WHAT IF IT WORKS

Australia, 2017, 95 minutes, Colour.
Luke Ford, Anna Samson, Brooke Satchwell, Wade Briggs, Karen Fairfax.
Directed by Romi Trower.

There have been many films over the years, especially in recent years, about relationships, romantic relationships, potential healing relationships between people who are physically and/or mentally disabled. We don’t always expect to see these stories acted out in the ordinary streets, in the ordinary suburbs of Melbourne. They are acted out here – but, at the end, there is still the question that the title raises, will it work, what if it works?

It takes a few moments to get into the feel of the film We are introduced to Adrian, Ford, a young man in his 30s, driving a fast car, getting into trouble, landing unsuspectingly into a group of drag queens. Who is Adrian? When we see him behave, gloved hands, hands raised in the air, wary of touching anything, fastidious, we realise that he is absolutely obsessive, has a compulsive disorder. Which means that while he is friendly in his way, it is not always easy to like him. Non-compulsiveness will feel very impatient with him. But, as we get to know him, see him in all his foibles, there has to be some sympathy. In fact, he is very intelligent with science and engineering and is able to help people in the art commune, even calling in the aid of the drag queen friends.

He almost runs over a young woman (Anna Samson) who lives just up the street, who walks dogs (which he abhors). When he encounters her on his session with his therapist and she comes to visit, mistaking him for the therapist and pouring out a rather salacious life story, he is upset. He later meets her in the street.

It emerges that she has multiple personalities, explaining to him that she is rather like a block of flats with 10 particular rooms, some of the inhabitants being aware of the others, each able to emerge at various times. She has a reasonable personality, Grace. She has a very progressive personality G. She is also an artist, involved with a fellow artist who, in fact, is rather jealous of her art and exploitative of her as a person. She is unaware that she has an opportunity for an international exhibition, he concealing it from her.

A lot of the film is the interaction between Adrian and Grace, and how a relationship can develop between a fastidious untouching and untouchable man and a reticent woman who will erupt, often unexpectedly, with another self. There is a further complication that Adrian has had a relationship previously with a young woman who also is afflicted, by her self-image and self-doubt.

The film does not take us necessarily very far but invites its audience to contemplate these central characters, to reflect on how they are hampered by the disabilities, to wonder whether therapy will help, to wonder whether the relationship will enable some breakthroughs and some healing.

And at the end, we are left to wonder, of course, what if it works?

1. The title? The nature of “it�? The relationship between Adrian and Grace? Difficulties to be overcome? To make “it� work?

2. The Melbourne setting, the streets and houses, the garage, the art studio, therapy sessions? The ordinariness of Melbourne city life? With extraordinary characters? The musical score?

3. Themes of disability, physical, mental, OCD, autistic personalities? Multiple personalities? The manifestation of these disabilities in ordinary life, in the street? In therapy?

4. Luke Ford as Adrian, his age, background, with his parents, the influence of his father, living by himself, his studies and engineering expertise, work at the garage, the continued phone calls from Stan, wanting him back? His achievements at the garage?

5. Driving the car, the flat tire, the encounter with the drag queens – and later returning to visit them with Grace, and their joining in the video installation at the end? His love for cars, and driving cars?

6. His obsessive compulsive disorder, wearing the gloves, holding his hands high, avoiding touching anything except at home, the computer board? His understanding of his disorder? His visit to the therapist, the discussion, his manifestations, not wanting to continue?

7. The irony of the therapist going upstairs, Grace coming to visit, mistaking him for the therapist, the outpouring of her story? The different personalities, especially the aggressive G?

8. The encounters between Adrian and Grace, her walking the dogs, her apartment? The background of her artwork, the studio, the fellow artist and his deceiving her about the invitation from London? Sexual exploitation? The other members of the group, their creations, especially the man working on the installation?

9. Grace, the different personalities, explanation about the building with the 10 apartments, several of the personalities knowing each other? The different manifestations? In relationships, in the art work? Grace and the attraction to Adrian? The meetings, outings, walks? His recognising the different personalities?

10. The background of Adrian and his relationship with Melinda, the breakup, her own disabilities, emotional, self-image? Discussions with Adrian? The prospect of her engagement and marriage?

11. The personality of the therapist, the various meetings, the therapies?

12. Adrian, the confrontation with the fellow artist, overhearing the truth about Grace and her art? His revealing the truth to her? Grace and the conflict? Completion of her work? And the completion of the installation and the drag queens enjoying their performance?

13. Adrian, the effect of the friendship with Grace, still with his gloves, not wanting to be touched, Grace not wanting to touch him – then seeing them walking down the street, the possibility of hand in hand and what it might lead to?

14. What if it worked?

SINISTER

US, 2012, 108 minutes, Colour.
Ethan Hawke, Juliet Rylance, Fred Dalton Thompson, James Ransone.
Directed by Scott Derrickson.

Sinister? Definitely.
As a reviewer who rarely really jumps at films (after all, ‘it’s only a movie’!), I will confess to jumping any number of times during sinister – even at the last image. Not only the jumping, but frequent peculiar feelings of spine-tingling. It was the succession of things that were banging and bumping in the night, the eerie atmosphere from the opening shot of four hanged people, through the sense of ghosts and the mystery of why this was all happening. And the synthesizer score, the percussion, the pounding.

Which means that if you are prone to be unsettled during a film, you perhaps should be alert to the effects of this one.

Actually, the plot is well worked out and all explained (well not explained but story lines logically followed through). Perhaps another reason for the atmosphere is that it is all played straight, no winking at the audience or tongue-in-cheek ironies. And one can identify with the family at the centre of the story, ordinary enough but the victims of sinister powers.

Basically, it is the story of a writer who moves house so that he can do a true crime story on the spot. He does research, finds a mysterious box of old film which shows the family who have been killed, except for a missing daughter. Most of the action takes place inside the house, especially at night as the writer looks at the films and asks questions of himself. Then the bangs begin, boxes fall, loud sounds (quick cut editing with the synthesizer sounds) and he (and we) begin to be really jumpy.

The sheriff warns him off. A deputy agrees to find out information for him. His wife is supportive, but his young son and daughter start to behave strangely. He receives computer chat information from a professor who says that the signs he has seen and images at the other crime scenes lead to a cult of an ancient evil deity, Baghul (the Boogy Man). The worship of Baghul includes the sacrifice and devouring of children.

Then the ghosts appear.

The end is not what we expected when the film started but it seems more inevitable as the film goes on – and the end of the film is where all the information (with the solution worked out by the deputy) as to what has happened – and will happen.

Ethan Hawke is convincing as the author who is obsessed with his research and book, more and more tormented, more frightened. Juliet Rylance is his wife.

Scott Derrickson directed The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. He knows how to do eerie films – and has been most successful with Sinister.

1. The title? Tone? Horror? Realism, plausibility? The career of the director and these themes?

2. The background of Babylonian myths? Ancient gods? Brutality? Hauntings?

3. The house, the family moving in, the interiors and rooms? The night, darkness?

4. The sound effects, the bumps in the night? The synthesiser score?

5. The prologue, the visuals of the family, their deaths, the noose, the Super 8 films, the hanging?

6. The family, Ellison and his background as a writer, reputation? Getting the house, the family not knowing his motives? His quest? The family, the disappearance of the daughter, Stephanie?

7. Ellison as a character, writer, the touch of arrogance? The devotion of his wife? Ashley, seven, loving daughter, painting the walls? Trevor, 12, his night terrors? Naked in the box?

8. The sheriff, his visits, antagonism towards Ellison, criticism of his books and his being anti-police?

9. The search in the attic, the Super 8 films, the visuals of the murders, the symbols, the photography of the deaths, the masked killer?

10. The Deputy, the explanation about the families, the disappearance of the child?

11. The professor, the contact, the background of Babylon, the deity, the murders, the symbols? The devouring of the child soul?

12. The video message, the deity, Babylon, the early Christians and his one the memory of the god? Stories of child possession?

13. The irony that the children were the killers, the videos? Ashley, the camera, the family being gagged? The decapitation? The deity and the children?

14. Ashley’s disappearance – and the cycle continuing?

BERLIN CORRESPONDENT

US, 1942, 70 minutes, Black-and-white.
Virginia Gilmore, Dana Andrews, Mona Maris, Martin Kosleck, Sig Ruman.
Directed by Eugene Forde.

Berlin Correspondent is very entertaining in its way, a brief film full of espionage, final action with a touch of romance.

However, it covers events of November-December? 1941, America not involved in World War II that stage but the change coming with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.

The story is that of an American war correspondent living in Berlin, played by Dana Andrews. He provides regular broadcasts which are supervised by the Gestapo but which have sufficient codewords in them so that his newspaper can get information about the progress of the war and the collapse of German morale. The Gestapo chief is continually on the case, using a detective to follow the correspondent (but with some comedy as the detective continues to bumble and the correspondent often gives him information as to his whereabouts.)

There is a complication when the correspondent is very gallant to a woman in a restaurant without her food card (Virginia Gilmore) – but she is a set up by the Gestapo chief. She finds out how the correspondent is getting his information, on the back of stamps which he buys at a certain shop. Too late, she discovers that her father, not a Nazi sympathiser, is supplying information and he is arrested. He saves her by pretending that she has informed on him.

While the correspondent is shocked by his discovery, he has respect for the father and so does an elaborate trick, disguising himself as a Nazi psychiatrist, going to the institution where the father has been interned, playing to the vanity of the supervising doctor, and effecting an escape, consolidating the situation by appearing without trousers and borrowing a pair from the supervisor and then getting his car to escape.

There are complications with the Gestapo chief and his infatuation with the young woman and the jealousy of his assistant (Argentinian actress, Mona Maris). While the correspondent is interned in a concentration camp, after December 7, the Gestapo chief engineers an escape situation so that the man can be killed. The correspondent is shrewd, escapes with the help of the young woman, takes the Gestapo chief’s plane at the airport and flies to freedom.

The film is interesting in the light of subsequent postwar films and the presentation of the Nazis, the touch of caricature in some of the officials, the concentration camps – but it is interesting to note the information in this film which is available to the public in 1942.

1. An American propaganda film for World War II? Events of 1941? Release in 1942 – with the war having three more years to go? Impact in its time? Revelation about Nazis, Germany, concentration camps? In hindsight?

2. The idea of the Berlin correspondent before America’s entry into the war? Working and living in Berlin, texts prepared for overseas broadcasts, censorship, yet the Americans having codes to convey information? German suspicions? Spying? And the news of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the change towards the United States?

3. The plot, the propaganda material? The work of the correspondent in Berlin? The role of the Gestapo? Nazi loyalties? The combination with romance, betrayal, female jealousies, concentration camps, institutions and the killing of the insane through “mercy killing�, adventurous escapes from camps? Flight out of Germany?

4. Bill Roberts, Dana Andrews style, his presence in Berlin, the broadcasts and his delivery, the codes? His interactions with the Gestapo? His being followed – the comic touches of his giving advice to the spy where he could be found? The set up in the restaurant, Karen and her card, his gallantry, the date, the meal at home? His getting the information through the stamps? The light to reveal the information on the back? Karen discovering it, giving the information to the Gestapo chief? Seeing her at home, the irony of her father supplying information?

5. Karen, loyalty, Nazi philosophy, saying that her father and older people did not understand? Her working for the official? His romantic intentions? The attraction of Bill? Discovering the truth about her father, his arrest? His setting her up that she had betrayed him? Her concern, going to the Gestapo chief, the information? The encounter with Bill, his distrust, wanting to save her father?

6. The Gestapo chief, as interpreted in 1941-42, in the light of various characterisations in postwar films? His intensity and loyalty? His secretary, her devotion, his not seeing this? Infatuation with Karen? The rest of her father? His being sent to the institution? Ordering his death?

7. Bill, the impersonation of the psychiatrist, going to the institution, his bravado over the resident psychiatrist, the ruthlessness of the ideology of mercy killings? The plan, the change of clothes, the escape, Bill demanding the doctor’s trousers and the car to escape? His passport, the train journey to Zürich, the escape?

8. The passport, Gestapo checking the control, Carla and her getting the information, Karen and her reading out the information?

9. Carla, her jealousy, wanting the Gestapo chief? The information? Her being rejected? Her helping Karen, the advice, the car? And her final betrayal of the chief?

10. Bill, German laws, in the concentration camp, hard labour, the Englishman and his electrocution on the wall? The arrangement of the escape? The superintendent – with the orders to electrocute Bill? Bill, the shrewdness, watching the superintendent, getting over the wall, tearing his coat, the electricity going back on, his escape, the shots, Karen arriving in the car, her information during her visit to him, the escape, to the airport, the different identities, taking the plane? the pilot wanting to escape Germany?

11. Gestapo chief, Carla ringing the general, the orders for his arrest?

12. A popular way of informing the American public about the situation in Nazi Germany? And the production by 20th Century Fox?

A CLOSE CALL FOR BOSTON BLACKIE

US, 1944, 60 minutes, Black-and-white.
Chester Morris, Lynn Merrick, Richard Lane, Frank Sully, George L.Stone.
Directed by Lew Landers.

Boston Blackie was a popular cinema sleuth in a series of films, 13 in all, between 1941 and 1948. This film came in the middle of the series.

Popular actor of the 1930s, Chester Morris (The Big House, Corsair) played the private detective. As with The Saint and the Falcon, the detective lives something of a debonair life and also has an associate/confidante, in this case The Runt (here George L Stone who appeared as The Runt in many of the films). He provides a contrasting character as well as some comic situations.

There is also a continued rivalry between Boston Blackie and the local police chief, Richard Lane in most of the films. And, as in so many of these films, there is an associate policeman who provides a deal of dumb comedy.

Boston Blackie and The Runt intervene when a woman is being attacked in the street and it turns out to be an old flame. And she has placed a baby in his apartment. She has a story about the father of her child whom she had married just before he went to jail (instead of Boston Blackie) and says that she wants to protect the child from his grandfather.

In the meantime, the father arrives but is shot, the blame being put on Blackie. Hence the police intervention, The Runt has to take the baby to his girlfriends, her being absent, his needing to get milk and dressing up as a maid, she finding the baby and ringing the police chief who she knows from her work as a waitress, hiding the baby…

And, the baby deserves an Academy Award for cuteness and nice responses to everybody trying to cheer him up – all very well edited for his response.

Actually, the woman is involved in the scam, borrowing somebody else’s baby, trying to get money from the grandfather who has never heard of it – with Blackie discovering the truth, disguising himself as the grandfather to try to catch the woman and her accomplice, complicated by the dumb policeman also being disguised as the grandfather with final confusion and ultimate clarity.

The series was the equivalent of later television series – but this is entertainment, American style, the 1940s.

THE MISSING CORPSE

US, 1945, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
J. Edward Bromberg, Frank Jenks, Isabel Randolph, Eric Sinclair, Paul Guilfoyle.
Directed by Albert Herman.

This is a small supporting feature offering a few moments of light entertainment.

J. Edward Bromberg plays a somewhat pompous newspaper proprietor, living very comfortably, but finding at his breakfast table that everything is delivered first to his somewhat insufferable wife in bed, then to his daughter was out on the town, then to his son who has a hangover after a fraternity bash. And his servant has the touch of criticism.

He challenges a rival newspaper proprietor when he sees his daughter set up in a compromising photo on the front page. There is no love lost between the proprietors, especially when an associate of the tabloid proprietor who has just got out of jail appears and there is discussion about how he was set up and his confession used against him. The ex-convict angrily shoots the proprietor – but the staff have heard our hero threaten him. He Goes home and decides to disappear for a holiday, going hunting with his associate, Mack (Frank Jenks) and a whole lot of compromising situations are set up – paying off the local storekeeper to keep his presence quiet, buying lime to get rid of garbage, the discussion about guns, his leaving his newspaper staff to manage and not telling anybody where he was going.

He then discovers that the criminal has put the dead body in the boot of his car – which leads to him speeding away to attempt to get rid of the body but being chased by the local policeman. Very humorous situations arose with the missing corpse which is continually being moved by Mack to avoid discovery, in a box in the home their local friend, under beds, in cupboards…

And, the word gets around, the family arrives with the servant, everybody wanting to stand by the proprietor but thinking that he is guilty. Even his son is willing to take the responsibility.

Eventually, the criminal himself has followed, taking the proprietor’s car, looking for the body so that he can find the confession and destroy it.

And, everything sorted out, and happy ending where “there’s no place like home� and the breakfast routine continues with everybody neglecting the proprietor!

MIDNIGHT LIMITED

US, 1940, 65 minutes, Black-and-white.
John King, Marjorie Reynolds, George Cleveland, Edward Keane, Monte Collins.
Directed by Howard Brotherton.

An enjoyable supporting feature, crime and on trains, not murders but robberies.

The Midnight Limited goes from New York City to Montréal and, within minutes of the opening of the film, there is a diamond robbery, the alarm chain being pulled, an open door and the robber disappearing. However, he also confronts a young woman on the train and takes her documents which entitle her and her aunt to a property.

The police and the railway authorities investigate the case, especially with Val Lennon (John King), the young woman (Marjorie Reynolds) confronting the police, desperate about the documents, but wanting to participate in the search. They discover that she had seen the robber in the confrontation.

Despite best efforts, interviewing the passengers in that car on the train, the railway officials, the African- American porter (some jokes at his expense), they make no headway. They even interview the man in the locked luggage car.

And then, there is a second robbery, a prominent gambler loses his money in much the same way on the same train. In fact, the audience has seen the clerk at the hotel ringing the crime boss to indicate the travellers and what they are carrying. One of the police is shot during the robbery and so the investigators have a more personalised cause for pursuing the criminals.

Eventually, Lennon decides to set up a situation, disguising himself as a French- Canadian businessman – and he too is robbed. The alarm chain is pulled yet again.

There is a comic episode with an old alcoholic who was on the train each time – it is revealed that he answered and added to carry documents to Montréal for a fee.

However, Lennon has worked out what was happening, the fact that it was the guard who was doing the robberies and was able to go back to the luggage car while everybody was looking at the open door and hide in a container, with the collaboration of the man in charge of the carriage.

All solved, everything recovered, happy ending – but an enjoyable pacey crime investigation episode.

FLATLINERS

US, 2017, 110 minutes, Colour.
Ellen Page, Diego Luna, Nina Dobrev, James Norton, Kiersey Clemons, Kiefer Sutherland.
Directed by Niels Arden Oplev.

Flatliners is doing two things. In the first part, it is something of a horror film. In the second part it is a moralising story, something of a cautionary tale. It is also a remake of the popular film of 1990 which featured amongst others, Julia Roberts, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon. (A link is Kiefer Sutherland here turning up for a cameo as a disciplinarian supervising doctor, with white hair and a walking stick!)

This time the story is set in Toronto. The focus is on a group of doctors in training – and, judging by their behaviour, there is something of a risk to our future health unless they really improve their attitudes and standards. Being responsible isn’t high on their personal agendas.

The first person we are introduced to it is Courtney, played by Ellen Page, driving with her sister, distracted by her mobile phone, and crashing into a truck with the consequent death of her sister drowning in the river. Nine years later, she is part of the group of trainee doctors, more skilled than the rest of the group.

The most responsible of the rest of the group is Ray, Diego Luna, who knows his medicine but is drawn into the plan that Courtney develops, with her studies about afterlife, with her theory that were someone to have their heart stopped for a minute, to flatline, then brain activity could be checked and photographed. She makes demands on Jamie, played by James Norton far away from Grantchester and his rather edifying presence there, this time a too happy-go-lucky medical student. She also persuades her friend, Sophia, Kiersey Clemons, who is finding studies very difficult.

They do the experiment and we share Courtney’s after death or near death experience, walking in cosmic lights, rapt. It is easy to see where the plot development will take us, the other two, then their friend Marlo (Nina Dobrev) not only wanting to undergo the same experience but extending the time when the heart is stopped.

Clearly, there will be consequences – and, in fact, a sharpening and alertness of memories, knowledge, self-assertion.

But, some of the experiences are nightmarish. And, each of the subjects has something very worrying in their past, ghosts and hauntings surfacing, strange and unwanted experiences.

Which means then that the group has to face each individual conscience challenge, going back into the past, acknowledging the truth. And the question is: at the point of death is there some kind of what we might call “judgement�? And, in a secular perspective, without any benefit God, how can conscience be healed? Is forgiveness possible? Does each person who acknowledges their guilt have to forgive themselves?

So, these are some of the questions that the audience is left with as they leave the cinema and wonder whether flatlining is possible, wonder about the moral responsibilities of the medical profession, and wonder about personal responsibilities, forgiveness and reconciliation.

1. A film about dying? The afterlife? The effect on the brain, the soul, personality?

2. The Toronto settings, the hospital and the wards, the basement and equipment, apartments, clubs? Musical score?

3. The title, the explanation, the heart stopping, the equipment and signals? The equipment for revival? Brain activity, registered, photographed, studied?

4. The characters, their age, experience, their meetings, supervision and the strictness of the doctor, their ignorance in answers? The demands on them in the hospital? Responsibilities/irresponsibility? Living the high life? Extravagant, drinking, sexual relationships?

5. The group, friendship, cohesion, the relationships?

6. Courtney, the opening, her driving, her sister, the phone, the crash, into the river? The later visualisation, the crash, in the water, Courtney escaping, her sister’s death, the rescue?

7. Courtney, nine years later, her work, study, in the library, reading up afterlife? With Sophia, as a mentor? The issue of the experiment, the request to Sophia, to Jamie, the basement, the equipment, the plan? Her undergoing the experience, heart stopping, the fears, the equipment, panic, Jamie, Ray arriving, helping, the revival?

8. The aftermath, talking about the experience, Courtney and the cosmic energy, her walking through the lights? The change, her being more alert, playing the piano?

9. Jamie, his background, rather carefree? His wanting to undergo the experience? His heart stopping, the story of the girl, her confront him, the abortion, his sense of guilt? His background story, the girlfriend, his fears are not accompanying her to the abortion, his life on his boat, being haunted?

10. Marlo and Ray, the relationship, going home, the sexual encounter? Marlo, heart stopping for longer, the monstrous experience, her fear? The story, the dead man, the drugs, the falsifying the documents?

11. Sophia, her story, relationship with her mother, studies, finding memorising material difficult? The mother wanting her at home, her walking out on her mother? Undergoing the death experience, the memories of school, the rival girl, the photos, circulating them?

12. Courtney, her being haunted, fall to her death?

13. The meetings, sharing their fears? The timing and getting out before the cleaners arrived?

14. Sophia, tracking down the girl, at her workplace, the explanation, the apology, the girl moving on, yet turning to forgive severe?

15. Jamie, seeking out the girl, the encounter, discovering her son?

16. Marlo, talking with Ray, his ethical reaction? Telling the truth? Being on probation?

17. The film becoming a cautionary tale after horror elements? The nature of apology and forgiveness? Telling the truth? And the message about being able to forgive oneself?

BRIGSBY BEAR

US, 2017, 97 minutes, Colour.
Kyle Mooney, Greg Kinnear, Claire Danes, Mark Hamill, Jane Adams, Matt Walsh, Michaela Watkins, Ryan Simkins, Jorge Lendeborg Jr, Adam Samberg.
Directed by Dave Mc Cary.

A film reviewer should never be lost for words. But while – and after – watching Brigsby Bear, what is one to say? Yes, it is best seen without preparation and reading reviews afterwards.

The first thought is to alert audiences looking for a cuddly film for the children and the family, a kind of cuddly Paddington, this is not it. The second thought is that this film is likely to become a favourite cult movie, screened at special timeslots, drawing in an audience who may want to see it again – and again (and they may not be all that dissimilar from hero James and his friends).

In a sense, watching Brigsby Bear is something of an emotional and intellectual journey. At the opening, we’re watching a television program on a small screen, a very elementary animated series, very limited effects, a couple of human images, but generally Brigsby himself, going on a quest and confronting the Sun who turns out to be a villain. The episode we’re watching – as is James, about whom in a minute – is from volume 35 on VHS, shelving around James’s room piled with VHSs. Who is he? What is he watching? And why is he enjoying it so much, absolutely identifying with characters and situations?

James is a young adult, living with his parents, underground, isolated, with an enclosed observation tower – but when the father goes to work, he has to wear a gas mask. Are we in a post—apocalyptic situation? Well, for James, it is.

It quickly emerges, when the police turn up, James was abducted as a child and shielded by the eccentric abductors, who created the series of Brigsby Bear for him and the two are experts, as is James, on all the esoteric, names, characters, instruments, situations to be seen on screen.

Most of the film, in fact, is the story of an innocent abroad. James goes back to his birth parents who underestimate the sheltered, extraordinarily sheltered, life he has led. He himself is rather ingenuous, rather eager to discover new things but hanging on to the reality that Brigsby’s story is the key part of his life.

He does make some friends, discovers some contemporary mores amongst young people, parties, drugs, sexual behaviour, but in some ways is able to transcend them. And, believe it or not, in his telling the tale of Brigsby, the young people become fans. What is James to do but to make his own film about Brigsby. Thank goodness for Google where he is able to find all the necessary information about filmmaking, editing, and even tracking down the young woman who had appeared in the television series.

This is a cheerful and optimistic film despite James having his difficulties, his making friends with the acting-aspiring detective, Greg Kinnear, and the serious therapy sessions with Claire Danes.

The creator of the story is Kyle Mooney (a Saturday Night Live alumnus, so ready wit offbeat humour) who collaborated with the screenplay and takes the part of James. He makes this character extraordinarily credible, playing it straightforwardly, no mugging or winking to the camera. This makes the film more affecting.

Mark Hamill and Jane Adams play the abductors. Matt Walsh and Michaela Watkins his parents, Ryan Simpkins his sister, Jorge Lendeborg Jr his sympathetic friend and collaborator. And, one of those things one might notice, Kyle Mooney, Matt Walsh and Greg Kinnear are all left-handed!

There is a lot to enjoy about Brigsby Bear with all its eccentricity and, especially, James’s final cinematic success, and, quite a lot to think about, human nature, the effect of upbringing and emotional abuse, parenting and enabling young people to be themselves and to grow.

1. The reputation of the film? A cult film? A film about imagination?

2. The contribution by Kyle Mooney, the story, co-writing, performance? His background in satire and Saturday Night Live?

3. An American story, post-apocalyptic, the nature of the shelter, the interiors, James’s room, the basement? Upstairs, the roof, the enclosure? The contrast with the ordinary American town, Utah, homes, police precincts, student parties, the countryside and the salt lakes? The mental institution? The cinema? The musical score?

4. The title, the introduction to Brigsby, the animated film, the character? The elementary style of the animation? Brigsby and his quest? His voice? The numerous episodes, the adventures, the sun as a villain, the girls and their presence? The language, the jargon the gadgets, futuristic, science-fiction?

5. James, his age, his room, watching the television, the shelves with all the VHS cassettes? The years of episodes? His knowledge of them? His parents, Ted and April, the discussions with them? His computer, his contacts and communication? Going to bed, masturbation, the power going out? The meals, the blessing and the signs and handshakes, the talk? Ted going out, wearing his mask? April and the mathematical formulas? The shelter and the roof? The isolation? James’s worldview?

6. The arrest, James on the roof, the police, his reassurance? The detective, the explanation of what had happened? His abduction? Being taken to his parents? Their long search and its effect? His parents as characters, their love for him? His sister, her offhand reactions?

7. James as an innocent abroad, his new home, his new room, the meals and the food, his father drawing up the lists for activities, trying to play basketball? James, the truth and his adaptation? His preoccupation about Brigsby? His knowledge and worldview – the touch of the autistic? His sister inviting him to the party, meeting Spence, the discussions, the approach of the girl, sexual? The drugs, sexuality, his passing out, on the floor? Telling Spence the Brigsby stories, Spence interested and supporting him?

8. The decision to make the film, Googling the information? The detective, the stored equipment, the detective and his friendship, getting the equipment? Writing the script? Spence and the animation, the camera work? The group forming, his sister and her friends, their getting interested, the young man and his martial arts, the scenes? All the filming?

9. The detective, his personality, the interviews, discussions with James, his acting in the past, Prospero and The Tempest? His audition? Taking the equipment, giving it to James? The other detective, the situation with Brigsby?

10. The therapist, her visits the house, the sessions, her aim with the therapy, weaning James from Brigsby? The further meetings? His going to the institution? Life of the institution, the meetings with Eric, his personality, his help? The television set through the window and his escape?

11. Tracking down the girl in the film, at the diner, her memories, her son, at the premiere?

12. Completing the film? Visiting Ted in prison, the discussion, recording his voice as Brigsby? Everybody participating? The gathering at the cinema, the family together, Spence and the friends, Spence and his concern, James in the toilet, sick, worrying? The achievement of the film? The standing ovation for James?

13. The moral of the story, the strangeness of the abduction and the psychological abuse of James, the imprisonment of the abductors? Yet family life, the difficulties of adapting, the role of Brigsby Bear, the elementary animation – but an achievement? A future?

A SILENT VOICE

Japan, 2016, 129 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Naoko Yamado.

Over the decades, the Japanese film industry has built up an enormous reputation for animation, especially at the Deeply Studios.

The animation stories tell fairytales, take audiences into a world of imagination and fantasy. However, in more recent years, the animation has gone into fantasy and action in the Anime films.

The films, like this one, take ordinary characters, more ordinary situations, a sense of realism. This is a film about bullying, a focus on school, a young girl being bullied, the boys and then ganging up on her, especially on a young boy, Issue harder. The girl he bullies, initially, is deaf. The film presents her sympathetically, her attempts to speak, needing her notebook to communicate.

After some time, issue harder has his own problems and tries to make up for what he did in the past.

This gives the film quite some earnestness as it draws the audience into contemporary problems, the world of children, the world of bullying, and a world of changing for the better and a sense of redemption.


1. The impact of Japanese animation films? Fantasies? Dramas of realism? The impact of this realism?

2. The animation style, depiction of characters, the characteristics, details? Situations, home, classroom, school, bridges and water, real situations? The musical score?

3. The early part of the film about bullies, bullying? Victims? Bullying presented as ugly?

4. Disability, Nishimiya as deaf, able to speak awkwardly? Needing her notebook? The issue of sign language?

5. The focus on Ishada, his age, in school, being something of a clown, relations with the other students, his not understanding Nishimiya, picking on her, ridiculing her? The effect on him, carefree? His job, getting the money, giving it to his mother? The role of his sister? The clash with his mother, threatening to burn the money, the accidental burning? The reactions?

6. The depiction of the other students in the class – and their depiction as they grew older? Sympathetic, unsympathetic?

7. The passing of five years? The effect on Ishada, his work, the money, the encounter with Nishimiya, with her little sister, the rejection? His decision to learn sign language? Following through, clashes, Nishimiya and her unpredictable behaviour?

8. Ishida befriending Nagatsuka, best friend, the learning of friendship? The interactions, Nagatsuka and his and violence, the clash with Nishimiya’s?

9. The challenge to Ishada, his motivation for reconciliation, or just for himself?

10. The issues of suicide, Japanese youth? Self-image?

11. The issues of repentance, motivations, purifying motivations, regard for others?

12. Ishada’s personal journey, from bullying to acceptance, from suicidal to acceptance of life? Reconciliation?

13. Nishimiya, her journey, disability, picked on, sign language, protected, yet her self-image, her continued apologies?

14. How would this film have made its impact if it were live-action – the impact via the artificiality and stylisation of the animation?

HEARTSTONE HJARTASTEINN

Iceland, 2016, 129 minutes, Colour.
Baldur Einarsson, Blaer Hinrikisson,
Directed by Guaundur Arnar Gunaundsson.

This is a picture of Iceland as audiences do not generally see it. It is Midsummer, the countryside, the open plains and the green fields, the mountains with only touches of snow, the sea and lakes. It is beautiful countryside.

This is the setting for an unusual but effective drama. It focuses on two 13-year-old boys, Thor and Kristjan, on the verge of puberty. Thor is the central character, rather diminutive, examining his body, wanting pubic hair, with feeling taught skills and sexual arousal. Kristian on the other hand is more reserved, cautious, eventually discovering his same-sex attraction and having to cope with a homosexual identity.

The film fills in the background of the town, Thor’s deserted mother, obstreperous sister. There are Kristjan’s parents, his unreliable father and his fights. There are other parents but there are also groups of boys, older and boisterous, the touch of bullying. There are the girls, getting round together, but attracted to the boys.

In this context, the film gives a lot of attention to Thor, the details of his daily life, work, play, reserve, games of truth or dare, surreptitious kisses, embarrassments. And Kristjan shares in so much of this. At one stage, one of the girls, a poet and an artist, has the boys posing in make up, rather homoerotically – and later the butts of jokes about the painting.

While most of the sequences are very ordinary, audiences sharing the ordinary life of the youngsters, there is work on the farm, riding horses, camping by a lake and, especially, Kristian and his father letting Thor down on a rope to collect birds’ eggs from a cliff and the rope slipping and their having to rescue him. Kristian’s relief embrace of Thor when he is saved is an indication of the intensity of his feelings – leading to his attempted suicide.

The film is quite an exploration of the characters of the two boys and their interactions, issues of sexual arousal, sexual identity and how to cope.

The film won the award of the Ecumenical Jury in Warsaw, 2016.

1. Story from Iceland? Universal story?

2. The settings, east Iceland, the countryside, fields and mountains, the sea? The light of summer? Oncoming winter, snow? The feel of Iceland?

3. A story exploring the life of 13-year-old boys? Thor and Kristjan?

4. The town, the parents, absent parents, clashes? Farmers? Shopkeepers?

5. Thor, 13, short, at the beginning of puberty, his dissatisfaction, examining his body, the hair from the brush? Sexual feelings? The girls, Beth? His mother, slatternly, the fish
and her not using it, throwing it out? Rakel and the clashes? With the boys, the opening and the catching of the fish, playing games, with the girls? His friendship with Kristjan? Age, bonding, sharing together, roughhouse, tender, the posing for the painting and the homoerotic suggestions?

6. Kristjan, taller, 13, at home, his father and the brutality? With the group, fishing, at Thor’s home, with the girls? His friendship with Thor? The attraction? The painting? Ginger and the bullying? His realisation about his orientation? Love for Thor?

7. The girls, together, friendships, flirting, truth or dare games, kissing? The girl and her problems? Rakel and her making mischief at home? Things to do in the isolated town?

8. Thor’s mother, the husband leaving her, wanting a relationship, the reaction of her children? The dance, Sven and his gift of the necklace and Thor not giving it to his mother? Spending the night? The children worried about town gossip?

9. Kristjan’s father, the fight, allegedly about gay men? His taking the two boys to the cliff edge, to collect the eggs? The rope, Thor going down, Kristjan holding on, the peg loosening, holding the rope, Thor and his fear, his being called up? The intensity of the embrace between the two?

10. The two boys working on the farm, Sven, the horses, taking the horses with the girls, camping, swimming in the lake? Being caught, rebuked?

11. In the town, at the cafe, tables, the conversation, Ginger and the boys, the fights? Thor and his injuries?

12. Kristjan, the growing realisation of his attraction? The talk about gay men? Kristjan, with the horses, the attempted suicide, going to hospital? Not having any visitors?

13. Thor, his being upset, keeping to himself? Eventually going to see Kristian? The bond between the two? Kristjan moving to Reykjavík, Thor promising to see him?

14. The final focus on Thor, looking out to sea, looking into his future, his identity, sexuality, friendships?