MARSHALL

US, 2017, 118 minutes, Colour.
Chadwick Boseman, Josh Gad, Kate Hudson, Sterling K.Brown, Dan Stevens, James Cromwell, Keesha Sharp, Roger Guenveur Smith, Derek Baskin, Ahna O' Reilly.
Directed by Reginald Hudlin.

This is quite an impressive film and to be recommended.

Justice Thurgood Marshall may be well-known in the United States but is less known throughout the world. But he and his career are well worth knowing. He was first African-American? to be appointed to the American Supreme Court, in 1967, serving until 1991.

The part of his story that is told in this film takes place in the early 1940s, at the time of America’s entry into World War II. Thurgood is a lawyer – and has a powerful back story about his studies, acceptance and not at universities, and later suing the university that would not accept him. Strong-minded, he is sought after all over the United States, but especially in the South, to give advice in court cases. He is a member of the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The film introduces him in action and being successful and acclaimed in his legal advice. The other character who is introduced is a Jewish lawyer, insurance lawyer, Sam Friedman. He is an interesting counter-foil to the character of Thurgood Marshall, especially when he is dragooned by Marshall into collaborating with him in the defence of a young man who is accused of rape. Friedman has to rely on Marshall’s notes.

The screenplay is interesting just in the exploration of the case, the characters involved, the complexities of the action, lies that are told in the motivations behind the lies. It takes place in the comfortable white city of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

There is also the tension of racial prejudice, the prosecutor being an arrogant young white man belonging to social clubs in the town, the judge giving the impression of being impartial but with racist presuppositions.

And the cast is very strong. Chadwick Boseman had already portrayed Jackie Robinson and baseball in 42, James Brown and music, Get It Up. He was about to become to T’ Challa, Black Panther. He makes Thurgood Marshall an earnest, highly self-assured legal expert, presumptions of winning cases, not hesitant in using and manipulating people for his legal purposes. Josh Gad provides a strong counterpoint as the Jewish lawyer. Dan Stevens is the arrogant prosecutor. James Cromwell is the judge. Sterling K. Brown is the accused man with Kate Hudson as the allegedly wronged wife.

It is a pity that this film was not more widely seen, contributing to the history of African-Americans? and their heritage, the move from slavery and racial prejudice and the consequent struggles, the significance of the and a NAACP and its role in American society and promotion of African-American? issues, and the atmosphere of the 1960s with the Civil Rights Movement, the influence of Martin Luther King and the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.
Audiences will be caught up in the momentum of the court case – and tension moments when Marshall’s wife suffers a miscarriage and a compelling sequence where Marshall briefs Sam for his summation (Marshall having to move on to his next case) and Friedman’s convincing delivery.
The film is directed by Reginald Hudlin, better known as a director of comedies and television series, some of which starred Eddie Murphy. This is definitely a change of pace for him and well worthwhile.

1. A piece of Americana? Slavery, freedom, racism, law and legislation? The impact for American audiences? For world audiences?

2. Audience knowledge of Thurgood Marshall, before the 1940s, his legal studies, the University, graduating, suing the University of Maryland? His involvement with the NAACP, his services for court cases?

3. The American atmosphere of 1941-1942? America at war, fascism in Europe? Issues of racism in Europe? In the US? The experiences of segregation, signs, people despising African- Americans? The arrogant ordinary people, gangs and violence? The courts, the juries?

4. Marshall and his case, his arguments? His age, experience, studies, the NAACP, sending him to court cases, his arguments, the law, his self-confidence?

5. Sam Friedman, insurance work, his case, winning, the backers congratulating him? In Bridgeport Connecticut, his Jewish background, his family, his wife and children, working with his brother? Lancaster and his appeal to Sam to get Thurgood acknowledged in Connecticut? His reluctance? Being pressurised? His experiencing anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitic? segregation, especially in clubs and social areas? His being bashed as was Marshall? The influence of Marshall, forcing him to work for him?

6. The case, Joseph Press, his job as a chauffeur, the accusation of rape, his past, abandoning his family in Louisiana, six years in the Army, dishonourable discharge, stealing from a family, his credibility, lack of credibility? Marshall asking him the truth?

7. The woman, her story, the re-enactment? From Philadelphia to Bridgeport? The wealthy husband, absent on business, her loneliness, the story of the attack, the rape, in the back of the car, on the bridge, pushed, suicide? Her swimming, the rocks and the cuts, the road? The doctor and his wife, their examinations? The plausibility of her story?

8. The re-enactment, Press and his point of view, the truth? The gradual awareness of what had happened? His needing money, the sexual encounter, the aftermath, in the back of the car, her not screaming, her fear, the policeman? Her jumping, swimming to safety, on the road? The truth of the case?

9. Marshall and Sam, meeting, the pressure, the mutual friend, Sam’s brother? Getting the evidence from the policeman? Going to court, the judge and his being stern, severity, admitting Marshall but not allowing him to speak? In favour of the prosecutor? His overruling Sam, finally allowing the testimony?

10. Marshall silent, guiding Sam, ideas, the jury and the interrogations, refusing, allowing, the local woman and her body language, interested in Sam, her being the forewoman? The prosecutor, his background, his manner, confidence? Interrogating the policeman, the doctor, the woman? Sam and his growing in confidence, Marshall and his absence, wanting a child with his wife, the bond between them, her phoning about the miscarriage? The cross-examination of the woman, getting the truth? The test with a scarf around Sam’s mouth and his ability to scream? The stones as pebbles? The documents from the doctor?

11. The bashings, the thugs bashing Marshall? The attack on Sam? The reaction of his wife?

12. The prosecutor, the offer of deals, pleading guilty? The prosecutors arrogant manner, the meeting of the club and Sam and Marshall intruding, the members’ reactions?

13. Joseph, the truth, his being scared, his being interrogated, his admitting his liability, yet his telling the truth?

14. Marshall leaving, asked to go to another case, the meeting with his wife, the phone call to Sam?

15. The drama of the summing up, preparing Sam, the crosscutting from Sam in court to Marshall and the preparation? The dramatic impact? The impact of the verdict?

16. The subsequent information about Marshall and Sam, their careers, working for victims, the photos, Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court?

DEATH WISH

US, 2018, 107 minutes, Colour.
Bruce Willis, Vincent D' Onofrio, Elizabeth Shue, Camilla Marrone, Dean Norris, Beau Knapp, Kimberly Elise, Len Cariou, Wendy Crewson.
Directed by Eli Roth.

An urban vigilante story.

In fact, the original novel, Death Wish, by Brian Garfield was published in 1972. That was the year after the release of Dirty Harry, the film which made such an impact around the world about vigilante action. And the series was very popular from the 1970s into the 1980s. The film version of Death Wish appeared in 1974, starring Charles Bronson, very popular and producing three sequels into the 1980s.

There was always a lot of discussion about vigilante films. On the one hand, dreadful crimes committed against innocent victims. On the other hand, it is the rule of law and justice for retribution. And the point is always made that, when justice and law do not fulfil expectations, the vigilantes feel the right to take retribution into their own hands.

And there is further discussion about the effect of vigilante action in the mind and emotions, as well as moral judgement, of the vigilantes. Does violent retribution against injustice achieve the cathartic effect that might be hoped for? Or is the vigilante burdened by the consequences of violence in their own character?

And there is even further discussion about the effect of the vigilantes in the minds of the public. Do they cheer the person who is able to avenge injustice, ridding the world of evil perpetrators? In this film, the vigilante is praised as the Grim Reaper. And what of copycat vigilantes who can cause their own mayhem?

In fact, all of these questions are raised in the screenplay of this version of Death Wish, based on Brian Garfield’s novel, written by writer-director, Joe Carnahan (Smokin’ Aces, The A-Team).

One immediate difference is that Paul Kersey, the Charles Bronson character of 1974 was an architect, and is now played by Bruce Willis as a surgeon, someone whose life is committed to healing. This is a very good role for Bruce Willis who appears these days, like Nicholas Cage, in a dime a dozen thrillers each year. His sympathetic wife is Elizabeth Shue. His daughter, about to go to college and full of enthusiasm, is played by Camilla Marrone.

One of the differences for Death Wish 1974 and Death Wish 2018 is the atmosphere of social media and communication technology. This time the robbers are able to photograph the address and details of their targets when they do valet servicing of cars. When the vigilantes go into action, bystanders are able to film everything on their phones. This all then goes on to the Internet instantly, seen by millions, taken up by the traditional media, print, radio and television.

Because the actors are strong, the initial tragedy seems even more devastating. Willis, portraying a good man, begins to burn interiorly, the police (portrayed sympathetically) are unable to get leads. The surgeon, time off from work, begins to track down various leads, making discoveries, going to the gun shops (again, another contemporary issue of US gun ownership and gun usage, availability of guns…).

While the initial burglary and killing is ugly, some of the sequences in the revenge are more than ugly and violent. Perhaps this is the director, Eli Roth, who began with horror films, including the Hostel series.

The other central character in the film is Paul Kersey’s brother, Frank, played by Vincent D’ Onofrio, whom the police suspect and who then tries to reason with and support his brother.

And the final moral dilemma. What do authorities do when they discover the truth – arrest the perpetrator or allow for the understandable grief and let the perpetrator go free, to continue his work of healing?

1. A vigilante film? The story from the 1970s to the 21st century?

2. Audience attitudes to vigilante action? The experience of suffering, issues of justice and law, no satisfaction in law? Issues of retribution? Individuals, conscience, consequences and effects?

3. The 21st century situation, American cities, crime, violence, the role of the police and investigations, success and failure?

4. The changes in technology from the 20th century? Phones and photography, phones and videos, exposure on social media?

5. The city of Chicago, affluent, hospital surgery, the streets, criminal locations, the deals? Police precincts? The musical score?

6. The title, its impact?

7. Bruce Willis as Paul Kersey, surgeon, seeing him in action, saving lives and healing? Work with the staff? The atmosphere in surgery, genial? Home, love for Lucy, proud of Jordan, going to college? Happy family, the outing? Frank, his brother, needing money, the loan?

8. Lucy, strong, as a parent? Jordan, joy at college? Scenes at home? The burglars, the masks, the attack, Jordan attacking them, killing Lucy, the robbery?

9. The news coming to Paul, his low-key reaction, sadness, quiet, interviews with the police, and the questions?

10. The police, the personalities, their work together, processes of investigation? Informing Paul?

11. Paul, the process of his becoming a vigilante, his decisions, the influences? Going to the gun shop, the discussion with Bethany, her advice? His not having guns at home? The change? Target practice?

12. His wound, in the streets, witnessing the abduction, his intervention, shooting the perpetrator, the woman grateful? Being filmed, the social media, everybody knowing, the police, the media and the Grim Reaper?

13. His recognising the perpetrator, the tattooed, the valet, the valet getting information from the car about his address? Following the leads, the connections, the confrontations? Confronting the men, questioning them, the deaths? The dealer in the shop, the intruder? The dealer being shot by the intruder? The final confrontation with the
criminal, his vengeance? Callous, the attempted sexual assault of Jordan?

14. Frank, left-handed, being a suspect, going to the house, talking to Paul, supporting him?

15. Paul, the fights, the wounds, sewing up his shoulder, the wound on his hand?

16. The vigils at Jordan’s bedside? Jordan awakening, going home, the elevator and the criminal, the threats?

17. The final confrontation, the criminal coming into the house, Paul hiding Jordan and locking her in? The death of the criminal?

18. The police, coming to the house, talking to Paul, satisfied with his explanations, his being let off?

19. Vigilantes and the confrontation with conscienceless criminals?

MARY MAGDALENE

UK/Australia, 2018, 120 minutes, Colour.
Rooney Mara, Joaquin Phoenix, Chiwitel Ejiofor, Tahar Rahim, Ariane Lebed, Denis Menochet, Tcheky Karyo, Ryan Corr.
Directed by Garth Davis.

Clearly, a significant topic for a SIGNIS Statement. Mary Magdalene is one of the most significant new Testament characters. And, as a character, she has appeared in all the gospel films.

This Statement will have two aspects:
a basic comment and opinion on the merit of the film (with which, it is expected, other viewers of the film may disagree with);
an extended commentary on the significant themes and how they are presented.

An opinion on the merit of the film. From the point of view of a cinematic treatment of the Gospels, of Mary Magdalene, of Jesus himself and the apostles, the film is very well done. It can be recommended for those interested in an interpretation of the gospel story. It could also be used quite profitably for catechesis and as a background for biblical studies.

The film was directed by Australian, Garth Davis, co-director with Jane Campion of the series, Top of the Lake and, making quite an impact with his drama of the Indian orphan adopted by Tasmanian parents and seeking his origins, Lion. It is significant that the screenplay for Mary Magdalene has two women as writers, British writers, Helen Edmundson and Philippa Goslett. Which means that the writing has a female sensibility and a male director interpreting it.

The performances are quite strong. Rooney Mara is a quiet, different Mary Magdalene. Joaquin Phoenix is Jesus, looking somewhat older than usual, heavier than usual, more a Jesus from St Matthew’s Gospel rather than from St Luke’s, not a charismatic leader or affable, but rather stronger, stronger-minded, intense in his religious experience and expression. Chiwitel Ejiofor is Peter, older, black, expecting the kingdom on earth, as is Judas, Tamar Rahim, a pleasant man, an idealist, ultimately a disillusioned idealist about the nature of the kingdom and what Jesus should do and have done.

However, the title and focus of the film is Mary herself. One of the expectations of audiences would be the correlation of this dramatisation with the gospel texts. Mary is actually mentioned rarely. She is one of the women who follow Jesus according to Luke 8:2, where it is said that she had seven demons cast out of her (with the seven demons referred to in Mark 16:9). She is at the foot of the cross with Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:47; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:8; and the longer narrative in Jn 20: 1-18). She is with the disciples after the death of Jesus and is the first to go to the tomb, finding the stone rolled away, encountering Jesus in the garden, going back to the upper room and announcing the resurrection (Mt 27:61)

As the film makes clear at the end, Mary has often been identified as a prostitute, something which emerged with the influence of Pope Gregory the Great in 591. The film then adds that the Vatican, in 2016, named her “Apostle of the Apostles�. In various film versions, she is also identified with the woman taken in adultery (John 8), with the woman penitent (Luke 7: 36-50), with Mary the sister of Martha. Here, the focus is on Mary according to the brief gospel references noted above and creating imaginative aspects of the story consistent with these texts – as is said at the end, stories are told according to “the essence� of the Gospels.

Commentary.

• The screenplay uses a metaphor for, something of ‘the shape of water’, opening with Mary floating underwater and then surfacing, this image repeated in Mary’s anguish at Jesus’ suffering, and repeated again at the end of the film – with Mary explaining that when she was young, she would float underwater, holding her breath – finally surfacing and breathing again.

• Mary is seen, with the family, at Magdala on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, tending the fishers’ nets. Later, as she follows Jesus, she will walk away from the nets, leaving them behind.

• Almost immediately, Mary is called to assist at a difficult birth. Mary is quiet, contemplative, reassuring of the anxious and nervous mother, embracing her, quietly murmuring, calming her down, looking at her, enabling the mother to give birth to the child.

• Almost immediately, the small community gathers at the synagogue for prayer, the patriarch of the family ritually reciting the Psalms. The traditional Jewish context, with scripture and prayer, is a significant feature of Mary’s life.

• However, Mary is often disturbed. She goes out into the sheepfold at night, called back, her family worried about her, seeing that she has an evil spirit in her. There is initial talk of Jesus as a healer who has been casting out evil spirits. However, the family, father and her brother, decide to go through a ritual immersion to try to cast out the evil spirit but fail. They are particularly concerned because Mary is betrothed, unwillingly, and they see this is failure in her life. She is expected to have no other path in life but this one.

• Mary goes to listen to Jesus. Jesus seems older than we expect. He has been on the road (and the thought goes to wonder about the hygiene of the times, the availability of water, the sleeping on the roads, the wandering life). Jesus is quiet, somewhat reserved. He rarely smiles. He seems to be more of the Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel, somewhat stern, very straightforward. He has chosen the Apostles, speaks of the coming of the kingdom but he is also emphatic on the kingdom within the human person.

• This perception of Jesus is that of Mary herself, which means that the film is really an interpretation of the Gospels, a ‘Gospel according to Mary Magdalene’. It is her religious experience, the events she participated in, a response to Jesus, communication with him, her view of Jesus, of Peter, Judas, of the apostles, of the crowds of followers.

• This is a female experience of Jesus, reminding audiences of gender differences, male-female complementarity.

• Mary listens to Jesus speak, she herself quoting at beginning and end the story of the woman with the mustard seed and its growth. She listens, she begins to smile, she identifies with Jesus, she is aware of his message of the kingdom within rather than the political upheaval that Peter and Judas seem to imagine. She experiences an immersion by Jesus and she is freed, she is liberated from evil spirits.

• In this film, Judas is the apostle with whom she immediately relates. The screenplay offers an interesting interpretation of Judas. He has been married, had a daughter, wife and child had been killed by Roman oppression. This motivates his enthusiasm for following Jesus, expecting Jesus to proclaim the kingdom, overthrow the Romans, a new and hopeful beginning for Israel. He chats happily with Mary, smiles, no suggestion of his being a thief. In fact, right up to the entry into Jerusalem, he is enthusiastic. When he sees Jesus antagonise the authorities with overturning the money tables and speaking to the religious leaders, he begins to wonder. He participates in the Last Supper, kisses Jesus in the garden – with Mary asking him what he had done. He had contrived the soldiers coming to arrest Jesus in the expectation that Jesus would spectacularly assert himself and the kingdom would begin. Bewildered, ideals shattered, he tells Mary that he is going to be with his family and hangs himself.

• Peter, on the other hand, is a strong character, talk about his leaving his young son to whom is devoted, instantly following Jesus, loyal to him, but with the earthbound expectation of the kingdom. He is also rather bewildered by Mary’s presence, by her closeness to Jesus, by her influence. It is clear that he finds it hard to comprehend how a woman can be present in their group. He discusses this with Mary – and has to learn from her how to respond to Jesus. (While the other apostles present, there is practically no individuation, even at the Last Supper when Mary sits on one side of Jesus, Peter on the other.)

• There is an interesting episode when the group go to Cana, Jesus preaching, especially to a group of women who listen, one recounting a dire story of a woman being raped and dying. Jesus makes the point by asking her how long she can keep hate in her heart, and whether she is any better for holding on to the hate rather than letting it go in forgiveness.

• Mary is very comfortable in Jesus’ presence. They clearly become friends. The screenplay presupposes the gospel perspective on the relationship. We use the word “celibate� and a word that is not as frequently used as in the past, “chaste�. One might think of the categories of Carl Jung, that Mary Magdalene dramatises the “anima� of Jesus, his feminine side. In fact, in dealing with of the people, Mary seems more “Jesus -like� then Jesus himself. To that extent, she is an interesting Christ figure.

• The sequence where Jesus preaches to the crowd, speaks to them spiritually, he gives a sign of peace and his followers encouraged to enable others to give the sign of peace, Peter moving amongst the crowd, Mary in the same way.

• Jesus and the appeal of the crowds to heal the dead man, his stopping, silent pity, lying down beside the dead man, giving life, feeling power go out of him (and the linking of this episode to that of Elijah in 1 Kings 17).

• Mary Magdalene encounters Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom Jesus has asked to come, especially in view of his expected death. Mary, mother, reminisces about Jesus as a boy, that he was tormented by others who said he had an evil spirit in him. Mary says she loved her son but she he was never completely his.

• Jesus knows that he must go to Jerusalem. Now there vast crowds about him, there scenes of the immense temple, exteriors and interiors, the crowds gathered around him, with palms, and the chant becomes “Messiah�.

• The main sequence in the temple has Jesus wandering, seeing the moneychangers, seeing the animals, especially the sacrificial blood on the ground, on the clothes of the slaughterers. He asks questions of the temple officials who say that this is the tradition, expected of the people. And Jesus reacts, overturning everything as the Gospel tells us. He is hurried away by Peter and Judas to the safety of the upper room.

• The Last Supper sequence is very simple and brief, the breaking and sharing of bread, Mary prominently participating in this Communion.

• The group hurries across a bridge to the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus goes to pray and the focus is on Peter, the apostles, discussing their puzzle about what was happening, Judas coming and kissing Jesus and the arrest.

• The passion sequences are very brief, Judas, after kissing Jesus, rather enthusiastically explaining to Mary that he had set everything up for Jesus to proclaim the kingdom, that he was already being judged but would assert himself.

• The scenes of the carrying of the cross and the crucifixion are very brief, effectively graphic in a way that will remind audiences of their own images and memories of the passion, Jesus carrying the cross, his blood, the falls, the nails being heard as they go into his flesh, Jesus on the cross, his mother Mary at the foot of the cross.

• Mary Magdalene has been caught up in the crowd on the way to Calvary, injured, collapsing, once again experiencing the shape of water, recovering and going to the foot of the cross where Jesus, as he dies, gazes at her.

• There is a brief Pieta sequence, Jesus on his mother’s lap, she bending over to embrace her dead son.

• Mary is at the tomb, rocks being placed in the wall of the tomb, her falling asleep, waking, hearing her name, seeing Jesus sitting some way from the tomb, her going to be with him.

• Mary returns to the upper room, the apostles express their fear, their disappointments, their not understanding – and it is Mary who has to explain to them that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, that it is in their hearts and that this is what they have to proclaim. Mary is the apostle of the apostles.


This is a film which should satisfy most Christian audiences. Catholics would respond well to it. It is a film which communicates the Gospel message of Gospel characters, not completely, but credibly to any open-minded audience interested in knowing Jesus in the Gospel stories better – with Mary Magdalene as a persuasive woman-guide.

UNFORGETTABLE

US, 2017, 100 minutes, Colour.
Rosario Dawson, Katherine Heigl, Geoff Stults, Isabella Kai Rice, Robert Wisdom, Cheryl Ladd.
Directed by Denise di Novi.

Unforgettable is too strong a title for this film. It was mocked by many of the commentators and to the film was poorly reviewed, Katherine Heigl, even nominated for a Razzie Award for worst actress.

It was directed by Denise di Novi who had been a significant producer for many years, especially for Tim Burton films.

Promotion of the film was that it was in the vein of Fatal Attraction.

The focus of the film is on Rosario Dawson as Julia, a successful editor, falling in love, moving to another town, becoming a stepmother. She becomes the victim of her fiance’s first wife, continually being present, threatening, controlling. However, Julia has had harsh background with her own mother. Characterwise, she is in complete contrast with Katherine Heigl’s Tessa, fatal blonde, controlled appearance, make up and hair, dominating her daughter, yet losing control to her former husband, David, Geoff Stults.

Most of the film concerns Tessa’s attempts to undermine Julia’s relationship, telling lies, setting up situations, stealing her phone and making text contact with Julia’s former boyfriend, the perpetrator of domestic violence.

Cheryl Ladd has a cameo appearance as Tessa’s controlling mother.

The film moves to a very melodramatic climax – the final confrontation between Tessa and David, between Julia and herself and Tessa finally impaling herself on a knife.

But the film presents a very cheerful and happy ending.
1. Drama? Melodrama? Poorly reviewed

2. The setting, American cities and towns, small towns? Country scenery? Homes, restaurants, schools? Real/affluent?

3. The title? Its meaning? Tessa, Julia? Their parents?

4. The framing of Julia with the police? Her injured face? The accusations, the contact with Michael, her bewilderment?

5. The action, Julia in herself, her background, collecting stories, editing, the farewell party, her friend and continued phone calls and supportive visits? Memories of Michael, aggressive? Her fears, imagining his presence? Love for David, taking on being stepmother to Lily, the new house, the move, her life?

6. Themes of parents, divorce, the effect on children, bonding or not? For David? For Tessa? The motivations? Julia and her having to learn?

7. Lily, her age, relationship with her mother, her mother combing her hair, staying with her father, custody? Tessa’s visit, staying for the meal, Lily refusing to eat the meal? The effect on Julia?

8. With her father, with Julia? The gradual bonding? Normal life, the visits, her performance? Tessa combing her hair, upset with her? Riding horses, wanting to get off, Julia supporting her? Julia finally rescuing her from the house?

9. David, his work, the relationship with Tessa, her stories about the affair, his leaving her? Ambitions for Wall Street? Creating the beer the factory? The launch? The celebrations? Going with Julia to the restroom? His love for her? But also self-absorbed?

10. Tessa, deadly blonde, the straightness of a hair, her control and appearance? As a mother, her control, her version of what had happened, her being upset, revenge, loving David – or her mental state? Making up the stories, watching Julia, delivering Lily, the return, the meal at the house, inviting Julia to lunch, undermining her confidence? Stealing her phone, the contacts, texting Michael? Falling down the stairs and blaming Julia? The horse and Julia defying her and taking Lily?

11. Tessa’s mother, blonde, controlling, memories of the past? Wanting to be with her granddaughter? Her arrival at the end?

12. Michael, the texts, his arriving, Julia and her bewilderment, his violence, wounding his leg?

13. Julia, the effect of her past, having to learn? Losing Lily at the market? Allowing her to get off the horse? Confrontation with Tessa on the stairs? Her ring taken, her phone taken?

14. Tessa, arriving at the house, attacking Michael, stabbing him?

15. The confrontation between Tessa and David, her attack, wounding him? Julia, with the police, the car, helping Lily, fighting Tessa, Tessa impaling herself on the knife?

16. The police, apologising to Julia – and happy ending?

HIS DOUBLE LIFE

US, 1932, 68 minutes, Black and white.
Roland Young, Lillian Gish, Montagu Love, Lumsden Hare, Lucy Beaumont.
Directed by Arthur Hopkins.

For those interested in the history of films, for those who enjoy some of the brief films of the 1930s, this one is worth catching.

It is based on a story by distinguished British novelist, Arnold Bennett (The Card).

Is also a star vehicle for Roland Young who was to be an enjoyable presence in films during the 1930s and 1940s. He was soon to be Topper. And, especially for those interested in the history of film, there is an appearance by Lillian Gish, so prominent two decades earlier in the films of D.W.Griffith.

The film opens in the United States at an art exhibition and great praise for the unknown artist who is a recluse. One of the visitors to the exhibition is Alice Chalice, Lillian Gish, unmarried and in her 30s and thinking she had few prospects. There are also some relatives of the artist but they have never seen him. The artist’s agent has made a number of sales.

The action transfers to England with the appearance of the artist, Roland Young, shy in manner, shunning any kind of public exposure. He is looked after by his assistant of many years, Leek, Montagu Love. In London, they go to a hotel, and, unexpectedly, the assistant dies. Everybody who comes, starting with the police, and then his relatives, all assume that the artist is in fact the assistant no matter how hard he protests.

He is treated fairly badly by most concerned, especially by the relatives are a bit upset about reading in his will that they are to set up an art gallery.

It turns out that Alice has been using the 1930s equivalent of online dating, through print!

She goes to London to meet the assistant, having a photo of him with the artist. She thinks the artist, whose name is Priam Farrell, is the servant, rescues him, talks over him, is attracted towards him, and he to her. They share so much, he comes to life. They marry.
Eventually, he is seen and recognised and there are all kinds of difficulties which the artist tries to gloss over. There is the question of his identity, who is buried in his tomb – and there is a spectacular scene where he is buried in Westminster Abbey is a great national artist and it causes quite some uproar in the Gallery! He goes to court, the assistant’s former wife and sons turn up and she identifies the artist, even in court.

So, with all the difficulties, Alice not caring who he is but loving him, the artist continuing his paintings (through which he was eventually recognised), but they are to lead a happy ever after life.

Not very well known – but a pleasantly spent hour and a bit.

MUSEO


All Mexico, 2018, 128 minutes, Colour.
Gael Garcia Bernal, Leonardo Ortizgris, Simon Russell Beale, Ilse Salas, Lynn Gilmartin, Alfredo Castro, Leticia Bredice, Bernardo Velasco.
Directed by Alonzo Ruiz Palacios.


With a title like Museo/Museum, one can expect a film about works of art. But, in so many of the movies, museums are a target for robberies. And this is the case here on both counts.

The film opens with an emphasis on ancient Mexican monuments, their cultural value, their significance in the present – and with the work done to transfer monuments from their sites to museums. This theme of culture pervades the film.

However, this is also the story of Juan, a rich young Mexican who had been taken as a little boy by his doctor father to witness the transferring of one of the largest statues to the museum. Juan is dissatisfied with his life, his health, his prospects, even taunted by his sister as “Shorty� – and he is short because he is played by Mexican actor returning home, Gael Garcia Bernal.

Juan has a good friend from school days, Wilson (Leonardo Ortizgris), more genial than Juan, less complicated. Juan also has some domination over him.

Which leads to the main action of the film. It is Christmas. Juan has a plan for himself and Wilson to get into the museum at this quiet time and steal a number of the precious artefacts. Juan is well-prepared and the two young men are successful.

What Juan is not necessarily in need of money, he has perhaps been too much influenced by popular thrillers and decides that he will sell the artefacts to rich clients who are avid collectors. Actually, Juan is fairly shrewd in making contacts – though his shrewdness will rather evaporate after his experience with clients. He has a connection, a guide on a historic site who puts him in touch with an Englishman, Frank Graves, played by the fine British theatre actor, Simon Russell Beale. Selling off artefacts is not as easy as it might sound. Graves indicates that he works within the restrictions of the law and so this kind of treasure is not one that he wants to have.

The scenes with Simon Russell Beale a dramatic high point of the film.

An alternative? Going to Acapulco, trying to track down another fence for artefacts, finding the singer in a club, an actress admired by Juan because of the film she appeared in and danced in. And this does not quite work out in the way that Juan intended, complicated by the fact that Wilson’s father is ill and dying and he wants to return home. Cineastes will enjoy the Fellini and Nino Rota with the dense on the beach

How can this end? Will the two young men give up? Will the police have investigated and will they become suspects? How does Juan’s father react when his son tells him the truth?

While there is a lot of comment and dialogue about Mexico’s cultural heritage and the need for preservation, it is the questions above that prevail at the end of the film, turning it into a rather low key thriller.



1. Drama, melodrama, Mexican-style? Mexican sensibility, cultural history?

2. The introduction, archaeology, the removal of the statue to the museum, taking down the power lines, the truck, moving into the city, the building of the Museum? Juan and his father watching?

3. Wilson’s voice-over? The revelation about himself, his friendship with Juan, since childhood, his dependence on him? The celebration of Christmas? Juan and his decision to steal the antiquities, the consequences? The encounters with Bosco, with Frank Graves, the search for Pepe in Acapulco, the end, the story, telling the truth or not?

4. Juan and his comments about storytelling, history, not believing it, it being made up, the witnesses, the records, with the perpetrators themselves not necessarily telling the truth?

5. Juan and his family, the siblings, his father and the past, the father being a doctor, concerned about his son’s health, the mother and her love for her son, his sister calling him Shorty, the bond with Wilson, meeting with him, the plan, the long execution of the robbery in the Museum? Decisions about selling the antiquities, getting his father’s car, going to the tour site, with Bosco, making comments, Bosco and his lead to Frank Graves? The meeting with Graves, his admiring the antiquities, his forceful manner, the truth about nobody willing to buy such treasures? The decision to go to Acapulco, driving, Juan turning the lights off, speeding, Wilson and his concern? Wilson and his father, his illness, near to death? The news of his almost dying, the pressure by Juan on him not to go back, to travel with him? The searching for the club, for Pepe, the dancer and finds admiration for her film? The news that Pepe was dead? Taking the cocaine? The dance on the beach in imitation of Fellini with Nino Rota’s music? Losing the bag, the children playing, sandcastles with the ornaments? Meeting Wilson at the diving point in Acapulco? The decision to go home, to tell his father the truth? Going to the museum, his father driving him, leaving the mask? His being surrounded by the police? Indicating to Wilson to go away? The moral of the story? The rich boy, bored, wanting to get out of the town, to do something adventurous?

6. Wilson, as a character, weaker, his sick father, dependence on Juan, the sadness of missing his father’s death?

7. Bosco, the guide, the contacts with illegal trade in antiquities? The lead to Frank Graves? Graves, his personality, British background, treating the two as youngsters, explaining the truth to them?

8. The dancer, Juan’s admiration for her, defending her, the fight in the bar?

9. Juan’s future, going to jail…?

THE 15:17 TO PARIS

US, 2018, 94 minutes, Colour.
Alec Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, Spencer Stone, Judy Greer, Jenna Fischer, Irene White, William Jennings, Bryce Gheisar Paul- Mikel Williams, Thomas Lennon, Tony Hale.
Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Depending on memory, audiences may or may not be aware of an episode on a train from Amsterdam to Paris in 2015 where a terrorist threatened passengers with guns and three Americans, some of them military, thwarted the attack by the terrorist. The three of them then wrote a book recounting the episode.

This is a Clint Eastwood film— post-production completed when he was 87! His name is on the advertising but his name does not appear as part of the film’s title. His name is a marketing device. And, in many ways, this film has a lot of Clint Eastwood’s themes, American heroism, American military, striking action, and background stories of the central characters.

The production question arose as to casting of these central characters. It was decided that the men should play themselves. They were not actors. They had no drama lessons. Rather, were invited to re-enact the events that they had lived and to bring conviction to those performances. And, generally, they do.

Eastwood does what he did in his most recent film, Sully. There are some sequences scattered throughout the film of the ultimate confrontation with the terrorist. However, there is a lot of back story and the incident is not shown fully until the latter part of the film once we have got to know the three protagonists.

One of the great advantages of the film is the casting of the three young lads to portray the heroes when they were at school and at home. The greater credibility to the real adult characters/performers.

Spencer Stone gets the most attention in the film. William Jennings portrays him as a boy, not a little boy, but a rather big boy for his age, not the quickest runner on the block, criticised for ADD, cared for by his single mother, played by Judy Greer, a boy who did not know what he would be when he grew up but was interested in the military. The boy who portrays Anthony Sadler, Paul- Mikel Williams, is a vivacious and appealing character as a little boy, always getting into trouble, not always deserving it, perhaps too much picked on because of his African- American background. Bryce Gheisar is very good as Alec Kartelos, it is best friend, medium-size, potential for grown-up work, joining the military. His mother played by Jenna Fischer.

The mothers have their difficulties, especially when called in by the principal of the Christian school where they send their sons, played seriously by comedian Thomas Lennon. Their sports master is impatient often reporting them, the discipline master is forever urging them to get to classes. (The presentation of the Christian school is not a particularly flattering portrait but Spencer Stone does pray St Francis Peace Prayer – which he does at the end of the film.)

When they grow up, in their mid-20s, Spencer has tried and failed in several of the courses he is interested in and lacks vision depth, disqualifying him, and Alec has spent time in Afghanistan. They join up with Anthony for a European tour. Some audiences have found this unnecessary and a touch boring – you for the violent bits! But those who have visited Rome, Venice, Amsterdam, Berlin, will enjoy some reminiscences. And so, finally, they decide to go to Paris and are on the 15.17 from Amsterdam.

The film does raise the question of how would we all react if suddenly on a train were confronted by a terrorist with guns and 300 rounds of ammunition. The three men tackle their attacker, subdue him, with the help of an older Frenchman. There are some frightening moments, edited with some pace, with the potential to alarm the audience wondering what would happen if they we were there.

There is a final ceremony with the French president presenting the men with the Legion of Honour and strong praise for stances against terrorism.

The film is patriotic – after all, they are American heroes! But audiences who abhor American trumpet-blowing have found this irritating, with comments that Clint Is too patriotic. But, one could ask, why not?

1. Actual events? 2015? The actual characters performing their roles?

2. The work of Clint Eastwood, his age, interests, action, terrorism, American spirit?

3. The reality of terrorism, in the world, a taxing France, all over Europe? Islamic jihadists? American attitudes, the war on terror?

4. Critics and the criticism of the film for Clint Eastwood’s jingoistic attitudes? Tough America? Yet the four men being honoured by the French government, the Legion d’honneur?

5. The fact of the actual characters in their performances, and bitter, little coaching, but the effect and authenticity?

6. Introduction, 2015, the train, the camera following a bit of a terrorist, in the toilet, his attack? Recurring throughout the film? The climax action?

7. Childhood of the performance, the persuasiveness of the three child actors? Differences, friendship, being in trouble, a DD, school difficulties, with the principal, her severity? Interviewing the mothers, single mothers, upset about their children being attacked?

8. The transition to the Christian school, the hard aspects, and the Principal, the teacher on the stairs reporting them, the cynicism of the sports master? White and black? Bonds? Each at home? The hopes?

9. The focus on Spencer, the big boy, St Francis? A DD, concentration, friendships? With his mother? Hopes? Wanting to help, military volunteer? The training, the weight loss, is lacking depth of mission and so unsuitable? His disappointment?

10. Alec, a better life, military, service in that gap Afghanistan? The effect of the experience?

11. Anthony, Africa- American, strong personality, military?

12. The idea of a holiday in Europe, the tourism and sequences of Rome, Venice, Berlin? The sites, the enjoyment, meeting people, advice to go to Amsterdam?

13. Amsterdam, the 15:17, on the train, the range of passengers? An ordinary trip on an afternoon?

14. The terrace, the attack, his guns, of a number of rounds, the three men tackling him, the help from Frenchman? Spencer being wounded? The women helping with the wounded? Extension the blood? The men taking control?

15. The question of how audiences would react in similar circumstances? Visual pulling the court not? Sending message onto the next station? Stopping, the authorities, the police? Medico medical help? The terraces prison? The work of the railway staff?

16. The French president, the gathering, his speech, the mothers present, the giving of the metals?

17. Return home, the tickertape parade? American heroes?

18. American heroes, but ordinary men, and supernatural bottles?

U: JULY 22

Norway, 2018, 90 minutes, Colour.
Andrea Berntzen, Aleksander Holmen, Brede Fristad, Elli Rhiannon Muller Osbourne. Cambridge for a start,
Directed by Erik Poppe.

For Norwegians, July 22, 2011 was a sombre day. It was the day that terrorist Anders Breivik exploded a bomb outside government offices in Oslo and then went on a rampage on the island of Utoye where many young people had gathered for a summer camp and shot 79 of them and wounded many others.

Breivikk was an extreme rightwing fanatic and made outlandish declarations during his trial. It is important for this film that he is never named and is never seen – and, in prison, he has no possibility of praising himself for being at the centre of the film.

The film is based on the events of the day, many of the stories told. However, the director, Erik Poppe, says at the end that the film is a work of fiction but based on true stories, one of many possible interpretations.

The device used is a handheld camera and the story told in a single take, using real-time to capture again the atmosphere and events of the 72 minutes of the pursuit of the students.

The film opens with newsreel footage of the explosion in Oslo causing concern on the island with parents ringing children and checking on safety. The camera then focuses on one character, Kaia, and follows her through the next 72 minutes. We see her impatient with her younger sister who is out for a good time and is very careless, rubbishing the tent. Kaia then joins a number of friends. Soon they begin to hear gunshots and are puzzled.

From then on, the camera follows Kaia, huddling with the group, taking cover, bewildered, trying to use the mobile phone, concerned about her sister and crawling to the tent but finding the sister absent as well as her leaving her mobile phone in the tent. Kaia also encounters another little boy who is terrified and she encourages him to run towards the water (with some pathos when he is later discovered dead and she blames herself).

Kaia eventually moves towards the water where a number of taken refuge. All throughout the film one hears shots, screams, glimpses people running in all directions. At the water’s edge, Kaia takes refuge with the young man whom she had earlier encountered, has conversations with him about her ambitions to be a politician, sings a song from the choir to which she belongs. As the danger gets closer, she is siezed to make a move and his shot down.

Ironically, her companion is rescued by a boat – and the audience sees on the boat, Kaia sister looking after those who have been wounded.

It is important for a nation to come to terms with such a disastrous day and the number of people dead, especially their being so young. This film is very respectful to the survivors and their stories, enabling audiences to remember and to understand.

Erik Poppe has directed fine films like Troubled Waters and The King’s Decision.

This film received a commendation from the Ecumenical Jury at the 2018 Berlin Film Festival.

1. The impact of the recreation of the events? A gruelling experience for the audience? Sharing the gruelling experience of the victims? The impression of the attack on the students? The detail?

2. Public opinion about the terrorist attack, judgement on the perpetrator? The extreme right? Age 34? His attitudes, the explosion, killing the young adults? His going to court, his prison sentence? His not being mentioned by name in the film?

3. Terrorism, the 21st century, 2011? Expectations of Muslim jihadists? The shock of this kind of terror in Norway?

4. The director’s comment, creating a fiction, based on stories, not a documentary, but just one interpretation?

5. The timespan of the film, coinciding with the events, 72 minutes of attack? The range of moods, action?

6. The opening aerial shots of Oslo, the details of the explosion?

7. The island, the train, forest, cliffs, the sea?

8. The one focus, a microcosm explaining the events for understanding of the rest? The subjective focus, the handheld camera and its effect, following Kaia, her running, being quiet, in the sea?

9. The young people hearing the shots, the mystery? Not sure where they came from, the different places, getting closer? The group running, the girl needing to be carried and her complaints? The comment that it was the police, whether many, or one? The young people phoning the police, giving the report? The coming of the media helicopters? The final boat to the rescue?

10. Kaia, her talking to camera, talking to others, the phone calls to her mother, her argument with Emily, Emily being offhand, wanting to have fun, the rubbish in and around the tent, her being the younger, moods, wanting to have fun and swim, saying the Kaia was more perfect? Who searching for her, the phone left in the tent?

11. Group, chatting together, the prospects of the barbecue? Issa and the Muslim background? Petter and his discussion points? Magnus, genial, wanting to pick up girls? Christine and her fear? The shots, the beginning to run, hiding together, the decision whether to go or stay?

12. Kaia the search for Emily, running, crawling? The encounter with the young boy, his yellow coat, his fears, waiting for his brother? Her finding him later, dead, blaming herself, the yellow jacket? Emily not in the tent?

13. Her decision to go to the water, encountering the girl who had been shot, a shoulder injury, giving her her coat? The talk, trying to keep her alive, remembering her parents, wanting her mother? Her death?

14. The water, the cliffs, the various groups hiding, finding Magnus? The talking, her ambitions to be a parliamentarian, his being a loser? Choir, persuading her to sing? Searching for the girl who called out? The shots, finding the young boy dead, Magnus and Kaia, her being shot?
15. Magnus, running, getting to the boat, the group in the boat, the irony of Emily on the boat?

16. Information about the attack, its effect on Norwegian consciousness? World consciousness?

BLACK 47

Ireland, 2018, 96 minutes, Colour.
Hugo Weaving, James Frecheville, Stephen Rea, Freddie Fox, Barry Keoghan, Moe Dunford, Sarah Greene, Jim Broadbent.
Directed by Lance Daly.

The title refers to 1847 in Ireland. Very black times. The potato famine. The rule of the British and their oppression.

The film will have quite an impact in Ireland, an opportunity to look back at a particular time, not frequently shown in film, and to reflect on the subjugation of the Irish by the British, the nature of the oppression, the impact of the potato famine and the consequences on starvation in Ireland itself as well as the migration to Britain, Canada and Australia.

Those who have Irish ancestry will find it particularly interesting, especially if some of their ancestors suffered in the famine and migrated at this period.

The framework for the film is a vengeance story. It opens with a British soldier, fraternising with the police and the local authorities in a bar, then going to the prison and brutally interrogating an Irish rebel, choking him for information – and then being charged with murder. The soldier, Hannah, is played with his usual intensity by Hugo Weaving.

But the central character is another soldier, an Irishman who fought with Hannah in Afghanistan, but who left the Army, deserting, taking some weapons, returning to Ireland and finding his family devastated. His mother has died in the famine. His brother has been executed. His brother’s widow and children are destitute. This character is Michael Feeney, played by Australian actor James Frecheville, and made to look up like an outlaw, bushranger of the times, severe in demeanour, long beard, travelling by horse.

When Michael Feeney begins to kill those who are responsible for the deaths of his family, the authorities decide to send a young British officer, Pope (Freddie Fox) to capture Feeney. He is to take Hannah along to identify him as well as helping in the arrest. Also in the group is very young recruit played by Barry Keoghan, in charge of the horses, who later is shocked to discover the repercussions of the famine. Interestingly, in 1847, they travel by train to the north to pursue Feeney in Connemara, the bleak and often barren landscapes of the county.

Along the way, the group pick up an Irish traveller, who can spin a yarn, can give information, Conneely (Stephen Rea). He leads them to the town where the local landowner has a mansion. The landowner is played with enormous arrogance by Jim Broadbent, the landowner who loves the land but despises the Celtic people and longs for the day when they will all be eliminated.

Feeney encounters owners of shops who betrayed his family, various officials, and kills them in dramatic and symbolic ways.

It all builds up of course to a dramatic climax, the bond between Hannah and Feeney somewhat rekindled, Feeney skilful in destroying his enemies but ultimately destroyed – with Hannah having the option to stay in Ireland and face prison or, as Feeney advises him, to go to America.

Perhaps a bit specialist for non-Irish and non--Irish ancestry audiences.

1. A grim story? Grim times? Grim Irish history?

2. Ireland in 1847, the British and rule, the presence, the landowners, their workers, the military, the atmosphere of oppression?

3. The peasants, the potato famine, the rotten potatoes, fevers and deaths, emaciated survivors, being ousted from the farms? Landowners complaining about paying taxes for them? The produce being transferred to England from starving Ireland?

4. Audience knowledge of the times, awareness of the Irish experience and the range of Irish descent – to the US, Canada, to Australia?

5. The film’s use of Gaelic and English, speech, songs? The English against Gaelic?

6. Vengeance story, Michael Feeney, his going to the British Army, serving in Afghanistan, his comradeship with Hannah? Desertion, taking the weapons, coming home, looking like a bushranger, searching for his mother, her death, her refusal to take the potato soup? His brother being hanged? His brother’s wife and children in the hut? The time with them, the gift? His going to his mother’s grave? The return of the impact on him?

7. The introduction to Hannah, in the tavern, with the British soldiers, his interrogation methods, the Irishman defying him, Hannah choking him? His being arrested, to be tried for murder?

8. The bleakness of Connemara, the mountains, fields, the valleys, the huts? The contrast with the landowner and his mansion? And travel by train at this time?

9. The musical score, plaintiff, Gaelic tones?

10. Feeney, going to his mother’s grave, bringing food, singing, the family being ousted, his being hit and watching, the roof taken off, the severity of the authorities? His return, the mother and children frozen to death? The pig in the house? His confronting the agent, the agent and his stories, getting his gun, not being able to fire, his death, the pig’s head on his body? The mission, vengeance for the others to die, the agent supervising the grain, and buried in the grain? The judge, in the court, sentences to Van Diemens Land, his defence of legality? His being hanged? The other deaths?

11. Hannah, given the mission to find Feeney? Released? Pope, young, very British? The young lad with the horses accompanying them?

12. Travelling by train, the reporter talking about the famine? Going by horse, tracking, the experience of the locals? The soldiers and the mercenaries wanting the reward money?

13. The meeting with Conneely, in himself, on the road, accompanying them, giving information about the landowner’s house, his jokes with the landowner, watching the grain, severing Hannah’s ropes, observing the funeral?

14. The Lord, the registry ownership, his despising the Celtic people, loving the landscapes? The grain, sending it to England? The jokes with, Conneely? In the carriage, his abduction, injuries, not begging from Feeney? Feeney putting him on the horse, disguised, his being shot? The funeral?

15. The boy sent as companion with the horses, his experience of oppression, the grain going away, the Irish starving, his gun, his being shot?

16. Hannah, to appear before the firing squad? Feeney sniping?

17. The fights, the choking of the Sergeant? Hannah and his escape with Feeney? The shooting? Feeney and his dying, urging him to go to the US?

18. And at the crossroads, the group going to America – or the possibility of following the young British officer?

SILENT REVOLUTION/ DAS ZWEIGENDE KLASSENZIMMER

Germany, 2018, 111 minutes, Colour.
Jonas Dassler, Judith Engel, Tom Gramenz, Leonard Scheicher, Michael Gwisdek, Lena Klenke, Isaiah Michalski.
Directed by Lars Kraume.

A very interesting film from Germany, taking its audience back to East Germany in 1956 and noting that this was five years before the building of the Berlin Wall. The film recreates the place, homes, school, the families, the harsh Soviet style government, the ideology of socialism. It also has people from the East travelling by train, being checked, for visits to the West, something which was to come to a bitter end with the establishing of the Wall.

We are introduced to some young students in their final year at school, full of hope, but their expectations of future in the East. Two of them, Theo and Kurt, go on a trip to West Berlin, cheeky to the guards who check their identities, going to visit Kurt’s grandmother’s grave – but also wanting to go to see a sexy movie in a West Berlin cinema. When they return, they gather with their friends to discuss the visit, some excited by the experience, some rather censorious about going to that kind of film. They are again cheeky to some of the Soviet soldiers who pursue them but let them go.

The focus on this group of students, as well as Eric and Paul who are also in the class and some of the girls, including Lena who is attracted to Theo, means that the film offers us a microcosm of the East Germantown, Stalinstadt, and the comparatively small drama that affects the students. And this microcosm is a symbolic drama of what was happening in the rest of the East and for the following 35 years until the Wall came down and there was reunification.

The students hear news of the Hungarian uprising in October 1956. This excites them, possibilities for freedom, of getting away from Soviet overrule. Without thinking of the consequences, they decide to hold a two minutes silence period in the classroom. The keep looking at the clock. The teacher does not know what is going on, the tension begins.

Kurt comes from a family where his father is on the town Council, a respected authority. Theo’s father, on the other hand, works in the steel mills and has two younger brothers. He is the first in his family to complete his secondary schooling and his father has high hopes. Later Theo will learn that his father participated in an uprising in 1953.

Paul takes the group to his uncle, with a reputation as a gay man, to listen to radio from the West in order to learn more about Hungary. The principal, originally a blue-collar worker, is anxious for his job and talks with students. However, an official visits, Miss Kessler, a severe interrogator and, later, the Minister for Education will visit the school.

There are divisions amongst the students, Erik idealising his resistance father but rather conservative. The others, on the other hand, are eager for solidarity with Hungary. Questions are asked about who is responsible.

Ultimately, the state will come down on students and they will have to make decisions about staying, being expelled from school, the consequences for their careers or travelling to the west.

Well acted, well written, always interesting – and, though it is the history of a small group in 1956, still challenging.

1. The German perspective on the past? Based on actual events? 1956? Five years before the Wall? The experience of 11 years as part of the Soviet empire? Attitudes towards socialism? The German heritage, the Nazis and the SS, the war, resistance? Concentration camps? Memories?

2. The East German setting, Stalinstadt? The town, homes, the school, the house in the countryside, trains? The American sector? The cemetery? The cinema and be sex film?

3. The stories has a microcosm of East Germany, illuminating the macrocosm of the Soviet empire and the countries involved?

4. The musical score, the American songs heard in East Germany? From the west?

5. The focus on the students, the age of 18, their graduation year, their experiences, growing up in East Germany, the two Germanies? The prospects? The past, the labourers, the opportunity for the new generation to get diplomas, betterment, true socialism and improvement?

6. The introduction to Kurt and Theo, on the train, cheeky with the guards, their checking? Dislike of the Russians and the interrogation? Going to the cemetery, Kurt’s grandfather? Going to the movie, the sex movie in the West, following the girls, getting in free? The impact of the newsreel, Hungary, revolution, ideas?

7. The situation of Hungary in 1956, News from the radio in the American sector? The group going to Edgar’s to listen? The newspapers? Accusations of bias, American propaganda? Yet Hungary, the uprising, the leader, resistance, the many deaths, the streets, the Russian tanks, the soccer hero and whether he died or not?

8. The core group of students for this story? Theo, Kurt, Lena, Paul, Erik? The group at the diner after a visit to the west? Throwing things at the Russians, the chase?, Religious background, against the world of the movies?

9. At school, the ceremonies, the initial pledge, everybody saying “friendship�? The plan for the silence in support of Hungary? Looking at the watch, the clock, the teacher and his not understanding? His questions? Being upset, going to the principal? The intervention of the authorities, Miss Kessler and her hard interrogations, the visit of the Minister and his ideology? The jokey attitudes of the students, their inexperience at 18, having to discover real politics, truth, consequences, experience betrayal?

10. Theo, his father working in the steel mill, the other children, the mother? On the bike going to school, the affection for the other children? His father involved in the uprising of 1953 but not telling his son? Taking Theo to work in the mill one day? His hope for Theo’s graduation and future?

11. Kurt, his father in the Council, severe, attitude towards his wife? His hopes for Kurt?

12. She’s too, his father seen as a hero? The minister knowing him? Miss Kessler, the photo, the discovery of the truth, his shame?

13. Lena, living with her grandmother? The grandmother saying nothing was a as it seems – and who work at sewing?

14. Paul and his relationship with Edgar? Studious? Edgar, his reputation as a gay man, living alone? The radio, welcoming the students, the listening to the news, the music? His speech about realism and truth? The speech about individuals and the collective, conformity? The fact that they had become enemies of the state? His being arrested, smiling, the radio and the American music?

15. The consciousness of Hungary, hopes for the uprising, the failure?

16. The personal stories, Theo and the clover for Lena, Lena attracted to Kurt, Paul seeing them kissing? Paul telling Theo?

17. The parents meeting in the bar, Theo’s father going to the Minister, being rejected?

18. The role of the principal, from a blue-collar worker to an opportunity, the visit with Theo, the tea, the warning? The minister arriving without telling the principal? Miss Kessler? The threats to his job?

19. The plan to use the excuse that they were mourning the soccer hero? Their all being interrogated, the revelation that the player was still alive?

20. The role of Erik, indicating that the silence was a sign of protest? His being interviewed? His agreeing to the excuse?

21. The range of interrogations, the stances, that the news was passed along rows? Miss Kessler and her investigation, wrong conclusions? The minister, his attitude, his criticism of the girls their father as a vet?

22. The continued pressure, the pastor and his sermon on betrayal? The decisions?

23. Erik, seeing the photo, getting his rifle, killing the supervisor, his being chased, going to the church, confronting his mother about the truth?

24. Kurt, his father and the photo, betraying Erik’s father, the execution? Council man, severity with his wife? His mother advising her son to leave, the farewell, his going to see Theo? On the train, his bag of books, taken, the confrontation with his father, the father promising and signing the document – and the strong handshake and his father farewelling him?

25. The day, Theo asked, not saying what happened? Miss Kessler and her deal that Erik take the blame? The others saying they supported him, expulsion, Theo and Paul? The Spartacus moment and all the class standing up? Everybody out and expelled? Theo as the leader? His telling them to make individual choices?

26. Theo, his family, going to visit the grandmother? Theo with Paul? The group on the train?

27. The final information, all leaving East Germany? Subsequent history? The building of the Wall five years later?