L’AFFAIRE FAREWELL

France, 2009, 113 minutes, Colour.
Emir Kustirica, Guillaume Canet, Alexandra Maria Lara, Niels Arestrup, Fred Ward, David Soul, Willem Dafoe, Diane Kruger.
Directed by Christian Carion.

Christian Carion made the moving film about World War I in the trenches and the brief respite of a ceasefire for Christmas in his Joyeux Noel (Merry Christmas). He now comes forward in time to take up another interesting period that is due for consideration and clearer hindsight interpretations: the last years of Leonid Brezhnev’s Russia, its decline and paving the way for Gorbachev and Pestroika and the collapse of the Soviet empire.

And one of the characters involved in this screenplay is Ronald Reagan as president, some interesting insights which means that Oliver Stone who has made movies about Kennedy, Nixon and the two Bushes could turn his gaze on Reagan the politician. (Here he is played by Fred Ward.)

However, the film’s attention goes to a high-placed member of the KGB (played by Serb director, Emir Kusturica) who becomes dissatisfied with the administration and the stagnation in Russia and passes on documents to the French via an employee of a company at its office in Moscow (Guillaume Canet). The material then goes to French president, Francois Mitterand, and is communicated to President Reagan and his administration. Since this all happened under thirty years ago, it makes for interesting viewing and assessment of what was happening between the two power giants at the time.

The film shows the detail of the KGB officer and his meetings with his contact and how the material was transferred to France (the technology was photocopier and camera).

There is also some background of counter-espionage in the KGB as well as the response of the CIA (with Willem Dafoe as director). There are betrayals and counter-betrayals and the sacrificing of individuals for the ‘greater good’.

This is not an exciting spy drama although the escape of the Frenchman and his family in split second timing across the Russian-Finnish? border has its moments. Rather, this is a study of the times, the personalities, the role of ideology and pragmatism. The latter has always been the determinant of what happens in the world.

The film provides some eye-openers for what goes on behind the diplomatic scenes.

1. Based on a true story? The Soviet perspective? The French perspective? American perspective? Espionage and its contribution to the fall of the Soviet Empire?

2. Locations: Russia, Moscow, France, Paris, United States, Washington DC? The scenic aspects of Moscow? A sense of realism? The musical score?

3. Audience memories and knowledge of the period, of the Soviets, of the 1980s, of the Reagan era? The changes of the 80s?

4. Espionage and counter espionage, in Russia, in the United States, throughout Europe? Spies and their information? Communicating them to enemy powers? Russian knowledge of western information – and using it?

5. Information, moles? The Russian giving the information to the French? And then to the Americans? The effect? The information about counter spying? The range of arrests at the end of the film, scientists, the jogger, office workers? Russian patriots and the disillusionment with Communism and how it played out in Soviet society? Wanting a collapse of this kind of Soviet union? Their being idealistic?

6. Gregoriev, his work in the United States, his position in Moscow? His age, experience, loyalties, disillusionment with the Soviet practice, his wife and son, pride in his son, relationship with his wife, his relationship with his mistress and her work in the office? The son knowing about the relationship? His wife knowing?

7. His decision, his method, choosing Pierre, appears status, the meetings, the family circus, in the car, his appearance, giving the documents? His collecting the documents? Pierre and his job? Jacques as his boss? Their discussions? His continuing to work to transmit the documents? His talk with the French Minister? The role of President Mitterrand?

8. Continuing his supply of documents, the development of his method, rendezvous round the city, the meetings? The asking for western gifts, the record of Queen for his son? Poetry for himself?

9. His wife, supportive of her husband, knowing the truth? His son, study, his son disillusioned with his father, the later meeting in prison?

10. Pierre and his continuing with the job, cautious, behaviour in Russia and Moscow? His wife happy, his little boy? The warnings, his lying to his wife, her wanting, her fears, the job in New York, the warning on the mirror? The decision to leave?

11. The porter at the French, the ministers, the Pres, his advisers? The job in New York, the communication with the Americans? With President Reagan?

12. The United States, Reagan and his easy style, watching the television, his advisers, confidential talk? His suspicion of Mitterand’s Communist ministers? Life in the White House? The meeting with Mitterand? The information, speculating on the consequences? The decision to act on the information?

13. The CIA, opinions, visits to Europe, Pierre seeing the official, wanting to rescue Gregoriev? The information, the irony that Gregoriev’s interrogator was a mole? He is moving to the US? The US deciding to sacrifice Gregoriev? Offering Pierre the job in New York?

14. The documents, the nickname Farewell, getting the camera? Tensions in his office, the delivery of the photos, in Pierre’s pockets…?

15. Gregoriev, his concern, his arrest, interrogation, torture, the officials and Gregoriev refusing to answer?

16. The irony of the interrogation, the interrogator and his espionage, information to the Americans, getting the warning to Pierre on the mirror, his going to the Americans?

17. The danger, the officials, Pierre and his family, driving to Finland, at the checkpoint, their being let go?

18. The CIA tribute to Gregoriev, to Pierre, the New York job, but unable to save his friend?

19. The aftermath? Politics between US and the Soviet union in the 1980s, espionage, the reality, the dangers, competitive? The role of Gorbachev and is reaction to the situation?

20. Audiences watching this kind of film and wondering about the realities and contemporary realities?

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

US, 2014, 119 minutes, Colour.
Chris Pratt, Zoe Sundowner, voices of Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Dave Bautista, John C. Reilly, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close, Benicio del Toro.
Directed by James Gunn.


In the United States, Guardians of the Galaxy has become something of the Saviour of the summer box office. It has proven extremely popular.

To be fair, here is the opening paragraph of an IMDb blogger (Grey Gardens). This is a fan’s, no, FAN’S, response: Guardians of the Galaxy is nothing short of an amazing movie. If there's anything I can say, it's that it is the best superhero movie I have seen. Not only does it have the impressive set pieces and enough action to last you a lifetime, it has an emotional core and you actually get to care about each and every single character. Overall this movie is filled with all the required thrills and spills and is a first class action movie. It also has a great mixture of comedic value and a deal of seriousness. While acknowledging this, and the amusement and joy that the film will bring to younger audiences as well as science-fiction buffs and those who in due and surely come-in-cheek spoof of the space adventures and the super heroes, this review will not be so enthusiastic.

Acclaim must be given to the action, stunts, special effects. There is great ambition behind this particular film, capitalising on the popularity of the serious Marvel comic characters, but also capitalising on parody. One might imagine a film made of all those odd-looking at odd-sounding characters that are found in the bar, along with hounds solo, in the Star Wars films, a film about Chewbacca. those films were enjoyable but George Lucas, for some strange reason and imaginative about, created Jar Jar Binks, who not only sounded silly but looked silly and intruded a lot of silly behaviour into The Phantom Menace.

So, this reviewer was not so much thinking of Star Wars but of Jar Jar Binks and of the silliness. In fact, the word that kept surfacing while watching Guardians was “stoopid” – and this was too hard to get over.

Poor Peter Quill is abducted by aliens in 1983. Older now, he is in possession of an orb, with superhuman powers, which is sought after by an evil galactic lord, Ronan. There are some other assassins and destroyers.

But, Peter forms a group of guardians who whizz around here and planetary there. There is a raccoon called Rocket (voiced with sly enthusiasm by Bradley Copper) and a tree trunk who is able only to say ‘I am Groot’ since so many reviewers have said that this is most wooden performance, I won’t do it. Then there is a young woman, with a jealous sister, who escapes her planet and joins the guardians. She is played by Zoe Saldana, coloured green, a contrast to her blue appearance in Avatar.

Of all people, Glenn Close, appears as a planet leader (though come to think of it, she was in Tim’s Burton’s Mars Attacks) and Benicio del Toro has a cameo.

So, this is a comic book adventure with strange and funny goodies and quite an array of most evil baddies. There is no limit to the imagination and the special effects for these galactic skirmishes, schemes and battles. And the sequel is promised in three years.


1. The film? The target audience? Box office success around the world? The comic strip style, comedy,?

2. The imagination of the makers, galaxies, planets, different locations, space? Travel? Costumes and decor? Musical score?

3. The visuals, the characters, for Rocket, Groot? Colours and styles? Manner of speaking? Rocket and his cheekiness? Groot, monosyllabic?

4. The action sequences? In the super-heroes tradition?

5. Peter, at home, child, the abduction, his place in the universe, older, his character, Star Lord, the orb, the pursuit, the hero in action, collaboration with the other Guardians?

6. Bradley Cooper, his voice for Rocket? Vin Diesel and Groot?

7. Peter, his mission, Gamorra, the assassin, green, her change of mind, her plans? Her sister, and the struggles, jealousies, her father, the bond with
Peter? Going into action?

8. The Guardians, Rocket and Groot, Gamorra, Drax? Drax and the feeling of vengeance? The friendship between them all?

9. The enemies, Ronan and his pursuit, Korack, Yondu Udonta, the relationship with Gamorra?

10. The chases through the planets, the evil Lords, wanting powers, loyalties, betrayals?

11. The planet with Nova Prime, her defences, going into action?

12. The cameos: Corpsman Dey, the Collector, Thanos?

13. The battles, the conflicts, good against evil, the cosmic dimensions – and the spoofs?

LES MISERABLES

France 1934, 305 minutes, Black and white.
Harry Baur, Charles Vanel.
Directed by Raymond Bernard.

Les Miserables is Victor Hugo's best-known novel. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, of course, would rival it in popularity. Both novels have been frequently filmed for cinemas and television.

This version is a classic French version of the early '30s. It was originally filmed for six hours and was screened ad two adjacent theatres with three-hour sessions. However, this seemed to be too difficult for exhibition and the film was edited to a version running almost 3 hours. The missing footage seems to be lost. The 3-hour version was also released as two films.

The storyline is familiar and is presented fairly straightforwardly in this version. In the edited copy, the early episodes of Jean Valjean's life are passed over and we see him being released. The film spends a deal of time on the episode with the bishop and the stolen cutlery. There is then a gap and Valjean appears as Monsieur Madeleine, a successful Merchant and Mayor of the town. It is at this stage that Inspector Javert appears. The bulk of the film is given to focusing on Fantine and Cosette, Valjean's going to the court to release the prisoner accused of being Valjean. The second film spends a great deal of time on the situation in Paris where Valjean is hiding, on the revolutionaries, the relationship between Cosette and Marius and, of course, finishes with the final confrontation of Valjean and Javert.

Each version highlights particular aspects of the novel. The strength of this film is in its portrait of Valjean, played by Harry Bauer, a French star of the '20s and '30s who appeared, for example, as Beethoven in Abel Gance's Beethoven's Greatest Love. Javert is played by Charles Vanel who was to appear in many French films including The Wages of Fear. He also appeared in Francesco Rosi's Three Brothers in 1979.

There was an American version of the novel in 1934 starring Fredric March and Charles Laughton as Javert. A 1952 remake starred Michael Rennie and Robert Newton. A long telemovie version was made with Richard Jordan as Valjean and Anthony Perkins as Javert.

A further version was made by Bille August with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush in 1998 and Claude Lelouch made a more contemporary version. The popularity of the story is seen in the success of the musical version.

THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY

US, 2014, minutes, Colour.
Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayal.
Directed by Lasse Hallstrom.

The Hundred- Foot Journey is situated in France – where they don’t measure in feet and yards but have to translate anything metric for the commercially necessary non-metric audiences of the United States and Britain. No matter whether we use feet or metres, this is an entertaining film.

Statistics have indicated that television audiences are prone to watch programmes about food and cooking. This is a good reason to give up some hours of television watching because Hundred- Foot Journey is a film about Indian cooking and about French cooking, with some most impressive visuals in the kitchen and on the tables of the restaurants a hundred feet apart.

The family of Mumbai are expert in providing the joys of Indian food in their native city but when riots occur with destruction, they decide that they need to migrate to Europe. They spend some time in London but find it too cold, especially as they try to live under the flight path into Heathrow, the plains zooming down very closely overhead. Off they go to the continent, driving through Switzerland and into France where they have a van breakdown – and the father of the family, played by Indian veteran actor, Om Puri, has an epiphany.

A derelict building, a failed restaurant, is on sale. He buys it and starts to fulfil his dream of an Indian restaurant in Europe. He discovers that there is a certain amount of racism and bigotry in France which threatens his restaurant. But the main threat comes from across the street, those hundred feet, from a one Michelen star restaurant owned and managed by the haughty French Madame Mallory (Helen, Mirren, in very regal mode with broken English accent).

The battle of the kitchens has its amusing moments, the screenplay poking fun at French snobbery and exclusivity of menu, and enthusiastically demonstrating the virtues (and odours and tastes) of Indian cuisine, so to speak.

The son of the family (is an expert cook – in the opening, he explains to passport control that he is a chef. His father is exceedingly proud of him. And he begins work at the Mumbai Palace.

At first, the rivalry is intense, Madame trying to do her best (and worst) to close the opposition down. But when antagonism from the locals turns ugly, she disapproves of the racism and begins, herself, to get rid of offending graffiti. And, as the end of Casablanca reminds us, “this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”).

The chef son has a great desire to learn French cooking and he is accepted by Madame, more than proving his worth after her initial doubts. He is also attracted by Madame’s sous-chef, so there is nice romance, although it is tested when the young man achieves another Michelin star and is invited to chef in Parisian restaurants.

In the meantime, his girlfriend pines for him and begins to give up hope. Madame and the boy’s father share a very warm friendship. So, in the end, it is happiness for all, including the audience going out of the cinema feeling very good.

1. The popularity of films about food and restaurants? Indian cuisine? French cuisine?

2. The title, the steps to each restaurant from the other, but greater than 100 feet? Cultural issues, national issues, race issues, food themes?

3. The visuals of Mumbai, the streets, the restaurant, the customers and food, the riots, the effect on the family, the death of the mother, destruction of the restaurant? Political and religious background? The decision to go to Europe, at passport control, the interrogations? Trying to settle in Europe? The attempt at Heathrow, the planes passing so close overhead and the wind draft? Into France, the mountains, the town, the beauty? The musical score, both Indian and European in style?

4. The introduction to the family, the large family, the parents, Hassan and his skills, his mother’s influence, the father managing, the other children? Their life, expectations, the riots, the mother’s death, the escape?

5. Refugees, going to Europe, hopes, explanations at the border, Hassan and his saying he was a chef? Allowed to enter Europe?

6. Heathrow, the plains, the wind draft, the cold, the decision to move, travelling in the van, Switzerland and France, the brakes giving way, going onto the side road, seeing the town, father attracted by it?

7. Finding the building, abandoned by previous owners who had failed with their restaurant, his admiring the building, encountering Madame Mallory, his decision to buy the building? The promotion? The praise of his son and focusing on him in public?

8. Progress, the details of the building, the Indian style, the elaborate facade, the lights, the name? The interiors, the kitchen? Hassan as a chef, the family all helping? food, going to the market, Madame having bought everything, the father’s later using the same device? The opening of the restaurant?

9. Madame, her story, the widow, running the restaurant, the Michelin star? The large staff, her severity, the different chefs, Marguerite as an under-chef? The range of clients, from the town, the politicians? The tactics, disdain for the Indians, her complaints, wanting to build a high wall?

10. The mayor, his wife, the initial reactions, his liking the food, going to the Indian restaurant, caught between the two with their complaints?

11. Issues of racism, the attack on the town, Madame’s chef and her firing him? The graffiti, the ugliness of the racism?

12. This turning point for Madame, her washing off the graffiti, the reactions from the family?

13. Hassan, his age, his skill as a chef, explanation at passport control, his gifts? Searching in the woods, the encounter with Marguerite, the revelation that she worked for Madame? The bond, the sharing, the books on cooking and his reading them, his success, doing the French meal, Madame and her looking down on him? His desire to learn French cooking, the audition, Madame accepting him, her amazement, her praise?

14. Madame wanting the improvement for her restaurant, another Michelin star, the deal about Hassan, his moving the hundred feet, his work, the recipes, Madame promoting him? The other members of the staff? Marguerite and her reactions? His apprenticeship, the time? The hopes of the second Michelin star, everybody waiting for the phone call, success?

15. The family, the memory of the mother, her influence, everyone helping, buying, cooking? The fire, Hassan and his helping, burning his hands? His brother doing the cooking? His sister and her reaction? The younger children and their adapting to France?

16. Hassan, the opportunity to go to Paris, Marguerite and her being upset, his getting the taxi, talking to her, his success in Paris, the restaurants, the clients, the food, the magazine articles?

17. Madame, the father, an older couple, their talking, easy familiarity, the bonds, the dancing, sharing?

18. Marguerite, angry, the book, Hassan’s return, making up?

19. Happy ending for all concerned?

BAMBI 2

US, 2006, 75 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Patrick Stewart, Alexander Gould.
Directed by Brian Pimental.

After the popularity and success of Aladdin and The Lion King, the Disney studios decided to make sequels of many of their major hits, even going back to the 1940s for this sequel to the ever-popular Bambi.

The design of the film resembles that of the original, the delineation of the characters, Bambi, the Great Prince, Thumper, the owl, Flower the skunk… The backgrounds of the forest are similar as well – and the musical score resembles the past but it seems a pity that some of the themes were not incorporated more substantially into this sequel. The range of songs is very much that of the 1990s and the early 21st century Disney style, not as memorable as those in the original film.

The film proved very popular on television with family audiences – and probably with a number of parents and grandparents for whom Bambi was a favourite film.

Again, the plot is very simple, the Great Prince is concerned about Bambi who seems an awkward young deer. The Prince is somewhat severe but Bambi wants to emulate his father. In the spring, all his friends reappear and audiences will enjoy the bonds between them all as well as the comic touches.

There is a villain introduced, Ronno, a cantankerous deer who clashes with Bambi, taunting him, with Bambi having to resist and assert himself in his own right, buoyed with the support of his friends.

And the theme of father and son relationships is to the fore, the Prince having to look after Bambi when young, trying to find somebody to look after Bambi, sending him away for care, and then a reconciliation. Patrick Stewart brings grat vocal dignity to the Great Prince.

Light entertainment for very young audiences.

NIGHT MOVES

US, 2013, 112 minutes, Colour.
Jesse Eisenberg, Dakota Fanning, Peter Sarsgaard.
Directed by Kelly Reichardt.

Night Moves is a drama that could divide audiences. A smaller audience will be impressed by the themes and the very measured treatment of issues and characters. A larger audience will find the film far too slow, no adrenaline-pumping, and will be bored.

The reason for the different perspectives audiences is the director herself, Kelly Reichardt. She has made comparatively few films, but there have been critically well-received, Old Joy, Wendy and Lucy, and a film which drew much more favour from audiences as well as critics, the story of a pioneering group moving west in America in the 19th-century, Meeks Cut-off. Kelly Reichardt is a contemplative director, in no hurry, shooting tracking sequences which are very long, other shots dwelling on characters and nature, and a very low-key musical score, quietly instrumental, especially with piano. She is also her own editor, determining the lengths of the shots and the pace of editing. It is easy to understand why she has only a cult following.

This is an echo-protest story. The audience is immersed directly into the plot rather than given any explanations about the central characters, their motivations for protest, their going into dramatic action. We see them contemplating a dam and the water spill. We see them going to the screening of a film about the environment and the destructive threats, with something of an apocalyptic touch, while the director urges her audience to perform small and significant protest-action.

The two central characters, Josh, Jesse Eisenberg doing his expected quiet and jittery performance, and Dena, Dakota Fanning now an adult actress after her years of child-star success. The third member of the group is a former marine, who spent some time in prison, Harmon, played by Peter Sarsgaard. Time is spent watching Josh and Dena bargaining to buy a boat which they will use, packed with explosives. Harmon is the coordinator of the action, which requires Dena to go into a store buy 500 pounds of ammonia fertiliser, resisted at first, but finally persuading the salesman with the help of some friendly locals.

The action scene is, in fact, minimal. the trio simply sail to the dam wall, leave the boat, packed with explosives, paddle canoe to shore – but with some tense moments as a car pulls up in the distance. We look at the car and the man from the same distance as the trio. They decide to go back to disarm the bomb, but the man finally drives away and, mission accomplished.

After the action, the film slows again to its meditative pace, even though Josh is nervy. Dena becomes more frightened and reclusive, some minimal contact by phone with Harmon. With news of a fatality, the impact is stronger for both Josh and Dena.

There is a shock sequence which will leave audiences wondering about Josh and his character – and then the film just stops, dramatically, leaving the audience with issues about empathising with the characters, with their action, or not. The film leaves the audience with numerous challenges and numerous questions about the environment, about protest, about “theatrics” rather than solid demonstration.

1. The impact of the film? Eco-protest? Drama, thriller? Message as well as critique of protesters and their motive protest, “theatrical”?

2. North-western US, Oregon into Wyoming? The towns, farms, dams, the countryside?

3. The director, her pace, contemplative , measured, the longer shots, her editing? The low-key musical score?

4. The cast, their careers, expectations of them?

5. The title, the action, the name of the boat?

6. The introduction, Josh and Dena at the dam, contemplation, the brief conversation, the return home, the long sequence of buying the boat, bargaining, the owner, letting it go? Speculation about their action, the motivation? Their attending the meeting, the showing of the film, the director speaking, the touch of the apocalyptic, possibilities action, questions about big movements, the director and her talk about small effective action?

7. The lack of explanation about Josh and Dena, what brought them to this stage of protest? The contact with Harmon? Little explanation about him except to say marine, that he was in prison? His personality, his untidy home, the contact, the ways of communication between the three? The definition of the plan, the dam, no one to be hurt, transforming the boat, the interactions together during this period? Getting the false ID?

8. The issue of the fertiliser, Dena going to the shop, her strong-minded spiel and action, her explanations about the vegetables and the needs, times, expectations, harvesting? Not having the documents? The man in the store, his strict observing of regulations? Dena going back to the car, the strategy of going back to the store, the men coming in, the discussions, success? Going home and packing the bags, putting them on the boat, ready for the explosion?

9. Josh, Jesse Eisenberg’s screen presence, taciturn, nervy, introverted? The same kind of character? His work at the farm, the vegetables? Mysterious motivation? His relationship with Dena? Jealousy of Harmon? With Harmon, often matter of fact, the driving, the dangers?

10. Dena, rich, the reasons for her participating in the action? Harmon and his control?

11. Travelling to the dam, towing the boat, leaving the vans, putting the boat in the water, the action at night? The boat at the dam wall, the canoe, the car arriving, the audience watching the car and its lights from their point of view, going back to the boat, thinking to dismantle the bomb? The car going, their going to land, getting into the vehicle, hearing the explosion? The long drive back home?

12. The return home, separation, not wanting contact? Everything normal, the workers of vegetables, social life, meals?

13. The television news, the death of the victim from the flood, the reactions of the family, Josh?

14. Josh, his nerves, anxiety, any conscience pangs? The phone calls to Harmon? Dena, at home, upset? Explaining herself to the other members of the family? The dangers of the revelation?

15. Josh, any pangs of conscience, his confronting Dena? The scene at the spa – and the opening with the women at the spa? Josh and his fears, killing Dena? Audience shock at this?

16. Josh being asked to leave, the people suspicious, not wanting to ask questions, his leaving, driving away, going to the store, looking around the goods, the application for the job, the questions on the form and his looking at them, the possibilities for his filling them in – or not?

17. The film suddenly stopping, the range of questions posed to the audience, the challenges about issues, personalities, protest, the use of theatrical events to make a point?

18. A slow-moving film, measured, contemplative, giving the audience opportunity to empathise or not with the characters, consider their action and motivation, and the final questions they were left with?

A DIRTY SHAME

US, 2004, 95 minutes, Colour.
Tracey Ullman, Johnny Knoxville, Chris Isaak, Selma Blair, Mink Stole, Patricia Hearst, Ricky Lake.
Directed by John Waters.

A Dirty Shame comes rather late in John Waters’ career. Originally from Baltimore, and always returning there in his films, he made an impact in the 1970s with some films in grossly bad taste, often featuring transvestite Divine. He seemed to revel in gross comedy about bodily functions, about relationships and sexuality, about deviancy… There were such films as Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, Multiple Maniacs.

Later, Waters was to go more mainstream while keeping his reputation as a director who embraced ‘filth’ in his screenplays. There were oddball films like Polyester, Lust in the Dust. There were also films which appealed more to the mainstream, Cry Baby with Johnny Depp and, especially, Serial Mom, Pecker, Cecil B DeMented? and Hairspray which was later adapted as a Broadway musical and then as a big budget film starring John Travolta.

With A Dirty Shame, Waters says he was interested in making a sex movie, especially about sex addiction – and wanting to satirise and spoof situations and characters. And that is what he has done.

The audience for A Dirty Shame will not be as large as that for many other films, audiences put off by the characters, the behaviour, the treatment of sexuality, the gross spoofs, bodily functions humour that go all the way to gross-out. When all is said and done, a lot of the humour is very juvenile, a blend of the corny and the crass – with a lot of repetition. The whole film and its point could have been made much more briefly and succinctly – and effectively.

Waters had something of a coup in inviting British comedian, Tracey Ullman, to play the central role of the very uptight and sexually repressed Baltimore housewife, burdened with a daughter who has had a huge breast enhancement and has played sleazy clubs and is now locked in her room at home. Chris Isaak is her husband, with an emphasis on sex at the beginning but his turning out to be an NEUTER, the group of citizens of Baltimore who were rebelling against sexual excess, all under the leadership of his mother-in-law, Big Ethel (Suzanne Shepherd).

Johnny Knoxville plays a kind of Satanic sex addict controller, finding people of been knocked out or had concussion in an accident whose lives are being transformed, becoming sex addicts of the most excessive kind. And there are plenty of illustrations of this, showing characters and in the upper right-hand corner illustratiions of the concussion that they had and how they were transformed. Another device that Waters uses is to rely on stock footage of all kinds of episodes in life as well as in film and television, placed in rapid collage, to indicate the type of sex addiction.

When Tracey Ullman is transformed, there are a wide range of episodes where she changes character, changes clothes, becomes more permissive, has special effects of fire from her vagina, changes to talking confidentially with her daughter, supporting her, and meeting all the sex addicts around Baltimore. When she is de-concussed, she and the family go to a 12-step sex addict meeting where there are a lot of confessions – and then more concussions and transformations back and forth. Her daughter, Caprice, Selma Blair, also goes to the meeting and goes back to the family store where there is a protest meeting against excesses. She has been changed. However, as might have been expected, there are parodies of religious groups attacks on them, there are all kinds of reversals, finishing with people bumping each other on the head transforming and re-transforming into addiction.

There is a guest episode with David Hasselhoff in a plane – and the headbanging going on during the trip.

There is no real reason for seeing the film. Many audiences will be put off by the sexual shenanigans. The reason to see it is for completion of films by John Waters, where A Dirty Shame finds its place.

SEE HERE, PRIVATE HARGROVE

US, 1944, 90 minutes, Black-and-white.
Robert Walker, Keenan Wynn, Donna Reed, Robert Benchley, Chill Wills.
Directed by Wesley Ruggles.

This is a film of its time, produced during the latter years of World War II, a morale boosting film, highlighting the camaraderie of the American troops in training, in their ordinary lives, in their hopes to go into action, in their patriotism.

The screenplay is based on a book by journalist, Marion Hargrove, who is a torment in his erratic behaviour and timetables to managing editor, Ray Collins, but who was called up, went through all the normal processes, not asking for exceptions, while messing things up continuously in terms of address, lateness, faux pas, and spent a lot of his time on garbage can cleaning. In the meantime, he was writing stories about the training which eventually were published. They are the basis for this film – there was a sequel the next year, What Next, Corporal Hargrove.

On the bus to camp, Hargrove meets two enlistees who were to become his associates, one a supportive friend, the other, played by Keenan Wynn, with an inbuilt nature to hustle and swindled. There is also the corporal, forever taking notes on Hargrove’s mistakes, played by Chill Wills.

Apart from the expected activities and training, and the variety of personnel around the camp, some severe, some sympathetic, there is also a romance with Donna Reed as the focus of Marion’s attention. She is set up by Keenan Wynn and Marion has to pay for an evening with her – to her embarrassment, but to the humorous response of her uncle, played by Grant Mitchell, who urges her to accept – and the beginning of a nice romance.

There is an episode in New York City were Marion goes to try to get a publisher for his book and an enjoyable week in the company of Donna Reed, after spending some time having a conversation with her father, comedian Robert Benchley, who thinks is a good listener but does all the talking.

Keenan Wynn does something of a swindle by getting himself and Hargrove into a desk job writing journalistic reports while the others train to go into battle – with a final confrontation with the two of them trying to move all kinds of mountains so that they get a transfer to go into action. Which they do.

A film which brings the atmosphere, with the light touch, of World War II and American involvement to the screen.

FAN BOYS

US, 2009, 90 minutes, Colour.
Jay Baruchel, Dan Fogler, Sam Huntington, Chris Marquette, Kristin Bell, Christopher McDonald?, Seth Rogen, Billy D Williams, Carrie Fisher, Danny Trejo, William Shatner, Kevin Smith, Jason Mews, Ethan Suplee, Jamie King
Directed by Kyle Newman.


Fanboys has a definite target: the infinite number of Star Wars fans, especially the fan boys (and some girls), the nerdy fans who know every detail about every name, every place and episode in all the films as well as those for whom the Star Wars films were formative in their consciousness, their heroes, comic characters, Darth Vader and his symbolism of evil as well as The Force.

There might be an extended audience for this film, those who benignly consider themselves somewhat superior to the films but are fascinated by the fan phenomenon. It may also be of interest because there are continuous comparisons made with Stark Trek, the different fans, their outfits, the emblems from the films, as well as the rivalries and fights. But Star Wars wins and overcomes Star Trek.

The film opens by establishing four central characters who are to go on a road trip intending to get into George Lucas’s mansion and watch the uncut copy of The Phantom Menace, which means that this film opens in 1998 and the journey moves towards the release of the film in July 1999.

The four central characters tend to be nerds and dorks: Jay Baruchel as Windows, knowledgeable about everything but slightly built and not geared for Galactic battles; Hutch, Dan Fogler, is a hairy and large slacker who lives with his mother in her garage (carriage room); Linus, Chris Marquette, who in fact is dying of cancer; and Eric, Sam Huntington, who has moved away from Star Wars and his school friends and drawing graphic comics, to work for his father’s car sales enterprise which his father bequeaths to him. He has fallen out with Linus but on hearing of his illness, wants the group to go to California to see the film. When they get into trouble and in prison along the way, they call their friend Zoe, Kristin Bell, so that there is a female component of the heroes in quest of Star Wars.

There are the expected adventures on the way, Hutch and an encounter with two escorts, not realising that he has to pay, and being pursued by their pimp, played by Seth Rogen, one of three cameos that he performs in the film, the other being the bouncer with an addiction to Star Wars and an antagonism towards Star Trek. They go into a bar which is peopled by gay truckies, have to perform a strip dance, but are rescued by The Chief who feeds them drugs with consequent trips but fixes their van during the night. This is a cameo for Danny Trejo.

With all the talk about the detail of the Star Was films, it is a pleasure to see Billy D Williams as a judge (Judge Reinhold!) and Carrie Fisher as a nurse at the hospital where they take Linuss in an emergency. There is also a cameo by Star Wars fan, Kevin Smith, along with his associate, Jason Mews.

There is an episode in Las Vegas where they go to find the ground plan for the Lucas mansion where they also clash with the star Star Trek fans whom they have encountered and mocked in a town along the way.

They get into the mansion, caught by Empire soldiers, admire all the costumes and objects from the films, as well as the Indiana Jones features, are held to account by an official who interrogates them, quizzes them, and they find that George Lucas is flattered by their quest and allows the dying Linus only to watch the whole film.

Eric continues his drawing and publishes two comic books.

The film ends with the opening of The Phantom Menace in July 1999, crowds at the cinema – and all seated in the cinema, Eric suddenly asking “what if the film sucks?).

(This reviewer saw the film on its opening day in 1999, but quietly, in a sparsely populated cinema in Scottsdale, Arizona. Not a nerd in sight! While the film was not so good, George Lucas not being such a good director, the character that he introduced, Jar Jar Binks certainly sucked!)

DEVIL’S KNOT

US/Canada, 2014, 115 minutes, Colour.
Colin Firth, Reese Witherspoon, Allessandro Nivola, Elias Koteas, Kevin Durand, Bruce Greenwood, Amy Ryab.
Directed by Atom Egoyan.

Based on the true story.

In 1993, three very young boys were assaulted and murdered in woods at the edge of the city of Memphis, Arkansas. There was a lot of talk about devil-worship, about Satanism and rituals, one of the accused of having an interest in these themes and a library with background books. The police were eager to close the case, focusing on three young men who were accused, neglecting other evidence. There were strong feelings in the city.

Veteran Canadian director, Atom Egoyan, makes his first American film, with a strong interest in the case, most especially in those involved in the defence. The screenplay has been written by Scott Derrickson and Philip Boardman, Derrickson the director of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sinister, and the New York police thriller, with possession and exorcism, Deliver Us from Evil.

This film has not been well reviewed, nor widely-released. The main reason seems to be that there were three very strong documentaries, entitled Paradise, which dealt at much greater length and with greater detail on the case, on the accused, on the judicial processes, on the aspects of Satanism. With such a thorough treatment, many who saw this present film thought it superfluous and were very critical of its seeming bias. However, for those who have not seen the documentaries, and are not familiar with the case, it makes very interesting viewing for those who like reconstructions and investigations of true crime.

We are introduced to the events through one of the boys, Stevie, going on a bike ride with his friends and going into the woods, with the promise that he would be back by 4.30 in the afternoon so that his mother (Reese Witherspoon) could go to work. Her husband (Alessandro Neville) tells her that the boy has not come home. It soon emerges that three of the boys have disappeared, although a voice-over of a little boy begins to tell us that he was there and what happened, tapes of a boy who claimed to have been there but was inventing the story as he was interviewed by the police.

The police investigate, people search through the night, but in the morning the naked bodies of the boys are found. Several of the teenagers in the town come under suspicion, one mentally disabled boy who confesses, then later retracts. Another boy is drawn in just by association. And the main accused, who suffers from mental illness and has been in an institution, becomes the main target because of his interest in devil-worship. There is another boy who might have been involved but who has immediately gone to California, is brought back, and fails a lie detector test during his questioning.

While the film focuses on the family, especially the parents’ grief, it introduces a central character, a private investigator with his own company who, pro bono, devotes his and his staff’s attention to examining the behaviour of the accused. He contributes this material to the defence counsel who find it very hard to do their work because of the presumptions and dogmatic decisions of the presiding judge (Bruce Greenwood).

The investigator is played by Colin Firth, a determined man in process of a divorce from his wife (Amy Ryan). He observes, he questions, he analyses evidence, lack of evidence. One of the reasons for taking on his work is that he is against capital punishment, the taking of three more lives in the city, and the harsh judgements made about them. He does make contact with Stevie’s mother and, as the film ends, gets from her some leads which might help the boys.

In a postscript to the film, it is explained that through a particular legal circumstance in Arkansas, the three convicted men were released in 2011. The film also offers suspicious indications about two of the fathers of the murdered boys, perhaps indicating devil-worship activity in the town at the time.

While it would be important for those interested in the case to see the three documentaries, they are not readily available, and this particular rendition would rouse interest in the case, the administration of justice, and the effect of the later release of the accused.

1. The film based on a true story? The documentaries made about the episode and their popularity and insight? The success of the film depending on audience knowledge about the case or not? American response? Non-American? response?

2. The 1990s, Arkansas, the town, homes, streets, schools? The courthouses and offices? The woods and the river? The musical score?

3. The introduction, Pam and Stevie, the bond between mother and son, his going out with friends, the bike? His age? His father arriving home? Pam going to work, the news of the disappearance, the body being found, grief? the flashbacks of family life? Pam seeing him in her imagination and dreams?

4. The voice-over, the young child, his age, his words, interrogation, his statement of witness, with his mother, later his testimony being disproved? The role of the mother, with the police, interrogation, at home, retracting her testimony?

5. The search, the police, the parents’ anguish, the river, the police finding the bodies, bringing them to the surface, the bikes? the bodies naked, assault?

6. The suspects, Damien, his age, mental capacities and experience, his interest in the occult, the books, his talking? Jesse and his being slow-witted, the confession, retracting it? Jason and his friendship, guilt by association? Chris Morgan, his being interviewed, leaving, California, his being brought back, failing the lie detector test? The information about the black man seen with mud on his trousers, but no follow-up?

7. Public opinion in the town, Pam and her husband, the Byers family, the father and his assertiveness? Angers? Prejudice against the accused?

8. The role of the police, earnest, following leads, losing evidence, care and carelessness? The chief and his determination to get a result?

9. Ron Lax, his life, divorce, his wife and the meeting with her, her support of him in his work? At the bar, the girl flirting? His associates, working pro bone, the team? His interest, his presence at the trial, following up leads? Against capital punishment? His not being able to participate directly in the legal action?

10. The investigation, the boys, the woods, the parents, the defence?

11. The three boys, the interrogations, the records, their ages and experience, separation of trials?

12. The court, the judge and his prejudice, the demeanour of the accused, the display of evidence? Pam in the court, her husband, following closely, Pam and her uncertainties? Ron Lax observing her?

13. The findings, the reactions?

14. Pam and Ron, the meeting, the woods, Pam searching the house, finding her husband’s knife? Her suspicions?

15. The years passing, 2011, the exception in the law, the release of the three men? The postscript to the film indicating suspicions about Pam’s husband and the death of Byers’ wife?

16. The background of Satanism, the speculations, the books, the practices, the witnesses? Suspicions at the end about the two fathers?

17. An interesting reconstruction of the case within two hours, the emphasis on the defence?