the confessional? The brother-in-law, talk about sex, talking about pornography, talking about the coldness of his wife, and having to be in bed with children? The reaction of the priest, the considerate’s of sin? Jacek’s mother, her thinking the Jacek was not her son, that there was another son inside, her fears, harsh treatment of him? The priest raising the issue of exorcism in the presence of the devil? Dagmar are going to confession, the priest asking her to continue with prurient detail? The lack of credibility for people considering the sacrament of reconciliation at present?

11. The dedication of the statue, the presence of the Bishop, the priests, the discussion about the direction the face of Jesus should be? The work to continue, the Bishop thinking that the Gypsies were Muslims and being corrected?

12. The mother, her reaction to her son, the priest in the exorcist coming, the parody of exorcist sequences in films – the cries, the movement, the violence? And Jacek finally laughing and sending it up?

13. Dagmar, her avoiding Jacek, the visit to her mother and the mother ousting them? His bringing flowers? Waiting for her? Her date? Her imagining him like the old Jacek? Her confession?

14. Sympathetic grandfather, Jacek the embrace, his death, the funeral? The family fight at the funeral and the issues of the land and inheritance?

15. The effect on the family? Family traditions in Poland? The role of the church? Family divisions? Jacek finally getting on the bus and leaving?

THE REAL ESTATE/TOPPING AV INGENTING

Sweden, 2018, 88 minutes, Colour.
Leonore Ekstrand, Christer Levin, Christian Saldert.
Directed by Mans Mansson, Axel Petersen.

This is a bizarre curiosity from Sweden.

While it might echo some of the contemporary problems about housing and accommodation in our cities, it is also the portrait of very selfish woman, greedy relatives, tenants in apartments who have got contracts under the carpet, problems in ownership and maintenance.

While, the film can be looked at with touches of realism, the whole visual impact of the film is very much stylised, light and shadow, bright colours, unexpected editing – which makes some of the impact rather unsteadying.

One of the reviewers at the Berlin film Festival commented on the audio clash of the musical score, commenting that it sounded as if it had been composed by “a psychopath with a huge arsenal of power tools�. Which actually is a fairly accurate comment about the audio impact and can serve as somewhat symbolic for the visual impact.

The focus is on Nojet, Leonore Ekstrand, a Swedish woman who has lived in Spain for decades, Living in absolutely hedonist life, luxury, husbands and lovers, completely self-absorbed. When she inherits an apartment block in Stockholm, she wants to sell it in order to get finance for her accustomed lifestyle. In one sequence, she visits the apartments, intruding into the world of the various inhabitants, finding that deals have been done for them to reside there. However, she is not interested in the least in the plight of anybody except herself.

She has a half brother who is also involved in the inheritance. His son is the maintenance manager of the apartment block and he and his father start to scheme against Nojet.

In the meantime, she carries on as usual back home in Sweden, taking a lover, planning how she might take possession of the block. Her main plan is to build an explosive and to cause havoc in the building. It is not entirely certain what she actually intends by this – but it happens.

However, the filmmakers think that that is enough to offer us and the film goes no further.

A bizarre tale, bizarrely told.

1. Sweden, the 21st century, buildings and accommodation? Satire, comedy? Real?

2. The surreal story, the visuals, colour, profiles, surreal suggestions? The musical score?

3. Nojet, her age, her situation, her father, half brother, nephew? The will, her waiting, the lawyer, the inheritance? Visiting the apartments, intruding into the clients’ apartments, questioning them, the issue of their having contracts, not having contracts? Wanting to sell the building? Confronting Chris, his lazy style? His father? Their attack on her, the violence?

4. The back of the lifestyle, 20 years in Spain, men and companions, the high life, hedonist? Her expectations of the apartment block? Her hedonism in Sweden, the men, sexuality, drinking…?

5. Her intentions, consultations, issues of the law? Are being bashed? The repercussions? A recovery?

6. The reading about the bombs, experimenting, preparing them?

7. Going to the apartment block, setting the bombs, sealing the apartments, getting the people out, the smoke and the fire? And the ending of the film… To what purpose?

EVA

France, 2018, 100 minutes, Colour.
Isabelle Huppert, Gaspard Ulliel, Julia Roy, Marc Barbe, Richard Berry.
Directed by Benoit Jacquot.

This is a 21st-century adaptation of a novel of the 1940s by James Hadley Chase, with a French setting. It is a contemporary film noir, harking back to the 1940s, although there was a film version of Eva directed by Joseph Losey in the early 1960s with Jeanne Moreau and Stanley Baker.

The film focuses on a young man played by Gaspard Ulliel, contracted to home help for an exiled British playwright living in Paris (a touch of the Oscar Wilde) who has fallen on hard times, is failing physically, but has written a play. While the young man is helping to bathe the playwright, he dies. So, the young man takes the manuscript, and the next thing we see is that there has been a successful theatre season and that audiences and producers are clamouring for more.

While the young man relishes his success, he also tries to avoid the limelight, quite unsure as to what he is to do next. He is encouraged by the producer. His encouraged by his girlfriend.

One of his devices for getting some kind of lead for a new work is to jot down pieces of conversation that he hears. When his girlfriend suggests he goes to a mountain chalet owned by her family, he does but immediately discovers people inside. He ousts a man who turns out to be a client of an older prostitute whom he finds in the bath – but she hits him and he escapes.

When he comes across her again, he is fascinated, more than fascinated, has conversations with her, transcribes pieces of their discussions, learns more about him – although she is reticent about the truth of her prostitution, raising money for her husband who is in jail and for his court case while pretending that he is an international traveller.

The young man’s interest in the prostitute become something of an obsession, partly sexual, but partly intrigued by her character, her behaviour, her intentions.

When his girlfriend unexpectedly arrives at chalet, it is time for melodrama, for a car chase, for a car accident, for the young man to be injured, for the prostitute to be more involved with her husband.

While the film does come to something of an end, a crossroads for the characters, we are left to surmise what might happen to each of them and why.

1. a film noir? From the novel of the 1940s? British writer, American screen adaptations? 21st-century film noir? With gloss?

2. The Paris settings, the apartment, the theatre? The contrast with the Alps, and the sea, the town, the lake, hotels, the chalet, the countryside? The theatre, hospital? The musical score?

3. The title, the application of Eve, temptation, Eden and Paradise lost?

4. The prologue, Thomas and his services, the old playwright, his reputation, doing an Oscar Wilde in Paris, writing the new play, Passwords, having his bath, wanting Thomas to get in, his sudden attack and death? Thomas, decisions, taking the manuscript?

5. The success of the play, the audiences? Regis as producer? Julia’s girlfriend? Thomas’s celebrity, leaving the theatre, wanting to leave the party early? Expectations of him, writing new play? His life like? Writer’s block? Listening to people, the conversation, writing down the lines, the computer? Is secrecy? His moods?

6. Audience interest in Thomas, his double life and its effect, his being a thief? How much sympathy?

7. Julie, advising him to go to the chalet? The drive, finding either and her client, ousting the client into the cold, either in the bath, the confrontation, the violence?

8. Eva, her life, work as a prostitute, high-class, her clients? She dress and manner? A rage? The truth, her husband in jail, making money for his release? Her friendship with Marian?

9. Thomas, his pursuit of Eva, finding her, the money she charged? His interest, interactions, writing down the dialogue? Time, the money, her secrets? The husband travelling? Thomas playing for the meal, the wine, drinking and staying the night? The conflict, the touches of violence?

10. The text, Julie reading it, saying that spark?

11. Julie, the news of Regis’s death, grief, hospital? Going to the chalet, discovering Eva? Driving, the crash, her death? Thomas telling Eva to leave the car, getting out, going back to the accident?

12. Eva, attacks on Thomas, his being hospital, time passing? Seeing Eva and Marian going to the movies, with her husband for the drink? Eva at eye contact warning him to go away?

13. The future? Thomas and the play? Peter and his obsession? Eva and her life and her husband?