THE SECOND MOTHER/ QUE HORAS ELA VOLTA/ WHAT TIME WILL SHE BE BACK

Brazil, 2015, 112 minutes, Colour.
Regina Case, Camilla Mardila, Karine Teles, Michel Joelsas.
Directed by Anna Muylaert.

The Second Mother is Val, Regina Case, a middle-aged woman who acts as servant in the house of a very wealthy family in San Paolo.

The English title focuses on the mother while the original Brazilian title talks about the time when she will return. This means that the film serves as an introduction to contemporary Brazilian society, audiences observing how similar the way of life is in San Paolo to so many other cities around the world.

But, the difference the film wants to emphasise is that of servants, masters and mistresses, the issue of class.

Val has had a hard life, separating from her husband, having to leave her daughter, Jessica, with her father and his partner, sending money to support her, sometimes bringing gifts, experiencing long years with no contact from her daughter. Val has absorbed the ethos of being a servant. She takes it for granted, obeying her rather haughty mistress, looking after the rather quiet and ineffectual master, lavishing all her capacity for love on their son, from his time as a little boy over 10 years to his adolescence, his finishing his secondary education and his sitting for university entrance exams.

Val is quite likeable but even we wish she would not be so subservient, where nothing is too much trouble, a collage of detail all the work that she does around the house, the menial jobs, the cooking and serving, just being at the ready for whatever is asked of her.Her daughter, Jessica, does make contact arranging to meet her mother at the airport but not wanting to go to stay where Val lives. We know that there is going to be some conflict. Jessica seems to be very self-possessed, and not wanting to take any patronising or humiliating attitudes and behaviour from the wealthy family. She resents her mother doing this kind of work and is really upset at one stage when she feels her mother does not defend her against the criticisms of the family.

In the middle of the film, especially when the mother is injured in an accident which bring on various tantrums, one is tempted to say that they all deserve what they get.

However, this is a very women-oriented film, from the writer-director, to Val herself, to Jessica, to the mother – with the men, like Val’s husband, off-screen, or the father of the household taking to his bed and, quietly and desperately proposing to Jessica. The son will go out on his own (pleasingly, to Australia for six months) but he has been molly-coddled by Val and her affection and the interprets his mother’s lack of feeling and disdain to her thinking he was a dumb. Val has really been his first mother rather than his second mother.

When a new piece of information is given about 15 minutes before the end, we can well guess what is about to happen – and it does.

Many audiences have responded feeling me to Val and her life as well as to interest in Brazilian society and issues of class.

1. The two titles? The focus on the mother? The question about the mother and her service?

2. The Brazilian film, slice of life, Brazilian culture, classes? The 21st-century perspective?

3. The city of San Paolo, the mansion, the grounds of the pool, the interiors, the poorer areas of the city, the views of the city? The musical score?

4. Val’s story? The imposing presence of Regina Case, her seeing herself as a maid, caring for everyone, for the son, over 10 years, the work, helping, the detailed collage of all her house work, the other workers and sharing with them, her timetable? Her interactions with Barbara, Carlos, Fabinho?

5. Her back story, leaving her husband, 10 years away, absence from Jessica, the years without contact, her visits, gifts, time between phone calls, her expressing more love for Fabinho than Jessica, Jessica’s arrival, at the airport, her unwillingness to go to the house?

6. Barbara, dominant, concerned about her appearance, her exercise and gym, television interview, a member of society, her birthday party, the guests and their not even thanking Val? Her relationship with her son, his willing to be expressive, but not embracing her? Her accident and the aftermath? Allowing Jessica to come, tolerating her, the room, but the experience of Jessica with the boys in the pool, saying there was a rat? Class distinctions? Jessica in the kitchen, breakfast? Barbara wanting her to go, cleaning the pool, Jessica and the exams, her son and his testing his answers, failing the exam, Val and her consolation, Barbara wondering about his not hugging her? Allowing Val to leave?

7. Carlos, quiet, sleeping in his room, silent, the strange proposal to Jessica and his saying it was a joke? Giving her the money gift? At the end, preferring to stay in bed?

8. Fabinho, his age, with Val as a little boy, being spoilt, baby-like, Val’s treatment of him, his going into her room for security? With Jessica, the pool? Going to the exam, his bad results, his weeping? His mother’s reaction, his thinking that she thought he was dumb? The decision to go to Australia?

9. Jessica, growing up, Val’s absence, Sandra looking after her, her clashes with her father? Val sending the money? The phone calls and the time between calls? Her arrival, assertive, the airport, the guest room, breakfast, eating Fabinho’s ice cream? Reactions, the room, packing, the prospective room and failing to get it, her return? On the floor, Barbara posting her? Jessica’s anger towards the family, class prejudices, her mother being humiliated? The exam, her doing very well? The revelation about Jorge, Val deciding to leave, going to stay with Jessica, to be a grandmother for the baby?

10. Val, the ingrained attitude towards being a servant, loyalties, decorum? The character, the past? A love for Fabinho? Her work, loyalty to Barbara, the birthday gift and Barbara’s discarding it? Meeting Jessica at the airport? Coping, not understanding her daughter, the mattress, the guest room, Jessica reprimanding her mother for not defending her? The exam, her joy and Jessica’s success? Going into the pool, leaving the phone message, playfully? The decision to leave? Taking the thermos and the cups? Moving, settling into the house – and looking after the baby as a loving grandmother?

SWISS ARMY MAN


US, 2016, 97 minutes, Colour,
Paul Dano, Daniel Radcliffe, Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
Directed by Daniels/ Dan Kwan, Daniel Scheinert.


Probably, a Swiss Army Man, with his Swiss Army Knife, might be ready for any difficult situation he finds himself in. But, probably not nearly as difficult as the situation Hank (Paul Dano) finds himself in, stranded on a remote island in the Pacific, despairing, the noose around his neck, his feet slipping and dangling… as he notices a body floating ashore.

Are we supposed to think about Robinson Crusoe, and wonder whether the stranded body will be a Man Friday? Are we supposed to supposed to remember Tom Hanks and his ball, Wilson, in Castaway? Given that the two writers and directors of this film have made some comedies with the touch of the absurd, it seems quite likely.

The dead man is Manny, giving Daniel Radcliffe extraordinary opportunity to play dead and, at various times, a living dead, though not a zombie. Hank is overjoyed at the possibility of a companion, even enjoying a jet-propelled excursion over the sea and back to the beach.

It is probably important to focus on the background of the jet-propelling. All the reviewers and, one presumes, all the viewers, will have something to say about Intestinal gases.They recur, and recur, and often noisily and prolonged, stomach rumblings and farting. In fact, they are a symbol or a sign of life. So, Manny seems to have some life in him even though he is expelling it.

Hank, in his excitement, carries Manny around the island, up the cliffs into a cave, propping him up, excited when Manny open is his eyes and begins to speak. As, Claude Rains says at the end of Casablanca, “this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship”! And, it is.

From these paragraphs, readers will note that there is a touch of realism and more than a touch of the surreal – with the screenplay moving into fantasy. And so the question of who is really dead and who is really alive? Depending on your psychological predilections, interpreting these events from a Jungian point of view or a Freudian point of view, it could be said that the interplay between the two characters is Hank having dialogue with Manny as his inner self.

Hank is on a quest, even though he admits that as he began to hang himself his life did not appear before his eyes. Rather, what he has needed is this interplay between Manny and himself, Manny having no memories of his own, Hank being persuaded to talk about himself, his parents, his growing up, his shyness, the image of Sarah on his mobile phone and his taking it surreptitiously in a bus. A sex magazine provides the occasion for discussions about sexuality, about male response, erections and masturbation.

In the interplay between the two, Hank enters into some kind of role-play where he tries to identify with Sarah and Manny responds, indicating some issues of sexual identity as well as of friendship.

For most of the film, it is a blend of comedy and drama, a two-hander. A number of other people do come into the film at the end, especially Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Sarah. But, by this stage, our imaginations have been exercised, making us wonder about locations and the island and a forest, the attack of a savage bear, Manny and his being considered dead, Hank’s father coming on the scene – as well as medics, police, and a television interviewer and camera crew.

On the one hand, a lot of the dialogue reminds us of our mundane human life. On the other hand, from death to life, this interior dialogue, touches on the existential themes of being human.

Needless to say, some audiences have walked out – while many others are putting it on their list of cult films.

1. A film breaking through expectations? The variety of responses? For many a cult film?

2. Writer-directors, their imagination, their portrayal of the fantasies, absurd, introspective, the touch of juvenilia, the existential, mundane? An exploration of the self?

3. The island, remote, the terrain, the beach, the sea, the cliffs and caves, the forests, the animals, the bear? The transition at the end of the film into the California suburbs?

4. The blend of the real and the surreal? The narrative as real, transition to magical realism? Transitions to fantasy, to the absurd, to Hank’s imagination? The personal journey? From strangeness to understanding?

5. The film’s reputation for the gas and wind episodes, humour, gasses as signs of life, public and private, Hank’s breaking wind publicly at the end as a sign of transition? Self-acceptance?

6. The film as earthy, the gas, food, issues of masturbation, erections – a humorous treatment, with serious implications? Hank’s explanations, Manny’s experience?

7. Paul Dano as Hank, his age, the back story, glimpsing him in the bus, his reserve, taking the photo of Sarah? Discovering the items, the amount of debris, his scrounging? No explanation of how it got there? The discussions about life coming before one’s eyes in death? The attempts to hang himself? Seeing Manny, Hank dropping, taking his belt and trying again – but getting up? Manny as a sign a life?

8. Manny dead, age, appearance, the gas experiences, Hank’s reaction, attempts to revive Manny? Going out to sea, the exhilaration of the ride? Coming back in, carrying him, falling, propping him up, trying conversations? The mountains and into the cave?

9. Psychological interpretation – and dialogue between Hank and his inner self? Manny as his alter ego? Jungian and Freudian interpretations? Who was alive, who was dead? And coming to life?

10. The interactions, the beginnings of friendship? Manny, his eyes, consciousness, stilted way of talking, the water coming from his mouth, and Hank drinking it? No memories? The issue of the phone, the image, the batteries – ultimate revelation that it belonged to Hank? Magazine, sex, fantasies, Manny aroused, not knowing what it meant? Hank, talk about masturbation, his father, his mother and her urging him to catch up – and her death? Hank and his deep longings?

11. Manny’s wanting to recover memories? Hank’s memories? His parents? The importance of the song, singing? The two and their playing together?

12. The role play, Hank and address, the flirting, sitting in the bus? Later kissing? Themes of love, friendship?

13. Hank wanting to be rescued, the accidents, the animals, eating the berries and being sick, the huge bear, the confrontation? The bite on the leg?

14. Manny, his capacity for spitting out and projecting, the arrow going to the height?

15. The effect on Hank, co-dependence? The forest, the car, the suburbs? In the backyard? The daughter, Sarah, the ;puzzle? The phone and her photo?

16. Manny dead, Paul’s father coming to identify the body? Unable to?

17. Hank, police, medicos, the TV host and the cameras? His explanation? Mannys’s body, going down the hill? The beach, breaking wind, the body out to sea?

18. Hank, alive or dead at the end?

MIDNIGHT MARY

US, 1933, 74 minutes, Black and white.
Loretta Young, Ricardo Cortez, Franchot Tone, Andy Divine, Una Merkel, Charlie Grapewin.
Directed by William A. Wellman.


Midnight Mary is perhaps title too far. While Loretta Young, looking beautiful and often glamorous, becomes involved with criminals, she is not exactly a criminal whose nickname should be midnight.

Loretta Young and Una Merkel portray two young women, poor, looking for opportunities, not wise in their choices, becoming involved with gangster Ricardo Cortez.

Franchot Tone is a wealthy lawyer, is attracted to Mary, and she moves away from the gangsters and trains and works as a secretary. A chance encounter with the gangsters means that she separates herself from the lawyer, becomes involved with crimes, serves a prison sentence, and kills the gangster when he intends to kill the lawyer.

In great gallantry, the lawyer comes to her rescue just after she is been found guilty.

An early film from celebrated director, especially of air action films, William A. Wellman.

1. A 1930s Depression and gangster story? American cities, employment, crime, courts, prison?

2. MGM production values, black-and-white photography, gangsters headquarters, lawyers, restaurants, courts? Musical score?

3. The title, Mary and her reputation?

4. The opening, Mary in court, prosecuted, accused of killing? The court official, kind to her, his office? Reminiscences? The flashbacks, the indication of different years, the cumulative effect of seeing Mary’s life and downfall?

5. Mary is young, with Bunny, poor, lacking opportunities? Young and immature? Getting caught up with gangsters?

6. Mary, Leo and his attraction? Her response? Bunny, drinking, flirtation, pregnancy?

7. Mary, leaving Leo, the encounter with Tom, the mutual attraction? The decision to study, typist, secretary, the bond with Tom? Prospects?

8. The new encounter with Leo, her telling Tom she did not love him? The disappearance?

9. Mary, wealth, clothes, participating in the jobs, the robberies, on the lookout? The police? Her arrest? Sentenced to jail? Coming out?

10. Leo, personality, henchmen, tough? The attraction to Mary? The jealousy of Tom?

11. Sam, goofy, Tom’s friend? The irony of his being killed in the car instead of Tom?

12. Leo, learning the truth, determination to kill Tom, the confrontation with Mary, the gun, shooting him? In court? Found guilty?

13. Tom, interrupting the court, his reputation as a lawyer, his declaration of love for Mary, the explanation that she killed Leo to save him? And a nice happy ending?

OUR KIND OF TRAITOR

UK, 2016, 108 minutes, Colour.
Ewan Mc Gregor, Stellan Skarsgaard, Damian Lewis, Naomie Harris, Jeremy Northam, Mark Gattis, Khalid Abdalla, Saskia Reeves.
Directed by Susanna White.

Our Kind of treat Traitor is another film version of John Le Carre spy novel. The film versions are always welcome – although some audiences may find this bit lower key.

It Is over 50 Years since John Le Carre began writing novels and films were made. It is half a century since Richard Burton was The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. This means that Le Carre has taken his readership through the decades of the Cold War, to the collapse of communism, through British espionage, through Russian espionage, to wider horizons including Africa and more internationally with The Night Manager Manager and this film.

Audiences who like a variety of international locations will enjoy an opening in Moscow, the setting of the drama in Morocco, transfer to London, Swiss variety with the use of locations in Berne, including the Einstein Museum, and then out into the Alps.

By 2016, the subject of the Le Carre story is International money laundering, this time by the Russian Mafia who are on the lookout for establishing a bank to do their laundering in London. It seems they have several British politicians in their pocket – the kind of mercenary traitor that they can rely on. On the other hand, they have a traitor from within their own ranks, the man who manages the money and signs the documents, not their kind of traitor but one who could be welcomed by MI6.

At the centre of the film is a rather quiet British couple, on holiday in Morocco, some tensions in their marriage, but drawn into international intrigue which actually makes better persons of them, standing on principle and helping others and drawing them closer to each other. Ewan Mc Gregor is Perry, not your everyday hero but the everyday citizen who can become one. He teaches Politics at London University. His wife, Gail, played by Naomie Harris, is a prominent London barrister.

Into their lives comes the boisterous, extraordinarily boisterous Stellan Skarsgaard as the Mafia accountant, Dima. Very early in the film, he passes a memory stick to Perry who experiences MI6 officials at Heathrow on his return. The leader is Hector, played by Damian Lewis who got in a lot of rehearsal time for this kind of role in the TV series, Homeland. He has his eye on the chief treacherous British politician, Jeremy Northam, but is unable to persuade his boss, Mark Gattis, to give him permission to pursue the case.

Which means that he does and there are meetings in Paris, tracking of the Russian criminals, rendezvous after a tennis match with Dima giving information but wanting his wife and children to be taken to England and protection.

But, not enough information handed over, so a transition to Switzerland where the film becomes more suspenseful and with some action.

Because this is a Le Carre story, there is not a completely happy ending – but, symbolically and with some subtlety, the final image is a contemporary version of T. S. Elliott’s lines from The Waste Land about the processiion of people over London Bridge, and the implied unsettlement in society.

1. The popularity of the novels of John Le Carre? Film versions? 50 years of novels and films? The history of espionage, especially the UK, USSR, and changes since the fall of communism?

2. The 21st-century story, the Russian Mafia, British politics, MI6, money laundering, payoffs, betrayal?

3. The title, preferring to deem are, attracted to the Russian Mafia, the British parliamentarians and the approval of the bank for money laundering?

4. The variety of settings, Morocco, London, Paris, Berne, the mountains? The musical score?

5. The opening in Moscow, Prince, the plan for the bank, his talking about his inheritance, his underling and the gift of the gun? The ballet, the audiences? The drive to the countryside, the roadblock, the brutality of the killing, the pursuit of the girl in the snow?

6. Morocco, Perry and Gail, an ordinary couple, professor of poetics, barrister? Initial sexual encounter, the difficulties? Going for the drink, sharing, Dima and his looking at the couple, Perry and his interest, Gail going back to the hotel, the invitation, Perry going to the party, the drinking, the atmosphere, the attractive woman? The plan for tennis, Dima, playing with the children, his wife, the little girls orphans from the murder in the snow? Dima giving Perry the memory stick?

7. Dima, boisterous character, his work for the Russian Mafia, the accounts? His wife and children? Tennis? Concern about his daughter? The money, the bank, the bribes? Getting his family out getting them protection?

8. Perry and Gail, the return to England, passport difficulties? Hector and Luke, the interrogations?

9. Hector, Billy as the head of MI6? Going to the Emirates Stadium? Tracking the politician, the information about him? Hector trying to persuade Billy? Billy forbidding the enquiry, the political difficulties between the UK and Russia? Hector lying to his associates? Continuing the pursuit?

10. Hector, his visits, persuading Perry and Gail to go to Paris, that cover? The alleged coincidence with Dima in Paris? The Russians and their suspicions? The tennis game, the meeting in the dressing room, Hector and Dima and the information, Hector saying it was not enough? Needing the account numbers rather than the list of names provided?

11. Perry and Gail, the Russian giving the lift, suspicious, the delay in the house with the baby, the getting out, the feeling of threat? The two becoming much more involved in the situation? The change of heart for each, becoming stronger, principles and convictions, and mutual love and respect?

12. The gathering in Berne, the beauty of the city, the signing of the document, Prince and his being jovial, the gift of the gun to Dima? Dima, boisterous, the signing of the document? The irony of the scene with the credit card and his memorising the numbers? His memorising the list of accounts?

13. The Berne meetings, the role of the Russians, Dima’s wife and children going with Gail to the Einstein Museum? The escape? Dima in the kitchen, Perry coming to help, the fight, deaths? Driving to the safe house? The cover car and trucks?

14. At the safe house, Anna, age, pining for her boyfriend, phoning him? The Russians tracking down the location of the safe house? The attack, Luke being wounded, Dima out in the forest, the pursuit, Perry killing his attacker? The family moving again?

15. The politician, his arrogance, confronting Hector? The amount of money received as a bribe, his presence in Berne? Billy and his reaction to the failed attempt?

16. The plan with a helicopter, Billy’s intervention? Dima persuading Perry not to go? The helicopter exploding?

17. Reactions, the grief of Dima’s wife? The boys, Anna and her pregnancy and her reaction?

18. Back in London, the family safe? The failure of the mission?

19. Perry visiting Hector, Hector and his cooking, the story of his son and being in jail for drug dealing? The gift of the gun, Hector examining it, finding the list of the accounts?

20. The ending of the film – not showing any vindictive retribution or arrests? The people moving over London Bridge – and echoes of Perry’s lecture about T.S.Eliott and the
Waste Land and society at the time, the crowds of people, discontent and corruption?

21. A satisfying Le Carre experience?

DEMOLITION

US, 2015, 101 minutes, Colour.
Jake Gyllenhaal, Naomi Watts, Chris Cooper, Judah Lewis.
Directed by Jean- Marc Vallee.

While there is a lot of physical demolition going on in this film, especially in waving sledgehammers and breaking through walls as well as the destruction of quite a luxury house and its appointments, what happens is some psychological demolition.

The film opens with a sudden crash and the death of Julia, the wife of businessman, Davis, played with quite some intensity by Jake Gyllenhaal. He is in his mid-30s and the film offers an exploration of what can happen emotionally, psychologically, professionally in terms of the workplace, on a man able and unable to deal with shock and grief.

His father-in-law, played by Chris Cooper, has not always been supportive and becomes more and more bewildered by what Davis says and does, withdrawing from the company, going his own way.

An unusual, if strange, script device is that after the death of his wife, Davis tries to get an M and M bar from a vending machine in the hospital and it fails to come out. Davis notes and photographs the registration number and begins a very personal correspondence with the company, a device by which he can pour out some of his feelings to the anonymous recipient.

Davis visits the company, meets the boss, and is contacted by the personal services officer, Karen, played by Naomi Watts. She is in a relationship with the boss but is more concerned about her precocious young adolescent son, Chris, who is rebellious, concerned about his sexual orientation, critical of his mother.

One day, Davis passes workmen doing demolition work and pays them so that he can join them. He buys tools, clothing, and enters into the demolition work with great gusto. He writes more letters and Karen follows them up, inviting him to her house while her partner is away, enabling them to communicate (not sexually) and for him to start bonding with her son, giving him a salutary talk about appropriate and inappropriate use of the F word and listening to him about his identity worries.

As the film goes on, and Davis keeps imagining his dead wife present to him, it might seem that there is no way for him to go. A chance meeting with an old man who works on old carousels finally gives him a lead for some way of dealing with the death of his wife, the animosity of his father-in-law, and a philanthropic way of keeping his wife’s memory alive.

Some years ago, American psychologist, Carol S. Pearson, wrote a book about personal archetypes, Awakening the Hero Within. One of her life crises is that for authenticity, a crisis that comes in middle-age, and one of the archetypes she names is The Destroyer. Demolition is a fine illustration of what she was exploring with this archetype, the negative side where the destruction simply leads to collapse, but where the positive side leads to greater self-awareness and the possibilities for new beginnings.

Despite the seeming impossibility, the film does end with Davis appreciating some new authenticity and steps to a more positive future phase of his life. The film is directed by Canadian, Jean- Marc Vallee, known for The Dallas Buyers Club and Wild.

1. The title: destruction, possibilities of new beginnings?

2. An American story, the American city, the house and its modern style, offices, the streets, the building sites, the poorer areas, hospital? The city? The musical score?

3. Introduction of Davis and Julia talking, his seeming to be detached, the conversation, tension? The suddenness of the crash? In hospital, the impact of Julia’s death?

4. Davis, the aftermath of the death, the vending machine, failing? Noting the number, photographing it? The beginning of the writing letters, the enormous amount of detail, an outlet for his feelings? Device for the film? The consequences?

5. Jake Gylenhaal as Davis, his age, his career, marriage, as a character, his past, the relationship with Julia, with her father, mother? Whether her father liked him or not? In the business, the scenes in the office? The later revelation about Julia being pregnant, the abortion, her mother knowing?

6. Davis’s collapse, grief, anguish, not knowing what happened? Demolition of his psyche? His behaviour, opting out, rejecting his own house, at the funeral, withdrawing? Continuing letters to Karen? His visit to the company, the encounter with Carl? Karen making contact? His response, seeking her out, the close relationship, the Platonic aspects? Meeting Chris, Chris’s attitude, rebellion towards his mother, his language, the appropriate uses of ‘fuck’, Chris and his concern about his sexual or orientation? His behaviour, in the bathroom, the lipstick, clothes, lipstick on the mirror…? Davis and the discussions, his playing with Chris and creating the bond?

7. The establishment of the foundation, the interview with the contenders, the swimming champion? Davis’s response, inviting Karen to the social, Karen and her laughter at the winner because of his inappropriate comments to her, sexigts? Her leaving? Reactions?

8. Davis, his tools, fixing things? Passing the site with the demolition, paying the workmen to join in, the destruction of the house and its liberation for him, the nail in his foot?

9. Coney Island, the old man and the carousel, talking, wanting to repair it?

10. Carl, his return, clash with Davis, the fight, the warning? Karen leaving him?

11. Karen, Chris, his being bashed, Davis helping?

12. Davis and his offer to his father-in-law for a memorial? The transition to the renewed carousel, the ride? Everybody there?

13. Julia appearing to him throughout the film – and her being on the carousel?

14. Demolition leading to rebuilding of himself, his feelings, his personality, capacity for relationship?

BLONDE DYNAMITE

US, 1950, 66 minutes, Black and white.
Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Adele Jergens, Gabriel Dell, Bernard Gorcey.
Directed by William Beaudine.

Blonde Dynamite is one of many small budget supporting features from the late 1940s and early 1950s featuring Leo Gorcey and the Bowery Boys. There is a slight plots, and the impact of the film coming from Gorcy himself in a recurring character, full of self-confidence, but often overreaching himself. His pal is played by Huntz Hall, again a continuing character, dithering, fairly daft and getting into all kinds of trouble. Many of the actors had recurring rules as the Bowery Boys but Gorcey’s own father, the very short Bernard Gorcey, plays Louis, the proprietor of the shop.

Leo Gorcey had come to some notice in the 1930s with the crime drama, Angels with Dirty Faces.

In this film, Gorcey gets the idea of turning his friend Louis’ sweets shop into an office for male escorts (of the 1950s fairly respectable type). However, there are a number of gangsters who have the same interest. They want to dig under the shop into a bank and rob it – threatening the bank assistant, a friend of the boys, and betrayed by Adele Jergens, a moll, and getting the information about the safe from him.

In the meantime, they persuade Louis to go for a holiday with his larger-than-life wife. When he returns to look after shop, the boys had been taken over by the gangsters and are actually doing a lot of the digging, especially Huntz Hall who is given a chunk of rock and told that it is uranium. While the police capture the criminals, everything seems dim for Louis and the boys, it is confirmed that the chunk of rock actually is uranium!

Along with the many other films, of historical interest.

Z FOR ZACHARIAH

US, 2015, 98 minutes, Colour.
Margot Robbie, Chiwitel Ejiofor, Chris Pine.
Directed by Craig Zobel.

At one stage in this film, a book is shown, A for Adam. The implication is that these people, survivors of an apocalyptic experience, are A, the last on earth.

This is a very quiet post-apocalyptic film, a three-hander. The setting (filmed in New Zealand) is an American mountain location, hills and valleys, waterfalls and lakes, a peaceful setting. Down below is a ruined world, yet shops still there with their contents. There has been overall atomic contamination.

The central character is Anne, played by Margot Robbie, young woman who has survived, is making good, is planting crops, self-sufficient, getting some stores from the shops, making do.

The next character is an engineer played by Chiwitel Ejiofor, who has survived the disaster by being one mile down in the mine, travelling alone, encountering and, a confrontation at first, saving him from contaminated water, nursing him to health, his helping her on the farm, preparing the tractor and planning a mill wheel at the waterfall to provide electricity. There is a mutual attraction although he is considerably older.

Into this world comes a third character, Caleb, played by Chris Pine. He is given hospitality, joins in the work of dismantling a church, the church belonging to Anne’s father, which she at first does not want to desecrate. Caleb helps with the building of the mill wheel and its installation – although he and Anne are retracted; they do spend an night together. While he is working on the wheel, he slips, is saved by John, but slips again – and John tells Anne that he has moved on, leaving the two together to their future and survival.

1. A post-apocalyptic drama – a three-hander without the special effects and actions of so many post-apocalyptic big budget thrillers?

2. Audience acceptance of the world contaminated by radiation, the effect on so many communities, being wiped out, small pockets of clean air in the mountains, yet waterfalls with contaminated water, deserted shops, cars and farm machinery, small resources capitalised on?

3. The setting, the mountains and valleys, the fertile fields, growing vegetables? The farm machinery and its use? The house, the barn? The church? The musical score?

4. Anne surviving, her brother going out to search for survivors and John Loomis’s story of his contamination and being killed? Her father, farmer, preacher? Her respect for the church, prayer, faith, grace before meals…? Surviving in the house, going to the shop, stores, fire, candles, cooking? Alone? Her character?

5. The arrival of John Loomis, and apprehensions, the gun, the threats? His washing in the water, her warning him about the contamination, his illness, looking after him? His back story, engineer, the mine, one mile down, surviving, his journey? And seeing his vehicle, bringing it to the house?

6. John, his character, age, experience, handy with jobs, with the farming? Repairing the tractor? The plan for the waterfall and electricity? His wanting to bring down the church for the timber, Anne and her reluctance? The growing friendship, reliance, easy situations in the house? The attraction? His patience and not imposing himself? Anne’s response?

7. The surprise arrival of Caleb? His age, personality? His story? His asking for help, little radiation? And bringing him into the house, sharing the meals? His working with John, the dismantling of the church, building the wheel? Setting up the wheel, for the electricity? Caleb and the rope, his slipping, his fall – and John’s responsibility?

8. Caleb and Anne, the attraction, the night together? The effect on Anne, on Caleb, on John? John’s motivation and Caleb’s death?

9. John, explaining that Caleb had gone, leaving the two of them together – to what future?

10. A different perspective on post--apocalyptic – and the will to survive and the resourcefulness needed?

INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE

US, 2016, 120 minutes, Colour.
Liam Hemsworth, Jeff Goldblum, Maika Munro, Jessie T. Usher, Sela Ward, Bill Pullman, William Fichtner, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner, Vivica A.Fox, Charlotte Gainsbourg.
Directed by Roland Emmerich.

Back in 1996 when the first Independence Day film was released, we were reassured that, with all the heroics led by Will Smith and urged on by President Bill Pullman and scientist Jeff Goldblum, that the world was safe after this particular example of War of the Worlds.

Little did we know – or little did the screenwriters know until they put their minds to it – that the aliens hadn’t gone at all, that they had settled here on earth, especially in North Africa with an enormous cavity in the earth and an enormous spaceship, and that they were plotting and planning and developing their technology. Which is just as well because it offers the opportunity, 20 years later, to refight Independence Day.

Needless to say, the special effects are quite spectacular, especially the spaceship – and the new one is 3000 miles across! Then there are whiz-bang battles – although the aliens themselves look stereotypically familiar, ugly looking creatures, slimy and sinister, with the Queen operating with her minions like a hive.

One of the things that we all may have missed in the 20 years since 1996 is that travel to the moon is so quick and seemingly inconsequential, up and down at will. Up on the moon, there is a crack squad of fighters, led by Liam Hemsworth, who do training, risk each other’s lives, have a sense of bravado.

Meanwhile in Africa, Jeff Goldblum is exploring the alien presence, confronting a warlord and a scientist friend from the past, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg. With the threat of an alien invasion, the moon soldiers rescue them and bring back to headquarters in Nevada, under the care of William Fichtner, and at the urgings of the new president, Sela Ward, sounding more than a little like Hillary Clinton – or via the old president, a scruffy bearded Bill Pullman, who comes to celebration and exercises more than a few heroics by the end of the film.

One of the bright pieces of the film is the character of the old scientist who has been in a coma for 20 years, played by Brent Spiner, who wakes up and immediately goes to work, encountering a friendly sphere from the galaxies, allies who have suffered under the aliens and are willing to help the humans.

So, there you have it, more or less (the more including a touch of romance between the pilot and the presidential attache, the former president’s daughter, who is no mean pilot herself). Oh, increasing the age range and interest, the scientist’s father (Judd Hirsch) gets into the act after trying vainly to publicise his biography to residents of a home for the elderly, and a group of schoolchildren trying to escape the aliens.

It is all enjoyable in the Saturday matinee kind of fashion, although the plot gets preposterouser and preposterouser as it goes on. The screenwriters have already given some consideration to a sequel, indicating at the end that the friendly sphere from space should combine with the humans who will take the attack on the aliens into the galaxies…

1. The first film, the atmosphere of 1996, popularity? The overtones of War of the Worlds? Alien invasions? Science fiction? Audience response?

2. The US president, advisers, scientists, the air force, the battles and the conquering of the aliens?

3. The sequel 20 years later, the title and Resurgence?

4. The plot, what happened during the 20 years, the ageing of the characters, the development of the technology, the alien technology, their plan, human response again?

5. Washington, the ordinary sequences? But the significance of the effects, for destruction, the cities, around the world, London…, Asia…? The battles and action? The atmospheric score?

6. The characters from the first film, familiarity, their roles? The new characters, new generation?

7. The situation, the visit to Africa, the enormous spaceship, the hole? The scientist, the encounter with the warlord and his men? The nerdish assistent? Catherine and her work, presence? The designs and her interpretation? The later sequences with Catherine and the warlord and their interpreting the signs and language?

8. 4 July, the new president, the female president and echoes of Hillary Clinton? A rousing speech? The old president, age, appearance, collapse, coming to the celebrations, the memories?

9. The news of the new attack, the spaceship 3000 miles long, the East Coast instruction, London and Asia? The spaceship spreading over the Atlantic? The issue of the earth’s core, to mine the energy? The history of this kind of ravaging of the planets and down to earth?

10. Sequences on the moon, the seeming ease of travel, the pilots, the exercises and training, their energy, personalities, the clash between Jake and Dylan, the risk in the training, Dylan punching Jake? Charlie, his work, the bond?

11. Jake, the presidential assistant as his fiance? Being a pilot? Jake’s decision to go to Africa, to rescue the scientist and the group? Taking them to Nevada?

12. Nevada, the plant, the officer in charge – and his later having to take the oath and being president? Contact with the president and her advisers? The commands in Nevada, the experience of the destruction?

13. The eccentric scientist, in a coma for 20 years, his contact with the alien Queen, his waking, the assistant in their discussions, his going into action? The shooting down of the sphere thinking it was enemy, the fact that it was friendly, the sphere, the voice, the explanation of the aliens and the other planets? Prepared to support humans? The scientist and his touching the sphere, the communication?

14. The destruction and the death of the president and her entourage? Nevada, the warlord, the nerdish assistant, their clashes, his wanting to fight, the machete, the guns?

15. The hive theory and the control of the Queen? This becoming the target? But the shrewdness of the alien Queen, drawing the fighters into the vehicle, trapping them inside,
the ingenuity and getting out? The determination to deceive the alien Queen, her wanting to destroy the friendly sphere? The old president, his wanting to go, his daughter, the plan to destroy the shield and the hive? The president, the decision to go in, his daughter protecting him? The destruction of the shield and the Queen?

16. The scientist’s father, his book, in the old people’s home, wanting sales? Buying the boat? The youngsters, the death of their parents, in the car, rescuing him? Driving
inland, Las Vegas? The bus and the petrol? Driving to the centre, in danger from the aliens?

17. In the Atlantic, the crew wanting the gold, making contact, offering to monitor the spaceship and the core, the split timing, able to report that all was safe? The millions for them?

18. Jake, his fiance, the romance, the rescue? Charlie and the Chinese pilot, romantic potential? Charlie and his friendship?

19. Catherine, the past relationship with the scientists – and to continue?

20. The collaboration between humans and the visiting alien in the sphere – and the plan to take the attack against the aliens into space?

EMBRACE OF THE SERPENT/ EL ABRAZO DEL SERPIENTE

Colombia, 2015, 125 minutes, Colour and Black and white.
Nilbio Torres, Jan Bijvoet, Antonio Bolívar, Brionne Davis, Yauenku Migue, Luigi Sciamanna, Nicolas Cancino.
Directed by Ciro Guerra.

The serpent serves as a mystical symbol in many cultures, a creative presence, sometimes devouring presence. In this film, the serpent is part of a mythology in the northern part of the South American continent, in Colombia.

This is a very powerful film, requiring attention, concentration, openness to other cultures, the power of realities beyond the rational.

The black-and-white photography shows this photographic technique at its best. At the end, there is something of an apotheosis, of art and symbols, echoes of creation, in bright and varied colours.

This is also an ethnographic film, the screenplay based on the diaries of two explorers from the West, a German in 2009, a European from Boston 30 years later. There are fragments of stories in the diaries and that is how the film proceeds, intercutting stories from each of the periods.

The common denominator is a shaman, a tribesman who has lost his tribe, isolated along the Amazon. Into his world comes the German explorer, ill, with a local Indian rowing his canoe, the Indian freed from indentured slavery in a rubber plantation. Later, this man will express his rage at the abuses and exploitation of the rubber barons. The shaman is persuaded that he can find his tribe and accompanies the voyagers, especially to find a special plant that has curative powers.

The explorer from 30 years later is then introduced, seeking the curative flower, and engaging the help of the shaman, the same man still voyaging along the Amazon.

There is an important stop in 1909, the travellers coming to a Mission, a very strict place, the Spanish missionary alone, his confreres having gone in search of others but never returning. There is a group of boys living there, dressed in robes, singing hymns, subject to severe discipline – and the visitors have to intervene to stop the whipping of one of the boys. a grim glimpse of an aspect of mission work, the imposition of beliefs on the natives, the forbidding of the use of native languages as pagan, the missionaries trying to protect their converts from pagan ways.

When the visitors arrive 30 years later, what they find is a cult, a self-proclaimed Messiah, the boys having grown up and becoming acolytes in the cult, with tonsures, with robes. The Messiah has still has some traces of Latin, words and sentences mixed up – but using them in rituals that draw on the Eucharist, some literal interpretations of consuming the body, a ceremony with a chalice. again, a corruption of Christian traditions.

The culmination of the film is the arrival of the latter group in the mountainous region of the Amazon, a betrayal by the visitor, but a mystical experience which the audience shares.

This film, from Columbia, invites its audience into an intensely different experience, an introduction to a “primitive” culture with a critique of a “civilised” culture. An Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film of 2015.

1. The title, the role of the serpent in Latin American myths and pre-history? The title introducing the audience to myths and symbols?

2. The ethnographic background of the film, the diaries of the two travellers, their information, their experience, limited experience? The dramatising of the two journeys, 1909 and 30 years later?

3. The impact of the black-and-white photography, its beauty, the Amazon area, the river, the jungle, isolation, the villages, the setting of rubber the plantations, the Catholic mission? The repetition in the later journey? The mission, the cult and the Messiah? The attack of the Colombians? The final mystical experience?

4. The contrast between the rational and the symbolic? The mutual challenge? Stories of creation, the world, the place of humans, their destiny? Harmony with the jungle, preserving life in the jungle preserving humans? Issues of health, plans, drugs, dreams, shared experiences, shared consciousness? The image of the journey – into the interior, into oneself?

5. The cultures of the Amazon, traditions, allegedly primitive, the Natives there, their life, memories and meaning, upholding traditions, prohibitions for food and diet, life in accord with the jungle, learning wisdom?

6. The contrast with civilisation from Europe, from the 16th century, the conquistadores, the genocides? The activity of the Natives towards the whites, not understanding them, seeing them as exploiters? The 19th century and the emergence of the South American nations, the impact on the Natives? The importance of rubber, the rubber barons, their wealth, enslaving the communities? The role of the missions, faith, yet wary of pagan customs, forbidding pagan languages, seeing their Native cultures as demonic? The children to be saved, the boys, their language, dress, discipline and the whippings?

7. The image of Christianity, the Capuchin friar, his aggressive defence of the mission, accepting the travellers, the meal, Katamakate and his not eating the fish? Hearing the sound of the whippings and the cries, the sadistic friar, rescuing the boys? The friar and his story, 10 years, his companions going out searching and never returning?

8. The later return to the mission, the corruption of Christianity, the self-proclaimed Messiah, the children growing up, serving the Messiah as disciples, their garb, ropes, torture? Their interpreting the travellers as the Magi? The use of Latin, corrupted Latin? The Eucharistic overtones, the theology of Eucharist, consuming the body and the literal cannibalism of the Messiah, the chalice and the blood? The issue of healings, the cult behaviour? The Messiah, his madness, his wife, the healing? Katamakate and his poisoning them all and their dying?

9. Theo, in himself, Manduca as his guide, Manduca and his experience in the rubber plantation, Theo freeing him, his wearing Western clothes, the canoe? Katamakate and his initially being seen contemplating, the shaman, living alone? Initially hostile, the talk, the existence of his tribe, his going on the journey, sharing, his change, the quest for the cure of the plant, Manduca upset with the rubber trees, emptying the buckets, the one-armed worker and his wanting Manduca to shoot him rather than be tortured? The visit to the mission, their experience of the friar, saving the whipped child? Theo, his diaries – and the comment that this journey would make him whole?

10. Katamakate, his dignity, 30 years later, his being employed by Evan, contrast between his experience when young and when older, his dreams? The issue of the doppelgänger, but an empty shell wandering? The repetition of the journey? The experience of the mission, the madness of the Messiah, his decision to poison the members of the cult? Finding the flowers, the dying tree, Katamakate and his burning all the flowers? Going to the mountains, the visitor betraying him, wanting the rubber because of the war?

11. The image of the Jaguar, the close-ups, his eye?

12. The second traveller, following the old path, wanting to follow Theo, the quest for the plant? The experience of the Messiah, the poison, the burning of the plants? Going into the mountains? The betrayal, wanting the rubber, his drawing the knife, not killing Katamakate, the experience?

13. The film turning into colour, images of the snake, creation, the mystical journey?

14. The aftermath of the journey, Katamakate and the achievement of his mission? The traveller and his diaries?

15. The impact for different audiences, for South Americans, the world audiences especially Europeans?

INTERSECTIONS

US, 2013, 101 minutes, Colour.
Scott Grillo, Jamie Alexander, Roschdy Zem, Marie -Josee Croze, Moussa Maaskri, Charlie Bewley.
Directed by David Marconi.

Intersections is a Moroccan desert melodrama, a French production with an international cast. writer-director, David Marconi, wrote scripts for the Will Smith drama, Enemy of the State, as well as one of the Dire Hard films.

One of the main advantages of the film is its sweeping desert scenery and locations. the film opens with a helicopter ride over the desert to an isolated resort. But the main action concerns a car chase and an unexpected crash which destroys some vehicles and kills some people out in the middle of the desert.

The members of the group are not what they seem and the film spend some time unmasking them, all with some criminal connections, an Interpol criminal, businessman and his unfaithful wife, her Australian boyfriend, a young woman with a baby and a local who is able to repair the vehicle so that the group can make its way back to a city and a final resolution.

More than a bit implausible – but that is the nature of this kind of melodrama.

1. An action melodrama? Exotic settings, Morocco? Characters – and their not seeming to be what they allege?

2. Morocco, locations, the desert, helicopter rides, the vistas of the desert, the luxury resort, the ruins in the desert? Contrast with the city, hotels, the streets? The musical score?

3. The introduction to Scott and Taylor? The helicopter ride, the luxury hotel, newly married, honeymoon, his taking the business call, her wanting a cigarette? Her rendezvous with the co-worker? Their plan against Scott?

4. Scott, character, businessman, successful, in love? Taylor, sophisticated in manner, yet her duplicity? Interest in wealth and possessions?

5. The trip in the desert, planning to see the ruins, her plan for Travis to kill Scott? Their arguments, tensions? Seeing the car, the dangerous race, pursuit, the crash over the hill and the killing of the people, the destruction of the vehicles? Scott not wanting to take the blame?

6. The cross-section of people, the response to the accident and the destruction? The prisoner, killing his guard, taking off the handcuffs, pretending to help? His killing of the man in the car? His having shot the other guard, in the body bag? The man burning in the car and his killing him, allegedly to save him suffering?

7. The woman with the baby, the care of the baby, getting out of the car?

8. Travis, unconscious, the reaction of Scott and Taylor? Putting him in shelter? His coming to consciousness? Taylor talking to him, Scott discovering them together? The irony
of Travis wearing the wire and Scott knowing all about the plan his being an Australian, slurring New York?

9. Saleh and his watching, the bike, walking to the crash site? Saying that he repaired things? His contribution to fixing the car, plugging the holes, the tire? His seeming subservience?

10. The group coping, interactions, the prisoner and his eye on Taylor, knowing that she did not love her husband? His gun? The use of the water, the getting of the chickens? The group spending the night?

11. The morning, preparing to go, Saleh and his control over the car? The prisoner, the attack by Travis, his shooting him? Saleh shooting the prisoner?

12. The drive, the various stories, the flashbacks, especially for the kidnapping of the baby?

13. The prisoner, the documents, wanted by Interpol, the diamonds?

14. The clash between Scott and Taylor, going to the hotel, Scott pursuing Taylor, killing her?

15. Saleh and the woman, the contact, the attack on Saleh, the taking of the diamonds, the pursuit, shooting, the revelation of the truth about Saleh and the woman and the baby, phoning? Letting the abductor go?

16. The end, Saleh and Scott seeming to be free? The irony of the quick scene during the final credits – and the police finding the camera and the card?