INXEBA/ THE WOUND

South Africa, 2017, 89 minutes, Colour.
Nakhane Toure, Bongile Mantsai, Niza Jay Ncoyini.
Directed by John Trengove.


In this case, the wound is circumcision, male circumcision. The setting is an initiation period for young Xhosa tribal men who go into the mountains for a week of ceremonies to make them into men. Circumcision also stands as a symbol for many of the themes of the film, focused on the male sexual member, the notion of manhood, maleness.

However, at the centre of the film is a worker in a factory, Xolani, called X, a man who might have gone on to studies but has opted for a working life. Each year, he volunteers to go into the mountains to be one of the carers for the initiates. This year he has been asked by a businessman from Johannesburg to be the carer for his son – whom the father considers to be “soft�, and wants him to become a stronger man.

This time there are ten initiates, and three of them have as their carer, Vija, a regular at the ceremonies, a married man with children, but a close friend of X.

The director is a white South African and there was some criticism that this was a white outsider’s view of initiation ceremonies and circumcision. However, John Trengove is a South African and had Xhosa writing collaborators for his screenplay.

On the one hand, the initiation ceremonies are taken very seriously. On the other, those who preside over the rituals are a group of very ordinary men, workers, fathers, supervised by a medical man. It should be noted that the actual circumcision sequences are quite graphic, not so much visually, as visceral. The young men endure the ritual with quite some stoicism, having to declare frequently that they are men. However, the recuperation is severe, herbs and lotions, bandages, slow healing, camping out in the countryside.

But the film is also about realities of homosexuality amongst the tribal men. X is a gay man, living alone, a lonely man, encountering Vija each year, Vija being sexually ambiguous in his behaviour. Homosexual behaviour is frowned on by the community and the initiates, despising the soft young man from the city, insult him as a faggot, but there is never any explicit indication that he has a gay orientation.

This means that on the one hand, there is an almost documentary-like presentation of the initiation and the circumcision. And that, on the other hand, there is a personal drama, struggles with sexual orientation and behaviour, condemnation, the need for secrecy – which leads to dramatic torment for X and the young initiate confronting him and leading to tragedy.

The film was South Africa’s Oscar-nomination. It is quite a powerful film, highly critical of the circumcision (not necessarily of initiation rites), very demanding on its audience, emotionally, viscerally, psychologically.

1. South African story? Tribal? Men’s initiation?

2. The locations, the atmosphere in South Africa, for black Africans, the factories, the road, the hills, the initiation ceremonies, the camp, the mountains and waterfall, the references to Joburg?

3. The musical score, the songs, the rituals?

4. The title, the focus, circumcision for men, as an initiation rite? The pain? The cutting? The declaration that they were men? Herbs and lotions for remedy and recovery?

5. The film and the fact of circumcision? Circumcision as a symbol, the male member, masculinity, sexual aspects, transitions?

6. X, his work in the factory, the forklift, his age, character, living alone, choosing work rather than study? The father and the commission of the initiation of his son? The son living in Johannesburg, considered soft? X’s commitment?

7. The range of carers, the group, their task, participation, guides, presence at the rituals, at the recovery, the seclusion in the countryside for many weeks?

8. The initiates, the group, their age, tribal background, the ritual clothing, the cutting, their being together? Camaraderie? Kwanda and his being an outsider, from the city, labelled as a faggot?

9. Vija, his role as a carer, with the initiates, his background, wife and family? His friendship with X? Over the years, the annual meeting, the sexual relationship, his denial? The experiences of tension, anti-homosexual prejudices?

10. The elders, ordinary men, upholding the traditions, continuing them? The children interviewing kinder – and the envy of his iPad?

11. The scenes of the cutting, the visual impact?

12. X, Kwanda, their talking, discussions about sexuality, the discussions, the care, Kwanda’s attitudes? Kwanda and his life and his aims?

13. The waterfall, the sequences there, the group walking, the fence? The return to camp?

14. X, his going and coming, the discussions with Vija, the sexual encounter and Kwanda finding them?

15. Plans for the following year, Vija and his return, X and his questions?

16. Homosexuality, traditions, community, the impact on each? X and secrecy?

17. X and Kwanda, climbing the mountain, the threats of exposure, X pushing Kwanda over the cliff?

18. His future?

19. Audience interest in tribal life, initiations, circumcision? Entering into this world – and dealing with it?

WER

US, 2016, 89 minutes, Colour.
A.J.Cook, Sebastian Roche, Vik Sahay, Stephanie Lemelin, Simon Quarterman, Brian Scott O'Connor.
Directed by William Brent Bell.

Wer is an above-average werewolf film. It draws on all the popular ingredients of folklore and legend as well as the novels and films concerning werewolves.

The setting is France, a family picnic on a holiday and suddenly being attacked by the monster. A local is under suspicion and arrested. He is a giant man, hairy, living with his mother. His illness is diagnosed and he undergoes tests.

Kate is an American, living in France, a lawyer who takes up the case. She clashes with chief of police who is convinced of the man’s guilt. There are interrogation scenes, grim autopsy scenes, Kate being helped by a friend, Eric as well as by the British surgeon with whom she has had a relationship. Eric is jealous.

After the tests, it is decided to have a reality check, night of the full moon. The man is actually transformed, goes on a killing spree, is pursued by the police, into a building, his jumping and hiding in the forest. In a previous attack, he has wounded the British surgeon who is himself transformed, shaves off all his hair, goes into the forest to pursue the werewolf and rescue Kate.

While the werewolf seems to be killed, the surgeon also recovers, is interviewed on television speculating about where the werewolf is, the audience wondering whether the surgeon is now a werewolf and will kill on the night of the full moon.

The screenplay combines various genres, horror, the law, police investigation as well as some handheld camera work for pursuit in caves for the werewolf as well as outside sequences of the interrogation rooms. The film also uses the device of having at various times a collage of TV news bulletins from around the world.

William Brent Bell also directed the horror films, The Devil Inside and The Boy.

1. The title, a film about werewolves? Folklore, legends? Films in the past about werewolves?

2. The full moon, baying at the moon, the effect on the brain, on eyes, physical transformation, animal -like, hair, size, appetites, violent attacks?

3. This screenplay and absorbing the range of traditions?

4. A police investigation film? A legal case film?

5. The humane aspects of the story, Talan, his mother, ancestry, illness?

6. The introduction, the home movies, the family on vacation, playing together, the ball in the bush, the sudden attack, the violence, the father and the child and death? The mother in hospital, injuries, coma, death?

7. The collage of the international news, different languages, edited together, giving information, the speculations?

8. The arrest of Talan, presumption of guilt, his giant physique, hairy, his hands? Living near the attack? Living alone with his mother? His keeping silence? Kate, her interventions, his listening, slightly opening up, the touch? Her ring?

9. Kate and her history, parents, American, living in France, studying law, her skill in forensic detail? The clash with the police chief? Her reliance on Eric, friendship, professional collaboration? The relationship with Gavin Fleming? His forensic skills, coming to work with her, the clashes with Eric?

10. The interrogations, the information, the status of the law? Kate and her feelings, the law? Talking with Talan? Wanting the handcuffs off, the police out? His opening up, yet his attack on the police, injuring Gavin?

11. The autopsy sequences and their detail? The revelations about the illness, the diagnoses, testing Talan, his eyes, the strobe lights? The effect?

12. The visit of his mother, the Romanian background, the uncle and his illness, the photos?

13. The character of the chief of police, his hostility? The background issue of Talan’s family land, the group’s wanting possession, manipulating the law, the death of Talan’s father? Kate and her pursuit of this theme?

14. The reality test, the full moon, Talan in the transformation, his attacks? In the building, the police tracking him, the attack on the upper floor, his killing, jumping, escaping, going into the forest?

15. The undertones of Beauty and the Beast? Talan and Kate and her trying to help? In the forest, Eric and his work, friendship, in the forest, his being killed?

16. The exploration of the caves, finding the mother, her defence of her son?

17. Gavin, his work, skills, injury, being transformed, looking in the mirror, shaving of all his hair, becoming a werewolf, going to the forest, fighting Talan, saving Kate? Being shot?

18. The police and the financial deals being exposed?

19. The finale, and being interviewed, the puzzle about the survival of Talan? And Gavin, werewolf or not?

20. A satisfying entertainment combining all the elements of police, law, werewolf traditions?

SITCOM

France, 1998, 85 minutes, Colour.
Evelyne Dandry, François Marthouret, Marina de Van, Adrien de Van, Stephane Rideau, Lucia Sanchez, Jules-Emanuel? Eibum Deido.

Directed by François Ozon.


Sitcom is the second feature film from celebrated French Director, François Ozon. He was to have a very successful career over the coming decades, great acclaim, a variety of genres in which he excelled.

This is a very French sitcom, an affluent French family the subject of the satire, a distant father with family expectations, a socialite mother easily distracted, a son coming to terms with his sexual orientation, and daughter and her lover and her falling from a window and becoming a paraplegic. There is also a maid who comes from Spain and her husband, from Africa, the sports teacher in a school.

The film starts with a van arriving at the mansion, the camera remaining on the facade of the mansion, the singing of Happy Birthday, then shots and screams. The film goes into flashback, three months earlier, but when it returns to the van and the birthday, it is not what has been expected – the film goes into surrealist horror touch. The centre of this and a significant part of the film is a gift that the father brought home, a rat.

The situations are all exaggerated, the mother upset at her son’s declaration sexuality, the father rather calm, the teacher going to the boy’s room to help in – although he has homosexual inclinations.

There are dreams, dreams turning to reality, some sadomasochism on the part of the daughter as paraplegic after her accident, the desperate young man and his wanting to give up on the daughter, the gay life of the homosexual son as well as the maid becoming lazy, wanting glamour, pampering to the daughter.

There is also a therapist, especially the mother and a surprising, with the touch of the shocking, episode where she seduces her son.

As mentioned, the finale of the film concerns the father eating the rat, transforming into a giant rat and the family and friends all participating in the gruesome killing.

1. The popularity and nature of television sitcoms? Satiric intentions?

2. The title, the ingredients of sitcoms? Realism? Fantasy? Exaggeration?

3. The work of the director, at the beginning of his career?

4. French sensibility for this satire? Universal sensibility? At the end of the 20th century?

5. The French setting, the mansion, the interiors? The musical score?

6. The framework, the van arriving, the singing of Happy Birthday, the audience looking at the facade, hearing the shots and screams? The flashback to 3 months earlier? And the trick in the flashback?

7. An affluent world, the age of the parents, background and upbringing? Their adult children? The father’s work, the mother’s social life, wealth and comfort? The son, sitting in his room, reading? The daughter, severe, her relationship with David? The father arriving and bringing the rat? The mother’s disdain? Nicholas fostering the rat?

8. The presence of the rat, frequently photographed, the reaction of each of the characters?

9. The father, his seeming disdain and distance, being absent? The mother, fussy, phone calls to her friend, going to play bridge, disdain of the rat? Concern about her children? The daughter, her age, seeming superiority, David and his love and attendance? Nicholas, in his room, his age, concerned about his orientation? Maria, coming to work, meeting the family of the meal, the mother showing her around, her tasks? Abu, his African background, married to Maria, working at the school, young children in sports?

10. The meal, Maria addressed lavishly, bringing Abu? The situation with Nicholas? Absent, reading, coming down? His announcement about his sexuality? The mother being upset, the father rather calm? Abu and his offering of help? His discussions with Nicholas, reassuring him, the advance, sexuality? The mother coming to the room, Abu’s explanation?

11. The daughter, sexuality, her control of David? The mother’s dream, the daughter falling from the window, the reality, in coma, coming out, paraplegic? Brittle personality, dominating in the house, Nicholas helping her, the bath? David, the sexual experiences, too much for him and the break?

12. Nicholas, his gay life, sport, buying clothes, discussion with his father? Helping his sister?

13. The mother, continually upset, her change of heart, her going to Nicholas, the sexual encounter, its effect on her, on him? And the father knowing?

14. The discussions with the therapist, dreams, reality?

15. The mother wanting everybody to go away together for therapy? The father and his crossword puzzles, not going, the three agreeing to go, bonding, swimming? The return home and the enthusiasm?

16. The birthday, everybody turning up? The arrival of the van, the father shooting everyone? His waking, the fantasy?

17. The rat, his taking it, the meal, his cooking and eating it, his turning into a monstrous rat, the family arriving home, the viciousness of the killing the rat?

18. The French tradition of satire, satire on class and hypocrisy?

NOCES/ A WEDDING



Belgium/Pakistan, 2016, 98 minutes, Colour.
Lina El Arabi, Sebastien Houbani, Babak Karimi, Nina Julkarni, Aurore Marion, Zacharie Chausseriaud, Olivier Gourmet, Sandor Fantuk
Directed by Stephan Streker.

Noces has a grim message, a film about arranged marriages in a Belgian setting with a Pakistani family.

The focus is on an 18-year-old girl who is expected to marry soon. However, in a relationship with a local young man, she is pregnant, considers abortion, and her parents and brother as well as the young man agree. She goes for explanations of abortion, is shocked at some of the things she hears, especially about the burning of the fetus as medical waste, changes her mind, considers that the child has a soul, but finally goes through the procedure.

In the meantime, her parents are insistent that she marry someone in Pakistan, using Skype for interviews, one-man declaring his love for the girl and her being persuaded to voice her consent. However, she does not want to marry him, does not love him. She has a local friend who is a confidante, meets a local young man to whom she is attracted, is pressurised by her father’s health and heart condition. She finally consents, there is all kind of preparation for the wedding in Pakistan and her mother and sister to fly out.

The drama ends tragically, her brother seeming to embrace her and her decision not to marry, but he has been brainwashed by the traditions and he stabs her to death.

1. The title? Audience expectations? Weddings in Belgium? The contrast with the Pakistani traditions? Arranged marriages and weddings?

2. The Belgian setting, the city, homes and shops, universities and study, workplaces? The Pakistani community in the Belgian city?

3. The Pakistani background, the parents and the arranged marriage, expectations of the traditions, for their daughters? The compliance of the son? The contacts in Pakistan? Family expectations, failure and exclusion, violent consequences?

4. Zahira’s story? Age, studies, relationship with her father, mother, brother and sister, the importance of love in the family? The relationship, her pregnancy, talking with the father of the child, his going along with the abortion? The family accepting the abortion, her brother company her to the clinic? The discussions about pregnancy, abortion, the fetus, the decision to have the abortion, going to the clinic, further discussions, the change of heart? Wanting to bring up the baby? Her saying the baby had a soul? The clinical discussion about the aborted fetus and its being medical waste and being burnt?

5. Zahira, her friend, confidant, at school? The friend’s father and his links with the family, friendship with Zahira’s father? His coming to plead? Being told off?

6. Zahira, not wanting to marry, going out to the club, the friendship with Frank, flirting, his interest in her, the going out, his going to Australia?

7. The plans for the wedding, Skyping the three suitors in Pakistan? Zahira’s impassive reaction? Two not speaking French? The third speaking French, saying he was in love?

8. Zahira and her reaction at home, her father and his heart, desperation? The mother and the arrangements? The other sister coming home, her arranged marriage, her urging Zahira to go along with it?

9. The consent, yet her running away, returning, the arrangements for the wedding in Pakistan, her being surprised? Her mother and sister going to prepare? The Pakistani family on Skype and their celebrations?

10. Zahira, talking with Frank, her decision to go away?

11. The discussion with her brother, the farewell, his killing her, the blood dripping away?

12. The film and its condemnation of arranged marriages and their consequences?

LOVESONG



US, 2016, 84 minutes, Colour.
Riley Keogh, Jena Malone, Jessie Ok Gray, Sky Ok Gray, Cary Joji Fukunaga, Rosanna Arquette, Juliet Fitzpatrick, Neal Huff, Ryan Eggold.
Directed by So Yong Kim.


Lovesong is a brief film about two young women. The principal focus is on Sarah, Riley Keogh, who is alienated from her husband who travels, is at home all the time with her young daughter, Jessie, aged three. The first part of the film has many scenes of tenderness between mother and daughter – and a fine performance elicited from three-year-old Jessie okay Gray, completely convincing.

The second woman is Mindi, Jena Malone, a friend of Sarah from college days. She is a rather free spirit. She enjoys the visit, time with Sarah, playing with Jesse. Sarah is lonely, realises her care for Mindi, her dependence on her, which leads to intimacy in a sexual relationship. However, Mindi suddenly leaves.

The story transitions to 3 years later, Mindi’s wedding. Sarah and Jessie, now aged six and played by Jessie okay Gray is older sister, Sky, travel to the wedding. There is tension in the air because of Sarah’s love for Mindi, Mindi’s absence from her life in the past few years, the suddenness of the marriage. There are glimpses of Mindi’s fiance and his family but the focus is on Mindi herself, Sarah picking up her rather haughty mother at the railway station and the mother having a strong discussion with her daughter. There is the typical hens party but, after that, dancing at a club and more intimacy between the two women.

The climax is on the wedding day, Mindi seemingly nervous, going for a walk with Sarah, sharing with her, but both agreeing that they go back for the wedding which takes place. Sarah seems happy for Mindi, but has to face her future when the film ends.

1. The title? The plaintiff tone? The relationship between Sarah and Mindi? The relationship between Sarah and her daughter? The loss of love between husband and wife? Mindi and her fiance? The final song and credits? Tone?

2. Sarah’s story, her marriage, talking to a husband on Skype, is avoiding home, the separation? The scenes with Sarah and Jessie, Jessie age 3, playful, the little child’s ability with dialogue and acting, convincing? Sarah and her tenderness? Play, outings, of the children? The fast food outings? The park, amusements? At home?

3. Mindi’s arrival, the past friendship, at college, the bonds between the two? Mindi and her life, relationships, free and easy? Tender with Sarah? Playing with Mindi? The outings? The growing bond between the two women, sharing, the kisses, the relationship? The effect on Sarah? The effect on Mindi, the buying a ticket, sudden leaving, Farewell?

4. Three years later, Sarah and Jessie? Age 6? Little girl and her acting ability, dialogue? The travelling for Mindi’s wedding? The effect on Sarah? Her separation from her husband?

5. Mindi, three years later, red hair, the surprise of her being engaged? Her fiance, his family? The band? Sarah wanting some time with Mindi? Feeling left out?

6. The party for the girls, the chatter, the drinking, the stripper? Letting going to the club, dancing, the intense scene between Sarah and Mindi and the dancing, the kiss?

7. Sarah and her going to the railway station to collect Mindi’s mother, her manner, complaining about waiting, Sarah’s reaction? Mindi’s mother, talking to her daughter, the memories of the past, upbringing, distance? Anger?

8. The further preparations for the wedding, trying on the dress, the meal, the celebration?

9. The morning of the wedding, Mindi and the dress and veil, asking everybody to leave, the presumption of nerves? Outside with Sarah, going for the walk, the intimacy, talking, lying on the grass? The return for the wedding?

10. The ceremony, Sarah and his seeming happiness, Mindi and her fiance and the consent, the congregation? The solemnity of the promises and commitment?

11. Sarah, agreeing to Mindi’s wedding, shared happiness, yet her being alone with her daughter – and her future?

DEN OF THIEVES


2018, 140 minutes, Colour.
Gerard Butler, Jordan Bridges, Pablo Schreiber, Evan Jones, O' Shea Jackson Jr, .50 Cent Jackson, Eric Braeden.
Directed by Christian Gudegast.

While ‘den of thieves’ is a scriptural phrase and Jesus is the one to clear them out of the temple, it is a bit of a stretch to see the special squad of the LA sheriff’s department, scruffy, tough, burly and brutal, as the equivalent of Jesus!

We are informed at the opening that LA is the bank robbery capital of the world, a robbery happening every 48 minutes. Whether they are like the robberies in this film is another matter.

For two hours twenty minutes, the audience is immersed in the world of the robbers as well as the world of the special squad. And, in its way, it is very interesting. However, with the proliferation of guns, the seemingly indiscriminate firing of the machine guns during robberies, it is not quite an advertisement for anyone to go to live in LA. (A reviewer remarked: the National Rifle Association’s film of the year!)

The film opens with a robbery just before dawn, a security truck stolen by a group of masked men outside a doughnut shop. The police arrive as do the FBI and shots are fired, a policeman killed. And there are clashes between the tough leader of the squad, Nick O’Brien? (Gerard Butler) and the neatly-suited vegan leader of the FBI.

As the film progresses, we get to know the squad, Nick, a big tough man (though there are some domestic scenes where he is shown not to be able to handle his family situation well at all even in being shown weeping as he sat in his car), the various loyal members of the group and their methods.

And, as the film progresses, we get to know the thieves, highly organised and their den, an old warehouse, the group with expertise in mechanics, communications and Internet, surveillance techniques. They are led by Merriman (Pablo Schreiber), a former footballer and military man. His group have quite a diverse ethnic representation, African-American?, Hispanic, Anglo, Hawaiian.

Nick makes a connection with their getaway driver, Donnie (O’ Shea Jackson, who more than resembles his father, Ice Cube, whom he played in Straight Outta Compton). Donnie defends himself and is seen as an ace risk-taking driver. Nick also accosts Donnie when he is out at a restaurant with the whole group, Nick identifying Merriman as the past footballer.

Which leads up to the plan for the den of thieves to rob the Federal Reserve. How they plan to do it is part of the interest and entertainment of this film. In preparation, there is a robbery at a local bank and the taking of hostages, once again Nick and his squad arriving as well as the FBI who want to take over and have a negotiator which the thieves have explicitly forbidden.

But, this is a decoy and it is Nick who discovers what is really happening. And, the scenes of the Federal Reserve, are shown in some detail. It is all rather smart, especially the way that Donnie is employed on the staff of the Reserve diner, enabling him, however, to participate in the robbery.

Enthusiasts of this genre have all referred to the Robert De Niro- Al Pacino thriller by Michael Mann, Heat. However, most of the audience will not quite remember the detail of Heat and take this film on its own merits, written and directed by Christian Gudegast (son of Eric Braeden who has a guest appearance).
(For some years this reviewer has been advocating Gerard Butler full-screen versions of Lee Child’s Jack Reacher – Tom Cruise did all right, but Butler looks and sounds the real thing!)

And, most of the audience will surely not have guessed the final twist - something to look forward to.

1. Thieves, bank robberies, special squads, the LA sheriff’s department?

2. Los Angeles, the initial information about bank robberies, the capital of the world, nine per day?

3. Los Angeles, the vistas, aerial views, streets, buildings, banks, musical score?

4. Action, stunt work? Editing and pace?

5. The first robbery, the tone, early in the morning, the Doughnut Centre? The masked men, the police arriving, the confrontation, the shooting, the stealing of the man? The arrival of the FBI? The sheriff’s group? Clashes? The head of the FBI clashing with Nick O’ Brien?

6. Nick O’ Brien, the squad, tough, look, attitude? Behaviour, belonging to the law? His squad, their personalities, loyalty, working as a group? The detective work, leads? The collaboration, the information?

7. Donnie, working in the bar, the driver? The interview with Nick? Donnie and his nonchalance? The interrogation, the violence? The information given? The flashbacks and his role?

8. Merriman, in himself, the leader, the others in the group, personalities, the range of ethnic backgrounds, black, Hispanic, Anglo, Hawaiian? Merriman as leader, ruthless, commanding? Skills, plans, technology? Becoming cop killers? At work in their centre, ambitions?

9. The group at the diner, Donnie there, Nick and his talking, the excuse of the gym? Donnie and his explanations?

10. The plan to rob the Federal Bank? The amount of cash? Never done before? Donnie as the driver, but getting the job at the Bank, working in the diner, his label, easy access? Nick, going to the club, the stripper, the night with her, the information – and her telling Merriman that she had given him the information?

11. The Paco Rivera bank, small-scale? The thieves arriving, taking control, the manager, the phone calls, the amount to be deposited? The opening of the vault? Nick and the police outside? The FBI? Holding back? The issue hostages? The irony of the escape route? Nick going in, following through?

12. The truck, going to the Federal Reserve? Merriman and Levi in the truck? The various jobs for the other members of the group? Surveillance, power outages? Donnie at the diner? Phone communication? The route?

13. The truck, the drivers and their plausibility, getting into the building? The variety of security guards and their manner? Donnie getting through the hatches? The robbery, taking of the money? His going back through security, the call, the pursuit? Nick taking him, the handcuffs, his escape?

14. The van, the other members of the gang, the pursuit, cars and trucks, the garbage truck? Going to the salvage area? Donnie giving the information? The freeway, blocked, the buildup to the shootout? The irony of the pulped paper? The missing cash?

15. Nick’s personal story, his wife, kids, his arriving home, his wife’s exasperation, taking the kids? His depression, going to the strip club? Night with the stripper, her information? Confronting his wife, the boyfriend?

16. The contrast between the scruffy sheriff’s group and their violent tactics, self-assurance? With the FBI, the vegan head, dignity?

17. The aftermath, the background of the football, Nick using the recognition of Merriman? Seeing the photo, Donnie in the centre?

18. The switch to London, Donnie at the bar, near the diamond exchange – and Donnie as the brains of the whole operation? Merriman wanting the role and the others assuming
he was the leader? Donnie with the money?

19. Violent Los Angeles, criminals and masterminds, police squads and the law and breaking the limits of the law?

FEAR NO EVIL

US, 1981, 99 minutes, Colour.

Stefan Arngrim, Elizabeth Hoffman, Kathleen Rowe Mc Allen, Frank Birney, Daniel Eden, John Holland.
Directed by Frank La Loggia.

During the 1970s, in the aftermath of The Exorcist, there was an enormous number of films exploring the dark side, satanic possession, children of the devil, omens, the second coming, incarnations of Lucifer and angels to combat him. While the films from the United States and the United Kingdom were fairly straightforward in their presentation of horror, with celebrated directors making the films, the Italians, after their spaghetti westerns, began to make a range of “spaghetti horror�.

Although this is an American film, it has many resemblances to the Italian films. The writer-director, Frank La Loggia, has an Italian background, and takes Catholic themes as well as a great deal of Catholic imagery, liturgy and iconography for his horror thriller.

In many ways it is a concoction or a conglomeration – some might call it a potpouri of horror themes, while others consider it something of a mess.
It has an exotic setting, a Castle in Alexandria Bay in upper New York state, exteriors and interiors used as well is a scene where a tourist boat sails past the island describing it and the Castle.

The film is also a high school drama, in the vein of so many films at this time and into the 80s. There are the usual students, high school, classroom sequences, sports and basketball sequences, shower sequences, interviews with the principal, ambitions to get into college.

The religious background is fairly strong, a focus on a priest, his baptising a child in the 1963 sequence, his work in the school and the parish 18 years later, liturgical, helping with sports as well as the production of the Passion Play.

The exotic religious background is also strong. The film presupposes the incarnation of Lucifer, who formed a bizarre holy Trinity with the Belial and Leviathan. Lucifer is incarnated at various times, especially those times associated with the Second Coming. (Which makes many audiences wonder why the Second Coming always has to take place in the United States in remote towns and cities.) To combat Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael are also incarnated in various guises. Initially, Raphael was incarnated as a priest, Father Damon, who confronted the then incarnation of Lucifer and killed him, only to be taken to trial in the courts and condemned, the fellow priest in the parish, already mentioned, refusing to stand up for him.

Michael is incarnated in Margaret, Elizabeth Hoffman, Father Damon’s sister, still alive, wanting justice for him, confronting the parish priest, discovering Gabriel in the form of a young woman in a relationship with a student who hopes to go to university but who is killed. She seems always to be in something of a trance.

But, this time Lucifer is the young student, Andrew (Stephane Arngrim). We see his birth in 1963, rejoicing family, the men drinking, going to church for the baptism, the ritual and then suddenly fire emanating from the font and throughout the church. The mother is very upset and there is a kind of collage focusing on the house, light and shadow, as the years pass. Andrew is then 18, celebrating his birthday. He is a remote kind of person, a good student at school, staying upstairs in his room. There is an accident at his party when his mother is hit by a falling iron and she is then locked in her room, his father becoming more demented, going to the local bar to drink, denouncing his son.

So, the film is interesting for a variation on the Devil incarnate, a slight personality and build, touch of the effeminate, his appearance, clever and studies, about to go to college, interviewed by his teachers, visiting his mother and giving her food, involved in basketball and sport, ridiculed in the shower, the class bully taunting him and being urged to kiss him, a rather vigorous kiss which overcomes the bully (temporarily). When Andrew is late for sport, he is told to do push-ups but he causes a shockingly violent death.

The bully has a girlfriend, is brutal towards her, discarding her, followed around by a bevy of friends. Later, they go to the Castle and indulge in some sexual activities, the bully confronted by Andrew and, bizarrely, shocked when he grows breasts. He is killed.

By this time, Andrew is ready to manifest his Lucifer nature, goes to the cemetery and raises a whole lot of the bodies there so that there are a some zombie moments in the film. In the meantime, back at school, the parish priest is involved in the annual putting on of the Passion Play. There are scenes of this play including the Last Supper, but when Jesus is on the cross, Andrew stares at him and the actor starts to bleed, dies, and blood spilling all over the audience to go into mass panic and the priest, warned by Margaret not to have the play, is disillusioned.

This leads up to the finale, Margaret and the young girl as Gabriel rowing to the Castle, confronting Andrew, having some power over him, reflecting light on a standard that they are carrying, Margaret forcing him to recite the Lord’s prayer, but then destroying him with the light.

In a way, this film could symbolise the trends of the 1970s and 80s with a range of genres as well as bizarre imaginings of the end times.

MY AWKWARD SEXUAL ADVENTURE

Canada, 2012, 98 minutes, Colour.
Jonas Chernick, Emily Hampshire, Sarah Manninen, Vik Sahay, Melissa Marie Elias.
Directed by Sean Garrity.


While the story can be named as a sexual adventure, the word “awkward� in the title is key to the telling.

The film opens in Winnipeg, the focus on an accountant, very awkward in his manner, very limited in his experience. He is in a relationship with a girl he has known since they were 12. However, she considers him exceedingly boring and decides to break with him. He is presented as something of a nerd, not listening to people, finding it impossible to imagine that his girlfriend would break with him, continually arguing, phoning her, pleading with her.

He goes on holiday to Toronto and meets up with his friend, who has something of a promiscuous reputation but who has seemingly met the girl of his dreams, a rather demure young woman (though there is some disillusionment at the end of the film). The hero asks his friend to be his sexual mentor but he makes a mess of meeting people at a party, talking awkwardly, waiting for a phone call from his girlfriend. Wandering in the city, he goes into a strip bar, drinks, pays the girls for suggestive photos which he emails to his girlfriend – to no avail.

A kindly stripper takes him home and thus begins an offbeat relationship. Her finances are in a mess but he takes her to a bank, gets her affairs in order, especially when, as a good cook, she would like to start a restaurant. In the meantime, he has some lessons in sexual knowledge and awareness. The film has several chapters of lessons, both serious and humorous.

At times, the film is quite explicit in language, less so visually. It is not so much interested in being exploitative as in exploring the ignorance of the contemporary Canadian male, despite background of promiscuity, especially on the part of his girlfriend. There are some explicit jokes, especially with a cantaloupe reminding audiences who have seen American Pie of the possibilities for sex jokes.

In one experiment, he gets dressed up in women’s clothes, is discovered by the home rabbi and his wife, appears on television to the curiosity of his girlfriend, to the disgust of his mother.

While the hero gets involved in all kinds of awkward situations, doing a role-play in which he denounces his girlfriend only to be discovered by her and then pursuing her yet again, forgetting to come back and untie the stripper who has been instructing him, Jonas Chernik, who wrote the screenplay, makes his character both credible and limited in his outlooks on life.

Eventually, the stripper stands her own feet and organises her restaurant. The hero goes back to his girlfriend but, at a party with friends and family, he announces that they can never be married – and, though not immediately, there is a reconciliation with the stripper and the possibilities of a sensible future.

Emily Hampshire creates a very sympathetic character as Julie, the stripper, credible in the profession she has chosen but warm in her personality and certainly open to change and development.

DICK

US, 1999, 85 minutes, Colour.
Kirsten Dunst, Michelle Williams, Dan Hedaya, Will Ferrell, Bruce Mc Culloch, Teri Garr, Dave Foley, Jim Breuer, Ana Gasteyer, Harry Shearer, Saul Rubinek, Ted Mc Ginley, Ryan Reynolds, G. D. Spradlin
Directed by Andrew Fleming.

Dick was not commercial success in 1999 as had been anticipated. However, in retrospect, it is quite amusing, especially in view of the distance between the Nixon era and the present, of the number of films about Nixon, personified by Anthony Hopkins, speculations about Nixon, for instance, Nixon and Elvis and Michael Shannon as Elvis Presley in the White House.

The screenplay writers have taken the theme of Deep Throat, not identified officially at the time of the making of the film. Rather, this is a satirical look at Woodward and Bernstein, their reporting, their rivalries, petty jealousies, the role of Ben Bradlee as editor of the Washington Post. And, instead of a White House official being the informant, it is two15-year-olds, who have a crush on Nixon and are disillusioned when, by accident, they hear some of his tapes and his double dealing and, especially, swearing.

Kirsten Dunst was the right age in taking this role, while Michelle Williams was two years older. They were at the beginning a very successful film careers. There is a very good supporting cast with Will Ferrell and Jim Breuer hamming it up as Woodward and Bernstein, G.D.Spradlin in a cameo as Ben Bradley. Teri Garr is one of the mothers and, at the end of the film, Ryan Reynolds appears in a mistaken role. There are character actors impersonating Nixon’s advisers including Haldeman, John Dean and, especially, Saul Rubinek very good as impersonating Henry Kissinger.

The screenplay has a lot of amusing mixups, the girls and their friendship and their devotion to Nixon, the school tour of the White House and their encountering the President and becoming his dog walkers and, when he learns they live at Watergate, being secretly sworn in as his young advisers – but, their interpreting the secrecy liberally, writing stories about their experiences and telling everyone.

It is also amusing to see the access they have to the White House and to the President and to Kissinger vouching for them.

When they become disillusioned, they decide to ring the Washington Post and arrange to meet Woodward and Bernstein secretly and come upon the name Deep Throat from Betsy’s brother’s pornography.

It all leads to Nixon’s downfall and his resignation – all because of security, cookies that the girls bring to the White House impregnated with pot, and some of the severe aspects of American politics. George W Bush and Donald Trump were yet to come!

1. The Nixon era? Nixon as president? His past, anti-Communist? VP to Eisenhower? Rival to JF Kennedy? Elected in 68, the Vietnam war? Watergate, his resignation?

2. Nixon as seen 25 years later? From the 21st century retrospective?

3. The title, the ambiguity? Tricky Dick?

4. Washington DC in 1973, the Watergate hotel, the interiors? Schools, apartments, the White House, the grounds, interiors? The Washington Post? The garage rendezvous for Deep Throat? The domestic scenes? The musical score, the songs?

5. The film as a spoof? The film as satire? Light-hearted mockery, satirical criticism? 20th century perspective? 21st century? Spoofing Nixon and Watergate?

6. The prologue, Woodward and Bernstein? Being interviewed? The comic send-up? The rivalry between Woodward and Bernstein? The issue of Deep Throat?

7. The focus on Betsy and Arlene? Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams as teenagers? The successful later careers? Girls of the 70s, Betsy’s parents, Arlene’s mother and the separation, drinking, the later spy relationship? Betsy’s brother, the drugs, the draft? Scenes of domestic life?

8. The girls at the Watergate, unlocking the door, getting out, the security, the guards? Their being fans of Nixon?

9. School visit to the White House, the tour, their wandering off, the guards, security, their access, encountering the President, the dog? The return to the school, no Mc Donald’s, the students angry? The irony of the paper stuck on the shoe of the official in the White House?

10. Audience knowledge of Nixon, of Haldeman, Liddy, John Dean? The performances and the re-creating the characters with the touch of satire and criticism? The portrayal of Kissinger, his role, with Nixon, diplomacy, with the girls?

11. The girls, the dog, interrupting the president, his talking with them, their walking the dog, their access to the White House, security letting them in? Kissinger vouching for them? Haldeman and his suspicions? Nixon’s secretary and her welcoming them? Their baking cookies, the brother’s special ingredients? Everybody getting high on the cookies? The return, the security at the gate, Nixon?

12. Arlene in love with Nixon, her scrapbook, the visualising of her dreams, her declaration of love? Assumptions about his goodness?

13. The background of the Vietnam war? Their talking to the president about peace? The news of the Paris Accord? Their taking the credit? At school, their essays? Seen as fantasy? Their secrecy about being sworn in as advisers? But telling everyone?

14. At Watergate, the recordings, Arlene and the long recording? Rewinding? The president, his swearing? The explanations? The disgust at his lies? Seeing the shredding of the documents?

15. Woodward and Bernstein at the Post? The investigations into Watergate? The personalities, the rivalry, the clashes? The discussions with Ben Bradlee and his wanting the
story and verification?

16. Betsy and Arlene upset, phoning the Washington Post, the conversations, becoming Deep Throat, the brother and his pornography and their choice of the title? Arlene shocked at the pornography? The phone call, being distracted, Woodward and Bernstein assuming the silence was confirmation of the list? The list in their scrapbook – and the
dog eating it?

17. The pettiness of Bernstein and Woodward, the visits, the garage, the phone calls, the claims? Writing the articles?

18. The girls at home, then followed in the car, the spy and Arlene’s mother? The visit to the Haldeman house and mistaking the visitor for his son? Spying, search, the kissing?

19. The popular response – and the downfall of Nixon?

20. The satirical imagination on Nixon, his advisers, Watergate, his resignation at the scene of him leaving, his victory sign? Spoof imagination? – And subsequent American history and presidents?

A TOWN CALLED BASTARD/ A TOWN CALLED HELL

UK/ Spain, 1971, 95 minutes, Colour.
Robert Shaw, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Telly Savalas, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Dudley Sutton, Al Letieri.
Directed by Robert Parrish.

In late 1960s, so many Italian westerns were filmed in Spain, rugged territory for stories of the American West, full of violence, but a genre in itself called “spaghetti westerns�. They were very popular all around the world and production flourished.

This is a 1971 British-Spanish? attempt at making a spaghetti Western. It was filmed in Spain in the same kind of territory. And the plot was fairly similar to the Italian films, this one employing a number of the Italian character actors.

The setting is a very hard town, with the English title including lasted. At the time, this was too much for American audiences and the film was renamed A Town Called Hell.

The film opens in the late 19th century with a raid by rebels on a Mexican town, everybody massacred, including those gathered in the church with the priest. The head of the rebels is called Agila. Seen at the head of the rebels and central to the shootings is Robert Shaw.

The action moves forward 10 years. Robert Shaw now appears as the local priest, seemingly living with a woman, not against a flask of whiskey, wearing a Franciscan robe and cord but dishevelledly. He has authority in the town. However, Telly Savalas is Don Carlos, who also rules the town, sitting barechested, holding court with his friends, shooting at the church bell to summon the priest.

At the same time, Stella Stevens appears as a grieving widow for someone who killed her husband 10 years earlier. She is travelling in a coach, sleeping in a coffin which is intended for the murderer of her husband. She has a huge amount of gold to pay for information. Her driver is allegedly deaf-mute, played by Dudley Sutton.

The first half of the film is the woman’s enquiry, various people coming forward, one of his henchman accusing Don Carlos who is then strung up and killed. An old woman reveals the name of the head of the rebels, Agila.

A colonel arrives in the town, played by Martin Landau. He is also interested in getting Agila, has discussions with the priest, interrogates and executes some of the townspeople.

The film then goes into flashback, a scene of banqueting, music and dancing, this leads to the presentation of another massacre, rebels attacking, Robert Shaw seen as Agila in the lead. However, he has had a clash with a spy but let him go. The spy returns to the town to give information to the general about the impending attack.

Back to 1905 and a blind man comes forward touching the priest’s face and identifying him as Agila. Then there is a buildup to the final confrontation and shootings – with the widow, somewhat disbelieving, driving away.

All the ingredients of a spaghetti Western but this time directed by American Robert Parrish. Robert Shaw had already been seen as the villain in From Russia with Love as well as Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons. He was soon to appear in Jaws. Telly Savals was popular on television as a lollipop eating detective, Kojak. Martin Landau was to receive an Oscar almost 25 years later for portraying Bela Lugosi in Tim Burton’s Ed Wood. Michael Craig, popular in English films, was to migrate to Australia and worked there.