A MOST WANTED MAN


UK/US/Germany, 2014, 122 minutes, Colour.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Grigory, Dobrygkin, Willem Dafoe, Rachel Mc Adams, Robin Wright, Homayour Arshadi, Nina Hoss, Daniel Bruel.
Directed by Anton Corbijn.

A first recommendation would be that this is a film version of a John Le Carre novel. The second recommendation is that it is a contemporary story of 21st-century espionage. Then there is the recommendation of the fine performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman and audience regret at his death earlier in 2014 at the age of 46. And the direction is by the celebrated Dutch photographer and video maker, Anton Corbijn, who also directed Control, the story of Ian Curtis and the band, Joy Division, and The American, with George Clooney. As well, this film has an excellent international cast. The screenplay was written by Australian Andrew Bovell.

John Le Carre’s novels have been published over a period of more than 50 years and there have been film versions over this half-century, starting in the 1960s with The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, to the George Smiley stories, to The Constant Gardener and the recent Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy.

This present film might be called an intelligent film about intelligence.

The setting is Hamburger, with visits to Berlin. In Hamburg, Gunther Beckman (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is in charge of a surveillance and espionage company, an unofficial group at the disposal of the German government. The particular problem for the group is the arrival of Issa, a seeming-terrorist from Turkey. Immediately, the group goes into action, identifying the man, photographing him, a payout to a railway attendant for information…

The real target, however, is larger, a shipping company, based in Cyprus, which seems to be involved in huge amounts of money laundering for terrorist groups, allegedly managed by an Arab philanthropist in Germany, with a fine reputation but who seems to be diverted funds to the terrorists.

Two significant characters come into the action, Annabel (Rachel McAdams), daughter of a judge who is in rebellion against her father, becoming a lawyer for leftist group. She is representing Issa, the man at the centre of the surveillance. He wants to get in contact with a respectable banker (Willem Dafoe), whose father collaborated with Issa’s father and finances in the Soviet Union thirty years earlier.

It should be said that while this is an espionage film, there is practically no violent action throughout the whole film, rather the emphasis on surveillance and intelligence. There is an abduction, there are some interrogations, there is a car and taxi crash at the end, but violence is not the aim of the film.

There is a great attention to the timing and deadlines, the role of the banker and the amount of money available for Issa, the abduction of Annabel and getting her to collaborate with the surveillance group, and the same for the banker. The German authorities want Issa. Gunther’s plann to divert Issa’s money to the philanthropist and catch him, if possible, signing documents diverting the money to terrorists. The German government officials are single-minded, not particularly flexible. And into the equation comes the CIA agent, Martha, played with quiet and intense ruthlessness by Robin Wright.

The complexity of the plot is fascinating for audiences who like espionage stories. Each of the characters has their own particular interest. And the build-up to the arrest of the philanthropist is skilful – and so are the final images of the film which are not quite what we might have imagined.


1. The popularity of the novels by John Le Carre over 50 years? The range of espionage in that time? Film versions? Espionage in the 21st century? From the Cold War, post-Communism, Africa, the nation of Islam?

2. Contemporary, the groups for espionage, authorities, official or not? Government roles? The CIA? The territories for each group, rivalries, collaboration or not?

3. The use of Hamburg, as an ordinary German city, day and night, the streets, cars, taxis, the buildings, interiors, exteriors? Government offices? The banks? Apartments? Scenes in Berlin? The songs and the musical score?

4. The relevance of surveillance, authorised or not, visual, audio, bugging rooms, pens with wireless? So much surveillance, the vast staff and listening in, tracking people, following, processing the data, the conclusions?

5. Gunther as a spy? The introduction, at 2.26 in the morning, the phone call from Jamal? His age, appearance, continually smoking, his past in Lebanon, his being considered a failure? His secret group? Working for the German authorities but outside their range? German staff? His suspicions, the case, Issa coming to Germany from Turkey, tracking him, the photos, at the railway, paying cash to the guard for information? Identifying him, his name, from Turkey? Annabel and her working for him? His having the name, Brue, the contact at the bank? The background of the philanthropist, Jamal as his son, again giving information about his father, noticing the Shipping Company and the contacts in Cyprus? The donations, the inconsistencies in the account? Gunther and his suspicions? Issa and the memories of his father, his father’s link with Brue’s father? Gunther going to listen to the philanthropist? Issa, getting Annabel, wanting migrant status, the setup, the planning, everybody collaborating? The effect, Gunther and his control, the dialogue with the German government, with Martha and the CIA? Martha and her comment that her work was to make the world a safer place – Gunther later using it to hold her, her claiming the victory?

6. Issa, his arrival, out of the water, in the cold, going to the railway station, seeing him in prayer, following the Turkish woman, carrying her bags, getting help from her and her son in the apartment? Contact with Annabel, her background, law, helping? Urging him to shave saving his identity? The plan for the bank, Brue, verifying his identity, with the key? The amount of cash? Trusting Brue? With Annabel, telling the story of his background, his brutal father raping his 15-year-old mother? Her jewellery – and giving it as a gift to Annabel? The collaboration, getting the passport, the work with Brue, his helping with the apprehension of the philanthropist? His being taken?

7. Annabel, her father’s judge, her reactions against him, leftist groups, practising the law, riding her bike? Her working with Issa, sheltering him? Her being abducted by Gunther and his group? The talk, the interrogation? Issa and is playing chess, Annabel liking him, persuaded by him, her presence at the interviews with Brue, participating in the plan to get the philanthropist? The passport, trust, his being taken, her disillusionment, sitting in the gutter?

8. Brue, the two fathers and their contact, banking connections with Russia in the 1980s, the sordid background? Issa and Brue wanting to be more honourable? The meeting with Issa and Annabel, the keys, verification, the boxes and files, the glimpse of his home life, his wife and her taunting him about drinking? Meeting with Gunther? Genuine, the amount of cash, the discussions, agreed to the setup, the meeting with the philanthropist, his substitution of the Shipping Company item? His being taken?

9. The philanthropist, his address, his followers? The Nation of Islam? The Alla language? Jamal and his relationship with his father, giving information to Gunther, not wanting to do it any more, the phone call in the early morning, his prayer, his sense of betraying his father? Gunther persuading him to stand firm? Driving his father, saying he was caught in traffic, the final kiss? The philanthropist and his smooth personality, manipulating the money?

10. Irna, in herself, as good assistant, eavesdropping on people, her presence in the jobs, surveillance?

11. The staff, their motivation for their work, not the CIA, their listening, acting, the abduction, providing the taxi – good support staff?

12. Martha, CIA, her manner, friendship with Gunther, knowing about him, saying Lebanon was not his fault but an American fault? The meals, the diner, the conversations with Gunther? Her motivations, her manoeuvres, at the end, taking the philanthropist and Issa? Ruthless?

13. The German government, the delegates, the meetings, the bureaucracy, setting deadlines, the meetings, the discussions of matters? Betraying Gunther?

14. The film having little action, the pursuit through the club, the abduction of Annabel, the final taxi crash? The film of intelligence about it Intelligence, rather than action?

15. The realism, the cafes, the characters watching, the surveillance, principles for espionage, strategies and tactics, intensity and detail? The reinforcement of the need for security in the contemporary world? The role of Islam, Islamists? The threat?

THE WILD MAN OF BORNEO

US, 1941, 80 minutes, Black and white.
Frank Morgan, Mary Howard, Billie Burke, Connie Gilchrist, Bonita Granville, Marjorie Main, Walter Catlett, Dan Daily, Donald Meeks, Phil Silvers.
Directed by Robert B.Sinclair.

The Wild Man of Borneo is the American turn of phrase, otherwise, the wild man from Borneo. Whatever the way he was described, he was part of those carnival freak shows, so popular at the beginning of the 20th century.

However, the wild man does not appear until the latter part of the film. Actually, the film has good credentials, based on a play by Marc Connolly and the celebrated Hermann Mankiwicz (writer of Citizen Cane at this time). It has been adapted for the screen by one of Hollywood’s significant writers, Waldo Salt.

The film retains many of the theatrical devices, especially the setting, popular in a number of films of this period, of a boarding house without wide range of characters. There is a lot of dialogue and many scenes with the large number of characters in a room. However, it has quite some vitality from the dialogue as well as the performers.

Frank Morgan portrays a conman, a grifter, snake-oil salesmen. And he does it perfectly, especially in the many sequences where he starts a story and develops the lies to an enormous extent. He had had great success on screen several years earlier as The Wizard of Oz. Billie Burke, wife of Florenz Ziegfeld, gives her usual performance as a slightly dotty elderly lady. Connie Gilchrist and Bonita Granville are mother and daughter, quite straightforward in what they want to get out of life, especially the recovery of her husband, Walter Catlett, another showman and grifter. Donald Meeks has a better role than usual – and a wig as well. Mary Howard is Morgan’s daughter and has a romance with Dan Daily, at the beginning of his career, here playing an experimenter with moving pictures. Phil Silvers is the barker. And Marjorie Main does her usual thing as the house maid and cook.

1. A light entertainment of the 1940s, MGM production values, based on a stage play.

2. MGM, cast, character actors? Musical score? The provincial cities, the world of the snake-oil salesmen? New York City, the boarding house, the theatre, the streets, the 16th Street showplace?

3. The title, carnival characters, Daniel and his being reduced to being the wild man, his performance, everybody in the audience, his having to tell the truth?

4. Daniel, his life as a salesman, selling the potions, helping to make them, news of his sister-in-law’s death, his wanting to see his daughter, make a good impression? The daughter having no money, he having no money? Having written letters for so many years, building up his image in his daughter’s eyes, her expectations of wealth and the high life and travel? His arrival, discovering the truth?

5. Daniel, shrewdness, always having a story to cover the situation? Going to the boarding house, talking his way in, being charming, the room, the meals, interactions with the group?

6. The members of the household: urban, the cook, Marjorie Main in pre—Ma Kettle vein? Mrs Diamond and Francine, theatrical family, searching for her husband, the private detective, Francine and her boldness, speaking out frankly? Bernice Marshall, the theatrical background, her husband, the actor? Professor Charles Birdo, his bird imitations, his devotion to Bernice, the clashes with Daniel, looking into his room, considering him a fake? Ed, acrobat, his experiments with moving pictures, his becoming a producer?

7. Daniel and his attempt for respectability, the visual collage of his auditions and the refusal of auditions? His making potions, selling them on the street, Mrs Diamond seeing him? Following him? The encounter with the show, being hired to be the Wild Man, finding Skelby, the performances?

8. Daniel present pretending to be in King Lear, his daughter asking him to recite the lines, everybody going to find Mrs Diamond’s husband, all present to see Daniel as the Wild Man? His telling the truth?

9. The irony of Skelby being Mrs Diamond’s husband, his reliance on Daniel, going off with the police?

10. Daniel, decision to leave, the talk with Bernice, her understanding him fully, his asking Ed to take care of his daughter – and then his meeting them, returning to the house, Charles getting drunk, promising to keep the secret? And immediately telling more stories about a future?

THE BAT

US, 1959, 80 minutes, Black and white.
Vincent Price, Agnes Morehead, Gavin Gordon, John Sutton, Lenita Lane.
Directed by Crane Wilbur.

This film is based on a story which was very popular in the 1920s and 30s. It has here been adapted by writer-director, Crane Wilbur. 1959 was the period where films by directors like William Castle were experimenting with various conventions of horror, Castle himself, quite a showman, was putting effects into cinemas so that audiences would sometimes feel the films, like The Tingler. And promotion emphasised how heart-stopping films might be, guaranteeing nursing attendance at the cinema!
Vincent Price had established himself as a distinguished actor, especially in the 1940s with such films as The House of the Seven Gables, The Keys of the Kingdom. It was in 1953 that he made the pioneering 3D horror film, House of Wax. He then appeared in The Mad Magician. In the late 1950s, he starred in William Castle’s Horror on Haunted Hill. It was at this time that he made The Bat, which served as a prelude to his making the famous series of films with Roger Corman, based on the stories by Edgar Allan Poe, The Fall of the House of Usher, The Tomb of Ligeia… He was called on to perform in all kinds of horror films for the next 30 years.

The Bat is not particularly good, is conventionally written, some stodgy performances, and a complex plot that needs continued attention with a surprisingly disappointing villain.

The film is a variation on the haunted house genre with a serial killer in the town. Agnes Morehead appears as a somewhat imperious writer of murder mysteries who has taken up residence in a house that has some eerie background. The servants leave and she is left only with her personal assistant. Vincent Price is the local doctor who, because he is Vincent Price, seems the obvious villain so it is rather a disappointment when he is murdered offscreen. He acts in mysterious ways, turning up unexpectedly, and even performing experiments with bats.

Part of the subplot is an embezzlement at the local bank, a young man becoming a suspect, his wife doing all she can to prove him innocent. Also involved is a local policeman who acts as a guard and reports back to his chief. There is a mysterious chauffeur turned butler. However, early in the film, it is revealed that the owner of the mysterious house has embezzled $1 million and hidden it in his family tomb. He wants to disappear and enlists the help of his friend, the doctor, Vincent Price, who shoots him dead and wants to find the money.

The Bat appears at the mansion window, masked and with artificial claws. He wanders around the house at times, providing scares for the novelist and her assistant. But then, secret rooms are found in the house and a safe – but the audience knows that the money is not there.

There is a final confrontation, and the revelation that the local Police Chief is the Bat – more than an anticlimax for the film.

The Bat takes its place, semi-cult, in the preposterous horror films of the late 1950s.

LUCY

France, 2014, 90 minutes, Colour.
Scarlet Johansson, Morgan Freeman.
Directed by Luc Besson.

Lucy seems a rather quiet name for a film by Luc Besson, more famous in recent decades for his producing and direction action features. However, he has had a continued interest in science and science-fiction, most significantly in The Big Blue and his well-regarded The Fifth Element.

While he does exercise his flair for action sequences, especially in a rapid car chase through the streets of Paris, he is interested in themes of evolution, behaviour of prehistoric animals, of apes and their gradual development, the nature of the human brain, its capacity and humans not using their brains to full capacity, rather 10%,. So, he has created an action parable about the capacity of the human brain.

Lucy is a science-fiction film. However, it might be called philosophy/metaphysics-fiction, especially with its cosmic overview of animal and human development as well as it speculations about what might happen to a human being using full capacity. At the end, when Lucy has exercised the hundred percent and she is asked where she is, she replies that she is everywhere. She is omnipresent and omniscient. A symbol of God?

During the early sequences, Besson has inserted quite a number of images of animals and their behaviour, drawing from the beautiful films about nature and the world, Baraka and Samsara. When Lucy is introduced, and her boyfriend is trying to persuade her to deliver a locked case to reception at a Taiwanese office block, the director inserts visuals of animals circling each other, wary, fearful, and the superior animals pouncing. We realise we are not just in a simple story of a young woman, an American in Taiwan, who gets caught up in action adventure.

Lucy is played by Scarlet Johansson, following her non-visual performance as a computer companion in the film, Her. At first, she is apprehensive, especially when confronted by the Taiwanese chief drug dealer. Then there is the mystery of the blue bags in the case, a drug whose origin has not been specified, part of the mystery of what is going on. Obviously the Taiwanese need to know what the drug is and so insert the bags into a group of mules, including Lucy.

Up till now, routine but mysterious. Then Lucy’s bag begins to leak with dire effects on her on a plane and at the Berlin airport. But, Lucy is changing, makes her way to Paris with the Taiwanese in pursuit. A French captain of police is interested in her case, driving with her in an intense chase through the streets of Paris and being something of a bodyguard.

After the drug setup, the film moves to the science aspect, introducing Morgan Freeman as an expert on science of the brain, and, with his elegant delivery, we learn quite a deal about the functioning of the brain.

Lucy wants to have a record of what has happened and the Professor supervises her link with a computer, the screen noting the ever increasing use of all of her brain.

And then, the film leaves us with some philosophical speculations about human capacities, the exercise of the brain – and how humans could transcend their mundane behaviour and existence.

Which means that Besson has provided a science and philosophical parable, outstanding in its visual impact, challenging in the questions that it asks and that it implies.

1. A science-fiction film? A philosophy/metaphysical-film?

2. The director, his career, early scientific themes? His transition to action? Signs-fiction? His continued emphasis on strong women characters?

3. The present, the near future, the development of technology?

4. An international production, the settings in Thailand, the plane, the Berlin airport, friends and the cityscapes? The musical score?

5. The explorations of the brain, presumptions about its use, 10%, with the possibility of up to 100% and the consequences? Drugs, the capacity for transition, the consequences?

6. Lucy, the symbolism of her name – light? An ordinary young American woman? In Thailand, the short relationship with Richard, his asking her to do the delivery, her refusal, his persistence, their finally agreeing, his suddenly being shot, the bag chained to her wrist, going to the reception, the phone messages, Mr Jang, his company, the members, Lucy going up, the henchman, the fears, the case and its being opened? Issues about the source of these drugs on the nature of the deal, not clear?

7. The visual device of animals, evolution, the parallels with human behaviour? Scenes from Baraka and Samsara?

8. Lucy, the various drug mules? The effect, the bag seeping, the effect on Lucy, the crisis on the plane, at the airport? The transition to Paris?

9. Paris, the Taiwanese pursuit? The phone call to Professor Norman? The Professor, his status, his research? His colleagues? The interviews, their surprise?

10. The drug, the damage to the bag, the effect on Lucy, control, the hospital?

11. The Taiwanese, the dealers and their pursuit, the other drug mules and their being killed? Wanting to retrieve the bags of the drug?

12. Lucy and the drive through the city, relentless, the stunt work in the crashes? Her becoming more impersonal?

13. The Professor, the expertise and his watching, Lucy and the computer, her brainpower increasing?

14. The computer as the extension of Lucy, the black substance, its enormous increase, the effect on her, the screen signalling the increases in her brainpower and its use? The building up to 100%? The explosion? The USB stick?

15. Lucy and her different personality, strength of character, the extent of her knowledge and power, her saying that she was everywhere – and a symbol of God?

16. The film and the meaning of life, the visuals of human origins, the apes, prehistoric animals, animal conflict, working together, threats, gradual intelligence?

17. Notions of intelligence, the visuals of the cells breaking and combining, the brain, its capacity, predicting behaviour, ESP knowledge, philosophy and the meaning of life? And an image of omnipresence and the divine?

THE FRENCH MINISTER/ QUAI D’ORSAY

France, 2013, 113 minutes, Colour.
Thierry Lhermite, Raphael Personnaz, Niels Arestrup, Jane Birkin.
Directed by Bertrand Tavernier.

This is a story about French government, focusing on a particular minister, the minister for foreign affairs. There is a glimpse of a photo of George W.Bush, which seems to indicate that the setting is around 2003, discussions of an imminent invasion of a Middle East country, here given a fictitious name. Many audiences will appreciate the politics of the period.

The film is directed by veteran, Bertrand Tavernier, best known for his quite serious films for many decades. An interesting question to ponder is why he chose this particular film and comedy at this stage of his career.

Some commentators have referred to the British television series, the hilariously comic Yes, Minister. The key to that series was that the minister was very much of a fool, relying on his advisers, especially Sir Humphrey Appleby, Nigel Hawthorne’s perfect re-creation of a civil service adviser, shrewd, adept with language and insinuation, seeing himself as the power behind the minister. That is not exactly the case here. Rather, while the minister is often a fool, he is shrewd and smart enough to perform well in public and to take the advice that he wants to hear. These advisers to the minister are not Humphrey Applebys. They are professionals, caught up in the political pressures, research, advice, speechmaking, rescuing the minister from difficult situations.

But, the film is still a comedy, an amusing comedy, with a blend of spoof, satire as well as critique.

Thiery Lhermite is the minister, a professional politician, rather sure of himself when he has no basis for this, but quick on picking up trends, need for action, and reliant on advisers whom he trusts. He is not in favour of the invasion of the Middle East. He is under pressure to move for Germany to have a place on the UN Security Council. He travels to the United States to give speeches. He travels to Africa when a civil war crisis erupts. He makes jokes about NATO and tries to avoid NATO meetings. And, on the personal level, his charm to have a dinner with a prize-winning novelist, played with forcefulness by Jane Burkin.

The audience is taken into this world by initially focusing on a young would-be civil servant, Arthur, preparing to wear the right clothes and have the right manner for his interview. He is caught up in the minister’s whirlwind and has a job before he knows it, but actually doesn’t have a physical desk and the table that he has to work at is part of a narrow thoroughfare with everybody passing through. But, he makes his way and is successful at his work, even when a journalist on a bus in New York steals one of the pages of the minister’s speech and there is a media-political kerfuffle.

The main character supporting the minister, patiently, biding his time, even nodding off, is played by Niels Arestrup. That the minister succeeds is often due to the old man’s advice – even passing a note up the table while the minister is indulging in conversation with the novelist, to tell him to keep quiet and let her get a word in.

It is interesting to see the minister whirl in an out of his rooms, papers flying as he opens and slams the door. In his visit to Africa, he defies advice and get out of his car in the middle of an angry crowd, contacts the Prime Minister and resolves the case. He has his mantra which he repeats often, for policy: lucidity, unity, efficiency!

The film does get a bit serious at the end, with the minister going again to the United Nations and, after all the many drafts that his speeches always go through, he delivers a speech which receives and applauding response.

The film is particularly French in its characters, rather different from an English version of this kind of story – but quite entertaining in its way.

1. An amusing comedy? Spoof, satire and critique? How contrived? How real?

2. The work of the director, his serious themes over many decades, his decision to make political satire?

3. The title, the French government offices? Visuals, buildings, the Palais, the interiors? Offices?

4. The focus on the Minister, his assistants, the writers, those responsible for language, the experts in various areas, the speech writers, advisers? Rivalries and clashes within the department? With other departments? The role of the president, the phone calls? How real, amusing?

5. Arthur as the initial focus, his perspective and experience, preparing for the interview, his partner and the shirt, the tie? Going to the meeting, waiting, the criticism? The Minister and his being ebullient, knowing Arthur’s reputation, the expectations? The visit with Maupas, the women working in the department, advisory, secretarial? His not having a room, his desk as a thoroughfare, his being relegated to minor positions like that of having to travel by bus instead of car in the US?

6. Situation, fact and fiction about the invasion of Iraq, the picture of George W. Bush? The discussions about the situation, invasion, the dossier about weapons? France and its policies, compared with other countries of Europe, Britain, Germany, Germany wanting a place on the Security Council? France and Africa?

7. The minister as pompous, his abilities, reliant on advice, changing arguments, his emphasis on ‘lucidity, unity and efficiency’, the repetition of this mantra? His past? Success? His entry into room and the wind blowing the papers? His interest in words, his manner? The phone calls to the President, decisions? Social life? the meetings, the agenda, the jokes about NATO, the escaped bear? The planned visit of Molly Hutchinson, his notes, talking too much at the dinner, his adviser warning him to be quiet, her perceptive questions and his bypassing them?

8. His basic stances, NATO, Geneva, Germany, the invasion in the Middle East? Managing his staff and work? Maupas and his wisdom, age and experience, nodding off, presenting ideas, personal relationship with the Minister, able to talk to him? The discussions with other?

9. The expert on the Middle East, voicing his opinions? The other experts, the touch of the serious and the comic? Their banter? The secretaries and their help? The trip to the United States, hospitality in the plane, the changes in the speech, the reactions, Arthur forced onto the bus, the journalist stealing his page, the article, its effect?

10. Ubanga, the difficult situation, civil war, negotiations, phone calls? The minister going to Ubanga, the girl and her fear in the car, the road barriers, the Minister getting out, the crowds, his coping? Meeting with the President, deals and negotiation and success?

11. Arthur, his partner, her being a teacher, her concern about the couple and their not getting visas, after putting the note in the minister’s pocket – and suddenly the good decision made?

12. Arthur, his partner, her character, they getting on well together, whether she should travel with him, go to socials and dinners, his proposal of marriage?

13. The preparation for the speech to the United Nations, the visit, the various drafts, the minister giving his speech? Success?

14. The perennial dilemma about outward and public appearances, life behind the scenes? The farcical aspects, playing things by ear – and yet the final success at the United Nations?

HERCULES

US, 2014, 98 minutes, Colour.
Dwayne Johnson, Ian Mc Shane, John Hurt, Rufus Sewell, Aksel Hennie, Ingrid Bolso Berdal, Tobias Santelmann, Reece Ritchie, Joseph Fiennes, Peter Mullan, Rebecca Ferguson, Isaac Andrews, Joe Anderson.
Directed by Brett Ratner.

Another Hercules film. He was a popular character in the sand and sandals costume dramas of 50 years ago. He has been impersonated by Lou Ferigno, the original Hulk. And then there was the bizarre Disney film of the mid-1990s. Is enough enough?

Actually, there are many reasons for enjoying this version of Hercules. He is embodied by Dwayne Johnson, formerly the wrestler known as The Rock, more latterly quite an interesting actor, doing serious roles, but not afraid to do tongue-in-cheek spoofs. Another reason is the solid British cast of veteran actors, notably John Hurt as the King of Thrace, Ian Mc Shane as a veteran seer, Joseph Fiennes as the King of Athens, Rufus Sewell as one of Hercules warriors, Peter Mullan as the King of Thrace’s implacable deputy. They all have their big moments, most especially John Hurt in his conspiracies, taunts and comeuppance.

But the main interest in the film is not something you would expect in this kind of high-budget matinee material. It is demythologising.

Demythologising?

The film opens with Hercules’ nephews telling the tales of some of his 12 labours. They have their graphic and special effects moments. But then there is an interruption questioning whether the 12 labours ever actually happened and whether Hercules really was (again despite our seeing some of the scenes of his birth) a son of Zeus and a mortal mother, detested by Zeus’s wife, Hera, and banished to fight the 12 labours and return to become a god. Hercules agrees with the debunking, thinking that legends have been spun about himself, his origins and his feats, turning him into something of a superhero, which he declares he is not.

And this theme continues throughout the film, sometimes seriously, sometimes with a sense of humour.

The main action concerns Hercules being persuaded by the daughter of the King of Thrace to come with his band of followers to resist enemies and consolidate the kingdom. Most of the men are farmers, no idea of military strategy and tactics. Hercules and his band, which include his nephew and the seer as well as a mutant warrior whom he had rescued and the Amazon, Atalanta.

They do a very good job, in fact, of training the men after some initial failures, so that when the two huge battle sequences turn up, that Thracians are a very disciplined military force, able to resist all kinds of attacks.

For those who like a good stoush, they will be more than satisfied with two as well as a climactic finale when Hercules is betrayed, is about to die, but fate steps in (or at least, the warrior, who decided to quit the band and taken the gold reward from the King of Thrace) turns up and it is open slather. And it is quite some slather, Hercules overturning huge bowls of flames which descend on the dissenting troops and destabilising the basis of the huge statue of Hera which falls down on Hercules’ foes.

The film was directed by Brett Ratner, whose films include the three Rush Hour films as well as an X-Men? film, The Last Stand.

Even critics came out of the screening more satisfied that they expected to be!

1. Expectations of the film about Hercules? Similarities to other Hercules films? Differences?

2. Audience knowledge of Hercules, the prologue, the telling of the tales, lion, the Hydra? Action, special effects? The transition to Thrace? The threats? The sets and costumes? Artificial/ real? The rousing score?

3. Demythologising Hercules? The idea? The role of the legends, Zeus, his mother, the birth? Hera hitting him? The 12 labours? The boy telling tales? Amphiaraus and his visions? Autolycus and his comments about the legend? Hercules himself, tongue in cheek, downplaying the heroicss?

4. The film as a matinee action adventure, battles, the climactic confrontation? Satisfying? Pop culture?

5. The serious aspects, the 12 labours and the serious legends, Hercules’ motivations? Athens, Thrace, the leaders, the realism? The psychological dimension? The slaughter of his wife and children, the visualising after 90 minutes, the responsibility of the king?

6. Hercules and his band, the different types? Amphiaraus, age and experience, visionary, expecting his death and Hercules thwarting him? His final ironic comments? Autolycus, the warrior, sardonic, leaving at the end, taking the gold, his return and saving the group? Tydeus, barbaric, strong, but mute, training the troops, his final loyalty, death and Hercules’ grief? Atalanta, the Amazon, skills, archery, feminine? Iolaus and his being the nephew his telling the tales, young, wanting to go into battle, his final action defending Hercules? The band together against Cotys, final battles, success?

7. Athens, the King, Hercules completing his labours, his being welcome, the crowd, his wife and children? The later revelation, the King ordering the deathe, the wolves?

8. Cotys, his daughter persuading Hercules to stay, her plea, the son and his seeing Hercules as a hero? The promise? The threat of the enemies, the centaurs? Rhesus? The character of Cotys, Sitacles as his associate, relying on him? His hostile attitudes?

9. The men, farmers, the training, the shields and formations, testing, the drills?

10. The attack, the battle, the choreography, the techniques? The effect of this long sequence?

11. The aftermath of the battle, the threats, the spies, the centaurs, their arrival?

12. The reality of Rhesus and his troops, the extended sequence of the battle, the strategies, tactics, Rhesus and his attack, the cavalry, the arrows, the flames? Thracian troops and holding fast, the shields, the cover, Atalanta and the arrows? The capture of Rhesus, humiliating him? In the dining hall? Cotys’ daughter trying to help?

13. The banquet, the crowning of Cotys as King of Thrace, Sitacless and his action? Cotys being fickle?

14. The journey of Hercules, Autolycus and his leaving, with the gold? His return and help? The King of Athens? The taunts? The wolves? Hercules and his battle, killing the wolves? The soldiers? The troops outside, sending down the bowls of fire? Undermining the statue of Hera and its irony with her hostility towards Hercules? Cotys and his continual taunts, his death?

15. Peace, the young boy restored to be the King? The development of the legends? The serious aspect? The flip comic side?

AND SO IT GOES


US, 2014, 94 minutes, Colour.
Michael Douglas, Diane Keaton, Rob Reiner.
Directed by Rob Reiner.


Michael Douglas turned 70 this year. Diane Keaton turned 68 this year. Director Rob writer turns 67 this year. And the song, The Shadow of Your Smile, which is the finale some of this film won the Oscar for Best Song 49 years ago.

Not that this necessarily indicates an “old” mentality in this film, but it is definitely one for grandparents and those with grandparently feelings. It is a comfortable romantic comedy designed, especially, for those who are not as young or poor as they used to be.

Michael Douglas seems to be enjoying himself as a crotchety widower, a realtor, who is trying to sell his family mansion for over $8 million. He hams it up more than a little, especially in trying to persuade different ethnic buyers. Back at the office, hi is controlled by the co-founder of the company, played with sardonic deadpan by Frances Sternhagen. In the meantime, he lives in a smaller apartment in a block of units which he owns, which means then that there are some neighbours whom he finds a little bit difficult to deal with, especially the children.

Diane Keaton is a widow, happy memories of her dead husband, singing in various lounges and bistro’s to make a living. She is one of Michael Douglas’s tenants. Quite an amount of battle of the sexes in the interactions between the two, especially when he launches into a critique of her act, accusing her of doing too much crying, though praising her for her voice and general abilities. He offers to be her agent – and finally does persuade a restaurant owner, played by Frankie Valli (the Frankie Valli of the Jersey Boys!) to hire her.

This is very much an so it goes screenplay. But then…

Michael Douglas’s son, a former drug addict whom he has not seen for ten years, suddenly turns up on his lawn with a little girl whom he announces as his granddaughter. He also announces that he is to go to prison for six months and he would like his father to look after the little girl, Sarah. She is definitely not what grandfather was thinking of for his retirement after selling his house (which he does to a celebrity without realising it). Diane Keaton, who had no children, immediately takes a liking to the little girl and looks after her, sometimes to grandfather’s great relief. And, of course, the little girl takes to calling Diane, grandma.

There is very little unexpected in what happens, but that is the point, We look forward to grandfather warming to the little girl, warming to his next door neighbour, and the audience waiting to see how a very happy family will emerge, including the neighbours, in the final party. On the way, grandfather arrives home to find the woman next door giving birth, not something he was anticipating to experience in his old age.

Rob Reiner has made some likeable films from When Harry Met Suddenly to The Bucket List. For the (older) target audience, it will also be very likeable.

1. The target audience for the film? Older generations? Grandparents? In terms of characters, relationships, children, grandchildren, issues?

2. The start of the film, comfortable, homes, Little Shangri- La, the cemetery, the Real Estate office, the lounge and bistros? The contrast with the poor areas of the town, drug areas? The fair and the entertainment?

3. The range of songs, Joni Mitchell, Both Sides Now, Clouds, Blue Moon, The Shadow of your Smile…?

4. The title, ordinary, the easy pace?

5. The credibility the characters, ordinary and complicated?

6. The character of Oren, Michael Douglas and his screen presence? The initial driving, going to the cemetery, Sarah Death and his life with her, talking to her at the grave? Seeing the dog and firing the paintball? His son, his life drugs, misbehaviour at his mother’s funeral, into signing him? 10 years passing? His wanting to sell the house, his pitch to the Vietnamese, thinking they were Chinese, to the black couple, not realising the wealth of the sporting couple? His relationship with Claire, her grandson, working in the company? The estimated sale for the house? Office life over the years? His crotchety personality, the aftermath of his wife’s death? Lear and her living next door? Going to the bistro, listening to her songs, her crying, his explaining how she should seem, not cry? Offering to be her agent? His son, coming to the house, bringing the granddaughter, six months in prison, his wanting his father to care for her, his refusal? Lear, taking the little girl, nice, ice cream, talking, drawing, the caterpillars? Oren and his blood talk? The range of neighbours, the parents and their cheeky kids, their noise, the boy and his change and orange remarks? Wanting to find out about Sarah’s mother, the detective next door, employing him, getting the address? The detective leaving it on the desk? His wife, her pregnancy, the birth sequence, Oren having to help, Leah’s arrival? The visit to the mother, her collapsing after seeing her daughter? Going to the fair, the rides, the happy birthday? Lear and the talks with Oren, the drink, the night together, his immediate going, clay and her diagnosis? Hearing the truth about his son, employing the lawyer, little again to the present, the sun getting out? In picking him up, acknowledging him as his son? Lear, the audition, his making the contract with his friend? Her practising, are going to the gig, the performance, telling her story, singing The Shadow of your Smile? Oren driving her home, the proposal, the thinking through things? The plausibility of the marriage because the audience saw them in so much detail and interaction as they live next door? The finale, the family group, Sarah and her film about the caterpillars?

7. Leah, her age, her marriage to Eugene, the jobs, his death and the effect, a love, the story, losing the baby? Singing, crying? Calling herself grandma, her looking after Sarah, nice? On and off with Oren, the clashes? The pianist, playing, and reacting to him? The final performance after the audition? Her consent to Oren?

8. Claire, tough, the cigarettes, 44 years, her grandson? Her advice?

9. The clients coming to the house, the spiel, their reactions, especially to the photos?

10. The sketch of the neighbours, the interactions in Little Shangri- La?

11. The nice side of life, grief and disappointment, love and hopes for the future?

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

US, 2014, 130 minutes, Colour.
Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Toby Kebbel, Kodi Smit- Mc Phee, Judy Greer.
Directed by Matt Reeves.


Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the sequel to the very successful The Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2012.
The original Planet of the Apes appeared in 1968, an original idea, made more forceful at the end by the discovery of the ruins in New York and the fallen Statue of Liberty. In the immediate aftermath there were four sequels by the middle of the 1970s as well as a television series. Tim Burton re-imagined the original in 2001, some critics praising the film, others saying that it lacked the impact of the original. Then the decision was made to reboot the story with the 2012 film, proving very popular with audiences as was this film.

The plot concerns the community of the apes, the combination of an animal and intelligent society, ruled over by Caesar was subject to experiments in the former film, but developed intelligence and was able to speak. All is well in the society of the apes except that there is an ambitious ape, Koba, who wants to rule and attempts to kill Caesar, turning many of the adult male apes against Caesar and takes them into San Francisco to wage battle with the humans.

The humans have been depleted by a virus, attributed to the apes. There are two perspectives of the humans on the apes, a friendly group who want to go into the apes’ forests, to find the dam which supplied electricity to San Francisco and to restore it. They do have a trigger-happy member of their team who ultimately is sent back to the city while the group establishes trust with Caesar and the apes and are successful with their mission. In the meantime, under the leadership of Dreyfus, the humans have an antagonistic attitude towards the apes which comes to a head when Koba and his warrior apes, riding on their horses, storm into San Francisco.

There is a forceful confrontation between apes and humans but Caesar is able to restore peace and defeat Koba.

The role of Caesar is taken again by Andy Serkis who has had an unexpectedly successful career, firstly with Gollum in the Lord of the Rings series and The Hobbit, then with King Kong, then with the two Planet of the Apes films. Caesar is a striking and forceful leader. Gary Oldman is Dreyfus, fomenting the war against the apes. The genial humans are portrayed by Jason Clarke as Malcolm, Keri Russell as Ellie and Kodi Smit- Mc Phee as Malcolm’s son.

The design of the make up for the apes is outstanding. The visual effects and the action and stunt work is also compelling. So, there is no argument against another Planet of the Apes film.

1. 46 years of Planet of the Apes films, the concept, new stories, post-apocalyptic, virus and disease, humans and apes?

2. The predecessor, the clips included here, memories, Caesar and the rise of the apes, Caesar and his intellect and communication, speaking?

3. The production values, California, the forests, San Francisco, the ruins, exteriors and interiors? The special effects, the stunts? Action in battles?

4. The make-up and designed for the apes? The cast?

5. The prologue, revisiting the story, the apes, training, the uprising? The virus? Simian disease? The effect on the humans?

6. The battles with the apes, the separation, ape and not killing ape, but mistrusting humans?

7. Life, the forests, society, its regulations, Caesar in charge? His wife and her pregnancy, the birth? Her sons? The place of Koba, the rivalry?

8. The arrival of humans, the guns, the confrontation, the appeal the trust, the mission of the humans, the dam, electricity?

9. The return to San Francisco, the role of Dreyfus, his leadership, his human attitudes, hostility, no trust in the apes? The picture of the humans, the large crowds, but no trust, fear? The effect of the disease? Humans as prisoners?

10. The humans going back to the apes, the request, issues of trust? Malcolm and his peaceful attitude, his son and the drawings, Ellie and her accompanying the group, the death of her own son, the relationship with Malcolm? The group assisting, workers – and the trigger-happy member?

11. The work, for electricity, going to the dam, the processes, the ruins of the machines, setting things going again? The teamwork? The worker with the gun, his being ousted? His return, suspicions? The humans testing weapons? The apes following the humans and seeing the guns, the report?

12. Success, the lights on again, the interactions, Caesar and his wife’s illness, Ellie and are able her being able to help her? Peace?

13. Koba, his rivalry, tough, his lies, the attempt to kill Caesar? The son believing Koba? Koba leading the apes to battle? As warriors, riding their horses?

14. Caesar, wounded, but strong, reviving?

15. Koba, his leadership, his fanaticism, his behaviour in San Francisco, the brutality of the war?

16. Bringing Caesar to San Francisco, through the subway system? To the tower? The sonseeing him and changing his mind?

17. Dreyfus, his team, against the apes, thinking that he was allowing humans to survive? The explosion and its destruction in the tower?

18. The confrontation between Koba and Caesar, the fight, the fall, ape not killing ape, Caesar saying Koba was not a true ape?

19. The restoration of peace, the freedom of the humans, the apes and the gorillas who were sympathetic to Caesar, there will, being captured, freed? A new age?

RAILS & TIES

US, 2007, 101 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Bacon, Marcy Gay Harden, Miles Heizer, Margo Martindale.
Directed by Alison Eastwood.

Rails & Ties is a small film, not often seen. And it was directed by Alison Eastwood, daughter of Clint Eastwood who also had a career as an actress.

The plot is fairly straightforward. The first focus is on a couple, he a train driver, she dying of cancer. He is reluctant to use the word ‘death’ and does not want to stay home and have time with his dying wife, preferring to drive his train. The second focus is on a physically and mentally ill mother, her 12-year-old son, her plans to drive to the rail line and for them both to be killed.

The driver makes the decision not to stop the train for fear of derailment and more injury than that of the woman who placed her car on the train line. He has to stop driving and await a hearing about his decision. In the meantime, the young boy finds out where the driver lives and goes to confront him. However, all does not turn out as might have been expected. The boy has been placed in foster care but finds a harsh mother and he runs away, finding, by contrast, a welcome from the driver and his wife, even to their accepting him as their son and not reporting him to social welfare.

There is pathos as the wife dies, as the driver decides to take responsibility for the boy – who has responded so well to their care.


1. A small film? Little-known? Themes? Cast?

2. The title, the basic ideas, trains, the crash, the orphaned boy and the consequences, Megan and Tom and their relationship with David?

3. A piece of Americana, trains and lines, homes and situations, fostering, welfare?

4. Tom, his marriage to Megan, her cancer? His sturdiness, at home? being away? driving the train, ignoring the advice to have some time off, the repartee with the drivers, driving, the chat, the car on the line, slowing down, the decision not to stop the train for fear of derailment and injury? The consequences?

5. David, at home, his mother, her illness, her devout prayer, Psalm 64 and praying it, Grace? The breakfast, the pills, taking them, giving them to David but his spitting them out, driving to the rail line, stopping at the rails?

6. David, at home, in the car, trying to get his mother out, escaping the crash? The consequences, the ambulance, the police, the rail authorities?

7. David, his age, with his mother, the impact of her death, going to the foster home, the harsh treatment by the mother, locked in his room, his escape, going to the railways, pretending to be Tom’s nephew, getting the information? Going to the house, attacking Tom, his anger and frustration? Tom and his rational replies? Megan and her care? His response to them, Tom and his train set? Tom allowing him to stay, Megan grateful? The outing, the joy and excitement, at home, David accepting Tom’s explanation? The creating of the bonds, the ties, sharing? Tom bringing David home, Megan and her love, the shopping for clothes, the social welfare inspector and their telling lies? David and his tantrum, upset, blaming himself for his mother’s death? With Megan, the sadness of her dying and the effect on David? With Tom, going to the building, the future?

8. Megan, childless, Megan being honest about talking of death, Tom reluctant? The suffering, the visits of her friend, looking after her? The argument with Tom, making the case for keeping David? The effect of David’s presence on them both?

9. The hearing, the witnesses, Tom explaining his case, David wanting to be present at the hearing? Tom being found not guilty?

10. The issue of care, fostering and harsh adults in their treatment of children? The inspector, her questions – seeing them at the outing and not reporting them?

11. The impact of Megan’s death? Tom and his talking about school David’s future? The hopes for a future?

DELIVER US FROM EVIL

US, 2014, 118 minutes, Colour.
Eric Bana, Edgar Ramirez, Olivia Munn, Sean Harris, Joel Mc Hale.
Directed by Scott Ericsson.

It is over forty years since The Exorcist made such an impact on worldwide audiences as well as on critics. Almost immediately there were many imitations, some of them spoofs from Italy, then a number of serious sequels and variations on the theme. While there have been some lulls in release of films of diabolical possession and exorcisms, there has been an increase since 2005, and there is no sign that it is abating.

A significant question is: why do audiences worldwide continue to have a fascination in the phenomenon of diabolical possession and the rituals of exorcism?

It can be noted that one of the best of these films in recent years, based on fact in the United States as well as in the course offered in Rome for those interested in exorcism, was The Rite (2011), with Anthony Hopkins as a Jesuit priest.

Perhaps it is the “Francis-effect” with the impact of Pope Francis and his Jesuit background, but here is another film with a priest confidently announcing that he is a Jesuit. As the film progresses, Jesuits may wonder whether he is the kind of role model that they would like.

This statement is not advocating Deliver Us from Evil as a great film about exorcism or even a good one. It is rather something of a potboiler with some interesting moments about Catholic themes and the problem of evil.

As regards the plot, the screenplay draws on elements of the original The Exorcist and its sequels, with mysterious goings on in the Middle East, especially with Demons. The screenplay is up-to-date insofar as there are three American soldiers in Iraq in 2010, going down into a vault, with video camera, smelling strange odours, finding a message on the wall, photographing the material. But, three years later, each of the soldiers is in violent crisis back in New York City, one brutalising his wife, another found dead while doing a painting job, the third, present in a sinister manner at the Bronx Zoo, actually possessed.

The possessed man is confronted by a New York police officer, Ralph Sarchie, who wrote a book about the experience and vouches for its truth (sounds more like PR than actuality). In the confrontation with the possessed man, he encounters a Jesuit priest, Father Mendoza, who has had a difficult drug past, experienced some conversion which included belief in God and becoming a Jesuit, with some lapses (which could cause some difficulties in the contemporary context of sexual misconduct), but has become an expert in psychiatry and working with people in violent mental difficulties and possession.

This is a New York police story, there is plenty of action, quite an amount of violence and deaths.

For Christian audience, especially Catholics, it is the Jesuit character who is of interest, although the police officer has been a lapsed Catholic from the age or 12, denying a God who did not intervene in an attack on his family. Father Mendoza makes a distinction between Primary Evil and Secondary Evil, the latter being the destructive experiences in most people’s lives. His focus on Primary Evil is on the unexplained presence of pervasive evil, the dichotomy, we might say, between God and the Devil, Primary Evil being a continual menace in the world.

When the detective wants to upbraid God because of not intervening in disaster, Father Mendoza says that they could talk all day on the problem of evil but they should focus on the problem of good, why so much good in the world – and he makes the point that God relies on us humans to intervene and help with God’s work for good. And the pertinent example is that of the detective and others in their police work confronting criminals and bringing them to justice. Father Mendoza uses the language of Ignatian “discernment” but it is a fairly basic and unnuanced description that he gives. However, he does persuade the detective to make a confession, sacramental, where a detective confronts his memories of dealing with a child abuser, beating him to death in his anger. The priest points out that vengeance was done on the abuser but not justice, and that vengeance normally stays with the avenger, contaminating the avenger’s life.

This does provide an interesting religious core to the film.

One reviewer expressed surprise that ain exorcism should take place in a police interrogation room. But, why not? Whether the scene is an authentic interpretation of the official ritual is not always clear, Father Mendoza explaining the six steps in the process of exorcism and proceeding then to pray, to demand the demon’s name, to oust the demon (with just a few special effects to remind us of The Exorcist). The production team could have well done with a Catholic adviser because Father Mendoza uses “Holy Ghost” instead of Holy Spirit and the colour of his stole for the exorcism is blue!

Edgar Ramirez, long hair, somewhat unkempt, a jogger, a heavy smoker (which he sees as a better addiction than many others), is meant to be an image of the contemporary priest. Eric Bana is the detective and Sean Harris the former soldier who is possessed. It is interesting to note that the film was directed by Scott Derrickson, an American director with a Presbyterian background, who made the far more effective The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and a very effective haunted house film, Sinister (2011).

An example of the current trend of possession and exorcism films, a police-action thriller with some acknowledgement of theological and religious themes.

1. The title? From the Lord’s Prayer? Expectations? The problem of evil?

2. The film based on a true story? The central character as consultant? How credible the supernatural experiences?

3. The introduction, Iraq 2010, the three soldiers, the snakes, bats, spiders? Their mission, the explosion, the vault, the video, the smell, the effect on each of them and the reading of the message? Possession?

4. The film travelling from dark to light, the only initial light with the family sequences? The effect of so much action in the night, in the dark, feeling oppressive? The musical score?

5. The introduction to Ralph, sitting with the dead baby, his partner, the calls, the night work? The Bronx, in the night, the streets, apartments, the dingy buildings, the Bronx zoo, the lions, the threat to Ralph and his handling of it, the animal keeper and fear, Santini and his presence, the mother, her madness, killing her baby? The call about the battered mother, the escape of the husband? A New York story?

6. Ralph, his love the Jen, love for Christina? The soccer sequence? The family at home, his inability to communicate to Jen, his yelling at his daughter, living in an atmosphere of danger?

7. The connections between the Bronx story and the Iraqi background? The battered wife, the violent husband? His running? The office, the painting? Painting over the message? His attack, fleeing, his death? The fate of his wife?

8. The lesson, the message, the entry of evil into the world, possession and consequences?

9. Ralph, his character, work, tough, easy relationship with his partner? With the other police? Involved in fights, the violence? Seeing the clues? His hearing the sounds, seeing the flash on the screen and others not seeing it? The explanation of his particular gift?

10. Father Mendoza, his explanation of himself, a Jesuit, his drug story and his degradation, his choosing God? Studies, ordination, parish? The relationship with Claudia, the drugs, the sex? The possibility of being defrocked? The reaction of his parish priest? Claudia and the issue of abortion? His becoming a specialist? Knowing Jane, visiting the institution? His appearance, his long hair, smoking, jogging, at the bar, the come on of the woman, the whiskey? His saying these were better than other addictions? His information, allowing for scepticism?

11. The discussion about the problem of evil, Ralph and his giving up on Catholicism, the attack on his family, aged 12, the presence of evil and God doing nothing? Father Mendoza saying they could discuss the problem of evil, but what about the problem of good? How could one outgrow God? God relying on police like Ralph to combat evil and criminals? The discussion about Primary Evil and Secondary evil Evil? What causes evil? The brief explanation of discernment and St Ignatius Loyola? The discussions about Marvin, Ralph explaining how he pursued him, bashed him? Father Mendoza saying that this was not justice but vengeance and this is what stays with the avenger?

12. The asylum, Jane, her madness in the zoo, her biting Ralph’s arm? The aggression, the babbling? The return and the cells open? Escape? Death?

13. Following the clues, finding the painter, his death, the creatures inside his body? His relationship with the wife-beater? With Santini? Ralph watching the videos of the vault?

14. Santini at the zoo, painting over the graffiti, vengeance? Possessed? With Christina, the floor of her bedroom, taking the family?

15. In the building, Ralph’s partner, Santini’s vicious attack, to the hospital? Santini and his being taken?

16. Father Mendoza urging Ralph to confession, not holding in the sinfulness, its having an effect on the rest of life? The Marvin story, the flashback, the crime, the victim, Marvin returning, Ralph pursuing him, beating him?

17. The interrogation of Santini, in the police precinct, the interrogation room? Santini’s attitude, not giving information?

18. The exorcism, how credible in this location, the book of ritual, the stall, Ralph and the responses, the preparation, the blue stole, the explanation of the steps of the process, the visuals? Santini’s reaction, bending his head back and the stretching of his neck? His reaction to the various stages? The denial, the insistence of Father Mendoza on knowing his name? The ultimate exorcism and Santini restored to normal?

19. The months later, Jen pregnant, the birth, the rescue of Jen and Christina, the baptism, Ralph and his renunciation of Satan? Of all evil?

20. The aftermath, the true story, how credible, ordinary experiences, evil and exorcisms? Ralph and Father Mendoza continuing their ministry?