LOVE THE COOPERS

US, 2015, 107 minutes, Colour.
Diane Keaton, John Goodman, Ed Helms, Amanda Seyfried, Alan Arkin, Marisa Tomei, Olivia Wilde, Jake Lacey, June Squibb, Jon Tenny.
Directed by Jessie Nelson.

Sometimes, it is hard to – not all the Coopers love each other, at least on the surface.

This is a film for northern hemisphere Christmas release, full of family celebrations, but in winter, with many snowed in at airports and unable to travel, Christmas decorations everywhere, plenty of Santa Clauses, preparations of the family meals – and all the trimmings, but which, of course, do not go to plan.

One of the difficulties of the film is that it has almost too many characters, each demanding a percentage of the screen time, time that is not always there for their stories to develop. In fact, the film seems a collection of short stories mixed in together. Some of them get our attention more fully than others. Older audiences will be following the story of the grandparents and their gradual falling out of love with each other; younger audiences may identify with the tentative teenager, pimples and all, and his struggles with his first kisses.

As can be seen, the Cooper Family is fairly dysfunctional.

The film spends a lot of time introducing us to each of the characters and setting up particular stories. Some of them have comic elements. Some of them are romantic. Some of them dramatise hardships, divorce and job losses. Some of them have the touch of tragedy.

And the whole story is narrated by the family dog, Rage, whose story this is as well, voiced prominently by Steve Martin.

Diane Keaton, who is one of the producers of the film, has what might be called the villain’s role. She is the matriarch who is prone to smother with her love and care, something which she does not always see, something she always defends – and, we hope, that she will see the light by the end of the film, especially because her husband, a genial John Goodman, really loves her and experiences a growing disappointment in her alienation, criticism, proud declarations of her role as mother.

This is somewhat complicated by their daughter, Olivia Wilde, a playwright who is having an affair with a local doctor and feels pressure to make a good impression on her mother, not wanting her mother to give her “that look”. This character is better developed than others, sitting in the bar at the airport, not wanting to go home immediately, chatting with a soldier (Jake Lacey) who turns out to be something of her opposite, Republican, literal Christian, a good man who experiences her ups and downs of moods but eventually agrees to go home pretending to be her boyfriend. He is the catalyst for some of the changes.

In the meantime, her brother (Ed Helms) is separated, has lost his job as a photographer, goes through a failed interview, relates to his three children, a little girl who is not backward in being forward, a sympathetic young son who wants to help his awkward teenage brother (the one who gets involved in kissing). Their aunt, Marisa Tomei, is lonely, is arrested for shoplifting, and spends most of her part of the film involved in amateur counselling of a police officer, Anthony Mackie, whom she accuses of being a robot in his behaviour. His is one of the interesting characters, especially in his response to Marisa Tomei.

Then there is the great-grandfather, played nicely by Alan Arkin, who befriends a lonely waitress, Amanda Seyfried, and invites her to the Christmas dinner. And June Squibb is on hand as the friendly family aunt with touches of dementia.

Some have attacked the film as too formulaic – and, probably, it is. But that doesn’t mean that many audiences will not enjoy the formula, interested in some characters more than others, but watching how it will all turn out and whether there would be some change of heart and some Christmas cheer.

1. Christmas story? Winter season, cold, December, the decorations, the homes in the streets, Santa Claus, Christmas meals?

2. The musical score, the range of carols, the range of Christmas songs?

3. Pittsburg, the city, the views, the bridge, hospitals, the home for the elderly, homes and shops, the airport? The feel of Pittsburgh?

4. The structure: Rage and Steve Martin’s voice, the dog’s story, perspective, feelings, involvement? Drawing the morals?

5. The introduction to each story, the variety of stories, a group of short stories, bringing them together? The flashbacks for each story?

6. Charlotte and Sam, 40 years of marriage, Rage as a young dog, the gift? Their being together, their family, Charlotte and her mothering, smothering? Sam and his dream of the trip to Africa? The death of the little girl and the effect on each? Grief, living through the grief? Gradually growing apart?

7. Hank, as a character, the effect of the divorce, his photography job, the collage of photos, his being replaced by a machine? Going to the job interview, the young man and finding him too intense, his nought? His children, love for them? The visits of his wife, her nagging? Christmas, together at the meal, watching their son and his kiss? Angie offering the job at the school? Friendly relationship after the divorce?

8. The children, the little girl and her slang and rudeness, at the shop with her grandparents, getting lost? BJ and his wanting to help his older brother, looking for the gift, Charlie and his age, pimples, being nasty to his parents? At the store, his resolution to meet the young girl, at the counter, his approach, the kiss, awkward, BJ watching? BJ imagining the challenge, his being the superhero – and the reality of what really happened, his wounds? Charlie sending the text to the girl at the hospital, her arrival, the mistletoe, the public kisses, his parents watching?

9. Aunt Fishy, old, the touches of dementia, talking about Sam and his trip, whether he enjoyed it or not, Rage’s comments about her, the flashbacks to 1946?

10. Eleanor, her age, her plays, her attitude towards life, returning for Christmas, waiting at the airport, not wanting “that look” from her mother? Having the drink, meeting Joe Bailey, the conversation, teasing, the reactions? His being Republican, Christian, believing in evolution, his role in the army, his happy parents? Sharing, her insulting him? Her making amends, getting to know him despite her harshness? The proposal, the fiction, the plan, going home, his blurting out that they were engaged, Charlotte and Sam’s reactions? His walking out the door, return? His saying grace and the dog farting? At the hospital, leaving again, Eleanor chasing him? Reconciliation – the future?

11. Emma, age and alone, the accident when they were girls? Being alone, shoplifting, the brooch, the arrest, spitting it out? In the car with Percy, handcuffed, calling him a robot, lies, pretending to be a counselor, saying he was a robot and gay, the role-plays, his voicing his mother, coming out, his career, anger, her advice? His letting her go, his advice about the most expensive gift, late, at the children’s table, upset, at the hospital, talking and shouting with Charlotte, change, buying the gift, the shower seat, and Aunt Fishy saying it would be useful, BJ asking Emma to dance, her delight?

12. Newton, his age, at the diner, his friendship with Ruby, not liking the food, talking to her, she being interrupted by the young man and coffee? Her deciding to leave, telling Newton, his being upset? His feeling excluded, returning, the invitation to the family dinner?

13. The blackout, the effect, Newton’s stroke, in hospital, everybody present, his recovery?

14. Charlotte and Sam and their relationship, bickering, singing for the old people, taking the grandchild shopping? When to tell the family or not? The table, Charlotte’s hesitation? The analysis of their relationship and growing apart? Eleanor and Charlotte and criticism? The clash with Emma? Charlotte finding this hard but admitting the truth? At the table, Newton watching them? Rage and his comments?

15. Everybody dancing, hopes for the future, Charlotte agreeing to go on the trip, but a short and local?

16. The final credits and the singing?

THE ASSASSIN/ NIE YIN NIANG


Taiwan, 2015, 105 minutes, Colour.
Qui shu.
Directed by Hsiao- Hsien Hou.

The Assassin is not the easiest film to follow, taking audiences back into the seventh and the ninth centuries, Chinese empire, rivalries and clashes and the role of the young woman who is a trained assassin, taken as a child by a nun who instructs her and gives her missions.

The director is one of Taiwan’s most significant directors over several decades, making a wide range of films, contemporary and historical, relying on strong visual style, very much to the fore here in the black and white and colour photography, the composition within frames, the hold of the camera for audiences contemplative response. This means that many audiences will be disappointed, especially those assuming from the title that this is a Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon kind of film. It is certainly not. It does have quite a number of fights, but they are presented in a rather more realistic way rather than relying on magic realism and special effects.

While there is much to consider in this glimpse of Chinese history, exercises of power, rivalries, battles and squads and assassins, the overthrowing of dynasties, this is a film to contemplate and reflect on rather than for an adrenaline experience.

1. Acclaim film? Awards?

2. The director, Taiwanese background, his career, perspectives in his films?

3. The acclaim for the photography, the visual beauty, opening in black and white, the seventh and ninth centuries, moving into colour, landscapes, shots and compositions, dwelling on the shops? Exteriors, mountains and beauty, the woods? The interiors? The wealth and the poverty? The musical score?

4. The importance of action, stunt work, restrained use of martial arts, the contrast with the popular Chinese films?

5. The title, the seventh century introduction, the dynasties, the empire, the passing of the centuries? Rivalries?

6. The prologue, the assassination, the splitting of the Lord’s throat? In the landscapes, black and white photography, the introduction of the assassin?

7. The complexity of the plot, audiences identifying personalities, the sides in the clashes? The women, the children? The Lords? The difference, the fighting squads, the killers?

8. The assassin, little girl, taken for training, the goals, mistakes, going into action, the initial slitting of the throat, the threats? The children and the threat? Her mission, the followers, her saving the warrior, the rescue? The woman in the fight? The end?

9. Groups travelling the countryside, the locations, the battles, ambushes, in the palaces, in the countryside?

10. The magician, the old man, the towns, the paper cutouts with the bodies of the dead, the confrontation, the arrows fired into him, his death?

11. The scene in the palace, the dancing, the man and the woman, the gases, the woman’s collapse, the fights – and the pregnancy?

12. The resolution of the plot, the future for the assassin? Riding away?

HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA

US, 2015, 91 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Selena Gomez, Kevin James, Steve Buscemi, David Spade, Fran Drescher, Molly Shannon.
Directed by Genndy Tartakovsky.

A very pleasant surprise.

After the advertising: monsters, their own hotel, humans as the enemy – and the voices of Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg after the ugliness of That’s My Boy, it didn’t look so good. But, I would imagine adults taking their children will quite enjoy it, even get a kick out of it with its playing on the old horror conventions. But, almost immediately, as we are introduced to Dracula in 1895, the birth of his daughter and his planning of his hotel resort just for monsters to get away from it all, the thought comes: what will smaller children make of his this monster lore that they have not been exposed to yet (we hope)? They will enjoy it with all the shenanigans, the odd-looking characters and the comedy – maybe this is their introduction to Dracula and co.

The film is quite bright and breezy, with lots of incidental jokes and plenty of references to the movies for those who enjoy that kind of thing. There is Frankenstein (voiced by Kevin James), large but tending to fall to pieces (and not being put back together quite correctly). There is Wayne the Werewolf (voiced by an excellent Steve Buscemi) and his wife Wanda (Molly Shannon) and their crowd of obstreperous pups (except for the little girl who comes into her own with tracking skills for the climax). There are plenty of zombies, there is Quasimodo, and with his glasses, The Invisible Man (seen shaving his invisible face!).

Actually, this is a father-daughter film. The widowed Dracula (yes, he is voiced, and very effectively, by Adam Sandler) wants to protect his daughter and has arranged a special 118th birthday party with all the monsters invited, and accepting. She is a typical 21st century teenager (who assures her father that she is not 83 any more) and wants to see the world. Daddy does not want her to leave, even though he and his wife were married in Hawaii. Lots of father-daughter talk and arguments.

But, who should arrive at the hotel but a human, Johnny (Andy Samberg)? He is well traveled, and is a party organizer. He persuades Dracula to let him stay – and, sure enough, romance ensues. Dracula gets to like the human despite all the propaganda at the Hotel against them. There is a dramatic climax, including the real monsters encountering a monster festival in the town, a race to the airport to bring Johnny back, and Dracula (in his bat form) risking his life through sun exposure chasing the plane to bring Johnny back.

The parody of the monsters acting as themselves, but also acting like humans, has some very funny moments as well as some poignant ones. And this has to be the nicest Dracula who every trod the screen, the pleasantest Frankenstein monster and the funniest werewolf.

The character drawing is lively, the castle and other backgrounds vivid. I could have done without the rap song at the end – but, I suppose, it is the 21st century!


1. An entertaining comedy for all ages, its appeal, children, adults, monsters vampires? Dialogue, visual and verbal jokes, the voice cast?

2. Vigorous and lively animation, bright colours, design, action? The hotel and interiors? Transylvania? Countryside, mountains and travel? Colour, verve, the musical score and songs?

3. The variety of monsters, visual, voice cast? The tradition of vampires and Transylvania? Dracula and his figure, clothes, fangs? The other vampires, turning into bats, flying? The blubber monster, the invisible man, the Frankenstein monster, the werewolf, the many different large and small monsters, the wide range – and their wives?

4. Dracula, his history, the flashbacks to his wife, the death, the birth of his daughter, growing up? His relationship with the other monsters? His love for Mavis, the father and daughter relationship?

5. Mavis, the teenager, the equivalent of 18, preparations for her birthday?

6. The idea of the hotel, Dracula developing the hotel for monsters to come with the family – and the parallels with ordinary hotels? The monsters enjoying the facilities?

7. Johnny and forest, hiking, the encounter, with Mavis, the background of The Zing, sharing each other as company? The effect on Mavis, the zing, her hopes, the differences?

8. Dracula, disguising Johnny as a monster, at the party?

9. Father and daughter singing The Zing?

10. The range of jokes, Frankenstein falling apart, Warren the werewolf with the sheep, the invisible man shaving…?

11. Johnny going back home, to the airport, the monsters’ Festival, Dracula going out into the sun, risking himself? The plane, the pilot, altering his memory, his going back to refuel in Transylvania?

12. The happy ending, romance, – and the possibility for a sequel?

HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA 2

US, 2015, 89 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Selena Gomez, Kevin James, Steve Buscemi, David Spade, Keegan- Michael Key, Asher Blinkoff, Fran Drescher, Molly Shannon, Megan Mullaly, Nick Offerman, Rob Riggle, Dana Carvey, Mel Brooks.
Directed by Genndy Tartakovsky.

A couple of years ago, audiences were surprised to find that there had been some kind of truce between vampires and humans, especially with the opening of Hotel Transylvania welcoming human guests. Not only that, the patriarch of the vampire family, Drac, was consenting to the marriage between his daughter, Mavis, and human with a touch of the hippie, Johnny.

And this is where this sequel takes up, the preparations for the wedding and the wedding itself, the vampires and the variety of monsters at the Hotel Transylvania hosting the humans from California and everybody having an enjoyable time. Then a year passes, Mavis is pregnant, then she gives birth – and the big question, is Dennis (called Dennisovich by his adoring vampire grandfather) a human or a vampire. While he has a mop of reddish hair, he doesn’t have any fangs. Nevertheless, he grows up happy, at home with vampires and monsters, comfortable with his human grandparents, an ordinary boy although everybody quibbles about the word “normal”.

Mavis and Johnny go to California for a holiday where she is overwhelmed by the Slurpee choices in a mini-mart and shows her prowess at bike riding on skateboarding centres. She really enjoys living in the human world. In the meantime, Drac and other monsters decide to take Dennisovich on a holiday, to a summer camp for him to prove himself a vampire, able to fly… It doesn’t turn out as hoped for and Mavis and Johnny, unable to get a flight, rely on Mavis’s bat-power to get home before the camp-goers.

There is a big climax for Dennis’s birthday, especially with the arrival of his great-grandfather (voiced inimitably by Mel Brooks), a fight of good monsters against bad monsters and revelation about Dennis…

The voice cast is very entertaining with Adam Sandler reprising Drac, Selena Gomez is Mavis, Andy Samberg as Johnny, and comic voices like those of Steve Buscemi, David Spade and Kevin James as a very benign Frankenstein monster who is accommodating for the tourists to take selfies with him. In small roles are Fran Drescher, Megan Mullaly, Molly Shannon.

It is all very brightly lit, vivid animation, action, and quite a lot of humour, both visual and verbal, with reference to vampire traditions and movies – an easily enjoyable film.

1. An entertaining comedy for all ages, its appeal, children, adults, monsters vampires? Dialogue, visual and verbal jokes, the voice cast?

2. Vigorous and lively animation, bright colours, design, action? The hotel and interiors? Transylvania? The camp, the tower, the fire? Countryside, mountains and travel? California, the mini-marts, bike riding? Colour, verve, the musical score and songs?

3. The variety of monsters, visual, voice cast? The tradition of vampires and Transylvania? Drac and his figure, clothes, fangs? The other vampires, turning into bats, flying? The blubber monster, the invisible man, the Frankenstein monster, the werewolf, the many different large and small monsters, the wide range?

4. Mavis and Johnny, the preparation for the wedding, their characters, human and vampire, the entertainment at the wedding, the ceremony, Drac and his pride? The year passing, pregnant, the birth of Dennis? His growing up?

5. The human guests at the hotel, everyone happy together? Still the suspicion of humans? The smell?

6. The humans, accepting the vampires, the in-laws coming from California for the wedding, the celebrations, Mavis and Johnny going to California, the California lifestyle, everybody coming for Dennis’s birthday, having to pretend to be monsters, the make-up, Johnny’s mother and father, the mother and her comments and friendly with vampires?

7. Drac, his friends, going on the holiday, to the tourist park and all the tourists, wanting a selfie with the Frankenstein monster? Going to the camp, scaled down for fear of dangers, the protectiveness for the young vampires, the children playing, the games, Dennis and his involvement, the tower, Drac wanting him to fly, his fall and being caught? The fire and the camp going up in smoke? Mavis and her phone call, the photos on camera, the group pretending to be at home, the group having to go back, everybody on the bike, progressing so slowly?

8. Mavis and Johnny, wanting to go back, no flights, using her bat-power, the final confrontation?

9. Dennis’s birthday, inviting the great-grandfather, his visual appearance, the vampire traditions, his servant Bela, the clash with Bela, accepting the invitation, arriving at the party, the impact, smelling the humans, their disguises? The great-grandfather and his attempts to frighten Dennis so that his fangs would drop?

10. Bela, excluded, smelling the humans, something the other monsters, Dennis and the little girl and the attraction, fighting Bela and the monsters, his fangs dropping, becoming a top vampire? His past interest in superheroes and his combining superhero and vampire? The final fight?

11. The happy ending for everyone?

12. The ironies about presenting the vampires in the pattern of contemporary humans, freedom from the past, and the message of caution about the safety
of children?

SUFFRAGETTE

UK, 2015, 106 minutes,Colour.
Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne-Marie? Duff, Brendan Gleeson, Ben Wishaw, Geoff Bell, Natalie Press, Samuel West, Finbar Lynch, Meryl Streep.
Directed by Sarah Gavron.

One of the surprises of Suffragette is the listing before the final credits of the dates when and where women received the vote, significantly New Zealand in 1893, Australia in 1902, with Mrs Pankhurst and her suffragette movement in the second decade of the 20th century – and then information about Britain in 1928, France in 1944 and, very surprisingly, Switzerland and the vote for women as late as 1971.

This film is very much a women’s film, a female director, Sarah Gavron (Brick Lane), writer Abi Morgan (The Iron Lady) and a strong female cast led by Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter and Anne-Marie? Duff, with a strong cameo by Meryl Streep as Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst. There are some interesting performances by men as well, Brendan Gleeson as the chief of police, suspicious of the women, upholding the law, with Ben Whishaw as Carey Mulligan’s husband proving to be chauvinist in his attitudes towards his wife, and Geoff Bell as the unscrupulous manager of the Bethnal Green laundry.

The film focuses on a small group of women, symbolising the whole suffragette movement. At its centre is Maud Watts, Carey Mulligan, a young woman who has worked in the laundry since she was a child, seeing her mother die at work, now married, her husband also working in the laundry, and with a young son, living in a working class street in East London. She encounters a member of the movement, Violet, Anne-Marie? Duff, strong but frail, whom Maud helps, especially gaining a job for her daughter who is sexually harassed by the manager of the laundry. When her son is ill, she goes to the local pharmacist, Edith, Helena Bonham Carter, whose father prevented her from becoming a doctor but who are still skilled at helping people. Both women are heavily involved in the suffragette movement, Edith having gone to prison several times (but supported strongly by her husband).

Through unforeseen circumstances, Maud finds herself delivering a speech in the House of Commons, members of parliament led by Lloyd George listening to the experiences of women. The audience listens attentively, as do the parliamentarians, when Maude outlines the hard life that she has led, the hard work, the family struggle, the lower pay…

As Maude becomes more involved with the suffragettes, she is present at a rousing speech given by Mrs Pankhurst, is impressed, becomes committed, cannot agree with her husband and finds that she is ousted from her own home, having to live in an old church. One of the most moving and emotional scenes concerns Sonny deciding that they should give up their son for adoption.

The suffragette movement was quite vigorous, not just with protests (with police exercising brutality to put the women down, arresting them, imprisoning them) but with acts of sabotage, ranging from throwing stones in shop windows in Regent Street to a demonstration that leads to a fatality at the race track in the presence of King George V.

With such commitment and energy, audiences may be expecting the film to show that the suffragettes won their voting rights and other rights immediately – but this is not the case, many years before success.

The film is rousing, focuses on a small group who represent the whole movement. And, of course, it reminds us of courses and protests in the present – and our wondering how they will be represented in 100 years time.

1. The history of the suffragette movement: information, New Zealand 1893, Australia 1902, Britain 1928, France 1944, Switzerland 1971?

2. The focus on British activities, changes over 100 years?

3. The British perspective, scenes in London, the workers’ area in Bethnal Green, the laundries, houses, streets? Work, pay, sexual harassment and abuse? The feminist movement, suffragettes, action, protest, sabotage, the police, police brutality, prison, speeches in Parliament?

4. The re-creation of the period, dark, east London, the interior of the laundry, the interiors of the homes, the pharmacy shop? The contrast with Westminster, the Houses of Parliament? The country estate? The musical score?

5. The focus on a small group, a cross-section of women, Mrs Pankhurst?

6. Maude, the focus of the story, Carey Mulligan’s presence, her age, marriage, relationship with Sonny, her son, work in the laundry from an early age, her mother and her death, her becoming a specialist at the laundry? The attentions of Norman Taylor?

7. The laundry, Taylor, the hard and constant work, ironing and folding, deliveries, the range of women working, the men including Sonny, the young girls, exploitation, Taylor spurning the women’s movement?

8. The women, having to be tough, Violet, her marriage, her children, frailty? The tough work, Violet’s involvement in the movement? Maude helping her, helping her daughter?

9. Maude and the delivery, taking the bus, at the riot in central London, the smashing the windows at the shop, going home, shaken, Sonny delivering the package, taking her son to school?

10. Her son, illness, going to the pharmacy, Edith taking his temperature, Edith and her pictures and certificates, the support of her husband?

11. Sonny, his attitude towards the women’s movement, looking down on it, forbidding Maud to be involved, his male demands for her to be his wife, her arrest, arriving home late, his ousting her, her quietly seeing her son, his birthday and the present? The issue of the adoption, the couple, Sonny not able to look after the boy, the grief for Maude to lose her son? The family promising that he would have a good life?

12. The influence of Violet, of the other women, the older woman and her protests, throwing the stones? The well-to-do woman and her Parliamentary husband? The group, the range of members of different classes?

13. The police, violent protests, bashing? The parliamentarian consulting the police chief? His upholding the law? Hard attitudes? Going to the Parliament to watch? Visiting the prison, interrogating Maud, his offer for her to be an informant, her refusal? His watching the progress of the movement – and a possible change of attitude after seeing the women and the tragedy at the racecourse?

14. Maud going to the hearings, Violet to make a speech, Lloyd George and the parliamentarians listening, Violet’s injuries, her text, asking Maud to give the speech, Lloyd George asking the questions, Maude providing the answers, her declarations about her life, family, work, pay?

15. Meryl Streep as Mrs Pankhurst? Her policies, influence, in hiding, her speech to the crowds, her exhortations, the police attack, the disguise and her escape, the encounter with Maud, impressing Maud?

16. The women taken to prison, Edith going many times, Maud arrested, the treatment of the women, the bail for the life of the parliamentarian, the others staying?

17. Maud, ousted by Sonny, Violet’s help, staying in the church? Her confronting Taylor, burning his hand with the iron? Taking Violet’s daughter, going to the mansion, asking the woman to take the daughter in to give her a job?

18. Edith, staunch with the suffragettes, the support of her husband?

19. The demonstration at the races, wanting to do something significant, the presence of the King, losing the opportunity with the horses? The woman going onto the track, disrupting the race, the jockey flung from his horse, the horse falling, the woman and her death? The significance of her death, desperate protest?

20. The gathering to hear Lloyd George, and no concessions to the women?

21. An interesting picture of the movement, of the women, the long fight – and ultimate achievement? A significant moment in British history?

HE NAMED ME MALALA

US, 2015, 100 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Davis Guggenheim.

If ever a bullet did not achieve what the shooter intended it to do, it was that which the Taliban and fired into the head of the young student, Malala Yousafzai. The intention of the shooter was to kill Malala to make an example of her because she advocated education for girls.

Despite expectations to the contrary, when Malala was flown to Britain for surgery and for recovery, recover she did. And, although Malala is only 18 now, the rest is history.

This documentary, from director, Davis Guggenheim, who won the Academy Award for his Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, presents a portrait of Malala as something of a jigsaw or patchwork quilt. His material is not presented in conventional chronological order. Rather, we are introduced to Malala, some information about her work as a young student in Pakistan, but then a focus on her recuperation, her becoming something of a public figure, her campaign for education for girls.

Interspersed throughout the film are animation pieces, a device used to move quickly over events and perspectives by offering sketched images of Malala herself as well has of the countryside and other backgrounds. Some have found this a bit disconcerting or not appropriate to such a serious subject. However, it does allow for a change of mood, a shift in perspectives, a way of getting the audience to reflect on what they are seeing and what it means.

With the emphasis on the title, it is clear that Malala’s father is quite a significant presence in her life. He often accompanies her. He is an educationalist with strong ideas, obviously a major influence on his daughter. By contrast, her mother is quiet and stays in the background. One of her siblings, her younger brother, offers some cheeky and playful comments about his sister. Malala herself is often playful.

One of the significant aspects of the film is Malala, after her recovery, pursuing her education, but also travelling widely to a variety of countries, especially in Africa, again to encourage girls to go to school and receive an education. She is a strong teenage missionary for female education.

It is only towards the end of the film that it focuses on Malala in Pakistan, the threats to education, her being shot, the immediate impact, strikingly visual, her being saved and brought back to health, and her appearance in headlines throughout the world.

It was thought that she would receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013, but this did not happen. She was pleasantly stoic about all of this. But, in 2014, she did win and, at the end of the film, we see her making her acceptance speech and her exhortations about education.

Malala has become a significant figure already – and it will be very interesting over the coming years to see how she manages her celebrity and how she continues her education campaign.

TRUTH

US, 2015, 120 minutes, Colour.
Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford, Topher Grace, Dennis Quaid, Elisabeth Moss, Bruce Greenwood, Stacy Keach, John Benjamin Hickey, David Lyons, Dermot Mulroney, Rachael Blake, Andrew Mc Farlane, Noni Hazelhurst, Lewis Fitz- Gerald, Philip Quast, Steve Bastoni, Nicholas Hope.
Directed by James Vanderbilt.

Truth is a very broad title from any film, let alone one about journalism, especially investigative journalism. director, James Vanderbilt, as written screenplay adapted from the 2005 memoir by Mary Mapes, Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power. Mary Mapes was an award-winning television producer, latterly working with television celebrity host, then Rather, and the attempted 60 Minutes program on George W.Bush and his being eased into the National Guard instead of action in Vietnam.

Mary Mapes wrote the book explaining the process of researching and compiling the program, or the producers being subject to a cbs internal investigation and Mapes being fired from her job – and has not worked in television production since. obviously, the film is from her point of view, her explanations and justifications of the behaviour and procedures, the felt prejudices at the time of the 2004 presidential election, the behaviour of CBS network.

Investigative journalism has become very significant in recent decades. With such an appetite for news, radio, television, the press, online, there is also a public desire to go behind the headlines, often sensationalised, often the personal opinion of the journalist with the byline. The Social Media, with easy access for people to offer opinions, blacken reputations, foment conspiracy theories, there is certainly a need for investigation.

Information came in to Mary Mapes about George bushes cracked Bushes military service. She gathered together a crack team and is authorised by CBS to research the program. phone calls were made, documents received, attempts were made to verify the truth of the documents, checks were made on opinions of military personnel… Some were persuaded to be filmed for the 60 Minutes Program.in the immediate aftermath, there were denials, criticisms of the lack of verification of the documents, even to questions about the use of typefaces and particular on typewriters in the 1970s. Of the networks created controversy and the investigator to particular to many lengths to try to verify the truth – unfortunately, not successfully.

This inside look at the methods and processes of such journalism is fascinating in the investigations on current media, whether it be of corruption in racing industries, low wages and exploitation of overseas workers or the royal commission can still into institutional sexual abuse. It is certainly a cautionary tale.

What makes it powerful, whether one agrees with the attitudes of the characters and their conclusions are not, is the presence of Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes. A commentator noted that the powerhouse performance, one of the best (actually most of Cate’s Cate Blanchett’s performances are best) almost this film to succeed. We are all on her side but appreciate the strengths and flaws, the intensity of the work, the powers of persuasiveness in person and on the phone, admiration for Dan Rather, the glimpses of life, the son and supportive husband.

Robert Redford is always a reassuring presence (despite his age and dyed hair) as Rather, a well journalist who had, in some ways, to fall on his sword. the supporting cast is particularly strong, especially Tofu Grace as at the 30th tracking down leads, with Dennis Quaid and Elisabeth Moss. Stacy Keach is military source who supplies the documents which have to be examined. And then we might notice that Noni Hazelhurst plays his wife, and there are quite a number of Australian actors are present in the film, Andrew Mc Farlane as Mary Mapes’ lawyer, Nicholas Hope as a handwriting expert, Rachael Blake and David Lyons as’s CBS executives. Then, at the end, we are informed that it was all filmed in New South Wales, with a few New York scenes. Indeed, the director of photography, Mandy Walker, the editor Richard Francis- Bruce, and others in the technical credits are also Australian.

The film is an interesting picture of the significance of investigative journalism and the need to try to get everything right – or else.

1. The title, objective, subjective truth? Journalism, in the media?

2. The nature of investigative journalism, getting information, using and protecting sources, documents and verification, the “Gotcha” moments?

3. A true story, based on Mary Mape’s book, her perspective? The work of a production team, critique of the government, network bosses, the public, the media?

4. 2004, in the aftermath of 9/11, in New York City, George W. Bush as President, his re-election? The invasion of Iraq? His reputation? The Republicans, the Democrats, the urgency in the election campaign? John Kerry and the comparison with military service?

5. The reputation of 60 Minutes, of Dan Rather, CBS, Rather as a television icon, his reliability and credibility?

6. The cast, the stars, the character actors, American and Australian? A film of interiors, studios, homes? New York, Texas? The musical score?

7. The framework, Mary Mapes and her discussions with her lawyer, the interview, the flashbacks?

8. Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes? Mary Mapes’s career, a strong woman, the background her father, his putting her down (and his later television denunciations, and her request, with tears, for him to stop and his agreeing)? As a journalist, as a producer, working with a team, with reporters, with Dan Rather, with the editors and technicians? Her reputation with the expose a of Abu Grhaib? This case, her being fired, her reputation, not working again, writing the book?

9. The George W. Bush issue, his training as a pilot, the issue of going to Vietnam, going to the National Guard, the high-ranking influences, the documents, his being AWOL? The opinions of the sources about the situation, the documents?

10. The CBS chiefs, Andrew Heywood, his presence, allowing the program to go ahead, his calling the team to task, his applauding when Rather finished his work? Josh Howard brought in, young, his experience, permissions, caution? Betsy, the interventions, advice? The dates of the show, in a hurry? The presidential campaign?

11. Texas, Mary and her home, relationship with her husband, with her son, her being busy, depending on her husband, ability to talk with him? His support of her at the end, the going for a walk?

12. The team, Mary as leader, her enthusiasm and zest, Rather and his steady support, interest in the case, his experience? Mike Smith, his reputation and career, leads, attitudes – enthusiasm, with the enquiry, his being ousted by security, giving everyone the finger? Roger Charles, his military background, his knowledge, collaboration? Lucy, her skills, research? The team and their travel, the meetings, the flowcharts, collaboration?

13. The documents, Bill Burkitt as the source, his reputation, his health and sanity, his wife and her care, her presence? Verifying the sources? His giving of a false name as a source? Later, watching the program, his being exposed, agreeingto the interview, the producers watching, questions for Rather in the interview, the glasses of water, Betsy and the questions, Mary and agreeing and disagreeing? His illness, the significant speech from his wife and her disillusionment with their treatment and keeping their word?

14. Phone calls, getting agreements? Barnes, his role as Lt-Governor?, his public statements, interviewed for television, verifying the document, on-air?

15. The handwriting experts, the issues of the signatures, the dead officers? The four experts? The cautious woman? Matley, the discussions, his expertise, speaking on air, his later comments? Responding to the critique?

16. The issue of the documents, type settings, idiosyncrasies not available in the 1970s, the suggestion that it was a Word document on a computer? The team searching for the differences in the documents, finding them?

17. The program, getting ready, final decisions, everybody content watching the program? The immediate complaints, the reaction of the other networks, the questions, the program about a program, the crews outside the Mapes’ house? Hostile emails, critique?

18. The CBS heads, the meetings, the being upset, wanting denials, Rather and his support of the team, making him apologise on air, his finale, and the word courage?

19. The criticisms of Burkitt, his supporting Kerry, against Bush?

20. The setup of the enquiry, the partisan nature of the composition, Lawrence Lanpher as the head of the committee, his questions, his offsider, the other members and their interventions? His making an error and apologising? Tough, the negative report?

21. Mary, with her lawyer, his advice about her behaviour, calm stances, direct? The significance of her speech at the end about the situation and about investigative journalism? The farewell to Dan Rather?

22. Importance of journalism, investigative journalism, sources, protection, verifying – and this case a salutary lesson and warning to journalists?

IN THE HEART OF THE SEA

US, 2015, 121 minutes, Colour.
Chris Hemsworth, Benjamin Walker, Ben Whishaw, Cillian Murphy, Tom Holland, Brendan Gleeson, Frank Dillane, Charlotte Riley, Jordi Molla, Donald Sumpter, Jamie Sives.
Directed by Ron Howard.

This film opens with deep underwater photography and a voice-over, that of novelist Herman Melville, who reflects on the impact of the sea and who arrives in Nantucket to get background for his novel, Moby Dick.

But the main story is that of the voyage of the Essex in 1821, a whaling ship on expedition to the southern Atlantic and then into the Pacific Ocean. This story takes place in flashbacks as Melville interviews the last living survivor from the voyage who was a young lad, his first voyage, experiencing life on board, fierce storms, the confrontation of the giant white whale, the capsising of the Essex and surviving at sea for over three months.

Ben Whishaw plays Melville and Brendan Gleeson the man, now an embittered alcoholic, keeping the secrets of the voyage, even from his loving wife, but who is persuaded to reminisce and recount what happened.

The main action takes place in the 1820s, focusing on Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth), newly married, his wife expecting a child, rather looked down on by the shipowners and merchants of Nantucket as a land man, but who gets the appointment to be first mate on the Essex, under the command of an establishment captain, George Pollard (Benjamin Walker). Their commission is to bring back as many barrels of whale oil as possible, the oil used for lighting the lamps of the city streets.

With the difference in background and temperament, there are clashes between captain and first mate, brought to a head in a decision about confronting a vast storm. The storm sequence, coming early, helps audience appreciate the difficulties and dangers of sailing ships on the oceans.

The film also gives us a close-up on the tracking of the whales, the men in rowboats getting close, steering amid the whales, finding the right moment to throw the harpoons, letting the rope go as far as possible before the whale is exhausted, the bringing of the whale blubber on board and its being cut up as well as the barrelling of the oil – with the young sailor being lowered into the belly of the whale to facilitate collecting the oil.

This all takes place in the South Atlantic, the ship then rounding Cape Horn and putting into a Chilean port where they hear news of a giant white whale which has destroyed a Spanish ship. They go in pursuit and this leads to the confrontation with the extraordinary whale, the foundation for Moby Dick, an image of nature versus humans and not vice versa. As with the novel, the great whale is an instrument of destruction, even pursuing the sailors after the sinking of the boat.

This is a film for audiences who appreciate going back into the 19th century and sharing these dangerous experiences. This is also a film for audiences, especially those inspired by Greenpeace, who have campaigned in recent decades against the exploitation of whales, some of the barbarity in the harpooning and dissection of the whales, as well as the exploitation of the whales as a resource – with an ironic remark at the end as the old man mentions to Melville that he has heard that someone has struck oil in Pennsylvania, something which he could not believe so extraordinary did it seem!

Direction of the film is by Ron Howard who for over 30 years has directed an extraordinary range of different genre films, from space in Apollo 13, a western in The Missing, and, to mention in passing only, two of the Dan Brown film adaptations, but winning an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind.

1. A 19th-century down to the sea in ships story, Herman Melville’s story?

2. The director, the variety of his films, is strong craft in many onerous?

3. The 19th century, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the town, farms, offices, the wharves, ships, homes? The 1820s in the 1850s? The musical score?

4. The title, the opening in the depths of the sea? A story of whales, their size, schools, roaming the ocean? A story of sailors, ships, storms, capsizing, surviving?

5. Herman Melville, his opening narration, arriving in Nantucket, knocking at the door, the wife, the old man, his anger, the offering of cash, his wife persuading him to tell the story, telling the tale and the flashbacks of his life? Melville’s attentiveness? The wife listening? The old man’s memories, the confession of the cannibalism, his shame? His wife and forgiveness? His feeling free? And her pragmatic taking of the money?

6. Melville and his career, his novels, compared with Hawthorne, his research, his time at sea, the effect, writing Moby Dick, the final information and Hawthorne’s acclaim for the novel?

7. The 1820s, life in Nantucket, Owen Chase and his wife, her pregnancy, the needs, the farm, going to sea, away for a year or more? Talking with the authorities, the company merchants, their hard stances, his being first mate, meeting the men in the town, the whalers, his character and their interactions, the loading of the ship, the young boy on board, an orphan, Chase as a father-figure? The captain, his cousin, looking down on Chase? The tangle of the sales, his cutting the rope, the reliable seaman?

8. The merchants, whaling, the oil business, the street lamps, expectations? The father and his son as captain?

9. Captain Pollard, his stances, arrogant, superior, the clash of personalities with Chase? The storm as a test?

10. Chase and his men, the insult of the captain and cousin, the keeping of the log? His work with the men?

11. The detail of the storm, destruction, its effects?

12. The South Atlantic, the whales, sighting, the school, rowing between them, harpooning, the length of rope, ingenuity and judgement as to when to throw the harpooning, the whale pulling the boat, stopping, the blood in the blow?

13. The whales on board, cutting up, collecting the oil, the young lad and his sickness, into the interior of the whale?

14. Into the Pacific, the search, support, the sailors and their stories, believable or not, the challenge of the great white whale?

15. Chase, his friendship with Matthew Joy? From the past? Their work on the boat? His relationship with the others, with young Tom?

16. Venturing into the Pacific, finding the whales after the long search? The whale, its size, pursuit, attack? The reaction of the whale, hitting its tail, the waves and smashing?

17. The whale, the complete destruction of the ship, the men in the boats, hurriedly getting water and provisions, the whale oil burning? Chase and his attempts to save, going into the water, in the flames, rescued?

18. Three boats, the small group of men in each, surviving, the son, the need for water, meagre provisions? The film giving information on the number of days and the distance from the South American coast?

19. Reactions, drifting, the issue of cannibalism? The cousin, drawing lots, to shoot the captain, his willingness? He shooting himself? The other dead men?

20. The island, the waves and the landing on the shore, surviving on the island, the cave? The decision whether to go or stay? Joy and the others staying? Chase getting a boat to return to rescue them?

21. The men saved, going home, Owen and the reunion with his wife, his little girl? George, his father, the challenge from the company? The hearings, wanting the cover-up? Owen and his decision to tell the truth? George and the truth and his integrity?

22. The information about the subsequent history of George and Owen? And the irony of the old Thomas hearing about oil being discovered in Pittsburgh – and the threat to the whaling industry?

THE LOOK OF SILENCE

International co-production, 2014, 103 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Joshua Oppenheimer.

The Look of Silence is a companion film to the director’s The Act of Killing. Joshua Oppenheimer’s earlier film took audiences by surprise, sometimes making them aghast at the stories of the massacre of communists by the military in 1965. What was horrifying in that film was the actual footage of some of the killers remembering what they had done, no compunction, re-enacting the killings on screen.

The Look of Silence is, in some ways, easier to watch than the previous film though no less confronting.

Oppenheimer filmed in Indonesia, especially in 2003 and in 2012 in various locations, collecting a great deal of material which has been edited into the two films (the new film having some American television footage and reporting of the time).

This film uses the device of having a central character, Adi, born after the massacres, a son as a consolation for his parents saddened by the arrest and murder of an older son, Ramli. We see Adi with his wife and children, his little boy going to school listening to a teacher with an anti-Communist tirade, with his father contradicting the point of view of the teacher.

Adi is an optometrist, travelling round, testing the eyes of his clients, using a red frame (which features in a sinister way on the poster for the film) for the different lenses, helping people to see more clearly. This is obviously an image for the film and its perspective and message.

This time Addy interviews several of the killers. They are no less callous than those who re-enacted the massacres in the former film. Here, they speak to killers who were proud of what they did, have no hesitation in describing the killings, take Addy to the Snake River where they disposed of the bodies, one of them even having a sketchbook of drawings of what they did. Adi later goes to visit the family who are shocked at the news, and his showing television footage about their father, about the sketchbook. As can be imagined, the first reaction is to deny the past, but Adi has evidence.

Another person interviewed is his uncle who was a guard for the prisoners who eventually makes excuses for what he did, that he was not in charge. Gradually, with the help of someone present at the time but who escaped, the true story about Ramli and his arrest, escape, re-arrest and torture and death is revealed.

There is a further interview with a man and his daughter, the daughter having to admit what her father had done – including tossing a head amongst a group to frighten the Chinese.

As with The Act of Killing, there is an exposé of this year of living dangerously in Indonesia, the role of the military, the role of the government, the number of people involved in arrests, torturing and killings of a barbaric kind, and, while the past is past…, yet.

1. The work of the director? Investigations in Indonesia? His film-making? The impact of The Act of Killing? Information about the killings in 1965, the military, the deaths of Communists? This film as a companion to The Act of Killing, a complementary film?

2. The differences between the two films? The re-enactments of situations, the descriptions by the killers? The perspective on the political situation, corruption, the military? The focus of a family, on one man investigating about his brother? Looking for the truth? The perpetrators and their attitudes, happily showing places of execution, recounting the stories, the book with the sketches of what had happened? The brother, born after the events, the family not knowing what happened to their son, the effect?

3. The director, his presence, behind the camera, some references to him, and responding to his questions? His involvement?

4. The title and its ambiguities? The poster with the reference to the optometrist and his testing glasses and lenses?

5. The use of television footage, the NBC coverage in the time? Oppenheimer filming in 2003, 2012, the edited material? Different locations, editing, pace, the close? The musical score?

6. The use of Adi, his family, wife and children, his son and the strongly anti-Communist lessons, talking with his father, his father contradicting the lessons? Accompanying him on some of the interviews?

7. His mother and father, their age, the mother caring for the husband, washing and tending, his being blind? The death of their son, Adi being born later? Their grief? The continued visits, the father not remembering, the mother and her sadness?

8. The story of Ramli, his age, being taken, tortured, his escape from the truck, the arrest, the punishment and tortured, his death? Ramli’s friend being interviewed for the film, is telling the true story of his torture and death?

9. Adi as an optometrist, the image of the testing of spectacles and lenses, the red colour of the frames? The different meetings, talking, asking, not out for revenge but the truth, his sorrow?

10. Adi’s impassive face, his look of silence as he listened, the accusations?

11. The town, after 45 years, the memories, the silences, the anti-Communist stances, the myths about what happened, the interventions of the army, the brutality of the massacres, the torture, the disposal of the bodies, the vast numbers?

12. The two killers, cheerful, happily describing what they did, going to the Snake River, demonstrating what they did, egging each other on, the book of the drawings?

13. Adi’s uncle, the interview, his being a guard, his excuses, reaction?

14. The killer who had died, his wife, and his visit, their disbelief, Adi showing the television clips, the sons, the apology?

15. The girl and her father, his wanting to frighten the Chinese, the massacres, the head and its use? The family?

16. The impact of the interviews on the audience, on Adi, the revelations? The past his past, yet…?

17. The effect on the international audience, on Indonesian audiences, on the political authorities, military authorities? The need for a response?

BREAKTHROUGH

US, 1950, 91 minutes, Black and white.
David Brian, John Agar, Frank Lovejoy, William Campbell, Paul Picerni, Dick Wesson.
Directed by Lewis Seiler.

Breakthrough is a modest war film from 1950, recreating action five years after the events, the training of American troops in Britain before D-Day?. The producers thank the American military for permission to include actual action sequences.

The cast consists of character actors from Warner Brothers, with David Brian emerging at this time as a lead, Oscar-nominated for Intruder in the Dust, and pairing with Joan Crawford.

The film can be seen as something of a postscript to the World War II movies.

1. A look back at action in World War II? American troops, training in England, the details of the training, preparation for the invasion of Europe, D-Day?, backup, the end of the war and progress towards Berlin?

2. The title, with reference to the action, the contribution to victory in World War II?

3. Training sequences, battle sequences, the use of actual Army footage?

4. The focus on one group, leadership, training, mistakes, building up morale? The variety of different characters in this military setting? In England, the experience, readiness for action in Europe?

5. The characters, their interactions, struggles, friendships, comradeship, deaths in battle, memories? The command, the psychological pressure on commanders, difficulties in making decisions, personalising their interactions with the men, the need for being replaced? And the system starting again?

6. Tom Hale, his toughness, in the training, his reaction to Mallory and his personal concern, the mistake? The continued training? In active service, the pressure on him, his weeping, becoming too personalised despite his toughness? The discussion about his being relieved from his post? His understanding? His selection of Mallory, handing onto Mallory?

7. The musclebound southerner, redneck, his dog, his tears?

8. The comedian, his impersonations, Bogart, cheering people up?

9. The young man, glasses, too young to vote?

10. Mallory, eager, in the test, live ammunition, his mistake, reprimanded by Hale, success in warfare, taking over, imitating Hale’s methods and taking his advice?

11. Tough kids, from Chicago, from Brooklyn, the death on the tank after throwing the grenade?

12. Sgt Bell, his reassuring presence, continued support of his men?

13. The overall picture of action in World War II, from the perspective of five years later?