YOUTH

Italy/UK, 2015, 124 minutes, Colour.
Michael Caine, Hartley Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano, Jane Fonda, Alexander Mc Queen, Paloma Faith, Ed Stoppard.
Directed by Paolo Sorrentino.

Youth won an award for the European film of the year and Michael Caine as best actor and life achievement.

In seeing that Michael Caine is the star of the film and is supported by Hartley Keitel, prospective audiences might be wondering about the title, the blunt statement of youth. As might be expected, Youth does not feature so explicitly but, rather, youth is a time in memory, in nostalgia, in happiness, in regrets.

This is a film by Italian director Paolo Sorrentino who made a breakthrough in Italian Cinema at the beginning of the century, then developed an international reputation, especially with Il Divo, portrait of the Italian politician,. He then made a film in English, This is The Place, with Sean Penn and Frances Mc Dormand, an interesting if sometimes bizarre portrait of a rock singer searching for his family and background in the United States. Then he won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film in 2012 for The Great Beauty. This was quite an extraordinary film about an ageing Italian, Italian society, a background of decadence, of affluence, of ecclesiastical patronage, something of a narrative, something of an essay, something of a poeml on about Italian life. Many noticed reminiscences of the work of Federico Fellini, especially seeing this film as an update, so to speak, of La Dolce Vita.

The influence of Fellini comes to mind also with Youth. This time it is with Fellini’s 8 ½, the story of an artist in a resort, reflecting on his life, his relationships – amid some of Fellini-like grotesques at a resort with its baths.

This time the resort is in the mountains of Switzerland, beautiful locations, a haven for affluent customers, hotel luxury rooms, dining, constant masseuses according to a health program, the baths, walks in the countryside. There is a wide range of clients, ordinary people, a Hollywood star, a large sports celebrity, Miss Universe…

The main focus is on Fred, Michael Caine, a retired composer and conductor, there for his health. He is pursued by an emissary from Queen Elizabeth with the request that he come to conduct a performance of his Simple Songs for herself and the Duke of Edinburgh and to have him to receive a knighthood. He is strongly against the idea, the songs only for himself and for his wife, who sang them. Also with him is his assistant, his daughter Lena, Rachel Weisz, who works with her father but has bad memories of his neglect in her childhood, the treatment of her mother, and she has several scenes where she upbraids him. At this time, she is being dumped by her husband for a younger woman, a pop star, Paloma Faith. Her husband is the son of Fred’s best friend, Michael, Harvey Keitel, who is also at the resort, this time with some ambitions, his final film and discussions with his collaborative team of five, a film that would be his life’s testament. Fred is over 80, Michael almost 80.

Also at the resort is a Hollywood star, Jimmy, played by Paul Dano, relaxing and having treatment as he thinks over his interpretation of his next film role. As with the audience, he is an observer of what goes on at the resort and of the characters.

There is a lot of talk, a lot of walking, a lot of reminiscing, Fred thinking about a girl who he was in love with and Michael’s behaviour with her, as well as reflection on his wife and her descent into dementia.

And as if this was not enough old people reflecting on youth, suddenly Jane Fonda appears in a show-stopping performance as a ravaged ageing actress who starred in Michael’s films, won awards, but has become disillusioned with him, thinks his recent films rubbish, refuses to act in his current film, is going into television and moves into a tirade against him and his pretensions. This is quite a performance with quite a lot to say about movie stars, careers and age.

There is a salvation moment for Fred, a repeat of the invitation from the Queen – and some kind of peace for Fred, his daughter, the memory of his wife, his music.

Some people have described some of Sorrentino’s films as cinema poems – but another reviewer, taking a cue from the music theme, suggests that we might consider them, and Youth, as cinema symphonies.


1. The title? Ironies? Realities? A film about older people, the younger characters? The film and memory, yearning, waste of time and life?

2. Paolo Sorrentino and his career, in Italy, English-language films, European films?

3. The Swiss settings, the resort, the mountains and the walks, the resort and interiors, rooms, dining room, the bar?

4. The musical score, the range of songs, eclectic, popular music, music video, classical music, Fred’s Simple Songs?

5. The cast, awards, international?

6. The focus on Fred, Michael Caine and his reputation, screen presence? Character, age, career, conductor, composer? Relationship with his wife, dominating her, her acquiescence, the separation, the scene in Venice? Lena, his daughter, assistant, the criticisms of him? The memories of Gilda, the discussions with Michael, regrets? Lena’s comment about his homosexual choice? At the resort, the cleansing, massage, health, idle, talking?

7. The request from the Queen, the urgency of the messenger, his bodyguards, Fred refusing, personal grounds? The messenger returning, Lena present and listening, the revelation about his wife and her singing the songs? The only one to sing them? His visit to Venice, seeing his wife? His decision to go to the concert, presence, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the singer, the music, his conducting? Taking about?

8. The treatment at the resort, cleansing, the variety of massage scenes, the baths? The doctors, the massage? Interviews about health? The large sportsman and his vanity? Miss Universe?

9. Harvey Keitel as Michael, his age, film director, strong career, at the end of his career, all the discussions about the film, with the crew and the writers? His last film to be a personal testament? His memories of Brenda Morrell, the background, starring in his films, her background, from the streets? Her awards? The rehearsals, the reflection of his career, his son and his marriage to Lena, his he sudden coming to the meeting, with the pop star, the separation? Michael’s decades-long friendship with Fred, the going for walks, the memory of Gilda, Michael’s story, riding a horse and falling off? Brenda’s arrival, the conversation, her attack, withdrawal from the film, condemnation of his career? Talking with Fred, memories of getting on the horse and falling off, his killing himself?

10. Lena, in herself, the marriage and its failure, the criticism of sexual behaviour? Her husband leaving? As assistant to her father? The long discussions, telling him the truth, the accusations? The night, the rock video and Paloma Faith? Listening to her father, talking with him, witnessing the request about playing for the Queen? Suggesting the visit to her mother?

11. Jimmy Tree, the American and young film actor, at the resort, preparing for his role, observing Fred, observing Michael? His interest, the discussions? His career?

12. The film opening with Paloma Faith, the song, the music video style, the revelation that she was to marry Michael’s son, asserting herself at the meeting?

13. Brenda’s sudden arrival, Jane Fonda’s strong performance, the make up, her age, her career, memories of the street, her working with Michael, admiring him, success with him? His last films as worthless? The criticisms of him, his wanting a film as his testimony? Her comments about television, her role in the series, accepting it? As a catalyst for Michael’s killing himself? The scene on the plane, her hysterics, being held down?

14. The characters at the resort, the masseurs, doctors, the young girl, dancing? The boy, playing the violin, Fred’s music, Fred advising him about improving his playing, his response? The levitating guru?

15. Michael visiting his wife, Venice, the memories, the effect on him, the visit to the tomb of Stravinsky and his wife? The flowers?

16. The emissary from the Queen, the return, pressing his case, Fred giving his reasons, personal, his wife?

17. The decision to play at the concert, his entry, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the soloist, the performance?

18. The film as Fred’s journey – and the relevance of the title?

ALL THE PRETTY HORSES

US 2000, 117 minutes,. Colour.
Matt Damon Henry Thomas, Penelope Cruz, Sam Shepard, Robert Patrick, Lucas Black, Ruben Blades, Miriam Colon.
Directed by Billy Bob Thornton.

It's strange what the word 'pretty' does to a film title. For a western (set in 1949) and the story of two cowboy buddies, it is a particularly feminine word. If the horses are not exactly pretty, they are pretty impressive and there are quite a lot of shots of them, especially in a collage of breaking in a herd. The novel was written by Cormac Mc Carthy - later film versions of his novels were striking, No Country for Old Men, The Road, Child of God.

Matt Damon and Henry Thomas (who gives a strong and nuanced performance) are friends who work with horses in west Texas. When his mother decides to sell her unprofitable ranch, Damon rides off to cross the Rio Grande with his friend, Thomas, and try to get work with the Mexican ranch-owners. They do. But it is complicated by their encounter with a young runaway, Briven (Lucas Black), who eventually causes them to be arrested and imprisoned. It is also complicated by Damon's falling in love with the owner's daughter, Penelope Cruz, and their seeing each other despite strict conventions and family injunctions.

It is not exactly a coming-of-age story, rather a coming-to-maturity in the world of hard experience, exploitation and cruelty. Matt Damon tends to be a bit square-jawed and expressionless compared with Henry Thomas and Lucas Black. The film is directed by Billy Bob Thornton as a leisurely male bonding saga punctuated by romance and by sudden violent confrontations.

One of the reasons for the film’s lack of success was the interference by producer, and in style, Harvey Eisenstein, who perform considerably, living quite a number of traumatic’s dramatic gaps and omissions which undermined the performances.

1. The impact of the film, Texas and Mexico in 1949, a western but a modern Western, the story of friendship, love, clashes, law, tragedy?

2. The original novel by Cormac Mc Carthy, his novels, film versions of his novels, Americana, grim?

3. The landscapes of Texas, the big ranches, the horses running, the countryside, the Rio Grande, Mexico, Mexican ranches? The work on the ranch, life in the town, the mansion, jail, the border? The musical score?

4. The director, his career, writing and directing, performance? The cast?

5. The title, the ironies?

6. The edited version, the comparisons with the full version? The gaps?

7. Matt Damon as John Grady Cole? Henry Thomas as Lacey Rawlins, life on the ranch, family, experience, work with horses? Lacey as his friend? Sharing their work? The death, the issue of the property and ownership, the father, the lawyer? John’s prospects, leaving?

8. Travelling, through the countryside, reaching the border, the Rio Grande? Its significance?

9. The encounter with Jimmy, his age, appearance, talk, nervousness, problems, fleeing? Travelling together, his behaviour, laces reactions, John’s consideration? Suspicions?

10. The ranch in Mexico, offering to be hands at work, the jobs, the effect on them, working with the horses, bunking with the other workers, interactions with the workers, language issues?

11. John Grady Cole and his capacity with the horses, taming? The boss seeing him, the interview, offering the job? Jimmy’s story and his not telling the truth – the later consequences?

12. Alejandra, in herself, her father’s daughter, encounters with John, the attraction, the meetings, the relationship? The aunt and her interview with John, her advice, drawing on her own experience? The reaction of her father, turning against John, vengeance?

13. Lacey as a character, in himself, his work, remarks, wariness about life, the bond with John? In Mexico, the difficulties, the clashes, prison? His leaving?

14. Jimmy, young, inexperienced, frightened, his return, the treatment, the police, the judgement on him, his being dragged away, his death?

15. John, the treatment by the boss, vengeance, imprisonment, life in the prison, the other prisoners, communicating? The police chief, antagonism, the
threats of death?

16. John getting out, riding to the border, confronting the police chief, the shooting?

17. Alejandra, the love for John, obedience to her father, advice from her aunt? The decision to go to the city?

18. John, his return – and future back in Texas?

5 BROKEN CAMERAS

Palestine/Israel/Netherlands/friends, 2011, 94 minutes, Colour.
Emad Burnat and his family.
Directed by Emad Burnat, Guy Davidi.

5 Broken Cameras is a striking documentary, capturing the years 2005-2010 in Palestine, the aftermath of intifada, the experience of occupation, the experience of fences and checkpoints leading to the building of the separating wall.

The film received an Oscar nomination the best documentary and won an international Emmy. It received many nominations including from the Israeli film Institute and won awards in a variety of festivals ranging from Durbin, Milwaukee, Prague, Pusan, Taiwan, the Hague, Yerevan and the Sundance Festival.

The film was the work of Emad Burnat who experienced life in the occupied territories and decided at the time of the birth of his son to get a camera and photograph what was happening. The title indicates that his camera was broken, destroyed, several times so that in all he used five cameras.

While the film gives a vivid portrait of his family, his children, his wife and her generation as well as the grandparent generations, it is also a document in images of what was happening, the protests of the local villagers and the response of the Israeli authorities and military.

Audiences need films of this kind. While powerbrokers and governments discuss possible solutions, years pass and this film recounts the lives of ordinary people over a period of five years in the struggle for some kind of peace in Israel and Palestine.

1. Audience interest in, attitudes towards, responses to the life of the Palestinians, the role of the Israelis, separation, occupation, the wall, and apartheid? Conflict and peace?

2. The work of the director, his succession of cameras, his continued filming, the idea, to persevere even when the cameras were destroyed, photographing again and again?

3. The style of individual observation, of her movies? The footage of Gaza, of Israel, of protests, of the soldiers, the violence?

4. The small Palestinian town, the place of the settlements? Local protest, Israeli reactions, stances of non-violence, violence? The deaths? The claims, the land, the people? The children? The years and the arguments over the claim?

5. The film as a symbol of life, protest, the search for justice?

6. Walls, fences and gates, checkpoints – leading to the building of the wall? The land claims, pre-1948, post 1948, from 1967…?

7. The director and his family, information about them, the personal perspective he brings, his wife, the birth of the children, the range of children, the parent generation, the grandparents? The 1990s, better times, the later intifada? The baby born in 2005, the film representing the first five years of his life?

8. 2005 to 2010, the continuation? The decision to keep on filming? Israelis, the shootings, the oppression?

9. The range of people in the village, their stances? The children and their placard about letting them sleep?

10. The personality of the director, as a father, husband, patriot, concerned, cameraman, his son growing up, and the film as a record of his life, his family and the times?

11. The film as a contribution to audience awareness – but situation still continuing?

THE ALL-AMERICAN BOY

US, 1973, 118 minutes, Colour.
John Voight, Art Metrano, E.J. Peaker, Ned Glass, Ann Archer.
Directed by Charles Eastman.

The All- American Boy is a little-seen film, even in its time. It was made before John Voight became famous with his performance in Midnight Cowboy and his subsequent career. In some ways, his role as Vic, the boxer, could be seen as something of variation on his character of Buck, the moccasin-wearing stud who walked the New York streets.

The film was shelved after production and released on a very small scale in 1973 to capitalise on John Voight’s growing popularity.

The film was directed by Charles Eastman who wrote this screenplay of the bikie film, Little Fauss and Big Halsey.

The film probes beneath the surface of the American dream, the myth of the All- American Boy and his success and admiration, to callow lives and personalities, to the using of people, and personal ruthlessness.

The film fills in the background of Vic, the would-be boxer who has ambitions for the Olympic Games, of his family in Buddy, Texas. Their family clashes. Vic is also something of a young womaniser, relationship with his girlfriend E. J. Peaker, a liaison with the customer at a garage, Rosalind Cash, and a very young girl, Ann Archer in an early role. And Ned Class is the manager of the gym and the coach. There is also a character, unusual for its time, of the gay coach. There is also some explicit full-frontal nudity, also not usual in films of the time.

With its very structured tone, cards coming up with titles for each of the bouts in Vic’s life, the film is a portrait of a young American man, from the end of the 60s, in the early 70s, a portrait as well as a critique.


1. The reputation of the film? Made and shelved? Released when John Voight became famous? Favourable critical comment? Interest in later decades?

2. Production values, colour, Panavision, the glimpse of the United States, small towns, ordinary life, boxing world? The American countryside? The presence of John Voight in an early role? The musical score?

3. The tone and structure: the six rounds? The title cards? The image of the boxer, the use of real footage, fights, competitions, expectations?

4. The title, the tradition, the ironies? The celebrities, admiration, beauty, achievement? Surface beauty, interior ruthlessness?

5. The introduction to Vic, walking the road (and the end)? Road film, a slice of life? His background, family, relationships with women, the gymnasium, the coaches, the family and the support or not, episodes of grief, clashes? Change?

6. His age, experience, in the family, with the women? His hopes and ambitions? His progress? Boxing, Arty? The details of the training, clashes, the fights, the repercussions? Leaving? Work, garage? Young and immature, his love for Janelle, had genuine? The affair? Giving of himself or not? The point of relationships, his ambitions? The relationship with Janelle, the conversation in the Sun, the nudity,, presented as ordinary?

7. The other women, the customer at the garage and the sexual relationship? Drainer, her age, her response to Vic?

8. The details of his life in terms of the rounds of the boxing match? How much did he change? Stay the same? The hopes for the Olympics? What achievement?

9. Vic and his attempts to balance his life, family, ambitions, work? The fight, his mother, his achievement – but what future?

10. A reflection on surface celebrity, interior lives, the illusions and dissillusions of the American dream?

CHRISTMAS CAROL: THE MOVIE

UK, 2000, 77 minutes, Colour.
Simon Callow.Voices of: Simon Callow, Kate Winslet, Nicholas Cage, Jane Horrocks, Michael Gambon, Rhys Ifans, Juliet Stevenson, Robert Llewellyn, Iain Jones, Beth Winslet.
Directed by Jimmy Murakami.

One of the many versions one of of Charles Dickens’ best loved novels, this is an animation film designed especially for children. Many purists were up in arms about the film criticising it for its taking liberties with the novel. There was also a Muppets Christmas Carol with Michael Caine as Scrooge.

However, it takes the main elements of the story, presents them in brief animated form, in a way that children could appreciate the story and some of the themes (somewhat akin to the 1940s and 50s with the Classic Comics versions of significant literature). The other feature of the film is that it focuses on two mice, attractive characters for little children and so helping them to participate with the focus on the animals, their activities, their voices and touches of comedy. Definitely not for the purists.

Simon Callow has spent a great deal of his life touring on stage as Charles Dickens. The film opens with live action with Callow as Dickens visiting Boston in 1867 and doing a reading of the novel – with polite audiences until a woman screams when she sees a mouse! Hence the mouse theme.

When the film moves to animation, brightly coloured in an old-fashioned animation style, Callow becomes the voice of Ebenezer Scrooge. The film has a very strong voice cast with English talent and, surprisingly, Nicholas Cage as the voice of Jacob Marley. While there are the ghosts, especially of Christmas past voiced by a cheery Jane Horrocks, and the ghost of Christmas present voiced by a sombre Michael Gambon, attention is given to the character of Belle, with whom Scrooge was in love but who made a decision to go out on his own. Belle is voiced by Kate Winslet.

Belle is seen initially working in a home for children, for orphans, who are going to lose their benefits because of the impositions and demands on debt by Scrooge. She writes him a letter which he disregards until it keeps being brought to his attention by the mice. Eventually, when he is taken on the tour of what might have been, remembers his love for Belle and, in repentance, he helps her and the people at the orphanage.

This is a stronger emphasis on Belle than in the other screen versions of Dickens book.

The memories of Jacob Marley are the stuff of nightmare. Also something of a nightmare is the work in Scrooge’s office, with Bob Cratchit diligently working hard. He is voiced by Rhys Ifans.

There is a sequence when the Cratchit family sing carols outside Scrooge’s home and he tosses water at them, injuring Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim is taken to the doctor, is at home for the Christmas dinner but is unwell. Yet, despite the opposition from his wife and family, Bob Cratchit praises Scrooge and the fact that he pays him his living.

When Scrooge reviews his past life, is taken into the difficulties of the present, he is transformed, actually giving money and gifts to those who make appeals to his charity, a number of his debtors are released from prison… Bob Cratchit gets arrays and the offer of a partnership.And he goes to the Cratchit household and joins in the good cheer as well as being reunited with Belle.

This is a very pleasant way of introducing young children to the classic, encouraging them when they are older to read it. But, as has been warned, this is not a version for purists, especially intolerant purists.

JACK STRONG

Poland, 2014, 128 minutes, Colour.
Marcin Dorocinski, Maja Ostaszewska, Patrick Wilson, Dagmara Dominczyk.
Directed by Wladyslaw Pasikowski.

Jack Strong is the codename for a Polish military official who became disillusioned with the influence of the Soviet Union, its intentions of attack on the west, and who made contact with American authorities to pass on classified information.

This is a Polish film, with the 21st century Polish perspective on the role of Poland as part of the Soviet Union, of its being caught up in Russian aggression during the Cold War. It appears early in the film that the protagonist, Jack Strong, is being interrogated by Communist officials, only for the audience to find out at the end that he is being debriefed by American authorities, reflecting on the consequences of his being accepted by the West and the mysterious death of his sons, indicating that while the Cold War might be over, there are still repercussions.

The action of the film opens in the 1960s and continues through to the 1990s in terms of espionage. Marcin Dorocinski plays the Polish official, something of an expert in the preparation of strategies, to the amazement of some of his superiors. Because he is so skilled, he is not suspected when he decides to make contact with the Americans, especially in the form of diplomat Patrick Wilson who vouches for his being authentic and as a contact point for the passing on of documents, noting the developments in technology, especially cameras, and a camera in a cigarette lighter, while there are still the traditional dropping off points with chalk markings in fences along the street.

The film shows the American discussions, some initial wariness, the testing of the reliability of the informant, an appreciation of the material that he communicated.

With his domestic life in Poland, his wife begins to suspect that he is having an affair, but learns, when he decides that he must move away from Poland, take his wife and their two sons, that greater stakes are involved.

There is some tension in the escape, Polish authorities watching the wrong house, suspecting the wrong person, yet a crisis at the East German border, the family being hidden in the back of the truck driven by a black American. They do escape.

An interesting, if sometimes sombre, espionage drama.

1. The background of the Cold War? The Soviet Union? The place of Poland? Espionage? The 20th century into the 21st century?

2. Poland, its war experience, the Soviet domination, totalitarianism, the role of Russia? Plans to invade Western Europe? The policies of the hawks in the East? The decades passing, the emergence of Solidarity, changes, the collapse of the Soviet empire?

3. The films settings, from the 1960s to the 1980s? Poland, the city, drab, the military, officials? The contrast with the US and Washington? Ordinary life in the Polish city? The atmosphere or for espionage? The musical score?

4. The interrogation of the officer, his age, appearance, the audience assuming that it was Polish Communists doing the interrogation, the questions, the reference to the death of his son, his motives? The end, discovering that it was an American interrogation and praise for him and his work as an agent?

5. The character of Jack Strong, the title, his codename, details of his work, his family life, even his wife suspecting a mistress? His colleagues, his skills, the offer of the strategies, his quick rise in the military? Ideological problems? Wariness of Russia?

6. The cases that he was involved in, the plan in the 1960s, transition to the 1968 and invasions, Vietnam, the Jimmy Carter era, fear of Brezhnev? Ideology and plans? The setting up of contacts, rendezvous points, signals?

7. The American discussions, the American agent, going to Poland to test the sincerity, approving, the quality of documentation handed on, the other agents, especially the woman in Poland? Her participation in the collecting of material? The meetings, the cigarette lighter and the camera?

8. The taking of the documents from the office, the collapse, the papers collected, his being safe?

9. The Russians and the Poles aware of the leak, the meetings, the suspects?

10. The reaction of the Americans, urging him to go slow in communication? To preserve his position?

11. The years passing, his decision that it was time to leave, covering his family, the plan, the various spies, coming to his house, in the street, the car chase, the wrong suspects?

12. The family, the young son, the background of his being summoned when the boy was in a drunken accident? The car, going to East Berlin, Checkpoint Charlie? The African- American driver, suspicions at the border, the warnings, not opening the crates, diplomatic immunity, the messages coming from Poland – and the border guards making a mistake?

13. The tradition of films about espionage in this era – this film as a Polish perspective, and from the retrospective the 1990s, fall of the Soviet Empire, Poland in NATO – and later part of the European Union?

THE PHYSICIAN


Germany, 2013, 150 minutes, Colour.
Tom Payne, Stellan Skarsgaard, Ben Kingsley, Olivier Martinez, Emma Rigby, Makram Khouriy.
Directed by Philip Stolzl.

The physician is based on a large historical novel by Noah Gordon, adapted for the screen in a German production by Philip Stoltzl. The film is reminiscent of those long and large spectacles from the 1950s and 1960s, taking audiences into distant times, exotic lands and cultures, opening horizons into the past.

The film opens in England in 1020, in the harsh villages of the mining communities, with a young boy who sees his mother die of the “side sickness” and who cannot be adopted as are his younger siblings because he’s too old. He runs after the travelling Barber who accepts him, especially in his performances, spruiking his wares and medicines. But the young man has a great desire to heal people, and hears of a famous physician in Persia, in the city of Isfahan, Ibn Sina, and decides to travel there in the company of a caravan of Jewish migrants. He becomes a student in Isfahan were rich in his ruled by a self-indulgent Shah who (Olivier Martinez) experiences an uprising against him. Plenty of drama, plenty of action – and a romance where the young would-be physician encounters the attractive Rebecca who is betrothed to an elderly man but…

While the title says The Physician, there are three candidates for the role of physician. At first, it is the Barber, the rough and ready type travelling England, cutting people’s hair, advocating medicines, involved in some kinds of surgery. He is called The Barber and is played with the bumptious energy by Stellan Skarsgaard. The second candidate is the young man, played by British actor Tom Payne, who has a skill for healing, a desire for healing, who goes on his travels, becomes an apprentice, and eventually a master physician. The third candidate is Ibn Sina himself, known in the Western world and in the history of philosophy as Avicenna. He is what is later called a “Renaissance man”, interested in medicine, anatomy, physiology, as well as the deeper philosophical questions. He is played with strong gravitas by Ben Kingsley.

The film is a celebration of knowledge and the acquiring of knowledge. It pays homage to the Muslim philosophers like Averroes and Avicenna who developed philosophical questioning as well as practical applications. One feature of this story is that the three major religions in Isfahan, Muslims, Jews and some Christians, feel that it is against their faith to conduct autopsies. The young student disobeys his master and investigates the inner workings of the human body – to the fascination of his master, and with a practical application for surgery when the Shah himself suffers from “side sickness”.

While the film has a great deal of spectacle, especially the troublesome travel through the desert and the huge desert storms, as well as some battle sequences at the end, the Seljuks rising against the Shah in Isfahan and doing battle (with some sequences in the Madrassa with an imam rousing students to a kind of fundamentalist faith and sense of revolt).

But, the film is mainly drama, the odyssey of the young man, Rob Cole from England who, to the shame of his faith, decides to pretend to be Jewish so that he can travel to Isfahan and study.

There is a very pleasing sequence where Cole returns to England and The Barber comes to the market place in London looking for his usual customers only to be told that there is a hospital, with personal care and a devoted physician. (When one looks at the history of hospitals in the 18th and 19th centuries in England, there seems to have been a great reversion from these breakthroughs in the Middle Ages.)

1. Three cultures, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, 1000 years ago? The religions in their time, the cultures? Contemporary relevance and parallels?

2. A vast novel, adaptation of the screen, characters, the different worlds, the world of medicine and healing, culture, religion, politics?

3. England, the mines, the cold village, the cliffs of England, the channel? The Middle East, deserts, Isfahan, the vast city, its scope, palaces, madrasas, the streets? The different worlds, costumes, décor? The battle sequences and special effects? The musical score?

4. German production, English-language, International cast?

5. The title, with reference to Rob Cole? With reference to Ibn Sina? With reference to The Barber?

6. The setting, 1021, England, the coal mines, poverty and hardship, disease? Adults, children? The dreary life, small food and pay, those in charge? Mrs Cole, the children, love, illness, death? The later images and Rob imagining his mother? The children being adopted, his being too old, his running away, The Barber rejecting him, The Barber and watching the mother die, unable to do anything, Rob running after him? The Barber accepting him?

7. Rob, growing up, The Barber and his continuing with the same words in each village, his skills, Rob and his skills, advice? The story of going to Isfahan and learning? Travel for a year? The cliffs of Dover, the farewell to The Barber?

8. The journey, the hardships, at sea, in the boat? Arriving in the Middle East?

9. Rob and his Christian background, taking this for granted, his desire for learning, to heal people? Travelling with the Jewish group, taking on the name, asking God’s forgiveness, his own circumcision? Praying with the group? Seeing Rebecca during the journey? The sandstorm, surviving, Rebecca disappearing?

10. Going to the school, the arrogant student, Robert thinking he was the master, the discussion with Ibn Sina, then discovering that he was the Master?

11. Ibn Sina, his gravitas, reputation, learning, teaching, philosopher, anatomy, physiology, healing, surgery? His lectures, references, his admiration for Rob? Rob concealing his identity?

12. The Jewish community, in the city, the ethos, prayer? Rebecca arriving, betrothed, the older husband? Rob’s reaction, his love for her, the later meeting, his lust, her pregnancy and the consequences? His friend diagnosing the pregnancy, urging Rebecca to be with her husband, his discovery, wanting to get rid of her, burying her in the sand for her to be beheaded?

13. The students, Robert and his friends, the lessons, in action?

14. The Shah, hedonistic, his rule and his attitudes, women and his harem, the court? Descent in his community, the imam and the speeches, eight, the condemnations, stirring his disciples? The contacts with the militant Seljuks, the negotiations, offering to undermine the authority and for them to attack? The young medical student and his becoming fanatical, radicalised?

15. The Shah, the meetings with Rob, the tolerance? His illness, side sickness? Getting Rob and Ibn Sina, the diagrams, the surgery? His surviving, allowing the Jews to escape, discovering that Rob was an Englishman? His going into battle, his soldiers, the opposing forces, the details of the battles, his sitting on his horse, even dead?

16. The forbidding of cutting up bodies? Jewish traditions, Christian traditions, Islam? Robert and his treating the old man, philosophical about his life, taking his body, the autopsy, the range of sketches, his being found out by the fanatical student, denounced?

17. Ibn Sina, forbidding autopsy, his being arrested, condemned for execution, Robert and his being ashamed, his explaining everything to the Master who
was eager to learn? About to be executed? The reprieve? Going to the Shah? The escape, going out through the eastern gate, Rob returning, the final discussion with the Master, his suicide, regrets at not living and being able to heal and to impart learning?

18. The final escape, the new exodus?

19. The Barber and his arriving in London, no crowd, asking the boy, then told about the hospital, about The Physician and his care for the patients?

20. The film highlighting this heritage from the cultural traditions, especially the role of Islam, medicine being more cultivated in the East than in the West – and thinking of the decline of hospital care over the centuries in England even up to the 19th century?

ARTHUR AND THE INVISIBLES

France, 2007, 94 minutes, Colour.
Freddie Highmore, Mia Farrow, Ron Crawford, Penny Balfour, Doug Rand, Adam Le Fevre. Voices of: Madonna, Snoop Dogg, David Bowie, David Suchet, Ezra Knight, Jimmy Fallon, Emelio Estevez, Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Rob Corddry, Jason Bateman.
Directed by Luc Besson.

This is the first film in a series of three recounting the adventures of a young boy, Arthur, his being looked after by his grandmother after his grandfather had disappeared and his parents are looking for work. The main difficulty is that unless repayments are made on the house, the lawyers will come and reclaim it.

This part of the drama is live action, and then the film then goes into animation, the creation of a little world, the world of the Minnoys, with Arthur becoming one of them. They are miniscule people, only a millimetre or two tall.

The film it is designed for younger children, there is quite an amount of delight in the world of the Minnoys as well as the range of characters found there. And, in this film, but not so much in the next film is, the voice cast for the English dubbing is exceptional. It includes Madonna as the voice of the Princess Selenia (to be taken on by Selena Gomez in the sequels), with the evil wizard Maltazard voiced by David Bowie (Lou Reed in the sequels). Robert De Niro is King and there are some amusing characters voiced by Jimmy Fallon and Jason Bateman.

The kingdom of the Minnoys is in the house garden, where the grandfather had relocated them and they are indebted to him and the family. There are also Massai tribesmen. In the land of the Minnoys is a cache of Ruby’s and, if Arthur is able to retrieve some of them, it is possible that the debt will be paid and all will be saved.

The young audience, both boys and girls, will identify with Arthur, in the live action in the form a Freddie Highmore, familiar from such child roles as in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Spiderwick Chronicles… And who in his early adulthood turned into Norman Bates for the television series, Bates Motel. Mia Farrow is her usual somewhat her fey self as the grandmother.

An imaginative adventure for children, with some contemporary adult relevance in terms of houses being reclaimed, that proved popular. Surprisingly, it has been co-written and directed by Luc Besson, who made some classics early in his career like Subway and The Big Blue, La Femme Nikita, Leon, as well as The Messenger about Joan of Arc. But his career was very much involved in writing, producing and direction a great deal of action shows – in the vein of the Transporter series, Taxi and Taken series.

Two more films to come…

THE PROGRAM

UK, 2015, 103 minutes, Colour.
Ben Foster, Chris O'Dowd, Jessie Plemons, Lee Pace, Guillaume Canet, Dustin Hoffman.
Directed by Stephen Frears.

One of the biggest sports scandals in recent years was the unmasking of cycling champion, Lance Armstrong, who had built up extraordinary popularity over many years, and his successive wins in the Tour de France. He was a very public personality, was well-known because of his bout with cancer, his overcoming it, and his foundation with his charitable outreach.

It seems quite early to have a feature film on the Lance Armstrong story and the exposé. This is true because Academy Award-winning documentary maker, Alex Gibney, jas already produced the very telling film, The Armstrong Lie, going into the visual archives of Armstrong’s early life, marriage and family, cancer and treatment, as well as in detail of training and the champion rides, success despite some of the journalists being wary of his abilities. Gibney’s film also treats the exposé, or the evidence against Armstrong and his team, against Doctor Ferrari who supplied medications, and the finale where Armstrong confessed publicly on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

So, why a feature film?

Audiences respond to a documentary, listening to and looking at the facts, looking at the images, the body language, Armstrong and his denials. But, in a fiction based on fact, there can be some exploration of the character, interactions, the effect of enquiry and criticism, and some insight into the compulsions which drive a celebrity into cheating and denials.

The Program has the advantage of being directed by British director, Stephen Frears, who, for over 40 years, has made a wide range of films, tackling many subjects, serious and comic, a vast amount of experience in storytelling. In recent years he was well known for directing the true-life story, Philomena, and the impressive but less-seen story of the boxer facing the Supreme Court of the US, Mohammed Ali’s Greatest Fight.

This film also has the advantage of having Ben Foster playing the central role. Foster has built up a career of playing many unpleasant characters, unsympathetic characters, villains. Because the general public does not necessarily know Ben Foster, the actor is able to incarnate Armstrong, young, ambitious, experiencing the cancer, even exploiting incidents during his hospital time, training, defying the critics who claim that he was good at one day races but not a long competitive race.

The film then takes us behind-the-scenes, Armstrong’s ambitions and his visits to and discussions with Doctor Ferrari, his collaboration with his coach, building up a team who would support him during the races, especially Floyd Landis who later spoke out against him. Foster is also able to convey the inner intensity, more dramatically than might be possible in a documentary, the obsessive wanting to win at all costs, the consequent ruthlessness.

The film was based on a book by Irish journalist, David Walsh, who was suspicious of Armstrong early in the piece but was scoffed at by fellow journalists and editors alike – who has some ironic enjoyment at the end when Armstrong has to pay back money to The Times which had received because of a court case. Walsh is played by the always engaging Chris O’Dowd?.

There is a good supporting cast including Jesse Plemons as Floyd Landis and a cameo role for Dustin Hoffman as an adviser to an insurance company, also suspicious of Armstrong.

There are many sayings, even cliches, pride coming before a fall, how the mighty have fallen… And this film dramatically illustrates them.

1. The significance of Lance Armstrong, his reputation, career, site, the victories in the Tour de France, his records, his battling cancer, recovery, his foundation and charity work, his comeback?

2. The investigations, drug and enhancement, the accusations, denials, the end of his initial career, his return? The confession on the Oprah Winfrey show, the consequences?

3. The many documentaries, The Armstrong Lie and its documentary presentation? Investigative journalism?

4. The story told through drama? Material included (cycling, illness, wins, journalists, the coach, Floyd Landis, the whole team and their involvement, the culture of drugs, concealment), material less followed through (marriage, wife, children)?

5. The work of the director, a prolific director, the range of films? The strong cast?

6. The title, Armstrong and his regime of drugs? Armstrong’s program? The teams program?

7. Ben Foster, his performance, audiences able to understand something of Armstrong and how he ticked? As young, his family, background, cycling, his ability, his various wins, his determination to win at any cost? The meetings with David Walsh, his comments about Armstrong and the Tour? Successful for one day only? Not having the build and stamina to win?

8. The experience of cancer, diagnosis, surgery, his recovery, the incident in the hospital – and his making something out of encounters, enhancing the truth? His return?

9. Dr Ferrari, his background, sports doctor, Armstrong visiting him? The discussions, the training regime, his recommendations – and the later raid on his house, the ban?

10. His friendship with Johann Bruyneel, riding together? The consultation, discussions, the decision, acting as coach? During the races, following the car, radio connection? Support? The various members of the team? Their wives? Eventual investigation, their all being interviewed, the truth? The introduction to Floyd Landis, his character, his background, flattered to be in the team, his role to support Armstrong?

11. David Walsh, Irish background, journalist, his interest in Armstrong, other commentators facing him, Walsh beginning to question? The discussions with the editor? His writing the book? Being sued? Walsh on the sidelines, but watching, later vindication, the editor, the refund to The Times?

12. Armstrong as a person, intense, the many scenes showing his determination to win, the collaboration of the different rides for the Tour, the wins, the years passing, the crowds, acclaim? His public persona, his charity, the charity evidence, his family and their presence?

13. Dr Ferrari, his character, work, sports medicine, the ban?

14. The coach, the discussions about Armstrong’s return? The race in 2009, third-place and his feeling humiliated?

15. Investigations, the interviews, the truth emerging?

16. Armstrong confessing everything on the Opera Winfrey show? And the background, his writing the dam, his memories, the symbolic ride?

17. The background of the insurers’ questions, Bob Hamman, at the meetings, his suspicions, his principles, the investigations?

18. Bill Stapleton, his role as Armstrong’s adviser, warding off criticism, supporting Armstrong?

19. The final audience assessment of Armstrong, character, the exhilaration of his rides, the revelation of the truth, the intensity in detail of his deception?

EXPERIMENTER: THE STANLEY MILGRAM STORY

US, 2014, 98 minutes, Colour.
Peter Sarsgaard, Winona Ryder, Anthony Edwards, Jim Gaffigan, Kellan Lutz, Dennis Hayesbert, Anton Yelchin, John Leguizamo, Lori Singer, Vondie Curtis-Hall?, Josh Hamilton.
Directed by Michael Almereyda.

Perhaps you too had to ask, who is Stanley Milgram. And why a film about him?

The first answer is that he was the son of Jewish migrants who made their way to the United States, who was well educated and, by the beginning of the 1960s, with his interest in sociology and psychological ramifications, began a series of experiments at Yale University. Hence the title of this film.

While the film is a biography, it is something more of a portrait, not a particularly long running time, so dipping into Milgram’s experiences, his initial tests, reactions to his tests, some favourable, some unfavourable, and then other investigations that he conducted. More of an academic, with the touch of introversion, there are some glimpses of his personal life, especially his initial encounter in an elevator and then, awkwardly, at a party, with the young woman who was to become his wife, mother of his children. There are glimpses as the years go on, she sometimes working with him, some tensions with the children. But this is always secondary to his experiments. It is good to see Winona Ryder as Milgram’s wife.

We are introduced to the experiment where two people volunteer to be teacher and pupil and waivers are signed about their free participation in the experiments. The pupil goes into a room where there is machinery while the teacher stays outside, observed by the supervisor and Milgram and others behind a glass panel. The aim of the exercise is for the teacher to test the pupil and, after experiencing an electric shock himself so that he knows what it feels like, to give the pupil and electric shock for every mistake made, the intensity of the shock increasing every time.

The aim of the experiment is to show how most people are conditioned to obey authorities, even to inflicting punishments when their feelings are against doing this. The film offers a collage of quite a number of teachers, the variety of their reactions, yet their always following through. One of the main connections made, with some visuals in the film of Adolf Eichmann and his defence in his trial in Israel and the memory of what Hannah Arrendt called “the banality of evil”. Ordinary people obeyed authorities and inflicted pain on others.

Not everyone agreed with Milgram and some said that he was crawl, actually inflicting pain, and were critical of his experiments.

One of the devices of the film is to have the actor Peter Sarsgaard, who plays Milgram, turning to camera and often communicating his thoughts and reactions to the audience, involving them more in the action, for and against his experiments. Another interesting device is the filming of his experiment for the television program, with William Shatner and Ossie Davis playing teacher and pupil, discussing how they will perform the experiment – which we, the audience, have also seen in performance than making the assumption that we have seen the real experiment.

Two other experiments are dramatised, one familiar where a person stands in the street staring into the sky and through conscious or unconscious peer pressure, people start to look up into the sky for no reason at all except that others are doing it. In another experiment, people are photographed and their reactions to examining the portrait of themselves become the subject of research.

Milgrom died at the age of 51 in 1984 after work at Yale, Harvard, in New York City – and the film makes an interesting point at the end when he is taken to hospital, his wife urging the receptionist for a doctor, the receptionist interested first in the filling out of every form, which his wife does.

The Experimenter offers audiences quite a lot to think about in terms of responsibility, decisions, expectations of authority and fulfilling those expectations.


1. The story? Dramatised? Stylised? Documentary touches with the tests and research?

2. Audience knowledge about Milgram? About his tests? The results? About peer pressure and succumbing to obey orders?

3. The 1960s to the 1980s? Psychology, sociology, universities, research, publications, television interviews? The range of staff, the search, collaboration, publications, reputations, yet Milgram being attacked for controlling, even torturing those participating?

4. The cinematic devices: the narrative, Milgram talking to camera, the staging the tests, rear projection and stylised for the car ride and the visit to the lecturer? The repetitions of sequences, from other angles? The discussions, Milgram interviewed and grilled on television? The re-enactment for the television film, with William Shatner and Ossie Davis? The TV re-enactment of sequences seen by the audience – which are also re-enactments seen by the audience?

5. The strong cast?

6. Peter Sarsgaard as Milgram, born in the 1930s, the Jewish family, coming to the United States, studies, at Yale, his reputation? The elevator, meeting Sasha, at the party, her later recounting their meeting, together, marrying, the family? The diner and ice cream with the children? The heart attack, going to the hospital, his dying at 51? Milgram confiding his story to the audience?

7. The staging of the test, the staff, Milgram watching through the glass? The rules of the test, teacher and student, the contrived choice, audiences think it was a test of the student and it being a test of the teacher, and perseverance with punishing, the electric shock? The questions, the pairs of words, memorising them, the student getting so many wrong, the shocks? Audience reaction, to the teacher administering the shocks, arguments about stopping, but not stopping, the different reactions? The audience belief in the student at first, discovering that he was only acting, receiving no shocks? The teachers continuing despite their protests? Expectations of authorities, obedience, conforming? The variety of teachers, the later repetitions? The student, in performance, his collaboration with Milgram? The experiment with the sky, planting people in the street, the peer pressure, people looking up into the sky?

8. The photo test, people poring over their photo, critical of therapy reduction? The carrier with the books from Germany, his participating in the photo experiment?

9. The results of the punishment test, the connecting this visually with Adolf Eichmann, Hanna Arrendt, the banality of evil? The results coming up continuously to explain people’s behaviour, the Germans at the time of the Holocaust?

10. The critique of Milgram, that he was torturing people, that this was immoral? The continued quoting of the results?

11. The years passing, his work, becoming a celebrity, publication, translations? At Yale, at Harvard, in New York?

12. The experience for Sasha, her being his assistant, the critical student condemning her conforming? The clash, in the diner, with the children, Milgram’s apology?

13. The student, forthright in her attack on him and Sasha?

14. The illness, going to the hospital, the nurse at the desk, conformism in the filling in of forms, and Sasha doing this?

15. The effect on the audience of this experience, learning about Milgram himself, sharing in his experiences?