OPEN SECRET

US, 1948, 68 minutes, Black and white.
John Ireland, Jane Randolph, Sheldon Leonard, Roman Bohnen, George Tyne, Arthur O' Connell.
Directed by John Reinhardt.

This is an interesting drama, not very well known. It is a supporting feature, short running time. However, it was released at the same time as the higher profile Gentlemen’s Agreement, a film about anti-Semitism which won the Oscar for best film and director for Elia Kazan. The thriller, Crossfire, was also released at this time.

It is surprising in retrospect to see the hostility towards the Jews in a small American town after the war, denial of the concentration camps, wanting the Jews to be out of the town, vocalised by ordinary mothers, and the gangs of boys breaking windows of Jewish shops.

A decorated soldier infiltrates the group, takes photos and intends to expose them but is lured to his death. His friend and his new wife, John Ireland and Jane Randolph, come to visit, are photographers themselves, get caught up in the prejudice, especially getting their photos developed by the Jewish store owner.

In the meantime, locals meet at a bar, under the leadership of Arthur O’ Connell (later a folksy character actor in so many films). The group is vicious, stooping to violence, ignorant vigilantes. Sheldon Leonard portrays the sympathetic detective in the town.

This leads to a melodramatic confrontation but also an expose of this anti-Semitic prejudice.

1. Small drama about anti-Semitic prejudice in the US? In the postwar period? Racism and bigotry? Vigilante activity?

2. The small town setting, the streets, shops, bars, homes? Authentic feel of the period? The musical score?

3. The title? Anti- Semitic prejudice? Victims? Perpetrators?, Knowledge?

4. The focus on Ed, his links with the group, getting out, having taken the photos, intending to expose the prejudice? At home, his landlady, the phone calls, the meetings? The murder?

5. Paul and Nancy, newlywed, coming to visit, the war memories? Ed and the welcome, his absence? Suspicions? The two as photographers? Taking the local kids’ photos? The development, Harry Strauss’s shop? The discovery of prejudice against him? The mother in the street, the son, wanting the Jews away?

6. The group in the bar, Carter and his leading behind-the-scenes, smooth but sinister? The other members of the group, their jobs? Drinking? The violence? Hit run deaths?

7. The landlady, the welcome, helping Nancy?

8. Paul, continuing his investigations? Going to the bar, talking? Directions of the barman, the people in the hotel?

9. Collecting the photos, the store assistant, his trying to stop the photos, his being led by the group, going to the house? Going to the bar, explaining the situation?

10. Nancy, the dangers in the house, the landlady? The intrusions?

11. Paul, courage, confronting the men, his being tied up?

12. Harry Strauss, calling the police? The role of the detective, the discussions with Paul, wanting to expose the group?

13. Paul, the final confrontation, the rescue? Strauss and his standing by his shop?

14. Prejudice in the US at the time – the period of the Oscar-winning Gentlemen’s Agreement, and Crossfire?

I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO

US, 2016, 93 minutes, Colour and black and white.
Voiceover, Samuel L. Jackson.
Directed by Raoul Peck.

This is a very powerful and relevant documentary. While it has a particular American focus, it is illuminating about race attitudes in the 20th century and what has been inherited and how race issues stand at the beginning of the 21st-century.

This is a film about American author, James Baldwin. He is a significant 20th century American literary figure but, from the 1960s on, he had an important role in American consciousness about African- American history.

The title belongs to Baldwin himself. The word “Negro� has passed from common usage, descriptive of African- Americans but with a derogatory past from the slavery era. In fact, during the filming Baldwin gives an explanation of this usage.

The film was directed by celebrated director, from Haiti, Raoul Peck, whose career has focused, in features and in documentaries, on racial concerns, from a drama about Lumumba to an exploration of the genocide in Rwanda, Sometime in April.

What is done here is to assemble an enormous amount of footage, television and film, of Baldwin himself and to edit it into what might be a political essay as well as a political biography. So, the audience sees as well as he is his voice – and with other quotations read by Samuel L. Jackson.

Baldwin was born in 1924, grew up in New York City but in the 40s moved to Paris where he lived for many years. He was able to develop his literary career, the breadth of personality in a different culture – but was also at times dogged by his sexual orientation (which put him, ironically, on the investigation list by FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover).

Baldwin intended to do a book on three significant African- Americans, their campaigns as well as their deaths: Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Medger Evers. So, there is a lot of material about the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and these men who, in their way, were martyrs to the cause. Baldwin outlines his relationship with each of the men, admiration, friendship, but some tensions in outlook with Malcolm X.

Baldwin appears in quite a number of television interviews. One of the other interesting features of this film is the assembling of clips from a range of movies. Baldwin is rather critical of the presentation of African- Americans in American feature films, even in those of the 1940s and 50s which had some basic sympathies. Examples of this kind of criticism include the Sidney Poitier- Tony Curtis drama, The Defiant Ones and other films with Sidney Poitier including the 1950s No Way Out as well as Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.

Baldwin is also interested in music with a number of reflections on the Negro tradition and performers like Lena Horne.

There are some caustic comments on the Kennedys, their New England background and what that meant in their trying to deal with the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s. The film was a nominee for Academy award for best documentary, 2016. It reflects some of the more recent topical history including riots in cities such as Ferguson, Missouri, with the deaths of black men at the hands of white police. There is also a quote from Bobby Kennedy about there being a black president 40 years after the 1960s and the turmoil – and the presidency of Barack Obama.

A mixture of the entertaining and the enthralling, thought and emotion-provoking.

1. The status of James Baldwin? In literature? Awards? Politics? Culture and race? A significant American?

2. Audience knowledge of Baldwin, the impression of him through the clips, his comments, talks, positions, friends and relationships, issues of race in the context of the US throughout the 20th century?

3. Raoul Peck, his film career, social concerns, his perspective on Baldwin, on American race issues, his editing the visual material with Baldwin’s own comments?

4. The title, the language, the 1960s and race issues, the language about Negroes, later African- Americans? The concept of the Negro, as defined by the white population, slaves, work? Issues of rights to identity, for slaves to be free? Prejudice and violence? The history of the southern states, of the whole of the United States, humiliation and prejudice and violence in the early part of the 20th century, the changes in the 1960s? Baldwin’s three friends, contributing to his consciousness about race? Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Medger Evers? The portrait of Lorraine Hansberry, the scenes from Raisin in the Sun, her going to see Bobby Kennedy, wanting him to go to the school, for JF Kennedy to go to the school, their not comprehending? Baldwin and his attitude towards the construction of the white American, his criticisms of John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Doris Day? The title and his continuous challenge?

5. James Baldwin, from New York, the early 20th century, growing up as an African American, the decision to go to Paris, his years there, a gay man, J.Edgar Hoover and his comments, his files on Baldwin? The return in the 60s, his greater involvement? With each of his friends, the impact of their deaths, sadness, touches of despair? His not becoming involved with the Black Panthers? His concern about the families and wives of the dead men? His project for writing about these three men – its not being achieved? This film as an alternative?

6. Medger Evers, from the South, his family, as a person, his involvement in race issues, in the South, his being killed, the aftermath? 1964?

7. Malcolm X and his speeches, his stances, race issues, the scenes of his speeches, Baldwin present? The death of Malcolm X? 1966?

8. Martin Luther King, his movement, the important stances in Washington, in Alabama, the marches and the demonstrations? His death?

9. This film and the use of films, black actors, Stepin Fetchit and others in the early part of the 20th century, Sidney Poitier, and scenes from No Way Out and the clash with Richard Widmark as a racist, The Defiant Ones and the link with Tony Curtis? The situation of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Other films? Pressure?

10. The role of music, songs, dance, Lena Horne, Stormy Weather?

11. The perspective of the 1960s and Baldwin and the transition to African- Americans and their position in the 1990s? Yet the riots in Ferguson in more recent times? The election of Obama? Bobby Kennedy’s comment about 40 years an African American president?

12. Raoul Peck and his 21st-century perspective?

THE LOVERS

US, 2017, 97 minutes, Colour.
Debra Winger, Tracy Letts, Aidan Gillen, Melora Waters.
Directed by Azazal Jacob.

There have been many films with this title. One of the differences for this film is that the central protagonists are aged 50.

We are quickly introduced to each of them, Michael involved in an emotional argument and clash with someone who may be his wife or girlfriend, Lucy. Then we see Mary, involved with a younger writer, Robert.

And then, the scene shifts to their home and we find that Michael and Mary are married and have been for 25 years. They have an adult son. At home, there seems to be a certain amount of intimacy but also a certain amount of tension. And we see both of them at work, realise that each of them is carrying on an affair, covering the affair by excuses at work, but not confiding in each other.

So, the scene is set for an explanation of relationships. It would have been more accurate to have in the title, instead of “love�, fidelity and infidelity.

What exactly Michael sees in Lucy, a very temperamental ballet instructor might puzzle some audiences. And, the writer is rather full of himself and difficult to see what attracts Mary to him.

The film has a strong cast with playwright Tracy Letts is Michael, Debra Winger making a rare screen appearance these days as Mary, Melora Waters is Lucy and Aidan Gillen as Robert.

Michael and Mary intend to separate but are waiting for their son to come home for a visit and to tell him. He is particularly bitter against his father, seeing him as seriously unfaithful. The young man turns up with his girlfriend and, as always in a film like this, there is a meal sequence with all kinds of tensions. The truth is exposed.

So, Michael and Mary separate, take up with the new respective partners – but the ironic question arises whether the affairs are completely satisfactory now that they become more stable relationships and whether some infidelity, between Michael and Mary on the side, is still necessary for their emotional life. While the characters and plot may resemble a lot of real life, the screenplay takes a rather distanced view of marital love, especially after 25 years (although the son and his fiancee are intending to be together for life), so it is all rather amoral.

1. The title, real lovers? Ironies? Issues of fidelity and infidelity?

2. An American story, universal story? Mary and Michael and their age, their experience of marriage, their son? Fidelity, infidelity, separation? Morality and an morality?

3. The American setting, the city, homes, workplaces, creative world, the world of dance and schooling? The musical score?

4. The introduction, Michael and Lucy, her tantrum, upset, his response? The relationship? The introduction, Mary and Robert, the affair, talking, comfortable with each other?

5. The audience covering that Mary and Michael were married, their age, experience, seems at home, the life over a quarter of the century, at the workplaces, work collaborators, discussions, pretexts, avoiding meals? At home, the comfort, the lies? Anticipation of Joel and a visit with his fiancee?

6. Lucy, her age, the relationship with Michael, the use of the word dramatic, easily upset, arguments, the scenes with her teaching dance to the ballerinas? The time with Michael?

7. Robert, writer, his success, sharing with Mary, his hopes, love, his putting her to sleep as he read?

8. Mary and Michael in bed, the kiss, the realisation of love and sexuality, the encounter, the shock? The plans, the separation?

9. Joel, the phone calls, his girlfriend? Arrival, his anger, judgemental about his father, his father sitting calmly? His reaction to his mother? The meal, the talk at table, the girlfriend? The announcement of the separation? Joel's anger, punching the wall? He and his fiancee leaving?

10. Michael calm, Mary calm?

11. Joel, having the meal with his fiancee’s parents? Their long Fidelity?

12. The separation, the scenes with Michael, with Mary? Lucy and her performance? Robert and his writing? Yet, the past experience in of infidelity, and their meeting each other in secret?

13. The audience left with the characters, performance rather than verbal analysis of the situation or moral perspectives?

PATTI CAKE$S

US, 2017, 109 minutes, Colour.
Danielle Macdonald, Bridget Everett, Siddharth Dhananjay, Mamoudou Athie, Cathy Moriarty.
Directed by Geremy Jasper.

This is definitely a film for audiences rapt in Rap.

While Rap is an American phenomenon, especially developed by African-Americans?, it has spread in more recent years right throughout the world, many indigenous groups drawing on the traditions of Rap to explore ideas and feelings in the lyrics and the rhythms.

Basically, this is a familiar story about young people with musical ambitions, developing their talent, spreading their hopes, experiencing setbacks, working through them to achieve some kind of success. It has been seen as the foundation for many films about singers and musicians. This time about Rap. The director of the film is obviously an enthusiast because he has contributed to many of the songs throughout the film.

Patti is a young woman living in New Jersey with her mother and grandmother. She is played by Australian actress, Danielle Macdonald, and one might she is in the tradition of Rebel Wilson. And she loves rap, composing songs, practising, getting a few local gigs. She is joined by a young man who works in a local pharmacy, Indian background, who is enthusiastic as she is, even more so in performance. The other member of the group, by contrast, is a rather laconic African-American?, replete with facial rings, who goes under the name of Bastard field, is Bob.

Patti works as a caterer, fairly successful in a restaurant but then going out to cater for various functions – including a dinner for a celebrated rap artist, slipping him the CD that she and her group have made, he proving to be an arrogant snob. She is disheartened and prepared to give up. At home, there is a crisis with her grandmother, with whom she is great friends (Cathy Moriarty) having a stroke and then dying. Her mother (Bridget Everett) as they might say is a tough broad, a big strong woman, a talent for belting out a song, which she does in a local club – but finds her moment at the culmination of the film in joining Patti in song.

The film fills in the background of life in the suburbs of New Jersey, indicating the this is not necessarily the place to build a musical career. However, Patti does get an opportunity to revive her group, apologise to the others for her harsh treatment of them, gets her mother to dye her hair, dresses up, goes to a local club to perform in a competition. The group is on its way…

1. The specific niche audience for this film? Lovers of rap? The effect of the film on those not keen on rap music? An American story, New Jersey – universal?

2. The New Jersey settings, the suburbs, the cities, homes, clubs, the streets, bars, catering events, wealthy clients? The ordinary background, shops and pharmacies? The hut in the woods? The hospital? Real/unreal?

3. Rap music, the genre, origins? Popularity in the United States? African- Americans? White Americans? The rhythms, verbal skills and rhymes, the use of language, music and accompaniment? Topics, the origins, African- American, social issues? Extending rap to such artists as Patty herself?

4. The focus on rap? The director of the film, and his contribution to the rap compositions? The performances, the range, the audiences and their response? Rehearsal sequences? The rap star, his mansion, catering, his drink, his snobbery and snapping of Patty? The forming of the group, rehearsals, their zest, making the record, giving them away in the streets? Patty at the bar mitzvah, the catering, encountering the rap artist? The later opportunity? The ups and downs of the performers? And the finale?

5. The ordinary story of musicians and their hopes, New Jersey, Patty as a character, her relationship with her mother, the mother as strong, performer? Her song in the bar, the performance at the end? Doing Patty’s hair? The men in her life? Her injury in the club, on crutches with the finale? The grandmother, tough, supporting Patty, her stroke, in the hospital, her death? The funeral – and Nearer my God to Thee?

6. Ray, the catering firm, his attitude towards Patty, her proving herself, her hard work, going to the mansion, the snobbery of the staff? Her ability to make the absinthe drink? Taking it to the star, his reaction, the CD, his humiliating her? Her being upset, leaving, loss of confidence in her career?

7. The other members of the group, Bob, African- American, his rings, nose and mouth? Quiet? Musical skills, life in the hut? Laconic towards Patty? Performance, with Patty, the emotions, sex and the relationship? His leaving, the return, the bond?

8. The Indian background of the other performer, his zest, performance, costume? His reaction to Patty, the group, that CDs? The breakup of the group? His work at the pharmacy, Patty coming to buy things, discussion with him? His being hurt by the breakup, yet his return?

9. Patty, going down in self-esteem, the phone call from the rap artist, meeting her friends, getting her hair done, going to the club, her nerves? Going on stage, performing, her mother joining her?

10. The group, the hopes? Being oneself, fulfilling ambitions?

HEAL THE LIVING/ REPARER LES VIVANTS

France, 2016, 13 minutes, Colour.
Tahar Rahim, Emmanuelle Seigner, Anne Dorval, Bouli Lanners, Finnegan Oldfield, Theo Cholbi.
Directed by Katell Quillevere.

Heal the Living might seem a superfluous kind of title – who else can be healed except the living? But the very serious point being made is that the dead can be instrumental in healing the living.

There are two stories in this film connected by a young man, a surfer, who has gone out one early morning with friends to surf, drives back home but is involved in a car accident. The first part of the film is his story, life and death, especially the effect of the news of his sudden death on his parents. As they grieve, the father blames himself for introducing his son to surfing, the mother grieves powerfully as a mother.

The second part of the film focuses on an older woman with heart disease, a woman of culture and music, with two sons, facing the prospect of dying.

One might say that this is a film of “heart spirituality�, that a heart which has enlivened the young man still has the power to enliven the older woman.

It might seem obvious that a heart transplant can heal the living – but, the decision for the transplant and organ donation weighs very heavily on the parents, listening to the urgings of the young doctor and his enthusiasm, the father angry, the mother still grieving, and their finding a way to give consent.

For audiences who have some connection with illness and organ transplants, this may seem quite obvious. On the other hand, many in the audience do not have a direct link with death or have it only rarely. Organ transplants are not at the forefront of their consciousness. This film doesn’t pull its punches when visualising the excision of the heart, the physicality of the surgery, the urgency of the transport from hospital to second hospital, by car, by air, the need for haste, for – ice-cooling the the container to carry the organ to be transplanted.

With the shift in age and gender, the second part of the film focuses on Claire, older and having lived a lot her life, and her having the potential for living with the gift of the transplant and its suitability for becoming part of her.

The film shows two facets of contemporary French life, allows us to spend a lot of time with the characters, with families who have problems – and, somewhat to the fore, includes story issues of same-sex relationships.

Heal the Living makes demands on the emotions of the audience, identification with characters, with situations – but also makes demands on intellectual understanding of the reality of organ donation, the repercussions for the body of the dead person, of the responses by close family and their making decisions as well as anonymity and living with a life-giving organ from another person.

1. A film about death, life? Organ transplants and hope?

2. The title, with reference to the dead young man, his parents, the mother and her heart condition, her sons, friends?

3. The opening, Normandy coast, the beach and waves? The road, accidents? Ambulances? Hospitals, offices, surgery? Contrast with the world of Claire, apartments, concert, doctors, hospitals, surgery?

4. The focus on the surgery, clinical and focused, the excision of the heart, its being transported, the plane, the carriers, the urgency? The transplant surgery? Tensions? Skills?

5. The story of the young man, with his girlfriend, leaving early morning, skateboard, his friends on their bicycles, the van? The surfing, the exhilaration? The sequences of the waves, underwater, the turmoil? Driving back, sleepy, driver and his hallucination of the waves? The crash?

6. Simon, brain-dead, organs functioning well? The doctor and the treatment, the nurses? Talking to him as if he were alive? The doctor reprimanding this, especially for doing this and the grief to parents?

7. The phone call, the daughter, getting up, going to the hospital, the shock of the news, the grief? Contacting her husband? The doctor and his explanations, sympathetic, factual? Husband and his reaction, blaming himself for introducing Simon to surfing? The interview with the young doctor, organ transplant? The father blaming him and walking out? The drive to the factory, the father working? The scene of the drive back, the giving their consent, the young doctor promising to respect their wishes and the body of Simon?

8. The transition to Claire, with her sons, her heart condition, moving closer to hospital, the interviews with the doctor, the possibility of a transplant? With her sons, Maxime and his devotion, Sam at his not telling his mother about dropping out of college? The meal, watching ET?

9. Claire, going to the concert, lifted up the stairs, Jeanne and her playing, the past, the relationship, the intimate talk, going home, the intimacy again, the caution about emotion, discussion with the Sam was gay?

10. Going to hospital, Maxime his attention, concern of the doctor, Claire wanting to see Sam, his being held up by the weather? Her going into surgery, the washing, her preparation?

11. The surgery on Simon, the detail of the removal of is heart, staff and skills, transfer to the container, the ice, preservation, the airport and the plane, bringing it the surgery theatre. The successful surgery, Claire?

12. The final image of the parents of Simon accepting the reality? Of Claire smiling?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE

 

UK, 2017, 141 minutes, Colour.
Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Julianne Moore, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry, Jeff Bridges, Edward Holdcroft, Hannah Alstrom, Michael Gambon, Lena Endre, Pedro Pascal, Bruce Greenwood, Emily Watson, Thomas Turgoose, Calvin Demba, Keith Allen.
Directed by Matthew Vaughn.

 

Kingsman was a popular and box office success right around the world. Based on comic strips, it had a particularly British flavour, enhanced by the writing team of Jane Goldman and Matthew Bourne who had worked in the previous film as well as other action adventures like Kick Ass.

 

While the film was particularly successful in Britain, it had an appeal in the United States and so this sequel reaches out to the Americans, incorporating them both as villains and as heroes.

 

There must be a very strong Colin Firth fan club in England and, perhaps, the United States. After all he was George VI in The King's Speech. However, despite his strong and gentlemanly presence as Harry in the first film, he was killed off in a rather sensational manner. Screenplay writers have a certain omnipotence so what else but to resurrect him, with a touch of the sensational, but letting him go into final action even more sensationally.

 

The emerging hero of the first film was a young man from a poor background who was chosen for his personality and skills, personally trained by Harry, and becoming a gentlemanly hero while working at that most elegant of British gentleman's clothes shops, Kingsman. He was played by Taron Egerton, Eggsy.

 

There is a slam bang opening for this sequel, gentleman Eggsy confronting a rogue former agent, Charlie (Edward Holdcroft), elaborate fights, a spectacular car chase ending up in Hyde Park and a lake, with an underwater exit, although through the sewer, with everything under the IT control of Mark Strong's Merlin, a welcome return.

 

But, the American connection. Julianne Moore obviously enjoys herself as the eccentric, folksy and chatty villain, the ruthless Poppy, running a drug empire from the jungles of Cambodia but having all the pop comforts of American œculture, a diner, a movie theatre, streets just like back home. And she makes a mean hamburger, especially with some of her enemies going through the mincer!. The Kingsman team suffers a great blow, everyone, including Michael Gambon, being blown up. But Merlin discovers a link to Kentucky, to a whiskey company, Statesman. And the action transfers to Kentucky. (With disputes about the British and American spellings of whiskey/whisky.)

 

The members of Statesman all have alcohol names, Channing Tatum being Tequila, Jeff Bridges, the boss, being Champagne, Champ for short, Pedro Pascal being Whiskey and, because she works behind the scenes, Halle Berry is only Ginger. So, a lot of action in Kentucky, especially with Whiskey who is able to confront homophobic as well as anti-British rednecks with his lassoo and whip.

 

But the main discovery, of course, is that Harry got a severe injury to the eye but was rescued, now suffering from amnesia and thinking he is a butterfly expert, no therapy helping until Eggsy has a bright idea and Harry recovers, though initially uncoordinated, joins in all the action, some of it very spectacular in Italy. Poppy has sold drugs around the world but has infected people so her scheme is to manufacture the antidote and exploit it, even threatening the President of the United States (Bruce Greenwood) and his chief adviser (Emily Watson). But, in a reminder of President Trump, this president is against drugs and rounds up in cages all those infected.

 

While the action in Italy is spectacular, especially a cable car rolling down the mountainside, the final action is in Cambodia, umbrella weapons as in the old British television series The Avengers as well as modern guns. Who should be Poppy's hostage in Cambodia but actual Elton John – it does get to do a few martial arts moves!

 

So, plenty of action, well-choreographed, eccentric characters, international and elaborate situations, incessant swearing as in the first film, and a happy ending that could lead, of course, to a further sequel.

 

1. The popularity of the original film? Continuation, characters, action, spoof? Comic strip background? Success?

 

2. The sequel, the past cast, Harry dying, yet now living? The British cast? Poppy and her team, the Americans in Cambodia? The American team, Kentucky, Statesman and Company? The world of drugs? The sequences in Italy? Washington DC, the president and the consequences? The musical score?

 

3. The stunt work, editing and pace, choreography of action?

 

4. The title, the shop, elegant clothes, the cover for espionage? The explosion and destruction of Kingsman? The link with Statesman? The world, the bottle of whiskey? The codename? The Knights, the drinks, wearing Kingsman clothes as battle dress and the joke with Tequila at the end, dressed like an Englishman?

 

5. The opening, setting the spirit, Eggsy and his clothes, coming from Kingsman, his glasses? The confrontation with Charlie, the taxi, the fights, Charlie's arm, locked in? The drive, the Wellington Memorial, Hyde Park, the water, under water, the escape, the sewer? The contacts and screens? Merlin in control?

 

6. Eggsy and his story, in the first film, young, trained by Harry, becoming a gentleman, his martial skills, yet his pals, their background, ordinary, the birthday party? His fiancee, Swedish royalty? Whether to commit to her on not, Kingsman rules? Issues of manners, table manners and training? The flashbacks to Harry? The dinner, Royalty, the King's questions, his earpiece, answering all the questions of general knowledge, the spy contact? Roxy? The explosions?

 

7. The situation, the destruction of Kingsman, Merlin and Eggsy being wary? The vault, the drink, going to Kentucky?

 

8. Poppy, in the jungle, the American transplant to the jungle, the diner and the American look, the cinema and its headings, the hoardings? Julianne Moore as Poppy? In herself, chatty, very American, folksy, yet ruthless? The control of the Golden Circle? Her agent, bringing Angel, Angel killing him? The mincer and the burger? Angel and the transformation?

 

9. The irony of Elton John being a prisoner, in the theatre, playing? The spoof of villains? Elton John and his wanting to escape, the elaborate clothes, the piano and his going into martial arts?

 

10. Poppy and her plan, drugs throughout the world, the rich, infecting people, creating the antidote? The challenge to the American president, his advisers, the demands?

 

11. Kingsman representatives going to Kentucky, the encounter with Statesman? Tequila, very American, suspicious, confronting them? Ginger and her role, information technology, yet wanting to be active? Champagne, his personality? Whiskey and his expertise?

 

12. The Americans, contrasting style from the British? Information and techniques?

 

13. Merlin, his control, guiding Eggsy, surviving? Find him, the whiskey, going to the United States? His continued help, IT control? Meeting Ginger, the connection with her?

 

14. Charlie, his past, the training with Kingsman, his turning? His arm and its mechanism? Working for Poppy? Fighting, in Cambodia? His girlfriend, her infection? The Glastonbury festival? Her going to Italy, the antidote, changing? Charlie and the destruction of his girlfriend? The ultimate fight against Eggsy, with his new arm?

 

15. Glastonbury, Whiskey and his American-style, chatting up the girlfriend? Eggsy, younger, the seduction? The fiancee, his fear about her, contacting her by phone, stopping the encounter? Her infection and his technique of infecting her?

 

16. Whiskey, the American bar, the rednecks, homophobic, his use of the lassoo and the whip?

 

17. Harry, the flashbacks, training Eggsy, the episode at the church in Kentucky, his death? The flashback to Samuel L. Jackson? The development of the screenplay, Harry being saved, the injury to his eye? Amnesia, his work with the butterflies? Therapy unable to help him? The various devices, Merlin, Eggsy? Eggsy and the dog? Harry remembering, his old self, very British? With the group but not quite coordinated?

 

18. Going to Italy, the beautiful scenery, the laboratory and its extensiveness? Harry waiting below, Eggsy and Whiskey going to the top? The girl, the confrontation with Charlie? Coming down, the cable car, its rolling and the old people in the resort? Harry shooting Whiskey and his suspicions?

 

19. Whiskey, the backup? Ginger and her criticisms of his opposition? Return to Kentucky, his recovery, his motivations, jealousy, taking the plane, confronting Poppy, the fights and like the earlier agent, going into the mincer?

 

20. Everybody converging on Cambodia, Eggsy and Harry? The weapons, the protective umbrella? The guns? The mines, Merlin tricking the others, remaining on the mine, singing John Denver, Country Road, his death, self-sacrifice?

 

21. The range of guards, the range of deaths? Elton John and his attack? His being infected, the cure, playing, success?

 

22. The seeming defeat, Eggsy and Charlie, Harry and the guns? Poppy, the supplying of the code, injecting her, her death? The cure for the world?

25. The happy ending, Eggsy and his wedding and all the Statesman representatives being present? The final joke with Tequila?

 

 

MOTHER!

US, 2017, 120 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Domhnal Gleeson, Kristin Wiig.
Directed by Darren Aronofsky.

Reviews in response to Mother! have been quite polarised. Some headings have stated: “love it or loathe it�. Definitely!

It is quite a complicated film, something to be expected from its writer-director who over a 20 year period has made such films as Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, Black Swan – and, more straightforwardly, The Wrestler. Darren Aronofsky is not afraid to take his audiences into the realms of imagination and fantasy and the complex world of allegory.

If one were to be asked what the film is about, it is easy to say that it is about a husband-and-wife setting up a house, she repairing and restructuring it, he a writer enjoying some seclusion. He invites people to stay. There is a family altercation with his visitors and, consequently, more and more people come to the house with strange results. But that is not even the half of it!

In looking at the final credits, we see that the cast are not named with personal names but with designations. Jennifer Lawrence is Mother. Javier Bardem is Him. Taking Him as a clue leads us into all kinds of speculations, especially religious. Aronofski has no hesitation in setting up many religious connotations.

Since his previous film was a biblical saga, Noah, religious concepts, the Judeo- Christian tradition has been strong in his consciousness.

The film begins and ends with a spectacular fire, death, the finding of a glass heart in the fire and its being set up as a shrine. It seems as if the world we have been invited into is cyclic. And the beginning and the end are apocalyptic, apocalyptic fire, destruction and potential renewal or cruel recycling and repetition.

Since the husband of the narrative is designated as Him, it is easy to make a God reference. Him is creative, has moments of writer’s block, seeks stimulation by sharing other’s stories, inviting them into his home. Mother is younger, is loving, wants a child, eventually becomes pregnant. She can be seen as something of an earth mother/Virgin Mary figure, giving birth to a child to great acclaim but to destruction. The Judaeo- Christian references are there and open to interpretation.

One of the main speculations is whether the film is religious or anti-religious, whether it is theist or anti-theist. Him seems good but seems also to be self-absorbed, loving Mother but also cruel to her. His creation is beautiful but spasmodic. And, one might also speculate that the couple played by Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer (Michelle Pfeiffer giving almost a masterclass on haughty malice) are like Adam and Eve with a sudden intrusion into their new hope for Paradise by their two clashing sons, with Cain and Abel results.

In the religious/anti-religious speculations, the film has a great deal to show about cult, cult-figures, fans and fanatics, committed disciples, irrational disciples, the madness of putting people on pedestals and knocking them off.

So, while the above can be considered as a review, it is very much a rumination about a film that is often wildly imaginative, sometimes delirious in its action and visual style, a dream allegory of our world.

1. The reputation of the film? Loving or loathing?

2. The credentials: the director, the cast?

3. Realism? Fantasy? Interaction between the two?

4. The film as religious? Anti-religious? Reliance on the Judaeo- Christian tradition and images? Stories? Apocalyptic?

5. The title? The character of Mother, the !? Him? Designations of characters rather than names?

6. The opening, apocalyptic, fire, mother being destroyed, the house? The glass in the ashes? The setting up of the shrine? The end and the recurrence of these events? Mother and her heart? The heart of glass emerging and enshrined? The cyclic nature of the story?

7. The introduction to the couple, as real? The marriage, the difference in age, their experience, no children? The house burned down, the visuals of the ruins and ashes? The repair? Details of the repair, the walls, the paint? The creativity, the author and his writer’s block? The relationship of husband and wife? Happiness? And the domestic details?

8. The isolation of the house, the view of the house from outside? But the focus on the interiors, an interiors drama?

9. The doctor, his sudden arrival, unannounced, his story, research? Needing somewhere to stay? Imposing or not? Smoking, inside and out? The wife upset? The husband inviting him in, the chatting during the night, drinking, his being sick, the cigarette butts, his recovery, staying? The two men bonding? Their going for the walk and leaving the wife?

10. The doctor’s wife arriving, her being haughty and demanding, relationship with her husband, presuming to stay, her interactions with her husband, her interactions with the couple? The effect of her staying, her critical comments, on the painting of the house, intruding on privacy, their breaking the heart of glass, the discussions about children, burning her hand, her snooping and going into the office?

11. The effect on each of the couple? He being stimulated, she being upset? The nights, sleep, noise?

12. The sudden entry of the sons, barging in, quarrelling? The issue of the will, of the inheritance? The four shouting and fighting? The back story to the clash (Cain and Abel)? The wife and her anxiety? The fight, one son hitting the other, killing him, their all leaving, going to the hospital, the husband going? She remaining, scrubbing the floor, her fears, her husband’s plausible responses to all her anxieties?

13. A growing unreality, the blood on the floor, the stain, chipping away at the floor, going downstairs, chipping away at the wall, the cavernous spaces?

14. The return, the family barging in, taking over, the celebration of the dead son, the drinking, the speeches, the memorials? The husband being absorbed? Reassuring his wife?

15. The effect on her, changing her clothes, coming down, being ordered to change? The haughtiness of the doctor’s wife, treatment? The members of the family, talking?

16. The range of guests, the number, taking over, going upstairs, the rooms and flirting, the wife ordering them down, wanting them to leave? Her being accosted, the food, more and more people, the creation of the mess? The couple sitting on the sink and crashing?

17. The ousting, her being upset? Talking, the sexual encounter – and the possibility of pregnancy?

18. The husband being inspired, writing, time passing, the parchment, her being pregnant, their life together, finishing his work?

19. Her reading it, the beauty? The phone call, the agent already having the manuscript?

20. The people coming to the door, queuing, wanting autographs, the hailing the poet, celebrating him? The greater crowds, like disciples, the formation of a cult? Photos, the agent and her wanting control, ordering the wife around? The wife and her bewilderment, the growing chaos, inside and out?

21. The crowds, the destruction and demolishing? She pregnant, the dangers, the fear of giving birth? Her husband’s reaction? Her being locked in the room, giving birth? Unconsciousness, the aftermath? The collapse, his taking the baby, everybody touching the baby and passing it along, its death?

22. The culmination, apocalyptic, the destroying of the house? She, the fire, her dying, her face, the glass taken from her heart? Enshrined?

23. The recycling and the new wife?

24. The credits and the religious implications of the identification of the characters by designations, especially the earth mother? Him – a divine designation? And the agent as the Herald…?

THE ONLY LIVING BOY IN NEW YORK

US, 2017, 89 minutes, Colour.
Callum Turner, Jeff Bridges, Kate Beckinsale, Pierce Brosnan, Cynthia Nixon, Kiersy Clemons, Bill Camp, Wallace Shawn, Debbie Mazar, Tate Donovan
Directed by Marc Webb.

Innocent or naive? Quite a significant question that audiences will raise in getting to know this only boy living in New York City. He is 25 but the title is boy. And is he innocent or naive? Certainly awkward, gawky, not knowing the ways of the world but having to learn them. And, in what ways is he living?

There is a lot of voice-over in the film, welcome because it is spoken by Jeff Bridges who plays the next-door neighbour to the boy, tells his story, writes it – substituting for the boy’s own father, listening, counselling, a kind of father confessor as well a psychiatrist.

The boy’s actual father is a millionaire in the publishing business, an interesting character study from Pierce Brosnan. The boy’s mother is quite neurotic with a charm of her own, played by Cynthia Nixon. Their marriage is brittle and is on the verge of breaking, another woman.

The boy, whose name is Thomas, is played very effectively by Callum Turner (who, it turns out, was born in London). Actually, so was the other main character in the film, Johanna, a book editor, in complicated relationships with the father and the son, played by Kate Beckinsale. The other central character is Mimi, a friend more than girlfriend for Thomas (Kiersey Clemons).

It is surprising, with these complex characters, how much material is on-screen in just under 90 minutes, keeping audience attention, listening to dialogue which is well-written, often quite arresting and thoughtful. (The screenplay was written by Alan Loeb who has done quite a number of genre films as well as 2016’s somewhat pretentious Collateral Beauty – which means that the screenplay is quite a surprise.)

The voice-over has quite a lot to say about New York City and speculations about the soul of the city, the various trends, the shifting community, the art world, the drug addicts, the changes in neighbourhoods – which would make it interesting for anyone who has spent some time in New York City. One of the key sequences occurs at a Jewish wedding, a most elaborate event, with an unexpected philosophical speech by Bill camp as Uncle Buster. Not sure whether most of the audience will retain the extensive content of the speech.

There are some surprises in the screenplay and some twists that may or may not have been anticipated which gives something of a different perspective on some of the characters and their behaviour.

The title comes from a song by Paul Simon, sung by Simon and Garfunkel and incorporated into the screenplay towards the end of the film.

1. A New York drama? Memories of the later 20th-century? The changes in the 21st-century? Styles?

2. The title, Paul Simon song, the singing of Simon and Garfunkel, the song within the plot? The New York tone? Other songs? The background musical score?

3. The New York settings, streets and skyscrapers, apartments, offices, socials and weddings, restaurants?

4. The voice-over, information, tone – and the voice of the observer, the novelist?

5. Thomas and his story, the title of the film, his age, relationship with his parents, clashing with his father, protective of his mother? Work, study, his relationship with Mimi, sharing with her, her friendship, the decision to go to Croatia, breaking with her boyfriend? His father and the use of the word “serviceable�? His mother’s tension, smoking and drinking? Thomas living alone, the apartment, his prospects? His awkwardness, naivete and gawkiness?

6. His story, the narrative, the tone, information about him, his sitting with the author, unaware of who he was? The introduction, on the steps, the interrogation, the offer of a listening ear, counselling? The discussions, in the apartment, walking? Inviting the author to the party, his observing, disappearance? Thomas discovering his story, reading it? The identity of the novelist?

7. Thomas and Mimi, the restaurant and club, seeing his father with Johanna? His reaction? Concern for his mother? His continually following Johanna, his obsession? Talking with her in the street, a challenge? Johanna knowing who he was? The kiss? Leading to the affair, the effect on Thomas, on Johanna?

8. Johanna and her character, brought up in London, the move to the US, the work as a freelance editor, the contact with Ethan, in love with him, the affair with Thomas and its effect on her? The difference in age? Her going to the social, with the gay partner? Going to the anniversary party, the revelation and its effect? Her attitude towards Thomas? Love for Ethan?

9. The lengthy wedding sequence and its style, the crowds, Jewish, food, dancing, Thomas and Johanna, Mimi observing, their going away together, the sexual encounter? The place of the uncles lengthy speech?

10. Thomas’s mother, smoking and drinking, tense, going to the park, reading? Devotion to her husband? The celebration of the party?

11. Mimi, her return, with Thomas, the break, as a conscience voice for Thomas?

12. The revelation of the truth, the effect on Thomas? The surrogacy issue? Ethan and his wife, the novelist friend, the arrangement? The novelist withdrawing, observing his son from a distance, yet wanting to get closer, talking with him, writing the story?

13. Ethan, not creative, successful publishing, money, wanting his son to make decisions, offering a career in publishing? The relationship with Johanna? The separation from Johanna and from his wife – and his sense of freedom?

14. His wife, reunion with the novelist, her sense of freedom, joy?

15. Observation of human nature, in the New York City context, acknowledging that life is a mess but the only way out is through the mess?

THE ONLY LIVING BOY IN NEW YORK CITY

US, 2017, 89 minutes, Colour.
Callum Turner, Jeff Bridges, Kate Beckinsale, Pierce Brosnan, Cynthia Nixon, Kiersy Clemons, Bill Camp, Wallace Shawn, Debbie Mazar, Tate Donovan
Directed by Marc Webb.

Innocent or naive? Quite a significant question that audiences will raise in getting to know this only boy living in New York City. He is 25 but the title is boy. And is he innocent or naive? Certainly awkward, gawky, not knowing the ways of the world but having to learn them. And, in what ways is he living?

There is a lot of voice-over in the film, welcome because it is spoken by Jeff Bridges who plays the next-door neighbour to the boy, tells his story, writes it – substituting for the boy’s own father, listening, counselling, a kind of father confessor as well a psychiatrist.

The boy’s actual father is a millionaire in the publishing business, an interesting character study from Pierce Brosnan. The boy’s mother is quite neurotic with a charm of her own, played by Cynthia Nixon. Their marriage is brittle and is on the verge of breaking, another woman.

The boy, whose name is Thomas, is played very effectively by Callum Turner (who, it turns out, was born in London). Actually, so was the other main character in the film, Johanna, a book editor, in complicated relationships with the father and the son, played by Kate Beckinsale. The other central character is Mimi, a friend more than girlfriend for Thomas (Kiersey Clemons).

It is surprising, with these complex characters, how much material is on-screen in just under 90 minutes, keeping audience attention, listening to dialogue which is well-written, often quite arresting and thoughtful. (The screenplay was written by Alan Loeb who has done quite a number of genre films as well as 2016’s somewhat pretentious Collateral Beauty – which means that the screenplay is quite a surprise.)

The voice-over has quite a lot to say about New York City and speculations about the soul of the city, the various trends, the shifting community, the art world, the drug addicts, the changes in neighbourhoods – which would make it interesting for anyone who has spent some time in New York City. One of the key sequences occurs at a Jewish wedding, a most elaborate event, with an unexpected philosophical speech by Bill camp as Uncle Buster. Not sure whether most of the audience will retain the extensive content of the speech.

There are some surprises in the screenplay and some twists that may or may not have been anticipated which gives something of a different perspective on some of the characters and their behaviour.

The title comes from a song by Paul Simon, sung by Simon and Garfunkel and incorporated into the screenplay towards the end of the film.

1. A New York drama? Memories of the later 20th-century? The changes in the 21st-century? Styles?

2. The title, Paul Simon song, the singing of Simon and Garfunkel, the song within the plot? The New York tone? Other songs? The background musical score?

3. The New York settings, streets and skyscrapers, apartments, offices, socials and weddings, restaurants?

4. The voice-over, information, tone – and the voice of the observer, the novelist?

5. Thomas and his story, the title of the film, his age, relationship with his parents, clashing with his father, protective of his mother? Work, study, his relationship with Mimi, sharing with her, her friendship, the decision to go to Croatia, breaking with her boyfriend? His father and the use of the word “serviceable�? His mother’s tension, smoking and drinking? Thomas living alone, the apartment, his prospects? His awkwardness, naivete and gawkiness?

6. His story, the narrative, the tone, information about him, his sitting with the author, unaware of who he was? The introduction, on the steps, the interrogation, the offer of a listening ear, counselling? The discussions, in the apartment, walking? Inviting the author to the party, his observing, disappearance? Thomas discovering his story, reading it? The identity of the novelist?

7. Thomas and Mimi, the restaurant and club, seeing his father with Johanna? His reaction? Concern for his mother? His continually following Johanna, his obsession? Talking with her in the street, a challenge? Johanna knowing who he was? The kiss? Leading to the affair, the effect on Thomas, on Johanna?

8. Johanna and her character, brought up in London, the move to the US, the work as a freelance editor, the contact with Ethan, in love with him, the affair with Thomas and its effect on her? The difference in age? Her going to the social, with the gay partner? Going to the anniversary party, the revelation and its effect? Her attitude towards Thomas? Love for Ethan?

9. The lengthy wedding sequence and its style, the crowds, Jewish, food, dancing, Thomas and Johanna, Mimi observing, their going away together, the sexual encounter? The place of the uncles lengthy speech?

10. Thomas’s mother, smoking and drinking, tense, going to the park, reading? Devotion to her husband? The celebration of the party?

11. Mimi, her return, with Thomas, the break, as a conscience voice for Thomas?

12. The revelation of the truth, the effect on Thomas? The surrogacy issue? Ethan and his wife, the novelist friend, the arrangement? The novelist withdrawing, observing his son from a distance, yet wanting to get closer, talking with him, writing the story?

13. Ethan, not creative, successful publishing, money, wanting his son to make decisions, offering a career in publishing? The relationship with Johanna? The separation from Johanna and from his wife – and his sense of freedom?

14. His wife, reunion with the novelist, her sense of freedom, joy?

15. Observation of human nature, in the New York City context, acknowledging that life is a mess but the only way out is through the mess?

LIZ AND DICK

US, 2012, 88 minutes, Colour.
Lindsay Lohan, Grant Bowler, Theresa Russell, David Hunt.
Directed by Lloyd Kramer.

Liz and Dick is very much a tabloid title for the relationship between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the headline relationship of the 20th century in the media celebrities world, from the early 1960s until the death of Richard Burton in 1984.

In many ways, this is a tabloid treatment of the story – although it begins early in the piece in establishing the meeting between the couple during the filming of Cleopatra, various sequences being filmed, the work of director Joe Mankieuwicz.

Lindsay Lohan is made up to look like Elizabeth Taylor and generally carries off the impersonation – although her life and reputation undermined this performance with many audiences. New Zealander Grant Bowler is Richard Burton, presenting the voice but not physically resembling the actor. The couple do get opportunity to re-enact moments from Cleopatra, the VIPs as well as Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.

Richard Burton had been married to his wealth wife, Sybil, and managed by his brother, Ifor. He had a successful career on stage and was a film star at this time. He also drank, had affairs. This interpretation is his deliberately targeting Elizabeth Taylor, with charm as well as affrontery. She had taken Eddie Fisher from Debbie Reynolds and was in something of a tenuous marriage. At this stage, she was 29, had appeared in movies since the age of nine, and had already four marriages.

The film shows the obsession between the couple, their quarrelsome life together, the films that they made, her Oscars and his losing, their spendthrift life, her obsession with two point and his buying her jewellery, getting the children from both marriages together.

The film has the device of having the actors sitting in chairs as if on set reminiscing about their lives and their relationship.

The writer is writer-director, Christopher Monger, a Welshman, sympathetic to Burton. Lloyd Kramer has directed a number of genre films including two from Mitch Albom: The Five People You Meet in Heaven and For One More Day.

As time passes, this episode will fade into 20th century history and gossip.

A more effective film about Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton was Burton and Taylor with Helena Bonham Carter and Dominic West, looking and sounding more like the original couple.

1. Audience knowledge of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, their initial encounters, the filming of Cleopatra, the marriage, stormy times together, love, separation and divorce, remarriage? Audience interest in them?

2. The period from 1961 to 1984, the couple meeting, on the set of Cleopatra, Rome? The affair, the respective spouses and families, the divorce? The marriage? The period of the marriage, the films together? Separation? Richard Burton and his illness, death? Elizabeth Taylor’s reaction, visiting his grave, the letters?

3. The device of having the couple sitting in the chairs, at the end of Richard Burton’s life, the reflection on their life, relationship, repartee between the two?

4. Elizabeth Taylor, from England, the presence of her mother and protection? Film at nine, in Hollywood, protected? Her marriages? Divorces, Mike Todd’s death? Eddie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds? The encounter with Richard Burton, the antagonism, the affair?

5. Richard Burton, Wales, his marriage to Sybil, family, his brother as his manager? His success on stage, Shakespearean reputation, his cinema career? His drinking? Affairs? The initial encounter with Elizabeth Taylor?

6. The background of the filming of Cleopatra, Joe Mankiewicz as director, accommodating his stars? The scenes, the costumes, the filming? The paparazzi, the photos, compromising? The publicity department against the paparazzi?

7. The initial meeting, Burton’s line, Taylor walking out, the later meal in the restaurant and his continuing his speech? The antagonism on the set? The pursuit, the change? Each in love with the other? Elizabeth Taylor and the alienation from Eddie Fisher, his visits, Burton’s declaration, the divorce? Sybil Burton, the scenes of her being upset, her health, saying that Burton had achieved what he wanted, career and fame, the divorce? The children, from the two families, being together?

8. The relationship, the photographers, the articles, the condemnation of the Vatican? Their not caring? The time in Switzerland? Elizabeth Taylor bored, with her children, the phone call, visiting Burton? The VIPs, the character, the clashes – and echoing real life?

9. Burton and his brother, help, his brother beginning to like Elizabeth, challenging his brother, his collapse and injury?

10. The sparring between the two? The jewellery, Burton buying Elizabeth the necklace? The financial advisor, the couple being broke, going through the money? Hotels? The living in sin question? The decision to buy the yacht, in Italy, less expensive, avoiding taxes? The private plane, going to Hungary? Is doing Bluebeard for the money only? Burton buying the plane?

11. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, the scenes? Echoing their lives? The Oscar nomination, Spy Who Came in from the Cold, Lee Marvin winning and Burton’s reaction, bad loser? Not going to the Oscars, the nominations, Elizabeth winning, his losing and his brother’s criticism of him?

12. Burton on stage, his Hamlet, Elizabeth on stage? The acclaim?

13. Elizabeth, her health, diagnoses, recovery? Burton, his drinking, affairs? The newspapers?

14. Elizabeth Taylor’s reactions, the separation? Her love? Her angers and tantrums?

15. Her further marriages? His marriages? Their going to Africa and remarrying? The short length of time?

16. One of the celebrated media relationships of the 20th century? The personalities? The media attention? As in this telemovie?