TORNERANNO I PRATI/GREENERY WILL RETURN

Italy, 2015, 78 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ermano Olmi.

Ermanno Olmi began directing films in 1958 and has had a very successful career in his native Italy, a focus on Italian life, on Italian traditions, the great values in Italian life and culture.

In the 1970s, he made two films which are considered masterpieces, The Tree of Wooden Clogs and The Legend of the Holy Drinker.

In the years of the 21st century, there were reports that this would be the last film from Olmi, then there was another, and another.

This time this could be his last part he has made a brief film, effective nonetheless. He takes a military outpost on the border between Italy and Austria during World War I. It is winter and the men have dug in, surviving in a trench with accommodation as well as offices for the military authorities. The men dig paths so that rations can be brought in. There are wooden barriers, wire barriers. Flares leaders go up at night.

There is a focus on the men, the responsibility of the officers, the wounded and their hallucinations, the care from the other man. Officials make a decision which the men consider wrong, that a scout needs to go out from the trench to get information about the attack. One man goes out, promised 10 lire for his efforts, but he is shot almost immediately. Another volunteers but strips himself of his rank and then shoots himself.

Then begin the bombardments, exceedingly heavy, and the decision is made that the men retreat. The new young officer makes decisions, the men go down the hill, others remaining to care for the wounded.
The Chaplain is glimpsed, giving blessings to the sick, their burial, for those retreating – and some dialogue criticising the role of the absent God, the wicked God.

Early in the film, a soldier sings, bringing some soothing to the men. Later the young Lieutenant asks the singer to sing again but he refuses, saying that it is not in the regulations and that singing is for happy situations.

The film is reminiscent of such films as Paths of Glory, the picture of warfare, the ordinary men, and the bad decisions of officers. There is a pessimistic ending the soldier commenting that all this activity and heroism will be forgotten.

1. World War I, 100 years later, the roles of Italy and Austria?

2. The work of the director, over 60 years making films, the scope of his films, humanity?

3. This film as small-scale, an episode in war, the harshness of war, the dead and wounded, the ultimate retreat?

4. The visuals, the muted colour, much seeming black and white? The outpost, in the snow, the trees, the special tree, the larch, and it being imagined as gold, then and burning? The wires and posts? The interiors, the trenches, accommodation, offices, the rations?

5. The emotion of the musical score?

6. The overview, the snow, shovelling a path for the rations? The soldier singing, the response of the men, encouraging him?

7. The situation at the front, winter, the bombardment, the snipers, orders and communications? Persuading men to volunteer, the family man and the promise of 10 lire, his almost immediately dying? The man letting go of his rank, shooting himself? The critique of the orders?

8. The officer, his decision, the young lieutenant, responsibilities? Especially for the retreat, commanding the Sgt to help the men down? His wanting the soldier to sing, but its not being part of regulations? Singing for those who were happy?

9. The fever, illness, hallucinations? The soldiers and their care for one another, concern?

10. The vividness of the bombardment, the flares, the amount of destruction, the dead and wounded, the digging of the mine under the outpost?

11. The role of the chaplain, blessing the men, at the bombardment and the retreat, the funerals? The comments about God, the wicked God, God’s absence, God being where he was sought?

12. The retreat, the soldiers going down the hill in file?

13. Those remaining, tending the wounded?

14. Ordinary men, forced into war, wanting to go home? The effects, the trauma, taking the war back with them? Their service to their country?

15. The final comment, the sufferings of war? But then being forgotten?

 

 

 

ELSER

Germany, 2015, 110 minutes, Colour.
Christian Friedel, Katharina Schuttler, Johan Von Bulow, Burghardt Klaussner.
Directed by Oliver Hirschbirgel.

Oliver Hirschbirgel’s, Downfall, showing the last days of Hitler, was a great international success though causing some controversy in Germany with its picture of Hitler, indicating some more humane aspects of his behaviour. Hirschbirgel had already made quite an impression with his feature debut, The Experiment.

After several years making films abroad, The Invasion and the portrait of Princess Diana, Diana, both of which were not well received, he returned to Germany to make this film about the era of National Socialism.

The subject is Georg Elser, a man in his 30s, seemingly quiet, interested in folk music, a touch of the womaniser and his work in the town in the Jura Mountains. The film opens with his setting up a bomb in a hall in Munich, timed to assassinate Hitler as he made an address. It is 1938.

However, the attempt to kill Hitler was a failure, with Hitler leaving the room 13 minutes earlier than anticipated. Elser is caught, interrogated with torture, threatened by bringing his lover into the interrogation, but his never giving up any information. Hitler thought that it was a conspiracy and would not believe that it was the work of one man – with Else spending some time explaining the bomb and his skills to the interrogators.

The film offers flashbacks to his character, his mother, life in the town, his music, the clashes with National Socialists, the birth of the child and its death. Elser was condemned to Dachau and was executed just before the liberation of the camp.

Christian Friedel gives a convincing performance and the film makes the point that while attention is given to Von Stauffenberg and his attempt to kill Hitler, and people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer are held in high regard, with films made about Sophie Scholl and others who resisted, Elser was often considered something of an eccentric loner. This film rehabilitates his memory.

1. German cinema and the treatment of Hitler and National Socialism and the consequences?

2. The title, the focus on the character, his attempt to kill Hitler, the 13 minutes and the failure?

3. The period, the 1930s, the town and the workers, homes, inns, National Socialism? The detail of the town life? Munich? The police, the Gestapo, interrogations, torture? Scenes at Dachau? The musical score?

4. The opening, the details of Elser’s placing the bomb? The Assembly, Hitler‘s speech, the audience, acclaim? The streets, Elser being caught, the police, the blood on his hands, his knees, the documents? His waiting for the explosion, its happening but his not knowing the result? Hitler leaving 13 minutes earlier?

5. The interrogations and the torture, graphic, crude, the beatings, the burning, Elser being sick? The cell, small, the crucifix, his focus, praying, the Lord’s prayer? His refusal to give any information? His strength? The authorities bringing in Elsa? The authorities not believing him, his detailed explanations, drawing? The police chief believing him? The irony of the photo and its being posed for propaganda purposes and Elser agreeing?

6. Elser’s story, his past, family, at home, joining the folklore group, his love of music, playing at the dances? His work as a carpenter, the detail? The communists in the town? The National Socialists? The rowdy young men, the violence in the streets, bashings? The bars? Card games? Elser and his attraction to women, flirtatious? Seeing Elsa, talking with his mother, his decision to board with Elsa, Erich and his brutality, bashing his wife? Her pregnancy? Elser and the birth of the child, his joy? The baby dying? His decision to leave, taking the photo of Elsa, the secretary quietly giving it to him?

7. Nebe, hard, the interrogation, his observations, believing Elser, signing for the chemicals for torture? The irony of his being hanged? His support of the plot against Hitler 1944?

8. Muller, cruel? His assistants and their torturing?

9. Elser and his explanation to the authorities, Hitler wanting to know more, believing that it was a conspiracy?

10. Elser, his speech about the future, National Socialism, the effect on people, the Jews, poverty, the workers, wages and their diminishing, the consequences of war, France and England, the annexation of Poland, the bombings of Germany?

11. His imprisonment in Dachau, the charge, signing the document, his execution?

12. His reputation, some considering him as not heroic? The rehabilitation of his reputation?

 

 

BIG FATHER, SMALL FATHER, AND OTHER STORIES/ CHA VA, CON VA

Vietnam, 2015, 100 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Phang Dang Di

A film from which takes on quite a lot of stories, as indicated by the title. Most of them are connected, but there are some which seem to be introduced at random.

The most impressive aspect of the film is its picture of life along the river, the various huts, the boats, the people and their different ways of life, some working, some unemployed, some students, especially the central character who wants to be a photographer. The film also presents some of the sleazy aspects of life, especially the clubs, the women and their seductive dancing, the group dancing men, along the lines of Broadway musical. There are also gangs, fights, and some of the characters taking refuge in the countryside. There are also issues of homosexual orientation.

The picture of Vietnam is quite effective – but there are many more films which bring the country to life more strongly and interestingly.

1. The title, the stories, moving from one to another? By association, characters, narrative, tensions, the overall impact?

2. The river, the boats, the huts, homes? The city, the clubs, gangs, the music in the cafe, selling candy? The ballet rehearsals? The cabaret songs and dances? The audiences?

3. The country, the jungle, the river, the boat, the mountains, activities, cooking, meals, sleeping, sharing? The people of the village?

4. The interlude with the foreigners, the girls and the mud spa, the girl caught in the spa, the shower not working – the meaning and purpose of this story?

5. Vu, the focus, his camera work, developing the films, the gift from his father, its being broken at the club, his friend getting a new one, fool and his refusal because of the origins of the money? The poses, with the apple? Vu and his age, at home, the men and women in the household, the friends? At the clubs, observing? Going to the country, sharing? The father, urging him to drink, wanting his sexual initiation? His homosexual tendencies, the discussion with the woman? His relationship with, a future?

6. The range of men, at home, friends, brothers, at the club, the bartender, the court’s men in their performances with the girl, the gang arriving, smashing the bar? Thang and his borrowing the money? The music in the streets, the girl selling the candy? The intrusion, the bashing? Escapes? The effect of the time outside the city? Vu and his meeting with Thang again, the discussions, the brutal bashing, hospital? The restlessness?

7. The women, love, performance at the club, ‘s boys, sexual activity, cooking, being secondary and society? The father, good man, hard man, with his son, the gift of the camera, his concerns, with the woman, the sexual initiation, seeing the couple in the boat and his rocking it?

8. The issue of sterilisation, declarations that there were children and the need for being sterile, lining up, the calling of names, interview, the questions, lies the money grant? Vu and his decision to follow through?

9. Vietnamese life in the city, in the 21st century, the history of colonialism, the Vietnam war, the presence of the Americans, drugs and prostitution, a modern view – hopeful or not?

DALTRY CALHOUN

US, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Johnny Knoxville, Elizabeth Banks, Juliette Lewis, Sophie Traub, David Koechner, Kick Gurry, Andrew Prine, Beth Grant.
Directed by Katrina Holden Bronson.

Daltry Calhoun is a small film, an American fable from the South. What is surprising is the performance by Johnny Knoxville in the title role, rough and exaggerated at first, fulfilling audience expectations, but, as the film develops, a more real and likeable character.

The focus is on June, his young daughter with May, Elizabeth Banks. May and Daltry are together when she is 14 but her mother intervenes and he leaves. Over the years, mother and daughter have looked for him and finally find him, prosperous, well respected in the town, developing golf courses. However, he is in financial straits, selling all his furniture. He employs Frank, Australian Kick Gurry, to remedy the growth of weeds in the golf courses which he relies on the for his finances.

June, Sophie Straub, is a precocious young woman, with a talent in music, wanting to go to study in Juilliard. She realises the situation and relates well with Daltry, is sexually provocative with Frank, becomes friends with Flora, Juliette Lewis, a widow who works at Daltry’s shop and who will marry him, becoming June’s stepmother. There is an unexpectedly sympathetic performance from David Koechner as Doyle, the handyman around the place who cannot read, with June teaching him.

The film was directed by Katrina Holden Bronson, adopted daughter of Charles Bronson.

1. An American fable? Real, surreal?

2. The settings in the American South, southern story, characters? Tennessee?

3. The locations, homes, the towns, the mansion, the golf courses? Shops? The musical score?

4. The title, the character, played by Johnny Knoxville, the first impressions, changing, prosperity?

5. The voice-over, June and her perspective? Origins, with her mother, on the move, settling down, her age, wanting to go to Julliard? Her appearance, glasses, plaits? Skill with music? The attraction to Frank, talking with him, the sexual approach, his veering away? Her relationship with her mother, her mother’s illness and death?

6. Her mother, young, knowledge of literature, with Daltry at age 14, the tough mother, her challenging him, his leaving, she left with her daughter, their wandering, discovering where he was, the return, the bond with Daltry? With Flora, talking with Flora, going to the shop, the two women bonding? Her death?

7. Frank, his job, expertise, the golf course, the grasses, the elimination of the problem, June and her attraction, his not wanting to respond to her? The solution and his going?

8. Daltry, issues and money, his plans, the golf courses, his respect in the town, the people in favour? His financial losses? The assistants, taking the furniture, selling everything? Daltry’s fortunes going down? Frank and success, the recovery?

9. Doyle, slow, his place in the household, with each of the characters, June, teaching him to read and write? His help?

10. Flora, in herself, widow, a strong personality, work in the shop, the attraction to Daltry, the good relationship with June’s mother, June and their being able to relate to Flora?

11. Final success, a fable where good can come from great difficulties?

50 SHADES OF GREY

US, 2015, 119 minutes, Colour.
Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dorman, Jennifer Ehle, Eloise Mumford, Victor Rasuk, Hayward, Marcia Gay Harden.
Directed by Sam Taylor- Johnson.

Notoriety and big box-office.

By 2005, readers the world over were indulging in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, millions of them. And then came the movie version with everybody going to see it. 10 years later, everybody seems to be reading or have read 50 Shades of Grey (but not this reviewer). More than a ready market for the movie version. And here it is.

Different groups have had some negative reactions. Those concerned about sexual morality question the behaviour of the characters, especially with the issues of dominance and submissiveness in sexual interactions. Many concerned about sexual violence, especially towards women, consider that this is a story about a male exploiting a woman for his own gratification – and, to a large extent, it is.

But, in many ways, it is not a film to get to het up about. It is not as if we have not seen this kind of behaviour on screen before – there was Nine and ½ Weeks almost 30 years ago, quite explicit and contentious for its time. Themes of bondage and dominance have been present in many films, perhaps not so much in American films but, certainly, in those from continental Europe.

The film is a variation on adult men and women, sexual attraction and behaviour, dominance and freedom.

Christian Grey (Jamie Dorman) does not seem exactly like your ordinary citizen. Not only is he good-looking, he is a billionaire, controlling a company, shown to be effective in business, from a respectable family, and dreamworld character rather than a character who seems real. Anastasia (Dakota Johnson) does seem a little more real. She has a loving father who turns up to her graduation. She has a loving mother, although she is on her fourth husband and cannot make it to the graduation, but keeps contact by phone and a visit from Anastasia. Anastasia is studying literature at the University, has a roommate who gossips, and has been holding herself back in terms of relationships. Awkwardly stepping in to do an interview for her roommate with Christian, she is smitten, infatuated, flattered by his attentions (which include helicopter rides, new clothes, an expensive car, a trip in a glider…). And falls in love.

Christian, in Jung’s psychological terms, is the epitome of the introverted decisive type who is focused completely on the detail of the present and seems in no way subjective in his approach to decision making – and his conversations with Anastasia are straightforward, even blunt, certainly not good at humour or jokes. And, of all things, he hands Anastasia a multi-page contract about the relationship, his dominance, her submission, the rules and possible punishment (but she does reject some clauses). Some of these scenes are serious, seriously ludicrous.

There is a revelation that as a 15-year-old boy, Christian was seduced by a friend of his mother and involved in this kind of dominant-submissive sexual relationship, He the submissive, finding it liberating, so he says.

Many of the scenes in the film are quite ordinary, Anastasia and her work, her graduation, her visit to her mother, a meal with Christian’s parents… However, whether out of interest from reading the book or whether from touches of prurient curiosity, it is the sex scenes (rather restrained in comparison with many other films) that draw in the audiences.

It might be difficult to let go of 50 Shades of Grey because there are another two novels in the trilogy.

1. The popularity and notoriety of the novels? Sales? Audience?

2. Motivations for seeing the film, curiosity, prurience, sexual, dominant/submissive? A satisfying film experience?

3. The comparisons, how graphic paragraph the nudity, sexual activity, less or more than many films? Bondage film?

4. The issues of the role of women, in relationship to the Grey type, handsome, the billionaire, success in business, exercising power and control, his prestige and that of his family, his bearing? Attraction, infatuation, love? The revelation of the dominance – with the touch of the ludicrous in the punishments?

5. The role of men, self-assurance, family background, wealth, business, control? “It’s who I am… What I want.” Respectful to women or not? Choosing women, as objects, for pleasure? Dominance and the issues of a contract, of what is allowable or not, the rules, punishment, gratification?

6. The screenplay and the novel being accused of promoting an abusive attitude and abuse of women? Issues of power over women? The women’s response, freedom and consent?

7. Anastasia, the irony of her name being Steel? Her father and his love, coming to her graduation, contact with her? The contrast with her mother, four husbands? The phone calls to her mother, visiting her mother, her mother not coming to the graduation? An ordinary young woman, the study of literature, her roommate, going to the interview in her stead, reaction to Grey, attracted to Christian? His interest, their talk, the invitations, sending the answers for the interview? The gift of the first editions of Hardy? Her reaction? The questions from her roommate, careful about the answers? The ride in the helicopter, the clothes, the gift of the new car?

8. Christian? his age, the revelation of his being seduced as a boy, the dominance by the family friend, still in contact with her, meals, advice?

9. Inviting Anastasia to his home, the Playroom and her reaction? His coming to the shop, buying the goods, her working in the shop? Sending his driver? Sharing with her, the meals? His graduation speech, his words to her, the photos? Anastasia and her drinking, staying the night?

10. The visit from Christian’s mother, meeting Anastasia, invitation to dinner, their hopes that their son would settle down with the woman, his father? The party, Elliot, his being with the roommate, going back, the sexual encounter? At the dinner?

11. Issues of pressure, freedom, sexual activity, variations, the effect on Anastasia? Her room, sleeping in the room, Christian not used to sleeping in the same bed as his partner? The pressure of the contract?

12. The meetings, the discussions of the clauses, Anastasia excluding some issues, not giving her consent?

13. Christian and his dominant behaviour, Anastasia and the rules, the possibilities for punishment? denouncing her visit to Savannah, his following her, in the air and the gliding?

14. His timetable, sexual encounters, the room, punishing Anastasia, the beatings, making her count? Her decision, never again?

15. The end, her refusal, yet her falling in love, his changing her, his saying that she had changed him? The final encounter in the elevator?

16. Three novels – what future do Christian and Anastasia have?

TO KILL A KING

UK, 2003, 102 minutes, Colour.
Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, Olivia Williams, James Bolam, Corin Redgrave, Rupert Everett.
Directed by Mike Barker.

Cromwell and Fairfax was the original tide of the film released as To Kill a King. Perhaps Cromwell and Fairfax sounded too much like a buddy movie, two cowboys, two policemen, two petty criminals. The title, To Kill a King, however, brings out the latent republicanism in all of us! While Charles I is executed in the film, the focus is not on the fate of the monarch who saw his authority as absolute by divine right but on the two generals who led the revolt against the King and created a short-¬lived republic in England.

A personal note on the fascination with Cromwell - not just my Irish ancestry! When I was majoring in History in Canberra during the 1960s, our professor, Manning Clark, a legend because of his imaginative and insightful writings on Australian history, was on sabbatical for two terms. His substitute was a professor of English history whose specialty, unexpectedly surprising for us, was the history of the Rump Parliament and the Commonwealth. We spent the two terms avoiding the Royalist writings whose post-1660s anti-Cromwell views coloured subsequent received English history. We had to read the Puritan texts, books and letters, which glorified Cromwell and Fairfax as patriots and heroes.

In 1970 came Ken Hughes' Cromwell with Richard Harris as Cromwell and Alec Guinness as Charles I. It was a version that was generally pro-Puritan, a film that would have given support to those who helped promote Cromwell to the ranks of the ten top Britons in the BBC-sponsored survey in 2002.

Now more than thirty years after Cromwell comes To Kill A King. This version seems to be anti-Cromwell, anti-Charles I and pro-Thomas Fairfax. In fact, some reviewers commented on the presentation of Cromwell's cruelty, stating that he was less brutal and intolerant in real life. This might need to be modified by the Irish and the Scots. Reviewers also noted a homoeroticism in the relationship between the two men. at least on the part of Cromwell who seems inordinately jealous of Fairfax's wife, Anne, and who refers several times to how Thomas is loved by the people and how he had a pretty face. But that would take us down Freudian paths, whereas, we are following Jung and personality type here.

What Cromwell and Fairfax would identify with in Type terms in real life is something historians might help us with. Our immediate concern is with how screenwriter, Jenny Mayhew, and director, Mike Barker, interpret them. Both are energised by politics, military action and the support of the people. While they are outgoing, both of them have a strong liking for introversion, for stepping back into their private worlds, as well. Both are decisive. They receive acclaim as strong generals, Fairfax being especially successful in his tactics for victory. The structure of the plot and their interactions present them as down-to-earth, living very much in the present, whether it be on the battlefield or in the halls of government. Cromwell himself, a far more politically shrewd character than Fairfax, seems more intuituve.

Both are men of strong principles. Their criteria for decision-making arc based on authenticity and truth. As the film progresses with Fairfax as hero, having to face the actions of the Parliament and of Cromwell in bringing down Charles I, he is tormented by the dilemmas of his patriotic principles and his innate sense of justice for all. He does make some decisions, especially urging the Speaker of the House, Denzil Holies (James Bolam), to escape to France with his family. At the end, when he sees that Cromwell needs to be stopped, even assassinated, his long loyalty and love for Cromwell cannot allow the new tyrant to be killed, even though he had set up the attempt.
Cromwell, on the other hand, is drawn as going in the opposite direction to Fairfax. A loyal second in command in the field, he assumes more power.


On further reflection, Fairfax, played by a very dignified Dougray Scott, becomes ever more heroic, perhaps saintly, even at die end when he decides that Cromwell must be killed. In fact, the portrait of Fairfax is one of a man comfortable in himself, able to act appropriately while acknowledging the moral complexities of a transition from monarchy to republic. He also moves towards his opposites, more introverted and retiring as he returns to has Yorkshire estate when Cromwell becomes Lord Protector, less prone to take action, realising the complexities of what he has set in motion and, with the love of his wife (Olivia Williams) and his desire for children, tempering his strong stances with love and sympathy. He is presented as a hero and as an ideal, not perfect, but a man of integrity.

And what of Charles I? He is played intelligently by an almost unrecognisable Rupert Everett (though his height is apparently a foot taller than that of Charles I in actuality - with Tim Roth far shorter than the real Cromwell). Charles is presented as a man of dignity with such faith in his authority and its sanction by God that anything else is, for him, inconceivable. He is played as shrewd in politicking, with sensitivity towards his friends, but someone so conditioned by his society and his royal heritage that it is difficult to read him as a whole personality. His death scene is played as a tragedy, the death of a man with a fatal flaw, but one who to execution with great dignity and bearing.

What finally emerges from the film and from his voiceover comments is that Fairfax is a good man.

1. Audience interest in British history? Knowledge of the period? How well did the film supply information?

2. The period, of Charles I, of Cromwell? 17th-century Britain? Costumes, decor, sets? The presentation of the Royalists? Of the Puritans? Lifestyle, ways of dressing, manners? The musical score?

3. The sympathies of the screenplay? For Charles? For Oliver Cromwell? For Fairfax? Each of their stances?

4. The original title, Cromwell and Fairfax? This title and the focus on Charles I, the intentions of the Puritans? The challenging of the Divine Right of Kings? Cromwell and Fairfax as friends, allies, common enemies?

5. Charles I, his character, Divine Right, his sense of inheritance? His stances on the monarchy, on Parliament? The clash with Cromwell? The encounters with Lady Fairfax, as an ally? The range of supporters, the nobility? His imprisonment, his bearing in prison, the condemnation, his execution?

6. Parliament, the settings, the views of the members? The Royalists and traditions? The revolutionaries and their egalitarian approach? The sittings, the speeches?

7. Denzil Holies, his role, loyalties, family, providing for the King, the King providing an escape?

8. Cromwell, as a character, his background, a hard man, his family, the warts and all approach? Politics? Military? His command of men? His relationship to Fairfax, their collaboration, the battles, their differences? Cromwell himself, the preview to his government?

9. Fairfax, his character, his role, his politics, his loyalties? The troops and battles? His wife? His leadership as a decent man? His attitude towards the King’s death? To Cromwell and his leadership?

10. The recreation of the period, the atmosphere, understanding the issues of the time and the consequences?

50 SHADES OF GREY

US, 2015, 119 minutes, Colour.
Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dorman, Jennifer Ehle, Eloise Mumford, Victor Rasuk, Hayward, Marcia Gay Harden.
Directed by Sam Taylor- Johnson.

Notoriety and big box-office.

By 2005, readers the world over were indulging in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, millions of them. And then came the movie version with everybody going to see it. 10 years later, everybody seems to be reading or have read 50 Shades of Grey (but not this reviewer). More than a ready market for the movie version. And here it is.

Different groups have had some negative reactions. Those concerned about sexual morality question the behaviour of the characters, especially with the issues of dominance and submissiveness in sexual interactions. Many concerned about sexual violence, especially towards women, consider that this is a story about a male exploiting a woman for his own gratification – and, to a large extent, it is.

But, in many ways, it is not a film to get to het up about. It is not as if we have not seen this kind of behaviour on screen before – there was Nine and ½ Weeks almost 30 years ago, quite explicit and contentious for its time. Themes of bondage and dominance have been present in many films, perhaps not so much in American films but, certainly, in those from continental Europe.

The film is a variation on adult men and women, sexual attraction and behaviour, dominance and freedom.

Christian Grey (Jamie Dorman) does not seem exactly like your ordinary citizen. Not only is he good-looking, he is a billionaire, controlling a company, shown to be effective in business, from a respectable family, and dreamworld character rather than a character who seems real. Anastasia (Dakota Johnson) does seem a little more real. She has a loving father who turns up to her graduation. She has a loving mother, although she is on her fourth husband and cannot make it to the graduation, but keeps contact by phone and a visit from Anastasia. Anastasia is studying literature at the University, has a roommate who gossips, and has been holding herself back in terms of relationships. Awkwardly stepping in to do an interview for her roommate with Christian, she is smitten, infatuated, flattered by his attentions (which include helicopter rides, new clothes, an expensive car, a trip in a glider…). And falls in love.

Christian, in Jung’s psychological terms, is the epitome of the introverted decisive type who is focused completely on the detail of the present and seems in no way subjective in his approach to decision making – and his conversations with Anastasia are straightforward, even blunt, certainly not good at humour or jokes. And, of all things, he hands Anastasia a multi-page contract about the relationship, his dominance, her submission, the rules and possible punishment (but she does reject some clauses). Some of these scenes are serious, seriously ludicrous.

There is a revelation that as a 15-year-old boy, Christian was seduced by a friend of his mother and involved in this kind of dominant-submissive sexual relationship, He the submissive, finding it liberating, so he says.

Many of the scenes in the film are quite ordinary, Anastasia and her work, her graduation, her visit to her mother, a meal with Christian’s parents… However, whether out of interest from reading the book or whether from touches of prurient curiosity, it is the sex scenes (rather restrained in comparison with many other films) that draw in the audiences.

It might be difficult to let go of 50 Shades of Grey because there are another two novels in the trilogy.

1. The popularity and notoriety of the novels? Sales? Audience?

2. Motivations for seeing the film, curiosity, prurience, sexual, dominant/submissive? A satisfying film experience?

3. The comparisons, how graphic paragraph the nudity, sexual activity, less or more than many films? Bondage film?

4. The issues of the role of women, in relationship to the Grey type, handsome, the billionaire, success in business, exercising power and control, his prestige and that of his family, his bearing? Attraction, infatuation, love? The revelation of the dominance – with the touch of the ludicrous in the punishments?

5. The role of men, self-assurance, family background, wealth, business, control? “It’s who I am… What I want.” Respectful to women or not? Choosing women, as objects, for pleasure? Dominance and the issues of a contract, of what is allowable or not, the rules, punishment, gratification?

6. The screenplay and the novel being accused of promoting an abusive attitude and abuse of women? Issues of power over women? The women’s response, freedom and consent?

7. Anastasia, the irony of her name being Steel? Her father and his love, coming to her graduation, contact with her? The contrast with her mother, four husbands? The phone calls to her mother, visiting her mother, her mother not coming to the graduation? An ordinary young woman, the study of literature, her roommate, going to the interview in her stead, reaction to Grey, attracted to Christian? His interest, their talk, the invitations, sending the answers for the interview? The gift of the first editions of Hardy? Her reaction? The questions from her roommate, careful about the answers? The ride in the helicopter, the clothes, the gift of the new car?

8. Christian? his age, the revelation of his being seduced as a boy, the dominance by the family friend, still in contact with her, meals, advice?

9. Inviting Anastasia to his home, the Playroom and her reaction? His coming to the shop, buying the goods, her working in the shop? Sending his driver? Sharing with her, the meals? His graduation speech, his words to her, the photos? Anastasia and her drinking, staying the night?

10. The visit from Christian’s mother, meeting Anastasia, invitation to dinner, their hopes that their son would settle down with the woman, his father? The party, Elliot, his being with the roommate, going back, the sexual encounter? At the dinner?

11. Issues of pressure, freedom, sexual activity, variations, the effect on Anastasia? Her room, sleeping in the room, Christian not used to sleeping in the same bed as his partner? The pressure of the contract?

12. The meetings, the discussions of the clauses, Anastasia excluding some issues, not giving her consent?

13. Christian and his dominant behaviour, Anastasia and the rules, the possibilities for punishment? denouncing her visit to Savannah, his following her, in the air and the gliding?

14. His timetable, sexual encounters, the room, punishing Anastasia, the beatings, making her count? Her decision, never again?

15. The end, her refusal, yet her falling in love, his changing her, his saying that she had changed him? The final encounter in the elevator?

16. Three novels – what future do Christian and Anastasia have?

KNIGHT OF CUPS

US, 2015, 118 minutes, Colour.
Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Antonio Banderas, Brian Dennehy, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Isabel Lucas, Teresa Palmer, Freida Pinto, Jason Clarke, Michael WincottI, Ryan O' Neal. Voices of: John Gielgud, Ben Kingsley.
Directed by Terence Malick.

In recent years, many audiences and, certainly, many movie buffs, have been eagerly anticipating the films of Terence Malick. He made an extraordinary impact in the 1970s with Badlands and Days of Heaven, interest in American narratives, but a greater focus on cinematography, especially the beauty of American landscapes. And then he didn’t make a film until The Thin Red Line in 1998. Since then, he has been a little more prolific with The New World and then, amazing many audiences and critics with The Tree of Life.

There was a huge cosmic focus with The Tree of Life and Malik has always been interested in exploring the more transcendent aspects of human experience. This was important for To the Wonder.

With The Knight of Cups, opinion is rather divided. Once again, the narrative is not as important as the visual imagery, symbolism, interior monologues, the meaning of the society and culture portrayed. Even the actors seem to concur that they were not really in the know about the development of the plot but were given instructions each day on what they might do on the set. For many, this kind of improvisation is impressive. For those with more traditional expectations, even conventional, this kind of filmmaking seems extraordinarily meandering, sometimes puzzling, maybe even inconclusive. But, for those who are impressed by this, The Knight of Cups seems to be another Malik masterpiece.

At the opening, there are quotations from Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress, with the voice of John Gielgud, and then a reference to a fable where a father lets his son go to search for meaning but fails. Throughout the film, there is voice-over from Ben Kingsley.

The film is set, of all places, in Los Angeles, in Hollywood, not an expected Malik setting. His character, Rick, played by Christian Bale, is a writer, not one who is struggling (and that is one of the main points) but who has achieved a great deal, is accepted, moves comfortably through Hollywood society, lavish parties, discussions with agents and a range of LA types. And that is what we see and hear him doing. The fact is that, while he has been successful, it has not been enough. He wants more because there seems to be a void in his life, even in the centre of his character.

While he meanders, he experiences a great number of flashbacks, through which he tries to explain himself to himself – as does Malik try to explain him to the audience. One of the principal areas of flashback is to his father, a hard man, who has treated his sons harshly but also seems to want to be forgiven. He is played strongly by Brian Dennehy. His son who is a failure, played by Wes Bentley, has a great number of encounters with Rick, but it is hard to tell what are the outcomes.

At a party, where many celebrities can be glimpsed if you are alert, with celebrities like Ryan O’ Neal, there are discussions with an eager producer, played by Antonio Banderas.

And then there are the women (three Australian actresses being prominent among them). The most interesting and significant is his former wife, played by Cate Blanchett, a doctor with social concerns, seen working with disfigured people, and trying to have straightforward conversations with Rick. Then there is a married woman, pregnant, played by Natalie Portman, a sympathetic woman. Sympathetic can also be used to describe the stripper (Teresa Palmer) whom he encounters in a club but tries to open his eyes beyond himself. This is the case with some of the other women, including Isabel Lucas, and his visit to Japan to a Buddhist Centre. Malik has focused on Christian, even Catholic, themes and this is the case, late in the film, where Rick goes to consult a priest, played by Armin Mueller- Stahl.

But Rick spends a lot of time on his own, wandering, walking meditatively along the beach (and there are quite a number of water sequences and symbols in the film).

Now whether audiences want to spend all this time with Rick depends on their response to Malik and his filmmaking. Expectation should be that there will not really be any or many solutions, but rather, explorations.

1. The career of Terence Malick, audience expectations? The narrative/exploration? Visual beauty, poet? Nature, the human? The inner void and desires? Achievement and wanting more? Transcendence? The family and the cosmos in Tree of Life? Going beyond in To the Wonder?

2. The title, the stories? The differing narratives, Pilgrim’s Progress and the Slough of Despair (enjoying the Gielgud narration)? The King and his son, the search for the Pearl, forgetting the quest? The Los Angeles settings, Hollywood, Santa Monica, screenwriting? The contrast with Japan and the Buddhist Centre? The church, the priest and his advice? The flashbacks? Forgiveness and grace? The boy?

3. The photography, beauty, life in Hollywood, the parties, the agents? The scenes of nature, the range? The emphasis on water? Swimming, the sea, the dog in the water? The musical score?

4. Rick as the focus, Christian Bale’s presence, performance, age, experience, success, every material wish fulfilled? The opportunities, the invitations, parties and society? The business world? Writing? Mixing with the people, enjoying the company, wandering?

5. The opening, nature, the narrative, the return to nature? Sea, desert, the effect?

6. Los Angeles, the open vistas, the skyscrapers, interiors and lavish buildings? American world achievement?

7. Rick, the memories of his father, the flashbacks, the treatment of his brother, the dead brother? The father, old, severe, his pride? His mother? Scenes of forgiveness, prayer?

8. Rick’s brother, as a person, with Rick, the sharing, joys, angers, memories of the father?

9. The range of women in Rick’s life? Beautiful, glamorous women? Passions? The sequences with his wife, conversations, seeing her more clearly, the walk, the talking, the past, her work in the hospital, the care of the deformed men? Leaving, loving Rick, her later reappearance?

10. Natalie Portman, the attraction, sharing, love, the pregnancy, the consequences?

11. The stripper, the club, cheerful, with Rick? Questioning him, her vitality? The other glamorous women, all sharing?

12. Tonio, the agent, the, his talk, the background, the range of guests, actor’s interest?

13. Japan, the commitment, the explanation about the Ministry, the Buddhist vision?

14. Rick going to the church, priest, his vestments, his comments about forgiveness and grace? The role of the church?

15. The future for Rick, on the road – material expectations gained? His void? The language and the symbols of transcendence?

AFERIM!

Romania, 2015, 108 minutes, Black and white.
Teodor Corban, Mihal Comanolu, Cuzin Toma.
Directed by Radu Jude.

This is a harsh film, depicting some of Romania’s history, in 1835, in a remote area, under the power of the Ottoman Empire, but also ruled by the local authorities, the boyars, trying to maintain order in a rough society and be loyal to the Turks.

The framework of the film is a journey by a local constable and his son, his apprentice, searching for a runaway gypsy who has stolen money from the boyar. In fact, the man is innocent, and has been accused because he has had a sexual relationship with the boyar’s wife.

With graphic black and white photography, the film shows the journey of the two men, the different communities that they encounter, including an Orthodox monastery where gypsies have been employed to work, a river where gypsies pan for gold, encountering a travelling monk and fixing the wheel of his cart while he gives an extraordinary and belligerent summation of prejudices in Romanian society, especially against the Jews, with strange interpretation of Jewish giants, but following through with a criticism of the major countries of Europe. Father and son have many conversations illuminating how society was at the time.

They pay a bribe to a neighbouring authority who gives information about where the gypsy could be found and they follow through to the village. However, they are somewhat sympathetic to the gypsy when they eventually find him. They stay the night in the village for a rather raucous time of drinking and sexual activity.

By the end of their journey, they are back home, presenting their captive to the boyar, the wife being made to confess, a fierce and shocking punishment for the gypsy, and life returning to normal.

This is a striking reminder of how human nature is prone to barbarity along with its gentle qualities.

1. Romania? 1835? Wallachia? The title of the film and its meaning and use of the dialogue?

2. Black-and-white photography, stark, the credits and the quivering tree? The hill, the plains, the sheep on the road, forests, swamps, the villages, the panning for gold, poverty? The Gypsy camps? The tail? Costumes, decor, the musical score?

3. 1835, the politics for Romania, the influence of the Turks, the Ottoman Empire, the influence of the Russians? The local chiefs? Their authority? The constable and his assistant? The role of the military?

4. A harsh film, harsh times, the land, the rough dialogue, the shouting and yelling, the brutality?

5. The revelation of the national and religious prejudice? The gypsies and their being called crows? The disdain of the Orthodox Church? The gypsies as slaves? The travelling monk, the constable fixing his carriage wheel? The dialogue, the prejudice against the Jews? His outbursts about Jews, the Jewish giants, all the other nations and detrimental comments? The brutal outlook? But seeing the Romanians as victims?

6. The constable and his quest, on the hill, the conversation between father and son, the role of the constable, his son as the assistant? The son and his practising his sword movements, the tree trunk? His father considering him girly? Pampered by his mother? The father’s hopes, the military career, training, the police work, the sexual initiation in the town? The travel and the search for the gypsy, Carfin?

7. The discussions about the plague and its effect, the descriptions of the dead, meeting the old woman with the cart, denouncing her for having cholera? The sheep on the road? The continued travel, resting, going to the village, hunting the gypsies, the monastery, the Abbott, the questioning, the brutal methods, the monks as overlords, going to the camp with the gypsies panning the gold?

8. In the forest, the fisherman, getting the fish, paying him?

9. Going through the swamps, turning back? Encountering the neighbouring authorities? The payoff for information, going to the village, searching the houses, finding the young boy hidden, the discovery of Carfin? His being taken?

10. Nights in the village, eating and drinking, talking, Carfin and his being bound, getting something to eat? The memories of the war, the father and his own youth? Sending his son for his sexual encounter? His own sexual encounter and impotence? The stories of pillaging and raping?

11. The return with Carfin, in the stocks? Accusing boyar’s wife, forcing her to confess?

12. The boyar arriving, his pomp, his hat and robes? The constable and his audience with him? The promoting the cause of Carfin? The official document?
The boyar and his threats? Taking the situation into his own hand? The brutality of the castration, his treatment of his wife?

13. The aftermath, the return home, the son and his future?

14. The film communicating what it was like to live at that time and in that place?

THE PEARL BUTTON/ EL BOTON DE NACAR

Chile, 2015, 82 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Patricio Guzman.

A very interesting documentary about Chile, from a well-renowned documentary maker, award-winning, with insights into Chile and its history.

This film, winner of the Ecumenical Award in Berlin, 2015, begins with a cosmic view, symbolised by a block of quartz which contains a drop of water, thousands of years old, with reflection on the cosmos, a reflection on water, on its significance for the world and the Chile. There also scenes of dishes facing into space, gathering information for the 21st century.

However, the director goes back in history, using a device of a group of people unrolling a long carpet-like map of the country, showing how narrow it is, with the Andes and the mountains, and the vast link and extent of the Pacific Coast and its southern islands. Guzman also highlights the original inhabitants, their way of life, the industries, fishing, and how, at the beginning of the 21st century, with British map-makers, there was an intrusion into their way of life and it changed. As with a number of indigenous cultures, the British expeditionaries took individuals to London, dressed them in English clothes, exhibiting them – but, when the individuals returned home, they took off the British clothes and returned to their old way of life.

With the historical information, with the transitions in the 19th and into the 20th century, Guzman finally arrives at the exploitation of the Chilean people, the experience of the dictatorship, the thousands of disappeared, the prisons and conditions, the killing of a number of prisoners by throwing them from planes and helicopters.

Guzman has been long interested in the dictatorship and the Pinochet experience and brings it once again vividly to life in the context of Chilean history and culture.

1. Documentary from Chile, history, geography, ethnology, the colonial destruction, industry, politics?

2. Patricio Guzman and his documentary perspectives on Chile?

3. Visuals, the long coast, islands? The long, unfolding map? The musical score?

4. The block of quartz, the water drop within, history, age, reflections?

5. The significance of water? The importance of the telescopes, the dishes, detecting water in the universe?

6. The original inhabitants, the history, settlement, the centuries, fishing? The British in the 19th century, the colonial attitudes, drawing the map of the coast, taking the local man to England? Exhibiting Jerry Button? His becoming an English gentleman, his return, disrobing, going back to his native state? A symbol?

7. The colonial period, the British, the Spanish, culture, language?

8. Ecology, economy, ethnology?

9. The move to the politics of the 20th century, the dictatorship, the role of Allende and Pinochet? The military, the people disappearing, the thousands arrested, the camps? The photo of the group, the individuals? The interviews?

10. The motivation during the dictatorship? Prison, murders, people pushing victims out of planes? The body washed ashore? Identification? Wounds?

11. The historical perspectives? For Chileans? For the wider public? The world?