THE FORGER

US, 2014, 110 minutes, Colour.
John Travolta, Christopher Plummer, Tye Sheridan, Abigail Spencer, Anson Mount, Jennifer Ehle.
Directed by Philip Martin.

The Forger is a crime story but is not an action film. Rather, it is a film about family and relationships between fathers and sons – with absent mothers.

The film was directed by British Philip Martin, responsible for some television programs including Wallander, Birdsong, Prime Suspect.

John Travolta, looking old, is a forger who is released from prison, a criminal boss paying a corrupt judge for the release. He returns home to stay with his crusty old father, Christopher Plummer, an old conman. His father is caring for his teenage son, Tye Sheridan, who is suffering from a brain tumour.

Travolta is hired to do a forging job, painting a forgery of a Monet painting, with some attention given to the buying of the canvas, its authenticity, buying the paints, the sketching and the colouring. In the meantime, a police agent, Abigail Spencer, is keeping on track with the forger and his violations against parole, but hoping to nab the gangsters and a cartel chief who has contracted to buy the painting after it is stolen.

The main action is the con in the art gallery, the grandfather drinking soda and causing some kerfuffle while getting the keys to the gallery, also telling the cartel leader that the painting is a fake, the son participating in the con, and a complex substitution and non-substitution of the painting with the forger giving the leads to the police agent for her arresting the criminals.

Mild in terms of action, more interesting in terms of family relationships.

1. A film about criminals, crime, gangsters, police investigations?

2. A film about families, the generations, father to son, absent mothers, bonding?

3. The American city, prisons, homes, the streets, clubs, police precincts, galleries, restaurants? Feel of the city? The musical score?

4. The title, the focus on Ray, his skills at forging, paintings? His being used for a swindle? The hold over him by the gangsters? His being used?

5. Ray in prison, the sudden release, the reasons, the judge being bribed, Keegan and his wanting to use Ray for the forgery? Police suspicions, parole, Ray being observed by Agent Paisley? His breaches of parole?

6. Ray, his character, relationship with his father, his father being a conman? His mother dying? His son, his relationship with Kim, her drug addiction, separation? His returning home, to see his son, going to the specialist, his son’s brain cancer, his concern, the son’s request to see his mother, his violent confrontation to find out where she was, the bashings in the street, his finding her, persuading her to go to the lunch, in the restaurant, satisfied that his son was happy? Will and his desire to have sex? Ray taking him to the prostitute? The police, their having to run, jumping from roof to roof, escaping? The growing bond with his father? The job, going to see Keegan, buying the painting, cleaning the canvas, the authentic feel of the 1870s, the prints, his sketching, painting? Going to the gallery, the devices to trick the guards, security, the lights? The involvement of his father, his son, getting the painting out, discussions with Agent Paisley, setting up the confrontation with the fake painting, the cartel leader, wanting vengeance against Keegan, Agent Paisley and the arrests? His father saying the painting was a fake? His being given the money? Their flight, happiness and the holiday?

7. Ray’s father, an old conman, bringing up his grandson? Ray and his return, gruff manner, their discussions, the grandson wanting to see his mother? His gradual mellowing? Agreeing to participate in the con, drinking the soda in the gallery and being ousted, getting the keys? His telling the cartel leader that the painting was a fake? The con as a family job?

8. The grandson, his absent father, wanting to know his mother? His skill at home? Going to the specialist, the brain tumour, his collapse? His father reassuring him? Wanting to see his mother, the happiness of the lunch with her? His guessing the truth? His wanting to have sex, going to the brothel, the police, escaping up the stairs, leaping across the buildings? His collapse? Participation in the con, his exhilaration?

9. Keegan, criminal, bribing the judge, getting Ray out of prison, the con with the painting, hold over Ray, wanting to get rid of him? His comeuppance?

10. The police, Agent Paisley undercover in the club, noticed by Ray? The later discussions, following, her file on the various characters? Pursuing Ray across the roof? Discussions with him, his giving her the case, the success?

11. Kim, as mother, addiction, found, unwilling to go to the lunch, changing her mind, participating, taking the pills, appreciating the visit with her son? Standing on the railway station and going back home?

12. The film as a focus on family over and above the crime and the con?

GAYBY BABY

Australia, 2015, 83 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Maya Newell.

As the title indicates, the focus of the film is on children of same-sex coupled families. The opening credits display many photos of traditional nuclear families, then move to the same-sex parents and their families with underlying quotations critical of same-sex families as well as supportive.

One of the important sayings for understanding others is that we should walk in their shoes for some time. Probably, a great number of potential audiences for this film would be quite unwilling to walk in the shoes of the same-sex parents, feeling uncomfortable, disapproving – or both. But, the aim of the film is to tell stories, invite audiences to identify with the characters and their situations, experience something of the reality of the partnerships as well is the parenting, the normal problems and day-by-day situations and challenges and, especially, the way that the children handle the situation, their understanding, the way they communicate this.
The documentary focuses on four families, three with same-sex mothers, one with same-sex fathers. While the parents are a strong presence, the film says its importance is focusing on the children, their voices, their experiences, the type of family living that they have, the influence of the same-sex parents, the absence of an opposite sex parent.

The film interweaves the four stories.

At the time of the filming, Gus was 11, with two mothers, and younger sister, Rory. Gus is a rather rowdy boy, with a great passion for wrestling, often wrestling in the house with his younger sister, who sometimes encouraged him, but got the worse of the bouts which led to tears. This is of concern to the main parenting mother, who has some confrontations with her son, who can be particularly wilful, storming off in the middle of a conversation, his mother trying to get him to participate in music classes as well as in debating. Many of the ordinary problems in any household and family come to the surface. While reluctant earlier, the mother takes Gus to the world wrestling exhibition.

Matt is 12 and has an older brother. There are two mothers in the house, one previously married, now divorced, with her sons and her new partner who is supportive and tends to stay more in the background, leaving the parenting to the birth mother. The mother is quite religious, explaining that she was brought up with bible stories, wanting her son to go to church on Sunday (when he wants to play Australian rules), the boy upset that the priest has condemned his mothers as sinful. He is very bright boy, a strong presence. The family was invited to have a meal with Julia Gillard, her opposition to same-sex marriage being clearly stated. They watch the program on television – and there is a scene where Matt faces the media, saying what he felt and explaining his words to the Prime Minister, a plea for partnerships where people love each other. Ultimately, his mothers do go to the football to support him, Matt not particularly wanting to go to church but explaining that his mother has not lost her faith.

Graham has two fathers. They have fostered him and now have adopted him, one of them taking the role of the father and the other being supportive. Graham is also 12. They move to Fiji, settling in, with scenes of Graham going to school, in class, the local children, the teacher, and his having to write an essay about himself to be read to the class. There are scenes at home with his writing his essay with the help of his father. The issue comes up about whether to let people know about the same-sex family, the father indicating that there is a time and place for revealing things and for not revealing things, Graham speculating on good lies which have a good outcome.

The girl in the film is called Ebony-Rose?, from the outer western suburbs of Sydney, again with two mothers. They make a visual impact, with many facial rings and piercings and elaborate tattoos. Ebony wants to be a singer, is interested in going to a high school of the arts in Newtown in inner Sydney, prepares a song, goes for an audition, but does not get in, later, rather ruefully, saying that she had given up her ambitions to be a singer. Ebony gets a new uniform and accepts the fact that she is going to the local high school.The mothers are concerned with the problems of daily life but, especially for a son who is severely epileptic, needs medication, needs constant watching.

By way of climax, there are newsreel footage scenes of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney, 2014, the flamboyance of the participants, the floats, the marching in the Sydney streets, but with a number of parents and the participation of the children.

In view of the social and political debates of 2014-2015, the film is a timely contribution to perspectives and to discussion.

IRIS

US, 2015, 83 minutes, Colour.
Iris Apfel, Carl Apfel.
Directed by Albert Maysles.

Some commentators have remarked that if one is heavily into fashion, this is a documentary for them. Then others have remarked that if one is not heavily into fashion, this is a documentary for them. Both commentators are right.

The film is a celebration of life, the portrait of a quite striking woman, aged 90 at the time of filming, also celebrating the hundredth birthday of her devoted husband, Carl. And the director himself, the celebrated Albert Maysles, of the Maysels documentary-maker brothers, was 88 and died in March 2015. Not only is this a celebration of life, it is a celebration of age and creative ageing.

Somebody also remarked about Iris Apfel, born of Jewish parents, growing up in New York City during the Depression, marrying in the 1940s, that she could serve as a role model. For zest, yes, but probably not for her style and taste in fashion. It is extraordinary to look at, but not many women would probably want to be so flamboyant – nor men wanting to wear the range of colourful trousers that she designed for her husband, which he quietly wears. Nevertheless, she is always fascinating to look at and, perhaps a comment on her style would be that Dame Edna Everage would probably be very jealous!

Iris has spent a lifetime buying clothes, principally for herself, and wearing them, but with her delight in design, colour, fabrics, and extraordinary finished products. Her expeditions to Europe twice each year meant that she went to many auctions for all kinds of articles and artifices for home design and decoration. These are kept in her and her husband’s storage space in Long Ireland, now a museum kind of space with all kinds of objects which may – or may not – appeal to the viewer.

As Iris reached her late 80s, she made the decision to part with most of her fashion possessions, arranging for the transferred to the Peabody Museum, a singular collection and heritage that she has bequeathed to the people of New York and to international visitors. She is an exemplar of the detachment that is required in old age.

Every time she appears, Iris is dressed in the most colourful clothes – and large lensed and framed glasses. And her comments match her clothes, or go beyond. She is articulate, has a way with words, is very direct in her expressions, not concealing her feelings and attitudes. And there is Carl, often accompanying her, short of breath, sometimes feeling his age, but celebrating his hundredth birthday with his wife making his speech for him. After all, she is only 90.

This is a very likeable portrait, Iris being an interesting woman, uninhibited but with good manners, reminiscing about her long life, her passion for fashion, her status as a fashion icon. She is very strong at times on the fact that she is not pretty, that she does not do pretty, and noting that after prettiness vanishes, what is left…? With her celebrity status, she does remark that she has become a geriatric starlet!

For an observer, especially one who may not feel much empathy for this world of Iris, it is still an interesting, enjoyable, very entertaining documentary and portrait, find last contribution to the work over so many decades of our Albert Maysles and the indefatigable energy of Iris Apfel.

DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND

One of the best and most comprehensive presentations of priests on screen is found in the Australian mini-series, The Devil’s Playground (2014, directors Rachel Ward, Tony Krawitz). It is also one of the most comprehensive screen presentations of issues of clerical sexual abuse. An American parallel is found in Dan Curtis’s telemovie, Our Fathers (2005) which focused on actual events in Boston, abusive priests and the response of Cardinal Bernard Law, a theme also taken up in Thomas Mc Carthy’s feature film, Spotlight (2015).

The setting for The Devil’s Playground is Sydney, 1988, a time in Australia when there was little public knowledge of sexual abuse, some reporting was beginning to happen, but there was no mandatory reporting and cases had not come to court. The Australian hierarchy was inexperienced in dealing with this dire issue with the difficulties of how to handle the situation in terms of church law and of civil law, church canon law having predominance. Bishops in their lack of awareness transferred clergy from parish to parish where they offended again, situations where it was deemed that the reputation of the church was better preserved by silence. While some clergy left the priesthood or were dismissed, the Vatican authorities had not become fully involved in the way that they were to in succeeding decades.

It is a period of harrowing difficulties for the victims, some killing themselves, as well as for the parents who never expected or suspected such attacks on their children. The series takes up the issues of the period, limitations of experience, desperate moments of expediency, the depression of the victims, the growing anger of the parents who have been very loyal to the church. Disillusionment is setting in.
The screenplay is particularly well written by four writers and the episodes directed with sensitivity and insight, the first three by Rachel Ward, wife of Bryan Brown, and the second three by Tony Kravitz, a South African with a Jewish background who came to Australia and established a career. His writer-director wife, Cate Shortland wrote an episode. The production team had been behind the very successful long-form drama of 1991 about nuns and changes in the post-Vatican II church, Brides of Christ.

The series is well-researched by Gerry Windsor (who is not responsible for minor mistakes like that of design of vestments). Other contributors, well-known from ABC radio and television include Paul Collins and Stephen Crittenden. Father Tony Dougherty, who had been adviser on Brides of Christ, also met with the production team. Devils Playground is very Catholic, critical of the abuse scandals, of the crisis of authority, but ends, especially with Tom Allen affirming his faith in the church and his beliefs, his church.

The screenplay takes up the story, first told in Fred Schepisi’s The Devil’s Playground (1976), the story of Tom Allen (Simon Burke) who, in the succeeding thirty years from the 1953 setting, has become a psychiatrist, has a family, a son. He is a practising Catholic and is asked by an auxiliary Bishop of Sydney to handle the case of an offending priest. While he accepts, he finds himself put in a difficult situation as regards the hierarchy and the implications for family friends, especially a mother with whom he has had an affair and her abused son.

What is of particular interest is the portrayal of priests, a wide range of priests, more so than other films and serious series. The priests who are portrayed and whose characters are explored include the Cardinal-Archbishop? of Sydney, two of his auxiliary bishops, the Papal Nuncio, the chaplain to a Christian Brothers’ school, the head of the Centre for priests guilty of abuse or misconduct, the legal adviser to the Archdiocese of Sydney, an elderly retired priest who lives in the Cathedral community, and some glimpses of other parish priests. Two brothers are involved in the narrative, the principal of the school and a young brother concerned about the scandals.

Audiences in the know would realise that several of the characters resemble real life characters. For instance, the Cardinal of Sydney, played by Jack Thompson, is not like Cardinals Gilroy, Clancy or Pell. The closest would be to Cardinal James Freeman, Archbishop of Sydney at this period. With the production being screened in 2014, in the aftermath of the Victorian enquiry into clergy and abuse, the enquiry in Newcastle, and sessions of The Royal Commission into Institutional abuse, and a number of clergy being called as witnesses, including Cardinal Pell, Australian audiences had a substantial background that they brought to watching the series, the revelations of abuse, the handling of reporting of the cases within the church and to the police, or not, and the public apologies. In time to come, audiences will bring different backgrounds to the series.

Of course, the writing of the screenplay draws on post-1988 experiences and sees the dramatic happenings of that period with retrospective wisdom and hindsight.

The Cardinal, played by Jack Thompson, is a jovial presence presiding over an archdiocese, not really aware of clerical abuse, preparing the diocese for his resignation and for his successor, favouring one of the bishops whom he considers somewhat progressive rather than the other who gives the impression of being a serious-minded, rather humourless conservative. The Cardinal is mainly seen in his Archbishop’s house, presiding at meals, friendly, enjoying chatting, a good wine, being a friendly host.

The main drama concerns are two auxiliary bishops. One, played by John Noble, seems to be open to change, has a pastoral concern, is the Bishop who employs Tom Allen and is concerned about the treatment of the offending priest, Fr Andrassi (played by Andrew Mc Farlane with some earnest charm while being quietly sinister). The bishop seems a hail-fellow well-met type, has ambitions, and is not on particularly good terms with his seeming rival Bishop Quade (played by Don Haney). During the drama, the Bishop is pastorally concerned, visits the town where some offences took place, shows a concern for the priest while not condoning what he did, but, seems to be wanting to preserve a calm surface atmosphere, not exposing the priest to the public or to the police. To that extent, the drama is intriguing as sympathies for the Bishop from the audience begin to diminish.

In fact, much of the interest in the drama centres on the other Bishop, Bishop Quade. He gives the impression of being far too serious in himself and concerning the church, worried about some of the changes and what it will mean in terms of the role of bishops, the role of the laity. The screenplay emphasises this in his dealings with a member of the New South Wales Parliament, played by Toni Collette, who has a number of discussions with the Bishop, and who raises the issues in the Parliament.

However, she becomes somewhat friendly with Bishop Quade, visiting a soup kitchen where he works, discussing his background, surprisingly discovering that he comes from a broken family, with drug addiction in the family, a very earnest sense of vocation, wanting to make a new beginning, to be of service, a man who can be outwardly obedient but who has a great deal of rage inside. He is shocked when he discovers some of the realities of the abuse and begins to make enquiries, which are shown with a touch of secrecy and intrigue, advising his secretary, something of a clerical yes-man, to make enquiries about the offending priest and his parish. There is also a link with the Papal Nuncio who is in favour of Bishop Quade to succeed the Cardinal, who also has a something of an obsequious career secretary, sending reports to Rome (or delaying them) and trying to ensure the succession of Bishop Quade.

The offending priest, Fr Andrassi, has been in parishes, but now works as a school chaplain. The opening of the series shows a boy who has drowned, a victim. The priest is a predator, having in his sights the young boy, the son of the mother mentioned previously, whom he grooms. The screenplay shows aspects of the grooming, the friendship, the affirmation, the special treatment, being taken out with a gun to hunt, the priest a familiar visitor and welcome to the household, nobody suspecting his motives or behaviour.

The abuser is sent by Bishop Noble to the psychiatrist. A number of sessions are shown, the attempts of the psychiatrist to get the priest to surface the realities of his behaviour, and the reluctance of the priest. A young brother in the school, who seems to be friendly with the boys and, the audience probably suspecting that he is an abuser, but in fact he is one of those who recognises what is happening, tries to help the boy, reports the issue to the principal of the school who is, initially, most reluctant to believe or to act but who eventually has to.

A different priest is introduced to the plot, a priest in charge of the Institute for wayward priests, Kyrie. He is presented as a professional, wearing clerical suit, smarter and dignified in demeanour. When Bishop Quade visits, they discuss the priests who are there for treatment, but states that Father Andrassi’s case is classified. The screenplay gives this priest the opportunity to explain to the bishop as well as to the audience something that they might not quite be aware of. He talks about the situation of offenders, their drives, especially the strong sex drive, even to 10 orgasms a day. He mentions that 25% of priests have some kind of psychosexual issues. He also speaks of the end of treatment and the transferring of priests to other parishes and dioceses. He is sympathetic to filling these needs, stating that so many priests have left the priesthood in recent times and the people are crying out for help.

This character is drawn from the help given to clergy at this time in such institutions like that at Morriset, New South Wales, run by the St John of God Brothers and the later institute setup, Empower, for clergy and religious withdrawn from ministry and staffed by lay experts and religious, providing therapy. There is reference to priests going overseas, to the United States where there were a number when to institutions, especially St Luke’s, Baltimore.

This episode offers the audience an insight into what was available for treatment of the priests, being taken out of ministry, put in a community where they worked with psychiatrists with the possibility of acknowledging their desires and their behaviour. But this is 1988, only a beginning, on the most part, of the church for this kind of treatment (although a religious order, the Paraclete Fathers, was established after World War II with the setting up of houses for priests with psychological needs, alcoholism, sexual deviancy or misconduct).

Father Gregory Lincoln is the legal adviser to the Archdiocese of Sydney. He appears in several scenes discussing the legal complications from the abuse cases in Sydney. He prefers to keep his processes confidential, participating in a plan to intimidate Tom Allen’s family, warning Tom of further investigations and to desist from psychiatric interviews with Father Andrassi. In a key sequence in the final episode, he appears, along with Bishop Quade, at a meeting with the Kellys, the Darcys and Tom Allen. In a line, similar to a number spoken by ecclesiastical officials and received unsympathetically, he states that the Church authorities are also the victims of Father Andrassi. His perspective is that of practical moves. In order to help the abused boy, an offer is made for him change schools, to go to a big reputable college.


The film also shows some of the victims, the background of the boy who killed himself, the little boy who throughout the series is in danger, has some kind of instinct that there is something wrong, but is inexperienced and responds to the attention of the predator priest. There is also a victim who has now become a male prostitute, involved with the psychiatrist’s son. Tom Allen also visits and finds the priest outside on the footpath, sweeping away leaves, representative of the average priest of the time who is only vaguely aware of the problems, oral ulcers in semi-denial, unable to cope, and he gives short shrift to the victim, blaming him for the scandal for the church and for his family and for the town.

Another anonymous priest is also involved in the threats to Tom Allen, appearing unexpectedly at the motel where Tom has moved his children for security and taking them for a meal, not explaining who he was. Tom had already moved the children to the motel after receiving ominous phone calls but, after the episode with the meal, he takes them back home. This is a sinister voice and face of the church.

Living at Cathedral in retirement is an old Irish priest, Father Joyce. He dines with the Cardinal and the auxiliary bishops, they offering some sympathy, although they subscribe to the saying that pain is a gift. They think that Father Joyce should retire to a residence for the elderly. This is a glimpse of an old priest, loyal to the church, comfortable with his ecclesiastical superiors but not wanting to retire to a residence. It is Bishop Quade who is kindly towards him, visiting him, giving practical help, praying with him. In fact, at the end of the series, Bishop Quade is able to kneel and pray with some desperation in Father Joyce’s room .

When Father Joyce falls in the shower, it is Bishop Quade who helps him up and showers him. Bishop Mc Ginley doesn’t see it this way, and says that Bishop Quade is selfish in not encouraging Father Joyce to go away to a place that would care for him. He condemns Bishop Quade for letting him down.

When the decision is made, it seems that Father Joyce is to go to an institution, Kyrie, but he is unwilling, stating that it is for mad and bad priests.

The inclusion of this character offers an opportunity for audience sympathy for old and faithful priest who have led a long life in ministry.

A small glimpse of a parish priest occurs when Tom Allen finds the town of Cotilon where Father Andrassi abused boys when he was the parish priest. Tom comes to the church and sees a man in T-shirt and shorts sweeping the footpath. He introduces himself as Father Michael Drake, the parish priest. He has no sympathy for Tom, telling him that the abuse accusations, which were not believed, have pulled the community apart. Brendan, who accused Father Andrassi, as a troublemaker. Father Drake goes on to express his wariness, hostility towards psychiatrists, stating that dream therapy is bloody ‘hypnosis’. It is a quick sketch of a hard-working parish priest, disbelieving the abuse situation and in no way approving of suggested therapies.


Ultimately, it is Bishop Quade who faces up to something of the realities, finds a report (in which four actual names of Australian abuser priests are spoken aloud), challenges the Vatican authorities, has a meeting with the parents allowing them to vent their angers as well is an attempt to try to find a way to deal with the issues, with some sympathy, although the Bishop is something of a hard man, and not easily finding ways for solution. This is 1988.

The series was shown on television in 2014, just over a quarter of a century later, in the wake of an extraordinary and horrifying numbers of accusations, charges, of both clergy, diocesan and belonging to religious orders, and of religious teaching brothers. The series was shown during the time of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse, established in 2013 and with continuing widespread hearings throughout the whole of Australia, into the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Salvation Army, the Scouts movement, the entertainment industry, the YMCA, and various communities, including sect-like groupings. The series was topical – and went on to award to win the major awards of the Australian Film Institute.

THE ROOM

US, 2003, 98 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Wiseau, Juliette Danielle, Greg Sestero, Philip Haldiman, Carolyn Minnot.
Directed by Tommy Wiseau.

The Room has made it to the list for many critics and for many audiences of one of the best of the worst ever films. It has become something of a cult film, appearing for years in late night shows in selected cinemas as well as having a hoarding in Hollywood for years and years. It is a film that people have talked about – and that the co-actor, co-producer, Greg Sestero, wrote a book about his experience, The Disaster Artist.

It was filmed in San Francisco and, often, very often, during the film there are cutaways to views of the city, many of them familiar, reinforcing the impression that the story is set in San Francisco. They serve as something of a relief as well!

The plot is fairly basic, a man is in love with his fiancee, has been with her for many years, seems to be sexually compatible (at least some of the sequences suggests this), but his fiancee has become bored, wants to get rid of him, is seductive towards his best friend who, without too much struggle, succumbs to the seduction and, despite some hand and heart-wringing, enters into an affair with her. She is completely self-absorbed, with arrogant narcissism, telling her friends that she deserves the best in life, that this is the be-all and end-all of life – but is not getting it.

Her friend tries to give her advice but is ignored. Her mother turns up frequently to have chats with her daughter, to give her advice, urging her to marry her fiance, then having to go…

One of the points is to ask whether the fiance will ever find out the truth, from the girl, from his best friend, from his potential mother-in-law.

While that might have been the basis for a successful film, the screenplay is very basic, with more than a touch of the ordinary, with something of the ridiculous. And, the acting is terrible, stilted, dialogue not well delivered, a lot of posing.

There are a number of subplots, especially the hero adopting a teenager who lives in the same apartment block, who is approving curiosity concerning the girl, wants to watch the lovemaking, and keeps intruding. The mother-in-law at one stage indicates that she has cancer – but that is soon forgotten. A psychologist friend also turns up to warn his friend but is ignored. And there is a famous scene when the four male leads are dressed up in tuxedos, going out onto the street for some moments of passing the football.

And the mystery is the writer-director-leading actor himself, Tommy Wiseau. He has an unusual accent and it is difficult to discern where he actually has come from. He has a somewhat sinister appearance, with the touch of the vampire. The other characters, in fact, look quite ordinary, Greg Sestero being handsome but more than a touch of wooden performance. Carolyn Minnot as the mother is probably the best of the cast.

The film tends to go on and on, repeating the situations, especially the conflict in the fiancee and the hero not suspecting anything. But, there is a showdown at a party, leading to what seems to be some kind of emotional and mental breakdown in the hero, so that he wildly kills himself.

There is no real reason to see the film – except to verify its reputation.

ARIZONA DREAM

US/France, 1992,122 minutes, Colour.
Johnny Depp, Jerry Lewis, Faye Dunaway, Lili Taylor, Vincent Gallo, Paulina Porizkova, Michael J. Pollard.
Directed by Emir Kustirica.

Arizona Dream is a strange film, opening with an elaborate story set in the Arctic, a hunter out with his dogs and sled, braving the elements, almost dying, protected by his dog, returning to his wife and children – although this is a dream from the central character, Axel, played by Johnny Depp, comparatively early in his starring career.

The film is the work of Sarajevo-born Serb director, Emir Kusturica, who made an impact with two of his films in the 1980s, When Father was Away on Business and The Time of the Gypsies. After Arizona Dream, he was to make the films, set in the Balkans, made during the wars, Underground and Black Cat, White Cat. He also made Life is a Miracle.

This is Kustirica’s perspective on the United States, real, surreal, an American dream. He has chosen an eclectic cast, led by Depp, but with a rare performance by Jerry Lewis as Depp’s uncle, Faye Dunaway and Lili Taylor as a mother and daughter, Vincent Gallo as a friend of Depp, with a cameo by Michael J. Pollard.

The uncle is planning to marry and wants his nephew as best man. Axel, who worked with fish in New York City, comes with his friend, Paul, and is persuaded to work in the car dealership of his uncle. His encounters a wealthy widow, played by Faye Dunaway, and her eccentric stepdaughter, Lili Taylor. The mother has her dreams, wanting to fly, and there are many sequences with experimental flying machines.

For audiences absorbed into this scenario, this Arizona Territory, with these characters, the film is very impressive and many consider it a masterpiece. On the other hand, many audiences will probably not be coming into the reality or the dream.

1. The impact of the film? It reputation?

2. The title, Axel’s dreams, Leo’s Dreams, Elaine’s dreams, Grace’s dreams, Paul’s dreams?

3. The prologue, the Inuit and the Arctic, the man, the sled, hunting, the fish, the dogs, about to shoot the dog, its care, pulling the sled, his survival, reunited with his family, their support? Axel and his dream? At the end with his uncle in the igloo?

4. The director, his background, his film career, imaginative, boisterous and vigorous?

5. Axel and his life, in New York, his job, the boat, the fish, relationship with Paul, their time together, influence on each other? His uncle, going back to Arizona, the wedding, being best man, meeting the fiance, at home in Arizona?

6. Paul, his type, extrovert, in Arizona, friendship with Axel, rivalry, the car dealership, interactions with Leo, with the women? The clashes?

7. Uncle Leo, Jerry Lewis, his age, the background of Axel’s parents and their deaths, his being at the wheel? Fostering Axel? Falling in love, at his age, the fiancee being young, the plans for the wedding, Axel as best man? Leo, teamwork and the dealership? Discussing cars with Michael J. Pollard? Offering Paul a job? Axel staying, his reasons, expectations?

8. At the showroom, Paul, Axel and his carefulness? Elaine and Grace, their style, the issue of money, wanting the car?

9. Elaine, as a character, glamour, her husband, his death? Grace holding her responsible? Grace, talking about being the image of parents? The clash between the two women? At home?

10. Elaine, her dreams of flight, the range of machines, the experience of flying, Axel and his helping? Her joy?

11. Grace, her age, anger, resentment, interacting with her mother, with Axel, jealousies, the sexual relationship with Axel?

12. Uncle Leo, his fiancee, trying on the dresses, her relationship with Leo? Leo’s exuberance, his death, the funeral?

13. Axel, the two women, Grace and her death?

14. Axel’s future, going back into his dream?

MELBOURNE

Iran, 2014, 91 minutes, Colour.
Roshanak Gerami, Mani Haghighi.
Directed by Nima Javidi.

While Melbourne is the title, none of the action takes place in Melbourne or even in Australia. This is an Iranian film, taking place in Tehran over one day. The central couple are packing, about to leave Iran for Melbourne, which is something of a destination and dream, where they will study.

They have been leasing an apartment and are leaving it, with visits by furniture removalists, the owner of the building inspecting it, neighbours. A nanny leaves a baby with them but does not return for several hours. The husband makes a terrible discovery, that the baby does not wake up when there is loud noise – the baby is dead. At first he calls an ambulance, but then panics and decides to maintain a deception. He also blames his wife for taking the baby in, she reacting badly to him. When they settle down, and Google about the baby’s death and discover that the child has died of cot death and that they have laid it on its stomach so as not to roll off the bed, not given it milk and it could have been disturbed by the husband smoking, they maintain the deception with the father, that the wife is out walking with the baby, also with the nanny who does eventually return.

The film has a great deal of emotional tension, the audience wondering how they will handle the situation, perhaps placing themselves in a similar situation in trying to decide what is the best to do.

Ultimately, they find a solution, leaving the baby behind with a neighbour but not revealing that the baby is dead – and in the taxi, as the final credits begin, we hear sobbing.

1. The title? The destination rather than the city itself? A destination of hope?

2. Tehran and setting, exteriors, the city itself, apartments, the focus on interiors and the detail? The musical score?

3. The action mainly confined to the apartment and interiors?

4. The woman taking the census, the accident on the steps, the little boy, knocking on the doors, introduction to the couple?

5. The situation, the couple, Amir and Sarah? Planning to go to Australia, to Melbourne for three years, to study? Their lease on the apartment, packing, the pawn man coming to take the furniture, his arrival, the men, taking everything, the inspector coming to examine, his praise of the couple? The family visits? Skype to Melbourne? Their characters?

6. Taking the baby, the Nanny leaving the baby, the trouble with the father, the mother not seeing the baby for a fortnight, the clash with the father? Sarah and her wanting to help?

7. The sister, talk, the photos, later looking at the photos to see whether the baby was alive?

8. The noise, the baby not responding, discovered dead, Amir and his reaction, Sarah, upset, blaming Amir? His blaming her for taking the baby from the nanny? The internet, the discovery about SIDS, the issue of not giving the milk, laying the baby on its stomach, the smoke and its effect?

9. The father, his arrival, not wanting to come in, his concern, his phone calls, clash with the wife, the arrest?

10. The nanny, going to buy medicine, leaving the baby alive, the suspicions of the couple, leaving her phone, waiting for her, turning up, her waiting, having to leave? The story of the Sarah taking the baby for a walk?

11. The range of phones, the frequent calls, the doorbell?

12. The mother, her concern, the sister waiting in the car? The mother and her not wanting them to go to Australia?

13. The neighbour, her kindness, bringing the food?

14. Amir and the compounding of the lies, the decision to go, fears, calling the ambulance, sending it away, the father, the nanny, the compounding of the situation? Blame and upset? The little boy, his searching the room, discovering the baby? Amir with the toys?

15. The final decision, entrusting the baby to the neighbour, in the taxi, upset, the sound of weeping?

16. The audience supplying a final ending?

ARCTIC TALE

US, 2007, 96 minutes, Colour.
Narrator: Queen Latifah,
Directed by Adam Ravetch and Sarah Robertson.

When the March of the Penguins made such an impression worldwide, it might have seemed inevitable that some film-makers would take themselves off to the Arctic and study the animals that populate that remote part of the world. Where the Penguins’ story was ‘humanised’, especially by the English-language commentary from Morgan Freeman and the paralleling of bird behaviour to human actions and motivations, the Arctic Tale goes further and sets up a conflict drama between the walrus and the polar bear. This is a device that can keep the younger audiences attentive and interested. It may seem too ‘cute’ for serious adult viewers.

However, some of the photography is quite spectacular and the commentary does inform us about the life cycles of the animals – and about their extraordinary capacity for endurance of cold, of lack of food, of ability for travelling over the floes and through the Arctic waters. The film shows the mother bear’s hibernation, the early struggles of the cubs, their growing up, hunting and, eventually, being able to stand independent of their mother. But, not all survive. The walrus family is important and the family that hunts together stays together. Otherwise, death is inevitable.

As the bears hunt the walrus and, as the previously unseasonable warming melts the ice, the search for prey for food becomes an enormous struggle.

The commentary is by Queen Latifah. It starts quite objectively but then moves into almost equating the animals with humans and takes on an American colloquial touch. But, it is the visuals which count.

HASSAN WA MORCUS

Egypt, 2008, 112 minutes, Colour.
Adel Imam, Omar Shariff.
Directed by Rami Imam.

A film of great, good intentions. However, it relies on very broad characterisations, more than a touch of the stereotype, dashes of slapstick and performances which range from the hammy (the son) to the dignified (Omar Sharif and Adel Imam as the Muslim and the Coptic priest respectively).

There are plenty of films with mixed up identities and misunderstandings. And, in religious situations, we have had Sister Act and the Iranian, The Lizard, where a criminal is mistaken for an imam. Hassan and Marcos is a comic tale of two religious families caught up in hatred and intolerance who go into a kind of witness protection program – but each is disguised as the opposite religion, the Copts as Muslims and the Muslims as Christians.

Since the early part of the film shows groups who campaign for religious tolerance and foster live and let live (despite grumblings by each side that the other has more privileges), the sight of the Coptic priest mistaken for an Imam and having to interpret the law and the Muslim bewildered by Christian rituals make for interfaith humour.

And, if you were concocting a popular entertainment to promote understanding and tolerance, what better and easier to do than add a Romeo and Juliet situation? Christian son in love with Muslim daughter each thinking secretly that the other is of their faith.

The Egyptian settings are quite colourful. The atmosphere of Christian and Muslim worship and tradition is maintained. And there is a symbolic ending as viciously hostile crowds indulge in religious hate and violence and the now harmonious families walk arm in arm through the mayhem.

Interesting that Egypt should make the effort to produce a film on interfaith understanding and that Omar Sharif should return home to be in it.

SHE'S THE ONE

US, 1996, 94 minutes, Colour.
Edward Burns, Michael Mc Glone, Maxine Bahns, Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz, Amanda Peet, Leslie Mann, Anita Gillette, Frank Vincent, John Mahoney, Malachy Mc Court.
Directed by Edward Burns.

Edward Burns' first feature, The Brothers Mc Mullen, was a critical success. It was followed by She's the One.

Burns goes over familiar ground but he's had more time and resources to think through his characters and write their situations with the humour and sympathy he showed in his first film. The Fitzgeralds are a very male family. Dad (John Mahoney) won't let women go on his fishing expeditions - and we never see his wife, important though she is for the plot. Frances (Michael Mc Glone) is the corporate yuppy living a hypocritical double life. Burns is the taxi-driver brother who by chance meets Hope (Maxine Bahns), drives her to New Orleans and marries her.

We enjoy the interactions of the men, but are glad when they have to face reality about the women in their lives and learn that the world is far broader than they imagined. Quiet but telling comedy drama.

1. A romantic comedy? The work of Edward Burns, writer, director, style? The interest in his career and styles of filmmaking?

2. New York story, the neighbourhood, the city itself, the streets, houses, apartments, offices, the boat and the water? The musical score? Songs?

3. The title, indication of romance, choices?

4. The strong cast, some of the beginning of their careers, later careers?

5. Mike, Edward Burns in this role, the Irish Catholic background, the Fitzgerald family, the tough father, his life, outspoken, his boat and love for fishing, the bond with his sons? The mother not seen? Devout, going to church, with the priest? Francis and the comparisons with Mike, younger, competitive? Mike and his freer attitude, Francis uptight?

6. The contrast with Francis, younger, serious, competitive, the rivalry as boys, Francis and his standards, success, money, Wall Street, his wife, expectations? Manner, well-dressed, always commenting on Mike?

7. Mike, the decision to drive the taxi, the past relationship with Heather, finding her naked with the lover, his leaving, having no plans? Picking up Hope, talk, friendliness, the suggestion that he drive her to New Orleans, fearing flight? Going to the friends’ wedding, the return, clicking, marrying? Going to her small apartment, no hot water, cramped…? Mike easy going, adapting?

8. The reactions to the wedding? The father in shock? Francis upset because he wasn’t the best man? Angry talk?

9. Francis and his marriage to Renée, her loving him, his indifference to sex, working in bed, not noticing the new lingerie, the speculation that he was gay and his reaction to this? His discussions, with Renée, the meal with her parents, Molly and the reactions?

10. Francis and the truth, his affair with Heather, his macho attitudes towards his own sexuality, performance, pride? His demands? Unimaginative? The credibility of this kind of character? His deceit, telling the truth to his father, to Mike, to Renée and his admitting what had happened?

11. Hope, her work in the bar, pleasant, wanting to go to Paris, the studies? The discussions with Mike, his hesitation? Connie, at the bar, her relationship with Hope and loving her, discussions with Mike, helping Mike at the end?

12. Renée, love for Francis, the sexual approach, her not suspecting an affair? Her angers, trying? Discussions with her parents, her mother’s frankness, Molly and her open talk? Hearing the truth, the divorce? The memories of the heavy man from the past, Renée preferring him to Francis?

13. Francis and Heather, Mike giving her the lift, the discussion in the cab, the visit to the apartment, taking the watch, giving it back, taking the television? Francis and his being paranoid about the television and the visit, interrogating Mike? Mike seeing him with the watch?

14. Francis and Heather, the possibilities of a relationship or not? Mike and his reactions to Heather’s behaviour, as his ex-girlfriend?

15. The father, fishing with the priest, discovering the truth about his wife? The previous visit of the sons to the shopkeeper – and their mother’s relationship with him?

16. The father, his advice, inviting Hope, the rivalry between the two brothers, the boxing gloves in the fight, Mike’s punch?

17. The father inviting Hope onto the boat, breaking a custom? Mike and his going to Paris, his love Hope,? She’s the one?

18. The skill of the screenplay in its observation on the variety of characters, situations and relationships?