BRIDGE OF SPIES

US, 2015, 135 minutes, Colour.
Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan, Alan Alda, Peter Mc Robbie, Austin Stowell, Jesse Plemons, Sebastien Koch.
Directed by Steven Spielberg.

Here is a film that will satisfy an audience looking for intelligent and interesting entertainment. It takes us back to the late 1950s, the period of the Cold War, the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.

It has been directed by Steven Spielberg. 2015 sees the 40th anniversary of his classic, Jaws. While Spielberg is universally remembered for the broadly popular films like the Indiana Jones series, ET, Jurassic Park, he won an Oscar in 1993 for his very serious film, Schindler’s List. Since then he has made a number of dramas for adult audiences including Saving Private Ryan and, more recently, Lincoln.

Many of his films have a distinctly patriotic American tone as does Bridge of Spies. But it is not jingoistic. Rather, there is a deep humanism and respect underlying Spielberg’s films. And, in this film, he is aided by the presence of Tom Hanks who over the years has become something of an icon of an American character who is motivated by a sense of decency.

The film sets its scene by the introduction of a spy, Abel, played with car calm self-possession by British actor, Mark Rylance. He is a loner, a loyal Russian, a painter, adept at eluding followers, shrewd in his way of communicating messages – but the FBI are aware of him and take him in. While the American authorities and public opinion want him condemned, even executed, they think that there should be a show of American justice and Jim Donovan, Hanks, an insurance lawyer who had been present at the Nuremburg prosecutions, is the person to defend him.

When Jim Donovan meets Abel, he offers him a proper defence, discusses the situation, suggests to listeners, and to his upset family, that Abel is not a traitor but a loyal soldier to his cause. Nevertheless, the presiding judge does not see it that way and, very quickly, Abel is found guilty.

But one of the points of the film is that with growing espionage during the 1950s, if the Soviet Union interrogates a captured American spy, there will be a parallel condemnation. Donovan makes the case for a prison sentence so that a Russian spy could be available when the Americans are in need for an exchange.

Older audiences may remember the Francis Gary Powers case where an American air force man flying photography missions over Soviet space is shot down, captured and interrogated. The Americans don’t want Powers giving information to the Soviets and the Soviets don’t want Abel giving information to the Americans. An exchange of Spies becomes an important factor in American-Soviet? relations, especially under the CIA leadership of Alan Dulles.

All this makes the first part of the film very interesting, an exploration of American values at the time, given the context of paranoia about possible nuclear terror attacks, children being indoctrinated at school, becoming afraid at home, and the way of coping with the bomb, Duck and Cover.

The latter part of the film finds Jim Donovan asked by Dulles to negotiate the exchange, but without any authority from the American government. He goes to Berlin, warned about East Germany and its totalitarian regime, and Berlin as a divided city. This is the period of the building of the Berlin Wall and the film shows this in some detail as well is the case of an American student who wants to bring his girlfriend and her professor father from the East into West Berlin but is captured and interned.

There is a great deal of suspense, and some very good dialogue as Donovan has to meet with the Soviet authorities, the head of the KGB in Eastern Europe, with an East German lawyer and an East German official, trying diplomatic shrewdness in order to achieve the exchange. Donovan includes the freeing of the young student as well as Powers.

The film is continually interesting, especially for those who remember some of these years and this history. Perhaps audiences not so familiar with this era may find it something of a history lesson – but that is not a bad thing.

Steven Spielberg will soon be 70 with many years of filmmaking ahead of him, a very good thing in light of his success with Bridge of Spies.

1. Audience interest? History of the Cold War? The US and Russia? Spies, American law and the Constitution? The central role in Berlin? The building of the Wall? Exchange of prisoners? The perspective of the 21st century?

2. Steven Spielberg, his career, his achievement, style?

3. The title, the parallels with the Soviet and American spies, in exchange, the literal exchange on the Berlin Bridge?

4. Audience knowledge of the period, the possibility of learning, a dramatised history lesson? The modern parallels with contemporary espionage and Americans years earlier, suspicion of outsiders?

5. The story of the people, the events? The credits and the subsequent history, especially Jim Donovan and his achievements?

6. Introduction to Abel, the portrait, his painting, the call, following through, and his being pursued, his pursuers? His skill in leading his followers? Painting the Brooklyn Bridge, the technique for recovering the coin, the raid and his arrest, his passivity, recovering the paper? American attitudes to spies during the Cold War, the trial? Jim Donovan, ordinary lawyer, intelligent character, and the law, his presence at the Nuremberg trials, insurance cases and the initial discussion – one accident or five with different deaths? His being called in by his superior, their wanting him to take Abel’s case? His caution, the response, the dinner at home, Doug and his enthusiasm, his wife’s reaction to the news? The newspapers, his photo, the people glaring at him in the subway? Hostility, his principles, saying that Abel was not a traitor but a soldier, and loyal in his commitment?

7. The meeting with Abel, the discussions, not showing anxiety – and Abel asking if it would help? The agreement? His character, phlegmatic, Russian background, his loyalty, stoic, asking for cigarettes and for sketching material? Quiet in court, the jury and being found guilty?

8. The judge, his patriotic prejudices, refusing postponement? The sitting, the verdict? The extreme patriotism?

9. Jim going to the judge’s home, the wife and the drink, Jim arguing about execution and a life sentence, the possibilities for exchange of prisoners? The judge and his decision, the ferocious outburst in the court?

10. Jim’s family, the fears, the children at school, the nuclear films, the teachers, the Duck and Cover warning? The son and his apprehensions, filling the bath, prepared for a nuclear attack? The paranoia of the period? The shots through the window? The angry policeman and his bigotry?

11. Jim Donovan and the initial meeting with Hoffman, Hoffman following him in the rain, meeting in the cafe, the presumptions of the CIA, Jim and his own principles? Hoffman in Berlin, single-mind, wanting Francis Gary Powers and, not worrying about the exchange of Prior? His role in assessing Russian and East German diplomacy? Present at the exchange?

12. The call Alan Dulles, the CIA, the discussions, the commission of Jim to organise and negotiate the exchange, the diplomacy, not having any government authority?

13. The story of Francis Gary Powers? The interview, the psychological test? The group, the bonding, the commanding officer, the secrecy? The scenes of training, the descriptions of the plane, the cameras? The speech – and the dollar for suicide rather than capture? Destroying the plane? The actual flight, the effect, the cameras, the explosion, Powers and his panic, the parachute being caught, the plane descending, his parachuting down, captured by the Soviets, the scenes of interrogation, his not having any information?

14. Jim and his going to Berlin, the explanations about East Germany, the city in, the divisions, the detailed scenes of the building the Wall, the people escaping, Prior and his wanting to save the professor and his girlfriend, the soldiers, his documents, the police taking his thesis, his reason for being in Berlin? American, his imprisonment? His girlfriend and her going to the authorities?

15. Jim, the prisons, the warnings, the weather and snow, his travelling on the train, jumping the queue, authorities and his documents, allowed in, walking through the snow, accosted by the young diving, taking his overcoat, the giving him directions? His arrival at the embassy? The family, Abel’s warning about them, the protestations, the Russian official, later revealed as the Eastern European KGB chief? The discussions, the possibility of exchange, each side fearing what the captives might have revealed, and wanting them back?

16. The perspective of the East German lawyer, his attitude, stances, the discussions, wanting recognition of East Germany? The issue of Prior’s release?

17. Jim and the train, passing the Wall, seeing the desperate trying to escape being shot? The effect on him? His being put in rough apartment? His going to the hotel for breakfast? The discussions with Hoffman? Memorising the phone number, giving it to the authorities?

18. His going to see the East German official, the discussions, the snub, the message from the young messenger? Jim and shrewdness, sending a message back to the official, the diplomatic issues between Russia and the East Germans, the responsibility of East Germany if the negotiations failed?

19. The contact with the Russians, the phone call, the agreement, going to the Bridge? The arrival of Abel, flight from America, his meeting Jim, the gift of the painting? The verification? The officer from the air force to identify Powers? Jim wanting to wait for news about Prior’s release? The suspense, the final information, Prior being released? The exchange? The receiving of Powers, Abel and his saying that he would be embraced or put in the back seat of the car under guard?

20. The achievement, the flight back, Powers wanting to thank someone? The issue of the marmalade, the anxiety of his wife, his buying at the store instead of in London, the family watching the news, his work being praised? His going upstairs, exhausted?

21. The final achievement, the precedent established for exchange of prisoners, Jim Donovan and President Kennedy, in Cuba? The information about what happened to the main protagonists?

BLACK MASS

US, 2015, 122 minutes, Colour.
Jonny Depp, Joel Edgerton, Dakota Johnson, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, Jesse Plemons, Rory Cochrane, David Harbour, Adam Scott, Corey Stoll, Julianne Nicholson, Bill Camp, Juno Temple.
Directed by Scott Cooper.

Anyone expecting the dramatisation of religious sacrilege or of demonic rituals will be quite disappointed. This is an urban crime story, a portrait of a ruthless gang leader and the role of the FBI. A Black Mass involves the worship of Satan – and this may serve as a metaphor for the central relationship of the film, and a deal with the devil, in the form of Jimmy “Whitey” Bulger of Boston and his school friend, John Connolly, an FBI agent, who makes a deal with Bulger to bring down the Italian Mafia in the city.

Many audiences will find that they are observing the characters and the action rather than becoming involved. While the central character is completely sinister and brutal, there is no identification with him – unless one is something of a psychopath. The film opens with one of his drivers being interrogated by the FBI and giving up information about his boss, so the audience knows that it is a portrait of a loathsome criminal, becoming even more loathsome as we see him as a personality and in action. Throughout the film, other members of his gang are interrogated by the FBI offering further information about him.

He is played by Johnny Depp, in almost the opposite extreme from his Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean. He looks older, pasty-faced, sometimes hooded eyes, bad teeth when he sometimes smiles, receding hairline, quietly spoken but intensely single-minded and ruthless. Joel Edgerton plays John Connolly, a more complex character, who had grown up with the Bulger brothers in South Boston, Irish background, antagonistic towards the Italians, and determined to bring down the Italian Mafia. His deal but the devil, with Bulger, is getting information for the FBI about the Italians from Bulger himself, while protecting him in his empire building.

Actually, Bulger had spent 10 years in prison before the film opens but has a group of reliable henchman around him, gets rid of those he considers disloyal, and is involved in all kinds of rackets, drug-dealing, extortion. He ruled in Boston from 1975 to 1995.

Also in the picture is Bulger’s younger brother, Billy Bulger, who is a Massachusetts Senator – and a strange piece of casting with Benedict Cumberbatch as Billy Bulger, who has an ambiguous attitude towards his brother. Also in the picture is Kevin Bacon as the officer in charge of the FBI in Boston who becomes impatient when Bulger doesn’t supply sufficient information for attacks on the Italian Mafia.

For a moment, we think that Bulger might be a nice kind of person underneath as he is very kind to an old lady in the neighbourhood but this is soon dispelled. His child develops a fever, illness taken to hospital, put on life support which his partner wants to switch off but elicits an eruption of anger from Bulger who cannot bear to think of his dead child.

For those who have seen films like The Departed, Martin Scorsese’s film about racketeers in Boston and undercover agents (on both sides), a lot of the action will seem familiar. There are visits to Florida, business deals which go sour and end in murders, minor vicious criminals, like one played by Peter Sarsgaard, who is brutally murdered on screen. There is a good cameo by Juno Temple as a young prostitute, sure that she has not yet given any information to the police, but nevertheless to be got rid of.

This couldn’t last. Dissatisfied henchman are prepared to open up to the FBI. A new, straight-down-the-line FBI head, played by Corey Stoll, comes to Boston and targets John Connolly as well as Bulger.

There is a lot of detail in the film, performances, crisp dialogue, action sequences that are worthwhile – but, on the whole, we are observing rather than becoming involved.

1. A true story? The 20th century? The 21st century perspective? Boston, Italian and Mafia gangs, Irish gangs from South Boston? Credible investigations, the FBI?

2. The title, the nature of the Black Mass, dealing with the devil? Connolly and his dealing with Jim Bulger?

3. Boston, 1975 to 1995, the city itself, the variety of scenes, the tenements and streets of South Boston, homes, the public buildings, the waterfront, the FBI, the ordinary and the extraordinary? And the scenes in Florida, the contrast with Boston? The musical score?

4. The narrative, the variety of informants, Kevin, Stevie, the cumulative effect? The portrait of Jim Bulger and the perspective on him? sinister and brutal?

5. Audience knowledge of the crimes? The intimations from Martin Scorsese films, especially The Departed? Audience response to Bulger? Johnny Depp playing the role, his look, manner, low key when speaking? The 10 years in prison? Returning, his relationship with his mother, kind to the neighbour, the bond with his brother? His partner, the child and illness, his response in hospital, not wanting to cut off life support, his partner and her reaction, his abrupt response? His relationship with his henchmen, the loyalties? Antagonism towards the Mafia? The details, the drugs, extortion, the number of murders? A crime monster?

6. The contrast with John Connolly, the complexities of his character and experience? From South Boston, the friendship with the Bulgers? Joining the FBI, his aims, antagonism towards the Mafia, determined to get them? Working with Charlie McGuire?, John Morris, Robert Fitzpatrick? As a team? The special bond with John Morris? The idea of using Bulger? Currently meeting with him, the discussions, the plausibility, the agreement? The secrecy? Bulger confiding in Steve? The approval of the authorities?

7. John, his background, South Boston, growing up with Bulger? His social life, his wife, the tensions? The Christmas dinner with the Bulger family? The links with Billy? Years passing, the authorities wanting information? His meeting with Bulger, pleas, the envelope in his car, success, listening to the tapes, the raid on the Mafia? And the protecting of Bulger’s gang enterprises?

8. Work of the FBI, combating Boston crime, Charlie McGuire? and his leadership, growing impatient? Morris and his involvement? Fitzpatrick? the belief in Connolly and his methods?

9. Bulger and action, his men, going to Florida, the discussions, the information from Brian Halloran, giving him the $20,000, the murder of the businessman after his golf game? Brian Halloran and his fears? His ruthless killing his men? The brutality his murder, especially his pleas, Bulger relentless?

10. The years passing, Bulger and his empire, Steve and his participation in the murders? The insertions of his confessions to the FBI? The issue of the prostitute, her personality, sex with Stevie, released from prison, her talking to Bulger, to the apartment, Bulger killing her?

11. Billy, the Senator, his reputation, large family, discussions with John? Knowledge or not of his brother’s criminal activity? Seeing his reputation, the parades, socials, speeches? The death of their mother? The funeral? The aftermath? The Christmas dinner and the guests?

12. The IRA episode, getting the weapons, the trawler, the personnel from Ireland, the plant, giving the information, the arrests?

13. Bulger, not changing his personality, his cruelty, the Empire growing, his reliance on Kevin (and the initial sequence of Kevin as a bouncer, the fight, Bulger taking him in the car, the murder, getting Kevin as driver and as one of his henchmen – and Kevin testifying)?

14. The arrival of Wyshak, serious, the files, Connolly coming in to talk with him, ticket gift, Wyshak as straight down the line, with the agents, the comparisons of information given by Bulger and from other sources? Suspicions of Connolly?

15. Bulger coming to the house, John’s wife and her condemnation of her husband, his swagger like Bulger (and the audience seeing him with the women in Florida)? Going to her room, Bulger and his going to the room and confronting her? The discussion at the table, the steaks, the source and the request to John Morris, his revealing the secret, Bulger taunting him, Connolly being taken in?

16. The informants, Bulger exposed, his sitting in the church contemplating, the headlines, showing them to Kevin and his disbelief? His phone call to Billy?

17. His disappearance? The 16 years? Found in California? Billy cutting off John Connolly? The arrest of John Connolly, his wanting to keep his dignity but the rough treatment by the police?

18. The information given about the criminals, their sentences?

19. In the tradition of films about crime in America?

LEARNING TO DRIVE

US, 2014, 91 minutes, Colour.
Patricia Clarkson, Ben Kingsley, Grace Gummer, Sarita Choudhury, Jake Weber, Matt Salinger.
Directed by Isabel Coixet.

Perhaps before we even go into see the film, but certainly after the initial sequences, we are in no doubt as to the meaning of the title and its metaphor and its meaning. While Wendy, Patricia Clarkson, does take driving lessons under the guidance of Darwan, Ben Kingsley, Wendy is not just trained how to manage a car, but is being guided as to how to reflect on her life and change its meaning. And the same is true of Darwan’s life, although he seems in command, but has to deal with personal relationships.

This is the kind of film that is popular with older audiences, who can identify with the characters and their situations, may share some of their experiences, and want to see how they deal with them – and with some hope.

It is at this point that it is probably best to introduce the word ‘raunchy’, because many audiences attracted by the film and the publicity may think that this will be an enjoyable PG portrait of adult characters. and, by and large it is. Just a warning for the unsuspecting that there is some raunchy verbal humour as well as a sex scene that might be more explicit than they are anticipating.

That said, there is much to commend the film to its target audience.

Patricia Clarkson, over the years, has given some very fine performances, able to bring to life on screen a middle-aged woman, life problems, emotional tensions. She appeared in a somewhat similar-themed film some years earlier, Cairo Time. This time she comes on screen full-blast, her husband of 21 years having just announced in public that he is leaving her. She is shocked, emotionally devastated, and going through a desperate tantrum in a cab on the way home, being driven by Darwan who has two jobs, one as a driving instructor during the day, the other as a New York cab driver at night.

Wendy has a daughter, played by Grace Gummer (one of Meryl Streep’s actress daughters) whom she is putting through college and who is working on the land in Vermont. Wendy goes into depression, wants her husband to return, finds that he has proceeded with separation papers, comes to collect his books and she finds that she is ousted from her own house and has to find somewhere else to live. She would like to go to visit her daughter but has never found the time or the will to learn to drive. She has, upset, left a manuscript (she is a writer and reviewer of books) in Darwan’s cab and he courteously returns it.

As expected, she contacts him to take driving lessons.

We would all we should all be so lucky to have such a competent, calm, focused driving instructor like Ddarwan. Ben Kingsley has gone back to his roots, his Indian roots. Darwan is a Sikh, our Prof, imprisoned in India, accepted as a refugee in the United States, a calm man, a man of principle, training Wendy to be calm, conscious of the rules of the road, focused and not committing to distractions. She is prone to distraction, and it is no surprise that she has a crash, fails her first test.

The film also shows a lot of Darwan’s background, his living in digs with quite a number of Indian workers, not always possessing papers as we see when they are rounded up. He cares for his nephew, while his nephew’s mother, Darwan’s sister, is busy trying to arrange a marriage. His prospective wife arrives in New York City, Jasleen (Sarita Choudhury), a middle-aged woman who cannot read, does not speak much English, is fearful of going out, and is not a good cook. There is a beautiful ceremony in the Sikh tradition but then comes the hardships of daily life.

So, Wendy has to learn how to cope with her new life, without her husband, taken unwillingly on a double date by her sister (and going home with the prospective husband), but learning a great deal from Darwan and quietly discussing the meaning of his marriage with him so that he might do something positive to encourage Jasleen.

Well, the metaphor is obvious – but, nonetheless, it is interesting and entertaining to see how it works out.

1. The title? The metaphor? The learning for Wendy? The learning for Darwan?

2. New York City, Wendy’s world? Darwan’s world? Intersecting? The detail, the time? The musical score?

3. Wendy as a character, age, experience, 21 years of marriage, her husband’s behaviour over the years, love her daughter, putting her through college? Her work as a book reviewer, love the words? Seen at her computer, her library, in the broadcast with reviewers? His a dog humour and comments? The shock of her husband’s leaving, and public? The cab, her tantrum? Her husband getting out, Darwan driving? Her love for her husband, pleading? The interactions with Tasha, Tasha working in the country, and to see her father?

4. Darwan, his character, age, background in India, in prison, asylum in the United States, his Seek identity, his jobs, the driving lessons, his words of wisdom to the youngster not to do any damage up to get his licence, driving the, his manner, courteous, car? His nephew, the discussions about his marriage, and he boarded with, their being rounded up? Finding the manuscript, returning it to Wendy?

5. Wendy’s husband, the 21 years, every seven years a crisis, trying adultery, humiliating his wife and public? And the cab? His girlfriend, as imagined by Wendy? Collecting his books, looking at the photos? The separation, the documents, the lawyer, the effect on Wendy, I am Tasha?

6. The driving lessons, Wendy not wanting them, deciding, wary, her motives, to drive to see her daughter? Darwan and his dignity, car, the cumulative effect of his training, meticulous detail, the safety, the rules, concentration Western Mark the effect of the crash, the police and the harassment? Wendy’s test, fatally? Her change of attitude, the house, renewed motivation, success?

7. Dublin, his home, the roundup of the men, his nephew announced, the interview by phone and photo? Just lean and his story, the death of her fiance, age? Arrival at the airport, Darwan late, her luggage, meeting Wendy, the drive home? Not having much English? Learning the Spanish word? Her poor cooking? Her being upset? Darwan and his treatment of her? The arranged marriage, the lavish ceremony? The seek customs, the Temple, the priest, prayer? Rituals? His being a good man and faithful? The discussions with Wendy? The platonic friendship with her and his reflection on his friendship? Urging Jasmine to go to shop, her wanting the tampons, meeting the woman in the supermarket, the gathering of women, the friends, who begins to study, to change? Darwan and his accommodation, 12 days and not nights?

8. Wendy sister, discussions, advice on the double date, talking with Peter, the sexual encounter, Tantric sex and the serious and comic?

9. Tasha, love her parents, in the country, her boyfriend, her mother’s advice, urging her to return to the country, promising to drive to see her?

10. Wendy, with Darwan, buying the bread car, the discussions?

11. The light touch with the serious touches on contemporary problems?

CLEVELAND ABDUCTION

US, 2015, 88 minutes, Colour.
Taryn Manning, Raymond Cruz, Katie Sarife, Samantha Droke, Pam Grier, Joe Morton.
Directed by Alex Kalymnios.

Cleveland abduction is based on a true story. It focuses on Michelle Knight who was abducted in 2002 by Ariel Castro in Cleveland, Ohio. She was imprisoned in his house for 11 years. Early in those years, Castro also abducted Amanda Berry, with whom he had a child, and Gina de Jesus.

This is a television film for the American channel, Lifetime, whose films are generally geared towards the very broad audience and do not receive much critical acclaim.

It is very difficult to find a balance in a film is made based on true stories of abduction and sexual violence. Many think it is rather prurient of audiences to watch this kind of film, indulging in curiosity, some vicarious thrills. On the other hand, audiences see reports of such crimes on television, the radio, read newspapers and magazines. One of the functions of a well-made film is that it dramatises how such crimes could be committed, something of the psychology of the behaviour of the criminals, the effect on victims.

While this film has some graphic detail, at least for television audiences, of the abduction, the imprisonment of Michelle Knight, the brutal treatment as well as the introduction of the other two young women, the latter part of the film spends a lot of time on the women growing up, Amanda Berry’s little girl and her growth within this house, the strange phenomenon of the door left open and the appeal of the women to strangers who call the police and rescue them. A lot of time is given to Michelle Knight being in hospital, her recovery, the desire to see her child, police investigations but the decision that it was not appropriate for her to meet her son. This means that by the end of the film, the abduction sequences are in proportion to the rescue and rehabilitation, giving a more balanced picture for the audience.

Taryn Manning gives an interesting performance, beginning as an awkward, almost illiterate teenager (who has given birth to a child to whom she is devoted with flashbacks throughout her imprisonment highlighting her love for her son). As her internment continues, she grows up, helps the other two young women, especially resuscitating the child after its birth, and then a more mature woman, getting back to health, some psychological balance, and finally the words of her testifying at Ariel Castro’s court case.

One of the horrors of the story is that it all took place in a suburban street in Cleveland, with Castro having his brothers over for visits, other friends, musical sessions. Raymond Cruz has the unenviable task of bringing Castro to life, his initial charm, offering to take Michelle to a hearing into the custody of her child, promising a puppy to take to her son. She is interned, hanging above the floor, the light shut out of the room, subjected to physical brutality, being tied up, chained, as well as sexually abused. She is presented as a woman of faith and belief in God.

This film is based on her own version of this story, emphasising her internment but bringing together the other women, their fears, the exploitation, their eventually becoming something of a family, especially as Amanda Berry’s little girl grows up, finds a place with her mother and her aunties, has to deal with her father’s strict injunctions not to go out.

In the latter part of the film, there is a focus on Michelle in hospital, the slow recovery, and not wanting to see her mother who had left the town, her pleas to see her son, the police, in the form of Joe Morton, reassuring her but eventually having to break the news that the adoptive parents want no contact.

This kind of film is uncomfortable to watch. It is probably the equivalent of articles in a newspaper or magazine or television documentary or special. But it does raise issues and dramatises something of the reality, within only 88 minutes.

The director is British and has directed quite a number of British television series including Eastenders.

GERONTOPHILIA

Canada, 2013, 82 minutes, Colour.
Pier- Gabriel Lajoie, Water Borden, Katie Boland, Marie- Helene Thibault.
Directed by Bruce Las Bruce.

Bruce La Bruce has had a long career in making films that were sexually explicit, in his native Canada as well as in the US. Those who know his films will be surprised at this one as it moves more towards mainstream cinema-making.

While sexual issues are still significant, the film is more reticent in its language, in this visual presentation of sexual activity and nudity. It is a film that many audiences could watch with some interest.

The central character is a teenager called Lake (Pier- Gabriel Lajoie), French- Canadian who lives with his mother, a heavy drinker who dances at a club but loses her job. She gets a new job working in a home for the elderly and organises a place for her son.

Lake is emotionally involved with a young woman, Desiree, and thinks that he is in love with her. However, his not sure of his sexual identity and is very surprised at his sexual reaction at a swimming pool where he works and he has worked on the body of a man whom he has rescued from the pool but who is dead. Some girl bystanders laugh at him. He also has a sketchbook and, when he takes up the job at the residence of the elderly, the sketches quite a number of the elderly men. Desiree is puzzled.

He becomes involved with his work at the residence, is told not fraternise with the residents, but he gets into discussions with them, is kind in his work with them.

Most significantly, he encounters a man, who turns 82, who has had a life in the theatre, is gay, has a marriage which lasted only a short time, a son whom his mother took with her but who pays for his father in the home. Lake becomes very friendly and spends a lot of time with Melvyn (Walter Borden), listening to his reminiscences, becoming attracted to him, sketching him nude, looking after him, stripping while talking and playing cards with him, having a sexual reaction – and is caught by the nurses, to the anger of his mother who says that everybody is gossiping in the residence, especially when he is seen by a fellow worker who finds working with the old people repulsive.

Ashamed but finding that he is falling in love with Melvyn, he has conversations with Desiree, whho is partly understanding and sympathetic, but feels that they have to separate.

One of the episodes is Lake taking Melvyn for a drive, taking him out of the institution, going on the road, planning to go to the Pacific, talking with him, having meals, moments of jealousy when Melvyn actually talks to other men, especially one who sidles up to him in a bar. At a motel, Lake consummates his relationship with Melvyn, only to find the next morning that Melvyn has died.

There are many films about behaviour which seems sexually aberrant or, at least, unusual. Lake uses the language of fetish when he is describing his feelings for Melvyn. Lake is at the beginning of his life and it is difficult to know how this experience will have affected him and what his future will be.

In the meantime, Bruce La Bruce has given us a different film, less provocative than his usual films, but more thoughtful.

THE WALK

US, 2015, 122 minutes, Colour.
Joseph Gordon- Levitt, Ben Kingsley, Charlotte Le Bon, Clement Sibony, James Badge Dale, Cesar Domboy, Steve Valentine, Benedict Samuel.
Directed by Robert Zemeckis.

The title seems rather innocuous, but the actual walk, and its repetitions, are far from simple. This is no walk in the woods but rather, a wire walk from one of the Twin Towers in New York City to the other, 101 stories above Manhattan.

Movie audiences may be familiar with the story from the excellent Oscar-winning documentary made by James Marsh, Man on Wire. It relied on the walker himself, Philippe Petit, as does this film, based on his book, To Reach the Clouds, as he himself served not only as adviser but as coach for the walking on wire sequences. He taught Joseph Gordon- Levitt to walk on a wire about a metre from the ground – and effects did the rest.

A warning that this film is not for the vertiginously- challenged, especially the 3D version which is very vivid. Audiences are invited to identify with Philippe and the walks, especially those on high buildings like the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris as well is the Twin Towers. He spent a lot of his time on the sides of buildings, on roofs, with practically nothing between himself and thin air. For those of a more adventurous sensibility, the film will probably be very exciting.

It comes as something of a shock at the beginning to find Joseph Gordon- Levitt, portraying Frenchman, Philippe, standing on the lamp on the Statue of Liberty – where he remains throughout the film narrating his story with the action in flashbacks. He speaks his English with a broken-French accent.

Philippe’s father was not very impressed with his little son’s delight in going to circuses, watching the wire acts, trying to emulate them – his father dismissing him as a circus clown. While trying his feet on the wire in the big top, he is caught by a master wire walker, Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley), who eventually reveals to him many of the secrets of his trade. Which makes the audience aware that is not simply a matter of balance but there is much technical work to be done, the setting up of a wire safely, testing it, testing whatever holds it on each side of the space, and the engineering feats required for the higher the walk and the longer the walk. Philippe just simply didn’t get the bright idea of walking between the Twin Towers (well, perhaps he did) but it required a great deal of preparation, planning and meticulous execution.

Philippe is a Frenchman, works as an entertainer in the streets of Paris, initially clashes with a young woman, Annie, singing and playing in the same square where he was writing on a minor cycle – but, they do click, and she becomes one of his staunchest allies. Then there is a photographer, Jean-Louis?, who admires Philippe and becomes his photographer and his assistant.

They take all their equipment, especially the wire and tools, and are let into the US by a customs officer who is slightly amused at their bravado, not believing it for a minute. They spend a lot of time scouting the Twin Towers which were in 1974 in a state of near-completion, which helps and impedes access to the buildings. But, a businessman who works in the towers and had seen Philippe in his Notre Dame feat, also becomes an ally giving him access to the building. And when they go to buy communications, the American who is trying to sell them wire-less, is revealed also as a Frenchman and he becomes an enthusiastic helper. There are two others, one of them perpetually high, who decide to some of the drudge work, carrying the big box with all the materials into the towers but running away, especially when the police begin to make their presence felt.

For dramatic effect (and probably happened in real life) there are a number of difficulties in getting the box up to the floor, in security guards being present, in the arrow shot from one building to the other almost not landing – and all the preparation done during the night, especially the cable going from one building to the other.

As might be expected, the film builds up a lot of tension before the walk and there is some shared exhilaration with Philippe not only as he walks but as he goes back and forth, explaining the exhilaration of his being one with the wire, and that this being his vocation in life.

The film has been directed by Robert Zemeckis, who has shown versatility of interest over many decades: Romance in the Stone, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forest Gump, Beowulf, Flight…

Philippe’s feat was not simply a walk in the clouds but the work of a single-minded artist/athlete, working without permissions…, who achieved his dream, quite a spectacular dream.

1. A true story? Philippe as an artist/ athlete, train and someone who dared to fulfil the dream?

2. 1973-1974, the creation of the period, in France, the village, the circus? Paris, the streets and street performance?

3. New York, the Twin Towers and their re-creation? The city, the interiors of the building? Manhattan? The score?

4. The Twin Towers and a 1970s achievement? Tall buildings, like filing cabinets? Audience knowledge of the destruction? The effect of watching this pre-9/11 episode?

5. Philippe, Joseph Gordon- Levitt, appearance, accent? On the Statue of Liberty? Dressed in black, his uniform? Remembering, recounting? His personality, bright, single-mind, dedicated, relentless, expecting people to support him? His being urged to say thank you?

6. As a boy, relationship with his father, sneaking off to the circus, his practising the walk, his supporters? His father considering him as circus clown?

7. Trying out, the encounter with Papa, Rudi, Rudi and his reactions, critique, being paid to give advice? The importance of information from his learning? Of how much was required? The demonstration, his losing concentration, fall in the water?

8. The bond with Rudi The continued advice, the support?

9. In Paris, on the cycle, his circle, the audience, riding over people’s feet? Annie, playing , her complaint? The discussions, the bonding? Jean-Louis? and his photography, the two of them becoming allies? Collecting the money? Financing himself?

10. The idea of looking across the towers of Notre Dame, with Jean-Louis?, the setup, the walk, People’s acclaim?

11. The idea of the walk from the Twin Towers, going to New York, with Annie, taking photos, the Towers still in progress of being built? The visit to test reality?

12. The preparation, his vision, with Jean- Louis, the introduction to Jeff and his fear of heights, lacking English, maths and the puzzles and his English answers? Building the models, doing the calculations, information about cables, securing sides with wood, the different links?

13. Going to the US, telling the customs official about the plans for the walk, the laughing scepticism?

14. The bonds between the group? Philippe and his scouting, the plans, the encounter with Barry and his admiration, having been in Paris, giving them access to the building? Going to buy the communications, meeting with JP, salesman, Frenchman? His being willing to help? His getting the two slackers at short notice – drugs, unreliability?

15. Philippe and his standing on the nail, not letting that interfere? The timetable, getting the equipment, the date (and the day of the Nixon resignation)? Going over and over the plan, Philippe and his nightmare, nails in the box during the night?

16. The preparations, the equipment in the box, the tools? Going to the Towers, the elevator being leased? The waiting, JP and his spiel, their being let in, the elevator man, going to the 110th floor, the details of setting up, the security guard, the debate on the timetable, the radio contact, apprehensions, the arrow and the searching for it, nude, the exertions? Jeff and his fears, helping, the maths answers? The role of the silent visitor on the roof, confronting him? The connections of the cable? Its sagging? Apprehensions, Jeff and his help, the tightening of the cable? Annie and JP watching from below?

17. Ready for the walk, the tension, the filming of the walk, balance, crossing, his decision to return, his voiceover and his connections with the wire?

18. The police arriving, the others escaping? His performance, lying down and the manoeuvres? His deciding to finish? The applause of the people, admiration, even of the police?

19. The penalty, the performance in Central Park for children?

20. Annie, the decision to return to France, Philippe staying in the United States? 40 years? His technical advice for the film?

LONDON ROAD

UK, 2015, 91 minutes, Colour.
Olivia Coleman, Paul Thornley, Nick Holder, Tom Hardy.
Directed by Rufus Norris.

This is a film that it is better to know something about before one goes in because it is not quite what one might be expecting. To say that it is a musical is accurate but, again, it is not a musical in the way that one might be expecting. There are songs, but it is the way that they are incorporated into the film that makes it rather different…

London Road is not in London itself. Rather, the road is in the Suffolk town of Ipswich, one of those ordinary English roads, with ordinary English homes, of the lower middle-class variety, where residents live rather cheek-by-jowl but not necessarily know one another. And in this road, for just 10 weeks, one of England’s notorious serial killers rented a house. His name was Stephen Wright and he was accused of killing five prostitutes, found guilty, sentenced to life imprisonment.

A musical?

One of the authors of London Road, Alecky Blythe, had written some documentaries and interviewed quite a number of the inhabitants of London Road as well as a number of journalists who covered the case and the court proceedings. She found that there were certain rhythms in their speech, in their answers, and she decided to use these rhythms musically. As many of the personalities speak in the film, they start to accent their words as if they were reciting, then move into singing. Because the film is fairly realistic in its interview techniques, this method is intriguing, while some might find it off-putting, but it grows on the audience.

This stylised delivery of the words and music and rhythms enables repetition of phrases for emphases, dramatising the communication, from individuals, from groups, sometimes with choral effect.

While the film details of the case of Stephen Wright, nothing of the murders appears on-screen. What the film does is to focus on the people who live in London Road, their reactions to the situation, the shock that somebody could live so close to them, that something like this could happen on their street, that the press and public opinion condemned them, especially for the work of the prostitutes who solicited on their street. In fact, the focus of the film is the effect of the case on the people, ordinary citizens, some who are condemnatory of the prostitutes, others who are more sympathetic to the working women.

As we are introduced to Julie, Ron, Dodge, the principal characters in the street, we see the group banding together, responding to film media and holding meetings in St Jude’s parish hall, deciding that they will build up morale for the street, planting gardens to be judged in the street competition by the local council, having street parties and inviting everyone to celebrate the neighbourhood.

There are some sequences with some of the prostitutes themselves, relegated to the periphery, reflecting on themselves and their work, drug habits, clients – and with one of the girls arriving at the final street party, walking through, offered a balloon, and a little girl waving to her and she waving back.

The film makes much of the journalists, their presence on the street, a great number of interviews with the residents, their hanging around the courts, their talking to camera, a comment on the role of the media, its immediacy, presenting the news, but the touches of sensationalism.

As the audience get used to the film, we realise that it is saying (singing) a good deal about contemporary society – and that out of the bad can emerge some good and some hope.

1. Film experience, a theatrical experience? Realism and stylised presentation?

2. The Stephen Wright case, UK serial killers, mental illness, and troubled lives and marriages, prostitutes, sex and violence? The disposing of the bodies? His arrest, going to court, the trial, the sentence and the verdict on each killing, guilty? The killings happening off-screen?

3. The screenplay, the writer and the interviews with the actual people, using her words verbatim, the rhythms of their response, the emphases, becoming music, songs, the variety of performance? London Road, the residents, the media announcers, the prostitutes? The importance of words, importance of rhythms? The effect on the audience?

4. Photography, the realism of London Road, the homes, the gasometers, the street, the courts?

5. Interviews, the revelation of the characters, ordinary people, people in the street, the wide variety of views, the film offering a feel for the street, the surprise of the residents, the horror that the killer could live there, even for 10 weeks, the condemnation, some support for the prostitutes, others condemnatory, the ousting of the prostitutes, the respectability of the road? The single interviews, Julie and daughter, Dodge, Ron and his wife, the other couples? Accents of people, speech patterns, rhythms, their lives and perspectives?

6. The response of the people, their surprise, angers, and being labelled by the public, the reaction, Ron and his being proactive, the meeting at St Jude’s Hall, Julie and the idea for everybody improving their gardens, the street fair? Morale boosting, success, the awards, the spirit of London Road?

7. Seeing and listening to the prostitutes themselves, ousted from the road, the comments about Stephen Wright and the clients, the stories, the drugs, the regulars…? The prostitute at the street fair, walking through the street, receiving the balloon, going up the gasometer, the child waving and her waving back?

8. The mass response, the crowds at the barriers, others present, witnessing the arrest, the leaving, a glimpse or not? The action in the court, waiting for the verdict? The variety of songs, individuals, and groups, chorale?

9. Tom Hardy as the taxi driver?

10. The role of the journalists, the interviews, and speaking to camera, Simon and his getting his words and details mixed? The court, the verdict, the singing and the touch of cacophony, the young girl and her first program and success?

11. The film as a social document, events in 2006, serial killers, gruesome murders? The tarnishing of reputations, the street, and the possibilities of recovery of reputation, rehabilitation?

THE INTERN

US, 2015, 110 minutes, Colour.
Robert De Niro, Anne Hathaway, Anders Holm, JoJo? Kushner.
Directed by Nancy Meyers.

If only.…

That was the thought continually coming up while watching this very nice film. If only life were a little more pleasant and like the characters and situations in this film, not that everything is perfect, but there is a great wish as well as efforts that life could be as perfect as possible.

One hopes that a younger audience will enjoy it, identifying with the charming Anne Hathaway as well as the young men who work in her company, an online fashion sales company, A Good Fit, that she founded and has prospered enormously in 18 months. Plenty to encourage enterprise in the younger generation.

But, this is a film mainly for the over 60s and, especially, the 70s and over. It is optimistic towards the older generation, wants to offer them possibilities for creative retirement, shows how they can draw on experience, and contribute on a business level and, especially, on a personal level at this stage of their lives.

An intern?

Robert De Niro as Ben Whitaker has never been more genial, showing a good sense of humour as well as indicating that under the at times stern exterior, there is a heart of, as he says, mush! He explains himself, aged 70, widower after more than 40 years of marriage, having the taken all the opportunities for travel, sport and golf, new languages, hobbies, still has a great deal of energy and wants to fill that hole in his life. He also finds himself going to a lot of funerals. He notices an advertisement for senior interns, makes a video interview and is accepted.

Anne Hathaway portrays Jules Ostin, who had been very enterprising and started from scratch this online company, something of a workaholic, not remembering that she had approved the Seniors experiment and finding herself allotted Ben in order to be example for the rest of the company. Initially, she is not impressed.

There is quite a deal of plot: at the company, especially with Jules wondering whether she should employ a CEO because she is flat out with the work and it is having a toll on her health. We discover that she is married and has a little daughter of school age. She doesn’t give Ben much to do. The audience can enjoy the range of characters working around the office and Ben’s finding that the company’s massage expert, played by Renée Rosso, is a most congenial friend.

We know that there is going to be a rapport between Jules and Ben but we don’t quite know how. As the screenplay gradually breaks down something of the barriers, there is a lot of interesting, mostly genial, sometimes humorous interchanges between the two. And Ben is welcome in the house, bonding well with the little daughter (though with her dictating car routes, he realises that she is something of a clone!), and befriending the father who is the home carer.

There is a family plot development that we didn’t quite see coming – but that is nature of this kind of plot development. It means that Jules has to open herself up more personally to Ben and he serves as a kindly guide and wisdom figure.

There are also some episodes which are added to the plot, often enjoyably, especially with a special mission led by Ben with his co-workers trying to break into Jules’s mother’s house to delete an email that Jules has sent her by mistake, an entertaining split-timing episode.

The film does have a great deal to say about the place of women in society, in business, with opportunities, as well as opportunities for the older generation, men and women.

As has been suggested, the screenplay, by Nancy Meyers, is nicely optimistic, even in troubles and challenges – and only one expletive to be heard and a written suggestion of one and hardly a situation where an expletive would be required.

Nice entertainment. If only…

1. A romantic comedy? Age and generations comedy?

2. The pleasant humour, nice, characters, situations, tensions? A likeable film? Crises, help, ultimate hope?

3. A New York story, Brooklyn, Ben as a widower, the introduction, his apartment, his life, past work, the death of his wife, the long marriage, his love for her? Jules as a boss, in the workplace, in offices, factories, at home? A trip to San Francisco? A realistic story – with the touch a fairytale? Musical score?

4. Ben, at 70, his life, his experiences, his neighbour, Patty, and her advances? Going to funerals? His trips, hobbies, Tai Chi, languages? Seeing the notice, his application, the video interview? His meeting the executives? The usefulness of all the employees? His assignment to Jules, waiting, minimal contact? Working well with the others, especially sharing ideas with the young men, discussions about their lives, loves, not tucking in shirts, innuendo? Ben always in suit and tie? His waiting for the email, observing Jules? Cleaning up the mess and her favourable response?

5. Jules, in herself, her age, experience, her fashion idea, establishing the company, online, the issue of the mistaken material, rectifying it, the letter in gratitude? The staff, increasing numbers, their jobs, design, sales? Her assistant and appointment? The discussions, her work ethic? Jules and the idea of the intern? Her not remembering approving it, Ben assigned to her, her reaction, not giving many jobs, his moving in and driving her, in her home, the daughter, waiting? Her firing him? The alternative driver, the older woman and not being skilled? Jules and her making the apology to Ben?

6. Jules at home, her daughter, precocious (Ben thinking her a clone)? Her husband, giving business up, the home parent, pleasant, the reality of his lies, the affair? Ben seeing him and the woman? In fact Jules knowing? The effect?

7. Fiona, the company masseur, her age, experience? The young men and the reaction to Ben’s massage, sexual innuendo? Ben liking her, the visit, making the date, having to break it, Fiona going to his home, the relationship?

8. The trip to San Francisco, Ben available, flying, relaxing, the buildup to the friendship, working back late, the shared pizza? Jules’ change of attitude? In San Francisco, her interview, favourable, a possible CEO? At the hotel, in the room, Jules confiding in Ben? Watching Singin’ in the Rain?

9. The email, her mother’s phone calls, the criticism of her mother, sending it by mistake, the group and their working with Ben, the address, going to the house, checking about the alarm, the fact that there was an alarm, the computer, working quickly to delete the message, the police arriving, their escaping in time, Jules joining them with gratitude in a drink, her becoming tipsy?

10. Getting a CEO, her criteria, the range of interviews, liking the San Francisco man, coming home, the tension with her husband, in the office, his coming to offer an apology, his suggesting that she be the CEO, her telephoning San Francisco?

11. Ben, his background, in the same workplace, the phone books, the change of technology, at home in the plant, the detail, tidying up, helping his
co-workers dress up a little, his skill at driving, his advice, taking the little girl out and the bond with her? Helping the co-workers, especially Jules’ assistant?

12. A nice romantic comedy, identifying types and behaviour? The notion of the intern for an older aged person, the younger people relying on age and
experience?

SUNRISE AT CAMPERBELLO

US, 1960, 144 minutes, Colour.
Ralph Bellamy, Greer Garson, Hume Cronyn, Jean Hagan, Al Bunce, Tim Considine, Ann Shoemaker.
Directed by Vincent Donehue.

Sunrise at Campobello was a successful Broadway play, written by theatre and film director and writer, Dore Schary. He has adapted it for the screen, retaining so many of the scenes despite the effect of opening out of the early sequences with the Roosevelts on holidays at Campobello, and retained a great deal of the dialogue. Some of the performances seem more geared to the theatre than to the screen.

The action takes place from 1921 to 1924, Roosevelt having married Eleanor, his distant cousin, and having five children. He has been a successful lawyer, and prominent in public affairs. it was only later that his relationship with his secretary, Lucy Mercer, in 1918, came to light. (Bill Murray portrayed him in Hiyde Park on the Hudson with Laura Linney as his cousin, Daisy, with whom he had a relationship.) The film opens with the family holidaying at Campobello, a very cheerful household, the Roosevelt’s mother, with her French background, is rather dominating.

The film indicates the beginnings of Roosevelt’s infantile paralysis – polio, his collapse, the dcotor’s opinions, his losing the use of his limbs, gradually recovering strength in his arms and hands, being able to sit up, but not able to walk. Eleanor is a tower of strength during this period. Roosevelts friend, Louis Howe, is a constant visitor, despite the children not liking him and his asthmatic wheeze.

The decision is made that he will return to New York, though his mother wants him to return to their family home, Hyde Park. The film shows him busy with business interests, including oil exploration and dirigibles. Ultimately, he is interested in public office, especially with the support of Louis. Presidential candidate Al Smith hopes that Roosevelt would nominate him and the finale of the film is the discussions about the nomination, Roosevelt preparing, the braces for his legs, the distance to the podium, his son James helping him, his using crutches – and his approach to the microphone to the applause of the 1924 Democratic Convention.

After years of playing the other man, often a bit of a fool, in so many films, Ralph Bellamy had a great achievement in his stage performance and impersonation of Roosevelt. He captures the atmosphere of Roosevelt, larger-than-life despite his handicap. He won a Tony award and was Oscar-nominated. Greer Garson is Eleanor Roosevelt who also received an Oscar nomination, but had not been in films for several years, was to make The Singing Nun and The Happiest Millionaire in the 1960s and some television work later. Hume Cronyn is Louis Howe, Ann Shoemaker dominating as Roosevelt’s mother and Jean Hagan is the private secretary, Missie.

The film is quite long, directed by Vincent Donehue (Lonelyhearts, The Young Philadelphians) and made in the lavish style at Warner Brothers at this period.

1. The status of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt? At the time, Roosevelt as President, during World War II? Later revelations about his private life? The Roosevelt heritage?

2. The film based on the play, from the late 1950s, popular, awards? The peak of Ralph Bellamy’s career? The writer, his career in films and theatre?

3. The adaptation of the play, keeping particular scenes, the emphasis on dialogue, some acting more suitable to the stage?

4. The sequences at Campobello, the water and ocean, the sun? Interiors? New York, Hyde Park? The tone and style of 1960 filmmaking? Eleanor Roosevelt helping? The musical score?

5. The stars, the performances, impersonations, interpretations? Mrs Roosevelt, Missy, the children, Al Smith?

6. 1921, Roosevelt as a personality, his career, marriage, the dominance of his mother, love for his children? Reliance on Eleanor? His ambitions, self-confidence?

7. Eleanor Roosevelt, reputation, appearance, manner, voice, at home, in her campaign speeches? Love, wife, mother? Strong on discipline? The relationship with her mother-in-law? With her children?

8. The picture of the children, their advice on the film? The ages, at home, holiday, swimming, love for their parents, the play reading, their being protected, especially from their father’s illness?

9. The family, Edward, the shopping, Marie at home, French? Missy and her role as private secretary?

10. Mrs Roosevelt, French, imposing, expectations of her son, dominating people, the French background? Assuming her influence as Franklin’s mother? With the children? Her interference, wanting her son to retire and live at Hyde Park?

11. Roosevelt and his pain, the collapse, infantile paralysis – polio? The doctors, confined to bed, the weakness of his muscles, Louis and the massage? The weeks passing, the doctors’ opinions? Roosevelt accepting his situation, getting impatient, with people moving up and down? Cheerful, the help from Eleanor, Louis, with his mother? Reliance on Missy – the criticising her at one stage? The issue of his walking, prognostic, his having to cope, gaining greater strength, the scene of his crawling and going up the stairs?

12. The decision to return to New York, the elaborate carrying him on the boat, the train, avoiding the public?

13. Life in New York, Louis ever present, the strong friendship, his reliance on Eleanor, his mother’s presence? Louis, advice, the asthma? Roosevelt and his work, schemes, the plans about dirigibles, money, oil? The love for politics?

14. The details of his work, writing, managing Hyde Park, supported by Missy, the visitors – especially the politician wanting his condemnation of Al Smith? His strong speech supporting him, the issue of Catholicism? Getting his speech distributed?

15. Al Smith, Governor, his supporters, the death of his manager, getting advice about his nomination, deciding who to make the nomination, his visit to the house, Louis and Roosevelt pretending to be surprised? The talk with Al Smith, the drink, his way of bringing up the subject, Roosevelt and his circumspect responses?

16. The finale with the Democratic Convention, Roosevelt and his preparation, support of Eleanor, Louis and the speech, the braces on his legs, the distance to walk to the microphone, with James, arriving, discussions about his speech and the ending, Eleanor disagreeing, his mother’s support? The entry, the acclaim, the visuals of the Convention, his legs, the crutches, moving to the microphone, the applause?

17. The film seen in the retrospect of his success in his life, in his presidency?

OCULUS

US, 2013, 108 minutes, Colour.
Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Katee Sackhoff, Rory Cochrane, Annalise Basso, Garrett Ryan, James Lafferty, Miguel Sandoval.
Directed by Mike Flanagan.

Oculus is an interesting thriller, a horror story. It was quite well received by critics and the public.
Karen Gillan (from Scotland) and Brenton Thwaites (from Australia) play adult children who have a long history of the difficult relationship with their father, his killing their mother, and the boy killing the father. Throughout the film, there are flashbacks to the children and their lives.

When the boy is released from an institution, he meets his sister, but she intends to test out her belief that there was something malevolent in the mirror in the home. The screenplay offers the history of the mirror and details of the various killings for which it seems responsible. She sets up the experiment in the house, setting up clocks, a timetable, alarms, for their being attentive, for eating, for her fiance to telephone her.

She has many hallucinations, which makes the audience wonder whether all this is in the mind. And it reaches a head when in fear, she kills her fiance. The young man seems to be more ordinary and more self-composed, despite the flashbacks to his memories. But, whatever the malevolent influence, the young man sets off the switch which results in the death of his sister and his being arrested.

1. An effective horror film?

2. The title, eyes, mirrors and reflections, eyes in the mirror?

3. The town, homes, institutions? The musical score?

4. The two time eras? Intercut? The story of the children, their parents? Adult children? The effect of the intercutting, each time phase influencing the other?

5. The opening dream, Tim, the shooter, the children and shielding? Himself as the shooter?

6. The discussions with the psychiatrist, his taking responsibility for his actions, his being certified to leave, going out, his sister meeting him, the setup for his apartment, the sense of freedom, buying the phone, ordinary life? Yet his memories, and the responsibility of killing his father?

7. Kaylie, her age, experience, and memories, her work, the options, Michael’s fiancee?

8. Her plan to exorcise the memories? Her belief in the eyes in the mirror? Destructive? Memories of her mother’s death? Not wanting to blame her father? Transporting the mirror, the mirror in the house, her test?

9. The scenes with the parents, love for their children, the father, harsh, his work, accusations about his relationship with a woman, the mother, her illness, madness, confined and tethered, suspicions? Violence? Her being injured, the attack on her husband, he shooting her? Her reappearance to the children?

10. The theme of the mirror, reflections, the effect, Kaylie and her variety of hallucinations, the seeming so real, even to the audience? Michael and his messages, his arrival, Kaylie killing him and the effect? Tim, more calm, normal? Kaylie setting up the clocks, the alarms, timing, eating…?

11. The presence in the mirror, sinister, or in the minds of the children? The background of Kaylie’s research, the ownership of the mirror, over many decades, the number of deaths associated with the mirror, visualised?

12. The tensions, the memories, setting up the axe in the roof, building up to the climax, Kaylie standing in the way, Tim releasing the axe, her death?

13. Tim, the police, the arrest – and his future, considering his past in the institution?