UNDER THE SHADOW

Iran, UK, Jordan, 2015, 84 minutes, Colour.
Narges Rashidi, Avin Manshadi, Bobby Naderi.
Directed by Babak Anvari.

As this film opens, it seems as if it is going to be a human story of life in Tehran during the prolonged war of the 1980s, the Iran-Iraq? war, especially with Saddam Hussein and Iraqi forces bombarding Iran, even the city of Tehran.

This reviewer has participated in the number of film festivals in Tehran over the years and one of the main impressions was that Iranians cinema felt the need to tell story after story, film after film, about the experiences of that war, implanted firmly in the Iranians psyche. As this film reminds us, the war began not very long after the Iranian revolution of 1979, the fall and exile of the Shah, the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Initially, the film is very straightforward, matter of fact, with the central character, Shideh, visiting the Dean at the University, applying to return to studies, but told bluntly that she cannot because of her political involvement, on the left, in her time at the University. Her husband, who devoted himself to study in university days, is a successful doctor but has had to respond to the draft sending him for medical work into a dangerous war zone. Shideh is left at home with their five-year-old daughter, Dorsa, though they are urged by the husband to go to stay with his family for safety.

We are treated to various details of life in the apartment block in Tehran, a caretaker and his family, with a young boy who is now mute having been present at the death of his parents; a woman who decides to go to stay with her son in Paris for safety; a kind lady who minds the little girl; a woman with an old father who suffers a heart attack…

And all the time, we hear the noise of the air raids, people hurrying down to the shelter, and a startling episode where a huge bomb comes crashing through the roof, unexploded.

Actually, this is not really the main point of the film.

Dorsa has been listening to the allegedly mute young boy who tell story of the spirits who travel on the winds, the Djins, mysterious and malevolent spirits from the Persian traditions. Gradually, this theme takes over the narrative, mysterious noises and sense of presence which are not from the air raids, objects disappearing, especially the doll that the little girl cherishes, books with leaves flapping in the winds, building up to a powerful atmosphere of haunting, of dread and fear, of mysterious presence and menace…

With the context of the war and the hostile attacks from Iraq, the hostility of the Djins serves as symbolic. But, while the film does give the strong impression of the experience of war and the city under missile siege, it also builds up into quite an atmospheric terror thriller.

1. The impact of the film? The opening realism? The moving into fantasy, haunting, horror? The blend of both in the context of the Iran-Iraq? war of the 1980s?

2. The Tehran setting, the city, filmed in Jordan? The international production collaboration? Re-creation of the Iran of the period? The musical score?

3. The information about the war between Iran and Iraq? The visuals, the footage? The length of the war? The context of the Iranian revolution in 1979? The bombings, the Iraqi missiles on Tehran? The atmosphere of the war?

4. Realism, Shideh, dressed in black, going to the University, the harsh interview, her being told bluntly not to pursue studies, driving home, the checkpoints, her tear? Her past, university studies, her husband studying, her political involvement, the consequences? The influence of her mother for her to become a doctor? The marriage, the tensions, the days of study, her husband and his success, Shideh at home, Dorsa and the care by the neighbours, love for her daughter? Her mother, the photo, the book with the inscription, the death? Packing the books, throwing them out? Dorsa, her age? The husband, the doctor, his work, the draft, his appointment to a danger area? His urging her to go to his parents? The resistance, staying in their own home? Her stances that you look after her daughter?

5. The apartment block, the manager, the issue of the rent, bolting the door of the garage? The boys, the play, the young boy coming after his parents were killed, mute? Shideh seeing Dorsa and playing with the boys, Dorsa repeating the story of the Djin, the later image of the young boy speaking to Shideh?

6. The neighbour, minding Dorsa, the woman and her going to France to stay with her son, the woman and the old father? Shideh and her consulting the wife of the manager, asking her to curb the boy with his stories, the revelation that he was mute?

7. At home, ordinary life, her doing Jane Fonda aerobics, concealing the VCR, finding her videotape in the rubbish?

8. Dorsa, her age, with her father, her mother, her attachment to the doll, wanting it during the sheltering? Her wetting the bed? Being affected by the stories, the meals, fever, temperature, watching the VCR, the continued search for the doll? Her mother finally opening the locked drawer, the doll broken, the mother mending it?

9. The air raids, the noise, the windows, the shelter, the steps, fears, everybody together, the huge bomb coming through the roof, the old man and his collapse, Shideh trying to revive him, failure, the medics, the glazier fixing the room?

10. The phone call to her husband, his harsh comments?

11. The increasing number of noises, the presence and absence of the doll, finding it, Dorsa’s accusations against her mother, the increasing visions, the woman, the huge cloak, Shideh caught in it? Growing dangers, into viscous material on the floor, Dorsa holding out her hand?

12. The decision to leave, the car, driving through the bolted door, on the open road? The future?

13. The background of Persian stories, Djin, ghosts, spirits, carried on the wins? Beliefs superstitions? Fears?

14. A ghost story and haunting in the atmosphere of war and attack?

THE QUEEN OF IRELAND.

Ireland, 2015, 82 minutes, Colour.
Rory O ’Neill.
Directed by Conor Horgan.


Not a reference to Elizabeth II and her role in Northern Ireland. Rather, this is a story from the Irish Republic, and the Queen of Ireland is Panti Bliss, a drag queen who story is told and how he was influential in the Irish referendum of 2015 for marriage equality.

In fact, this film has two aims. Firstly, it tells the story of Rory O’ Neill, from County Mayo, a gay boy growing up in the 1970s who felt out of place, acted out some of his confusion, and became a celebrated drag queen. Secondly, it tells something the story of the Irish referendum and the significance of Panti Bliss in the buildup to the vote.

In order to appreciate this rather cheerful film, a realisation of the background of legislation about homosexuality and Ireland is necessary, the last of the European Union countries to decriminalise homosexual activity. This gives the context to Rory O’ Neill and his growing up, his time at boarding school and his being considered something of a sissy, his decision to go to art school and his interest in design, especially his drawings of women and clothes, his becoming involved in the underground gay culture of Dublin (literally, as he explains, gay clubs in basements with hetero clubs upstairs), his becoming involved in drag performances, spending time in Japan where he found a partner and name, Panti Bliss, and found that he enjoyed performing, jokes, ribald humour, songs, provocative performance.

Much of the film is straight to camera interview with Rory O’ Neill, looking something like a cousin of Graham Norton whereas Panti Bliss looks like a very tall Amy Poehler. Significantly, Rory O’ Neill explains that Panti Bliss is a clown, a tall female cartoon, basically an entertainer, and provocative because she is a court jester and the role of the jester in the past was to be humorous an ironic challenge. This certainly makes sense of her presence and performances.

A number of her friends, writers and producers also comment on the gay culture, relationships, clubs and entertainment.

With the referendum of 2015, Panti Bliss obviously took a stance for the Yes vote for marriage equality. Going on television and interviewed about the issues, national Irish television was sued because of what Panti Bliss said and they offered an apology. Panti Bliss followed this with a performance at Dublin’s Abbey Theatre, making a significant speech, a Noble Appeal, about the issues, understanding, compassion – which was filmed, appeared on YouTube?, received endorsements from people like Stephen Fry, Martina Navratilova, Graham Norton and was the subject of many hits, comments in the media, comments in the parliament.

Both Rory O’ Neill and Panti Bliss participated in the campaign, Panti Bliss doing performances, encouraging street demonstrations, while Rory O’ Neill much more quietly did a great deal of doorknocking and handing out of pamphlets.

While the film has a great deal of footage of the day of the referendum vote and the winning by the Yes campaign, and Panti Bliss going out to meet so many people, congratulations, dancing in the streets, plenty of photos, the film actually ends with Rory O’Neill? going home to County Mayo, with the strong support of his mother and father and sister, and realising that 40 years earlier he had fled the town, now he was returning to do a Panti Bliss performance for relatives and friends – rather rapturously received.

Rory O’ Neill says that tolerance is only a basis and that understanding is more important, that those who voted No, may come to understand the LBGTI community better and that the bad consequences they anticipated did not come about.

(It is very interesting to note that in this film from the once-Catholic country Ireland there is no mention of the Catholic Church at all, nothing about their heritage, nothing about the life of the church, nothing about the abuse cases, nothing about advice for the referendum, just the impression that Ireland is now a Catholic Church-free zone – although one old man does mention genially a picture of the Sacred Heart in prayer.)

BLAIR WITCH

US, 2016, 89 minutes, Colour.
James Allen Mc Cune, Callie Hernandez, Corbin Reid, Brendan Scott, Wes Robinson, Valorie Curry.
Directed by Adam Lingard.

It was 17 years ago, in 1999, that a small budget horror film made more of a mark than it ever anticipated, not only with its eerie tale of an ill-fated search in some dark Maryland woods but with its technique of handheld camera, (jerkiness personified) and the device of found footage. It led to a sequel but the influence of the film extended to many imitations in homages, sometimes an epidemic of found footage!

So, why revisiting of the theme 17 years later? It is too easy to say that the production company wanted to make money, not that they don’t, but this film seems to be one of those labours of love by young filmmakers who admire such films as The Blair Witch Project and who want to do their own version, enjoy creating a variation on the story, are proud of their cinematic techniques, and the desire to give their audiences some good scares.

In many ways these filmmakers succeed here – and their contemporaries, or whom the original film might be a touch of ancient history, will share the enthusiasm of the director and writer and the zest of the cast (not always a likeable lot, not always too easy to identify with) and enjoy Blair Witch on its own modern terms.A guess is that older audiences (and older reviewers) will have a feeling, especially in the first two thirds of the film that they have been there, done that!

The device for this film is that some footage has been found (of course) of the original expedition, and has come into the hands of James, the younger brother of Heather from the original. He feels he ought to conduct a search though police and other agencies have found no trace of the mysterious house in the woods. His girlfriend, Lisa, is interested in making a documentary and is persuaded to go into the woods on the search, along with James’s old friends, Peter and Ashley.They go to visit the young people who found the footage who insist that they come along on the search.

They have a range of cameras, cards, GPS, drone cameras…

A lot of the time is spent in the woods, preternaturally dark for so much of the time, trees and mysterious paths, travelling in circles, mysterious symbols appearing in the trees, loud and cracking noises, wounds to the foot, and plenty of scares in the woods. Of course, it has to be said, that any audience susceptible to these dramatic devices will be scared, agitated, affected by the situations.

Some of the older, more tried critics, then had to admit that once James and Lisa had found the house in the woods (in the dark) and gone inside this rambling and ruined mystery building, it really did become very eerie and at one stage, Lisa catapulted into a vault, trying to squeeze through claustrophobic tunnels, something the critics would dread having to do, it did become really scary.

No real explanations at the end – and probably filmmakers at the ready if they and audiences have the urge to take the narrative further.

1. The impact of the film? Horror? Terror? In comparison with the original, content, found footage, mystery? Handheld camera work? The woods, the dark, the presences? The musical score?

2. The sequel to the original? This film 17 years later? So many other films influenced by the style and content? The original revisited?

3. Situation, 2016, characters, the footage of James’s sister, the decision to go on search?

4. Audience response to the characters, the men and the women, identifying with them or not? Sympathetic? Unsympathetic?

5. Situation, the initial footage being discovered, James and his bond with his sister, his age when she disappeared, his interest in her project, his own project, working with Lisa, her documentary? Friendship with Peter and Ashley?

6. The range of cameras, improvements over the years, GPS, the drone camera, reverse cameras? Seeing them in action? The effect?

7. The visit to Lane and Talia, their personalities, their information, to one wanting to join the group?

8. The woods, the trees, the paths, the search, no house, the drone and the aerial surveys? The dark, fears, the symbols in the trees, Lane and Talia the reaction? Their being ousted? Ashley and the wound to her foot, treatment, infection, the worms? Peter, going off alone, his search? Talia and Lane returning, being ousted, the further symbols? Waking up at two in the afternoon?

9. The final night, Ashley, her foot wound, her leg, rushing away, seeing the drone in the tree, climbing, reaching out, her long fall, being dragged away?

10. James and Lisa, their search, finding the house?

11. The house, the details of the interiors, dark? The lights from the cameras? The apparition of the Blair Witch, appearance, movement? James upstairs, in the corner? Lisa, coming
inside, her fall, the claustrophobic climb through the hole, with James? Their fate?

12. The ending, the terror, no explanations? The latter part of the film and its effectiveness in horror?

HELAS POUR MOI/ WOE IS ME

Frank, 1993, 95 minutes, Colour.
Gerard Depardieu, Laurence Masliah, Bernard Veerley, Aude Amiot.
Directed by Jean- Luc Godard.

This is a film for cineastes, the cinema specialists, those who appreciate arthouse cinema, for fans of intellectual communication via the screen and visual symbols, devotees of director Jean- Luc Godard and his long career, over 50 years from the late 1950s.

Initially, Godard, part of the French New Wave, Nouvelle Vague, chose to make provocative narratives, in black and white, using the stars of the period, by Jean- Paul Belmondo and, especially, Anna Karina. The black-and-white photography was very stylish and the films concentrated on story and meanings.

In the 1960s, he made a transition to colour, still with narratives but with a lessening interest in plot development than with meanings, the films becoming more intellectual, communicating through images, dramatic editing, much less narrative.

This continued into the 1980s and 1990s – where this film fits into his catalogue.There is a provocative title, a hand-pick cast, led by Gerard Depardieu.

While there are narrative elements here, focus on relationship and breakup, the characters tend to be emblems, symbolic characters – and it always seems as if the cast are not actually performing but rather doing what the director asks them to do whether they understand it or not.

There is a juxtaposition of visuals, symbolic and challenging editing, the images making suggestions, evoking intellectual and emotional responses. This means that the quality of the visuals is important, locations, the countryside, water, as well is the interiors. This leads to more cosmic, cosmologican questions and God questions.

So, this is a symbolic cinematic essay probing human nature, sketches of individuals, the relationships, the significance of men, the significance of women, fidelity and infidelity, love falling out – all part of the human struggle.

CALAMITY JANE

US, 1984, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jane Alexander, Frederic Forrest, Ken Kercheval, Walter Olkewicz, Talia Balsam, Walter Scott, David Hemmings.
Directed by James Goldstone.

There have been many films about Calamity Jane and she has been played by many actresses including Jane Russell, Yvonne De Carlo and, possibly best known, Doris Day in the musical with Howard Keel as Wild Bill Hickok.

Jane Alexander, who excelled as a stage actress as well as on-screen, was in her early 40s when she made this film – and served as one of the producers.

There is a visual collage at the opening of the film outlining Jane’s life but the narrative takes up with her work as a scout, her skill as a shooter, her promotion of women in the Army and in other professions, when she encounters Bill Hickok, lawman, and is attracted to him and a drunken Congregational Reverend performs a marriage ceremony and documents it in a page from his Bible.However, the couple did not want people to know, although Jane was in love with Bill and would have been happy to settle down. She and he worked together successfully but he is restless and accepts an invitation from Buffalo Bill Cody to join his travelling actors.

Jane is pregnant, goes out into the mountains, gives birth, and is found by visiting English Captain O’ Neill and his wife who get her some help and then offer to adopt the child. She is reluctant but eventually sees that this would be better for the little girl – and there is secrecy.

Jane has her ups and downs, begins to drink, offends the respectable women in the town, wins money at poker – and visits her daughter during a trip to America from England. She reluctantly accept a proposal of marriage but this is not successful. Later, she is offered a position as a sideshow in the carnival and encounters her daughter once more. Her adoptive father says that Jane can reveal the truth to her daughter who has put her on a pedestal – Jane is unable to tell her the truth. She does accept an invitation from Bill Cody enjoins his travelling troupe.

Many of the Calamity Jane films have a lighter touch – this one moves towards presenting some greater realism. Frederic Forrest is Bill Hickok and in a sympathetic performance David Hemmings is Captain O’ Neill.

1. The popularity of Calamity Jane in American history and folklore? Life, her legend, a cowgirl of the 19th century, performing in Buffalo Bill’s travelling circus? The many film versions contributing?

2. The West in the 19th century, the towns, the open countryside, stagecoach routes, law and order in the towns? The contrast with the American cities, New York City? The popularity of performances by Wild West characters?

3. The opening collage, suggesting the life and the career of Martha Jane Cannery? Origins in the West, upbringing, in the West, action, skill at shooting, the work as a scout, with the Army, a woman in this role?

4. Jane Alexander as Jane, her age, appearance, skill in shooting, her swagger, the feminine touches, the masculine touches, clothes, work, reputation?

5. The stagecoach, the driving, the encounter with Bill Hickok, the two reverends going to the convention, the attack, the driver being shot, cared for, camping overnight, the drinking, the Reverend and his performing the wedding, the document from the Bible? The effect on Jane, on Bill? Their being comfortable with each other?

6. Bill Hickok, his reputation, law and order, his wanting to move on? His relationship with Jane, the marriage? The visit of Bill Cody, Jane dressing up, the gaudy presentation, punching the girl, the effect on Cody, with Hickok and his deciding to move on?

7. Jane, her pregnancy, going out into the cave, surviving there, giving birth? Discovered by Captain O’ Neill and his wife? Their providing the maid and her assistance? The offer to adopt the child? Jane and her devotion to her daughter, thinking that the O’ Neills would offer a better life and education, handing over the baby, Captain O’ Neill and the donation of money, the secrecy?

8. Jane, going back to work, writing the cattle, her reputation? Charlie and his devotion? The continued friendship with Will?

9. O’ Neill and his suggestion that she write her memoirs for her daughter? Learn to write? The manuscripts? The letter to say that O’ Neill and the daughter were in America? The skill at gambling, playing poker, winning the money, turning up to visit her daughter? O’ Neill and his support? The death of his wife? That girl, becoming friendly with Jane, sharing the stories? Jane and offered to live nearby, even to marry Captain O’ Neill, or to go on travels with them?

10. Charlie Burke, his admiration for Jane, his coming to find her, the proposal, heard wariness? Deciding to settle down, the marriage ceremony, the farm, Charlie and his laziness, Jane letting the cattle go, confronting him, leaving?

11. The return, the drinking, the coach, pursued by the Indians, the gymnastics and the riding away, getting older, not looking after herself? Will and his bar? The respectable women of the town objecting – and a huge ruckus and her attack on them? Her going into the sideshows, the continued drinking, Captain O’ Neill and Jean, coming to see her, Jean talking, the invitation to the social? Her dressing up, going, the autographs, the gossip of the women? Captain O’ Neill willing that she reveal to Jean that she was to her daughter? The intention, Jean and her admiration, Jane as a role model? Unable to tell her daughter the truth?

12. The offer from Bill Cody, seeing her practising, her manoeuvres on the horse? Going to Europe, the audiences – and the final close-up on the image of Jane in the moccasins?

13. Bill Hickok, his death, her love for him, buried next to him? The memories of Deadwood?

14. The romanticising of Calamity Jane in other movies? This one moving towards greater realism?

YOUNG ONES

US, 2014, 97 minutes, Colour.
Michael Shannon, Nicholas Hoult, Elle Fanning, Kodi Smit- Mc Phee.
Directed by Jake Paltrow.

Young Ones is a rather generic title which does not indicate at all what this film is about by or how it is communicated.

There is a scarcity of water in parts of the United States, the location where this story is set, making it look something like a post-apocalyptic story. But, there is water available and pipes are being built to bring it to the more than drought-stricken areas. In the cities, life seems to be continuing as normal and several times we see commercial planes flying overhead. People can listen to the radio and there are commercials for buying used cars…

Out in the wasteland, people try to survive, and one man with his teenage son, Ernest and Jerome, Michael Shannon and Kodi Smit Mc Phee, have a contract to bring supplies to the pipe installation workers, bringing the goods by donkey. Ernest has faith that the land can still be fruitful when water comes and tries to persuade the workers to divert some of the pipes to this area.

When the donkey is accidentally wounded by Jerome and the father has to shoot it, they go to an auction where artificial carriers, robotlike machines, are being auctioned. The son of the auctioneer, Fleming, Nicholas Hoult, is eager to buy the machine but is outbid. He is also having an affair with Ernest’s daughter, Mary, Elle Fanning.

Fleming is a resentful young man against Ernest and also ambitious and is the catalyst for some disasters and deaths. The water is diverted and the land renewed, crops growing again, and Jerome and Mary settling down with Fleming. However, something of Fleming’s treachery is discovered by Jerome and the film moved towards a violent vendetta.

The structure of the film is in three chapters, one focusing on Ernest, the next on Fleming, the last on Jerome.

The film is interestingly written and performed and it keeps audience interest. Direction is by Jake Paltrow, whose work has mainly been with television series but also directed the Good Night and a documentary about Brian De Palma.


1. Science-fiction story told in a “normal” world situation? The touch of the apocalyptic with the lack of water? Yet the possibilities of finding more water and prospering? The difficulties of people on the outskirts of the city, in the desert? Watching the planes fly overhead, listening to the radio broadcasts, the commercials for used cars?

2. The credibility of the plot, the people on the outskirts, the absence of water, the rerouting of pipes, the value of the land, ownership, banks, trading and bringing goods to workers in the desert?

3. The location photography, South African locations, the desert, the mountains, the homes, the pipelines, the wells? The musical score?

4. The telling of the story, in chapters, the particular focus of each chapter? The strong cast – and Michael Shannon disappearing after the first chapter?

5. The opening, the setting of the desert, the family, the home, father and son and their working together, the donkey, transporting the supplies, the reaction of the workers? The first chapter focusing on Ernest? His age, his drinking, reform? The effect on his wife, violence, her being in the institution, his visits, her being connected to the wires? His relationship with Jerome, wanting him to call him dad? Yet bonding with him, spending time with him, proud of him? The contrast with his attitude towards Mary, harsh, restrictive?

6. His work, with the men, the deals, the alcohol? The donkey, Jerome and the death of the donkey? Ernest and his tolerance? Their going to the auction, outbidding Fleming? Getting the machine? Using it for transporting? Fleming and his attitude?

7. Ernest, the clash with Fleming, buying the machine, Fleming being vindictive? Trying to persuade the men about the pipeline? The fight, the bashing, the knife? Fleming and his dealing with Ernest, argument, throwing the stone, the blood and the concussion, dragging him, Ernest’s death?

8. Jerome, his age, devoted to his father, his friendship with Fleming? The aftermath of his father’s death, Fleming and his relationship with Mary? Her pregnancy?

9. Mary, her character, household chores and washing with sand, anger with her father, relationship with Fleming, pregnant, wanting the money, perhaps an abortion? Are plans to leave with Fleming? her father’s death and her grief? The funeral? Brother and sister visiting their mother in hospital?

10. Fleming, only son, his father and the deals? The other old men and their surviving?

11. The rerouting of the pipes, Fleming and his ownership of the land, the water, the land being fruitful, Jerome and his seeing the initial shoot, the collage of further shoots, the crops growing, fruitfulness?

12. Seeming peace, Mary and her pregnancy, Jerome and his work, Fleming and prosperity?

13. Second chapter and the focus on Fleming and his achievement? The third chapter and the focus on Jerome and his new awareness?

14. Fleming, with Robbie and the girl, Ernest and is strict instructions to Robbie, Robbie wanting to get money and the prospect of selling the child? The discovery that the child was a doll? Fleming, his anger, killing Robbie? The pretense that he was still alive?

15. Jerome finding the machine, the filming, his seeing the wounding of his father and his death? Biding his time with Fleming? Telling him he had messages from Robbie?

16. The final confrontation, Fleming in the hole, Jerome and the gradual revelation of the truth, watching Fleming, Fleming and his protests, his schemes? The irony that Ernest was in debt to the bank and his father telling Fleming that the bank would take over the land – and Fleming’s devices to do business in getting the money, having the knife from the workers on
the pipe rerouting?

17. Fleming, his presuming that Jerome would not kill him, his death?

18. Mary, worried about Fleming not returning, the brother and sister sitting at the table, Jerome not telling her the truth – and moving into the future?

HE WHO MUST DIE/ CELUI QUI DORT MOURIR

France, 1957, 127 minutes, Black and white.
Jean Servais, Carl Mohner, Gregoire Aslan, Gert Frobe, Melina Mercouri, Roger Hanin, Pierre Vaneck, Nicole Berger, Maurice Ronet, Ferdinand Ledoux.
Directed by Jules Dassin.

He Who Must Die is now considered something of a classic of the 1950s.

In retrospect, it became more interesting to watch because of the authorship of Nicolas Kazantszakis, Christ Re-crucified, and Martin Scorsese filming his novel, with a great deal of controversy surrounding its release, The Last Temptation of Christ, 1988.

This is a story of the island of Crete, from where Kazantszakis came from and where we he was excommunicated, like the Shepherd character here, by the Greek Orthodox Church, in the 1920s, and under Turkish rule and occupation. The film opens with the Turks ousting the population from a village and destroying it, the people, with the leadership of their Orthodox priest on the road, as refugees and pilgrims, seeking help from another village which is also led by priest.

The locals are against the refugees, the priest using his authoritarian power to repel them, claiming that they are suffering from cholera. The group, suffering from hunger, take refuge in barren fields in the mountains, attempting some cultivation – but sympathetic villagers find that there is no cholera and make attempts to persuade the village to help them.

The context is the putting on of a traditional Passion Play, something familiar from Catholic countries but here presented in the Orthodox tradition, with the local priest naming some of the citizens to play the gospel characters – with whom they begin to identify more and more, especially a local shepherd with a stammer who is to play Jesus, a bar keeper and a postman who play apostles, the son of the local mayor who is to play John, one of the villagers, sinister, who is to be Judas. Local prostitute, Katarina, is, of course, to be Mary Magdalene.

The film is directed by American Jules Dassin had fallen foul of the House of Un American Activities enquiries and had to leave the United States after a successful career with a number of film noirs while in the 1940s. exile In France made such films as Rififii and Topkapi. He who Must Die is a French production. Dassin was to marry his star, Melina Mercouri who had a long career in the Greek parliament and who appeared in quite a number of his films including Never on Sunday, Promise at Dawn.

There is a very strong French cast in the central roles led by Jean Servais as the kindly priest and Fernand Ledoux is the authoritarian priest who becomes more and more like Caiaphas of the Gospels in his condemnation of the shepherd, in his heartlessness, in his dealings with the Turkish authority who is obviously the equivalent of Pontius Pilate. Peter Vaneck is the shepherd who is to be Jesus, Maurice Ronet is John, Gert Frobe is the mayor, Gregoire Aslan is the Agha.

While the village does not put on the play in its formal sense, the experience of the players and the encounter with the refugees and their plight, leading to the death of the shepherd and his continued support for those caring for the refugees means that the story itself is a passion play and the shepherd is a Christ figure.

1. The classic status of the film? Of the 1950s? Set in Greece and Crete in the 1920s? A French perspective?

2. Novelist Nicolas Kazantszakis, his literary status, his experiences in Greece, Crete? The Orthodox Church? His excommunication?

3. The work of the director, in the US, brought before the House of Un- American Activities, his having to leave the US and work in Europe? Ben Barzman as his writer?

4. Black-and-white photography, Cinemascope, the Crete locations, the landscapes, the mountains, rocky terrain, the harshness? The village, homes? The fields, the sheep? The church? The musical score?

5. The tradition of the Passion Play in European countries? Catholic traditions? Orthodox traditions? The casting from people in the village? The authority of the church? The status of the cast and their life in the village?

6. The tradition of the Christ-figure? The casting of the play, the characters, their identifying, acting out their gospel character, the consequences? Manolios as the Christ-figure?

7. The Turkish occupation, rule, the initial destruction, Priest Fotis, Loucas, the people as refugees, pilgrims, on the road, the trek into the interiors?

8. The village, the Agha, a dilettante, the boy, the music, his eating, life of ease? His collaboration with the mayor? The coexistence of Turks and Greeks? His attitude towards the church, Christians fighting against each other, more favourable comparisons with Islam, the role of Allah, the role of heaven?

9. The rich and poor in the town, ordinary people, tradespeople, the owner of the bar and his shrewish wife, the postman and his steaming open the letters, the news? The shepherd and his stammer? Katarina as prostitute? The Judas character in the town? Michelis, son of the mayor? Their lives?

10. The town meetings, the council, the role of the priest? His naming the players and their accepting? Authoritarian?

11. The postman, the barman, as James and Peter? The serious choice, taking the role seriously? Michelis is John? The Judas figure?

12. The arrival of the refugees, fears? Townspeople not offering any welcome, the leadership of the priest, his claiming cholera, ousting the people, their taking to the barren hills? Manolios going to visit, the postman and the barman, their telling the priest in the town that there was no cholera? The issues of survival for the people? Michelis and his support of Manolios? Michelis and his fiancee, her love, anxious, taking sides against Michelis?

13. The appeal to the priest, his hierarchical attitudes, belief that God decreed who was rich and who was poor? His fears? The confrontation with Manios, ex-communicating him? Michelis backing down?

14. Katarina, her place in the village, cheerful, her reputation, the massage for the mayor, the Judas character and his visits to her house, her cutting him off? The attraction to Manolios?
Then thinking him a coward, a change of heart, admiration for him? Her Mary Magdalene experiences? The ultimate stance, holding Manolios like the Pieta? (And there being no place for Mary, mother of Jesus in this Passion play?)

15. The situation, the Turks and the equivalent of Roman occupation of Judaea? The Agha and taking the easy way out, the priest and the threats? His talking to Manolios, going to the besieged group, the plausibility of Manolios backing down? The priest, his continued urging of the authorities, the Pontius Pilate and high priest situation? Manolios, collapse, dying – but declaring that he would be with the people always?

16. The priest, the worst of religion and authority? The contrast with Fotis and the pastoral priest leading the refugee people?

17. Fotis, his leadership, the good man, Manolios and Michelis supporting him, the postman of the barman, persuading the group to come down, their attempts at cultivating the fields, the hunger, the death of those starving? The confrontation with the council, the man who went to warn them, took their side, his being shot in the confrontation? Fears and the group
retreating?

18. Michelis, his father disowning him? His father dying, the reconciliation, the Agha and the shared drink, perspectives on heaven and hell? His will, bequeathing everything to his son? Going to the priest, his burning the will, his decrees? Michelis taking the refugees to the store, feeding them?

19. The preparations for battle, Michelis and his leadership, Loukas and his death, Manolios and his inspiration?

20. The allegory of the gospel? The communication of the gospel message? The relevance of the film 60 years later – and Greece and its experience of Syrian refugees?

LIFE, ANIMATED

US, 2016, 89 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Roger Ross Williams.

In this title, the word “animated” has two different meanings, both of them very positive.

The immediate impact of the word is that this is a film about life, liveliness, life that is full of spirit. And this is true. However, the word has more meaning in connection with movie animation, with some designed especially for illustrating the central character in this film and his experiences, but with a greater emphasis on Disney films, the classic Disney films.

This is a documentary about Owen Suskind, whom we see at the beginning of the film as a 23-year-old preparing for his graduation. We soon realise that this is not an ordinary graduation. The program is for young adults with psychological and behavioural difficulties. Owen is autistic. As the audience accompanies Owen and his family on his life journey so far, there is a moving opportunity to understand and to appreciate something of autism and means of coping.

There are home movies of Owen as a little boy, enjoying life until, at the age of three, something happens inside him, an inability to talk properly, uttering jumbles of sounds, and unable to walk with a normal gait. Fortunately, he has a very loving and devoted parents, his father a journalist with the Wall Street Journal and his mother, working at home, continually loving and supportive. He has an older brother Walter, who is lovingly concerned about his brother.There are visits to doctors, therapists, prescriptions for medication…

Some transformation happens in the parents’ ability to help their son when Owen is able to articulate a phrase which they recognise from Disney’s The Little Mermaid. Owen watches the Disney movies, is able to identify with the characters, especially emotionally, has a capacity for memorising and quoting the dialogue, the films and the characters thus becoming norms for his understanding of human nature and behaviour.

One of the features of the film is the highlighting of particular scenes from the animated films, with Owen identifying as Peter Pan, identifying when packing to leave home with Dumbo, Bambi and the death of his mother, many sequences and characters of the Little Mermaid and a climax with The Lion King.

Back to his graduation, his fondness for one of his fellow students Emily and the shock of her not wanting to continue the relationship, his wise mother explaining carefully the ups and downs of life and the need to cope. He settles into his own apartment, sometimes very able in what he can do, at other times needing assistance and guidance from helpers in this supervised accommodation. And, interestingly, he gets an invitation to go to a conference in France to speak about his own situation, especially the bond with the animated films. He gives his speech, brief, but quite an achievement.

There have been a number of films, and we remember Rain Man from almost 30 years ago, about people with autism – another inspiring film is the real-life story of a young woman, Temple Grandin.

1. The impact of the film? Humane? Autism? The particular focus on Owen Suskind? A close-up look? Observation and reflection?

2. A moving documentary, detailed following of the family, of Owen and his experiences, enabling the audience to observe and think? The title, Disney animation and its impact? The
particular animation about Owen and his experiences for this film?

3. The world of Disney, the range of Disney animated films, in the past, like Peter Pan, Dumbo, Bambi? More recent times like The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King?

4. The introduction, Owen, age 23, classes, the prospect of graduation, his condition, personality, relationship with his family, with Emily, with the teachers and carers?

5. The background of his family, Ron as a Wall Street journalist, his mother working at home? Walter as his older brother? The initial happy family life, the home movies?

6. Owen at age three, the sudden regression, the garbled talk, the awkward walking? The consultation with psychologists and therapists? The pervasive deterioration? Medication? Questions about intellectual ability, articulation? Sounds and words? His interior life, relationships?

7. Growing up, his childhood, adolescence, the therapies? Medication? The continued devotion of his parents? Walter and his concern, support, worry about Owen’s future?

8. The animation, and connecting with the characters, their emotions, their interactions, a way of interpreting reality? His enjoying the films, understanding them, entering into their world and their security? His collection of videos?

9. The range of Disney, the posters, The Little Mermaid, the nature of the excerpts, the relationship to his experience, for example Dumbo and packing, Bambi and his mother dying, Owen as a Peter Pan, his playing Peter Pan as a game? The importance of The Little Mermaid? The threats, the friend? Be a Guest? The climax in the Lion King?

10. The special animation for the film, its visual style, the characterisation of Owen, helping the audience to appreciate Owen through the images, his story, his experience, the equivalents – and the Disney characters appearing in this animation?

11. The important characterisation of his family, his father, in the home videos, over the years, sympathetic and affectionate? His mother, loving, present, wise, her advice? Walter, older, his own life, but his concern for Owen, listening to him, advising him?

12. His graduation, happy, the relationship with Emily, the bonds between them? The breakdown of the relationship, the reasons, sharing, the break, the effect on Owen, on Emily? His mother giving him advice on life and it ups and downs, coping? Walter and his support? Owen seeing Emily – and the ordinary friendship?

13. Walter, his reflection on his brother, especially Owen growing up, biological urges, sexuality? Owen baffled by all of this? The cartoon equivalents of romantic love?

14. The graduation, the celebration, his happiness? Packing, travelling, going into the new apartment, the detail, settling in, knowing how to settle, things that he could not do, the question about the post and the key, getting help? Supervised accommodation?

15. The importance of getting a job, the discussion with the manager of the cinemas, his work as an usher and greeting people?

16. The visit to Paris, trying to write his talk, his parents taking him, the speech, the attentive audience, his words in French, the nature of his speech and the explanation about the Disney characters?

17. The film offering an opportunity, in a brief space of time, for some understanding of autism? Appreciation of the situation? The character of Owen, his life, coping – and questions about his future?

SUPREMACY

US, 2014, 106 minutes, Colour.
Joe Anderson, Danny Glover, Dawn Olivieri, Derek Luke, Lela Rochon, Mahershala Ali, Julie Benz, Nick Chinlund, Anson Mount.
Directed by Deon Taylor.

Supremacy is based on actual criminals and events.

It is a disturbing picture of the ideology of white supremacists, their prejudices, absorbing aspects of neo-Nazi propaganda, a severe racist attitude towards African- Americans. The film has been made by an African- American director and received an award for its presentation of issues.

The film takes place over 24 hours with the release from prison of a man, Tully (Joe Anderson) who had been incarcerated for 15 years for armed robbery. In prison he had been influenced by a supremacist leader and found something that he could believe in, overcoming his poor self-image. He is fairly undereducated, puts his faith in the ideology, has a rough and brutal, foul-mouth attitude towards life.

When he gets out of prison he is picked up by an associate of the supremacists, Doreen (Dawn Olivieri) who has her own agenda, especially taking money to get back her child from social services. On the way to his parole officer’s meeting, he robs a store, rejects a sexual advance from Doreen because of ideological purity, but when the car is held up by a police officer, there is a tangle and he shoots the officer. The two then hide out in a home which belongs to an African- American family and they take them hostage.

Most of the action takes place in the house, especially the confrontation between Tally and the old man of the family, played with his usual dignity and vocal rasp by Danny Glover. He has had his own trouble with the law but advises patience, especially when the teenage son gets a knife and threatens violence. Also in the house is the old man’s wife, and a young woman with her little boy and baby. The old man is estranged from his police officer son (Derek Luke) who tries to make contact and is involved in the final confrontation.

The two on the run from the police go through a great deal of anxiety and some soul-searching leading to a rather unexpected non-violent ending.

The director of the film, African- American Deon Taylor, has given a good part of his career to making race-conscious films.


1. A story of white supremacists, their ideology, their actions, their targets, as dramatised with a black family? Black police officers?

2. The settings: prison, the open roads, shops, the street of the shooting, the house, interiors, exteriors, the town? The musical score?

3. The title, the picture of white supremacists, the neo-Nazi attitudes, tattoos and symbols, ideology? Vicious? Violent? Language and imagery?

4. The structure of the film, Tully getting out of prison, being picked up by Doreen, the drive, the shooting, taking refuge in the house, taking the hostages, the interactions, the confrontations, final decisions? The continued insertion of flashbacks elaborating on prison, Tully getting out of prison, interactions with Doreen, the hold-up in the shop, chased by the police officer, the confrontation, the killings, the witnesses rushing away? Further explanations of tallies mentality?

5. The character of Tully, the information about 15 years in jail, armed robbery? His assessment of himself, low self-image, meeting the supremacists, the leader in jail? His mouthing of principles throughout the film? Getting out, the encounter with Doreen, her sexual approach and his rejection, his comment about purity of leaders? The issue of the money, Doreen and her denials, later the discovery of the money, wanting it for her son? The talk, the shop, the hold-up and the fear of the checkout man? The attitude towards the policeman, fears, his surliness, not providing documents, claiming his rights, getting out of the car, the drawing of the gun, shooting the man, so many times? Taking refuge in the house, trying to make the phone call to the prison and asking for help? The supremacists not leaving their own?

6. The household? Mr Walker, Danny Glover’s screen presence? Age, experience, prison, not liking the police, the clashes with his son? His relationship with his wife, her challenging him? With the children? His advocating patience, agreeing with Tully, their being put in the closet? The uncertainties, his advising Anthony to be patient? His going to the toilet, talking with Tully, a certain empathy? The deal, buying supplies, taking Anthony to the hospital? The issue of solemn words – and Tully shooting Anthony? His going out in the car, the phone call from his son and his cutting it off? The return, his not knowing what his wife had done? The police following him? His care for the young woman and the baby, the boy, talking with the boy who wondered whether he was mad at him, not smiling? The final talk with Tully, Tully with the gun in his mouth, the old man urging him to think, choices, his going out with him and the hands up? Surviving?

7. Doreen, her background, losing her son, taking the drugs, the link with the supremacists, her own bigoted and racist remarks? Her concern about getting her son? Travelling with Tully, the sexual approach in his rejection? The shop? The shooting and her being agreeable with the police officer? In the house, variety of moods, taking the cocaine? Talking about shooting, yet hesitating? With the little boy in the discussion about food, her son? Her finally giving up, looking in the mirror, denial about the money, having it? Tully urging her not to go out? Going out with her hands up?

8. The people in house, the mother, caring, severe with the young woman and the children, concerned about Anthony, defying Tully, the phone call her driving to the hospital? Informing the police? The young woman, her children, her fears, brutalised by Tally, having to report anything to him, Anthony with the knife, the mother and her rebuking of the young woman? Her fears, concern about her son, the baby? In the closet, downstairs and confined?

9. The little boy, fears, at the table, the food, talking with Doreen? Anthony, impatient, his background, delivering pizza, wanting to attack, getting the cigarette lighter, pocketing the knife, taking Doreen as hostage, talked down? But Tully shooting him? Going to the hospital?

10. The police, the officer in charge, the searching, the helicopters, the lights? The old man and his son, hostility, the phone call and the old man cutting him off, his going to the door, his being reassured? At the end, the negotiations with Tully, the phone call to the prison? The reconciliation with his father?

11. Tully, the growing desperation, the phone call to the prison, his being abandoned by the supremacists chief, cut off, collapse, his gun in his mouth, the old man talking him down, giving himself up – and the information that he is on death row?

DUMB CRIMINALS/ DUMB CRIMINALS: THE MOVIE

Australia, 2015, 90 minutes, Colour.
Paul Fenech, Kevin Taumata, Alex Romano, Elle Dawe, Angry Anderson, Andy Mc Phee.
Directed by Paul Fenech.

There is a major reason for seeing this film unless one is a devotee of the work of Paul Fenech, who has had a considerable career in Australian television with miniseries and telememovies on Australian Bogans – by no way upper middle but really low, lower.

Fenech is noted for his television series and films with the suburban working class (and sometimes not working) of the Australian city suburbs, the Housos. There is also an interest in pizza, Fat Pizza and some television series focusing on a pizza shop and deliveries.

In many ways, while the tone is satiric and send-up, the focus is on a lowest common denominator of creating characters, their behaviour, their language, their exploits. While there is spoof of the Australian character, the range of men and women shown in the film presents all kinds of loud-mouth, foul-mouth, sometimes drug-fuelled, mentally-deficient, stupid caricatures.

This one starts with a touch more humanity, two stupid bikies, expelled from their club, haunted by the ghost of the founder who has died in prison, that they should rob money in order to pay for hospital bills of his daughter. They are initially shown in the mountains of Nevada with gangs firing on them and then the film goes back, their robbery, being caught on CCTV and too stupid to cover themselves, time in prison, clashes with bikies, getting out with some really dopey fellow-prisons, setting up a house, having contact with the bikies (led by musician and would-be politician, Angry Anderson).

They team up with a rather stupid friend, with his perpetual bong, who is able to succeed in a robbery where the two heroes fail, again being caught on CCTV. He put on a welder’s mask and thinks he is Ned Kelly and the media respond to him in that way. The bikies have another task for our two – which enables the stars and crew to have some time in Las Vegas’ to track down the accountant for the bikie gang who has absconded with all the money – which leads them back out into the Nevada desert.

One good thing is that the little girl gets better.

Paul Fenech who has written, produced and directed all this material, stars as Rabbit, the alleged brains behind the team – who opens the film with a Presley-like performance of a song about rabbits and their sexual behaviour – and is teamed with New Zealand, Maori actor, Kevin Taumata, more good-natured and a touch more stupid, who has appeared in practically all of Fenech’s work.

To be considered in the development and continuation of Australian cinema – principally because Paul Fenech is there.