TOMCAT

Austria, 2016, 120 minutes, Colour.
Lukas Turtur, Philipp Hochmair.
Directed by Klaus Handl.

While Tomcat is a story about a cat, Moses, it is also the story about two men, partners in their house on the outskirts of Vienna.

The film offers a gay sensibility, a portrait of the two men, middle-aged, sharing their lives, some explicit sexual encounter sequences, daily living. One of them plays in an orchestra and also teaches music students. The other is in administration.

The film also as a great number of musical sequences, practice, rehearsals, performance of the orchestra. There are also sequences of members of the orchestra gathering together for meals afterwards.

Moses has an important role in the lives of the two men as well of the neighbours. When Moses dies, the grief of the two is enormous but it also protects precipitates and crisis. One of them has been holding Moses at the table as it is dies, and the question arises as to whether the man has actually killed it. This is certainly an interpretation and the rest of the film is about the two men having to deal with the situation, the one blaming himself, and being blamed by the other, and the emotional relationship, tension in the house, the man responsible for to the ground and gouging out his eye as he falls from a branch.

There is also the possibility of having new cat and a neighbour letting them have a white kitten for the time being.

The emotional crisis, the sexual crisis, the tension between the two takes its toll on each of them – but, eventually they are over able to overcome the difficulties and resume the relationship.

NEXT TIME I'LL AIM FOR THE HEART/ LA PROCHAINE FOIS JE VISERAI LE COEUR

France, 2014, 111 minutes, Colour.
Guiillaume Canet, Ana Girardot, Jean- Yves Berteloot, Patrick Azam, Douglas Attal.
Directed by Cedric Anger.

An interesting police thriller, set in France in the 1980s. It is also an interesting perspective on the mentality of the serial killer.

It is based on a true story. What makes it different is that the serial killer is actually a local policeman heavily involved in the search for the killer. He seems to be an effective policeman, well respected by the authorities.

The film also shows the policeman as a character, having meals with his parents, taking his younger brother out for rifle practice and devoted to him. He also has a young woman who comes in to do some housekeeping for him who is in love with him.

However, he stalks women, knocking them off bikes, then giving them lifts, killing them, abandoning the bodies, and leaving the cars to be found by the police, always using rental cars. He also writes letters to the police giving information about the killings – which is something of his undoing as the police experts realise that the style of writing and the information given and the way it is given comes from a policeman.

The policeman is played by French actor, writer and director, Guillaume Canet.

1. A police thriller, search for a serial killer? Based on actual events? The 1980s?

2. The setting, the town, the countryside, the family home, the killers apartment, the roads in the fields for finding the injured and the dead? The clubs? The home of the old man who advertised girls and the telephone booths? Authentic feel? Musical score?

3. The atmosphere in the town, the young women, the injuries, their deaths? An atmosphere of fear?

4. The role of the police, the Chief, the investigators, the team? Frank and his presence, with the other men, his sense of responsibility, doing the right thing, the authorities supporting him? The abandoned cars, the approach of the car the explosion in the injuries to the policeman? The telling off from the Chief? Support of Frank? His continuing the investigations? His suggestions?

5. The reality of Frank as the killer? His stalking the girls, driving, knocking off bikes, picking up girls, their confidence, his discussions about being police, the gun, shooting, disposing of the bodies? Abandoning the cars? And his explanation that he used rental cars? And yet his turning up as if nothing had happened?

6. His apartment, soberly and her looking after him, her attraction, his attraction to her? Sexuality, misogynist? The phone booth and the phone number, going to the room, being deceived, his violent reaction? His writing the letters to the police, giving clues? This giving the authorities the awareness that the report were being written by police, terminology and style?

7. His visits to his home, his parents, his younger brother, going out into the woods, the shooting practice, wanting to work in a foreign country, telling his brother about leaving, his support of his brother?

8. The visits to Sophie, her ailing mother and her coming out, the sexual encounter, his dissatisfaction and impotence, the reaction afterwards, Sophie affected?

9. His illness, his compulsions, his violence, the girls, lack of compassion, their bodies, the abandoned cars?

10. The police an indication that the killer was police, the locals and their authority, the outsiders? Frank and his confidence, suddenly being arrested, the interrogations, the reactions of the other men, confiding the chief, otherwise denying what had happened?

11. An interesting portrait of a serial killer, in the context of the police and his deceptions?

IMPERIUM

US, 2016, 100 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Radcliffe, Tony Collette, Tracy Letts, Sam Trammell, Nestor Carbonell, Chris Sullivan, Burn Gorman.
Directed by Daniel Ragussis.


It is a surprise to find this title used for the contemporary story of white supremacist movements in the United States. There is a reference to the Roman Empire and its Imperium and the ambitions of the supremacists.

This is an interesting FBI thriller, a story of undercover work and infiltration of the supremacists by an FBI agent. The agent is played by Daniel Radcliffe – and his Nate is not all that far from Harry Potter in the sense that he is once again a small man, quiet and introverted, intelligent – and determined.

The film opens with the FBI solving a case with arrests and the ensuing interrogations where Nate shows his ability to empathise in many ways with the criminals and their motivations. He catches the eye of an important agent, Angela (a very effective Tony Collette) who is a thorn in the side of her fellow officers. She sees him as an ideal type who could convincingly infiltrate the supremacist organisations. He is reluctant, a more gentle soul interested in reading and music, but with a hard family background which he is trying to overcome by excelling at his work as an agent. She puts him through various paces persuading him how to be empathetic and convincing in his undercover role.

The bulk of the film sees him very persuasively ingratiating himself with a range of groups. He is able to mix with some thugs, the leader liking him and trusting him a lot while one of the underlings is most suspicious. Nate is able to continue his credibility by pointing out their sloppy approach to surveillance, communications, anger on the spot.

He has the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the leader (Tracy Letts) of the neo-Nazi group from Ohio who are wanting to spread their influence to Virginia. During a parade, the leader is attacked and is rescued by Nate, who is then given the opportunity to visit the sites, comment on the weaponry and its effectiveness and the suitability of the site for a camp.

And he also meets a theoretical supremacist, Jerry (Sam Trammell), a bookish man with a family but who has been convinced by the supremacist ideology and is persuaded to take a further step into subversive action. There is is also the Ku Klux Klan.

The FBI are aware that there is to be some kind of sabotage by explosion and the film builds up to a tense confrontation with Nate in danger in the middle of it.

The picture of the subversive groups, quite number of collages taken from actual footage, raises the alarm about the susceptibility of the American public towards the philosophies of racism and racial hatred.

1. The title, the background of the Roman Empire? The United States in the 21st century? White supremacist imperium?

2. The Washington DC settings, the offices of the FBI? Virginia, the countryside, the supremacists, the world of the thugs, the world of the neo-Nazis, Jerry and the home life, his theories? The images of the supremacists, the footage, the different groups, demonstrations, the Ku Klux Klan?

3. The episode of the seizure of the chemicals, the FBI keeping it quiet? Dallas Worth and his talking about it on the radio, FBI suspicions?

4. Angela, thorn in the side of fellow officers, provocative, her motivations, but also her information about her husband and daughters?

5. Nate, part of the group, the opening arrest, the FBI group, the men with the explosives, taking them in? The interrogations, Nate and his identifying with the criminal, talking
about pain and victims? The background of Africa, the men not wanting people to suffer as he did? Angela and her interest? The chief’s not being interested in employing Nate? His relationship with the rest of the staff?

6. Angela and her picking Nate, his being quiet, introverted, his appreciation of music, reading? The hard background story of his life, his family? His lack of confidence in himself?

7. The role of undercover, infiltration? His rehearsing, the dialogue, with Angela, her recommending Dale Carnegie and how to win friends…? In his being shrewd, his capacity for acting, his performances? Establishing the cover of the chemical’s shop?

8. Going to the bar, the encounter with Vincent, Roy, Johnny? Talk, their liking him – except Roy? His being credible as a supremacist, repeating the slogans? His shrewd observations about their lack of knowledge of security? The interracial couple and his saving them, rebuking Roy about being rash? Going to his accommodation, Roy and Johnny visiting, the loose tape, the furniture, their impression?

9. Nate, his talk, having all the right words and slogans, Vincent liking him, his meeting Jerry, at the barbecue, talking with him, his wife and children and their cubby house, being ready for the attack? The shared love of music? The neo-Nazis and their presence? Nate wanting to meet Dallas Worth, being introduced? His mixing with the group, blending in, the offer of financial support to Dallas, following it up with the $7500?

10. The FBI authorities, Nate and his regular contact with Angela, their reflections, strategies? The authorities not persuaded? Nate and his further contacts, the meetings, saving the neo-Nazi during the parade, becoming friends? Getting more information?

11. Dallas, his personality, the money, his ambitions with his show – and then his going to the FBI to complain about Nate, stating that he was an entertainer rather than political?

12. The neo-Nazis, main office in Ohio, part of the parade, new locations for action in Virginia, the attacks, the violence? Nate being seen by a friend? His saving the head of the neo-Nazis, able to infiltrate further, offering advice, the campsite, the guns and their range?

13. The discussions with Jerry, talking about being theoretical, wanting to go into action? The plan, the outsiders coming in, chemical experts? The time, the cover?

14. Nate getting the warning, going to, the danger, reactions? Contacting the authorities, the attack by the FBI and the arrests? Jerry and his reaction?

15. Undercover, the risks, performance, being alert, consistent?

16. The FBI offices, their applause, Angela satisfied? Nate and his seeing Johnny talking to the class and his change of attitude?

17. The issues in the second decade of the 21st-century?

THE DEATH AND LIFE OF OTTO BLOOM

Australia, 2017, 85 minutes, Colour.
Xavier Samuel, Rachel Ward, Matilda Brown, Rose Riley, Terry Camilleri, Amber Clayton, Jacek Koman, Tyler Coppin, Suzy Cato- Gashler, John Gaden.
Directed by Chris Jones.

Whew! And that’s an understatement.

It may or may not be helpful to be informed that this is a film which is dramatises physics and metaphysics: what it is to exist, to exist in time, what is identity, what is consciousness, what is memory. This may sound off-putting but, on the other hand, it could be seen as challenging.

The setting is Melbourne and film is set in the early 1980s through to the early 1990s.
In under 90 minutes, the screenplay invites its audience into a narrative about a young man, Otto Bloom (Xavier Samuel). He is found homeless by the police but is not a vagrant – but he has no idea who he is. The person who tries to discover his identity is a psychologist an enthusiastic young woman, Ada (Matilda Brown) who studies him, is attracted to him, forms a relationship with him.

What emerges is the extraordinary revelation that Otto is living in two directions at once. (It may be useful to recall the curious case Benjamin Button and the fact that his physical growth was from adult hood to infancy but Otto’s change is in his consciousness). Physically, Otto’s growth has been ordinary, from infancy to adulthood. His significant problem is that he is unable to remember the past. As he lives his life, he cannot remember anything. But, and here is the extraordinary aspect of the story, his memory moving from the future to the present, his memories are all of the future.

Watching the film, it is very difficult to get one’s mind around this double dynamic let alone imagine it.

The dramatic device for the audience understand more about Otto is the introduction of six characters of significance in Otto’s experience (though he does not remember them), presented as talking heads, interspersed throughout the film revealing more of Otto as a character. As we struggled to comprehend the consequences of Otto’s consciousness journey from the future, we need the commentaries from these observers. Fortunately, the selection of actors for these roles is very effective. Rachel Ward is the older Ada, engaging the audience in her exuberance in memories as well as the sadness and regrets. Other observers include philosophers, scientists, the policeman, an arts manager… Jacek Koman, John Gaden, Terry Camilleri… (For good effect Rachel Ward and Matilda Brown are actual mother and daughter.)

Quite an amount of the dialogue raises issues of time, relativity, Einstein, a nod to Stephen Hawking, the audience sometimes tempted to consider some of the dialogue as sententious. This is not to suggest that the film narrative has no plot development. In fact, it is divided into chapters, tracing what happens to Otto, celebrity, achievement (especially in art) but also the decline and fall of Otto Bloom, a media darling, then rejected, and mocked by the media, curious about his relationships, with Ada, with a singer and her being in the public eye becoming too much for her, taking up with an American manager.

The scope of the film is quite ambitious for writer-director Chris Jones – and, to be fair to him, to Otto Bloom and his admirers, the film should probably be seen again.



1. The title, expectations?

2. The Melbourne sitting, the 1980s and 1990s, later years? The hospital, the psychologists offer, the mansion, the world of art exhibitions? New York sequences? The musical score?

3. Structure, the range of talking heads, their insertion into the narrative? The psychologist, the philosophical observer, the scientist, the policeman, the art dealer? The framing of the events and flashbacks through the talking heads? Access to Otto for the audience through them?

4. The use of colour, black-and-white?

5. The introduction to Otto, his being found by the police, the interview, Ada and her interrogation, his not having any memories? Taping the interviews? His confiding in her, that he had no memories? Living for the future into the past without memories of the past? The credibility of the character, Xavier Samuel’s performance?

6. The role of the policeman, his memories, the interview? Finding Otto, his seeming to not have any criminal background?

7. The philosophical and scientific issues: time, relationships, relativity, physics, Einstein, the reference to Stephen Hawking? Otto and his physical age, the decline of his interior age and consciousness? Difficulties for the audience in comprehending Otto’s experience, his descriptions?

8. The statements about science and philosophy, the claims, the accusation of pretentiousness? Mystical aspects – especially with all the photos of Ada and Otto present in them?

9. The chapter headings, Otto’s rise and fall, celebrity, the media, art, relationships, the importance of public opinion, public opinion and its collapse, his death?

10. The older Ada, compared with the young and enthusiastic woman, her work, at home, bringing Otto to the home, the relationship, the course of the relationship, its coming to an end? In terms of his coming from the future and knowing the future? Not remembering her name? His later painting of her? Ada and searching all the records, photos, not able to find any record of him?

11. Otto going to the media, their puzzle, his personality and as being accepted? The break with Ada? Suzy, art, her career, Singer? The effect of public scrutiny? Her mental state, killing herself? His not remembering her? The public and their reaction to his lack of grief?

12. Nancy Barron, the Americans, taking up with Otto, being his agent, sharing his decline?

13. Ada going to New York, the turn? His poor art after successful options? His becoming more reclusive?

14. TV commentators, sneering at him about his style?

15. His becoming a child in consciousness, the killer, his being stabbed? The police, the interviews, his sense of destiny – and his knowing the end of his life?

16. A film of imagination, intellect, story and symbols?

RULES DON’T APPLY

US, 2016, 127 minutes, Colour.
Warren Beatty, Lily Collins, Alden Ehrenreich, Annette Bening, Matthew Broderick, Candice Bergen, Haley Bennett, Paul Sorvino, Taissa Farmiga, Oliver Platt, Alec Baldwin, Steve Coogan, Dabney Coleman, Paul Schneider, Hart Bochner.
Directed by Warren Beatty.

Billionaire, Eccentric.. Two words which describe noted 20th century American industrialist and producer, Howard Hughes, even during his lifetime. And, at the end of his life, another word, reclusive. There have been a number of films about Howard Hughes, his life and his career, but it is now half a century since his death and he is part of American history.

However, Warren Beatty became interested in Hughes, has written a screenplay and directed the film, casting himself as the eccentric and reclusive Hughes. Warren Beatty himself will be 80 this year so it is not a stretch to portray the elderly Hughes. Because Hughes thought himself above most people, Rules Don’t Apply is not an unreasonable title (and is given further emphasis by the film’s song and its lyrics).

While the plot is rather complicated, one thing emerges that must have interested Beatty and his co-writer. These days, confronted by eccentric behaviour, or idiosyncratic behaviour, words that come to mind include autistic and Asperges, “on the spectrum�. But this is one of the interesting things about this film that Hughes is particularly obsessive, especially when it comes to aviation, plane design and preoccupations about this. His reclusiveness, self-protection, seeming inability to be aware of others sensitivities, expecting everyone to jump to his commands, and a preoccupation with his father’s memory, his father’s achievement in the tool industry and his inheriting the company, resenting and firing anybody that he thought was trying to be a father-figure to him.

This portrait certainly makes the film worth consideration.

However, the context is 1964, his connections with the government under consideration, and the media concerned that he is not compos mentis. In his refusal to make himself available to the media and make a statement to reassure them, the plot goes into flashback, the late 1950s, the RKO Studios and Hughes having a number of starlets under contract, providing lessons for them at the studio but not necessarily providing any movies for them to appear in.

Devout Christian, Marla Maybury (Lily Collins), comes with her protective mother (Annette Bening) to audition for Hughes. Drivers are provided for the starlets and the man assigned to her, Frank, (Alden Ehrenreich) himself rather devout, becomes attracted to her. Marla is quite strong-minded in many ways and determined to meet Hughes and have an audition. Frank is supportive, falling in love with her, having to deal with a fiancee in Fresno, but finding himself also asked for advice by Hughes who takes a shine to him and makes him a close assistant. Marla is faced with great moral challenges.

This gives the opportunity for audiences to see something Hollywood in this period, the star system, the starlets system, the personal interactions, the casting couch, career decisions and ambitions, disappointment and disillusionment.

Marla has been attracted to Hughes and he to her with consequences that neither of them expected – but the screenplay uses the consequences to galvanise Hughes into action with the media, Frank still there working for him but the plot bringing Marla and Frank together again…

One of the advantages of the film is that there are all kinds of character actors in brief roles, including Martin Sheen, Ed Harris, Amy Madigan, Matthew Broderick, Candice Bergen, Steve Coogan, Alec Baldwin…

1. The title? As applied to Howard Hughes? And the lyrics of the song?

2. A Warren Beatty project, writing and directing, performing? A Hollywood story?

3. Hollywood in 1964, the status of Howard Hughes, the media? His career, aviation, government contacts, hearings, companies and developments? The media demanding his identifying himself? His reluctance?

4. The flashbacks to the 1950s, Los Angeles, RKO Studios, the interiors of the studios, Howard Hughes’s mansion, the hotels where he was he staying? Views of Los Angeles? The trip to Fresno? The Los Angeles experience, Hollywood, aviation, flight? The musical score, the songs and the lyrics, the range of songs and music from the particular period? The tone?

5. Marla and her mother, arriving from Virginia, wide-eyed in Los Angeles, the promise of a screen test, the career of a starlet, appearing in films? Her mother and her strict chaperone mentality? The church, behaviour, Baptists? Frank and his being appointed to drive them, discussions with him, the Methodist Church background? Discussions about religion, grace, theology, sexuality, marriage commitment, going all the way, values? Growing uncertainties?

6. Howard Hughes’ story, audience knowledge about him, Warren Beatty and his impersonation, his look, age, the span of his career, his father and the tools company, aviation, his focus on planes and measurements, the touches of obsession? His interest in the movies, the screening of Hells Angels and its recurring throughout this film? His reputation, his wealth, connections with government, TWA, his investments, loans and needs? The movies, and his liaisons with actresses, the references to specific actresses, Katherine Hepburn, Jane Russell, Jean Peters?

7. Warren Beatty’s interpretation of Hughes, on the spectrum, the touch of obsession and autism? Strong mind, intelligence? Specialist knowledge and detail? Obsessing? His own image, the photos and make up, the actor portraying him? His becoming more reclusive? Dependence on drugs? Issues of food, ice cream obsessions and his associates having to supply his wants? His reaction to his advisers, memories of his father, wanting to please his father, firing associates because he thought they were trying to be father-figures? Going to watch the plane, the test flight and his injuries, later flying? His taking on Frank as his advisor, younger man? No children, growing old, his theories about DNA and his living on in children? The end, Marla and the boy, his response, eagerly playing with him, talking with him? Mellowing him? The stories about Hughes, the women, the starlets, the irony of the women being paid with the envelopes coming down on hooks…, The liaison with Marla, brief, marrying Jean Peters? A portrait of Howard Hughes?

8. The issue of the actor, the biography, authentic or not, testimonies against the actor?

9. Marla, age, determination, her mother returning home, her waiting for Hughes, the lessons, the other starlets and the interactions, together? The pay? Going to church? Her ignorance about sex, the sex talk of the other girls? The sermon in the Church? Frank, the attraction to him, the fact that he had committed himself to his fiancee, her not drinking? Eventually meeting Hughes, her outspokenness, being taped? The screen test? Frank and his affirmation? The effect of Hughes on her, wanting to meet him? The contact with Nadine and her support?

10. Frank, sexual encounter, Marla drinking, her being summonsed? The interactions with Frank, his ejaculation, trying to cover it? Lavar and his lascivious look? Her continued drinking, with Hughes, discussion, the ring? The sexual encounter, returning to her mother, the issue of abortion, having the child? The buildup to the visit to Hughes years later?

11. The character of Frank, earnest young man, from Fresno, scenes with his family, devout, his fiancee and their sexual encounter, the commitment? The discussions with Marla’s mother, driving? Letting Marla drive and her exhilaration? The outings, the scenery, the Hollywood bowl and listening to the music? The television, the sexual episode, the reaction, his seeing the ring? Some disillusionment with her?

12. Frank and his work, talking with Hughes, interviews, sharing the burger, looking at the plane, the later flight? Business advice? His wanting to persuade Hughes about the land investment? Helping Hughes and the persistent phone calls from the TWA executives and their wanting to meet him? With Hughes at the end of Acapulco?

13. The members of Hughes’s staff, Lavar and the driving, sexual innuendo? The other drivers? Advice, being fired? Lavar surviving? Mayhew, taking over the company, the pressure from TWA, Mayhew never seeing Hughes, being fired? Noah, friendly, the father figure, his being fired? Nadine and her role?

14. The starlets, their life, classes, pay, group, chatter?

15. The visit by Marla, introducing the boy to Hughes? His reaction? His phone call indicating that he was still alive and compos mentis?

16. Frank, meeting Marla, the boy – and the future together?

17. The picture of the old Hollywood, the 1960s and the transition to the more contemporary world?

MAIGRET’S DEAD MAN

UK, 2016, 88 minutes, Colour.
Rowan Atkinson, Ian Puleston- Davies, Mark Hadfield, Sean Dingwall, Leo Starr, Lucy Cohu.
Directed by Jon East.


Dead Man is the second television movie in a series featuring Rowan Atkinson as George Simenon’s Inspector Maigret. Rowan Atkinson might not have been the first or even the 10th choice to portray this character given his reputation in Blackadder as well as his comedies of Mr Bean.. However, he creates a character and maintains it.

While the original stories are very French, and the setting for these films is France, the cast is very British and much of the tone is very British.

The treatment of the case is almost the exact opposite of what is to be seen in the many British police thrillers and detective episodes in contemporary series. Everything is very measured. There is a police squad but they are very calm about their work, taking everything step-by-step, interrogations, analyses, drawing conclusions and setting up confessions.

The atmosphere is very much that of the 1950s.

This case has quite some complexity, massacres in farm homesteads in the south of France with robberies, and a desperate man ringing Maigret and wanting protection, and the linking of these two strands through a killer who works on a factory, employing Eastern European migrants to give him information on wealthy farms, employing them to do the robberies and killings, using some of them as henchmen while he then tries to live the high life.

Ultimately, Maigret brings the two cases together, arrests the main killer and, with a touch of compassion, is able to offer the widow of the man who had been seeking his help the opportunity to adopt the new born child, son of one of the most vicious of the killers.

1. The popularity of George Simenon’s novels? The personality of Inspector Maigret?

2. The range of versions, especially from France? This British interpretation? A very British France…?

3. The period, costumes and decor, vehicles, weapons? France, towns, the countryside, the racetrack, homes, inns? The musical score?

4. The opening crime, the massacre, the police arrival, the young girl as witness? Her later giving testimony?

5. The man in a panic, moving around the city, making the phone calls to Maigret? His fears? His death?

6. Maigret, as a police chief, the man calling him – and the later revelation that his wife had met Maigret and admired him and his wife? The man wanting help? Maigret in himself, age, experience, quiet manner, the range of staff and the style of collaboration? The officer commanding, the robberies in Picardy, forbidding Maigret to pursue his own investigations? Maigret and his processes, staying at home, discussions with his wife, interrogations, deductions, analyses, gaining information, building progress?

7. The dead man, identification, Nina and her disappearance? The advertisement in the paper, the dead man’s friend turning up, the explanations are finding the body and disposing of it, his prison record? Nina and Albert, Albert and his gambling, their wanting a family?

8. Maigret and his wife working the diner?

9. The criminal boss, his henchmen, using the people from the factory, from Eastern Europe? Information about and the wealthy farms, the robberies, the brutality and murders? Fencing the jewellery? His girl from the club, the dancer? His promises? His use of violence, Maria and her participation? His shooting – his being arrested, put in the
cell? The interrogation of his girlfriend, not realising the truth, her disgust at the fur and jewellery and taking them off?

10. Maria, pregnant, and the hospital, the birth? Her being identified, her brutality, not caring? The baby taken from her? Her imminent execution?

11. Maigret and his wife visiting Nina, the offer of the child, his arranging the adoption?

12. How well did this British telemovie capture the essence of Simenon, the crime stories, Maigret and his personality, investigations?

THE WHOLE TRUTH

US, 2016, 95 minutes, Colour.
Keanu Reeves, Renner Zellweger, Gugu Mbatha Raw, Gabriel Basso, Jim Belushi, Jim Klock.
Directed by Courtney Hunt.

The title reminds the audience of the oath at the beginning of any testament in a court case, the telling of the whole truth. In fact, this film is basically a court case.

The film is also a star vehicle for Keanu Reeves, one of his better roles. He is an able lawyer, with a good reputation, asked to defend young man, aged 16 (Gabriel Basso), who has confessed to the murder of his father will standing by his corpse. He has refused to make any comment beyond the confession and refuses to speak to his lawyer whom he has known for some years as a friend of the family. This means that his lawyer is hamstrung in terms of a way of defence as well as of interrogating witnesses.

Most of the action takes place in the court although there are substantial flashbacks to the life of the family, a wealthy family in the south, an arrogant and bullying father played by Jim Belushi, who has been violent towards his wife, demanding of his son, especially for his college studies. His wife is played by Rene Zellweger (exhibiting the disadvantages of her having had facelift treatment). She is presented as a rather timid wife, verbally abused and physically battered.

The court also appoints a young lawyer whose father had a reputation in the town as the assistant to the defence (Gugu Mbatha Raw).

The film shows the interrogation of the witnesses, especially the flight attendant on a private plane and her relationship with the dead man, his behaviour on flights, defending him – although there is a good scene where she is re-questioned by the new assistant and her testimony is seen as questionable.

The police are also interrogated but, with the confession of the young man, there was no need felt for further suspects.

Eventually, the young man speaks, and has a story of his father sexually abusing him for some years. Is this the truth or is the young man trying to defend his mother?

If the audience were to be told that there is a twist at the end, perhaps the most improbable twist, then this is actually what the end of the film does produce!

Which means that this is something of a minor drama, an interesting court case and an entertainment.

1. The title, the emphasis on truth? The familiar phrase from the oath in court? Testimony? Perjury?

2. The film is basically a court case, the trial sequences, legal offices, consultations, the courtroom? The witnesses, the stand? The jury? Those attending? The background of the story, the family, father, mother, son? The sequences at home, the special flights? The musical score?

3. The response of the audience, believing the witnesses or not? The mystery, the resolution – and the extreme twist?

4. Keanu Reeves and his presence on screen, manner, style, knowledge of the law, abilities, taking on the case, his relationship with the family, with the son, the son not speaking to him, being hamstrung? The presence of the mother in the court? The past relationship with the father? His knowing the situation at home? His personality, manner of conducting his case, interrogating his witnesses or not, the appeal to the judge, to the jury?

5. The prosecutor, the range of witnesses, his interrogations? Information and the data? Ramsey and his response, sometimes decision not to interrogate? Having Janelle as his assistant? His attitude towards her, treatment of her?

6. Janelle, her background, her father, her ambitions in law, the affair and her failed professional career? Returning home, assisting Ramsey? Working with him, his treatment of her, confiding, discussing? Her own research? The clash with Loretta? The special interrogation in the court and her being congratulated? Her coming to realise the truth?

7. Mike, his age, his relationship with his father, love for his mother, on the flights, the University plans, his mother’s wishes, his father’s wishes, experiencing their clashes? The flashbacks to the murder, the weapon, blood, fingerprints and his confession? His not speaking to Ramsey, finally speaking out? His testimony about his father’s abuse? How true? Or his defending his mother?

8. Loretta, her presence in the court, the history of abuse, being battered, at social functions, the trophy wife? Her relationship with her son? With Ramsey? Her reaction at the acquittal? The revelation of the conspiracy, her inflicting her own bruises, the death of her husband, the wound? The truth?

9. The police and their role, being called, the arrival, Mike and his confession, the evidence, testimonies – and their not investigating alternatives?

10. The judge, his hearing? The prosecutor and his questions? The range of witnesses, technical? The importance of the interrogation of the flight attendant, Janelle and Ramsey able to tell whether people were speaking the truth or not? Janelle interviewing her, her backing down on her evidence and her being able to see everything that was
going on in the cabin?

11. The speeches, the summing up, the role of the jury, Mike being found innocent?

12. The impact of the final revelation of the truth?

JASPER JONES

Australia, 2017, 102 minutes, Colour.
Levi Miller, Aaron L. Mc Grath, Anghourie Rice, Kevin Long, Toni Collette, Hugo Weaving, Matt Nable, Dan Wyllie, Myles Pollard, Susan Prior.
Directed by Rachel Perkins.

You don’t meet many (or any) Jasper Jones’s around the place. Which makes his name a standout for the title of this film. While his presence initiates the drama, he is not the central character. This character is Charlie Bucktin – but how many people would think that they needed to see a film entitled Charlie Bucktin!

This film, co-written by the author of the original novel, Craig Silvey, is set in Western Australia, in the wheat belt, in 1969. Corrigan seems an ordinary enough town, familiar Anglo- Saxon- Irish types, some aboriginal presence, but on the outer (including mixed-race Jasper Jones himself), a family from Vietnam (which does seem rather early in the history of migration from that country), a sense of civic spirit, especially during a meeting where the townspeople gather and volunteer to search for a missing girl, a love of cricket, especially for the Vietnamese boy, Geoffrey (a sprightly Kevin Long), who is bullied by the locals, and his mother subject to insult through a woman who has just heard that her son has died in Vietnam the day before.

So, the film is taking us back into the past, the taken-for-granted ordinariness in Australia but, now in hindsight, open to extensive critique.

As has been said, Charlie Bucktin is the centre of the film. He is a 14-year-old, bookish rather than athletic, helped by the strong screen presence of Levi Miller (who was also present in Western Australia in 1969 as the central character in Red Dog, True Blue).Jasper is played by Aaron L. McGrath?, a teenager, on the outer in the town, but approaching Charlie to help him with the body of a young girl whom he found hanging. Charlie, reluctantly agrees to help Jasper, involving him in situations that he was not prepared for, the disposal of the body, keeping quiet, deceiving his mother and father as to where he has been, following Jasper in his suspicions of the mad old man who lives on the periphery, Mad Jack (Hugo Weaving) and his attachment to the dead girl sister, Eliza (Anghourie Rice).

On the one hand, the film details the day by day life of Charlie, at school, reading, friendships with Geoffrey, watching Geoffrey at last triumph at cricket, discussing Breakfast at Tiffany’s with Eliza as well as try to appreciate his parents, his somewhat reclusive teacher father (Dan Wyllie), a gentle man who retires to his study to write, gradually alienating his outgoing wife, who becomes more and more exasperated with his quiet and seeming inactivity. She is played well, as always, by Toni Collette.

The plot does not quite play out as one might have expected, the death of the young woman more complicated, the role of the family the subject of critique, the revelations about Mad Jack more benign than we might have thought.

The film is directed by Rachel Perkins (Radiance, Bran Nue Day). There is much that is dark and sinister, no denying that, and the ending is not exactly easy for most of the characters, and, while an amount of the action takes place at night, and in the bush, the scenes in daylight make it not quite as oppressive as it might have been.

1. Acclaim for the film, popular? The popularity of the novel, readership? Adaptation?

2. Western Australia, the town of Corrigan? The wheat belt? 1969, the town, streets, homes, school, cricket matches, community meetings? A familiar Australian context? The surrounding countryside? Costumes and decor and the period? The musical score?

3. A 21st-century look back at Australia in 1969? Family issues, race issues, prejudice, morals?

4. The title, the focus on Jasper, his initial appearance, coming to Charlie, at the window? Asking Charlie to help? In the bush, Laura’s body hanging? Jasper’s fear of the law, Charlie assuming that he killed Laura? Cutting down the body, the weight, in the water? Jasper and his suspicions of Mad Jack? The plans for them to visit Jack? Jasper’s place in the town, mixed race, his mother? Death in the accident? The buildup to the confrontation of Jack, blaming him, hard judgements? His having to listen, a different story, his mother and father, the accident, Jack and his support? Eliza, her witnessing the death, the note, the truth about what it happened, Laura relying on him, his going away to get money and prepare their leaving the town, coming back too late?

5. Charlie at 14, ordinary young boy, a reader rather than a sportsman? The scenes with Geoffrey, due and his liveliness, the cricket, the conversations? His bond with Eliza, attracted, talking, awkward, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, meeting in the library? Charlie and his mother, her love, coming home late from the search, Charlie finding her with the police officer? His shock? His father’s care for him, quiet, writing? Charlie and deceiving his parents, going to see Jack, losing his bag, the return? The confrontation, the truth? New Year’s eve, the return, his mother, Eliza? His mother leaving? His future?

6. Laura, her place in her family, love for Eliza? Her relationship with Jasper, his leaving, the delay in return? The audience seeing her hanging, Eliza and the note, the truth, her abusive father, the reaction of her mother, the burning of the house?

7. Ruth, her energy, her dissatisfaction in the country town, the liaison with the police officer, her scorning her husband’s writing? Love for her son, facing the truth, the pain in leaving? The father, a nice man, introverted, passive, supporting his son?

8. Choose, genial young lad, Australian spirit, cricket – and his achievement? His parents, the Vietnamese background, the woman whose son was killed in the war and her throwing the cup at the mother?

9. The Wisharts, the daughters, the community meeting, the father presiding, the details of the search, the truth about his abuse?

10. The role of the police, the search?

11. A film and coming-of-age?

AMBER ALERT/ I HAVE YOUR CHILDREN


Canada, 2016, 90 minutes, Colour.
Alaina Huffman, Damon Runyon, Kyle Mac, Barry Flatman, Cameron Brodeur.
Directed by Philippe Gagnon.

This is an above-average entertaining drama.

The ingredients may be familiar but the film is well written and Alaina Huffman in the central role is a very strong and convincing presence – a bit along the lines and look of an Angelina Jolie.

Amber is the name of the central character, a policewoman, skilled in intervening in difficult cases, would-be suicides. This is illustrated as the film opens. However, she is also a single mother, devoted to her young son who also has to spend some time in the shared custody with his father and his father’s new girlfriend.

Amber is very busy, is alarmed that her former husband might ask for full custody, is conscious that she is committed to her police work (and that she did have an affair with one of her co-workers, a surly man who is now a rival and critical of her in their work). The police chief is her father-in-law.

The key case for the Amber alert concerns a young man, mentally disturbed, but an IT whiz, who is really upset that his mother, a long-time bus driver who paid her pension, is now very ill and has been refused compensation by the insurance company because her illness is an exception beyond the range of the contract. The young man takes a bus, picks up some children, including the daughter of one of the insurance company assessors, and creates a hostage situation, asking for the exact amount that should have been paid by the insurance company.

While Amber becomes involved, there are disputes about how the situation should be handled and the hostage children. However, Amber is moved by the situation of the children, talks with the insurance assessor mother urging her to persuade the company to pay, goes into the warehouse where the young man has set himself up, allows herself to become a hostage.

There is the expected tension, the wishes of the squad to use a sniper or to attack the building while Amber advocates discussion.

There is an interesting twist at the end of the film in terms of the behaviour of the young man and his mother.

1. Crime drama? Family drama? Police drama?

2. The town of Hartford, the police precincts and police work, mediators and talking down people from suicide attempts, abductions, hostages and negotiations? The family background, school, home, shared custody, prospects of divorce? These elements combined into the one story? The musical score?

3. The title, the ambiguity with Amber’s name and the crime alert? Amber as a strong character, her work in the police, her marriage and its failure, the affair with Hamilton and the later antagonism, her ex-husband and his not having work, leaving, with a younger woman, the prospect of divorce, custody? Amber and her devotion to her son, the pressures of work, especially in picking him up from school, meals, getting back from his father? The background to the abduction case?

4. The introduction to Amber, the bride on the ledge, talking with her, her grief, the groom, his mistake in the name, Amber and her tough talk, talking the bride down? The reaction of the chief, the irony that he was her father-in-law? Hamilton and his work with her – and his taunting her about the case where her intervention failed and there was a suicide?

5. Amber and her son, the bonding together, the visit to her ex-husband, his girlfriend, the discussions?

6. The story of Callum, his mental condition, cleaning the buses, his mother as a bus driver, her cancer, surgery, the role of the insurance company, not paying, quibbling over her illness being an exception, her having to sell the house? The mother seemingly calm, concerned about her son, her son’s anger?

7. Callum, driving the bus, picking up the children, the abduction? In the warehouse? The concern of the mother who was the insurance assessor? Her interventions, phoning the company, ultimately willing to expose their mean-minded policies and behaviour? Getting the money for the ransom?

8. Callum, his home, his IT expertise? Setting himself up in the warehouse? The sounds of the children playing? The police, the chief, strategies? Amber and her interventions? Hamilton and his being ready with his squad to go? Inserting the camera into the room and Callum’s threats? Amber going in, the rays, his gun, turning it off? The issue of sandwiches for the children? Hamilton and his being ready to have a sniper shot?

9. Amber, her being willing to be a hostage, with the bombs, the issue of the money, delivering it?

10. The character of Callum, his mother coming to the phone, urging him on? Being taken away in the ambulance?

11. The finale, the exploding bus, the irony of the children never having been there, the recording, their being safe elsewhere? The ambulance, Callum and his mother escaping with the money?

12. Audience interest in the abduction sequences, hostages and the discussion – and the irony of Callum and his mother and their plan?

BOULEVARD

US, 2014, 85 minutes, Colour.
Robin Williams, Kathy Baker, Roberto Aguire, Bob Odenkirk.
Directed by Dito Montiel.

While this is a small-scale drama, it is very effective nonetheless.

One of the regrets expressed at the time of the film’s release is that it was one of the last films that Robin Williams made before his final depression and suicide. While Williams had demonstrated that he was a master of comedy, a master of manic comedy, he was also very effective in straightforward dramatic roles like One Hour Photo, insomnia and this film.

Filmed in Nashville, Tennessee, it is the story of Nolan, a 60-year-old who has worked 25 years at the same bank, is now offered the prospect of becoming a local bank manager, has been married for many decades to Joy (Kathy Baker), affectionately sharing a great deal of their lives but also living rather separately in the same house. His mother has just died and he feels compelled, though no great affection for him, to take care of his dying father in a nursing home.

With these prospects, and his main friend, Winston (Bob Odenkirk), for many years as his main confidante for discussions and sharing views, his suddenly becoming aware that he is 60 and is wondering what has happened to his life.

At traffic lights one evening on the way home from work, he suddenly does a U-turn, passes a number of young hustlers on the Boulevard and stops, engaging one, Leo (Roberto Aguire) in conversation and driving him to a motel. It is clear to the audience, though not necessarily immediately so strongly to Nolan, that he is a gay man and that he is in need of some kind of affection and male contact. However, while he is willing to pay Leo, he does not want sexual intimacy.

And so begins Nolan’s journey of greater self-awareness, further encounters with Leo, including watching him fight with his pimp and Nolan being bashed himself, wanting to get Leo a job in a diner and disappointed when he fails to turn up, sharing stories. The main story he shares is with his father, the father lying rather helpless in his nursing home bed, his son explaining that from age 12 he was aware that he was gay but had not done anything about it – and the father refusing the straw for a drink and turning away from his son.

One of the hardest parts of Nolan facing his life at 60 is that he must leave his wife who loves him, who has chosen to marry him because she does not want to face reality.

Nolan is able to burn his bridges behind him, leave his job, leave his wife and home, learn from the disappointing disillusionment of failing to develop a relationship with Leo, and now accept the consequences of who he is and what he will be.

A variation on familiar material of a gay man in a marriage having to make a decision to find himself – but this story is told with empathy rather than sensationalism or prurience.

1. Robin Williams film? One of his last? Audience regrets at his death and his capacity for both comedy and drama?

2. Nashville, the city, homes, the bank, restaurants, the streets, apartments? The city, light and darkness, bright sequences, shadow sequences? The musical score?

3. Nolan and his story, Robin Williams, audience sympathy with him? Discovering the reality of his life, his behaviour, at age 60?

4. Themes of sexuality, Nolan and his life, age 60, married to Joy, loving her, yet separate lives, a kind of content yet anger? Audience response to Nolan and his encounters with Leo? Nolan’s story, recounting his life at age 12 to his ailing father, the father silent, refusing to drink, turning away from Nolan? Nolan at 60, having to face reality, the consequences?

5. Nolan and his personality, his mother’s death, his father’s illness and feeling that he had to care for him? The long marriage to Joy, sharing their life, love and affection, but separate? His work in the bank the 25 years? The job offer, his hesitation? The friendship with Winston, discussions with him, best friends for many decades? Meals at the diner? Nolan and his driving, seeing Leo, stopping, the conversation, Leo getting in, some companionship, no explicit sexuality or behaviour, no hesitation in giving money, the gift of the phone, the number, the calls, his continuing to pick up Leo, Leo ready for sex, Nolan not? Nolan returning him home, seeing him fight with his pimp? Nolan intervening and his injuries? Nolan and his lies to Joy, working back, going to the diner that was closed? The dates, going out, the fashionable dinner and the chance encounter with his bank manager? Leo’s reaction, the money, buying the video as a gift, the possibility of the job, going to buy the shirt, Leo not turning up, Nolan upset, reprimanding him, finding him with another client? The episode at the bank, the fight, asking for the money? Nolan saving Leo and his reputation? Preparation for the bank manager’s dinner, tying his tie, Joy, her going, the phone call, to the hospital, Leo and the overdose, his vanishing? The effect?

6. Joy, her character, her life, the long marriage, her part-time teaching, her reading, her marriage not being real and her having made that choice? Still loving Nolan? The domestic sequences, watching the Godard film and memories? Going away for the weekend? The final sequences of the break, her grief and hurt?

7. Winston, his friendship, talking, sardonic, the meals, his girlfriend, her job at the restaurant and helping Nolan for Leo, the walks, Winston sharing his advice with Nolan, going to New York?

8. Leo, his story, the hustler on the street, from Ohio, the background of his mother and her addiction, his leaving home? On the street, his being bullied by the pimp? Expecting sex, remaining impersonal? Gratitude towards Nolan, the gift of the video? But not turning up the job, the fights, the overdose – and his disappearance?

9. Nolan, his awakening at age 60, his behaviour, his needs, his acknowledgement of the truth about his orientation, his leaving his job, the consequences and his encounters with other men?