THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

UK, 2014, 123 minutes, Colour.
Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Simon Mc Burney, Emily Watson, David Thewlis.
Directed by James Marsh.

While Stephen Hawking may not have developed a theory of everything, he was certainly one of the major science theoreticians of the 20th century. Because of his book, A Brief History of Time, he became more than celebrated and has continued famous, this film reinforcing audience knowledge of him and admiration for him.

It is not the first time that Hawking has appeared in a biographical film. In 2004, he was portrayed in a film and television by the then comparatively-unknown, Benedict Cumberbatch. The film treated his early years, the onset of motor neuron disease and his marriage to Jane.

Since then, there have been documentary films and television programs, on his science, on his personality, on his coping with his illness. American documentary-maker, Errol Morris, also made a film of A Brief History of Time. Audiences coming to see The Theory of Everything, may well have some idea, many ideas, about Hawking and his life and work.

The major challenge for any actor portraying Hawking is to communicate his experience of motor neuron disease, its gradual debilitating effect, the initial anticipation that he would have only two years to live, his being reduced to travelling in a wheelchair, less able to speak, undergoing surgery and a tracheotomy which meant them that he had to use a computer simulation speech to communicate by word. All this, and more, are extraordinarily communicated by Eddie Redmayne (who had been Marius in the film version of Les Miserables).

The early part of the film is set in the 1960s with Hawking as a student at Oxford, seemingly casual with his approach to studies, having an extraordinarily quick brain and an ability to penetrate and solve mathematical problems. With his doctorate, he was interested in old stars and the collapsing in on themselves, theories of black holes. Later, he was to change his opinions and return to the beginnings of the universe and explorations of the Big Bang Theory. He continued to think, write, speculate on physics questions and draw on mathematical theory.

In case anyone thinks that the film is overloaded with scientific information that does not communicate well to the general audience, they are only partly right. There are sufficient indications of Hawking’s thinking and some explanations, but not overly tasking for a general audience. Scientists might think it is theory-light.

While the film Is about science and mathematics, It Is also tells the story of a man who in his early 20s was diagnosed with motor-neuron disease. The beginnings are suggested, and then Hawking collapses, is diagnosed by the doctors and, often reluctantly, has to come to terms with his condition. In fact, it is quite extraordinary to see what happened to Hawking in terms of the disease, the gradual degeneration, but his extraordinary survival.

The film also has a love story. Stephen met Jane, a devout Church of England young woman compared to his atheistic stances. They meet, date, some courting and then the crisis of his illness. In retrospect, audiences may well know the Jane spent 25 years of her life looking after Hawking, bearing three children and bringing them up, a lifetime of generosity. But, it all became too much for both of them, Jane experiencing the toll on her life with and for Stephen, his becoming dependent on his nurse, whom he married after divorcing Jane. While this might be the sensationalism of headlines, it is important to see just what happened with each of the two, hardships, regrets, the experience of a long time. (the screenplay for this film is based on Jane’s book about her life with Stephen Hawking, the second book she wrote, it seems less angry than the first one – and both Stephen and Jane approved of this screen version.

For anyone expecting something of a scientific treatise, they will be disappointed. For those who find the screen portrayal of serious illness demanding but informative, there will be much to offer in this film. And for all who get caught up in the love story, live through the hardships of the decades and see a marriage collapsing, it will seem more realistic than they might have thought, yet still very disappointing in its finish.

Which means, on the whole, this is a moving experience for a general audience.

1. The film’s impact? True story? Stephen Hawking? As a person, scientist, victim of motor neuron disease?

2. Audience knowledge of Hawking? Admiration? This film based on the books by his wife, Jane?

3. Media awareness over the decades, The Brief History of Time and the film version? Television appearances and documentaries? The 2004 television film biography?

4. The title, Hawking’s aim?

5. Hawking as a scientist, his initial studies, quiet, seemingly no effort, with the Professor, the exam and the formulas? His thesis and explanation, old stars, black holes? At work on his thesis? Before the panel, their comments? The member of the panel whose lecture he had attended? The Professor and his congratulations? Further studies, research, writing papers, discussions, conferences? Praising him? Reversing some of his opinions? Publishing his book, the Big Bang Theory? researching equations? The film’s title and his theory of everything?

6. The scene where he explained his theories to the assembled international professors, those walking out, those staying and praising him?

7. The communication of scientific theory for ordinary audiences in the film?

8. As a person, his father and his ideas, his mother? Family relationships? The encounter with Jane, the glimpse, talking, the dance? Her Church of England background, his atheism? Yet waiting at the church, taking her out, in the country, the family meals and introductions? The proposal, marriage, the children? Jane and her care, the pressures on both, the 25 years? The friendship with Jack, the attraction, coping, his helping with the family? Stephen, weary after so many years, the tensions of business, some alienation from Jane?

9. Motor neuron disease, the gradual approach, his slips, the fall, hospital, the diagnosis, two years to live, debilitation? Jane, the decision, her care? The physical deterioration, walking sticks, the chair, confined, yet studying? The Wagner concert, his collapse, pneumonia, the tracheotomy, the machine to speak, the voice, American accent? Communication, coping, persevering? Its toll on him, physically, psychologically, emotionally? The friendship with Jack, the playing with the children, sharing? The innuendo about Jane’s pregnancy, Jack leaving? The disintegration of the marriage?

10. Jane, in herself, her family background, church, attracted to Stephen, her decision, the details of care over the years, the children? Living with a genius, its toll? The recommendations of the choir, Jack, her feelings, her marriage disintegrating, Stephen and his nurse, not communicating with Jane, their parting, the later story, her marrying Jack?

11. Her mother, discussions, her father?

12. The Professor, teacher, encouraging Stephen, taking him to the lecture, the panel of the doctorate, the conference where Stephen spoke, his hosting and introducing? His pride in Stephen? The best of university lecturers?

13. The background of Stephen’s friends, the undergraduates, sexual preoccupation, carefree, the friend not believing Stephen about the illness, his later being in the audience listening?

14. University life, family life, illness?

15. Stephen Hawking, 72 at the time of the film’s release?

MORTDECAI

US, 2014, 107 minutes, Colour.
Johnny Depp, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ewan McGregor?, Paul Bettany, Olivia Munn, Michael Culkin, Ulrich Thomsen, Jeff Goldblum.
Directed by David Koepp.

Twit? Twittiest!

This is certainly an oddball comedy, a star vehicle for Johnny Depp to do one of his impersonations. He is Lord Mortdecai, allegedly British aristocracy, with country mansion, with a trophy wife who is smarter than he is, Joanna (Gwyneth Paltrow), an art dealer who gets himself involved in frauds. Depp portrays him as one of those silly-ass Englishman, accent, vocabulary-a-twitter, all that can be spoofed about the upper-class.

How his fans might find this a bit difficult to predict – and his wife later in the film remarking that sometimes he can be irritating. However most audiences will become used to this kind of performance – as we have with his Jack Sparrow.

As the film opens, he is involved in double-crossing some Chinese art dealers – but, as always, his loyal, ultra-loyal, manservant, with a gangster’s voice and tone, comes to his rescue, throws the punches, takes the shots, is ever ready to come to the aid of his respected boss. This is Jock, played with an amusing consistency and loyalty by Paul Bettany.

When an art restorer is murdered, and the main suspect is a Latin American terrorist who wants to finance his groups by art sales and who keeps reappearing during the film, a murder or two more, some mayhem, and suffering all kinds of shock tactics during a car chase, Mortdecai is asked to get involved by MI5, represented by Ewan Mc Gregor, playing straight man to Johnny Depp’s antics.

Mortdecai’‘s adventures include his abduction by a Communist art connoisseur and his interrogation in Moscow – with Jock, once again, to the rescue. Then he is off to LA to sell his car to another art connoisseur, Jeff Goldblum. Who has an intriguing daughter who gets up to all kinds of intrigue. Everybody turns up in’s LA, Joanna, the MI5 agent, the terrorist, and Jock, once again to the rescue.

The fraud involves a painting by Goya which seems to have disappeared but has an art history of disappearance, acquisition by Goerring, and several fakes – all of which is exposed in a finale at a London auction.

While watching it, older audiences may be reminded of The Pink Panther, then of Peter Sellers who might have taken on the role had the script been available in his day – and then, there are many Terry- Thomas mannerisms, with Depp even having the gap teeth. Probably Peter sellers would have done the role with much more ease and aplomb.


1. Farcical comedy? The style of humour? Spoofing parody? Satire on the British, accent and manners? The twits, silly-asses?

2. The strength of the Johnny Depp and his presence, impersonation? The musical score and the styles?

3. Britain, the mansion, the world of art? MI5? Moscow and torture? The car chase? Los Angeles, the hotels, the party? The auction?

4. The title, the meaning, the overtones of the name? Charlie being a Lord? His health, wealth, living beyond his means? Joanna’s relationship with him? With Martland?

5. The initial deal, the Chinese, the bowl, wanting his finger, fire, Jock and his fighting? The Chinese, the auction, the thugs watching, torturing Jock? And Charlie’s intervention?

6. The situation of the painting, the murder of the artist, the stealing of the painting, the complex history of the painting, disappearance, recovery, Herman Goering? Transported to LA in the car? In the LA mansion, the party, stealing again, the various fakes, persuading various clients to bid? The list? Joanna and Charlie bidding at the auction?

7. MI5, Martland, in love, Maurice as his assistant? Dealing with Charlie, manipulating him? Protecting Joanna, devotion to her? Charlie returning from Russia, his being drunk, at the airport, in transit to Los Angeles, guarding Joanna at home, following her to Los Angeles, the party, the recovery of the painting, the burning?

8. Joanna, style, Gwyneth Paltrow, the accent? The reaction to her husband? flirtatious? The visit to the old soldier, getting the information, hearing his advances? Martland, his devotion? The phone call from Charlie, going to Los Angeles, the encounter with Charlie, the party, the setup, the recovery of the painting, burning, Georgina and the deal with the terrorist? Going back to the old soldier, his being dead, the painting in his toilet, the recovery? Her presence at the auction, the bidding and the plan?

9. Martland, his work, MI5? His assistant, seemingly normal? The adventures in Los Angeles, the auction, the capture of the terrorist? Joanna refusing him?

10. The terrorist, killing the painter, stealing it, wanting to kill Mortdecai, Jock and the confrontations, car chase, his injuries? In the US, in league with Georgina, the plan, at the party, the bidding for the painting, at the auction, choosing swords and fencing? Arrest?

11. Mortdecai, in Russia, the Russian authority, coveting the painting, his thugs, the abduction, interrogation, threat of torture, Charlie going out the window with Jock’s help? At the auction? Torturing the potential client? Sir Graham? the painting, the auction, his being tortured by the Russians?

12. Jock, as servant, his accent, background, always stepping in, resourceful, his good manners, the finger and the hand, always another!? His being shot, hit? The chase and the driving? His his being saved from the Chinese by Mordechai hitting them? His sexual encounters?

13. The American millionaire, his plans, in league with Spinoza, the garage, Spinoza’s death, the painting the car, transporting it to the US? His admiring the
painting? The murder? Georgina, sexy, collusion, at the auction?

14. The irony of the money from the painting going to pay taxes and commissions?

15. The style of comedy, spoof and parody?

WILD

US, 2014, 115 minutes, Colour.
Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Thomas Sadowski, Gaby Hoffmann.
Directed by Jean- Marc Vallee.

How well an audience enjoys this film will probably depend on how quickly it can identify with the central character, Cheryl Strayed. At once we see her on a mountain, pulling off her boots, footsore, the boots being knocked over and careering down the mountainside, to her pained exasperation. The question is what did she do, go down, recover the boots, keep walking…? But, the screenplay does not return to the scene at all, so no specific answer.

But we do get answers, at least some of them, to why Cheryl was in the wilderness at all. The film is called Wild, a focus on the wilderness that Cheryl travels through along the west side of the United States. As the flashbacks increase in number, we see that her life prior to this trek had been very wild at times.

It is the Pacific Crest Trail, PCT, that Cheryl decides to walk along, over 1000 miles, from the Mexican border, through the Mojave Valley, to the mountains of California, into Oregon and into the North. It becomes pretty evident, almost immediately, that she is not well prepared at all for this trek, which may make some audiences who like things organised, rather irritated, especially when it appears she bought the wrong gas that her stove and she has to eat cold mash for several days before she gets to a house where she can get some help.

This, perhaps, is the point. We learn from the flashbacks that she has gone on this walk in some desperation, the breakup of her seven-year marriage (all her fault) and the death of the mother whom she loved dearly. At the beginning, she does not really know why she is walking except that she wants the time, to be alone, to reflect, to remember, to read some poetry, to write in a journal. And that is what she does – and not always engrossingly for the audience. It is a long walk for her, and for us.

The film runs for almost 2 hours but this reviewer for one, would have appreciated some longer time given to flashbacks because there are just glimpses, not always connected, the audience trying to work out the causal link in the episodes in her life, but not enough information or dramatisation being offered. We can feel sorry for her ex-husband, both of them getting tattoos to celebrate their separation, but he still loving her, she going off on promiscuous adventures, and yet he had a letter and a parcel for her at the key posts along the Crest Trail.

There are a number of flashbacks to Cheryl and her little brother and their relationship with their mother, most engagingly played, optimistic even in physical abuse, by Laura Dern. She had married an alcoholic and abusive husband, had left, brought up the children, shown them great love and tenderness. At one point, she goes to college to study, exhilarating by the amount of learning before her, coping with the rather prim and judgmental Cheryl at this stage of her life. How Cheryl goes off the tracks is not explained, quite wild, casual affairs, one night stands, led into drugs, resolving not to inject heroin but doing it, doing a waitressing job, with sexual favours out the back of the diner. These aspects of the character are quite clear.

Cheryl is portrayed by Reese Witherspoon (and the actual Cheryl Strayed accompanied her to the Golden Glowed Globe awards). She gives it all she can, having to show a rather wide range of emotional responses, in her past, in her grief for and memories of her mother, in her uncertainties along the track, the physical hardships, the encounters with male walkers and some hunters, mainly fearful. She does have some friends, especially a good friend played by Gaby Hoffmann, who challenges her and who supports her.

And then the film ends, with some verbal information about what would happen to her in the coming years, all of it positive, marriage and family and the writing and publishing of a successful book.

Some audiences will enjoy Cheryl’s history, her response to challenges, the physical and psychological and emotional impact of her walk. Others may find it something of an endurance, not just the walk, but in the puzzle about Cheryl’s character, what really was the influence of the past, why she went so wild, why exactly she went, so unprepared, on this walk – which, in fact, did change her life.

1. A true story, the 1990s, the author and her book? The trek, her personal journey?

2. The title, the wilderness and its range? Cheryl and her past wild life?

3. The Pacific Crest Trail, the different terrains, the Mojave desert, California, the mountains, Oregan and the forests? The beauty of the photography?

4. Cheryl within these landscapes, the introduction, her boots and her sore feet? walking, the long time, endurance? the pack, the food, the wrong gas, the
water and the cleansing tablets, the various stops at the stations? The musical score?

5. The people she met on the track: Greg, the older woman and her personal journey, Frank and her fear, his help, his wife and the discussions, the shower and the meal? The old man who went up to look after the walkers? The hunters? Her fear of them? The man with the posters and the casual sexual experience? The grandmother and the boy and his singing? The song, the Grateful Dead? The ranger, his helping her, wary of the men, the three men and their playful response? A cross-section? Their influence on her?

6. The title, Cheryl as wild? The variety of flashbacks, the particular points of insertion? Along the way? Her memories? The two children with their mother, happy times in play, the father and his violence, their mother taking them away, returning? The happy times, ultimately fleeing? Going to the University, Cheryl ignoring her mother in the corridor, the talk afterwards? her study, the classes, poetry? The serious discussion with her mother? The end and the explanations – and her suddenly being married, seven years, her promiscuity, the divorce, getting attached to dealers, the experience of drugs, as a waitress and the clients and one night stands?

7. The effect of the divorce? Paul and his character, devotion to her, his new partner? Her mother, the sadness of her death?

8. Cheryl’s motivations, the discussions with her friend Amy? Paul and his letters and parcels? Ringing about the boots and their delivery? Her continuing on?

9. The cumulative effect, the initial poor organisation, her learning, the long distance walking, achievement? Standing on the bridge, her talking about her future, marriage, children, the writing of the book?

10. Audiences identifying with her and her personal journey?

BIRDMAN/ OR THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE


US, 2014, 119 minutes, Colour.
Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Zach Galifiniakis, Amy Ryan, Lindsay Duncan.
Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu.


Well, this is not quite what many audiences might have been anticipating. And the trailer, while featuring many sequences, does not really indicate the content and tone of the film.


In one sense, this is a Broadway film, the putting on a play in New York’s theatre district, the problems, the emotions, casting difficulties, accidents, and the threat of a killing-review. But it is more than this, it is something of a portrait of a movie star, Riggan Thompson, who had succeeded 20 years earlier in an action-hero series, Birdman. He is trying to stage a comeback, having adapted a Raymond Carver story for the stage, directing and featuring himself. There are quotes from Carver at the beginning of the film and a final speech where the emphasis is on love.


One of the striking features of the film is that it has been designed with director and cinematographer to be completely continuous as if it were a one-take film. This is sometimes quite ingenious.


Riggan is played by Michael Keaton, and many people have been ready with the comment that Keaton himself played Batman/Bruce Wayne in Batman and Batman Returns, 1989, 1991. In fact, Michael Keaton has had a successful career, moving into character roles. However, he was best known at the beginning of his career as being a zany comedian, although he has made a number of serious films, ranging from his alcoholic in Clean and Sober and his menacing landlord in Pacific Heights. So, for those familiar with Michael Keaton, there is a lot of baggage and background.


The action takes place over a couple of days, days of rehearsal and the opening night of the play. At first, disaster seems to loom as one of the main characters is injured by a falling property on stage. One of the stars, played by Naomi Watts, who has dreamt of being on Broadway suggests a very talented actor who could come in at short notice. He is played by Edward Norton, quite at tour-de-force performance as a wilful, self-absorbed actor, not embarrassed in creating stirs and upstaging people during rehearsals. And, in real life, he is much the same. Also in the play is Keaton’s girlfriend played by English actress Andrea Riseborough. There is an effective cameo, only in three scenes but quite moving, by Amy Ryan as Riggan’s ex-wife.


But, key to this story, is his daughter, Sam, out of rehabilitation for drug problems, loving him, critical of him, intrigued by the new actor, sympathetic towards the other members of the cast, dealing with her own problems. She is played by Emma Stone.


On the realistic level, the film could be very interesting for those who like the theatre, the putting on of the play, the staging and costumes, the details of the rehearsals and their problems, the build-up to the opening night along with episodes which seem to indicate that the opening night might never happen. One of the very effective episodes is the encounter with the New York journalist, who has power with her reviews to destroy plays and performances. She is played in two strong sequences by British actress, Lindsay Duncan.


But, the film is not realistic in the sense that the hero is psychologically disturbed, has had some drinking problems, relationship problems, artistic problems, and the continual wondering whether he can carry off the performance. So, to heighten atmosphere of surrealism, the director introduces a bird man in costume who is continually present to the actor by voice and sometimes physically, describing situations, taunting and challenging Riggan, questioning him as to the wisdom of his choices. Towards the end of the film, there is a completely surreal sequence where Birdman urges the hero to trust his powers, his seeming ability to cause an object to go up in flames, even to fly, which he does soaring over New York City. This is in contrast to the time when he goes out for a breather before his performance, wearing his underpants and a towel coat, only for the door to slam and his coat to get caught which means that he has to run through Times Square in his underwear, through the crowds many wanting an autograph.


It is significant that Michael Keaton is able to carry off all these sequences, the serious, the comic, the emotional, the emotionally blocked sequences as well as the fantasies.


The film was co-written and directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, a Mexican director, who made an impact with his Mexican film, Amores Perros, three stories set in the slums of Mexico City, in 2000. His subsequent films have been very varied in genres, generally praised: 21 Grams, the multi-storied Babel, Biutiful, about a dying man. So, he is an unpredictable in his work, choices,


But he is also quite unpredictable in this film, especially at the end of the premiere of the film and a final symbolic sequence which leaves audience opinions quite open. And it has the subtitle, which comes from the final review of the play by the reputation-killing critic, The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.

1. Acclaim and awards?


2. The director and his career? Mexican background? Work in the United States?

3. The title, expectations? The subtitle ‘the unexpected virtue of ignorance’? Action heroes, popularity, Hollywood, the traditions?

4. The subtitle, its point, as quoted by the reviewer? The list cast and its quality?

5. New York City, the theatre, the Street and Broadway, the views, Times Square, flight over the city, the action on the roof? Atmosphere?

6. The musical score and its range?

7. The jokey allusions to show business, films, actors?

8. The technique, the impression of a continuous take, the transitions and editing, photography, the devices and their effect on the continuity?

9. The portrait of Riggan Thomson? Michael Keaton and his own career? Riggan and his career, being Birdman, popularity (and the Japanese response to Birdman IV, the request for autographs), the decline of his career, refusing Birdman IV, the collapse of his marriage, his relationship with his ex-wife, affairs, with the actress, his drinking? Relationship with his daughter, tensions? The condition of the psychological state, mind, imagination?

10. The actual Birdman and the costumes, the voice, his presence, haunting Riggan, the challenges, Riggan in himself? Real and unreal? Surreal? The destructive powers, the power of flight?

11. The quotes from Raymond Carver, Riggin and the play, adapting Carver, the text, the story, the quotations at the beginning of the film, Riggan and his speaking the lines? The reviewer and her comments?

12. The rehearsals, the accident, the actor being hit, Riggan in his room, looking into the mirror, introduction, coming down to perform, the two actresses, the crisis?

13. Leslie and her offer, Michael and his agreeing, knowing the play, quoting it, his performance? In himself, the relationship with Leslie? Seeing him on stage, aggression towards Riggan? The disruptions, anti-Riggan, violence, the critique, the arguments in the challenge? Going into the costume department, stripping, the effect on the cast? Different in rehearsals? The finale and his acclaim?

14. Leslie, her dream, the relationship with Michael, the rehearsals, discussions with Riggan, with Sam, her fears, her achievement?

15. Laura, in the play, the relationship with Riggan, at the rehearsals, exasperation with Riggan, saying she was pregnant, later denying it, the effect on him? Her love, critique? With Leslie, the discussions with Sam? The reaction to Riggan’s ex-wife? Support or not?

16. The agent, his character, best friend, urging Riggan on common issues of contracts, Michael and his contract, the backers, the growing exasperation, the accident, watching the rehearsals, his reactions, getting desperate?

17. Sam, as Riggan’s daughter, her life, drugs, addiction, relationship with the father, with her mother? Observing her father? On the roof with Michael, her advances? His resistance and reasons? Watching the play? At the end, with her father, at the window?

18. The critic, at the bar, her writing, her threats, animosity, at the play, her favourable review?

19. Riggan going outside, the coat catching in the door, running in his underpants, the fans, asking for autographs, photos? His return, walking through the theatre, onto the stage? The drama of the finale – in the light of the audience having seen it in dress rehearsal? The acclaim for his performance? His self-image, the gun, shooting his nose? Audience expectations about the shooting, his nose, in the hospital, his ex-wife, Sam? Reading the reviews, success?

20. The aftermath, the window, Birdman present again? The symbolic flight and ending? Uncertainty for the audience – but open to possibilities?

THE VATICAN MUSEUMS 3D

This is a documentary being screened at special cinemas, described as An Event, in the vein of the screenings of plays from the National Theatre in London or operas from Lincoln Centre in New York City. It is an Italian production, hosted by the director of the Vatican Museums.

It is said that millions of tourists visit the Vatican museums, especially the Sistine Chapel, each year. But this means that many more millions do not have the opportunity to visit the museums and wonder at the paintings, statues, frescoes. And, even when we might have an opportunity to do this visit, there is so much to see, so many crowds, not as much time as we might have hoped, and we achieve some glimpses of the works of art. This means that this documentary is a kind of supplement for those who have visited and, hopefully, an eye-opener for those who have yet to visit.

The director explains the origins of the Vatican museums, the discovery of the classic statue of the priest, Laacoon, and the serpents, in the 15th century and Pope Julius the second, the Pope who hired Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel roof, establishing the museums.

The first part of the tour is a look at the classical statues from the Greek and Roman period. While interesting in themselves, they serve as a prelude to what most audiences would be wanting to see, the mediaeval paintings and the Sistine Chapel.

The director does a commentary in Italian, with a voice-over, rather plain and less-than-involving, giving the information in English. It is a pity that one can still hear, as with television and radio news, the original voice underlying the voice-over.

But the main part of the film is quite exhilarating. The 3D is effective in showing the scope of the museums, the vast corridors, the rooms full of paintings, the Sistine Chapel. But it also has the strange effect, when we look at paintings in close-up, of producing 3 De effect on the paintings themselves which is not what we see when we look at them up close.

The main benefits of the film are the time spent with Raphael’s paintings and with Michelangelo’s. Audiences may not be so familiar with Raphael’s paintings and this is a wonderful opportunity to see some of his great works, huge paintings in the Vatican halls, in their large perspective as well as in detailed close-up. Audiences will be in great admiration of the work of Raphael.

But then, there is the Sistine Chapel, a look at some of the key paintings on the roof of as well as time spent gazing at the overall impact of Michelangelo’s The Last Judgement as well as appreciating so much of the detail. One of the difficulties with the commentary is that as soon as the director does some explanation of a particular part of the painting, the film editors cut immediately to the next sequence, whisking us away, without giving the audience sufficient time to look and to appreciate what they have just heard.

Statistics are given about the length of the corridors, the size of the rooms, the number of works of art in the museum, with some glimpses of the work of other painters, including van Gough. But it is the paintings of Raphael and Michelangelo that audiences will be happy to have had the opportunity

WELCOME TO THE PUNCH

UK, 2013, 99 minutes, Colour.
James Mc Avoy, Mark Strong, Andrea Riseborough, Johnny Harris, Daniel Mays, David Morrisey, Peter Mullan, Natasha Little, Ruth Sheen, Jason Fleming.
Directed by Eran Creevey.

Welcome to the Punch was written and directed by Eran Creevey, who had received some acclaim for his film, Shifty.

This film is quite complex, with his initial focus on a heist, the robbers escaping by motorbike, the policeman, Max (James Mc Avoy) assigned to the pursuit shot in the knee by one of the robbers, Stern would (Mark Strong).

After surgery and therapy, Max returns to the force after three years, encouraged by the Chief, Tom (David Morrisey). Max and his partner, Sarah (Andrea rise para) have a hospital duty where a young man who has been shot is recovering – he is the son of Stern would, caught up in a drug deal gone wrong when he has been shot. Stern would returns from Iceland where he had retired.

In the background there are political themes, the increase of violence in England, political campaigns against violence and for greater police force, managed by a shrewd adviser, Jane (Natasha Little) – and there is more to her lurking presence with the police than is initially thought.

There are murders, double deals, police corruption, Max with his intensity still pursuing Stern would add a final confrontation.

A complex plot but certainly very interesting.

1. A police thriller? British? Violent crime? Politics and conspiracies?

2. The London settings, offices, the robbery? Police precincts? Flats, the container warehouse, clubs? Atmospheric? The musical score?

3. The title, the explanation, the areas for the containers? Punch and application? Violence?

4. The robbery, Max, on the phone, the pursuit, the motorbikes, knocking off Stern would, Stern would and his shooting maxes knee, the escape? The prologue to the drama?

5. Three years later, Max waking, his character, his injuries, his anger, the impact of the shooting? Sarah, tension with her? Her urging him to go to the prison, the prisoner, in the plan, defying them, the any of what was to come? His freedom?

6. Tom and Nathan, police in charge, Tom organising maxes return, his commission, to go to the hospital, the virtual, the visitor to the young man, Max the costing him? The issue of the Stern would, the police briefings, Dean Warns on the connection?

7. Stern would after the robbery? In Iceland? His son on the plane, wounded, getting out, collapsing on the tarmac, go to hospital, his death, his parts his father were visiting him in the mortuary, weeping?

8. The hotel, the siege on the shooting? The police officers and their being killed? Stern would at the back of the room?

9. Roy Edwards, his long friendship with stone would, his wife? Picking up Stern would? Helping him, the information, the club, the shootout at Warn's mother’s house, his being wounded?

10. Max and Sarah, on duty, Max and his moods, Sarah Stern, the relationship? The police style, the notes on her hand? The virtual, the realisation of the truth, the information, searching the container, the confrontation with Worn, her death, Max being framed her death, the body in his bed?

11. Tom, his role in the police, in charge, strong? Nathan and the briefings? The phone call, the information, going to the club, Nathan shot?

12. Jane, the politics, the campaign, the politician and his speeches, Jane and her presence? The plan?

13. Warns, the deal, his military background, the weapons, the smuggling of the weapons in the coffins of the soldiers? His loyalty, willing to kill? Relationship with his mother? The final confrontation, his death?

14. Tom, the revelation of his position, his going to see Jane, the conspiracy, the political advantage? The headlines about violent crime in England, the Conservative group, building up a squad, vigilantes like? Yet also setting up scenarios so that the public would vote for politicians against crime?

15. Tom, the relationship with Max, setting up, his death?

16. The confrontation between Max Stern would, guns drawn, Max and is putting his gun down, acknowledging that Stern would had not killed him?

17. An interesting been blend of police drama and politics?

HECTOR AND THE SEARCH FOR HAPPINESS site

UK/Germany, 2014, 118 minutes, Colour.
Simon Peg, Rosamund Pike, Stellan Skarsgaard, Toni Collette, Christopher Plummer, Barry Atsma, Chantelle Herman.
Directed by Peter Chelsom.

The title sounds like one of those self-help books – and, in fact, it was such a book and is translated into film to invite all those on a search for happiness to share the journey of Hector. Not that Hector is always likeable and easy to identify with, though Simon Pegg does his best to do some comedy but with serious undertones. Hector is a bit over-earnest at times, over-eager, not always empathetic to his clients. He is a psychiatrist, with comfortable practice, a good income, but increasingly irritated with the clients who do have some irritating traits. Hector is also lucky to have Clara, Rosamund Pike (rather different from her Gone Girl) as his longtime partner. That she has stayed with him all this time is something of a mystery.

One of his clients has some psychological insight and suggests, along with a touch of fortune-telling, that Hector should go on a trip. Fortunately, he has the time as well as the money to go on such a long trip, searching for happiness. Clara is more than a bit surprised and, though he sometimes keeps in touch with her during the trip, it would be understandable if she were not their when he comes back. Spoiler: she is!

The first destination that Hector chooses is China. On the plane, he causes a bit of kerfuffle and is moved to business class where he sits next to a rather self-centred businessman played by Stellan Skarsgaard. In the event, Hector accompanies Edward into Shanghai, beginning to take notes formulating his principles for happiness or situations which are not happy. Edward is rich which allegedly enables him to be happy. Edward also introduces Hector to a young Chinese woman, an attractive and very sympathetic student and, dabbling in a bit in extra-marital search for happiness, Hector spends the night with her only to find that she is not at all the girl that he thought she was. Plenty of lessons there.

The next destination is Africa, something of the Africa we see in the movies which may or may not be the real Africa. However, he comes to visit one of his fellow students from his American university days. Michael is a doctor, helping the locals in the best possible way and in partnership with one of the locals. That might have been all right, Hector seeing some happiness in altruism, but, one night, on his return to headquarters, some thugs waylay the car and take Hector as a hostage. He does indeed have a very difficult time in captivity, no amenities, his abductors rather sophisticated in their talk and in their hopes. Happiness is not being tortured.

Hector had encountered a European drug lord, Diego, Jean Reno, and they got on well, he providing a good prescription for the drug lord’s wife. Fortunately, Diego’s name can put terror into terrorists and Hector is released. Quite a lot of reflection on happiness or not here.

By this time, we wonder whether Hector is going to visit all the continents but he takes off for Los Angeles to catch up with Agnes, Toni Collette, his good friend from study days along with Michael.

This is where the film does improve, especially with Toni Collette’s strong performance, a decent, common-sensed woman, now married with children, a bit unsympathetic to Hector’s self-indulgence and offering him plenty of words of wisdom and challenge. She also takes him to see their old professor, now doing research on the activities of the brain and persuading Hector to take part in an experiment with the experiencing of various emotions which will light up the figure of the brain on the computer. The great benefit of this part of the film is that Christopher Plummer plays the professor, very urbane and challenging in his lecture, very practical and common-sensed in his advice to Hector.

By this time, Hector has quite a lot of points which have been up there on the screen for our consideration. And then he goes home, we presume a happier and wiser man, anchored in realities with its ups and downs rather than idealising a state of earthly happiness.

The film is quite entertaining in its way, especially if you are really interested in getting points for happiness, tolerable if you want some entertainment (with a few morals tossed in).

1. The title? Based on a book? Self-help? The journey to self-discovery?

2. London, life in London, ordinary, psychology sessions? The contrast with Shanghai, the buildings, the lights, the glamour? Africa, the bush, the villages? Sinister aspects? LA, familiar, homes, outings, the beach, University, laboratories? London, home and a new look? The musical score?

3. Simon Pegg as Hector, in himself, his work, as a psychologist, his range of clients, their personalities and issues, the effect on him?

4. Clara, the relationship, satisfactory but his yearning for something? The clients and their influence, his reflections, the decision to go?

5. On the plane, settling down, trouble, Edward, observing him, their talk, his character, business, wealth? Helping Hector with the car, the experience of Shanghai, meals, luxury, the escort girl – and discovery discovering the truth about her and his being disillusioned? His response?

6. The contacts with Clara, faithful but offhand? The limited contacts? The reactions to him?

7. Africa, meeting Michael again, their past and the memories, the photo? Michael as a doctor, the discovery about his partner? Hector helping, fulfilment? Diego and the contact, his power, influence, Hector getting the prescriptions for his wife? The abduction, the road and the taxi, the drivers hurrying away, Hector imprisoned, interviewed, interrogated, tortured? The suffering? His using Diego’s name, getting out? The return, the joy in the village, the women and their response to him? The vibrant celebration? His admiring Michael and learning from him?

8. Going to Los Angeles, meeting Agnes, her being in the photo, the memories of the past? Agnes and happiness, husband, family? The commonsense, talking sense to Hector? Hector and his romanticising the situation in the memories?

9. The professor, his age, interest in the brain, his studies, the lecture, Hector’s response? The experiment, Hector and his brain, the colouring, the questions, the range of good, happy and said? The professor’s advice?

10. The return, bonding again with Clara, happiness, his work, his future?

11. The search of happiness, the various steps, learning?

12. The range of aphorisms about happiness throughout the film, handbook of the search for happiness?

CAPTURED!

US, 1933, 69 minutes, Black and white.

Leslie Howard, Douglas Fairbanks Jr, Paul Lukas, Margaret Lindsay, Robert Barrett, J.Carol Naish.
Directed by Roy Del Ruth.

Captured is an early film by veteran director Roy Del Ruth, a prolific director in the succeeding decades, in many genres.

This is a war story from a book by Sir Philip Gibbs. It has a background of aviation during World War I, flights, crashes, and the capture of pilots and the internment in concentration camps. While the techniques are of the 1930s, it is nevertheless an interesting story and well worth seeing.

Leslie Howard is a British pilot who is interned. Douglas Fairbanks Jr is his friend who has fallen in love with Howard’s wife – although they had only a courtship of six days, marriage and the buying of a house before he went to war. When Fairbanks is interned, he is conscious of the betrayal of his friendship, especially as Howard keeps insisting on news about his wife, wondering about her not writing to him.

Paul Lukas, later to win an Oscar for Watch on the Rhine, is a more benign camp Commandant, an Oxford graduate who is happy to share reminiscences with the prisoners.

There is an escape attempt, harsh treatment as a consequence, Fairbanks also escaping, then Howard organising a mass escape, a great escape, from the camp, using the German planes.

One of the interesting features of the film is the use of German language throughout, German characters speaking only in German when speaking amongst themselves or commanding the prisoners.

This film is interesting to see in terms of the Motion Picture Code and its strict introduction in 1934, a much more open presentation of adultery and, surprisingly, some brief nudity in the shower block scene, something which would not be permitted in decades to come.

1. A between-the-wars drama? Capturing the memory of World War I? In the light of the many prisoner-of-war dramas to come from World War II?

2. An early sound film, studio work? Creation of the prisoner of war camp? The exterior scenes? Hut interiors The flight sequences? The musical score?

3. The importance of the use of German language throughout the film whenever Germans were speaking amongst themselves? The effect of this use of language for English-speaking audiences?

4. The cast, at this stage of their careers? Later prominence?

5. The introduction to Fred, the meeting with Monica, falling in love, the quick marriage, buying the house? His being called up? In war, his being captured?

6. The picture of the prisoner of war camp, the Commandant, the soldiers and guards, treatment of the prisoners? The rain, the inspections, the harsh attitudes? The change of commander, his more humane approach, yet the German control and Berlin wanting him to be authoritarian?

7. The British? Their memories? In France? The American, his picture of the cow, his memories of Texas? Strogin, his intensity? Later repercussions, the murder and rape, his confession, hanging himself?

8. Fred, his Oxford background, his cultivated manner and speech? With the rest of the men? The dangers of escape? The punishment of all the men, confined to a basement? The outbreak, the shootings, the repercussions?

9. Dig, his background, friendship with Fred, Oxford days? With the new batch of prisoners? Renewing friendship? Yet Dig and his reticence, not wanting to talk about Monica, Fred and his obsessive wanting to discuss? Her not having written? The audience knowing the truth, the relationship, the theatre, in love – and the letters that Dig received? Dig and his wanting to escape, Fred and his warnings, his taking responsibility, the escape, through the fence, the plane, reporting to the authorities? Back in London, seeing Monica? His being arrested, taken back to the lines? The white flags and being handed over to the Germans? The soldiers and their exchanging cigarettes, then gunfire? The accusation, rape and murder, Fred and his signing the document after reading Monica’s letters to Dig? Dig and Fred’s anger, the discussions with Fred, his reticence, the Commandant not understanding, his being lined up for the firing squad?

10. Fred, reading the letter, realising the truth? His anger, signing the document to bring Dig back? His animosity when Dig arrived, the discussions about Monica, Fred and his sense of detachment?

11. The character of the Commandant, civilised, breakfast, meeting the troops, warning about escapes? Summoning Dig back? The court trial, Dig in silence, the sentence?

12. Strogin and his madness, writing the confession, Fred and his disregarding it, crumbling it, waking up, Dig going to the firing squad, Fred’s conscience, the confession?

13. Fred, organising the escape, the timing, the shooting, men going to the planes, taking off? Fred staying behind, shooting, the grenade and his death?

14. An interesting war story? In the context of World War I?

THAT SUGAR FILM

Australia, 2014, 97 minutes, Colour.
Damon Gameau, Hugh Jackman, Stephen Fry, Brenton Thwaites, Isabel Lucas, Jessica Marais and many medical experts.
Directed by Damon Gameau.

It might sound like this film will have a sweet taste but it is designed to make audiences concerned about their propensity for sweet tastes and, especially, for consumption of sugar and fructose. This is a documentary, a very entertaining one, that examines the role of sugar in our diet, in our metabolism, and the consequences – with a look at how sugar is so strongly promoted in our commercial culture.

Some years ago, American documentary-maker, Morgan Spurlock, decided that he would film an experiment about diet and takeaway food, especially at McDonald’s? and other such franchises. It was called Supersize Me. He decided that the focus of the experiment would be his Supersizing every order and eat just this for a month to see what happened to him. Needless to say, he put on weight became unwell, certainly needed some medical checkups and processes for getting back to normal.

Damon Gameau is an actor who has been a number of Australian and television programs, generally the cheeky and cheerful character, quick on the draw with his remarks and cracks. This means that he is very well suited to the role he has set up for himself, not exactly doing a Spurlock, but something very similar with sugar.

He genially introduces himself and his girlfriend who is pregnant. Since he wrote the film as well as directing, it is clear that he has strong views on sugar intake and its results. He does get a panel of experts, blood, the diet, the general health, who are interviewed during the film – and they are introduced with our bit of animation and giving them superhero names. They are wary about his experiment.

The film uses an entertaining device for the expert talking heads, and there are many of them, but he generally has quick bites which bring home the points – but they all appear and are seen within frameworks, machines, which can be moved, turned over… So we are continually alert to what these experts have two offer.

The film uses a number of celebrities to give us background, and sugar information. Hugh Jackman turns up and does some sand drawings to illustrate the origins of sugar in this part of the world, eventually going to India, making its way to Europe where a couple of centuries ago it was looked on as a specialty by the wealthy. Stephen Fry turns up to give us a humorous talk about the different kinds of sugar, the glucose that put energy into our system, the sucrose and its effects and a warning about fructose and its absorption in the liver, turning to fat, increasing at triglycerides… Later, up-and-coming Australian actor, Brenton Thwaites serves as a model to indicate what is happening in our interiors and the damage that too much sugar can do to the liver, to the heart, to the bloodstream.

The information Gameau gets for the experiment is that the sugar intake will be the equivalent of 40 teaspoonfuls of sugar per day. And it is immediately alarming as he begins, that his first breakfast cereal and juice is more than a third of the teaspoonfuls already. As he continues, he finds ways of adding the sugar even to a chicken lunch! Within some days he is put on several kilos and finds his mood is changing, some lethargy…

Over a decade ago he had contact with a group of aboriginal people at Mia Wiru in the Northern Territory, especially in a community whose medical adviser had changed their diet, especially as regards sugar. But, with the advent of the supermarkets and the bombarding advertising, the increased intake of sugar was doing harm.

Next, he went off to the United States and, while obesity had been mentioned, there are quite a few off-putting close-ups of obesity. He is still having the equivalent of 40 teaspoonfuls a day, finding smoothies, drinks, and, alarmingly finding that such a drinks Mountain Dew has more sugar than Coke or Pepsi and more caffeine. In fact, he accompanies a dentist who travels around the state of Kentucky working with locals, including a young man who has been drinking an enormous amount of Mountain Dew since he was a little child and his teeth have either fallen out or rotted. We may not want to look at the close-ups of his mouth, but this is a salutary tale. Gameau also finds a pill that one can put in one’s mouth which will sweeten food with a more savoury taste – he even tries it with a chilli but says it doesn’t work.

In fairness, he decides to interview a scientist who has been working on sugar research for some time. He is not alarmed, and it seems his studies have been financed by Coca-Cola?.

He has been keeping in touch with his girlfriend by Skype and, on his return, as large, he suggests, as she is in her pregnancy, she gives birth and he is delighted with his daughter. With the help of the experts, he gets back to normal size, and gets to editing this film so that we can share his extremely cautionary experience.

Older people probably need to see this film and act on it. Parents certainly need to see the film to check on their children’s diets and the effect, especially of their brain capacities and attention at school. (A school kit is available.)


1. An interesting film? Entertaining? Didactic? Necessary because of world consumption of sugar and its deleterious effects?

2. Damon Gameau and his interest in the theme, producing, writing, directing?

3. His screen presence, humorous, serious, persuasive? Australian tone? An Australian male, younger adult, memories of childhood, his girlfriend and her pregnancy? The decision to make the film?

4. Audiences identifying with the issues, the sugar issue, health? Capitalism and the promotion of sugar in products? The need for regulation? The role of advertising and persuasion? The need to control obesity, heart problems, diabetes?

5. The appearance of Hugh Jackman: with an audience, on stage, the sand drawing, the history of sugar, Australia and Papua New Guinea, Asia, Europe, the 18th century and the wealthy, the pervading use of sugar?

6. Stephen Fry: his amusing and informative lecture about the different sugars, glucose, sucrose, the dangers of fructose?

7. Brenton Thwaites: the illustration of the role of sugar in the body, especially of the liver?

8. The range of experts quoted, the close experts to Damon and his calling them heroes, the sketches? For blood, for overall health, diet? The warnings about the risks? the tests, checking, at the end?

9. The entertaining device of having all the experts appear within particular frameworks and their being able to be turned over…?

10. 40 teaspoonfuls of sugar, the visuals, the two months? The statistics about sugar intake?

11. Damon’s choices, ordinary life, the spoonfuls, the breakfast and even with serial, yoghurts and juice a big number of spoonfuls?

12. The range of sugar products, especially drinks, Coca-Cola?, Pepsi-Cola?, Mountain Dew – and its amount of caffeine? The advertising claims, the nature of promotion, the companies commissioning research – for their own benefits?

13. The narrative, Damon confiding in the audience, his putting on weight, the need to exercise, the deteriorating health, his mood swings, attention deficit, over the weeks? The explanations? The comic touches?

14. The importance of his visit to the aboriginal town, their experience of health, the introduction of supermarkets, more sugar in the diet, deterioration and less achievement than previously?

15. Damon going to the United States, New York, drinking the smoothie to get over jetlag? Going to Kentucky, encountering the dentist, travelling around with him, the teenager, his deteriorating teeth, the amount of Mountain Dew that he had drunk? The close-ups of his mouth, the treatment by the dentist, the effect on the boy, on his mother? But not learning the lesson about drinks?

16. The American experts, the range, different opinions, pros and cons? Damon going to the conference and meeting the expert?

17. Coming home, his girlfriend pregnant, giving birth, Damon as happy father?

18. The health check, the process of restoring his health?

19. Two months experience, the sugar intake and its effect? The message about commercialism and the use of sugar, the cautions?

FAT PIZZA VERSUS HOUSOS

Australia, 2014, 90 minutes, Colour.
Angry Anderson, Tahir Bilgic, John Boxer, Guild Door, Paul Fenech.
Directed by Paul Fenech.

One has to be a fan of SBS’s Pizza series as well as The Housos series, both initiated by writer, director, actor, Paul Fenech.

While ABC television created the series Upper Middle Opens, these series are really Low, Lower, Lowest Bogans – and Fenech did produce for TV, Bogan Hunters. These are Bogans at their most basic. And the action happens in the outer suburbs of Sydney.

Concerning Fact Pizza: the manager took to an opponent with a chainsaw and got 15 years in jail; now he is getting out and his dominating Italian mother is there to meet him, continually rouse on him, taking him to an estate agent to look at a shop property, to lease it, to start up the Pizza Takeaway again.

Concerning Housos: we see rough, very rough people in their homes, getting welfare, try to manage – or not manage well – their children, with the grandmother on the bed calling out for Pizza!

Politicians in the area are campaigning, looking up-market in the streets, being attacked by some of the locals. The politics and issues of Sunnyvale, where the film is set, are similar to those of 2014, State and Federal, with specific attacks on the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and issues of police, gangs, welfare… And a certain amount of television coverage.

There are also employment and unemployment, the dole, Centrecare. And, again, there are issues of people from the Pacific Islands and other locations getting jobs for which they are not qualified, muckups, and some prejudicial statements.

And there are, gangs, mixed race, with an aggressive dwarf, violence and threats. The local police are very little help, more interested in food than other matters.

The film builds up to confrontations, local comic situations, and some kind of return to the status quo.

Lots of vulgarity, some incessant swearing, and Paul Fenech’s idea of sending up Bogan life in the suburbs.