BUCKY LARSON BORN TO BE A STAR

US, 2011, 97 minutes, Colour.
Nick Swardson, Christina Ricci, Don Johnson, Stephen Dorff, Ido Moseri, Kevin Nealon, Edward Herrmann, Miriam Flynn, Mario Joyner, Nicholas Turturro, Pat Gleason.
Directed by Tom Brady.

The title does not say it explicitly but the kind of star that Bucky Larson wants to be is a porn star. Since this is a film for the broad American audience, it tries to go as far as it can in being explicit but also comes down on a moral side.

The film was written by Adam Sandler and his co-writer Alan Covert along with the star Nick Swardson. Swardson is a stand-up comedian and for this performance dons a fright wig as well as two enormous buck teeth, making him a fairly unrealistic character to be interpreted comically rather than realistically.

At home in Iowa – these characters are always from the midwest – he is bullied and mocked by everyone but is supported by his ever-loving parents. When he gets the idea that he ought to go to Hollywood and be in films, after looking at a porn film from the 1970s with his friends and being introduced to a masturbatory response to these films, he discovers that the stars were his parents. And this is a bit of a shock for the audience, especially with Edward Herrmann, of all people, as the kind father and former porn star. Miriam Flynn plays his devoted wife. With their blessing and encouragement, and acknowledging their success in the porn industry, Bucky goes by bus, of course, to Hollywood.

In many ways and unexpectedly, Bucky falls on his feet, and with no embarrassment about declaring that he wants to do nude movies and be a porn star. He is also mocked, shocking people by his instant willingness to strip, causes some embarrassment – but is helped by an attractive and kindly waitress, Kathy, Christina Ricci, who organises somewhere for him to stay, though his roommate is absolutely boorish and dominating.

Stephen Dorff portrays an absolutely smug, self-centred porn star who thinks he reigns supreme, mocking Bucky. However, Bucky is taken up by a drug-addict porn director, played by Don Johnson, and a Youtube clip of his instant sexual release, abundant to say the least, goes viral online.

The film was making a point about men with a small penis, that they should not be embarrassed despite all the jokes about them. The director gets a bright idea to make a series of films with Bucky, his small member, his instant response to women, his frenzied climax, without even going near the women.

He has great success, while turned down by a regular producer who works with Stephen Dorff, who later has to admit that he was wrong. With a series of films, Bucky becomes the object of media attention, popular attention – and, reminding us that this is a work of fiction even sexual pantomime, he wins all the awards at the annual porn movie event, much to Stephen Dorff’s disgust.

In the meantime, he is always supported by Kathy, who longs to be a waitress but has had a traumatic accident dropping a bowl of soup on a customer – but Bucky helps train her for balance, even to carrying seven bowls and an offer to work in one of the top LA restaurants.

Before the end there is a little crisis, sexual encounter with Kathy and then her walking out on Bucky – but it is revealed later, by a certainly unexpected change of heart on the part of the director during the making of an aggressive Western, that he put Kathy up to leaving Bucky for his own career. She is also propositioned by Dorff but spurns him.

His parents have continued to support him, even turning up to share in celebrations at the awards.

Which means then that there is a happy moral ending, that Bucky doesn’t want to do the films anymore, that he will settle down happily with Kathy, and that Stephen Dorff will have his comeuppance!

Needless to say, there are a lot of people who found the film repulsive in its characterisation of Bucky in his ambitions, in this presentation of sexuality and porn films – but, the overall impact was not meant to be too serious, rather a spoof.

AND GOD SAID TO CAIN

Italy, 1970, 96 minutes, Colour.
Klaus Kinski, Peter Carsten, Antonio Cantafora, Marcella Michelangeli.
Directed by Anthony Dawson (Antonio Margheriti).

This is a little-known spaghetti-Western but one which deserves some attention. It was made in 1970, with the 1960s into the 1970s as the key era for the spaghetti Western, often filmed in Spain. They always had an American setting and often the directors and the actors took Anglo-names. This is the case here with Anthony Dawson, the name for Antonio Margheriti, a specialist in Italian horror films who also made a number of westerns.

The film opens with prisoners in a quarry, in the aftermath of the Civil War. One of the prisoners, Gary Hamilton, is played by Klaus Kinski, in his early 40s at the time but looking far less weatherbeaten than he did in later films. For those who remember his raspy voice, it is somewhat disappointing to find the rather smooth American voice that was used to dub him in English.

Suddenly, he is freed and given a pardon by the president because of his military service during the war. However, after 10 years in prison, he is consumed by the need for revenge. He travels to the town where he was victimised by an associate who set him up as responsible for a stagecoach robbery, planting evidence, and his mistress then betraying Gary Hamilton to the authorities.

On the stagecoach back to the town, he encounters the son of his enemy who knows nothing about the situation, acts innocently on his return, is promised money and the possibility of being governor by his ambitious father, then wants to know the truth, here’s it from Gary Hamilton, decides that, despite his antipathy towards his father’s behaviour, he must defend him and kill Hamilton. One of the ironies of the film is that his father shoots him by mistake, is desperate, blames his mistress and then shoots her.

A tornado is brewing and there is a lot of commentary about the wind and the weather symbolising what is to come. Most of the people in the town belong to a group dominated by the wealthy landowner and come out in his support – with a lot of gun fighting and shooting in the streets, in buildings, even in the church, horses let loose against these men, one tied in a noose in the belltower. And, the bell keeps bringing, unnerving people in the town. There is a priest, a preacher (wearing a Roman collar and called father as well as preacher though the church is very generic with candles, pews and an organ). The preacher encounters Hamilton but does not say anything, rather going to play the organ – where he is attacked by some of the shooters, challenged but still not saying anything, and murdered.

The only support Gary Hamilton has is from a lame doctor in the town and the woman who runs the saloon both of whom help him.

There is a whole range of villains who are shot, Hamilton using his wits and stealth, the shadows, the wind, the church bell.

Ultimately, of course, there is a long shootout between the villain and Hamilton, in the interior of his mansion, the film using quite effectively the device of a hall of mirrors with many reflections of Hamilton, as well as the mistress knocking over a lamp as she is killed beginning to set the mansion on fire. Ultimately, while trying to reach for bullets to reload, reloading and then aiming, the villain is killed.

At the end, Gary Hamilton goes to the saloon and reassures the owner and others that if they go into the mansion there will be enough wealth for them to rebuild the town.

As Hamilton rides out, the title comes on the screen, the quote from Genesis about Cain being cursed and becoming a vagabond and wandering throughout the earth.

A spaghetti western well worth seeing and reflecting on.

THE EICHMANN SHOW

UK, 2015, 90 minutes, Colour.
Martin Freeman, Anthony La Paglia.
Directed by Paul David Williams.

It is hard to realise the difficulties facing the producers in 1961 with the proposition that they film the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Many people remember the trial for Hannah Arendt’s comment about the banality of evil rather than the trial itself, although there was a vivid film version of the stage production of The Man in the Glass Booth with Maximilian Schell as Eichmann.

Martin Freeman is cast as the producer of the show, Milton, planning it in Jerusalem, facing opposition from Jewish authorities, the judiciary, but working out ways in which the trial could be filmed unobtrusively. In fact, footage of the trial is included in this film. Anthony La Paglia plays Leo, the director, blacklisted in the United States but given an opportunity to make his reputation again. He also experiences difficulties with the stances of his wife and the response of his son.

The film is interesting in showing the logistics, the cameras and their placement, the camera work, the role of the director, choosing which cameras to film – and the danger, as happened, of missing a key witness response. At first, other journalists are sceptical and do not show interest – but, once the witnesses take the stand, they are compelled to watch, as does the television audience.

Is also surprising to find the ignorance about the Holocaust at the time, in the United States, and the response in Israel, especially to the Final Solution of the role of Eichmann, the hostility towards him.

An actor plays Eichmann in some sequence and, at other times, there is use of actual footage.

Significant in the world’s dealing with the Holocaust – as well as in the development of documentary television.


1. The title, the tone, an episode, the televising of Eichmann’s trial – as a television show but a breakthrough in television documentary?

2. Audiences, knowledge of the Holocaust, appreciation of the Holocaust, the concentration camps, the Final Solution? The information given in the film, recapturing the past, the distressing visuals and the impact, the verbal comment, the narration of the stories of concentration camp experience? In 1961, for the world to see and hear – despite the other events like Gagarin and the Russians in space, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs and the prominence of these news items on television?

3. Israel, Jerusalem 1961, atmosphere, the court setting up of the studios, the cameras? The accommodation for the visitors? Leo and the landlady in their conversations? Media offices? The musical score?

4. Milton, Martin Freeman’s performance, as a producer, persuading the network, the nature of the risks, the need for success, the financial outlay? The threats to his life, to his wife? The Nazi coming into the studio and attacking? The need for security?

5. Audience knowledge of Adolf Eichmann, his history, his role in the Nazi regime, his proposing of the Final Solution? The consequences? His overseeing the transport of Jews to the concentration camps? The search for 15 years, finding him in Argentina, capturing him, bringing him back to Israel, imprisonment, in the court, the glass booth?

6. The footage from the television program at the time? Also relying on actors as well as the real characters in the footage? Eichmann, sitting, scarcely showing any emotion? Leo and his focusing on Eichmann, on his eyes, wanting some kind of response and admission, nothing coming, the touch of the TV? Eichmann in his own testimony, his blaming underlings, his final admission?

7. Milton, his idea, hiring Leo, reputation and the blacklist, his hopes? Anthony La Paglia as Leo? The issue of the judge’s decision about filming, the idea to hide the cameras, the demonstration for the judges? Leo, his wife and her support? Visit, bringing the son? The tension in the filming, Leo and his expertise, arranging the cameras, his demands, Milton upset at missing the witness fainting? The confrontation between the two, the argument? Leo thinking of leaving? Milton and thanking him? The upset about the audience, watching space and Cuba, people leaving the journalists’ room, but the return when the witnesses spoke? The bored couple and Milton’s angry reaction, their changing?

8. Leo, the experience of being blacklisted, his family, his personality, experience and skill, but the accommodation, his discussion with the landlady, her talk? The members of the crew, their characters, blacklisting the Communist? Yaakov and his memories, emotionally overcome, the tears, his collapse? The invitation to the crew being upset and permission to leave the studio?

9. The effect of the trial, the long introduction by the prosecutor, losing the audience? The witnesses, the actors and the footage, the testimonies, people’s attention, the cumulative effect?

10. Leo, the obsession with Eichmann’s eyes, missing the collapse, the clash with Milton, his wife and son, his wife taking the son to Greece because of the effect being
overpowering and the long days?

11. The landlady, Czech background, a number for the camp, working in the resistance? Israel as her home? Her being the vehicle to explain to the audience the history of the Holocaust victims not being believed, that they were exaggerating, that they were to go quietly – and the trial opening up the admission of the truth, the ghastly listings of the truth, liberating the victims?

12. The achievement as the first television documentary, the consequences?

13. Information about Milton and Leo and their further successful careers?

14. The 20th century and a 21st-century perspective on looking back at the Holocaust and Eichmann’s trial?

FRANCESCO, EL PADRE JORGE

Argentina, 2015, 104 minutes, Colour.
Dario Grandinetti, Sylvia Abascal.
Directed by Beda Docampo Feijoo.

With the popularity of Pope Francis very high all around the world, it was inevitable that there would be many film and television programs based on his life and his ministry.

This biography comes from Argentina, the country very proud of its Pope.

Most people had never heard of Cardinal Bergoglio prior to his election as Pope Francis in 2013, although he was listed as one of the possible popes at the conclave in 2005. There was talk about his way of life in Buenos Aires, working and being with the poor and, it was noted strongly at the time, that he travelled on public transport. But, in 2005 he went back to his Archdiocese.

This film offers viewers the advantage of understanding something of Jorge Bergoglio, gives background, his being a Jesuit, his work as a priest, as a bishop, as the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. But, the film does this in a somewhat fragmentary way, moving from different times and different places to others, the dates and places up there on the screen to help the audience appreciate when and where.

By the end of the film, the audience has seen a great deal, even if the sequences are epsiodic, of the life of Jorge Bergoglio. The film highlights his grandparents coming from Italy to Argentina, his decision to enter the seminary and the protestations against this by his mother. His friends seem momentarily sceptical but then support him. On the human level, there is a sequence where he attends a wedding and is attracted to a young woman who is there, dances a tango with her at the reception, gives her a gift of a book and she gift of poems for him – but he never sees her again.

Not so much is made initially of his decision to become a Jesuit or of his Jesuit training but, later in the film, he quotes St Ignatius Loyola and the Spiritual Exerises quite a number of times.

There are many scenes of the priest and the bishop in ministry, comfortably mixing with everyone, conversations in the street, sharing meals, supervising at a school, concerned about drug problems, encouraging the clergy to minister to the poor as he does. The film does give a credible sketch of Jorge Bergoglio, always wanting people to call him simply Father Jorge, even as a bishop. This sketch of his ministry includes the issue of his support or non-support of fellow Jesuits tortured at the time of the Generals, an interview seeing him pleading for the priests. There is also a sequence with a politician who asks him to tone down his utterances and concern for the poor.

One framework for this film is a focus on a fictitious journalist (based on a journalist who did write his biography).who was sent to cover the 2005 conclave for her paper, meets Cardinal Bergoglio who gives her personal advice about her pregnancy, who continues the friendship (even to the baptising of her daughter even though she is an agnostic) and the death of her mother (and, actually, a scene with the Cardinal helping the daughter scatter the ashes in a river).

The actor playing Cardinal Bergoglio is the Argentinian Dario Grandinetti. He is an imposing figure, despite his continued limp, bringing to life the man who was to be Pope. However, the limitation in his performance is that he seems to be ultra-serious, not displaying an immediate charism, rarely smiling – and this proves quite a contrast when the film includes the actual Pope Francis at the end, a much warmer, smiling, embracing character than what we have seen.

The film does incorporate a lot of the words of the future Pope Francis about simplicity of life, on the role of a bishop, not seeking preferment, and, in a scene where he gives an address to the Cardinals in 2013, a reference to evangelisation in “going to the existential peripheries� of the world.

There have been several documentaries, course, about Pope Francis including an Italian film, Chiamatemi Francesco/ Call Me Francis. Youtube indicates that this Italian film as well as the Argentinian film are due to be available on January 7, 2017.

1. The reputation and popularity of Pope Francis? His impact? Audience interest in him and his life, Catholic? Non- Catholic?

2. A film from Argentina, admiration for the Pope, his place in Argentinian history, social life and work? Pride in the Pope?

3. Buenos Aires, its past, the boyhood of the Pope, years in the seminary, attending the wedding, his work as a priest, sacramental, preaching, social, problems? The military? The politicians? The Archbishop and his work, the school, drug problems, clergy? The status of the church?

4. Rome, 2005, the conclave, the Sistine Chapel? The return in 2013, the journalists and their discussions, restaurants? The conclave, the election? The musical score?

5. The final insertion of sequences of Pope Francis himself, his impact, the new era of the papacy?

6. Dario Grandinetti as Pope Francis, serious, not particularly charismatic in himself or his communication? Rarely smiling? The contrast with the added footage of Pope Francis himself, with people, smiling, embracing, charismatic?

7. The structure of the film, the movements throughout different times, glimpses, dates and places on screen? Familiar sequences, unfamiliar, snippets? The cumulative effect?

8. Jorge Bergoglio as young, from an Italian family, his grandparents, his relationship with his mother, her adamant stance against his vocation? His decision, the discussions with his friends, their initial laughter, their support? The St Francis book? Years in the seminary, spirituality? Attending the wedding, attracted to the young woman, dancing the tango, exchanging poems and novels? His ordination and his mother asking his blessing?

9. The outline of his ministry, always been known as Father Jorge, a Jesuit and his frequent quotations from St Ignatius Loyola, at the school, his relationship with the kids, the staff, his ability to mix, humane, a man who hugged and touched, shared grief? The issue of the generals and the torture of the Jesuits, the criticisms, the journalist and her investigations, his interviews, the reaction of the priests themselves about his getting them out of the country? The political interview, the politician asking for moderation? His ecclesiastical status, as a cardinal? His use of public transport, people admiring him, stopping him for conversation, his masses, his sermons, the focus on Jesus as inspiration?

10. Ana, the framework of the film, her getting to know the Archbishop, the discussions, her covering the conclaves, personal, issues, her writing? A fictional representation of the actual author of his biography? In herself, going to Rome, her partner, the issue of abortion, her pregnancy, her discussions with the cardinal, his supporting her having the child? The discussion about candidates, the election of Cardinal Ratzinger? The years passing, the birth of her child, her mother coming from Spain, the background of the tango, present at the baptism? The meals discussions? Her death, cremation, the Ashes in the river with the wreath? The range of meetings, ideas, discussions?

11. The 2013 conclave, the Cardinal’s address to the conclave participants, his urging people to be out in the peripheries? The influence of his talk? Candidacy at the previous election? Discussion about numbers of votes? His being elected? His friendship with the Cardinals, greeting them, discussing the medical situation with the other cardinal?

12. The election, his acceptance, wanting his own shoes, the garb, his greeting people, the people of Rome? In the aftermath and the personal touch with his phone calls?

13. The film as helpful in giving a background to the life and work of Cardinal Bergoglio?

BACKYARD/ EL TRASPATIO

Mexico, 2008, 120 minutes, Colour.
Ana de la Reguera, Asur Zagada, Jimmy Smits.
Directed by Carlos Carrera Gonzalez.

Backyard is a powerful police drama set in the border town of Juarez. Juaraz is the border town with El Paso, Texas. The film contrasts the difference between the two cities, the poverty and sometimes squalor of Juarez compared with the affluence of El Paso. It is significant that American companies have build factories in Juarez to take advantage of Mexican conditions and lower pay. The factories look very modern, have a comfortable style for the workers – but are still exploitative. (In fact, the film shows discussions between the governor of the state of Chihuaua in which Juarez is found and various representatives of trade from the United States and Japan.)

Juarez is continually in the headlines, from the 1990s with the number of crimes against women into the 21st century with the drug wars. As late as 2009, the Mexican authorities wanted United Nations peacekeepers to go into the city and had sent, also in 2009, seven thousand troops into the city to maintain order. However, the drug lords continue to maintain their battles concerning territories and the number of murders in Juarez is considerable.

This film is set in the mid-1990s. It focuses on the brutality and crimes against women. This theme was also the subject of the 2007 film Bordertown, directed by Gregory Nava, starring Jennifer Lopez as an American journalist who comes to the city, follows the life of the women, works in a factory and experiences the violent threats herself. The film co-starred Antonio Banderas and Martin Sheen. However, it was criticised as being a film from the outside (despite Gregory Nava’s background) with an American coming in to try to solve the crimes of a Mexican city. Another film which dealt with similar troubles, although focusing on the poor and the workers, was I, Witness with James Spader and Jeff Daniels.

Ana de la Reguera plays Branca Bravo, a strong-minded policewoman in the city. The film opens with the discovery of a body buried in the desert. This opens the story of the women who have been exploited. There is not one single explanation for such murders and the film suggests serial killers (the character of Sultan in this film), exploitation from across the border (with Jimmy Smits appearing as a predatory American businessman) and ordinary men in the town exploiting the women and killing them.

The film also shows the background of the governor in the city of Chihuaha, Juarez being in Chihuaha province. A pious man, yet ambitious, he has discussions about trade, organises the police to raid clubs to find quick solutions, is severe in his finding scapegoats for the scandals. He works hard for Juarez to avoid such a reputation for crime, damaging for tourism.

The film also shows the work of the police, finding the bodies in the desert, the interrogations of suspects, the confrontations, the raids – and their hands being tied, especially by corrupt police giving information to criminals.

The film also has another story, a young girl from the countryside coming to Juarez, young, being warned about the possibilities of pregnancy, working in the factory, yet becoming entangled with men and finally being murdered. There is also a subplot with a social worker who has been keeping dossiers on the number of young women who have disappeared or who have been found murdered. At the end of the film dire statistics about murders, crimes against women, not only in Mexico but in all of the Americas are given. The film hopes to contribute to some kind of consciousness about the situation in Juarez and in Mexico.

The film was directed by Carlos Carrera Gonzalez who directed the 2002 The Crime of Father Amaro.

1. Juarez, the 1990s, the 21st century, one of the most criminal cities in the world? The crimes against women, sexual exploitation, the drug wars, police and official corruption? The film offering images of this?

2. Juarez the city, the variety of neighbourhoods, the streets, the factories, police precincts, the homes, the outskirts and the desert, the trailers? The isolated areas of the city and the state?

3. The contrast with El Paso, the border, wealth, the United States, the offices, Juarez being the backyard of the title?

4. The musical score, the different languages, the different cultures, American and Hispanic? The role of the radio announcer, his observations about Juarez, his commentary on the city, its possibilities, the crime, the finale and his meeting with Blanca Bravo, his urging people to protest outside the governor’s office? His final comments?

5. The introduction, the finding of the body in the desert, Blanca and her work, the police presence, the various procedures, identifying the corpse, the social worker and her presence, her anger, her dossiers on the missing women, the confrontation with the police, the police work, police on the take, protecting criminals?

6. The state of Chihuaha: the role of the governor, as a person, religious, in church, his assistant, advice, the various commissioners, the meetings, discussions about handling the situation in Juarez, organising the raids? Discussions about the economy, the American senator, the Japanese trade contact? Their attitudes towards crime in the city? The factories, the issue of salaries, the threats to move production to Asia for cheaper rates? The protests outside the governor’s house? His decisions?

7. The role of the police, Blanca and her work, as a person, as a woman on the force, committed? The assistant and his work with Blanca? The interviews with the suspects? The commissioner? The social worker and the interviews? Blanca going to the funerals? The images of the pink crosses? The prayers of the priest, the women gathered to remember the dead? Blanca and her going to El Paso, the visit to Mike Santos? The raid on the Sultan, his brutality, the woman, the interrogations, his mentioning the name of Mike Santos? Blanca and her visit to El Paso? The arrest and imprisonment of the Sultan?

8. The rescue of the girl who had not died, the social worker and Blanca with her, the interrogations, the information? The world of the freezers and the women being kept? Trying to piece together what had happened to the women, their abductions, the torture, the information about the rapes, the asphyxiation, the dumping of the bodies? The tip-off about the freezer, Blanca going, its being empty but her imagining the bodies there?

9. The story of Juana, her arrival, the language, finding her cousin’s house, the joyful reunion, her hair being done, the photo, visiting the doctor, his warning about promiscuity, the pill, pregnancies? At work, the factory? Going to the nightclubs, meeting Cut, his being pleasant, going out with him, to his caravan, her provoking a sexual advance? The later visits to the club, dancing with the other man, Cut and his friends, the attempt at fighting? The raid, the arrest? The line-up – including Juana and her having a number? The spiking of her drink, her being taken, the men forcing Cut on her, the rape, her being smothered, dumped in the desert, Cut and his running away, encountering Blanca, finding the body, the funeral? The story as typical of the fate of so many young women?

10. The Sultan, his brutality, working in Juarez, the arrest, the interrogations, his surliness, his phone call, his ringing the radio station to give his point of view?

11. Santos, his work in El Paso, the interview with Blanca, his family, affluence, crossing the border, at the club, paying off the police for protection, cruising the streets, abducting the young girl, the gun, tormenting her – and caught by the two police cars, trying to explain himself, Blanca and her anger, shooting him?

12. The police commissioner, the payoff, his private talks with the assistant to promote him, giving him the money? The irony of the assistant and his working with Blanca to confront Santos?

13. Blanca, going about her police work, the threats, the pressures, the shooting of Santos, the end and her driving away? Her freedom to speak?

14. The radio interviewer, the confrontation with Blanca, his urging the protest against the governor, his final comments about Juarez?

15. The women, the visualising of the protests, the visualising of the bodies? The freezer? The funerals and the crosses?

16. The final statistics, from Mexico, from all over the Americas? The film attempting a contribution to consciousness about the situation in Mexico and in Juarez?

MURDER WITH PICTURES

US, 1936, 69 minutes, Black and white.
Lew Ayres, Gail Patrick, Paul Kelly, Ernest Cossart, Onslow Stevens, Anthony Nace.
Directed by Charles Barton.

Title refers to the work of journalists, newspaper photographers and a camera emptied of its mechanism and a gun installed as a murder weapon.

With so many journalists and their crowding the courts as well has interviewing suspects, the dialogue of the film has the Front Page Story kind of hype and wisecracks from the journalists. This is particularly the case with Lew Ayres as a journalist after a story, quick and smart-talking, encountering the suspect and becoming infatuated with her, doubting, helping (including hiding her in his shower), on the track of incriminating photos. Gail Patrick is the lady in question, playing her with a touch of glamour as a femme fatale. Paul Kelly has a role as an enterprising journalist who comes upon the truth but is killed by the lethal camera. Onslow Stevens is the villain.

The film opens with Onslow Stevens and his crooked lawyer in court, the plaintiff being freed and going to an apartment to celebrate where the femme fatale is present – and there is a back story about the death of her father and his being tricked by the villain. The lawyer is shot, the presumption being that the woman did it but later photographs (taking a long time to develop) reveal that the weapon was the camera.

In the meantime there are police investigations and interrogations, discussions with the newspaper and editors, the woman being taken by the villain and then being in an accident, the reporter thinking she was dead but her being kept in hospital, the newspaperman working out what was happening, going to confront the villain, car chases – and the revelation that the woman was still alive, a pursuit and the discovery that the killer was actually the assistant to the reporter, using his camera as a weapon, the brother of the man the villain was accused of killing.

The film is directed by Charles Barton who went on to direct many comedies, especially Abbott and Costello films, and work with Ma and Pa Kettle.

THE SUNSET MURDER CASE

US, 1938, 63 minutes, Black and white.
Sally Rand, Paul Sutton, Reed Hadley, Kathryn Kane, Dennis Moore.
Directed by Louis J. Gasnier.

This is a very modest production, of slight historical interest except for the presence of Sally Rand but otherwise very ordinary – the musical number sequences, very arty or very artsy – but not particularly interesting; Sally Rand doing a performance, lightly clad, with a giant balloon, another where there is an introduction by heavily clad dancers followed by her exotic performance with a large fan due to. Kathryn Kane, billed as Sugar Kane with the punning character name, Penny Nichols, has a musical number.

And the film is not a murder mystery. Rather, a police chief is killed in action, investigating a blackmailing crime series. His daughter, Sally Rand, has previously been an exotic dancer in London, called Valerie, and plans her return to the US after five years as a cover for her to infiltrate the nightclub world and bring to justice the killers of her father. This she does, although getting into complex difficulties towards the end, getting the attention of the club owner who authorised the murders and managed the blackmailing cases, put under guard where she applies the man with drink as well is the villain’s girlfriend.

She has caught the attention of a newspaper reporter who keeps investigating the case, getting the help of Penny Nichols, Sugar Kane hamming it up as dumb except in her singing performance. The daughter also has the attention of a rather censorious lawyer who becomes infatuated with her – and they will come to the rescue at the end.

The film was directed by Louis J. Gasnier, a Frenchman who went to the United States to work for Pathe in 1912, promoted Pathe films and then directed a number of small budget features.

CRIME DOCTOR

US, 1943, 66 minutes, Black-and-white.
Warner Baxter, Margaret Lindsay, John Litel, Ray Collins, Leon Ames.
Directed by Michael Gordon.

Crime Doctor resembles the small budget and supporting features of the 1930s – although, it was made at Columbia with more proficiency and finesse during World War II, with references to the war effort.

It is based on radio programs – and there were half a dozen sequels with the Crime Doctor in action.

The title refers to a character who was seen being thrown from a car onto the highway, who is taken to hospital but suffers from amnesia. He is played by Oscar winner, for In Old Arizona, Warner Baxter. He comes under the care of a kind psychiatrist played by Ray Collins. When recalling his name or identity becomes impossible, he is encouraged to do studies and, over the period of 10 years, gets his degree, becomes an expert in psychology, has a large clientele whom he rehabilitates with personalised treatment, works in prison with great success including a damaged war veteran, Leon Ames in a good performance. A social worker played by Margaret Lindsay is attracted to him.

The audience actually knows who he is, a bank robber who masterminded a job, hid the money, was hit over the head by his accomplices and thrown out. One in particular has served a jail sentence, John Litel, and is tracking down whether the doctor has true amnesia or not. After coming out of prison, he teams up with his accomplices, tracks down another who is serving a jail sentence and persuades her to go to the parole board which the Crime Doctor now heads. In attempting to re-create the situation with the attack by his accomplices, the doctor’s memory comes back, he retrieves the money giving it to the authorities, stands trial, is found guilty but offered clemency to continue his work.

The film was directed by Michael Gordon at the beginning of his career. He was to go on to make a range of films including Cyrano de Bergerac and Pillow Talk.

1. An interesting and small-budget crime thriller with a positive outlook?

2. Cast, budget, studio, contribution to the war effort?

3. The title, with reference to Robert Ordway, a significant character – and many sequels?

4. The opening, the car on the highway, throwing out the victim, his being found by the group of youngsters, the hospital, the work of Dr Carey, the name Robert Ordway from the hospital and the humanitarian, trust, a desperate need to know who he was?

5. The encouragement of the doctor, Robert’s studies, the detail, over a long time, his degree, his going into practice, the help to so many people? His work in prisons? The inmates, changing their lives positively, the gardener and his flowers? The problem with the military and violent man? Ordway meeting him, the discussions, trust, getting out of solitary, getting him to use his military skills, drilling the prisoners, the buildup to the demonstration of the re-creation of the training work?

6. Dr Ordway, in himself, the problem of his identity, the meeting with Grace, her joking with him about her identity as a thief? Their collaboration?

7. The criminals, Emilio and the initial encounter with the doctor, his jail term, meeting up with the accomplices, tracking Grace, getting the information from her, his encounter with Dr Ordway and not sure whether he was telling the truth or not?

8. The plan was the woman in prison, her recognising the doctor’s voice, going to the parole board, is breaking down, her telling the truth?

9. The confrontation, the recreation of the scene, the scuffle, Dr Ordway recovering his memory?

10. His doing the right thing, giving back the money, standing trial, the prosecution, his defence, the jury’s decision, the sentence, the appeal for clemency, and his being able to devote himself to his work?

DOUBLE CROSS

US, 1941, 61 minutes, Black-and-white.
Kane Richmond, Pauline Moore, Wynne Gibson, John Miljan.
Directed by Albert H. Kelley.

This is one of the more entertaining small-budget supporting features that were prominent in the 1930s – often with John Milton as hero or villain . Here, he is definitely the villain.

The film focuses on the nightclub world and the criminal activities, with the mayor of the city in the pay of the nightclub owner, protecting him. The police have become very suspicious and are trying for opportunities to have raids and arrests. When they do, one of the significant figures in the police force is in the club, infatuated with one of the bosses – with her drawing a gun, his gun, as the police invade, shooting one and the police retaliating, shooting the policeman. As he dies in hospital, he warns his best friend that the club owner is after the police chief, this man’s father. The photography girl at the club is the dying man’s sister and planning to marry his friend.

When the officer warns his father, his father stubbornly declares that he will never resign. In the meantime, the mayor is being forced by the authorities to consider the father for a significant role in the city – which leads to a gun attack on his office. The son has an idea to get to the criminals, going to the woman manager at the club, returning the ring from his friend, persuading her that he is going to resign from the force and go out on his own. She gets the idea that he should not resign but keep in contact with them, supplying them with information. He uses a ruse, parking her car near a hydrant, to regain her confidence when she is given a ticket and he punches out the officer. He is dismissed in disgrace, his father embarrassed and angry.

In the meantime, he ingratiates himself with the club owners, supplying some information, being commissioned to drive a truck full of stolen goods after a plan had gone wrong and there was a suspicion that he was on the side of the police but he is able to persuade the club owners that he is on side.

In the meantime, when the mayor comes to visit the club owner, the photography girl is persuaded to take a photo of the meeting – which leads to the ex-policeman being discovered in the photography shop waiting for the development, the taking of the girl, under guard from a friendly bodyguard at the club was always wanting her to take his picture.

When the word comes to the police, the police chief realises that this is a frame up. In the meantime, the son gets a message to his father, all leading up to a chase, the nightclub owner and his thugs in the back of the van with their guns, but the police outwitting them at outgunning them and their all being killed. The father is proud of his son, the girl is able to marry her fiance – and as they pose for a photo, the bodyguard puts his head in and, at last, get his photo taken!

One of the better examples of this kind of film – building by the early 1940s on the extensive experience of the 1930s.

THE CHILDHOOD OF A LEADER

UK/France/Hungary, 2015, 115 minutes, Colour.
Berenice Bejo, Liam Cunningham,, Tom Sweet, Stacy Martin, Robert Pattinson, Rebecca Dayan, Caroline Boulton, Yolande Moreau.
Directed by Brady Corbett.

This is quite a disturbing film.

It is set in France in 1918 in the aftermath of World War I, the diplomacy at the Versailles Conference, discussions about the Treaty, the future of the defeated countries of Europe.

The particular setting is a mansion in a forest, an isolated area, something of a refuge for the diplomats involved in the discussions, particularly Liam Cunningham as the father of the family. Berenice Bejo is his wife. But the focus is on their child, Prescott, played with an eerie presence by Tom Sweet.

The title indicates that our attention should be on Prescott. He is not a likeable child, but there is some sympathy for him growing up in this household, the severity of his father, the sometimes neglect of his mother, the attentions of a teacher who tries her best to educate the boy.

There is also a religious background, Catholic France at the time, with scenes of a priest and Christmas celebrations – and Prescott’s unpredictable reactions to them.

What emerges is a boy who is partly spoiled, partly neglected, a boy who wants his own way, who dominates other children, and even dominates the adults.

The audience is to bring to mind the meaning of the title, the period between the two world wars and the rise of fascism – the film being something of an allegory of what have might been the upbringing and the influences on the two major fascists of this inter-war period, Hitler and Mussolini. But, it is also suggested, that there were many fascist regimes which emerged during this period, thinking of Franco’s Spain and the various kingdoms which were going to collapse in Eastern Europe.

Eventually, the film goes forward 20 years, to the time of the outbreak of World War II and the boy emerging as a Leader, fascist in appearance and manner, played by Robert Pattinson (suggesting Prescott is the son of the family friend, Charles?)..

To emphasise the eeriness of this drama, there is a powerful score which many might think that it is too insistent, but bold cords, bold pounding of the instruments, sometimes strident and certainly creating an atmosphere.

The film was the work of Brady Corbett, a child actor in such films as Mysterious Skin, making a variety of films in Europe, moving into the world of production, writing and direction.

As has been said, and needs saying again, quite a disturbing experience.

1. A different cinema experience? Going back in history? World War I, Europe? The US? Politics? The background of fascism?
2. The director, his acting career, his first film?

3. The role of newsreel footage, the extent, trench warfare and the images of World War I, the transition to Woodrow Wilson, American involvement, the politics, leading up to the Treaty of Versailles? The later introduction of footage from the 1930s?

4. The musical score, the pounding effect, catching the audience up?

5. The locations in France, the countryside, the house, the church, the town? The contrast with the fascist state, the meetings, the buildings, the troops?

6. The framework of the three tantrums and the aftermath? Signs of what was to come? Prescott as a bastard?

7. The use of English, French? Comprehension, translation, authentic feel?

8. The home situation, the father and his diplomatic role, with Woodrow Wilson, the meetings, going to the city? The meeting at home, discussions at home? His wife, meeting, her marriage, his age, relationship with his son? his not learning much French? A man married to his job, his relationship with his wife, telling her that he wanted another child?

9. The opening sequences, the dark, the church, the children preparing for the Christmas pageant, the dress, the wings? Prescott and his getting the stones? Throwing them at people? Running into the forest, hitting the tree, carried back, the effect?

10. His mother, criticising him? Finding him trying, his not speaking to her? His relationship with the servants, his relationships? Ada and the French language classes? Getting on well with her? Mona, spoiling him, the affection? The mother and her attitude to her husband, the background of the marriage and her explanations, her coldness towards him, indulgence towards her son? Reaction to his wanting another child?

11. The church, the religious services, the sermon, the visit to the priest, his listening to the situation, reasonable, suggesting an apology from the boy, after Mass and Prescott apologising to everyone who went by?

12. Charles, his visit, the discussions with the father, a surprise visit, his interactions with the boy, intervening? His friendship? The wife writing a letter, asking his help? his arrival for the dinner, guest, amiable? his intervening with Prescott? The later images of Prescott as an adult, Robert Pattinson in the role? The boy’s father?

13. Prescott, his behaviour, age, American in France, managing with the language, refusing to eat the meal, going to his room, the layout of his room, the desk, the books? Wanting his own way? The French lessons and his improvement? Touching Ada’s breast, her wanting apology, his reaction? Secluding himself in his room, Ada to come back in three days, his writing the story, reading it to his mother and Ada? Mona, her fostering Prescott and spoiling him?

14. The mother, upset, writing the letter to Charles, interactions with her husband, with her son, listening to the story?

15. Her reaction to Mona, sacking her? Calling Ada to account, writing of the cheque?

16. The boy, his clothes, mistaken for a girl? The dinner, the guests, invited to say grace, his refusing to say grace, his tantrum, upset, pursuit, the door, his father breaking it down, beating him?

17. The end of the war, the Pathe news? The meetings, celebrations?

18. The transition to 20 years, the end of the 1930s, the period of fascism? The meeting, the discussions of the politicians, advisers, going downstairs, the arrival of the leader
in the car, the troops?

19. The portrait of the childhood of the leader, the reasons for his behaviour, love and absence of love, wilful, enjoying power, whims, and needs? The irony of his father?

20. The final images, confusion, everything going topsy-turvy – the overthrowing of fascism?