THANATOS, DRUNK

Taiwan, 2015, 107 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Zui Sheng Meng Si.

This drama is a slice of contemporary Taiwanese life, set in rather sleazy parts of the city of Taipei.

It opens with a young man, sitting with his alcoholic mother, long abandoned by her husband, favouring her older son who has migrated to the United States. She makes bad comparisons with the older brother for her younger son. His name is Rat.

Rat has been a good student but has fallen on bad times, becoming involved in petty crime, linked with some of the gangsters of the city. He also has a propensity for contemplating ants, and later, maggots.

His brother returns the United States, unhappy with the breakup of a partnership, becomes a dancer in a gay club, becomes infatuated with his younger brother’s good friend who, himself, is a gigolo (or, as contemptuously described by the chief gangster who has lent him money, a sperm-seller). The gigolo, despite his work, is in a relationship with a young woman who, as it emerges, is a strong controller, especially when he becomes infatuated with the gay brother. Rat is also concerned about a cousin and goes to rescue her from a situation where a client has been castrated.

The film is episodic, not always providing the links with what is happening on and off screen.

The film becomes rather bloodthirsty at the end. The gay brother and the gigolo do have an evening together, the brother decides to go back to the United States and the gigolo is angrily killed by his girlfriend. But not before he confronts the gangster chief whose thugs have bashed him and he violently kills the gangster. The mother is confronted by both her sons, talks about changing her way of life, but when reaching for a bottle of alcohol on a high shelf, she topples and is killed (Rat later finding her after some days, with many, many maggots).

She does appear momentarily in a hallucination for Rat. He seems to have turned a corner and is finally seen trying to sell vegetables market, though not reliably – and then he also has a kind of vision of the gigolo.

The film may be of interest in Taiwan but is limited in interest and in style of filmmaking for wider audiences. But, it is certainly a grim picture.

HOLY ROLLERS

US, 2010, 89 minutes, Colour.
Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Bartha, Ari Graynor, Danny A. Abeckaser, Mark Ivanir.
Directed by Kevin Asch.

Holy Rollers tends to be a phrase used for Christian denominations. This film is about the New York City Jewish community, tending to be an enclosed community, homes, rabbinic schools, synagogues, marrying within the community, working in the city in traditional industries.

The film opens in 1998 and is said to be based on a true story. The focus is on a young man, played with his usual intensity by Jesse Eisenberg, who seems destined to fulfilment within this community but who seems to have a lack of faith, or a lack of interest in the community and in religion. However, he wants to be true to his father, but has to conceal the reality of his life and his criminality – to the disappointment of his father.

The young man is tempted by a friend to do a trip to Amsterdam and back, importing ecstasy pills, on the pretext that they are medication for wealthy people. They succeed so well that he becomes not only a courier but also an organiser of other young Jewish couriers. In the meantime, he has discovered a world that he did not suspect, a world of sex and sexuality, drinking, drugs, and an avaricious building up of money.

Justin Bartha is the friend who leads him astray, succumbing to his own plans, decadence, to a kind of madness. Ultimately, the young man has to make a decision, is desperate, and, after his arrest, he and the other couriers become informants for the government, but the young man and some others sentenced to prison.

1. Based on a true story? The Jewish community in New York City? The drug world? Importation of ecstasy and distribution?

2. The New York City setting, the homes, synagogue, the streets, shops? The world of the drug dealers? Authentic feel? Musical score?

3. The focus on the Gold family, the parents, orthodox, synagogue attendance, the men and their hair and locks, at home, parents, the younger members of the family? Shmuel/Sam and his place amongst them? The earnestness of the father, his prayer and study, his supervision of his son?

4. Sam, his age, the orthodox rituals, his going to rabbinic school, the quotations from the Scriptures, the influence of the Rabbi, the influence of his father? The planned marriage? His feeling trapped? His not having a deep religious sense? And susceptible to influence?

5. Yosef, Jewish, his background, and involvement in the drug importation, his decision to invite Sam and Leon, the pretence that it was legitimate?

6. The first trip, Sam and his realising the truth, rationalising? Leon, nervous, knowing the truth, opting out? The easy way of going to Amsterdam, Yosef and his connections, the dealers? The return trip, the replies for customs, the orthodox Jews being let through more easily?

7. The world of the dealers, Jackie and the others, the clubs, Rachel, introducing Sam to an entirely different world, the contrast with his work in his father’s store, his expertise on fabrics, dealing with customers, but the interest in money – and the family’s discussion about making money?

8. Leon, moving out, his marrying the girl, the encounter with Sam at the end, sense of desperation?

9. The various trips to Amsterdam? Meeting the thugs? Sam and his using his intelligence about money deals, about investigations? His being trusted? Jackie and his liking Sam, the reminders of the Jewish tradition, Sabbath – and his phone calls to his mother?

10. Sam being introduced to alcohol, his drinking, on the plans? His eventually cutting his locks? Rachel and her being seductive, liking him? The kiss, his response? His lying to his family? Lying to the Rabbi? His father’s disappointment, ousting him?

11. Sam and his prospects within the community, religious, Rabbi, marrying into the community – and his conversations with his prospective bride?

12. Yosef, his moral collapse, trying to reassure Sam? Sam and his going to Leon, the collapse?

13. The information at the end, the Jewish students as couriers and then becoming informants for the government? The prison sentences? Seeing Sam and his discussions, in prison, at the end?

14. How interesting a glimpse into Jewish community and Jewish life? The credibility of the story, the importation of ecstasy in such numbers? The penalties?

PROJECT ALMANAC

US, 2000 106 minutes, Colour.
Jonny Weston, Sofia Black -D' Elia, Sam Lerner, Allen Evangeliste, Virginia Gardner, Amy Landecker.
Directed by Dean Israelite.

One can’t complain about a story which shows teenagers enthusiastic about science, engaging in projects, looking for scholarships so that they can continue study. In this case, the hero wants to be accepted to MIT and we see him, at the opening of the film, controlling quite elaborate experiment to submit for a scholarship. He is joined by his two friends, enthusiastic as he is, as well as his sister who is ever ready with the video camera to record everything.

This is one of those films where everything is recorded, hand-held camera even in the least likely situations, straining the credibility sometimes, using the found-footage conventions so popular since The Blair Witch Project. Sometimes this is giddiness-inducing and we might be much happier with more conventional camera work.

David (Jonny Weston) is an enthusiastic scientist, with very happy memories of his dead father who was an expert in technology. The interesting plot device, very evident in the trailers for the film, is that in looking at the video of his seventh birthday, his teenage self appears in the mirror. How could this be? Time-travel, of course!

There is also teenage romance, David admiring, from a distance, the girl of everyone’s dreams, Jessie. Fortunately, despite the reticence, she is attracted to him and joins in the development of the time travel technology. After some experiments, returning objects to one minute earlier, they are ready for the big travel. Being teenagers, or, at least, now being made to look like teenagers in American teenage movies, they opt for some silly adventures, lottery winning, exercising grudges at school and the decision to go back to a music festival and kicking up their the heels. To contribute to the romantic development, David and Jessie go to a wall where people have put answers to the question, “Before the world ends…”. This is where the two really bond. But there is a certain coolness between the two when they return.

Where is the plot to go? Obviously, David wants to remedy the situation between himself and Jessie, which leads to his continued return to the past, by himself, which is against the rules because everybody has to go together. As might be expected, especially thinking of the butterfly effect, one small change causes a chain reaction, including plane crashes and deaths…

The film gets serious at the end, the group realising the risks in going back into the past, the risks in changing things, discovering consequences – and the need to take responsibility. And no one could question this.

1. Time travel story? Teenagers, interest in science? Their experience of, the consequences?

2. The target audience for the film, the young audience, identifying with the characters, the enterprise? Teen behaviour? Study achievement?

3. The title, David and his father’s experiments?

4. The focus on science, technology, MIT and interest?

5. Hand-held camera, the found-footage genre? The credibility of the camera placement?

6. David, his age, love for his father, the party when he was seven, love for his mother, her finding work, his not wanting to sell the house? The project for MIT, the visualising of this experiment, the control? Working with his friends? With his sister and her work with the camera?

7. Searching the attic, finding his father’s experiment? Sharing with his friends and his sister? Examining the machine, seeing himself in the mirror at his party? The tests, finding the parts, stealing the hydrogen from school? Success, the experiments for one minute…?

8. The main tests, winning the lottery, school, adolescent behaviour?

9. David and the attraction to Jessie, her role in the school, popularity, talking, exchanging the bag, their liking each other, coming to the house, sharing the experiment?

10. Going back in time, the choice of La Palooza, the band, music, enjoying it? Walking along the wall with the statements, “before the world ends…” Jessica and David and their responses? The aftermath and her being more aloof?

11. The rules, that all should get together, change the past? David and his wanting to change his relationship with Jessie, going back to the wall, the different answers, kiss?

12. News of the plane accident, his friend and his being in hospital, David being involved, going again and again to change the past? The consequences?

13. His friend, his warning about the changes, the decision to destroy the machine, David going back to the party, his father, his life, the destruction?

14. The attraction of the time travel? But its being exploited, learning from mistakes, taking responsibility?

MARIPOSA

Argentina, 2050, 103 minutes, Colour.
Ailin Salas, Javier de Pietro, Julian Infantino, Malena Villa.
Directed by the Marco Berger.

The opening of the film shows a young girl carrying a baby and she soon abandons it, but sees a beautiful butterfly. The scene of abandonment is seen twice, suggesting a surrealist approach to the film. This is important because there are two parallel worlds, two parallel stories, with the characters having the same names and being played by the same performers. It is intriguing to see how hair styles and glasses can make quite a difference to the appearance of the same actor or actress.

The plot is rather simple, love between the two central characters, the difficulty being that one couple thinks they are brother and sister and so the love is forbidden – although the audience knows that they are not blood brother and sister because the girl is the abandoned baby of the opening of the film. The other couple and their romance is complicated but with a lighter touch. One of the women has a brother who is gay and makes a liaison with the other man who seems to be initially partnered with the women.

The central male character is played by the actor who appeared as the 16 year old boy in the same director's Ausente/ Absent.

That this means of the film is quite clever – although, some of the characters are not particularly engaging. However, the performances and the contrast between the two worlds retains interest.


1. An Argentinian story? The Argentinian town, the countryside? Atmosphere?

2. The title, the focus on the butterfly at the beginning? The butterfly in the glass? The girl abandoning the baby, looking at the butterfly? The baby as a butterfly?

3. The device of the screenplay, the parallel worlds, the same names, the similar behaviour, the differences? The same cast performing both characters? The different appearances, manner?

4. The opening, the girl with the baby, the scene being repeated? The touch of the surreal? The car passing, the mother seeing the child, getting out of the car, rescuing the baby? The father and mother – as seen later? The boy in the back seat, German, and the baby becoming Romina?

5. The basic story: the brother and sister (although the audience knows they are not blood brother and sister), the arguments, the taunting, the closeness, the love, the passion, the hesitations, finally consummating the love? The aftermath? The other couple, Romina on the road, the car stopping, sitting in the back with German? To hospital? The on and off friendship? Her interest in Bruno? His interest in Mariella? The talks, at the shop, the picnic? Together, the happy ending on the bike?

6. The two different characters of Romina? Different appearance? Different situations? In parallel? The same with German? Bushy hair, cropped hair with glasses?

7. Mariella, the sister, on the edge, the girlfriend of the serious German but his lack of interest in her? The other Mariella and her interest in the other German? In Bruno?

8. Bruno, girlfriends, homosexual, the advances to each of the Germans, the meeting of Mariella’s brother, the attraction, together?

9. The background of the parents, the parents who found the little girl and their care for her growing up? The other parents, casual?

10. The effect of having this parallel world, similar characters, with the serious difference of the relationships, the brother and sister element, the rather more carefree aspect of the other story?

DANIEL’S WORLD

Czech Republic, 2014, 75 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Veronika Listova.

Daniel’s World is significant documentary on a very difficult subject, especially in the 21st century, paedophilia having been something of a closed area in the 20th century, but changing, especially when sexual abuse cases emerged.

This film was made for Czech television but it is of interest worldwide. The subject is Daniel, who understands himself as a paedophile but does not wish to abuse children. He appears in several discussions with sexologists and psychologists, explaining his situation, his history, and his understanding himself, acknowledging the restricted aspects of a future life. He is 25 the time of the making, studying literature, has published a children’s book about a mermaid.

He discovered his orientation while young, and further realised that he had an attraction to pre-pubescent boys, thus fulfilling the clinical definition of a paedophile. But, as the opening indicates, the paedophile condition does not mean acting out, especially in harming the children. Daniel does discover a young boy that he is attracted to, falls in love with, permits himself to visit the boy once a month, allowing some hugs, but only in the presence of the boy’s parents. His happiest hours are spent in being with the boy. He has not confided his psychological state to the parents.

The film is important for audiences to look at and listen to. It is clear from Daniel that he is not in favour of child pornography or any legislation in favour of it, or lowering the age of consent. Rather, he is concerned about the psychological state of the child and the child not being involved in experiences beyond comprehension.

Daniel also explains how he went on to the Internet, had discussions online with men with similar problems, received advice and, with a protest march in Prague, he checks with some gay men and is permitted to join the march, with his own banner, “coming out” as a non-threatening paedophile. He is joined by some friends for support.

This is an opportunity for an audience to try to understand the psychological make-up of the condition in which paedophile was born. This raises questions of therapy, change and the possibility of change – or not. It also helps the audience realise that a paedophile will not be able to express the affection felt, and will not have a life partner. Sexual urges will remain in the imagination and fantasy and in masturbation.

Statistics are given about the number of paedophiles, from 5 to 0.1%. And information is also given about the numbers of paedophiles who contemplate suicide.

With so many cases of sexual abuse, within the family, with stepfathers, with those working in institutions of care, with clergy, this profile of the paedophile may be able to throw light on the condition of so many of the offenders.

CHASUKE’S JOURNEY/TEN NO CHASUKE

Japan, 2015, 106 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Sabu.

This is a Japanese fantasy, a story about writers in heaven, devising scenarios for people on earth, under the overall supervision of the The Man, a God-equivalent.

The opening scenes are in heaven where the hero, Chasuke, serves tea to the writers. He comments on some of the screenplays and is concerned about a young woman who is killed, and is then sent down to save her. He encounters several people who are central characters in the stories by other writers. They help him to save the young woman – although, it emerges that Chasuke was a member of the Yakuza and is being pursued by gangsters. Needless to say, there is happy ending, along the lines of women Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire – happiness on earth seems to be better than happiness in heaven.

The film was written and directed by novelist, Sabu.

1. A Japanese fantasy, comic and serious?

2. The possibilities for audiences willing to suspend disbelief? Heaven, The Man, overturned the God, the screenwriters, the large rolls of paper, the script? The scenarios? Characters, influencing the stories? Possibilities for change? For saving lives?

3. The writers, suggestions, the calligraphy, suggestions for script? The serving of tea?

4. Chasuke, serving the tea, his interest in the stories, his interventions?

5. His being sympathetic, listening to the stories, their being visualised, his being upset about Yuri, her death? His being sent to earth? The fall and confusion, landing in the middle of the Festival, trying to get out? Tonadda and his coming to save him? Joe and the shop? The meal, the time to save Yuri, his running, the rescue, their being hit?

6. Tonada’s story, his mother, orphan, wanting to be an actor, teaching, his father giving him the shop? The antiques?

7. Joe’s story, the difficulties, orphan, the many fathers, crime, learning to box, his career, retiring?

8. Yuri, her story, the past, mute, the folk, the chase, the man killing her?

9. All the action and adventures to help Yuri, the rescue?

10. Chasuke as an angel, sprouting wings, his ability to heal, the crowd’s coming, the television interview, the studio, the host, the painted policeman, the thug, the shooting? Yuri and her injuries, Chasuke healing her?

11. Pon, his story, young, learning the tricks, his career, television host, celebrity?

12. Everybody joining with Chasuke to help?

13. The revelation about Chasuke and his background, the Yakuza, his mother, his memories, the tattooes returning, the violence, the Yakuza chiefs, the violence?

14. The pursuit, the gangsters?

15. The final parade, Yuri and Chasuke being lifted? The possibility of heaven?

16. Chasuke and Yuri, the decision to stay on earth and be happy?

WHAT HAPPENED, MISS SIMONE?

US, 2015, 100 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Liz Garbus.

Nina Simone was something of an American icon in the music world. The title for this film comes from a question by poet, artist, performer, Maya Angelou. Nina Simone had an extraordinary influence as a singer, as pianist, as an activist in the Civil Rights Movement. But, after 1968, she moved out of the United States, some media entrepreneurs wary of performance because of such anti-white, violence-inciting lyrics and songs and her powerful performance and interactions with audiences.

This film has been produced by her daughter, Lisa Simone Kelly, who, after a career in the military, has become a singer in her own right. She had a hard life with her mother but at the age of 14 moved to live with her father in New York City. She sometimes bore the brunt of her mother’s violence. It was only later that Nina Simone was diagnosed as bipolar.

The film traces the life and career, highlighting episodes in life with particular songs. Much of the material for the comes from archives and records of Nina Simone’s performances. Many photographs but few talking heads, principally her daughter and a 2006 excerpt from her ex-husband.

There are details of the life, her ambitions to be a concert pianist, moving into singing, many recordings and performances, managed by a husband. She was particularly moved by the death of the little girls burned to death in 1964 and became passionate about the Civil Rights Movement, composing the famous, Mississippi Goddam, singing at the 1965 March from Selma to Montgomery, and strongly influenced by Martin Luther King

U 1968, she moved to Africa, especially Liberia, taking her daughter with her. While she did sing at jazz festivals, most of the rest of her life was outside the United States, in Paris, Holland, the south of France, where the depression had been diagnosed and medication help to get better

This is always an interesting film, with good details about the artist’s life, many excerpts of the performances, some comments about her personality and illness, the perspective of the daughter making the film as a tribute to mother, a tale of talent and tragedy.

1. Nina Simone as music icon? Singing, playing the piano?


2. This film as biography, portrait? The material the archives? The clips of her singing? Association of her life events with the songs? The talking heads, limited? Her daughter and her contribution? Her husband? Her civil rights activities? The combination?

3. The title, the question from Maya Angelou? Nina Simone as a figure, singer, civil rights activist, Mississippi Goddam?

4. The influence of the burning children in 1964, marches, influence of Martin Luther King, the associations with celebrities in the movement, the comments of Dick Gregory? Singing in Montgomery? The effect of Martin Luther King’s death?

5. Her background, the South, her family, her white teacher? Singing in church? The piano lessons and practice for years? The recital, her parents segregated, taking a stand?

6. A woman of anger and rage, the lyrics and signs being anti-white, urging to kill? The strong performances, reaching out to the audiences, the reactions? The reaction of the media, their reluctance to allow her to perform?

7. The attraction to Andy, their meeting, his looking after the commercial side her career, his past as police in New York City? The marriage, the birth of their daughter, life together, the brutality? His not appreciating the civil rights activities? The separation, the divorce? The interview with him in 2006?

8. The daughter, Nina’s treatment her daughter, travel, to Africa, education, her mother’s anger, feeling suicidal, going to live with her father, the years passing, Nina’ diagnosis, bipolar, her daughter making connections with her again, producing the film as a tribute to her mother?

9. The absence from America, presence in Africa, Liberia, lifestyle in Liberia founded by slaves? Her performances? The jazz festivals at Montreux, her return?

10. 1980s, 1990s, going to Paris, Nijmegen, singing in Montreux, dependent on friends?

11. The visuals of her physical condition, deterioration using different accents in different circumstances?

12. The diagnosis, medication, becoming calmer, understanding?

13. The various musical styles, her comeback? Urging the member of the audience to sit down? Still stern?

14. Talent and tragedy?

CASINO

US, 1995, 178 minutes, Colour.
Robert De Niro, Sharon Stone, Joe Pesci, James Woods, Don Rickles, Alan King, Kevin Pollak, L.Q. Jones, Dick Smothers, Frank Vincent.
Directed by Martin Scorsese.

Martin Scorsese has had an interest in American gangsters since his earliest films, including Whose Knocking at my Door, Mean Streets – and then over 30 years or more with Goodfellas, Casino, Gangs of New York, The Departed. He directed Robert De Niro to an Oscar in Raging Will, and Joe Pesci to an Oscar for Goodfellas.

While there are some scenes in Boston (as in The Departed), most of the action takes place in Las Vegas, the early years, the developments, the rapid increase in casinos, the skimming of money for gangsters in other cities, the managers and those who ran the casinos.

Robert De Niro portrays the manager of a casino, his reliance on his personnel, including Don Rickles as his assistant. And he falls in love with a smart, sexy hustler, played by Sharon Stone whom he marries, but the marriage breaks down, she previously being interested in gambler played James Woods. The other central character, sent in from Boston, is played by Joe Pesci. there is the counterpoint of two voice-overs, one from De Niro, one from Pesci, which offer different perspectives on the action and the characters.

Some consider that this is Scorsese’s best gangster picture – but when one thinks of Goodfellas, Gangs of New York and The Departed, there is strong competition.

1. Martin Scorsese and his gangster films? His expertise? Over many decades?

2. Las Vegas, the casinos, the period, costumes and decor, settings, musical score?

3. The opening, the explosion, Sam’s description, the visuals, and Sam Rothstein’s survival?

4. The two voice-overs, Sam and Nicky, the contrasting points of view?

5. Sam, his nickname of Ace? His character, age, the steps of his career, his role as manager, and reporting to the board, his relationship with the personnel, his reliance on Billy Sherbert? The details of the casino’s life and responsibilities, day by day? The clientele? The gangster connections? The money going to Boston?

6. Nicky, his background, going to Las Vegas, his wife, family, the different jobs? The counting room, the skimming? The helpers? His reliance on Frank? Sending the money to Boston, the visits to Boston? The groups and their demands? The money, the decrease, suspicions?

7. Ginger, the casino, smart, relying on her sexual charm, her fashions, the hustle and the responses? The relationship with Lester, a possible life with him? Ace and the attraction, the response, the marriage, some reluctance, her pregnancy, the child? The financial arrangements? Her account? Her wanting her independence, the dependence on Ace, getting the money for Lester? Ace and his despising Lester, the violence?

8. Ace, his love, giving so much to Ginger, demands, accountability? His manner, her effect on him, his effect on her?

9. The years passing, the two different points of view? The emotional ups and downs in the marriage? Ginger and her drinking? The relationship with the child? Ace and his devotion? Her erratic behaviour, beginning the relationship with Nick, hiding, the development of the relationship?

10. Nick, his relationship with Ginger, his job, the connections with Boston?

11. Ace, his confidence, the reaction from Boston, the bosses? Sending the representatives from Boston? The meetings, the bomb?

12. Perhaps the role of Frank, at the service of Nicky, the Boston bosses, his betrayal and death?

13. The role of the police, in league with the Boston gangsters?

14. The portrait of gangsters, money, power, relationships?

15. Martin Scorsese and the acclaim for his films?

PUCKOON

UK, 2002, 82 minutes, Colour.
Sean Hughes, Daragh O’ Malley, Elliot Gould, Richard Attenborough, Nikolas Grace, John Lynch, Griff Rhys Jones, Milo O’ Shea, David Kelly, Freddie Jones.
Directed by Terry Ryan

Spike Milligan was one of the great eccentrics and one of the great comics. His major successes were on the radio, especially with the still-repeated The Goons and on paper with his anarchic books. He enjoyed witty wordplay and funny non-sequiturs. Prone to depression, he also had the satirist's desire and demand for society to be better than it ever could be.

His work does not transfer so well to the screen - with other writers adapting Milligan's style and with other actors voicing his lines with different emphases, intonations and timing. And, perhaps, they are best visualised by the mind's eye as they are heard or read.

Puckoon is Terry Ryan's adaptation of Milligan's comic story of a small town in Ireland that finds itself divided as the boundary markers set the border between Ulster and the Irish Free State. On the whole, Puckoon sounds like a variation on Dylan Thomas's Under Milkwood with the same kind of village characters presented in verbal sketches and visual impressions. It has to be said that Thomas's Welsh lilt and poetic tones are more telling and humorous that Milligan's Irish blarney. And the Irish seem rather a stupid and crass lot compared with their Welsh counterparts. All the old caricatures and cliches are there (many of which are funny nonetheless despite their being sometimes obvious and predictable).

But Milligan is also concerned about Ireland itself. Clearly on the side of the Irish Free State of the 20s and 30s, he lampoons the British military and police (more caricatured than the Irish) and highlights the patriotism and bigotry that have fuelled disagreement for decades (and centuries). It is very surprising to find in the final credits that the film was largely financed and shot in Northern Ireland.

The film opens with Richard Attenborough reading a text on the radio and then turning into the God-like director of the film with the power to converse with his characters, change their plot behaviour and introduce music and signs in the heavens at will. Sean Hughes, from Will and Grace, has been imported to be the oafish hero, Dan Madigan, as has Elliot Gould to play the Irish- Jewish local doctor. Various Irish actors like John Lynch and David Kelly lead the locals. These include, of course, the parish priest who is also satirised, more along the lines of Fr Ted than Ballykissangel.

All in all, it might give the locals a laugh as well as annoy them. Non- Irish will complain that it is too Oirish and not so funny. So, it remains a curiosity item for the devotees of Spike Milligan.

THE WEDDING RINGER

US, 2015, 101 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Hart, Josh Gadd, Kaley Cuoco- Sweeting, Jorge Garcia, Dan Gill, Ken Howard, Cloris Leachman, Jenefer Lewis, Mimi Rogers, Olivia Thirlby.
Directed by Jeremy Garelick.

It is not as if they have not been enough films about weddings,: Wedding Planet, Wedding Singer, Wedding, Wedding Crashers, Big Wedding, American Wedding, Four Weddings and… So, here is another.

This is a star vehicle for Kevin Hart, a short, African- American comedian, with unbelievable rapid delivery, a whole stack of double takes and patter that get him into all kinds of trouble as well is out of all kinds of trouble. Hart is an acquired taste, irritating in Ride Along, almost unbearable in the remake of About Last Night. Actually, in The Wedding Ringer, on the whole, he or is rather good.

Doug (Josh Gadd) is a rather big lump of a man, bespectacled, not a prospect for a quick marriage to a glamorous wife. But, here he is engaged to Gretchen (Kaley Cuoco- Sweeting) whose main aim in life seems to be to get married, have something of an up-market, extravagant wedding ceremony and wedding breakfast. And her whole family are right behind her, her concerned mother, her homophobic football-loving husband, and grandma (Cloris Leachman) who, at one stage of a family dinner, begins to go up in flames.

The wedding planner knows that Doug has no friends and no best man. He refers him to Jimmy (Kevin Hart) who runs a company to find best men as well as groomsmen. We see him in operation, very smooth talking, much appreciated, but only doing the work as business and not wanting to have any personal friendships or attachments afterwards.

Most of the film is about his setting up Doug with a best man, himself, and the oddest-looking lot of groomsmen, who all polish up rather better than expected, and providing Doug with a past history of extraordinary exploits including skydiving, climbing mountains in Patagonia…

When Doug and Jimmy go to the family dinner, the family is under the impression that Jimmy is a priest, not only a priest, but a military chaplain, providing opportunity for lots of doubletalk, improvisation, and, something of a compliment to priests and expectations of them, often credible enough, even to the wedding ceremony.

Eventually the friends are prepared with their back stories, rehearse them, have their own particular acts for when the going goes badly. They do take Doug for a night on the town, which liberates him (although his mother had him do dancing lessons when he was young and he excels at this), but he is the victim of the kind of joke that was funny in There’s Something About Mary, this time with a tenacious dog.

There is a touch of suspense throughout: will Gretchen and the family cotton on to what is happening, will the wedding go ahead, will Doug want to tell the truth? All these questions are answered, and Doug seems to be the better man for the whole experience – mainly liberated from his inhibitions.

Of course, there are some crass jokes, but fewer than usual and there are more amusing moments than might be expected.

1. The popularity of wedding films? Wedding comedies? farces? With the touch of moralising?

2. The American city, offices, homes, the basement office, the wedding planner’s rooms, the rehearsals? The elaborate side of wedding planning?

3. The musical score, songs?

4. Doug and his character, big man, breaking the chair, at work, self-conscious, thinking he was not attractive to girls, becoming engaged, his devotion to Gretchen? The interactions with her family, the preparations, his not having any groom or groomsmen, the advice of the planner?

5. The advice, to go to Jimmy, meeting his assistant, the office in the basement? His character, verve, his role at weddings, his motivations, performance and persona?

6. The collage of wedding receptions, Jimmy’s speeches, the range, the response of the groom, Jimmy saying it was only business, no friendship? Discussions with Doug, Doug commissioning him?

7. The odd couple, their talks, friendship, the challenge? Jimmy and his making contacts with the collection of odd bods for groomsmen, the range of backgrounds, types, appearance, needs, cash – and wives? Producing their specialties for crises at receptions? The secretary each giving them a folder, their back story, up-market? The response, learning, rehearsing?

8. Creating a back story for Doug, parachuting from the plane, climbing the mountains in Patagonia…? The photos?

9. Doug’s abduction, falling out the back of the truck? Open to a different life, his skill in dancing, dancing with Jimmy? The parties with the men? The girls? All fake personas? Doug’s feeling free, sexually liberated, the accident with the dog, going to hospital, his changing?

10. Gretchen, her parents, her homophobic father and is caustic comments, the mother looking on, the father and his old friends, playing football, smashing through the group, their fighting back, setting up Doug for a score?

11. The meal, Jimmy invited as Bick? The assumption that he was a priest, wearing his black suit and collar, as chaplain to the army, his making credible conversation? His past and reform? Meetings with Doug? The expectations of the priest? The change in conversation, the interview, spilling the meal on Doug? Setting the grandmother on fire?

12. Gretchen’s sister, observing, her suspicions, interest in Jimmy? Finding the names in the bathroom cupboard? Conversations, the attraction at the end?

13. The family meeting the groomsmen, all serious, all well-dressed, social style?

14. The ceremony, the replacement priest, the deviant priest being removed, getting rid of the priest, Jimmy becoming the priest, conducting the ceremony?

15. Gretchen and Jimmy, the talk about Doug, not really loving him, Doug overhearing , the effect?

16. Jimmy and his speech, the dancing, Doug getting up, announcing the truth, the effect on everyone? Jimmy and his future with Gretchen’s sister?

17. Doug, sense of freedom, change in his perspective on life? The discussions with Jimmy, explaining his being uptight, the persona, Jimmy mellowing, the friendship and change?