FANTASTIC FOUR

US, 2015, 100 minutes, Colour.
Miles Teller, Michael B.Jordan, Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbel, Reg E.Cathey, Tim Blake Nelson.
Directed by Josh Trank.

For a while, this seems to be a rather low key adaptation of a Marvel comic. The principal characters seem rather ordinary, except for their knowledge of science and technology. They certainly don’t seem to be like any superheroes or seem likely to become superheroes.

However, just before halfway through the film, there is quite a transformation, travelling into other dimensions, finding a planet with extraordinary energies, their being transformed and, yes, becoming superheroes.

In the last decade, there were two Fantastic Four films, pleasantly successful in their way. However, for this particular outing, the decision has been made to go back to the origins of the four, even back to the childhood of Reed and Ben. Reed is a technology nerd, creating experiments as a little boy, but ridiculed at school by his teacher. Ben lives in a machine dump and read befriends him, finding a motor, and inviting him to share in experiments. Seven years pass and, straining credibility, the actors portraying these teenagers are well in their 20s!, Miles Teller and Jamie Bell. They have an exhibit at a Science Fair and are again ridiculed by their schoolteacher. But, Dr Franklin Storm (Reg E.Cathey) and his protégé, Sue (Kate Mara), approach the two who are offered scholarships working at a laboratory in New York.

The equipment in the laboratory is extensive which gives Reed the opportunity to keep working on his interdimensional travel, especially with animals, hoping for transporting humans. While it is rather dramatic when it happens, the success of the experiment seems to happen too easily, but it gives the young people a chance to reflect on how those who walked on the moon got more recognition than the technicians – so, of course, what better than to quietly sneak into the machine and transport themselves, even to planting an American flag on the other planet?

Which they do, but not before encountering the extraordinary energy on the planet – and it is here that they are transformed into the Fantastic For while one of them, Victor (Toby Kebbel), is swallowed up by the energy only to emerge as energy and evil personified, wanting world domination and world destruction, for the earth to be swallowed up in a black hole!
Those familiar with the comics will know that Ben turns into a rock giant, Reed has extended limbs, Johnny (Michael B.Jordan) is consumed by fire and Sue can appear and disappear while floating in her own bubble.

The military potential of the Four is developed but Reed runs away, to be sought out again so that he can fix the machine for further transporting and the possibilities of everything returning to normal.

Normal is not the normal in this kind of story, so there has to be a confrontation with Victor, a combat between good and evil, the exercise of the particular gifts of the fantastic four.

And, so, that’s it. Plenty of stunts and special effects, reasonably sympathetic characters, but, as was said, rather low-key compared with other Marvel extravaganzas.

1. Marvel Comics and their popularity? The Fantastic Four? The films? Exploration of their origins?

2. Marvel Comics and heroes, the four, science and technology, developments?

3. Myth-making, travel to another dimension, the effect, for good and evil?

4. The prologue, Reed and his career project, in class, his ambitions, transportation of matter, the rebuke of the teacher? Ben, his family, the bullying brother, his mother? Reed in the garage, the discussions, getting the motor, back to the laboratory, the partial success?

5. Seven years, the Science Fair, the exhibition, the teacher still criticising? Ben still with Reed? Storm and his visit, with Sue? The offer, going to New York, the laboratory, the building, the range of equipment? Ben deciding to go? Meeting Johnny, Victor? Victor alone? The various jobs in research?

6. The board, Dr Allen, Storm, the military requests, the experiments?

7. All present for the first test, the chimp, the success of the experiment, bringing back the gravel? The visuals of the alternate planet?

8. The four and their discussions, those who walked on the moon and those who made the vehicles? The importance of acknowledgement in the footprints? The decision to go, Reed reader calling Ben?

9. The personalities of each of the group? Miles, scientific needed, enthusiasm? Sue, her research, serious? Johnny, his exuberance? Victor, alone, taciturn?

10. The group going, landing on the planet, planting the flag, the visuals of the energy and the sources? The cliff, the pegs and the encroaching energy, Victor falling and being destroyed? The others in their transformations?

11. The transformation details? Ben, buried under the rock, becoming a rock character? Reed and his bewilderment in hospital, the extension of his arms, his leaving? Sue, visible and invisible, in her bubble? Johnny and being consumed by fire? Their working for the military, the various experiments? Dr Allen and his watching, Storm?

12. The year passing, searching for Reed, his being there for the development of the machine and the next experiment? The others blaming him for running away?

13. The experiment, Victor emerging full of the energies, wanting control, evil, the others reactions? Swallowing up earth in a black hole? Dr Allen and Storm and their destruction? The combined effort of the four, the confrontation with Victor, his destruction in the black hole?

14. The Pentagon, the agreement, the new plant, extensive laboratories, the control, deciding on the name Fantastic?

SOUTHPAW

US, 2015, 124 minutes, Colour.
Jake Gyllenhaal, Rachel Mc Adams, Forest Whitaker, Oona Laurence, 50 Cent Jackson, Skylan Brooks, Naomie Harris, Beau Knapp.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua.


This is a surprisingly good film, even for those were not keen on boxing. It is definitely is a boxing film, two long championship fights, one opening the film, the other bringing it to a climax, as well as a charity demonstration bout, some fistfights and a great deal of attention given to details of training.

But, there is a great deal more to the film. In fact, several times the screenplay refers to redemption.

The central character is Billy, a middle-aged boxer, a world champion, with the significant surname of Hope. He is seen in the initial fight, fierce-looking, challenging his opponent, bloodied, determined and angry, but winning. He is played by Jake Gyllenhaal in a completely convincing way, his physical appearance making his performance as a boxer credible, the choreography of his fighting in the ring, the details of training. This is to the credit of Jake Gyllenhaal who, in recent years, has given extraordinarily different and fine performances in Prisoners as well as Nightcrawler.

He is encouraged in his career and in his life by his devoted wife, Mo, played very attractively by Rachel Mc Adams. Billy and Mo were both orphans and grew up in orphanages in Hells Kitchen, not far from Madison Square Garden where the first fight takes place. It is she who is the support, the strength in the family, the adviser about his career and contracts. It is an emotional shock when the situation changes. The young daughter, convincingly played by Oona Laurence, devoted to her parents but suffering the consequences of the shock.

Billy goes into freefall, falling lower and lower, ultimately losing everything, being banned from boxing, losing his house, family, on the streets and looking for some kind of employment – and redemption.

He wanders into a gym managed by Tick, Forest Whitaker, a sympathetic wisdom-figure, who runs a gym for training young men, especially black men, from the tough neighbourhood. But Billy is still particularly angry, is ordered by the judge to have anger management sessions, not to drink, not to take drugs, and make himself a proper guardian for his daughter. At first, he is so angry that he cannot bring himself to take on a menial job at the gym but realises that he must.

As might be expected, this is the first step on the road to some kind of redemption, of moving out of the depths.

An opportunity does come for him to fight again, to challenge the new champion, from Columbia, with the significant name of Escobar, whose defiance has been the trigger for Billy’s downfall. He trains, with Tick being supportive and giving good advice. Which means that the climax of the film is a long fight in Las Vegas, 12 rounds, with Escobar asserting himself, Billy fighting back, only a matter of points difference in the final decision. Whatever the outcome, Billy has controlled himself, has given his all to his boxing skills, has won the admiration of his daughter, guaranteed the loyalty of his supporters.

The film is well written by Kurt Sutter, who wrote many of the episodes four television of The Shield and Sons of Anarchy. Everything comes together well in terms of the story, the performances, the drama, the possibilities for some kind of hope and redemption despite the deepest of failures.

1. The title? A boxing film? A story of achievement, failure, redemption?

2. A New York story, the boxing world, Madison Square Garden, the ring, the dressing rooms? New York homes and mansions? Charity venues? The cathedral for the charity venue? Brooklyn, poor neighbourhoods? Las Vegas? The courts, social services homes? The gym? Bars? The musical score?

3. A film for boxing fans, the first fight and its detail, length, brutality? The fight in the foyer leading to the murder? The training sequences? The charity bout? The fight, competitive, rivalry? Editing, pace? The value of the commentary in the background of the fights?

4. The introduction to Billy Hope, the significance of his name? His fighting, determination, skills? Mo and the bond with her, love, her encouragement? Making the decisions? Supporting his win, the press conference, the challenge from Escobar? At home, love Leila, advising against the contracts? His speech, at the charity dinner, the suddenness of the shooting, the pathos of her death, the effect?

5. Billy’s character, past, the orphanage, meeting Mo and their friendship, in prison, boxing, training, fighting, winning, champion, tough? His skills, age? His fingers? His love for his wife and daughter? Tenderness with his daughter? The speech at the fund-raiser? Escobar’s taunts, Billy rushing to punch him, the fracas, leading to the shooting, the sadness of Mo’s death? The fact that there was no solution to who shot her?

6. The pathos of her death, the effect for Billy, her daughter, and their memories?

7. The aftermath, the police interrogating Billy, his going home, with Leila, his anger, the response of the media, getting the gun, his wanting vengeance, going to the door of the slum, the frightened mother, drugs, shielding her children, his walking away, vomiting? His drinking? Jon Jon and the car, Billy sending him away? Jordan, his manager, smooth-talking, the plans for fights, persuading him to sign the contract, not personal but business?

8. Billy and his despair, crashing the car, with the gun, alcohol, the arrest, and court, his anger, the judge and her comments, taking his daughter away, his not being fit father? One month to prove himself?

9. Billy and the depths, losing everything, having to sell the house, everything taken away, the auction? His wandering the streets, going to the gym, meeting Tick, talking with him, the issue of swearing, and the offer of the job, his anger and refusal?

10. The visit to his daughter, not wanting to see him, her anger, grieving at her mother’s death, wanting to be with her father? Angela and her role in supervising, having to fill out the form, the detail, the issue of the job? His return, discussions with Tick, finding him in the bar, offering to take the job, cleaning up, with the kids, the friendship with Hoppy?

11. The penalties, unable to fight, the different bans? At training, with the kids, Hoppy, concern about his life – and the story of his being shot by his father while defending his mother?

12. Going back to the court, the judge praising him, awarding custody, happiness of father and daughter together?

13. The demonstration fight at the cathedral, the exhibition, the possibility for Las Vegas?

14. The discussions with Tick, Tick training professionals, agreeing, strong and his advice, the language of God, the sequences with the exact detail of the
training regime?

15. Going to Las Vegas, Leila watching in the dressing room with Angela, Angela and her care for Leila and meetings with Billy, the experience of watching her father, the importance for her of being there?

16. The long fight, Escobar and his entourage, Jordan and his being with Escobar? Escaobar winning the championship, skills? Billy and his group, Jon Jon faithful? The details of the fight, the commentary, the ascendancy of Escobar, Billy coming back, the finals bouts, the points’ decision, his win, giving Tick the trophy?

17. Achievement, failure, determination, redemption?

TRAINWRECK

US, 2015, 125 minutes, Colour.
Amy Schumer, Bill Hader, Tilda Swinton, Brie Larson, John Cena, Norman Lloyd, Daniel Radcliffe, Marisa Tomei. Le Bron James, Method Man.
Directed by Judd Apatow.

There are two kinds of train wreck. There is the devastation when the train goes off the rails, ploughing into the countryside, destroying the carriages and the environment. Then there is the crash on the rails, devastating as carriages plough into each other, causing destruction, injury and death.

Probably best to keep these two aspects in mind in considering the title of this film and how it applies to Amy Schumer’s life. Amy Schumer is in her mid-30s, has had a successful career on television and with stand-up comedy. Now, she has written a screenplay loosely based on her life and her family, her difficulties in relationships, her work. And she stars in this alter-ego version of herself.

But, she has put the direction into the hands of veteran Judd Apatow (The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, This is 40), who brings his considerable comedy talent to the film, though this is a rare outing for him where he has not written the screenplay. What usually happens in an Apatow comedy is that things start out pretty raucously, even with some devastation for the characters, touches of train wreck, but, after a while, with interactions, they begin to change, even becoming more human, employing a bit more common sense, yet not losing their sense of humour, and finally some kind of rather moralising ending: The Judd Apatow Syndrome.

The film opens with Amy’s father talking to his two little daughters, an extensive ramble, rant at times, about how monogamy is impossible. This seems to have different effects on his two daughters, Amy growing up, rather loose-living, having many one night stands (shown in successive glimpses) with a wariness about falling in love, a seeming inability to love. Yet the younger daughter, played by Brie Larson, is the opposite, marrying a man she loves, becoming a loving stepmother to a precocious little boy, baffling Amy as to how two daughters could end up so differently.

Amy works for a magazine, one of those magazines that likes to dig up some dirt on celebrities. Her immediate editor is Dianna – played by an at first unrecognisable Tilda Swinton, different hair, different look, certainly different voice, very English, dominating, insensitive, demanding – quite a funny performance. Amy has to take on an assignment to interview a doctor responsible for sports medicine. He is played by Bill Hader, a regular in stand-up comedy (excellent in The Skeleton Twins, as well is one of the voices in Inside Oit, Fear). Is involved with basketballers – and some of the key basketballers in the US play themselves, showing quite a flair for screen presence and comedy, especially Le Bron James.

The doctor, Aaron, is a pleasant man, not pushing himself, but somehow rather attracted to Amy, moving into a relationship and love. This is not what she imagined for herself and puts up quite some resistance, yet bonds with Aaron, undergoes something of a crisis, especially with the influence of her father who is now in a home, visited by his two daughters. This is a real challenge for her, her feelings, admitting that she could love, breaking with Aaron, but finding some kind of reconciliation – the Judd Apatow ending.

Amy Schumer is certainly an impactful screen presence and audiences have responded well to her, as well as to her styles of frank and earthy humour, her sardonically satirical approach to comedy, with clever lines, humorous situations. She is beginning to salvage her early trainwreck life and get back on some kind of rails.

1. The reputation of Amy Schumer, the television shows, stand-up comedy, writing scripts, starring in this film, her character as an alter-ego of herself?

2. The work of Judd Apatow, raucous comedy, stand-up humour, the touch of moralising by the end?

3. Los Angeles, an LA story, the city, characters, work in magazines, sport and medicine? Clubs?

4. The comedy style, of Amy Schumer herself, spoofing herself, spoofing situations, the raucous and earthy touch?

5. The screenplay based on Amy Schumer’s life, her father and his advice, motorneuron disease, his treatment of his daughters, his old age and in the institution?

6. The effect of sharing Amy Schumer’s life? Empathy with her? Sharing the humour, her observations, the satiric touch, self-deprecation and criticism?

7. Amy, the collage of men and one night stands? Her resisting relationships? Her inability to love? The athlete, Steven, and the relationship, sex, breaking with him, musclebound and his not understanding?

8. Her work, the magazine, curiosity about celebrities? The possibility of promotion, her friend and rival?

9. The editor, Dianna, a comic performance by Tilda Swinton, her voice, look, manner of speaking, overriding people, wanting sensation, the issue of promotions, her behaviour?

10. The issue, sports and medicine, Amy not being interested, her being in told to investigate? Her attitude towards sport?

11. The sports background, the actual basketball stars, their presence, personalities, on television, the comic styles? The plot development? American audiences appreciating the presence of the stars? Aaron, in himself, Bill Hader’s presence, comic style, voice? His work, ideas, research, medicine? His interaction with the sports stars?

12. Amy and the talk, her quips, the jokes, the emphasis on female behaviour – with the touch of the earthy, bodily functions and crass?

13. Amy and Aaron together, the effect, his being a touch more passive, yet his response to her, falling in love, the encounters? His sometimes embarrassment?

14. The changes, in both, the possibilities for love? Her writing the article, the discussions with Aaron, with Dianna, her decision not to push forward the article?

15. The comic touch with the film within the film, with Daniel Radcliffe, Marisa Tomei, the encounter, the pets…?

16. The background of the opening with Amy and her sister, her father, his long discussion about the impossibility of monogamy? The effect on Amy and her promiscuity? The completely different effect on her sister, her marriage, stepchild, domestic and ordinary?

17. The character of the father, the impression at the beginning, his illness, in the home, the visits of his daughters, his friend Norman, their discussions? The daughter’s response to his illness?

18. The development of Amy’s character, change, the break with Aaron? The effect on him? The reconciliation?

19. Judd Apatow films, starting with raucous jokes, touches of spoof, change in awareness, a more conventional and moralising ending?

SCREAMERS

US, 1995, 108 minutes, Colour.
Peter Weller, Roy Dupuis, Jennifer Rubin, Andrew Lauer, Charles Edwin Powell, Ron White.
Directed by Christian Duguay.

Screamers is based on a short story by celebrated writer, Philip K. Dick, author of such stories as Blade Runner, Paycheck. The short story was called Second Variety. It was set on Earth when the United States had been defeated by the Soviet Union. However, in the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the plot was transferred to the latter part of the 21st century and an outer planet.

Mining interests had developed the planet but humans had also developed a weapon, the Screamers, bladed machines with a powerful screech that hunted down enemies. However, their intelligence had developed so that they then began to pursue human life.

The small group is isolated on the planet but its leader, played by Peter Weller, decides that there has to be a pact made with the mining enemies in order to confront the Screamers.

The film shows the characters, their interactions, especially in isolation and under the threats from the Screamers. A small groups goes on an expedition to meet the enemy, traversing the planet and its hostile environment, pursued by Screamers, building up to a dramatic confrontation. One of the complications is that the Screamers can take human forms so that the leader is not always clear on who is human and who is a machine, especially with a very forthright character who does turn out to be a machine, and the leader has to test the female member of the group to see whether she is human or not.

The film has built up something of a minor cult following, admiration for Dick, the adaptation of the story, the inventiveness about threatening machines and the confrontation.

1. The status of this film as science fiction? Cult following?

2. The production values, the small-budget, the re-creation of the planet, the desolation and isolation, the military aspects, the mining aspects? The journey across the planet? Action sequences? Special effects? The Screamers themselves and their look, sound, activity?

3. The late 21st century, the isolated planet, devastation on earth, the military cutting off the survivors on the planet, the having to fend for themselves, limited resources?

4. The Screamers, their appearance, the blades, subterranean, coming to the surface, the screams, the cutting, the threats, the violence?

5. The leader, his personality, exercising leadership, contact with Earth and other planets, the threat of the Screamers, his interactions with his personnel, wary of some not being human? His lieutenant and his trust – and the later betrayal of the trust? The variety of personalities, the discovery that some were Screamers? Jessica, suspicions, her identity?

6. The expedition, the dangers, the threats, the Screamers, interactions in the group, dangers, deaths, betrayal? The Screamers who appeared human, but were revealed as machines when attacked? The leading machine, denouncing others, revealed to be a machine?

7. The continued threat of the Screamers, the buildup to the confrontation, possibilities for destruction? The humans and their survival?

8. A Philip K. Dick parable about humans and machines – and the future?

THE FAREWELL PARTY

Israel, 2014, 95 minutes, Colour.
Ze'ev Revach, Lavana Finkelstein.
Directed by Tal Granit, Sharon Maymon.

A Farewell Party seems to light a title for this rather serious film. Some of the advertising and reviews emphasise comedy touches – and it does begin with an old man telephoning an older lady with dementia, pretending to be God, asking after her health and promising her a place in heaven (with his wife then rebuking him for playing tricks on susceptible people). But, the themes of the film are quite serious.

This is an in Israeli film, set in a home for the aged. After the initial joke, we are introduced to a very elderly man in a great deal of pain, dying, his wife upset, ranting at the nurses on the ward for not attending to her husband as she wished. Immediately, the issue of pain, palliative care, assisted suicide and euthanasia come to the fore.

The man who played pranks is something of an inventor and decides to make a machine that can administer something lethal to those in pain. The doctor they consult is certainly not in favour of euthanising patients. But they do get some advice from a vet, information about drugs administered to animals, and that gives the inventor as well as the dying man’s wife and other friends an incentive to go ahead.

This means that the screenplay challenges the audience: do they share the pain, the unbearable pain, of those who are dying, especially of the elderly? And the screenplay also raises the expected questions, the ethical questions, the moral questions, the religious questions, especially in the context of Israel.

When the machine is a success, there are various requests, as well as headlines of pacts between spouses who kill the other spouse and then kill themselves. One of the things that the group of the elderly do, apart from attending funerals, singing together, is making videos of those who are about to be euthanised, their final message, their consent.

Things come to a head when the wife of the inventor is sinking into dementia. She has been opposed to the machine and its applications but now…

All the characters all have their eccentricities – and touches of humour – but, the underlying themes of pain, age, suffering and death pervade every aspect of the film.

1. The title? The term? Serious and comic?

2. The Israeli setting, society, institutions, medical, health, age?

3. Films and death? The opening and the man and pretending to be the voice of God and the woman responding, wanting to get heaven? Illness and pain? Relatives of the aged, the angry wife? Style and behaviour? Angers?

4. Max, his pain, his wife, friends, the group and the support, the reaction of the staff, changing the patient, the requests, the theme of euthanasia?

5. Yeheskel. his concern, the voice of God, the idea of the machine, the workshop, his associate asking what the machine was?

6. Euthanasia themes, the range of attitudes, Israeli, issues of God, ethics and morality? Pro and con? Levana and her initial antipathy, at the end?

7. Talking with the doctors, the anti-euthanasia stance? Morality? Legal? Being sued?

8. The vet, his ideas, the party, his close friend, coming out, the explanations?

9. The machine itself, seen it in action, Max, his death? The group surrounding him?

10. The taking video of the aged people, the consent? The details of each video? The finale with the mother, talking to her daughter?

11. Max’s wife, within the group, his strong support, the doctors?

12. The lady hearing the voice on the phone, euthanasia, not succeeding?

13. The funeral, everybody grieving, with their secret? The singing of the song together?

14. The man in the cemetery, upset, wanting help? The news of the murder-suicide?

15. The different generations, Yehezkel with his grandchild, love, the kiss? The daughter, her concern, her mother’s illness, revealing the secret to her daughter and her daughter's opposition?

16. Levana, illness, the dementia and its increasing, the collapse, being revived and the ambulance man's comment that she might almost have died? Her agreeing to the procedure, the video?

17. Audience interest in the theme, audience sympathies with the people? Empathising with the person suffered? Religious issues? Moral issues?

A LONG WAY DOWN

UK, 2014, 96 minutes, Colour.
Pierce Brosnan, Toni Collette, Imogen Poots, Aaron Paul, Sam Neill, Tuppence Middleton, Rosamund Pike.
Directed by Pascal Chaumeil.

A Long Way Down refers to the distance from the top of a building where people would jump to kill themselves and the ground below.

One of the main reasons for seeing this film is the presence and performance by Toni Collette as a depressed mother, feeling helpless, looking after an adult son who is severely disabled and requires constant care.

This is a film about suicidal tendencies and motivations, four central characters, each given their own name on the screen and a section for this story to be told, while all the stories are interconnected.

Pierce Brosnan is a television host who makes a mess of his life by an affair with an underage girl, who goes to prison, loses everything and contemplates suicide on New Year’s Eve. He is prevented from jumping from the Topper Building by the presence and performance of Toni Collette, then the impulsive Jess, Imogen Poots, the scatty daughter of a politician (Sam Neill) who leaps rushingly to kill herself. There is a fourth character, who alleges he has brain cancer, an American played by Aaron Paul of Breaking Bad.

They don’t kill themselves, their lives interlink and they make a pact not to do anything rash before Valentine’s Day. Their activities are somewhat unbelievable, and may have read better in Nick Hornby’s original novel. With all the press attention, they decide to make up a story of seeing a light or an angel who stops them killing themselves – many headlines, pursued by journalists, and an appearance on Brosnan’s old television show with a surface-charming hostess, Rosamund Pike, who probes all the embarrassing questions. They also go on and Mediterranean holiday, where the American encounters a sympathetic young woman only to find that she is a journalist.

There is a dramatic climax on Valentine’s Day – another possible suicide but a rescue and the four connecting and affirming life.

But it is Tony Collette’s character and her care for her son that is compelling.

1. A blend of the serious and comic? Suicide? Motivations? Death, the affirmation of life?

2. The London settings, the tall tower and the roof, clubs, homes, the media, television stations? The Mediterranean holiday resort? Life in London, the media, politics, care for the disabled? New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, a climax on the rooftop? The musical score?

3. The title, the view from the roof, for the would-be suicides?

4. The four central characters, each given their own time and space in the story, the interlinking?

5. The credibility of the plot, adapted from Nick Hornby novel? Realism, Surrealism, comedy and spoof?

6. Martin’s story, Pierce Brosnan and his screen presence, the voice-over, his career, marriage and children, the affair with the underage girl, his not knowing, the attacks on him as a paedophile, the prison sentence, his getting out? Carrying the ladder up the steps? Contemplating suicide? The arrival of the others? The car, the search for Jess? The bonding with the others? The pact for Valentine’s Day? His encounter with Jess’s father, the political background? His idea of the holiday? Arranging it, enjoying it? The interactions with each of the characters? The return, Valentine’s Day, his discussions with J.J., the truth, the issue of being humiliated? The search for J.J. on the rooftop?

7. The press, the meeting, the story about the angels, developing it, going on television, the newspaper headlines, the interview with Penny?

8. Jess’s story, her age, the disappearance of the sister, her politician father, being spoilt, lies, low self-image, the clash with the boyfriend, on the roof, running, her being stopped? In the car, going to the club? The group finding the boy friend, his bewilderment? The pact? Her relationship with her father, mother, scenes at home? Taking J.J. to the scene at her sister’s disappearance? The clashes with her father? On the holiday, enjoying it, seen J.J., with the journalist, in his room, telling him the truth? The return home? The meeting, her father meeting with Martin? Concern about J.J., going to the roof? The finale and her relationship with him?

9. J.J. and his story, American, alleging that he had brain cancer, on the roof? His telling Jess the truth? The lies to the others? The story of his band and success? The holiday, enjoying it, the attraction towards Cathy, not knowing she was a journalist, explaining his life, her comment on the lyrics of his songs? The night together? The truth? His going back, the odd jobs, the lady opposite looking at the window? His disappearing? Valentine’s Day, his being on the roof, his confession, a long way down, the truth for all? His not jumping? The end and his relationship with Jess?

10. Maureen’s story? Appearing on the roof, her appearance, fragile personality, tentative? Giving Martin privacy? The others arrival? Waiting at the bus stop in Martin giving her a lift? His saying that she felt helpless? The truth about her life, her disabled son, her continued care for him, the medical help, no father present? Her timidity? The story of the angels, her not knowing who Matt Damon was? On television? The holiday, her reluctance at the airport? Enjoying it? Getting some energy back? Her return home, the scenes of care for her son? His seeming to stop breathing, the emergency, the ambulance, the group arriving at the hospital to support her? His surviving? The swimming pool sequences? The attention of the dcotor, his admiration for Maureen, his help? Valentine’s Day and the glitter on her face, and her dancing?

11. Coping with the publicity, the newspaper headlines, the story about the angel? The various versions, the publicity, the crowds, Jess and her parents, Maureen and her awkwardness? Going on television?

12. Penny, past host of the TV show with Martin? Her seeming charm, the nature of her questions, penetrating and humiliating, to each of them?

13. The finale, everyone in contact, the affirmation of life, Martin and his daughter, Jess and J.J. together, Maureen and her son and getting some energy again?

JACK OF DIAMONDS

US/West Germany, 1967, 108 minutes, Colour.
George Hamilton, Joseph Cotten, Maurice Evans, Marie Laforet, Wolfgang Preiss, Caroll Baker, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Lilli Palmer.
Directed by Don Taylor.

Jack of Diamonds is an international thriller, a collaboration between the US and West Germany, during tense times in a divided Germany. The director is the American actor, Don Taylor, director of a number of films and television movies.

George Hamilton was a popular star at the time. Joseph Cotten was a reputable character actor, with Citizen Kane and The Third Man in his CV. Maurice Evans was a British character actor, on stage and in such films as Kind Lady and, in the year following this film, Planet of the Apes and Rosemary’s Baby. There are some slight and amusing cameos from Zsa Zsa Gabor, Caroll Baker and Lilli Palmer as victims of George Hamilton’s cat-burglar activity – with memories of The principal cat-burglar film, Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief.

1. 1960s glossy caper? International? Celebrity world? Police, insurance, investigations? The world Burglars?

2. New York City, glamour, hotels? Munich and German settings? Paris and French settings? The musical score?

3. The cast, George Hamilton is a star, Joseph Cotten and his past career, Maurice Evans and his past? The guest stars Caroll Baker, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Lilli
Palmer?

4. The opening, the jewel thief, scaling the wall, in the room, the sleeping actress, taking the jewels, the phone call, her conversation, discovering the jewels were gone, his escape, the corridors and steps, Rudi and the car? His career, travel, international, lavish home, the trapeze?

5. Ace, his patronage for Jeff, his example, collaboration, helping him? Relationship with the police? Proud of his protégé? The travelling to Europe?

6. Jeff, on the boat, the clash with Olga, the escape in the boats, her following him, discovering his identity? Her relationship with Nikolai? Her past, her mother, her skill as a thief?

7. The picture of the police, international investigations, questioning the victims, Zsa Zsa Gabor and her talk about her celebrity, the message on her mirror? Caroll Baker and conversation? Lilli Palmer and her charm? The international police, security issues, following Jeff, in the bar – and his leading them to the airport, his getting off the plane? The later meeting with Ace, his presenting himself, the deal with the police?

8. Ace and Jeff meeting with Nikolai and Olga, suspicions, suggestions for a robbery, the temptation, the lure of the diamonds, the agreement? Olga and Jeff getting to know each other? The relationship? The past suspicions? The detailed preparation? The diamonds, hidden, getting into the building, gymnastics, retrieving the diamonds, the escape, the police?

9. Jeff and the Inspector, the deals, the fake jewels, returning them, not revealing the extent of the fakes to security and insurance? And going free?

HOLDING THE MAN

Australia, 2015, 125 minutes, Colour.
Ryan Corr, Craig Stott, Anthony La Paglia, Kerry Fox, Guy Pearce, Camilla Ah Kin, Geoffrey Rush, Jane Menelaus, Sarah Snook.
Directed by Neil Armfield.

Holding the Man is a widely-reed Australian biography by Tim Conigrave, published in the mid-1990s and soon afterwards developed into a play by Tommy Murphy. Murphy has now written a screenplay from the book which has been directed by Neil Armfield who has a strong reputation as a theatre director.

This is a story of a relationship which began when two senior students were studying at the Jesuit Xavier College in Melbourne.(The football matches were filmed at the college itself.) Tim Conigrave is something of a flamboyant student at school, involved in theatricals, but becoming more and more infatuated with a top soccer player, John Caleo. John came from a strong Catholic, Italian-Australian? family, one of four siblings. Tim made his affections known, a young man more sexually aware, John being rather more hesitant. Eventually, they made a commitment to each other, known to some of the other boys, eventually known to the parents with hostile reactions, especially from John’s father.

The film is very well made, very well-acted, topical in many ways with discussions about same-sex relationships and commitment, acceptance in Australian society or not, understanding of homosexual orientation, and discussions, for instance, in the Catholic church, in connection with the Synod on the Family in Rome in 2014 in 2015.

Because the relationship between the two boys and developed in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the issue of HIV also becomes significant, especially towards the beginning of the 1990s when both of the men tested positive.

Ryan Corr as Tim Conigrave and Craig Stott as John Caleo give quite persuasive performances, Ryan Corr having the showier character much more extroverted, and Craig Stott having to communicate the character of John Caleo more subtly and quietly. We see them change over a period of 15 years, the relationship at school with a scene of discussion with one of the Jesuit teachers at Xavier College. The screenplay moves to the mid 1980s, with Tim auditioning for NIDA and doing the course for an acting career, going to Sydney, while John stays in Melbourne and becomes a chiropractor.

The film then goes back to the late 1970s, early 1980s, with the two men as students at Monash University, coming out more explicitly, members of the gay club at the University, finding a home and friends within the gay community as well as experiencing prejudice and bashings. It is in this context that both men have to face the issue of committed relationships, of the possibilities other partners and relationships, Tim being much more of an experimenter, John not.

The last part of the film is set in the 1990s with John becoming seriously ill, Tim becoming involved in AIDS care, committed to helping John in his illness and in his death.

The parents of each man have been mentioned, but they are central to the film and the producers have chosen strong screen presences to dramatise the parents. Guy Pearce and Kerry Fox are the Conigraves, and Anthony La Paglia and Camilla Ah Kin are the Caleos. (Quite a number of Australian character actors have small cameos, sometimes walk on parts, like Kerry Walker and Julie Forsyth, Sarah Snook as a close friend, while Geoffrey Rush has some scenes as the drama lecturer at NIDA.) It is Anthony La Paglia who has the most significant scenes, discovering the reality of the relationship, mightily disapproving, ousting his son, having to face up to the reality of the relationship, having to cope with his son’s illness and death.

The film is of Catholic interest because of the two boys and their Catholic families, their schooling at Xavier College, the discussion about the relationship with the Jesuit teacher, Mary Conigrave, Tim’s sister, having a Catholic wedding with the priest at the reception and, the priest who conducted the Requiem Mass and the funeral for John Caleo, Father Woods, played by Paul Goddard, seen making comments about how he would refer to the relationship during the mass, describing them as friends, not mentioning AIDS, given the sensibilities and family and friends’ awareness and non-awareness of the situations in 1994.

Holding the Man takes its place as a significant Australian film and one which gives significant opportunity for reflection and discussion, wherever one stands on the issues.

1. Well-known story in Australia? Reputation? The published biography, the play, now a film?

2. The Australian atmosphere, the city of Melbourne, Sydney? Universal interest and appeal?

3. The period, 1976 – 1994? Recapturing the period, Australian society, close-knit families, school, Catholicism, the Catholic school, changes? Monash University and gay clubs? NIDA and auditions, classes? The AIDS period, medical checks, hospitals and treatment? The funeral and the church? The musical score, the blend of sacred music, popular music and songs of the time?

4. Issues of homosexuality in the 1970s? Public attitudes, with ordinary people, with the church, illegal behaviour? The variety of reactions? Change during the 1980s, the impact of AIDS? The bashings? people coming out? Acceptance? The nature of relationships, commitment, the 1980s and promiscuity? The gay people and theatre? The hospital sequences and the ranges of men with AIDS?

5. The perspective of Tim Conigrave, his memoir, the opening in Italy, the phone call to Pepe, the question about where John was at the table? The flashback? The return to Italy after John’s death? The origins of the family? Tim upset with his memory, going for the swim, the phone call, getting the message, his voice-over, flirting with the waiter? Writing the book? His death?

6. The picture of two homosexual men, their orientation, the reactions of society, condemnation, acceptance? The picture of mutual love? Tim, his orientation, attracted to John, watching the football, in the geography class, inviting him to the play? John not coming? The phone calls at meal time? Tim giving the note, the boys taking it, the teacher taking it in class? The meeting with the Jesuit, his talk about the situation, in the school? The attitude of the Jesuit’s? Tim, his interest in theatre, the rehearsal of Romeo and Juliet, Paris, the teacher urging him to imagine passion? Tim and his proposing to John, John accepting, the sexual advance and John finding it too quick? Tim saying that love was more important than the sexual experience? Their being together, friendship and love? Tim invited to the meal at the Caleo’s? The father thanking him for bringing John out of himself? Going on the camp, playing cards, the decision to streak through the streets? The sexual encounter, the boys’ reactions? The relationship and the development? The relationship lasting 15 years despite Tim’s behaviour and his absence in Sydney?

7. The parents, the Conigraves, ordinary Catholics, going to Xavier, a Jesuit school? The later wedding And Tim’s adverse comments on the church? His sister wanting a church wedding, the presence of the priest? The contrast with the Caleos, Italian, the four children? The initial welcome? The father reading Tim’s note, visiting the Coniraves, Mr Conigraves confronting Tim? The different stances and the effect?

8. Tim, the theatre, Romeo and Juliet, the teacher, passion, the performance, his wanting to study acting?

9. John, his skill at soccer, champion athlete, the award? The injury, Tim visiting John in hospital, writer and the cast? The strong?

10. The timeshift in 1986, Tim and theatre, joining and his chiropractor work? The relationships, tested, the possibilities for’s aids, the diagnosis and 14, the apology, the effect of being positive, prospects?

11. The return to 1979, Monash University, the gay clubs, the bar, gays and lesbians together, autograph and his commitment? Tim asking for permission for further relationships and connections? Tim not willing? The later information Tim was positive in his blood donation in 1981?

12. At the holiday house, Tim being present, the confrontation with his father, his mother warning John to get Tim to go? The confrontation, John leaving and standing up to his father? Mr Caleo and the later confrontation with Tim, especially about the will, each leaving their possessions to the other – but what in case of death? The car et cetera?

13. The preparations for the wedding, Tim’s mother and her reading the letter and the diagnosis? In the kitchen, discussion, preparing for the wedding? The wedding itself, the priest, the dance, Tim’s father the dancing with him? The parents dancing together?

14. The 1990s, illness, the changes, the tests, John and his being positive, AIDS, his lungs? Tim and his giving up acting and doing AIDS work? The response of the doctors? Tim’s eyes blurring? Together, the visits, Tim’s presence and care? Johns father, and going to the house with Tim, the Christmas gifts and the exchange?

15. The final sexual encounter, the realism of the sexuality in the film, fondling, Tim’s masturbation with the picture of the band, kissing, the sexual encounters, experimentation, in the car? At the end?

16. The tableau of the dying, the parents, Tim’s presence, John expiring?

17. The discussion with Fr Woods, whether homosexuality and partnership should be mentioned? The ceremony, Fr Woods’ words, Tim’s mother’s reaction?

18. The postscript about the book, and the final words of Tim Conigrave himself after the final credits?

LOOK WHO’S LAUGHING

US, 1941, 79 minutes, Black and white.
Edgar Bergen, Charlie Mc Carthy, Jim Jordan, Marian Jordan, Lucille Ball.
Directed by Alan Dwan.


The principal reason to watch this film is to see Edgar Bergen, the celebrated puppeteer, as well as his imposing puppet, definitely with his own personality, Charlie Mc Carthy. They do a number of routines, an opening one for an appreciative radio audience and one to entertain the folks in the town of Wistful Vista, and several interchanges and conversations with Charlie himself – with more than a touch of flirting.

The film is based on a radio a series, Fibber Magee and Molly, with the stars, husband and wife team, Jim and Marian Jordan.

There is a slight plot, Edgar Bergen infatuated with his secretary manager, played in typical fashion by Lucille Ball, but who is going to marry one of the assistants. Bergen and Charlie flying and having to the land in a town where a ruthless businessman wants to buy the airfield for development and has decided to use a friend , undercover, trying to sway opinion for the sale. In the meantime, there is a possibility that a plane manufacturing firm will come to the town, safe jobs, gift prosperity – and this is the interest of Magee and his wife, Magee being inventor, for example, of the ‘wife-saver’, a washing machine which, of course, goes bung with plates and crockery flying everywhere.

There are some complications, with Julie not looking forward to getting married, worried about Edgar, pleased that he turned up for the wedding, but his then realising that he left down the folks in Wistful Vista and together they all return – with a happy ending.

The veteran director from silent days and with small budget films next decades, Alan Dwan, produced and directed.

FAR FROM MEN/ LOINS DES HOMMES

France, 2014, 97 minutes, Colour.
Viggo Mortensen, Reda Kateb.
Directed by David Oelhoffen.

Circumstances.
Choices.
Cowardice and honour.
Camus.

It is 1954 in Algeria, and Camus country. The French have colonised Algeria. The French Legion has kept order. Now is the time for the rebels to rise and fight for independence – something, which at this stage of the action in this film, is still some time to come. This film is based on a short story by Albert Camus.

Algeria, and its interiors, may well seem far from men. At the opening, Daru (Viggo Mortensen) is teaching a small group of children on a plateau in the Atlas Mountains,.playing, teaching them to read. He is something of a mysterious character, especially when a man accused of killing his cousin is entrusted to his care. Then the tone of the film changes, the teacher leaving a note on his board that there will be no classes that day.

The accused man, Mohammed (Reda Kateb), asks to be taken to a nearby town. Instead, Daru ousts him, accusing him of lack of honour and of cowardice. Daru himself is a man of honour, and decides that he will accompany his prisoner, packing bags and provisions to walk for a day through the desert. The man’s relatives have attacked the school, with their revenge code, and, to avoid them, the two men have to scale the mountains. It is a difficult, if spectacular, trek, a rider confronting them with a shootout and burial, Mohammed, devoutly Muslim, praying for the dead man.

Eventually, they come across a group of rebels and Daru’s back story is provided, son of Spanish settlers, growing up in Algeria, serving in the military, earning loyalties from his men, but now, on opposite sides, enmities will assert themselves. The French also catch up with the rebels, releasing the hostages but firing indiscriminately on men who think they are surrendering. Daru, the man of honour, rebukes the French for this violence.

The story is one of growing respect between the two men, of incipient friendship, of arriving in the town, of Mohammed having his first sexual experience, and his having to make a decision whether he will go into the desert into anonymity or go to give himself up to the police. Daru also has to make a decision whether to return to the school or to become more active in the emerging civil war.

The two leads give strong performances and it is admirable to see Viggo Mortensen in so many international productions, with his command of many languages, here French and also speaking some Arabic.

SIGNIS (World Catholic Association for Communication) award winner at the 2014 Venice Film Festival.

1. A short story by Albert Camus? Algeria? The 1950s?

2. 1954, French occupation of Algeria, the Foreign Legion, the rebellion of the Arabs? The war for Independence?

3. The Arabs, Spanish settlers in Algeria, the French settlers, the history?

4. Location photography, the plateau, the mountains, the desert, the roads, the school and isolation, the huts, the towns? The? The musical score?

5. Daru, at the school, playing with the kids, teaching, teaching them to read? The gradual revelation of his story? Spanish origins of his family? his parents, settlers, harvests? Growing up in the Algerian town? His military service, the rank of major, the many contacts, respect from the men? His decision to teach? His motivation?

6. Mohammed, delivered to Daru? His character, silent, the death of his cousin, the issue of the crops, the family starving, killing, revenge within the family? A man to be saved?

7. Daru desperate, wanting to oust Mohammed, his anger, Mohammed’s requests to take him to the town? The cousins’ arrival, the shooting, the death of
the horse?

8. Daru and his saying Mohammed had no honour, was a coward?

9. His change of heart, packing for the journey, the guns, walking, the riders through the desert, hiding, going over the mountains, slipping down the side? The lone rider, the confrontation, the rider being shot, buried, Mohammed praying for him?

10. The huts, drenched in the rain, no roofing for the hut, preparing the fire?

11. The arrival of the rebels, the friendship with Daru? On opposite sides? Memories of the past, yet loyalties and enmities?

12. The French soldiers, the rebels claiming Daru as a hostage, fighting, the rebels surrendering, their being shot? The leader and his escape? Daru protecting Mohammed?

13. The French, checking Daru’s story? The severity of his reprimand of the officers for shooting the unarmed men? The rationale for shooting them?

14. Going to the town, the manager of the bar, past memories of the family, Mohammed and the discussion about his dying without ever knowing a woman? Daru and his organising it? The young prostitute? Offering herself to the Daru, his comments about the long time?

15. His taking Mohammed, the bond between them, the gift of the Arab coin?

16. The crossroads, either to go to the desert and survive, or go to the town and give himself up to the police? Mohammed’s choice?

17. Daru, returning to teach, the joy of the children, learning to read, the last day of class, Daru and his leaving – and what future?