THE PRISONER

UK, 1955, 91 minutes, Black and white.
Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, Wilfred Lawson, Kenneth Griffiths, Ronald Lewis, Raymond Huntley, Mark Dignam, Jeanette Sterke.
Directed by Peter Glenville.

Bridget Boland’s play, The Prisoner, was a success on the London stage in the early 1950s, starring Alec Guinness and directed by Peter Glenville, who worked together for the film version of 1955. The inspiration for the film came from the show trial of Cardinal Joseph Mindzenty of Hungary in 1948. This is a fictionalised version, showing the State’s interrogation of the Cardinal and working on him through psychological pressure rather than physical torture, as actually happened with Mindzenty.

The film is quite theatrical, a two hander between Alec Guinness as the Cardinal and Jack Hawkins as the interrogator. The film sometimes goes out into the streets and there is, at least for the main plot, a superfluous romance. The film was considered too controversial in 1955 to be accepted for the Cannes and Venice film festivals.

Twice in the film, the sentence “do not judge the priest by the priest” is spoken, at the end by the Cardinal himself. However, The Prisoner offers a very interesting portrait of priesthood in the 1950s and its meaning through the trial of the Cardinal, his interactions with his interrogator and his final absolute confession in court.

The film opens with a very solemn entry into the cathedral, a clerical procession in full robes, servers, ministers, the Cardinal celebrating mass for a devout congregation – but it includes the secret police, and a note hastily written and brought up to the Cardinal with the lectionary to warn him that the police are there to arrest him. He continues with the ceremony, leaves the cathedral, venerated by the peope, and is arrested. The charge is treason. As he is led away, the Cardinal advises that whatever confession he makes, it will be a lie or as a result of human weakness.

Cardinals are considered, or were considered, Princes of the church. the following sequences where he is taken away in the car, brought into prison, treated according to prison regulations in detail, would have been more shocking than they would be now. He gives up his episcopal ring and cross – with a comment from the warder “that’s where the money goes” and the jibe that the jewelled cross has been paid for by money from the poor box. The prisoner is fingerprinted. He is taken to an austere cell.

The character of the Cardinal is made clear, a strong priest, a hero of the resistance, a stalwart against torture, now representing religion, an organisation, as his interrogator asserts, outside the state, meaning that the pulpit is a dangerous monument and must be defaced or destroyed. The Cardinal asserts that he will not be trapped, that he is tenacious, wary and proud, tolerably iniured to physical pain. The interrogator offers to bring the completed confession for him to sign to save time. Or, it will be an agenda to work from.

In the cell, a bright light is always on, there is a spy hole for observers to look in, he may talk only to the interrogator and the warder, not even to the doctor who comes to examine him.

As the interrogation progresses, and is recorded (and it is later shown being edited), the Cardinal replies in witty ways, “you want a confession, not the truth” and, when the interrogator drinks from the coffee offered, the Cardinal accepts and toasts “my health”. The interrogator has been a doctror, says that it is the mind of the prisoner that he wants, the weak spots, to effect a conversion. He is being pressurised by higher authorities to discredit the Cardinal as quickly as possible since they would prefer physical torture rather than long-term psychological brainwashing.

While the Cardinal prays “God give me cunning against your skills”, he also defends himself against being called an enemy of society, schizoid, paranoid, misleading the week, the poor and the silly, by reminding the inquisitor that his answer is to render to God what is God’s and to the state what is the State’s. There is a visual collage of the Cardinal been questioned, the tapes, the investigator relaxed, the powerful cell light, the Cardinal pacing, in the courtyard, up and down steps.

As the investigator begins to probe the Cardinal’s personal life and his vocation, he states that he is not like the Gestapo but wants to discover what cannot be used against the Cardinal. As a boy, the Cardinal had a hard life, going each day to the fish market, fish eyes sticking to his boots, wearing only overalls, wanting soap and disinfectant to get rid of the smell. Then he faced the dilemma, the winning of a scholarship and following through on his vocation, the Cardinal saying he had always known that he was called to be a priest but had tried to evade it because he was not worthy. He emphasises that he had to be a priest, to shirk nothing, to doubt nothing, to overcome everything.

His time at the church of St Nicholas, his first curacy, is also probed. The parish was poor, political and the interrogator taunts the Cardinal about preaching to the people, Thou Shalt not Steal, accusing him of stealing which he confesses: books for his exam, paper and pencils, through ambition rather than need, always taking the best.

The authorities organise a pre-trial meeting, urging him to plea for mercy and to plead guilty. He shown a map, but is able to highlight that images, his signature and writing are really a cut and paste job. When the doctored tapes are played for him, he points out the different sound levels in the recording. The authorities are humiliated by his astute interpreting of what they have prepared.

Yet, the interrogator says that the process must end in tragedy and then brings in the covered body of the Cardinal’s mother, the Cardinal praying, the interrogator urging him to bless her, which, surprisingly for the audience, he finds it difficult to do. He talks about his body and her body being one, kissing her hand, finding it still warm and being told that she has been anaesthetised, with a threat of her being taken to the Research Centre. What emerges is that the Cardinal could say that he does not love his mother, never has – the interrogator saying he was disgusted, that he now did not dislike his work and that the Cardinal was a hard man. The Cardinal is returned to solitude, the interrogator playing chess, waiting.

In his cell, the Cardinal continually polishes the floor, lies down to catch glimpses of any life under the door, bangs the table, tears the cloth, is both fierce and exasperated, reciting maths tables, singing the hymn for the dead, Dies Irae, losing a sense of days, the window being boarded-up and his not knowing whether it was day or night, time for sleep or not. The warder taunts him by bringing him a tin of polish and a cloth, indicating that could stay and rot there forever, with a story about a prisoner who took a mop to bed and stroked its hair. Times for his meals are erratic, long periods, then five minutes, a solitary confinement to send a person out of his mind, lose his wits, frighten himself to death.

The interrogator bides his time, starts to offer falls friendship, allows the Cardinal a sedative, but now feels that he can “play him and land him” but wants the trial within 48 hours. The tack taken with the Cardinal is that he hates himself, that the interrogator knows and understands him but does not hate him. He asserts that the Cardinal does not live his fellow men, has no delight in his God, that his heroism in the resistance was merely to prove himself. The Cardinal states that the flesh is weak, the interrogator picking up possibilities about sexuality in the corners of the Cardinal’s mind, thinking life has been a facade, asking what he is hiding and what he is ashamed of. The answer is that he is ashamed of his mother, the fact that he was legitimate but that his mother saw men behind the fish market and that everybody knew, that as a boy he listened to the new feet, to the laughing and whispering. So, he wrapped his body in a cassock, aiming for success to justify his pride, no love to his mother, but shame for her sin.

He thought to kill himself, but the scholarship and the University were second best. The best was to serve God, because as a priest he wanted to start again, feel free, feel clean, justify himself to himself rather than to God – and he succeeded, “I could serve God, myself, my country, but I can’t care”.

This is the key for the interrogator, accusing the Cardinal of being a fake, a diatribe against him for making his life in the church something to serve his own pride. He then taunts him about restitution by telling the world, telling everyone that he betrayed his comrades during the war, that he was so certain of himself, his wits and his sacred hands, his insufferable conceit. The Cardinal must confess without drugs, hypnosis or hysteria and to give back in his own way.

The actual trial follows, the judges, the prison personnel, the interrogator taking the role of the prosecuting lawyer, many of the sequences filmed from above, giving the audience a wide view of the Cardinal and his tormentor in the centre, surrounded by hostility.

He confesses to glory and ambition, to the misuse of money, to the use of secrets from the confessional and selling them to the police, being linked to the Gestapo, to having betrayed everyone. To each of the accusations, the Cardinal confesses.

In the aftermath, with newspaper headlines against him and the interrogator being the hero of the higher, the Cardinal says that he would prefer to go mad. Speaking with his assistant, the man who edited the records, who advises his boss not to be squeamish because that would spoil his triumph, the interrogator admits that he had played on the Cardinal sense of pride – but that he was truly humble: a truly proud man would have been far more sceptical in the face of the accusations.

The Cardinal is to be executed, is given a final meal, requests to see a priest which is denied, only to find that his sentence is not only to be commuted but that he is free to go, that his mother was already in the Research Centre when she had been brought in. The Cardinal, who had wished momentarily for death when the interrogator visits him and produces a gun, opts to face the world outside, that he must, that he could well live on 20 or 30 years more. Once more in Cardinalatial robes, he walks out of the prison, crowds outside make way for him to pass through as he walks towards the Cathedral.

The Cardinal triumphs through his humiliation, the words that he said about a confession being a lie or the result of torture once more in his mind and the comment for all not to judge the priesthood by the priest.

There have been many martyrs in every age, bishops and priests executed by authorities who considered them a danger to the state, in Roman times, to Thomas a’Beckett, to the many clergy arrested, tortured, killed by Communist regimes, especially in Eastern Europe or, later, in China and Vietnam. The stories are usually told as heroic stances for faith. This story works on the human level, psychological, emotional. The Cardinal has to face his own self and the authenticity of his vocation, matters which, in recent decades, would be part and parcel of psychological testing and guidance on discernment during seminary years. Watching The Prisoner now means an admiration for heroic responses in the past, but a realisation that for the authentic living off priesthood, the complex background of the priest’s life needs to be explored, acknowledged, and in some way, transcended.

For those unfamiliar with the details of investments and rubrics at the time, the film offers accurate representation.

1. A film of the 1950s? Europe, the Iron Curtain? Hungary? Communism? Anti-religion, anti-Catholicism?

2. The film based on a play, keeping the scenes’ structure, the dialogue?

3. Black-and-white photography, interiors, homes, the Cathedral, the prison cell, the courtroom? Musical score?

4. The title, generic, audiences linking it to the trial of Cardinal Mindzenty? His reputation, condemnation, imprisonment, the Hungarian uprising in 1956, his staying in the American Embassy, transferred to Rome? Considered a hero?

5. Alec Guinness and his performance, appearance, the background story, his work in the resistance, torture and his bearing it, resilience? His mother, memories of her, ashamed of her? Study, scholarship, his choices, the nature of his vocation, ambition, his work is a priest, as a bishop, as a Cardinal? The opening and seeing him at the Cathedral, the rituals, the congregation, the servers and attendants, the warning that the police were present? His gravitas? Allowing himself to be arrested?

6. The interrogator, his past, and the resistance, knowing the Cardinal? Patriot, a man of the party? His medical background, psychological approach, manner? Ingratiating himself, yet relentless? The various interactions and interviews? The cell, the mock court, his motives, the authorities, their critique of his method, being slow? His assistant, recording the interviews? Editing them, later playing them and the Cardinal’s wise disposing of them (along with falls maps. Information)? The jailer and his approach? The interrogator’s secretary? The plans to break the Cardinal, issues of humility and pride, in the context of his life? Yet the interrogator admitting that he was humble?

7. The jailer, the touch of comedy, his observations and comments? Treatment of his prisoner? Friendship, hostility? Later in the imprisonment, the prisoner being deprived of light, too much light, losing sense of time, the irregular bringing of the meals? The jailer recounting his experiences?

8. The assistant, subservient to the interrogator, the recordings, his editing them, shrewdness, his being exposed?

9. The secretary, his work as a party man, his being in love, the woman, her imprisoned husband, the relationship? Their meeting at the cafe, principles, abiding by them or breaking them?

10. The authority figures, their role in government, the criticisms of the interrogator, wanting things done in haste? The interviews with the interrogator?

11. The prisoner, in his cell, small, his being confined, the light, then not able to sleep with the light off? Dreams and nightmares? Discussions with the jailer? The visits of the doctor, the doctor’s embarrassment because he knew the Cardinal and his past? His verdicts? The meals, the irregularity?

12. The scenes of interrogation, the Cardinal using his wisdom, wiles, fencing verbally with the interrogator? The psychological games and interactions?

13. The interrogator bringing in the Cardinal’s mother, the threats? To go to an institution? The reality that she was already in one? The Cardinal and his being unable to touch his mother, show signs of infection, the revelation of his shame, the interrogating unearthing his past, studies, scholarship, possibilities, his choices, wanting to be a priest? His priestly ambitions? Achieving them as being Cardinal? His breaking under the threats?

14. The details of the trial, the visuals of the courtroom, the judges and the authorities, the observers, the locals, the Russian background, the police? The Cardinal standing in the middle, his dignity, answering questions, the pressure from the interrogator?

15. The beginning and the Cardinal advising people not to believe anything he said under torture? His going into the trial, admitting everything, the condemnation? The people and their veneration, his leaving the court and then making away? The frustration of the interrogator?

16. A film revealing the tensions between Western Europe, Communist East, the attitude towards the church, the show trials and the consequences?

ALIBI IKE

US, 1935, 85 minutes, Black and white.
Joe E.Brown,Olivia de Havilland, Ruth Donnelly, Roscoe Carnes, William Frawley.
Directed by Ray Enright.

Alibi Ike is as good as any film to be introduced to the comedian Joe E.Brown.

Brown had a background in the circus, running away with parents' consent aged 10. He also appeared in vaudeville and began to appear in silent films. During the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, he appeared in quite a number of films, small budget films as a vehicle for himself and his comic style, always making a great deal of his mouth, rather larger than usual! He also capitalised on this in the war-effort morale film, Hollywood Canteen.

While he made a number of film and television appearances after 1945, he became famous for the final line of Billy Wilder's Some Like it Hot, "nobody's perfect". He was reputed to be one of the nice people of Hollywood.

Brown was also considered a good sportsmen and this is taken advantage of in Alibi Ike, where he is a baseball player with a distinctive style of revving up for his pitch. He is employed for a failing team, plays in in demonstration matches, has some ups and downs in his career but always puts himself down with all kinds of explanations, spoken of as alibis, hence the title. The film indulges in verbal humour, written by well-known screenwriter Ring Lardner, one of the Hollywood 10, as well as some slapstick.

It is quite a surprise to see Olivia to Havilland at the age of 19 in one of her earliest films, the same year as Captain Blood, playing an attractive young girl, a fan of Brown, but exasperated by his alibis.Ruth Donnelly appears as her more hard-boiled friend, fostering the romance. Character actor Roscoe Karns has some good moments as one of the team, continually prodding Brown and getting some of his alibis. And character actor William Frawley is the coach, not always persuaded that Brown is best for the team.

The film was quite vivid in its presentation of baseball matches in the mid 1930s, the teams, the training, the coaches, the camaraderie, the rivalries, as well as the sports reporters, both on the radio and for the press.

Perhaps it is bit of a stretch to have a romance between Joe E.Brown and Olivia de Havilland – but here it is.

FREEDOM STORIES

Australia, 2015, 99 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Steve Thomas.

The recommendation comes first. This is a documentary which all Australian should see.

We often say that we shouldn’t categorise people in any way, especially which with prejudicial epithets. In the last almost 20 years in Australia, advocates for migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, have insisted that the only way to appreciate these men, women and children, is to get to know some of them. Several years ago there was a fine film, Mary and Mohammed, set in Tasmania, about a local group of women who made quilts for those kept in the local detention centre, who got to know actual people, who overcame fears and prejudices and were greatly supportive of these newcomers to the country. Filmmaker, migrant Hong Kong director, Clara Law, became involved with those in detention in Baxter and corresponded with some of the men, eventually visiting and producing the film Letters To Ali. Robyn Hughan, had experiences of Afghan refugees and discovered Sister Carmel Wauchope and her visits to the detention centre at Woomera and made A Nuns New Habit.

Steve Thomas has been making similar films over the last 15 years. In this project, he contacted a number of migrants, principally from Afghanistan but also from Iran and Iraq. He went to visit them, got to know them, through interviews and sharing their lives with them and made brief films about them. They are gathered together in this film, examples of Freedom Stories. And what is pleasing about the film is that as we, the audience, get to know this group of people, ranging from Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, to Adelaide, and go back to visit them and are able to share in the follow-up to the stories and the good things that happened since the first interviews.

Steve Thomas himself does not intrude but often we see him carrying his camera, see him in the mirror reflections or window reflections, as well as the sound engineers he brought along for the filming. This anchors the stories in reality.

The first person to be introduced is Mustafa, a refugee with his family at the age of ten, the boat capsizing after catching fire, and the group rescued by the Australian Navy. He spent three years in Nauru and then three years on a temporary visa. We find him working in a garage in Canberra, doing an apprenticeship, talking with his younger brother who was born on Nauru, and, finally, see him get his diploma and the support of the owner of the garage, Ned, who gave Mustafa his chance. Mustaffa had also become engaged to a young woman from Finland – with the dilemma as to where they should settle, in Finland or in Australia.

Then we see Shafiq Moniz, who is painting his house, meticulously, because he says his perfectionist. He spent almost a year in Woomera, then three years with a temporary visa. But, he is an artist and we are shown many of his paintings. We also see the now-abandoned huts at Woomera and the outside walls which were painted, many of them with his paintings. Eventually, he was able to bring his wife and daughters to Australia and build a house (painted, meticulously). In his more recent paintings, he uses the motif of an umbrella, indications of climate change, indication of protection from outside dangers…

By way of contrast we see Sheri Shoari, who carried her children to the refugee boat, settling in Australia, in Adelaide, after three years of detention in Curtain and Baxter. She is more than robust woman, especially when we see her caring for her 26-year-old son, Ali, who has cerebral palsy and needs constant care. Her older son, Mohamad, explains how he was traumatised by his time in the detention centre and tends to be introverted, a reader and thinker, not yet able to mix comfortably. Whereas the youngest son, Hamid, ten at the time of arrival, joined the army, plays soccer locally and has ambitions to become a coach. One of the important things is that Sheri has some ambitions as well – to become a truck driver and, when we return to the story, we see her in action with her supervisor, going up the 18 grades for her licence.

Reyhana also spent several years in Woomera. Her daughter wants her to be interviewed and Reyhana, working at home, but on the Internet, became an advocate of women’s rights. We later see her working in the office of the Migrants Resource Centre, meeting migrants and refugees, caring for their needs.

Ahoam came from Iraq, a primary school teacher, emigrated with her father and husband, and has tried to develop her teaching skills and her work with IT, making many applications for teaching in education at large in Australia but not accepted. She now works at an Islamic school, but she is still studying and hopes to make some progress, making a huge decision to change her name to a more acceptable Australian name.

Amir Javan is a particularly friendly man, a diamond dealer back home but, after 4 ½ years in detention, being rejected and his case finally going to the High Court. He is now a real estate broker in Sydney, but he is seen coming to Melbourne, to help a young friend, Parviz, also from Iran, move, someone he had befriended in the detention centre.

Other stories include that of Jamilah, arriving as a girl, now studying, and, a surprise when Molly Meldrum appears in the film, supporting a skilled worker in tiling who did all the work at Meldrum’s Melbourne home, especially with all the antiques, statues et cetera that Meldrum brought back from Egypt.

The film is released in cinemas but would be available for groups, for example parish groups, to see and discuss. There are more stories than are in the feature film. There are two websites and the stories will be adapted to brief the television screenings as well as on-site viewing.

From a Catholic point of view, the film can definitely be recommended, and, amongst the advisory Advisory Committee is Sister Brigid Arthur, Brigidine sister, long committed to social action and social justice.

THE SNAPPER

Ireland, 1993, 91 minutes, Colour.
Colm Meaney, Tina Kellegher, Ruth Mc Cabe, Brendan Gleeson.
Directed by Stephen Frears.

The Snapper is the second in the Barrytown Trilogy by acclaimed Irish novelist, Roddy Doyle.

The first book in the series, coming from the 1980s, is The Commitments, made into a very successful film, about life in Barrytown, about families, about music – with touches of the Catholic Church and confession.

The Snapper is the second in the series, more of a television film, continuing the story of the family, focusing on the pregnancy on the unmarried daughter, the parents and how they deal with it, the attitude of the daughter – not concerned about public opinion gossip. And, finally, joy in the prospect of the coming baby, the Snapper. Colm Meaney embodies the father, with his family, with his wife, the excellent Ruth Mc Cabe, his pregnant daughter and his friends down the pub, including Brendan Gleeson.

The third in the series was The Van, with further stories about the family.

This film and The Van were both directed by Stephen Frears, an extraordinarily versatile director, for cinema and television, making almost a film a year for over 40 years. Later film with an Irish context was his well-received Philomena.

1. The novels of Roddy Doyle, the Barrytown Trilogy? An Irish family? In Dublin, in its neighbourhood? Serious, comic, ironic?

2. The Commitments, the sequel, followed by The Van?

3. Barrytown, Dublin, the city, homes, pubs? The atmospheric musical score?

4. The family, Dessie and Kay, the extended Curley family? Husband and wife, Sharon, brothers and sisters? Ordinary, appearance, language…? Sharon’s pregnancy, the effect?

5. The sketch of the brothers and sisters, the boy and the bicycle, the girl and the foam, the band? The detail of family life?

6. Sharon, her age, pregnant, drinking while pregnant, coach? Not revealing the father? Not wanting an abortion? The gossip, her not caring?

7. Dessie, his having to accept the situation, the pub and his friends, eventually joyful about the situation, referring to the baby as the Snapper? The sketch of his friends? Kay, mother, love, concern, strong woman?

8. Ireland, the Catholic tradition, morals, single mothers, motherhood?

9. The end, the breast, the belch – and audiences taking it with humour rather than to seriously?

TED 2

US, 2015, 115 minutes, Colour.
Mark Wahlberg, Seth Mac Farlane, Amanda Seyfriedd, Jessica Barth, Giovanni Ribisiy, Morgan Freeman, Sam J.Jones, Patrick Warburton, Michael Dorn, Bill Smitrovich, John Slattery, John Carroll Lynch, Ron Canada, Liam Neeson, Jay Leno, Dennis Hayesbert,.
Directed by Seth Mac Farlane.

Fastidious is the word that comes to mind while watching Ted and Ted 2. Not that the Ted and the films are fastidious in any aspect. Rather, it is the warning that comes to mind that any potential audiences which see themselves as fastidious should not go to see Ted.

That being said, it also has to be said that the two films are very funny. And it is somewhat embarrassing to admit this, given the nature and subject of many of the jokes as well as the continued crass language that comes from the mouths of Ted (voiced by writer and director, Seth Mac Farlane) and his great friend, John (Mark Wahlberg).

Ted made a great impact in 2012, with a modern urban fairytale (with grit and with attitude) where a little boy, John, wishes that his teddy bear could come alive – and his wish is granted. Ted seems a nice cuddly companion to a little boy – but, then he grows up, and takes on some of the less ingratiating aspects of the culture, no limits on his language, few limits on his blunt expressions, and a preoccupation with aspects of sex and his not being a stranger to drugs.

We all have our areas of reservation and this reviewer wishes that there wasn’t such a constant emphasis on casual drugtaking and its consequences – making it look too easy, too irresponsible.

At the opening of this sequel, after a couple of minutes of an extraordinary prologue, song and dance routine to Irving Berlin’s Steppin’ out with my Baby, filmed in Busby Berkeley 1930s musical style, quite lavish and entertaining – and with Ted joining in with the dancers, it is Ted’s wedding to his girlfriend Tammy – and everybody, including the audience, takes it for granted that Tammy and Ted will make a happy couple. Not always. Clashes, some fights – and they even have some rivalry at the local supermarket where they both work as cashiers.

One way to save the marriage is to have a child. There are some extraordinarily un-fastidious comedy sequences in the attempt to get a sperm donation. And then Tammy, this time quite seriously, is told that her drugtaking has ruined her reproductive system. And when they try to adopt, it emerges that Ted cannot be registered as a person but simply as property.

This leads the film in another direction, court cases to establish Ted’s identity and his rights as a person. John and Ted employ a young lawyer, Amanda Seyfried, as Samantha L Jackson (with jokes accordingly proving that Sam has little knowledge of popular culture). She is also into drugs, quite extensively, though allegedly to soothe her migraines. Needless to say, Ted and John think she is the ideal lawyer – and, it provides an opportunity for the touch of romantic comedy.

Court cases – and Ted losing his case, and the possibility of going to New York City to enlist the help of a very serious and senior lawyer, Morgan Freeman – who does give Ted quite a lecture, very serious in tone, about his wayward lifestyle.

But, before everything can be solved, Ted encounters his nemesis, Donnie (Giovanni Rib easy), who was obsessed with Ted in the first film and tries to do a deal with Hasbro to make the Ted bear as marketable. This finale happens at the huge Comic Con show in New York City, loads of fans (and fanatics) all dressed as characters from Star Wars, Star Trek, Mutant Turtles…

There is happy ending – but, in case you’re wondering what actually happens and whether Ted could be a person, there are two solutions: one is to see the film, the other, for the fastidious, is to ask someone who has gone and enjoyed the comedy to reveal what happed.

(The joke with Liam Neeson continues after the final credits.)


1. The popularity of the original film? The idea, the bear, fulfilment of a wish, the bear alive, as a person? Friends sharing? A contemporary urban fairytale – with attitude?

2. Ted himself as raucous, crass, preoccupation with sex, the taking of drugs, insults, blunt?

3. The range of humour, the limits, moral perspectives, drugs, sexual relationships and activity, bodily functions…?

4. Boston, the proper atmosphere, Ted within this context, everybody knowing Ted, treated as human? The transfer to New York City? The Comic Con show?

5. The deeper theme of the issue of Ted as a person, not as property? The insults, the bureaucrats and their labelling him? The cases, the appeal? The lawyers comment on his rough life and lifestyle? He shows his qualities as a person, especially in a relationship with John, saving him at the show? The initial trial, the unfavourable verdict? The impact of Morgan Freeman as the lawyer making his case, the arguments for what it is to be human, a person? The judgement?

6. The marriage, Tammy, Ted’s love for her, the wedding, the clashes at home? Their working as cashiers, the supermarket? Rivalries? Ambitions? Liam Neeson as the customer? Ted and the criticisms of Tammy, her cooking? separating? Reconciling, the issue of Ted and his being property? Tammy supporting him through the cases? The new proposal at the end?

7. John, the past, his wish, Ted alive, buddy? After the wedding, John alone, sharing with Ted, the range of drugs?

8. The pre-credits fantasy, the Busby Berkeley musicals? Steppin’ out with my Baby? Ted and his joining in the dancing and the chorus?

9. The Comic Con show, the images, the range of characters made up, the references to Star Wars, Start Trek, the teenage Turtles?

10. The guest appearances, Jay Leno, Tom Brady, Liam Neeson – and the final humour at the end of the credits?

11. Tammy and Ted, the decision to have a baby, artificial insemination? Ted and John, the decision about Tom Brady, breaking into his house, attempting to get the sperm, their failure? Going to the hospital, John and his donation? The hospital staff, the room, the sperm, the jokes, in the store room, the mayhem and the crash?

12. Tammy, going to the doctor, the serious aspect of her reproductive system ruined by her drugtaking?

13. The decision for adoption, the applications, the rejection, Ted merely as property?

14. The decision to go to court, meeting Samantha, Sam L. Jackson and the jokes? Her ignorance about most popular culture and films? The background of Arizona State? Ted and John and their condescension? The taking drugs, the migraine, the pair attracted by the drugs? Her attraction, with John? Approaching the case, the lawyers, the judge, the arguments, the decision?

15. The decision to make an appeal, to the lawyer in New York, going on the road trip, Sam Jones’s car, on the road, the adventures, Ted driving, singing, distracted, the crash, the car in the barn wall? Their spending the night, the bond between John and Sam? Rescuing the car and the jokes?

16. New York, approaching the lawyer, his giving Ted a lecture about his way of life and his reluctance to take the case?

17. Donnie, work in the Hasbro offices, with the head, the discussion about the cakes of soap in the toilets? Insinuating himself, the discussions with the boss, the deal about Ted? His going to the show, his sinister background, the previous film and his obsession about Ted? His weak? The confrontation, the chases, Ted hiding with the other bears, playing the music and his revealing himself? Trapped? The Hasbro head, giving the talk, the video, the discussions with Ted, disillusioned with Donnie and opting out? Donnie and his threats?

18. The various people going to the show, types, dressing up? The strong fans? The stalls, the displays? John and Sam hurrying to the show? Searching for Ted?

19. The build-up to the confrontation, Donnie disguised as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle? The music and his giving himself away? The extent of the fight, letting loose the spaceship, John and being knocked down? Everything on television? The hospital, Ted being told of John’s death, Tammy and Sam upset? The joke on Ted?

20. The lawyer deciding to take the case, after the television sequences and the episode of saving John, the speech, the criteria for being human and a person?

21. The new proposal, marriage, happy ever after – at least until the sequel?

RUBEN GUTHRIE

Australia, 2015, 95 minutes, Colour.
Patrick Brammall, Alex Dimitriades, Abbey Lee, Harriet Dyer, Jeremy Sims, Brenton Thwaites, Robyn Nevin, Jack Thompson, Aaron Bertram.
Directed by Brendan Cowell.

Ruben Guthrie proudly and facetiously states his claim at his first AA Meeting, “My Name Is Ruben Guthrie and I’m in Advertising”. He also acknowledges his mother who has brought him long. Prior to this, we have seen him alcohol and drug-high, not the type that most of us would want to meet, even if we were in advertising. During a party at his lavish waterside home, he goes up onto the roof and jumps into his swimming pool – defiance, stupidity, death wish? Or all three?

When you come to think of it, Ruben Guthrie, when sober, is a more acceptable but not all that attractive, character.

What has happened is that Ruben, an acclaimed advertising personality, winner of international awards, hail-fellow-well-met, is challenged by his girlfriend of six years, Czech-born model, Zoya, Is so exasperated with his behaviour that, despite loving him, she tells him she is going back home and will return after a year and that he has to stay off the drink in the drugs for that period. Actually, he does.

The screenplay emphasises this by placing the particular number of days sober on the screen.

The screenplay was written by Brendan Cowell, based on his own drinking experiences (and the influence of his mother), and was based on a successful play for the theatre. Patrick Brammall (Upper Middle Bogan, Glitch) is Cowell’s alter ego and does quite a successful job of interpreting his character, making him quite interesting at times while not particularly likeable. Robyn Nevin plays his mother and Jack Thompson his easy-going father. Abbey Lee plays Zoya. And Alex Dimitriades is his gay best friend, 'If you can't drink one, then why not ten'.

At work, Ruben is pressurised by his boss, Jeremy Sims, to go back on the drink and to regain his mojo, to improve the quality of his campaigns. At the office is a kind of whizzkid, oblivious of what anybody else thinks about him, all cheeky hail-fellow-well-met much more then he realises – a very humorous cameo from rising star, Brenton Thwaites.

Ruben does gain some friends during the year, especially the big and burly Ken (Aaron Bertram) from the meetings who offers good advice and Virginia (Harriet Dyer), also from the group, but preoccupied with trends and what is politically correct, who entangles herself in Ruben’s emotions, building up to the encounter with at Zoya on her return.

As with so many Australian films, the reviewers have been fairly severe, more so than if it were the equivalent story from Britain or the United States – it is not meant to be a profound character analysis, the Brendan Cowell would hope that it does offer an image of a highflier, overconfident, not prone to have regard for others, challenged to do something different with his life, trying to go through some means to achieve this, but putting his foot in it, socially, emotionally, along the way.
(And Brendan Cowell got over his lapses to become a successful playwright and to continue his successful acting career.)

1. Australian story? Universal?

2. The Sydney settings, the harbour, homes, restaurants, offices, meeting places? The feel of Sydney? The musical score?

3. The structure of the film, the introduction, the naming of the number of days without alcohol?

4. The portrait of a highflier? The world of advertising, international awards, the boss, the members of the company, Chet and his modern cultural style? Acclamation, friends, hangers on? Celebrity? Celebrations, drinking, pool party, guests, Ruben going onto the roof, diving, into the pool, sinking, hitting his head, to be rescued?

5. His relationship with Zoya, her Czech background, young model, six years with Ruben, loving him, her work, but giving him the ultimatum, packing and leaving, the large photo of her in his room, his continually phoning her, her not answering? Away for the year?

6. Ruben and his decision, no drinks for a year? Going to the meeting, his comic remarks about being in advertising, the tracksuits of the members, his mother being present? The different members of the groups, calling him to account? Ken, large, his friendship, in the boat, talking frankly? His having a drink, celebrating the first meeting? Going off the drink, resisting all temptations? Damian, his return, the profligate manner, and Ruben not drinking?

7. At work, his boss, urging him on, knowing about the drinks, saying he wasn’t creative, the various contracts? The character of Chet, the satire on the geeky young man, off-hand, not self-conscious? Ruben and his deciding to leave?

8. Ruben and his mother, her relationship with his father, the separation, going to the restaurant, chatting with his father, the Korean girl, the relationship?

9. The various meetings, the characters, the effect on Ruben? Sharing, changing, getting stronger?

10. Virginia, at the meetings, the talk, earnest, politically correct, the relationship, the affair?

11. The days passing, time for the year to end looming?

12. Zoya, her sudden return, his collapse? Virginia, Zoya, the clashes?

13. The year over, at the restaurant, his mother urging him to drink, the father urging him to drink, the celebrations?

14. Damian, being overseas, best friend, the gay man, his manner, the men turning up for sex, liking to get high? Tempting Ruben?

15. The party, the drinking, the friends, Ruben on the roof, having to think? The pressures?

16. On the plane, his comfortable seat, talking, the flight attendant bringing the drink, his looking at it… And his future?

MY LOVE CAME BACK

US, 1940, 85 minutes, Black and white.
Olivia de Havilland, Jeffrey Lynn, Eddie Albert, Jane Wyman, Charles Winninger, Spring Byington, Grant Mitchell, William T. Orr, Anne Gillis, S. Z. Sakall.
Directed by Kurt Bernhardt.

My Love Came Back is a light comedy from Warner Brothers, 1940 style. Olivia de Havilland plays a violinist who is dependent on scholarships to continue her course. She shares rooms with musicians Eddie Albert and Jane Wyman, both very bright performers and very engaging here. Getting into trouble with the orchestra director, S.Z. Sakall doing his usual puffy comedy, she becomes the protégé of a company owner, Charles Winninger, who becomes infatuated with her, providing her with more support of money but concealed on the account of his manager, Jeffrey Lynn.

This leads to quite a lot of complications, the thought that Olivia was kept woman and Jeffrey Lynn’s reaction, the company owner taking his protégé to concerts and trying to conceal his infatuation from his wife and two children. Needless to say, it all works out at the end, especially under the charming diplomacy of the wife, played by Spring Byington.

Kurt Bernhardt, Curtis Bernhardt, was to continue to make a number of more serious films for Warner Brothers.

1. An entertaining romance, 1940s style?

2. Production values, Warner Brothers, black-and-white photography, New York settings, the music scene, classic, swing? Apartments? Wealthy mentions? Music companies? The musical score?

3. Amelia, her skills, running late, in the subway, reprimanded by the Director, her angry response to his criticisms, overheard by Dr Kobbe and Mr Malette, Malette and his infatuation, his scheme, the scholarships, encouraging Amelia, taking her to concerts?

4. The financial arrangements, Tony and his keeping the accounts, Paul and his dislike of Tony, the clashes, Tony’s promotion, the exposé? Paul and his meeting Amelia, accompanied by the straight-talking Valerie? Been charmed?

5. The wedding anniversary, Mr Malette staying at home, music with his family, getting Tony to apologise? Tony, meeting Amelia, dancing? His suspicions of her? Falling in love?

6. Dusty and Joy, flatmates, romance, comedy, the swing, performances, taking the cheque and causing the difficulties?

7. Paul, his apologies, Tony, his suspicions and rejection of Amelia? Covering for Mr Malette?

8. The couple taking the cheque, the audition, being asked to play at the birthday party? Amelia consenting, not knowing where the party was? Her being upset? Meeting Mrs Malette, the calming effect, explaining the whole story, Mrs Malette, her charm, understanding her husband? Getting Amelia to play the Mendelssohn? Her confidence? The music critic, response to the blend of classic and swing, the orchestra being mischievous, the Director finally
conducting?

9. Dusty, the confession, explaining the situation to Tony? Tony on his knees and apologising?

10. A piece of romantic fluff – but a reminder, even in the Code days, of the issues of sugar daddies and kept women? Moral perspectives?

BOMBSHELL

US, 1933, 96 minutes, Black and white.
Jean Harlow, Lee Tracy, Frank Morgan, Franchot Tone, Pat O' Brien, Una Merkel, Louise Beavers, C. Aubrey Smith.
Directed by Victor Fleming.

While this is a 1930s screwball comedy, and filmrd just before the imposition of the norms for the Motion Picture Code, it is a spoof on Hollywood, MGM sending itself up and the leading star, Jean Harlow, also sending herself up as well as her popular image as the platinum blonde.

This is one of Jean Harlow’s best performances, just the right amount of seriousness, just the right amount of comedy, and a sense of fun in her screen presence. She portrays a popular star, hounded by her ne’er-do-well father, Frank Morgan, her secretary, Una Merkel, but clashing all the time with her press agent, played by a very fast-talking Lee Tracy.

There are all kinds of allusions to Harlow’s reputation, a scene with her kissing Clark Gable, references to her film Red Dust, jokes about harsh headlines, interviews with the press. Pat O’ Brien, having a holiday from Warner Brothers, plays her film director and Louise Beavers as her bouncy maid-confidant.

She has a romantic entanglement with a Count, and the press agent is able to get him into jail and then make himself seem big by organising the release. The actress is persuaded by a journalist that she should think about having a baby, about adopting, but falls foul of the agent who wants to sabotage this project. Then she flees to a resort in the desert and encounters a charming English young man, Franchot Tone, a poet who seems to know nothing about her, who introduces her to his rather pompous British parents. And then she discovers that they are hacks looking for an opportunity, employed by the agent.

Jean Harlow would be dead within three years, biographies in film following 30 years later with Carol Baker in one film and Carol Linley in another.

1. 1930s screwball comedy? The parody of the movies and movie personalities?

2. The title, Jean Harlow and her reputation and career, the bombshell of the 1930s? The image, the reality, the movies – and references to Red Dust and Clark Gable? The publicity, agents, directors, staff? Reporters?

3. MGM values, production, black and white photography, the cast, style?

4. Jean Harlow as Lola Burns, the posters, the stills, a place in the movies, Clark Gable? Her father, brash, conman, his interventions? The absent brother, Mexico, the touch of the hopeless? Her assistant, relying on her – and Lola finding her wearing her dresses and having a party?

5. The beginning of the day, waking, Loretta, confidante, taking the dogs for a walk, the clothes, his style, make up, studio demanding changes?

6. Lee Tracy as Hanlon, fast-talking type, loud, brash, two-timing? After any publicity? Lola and her relationship with the count, at the club, his arrest, in jail? Jerry as film director, his attention to Lola, the scenes, wanting the count out of the studio? Hanlon and Lola’s father? His glib answers, Lola wanting him fired, her attacks, his adapting? The issue of the adoption, and his spoiling the situation? Getting Lola headlines – but the touch of the scandalous? Setting up the fake family, bribing them? Lola finding out the truth – but Hanlon continually escaping?

7. Lola, her life, the role of the count, at the club, at the studio, her devotion, in jail, his phoning her, upset? The reporter and the discussions about adoption? Her feelings, the visit, the baby? Preparing for the ladies and the interview? The response to the headlines, to her brother arriving with his girlfriend? The deciding to go to the resort, the chance meeting with Gifford, riding, his poetry, not knowing who she was? The British family background, the emphasis on the name? Meeting his parents? The father turning up, the brother, the brash conversation, drinking? Spoiling the situation for Lola, Gifford not wanting to see her?

8. Father, her brother, the girlfriend, the brash background?

9. The character of the count, issues and supporting him?

10. Loretta, service, the black maid, with the dogs?

11. The revelation of the family fakes, wanting a film contract? Lola and her reaction, attacking?

12. MGM and spoofing itself?

HARD TO GET

US, 1938, 82 minutes, Black and white.
Dick Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Charles Winninger, Allen Jenkins, Bonita Granville, Melville Cooper, Isabel Jeans, Grady Sutton, Thurston Hall, Penny Singleton.
Directed by Ray Enright.

Another of those brief 1930s screwball comedies, a bit of light fluff. However, it has a very strong cast which makes it more interesting than usual, especially with Olivia to Havilland as a rich young girl, spoilt, who clashes with a garage attendant, played by Dick Powell who also gets to sing a song or two, and to get revenge, pretends to be her maid and leads him on.

Charles Winninger jis her millionaire father who spends most of his time with his man-servant, played with stiff upper lip by Melville Cooper, indulging in sports like wrestling and fencing, betting and always losing. Isabel Jeans is the haughty mother and Bonita Granville the little sister. Reliable standbys, Grady Sutton and Allen Jenkins, are secretaries and garage attendants with Penny Singleton, later to start as Blondie in the Blondie and Dagwood films is the real maid.

Olivia to Havilland was to go on to much more serious films and some Oscars. Dick Powell was to give up singing, appear in a lot of thrillers and film noir and eventually direct several films.

1. A screwball comedy of the 1930s? Romantic? Mixed identities?

2. Warner Brothers production values, black and white photography, cast, style, songs?

3. Plausibility? The spoilt rich girl, home situation, pretending to be ordinary, getting revenge, deceit? The ploys, pretence? Rejection? Changing?

4. Verbal humour, situations, the farcical aspects, especially thinking?

5. The Richards family, the father, the background of his wealth, Spotter, his continually exercising with Case, betting, losing, being taken advantage of? The mother, her snobbery? Preparing for the holiday? The younger sister, the touch of the brat? Margaret, age, not wanting to go on holidays? The arguments?

6. Margaret, driving, getting petrol, not having the cash, the clash with Bill, his getting her to do the work, not believing, her making the beds, sweeping, the hits with the broom? The return? Roscoe, the work of the garage, friendship with Bill?

7. Bill asking her for a date, her agreeing, pretending to be her maid? The restaurant, move to a simpler place, the talk, Bill and his plans for the motel chain? Her information about Spotter? The friendship, Richards inviting Bill to dinner, Hattie taking Margaret’s place, her inappropriate comments? Maggie and Case, serving the dinner, the mess?

8. Bill and his plans, getting in to see Richards, Richards wanting to play a trick, sending him to Attwater? Expectations that Attwater would oust him? Bill and his ingenuity, the disguises and many attempts to get in?

9. His perseverance, the canoe ride and date with Maggie, seeing Hattie with the sailor?

10. Bill and Roscoe on the building site, the rivets? Richards and Attwater and the decision to help? Trying to outdo each other, farcical aspects, going to the building site, on the girder – and Case stranded?

11. Bill finding out the truth, at the party, disguised in black face, singing Al Jolson style, hearing Maggie?

12. Back to the garage, everybody turning up, Maggie and the apology, the arrival of the judge, everybody else turning up, the wedding and happy ending?

THE RICHEST GIRL IN THE WORLD

US, 1934, 76 minutes, Black and white.
Miriam Hopkins, Joel Mc Rea, Fay Wray, Henry Stephenson, Reginald Denny.
Directed by William A. Seiter.

The Richest Girl in the World is a brief comedy from the early 1930s, winning an Oscar nomination for screenplay for Norman Krasna. The basic plot is allegedly based on millionaire heiress, Barbara Hutton, later to marry Cary Grant.

Miriam Hopkins obviously enjoys herself as Dorothy Hunter, the richest girl, who lives a secluded life, has a stand in for meetings and particular functions, Sylvia, played by Fay Wray, the year after King Kong. While she says she does not know anything about love, she encounters a young man, Joel Mc Rea, at a party, and pretends to be Sylvia. While he is interested in marrying the heiress, although he says he doesn’t know anything about love either, he becomes good friend to the real Dorothy despite her pretence.

A lot of the film involves testing the young man, so that he will choose the real Dorothy for herself and not just on the rebound. There are quite a number of deceptions, especially from Henry Stephenson who is the manager of Dorothy’s life and Reginald Denny as Sylvia’s husband.

The film has a lot on what used to be called sparkling dialogue. Unfortunately, the final revelation reconciliation comes in a few split-seconds before the end.

1. A romantic comedy of the 1930s? Mistaken identities?

2. Based on the character of heiress, Barbara Hutton?

3. Production values, the ship, New York settings? A comedy of interiors? Musical score?

4. The focus on Dorothy Hunter, ship phone calls, journalists, her reputation, never being seen? The company board, the meeting, managing her estate? The visit, her manner, signing the documents? The irony that it was Sylvia present?

5. The background story, her parents, the Titanic, deaths, John Connors looking after her, protecting? Recluse, not seeking the limelight? The possibility of a marriage? The fiance, romantic scenes with him, her intuition that he did not want to marry?

6. Party, seeing Tony, playing billiards, competitive, winning, pretending to be Sylvia? The attraction to him, talking?

7. The issue of Dorothy, Tony and his background, comments about marrying someone wealthy, talking about love? The drinking? The canoe ride, Dorothy ordering the capsize of the canoe, wet clothes, the drink?

8. John and his investigation of Tony’s background, Yale, brokerage, personality?

9. Dorothy, the attraction, saying she was unromantic, not knowing love, his saying the same thing?

10. The couple together, enjoying each other’s company, good friends? The possibility of his marrying Dorothy – and his company with Sylvia, the proposal, Dorothy and upset?

11. The visit to the country, Tony alone, Dorothy’s arrival, the meal together? The contrivance of John and the others? The arrival, the meals, discussions, the room, Philip’s visit to his wife, Philip jovial, Tony upset, punching Philip?

12. Declarations about love and friendship, marriage?

13. The quick transition to Tony finding out the truth – and happy ending?