CAPTAIN CONAN

France, 1996, 129 minutes, Colour.
Philippe Torreton, Simon le Bihan, Claude Rich.
Directed by Bertrand Tavernier.

Captain Conan is a story of World War I. Philippe Torreton (who was to appear in Tavernier’s school drama Ca Commence Aujourd’hui) portrays an eccentric officer, a former seller of drapes, embracing the ethos of the war, with his own special squad, leading night missions which are very effective. He is a nonconformist, moving comfortably and uncomfortably between the ranks and the authorities. After the trench war, his squad is involved in skirmishes in Bulgaria and Romania, especially for fear of the expanding of the Russian Revolution. He defends his men who commit atrocities in the local towns. He has become friendly with a literature teacher, Norbert (Simon le Bihan), who wants to emulate Conan but is very much the academic and is well-mannered.

Conan does not take him his excursions but, after the war, when Norbert is persuaded by an arrogant general to become the local prosecutor, the two clash about the crimes of Conan’s men and how they will be treated in the courts.

Finally, there is an encounter with the enemy on a river, a brutal fight, using strategies that Conan had anticipated for this struggle. But, after the end of the fighting, Norbert comes back as a civilian to see Conan again – but, he is only a shell of himself, and has a terminal illness. He wants to be alone and to drink alone.

The film gives some background of the aftermath of World War I and the kind of fighting in Eastern Europe. But, this is very much a film for a French audience who would appreciate the nuances and the sensitivities in the story and the characters.

1. World War I and its aftermath? French involvement and experience? The allies and enemies? The war in the trenches, in Bulgaria and Romania?

2. The director’s career? Long? The variety of themes? His being considered a master?

3. War in the trenches, the vivid detail, night sequences? The military headquarters? Bulgaria, Romania, the feel, the open countryside, the towns, the military headquarters? The musical score?

4. The title, the focus on Conan, as a type, his background in selling drapes, his war service, involvement in the war? His special squad, his relationship with them, the types? In the trench? His going out on missions, his own authority, the scenes in the dark, the fights, the killings? His avoiding taking Norbert? The wounded, the hospitals? The headquarters, going for meals, the arrogant offices, Conan and his not wanting to stay, Norbert following him? The transition to Bulgaria, his warriors, their going over the top, brutality, sexual encounters? The skirmishes? The court sequences and his presence? His relationship with Norbert, Norbert and his court authority? Conan in defending his men? The different cases? His attitudes, attitudes towards authority, to the general? With Norbert, with the young man accused of cowardice? The finale, his strategy, the enemy coming over the river, the confrontation and fighting? The aftermath, his being alone, drinking, terminally ill, talking with Norbert, the prospect of death? His character as a symbol of the times?

5. The contrast with Norbert, in himself, dapper, literature teacher, involved in the war, wanting to fight from the trenches? His friendship with Conan, admiring him? Yet the differences? After the war, the prospect of him becoming the prosecutor, his reluctance, the alternate candidate being brutal, his accepting the role? The variety of crimes, investigating, the women and their being attacked, the visit to the prostitute and her holding court from her bed, the information? The men and their being called to the court? Accused of brutality? The role of Conan? The young man, accused of cowardice, his age? The young man condemned to death, dying in action? The encounters with his mother? Norbert in the final skirmish? His return in civilian clothes, the visit to Conan, their final discussions?

6. The young man, his age, his behaviour, accused of cowardice, condemned to execution, his dying in action?

7. His mother, her presence, cousin of the general, asserting influence, being assertive, the diplomatic responses to her, her pleading about her son, the final letter praising her son and his dying in action?

8. The general, the criticism of the French officers, arrogance, elite lifestyle, more interested in their meals and the food, their demands, not knowing much about the war? The general employing Norbert, Norbert offering his resignation, the general firing him? The general upset about the insistence from his cousin?

9. The film offering background to the French in World War I, the aftermath, the fear of the Russian Revolution spreading, the confrontations in Bulgaria and Romania? War and its ethos, the change at the end of World War I?

ALL THIS MAYHEM

Australia, 2013, 95 minutes, Colour.
Tas Pappas, Ben Pappas.
Directed by Eddie Martin.

Certainly a lot of mayhem, and by the end of the film audiences may thinking mayhem is too slight a word.

There will be two audiences for this documentary about that Pappas brothers, those who know absolutely nothing about them, their story or even skateboarding, and those who are skateboarding fans, have followed the sport for many years, know the champions and their skills. For the latter audience, it will be an opportunity for seeing the images of the past, thinking through the mayhem in the Pappas brothers’ lives, and see something of despair and hope. For the former audience, they have the advantage of discovering as the narrative unfold, the variety of complications, the sport, the mayhem and its consequences.

This is also a Melbourne-based film, with the skateboarding centres in Prahan and Northcote, the suburbs nearby as well as St Albans in the west. The two brothers were born in the 1970s, were regulars at skateboarding in the late 1980s, becoming more and more noticed with their skills, not over-outstanding at the beginning, but becoming more and more able and effective. Fortunately, for this film, there were a number of skateboard fans taking videos of the action, in Melbourne, as well as in various places in the United States where, first of all, Tas Pappas moved, soon followed by his brother, Ben.

Once the brothers are in the United States, they pal up with many of the skateboard experts of the time – a kind of communal living, a kind of reckless indulgence in everything you might think of, especially the drugs. By the mid 90s, there is strong competitiveness in the United States, with the two brothers emerging as world champions.

As the title indicates, all is not plain sailing. In fact there are some literal drownings.

The key to this documentary is a long interview with Tas Pappas in 2013, a detailed straight-to-camera, very frank, re-living of his life, the story of his parents and their breakup, going to the United States, his father following and getting into financial troubles, his brother, Ben, succeeding in the United States – and then the disasters which, for those not in the know, had better not be outlined here as following through Tas’s narrative, there are many, many surprises.

For the fans, there is plenty of skateboard footage from the late 80s, through the 90s and into the succeeding decade, views of the American champions, the many competitions over those years, and the screaming and yelling fans. The inclusion of the many talking heads from the United States as well as from Melbourne add to the interest, especially with their hindsight opinions. For those not in the know, while they can admire various manoeuvres, there seems a fair amount of repetitiveness in the skateboarding.

Tas Pappas explains that his family were real “Bogans” and he gives quite an interesting description, which means of this documentary is also a look at the Australian character, the competitiveness, the attitude which one of the American says is: Australians don’t give a shit! But, when all is said and done or, at least, a lot is said and done, that estimate of the Australian character is not quite accurate. Truth and honesty may come a bit late in life, but this film shows that it may not come, but that it could well come.

TIM’S VERMEER

US, 2013, 80 minutes, Colour.
Tim Jenison, Pension Jilette, Teller, David Hockney.
Directed by Teller.

From Pinball Machines to painting Vermeer.

Tim, that is Tim Jenison, has had a most colourful life. He describes himself as an inventor – and the first part of the film is most interesting in showing all the things he got up to with his inventing and repairing, from the above-mention pinball machines to all kinds of engines and flight and, in the last 10 years, examining the painting and techniques of the Dutch painter of the 17th century, Johannes Vermeer.

This documentary has been written and produced by his longtime friend, Pen Jilette, very well-known along with his partner in magic shows and entertainment, Teller, who directs the film (and is momentarily seen in some of the sequences). tJilette narrates the film.

What interested Tim Jenison about Vermeer’s paintings is not only their beauty, but the strength of their light. Examining many of the paintings and thinking about them, he wondered whether there was some kind of optical device that enabled Vermeer to capture the colours and, especially the full light (more like a shot on video and painting by other masters), and the extraordinary detail of the beautiful compositions as well as the characters, the Girl with the Pearl Earring being possibly the best known. For his project, he chose The Music Lesson – housed, in fact, in Buckingham Palace where, we see, the Queen was reluctant for him to see the painting but relented, giving him 30 minutes to study the painting but with no cameras or devices.

The film takes us step by step in Tim’s venture, Tim emphasising that he was in no way a painter. We see him talking to a number of artists, especially David Hockney, who had been studying the variety of devices that the 17th century painters, especially in Holland, could have been using, a century of telescopes, magnifying glasses and other instruments. Tim sets up a Camera Oscura, explaining how it works in capturing an image and then projecting it, upside down, on a wall. He experiments with the Camera, with a variety of lenses which enabled the image projected to become much larger. He then experiments with lenses without the Camera and finds that the images can be protected, quite large, on walls.

Tim also has conversations with an expert on the eye, who give some information about the connection between the retina and the brain, the capacities of the eye for focusing, on seeing light, more than the artist could have seen for his painting.

The latter part of the film shows Tim enlarging the original image, painting the whole work of art over a period of more than four months, painstaking detail, day by day. It is a huge undertaking, especially for an inventor rather than a painter. Ultimately he completes the work and invites the experts to have a look at it, David Hockney being particularly complimentary at his skill in being able to recreate the light as well as the intricate detail.

Tim says that there is no written record of any help that Vermeer might have had, even of apprenticeship with a contemporary artist. The artists remind Tim that while there might not be any written documents, the paintings themselves are documents which can be studied and speculated on. It would seem that Vermeer used some kind of ocular device – and preserved its anonymity much like the inventor does not like others to see what has been created, protecting the creation by secrecy, or, in these days, by patents.

Many would regret that they had no opportunities to study fine arts when they are at school – and found themselves usually behind in appreciation of paintings. This is a fine opportunity for their horizons to be opened, for the skill of the artist and the wonder of the achievement.

BEATRIZS WAR/ A GUERRA DA BEATRIZ

Timor Leste, 2013, 103 minutes, Colour.
Trim Tolentino
Directed by Luigi Acquisto, Bety Reis.

The first reason for congratulations is that this is the first feature film coming from East Timor, Timor Leste. It is a local production, directed by a local, Bety Reis, in collaboration with Australian director, Luigi Acquisto.

While older Australians still remember a lot of the television footage coming from the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, the controversy over the deaths of Australian journalists, the occupation by Indonesia of the former Portuguese colony, younger audiences will not be so familiar. Beatriz’s War offers an excellent opportunity for learning about the events and appreciating the experiences of the people of Australia’s very near neighbour.

The action of the film takes place over a crucial 25 years, from the invasion to the vote for independence, 1999, and its immediate aftermath.

At the opening of the film, in 1975, Beatriz is a young girl, brought by her mother, because of the invasion of the danger, to a man who used to be a rival family leader, and asks for the betrothal of her daughter with his young son, Tomas. Beatriz is a strong-minded girl. Tomas is rather a gentle boy, easily bullied. But there is an attraction between the two. The parents ratify the union – but the local priest, Father Nicolau, cannot bless the union until they come to a marriageable age. Ultimately, they do, and Beatriz becomes pregnant.

The film is shot locally, capitalising on a range of locations, in the mountains, on the flatlands, by the sea. Audiences get a feel for this neighbouring country.

The occupation is more difficult for the women, who stay at home, while the men were able to go into the hills to join resistance movements. But that is not the fate of all the men, the occupying military, in a very grim sequence, round up the men in the village, get them to sing the anthem of the resistance and then mow them down. Tomas is not amongst those killed in this massacre. He has gone into the mountains.

The years pass, Beatriz grows older, works with Thomas’s sister – and grieves when their father comes to offer himself in exchange for his daughter. No news of Tomas.

In some ways, the women in the village get used to the presence of the soldiers, especially the commander who invaded initially and has stayed, a man of deep brutality, who decides to exploit the women and has force-married Thomas’s sister, Beatriz urging her to do this. The women make a decision that they will populate their village with children from the occupying forces, a decision which has consequences for the children, seen as mixed race, especially when fathers, like the commander, demand that they return to Indonesia after independence.

Again the years pass and, unexpectedly, Tomas returns. Film buffs will recognise some clues from The Return of Martin Guerre with Gerard Depardieu and its American version with Jodie Foster and Richard Gere, Somersby. The question is, is this really Tomas, or someone posing as Tomas. This gives some force to the final part of the film, Beatriz and her dealing with the return of her husband, the villagers relying on traditions to gauge the truth of the return or not, Thomas’s sister presiding over the issues.

Audiences might remember that in the mid-90s, Jose Ramos Horta, along with Bishop Carlos Belo SDB deadly, received the Nobel Peace Prize for their contribution to forming a just peace to the conflict. There is a Catholic priest in this film, Father Nicolau, sometimes in cassock, sometimes in local clothes, very supportive of the people, from his work with the young Beatriz and Tomas, to his stand against the invaders, his protest against the massacre by publicly reading out his list of the dead and his being deported to Portugal.

With the national background, the occupation, the massacres, the hardships of daily living, the resistance in the mountains, the focus of the film is Beatriz, played by Trim Tolentino, a strong woman who has had to live through, as have the people, a grim 25 year long experience, but also the extraordinary experience of voting for independence and achieving it.

(Robert Connolly’s 2008 film Balibo, dealing with the invasion, the role of Australian journalists, the action of Jose Ramos Horta and the people is worth seeing in connection with Beatriz’s War.)

1. The importance of having a film from Timor Leste and, Australian support? The contributions of artists and technicians from Timor Leste and Australia?

2. The film telling the story of the country from the invasion by Indonesia in 1975, throughout the occupation, to the vote for independence in 1999, indications of life in 2000 onwards? The long colonial period with the Portuguese, the invasion and the occupation, the cruelty, the massacres, oppression, resistance? 1999 with the vote on independence, the brutal leaving by the Indonesians, the aftermath, the resistance coming down from the mountains? Xnana Guzmao, Jose Ramos Horta and the leading of the country? The story for an Indonesian audience, an Australian audience, but especially for the Timorese themselves? World interest in this story – and the possibility at the end of the 20th century for freedom and independence?

3. The locations, the authentic places, jungle, the mountains, the sea, the villages?
pregnancy, giving birth, love? Thomas and his absence? The story of his return – and the adaptation of The Return of Martin Guerre of Somersby?

4. Beatriz and her voice over, the portrait of her as a little girl to middle age?

5. Her mother, the dress, seemingly for the first Communion, but for marriage? The mother bargaining with the traditional enemy, the King, for four cows? His guarantee of the metal given by Australia for his work during the war? Father Nicolau, is refusing to do the ceremony until they were of age?

6. The presence of the priest, Father Nicolau, cheering Tomas, funny story, but his refusing to do the ceremony until they were aged for childbearing?

7. The first night, the two in bed together, hearing the shooting, the invaders, the mother dying, people fleeing?

8. The 1970s, the occupation by the Indonesian military, cruelty, the possibilities for ceasefire, the tension with Tomas’s father, Tomas and his timidity, threatened, Beatriz giving birth?

9. 1983, the breaking of the ceasefire, the massacre, so many men killed, Tomas and his interrogation, torture, his refusing to give information? The men on the beach, asked to sing the resistance on, the captain ordering them shot? Tomas escaping, Beatrice searching among the corpses? Never believing that he died?

10. Beatriz, the birth, unable to give milk to the child, trying to find a mother who could, the first one failing, the second one succeeding, the separation, the captain, his choosing Beatriz and violating her?

11. The village of women, Teresa and her character, her love her brother, devotion to her father? The strong character? Her father coming and giving himself up so that she might be free, his being taken to the hill, refusing to dig the grave, his being shot? Beatriz and her tough stances, urging Teresa to be the captain’s wife, the threats on anyone who escaped, the reprisals, the women getting the tools, to build? The discussion about the future, with children, the soldiers, mixed race children, the number of pregnancies? The occupation going on, life in the village? The resistance in the hills?

12. Father Nicolau, visuals of his presence as a priest, with the children, his decision about the marriage, his presence with the Indonesians, supporting those who suffered, reading out his list and defying the Indonesians, his being deported to Portugal?

13. The captain, his cruelty during the occupation, the rapes? Attitude towards Beatriz? His marrying Teresa? The birth of the daughter? The symbol of tying the deer, with the stone – and its reappearing on the flats at the end, still exerting strength to pull the stone to be free?

14. 1999, voting, the alternatives, the vote for independence? The presence of the Australian troops?

15. The Indonesians leaving, vindictive, burning the village, killing people, the confrontation with Teresa, making her declare that her daughter was Indonesian, her father taking her?

16. The return of Tomas, the greeting, his claiming to be Beatriz’s husband? Teresa believing? The issue of the traditions, the spirits, whether he should be allowed in the house? Beatriz and her rejecting him, invoking the traditions? His relating to the boy, the scenes together, father-figure? Beatriz loving him
despite everything, his loving her, her pregnancy? The scene on the beach? The man denouncing him, giving his real name, the audience knowing the truth? The threats to the drunken man?

17. The decision to have a trial, the women listening? Teresa and her being the judge? The woman coming from the village, the denunciation, the fact that he was a traitor, working with the Indonesians, the murder of the religious and the nuns?

18. His going to prison, his real identity, Beatriz coming, wanting the ring back, the confusing experience?

19. The aftermath, in prison, Beatriz giving birth, and not wanting the child, giving it to Teresa, Teresa persuading her to take the baby, accusing it?

20. Storytelling as well as the recounting of Timorese history, the world audiences?

I AM ELEVEN

Australia, 2011, 85 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Genevieve Bailey.

A documentary about and featuring children, and, as guessed by the title, they are eleven. This is the age that the writer-director says was her favourite age, still an age of childhood (where many say they would love to stay) but an age on the verge of serious transition into adolescence. She tells us she wanted to make a documentary and children seemed the best subject. However, she did not confine herself to Australian children. Rather, she went to countries all over the world, fifteen in all, where she wanted to visit. She filmed many, many interviews, but has edited her material down to just over 90 minutes. More can be found on the film’s website.

The best-known documentaries on children’s development have tended to focus on a sample group – and to follow up after a number of years, then more follow-up. The most famous of these is Michael Apted’s beginning with Seven-up in the early 1960s, meeting the subjects after seven years, then another seven. By 2012, the series had arrived at 56-up, the participants still willing (varying over the years) and providing a portrait of British children through adolescence, adulthood into middle age.

Gillian Armstrong made a similar series with some girls from Adelaide, beginning in the 1980s with Smokes and Lollies. There were four films in the series.

Since this is Genevieve Bailey’s first film, we don’t know whether she will travel around the world to find the children again. She has made a second visit because, at the end of the film, the boys and girls are interviewed, some at 12 and some older – and reflecting on how they felt at eleven.

The selection is of boys and girls. There are some leading questions and issues raised which means, of course, we have the comparison of what children in India say compared with some children in England. There are some from Thailand, France, Czech Republic, the US.

Sometimes they sound ingenuous, at other times, more thoughtful and experienced than one would have anticipated. There is usually a huge spontaneity about their reactions both wry (the boy in London) or serious (the ecology preoccupied by in France). On the other hand, one girl has an ambition to make chocolates, and Indian girl speaks in self-giving mode wanting to be a doctor.

The editing makes for entertaining watching, the blend of close-up responses and interviews along with some detail of background life in a particular country, village life in India, with elephants in Thailand.

Obviously not a definitive work on eleven year olds but one that immerses the audience in their world, a reminded of the joys as well as the earnestness of being eleven – with life about to unfold before them.

30 MINUTES OR LESS

US, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
Jesse Eisenberg, Danny Mc Bride, Asis Azari, Michael Pena.
Directed by Ruben Fleischer.

There is no major reason for seeing this film. Actually, there is no minor reason either. The director made the entertaining vampire spoof, Zombieland. There is a Zombieland of a different ilk. Most of the characters are living dead, each in their own way.

It would be interesting to sit down with the director to ask him why he made the film as he did. He would probably say that it was a lot of fun. Maybe, he was right about the basic plot idea. But, it is the screenplay which causes a lot of the problems. Sometimes, with the amount of crass language found in a film, a comment is made that with the cutting of all the four letter words, the film would be half its running time. This is the case here, four letter alternatives to witty or clever writing. The other question for the director – and he can always pass the responsibility on to the writers – is that why the four main characters have to be so gross about sexuality – and for so much of the time. If a visitor from Mars were to see this film as the first cinema experience and think it was typical of the human race, the alien would have no reason for thinking these were creatures who needed to be saved from invasion! Men would seem to be sexist yobs.

Danny Mc Bride is a comedian who has capitalised on this kind of explicit sexual reference (no innuendo here, just plain smut and beyond) in such films as Your Highness. He now plays a character who exhibits no redeeming features at all, completely dislikeable. His dumb friend is little better. Mc Bride portrays a stoner-loafer who resents his father (Fred Ward), a military man who has won millions in a lottery and is frittering it away. His son wants to get it and connives with a pole dancer, who promises to find a hit-man, to kill his father. But, the charge his $100,000. His brainwave is to pressure a slacker, he and his friends wearing monkey masks without any sense of irony of what this could mean) who works at a pizza place whose boast is that if it is not delivered within 30 minutes, you get the pizza free.

Jesse Eisenberg (so effective as Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Contract) is abducted, a bomb strapped on him and given a day to rob a bank and deliver the money. He involves his friend, Aziz Asari (and they both have a propensity for language and sex talk at the slightest opportunity) and, in farcical fashion, they get the job done. Also involved is the hired killer (Michael Pena), which complicates the proceedings no end.

Had the writers stayed with the spoofy absurd plot, it may have had its comic moments. However, they didn’t and this is what they have ended up with. Time to move on to another film for all concerned.

AUTOLUMINISCENT

Australia, 2011,
Rowland S.Howard, Genevieve Mc Guckin, Nick Cave,
Directed by Richard Lowenstein, Lynn -Maree Milburn.

An intriguing documentary even for those who know nothing of its subject, musician and composer, Rowland S. Howard who died in 2009 but who was interested in this film being made and gave interviews in the period before his death. The film also incorporates a great deal of archival footage as well as performances of many of his songs.

Richard Lowenstein made the feature film Dogs in Space in 1986, chronicling the lives in the rather chaotic music scene (and drugs) in Melbourne’s inner-city Richmond in the 1970s. Michael Hutchence played the central role. Lowenstein and his co-director and editor Lynn- Maree Milburn made further documentaries on Australian bands.
Interviewees express their admiration for Howard’s musical talents, his gift for lyrics, his performance. He seemed an unlikely musical hero when he was very young, rather weedy, but soon emerged as someone to be reckoned with (and some, including Nick Cave, reckoned with him).

The film does not try to trace a chronological path of his career, but that emerges: his bands in Australia, his going overseas and career in London, on the continent (including involvement with Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire with Wenders speaking warmly of him in the film), his return home, his marriage, his illness.

Genevieve Mc Guckin, who was his companion for many years, collaborated on this film and contributes a great deal of biographical information as well as commenting on the period and how it affected Howard and his friends (including drugs). For a time, Howard was married and there is testimony from his stepson, putting more of a human face on Howard.

As a documentary, there is enough information about Rowland S. Howard and his career for audiences to have a feel for and some understanding of his life within the decades of his career. There is enough testimony, from members of his band, to international commentators, to friends and family (especially his brother, who worked with him, and his sister) to appreciate the complexities of Howard’s life. And there is enough music to indicate his development over the decades, and, with the music videos reminding the audience of the different styles of the times, what he contributed.

One of his songs was Autoluminescent, a great word to describe Howard’s self revelation through his songs.

THE INFERNAL SERPENT

UK, 1990, 100 minutes, Colour.
John Thaw, Kevin Whately, Cheryl Campbell, Barbara Leigh- Hunt, Geoffrey Palmer, Tom Wilkinson, George Costigan.
Directed by John Madden.

The Infernal Serpent is an Oxford College film with two themes running through it.

The first is that of the environment, interesting from 1990, a debate to be held in Beaufort College. However, the main speaker is attacked on a rainy night and dies in hospital. This leads to suspicions of a link between the college and an international corporation fostering scientific development. A young man, formerly a researcher, has discovered that his work could lead to cancer. Thugs from the company force him to steal a tape by the speaker at the debate, and blackmail him to do this because of his homosexuality which he wants to keep from his dying mother. There is a connection with the other theme, sexual abuse, because the environmental expert was attacked mistakenly by the father of an abused girl.

The theme of sexual abuse is quite strong also for 990, the Master of Beaufort College being a predator, especially with young girls, and, more especially, the companion of his daughter who is affected emotionally by her father’s behaviour. This is known by the Master’s wife who finally acts, feeling guilty and responsible for not making her husband’s behaviour known.

Geoffrey Palmer is effective as the Master, Cheryl Campbell is his daughter’s companion, Barbara Leigh-hunt his wife.

The film was directed by John Madden who is to go on to direct the Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love, as well as Captain Corelli’s Mandolin and the very popular The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.

1. The popularity of the long-running series? Television movies? With style? The popularity of Morse and his personality, enigmatic and mannered style? The personality of Lewis? Their relationship? The solving of the crimes? Intricacy of the plot? The psychological dimensions, the mystery and clues? Police work and solving the mysteries with their own abilities? The work of Colin Dexter?

2. The Oxford settings, the city and landscapes, the cityscapes, the buildings? Comments about Oxford and Oxford society? The ironies about Oxford and the dons? The university city? Ordinary people? Their interconnections? So much beauty – and so much crime?

3. The quality of the mysteries, character-driven? Sufficient information, sufficient clues? The exploration of character and clues?

4. John Thaw as Morse, his personality, the changes over the years, yet remaining the same? The mystery of his name? His crusty manner, the bachelor (but romantic at times)? His own authority – exercised over Lewis – and his reaction to authorities? Promotion or not? The changing of his attitudes towards Lewis, bossing him, patronising him about education and culture? The issue of music? Drinking ale? His car? Quietly at home, at work? With Lewis, understanding the situations and characters, the deductions? His being a good listener – but critical?

5. The contrast with Lewis, the family man, the ordinary policeman, education and lack of education, his being put down by Morse – but enjoying his comeuppance now and again? Music and his ignorance? The first reactions, Lewis being patient? His admiration for Morse, having to do so much leg work, to formulate hypotheses? Working under pressure? Collaborator and partner of Morse?

6. The quality of the film as a crime thriller, a thriller with intelligence and demands on the audience?

7. The introduction to the crime, the credits, the background in Oxford, beyond?

8. The range of personalities, motives? Truth and concealment? Jealousies? Deceits and angers? The academic and religious backgrounds?

9. The title, the later explanation, as applied to the Master?

10. The University, the rain, the announcement of the debate, the issue of the environment? The Master and going back for his papers? The attack on the professor? The Master being hit? The professor in hospital, the news of his death? Heart attack?

11. The focus on the Master, his title, and his wife, who routines, his ignoring her? With the professor, being hit, Morse and the questioning? The College and its reputation, the environment, the multinational company? His relationship with his daughter, seeming disdain of her? Sylvie and her visit, the tension between them? His being the subject of her profile for the paper?

12. The Environment story: the professor, his reputation, concern about the environment, his agreeing to talk in the debate, the tape in preparation for the debate, Michael stealing it, giving it to Jake? Michael and Jake and their sexual relationship? Morse and investigation, Michael and his mother, the thug forcing Michael to steal the tape, going to his mother in the hospital, Morse chasing the thug through the hospital? The arrest of Michael, Morse seeing him with Jake? Jake passing it off with some embarrassment? The mother’s death, Michael feeling free to tell the truth? The long story told to Morse, Michael, his experiments, studies, the employment by the company, the fertiliser, its seeming miracle effect, later discovering that it was dangerous, cancers? The ceremony and the Master present with the head of the company? Jake and his choir, the practices, his relationships, returning to the United States? Phoning Jake, listening to the tape on the phone? The chief, the influence of the University, thinking that Morse’s speculations were indefensible, taking him off the case? Interesting that in 1990 there should be this environmental message?

13. Morse and Lewis, Morse more cranky than usual, having drinks, Lewis and his following through, not knowing the words like taxonomy, the issue of the vomit, his continually referring to it, getting the information, leading him to the club and who had the meal and was sick? Morse, the Master, Sylvie and her background? His friendship with Jake, going to the music, the rehearsal?

14. The Master’s wife, her piano pupils? Phil, working in the garden, the competition and his winning? His upset about his daughter, and her not being communicative, the reality but his not going to the police? The rain and the umbrella, hitting the wrong man, his vomiting, finally smashing the garden?

15. Sylvie, her story, her mother, being paid companion for Imogene, the photo album, the partly happy days? Morse and the Chief giving him the brochure for a holiday, looking at the pictures, the realisation about sexual abuse? The parcels delivered, the horns, the cloth? The Master’s wife trying to protect him? Not telling him? Imogene and her rebellion, her husband, playing the piano with Sylvie, her anger, the Master and his death, Sylvie in the room? The truth?

16. Imogene, her relationship with Sylvie, with her father, with her mother, her life, rebelling by marrying her husband, the stables, love of her work, her father’s treatment of her, her mother trying to talk to her and visiting the stable?

17. The truth, the Master’s death, his wife going to the chapel, the music, on the heights, Morse and Lewis urging her down? Her guilt, responsibility?

18. 1990, the times and the issue of the environment, of sexual abuse, of gay issues?

THE LUNCHBOX

India, 2013, 104 minutes, Colour.
Irrfan Khan. Nimrat Kaur, Nawazuddin Siddiqui.
Directed by Ritesh Batra.


The Lunchbox has proven a success not only in India but the world over. The growing interest in films about India is to advantage here.

With the opening of the film, the audience is immersed immediately into the life and vitality of the city of Mumbai. As with the title of the film, the audience becomes interested in the thousands of men who walk, pull carts, ride on bikes, our passengers on vehicles delivering hundreds of thousands of lunch lunchboxes all over the city. One immediate query is how do the lunchboxes get to the right place at the right time – something which is explained at the end of the film, some of the carriers becoming rather indignant even at the suggestion that a lunchbox should not arrive at its proper destination.

We are also shown to different parts of the city whether the two leads live. One is a quite comfortable, but fairly cramped, home where Ila, an ordinary housewife, lives with her husband and daughter. She gets her daughter ready for school, a touch pessimistic in her outlook, that rain will come at any time, that accidents can happen. She spends time at home preparing her husband’s lunch for his lunchbox. An old lady lives upstairs, whom she calls Auntie, who calls down conversation and cooking advice. In another part of the city, an accountant, Saajan, lives by himself, a widower, who for 35 years has been going to do the same kind of accounting work and comes home to a lonely house, standing on the veranda watching the neighbours have a happy family meal, and smoking.

This not might not seem the ingredients for a popular film. And audiences with a touch of impatience will need to get their impulse for hurry under some control – this is a very leisurely paced film.

At work, Saajan is about to take early retirement and is asked to help in the training of an eager, very eager, irritatingly eager, young man, Shaikh. Shaikh is not particularly reliable but, quite soon, he wins over Saajan with his sometimes desperate respect. But that is not the main thrust of the story. That is, of course, the lunchbox.

As the advertising suggests, Saajan receives the wrong lunchbox, one especially packed by Ila for her husband. Saajan finds the meal delightful and appetising, and continues to receive the meals, thinking they are from the local shop. 1t is Ila’s neglectful husband, who generally ignores her, who makes her realise that the lunchbox has been going to the wrong destination. She encloses a note, to the interest and delight of Saajan, his immediate reply being rather functional, about salt in the meal. Then the correspondence continues, the two never meeting, communicating through the notes day by day, learning a lot about each other, opening up a great deal about themselves and their situations.

As Shaikh note, correspondence by letters seems very much out of date in the age of email. The film is, one might say, a cinematic love letter, to letters.

That is basically what the film is and is about. There is a delightful wedding sequence, Saajan going to Shaikh’s wedding, the only representative of his side of the family raise while his wife’s family is there – in abundance. And there is a sad death sequence, Ila receiving news from her mother that her father has died.

Which means that the film is about basic values, the quality of human life, possibilities for happiness, the realities of sadness and some betrayal, the basic sadness in the deep experiences of long illness, death, and the delight in the celebration of marriage and wedding.

This is a film which reaches into the hearts of an older audience – one hopes that a younger audience might stray into the film, slow their pace down, and contemplate some of the deeper values of life, even through communication in a lunchbox.

1. A gentle film, a humane film? Of happiness? Of sorrow?

2. The title, the focus, the look of the lunch box, the colour of the cover, the different layers, the different foods, nourishment, carrying the letters, carrying communication?

3. Life in Mumbai? Ila’s house, the street outside? Saajan’s house, the street, the children playing? The modern buildings and offices, the desks? The canteen? Transport, buses, trains, scooters, the carriers and their carriages? The overviews of Mumbai, the skyscrapers, the streets? Getting the flavour of Mumbai? The musical score?

4. Saajan’s story: his age, about to retire, his interactions with his boss, his memories, his wife and her television programs, the hospitals where his parents and wife died, 35 years at the job? His plans? The introduction to Shaikh? As his assistant, Shaikh’s unreliability, a poor man, changing, Saajan teaching him, the mistakes and Saajan covering? The canteen, the food, bringing the fruit, the invitation to Shaikh’s house, going to work, the transport, the crowds on the train, Saajan at his desk, eating in the canteen, going home, quietly smoking?

5. Ila’s story, her daughter, preparing her to go to school, a touch pessimistic in outlook? Her relationship with her husband, his neglect, preparing the food, his ignoring her questions? Going out? The affair? Ila’s mother and father, the visits, her father ill for so long, money for her mother? At home, making the lunches, calling out to Auntie, their talking, the advice?

6. The picture of the carriers, the process of transporting the lunches, the different vehicles, the collection? The deliveries in the office? Ila saying there was a mistake, the carriers saying there was not, the Harvard inspection saying all was well?

7. Sanjaan and the food, the surprise about the lunch box, the contents, eating everything? Going to the shop, encouraging them, the cooks and the comments on cauliflower? Sanjaan and the puzzle, writing the notes? Too much salt? Ila realising what was happening? Her starting to write notes? The growing exchange?

8. The content of the notes, ordinary situations, feelings, values? Each of them reading, the voice-over, the routines? The dream of going to Bhutan?

9. Ila upset, going to the canteen, waiting? Sajaan looking, not making himself known?

10. The aftermath, Saajan going to the new city, his coming back home? The change? Sitting on the train at the end, talking with the old man?

11. Ila, the news of her father’s death, going to the house, comforting her mother, her mother remembering, saying she was hungry?

12. Saajan and his visit to Shaikh’s house, meeting the young woman, the story, her running away from home, her father’s disapproval, change of heart, the
gift of the scooter for his promotion, the elaborate wedding ceremony, the photo, Saajan and his deciding to retire?

13. Ila going to the office, Shaikh at his, the ride on the scooter?

14. Ila, selling all her jewellery, getting the money, taking her daughter to Bhutan?

15. Would the two ever meet?

16. A film showing the beauty of letters for communication?

WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN

US, 2001, 94 minutes, Colour.
Martin Lawrence, Danny De Vito, Jon Leguizamo, Glenne Hedley, Carmen Ejogo, Bernie Mac, Larry Miller, Nora Dunn, Richard Schiff, William Fichtner.
Directed by Sam Weisman.

It might be useful to admit that I saw this comedy on a plane. And I think it is that kind of film, a slight, raucous farce that serves as a star vehicle for the increasingly popular Martin Lawrence. He has been seen in Bad Boys, Nothing to Lose, Blue Streak and Big Momma amongst others. His best featured role was with Eddie Murphy in the prison comedy, Life. Here he meets his match in Danny de Vito who makes Lawrence look a little tall! Lawrence is a thief. De Vito is a sleazy business man, so who is good and who is bad? They try to outwit each other in the burglary and insurance stakes with a few laughs along the way. And that is about all that happens (except for a spot of romance).

From a novel by Donald Westlake, prolific author of such stories as The Hot Rock, Cops and Robbers, Two Much

It's not the best but it's not the worst either. Though one critic said the worst that could happen would be a sequel!

1. An amusing comedy? Crime thriller? Police investigation?

2. The title? Has applied to Kevin Caffrey, as applied to Max Fairbanks? Robberies, the stealing of the ring, the recovery of the ring?

3. The affluent world and mansions? The poorer world? Police precincts? The musical score?

4. Max Fairbanks, Danny De Vito’s character, short and demanding? Wealth, in need, in the mansion, his wife, the robbery, encountering Kevin, the confrontation, taking his ring, and his smug enjoyment of this?

5. Kevin, his robberies, going to art galleries, casing art, casing houses, his plans? Berger, his associate, his contribution, a bit slower in intelligence, comedy sequences? Going to Max’s house, the attempted robbery, the confrontation and his ring being stolen?

6. The consequences of the ring being stolen, his relationship with Amber? His determination to get the ring back? The devices that are used to get it? Berger and his help?

7. Kevin, his uncle, politics, the fence for stolen goods, his character, advice?

8. The detective, gay, the comedy, his manner, his activities, the investigation?

9. The world of Max, his associates, friends? The world of Kevin, associates, the crime world?

10. The buildup to the finale, Max covering for Kevin, the recovery of the ring?

11. A slight comedy, thriller, investigation? Star vehicles for the two stars?