FIGLIA MIA/ DAUGHTER OF MINE


Italy, 2018, 105 minutes, Colour.
Valeria Golino, Alba Rohrwacher, Sara Casu, Udo Keir, Michele Carbone.
Directed by Laura Bispuri.

This is a slice of Italian life. It is set on the island of Sardegna, in a close community.

The film focuses on a girl, about to turn 10, played convincingly by Sara Casu. She wanders to a fair, watches the riders in a rodeo, comes across a couple copulating and runs away. She does not look particularly Italian, especially with her reddish hair.

It emerges that her birth mother, played by Alba Rohrwacher (who has reddish hair), has given her away to her sister, played by Valeria Golino. The little girl does not know her birth mother. Her adoptive mother, along with her very gentle and devoted husband, has been a carer for the girl for 10 years.

The birth mother is a kind of party girl, always out and around, drinker, promiscuous. However, she does own some horses to one. But the authorities are demanding money from her and she has dilemmas about whether to sell the horses, to move away. She decides that she would like to have some time with her daughter. Her sister agrees, somewhat reluctantly.

The surprise is that the little girl is fascinated by her actual mother, supportive of her, travelling around with her, criticising her adoptive mother. She even misses out on the 10th birthday party that her adoptive mother has arranged for her and invited all their friends.

A climax comes when the birth mother asks her daughter to go down a hole in the necropolis where there is some alleged treasure. The little girl is at first reluctant because the hole is so narrow but eventually goes back and goes down. Her adoptive mother is alarmed by her absence and goes anxiously searching. In fact, the little girl is quite enterprising does get out of the hole.

Eventually, there has to be a facing of the facts interfacing of the future for the absent mother, the adoptive parents and for the little girl herself.

The film was directed by Laura Bispuri who made quite an impact with her previous film about gender questions, Sworn Virgin.

1. The title? Mother and daughter? Mothers and daughter?

2. The setting on the island of Sardinia? The town, the rodeo, the shops, the fair? The countryside? The necropolis? The musical score?

3. The story of Vittoria? Turning 10? The background of her birth mother, not knowing? Her adoptive mother and father? Their care for her, contrasting with her birth mother and her negligence, not wanting to bring up the child? Giving it to her sister? Meeting Angelica? Intrigued by her, the horses, the sexual encounters, going to the house, Tina taking her there, leaving her there? Her going on her own, love for the horses, Angelica and her drinking, irresponsibility, dirty house? Yet making the breakfast? Vittoria and the antagonism towards Tina? Attacking her? Yet wanting to phone her? Her ignoring her birthday party? Angelica wanting her to go down the hole to find treasure, small, breathing in, refusing, returning, achieving it, getting out? Tina searching for her? The two mothers finding her? Her attitudes towards them in the future?

4. Tina, the older sister, her patient and kind husband, caring for Vittoria, her 10th birthday, preparing the cake and party, the years of being mother, taking her to see Angelica, her disgust for Angelica, Angelica being evicted, needing the money, Tina not having it? Taking Vittoria to see her true mother, experiencing the daughter’s alienation? Telling her off? The birthday party, her grief, the whole, the search, the reconciliation?

5. Angelica, irresponsible, partying, pregnant, giving away her daughter, training the horses, her skills, the dealings with the neighbour and selling the horses, taking the money back from him, his threats? Going into town, in the bar, the bartender and his wife, the liaisons with Franco, Vittoria interrupting and his pushing her away? The continued drinking, the slovenly house, being evicted, her collapse, wanting Vittoria to go down the hole and find the treasure? Vittoria dragging her away, Tina finding her?

6. The neighbour, the horses, the difficulties with money? The man buying the horses?

7. The background of the town, Italian customs, families, relationships, mothers and daughter?

TRANSIT

France\ Germany/France, 2018, 101 minutes, Colour.
Franz Rogowski, Paula Beer, Godehard Giese, Lilien Batman, Maryan Zaree.
Directed by Christian Petzold.

This is a German film about France during the Nazi occupation. It opens in Paris, focuses on a range of people, some about to go to the resistance, others trying to get out of the occupied zone, going south to Marseille. But there is also the ominous threat of the occupation moving south towards the Mediterranean.

The film is directed by Christian Petzold whose films are always interesting, especially Barbara which has an East German setting and Phoenix which has a World War II setting. Many of Petzold’s films feature Nina Hoss as the leading lady. In this film it is Paula Beer who had appeared in François Ozon’s war film, Frantz.
However, unless an audience is warned beforehand, it might find it very difficult to appreciate what is actually going on. What Petzold has done is to take the historical story but film it in contemporary Paris and contemporary Marseille, relying on the dialogue and situations to communicate the Occupation but counterbalancing it with contemporary images. At times, this is disconcerting. However, it makes the point that events like the Occupation can occur at any time.

The central character, a young man called Georg, played by Franz Rogowski (Isabelle Huppert’s son in Happy End, the lead in In The Aisles) who is called upon by a friend to deliver letters to a famous author who is trying to migrate to Mexico. He has been abandoned by his wife but she wants to contact him. What the young man discovers is that the author has killed himself – and he takes a completed manuscript as well as the author’s letters only to find that the friend who commissioned him on his mission has been arrested.

While the contemporary situation does not look threatening, the action of the film is. The young man has to accompany a very ill associate on a freight train to Marseille, which he does, forming a plan that he will assume the identity of the author and make his way to Mexico.

The bulk of the action takes place in Marseilles. There are a number of humane touches, especially with Georg encountering a young boy, a contemporary refugee, and plays soccer with him before he meets the boy’s mother who is deaf-mute. Georg forms an attachment to him and helps him when the boy’s asthma has a bad attack and Georg tracks down a sympathetic doctor, Richard, also trying to get to Mexico to build a hospital, to treat him.

Georg also visits the various consulates, getting his papers ready to go to Mexico, going to the United States for a visa for passing through, being challenged by the official thinking that he is the real author because the official has been dealing with the author’s wife.

There are some emotional complications with the wife anxious to find her husband, finding emotional support from Richard, being offered some hopes for travel by Georg.

This is the kind of film which won’t have a completely happy ending, some experience tragedy, others living with hope and acting on hope. So, it is a reminder of the events of the past while echoing some of the constraints of the present.

1. World War II, familiar themes?

2. The director setting everything in 21st-century Paris and Marseille? The look, the clothes, the people, the language, the migrants in Marseilles, yet talk of the German occupation and its effect? The impact of this dramatic counterbalance?

3. Paris, Marseille, the port, homes and apartments, playing in yards, the restaurants, the consulates? The musical score?

4. The effect of having the narrator, seeming anonymous, explaining Georg and his behaviour? The revelation that he was the man behind the bar?

5. The introduction, the meeting at the restaurant, the letters for the author, paying Georg the money, his going, the hotel, the manager cleaning up, the corpse of the suicide, the manuscript and his letters, Georg taking them, return, seeing his friend arrested?

6. His contacts, the sick man, smuggled onto the train, the dangers with other people being caught, the trip to Marseille, the man dying, Georg’s escape?

7. His new identity as the author, going to the Mexican consulate, the author’s reputation, his wife visiting the consulate? Her wanting to reunite? Going to the American Consul? The discussions about his relationship with his wife, separation and who was to forget first? Documents, signatures?

8. Driss and his mother, Georg and the soccer, the goals, the mother and her being deaf mute? Georg becoming attached to Driss, buying him the new ball? Driss and his being sick, the asthma? The mother coming to the bar, the note, Georg finding the doctor and bringing him? The boy not wanting him in his room because Georg was leaving? Richard coming to visit, helping?

9. The people at the consulate, listening to their stories, the conductor, the Jewish woman with the dogs – and her later hosting Georg the meal, a suicide? Marie and her story?

10. Richard and Marie, friendship, Georg, the sharing of the story? Richard and his going to establish a hospital in Mexico, Marie getting off the boat, still searching for her husband? Richard getting off to follow her? The difficulties, Georg giving them the passes, Marie not wanting, her being depressed? Georg giving the couple the two passes and their embarking?

11. Georg, waiting, in the diner, the discussions, his seeing Marie, her being a ghost, his never having told her the truth and her expecting her husband on the boat?

12. The ship sailing, the ghost, the information about the boat, the discovery that is head a mine and had sunk, all killed?

13. Driss, asthma, sad – but going to the mountains? Georg and Marseille, the occupation, the plan to cross the mountains, the Pyrenees into Spain?

LA ENFERMEDADA DEL DOMINGO/ SUNDAY’S ILLNESS

Spain, 2018, 113 minutes, Colour.
Susi Sanchez, Barbara Lennie, Richard Bohringer, Miguel Angel Sola.
Directed by Ramon Salazar.

This is a very strong character study.

The film opens in the Spanish countryside, the camera still, no musical background. In fact, throughout the film there is very little musical background, occasionally with the drive into the country, some countryside scenery. Otherwise, there is soft music in a restaurant, music at a fair, the use of the song, Dream a Little Dream and its impact on Anabel.

Anabel is one of the central characters. She is in her 60s. She moves in significant and wealthy circles. Her husband is an economist, businessman and was a professor. She dresses very fashionably. She also hosts society dinners, giving orders to her servants, wanting them to be exact, no earings or piercings… She has one daughter.

The other central character is Chiara. She is in her early 40s, seen initially visiting the forest where she grew up, a significant tree contemplated. Then she appears as one of the servants at the Society dinner. She upsets Anabel by pouring her red wine instead of white wine. There is a confrontation between the two women after the meal and the emerging of a significant secret.

Anabel had been previously married, had Chiara as her daughter, left husband and daughter when the little girl was eight. She wanted more in life, studied, married, became something of a celebrity hostess. In the meantime, Chiara had had a difficult life, some rebellion, drug addiction, and the need to reconnect with her mother. She proposes now that the two women spend 10 days together.

The two actresses are most convincing. Susi Sanchez has great bearing as Anabel, a woman of style, who has created herself but finds her creation now challenged by the appearance of her daughter. Barbara Lennie is also most convincing as Clara.

The 10 days together are episodic. They talk. There are long silences. Anabel goes to town to visit her husband’s grave at the cemetery. Chiara recovers her dog from a friend who is minding the dog and invents a story about discovering it down a well, covered in mud, encouraging Anabel to hose the dog and then Chiara turning it on Anabel. There is a gradual change in the mother. This is typified when she puts on a recording of Dream a Little Dream, begins to sway and then to dance, Chiara observing her.

There is a very significant sequence at a fair, Chiara riding the carousel that she remembers from the past. Then her drinking (when she denied that she was a drinker), some outrageous flirting, dancing with a man in the square with Anabel stepping in to discipline her daughter, take her home, care for her when she is sick.

The audience may come to guess why Chiara wants the two women to spend the time together, a certain urgency and, as the title indicates, illness. Significantly, and a challenge to the audience in principles and in emotions, the issue of assisted suicide. Whether one agrees with assisted suicide or not, this is a story that brings home the reality, testing principles and emotions.

Often very impressive drama, and two performances well worth watching.

1. The title? Chiara? Anabel? Illness, reconciliation, death?

2. Spain, the opening of the stillness in the forest, the tone, the symbolic tree? Evocative? The countryside, the town’s, homes, the woods, the cemetery, the contrast with the city mansion, the dinner, the restaurant? The contrast with Paris, the restaurant?

3. The spotless musical score, few scenes with musical background? But the soft music in the restaurant, at the fair, can dream a Little Dream, the dancing?

4. The introduction to Kian, in the woods, the tree, her contemplation? Memories? The dinner, one of the servants, pouring red wine instead of white, confronting her mother?

5. Anabel, elegant dress, long walk, 40, her stumble, recovering? Who orders to the servants? The guests, high society, the meal, talk, her being upset by the red wine?

6. The confrontation between the two women, the silences, the explanation, planning the meeting, Chiara smoking in the hotel, Anabel and her fashion? Talking, the background of the story, Anabel deserting her family when Chiara was eight? Her wanting more, studies, marrying the economist lecture, her importance, place in society?

7. The request to spend 10 days together? The discussion with her husband, the lawyer, the restaurant and her daughter? The contract? Chiara agreeing?

8. Travelling to the house, talking, the father being dead? The meal, the cooking, Anabel uncomfortable? Chiara going to see her friend, is minding the dog, the plan with the dog, returning, her fabricated story for Anabel, giving a name to the dog, hosing it, wetting Anabel? The lies about not drinking?

9. Anabel going to town, going to the cemetery, meeting Chiara’s friend, finding that her former husband was alive and living in Paris with his wife? Her phoning her husband?

10. The fair, the carousel of the ride, the memories? Chiara drinking, dancing, flirting, kissing the man? Anabel taking her home, being sick, looking after her, two days in bed, her illness, going to the hospital, Anabel learning the truth?

11. Anabel, Dream a Little Dream, swaying, dancing, Chiara watching? Anabel reconsidering her life? What she had missed?

12. The decision to go to Paris, meeting her former husband, the discussions, his new life, remembering the past, Chiara’s request about her death? The father refusing?

13. Chiara asking Anabel to kill her, Anabel’s return, carousel ill, Anabel naked, taking car into the river, holding her, letting her go? The sound of her drowning?

14. Anabel, the prospects for future after this experience? Chiara’s experience of some kind of redemption and reconciliation after not achieving much in life, her resentments, drugs for her boyfriend, addiction, coming clean?

15. The impact for the audience, family, children abandoned, mothers and careers, recovering the past, reconciliation? The issue of assisted suicide?

GAUGUIN - VOYAGE DE TAHITI

France, 2017, 101 minutes Colour.
Vincent Cassell, Tuhei Adams, Malik's Zidi.
Directed by Edouard Deluc.

Paul Gauguin is best remembered for his work in French Polynesia, in Tahiti, the Marquises. Spending some time there in the 1880s, he returned to France, was associated with Vincent van Gogh as well as many of the prominent artists in Paris. He was married, with a large number of children.

On his return, he tried to persuade artist friends as well as his wife and children to come with him again to Tahiti. The artists thought it was too far away and too difficult. His wife complained of the squalor in which they lived.

Nevertheless, he returned, rather ill but going into the mountains to find the locals, to commune with nature, to hunt and gather, to talk some of the local language, to share in French, to hear the stories of the gods and creation and to paint. His health improved. The local people also wanted him to take a wife and designated a young woman with whom he conversed, learning the different myths of the people, a testing time of one month. She then became his wife.

He then returned to the capital, his health improved, he had done some paintings and was also involved in chiselling images in wood. He had a young associate who was creative in carving, but was able to outsell his master to the passing tourist trade. The young man also had eyes for the artist’s wife, following her from church one day with the artist following, angry, with his gun but not shooting.

Paul Gauguin also kept his wife inside, locked, wearing European dress, having formal meals with European food and cutlery. To get money he worked as a wharf labourer.

No money came from France so ultimately he was repatriated as a poor man. However, he was soon to return to the islands and paint for another 10 years, classic paintings but he was to die in poverty.

He gained a considerable reputation in the 20th century.

1. The Status of Paul Gauguin as an artist? In the 19th century? Dying in poverty 1903? Becoming a classic 19th century artist in retrospect? His vision of Polynesia and Polynesian people?

2. Audience knowledge of Paul Gauguin, how much necessary to find the film interesting and entertaining? The background of his marriage, his large family, his going to Tahiti, his painting, the exhilaration, wanting to return, urging his French artist friends, urging his wife, their refusal? His wife disgusted with the poverty of their lodgings? His need of money? His decision to go, his hopes? His ambitions, being in touch with nature? The French theory of the “Noble Savage�? His art?

3. The period of the film, two years, symbolic of his time into French Polynesia? His poor health, the interviews with the doctor, the warnings, his decision to travel into the mountains, to find the people? Joining them, welcomed, issues of language, some French, some local language? Hunting, gathering? Eating better food? The improvement in his health? His being urged to take a wife, her explanation of the myths of creation and the different gods and partners? The test for 30 days?

4. His return to the capital, the interviews with the doctor, his better health, development of his art, the children wasting the paints, his need for canvas, his indebtedness to the owner of the store? The young man, his assistant? Chiselling the trunks of the trees? Paul Gauguin instructing? But Is Not selling any of his work, having to bargain? The young man and his Polynesian salesman, profit, respectability? Suit and tie?

5. The religious background of France of the 19th century, Gauguin’s religious themes, his despising the church? The locals all going to church, special clothes, the priest, the hymns, his wife wanting a dress, wanting to go to church?

6. His having to work as a labourer, the motives for his locking up his wife at home, her subservience, yet looking out the window? Pregnancy and miscarriage?

7. His wife going to church, the young man following her, Paul Gauguin and following them, discovering them, his anger, the gun, not shooting?

8. Sending the paintings to friends? Sharing comradeship with the doctor? No money coming from France? His desperation, behaviour towards locals? His wife wearing a local dress, using customary for meals, formal?

9. His paintings, his hopes, his being repatriated as a poor man?

10. The information, his return, spending a decade, his paintings and their status, his credibility, the landscapes, the people, bringing Polynesia to life? His dying penniless?

THE HAPPY PRINCE

Germany/UK/Luxenberg, 2018, 105 minutes, Colour.
Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, Emily Watson, Colin Morgan, Edwin Thomas, Tom Wilkinson, Anna Chancellor, Julian Wadham, Beatrice Dalle, Antonio Spagnuolo, John Standing, Ronald Pickup.
Directed by Rupert Everett.


A very interesting take on the life and, especially, the last years of Oscar Wilde.

For many audiences, Stephen Fry is the face of Oscar Wilde, so forceful in the film of 1997. In the 1960s he was portrayed by both Peter Finch and Robert Morley.

This time the portrayal is by Rupert Everett who has appeared in film versions of An Ideal Husband as well as The Importance of Being Earnest. He has also portrayed Wilde on the stage in England and in France. And, not only this, he has written the screenplay, directed the film and played Wilde. Quite an achievement.

So, this portrayal of Wilde moves away from the Stephen Fry debonair style. It is glimpsed sometimes in the flashbacks, Wilde on stage charming the audience after a performance of a play. However, these the same people who turned against Wilde, many spurning him or rejoicing in his humiliation.

Everett has entitled his film The Happy Prince after a story by Wilde from 1888. It is a fable about a statue of happy Prince, standing above the town, is one ordinary people, a privileged kind of life. It is also the story of a swallow, flying over the city, dying. But, God looks on the rubble of the statue and on the dead bird and raises them back to life. In the film, Wilde is seen reading this story to his two young boys.

But, it is an appropriate image for Wilde in his life and career, a statue on a pedestal, feted by everyone, clever, playwright, short stories, Dorian Grey, a philosophy of pleasure, a master of wit but only to crash in unhappiness.

Everett’s Wilde also looks the worse for a blend of dissipation in life as well as hard labour for two years in prison. We hear of the Marquis of Queensbury but do not see him. We hear about the charges of crimes of sodomy as well is a severe sentence of the judge, hard labour. We see Wilde going to prison, stripped and humiliated, transferred from Wandsworth to Reading, sitting on Clapham Junction Station in prison clothes, mocked by the public – and Wilde later linking this severe scene in his life with the passion of Jesus.

There are also scenes with Wilde’s wife, Constance (Emily Watson), supporting him financially, but humiliated, unwell, dying.

A lot of the action actually takes place in France after Wilde gets out of prison, lacking money, still frivolous, still spending, going to taverns, attracted to the boys, calming taverns fights by singing. His also supported by the faithful Robbie Ross and by his friend Reggie (Colin Firth).

And, Bosey?

Wild has told everyone, including Constance, that he will have nothing to do with Bosey again. But, as soon as he turns up, foppish, selfish, irresponsible, Wilde is immediately won over again. They decide to go to Naples, live the high gay life, until Bosey’s allowance is cut off.

Wilde’s last year is a sad one. Bosey has gone. Robbie Ross is devoted – and, Catholic, conscious that Wilde may have been baptised as a child, and appreciating Wilde’s fascination with Catholicism, calls a priest (Tom Wilkinson as a jovial Irish Father Dunne) to administer the last rites.

There is another important priest in the film. Wilde and his friends are pursued in the streets by a homophobic group with Wilde taking refuge in a church. He sees an old priest going to the altar, kneeling, praying desperately – and Wilde realises the reality of life’s sufferings.

Wilde’s poem from Reading Gaol was called De Profundis. In so many ways, in his last years, Wilde’s life was, as the Psalm says, calling out to God from the depths.


1. The title? The reference? Oscar Wilde – as a Happy Prince? Ironies?

2. Oscar Wilde himself, his reputation, theatre, wit and language, life and family, homosexuality, Bosey and the rent boys, in court, condemned, hard labour in prison, writing De Profundis in Reading jail, the religious dimension?

3. Rupert Everett, writing the screenplay, acting as Wilde, directing? His interpretation, sense of realism, sympathies? Strengths and weaknesses of Wilde?

4. The particular chapter of his life, getting out of Reading jail, going to France, to Naples? The flashbacks to his life?

5. The collage of events, the jigsaw of events, the audience putting this portrait of Wilde together, his good and bad?

6. Audience knowledge about Wilde, seeing his place, knowing some quotes, the tragic end?

7. The recitation of The Happy Prince, to his sons in bed, Wilde as the Prince, the emblem of the swallow, flying over the city? Their deaths? God seeing them and loving them into new life? The comment on the flowers as God’s teardrops?

8. The British cast, cameos, performances, giving strength to the film?

9. The period, the musical score, the songs, the classics, the song about the boy…? The effect of the mixture of happy memories, sad memories? Seeing Wilde as a writer, the performance of his plays, talking to the audience, his wit on stage and the laughter? His becoming a celebrity? The later rejection and spurning? His love for Constance, the marriage, the boys? His tour of America? All his success?

10. Sexuality, the issues at the time, criminal law, the severity of sentences, public opinion? The court sequence, the severity of the judge? The use of hard labour? Wilde and his hidden life, the young men, Bosey, his being away, the support of Robbie Ross, the attacks by the Marquis of Queensbury?

11. Prison, hard labour, Wandsworth, the entry, the humiliation stripping? The transfer to ready? Clapham Junction, the worst time of his life, God present at the station? The delay? The people mocking – and the later comparison with Jesus and the crucifixion?

12. Wilde coming out, the effect, the relationship with Bosey, Constance and her response, grief? His boys, writing? Constance and the effect of the humiliation, crippled? Her getting advice? The letter, hurting, the boys not knowing their father? Wilde and his concern? Her debts?

13. Robbie Ross, his love and devotion to, finance, his presence, the clash with Bosey, at the funeral, the fight with Bosey? His living to 1918 and supporting Wilde his reputation?

14. Reggie, friendship, support, presence, and Wilde’s death? His lack of interest in the religious dimension of Wilde’s death? Paris, the group chased through the streets, Wilde fighting back, Reggie’s surprise, question taking refuge in church?

15. Wilde in France, dissipated, drinking, his lodgings, his change of name, money and needs, seeing the socialite in the street, the support, begging from her? His being spurned by her friends?

16. The taverns, the crowds, Jack and his brother, Wilde telling the story? The sexual relationship with Jack? The flashbacks to the past, of the meeting? Friendship with Maurice, the Foreign Legion, fighting and, Wilde and his changing the atmosphere, singing, making everyone happy?

17. The poets’ meeting, the carousal, tearing up the bill? The consequences?

18. Bosey, his return, love for Wilde, Wilde denying at first, but committed to Bosey, talking, the decision to go to Naples, making a live there? Bosey and his presence? The men, the party, the stripping, Felice’s mother and her being upset, relieved that there were no women? Bosey, his being cut off by his family?

19. The return to Paris, Wilde’s illness, the effect of his ear, surgery? The doctor, the concern? Robbie Ross and Reggie?

20. The issue of suffering, the Happy Prince? Wilde watching the old priest in church, kneeling before the altar, kissing, praying, the value of suffering?

21. Wilde the issue of his baptism, Catholic or not? The emphasis on the blood of Jesus and suffering?

22. His death, Robbie Ross and his getting the priest, in the coach, the touch of jokes, the Irish background? The priest, the oils, talking with Wilde? Anointing him? Wilde and the signs? Confessing, dying? The funeral? The fight? But Wilde’s memorial in the cemetery?

23. The final collage of memories?

24. A different portrait of Wilde, the focus on the aftermath of the court case, his final years, his dissipation? Yet a certain goodness beyond his philosophy of pleasure?

THE SANTA CLAUSE

US, 1994, 97 minutes, Colour.
Tim Allen, Judge Reinhold, Wendy Crewson, Erica Lloyd, David Krumholz, Larry Brandenburg, Peter Boyle.
Directed by John Pasquin

The Santa Clause was very popular when it was first released in the 1990s, a family film for Christmas. It is very much in the vein of focusing on Santa Claus, on Christmas as a time of giving – but no actual reference to the religious origins of the celebration.

This is a star vehicle for Tim Allen who was soon to be heard as Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. Tim Allen often portrays a character who is more than a touch sardonic. And this is the case here, a successful executive for a toy company but separated from his wife and certainly disliking her new companion, a psychologist, who has become a father figure for his son, Charlie (Eric Lloyd).

There are a lot of discussions about belief in Santa. To his surprise, Scott encounters Santa who has a collapse and Scott is to take his place. He is fairly unwilling at first. But he gets fatter, grows a beard, speaks in a different way – to the surprise of everyone.

Eventually, he goes to the North Pole, encounters the elves, the work in preparing the toys, the routes for Santa’s journeys and he agrees.

It was surprising that it took another eight years for the sequel to be made and another four years after that for a second sequel.

1. A popular Christmas story? The beginning of the series? The focus on Santa, elves and reindeers, the spirit of giving – no Christian reference?

2. The blend of the comic and the real, the touches of fantasy? The family audience? Santa, the reindeers, his travels and gifts, the elves, the North Pole?

3. The target audience, children, families?

4. The introduction, the ordinary family, the company? Profits? Scott and his associate, their being praised, the commercial success? The party?

5. The discussions about belief in Santa? Scott’s wife and new husband, rationalist? Explaining to their son? Scott and his reaction? The discussions with Charlie, the explanations?

6. American audiences identifying with the ordinary family? The transition to fantasy with the chimney, Santa coming down the chimney, the fireplace appearing, the gifts? Santa collapsing? The reindeers? Scott and his having to step into Santa’s place? The transformation, his getting fatter, the beard, his reactions and not wanting this, the reactions of others?

7. His accepting the job, going to the North Pole, meeting Bernard, the other elves, the work, the plans, the roots of the gifts?

8. Santa on the job, Charlie and his sharing, Santa knowing the children by name?

9. The difficulties, his accepting the job? Preparation for the sequel?

THE SANTA CLAUSE 2

US, 2002, 104 minutes, Colour.
Tim Allen, Elizabeth Mitchell, David Krumholz, Eric Lloyd, Judge Reinhold, Wendy Crewson, Spencer Breslin, Liliana Mumy, Art La Fleur, Kevin Pollack.
Directed by Michael Lembeck.

This sequel takes up immediately after the initial film – though eight years later in release. Four years later there was another sequel, The Escape Clause.

The audience is familiar with most of the central characters, Tim Allen as Scott Calvin who has become Santa Claus, his former wife Wendy Crewson, her new husband, Judge Reinhold. Eric Lloyd has grown much older since his initial appearance. Quite telling in this film is Spencer Breslin who was successful in child roles at this time. There are also guest appearances by actors like Art La Fleur as the Tooth Fairy and Kevin Pollak as Cupid.

All seems to be going well at the North Pole, it appears that there are only 28 days left for Scott’s contract as Santa Claus. He can continue if he finds a wife in that time. He decides to come back to Earth, especially since his son, Charlie, is continually in trouble at school.

The principal of the school, Elizabeth Mitchell, is very, very severe, critical of Charlie, of his parents and, initially, of Scott.

There are a lot of family shenanigans but gradually Scott warms to the principal, she revealing her story to him, but not believing when he reveals his story to her.

As might be expected, it takes a long time (within the 28 days) for her to be able to give consent. She goes to the North Pole, the various characters are summoned, especially the Tooth Fairy who has been very helpful to Scott. Mother Nature presides over the wedding.

However, there is drama because when Scott goes back to earth, the elves are able to reproduce a second Santa – although plastic but performed by Tim Allen himself. The Santa soon becomes a tyrant, imprisoning Bernard, creating a whole lot of soldier toys who take control. So, one of the main tasks for Santa on his return is to confront the plastic caps and and to release the elves.

The next sequel was called The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.

1. The continuation of the story? The presuppositions about the family, about Scott Calvin as Santa Claus? His relationship with his son, ex-wife and her partner?

2. Tim Allen as Santa, familiar from the earlier film, the created Santa, plastic, becoming a despot?

3. Santa, the time limitation, his getting thinner, the beard going? 28 days to find a wife? Going back to his family, Charlie in difficulties in playing up at school? His meeting the principal? The clashes with her and her severity?

4. Visiting her, her telling her story, his telling his – and her disbelief?

5. The North Pole, the alternate Santa, plastic, Bernard and his revolution, imprisonment, the other elves, coming to the fore, reproducing the alternate Santa? The Santa and his creating the toy soldiers, the taking control, dictator? Condemning children and their desires?

6. Scott and the principal, sharing, her seeing him being kind and in action, her willingness to go to the North Pole, his proposal on his knees?

7. The crisis, time, the proposal, the acceptance, the wedding?

8. The North Pole, the elves, Curtis and Bernard, Mother Nature, the Tooth Fairy, Cupid…?

9. At the North Pole, Santa himself again, the reindeers, his travelling to deliver the toys?

WEST OF SHANGHAI

US, 1937, 64 minutes, Black and white.
Boris Karloff, Beverly Roberts, Ricardo Cortez, Gordon Oliver, Sheila Bromley, Vladimir Sokolow, Gordon Hart, Richard Lou.
Directed by John Farrow.

With Boris Karloff as the main star and a film directed by Australian-born John Farrow, this could be expected to be an action adventure. However, it is based on a play and, while there is some action, it is very, very talkative.

For audiences in 1937, this was a contemporary story about contemporary China. There was quite some knowledge about the warlords and their power struggles in China. Americans are there as missionaries as well as exploiting mineral resources. The railways have been developed. There are clashes between the warlords and the military. It is only 12 more years before Mao takes over.

The film focuses on a journey into the hinterland, West of Shanghai. There are various people on the train – the military authority who is murdered by a rebel during the journey, a doctor and his daughter who are interested in owning a mine, and an American who is an adventurer but also a businessman.

The film explains the situation with the important military figure on the train. However, the dangers come from a warlord, played by Boris Karloff, made up to look like a Chinese leader – but with his elegant voice and a touch of accent.

There is a sincere missionary at their destination and the former wife of the adventure has been working there as well. The warlord starts a siege with various difficulties for the Americans, sometimes seen as hostages, sometimes seen as guests, the warlord explaining his humble origins, his success, his power.

The culmination of the action is a confrontation between his followers and the military.

Always interesting to see Boris Karloff, to follow the action career of John Farrow – but both of them were to do much better.

JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR – LIVE ARENA TOUR

UK, 2012, 105 minutes, Colour.
Tim Minchin, Ben Forster, Melanie C, Chris Moyles.
Directed by Laurence Connor (stage), Nick Morris (television)

Successful on stage as well on LP in the late 1960s, early 1970s, the film version, directed by Norman Jewison, was released in 1973. There have been many performances since then, notably a film made for television in 2000 and now this version for the 40th anniversary.

The performance was filmed in Birmingham at a Live Arena, a vast auditorium and very large audience, a prominent stage with many steps, a huge screen at the back, as used in rock concerts, with the live-action in the foreground and the film on the screen in the background. However, there is an elaborate use of the screen, a range of images, words and slogans, close-ups of the performers, and such effects as the screen gradually filling with red during the 39 beatings, the scourging.

It is interesting to reflect on the 40 years of the Superstar experience. Initially emerging as individual records, the play was a hit all over the world, audiences overcoming the strange experience of referring to Jesus as a Superstar. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice were in their 20s when they wrote this theatre piece, after Joseph and his Technicolour Dreamcoat, and followed by Evita, Lloyd Webber having an extraordinary career, especially with The Phantom of the Opera. It is interesting to note that Andrew Lloyd Webber himself comes on stage at the end of the performance, reminiscing, congratulating the cast.

Many of the songs are well-known in their own right, especially those sung by Mary Magdalene, Everything is All Right and I Don’t Know How to Love Him.

What is the audience of 2012 and onwards to make of this rendition of the Gospel story? An opportunity to know some of the details of the Gospel story and of the passion and death of Jesus? Seeing the episodes on stage as representing fact? And involvement in the whole experience, something of spirituality?

The film shows the conflict between Jesus and Judas, the passion and death and Jesus’ ministry seen from the perspective of Judas, his observations, his disillusionment, his selling out of Jesus, his hanging himself – and it is Judas who has something of a resurrection, leading the chorus in the Superstar song.

Of particular interest is the casting of Tim Minchin, actor, composer (especially of Matilda), social critic, as Judas. Ben Forster is Jesus.

Ben Forster is not always forceful as Jesus but has many fine moments. He has Jesus many songs, especially the moving sequence the equivalent to the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Herod, played by Chris Moyles, is attention-seeking, very humorous in his presentation of Herod as a British comedian, on stage, playing to the crowds, and the suggestion that everything is being video recorded. Herod’s song is always a showstopper – and is here.

There is a strong supporting cast, a short singer playing Annas, a very tall singer playing Caiaphas, with his customary very deep voice. The presentation of Pontius Pilate is quite unique, being dressed as a judged by his attendant at one stage, coming in from playing sport, T-shirt and shorts, doing situps as he interrogates Jesus. And finally condemning Jesus to death. A pensive song.

The supporting singers and dancers have a great deal to do, a great number of dance routines, participation in the rising of the zealots, the crowd wanting to be healed, the hosanna of Palm Sunday, the condemnation of Jesus – crucify him, the spectacular Superstar. There is also the scene with Simon the Zealot trying to persuade Jesus into action.

Melanie C of the Spice Girls is Mary Magdalene, with her special songs as well is the plaintive duet with Peter.

Jesus Christ Superstar was a Rock Opera of the period, with rock ‘n’ roll overtones, with some primal screams.

But, ultimately, this is a story of the passion and death of Jesus, his preaching, his healing and its effect on him, the betrayal by Judas, the Last Supper and the Eucharist and his body and blood in bread and wine, the agony in the Garden, the 39 beats and flogging, his being crucified – and Jesus being lifted high over the auditorium and close-up on the screen of his death.

Jesus Christ Superstar has become a classic over the decades, its music, its lyrics, the presentation of the gospel events, the theological implications, spirituality implications.

FATHER FIGURES


US, 2017, 113 minutes, Colour.
Owen Wilson, Ed Helms, Glenn Close, Harry Shearer, Terry Bradshaw, J.K.Simmons, Katt Williams, Christopher Walken, June Squibb, Katie Aselton, Jack Mc Gee, Ving Fhames.
Directed by Laurence Sher.


Two 40 year old men, who are revealed to be twins, definitely not identical, played by Owen Wilson and Ed Helms, go to their mother’s wedding ceremony. So far, so all right. But Peter, Helms, is an extremely uptight doctor, expert proctologist, divorced and with a son who doesn’t like him, takes the opportunity to ask his mother about their father about whom she has never spoken. Kyle, Wilson, on the other hand is, well, Owen Wilson as in so many of his films, laid-back, easy-going, getting a huge royalties income from the fact that a photo of him as a surfer has been on millions of sauce bottles.

Mother is played by Glenn Close. She has stories about the 1970s, the easy morals, the promiscuity, doubts about paternity… But, she gives them a clue, sending them on a quest, something significant because the two have had difficulties in getting on, Peter, the older, being severely protective and Kyle, the younger, needing a father figure. At this stage, his Hawaiian girlfriend, reveals that she is pregnant so finding a father figure is significant.

Luckily, money and buying tickets is not a problem! Following the clue, off they go to Miami, tracking down a famous football player from the 1970s, Terry Bradshaw. Non-football fans will get a surprise at the final credits to find that Terry Bradshaw is being played by – Terry Bradshaw. The twins are excited, have always been fans of Terry, happy memories of him. Terry takes a shine to Peter and tends to ignore Kyle. Anyway, you will have to see the movie to get the details, but he is not the one.

Next candidate is a financier whom Terry and his friends looked down on. They track him down and he turns out to be Roland Hunt, played by J.K. Simmons, not quite the financier they were expecting. In fact, the opposite. He explains that he is involved in repossession of cars and, eagerly, they join him in one of his quests but it turns out that he is a sham and a con man. He is not the one.

Peter is inclined to give up except that Kyle has a theory that the universe is talking to them and that they need to pursue their quest. Actually, the universe responds by getting them stuck in a traffic jam, seeing a hitchhiker and Peter, of course, wanting to look the other way. Kyle, on the other hand, reaches out. Hitchhiker is African- American (so a lot of comments on race issues) who wants to get home to his wife and children for a birthday celebration. Katt Williams is very genial in the role of the hitchhiker, being tied up the brothers in case he is a serial killer, trying to arbitrate in the squabble between the two brothers and, if a reviewer were to claim that they are stuck on a level crossing with the train approaching, the reader would be inclined to disbelieve. But…

Then the universe speaks to them in the form of police who know well the next candidate to be their father. This time they are off to Boston. Kyle has led a very free and easy life in Hawaii. Peter is in no way free and easy but actually gives in to Kyle’s advice in a casual encounter with a sad young woman at a bar. Actually, this leads to even more complications than might have been anticipated and the possibility that their father is a very well-known and respected policeman. But, with a lot of discussions, he is not the one.

They go home, go to see the local vet, Christopher Walken, who put down their pet cat years earlier. They aggressively believe that he must be their father and attack him but mother comes to see them and, there is a twist in the revelation of their parental identity.

Some tears at the end as well as some smiles. Not a must-see but, in many ways, a pleasant enough pastime moving from the raucous, as in so many American comedies, to the moral and moralising.


1. The title? Fathers, paternity, the need for a father figure, the quest? The possibilities?

2. Ohio, ordinary life in the town, the doctor , the doctor and his practice, the mother and her wedding, the vet? The contrast with Hawaii? The musical score?

3. The situation: twins, age, from the 70s, the relationship with their mother? Not identical?

4. Peter, his role as a proctologist, his wife leaving him, clashing with his son, Ethan? The contrast with Kyle, in Hawaii, free, his girlfriend, rubbing noses, the pregnancy? The issue of paternity? Peter with the photo of the actor?

5. Going to the wedding, Helen as a character, her marrying Gene? The ceremony? Peter, on edge, needing to ask about the actor, the clash with Kyle, Helen and her giving them the name of Terry Bradshaw?

6. The decision to go on a quest, having the money? Kyle and his background of the photo, his image being used on the sauce bottles, the royalties? The flights, Kyle’s chatter, Peter serious?

7. Meeting Terry Bradshaw, the actual footballer, his car salesmanship, his wife, the welcome? Taking a shine to Peter, throwing the ball to him instead of Kyle? His friendly neighbour and a chat? The timing for the conception and birth, Terry being away, suggesting they go to Roland?

8. Roland, allegedly wealthy, finding him, living with his mother, his being covered in tattoos, conman? The response? With the keys of the car, tracking down the repossession, the owner and his gun, Roland running, his return, being hit, in hospital? The discussion with Peter and Kyle?

9. Kyle and his theory about the universe speaking to everyone?

10. The hitchhiker, black, Peter and his fear, the crowded freeway, Kyle persuasive, yet their tying him up, his being the back of the car, arbitrating their quarrels? Stuck on the train line, the car being hit, Peter getting out, Kyle surviving, the reconciliation? The police, the information about the potential father? Delivering the hitchhiker home? The universe speaking to them?

11. Peter, hotel, the girl at the bar, flirting, the sexual encounter?

12. Finding the house, the dead policeman, his sons, the daughter and her being the girl in the hotel? Peter upset? The priest, the sense of the wake, Peter upsetting everyone, the sons attacking him? The dead man’s brother, Kevin, explaining the Catholic background, no sex before marriage, therefore not their brothers or sister?

13. Going home, the suggestion they talk to the vet, his having put down the cat? Their attacking him? Arriving, the truth about their mother?

14. Helen and her perspective on forcing them to quest, to relate to each other? The charity work and helping the mother? Their mother’s death? No knowledge of the father? The mystery and their having to accept it?

15. The postscript, one year afterwards, Peter and the girl, Ethan friendly, Kyle and his girlfriend, the baby? Happy ever after?