WEINER

US, 2016, 96 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Josh Kriegman, Elyse Steinberg.

There is plenty in this documentary to fascinate its audiences. The film has a solid reputation, winning awards, including Grand Jury Prize, Sundance 2016. It is a fly-on-the-wall documentary, access being allowed to the filmmakers to be present to the subject, Anthony Weiner, and his wife, Huma, allowed into their privacy, even intimacy. The director of the film previously served as a chief-of-staff to Anthony Weiner.

Anthony Weiner has been a politician, American, Jewish, married to an Arab, having a son – and with enormous potential for political success. However, audiences going into the film will know what happened to him, the sex scandals, his having to resign from the Senate, his 2013 campaign to be mayor of New York City and the new round of scandals which emerged, and his losing the election.

In the early part of the film there are several clips of his giving speeches in the American Congress, his role as a senator, the importance of financial aid to be given to veterans of wars and his impassioned pleas, challenging the opposition, ridiculing the stances of some politicians and engaging a great deal of media support.

He was also strong on communications, a locally personality, his lean look, his brashness, touches of narcissism, his relationship with his wife and son then the revelations about his sexual communications, photos, and the emergence of some kind of addiction – which led to television interviewers asking what was wrong with him.
there is a certain audience prurience and curiosity on the issue of the emergence of the photos, seeing them, wondering about them – and the effect that it would have on his wife. There was a great deal of media commentary, in the press, on television – and the comedians making a great deal of satiric fun at his expense.
The film spends a lot of time on his campaign to be elected mayor 2013, to overcome the previous scandals, to show himself as a sincere and honest politician, supported by his wife, an aide for Hillary Clinton – with the irony that Bill Clinton had presided over Anthony Weiner’s marriage to Huma (and the scandals attached to Bill Clinton).

Weiner’s supporters and campaign staff are shown to be young, enthusiastic, active. They are shown in action, in meetings, and strategy talks, for the causes that Weiner was supporting.

The new scandals are rather devastating on the morale of the campaign staff. This is compounded when there were revelations about the woman with whom Weiner was in contact in Las Vegas, Sydney Leathers, young woman, her sexual bravado, her interviews and her declaration about expectations of him, and media appearances, social media, and her trying to get into the hotel at the end of the election, not being allowed in – with information about her later career in adult films.

A great deal of the interest of the latter part of the film is looking at Weiner’s handling of the situation – in close-up, warts and all. Many of his staff are seen in meetings, trying to develop strategies. And then there are the television interviews – and asking “what’s wrong with you?”.

Of particular interest, is the portrait of Huma, her political savvy, the marriage, her pregnancy and birth, care for her son, the continued support of her husband – although looking less and less enthusiastic as the campaign goes on.

Nevertheless, Weiner continues to go out campaigning, meeting happily with supporters, kissing babies… However, it is an unexpected loud skirmish with a Jewish man, the confrontation in a shop, the man continuingly posing questions to Weiner and Weiner losing his cool, hitting back, insults, all for the onlooking journalists and their cameras.

Weiner loses the election, getting the lowest percentage vote. He goes to the hotel, decides to send his wife home instead of facing the waiting media. The directors have continued access in these dire situations, Weiner willing and self-centredly ruminating, Huma becoming more detached.

There is a postscript with Weiner and a photo opportunity with a young boy in the street realising who the celebrity is, getting excited, phoning home and wanting a photograph with Weiner - granted.

At the time of the film’s general release, August 2016, Huma and Anthony Weiner separated, a crucial time in Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the US presidency.

FREE STATE OF JONES

US, 2016, 139 minutes, Colour.
Matthew Mc Conaughey, Gugu Mbatha Raw, Keri Russell, Sean Bridgers.
Directed by Gary Ross.

Unless you are an expert on the Civil War, you may not be familiar at all with the title of this film, the episode of the Free State of Jones, in Jones County and neighbouring counties in Mississippi in the 1860s.

The film opens with a vivid portrayal of a Civil War battle, a troop of Confederate soldiers, flag-waving, commander in front, to the beat of the drum, marching up a hill – and then the camera showing the audience amassed troop of Union soldiers. The mowing down of the Confederates who keep marching, someone taking up the flag, is shocking and bloody. Bloody is also the word to describe the scenes with doctors at work on the wounded, the numbers, the pain, the limbs, the implements like saws, no anaesthetic. And the nurses continually carrying the wounded from the field to the tents.

It is in this context that we are introduced to Newton Knight, a Mississippi farmer who is serving as a nurse, trying to cheer those he was carrying, removing their private’s jacket so that they might appear as an officer and be tended to quickly. But, it is too much for him and when he is escorting a young lad from his town who is shot in the trenches, he decides to desert, take the body home, resume his life in Mississippi.

As it turned out, ordinary life was not for him. Reunited with his wife, and a black slave from the nearby plantation coming to help his son recover from fever, he then realises that he will be tracked down as a deserter. He goes out into the swamps, his league wounded from pursuing dogs, finds a group of black slaves who have escaped and lives with them.

In the town, a commander has the task of commandeering supplies from the local farms, reducing many of them to poverty. It is here that Newton Knight takes a stand, first confronting a lieutenant with a woman and her two daughters which encourages the group in the swamp to take further stands. More deserters join the group in the swamp, a small army which leads to a confrontation with the Confederacy leading to an appeal to General Sherman, marching through Georgia, to send some reinforcements. Newton Knight and his leadership led to the announcing of the Free State of Jones and the writing of a charter.

It is here that many audiences will be expecting the film to end, but it does not. The latter part of the film is about the aftermath of the war, the unsteady reuniting of the South with the North, the freedom of the slaves, often more in principle than in reality, the twisting of legislation in some Southern states to keep the former slaves oppressed, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the racist burnings and hangings. During the war, Newt’s wife and son had left him but return after the war where they find him with Rachel, the young woman who saved the son, who is now pregnant.

Unexpectedly, some sequences are interpolated into the narrative moving it to 1947, 85 years later, and a trial with a descendant of Newt and Rachel being brought into court for trying to marry a white woman, guilty because he has some black blood. The sequences show the audience that there may have been victory, there may have been peace, but for decades, the heritage from the war and the antagonism still remained with blatant racism.

In recent years, especially with his winning an Oscar for the Dallas Buyers Club, Matthew Mc Conaughey has become a serious actor and embodies Newton Knight with some force and authority. Gugu Mbatha Raw (so persuasive in the British film about race, Belle) portrays Rachel.

This film should make an impression in the United States, but is interesting and often powerful for a non-American audience.

1. Audience interest in the American Civil War? Its impact? Post-war? For American audiences, world audiences, in the 21st century?

2. Audience knowledge of the Civil War, the issues, the role of the South, the Union? Issues of slavery, work on the plantations, cotton and economy? Lincoln, Johnson succeeding him? The role of the Blacks after the war, opportunities? The Ku Klux Klan? Manipulation of legislation in Southern states?

3. The re-creation of the war and the period, the Confederacy, the details of the battles, wounding and deaths, the doctors and nurses, the trenches, orders, soldiers dying with honour? The musical score, the music of the 19th century, Stephen Foster songs, John Brown’s Body…?

4. The film based on the true story? Newton Knight, Matthew Mc Conaughey’s presence, his character, a man from the South, his action during the battles, carrying the victims, helping them to get doctor’s attention, the young boy, knowing him, wanting to leave with him, the trenches, his being shot, the decision to desert, taking the body back to the family, to the farm? The soldier giving him provisions? The issues of the Confederate forces and their stealing from the local farmers? Exemptions from service depending on the number of Negroes on the plantation? Newton, his organisation, the deserters, creating a community, more people joining, the revolution, against the South, the violence, the proclaiming of the charter, asking General Sherman for help?

5. Newton Knight, his age, his experience, farm, his wife and son, his work in the field, taking the body of the boy home, the decision to leave, the support from Jasper and Jasper’s later help?

6. The picture of the war, the opening, the march of the Confederates, up the hill, the Union soldiers, the shooting, mowing the opposition down? Hospitals, the blood and the bloodthirsty mess of the woundings? Newt and his understanding, his reaction to the war, the issues, the principle of desertion?

7. At home, his wife, harsh conditions, his son being ill? Going to the woman at the bar, her advice, Rachel coming to help, the black woman, her reputation, helping the boy recover, Newt and his response, his thanks? His decision to leave? The woman at the bar and her assistant taking him into the swamp, rowing through the swamp? Finding the settlement, Moses and the others? Living, Newt having been bitten by the dog, healing his leg? Listening to the stories? The issue of the law and the slaves and exemptions?

8. Newt’s wife, finding the situation hard, leaving with her son?

9. Rachel, in the context of the mansion, the visit for the boy, the owner of the mansion, sexual abuse? The children learning to read and her watching? Becoming part of the community? The attraction to Newt? His finding the writing book and giving it to her?

10. The Confederate forces and the crops, taking them from the families, emptying the warehouses? Newt and the opposition, with the mother, the girls, training them with the guns, confronting the command? The commanding officer, his life of ease, the lieutenant and his attitude, the commander organising the attacks, the plundering of the farms? Newt and his community, taking the corn, the ambush? Ward, the young boys, their place in the community? The documents offering pardon? Newt giving the option? The commander and his visit to the bar, the issue of whiskey? Ward and the boys leaving, the decision to hang them? The funeral, the troops present, the mothers in mourning, producing their guns, Newt and his men hidden, under the church, the gun battle? Commander being wounded, going to the church, Newt talking with him, strangling him? Audience reaction to the use of violence? The morality and the ambiguities of war, oppression, violence and revolt?

11. The Free State of Jones, becoming a force, an army, going to the town, present in the bar, Will and the message from Sherman, some rifles but no support? Will and his asking permission to take those leaving? The build up to the fight in the town?

12. The Free State, the charter?

13. The war ending, the next 10 years, Lincoln and his role, President Johnson, the laws in Mississippi, the issue of the vote for the Blacks? The law and apprenticeships and young children being forced to work in the cotton fields? Newt, confrontation with the owner, the owner and his swearing to uphold the law and his returning to his mansion, with his family? Newt rescuing Moses’ son? In the court, Newt paying the owner off? The irony of the lieutenant as Judge?

14. The glimpses of the Ku Klux Klan, riding, the hood, the racism? Burning the church? Moses, the pursuit, his being hanged? Newt finding him? The funeral and the grief – and the reminder of Newt as a religious man?

15. His wife’s return with his son, their living with Rachel and Newton? Assisting the birth of the son?

16. The effect of the interpolation of the story from 1947, 85 years later, the case, miscegenation, the percentage of black blood, forbidden to marry white? The search in the documents, Newt recording the birth in the register, the production of the Bible? The sentence, the appeal?

17. A picture of the war and its issues? Focusing on issues of race and freedom? The aftermath of war, not for victory, not a perfect peace and the inheriting in the United States of this aftermath?

FADO

Germany/Portugal, 2016, 101 minutes, Colour.
Golo Euler, Luise Heyer, Albano Jeronimo.
Directed by Jonas Rothlander.

Fado is a film about jealousy, jealousy becoming a consuming obsession. It is fairly straightforward in its presentation of its central character, his life, his love, his jealousy, its overpowering him, the consequences for the object of his obsession, rivals, and for himself.

The film is set in Lisbon, taking great advantage of the sights of the city, its daily life and work, construction, medical care for street people as well is for nightlife. It has views of the countryside and local beaches.

The central character is Fabian, a young doctor working in Germany who attends a wounded woman who reminds him of Doro, who has broken up with him and gone to work in Portugal. He tries to save the wounded woman but fails and is so consumed with the effect that he travels to Lisbon to track down Doro, first seeing her with a co-worker, Francisco.

Fabian is an ordinary kind of person, not tall dark and handsome (as is his rival, Francisco) presentable but plain-looking with more touches of awkwardness – even though he likes to surf and has dreams of enormous and boiling surf and waves.

He makes contact with Doro, goes out to a meal with Francisco and another co-worker, and the audience is able to see the simmering suspicions which will lead to open jealousy. While the two do make contact and resume their relationship, there is an unease with both, she exasperated with his suspicions in the past and finding tension with his suspicions in the present.He is in love with her but cannot rid himself of suspecting Francisco, who is married with children, and even the manager of a bar.

There is discussion at a meal about fidelity, deliberate choosing of an affair to test relationship.

While they try to live together, go on holiday together, Fabian cannot contain himself eventually driving away Doro who has some involvement with Francisco (who plans to go surfing with Fabian but the waves are too timid) and is then involved with the proprietor of bar.

Fabian also lets down the voluntary association he has joined to provide medical help for street people and he is dismissed from the work.

Ultimately, this leads to frenzy, his being bashed on the street and he’s going to the bar and frenzied dancing.

The film serves as a contemporary parable about the destructive elements in jealousy.

PETE'S DRAGON

US, 2016, 104 minutes, Colour.
Oakes Fedgley, Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford, Oona Lawrence, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban, Isiah Whitlock Jr.
Directed by David Lowery.

Back in 1977, Disney produced a family film, with some special effects and starring Helen Reddy, Pete’s Dragon. Almost 40 years on, Disney have reworked the story and produced a film that will have strong appeal to family audiences – although there is a disturbing sequence at the beginning involving a car accident which may be a bit much for younger audiences, the little boy involved, Pete, being only five.

The setting is the forests of Northwest America, some rather remote territory (filmed in New Zealand) although the film shows the timber industry making incursions and cutting down a lot of trees. But, in the trees, six years after the accident, Pete is living in a tree hut, which may remind audiences who know The Jungle Book, of young Mowgli out in the jungle. But, instead of friendly bears and threatening tigers, Pete’s main friend, who rescued him after the accident, is a rather genial Dragon called Elliot.

Children will enjoy Elliot, a very friendly Dragon, not one of those menacingly flying around and breathing smoke and fire monsters. Pete and Elliott have been companions over the years, enjoying each other’s company, flying through and over the trees, with Elliot having a great talent of camouflage, seeming to disappear into the forests.

Then we see the adults. Meacham, Robert Redford, is a very friendly man, who tells the local children stories about having seen a dragon in the forest which they take with something of a grain of salt. So does his daughter, Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard, who works as a ranger in the forest and whose fiance, Jack, Wes Bentley, has a bright young daughter, Natalie, Oona Lawrence,

For a while, Pete watches the humans and puzzles over what they are doing, since Jack owns a lumber mill and his brother, Gavin, Karl Urban, is cutting down more trees than he should. Eventually, Pete lets himself be found, Grace is all attention, Natalie has climbed a tree with Pete – and fallen down quite a long way – with Pete in hospital but escaping back to the forest.

Of course, there is the question of Elliot. Gavin becomes the baddy and goes to great lengths to capture Elliot and bring him back to the town.

After this, with a lot of effects, Pete and Meacham, who really has seen a dragon in the past, drive to the forest to free Elliot with Gavin, other workers, and the sheriff all in pursuit. It all looks a bit dangerous as Gavin blocks a bridge, Grace and Jack are in danger, and Elliott has to do his Dragon thing.

While Pete’s Dragon is an average kind of film for most audiences, families will probably be glad that it is one that most of them can watch with enjoyment, the children able to identify with both Pete and Natalie – and perhaps wishing they had a dragon friend like Elliot.

1. An entertaining Disney film for the family audience? Remake of the 1977 film? Differences?

2. The settings in the forest, filmed in New Zealand, homes, towns, the timber industry, clearing the forest? The musical score?

3. The animation, the creation of the Dragon, look, emotions, eyes, activities, flying? And some final fire and smoke?

4. Pete and his family, going on the adventure, in the forest, five years old, the book, his parents’ reassurance – and the crash? His wandering alone, with the book, going into the forest, his fears, encountering Elliott, Elliot leading him to safety, flying away?

5. Meacham telling the story about dragons to the children, their eagerness, the later revelation that he had seen the Dragon? His work, place in the community, Grace as his daughter, his love for her, his concern about her work? Her reaction to the Dragon stories?

6. Grace, her work in the forest, Jack and his timber company, and his ambitions? Natalie as Jack’s daughter? The engagement, the prospective family?

7. Pete, six years later, like a young Mowgli, his life with Elliot? Elliott, genial, games, camouflage? Pete and his seeing Grace, the timber vehicles? Grace seeing him? The chase? His finding her compass?

8. Grace, her concern about the boy, going to find him? Gavin in the search, Jack and the search? Not Natalie and her involvement? Finding Pete, the pursuit? Natalie chasing him, climbing the tree, her fall, Pete and the hospital? His escaping back to the forest? Reunited with Elliot?

9. The difficulties with the firm, Gavin felling too many trees, Jack and his reaction? Gavin and his desire to get the Dragon, pursuing him, capturing him, transporting him back to the shed, Elliot and camouflage? Meacham driving the truck, the other cars in pursuit? Gavin and his eagerness, overtaking, blocking the bridge? Elliott, escaping, flying, breathing fire? Jack and Grace trapped, the truck going over the bridge, Elliot rescuing them?

10. The sheriff, disbelief, belief, the pursuit?

11. Pete and his story, Grace finding out about the accident? Pete going back into the forest, the farewell to Elliott, Elliot pushing the book towards him?

12. Pete finding a family, the marriage, the extended family, the trips to the forest – and finding the whole colony of dragons?

GIRL, INTERRUPTED

US, 1998, 127 minutes, Colour.
Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, Whoopi Goldberg, Vanessa Redgrave, Brittany Murphy, Jared Leto, Elisabeth Moss, Clea Du Val, Jeffrey Tambor, Mary Kay Place, Joanna Kerns, Bruce Altman.
Directed by James Mangold.

Girl, Interrupted was a successful book of the early 90s, ready by many women and teenage girls who empathised with the author, Susanna Kaysen, who recounted her experiences of two years in an institution in the late 60s. Star and co-executive producer had also had an experience of going into an institution at about the age of 20. Winona Ryder brings an intensity and a fragility to her performance as Susanna.

The movie was co-written and directed by James Mangold who had made Heavy and the police corruption drama, Copland. He has a very strong cast for his movie, with Angelina Jolie winning Golden Globe and Oscar for her Supporting Actress performance as the temperamental Lisa. Whoopi Goldberg is the tough but sympathetic nurse, Valerie, and Vanessa Redgrave is Dr Wick.

The movie shows us a small group of dysfunctional women, their illnesses and the consequences, their erratic behaviour as well as their happy moments, their dependence on one another as well as the antagonisms. It also shows us a comfortable enough environment for the women but it also shows the regular checks on the women, the hydrotherapy treatment, the psychiatric sessions and the difficulties for privacy in an institution. The other aspect of the film is the glimpse of social-climbing parents, embarrassed by their daughter, and now knowing how to cope with her.

Girl, Interrupted is in a long line of movies about women in institutions: The Snake Pit, The Bell Jar, I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.

1. The film based on the memoir? Autobiographical, the 1960s from the perspective of the 1990s?

2. The title, Susanna, the pause between a girl and a woman? Life interrupted?

3. Audience response to films about mental illness? Borderline personality, schizophrenia, paranoia, suicidal tendencies? The nature of care, personal, institutional? Supervision? Counselling? Medication?

4. The 1960s, affluent Americans, families, home, lifestyle, friendships, ability and inability to cope? Doctors, referrals, institutions, parental visits and their effect?

5. Susanna, Winona Ryder’s performance, age, her life to this point, school, family, sexual relationships, with a friend of the family? With Toby? The Vietnam war, the draft? The coping and not coping, borderline performance, taking the pills, discussions with the doctor and the flashbacks, his recommendation for the institution, going in the taxi and later seeing the taxi driver at the end, at the institution, her arrival, the reception, signing herself in, Valerie looking after her, her room, sharing with Georgina, the tour of the institution, the different young women, older women? Her attitudes, defensive and aggressive?

6. Valerie, strong woman, family woman, African- American in the 1960s? Her regimes, rules, yet considerate, handling each girl in a different way? Susanna’s response, the bath, shaving her legs – and the savage racist outburst, the latter apology and embracing Valerie? Valerie encouraging the young women, but realistic?

7. The picture of the other members of the staff, the strict nurses, on the wards, the young man and his sexual involvement, dispensing of the tablets?

8. Marvin, psychiatrist, Susanna’s sessions with him, any breakthroughs? With Dr Wick, the initial antagonism, Dr Wick’s method, encouraging Susanna?

9. Life in an institution, the routines, Polly and her facial disfigurement, remaining childlike? Georgina and her lies? Daisy, her room, the food, the relationship with her father, provoked by the others, especially Lisa? Meeting, the activities in the store room? The taking of the pills, sleeping through the night, being woken, meals, baths?

10. Lisa and Angelina Jolie’s Oscar-winning performance, strong, her arriving back, attention-seeking, cheeky, blunt, being subdued, the pills, even being tied down? The impact of the death of the girl? Each of the young women with her? Her being a leader, taunting Daisy, the critique? Polly and staying up and singing all night, the encounter with the wardsman? The meetings in the store room and the girls together? Her influence on Susanna? The decision to leave, Susanna following, the cab, going to Daisy’s apartment?

11. The conscription draft, Toby and his date, the time with Susanna, is visiting her in the institution, the sexual encounter, Valerie finding them? Susanna unable to go away with Toby and his intention to go to Canada?

12. Daisy, her reaction, wanting the Valium, Lisa’s promises, staying the night, Lisa taunting Daisy, about her relationship with her father, her going upstairs, hanging herself, the non-effect on Lisa, the effect on Susanna and her return?

13. Lisa, the time away, eventually returning, having spent eight years at the institution?

14. Susanna seeing Dr Wick, help from Valerie, getting back to normal, her voice over describing the process?

15. The effect of Lisa returning, the confrontation, the storeroom, Susanna running away from her, being lost, the showdown? The goodbye to Lisa?

16. Susanna, going back home, there will to Valerie, reminiscing about her experience, her mental condition, a reaction to being borderline, recovering from borderline, and memories of these young women in her future?

CAN’T HARDLY WAIT

US, 1998, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Love Hewitt, Ethan Embry, Charlie Korsmo, Lauren Ambrose, Peter Facinelli, Seth Green, Jerry O' Connell, Breckin Meyer, Selma Blair, Jason Segal, Sean Patrick Thomas, Donald Faison.
Directed by Harry Elfont, Deborah Kaplan.

Maybe the bad grammar of the title is a bit offputting – but it may be the kind of grammar used by quite a number of the characters in this high school comedy romance.

This film comes at the end of the 1990s when this kind of comedy was beginning to become more prevalent – 1998 was the year of American Pie. This film is quite restrained in comparison with American Pie. but, many adults may find it very difficult to identify with the characters – except, as people grow older, they might have memories of this time in their life.

It is also interesting to see so many of the performers who developed as actors in a variety of films, here appearing either in guest roles or in supporting student roles, Jerry O’ Connell, Selma Blair, Jason Segal. By this time, Jennifer Love Hewitt was a more prominent name as was Seth Green (especially with his role in the Austin Powers films) and Ethan Embry had been a child actor.

The film takes place over one evening, at an end of year party where everybody turns up. The sympathetic central character is Preston, played by a wide-eyed Ethan Embry, about to go away to college, infatuated with Amanda, Jennifer Love Hewitt, for the previous four years while she has been the date for the local jock, Mike, Peter Facinelli. Mike has broken up with Amanda and she is coming to her senses realising that the only meaning in her life was as his girlfriend and now she wants to assert herself but, at the party, finds it very difficult, especially when some of the boys knowing she is available try to impose on her.

Mike is presented as an unsympathetic jock, macho with his entourage, but finally upset in being humiliated by Amanda not wanting him back. He is the intended target of William, a nerd and talk who also has disciples and a plan to humiliate Mike and photograph him in compromising situations. This backfires pretty well as Mike is rather sympathetic to William who had drunk too much and wins over everyone by a live performance at the microphone and his two friends eventually photograph Mike and William with some embarrassment.

The other subplot involves Denise, Lauren Ambrose, Preston’s best friend who does not want to go to the party, encounters Kenny, Seth Green, who is something of an yobbo, again with disciples, he deceives himself about his being attractive finds himself locked in the bathroom with Denise whom he has known for many years – and theirs is the only actual sexual encounter.

Preston has written a letter to Amanda four years earlier but has not delivered it, throws it away but by a series of accidents, somebody rummaging through the rubbish, the letter attached to a shoe, it finally ending up in a crackers bowl with Amanda finding it but not knowing who Preston is attacks him as one of the many others who are accosting her.

Preston goes off to the station, Amanda looks in the yearbook to see who he is, finds him at the railway station – and he delay seven hours before he goes off to college.

Information is given about the future of each of these characters.

Maybe filmgoers of the same age as the characters will enjoy it and see themselves in one of the characters (not in all of them) – though as time goes on, it may seem a little outdated.

THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS

US, 2016, 89 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Louis C.K., Eric Stonestreet, Kevin Hart, Jenny Slate, Ellie Kemper, Albert Brooks, Lake Bell, Dyna Carvey, Steve Coogan.
Directed by Chris Renaud and Yarrow Cheney.

What Toy Story did for children and toys, this film does for adults and pets – the revelation of what goes on behind closed doors when humans are not looking!

Do films influence our behaviour? On a personal note, while out walking the morning after seeing this film, I saw a big dog approaching me with his owner at the end of the leash and the question arose: what does this dog get up to, who are his friends, where does he go as soon as the master leaves for work…?

This is a very amusing animated film, much better than the highlights picked out for the trailer, a film which should amuse youngsters as they watch the liberated antics of the pets and which should amuse adults with some smart dialogue, some funny situations, and, of course, wondering about the behaviour of their own pets.

This is the story of Max, found by Katie in a box outside a store, taken home, growing up, a devoted pet who is prepared to sit all day at the door waiting for Katie to come home. He is not the brightest. But, there are a whole lot of pets in the surrounding apartments who are his friends, Gidget, a fluffy white dog who is infatuated with Max, Chloe, a literally fat cat who cannot resist temptations of chicken in the fridge, a Chihuahua who turns on the mixer in order to scratch his long back, a hamster running around all the ventilation trying to find home, a little bird… They all seem to get on well and are amusingly introduced.

But then, Katie finds a new dog, a very big fellow called Duke, from the pound, he begins to take over from Max, his bedding, his food, affection by Katie.

When Duke and Max go out for a walk, they end up in an unsavoury neighbourhood (a lot of scrawny cats) and they have to run for their lives. The adventures begin, the posse from home all going in search for Max, Max and Duke sharing a lot of adventures, the introduction of a pattering rabbit who fancies himself as a rebel, Pops, an old dog resting his tail on wheels, chases within the sewers of New York, in the harbour, and a changed Duke going to find his previous home only to find a new family – and an aggressive cat.

And the adventures don’t finish there, but there is a dog-pound truck crash into the harbour from the bridge, underwater heroics, the rabbit undergoing something of a conversion experience, and everybody getting home just in time as if nothing had happened!

There is a very entertaining voice cast with Louis CK as Max, Eric Stonestreet as Duke, Jenny Slate as Digit, Lake Bell as Chloe the fat cat, an unmistakable Kevin Hart (unless you think it is Chris Rock) as the rabbit.

A reviewer friend sitting next to me chuckled out loud the whole way through so it was a bit of a surprise to find that some other reviewers weren’t so enamoured of the film, some complaining that there were too many characters to keep focused on or that they’d seen it all before…

Maybe, but this reviewer, rather more quietly, shared the chuckles all the way through.

1. A film for all ages, children and adults? And for pet lovers?

2. The title, the idea from Toy Story, the transition to pets and adults?

3. The animation, bright, New York City, views of the city, lanmarks, apartments and streets, the sewers, the river and the bay? Action, chases? Van, crashes? The fall from the bridge? The musical score, the songs, the references to film scores, plots, Staying Alive, the song from Grease, the party songs…?

4. The voice talent and the range of voices?

5. Max the central character, his story, the dog, Katie finding him, growing up with her, the bond between them, playing together, and his fondness, his tricks and performance, waiting at the door? Then Katie bringing Duke, his size, at the pound, tough, his communication with Max, taking over his bed, eating his food, the mess in the house, and Max getting back on Duke – and Katie’s later forgiveness?

6. The neighbouring animals, the humour on cats, dogs, rodents, birds, fish? Gidget and her devotion to Max, Chloe and the temptation of the fridge, the chicken, eating it, becoming fat? The thin dog, a blender and scratching him? The bird, the rescue from Chloe? The lost hamster searching through the ventilation? The hawk later joining?

7. Max and Duke, going out, the clash, in the difficult, scrawny cats? Duke catching Max, his being taken, everybody gathering to rescue him?

8. The sewers, the bunny, the characters in the sewers, seeing themselves as rebels? The diversity? The bunny and Kevin Hart’s voice? The cats and dogs, the cave, the snake and Max confronting it?

9. The escape, the adventures, everybody going to see Pops, the club and the music, the fancy dog and the dance moves? Pops and his wheels? Their getting out of the building, going down tubes, on cranes?

10. Gidget, the pep talk, stories, Pops and disagreement, the hawk flying, getting to the sewer, the pursuit chase? The adventures?

11. Max and Duke hungry, the reconciliation, the scent of the sausages, the song from Grease with sausages, the manufacture, the boxes, their being caught by the dog catchers, the escape? Duke going to his old home, the story of the old owner, African- American, his death? The new owners, the cat, the family, the dog catchers again? Max’s escape?

12. The pursuit through the sewers, the bunny, collaborating, the truck, falling off the bridge, the underwater scenes, the bunny and the key, the release, coming to the surface?

13. The bunny, the little girl seen him, wanting him as a pet?

14. Everybody at home, Max and Duke reconciled, all the owners arriving thinking that it had been a very peaceful day and no awareness of the secret life of pets?

YOGA HOSERS

US, 2016, 88 minutes, Colour.
Lily- Rose Depp, Harley Quinn Smith, Johnny Depp, Austin Butler, Justin Long, Tony Hale, Natasha Lyonne, Genesis Rodriguez, Vanessa Paradis, Haley Joel Osment, Stan Lee, Jason Mewes, Kevin Conroy.
Directed by Kevin Smith.

For the last 20 years or more, it is a standard statement in any review of Kevin Smith’s films to say that it is for Kevin Smith fans – and others be alerted or warned. Definitely the case here.

Smith’s film prior to this one was Tusks, a rather grotesque story about grotesques. This is something of a follow-up, taking up some of the characters and their investigations into oddities in human nature. The main proponent is Guy Lapointe, an odd looking old codger with a French- Canadian English accent who lumbers through a whole lot of activities – while many might not recognise that under the make up there is Johnny Depp, as in Tusks, doing yet another of his expert oddball performances.

However, the film opens with two young 14 ½ schoolgirls playing their guitars, singing vigorously with a middle-aged drum player. While some of this is amusing in itself, especially when they go back into the store where they work, and meet a whole lot of strange customers, and then have encounters with their demanding parents, we might wonder where it is all going.

We should have been more alert to one of the customers who goes out from the shop and suddenly is attacked from behind by this miniature soldier and dies. This leads to a number of deaths, including two young Satanists who had invited the girls to the year 12 party, with the girls being arrested and Guy Lapointe coming to investigate.

By this stage, the non-Smith fans might well have given up. The fans can be reassured that it improves, in absurdity of course, from this point on.

The girls go to school where it certainly emerges that they are not the brightest sparks, very much living in the present, no idea of history, absolutely devoted to their phones which they cannot live without and addicted to Instagram (and this is the manner in which all the characters are introduced).

Even if one were to recount the plot, one would get lost in a lot of the details – suffice it to say that we are taken back to Canada’s fascist past during World War II, Nazi infiltration, a rabble rouser with moustache – played, of all people, by Haley Joel Osment – and a sympathiser who is able to cryogenically preserve himself for later generations as well as his giving his blood to choice sausages (yes sausages) who all wake up prematurely and become an army of little fascist military out to destroy everyone (played by Kevin Smith himself). The newly-revived fascist comments on his funny accent and decides to communicate in the voices of Al Pacino, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger…

What has Kevin Smith got against Canada? The whole story is set in Winnipeg (with an attitude a bit like the creators of South Park towards Canada). And everybody speaks, highlightedly so, pronouncing the word ‘out’ and all its combinations and variations as ‘oot’, much more emphasised than we ever noticed before.

One other thing that needs to be said that this is a very family affair. The two girls are called Colleen and one is played by Lily- Rose Depp, the daughter of Johnny Depp and singer Vanessa Paradis (who plays the history teacher who opens up the Nazi past for her students). The other Colleen is played by Kevin Smith’s daughter, Harley Quinn Smith (who else could Kevin Smith would call his daughter Harlequinn), with her mother, Jennifer Schwabach, playing a supporting role and being one of the main producers of the film. So, definitely all in the family. (And Lilly-Rose? Depp does make quite an impression).

A number of Kevin Smith’s friends have supporting roles and Marvel Comic guru, Stan Leey, plays a police patrol officer. and, satisfyingly for those who enjoyed all this silly entertainment, there is announcement that the two Colleen’s will appear in a film entitled Moose Jaw.

1. A comedy, touches of the absurd? Spoof and satire?

2. Kevin Smith, his career as a writer, director, local stories, small stories, eccentric characters, interest in comic strips?

3. The film as a family affair, Kevin Smith and his wife and daughter, Johnny Depp, Vanessa Paradis and their daughter and son?

4. The focus on Instagram, each of the characters introduced by an Instagram page, name, photo, characteristics, quotes from serious authors?

5. The Canadian setting, Winnipeg, the spoof of Canada, the emphasis on Canadian pronunciation of about as ‘aboot’, Canada and the US?

6. The town, homes, the store, the band, socials, the result the revolt of the neo-Nazis? The score? The songs?

7. The two Colleens, their age, singing, Canada, anthem, the drummer, the rehearsals? Going back into the store, their customers and interest?

8. The strange character, going out, killed from behind, foreshadowing the Nazis and the killings?

9. The daughters, the relationship with their parents, each family, discipline, reactions? Middle-class?

10. The boys, coming to the store, the invitation to the social, the reaction of the parents, the boys’ return, their plan, satanic rituals – and their deaths? The girls being arrested and interned?

11. School, the classes, the teachers, the interview with the principal, the history course, fascists in Canada, memories of the war? The flashbacks, the rabble rouser, his appearance, portly, moustache, his speeches, the convert, the protests?

12. The role of Guy Lapointe? His appearance, character, the interviews, girls in prison, getting out, in the room, the Bratzis, the man emerging from the cryogenic freezing? His Nazi rant and the variety of movie voices, Al Pacino, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger…?

13. The girls, their age, so often dumb, ignorant of essential facts, love of their phones, Instagram? The spoof of modern youngsters?

14. The Nazi, his character, cryogenically preserved, his making the sausages, the characters, his being interrupted? His plan?

15. The Bratzis, their appearance, size, little neo-Nazis, the range of attacks, the number, fighting, dying, multiplying? Guy and the girls and their counter-attack?

16. The film as an episode, very silly, but smart kind of silly with characterisations and dialogue? The prospect of a sequel?

KEEP QUIET

UK/Hungary, 2016, 90 minutes, Colour.
Csanad Szegedi.
Directed by Sam Blair, Joseph Martin.

This is an intriguing documentary.

The setting is Hungary and the production is a British/ Hungarian collaboration.

The film focuses on its central character, Csanad Szegedi, buying a ticket for Auschwitz from a Budapest station and sharing a carriage with an elderly lady, her number on her arm, also travelling to Auschwitz. He begins to explain himself…

Drawing on a great deal of filmed footage and newsreel material, the early part of the film shows the background of the central character, photos of his family, his grandparents and parents, stories about their lives and his upbringing, his schooling where he moved towards a very right wing stance, continuing this after he left school, becoming involved in Hungarian politics, becoming an initial member of Jobblik, a political fascist movement with neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic traits, as well as establishing the Hungarian Guard, later abolished, of active young men and women who become involved in anti-Semitic and right wing protests.

He is a capable man, quickly involved in the leadership of the groups, and soon to become elected to the European Parliament as one of the representatives of Jobblik where he gives attacking and inflammatory speeches. A number of journalists and commentators supplied talking head interviews, especially noted journalist Anne Applebaum.

And then the film changes tack. A man emerges who offers background to the central character’s family, revealing that his grandparents were Jewish, that his grandmother had been in Auschwitz, had survived, unlike the rest of her family, had moved back to Hungary, married and established her family, their concealing their Jewish identity to escape further persecution.

Needless to say, this is quite a shock.

What is someone to do who is in the limelight for extreme views and anti-Semitic stances? What he does is to investigate further, talk to his grandmother and discover the truth. Whatever the traits of his personality and his motivation, he switches to becoming a serious Jew. He studies, consults a rabbi in Hungary who then accompanies him on his conversion journey, expressing that the Torah has statements on repentance and regret. As the new convert becomes more immersed in Orthodox Judaism, praise and rituals, kosher food, he attends rallies in Berlin and around Europe.

Just as the audience must be wondering how this conversion could have taken place, psychologically and emotionally, part of the audience at the conferences begin to ask him the same questions, some considering that his conversion is fake, that he has not changed, and, if he has, how is this possible. Answers are supplied – and the film audience does have the background with the rabbi and filmed conversations with him but it is quite understandable how questions about his authenticity can be asked.

Very significant is his visit to Auschwitz with the rabbi, is learning what happened there, talking with the elderly lady from the train who is very persuasive in her memories, photos from the time, explanation of the work, the food, the clothes, as well as the mass executions and the getting rid of the ashes in water so that they would not spread in the air… He had not necessarily been a Holocaust denier, but had underestimated it, comparing it to so many sad events throughout history.

There is a significant episode when he goes to Canada with the rabbi to address a conference, being interrogated by security officials at Montréal airport, kept for three hours, his European Parliamentary passport confiscated and he is told to leave Canada by the end of the next day. This is a shock to him. What he does is to record his speech straight to camera into an empty room, relying on it being broadcast after he leaves.

While there is a little indication of how his fellow extremists react, demonstrating out his outside his house, some boycotting, we leave him with his mission in life to establish himself as a serious Jew and to make some amends for the stances he took in his life. He is supported by his grandmother and her stories – and grieved when she dies some months later.

With the right-wing government in Hungary at the time and with the extremist parties and groups rising up, anti-migration riots throughout Europe, this is a helpful 90 minute glimpse into a leading character and his experiences.

THE CARER

UK, 2016, 89 minutes, Colour.
Brian Cox, Anna Chancellor, Emilia Fox, Coco Konig, Karl Johnson, Roger Moore.
Directed by Janos Edelenyi.

There have been a number of British films in recent years about the elderly and care for the elderly including the Exotic Best Marigold Hotel films, Quartet… It is a moot point whether they entertain the elderly themselves or are designed for those who are about to be elderly and for their potential carers.

Whatever the answer to that question, this film is well worth seeing for the performance of Brian Cox, a prolific Scottish actor whom many will recognise but, perhaps, not be able to name. He has appeared in many British films as well as American films. Here he is Sir Michael Gifford, an actor in his 70s with incipient Parkinson’s. He is a curmudgeon of a man, entirely used to getting his own way, pretty coarse-mouthed although he does redeem himself frequently with wonderful renditions of Shakespeare. He is not in the John Gielgud vein but rather could have taken on the role of Sir in a version of The Dresser, based on Sir Donald Wolfit.

Sir Michael lives in a stately mansion on a country estate but his daughter (Emilia Fox), stubborn like him, is wondering whether he should go to a retirement home or should have his personal carer, despite his proneness to fire potential carers at very short notice.

Enter Dorottya, a young Hungarian woman living in England, going to auditions so that she can enter drama school. in the meantime, she is working at a home for the elderly and responds to the call to be interviewed as Sir Michael’s carer. We know that she is going to succeed but the question is how will you deal with the crusty old man.

Dorottya has a charm but she is also fairly straightforward and deals with Sir Michael accordingly, something that appeals to him and he is also charmed by her. Actually, they form quite a pair as she entertains him, argues the toss, enjoying their reflections on the Shakespeare soliloquy, To Be or not To Be and how it was rendered by Jack Benny in the 1942 film and Mel Brooks’ remake. She takes him out to local pub and he begins to enjoy himself.

The big question is will he be able to go to an awards ceremony, his 23rd, but, as he emphasises, his last. He wants to go on his own and not be wearing any nappies for incontinence. His daughter and the doctor are dead against is going. Guess what!

Also in the picture are Millie (Anna Chancellor) his housekeeper who is absolutely devoted to him, protective of him, and Karl Johnson is Joseph, his assistant 40 years and now his chauffeur.

Brian Cox commands every scene is he is in, physically, vocally, emotionally – and his going to his award ceremony and the bravura of his final speech, very serious, a number of jokes, makes quite an epitaph for a British thespian.

1. The title, a theme of old age, infirmity, the role of carers, expectations?

2. The British film, characters, culture and style? The British theatre, cinema and television?

3. The director, the many Hungarian references during the film? Dorottya from Budapest?

4. The theme of ageing, people in institutions, in people’s homes, the glimpses – especially when Sir Michael did the recital for the residents? Personal ageing, the need for a carer, the role of support, cleaning and bathing? The carer and company, psychological, emotional? Issues of judgement and decision-making?

5. The introduction Dorottya, with the superintendent at the home, Sophie and her manner, the interview, hiring her? The role of the doctor and his advice? Meeting Joseph, driving
her, the stories of 40 years, a perspective on Sir Michael? Millie, a devoted nurse, housekeeper? The decision to give Dorottya a tryout?

6. Sue Michael, the performance by Brian Cox, his screen presence, a curmudgeon, coarse-mouthed, Shakespeare passages and utterances? The perspective on his career, his watching clips? His having Parkinson’s, the effect on him physically, wanting independence, his being dependent, the issue of nappies, incontinence? Joseph with him for 40 years, his appreciation? Millie and her love for him? The difficulty of finding carers, his firing them? A man of bluster, playing to the audience – but with some depths?

7. Dorottya arriving, Sir Michael falling in the rose bushes, her hauling him out? Her care, being hired, cleaning and his incontinence, with him, his attraction to her, age, company? Her answering him back? The details of her work? The quotations? The amusement about Jack Benny and To Be or Not To Be, the Mel Brooks reference? The speech? The growing affection, Millie and the touch of envy, Dorottya and Millie talking? Joseph and his memories?

8. Dorottya going to the audition, her accent, improvising, strong and ironic improvisation, the barbs? The phone call, her acceptance? Sir Michael and his connection?

9. Taking Michael out, talking, going to the pub, the pub owner, the drink, no smoking, outside, the return, his fall, laughing?

10. Millie, a character, Michael’s comments, about her figure, love and devotion?

11. Sophie, the doctor, firing Dorottya? Not wanting Michael to go to the award? Dorottya’s response, leaving the money, driven away?

12. Michael, the confrontation with his daughter, the declamation of the speech from King Lear, denouncing his daughter, the collapse, in hospital, the treatment?

13. Dorottya, upset that there was no reply, going to the hospital? The issue of the award, the opinions about him going or not, his not wanting to wear protection for incontinence, his final performance?

14. Sophie, on stage, the recipient? The announcement of the fund? The clip from Sir Roger Moore? Michael going out, dropping his script on purpose, his speech, the serious themes, the comic touches, To Be – Dorottya prompting?

15. Sir Michael walking onto the stage, his carrying off the ceremony, his speech, a life achievement?