LIFE AFTER BETH

US, 2014, 89 minutes, Colour.
Aubrey Plaza, Dane de Haan, John C.Reilly, Molly Shannon, Cheryl Hines, Paul Reiser, Matthew Gray Gubler, Anna Kendrick.
Directed by Jeff Baena.

Life After Beth begins with a young man distraught over the death of his girlfriend, bitten by a snake during a hike, dead and buried. He is inconsolable but does not receive a great deal of support from his family, his parents, Paul Reiser and Cheryl Hines. He is taunted by his older brother, security guard, Matthew Gray Gubler. However, he does receive a great deal of support from Beth’s parents, John C. Reilly and Molly Shannon. The young man, Zach, is played by Dane de Haan (The Green Goblin in The Amazing Spiderman and James Dean in Life).

But, then Beth reappears, oblivious to what has happened, still with the wound, but assuming that life goes on. Her parents do not want her to go out during the day. Zach the sake is at first unbelieving but then trying to resume his relationship with Beth, which she seems enthusiastic about. John C.Reilly gives an over-frantic performance as her upset father.

Things get a bit more frantic, inexplicably, dead grandfather turns up at home, then other people return from the dead, and there is a whole zombie crisis. Beth gets more and more unreasonable, is jealous when a family friend, a brief performance by Anna Kendrick, turns up talking with Zach.

Zach gets more and more desperate, is dismayed by all the zombies, does not want to kill Beth, despite the urgings of his brother and his giving him a gun. He thinks his parents have been killed, but they have moved to a safe house.

Ultimately, Zach decides to take Beth, who by this time is fully zombielike, for a hike in the mountains, expresses his regrets, as she struggles up the mountain carrying a huge stove on her back. He then shoots her and she rolls down the mountain.

Zach returns to the shelter of his family.

The transition from pining romance to zombie films takes place rather quickly, and the spread of the zombie situation is not well explained. There is some parody in the romantic part of the story as well, of course, in the presentation of the zombies. Perhaps most will judge the film not as funny as is was intended and not as frightening with the zombies as it might have been.

HI, NELLIE

US, 1934, 76 minutes, Black and white.
Paul Muni, Glenda Farrell, Ned Sparks, Robert Barrat, Douglass Dumbrille.
Directed by Mervyn Le Roy.

Hi Nellie is one of those fast-based newspaper comedy dramas of the 1930s. This time it is a star vehicle for Paul Muni, for director Mervyn Le Roy who had directed him in I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang.

He plays the managing editor of the paper who is very cautious about printing a story about the disappearance of a banker accused of embezzlement. He is demoted and has to write the Heartthrob column which seems to the readers to be written by woman. He is particularly successful and the newspaper circulation goes up. He has a rivalry with one of the other reporters and managers played by Glenda Farrell.

When he is asked to investigate a case about a breach of promise and a dominating father, he also finds a connection from his investigator, a deadpan Ned Sparks, which leads him to go to investigate, discover the truth about the embezzlement and murder and trap the criminals.

The editor, who demoted him, is so pleased that he makes him managing editor again – and they have to find a new Nellie, and he chooses the hard-boiled editor who took his place.

1. Expectations from the title? The revelation about the column, Heartthrob? The letters coming in, the answers, the expected female sympathetic perspective? The irony of Brad being so successful?

2. Warner Brothers production values, the 1930s, black and white photography, the city, the newspaper, the streets, the clubs, gangsters? Musical score?

3. Brad’s story, Paul Muni and his capacity for both drama and comedy, managing editor, his hesitation about the embezzlement story, the editor displeased, demoting him, his office and his becoming Nellie, his success, the piles of mail? The visit of the young woman, thinking that Gerry was Nellie, her making Brad take notes? His work with Shammy, the information in the address, the connection, his going to visit the florist, the undertaker, the threats? Setting up a trap? The warnings, his going to the club, intruding into the room, questioning the drugged accountant? The thugs, their bringing in the connection, the undertaker, the visit to the cemetery, the wrong grave, discovery of the body, Brad and the team, the photographer and the scoop? The fights, the police, the solution? Brad and his being promoted?

4. Gerry, tough, her work at the paper, the past relationship with Brad, her enjoying his becoming Nellie, listening to Rosa, ordering Brad to investigate the case, the information about the club, getting her suitor at the office to take her, their having to go to solve the case?

5. The members of the staff, the man on the phone, taking all the messages? The editor, hard, taking Brad’s place – and then being asked to be Nellie? The satisfaction of the editor?

6. The comic touch on the hard-boiled newspaper stories and investigations in the 1930s films?

L’ENFANT D’ EN HAUT/ SISTER

France, 2012,
Lea Seydoux, Kacey Motter Klein, Martin Compston, Gillian Anderson,
Directed by Ursula Meier.

While the English title, Sister, focuses on the character, Louise, played by Lea Seydoux, it is only towards the end of the film that we are surprised at its meaning and significance. However, with the focus on 12 year old Simon throughout the whole film, the French title seems more appropriate.

Simon is a precocious 12 year old, played with skill, a blend of duplicity and naivety, by Kacey Motter Klein. He spends his days at the top of the mountains, pilfering skiers’ clothes, gloves and helmets, and some food, while downright stealing expensive skis. Some things he gives to his sister, others he sells to the local kids in the valley. He, and they, have no conscience about stealing, no sense of scruple. At first, Simon’s activities might rouse some misplaced amusement from the audience, for many it will be irritation at the emphasis on the details of his actions.

But the film grows on the audience as we see Simon and Louise together, he more responsible at home than she, who can’t hold a job and seems interested only in boyfriends their cars and a good time. She depends on Simon for some ready cash as well as some clothes.

The two people that Simon comes into contact with on top are a Scots cook as a restaurant (Martin Compston) who eventually connives in the ski stealing and hiding, and Gillian Anderson a mother who befriends Simon only to be disillusioned by him.

What is going to happen to him? Will he have a different life in any way or simply grow from being a little criminal to and adult one? The film offers some hope in the relationship between Louise and Simon, the need for love on the part of each of them. After a night on the mountain when the tourists and workers have packed up, there is a symbolic last moment as two cable cars pass each other, Louise in one, going up for Simon, and he, after time to think, is coming down to home.

1. The story of a brother and sister? The relationships, mutual help, challenge?

2. The Alpine town, the mountain and peaks, skiing tracks? The chalets? The low lands, the roads, cars? Homes? Shops? Children playing? Musical score?

3. The French title and the focus on Simon? The English title and the focus on Louise? The relative importance?

4. Life in the town, the visitors and tourists, services? On the top, the skiers, the gear, the chalets, the sport?

5. The portrait of Simon, his age, his relationship with Louise, no parental supervision? On the mountain, stealing the skis and other equipment, clothing, food? No conscience? Coming down, the other children and getting the skis, payment, using the gear? His relationship with Louise, her behaviour? At home, his taking more responsibility? The encounter with the Scots cook, caught, involving him in his activities, friendship, each using the other? The encounter with the mother, her family, the friendship, her not being able to trust Simon?

6. The portrait of Louise, her age, experience, with Simon, home, not holding down a job, drifting, boyfriends, cars, going off and disappearing? Simon and his attempt at some kind of order and control? The result of her experiences, change of heart?

7. Supporting characters, the children in the town, the stolen gear, their using it, games? The Scots cook, at the chalets, his work, the stealing, becoming involved, his activities? The tourist families, the mother and children, the encounter with Simon, the relationship, her being disappointed?

8. A European story – a universal story about the younger generation, their lives, challenges, dependence – and the end with Simon going down to real life in the town while Louise was going up to the top of the mountain?

VAN HELSING

US, 2004, 131 minutes, Colour.
Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham, Shuler Hensley, Elena Enaya, Will Kamp, Kevin J. O’ Connor, Alun Armstrong, Sylvia Colloca.
Directed by Stephen Sommers.

Screenwriter and director, Stephen Sommers, has proven with the success of The Mummy as well as The Mummy Returns that he can spin a good yarn, create the atmosphere of ye olde days, keep the action in constant overwhelming pitch, incorporate extraordinary special effects and communicate his enjoyment to his audience while not taking it all too seriously. He has outdone The Mummy movies with this one. It is almost non-stop action-adventure, with more extraordinary effects - treating it seriously but humorously at the same time.

For fans of the horror genre it is a must see. Sommers has taken the Dracula story and introduced some fresh angles, especially since the Count has been in league with Dr Frankenstein and wants his life-creating process as well as his monster to give new life to his vast collection of vampire pods so that the vampires can claim the world. This provides an entertaining look again at Frankenstein (Sam West) with recreations of laboratory scenes from the Karloff version of Frankenstein along with the villagers storming the windmill to destroy the monster. And as if that was not enough, the scene shifts to Paris with Mr Hyde (Robbie Coltrane), like a giant Hulk, hiding where the Hunchback used to live in Notre Dame. He is confronted by the monster hunter, Van Helsing - and smashes through the rose window!

That is just the beginning. The Vatican society for confronting evil has been sending Van Helsing on missions and he is now to go to Transylvania to destroy Dracula. The cardinal is played by Alun Armstrong. In a spoof of Q in the James Bond movies, Van Helsing is supplied with the newest 1888 inventions by the timid friar, Carl. Off they go to do battle with Dracula, the brides of Dracula, Igor (who has defected to Dracula), but with the help of the gentle Frankenstein monster. Werewolves too. It all works.

There are spectacular castles, harpy like vampires attacking a village, coach chases, a sumptuous Halloween masked ball along with plenty of acrobatics and fights.

Hugh Jackman, after the X Men films, is a very agreeable and able Van Helsing. Kate Beckinsale (who got used to this kind of activity in Underworld) is the last of a family dedicated to destroying the vampires.

David Wenham is an amusing kind of Sancho Panza as Friar Carl. Richard Roxburgh combines Bela Lugosi with Christopher Lee (and his Count in Moulin Rouge) to present a striking Dracula.

Purists might wring their hands but it is an audience-pleaser.

1. Popular action adventure? The director and his action films?

2. The lavish production, the Frankenstein laboratory, the Vatican and the weapons, Transylvania, Paris, the forests? Action sequences, confrontations, titles, chases? The special effects, the make-up and design for the monsters? the Halloween party? The musical score?

3. The range of traditional horror stories, the opening with Frankenstein and the memories of the 1930s films, the creation of the monster, the black-and-white photography, the monster himself, pursued by the villagers to kill him? The monster continuing throughout the film, a gentle giant? Van Helsing, commissioned by the Vatican, the cardinal in the Vatican, the range of weapons and monster hunters? Finding Mr Hyde in Notre Dame Cathedral, looking like the Hulk, living where the Hunchback lived, breaking the rose window? The introduction of Dracula, his vampire pods, brides of Dracula? The introduction of the werewolves? An entertaining conglomeration?

4. The opening setting the tone, Frankenstein, Victor, creating the monster, the parallels with the 1930s films? The monster, his getting away, later collaboration with Van Helsing?

5. The confrontation in Paris, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the dialogue with Van Helsing, in Notre Dame Cathedral, like the hunchback, the confrontation, the breaking of the rose window?

6. The cardinal, the new mission for Van Helsing? The weapons headquarters? The friar, his explanations, to go with Van Helsing?

7. The character of Van Helsing, Hugh Jackman and his suave presence? The various hunts, going into Transylvania, the dangers, the Frankenstein monster helping, Igor and his going over to Dracula, the confrontation with the brides, destruction in the sky?

8. The introduction of the Wolf man, the complications with the plot and with Van Helsing?

9. Anna, fighter, her family, warrior, the man as bait, destruction? Anna and her action, the encounter with than Helsing, their joining forces? The townspeople and their response?

10. Carl in the Vatican, not wanting to accompany Van Helsing? Their adventures a bit like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Carl as a Sancho Panza?

11. Halloween, the masks, the party, the atmosphere of comic horror? Pursuit chases?

12. Dracula, his personality, getting Igor, wanting the monster, his brides, his pods, the manifestation of evil?

12. The buildup to the confrontation between Van Helsing and Dracula? The good and the mighty prevailing?

THE LITTLE GIANT

US, 1933, 76 minutes, Black-and-white.
Edward G. Robinson, Mary Astor, Helen Vinson, Russell Hopton.
Directed by Roy Del Ruth.

The Little Giant is a very entertaining gangster film, most unexpected in its way, of 1933. Audiences were already accustomed to say Edward G. Robinson as a gangster, especially in a classic role, Little Caesar. This time he is another Little…

The film opens with documentary material about the election Franklin D.Roosevelt as president of the United States, defeating Herbert Hoover. Statistics are given of the states and the news that the new president is likely to abolish Prohibition.

Robinson portrays gangster, Bugs Ahearn, acknowledged throughout the US as the Beer King. Reading the signs of the times, he announces that he is withdrawing from bootlegging, much to the surprise of his men and paying them off, except from a friend from school days, Al (Russell Hopton). Bugs wants to go upmarket, has been drinking Greek philosophy (Pluto’s Republic!), buying modernist and futurist paintings, learning French. Because they have no passports, they cannot go to Europe so decide to go to Santa Barbara.

Most of the film is comedy with Bugs trying to do upmarket, from his origins in the gutter, but trying to achieve class, despite so many wrong remarks. Bugs plays golf, buys a mansion, tries to play polo, and falls in love with a seemingly rich heiress – only to find that her family are confidence types, persuading him to buy a bankrupt company. However, he meets a nice young lady, Mary Astor in one of her sympathetic roles rather than a vamp, who finally reveals the truth – and, of course, was rehearsing with her to propose to the heiress, so now he proposes to her.

The situations are amusing, the dialogue also amusing – and the surprise that Al replies that he hasn’t seen a modernist picture like the one Bugs points out since he gave up cocaine! – and this in 1932.

1. Warner Brothers and their many gangster films of the time? The background of bootlegging? This film as a comic variation, and a sendup of the limitations of the gangsters?

2. Edward G. Robinson, adept planning gangsters, his being Little Caesar – now being The Little Giant?

3. Warner Brothers values, production, Chicago settings, the club, the contrast with Santa Barbara, the wealthy hotel, mansions, golf courses, polo grounds, Los Angeles and big business? The musical score?

4. The title, Bug’s club, Bugs himself?

5. The opening, the information about the 1932 election, the victory of Roosevelt, the defeat of Hoover, the possibility of the end of Prohibition? Bugs hearing the news, his instant decision, his men and their dismay, giving the money, his own nest egg, remaining friendly with Al? Saying goodbye to Edith and giving her money? The woman coming to warn him and giving her money to buy cigar? The confrontation with the other gangsters, the punch out, his proving he was not being pushed out of town?

6. Not able to go to Europe, no passports? The advertisement for Santa Barbara? The decision to go, the money, the clothes? Yet the origins in the gutter? Thug action? Slang? Arrival at the hotel, admiration of the room, the cost, turning on the taps to get his money’s worth? Mingling, nobody speaking, Al and is wishing he was elsewhere? Bugs and his eye on Polly?

7. Persuaded to go to San Francisco, the runaway horse, finding Polly, taking her home, the invitation to tea, going to the tailor, pressurising him, Polly’s brother hearing that Bugs was a millionaire, the tailor checking on his financial accounts?

8. The Cass family, no money, disreputable, coming on to Bugs, inviting him out, his deciding to buy the mansion? Meeting Ruth, the tour of the house, the decision to rent, her information about the servants, his employing them?

9. The dinner, Ruth organising everything, his keeping her to explain his situation, her not telling the truth about the Cass family, the rehearsal of the proposal?

10. The decision to play polo, getting the outfits, buying the horses, awkwardness, yet scoring the goal?

11. Going to Los Angeles, the board meeting, the run on the company, crooks? His acquiring the company? Ruth telling him the truth, about her house and her family? His phoning the thugs, their coming from Chicago, the list of the stockholders, the range of threats, the stockholders buying the company back? His having the money – but realising that he is a fish out of water and giving the company to someone else? The response of the police?

12. Confronting the family, getting his ring back, giving it to the blind man in the street, his thugs playing polo, and happy ending with Ruth?

GAGARIN

Russia, 2013, 108 minutes, Colour.

Yaroslav Zhalnin.
Directed by Pavel Parkhomenko.

In the early 1980s, the American film industry celebrated the pioneers of space exploration in the classic version of Thomas Wolfe’s book, The Right Stuff. This Russian film is somewhat belated in its tribute to the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin.

The film was made in a time of Russian nationalism, especially inspired by Vladimir Putin. While the atmosphere is that of Russia in the 1950s and 1960s, with flashbacks to earlier decadence, especially during the German occupation in World War II, the film style is celebratory, very popular in manner, very reminiscent of American filmmaking and American films for television.

The film highlights the final candidates for the first journey in space, their age, in their 20s, their enthusiasm, their training, the group from whom the selection was made, the military authorities, the scientists and engineers behind the construction of the space vessel.

There are flashbacks to Gagarin’s childhood, to his family, to the sufferings during the time of the Nazi occupation, the humiliations. While his mother is supportive, his father is much more sceptical, not even believing that his son was circumnavigating the earth in space. There are also sequences of Gagarin’s courtship, marriage, the beginnings of his family – sad that he was to die in an accident at the age of 34.

There is a cheerful presentation of the Russian recruits, the details of their training, their lives together, their friendships, competitiveness as well as the final choice as to who was to go into space.

Commentators note that the running time of the film is 108 minutes, the exact time of Girgarre’s journey in space.

1. Audience knowledge of Yuri Gagarin and his flight in space, the late 1950s, the early 1960s – and after the experiment with the dog in space?

2. The rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, audiences familiar with the American competitiveness in The Right Stuff? Allusions to the competitiveness here, the pride in the Soviet Union, the building of the spacecraft, the memory of the Sputnik, the dog in space, wanting to have the first human in space?

3. The creation of the atmosphere, the training of the men, the signs, the engineering, the spacecraft, the controls, the offices, decision-making, the engineers, hesitations?

4. The flashbacks, the story of Yuri Gagarin, his family, the humiliation by the Nazis during the war, his mother and her love, his father’s hardship, his father’s not having faith in him? His courtship, marriage, the beginnings of family?

5. The scenes with his close friend, competitiveness, the issue of who was to go into space? Together, the candidates, the final choices, the final decision?

6. The training, the preparation, the details?

7. The flight in space, 108 minutes, the effect on Gagarin, the achievement? The consequences and all the developments in the Soviet Union as well as in the United States during the 1960s?

JEWEL ROBBERY

US, 1932, 68 minutes, Black and white.
William Powell, Kay Francis, Helen Vinson, Hardie Albright, Alan Mowbray.
Directed by William Diertele.

Jewel Robbery is a very light entertainment from 1932, a brief running time, with the star power of the urbane William Powell and the attractive Kay Francis, both of whom had significant careers during the 1930s. Direction is by William Diertele who directed films during the 1920s in his native Germany, moved to the United States directing small budget films until his biographical stories at Warner Brothers in the mid 1930s, biographies of Louis Pasteur, Emile Zola, fantasies and thrillers during the 1940s and the first half of the 1950s, after which he returned to Germany and was prolific in directing films in his native country until the end of the 1960s.

The action of this film takes place over a couple of days, a focus on Kay Francis, a pampered and wealthy woman of Vienna, married to an order man she does not love but who buys her jewellery and all she desires. She relies very much on her friend and confidant, Marianne, played by Helen Vinson.

In the meantime, there are a number of daring robberies in jewellery shops in Vienna, all taking place in broad daylight. At one store, an inventor is installing electric beams to trap robbers – only to find that he is too late and the shop has been already robbed.

Kay Francis and her friends and husband or go to the jewel shop where she hopes her husband will buy her a diamond ring. A member of the ministry also turns up – with indications that he has been having a fling with Kay Francis who now wants to break it off.

Then, robbery happens in broad daylight, William Powell being the gentlemanly thief, with quite a group of associates who hold up everyone and systematically clear the shop of all its jewellery. When the police arrive, Kay Francis is not sure that she can identify the thief. When she goes home, she finds the ring in her safe and Powell turns up, flirts with her, in hopes of a future liaison.

Many commentators have pointed out that this is a film from the pre-Motion Picture Code era. William Powell hands out marijuana cigarettes to the security guard and the police officer who are shown having quite a high. And there is plenty of innuendo in the dialogue, especially with situations of marital infidelity – and on the whole a tone that was considered racy at the time. For those used to seeing films from this period, it may seem surprisingly racy.

All in all, it is a piece of froth, a chance to glamorise Kay Francis and to show how debonair William Powell could be.

UMRIKA

India, 2015, 98 minutes, Colour.
Suraj Sharma, Tony Revelori.
Directed by Prashant Nair.

Umrika.. as in America, the United States. It is the way that villagers in India pronounce this dream country, Umrika?

This is a film for Indian audiences, but is also a film that has a wide reach to audiences outside India. It offers the possibility for outsiders to enter into India, into a country village and its way of life, the simplicities of tradition, changes for a new life. It also has sequences in the city, the enormous contrast to the village, the busy streets and population, the difficulty in getting jobs, the possibilities for getting entangled in debt, in criminal activities – and all with the dream of getting away to the United States.

The film opens with scenes of the village, and the farewell to Udai on his way to America, fulfilling his mother’s dream when her uncle came back from United States with wealth, and this is what she has wished for her beloved son. There is voice-over, from Udai’s younger brother, Rama, not so well loved by his mother, but devoted to his father, having his brother on a pedestal. For some months there is a crisis as there is no letter from Udai as he has promised. And then, letters arrive regularly, full of news, details of life in the United States, with pictures accompanying the letters.

By this time, Rama (Suraj Sharma, an engaging screen presence) has grown up. When his father dies, he discovers some surprising truths about the letters and decides that he will go to Umrika to track down his brother. What happens is that he is trapped in the city, given accommodation by a cousin and making friends, getting a job delivering sweets, but also stealing a bicycle to help him on his way. His friend Lalu (Tony Revelori, from The Grand Budapest Hotel and Dope) arrives in the city, a blunter and more direct personality, yet support for Rama.

Rama might imagine that he could be a Slumdog Millionaire, but there is no television competition here, no easy money, on the contrary, some surprises, some disillusionment, some indebtedness to shady entrepreneurs. Speaking of films, the villagers watch King Kong with amazement. Later, in the city there is a screening of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom – with hostile Indian characters and the audience pelting the screen!

The film ends just as we have reinvigorated our hopes that there will be a future for Rama, and an audience desire to know what will happen to him, whether he really will get to Umrika and what he will do there.

This is a very humane and genial film, with plenty of the flavour of India, and a pleasing invitation for the audience to immerse itself in Indian life.

1. A pleasing film for an Indian audience? International audience? A film about people, places? Themes?

2. The presentation of the village, the mountain background, the people, the homes, the fields? Ordinary?

3. The comparisons with the city, the streets, accommodation, the sweet factory, deliveries, illegal operations, barbershop, restaurant? The musical score?

4. The 1980s, the Cold War, change, the place of India, initiatives in the villages, the coming of electricity? The background of Russia and Gorbachev? Ronald Reagan? The feel of the period?

5. Village life, Udai, the preparations for his departure, the group, the photos, the reactions, his mother and her love, her dreams of his going to America, memories of her own uncle and his riches on his return, wanting the best for her son? Rama, young boy, not feeling loved by his mother, devotion to his father, devotion to his brother, wanting to learn, leaning to read? His response to the lack of letters from Udai, the tensions? The letters arriving, joining the family, in the village? The years passing?

6. The detailed letters from Udai, life in America, the photos? The revelation that the father wrote the letters, the information from the postman, the room of the collection of photos, the many stamps? The mother not knowing, joyful? The choice of aspects of America, the dreams of Indians and the imagination of the United States?

7. The father, the accident, his death? The effect? Rama learning the truth? His decision to go to the city, to go to America to find his brother?

8. The city and its life, freedom for the young man from the village, Rajan and his help, accommodation, the friendship of Gopi? Work? Delivering the sweets? Rama and his stealing the bike, profiting? The fat man and the sweets, the packages, Rama delivering them, getting the money, saving it? As a character, his personality, pleasant, charm, the girl at the restaurant, taking her out, the movies, Indiana Jones and hostility? the possibilities?

9. His devotion, writing the letters, spending so much time on the letters, fulfilling the task of his father, the consolation for his mother?

10. His friendship with Lalu, at home, his arrival, his father sending him out to get a job in the city, sharing with Rama? His brusque manner, especially in his direct speech? The decision to visit Patel, the interview, Lalu and his comments?

11. The deliveries, the gun, an atmosphere of fear?

12. Rama and his decision to follow Rajan, discovering the truth about his brother, Udai as a barber, indebted to Patel? His having been where Rama is? His confessing his need to leave home, the village, the protectiveness of his mother? The effect of the revelation on Rama?

13. Rama, his decision to go to America, the money in his box, Udai paying?

14. The final drinks, Lalu, the camera? Lalu and his job from Gopi for filming?

15. Rama meeting, the van, in the container? Transferred to the ship?

16. Udai, with Patel, his debt for many years to come?

17. In the village, the mother, watching the video, and the scene of the two brothers in New York, Umrika?

FORGOTTEN SINS

US, 1996, 100 minutes, Colour.
William Devane, John Shea, Bess Armstrong, Dean Norris, Gary Grubbs, Ray Mc Kinnon.
Directed by Dick Lowry.

Forgotten Sins is an American telemovie, coming out at the end of the 20th century, focusing on a very serious issue, sexual abuse, cover-ups – but it also treats of the issue of repressed memories and false memories.

An interesting film about incest is the telemovie, Something About Amelia with Ted Danson. Also interesting is the television film about false memories and their recovery, Indictment: the Mc Martin Trial.

This film is surprising in so far as it concerns the very serious-minded Sheriff, played by John Shea, his home life with his wife, Bess Armstrong, and his attitude towards his two daughters, something of an awkward personality, not strong on emotion and personal touch. The film shows the participation of the whole family in a local revivalist church, with a strong influence of sermons and advice of the pastor, Gary Grubbs.
At a youth camp, the older daughter confides in a counsellor that she has been abused by her father and by his card-playing friends. She is immediately believed and she and her sister are withdrawn from the family. The girls continue their accusations, elaborating them more and more, even bringing in Satanist connections and accusing the card-players of this Satanism.

A psychologist, William Devane, is brought in, who has interviews with everyone and comes to the conclusion that the girls are lying and that their memories of false and over-elaborated.

The main thrust in point of interest to this film is the fact that the upright sheriff continually condemns himself, sees himself as inadequate in his love for his family, and with the Bible background, believes that he has repressed his memories of the abuse of his daughters.

While the treatment is for a popular television audience, it offers themes in characters well worth discussing.

1. The 20th century story, sexual abuse, within families, public consequences, the accusations against a respectable citizen? Lies and false memories? Suppressed memories and their recovery?

2. The American city setting, the family, the religious beliefs and practice, revivalist religion, Biblical texts and quotations, moral stances? The commitment of the parents to their religious beliefs?

3. The title, the emphases, the nature of the sins, the reality that the sheriff thought he had repressed the memories, forgotten them?

4. The portrait of the family, Matthew, father, his work as the sheriff, with the rest of the men, his application of the law? His religious beliefs and church presence? His cold personality? Relationship with his wife? Strict with his daughters, their going to the camps, the accusations?

5. The portrait of the daughters, their age, two daughters, at the camp, the older daughter confiding, the nature of her memories, going to the church, being fostered, developing the memories, the interviews with the police? Believing her memories or not? The two sisters separated from their parents? From their mother? The contradictions in their testimony? The elaborating of their memories? More preposterous aspects, accusations, Satanism? The visitors and their playing cards, their being accused of rape?

6. Matthew in himself, his work, religion, his being charged, the interviews? Audiences not anticipating that he would believe the accusations, the religious advice, his belief in God, God recovering the memories, his deserving to go to prison, his time in prison? His wife and her support, her bewilderment?

7. The portrait of the wife, love for her husband, care for her daughters, churchgoing? The friends coming to play cards? The accusations, her disbelief, her doubts? The repercussions of all this on her?

8. The friends, coming to play cards, their reputations, the accusations, the links to Satanism? The effect on the two men? Arrest, in prison, the reactions, bitterness?

9. The police, taking the accusations seriously, their knowledge of Matthew, their opinion of him, his religion, his beliefs? The pressures on him? His succumbing to the pressures, acknowledging his sins, while acknowledging that he had forgotten them, his reliance on God? His time in prison, the scriptures? The interview with the pastor?

10. The pastor, in his church, his sermons, moralising, his behaviour towards the girls, trying to protect them? His visits to Matthew, to his wife?

11. The girls, the counsellor in whom they confided, her discussed, taking them from their home?

12. The girls, away from home, fostering each other’s opinions, contradictions in their testimony, the absurdities and their testimony?

13. Court cases, verdicts?

14. The introduction of the psychologist, his background, his interest in the case, his experience? The discussions with Matthew, the issue of forgotten sins, suppressed memories? His interviews with the wife? With the girls? His quiet manner, realising the contradictions, drawing people out? His testimony of the police? His own views, that the girls were lying?

15. The impact of the drama? In the light of the surfacing of sexual abuse cases at the end of the 20th century? Statistics that so much abuse happened in the homes? And the issues of repressed memories and falls memories?

ME AND GIRL AND THE AND DYING GIRL

US, 2015, 103 minutes, Colour.
Thomas Mann, RJ Cyler, Olivia Cooke, Nick Offerman, Connie Britton, Molly Shannon, Jon Bernthal, Katherine C. Hughes.
Directed by Alphonso Gomez- Rejon.

This is a very likeable film and won the audience award at the Sundance Film Festival. It also won an ecumenical award.

It is also a very film-friendly story and treatment, the director, Alphonso Gomez (Vertigo)! And there are quite a few entertaining snippets. And another enjoyable feature is the action going into animation at various times, amusing as well as concentrating the audience attention onto the characters and what is happening to them.

Perhaps this review has been a bit remiss in focusing on the film and cinema buff aspects of the screenplay instead of indicating what the title has highlighted, that the hero is Greg (Me), along with his good friend, Earl, and the dying girl, yes, she is dying of leukaemia, Rachel. These characters are very well played, especially by Thomas Mann as Greg. RC Cyler is the African-American? Earl, from a neighbourhood that seems on the wrong side of the tracks. And Olivia Cooke is charming as Rachel.

The film has many of the characteristics of the teen movie, especially the high school movie, since the three central characters are still at school, specialise in film studies, hoping to get good results to go to college. They are especially friendly with their history teacher (with clips and quotes from Werner Hertzog and Klaus Kinski), played by Jon Bernthal. And, they are pushed around by the local bullies.

Greg’s mother has a phone call from Rachel’s mother (Connie Britton and Molly Shannon) and Greg’s mother thinks he ought to go to visit the sick Rachel. He eventually does and finds himself in a rather awkward situation, but perseveres, a lot of silences initially, but Rachel liking him, he becoming more talkative and listening, and friendship is established – to her amusement with those funny little films, and his deciding to make a film especially for her. Reassuring us that Rachel is to recover…

One of the charms of the film is also the fact that each section is captioned, from Greg’s point of view, indicating his feelings for this particular part of the story, and enumerating the number of days into his ‘doomed relationship’ with Rachel.

While the story is that of Greg, and secondly that of Earl who also becomes a good friend to Rachel, falls out at one stage with Greg, the two are reconciled through Rachel’s good graces.

In the meantime, Rachel’s leukaemia is becoming more threatening, her head shaved, she becomes a more gaunt, is growing weaker. Greg spends much of his time with Rachel, to the neglect of his studies, and, while he was accepted into College, his increasingly poor results mean that he may not be accepted – and there is a fine, sympathetic intervention by Rachel, highlighting how important Greg support of her really was.

While the school scenes are familiar in a way, the whole story and the setting of terminal leukaemia gives the film a quite different impetus and emotional impact. The central characters perform well and there are interesting performances from Connie Britton as the pressurising mother, Nick Offerman as Greg’s academic father (with a lot of free time without bothering to get dressed) and Molly Shannon as the Jewish mother, emotional and demonstrably affectionate.

This is one of the best films about young people with terminal illness, a comparison would be the young adult novel and film by John Green, The Fault in our Stars. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl has a much broader appeal and dramatic effect.

The appeal to a wide audience? The young adult novel? The response of older audiences, younger audiences, teenagers? The film and its awards?

1. The adaptation of the novel, the characters, the situations, the feel of a young girl with cancer, dying, family response, friends responses?

2. The captions, Greg’s story, the dialogue, the emphasis on the movies, the titles of the home-made movies and their humour, the various clips, the interviews with Werner Hertzog, Klaus Kinski? An entertaining film for film buffs?

3. The American town, homes, school, classes, the neighbourhoods, hospitals? The feel of the place was? The musical score?

4. The title, the tone? Greg’s story? His explanations, the captions and his tone of voice in explaining each phase of the story?

5. The chapters, personal, Greg and his involvement with Rachel, the cinema references, focus on himself and his mother, his father, Earl and his friendship, Earl’s background? Rachel, illness, the relationship, doomed? His saying that she would recover – and the audience knowing that he was not telling the truth?

6. Greg, his character, his parents, his father lecturing, at home, in his dressing gown? His mother, earnest, talking over him, the information about Rachel, the pressure? His focus on his studies and his college hopes? At school, the teacher, the film discussions, Werner Hertzog? In the room with Earl and the teacher? The discussions with the teacher, trying out his food – and blaming it on the drug high, but realising that the dealer had sold himself and Earl drugs?

7. Earl, his family, friendship with Greg, sharing, the projects? The many films made together, and the funny parody titles? Earl and his family background? The friendship with Rachel? The bullies at school, the fights, Earl defending Greg? Their personal clash, Rachel bringing them back together, apologies, reconciliation?

8. Rachel, her age, friends at school, Madison? The news about her cancer? At home? Her mother contacting Greg’s mother? Greg coming, on the staircase, awkward, agreeing that he could visit, Greg and his attempts at coping, the silences, beginning to talk, the news, school? Discussions with Rachel’s mother? The Jewish background? Her affectionate expressions?

9. The progress of the year, Greg and his visits, the bond and friendship, talking, the movies, making the special film for Rachel, the black humour about her illness?

10. Greg and his studies, neglecting them, intentions to go to college? Star student, then failing, discussions with the authorities?

11. The effect of the year on Greg? Opening his emotions? Support for Rachel? Shaving her head? Getting sicker?

12. Earl and his support, clash with Greg, reconciliation?

13. Rachel’s death, everyone sad, sadness for the audience?

14. Rachel and her intervention about Greg and his care, urging the college authorities to let Greg go? Her final letter to him?

15. A wisely emotional film? Unafraid to focus on the realities of death?