MARK OF THE VAMPIRE

US, 1935, 68 minutes, Black and white.
Lionel Barrymore, Elizabeth Allen Them, Bela Lugosi, Jean Hersholt, Henry Wadsworth, Donald Meek.
Directed by Tod Browning.

1931, Tod Browning made the classic Dracula, Bela Lugosi as the vampire. Browning continued to make such films as Freaks and Devil Doll, the latter with.Lionel Barrymore.

This is a contemporary vampire story, explicitly mentioning 1934. Much is made of the mythology of vampires, appearing as bats, punctures and draining blood, sleeping during the day… Much is made at the beginning of the film about superstitions, with local villagers cautious and praying and a tourist couple sceptical about everything.

The lord of the castle is killed, with punctures, drained and the.police chief is called in who is sceptical of vampires. A Professor is also called in who is well informed vampires, Lionel Barrymore. The daughter, Elizabeth Allen, in her grief in it seems to be led on by the vampire Count and his assistant. Her fiance also has puncture marks on his neck.

Also in the picture is Baron Otto, Jean Hersholt, who has inherited.care of the daughter. Various investigations, the professor hypnotising the Baron, his reliving the crime and the revelation that he had done the murder wanting to marry the daughter.

Very creeky, but entertaining, and the surprise twist at the end with Bela Lugosi and the revelation that he is impersonating the Count as a vampire!

1. A vampire film with a contemporary setting, 1934?

2. The vampire traditions, Bela Lugosi appearing on Dracula in 1931? Bram Stoker’s Dracula from 1897? Beliefs, superstitions, rational responses?

3. The village setting, castle, the visitors and their hearing about vampires? The locals and fears, prayers, rituals, superstitions?

4. The finding of the bodies, punctures, drained of blood? The vampire marks? Victims in the woods? Irina and her fiance, Irina herself?

5. The household, the servants, Baron Otto, his concern about his ward, the father and his will, administrator?

6. The Inspector, the investigation, the interrogations, rational, suspecting murder?

7. The professor, his being called in, his expertise, manner, interrogations, his working with the Inspector, his belief in vampires, his explanations?

8. Bela Lugosi as the Count, his assistant, echoes of Dracula, appearance, sinister, leading Irina?

9. The continued investigation, in the basement, the Baron afraid, the Professor and the body of the Count?

10. The behaviour of Irina, upset at her father’s death?

11. The revelation of the setup, the pretence, not telling the fiance, still grieving father’s death, the assistant brought in to impersonate her father, the inspector knowing what is happening, the Professor hypnotising the Baron, the re-enactments, pretending to make the vampire marks, capitalising on the reality of vampires in the district?

12. The joke at the end, the Count and his assistant as carnival actors and Lugosi saying that he would incorporate this performance in future acts?

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE

US, 2016, 103 minutes, Colour.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman, John Gallagher Jr.
Directed by Dan Trachtenberg.

Cloverfield was one of those hand-held camera thrillers with handheld camerawork and found footage, pseudo-documentary, about violent threats to communities and fightback.

The only connection with this film is the reference to that title and its director, Matt Reeves, who is one of the producers of this film (as is Drew Goddard, writer of The Martian and Damien Chazelle, director of Whiplash).

In terms of photography and style, this is a more straightforward piece – although, there is some hand-held camera work in the final, very busy and active, part of the film.

It also should be said that this is more a terror film rather than a horror film (though there are touches of horror in that final part).

Most of the film is a claustrophobic drama with only three characters. We see Michelle, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, packing up, driving away, ignoring her boyfriends pleas on her car phone. At this stage during the credits, we are rather lulled until there is a sudden, quite a sudden shock and the film story changes. (There are a couple more of those sudden shocks.)

Michelle finds herself in a subterranean cell, well stocked by Howard who has built it as protection against the alien invasion. He is a big, jovial man, played by John Goodman. Michelle is a bit wary about him, needless to say, wanting to get out, and we, the audience, do have suspicions as to whether there really is an alien invasion – although, some evidence is gradually revealed.

Also in the underground bunker is a local young man, Emmett, played by John Gallagher Jr. He and Michelle share their stories, wondering about Howard, but gradually forming a little community, perhaps the only survivors of the invasion.

But, all is not always well, Michelle making some discoveries, Emmett concerned, and Howard, big and bombastic, genial, but…

And all this works up to a climax and confrontation between the three, probably not quite as expected, but making the film more engrossing after life in the bunker. And, then, there is that finale with the spacecraft and alien monsters. Which, by this stage, has become credible enough.

Will the aliens take over? Will Michelle, whom Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley from the Alien series would be very proud of, elude pursuit and survive? Are there any other survivors? The success of this film may well indicate that the story could continue.

1. The title, application of Cloverfield? The terror/horror/aliens film?

2. Louisiana, the roads, the crash? The bunker, the cell, the interiors as normal, furnished, mod cons? The vent in the crawlspace? Claustrophobic? The experience of the abduction?

3. Outside the bunker, the rumblings, the shakes, and eerie atmosphere, dusk, the fields, the buildings, the crops, the roads, the spacecraft and aliens? The musical score?

4. The decision to use conventional photography – later hand-held material? Editing, shocks? The use of songs?

5. Michelle, in herself, seen packing, leaving, driving, Ben on the phone, his pleas, cutting him off? The sudden crash? Waking, her leg encased, the chains? Howard, bringing breakfast, her breaking free, the effect? Fright, survival, begging Howard to be free? Her back story, the discussions with Emmett, sharing the storage with him? Listening to the stories of the Howard and Megan, Paris? Wary, discovering the truth? Preparing the gas mask and suit, Emmett’s death, the confrontation with Howard? The aliens, and seeing the bloodied woman, fixing the air-conditioning? Settling down, like a family?

6. The outside, the woman with blood, at the door, Michelle with the keys?

7. John Goodman as Howard, his age, imposing, chaining Michelle, his explanations, saving her? Wanting her to heal? Her hitting him, the stitches? The growing trust? His story about Megan, his daughter? The photo? Stories of Paris? Emmet saying that this was not Megan but a local girl who disappeared? His treatment of Emmett, knowing him, the neighbour? The songs and the music, jukebox, watching television, Pretty in Pink? The games, playing, the puzzles?

8. The air filtration, the crawlspace, Michelle going in, fixing it, finding the earrings, the scrawl for help? Her suspicions, designing clothes, ready for the gas mask and suit? Howard and his catching Emmett with the scissors, the corrosive vat, Emmett and his story about the gun, the explanation, his suddenly being shot and into the vat?

9. Michelle and Howard together, continuing to make the suit, hiding it, the vent and the screw, Howard discovering the truth, Michelle’s attack on him, spilling the vat, the creation of the fire, Howard and his destruction, the knives in the vent, Michelle pushing him down?

10. Outside, the birds and the chirping, the abandoned cars, the crops, the farm buildings? The explosions, fires? The spacecraft? Explosions? The alien monsters? Pursuing Michelle, her using her wits, survival, in the car, evading, creating the fire, the exploding the monster?

11. In the car, hearing the radio, the survivors, the decision to go to Houston?

12. The transition from an abduction to a claustrophobic film, with suggestions about aliens, but culminating in the invasion and the fightback?

STEVE JOBS

US, 2015, 122 minutes, Colour.
Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlabarg, Katherine Waterston, Perla Haneyi- Jardine, Sarah's Snook, John Ortiz, Adam Shapiro.
Directed by Danny Boyle.

This is a portrait of Steve Jobs rather than a biography. It would be very helpful for appreciating this film to know some details about Jobs, his life, his work on computers, his Apple company, his rise, his fall, his making a comeback. The previous film, Jobs, stirring Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs supplied a great deal of personal and professional background.

This film has been directed by Danny Boyle who began his career in British television with some Inspector Morse mysteries, achieved a reputation with such films as Shallow Grave and Transporting, working in a variety of genres, including science fiction, and won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire.

And, the film has been written by Aaron Sorkin, again, a man with a significant reputation with such television series as The West Wing and scripting films like The American President, The Social Network and Moneyball.

For this portrait, Sorkin has chosen three launches which were significant in Jobs’ career, during the 1980s and 1990s. There are quite a number of flashbacks illustrating something of the background but the audience needs some knowledge to anchor this in. They show Jobs in triumphant mode as well as under a great deal of stress, finally making a comeback.

Jobs was not particularly likeable man and Michael Fassbender, Oscar nominated performance, communicates this particularly well, hyper energetic, intense, a controller, intolerant of anyone who did not measure up to his standards, which meant abandoning friends and colleagues, dismissing them as failures in his eyes. He was also poor in more personal relationships, living under the cloud of being adopted and seemingly rejected, unwilling to acknowledge his daughter and her mother. He did have some moments of redemption, based on whims rather than convictions, often too late.

The film gives great deal of attention to preparations for the launches, a great deal of razzamatazz, precision with lights and audiovisuals. But, each episode shows his changing relationships with key characters.

These are impressively performed. Seth Rogen is surprising in a more serious role in bringing his typical screen persona to the character, the computer whizz, Steve Wozniak, but, at each stage, with the differing relationship, trying to persuade Jobs to acknowledge his past workers, his frustration and feelings of a betrayal of trust more and more evident.

Jeff Daniels appears as John Sculley who was recruited from Pepsi-Cola? to manage the Apple company, had to dismiss Jobs, moved into retirement but appears at each launch. The continuing discussion is about Jobs’ need for a father-figure in his life.

Another worker is Andy Herzfeld, played by Michael Stuhlbard, not liked by Jobs, nor liking him, but, having followed Jobs’ orders so long, so highly demanding, breaks with him and gives financial support to Jobs’ daughter to enrol at Harvard.

And, all the time, there is Jobs’ assistant, Joanna Hoffman, who exhibits the patience of a saint, always loyal to Jobs, not only fulfilling all his commands but diplomatically smoothing over so many situations, especially towards his daughter and her mother, going through thick and thin, the only person who could seem to love him. This is an excellent performance by Kate Winslet.

Once again, it should be stressed that this is not a biography of Steve Jobs although audiences can learn a great deal about his life. Rather, it is a significant portrait, illuminating one of the key personalities in communications in the 20th century.

1. Steve Jobs as a 20th century personality, significant, his contribution? The film’s acknowledgement?

2. Steve Jobs as a person, ego, self-confident, his achievement? Arrogant personality, intolerant, not a team worker, ungracious towards members of the team – and with subjective reasons for his stances? In himself, the encounter with Chrisann, the birth of Lisa, his refusal to acknowledge, the background of the court case, his evidence, the 28% of men possible for her father? The effect on him, the effect on Chrisann, on Lisa as she grew up? His treatment of Woz, working with him, later criticisms? John Sculley, his different roles as chairman of the board, firing Jobs? Joanna, the Polish background, the loyalty to Jobs, her feelings? His being fired, his company and its failure, going back to Apple, his rise, the -iPad? Dying comparatively young?

3. Audience knowledge about Jobs in his life (and the value of seeing Ashton Kutcher as Jobs in Jobs?

4. Michael Fassbender, performance? Awards, nominations? Each of the principal cast having their own dramatic scene? The work of the director, from the UK and his American perspective?

5. The framework: the three launches, each section about 40 minutes length, the effect, cumulative?

6. Each launch, the venues, 1984, 1988, 1998? Jobs and his changing, age, look, clothes, less formal? Everything stage-managed, the huge halls, the seating, amplification, the lights, queues, visuals, the rehearsals, the special effects, the reaction of the audiences?

7. The main characters at each stage of the film? Present at the launches? The significance of the flashbacks? The audience understanding them better? Their changing?

8. Joanna, Kate Winslet’s presence, awards? Over the years, diligence, efficiency, being exasperated, personal and advice, with Chrisann and Lisa? With John Sculley? With Woz? With Andy? The production, the rehearsals, the timing? Interactions with Andrea on the floor? Her declaration of love?

9. Lisa, at each stage, not acknowledged by Jobs, her relationship with her mother? The mother, the visits, the demands on Jobs, weeping? Bills, doctors, cash, Jobs giving her the money to buy the house? Her hobbies, seeming extravagance, her health, sinus trouble, her continually cajoling him? Taking his time? The young Lisa, at the launch, her drawing on the computer? At 19, at the University, at Harvard, Andy paying the fees, Jobs and his reaction, the harsh encounter with Andy? His being upset at Chrisann selling the house? Lisa finally attending the launch, and his explanation of the name of the computer, her name?

10. Woz, their work in the past, scruffy man, good friend, working in the garage, the computed details and production, success? Later failures, the loss of income, the firing? Woz being hurt? At each launch, wanting acknowledgement of the team, Jobs refusing, even to pay compliments? The buildup to the final confrontation and Woz and his determination in telling the truth, walking out?

11. Andy, his work, Jobs and his demand that the computer say hello? The disputes, using his wits, the touch of cheating, the success? His work, contribution, his love for Lisa, paying her fees, at each of the launches, going to see Jobs, declaring that he didn’t like him?

12. John Sculley, a father figure, the discussions about Jobs and his adoption, his being returned after one month, his feelings about family? As head of Pepsi, chairman of the board, success with Apple, the chief, the confrontations with Jobs, the explanations, the board meeting, their firing of jobs? The later meetings, Jobs and why he was ousted? No financial success? The media reports throughout the film indicating Jobs and his failures and success? Sculley, the Newton, its failure, his being ousted, retiring? Coming to each launch? A businessman, a decent man, making some peace with Jobs?

13. The changes in Jobs, the continued edge, importance of timing, commands, demands, hiring and firing, the experience of not succeeding, coming back – and the promise of the iPod?

14. No information follow-up at the end of the film, the film simply a look at Steve Jobs, some admiration, and getting the audience to think about him and his achievement?

THE GREAT PASSAGE/ FUNE WO AMU

Japan, 2013, 134 Minutes, Colour.
Ryuhei Matsuda, Joe Odagiri, Aoi Miyazaki.
Directed by Yuya Ishii.


A fine and humane film that can be well recommended.

Although, caution may be needed for the unwary. This is a film that is about words, that delights in words and their meaning. It is a film about the research for the writing of a dictionary over a period of 15 years. And, one might add, it is a film about proofreading! Given those cautions, it is a film which could be appreciated by most audiences making allowance for the lack of adrenaline-pumping (or adrenaline pumping for the discovery of new words and preparing each proof for the dictionary!).

The context is Japan in the 1990s, a publishing company deciding that a new dictionary needed to be produced for the 21st century, acknowledging the work done on previous dictionaries, and the amount of time and energy taken, but deciding to make precise definitions of words, succinct descriptions, including classical words in those from tradition but also trying to accommodate contemporary developments.

At one stage, and this is a challenge for the audience as well as those preparing the dictionary: what is the definition of “right” (as different from “left”)? This challenge, which tantalises some of the researchers, brings home how hard it can be to write precise definitions.

In the division for preparing the dictionary is a professor and an elderly man who is expert but who has to retire because of his wife’s illness. One of the bright sparks and his girlfriend realise that there is a very quiet man in the office, socially awkward, but with a degree in linguistics, who could be invited to take on the job. His name is Matsu. He does take on the job and spends the next 15 years painstakingly working. His lively friend supports him especially when the manager of the publishing firm decides to close down the dictionary project. He pleads the case and offers to transfer to advertising and promotion to save the project – something which, eventually, is to the benefit of the dictionary when it is finally launched.

In the meantime, Matsu is cared for by a kind landlady. He is also attracted to a fellow-boarder, a trainee chef, charming and friendly who invites him to taste her preparations. There is an awkward moment when he writes a letter in old Japanese style, which she cannot read, but prefers to hear the words from him, spoken. Over the years, they become a devoted couple.

Actually, there is some drama in the narrative, especially when Matsu has his attention drawn to an error in the galleys so that he takes full responsibility but it sets back the progress of the dictionary for some time. This means that he has to hire a staff of students to do the proofreading, that they have to live in at the office, day and night in shifts, so that the work will be done on time.

There is also some human drama with the elderly professor and his wife, his becoming ill and dying, and the old man who had pioneered the dictionary comes to assist after his own wife’s death.

There is an emotional climax at the end, the launching of the dictionary and a wonderful letter from the old professor, given to Matsu by the professor’s wife, a fine tribute to what he has done and achieved.

A wonderful narrative, characterisations, images for lovers of words.


1. The title? Title of the dictionary? The journey for readers and consultants of the dictionary, journey into language and meaning? The personal journey of the editors, especially Matsu?

2. The title, a film about words, meanings of words, finding the meanings, compiling dictionaries, definition and clarity, checking words, publication, proofs, the quality of the printed paper? A film for lovers of words?

3. Japanese film, 1995, the cast, the work on the dictionary until 2010?

4. Araki and the Professor, the publisher, scenes of detail of the work, the cards, references, the history of dictionaries, the years taken to compile, the requirements of dedication? The illustration of the definition of “right”, the various meanings of “right” and the various attempts to define it? The huge task, modern words, the traditional words and “cool” words?

5. Araki, his character, age, dedication, the illness of his wife, looking for a successor? Engaging the help of Noshiaki and his girlfriend? Their recommending Matsu? The interview, his awkwardness, reticence, shyness, being given the job?

6. Matsu, his age, loner, his linguistic studies, the boarding house, the landlady and her care for him? The job, his presence, dedication, at his desk, cards, continually checking, the years passing? The support of Noshiaki?

7. The different time stages and the work, Matsu, the landlady, the encounter with Kaguya, nice, attractive, reticent? The attraction? Advice from Noshiaki? Writing the letter, the old Japanese style, and not being able to read it? Her wanting him to speak, express himself? Her cooking, ambitions, to be a shift, his tasting her food, the bond, the years passing?

8. The publisher, wanting to cancel the dictionary, Noshiaki defying him, the conditions, his being transferred to sales?

9. The staff of the dictionary, going to diners to hear and collect modern words, Matsu, the woman assisting, the Professor, Araki and his contributions? The dictionary? The various drafts, buying the paper, touching the paper, turning the pages, the format, wanting clarity?

10. Araki, his wife, the choice? The Profesor and his wife, illness, hospital, the visit, his death? The publisher giving Matsu the letter at the launch, the wife and her praise of?

11. The editing, the various drafts, the proofs, discovering the mistake, editing Matsu accepting responsibility to deal with the mistake? Hiring the students as proofreaders, proof checking, their living in, food, drink, sleep?

12. Noshiaki, his encouragement, his sales pitches?

13. The launch, the achievement, Matsu and the years of his life, his being with Kaguya and her support?

14. A film for lovers of words, even lovers of proofreading, words and their role in culture and civilisation?

GODS OF EGYPT

Australia/US, 2016, 127 Minutes, Colour.
Nikolaj Coster- Waldau, Gerard Butler, Brenton Thwaites, Rufus Sewel, Geoffrey Rush, Elodi Yung, Bryan Brown, Rachael Blake, Courtney Eaton, Chadwick Boseman, Felix Williamson, Robyn Nevin, Bruce Spence, Tiriel Mora.
Directed by Alex Proyas.

Big, Blooming, Brash, Blustering. Somebody remarked that this is really a popcorn fantasy for the Multiplex audience. And why not?

If you are a serious student of ancient Egypt, give this one a miss.you might get confused as to the history of the gods.Or, perhaps, you might just put it on hold, waiting for a time of relaxation and an alternative view of what those gods were up to in pre-history times.
Back in the 50s, when Cinemascope was introduced, this kind of film was very popular, even a big budget one like The Egyptian.Then, in the 1960s and 70s, there were adventure films, fantasies about Sinbad and other heroes, taking us back into our fantasy past, conflicts and loves, with special effects by the expert, Ray Harryhausen. One of the peaks of this kind of film was the 1980s, clash of the Titans, even starring Laurence Olivier and Maggie Smith.

In more recent times, the Titans have come back with both a Clash and a Wrath. There have been several Hercules films lately and another about the gods, The Immortals. So, there is a tradition for this kind of entertainment, this Time brash, big-budget, an enormous range of special effects and, through CGI, seeming cast of millions. The director is Australian Alex prey us and most of the film was made in Fox Studios in Sydney, with additional work in Canada. Prizes best known for his science fiction film, dark city Dark City, 1998.

We might remember the names of the gods from study of the movies, O Cyrus, Set, Chorus, Rather. They are all here.

Back in those days, it seems that the gods lived amongst mortals, mortals being ordinary height and the gods much taller – which takes a little getting used to. At the opening, the benign King of Cyrus (Brian Brown polishing up his Aussie accent to make it sound a little more British) is about to Crown his rather irresponsible son, Horus (Nikolaj Coster- Waldau, a solid import from Game Of Thrones). In the presence of those CGI millions, who should arrive but the bad God-ruler, Set (Gerard Butler remembered from 300, having decided to keep his Scottish accent and all), seemingly friendly, his up to no good and soon takes over, killing his brother, exciting his nephew, subjugating all the mortals who become the equivalent of the Hebrews in later times, building Pyramids and monuments in slavery.

But the story is told by human in his old age, Bek. Young, he is played by Brenton Thwaites, an enthusiastic young mortal in love with Zaya (Courtney Eaton) who teams up with Horus, the god not above exploiting the human, the human with a sense of adventure, especially when his loved one is killed and is on a journey to the afterlife and has a quest to save her before she reaches the final gate.

Also on hand, later, is the grandfather God, Rather, played unexpectedly by Geoffrey rush who has an extraordinary apotheosis scene towards the end.

This means that there are all kinds of adventures, battles, betrayals, deaths and, of course, a huge and lengthy confrontation between Horus and set, especially involving an enormous Tower which puts, height wise, the Tower of Babel into insignificance.

This is the kind of film that used to be described as Saturday matinee material, all kinds of adventures in cliffhangers, not a great deal put into depth of characterisation. Rather hear other heroes and villains, here are the situations, here are the battles – and goodwill triumph over evil.

1. Audience enjoyment of popular methodologies? Ancient history? The history of Egypt? Audience familiarity, stories of the gods?

2. The elaborate sets, spectacle, costumes and decor? Lavish aspects? Action sequences, special effects? Musical score?

3. The voice-over and the history of the gods, the narrative, the gods taller than mortals, the role of the mortals? The two kingdoms? Peace between the kingdoms?

4. The coronation of Horus, Osiris standing down, his wife, the court? Horus, the son, lacks, irresponsible? The challenge of being crowned? Pomp, the crowds of people present, acclaim?

5. Bek, his age, ordinary young man, in the crowd, experiences, using his wits, Zaya, present at the coronation?

6. The arrival of Set, imposing, with his brother, speeches, turning on Osiris, killing him? Fighting with Horus? Taking control, the lengths he went to maintain control?

7. Horus exiled, in the desert, the encounter with Bek, his help, deal, the adventures, the betrayal? The death of Zaya

8. Set, the goddess, as wife to Horus, her relationship with Set?

9. Ra, the grandfather, the wisdom figure, his sons, his grandson, his appearance, his words, bequest, destruction, his apotheosis?

10. In the city, Set, the role of the builder, his pride, his betrayals, the tall tower, the mortals and their slavery in building?

11. The members of the court, the attendants, advisers, supervisors?

12. Bek and Horus in the desert, the journey, the quest, finding Ra, the underworld, the judgements, the various steps, the final gate, the rescue of Zaya?

13. Horus, his return to the city, the buildup to the confrontation with Set, climbing the tall tower, the death of the builder, the collapse of
the tower?

14. Horus, the confrontation, the battle, the seeming to feet, Bek and his help?

15. The death of Set, order restored, Horus taking responsibility, the friendship with Bek – and Bek recounting the story in the voice-over?

HOW TO BE SINGLE

US, 2016, 110 Minutes, Colour.
Dakota Johnson, Rebel Wilson, Leslie Mann, Damon Wayans Jr, Anders Holm, Nicholas Braun, Jake Lacy, Jason Mantzoukas, Allison Brie.
Directed By Christian Ditter.

This is a film which has a definite target audience, younger women in their 20s and 30s – though other women in the audience may well enjoy it, remembering their younger days as well as observing the behaviour of younger women and their dealing with relationships, commitment, marriage and family, as well as the freedom of being single.

While the director is male, the screenplay is definitely from a female perspective. Some of the men are sympathetic – but not all of them and not always.

This is one of those films which start off fairly raucously, audiences invited to enjoy the freedom, dating, drinking, sexual encounters – and, as the film goes on, settling down, developing issues of love and commitment, and some moralising by the end. This reviewer has often referred to this kind of filmmaking as the ‘Judd Apatow syndrome’ – and this is brought to awareness in the fact that one of the women at the centre of the film is Leslie Mann, Judd Apatow’s wife.

However, the story is that of Alice, played by Dakota Johnson after her adventures in Fifty Shades of Grey. We see her chance encounter with Josh in her college days, their four years together, and her feeling that life was narrowing in on her and that she needs some kind of time away from him. She has a job in a legal office where she encounters a very unlikely paralegal, Rebel Wilson. Rebel Wilson gives the same performance over and over, the wild one, the offhand remarks, the straight talk, the seeming good-time girl, but audiences do enjoy her screen presence.

She is Robin and takes Alice out on the town, introducing her to the barman who has a very free and easy attitude towards life and sex, Tom (Anders Holm). Alice is attracted, takes a risk, but she finds Tom too free. Tom, in the meantime, is interested in the gawky young woman, Lucy (Alison Brie) who spends time in the bar working on her computer. While she is not one of the main single characters, she does eventually find a good relationship with George (Jason Mantzoukas).

The third woman coping with how to be single is the older woman, Leslie Mann, Alice’s sister, who is a doctor who works in obstetrics, delivering babies, not wanting a baby of her own because of her dedication to her career but, in a key sequence, minding a little baby, tries valiantly to resist its cuteness (and the director certainly gets a great deal of cuteness from the baby’s face, smile and expressions) but succumbs. She wants to be pregnant but takes the IDF path. She is not interested in relationships but a man at Alice’s office, Ken (Jake Lacy) is attracted to her and not just for a one night stand, but devoted to her and, eventually, to the baby.

There are some amusing moments, some very raucous moments, some very bad judgements about relationships moments, but the film will probably appeal to that target audience while others will look on, probably more benignly than not.

1. The film for 20s and 30s women? Women’s interests, response? Men’s interest and response? The female perspective?

2. The New York settings – but universal stories? Single women, single men, bars, meetings, networks? Apartments, legal offices, hospitals, shops, the streets? The range of contemporary songs throughout the film?

3. Alice’s story and focus? The introduction to Lucy and the cafes? Meg at the hospital? Robin and her wildness?

4. Alice, the initial encounter, the relationship with Josh, in the corridor at college, help with the towel and the door shutting, the four years passing, the both remaining single but together, asking for time out from Josh, his being upset? The legal work, the meeting with Robin? Out on the town, the night, drinking? Tom and the bar? His philosophy of life, and about sex? Her relationship with Tom, the reaction, later, his apartment? His not having anything for breakfast, the tap not working – wanting the women to go? Meeting Josh again? Michelle, the bag, parents? Josh and his break? The party, the encounter with David, pleasant? The Christmas tree? The time with David, meeting Phoebe, her singing? David breaking with her, her not understanding? Wanting to be alone? Meeting with Robin, their friendship, straight talk? Her relationship with Meg, sharing ideas, hopes, Meg and her pregnancy, Ken at the party, Meg and giving birth?

5. Robin, Rebel Wilson and her type, wild on the town, sex and drugs, the crass language, raucous? The friendship with Alice? At work? The contrast with the parties? The truth about herself, her wealth? her friends, rich and raucous?

6. Meg, Alice’s sister, older, work in the hospital, the deliveries of the babies and her reaction? Single, devoted to her job, minding the baby, trying to resist its being cute? The IVF, her decision, becoming pregnant, her moods? Her support for Alice? Robin? The encounter with Ken the office, going out, the Christmas tree, her crazy reaction? Shopping, Ken, his devotion, discovering the truth? Pushing him away? Alice phoning him, his going to the hospital, response to the baby?

7. Tom, the bar, free and easy, sex, his philosophy of life? Lucy? His helping her at the bar, the encounters, attracted to her, meeting George, Lucy rejecting Tom? His finishing up alone?

8. Lucy, awkward, her computer, in the diner, being online, men chatting her up, Tom to the rescue, relying on him? The reading, the encounter with George, the dates, the Grand Canyon?

9. Josh, his type, his love for Alice, shock at the break, talking, the relationship with Michelle, his parents liking Alice, the plan for the wedding, wanting tohave one night with Alice, her rejecting him?

10. Ken, at the office, sympathetic, coming to Meg, genuine, the Christmas tree, her reactions, coming to the hospital, the baby?

11. David, personality, business, genuine, his dead wife, his daughter, the song? Enjoying Alice’s company, the harshness of the break? The end – not definite, but…?

12. A popular comedy on being single, on being at home, the nature of commitment, marriage, children?

THEEB

Jordan/ United Arab Emirates/ Qatar, 2014, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jacir Eid Al- Hwietat, Hussain Salameh Al- Sweilhiyeen, Hussain Mutlad Al- Maraiyeh.
Directed by Naji Abu Nowar.


Theeb is the name of the young boy, member of a clan in the Arabian peninsular at the time of World War I – the period familiar to worldwide audiences from Lawrence of Arabia and also, very interestingly, in the story of Gertrude Bell, Queen of the Desert.

The film opens quite simply, two brothers in the desert, playing, getting water from a well, shooting practice. In the clan tent that the evening, two strangers are welcomed with the unquestioning Arab hospitality, a guide as well as an English soldier, both of them want to find a regiment as well as the railway line that is being laid through the desert.

Obviously, with the war, with the domination of the Ottoman Turks, there is an atmosphere of change, changes in tradition, the developments of the 19th and 20th centuries, especially the railway, making journeys so much shorter and efficient but also a threat to the traditions.

While the older brother is appointed a guide through the desert, Theeb follows on his donkey, and persuades his brother to take him on the journey, the soldier often wary, protecting his possessions which included a detonator.

One of the major hazards of travelling through the desert, apart from the desert terrain and the need for water, is the presence of brigands who then make themselves more than felt. While he is small and young, Theeb is a survivor, confronting one of the brigands, overwhelmed by the need for vengeance but covering it, complying with the brigand who wants to curry favour with the Turkish authorities.

Theeb acts surprisingly at the end and goes off into the desert, back to his clan and an uncertain future.

With its desert scenery, the film is impressive to look at. It also invites its audience into understanding some of the life of the Arab clans, the beauty of living in the desert, the hazards of living in the desert, and the colonial interventions of Western powers – and contemporary audiences realising the extraordinary consequences of the post-war creation of nations, carving up lands to create different boundaries and the subsequent power struggles and the modern Middle Eastern clashes.

1. A Jordanian story, international interest? The Arabian Peninsula? The local response? Universal?

2. The period, of Lawrence of Arabia, the Arabs, the tribes and bandits, the British, development of the railways? Costumes, decor, landscape photography?

3. The title, the focus on Theeb? The boy’s story, his perspective, lost and found?

4. The introduction and the tone, Hussain and Theeb, getting the water, watering the camels, playing, rifle practice, the bond between the brothers? Theeb and his age?

5. The family, the tribe, the tent, the gathering, the welcome to the guests, the meals, Theeb observing? Communal life, age and respect, the role of the men, the women? The British visitor, military, his curiosity? The box, the British man’s reaction to Theeb touching it? His sleep and nightmares?

6. The journey, quest, to find the regiment, to find the Railway? British influence? The tribes accepting? Questions about the railway and the transition to modes of travel through the desert, speed of travel? The journey, the camels, the landscapes? Theeb following on his donkey, letting the donkey go? Being accepted by his brother?

7. The landscapes, the risks, the bandits, the camp, the well with the body in it, the blood? The bandits shooting, the death of the guide, the military man killed?

8. Hussain and Theeb, going into the mountains, the shooting, hiding, their being surrounded, Hussain being shot? Theeb being chased, shot at, going down the well, the bandits cutting the rope?

9. Theeb getting out, surviving, managing, the brigand coming on the camel, his being wounded, Theeb getting the gun?

10. The wounded man, alive, wanting water, the bread, Theeb hungry? The guns? Getting the bullet out of the wound, cauterising the wound with a hot knife? Their being together? Some mutual dependence?

11. The travel, going to the Turkish headquarters? The brigand giving the information, the box with the detonator, the documents? His being paid? Saying that Theeb was his son, the coin, Theeb refusing the money?

12. Shooting the brigand, the reaction of the Turkish commander, sending Theeb away – and his future?

VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN


UK, 2015, 110 Minutes, Colour.
James Mc Avoy, Daniel Radcliffe, Jessica Brown Findlay, Andrew Scott, Freddie Fox, Daniel Mays.
Directed By Paul Mc Guigan.

Every few years seems to be a new Frankenstein film. The emphasis is here should be on the title, an emphasis on the doctor himself rather than on the Monster, although it emerges that there is a close relationship between them

The setting for this retelling is London itself, using many of the landmarks, and having a detective inspector from Scotland Yard pursuing Victor Frankenstein to control him and bring his experiments to an end. He is played by Andrew Scott, who plays Moriarty in the Sherlock television films with Benedict Cumberbatch, some of which have been directed by the director here, Paul Mc Guigan dollars

Initially, it seems that this is going to be the story of a young hunchback man who works in the circus, the butt of jokes by the clowns in the arena, laughed at by the rather well-to-do and well-dressed audience, put upon by the owner of the circus. He is played by Daniel Radcliffe. He has no name, imagines that this will be his life forever – although he is infatuated with the trapeze artist, played by Jessica Brown Findlay, and comes to her aid when she has a disastrous fall from the high wire. As he helps, a doctor in the audience moves in to assist, seems at first dismissive of the misshapen young man but comes to admire his practical skills and knowledge. He decides that he will employ this young man as an assistant.

It is not as easy as all that, a riot breaks out, the owner pursues the doctor, there is a death, which means that there will be the police pursuit.

The young man is bewildered, especially when the doctor recognises that the shape on his back is a cyst which can be drained and the young man will be able to stand upright. The doctor gives him the name, Igor.

Of course, the doctor is Dr Victor Frankenstein who had been at the circus in search of animals that he could use in his experiments. Frankenstein is very well played by James Mc Avoy, a versatile actor, who appears as the younger Charles Xavier in the X-Men? series.

The scenes in the laboratory are present but not as pervasive as in so many other versions – while some creatures are produced, it is the demonstration for academics at the University where things go wrong. The doctor’s father, Charles Dance, denounces him because of his being the cause of his older brother’s death. But a wealthy young man, is impressed, offers the funds for continued experiments in his castle on the coast.

Those who are expecting some gory and ghastly details may very well be disappointed, with the emphasis on the character and hubris of the doctor, a darling of London society, unscrupulous in his ambitions. But, the film does build up to a climax in the new and vast laboratory, the wealthy young man and his associates witnessing the lightning during an enormous storm producing electricity to bring the creature alive, the doctor and his achievement, the rage of the creature, Igor trying to save the day – and the Scotland Yard Inspector, a religious man grieving at the death of his wife, quoting the Bible and denouncing Dr Frankenstein’s work is that of Satan, is caught up in the dramatic violence.

If you want a variation on the Frankenstein films, is very British production provides a different alternative.

1. Audience knowledge of and interest in Frankenstein? Expectations, fulfilled? Different from previous Frankenstein stories?

2. The key elements of the story, Dr Frankenstein, his experiments, wanting to create life, his creature? The voice-over explanations?

3. The 19th century settings, the story set in London? The circus, the trapeze act, the performance of the clowns, the streets, police, Frankenstein’s house, the laboratories? The Academy and the demonstrations? Travel through the countryside? The mansion, the bridge, the large laboratory?

4. The importance of the make-up, for the creature? The action sequences, especially in the laboratory, the behaviour of the creature, the pursuits?

5. The clown, his absence and hunchback, his place in the circus, the audience, mocked, his devotion to Lorelei, the owner, his cruelty? The accident, his help, Frankenstein and his assistance, the hunchback’s skill, his being upset, the fire, the pursuit of Frankenstein, saving the hunchback, Barnaby pursuing, the deaths?

6. Inspector Turpin, his assistants, serious, his work is a detective, the story of his wife and her cancer, his religious beliefs, the focus on God, and Satan? The pursuit of Frankenstein, an obsession? At the circus, the posters, the interrogations, Frankenstein defying him? The bashing of the door, the injury, the pursuit? Going to the mansion, becoming involved in the experiment, his death, yet still fanatically religious?

7. Victor Frankenstein, his personality, at the circus, looking for animals and their parts? The accident, the hunchback and his skills after the accident, Frankenstein admiring him, taking him, draining the abscess and allowing him to walk upright, transforming him, calling him Igor? The previous Igor and his fate? The discussions about hubris? His place in society, boasting, at the party, drinking, Igor trying to restrain him?

8. The experiments, the detail, the composite creature, the demonstrations of the Academy, Finnegan and his interest, scepticism? Financial backing? The creature rampant? The chase, the dangers, killing the creature? Frankenstein’s further ambitions?

9. Igor and Lorelei, dancing, the bed, the sexual relationship, Lorelei and her gratitude?

10. The return, the creatures, the role of the Inspector, warnings, the escape, violence? Finnegan, pushing Igor into the river, his survival? Frankenstein and funds? The patents and Finnegan’s financial ambitions?

11. Victor’s father, severe, his favouring Henry, Henry’s death, his father warning that Victor would be expelled from the Academy?

12. Igor, Lorelei helping his recovery, the decision to go to Finnegan, his commercial interest, the coach, Lorelei distracting the guards?

13. Igor going to the mansion, the storm, the lightning, the elaborate laboratory, the range of staff, Finnegan observing, Victor obsessed, bringing the creature to life with the electricity? The effect of the creature, the deaths, stabbing the creature, the fight, Igor and Victor and the struggle, the irony of giving the creature two hearts? And the revelation that this was Victor’s brother, Henry, getting his revenge?

14. The final talk, Victor and his motivation, his attitude towards his brother, wanting him to be alive?

15. Victor, writing to Igor, saying that he had no life – but, further ambitions?

THE UPTURNED GLASS

UK, 1947, 90 Minutes, Black And White.
James Mason, Rosamund John, Pamela Kellino, Ann Stevens, Brefni O' Rorke.
Directed By Lawrence Huntingdon.


The Upturned Glass is a star vehicle for James Mason who had emerged as one of the principal lights of British cinema from the late 1930s and the succeeding decade, especially in the melodramas of the mid-1940s, The Man in Grey, Fanny by Gaslight, The Wicked Lady. He then went to Hollywood with a successful career there and continued to make films until the 1980s.

This is a crime drama with a double presentation of the crime itself.

James Mason portrays a surgeon, interested in forensic crime, giving a lecture about a perfect crime, visualised with himself as the perpetrator, a gentleman, a sympathetic doctor, falling in love with the mother of a patient while her husband was away, then discovering that she had died, having fallen from a window. He becomes suspicious of the dead woman’s sister, seduces her, with the intention of killing her. The sympathetic wife is played by Rosamund John and the sister by Mason’s wife at that time, Pamela Kellino, who also contributed to the screenplay.

The perfect crime described in the lecture does not go according to plan. All kinds of circumstances intervening, some of them very mundane, which means that the surgeon has to use his wits, is interrupted in his escape by the doctor asking him to help with an accident victim. He responds earnestly in helping forgetting the body in the car which the doctor finds – and the doctor giving him a lecture on not being emotionally involved with patients and on his paranoia and obsessions.

The film has a grim ending with the surgeon’s suicide, uncertain about his criminal mind, his madness and obsessions.

1. A psychological drama? The crime? 1940s style?

2. Black-and-white photography, Britain, university, offices, house, surgery, social gatherings? The musical score?

3. The introduction, students going to the lecture, Michael Joyce as a celebrity, shutting the doors, the lecture itself? Dramatisation of the story with Michael as central character? Intelligent, calm, planning of the crime? The mother with her daughter, the post-war injury, the operation, the girl and his discussions with her, preparation, scenes in surgery, Emma waiting, his reassurance? Emma, her husband away, falling in love with Michael, the affair, playing the piano, going out, sharing, love, and her having to make a decision, and consideration of her daughter?

4. The news of Emma’s death, the coroner’s court, Ann and her giving witness, Kate and her presence, her style, her story, relationship with her sister?

5. Michael visiting the house, the encounter with the gardener, his playing the organ, his initial attitude, the chat, memories, the drink?

6. Michael and his meeting Kate, the social, so soon after the coroner’s hearing, the society women and their blank talk, Kate, talking with Michael, the later meetings, the attraction, her being a widow, needing money, selling her sister’s carpet, sending Ann to boarding school?

7. Michael, meeting Ann at the surgery, his excuse, the explanation?

8. Kate discovering them, the drive to the house, the broken window, getting into the house, going up to the room, reconstructing the
scene, threatening Kate, his vindictive attitude, her fall?

9. The completion of the lecture, students’ reaction, questions about the state of mind of the perpetrator?

10. The second version of the crime, reality, the gardener present and his playing the organ, unexpected presence, Kate and her fear, the struggle, the key dropping out the window, the locked door, Michael getting out, moving the body, finding the key, putting the body in
the car?

11. The drive, the foggy night, the encounter with the driver looking for directions, covering the body? The accident, the encounter with the doctor, Michael and his compulsion to help, absorbed, the mother relieved at his work and saving the daughter? The doctor discovering the body, Michael’s explanation, the doctor, his declaration about not having feelings and emotions for patients, his analysis of Michael, obsession and paranoia?

12. Michael, his escape, perfectly intelligent, the crime, reflecting on the doctor’s words, driving to the cliffs, madness, killing himself?

BROTHERLY LOVE

UK, 1970, 107 minutes, Colour.
Peter O' Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig, Harry Andrews, Cyril Cusack, Judy Cornwell, Brian Blessed, Robert Urquhart, Jean Anderson, Mark Malicz.
Directed by J. Lee Thompson.

It is difficult to find an exact word that describes Brotherly Love. In its way, it is weird, it is bizarre, it is eerie in its presentation of the central characters, a Scottish brother and sister, wealthy and part of the aristocracy, who have grown up very close together, with the brother having a dependence on his sister, with overtones of incestuous desire. It is presented sometimes in a very serious way, sometimes in a comic, even frivolous, manner.

The screenplay was written by James Kennaway who then died at the age of 40. He was responsible for a number of films including Tunes of Glory, Battle of Britain. The film is based on his stage play, Country Dance, which was the title of the film in the United States.

In many ways the film is a tour de force for Peter O’ Toole, one of his more eccentric characters, finishing up at an institution (and, perhaps, reminding audiences of his 1973 role as a mad eccentric in The Ruling Class). This is a flamboyant and rather rhetorical performance, more suited to the stage than the screen. But, it is a chance to see him, still in his 30s, and to relish his style of delivery even if it is over the top.

Susannah York has a rather thankless role as his sister, bewildered by her life, trying to deal with her brother by loving him, escaping in marriage to a very sensible, Michael Craig, but always drawn back to her brother, uncontrolled in sexuality (especially with the local policeman, a very young Brian Blessed) but having to face reality, face her husband, sign the documents for her brother to go into the institution.

The film has a Scottish setting but it was filmed in Ireland. Harry Andrews is a local Brigadier, Judy Cornwell a maid who is pregnant, Jean Anderson the local matron and Cyril Cusack the doctor at the institution.

The film was directed by J Lee Thompson, who began his career with small films in England including Tiger Bay, moved to Hollywood with many blockbuster but, especially, The Guns of Navarone, finishing his career with quite a number of Charles Bronson thrillers.

1. A drama with the touch of the bizarre and the weird?

2. The title, suggestions and incest? The alternate title, Country Dance?

3. The Scottish settings, the filming in Ireland, the landscapes, the highlands, the town, the market, the central hall, the dance, the open roads? Authentic feel? The musical score?

4. The film based on a play, heavy on dialogue, the performances, the leads and the heightened performances, Peter O’ Toole and the touch of overacting? Or responding to the nature and tone of the dialogue?

5. Peter O’ Toole and his screen presence, Pink, the background of the family, the dead father, the drinking mother, Hillary and his relationship with her when they were children, as they grew up? His army service and being told he had a low moral tone? His madness? In an institution? His work on the farm, his resentment of being out in the country? His relationship with Hillary, their play together, arguments, his love for her, the final declarations? His attitude towards Doug, the touch of jealousy, ridiculing him? The conversations at the dance in the classroom? His behaviour at the dance, with the women, frantic dancing, taking the woman home? Hangover? His attitude towards Rosie and her pregnancy, giving her the job back? With the Brigadier, the discussions, taking him duck shooting? A dissolute man, touch of madness, finally going to the institution?

6. Hillary, the credibility of her marriage to Doug, wanting to get away from home, away from Pink, memories of their childhood, his attentions to her, their play? The ease with each other – as illustrated in the bath sequence? Her returning home, her own touches of madness, touches of hysteria? Erratic behaviour towards Doug, attraction towards him, sceptical about love, pushing him away? At the dance, in the classroom, the “cabaret” performances between the two? Her leaving, spending the night with the policeman, and her later disdain of him? Her having to face reality, going to the institution, the explanations by the doctor, seeing the other patients, finally signing
the documents?

7. Doug, sensible, the background of his ordinary schooling, dilligent, a farmer, at the auction, the sale of the sheep, advice to the Brigadier? The cup of tea with Hillary, coming to the dance, her behaviour, his bewilderment, yet his love? His concern for Rosie and her child? Going to the matron to advise giving custody? With the Brigadier, the duck shooting? The final confrontations with Pink and Hillary, a man who spoke the truth?

8. The Brigadier, hunting, auctions, the possibility of buying the estate, going duck shooting, the conversations with Pink, the touch of bewilderment?

9. The policeman, the parking at the dance, revelation that he was the father of Rosie’s child, Hillary going to him on the night, the sexual encounter, later disdain for him?

10. The doctor, the institution, the care for the patients, Pink spending his future at the institution?

11. The film from the 1960s – the look, cars, fashions, moral stances? As judged from later decades?