CRASHING LAS VEGAS

US, 1956, 65 minutes, Black and white.
Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Mary Castle, Don Haggerty.
Directed by Jean Yarborough.

Crashing Las Vegas comes to the end of the series of small-budget films starring Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall and various of the Bowery Boys, the series from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s.

It was the last for Leo Gorcey who had began his career as one of the Dead End Kids in Warner Brothers films of the 1930s. Huntz Hall also appeared in the films of that time and provided the comic relief for the Bowery Boys Films. An entertaining presence in many of the films was Bernard Gorcey, Leo Gorcey’s father. He was killed in a car accident some months before the filming of this film and it is said that his son was erratic during the filming, both from grief and of increasing alcoholism.

Leo Gorcey, filling out after many years, plays the head of the group, but is rather more abrasive than usual, trying to dominate – but still with many malapropisms.

The boys are living with a kind old lady who is in danger of being evicted. They want to raise money for her. When a radio quiz is advertised, they hurry along, trying to get into the seats where contestants are called to get rewards, Gorcey pushing out an innocent bystander – because Huntz Hall, after suffering an electric shock, is able to envisage numbers, especially in anticipation.

When they win a prize to go to Las Vegas, in an up-market hotel-casino at the time (looking somewhat seedy these days), Hall is able to amass huge amount of money because he is able to envisage the right number for every spin of the wheel.A criminal group decide to take advantage, puzzling about the system, but getting Mary Castle, member of the gang, to ingratiate herself – but the opposite result happens, Hall is so distracted by Mary Castle that he can’t see the numbers.

The film builds up to a climax, the boys entangled with the criminals, but happy ending when the old lady herself decides to move from New York and to come to live in Las Vegas – a happy ending all round.

These films were supporting features, popular with the fans of Gorcey and the Bowery Boys, and this one a little more amusing with the phenomenon of Hall and his electric shock and foreshadowing all the numbers.

THEO ET HUGO DANS LE MEME BATEAU/ PARIS 05:59

France, 2015, 97 minutes, Colour.
Geoffrey Couet, François Nambot.
Directed by Olivier Ducastel, Jacques Martineau.

The films by Ducastel and Martineau dramatise and explore themes of homosexuality, gay life, relationships. They have had a career of making these films for over 15 years, Drole de Felix, Cote D’Azur?, Family Tree.

Basically, the films are for this target audience although they extend to relatives of gay men as well as those concerned with gay men’s health.

The film has an almost 20 minutes opening of quite explicit sexual activity in a gay club in Paris, The Attract (which has a credit at the end of the film). While there are many men involved in sexual activity, the film begins to focus on one man, Theo, and his attraction for another, Hugo. They encounter each other, are sexually active, attracted to each other, collect their clothes at reception, dress and go into the streets of Paris.

The film focuses on the time, over several hours in the early hours of the morning, culminating at 6 am, with time coming on screen at various locations.

The two men hire bikes, ride through the almost deserted city, reflect on their experience and the film changes its tone.

From a great deal of anonymous sexual activity to the encounter of the two men, the reflections, the attraction, the possibilities of forming a relationship, the film moves to a cautionary tale, especially about unprotected sex and the possibility of HIV infection. It emerges that Hugo is HIV positive, Theo not and there is some dispute as to what they should do, Hugo ringing the hospital, discussing his situation with emergency, his decision to go, Theo not wanting to be pressurised and going alone, ignoring the phone calls from Hugo.

The next part of the film is instructive for the target audience, the gay men as well as their helpers, when the two men go to reception, go through the procedures, plainly and un-emotionally, descriptions about their activity and then waiting for the call. The film moves into the wider world with the appearance of the receptionist as well and some of the patients in emergency, African women with babies, a man with a wound to his face, and a cantankerous old man who complains about the use of mobile phones.

The next sequence with the intern is very informative, the intern again getting the information plainly and objectively, describing the issue, the cautions, the special treatment, the taking of tablets over a period of one month, with Theo beginning the treatment, he and Hugo having discussed the situation and Hugo giving him moral support.

The rest of the film has the two talking about the relationship, the possibilities of something more. Hugo explains his background in the country, his initial sexual experimentation at toilets and roadsides, his being infected. He also explains that he is a notary clerk. It eventually emerges that Theo is an intern, with a focus on design, but with a desire to take some time off to do some aid work.

There are two very good scenes in the latter part of the film, one where the two buy kebabs at an all-night store, having a discussion with a friendly Syrian who was an architecture student in Damascus but who describes the oppression of the regime in Syria and his coming to Europe. the film suggests a parallel between silence and oppression for Syrians at home and for men in the gay community. After the two quarrel, they make up and decide to take the first Metro, asking an older lady in the train whether it is the first and a very engaging short sequence follows in which she explains herself, her past, not enough superannuation, doing work as a cleaner.

The two decide to go to Theo’s house, there is an intimate scene – but a decision is made that they will go to Hugo’s house, Hugo supporting Theo during the medical process, and hoping for the possibility of a relationship (even it should break up, as they expect so many relationships do, after 20 years).

One of the difficulties in communicating this drama is that Francois Nambot is a much more convincing actor than Geoffrey Couet.
The film has its explicitness for the first part of the film which may put off a great number of audiences – but he wants to make the point that while there seems to be anonymous sexual activity there is much more to the characters and their relationships and that this needs to be understood after the initial encounter, possibility romance, possibility of a life together – and the significance of HIV in the consciousness of the gay men.

BATTLE STATIONS

US, 1956, 81 minutes, Black and white.
John Lund, William Bendix, Keefe Brasselle, Richard Boone, Jimmy Lydon.
Directed by Lewis Seiler.

Battle Stations is a routine World War II film coming, perhaps a little surprisingly, 11 years after the end of the war.

It shows the crew of a destroyer preparing for attacking the Japanese fleet. While the film shows something of the detail of the life of the crew, it focuses on the chaplain, Father Joseph McIntire?, a priest role for John Lund. This is his first time on such a ship and finds that his ministry is in support of different members of the crew, one who is resentful because of not being promoted, another who makes mischief, and a third, a pilot who has been injured and wants to get back into action. William Bendix had appeared in many similar films and Richard Boone is at the beginning of his career, Keefe Brasselle being popular at this time.

The film offers familiar material to those who follow or action films in Asia, especially during the war and its immediate aftermath.

The film was directed by a veteran director of many Warner Brothers films in the 1930s, Lewis Seiler.

LIGHTS OUT

US, 2016, 81 minutes, Colour.
Teresa Palmer, Gabriel Bateman, Alexander Di Persia, Billy Burke, Maria Bello.
Directed by David.Sandberg.


With a title like Lights Out, it is to guess that this might be a horror film. While it is a ghost story and has touches of horror, it is more of a terror film. terror films make the audience scared, respond with continued tension, and share the experiences of the central characters. All this happens in about 80 minutes – and the film was so successful at the American box office, that a sequel is already in preparation. They will have to invent a few more characters since not everyone survives this film.

There is an atmospheric prologue with the father of the family working in his warehouse and his assistant insists that she has seen a strange presence. Once the father believes her, there is a confrontation between the presence, ghostly black, with the characteristic that when the lights go on, she cannot be seen. She is seen only when the lights are out.

The father has had a conversation with his young son, concerned about his mother’s health and her taking her medication. She is in a bad state and as the film goes on more is revealed about her past.She is played by Maria Bello.

Then we are introduced to a couple, Rebecca and Bret, in a relationship but with Rebecca in control. When she gets a visit from the school counsellor to tell her that her younger brother is falling asleep in class and that there is concern about the mother, she is challenged as to whether she would take on responsibility and become the boy’s guardian.

Before you can say ghost, it emerges that Rebecca has walked out on her disturbed mother, upset at the disappearance of her father, and then discovering that her mother had spent time in institution – which comes to mind when she discovers a drawing from her childhood with her parents and this strange black presence, Diana.

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to realise what is going to happen, Rebecca looking after her younger brother, the malevolent presence of Diana, trying to do something to help her mother, Diana getting the better of sister and brother, Bret having to step in to help – and the police who come, rather sceptical and superior, find Diana, to their disadvantage.

One of the things about this kind of film is that the characters are ordinary enough in themselves, that audiences can identify with them, imagine the situations they find them in even if in fact they don’t really believe. But, while it is all up there on the screen, it has a certain credibility – enhanced by many opportunities, with the jump-cutting editing, for the audience to leap out of their seats at several times and/or emit a scream.


All in all, this is a brief small-budget film, with a good cast led by a strong Teresa Palmer as Rebecca and Gabriel Bateman as her brother Martin. It doesn’t set out to be the greatest but it does achieve what it set out to do – tension, fear, jumps and screams.


1. The title? The dark? Fear in the dark? Scares?

2. The blend of terror film with horror films? An occasion for audiences to jump and .scream?

3. Ghost story, the ghost using a human medium? Vengeful and destructive ghost? Dependence on the live human?

4. The prologue, the father working in the store, inventory, talking with his son, concern about the mother, the assistant and the apparition? His fears, confrontation? His death?

5. Sophie, as mother, her madness, her medication, two husbands? Rebecca as her daughter, Martin as her son, her living a secluded life?

6. Rebecca and Bret, the relationship, playful, her character, strong, Bret and his strong friendship?

7. Martin, his age, falling asleep at school, the difficulties of home life? With the counsellor, concern about Sophie? Asking Rebecca to be guardian and take responsibility?

8. Rebecca, her past, her father’s disappearance? Leaving her mother? With Bret? The decision about Martin, care, in the house, sleeping, protecting Martin?

9. The mother, Rebecca finding the documents, her mother in an institution, the character of Diana – and the memories of the sketch? The photo, Diana’s skin disease, dark, her death? Sophie and her passing Rebecca the note for help?

10. Diana, appearance, dark, not being seen in the light? Issues of lights, candles, torches, the laser beam? The inscriptions on the wall? The experiences in the basement?

11. Rebecca and Martin locked in, Bret and going, calling the police?

12. The police, their superior manner, being destroyed?

13. Sophie, emerging, Rebecca trying to help, the telling Diana to stop – and her loosening Diana’s presence by killing herself?

14. A future, for Rebecca, Martin and Bret?

THE GUARDIAN

US, 2006, 139 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher, Sela Ward, Melissa Sagemiller, Clancy Brown, John Heard, Neal Mc Donough, Brian Geraghty, Dule Hill, Bonnie Bramlett.
Directed by Andrew Davis.

The Guardian shows that they do make films like they used to. From the propaganda war films of the World War II era, through the stories of training for the various armed forces, to 80s blockbusters like An Officer and a Gentleman and Top Gun, as well as the tough Vietnam War films, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, there has never been a shortage of the old story of the experienced older expert training the cheeky young recruit, the hardships of the training, and the bonding between the two.

The Guardian offers a significant difference in that it is a film about the US Coast Guard and their swimming rescue unit. As is eventually highlighted, the military are trained for combat whereas the Coast Guard are not. Their training, as their motto says, is for saving lives.

The heroics in this film should mean that The Guardian serves as an effective recruiting film – and would probably have much of the same effect beyond the US.

The film has been directed by Andrew Davis who, from early Chuck Norris and Steven Seagall action films in the 1980s moved much more up-market and serious with his version of the old popular TV series, The Fugitive. While always interested in action, he has still diversified with his updating of Dial M For Murder, A Perfect Murder, and the film about teenage boys, Holes. He stages the action scenes here – rescues in dangerous seas – quite impressively.

The film is also a star vehicle for Kevin Costner. Fifteen to twenty years ago, Costner was riding high with The Untouchables, No Way Out, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves and Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. During the 90s and to the present, he has not been held in such high esteem, despite such interesting films as Thirteen Days, about the Kennedys and the missiles of October 1962 and the western, Open Range. Here he is back on form.

Costner is initially shown in action, lowered into mountainous Alaskan seas from a helicopter and rescuing survivors from a stricken cargo ship. However, he is getting old and suffers some injuries. Unwillingly, he is transferred to Louisiana to train new recruits. He is tough and demanding, relying on experience rather than theoretical learning. Costner is perfectly believable in this macho American heroic role.

The recruit is Ashton Kutcher. This is surprise casting as Kutcher’s career has been in comedies and romances. In fact, he fits the bill quite well and shows that he is capable of a wider range of performances than we might have suspected. He goes through the expected gamut: self-confident and defiant, having to learn team work, becoming involved in a casual affair with a local teacher and his having to take responsibility for the consequences, an opening up about his life and past sadness, his coming through to leadership and graduation.

There is one scene of bar fisticuffs, defending the honour against the taunts of drinking navy personnel – a bit of a surprise in a film which is light on violence and bad language.

It is easy for non-Americans to deride this kind of earnest ra-ra patriotic heroism which wears its heart on its sleeves, especially the opening and end with a story of a legend of a presence in the sea who keeps people afloat in accidents at sea until they are rescued: The Guardian. For those who don’t like it, they say it is full of cliches. For those who like it, it is simply using a tried and true formula. And this is something that the public quite enjoy, comfortable with what is familiar though different.

1. An entertaining tribute to the Coast Guard, swimming rescue, ra-ra propaganda film? Impact for Americans? Beyond America?

2. The Alaskan settings, Kodiak, the Coast Guard base, homes, the sea, the ships? The contrast with the South, the training centre, the town, the bars? The musical score?

3. The title, the reference to Ben Randall after his death and the helping of people in the sea?

4. The action sequences, the stunt work? The helicopters, the swimmers, the high seas, the rescue of the woman and her fear of the box, her aggressive husband, saving them both? The wife lashing out at her husband? Ben Randall using this as an image of his own life and relationship with his wife?

5. Ben Randall, a Kevin Costner character? The command, his relationship with Randall? Randall and his friends? His strong reputation, saving lives? The second episode, the accident, the explosion of the helicopter, his being the only survivor? Images recurring throughout the film for his dreams and memories?

6. The final rescue, Jake and his heroism, the commander sending Ben Randall out to help, their hanging onto the line together, the past the story of Ben holding on for 20 minutes and dislocating his shoulder, Jake holding on, Ben and his falling into the sea?

7. Ben and his wife, no children, the tension between them, his being devoted to his work, the decision to leave? The phone calls? The divorce papers? His finally visiting her at the end?

8. Ben and his decision, wanting to stay in action, accepting the teaching post? His reputation, records? The new recruits, in the dormitory, the big tough man, Hodge put down, trying three times? Jake, athletic, defending Hodge?

9. The commander of the base, his inspiring speech, welcoming Ben? The other offices? Skinner and the touches of resentment?

10. Ben and his methods, putting the recruits in the water, testing them instantly, the details of the training, hard, exercises, the elimination of those who could not keep up? The tough man with the bunk and his cramp?

11. The young men, their spirit, the work? Jake and his wanting to break Ben’s records? The swimming and his breaking them?

12. Going into town, the wedding dinner, the bet about Jake the girl, her shrewdness and wanting half the money? The later meeting, finding the money in his pocket? Going home, the relationship? Her working in the town, his graduation, the separation?

13. Maggie, at the bar, showing Jake Ben’s record? Talking with Ben, the discussion about age and her being satisfied with the life that she had led?

14. Jake and Hodge in the bar, the sailors, the fight, finishing up in jail, Ben and his return, the fight with the sailor? Their talking, Ben and his looking up Jake’s history, the deaths in the accident – and Jake’s tattoo on his arm?

15. Ben having no children, Jake as a son-figure? Ben as a father figure for Jake?

16. Ben’s expectations of Jake, testing him out, Jake and his group holding his breath underwater…?

17. Hodge, the tests, is punching Skinner, Skinner congratulating him, Ben congratulating him?

18. Graduation, allotment of destinations, Jake going to Kodiak?

19. Jake and Ben serving together, Ben noting only the 22 deaths of people who could not save? Ben and his work with Jake, the rescues? His resignation, going swimming? His visit to Helen?

20. The buildup to the final climax, Ben’s death? Jake returning south and meeting Emily?

21. The overall effect, American action, recruitment for the Coast Guard?

CHURCHILL’S SECRET

UK, 2015, 100 minutes, Colour.
Michael Gambon, Lindsay Duncan, Romolo Garai Daisy Lewis, Matilda Sturridge, Patrick Kennedy, Christian Mc Kay, Bill Paterson, John Standing, James Wilby, Tara Fitzgerald, Matthew Mc Fadyen.
Directed by Charles Sturridge.

Winston Churchill has appeared as a character in many films, even from Young Winston, to his many appearances and his voice and speeches in films about World War II. In more recent decades, there have been biographical films, with Albert Finney in The Gathering Storm and Brendan Gleeson in into the Storm, and even Rod Taylor in Inglourious Basterds.

This time the episode chosen is Churchill’s having some strokes in 1953, his been incapacitated for some months, the focus on his illness and recuperation, the nurse caring for him, the response of his wife, Clemmie, the reactions of his children, the caretaking of his private secretaries, the decisions made about continuance of government, especially concerning Anthony Eden and his succeeding Churchill.

Michael Gambon shows his skill as an actor in embodying Churchill in his weakness and illness as well as his crotchetiness and determination in recovery. Lindsay Duncan has a very good role as his wife, long-suffering, bringing up the children, with sad memories of the death of their daughter Marigold, staunchly supporting her husband but wanting him to retire. The nurse is not a historical character but is based on a number of nurses who cared for Churchill at this time. She is played with strength and with empathy by Romolo Garai.

Christian Mc Kay and Peter Kennedy play the ever-devoted private secretaries, writing speeches, managing situations, contacting politicians including Rab Butler. Alex Jennings has a cameo role towards the end as Anthony Eden.

The film also shows Churchill’s four surviving children, the devoted Mary, Sarah who appeared in number of films (Rachel Stirling), the aristocratic Diana (Tara Fitzgerald) and the erratic, caustic and alcoholic Randolph (Matthew Mc Fadyen).

The film gives the opportunity for audiences to enter into the atmosphere Tory politics, Churchill’s role during the war, in the aftermath, British politics in the year of the Queen’s coronation, and the devices used to conceal the illness from the press and public.

The film was directed by Charles Sturridge, noted director of such films as A Handful of Dust, Where Angels Fear to Tread, Fairy Tale: A True Story and many television episodes.

1. Audience interest in Winston Churchill? His status amongst the British population, the most respected historical figure?

2. The tradition films about Churchill? His life story? Churchill as a presence in war films? His voice and speeches?

3. 1953, aged 78, his long service, his ups and downs in politics, as prime minister in the 1950s?

4. The title, a particular episode in Churchill’s life? The political implications of his stroke, the secrecy from the media and the public? The family? The maintenance of government?

5. The introduction of Millie, composite character of nurses who cared for Churchill? Seen at work, her skill, the other nurses, in the hospital? Fiance, the plan to go to Australia? Her being chosen, the secrecy, travel, introduction to her case?

6. Churchill and his strokes, the experience, the slurring of words, collapse, trying to manage, singing Marigold’s song about blowing bubbles, his worry? Residing at the meetings, his dependence, control, his being dependent on his assistants?

7. Calling the doctor, his personality, knowledge of Churchill, the treatment, his continued presence, advice?

8. The decision to go to the family home? Minor strokes? Churchill confined to bed, disabled, the limited prospects, unconscious, coming to consciousness? The duration of the illness? Millie and her help, talking with Churchill, his memories and confusion, blurs, gradual movement, drinking water, sitting up, tentative steps, the massage? The week passing, the continued care? His memories and flashbacks to Marigold?

9. Churchill’s past, his history, his strong determination? His wife saying that it was all about him? Yet his moments of quiet, especially his painting?

10. Clemmie, devoted wife, the years, the children, memories and Marigold but their not talking about her? Her being patient? Reliance on Millie, talking frankly with her? The arrival of the children, presiding at the meals? Working with the assistants, with the doctor? A woman of gravity, coping? Churchill making the promise about resigning – and her comment about his breaking promises?

11. Two assistants, the personalities, the continued attention, diplomacy, hard work, their skills, writing papers, studying documents, continued presence?

12. The visit of the government ministers, the press? The discussions, wanting to see Winston, the decision about the secrecy? The success in keeping the news from the press and from the public?

13. Churchill’s children: Mary, the children playing with Churchill, the presence and devotion? Diana, superior, haughtiness? Sarah, a film career, the divorces? Randolph, his reputation, caustic manner, drinking, treatment of people, his father, tears? His presence at the Tory gathering?

14. Churchill, gradual recovery, the tests for his walking, picking up the croquet ball? The grandchildren? Better speech? The discussions with his wife?

15. His presence of the Tory convention? Waiting outside, everybody tentative? Walking in, speech, the momentary lapse, his plea for peace and eliminating hydrogen bombs? The response?

16. Millie, packing up, Churchill’s gift to her, her walking around the house, listening to Churchill on the radio?

17. The final information, Churchill not resigning, and other 18 months as prime minister?

BLOODSUCKING BASTARDS

US, 2015, 86 minutes, Colour.
Fran Krans, Pedro Pascal, Joey Kern, Joel Murray, Emma Fitzpatrick, Justin Ware, Marshall Givens, David F. Park.
Directed by Brian James O' Connell.

The title is a very direct and doesn’t lie!

This is one of those small-budget horror parodies that plays at horror festivals and late-night shows, for the fans of the genre and the sendup’s.

The film opens and the first part of the action is an in an office, not unlike the television series The Office. Most of those who work there are slackers – and the company is keen on ideas but is working on male organ enhancement. Most of the workers tend to idle away the time in games and chatter. The main serious person is Evan, Fran Krans, who takes his work seriously, expects a promotion, is continually urging his fellow non-workers to get going. He is attracted to Amanda, head of Human Resources who has proposed to him and, diffidently, he has said no and she is quite upset with him.

The head of the office is played by Bill Murray’s brother, Joel Murray, who seems to be promising Evan a promotion but brings in someone from outside, Mike, Pedro Pascal. Evan and Mike have had clashes in the past at college, especially over Amanda.

In the meantime, the opening credits show visuals of bloodthirsty mayhem and then the plot goes back two days. Also in the meantime, and intern has been savagely killed and Evan has seen someone else dead in the bathroom but the body disappears.

Then comes the revelation that Mike is actually a Vampire and intends to transform the company into his own image and likeness, infecting all the workers and making a profit – and on the way, killing a number of workers including the boss.

The film spoofs the transformation into vampires, the behaviour of the vampires afterwards, one of whom still plays games with a fellow worker and speaks in a very civilised way, and also serves as an aide for the boss.

Ultimately, with practically everyone else turned into vampires, Evan and Amanda and their slack friend, Tim, have to spend a lot of time in bloodthirsty battles, being spattered themselves – but, ultimately walking away (to a possible sequel).

Since it is all quite seriously tongue-in-cheek, it somehow works in what it set out to do, use the conventions as well as mimic and mock them.

GOOD KILL

US 2015, 102 minutes, Colour.
Ethan Hawke, Bruce Greenwood, Zoe Kravitz, Jake Abel, Dylan Kenin, January Jones.
Directed by Andrew Niccol.

Good Kill is the response by those operating drones, far away from the actual targets and countries, in caravans in Nevada outside Las Vegas. Each time they use their surveillance in a country like Afghanistan or Yemen, against Al Qaeda or the Taliban in 2010, press the trigger, and within 10 seconds there is an explosion, a Good Kill, and the need then to estimate the damage and estimate the body count.

Andrew Nichol has had an interesting career as a writer-director, including The Truman Show, Gattaca (also with Ethan Hawke), Simone and his critique of arms dealers, The Lord of War with Nicolas Cage.

While he presents the work of the team in Nevada, using surveillance techniques, positioning the drones and pulling the triggers, the surveillance also comes from Langley as do the decisions, through the impersonal nature of the speakerphone.

The film shows the team, led by Bruce Greenwood, Ethan Hawke as a veteran pilot now grounded but who is skilled at surveillance and who sets up the targets, assisted by Zoe Kravitz and two men who are very Hawke-oriented and agree wholeheartedly with the bombing of each target.

This experience takes its toll on some of the team, especially Hawke, wanting to go back into the air, living with some depression and tension, distant from his wife and children so that ultimately his wife, January Jones, takes the children to Reno.

Depending on points of view, audiences will be critiquing the use of the drones or supportive of them wholeheartedly. But, the story of collateral damage of civilians, and the personalised story of the brutal man who rapes and bashes a woman and becomes a target, gives emotional push to the critique.

This whole scenario was shown very effectively in Eye in the Sky, with British intelligence liaising with American intelligence and the drone operators in the same headquarters and caravan in Nevada.

1. The title, as used throughout the film? Success of a drone mission?

2. American drones, 2010, the use, surveillance, bombings, killings? The film’s attitude towards the use of drones? Discriminate and indiscriminate? The targets, collateral damage? The psyche of those who pull the triggers, the commanders, the intelligence decisions at Langley?

3. The interiors, the caravans for the drone strikes – and the notice about leaving the United States? Homes and interiors? The casinos? The atmosphere of Nevada, the desert, the bright lights of Las Vegas, the streets, the casinos? The contrast between the two worlds? The observations through surveillance of Afghanistan, Yemen and other countries? The musical score?

4. The focus on Tom Egan, age, experience, former pilot, grounded? His role in the drone squad? Surveillance and precision? The estimation of the targets? The body count? His age and experience, his regrets about not flying, making requests? His relationship with the commander, with the other members of the squad? Sharing the responsibility with Suarez? Her sensitivities? The hawkish attitudes of the other two men? Listening to the disembodied instructions from Langley?

5. The focusing of the targets, suspicions of terrorists, Al Qaeda, the Taliban? Trucks, items, civilians, suspicious men? The focus on the brutal man, entering the compound, the rape of the woman, the physical battering, the repetition – the focus of the end, Egan killing him, the risk of the death of the woman, and not knowing? His being reprimanded? His refusal to shoot at other times – and his fiddling with the controls, saying they were out of control?

6. Suarez, her skills, working with Egan, the clashes with the other two? Going out, casino, dress, talking with Egan? Empathy with him?

7. The commander, his hawkish attitudes, obeying orders, the wear and tear on him? His attitudes towards Egan, their discussions, having to reprimand him at the end? The other two men, cavalier attitudes, Hawks and the bombings and no second thoughts?

8. Egan, his home life, his wife, coping, the children, the outings, studies? His wife, intimacy, the feelings of tension, his sense of absence, the understanding of his wanting to go into combat? At home, their discussions, the difficulties with the sexual relationship? His suspicions of her, thinking about an affair, checking her phone? The decision to leave, to go to Reno with the children?

9. Egan, alone, his contemplation, his regrets? Finishing, his resignation? His driving to Reno? What future?

10. The film as a challenge to audience consciousness about drones, their effectiveness, the dangers, the decisions made thousands of miles from the targets, intelligence at Langley, seemingly disembodied experts, and the toll on those who have to execute the decisions and fire the bombs?

TAIS-TOI!/ RUBY AND QUENTIN

France, 2003, 85 minutes, Colour.
Gerard Depardieu, Jean Reno, Richard Berry, Andre Dussollier, Michel Aumont.
Directed by Francis Veber.

Tais Toi! sounds so polite to the non-French ear. It almost sounds affectionate it its familiar use of ‘toi’, the way of addressing close friends. Don’t be misled. It means, ‘Shut up!’.

Would you enjoy a comedy called, ‘Shut up’? The answer is yes. An even bigger ‘yes’, if you see it with an ordinary paying audience who are not embarrassed to guffaw at times. Even though there was scarcely a ripple at the film critics’ preview, I did hear the projectionist telling a mate who had just arrived that it was the funniest film he had seen in ages.

Of course, tastes differ. But Tais Toi should cover most tastes.

Apart from some funny scenes and funny lines (even in the sub-titles), what does it have to commend it?

First of all the stars are first-rate. Gerard Depardieu is a hero at home. Despite his huge and sometimes scruffy and ungainly appearance, he can take on any role and be convincing. By this stage, he has made enough international films to make him a familiar name. Here, he plays Quentin, a simple soul from the Paris suburbs, a born optimist, even though he has survived by stealing and stints in prison. And he talks, talks, talks and drives people, including his psychiatrist, crazy.

Obviously he is the one on the receiving end of ‘shut up!’.

Jean Reno might not be a household name but he is a familiar face outside France where he too is a top star.
From Mission Impossible to The Da Vinci Code, he is an international performer. Here he is Ruby, a taciturn killer and thief.

Obviously he is one on the giving end of ‘shut up!”.

For most of the film they are on the run from the police and a criminal gang. It is their oddball escapades and the contrast of characters which provide the fun – and, by the end, some feeling.

It is written by Francis Veber who has done a lot of comedies about odd couples and directed Diner des Cons and The Closet.

1. The title, the term, in relationship to Quentin, in relationship to Ruby?

2. The work of the director, his writings, his skill in farce, contrasting characters, witty dialogue and comedy?

3. The French locations, the city, the street, criminals on the run? The musical score?

4. Gerard Depardieu as Quentin? The initial robbery, ineffectual, asking directions for the bank, going to the cinema, Ice Age and his staying to enjoy it? Continually talking, extreme extrovert, in the cells with the prisoners, finding himself with Ruby? The talk, the suicide attempts, real and fake? The two in adjacent beds in the hospital?

5. Ruby, criminal, his attitude towards Vogel, the crime lord, the affair with his wife, the money, hiding it, going to jail? The hunger strike, not speaking? Interactions with the psychologist and the understanding? The fake suicide? In the cell with Quentin and his incessant talk, in hospital in the adjacent bed? Desperate?

6. The psychologist, the contact with Vogel, Ruby’s escape, Quentin and his friend helping, the crane?

7. The world of the criminals, Vogel, his bodyguards, the taking of the cars, the pursuit?

8. Ruby and Quentin, together, the odd couple? The robbery, the horse trainer? The disguise, the Chanel clothes? The young men, the stealing of the cars, Ruby wounded in the shoulder, Quentin?

9. Ruby, the woman, putting her in the hotel?

10. The car chase, Vogel, Quentin wounded, Ruby sorry, Quentin’s recovery – and persuading Ruby to help him invest in establishing the cafe?

VERS LE SUD (HEADING SOUTH)

France, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Charlotte Rampling, Karen Young, Louise Portal, Menothy Cesar, Lys Ambroise, Jenkinson Pierre Olmo Diaz, Wilfred Paul.
Directed by Laurent Cantet.

For a while, Laurence Cantet’s fans might be wondering whether he has forgotten his deeply social concerns in his previous fine films, Resources Humaine and L’Emploi? du Temps (Time Out). A moving prologue where a Haitian woman offers to sell her daughter to the proprietor of a hotel for tourists should have warned us. Cantet has a lot to say.

The setting is Haiti in the late 70s.

This is the kind of film where audiences will respond quite differently, depending on their points of view, especially on social justice. The three central characters are three wealthy middle-aged women from the US and Canada who holiday in Haiti, especially for the young men who operate as gigolos at the hotel. They are women whose busy lives are basically empty and they travel for what Cantet refers to as ‘love tourism’ rather than ‘sex tourism’, though they are predatory in their needy attitudes nonetheless. Were these women or audiences who share their presuppositions to watch this film, they might so identify with the women that they would, like the women themselves, not be aware of the social undercurrents in the country or ignore them or push them aside.

On the other hand, those who are alert to the sub-plot of the young Haitian who services the women, his other life beyond the hotel, and the comments made to the audience by the hotel manager, Vers le Sud turns into a strong critique of the affluent west who have no qualms in calmly exploiting the economically, socially and morally poor. As the hotel manager tells us, the country (under Duvalier rule with secret police and terror murders) is corrupt. His family had fought the Americans in the war of 1915. He says the current weapon is far more destructive than guns. It is dollars.

This means that the film works on several levels all the way through. While the women and their emotional crises are in the forefront – and very well portrayed and acted – there is a whole lot more going on, of deeper human significance.

The women are played by Charlotte Rampling with her skill in being both cold and cynical as well as deeply passionate. Louise Portal is a genial factory boss from Montreal. Karen Young is the seeming innocent who is ultimately as heartless as Charlotte Rampling’s character.

The three women are given brief monologues (as is the style of the short stories by Dany Laferriere which Cantet has adapted) which reveal their basic attitudes and expectations.

On the surface, as sunny as the beaches where most of the action takes place. Below the surface, the ugliness and destruction, that is generally hidden from the tourists.

1. The title, the geographical South, the south of failure, sexual implications?

2. The settings in Haiti, the background of its history, dictatorships, colonialism, exploitation, the beauty of the landscapes, the beaches, hotels and resorts, restaurants, bars? The musical score?

3. The problems in Haiti, prologue, the woman and her story, the history of Haiti? Setting the tone for the film – and the social critique?

4. The focus on the three women, sexual tourism, or the title of love tourism? The exploitation implied? Self-centredness? Money?

5. The locals, the young men, black, racial issues, age issues, education issues? Their role as gigolos? Performance? Sexual encounters? The money? Effect on them as persons, the relationships? Future?

6. The three women, the British woman in America, the American woman from the South, the Canadian woman? The countries and powers that they represented?

7. Ellen, British background, teaching French in Boston, age, visiting Haiti, her intentions, sexual liaisons, the relationship with Legba? Personal concern about him, wanting to save him – yet exploiting in? The end?

8. Brenda, coming to Haiti three years earlier, the role of her husband with Legba, choose one using him for sexual liaison? The tension in her marriage, the return to Haiti? Her anger, the using him and the exploitation, explosion?

9. Sue, age, work in Canada, easy-going, sexual tourism, relationships?

10. Legba, age, experience, his past with Brenda and her husband? With Ellen? his attitude towards his work, his future? The other young men, their rivalries?

11. The role of Albert, his speech, critique of the past?

12. The importance of the three monologues from the three women, revealing themselves, their attitudes?

13. The build up to the climax – and the possibilities for the future?