CASTING JONBENET

Australia/US, 2017, 80 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kitty Green.

This is a very interesting documentary, a different kind of docudrama and interpretation of events in the 1990s. As the title suggests, the focus is on casting of actors for a film about the death of Jon Benet Ramsey, a procedure used by Louis Theroux in his documentary about Scientology, My Scientology Movie.

The intention of the film is not to solve the mystery of the little girl’s death, nor to point the finger at a particular person. This is strictly limited. It is an exploration rather than a solution, an interpretation by the processes of casting, the response of the actors auditioning, and their interpretations. The potential actors chosen are all from Colorado, the state in which the murder took place, and all are familiar with the history. The auditions to place over a period of 15 months.

The impact of the film does not necessarily depend on knowledge of the details of the crime. By the end of the film, the audience will feel very well-informed, perhaps over-informed. There is the portrait of the Ramsey family, the background of the little girl Jon Benet, years old at the time of the, who had been promoted in shows, the reality of sexualisation of little children, the mystery of her death, her role as daughter and the portrait of her parents, of her brother, other people involved, of the police and their inconclusive investigations. The murder is still a mystery.

The crime happened in the 1990s, 20 years having passed between the crime and the making of this film. The information from the police investigations is available, the inadequacy of some of their investigations is also available, the mistakes they have made and the interrogation of all the people involved to those accused.

While the emphasis is on Jon Benet’s parents, their is also the picture of the sexual predator who confessed to the killing and spent time in prison, rather eerie experience for the film.

Also brought forward is an abduction scenario which seems to have some ludicrous aspects including a precise amount specified for the ransom payment, the delay in the note being found – and that in fact the note is a rather long letter about the situation.

Holding auditions for actors to portray the characters in the case, offers an opportunity for retrospective consideration, an analysis of the characters, dramatising them as well as putting forward theories about them.

The device of the casting is introduced early in the film with a group of little girls coming in to take their chairs, eager to take the role of Jon Benet. This already highlights, with the little girls, their suggestive costumes, their behaviour, the giggling, what eagerness about the media will do to children. They chatter and give the image to the audience of Jon Benet.

There is quite a range of actors auditioning for the roles of each of the parents. Those auditioning for the role of the mother tend to appear with same clothes that were seen in her at the time of the crime and on the media. A lot of women are auditioning, trying to put themselves in the place of the mother but also offering a great deal of speculation. The same is true of the actors auditioning for the father. A great variety of opinions.

Those auditioning for the role of the police are even more interesting times, at the different looks, the different characters, their occupations, the motives for coming to the auditions, the interpretation of dialogue presented to them, the revelation about their own work – especially the man who claims that he is a sex advisor and has to take a call from a client during the audition and who has quite a deal to say about some deviant sexual behaviour.

So that means that director Kitty Green, and her setting up this scenario, brings to the audience the central characters but also their complexities, more and more being revealed about them as the goes on, seemingly upright then something suspicious being raised, especially about the father. There are many possibilities as to what happened.

The case remains unsolved and audiences, pondering all the facets of characters and the possibilities of action will still be wondering what really happened.

THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE

Finland, 2017, 98 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Aki Kaurismaki.

The Other Side of Hope is a humane film looking at the refugee situation in Europe during the years of the civil war in Syria. There were national crises in various countries of Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, with borders being blocked. On the other hand, refugees were welcomed in Germany as well as the more northern countries, especially in Scandinavia.

It is been directed by one of Finland’s pre-eminent directors, Aki Kaurismaki, who has had to long career, sometimes with comedies and music, sometimes with filmss about relationships, and often with a social conscience.

It is clear where the director’s stance on refugees is as we look at the title.

The opens dramatically at a wharf in Helsinki, the camera focusing on a cargo of coal and a man emerging from the coal, covered in soft, but making is way out of the ship, walking the streets, finding a place to shower, and then handing himself into the police asking for asylum status. In fact, the police seem sympathetic and help him with his situation. Soon there are sequences where he is being examined by immigration officials and we hear his story, a mechanic in Damascus, returning home to find his house flattened and his parents dead, getting help from his boss, the father of his dead fiancé, to pay people smugglers to get himself and his sister out of Syria, into Turkey and across to Greece.

At the closed border of Hungary, he is separated from his sister and has spent a great deal of time and effort travelling around the Balkans and into Eastern Europe to find her. He is helped onto a ship and finds himself in Finland.

The central character, Khalid, is a very sympathetic young man and the audience is on his side hoping that he will be given refugee status – but one of the hard aspects of the film is hearing the presiding official in the court declaring, despite the audience seeing the bombings and terrible suffering in Damascus on the television, that it is safe for him to return to Syria. He effects an escape and disappears.

The film has also introduced us to a businessman, a salesman packing and leaving his wife who is alcoholic. He sells his stock of shirts and decides to buy a restaurant, and in the under-the-counter kind of deal, the previous owner takes the money and literally runs to the airport, not paying his staff. But, since the central characters of this film are quite genial, a situation arises where the owner takes out the rubbish and finds Khalid huddling in the street. It is not hard to guess where this is going to lead, with Khalid getting a job in the restaurant, getting a forged passport rather easily, dealing with the eccentric members of the staff who provide touches of comedy in their performances. There is also some comedy as the restaurant owner tries out different ways of generating business including turning the restaurant into a sushi centre with Japanese tourists and then a curry centre…

With the story being gentle on the whole, it should mean that there is a sympathetic audience, ready to appreciate the refugee situation. And this is added to by the picture of various groups of neo-Nazis, bashings and the ugly face of bigotry.

This is a film of its time touching on the sensibilities and sensitivities, especially of Europeans, but of all people facing the mass migrations of the early 21st century and those intent on closing borders.

1. The impact of the film? The topical subject, Europe in 2015 and 2016, the crowds of refugees, the welcomes, the caution, the closing of borders? Refugees from the civil war in Syria, from Iraq? The Finland response?

2. The director, his interest in the situation, the sympathy with the refugees, his sympathy with kindly to, his dislike of the neo-Nazi types? The situations, sardonic? The characters partly oddball with the deadpan humour? The picture of the authorities?

3. The musical score, the range of songs, the range of performers, inserted throughout the film?

4. The opening, the view of Helsinki, Finland, the European city look, the walls, Khalid emerging from the coal, covered in sort, out in the street, the music, giving the coin, information about the shower, to being transformed, going to the police, requesting asylum?

5. The police, politeness, their routines, interviews? The official, listening to the story, the translator’s presence? A Syrian story, his being a mechanic, in Aleppo, the business and home being bombed, the death of all his family except his sister, with her, his boss and the money granted, the father of his dead fiancee? To Turkey, $3000 for the smuggler, in Greece, moving up the Balkans, passing through borders, brother and sister being separated, his wandering, the search, the borders closed in Hungary, going to Serbia, Germany, Poland, the police in Danzig, stowing away, help on board, his emerging, the application, the officials, handcuffs, in the room at the centre, talking to his friend, hoping for phone calls from his sister, the helper, the hearing, the statement that Aleppo was safe – and the television news showing the opposite? Khalid as quiet, ready, the assistant at the centre opening the door, his smashing the window, getting out, living in the street near the garbage? What hopes?

6. Wickstrom, his age, getting dressed, his wife and her drinking, leaving the key in the ring, his shirts, his case, going to the motel, selling the shirts, a friendly salesman, trying to sell all his goods, the woman wanting an exciting life in Mexico and she him down, interest in the restaurant, the agent, the payment in cash, the agent taking his fee instantly, the deal, the old owner going straight to the airport with the cash, not paying his staff?

7. The staff, the oddball characters, the deadpan humour, the woman and her being an intern, learning, the man at the door, his appearance, his remarks, the chef with a cigarette in his mouth all the time? Their going to see the boss, his giving the money? The customers, the meals, sardines, meatballs, customers coming for the beers?

8. The inspection, the legislation, the rubbish, hiding the dog? Surviving?

9. Khalid and the encounter with Wickstrom, the fight, his inviting him in the meal, the staff, their kindness, his being hired, having to hide with the dog when the inspectors came? He is living in the storage room? The various attempts at new ideas, sushi, the Japanese look, the customers?

10. The young contact for forging the documents, the cost, Wickstrom paying, and the police accepting it in the street?

11. News of his sister, the truck driver, going to Lithuania, bringing his sister back, the inspection of the interior of the truck, her strong mindedness, the happy reunion, her wanting to go to the police to seek asylum?

12. The background of neo-Nazis, listening to the music, demonstrations, the physical attacks, the old and disabled people knocking the neo-Nazis and frightening them away? The man returning, stabbing Khalid? Khalid going to his sister, her going to the police, his sitting under the tree?

13. Wickstrom, going to the kiosk, finding his wife, and her not drinking, driving her home?

14. The title and the theme of hope – especially with the kindness of strangers?

VICEROY’S HOUSE

UK/India, 2017, 106 minutes, Colour.
Hugh Bonneville, Gillian Anderson, Michael Gambon, Manish Dayal, Huma Quereshi, David Heyman, Om Puri, Simon Callow.
Directed by Gurinda Chanda.

Where is the Viceroy’s House? It is in Delhi, and it is 1947, the year for Britain’s solving its role in India’s move for independence, which led to Partition into India and Pakistan, Hindu and Muslim.

For those interested in British history, especially in India, this is a film which recreates the atmosphere and dramatises the personalities and events of the time. The viceroy is Lord Mountbatten, who had achieved significantly during World War II in Burma. He is accompanied by his wife, Lady Edwina Mountbatten.

The task that Mountbatten was given by the British Parliament was to move India towards the independence that it hoped for and which had been fostered by Mahatma Gandhi. This independence was not to be an easy task because of Hindu traditions, of the Muslim traditions, the cultural and religious clashes, in 1947 turning into local massacres, uprisings and a general sense of unease. Hindus were led by Nehru and the Muslims by Jinna. It was very difficult times to arrange meetings between leaders.

As a way of bringing the audience into the thinking of the issues, there is a kind of Romeo and Juliet story underlying the political activity. Jeet (Manish Daval) is a Hindu who has worked in prisons but is now promoted as a personal servant to the Viceroy. Also promoted in the Viceroy’s House is a young Muslim woman, Aalia (Huma Quereshi). Jeet is in love with her since he looked after her father in prison. She has been promised to someone else and it would seem that their love has no future.

Hugh Bonneville portrays Mountbatten, an excellent choice, bringing dignity and status as well as some compassion to the role trying with his wife (Gillian Anderson) to move amongst the people, meeting with the govetexttextrnors, the political leaders, facing the reality of a low Partition for many, including Gandhi, are against it.

An expert, who had actually never visited in, is called in to determine the borders between India and Pakistan, as well as establishing East Pakistan, later Bangladesh. He is played by Simon Callow. One of the main advisors to the Viceroy Is General Ismay (Michael Gambon), who eventually reveals to the border expert that there had been a long plan for Partition, sponsored by Winston Churchill, no longer Prime Minister, a plan that had not been shown to Mountbatten who had reported well to the Parliament which decreed that the solution was to be named after him.

In the meantime, the romance between the two young people does blossoms, the girl’s father (Om Puri) appreciates Jeet. At the same time, as the riots and massacres break out, the intense differences are manifest amongst the clashing servants who eventually, when Partition is to have to make a decision whether they want to stay in Pakistan or in India. This leads to an enormous migration throughout the subcontinent.

Audiences interested in British politics in 1947 should see a United Kingdom, the story of the King of Bechuanaland and and his marrying an English woman and the consequent racial difficulties and decisions of the British Parliament under Atlee under Churchill to preserve links with South Africa where apartheid was officially emerging. During the final credits, there is a note that the director’s grandmother was caught up in the searches at the time of Partition so that there is great personal investment in the film as a memoir.

Beautifully photographed, an excellent re-creation of the period, a very watchable political and social film.


1. Subcontinent history? The traditions, the peoples, religion and culture? 300 years of British rule, empire? The challenge of the Partition?

2. The period, 1947, costumes and decor, European and Indian? The city of Delhi, the buildings, government, the viceroy’s house, lavish? Dining rooms, meeting rooms, kitchen? The place of the servants?

3. The cities and the uprisings, the massacres, the hatred? The movement for independence? British withdrawal?

4. The director, the end information about her grandmother during Partition, the photos? Audience empathy?

5. The underlying Romeo and Juliet story? Jeet, from the Punjab, Hindu, eager, educated, serving, his friend, promotion, attendant to the Viceroy, in a position to hear the discussions? His seeing Aalia , his work in the prison, care for her father, bringing letters, food, the Dickens books? Preserving his dignity? His love for Aalia, the years, has being consumed by it?

6. Aalia, Muslim, in service in Delhi, attendant to Lady Pamela, the British supervisors of the women staff? The tasks? Meeting Jeet, rejecting his offer, having been promised to Asif, her father and mother’s will, her care for her father, visiting him? His being blind? His jovial personality despite his imprisonment and suffering? Delight in his daughter? His friendship with Jeet?

7. The Indian setting, the masses of people, the role of Gandhi, his campaign, ideas, interventions, not in favour of Partition? Jinna, Nehru, Nehru’s years in prison? The Hindu and Muslim authorities?

8. The upstairs downstairs situation in the viceroy’s house, the many servants, their being present, hearing, religious clashes, cultural clashes – a microcosm of India?

9. The history of the viceroys, the role of British Empire, military, commerce? Treatment of Indians, considering them primitive? The history, unrest, the viceroys of the 20th century? The sending of Mountbatten, his reputation, career in Burma, the suggestion that he was being used by Churchill, by the British government? Edwina, her background, charity work, concerned? Pamela, young, open to India and the changes?

10. Their arrival, the pomp, the red carpet, the great range of servants, in the hall, the family settling in, Mountbatten and his wanting two minutes for dressing, having 13! Edwina, her interest, going to the kitchen, talking with the servants, praising the chef, Indian food and European food, the response of the chefs and their having learned European cooking? The guests from India as well as Europeans? Pamela with the children? The Mountbattens’ friendly approach, wanting to end the British Empire, people’s response to them?

11. The role of the local governors, their visiting, frank discussions, reports of uprisings? Ismay, his presence, his advice, his influence? David Heymann and his role, the servant spitting on him?

12. The plan, deadlines, the need for quick action, continued reports of riots and massacres? The use of Movietone News, newspaper front pages and headlines? The decision about Partition, the meetings with Jinna and Nehru, Gandhi, the need for some kind of compromise?

13. Mountbatten going to London, the Cabinet approval, his return, the plan being called the Mountbatten plan?

14. The date for Partition, for the celebration? The delay in announcing the borders? The invitation to Sir Cyril, his commission to define the borders, his never having been in India, his dismay, the discussion with Ismay, the revelation of the 1945 plan, Churchill and his role? Mountbatten not being told? A fait accompli? Edwina listening to Sir Cyril’s explanation? A sense of Fate?

15. Pamela, her help, the news of the Princess’s wedding to Philip Mountbatten, the news of the massacre, her father being curt to Pamela – and her later using this advice for him to stand firm? In public?

16. The symbol of dividing everything in the kitchen, the material for Pakistan, the material for India?

17. The servants themselves, discussions, outbreaks of violence, hostility and hatred?

18. People lining up with the authorities and the choice of their destination?

19. The further details of the romance between Jeet and Aalia, the arrival of Asif, his working for Jinna? Jeet and his plea to Aalia, going to farewell them, the father asking about his girl,
then realising it was his daughter, father feeling his daughter’s tears? Hurry to the train? Asif driving?

20. The official announcement, Jinna, and his knowing about the previous plan? Nehru? Gandhi and his absence?

21. The announcement, the papers and the newsreels? The hostilities? The visuals of the million migrants? Poverty, lack of food, water, shelter?

22. Jeet, his anger with Mountbatten and his outburst against him? The news of the train crash? The Hindu woman, finding Aalia, caring for her, Aalia getting the microphone, calling out to Jeet, the emotion in the reunion? Love, possibilities of uniting, hope for the future?

23. India subsequent history, the history of Pakistan? Of Bangladesh? Tolerance and intolerance, culture, religion?

I'LL NAME THE MURDERER

US, 1936, 66 minutes, Black and white.
Ralph Forbes, Marion Shilling, Malcolm Mc Gregor, James Guilfoyle, John Cowell, William Bailey, Agnes Anderson, Charlotte Barr- Smith, Claire Rochelle, Harry Semels.
Directed by Raymond K. Johnson.

This is a slight but quite entertaining murder mystery, the main setting being a restaurant and dressing rooms.

While the police do come into it and there are interrogations, the main investigator is a gossip columnist, a man about town, played by Ralph Forbes with self-confident charm. There are close-ups of his gossip column day by day and his promising to reveal the murderer.

There are various suspects for the killing. There is Luigi who runs the restaurant, clashing with his waiter whom he will charge for any extra expenses that the journalist incurs, but who also has financial difficulties. There is also a dancer – and the film not only has a dancing sequence but also an African- American tap dancing. There is also a rich man with a flirtatious daughter. And, there is the girlfriend of the journalist – as well as a singer, who also performs, but clashes with her former boyfriend, now courting the rich man’s daughter, and who goes to her dressing room, demands jewels back from her and threatens her with a knife. At this stage the lights go out, the woman is found dead the man threatening her denying that he had anything to do with her death.

The twist in the film is that the journalist goes to private detective, a somewhat comic figure, always trying to get in on an act, claiming more than he achieves – along with a rather starchy secretary.

The even bigger twist is that the murderer is the private detective who had stolen the jewels and hidden them in his safe, finally attacking the journalist and revealed as the killer.

An easy way of passing an hour or more. And observing how films were made, small budget films in the 1930s.


I'LL NAME THE MURDERER

US, 1936, 66 minutes, Black and white.
Ralph Forbes, Marion Shilling, Malcolm Mc Gregor, James Guilfoyle, John Cowell, Charlotte Barr- Smith, Claire Rochelle.
Directed by Raymond K.Johnson.


This is one of those popular murder mysteries of the mid 1930s. Despite the brief running time, there is a dance routine as well as a cabaret song.

There are plenty of suspects for the murder – someone fighting with the victim and a knife, the lights going out, and a dead body who could have been the target of quite a number of people.

The main action takes place in a restaurant being opened, Luigi is the manager on the brink of bankruptcy, hiring and firing at whim, welcoming gossip columnist, Tommy Tilton (Ralph Forbes). He becomes a suspect because of his relationship with the victim, working with her in Chicago, possible blackmail…

The victim is the singer but she has been entangled with a society man wants to get back letters he wrote her and jewelry. It is he who has the struggle with the victim. Also on the scene are the dancing pair, with the victim wanting to be a dancer, and there being some jealousy. Also in the mix is the fiance of the society man as well as her father who is revealed as having given gifts of jewelry to the victim. A down and out private eye also offers his assistance in solving the case – but it is left to Tommy Tilton and his friendship with photographer, Smitty, to work out what happened and whodunit.

In fact, most of the suspects seem more likely than the character who actually did the murder, the private detective!

A slight curiosity item.

THE DAWN EXPRESS

US, 1942 62 minutes, black and white.
Michael Whalen, Anne Nagel, William Bakewell, Constance Worth, Hans Heinrich von Towardowski.
Directed by Albert Herman.

The main reason for seeing The Dawn Express is for historical purposes. More specifically, it is of interest as to how small-budget American films, with brief running times, tackled the issue of espionage in the United States in the immediate aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbour.

The film focuses on a fifth column of Germans in an American city, fairly obvious in their look and manner, in their gathering at a particular restaurant, with the police having an eye on them.

At the core of the film is the preparation of a formula which will enhance gasoline and cause greater explosions, something which the German powers want. It is being developed in two separate facilities.

Two friends who work at one facility are targeted by the spies after they have abducted a number of workers, interrogated them and killed them. One is a happy-go-lucky type and a blonde spy infiltrates his attention to someone to his being interrogated by the Germans, his mother and sister with whom he lives, are threatened and he decides to give information to the Germans. He is very anxious, something which concerns his sister who is engaged to his friend. The main thrust of the film is that the friend contacts the blonde spy, is interrogated by the German authorities, makes all kinds of promises to give them information.

The complication is that in talking with the authorities, bodyguards are assigned and one of them is murdered, a sinister character, blind with a begging bowl gives espionage information from outside the restaurant.

There is a climax where the hero is knocked out, his friend offers to give the information to the Germans, they escaped to the airport where they meet the Dawn Express with a German scientist so that they can test the formula. They take off in the plane, and it is clear that the man is going to ignite the formula and blow himself, the Germans and the plane to pieces – which happens.

The acting is fairly stodgy but the head of the Germans had the real-life name of Hans Heinrich von Towardowski and appeared in quite a number of films from 1942 to 1945, often uncredited, but playing sinister Germans.

An American contribution to the war effort.

THE GREAT WALL

US/China, 2017, 103 minutes, Colour.
Matt Damon, Jing Tian, Willem Dafoe, Andy Lau, Pedro Pascal.
Directed by Zhang Yimou.

With The Great Wall as a title, many, including the present reviewer, were looking forward to a good slice of Chinese history. And with Zhang Yimou as the director, and remembering his films of the late 1980s into the 1990s, really bringing Chinese history and culture alive (Raise the Red to Lantern, The Story of Qui Ju), and then his modest stories of Chinese life (Not One Less, The Road Home), but also remembering his move to martial arts, The House of the Flying Daggers, and his work for the Beijing Olympics, hopes were high for The Great Wall.

A great disappointment.

The film opens with a comment about the building of the Great Wall of China and the many centuries it took to complete. It then mentions the history of the wall – and refers to legends. This film opts for legends.

While it is an American- Chinese co-production, and the director is Chinese, the screenplay was written by Americans and quite a number of the producers are also American. Nevertheless, it was highly successful at the Chinese box office. (The dialogue is matinee-basic.)

In fact, this is not Chinese history but a monster movie. Or, to be accurate, a monsters movie, thousands of them. A lot of technical know-how went into the action sequences, quite spectacular in their way, the effort to enhance this film is in the area of special effects, especially for the horrible monsters, huge, metallic, seemingly armour-plated, gaping mouths, fierce teeth, a propensity for blood and gore and death.

These monsters are alleged to appear every 60 years, attacking the humans, to test the humanity of their motivations. When the monsters appear, humanity is almost forgotten.

This is the time of the Dark Ages in the West, with two foreigners arriving to try to find black powder, gunpowder, and take it back to the west. They have been involved in many wars, mercenaries. They are played by Matt Damon (William) and Pedro Pascal (Tovar). Also in the cast is Willem Dafoe, eager to get the black powder, steal it and transport it to the west. No surprise that he does not survive – death by gunpowder.

When William and Tavor are captured, and about to be executed, the monsters attack and they are free to help in the fight. While the film runs for about 100 minutes, the first 30 minutes are very much occupied with the attack of the monsters and a fierce battle; and in the second 30 minutes the monsters attack again; and in the last 30 minutes, the monsters have borrowed through the Great Wall and have reached the capital where they are mounting an enormous attack (actually the monsters look more like millions rather than thousands this time).

The general of the Chinese is killed in action and bequeaths the leadership to a young woman, Lin (Jing Tian). Needless to say, there is initial rivalry and standoffishness between William and the new general, he showing his skills with arrows, she urging him to trust and to dive from the parapets. Not at first – but, it is inevitable that he will, going down into the midst of the monsters to slay them.

At the end, there are hot air balloons to take William and Lin to the capital, to use the gunpowder against the monsters but, particularly, the Queen so that if she dies, all the rest stop their aggression

So, if you are expecting history, don’t. If you like monster movies (this is something of a higher class monster movie), then this may be one of your favourites.

1. The title, expectations? The wall as an icon? Emblem of China?

2. The prologue, the comment on history, the building of the wall, so many centuries? Opting for legend?

3. A film of action and special effects? The musical score?

4. The setting, the European Dark Ages? China, the Empire, that the regions, the military in command, the desert and mountains, the fortress? The capital, exteriors and interiors?

5. The plot, the film is a monsters movie, thousands of monsters? Higher class horror thriller?

6. The work of the director, his previous films, insights into China? His modest films? His move to martial arts? The Beijing Olympics? The American writers, the dialogue and its matinee style?

7. William and Tovar, from the west, the historical period, in search of gunpowder? William born into an army, fighting for food, for money, no courses? The importance of the black powder? The visit, hope for the return?

8. The chase, the capture, the men and their appearance, on the battlements, ready to die, they’re being freed, to fight against the monsters, heroics?

9. Ballard, his presence in China, 25 years? Talk, plotting, persuading Tovar, the plan, seeking the opportunity, to take the black powder, setting up the explosion at the door, packing the powder? William and his decision not to go? They’re trusting him, the witness able to give testimony about his stance? Their escape, pursued by the tribes, Tovar going up the hill, Ballard stealing everything? His been captured, tied up, the explosion of the powder? Tovar, the pursuit, his being caught?

10. The monsters, their story, appearing every 60 years, testing the humans and their motivations? The wall protecting China?

11. The Army, the weaponry, warriors, men and women, the displays, diving? The attack, the deaths, massacres?

12. The strategists, the general, the military leaders, deaths? Lin, her story, born to the Army, becoming the leader, her skills?

13. The further battle against the monsters, their appearance, size, weight, malice and teeth? Vicious? And they’re being controlled by the Queen? A victory over the monsters?

14. William, coming for the meal, taunted, his arrow skills? Lin, wanting him to dive, the issue of trust? His later exhibiting trust?

15. William and his decision to stay, the discussions? A second attack, trust, his dive, the fight against the monsters, Tovar saving him, the use of the gunpowder?

16. The monsters, exploring, burrowing through the wall, making their way to the capital?

17. The hot air balloons, fires, some crashing, some succeeding? William, vindicated, is going on the balloon? The encounter with Lin, the rescues?

18. The travel, the monster in the cage, controlled by the magnet? Presented to the Emperor, his fascination, his fear?

19. The thousands of monsters, in the square outside the palace, the magnet control? The Queen, her being fed? The pursuit through the tunnel, the heroics, the young witness sacrificing
himself? Climbing the tower, firing the arrows, the strategist and his death? William and Lin, the destruction of the Queen? The monsters quiet?

20. William, love for Lin, his staying and his future?

HAVE A NICE DAY

China, 2017, 77 minutes, Colour.
Directed Jian Liu.

Have a Nice Day is an animation film from China. The animation is arresting, detail in the drawing of the backgrounds, the range of expression in the characters, the dramatic and melodramatic situations – and the violence.

Had this film been a live action drama, it would have been fairly commonplace, a picture of stolen money, gangsters, hitmen… And one of the characters remarks that he has watched the Godfather films several times. But, course this is animation, audiences will look at it more carefully, making the comparisons with the live-action, seeing how the range of gangster and criminal characters are drawn, the shape of their faces, the suggestions of the sinister, their violent expressions.

The film concerns a bag of money and two men riding in a car, allies, but one taking the money from the other, desperate to have money so that he can finance an operation for a loved one in South Korea. The boss is not pleased and hires a hitman to retrieve the money, not always effective in his pursuit. There is a hideout in the hotel which has seen better days.

There are complications in the action, the pursuit, violence, the capture of the money eluding those pursuing it, with a tongue in cheek ending and some prospects for progress.

BEUYS

Germany, 2017, 107 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Andres Veiel.

Beuys is a documentary about the German artist and sculptor, Joseph Beuys.

Those who have not heard of Beuys or are unfamiliar with his work, will find this is an opportunity to learn something about him, see images of his work, hear him speak and discuss – and assert his opinions.

To that extent, it may not be so interesting for those who do not know the artist and the style of the film may not draw them into it with great feeling. Perhaps some understanding. For those who are familiar with the artist, his works and his ideas, it is an opportunity to watch and reflect.

There is biographical material in the film, but limited to the artist himself and his relationship with his parents, not so much about his own personal life or relationships. From the city of Cleve, his parents were rather severe on him as he grew up. He was a pilot in World War II, crashing, his co-pilot dying, he himself being severely wounded. The screenplay suggests that this experience was a strong influence on his art.

As regards the art, the audience is shown various sketches, his drawings and visual art, some sculptures. There are also some examples of installation art – puzzling for those not in the know. He also was involved in a lot of performance art.

The film is at pains to explain his various theories about art, the work of the artist, the response of people to the art, the social concerns and influence – always looking ahead, possibilities of change in sensibilities. This was exercised in the Germany of the 1960s and 70s and beyond. He also travelled to the United States where he gave classes – allowing people to interject, to oppose him, his not moving from his position but giving attention to the criticisms.

By the end, having seen Beuys himself, listening to him, seeing him in the context of his range of art, hearing his philosophies and his reactions as well as people’s favourable response and criticisms, some audiences will be interested in pursuing him in his career. Others may feel that this documentary has been sufficient for them.

THE NIGHTMARE NANNY

US, 2013, 91 minutes, Colour.
Ashley Scott, Mekenna Melvin, Kip Pardue, Nathan Parsons.
Directed by Michael Feifer.

The Nightmare Nanny is too corny a title for this kind of drama – it is more suggestive of a gory horror film. There have been many films about nannies, impersonations, abductions of children – the classic being The Hand that Rocks the Cradle.

This film is directed by Michael Feifer, prolific producer and director of films for television. In fact, the somewhat soap-opera style indicates that the makers had the popular television audience in mind.

There is a prologue that sets the scene, a car crash, the loss of a child, the mother going to an institution and, three years later, going to an interview for the hiring of a babysitter (after murdering a candidate she meets), her ingratiating herself into the house, bonding with affection to the child, cold towards the mother, somewhat flirtatious towards the father.

It is all a preparation for the child to bond with the nanny, leading to her partner abducting the child, police pursuit, the parents in pursuit and a confrontation on the bridge where the distraught mother had strewn the ashes of her dead child.

1. The title, expectations? Fulfilled?

2. California settings, countryside, bridges, towns? The city, the mansions, the parks? Musical score?

3. The familiar aspects of the plot – the hand that rocks the cradle?

4. The prologue, the pregnant mother, her joy, her husband, the drive, content, the crash, getting out of the crash, the death of the child, sprinkling the ashes from the bridge?
5. Three years passing, the introduction to the family, husband and wife, baby Jenny, her health difficulties?

6. Anne busy, Ben losing his job, their financial difficulties? And having to go to work? Discussions about the nanny?

7. The range of interviews? Amber at the house, the encounter with Julie, the pretense of her resume, taking Julie’s, the later discovery of her murder?

8. Amber making a good impression, calling herself Julie, hired, always present, affectionate with Jenny, cold towards Anne, a kind of flirtation with Ben? Always ready, doing the right thing, preparing meals? Anne discovering Ben and the meal with Julie? Having to apologise?

9. Anne taking Jenny to the park, the suddenness of the abduction, Jake taking the child? Amber and the whole setup?

10. The role of the police, the sheriff not doing emails, the drive to the town?

11. Jake and Amber together, with the baby, calling her Gaby after their dead child, going to her parents, the welcome? Her moving on, the house?

12. Anne and Ben and the Internet, information, the place where Amber would go, their driving, and in the confrontation with Amber’s mother and family?

13. The police finding Jake, the chase, his change of heart? Amber and her fleeing, on the bridge? The plea, mother and father united with Jenny? Amber falling from the bridge?

14. Familiar material – designed for a popular television audience?

DANGER ON THE AIR

US, 1938, 66 minutes, Black and white.
Donald Woods, Nan Gray, Jed Prouty, Berton Churchill, William Lundigan, Richard "Skeets" Gallagher, Edward Van Sloan, George Meeker, Lee J.Cobb, Peter Lind Hayes.
Directed by Otis Garrett.

Danger on the Air is a brief murder mystery, quite complicated, set in a radio studio and offices.

The film recreates the atmosphere of radio programs in the late 30s, the orchestras, the commentators, the advertising, the celebrities and their singing, the sponsors coming in to be present for their programs, the range of executives and assistant staff.

The film introduces a range of characters as an evening goes on, the details of the programming. We are also introduced to a janitor and his daughter, the janitor played by Lee J. Cobb, with one of the announcers played by William Lundigan and another by Peter Lind Hayes, all of whom were to have substantial careers. The rest of the cast consists of veterans, character actors from the 1930s, Jed Prouty and his ability to imitate all kinds of voices, Edward Van Sloan is a seemingly sinister doctor, Berton Churchill as a sponsor with an eye for women – someone who would be called in later decades a sleazebag.

As it turns out, he is the victim so no tears for him.

The central investigator is an engineer played by Donald Woods, very serious, upright, but attracted to Steenie (that is short for Christina), Nan Gray, one of the executives with her brother. Everyone is suspect – including the executives, engineers and announcers (including William Lundigan). The complications include working out how the victim was killed – a collapse, certainly not shot, issues of poison or the failure of the ventilating system. The answer is actually poison – contained in balloons with the face of the victim smiling from them.

The other complication is whether the radio station should close down or not, should play records to fill in the time, suggestions being made that they use alternative means to broadcast one of Roosevelt’s fireside chats…

There are also a couple of criminals hanging around who also are suspicious and take shots at Steenie.

When all the suspects are assembled, as usual in these cases, the hero not knowing who actually is the murderer, but having discovered the reality of the balloons and the poison, decides that whoever is afraid of being near a balloon is the murderer. He is not wrong and, as often in these stories, it is something somebody wanting revenge on the victim who has targeted family. This time it is William Lundigan whose his father was destroyed by the victim and, ingeniously, has filled up the balloons with poison!
An interesting way to spend an hour with a complicated murder mystery and a visit to the past and to an old radio station and its life.