DOLPHIN TALE 2

US, 2014, 107 minutes, Colour.
Harry Connick Jr, Nathan Gamble, Ashley Judd, Kris Kristofferson, Cozi Zuehlsdorff, Charles Martin Smith, Bethany Hamilton.
Directed by Charles Martin Smith.

One quick way for a reviewer to save time with Dolphin Tale 2, would be to dig out the original review of Dolphin Tale. The same characters turn up in this sequel. The plot is just a variation of the original, pleasant, easy, though an appeal to sentiment because of dolphins getting old and dying, clashes between dolphins, and the difficulty in fulfilling all the regulations and the danger of being closed down.

Once again, there is a loving concern about the dolphins, to rescue, to rehabilitate them, to release them – a motto for the centre, repeated during the film which is managed by Clay, Harry Connick Jr, with Sawyer, Nathan Gamble, a bit older, as the young man responsible, with some other teenagers, for the life and rehabilitation of the dolphins. And there are some romantic touches in the background.

There is actually a new dilemma. Kyle is so good at his work that he is being offered a scholarship, to work as an intern and learn more about dolphins. While this seems to be a no-brainer to some of the characters, Kyle is so attached to working with the local dolphins, especially when an old one of them dies and a new one comes in but is not able to work in a pair, and the centre is threatened by a fussy bureaucrat (played by the film’s director, Charles Martin Smith), Kyle is reluctant to go and take the whole film to make up his mind.

Kyle’s mother is always there, played by Ashley Judd. Morgan Freeman comes again for a visit and gives Kyle some sound advice. Kris Kristofferson, pleasantly crusty, is there again as Clay’s father, offering advice from the older generation.

All in all, for audiences who enjoyed Dolphin Tale, it will be a pleasure for them to renew acquaintance with the characters, to learn a little more about the dolphins and more serious rehabilitation and release rather than exhibitions and exploitations at Sea World’s (the theme of the impressive documentary, Blackfish, of some years ago).

It is obviously a film designed for family audiences and has the value of encouraging children and teenagers to become involved in outdoor activities and concern for nature.

1. An enjoyable dolphin story? The importance of the first film, establishing the characters, the aquarium for the dolphins, the issue of training dolphins? For the trainers? For the public?

2. The Florida setting, Tampa, homes, the aquarium? The pools for exhibition? For training? The musical score?

3. The focus on Sawyer, growing up, his age, experience with the dolphins, the relationship with his mother, with Kyle, working with Hazel and not noticing her attraction? Working with Clay, the relationship, the other members of the staff? His work with Panama, bonding, able to train? Panama and her getting old? Mandy and her swimming with Winter? Winter agitated, biting Sawyer? The appeal about Mandy, the young trainers and their anxiety, arguing with Clay, her being released? Further training of Winter? The arrival of Hope? The visitor coming to the performance, offering the scholarship, his not being able to make up his mind, the influence of his mother? The visit of Dr Cameron Mc Carthy, giving him the watch, the allegory of the box, going beyond the box? His final consent, discussions with Hazel, with Clay, the final party, his sitting outside? The tensions with Winter and Hope? Success?

4. Sawyer’ mother, the work and nursing, love for her son, encouragement?

5. Dr Cameron Mc Carthy, past expertise, his good advice, at home at the aquarium, amazed at the dolphins, the final success?

6. Clay, the establishment of the Institute, for rescue, for rehabilitation, for release? The tough decisions? His tensions with Hazel? Her being upset with him? His relationship with his father, good advice from his father? The visit of the Inspector, the difficulties, the 30 days? The visitor and his return and satisfaction at the improvement? The institution boss, concerned about the public, putting pressure on Clay about the dolphins? His parenting, dealing with Hazel, giving her responsibilities, the final decisions with him?

7. Hazel, her father, her age, looking devotedly at Sawyer, wary about his eye for the other girl?

8. The portrayal of the dolphins, the qualities, talking about their intelligence, their communications, companionship, swimming with each other? Panama, the old veteran and energy giving out? Winter, the loss of the tail, swimming without it? The aggression? The loss of Mandy? The initial distrust of Hope? The final acceptance, with the wearing of the tail? Mandy, the little girl seeing Mandy, the details of the rescue, insertion in the pool, the treatment, the sunburn, the x-rays? The improvement? The need for her to be released? The finding of Hope, trying to pair her with Winter? Ultimate success after her fear about Winter having no tale?

9. The aim of the Institute, not for performance, but for rehabilitating the dolphins and allowing them to go back into the sea?

10. A film for the family, for encouraging youngsters in their knowledge of dolphins, interest in all kinds of nature?

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

US, 2015, 90 minutes, Colour.
Vince Vaughn, Tom Wilkinson, David Franco, Sienna Miller Britton Sear, Ella Anderson, Nick Frost, James Marsden, Ken Scott.
Directed by Ken Scott.

When Vince Vaughan’s name appears above titles, we can usually expect a comedy, a touch of the serious, some crass moments, some sentiment. And they are all here in Unfinished Business.

Also above the titles are the names of Tom Wilkinson and David Franco. They are part of the unfinished business in the revelation of how difficult it is in a competitive world to reach a deal and cement it with the handshake.

But the unfinished business of the title while relating to the world of business also refers to the business of family problems. Vince Vaughn’s Dan, a family man, a bit too self-sufficient which tangles him with his competition in the office, Chuck, played by Sienna Miller as a hardball player with a masculine name. Dan goes out on his own, taking on Tim (Tom Wilkinson) who is being retrenched because he’s 67 and Mike (David Franco) who has gone for an interview taking a business box to make a good impression.

On the business side, the trio have to travel to Portland, Maine, and find that they have been undercut by Chuck with the smooth and sleazy boss, Jim (James Marsden). There is a chance that they might be able to redeem the deal by travelling to Berlin to see the overall corporate boss. This means that a lot of the action takes place in Germany, plenty of vistas of Berlin, but there is Chuck once again, manoeuvring.

When all seems lost, the three go out on the town. Accommodation in Berlin is all occupied except for some corridors for Jim and Mike and the show-display apartment, with tourists passing by, looking in commenting, for Dan. It is Berlin in October and so an Oktoberfest, beer galore, but it is also time for a gay festival – and the film detours for rather longer than necessary here, alcohol, ecstasy, gay bar toilets, the crass component of the film.

We wouldn’t be watching the film unless we hoped (and knew) that it had a happy ending – but the drama is in how the happy ending is reached.

On the home level, Dan keeps in touch with his wife and children by Skype, regularly talking to his son who is being bullied at school and his little daughter who has punched someone out in defence of her brother. He has a loving and long-suffering wife.

Tom Wilkinson, who seems to appear in many films a year these days, has a world weariness in his role as the ageing businessman, not really loving his wife and wanting a divorce, but wanting a loving and sexual relationship (which is suddenly parachuted in the end). Dave Franco (with more smiles and grins than his older brother, James Franco) is a naive young man who lives in a special community, is often gauche and awkward but, it seems, something of a whizz at figures.

While there is the crass, there are some positives about the reality of the world of business and focus on a loving family home despite all the problems.

The film was directed by Ken Scott who made a film about a prolific sperm donor, Starbuck, which was remade in Hollywood as Delivery Man, starring Vince Vaughan.

1. The title, regarding business, regarding family problems?

2. St Louis, the city, homes, offices, business? The musical score?

3. Contrast with Germany, Berlin, the autobahn, the vistas of the city, offices, the art apartments?

4. The three strands: business, family, nightlife and their interconnection?

5. Dan, Vince Vaughn and his style, the initial confrontation with Chuck, the argument, his leaving? Tim and Mike going with him? One year later, packing, the trip, the company and the prospect of deals, the handshake?

6. Problems at home, Dan and his going into Paul’s room, the talk about sex, the real issue of bullying, the pictures on Facebook, his arrest, getting the eyeliners, the reasons? Dan later buying the shade and wearing it, his son seeing him on Skype? The daughter, homework about her father, punching the bully, the images on Skype? Her motivation for the punching? The end and her comment on how good fathers drive when other people are tired?

7. The trip to Portland, Dan upgraded, giving his seat for the veteran, preparing the meeting, jogging and his wife’s tights, Chuck and Jim and their mockery? Bill and his sympathy? The presentation, Mike saying his name, Pancake? Dan collapsing? Jim and his attitudes, Dan’s company losing the deal? The background of companies who are in competition? The visit to Portland, the sexy maid, Tim and the mistake, the ordinary maid in his room – and the later communication and going off to a new life?

8. Berlin, hopes, the trip to Hamburg, consulting the woman in the spa, nudity, Americans and prudishness, Dan stripping, Tim and Mike and their curiosity? Hurrying back to Berlin, the stag on the road, the crash, hurrying, only finding that the meeting was pushed to another day? Issues of accommodation? The night on the town, the beer festival, the gay celebration, the dancing, the toilets and the glory holes? Bill, Tim, ecstasy, dancing, the morning after?

9. Tim, his age, being sacked, wanting a divorce, his sexual desires, his wife, supporting Dan, the trips, the sexy maid in Portland? In Berlin, the ecstasy, the dancing?

10. Mike, naive, simple, boarding with his three friends, yet clever? His wanting some explurts? Awkwardness and his name? His manner, the stag on the road, his curiosity about wheelbarrow positions, experiments and the girls, his return home, his friends?

11. Dan and the decision to run the marathon and being supported by fans who saw him in the display room?

12. Jim, business deals, harsh, double-dealing? Link with Chuch? Using Bill as a servant? Bill and his sympathies, especially after his being found in the gay bar?

13. The boss, Bill getting the interview, the explanations, the good figures, the boss starting with four, offering the handshake – and the three seeing Chuck and doing the triumphal dance?

14. Dan’s wife, at home, love, ordinary, the children and the problems, phone calls on Skype? Arriving home, the kids, Dan and his talking to them while away, always a loving father?

15. The happy ending, for the family, the business?

EX MACHINA

UK, 2015, 108 minutes, Colour.
Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Sonoya Mizuno.
Directed by Alex Garland.

Now here’s a challenging title!

This Latin phrase, ex machine, has been used, in English, to describe the device in Greek tragedies where, at the end of the play, there would be some kind of intervention, usually of a God who is let down by a machine into the stage action, the full phrase being Deus (God) ex Machina.

So what is it doing as the title of the film, written and directed by author Alex Garland (The Beach, and of screenplays for 28 Days Later, Dredd, Never Let Me Go)? It takes the whole film to interpret this title: other scientists playing God? Who are the machines, in this case sophisticated robots, and some tantalising thinking about the word ex and its meaning ‘former’ and ‘out of’…

This is science fiction for intelligence fans rather than action fans. A lot of talk, a lot of philosophical issues, creativity and robotics, the relationship between humans and robots, the humanising of robots.

Domhnal Gleeson plays a young man who is employed by Blue Book, named as the world’s most serious search engine. Here’s delighted when he wins a ticket to visit a robotics scientist and inventor in his remote house in the mountains (filmed beautifully in Norway). He is to stay a week. He then learns from the scientist (Oscar Isaac) that he has a task, the Turing test (posed by Alan Turing or, featured in the film, The Imitation Game), to pose questions and interact with a machine to find out whether it can develop emotions or just knows how to simulate emotions.

The main robot – avoiding the word android because of its man/mankind origins in Greek – is female. She is played by Alicia Vikander, visually a machine, especially her metal midriff, but her head, facial features, voice, made to appear and sound very feminine. As might be expected, the young man begins to become infatuated with the robot, thinking that she is responding to him emotionally, but not absolutely sure. And this has some dire repercussions on his response, his report to the scientist, his becoming involved in the protection of the robot, fearing manipulation, but not recognising true manipulation when it happens.

The scientist is a kind of self-indulgent, hard-drinking, boffin who enjoys the company of the young man, wants to test him, and gets a certain satisfaction when he gets the results of the tests and tries to indicate that they are no results and that they still do not know whether the robot, named Ava, has actually developed the capacity for emotional response or is particularly good and simulating it.

This is a film for those who enjoy films about Artificial Intelligence and what this will mean in terms of development of Robotics and interactions with humans. And, because it does not necessarily have a propensity for an American happy ending, audiences will enjoy the final dramatic ironies.

1. The title? Meaning? Drama? The device for plays and drama and saving situations, deus ex machina? Robotics? Humans? Interventions?

2. Audience interest in robotics, the tradition of films, Isaac Asimov, cyborgs? Machines, intricacy, the effects? Robots and humans? Humans and control, robots and service, control – or more?

3. The film’s focus on the creators, the technology, the psychology? Success?

4. The Norway locations, the forests and falls, the laboratories, the modern house, the corridors, the experience rooms? The musical score?

5. Caleb, at work, his work on codes, his age, experience, as a person? The request? His eagerness, naivete, yet clever? The helicopter, the ride, arrival, finding the house?

6. Nathan, credible as a scientist, his work and achievement, his tests? In himself, the welcome, the explanation of the Turing test, interactions with Caleb, the pressures, his drinking, the CCTV, whether to trust him or not? His pride, the flashbacks to his work with the other models, harshness? The Japanese servant? A hero and villain?

7. Ava, her beauty, a machine, her manner of speaking, her appearance, artificial intelligence? Her response to Nathan, response to Caleb, the attraction? The power cuts and her advice not to trust Nathan? The captions and the series of tests? Deepening her experience? Caleb’s?

8. The aftermath with Nathan, how autonomous the robots, feelings or simulation feelings?

9. Caleb, his interactions, the test, the effect on his feelings, beliefs?

10. Nathan drunk, Caleb taking his card, entering the restricted area, his discoveries about the many other models? The Japanese servant, peeling her skin and replacing it?

11. The effect on Caleb, his doubts, slitting his arm to see if he had human blood? Nathan watching this?

12. The plan with Ava, to steal the card, to change the settings? Escape? To defeat Nathan, to get him drunk?

13. Nathan, not drinking, having seen everything, his estimation of Caleb, moderate praise? Caleb as a guinea pig?

14. Caleb, confronting Nathan, having changed the settings already? Nathan, the confrontation with the robots, the servant stabbing him?

15. Ava, putting on more skin, concealing the robot effects, choosing the clothes, Caleb watching, her leaving?

16. Caleb tricked and trapped?

17. Ava, going into the city, merging with everyone? Robots outsmarting the humans? How many robots amongst us?

CITIZENFOUR

US, 2014, 114 minutes, Colour.
Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald.
Directed by Laura Poitras.

The Edward Snowden case was very much a story of 2013. He made headlines, was praised as well as vilified because of his whistleblowing, documentation he made available, the repercussions for national security, for invasions of privacy by surveillance, and the American government reaction.

Once he took refuge in Russia, he slipped from the headlines and, for world media consumption, he was not so important in 2014.

That was until this documentary about him and the events of 2013 was released, nominated for an Oscar and perhaps, very surprisingly, won the award. This raises the issues of how the case has been thought about in the United States, the hostility of the government and the criminal charges compared with public opinion and the fact that the members of the Academy would give it its award.

In fact, this is a very serious documentary. The maker behind the film, directing, producing, editing it is Laura Poitras who had made several documentaries about American politics in the aftermath of 9/11. She explains that she had been detained at passport control by American authorities after the release of some of her films. She was contacted by Snowden under the pseudonym sea, Citizenfour, and was invited to make contact with him in Hong Kong.

While the film does give some background to Snowden, aged 29, his work, the availability of secret material, his decision to make public documentation, his motivations, the bulk of the film is real-time footage, photographing Snowden in his Hong Kong hotel, cinema verite, it is certainly, offering quite an amount of material for audiences to respond to Snowden and listen to his explanations.

The other character to feature is Glenn Snowden, a journalist based in Brazil, writing articles on Snowden and going to Hong Kong, questioning, exploring, and publishing, with the UK paper, The Guardian, entering into the controversies with some American papers following.

While the public might not understand a lot of the material made available, the film raises issues of the public’s right to know, rights of privacy, government capacity for surveillance and the consequent use of data and metadata to track down the movements and activities of citizens.

Towards the end of this film, there is an appearance by Julian Assange, much better known to the public because of WikiLeaks? and the nature of government concerns, moves to extradite him, and his living in the Ecuador embassy in London. He offers advice about countries where Snowdon might take refuge.

In many ways this might be a transitional film, opening up the situation, introducing Snowden, but another film could deal with the consequences of his actions, the reactions of the American government and courts and governments around the world and the subsequent history of Snowden outside the United States.


1. Oscar for best documentary, 2014? Indication of attitudes in the United States towards Edward Snowden? Whistleblowers? Government surveillance and invasions of privacy?

2. Audience knowledge of Edward Snowden, his career, whistleblowing, revelations, fleeing the US, his time in Hong Kong, accusations against him, criminal charges, his escape from Hong Kong – and his taking refuge in Russia?

3. Audience views on Snowden, on whistleblowers, on the role of government surveillance and invasions of privacy?

4. The director, her career, suspect by the American government, her films about American political issues?

5. Snowden contacting her, the emails, the invitation, her agreement, going to Hong Kong with her crew, filming in real time? The communications
between Snowden and the director throughout the film?

6. Edward Snowden and his story, as a person as it emerges from the film? The facts of his decisions, his motivation?

7. Glenn Greenwald, journalist, his life in Brazil, his articles, the contact? Seeing him later in conferences in Brazil?

8. The Hong Kong sequences, the candid camera, the director and her crew unobtrusive, Snowden, Greenwald? The explanations? Hong Kong and the situation, the United Nations? The government?

9. The American response, hostile, accusations, charges?

10. The role of the press, the print media, The Guardian in the UK and Greenwald’s work, the other journalists? The meetings? The American papers?

11. The right of the public to know, the response of the public to the Snowden revelations? The political implications, governments and surveillance of phones, e.g. Angela Merkel? And Germany?

12. Issues of privacy, national security, law, rights of individuals? The use of material gained?

13. The UN interventions, the international group of lawyers, in Berlin?

14. Julian Assange, the precedents, the sequences with him, his comments about Snowden and the country for refuge?

15. How insightful a film about surveillance in the 21st century, the public and privacy? And privacy?

16. Edward Snowden’s life in abeyance, in Russia?

ROSEWOOD LANE

US, 2011, 97 minutes, Colour.

Rose Mc Gowan, Lauren Velez, Ray Wise, Sonny Marinelli, Daniel Ross Owens, Leslie- Anne Down, Rance Howard, Lin Shaye.
Directed by Victor Salva.

Rosewood Is a psychological thriller with touches on the supernatural.

Rose Mc Gowan plays an on-air psychologist who has had a traumatic life, returning home after the death of her father. She has good friend, a producer, as well as a DA boyfriend. However, there is a sinister paperboy who imposes himself on her, has a mysterious background, seems a teenager but also seems older.

The film builds up to a climax after the death of the DA, the confrontation between the paperboy and the psychologist.

The film was directed by Victor Salva, whose films are varied, including Powder, Jeepers Creepers, Peaceful Warrior.

1. A melodrama about a psychologist, paperboy with sinister behaviour, murders? With the touch of the supernatural?

2. The title, the street, suburbia, Sonny and her family home, the neighbours and the houses, the street? The radio station? The highway? Authentic feel? Musical score?

3. Sonny, her role as a psychologist, on the radio, her calls, Paula as her producer, the announcer and their friendships? Going to her father’s death, his alcoholism, his brutality when she was a child, her hatred of him? Trying to sell the house? Unable to, returning, the talk with the next-door neighbour, his warning about the paperboy? The paperboy coming to the door, the subscription, his insistence, Sonny urging him to go? Her settling into the house, her mixed feelings? The bear and the ballet dancer on the shelf? Her going into town, weekly, for the broadcast? The paperboy and his phoning, on air, Hickory Dickory Dock and the other nursery rhymes?

4. Her relationship with her father, violence, his accidental death, sale of the house?

5. Her relationship with Barrett, the break, his helping her settling, not staying, finding the statues moved, ringing him, his coming, reassuring her, the discussions with the police, his being part of the DA’s office?

6. Barrett, his help, puzzle, attacked by the paperboy? The paperboy tormenting him?

7. The paperboy, mysterious, deliveries, coming to the house, interactions with Sonny, frightening her? Harassment?

8. His further activities, investigations about him?

9. The police, coming to the house, interviews, not believing Sonny?

10. Paula coming, fears, his intrusion, violence?

11. The mystery of the paperboy and whether he was a psychopath or a mysterious evil being?

NOBODY WANTS THE NIGHT

Spain, 2014, 119 minutes, Colour.
Juliette Binoche, Rinko Kikuchi, Gabriel Byrne.
Directed by Isabel Coixet.

Nobody Wants the Night is an odd title for this film, not really indicating what the film is about, even though the darkest night of the Arctic is significant for the plot.

Captain Robert Peary had great ambitions to reach the North Pole, going on many expeditions, sometimes accompanied by his wife, Josephine. This film focuses on Josephine herself, a New York socialite, a woman used to comfort yet happy to go on rugged expeditions, are stubborn and dominant woman, commanding and pressurising all those who worked for the expeditions.

Juliette Binoche plays Josephine. It is a role that requires her to be haughty at the beginning, to participate in the ruggedness of the travelling through the Arctic ice and snow, determined to reach the rendezvous with her husband, no matter what the storms, avalanches, injuries and deaths.

However, when she arrives, her husband is not there. There is a young Inuit woman whom she discovers had a relationship with her husband and is pregnant. She is devastated but has to survive with the young woman, especially as the Arctic darkness comes on. There is not much food to be had, Josephine becoming ill, the young woman being pregnant. It is a transforming experience for Josephine who has to let go of her presuppositions, her sense of power and importance, her sense of superiority over the Inuits, and become much more human.

Rinko Kikuchi, the Japanese actress who appeared in such films as Babel, is the young Inuit woman. There is a guest role for Gabriel Byrne as a philosophising, atheistic, lover of solitude who accompanies the expedition.

There is some interesting information at the end of the film, that Peary’s claim to have reached the North Pole first was disputed, that a doctor claimed the honour, but that afterwards, it seems that both claims were not verified. Josephine Peary returned to New York, wrote a number of books and lived until 1955.

The film was directed by Isabel Coixet, a veteran of a rather wide range of films, My Life without Me, The Secret Life of Words, Map of the Sounds of Tokyo.

1. The impact of the film: biography, exploration, endurance, humanity?

2. The use of Norway locations for the Arctic? Snow, the treks, the ice, the avalanches, the storms? Arctic day? Arctic night? The orchestral score? The film based on actual characters, Robert Peary and his expeditions to the North Pole? Josephine accompanying him, her loving him, her motivation, devotion, love of the Arctic?

3. The presence of the Inuits, their home territory, their lifestyle, igloos, food, working as guides? At the behest of the whites?

4. The opening avalanche, Josephine lying on the ground, her formal dress, the screen and the slit, aiming at the bear, the blood, her exhilaration and killing a bear? Indication of Josephine and her spirit? The discussions with the group, her wanting to go on, to rendezvous with her husband? Bram Trevor and his being the guide, warning against? Captain Spalding and his views about sailing? The doctor and his warnings? The meal, the toast – and the number of dead, Trevor and his reminding the group of the Inuits giving their lives?

5. The voice-over, its tone, information, perspective?

6. Josephine, chararacter, referred to as Her Majesty by Trevor? Strong will, determined, stubborn? Her age and experience? Her daughter, left behind and given little thought? Her love and devotion to her husband? The expedition, her range of clothes, the large baggage, the record player?

7. Trevor, a grizzled man, alone, atheist, called mystic because of his views on nature? His relationship with the Inuits? His advice? The experience, the trek, taking photos? The accidents and avalanches, the death of the dogs? His falling into the ice, not wanting a cross, his death? His later appearance in dream to Josephine, a reflection of her own ideas, urging her to go on?

8. The Inuits, the knowledge, their hard work, the dogs, thinking the trek too far, wanting to go home? Ninck and his help, leaving, the news of his death?

9. Arriving at the house? Peary not there? Josephine and her decision to stay, settling in, the others leaving, her comforts, the fire, the music, her clothes? Imperious attitudes?

10. Allaka, Inuit, the English words, her staying, the igloo? Her liki’sng Josephine? Her pregnancy, her story, Peary, waiting for him? Realising Josephine was his wife?

11. Josephine, the realisation, anger, behaviour, in the snow?

12. Allaka and her help, conversation? Calling Josephine Joss? The Western style meal, the wine and its effect? Instruction about cutler…, Josephine and her superior attitude?

13. The two different worlds and belonging to those worlds?

14. Josephine ill, Allaka’s care, recovering? The dogs, providing meat?

15. The gradual breaking down of barriers? Liking each other, depending on each other? The discovery of the pregnancy? The need for heat, burning furniture, Peary’s notes, the beautiful dresses?

16. The storm, smashing the hut, the birth, in the igloo, trapped, battering the roof and getting out? The, prospects?

17. Josephine transformed, her appearance, the difference from Park Avenue?

18. Arrival of a Hanson, news of Peary, his return to the base, the achievement of reaching the North Pole? The rival claim of the doctor? Pressurising
Josephine to go? The death of Allaka and her going into the snow?

19. The final close-up of Josephine’s face, reflecting her experience?

20. Information about Peary and the doctor reaching the pole – or not? Josephine subsequent career, writing, not mentioning this episode to her husband?
Dying in 1956?

L’HISTOIRE DE JUDAS

France, 2015, 99 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Rabah Ameur- Zaimeche.

This is an impressive biblical film, all the more interesting because it was written and directed by a French Algerian director, influenced by Islam. In 2005, the Iranian film, Jesus, Spirit of God, told the Gospel story from the point of view of the Koran, a rather traditional-looking film, with an ending where Jesus goes to heaven and Judas takes his place. The director used the film as a dialogue between Christians and Muslims, touring America and Europe with his film, and, after two years, adding some more scenes, offering a Christian ending.

The Story of Judas received an Ecumenical Award at the Berlin Film Festival, 2015, in the Forum section. The film could be very useful in discussions between Christians and Muslims, with the development of a different perspective on Judas and his relationship to Jesus. He is first seen climbing a high mountain to bring Jesus down after his fast. He and Jesus are clearly good friends, and this continues throughout the film.

The portrait of Jesus is sympathetic, he is perceived to be the Messiah and welcomed by people with whom he relates well. There are a number of gospel episodes, the woman taken in adultery, Jesus being anointed with nard, the condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and scenes with Pontius Pilate. There is an equivalent Barabbas, a man with mental difficulties called Carabas.

There is no sense of betrayal by Judas. Rather, he is loyal to Jesus, but makes an enemy of a man who is copying of Jesus words and is critical of Judas, even stabbing him and mortally wounding him, with Judas going into Jesus’ tomb and dying where Jesus had been laid.

The film is beautifully photographed, magnificent landscapes, the use of ordinary people as the cast, offering a different interpretation of Judas.

1. The biblical film - traditional? Hollywood? Jesus films outside Hollywood?

2. Algerian film? Muslim perspective? The perspective on the Gospels, Jesus as prophet, on Judas as faithful? The background of the Koran?

3. The beauty of the locations, the mountain, the bathing in the water, the small village, the countryside? The locations for the Temple, for the priests, for Pontius Pilate, for Calvary? The hill of Calvary?

4. The musical score?

5. The visual style, contemplative, with long takes, the editing and pace?

6. The interpretation of the gospel, places, time? Opening with the aftermath of the temptations, Judas’s role, the rescue of Jesus, carrying him down, meeting the disciples, the moneychangers’ temple, the village people, the woman taken in adultery, denunciation of the Pharisees? Pontius Pilate, wanting Jesus to die, his discussion with his servant? The priests? The woman with the nard? The scribe and his writing down Jesus’ words, Judas and his reaction, motivation? The scribe stabbing Judas? Judas helped, going into the tomb to die? Jesus risen? The character of Carabas, mad, poetic, scapegoated, taking down the crosses?

7. Focus on Judas, his absence from the film? As a person, good, climbing the mountains, Jesus, talking with his brothers about Jesus as prophet? Welcomed by the children? His role in the cleansing of the temple? Fierce zeal? His being absent from the episode with the nard? The interaction with the scribe, his anger, why? Links to Carabas, the crosses, his hopes, his death? In Jesus’ resting place?

8. The focus on Jesus, fast, his age, appearance, smiles, carried down by Judas, bathing in the water, welcome from the children, his cleansing the temple, the long telling of the woman taken in adultery, his denunciation of the Pharisees as in Matthew 23, his being soothed by anointing with the nard, the encounter with Pontius Pilate? Risen?

9. The disciples, Judas and his brothers?

10. The woman buying the nard, giving her jewellery? Anointing Jesus?

11. The woman taken in adultery, the elders and condemnation, Jesus writing in the sand the dialogue from John’s Gospel, not condemning her? The woman escaping and going to her mother?

12. The moneychangers, the site of the temple, the animals, the birds, there being free? Judas and his zeal?

13. The priests, the discussions about Jesus, Jesus and his condemnation?

14. Pontius Pilate, his servant, the reports, the reaction to Jesus, his arrest?

15. Carabas, mad, considered a poet, scapegoat, the crosses? His digging up the crosses?

16. The film from a Muslim perspective?

17. Christian response to this interpretation?

DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID/JOURNAL D’UNE FEMME DE CHAMBRE

France, 2015, 96 minutes, Colour.
Lea Seydoux, Vincent Lindon, Clotilde Mollet.
Directed by Benoit Jacquot.

Octave Mirabeau wrote the book on which this film is based at the turn of the 20th century, capturing the atmosphere of the 19th century in France, the new bourgeoisie, life in the provinces, the class distinctions of the period, the role of servants, the continuing atmosphere of revolution and the sexual mores of the period. The screenplay refers to the Dreyfus case, a reminder that this was the period of anti-Semitism.

The first version of this story was made by French director Jean Renoir in Hollywood with Paulette Goddard as Celestine, the chambermaid. In the 1960s, Luis Buñuel made his version with Jeanne Moreau in the title role. The films used black-and-white. This film is in colour, giving full value to the costumes, sets and decor of the period, aspects of life in Paris, the mansion in the provinces, the local inhabitants and their way of life.

The film is critical of the arrogance of the newly-rich and their use of their class superiority. Clotilde Mollet is very effective in the role of Madame, a bigoted and nasty woman who exploits the chambermaid – although, after all her treasures stolen, she gradually mellows. Her husband, the master of the house, is something of a nitwit as well as a womaniser.

Lea Seydoux, who appeared in the director’s Farewell to the Queen, and who also appeared in a number of films including Blue is the Warmest Colour, is sufficiently self-possessed and rather haughty in her own way as the chambermaid who finds faults with her employees but takes the position in the country house, muttering criticism under her breath, being used by Madame, but making friends with people in the village. Vincent Lindon is Joseph, seemingly devoted to the family for 15 years but who is secretly a revolutionary, stealing the money and possessions from the employers to finance his revolutionary cause, which is, very explicitly, anti-Semitic.

This is the kind of traditional filmmaking where everything is beautifully produced, film versions according to the style of the novels of the 19th and early 20th centuries, something which has an appeal for the public but which irritates film critics who want something more challenging.

1. The title, the classic by Octave Mirabeau? 19th-century France? The previous film versions?

2. The settings, Paris, the countryside, homes, the towns, travelling on the trains, church, the musical score?

3. The title, expectations, and issues of class, 100 years after the French Revolution, the rise of the bourgeoisie? Class , manners, domination, masters and servants?

4. The title, Lea Sydoux and her performance? Style? Manner? Her interior communicated by facial expressions and retaining expression? Her under the breath comments? Breton, her mother and the news of her death and some grief, many jobs, her being considered unreliable, but her efficiency, her snobbery as regards her work, the variety of jobs and her descriptions? The interview and the role of the interviewer, the suggestion of sexual favours for masters?

5. Accepting the job, leaving Paris, the train journey, Joseph meeting her, his being laconic? Meeting Madame, in the red dress, the talk, orders, her precious possessions? Monsieur, his arrival, everything being excellent? Getting Celestine to remove his boots, his advances, her reaction?

6. Celestine, her work, reaction to Madame, her ringing the bell, getting the needle, the thread, the scissors, running up and down stairs? Setting the table? The train, Madame having to open her box with the dildo? Going to church, singing hymns? Meeting Rose, the captain and his eccentricities, friendship and gossip? Rose and her dislike of Celestine’s employers?

7. Marianne, the cook, the food, talking, getting more friendly with Celestine, her pregnancy, the explanation of the master’s behaviour, Joseph and his relationship, his work, consistency, not talking, reading the paper?

8. Life in the house, the various routines, the attention to detail?

9. The grandmother, her consumptive grandson, treating Celestine well, her room, looking after Georges, his swimming, the heart, the sexual attraction,
the encounter, his death, the blood? Funeral? Not staying with the grandmother?

10. The women gossiping, the story of Claire being killed and raped in the forest? Suspects?

11. Joseph, talking with Celestine, his plan, working 15 years? His anti-Semitism? The Dreyfus case? His attraction towards Celestine? The plan, the finances for his cause, the robbery and the details, the aftermath, his resignation, the plan for the rendezvous and Celestine leaving?

12. Celestine and Madame after the robbery, more friendly, Madame losing all her treasures?

13. Joseph and Celestine, going off, their future?

14. The portrait of the period, manners and morals?

THE GREAT RUPERT

US, 1950, 89 minutes, Black and white.
Jimmy Durante, Terry Moore, Tom Drake, Sarah Haden.
Directed by Irving Pichel.

The Great Rupert is, in fact, a squirrel, a squirrel who can dance – but, as the comedy progresses, Rupert is very instrumental in disposing of cash.

While Jimmy Durante is the star, there is a good supporting cast, Tom Drake and Terry Moore as a romantic couple. Durante and his family have been acrobats but have fallen on hard times, getting accommodation from our man who hides his profits from mining in the walls of his house, but the money is squirrelled out and dropped into the vaudeville family’s lounge room. They think it is an answer to prayer.

Meanwhile, Durante is helping all the local businesses and the FBI and the police become suspicious. They listen to the prayer explanations but cannot fathom what is the truth. In the meantime, a cigarette is tossed up and Rupert takes it, sets the whole house on fire. While the owner thinks the cash has gone up in flames, Durante is only too happy to help rebuild the house with a happy ever after ending.


1. An old-style family story, comedy?

2. 1950, black-and-white, the city, the streets, the apartments, the businesses? The musical score?

3. The title, Rupert as a squirrel, his dancing? The film as a Jimmy Durante film, his style, comedy, way with words, mixing them up, comedy routines, songs, genial?

4. The introduction, Rupert, the agent observing, Rupert having little impact? Rupert’s trainer, and issues of rent, the debt, in the park, letting Rupert go? Rupert’s return, in the roof, throwing the cash down, catching the cigarette, setting the house on fire?

5. The family, their act as a human pyramid, out of work, searching for work, somewhere to stay, mother and father, daughter? Rosalinda and the shoe, breaking? Their meeting Rupert’s manager, information, going to the apartment, meeting Peter, pleasant, his attraction to Rosalinda, their not paying immediately?

6. Peter and Rosalinda, the attraction, his not having a job, composing, the piece for himself and Rosalinda, getting the job at the bar, his work, his being upset at the agent and his taking Rosalinda out?

7. The parents, the genial mother, the father and his investments, getting information about the cash, not going to the bank, hiding it? Refusing to give any money to Peter, ousting him?

8. The family, settling in, the prayer for the shoes, the money falling down? Each week? Buying things, dad father and small Christmas tree, the big Christmas tree, the clothes? His helping all the neighbours out with the businesses, and his name on all of them? Gifts?

9. The suspicions of the police, hearing about his doing good, the shoes for the European children, the FBI, everybody arriving? The interviews, watching the prayer – no money? The giving up on the investigation?

10. Peter, his job, not wanting to back investors, but investing in the oil, its success?

11. The house on fire, the money gone? The father and his offering to rebuild the house – so the money reading-invested?

12. And happy ending for all?

TAXI


Iran, 2015, 85 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Jafar Panahi.

Taxi is quite an entertaining story in itself, but it has to be seen in the life of its director, Jafar Panahi, one Iran’s great film directors, claimed with awards. He fell foul of the authorities in Iran a run and was confined to his home, home imprisonment. He was also forbidden to make films for 20 years.

Panahi received very strong support from international film makers. Encouraged, he used a camera to fill himself in his apartment, for the audience to experience his confinement and way of life, finally going down in the elevator but unable to leave the building. With the ban on his film-making, he called this film This is Not a Film.

Several years later, with a certain amount of freedom of movement within the country, he made another film, Closed Curtain, a sometimes rather enigmatic film about a confined man, his friends, and visitors to his house, and the questioning of identities.

With this film, he has a simple concept (used more in the art-house style by director, Abbas Kierostami in 10) of putting the camera at the front of his taxi, Panahi playing the taxi driver, with a range of passengers, selected and briefed, which meant that the camera could look out from the taxi and see vistas of the city of Tehran. The camera could also easily film the passengers in the back seats but could turn on Panahi himself to see his response to his passengers and their conversations.

The choice of passengers is somewhat provocative for the Iranian authorities. Initially, two people get in, the man rather aggressively traditional in his attitudes towards crime and execution while the woman, turns out to be a teacher with rather liberal views about society. Another passenger is a video bootlegger who claims to know Panahi, goes to visit a film student, enabling Panahi to give some advice about film-making, as well as a selection of foreign language DVDs, all bootleg, which the student would find helpful. The point is made that bootlegging is the only way of distribution for Panahi’s own film.

There are two elderly ladies with a fishbowl who want to get to some fish springs before midday, nattering in the back, irritating Panahi, the bowl breaking but his saving the fish with plastic, and letting them get out of the taxi as soon as possible.

There is also a friend who has some conversation about muggings and dire experiences. The last passenger is the director’s niece, picking her up from school, her being able to recite the rules (very restrictive) for making films in Iran and she is interested in a project, seeing young lad near a wedding party who steals money that has fallen on the ground and her trying to persuade him to give it back while she films him for her project.

The final passenger is a lawyer, who has been banned, but is quite forthright in her government criticisms. When they find a purse in the car, they realise it is from the two ladies and they go to track them down. The final image is of police searching Panahi’s taxi to find the memory stick with the film – but they are unable.

In the spirit of solidarity, the Berlin jury awarded the Golden Bear to Taxi.

1. Panahi and his career, confined to his country, imprisonment, home arrest, the interrogations, the charges, his self-assertion?

2. The films since his internment? A sense of freedom even within his confinement? Making the films? Exporting them, bootleg distribution in Iran?

3. The title, the focus, the day in the taxi? The camera at the front of the taxi, filming the outside, the interiors? The range of passengers? Movement inside and out?

4. Panahi himself, revealed as the driver, some knowing him, some not knowing him? His character, driving the taxi, not knowing the destinations, but his enjoying the experience?

5. The men and the woman passengers, the man and his traditional male ideas, crime, muggings, executions, his spurning of the woman, that she was a teacher? The woman in the back, the teacher, voicing the ideas against imprisonment, capital punishment?

6. The bootlegger and the videos, recognising party, the discussions about films, bootlegging in Iran, his client, the filmmaker, wanting a title for his short film, the discussions about filmmaking and education in Iran? His wanting to look at classics, Panahi and his choices? His inviting Panahi in?

7. The two ladies, their age, carrying the fishbowl? Their wanting to get to their destination before midday? Rituals and superstitions? The breaking of the bowl, Panahi and the plastic? Offloading them?

8. The accident, the man covered in blood, his wife and her frenzy? the irony of photographing the man, his wanting to make his will for his wife, the bootlegger filming it? Going to the hospital? His surviving? The wife and her continuing to call to get the picture of the will?

9. The friend, the discussions about the situation, thieves, muggings?

10. Going to pick up his niece, her behaviour, haughtiness towards her uncle, the details of the rules about filmmaking in Iran? The strictness? Her having to make a short film, seeing the boy, the wedding, his taking the money, calling him over, filming him, her urging him to give the money back?

11. The flower woman, background, lawyer, being banned? Her comments on the situation, looking to camera? the flowers? The voice of unrest in Iran?

12. Finding the purse, driving to the spring?

13. The police, searching, not finding the memory stick?

14. An entertaining film, but with its very serious implications?