THE WOMAN IN THE SHADOWS/ WOMAN IN THE DARK

US, 1934, 68 minutes, Black and white.
Fay Wray, Ralph Bellamy, Melvyn Douglas, Roscoe Ates, Ruth Gillette, Joe King, Nell O' Day.
Directed by Phil Rosen.

The Woman in the Shadows seems like one of those many supporting feature thrillers from the first half of the 1930s. This one is much better than average, more sophisticated in the writing, or stylish in the camera work – director Phil Rosen worked for some time with Thomas Edison and then went on to direct small budget features. It also has three stars in the making and the central roles, Fay Wray soon after her most successful film, King Kong; Ralph Bellamy who is to have a decades-long career, often as the other man, and in character performances; and Melvyn Douglas, sinister in this one, but soon to become a matinee hero and, 30 years later, winning a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for hard in 1963 and another for Being There in 1979.

Certainly of its time, but above average of its kind.

1. A drama based on a book by Detective writer, – Hammett?

2. Black-and-white photography, atmospheric, light and shadow, the sets: prison, John Bradley’s home, the sheriff’s home, Robeson’s house, drive during the night, Logan’s house, hospital, police precincts? The musical score?

3. The focus on John Bradley, in prison and the bars, his release and anxiety, the background of the fight and the charge of manslaughter, his return home, doing his father’s house, living quietly? His relationship with Helen, her visit, her father’s anger, her mother warned her to leave Bradley’s home? The arrival of Louise, sudden, unexpected, her dress, her injury, intending it? Bradley and his reaction? The arrival of Robeson and his friend, the violence and the threats, the death of the dog, Bradley hitting the friend, his recovery? Robeson and is warning the sheriff, Bradley and Louise and their escape, the drive, the attraction between them, the resistance? Get into the city and to Logan’s house?

4. Louise, the mystery, her dress, her injuries, helping her, Bradley and the attraction? The flashbacks to her career as a singer, being kept by Robeson, the gifts of the jewels, his drinking, pressures, her escape? Robeson, his character, pursuit? Violence, drinking, phoning the sheriff to give him information? Keeping the injured man at his house, is trying to kill him, the revelation about business deals the young man considered a weakling prepared to give information to the police?

5. Logan, ex-con, his tough wife, the comedy, is stealing his wife’s watch, welcoming Bradley and Louise, breakfast, the path, the hospitality?

6. Helen the phone call, her father discovering the address, sending the police, Bradley escape, being shot, the doctor and extracting the bullet, the police presence?

7. Louise, being arrested, Robeson charging her with stealing is jewels? With the police, in the cells? The crooked lawyer, getting her bail, going back to the town, the in, trying to get adjacent rooms, her resistance, his touching her and his hand going onto her cigarette for protection?

8. Louise, her concern, Logan giving her the information, the decision to go back to Robeson, getting the jewels, his hold over her? Bradley and his escape, not believing her, the situation with Robeson injuring his friend, Bradley knocking him out – and the man able to give an explanation, Bradley believing Louise – and happy ending? The humorous upbeat ending with a Logan joke?

THE KING’S DECISION/ THE KING’S CHOICE

Norway, 2016, 133 minutes, colour.
Jesper Christensen, Anders Baasmo Christiansen, Karl Markovics.
Directed Erik Poppe

This is a film which is specially designed for Norwegian audience, a Scandinavian audience, offering memories of the of the King of Norway in World War II.

The film has been directed by one Norway’s most distinguished directors, Erik Poppe (Troubled Waters).

The film gives historical background of the establishing of Norway as a separate kingdom in the 20th century, the choice of the Danish prince who came with his family to establish the royal house which was accepted and has continued to the present.,

With the outbreak of the war, German submarines began to sail in Norwegian waters. The German ambassador to Oslo expected the King to make some kind of agreement with Germany to enable its occupation just as his brother, the King of Denmark, had done for that country.

The action takes place over only a couple of days, the pressure from the Germans, the threats from the Germans and the submarines, the king facing the decision and his advisors, some for allowing the Germans in (with the later rule of Quisling) and a number against so that during the night, the king and the cabinet left Oslo for a secret country location to make the decision. There is a vivid sequence where the train is attacked by air and passengers flee into the woods.

The dilemma for the king was whether to allow the Nazis in and have a possible peaceful occupation during the war or to defy the Germans with consequent attacks, destruction and death of civilians. The king made the decision to defy the Germans.

Jesper Christiansen is very effective as the King. His son was initially in favour of Nazi occupation but then supported his father – and eventually succeeded him.

The King’s decision in 1940 was a courageous one but has held up over the decades as an example of patriotic commitment in defiance of the Nazi will to conquer Europe.

1. A film for Norwegians? Scandinavians? Germans? The universal interest?

2. A different perspective from most films about World War II? The focus on Norway, the King, the German invasion, the parliament, his decisions, the consequences? In comparison with other monarchs in Europe at the time, including his brother King of Denmark, the capitulation in the different war experience?

3. Audience knowledge of Norway at the time, the king, the role in world War two? The role of Quisling and the Nazis?

4. The supplying of information at the beginning of the film, Norway separated from Sweden, the monarchy, electing the Danish prince, his name, popularity? His son? His wife – and the son’s later comment that she was more interested in her horses in England? The bond between father and son? The Crown Prince? The king and his age at the outbreak of war?

5. The film taking place over three days, dates and times and precision given?

6. The personality of the king, his age, his love of his family, playing with the grandchildren? His getting the news about the German ships?

7. The Colonel, the searchlight for the ships, their coming in, his taking the decision, the bombing of the ships, the torpedo? His later decoration?

8. The politicians, Norway’s democracy, the King as ceremonial, the parliament and the Cabinet and their decisions? The King not interfering? The Crown Prince and his eagerness to negotiate?

9. The German envoy, at home, his wife and child, his not being fully informed? The flight of the king, not knowing where he was? The flight of the cabinet? Trying to make contact? The other officers and their attitudes, direct orders from Hitler? His finally getting the document, for negotiation? The rejections? The arrangement to meet the king, wanting to speak with him only? The King, his harsh words about the diplomat, about Hitler, about the German presence? The rejection of the document?

10. The picture of the cabinet, the various members, working amongst themselves, the time, during the night, the decision to leave Oslo, the king and his family on the train, the parliamentarians? The attack on the train, having to get off, hiding under the bridge? Continuing the journey, arriving at the destination?

11. The discussions between the king and the Crown Prince?

12. The scenes of battle, weapons, the attacks, wounded and dead?

13. The airstrike, everybody rushing into the woods, the king, with the grandchild?

14. The King, his character, his loyalty to the people, elected by them? His discussions with the cabinet – and their offering the resignation, not being accepted? To continue with the war effort?

15. The king, his reasons, knowing the consequences for declaring war on Germany, as different from the other European countries, his national sense, national pride?

16. The film offering admiration for the king, his stance, standing up to Hitler and tyranny?

17. The background of Quisling, with the Nazis, favourite of Hitler, his role – and the later condemnation and the use of his name in the derogatory way?

18. The final information about the Norwegian monarchy, the long life of the king, the long life of his successor, and his grandson continuing as King of Norway?

BYE BYE GERMANY/ ES WAR EINMAL IN DEUTSCHLAND

Germany, 2017, 100 minutes, Colour.
Moritz Bleibtreu, Antje Traue.
Directed by Sam Gabarski.

Bye, Bye Germany is the English title of this serious film with comic overtones. Its original German title means: Once Upon a Time in Germany.

This is a film with a serious Jewish- German theme, a focus on Jews who survived the concentration camps and came back to reconstruct their lives, not moving out of Germany, but remaining within. The setting for this story is Frankfurt, a focus on a well-established fabric company founded by the father of the central character, David (Moritz Bleibtreu) who has a plan to re-establish the company and its outlets by seconding his friends and making them travel around, interviewing housewives, persuading them to invest in the materials.

There is something of a comic tone, a light tone, in this presentation of the survivors, the bitterness and unhappiness of their memories, the challenge for them to make new lives after what they have suffered. The main desire for many of them is to be able to leave Germany and to go to live in the United States and make a new life and home there. They need money for the tickets and David becomes a central agent for collecting and saving the money.

However, it is not going to be easy for David. The occupying American authorities are suspicious of him and he is subject to many interrogations, his interrogator being Sarah, originally from Germany, having migrated to the United States with her parents in the 1930s, now seriously committed to order in post-war Germany and interrogating David and finding him guilty of double standards. It emerges that he was in some favour with the Nazis, even travelling to Hitler’s mountain retreat, having two passports, and being a cheerful man who is able to make jokes and ingratiate himself. The tragic side was a joke competition with the loser to be executed. The interrogator at one stage brings in one of the guards from the camps who identifies him as the man who made jokes.

Ultimately, interrogator modifies her harsh attitude towards David, while he is attracted to her.

Finally, David is the one who remains in Germany re-establishing his father’s company while the others travelled to the United States.

An interesting issue for Jewish audiences but also for worldwide audiences asking questions about how survivors of the concentration camps were able to start again and make a future, so many thousands remaining in Germany, others going to Israel or to the United States.


1. The tone of the title? English? German?

2. The film promoted as a comedy, remedy? Serious/comic? By?

3. Holocaust story, post-Holocaust? The Jews in Germany, in the concentration camps? Deaths in survival? The desire of the Jews to leave Germany after the war, to go to the US? The 4000 who decided to stay – and, as the text says, could not explain this to the children?

4. David, in himself, Jewish background, his enterprising father, his brother, their company? Arrested, in the camp? His ability with humour? Going to Hitler’s retreat? The two passports? The ambiguous behaviour during the war?

5. The opening, the dog, one leg, David and his being in some way crippled? Meeting the Jewish merchant in the street, his idea, promoting fabrics, the group, getting the money to go to America, combining, going from door to door, the sales, their pitch, the effect on the women buying?

6. The American dream, the money, each of the characters?

7. Sarah, the interrogation, her role with the Americans? The background her life, her family getting out of Germany, going to the United States, her law studies at Harvard, who work with the military as a contribution to the effort? The interrogation, her personal severity?

8. The attitudes towards David, the question is, the indications from the flashbacks? David in the glimpses of his behaviour?

9. Organising the confrontation with the SS officer? His talking about David and his jokes? David upset, the competition for the best jokes, and the Jew who lost the competition and was sentenced to death? David physically attacking the man? Weeping? Sarah saying the case was closed?

10. The coming to see him, the talk, the attraction, sexual encounter? Possibilities – or not?

11. The money, the documents? The plan? The young black market entrepreneur, their dealings with him, hostility, his running away from the car, there destroying it?

12. The group photo, those going to America, David and his reasons for staying, the shop? His talking to the audience at the end?

FINAL PORTRAIT

US, 2017, 90 minutes, Colour.
Geoffrey Rush, Armie Hammer, Clemence Poesy, Tony Shalhoub, Sylvie Testud.
Directed by Stanley Tucci.

Final Portrait is a brief film about artist and sculptor, Alberto Giacometti, living and working in Paris in the middle of the 1960s. Much of the film is confined to his studio, his workspace, living quarters, upstairs storage and the workshop for his associate, Diego.

The film was directed by noted American actor, Stanley Tucci, his previous films in direction included The Big Night, Imposters, Joe Gould’s Secret. Tucci does not appear in this film but his friend and collaborator, Tony Shalhoub, portrays Giacometti’s assistant.

The screenplay is based on a memoir by an American, Jim Lord, who encountered Giacometti in Paris and was persuaded to remain there to pose for a portrait, taking a far longer time than Lord anticipated, but Lord agreeing to remain, fascinated by the work of the artist as well as his continually scrapping the work he had done, beginning afresh, seemingly dissatisfied, but finally producing a portrait.

This makes much of the film a two-hander, conversations between Lord and the artist, the sequences where Lord poses, is momentarily distracted, arouses Giacometti’s ire…

Geoffrey Rush is obviously enjoying his interpretation of Giacometti, Moody, artistic in every way, a perfectionist always dissatisfied, working on his sketches, on his paintings, his sculptures – with the audience having the opportunity to view many of these as the camera roams around his studio.

Armie Hammer is Jim Lord, a well-to-do American, interested in the artist’s work – and later writing about him.

There are some complications in Giacometti’s personal life, his relationship with his wife, played by Sylvie Testud, loving her husband but also tempted to other relationships. Giacometti is not only tempted but is in a long-term relationship with a local prostitute, Clemence Poesy, who operates from a local club, is unembarrassed in her relationship with the artist, easily cavorting and canoodling with him at the club, letting him buy her an expensive car…

So, the film itself is also a portrait, a kind of final portrait not only of Jim Lord but of Giacometti himself and his artistic achievements.


1. A portrait of the artist, Alberto Giacometti?

2. Audience knowledge of Giacometti? His status in the art world?

3. 1964, Paris locations, the house and lanes, the streets, the studio, the cafes? The musical score?

4. The titles on the days, 1 to 18?

5. The portrait derived from James Lord's book, situations, description of Giacometti working, lines of dialogue?

6. Giacometti, Geoffrey Rush’s screen presence and performance? Swiss background, reputation, his sculptures, paintings? His working with his brother? His love for Annette, yet his infidelities? He is a devotion to Caroline? Working with her? His wanting perfection? His self-regard, putting himself down, his sayings and paradoxical expressions? Character, irascible with his work, swearing, artistic temperament, love, devotions? His hiding all the money? His moods, interactions with James, his brother, his wife, Carolyn?

7. Jim Lord, the source of the portrait, his voice-over? In himself, American, wealth, smartly dressed, his relationships? Sitting, posing, feeling awkward, the long days, wanting to move, the effect on him physically and psychologically, his having to change his flights all the time? With Giacometti, the interactions? Discussions with Diego, Annette, Carolyn? Going swimming, wanting deadlines, planning with Diego to finish the portrait?

8. Annette, loving wife, betrayal by her husband, life in Paris, the Asian man with her? Her work, cleaning up, the nights with her husband? Chagall, the opening of the Opera house, the dress and showing it off?

9. Carolyn, local prostitute, escort, companion to Giacometti, over the months, posing, sexual relationship, her eagerness, the control of her pimp, disappearing, the buying of the car, the reckless drive and the response of Giacometti and Jim? At the restaurants? Giacometti and Jim with the pimp, the deal is about the money, payment for the relationship, modelling, the past and the future?

10. An episode in the life of Giacometti, yet the detail of seeing him at work, Geoffrey Rush’s performance, at the easel, looking at the model, looking at the painting, mixing the paints, splashes, detail and style?

11. The news of his death?

POKOT

Poland, 2017, 128 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Agnieszka Holland.

Agnieszka Holland has made films all over the world, in her native Poland as well is in the United States. Here she returns to Poland.

This is a slow-moving drama, a focus on an older woman (and perhaps this was the attraction for the director, able to identify with this woman in age and in outlook). The woman teaches English in a local school but is criticised for her unorthodox methods of dealing with the young children, taking them on excursions into the woods, and is fired from her position.

The synopsis for the film would indicate that there is quite a deal of action – and that is true only that the action takes a long time and the film moves very slowly.

The portrait is that of Janina, living alone, interested in astrology, love for her pets whom she finds killed, concerned about environmental issues, friendly with the young woman in difficulties in the town, friendly with the young man, an epileptic, who helps her.

In the meantime, there are quite a number of authority figures in the town, the police chief, the mayor, the parish priest. They are concerned with activities that Janina does not approve of, hunting, a casino… And, throughout the film, each of these characters is found murdered.

There is an interlude where a Czech scientist, examining ants in the forest, is confronted by Janina but they form a friendship after the finding of yet another body.

It is highly likely that the audience will work out halfway through the film who was responsible for the deaths – which might make the buildup to the revelation, and the burning of the church and the death of the parish priest who has been severely critical of Janina and her belief in animal souls and environmental causes, seem somewhat anticlimactic.

For some audiences the film might be hard going, depending on identifying with the Polish sensibility, the feminist sensibility and the environmental causes and the consequences.

1. The impact? Issues of the environment, planets and astrology, animals, as pets, and animals being slaughtered?

2. The West Poland setting, the opening mountains and forests, views, the seasons throughout the film, the months and the different permits for hunting? The home, ordinariness? The school? The police officers? The church? Homes? The musical score?

3. The focus on Janina and her spelling her surname, her perspective, concealing the full information until the end? Her home, the computer and the planets’ screen, her belief and astrology, the opening voice-over and her explanations? With the dogs, her walking with them? Giving lifts, her friendship with the young girl at the shop? The disappearance of the dogs, her being distraught, getting the children out in the night, searching for the dog, a field expedition, the teaching English? The reprimands from the staff? Her complaints to the police? Her being called in about the dead man, the complaint about not being answered? The bodies throughout the film, the police chief, the criminal, the mayor, the priest? Her friendliness with her neighbour, working on the body? Her retrieving the photo – and the revelation later? Her friends, the girl at the shop, taking the calendar at the police station and the young man and letting her be? His epileptic fit and her help? The police doctor, his father? The animals being seen in the season? The Czech scientist and insects, confronting her, the body, his friendliness, the sexual encounter? The neighbour, taken aback, the invitation to the social, her dressing up? Her going, the excitement, her comforting the mayor’s wife?

4. The chief of police, in debt to the criminal, the mayor at the casino, harsh and his wife? The criminal, the cages with the foxes? His domination of the young girl?

5. Her going to the priest, his views, strict, harsh? Urging her to pray? Quoting Genesis and subjugation of the earth? Saying her praying for animals was obscene, that the animals have no souls, that the cemetery for animals was a blasphemy, that she should pray for herself? His support of the hunt? The church, the celebration, the children singing, the lyrics about hunting, his homily, fierce stance, again quoting Genesis? Her setting the church on fire, his death?

6. The young girl, concerned about her brother at the orphanage, considered unfit, in jail, accused of the murder? Her attraction to the young man?

7. The young man, training in Berlin, his epilepsy, leaving, his expertise in IT, at the police station, the fit, helped by the two women, helping Janina, driving and his expertise in blacking out the city?

8. The neighbour, the flashbacks to the story of his mother, the war, the harsh father, the German mother, hanging herself and his finding her?

9. When did the audience work out who was doing the killings? Earlier or later? The young girl and the man working it out, the neighbour?

10. The flashbacks, the visualising of the killings, the freeing of the foxes, bashing the criminal, the mayor and his swallowing the pheromones and death by insects?

11. The escape, setting the house on fire, bombing the bridge, the blackout in the city?

12. The end, the family atmosphere, the young man and woman, the child, the neighbour, the Czech friend, her caring for the bees, wandering – and disappearing?

13. The modern world and animal causes, environmental causes? The enthusiasts being seen as somewhat mad? The film stances about killing and saving animals?

CALL ME BY YOUR NAME

Italy/France/US, 2017, 130 minutes, Colour.
Armie Hammer, Timothee Chalamet, Michael Stuhlbarg, Amira Casar.
Directed by Luca Guadagnino.

Italian director Luca Guadagnino has made films set in Italy, both in the south and, here, in the north. His films include I Am I Love and A Bigger Splash. This film is set in 1983. A summer story with a guest from the United States, a student of the arts on a scholarship living with the family of the host.

For those who enjoy being immersed in the atmosphere of a different country, there is a great deal of pleasure in the time spent in this part of northern Italy, the countryside, the local town, the summer atmosphere.

The central character is the recipient of the grant, Oliver, played with some zest by Armie Hammer. He is quite exhilarated to be in Italy, having the contact with the academics, examining artworks and an excavation from Lake Garda. Oliver can also be the life of the party, very attractive to the local women, enjoying their company, dancing…

The other central character of the film is Elio (a strong performance by actor Timothee Chalamet a very demanding role). Elio’s passion is for music, performance, writing, annotation. He is the son of the hosts for the summer, French but having their holiday mansion in Italy.

Elio is rather precocious, helping Oliver, sometimes wary of him. However, the theme of the film is sexuality, Elio and his growing self-awareness in his teenage, his attraction towards Oliver, the question of his making advances towards the adult, and Oliver’s response. He is also caught up in the expectations of friendship with the local girls and, despite his seemingly short and assertive manner, he is emotionally confused. Oliver is cautious at first, but affected by the advances of Elio, the effect of their spending time together, the effect of the growing intimacy, issues of sexuality both emotional and physical, the appropriateness of the relationship and the effect on each.

After Oliver returns to the United States, the film spends time focusing on Elio, the effect of the summer on him, his self-awareness, and, especially, a strong scene where he discusses the whole experience with his listening and sympathetic father (Michael Stuhlbarg).

The film is one of those dramas where the director opts for a long focusing on the face of Elio, the audience gazing, reflecting on their response to Elio and Oliver, wondering about Elio himself and his future.


1. A family story, relationships, gay relationships? 1983 – in the pre-AIDS era?

2. The North Italy settings, the beauty of nature, the mansion, the interiors, activities outside, the swimming pool, the lake and the swimming, the forests? The town, the streets, buildings? The mountains at the end?

3. The musical score, park and the variations, classics, popular music?

4. The title, Elio and Oliver, terms of affection, and the final phone call?

5. The situation: the professor and his wife and son on holidays, the background in archaeology and research, having an annual visitor, hospitality, becoming part of the household? House, the cook, the kitchen? Elio watching Oliver’s arrival, carrying his suitcase, his room, sharing the bathroom and toilet?

6. The father and his work, discussions, filing and cataloguing, reading, the visit to Lake Garda and the finding of the statue? The mother and her love and protection for her son?

7. Elio at 17, precocious, worldly -wise yet naive? Open, smoking and drinking, his talk with adults, wilful? The immediate interest in Oliver, the bike rides, going to town, the discussions, his being very well-informed? Marcia and her visits, the sexual experimentation, impotence, later friendship? In bed, masturbation? Confident, but…? His reaction to Oliver, athletic, the volleyball touch, the dancing? His taking the initiative at the age of 17, calculated but not appreciating the consequences? His music, transcribing, his playing, the variations on bark, Oliver listening? His playing for the guests – the gay couple, Sonny and Cher?

8. Oliver, very American, his arrival, always saying later? Sleeping, breakfast and his clumsiness with the egg yolks, ego, riding the bike, the bank can the documents, the volleyball, swimming, dancing? The girls being attracted? They’re coming to visit the house again? His getting on well with people?

9. Elio and Oliver, the growing intimacy, the sheeted rooms and bathroom? The move to the kiss, the intimacy, Oliver warning him off, succumbing? The director’s treatment of the relationship, somatically, visually – suggestions, moments of explicitness? The effect of the relationship on each? Emotional, sensual, sexual? Oliver’s caution, Elio not? Elio and his brooding?

10. The two together, the dialogue about their affection, the relationship?

11. Marcia coming to see him, her disappointment, his seeming of handedness, eventually life friendship?

12. Going to the mountains, the exhilaration of the trip? The room? The farewell of the station?

13. Elio’s emotions, phoning his mother to collect him, weeping? The discussions with his father, his father’s wise advice, meditating on intimacy and friendship, precious relationships?

14. Six months later, winter, the celebration of Chanukah – and the early intimations about Jewish characters, not frequent in Italy, the Star of David metal?

15. The phone call, Elio talking with Oliver, the parents and their enthusiasm? The latter part of the film giving time for the audience to reflect on the characters and the relationship?

16. Elio’s face during the final credits and the audience response?

BROTHERS OF THE WIND

Austria, 2015, 98 minutes, Colour.
Jean Reno, Manuel Camacho, Tobias Moretti, Eva Kuen.
Directed by Gerardo Olivares, Ottmar Penker.

One of the Wind is a beautiful film to watch, filmed in an Austrian National Park, filmed during the various seasons, the camera work quite extraordinary as it follows majestic eagles in flight.

The plot is fairly straightforward and is narrated by a sympathetic old man played by Jean Reno. He tells the story of the eagles of the mountains, the eggs in the nest, rivalries of chickens in the nest, the death of the father, the choice of the mother in saving only one of the eaglets. The biblical story of Cain and Abel is used as a metaphor for the two young eagles.

The film is also story of a young boy in the mountains, harshly dealt with by his drinking father, working for his father, coming across the ousted eagle, hiding it in a cave, caring for it, becoming very attached to it, only to find his father criticising him and getting rid of the eagle.

In many ways, the film humanises the eagle who eventually survives but has to confront, in battle, the rival brother. And, with the human story, the boy suffers with the loss of the eagle over several years. However, it eventually returns, the father recognising it, the boy to resume the friendship and training but, with the help of Reno, letting it go as it flies out into the wild.

1. The title, the brother eagles and their rivalry? The books and the tale teller reading them to Lucas?

2. The brothers, Cain and Abel, the rivalry the two brothers, a fight to death, Abel surviving – and the reconciliation between the brothers contrasting with the Scriptures?

3. The impact of the film as a nature film, the eggs, the chickens, hatching, the mother, the father, the life of the eagles? The father being killed? The rivalry, Abel falling out of
the nest, not dying, the rivalry?

4. The breathtaking photography, the soaring eagles, the close-ups, the animals in the mountains, the swoops for prey? The musical score?

5. The teller of the tale, his voice-over, his perceptions, admiration for the eagles, for Lucas, disappointment with the father, his intervening, giving home to Lucas for the summer? Helping the boy with wise advice about the training of the eagle?

6. The boy, the past tragedy, not speaking, his father and his drinking, pressing the boy, Lucas and the bird, training it, his fondness, calling it Abel? The father harsh about the training?

7. Abel, in action, swooping on the prey? The rivalry from Cain? The storm, the seeming deaths? injuries? The passing of the seasons? Abel disappearing?

8. The years passing, Lucas with his father, not expecting to see the bird, the boy hoping? The Father realising that Abel was returning? Lucas now able to free Abel so that he lived in the wild? The teller of the tale, hoping for reconciliation between father and son, the boy responding to his father?

THE DRESSER

UK, 2016, 100 minutes, Colour.
Ian Mc Kellen, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Watson, Sarah Lancashire, Vanessa Kirby, Edward Fox..
Directed Richard Eyre.

The Dresser is based on a very popular play by Ronald Harwood. It was filmed in the 1980s with Albert Finney in the role of a dominating actor and Tom Courtenay in the title role of his dresser. It was directed by Peter Yates and nominated for several Academy Awards.

This version has been made for television. It has been directed by Richard Eyre, best known for his work in the theatre and many awards, and director of several films including The Ploughman’s Lunch, Iris, Notes on a Scandal.

This version is very much a performed play, the action taking place in the dressing room, backstage, on stage with a performance of King Lear – with glimpses of the audience. It is tour-de-force for the two actors, Hopkins as the actor and Mc Kellen as the dresser. But, the supporting roles are particular well done, Emily Watson being particularly strong as the Lady, Sarah Lancashire is the stage manager and an almost unrecognisable Edward Fox as The Fool.

The setting is a provincial theatre during World War II, the audience coming out for entertainment but always with the risk of an air raid.

The portrait of the actor is said to have been based on Sir Donald Wolfit, a bombastic actor in his day, lording it over the rest of the company, ageing, losing his faculties, full of vanity as regards his performances and the desire to go on. He is supported by his wife though she wishes him to retire, and is the subject of devoted admiration from the stage manager. He interacts at various times with different members of the cast, some of whom are loyal, and others who despise him.

He has been looked after by his dresser for many years. The dresser is a mixture of weakness and strength, seemingly devoted to his master, at his every beck and call, proffering advice and encouragement – although prone to a drink as well. Towards the end, when the actor seems to be ignoring the role of his dresser, he turns rather nasty, speaking go out against the pomposity of the actor.

The film is a very strong version of the play and its words, dialogue interactions, reflections on the theatre and acting, as well as the strength and foibles of the actors.

1. Ronald Harwood’s play? Theatrical success? The 1980s film version? This version retaining the dialogue and the confined sets for television? The room, the corridor, backstage, the stage? Glimpses of the audience and their response? The confined spaces? The editing style, the focus on dialogue, the speakers, close-ups of reactions?

2. The World War II setting, the provinces, the acting style and entertainment? The air raids?

3. The strong cast?

4. The title, Norman is the focus, in Mc Kellen’s presence and performance? Working with Anthony Hopkins?

5. Anthony Hopkins is Served, his character, presence? The interactions with in McKellen? and his style as Norman?

6. The backstage, the dressing room, her leadership? The cast reactions? Sir and his bombast? As a second-rate actor, not having a night would, and his scrapbook of reviews?

7. The interactions between Norman and Sir? The different characters, the role of a dresser, his gay sensibilities and manner? Identifying with Sir? The time for make up, clothes, cajoling Sir into action? The years? Sharing the experience, celebrations, knowing all the lines, watching from the side? The scene with Sir mixing up all the plays – and the rigmarole about the Scottish play?

8. Norman, his life, totally devoted to Sir, his friendship with her leadership, the interactions with Madge, bullying Irene, the male actors? His drinking? The testament and he’s reading it, adding the word “dresser�, his anger with Sir? The reality of his service Sir, liking it or not?

9. Her leadership, not marrying, no knighthood from the King, her devotion and love, yet her speech about being tired, of the years, the reviews, her age, wanting her husband to give up? The affectionate names, yet the exasperation? Her attempts at control, his response? Wanting to announce that he would retire, whether she could go on not? A haughty woman, imperious in manner, it tended with her husband, collaborating with Norman? And the humorous improvisation when he failed to come on stage? Her decision to leave, her missing his death?

10. Sir, his life, bombast, age, illness, the tears and collapse, the fears for his lines, going blank? It is carry on, to any? Is listening to the speech by the Clown, his reaction to the pompous actor refusing to staff the wind machine, his attraction to its Irene, the lascivious touch? Madge, her devotion throughout the years, that being enough for her, giving her the ring?

11. Sir and his fears, the delay, the cast having to improvise, going on, audience acclaim? His ranting about wanting the storm seemed to be louder – and the whole cast and crew playing the drums, the wind machine, trying to make it loud with impact?

12. The interval, so having sleep, Norman’s devotion, her leadership and her ultimatum, his going to the table, beginning to write his testimony?

13. His response to her leadership, wanting Norman to take care of her? Madge and the interaction, matches a character, her work, devotion, doing all this enough for her?

14. The clown, without the make up, his speech, not wanting to be an actor who took risks, comfortable and enjoying his acting, hoping for more?

15. Sir, ready to die, the quickness of his death, no long drama? His loneliness?

16. Norman, reacting to the testimony, his drinking, his reaction to Madge? Letting her leadership no? His sitting quietly in the room at the end, wondering about his friendship?

BITTER HARVEST

Canada, 2017, 103 minutes, Colour.
Max Irons, Samantha Barks, Aneurin Barnard, Barry Pepper, Terence Stamp, Tamer Hassan.
Directed by George Mendeluk.

This is what one might call a very worthy film and some audiences around the world have considered it very important that audiences should be introduced to this story of Ukraine, Stalinist oppression, the Communist tactic of famine in 1932 and the consequences for Ukraine.

As the film released in 2017, one wonders what the intention of the filmmakers was – more than probably a Ukrainian stance against the contemporary Russian regime, the invasions by Vladimir Putin, the hostility towards Russia, the feel for Ukrainian independence, and are calling on a significant episode in the past for boosting morale in the 21st-century. And, to that extent, Bitter Harvest is successful.

It was filmed in Ukraine which also gives the film an authentic and some power.

On the other hand, while the film is worthy, and has an emotional impact as well its propaganda effect, it is not the best written or directed film which is a danger in undermining the power of the message. Some of the dialogue is very conventional, familiar and expected, lessening the impact of the characters and action. Another difficulty is that the characters are types that are expected.

The opening of the film takes the audience back to 1917, the end of the reign of Tsars, the oppression in Ukraine, the rise in takeover of the Bolsheviks, the execution of the Tsar and his family. The centre of the film is a village, the focus on a young boy and girl, the attraction, as well as the ordinary range of citizens, farmers and workers, family members, including a warrior uncle played by Terence Stamp. As the action moves into the 1920s, the situation in the Ukraine and the now satellite countries is becoming more dire, the Bolsheviks and ruthless control, merciless military men, putting into practice Stalinism and rigid control of the countries of the Soviet Union.

There are some sequences set in Moscow and glimpses of Stalin working with his associates, smiling, ruthless.

The young boy and the girl are grown-up, now Max Irons and Samantha Barks. With the presence of the Russian military, and the task of making sure that every farmer now belongs to the Collective, there is a great deal of fighting, a film of action, but also of intrigue, of cruelty towards women, and the men taking to the fields, uprisings, vicious reprisals.

There is a sadness about the relationship between the young man and woman and the continued frustrations, fuelling audience antipathy about the cruelty that the Russians impose on the villagers.

The name given to the desperate famine engineered by the Russians is called Holodomor. It is not as well-known as other famines and genocides in the early part of the 20th century and those who are supportive of Ukraine are very glad that this film is dramatises this history, the suffering, acknowledging the past – but, it would seem, reminding audiences how relevant it is to the present.

1. A Ukrainian story? 20th century? The suffering of Ukraine? The parallels with the experience of the 21st-century? Film of history, of propaganda?

2. The use of locations, the Ukrainian countryside? The Village, Kiev, Moscow? The different periods? The musical score?

3. Audience knowledge about this history of Ukraine? Of the Holodomor? 20th century atrocities? Soviets, style and? The building up of the Soviet Union?

4. 1917, Ukraine, the village, farmers, families, young children and their attachment to each other? The rule of the Tsar, harshness? The change in 1917, the death of the Tsar and his family, the Bolsheviks and their taking over, the rule, cruelty?

5. The consequences of the Russian Revolution, end of the period of th e Tsar, the Bolshevik takeover, the occupation of Ukraine, Stalin and the plans for the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 30s?

6. The young artist, artist and his skills, then to Moscow? His revolutionary friends, their speeches? Deaths?

7. The young woman, remaining, the privations, love for the artist, her being oppressed by the military leader, exploited?

8. In the village, harshness towards the farmers, the pressure to become part of the Collective? Stalinism? The reactions, Revolution, fighting?

9. The glimpses of Stalin, the 1930s, the meetings in Moscow, his policies?

10. The heroics in the village, the suffering, the executions?

11. The father, his death, farmers, the uprisings? The grandfather, the warrior, the hero, fighting and his death?

12. The military leader, cruel and oppressive? The thousands dying?

13. The return home, fighting, the artist finding young boy, the escape to the river?

14. The film as memory, history, propaganda?

ZOOLOGY

Russia, 2016, 83 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ivan I Tverdoskiy.

Zoology is a brief Russian film, winner of several awards.

It is something of an ordinary story of a woman in a Russian country town. However, it also serves as an allegory about ordinary life, differences, people’s apprehensions, the possibility for change.

Natasha is a middle-aged woman living with her superstitious mother, working for a zoo and ordering food for animals. She is something of a loner, the other women at her work mocking her, joking about her. Then she begins to feel unwell and goes to a doctor for an examination and for x-rays which prove inconclusive.

What has happened is that she has grown an extensive tail, something which does not show up on the x-rays clearly. But the doctor who interviews her is attracted to her and enables her to do further x-rays and ultrasounds.

What happens is that Natasha is attracted to the doctor, they go out together, to the seaside and tobogganing down rocks, enjoying each others company, wandering through the sewer and looking at all the animals, going dancing. Natasha also has her hair done, dons more modern clothes, lets herself go free. Her mother is puzzled, the women continue to gossip at work, she is being asked to resign from her job.

In the meantime, women are gossiping all around the town about a woman who is possessed by the devil and who has a tail, her mother of the main gossip-mongerer. Natasha goes to the priest to ask for communion and he refuses even though she is devout.

Ultimately, at the dance, people see her tail and rush from the room – and, around the town, people continually turn and avoid her.

The climax of the film is in her having to make a decision as to whether she will keep the tail and enjoy the new way of life or cut off her tail and go back to normal.