THE INTERROGATION

Israel, 2016, 83 minutes, Colour.
Romanus Fuhrmann, Macej Marczewski.
Directed by Erez Pery.

This is a brief and sober film, an Israeli production, filmed in Germany.

Basically, the film is a two-hander, though it has been opened out for some glimpses of the passing countryside. The Polish prosecutor who speaks German is assigned to interrogate Hoess, who had been the administrator in charge of the concentration camp of Auschwitz.

As the title indicates, most of the film is about the meeting between the prosecutor and the criminal, in a stark room, sometimes with a guard, reel to reel tape recording, some words, some silences, listening again to the tapes, the interrogator having a commission to get the story from the criminal and then escort him to execution.

The dialogue does two things: Hoess is able to describe his career, his mentality, the Nazi ideology, construction at Auschwitz, the reception of Russian prisoners, of the Jews and their elimination; but it also enables Hoess to give his own story, his family, fanatical Catholic father, thoughts of his becoming a seminarian, his love for animals and farms, chosen by Himmler, subscribing to the SS ideology, proven to be reliable, but the toll on his psyche, withdrawing, drinking, alienated from his wife, continuing to follow orders. And this is true of the other officials and guards in the camp.

There are some personalised sequences between the interrogator and his wife, the interrogator going to the execution of the audience seeing only the criminal’s legs and a stool which is kicked away and his death throes.

A sober and sombre 21st-century reflection on the Holocaust.

1. The title? The German authorities after the war? Poles? Auschwitz? Hoess as administrator of Auschwitz and his being called to justice?

2. The background of this film, from Israel, German and Polish background? Memories of World War II, memories of Auschwitz and the Holocaust? Audience knowledge of the events, attitudes? The commanders, the guards? The extinction of Russian soldiers? Of the Jews?

3. The stark film, sombre and sober, dark and shaded?

4. The prosecutor, in his room, the phone call, obedient, the nature of the interrogation, driving to Kraków, the scenes of the countryside from the passing car? His age, appearance, dapper, his commission, to get the confession, to accompany the criminal to execution?

5. The interview room, sober, the typewriter, the prosecutor bringing his tape recorder, reel to reel? Guards present, sometimes asked to leave?

6. The interrogation, in words, pauses, silences? Tape-recorded? The prosecutor listening again? The assessment of what he heard?

7. The portrait of Hoess, the interrogation, the background of his being a Nazi monster, obeying orders, the Nazi ideology and psychology?

8. The more humane portrait, as a boy at home, his parents, fanatic Catholic, thoughts of being a priest? Love of animals, farms, with his wife? Going to the SS? Absorbing the ideology, the uniform, conforming?

9. Himmler, choosing Hoess, the different jobs, Hoess as reliable, rebuilding the concentration camp, to take 10,000 prisoners? The prisoners at work, his explaining the positive aspects of Arbeit Macht Frei?

10. Auschwitz, the experience, building up the concentration camp, the number of those coming, the Russian soldiers, the Jews? The underling and the experiments with gas? Success? His orders, eliminating the Jews, no emotions allowed to be expressed? The various officials and their obeying orders throughout the camp? Loyalty to Hitler, no questions?

11. The details of the death-work, stripping, going into the gas, the crowds, the quick choking, the heaps of bodies? The effect?

12. The personal cost, Hoess and is becoming withdrawn, drinking, difficult relationship with his wife, his continuing his work?

13. The contrast with the prosecutor, the background of his family, the scenes with his wife, love, the shower, his returning home to her?

14. Accompanying Hoess to execution? Audience seeing the legs, the stool and its being pushed away? The throes of death?

15. The purpose of this film in the 20th century – genocides and lest we forget?

NEBEL IM AUGUST/ FOG IN AUGUST

Germany, 2016, 121 minutes, Colour.

Ivo Pietzcker, Sebastian Koch,Thomas Schubert, Fritzi Haberlandt, Henriette Confunius, Branko Samarovski, David Bennent, Julie Herman.
Directed by Kai Wessel.

This film is based on a novel – which may have explained its title better than the film does (or doesn’t).

Nevertheless, this is a very impressive film, a 21st-century German look at World War II and the Nazi program of eugenics and elimination of the sick and in the weak by euthanasia.

The action takes place over a few months in summer 1944, a young gypsy boy, Ernst (Ivo Pietzcker very convincing) is brought to an institution – and he hopes his gypsy father will be able to come and get him, although when he does, the father has no permanent residence and is not able to take his son.

The audience is shown life in the institution day by day, a very competent and gentlemanly doctor-manager, Sebastian Koch, so presentable that he does not look like a man who administers programs for death daily. This is also true of the nurse that he employs, Henriette Confunius, open charm but ruthless in her administration of barbiturates in raspberry juice.

The film focuses on a number of the children, their weak state, debilitated, having seizures, mental disabilities – and their gradually being eliminated. There are some criticism from a nun, Sister Sophia (Fritzi Haberlandt) whose conscience is touched and who seeks advice from the local Catholic bishop who suggests she stay in the institution, a contact with the church which disapproves of these procedures.

As a lively young lad, Ernst becomes involved in the work, made assistant to Mr Witt who is in charge of dissections (and even sending excised brains from their children for further research). He makes a number of friends, participate in the work, is able to feed a little girl who won’t accept food from anyone else, becomes involved with the Sister in hiding her from the authorities – but, sadly, given the situation, orders from Berlin, it is inevitable that the film ends with Ernst’s death.

However, there are final moments of triumph when Nandl, the little girl whom he had befriended, tells the assembled dining room that Ernst has gone with his father to America and is safe – a moment of happy protest and the rejoicing of those in the dining room.

1. A 21st-century memoir of World War II? Euthanasia and elimination of weak and sickly citizens? Purification of the Aryan race?

2. The title? The summer of 1944?

3. The institutions, old buildings, churches and religious buildings, the grounds, the work in the fields, the woods? The interiors, the dormitories, dining room, offices? The setting for the killing of the weak and the children? Audience response to such barbarity?

4. The film showing the events in the characters and then, later in the film, the meeting of the authorities, the doctor presenting his case, the starvation diet, the elimination of the weak and the children, the gathering and the applause? The ethos of the Third Reich?

5. The focus on Ernst? His story – and the sad ending? Gypsy, his father in the concentration camp, the dreams of going to America with his father? In the institution, examined by the doctor, his head shaved? Working the fields? Making friends with the other boys, the various clashes? The routines of life, playing football with Tony and Tony’s death following? Feeding Amelia? The friendship with Nandi? The interviews with the doctor? His being assigned as help to Mr Witt? With Sister Sophia? With the nurse? His father coming to see him, unable to take him away, his father not having residence?

6. The character of Ernst, his age, forthright, helping, his kindnesses, the doctor and the discussions, concern about the children dying and their disappearance? Spirit in Amelia away with Sister Sophia? Hiding outside the window? His raising questions? Under suspicion – and his death?

7. The doctor in charge, pleasant-looking, good mannered, not sinister -looking, bureaucrat? His ideology and the elimination of the weak and the sick? In practice, the barbiturates for the children? The starvation diet, watered-down vegetable soup, three times a day? The practice of euthanasia? Officialdom and having to do the deaths in secret? Documentation about pneumonia? His interactions with Sister Sophia, her objections, her choices? The introduction of the nurse?

8. The range of children, their age, weaknesses, sickness? The adults, disabled, deformed? Life in the institution, meals, dormitories? Work in the fields? Play? Their personalities, their deaths? The funerals?

9. Sister Sophia, the work of the church, her moral dilemmas, discussions with the doctor? Going to the Bishop? The Bishop asking her to stay, as a kind of protest, to do her best? His comments about the Pope and quiet help? The church existing under Nazi authoritarianism? The further confrontations with the doctor? Helping Amelia? Her death?

10. The nurse, young, smart, attractive, her ideology, the raspberry juice with the barbiturates? In dealing with children? Accountability to the director? Allowing Ernst to feed Amelia? Amelia spirited away? Her continued work, ruthlessness?

11. The young assistant, not agreeing with the euthanasia, subserve into the doctor, orders? Dealing with the children, Ernst with his watch?

12. Mr Witt, work in the institution, orders from the doctor, the dissection of the bodies, the taking out of the brains, sending them for further research? His bonding with Ernst?

13. The end, Ernst and his death? Nandl and her friendship and activities with Ernst, coming into the dining room, telling everyone that Ernst had gone to America with his father
– and everybody rejoicing, not eating their food and its hitting the roof? A protest?

14. The final notes, information about the euthanasia program, continuity after surrender? The various sentences given to the persons concerned?

15. A film of the 1940s, looked at from the 21st-century? Relevant to health and welfare issues of the present?

POWER RANGERS

US, 2017, 124 minutes, Colour.
Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Ludy Lin, Becky G, Elizabeth Banks, Bryan Cranston, Bill Hader, David Denman.
Directed by Dean Israelite.

An expensive action movie from 2017 but a very limited box office success. It was based on the past comics and television programs, Morphin Power Rangers. Judging by the opinions of many of the bloggers, it did not fulfil their hopes and did not relate to the original series as desired.

The target audience is younger. In fact, one of the basic plot factors in this film, recalcitrant young students in detention, was at the core of the plot of Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, one of the most successful films at the box office in 2017 with the same target audience.

The film opens with some ancient history, a technical earth thousands of years earlier, a conflict between warriors and a usurper, Rita, who imprisoned her foe as well is all the Power Rangers. The headquarters on ships were buried.

Most of the film is set in a very contemporary present, youngsters who are often surly and rebellious, critical of adults, finding themselves in detention. One of them, African- American, Billy, is bullied but is defended by the hero (who has to undergo quite a transition from -·anger and surliness to leader and hero). Billy helps Jason to be free from his police control and goes up into the mountains into a mine, encountering another young rebel, as well as an Asian- American who is self-confidently self-assertive..

Billy is experimenting, digging, and unearths three ancient coins with bright colours. When another rebellious girl is met, the five find that they have superpowers, leaping over chasms, jumping into the deep, yet able to return to the ordinary days at home and at school – where Billy’s bully gets his comeuppance!

All of this takes more than an hour. Eventually, they come across a speaking robot (who explains that English is a dialect from his own ancient language), who introduces them to the imprisoned leader. They are given a certain amount of time to decide whether they will become Power Rangers or not, Jason having the greatest challenge but his being able to persuade the others to follow.

Most of the rest of the film is special effects, stunt work, many, many battles, Rita eventually entering into the contemporary world, threatening people, but, after quite a lengthy time, the power Rangers win and all, at least for the time being, is well with the universe.

Power Rangers did get six Teen Choices nominations. And for villain and hero’s voices, Elizabeth Banks and Bryan Cranston – and for the talking robot, Bill Hader.

The film can be seen as fairly expensive Saturday matinee material which might be too flip and easy for a more mindful group but is an extravagant show for more mindless action.

LIKE. SHARE. FOLLOW

US, 2017, 97 minutes, Colour.
Keiynan Lonsdale, Ema Horvath, Nate Hartley, Amy Pham, Abraham Benrubi.
Directed by Glenn Gers.

The title immediately speaks to the experience of social media death at ease who can click like, who can click share, who can click follow.

This is a film which acknowledges social media and its importance in the modern world. And, as with films like this, it is also a cautionary tale.

Central character is Garrett, played by Australian Keiynan Lonsdale, who finds he has 2 million viewers for the little films that he continually makes for screening on You Tube. He is aided by his friend from childhood, Lyle, and the camera operator, Kiki. He also plays computer games with a selection of online and visual friends. One of them is anonymous, Fan Girl. For whatever reason, whether Garrett realises it or not, he gives encouragement to Fan Girl to reveal herself.

She does, at first with charm, then with seduction. Audiences realise that this is a story about stalking – and this is a very determined girl, with bad psychological history, a history of violence and murder, who brooks no opposition which Garrett offers after he discovers how he has been manipulated.

Quite a lot about stalking, quite a lot about detective work and what is acceptable in law and not, “he says versus she says�.

The whole experience makes Garrett look at his own life, listen to the advice of his bookstore owner father, take time out…

The stalker eventually watches all of Garrett’s tapes, is able to discover where he has gone in retreat, goes for a final violent-slasher confrontation.

The ending is not quite what we expect – quite some irony in the contact who comes to rescue him (and is prepared to look after him as long as it takes, not taking him to a hospital…).

1. A contemporary thriller, background of social media, stalkers, crime and touches of horror?

2. The target audience, young adults and younger audiences? The response of older audiences – and the response of Garrett’s father in the film?

3. California, homes and apartments, offices, police departments, bookstore, home studio? The open Californian countryside, the home in the countryside, interiors and exteriors? The musical score?

4. The significance of social media, the impact of Youtube, everybody being on Youtube? Liking, sharing, following, subscribing – and as many as 2 million followers?

5. The title, the experience of social media, Facebook, Youtube, communication, inter-communication, friends, personalities, anonymous followers?

6. Garrett’s story? Age, experience, agreeable, relationship with his father, his father wanting him to do better, his father’s bookstore, Garrett giving him the cheque, proving himself to his father? Yet the consequences, Shell and her destroying the bookstore, and his father’s wry remark about the cheque?

7. Garrett, his friend Lyle, from childhood? Kiki and her doing the camera work? Garrett on screen, the humorous films for Youtube, his performances, comic, bizarre, with the help of Lyle? The fans, the range of personalities, young men and young women, appreciating Garrett, but, ultimately, not taking him to seriously or believing him? And the group
playing the computer games, their connections?

8. The introduction of Fan Girl? Garrett and his dialogue with her? Later accused of leading her on? His being aware or not? Automatic and curious? His arrival home, the girl at the desk, the attraction, his fan mail? Talking with her, Michelle – Shell? Going out, talking, going home, her seductive and charming manner, the sexual encounter, the aftermath?

9. The truth about Shell, stalking Garrett, getting into his house, the episode with Lyle and her getting the key, the continued texting, the messages, her love, her desperation? The video on Youtube of lovemaking? The detective, his advice, the difficulty of “he says – she says�? The detective giving him more information, her file, her parents finding her violent, the deaths associated with her, in the institution, getting out, getting rid of people she did not like? The sad irony of the detective opening the door being shot with the arrow?

10. Garrett? The effect, discussions with Lyle?, Kiki and the difficulties, her having to leave? Garrett deciding whether he would keep with his fans or go away? The further effects of Shell and her stalking, her pleading?

11. The decision to go to the house in the country, with Lyle, setting up the security, keeping the program going, performing for the fans, Garrett out in the snow, Lyle frightening him, the tension?

12. Shell, watching the tapes over and over, discovering where he was, warning him, not having him in life but having him in death?

13. Her travelling to the house, the warning that she had come, Lyle, fear, getting the car, her threats but her passing him by, his driving away? The confrontation in the house, Garrett and his fear, Shell and her determination? Garrett and his pleading to the group, to phone the police, giving the address? The power going out? The contacts not taking Garrett seriously?

14. The confrontation, the fight, Shell and her death, her wounding Garrett?

15. The irony of the fan, coming to rescue him, in the car, not taking him to a hospital, her wanting to look after him for as long as it took…? And the irony of the police car with Lyle passing them on the road?

DOWNSIZING

US, 2017, 135 minutes, Colour.
Matt Damon, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, Kristen Wiig, Rolf Lassgard, Udo Keir, Jason Sudeikis, Maribeth Monroe, James Van der Beek, Laura Dern, Neal Patrick Harris, Margo Martindale, Joaquin De Alemeida.
Directed by Alexander Payne.

What if?

There are all kinds of ways about imagining how humans might change the world, might improve human nature, might prepare for the end of the human race. Downsizing looks at all these aspects.

The opening of the film keeps the audience on its toes. An experiment in a scientific centre in Norway has succeeded in reducing living creatures to about 5 inches or 12 cm in height. Some years later, at a scientific convention, the organiser of the experiment presents the scientist who made the breakthrough – 5 inches high. Excitement, exhilaration.

Then, 10 years later, people go willingly into the downsizing program. The audience is introduced to a centre in the US, going into a small satellite city called Leisureland. There are various advertising campaigns, budget plans for those seeking something different. And that is the case with Paul and Audrey (Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig) who decide that they will go into downsizing mode. Lots of discussion amongst friends, family, chats with those who are downsized.

There is a bit of tension as the couple undergo the process, shaved, naked, injected, recuperating, and walking out into a new life. Actually, it doesn’t go as Paul had planned for him and his wife – she backed out.

While the motivation for downsizing is to help population and sustaining the world by using so much less of its energy and resources, there is a lot of lip-service to this ideal – but, we realise and soon see that, human nature being what it is, there is a lot of self-focus in downsizing, in leading a life of leisure and hedonism. Yet, Paul works diligently in a company at a desk, although his earlier ambitions had been to be a doctor and he had had to be satisfied with occupational therapy.

We are then introduced to a number of eccentric characters, especially Christoph Waltz as Paul’s upstairs Serb neighbour, hosting rowdy parties, glitz and glamour, and there is no one like Christoph Waltz to create a somewhat creepy character. He is joined at the party with a lifelong friend who owns a yacht (who can send it to Norway by FedEx? and it will arrive before he himself arrives there, in planes which have seating for both sizes).

Then there is the Vietnam dissident, Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau), imprisoned, having lost a leg, now running a cleaning company including Waltz’s apartment. She would have made a very good prison warden, strong-minded, direct, uttering orders which she takes for granted will be obeyed – and that includes Paul (who finds an occupational therapy outlet in working on her leg.

The film then takes a different direction, introducing Paul to the downside of downsizing, people on welfare, living in crowded tenements, slums, people in medical need, a whole range of people that Ngoc Lan Tran cares for. A whole new perspective on life Paul, self-sacrificing care.

And then the film takes you another different direction, with the four central characters all going to Norway, to the original colony, to meet the founder and the breakthrough scientist. Paul is exhilarated, in admiration. But, the scientist is predicting the end of human life, wants to establish a colony deep in the mountains, a remnant who can emerge after the Earth cataclysm.

Will the enthusiastic Paul go? Will the others go? What is the alternative?
Alexander Payne has cowritten and directed quite a number of arresting films including Election, Sideways, About Schmidt, The Descendants, Nebraska. He raises interesting human nature questions and environmental puzzles.

1. Human nature? The human condition? Betterment? Surviving? What if…?

2. The title? Ordinary use of the word? As applied to human beings? Physical…?

3. The motivation for downsizing? Achievement in scientific research? Improvement for the environment? Lesser use of resources? Human betterment? (And the creation of a parallel world?)

4. Introduction, the laboratory, the scientist and success? The conference, the crowd, the demonstration, the downsized professor, the response and acclaim?

5. The plausibility of the experiment? Desirability?

6. The ordinary American city, Paul and Audrey as ordinary citizens? Paul and his work, his ambitions, occupational therapy? His relationship with Audrey? Going to see houses, financial difficulties? Their friends, socials, the discussions? The musical score?

7. Propaganda for Leisureland, the ads, Neal Patrick Harris as the host, Laura Dern in the bath, Margo Martindale in the vehicle? The effect of the promotion?

8. Paul and Audrey and their discussions, the future, hopes? Audrey’s father and his resistance? The couple and their agreement, going to the process? The formalities, the interview, voiced consent? The laboratories, the staff, the process, shaved, naked, the injection, recuperation? Paul recovering, the phone call – and Audrey and her backing out?

9. Paul alone, his disappointment, friends like David advocating the luxury life? His apartment, his desk job, a year passing? His dating, the mother, the awkward talk, his approach, her concern about her son, leaving? The papers for his divorce from Audrey?

10. Dusan, Christopher Waltz, initial impression, the loud party, his visit, the apology, talking matters over with Paul, his critique of his way of life? Inviting him to the party, Paul and the gift of the normal-sized rose? Dusan and his business background, hedonist? The range of guests? Paul and the offer of drugs, swallowing, the effect, his dancing? The aftermath? Ngoc and the cleaners arriving? The effect on Paul?

11. Paul and the information about Vietnam, Ngoc, her protest, imprisonment, the loss of her leg, her awkward walk? Ngoc as a character, a company, the people working, Hispanics, cleaning houses, keeping busy, strong-minded, matter-of-fact, issuing commands, her expectations to be obeyed? The effect on Paul? The offer of therapy for her leg? Her taking him back to her house, the slum and the tenements, the visit to Gladys, her illness and pain, the prescription? Her dying happy? Paul and his change of perspective?

12. Ngoc and her work, collecting the food, the distribution, the old man and his meal, the dark slum, having gone through the tunnel, the contrast with Leisureland? Paul and his work on Knox leg, her work, his becoming a cleaner, Dusan’s reaction? Paul and the discovery of doing good?

13. Dusan’s friend, wealthy, his yacht? At the party, the discussions with Paul? The joke about sending his yacht Fed Ex to Norway? The issue of Norway, the invitation to go, the discussions, Paul and his enthusiasm, to see the pioneers? Ngoc, her interrogating the men, her firm decision to go? The flight – and the compartments for ordinary size people and the downsized?

14. Norway, its beauty, the colony, the scientist and his wife, the welcome, Paul exhilarated, with Ngoc, the sexual encounter, her blunt questions about what kind of encounter it was?

15. The colony, the scenario, the end of humans on this earth, the group agreeing to stay, become the remnant? Preparation, the corridor, the technology, going up and then down into the cave, supplies, Dusan and his friend and the donations of semen? The time for remaining within the cave?

16. Paul, his enthusiasm, excitement, going, leaving the three behind? Their waiting? Paul and his walking, the reaction of people, his hesitation, decision to come out, talking with Ngoc, their all returning to Leisureland?

17. Paul, the visit, the tenements, the old man and his appreciation of his dinner, Paul and finding a life doing good in the here and now?

THE POST

US, 2017, 115 minutes, Colour.
Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, Alison Bree, Carrie Coon, Jesse Plemons, Michael Stuhlbarg, David Cross.
Directed by Steven Spielberg.

This is a film well worth seeking out for those who enjoy intelligent cinema. It has been directed by Steven Spielberg, winner of two Oscars for best director, Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan. More recently he made the very interesting Bridge of Spies.

One suspects that he is rather politically motivated to make this film at this time, a story of The Washington Post, denounced during his presidential campaign and his first year in office by Donald Trump. It stars Meryl Streep who spoke out about the Presodent at an award ceremony and was dismissed by a presidential Twitter as“ over-rated�. With the release of the film she has urged him to see it so that he will have more respect for those he disagrees with.

So, a timely film, although it setting is 1971. This is The Washington Post story of The Pentagon Papers, their publication, the move to prevent their publication by President Nixon and the subsequent Supreme Court judgement on freedom of the press. For those who remember, for those in the know, the film ends with a security guard discovering an open door in the Watergate centre and the beginnings of the Watergate scandal exposed by The Washington Post (which might be a suggestion that we have another look at All the President’s Men from 1976).

The film actually opens in 1966 in Vietnam, three short sequences of camouflaging, night combat, recuperation, with the journalist typing his report. They again remind us of how effectively Spielberg can film war sequences.

The journalist concerned is Daniel Ellsberg who is shown in an encounter with Secretary, Robert Mc Namara, who then gives a press conference stating optimistic views about the war in Vietnam – though having authorised elaborate study, which has been kept secret, highlighting US policy from Truman, through Eisenhower and Kennedy, to Johnson, indicating that the war is doomed to failure. Yet the government was continuing to send American troops, some conscripted, far away from the US to fight and die in Southeast Asia. There are also scenes of protest in the film.

In 1971, the New York Times published some of these Pentagon Papers and an immediate injunction was placed on them. At the same time, The Post editor Ben Bradlee (played very energetically by Tom Hanks) was eager to boost the status of The Washington Post, bringing not only in enthusiasm but a demand on his staff as well as pressure on the publisher, Katharine Graham. Her father had founded the paper, bequeathed it to her husband, Philip Graham, and, on his suicide, she had inherited the role of publisher.

At this point in a review, it is worth noting that the credits make a point of tribute to Gloria Steinem. The Post could serve as a very useful example in studies on the role of women, of women in business, CEOs, with its vivid scenes of Katharine Graham walking into board meetings, dominatingly male, being condescended to, coming from an affluent world of society parties, women withdrawing at the end of meals for their own chat and gossip, fashion and socials. Katharine Graham had to break through this glass ceiling – and Meryl Streep certainly brings Katharine Graham to life, especially in the scene where she has to make a decision about publishing the Pentagon Papers or not, few words spoken, but Meryl Streep communicates intensely what was going through Katharine Graham’s mind, through her feelings, making the judgement.

In some ways the section on The Post and its journalist, Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), making contact with Ellsberg, getting the documents, the team under Bradlee sorting them and building up a story with only hours for their task, the lawyers coming, the warnings, the decision to publish and run the risk of imprisonment, are the elements of a thriller.

President Nixon does not come well out of this story, banning The Washington Post from the White House – and remembering, again, the irony of The Post exposing Watergate.

The Supreme Court does come out well, the verdict of six – three in favour of freedom of the press, the press to serve the people rather than the government.

The film is very well acted by a large cast, is certainly intelligently written, is a satisfying look back at history, of journalism (and a reminder that in those days there were no iPads, emails, 24 hour online news services – and no tweets!).

1. The title? The Washington Post? The reputation of the paper? The background of its history and reach? From the Nixon era? To Donald Trump’s denunciations?

2. Audience knowledge of The Post, knowledge of the Pentagon Papers and the Supreme Court decisions? Audience knowledge of Watergate and the role of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham as publisher, Ben Bradlee as editor, the contributions of the various journalists?

3. A film from 2017, the retrospect of 45 years? Knowledge of the Nixon years? His fall? The background of the Vietnam war, US policy on Vietnam through Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson?

4. The DC settings, the political atmosphere, the White House and Nixon, his administration and their bad reputation? Robert Mc Namara, his stances as Secretary, his judgements on Vietnam? The social background of Washington, the Grahams and their presence, links with politicians? Bradlee and his links, especially with Kennedy? Affluent families? Society gatherings and meals? The world of journalism, journalist desks, offices, the editor, the publisher? The background of the board, financial issues? Wall Street? And the comparisons with New York City and the New York Times?

5. 2017 audience watching journalism in the 1970s, the use of phones, the printing presses, distribution…? No iPads, no emails, nothing online…?

6. The prologue, Vietnam, 1966, the soldiers applying the camouflage, so distant from the US, going to action, night, the threats, the deaths, action? The scene of recuperation, the journalist typing? The return from Vietnam?

7. Daniel Ellsberg, his observing, his articles? On the plane, the interview with Mc Namara, whether things were improving or not in Vietnam? Mc Namara and his press conference, friendly, his optimistic tone?

8. Demonstrations, attitudes against the war? American involvement, the deaths? The background of the history of the US with Vietnam? Going to war, the assassination of the president in Vietnam, All the Way with LBJ? Mc Namara’s study, the secrecy? Ellsberg, his disillusionment, his observation, with the group, conscience, taking the documents, making the copies, storing them?

9. 1971, the status of the Washington Post, a local paper? The history of Philip Graham, taking over from his wife’s father, political connections, his own mental difficulties, suicide? Katharine Graham inheriting the paper? Becoming the publisher? A sense of responsibility? The dominant presence of men, no precedent for her as a woman publisher? Her working with Ben Bradlee as editor? His ambitions? Wanting the big stories? The quoting of the prospectus for the paper, its going to the stock exchange, the role of the investors? The discussions about shares and prices? Katharine relying on the quality of news? Fritz as her main advisor? Arthur and his comments? The role of the bankers, the investors, the Wall Street sequence and the paper going on the exchange?

10. The credits and the tribute on Gloria Steinem? The film and the role of women in the 1960s and 70s? Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham and her strong stances, especially concerning Donald Trump? Katharine Graham and her social background, affluence, hostess at parties, clothes, the meals with the ladies withdrawing and their gossipy conversation? Katharine alone on the board? The visualising of the dominant male presence? The attitudes towards women and decision-making? Katharine, the challenge, the experience of having to make decisions, being confronted by Ben Bradlee, Fritz and his advice? The importance sequence of her making the decision about publishing the Pentagon papers or not?

11. The background of the Nixon wedding, the discussions about covering it for the paper, The Post being banned, the journalists covering, insulting Nixon’s daughter? Nixon and his hostility? Getting the photograph? Nixon’s later attitudes, completely banning The Post – and the irony of the Post exposing him Watergate?

12. The New York Times, the journalists and articles, the editor, Bradlee scenting a story, the absence of the times journalist, sending the young man in turn, to New York, his seeing the front page and bringing back the news?

13. Mc Namara, the threat of the revelation of the study? The New York Times article, he speaking to Katharine? His presence at the socials? Katharine talking with him, her realising that he had lied to the American public? His plea to her? Her strong decisions after talking with him?

14. The New York Times, publishing the articles and the papers? The Nixon injunction? To the Supreme Court?

15. Bagdikian as a character, journalist, his work, his connections, Bradlee eager for him to pursue the connections? His place in the paper, writing? Talking with Katharine? The phone links, to Ellsberg? Finding him, the vast amount of documents, the discussions about conscience? Not a theoretical issue? The copy of the papers? Carrying in on the plane, the group at Bradlee’s house to collect them, the boxes, sorting them, opening up all the themes?

16. The limited time available for writing the article? Sorting everything? Making the connections? The preparation of the article, writing it, the subeditor going through it?

17. Katharine, her birthday, Ben and his continued visits to her house, the discussions? Her speech and the social, being interrupted, the phone call?

18. Bradlee calling the lawyers, their work, that background, the information? The discussion about the legal aspects of publishing? Fritz and his advising against it? Arthur and his strong stances? Bogdikian and his discussion with the lawyers?

19. Katharine, the scene of her decision, the few words, Meryl Streep communicating to the audience the significance of the decision and its effect on her? The background of her talking with her daughter, memories of her husband, his achievement, the daughter and the notes for her speech at the funeral?

20. Everything ready, waiting to print? Bradlee at home, the discussions with his wife, her hosting the group, her perspective? The lawyer, the legal risks? Katharine deciding to go ahead, the printing, publishing, the distribution? People reading the paper?

21. The Supreme Court, everyone present, the lawyer and his presentation, the judges? The formality of the court and its old style of introduction? The crowd outside, the protesters?

22. The decision, the phone communication of the results, six – three, the court and the freedom of the press, and the press to serve the people not the government?

23. The publication of the papers by the other newspapers, the consolidation of the press?

24. Nixon, his being glimpsed through the window? The administrators? The ban on the Washington Post? – And the irony of showing the beginning of the discovery of the Watergate break-in?

25. 2017, news and Donald Trump on fake news and his accusations especially against the New York Times and the Washington Post?

26. A political film by Steven Spielberg, choosing to make this film for 2017? Meryl Streep, and Donald Trump’s denunciation of her and criticism of her as an actress? Political
role for Tom Hanks and the supporting cast?

PHANTOM THREAD

US, 2017, 130 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Day- Lewis, Vicki Krieps, Lesley Manville, Gina Mc Kee, Brian Gleeson.
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

An ingenious and fascinating title.

This is an unexpected story from writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson. However, every film that Anderson makes is so different from the previous one that he is always unexpected. And this time this is a British story, filmed in England, with British characters and British tone. An American’s perspective on Britain in the post-war period, in the 1950s.

The threat of the title is rather literal. This is a film about fashion. It is a film about the fashion world in London in the 1950s, a focus on an individual dress designers and makers, Reynolds Woodcock, whose life and work is in vivid contrast to the lives and work of French costume years, Dior and Yves St Laurent. (There have been several documentaries and feature films on these two men which highlight the difference between their lives and careers and that of Reynolds Woodcock.)

Paul Thomas Anderson directed Daniel Day Lewis to an Oscar winning-performance in There Shall Be Blood (2007). Daniel Day Lewis is the only actor so far to have won the Oscar for Best Actor three times (My Left Foot and Lincoln). He is an actor who does not make films so frequently but has the capacity to go deeply into his character, to inhabit his character. It has been noted that he does not usually have his own British accent which he does here. His performance is very subtle, eliciting some puzzle from the audience about the intricacies of his character, his moods, his talent, his capacity for relationships – and not.

For the audience interested in fashion, there are many sequences of dressmaking, the wearing of the different creations, and a detailed fashion show.

Reynolds works with his sister, Cyril (Lesley Manville, so often in Mike Leigh films, a strong and sometimes astringent presence), who looks after the business side of the House, also keeping an eye on her brother’s emotions and relationships.

The relationship in this part of Reynolds’ life is Alma, effectively played in a mixture of meekness, gentleness, determination and exercise of power, by Luxembourg actress Vicki Krieps. He is attracted to her when she is a waitress serving him breakfast, invites her to dinner, she returns to his house and becomes part of the household, her measurements taken in great detail, dresses designed for her, her wearing them, becoming a model, participating in the fashion show.

But, back to Reynolds. He becomes continually more complex, exceedingly demanding on Alma, fidgety and easily irritated by excessive noise, wanting to concentrate, sketch designs, and is rather absorbed in himself.

The plot becomes more complex as Alma realises her love for Reynolds (but not the co-dependency) which leads her to become more wilful than we thought her capable of – and more wilful than she might ever have dreamt about herself. She devises a way to subdue Reynolds, partly subjugate him, symbolised mushrooms and by her presence as a lavish party for New Year’s Eve and his desperate following her and trying to rescue her from the crowd.

Anderson has directed the film in a very measured way, not concerned about time or fast pace, allowing the camera to stay focused on the character’s face, or on a tense situation for far longer than the audience might be expecting. Anderson wants audiences to get to know his characters, try to empathise with them, try to understand them, to reflect on them. So, a reviewer’s warning, this is definitely not a film for the impatient.

An intriguing film that would probably well repay a second viewing.

1. The impact of the film? Interest? Entertainment? Reflection?

2. Paul Thomas Anderson, writing, directing, the range of his films? A British film, an American perspective on characters and situations?

3. 1950s, post-war atmosphere? Experiences in Britain? The world of affluence, fashion? Homes, studios, social weddings and parties? New Year’s Eve party? The ordinary? The diner, the countryside?

4. The musical score, the range, classical, contemporary?

5. The world of fashion, the British world, the contrast with the famous French costumiers of the period? An individual, creating a House, his talent?

6. Reynolds as young, with his mother, her dress and her appearance later in the film? Sewing as a child? Design? Building a career, the range of clientele, the work of the business and his sister, Cyril? Gaining a reputation, in society? Invited to weddings? His talent?

7. The visuals of fashion, the range of dresses portrayed, in the making, on the models, on Alma? The fashion show and the clientele?

8. The introduction to Reynolds Woodcock? Daniel Day Lewis’s presence, performance, inhabiting his role? Age, appearance, manner, accent? British? The opening, with Cyril, breaking the relationship, his being fastidious about all things and people? Is mother’s dress? The role of Cyril in his life, for his work? Her advice about his having a break? Driving to the countryside, settling into the house, feeling at home?

9. Going for breakfast, Alma waiting on him, his charm, being hungry, the gentle way of speaking, flirting, inviting her to dinner, her dressing up, their going out, enjoying the time together, his being intrigued and attracted by her, her response? Going home?

10. Alma, her background, her age, accent, her work? Charm in waiting on Reynolds? The outing, the flattery to her, his attention? Becoming part of the household? Her work, one of the team working for the dresses, the measurements? Cyril’s attitude towards her? Her becoming part of the ensemble?

11. Alma as a model, her physical transformation, appearance, poise? The scene of the detail of taking her measurements? Her wearing the clothes designed for her?

12. Reynolds and his character, bachelor, audience questions about his sexual orientation, behaviour? Living with Cyril and Alma? The breakfast sequence where he was irritated by all the noise she made? The detail of the toast, pouring the tea…? Energy with Alma? Cyril observing? Reynolds needing space, time, self-preservation?

13. The clients, the Princess and her entourage, their arrival, affluence, deference to royalty? The measurements, the team in attendance, the designs, Reynolds and his imagining the dresses, his sketching? Success, sewing the names into the dresses? Alma and her encounter with the Princess – the Princess not looking at her on arrival, the later friendliness?

14. The fashion show, behind-the-scenes, Reynolds and his work with each of the models, their trying on the dresses, ready, his fussiness, their going out with their numbers, the response of the fashion audience?

15. Barbara, owning the house, allowing Reynolds and his entourage to live there? Her planned wedding? Arrival for the dress, her manner, the way she treated Reynolds? At the wedding, her drinking, her collapse? Her being carried out? Reynolds coming to take the dress, sending in Alma, the hostile friend, undressing, walking through the streets with the dress?

16. Alma, the effect of Reynold’s attention to her, falling in love, yet her irritating him? Cyril and the mixture of friendship and disdain? Alma and her uncertainties?

17. The mushrooms, the advice of the cook, going out into the woods, selecting them? Knowing what was poisonous? Her wanting to have a dinner for Reynolds, Cyril warning her against it? Her dressing, serving, his detailed hostile reaction about the asparagus? Alma and the poison, giving him the dish? His being sick, going to bed, calling the doctor, Reynolds ousting the doctor? Reynolds and his recovery?

18. Reynolds, seeing Alma differently, his proposal, her acceptance? The marriage ceremony, the honeymoon? Yet his needing time and space, and the little irritations that irked him?

19. New Year’s Eve, his wanting to stay home, Alma wanting to go out, dressing, wanting to dance? The elaborate party, the invitation from the doctor? Reynolds going out, observing, the countdown to the New Year, the costumes, singing and dancing, noise, Alma moving through the crowd, Reynolds going down to rescue her?

20. Reynolds, the exaggerations, confused, Alma poisoning him again, covering her behaviour? His recovery? The effect of the illnesses on him, humanising him?

21. Love, Reynolds changing, Alma and her love, her power?

22. The title in the retrospect of the whole film?

LADY BIRD

US, 2017, 93 minutes, Colour.
Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts, Lucas Hedges, Beanie Feldstein, Lois Smith, Jordan Rodrigues, Odeya Rush, Kathryn Newton, Stephen McKinley? Henderson.
Directed by Greta Gerwig.

Every reviewer has said, or is going to say, that Lady Bird reminds them of films that Greta Gerwig has appeared in and/or has written. So this reviewer is going to say the same – because it is true.

Here is a film set in Sacramento, California, in 2002. Partly autobiographical?

Information on Greta Gerwig indicates that she was born in Sacramento, 1983 (which makes her two years younger than the protagonist of Lady Bird), that she was brought up as a Unitarian but went to a Catholic school.

There is something distinctive about the films that it Greta Gerwig writes as well as about her delivery – there is wit, there is nonchalance, there is determination, there is some seething under the surface, there is a desire to be agreeable… And all this is to the fore in Lady Bird.

Two words to describe the writing and the direction: perspective and sensitivity.

Here we are in the US in 2002, a cross-section of people who live in Sacramento, ordinary Californians. They work in hospitals, in IT. The children go to high schools and are involved in studies, school activities like plays, get together, listen to music, experiment with drugs, are preoccupied with sexuality and their identity. Because of the incisiveness and insight of the writing, we get to know a great number of characters fairly well. And their parts are sensitively written and performed.

One of the advantages of the film is that many of the sequences are particularly brief yet significant. Though the running time of Lady Bird is 95 minutes, with such brief and telling sequences, it seems more in the sense of that there is more to see and to reflect on.

Saoirse Ronan has been a significant actress since she was a girl, Oscar-nominated 10 years earlier for Atonement. She has appeared in a range of interesting films including Hannah, The Lovely Bones, Brooklyn. She is the type of actress that can inhabit a role, becoming the character rather than a star whom we recognise instantly. This is a very subtle performance – and her Christine, “Lady Bird�, is an irritating character, a frequently likeable character, a teenager who is self-absorbed, who has been put upon by her always critical mother, supported by a rather depressed and soft father, making friends at school, exploiting teachers, choosing boyfriends (rather unwisely), yearning to be out of Sacramento yet the nun teaching her tells her that her assignment on the city is actually full of love for the city she declares she hates.

Laurie Metcalf is very strong as her ever-criticising mother, loving her daughter, doing her best, wanting her daughter to the best she can be but unable to be verbally affirming. Tracy Letts is very effective as her father. In fact, the whole cast, especially the teenagers at school, have been well selected and bring their characters to vivid life, especially Beanie Feldstein as her friend Julie whom she momentarily betrays and Lucas Hedges as her friend Danny.

So, we are immersed in the school year 2002 – 2003, reminded of the invasion of Iraq and its political consequences.

Of interest is the church background. Greta Gerwig attended a Catholic school but is not a Catholic and this is the case with Lady Bird, receiving a blessing instead of communion, for instance. There are Catholic motifs role throughout the film, the celebration of Mass and the enthusiastic response (despite a lot of the students being bored and distracting one another). There is a genial priest, Father Leviatch (Stephen McKinley? Anderson), a widower, ordained, taking the students for drama and putting on a Stephen Sondheim musical. His successor, very amusingly, takes the drama and directs as if it were a football match. Lois Smith is a genially tolerant none.

The characters of this film have great qualities but are also flawed, making this an always interesting film, audiences being able to identify easily at times, distance at other times – which makes it quite a substantial drama.

1. Awards and acclaim? Greta Gerwig, as writer, actor, director? His style, idiosyncratic personality, writing lines and delivery of lines?

2. The Sacramento locations, 2002? The family home, the streets, school, theatre, the airport? Ordinary and authentic feel? The contrast with the sequences in New York City? Apartments, bars, hospital? The musical score?

3. Autobiographical background? The Catholic school, priests and nuns, old style, the liturgy intercut throughout the film? Lady Bird and her being Unitarian? Going to Communion but receiving a blessing?

4. The introduction, in the car, mother and daughter, listening to the Grapes of Wrath? Weeping? Talking, sharing? Clashing? Setting a tone?

5. Christine, her name, age, 17, turning 18? At school, her activities over the school year 2002-2003? The focus on herself, her room and her activities, in church, in class, the criticisms? Aloof? Her friendship with Jules? The bond between them? It on the periphery? Signing up for the theatre, the casting, Jules and the central will? Her interest in Danny? His presence, going out with him, the kiss? The envy of his grandmother’s house? The Thanksgiving dinner and not staying at home? The play, the aftermath, the men’s toilet, discovering Danny kissing? Are being upset? Crossing out his name?

6. The attraction to Kyle, the band, his personal style, going out on dates, his seeming aloofness, reading, talking? The bedroom? The pressure? Her saying she was ready, the sex, brevity, her reaction?

7. Danny, pleasant, in the play, rehearsals, with Lady Bird, his being discovered? Gay, coming to the diner, talking with Lady Bird, her support?

8. The contrast with Kyle, as a personality, detached, reading, the music and performance, the quotes, the range of friends, Jenna? The interactions with the sexual encounter? Somewhat detached, the aftermath?

9. Jules, a single mother, the absent father? Her friendship with Lady Bird? The size, on the periphery, sharing with her friend, signing up, the audition, getting the roll, her success?

10. The priest, the late vocation, his enthusiasm and experience, directing the plane, the acting class and the challenge to weep first? Putting on Sondheim? Happy, thinking that the audience did not understand it? His getting sick? His successor, the jovial priest, the football coach, demonstrating the football moves for the performance, and everybody taking notes?

11. The play, the performance, success, the audience?

12. Lady Bird’s mother, the background of her birth, growing up, her mother and her hard personality, her own parents? Always critical? Yet love? Every opportunity and criticism? At home, the meals? Her relationship with her husband? The issue of Lady Bird going to college, discovering the truth, upset, the airport and driving away, her returning, received by her husband? The significance of her husband putting her letters in the bag, Lady Bird reading them? The phone call?

13. The contrast with her father, pleasant, soft, his IT work, losing his job? Dressing up for the interview? Miguel present? Urging him on? His helping his daughter with the financial situation, college? The farewell at the airport? The final phone call to him?

14. The presence of Miguel, adopted, in the house, as a son? At the diner, the jobs, Lady Bird and Jules, causing trouble? Miguel’s girlfriend, leaving? The meals? The rings, arguments? Lady Bird talking with the girlfriend and her being nice and affirming?

15. Jena, the glamour, Lady Bird dropping Jules? The parties, the lie about the house and her being found out? The nature of the friendship? Dropping it? Reuniting with Jules, seeking her out?

16. The teachers, the comments about Lady Bird and her work, maths, marks, trying to improve? The advice about college? Negative aspects? The mail, her getting entry?

17. The decision, the graduation, going to New York, the farewell at the airport, in New York, drinking, in hospital – and her phoning home?

18. A self-centred teenager moving towards adulthood? The future?

COCO

US, 2017, 105 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt, Alanna Ubach, Alpfnso Arau, Ana Ofelia Murguia.
Directed by Lee Unkrich, Adrian Molina.

For more than 20 years, Pixar studios, now owned by Disney, have been producing at least one animated film year, many of them winning awards, including Oscars. Sometimes they venture into repeat material like the Toy Story franchise or the Cars franchise. Sometimes they parody popular films of the time like The Invincibles (and 2018 The Invincibles 2). Sometimes they are very inventive as with the psychological comedy, Inside Out.

This one is for the wide American audience, especially the Hispanic American audience, the setting being Mexico, the film drawing on old traditions, especially the Day of the Dead, veneration for the ancestors, rituals and beliefs that have very little to do with the Catholic tradition (although once there is a glimpse of Our Lady of Guadalupe), a mythical, fairy-tale vision of the afterlife.

The advertising features a young boy who loves music, plays a guitar, who belongs to a family with the tradition of being anti-music, the great grandfather, allegedly, having run off to be a success as a musician and never coming back to his family. Their resentment has led to a business enterprise making shoes and, for generations, they have been very successful. The little boy is not Coco. He is a Miguel, who defies his family, enrols in a music competition in the square where he polishes shoes, has his guitar smashed by his harridan of a grandmother and decides to go to the mausoleum to borrow the guitar seen in the torn photo of his ancestors, the runaway father missing.

The whole family, and the audience, assume that the missing member of the photo is the celebrity singer-actor, Ernesto. We get the full treatment of Ernesto’s career, his songs, his movies (including a singing cowboy and an earnest adviser-priest). And his doom, crushed by a bell.

But, with this dark underlying theme of family abandonment and successful career, there is a good dramatic twist which a review should not spoil.

The last part of the film takes place in the land of the dead, something like a giant fiesta, with the dead as skeletons, yet dressed in all the traditional Mexican styles. Ernesto is one of the stars in the land, a massive crowd for his anniversary show (televised and video recorded in this mysterious dead land). Miguel find himself in the land, coming across various relations, encountering a rather wistful songwriter called Hector. And Miguel dog, Dante, is transformed into one of the rather lively dead.

And Coco?

She was the little daughter of the father who disappeared, who sang his songs to her. She is now an old lady, moving towards dementia. She has one longing to see her father and sing with him again.

How this can happen, even happily, means that audiences will have to see the film!

1. The success of the Pixar studios? Awards? The animation style, computer graphics? Characters, voices, layout? Special effects? Music and songs?

2. An American production, the Mexican and Hispanic world? The Pixar entertainment for Hispanic Americans? World audiences?

3. The voice cast, performance, singers?

4. The title, the introduction to the family, their anti-music stands? The photo of the past generations, all venerated? The photo of great-grandmother, husband torn out of the photo? The story of his leaving? The old Coco, the beginnings of dementia? Her daughter as a harridan, keeping all the generations in work, making shoes? Miguel, the new generation, shining shoes? Going to the Square, listening to the music, hearing about the competition, the family discovering what he was up to, the grandmother breaking the guitar? His going to the mausoleum, the memories of Ernesto? Miguel deciding to steal his guitar – having seen it in the folded over part of the torn photo?

5. The story of Ernesto, his charm, success, singing, in the movies, the cowboy, the priest, the sequences from his films? His being celebrated, the songs, fame? His frequently verging people to seize the occasion? The accident with the bell? His being in the mausoleum?

6. The harridan and the response to this story of Ernesto, Miguel thinking he was his great-grandfather? The dark implications of abandoning the family? The discovery of Hector, the creator of the songs, friend of Ernesto, the discovery of the truth about his being husband, the composer of the songs? No photo and so his not being allowed to go into the afterlife on the Day of the Dead? The truth, Ernesto killing him, taking his songs? Exploiting him? Happiness in the revelation of the truth, and the videoing of Ernesto telling the truth and its being screened to all his fans? Booing and hissing? And his being conquered by the Bell again?

7. The character of Miguel, his age, the shoes? No music? Yet his love for music, the photo, shoe shining, enrolling the competition, getting the guitar, the confrontation with the family, the smashing of the guitar? The unbending of the photo and the revelation of Ernesto’s guitar, his going to the mausoleum, taking it, his being overwhelmed?

8. Miguel and his dog, Dante, the dog antics for comedy?

9. The Day of the Dead, everybody at the cemetery, remembering the dead? Miguel’s family? The presence of the dead? Their taking Miguel, leading him across the bridge, to the land of the dead – the bright colours, the vistas? Lavish fiesta?

10. The dead, skeletons, yet their clothing, voice manner, celebrations?

11. Miguel finding his ancestors, identifying them from the photos? Grandmother, aunts, uncles, grandfather Julio? Their strong stands against music?

12. Hector, trying to get through the screening to go over the bridge, his failing every time? The Frida Kahlo jokes? Time running out, no photo, his daughter with dementia, annihilation?

13. The feast, the music and celebrations, elaborate, the range of music, Miguel and his delight?

14. The encounter with Hector, finding out the truth, that Hector was the great-grandfather? Hector telling the story about Coco, wanting to see her again? The song, Remember Me and singing it with her? The sadness of the truth of his death and his being exploited?

15. Miguel, playing, his grandmother and her behaviour, her singing? The re-uniting of the family? Finding out the truth? The wife saying Hector was her only love?

16. The range of adventures in the land of the dead, the giant and colourful cat, Dante turning into a spirit? The chase, the rescue?

17. Ernesto, his performance, the villain, his being recorded telling the truth, the audience against him? Hit by the bell again?

18. The return home, Hector in hope, Miguel with Coco, singing and playing, her eyes lighting up, sharing the singing, the family delighted?

19. Hector, his being able to cross over, his being remembered?

20. A year later, the celebrations, the photo of Coco – and the exhilarated family?

PADDINGTON 2

UK, 2017, 105 minutes, Colour.
Voice of Ben Whishaw. Grant, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Julie Walters, Michael Gambon, Imelda Staunton, Madeline Harris, Samuel Joslin, Sanjiv Bhaskar, Ben Miller, Jessica Hynes, Jim Broadbent, Tom Conti, Peter Capaldi, Meera Suall, Richard Adyoade, Brendan Gleeson, Noah Taylor, Marie- France Alvarez, Joanna Lumley, Robbie G, Eileen Atkins, Maggie Steed.
Directed by Paul King.

Many of us were taught in the past that response to a drama was “a willing suspension of disbelief�.

This is something that is certainly required for the Paddington films. In fact, the British public, and the public worldwide, faced with a story about a talking bear in Paddington, more than willingly suspended their disbelief. And they will continue to do so with Paddington 2.

After all, it is about a bear who came to London from Brazil, who was saved from the rapids by his kind Aunt Lucy who, with her spouse, Pastuzo, intending to visit London. Paddington did go to London, finished up as a member of the Brown family, endeared himself to all the neighbours (except the crusty local guard, Mr Curry, Peter Capaldi, still inveighing against Paddington here), but did get tangled up with a nasty villain played by Nicole Kidman.

Can the formula be repeated? Definitely, yes.

One of the great advantages of the films is Ben Whishaw’s voice, a quietly persuasive and engaging Paddington. He is full of courtesy, full of good nature, full of goodwill. The Browns are all back again, Henry (Hugh Bonneville) the insurance agent, Mary (Sally Hawkins) always concerned, the wise and wary grandmother (Julie Walters), their daughter Judy (Madeleine Harris) was now publishing a local paper but not allowing any boys on the staff, and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin) temporally giving up his interest in trains until at the end where he actually does drive a steam train.

The opening does a re-viewing of the story, with Paddington writing a letter to Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) and uncle (Michael Gambon). Aunt Lucy gets the opportunity to imagine a visit to London in the pages of a pop-up book of the sites, as well as visiting at the end for her birthday.

This is definitely a London film and all those who love the city, are familiar with the city, the main sites, will enjoy it very much.

Just as with the first film, there is a complicated plot, Paddington wanting buy a pop-up book from the local antiques dealer, Mr Gruber (Jim Broadbent), but finding it too expensive, takes on some jobs (badly) from a disastrous haircut to a cantankerous judge (Tom Conti) to window cleaning – a little more successful. At the opening of the Steam Fair, he is chosen by the celebrity, Phoenix Buchanan, to assist in the ceremony. When asked what he wants, he explains to Phoenix that he would love to have the book. Yes, we have guessed it. Phoenix is an absolute fraud and wants the book for himself.

We haven’t been seeing so much of Hugh Grant in films in recent times but this is a wonderful role for him, sending up his own image, accent, performances, a scoundrel of an actor who delights in disguises (even as a nun in St Paul’s Cathedral whom the dopey guard thinks is one of the most attractive women he’s ever seen!). He steals the book, Paddington in pursuit on the local dog, but arrested by the disbelieving police.

The film then turns into a prison show, especially in the prison dining room with its inedible porridge and Paddington challenging Knuckles, the Irish cook (Brendan Gleeson) – but charming him with bread and marmalade and not only their working together, a lot of the lags (including Noah Taylor) outing their recipes and making cakes.

The Brown family also take it in hand to discover who the criminal is, everyone having a job, entering Phoenix’s house, deceiving him with an edited phone call to go to the Ritz… This involves interviewing a theatrical agent, a Joanna-Lumley-like? Joanna Lumley!

It wouldn’t be a prison film without an escape. So, There is an enjoyable one here, Knuckles persuading Paddington to join, actually a hot air balloon with the laundry basket as the carriage!

There is an enjoyable flashback from the woman who invented the Steam Fair (Eileen Atkins) and some revelations about the pop-up book, the clues it contains, the story of a murderous magician – and you will guess the connection – and hidden treasure.

As mentioned, there is a desperate train chase with Paddington confronting Phoenix.

All is well that ends happily will – but do not miss the credits because there is a lot of wonderful recapitulation and, of all things, a prison musical, Stephen Sondheim’s song, given the full prisoners’ treatment starring Hugh grant!

With such a big cast and entertaining cameos, and entertaining fantasy – the best of British!

1. Paddington as the popular British bear? In the UK, beyond?

2. The first film as a commercial success, around the world? Happy sequel?

3. A live action cartoon, the touch of realism with Paddington living an ordinary life with the Brown family? The cartoon situations, behaviour, comedy?

4. The cast, the family, the range of guest cameos? The best of British?

5. The opening, Brazil, and Lucy and her husband, planning to go to London, rescuing baby Paddington from the river? Bringing him up? Paddington writing her a letter, the pop-up book and the sequence of her being on ship, visiting London? Paddington’s love for her, her birthday, the present, the book leading to the plot?

6. The Brown family again, the happy family? Mr Brown, insurance work, not getting the promotion, his disappointment, middle age? Doing the yoga training, physical awkwardness – but his doing the splits between the two trains at the end? Mary, devoted mother, the swimming practice – and diving in at the end to save Paddington? Grandmother and her care of the family, wry observations? The daughter, her getting the printing press, creating the paper, no boys allowed? The boy, trains, becoming hip, his nickname? Everybody involved in the action?

7. Paddington living with the Browns, his relationship with the neighbours, beginning the day, nice to everybody? The garbageman and his studies? The doctor forgetting his keys? The colonel and cleaning his windows and the colonel discovering the kiosk lady? The cyclist and giving her food? Always pleasant? Everyone appreciating him – except Mr Curry, his hostility, from the first film, denouncing him, glad that he was in prison, and the Browns spurning him at the end?

8. Paddington, Ben Whishaw’s voice? Look, character, clothes? The book shop owner, showing him the books, expensive, deciding to save? In the barbershop, the bad haircut for the judge, the hair and marmalade? Cleaning the windows, letting light into the colonel’s room? The humour of his cleaning the windows, the ladder, the bucket of water?

9. Going to the fair, the outing for the family, the opening, Phoenix and Hugh Grant’s presence? Hamming it up? The celebrity? Gran’s reaction against him? The opening of the fair with Paddington? News of the book? His room, neighbour to Paddington? The range of costumes for his performances? His acting and quoting Shakespeare and other lines? The decision to get the book, his disguise, cycling, taking it, looking for the various clues in the book and the treasure, going to the Tower of London, St Paul’s and disguised as a nun – and the dopey guard saying how attractive she was? Realising the clue was in musical keys?

10. Going to see the old lady, the story of the past, the trapeze artist and the jewels, the magician, his jealousy, killing her, but her hiding the treasure and the magician finding the box empty?

11. Paddington, in pursuit of Phoenix, riding the dog through London at night, the chase? Phoenix vanishing in a puff of smoke? The police, Paddington’s arrest? To court, the testimony of Mr Gruber? The irony of the judge being the haircut victim?

12. Paddington in prison, always polite, the darkness of prison, wanting a bedtime story, work in the laundry, the red sock, everybody in pink and black uniforms? His next letter to Hunt Lucy? The meal, the range of criminal types, the hard porridge? Going to Knuckles, the mess with the sources on his apron, the bread and marmalade, Knuckles relenting, their working together, the other prisoners with their recipes, making cakes? The guard? Happy prison? The family,

13. The family, the visits? Worry about Paddington being with the criminals? Their working on the investigation, the sketch of the thief’s face, the daughter producing the papers, the posters and the family putting them up? Their talk, Mary chatting with Phoenix, his mention of the blue eyes? The going to his house, the Attic, finding the evidence, the confrontation, spontaneity about the insurance investigation?

14. The plan, the children visiting the agent, recording her, Mary in the basket and getting into Phoenix’s home? The phone calls?

15. The family missing the visit, Knuckles proposing the escape plan, Paddington unwilling, feeling abandoned, the details of the plan, getting out, through the cogs, the clothes basket and the balloon? The plane, Knuckles telling the truth, the other two prisoners? Their leaving?

16. Paddington, phoning the family, their finally responding, Paddington Station, the garbageman giving the lift, getting on the train?

17. The adventures on the train, the two trains, Phoenix and finding the organ, playing the notes, opening the jewels? Paddington arriving, thwarting him? Paddington using the
toffee apples? On the top of the train? The confrontation? The boy driving the steam train, the judge and his wife, Champagne and face in the cake? The chase, the connections, moving from train to train? The carriage crash and in going into the water? Paddington underwater, Mary swimming to his rescue, unable to break the chains? Knuckles, diving, saving the day?

18. Paddington awakening in hospital, going home, everybody there, and the joy of Aunt Lucy’s visit? And the rehabilitation of Knuckles and his friends?

19. The importance of the credits will the judge, Phoenix in court, sentenced to prison, his wanting to do a musical, the pink musical, all the prisoners involved, the Sondheim song?

20. The best of British entertainment?