I.T.

US, 2016, 95 minutes, Colour.
Pierce Brosnan, James Frecheville, Anna Friel, Stefanie Scott, Michael Nyqvist.
Directed by John Moore.

Hell hath no fury… But this time it is not a woman scorned but rather an IT employee scorned and fired. And he has a vast IT palette on which to wreak his fury.

This a contemporary thriller, especially in the IT world. Pierce Brosnan portrays a multimillionaire who has developed his company, built it up, has become wealthy, is married to a glamorous wife, Anna Friel, and is devoted to his teenage daughter, Stefanie Scott. This means that the film starts with a: who could ask for anything more?

At a company demonstration, there is a glitch in the IT presentation. Technicians work hard behind the scene but the situation is saved when a young man, Ed Porter (James Frecheville) is able to fix everything and the presentation proceeds. Brosnan is particularly impressed, praises the young man, even offers him the prospect of a job.

But, we soon discover the young man has problems. While he is an expert, he is not the personality that he wants people to think he is. He is a loner, has built up a reputation which is based on half truths and imagination and ambition. He begins to intrude more and more into the life of the millionaire and his daughter.

Brosnan’s millionaire was grateful but resents intrusion into his family life and so is very short with the young man, warning him off in no uncertain terms.

So, revenge, stalking, hacking into the technology of the company, extreme surveillance, readjusting data leading to financial disaster.

Swedish actor Michael Niquvist, known from The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, portrays a quiet expert recommended to remedy the situation – which, in a calm and controlled way, sitting at a cafe, using the stolen phone of Brosnan’s daughter, watching everything on a screen while Brosnan invades the high-tech apartment and gear, is achieved.

Actually, the film becomes more melodramatic at this stage, the young man able to pretend to play the victim, ensure that the police are suspicious of the millionaire rather than himself. And there is more melodrama as the young man threatens the wife and daughter, leading to the inevitable…


1. A contemporary thriller? The world of business? Technology? The focus of the title?

2. A business thriller, industrial sabotage? The vengeance of a stalker?

3. The California settings, the world of IT, business, programs, demonstrations, glitches, the need for experts? Board meetings and plans? Threats? The musical score?

4. The world of Michael Regan, his company, offices, affluence? Building himself up? His associates? The mansion? His wife and daughter and their worlds? School? The ordinary job at cafes? The world of employees and their lifestyle?

5. The plausibility of the plot, the world of business, menace, action?

6. Mike Regan in himself, age and character, marriage, family? Self-image, self-satisfaction? Wealth, origins, success, life of luxury? The characters of his wife and daughter?

7. The demonstration, the failure, Ed and his being able to fix the situation? His expertise? Regan grateful, offering support, the job offer? Ed and his reaction? His expectations?

8. Ed, his character, presence in the company, intruding into the family life, Regan’s reaction? The daughter and her attraction? The wife and her hostility? His being a loner, at home, the vast equipment, his talent with IT? His ability to spy with all his surveillance? The background of his life, Mike investigating him, the loner, various jobs, his self-promotion?

9. His fury, hurt, the decision to hack, the devastating results for the company? The effect on the staff, the threats?

10. Mike Regan, his consulting the IT expert, their meeting, the plan? The expert and his knowledge, techniques? His timing, surveillance, Mike going into Ed’s building, dismantling the surveillance? Ed realising what was happening, the return? The threats? His going to the house, tying up Mike’s wife and daughter? The expert and his completing his work, his being paid, using the daughter’s cafe and phone?

11. Ed, the increasing violence, the confrontation with Mike, the threats, the police, Mike and his arrest, treatment, and playing himself as the victim?

12. Revenge, the buildup, going too far, Mike and the confrontation? The resolution?

MISS SLOANE

US, 2016, 132 minutes, Colour.
Jessica Chastain, Mark Strong, Gugu Mbatha Raw, John Lithgow, Sam Waterston, Alison Pill, Jack Lacey, Chuck Shamata, Douglas Smith, Dylan Baker.
Directed by John Madden

There’s something to be said about a serious film that presents machinations, manipulation, Machiavellian strategies and tactics. Which means that there is a lot to say about Miss Sloane, an intriguing (in all meanings of the word) of such machinations and manipulations in the screenplay that is able to draw on all kinds of tactics and strategies and bring them to a striking conclusion.

The location for this story is Washington DC and Capitol Hill. It is a world of lobbyists – not the most attractive of worlds to live in but fascinating to watch. At the core of the film is a bill to restrict the presence of guns and for background investigations for owning guns. It has been pointed out that this film did not do well at the US box office and that the gun lobby actually agitated against the film, posting negative comments, running the film down – an example of the effects of lobbying in itself.

The Miss Sloane of the title is a lobbyist played by Jessica Chastain, a very astute actress in recent years succeeding in a variety of roles. Elizabeth Sloane is a woman in her 30s who has no other life than her lobbying, no family, no indication of background, suffering from insomnia but eager to spend all her waking hours lobbying, competitive, desperate to win. The only outlets are the taking of pills and her connection with a Washington escort, for momentary sexual release.

The framework of the film is a Senate hearing, presided over by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow) examining difficult issues in Sloane’s career, particularly in providing finance for senators to go on education trip to Indonesia repercussions and importation of palm oil. But, on the whole, this is a red herring, though some documentation is key to findings of the hearing.

What it is all about is the fact that the gun lobby had tried to headhunt Miss Sloane to enable them to get a majority to defeat the intended bill, arguing that the potential for the campaign is to focus on women, not just in terms of gun violence but as people need to take up arms to defend themselves. This is not Miss Sloane’s perspective, she rejects for her, and takes her staff with her when she goes to work for a company lobbying to find senators to pass the bill.

One of Miss Sloane’s principles is that when the enemy has played their trump card, then you produce your trump card. The latter part of the film is quite dramatically exhilarating showing the effectiveness of this tactic, the audience and Miss Sloane’s associates not anticipating it at all.

Miss Sloane does not want a sympathetic response though she does acknowledge the reality of emotions and sympathy but they are not part of make up or tactics. Her boss is played by Mark Strong, an honest man who has principles. One of the staff is a young woman was terrorised in a gun episode in an Indiana School, hiding from a shooter. She is played by Gugu Mbatha Raw (Belle, Concussion, The Whole Truth).

The company that the gun lobby uses is headed by a seemingly venerable elder statesman, yet sinister, Sam Waterston, and the head executive, Michael Stuhlbarg is a ruthless lobbyist. One of the key sequences to illustrate the no holds barred lobbying takes place on a television interview, each talking over the other, and Miss Sloane then pulling a trump card that turns the spotlight relentlessly on someone’s privacy.

The dialogue in this kind of film is very important, the conversations, the plotting, the tactics, the working rooms at society gatherings, the pressure by powers that be – one Senator being told that if he does not comply with orders his career would be annihilated with an explanation of the origins of annihilated.

While this is an American story, one of the things that nags under the enjoyment of seeing such goings-on is: what is it like in the pressures and lobbies of local government, as bad as that in the United States, the same or worse? It would be very interesting in to see a local version of Miss Sloane.

1. The title? The focus on Miss Sloane? The formal title? Expectations?

2. Washington DC, the settings, Capital Hill, the lobbyist world, the Senate? The political world, the social world? Travel around the US? Immersing the audience in the lobbyist world?

3. The framework of the hearing, the presiding senator, accusations against Miss Sloane? Her lawyer and his assistance? Listening to her? Her taking the Fifth Amendment and keeping silent? Senator Sperling, management of the case, the other senators, the crowd? The issue of Indonesia, palm oil, payment of study trips? Miss Sloane silent, then her reply, the possibility of perjury? The issues of surveillance and her use and illegal use of surveillance? The document, her condemnation? Her final speech and revelation?

4. Her philosophy, the playing of trump cards, and then playing her trump card, as illustrated throughout the film – and in the finale in the hearing?

5. The three months flashbacks, the introduction to Elizabeth Sloane, her age, life, no private life, no background? As a lobbyist, competitive, wanting to win, enjoying playing the game? No family, no personal life, the relationship with the escort, paid sex? Anonymity and payment?

6. Miss Sloane and her company, George Dupont and his introduction to Bob Sanford, the discussions, lobbying for women and the vote, the gun lobby, women as needing to be aggressive and therefore to have guns? The pressure on Miss Sloane? Her resistance, the harshness of her rejection?

7. Rodolfo Schmidt, his encounters with Miss Sloane, his own lobby, the discussions, her agreement to work with him? Her staff at her original company, their loyalties, their walking out with her, five leaving, Jane and the discussions about academic life, her staying with Dupont? The scenes with her, Miss Sloane’s phone call, the finale at the hearing, Jane offering her resignation and walking out? Her having supplied all the information?

8. The case, the importance of the Bill? The issue of numbers? The cause, the projections, the charts, young enthusiastic workers, investigating the senators, the research, the pressures?

9. Pat Connors, his work for Dupont? His commitment to his cause? His character, planning, lobbying, antagonism towards Elizabeth?

10. Rodolfo Schmidt and his character, his work, interactions with Miss Sloane, her surprising him, his following her, the discovery of the surveillance? His own integrity? Clashes with Miss Sloane? His being interrogated at the hearing about the surveillance?

11. Esme, her background, her character, the gun experience in the high school? The meal with Miss Sloane? Telling her story, work, loyalty, commitment to the cause?

12. The buildup to the television interview, the host, his handling of the couple, Connors and his barging in, Miss Sloane and her responses? The dramatic introduction of Esme, the camera on her, the aftermath? Esme and the experience of the threat from the gunman, the citizen and his shooting the aggressor, becoming a hero? The issue for the gun lobby? Television treatment of the gun hero? Miss Sloane, going to the airport to meet Esme, Esme leaving, her continuing to work for the cause but at a distance from Miss Sloane, her presence at the hearing?

13. The issue of Badgley, Connors and the game of pool, the threat to his son’s candidature, the threats about the money? The television interview, the planted questions, the actor, pressurising the candidate, support? The dinner, Miss Sloane and her circulating and her own surveillance?

14. Going to the surveillance company, the men, the possibilities? Her seeming to move away? The irony of their final use?

15. The hearing, her behaviour, Forde, the escort, and his presence, her surprise at his not exposing her?

16. George Dupont, the threats to Senator Sperling, pressurising him for the hearing? Audience surprise at his being blackmailed? And his succumbing – after the explanation of annihilation?

17. The document, Miss Sloane signature? Her being condemned?

18. Her final speech, the surveillance material, the exposure of the senator, his hastening away, fear, Dupont, Sanford?

19. Miss Sloane going to prison, the visit from Daniel, her composed remarks – and her finally being released? To what?

ALTAMIRA/ FINDING ALTAMIRA

UK /France/ Spain, 2016, 97 minutes, Colour.
Antonio Banderas, Golshifteh Farahani, Clement Sibony, Rupert Everett, Nicholas Farrell, Irene Escalar, Allegra Allen.
Directed by Hugh Hudson.

This is the story of Spanish cave paintings which were discovered in northern Spain in the latter part of the 19th century, at Altamira.

The film is a French Spanish coproduction with Antonio Banderas in the lead for a Spanish audience. Spanish locations were used for the filming, the village of Altamira, the surrounding mountains and caves. However, the director is British, Hugh Hudson, best known for his Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire. There is an international supporting cast with the British Nicholas Farrell as well as Rupert Everett as a smug monsignor in the town.

While the film does describe the finding of the caves and the paintings, the initial set up is a contrast between the 19th century attitude of scientists, especially after Darwin, and the proclamation of the superiority of science contrasting with the stances of the church, the status of the Scriptures as regards creation and evolution. A pre-credit sequence shows the scientist standing at his lectern on one side of the screen, the monsignor in his pulpit on the other.

Antonio Banderas portrays Marcelino, the local grandee, benign patriarch of the family, especially with love of his daughter who is intelligent and shares her father’s enquiries and studies, even to the finding of the paintings as she stumbles around the newly-iscovered caves with a lantern.

The family expect that the scientific world will be amazed at the discovery and its contribution to Palaeolithic studies. Even the King visits the caves and is impressed. However, a local scientist is jealous, the local monsignor is aggressively antipathetic and what was meant to be a gala occasion at a congress in Lisbon turns into a condemnation of forgery, of disbelief, and of personal condemnation of Marcelino himself.

For dramatic satisfaction, Marcelino’s wife, rather tentative in her knowledge of science and support of her husband, goes to the monsignor to confession and roundly denounces him.

The film ends 20 years later, with the discovery of the caves and the paintings in the Dordogne in France, the scientist who had denounced Marcelino finally coming to Spain, witnessing the paintings and, belatedly, because Marcelino is long dead, writing an article and issuing an apology.

The film is of particular interest to a Spanish audience and their knowledge of the caves and the paintings – and the film can be seen in companionship with Werner Herzog’s 3-D documentary on the French cave paintings, Cave of Forgotten Dreams.

1. The title? The cave paintings and their discovery in the 19th century? The initial response, accusations of forgery, ultimate vindication?

2. Audience knowledge about the caves and the paintings? For Spanish audiences? The cast and Antonio Banderas? The world audiences?

3. The period, Spain, costumes and decor the town, homes, the church, the countryside, the hills, the caves, the interiors? The musical score?

4. The introduction, the opening stance and words of the scientist, the supremacy of science? The counteraction with the words of the priest, anti-science, the word of God? The arrogance of both representatives? The touch of the sanctimonious in each?

5. Marcelino, the family, Conchita and his love for her, Maria? Work, the amateur scientist, his interest in anthropology and Palaeolithic science? Maria, an intelligent little girl, her interest, her enquiries? Conchita and her tending to be apprehensive?

6. Marcelino, the caves, his farm assistant, opening the cave, Maria going in, the lantern, falling, finding the paintings? The claims about them? Marcelino and his good friend Nicholas Farrell? Continued support?

7. Local hostility, the jealous scientist and continued denunciations? Seeing Maria returning from the caves, with the police and the paint? The King, hearing of the caves and the paintings, his official visit, the tribute to Marcelino, friendliness – and snubbing the jealous scientist? The hostile and condescending is?

8. Marcelino Farrell, going to the meeting in Lisbon, the presentation of the findings, denunciations, humiliation, accusations of forgery? The fact that there was no soot on the roof of the caves – and the later sequence with the cook, the particular oil being used and its not creating soot?

9. Marcelino humiliated, the newspaper articles, the priest and his article, that he was not a fit father? Conchita, going to the church, confession, her as a denunciation of the priest and speaking directly to him? His reaction?

10. 20 years later, the finding of the cave paintings in France, in the Dordogne?

11. The visit of the sceptical scientist who had denounced Marcelino, his wanting to make an apology, Marcelino dead, going to the term, some retrieval of honour? The scientist and his apology in his article?

12. 19th century science, 19th century and its attitude towards the Bible? The post-Darwinian era? Science, evolution, palaeontology and the existence of cave paintings from thousands of years?

ANTHROPOID

UK, Czech Republic, 2016, 120 minutes, Colour.
Cillian Murphy, Jamie Dornan, Toby Jones, Bill Milner, Charlotte Le Bon, Anna Geislerova.
Directed by Sean Ellis.

There have been a number of films about Hitler’s occupying of Czechoslovakia, the sending of his lieutenant Reinhold Heydrich to Prague and his ruthless control of the Czech population, leading to a plot to assassinate him, ultimately successful, but drawing down enormous reprisals, especially on the village of Lidice.

Even during World War II, there was already a film highlighting this, Hitler’s Madman.

In the 1970s, there was a reconstruction of the episode, a focus on the young men, Czechoslovakians, parachuted in from London who were to do the execution. This was shown in an effective film, Operation Daybreak, directed by Lewis Gilbert. Kenneth Branagh played Heydricj in Conspiracy.

It is interesting to ask why there has been this renewed interest in the events more than 70 years later in Operation Anthropoid.

Cillian Murphy and Jamie Dornan portray the two young men parachuted into Czechoslovakia by night, injuring themselves in the fall, picked up by a partisan who is willing to betray them to the Nazis, taking his truck, driving into Prague where they find that their contact has disappeared. Nevertheless, they are received by the local Resistance, especially by the veteran Uncle, Toby Jones, and find accommodation with a family and the support of two young women.

Cillian Murphy portrays the leader, a stern man, committed to his mission, allotted a young woman to help him with his cover, becoming emotionally attached to her and grieving at her death during the execution of the mission. Jamie Dornan, on the other hand, falls in love with his young woman and has moments of fear and doubt.

The film shows Prague and the ordinariness of its way of life, even the trams running on the streets, during the Nazi occupation. When Heydrich is to return suddenly to Berlin, the time of the attack is advanced, double checking with the authorities in London, some of the locals wondering why they are prepared to kill Heydrich and risk the reprisals which eventually take place. In many ways the attempt was botched, a gun jamming, explosives thrown, Heydrich not immediately dying, a pursuit of those responsible, betrayal by one of the locals who was also tortured, and escape to safety in a church and a siege which, in real life, lasted for six hours, before the attackers were all killed.

The massacre in Lidice is mentioned but not visually shown – rather, the suffering of particular individuals is highlighted and visualised, the siege in the church, and the taking of suicide pills.

World War II stories and films continue to be of great interest – and, as the decades go by, probably a necessary prodding to memory and sensibilities.

1. A World War II story? Of significant events in Czechoslovakia in 1942? Audience knowledge of these events?

2. The opening explanation, the Treaty of Munich, the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Hitler? The appointment of Heydrich, the executions, the strict regime, personal harshness? The plan for his assassination, the personnel, the Resistance, the execution of the plot, the severe reprisals?

3. The Czech locations, the forests, houses, the countryside, the city of Prague, the ordinary aspects, day by day existence, trams going through the streets? The occupation? The apartments, the church and the basement? The musical score?

4. The action in the film, the parachute drop, rescued, the betrayal, driving to Prague, the assassination plan, the involvement of the Resistance, the attempt, the details of the attack on Heydrich’s car, the guards and the pursuit? The impact of the siege in the church? The picture of torture, suicide pills?

5. Jan and Josef, their backgrounds, going to England, landing, the injury and the sewing up of the foot? The rescuer and his phoning the Nazis, deaths? The truck, going into the city, the contact missing, the lessening numbers of the Resistance? The apartment? The parents, the welcome, the boy and his violin talent? Maria, the attraction to Jan? Lenka, involved, attachment to Josef? And his getting Lenka to slap him? The women upset about the plan, their role in the execution of it?

6. The hastening of the plan with hatred leaving? The timing, the men at their position in the streets, the signals? The attack, the jamming of the gun, the buying of the explosives, uncertainty as to Heydrich’s death, the flight of the streets, the escape?
The decision to leave, the men who had been parachuted into Czechoslovakia? The priest, offering the church, his friendliness, the discussions, especially the nature of suicide?

7. The six hours’ siege, attention to detail, weapons, hoses, the Nazis and inserting them in the water dousing the men? Those in the balcony, in the basement? Deaths? Suicide pills?

8. The man who betrayed them, not participating plot, going to the authorities, the reward, was being tortured, taking into the apartment?

9. The mother in the apartment, taking her son? The interrogation, staunch, the suicide pills? The boy taunted, his violin smashed?

10. The importance of the reprisals in Lidice, not visually shown but reliance on verbal information? The concentration of the violence on the torture of individuals?

11. The resistance and Uncle and his support? The other members of the group? The local leader, his not approving of the assassination? The other suspicious of him? The delays with contacts with the authorities in London?

12. Czech authorities in London, not on the spot, the decision that Heydrich should die, how much consideration reprisals?

13. The film made almost 70 years after the events, the intention of the film?

AMERICAN PASTORAL

US, 2016, 108 minutes, Colour.
Ewan Mc Gregor, Jennifer Connolly, Dakota Fanning, Peter Reigert, Rupert Evans, Uzo Aduba, Molly Parker, Valorie Curry, Samantha Mathis, David Strathairn.
Directed by Ewan Mc Gregor.

American Pastoral is based on a novel by Philip Roth.

Over the decades, a number of Philip Roth’s novels have been filmed from Portnoy’s Complaint to The Human Stain and Indignation. This film is a work of devotion by Ewan Mc Gregor who has directed the film as well as taken on the central role.

American Pastoral is an ironic title. The narrative opens during World War II, the central character, Swede Lvov (Ewan Mc Gregor) is an all-American sportsman, and idol of his time. He enlists, but returns as the war ends, moving in to manage the glove factory in New Jersey founded by his dominating Jewish father, Peter Riegert. However, he wants to marry the local beauty queen, a Catholic, Dawn (Jennifer Connolly) who is willing to be interviewed by his father and stares him down despite his objections, winning him over.

The American Pastoral years are those immediately after the end of the war, Swede and Dawn marrying and having a little daughter, Meredith. Idolised by her parents, she nevertheless has a stammer and they take her to a therapist, Molly Parker, who indicates that this might be a control mechanism.

As the story moves to the end of the 50s and into the 1960s, Meredith sees images of a Buddhist monk on television, self-immolating, and is emotionally upset, thinking that people do not care.

The pastoral ends with the Vietnam war and Meredith, age 16 (Dakota Fanning) an embittered young woman, resenting her successful parents, meeting up with like-minded young people against the government, eventually throwing a bomb into a baker’s shop in New Jersey and having to go on the run.

For the rest of the film, Swede is obsessed with finding his daughter, cruelly tantalised by one of her friends who pretends to be researching the glove industry but is really trying to get money out of Swede. Dawn, on the other hand, is hurt by her daughter’s antagonism and opts to ignore her, deteriorating mentally with a strong scene and a diatribe against her husband and all that he stood for and how she should not have married him.

The framework of the film is a 1990s school reunion where a writer, David Strathairrn, encounters Swede’s brother and finds that Swede is dead and about to be buried.

The funeral scene has quite some pathos, the writer observing, Dawn present with ambiguous grief – and Meredith finally turning up to stand by her father’s coffin.

The acting is very good, Mc Gregor always reliable, Jennifer Connolly with some strong scenes and a surprising Dakota Fanning in the role of Meredith. An opportunity to reassess the transition in the United States from the 1950s into the 1960s and the violent years beyond.

1. The title, expectations? The overtones of ideas and calmness?

2. Philip Roth, New Jersey background, Jewish background, Catholics? The 1940s to 2000 and the trajectory of the average American and the average American family?

3. Audience knowledge of this era, the all-American sports hero, the beauty queen? The war, the literal pastoral aspects of New Jersey? Jewish Catholic intermarriage? Vietnam, the war, the role of the leaders, protesting, revolution? The movements and individuals? The repercussions?

4. Introduction with the reunion, Nathan Zuckerman and his voice-over, arriving at the reunion, his wondering why he went? Meeting Jerry? Not knowing what happened to Swede? Getting information, hearing the story from Jerry, narrating it?

5. The Lvov family, Jewish background, New Jersey, settled in America? The glove factory? Dawn, love for Swede? Going to the interrogation, her phone stances, Catholic requirements, the father’s reaction? Swede standing by her? Swede and his reputation? Marriage, working in the factory? The birth of Meredith, the happy years?

6. Meredith and her stutter, going to Sheila for therapy, the different opinions, Sheila and her observations about why Meredith stuttered, controlling mechanism? Her later helping Meredith, with the underground? Swede confronting her? Her attitudes towards Dawn and Dawn getting a facelift, for therapy?

7. Meredith, at home, the teachers’ reaction, her book of stuttering? Moon River and Audrey? Camping with her father, her direct kiss and her father’s reaction? The television, seeing the monk burning, the symbol of her transition to revolution and accusations that nobody cared?

8. Meredith at 1’s 6, her reactions, the causes, her bitterness? Despising her mother’s role as a beauty queen? The treatment of her mother? Her father as a sporting hero and mocking this? Her character, the transition from 13 to 16, hard and bitter, her friends in New York, away from home, her father trying to impose some discipline?

9. The footage of the groups, the University revolutions, the streets, New Jersey, the demonstrations outside the factory, shootings, Vicki and her reaction, staying with Seymour, supporting him?

10. The bomb, Dawn and Swede visiting the mother and son, the pathos, the mother observing that they did not have peace with their family as she did despite her husband’s death?

11. The role of the FBI, searching the house, Meredith’s room?

12. Swede’s inability to believe the truth about his daughter, the years passing and his brooding on this, moving from the 60s into the 70s? His continued search? The arrival of Rita, writing the thesis, charming, the interview, making the special gloves for her, her turning on him, demanding the money? The rendezvous in the hotel, her sexual approach, Swede and his leaving, in the street, confronting her vehicle? His later seeing her, her reactions about the revolution, letting him know where Meredith was?

13. Dawn, giving up, her tirade against her husband and all that he stood for, that she should have married someone else? The artist, the exhibition, the barbecue and her behaviour with the artist, Swede’s reaction?

14. Finding Meredith, talking with her, trying to understand her, her philosophy, the sect and the mentality, her admitting the murders? Swede thinking she was wanting to do penance? His bringing the books to her?

15. Dawn, in the mental institution, wanting the facelift, Sheila supporting this? The change?

16. The background of Swede’s father, industrialist, pride, Jewish background, wanting to be at the office, Vicki’s support? His acceptance of Dawn, the domestic sequences, delight in his granddaughter? Blunt and direct in his observations, at the art gallery? Jerry, his relationship with Swede?

17. The news of Swede’s death, the funeral, Dawn and her grief? Meredith and her walking towards the coffin? The

18. The sad irony of the title?

ANDRON

UK, 2015, 100 minutes, Colour.
Leo Howard, Gale Harold, Michelle Ryan, Antonia Campbell- Hughes, Skin, Alex Martin, Alec Baldwin, Danny Glover.
Directed by Francesco Cinquemani.

Andron is set in the year 2154, a post-apocalyptic era when most of the human race has been destroyed. The survivors are now slaves to an oligarchy.

This film is very difficult to sit through, let alone to try to work out plot and character details. It has clearly been influenced by films like The Hunger Games, authoritarian tyranny, young victims, cruel games for survival.

The film opens with a number of young people awakening in a dark labyrinth, no memories. While the film does give some focus on the difference in characters, it is still difficult to work out who is exactly who. Basically, there is a group of 10, men and women, initially fearful and bewildered, then being given some memories, building up to clashes and fights amongst themselves. There are also some highly masked and disguised soldier figures who attack the group at various times leading to elaborate fight sequences.

The audience soon finds out that the person behind these games is an official played by Alec Baldwin, often smirking and the audience wondering why he is smirking… He has control of the games, screens which he can swipe, altering the rules of the game, providing some memories, enjoying the conflict. However, he is supervised by a further authority played severely by Danny Glover. (Of course, one wonders why these two stars are playing in this film.)

The action is fairly repetitious, the focus on particular individuals, their clashes, fights, deaths, banding together.

It emerges that the population is watching these games and making bets, surviving if they are choice for their wager wins.

Quite a lot of action, some special effects – and quite artificial for the general overview shown at times of the world which has survived.

No one, for instance, on the IMD blog had any good word for this film.

SINNERS

Ireland, 2002, 90 minutes, Colour.
Anne Marie Duff, Bronagh Gallagher, Ruth Bradley, John Kavanagh, Tina Kellegher, Ruth Mc Cabe, Alan Devlin.
Directed by Aisling Walsh.

Sinners was made for television and was released the same year as the higher profile The Magdalen Sisters written and directed by Peter Mullen. Both films have the same subject.

The setting is Dublin in the 1960s with the focus on the Magdalen homes for young women, especially unmarried pregnant women. These Magdalen homes were staffed by nuns, generally women who had been trained to be hard on their charges, supervising the laundries, supervising the dormitories and meals, reciting prayers as the girls do their laundry work. As might be expected, especially from films about this time and the criticism of clergy clerical abuse, there is a chaplain who has his eye on some of the girls, calling them to his room on the pretext of confession, and behaving reprehensibly. He is eventually moved – and a very young, inexperienced priest takes his place.

The focus is on the young woman played by Anne- Marie Duff, put into the home by her relatives, her hoping that a cousin would help her release but he betrays her. She is a thorn in the side of the authorities and punished accordingly. Bronagh Gallaher plays her good friend. She is pregnant, gives birth, has hopes of one of the guards marrying her and taking away but, when this fails, she kills herself.

Anne- Marie Duff escapes, knocks on the door of an older man who reported to the authorities yet later thinks twice about his experience in meeting her, ultimately offering to marry her and take her away.

While the screenplay is very critical of the Catholic Church and of the nuns, it is also critical of the Irish government the time – especially a sequence when the minister joins the sisters for morning tea and utters platitudes about their work and the good that it does.

Tina Kelegher is very effective as a nun who has more than a vicious streak.

The film was directed by Aisling Walsh who directed at the same time Song for a Raggy Boy, a 1939 set drama about boys and sexual abuse in orphanages.

1. A picture of Ireland in the 1960s? The Catholic Church? The Magdalen laundries? The power of the television film?

2. Dublin settings, the countryside? Dublin streets, the feel of the city? The 1960s songs? The fashion for the nurse going out? The musical score?

3. The interiors, dark, the many sequences in the laundry, the dining room, the dormitory accommodation, within the walls of the institution? The seclusion?

4. The nuns, the portrait of the nuns, in their habits, their severity, the hierarchy, acting as warders, supervising the laundry, the continued prayers and litanies with the girls replying as they washed? Raising the issue of the vocation of a nun, the God language, God’s holy will? The lack of compassion?

5. Anne-
Marie, her story, pregnancy, Eamon, her aunt, the reactions, the shame, for going to the institution? The nuns changing her name to Teresa? Sister Bernadette and her treatment of Anne- Marie? The other nuns? The treatment, being called a slut, being called evil? The humiliation of Anne- Marie? The lack of compassion? Her work in the laundry, reactions? The episode with Angela, the priest, telling the superior, Angela being taken away to the mental institution, the angry girls reaction, bullying Anne-Marie? Her friendship with Kitty, Kitty’s future and her hopes? The detail of life in the institution, the drudgery?

6. The priest, old, the ceremony of the candles and throats for St Blaise, his lascivious look at Angela, delaying, summoning her, the plausibility of her visit, the sexual exploitation, his blaming the girl? Theresa, hearing this, telling the superior, the reaction of the girls – and a new and inexperienced chaplain? The priest sent off to the missions – to preach to the heathens in Africa?

7. Kitty, cheeky, her friendship, the difficult birth, the pain but saying it was worth it, the care of the child, her hopes? The relationship with Patrick, his fears, living with his mother? The taking of the baby, Kitty’s disappointment, falling to her death, declaration that was an accident, her funeral, the girls commenting about suicide as a mortal sin?

8. The church and the government in the 1960s, pregnant women, unmarried, the institutions, the laundries? The visit of the political minister, the preparation for the visit, kowtowing to him, the meal?

9. Eamon, his relationship with Anne-Marie?, his visit, his promise, his being engaged, the rivalry with his fiancee? No hope for helping Anne- Marie?

10. Anne- Marie, getting stronger, her decision to rebel, refusing to work? The birth of her child? Her plan, changing the clothes, taking the baby, hiding within the convent, into the street, entering Frank’s house, the discussions with him, his calling the police, their taking her away, the return?

11. Frank, his age, his dead wife, his house, the encounter with Anne-Marie?, his wanting to do the right thing, the Garda? His decision to visit, the moments of compassion? Going to see Eamon, pleading with him, Eamon punching him? His return, the offer of marriage, Anne-Marie? thinking it over, no sex, no pregnancy? Companion rather than housekeeper? Her acceptance?

12. Eamon coming, with Frank, the men having to sign the papers for Anne-Marie’s? freedom? The possibilities for hope for Anne-Marie? and Frank?

13. The film as an indictment of the church, the exercise of power, cruelty, attitudes towards sexuality, the lack of compassion? And the consequent history of the Irish church?

A FEW LESS MEN

Australia, 2017, 92 minutes, Colour.
Xavier Samuel, Kris Marshall, Kevin Bishop, Ryan Corr, Sasha Horler, Deborah Mailman, Shane Jacobson, Lynette Curran, Jeremy Sims.
Directed by Mark Lamprell.

Words and phrases go through the mind, like fools, dills, dopes, some four-letter variations – but, the word chosen to describe the central characters of this film: idiotic.

Not that the writer, Dean Craig, whose principal credits include the American and the British versions of Death at a Funeral as well as this film’s predecessor, A Few Best Men, didn’t write them as idiotic intentionally and created a multitude of idiotic situations for them to display their idiocy. If an audience is in the vein, they may feel that this is the way to go for a laugh. If they are not in the vein, and the initial sequence, in animation form during the credits and then in actuality, with a fourth member of a bridal party of groom and best men falls over a cliff, grabbing the bottle of wine, saved from a number of death dangers and surviving – until crushed by a falling rock! And his body being laid out, complete with an erection which his three friends do their utmost to get rid of… If that does not get some laughs, and with some audiences it definitely won’t, then this film might be a lost cause.

Which in some ways is a pity because there are quite a number of key Australian performers in cameo roles who give their lines more than they probably deserve, including Jeremy Sims as an ill-fated pilot, Sasha Horler as an games park guide, Deborah Mailman with a few moments as a local policewoman, Shane Jacobson as a lonely outback man whose inspiration for hospitality comes from Norman, his mother and the Bates Motel, Lynette Curran perhaps trying to re-live her randy role forty + years earlier in Alvin Purple…

But the focus of attention is on the groom, Xavier Samuel who has to be the common sensed anchor in the group even when he loses his cool (and, with his two friends, he has every reason to). It is the two British actors who appeared in the earlier film, Kris Marshall and Kevin Bishop, who have to represent all that is really stupid in human nature – as embodied in British men in their 30s. At one stage, the groom refers to Kris Marshall’s Tom as a horny 15-year-old, which is something of a compliment. But, the most stupid is Kevin Bishop’s Graham, absolutely obtuse, absolutely unself-aware, putting his foot in his mouth all the time, actually inciting an audience to wish that he would be bumped off the screen (and the audience being willing to facilitate if only they could). Early in the piece, sitting in the cockpit of the plane, he touches an emergency button after being told not to and causes the plane crash…

The point of the plot is that they have to get their deceased friend back to London for his funeral, threatened by his cousin, London gangster (Ryan Corr blustering and shouting) – and their travels through Western Australia, carrying the coffin, through the desert, to a wild festival, to a roadside diner, to a country house, to Perth and to a mortuary. It might be a spoiler to say that they actually do get there despite all the odds but there is final mayhem, at the eulogy for the dead man.

And, just in case the audience did not get the point, there is over three minutes’ recapitulation and series of outtakes after the final credits!

FIFTY SHADES DARKER

US, 2017, 118 minutes, Colour.
Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Eric Johnson, Bella Heathcote, Rita Ora, Luke Grimes, Victor Rasuk, Bruce Altman, Kim Basinger, Marcia Gay Harden.
Directed by James Foley.

In 2016, for St Valentine’s Day, the world was bequeathed the first film version of an E. L. James novel, Fifty Shades of Grey. Two words were important for that release: curiosity and notoriety. While the story was billed as a love story, it had overtones of sadomasochism which excited a certain prurience. Dakota Johnson portrayed Anastasia steel and Jamie Dornan the millionaire Christian Gray. Marcia Gay Harden appeared as Christian’s mother.

In comparison, the sequel is rather quieter on all fronts.

At the end of the first film, Anastasia was alienated by Christian and his dominance and her experience of submission (seen in an extraordinarily detailed and obsessive contract), her walking out on him, he and his pleading with the possibility of his becoming more humane and loving. At the beginning of this film, she is still feeling alienated though he is sending huge bouquets of flowers to encourage her in her new job at a publishing firm in Seattle.

It is not long before they do meet, the audience realising as she does that she is still attracted to Christian, even in love with him. Despite his stern manner and stubbled look, he declares his love for her.

In fact, it is really all the film is about, the different encounters between Anastasia and Christian, the lovemaking, the suggestions of the sadomasochism (which do increase, rather more slightly than expected, throughout the film, especially with his SM mechanisms and his special room and equipment). The two spend a lot of time together, they go to a very lavish masked ball and charity auction, he flies his private plane and crashes, though the suspense is short lived and he returns rather more quickly than expected as his family are in the middle of watching television reports, he has a birthday, a party and a proposal.

One of the main features of the film is its affluence, money is no object or difficulty for the Grey family, Christian has everything he wants and can afford everything he wants – it may be a real world for those who live it but it is a fantasy land for most of the audience.

One of the main difficulties for Christian is his character, the background of his mother’s death, his sadomasochism, and Elena explaining that without her he would either be dead or in jail.

There are two main sources of tension apart from the growing relationship between the two. First of all there is Elena who had initiated the young Christian into sexuality, remains a friend of his mother, but is still infatuated with him and sees Anastasia as a threat. She threatens in return, leading to an ultimate confrontation and a clear indication of who is going to be one of the villains in the forthcoming Fifty Shades Freed (Valentine’s Day 2018). She is played by Kim Basinger.

The other source of tension is Anastasia’s work, which she enjoys, is good at, is promoted – especially after a groping attack from her boss, Jack (Eric Johnson). And, of course, it is signalled at the end that he will be around for the sequel, not smiling but scowling.

Anastasia has family and friends, Christian has family, so there is a touch more humanity in this one than there was in the first film. Nevertheless, this is the world of the bestseller, of bestseller affluence and bestseller sexuality with the touches of darkness.

1. The notoriety of the original novel? This sequel? Adaptations for cinema? Popularity?

2. The setting in Seattle, the business world, the world of the affluent? Book publishing and offices? Christian Grey, his companies, executive meetings? The world of his parents? Socials and parties, auctions? Affluence, fashion, apartments, executive planes…?

3. The musical score, the theme songs – and the songs throughout the action with the lyrics commenting on the characters and behaviour?

4. Audiences, knowledge of Christian and Anastasia, their initial relationship, her submissiveness, his dominance, sadomasochism, his contract, Anastasia and her response, walking out on him? The possibility for Christian to change?

5. The opening, Anastasia and her alienation from Christian, his sending the flowers, her new job, her skill at her work, her wanting to work, her relationship with Jack and his trusting her, the other members of the staff? Christian and his gift of flowers?

6. The social, the portrait exhibition, Anastasia’s photos – and Christian buying them all? Christian’s presence, the discussion, his saying he was willing to change? Anastasia and her hesitation? Yet her attraction to him, his attraction to her? The background of his sadomasochism?

7. The film as a love story, Anastasia and her work, the clash with Jack and his being fired? Her being promoted, her interventions at meetings, her ability with publications? Christian, the familiarity of his life and work? Gradually revealing his life to Anastasia – and the significance of the initial prologue and its brutality, the death of his mother, her being an addict, his being cared for by Grace, Grace as his real mother?

8. The significance of Elena, her introducing him to sex, her continued infatuation with him – and her encounters with Anastasia, explaining that without her Christian would be dead or in jail? Her re-appearances, her warning Anastasia off Christian, at the engagement announcement, her intervention, Anastasia’s attack on her, Grace and her friendship, ousting her from the house?

9. The portrait of the younger people, Christians siblings, Anastacia is, the young friends?

10. The genuineness of the love between the two, Christian and the touches of sadomasochism, the particular examples, machinery, Anastasia submitting? Finding his room, masks and devices?

11. Christian and his invitation for Anastasia to move in, the masked party and then leaving for the sexual encounter, his flight, the crash, the anxiety of the family watching the television, his return, his birthday, the party, his announcement, in the greenery and on his knees with the ring proposing?

12. Christian and his manner, control, always issuing commands rather than requests? The issue of Anastasia going to New York and his forbidding her, her reaction, his wanting to be with her?

13. The romantic touches, in many ways the plot being more conventional than the first film – and, as in the final credits, the anticipation of the wedding, but also the introduction of Elena’s hostility and Jack and his obviously wanting revenge?

DAVID STRATTON: A CINEMATIC LIFE

Australia, 2017, 105 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Sally Aitken.

What a pleasure!

David Stratton, who came from England in his 20s during the 1960s, made his home in Australia but also made his career home in Australia in cinema. As director of the Sydney Film Festival for almost 2 decades, he would have made his mark with this alone. However, diligent from his childhood in keeping files on all the films he watched, including an early viewing of The Overlanders, writing reviews, he moved into the world of reviewing especially for the American magazine, Variety. He also programmed world cinema screenings for SBS television.

However, this would not have made him a household name. But, his popular collaboration with Margaret Pomeranz on The Movie Show for almost 30 years, first on SBS, then an ABC television, meant that he was an immediately recognisable personality and, a tribute to their success in the programming and their on-screen collaboration as well as sparring, they became an Australian pair who did not need their surnames to be mentioned, they were just David and Margaret.
,
This is a very carefully made film, an opportunity to see something of David Stratton’s biography, his family in England, his father’s war service, his father’s non-comprehension of David’s interest in cinema, a good deal of commentary from David’s brother, David deciding to go to Australia and deciding to stay. There are some photos of David during his Sydney Film Festival era, a bit of a shock for those who did not know him at that stage with his long hair, long beard, moccasins, a far cry from the seemingly fastidious silver haired and bearded gentlemen of later decades (though Margaret has quite a number of shots during this film about how poor she thinks his style and grooming are!).

During this film, David travels in the outback, to a range of Australian locations, admiring and delighting in the beauty of the Australian environment. And illustrating how well the films have capitalised on these environments.

But David Stratton, although he reviewed films from all around the world, has a great admiration for Australian cinema, reminding us that in the 60s there was almost nothing, but there was a breakthrough with such films as Wake in Fright (with extensive clips here), a film he still has on a pedestal.

What he does in this film is to incorporate clips from a great number of Australian films, those he admires, like Muriel’s Wedding, and even those he does not admire, like Brian Trenchard Smith’s Turkey Shoot which he condemns for its ultraviolence (although the film offers Trenchard Smith an opportunity for rebuttal) and Geoffrey Wright’s Romper Stomper, again with interviews with Wright still maintaining his antipathy towards David and the episode of his throwing a glass of white wine over him – and that he would do it again but it would be red!

One of the advantages of having all these clips as well as the continued interviews to camera by David Stratton is that the editor can come and do all kinds of inserts and cuts, sometimes characters in one film answering the dialogue of a character in another – and sometimes, the film character responding to some comments by David Stratton himself. It is an engaging device and treated lightly as the clips moved briskly from one to another.

For those who have lived with the industry since the 1980s, this is a wonderful opportunity to reminisce, to be nostalgic, to be amazed, to admire – for instance the memories of Picnic at Hanging Rock. This means that an Australian audience has much to be proud of, the films, the style, the directors, the actors, a great number of whom are interviewed for this film. It should mean for non-Australian audiences a wonderful introduction to Australian cinema.

Each member of the audience will bring their own experiences – this reviewer (a month older than David Stratton) who has been reviewing since 1968 and has lived through the development, and has met David and Margaret over the last decades, found the experience of watching the film exhilarating, affirming, delightful, and the continued desire to share this appreciation of Australian cinema and be thankful for David Stratton’s contribution.