THE CAVE OF THE YELLOW DOG

Mongolia, 2005, 93 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Byambasuren Davaa.

Anyone who sees this film will be very satisfied. It can be described as a beautiful and humane film.

And it comes from a little known country, Mongolia.

To go back one step. Two years ago, another small film from Mongolia won over the hearts of audiences around the world. It had the unlikely title of The Story of the Weeping Camel. Not only did it have box office success, it won many awards, including a SIGNIS award (from the World Catholic Association for Communication) and was nominated for an Oscar. It was the work of a young woman from Mongolia, Byambasuren Davaa.

Audiences were amazed by her picture of life out in the steppes, charmed by the story of the animals and the care for them, especially the plight of the foal that was rejected by its mother, and intrigued by a nomad way of life that had to come to terms with the 21st century and its technology.

As might be expected, some of these themes are on screen with the Yellow Dog. They are just as satisfyingly presented. And, once again, the film has been honoured with awards (including another SIGNIS award).

This time the focus is more on the human family. In fact, it is an actual family that we watch, the Batchuluun family, goat and cattle herders who move around the country but who settle for the summer in a luxuriant valley. There are father and mother, two little girls, aged about six and four and a baby boy, a toddler. And the Yellow Dog? One day the oldest girl is out collecting dung for the fires and comes across the cave where the dog is hiding. She loves the dog instantly but her father does not want it in the camp. (The audience all want the dog to stay.)

The delight of the film is watching the family in close up. The father is a good man, loving and caring and a hard worker. The mother is also loving and diligent in keeping the family fed and sheltered. But, it is the naturalness of the children that will charm audiences. The behaviour of the children, the ease with which they play together, show their love for one another.

While there is a basic narrative about the family, the tending of the herds, the father’s visit to the city to sell goat skins and buy supplies (including a pink toy dog which winds up and barks and a plastic saucepan which, sadly, melts in the boiling water), and about the daily chores, there is a documentary-like quality to the attention to detail.

One of the intriguing aspects of this nomad life is the quite large and even lavish tent that the family lives in. Even more intriguing is the taking down of the tent which we watch with rapt attention. It is all methodically done, piece by piece, and packed on carts drawn by oxen. As the family head off, a car with loud speaker drives past announcing the coming elections and urging everyone to vote. A reminder of a different world from that of the nomads.

There is a mini-drama at the end as the baby gets out of its box and wanders off without his parents realising it. When the father hurries back, he finds that the Yellow Dog that they have left behind has protected the little boy from some circling and feeding vultures. Needless to say, the Yellow Dog shares in the happy ending to a beautiful and satisfying glimpse of the best of human nature.

VOLEVO SOLO VIVERE/ I ONLY WANTED TO LIVE

Italy, 2006, 75 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Mimmo Calopresti.

The Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education was established by Steven Spielberg in the aftermath of his making Schindler’s List. Almost 52,000 interviews of concentration camp survivors, principally Jewish but not exclusively, were taped in 56 countries and 32 languages. Already ten documentaries have been made incorporating this material. Here is a very moving Italian contribution, taking the story from Mussolini’s 1938 racial laws until the liberation of the camps.

Yes, we have heard similar testimonies and seen much of the archival footage. But, this does not matter. The story needs to be re-told so that it will not be repeated.

What stands out in this film is the selection of witnesses and the articulate yet natural way in which they remember the horrors of their life. They are genial people who have survived, men and women who have transcended their suffering and taken advantage of the opportunities they have been given in life through surviving. You could listen to most of them for hours more and be gripped by what they tell you and be deeply stirred by the way they tell their stories. Italian fluency and emotion at its best.

IL CAIMANO/ THE CAIMAN

Italy, 2006, 112 minutes, Colour.
Michele Placido, Margherita Buy, Jeerzu Stuhr, Matteo Garrone, Paolo Sorrentino, Nanni Moretti.
Directed by Nanni Moretti.

For several years, Nanni Moretti (La Stanza del Figlio, Caro Diario) has been on public record as taking a stand against Silvio Berlusconi. He had been preparing a documentary on him but moved to this narrative which combines making a film about Berlusconi with a final critique of the man, his policies and his destructive influence on Italy and Italian politics.

In an interview, Moretti refers to the extent of the damage Berlusconi has wrought: ethical, constitutional, psychological, moral, cultural and economic.

History has caught up with the film. Of course, it is not strange, but seems so, when Berlusconi in defeat in the recent elections put on tantrums like those we see in this film.

It all starts out as a story about a low-budget director who is on the rocks and gets the opportunity to make a film which turns out to be this political expose. The first half of the film has a great deal of satire on Italian cinema – including a performance by veteran director Giuliano Montaldo – as well as references which Italians and cinema buffs will pick up.

The domestic side of the story is very well handled even though it is also about divorce. Silvio Orlando is completely persuasive as the director but even more persuasive(!) as a caring and loving father. He has some wonderful scenes with his screen children. Margarita Buy is his wife (who used to be his heroine in his series of pseudo Kill Bill movies, Moccasin Assassin, Cop in High Heels and Maciste Against Freud!).

The ups and downs of making the film are both humorous and exasperating. Michele Placido does a wonderful spoof of a vain film star who agrees to play Berlusconi and then pulls out for specious reasons.

It all gets rather serious when the film finally gets made with Moretti himself coming in to play the politician on trial – building up to a damning indictment. For Italians an emotional response. Outsiders can observe with interest – and with reflections on how European politicians from other nations sided with or against Berlusconi.

WAL- MART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE

US, 2006, 93 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Robert Greenwald.

Two years ago, multiplexes around the UK screened the documentary Super Size Me. It was a persuasive look at how Morgan Spurlock ate only at Mc Donald’s for a month and the effect that it had on his health. Mc Donalds had to take notice.

The popularity of documentaries screening in cinemas has been a recent phenomenon. Michael Moore has had a great deal to do with it. First there was his Bowling for Columbine on America’s gun culture and the increasing number of shooting sprees. It won an Oscar. Then there was his Fahrenheit 911 which won the Grand Prix at Cannes and took over $120,000,000 in the United States alone.

One of the targets of documentaries which larger audiences are interested in seeing is globalisation and the effect on economies. Only a few weeks ago, a fine documentary went on release, Enron, the Smartest Men in the Room. It was appalling to watch – appalling in the sense that the irresponsible behaviour of Enron leaders and executives, gambling with seemingly unlimited funds and making presumptions that extremely speculative ventures would pay off defied belief. Appalling also were the repercussions for thousands of Enron employees who saw their pensions diminished or disappeared.

Wal- Mart: the High Cost of Low Price is in the same vein.

While many people might not choose this as an entertaining night out, if they went to see it, they would find it as interesting – or more so – than some of the dramas and thrillers that pass the time. There is an advantage in seeing a hard-hitting documentary on the big screen, in a darkened theatre where there are no interruptions and one can concentrate on the stories being told and the information being presented.

One might also add that the Catholic Church has a history of social justice teaching, especially since Pope Leo XIII in 1891 with his encyclical letter on labour, Rerum Novarum, which was influenced by Cardinal Manning of Westminster and the experience of the strikes of the period. Recently Pope Benedict XVI wrote about love, highlighting also the justice dimension of charity. Documentaries like this make for an alert to contemporary issues of social justice with which the churches need to be involved. They offer challenging material for debates and for group discussions.

Director Robert Greenwald has done his research on Wal- Mart and launches a hard-hitting attack on their principles and practice. One reviewer likened it to carpet bombing. It is not particularly subtle. Rather, it is an accumulation of evidence that is dismaying and sometimes shocking.

After showing how the company takes over prime land, forcing many local businesses to close down, it gives information about repressive work conditions and practices and control and lowering of wages. A surprising number of statistics show successful class actions against the company for millions of dollars in damages or compensation. As if this were not bad enough, the film also takes up the poor record of environmental care with more images and statistics of campaigns and legal action taken (and won) against the company for water supply contamination and other offences.

Two other alarming issues come up. First, is the lack of security in the large car-parks with frightening information and stories about the amount of crime committed in these locations. The second is the boast that the company buys and sells American goods – followed by footage of the continuous labour in sweatshops in China, Bangladesh and Latin America.

The film ends on a rousing high as it shows people power confronting the company in Inglewood California and persuading the local council to deny a permit for Wal- Mart to come in. This is followed by a long list of US towns who have voted against the company.

Stances for justice are more than possible.

WAITING

US, 2005, 94 minutes, Colour,
Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris, Justin Long, David Koechner, Chi Mc Bride.
Directed by. Rob Mc Kittrick.

Appalling.

SEX AND PHILOSOPHY

Tajikistan/Iran, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Mohsen Makhmalbaf.

Sex and Philosophy is a surprising title for a film by an Iranian director, especially Mohsen Makhmalbaf, one of the most acclaimed of Iran’s directors (Salaam Cinema, Gabbeh, Kandehar). However, this film was financed especially from companies in France and was filmed in Tajikistan.

The film is intriguing in its use of Tajikistan urban locations. However, the film is a blend of fantasy and realism. The central character on his fortieth birthday gets in touch with women with whom he has had relationships. The meeting place is a music hall, a dance school where, when he meets them, each is involved in a different kind of dance (as well as a different kind of visual colour scheme). As he explains himself, the women react in different ways and are hurt by the revelation. He reviews his own life and its meaning. There are many scenes of long discussion about the relationship, about the passion involved, about the passing of time – and he gives each woman a gift of a stopwatch to measure each minute of true love that they will experience.

However, the tables are turned when the fourth woman arrives and they are to meet at her house – and he finds that he is now one of four lovers of the woman. The men argue amongst themselves and the central character is left alone to reflect on his birthday, his mid-life crisis, the experience of relationships, the relationships between men and women.

This is certainly an art-house film, not a popular entertainment with its focus on the character, the long conversations and its stylised visual impact.

RUSSIAN DOLLS

France, 2005, 125 minutes, Colour.
Romain Duris, Audrey Tautou, Kelly Reilly, Kevin Bishop, Cecile de France.
Directed by Cedric Klapisch.

Some years ago, Cedric Klapisch directed a cheerful film about a group of university students from all over Europe studying in Barcelona, L’Auberge? Espagnol. A mixed bunch, some of them and their problems were interesting, others were irritating. The focus was on Xavier, played by Romain Duris, and Martine, played by Audrey Tautou.

It seems that many audiences and the director wanted to know what happened to them afterwards. So, watch Russian Dolls and you will find out.

Once again, Xavier is the centre of the film. He does a lot of introductory explanation (which is interrupted by flashbacks) so that we get up to date. A collage of interviews shows that he is a hack writer, a ghost writer and has high hopes of publishing a novel as well as telemovie script. Martine and Xavier have broken up but she still regards him as her best friend, who can also mind her son when she is away.

William the Englishman (Kevin Bishop) has fallen in love with a Russian ballerina, has learnt Russian and is going to Moscow to marry her. All the friends have been invited. By coincidence, Xavier has to adapt his telemovie for the BBC and, of all writers, he is paired with William’s sister (Kelly Reilly).

There are many other complications – so, if you want to find out, the only thing is to see the film. But, there is a hint in one of the English titles for ‘L’Auberge Espagnol’. It was ‘Euro Pudding’. And that is what this one is as well, a cinema pudding, French style.

PIERREPOINT: THE LAST HANGMAN

UK, 2005, 95 minutes, Colour.
Timothy Spall, Eddie Marsan, Juliet Stevenson, James Corden.
Directed by Adrian Shergold.

It’s not the most attractive theme for a movie biography: the life and career of one of Britain’s principal hangmen, Albert Pierrepoint. It is, however, a very interesting topic, especially for those who have strong opinions about capital punishment. The title of the film is simply, Pierrepoint. Timothy Spall, seen to advantage in many films, especially in Mike Leigh’s Secrets and Lies and All or Nothing, is Albert Pierrepoint and Juliet Stevenson is his wife, Anne.

For someone in the audience who approves of capital punishment, there would be no difficulties with the film. Here is a straightforward presentation of a man who believes in what he does, does it efficiently and effectively and is commended for his skills. He performs his job for 23 years, executing over 600 people, the vast majority of whom would have been certainly considered guilty. The hanging of an innocent man, like the case of Timothy Evans who was executed when Reginald Christie was actually guilty, is to be seen as a regrettable exception.

For those who are opposed to capital punishment, there are the problems of how can a human being take the life of another so calmly and continue in the profession for almost a quarter of a century. Is this right? What effect does it have? Is this the story of a sadistic man? Psychopath? The problem is compounded by Timothy Spall’s fine performance. Is the hangman made to seem lovable? And does this explain or excuse him?

This contrast between audience reactions seems to suggest the different personality approaches of more logical and principled opinions and judgments and those which are more subjective and personalised. This is not to suggest that a ‘principled’ person is automatically in favour of the death penalty and that someone more concerned about circumstances is automatically against it. But, it does seem that an objective person might well be considering the principles of crime and appropriate punishment which could lead them to approving of the death penalty while a subjective person may well be considering the circumstances of the crime and the possibilities of error. (That is why Dead Man Walking is such a helpful film on the issue as it dramatises all these points of view and the man to be executed is, in fact, guilty as charged).

In his day-to-day life, Albert Pierrepoint is your average reticent and private Englishman who, nevertheless, is comfortable enough in some relaxation with friends and neighbours. Pierrepoint tells jokes and sings in the pub on a Saturday night and for years after finishing as executioner, he and his wife run a pub (though, in the film, it is all her idea and she is the manager).

Nevertheless, he is a decisive, ordered and methodical man. He runs his life like clockwork, makes lists, has the ability to observe a person about to die and estimate immediately the length of the drop of the body according to height, weight and health.

While there is a brief scene of reserved British courtship when Pierrepoint visits Anne serving behind the counter in the grocery shop, the comparatively few scenes of their long married life are brief and matter-of-fact - except when Pierrepoint is in crisis, lets himself go in drink and bewilderment after executing a friend who used to sing and drink with him. But, it is Anne who cannot face the realities, does not want to hear or to know – and then their lives resume the quiet, staid, no-questions-asked style.

It is in his principles that we can understand, if not sympathise with, Pierrepoint. He accepts that to be a hangman is his vocation in life, that this is where he should be and that he should do his work with a sense of duty and responsibility. It was his father’s work (and there may be some traces of expectations and/or rivalry when he breaks his father’s record of rapid work in execution and some criticism that he drank). He helped his uncle as hangman during World War II. And those are the only personal aspects that he brings to the gallows.

The film opens with potential hangmen being instructed in the exact details of what they are to do: approach the condemned, swiftly turn them, bind their wrists, lead them into the room, hood them, fix the noose and pull the lever. Later, the hangman and his assistant take down the bodies, wash them and prepare them for the coffin. This is Pierrepoint’s life and skill: exacting, objective work, justified by the fact that the condemned have been found guilty and that the government has contracted him to carry it out. He has no contact with them beyond what he does. But, he brings, he says, a respect: that they have paid for their crimes and that this is an end to it. He reveals no last words or happenings at the scaffold. He does not talk about his work and it even takes some years before Anne works out the reason for his frequent absences.

Testimony about Pierrepoint asserts that he was not sadistic, that he did not ‘enjoy’ his work, that there was no aberrant psychology. Pierrepoint did publish an autobiography in the 1970s – he died aged 87 in 1994 – and finally stated that he did not believe that capital punishment acted in any way as a deterrent. The film ends with a quotation that he observed that execution was only vengeance. This may have been the fruit of reflection on his life and the changing public opinion in the later 20th century.

Where the film tests audience response concerning capital punishment is in the sequences where Field Marshall Montgomery asks for Pierrepoint personally to execute Nazi war criminals. He wanted to show that British justice was swift and humane in the way they hanged these men and women. Here is the capital punishment argument for the audience. These are not the murderers and rapists found within ordinary society. Should these monstrous and cruel officials have been killed? or given life imprisonment? Again, Pierrepoint treats these condemned in exactly the same way as all the others he hanged.

However, the film makes much of Pierrepoint’s friendship with a likely lad, Tish, and his wife’s disapproval of Tish’s carrying on with a married woman. It is only the night before that he discovers that the Jim Corbitt he is about to hang is Tish. His treatment of Tish on the gallows is more kindly and considerate than any chaplain’s. This does provoke an emotional crisis. But, he is soon able to put it aside and continue on. The film paints a portrait of Pierrepoint – and makes us think and makes us wonder how we should feel about Pierrepoint and his calling.

BALLETS RUSSES

US, 2005, 118 minutes, Colour.
Narrated by Marian Seldes.
Directed by Dayna Goldfine and Dan Geller.

This documentary is a model for its blend of a complex and intricate story and its clarity of telling the story. It is always interesting and entertaining. Those who have little knowledge of the ballet – or even interest in the ballet – will probably be absorbed.

The directors had a strong reputation, with awards, for their documentaries. For this history of the Ballets Russes, they went to archives as well as individuals (through internet search) and discovered a great deal of 16mm footage from the 1920s and 1930s, including much material from the ballet tours in Australia in the 1930s. This material has now been catalogued for museums and provides a visual history of this chapter of ballet history.

The directors also tracked down many of the dancers from the 1930s. The fact that so many of them were still alive and so lively and articulate, in their 80s and 90s, is a strong indication that ballet is good for physical and mental health. Many of them were still teaching and acting as consultants. The makers then decided to follow them to New Orleans in 2000 where a reunion of members of the ballets provided the occasion for interviews and candid shots of elderly artists reminiscing.

And the Ballets Russes? You would need to see the film to clarify just who these ballet companies were. They derive from Diaghilev’s company in Paris in the second decade of the twentieth century and into the 1920s, Diaghilev dying in 1929. Entrepreneurs resuscitated the Ballet Russe in 1931 in Monte Carlo and this company and the splinter and rival companies danced for the next thirty years.

The voiceover and commentary, spoken by Marian Seldes, is both benign and discreet, alluding to egos and clashes, hinting at the divisions and fights, issues of money and contracts rather than offering a scandal expose. We see the clashes between dancer-choreographer, Leonid Massine, and Colonel de Basil and the formation of two companies. We see US entrepreneur, Sol Hurok, playing one against the other as well as employing both and George Balanchine’s years of success.

What complicated matters, besides the egos and power-control involved, is the social history of the times. Initially, the talent came from Russian émigrés after the 1917 revolution and finding Paris their haven. World War II hindered development (especially after their great success in London and on tour) and the companies found themselves stranded in the US and touring extensively during those years, taking part in Hollywood movies or travelling in Latin America. We see the first Native American ballerinas, the repercussions of racism in the American south of the 1960s on a black ballerina. This continued background makes the ballet story an engrossing document of 20th century cultural history.

The old dancers are vivid personalities, loved their dance and their lives – and make great raconteurs, especially Frederic Franklin, the male lead for twenty years who, at 90, still has all his wits and witticisms.

BE AHESTIGI.../ GRADUALLY

Iran, 2005, 80 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Maziar Miri.

Successful in its native Iran, this is a brief feature with great feeling. On the surface, it is a story of a railway tracks worker who returns to the city to find his wife who suffers from mental problems and has disappeared. People are not helpful in helping him search, often hostile. For the first part of the film, we understand the husband, his feelings, his frustrations, his belief that his wife is dead, his masculine shame about her behaviour.

But, she is not dead. The second part of the film shows the wife’s perspective on what has happened and what she has done. Women in Iran experience many difficulties, especially in their status in general and their status with their husbands. Punitive legal measures can victimise the women.

The husband does what he thinks is right concerning his wife and the law. However, he has to respect his wife, listen to her experiences. The challenge is for forgiveness and reconciliation.

The Tehran setting is wintry, sometimes dark. We are led, like the husband, to a pilgrimage city and beyond our expectations of the wife and what she has done. The audience, too, has to learn to listen and respect.