PROJECT NIM

UK, 2011, 93 minutes, Colour.
Directed by James Marsh.

James Marsh made the fascinating and Oscar-winning documentary on tightrope walker, Phillippe Petit, Man on Wire. He has now made another fascinating documentary but not in the way we might have imagined. It is the story of chimpanzee, Nim Chimpsky, who was the subject of an experiment during the 1970s. Taken from an Oklahoma centre, Nim was fostered by a family, who were not expert on care of monkeys. He was then taken away to Texas by himself where he bonded with a worker. But, then he was taken to Lemsip, an institute for animal use in testing drugs.

While Nim seemed to respond to sign language and indicated some kind of communication, Herbert Terrace, the initiator of the experiment, changed his mind about its success and terminated the program. But, instinctively, Nim does some violence and damage to carers.

But, what is of great interest along with the issue of cruelty to animals and experimentation with them, is how the humans behaved. While a couple of characters are presented by actors, most of the principals are seen in the movies made at the time and, seated individually, being interviewed in the present. There was a clash of personalities, some highhanded and authoritarian interventions, a lack of communication abilities and sensitivities, which means the film is also a study of human behaviour.

The present interviews juxtaposed with the past movie footage also remind us of how age and ageing is inevitable and irrevocable.

The story of Nim is presented chronologically and we can sympathise with the chimpanzee, first of all being treated like a spoiled child, as someone remarks. Then, without warning, sudden change, isolation like imprisonment. Then some care. Then experimentation. Then old age.

The human story goes back and forth giving some of them the opportunity to reassess their behaviour (especially the director of Lemsip), while others are tearful about the past, rueful, regretful – and sometimes condemnatory.
There are moral issues in the film: the right of the experimenter to toy with animals in this way, and for such a long time, and with people participating who were not qualified; and there is the question of animals, no matter how close their structure is to humans, actually having intelligence and whether the sign language recognition is from mimicry. Noam Chomsky advocates humans as the only intelligent specis – and the name Nim Chimpski was derived from Chomsky.

(A film for comparison is the French story of a gorilla in a zoo, Nenette, and care and zoo visitors.)

THE JACKPOT

US, 1950, 85 minutes, Black and white.
James Stewart, Barbara Hale, James Gleason, Fred Clark, Alan Mowbray, Patricia Medina, Natalie Wood, Tommy Rettig, Lyle Talbot.
Directed by Walter Lang.

Jackpot is a popular American comedy from the late 40s, early 1950s, a pleasant star vehicle for James Stewart is an ordinary American middle American husband, father, work in a store. It reflects the situation of post-war USA, aspects of the economy, making ends meet, jobs – and the dream of winning prizes.

However, the dream is short lived as the taxman turns up demanding $7000 in tax and our hero is forced to sell a lot of the prizes, trying in the stall but then fired by his boss, attempting to get rid of the diamond ring with shady characters in Chicago and being arrested. Barbara Hale, to be Perry Masons Della Street, plays the wife and young Natalie Wood and the young Tommy Rettig are the two children. Patricia Medina plays an artist, who is part of the prize, but the wife become suspicious of the artist. James Gleason is a friendly journalist who helps out our hero; Fred Clark is the boss; Alan Mao brain is the interior decorator who is also part of the prize.

Water Lane West and adapt direct many musicals at 20th Century Fox, including The King and I. The screenplay was written by award-winning Henry and Phoebe Ephron.

1. A popular 1950s comedy? Post-war? The American economy, family life, workplace? Seeing now in retrospect? New

2. black-and-white photography, the musical score, Harry James on radio, the strong cast?

3. James Stewart, his screen presence, as Bill, his age, background, Midwestern, at the store, his boss, relationship with his wife, the two children, managing?

4. The quiz, the radio, winning the prize, the Jackpot? The range of prizes: $24,000 worth? A side of beef, 7500 cans of soup, 1000 fruit trees, Palomino pony, portable swimming pool, diamond ring, French maid, interior decorator and portrait painter.

5. The tax authorities, billing debt, the repercussions for his wife and children? The details of family life?

6. Trying to sell goods are stored, the reaction of his boss, being fired? The comedy of his trying to fence the ring in Chicago, the arrest?

7. The domestic situation, Bill’s wife, suspicions of Hilder, her place in the household, artist?

8. The French with Harry, journalist, writing the articles, influential in helping Bill?

9. The happy resolution?

THE INNKEEPERS

US, 2011, 101 minutes, Colour.
Sara Paxton, Pat Healey, Kelly Mc Gillis.
Directed by Ti West.

An old hotel in the 19th century style. About to close. A few strange guests. Two staff members who are investigating the alleged haunting of the hotel.

This is a ghost story which operates on the slow burn principle and techniques, building up atmosphere, popping in a few scares for us to jump, and an ending and explanation (or lack of) that is a bit of a flame flickering and being extinguished.

Sara Paxton and Pat Healey are Claire and Luke, caretaking the hotel and experimenting with discovering who the ghost is – and taping mysterious sounds and piano notes. How serious they are is hard to tell, especially when Claire has a session with an ageing actress (a welcome Kelly Mc Gillis) who has discovered she has healing and psychic powers. Claire may not be taking her too seriously.

She should have. An old man comes to the hotel for the final night, wanting a room that he stayed in for his honeymoon, long ago. He looks more than old, really ancient. And something dreadful happens in his room. Sara becomes more alarmed, a touch hysterical and goes down (why??) into the dark basement. She sees things. She sees people. But, is this real, are there ghosts, or is it all happening in Sara’s imagination?

Quite a lot of things going for The Innkeepers, but it relies more on its atmosphere than jolts and shocks.

1. A slow-burning ghost story, horror film? The director and his reputation?

2. The location, the Yankee Pedlar Inn (and filming in the actual Inn), the outside, the setting, the interiors, the ordinary rooms, the basement, the rooms and their being stripped for the closing down? The musical score?

3. Claire and Luke, the final weekend of business, Claire and her asthma, her personality, dropping out of studies? Luke, his working on the website, interested in hauntings?

4. The theme of ghosts, hunting ghosts, the hauntings, the history of the apparitions in the Inn? Madeleine, the bride hanging, the body in the basement? Her appearances?

5. Leanne, arriving, her past as an actress, going to a convention, the initial clash with Claire?

6. The noises from the garage, the episode, Claire and her locking the door, the recording equipment, picking up sounds, the piano mysteriously playing by itself?

7. The psychics’ convention, Leanne and her warnings, Claire and the apparition?

8. The visitor, getting the room, wanting the third floor, unavailable, the bed ready, putting out fresh sheets for him?

9. The investigations, and Luke’s searching?

10. Luke and Claire, the ghost, finding the man had committed suicide, Madeleine hanging again, the man later appearing as a ghost?

11. Claire, being trapped, her having locked the door, unable to get out? Leanne and warnings? Claire and her dying from an asthma attack?

12. And Leanne leaving – and the glimpses of Claire at the window as an apparition?

A MONTH OF SUNDAYS

Australia, 2015, 110 minutes, Colour.
Anthony La Paglia, Julia Blake, Justine Clark, John Clark, Wayne Anthony, Indian Crowther, Donal Forde, Gary Sweet.
Directed by Matthew Saville.

Actually, this title doesn’t give much away at all and we may not be sure by the end what it means. But that can be put aside.It doesn’t really matter because the important thing is the film itself and its impact, a film that many audiences will like.

It should be said that the film has been sponsored in Adelaide and by the Adelaide Film Festival, and has been filmed in the Adelaide suburbs – which, in fact, make Adelaide look like a very liveable city. The city centre is seen only in distant outline several times – this really is a suburban film, about people, generally middle-class, ordinary Australians who live in the suburbs.

And, it should be said that Adelaide is the hometown of the main star, Anthony La Paglia.

And La Paglia appears in every scene. At the beginning, he mooches into a house, giving the impression that he is somewhat depressed. And he is. He is a 40-something real estate agent, who sees every building and every piece of land in terms of the words of advertising that he would put in the papers describing the particular house, its style, its amenities, its desirability, and the fact that if this did not suit potential buyers, the agency had another one which really should be theirs! It is rather amusing that right throughout the film, whenever he sees house, the voice-over has him offering these quite flowery and flattering descriptions.

Frank is going through a divorce. His wife (Justine Clark) has become a well-known TV star from a soap opera, Major Surgery. His teenage son, Frank Jr, can answer him only monosyllabically, “good” to every question his father asks about himself, school… His father does do a lot of picking him up from school and is able to sit in on a rehearsal of a rather contemporary sounding King Lear and to attend, with his wife, the actual performance at the end.

So, where is this going? Another thing that should be said is that in some ways the film meanders from one episode to another, but that this is not unenjoyable, but this is not one of those tightly controlled and disciplined screenplays, and while there is a driving force, it is not so dynamically forceful. What does set the drama going is a wrong number phone call when Frank answers the phone to a woman who think she is talking to her son. The woman, Sarah, is beautifully played by a most engaging Julia Blake. The two become friends, somewhat to the disappointment of her actual son. The friendship is tested when Sarah goes to a doctor for a diagnosis and Frank realises that she is ill.

There are some wonderful emotional sequences throughout the film, especially due to Julia Blake and her sympathetic performance. This is especially the case when Frank asks his boss whether she can visit the boss’s father who is in a home suffering severe dementia. The scene where she does this, talks with the old man – and later explains to his son something of his father’s history and what he endured in new Britain during World War II, a scene which is very moving indeed.

The estate agent boss is played by John Clark, whose presence throughout the film is always welcome. Australian audiences over the years have appreciated how John Clark can actually look the same, sound the same, sound as we expect him to sound, and yet actually communicate a range of different characters, from politicians to, in this case, an estate agent with a tendency to pomposity.

While there is something of a happy ending, perhaps not quite, this is a very life-affirming film, touching on quite a catalogue of social and moral concerns, including marriage and divorce, death and grieving, senility and communication, a touch of the issue of homosexuality and secrecy, father and son relationships and affirmation, and palliative care and decisions about life support.

A Month of Sundays has been written and directed by Matthew Saville, a credit to his sensitivity, for making – and this is in no way a putdown – such a “nice” a film.

1. A pleasing film? Life affirming?

2. The title, meaning?

3. An unhurried film, episodes, not a tight dynamic Drive but exploration of characters and situations?

4. The Adelaide setting, the suburbs, pleasant, distant views of the city centre skyline, streets, homes, offices, hospital, I am the oddly? The musical score?

5. Frank’s story? The presence of an semi-La Paglia? 40s, morose, depressed? Throughout the film, his approach to homes in locations with the descriptions he would write for advertising? Into the house, the sale, real estate, the visitors, their comments, at the option, the auctioneer, the bids, prices going up, Frank attacked by the young man and his hearing-impaired wife, saying he was a fraud – and his later helping them to buy the house at the proper price? Phillip, coming to save Frank with the couple? At the office, the secretary and her hair, no messages for him? Discussions with Phillip in the office, Phillip and his difficulties with the Internet? The different jobs, advertising, description? Going to play golf with Phillip? His continued work on his job, interviews?

6. Friend’s wife, meeting at the hospital, their son breaking his arm? His taciturn response to his father, everything “good”? His wife as a television star, her work in the soap opera, the popularity, her Twitter following? Her appearance? At the studio, the discussions with Gary Sweet, the crew? Frank coming, insisting on the hardhat? The phone calls, Frank picking up their son? Taking into the rehearsal, telling him that he admired his performance, eventually telling him, the sons embrace, his tears? Leading at the the applause at the performance? They’re there together, the question about why they were divorced? Potential for reconciliation?

7. Frank at home, the television, in the dark, the loader, the phone call and the talk with Sarah, her thinking that she was talking to her son, his continued response, as if his mother was still alive? Telling her the truth? Frank and his grief of the death of his mother? Ringing Sarah, apologising, the visit, their talk, the cup of tea, sharing grief, her wisdom? Her inviting him to dinner, his meeting Damien, the tension at the table, Damien not liking him? The effect of Sarah on Frank? The chance meeting at the hospital, the cutting him off, his being hurt? His diagnosing the cancer? Going to the drive, the plot and the old house, Sara and her memories of different parts of the house, going to visit the other house, the band playing, the welcome, the gift of the CD, playing it in the car? Frank discovering Sarah’s collapse, contacting Damien, the hospital, Damien upset, the cafeteria and talking with Frank, the issue of his being gay, the posters in his room? The issue of life support and turning it off? Frank present, Damien and his wanting to sell the house, the books, the souvenirs, Sarah’s gift to Frank, to Damien? Frank and is negotiating the price, contacting the couple, selling it to them?

8. Philip, his age, experience, real estate agent? John Clark and his screen presence, his look, manner of talking? Helping Frank in the Street, the office, the golf, at the different houses? His response to Frank’s descriptions? The visits to his father, talking him to him, leading him? At the office, the secretary, the water feature, the huge advertisement outside? Frank asking him to meet Sarah, there taking her to see Phillip’s father? The aftermath, Sarah telling Phillip the story about his father, in Rabaul, cut-off, the leader, and his being called after the leader?

9. Sarah, in herself, her age, life, the house, orderliness, her being a library, the ordered books, tutoring the young boy in English? The phone call, her embarrassment? Frank coming to tea, his measuring the room and her comment about the old measurements? The empathy? The invitation to dinner? The cancer, cutting, her apology, the visits to the site of the old houses? The meeting with Phillip? Telling him the story about his father? The collapse, in hospital, the issue of turning off the life support or not?

10. Damien, in the military, as a character, with his mother, the relationship? Dislike of Frank, the tension at the table? His mother’s death, Frank’s contact, the gift of each book? Frank and their talk about his being gay? The poster in his room? The friendship between the two – and Frank selling the house him?

11. Phillip’s father, dementia, sympathy, talk, memories, feeding? The happy encounter with Sarah and her reassuring him?

12. The couple, the white deaf, the baby, looking for a house, dissatisfied with Frank’s reaction and the price of the auction? The later gift of the house that happiness?

13. The final sequence, Frank looking at the audience – and the audience responding to him, having got to know him? Hope for his future?

THE JUNGLE BOOK

US, 2016, 105 minutes, Colour.
Neel Sethi, Voices of: Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong’o, Christopher Walken, Scarlett Johansson, Giancarlo Esposito, Gary Shandling,
Directed by Jon Favreau.

This is a big, spectacular film, most impressive to watch, the jungle, the animals, the talking animals, an extraordinary landslide, the collapse of the ruins of a Temple, all kinds of chases and survival. But, there is one reservation about listening to the film: a long way from author, Rudyard Kipling’s English with all kinds of contemporary Americanisms, “hey, kid”, “big deal”, “my bad”. One might imagine Kipling saying “Eh! What did you say, what did you mean?”. It is also interesting to note that many reviewers and bloggers refer to Disney’s 1967 animated version, very welcome still in the popular imagination, as “the original”. Yes, the original Disney film but many must be unaware of the fine 1942 British version of The Jungle Book. With that out of the way, this review can go back to all that is impressive in the film.

During the final credits there is what seems to be a slightly offhand remark that this was all filmed in downtown Los Angeles. But, that is one of the main points to make – this is a studio produced film, relying on excellent CGI, even for the jungle, especially for the animals and the work done on making their mouths credible for speaking. Then someone remarked that the life actor, Neel Sethi, did most of his performance in a studio in front of a green screen with the animals worked in afterwards. It has to be said that the performance is completely credible and that the photography of real life and CGI is, as they say, “seamless”.

This is a well-known story, from Kipling (and Nobel prizewinner) and his stories, from the 1942 film, from the 1967 film and the brief sequel (or rerun with Haley Joel Osment and John Goodman, The Jungle Book 2 (2002). There is a flashback at one stage dramatising how Mowgli was a little boy and the vicious tiger, Shere Khan, savaged a camp and (shown in silhouette) killed Mowgli’s father. He was rescued by the Panther, Bagheera and grew up in the jungle in a family of very sympathetic Wolves. He is referred to by the animals as a Man-Cub?. There are a number of very playful scenes, Mowgli racing the young wolf cubs and Bagheera through the jungle, a happy life.

The dramatic thrust of the screenplay is the arrival of Shere Khan, terrorising all the animals, confronting the wolves and cruel to the father wolf, searching for Mowlgi to destroy him. Mowgli becomes lost in the jungle, has an encounter with the sinisterly seductive snake, Kaa,collapses but is found by the huge, rather pearshaped bear, Baloo, who saves and guides Mowgli.

The adventures include the previously mentioned extraordinary landslide, Mowgli going down river and over falls, his encounter with the giant King Louis and the collapse of the Temple, but some lyrical moments, especially sitting on Baloo’s ample tummy, floating down river and singing the ever-popular song (Oscar-nominated in 1967), The Bare Necessities.

Should Mowgli returned to the human village? How will he confront Shere Khan? What will be the effect on the other animals? Well, audiences will just have to go and see!

And the voices! Bill Murray is unmistakably Bill Murray as Baloo, entertainingly so. Ben Kingsley is much more serious as Bagheera. And Idris Elba is aptly frightening as Shere Khan. Christopher Walken is King Louis – and has the opportunity during the final credits to sing the Sherman Brothers’ song, I Wanna Be Like You. Most audiences who now seem to have an built impulse to rush the exit as soon as the first word appears on screen for the final credits, will not only miss Christopher Walken’s song but also a song, slinkily seductive and serpent like by Scarlett Johansson who has been the voice of the snake, Kaa. And, for those who stay put, a final rendition of The Bare Necessities.

So, on the whole, this is a lavish Disney entertainment for adults and families – although, the censorship classification rightly notes that there are “some scary scenes for younger audiences”.

1. Popular version of the 21st century? Story, characters? The technology?

2. The background in Rudyard Kipling and his stories? 1942 version, 1967 version and its popularity? The songs?

3. The successful blend of live action with the character of Mowgli combined with the animation? Real animals made to speak? The action, the special effects, the landslide, the Temple destruction?

4. Audience familiarity with the plot in characters, expectations, the blend of the light and the serious? Adventure? For children, for adults?

5. A timeless story, the jungle, the animals, the humans? Yet the contemporary American idiom and its effect?

6. The credit that all was filmed in Downtown Los Angeles? The effectiveness of the CGI and blending with the live action?

7. Mowgli, his age, the qualities of the actor, audiences identifying with him, children identifying, his character, manner, action, challenge?

8. The back story, Shere Khan and his attack on the human camp, Mildly’s father, the death in silhouette?

9. Bagheera, saving multi, entrusting him to the Wolf family, the father and his leadership, the mother nice, the cubs, the racing sequence through the jungle, Shere Khan and the death of the father? Terrorising the other Wolves?

10. The character of Bagheera, his voice, finding Oakley, saving him, tutoring him?

11. She Khan, his size, voice, slinking through the jungle, facial, confrontation with the Wolves, with the other animals, dominating them? His intent in finding Mildly?

12. Car, the seductive voice, the snake, sloughing the skin, the encounter with mildly?

13. Baloo, finding boldly, in the cave, Bill Murray and his voice, character, helping Oakley, on the River, singing The Bearer Necessities?

14. King Louis, the monkeys, the Temple, sinister and imposing, in the ruins of the Temple, his face, the collapse?

15. The special effects, the huge landslide and its effect, the river, the falls?

16. Shere Khan going to the village, the thrift Oakley, the pursuit, the fear of the animals?

17. The buildup to the confrontation, Oakley using his wits, the touch of the David and Goliath story, Shere Khan and his presumption, his defeat?

18. The happy ending, Oakley and the animals? The final credits and the range of songs?

JACKPOT

Norway, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
Kyrre Hellum, Henrik Mestad.
Directed by Magnus Martens.

A Jo Nesbo story. Sweden and Norway have been producing authors who have achieved world popularity, Stieg Larsson and the Millennium novels, Henning Menkel, with Wallander, and Norway’s Jo Nesbo. The film version of his Headhunters screened recently.

Jackpot is based on a short story and runs for under 90 minutes. It is really a black comedy, ultimately very ironic. Movie buffs may pick up very quickly that Nesbo may have seen and drawn on a very popular American crime thriller of the 1990s.

After a shootout in a sex shop/ strip joint, a survivor is taken into custody and interrogated by the local police. He explains how he came to be there which leads into a long story (full of flashbacks) of how he worked at a factory with former criminals three of whom entered the football pools and won. He had signed for and bought the ticket. The story becomes more and more far-fetched, though all the claims are verified. There are murders, body chopping, corpses rolling from carpets on the top of cars, a body in a solarium…

This is all presented with a deeply sardonic humour and the anticipation of whatever could happen next. Which, eventually, leads back to the shootout. Needless to say, there are some more plot twists, but you might be able to work it out (and the screenplay does suggest clues).

The film versions of the Scandinavian authors tend to be very serious and intense. This film offers the lighter (if not brighter) side of crime.

1. The popularity of Jo Nesbo’s writing, thrillers? Comparisons with the Millennium Trilogy?

2. A Norwegian story, police, homes, factories, the sex shop? The Norwegian countryside, the roads? The woods? The cemetery? The background score, songs?

3. The film as a black comedy, crime and violence?

4. The suggestions of The Usual Suspects? The setting up of the crime, the interrogation, the flashbacks, the final solution?

5. The introduction: the police, the arrest of Svendson? His being alive in the bombing of the club, under the dead woman, his being handcuffed, the interrogation, the techniques?

6. The flashbacks, Svendson’s story? Gina verifying it? The ticket, the head, the pigs?

7. Svendson and his work, in the criminal institute, the introduction to the men, the playing of the pools, the win? The celebration, alcohol? Going to the Pink Heaven? Lasse? The killing of Thor? The blood, the ring, the crash, the head? The police? Chopping up the body? The red trees in the factory, the blood? Billie and Thor? The plot? The cemetery, the joke, the spa, the hammer? The visit of the landlord?

8. Svendson, the buying of the ticket, the girl selling it, collecting it, going to her mother, Lasse and the meal?

9. Police, the security check, Spain, the spa? Svendson and the story? His explanation of going to Pink Heaven?

10. Lasse and the helper, the son, school, security guard? Thor and Svendson? The guns, the shooting? The dancers in the club? The guns, the fat lady?

11. The surveillance tape, the role of the landlord, threats, death, Svendson and the girl?

12. The police inspector, his thorough investigations? His being deceived?

13. The final getaway, Svendson and the girl, the plan, his lies, the fabrication of the stories? The circumstances supporting his stories? Getting more and more farfetched?

14. The irony of the story, the characters, the title, the solution?



1. Jo Nesbo story, his reputation, thrillers? This thriller done in comic and absurdist style?

2. Norway, atmosphere, the film industry, thrillers?

3. The town, near the border with Sweden, the streets, the seedy club? The musical score?

4. The massacre, the dead stripper, the other eight corpses, Oscar underneath, with the gun? His waking up, the police?

5. The Inspector, his assistant, examining the massacre situation, booking into the hotel, preparing for a long investigation? His interrogation of Oscar?

6. The flashbacks, Oscar, the factory, producing Christmas trees, the work with the ex-convicts, their rehabilitation? His relationship with the men?

7. Oscar telling the story, the Inspector, sardonic, his reaction to the seemingly preposterous aspects of the plot?

8. The story of the football pool, the ex-convicts working together, the win? The different characters, interactions, betrayals? The response? Greed, leading to the bloody manoeuvers, the killings? And the massacre – and Oscar’s survival?

9. The revelation of the truth? The reaction of the Inspector?

10. Audience response to the comic aspects, for example manipulating the corpse like a puppet, and to the more serious underlying perspectives?

THE BOOK OF LIFE

US, 2014, 95 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, Channing Tatum, Ron Perlman, Christina Applegate, Ice Cube, Kate del Castillo, Hector Elizondo, Danny Trejo, Placido Domingo.
Directed by Jorge R. Guttierez.

The Book of Life is a rather exotic animated film, coming from the United States, but set in Mexico, especially focusing on the Feast of the Dead.

But it also has two different time periods, on earth, and in the afterlife – and themes of heaven and hell.

The animation and the colour design have a touch of the exotic, the flamboyance of Mexican costumes, music and dance, as well as of religious celebrations.

There is also a story of a triangle, the girl Maria, and two young boys who are attracted by her, one becoming the bullfighter, the other in the military – and this continues when Maria comes back from school and the two men are adults and clash over her.

There would be a question of how interesting this is for a young audience, perhaps far too much for little children, perhaps the rivalry of interest for those a bit older, and for teenagers the complexities of the plot. It might be said that the film is more effective for an adult audience.
The voice cast is quite eclectic, with Diego Luna and Channing Tatum as the rivals, Zoe Saldana as Maria – and Ron Perlman and others, from Ice Cube to Placido Domingo, as voices for the other world.

1. An American animation film, the influence from Mexico, legends and myths, costumes address, the Feast of the Dead? The need for cultural awareness?

2. The aged target for the film, children and their response, adults and the characters in themes?

3. The visual style, the design, colour, Hispanic? Characters and their shapes and forms, costumes and decor, the range of action?

4. The voice cast?

5. The introduction, the guide, the recalcitrant children, the Museum, her control, getting through the wall, remarks, visions of Mexico, illustrations, the Mexican world?

6. The Land of Memories and The Land of the Forgotten?

7. The Lord of life, the Queen, the bets between them, over the centuries, the rivalries? The new bet? The Day of the Dead? People going to the cemetery? Adults and children?

8. Establishing the situation with Manolo, Joaquin, Maria? As children, their friendship, playing, Joaquin and the sword, Manolo and the guitar, their love for Maria? The powers seeing this? The beggar asking for bread? Manolo yes, Joaquin no? The revelation of characters?

9. Manolo, playing, his father wanting him to be a bullfighter like himself? His dead mother? The attitude of Maria’s father? Praising Joaquin, his military training? Manolo’s father not wanting him to be a musician?

10. Maria, sent away? The train ride, the boys running after her, hopes? Her return from her education, adult?

11. Manolo and Joaquin as adults, friendship, rivalry, memories of Maria? The respective careers? Their parents?

12. The Lord of the Dead and the Queen, observing? The nature of the bet? Manolo and Maria, the deception on Manolo, thinking Maria dead? His death?

13. His going to the two worlds, the land of the forgotten, the land of those remembered? The visuals of these two lands, the characters, the powers? Manolo and his journey, his search? The Queen and her concern?

14. On earth, the bandit, terrorising the town, the confrontation with Joaquin?

15. Manolo and his experience, finding his mother, his family, the happy reunion? His mother urging him back to earth?

16. The Lord relenting, Manolo’s return to earth, the rivalry for Maria, the final choice?

17. The touches of comedy, the eccentric characters, the singing, the music? The touches of the serious, the Day of the Dead, The land of the forgotten, the land of the remembered?

18. The happy reunion of the Lord and the Queen? The irony of the schoolteacher and her link with the Queen?

19. The reaction of the children listening, rowdy, attentive to the story, asking further questions, the impact at the end?

THE ROMANTICS

US, 2010, 95 minutes, Colour.
Katie Holmes, Josh Duhamel, Anna Paquin, Malin Akerman, Adam Brody, Diana Agron, Jeremy Strong, Rebecca Lawrence Levy, Candice Bergen,Elijah Wood, Rosemary Murphy.
Directed by Galt Niederhoffer.


There is some passing reference to the literary romantics of the 19th century, but this film is a long way from the literature (in some instances it might be more related to their behaviour in real life).

This is a take-it-or-leave-it romantic comedy, based on a novel by the writer-director.

The set-up is this. Several friends from college days, now in their 30s, travel to a wedding. There will be a rehearsal, a pre-ceremony dinner with lots of drinking and lots of rather silly speeches, the anguish of the night before and then the wedding itself. That seems to be straightforward, but it is not. The main visitor, Laura (Katie Holmes), has always been in love with the about-to-be groom, Tom (Josh Duhamel), but they have broken up long since. But, given the characters’ expressions and behaviour, it is quite clear that the romance is still smouldering not too far under the surface. So, why has Tom proposed to Katie’s old roommate, friend and rival, Lila (Anna Paquin)?

If that sounds interesting, then The Romantics might be worth a look. On the other hand, Laura’s angst is obvious. Lila’s determination is pig-headed with a variety of motivations. And Tom’s behaviour still seems incomprehensible.

Candice Bergen turns up for older audiences as Lila’s mother and organiser of the wedding.

1. The title? Romantic comedy? Sardonic in its characters, dialogue, situations?

2. The director, writing the screenplay from the novel? The film and the bloggers’ antipathy?

3. The Long Island setting, over two days, preparations for the wedding, the wedding itself, the musical score and songs?

4. The situation of a reunion, the friends, memories of the past, in their 20s, study, relationships? The tension building? Some of the guests coming because of the potential tension? Expectations?

5. The situation, Lila and the engagement to Tom, the preparations for the wedding? The relationship, love or not? The invitation to Laura to come? The past relationship between Laura and Tom? Lila knowing this – and the nasty touch? Possessiveness?

6. The Lila, her brother and his participation, drinking, joking? The sister and her character? The other friends, guests, their presence?

7. The conflict between the three, the types? Tom, weak or strong, credibility as an academic? the two women? Laura’s perspective?

8. The dinner, the interactions, Lila’s mother, her presence, dominating, the grandmother?

9. The celebration continuing on the beach, the night, Tom and Laura together?

10. The buildup to the final confrontation, the conflict at the wedding? Audience expectations about the wedding? The weather, the
interruption?

11. Would the wedding be called off? The film stopping and leaving it to the audience to speculate on what would happen?

SMALL WORLD/ JE N’EST RIEN OUBLIE

France, 2010, 93 minutes, Colour.
Gerard Depardieu, Alexandra Maria Lara, Françoise Fabian, Niels Arestrup, Nathalie Baye, Yannick Renier, Fyodor Atkine.
Directed by Bruno Chiche.

Small World is an interesting and complex family drama, based on a story by Swiss writer, Martin Sutor.

Alexandra Maria Lara portrays a young woman marrying into a wealthy family, dominated by matriarch, Françoise Fabian. Her grandson is the husband. The wedding is gatecrashed by the home handyman, a long time friend of his father, Thomas (Niels Arestrup), having been brought up with him. He is a boozy man, Konrad (Gerard Depardieu) in a very strong performance.

Konrad is welcomed into the house, and cared for because it seems that he is suffering from initial dementia. The young wife becomes more friendly with him, listening to his stories, which he repeats because he does not recognise her day by day. And the stories contrast with those told by the grandmother.

Eventually, some photos are found, which support the stories told by Konrad rather than the grandmother and an emotional crisis is precipitated.

1. A family story? Love, harshness? The twists?

2. The strong cast and performances?

3. The opening on the cliffs, Konrad, going to the house, in the mansion, setting fire to the house?

4. The flashbacks, the two boys and their childhood, playing, their names, interchanging them?

5. The introduction to Konrad, his drinking, in the house, the fire, burning? The reactions? Thomas saying he did not miss it?

6. The family and the occasion, the wedding, the continuity of the family? Thomas, his mother? Simone, her husband, the relationship? Konrad’s arrival, the reactions? Thomas against him, his mother for him? The behaviour the husband, Simone seeing him, her concern?

7. Konrad, his age, experience, on the outer, his name, the encroaching dementia, his drinking, his memories and confusion? Thomas’ behaviour? His memories and the reaction to Miss Berg, Simone stealing the photos, getting Konrad to talk, his response? The clash with Thomas? The truth about Miss Berg? Simone and her change?

8. Thomas, his character, arrogance?

9. The husband, with the girl, his lies, his attack on Simone?

10. Simone, nice, why marrying her fiancé, her place in the family, fond of Konrad, helping him, meals, talking, the focus of the truth?

11. Admitting the truth, Miss Berg and her plans, marrying her husband, his death, bringing her child in as the heir? Rejecting Konrad?

12. Thomas, discovering the truth, his response to Konrad?

13. Simone, pregnancy, the test, the intervention of the mother, the upset, the separation?

14. Konrad and what was to become of him, the title, the enclosed world?

YES MADAM, SIR

Australia/India, 2008, 95 minutes, Colour.
Narrated by Helen Mirren.
Directed by Megan Doneman.

What to make of a title like this? Once we learn that it is a documentary about the first Indian policewoman, the title makes more sense. That is the reply that many police gave when asked by her to do various jobs. They were certainly not used to a policewoman. And, judging by some sequences where high-handed male authorities officially vent their spleen about this particular policewoman, Indian men, despite the leadership of Indira Gandhi, are definitely not used to policewomen.

This is the story of Kiran Bedi who joined the police force in the 1970s.

Needless to say, Kiran Bedi is not a blushing violet. Rather a tomboy, she joined the force in the 1970s and put up with a lot of mild ribbing as well as serious discrimination. The film has footage of her from the past, so we see her in action over the decades. She does her work rather fearlessly, which gets her into trouble when she manages a training centre and trainees react against her. She is continually passed over for promotion when her long service and her rank would demand that she move up in the police hierarchy. Finally, she leaves for New York to do police work for the UN – but, ultimately finds the same discrimination against women there.

A Kiran Bedi interview for BBC TV offers the woman herself reflecting on her life. Family and friends also give interviews, especially her very proud father who encouraged his daughters to study and to build careers for themselves. The enigmatic side of Kiran Bedi’s life is her relationship with her husband, separating from him in practice. He too is interviewed when she goes to see him after several years. There are interviews also with her daughter.

Not easy to be a pioneer. Not easy to be a pioneer woman in a man’s cultural world let alone professional world. The narration is by Helen Mirren, also a strong-minded career actress.