MONSTER TRUCKS

US, 2016, 105 minutes, Colour.
Lucas Till, Jane Levy, Rob Lowe, Danny Glover, Amy Ryan, Barry Pepper, Holt Mc Allany.
Directed by Chris Wedge.

With a title like Monster Truck, it seemed as if this would be an animation film, Monsters Inc… However, it is a live-action show – although it plays very much in the vein of an animation film. Its target audience would be children and teenagers.

Ultimately, there is a message very much in favour of the environment, the impact of drilling, discoveries in the various levels under the surface of the earth, business exploitation, lies and cover-ups. Rob Lowe is the arch-villain, manager of a drilling company, hiring yes-men as scientific advisors as well as thugs to do his dirty work. When he gives the go-ahead to keep drilling despite warnings and dangers, much of his enterprise goes up in explosions. But, the real surprise is that in hitting an underground water level, he brings prehistoric creatures to the surface!

In the meantime, Trip (Lucas Till) lives with his mother, goes to school where there is a rivalry with a rich kid with a big rich vehicle, a very serious-minded science student (Jane Levy), and an eye being kept on him by the local sheriff (Barry Pepper) who is rather keen on Trip’s mother. There is also an agreeable old man (Danny Glover) who runs a local garage and vehicle destruction enterprise.

The main action is a kind of variation on Free Willy, one of the rather large creatures, looks like an early dolphin but has octopus tentacles, quite large. But, it is rather endearing in its behaviour, hiding from the boss’s thugs under a truck, squeezing itself into the truck itself and, with energy and speed, can outrun any vehicle and any monster truck!

Which sets the scene for the adventures to come as well as the action stunts and special effects.

When it is discovered that there are several other creatures in the boss’s captivity, looked after by a meek scientist, Thomas Lennon, who has a change of heart, of course, and wants to participate in the freedom of the creatures and return them home to the earth’s depths.

This requires the reconditioning of several vehicles, with the help of the old man as well as one of Trip’s friends, son of a wealthy car dealer. And, when all is ready, there is a huge chase through the mountains, the creatures powering the vehicles, barriers put across the highways, huge leaps, characters dangling from open doors – but nothing like a big tentacle to remedy the situation!

It all builds up to a huge confrontation, the creatures going back home into their deep hole, Trip falling in but, perhaps this is a spoiler alert but everybody will be ready for it, the benign creatures saving him and restoring him to mother, sheriff, girlfriend, and a happy life because his contribution to saving the world!

1. The target audience? Response of younger audiences, boys, girls? Adult response?

2. The focus on trucks, on machines and machinery, on working with machinery, working on cars and trucks? The roller derby and the action?

3. The environment, exploitation, fossil fuels, breaking the law, money deals and silence? Buying the police?

4. The environment, life, new creatures and species, protection? The establishing of the situation, Tennyson, the boss, Daniel the scientist, the drilling, information about the water level, the ethics, the decision, the drilling, the enormous explosion, destruction, and the creatures surfacing?

5. Trip, his age, relationship with his mother, the absent father, with Rick, Rick as the sheriff? Riding his bike? In the bus, the rival student with his flashy car? Trip as ordinary, school, meeting with Meredith, pairing with her for science? His friendship with the wealthy boy, son of the car dealer?

6. The old man, his work, the crushing of the cars, the emergence of the creature, Trip hiding, calling the police, the creature vanishing?

7. The creature, part dolphin, giant squid, big eyes, the smile, the teeth and the mouth?

8. Tennyson, handling the situation, taking the two creatures with Daniel caring for them? Burke and his cohorts, the search, breaking the law?

9. Daniel, with the creatures, fostering them, learning that they needed oil, their playing of the musical sounds, communicating with each other? His delight?

10. The creature going into the truck, Burke arriving, Trip concealing him? Manoeuvres with the truck getting away?

11. Meredith, study, interest in biology, coming to work with Trip? The drive, the discovery of the creature? Excitement?

12. Trip, his absent father, seeing him on the television, going to see him, his caravan, his long absence, his communicating with Burke, his apology to Trip, the van going through his caravan?

13. The creature with Trip and Meredith, going to the water, the swimming and enjoyment, the electric energy, going to the garage for oil? Meredith’s credit card?

14. Rick, discussions with Burke, the two assistants, not believing Trip? The two underlings giving the information to Burke? Rick, the pursuit?

15. The stunts and action with the truck and the creature? Streets, side streets, above the street, sideways, leaping over the roofs? The pursuit, leaping over the train carriage? Rick and his reaction?

16. Trip and Meredith taken, the confrontation with Tennyson? The creature coming, invading, reunited with the members of his family?

17. Daniel, the decision to save the creatures? Trip and his idea, getting the trucks, from his friend at the dealership and allowing him to help? Taking his rival’s truck and repossession?

18. The work, during the night, everybody involved, the re-conditioning?

19. Daniel and his help, becoming one of the drivers? The details of the pursuit, excitement, the different terrain, the fire across the road, the cliffs, the creature doing rescues?
The decision of the three cars to leap? The poison trucks? Burke, the confrontation, edging Trip over the edge? The rebound and his hitting the poison tanks?

20. Trip, in the water, the creature saving him, all the creatures gathering to farewell him and thanks?

21. Tennyson arrested, Daniel happy as a geologist? The review of all the characters, Rick and Trip’s mother, the old man? And the future with Meredith?

MURDER AT GLEN ATHOL

US, 1933, 64 minutes, Black and white.
John Miljan, Irene Ware, Iris Adrian, Noel Madison, Oscar Apfel, Barry Norton, Harry Holman, Betty Blythe, James P. Burtis, Wilson Benge.
Directed by Frank R. Strayer.

Murder Glenn Athol is one of many small-budget murder mysteries and crime dramas directed by Frank R. Strayer during the 1930s. At the end of his career, in the late 1940s, he moved to films with more religious themes including The Pilgrimage Play.

This film runs like a filmed play, a focus on confined rooms, dialogue – as well as the intricacies of a murder mystery.

The star is John Milton, prolific player in the 1930s of many similar films, tall, an imposing presence, moustache, serious-minded. He plays a detective who writes books, on holidays with his strange assistant, Jeff (James P.Burtis, a prolific character actor in the 1930s, sometimes 10 films a year, dying in 1939).

Next door to the holiday house for the detective is a society family, plenty of skeletons in the closet, a dipsy young woman played by Iris Adrian, who has married and divorced well, with her elderly and wealthy ex-husband at the party, her present husband in an institution, his brother the target for her next husband. Her mother, Betty Blythe, is hosting the party along with her friend, a local wealthy man who has an influence with the police. In the background are criminals, pursuing the young woman because she has incriminating letters which they want to retrieve. Also present is a demure young woman, a friend of the mother, Irene Ware.

There are several murders, an attack on the alleged killer who seems to be confessing – but, of course, is not, though the police think that he is. The detective begs to differ, does his own investigation, his friend Jeff also finding clues – with a visit to the institution, a discussion with the doctor, one of the butlers (Wilson Benge a perennial butler in movies) discovering a dagger and some poison buried in the garden, and another discovery seeming to incriminate the demure woman with whom the detective is becoming infatuated.

When the detective has some chicken, prepared by Jeff, who is a rough-and-tumble type who has saved the detective’s life and the detective has saved his life several times, who can turn on the good manners at a moment’s notice, he realises the chicken is rather rigid, rigor mortis comes to mind and the solution to the murder. In the meantime, the criminals have threatened the other butler to phone the detective to demand his presence. Some mishaps, some shootouts, a car chase with the detective and Jeff shrewdly parking their car and shooting at the criminals as they drive past!

When he realises that the dead woman’s mother-in-law was heard talking to the woman when, the detective realises, she was long dead, there is an assembly of all the characters, in the Agatha Christie vein, and the detective setting up a situation where he made as if he was talking but that no one was actually listening – and the mother emotionally collapses.

And romantic ending on board a liner, Jeff allegedly on land but appearing at a porthole having stowed away on a lifeboat!

 

 

 

 

 

THE STUDIO MURDER MYSTERY

US, 1929, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
Neil Hamilton, Doris Hill, Warner Oland, Fredric March, Chester Conklin, Florence Eldridge, Eugene Pallette.
Directed by Frank Tuttle.

Audiences noting the date, 1929, might expect something of a B-budget rather rickety film. In fact, it is better than quite a number of films of this period although it is still a B-budget film but from Paramount Studios.

The film begins with what looks like a murder but is actually a rehearsal for a film, Fredric March, a wealthy man, a serial philanderer, wanting to act in films. His director is played by Warner Oland, later Charlie Chan. It immediately emerges that the director is jealous of the actor and his relationship with his wife. Almost immediately, a young actress, daughter of the security guard, comes to the office of the actor who declares his love for her and a divorce from his wife. Then his wife turns up, played by Florence Eldridge, March's real-life wife for decades, who threatens her husband who declares his love for his wife, no divorce, with the young actress overhearing everything.

Also in the complication besides the security guard is his son, a taxi driver, protective of his sister, as well as the main star, a somewhat irritating screenwriter (irritating to the audience as well as to the characters in the film who reject his ideas), and the guard at the gate. There is also the studio head and then the police.

Perhaps this was something of an original idea in 1929, but the clues are signalled very early and for most audiences the solution will not come as a surprise at all.

In the vein of the times, thinking of Agatha Christie and Hercule Poirot, the five suspicious characters are assembled in a room, the screenwriter is attacked by the actual murderer after he realises what has happened, but he gives the solution to the police – and all is well.

Interesting to see Fredric March in a very early role, winning an Oscar three years later with Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, as well as Florence Eldridge and Warner Oland. Eugene Pallette, also to have a successful career as a character actor, appears as a self-important detective. Director Frank Tuttle was continue to make pictures into the 1950s.

 

 

A SHRIEK IN THE NIGHT

US, 1933, 66 minutes, Black and white.
Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark, Purnell Pratt, Lillian Harmer, Louise Beavers.
Directed by Albert Ray.

A Shriek in the Night is notable as being one of the earliest of Ginger Rogers’ films. She co-stars with Lyle Talbot and they appeared later in 1933 in another murder mystery, the 13th Guest.

This is a murder mystery, a wealthy man falling from the top of a building, the police investigating, his secretary being present at the time – although, it is soon revealed that she is a journalist who has been suspicious of the man and his dealings with criminals. There are several other murders in the building.

Lyle Talbot is a go-getting reporter who pushes his way into the investigation, picks up a phone where the secretary is dictating her exclusive story to her editor, so she thinks, but has given it to her rival who sends it to his paper where he receives splash headlines. The two reporters, of course, have a past together. There is an amusing twist where to get her revenge, she spins him quite a tale about what happened – only to discover that he has tried to make things right by phoning it in in her name to her paper!

There are complications with criminals and the deaths. However, the solution runs along a different line, information given about a man who was executed, a victim of the criminals – and it is the caretaker of the building, who seemed innocent at first but then attacks the reporter, who was getting revenge because the executed man was his brother.

One of the most striking things about the film is its black-and-white photography, quite an emphasis on light and darkness, especially darkness, very much in the vein of German Expressionist films, worth looking at for this reason as well is the touch of murder mystery and some screwball comedy.

PATRIOTS DAY

US, 2016, 133 minutes, Colour.
Mark Wahlberg, Kevin Bacon, John Goodman, J. K. Simmons, Michelle Monaghan, Christopher O' Shea, Rachel Brosnahan, Jimmy O. Yang, Melissa Benoist, Alex Wolffe, Themo Melikidze, Michael Beach.
Directed by Peter Berg.

It is sometimes surprising how quickly actual events make their way to a big budget film, especially in the US. Patriots’ Day, the story of the Boston Marathon of 2013, the terrorists who planted explosives, killing and injuring bystanders, and putting the city of Boston into lockdown during the pursuit of the perpetrators.

Some commentators say that this kind of thing is opportunistic, taking advantage of the opportunity. However, this film is very careful to draw on actual characters and aspects of the events, especially with the real characters appearing at the end of the film discussing the issues, the police, the FBI investigator, and a young couple both of whom were injured, treated in different hospitals, had a leg amputated. The film then offers tributes to those who acted in heroic ways.

But, for the drama’s sake, the central character is a fictitious policeman, drawing on various characters on the day and its aftermath. Perhaps Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were not available for the film but Boston’s other famous son, Mark Wahlberg, plays the policeman. While the screenplay follows him, his character, his involvement, his contribution to the apprehension of the terrorists, there is quite a lot more going on. But, his story gets the audience in the mood, seeing him involved in a raid, injuring his leg on a recalcitrant door, his time in hospital, his love for his wife, Michelle Monaghan, his relationship with the police chief, John Goodman, and his being ragged by his fellow police because of his rather challenging attitude towards authority. On the day, he is on duty, joked about because of his uniform looking like a crossing guard, at the finishing line.

The film holds the attention – but, in some ways, it is several films in one.

The first part of the film is really Boston’s preparation for the marathon, the logistics of setting up the route, the officials and their role, the assembling of the runners, the role of security, the crowds arriving, the running...

The screenplay uses the device of signalling on-screen the particular times on the day of the marathon, and then listing the hours that have passed since the explosions, over a period of several days. This also gives the opportunity to introduce a range of characters, police, Mayor, Massachusetts Governor, the runners, the young couple who were to be injured – and, especially, the brothers, the terrorists, at home, with the family, breakfast, the packing of the explosives and their setting out on their mission.

Then there is the terrorism, the explosions, the uncertainties, the fear, the reaction of the crowds, the visuals of those injured, a policeman standing guard for the day over the covered body of a young boy, the ambulances, the work in hospitals, the pressures and difficulties, amputations.

While local police are involved in the investigations, it becomes a task for the FBI, Kevin Bacon as the official in charge, rather stony-faced (especially in comparison with the more genial real person who appears at the end of the film). The investigation is shown in quite some detail, taking over a warehouse, the drawing of the route on the floor, individual officers involved in scanning CCTV. Mark Wahlberg gets a chance to become involved when it is pointed out that he is an expert in knowledge of the local streets – and it is intriguing to watch his suggestions about the route of the suspects, who are glimpsed on CCTV with their black cap, white cap, and where they might have walked from, how much time, looking to the next camera and tracing their route.

The investigation continues during the next phase of the film which is the pursuit of the criminals themselves, their packing up, their plan to go to New York for more explosions, their taking a car, driving to Watertown with the role of the police there, and J. K. Simmons in charge. The terrorists take a hostage from the street, a young Chinese- American (and this actually happened), who was able to get out of the car, hide in a supermarket while the younger terrorist is buying food, and phoning the authorities. There is a huge shootout in the street and the older brother is killed.

The younger brother disappears and, those familiar with the story, may remember that he hid for several days in the suburbs under a tarpaulin covering a boat in the yard, ultimately caught and, again, a shootout. In the meantime, there is also an interesting episode where the wife of the terrorist is brought in for questioning, a very tough interrogator respecting Muslim dress and manners but extremely menacing nonetheless.

In an era of terrorism, it is interesting, if often distressing, to see the re-creations of these well-known episodes. The Boston experience was not as dire as the terrorism in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Istanbul, Berlin…, but significant nonetheless, especially the terrorism on US soil after 911. Many audiences may be thinking – and at one moment the screenplay makes this explicit – that people in war-ravaged countries, especially Syria, experience this kind of devastation day by day, more extremely so, the effects on individuals, families, injuries and deaths, destruction of buildings, and the extraordinary demands made on doctors, nurses and medical personnel. Sobering.


1. The historical events? People? A perspective on 2013, USA? The fiction elements, the facts?

2. An opportunity to look at the events after three years? The time, so soon? American terrorism? Responses?

3. The city of Boston, the place of the Marathon, the spirit, the crowds and participants, onlookers? The police and security? The explosions, the treatment of the victims, the care? Local police and investigations? The FBI? The methods? The pursuit of the bombers, shootouts, Boston lockdown?

4. The range of genres in the one film? The shift from one genre to the other? The effect? Cumulative?

5. The ending, the reality of the characters, the events? The tributes?

6. The director, his skill in action film? The cast – and their corresponding to actual characters? Mark Wahlberg and his being a Bostonian?

7. The title, the focus on the day, the Marathon itself, the crowds, the preparation, the range of logistics, the runners and their range and differences? Participation? Celebrities and celebration?

8. The films device of having the times on screen, building up to the explosion, the explosion and listing the hours after it?

9. The introduction, the different times, the range of people introduced, Tom and his work, bashing down the door, hurting his knee, going to hospital? Carol and her concern? Ed Davis and the other authorities? The families? The couple and their preparation for the day, comments on pronunciation? Sgt Jeffrey Pugliese, his wife and the muffin? The terrorists at home, the brothers, the wife and child, watching the television? The young Chinese man? The MIT students and the robot, the sympathetic policeman? The day progressing?

10. Tom, the fictional character, his attitude towards authority, outbursts, fellow police, the jokes, his injury? The challenge for him to be reinstated? On security at the finishing line? Getting his wife to bring the help for his leg? The mayor, the governor? Tom and his surveillance, the jokes, his wife coming?

11. The MIT students, the robot, the work amongst themselves, the policeman, arranging the date?

12. Young Chinese man, discussing technology, the apps?

13. People arriving for the marathon, the couple, the father with his three-year-old son…?

14. The terrorists, at home, the wife and child, the brothers, their interactions, argumentative, each dominating in their way, the younger man in his drug background, his studies, the preparation of the bombs, watching the television, the plan, travelling to the race? The ideological motivation?

15. The friends of the bomber, at the university, drugs, texting, watching the TV, deciding not to give any information, the later information that they were charged with obstruction?

16. The suddenness of the explosion, its effect, visually, the boy dying, covered and the policeman standing guard? Panic, injuries? Tom, the work of the police, the crowds, concern about his wife, the medics, the ambulances, the severed limbs, the hospitals and surgery, the pressures, time, amputations, the separation of family victims – and the later being reunited?

17. The work of the local police, Ed Davis and his role, Tom and his assertiveness? The arrival of the FBI, the officer in charge, his being stern, the issue of jurisdictions? The role of the media? Finding the large space, the layout, the use of the floor for diagrams of what happened? Laying out the evidence, the map of the streets? Technology, phones, desks, surveillance and the video footage, those watching? Tom, his advice about witnesses? His being called in because of his knowledge of streets, the surveillance identifying the terrorists, working out the routes, the time taken, finding the surveillance footage? The white cap and the black? The two men seen as being linked? The big issue of whether to release the photos to the media or not, waiting, Fox News and breaking the images? The press conference, the FBI chief and the explanations and appeal to the public?

18. The policeman outside MIT, the girl coming out, the date, his being shot?

19. Pugliese, his background, in Watertown, quiet place, the work of the police?

20. The brothers, at home, the wife, the clash, going out to buy the milk, on the video camera? The decision to move, the car and the explosives, to go to New York? Abducting the young Chinese man, hostage, his fear, control, the getting petrol, food in the shop, the young man making his escape, flight, hiding, phoning the police? The immediate follow-up?

21. The brothers bickering amongst themselves? Mutual blame? Watertown, the range of police, their becoming involved, following the cars, the shooting, the bombs exploding, the deaths? The death of the brother? The other escaping?

22. The calling in of the wife, the expert interrogator, her dress, Muslim customs, the threats, her questions – and not getting anything out of the wife, the wife’s defiance?

23. The lockdown of Boston, identifying the fingerprints of the terrorist in the surgery, identifying him?

24. The visuals of the lockdown, Boston quiet, the streets? The man with the boat, suspicious, phoning the police, their arrival?

25. The siege of the boat, the weapons, capturing the terrorist?

26. The experience of the city, the interviews with the characters at the end, especially the couple and their reflections, the photos of the actual people? The experience of terrorism in the US? The reminder of the daily equivalents in other countries like Syria? The American response?

JACKIE

Chile/France/US, 2016, 100 minutes, Colour.
Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig, Billy Crudup, John Hurt, Richard E. Grant, Casper Phillipson, Beth Grant, John Carroll Lynch, Max Casella.
Directed by Pablo Larrain.

Jackie has received quite some critical acclaim.

Older audiences will bring their memories of November 22, 1963 to mind as they watch the film. So powerful was the news of John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas that many people in succeeding years declared that they could remember where they were when they heard the news. The memory of the assassination was initially perpetuated with the killing of assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, by Jack Ruby, the day after the killing – and the consequent decades of conspiracy theories.

Which may mean that younger audiences, for whom this story is history from half a century ago, may not be caught up in the spirit of this portrait of Jacqueline Kennedy in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of her husband, the swearing-in of Lyndon B. Johnson as president, the fears throughout the United States, the uncertainties, and the preparations for the funeral and the actual march from the Capitol to the cathedral.

So, this is a portrait of Jacqueline Kennedy, the rather aristocratically-styled wife of the president (with her strange uppercrust accent), her presence in the car when her husband was shot, cradling him, wearing the pink suit and hat for which she was remembered, smeared in blood. It is a portrait of a woman who bore herself with great dignity, made decisions, along with Robert F Kennedy, about the funeral with great desires about how her husband would be remembered.

The narrative is not straightforward, rather the to-ing and fro-ing, especially in the week of the assassination and its aftermath. There is a principal flashback interspersed throughout the story, the 1961 television program where Jacqueline Kennedy hosted the television audience in a tour of the White House to make it more accessible, “the people’s house�, with an appearance of her husband at the end of the program. She is rather nervous, being urged to smile by her assistant, Nancy, rather relieved when her husband arrives.

Natalie Portman gives a striking performance as Jackie Kennedy, often very self-contained, introspective, alone with her grief, wandering the White House in a collage of guns and jewellery, to the accompaniment of Richard Burton singing the title song from the musical, Camelot. She is tender with the children, finding a way to tell Caroline and John that their father has gone to heaven and is with their brother, Patrick. She can also be determined, some emotional clashes with Robert Kennedy about the Kennedys keeping secrets, standing her ground in determining the funeral march against the advice of Johnson’s assistant.
The screenplay, by Noah Oppenheimer, writer of popular entertainments like, captures the spirit of the times, the spirit of the Kennedys, some of the social and political issues as well as the personal and spiritual issues. The framework of the film is an interview with a journalist (based on Theodore White who did write a similar article later). He is played by Billy Crudup, attentive, but with many abrasive moments and Jackie trying to determine the way that the article should read.

The screenplay also includes the introduction of a priest confidante, played with robust sympathy by John Hurt, with several intimate conversations between Jackie and the priest, based on the actual father Richard McSorley?, Jackie is able to express her fears, her night thoughts, her wondering about her status, the fact that she had become a Kennedy, wanting to be with her husband – and some practical advice from the priest, about the search for meaning, comforting her that she had received people’s compassion, using the Gospel story from John of the man born blind to remind her that God’s work is to be revealed in mysterious ways, and finally reassuring her that he had his dark nights, but, like everyone, got up the next morning, had a cup of coffee, continued with life, just enough for us to keep going. There is a very moving sequence towards the end where the priest officiates at the reburial of the two deceased Kennedy children at Arlington.

One of the moving scenes is Jackie leaving the White House in the company of her two children. The film uses some actual television footage of the funeral cortege, Jackie walking behind the horse drawn carriage with the coffin, over a hundred international dignitaries marching behind her.

One of the interesting things about the film is that it was directed by the Chilean director, Pablo Larrain (No, about the Pinochet elections of 1988, the biography of Neruda, the film about erring priests, The Club). As an outsider, as a non-American, he has the advantage of not having a more sentimental feel that an American director might bring.

There is a very good supporting cast led by Peter Skarsgaard as Robert Kennedy, Greta Gerwig as Nancy, John Carol Lynch as Lyndon Johnson.

In the film Jackie Kennedy is very conscious of the heritage of Abraham Lincoln, the role of his wife, Mary Todd, wondering what the future will remember about her husband, while Robert Kennedy ponders on all that they might have done had they had the time power in the cut-short Kennedy Camelot.

1. The impact of this portrait of Jacqueline Kennedy? Focusing on one week in 1963, the tragedy, the aftermath?

2. The screenplay, the insights? The interview framework? The focusing on her television show on the tour of the White House? Life at the White House and JFK? Her style, dress, concert at the White House? Echoes of Camelot? 22 November, the aftermath, LBJ, Washington, the logistics for the funeral? Robert Kennedy? Nancy and the family? Memories, clashes, decisions? The discussions with the priest?

3. The incorporation of actual footage, especially for the funeral procession and the dignitaries marching?

4. The score, the discordant and minor tones and chords? The incorporation of Richard Burton singing Camelot?

5. The interviewer, in himself, Theodore White, the article written later than in the film? Jacqueline Kennedy’s view of herself, of her husband, the presidency, Camelot, wanting a monument to JFK?

6. Going to Dallas, the pink suit, on the plane, speaking Spanish, loving crowds, the acclaim?

7. The tragedy, the initial reticence with the visuals? The verbal descriptions, Jackie talking about her husband’s skull, the blood? The later visuals of the event?

8. Lyndon Johnson, taking the oath, Lady Bird with him, Valenti as his assistant? The decisions, the national fear at the time? The role of Robert Kennedy, attorney general? The tension with Johnson, Kennedy getting him to sit down? Lady Bird offering to help Jackie with changing clothes? The issue of exiting the White House? Jackie saying the Johnsons were good to her?

9. Jackie, the grief, asking the driver about Garfield and Mc Kinley, about Abraham Lincoln? Ignorance and knowledge?

10. The television coverage, Jackie hearing the information, especially about Oswald? The presence of the Kennedy family? Rose Kennedy? Ethel Kennedy?

11. Robert Kennedy, his role in the administration, relationship with Jackie, helping, in charge? Shielding Jackie at first from Ruby killing Oswald? Her later discovery, her outburst, the Kennedys and their secrets? Later apology? Robert Kennedy on issues of security? Accompanying Jackie at all the events? Seen in the light of his subsequent history and assassination?

12. Nancy, friendship, the television program, urging Jackie to smile, continued support, her decision to stay with Jackie?

13. The autopsy, Jackie upset, the body lying in state, the transfer? The later visit of Jackie to Arlington, the fog, surveying the headstones, finding a place for Kennedy at Arlington rather than in Boston?

14. Scenes of grief, shock, the pink suit and hat, the blood, cradling her husband, interactions with Johnson, on the plane, at home, taking off the pink suit, the blood, the stockings, the bathroom and scrubbing her nails, the shower? Her smoking, the drink, taking pills?

15. The support of the designer at the White House? His advice, friendship, issues of decor, his comments on security, that she should go back to Boston and live in a fort? His later advice to the Johnsons?

16. The children, their age, Jackie preparing to tell them, talking gently, their father going to heaven, to be with Patrick? Whether he said goodbye? The reaction of the children?

17. Oswald on television, Ruby shooting him, Kennedy turning the television off, not to tell Jackie?

18. Her sitting with the coffin, the clergy present, the children, the Psalms and the themes of hope?

19. Jackie and her sense of history, the White House and its history, lived in by real people, not legends? The decor, the knickknacks, the expenses? Her comment that Jack
could buy votes but not paintings?

20. Jackie walking throughout the house, the different clothes, the picture of Mary Todd, the information about her auctioning the furniture? The range of dresses, the jewels? Playing Camelot? Her comments about Jack and his being led into the desert to be tempted, that he wasn’t perfect, that he was changing? The screenplay returning to the interview, the range of questions, interpretation, Jackie challenging him, upset, giving him information and statements, then denying that she said them? The glimpse of her editing? The character of the interviewer, impartial, his comments, upsetting Jackie without realising it?

21. The distinguished guest list, General De Gaulle, the security, the threat to him? The range of invitations? Jackie and her interactions with Valenti, to walk to the cathedral, changing her mind, change her mind again, doing her job? Giving this information to the guests when they arrived at the airport?

22. The tribute to agent Hill, and his interventions in Dallas?

23. Jackie looking out the car window, asking what was real, what was performance, the Kennedys were not most people?

24. The birthday party for John, three?

25. Robert Kennedy, his reflection about what legacy the Kennedys had left? What had been accomplished? Johnson inheriting this legacy? Civil rights, space, Vietnam…? That
they were seen as the beautiful people, but were ridiculous?

26. The packing sequences, Jackie and the dresses, the men and the cases, her ring being stuck on her finger?

27. The processions, the transfers to the Capitol, from the Capitol to the cathedral, the marchers?

28. The interviewer telling Jackie that she had made her mark on the country, in her mourning, with the children, with her dignity and majesty, and the image of the mother of the country?

29. Moving out, Lady Bird and new designs? Material going to storage? The plaque on the door that the Kennedys had lived there?

30. Images of dance, happiness, Camelot, knights, ideals and a better world?

31. The role of the priest? The close-ups, the discussions, walking? The priest and his manner, Irish? The talk as a kind of confession? His advice, the question of why we are here, that God does not like stories but truth? The Jackie was seeking sympathy, asking whether the priest was listening? His thinking that he was? Jackie stating that God was cruel, the priest saying that it was getting into trouble areas? His declaration that God was love, everywhere? Jackie asking was God in the bullet, in her, his agreeing? Her asking what she did to deserve this? Her comment of not spending nights with JFK, there was more to vows than love? Issues of power, power and love and sexuality? Her asking what men were thinking of her, the priest replying compassion, maybe desire? Her saying that she made men smile? The priest advising that she should take comfort in the memories? Her saying that she couldn’t because they were mixed with all the other memories?

32. Jackie reflecting with the priest, night thoughts, that she should have been a shop girl, married somebody ordinary? The priest telling her the parable of the man born blind, so that the works of God would be revealed in him? That Jackie was chosen, that the works of God were to be revealed in her?

33. Her comment that she wanted to die, and be with her husband? The priest’s comments on search, meaning, that there are no answers, or you accept this – or kill yourself and stop searching? Jackie despising the weakness of those who kill themselves? The priest’s comment and encouragement about turning the lights off every night as he did, staring into the dark, asking if that is all there is, then waking up, having a coffee? That she had done this that morning? Her asking why bother and he answering because we do, and we keep going? It being just enough for us?

34. The re-interring of the bodies of the children, the prayer, the hope, the sadness?

35. American script, Chilean director, American story?

THE HOLLOW POINT

US, 2016, 93 minutes, Colour.
Patrick Wilson, Ian Mc Shane, Lynn Collins, John Leguizamo, James Belushi.
Directed by Gonzalo Lopez- Gallego.

The Hollow Point is a very grim film, set on the Arizona- Mexico border, complications with cartels, arms smuggling across the border, young men doing the smuggling, stealing money, cartel assassins killing them. Cross

Ian Mc Shane portrays a veteran sheriff, a drinker, lacking scruple, seen initially confronting a young man who fights him, Mc Shane shooting him. Patrick Wilson plays Wallace, coming back to his hometown, as a replacement sheriff, disliked by everyone, meeting a former girlfriend, Lynn Collins, who had been in a relationship with one of the young men who had been killed.

The film shows the highway, the desert, the area in southern Arizona, across into Mexico, arid and dangerous.

The film offers a police investigation, some graphic violence when the hero’s hand is chopped off by a machete! This episode makes demands on audience credibility as he seems to manage and does not need the hospital treatment that was necessary. Nevertheless, he continues in his pursuit, almost killing a lookalike to the assassin in his vengeance.

James Belushi plays a car dealer in the town, joking but sinister, mixed up in the arms deals. John Leguizamo plays the assassin who comes into town and confronts Wallace.

This is not a straightforward police investigation – a touch of the arthouse treatment of the theme, also causing some difficulties for audiences to follow the plot.

1. The American- Mexican border? Life in the towns? Crime, arms deals, money? The cartels? Administration of the law?

2. The title, moral comment on the issues and characters, the focus on bullets and death?

3. The locations, the town, police precincts, apartments, dealerships, hospitals? The desert highways? Crosses and graves? The musical score?

4. Violence in the way of life? Guns, machetes, injuries and deaths, fights?

5. Leland, police, old, tough, confronting the young man in the car, taunting him, the fight, shooting him?

6. Wallace, his background, leaving the town, being sent back, his past relationship with Marla, her relationship with the man who had disappeared? Discussions about the past? The relationship?

7. Wallace and his return, meeting people, their dislike of him, calling him an asshole? Investigating, talking with Leland, getting his statement, warning him? Searching, the wounded man in the bath, talk, his death? His being pursued, in the hole with the bags of cement, the water, getting free? The fight with the pursuer, his hand being chopped off? Going to Leland’s house, the blood on the wall, his need for medical attention? Hospital, Marla, his arm being bound?

8. Diaz, the dealership, his place in the town, the story about his wife, finances? His doubledealing? The cartels? His fears, wanting the money to pay off his debts? Interactions with Leland, Leland suspecting the truth, at the desk, Diaz shooting him, the body armour, the evidence of the bullet? Wallace confronting him, his going with Marla, trying to find the money, dig it up?

9. Marla, her character, her fears, relationships? Lily, at the diner, customers? Later revelations about her, her contact with the cartel, the information, the attack, in hospital? Her religious language and trying to save people?

10. Wallace, following the lead, the man with his girlfriend, Wallace and his gun, menace, about to kill the man, his later regrets?

11. The glimpse of the stranger, police, the prison, the prisoners? His being the assassin, his coming for Lily? Threats and violence? The fight with Wallace? His death?

12. The list, the cartels, anonymous bosses, their influence, power, violence, money?

13. Wallace and Marla, driving away? The romantic touch? The beginning of the credits, the scene between Diaz and Leland, the shooting – giving a more violent, bitter touch to the ending?

14. A wild West, a wild border – and contemporary border issues?

DIRTY WOLVES/ LOBOS SUCIOS

Spain, 2015, 105 minutes, Colour.
Marianne Alvarez, Manuella Velles, Isak Ferriz, Pierre Kiwitt, Sam Loywyck, Thomas Coumans.
Directed by Simon Casal de Miguel.

Dirty Wolves is a rather grim Spanish film, made 70 years after the events it portrays, an opportunity to look back into the distant past, the era of Franco, the aftermath of the Civil War, Spanish neutrality in World War two, the relationship with the Germans and helping them, the pressure from the Allies.

The setting is a village in Galicia, in the remote mountains and forests where Wolfram has been discovered and is being mined by the people from the village as well as political prisoners to help the German war effort. The experience is drab, muddy, digging, explosions, the women sieving the metal. Payment is poor and the people are hungry.

The focus is on Manuela, a woman with a child but no father, working in the mine but singled out by British resistance to be a go-between with them and a condemned prisoner in the mine who is to organise tunnels within the mine so that the whole amount of Wolfram can be stolen to sabotage the German effort. This requires her to befriend a German official, a cultured man with a piano who has some mystical dreams about forests and caves, in order to steal the plans for the tunnels in the mine. Her younger sister becomes involved in helping Jewish refugees to cross into Portugal and is involved with a young man, son of the mine owners, who has returned from France in order to organise the theft of the metal.

The film builds to some tension with the theft, information to help the Germans, confrontations, some betrayals, torture and death.

An opportunity for an audience to be disturbed about these aspects of the Spanish past.

1. A Spanish memory of World War two? The aftermath of the Civil War? 70 years later?

2. The setting in the mountains of Galicia, the overviews of the mountains and valleys, the forests and caves, the water from mines, the tunnels, the drab exteriors, the homes in the village? The musical score?

3. The title, the stories of wolves, in the forests? Wolfram and its use in the war for destruction? The final story of the wolf in the cave and destroying the German officer?

4. The perspective on the war, the role of Franco, Spanish neutrality, alliances with Hitler, the pressure from the Allies? The Spanish civil guard, relationship with the Germans? With prisoners, with the people from the village, guarding the mine? Arrogance, confrontations?

5. The work in the mine, the women and the sieves, the men and the digging, the explosions? The poor payment? Meagre rations? The prisoners arriving, sentences commuted? Work in the mines?

6. The film’s focus on Manuela, dressed in black, her little girl, concerned for her health, no husband and her bitter memories of the father? Her work in the mine? At home, her mother? Her relationship with Candela? Her being asked to be the link with Miguel, carrying the information, the map of the mine, her getting the blueprint from the German? Her involvement with the German, submitting herself, clothes, meals, sexual encounters? Her relationship with Bryan and his pressure on her for communications? The attraction to Miguel, their meetings? The impact of her finding him hanging and her letting him down, telling him that she heard he was brave? The growing attraction, the medallion?

7. Edgar, the ownership of the mine, coming from France, the deaths of his parents, antagonism towards the Germans, the plan to steal the Wolfram? The plans, the meetings, Bryan and the British background, presence, radio communication, the digging? Needing more detailed plans? His interest in Candela? The Jewish refugee, taking him in the car, his escaping across the river? Teaching Candela to drive the car? The attraction, sexual attraction?

8. Candela, working in the mine, her resentments, relationship with Manuela, her mother? The medicines for the little girl? Her meeting with Edgar, helping with the escapes, at the river, the sexual encounter, her hopes, considering herself illiterate but hoping that Edgar would love her? The refugee girl, helping her – and Manuela eventually giving her food? The final refugee, going to the river, the pursuit by the Germans, the chase and the forests, interrogated, tortured, the information about the mine and the stealing? Her being shot? Manuela talking with her mother, the mother saying the German was nice, giving him the information and causing the death of her daughter?

9. The German, the piano, a man of culture, the mystical touch, the presence in the forest? His doing his duty, his associate, the civil guards? The attraction to Manuela, the dress, the meetings, the meal, sexual encounter? The discovery of the robbery, his tactics, to the mine, the metal on Miguel, Manuela and her betrayal, her persuading him to go into the forest, the promise of showing him the cave after denying it existed, his going in, his delight, not afraid of wolves – and the wolf attack and killing him?

10. Miguel, his background, musician, despair, hanging himself, saved, asked to head the sabotage, the meetings with Manuela, the maps, the success of the mission, the confrontation with the German? Making sure everyone was safe, the reunion with Manuela?

11. The war in hindsight, the role of Franco, his living on into the 70s, his effect on the Spanish society? The impact of the war, especially in Galicia and the Wolfram mines?

THE SIN OF NORA MORAN

US, 1933, 65 minutes, Black and white.
Zita Johann, Alan Dinehart, Paul Cavanagh, John Miljan, Claire Du Brey, Henry B. Walthall.
Directed by Paul Goldstone.

The Sin of Nora Moran is a very interesting film of the early 1930s, interesting in characters, plot developments as well as cinematic techniques. It packs quite an amount of material in its brief running time.

The black-and-white photography, emphasis on lights and shadows, as well as different editing techniques and swipes, with a great deal of superimposition is for interpreting character as well as providing the meaning of flashbacks, and a number of collages to advance the plot development – as with Nora Moran walking the streets of the city looking for job opportunities and being refused.

The framework of the film is a discussion between a brother and sister, she is the wife of the Governor who has discovered her husband’s affair with Nora Moran and the letters, he the DA. The wife is resentful, but Nora Moran is about to be executed for murder. It emerges that the brother a great deal about the affair but kept quiet because of the danger in the political campaign for the governorship.

In the flashbacks, it emerges that Nora Moran is to be executed that day, is in prison custody, is being sedated, lives in her memories, in her dreams, with sympathetic authorities in the prison. An orphan, with the help of Father Ryan, she has been adopted by a sympathetic family, but the parents dying in a car crash and Nora using her inheritance to train as a dancer but not finding a job. She does get a job in a circus with John Miljan as Paulino who, literally, wrestles with lions, but is a predator and attacks Nora.

She encounters the candidate for the governorship and they fall in love, he setting her up in a cottage, and going on to be elected governor. There are complications when the brother confronts the Governor and Paulino turns up to blackmail him, leading to his death, a fight with the Governor but Nora accepting the responsibility for the death, trying to dispose of the body with the DA but caught by people from the circus and arrested.

There is a strong religious element with Father Ryan and his advice but also the use of the prayer and his voice-over for Nora, “eternal rest grant unto them, Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them�.

There is quite a melodramatic ending with the Governor confronting his own love and his own weaknesses.

1. A film of the early 1930s? Drama? Melodrama?

2. The screenplay based on a play, the emphasis on dialogue, action confined to rooms? The musical score and its moods?

3. The cinematic style of filmmaking, the black and white photography, light and shadow, darkness? The interiors, offices, the cottage, the circus?

4. The editing techniques, the swipes, the superimposition, the indication of flashbacks?

5. The title and expectations?

6. The framework, the Governor’s wife coming to the DA, her complaint, the DA as her brother, giving him the letters, her disgust with the woman, with her husband? The range of flashbacks? The greater revelation about the DA, the impact on the Governor’s wife?

7. The title, Nora, initially seen as an orphan, the interview with Father Ryan and her prospective parents, the cute look, the affection? A life, the parents killed in the accident? The issue of her inheritance, discussing it with Father Ryan, wanting to dance? The training, the collage of her application for jobs, refusals? The interview for the circus, her pleading, her acceptance? Paulino, the scene of his wrestling with the lion, the lion’s mouth? Nora’s reaction? Paulino, leering, the attack on the train, the effect on Nora, her leaving?

8. At the dance, the meeting with Dick, the beginning of the relationship, the affair, renting the cottage, her living there, his visits on Mondays and Fridays, the lyrical attitude of her letters? The deceit?

9. Dick’s wife, learning the truth, angry, learning of John’s knowledge, further involvement, following Dick, the political issues and his campaigning, John’s success depending on Dick? His agreeing to cover the affair?

10. Dick, in himself, politician, the affair, his love for Nora? His brother revealing Nora’s past, his disgust and walking out?

11. Nora, her character, love for Dick, decision to leave, not wanting any money? John returning, no phone call from her? Finding Paulino dead? The plan, in the car, the body on the road, the drunks finding her, the women, urging her to go on the train, her arrest?

12. Paulino coming to the house, the intention of blackmail, confronting Dick, the fight, Paulino’s death? Dick’s responsibility? Nora taking the responsibility?

13. The police, the interrogation? Inviting the DA, his jurisdiction, Nora explaining things to him? John and his participation in the cover-up of the murder? Her silence during the trial, her being found guilty, decree of execution?

14. The importance of Father Ryan comforting Nora, the words of his prayer “eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them�? Nora and her focus on eternal rest and perpetual light? John quoting the words to his sister?

15. Nora in prison, the authorities, the injections to keep her sedated, her not wanting food, the authorities and staff, sympathy? The focus on her memories, her dreams?
Getting ready for death, imagining a happy ending?

16. Dick, writing the letter, sending it to John, the truth, his struggle about pardoning Nora, the phoneline dead? His shooting himself? John reading the letter to his wife? The end?

NO MAN’S LAND

UK, 2016, 120 minutes, Colour.
Ian Mc Kellen, Patrick Stewart, Owen Teale, Damien Maloney.
Directed by Sean Mathias.

No Man’s Land was written by Harold Pinter and first performed at the Wyndham Theatre, London, in 1975 with John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson. This is the filmed version of the National Theatre Live, again at the Wyndham Theatre, after a tour around England. This film version has a 20 minutes Q and A with the cast and the director, a very interesting conversation, informative as well as communicating the personalities of the cast and Sean Mathias.

This version of the play has been very well photographed, very judicious use of close-ups for performance as well is for reaction, well timed, giving the audience an opportunity to look at, listen to and appreciate the performance, the words and their meanings. In fact, this version is something of a masterclass as audiences watch Ian Mc Kellen and Patrick Stewart (who had performed together in the X Men series of films and on stage in Waiting for Godot).

The set is a circular room with an area above the walls with projected images of Hampstead Heath leaves.

The first act has the two stars as men who have met at the local pub and have gone home to have drinks and talk afterwards, even though they don’t know each other and, it soon appears, one is suffering from some kind of dementia. This first part is a tour de force for Ian Mc Kellen, speaking Pinter’s complex and literary lines, haranguing Patrick Stewart who is somewhat bewildered and reacts in a somewhat passive manner. They both drink a great deal of whiskey and vodka. The enjoyment of the performances and the language is paramount – whether one follows the narrative line or the variety of excursus in conversation.

Two men arrive at the end of the first act, one claiming to be the son of the owner, the other his friend whom he met on a street corner – some suggestiveness as there has been in reference to cruising on Hampstead Heath. The old man with dementia has gone out but returns in his dressing gown, quite bewildered, not knowing who Mc Kellen is, his having explained to the other two men that he was a friend, and much play on this.

At the beginning of the second act, Mc Kellen wakes and finds he is locked delete in the house, the older man coming in as a servant, offering him breakfast, serving it in hotel style, Mc Kellen actually enjoying the bacon and eggs, toast and jam with champagne. When Stewart returns, he is dressed in the most dapper fashion, the dementia seemingly gone but his remembering a great deal of the past, his time at Oxford before the war, his wife, his reputation as a Lothario having affairs. He mistakes Mc Kellen for a fellow author and carries on the conversation – with Mc Kellen going along with the pretence and developing the story of his wife’s infidelity as well as the other man’s affair with other women.

Mc Kellen says in the Q&A that this was the kind of small play that Pinter used to write for revues and the insertion of sketches, actors playing off each other. Mc Kellen also makes a plea for employment as a secretary and archivist – which the young man who re-enters claims that he does already.

The conversations continue, Pinter’s language and attraction in stimulus, and a final comment that in no man’s land time stops and people are caught.