BODYGUARD

China, 2016, 99 minutes, Colour.
Sammo Kam- Bo Hung, Jacqueline Chan, Qinqin Li.
Directed by Sammo Kam- Bo Hung.

This is a Chinese film that combines both action and sentiment.

The director is the veteran Sam Kam- Bo Hung. While he has directed many action films over the decades, he is also appeared in them. Now, he is an old man.

Old Ding lives in a town on the border of China, Russia and Korea. We learn that he used to be very well-trained bodyguard in Beijing. He is now in retirement and is beginning to suffer from dementia. He passes the time with other old men in the town and with the attentions of his neighbour, Mrs Park. The little girl, whose father is a criminal, often wanders into his house and she shares meals with him. He forms a great attachment to her, a substitute granddaughter.

As regards the action, the little girl’s father has stolen a bag of jewels from some local Chinese gangsters who have, in turn, stolen them from the Russians.

When the Chinese thugs come to Old Ding’s house, he defeats them with quite a display. That is nothing compared with what he does when he goes to the Chinese headquarters and demolishes a big group. And, there is repetition when he takes on the Russians!
The little girl is doing the voice-over and telling Old Ding’s story and of how she survived the death of her father, became part of Old Ding’s ageing, even as his memory lessened.

1. An action film with sentiment?

2. The work of the director, long career in action films, comic touches, performance and direction? As an older filmmaker and actor?

3. The settings, the border between Russia, China, Korea? Cosmopolitan? The Asian atmosphere? The Western developments, buildings, bridges? The contrast with the
Russians, Mafia? International hub? Railway connections? Police work? The musical score?

4. The title, the focus on Old Ding? Initially meeting him, the voice-over describing his life? Old, memory beginning to go? Living alone, Mrs Park and her hospitality and interventions? The recorder, his speaking into it to remind himself? His forgetting to record? The little girl and her coming into the house, hiding, the meals? The later revelation about his life, his training as a bodyguard, martial arts, work in Beijing? His marriage, the capitalist woman, the daughter? Her daughter and Ding losing her? The daughter not contacting him? Retiring, with the older men in the town, the passing of time?

5. The little girl, her father, criminal activity, her mother gone? His stealing from the Russians? The Chinese gang and their pursuit of him? Bashing him in the street? His fleeing? The return, care for his daughter, leaving the money? Set upon by the gang? His violent death?

6. The little girl, in the house with Old Ding, the attack of the gangsters, her fear, Ding and his defeat, her collapse? The hospital? With Mrs Park? Her leaving to stay with her friend? Are disappearing from the scene? Old Ding and his desire to find her?

7. Mrs Park, her son and the police, making contacts, helping old Ding? The demands on her son? The investigations? The Chinese gang? Information, confronting the Russians in the street?

8. Old Ding, searching for the little girl? Going to the Chinese gangsters? The tour-de-force of his defeating all the gangsters? The leader and his running with the jewels? The arrival of the Russians, Old Ding and his defeating of the Russians as well?

9. His telling his story to Mrs Park? Her continued concern?

10. The little girl returning, having stayed with her friend? Her voice-over, looking after Old Ding? His further loss of memory, going to the police station, with his tape recorder?

11. The strength of the action sequences? Combined with the gangster background? And the pathos of the father and daughter and Old Ding and his life, the little girl becoming his substitute granddaughter?

WONDER

US, 2017, 113 minutes, Colour.
Julia Roberts, Jacob Tremblay, Owen Wilson, Izabella Vidovic, Mandy Patinkin, Noah Jupe, Emma Tremblay.
Directed by Steve Chbosky.

Wonder is an appealing example of the feel-good film. Yes, it is highly emotional and often wears its heart on its sleeve. However, it is a film which believes in the basic goodness of human nature.

Before going into see this film, everybody will know that is about a young boy who has facial deformities, craniofacial difficulties, a very difficult birth, 27 operations for plastic surgery enabling him to both hear and to see well. As Auggie remarks, “it took 27 operations of plastic surgery to make me look this good!�.

Strong praise is deserved by the actor, Jacob Tremblay. He made such an impression in the film, Room, playing Oscar-winning Brie Larsen’s small son, that many thought he deserved an Oscar nomination himself. As Auggie here, he is completely believable and compelling. And he is aged 10.

It was a very smart move to cast Julia Roberts as Auggie’s mother. Ever popular, but not so frequently on screen in recent years, she is both strong and loving as Auggie’s mother, Isabel, who experienced the hardships of his difficult birth, has given up any hopes of a career and completing her thesis or developing her drawing skills, completely devoting herself to her son, even to homeschooling. Julia Roberts’ fans will respond warmly to this film.

And, it was a very smart move, and a surprising one, to cast Owen Wilson, usually in comic roles, as Nate, Auggie’s ever-supportive father. Owen Wilson fits very well into this role. Very strong support is given by Izabella Vidovic as Via, Auggie’s older sister who had wanted a little brother when she was four but has had to accept always being in the background as the attention is given to her little brother. In fact, she goes to high school, suffers the unexpected spurning by her best friend but then is encouraged by a fellow student rehearsing for performance of Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, she does get the benefit of her innate goodness and self-sacrifice.

Auggie goes to school. The students stare. They don’t sit with him in the dining area. They are puzzled, some insulting, and, especially, Julian (Bryce Gheiser) who is one of those deputed to be kind to Auggie is guilty of some cruel bullying (and when the principal takes him to task in front of his parents, his mother is the most disagreeable character in the whole film making us realise that while everybody has goodness in them, there are some exceptions!). One of the other students, Jack (Noah Jupe, Matt Damon’s son in Suburbicon,) has some friendly moments, some bad moments, but an apology and a strong friendship.

Without a doubt, we will the audience who might have felt like staring at Auggie when we first saw him on screen, will almost imperceptibly go beyond the appearances, almost forgetting them, as we understand and appreciate the reality of Auggie as a person.

While the film ends in affirmation and newly – why not? They can be enough tragedy and pain in life so we can rejoice in and with those who rejoice.

1. The title? The focus on Auggie, his life experiences, his dealing with life? The impact on his parents? His sister? Teachers, students?

2. The importance of themes, the disabled, appearance and reality? Hostility, curiosity and steering, insults, bullying? Themes of love, kindness, goodness?

3. The New York City locations, homes, streets, the school, the grounds, offices, the laboratory? The high school, the theatre? The excursion to Pennsylvania and the landscapes in the woods? The musical score?

4. The device of having headings and introducing each of the characters as we?

5. The introduction to Auggie, the space helmet and the stars, his leaping on his bed, his room? His age, 10, his voice? At home? With his parents, with via?

6. The removal of the helmet? The visual impact of his face? Audiences responding? Adapting throughout the film? Going beyond the appearance to the reality of Auggie and
his character?

7. Isabel and Nate, the marriage, their love, the strong bonds with each other, veer, wanting a little brother when she was four, the difficult birth of Auggie, his being taken away by the hospital staff? Homeschooling? Isabel and her studies, drawing, giving it up? Auggie full-time? Her not realising her neglect, or taking for granted of Cavalier? The strong homeschooling and science? The decision that Auggie should go to school? His father’s approval? The views, the discussions? The visit to the school, the discussion with Mr Tushman – and the jokes about his name? Meeting the young students, the tour, Justin and his arrogance, Charlotte and her incessant talking about performance, Jack as more ordinary? The visit to the lab and the comments about signs?

8. Auggie and his first day, the family walking him to school, his father and the discussion about being cool! Going through the entry, all the children looking, the steering? Imagining himself as an astronaut, everybody cheering? In the corridor is, Julien stopping him with the desk, Jack arriving late? Mr Brown, the precepts and the emphasis on kindness? People saying two things about themselves, Julien that his boasting, Auggie saying three? The photo, Auggie not wanting to be in it, Mr Brown bring him in? The later use of the photo, Julien and his swimmers, photo shopping Auggie out of the picture? The science class, his answering the question about motion? The dining area, the meals and deceits, the children looking at him? A hard day, going home, with the helmet, his silence of the meal, his leaving table, his parents reaction, Nate supportive, Isabel dealing with him?

9. Further episodes in class, entering questions, skills science? The teacher’s approval? The dining area, Summer and her nasty friends, coming to sit with Auggie, his asking her why, her wanting nice friends? The friendship with Jack, out together? The Halloween episode, his Scream mask, hearing Jack’s words about killing himself? If he looked like Auggie? Veia and her taking him out to trick or treat?

10. The question of Plastic Surgery, Talking with Jack? His 27 operations and the tags on the wall? His explanations of what the surgery enabled him to do and how to look?

11. Via’s Story, her friendship with Miranda, Miranda the pink hair, changing and her attitude, not contacting her, walking off? The theatre background her meeting Justin? Their discussions, his kindness, going into the auditions? The time with Justin, Miranda’s reaction? Justin and His kiss and its effect? Her bringing him home, meeting the family, her lying about being an only child, his kind response? The bond? Auggie and Justin? Higher feeling that all all her life she had not been noticed – and memories of the fourth birthday, the candles and her wish for a brother? Halloween Day with her mother, Auggie being sick –? Yet her always supporting Auggie?

12. At school, Auggie being hurt, the discussions with Summer and her sympathy? Jack asking her about the break? Her giving the hint? Jack and his pondering, the memories and his feeling ashamed? Julian and his taunting the corridor, Jack fighting him, Mr Tushman breaking them up, his talk with Jack, with Julian? Julian’s parents and their behaviour, the arrogance of his mother, spoiling her son? His telling her he wanted to stay in the school?

13. The reconciliation with Jack, his apology? The issue of the project for the science fair? His staying with Jack? The support of his parents? The camera school in the room and their demonstrating it? At the science fair, the success? Winning the prize? Julian and his friend on the volcano and its failure?

14. Nate, his talks with Auggie? Are supportive and understanding father?

15. The issue of the play, Isabel and her reaction, not being told, Via and her stance? Whether Auggie should go on not? Their going? Miranda and her phone call to Auggie? Miranda’s change of heart, her envy of Via? Having the central role in the play, By as the understudy? The night, Miranda seeing the family present? The generous gesture, saying she felt sick, by going on, her success and everybody happy?

16. Isabel, her drawings, completing her thesis?

17. The expedition to Pennsylvania, enjoying it, Auggie and Jack, they’re being threatened by the local older boys, the fight, Auggie standing his ground and defying the boys, the friends coming to the rescue, the further bonding?

18. The end of academic year, graduation, the awards, Mr Tushman that his speech, Auggie winning – and the celebrations, the joy for the family, for the friends, for the school?

19. The review of the significant people in Auggie’s life? The importance of the precepts and kindness – and the optimism of the film that there is goodness in everyone (although difficult to see in Julian’s mother)?

JUSTICE LEAGUE

US, 2017, 121 minutes, Colour.
Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, Henry Cavill, Robin Wright, Connie Neilson, Amy Adams, Amber Heard, Diane Lane, Kiersey Clemons, Billy Crudup, JK Simmons, Ciaran Hinds, Jeremy irons, Jesse Eisenberg, Michael Mc Elhatton, Joe Morton.
Directed by Zack Snyder, Joss Wheedon.

Not exactly from time immemorial, but for some considerable time, there has been some rivalry between DC Comics and the Marvel Comics. In an ideal world, this ought not be so competitive, the fans able to appreciate both and the range of films made with their particular Superheroes and the linking of their Superheroes as Avengers or as the Justice League.

The main difficulty in writing a review of Justice League is that the reviewer is on the side of the Marvel Universe. From the 70s into the 90s, the Superman and Batman films were very well done, as was Christopher Nolan’s Batman series. The 2017 Wonder Woman was also very good. But, with Man of Steel, Suicide Squad… And their being outshone by, for example, Thor, the choice is for Marvel.

In checking on the bloggers for Justice League, one finds that there is extraordinarily passionate support! The fans consider it wonderful entertainment from start to finish.

What follows is just one reviewer’s opinion. There is a brief opening sequence, caught on phone camera, where children are interviewing Superman. Unfortunately, after Batman versus Superman, Superman is no longer with us, he is dead and buried. (Which is not necessarily going to stop screenwriters for DC Comics!).

Then there is a scene with Batman confronting a monster alien. Then there is Wonder Woman, from her base in London, using her gold lassoo and an ability to avoid bullets to thwart sabotage on four city blocks. Bruce Wayne does a trek to the remote north to have a challenging conversation with Arthur Curry, Aquaman. Then there is Barry Allen, visiting his father in prison, being urged to get a real job. And, in a secret laboratory, there is Victor Stone, victim of his father’s experiment.

Which means then that we have the introductions to the Justice League: Ben Affleck as Batman, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, Jason Memorial as Aquaman, Ezra Fisher as The Flash/Barry Allen and Ray Fisher as Cyborg/Victor Stone. And the reason for Bruce Wayne getting them together is that there are three mysterious boxes of energy, referred to in the documents of Lex Luthor, and the arrival of Steppenwolf (voiced by Ciaran Hinds) who intends to destroy the world. (The audience is given something of a preview of what might happen in a sequence with an enormous squad of Amazon women converging on Steppenwolf.)

The rest of the film seems mainly fights and explosions. There is an important interlude, this review not wanting to spoil the plot but most fans will know this anyway, where Lois Lane and Martha Kent (Amy Adams and Diane Lane again) are mourning the death of Superman. However, Bruce Wayne, always aided by the surveillance and offbeat remarks of his butler, Alfred (Jeremy Irons) has the idea that the energy can resuscitate Superman. And, even with a photo of Kevin Costner as Clark Kent’s foster father, the energy does its job, although there is a certain innate hostility in Superman until it is mellowed by meeting Lois again. And, of course, it is Henry Cavill as the resuscitated Superman.

And so, more fights and explosions, victory through the variety of skills of the Superheroes and audiences being advised to sit through the very long credits to see where the series might be leading. Actually, with the revelation of a sinister character returning to the series, the reviewer left the cinema more hopefully.

1. The popularity of DC comics? The comics, television versions, film versions? The characters and their identities, their powers? The combination of the Justice League?

2. The setting for this story, the basis in Gotham city? Travelling back to Greece? To the north and the islands? Prisons, hospitals, laboratories? The settings for the battles? The Clark Kent background, cemetery, Lois Lane and her work, Martha Kent, the home? The musical score in the themes from previous films?

3. The audience and the love the superheroes? Marvel universe and DC comics?

4. The past stories: the Superman films and the source of Clark Kent and the exploits of Superman? The relationship with Lois Lane, the Kent family? The Batman films? The range, the various actors as Batman? The Batcave, the mansion, the relationship with Alfred? Diana Prince, her origins with the Amazons, World War I and Steve Trevor, her living in London? Aquaman and his background, the community, water and fish, the life and the sea? The Flash, the young man, his father in prison, his gifts? Cyborg and Victor Stone? His father in the experiments?

5. The threats to the world, the intervention of Steppenwolf? The initial fight between Batman and the creature? The huge Amazon battle and the confrontation with
Steppenwolf and his forces?

6. The boxes of energy, the details in Lex Luthor’s documents? Energy, the unleashing and the conquering of the world?

7. Bruce Wayne, his relationship with Alfred, Alfred in the surveillance, the wry comments? Recruiting Diana her life in London? The hands-on background, her artwork? Recruiting Aquaman and his visit? Knowledge of the Flash, Cyborg?

8. Diana, at work in London with the art, her quiet life? The threat of terrorism in London, four blocks to be destroyed? Her becoming Wonder Woman? The importance of her golden lassoo? The confrontation, her ability to avoid bullets? Taking the explosives and throwing them into the air, saving lives? Motivation for her joining Bruce Wayne?

9. Aquaman, his personality, his story, his particular powers and the sea?

10. The Flash, visiting his father in prison, his father wanting to get a job? His abilities? His enjoying them, in action, the wry one-liners?

11. Cyborg’s father, Dr Stone, going to the laboratory, keeping his son’s secret, the experiment gone wrong, the transformation of his son?

12. The invitation to form the Justice League, each member bringing their superpowers? And the regret of the absence of Superman?

13. The action of the film, fights and explosives, action, stunt work, computergraphic work?

14. Superman, his powers, his grave, the clash with Bruce Wayne? The decision for resuscitation, using the energies, the photo of Kevin Costner as his father, Lois and Martha?

15. The police Commissioner, his contact with the Justice League and support?

16. Superman, the resuscitation, the process? Resuscitated Superman as surly? The clash with Batman? The change with Lois, his becoming himself again? Participating with the League?

17. Steppenwolf, mysterious powers, personality, his agents, the energy boxes? Motivations? The clashes, the battles, defeat of Steppenwolf?

18. The future, sequels, the final credits – and the revelation about Lex Luthor?

BEWARE OF A HOLY WHORE

Germany, 1971, 103 minutes, Colour.
Lou Castel, Eddi Constantine, Marquard Bohm, Hannah Schygulla, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Margarethe von Trotta, Hannes Fuchs, Ulli Lommel, Kurt Raab.
Directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder.

Rainer Wemer Fassbinder was considered a giant of German cinema from the 1960s to the mid-1980s. He was prolific in his filmmaking. This film, from 1971, is his 12th feature out of 42, the 12th in three years.

While they made an impact in their time, offbeat reflections on filmmaking, eccentric characters involved in the film industry, this film is very much anchored in its time. This applies instantly to the style of clothes, their haircuts, especially the men with their long hair, a period that looks rather eccentric.

Audience interest in the film will focus on the situation where people have gathered at a hotel, mainly in the downstairs assembly area but there is no script, no director. The cast includes quite a range of men and women, many of them to appear in future Fassbinder films. He himself also appears as a cranky contributor to the film.

With the bright colour, there is quite an impact for the audience – not subdued. Nor are the performances. There are many flirtations. There are homosexual relationships. There are speculations on how the film could be made. There are some rehearsals, some re-enactments.

How interesting this is will depend on audiences being able to suspend some disbelief in the characters and situation – and their interest in German filmmaking of the period, the work of Fassbinder, his place in German cinema history.

CRIME OVER LONDON

UK, 1936, 63 minutes, Black-and-white.
Margot Grahame, Paul Cavanagh, David Burns, Joseph Cawthorne, Basil Sydney, Rene Ray, Bruce Lester, Danny Green, Googie Withers, Edward Rigby.
Directed by Alfred Zeisler.

This is quite an entertaining film, re-creating the atmosphere of central London in the mid 1930s.

Within a short running time, there are quite a number of characters as well as some subplots, all of them interesting while, perhaps, not fully developed.

The film opens with a group returning to London after the United States being too hot for them. Their leader is Joker Finnegan, Basil Sydney in a very good role, arriving in England, quite a group of them, especially not understanding how England ticked. They get accommodation and Joker has to control them because they are eager to do robberies rather than just sit around and wait for something special.

In the meantime, we are taken to Sherwood’s shopping Emporium in central London – reminiscent of Selfridge’s and in fact the facade of Selfridge’s being used towards the end of the film. The proprietor is Mr Sherwood who came to England with very few goods, little English and an accent. He has been very successful and the company is about to have an anniversary celebration.

The film must have seemed very modern in the time and it communicates this impression. There are plenty of scenes of contemporary London, the streets, Piccadilly Circus, the buses… There is quite an amount of detail of life in the store, the various departments – and quite a funny joke about a most haughty woman who is never satisfied about the service being offered her and it is suggested, even by the owner, that she try the hardware area to get carbolic soap! It is a joke when the owner likes to repeat throughout the film.

The focus is on a young man who is the owner’s nephew and is very sweet on a young girl whom he introduces to the store as a piano player attracting customers.

The gang discover that there is a double for the owner, an old criminal they know from the past and who serves as a double while the owner is out playing golf. It is only the owner’s nephew who knows the truth. This means that the screenplay introduces quite early rather fanciful use of the double. It means then that the gang have a hold over him and he is to impersonate the owner whom they will capture in order to steal the payroll.

Joseph Cawthorne is very good in the double role, sufficient differentiation, different accents – and he is obviously enjoying himself.

The group target the store through means of their contact, Pearl (Margot Grahame). She goes to the store to buy a coat, targets the nephew, invites him to meet her fiance at a gambling casino, he goes, plays, loses money and is found in a compromising situation when one of the gang is murdered.

However, Paul Cavanagh portrays the Scotland Yard detective who suspects that the gang is back in London, knows that Joker likes to play cards and so canvases various casinos. He is asked to investigate the murder and can do nothing else but arrest the nephew.

The robbery goes ahead fairly smoothly but the Scotland Yard detective asks to interview Mr Sherwood, with whom his nephew had spoken the evening before and who could give an alibi. However, this is the double who decides to give a note to the detective explaining what has happened.

Which means then that the police arrive on the scene, shoppers are scattered – and there is an over-elaborate shootout in the toy and crockery departments of the store, lots of mayhem during the shooting.

Pearl returns to the store, is confronted by Joker who has killed the gangster that she actually loves and who wants to go out on his own, and when the police pursue Joker, he is found dead, Pearl saying that she has saved them the effort.

An above average entertainment from the 1930s.

BURY ME DEAD

US, 1947, 75 minutes, Black-and-white.
June Lockhart, Cathy O' Donnell, Hugh Beaumont, Mark Daniels, Greg Mc Clure, Sonia Darrin.
Directed by Bernard Vorhaus.

On the one hand, this is quite a good film noir. On the other hand, the screenplay has a lot of jokes, quite a number of puns about death and graves, which do lighten the tone but, perhaps, too much for the overall impact of the film.

It opens with a burning house, information that Barbara (June Lockhart), wife of Roger (Mark Daniels) has been killed. The housekeeper suspects the husband. A body is carried out. A favourite horse has been destroyed in the fire.

Move to the funeral and a veiled lady turns up, getting a lift with family lawyer, Mike (Hugh Beaumont) – and she lifts her veil, revealing Barbara. So, the question is who was buried.

Initial suspicion is on Rusty (Cathy O’ Donnell), Barbara’s adopted sister who feels she has never been properly loved by their father, who has an infatuation with Roger, thinks that Barbara hates her. But, she is alive.

While Roger has a lot of jokes about death – he is a surprisingly bland character for what he is going through! – he is something of a cad in the flashbacks which begin to occur, the screenplay building up the story of the past, Barbara’s life, clashes with Roger, infatuation with boxer, George (Greg Mc Clure) who is also the object of Rusty’s affections. In the meantime there is George’s secretary, Helen, who becomes the object of Roger’s attention!

Since there are not too many options, it seems obvious that it is Helen who was buried. She has been scheming with George to get the family money, either through his infatuation with Rusty or by his marrying Barbara. Helen also does a line with Roger, suggesting murder.

Barbara is attacked, Roger is arrested, a particularly theory-bound district attorney delays investigation quoting all kinds of rules and regulations.

There aren’t too many more candidates for the murder – and, it does turn out, with elaborate reasons given, that it is the lawyer.

The director and cast have personal stories which are as interesting as any on screen. Bernard Vorhaus directed a number of minor films but was blacklisted in the early 1950s and directed one film under an Italian name. Greg Mc Clure began in films in 1943 but was blacklisted and didn’t make any films after 1951. Cathy O’ Donnell married William Wyler’s brother, Robert Wyler (and appeared in some stories for which he wrote the screenplay, including Detective Story) and was told by Sam Goldwyn to divorce him. When she didn’t, she was let go by Goldwyn. On the other hand, Hugh Beaumont was a Methodist minister.

DOUBLE DEAL

US, 1950, 66 minutes, Black-and-white.
Marie Windsor, Richard Denning, Taylor Holmes, Fay Baker, James Griffith, Carleton Young, Thomas Browne Henry.
Directed by Abby Berlin.

If you were wanting to choose a brief supporting feature of the American cinema, 1950, this would be a reasonable candidate. The subject is life in a small town, exploration of oil fields, brother-sister clashes, American heroics.

Richard Denning stars as an engineer who arrives almost penniless in the town, looking for a job. He encounters the owner of a well and his partner (Carleton Young and Marie Windsor). Buzz Doyle, the stranger, agrees to work with them. However, the owner’s sister, Lily (Fay Baker in a role that Marie Windsor might have played, tough and seductive) is determined to have her brother’s well.

The group have the law on their side, owning land through which the sister’s oil is piped and so able to stop her. Soon, the brother is killed and Buzz Doyle arrested for the murder. The sheriff is suspicious but, after learning that the man had been dead for some time, releases Buzz. There is a suspicious henchmen that Lily employs and so audiences fix on him. Then Lily is killed after a visit from Marie Windsor and she is arrested by the sheriff.

The couple get help from an alcoholic lawyer played effectively by Taylor Holmes.

There is a buildup to a climax and quite a twist to who did the killing, someone the audience would not be expecting at all – though very good reasons for his murderous behaviour are actually explained.

Another death, Lily’s henchmen, Marie Windsor in peril, Bars to the rescue, the sheriff and his police helping.

The style is efficient. The basic plot is interesting in the oil development themes. And the twist is quite a surprise. Direction is by Abby Berlin who between 1945 and 1948 made nine Blondie features.

THE ORNITHOLOGIST/ O ORNITOLOGO

Portugal, 2016, 117 minutes, Colour.
Paul Hamy,Joao Pedro Rodriguez, Han Wen, Chan Suan and, Juliane Elting.
Directed by Joao Pedro Rodriguez.

While initially an audience might believe they are coming to see a nice film about a bird watcher, and there are some pleasant scenes of Fernando (Paul Hamy) on the river, his binoculars, looking at some beautiful birds, nesting, eggs…, it might be prudent to advise that this is not a straightforward narrative film. It is something of an allegory, it has touches of the mystical, and, for many audiences, maybe quite too mysterious.

There is an opening quotation from Saint Anthony of Lisbon, better known to us all as Saint Anthony of Padua, originally a Portuguese man named Fernando who became a Franciscan, and who has devout legends about him as being the patron of things which are lost as well as the story of his preaching to the birds. The opening quotation has references to nature, echoes of the spirituality of St Francis of Assisi, as well as a sense of spirits in the forests.

Something of this needs to be kept in mind. The director, Joao Pedro Rodriguez, has made a short film about celebrating the feast of Saint Anthony. And it can be noted that, by the end of the film, the director himself appears as an actor, taking over from Paul Hamy as the ornithologist, and this time called Anthony rather than Fernando as he and another character walk, like pilgrims, into the actual city of Padua.

Another note which will help audiences understand the approach of Rodriguez is that he is a gay man and there are some significant gay perspectives throughout the film.

When Fernando is caught in the rapids and his kayak is split, he lies in the water but has not drowned. Now begin some of the mysteries. He is rescued by two young Chinese women, who say that they are on their way to Compostella, walking the Camino. They are rather off-track, in forests in the north of Portugal where it meets Spain. While they are nervous, and say their prayers, and feed Fernando, they then tie him up, roped upright in his underwear resembling the image of Jesus on the cross.

But there are more encounters in Fernando’s Odyssey, most significantly a mute and deaf young man who write his name on the sand, Jesus. Some audiences may balk at what follows but there is a sexual interlude between Fernando and the young man, (perhaps a gay suggestion of the intimacy between St Anthony and Jesus himself), but there are some violent consequences with Jesus’ side pierced by a knife and blood flowing out.

In the forests there are some strange men, masks and elaborate costumes, shouting and dancing – preparing for a fiesta and one of them, Thomas, turns out to be the twin brother of Jesus. He also has a knife wound in his side (and it was Thomas who wanted to put his finger in Jesus’ side – as Fernando puts his finger in Thomas’s side).

Keeping the mythical tone, Fernando is accosted by three bare-breasted Amazons who actually speak to him in Latin. They let him go.

Birds are present throughout the film, images, bird sounds – and, significantly in a tableau at the end, there is a white dove (which some audiences researching the Catholic symbolism missed), the Holy Spirit in the forest. The quote from Saint Anthony at the opening of the film did indicate that there were spirits in the forest.

And, finally, Thomas and the now Anthony walking into Padua – and the Chinese girls passing by, waving from the other side of the road.

Plenty to puzzle over for those wanting to take the allegory further.

1. The title? Audience expectations? The presence of birds in the film? Real? Symbolic?

2. The forest settings, the north of Portugal, near the Spanish border? River, mountains, forests, forest paths, cliffs? The musical score?

3. The introduction, the quote from Saint Anthony, nature, the presence of spirits?

4. The narrative drawing on the story of St Anthony, of Lisbon, of Padua? The director having made a short film about the feast of Saint Anthony? Anthony’s birth name as Fernando, the name of the central character? The central character at the end becoming Anthony, in the form of the director and his performance? Anthony, Padua, from Portuguese to Italian? Becoming a Franciscan, in the tradition of St Francis, nature and birds? His preaching and the birds listening? The end of the film as Anthony and Thomas enter Padua?

5. Fernando, his work as an ornithologist, on the beach, in the kayak, his binoculars, focusing on the birds, their brooding, the eggs? His age, experience, phoning his friend, the friend’s concern, especially when he was lost, taking his medication? The delight in the birds, the rapids, the breaking of the kayak, his being stranded, left in the water?

6. The narrative seen as a variation on the Odyssey, the various encounters, the Chinese sirens, the deaf and mute man, the Amazons…?

7. The gay perspective? The director, his life and career? Fernando and his phone calls to his friend, the love and the messages? Fernando with the women, feeding him, yet
tying him up and his escape? The encounter with Jesus? The background of Anthony of Padua and his relationship with Jesus, commitment? The two men, the friendship, the fishing, on the beach, the bonding, the graphic sexual encounter? Lying on the beach? Conflict, the fight, the knife, Jesus death? The wounded side with blood? The encounter with Thomas, the twin brother? (The apostle Thomas and his name is The Twin?)? Thomas wounded, blood or not from his side? Thomas and the Gospels wanting blood from Jesus’ side, communicating with Thomas? Fernando becoming Anthony and their pilgrimage to Padua?

8. The Chinese girls, Catholic background, their prayer, the Lord’s prayer? Rescuing Fernando, the initial fears, the enigma of Chinese girls in the woods, their being lost, their being on pilgrimage to Compostella? Sharing their food? The communication? But their tying up Fernando and his standing, roped, the image of Jesus at the crucifixion? Fernando getting free and escaping?

9. The episode with Jesus, the bond, sharing, violence, death?

10. The men in the night, the masks and their costume, the fear? The dancing, the shouting? The rituals? Fernando discovering who they were, Thomas? Rehearsing for a fiesta? Frightening images – then not frightening?

11. The Amazons, the women on horseback, the mythology of the Amazons, the speaking in Latin? The attack on Fernando, letting him go free?

12. The transformation into Anthony, the program Road to low Padua, the city limits, seeing the Chinese girls?

13. The mysticism of the narrative, the experiences? The birds? The significance of watching the white dove – and whether audiences remembered the symbolism of the Dove as the Holy Spirit?

14. How successful a combination of narrative, allegory, mysticism

BORG McENROE

Sweden, 2017, 107 minutes, Colour.
Sverrir Gudnason, Shia La Boeuf, Stellan Skarsgaard, Tuva Novotny, Leo Borg, Marcus Mossberg, Jackson Gann, Scott Arthur, Ian Blackman, Robert Emms.
Directed by Janus Metz.

An interesting film for tennis fans as well of those who like psychological portraits – especially when there is some rivalry.

Some reflections on the topic before the review of the film. The public tend to take for granted that sports champions are celebrities. Professional journalists and paparazzi supply sometimes avid readers and viewers with behaviour that can be exemplary as well as behaviour that elicits some reactions of shock-horror. But, how much attention is given to the life of the celebrity, the constancy of practice in exercising their expertise, the toll that this takes on body and soul, on the human spirit, on emotions, and on human relationships.

And the question arises, how much is the media to blame for the pressures on the celebrities? And how much is the public to blame for the pressures on the media to supply continuous coverage? Bjorn Borg was called an iceberg in his time, showing little, if any, public emotion. By contrast, Mc Enroe was highly emotional in public, often objectionably so, even eliciting boos from the Wimbledon audience in 1980, his first attempt at winning the championship.

And, can people change? What about John McEnroe? And, speculatively, in 10 years will we be seeing a feature film about Nick Kyrgios?

As regards the film itself… It is a Scandinavian production, with more emphasis, naturally, on Borg than on McEnroe?. Personnel, finance, post-production facilities all came from contributions from Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. The director, Janus Metz, was born in Denmark and moved to work in South Africa, a documentary filmmaker, now with is first feature film.

Bjorn Borg was Swedish and Swedish actor, Sverrir Gunadson, quite a remarkable lookalike, portrays the intensity of Scandinavian introversion, a methodical life, even obsessively detailed and repetitious. There are scenes showing him as an eager youngster hitting the tennis ball against garage doors at home. There are scenes showing him as a rather temperamental teenager, rather McEnroe-like? at times, catching the eager eye of former tennis champion, Lennart Bergelin (a fine Stellan Skarsgaard this time speaking in Swedish) , who takes him in hand, is pressurised to let him play in the Davis Cup at the age of 15, confronts him about his tantrums and instils in him the resolution not to show any external feelings and to play one point at a time. Borg certainly fulfils this as he wins so many grandslam championships in the 1970s. By 1980, he had won Wimbledon four times in succession.

If you remember the result of that match, you will enjoy seeing how it is played out. If you don’t remember the result of that match, there will be a lot of dramatic tension in the progress of the sets and at one stage, of the record set points played.

As with the recent Battle of the Sexes, matches between Bobby Riggs and Margaret Court and, especially, Billie Jean King, the play is meticulously reconstructed and dramatically edited.

But the film does give attention to John Mc Enroe, something of a child whiz at arithmetic in his head when he was young, a chess player – but a telling scene where is mother is cutting his hair and comments on the 96 that he gained four and exam: “what about the other for?�. And there is quite some pressure at all times from his father. Which doesn’t necessarily explain his emotions, his extraversion, his tantrums and the bad impression that he made at press conferences (which did sometimes tend to ask you more about his behaviour than his tennis).

He is well portrayed by Shia La Beouf, an actor who has, in real life (or, according to the media and paparazzi) exhibited behaviour like that of an angry sports brat. Some might say it is not a stretch for this performance but he does do it particularly well. And this is the case during that fateful 1980 match on Wimbledon centre court. He did control himself that day and eventually won, and deserved, the applause of those watching.

The film mentions at the end that Borg and Mc Enroe became friends, Borg becoming godfather to one of Mc Enroe’s children.

You might not expect to enjoy a feature film on tennis – but this one is worth seeking out.

1. A film for tennis fans? A film for psychological portrait and study is? In the context of sport? World celebrity?

2. Sweden in the 1960s and 70s, the suburban towns, homes, garage walls, tennis, centres? Vistas of Monaco? London, Wimbledon? Filming in sets in Prague? The musical score?

3. The title, Wimbledon 1980? The media, fans and expectations, worldwide interest? Drama?

4. The tennis sequences, recreation of the matches, editing and pace?

5. The 1980 narrative: Borg living in Monaco, Mc Enroe living in New York City, their both going to London for Wimbledon? The respective status? Borg, his fiancee, the background of his family, his coach? The intense preparation, exercise, running, his focus on his rackets and their tightness? The comparison with John Mc Enroe and his family, the fans booing him, his hopes that Wimbledon? The play, the drama, the inter-cutting of flashbacks? Celebrity, the press, interviews, pressures? Borg winning, celebrity, the information subsequently about meeting Mc Enroe, Mc Enroe winning? Their careers, Borg’s retirement? The friendship between the two?

6. Borg’s story, Swedish background, as a boy hitting the ball at the garage, pleasant young man, getting older, moody? The coach seeing him, recognising talent, his hopes? Borg and his excessive tantrums? The issue of the Davis Cup, the coachs’ hesitation, the desire for publicity? Age 15, winning? The response of the press? The coach, making Borg promise not to show any emotion? The title IceBorg? Winning point by point, one point at a time? His career, age, wins? His fiancee, her presence, his control of her, her tennis background? Her patience? The coach, friendship, support? Borg’s mood, precision and obsession with detail, repetition, the sameness? Firing Lennart? Lennart’s making the move, reconciliation? The final play, Mc Enroe saying Borg was not an iceberg better volcano underneath?

7. The coach, his own career, 1948, the difficulties in losing? His eye on ball? Training, the patience, giving advice, response to the tantrums? Staying with him? Borg’s threats, following him, the repercussions for the coach? The reconciliation? At Wimbledon with the fiancee?

8. Mc Enroe as a boy, skills in tennis, his energy, family, mother cutting his hair, her demands about winning? His father, the arithmetic in his head? Playing chess? His moods, becoming more excessive, into tantrums? Public tantrums, confrontations with the authorities, swearing, breaking rackets? The reaction of the public?

9. The role of the media, the journalist and their questions, their taking sides? The press conferences, asking more about tantrums than tennis play? Stances for and against? The 1980 match, the comments on Borg, growing respectful for Mc Enroe?

10. The paparazzi, celebrity and pressures, as seen in the behaviour of each? Borg introvert, Mc Enroe extrovert? The role of the sponsors and their expectations, advertising?

11. Other tennis players, the relationship between Mc Enroe and Peter Fleming, friendship, their playing each other, suspicions? Vitus Geralitis, extrovert, taking Borg to Studio 54 and his response?

12. The drama of 1980, the audience knowing or not knowing the outcome? Dramatic tension?

13. The audience, the change of heart, Mc Enroe’s behaviour, Borg’s persistence, the record number of setpoints? The coach and the fiancee watching?

14. Winning, the cup, Mc Enroe’s congratulations? The celebration – and Borg and his fiancee leaving?

15. The scene at the airport, the meeting, shaking hands, the beginning of friendship? And the subsequent information about each of them, career, friendship, Borg as Godfather to a Mc Enroe child?

JIGSAW

US, 2017, 92 minutes, Colour.
Matt Passmore, Tobin Bell, Callum Keith Rennie, Hannah Emily Anderson, Cle Bennett, Laura Vandervoort, Paul Braunstein, Mandela Van Peebles, Brittany Allen, Josiah Black.
Directed by Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig.

This is jigsaw/John Kramer resuscitated – as well as a sequel to the very popular series during the two thousands.

Credit where credit is due. The Saw series was the brainchild of Australians, Lee Whannell as writer and James Wan as director. They collaborated in various capacities in the films that followed and are now involved as Executive Producers. And, as directors, brothers working together are, Michael and Peter Spierig who made the strong vampire film, Daybreakers, the excellent science fiction time mystery, Predestination, and the forthcoming chiller, Winchester, with Helen Mirren. Australian-based.

Can they do it all again? Answer: yes. Is it any different from the former films? And some: yes and no. Is it better than the former films? Answer: probably depends on your hunger for gory sequences.

These questions are relevant only to the fans of horror films, merely points of review reference for others who wouldn’t be seen dead - or alive - watching a Saw film.

In fact, the makers of this Saw contribution, while definitely repeating the formula of the previous films: Jigsaw choosing his victims, their all being guilty of crime and having gone unpunished, transported into a torture chamber which leads to other torture chambers and their survival depending on their capacity for confessing. (Given a theological frame of mind, it did occur during the screening of Jigsaw that there was a great emphasis on sin, responsibility, sense of guilt, self-excuses, the call to repentance, the torture chambers as being 21st-century version of Purgatorio and Inferno.)

The torture sequences are very similar to those in the previous films – which led commentators over a decade ago to designate films like this as torture-porn. There is certainly a point there.

But what makes this film more sittable through is that there are a lot of sequences outside the torture rooms, even some more humane elements. There are references to war service in Iraq. There are nice family glimpses. There are police shown in some detail pursuing their investigations. There are autopsy sequences (and they are definitely very grim and grisly), a mysterious and rather imperious doctor assistant and a very genial medical examiner for the autopsies.

Another factor is that the screenplay has the victims of torture lying about their responsibilities, with some flashbacks, but with some final revelations, that indicate characters more guilty than we would have expected, diminishing our sympathy for what they have undergone.

There is a visit to a bondage centre which resembles Jigsaw’s torture chamber. There are records again with his voice and his blood under the fingernails of some victims. But he has been dead and buried for 10 years. How can this be?

There is certainly a twist at the end, possibly a twist too far, audiences trying to find some credibility as regards time sequences and the ability of the torturer to do all his work within a 24 hours day. On the plus side, Tobin Bell repeats his presence as Jigsaw/John Kramer and, while he continues to torture, he is given some very moralising lines, even some momentary human touches.

However, human touches are not the staple of this series.

1. The Saw series? Its popularity during the years of its continuance? Reviving the Saw themes again? The appeal for horror fans?

2. The past, accusations of horror-porn? The response of the fans, the film is as grim, gory, grisly? Serial killings? The scenes of torture?

3. The idea of the Star Chamber, administration of justice by vigilante authority? The targets being guilty, having escaped justice? Not escaping Jigsaw? And no mercy, no compassion? The demand for confession?

4. The religious implications, confession, repentance, atonement? The themes of torture – and echoes of purgatory, purgation, redemption? Or condemnation to hell?

5. The original films, the victims, the role of Jigsaw, the set-ups, the condemnations, the torture and deaths?

6. The screenplay opening action out? The opening chase, the men on the roof, the detonator, his being shot? The hospital locations, the laboratories for autopsies? The domestic touches? Police precincts? The bondage chamber? The farm, the countryside, the interiors? The undercutting of the sequences with the torture sequences, some kind of balance for the audience response?

7. The visuals, the grim torture? The impact of the variations of the torture, audiences identifying, the touches for nightmares? The playing of the game, for some to be saved?

8. Themes of guilt, responsibility for the deaths? Carla, her denials, the acid? Ryan, the flashbacks to his brutal behaviour, even from teenage? His fears, pleading for his life, the amputation of his leg, pulling the lever for the others? Mitch, seeming innocent, stealing the bike, the truth, Kramer’s nephew? His being crushed? Mitch and Anna in the silo, Ryan releasing the lever? Anna, surviving? Her knowing John Kramer? The label in hospital? The revelation of the truth about her baby, her anguish, framing her husband, his arrest, madness, hanging himself?

9. The torture, the effect on the victims, the possibilities for selflessness or not?

10. Logan Nelson, an agreeable personality, his work with the autopsies, his working with Eleanor? The background in Iraq, the scars on his back? The past history with Halloran? His doing the autopsies and contributing the information? The recovery of the dead man’s body and the bullet? His antagonism towards Halloran? Going with Eleanor, the bondage Museum, based on Jigsaw? Going with her to the farm, the interaction with Halloran? Halloran pushing the button for Logan to die?

11. Eleanor, tough, the Jigsaw site, the bondage and her hobby? Information, going to the farm? The contact with Keith Hunt, the police and with integrity, suspicions of the doctor, with Halloran, photographing the doctor at the bondage centre?

12. The truth, the twist? Logan’s history, Halloran and his dead wife? The revelation about Kramer, his making a mistake with the label? Tortured, confessing, helped to health by Kramer? The episodes of 10 years earlier? The re-creation? Kramer, his cancer, helping Logan? Logan becoming jigsaw? The murders, the body in the grave, shooting him as a sniper? The vengeance? The death of Halloran?

13. The credibility of the plot, time and opportunity for Logan to do all that he had planned? And how credible?