WEDNESDAY, MAY 9/ CHAHARSHANBEH, 19 ORDIBEHESHT

Iran, 2015, 102 minutes, Colour.
Niki Karimi, Vahid Jalilvand.

Directed by Vahid Jlilvand.



This is a fine Iranian film. It can be said that for the last four decades, or even more, if one were to search national industries to find dramas that explored human values, often profoundly, Iran would have to be at the top or very near the top of the list. While the Iranians have made many movies for television, slight melodramas and popular comedies, their output in serious dramas has been extensive. SIGNIS (The World Association for Communication) has made numerous awards to their films.

The film opens, as the title suggests, on Wednesday, May 9, where an ad has been placed in the paper inviting people in difficult financial circumstances to come to an address and lay claim to an extensive grant. A mother and daughter appear, rather overwhelmed by the crowd, seeing the man in charge being taken away by the police, puzzled over what is happening with no one seeming to know and the police moving the crowd on. She then goes to work in a factory which processes chickens, phones her husband who has been in a serious accident and tells him she will be home late and that her daughter is with her.

Suddenly, the story comes to what seems an end and a new date appears on screen, from the preceding month, a new address. The thought comes that this is a film of different stories.Later, we find that it is not.

The second story packs more of an emotional punch than the first. It takes up the dominance of men in Iranian society and focuses on family themes of honour with consequent victimisation of a woman and a justification of violence against her.This episode is about a young woman who lives with relations and who is challenged by her male cousin about riding on the back of a motorbike with a young man – the cousin condemns her, then assaults her, which leads to a violent confrontation in the street with the young man and, what may seem strange to an audience, the young man being prosecuted for blood money and being taken to jail. What is to happen to the young woman?

But then we are back to May 9, the initial story starting over again but this time from inside the building where the man who placed the ad and works from his friend’s office has to deal with the crowds outside, the role of the police, the question of his motives for offering a grant to someone in need. We have already seen this man in his dealings with the mother and daughter, so it is not a surprise. But, as the day goes on, and the motivation of the man is revealed, we appreciate the tensions in his relationship with his wife, his being overwhelmed by the applications, and the interview with the young woman from the second story.

Once again, an Iranian director (who co-wrote the film and edited it as well as appearing as the older man offering the donation), we are given human dramas, an exploration of basic values, stories of humane concern.


1. The title of the film, the focus, the information about the street and the address, the middle section with the different day and address? The resolution?

2. The settings in Tehran, the days, the streets, crowd scenes, the police, chicken factories, homes? The second story and the interiors, the problems in the street, &? The third story and the return to the day, the interiors of the building, the crowds on the street, the meeting in the office with the young woman? The musical score?

3. The structure of the film: the first story as a story in itself? Interest? Concern and compassion? The introduction of the second story, the earlier date, the drama of the honour of the family, secret marriages, religious and civil, clashes, blood money and the courts, the pregnant young woman and her surviving? The third story and its bringing the first two together, the man giving away the money, the audience learning about him from the first story, his friend, the office, the interviews, decision-making? The epilogue and the wife not coming to the office, the pregnant young woman and the gift?

4. The impact of the first story, an allegory of life in Iran for those who are poor and financially troubled? The role of government? The role of philanthropy? The criticism of not arresting embezzlers of large sums? The crowd, the advertisement, their confusion, the role of the police? The man being taken away by the police? The puzzle? People dispersing?

5. The focus on the mother, with her daughter? Bewilderment? Going back to work, the chicken factory and her friends? Phoning her husband? His accident, injuries, disabilities, moods, brain not functioning properly? His jealousy? His wife’s return, the talk about the money, his not wanting to accept it, his suspicions of Jalal, concerned about his wife, himself, his daughter?

6. The mother, going back, meeting Jalal, his recognising her, the engagement 20 years earlier, his breaking it off, her parents’ reaction, his marriage, the two sons, the death of his young son? His concern about the mother, travelling on the bus, listening to her story, the possibility of the donation? His phone number and address?

7. The impact of the second story, the sudden introduction, the previous date? The young woman, her status in the house, looked after by the uncle and aunt, the cousin and his concern? His anger, sense of honour, criticism of the woman riding on the bike, her boyfriend, issues of shame? Honour to his parents? Discovering the truth about the marriage? His violence towards the young woman? The young man arriving, his wife not riding on the bike, not wanting to disturb? The clash with the cousin, the fight, the broken nose, the uncle and the other young man trying to tear him away? The anxiety of the young woman? The aunt, her talking with the young man, expectations of family, family visit, her criticism of the man’s mother and her make up, saying that he was a good young man but not worthy to enter into their family? The police, the arrest, the young woman and going to the station, the amount of the blood money, her going to the building where her husband was caretaker, the kindly man, staying, residents, rich, complaining about their cars not being parked…? The issue of the money, pleading with her aunt? Her pregnancy, being able to stay for a short while, otherwise out on the street, losing her baby? The kind manager and his giving her the advertisement?

8. Jalal, the death of his son, 11 years, his grief, the issue of the car, the clashes with his wife, her saying he was unfair? Her own grief? His decision to give away the money? His motivation? With his friend, in the office, the crowds of people, unexpected, the decision about the interviews, making the shortlist, the example of the woman whose husband was injured? The day passing, the weariness, Jalal thinking he had made a mistake, his friend confirming this? The decision to put out the applications and take one at random? The audience seeing the young woman answering the ad? The audience knowing what happened after Jalal left the office, his meeting with his former fiance?

9. The last day, the mother at home with her husband, his surliness, her not a ringing? The pregnant young woman to the office, waiting, Jalal phoning, continuing to wait, his final decision, signing the check? Her explanation of the difficulties? Her gratitude? Leaving, looking back?

10. Jalal, his decision, following it through, what did it mean for him?

NAKOM

Ghana, 2016, 90 minutes, Colour.
Jacob Ayanabaa.
Directed by Kelly Daniela Norris, T. W. Pittman.

Nakom is the name of a village in Ghana. The central character of this film from Ghana itself is a young man who has a scholarship, comes from the country, is in the city studying at the University. He is intelligent, has embraced the life in the city, is in a relationship with a young woman. then he receives the news of the death of his father.

The main part of the film is the young man’s return to the village, his encounter with his family, mother, brother and sister, extended relations, his uncle to whom his father was indebted and needs to be repaid, the chief of the village who makes proposals that he be his successor.

The film focuses the detail of the young man’s months in his village, a close-up of life in the village, the old customs, his Islamic beliefs, his friendship with a Christian. The young man is conscientious although he is determined to retain his scholarship and return to his studies. He stays at home, works, tries to act responsibly as regards the debt – and finally returns to his studies.

1. The impact of a film from Africa, from Ghana? Cultural background? Contemporary issues? Culture clashes?

2. The locations, the city, the University, the transport centre? The contrast with the open road, the countryside? The village, houses, meeting places? The fields, the work? Musical score?

3. The focus on Iddrissu? A young man, in the city, the scholarship, at the University, studies? Relationships, with the young woman, getting the news of his father’s death?

4. His decision to go back to the village, the transport, travelling in the minibus, through the countryside? Arriving in his village?

5. His father, the death, the accident? His debts to his brother? The burden for the young man, his mother, his sister?

6. The chief of the village, welcoming him, proposals for the future?

7. The young man, his relationship with his mother? Grief? The financial burdens? His responsibility? His younger brother, not a student? His future? His sister, the possibility for her to study? Her future in the village, marriage?

8. The visit to the uncle, the debt in abeyance, the request for delay, to harvest time?

9. Interest in the various episodes with the young man at home, his encounters with people, the effect on him, his scholarship, his studies, his sense of responsibility?

10. His staying, the work? His final decision, the farewell to his sister? His future?

THE CONFIRMATION

Canada, 2015, 101 minutes, Colour.
Clive Owen, Jaeden Lieberher, Maria Bello, Patton Oswalt, Spencer Drever, Stephen Tobolowsky, Robert Forster, Tim Blake Nelson, Matthew Modine.
Directed by Bob Nelson.

The Confirmation sounds like a religious title and, in some ways, it is – but more in the background than in the foreground.

This is an audience-friendly Canadian film with mainly an American cast, filmed in British Columbia standing in for Washington State, a small town, the background of the mountains. The audience is taken into the town, living there for a weekend, getting to know so many of the characters and the rather ordinary, sometimes low-key, way of life.

It is also a father-son bonding film with Clive Owen as Walt, the father, and Jaden Lieberher as Anthony, the young son. (Audiences may remember well another fine father-sons film, Scott Hicks’ The Boys are Back with Clive Owen.)

Walt finds it hard on a Saturday morning to get his truck going but arrives at the church to meet his ex-wife, Bonnie (Maria Bello) who is waiting for Anthony (Jaeden Lieberher) to finish his confession before she entrusts him to Walt and she and her new husband, Kyle (Matthew Modine) go to a marriage encounter retreat weekend. She has become fervent in her Catholicism – even urging Anthony in church to kneel and pray properly!

Anthony is to make his first communion and be confirmed the following weekend so he is in the church to make his confession, eight weeks since the last one. Stephen Tobolowski is Father Lyons, not the most patient of men, especially in the confessional when the penitent, taking a while to think things through, comes up with the statement that he has no sins – with Father Lyons going through a list, a bit pompously, trying to get an acknowledgement of some sinfulness but Anthony asking why would he lie, why he tried to hurt anyone… and he doesn’t know what sex thoughts means. He gets a rather large penance, begins it in the church but he hurries out to meet his parents.

The bulk of the film is something of an episodic shaggy-dog story, Walt finding that his special tools have been stolen and he needs them for a new job and sets out to search for them with Anthony as company. A number of commentators have remarked on the similarity of this plot with that of the Italian classic by Vittorio de Sica, Bicycle Thieves. The have noted some plot similarities of father and son, with Will Smith and his son, Jaden, in The Pursuit of Happyness.

As the day goes on, father and son become closer, Walt acknowledging his alcoholism and his attempts to withdraw, Anthony as a very plainspoken and direct young boy. They meet with his father’s friend, the genial Otto, Robert Forster, who gives them leads around the bars of the town for people who might know thieves and their exploits, following through on some of the leads, especially with the eccentric Drake, Patton Oswalt, who has a list but is really ineffectual. and there is Vaughan, Tim Blake Nelson, and his son Allen who becomes friends with Anthony – and does provide a lead for who stole the tools, especially an unemployed man with wife and two children who is desperate. There is also a nasty pawnbroker.

In the meantime, there are some home scenes, Walt and Anthony sharing television, computer games, meals, and Anthony having to cope with some withdrawal DTs and calling on Otto for help. Then there is the problem as to whether Anthony is going to go to mass on Sunday morning…

When Bonnie and Kyle returned from the weekend, Kyle seems to be a friendly man but a bit oblivious but Bonnie notices that the house has been lived in, that they have borrowed her car and fixed the brakes, with Anthony asking for some payment to cover the retrieval of the tools.

And, there is a final confession scene, with Anthony going through all the sins and misdemeanours of the previous 24 hours much to the astonishment and bemusement of Father Lyons. and Anthony makes a decision about his Confirmation.

A modest film but with plenty to like.

1. The title? The background of the Catholic sacraments as explained? For Anthony? his attitudes, change of heart? His acceptance of the end and his motivation?

2. Canada locations for a Washington State setting? The town, the background of the mountains, the detail of life in the town, the streets, homes, bars, pawn shops, church? The score?

3. An episodic story – and the influence of Bicycle Thieves?

4. A father and son story, the situation, the background of divorce, remarriage? Custody? The father alcoholic, unemployed, drifting, issues of custody? The wife, remarriage, the stepfather? The wife, going back to the church, her fervour, the spiritual retreat and marriage encounter?

5. Walt, Clive Owen, in himself, his past, his relationship with Bonnie, relationship with Anthony? The truck and the difficult start, arriving at the church, discussion with Bonnie, the audience understanding the situation? His agreeing to take Anthony? How strong was the bond between father and son? The father not communicating so strongly? The straight up-and-down son? The lead for the job, going to the Tavern, Anthony getting out, meeting with Allen – and Vaughan hitting Allen? The tools being robbed, the effect on Walt? Going to Otto, the strong friendship for so many years, getting leads? Following the leads? The various connections? Supplying information, the old veterans and their knowing all the thieves in the town? Going to Drake, Drake and his manner, the list of leads, the first confrontation, the man coming back with his family from camping, a Boeing worker? Walt having to apologise? Going to the two brothers, their pulling the gun? Drake and his ineptitude? Taking him back home, his being agreeable, Walt giving him some money? Going to see Vaughan, the two sons, Michael and the gun, stepping on the crickets, Anthony doing it, the invitation to shoot the rabbit, his pointing the gun at Michael? Walt’s reaction? Inviting them back? Walt going home, the house locked, Anthony getting in the window, pretending there was no alcohol? Going to the home, borrowing the car, Anthony forgetting the brakes were not working? Going to the garage, Walt fixing the brakes, the help of the garage owner and his son? At home, the meal, watching television, the computer games, Walt fixing the door? Kyle removing his shelves? The night, the withdrawal symptoms, Anthony and his concern, ringing Otto, Otto coming to help and explaining? The next morning, whether Anthony would go to church or not, avoiding Fr Lyons? Spending the day together, more information about the tools, going to Vaughan, Walt attacking him, Allen telling the truth? The confrontation with Roger, his poverty, his wife, moving, the children, Walt sympathetic? The wife promising to send the money? Going to the pawn shop, the owner, his defiance, the fight, Anthony intervening? Going home?

6. Anthony, his age, the confession, his having no sins, exasperated priest and his making all kinds of suggestions, disobedience, lying, sex thoughts…? His penance – but not saying it, the beginning of telling lies? His hiding and not wanting to go to church on Sunday? The end, decision to go to confession, recapping the day and the whole range of sins, the priest and his disbelief? His decision for communion and confirmation the next weekend? For his mother’s sake? The raising of the themes of religion, faith and reason, Anthony and his book and reading, clever and straight As? This straight up-and-down character, telling of facts?

7. The range of people in the town, ordinary, jobs, unemployment? Otto a good friend and support? The various men in the bars who knew what was happening in town? Vaughan, his sons? Drake and his ineptitude, the drugs? The man who worked for Boeing? The two brothers, slow, pulling the gun? Roger and his poverty? The pawn shop owner?

8. Bonnie, the return home, Kyle being genial, the contrast with Walt? Bonnie noticing what had happened, confronting Walt, Anthony taking the money, explaining it to his mother, her agreement about the brakes and the time to fix them? Anthony and his solution, going to see Allen, Allen going to the shop, taking the tools, not paying the money, the owner and his assistant pursuing them? Going to eat together? Walt the prospect of the job, getting his tools back, getting his house back? His decision to go to church the following week with Anthony?

9. A portrait of family, ordinary situations, crises, audience response to the characters?

LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER

US, 2001, 100 minutes, Colour.
Angelina Jolie, John Voight, Iain Glenn, Noah Taylor, Daniel Craig, Richard Johnson, Chris Barrie, Julian Rhind- Tutt, Leslie Phillips.
Directed by Simon West.

An action show that is based on an interactive computer game. And, that's the way it starts. Our super-heroine, guns blazing, eludes, evades, smashes, bashes and crashes technological monsters programmed to test her skills. This is a game for brains, brawn and beauty. Which means that, although the only interaction on the part of the audience is to share the thrills and spills, we are forced to identify with her to win the game.

And then it all changes.

I had expected this review to be about computer game movies. There have been some very violent versions of say, Mortal Kombat or Streetfighter, which give one pause about the time, energy and ingenuity used by youngsters (and adults) in playing these deadly games. That must be one of the key media issues of our time.

But then Lara Croft turns into this month's variation on Indiana Jones or The Mummy - and is all the more welcome for that. In fact, it turns into an old-fashioned adventure with old-fashioned ideas: a kind of masonic secret society in Venice, The Illuminati (some years before the Da Vinci Code), want to get hold of a key that will give them world power when pieces of a mysterious triangle (which our ancestors wisely separated to the ends of the earth) fit together at the moment of the alignment of the planets. (And people say the Biblical tradition is too hard to believe!!). It is Lara Croft, Lady Croft, to the rescue. She lives in a stately home outside London where her butler is trying to make her act and dress like a lady and her Australian sidekick is a technology nerd devoted to thinking up wilder and harder challenges for her.

The dastardly lawyer who represents the Illuminati steals a mysterious clock left to Lara by Lord Croft, her father, whom Lara misses intensely. Promise her that time will reverse and she can see her father again and she has motivation that takes her to Cambodia in 15 hours where she solves the mystery of the triangle piece in 15 minutes. Next stop, Iceland, standing in for Russia where the pieces will fit together and...

The film is colourful, more than a touch exotic in its decor and settings. But it does not take itself too seriously. More often than not it is sending itself up, parodying itself with smart lines and derring-do. This makes it quite engaging in a way that the Mummy movies did: over the top with tongue in cheek.

Lara Croft is the talented but, in her films as well as offscreen, oddball Angelina Jolie, an Oscar-winner for Girl, Interrupted. Gossip said she clashed with her father in real life. But, here he is on screen with her as her beloved father, Jon Voight. Their facial resemblances are striking. Noah Taylor looks dishevilled as the nerd while Iain Glen makes a splendidly nasty villain.

It won't stay in the memory, but, while it's there, it's more entertaining (for action devotees only) than expected.

1. The popularity of Lara Croft? Computer games? A female Indiana Jones? The two films?

2. The English setting, the elaborate mansion, the set up for her training, memories of her father, visions in the night, Cambodia, on the site, Venice and the Illuminati?

3. The effect of the stunts, action sequences, special effects? Musical score?

4. The introduction to Lara, the giant robot, her ingenuity and the battles, conquering the robot, the disc and her music? A reliance on Bryce for inventions and control? Hillary as her butler? Their care for her? Her training sequences, bungeejumping…? And the attack of the thugs?

5. The introduction to the Illuminati, the group, in Venice, the assembly, the alignment of the planets, every 5000 years, the need for the triangle, power, moving through time zones? Powell and his assistant, the reassurances to the assembly? The distinguished leader and his questions? The irony that Powell did not have the answers?

6. Lara, her devotion to her father, his loss, seeing him in the dream, his explanation of the alignment, warning about the triangle? The clock, examining it, Lara smashing it, the emergence of the triangle?

7. Her going to see Mr Wilson, his advice, a member of the Illuminati, her going to see Powell, her suspicions? His stealing the clock?

8. The past with Alex West, tomb Raider, the mutual taunts? Going on the adventure, to Cambodia, the action adventure, seizing the triangle? The later plane ride to Siberia?

9. The origins of the triangle, The Triangle of Light, its mysterious powers?

10. The giant statue, Lara’s escape, through the waterfall, the advice from the monk and his knowing her father?

11. Bryce, going with her on the adventures? His advice?

12. The partnership, going to Venice, Powell saying her father was a member of the Illuminati?

13. The confrontation between Lara and Powell, Bryce present, in the tomb, the solar model?

14. The threat to Alex West, the fight, Lara winning?

15. Meeting her father in cross-time? The triangle and its destruction? Time going backwards? Powell and the knife in West? The destruction of the triangle, West alive, Lara fighting Powell, this confession that he had murdered her father, the knife in him? Her getting back the picture of her mother?

16. The end, back at home, Lara Croft as a Lady, attended by Bryce and Hillary?

SPIN OUT

Australia, 2016, 91 minutes, Colour.
Xavier Samuel, Morgan Griffin, Travis Jeffery, Melissa Bergland.
Directed by Mark Gracie, Tim Ferguson.

Vroom, spin, vroom vroom, more spin – if that sounds attractive, then perhaps this is your film. If it doesn’t, probably better to give it a miss.

This is an Australian film, with financing from Screen Australia as well as from Film Victoria, it is set at Emerald Bank and around Shepparton – although, surprisingly, especially with the funding from Film Victoria, characters declaring that they want to leave the country, intending to go to Sydney rather than Melbourne!

This is very much film with blokes and sheilas, showing a great deal of (alleged) Australian blokeyness amongst mates and a picture of sheilas who tend to follow the blokes around although, in this day and age, they are certainly prepared to defy the blokes.

The occasion is a car and ute rally at Emerald Bank, an annual event, with everybody from around the place turning up, yelling their support of their favourite drivers, having a dance and party in the evening, plenty of booze (actually only beer and rum), raucous (to put it mildly), lots of talk about rooting, a cracker tossed into a dunny and splashily exploding, a competition to break the record of how many cans of beer can be drunk, and a mud fight leading to an all in mud brawl.

A bloke called Sparrow does the initial voice-over as he stands on the back of the ute, driven by his friend, Bill, who is one of the stars of the Ute rally, in competition with Lucy, no mean driver herself, who had saved Bill from drowning when they were young and they have been bickering ever since, rivals in the arena, with Bill showing off, fixing the wheel to the door handle and putting a brick under the brake and even getting out of the vehicle and performing. However, it is Mary, who could (compliment) pass for a relation of Magda Szubanski, who is the key driver, wins the rally – but is oblivious, low self-image and seemingly humourless, to Sparrow who is smitten with her, awkwardly courting her.

There are a brother and sister, dressed up to look more sophisticated, from the city, who have their eye out for a sexual liaison and, of course, land on Bill and Lucy. While the beer is being guzzled and tots of rum downed at a great rate, Bill and Lucy go through their own rivalries, insinuations against each other, finally leading to that mud fight, Lucy wanting to leave and go to Sydney, Bill not wanting to. In the morning, with couples littered unconscious around the grounds, including two mates who dress up in frocks but are in denial, Bill eventually comes to his senses…

Bill keeps telling Lucy “it doesn’t get any better than this”. While he means life around Shepparton, we realise that this could describe the plot of the film and that it has set its bar pretty low.

Xavier Samuel and Morgan Griffin bring their talent to somewhat thankless roles, but do show that there could be a little soul-searching and an admission of true love if they put their minds and hearts to it.
Many Australian films don’t get guaranteed overseas release but, perhaps strangely, this one is being distributed by Sony. Not exactly the top of the list for desired exports to make an impression on international audiences.

MOTHER TERESA

Spain/UK/ Italy, 2003, 110 minutes, Colour.
Olivia Hussey, Sebastiano Somma, Michael Mendl, Laura Morante.
Directed by Fabrizio Costa.

There have been three principal feature films, with Geraldine Chaplin in Mother Teresa: In the Name of God’s Poor (1997, director Kevin Connor), with Olivia Hussey in Mother Teresa (2003, director Fabrizio Costa) and with Juliet Stevenson in The Letters (2014, director). The priests are Fr Celeste van Exem, Mother Teresa’s spiritual director, Father Sarrano who stayed to work with her, the archbishop of Kolkota and some Vatican officials. Paul VI makes an appearance in Mother Teresa. The portraits and conversations tend to be ecclesiastical, especially in the 1940s to the 1970s.

Hussey was around 50 when she made this film, seen in Mother Teresa’s habit, stern-face, gradually stooped, a re-creation of Mother Teresa’s well-known presence. The film traces her teaching with the Loreto sisters in Calcutta, her experience of violence on the streets and the call to compassion, the resistance of her superior to her leaving, relying on her spiritual director, Father van Exem, the decision found the Missionaries of Charity, the discussions with the archbishop of Calcutta, the intervention of Rome – and the scenes of Mother Teresa over the decades with her work for the poor and your and dying in Calcutta, the establishment of the congregation, her treatment in the media, for it against, are receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Father van Exem is certainly an interesting character, a Belgian priest who lived for almost 50 years in Kolkota, Mother Teresa’s spiritual director and confidant. This is best seen in Mother Teresa where he is played by Michael Mendl (and by Max von Sydow in The Letters). He supports Mother Teresa’s wish to leave the Loreto Convent and work in the streets with the poor, going against the wishes of the superior, advising the Archbishop to consider her requests. He is seen celebrating Mass, blessing Mother Teresa and her sisters when the Missionaries of Charity are established, a sounding board over the decades and willing to die in Mother Teresa's stead when she has surgery. He died in 1993. This is the picture of a good priest, working within the Church structures and order, wary at first of a new congregation but always reliable in listening and advice.

The Vatican bishop she visits wants to follow protocols and not rush – but is interrupted by a phone call from Paul VI who wants her to visit him.

Fr Serrano (Sebastiano Somma) appears as a fussy Roman visitor, decides against the establishing of the Missionaries of Charity. Mother Teresa has avoided him but is advised to meet him. Fr Serrano tears up his negative document and stays for the next fifty years, advising, managing and finally admitting after Mother Teresa’s disbanding of the official charity company, that her simple way of being there was best.

1. Audience interest in and response to this film? Admiration for Mother Teresa? Her work, as a saint? The role of her critics? All these elements included in this film?

2. Audience knowledge of Mother Teresa? The Albanian origins, going to India, the many years there in Loreto, teaching in the school, with the girls? The influence of Gandhi, the issue of Partition, riots in violence in streets, Calcutta and its politics, its poverty? Mother Teresa in the 1940s, leaving the convent, her work, establishing the Missionaries of Charity? The role of the media? Holiness? The Nobel Peace prize?

3. Olivia Hussey as Mother Teresa, look, age, the stoop, her work, determined, stubborn? Her will and God’s will? The spirituality of the poor and absolute commitment?

4. Her work in the school, classes, the riots, going out of the gates, rescuing the man, putting him in the infirmary? The response of the girls? The superior and her strong stance? Sending her away, at the railway station, seeing the man dying? Leaving, going to Patna, her experience in looking after the poor, the sick, the encounters with the doctor, the urgency for the children? The young man and his leg not being amputated?

5. Father van Exem, in himself, Belgian background, ecclesiastical, spiritual advisor, director, the nature of his advice, capacity for listening? Supporting Mother Teresa in leaving, wary about founding the Congregation? His liaison with the Archbishop of Calcutta and their discussions?

6. The Archbishop, his role, sympathies? Discussions with Mother Teresa? The arrival of Father Serrano, the Roman perspective, not meeting Mother Teresa, his negative approach, changing after meeting with her? His staying for many years? The scene of the Archbishop and the priests and the blessing of the new congregation?

7. Hindu hostility, going into the room, seeing the work, changing attitudes? Taking possession of the temple? Further accommodation and pleading about finance? saving the boy’s leg, the later meeting with the boy? Mother Teresa and her demanding ambulances?

8. The girls joining from school, the superior and her antagonism?

9. Father Serrano, a diplomat from Rome, anti the establishing of the Congregation, not able to meet Mother Teresa, her fear, a resolution not to meet him, Father van Exem and the change of heart? Father Serrano staying, the years of helping with the management and the associations?

10. The years passing, her reputation, getting older, stubborn but getting her way, God’s way? Her philosophy of being able to wait for God’s time?

11. The plans for the City of Peace, the difficulties, the land, obtaining it, official difficulties in Calcutta? The arrival of Logan, his family, the donation, the photo opportunity? Anna, the volunteer, her collapse, sclerosis, returning to London, the phone call from mother for prayer? The city, wanting documents, the demolition of the wall? Father Serrano having documents and stopping the destruction?

12. The need for Roman documents, not having the money for plane tickets, meeting the patient from the past, his giving the nuns the stewards’ voucher? In the Vatican, meeting the cleric, the slowness? The Pope phoning, the audience with the Pope, wanting to establish something in Rome?

13. The journalists, suspicious of Mother Teresa, the articles and the critique, the television programs? The Logan scandal? Mother taking them all to see the money at work with the children and the sick – and give that back to Mr Logan?

14. Time passing, the Nobel Peace Prize, mother and the comment about the affluent dinner? Her speech, applause?

15. Her illness, surgery, Father van Exem and his prayer, willing to die in her stead?

16. The visit to America, her strong stands at the Association, interrupting the meeting, abolishing the association – and Father Serrano saying he agreed with her?

17. Her death, her achievement, being among the poor, people with ideological difficulties? Yet her achievement, a 20th century personality and saint?

EYE IN THE SKY

UK, 2016, 102 minutes, Colour.
Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Jeremy Northam, Barkhad Abdi, Iain Glenn, Phoebe Fox, Aisha Takow, Richard Mc Cabe, Monica Dolan, Michael O' Keefe, Gavan Hood, Laila Robbins.
Directed by Gavan Hood.

It was once thought that God’s eye was in the sky. Nowadays, with satellites in space and with drones and surveillance machinery so readily available, governments and military do have eyes, many eyes, in the sky.

This is a story about a drone strike, the role of the military, politicians in Britain, in the United States, legal advice, the technicians who calculate collateral damage in the case of a strike, intelligence and photo recognition, and the pilot and his associate who pulls the trigger.

Most people probably, give little thought in their everyday lives to the existence of drones, the missions, the dropping of bombs. When they do, it is usually as the result of media headlines, taking out of some terrorist leaders or the sad news of collateral damage of civilians being killed and injured in explosions.

This is where Eye in the Sky takes us, 105 minutes of screen time to give thought to all the implications of drones, strikes and the consequences.

At the opening of the film in Nairobi, we see little girl and her father mending her hulahoop and her playing in the yard (later, as a reminder of the strictness of Somalia’s Al Shebaab, she is told not to play in front of a customer who disapproves of children, playing according to Sharia law). As the little girl appears throughout the film, going up the street to sell loaves of bread that her mother is baking, we appreciate that the question of collateral damage is going to be raised in her regard at least.

The film gives immediate information about the central characters and the places where decisions will be made: at a military base in England, at a conference room in Whitehall, London, in an image recognition centre in Hawaii, local offices for collaboration with Kenyan military authorities and the room in the Nevada desert base where the pilot who will pull the trigger will watch screens and wait for orders.

We are brought up to date with the situation, a British citizen who has married a terrorist and has been radicalised, an American citizen flying in to join the local terrorist cell, the Somalis who are operating in Kenya and antagonistic towards the Kenyan government and its alliance with the UK and the US. When intelligence comes in that these suspects are in the one building, the Colonel in England makes a plan for the capture of the terrorist with British and American passports.

Most audiences will be amazed at the amount of surveillance available, the clarity of the images, the ability to zoom in and out – not just from drones in the sky but from mini-drones, mechanical birds with surveillance eyes and, then, a small mechanical beetle which can fly into rooms and around rooms bringing in extra detail to all those watching in Africa, Britain and the United States.

The screenplay has all those involved in making decisions about the strike tackling all the reasons, for and against, moral decision-making and its being grounded in rational arguments as well as emotional arguments.

The Colonel in charge is played by Helen Mirren who noted that the part was originally written for a male actor but changed for her. She is in contact with a general who goes to Whitehall for decision-making about the strike with the Attorney General, the ministers of the Crown. He is Alan Rickman in one of his final roles, and Jeremy Northam and Richard Mc Cabe as the ministers. Monica Dolan appears as another minister who has strong views about the repercussions of the strike.

The main American is the pilot, Aaron Paul, sitting with his associate in a small hut, unlike a cockpit, at the Nevada base.

Most of the action seems to be playing in real time – or at least it seems that way. The situation inside the targeted house changes dramatically bringing an urgency for a decision to be made as quickly as possible, the Colonel urging immediate action, supported by the general in Whitehall, but complications arise with the opinions of the ministers, the need to contact the Foreign Minister who is in Singapore, contacting the American Secretary of State who is in Beijing, the Prime Minister who is giving a speech in Strasbourg.

In the meantime, the little girl is selling bread at a table-stall outside the wall of the targeted building, bringing that extra dimension of collateral damage into the consideration. And the question: is the death of one little girl in collateral damage to be preferred over the potential for 80 or more people to be killed by suicide bombers in public areas. All sides of the argument are presented with some drama as the local agent, a Somali, who has controlled the beetle in the house, makes an attempt to buy all the bread so that the little girl will go home.

This means that the film is a challenge to moral stances, whether one agrees with the military making the strike decision or those who hesitate, thinking compassionately about collateral damage or weighing up the odds about public opinion if the UK and the US authorise a strike with a consequent death or whether the terrorists, Al Shebaab, will be blamed for greater acts of terror and massacres.

There is a tension throughout the film, more so as the audience begins to weigh up the choices and identify with one or other approach.

In one sense, it may be thought that there is a satisfactory ending, but, on the other hand, not.

1. The impact of the film? Hard issues and decision? 21st century policy? The nature of drones, the eye in the sky? The nature of enemies? Terrorists? The moral challenge to the authorities? The audience stances?

2. The role of terrorists in the 21st century, massacres in cities, police, searching, military, international collaboration, search and destroy?

3. Experience of drones, the targets, accuracy, the issue of collateral damage?

4. The screenplay, words, dialogue, interactions, tension?

5. The strong cast, the women and their political and military roles? Equality with men? The Colonel, the co-pilot, ministers and politics?

6. The introduction to the places with names and times, in the UK, Kenya, in Hawaii, in the US,? Later locations in Singapore, Beijing? The musical score?

7. The introduction to the situation, the Colonel, getting up, checking the computer, constant vigilance? The introduction to the general, his friendship with the Colonel? The pilot in Las Vegas? The US officers, the request, sharing intelligence? The identity expert in Hawaii? The international link-up?

8. The little girl, playing with the hoop, the father with the garage and colours, his work, the mother baking the bread? The authentic location and feel, the interiors of the house, the street, the wall of the stall? The girl playing at home with the hoop – and her father wanting her not to play in front of those who uphold Sharia Law?

9. The situation, the terrorists, the British citizen, the American arriving at the airport, his being welcomed, tracked? The aim of the mission to capture the British woman? The Colonel pursuing the British woman for 6 years? In the house, the surveillance, the drone in the sky, the mechanical bird, the beetle and its ability to go into the house, sitting on the beam? Close-up and detailed knowledge of what was happening? The local terrorists, the British woman, the American, the suicide vests, wearing them, the time limit, the targets, moving from room to room?

10. The situation in Kenya, the military and the authorities, watching, the locals, the van, communication and surveillance? Going to house, the burden the beetle, the iPad? Information, the drone and the battery going, the Somali? His stance? The girl going to sell the bread, the boy and his encounter with her?

11. The Colonel, her experience, strong stances, in the UK, and staff? Attitudes towards terrorists, capturing them, pursuing them? The issue of checking identities and why? The Nevada pilots? The military hawks? The object of urgency and not concerned about more personal nuances? The general, knowledge, communication, the computers, the screens and the politician sharing the view? The issue of legal advice? Damage experts?

12. The damage experts, calculations, 50% collateral damage, the Colonel wanting a lower figure? The pressure on the expert? The documentation?

13. The Colonel watching, the time narrowing, the bombers to leave, the need for the drone strike? The little girl, the hesitations? The contact with the local, getting the boy to go to buy the bread?

14. The Colonel wanting affirmation, from the politicians in London, from the Americans? The dropping of the bomb from the drone? The further bombing? The death of the little girl? The checking of the bodies and identifying them?

15. The General, comments, experience, buying the toy the grandchild, going to Whitehall, the range of ministers, the computers, communication, watching the screen, the role of the Colonel and influence? The military urging interaction? The Foreign Secretary wanting to be patient? Responsibilities and going further up the line? The female minister and her caution?

16. The phone call from the US official, strong words, the fabrication and verification from American authorities? Issues of responsibility and culpability?

17. The pilot, the short time in the military, training? Beginning his term? Chosen for the role? His superior officers, commission, encouragement? Expectations of him, to fire the trigger? His assistant, less experience? Working cameras, the observations, with? Seeing the little girl, the emotional response, the pilot asking for further security checks? The role of the authorities, demands, the final decision, his firing, his response, the emotional effect, the girl injured, searching for the dead? The second drop, the continued search? His being commended by his superior and to take time off?

18. Hawaii, checks and identities?

19. London, the attorney general, the ministers, the nature of the discussions, the authority, the mission, different stances, emotional responses, rational responses, the legal authorisation? The Attorney General and his attention to the law? The minister, having high responsibility, personal, deciding to check with authorities? The woman present, the emotional response, wanting exact legal requirements, the final decision, expressing her discuss to the General? The effect? Her being told off severely by the General?

20. The Foreign Secretary in Singapore, interrupted, his assistants, his being sick, the phone, his listening in to the strike?

21. The Secretary of State, in Beijing, the table tennis, authorising the drop? The presidential support? The phone call from the American authority and her insistence

22. The locals in Kenya, their watching?

23. The building of suspense, the little girl seen throughout the film, selling bread, returning home, the mother baking more, her going to the stall, waiting, the Somali and his attempt to buy the bread, his being chased away, the little boy with the cash, but its being too late?

24. The damage, the little girl, her parents, taking her to the hospital, the medical help, her death?

25. The final question for the film as to where the audience stood on the decision-making, the criteria, and the collateral damage?

YELLOW BIRD / Gus - petit oiseau, grand voyage site

France, 2015, 90 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Seth Green, Dakota Fanning, Danny Glover, Jim Rash, Christine Moran Ski, Brady Corbett, Yvette Nicole Brown, Richard Kind, Elliott Gould.
Directed by Christian De Vita.

Yellowbird is a small French animation film from a small studio – but, with the English language version, quite an American cast for the voices.

The film is designed for younger audiences, for family audiences, a story of an outsider bird, hatched from lost egg, cared for by a ladybug, urged to go out of his safety zone, in contact with the patriarch bird of his flock dying after an attack from vicious cats, told the directions for the family to fly to Africa.

The yellowbird takes this as an opportunity for leadership, partly diffident, challenging another bird who should have been the leader, finding some clues but actually leading the birds in the wrong direction, Holland instead of Spain, then further north – but, with an inspiration, urges them to get inside a plane which is flying south and which lands them in Africa.

A pleasant story about birds and migration, a pleasant story about an awkward young bird and his finding himself – and with a touch of romance.

1. A film for families and young audiences? Interest in birds, migration? The outsider? Adventures?

2. The animation style, the characters, realistic, touch of caricature with Sam’s appearance and voice and the cats? Layouts and background? The forests, the sea, icebergs, inside of the planes? Africa? The musical score?

3. Introduction to the yellow bird, the egg, falling out of the nest, travelling far, hatching? The odd look of the bird? The friendship of the ladybug? His diffidence, not going outside, the ladybug urging him to greater things?

4. The flock of birds, blue? The leader, his accident, pursued by the cats, his bequest to the yellow bird? His death? His wanting Carl to lead? Giving the directions to the yellow bird?

5. The cats, scary, their comeuppance?

6. The need for the birds to migrate, the range of the members of the family, the parents, the children, Delf? The touches of comedy with the bird and the feathers over his eyes?

7. The discussions about leadership, Carl, his being upset, confrontations with the yellow bird?

8. The yellow bird and his not wanting to lead, his being urged, his instinct and sixth sense, the appearances of the ladybug and her help?

9. For the trip, the pointed rock, the fireflies and the lights of Paris, the landing in Paris? The desire for Africa, to meet their friend, the need for food, being tired? Flying north, landing in Holland, the birds pretending that it was Spain? The beach, the bears and their advice?

10. Flying north, the Arctic? The upturned boat, the interiors, dangers and menace, the seals and their ghostly presence?

11. The iron birds, the planes, the stories of the fear of iron birds? The yellow bird and his urging them to go into the plane, difficulties, rescuing Carl, his gratitude?

12. Delf, the attraction, the interplay with the yellow bird, flirting, his trying to tell the truth, the upset when they found out the truth? The encouragement of the romance?

13. Landing in Africa, the gratitude of the family? The joke about the friend being called Sam O’ Cool? The yellow bird needing a name, getting it as Sam? The ladybug and her praise of him?

THE TRAIL BEYOND

US, 1934, 55 minutes, Black and white dot
John Wayne, Verna Hillie, Noah Beery, Beery Jr, Robert Frazer, Iris Lancaster, Eddie Parker, Earl Dwire.
Directed by Robert Bradbury.

The Trail Beyond is one of nine films that John Wayne made in 1934. Entering movies at the end of the silent era, 1927, he made many supporting feature westerns, small-budget, until 1939 when he made a breakthrough with John Ford and Stagecoach. 30 years later, after so many westerns, he won an Oscar for his performance in True Grit.

The supporting westerns were fairly standard, lots of riding scenes and, in this case, many dives into rivers and lakes, including on horseback (with stuntman Yakima Canut, best known for Ben Hur, doing many of the stunts). Acting was fairly standard, often very stolid, including that of Wayne himself who was developing a screen persona which carried him through for many decades.

This is a contemporary western, and Wayne’s character having been to college. He is given the mission to find the daughter of a friend of his father’s – and he travels by train, encountering a friend from college days, Wabi (Noah Beery). Very quickly, Wabi be becomes involved in some shooting after a poker game and Wayne and he do a Butch Cassidy from the train into a river and go to an outpost. They find the skeletons of the missing girl’s father and a rival, each having killed the other, but leaving a map with a gold mine indicated.

The setting is Canada and French- Canadian assistant to the manager of the outpost steals a map and takes it to an outlaw – which leads to the abduction of the assistant at the outpost, who turns out to be the missing girl, who is rescued daringly by Wayne.

This leads to the buildup for a shootout, and escape by canoe and more going into the water before the happy ending where Wabi, who was attracted to the girl, realises that she is in love with Wayne and he waves them goodbye.

One of the features of these films is that they do pack a great deal of plot within the under-our running time.

BLACK HAWK DOWN


US, 2001, 124 minutes, Colour.
Josh Hartnett, Ewan Mc Gregor, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana, William Fichtner, Ewan Bremner, Sam Shepard, Kim Coates, Hugh Dancy, Ron Eldard, Ioan Gruffud, Jeremy Piven, Orlando Bloom Jason Isaacs, Zeljko Ivanek, Brian Holt, Nikolai Coster- Waldau. Tom Hardy,
Directed by Ridley Scott.

The setting is Somalia, 1992, the civil war and the fighting of the warlords with the use of food supplies as a weapon in the famine stricken country. The film opens with several minutes of exposition explaining the situation. The principal action concerns the American presence along with UN peacekeepers, especially from Pakistan. An opportunity arose for the Americans to go into central Mogadishu with helicopters and ground forces to capture some of the cabinet leaders of the warlord, Aidid What was meant to take a short time with efficient action lasted more than twelve hours with 19 American casualties and a thousand Somalis dead.

Clearly the perspective of this film is American. It is based on the book by the observing journalist, Mark Bowden. The Americans did not inform the UN troops of their intentions but had to rely on their help, that of the Pakistanis, to save the day. The principal Somalis seen in the film are those hostile to the Americans, who attack the troops with sophisticated as well as basic weapons.

The film is a quite painstaking reconstruction of what happened, expertly edited so that audiences will feel that they have been in the middle of the action. The action is the focus rather than the characters, some of whom are quite well defined but most are difficult to identify and keep track of for those who are not quick to note distinguishing characteristics. However, Sam Shepard as the General in charge of the operation stands out.

As a re-creation of a battle, the film is impressive. As a portrayal of American action, it is patriotic with some nods in the direction of the Somalis.

1. A perspective on war in the Middle East in the 1990s? From the perspective of 2001 and the 21st century? Terror, Africa, Somalia, American activities, invasions?

2. The first Gulf War, American consciousness a decade later? The Bush administration? The transition to the Clinton administration? The picture of Mogadishu, Civil War, the warlords?

3. The use of Moroccan locations, for the city of Mogadishu, the streets, the markets, public buildings?

4. The American presence, headquarters, the troops and the accommodation, the detail, rooms, bunks, meals, the feel for the American troops and their morale?

5. Action sequences, the helicopters and the aerial photography, action on the ground, helicopter crashes, street to street fighting, the effect, dangers, errors, the dying, the wounded – the saving of the hand in the pouch? The stunt work, the special effects? The musical score?

6. The director, his abilities and range of films? The extensive male cast, young, at the beginning of careers? Americans, British, Australian? The masculine world (and the one phone call and the wife missing the call)?

7. The initial information on Somalia, the warlords, the place of the United Nations, the warlords and the stealing of the food, the consequences for ordinary people? The battles? The leader, his advisers? The American mission, the planned abductions?

8. The US sending in troops, their preparation, Garrison and his command, the nature of the mission, its extent?

9. Garrison, his role, his aims, the interviews with the captive advisor, our sales, defiance of the Americans? Working with his officers, with the troops? His role of coordination, contact, supervision? The importance of the informant in the car in the street, accuracy of the building for the attack? His continued supervision? The end? Failure aspects? His taking responsibility?

10. The Somalis, the situation, the stealing the food, anti-American stances? Plan, the informant, his hesitation, moving his car, parking in front of the building, the information?

11. The range of the US troops, the cast and audiences able to identify individuals? The minimal characterisation? Interactions? The officer and his interest in peace, helicopter pilots and their activity, discussions? The various commanders, the infiltrator on the ground and his coming back with information? The stern officer and his being mimicked? The young man joining up, inexperience? The soldier in the office, typing?

12. The audience and involvement in the mission, observing, sharing, the fighting, the heroism, turning into a disaster? Judgments?

13. The crash of the helicopter, the deaths, defeat, the rescue by Pakistanis? The relief, regrouping?

14. The mission, achievement or not? The claim of the film as anti-war? The presentation as pro-war, American mission style?