THE TRUTH ABOUT LOVE

UK, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Love Hewitt, Dougray Scott, Jimi Mistri.
Directed by John Hay.

The Truth about Love is a slight comedy about marriage, betrayal, fidelity and infidelity. It is all treated with a very light touch, comic, romantic, bordering on the silly and the trivial.

The setting is Bristol, very attractive as a city with its water settings.

The central character is played by Jennifer Love Hewitt, sporting a very persuasive English accent, looking very much like Sally Hawkins and giving Sally Hawkins-like performance. Dougray Scott is his usual self, sympathetic but with the touch of the morose. He plays a solicitor who is in love with Jennifer Love Hewitt but she has married his friend, the barrister, Sam, played by Jimi Mistri. It is Jimi Mistri who plays the villain of the piece, seemingly happily married, with a mistress on the side, and eager to begin new sexual adventures when he receives a mysterious phone call from Anonymous. In fact, Anonymous is his wife testing him out, not really believing him to be unfaithful, but finding out the bitter truth as she masquerades as Anonymous, tricking him by making him blindfold. But he is finally exposed by his mistress – which leaves Jennifer Love Hewitt finally realising that she loved Dougray Scott.

1. The film described as a screwball comedy for the 21st century? Men and women, love, relationships, fidelity and infidelity? Unmasking deceits?

2. The truth about the title – or untruths about fidelity?

3. The Bristol setting, the British city, homes and streets, pubs? The waterfront, boats? The courts? The musical score?

4. The focus on Alice, her appearance, gaunt, her hair, her manner? Her marriage, relationship with Sam? In love? The relationship with Archie, knowing him in the past, his devotion to her, her not realising it? Her discussions with Felicity? Felicity and her attitudes towards men, affairs, control? Receiving the Valentine, the radishes? Thinking it was Sam? Her response? His reactions? Felicity and the plan for the phone call, the new phone, the disguised voice, phone sex, Sam’s response, the appointment to meet, her blindfolding him? Her leaving, the encounter with Katia? Going further with the plann, the hotel room, the sexual encounter, Sam and his infidelity? Relying on Felicity for advice? Getting the key of the room from Archie? Her disappointment? Katia coming to the house, telling Sam that Alice was Anonymous? His protestations? Her disillusionment? Going to Archie? The kiss? His leaving for Japan, the boat buyer and the information, going to the railway station, the farcical aspect of her making the announcements, chasing the train, Archie getting off the train?

5. Archie, love for Alice, sending the radish, the card, fixing the boat, friendship with Sam, as a solicitor, in court, the case, the testimonies, the photos, his noticing the absence of the tatoo, finding the double, bringing him to court? His clashes with Sam? The decision to go to Japan, on the train, getting off the train? His future?

6. Sam, marrying Alice, his work in the courts, his self-centredness, the case, the questions, Archie and his bringing the information? His celebration, TV interview? His relationship with Alice, the relationship with Katia, Katia, his visits with her, not telling her the truth? The phone call from Anonymous, his following through, the rendezvous, being blindfolded, the second episode, the sexual satisfaction, the confrontation by Katia, his being exposed?

7. Felicity, her personality, relationships with men, dominating Alice, the ruse, following through, supporting Alice, her friendship?

8. The court case, the manager, his testimony, the footballer, his actress wife and leaving, the headlines, Archie finding the double, winning the case? The manager and his being arrested for perjury? The severity of the judge?

9. The frivolous tone of much of the action, bordering on the trivial – but with serious issues of love and fidelity and commitment?

THE COMPANY

US, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Chris O’ Donnell, Alfred Molina, Michael Keaton, Tom Hollander, Alessandro Nivola, Ulrich Thomsen, Alexandra Maria Lara, Rory Cochrane, Simon Callow, Anthony Sher.
Directed by Mikael Salomon.


The Company is an excellent miniseries from the United States about the CIA. However, it can be seen as three separate and self-contained movies.

The first film is set in the 1950s, in Berlin in 1954, mostly in the dingy east of Berlin. It focuses on the work of two CIA agents, the veteran played by Alfred Molina and the up-and-coming Jack Mc Auliffe, the central character of the series, played by Chris O’ Donnell in one of his best roles. The film shows espionage with contacts, moles in the CIA and the consequences, and the danger of an agent falling in love. Also central to this Berlin episode is the presence of Alexandra Maria Lara as a ballet dancer, caught up in communication of data.

The film is also set in Washington DC, focusing on Mother, the experienced investigator played by Michael Keaton. Keaton was a zany comedian when he was young, moved to being Batman with some more serious roles. This is certainly one of his best, over the three episodes. He is the meticulous investigator, his walls filled with notes, his painstaking cross-referencing before computers. Also in his office is Adrian Kim Philby, played well by Tom Hollander, who is ultimately exposed and flees to Russia.

Other characters whose work spans three films include Alessandro Nivola who works in the Washington branch, Rory Cochrane as a Russian, educated in the US, and sent back as a plant, and Ulrich Thomsen is the head of the KGB.

The second film is more action-oriented, a rather graphic presentation of the Bulgarian Apra uprising in 1956, with Jack Mc Auliffe present and picked up and tortured, with Natasha Mac Elhone as a British mother, wife of leader of the uprising.

The second half of the film is rather different, moving to 1960 – 1961, the rise of Fidel Castro, the reaction of the American administration, of the Kennedys, of the CIA under Alan dallies. Once again, the three main characters are present, Jack Mc Auliffe in action at the time of the Bay of Pigs. Alfred Molina is back again, this time in cahoots with the Mafia, preparing poison for the assassination of Castro. Of significance, it is Leo Kritzky, played by Alessandro Nivola, who determines that the Bay of Pigs is the place for the invasion of Cuba. At the end of this episode, the CIA has had its authority and reputation undermined.

The third film moves on almost 15 years, problems of the 1970s, the presence of a mole in Washington, with evidence seeming to incriminate Leo Kritzky. He is picked up, interrogated, tortured. Michael Keaton’s Angleton is brought in to do the interrogation and is once more painstaking, Jack Mc Auliffe believing Leo to be guilty. However, a would-be Russian defector appears at the time which leads to a different interpretation and Leo being released. Time passes to the mid-80s and the introduction of computers – with eager young women working in offices, doing the same kind of cross-referencing previously done personally by Angleton, and this leads to the fact that Leo was, in fact, the traitor.

He escapes to Russia, visits Kim Philby. In the meantime, the Russian who has lived in Washington is uncovered and works with Jack Mc Auliffe whom he knew a quarter of a century earlier. The former significance of the CIA, the Grand Game, is over with the collapse of communism. However, indications are given of the new role of the CIA with the election of President Yeltsin.

An interesting and absorbing serious films, very well acted, with the periods re-created effectively, and find work of directing by Mikael Solomon, whose career with film and television has led to work with a variety of genres.


1. Audience interest in the CIA, the KGB, espionage in the 1950s, the Cold War? The British moles? Espionage at the time?

2. The first of three films, this film and its stand-alone impact? Audience knowledge about Kim Philby, the moles in MI6, the damage to agents and loss of life? Defections to Russia?

3. The atmosphere of the period? Yale University and the rowing teams, the friendships, international, the discussions about ideology? The background for careers and ambitions? Berlin, East and West, the dingy East? Washington DC, the CIA offices? Russia, the KGB, life in Russia?

4. The focus on Berlin, Harvey as the head, Jack as his assistant, the other members of the staff, the dingy office, the issue of the defector, the interrogation, his being unmasked? Harry’s anger, the issue of the mole? Jack, his work, the contact with Lily, dancing, the story of the Professor and his saving her life? Giving the information, genuine? Jack tracking down, the leading his followers in the mirror maze? Jack and his attraction to Lily, the love? Harvey, the chase on the roof, not shooting the KGB and vice versa? The scheme of the barium meal, getting information, not sending the information to anyone in England? The visit to Israel and the discussions? The visit to London and pressure on MI6? Visits to Washington, explaining the situation to Jim, the arguments? The deaths in Berlin? Jack and his seeing his rowing rival, the offer to pay for information? The effect? Wanting to get Lily out of Berlin, the role of the Professor, his hanging himself, Lily shooting herself? Harvey being correct about them all?

5. Harvey and his character, Jack and his ambitions? The warning about falling in love? His going to his friend’s wedding?

6. Jim Angleton, being called Mother, tidy, the range of notes on his wall, friendship with Philby, the discussions, visits to the office? His suspicions of Leo Kritzky at the meetings? The explanation? Friendship with Harvey? Theire talking, the meeting, the facts and his saying there were various interpretations? Going to Philby’s house, the search? Seen alone at the end pondering what had happened?

7. Philby, British, the scenes with Jim, his house, his role with MI6? The discussions about them all? The revelation, Eugene and his visit, bringing the bottles, gadgets, the information? Arranging his departure to Russia? London being his home?

8. Rory, education in America, friends, Tolstoy and Communist discussions? His going home? The KGB, the friendship, Starik persuading him to take the job, his American education, his father as a spy? The training? Meeting the girl, Jewish, in love? Having to leave? The phone call from the US? His contact with Philby?

9. Starik? The KGB officer, his influence, skills, recruiting Yevgeny, warning him about emotions? Controlling him from the US?

10. The CIA, officers, personnel, the nature of espionage? The training lecture, the explanation of deceit danger which in mark counterespionage?

11. A glimpse of the 1950s and espionage for Americans, British, the Soviet Union?

THE COMPANY 3

US, 2007, 91 minutes, Colour.
Chris O’ Donnell, Alfred Molina, Michael Keaton, Alessandra Nivola, Rory Cochrane, Ulrich Thomsen, Tom Hollander.
Directed by Mikael Salomon.

The Company is an excellent miniseries from the United States about the CIA. However, it can be seen as three separate and self-contained movies.

The first film is set in the 1950s, in Berlin in 1954, mostly in the dingy east of Berlin. It focuses on the work of two CIA agents, the veteran played by Alfred Molina and the up-and-coming Jack Mc Auliffe, the central character of the series, played by Chris O’ Donnell in one of his best roles. The film shows espionage with contacts, moles in the CIA and the consequences, and the danger of an agent falling in love. Also central to this Berlin episode is the presence of Alexandra Maria Lara as a ballet dancer, caught up in communication of data.

The film is also set in Washington DC, focusing on Mother, the experienced investigator played by Michael Keaton. Keaton was a zany comedian when he was young, moved to being Batman with some more serious roles. This is certainly one of his best, over the three episodes. He is the meticulous investigator, his walls filled with notes, his painstaking cross-referencing before computers. Also in his office is Adrian Kim Philby, played well by Tom Hollander, who is ultimately exposed and flees to Russia.

Other characters whose work spans three films include Alessandro Nivola who works in the Washington branch, Rory Cochrane as a Russian, educated in the US, and sent back as a plant, and Ulrich Thomsen is the head of the KGB.

The second film is more action-oriented, a rather graphic presentation of the Bulgarian Apra uprising in 1956, with Jack Mc Auliffe present and picked up and tortured, with Natasha Mac Elhone as a British mother, wife of leader of the uprising.

The second half of the film is rather different, moving to 1960 – 1961, the rise of Fidel Castro, the reaction of the American administration, of the Kennedys, of the CIA under Alan dallies. Once again, the three main characters are present, Jack Mc Auliffe in action at the time of the Bay of Pigs. Alfred Molina is back again, this time in cahoots with the Mafia, preparing poison for the assassination of Castro. Of significance, it is Leo Kritzky, played by Alessandro Nivola, who determines that the Bay of Pigs is the place for the invasion of Cuba. At the end of this episode, the CIA has had its authority and reputation undermined.

The third film moves on almost 15 years, problems of the 1970s, the presence of a mole in Washington, with evidence seeming to incriminate Leo Kritzky. He is picked up, interrogated, tortured. Michael Keaton’s Angleton is brought in to do the interrogation and is once more painstaking, Jack Mc Auliffe believing Leo to be guilty. However, a would-be Russian defector appears at the time which leads to a different interpretation and Leo being released. Time passes to the mid-80s and the introduction of computers – with eager young women working in offices, doing the same kind of cross-referencing previously done personally by Angleton, and this leads to the fact that Leo was, in fact, the traitor.

He escapes to Russia, visits Kim Philby. In the meantime, the Russian who has lived in Washington is uncovered and works with Jack Mc Auliffe whom he knew a quarter of a century earlier. The former significance of the CIA, the Grand Game, is over with the collapse of communism. However, indications are given of the new role of the CIA with the election of President Yeltsin.

An interesting and absorbing serious films, very well acted, with the periods re-created effectively, and find work of directing by Mikael Solomon, whose career with film and television has led to work with a variety of genres.

1. The third film in the series? The presuppositions of the first two films? Characters, situations, the development of the CIA, the role of the CIA, changes?

2. The locations, Washington DC, CIA officers, the city of Washington? Scenes in Russia? In the 70s and 80s? In the 1990s? musical score?

3. 1975 and the glimpse and memories of the Vietnam war? The context for the CIA in the mid- 70s?

4. This film’s focus on the workings of the CIA, the issue of moles and information going to Russia? The methods of the CIA, interrogations, torture? Rehabilitation of a man proved innocent? The irony of the 1980s methods, the use of computers, comparing data and information, the revelation that Leo Kritzky was actually the traitor?

5. The role of Jack Mc Auliffe, his previous career, leading in the CIA, his still being involved? His personality, his relationship with Leo and his family, the information pointing to Leo being Sasha, disbelief, belief, consulting with Angleton, interrogation, his intervention, the possible deal? His reaction when Leo was vindicated, applause? The further information from the computer workers, his going to see Leo, their discussions, their past friendship? Leo shooting him? Leo’s escape? Listening to Leo’s ideology and reasons? Later following him in Moscow, pushing Leo into the traffic, saving, unable to kill him? Jack Mc Auliffe as the focal point of the series?

6. Jim Angleton, his previous work, painstaking, notes on his wall, cross referencing everything? His suspicions about Sasha, his investigations, comparing dates and travel, information from the defector, the description, the holiday in Nova Scotia? The details of the interrogation of Leo, his been taken into custody, the reasons given to his wife, in the cells, deprivations, the light, water, his suspicions? Leo and his denials, the exploration of his father, background as a migrant, what he suffered, suicide? Leo and Jack, the rowing? Justifying himself to Jack? Checking on the evidence, dating the defector? Leo being released, the speeches in praise of his work, going back to his work, for 10 years?

7. The issue of the defector, the interrogation by the CIA Director, Jack present, getting Harvey’s advice? The defector and his wife’s health, the plan to go to the dentist and seeing the specialist? His return to Moscow, the issue of whether it was planned or was executed? The reason for the defection, the interrogation of Sasha and his being released and continuing to work from Moscow?

8. Jim Angleton, the use of his work, his detail, on Sasha? His being retired? His insistence that Sasha was real? The long speech in retirement, his paranoia, governments being in league with Moscow, conspiracies? his work in retirement, his painstaking care of his flowers, the orchids? Jack going to see him in the 1980s, the information about Sasha? Alice in Wonderland, the references, the lottery numbers, the codes? The young women in the investigations, use of computers? The change of CIA methods and investigations?

9. The leads for the woman who was the contact for Dodgson and his deliveries? Surveillance of her house? The tracking down the identity of Dodgxon? Yevgeni and his years in the United States? The past friendship with Jack and Leo? His being trapped, his being taken, discussions, the information about Sasha?

10. Yevgeni, the woman ringing, the codes, his father, the return, not getting in contact with Starik, his visit to Kim Philby, the gift, Philby in exile and his yearning for the better things of Britain? Yevgeni and his being American? His father’s pride in him? His tracking down the records of his girlfriend, her being in the gulag, the signature of Starik? His going to seek Starik, the dementia, the ideology, the failure of his financial plan?

11. The information about the financial plan, the CIA and information, supporting the banks, the Soviet plan failing?

12. Jack, going to Moscow, trailing Leo, pushing him into the traffic, saving him? Talking to Harvey, that he could not kill Leo?

13. The end of the series, a survey of four decades of espionage, the world crisis, the Cold War, the Castro era, the fall of communism – the Berlin Wall coming, Gorbachev and his role, George Bush and Gorbachev, the prospects of Yeltsin – and CIA still seeing prospects for their work?

THE COMPANY 2

US, 2007, 91 minutes, Colour.
Chris O’ Donnell, Alfred Molina, Michael Keaton, Alessandra Nivola, Natasha Mac Elhone, Rory Cochrane, Ulrich Thomsen.
Directed by Mikael Salomon.

The Company is an excellent miniseries from the United States about the CIA. However, it can be seen as three separate and self-contained movies.

The first film is set in the 1950s, in Berlin in 1954, mostly in the dingy east of Berlin. It focuses on the work of two CIA agents, the veteran played by Alfred Molina and the up-and-coming Jack Mc Auliffe, the central character of the series, played by Chris O’ Donnell in one of his best roles. The film shows espionage with contacts, moles in the CIA and the consequences, and the danger of an agent falling in love. Also central to this Berlin episode is the presence of Alexandra Maria Lara as a ballet dancer, caught up in communication of data.

The film is also set in Washington DC, focusing on Mother, the experienced investigator played by Michael Keaton. Keaton was a zany comedian when he was young, moved to being Batman with some more serious roles. This is certainly one of his best, over the three episodes. He is the meticulous investigator, his walls filled with notes, his painstaking cross-referencing before computers. Also in his office is Adrian Kim Philby, played well by Tom Hollander, who is ultimately exposed and flees to Russia.

Other characters whose work spans three films include Alessandro Nivola who works in the Washington branch, Rory Cochrane as a Russian, educated in the US, and sent back as a plant, and Ulrich Thomsen is the head of the KGB.

The second film is more action-oriented, a rather graphic presentation of the Bulgarian Apra uprising in 1956, with Jack Mc Auliffe present and picked up and tortured, with Natasha Mac Elhone as a British mother, wife of leader of the uprising.

The second half of the film is rather different, moving to 1960 – 1961, the rise of Fidel Castro, the reaction of the American administration, of the Kennedys, of the CIA under Alan dallies. Once again, the three main characters are present, Jack Mc Auliffe in action at the time of the Bay of Pigs. Alfred Molina is back again, this time in cahoots with the Mafia, preparing poison for the assassination of Castro. Of significance, it is Leo Kritzky, played by Alessandro Nivola, who determines that the Bay of Pigs is the place for the invasion of Cuba. At the end of this episode, the CIA has had its authority and reputation undermined.

The third film moves on almost 15 years, problems of the 1970s, the presence of a mole in Washington, with evidence seeming to incriminate Leo Kritzky. He is picked up, interrogated, tortured. Michael Keaton’s Angleton is brought in to do the interrogation and is once more painstaking, Jack Mc Auliffe believing Leo to be guilty. However, a would-be Russian defector appears at the time which leads to a different interpretation and Leo being released. Time passes to the mid-80s and the introduction of computers – with eager young women working in offices, doing the same kind of cross-referencing previously done personally by Angleton, and this leads to the fact that Leo was, in fact, the traitor.

He escapes to Russia, visits Kim Philby. In the meantime, the Russian who has lived in Washington is uncovered and works with Jack Mc Auliffe whom he knew a quarter of a century earlier. The former significance of the CIA, the Grand Game, is over with the collapse of communism. However, indications are given of the new role of the CIA with the election of President Yeltsin.

An interesting and absorbing serious films, very well acted, with the periods re-created effectively, and find work of directing by Mikael Solomon, whose career with film and television has led to work with a variety of genres.


1. The second episode in the series, moving on from 1954? The two focal points: 1956 and the Hungarian uprising, 1960 – 1961, Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs?

2. The role of the CIA, the leadership, Alan Dulles, Jim Angleton, Harvey Toritti, Jack McAuliffe?, Leo Kritzky, the blend of fact and fiction?

3. The Hungary sequences, Budapest, the look of the city, the buildings, torture chambers, public halls? The battle sequences, their length, the detail? The role of the uprising? The Russian military? Local military?

4. The effect of the Hungarian uprising, America giving moral support but not entering into military action? The discussions, the motivations, divided Europe into East and West? The crushing of the uprising? The deaths of the leaders? The flamethrowers and their being shot, the tanks going over them?

5. The personal story, Jack, his being in Hungary, his contact with Natasha, the discussions, her explanations, her marriage, British background, the capture of her daughter, able to see her only once each year, the support of the poet, his recitations, the people support? His leadership in the uprising, is not wanting to compromise, unable to compromise and negotiate, his death?

6. The interrogators, the torturers, their being taken, Elizabet confronting the woman and shooting her? Jack and his observing, getting Elizabet out, reuniting her with her daughter?

7. The transition to 1960, a different atmosphere, Castro and the Cuban Revolution, American political attitudes, the Kennedys? The CIA and its hostility? Guatemala, the leadership, the training? Jack and his involvement?

8. Kritzky, moving from background secretary to an adviser, his family connections, friendship with Jack – and the flashbacks to their past and the rowing? His family life? His advice, a place for a landing and an invasion, the choice of the Bay of Pigs?

9. Harvey, his involvement, retiring, yet still active, the Mafia connections, the plan to kill Castro, the CIA laboratories and the poison? The waiter, attempting to kill Castro? His being taken, interrogated, forced to drink the preparation, his death?

10. The military background, Jack and his involvement and presence, the strategy for the Bay of Pigs? The role of the Cuban rebels? The Cuban military, Navy? The engagement, the fiasco, the deaths? The effect on Allen Dulles and the CIA chiefs? The Kennedys?

11. The effect on Jack, his wanting to resign, has been presented with the medal, Harvey’s drunken applause?

12. The film’s critique of the role of the CIA and its lacking support for the Hungarian uprising? Its bungled efforts to confront Castro?

UTOPIA

Australia/UK, 2013, 110 minutes, Colour.
Directed by John Pilger.

Since the 1960s, John Pilger has been an investigative journalist, based in London but of returning to his native Australia. In the 1970s, he began making hard-hitting film documentaries. A number of these were concerned about Australia and aborigines, especially the 1985 Secret Country: The First Australians Fight Back.

In 2012-2013, he returned to Australia to explore the theme of how the Australian people and governments responded to aborigines and then needs. This is the resulting film.

The structure of the film is not a well-thought out and logically developed argument. Rather, Pilger sets the scene but then chooses a number of episodes which could have been placed in any order in this film. The response of the audience is to the detail and cogency of these episodes and the cumulative effect. Audiences concerned about Australia and aboriginal people will find a great deal of interest and concern. However, Pilger has his critics, criticised for his bias, the arrangement of his arguments, the melodramatics of some of the films styling in music and use of colours and darkness in photography to make his point. The same criticisms have been made of the documentaries by America’s Michael Moore – but, as in Moore’s films, if only half of the material presented is accurate, then it presents damning condemnation.

Pilger himself appears in the film, appearing much older, travelling to the Northern Territory and Western Australia, interviewing people, including a number of politicians, especially Mal Brough, the Howard minister responsible for the 2007 Intervention, as well as an interview with Kevin Rudd, featuring the apology, and asking questions of Rudd about the aftermath and the lack of development. Pilger is nothing if not confronting and demanding.

The following is a list of themes presented in the film.

• Pilger and his journalistic experience, his filmmaking, his interviews with aborigines in the past, especially Eddie Murray’s parents, and his returning to these themes and interviews.
• The title, the visit to the Palm Beach luxury holiday home, the costs, the suburb of Canberra, Barton, considered one of the most affluent of areas, the comment on Barton and the White Australia policy and the absence of aborigines in the Constitution, the transition to the community outside Alice Springs, Utopia.
• Impressions of the landscapes, the range of landscapes, especially in the Northern Territory?
• Utopia, the town and community, the issue of health, the visuals, the run-down atmosphere, poverty, sanitation, breakdown, one well for water, the deprivations? The interview with David Smith, his work for the community, his explanation of the potential for many diseases? The interview with Warren Snowden, the Minister for aboriginal affairs, in Parliament for so many years? Snowden’s pride in what the government was doing at that time, but not able to explain the previous decades?
• The historical re-enactments, the celebration of Australia Day, 2013? Sydney, the atmosphere of festivity? Pilger and his interviewing ordinary people, their extraordinarily ignorant comments, racist comments, bigotry? How typical of the Australian population in ignorance?

• Rottnest Island, the ferry over, the luxury hotel, built on the prison, even the quad? No reference to the prison history of Rottnest Island, the many aborigines interned there, crowding and deaths? The aboriginal commentator, speaking about the degradation? The manager of the resort and the intentions to do something about the memories?

• The issue of West Australian prisons? Overcrowding, the interview with the Minister about the man transported by van with 56° of temperature and his death? The minister’s talk about cultural sensitivity education for staffs?
• The issue of putting people in “Protective Custody”? Getting people off the streets? The statistics of aborigines in prison? Pilger’s asking the question of whether this was equivalent to apartheid, in comparison with South African statistics during the apartheid era? The many deaths in custody*

• The story of Eddie Murray, his being taken, ill-treated, his death? Pilger’s visit to his parents, the interviews over several decades? Eddie Murray’s father, his reflections, his wife’s death, the visit to the cemetery, the call for Justice and nothing happening over 30 years?
• The Australian “Fair Go” as applied to aborigines and wages? The issue of working with cotton, the strike, getting just wages? Aboriginal resistance, the stockman, the cattle industry, the visuals of the protest at Wave Hill and the leader and his confidence?

• Uluru, its history, the resort outside the area?
• John Howard, his policies, the intervention, the announcement with Mal Brough? The background of the accusations of paedophilia in aboriginal communities, the particular community, the denials? The evidence against this? The ABC program, Lateline, the interview with the government official in shadow, his information and statistics, his not having lived in the community, the range of experts and the disbelief about this program, about the claims?
• Jay Creek, the issues of the stolen generation? “Breeding the black out…”? Issues of genocide? The testimonies of women from the stolen generation, their history, their pining for their mothers? The background of the girls being collected, The Bungalow, white men raping the girls?
• The apology, the role of Kevin Rudd and his government, Pilger interviewing Rudd and discussing the aftermath of the apology, expectations which were not fulfilled?
• The opening quote from Lang Hancock, hunting aborigines, herding them together, putting something in the water to sterilise them so that they would die out? Seeing his daughter and the mining issues, her speeches, her wealth, the axing of the tax? The presentation of the mining areas, exploiting minerals that they did not own on land that they did not own? Mining taxes, the role of the government’s?
• What was the audience left with at the end of the film? Pilger’s particular perspective – sometimes melodramatic, sometimes accusatory, but making a case on behalf of the aborigines, the long history, the invasion, their culture and the loss of culture, the role of governments, the need for support?
• The fact that there was no mention of religion or the churches and their role with aborigines, nothing on the achievements of aborigines in politics, sport or the arts?

SILVER TONGUES

US, 2011, 87 minutes, Colour.
Lee Tergesen, Enid Graham.
Directed by Simon Arthur.

This is a surprising film, small-budget, puzzling at first, and then quite challenging.

In fact, it is several episodes forming the one film. The audience is misled at the opening in thinking that the film is about a young honeymoon couple who share a table in a restaurant with a middle-aged couple. It is the middle-aged couple who are the centre of the film. At first, they sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the young couple eventually making each of them suspicious and then act in a vindictive way against each other with the couple who then, rather diabolically, laugh at the mayhem that they have created in this relationship.

There are further episodes with the couple, the first in a church where the woman accuses the church leader of pocketing donations for orphans in the Congo, the man then acting the part of the detective and justifying the woman while moving the congregation from suspicion to further support. This has an effect on the sexuality of each of the couple who have rather violent sexual encounter.

They then go to a residence for the elderly, pretending to be the son and daughter of someone with dementia, promising a new home for him but his being unable to take any of his possessions. This includes a shelf full of diaries from which he reads and gets some satisfaction from the couple. A nurse reveals that, perhaps, the old man was as devious as the couple. Once again, a sexual encounter in the woods with the woman being left for dead, the man being picked up by the police, interrogated, explaining that he was an actor, taking tips from the interrogation – when the woman arrives.

Each of them then goes back home, separately, to spouse and family.

The audience is appalled at times at the manipulations and manoeuvres of the couple, a challenge as the audience watches these two who seem bent on destroying peoples peace and lives.

1. The impact of the film? Dismay, surprise, revulsion, value challenge?

2. Small budget, locations, the hotel and the restaurant, the church, the old people’s home, the woods, the police station? Authentic? Musical score?

3. The performances, the central couple, with each other, complementing each other, their roles in the different psychodramas? And their going home to separate families? The reason that they were together? The sexual encounters? Acting, testing people? Morbid and macabre humour? Sadistic and cruel?

4. The first story, the couple in their hotel room, the honeymoon, unsatisfactory sex, the husband and his complaints, behaviour, the wife and the going down to dinner? The table not ready? Gerry and Joan and their friendship, offering them the table, the husband’s reluctance? The meal, the couple 16 years married, the initial impact? Ordinary? The discussion about sexual relationships, with other couples? The reaction of the younger two? The detail? The husband going to the toilet, Gerry following him, the discussion, accusing the young man of ogling his wife? Meanwhile Joan, talking to Rachel, talking about the inevitable infidelities and betrayals? Rachel’s denial? The return to the table, the husband and his looking at Joan? Rachel’s reaction? The tantrum, the challenge? The argument in the room? Gerry and Joan turning up, the mutual attractions, the sexual fumblings? Gerry and Joan, standing back, challenging the two, humiliating them, the older couple and the macabre joke and torment, leaving?

5. The second story, the church, the Minister from the Congo, speaking, the collection, her appealing for more help for the orphans, asking the people to close their eyes and pray? Joan, emerging, accusing the minister of stealing the money, her hard line, the nature of the accusations, reaction of the Minister, the reaction of the people, dismay? Gerry emerging and saying he was a detective? His interrogation, finding the $10 in the Minister’s pocket? His her humiliation? The changing attitudes of the congregation? The Minister saying she would lose her job, her visa, be returned to Congo? Her plea and her honesty? Gerry and his attacking Joan, what was in her pocket, finding the dollar? The response of the congregation, changing, denunciation, to support, to giving more money? The aftermath and Gerry and Joan and their sexual encounter, charged by the experience?

6. Going to the old people’s home, finding people who had Alzheimers? The various people interrogated? Finding William, pretending to be his son and daughter, his response to them, his lack of memory, the issue of his diaries, reading sections of them? Not liking it in the home, the couple saying they would get home for him, the photo, but not able to take his possessions, perhaps a year’s worth of diaries? William and his diary saying he had no sexual encounters, yet his son and daughter present, his relief and laughter? His being disturbed, the nurse coming, taking William away, revealing that the diaries were not his, that he got them from someone else, and that he liked leading people on? The aftermath and the sexual encounter in the woods? Rough sex, strangling, Joan left for dead?

7. The next story, Gerry and the car, his being held up, the policewoman, the licence and registration? The interrogation in the precinct? The cup of coffee? The policewoman, style, manner, questions about documents? The woman in the woods? Gerry explaining he was an actor, their taking turns in performance, the accused, the police? Gerry and his performance? Explaining what it was to be an actor, taking notes from the techniques of the interrogator? The aftermath, the chief of police not believing the officer? Joan turning up, not dead?

8. Gerry and Joan driving off, the mutual satisfaction, the sexual encounters? The surprise of each going to their own home and seeing each of them with a family?

9. An intriguing and disturbing film?

CLEANSKIN

UK, 2012, 108 minutes, Colour.
Sean Bean, Charlotte Rampling, Abhin Galeya, Tom Burke, James Fox, Peter Polycarpou, Tuppence Middleton.
Directed by Hadi Hajaig.

Cleanskin is a topical British drama, drawing on the aftermath of 9/11 as well as 7/7, the terrorist attacks on transport in London in 2005. It also draws on the many dramas about the recruitment of young Muslim men, the role of the manipulative and propagandising clerics (who never volunteer to be suicide bombers), and the brainwashing and training of these young men leading them into action.

There are several scenes of suicide bombers at work, destructively, in London.

The film also focuses on the political situation, the espionage agencies in the UK, and double agents.
Abhin Galeya portrays a young man, intense, studying law, opting out and being recruited by a smooth-talking Muslim leader, Peter Polycarpou, and being trained, experiencing some kinds of doubts when he is given missions in England, especially one of killing a reserve soldier, blamed for killing Muslim children, whose decapitation is filmed on video. There is also a romantic connection, with Tuppence Middleton, which also raises doubts. However…

The focus is also on Sean Bean as a former military man, involved in security work, who is commissioned to track down the terrorists. The commission comes from an agency, an authority played by Charlotte Rampling.

The films timeline is not direct, with several flashbacks to explain how the young man ticks and how he will act as a suicide bomber.

Of interest for those concerned about recruitment and training as well as terrorist activities in the UK.

1. A topical British thriller? Terrorism in the UK? Home-bred terrorists? Recruiting, persuading, training, at home and in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Suicide bombers? Government agencies and personnel? Secret squads?

2. The title, its reference to terrorists who have no previous records and, to that extent, are clean? Ash as presenting the journey of a cleanskin?

3. The time shifts, the present day and the suicide bombing, the setting up of the squad, government investigations, further bombings? The return to 6 years earlier to show Ash, his character, his relationship with Kate, his recruitment by Nabil, his university days and clashes? The return to 3 years earlier, the further steps in his journey, the contact with Nabil, his going overseas?

4. The opening, the official and his sexual encounter, his bodyguards, the trip to the hotel, the terrorists in the car, the police car, the decision to go into the hotel, the confrontation in the foyer, shooting the target, shooting the bodyguard? Mayhem?

5. Ewan as the bodyguard, his past military history, his presence at the funeral, the clergyman and the piety of his remarks, the young crippled man walking out, the presentation of military loyalty?

6. Ewan summoned by Charlotte and the superior, the discussions, the role of the Semtex, government supervision of it? His being dismissed? Charlotte and her sympathy, asking him to pursue the case, appointing Mark as his assistant? The later contact with Charlotte, her cleaning up after the deaths? The irony of the truth about her role, Mark and his attempt on Ewan’s life, Ewan going to see her, her cigarette lighter and the ‘stop smoking’ warning, the evidence of her complicity, Ewan and suggesting that she bowed under the burden, slitting her wrists and her death?

7. Mark, recommended by Charlotte, working with Ewan, the pursuits, the deaths, the shootings, his turning on Ewan?

8. Ewan, the information, the addresses, the death of the man who in fact was an agent, his jacket, finding the key to the locker, the documentation for the media, Ewan confronting Charlotte about this? The further addresses, the confrontation of the man, the petrol, his attack, his burning to death?

9. The role of the prostitute, known to Ewan, his threats to her, her taking him to the house, leaving the door open, the confrontation with the young man, wounding him? His killing her?

10. The suicide bombers, their backgrounds, going into the restaurant after the audience saw the young student talking on the phone? The number of deaths? The media?

11. Ash, his background, studying law, his ideology, clashing with the British student, friendship with Kate, in the pub, Kate’s excesses, his anger and leaving her? His later return, meeting her once again, her telling her story, overdoing it when young, try to settle down, her work? Beginning the relationship with Ash again? The effect on him? His trying to make a decision?

12. Nabil, his role in the Muslim community, recruiting, watching Ash, talking with him, persuading him, the sufferings of Muslims around the world, identifying with “my people”? The other recruits? Sending him on the mission? The banker and the army reserve, the criticism of his torturing people? Going to the farm, pursuing the soldier? One of the group being killed? The relentless and intensity of the leader of the group? Ash not wanting to kill the mother and baby, the leader killing them? His justification? The video of the decapitation of the soldier?

13. Ash, with Kate, with Nabil, deciding whether he would be a suicide bomber or not? His video of his motivations, his explanations? Seeing him go to the function, the target being the right wing leader of the think tank? The wedding? Ewan finding him, pursuing him, shooting him before he detonated the bomb?

14. Nabil, his being deported, his speech and God save the Queen?

15. Governments, elections, policies, the head of intelligence being sacked, new policies…?

MALEFICENT

US, 2014, 97 minutes, Colour.
Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley, Sam Riley, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Leslie Manville, Brenton Thwaites.
Directed by Robert Stromberg.

This is a Disney film which gives credit to the classic 1950s animation film, Sleeping Beauty, as well as to the fairytale by Charles Perrault. But, this story of the wicked witch who cursed Sleeping Beauty does not unfold in the way that we might have anticipated.

The film could well have been made as animation, and very effective at that. The imaginative talent here has worked on quite extraordinary production design, especially the interiors of the Palace, of the huge wall of trees and thorns which separate two kingdoms, and the general backgrounds of good and happiness as well as of evil. A lot of attention has been given to costume design as well as make up. The film looks quite striking.

The name… Maleficent has overtones of evil. However, to our surprise, Maleficent is seen initially as a little girl, a fairy in the land of fairies. She is bright, vivacious, and though there are no rules in this wonderful land, she is seen as a leader by the animated creatures. One day she encounters a little boy, Stefan, who is stealing from the kingdom. However, the two become friends, talking, exploring, enjoying each other’s company.

When Maleficent grows up, she is an imposing presence because she is played by Angelina Jolie at her most commanding, beautiful, with a seemingly sculpted face (and prominent cheekbones), with extraordinary large and powerful wings. Once more, she encounters Stefan, and, after a long time, the friendship is renewed.

In the meantime, there is a narrative, recounting the events in the fairy tale style. It is spoken by Janet McTeer?. She indicates that all will not be well.

The way that it is explained is that Stefan is ambitious (or, once a thief, always a thief). The old King, so aggressive against the beautiful land of the fairies, wanting to incorporate it into his own kingdom goes to war with the fairies, but now he is dying. There are candidates for the throne – and Stefan wants to be the successor. In a way that you will have to see with a cruel and deceitful manoeuvre, he does become King at the expense of Maleficent. This means that he has made himself a mighty enemy. For the rest of the film, the enmity is dramatised, Maleficent becoming truly maleficent.

In the way familiar from the fairytale, she curses Stefan’s daughter. She is to live to the age of 16 and then to go into a deep sleep, only to be awakened by a kiss of true love, Maleficent remembering that Stefan’s kiss was not true love at all.

The Princess, Aurora, is entrusted to 3 small fairies who come to human life (played by Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Leslie Manville) and who care for her until she comes of age. As she grows up, she is played delightfully by Elle Fanning. Maleficent always keeps an eye on Aurora, getting to know her, talking with her, still seemingly so stern but her heart mellowing – and Aurora calls her her fairy godmother.

This is certainly a variation from the original story but so is the solution. Indeed, Prince Charming (Brenton Thwaites) arrives, searching for the castle and is dismayed to see the young woman whom he had encountered in the woods transformed into the deep sleep.

There is a nice surprise at the kiss of true love. But, there has to be a final confrontation between King Stefan and Maleficent, a battle of wits, suffering and pain, the defeat of evil, an act of heroism on the part of Aurora, and a happy ending that we would not quite have anticipated.

Which means that Maleficent is good to look at, imaginative, quite an entertaining film, a surprising film, a film that is tantalising to watch – with the overall presence of the imposing Angelina Jolie.


1. The attraction of the film? Live action? The origins in the Disney film? In the stories by Charles Perrault? The animation style in live action?

2. The two kingdoms, the traditional kingdom, the fairy kingdom, the looks of each, the landscapes, the mountains, the Castle, the wall of thorns and branches? The interiors of the Castle? The musical score?

3. The voice-over narrative, the tone, giving information, describing characters, the touches of irony?

4. Audience familiarity with the tale, expectations, differences?

5. The title, the name, the pleasant fairy, the little girl, her experience of betrayal, her desire for vengeance, the transformation into the evil Queen, cursing
Aurora, the kiss of true love?

6. Maleficent as a young girl, the young fairy, her wings and flying, in the kingdom, everybody being equal, the strange creatures, three little fairies, happiness? Meeting Stefan, his stealing, their talking, becoming friends, the hopes?

7. The kingdom, the King and his greed, wanting to take over the fairy kingdom, assembling the troops, the attack, the fight, the force, the use of magic, the setting up of the wall of branches and thorns?

8. Maleficent as an adult, Angelina Jolie, her look, imperious, the rivalry of the kingdoms? Meeting Stefan again? The discussions, the old days, her falling in love?

9. The King, dying, the issue of his successors, the three candidates, the quest, Stefan and his ambitions, with Maleficent, putting her in a trance, betraying her, cutting off her wings, taking and hiding them in the case? Succeeding to the throne, his marriage, his wife’s pregnancy, the birth of Aurora?

10. Maleficent and her encounter with Diaval, transforming him, into a bird, other creatures, his personality, working with Maleficent and helping her, his missions, spying, getting the information?

11. Maleficent and her presence, watching the King, the utterance of the curse?

12. The three fairies, the King entrusting Aurora to them, their comic style, becoming life-size, the house, tending it, Aurora growing up? The plan for her to return when she was 16?

13. Aurora, her life, not knowing the truth?

14. Maleficent, her life, wingless, with Aurora, the visits, her growing care, helping her, instructing her, Aurora seeing her as her fairy godmother? The mutual love?

15. The effect on Maleficent, the process in changing the curse?

16. Prince Philip, in the woods, meeting Maleficent, Aurora, the mutual attraction? With Diaval? With Maleficent?

17. The approaching birthday, the fairies taking Aurora to court, a day early , the King seeing his daughter again, his joy?

18. The curse, Aurora asleep? Maleficent arriving, the confrontation with the King? The issue of the kiss, Philip kissing Aurora and its having no effect?
Maleficent kissing Aurora and its being the kiss of true love and Aurora awakening?

19. Aurora, helping Maleficent, finding the wings, bringing them back, the winged Maleficent and the confrontation with Stefan, his falling to his death?

20. A different kind of happy ever after?

THE YOUNGER BROTHERS

US, 1949, 78 minutes, Colour.
Robert Hutton, Wayne Morris, Janis Paige, Bruce Bennett, Geraldine Brooks, Fred Clark, Alan Hale.
Directed by Edward L. Marin.

In so many films, the Younger Brothers are seen as villains. They are linked in the American legends of the West with outlaws like the James brothers and the Fords.

This is a brief film from the 1940s, the late 1940s, 10 years or so after the spate of outlaw films on Billy the Kid as well as the Jameses, with stars like Robert Taylor, Tyrone Power and Henry Fonda.

This is a more modest film. The Younger Brothers served their time in jail and are on parole until they receive a pardon, not allowed to cross the State line. They try to come to some towns and settle but are turned away. They camped outside the town, trying to avoid all trouble. The younger brother arrives by stagecoach with Cole Younger’s girlfriend. He hears criticisms of his brothers in a bar, starts a fight and shoots an assailant. The brothers help him out of town. In the meantime, there is a tough woman in the town who plans robberies and tries to persuade the Younger Brothers to work with her, eventually betraying them.

There is also an ex-Pinkerton man, Fred Clark, who lost his job because of a previous encounter with them and is determined to find them, incorporating the help of the tough woman, but ultimately failing. Because this film is favourable to the Younger Bros, they ride off happily at the end.

1. The popularity of films about American outlaws of the 19th century?

2. The Younger Brothers and the stories, as outlaws, the burning of their farms, their reactions, their violence, arrests, serving time? This film in favour of them?

3. The American West, the Missouri territory, the towns? The musical score?

4. John Younger, coming with the girl, the stagecoach, settling in town, his going to the bar, the badmouthing of his brothers, his challenge, the gun, shooting, escape? Jail? His brothers coming to free him? The ride out of town, the bridge across the State line, their getting him across?

5. The girl, Jim Younger coming to see her, his pulling the gun, their escape and evading arrest? The humour of their relaxing within the state line and not crossing the bridge?

6. The Pinkerton man, his wife upset, his decision to stay, his obsession, watching the Youngers, goading the conversation in the bar, his escaping out of the bar after the shooting? His going to see Kate Shepherd? His hold over her? Her taking him to see the Youngers, their staying within the state boundaries?

7. The woman, her plans, tough, going to see Cole Younger, his not wanting to work with her?

8. The brothers themselves, personalities, working together, their past, memories, the plans for the future?

9. A small film in favour of the Youngers?

THE MARAUDERS

US, 1955, 81 minutes, Colour.
Dan Dureya, Jeff Richards, Keenan Wynn, Jarma Lewis.
Directed by Gerard Meyer.

The Marauders is a more interesting western than one might have expected. It is a small-budget western from MGM at the time that MGM studios were changing from their successes with musicals to making dramas and small supporting features. Gerard Meyer had already made the supporting feature,.

The story is rather simple. In Arizona Territory, individuals were able to lay claim to free land. However, the richer owners attacked the smaller landowners. Jeff Richards plays a man who has taken possession of a rather barren territory, although there is a well for much needed water. The rich landowner gets a posse to attack him. The central character is the accountant, an opportunity for Dan Dureya to portray yet another crazed character. He wears his brother’s Confederate uniform, controls the landowner, and takes charge after his allowing the landowner to die, wounded in an attack. Keenan Wynn is his lieutenant, a man with the hook instead of a hand, wily but not wily enough.

Into this situation comes a man with his wife and son, passing through but in need of food and water. This complicates the situation, with the man going to plead with the accountant and being killed because the accountant has in his head that there must be many men concealed within the house while there is only the landowner and the wife and son.

An attack is attempted with taking a wagon up a cliff and setting it alight to fall on the house – but it is thwarted in several ways and the mad accountant attacks alone, shooting all his bullets, still believing that there are many men in the house to defend it.

1. An interesting and entertaining western? Variation on themes? Landowners? Property owners? attacks and shootouts?

2. The title, the reference to the landowner and his thugs in their attack?

3. The Arizona scenery, the desert, the mountains, the situation for the small house and settlement? The musical score?

4. Rutherford and his men, the ambitions for the land, the artist from England drawing the portrait, his son returned from England, Avery as his accountant, talented with figures? Hook and the other men? The attack, the shooting, there are retreating?

5. Corey, his taking the land, the attack on him, the defence? Single-handed? The arrival of the family? The father and his helping with the shooting and warding off the attack? The hostility of the mother, wanting to leave the West and go East, not believing Corey? The little boy, loving his mother, obedient, helping with the guns?

6. The father, going to get things from the wagon, going to Avery, his not being believed, torture and death? The mother, her also going, not being believed,
escorted back? Her change of heart towards Corey? Telling her son that her husband had died telling the truth and only to remember the good things?

7. Corey being wounded, the boy looking after him, the mother caring for him? Their building the machine to fire the explosives? Corey and his resting, the boy and his devotion?

8. The attack, the men being wounded, the landowner being wounded, Avery and his confronting the landowner, goading him, the man coming out of the tent collapsing and dying? Then taking over, his brother’s Confederate uniform, his military way of thinking, compensating for his own life, 15 years as an accountant? His choosing Hook as his deputy? His briefings, in the tent with his guns? His state of health, coughing?

9. Hook, his character, with his offsider, the other men, their complaints, his laying down the law? Avery and his control over Hook?

10. The artist, from England, the landowner’s son, wounded, needing water, being allowed to die? Avery and his letting all the water out, keeping something himself, Hook and his associate taking the water but not realising that the canteen had a hole in it?

11. The vigil, waiting until dawn to attack, Avery and the father, interrogating him, torturing him with the hook, his death? The arrival of the mother, the interrogation, telling the truth, realising that she had to lie, saying there were 15 men, the escort back? The promise of safe conduct – but Corey not coming out?

12. The strategy, dismantling the wagon, the men’s complaints, carrying it up the mountain, the shots, the explosives, setting fire to the wagon, its coming down the mountain, Corey and the machine to set off the explosives, stopping the wagon before it came to the house?

13. The men being killed, Hook and his associate, betraying Avery, taking the horses and the gold, the water leaking? Their inevitable death?

14. Avery, shooting, running out of bullets, surrendering, collapsing, wanting to know the truth, insisting that there were more men in the house? Not just
Corey and the mother and son?

15. The happy ending in the future, Corey and the letters from the woman he loved but who could not live in the West?