THE NORMAL HEART

US, 2014, 132 minutes, Colour.
Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer, Taylor Kitsch, Alfred Molina, Joe Mantello, Stephen Spinella, BD Wong, Jim Parsons, Adam B.Shapiro, Julia Roberts.
Directed by Ryan Murphy.

Larry Kramer, a gay activist and campaigner on behalf of those infected with AIDS, wrote a play, The Normal Heart, in 1985, outlining the experience of the emergence of AIDS in 1981, the immediate toll that it took on the gay community, homophobic reactions, the lack of funding for medical research, doctors who helped with the community, the various campaigns of the period.

A film version was not able to be made until 2013, which seems very strange given the entertainment industry’s involvement with gay actors. The film was made for television, sponsored by HBO, and received a strong critical response as well is popular favour. Kramer himself wrote the screenplay.

The film opens in 1981, showing the gay community, especially behaviour on Fire Island. But soon, sores appear, they don’t go away, more and more men die and the effect on the immune system leads to the disease being called AIDS.

Mark Ruffalo, in a very vigourous performance, is Ned Weeks, the Larry Kramer character, a crusader rather than negotiator, an angry man who berates the gay community, berates the mayor of New York, berates President Reagan, especially in meetings with their representatives. He has had a hard life, his parents and brother sending him to a psychiatrist when young, an attempted suicide at Yale, an inability to live in partnership until he goes to the New York Times trying to get writers to focus attention on AIDS and encounters Felix (Matt Bomer), a journalist, whom he falls in love with and they live together, Felix eventually manifesting AIDS and dying.

Taylor Kitsch portrays Bruce, whose approach is far different, not outing himself until necessary, heading up negotiations in discussions in support rather than the crusading direct approach. In the office, he is supported by Mike (Joe Mantell who has an extraordinary vigorous speech about AIDS and its sources) and Jim Parsons is the more sympathetic Tommy.

Alfred Molina appears as Ned’s brother, not understanding his brother, doing legal work for him but unable to express affirmation until Felix comes to his office to change his will.

Julia Roberts appears as Dr Brookner, polio victim in her childhood, recognising what is happening with AIDS, haranguing Ned to do something about it, looking after the sufferers, making a vigorous speech in favour of funding.

The film is directed by Ryan Murphy (Running with Scissors, Glee), a gay man as are quite a number of the cast.

1. Originally, a play from the 1980s? No movie follow-up? Larry Kramer, his play, writing the screenplay, semi-autobiographical?

2. The intensity of feeling, the contrast with the quiet title? Real people at heart?

3. New York City, 1981 to 1983, the emergence of AIDS, the mystery of the origins, the manifestations, the sores, the collapse of the immune system, the response of doctors, the anti-gay stances and fears, the government not collaborating, the campaigns, the increasing number of deaths, the emotional toll, the loss of talent? Parents and their sons?

4. Larry Kramer, his work as a crusader, as a crusader in the 1980s? Ned Weeks as a crusader, aggressive, polemical, lacking in patience? The attacks and protests? The group, their growth? Ned on the contrast with Bruce and his approach, quiet, dialogue?

5. The introduction, the gay community, Fire Island and the ferry, the community, the freedoms, promiscuity, promiscuity as a political weapon? Stances? Ned, his friends, on Fire Island, sexual activity, nudity? The stances of the 1970s?

6. Friends, the collapse, the sores, taking the ill man to the hospital? Dr Broockner, in herself, her polio, in the wheelchair, the background of her life? The list of those ill, the treatment, her warnings, her challenging Ned to write, to campaign? Her work and research? No funding? The two years, so many dying, Felix and his treatment? Dr Broockner and the meeting, her blunt talk? The bond with Ned, Felix dying, her mourning him? Her achievement?

7. The situation of AIDS, in New York City, the rest of the United States, France? Pre-Rock? Hudson? Investigations, lack of funding, jealousies and rivalries? The history of treatment for AIDS and the background?

8. Ned, the background of his life, the treatment by his parents, the treatment by his brother, going to a psychiatrist, acknowledging he was gay, the effect, going to Yale, his attempted suicide? Casual relationships? The baths sequence – and Felix’s memory of the encounter? Going to the New York Times, talking with Felix, the fears of the paper, the journalists, not printing material about AIDS? The bond with Felix, living together, their life and its reality, love? Ned and his brother, the lawyer, his inability to hug, taking on the law issues, but basically unsympathetic and judgemental?

9. The group of friends, Bruce, Mike, Tommy? Their forming the company? The volunteer woman and her lesbian background? Ned, speaking to the group, being heckled? Issues of sex, issues of abstinence? Dr Broockner’s advice?

10. The group, the office, the space, their work, phone calls, forming a board, the votes, the meeting of the vote for Bruce as President? The friends,their talks, lovers, difficulties?

11. The campaign, the promotion of the dance, trying to give away invitations? The number turning up? Successful, the later debts at Yale?

12. Bruce as a character, his hidden orientation, gradual revelation, dialogue? Tommy and his sense of feeling, ultimately for Ned? Mike, the elder, his partner, his work as a public servant, his writing, in Brazil, being asked to return, his superior not wanting to see him? The dramatic impact of his outburst and his feelings, thoughts Ned, source of the disease, the responsibility for the spread of the disease?

13. The question if Felix had AIDS and what would Ned do? Not leave? The fact, the sores, care, cleaning Felix, taking him to the doctor, his anger with Felix, throwing the food at him, wanting Felix to do as he wanted, final acceptance, taking him to the doctor, grief?

14. The attack on the mayor, the television and radio interviews, the reaction of the others, the embarrassment of Ned’s outbursts, the visit from the representative of the mayor?

15. Ned being invited to Washington DC, talk with the official, the demands and President Reagan, the points of view of the White House and of Ned?

16. Felix, his life as a journalist, his becoming ill? The encounter with Ned’s brother, wanting to change his will, his collapse, the brother taking into the hospital, finally able to hug Ned?

17. Tommy, his files and lists, removing the names and putting them on other lists: Felix, Bruce, Mike…?

18. The semi-documentary tone of the film? The facts? Memories? Political issues? Health and funding issues? Research? Gay phobia?

19. Looking at these episodes in the retrospective of 30 years?

WHERE THE RED FERN GROWS

US, 2003, 86 minutes, Colour.
Joseph Ashton, Dave Matthews, René Feia, Mac Davis, Kris Kristofferson, Ned Beatty, Dabney Coleman.
Directed by Lyman Dayton, Sam Pillsbury.

Where the Red Fern Grows is based on very popular novel by Wilson Rawls. It was filmed in 1975 and proved very popular, with a Part 2 released in 1992. The producer of the first film wanted to re-make it at the beginning of the 21st century, but ran into financial difficulties, finally being rescued by producer, Bob Yari, and the New Zealand director, Sam Pillsbury being brought into complete the project.

The setting is Oklahoma, in the mid 30s, on a farm outside a small town. The central character is Billy Coleman (Joseph Ashton) who lives on the farm with his parents and two younger sisters. One of his great ambitions is to own two hunting dogs. He gets the opportunity, trains them to be skilful in their hunting racoons. There is a hunting competition in the town, some heroics by the young boy in forfeiting his chance to win but the winner handing the cup and the money to the boy. There is some pathos at the end when the dogs are confronted by a mountain lion.

The film features some veterans including Kris Kristofferson as the older Billy, Ned Beatty is the sheriff, and Dabney Coleman is the affectionate grandpa.

1. A popular story for younger audiences? A version for the 21st century?

2. Oklahoma, the farm, the river, the town, the woods? The sets and decor for the mid-1930s? Musical score?

3. The meaning of the title, the Indian legend of the children, their deaths in the snow, the red fern growing, never to be destroyed? A sacred site? The death of dogs, their being buried together, the new red fern?

4. Voice-over by the older Billie, Kris Kristofferson and his style? Encounter with the wounded dog? His memories? Recounting the past, never going back to visit?

5. The Coleman family, father, his hard work the farm, his wife and her diligence, Billy and his work, the lack of money, his mother educating him? The two sisters? The uncle, finding $1000 to put a deposit on his store, he’s going back his east?

6. Grandpa, his love of the family, helping Billy, the sweets? The possibility of buying the dog, the father and his two sons getting the dog instead of Billy, their nasty attitudes? The advertisement for the bloodhounds, Billy and his doing hard work, getting the money, meeting God halfway…?, Going to Grandpa, his journey, trespassing, the shots, into the town, the railway station, the kindly man providing the bag, walking through the town without shoes, the boys attacking him, the fight, the sheriff stepping in, the girl giving back the dogs, the sheriff and getting Billy’s clothes, shoes, the gifts for his parents, overalls, dress material, the sweets for the girls?

7. Billy’s care for the dogs, the collage of his training them, getting the raccoons, climbing the tree, Billy chopping it down, Grandpa selling the furs?

8. Grandpa, the dinner, the news about the competition, Billy and his wariness because of the death of the boy after the dog attacked? Deciding to enter?

9. The competition, Hodington and his champion dogs, the sheriff? The money? The finalists? Final, Grandpa breaking his leg, Billy going back, the three raccoons in the tree? Hodington winning, his acknowledging the truth, Billy’s courage, giving him, the money?

10. Billy hunting, the mountain lion, the attack, the dog being wounded, dying, the companion pining for him, not eating, going to the grave, dying? The
burials? The red fern?

11. The family oacking up, moving, the prospects for the future?

THE SELFISH GIANT

UK, 2013, 91 minutes, Colour.
Conor Chapman, Sean Thomas, Sean Gilder, Siobhan Finneran.
Directed by Clio Barnard.

While this contemporary film, a bleak look at life in Yorkshire, especially the children, is inspired by Oscar Wilde’s story of The Selfish Giant, there is none of Oscar Wilde’s comedy, rather a reflection on his own sad experiences, his imprisonment, his being thrown back on awareness of human betrayal, love thwarted, separation from home and family, confinement leading to his death.

The director whose films come to mind while we are watching The Selfish Giant is Ken Loach, his films of social realism over many decades, especially his 1968 film about a young boy and a bird, Kes. But there was far more immediate uplift in Loach’s film.

This story focuses on two young boys, Arbor and Swifty. The performances by Conor Chapman and Sean Thomas are very fine indeed, completely credible, especially for Conor Chapman portraying a very disturbed young boy. We see this right from the beginning, his disturbed sleep, waking, hyper with his brother and mother, needing to take pills to steady him. His trouble at school, defying the teachers, defying other boys, but always relying on his friend, Swifty.

At the centre of the plot is the stealing of copper wire from the railways and selling it off to a dubious dealer, Kitten (Sean Gilder). Kitten is an abrupt man, living on the edge of the law, selling and reselling various goods, including the copper wire, and pocketing the money. To that extent, he is a bad influence on the two boys.

There are some lighter moments and touches, especially in a horse race with Swifty very concerned about the treatment of the horses. There is a sympathetic receptionist at the school where, after they are both suspended for misbehaviour, Swifty sits every day, influenced by his sad and earnest mother who urges him on to get an education. Swifty’s father is a brute of a man, yelling at his children, no patience or concern.

When tragedy strikes, Arbor hides himself, unable to deal with the events until some of the adults do some good for him – including, surprisingly, Kitten.

This is a first feature film from writer-director, Clio Barnard, who demonstrates and explores the sensibility and sensitivity to the young boys and their characters, their crises, seeming hopelessness. A number of reviewers have referred to the films treatment of its themes as “poetic” – a poetry of the goodness of life and the bleakness of human nature.

1. A grim portrait of British life? Bleak, hopeless, glimpses? UK 21st century, in the provinces?

2. The inspiration of the story by Oscar Wilde? The title? The giant, the garden, the witness, the children, change? The application of the key points of the story to this setting?

3. The gritty realism, muted colour, the language, the tensions? Yorkshire, the towns, homes, schools, the railway lines, the junk yards? Immersing the audience in this world?

4. Touches or glimpses of beauty, the horses and the stars, the open fields, the sheep, the countryside? The musical score?

5. The touches of the ugliness, the homes, the yards, the junk, the rail lines, the dead horse…?

6. Arbor and his tantrum, waking up, the support of his brother, the support of Swifty? His mother and life within the house? His brother, reckless, hyper, the need for the pills? Going to school, the yard and the kids, class and disruption, not picking up the pencil at the request of the teacher, defiant, kept back, in trouble, his expulsion, the reaction of his mother?

7. Swifty, friend, his family, his mother and concern about education, the harshness his father, at school, his helping Arbor, the bonds between the two? The horses and his tenderness? The boys mucking up? Finding the copper, selling it to Kitten? At school, Swifty and his sitting at school, quietly, going with Arbor, the information about the copper, going into the hole, touching it, the electric shock, his death? The effect on Arbor, on his mother?

8. The various deals, selling goods, Swifty’s father selling the sofa, the money for the rent? The meals and the beans? The father yelling, snarling? Kitten and his wife, the contact with the boys, her moments of sympathy, the horses, the race and the reaction, the cars behind the horses? Swifty concerned for the horses? The stash of copper wiring, reselling it? Kitten keeping the money? Wanting more? Kitten and his reaction to Swifty’s death, his wife’s reaction? His giving himself up to the police?

9. Arbor, his wandering, playing, the horses, the effect of Swifty’s death, sleep, going to visit Swifty’s mother, her shutting the door, his sitting outside, return home, his own mother’s care?

10. A slice of life, poverty, opportunity and lack of opportunity, family and support, lack of support, a world of thieves and deals, the legacy on the children?

11. Any glimpses of hope?

STILL LIFE

UK, 2013, 92 minutes, Colour.
Eddie Marsan, Joanne Froggatt.
Directed by Uberto Pasolini.

This is a film which one could recommend to audiences who want something that re-affirms the value of humanity. It is a small film, a comparatively little-known cast, but it is beautifully written and directed by Uberto Pasolini.

Have you ever wondered about what happens to people who have died alone, with few contacts or relatives, and what goes on before they are buried? Here are some answers.

The versatile actor, Eddie Marsan, who has had a strong career portraying supporting characters, coming through work with such directors as Mike Leigh, especially his star turn as a driving instructor in Leigh’s Happy Go Lucky. Here he plays John May, a 44-year-old man, living alone and without any friends, who conscientiously turns up at his council desk every day, visiting the homes or institutions where people have died, searching for some clues for contacts or relatives, filing them away, looking for the addresses of any possible contact or source of information, visiting conscientiously and patiently, explaining the situation to often-unwilling relatives, and he himself going to the funerals, often alone except for the officiating minister, gathering the ashes from some cremations and scattering them. At home, he puts their photos in an album which he obviously cherishes and looks at with great affection. And then, on the official documents, he writes “case closed”.

This might seem sad and pathetic, and in many ways it is. John May is a good man but seems never to have been able to relate intimately to anyone. There is no sign of any family. He is a meticulous man, a most tidy desk, a very neat kitchen, setting the table simply but well for his own meal.

John May is an interesting type study.

It is evident from the beginning of the film that John is an introvert – a very shy introvert. He lives very quietly by himself, keeps to himself at work, does go out to meet relatives of the deceased and attends the funerals, often by himself. It is his inner energy that moves him to follow up investigations in his work. He seems to identify with the J attitude, making practical decisions for the details of his work and appointments and very orderly in his private life.

With immediate appearances, John shows himself something of an epitome of the Sensing function. As already used, the word ‘meticulous’ is most apt. He shows just what attention to detail is.

The interesting focus of the film is on how John deals with people. At first, he looks to be the objective bureaucrat, aware of regulations and meticulous (once again) in applying them. As we get to know more about him, we become aware of the very personal interest he takes in the deceased, in contacting relatives and friends and supporting them in their grief. It is in these many encounters that John is a Feeling function man. This is his face to the world.


One day he is summoned by his boss and told that there is reorganisation in several councils for carrying out his particular tasks. He is being let go. However, his final case concerns a lonely man with only a document or two, but nothing really to identify him.

John makes it a personal and personalised quest, and is able to track down a fish and chips shop in the country where he discovers a former wife and a daughter, makes contact with the blind soldier who gives a most praiseworthy account of the dead man and his helping the blind man, and he buys a bottle of whiskey for two old friends, out on the street, who give their version of the dead man. John finally finds a daughter, goes to visit her and invites her to the funeral. He is able to build up a picture of the dead man, his qualities, his flaws, his responsibilities, his time in prison – enough to build up a small congregation to come to the man’s funeral.

John is a kind man.

The film builds up to a climax which we hadn’t anticipated, more pathos, but a very moving tribute to John May and all that is best in sympathetic human nature.


1. The title, that a person was still alive? The person in death? Still life pictures and portraits?

2. The London setting, the flat and the interiors, the streets, the office, churches and services? The train rides? The various images of the British countryside? The atmospheric score?

3. The portrait of John May? The screenplay and the images, his actions, dialogue, the opening and his activities, aged 44, single, living alone, the sparse flat, the need table, his simple meals? His precision, his desk? Routines? Loyalties? His sense of duty? Communicating with people connected with the dead? His research, his files, the photos, the album, entering the photos, his looking at the images? his affection for these people?

4. His job, audience interest in people searching for relatives and friends of the dead? A job alone? His finding the contacts? Inviting people to come to the funerals? The various ministers, the ceremonies, the Orthodox, the Anglican, the various hymns? Burial or cremation? The remains and his sometimes distributing them himself? His files, writing ‘case closed’?

5. His visits, the variety of characters, the photos, going to houses, collecting goods, goods to be given away? His giving some final humanity to the dead?

6. At the office, the young man with a white coat doing the crosswords, affable? His superior, handling the situations?

7. His last case, the boss coming to his room, downsizing, his being fired, going upstairs, the woman who was to take his place, later seeing her distributing the ashes in the churchyard? His asking for more time?

8. The anonymity of the dead man, Bill Stokes, the anonymity of his room, the landlord and the comments, finding the documents, the photo of the dead man? Tracking down the connections and John’s diligence, going to the provinces, tracking down the fish and chip shop, going to all the shops, meeting Kelly, her story, the daughter and the grandchild? Bill staying there, drinking and moving on? Going to the blind soldier, hearing a different story, Bill saving the man’s life? The two homeless men and the information about them, the drink, his buying the bottle, sharing it with them, sitting on the steps and listening to their story? Finding Bill’s daughter, the visit, her story about her father? The good and the bad, the surviving, his drinking, the deals, time in prison?

9. Inviting everyone to the funerals, the Greek son and the phone call, the long conversation and the man not liking his father?

10. The simplicity of life, travel by train, the gift of the meat pie and his eating it on the train, the ice cream off the back of the truck and his trying to hail down the track, enjoying the ice cream? The whiskey with the men? The tins of fish at home?

11. The finale, his doing good, promising to meet Bill Stokes’s daughter, the shock of his being killed by the vehicle?

12. The paperwork for John himself, the same details?

13. The church, his funeral, no one attending, the minister?

14. The crowd for Bill Stokes, all gathered by John, their looking over to the other funeral, not realising who it was?

15. The focus on John, and all the people whom he had served gathering round him in tribute?

16. A fine film of humanity and decency?

SEX TAPE

US, 2014, 94 minutes, Colour.
Cameron Diaz, Jason Segal, Rob Corrdrey.
Directed by Jake Kasdan.


Well, at least, the title is not trying to hide the theme of the film. On the other hand, this is a Hollywood comedy so it is not going to be too outrageous. And for those buying a ticket in anticipation of what the title might lead to, they will really have to wait till the end of the film to see the contents of the sex tape, and not too provocatively, really.

Before the credits, for about five minutes, the film starts to live up to its title: Annie (Cameron Diaz) is writing a blog, describing her meeting with Jay, their sexual experiences, then to love, then to marriage – and children - before the end of the credits! Jump a few years and they find they have practically no desire to make any sex tape, as busy as they are with their jobs and managing their children. In fact, they find they have practically no time for sexual activity.

Jay works for a radio company and works with music. We see Annie going to a meeting with a large company who promote toys and family products, charmed by her blog and what it could do for their image. The CEO of the company is played by Rob Lowe (whom diehard movie fans may remember had some sex tape problems of his own in the 1980s). He is a good sport and plays a variation on a leering Lothario.

One evening, they are unexpectedly free and send the children off to their grandmother. A lot of farcical attempts in the sex department, all proving failures. Then comes the brainwave to make a sex tape, three hours of their activity, culminating in Jay’s promise to delete. Plot-wise, of course he does not.

The rest of the film is not seeing the sex tape but rather the frantic efforts of Annie and Jay, along with their friends, Robby and Tesss who help them to recover it. It has gone out on a lot of iPads that Jay has given away as gifts. So, here we are in our modern cyberworld with unwelcome files spread far and wide, some knowing the technology to preserve them, others not knowing the technology to delete.

One of the search sequences involves Rob Lowe again with the two couples trying to spin stories of collecting for charity, Robbie and Tess having the brainwave to say that they are collecting used iPads for charity!

A consequence of this kind of tape is, of course, the possibility of blackmail, and that is what occurs as well, but there is a somewhat easy way out, as there is a crisis at the school social media performance when Jay realises the tape is on the hard drive of his son’s computer, just about to be displayed to the general public.

This may make the film sound very enjoyable and it has its moments. It is one of those entertainments that couples, indulging in a little prurience, might enjoy on a night out. Nothing more.


1. American sex comedy, American style? The touch of permissive, then ordinary, then moralising?

2. The total, expectations, old pornography tapes, Internet pornography, post-your-own sex-tape? IPads and distribution?

3. The pre-credits, the sexual relationship between Annie and Jay, the sexual impulse, leading to marriage, her parents’ concern, the wry comment about sexual activity during marriage, the birth of the children?

4. The years passing, the couple being busy, the children, always in a hurry, getting the children to school, the different jobs, chores around the house? Jay and his work with recordings? Annie and her blog, the writing of the blog – and the pre-credits sequence of her typing? Her interview with the foundation? Toys, the ideal mother, prospects? The meeting with Hank and the board?

5. Sex and the possibilities, impossibilities? The effect on the couple? Celebrating the offer to Annie? Her mother minding the children? The plan, seductive behaviour, clothing, the slapstick elements in the farcical situations? The decision about the eagerness, The Joy Of Sex? Annie asking Jay to erase the tape?

6. Jay not erasing it, his reasons, his pretexts, the texting, the mystery, the effect on them? getting back the iPads? Annie and her mother? Their going out, going to see Robert and Tess, the discussions, going to see Hank, pretending to collect money for charities, Jay and his diarrhoea? His being pursued around the house by the dog? Annie and the cocaine? Hank and his double standards? Robert and Tess at the door, collecting iPads? Going back to the car, Robert and Tess and their behaviour, confessing to watching the tape?

7. Going back home, Jay and his injuries, the shirt? Howard, the truth, demand for $25,000? The possibility of distance deletion?

8. Going to the manager of the website, breaking in, taking the children, the confrontation, the boss and his hold over them, his wife and her recognising Annie, liking the blog? The manager and his lecture on pornography, the number of tapes sent in, his moralising about difficulties in couple’s lives and the need for taping? Charging $15,000?

9. At home, the family night? Clive not allowed out with Howard? Howard’s arrival, his wanting a friend, prepared to give up the USB stick? Annie and Jay watching the tape, smashing it, burning it, burying it?

10. The graduation, Clive and his presenting the film, Jay forgetting to erase the video from the family computer, Jay and his falling and breaking the computer? Tess to the rescue?

11. The American formulaic structure: sex indulgence, then ordinariness, then moralising?

BETHLEHEM

Israel, 2013, 99 minutes, Colour.
Tsahi Halevi, Shadi Mar'i, Hitham Omari.
Directed by Yuval Adler.

There is no mention of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus in this film. Rather, this is an Israeli film, dramatizing another aspect of the conflict between Israel and Gaza.

A previous film of 2014, Omar, raised the issue of Palestinians moving from one side of the wall to the other and the possibilities for Israeli security officers to choose young Palestinians as targets for information and collaboration. This is also the theme of Bethlehem.

The protagonist, Sanfur, is seen with a group of young Palestinians, he wearing a bullet proof vest and urging one of his friends to shoot him to show that he did not lack courage and had something of a belief that he was invincible. But, we learn that he has a different story, that from the age of 15, he has been cultivated by an Israeli security officer, Razi, who has now become something of a substitute father-figure. Not that Sanfur does not have a father. In fact, his father has been in prison for subversive activity against Israel and his older brother, Ibrahim, is one of the leaders of Palestinian resistance. The screenplay also raises questions about the relationship of these activists with Hamas as well is with the Palestinian Authority and its leaders.

Razi is a sympathetic character, has a wife and child, and seems particularly attached to Sanfur, meeting him, ensuring that he is out of Palestine during an attack, visiting an aunt in Hebron. The attack is particularly significant as it targets his brother.

As the film progresses, Sanfur is placed in very difficult circumstances, especially for a 17-year-old in this kind of conflict. Part of the difficulty is the influence of Badawi, a Bedouin Palestinian who is not immediately accepted by the others and is antagonistic towards the Palestinian Authority which has not paid him and his fellow-activists.

The dilemma for Sanfur is whether he should stay in Palestine, always running the risk of contact from Israel, or whether she should contact Razi, make a plea to escape into Israel and disappear. Badawi has some ulterior motives because the activists want to retaliate for the death of Ibrahim by a significant counter attack. Such a counter-attack would be for Sanfur to assassinate Razi.

The film plays out this dilemma in a reminder, reinforced by the recent war between Israel and Gaza, that moves towards peace seem impossible at times. It is human stories like this which bring aspects of the conflict to dramatic and emotional attention.

1. The title, in Palestine? Attitudes of Israel? No reference to the Christian links to Bethlehem?

2. An Israeli film, its perspective, on Palestine and Gaza, on the occupation? The role of Israel’s Secret Service? Collaboration and informants? Acts of terrorism and retaliation?

3. The locations, Bethlehem and the initial shooting of the sign by the young men? Scenes in Jerusalem? Secret Service offices? Hospitals? The streets of Palestine? Homes, homes bombed? The countryside, the desert, the atmosphere? Musical score?

4. Sanfur, the other boys, his challenge for shooting wearing the bullet-proof vest? The taunts? Later, shooting, his being wounded? His age, his brother and his leading role in terrorist acts? His father, the past, present, status? In Palestine yet his collaboration? To save his father? Badawi and the other Al Aqsa militants? Sanfur and his links with Hamas?

5. His collaboration, Razi, working for two years, from age 15? To save his father from prison? A dependent relationship with Razi? Razi kind, concern? His skill in eliciting information from Sanfur? Sending him to Hebron on the day of the retaliation, to see his aunt, removing him from the scene? Razi and authorities and their control? Lying? The terrorist bomb in Jerusalem the consequences? Sanfur at the funeral? Razi and the attack in Bethlehem, the death of Sanfur’s brother? Sanfur and his loyalties, the influence of Badawi, trying to work out what was best, each side using him, Badawi and persuading him to kill Razi? Badawi’s threats, posters throughout the land? The option of going to Israel? The dilemmas, going to the hospital, the help, hiding, his father and his shame about his son? Badawi in the garden, arrangements with Razi, the phone calls, the meeting, Sanfur and his plea to go to Israel? What drove him finally to attack Razi, bashing him with the rock? What future for Sanfur?

6. The family, the patriarch, the jokes with his old associates, the threats, Sanfur collaborating to save his father? the meetings? His father shame?

7. Hamas, the military, the links, the claims? The role of the Palestinian Authority, the comfortable headquarters and lives? The officials, driving around, the contacts, threats?

8. The Al Aqsa group, going into action, not paying the fees? Badawi as a bedouin, lookrd down on? Deaths and confrontation, his arrest? The control, the
revolution, the fights?

9. Razi and his service, the personnel, his family at the zoo, with Sanfur, establishing the connection, the chats, eliciting information, sending him to Hebron? The raid, the siege in Bethlehem? his injury? Hospital, contact? The meeting with Sanfur, refusing security, why he would not allowing Sanfur to go into to Israel, continuing to use him? The shock of his death?

10. A film reflecting Palestine-Israel? relationships, especially in the 21st century?

VENUS IN FUR/VENUS A LA FOURRURE

France/Poland, 2013, 91 minutes, Colour.
Emmanuelle Seigner, Matthieu Amalric.
Directed by Roman Polanski.


Venus in Fur is an adaptation of the 19th-century novel by Leopold von Sacher- Masoch, from whose name the word masochism is derived.

But this film is not exactly a version of the novel. Rather, the writer, David Ives, has written a play, performed on Broadway, with the two central characters of the novel but in impersonations by the adapter of the novel for the play and an actress who turns up for an audition. This means that the film is a two-hander, the camera initially tracking up a darkening Paris street in cold weather and entering into a theatre where auditions are being held for the play (and, at the end, the camera tracks back out into the street).

The film relies on a great deal of dialogue coming from the play and capitalises on its action remaining inside the theatre for the whole of the performance, using many parts of the theatre, the audience seating area as well as the stage and adaptations of the lighting for effect.

This is a film by Roman Polanski, who has been making films for 50 years and turned 80 at the time of this film’s release. His previous film, Carnage, was also adapted from a play but was a four-hander, two couples in New York City confronting each other about bullying in the school – which turns into some bullying of each other. Polanski allows himself more restriction in this film but it is not exactly just a filmed play. Rather, each take is particularly set up and the film relies on a great deal of editing for the interaction.

Thomas, who has adapted the novel for the stage, is played by Matthieu Amalric. And the actress, Vanda, is played by Polanski’s wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, with whom he has collaborated on three other films. This is one of her best performances, a dominating performance.

Vanda has quite a repertoire of wiles. She can be ingenuous as happens when she first turns up late for the auditions, skimpy dress, chewing gum, seeming rather ignorant. She can be shrewd as she engages Thomas in conversations, often confounding him. She can be pushy, quickly winding Thomas around her finger so that he gives her an audition.

But, once the audition starts, Vanda (both the actress’s name and that of the character in Venus in Fur), is different, her manner changes, her diction becomes more refined, she proves to Thomas that she really can act. She virtually takes control of the audition, even persuading Thomas to reverse the roles so that she becomes the master of the house, Severin, and he puts on a dress and shawl to become Vanda.

Not only are the roles reversed but also the power play between the characters. In the 19th-century, it was expected that the man would dominate the woman – although women could become dominatrixes, wielding sadistic power and weapons for the man’s masochist experience. But here, it is the woman impersonating the man dominating the man impersonating the woman, a fascinating psychological reversal of the challenges for the audience as it responds to Vanda’s control of the situation. Finally, naked but with a fur, and with striking chord music, she performs a dominating dance illustrating the success of her power, leaving the man-impersonating-woman with a collar around his throat, tied, being led like a dog and finally completely bound.

Anyone thinking that this is something of a pop-erotic film will find it tedious for their sensibility and wonder why they came in. For audiences interested in the psycho-erotic, with top performances and direction from a master, it is a challenging psychosexual exploration.

1. The impact of the film? Two-hander? Confined to the theatre? A 19th-century story and the 21st century treatment?

2. The history of Leopold von Sacher- Masoch? His story, Venus in Fur, the characters, the sexual relationships, the erotic nature of the story, pain? Men subjugating women? Women subjugating men?

3. Roman Polanski and his career, his life and the well-known situations about his behaviour in the United States? Emmanuelle Seigner his wife of 25 years? Collaborating with her in the film?

4. The theatre, the tracking shot, the dark, the weather, the street? The notices outside the theatre? The interiors of the theatre? Stage, lighting, seating? The musical score?

5. The title, the final credits and the images, classical, of Venus?

6. The adaptation of a play, for the screen, the collaboration with the author of the play for dialogue and the adaptation?

7. The situation, the theatre, advertising auditions, the cancelled play with the western overtones, the interiors, the stage, the large cactus?

8. Vanda and her arrival, the coincidence of her name, her being late, the clothes, and her misjudging the situations, her continued talk, the gum, the situation to get to the theatre, the train, the rain, her knowledge and ignorance? Knowing the play? Smart repartee? The pressure on Thomas, getting permission to read, his phone call and saying yes, and she taking it as permission to perform, having the 19th-century dress, putting it on, his zipping it up, ready for the audition?

9. Thomas, adapting to the audition, reading for Vanda? His holding of the auditions, mocking the limitations of the young actresses? His dinner appointment, phone calls?

10. Vanda’s power, Thomas’s agreement, his interactions? His coming on to Vanda, her coming on to him? the cups of coffee – symbolic?

11. The nature of the rehearsal, Vanda being the play’s Vanda, he being Severin as well as Thomas?

12. Interactions, playful, the performance, her changing the lighting, the fire? The lounge, her draping herself on the lounge, with the fur?

13. The play: her arriving, interacting with Thomas, his reading, writing his diary…?

14. The phone calls, Vanda and her talking to Thomas’s partner, a revelation that she was setting herself up, to test him?

15. The reversal of roles, the effect, Severin/Thomas wearing the dress? The build-up of the interaction, the domination, his/her putting on the collar, tide, being led by the collar? Tied up?

16. The final dance, Bacchanal, the powerful music, her being naked, with the fur, tormenting him/her, vanquishing, leaving?

17. Audience response to this experience of erotic masochism? The past and men dominating women? The present and women dominating men?

DEAD IN TOMBSTONE

US, 2012, 100 minutes, Colour.
Danny Trejo, Mickey Rourke, Anthony Michael Hall, Dina Meyer, Richard Dillane, Daniel Lapaine.
Directed by Roel Reine.

Dead in Tombstone is something of a cult western, straight to DVD, for the fans only.

Danny Trejo achieved some fame and notoriety by appearing in Robert Rodriguez’s Machete films. He also had his interesting personal style vehicle, Bad-Ass?. Capitalising on this fame, he is the star of this offbeat, somewhat demented, Western.

The film opens with a hanging. Red (Anthony Michael) is saved but turns his gang against his brother, Trejo, here called Guerrero, Warrior. Guerrero is killed and Red and the gang take over the mining town – full of mayhem, more than a touch bloodthirsty.

But, the interesting thing is that Guerrero goes to hell – and meets the devil, but Mickey Rourke is credited in the film as The Blacksmith. In a variation of a Faustian pact, Satan allows Guerrero back into the world ordering him to kill a half a dozen of his assailants within a specific time, and then he would be free.

Needless to say, people are surprised to see Guerrero back on earth. But, faithful to his pact, he then proceeds to do the Western thing, vengeance-wise, tracking down the gang, including his brother, and disposing of them in spectacular stunt style with special effects.

Of course, the question is, whether Satan is to be trusted. Guerrero and Satan have some conversations – and back Guerrero goes back to hell for Satan to fulfil his promise. If he will.

This is a film not designed for mainstream audiences but, rather, for the fans of Danny Trejo, even of Mickey Rourke, and those who relish imaginative screenplays and extraordinary manufactured situations. It also relies on the evocative terms of the title and Tombstone.

THE WRONGED MAN

US, 2010, 100 minutes, Colour.
Julia Ormond, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali.
Directed by Tom Mc Loughlin.


The Wronged Man is quite a moving television movie, not an unfamiliar story, but one that is always important.

The film is based on magazine articles and the true story, giving names and dates.

A young black man is accused of raping a young girl, witnesses identifying him as the assailant. He is convicted, and serves 17 years in jail, although innocent. The film shows the story of Janet Gregory, here named as Priscilla, a legal aid who became involved in the case, pursued it for years, made many petitions all of which were denied. In the meantime, there is the background of her dead husbands, bringing up her son, his anger at his mother’s giving so much time to the case.

The story is complex, emotionally, because Calvin, naturally, becomes very angry many times throughout his story and has to apologise to Priss. His wife leaves him and remarries, has a family. But his mother perseveres with working for his acquittal.

This might never have happened without the development of DNA technology, groups examining cases for presentation and the acceptance of Calvin’s case. And proof that he had no connection to the rape.

Audiences need films like this to remind them that justice is not always done even if it seems to be and that perseverance of lawyers is important for releasing the innocent – and that the developments in DNA have been very helpful in proving innocence for so many incarcerated men and women.

1. Effective television movie? Target audience? The original articles, interest, adaptation of the story?

2. A true story, names and dates, 2003 release? Subsequent activities?

3. The title, the accused, the terrible crime? 17 years in prison innocent? 1980s and 1990s, into the 21st century the changing times? Friends, family, the evidence, the feasibility of his guilt? The witnesses and motivation?

4. Priss, introduction, at work, her boss and reliance on her, legal files, the boss and his being struck by lightning? The offer of a job? Her previous marriages, her husbands deceased? Care of her son and bringing him up?

5. The file, delivering it, the reaction of the family? The wife’s hostility?

6. Calvin, in jail, the visits? Priss organising his presence at the funeral of his father? His anger, apology? The repetition of anger and apologies? At the prison, the guards, the other inmates? His being moved to other prisons? Fights? The phone calls, the information about his wife’s wanting a divorce, having another man, pregnant? The build-up of hope and refusals over the years?

7. Priss, her interest in the case, getting Calvin to the funeral, the discussions with Calvin’s mother, watching the behaviour of Calvin’s wife and her separation from him? The witness, the flashbacks? Luther as a possibility and suspect? Information about another man, mistaking Harry for “hairy”? The lead to Luther?

8. The number of petitions over the years, the signatures, the succession of denials?

9. Priss, her son, the memory of her husbands, over time, his growing up, his anger at his mother’s dedication to the case? Randy, his friendship, expecting a transplant, the surgery? With Priss, marrying, helping? The scene in the diner with Luther and his being there to help? The pathos of his death? His funeral?

10. The years passing, Calvin and his separation from his wife? His mother’s visits?

11. DNA possibilities, the application, the cost, the organisation for testing cases, their acceptance of his plea? Going to the church, the Minister and his not wanting to know about Calvin, the reaction of the congregation, the mother’s plea? Change of heart, the fund-raiser?

12. The mother of the raped girl, her sticking fast to her conclusions, her believing the evidence, acceding to Priss for some kind of examination?

13. The result, no connection between Calvin and the rape? The visit, the time taken for the law to make the judgement?

14. The court scene, the judge, the prosecutor, Priss getting upset, fearing a negative judgement, going into the judge’s room, his calming her down, a judgement favourable to Calvin?

15. The joy, Calvin’s release, after so many years? Priss and her achievement?

16. Issues of justice, the improvement in justice with DNA?

17. The aftermath and Calvin’s work after his release?

COMMITTED

US, 2000, 98 minutes, Colour.
Heather Graham, Casey Affleck, Luke Wilson, Goran Visnjic, Patricia Velazquez, Alphonso Arau, Mark Ruffalo, Kim Dickens, Clea Du Vall, Summer Phoenix, Mary Kay Place, Dylan Baker,.
Directed by Lisa Krueger.

Committed is what one might call a disposable comedy. It reflects many of the attitudes of the 1990s and was released for the millennium. It ponders the issue of commitment, spouses coming to their senses after the marriage and wanting to find themselves, differing aspects and perceptions on commitment.

Heather Graham portrays a young woman, very earnest, who marries a very earnest man, Luke Wilson. But it doesn’t take long for the husband to ask questions about his life, its meaning, his destiny – and off he goes. Shocked, she goes off in pursuit, finding him in Texas, on the outskirts of town. She pursues him, finds the girl he has taken up with and together they torment him while she is advised to go to a Mexican guru in the desert. One of the other dwellers on the outskirts is an artist who approaches her flirtatiously.

It is all a bit much sometimes for the audience but is especially a bit much for Jo herself who is institutionalised. When she comes out, she pursues fulfilment for herself.

The film has a strong cast in supporting roles but is very American in style and tone.


1. A film for the year 2000, the status of marriage and commitment, interest in New Age movements?

2. New York settings, the contrast with Texas, the small towns, the desert? The musical score?

3. The title, Joline and her idea of commitment, her marriage, Carl, his leaving, her being jolted, searching for him, her relentlessness, the experience of the guru in the desert, the confrontation with Carl, institutionalised, return home, Carl and his visit? The commitment of her brother and Carmen? Neil and his presence at the wedding, dancing with her, a new perspective on commitment?

4. The importance of Jo’s voice-over? Her perspective on herself, on Carl, on what was happening to her, on the nature of commitment?

5. The opening, preparation for the wedding, Jo looking in the mirror, lying on the floor, the ceremony? The over-500 days afterwards?

6. Carl, his being absent, the note, his disappearing? Jo the discussions with her brother? Her work at the bar, the range of friends, the two girls living together…? The decision to go to find Carl? The map, tracking him down in Texas? Her visit to his editor, discussions about his suitability for the job – and the response of the editor and Carl’s jobs?

7. Jo, driving, finding Carl’s house, the encounter with Neil, his flirtation? Her tracking down Carmen, the clash, the frank talk, becoming friends? Carmen and her reaction to Carl?

8. Jo’s brother, his arrival, meeting Carmen, becoming a couple, and the final wedding?

9. Neil, artist, living in the community, attitude towards Jo, flirtation? His being at the wedding at the end, dancing with Jo?

10. Carl, his explanations of himself, trying to find himself, as a photographer, Jo and her expectations, his leaving, his reaction to her presence in Texas, further explanations, her antagonism towards him, yet her love for him?

11. Jo, Carmen’s advice, her going to the guru, his genial attitude, sensing her power, the rituals he suggested, outside Carl’s house, her faith?

12. Her being institutionalised, the psychiatrist and the questions? Finally getting out, improving herself, martial arts…? The first encounter with Carl, using the martial arts?

13. The final moving away from each other, the loss of commitment, her wondering about her future?

14. Very American in style and content?