THE LETTERS

US, 2015, 114 minutes, Colour.
Juliet Stevenson, Max von Sydow, Rutger Hauer and a large Indian cast.
Written and directed by William Riead.

The Letters in the title of this film of those written by Mother Teresa of Calcutta to her spiritual director, the Jesuit Father Celeste van Ekem, over a period of almost 50 years. Mother Teresa died in 1997.

This does not necessarily sound an attractive title for audiences to go to a feature film. It sounds more like a documentary. However, the letters are always in the background of Mother Teresa’s story, sometimes coming to the forefront, so that the action of the film concentrates on her life and her work.

It is significant that the letters concern Mother Teresa’s dark nights of soul and senses, not only difficulties of belief in God but a dread sense of being abandoned by God. This does is addressed right at the beginning of the film where the promoter of Mother Teresa’s cause goes to visit Father Celeste van Ekem in retirement in England to receive and read the letters and evaluate them in the light of Mother Teresa being declared Blessed. There also scenes from the Vatican where meetings are held to discuss the miracles attributed to Mother Teresa – with a glimpse of this miracle at the beginning of the film – and their place in the approval of her beatification. (There are also a number of Vatican scenes from the 1940s, petitions for Mother Teresa to leave Loretto, to establish her congregation – exceedingly formal and stiff, not in the vein of Pope Francis!)

The Letters will be a film of great Catholic interest, Mother Teresa being well-known to so many Christians, Catholics and others like. Because she was such a public figure over such a long time, there will be an audience right around the world for this film. Since the release and the financial success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ in 2004, commentators have noted that there is a greater appetite for specifically and explicitly religious films. Again, because of Mother Teresa being a public figure, most admiring her, some critics writing against her, the film offers an opportunity to look at Mother Teresa’s life, her work, her motivations, her achievement and assess them in the context of her committed faith life and her ministry and service.

The film was written and directed by American William Riead, radio journalist, television cameraman, director of “The Making of…) Documentaries in the 1980s and 90s. In terms of some reputable acting power, the promoter for the cause is played by Rutger Hauer and the spiritual director himself by the venerable actor, Max von Sydow. Max von Sydow brings considerable gravitas to his presence and performance.

There have been two television films on Mother Teresa: Mother Teresa: in the Name of God’s Poor, 1997, with Geraldine Chaplin and, in 2003, Mother Teresa with Olivia Hussey. This time the casting is British actress, distinguished for her stage and screen work, Juliet Stevenson.

One of the great advantages of this film is that so much of it was filmed on location in India and with an Indian cast.

While the letters on Mother Teresa’s religious experience pervade the film, it actually tells the story of her work from 1946 to 1952, her discerning whether to leave her community life and her teaching at school in Calcutta and to work amongst the poor. They were long delays in receiving a reply from the Vatican, her moving out of the convent, initial resistance to her presence in work by many of the Indians fearing that she was proselytising amongst the Hindus, her early companions, the support of the Archbishop of Calcutta, the advice of her spiritual director, the final approval – and glimpses of her shrewdness in dealing with authorities, persuading them to give her material and financial support, and the interest of the media in her story.

With Juliet Stevenson’s performance, a broken English accent, the slight stoop that Mother Teresa had, the film offers an opportunity for the audience to reflect on the whole process that led to the establishment of the work of the Missionaries of Charity. The screenplay, which does show the young Loretto sister making her vows in Dublin in the early 1930s as well as her classes in the College, gives audiences enough time for the audience to ponder her motivation, the poverty in the streets at the time of India’s Independence, the practical difficulties of her work, the hostilities, even demonstrations against her when she is given a disused Hindu temple as a hostel for men and women dying in the streets.

The audience also realises that Mother Teresa was not an immediate, overnight success in her new work. She had to move carefully and prudently, adopted local clothing (not a habit, although it has become one) so that she could identify as ordinary amongst people. The permissions were given gradually, not always with the support of the Loretta superiors, and there were discussions, with Mother Teresa and her certainty of her mind and intent, about the establishment of her religious congregation, its rules and canonical status.

Because some American media took some interest in her story in the late 1940s, audiences also realise that she became a media topic almost immediately which continued for the next 40 years or so, leading to greater acknowledgement around the world, including being awarded the Nobel Piece Prize in 1979 – a sequence, with her speech, with which the film ends. No need to show the details of her life and work in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, most of the 1990s, because it was a continuation of the initial work, service and spirituality. Not everybody agreed with Mother Teresa’s methods, many considering them to limited – but no one can take it away from her that she was actually there in the streets, assisting.

While the screenplay is certainly geared towards a faith audience, it is also written in such a way that people of non-faith who admired Mother Teresa can be interested in and involved in her story.

1. Audience knowledge of, interest in, appreciation of Mother Teresa? A significant 20th-century figure? Beloved by people, by the media? Saint?

2. The range of documentaries on Mother Teresa and her work, the feature films about her? A variety of portraits? the impact of this portrait?

3. The setting of the 1940s, the flashbacks to her profession in 1932, into the 1950s, her receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979? A portrait, character and events sketched?

4. Juliet Stevenson is Mother Teresa, her figure, her accent, stoop, as a Loreto sister, donning the sari, her work of charity in Calcutta?

5. The background of her family in Skopje, making her vows in Dublin in 1932, her family origins, going to India? Her family wanting to visit her from Albania in the 1950s and prevented by the Communist government?

6. The filming in India, Calcutta, the, Loreto convent and school, the wealthy areas, the intervention of the government, the Independence movement, poverty of the people, racial and religious hostilities, the role of the religious orders? The visuals of India? The musical score?

7. Mother Teresa, in herself, her vocation, the call to Loreto, the call to India, her skill in teaching, the conventional life of Loreto? Education, the girls, supervision? The role of the superior? Community life, prayer and obedience?

8. Teresa going out, the consequences, the effect of seeing the poor people, giving them food, the trigger for her response to the poor, the criticism of the government, the dangers, the superior? A new location? Her request, her prayer and discernment, discussions, the role of the Archbishop of Calcutta and his sympathies, the discussions with the superior and her being against the move, the contact with her spiritual director? The long wait, the girls interested in working with her, the move to Independence and partition?

9. The Vatican officials, the formalities of the meetings, the letter from Teresa, the Archbishop and his request? The wait, the superior, Teresa’s patience, finally getting permission, temporary?

10. Teresa going out into the streets, the Loreto reaction? Her putting on the sari, wanting to wear ordinary clothes, the accusations of proselytising and her denial? Walking through the city, her bag? The help, the reaction of the Hindus, suspicions? The girls in the school coming to help? The hostile man and his wife, pregnant, her going to help, the success of the birth, the husband and his support? The various helpers, the effect?

11. Loreto, the letters, the reactions, the girls and the wishes of their parents, not to help Teresa, but their coming?

12. The issue of the Temple, not in use, a refuge, the worker, the practical help? The demonstration against the Temple? The role of the authorities and defending Teresa?

13. The Loreto superior, her reluctance, Teresa finally getting permanent permission, establishing the house, the congregation, the letters of request to Rome, their being granted? The scenes of the nuns making their vows?

14. Journalists in India at the time, Teresa and her work as a news story, the interest in the United States, the journalist sent for interview, her not wanting interviews, her motivations, the work being the story? The publication of the stories, people getting to know of her and her work, the spread throughout the world?

15. The following decades, India and its growth, Teresa working in Calcutta, beyond, the congregation throughout the world? The Nobel Peace Prize and her speech?

16. Her death, the visitor from Rome, the documentation, the miracle shown at the beginning, the possibility for beatification? The Visitor, going to the spiritual director, the character of the director, his contact with Teresa over the decades, helping initially, the letters? The two men and their conversations about Teresa?

17. The importance of the letters, her sense of abandonment by God, the nature of her faith?

18. The meeting in Rome, the approval for the beatification?

WES CRAVENS NEW NIGHTMARE

US, 1994, 112 minutes, Colour.
Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund, Miko Hughes, David Newsom, Wes Craven, Tracy Middendorf.
Directed by Wes Craven.

After the success of the Nightmare in Elm Street series, as well as well as Wes Craven having great success with other films and about to move into the Scream series, this Nightmare film was invented as a concoction to capitalise on the popularity of Freddy Krueger and the nightmares. It is a film about film-making, the stars, the special effects, horror atmosphere.

Heather Langenkamp, who starred in some of the original films and was killed off in the third one, is an actress, married to a man who works on the special effects and with a young son. Wes Craven is inviting her to participate in the new Nightmare film, also inviting Robert Englund who made such a big impact as Freddy Krueger.

This film moves between reality and nightmare, the audience not always knowing which was which, Heather having all kinds of disturbed dreams, even to the death of her husband in a car accident, fears for her young son and his seizures. While she is interviewed on television as a personality, the compere introduces Robert Englund who is working as an artist, painting a rather diabolical version of Freddy Krueger. She also consults John Saxon who was a star of some of the films.

Matters becomes a mixed while her son has a seizure and is taken to hospital, Heather having more and more dreams, Freddy Krueger entering them, slashing his way through beds, cushions, rooms, leaving his marks on the wall, as well is killing people.

The film also offers some discussion scenes with Wes Craven himself.

An extra Nightmare entertainment for the fans.

1. Wes Craven, his films, reputation, his imagination, his career in horror films?

2. The success of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, the creation of Freddy Krueger as a diabolical character, appearance, corpse-like but, his claws, slashing through everything? The death of Freddy, the death of Nancy? Fans and their wanting the resurrection of Freddy?

3. The Los Angeles settings, the film studios, working on special effects and stunts, filming? The presence of the director, producer, the various technicians? Audience interest in filmmaking?

4. The idea of making a film about nightmares? The blend of reality and the nightmares? Audiences never quite knowing, the seeming reality, Nancy awake, and the nightmares and her shock reaction?

5. Heather Langenkamp, featuring in the films, Nancy, her death in the third film in the series? Her visiting the set, her husband involved in the special effects? Her relationship with her son? Things seemingly ordinary, her beginning to have the nightmares, Freddy and his interventions, the dangers to her son, her husband driving, Freddy’s attack, the accident and his death? The nightmares becoming more and more bizarre?

6. The husband, his work, his associates, their being killed in the first nightmare? His work, the secret about Heather being in the film again? Her fears, phoning him, his return, driving, his death? Her going to the morgue and looking at his body, seeing the claw marks?

7. Heather and her son, watching the television, his variety of moods, having seizures? His involvement in the nightmares? Her reading him Hansel and Gretel and the bizarre story? His watching television, seemingly possessed? In hospital, Heather and her visits, concern? The dangers?

8. The babysitter, friends, with the boy, his having a turn, her fears, in hospital, keeping vigil, her being attacked, her death?

9. The hospital staff, the nurse, her concern, wanting Heather to rest, taking care of the boy, as a character in the dreams?

10. Heather, the chauffeur, on television, the surprise with Robert Englund arriving? Her phoning him, the scene with him painting the monstrous picture? His continued help? The irony for audiences to see the real actor as well as his diabolical character?

11. The news about Wes Craven writing the new film, the producer and Heather’s visit, the discussions with Craven, his explanations, his nightmares, making films when he had nightmares? His story about the evil character, the possibilities of possession?

12. Heather and her contact with John Saxon, his role in the previous films? Meeting her, the discussions, trying to reassure her? Watching with her son, his climbing to the top of the tower, his falling and her catching him?

13. Audiences enjoying the blend of realism, factual material with the actors, the introduction of the nightmares, the introduction of Freddy Krueger, his claws, slashing, cruelty, diabolical?

EVERLY

US, 2014, 92 minutes, Colour.
Salma Hayek, Laura Cepeda, Togo Igawa, Hiroyuki Watanabe, Masashi Fujimoto.
Directed by Joe Lynch.

This is a film which is difficult to recommend to any audience except those dyed-in-the-wool fans of sadistic torture films. With such films as The Hostel series, commentators began to use the phrase “Torture Porn”. Everly certainly fits into this category. It is particularly brutal, visually ugly, cruel with its variety of torture and murders.

It is surprising that Salma Hayek was a producer of this film as well as the star.

It is basically an abduction story. Everly has been living with her mother, has a young daughter, but has been abducted by the yakuza-style criminal group, principally Japanese. She has been a prisoner for five years, wanting to see her daughter, to be reunited with her mother – even though she has access with a mobile phone. She is kept in a building, hotel like, with a variety of corridors, rooms for many of the women who have been similarly abducted.

At the opening of the film, Everly reacts and there are some deaths of businessman who have come to her room. One of these businessmen, a young man, rather more sympathetic, has been wounded and, throughout the film, sits on a sofa talking with Everly and observing what goes on, finally helping her.

The various girls in the establishment are given an opportunity to react, are threatened by the men, hunted to their rooms, some of them tortured and killed. Some try to help Everly.

Two key Japanese characters in the film, one called in the credits,The Sadist, living up to his name in some very gruesome sequences. The other is the manager of the whole enterprise, able to watch heavily by cameras, coming to confront her – but her overcoming him with more than a vengeance.

For emotional effect, her mother and her daughter also come to the place secretly, the mother trying to save her daughter but also being killed. at the end. Everly is, of course, triumphant and the battered and tortured woman overcomes her male slave masters.

Not exactly the kind of film, or the film, to recommend.

SUBURBAN GIRL

US, 2007, 97 minutes, Colour.
Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alec Baldwin, Maggie Grace, James Naughton, Chris Carmac, Vanessa Branch, Peter Scolari, Marian Seldes, Ebon Moss- Bachrach, Jill Eikenberry.
Directed by Marc Klein.

This light romantic comedy, with serious undertones, is based on a series of short stories by Melissa Bank: My Old Man, The Worst Thing a Suburban Girl Could Imagine, from the book The Girls’ Guide to Hunting and Fishing.

It is a star vehicle for Sarah Michelle Gellar as the Suburban Girl who works editing manuscripts but wants to graduate to full editor. She encounters an older man who has a strong reputation in the book trade, played by Alec Baldwin. They meet, he helping her, she falling in love, they having an affair.

The film is set in Manhattan literary society, especially with Marian Seldes as are grande dame of the establishment. In the background is the girl’s Jewish family from New Jersey, her father a doctor who is dying of cancer.

The film seems rather artificial – but is pleasantly enjoyable and faces up to the dilemma facing the older man wanting to marry the younger woman and the younger woman assessing what her life and career would be if she married him.

1. A slight romantic comedy with serious undertones?

2. The title, the focus on Brett, the background, doctor- father, literary antecedents? The young woman trying to make it big in Manhattan?

3. Manhattan, book companies, offices, book launches, socials, restaurants, apartments and homes? The musical score?

4. Brett’s story, her name after Hemingway’s character, her literary aunt? Introduction, editing manuscripts, during the opening credits? Her ambitions, rearranging the books in the shop window, the assistant trying to disillusion her hand telling her about Archie Knox? Meeting Archie, clicking, his attraction? The discussions? His literary help? Her relationship with Jed, his being in Europe, his return, breaking off? Hearing Archie’s story? Wives and daughter, alcoholic? The dates, the gifts, his book? The sexual relationship? The new boss, haughty, British, having had a relationship with Archie? Discussions about his daughter? The ultimate photos with his women? The tickets for the concert, her being late, his being angry? Going to the apartment, the gifts, the woman, his drinking again? The breaking up? Discussions with her father, mother? The father’s cancer, brother’s comments, her angry reaction, not coping? Archie coming to dinner, charm? The issue of his age? Her father’s death, grief? With her brother? The boss giving her the job, the rock star and his controlling manager, Archie turning up, the friendship with the star, getting the deal? The reconciliation? Her decision to break, comments on the death of a father-figure, the gift of her photo for his collection – with glasses on?

5. Archie, his background, in the book industry, his reputation, speeches praising him, launching Mickey’s book? The book signing? Brett, Archie writing in the book, making the date, the further dates? His background, marriages, the daughter not speaking to him, Alcoholics Anonymous? His enjoying Brett’s company, mentoring? Her reaction about his relationship with her boss, with the literary woman, her toyboy, the drink, the demonstration? Archie and his continued care of her? The concert, his anger at his daughter’s absence, Brett saying he was a shitty father? The girl, his drinking again, coming to the rescue with the rockstar, his proposal, turning him down?

6. The world, hiring and firing bosses, Brett losing her office, the friendship with the fellow-editors? The British boss, imposing on Brett?

7. Chloe, friend, designing clothes, outings together, advice?

8. Brett’s family, the father as a doctor, listening to her, his cancer, not revealing it, his response to Archie? His death? Her mother, Britain’s criticism of her at the meal at the time of the cancer? Finding Archie charming? Her brother, the news about the cancer, the clashes, bonding?

9. The literary world, the snobbish woman, status and agent, the Pulitzer prizes, her treatment of Brett?

10. An American story, American publishing, but the main story about an older man and his love for a younger woman and possible futures?

STAR WARS, THE FORCE AWAKENS

US, 2015, 135 minutes, Colour.
Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Lupita Nyong'o, Andy Serkis, Domnhall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Max von Sydow, Peter Mayhew, Simon Pegg, Harriet Walter, Warwick Davis.
Directed by J.J.Abrams.

A review is the least necessary reference for filmgoers – but rather, something to check after audiences see the film.

For those familiar with the films, especially the first trilogy and its opening, there is a frisson of emotion and delight as we see the familiar words about long ago in a faraway galaxy and the introduction to this film makes its climb from bottom screen upwards towards outer space and John Williams’or familiar score begins its rousing cords and melody.

Most fans were not great enthusiasts for the second trilogy and most have been reassured that the series is back on track. Since there are a great many parallels to Episode IV, there is the comfort of familiarity and memory making connections – although some diehards have been dissatisfied and or upset that there are too many similarities.

We are introduced to a character, a pilot, somewhat in the vein of Han Solo, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac). We find him in deep discussion with a wise elder, Max von Sydow channelling the style of Alec Guinness as Obi- Wan Kenobi, and we learn that Luke Skywalker has disappeared. This time there is a new droid, B-88 (though, rest assured that later in the film we will find 3-CPIO and R2-D2). But, no sooner than we are wondering about battles, the Storm troopers invade, massacring inhabitants, capturing Poe Dameron but not his droid. One of the storm troopers is upset at the killing, takes off his helmet, has no wish to be part of this killing, and helps free and then takes off with Poe Dameron and the droid who has the information as to Luke’s whereabouts.

One of the things about this film is that its hero, Finn (John Boyega) and the more than feisty heroine, Rey (Daisy Ridley who is just right) are ordinary citizens, not the royalty of Luke and Leia (though some wonder). No mention is made of it, anti-racism without comment, but Finn is black (the British actor using an American accent).

On the scavenger planet, where Poe and Finn crash land, Finn survives and it is there that he comes across Rey who has recovered the Droid. Well that leads to all kinds of adventures, especially an escape in an old starship which is captured by a bigger starship managed by – yes, Han Solo and Chewbacca. Harrison Ford is in good form as Han Solo (and a distraction indicates that, even though he is moving towards his mid-70s, there still could be an Indiana Jones adventure for him). Fans of Chewbacca will be glad of the considerable attention given to him.

The enemy is not exactly the Evil Empire, but The First Order, overseen by an evil Supreme Leader (Andy Seriks) who relies on General Hux (Domnhall Gleeson) and his military command as well as his disciple,Kilo Ren ((Adam Driver).

We are rather glad when, eventually, we find that Poe Dameron is not dead, that Princess Leia is now a general (and a substantial role for Carrie Fisher 30 years on). But, where is Luke, and how to get the final information as to his whereabouts in the galaxy?

This leads to a visit to a canteen, reminiscent of those in the old films with their bizarre characters, but this time the female equivalent of Yoda, Maz Kanata (Lupita Nyong’o of 12 Years a Slave). While Finn is the hero, it is Rey was given the laser sword and is meant to reawaken the force within her. So, there are some good adventures as they go to another planet where a vast weapon, absorbing energy from the sun, is being refuelled to destroy the Resistance.

There are fights, a shock to the system and audience sensibilities it if they have not heard about the twist, and a laser sword fight, once again, Rey versus the inheritor of Darth Vadern’s heritage and the Dark side, Kilo Ren.

Obviously, there must be a new trilogy – and the final sequence, Rey searching for Luke and a glimpse of Luke means that we can look forward to the next film which is already in production, in mid-2017.


1. The impact of the series over 40 years? A fantasy mythology?

2. George Lucas and his imagination and vision? The strong trilogy? The weaker trilogy?

3. Audience knowledge of the story, characters, issues? Response to the symbols? Attitudes and expectations for this film?

4. The recreation of the galaxy, the planets, the space ships, old and new? The impact of straight space travel? Costumes, decor? Special make up for odd and imaginative creatures? John Williams’ score?

5. The older characters, 30+ years later? Han Solo and his past reputation, contribution to this film? The presence of Chewbacca? Princess Leia, now a general? Luke, absent, his feeling of failure, the intrusion of the Dark Side, his exile? Seeing him at the end – and the film as a quest for finding Luke?

6. The new characters, in the spirit of the previous films? Rey and Finn as the new hero and heroine? Kilo Ren as the new Darth Veda, Dark Side?

7. The special effects, the action sequences, the stunt work? Flights, aerial combat, explosions, the laser swords?

8. The introduction, the parallel with the initial film? The First Order, control, the Supreme Leader? The Republic? The Resistance? Clashes?

9. Introducing the theme, Poe Dameron and the conversation with the wise elder, Lor San Tekka? The droid BB 8? The information about Luke’s exile? The sudden attack, the storm troopers, the massacre, the disk and its being put in BB 8? The escape, the flight, the crash, Poe Dameron, the First Order, the interrogation?

10. Finn, the slaughter, the blood, his change of heart, removing his helmet, saving Poe, helping with the escape, the crash on the scavenger planet?

11. Rey, her role as a scavenger, on the planet, salvage, selling her goods, the poor prices? The spies? The seller and his contacting the First Order? The droid, Rey saving it? Finn, the crash, thinking Poe was dead, his coat? Walking in the dunes, finding the village, the confrontation with Rey? The droid and its suspicions, the explanation, his offering to help? Rey not wanting to leave the planet?

12. Finn in himself, his possibilities, the good, wanting to get away?

13. The authorities, the Supreme Leader and his look, face, height, power, the Dark Side, old, his control of Kilo Ren? Of General Hux? Wanting to suppress the resistance?

14. The older plane, their taking it, flying? Being captured by the big spaceship, the introduction of Han Solo, Chewbacca? Getting the plane going? Rey and her knowledge, and Han Solo’s reaction? Going into action, the flights, the repartee?

15. Finding Poe Dameron again, the fight, the droid, the plan?

16. Going to the planet, going to the canteen, finding Maz Kanata, the odd creatures reminiscent of the original films? Maz as a female version of the Yoda? Giving the laser sword to Rey, the not wanting it, going away from the canteen, Maz following? Rey accepting and the consequences?

17. Going to the planet, finding C- 3PO, R2- D2, the latter not functioning? C-3 PO and his look, manner?

18. General Leia, her role with the resistance, 30 years on? Her character, leadership, strength? Her looking for Luke?

19. Meeting with Han Solo, the information about their son, his going over to the Dark Side, Luke’s failure? The sense of loss?

20. The importance of the map, the missing piece, not knowing exactly where Luke was, the quest?

21. Rey and Finn, helping each other, the growing affection as well as the clashes?

22. Rey, her capture, imprisonment, Kilo Ren and his talents? Her using her growing awareness of The Force, breaking her bonds, escaping?

23. The role of General Hux, strategies, commands, with the Supreme Leader, the weapon, drawing energy from the sun? The confrontation, the defeat?

24. Finn, Han Solo and Chewbacca flying to the planet, the plan, to destroy the shields, the general and his weapon, absorbing the energy from the sun, the time limit? The plan to destroy the Resistance, the Resistance fighting back?

25. Kilo Ren, taking off his helmet, his humanity, the son of Han Solo and The Leia, his confusion? With the Supreme Leader , with the general?

26. The attack, Finn and Han Solo and Chewbacca detonating the shields? The time limit?

27. Han Solo, confronting his son, on the bridge, Kilo Ren’s confusion, his speech to his father, the talk and the pleading, his suddenly stabbing his father with the laser sword, Han Solo dead, falling – and the audience shock?

28. Kilo Ren and Rey, the pursuit, fight, her skills, his being wounded, the chasm opening up?

29. The rescue, Chewbacca, Finn and the escape? The fire, the destruction of the shields?

30. The return to Princess Leia, her sadness, R2 D2 coming alive, his final information for Luke’s whereabouts?

31. Rey, her quest, flight, the island, the cliff, ascending, finding Luke, his standing older and alone, her request to him – and the future for the sequels?

IN THE COURTYARD/DANS LE COUR

France, 2014, 97 minutes, Colour.
Catherine Deneuve, Gustave Kervern, Feodor Atkine.
Directed by Pierre Salvadori.

In the Courtyard is one of those idiosyncratic French films, a portrait of off-beat characters.

Gustave Kervern is Antoine, suffering some kind of breakdown and unable to play with his musical group. He goes searching for a job, is helped by a woman in the office and becomes a kind of concierge, supervisor, cleaner at an apartment block.

There are all kinds of eccentrics in the block and Antoine does his best to help, a man who needs his large dog minded, a young man hoarding bicycles which he sells, a blind man who is read to…

One of the main attractions is Catherine Deneuve (at a beautiful 70), who lives upstairs with her husband. At first, she seems hyperactive and worried, giving a great deal of her time to charity. She is very strong in urging that Antoine be hired, despite her husband’s wariness, but throws a pear at Antoine as he hoses the Courtyard bruising him. She tries to be agreeable, but it looks as though she is losing it, clashing with her husband, and asks to stay with Antoine for a couple of days to recover.

There are a number of complications, and enjoyment will depend on how well the variety of characters engage audience attention and empathy.

1. A light film with serious touches? French interest, French style, characters? Idiosyncratic touches?

2. The Paris settings, the building, the rooms, corridors, the courtyard and its many aspects? Musical score?

3. The credibility of the plot, the characters, depression, reliance on others, despair and hope?

4. The title, the building, Antoine and his job, in the courtyard, hosing it, the storing of the bicycles, the other members of the apartment block, with the model building, with the dog, the various requests?

5. Antoine as a character, depression, unable to play in the music group, looking for a job, the woman helping him, the form, going to the interview, Serge and his seeing through him, Mathilde and her charities, busy on the phone, wanting to hire him, Serge agreeing?

6. Antoine settling in, his room, his belongings, the drugs? His needing to sleep? Morose? The later visit from his wife and his inability to return?

7. The various jobs, hosing, Mathilde throwing the pear and the bruise, cleaning up, the issue of the bicycles?

8. The various characters in the building, the blind man and Mathilde reading to him, and Antoine reading? The man wanting the model of the building to be housed, the dog chewing it, reconstructing? The man with the dog, the dog lumbering, Antoine finally refusing? The man with the bikes, storing them, selling, rental on the roof? His friendship with Antoine, the drugs?

9. Serge, concern for his wife, interest in Antoine? Mathilde, her growing desperate, eccentric behaviour, the charities, relying on Antoine, the crack in the wall, papering over, her scraping the wall? Her wanting to stay with Antoine for several days? Her depression?

10. Antoine, the drugs, his collapse, the ambulance, trying to revive him, his death?

11. The effect on Mathilde, search, the others?

12. Antoine as a sad comic character?

OSMOSIS JONES

US, 2001, 95 minutes, Colour.
Bill Murray, Elena Franklin, Molly Shannon, Chris Elliott. Voices of: Chris Rock, Laurence Fishburne, David Hyde Pierce, Brandy Norwood, William Shatner, Ron Howard, Kid Rock.
Directed by Peter and Bobby Farrelly.

The Farrelly Bros, Peter and Bobby, developed a reputation for offbeat comedies, more than a touch of the crass, but making people laugh: There is Something About Mary, Me, myself and Irene, Shallow Hal. This time they have collaborated with animators for a film which is designed more especially for the children but which sympathetic audiences should enjoy.

It is a film about the human body, about health, about the abuse of health, about sickness, about the workings of the human interior to overcome sickness.

There are some live action sequences centred on Bill Murray as a slob of a worker at a zoo, stuffing his mouth with food that he should not be, trying to look after his daughter who really wants her father to be healthy. He does have a crisis, needs to go to hospital, needs to listen more to the subconscious voices from his body, and have the strong will to become healthy again.

The rest of the film is in brightly coloured animation, the interior of the city of Frank, humorously paralleling a real city with highways and byways, buildings, and all kinds of activities from the sinister gangsters who want to destroy the humans, to a crooked mayor who wants to control the body, to a very likeable white cell who is an agent of healing along with a rather straight up and down medication. The comedy comes Chris Rock’s voice as the white cell, Osmosis Jones, and the prim voice of David Hyde Pierce as the medication. Lawrence Fishburne is the villain.

Apparently some audiences find the film too silly – but, if they let themselves go (with an eye on their own health), they should find it enjoyable and somewhat instructive – which, perhaps, is the point, for children to see this presentation of anatomy and physiology and to learn something about health and health care.

1. Comedy with a message? Health, illness, healing?

2. The work of the directors, their career in comedy and satire?

3. The effect of the animation, its style, bright colours, characters, situations, the interior of the human body, exaggerations, variety of characters?

4. The voice cast?

5. The musical score?

6. The realistic sequences: Bill Murray as Frank, slob, work, his daughter, her trying to help him, their going out, the zoo, all the fast food, and his co-worker? Visiting the school, the teacher, the interviews, his vomiting, the zit? The gross out comic moments, youngsters’ happy responses? The picture of the slob, going to Buffalo for the Buffalo Wings, his collapse? Hospital?

7. The interior of Frank’s body, a city complex? Parallels with the real city? Indication of places and times? Buildings, roads, highways, workplaces, the office of the Mayor, the commercial for the opposition, the villain, his associates, the crime background, the gangsters, plotting and violence? To destroy the human being?

8. Chris Rock’s voice for Osmosis, bright, his being a blood cell, doing good, an agent, concerned about Frank, the efforts made, the encounter with Drix, befriending him, their action sequences together, the touch of his being a spy, being fired? The Mayor, Leah, her being on the side good, the Mayor limiting Osmosis‘ action and investigations?

9. Drix, his appearance, straight and square, David Hyde Pierce’s voice and manner, investigations, cues, the contortions, the music, changing?

10. The Mayor, his office, his crooked intentions, the confrontation by his secretary? Colonic and his commercial attacking the Mayor?

11. Drax, the villain, Laurence Fishburne’s voice, looking sinister with the touch of the monstrous, face, hands, Scissorhands? His allies? The plans?

12. The details of the germs, the cells, their appearance, the range of antics?

13. Frank, as a city, the interior voices, the subconscious warning him, his collapse, health, getting better? His strong-minded daughter, bonding with her father, trying to help him? At school?

14. A film of anatomy, physiology, the human system – and, while animated, giving indications for realism?

15. The use of these analogies – the impact for adults and understanding health and illness? For the young audience?

WHITE REINDEER

US, 2013, 82 minutes, Colour.
Anna Margaret Hollyman, Laura Lemar- Goldsborough, Lydia Hyslop, Joe Swanberg.
Directed by Zach Clark.

White reindeer is a different kind of Christmas story. Suzanne is a real estate agent, selling a home to a couple who want to move in, are in love and want a bigger big house – but they are afraid of stories of break-ins. Suzanne reassures them.

Suzanne’s husband, Jack, is the local weather man on the television and comes home to surprise her that they are going to Hawaii. On a high, she goes out to shop for Christmas decorations and returns to find her husband dead on the floor, killed by an intruder.

While Suzanne keeps fairly calm on the surface, speaking to the police and answering questions for their investigation, talking with her parents, friends who come to the funeral and offer help, there is some turmoil under the surface. The film has captions indicating various days before Christmas, building up to the day itself and Suzanne’s experience.

She moves away from her parents – who want their son to come home for Christmas but blurt out at meal that they are separating. Suzanne does shopping therapy, going out, overusing her card, but also doing shopping online, filling the house with all kinds of Christmas paraphernalia.

A friend, her husband’s co-worker, comes weeping and informs her that her husband was having an affair after they went to a strip club, continuing for some months but then breaking it off.

Suzanne seems to deal quietly with this, amazed, discovering pornography on her husband’s computer. One night, she decides to go to the club, enquires after Autumn, the name of the girl from the affair, meets her and they have some conversation as well as some silences, ending with Autumn embracing her. Later, Autumn phones her and invites her to come to the club, where Suzanne begins dancing, resists, at first, the invitation to take cocaine, but eventually does so, dancing, being taken home by Autumn and being sick.

The bond between Suzanne and Autumn grows, and Suzanne goes to Macy’s with the other girls to do some alleged shopping which is really shoplifting and Suzanne is arrested and put in jail, the detective coming to see her there. He tells her that the offender has struck again, with a similar pattern.

The friendship grows between Suzanne and Autumn whose real name is Fantasia. She meets Fantasia’s daughter, is bewildered after a night out and sleeps it off at Fantasia’s mother’s house, becoming friendly with her as well then, after the mother gets sick, acting as a babysitter for the little girl.

She goes to visit the couple in their new house and mentions that she didn’t get an invitation to their housewarming party. The two seem rather ingenuous but decide to invite her – and, when she arrives, she finds that it is a sex party with partner swapping going on, and she gets caught up in this as well.

After all this physical, psychological and moral collapse, but benefiting by the friendship with Fantasia and her family, she has a dream where the Spirit of Christmas Present appears to her and they have a discussion about her life and her future.

The film is a strange mixture, written, directed and edited by Zach Clark, presenting a great deal of ordinariness, an ordinary couple, a working couple, in love, ambitious, with an enormous change for the wife after her husband’s death, and the descent into some kind of hellish experiences at the strip club, cocaine, drinking, shoplifting, as well as self-indulgence at the sex party. And then, her friends come Carol singing, she goes to church with her family, singing hymns with hope from this Spirit of Christmas Present.

THE CASE OF THE VELVET CLAWS

US, 1956, 70 minutes, Black and white.
Warren William, Claire Dodd, Wini Shaw, Bill Elliott, Joe King, Addison Richards, Eddie Acuf.
Directed by William Clemens.

This is Perry Mason story from a novel by Earl Stanley Gardner. Warren William starred in a series of four small-budget films in the mid-1930s as Perry Mason, with Genevieve Tobin as Della Street.

For audiences accustomed to imagining Perry Mason like Raymond Burr and Della Street like Barbara Hale, the last film in the series will be something of a shock - marriage.

Warren William, romantic hero in some of the 1930s films, although also capable of being a suave villain, is tall and thin. He is also something of a comedian, as a character, in the way William plays Perry Mason.

At the opening of the film, Perry and Della go to the judge to get married – but it takes a while to get to the honeymoon. A woman accosts Perry and hires him to go to a tabloid editor to prevent a story being published. She gives a false name and turns out to be married, having an affair with a politician. The editor is killed, the woman is unmasked, but not before blaming Perry for the murder. Perry, questioning, happy-go-lucky manner, and with severe flu, seemingly effortlessly uses his powers of deduction but also sends out his assistant, Spuds to get information.

While the crime is interesting, it is the character of Perry Mason, his comic style, his man-about town manner, that is more entertaining. And then there is his marriage with Della – and commentators note that Earl Stanley Gardner married his secretary just before he died.

CENSORED VOICES

Israel, 2015, 84 minutes, Colour and Black and white.
Amos Oz.
Directed by Mor Loushy.

Censored Voices is an award-winning documentary from Israel, focusing on the Six Day War, almost half a century earlier.

Response to the film will depend on audience attitude towards that war, towards the way the State of Israel has related to Palestinians and neighbouring countries since the declaration of 1948. Fewer than 20 years after this declaration, Israel went to battle with its neighbours including Syria, Jordan and Egypt and soundly defeated then within a very short time. Jerusalem was unified, the status of Gaza and West Bank changed, and while there were dreams of a Palestinian state, they still have not eventuated, and, indeed, the situation has worsened with the building of so many settlements in the hostilities of the settlers, and as well as the different intifada and terrorist attacks.

This documentary something of an exposé.

After the soldiers returned from the war, many to a kibbutz, a group of young men went into the kibbutz, filming and taping the returning soldiers. These records were suppressed for many years, only a limited amount of material being made available.

What has happened now is that the young men of almost half a century of, the soldiers and the interviewers. The interview is went to meet some of The soldiers and get retrospective perspective. One of the leaders of the interviewers was the celebrated author, Amos Oz. The interviews with him in the past and in the present are one of the main advantages of the film, a prominent citizen, a prominent writer, his action in 1967, his reflections decades later.

The film has interviews in the present, but the significance of the film is in the content of the interviews with the young men returning from war in 1967, not feeling as if the victors, not exactly sure what they had fought for, not appreciating the results, making comments on this experience of battle, the effect on them, the effect on families (and some grieving mothers), not exactly an endorsement of the victory in the war.

Also included is news footage of some of the battles, the impact on the soldiers, woundings and deaths, return from war.

The film is brief, is well put together, as a look at the past with more critical eyes, challenges for the audience to reassess the war and its impact, its consequences – for succeeding decades and for succeeding generations.