FUOCOAMMARE/ FIRE AT SEA

Italy, 2016, 106 minutes, Colour.
Samuele Caruana, Maria Costa.
Directed by Gianfranco Rosi.


This film is billed as a documentary, and so it is, but with its focus on a family, especially young 12-year-old boy, Samuele, who really becomes the centre of the film, it works not just as a documentary but also as a kind of fiction feature. It is directed by Gianfranco Rosi, whose documentary on the road surrounding the city of Rome, Sacro GRA, won the golden lion in Venice in 2013. That was a particularly local film, the customs of the area in different lives of characters on the ring road.

For this film, Rosi the lived for several months on the island of Lampedusa, an island which has become more famous in recent years, not far of the Sicilian coast, not far from the Libyan coast, an island where so many boats, so many rickety boats, crammed with refugees, have landed – unless the boats have sunk with lives lost, a frightening statistic that is given at the beginning of the film.

While the issue of refugees from Africa and, by extension and ultimate explicit mention, from Syria and Middle Eastern countries, there are explicit reference to Islamic State.

But, the film is something of a jigsaw puzzle, the scenes of the refugees punctuating the narrative about life on Lampedusa, especially for the young boy, Samuele Caruana, and his family.

Samuele is an enterprising young 12-year-old, seen chopping branches in order to make a slingshot, aiming at birds, instructing his good friend how to make a slingshot and fire it – and the two of them frequently mimicking shooting with machine guns. We see them at school, testing out the meanings of words in English and Italian. We see Samuele going to the doctor, being tested for his eyes, discovering he has a lazy eye and will have to wear a patch to strengthen it, which he tests out in various slingshots.

His father is a fishermen and Samuele goes out on a boat only to find that he becomes seasick and is advised to go onto the jetty to get used to having a balance and controlling his stomach. He also has a lesson in rowing, which he desperately needs, otherwise he would be trapped between boats. He is a strong screen presence and audiences welcome him, with scenes at home, meals where he incessantly slurps his spaghetti, talking with his father and cared for by his grandmother.

Actually, the grandmother has significance in the film, cooking, cleaning, making the beds – and ringing the rather friendly DJ on the local radio with requests for songs and commemorations to be made.

But, back to the refugees, the pictures of the boats, the picture of the Italian navy and its efforts to find the refugees, sometimes there being unable to give their coordinates with the inevitability of drownings and death. The Italians seem to be doing their efficient best. Exhausted and dehydrated men are lifted off the boats, some of them not surviving. And there are some telling interviews with Africans, especially from Nigeria, making their way to Sudan, through the desert, arriving in Libya, possibly imprisonment there, and the desperation to get on a boat to Europe.

So, this is a strong humanitarian film, destined to win Human Rights awards. There was a rather similar film from Malta in 2015, Simshar, with both films reminding audiences of the contemporary issues of African refugees, death by drowning – but without the answers as to what will become of them.

Interestingly, with the visit of Pope Francis to Lampedusa and gaining world coverage, there is no reference to this in the film and no explicit presence of the Catholic Church (as there is in Censure).

Winner of the Golden Bear at the Berlin are they, 2016, as well as winning the Ecumenical Award and a prize from Amnesty International..

1. A humanitarian film? The background information about migrants from Africa, the island of lamb producer, the focus from Pope Francis? The director’s story, living on Lampedusa for some time and filming people? World consciousness of the migrants, the many deaths at sea, the statistics given? The film as topical, African migrants, migrants from Syria, the role of Libya, the coming of Islamic State? The Italian response, the rescues, the numbers?

2. Lampedusa, the size, the look, the island, the growth in the woods, the cliffs, the bays, the snorkelling, fishing, the town, the homes? Doctor’s surgery, the school? Audiences feeling they have visited Lampedusa?

3. A documentary, yet the impact as a fiction feature? Docudrama?

4. The introduction to Samuele his age, chopping the branch, making the sling, aiming at the birds, teaching his friend how to make the sling and fire, their both imitating shooting guns? At home, a fisherman’s family, on the boat and seasick, practising on the jetty, the rowing lesson and his having to learn? At school, the English words? Problems with his eyes, the interview with the doctor, the tests, his lazy eye, wearing the patch, testing with the sling, his explaining to people? Home, the meals, the family memories? The focus on Samuele at the end? His being a symbol of the new generation?

5. The grandmother, her husband and caring for him, cooking, domestic work, making the beds, listening to the radio, her phoning for the requests?

6. The DJ, initially mistaking him for a radio operator for the fleet? His enjoying the music, singing, his friendliness with everyone, with the grandmother on the messages?

7. The doctor, his work on the island, the interview with Samuele, explaining everything?

8. The teacher, the class, English words?

9. The fisherman, going out into the sea, the seasons and their dependents?

10. The migrant boats, crowded, the visuals of the crowded boats, in themselves, the weak collapsing, deaths by drowning? The Italian navy, response, the SOS and not being able to give coordinates? The men transported from the boats, dehydrated, some dying? The doctor trying to interview the pregnant woman, English? The men, some stories, from Nigeria, to Sudan, to Libya, years in prison in Libya, getting on the boats? The soccer match? The presence of Syrian migrants?

11. The authorities, the captain, the helicopters, their techniques, rescue, surveillance? The issue of what happened to the migrants when they landed in Italy – their future?

12. The picture of life on Lampedusa, Samuele and his family, a new world in the 21st century, the traditions, the refugee situation – what is to happen?

CARTAS DA GUERRA/ LETTERS FROM WAR

Portugal, 2016, 105 minutes, Black and white.
Miguel Nunes, Margarita Vila- Nova.
Directed by Ivo Ferreira.


While this is a war film, specifically the war in Angola in the 1970s, the clash between Portugal and its colony, Angola, there is not a great deal of war action in the film, some mines, some shooting, some interrogations, rebuilding a bridge for a trip to pass over…

And, of course, in the 21st century, there are questions about Portugal’s colonial past, its propaganda that everybody in the colonies should feel themselves Portuguese.

The title indicates something of the tone of the film. There are some moments of being disconcerted at the opening when we eventually realise that the letters by the man from the war are read aloud in voice-over by his wife, while her letters to him a read by him – except for the very last one, his imploring his wife and daughter to come to be close to him in Angola.

The film is very much an art house film, photographed evocatively in black and white, relying a great deal on the spoken word, so many letters revealing the characters and what was going on in the war effort in Angola. Some audiences will be very taken, while others will not be taken at all, by an episode in the middle of the film, running for several minutes, while the husband indulges in a very large series of metaphors, some sublime, some very mundane, to express his love for and appreciation of his wife. (and there is something of a reprisal of this poetic outburst towards the end of the film).

The central character is a young doctor, commissioned for a kind of national service for two years, working as a soldier but also as the doctor on a base, caring for wounds after action, but also caring psychologically for some of the soldiers, one of whom, a friend, is desperate for the doctor to find some illness in him so that he can be sent back. The doctor is not compliant and there is a brief but somewhat overwhelming moment, the soldier naked, taking his gun, hurrying out into the bush and a shot firing.

Morale amongst the man is uneven, the doctor playing chess with the captain, the other men talking about their lives and families, no sight of a chaplain at all. The isolation and all male company leads to some tension, some moments of rape, and, reminiscent of Apocalypse Now, the men’s reaction to two young singer dancers from Portugal for the men’s libidinous energy and release. In the meantime, the doctor continues to profess devotion to his wife.

Time passes, everything is rather repetitious, the audience has no real idea of who the enemy is or why. At one stage a little girl is rescued after her parents’ death and the doctor considers adopting her – only for her grandfather to arrive and take her away.

As the first year passes, slowly, and there is some celebration of Christmas, the doctor is also on the verge of some traumatic stress, but the hope of is, as the moon rises evocatively, that wife and daughter will come to join him and they will be able to have something of a life.

And, to this extent, the film is anti-war and anti-colonial.

1. Portugal, the 1970s, the war in Angola, colonial past, military action? The personal story?

2. Black-and-white photography, style? Angola locations, camps, feels, rivers, the bridge? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on letters, the voice-over, the male voice for the female letters, the female voice for the male letters? The initial being disconcerted by the voices? A film of passion, a film of poetry, the many metaphors, the impact of this metaphorical long list in the middle of the film, under a range of visuals, and at the end? Antonio’s final letter in his own voice inviting his wife and daughter to come?

4. Background knowledge, Portuguese colonies, Portugal in 1971 and government, war in Angola? The wars around the world at the same time – and the comparisons with the Americans in Vietnam?

5. War action, ambushes, the mines, sabotage, interrogations? It not being clear who the enemy was, or why? The Portuguese emphasis at the time on propaganda about Portugal and its colonies and identity?

6. Antonio, doctor, leaving, his pregnant wife, talking about the wharf, arrival, the quarters, with the various men, the captain, playing chess, smoking, attending wounds? Interviews with psychologically disturbed soldiers? The effect on him? Watching movies, listening to the music? The encounter with the little girl, thinking of adopting her, giving her back to her grandfather? The cumulative effect?

7. The men and their stories, men together, the effect about woman, seeing the women in the movies, the two singers and their concerts, the effect? Morale? No chaplain?

8. The soldier, friendly to Antonio, asking for help, to have some kind of illness, wanting to go home, naked in the bush, with the gun?

9. Antonio and his novel, trying to write, a year in Angola, the Christmas experience? The bridge down, rebuilding, moving on? A film of insight? Emotion?

QUAND ON A 17 ANS/ BEING 17

France, 2016, 117 minutes, Colour.
Sandrine Kiberlain, Kacey Mottet Klein, Alexis Loret.
Directed by Andre Techine.

Being 17 was co-written (with French writer and director, Cecile Sciamma, Tomboy, Water Lilies, Girlhood) by the director of the film, Andre Techine, in his early 70s. Perhaps an unusual project, focusing on two adolescents, but also focusing on several adults, both sets of parents of the two boys.

The film is rather magnificent to look at, an extraordinary Alpine setting, majestic mountains, sheer cliffs, forests and rivers and in different seasons, especially the snowy winter and the sunshine of spring and summer.

Andre Techine has always been interested in themes of homosexuality and, almost as soon as the audience sees the two boys and their fierce antagonism towards each other, they will know where the plotline is directed. And they are not wrong.

Damien is smaller and more intellectual than Thomas, the adopted son of farmers, racially different from most of the people in the area. Both of them are the last two to be chosen for the basketball practice sides. It emerges in the class seems that Damien is interested in poetry and literature, although goes to a neighbouring friend for training in martial arts and self defence. Thomas lives on a farm, an hour and a half walk and drive each way to and from school, wanting to be a vet, but his grades are very low. There is an automatic dislike of Damien whom he trips in the classroom. They have several fights and have to be separated by the teachers, Thomas ultimately being suspended from school.

In the background, is Damien’s mother, a kind and efficient doctor, willing to put herself out for anyone, Sandrine Kiberlain. Damien’s father, an adventurer, has joined the military, flies helicopters, is in danger spots, mentions that some of his colleagues have been killed. The family communicates by Skype and, suddenly, there is a pleasing visit from the father who bonds strongly with his son.

The doctor treats Thomas’s mother and moves her to hospital, suggesting that Thomas move in with the family so that he will not have the travel, will be able to do more study and improve his grades. Damien is not amused but accepts something of the sharing of the household – although, the two boys go in to the mountains for a far rather vicious fight, bruises all over which the doctor eventually discovers. Thomas is suspended from school.

Eventually, it is quite clear that Damien is infatuated with Thomas. At one stage, he says that Thomas owes him a favour and he asks him to drive him out to where he has arranged a rendezvous with a man whose address he picked up on a gay website. Thomas says that he knows what is happening – and they fight again, Thomas falling and breaking his wrist.

The relationship is an up and down one, antagonism and infatuation, complicated when news comes of Damien’s father’s death in action. His mother goes into grief and passivity. Thomas tries to help, letting Damien go to school while he looks after the mother. It is nearing the end of the film so we know that it is time for the two boys to express their attraction, experience the physical sexual encounter – and make us wonder what is going to happen to them in the relationship and in the future.

As with all the films of the director, it is particularly well made, looks impressive and has some interesting performances.

1. A French version of the relationship between two 17-year-old boys, initially antagonistic, bullying and fighting? But the inevitable acknowledgement about their feelings for each other, sexuality, culmination of sexuality and love? The future?

2. The work of the director, many decades of French stories, the interest in homosexuality and these themes in his films?

3. The Alpine setting, the ruggedness and beauty of the mountains, the scenes in the mountains, the farmer’s hut, the birds, the forests, the cold river, the contrast with the town, homes, shops, school, school buses? The musical score?

4. The introduction to the two boys, the basketball practice, neither being chosen, Thomas being chosen before Damien? The
antagonism and the play? In the classroom, Damien reciting Baudelaire, answering questions? Thomas and his disdain, tripping Damien and his falling? The later attacks, the fights, teachers separating them, calling in Damien’s mother, the threats?

5. Damien and his family, the only son, his father in the military, with helicopters, the discussions by Skype, the bond in the family, Damien admiring his father? The personality of the father, cheerful, coming home, limited time, bonding with his son? The mother, doctor, her being on call, helpful? Going up the mountain, meeting Thomas, his turning the car round for her, the gift of the hen and his breaking its neck? The doctor treating his mother, the infection, her pregnancy? Her previous pregnancies and then not coming to birth? Her husband and his work on the farm, her simple life? Their having adopted Thomas – and his being racially different, but their accepting him, love for him?

6. Damien, going to see the friend of the family, the training in martial arts, the punching bag…, Damien and the suggestion of his girlish response?

7. The fight with Thomas, the difficulty of his travelling back and forth to school, his low grades, his interest in being a vet? Damien’s mother, her concern, wanting Thomas’ mother to go into hospital, suggesting he come live in the house, Damien’s reaction? The arrival of the father, his concern about the two, welcoming Thomas into the house?

8. The structure of the film and the three trimesters, the different attitudes between the two boys in each phase?

9. Thomas, at school, studying, improving, getting the best mark, work in the lab, the opportunity for study?

10. Damien, still antagonistic, covering his infatuation? The decision to go into the woods and have a fight, their bruises? Thomas and his going into the river, naked, the cold?

11. Thomas, aloof, aloof at school, gradually making friends? But his feeling an outsider, adopted? Damien on the computer, the gay sites? Asking Thomas the favour, to drive into the farm, his encounter with the man, his pretending to be older, the man’s pretence to be younger, honesty but no contact? Thomas, going on a tour of the farm, interested in the developments and improvements? Telling Damien
that the man said why they had come? Getting out of the car, Damien and signs of affection, the clash, Thomas’s fall, injuring his wrist, the
cast?

12. Damien, talking with his mother, explaining the reasons, her quiet acceptance of his sexual orientation?

13. The news of the death of the father, his having spoken about people dying, the difficult places, explaining to Thomas that he liked adventure? Damien and his anger that the bleeding could have been stopped?

14. The mother, distraught, unable to function well? The funeral? Thomas’s father forcing him to come? The aftermath with the mother, confined at home, disabled by grief?

15. Damien appreciating that Thomas had come, the fact that Thomas had been suspended after the previous fight, the mother seeing the bruises on each?

16. Thomas’s mother, giving birth, moments of joy, Thomas holding the baby?

17. The discussions between Thomas and Damien, Damien going to school, Thomas taking the mother up into the mountains, the view and the beauty, supporting her? The kindness with the birth of the baby, deciding that she needed to go ahead in her life and her work?

18. Damien, the previous approach to Thomas and the rejection? The kitchen, Thomas saying he was apprehensive, going to the bedroom, the sexual encounter, waking, the further sexual activity, nudity?

19. The two boys, acknowledging their orientation, their behaviour – and, at this age, the future of their relationship, the future of their lives?

ALONE IN BERLIN

Germany/UK, 2016, 97 minutes, Colour.
Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Daniel Bruehl.
Directed by Vincent Perez.

Alone in Berlin pays tribute to a middle-aged couple and their private (and small) resistance to the Nazi government and to Hitler during the early years of the war. The screenplay is an adaptation of a popular novel about the couple.

The film is quite an international mixture, perhaps disconcerting for German audiences to see strongly German characters as well as police and Nazi officials all speaking in English – but that is the way of the commercial world, so many international directors making their films in English. Perhaps surprisingly, this film was directed by French actor, Vincent Perez, best known for his romantic and, sometimes, swashbuckling roles like Queen Margot and Fanfan La Tulipe.

The film opens with a very young German soldier running through the forest for his life, pursued by the Resistance, shot by them, lying dead in the field gazing towards the sky only for his soldiers to attack and run-off the Resistance.

In Berlin, there is a certain amount of public elation with the prospect of the defeat of France and the hope of the defeating England by the end of the year and Germany becoming the greatest and richest country in Europe. People are joyful in the streets.

A postmistress on her bike, seemingly friendly with authorities, of being seen to be kind towards people in the apartment block, especially to an elderly Jewish lady, delivers the letter to the parents of the young man, who died in giving his life for his country.

It is his parents who are the focus of the story, Anna and Otto, played very seriously and with dignity by Emma Thompson and Brendan Gleeson. Anna is an ordinary housewife although she belongs to the union of mothers, even having to confront the wife of an official who claimed an exception to war wives working. Otto, or on the other hand, is a foreman in a factory with further demands being made for Hitler himself and for the war effort, Hitler demanding increased quotas. Otto does not belong to the Nazi party and, when challenged, says he gave to the Fuehrer his greatest possession, his son.

But the key thing about Otto and Anna is that Otto decides to write, disguising his handwriting, messages on the back of postcards, telling mothers that their sons would be sacrificed, denouncing Hitler and claiming a free press. Quietly, he places the letters in various strategic points – almost 300 of them with 275 being handed in to the authorities. He hopes he can make some difference in awareness. Anna works with him, helping with some of the deliveries.

In the meantime, Gestapo authorities are not happy with this spate of cards and the police chief, Daniel Bruehl, is commissioned to find the culprit, who is nicknamed Hobgoblin because of his evasive tactics. There is a subplot with one of the police officers coming to Otto’s building to apprehend the old Jewish widow whom local burglars had robbed, but she had given been some help by the couple and by a kindly but outwardly severe judge.

It is the same police who are charged with finding the card-writer. Eventually, the ex-husband of the postmistress is apprehended, tortured, proven to be not the culprit but, under pressure from the Gestapo, the policeman kills him claiming that it was suicide.

Otto and Anna are quite stoic in their continued mission of their card writing and delivery. However, they know it will only be some time before they are apprehended.

The film shows the interrogation of Otto, some brutality, especially the congratulatory-toasting officials smashing their glasses on his head. The results are inevitable, Otto seeming to accept that he would be condemned and executed but had decided that this is what he had to do during the war. Anna shares this.

There is a symbolic ending with the cards fluttering again down from the building onto the streets – and the sad acknowledgement of what he had done by the policeman, somehow admiring Otto, promising to release and but failing to – and experiencing some kind of disillusionment, especially after he was bashed in the face by the Gestapo chief, and remorse.


1. A German British co-production? Irish and British stars? Everybody speaking English? The credibility for this kind of film and the English tone?

2. In Berlin, 1942 1943, the city, the buildings, the streets, the cars, clothes and style is? Ordinary homes, factories, Gestapo headquarters, police headquarters? The countryside and the lake? For the credibility of the story? The plaintiff musical score?

3. The opening, the young soldier, running figures life through the forest, his being shot, gazing at the sky, the soldiers coming and shooting at the resistance?

4. Berlin, the woman from the post office, her comments with various authorities, kindness to Mrs Rosenthal, friendship with Otto and Anna? Her bringing the letter with the sad news? Otto and his calm response? Anna and her collapse, tearing the letter, grieving, sitting at the table, reconstructing it?

5. The judge living in the building, his seeming strictness, his kindness in taking in Mrs Rosenthal? Her friendship with Anna, Anna taking her in after the burglary? Going back to her flat during the search of the judges apartment? The carefully keeping her possessions, her husband disappeared? The authorities coming, questioning, the throwing herself out the window? Anna’s shock? Otto passing the body in the yard?

6. Otto and his work at the factory, foreman, reliable? The union boss and the Gestapo? Is speaking about those shirking work and the pressure on Hitler’s quarters and the need for new machinery? His not belonging to the party, being asked what he had done for the war effort, the silence when he said giving his son?

7. The scrounging man, the postman’s juices ex-husband, the going to the flat, trying to Robert, rolled it, official authorities, ousting the burglars but taking everything themselves?

8. Otto and his decision to write the cards, disguising his writing, the first one to the mother that she would lose her son, the development of the others, the attack of Hitler, on free press? His careful delivering them on steps, and doors? People reading them, the majority handing them to the police? Anna and her delivering some of the letters, being stopped when she met her sons friend teaching at the school, having lost his arm?

9. The Gestapo, wanting a solution, the pressure on the police officer, the graph harshness of the military?

10. The policeman, his assistant, the betting about the cards, the identity of the writer? The investigations, the map, the red pointers to where the letters were found?

11. The policeman, his shrewdness, thinking a mechanic, intelligent, but not using his own writing? The search, the interrogations? Looking for someone who had lost a son in war?

12. The interrogation of the postmistress, her husband to being taken in, interrogated, his having two sons alive? His being let go, the Gestapo and their anger, brutalising the policeman? His seeking the man out, confronting him, saying was innocent, the fee would be arrested and tortured? The man thinking death was better – and the policeman shooting him, claiming a suicide?

13. Otto going to work, standing in front of the shift, the hole in his pocket, the worker finding the letters, Otto upholding the regulations, the reporting of the letters to the authorities? The visit of the policeman, the dossier, the address, taking Otto in? Interrogation, torture, the authorities toasting and smashing their glasses on Otto? His request that and not be arrested?

14. Anna, at home, the knock on the door, her being taken?

15. The court, and coming in, the bond between the two, the soldier coming in between them? The judge coming in – and the audience assuming their condemnation?

16. Anna in prison? Otto, changing into the final garb for execution, the policeman talking trend in the corridor, asking if he could do anything, Otto saying he could get a card and pen, and denouncing him for imprisoning Anna?

17. The policeman, going to his office, Otto having told him the number of the letters cards and therefore he had missed 18? His throwing them out the window, his sense of disillusionment – shooting himself?

18. The 21st century story about World War II, Hitler, Nazism, people’s fanaticism – with their salute, the militaristic children, the war effort in the factories, alleged triumph over France and the ambition to defeat France and England within the year? The irony of what happened?

ZERO DAYS

US, 2016, 116 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Alex Gibney.

Alex Gibney is a master director of documentaries, winning an Oscar for his Taxi to the Darkside about prisons in Afghanistan. He has been quite prolific, subjects ranging from the men of Enron, to Wiki Leaks, to exposing Lance Armstrong, a film on Steve jobs, the exposé of Scientology, Going Clear.

The basic premise of this film is that in the past there have been tensions with nuclear war, chemical warfare, biological warfare – but now we are in an age of cyber warfare. Some of the talking heads here explain that negotiations for treaties on the previous kinds of warfare, for example Gorbachev and Reagan signing treaties in the 1980s, have taken decades but have achieved good results. What is the prospect now for treaties in terms of cyber warfare?

This documentary focuses on the release of the Stuxnet, a self-replicating Internet virus, used by the United States to infiltrate cylinders and other networks in Iran’s nuclear program. The origin was secret, commentators saying they were unable to answer questions, the origin of the virus eventually revealed to be the United States itself.

This documentary is far less outgoing than many of Alex Gibney’s previous documentaries. It is very much a talking film, quite a range of talking heads, practically all male. Where there is a female, it is someone who is talking to the media with the danger of her being arrested. She is presented in computer diagram although, at the end she is revealed as an actress reading the lines on behalf of the anonymous speaker.

The focus of the film is on a virus which most people will not have heard of, Stuxnet. It was effective in the first decade of the 21st century. One of the issues is the origin of the virus and the question of its attacks on you Iran and its nuclear plants. Visuals of the then President Ahmadinejad (and the photos and video material being studied by American experts to appreciate the developments in the Iranian projects), along with demonstrations against the Americans, statements about cyber warfare and the Americans from Iranian officials.

There follows many, many talking heads who state that they are unable to talk about the virus, that it is part of national security.

What emerges is that the United States government spent billions on the development of this virus in the presidency of George W. Bush – with clips of him and his advisers and decision makers. Also in the picture is Israel, with images of Benjamin Netanyahu, the extreme hostility of Israel towards Iran.

What the film makers have done is to interview people, consult articles and exposés, to draw the conclusion that the Americans were responsible for this virus. Commentators then explain that while it might have had a temporary effect on the delaying of the development of Iranian nuclear weaponry, the Iranians themselves developed many hackers with the capability, and some practice, of infecting US business and the businesses of allies like Saudi Arabia. The question then arises of how much value is there in this cyber warfare and has enough consideration been given to the consequences of its activity, for example the outages of power, the purifying of water and the subsequent deaths from this warfare.

This continues into the Obama administration, scenes of his taking the oath of office, his meetings in the security room, and the power of the legislation or the powers of the President in terms of this kind of waging of warfare.

The film requires some concentration, there is a lot of technical detail, computer screens on the screen. The film is not exactly fear-mongering but it has the capacity for fear-arousing.

The film ends in 2015 with the signing of the accord between Iran and the United States, the severely hostile speeches of Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations, but President Obama expressing great confidence that this is a development towards world harmony and peace.

REMAINDER

UK, 2015, 97 minutes, Colour.
Tom Sturridge, Cush Jumbo, Ed Speleers, Nicholas Farrell.
Directed by Omar Fast.

Remainder is a small-budget film, a British- German coproduction, with locations both in London and in Berlin.

Tom is young man, emerging from a building, looking as if he is going to hale a taxi when suddenly there is a convulsion, glass falling in from a roof and hitting people, and a large piece of masonry falling and knocking Tom unconscious. He is taken to hospital where he stays for quite a long time but eventually recuperates and is released. He is played by Tom Sturridge.

In the meantime, a very smart lawyer played by Nicholas Farrell with his assistant, Greg, a friend of Tom, are planning a large damages case when news comes that Tom has regained consciousness. The compensation issue is taken up towards the end of the film but the screenplay moves in a different direction.

Tom has the remainder of his life but he has forgotten some key elements in his past. He makes contact with Greg, with Greg’s wife, with a number of criminals who were involved in a robbery. With them, he attempts to recreate situations that would jog his memory, a visit by the woman to Oxford which is played over and over again, she forgetting some of the key lines, Tom urging her on. With the criminals, they play a reconstruction of the robbery in which Tom participated. He also sees images of an old woman who seems to speak to him as well as an image of a child.

This put pressure on Tom who does want to regain his life, some fascination for the money, millions of pounds, and with the lawyer, but that is not his main goal.

The film then is a psychological drama and the attempt to reconstruct events in a person’s life to overcome partial amnesia.

1. A British- German co-production, locations both in London and in Berlin?

2. The city, the building and the glass falling in, hospital, flat, telephone booths, lawyers’ offices, clubs? The world of? Musical score?

3. The title, the remainder of Tom’s life, trying to reconstruct it?

4. The opening, Tom, the crowd, Catherine behind him, the suitcase, his trying to get a taxi, the glass falling in, his return to the case, crushed? The crowds gathering? The ambulance?

5. The time in hospital, in coma, surgery, rehabilitation? Being allowed to leave? Coming home, his crutches?

6. The lawyer, the discussions with Greg, Tom coming awake, the change in the situation? The phone calls, cut-off? The later visited in the signing of the paper? 8/2 million pounds compensation ash and why the half? The restrictions on speaking about the issue publicly?

7. The phone box, Christopher, the toughs, the gang men?

8. The club, meeting Greg, in the toilet, for an hour, the memories?

9. The attempted reconstruction? What he could remember? The old lady walking by, the child? The discussions with Catherine, going
to Oxford, over and over again with the lines, and getting them wrong? Her exasperation? The robbery, the criminals, the guns, the re-enactments?

10. Tom and his life, vague before the accident, coma and recovery, the possibility of the re-enactments jogging his memory? His future?

GENIUS

UK, 2016, 97 minutes, Colour.
Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Laura Linney, Guy Pearce, Dominic West.
Directed by Michael Grandage.

Genius is very well-crafted, the first film by theatre director, Michael Grandage.

While this story is American and the central characters are American, it is interesting to note that it is a British production, three of the main actors British, two Australian, with only one American actor in the central role.

The period is the late 1920s to the mid 1930s, a significant period in 20th-century American literature, and this is a film about this literature, especially novels.

The title refers to the novelist who, died young, Tom Wolfe. The title could refer at first to Max Perkins, an expert editor at the publishing company, Scribners, friend of many of the novelists of the time, relied on to shape manuscripts aspects into publishable form which enabled writers to receive critical acknowledgement as well as large sales.

The film opens showing grim New York streets in 1929, echoes of the Depression. In the street is a highly excitable young man, who eventually goes into Max Perkins’ office, talking incessantly, scattered concentration, something of an eccentric personality. He is Tom Wolfe who is bringing a large manuscript for Perkins to read, rejected by most publishers but endorsed by the wife of a businessmen who has become his poetry and his lover. Perkins reads the manuscript on the train going home, at home where he lives comfortably with his wife and several daughters, entranced by the manuscript, calling in Wolfe who assumes that he is being rejected again but, in fact, is accepted.

One of the main strengths of this film is the casting, with Colin Firth as his most serious as Max Perkins, Jude Law giving a tour-de-force performance as Wolfe, also the genius of the title. Nicole Kidman is the wife of the businessmen, working as a theatre designer, separated from her husband but living with Wolfe, Aline Bernstein. Mrs Perkins is played by Laura Linney.

A lot of the film shows editor and novelist working intensely, examining every word, exploring every character, cutting a great deal of the text, Perkins caught up in the quiet excitement of the editing, Wolfe always exuberant in collaborating with Perkins and depending on him more and more. The book is published, is a great success and critically acclaimed, Look Homeward, Angel.

A great deal of the film focuses on the two years in which the two collaborated on the next novel, brought originally into the office in bundles of tied pages, boxes, with Perkins reading, a group of typists working on the manuscript, intense work nights, which keeps Perkins from home and his patient wife and daughters, keeping Wolfe from Mrs Bernstein. Perkin’s wife is frustrated but bears up, especially when her husband is unable to go on a holiday with the daughters who dote on him. Mrs Bernstein expresses her frustration, especially when Wolfe is so self-preoccupied that he cannot bring himself to go to the theatre for her premiere. In the meantime, the two women meet and have a discussion about the two men, Perkins always wanting a son and Wolfe seeming to be a surrogates son, and the novelist needing some kind of controlling father-figure.

With the publication of the second novel, Wolfe is again a critical success but has been apprehensive and escapes for a holiday in Paris. Encouraged by reviews and sales, he returns, with Max welcoming him at the boat and Wolfe taking him to see the first apartment where he lived in New York City. But, a tension grows between the two, other publishers interested in tempting Wolfe away from Scribner and Wolfe seriously considering this.

As part of the background, there are several scenes with Perkins and his friend, F.Scott Fitzgerald, played by Guy Pearce. Fitzgerald’s abilities for writing seem to be drying up and he is preoccupied with the mental deterioration of his wife, Zelda. There is a very awkward scene, when Wolfe speaks completely insensitively to Zelda and later to Fitzgerald about his wife.

Ernest Hemingway is also mentioned and there is a small scene where Perkins goes marlin fishing with Hemingway, portrayed by Dominic West, and they discuss Wolfe’s talent.

While audiences may have some knowledge and appreciation of the novelist, who died young and unexpectedly in 1935, the film offers an opportunity to meet Max Perkins, appreciate his talent, which celebrates him in his shaping of works of art but, sometimes, made him wonder whether this was actually destroying what the novelists originally intended.

A film for literature lovers.


1. A film about the US, literary heritage, and early 20th century, the tradition of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Tom Wolfe – and his comparatively small output and early death? Audience knowledge of Wolfe?

2. A British production, three British actors, two Australians portraying Americans? Made in the UK?

3. New York City, the opening, the sidewalks and feet, black-and-white, transition to colour? 1929, grim, streets and cars, poverty rows, Scribners, the interiors and offices? The trains? Home and family, apartments and theatre? The touch of Paris? The Florida and the marlin? The finale, the beach, collapse? The hospital? The musical score?

4. The title, Tom Wolfe as a genius? But also Max and his expertise, his editing skills, shaping the work? Or his fear of destroying it?

5. Colin Firth as Max Perkins, sedate, the detail of his editing, precise, wearing his hat in the office and at home – and taking it off only after Tom’s death? The staff? Being asked to read the manuscript as a favour, on the train, at home? The impact? His wife, love, five daughters? The interview with Tom, in the office, agreeing to publish? The opinion by his wife later, that he always wanted a son? His treatment of Tom, discipline, enthusiasm?

6. Jude Law as Tom Wolfe, in the street, words and power, writing, creating, Max reading aloud the opening of the novel? Tom exuberant, extrovert, incessantly talking, taking over, his being refused publication, enjoying Max’s or acceptance? His relationship with Aline, her promoting Tom?

7. The experience of shaping the manuscript, the editing, cutting, the motivations change, developing the characters, retaining the political language? The collaboration, the effect on each? Publication, success – and the title, Look Homeward Angel?

8. Aline’s story, Mrs Bernstein, husband, child, yet leaving everything to be with Tom, her anger? The meal, the control? With Max’s wife, the discussions about the truth, the success of the novel, dedication to her, her interpreting it that that was the cut-off? Her demand on Tom to come to the Premier, his refusal? The melodramatic scene, the pills? The scenes at the apartment, the telling the truth to Tom, yet loving him? Her insights into how Tom would treat Max?

9. Max’s wife, her theatre plans, the five daughters, the meals, Tom and his visits, relating to the daughters? His negative comments on theatre? Her talk with Aline? The camping holiday, unable to get Max to give up the work? Their return? His coming home after the funeral and the bond?

10. The second manuscript, the boxes and boxes, Max reading, the range of secretaries typing, the cutting, the work over two years, the enthusiasm, details about paragraphs e.g. about the blue eyes? Max and his demands? Tom and his passion? Taking Max to the Jazz evening, the riff on the hymn? The two women at the bar? Finishing the manuscript, Tom going to Paris, the reviews, max communicating? The boat back, Tom taking Max to see the first apartment and reminiscing about the past?

11. The scenes with Scott Fitzgerald, character, his success, not receiving many royalties for The Great Gatsby? His relationship with Zelda? Zelda needing an institution? Her coming out and her sitting in mobile at the dinner, Thoms insult? Scott and his dilemmas, the support of Max going to Hollywood, Tom coming to see him in California, apologising for his harsh words about Zelda?

12. The Hemingway sequence, fishing, discussing the books, Hemingway going to Spain, the photograph with the marlin?

13. Tom, wilful, self-absorbed, hurting Aline, the meal and hurting Zelda, the rivalry with the other novelists? His receiving offers from other publishers? Aline taunting him that he would take them?

14. On the beach, his collapse, hospital, the tumours, the bewildered visited his mother, his memories of his mother and her influence, the difficulties with his father, his consciousness and writing the letter to Max? His death? The funeral?

15. Max in his office, reading the letter from Tom, words of appreciation and thanks?

16. An interesting perspective on American publishing, editing, and the significant authors of the 1920s and 1930s?

SOY NERO

Germany/France/Mexico, 2016, 190 minutes, Colour.
Johnny Ortiz, Ian Casselberry, Chloe Farnsworth, Rory Cochrane, Michael Harney, Ami Amean, Richard Portnow, Kyle Davis.
Directed by Rafi Pitts.

Writer-director Rafi Pitts has an Iranian background, having contributed to the Iranian industry with such films as The Hunter and It’s Winter. With his move to North America, he has within this story of Hispanic migrants, the wall which is a barrier between the US and Mexico, the disparate conditions between the wealthy and the poor in Los Angeles, and action in Afghanistan. It is quite an agenda for this film.

It opens with a young man, Nero, Johnny Ortiz, getting across the wall and running through the desert pursued by the police, to be captured, interrogated, and returned to Mexico. It appears that he was brought up in Los Angeles but his family deported and he is trying to get back to the US, seen playing volleyball over the wall with friends on the other side, planning, under the cover of fireworks, to get across the wall again at night – which he does.

His first encounter back in the US is trying to hitchhike, most cars not stopping, but then a businessman, Seymour, stopping with his little girl, chatting with Nero, making statements about borders, disparaging wind turbines by explaining that they run on oil and, therefore unreasonably costly, eventually interrogated by the police at a service station while Nero runs away.

In searching for his brother, Jesus, in LA, he is given the address by the receptionist at the garage where Jesus had worked, and Nero goes to Beverly Hills, once again interrogated by police, but finds the mansion where his brother lives – with the audience guessing, but the film taking a long time with tours of the mansion and touches of luxury living, to reveal that Jesus and his girlfriend actually work for the owners

Nero wants to become an American citizen and knows this can be achieved by serving in the military.

Suddenly, after training, we see him in Afghanistan, at an outpost supervising a no man’s land, encountering a family in the car, stopped by two of his African- American fellow guards and let through. The superior is an officer who keeps to himself and is shown, later, to have a death wish. The two African Americans are from the East coast and argue with Nero about the relative importance of the musicians from the East Coast rather than from LA.

When another car comes up the road, it does not stop and shots are fired. They call in reinforcements, especially an expert in discovering explosives in vehicles – which is the occasion for some rebels to start firing on the outpost. The result is that the three men try to escape in a truck, it breaks down, they have to make decisions as to what they will do in the desert, to walk to the main base, to determine where the road is, and to avoid further attacks.

The film has an open end, Nero on the road, having survived in the desert, not having his identification with him – and being subject to the same police searches he has experienced earlier. Will Nero be believed? Will he become an American citizen, will he get back to the United States, what kind of life might he have…?

The Iranian director has created a story, a critique of US ways, the challenge, especially, for an American audience.

1. The Mexican- US-and story, the background of the director, from Iran and his role in the Iranian film industry?

2. The target audience? The Hispanics, white Americans, African- Americans, people in Afghanistan – worldwide audiences?

3. The Mexican border, the desert, the wall separating Mexico from the US, the roads? Southern California, LA, Beverly Hills and mansions, the Afghan desert, No Man’s Land, the mountains, the roads? The musical score?

4. Nero running, pursued, the desert, the police catching him? The interrogation, his answers, not being believed? Deported back to Mexico? The playing volleyball over the wall? The plan, the night, running, the cover of the fireworks?

5. In the US, hitchhiking, many refusing to give a lift? Seymour and the little girl, her playing in the back of the car, singing with her father, Seymour and the gun and her comment about the pretend gun? The discussion about borders? The wind turbines and using petrol to run them? His conservative stances, getting gas and being questioned by the police, Nero running away?

6. Going to the garage for news of his brother, the anger of the proprietor, the girl giving him the address? Interrogated by the police walking in Beverly Hills, the police, the ringing the bell, the girl letting him in, the reunion with his brother, Jesus and his work on the car, the lavish mansion, the furnishings, the stuffed animals, the pool, aspects of luxury, the room with the musical instruments? Nero in the bath? The bath robe? Talking with his brother, smoking pot, the plans, the phone call to his mother, drinking? The arrival of the owners and the truth?

7. Nero, his plan to become an American citizen, growing up in South LA, deported? To join the military and get automatic citizenship?

8. The sudden transition to Afghanistan, his having had his training? The No Man’s Land, sentries, the small outpost, the sergeant and his being taciturn – and going out and getting shot? The two African- Americans, the discussions about Tupac and Biggy Smalls, attitudes from the East Coast? Nero becoming Jesus for his identification? The desert, the car approaching, the women, the sentry and the music and dancing? The work boring? The second car, suspicious, the shooting, the crash? Calling the experts, Mohammed, from Dearborn Michigan, meeting Jesus? Armstrong, jokes about his name, the inspection, his death, the car bomb and the suicide bomber, the rebels attacking?

9. Leaving in the truck, the truck, communications, walking through the desert, the dispute climbing the hill? The issue of East and West, the sun rising and setting? The helicopter flying and not seeing them? The attack, the deaths? Nero eating, sleeping, walking, coming to the road, being picked up, no identification, the repetition of the initial interrogation, his not being believed? The film stopping?

10. The impact of emotions, ideas? The picture of the US, ordinary, Hispanics, poverty, the contrast with the wealthy, the shops, citizenship, guns and violence, the police?

CHI-RAQ

US, 2015, 130 minutes, Colour.
Nick Cannon, Teyonah Parris, Wesley Snipes, Angela Bassett, Samuel L.Jackson, John Cusack, Jennifer Hudson, David Patrick Kelly, D.B.Sweeney, Dave Chappelle, Steve Harris, Harry Lennix.
Directed by Spike Lee.

For almost 30 years, Spike Lee has been an angry film maker. It has been very evident in so many of his films that he is concerned about race issues, even calling his production company 40 Acres and a Mule, with its reference to the value of African Americans. His 1989 Do The Right Thing has become and remains a classic.

Spike Lee’s career has included documentaries and features. This film combines something of both, a very serious look at the gun culture amongst African- Americans in the city of Chicago, with a slang name Chi- Raq, that is somewhat documentary like. But it is also a fiction film and is based on Aristophanes’ play, Lysistrata, the story where the wives go on marital strike to force their husbands to give up their violence and achieve some peace. Lee takes full advantage of the Greek comic origins of his film and the potential for stylising it.

The central female character in the film is called Lysistrata and she is in a relationship with Chi- Raq, the leader of a gang who also is a musician and performs at a local club. He is played by Nick Cannon and Lysistrata by Teyona Parris. The head of the rival gang, Cyclops, is played by Wesley Snipe. Highlighting the stylised Greek origins is the role of Samuel L. Jackson as a kind of chorus, dressed in loud, almost pimp-like clothes, wandering around Chicago, addressing the audience, moving the action along, making moral observations – with the touch of humour and often with a touch of cynicism.

Some of the popular bloggers on such sites as IMDb seem not to be aware of Lysistrata and bewildered and/or hostile about the stylisation of the film, seeming to assume that it should be realistic film and disappointed, even angry, that it is not.

For audiences who appreciate its Greek dramatic background and the central symbol, the film is somewhat intriguing as it plays out, the African American women banding together, sometimes with song and dance, the response of the men, the possibilities for achieving peace – with Chi- Raq, who is really Demetrius, holding out until he is finally confronted by a wisdom figure, Miss Helen, Angela Bassett, her son having been killed in a random shooting by Demetrius’s father in the same way that he has killed a young girl with the passing bullet, grieved by her mother, Jennifer Hudson.

One of the unexpected features from Spike Lee is that a very serious overview of street violence in the city is given during the initial credits by the real-life Father Michael Pfleger, from the faith community of Santa Sabina, which features as itself in the film. Father Pfleger was a pastor for over 30 years and ran into some difficulties with his bishops. His parish was mainly African- American – but the significant thing is that Father Pfleger is white. Which explains the presence of John Cusack in the film, appearing as the pastor of Santa Sabina, a white accepted by the black community, comforting the grieving mother, giving a fiery and rhetorical sermon, the congregation volubly making their assent, at the funeral, ticking all the pressing issues, and then present at the finale.

In the play, Lysistrata, peace is achieved after the strike of the women. Here there is a gathering, the heads of both gangs, the protesting women, the important presence of Miss Helen. Father Michael serves as a witness. But it is not easy going, Chi- Raq himself unwilling to agree, confronted by Miss Helen about the death of her own son, the role of his father in the death, and his finally kneeling in front of the mother to show his sorrow while giving himself up to serve his sentence.

The same Spike Lee, yet different.

1. An angry film? Preaching film? Spike Lee, his causes, his anger over the decades? Racial issues?

2. The film as preaching to…? Black men, black women, the white community? The stylised presentation – and reaching the male black audience or not?

3. The title, an alternative for Chicago, emphasising the violence, the guns? The initial statistics? The voice-over and commentary from Father Michael Pfleger? Father Pfleger and his ministry? A long ministry, controversial, the model for the priest in this film? The actual faith community of the centre of St Sabina? The irony of the white priest, crusading, black issues, and Spike Lee approving of him? The initial song, the wrap, the words seen on screen, the hard themes, guns and violence? Especially dead children?

4. The rough dialogue, the tone, the rhymes? How effective?

5. The screenplay based on Aristophanes’ Lysistrata? The audience appreciating this? Samuel L. Jackson as chorus, his look, addressing the audience, his comments, his rap, the range of clothes – the touch of the pimp? The continuity and moral points?

6. The bar, the gig, the enthusiasm of the crowd, Chi- Raq/ Demetrius and his singing, the sudden invasion by the gang, the guns, shooting? the revelation of the gangs?

7. Chi- Raq, Lysistrata, the sexual encounter, the sex theme? The shops, the burning house, Chi- Raq and his shooting Patty? Issues of revenge?

8. Miss Helen, Lysistrata going to her, her reading, her books, the importance of books and ideas? Her history, the death of her son? Inviting Lysistrata to stay? The plan, the decision about the women, the group and the recruitment? Cyclops’ woman and members of the other gang? The characters, agreement? The slogan: no peace, no penis?

9. The death of little girl, Patty, the crowd, her mother arriving, unaware, the grief, the police, wanting her to identify the body, nobody giving information? Miss Helen’s comment? Father Michael, his presence, taking care of the mother?

10. The funeral, participation, the reality of whites and blacks? The sermon, fiery, raising all the issues, rhetorical, the shootings and violence, the appeal to the people, the stories, stirring the congregation, the participating and calling out? Father Michael appearing later, the demonstrations, his support? Support of the strike – and his remarks of empathy because of his vow of celibacy? His being a witness to the agreement the end? Spike Lee and the Catholic theme, social concern, the priest involved in resolving disputes – and the influence of the church at this time with the outlook and behaviour of Pope Francis?

11. Lysistrata as a person, her background, orphan, with Chi- Raq, going to see Helen, strong, sexy, with the women? Campaigning? The invitation to Chi- Raq at the end and trapping him, to make the peace agreement?

12. The women, their songs, the dances and choreography? The effect of the strike and the strategies?

13. The Mayor, the police chief, the discussions, the Mayor and his threats – and the squeal from Deliverance? Concern about their wives? The discussions, the bargains?

14. Cyclops, as a leader of the gang, his present background, women, tough?

15. The range of men, in the groups, the violence?

16. The seduction of the general, the cannon, the phallic symbolism, his blindfold, the tricking of the other men, outing them? The authority and reaction?

17. The build-up, the strike, the sex strategy? The handing in of the guns and the pile of guns? All parties involved, the speeches, the Mayor, the police chief, the signing of the documents?

18. Chi- Raq, in purple, his refusing to sign? Miss Helen telling the story about his father, telling about the death of her son, his tears, begging forgiveness, Chi- Raq admitting that he killed Patty, kneeling before the mother for forgiveness, his arrest – and his becoming his real name, Demetrius, instead of Chi- Raq?

19. The finale, the role of Samuel L.Jackson and the stylised moralising?

20. Divided opinion on response to the film and Spike Lee, the effect, not realistic enough, too stylised – or combining realism and the stylised?

KOLLEKTIVET/ THE COMMUNE

Denmark, 2016, 111 minutes, Colour.
Ulrich Thomsen, Trine Durholm, Fares Fares, Lars Ranthe, Martha Sofie Wallstrom Hansen, Helene Reingaard Neumann.
Directed by Thomas Vinterberg.

The Commune is based on some memories of the writer-director, Thomas Vinterberg. Vinterberg had been one of the early associates of Lars von Trier and the Dogme proclamation of the 1990s to make films with purity, naturalistically, using only natural light, relying on plot, performance and basic techniques of filmmaking.

Those who proclaimed the Dogme Manifesto moved on to more traditional as well as more adventurous ways of filmmaking. Vinterberg made a number of feature films in his native Denmark, but he also ventured into the international field, especially in Britain with his version John Le Carre’s Tinker, Tinker, Soldier, Spy and an impressive remake of Far From the Making Crowd.

He returns here to Denmark, going back to 1970s in the aftermath of the hippie movement and flower power and many people professing great faith in commune living.


Erik (Ulrich Thomsen) is an architect working on a harbour project. He inherits a house from his father (of whom he has bad memories from his childhood) and goes with his wife and daughter to inspect the house with the intention of selling it. His wife wants to not only to keep it but has the idea of establishing a commune, his daughter agreeing, but it is something which is not congenial at all to Erik.

Nevertheless, various friends move in and the commune is set up. Members are interviewed as to whether they should become part of the commune, rules and regulations are established, meetings are determined to discuss issues. Everyone takes a turn to cook meals. It seems to seem suit most of the people – except for Erik, who spends a lot of time at work and at lectures at the University where he is harsh in manner, scoffing at some of the students, and reprimanded by another student to whom he is physically and sexually attracted, and she to him. They start an affair.

The relationship is kept secret but is unexpectedly discovered by the daughter, Erik trying to give some explanation and ultimately explaining it to his wife. The question arises whether he should stay in the commune, whether his wife should leave, whether she should stay and the student admitted to be part of the commune. The wife seems to take this situation in her stride but is really deeply affected. This also has repercussions on the daughter who is attracted to a school student and begins a sexual liaison with him.

Ultimately, it is the wife who has to make decisions, whether she stay or whether she goes. This is a huge burden on her as it was her idea in the first place to start the commune. The crisis gives an opportunity, dramatically, for Erik to burst out in anger and some desperation at all that has happened to him and for his wife also to have an angry outburst.

On the one hand, this going back more than 40 years seems a touch anachronistic now, part of the world of the 1970s. On the other hand, it is a reminder of many aspects of human nature, relationships and difficulties in relationships, human foibles, especially when people try to live together.

Tryne Durholm won the Best Actress award for her portrayal of the wife at the 2016 Berlinale.

1. A Scandinavian story? The 1970s and memories?

2. Danish production, Copenhagen settings? The house, the interiors? The academic world? The television world? The musical score, the range of songs, The Yellow Brick Road…?

3. The title, the attitudes of the 1960s and 70s, the touch of the hippie? Communes, freedom, people living together, sharing, loving? Suiting some, not others? The crisis for this commune – but not originating from the nature of the commune itself?

4. The setting, the house, Eric inheriting it, growing up there, resenting his father Western Mark the big price, his wanting to sell? Anna and Frazier wanting to stay, testing out the noise, tricking Eric?

5. The proposal, and making the decision, the love for each other, the sexual encounter, the bond? Her telephoning Of all, his arrival, Stephane and Titter, their son? Mona? The arrival of:? The range of characters and personalities, different attitudes, the procedures for the commune, voting, or Boom for passing? Details of life, the meals and cooking, sharing, obeying the rules, having the meetings? The issues of the beer and people not ticking? Buying the washing machine? Who is in two is out? The vibrant life, symbolised by the naked swim?

6. Eric is an architect, teacher, his project and its details for the harbour? As classes, his humiliating the young student? M arriving, her response? Third year but Eric not knowing her? His hard comments to her, who listening? The kiss, the beginning of the affair, the scenes together, Freya finding them at home, his reaction, confessing to Freya, telling Anna, her reaction, calm at first but then the hurt going deeper?

7. Eric and his staying within the commune, amorous staying, the issue of whether Emma would be accepted?

8. Freya, with the girls, the attraction to Peter, the approach, kissing, he and his inviting in immediately, sex, the visits? Peter coming to the commune? The two together at the end?

9. Anna and her television career, competent, celebration of her birthday, Eric and Freya coming to the studio? The repercussions of bricks infidelity?

10. Emma, coming to the commune, meeting everyone, the discussion on the vote, her being accepted? The room and accommodation? Anna and her new hearing the noise of the sexual activity? The support of the commune, going to the television, the importance of the interview, Cambodia, the freezing of the camera? Her anger, the boss, losing her job? Whether to stay in the commune or not? The final outburst?

11. Emma, 24, deliberately accepting the affair, relationship with Eric, with Anna, staying?

12. Eric, the pressure of his project, his coming home, losing his temper, shouting, fainting?

13. The time limit, Anna and her drinking, with Freya, the outburst to the group? Sobering, leaving, finding a new house?

14. The little boy, telling everyone he had good dead would be dead by nine? His jealousy of Freya and Peter? Sudden death, the funeral, scattering his ashes?

15. The aftermath for everyone and for the commune?