MARTINO’S SUMMER

Italy, 2010, 90 minutes, Colour.
Treat Williams, Luigi Ciardo.
Directed by Massimo Natale.

Martino’s Summer is a brief film set in 1980, on the Italian coast, near an American military installation. It was the period when there were sabotage attacks on the Italian population and the blame was laid sometimes on the American presence. The film culminates with a tragedy at the Bologna station, many civilians being killed.

The focus of the film is a young boy on holidays with his brother. He is something of an introspective boy but is fascinated by the military presence. He cuts the wire to get onto the beach, goes for swims, steals the dog tag of the commander and gives it to his girlfriend. He is also fascinated by the Americans and their surfing, wanting to try it out himself, asking the American commander, getting his friendship and bonding with him as he is taught how to surf, to balance, to wax his surfboard, a present from the commander.

In the meantime, there is some rough-and-tumble with his brother and some of his friends, taunting the Americans vindictively and not able to understand what is happening with Martino.

Treat Williams plays the commander, seemingly speaking in Italian quite effectively. The young boy is played by Luigi Ciardo. The film is based on a novel which seems to be a memoir of the period.

1. An interesting and entertaining small-budget film? An Italian film? The American lead?

2. 1980, the political background, the political groups and their protests, sabotage, killings? The dedication of the film to those killed in the 1980 Bologna tragedy?

3. The setting, the railway station and train travel, the Italian coast, the beach, the American area? The musical score?

4. Martino, his age, with his brother, the other friends, the girls, his attraction? Yet his introspection, getting into the American area, cutting the wire, his father coming and taking him away way, criticising him? Martino stealing the dog tag, giving it to the girl, her wearing it? With the other boys, the hostility towards the Americans, mooning them? The girls and their disgust? Martino swimming, reprimanded by the Americans?

5. Martino and his interest in surfing, watching the Americans surf, talking with the commander, asking him to teach him, the commander’s reluctance, change of heart, their friendship, the bonding, the gift of the surfboard, teaching Martino balance, on the surfboard, in the water, the waves, his success? The effect on Martino, a sense of accomplishment? The commander leading, getting the photo of himself with Martino?

6. The commander, American, friendly, the dog tag and his explanation, the story about his son, leaving the military, protesting, finally going to search out his son again?

7. The boys, their attitudes, holidays, anti-American? The girls, following on? The girl and her bond with Martino, giving him the photo?

8. A variation on the coming-of-age film?

THE BADLANDERS

US, 1958, 85 minutes, Colour.
Alan Ladd, Ernest Borgnine, Katy Jurado, Kent Smith.
Directed by Delmer Daves.

Screenwriter, Delmer Daves, was prolific with dramas during the 1940s. In 1950, he released Broken Arrow, a significant film of the time in re-in stating Native American Indians in movies with some dignity. During the 1950s he made a number of Western’s including 3:10 to Yuma as well as this film. It was based on the 1950 gangster film, The Asphalt Jungle.

After many years working for Paramount in a range of films from historical to gangster, Alan Ladd made a number of films at MGM. He is joined by Ernest Borgnine who had won an Oscar three years earlier for Marty. Katy Jurado portrays a prostitute in a border town. (Borgnine and Katy Jurado married soon after for several years.) Kent Smith is the villain.

An entertaining Western, rather low-key.

1. 1950s Western? The work of the director? An adaptation of the gangster film, The Asphalt Jungle?

2. Arizona, 1898, the prison, the towns and the mines, the open desert? Atmosphere? Musical score?

3. The title, the reference to the prisoners? The opening in the prison, Dutch and Mac, chained, in procession, the taunts, the prisoner being flogged, into the river, his drowning? The clash between Dutch and Mac? The authorities, Dutch released 10 months earlier because of his stopping Mac attacking the guard? Mac and his having served his sentence? Their getting out, the hostility?

4. Dutch, his geological background, working in the mine, his being framed for robbery? Serving his sentence? Going back to the town, the marshal wanting him out of town on the stagecoach? Allowed one day? His plan, going to the mine, getting the gold sample, the meeting with Lounsbeerry? The plan for getting the gold, getting the cash? Lounsberry and his thugs, setting up Ada and her being locked in the room and Dutch opening it and giving her the hat box? Creating a bond between them?

5. Mac, arriving in town, meeting up with Dutch, the marshal wanting him out? His agreeing to help Dutch?

6. The encounter with Anita, the pregnant woman, Mac helping with the birth? The bond between them? The men coming for Anita as a prostitute, Mac saying she was his wife? Her gratitude?

7. The help of the local man, going to the mine, going down, digging, the bags of gold, the other miners hearing the noise, their getting out? The explosion? The dust coming from the shaft? The local man breaking his leg? The getting out?

8. Lounsberry, breaking his trust, the marshal and his gun, the shooting?

9. Mac, wounded, treated by Anita, her coming to the rescue for the escape, rounding up the townspeople for the Festival, the fireworks, the noise, surrounding the villains?

10. The promise for sharing the gold, Mac staying in the town, Dutch, with Ada, going to his future?

PEACE AFTER MARRIAGE/ONLY IN NEW YORK

US, 2012, 85 minutes, Colour.
Ghazi Albuwilli, Hiam Abbas, Thom Bishops.
Directed by Bandar Albuwili, Ghazi Albuwili.

Peace after Marriage/Only in New York is a rather unexpected comedy. Its alternate title was rather meaningful, Peace after Marriage, highlighting the antagonism between Arabs and Jews.

But, only in New York could a sex-addicted Palestinian, who turned down all the arranged marriages his parents engineered, experience a green card situation but with the girl being Israeli. The hero, Arafat, is often a forlorn character, caught in his sex addiction, going to meetings, getting a partner who could help him, mainly with picking up girls, but arranging the situation for the green card.

Arafat is attracted to the girl who wants to marry someone back in Israel. However, being together, they fall in love – with the dilemma of the girl going back to Israel and not knwoing what will happen with Arafat.

Ghazi Abuwili is a stand-up comedian, evident in the way that he performs for his oddball and forlorn character. Of interest is his mother, played by Palestinian actress Hiam Abbas, a fine actress, well-known in international films, especially The Visitor and The Lemon Tree.

1. The two titles, the irony, the focus on New York and its lifestyle and attitudes?

2. An Arab film, Arab-Palestinian? The point of view, perspectives on living in America, holding on to traditions, arranged marriages, memories of the homeland, antagonism to Israel and Jews?

3. The New York setting, workplaces, homes, help groups, the streets, the atmosphere in New York? The musical score?

4. The farcical nature of the film, the characters, behaviour? The film seeing itself as contributing to peace between Palestinians and Jews? The critique of hard stances? Possibilities of love?

5. The story of Arafat, aged 30, still living with his parents, his father’s severity, the meal sequences, his mother supporting him, wanting him to respect his father? The later explanation about his father, his continued support of his wife, even after she could have no more children and family was urging him to marry again? Arafat and his room, the preoccupation with sex, his pornography addiction, watching films on his computer at work, his being fired? His behaviour at home? His going to the group, talking about himself, masturbation and frustration, his being paired up by the leader with Kenny? Kenny and his attitudes, wanting Arafat to meet girls, the Sex and the City tour, the drinks, going back home, his parents coming in to Arafat’s room and the girl? Arafat collecthing his porn and throwing it into the harbour and his being accosted by the police?

6. The various visits for arranged marriages, the large girl and her not wanting to marry him and threatening him? Going back to Palestine, the meeting, the brothers not liking Arafat, his refusal to marry, his saying he had no empathy with the girl?

7. The issue of arranged marriages for green cards? Kenny and his organising it? The broker? a Jewish girl? Reactions all round?

8. The engagement, none of the families wanting to come to the wedding? Rounding up stand-ins? The irony of the ceremony with the imam and the Rabbi, their rivalry, reading over each other? The satiric poke at Arab- Israeli tensions?

9. Michelle and Arafat, getting to know each other, the separate rooms, their going for a walk, talking, communicating, falling in love? Michelle and her memories of her boyfriend in Israel, his marrying someone else, his coming to New York, Michelle rejecting him?

10. The effect on Arafat, talking with Kenny, his experiencing love?

11. Moving out from his parents’ home, reactions of his father? His mother?

12. Michelle, deciding to return to Israel? His getting information that she had not gone, running to the taxi, leaving, her getting out, their being together, mutual love?

SEDUCED AND ABANDONED

US, 2013, 95 minutes, Colour.
Alec Baldwin, James Toback, Bernardo Bertollucci, Roman Polanski, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Diane Kruger, Berenice Bejo, Ryan Gosling, James Caan, Ari Lerner, Mark Damon.
Directed by James Toback.

Seduced and Abandoned is a film that will appeal only to film buffs – and there are many. Audiences will need to know a lot of the people who appear, not just the popular actors but also something of the directors and producers. It may be possible to learn from this film, but it is filled with so much detail and presuppositions that the audience will know what the protagonists are talking about, the careers of many presented and the clips from their films.

To that extent, the film is something of an indulgence for cinema buffs.

The film is something of a documentary, something of a fiction, something of a mockumentary. The basic premise has Alec Baldwin wanting to get back into his film career after many seasons of television’s 30 Rock. He joins up with director, James Toback, to watch the screening in New York of Bertollucci’s Last Tango in Paris. The pair get the brainwave of redoing this theme in a contemporary 21st-century setting, possibly the Middle East, possibly Iraq, a Last Tango in Tikrit.

Toback is the more optimistic as they set off the Cannes Film Festival in 2012 to seek financial backers for the project. Baldwin is far more sanguine, setting the bar fairly low.

The film was interesting and entertaining, especially when the pair go to visit producers like the prolific Mark Damon and Ari Lerner. They suggest some estimates as to how much money could be invested. Baldwin is to be the star but they have already talked with Neve Campbell and promised her a role in the film. But, she is not considered big and bankable – and sometimes neither is Baldwin himself. So, there are all kinds of speculations about the film, the plot, changing plot details, introducing a big star and putting Neve Campbell in the more supporting role, suggestions about where it should be filmed. And the producers are not really all that keen on investing a great deal of money.

Where the film is really interesting for film buffs is in the interviewing of four prominent directors, seeing clips from their films, listening to the directors explaining their career, the opportunities, what happened during their careers, their hopes and ambitions. Bernardo Bertollucci is the veteran, in a wheelchair with back trouble which prevented him from filming for 10 years, but reminiscing about his friendship with Pasolini, working as his assistant, and, especially, working with Marlon Brando in Last Tango (with several clips, some rather jolting seen in isolation). Roman Polanski is interesting in his talk about Poland, his training, his early films, the making of Rosemary’s baby, of Chinatown. Francis Ford Coppola talks, of course, about The Godfather and about Apocalypse Now. He seems to have lost some edge and infusing is about making films.

Martin Scorsese is always interesting, his rapid-fire speech getting through a lot of material in a short time, mentioning once again his time and study of the priesthood and the religious dimensions of his career in film.

There are also some stars who were in Cannes at the time, Berenice Bejo from The Artist who hosted the awards at the Festival, with Ryan Gosling more articulate than might be expected, James Caan and his reminiscing about his career and opportunities, Diane Kruger offered a role in the new film but graciously putting it on hold until she examines the script.

And all of this to the background of the city of Cannes, the beauty, the sea, the market, the razzle-dazzle, the red carpet.

For those not in the know about the movies, probably best left. For those in the know about the movies, an entertaining indulgence.

THE SAINT STRIKES BACK

US, 1939, 66 minutes, Black-and-white.
George Sanders, Wendy Barrie, Jonathan Hale, Jerome Cowan, Barry Fitzgerald.
Directed by John Farrow.

George Sanders starred in two series in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Saint and the Falcon. His performances are rather interchangeable, always suave, wealthy, attracted to women, helping the police but always under suspicion, solving the case – and this time allowing the head of the department to take the credit.

The Saint is a creation of novelist Leslie Charteris.

This film opens at a New Year’s Eve party and a shooting. The Saint observes it all and follows Valerie Travers (Wendy Barrie) out into the street because she was sitting at the table of the man killed who himself was lining up someone to shoot. He protects her from the police, though she is hostile towards him. This hostility continues right throughout the film.

Val’s father was an honest policeman who was framed by a syndicate and who was killed. She has learnt some of his techniques but is determined to vindicate him. She is helped by her father’s friend and lawyer. She also gets mixed up with some criminals, the stealing of bonds and cash, a respectable gentleman who serves as a front for the syndicate as well as a corrupt police officer.

Jonathan Hale appears as the genial chief of police in New York City, friend of the Saint, who travels to San Francisco to solve the case. Press accusations are made against the Saint. It is interesting to see air travel in those times, several stops on the way from East Coast to West Coast – where the Saint cleverly gives the police chief the slip.

Police in San Francisco support the Saint, the corrupt police officer not being pleased and continually making a respectable front. Of interest is a safecracker played by Barry Fitzgerald, Irish accent and all.

There are various situations contrived by the Saint, money taken from the safe, money inserted back in the safe, set up to expose the corrupt policeman – and on the way there are several deaths including the man who was the front for the syndicate.

There seem to be few contenders for the role of the villain – and he is revealed to be the dead policeman’s best friend and adviser.

Direction is by John Farrow, emerging as a top director and who was to have a strong career, especially during the 1940s.

Sanders was to appear in a number of films of the Saint. Hugh Williams also appeared as the Saint during these years.

TOOTH FAIRY

US, 2009, 102 minutes, Colour.
Dwayne Johnson, Julie Andrews, Ashley Judd, Stephen Merchant, Seth Mc Farlane, Billy Crystal, Chase Ellison.
Directed by Michael Lembeck.

In a competition for co-stars that you would not be likely to see on screen, Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson and Julie Andrews might be considered a way out juxtaposition of opposites! But here they are!!

Actually, this is quite a pleasing family film which is not too demanding, has some funny lines for the adults, and has a niceness about it which is aimed at getting rid of the not-niceness in life.

Dwayne Johnson plays Derek Thompson, an ice hockey star who is over the hill but still playing because of his capacity to knock opponents over and knock out their teeth, 'the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth'. But he is in love with a mother of two (Ashley Judd) and is trying to get on with her children. When he tells the six year old daughter, who has put a tooth under her pillow, that the tooth fairy does not exist, he is ousted by the mother and finds a summons to fairyland under his pillow to answer the charge of promoting disbelief. And who is in charge? A senior Mary Poppinsish type herself who brooks no interruption and makes Derek spend two weeks on tooth fairy duty, on call at any moment.

The assistant, Tracey, a taller than lanky Brit, is played by Ricky Gervais' co-writer of The Office, Stephen Merchant, and Billy Crystal is on hand for a few amusing scenes.

Of course, what you expect will happen does happen – would you want to watch it if it didn't!

Dwayne Johnson has shown a very genial spirit in many films and does not hesitate to send himself up – sprouting large fairy wings here and appearing in a pink tutu until fairyland wardrobe fixes him up in a pale blue fairy suit. He does all the right things by his hockey team, by his girlfriend and, especially by the children. And it is a pleasure to see Julie Andrews doing her thing and then letting off steam in a final credits hockey match sequence.

1. A pleasant comedy and fantasy? The children’s audiences? Adults?

2. The cast, the pairing of Dwayne Johnson and Julie Andrews?

3. The American town, ordinary, the home of the single mother, dealing with her children, the sports atmosphere?

4. The fantasy sequences, the comic touches, parody? The musical score?

5. The title, Derek Thompson, Dwayne Johnson screen persona? A pleasant man, tough in sport, knocking opponents’ teeth out? His friendship with Carly, with the children? The tooth story and his denial of the fairies? His penalty? Going into the fantasyland, getting wings, wearing the tutu, his blue suit? The lectures from Lily? His working with Tracy, helping him to get his wings? The various duties with the children and the teeth, reforming, playing better, a good sport, reconciling with Randy? His achievement? To marry Carly?

6. Carly, as a single mother, the two children, the boy and a girl, their ages, difficulties at home? The girl and the issue of the tooth and the tooth fairy? The boy, playing his guitar? Derek helping him? The blow up, Carly breaking off the relationship?

7. Lily, Julie Andrews, the Mary Poppins touch, comedy? Stephen Merchant as Tracy? Lanky, wanting to get his wings? Derek helping him? Billy Crystal and the comedy with his being the gadget master?

8. The sports background, the team, the players, action in the field? Derek and his dealing with the whizzkid?

9. Derek and his going about doing good as the tooth fairy?

10. The American happy ending?

SALVAGE

UK, 2008, 79 minutes, Colour.
Neve Mc Intosh, Shaun Dooley, Dean Andrews, Lindzey Cocker.
Directed by Lawrence Gough.

If you have seen George A Romero's The Crazies (1973) and/or the 2010 effective remake with Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell, the plot of Salvage will seem quite familiar: a mysterious virus, military intervention, citizens at peril.

The difference here is that the setting is around Liverpool, with suburban housing estates and beaches, a British version of being frantic rather than frantic American franticism, and the action after the opening car ride in the bright light of Christmas Eve, is confined to the interiors or houses, a bit on the streets outside and the woods behind the houses. This makes for claustrophobic terror rather than horror, although there are several gruesome deaths and mutilations.

This is above average terror. The film is brief, sets up the personal side of the story as a separated father drops his 14 year old daughter, she very unwilling, to stay with her mother. They clash, but there is little time for anything to be done towards reconciliation because the terror piles on almost at once. We have seen a puzzling scene where a neighbour goes berserk pursuing a paper boy – fatally - but during the film we hear what has happened with a container that has landed on a beach and the army have been trying to contain the contamination (without scruple in killing risky civilians).

The burden of the dramatic terror falls on Neve Mc Intosh as the mother. A strong personality, she is persuasive as the frightened woman, the mother desperately searching for her daughter, willing to go into risky situations. Audiences can identify with her – reinforced during a welcome lull in the terror when she explains to the man with whom she is trapped what she has done and why she has alienated her daughter.

The man, as the screenplay shrewdly and alarmingly suggests, immediately thinks that this is must be a terrorist attack and breaks into anti-Muslim rants, even when the woman explains that the man who went berserk next door is not Muslim but a Hindu doctor. Later, a wounded guard maintains the secrecy of what has happened and feeds information to the man that it is an Al Quaeda attack.

While it is not original in plot, it is effective in performances and in maintaining a sense of terror that is local and suburban enough to be credible – and alarming.

1. Small British thriller? The British tone? Horror? Science-fiction? Mutants, military experiments, fear and paranoia?

2. The title, the mutant, the experiment, the container, the mutant washing up on the beach, going on a rampage?

3. The Liverpool district, Christmas Eve? Homes, streets, ordinary, the musical score?

4. The sense of menace, becoming overt, blood and deaths, the effect, the military and the violence?

5. The paperboy, hearing the argument, the killing, going into the woods, his death?

6. Ordinary family, ordinary suburbs, characters, Jodie as a teenager, her relationship with her father, tangles with her mother? The divorce? The personality of her father? Attitude with his ex-wife? Jodie going to see Beth, finding her with Kieran, her reaction?

7. Jodie going across the street, Leanne, Beth creating a scene at the door? The arrival of the military, Mr Sharma being killed?

8. The crisis, the power going out, everybody indoors? The shutdown? The neighbour and the death of his wife, coming into the house, Beth going into the house, the kitchen? Kieran and his death? The fear of terrorism? The SAS arriving and their killing?

9. The explanation, the container, the experiment, the beach, the escape?

10. Kieran and his confrontation with the mutant? His death? Beth at the door wanting to find Jodie, Jodie in the house, the attack, Beth saving Jodie, but her
being shot?

11. The movement from ordinary to plausible to horror?

12. The atmosphere of paranoia, fear, violence, racist outbursts?

13. The film’s reliance on this kind of horror and mutant virus genre? Its effect?

HEAD ON

Australia, 1999, 104 minutes, Colour.
Alex Dimitriades, Elena Mandalis, Julian Garner, William Zappa,
Directed by Ana Kokkinos.

Head On is a confronting film about several issues: multicultural Australia, youth, unemployment, sexuality. The film has already gained some notoriety with some sequences of homosexual behaviour that has meant the film is classified Restricted.

While the sexuality issues are central and cannot be ignored in society today, the Greek background of these Melbourne characters is powerfully presented and its effect on the youth generation is dramatised emotionally and thoughtfully.

Alex Dimitriades, in a very strong and challenging performance, leads a cast of mainly Greek Australians. While it is an 'out of the depths' film, there are some glimmers of hope. It would be a pity if the issues were not acknowledged because many audiences would find aspects of the film distasteful. Confronting.

1. The reputation of Christos Tsiolkas? His novels? Their themes? Alienated young people? Greek migrants to Australia and their way of life? Community issues? Individual issues? Sexuality? Homosexuality?

2. The work of the director, her interest in extreme themes? Greek background, insight?

3. The Melbourne locations, the landmarks? The suburbs, homes, Greek clubs, the Greek community? Nightclubs? Police precincts? Some of the seedier
side of Melbourne? The Greek musical background? The use of popular songs of the 80s and 90s?

4. The prologue, the black-and-white footage from migration days, the voice-over comment, the hopes for the migrants, acceptance into the community, their traditions, prosperity?

5. The perspective of the film in showing the Greek community after four decades, settling in Australia, the use of English, speaking Greek, schools, religion? The Greek clubs and the community? The hard stances of the older generation? The rebellion of the next generation? Music binding the group together, dance? Strict religious attitudes, social attitudes? The importance of marriage? Externals? The non-admission of homosexuality?

6. The film as a portrait of Ari, his age, place within the family, speaking Greek and English, unemployed, relying on the family the home, for money? His mother and her concern, devotion, his respect for her yet hurting her? The clashes with his father, his father’s supervision and strictness? His sister, her wanting to break free, boyfriend, sexual behaviour? Ari and his treatment of her and her saying he was worse than their father?

7. Ari, his prospects? The suggestion that he be married and then free to do anything else? His attempt at a heterosexual relationship, the girl, his manner, tenderness, but her realising the truth about his sexual orientation? The discussion about John Cusack?

8. Ari, the casual partnerships, the factory and the young man, the old man in the streets and Ari’s violent behaviour? The attraction towards Sean? The sexual pressures, the masturbation? His friendship with Johnny, ambiguous? Going to the club, the patrons, the cruising? In the taxi? The discussions with the taxi driver, from Turkey? Going to the club, Johnny and his dancing, drinking? The response to the police, being taken to the precinct, abused verbally, humiliated, stripping, the physical fighting, the policeman of Greek origin and his special viciousness?

9. The character of Johnny, at home, the make up, his dresses? His father and Ari’s discussion with him, the father’s friendship with Ari’s father? Having to accept the truth? Johnny, going out, loud, club, the demonstrative dancing, patrons and their reaction? The drugs? In the taxi, carrying on, the abuse of the police, the brutality of the police towards him?

10. Ari and the relationship with Sean, going to the house, the sexual encounter, Ari and his anger, heightened, Sean and his reaction, the physical fight, Sean leaving, leaving Ari in the corridor?

11. The background drugs, Ari and his taking the drugs, the drug contacts? A world of drugs?

12. Did Ari change throughout the film, his angers, glum, sexual repression, finding outlets, abusing people? Prospect of job or not? And at the end, his saying that he was sorry?

13. A portrait of a generation, of a Greek generation, in the Australian context? A film of the 1990s?



From an interview with Ana Kokkinos:


In terms of Head On, leaving aside the sexual issues, it is one of the best pictures of the Greek experience in Australia. The stills at the beginning and the end remind us of this history. You have done a great deal for the Greek- Australian? film with Head On and Only the Brave. With the very large Greek population in Melbourne, it's a wonder there haven't been more films.

Exactly. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that it's obviously taken a while for the new generation to find its way into the arts. What's exciting now is that we're suddenly seeing Greek directors, artists, architects. All kinds of people are now starting to percolate and bubble up to the surface. That always takes one or two generations to happen. Like me. I went and did law when I first started off. There was an enormous amount of pressure to get a good job, to become a lawyer or a doctor. You didn't go out and become a film-maker, because that was considered not to be a real job, how ridiculous. There was an enormous amount of pressure on young people to get an education, to get good jobs, to climb out of the lower rungs of society.

Our parents would actually say to us, 'We sacrificed everything for this next generation. We have sacrificed. We have moved halfway across the world to give our children an opportunity to get an education and do the right thing'. So imagine the incredible pressure on us as the next generation to fulfil our parents' dreams, to fulfil their wishes. That's why, in a film like Head On, when Ari is dancing at the end on the wharf, I juxtaposed the images of our parents coming off the boats - that's very much, for me, about us needing to reinvent ourselves and to give ourselves the freedom to be more independent in the way we view things, but at the same time we do that utterly from a place of being connected to our families and our communities and our Greek heritage.

The sexual orientation issues symbolised that?

Well, no, it doesn't. It just so happens that Ari is gay. I hope the film is a very human story. The point is that this young man is confused, he is searching for his place in the world. The fact that he happens to be gay in reality should be irrelevant because it's a human story. It's about this young man who is really struggling with these questions. I think it's a tragedy that young people have to be put in situations where they have to struggle so intensely when, if there was a bit more understanding and compassion and tolerance, then perhaps Ari wouldn't have to go to the extremes that he does.

Somebody said sadly at the end of Head On, 'That was very nihilistic'. But I remembered that Ari said, 'Whatever I do' - even if he prostitutes himself - 'well, I'm still alive and breathing.' You were expressing a kind of hope. It was disappointing to hear somebody think the film was non-redemptive and nihilistic.

I think it's a very life-affirming ending. Some people read it in that very nihilistic way, but for me it's about this young man saying, 'I'm a survivor and I will stay true to myself'. We know, of course, as an older audience, that this young man is on the verge of adulthood, he's on the precipice of something new for himself. But as a 19, 20-year-old, given what's gone before, to have him saying, 'Life's wonderful and I've sorted myself out', would have been a very false way to end the film. The whole point is that as a 19, 20-year-old at that moment he's going to reassert his own pigheaded notions of an energised nihilism, as I would call it. But we know this young man is a survivor, he'll move on and he will find himself.

And there's the symbol of Ari as somebody who has gone through those struggles.

Yes.

People were commenting - I read the book and found it very drab, one of those Helen Demidenko kind of "this happened, this happened, this happened," and I don't remember what was in the film so much and not, but it seemed to me that the value of a film is that while the text of the novel was fairly plain, drab even, or grunge or whatever, when you have colour images, light, sound, music, you actually brought the whole thing alive. So I wanted to say that, that I enjoyed it. Don't tell the author that. Different experiences. But I did enjoy the film far more than the book.

Thank you. Well, look, the book is one thing and obviously a film is another thing, and obviously film is about an aural, sensual, visceral experience, which is something I always felt was inherent in the book and very much wanted to re-create and capture, if you like, on screen. So yes, they're different experiences.

In a way, you're the film-maker of Melbourne's western suburbs. Geoffrey Wright portrayed them in Metal Skin and Romper Stomper. In fact both of you tackled the migrant issues. These films have brought Melbourne alive, and its western suburbs landscapes, in a way that the Sydney films haven't.

Yes, I agree. It's true, and I think it's great. It's great that Geoffrey has done it and that I've done it. Certainly speaking personally for myself, that's where I grew up. That's the landscape I know so intimately, so well. I felt that both my films expressed something of this. It had been a relatively neglected point of view, the way we've tackled the Greek- Australian? questions in both Only the Brave and Head On. So it was very important, as a film-maker, starting off creatively, that this is naturally the place I went back to. I thought, 'I have got things to say about this. I've got something to express that's quite different, quite unique. I can bring my own perspective to this landscape and to the people I grew up with and know so well'.

SON OF GOD

US, 2014, 138 minutes, Colour.
Diogo Morgado, Roma Downey, Greg Hicks, Simon Kunz.
Directed by Christopher Spencer.

Son of God has been edited for cinema release around the world from the 2013 mini-series, The Bible. In this miniseries, there were five episodes focusing on the gospel stories, a total of 200 minutes in all. An hour has been taken out of the mini-series. In the 1970s, Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth was a miniseries that ran for more than seven hours and was also edited for cinema release to 135 minutes. Both films look very good on the big screen.

The film opens with the apostle, John, in old age in exile on the island of Patmos. He quotes the prologue to the gospel and what we see is a brief collage of the key Old Testament stories, taken from the miniseries. Then, at the end, there is a return to Patmos and John, reflecting on his experience, sees the risen Lord and he and Jesus speaks some quotations from the Book of Revelation.
One of the questions facing Christian audiences is whether they want to see yet another Jesus film or whether they have strong memories of previous films, of Pasolini, of Zeffirelli, of the 1999 Jesus with Jeremy Sisto or The Passion of the Christ. Another question is how literally the audience wants to understand some of the episodes, especially the miracles of Jesus as well as the Infancy Narratives. In this version, they are presented fairly literally – with the touch of special effects for Jesus walking on the water and the miraculous basket of multiplied fishes, the healing of Malchus’ ear and the rending of the Temple at the time of Jesus’ death.

There is, of course, a problem in the selection of episodes and because this version has only 45 minutes before the Palm Sunday procession, the selection is particularly limited. In the synopsis for the television version, there is mention of the temptations in the desert and the baptism of Jesus but these do not appear, except for a glimpse of the baptism during the final credits. There is no Cana miracle, very few parables (The Pharisee and the Public and The Mustard Seed only), comparatively few of the many encounters of Jesus. Pilate does not say “Here is the man” and Jesus does not urge Mary Magdalene to let go of him after the resurrection.

There are several miracles, including that of the paralytic let down through the roof as well as the raising of Lazarus and the healing of Malchus in Gethsemane.

When we see a gospel film, we have our own image of Jesus which may not go well with the actor, his appearance, his screen presence, his speaking voice. In this film is an actor, born in Portugal, age 32 while making the film, Diogo Morgado, who actually looks younger than 32 and has the touch of a healthy Californian surfie, which may or may not detract from his impact. Without the baptism and temptation sequence, Jesus immediately strides into Capernaum, encounters Peter and immediately goes out on the boat with him for the large catch a fish and his promise that Peter will have a new life. There are some reminders of Jeffrey Hunter, his appearance and speaking in 1961’s King of King’s, sometimes stilted, but Diogo Morgado does have more vitality. But, for much of the film, he has to suffer, undergo the passion and the crucifixion.

While Mary appears briefly in a sequence with the Magi, again very literally, she reappears for the Passion, watching the scourging with Mary Magdalene, aghast at the appearance of Jesus and his wounds, hurrying to him on the way of the cross with a special encounter with him as he falls to the ground. There are not so many people at the foot of the cross and she comes very close, hearing Jesus commit her to John and John to her. There is a touching Pieta with Mary Magdalene looking on and John removing the crown of thorns. While she is absent from the Upper Room and the Ascension sequence, there is a final song over the credits dedicated to her.

The other important thing about watching a Jesus film is comparing our memories of the texts and our imagining of particular episodes with what we see on screen. If a gospel film works well, there will be many ah- ha moments when we see or hear something which has not occurred to us before.

And that is one of the values of seeing this film.

Making a list of moments noticed, there is Jesus preaching the parable of the mustard seed when interrupted by the paralysed man lowered down through the roof – and Jesus affectionate kiss after healing him. In the version of John 8 and the woman taken in adultery, Jesus has a stone and challenges anyone who has not sinned to take his stone to throw choose to. When the Pharisees are denouncing the tax collectors, especially Matthew, Jesus compassionately tells the story of The Pharisee and the Publican, looking towards Matthew who begins to weep – and finishes the parable for Jesus.

But most of the nuances come from the Passion narrative. At this point it might be well to note the influence of Mel Gibson because the Passion here has many Passion of the Christ moments, especially the scourging and the lifting up of the cross. When Jesus comes into Jerusalem on the donkey, the high priest actually quotes the prophecy from Zechariah which indicates the arrival of the Messiah. Caiaphas speaks ironically and is willing one man to die for the sake of the nation. The treatment of Judas is very interesting, with very little background, but the screenplay shows him cautious at Jesus entry into Jerusalem, suggesting to Malchus that he might be able to help, and later persuaded by Caiaphas that all he wants to do is to bring Jesus to him for a private meeting, no indication of the trial or crucifixion, though Judas is not about asking for a benefit and then flinging it back in public to Malchus and the Pharisees. The scene of his death is far more familiar.

The Last Supper is a quieter affair, with a strong emphasis on the pitta bread and the cup of wine, highlighting the symbolic presence. Unfortunately, there is no washing of the feet. but one interesting aspect is that after Judas receives the bread and is advised by Jesus to go out, he starts to choke and spits out the bread in the street.

The trials of Jesus before Annas and Caiaphas are comparatively small with few people present. A key presence, however, is that of Nicodemus who had been observing Jesus, urging Caiaphas to be careful and cautious, but going to visit Jesus just before the passion and hearing him speak about being reborn. Nicodemus is present at the trials but does not vote for Jesus’ death. After Jesus death, and in the anointing and burial, he recites a prayer in Hebrew.

There has been a build-up to the presence of Pilate, a rough and ready Governor, cruel in getting the soldiers to remove a cart which kills a little boy. And his wife, Claudia, is wary of the condemnation of Jesus. As in the Gospels, there is the offer of freedom for Jesus or Barabbas. Barabbas has also appeared earlier, listening to Jesus and observing him encounter the Pharisees in rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s…, and the sequences where Caiaphas and the priests confront Pilate and the crowd frenzy demands Jesus crucifixion. These sequences are well done and are particularly strong.

As Jesus goes towards his cross, he runs his hand over it and, seemingly in veneration, kisses it. When Jesus is dying, there are several scenes in the Temple with the high priest of the Passover lambs being slaughtered.


Mary Magdalene, who is presented as an ordinary disciple with no overtones of a sinner, is presented strongly at the crucifixion and at the resurrection, although Jesus’ appearance near the tomb is rather fuzzy, though the hole in his hand for Thomas’s benefit and for the final blessing is very distinctive. One of the interesting touches is that Peter, on the news of Jesus being risen, invites all those in the upper room to take the bread and wine in a Eucharistic celebration. And when Peter, ashamed of his denial and thinking he could not be forgiven, sees Jesus come into the upper room, Jesus put his hand on his head in a sign of blessing and forgiveness.

The scene of the Ascension is not so well done, a tableau of scattered disciples watching Jesus leave.
One of the blurbs chosen for marketing this film states that this is the best Jesus film and there will never be a better one. Obviously, that is not true, and the hyperbole does little good for the reputation of the film which, with its various limitations, is a sincere effort and will probably make an impact on many viewers.

FURRY VENGEANCE

US, 2013, Colour.
Brendan Fraser, Brooke Shields, Ken Jeong.
Directed by Roger Kumble.


Yes, that's what it says. The furry creatures on the warpath are those furry critters from the woods, raccoons, squirrels, skunks... even some turkeys (which offers some bad suggestions to antipathetic reviewers of the film) who resent the developers coming in to destroy their habitats. Fair enough. But is furry vengeance enough?

The initial credits have some cartoon drawings. Soon into the film, which we realise is a live action cartoon, it becomes clear that it might have been funnier and more effective as an entire cartoon given how well animation films work these days. The trouble is that humans acting like cartoon characters can seem too stupid (a word that appears in the dialogue early in the film to describe some human behaviour). Much easier to accept cartoons with human voices than humans aping cartoons. Not that Brendan Fraser who stars and is executive producer and really liked this film is unfamiliar with live action cartoon characters (think George of the Jungle Encino Man, Dudley Do Right or Looney Tunes). But, he is getting a bit old and a bit heavy to do this kind of thing convincingly.

Actually, the live animals (and CG and animatronic animals) communicate via images in cartoon bubbles and with sly and snide expressions. They come off better than most of the humans.

The story is the old one. Greedy real estate entrepreneurs (who pay lip-service only to environmental concerns) want to destroy the forest to build suburbia. Ken Jeong has shown he can do cartoonish characters (Role Models, The Hangover) and gets away with being an idiotic businessman with some silly schtick. Brendan Fraser wants to further his career and is a desperate yes man for the boss. He is the main target of furry vengeance schemes (and skunks seem particularly love to deliver all over him) but, of course, has to come to his senses after being pounded out of them for almost 90 minutes and be the animal's saviour.

Who is the target audience? Younger kids who might like the slapstick and physical humour. And any (very) undiscriminating adults. (Older audiences who haven't seen Brooke Shields for a while will become conscious of their own age as they see her at almost 45, rather tougher looking than she used to, but a good sport for being here as Brendan Fraser's long-suffering wife.)