LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON/ SOSHITE NICHI NI NARU

Japan, 2013, 121 minutes, Colour.
Masaharu Fikuyama, Machika Ono.
Directed by Hirokazu Koreeda.

There have been a number of films about exchange of babies at birth and the consequences for the children and for their parents. In 2013, the Israeli film, The Other Son, dealt with young adults who find not only were they changed at birth but the Jew was brought up as a Palestinian, the Palestinian as a Jew. This time the discovery of the change occurs when the children are six.

The film spends a great deal of its attention early in establishing the character of the father of one of the boys, a workaholic architect who is very loyal to the firm in the Japanese tradition. He has high expectations for his son and is often disappointed, that his son is not like him in talents and achievement. His wife works at home and is devoted to her son.

When they receive a message from the hospital where their child was born, they are shocked to find, after a blood test for the boy to enter a school, that he is not there blood-son. This is an emotional shock for the audience, although they are already building up feelings of alienation from the driven father and feelings of sympathy for the mother – who will blame herself for not recognising that her baby was not her own when she feels a mother would have and should have.

Then we are introduced to the couple who have brought up the other boy. He is a bright young lad, content with his parents, looking after his siblings. The father works in a garage, the mother is very busy and works in a café. They have a fairly happy-go-lucky attitude towards life, especially the father who enjoys moments of peace and idleness.

What are the couples to do? They are friendly towards each other, although the architect automatically looks down on the other father. The two mothers get on much better with each other and are mutually supportive.

There is an experimental time when each of the boys goes to live with the other family, the actual son of the architect finding it very difficult to be alone in the affluent apartment away from everyone else, while the other boy is more at home with the brother and sister.

All the time, the film is challenging the audience as to what they think, what they feel, what they would do in a similar situation, how they would advise others who were tackling the problems.

One of the values of the films is enabling audiences to identify with each of the situations, assessing the values of the two fathers, sympathising with the mothers. There are many emotional sequences, more challenging for the architect father and his coming to terms with the realities, the other father being more easily casual.

Two other films by the director have dealt with children and their issues, very sympathetically: Nobody Knows (2004) and I Wish… (2012). All three films are recommended.


1. The title, the different fathers, the different sons, relationships and similarities? Raising issues of nature and nurture?

2. Japanese settings, the city, apartments, high-rise buildings, markets and streets, homes, shops, offices, the parks? The musical score?

3. The premise: the changing of the babies at birth, the nurse, the responsibility of the hospital, the response? The discovery of the lack of relationship by blood tests for entry into school? The nurse, her being a witness, her motivations, her angers, marrying, adopting children, Ryota and his confronting her, giving the money, her son defending her? Issues of law, Ryota’s lawyer and their discussions? The case, issue of damages, Ryota returning the money to the nurse?

4. The introduction, Ryota and his wife, Keita, six years old, the situation of the family, affluence, the apartment, the only child? Ryota and his work ethic, his demands, knowing that Keita had slow attention, demanding that he play the piano, the computer games, of the idea of going on a mission, practising the piano, the recital, his playing Chopsticks, the contrast with a little girl and her mastery? Outings, love, Keita calling him daddy? The mother and her care?

5. Ryota, architect, his place in the company, relationship with the boss, discussions about work, the designs, work on Saturdays, late? The hard work ethos? Loyalty to the company?

6. The hospital phoning, the visit, their being told bluntly about the situation? The mother and her guilt feelings that she did not know that the boy was not her real son? Her illness, unable to bear more children? The six years’ experience? The father, discovery of the truth, his saying that this made sense and judging his son’s behaviour? The mother and her remembering this and accusing her husband for saying it?

7. The other parents, their three children, the issue of adoption, the lively house, the boy and his care of the other two children, the spirit of play, the ability to fix things? The mother and her love, ordinary, in the shop with Keita, the wink? The father, older, idle, relaxing in the summer, fixing things, playing with his children? Interested in the cash for damages? But his love for the children?

8. Facing the decisions, the meetings, the experiment with the exchange of boys, the experiences? Keita and his being able to adapt to the larger family, enjoying himself? Not so concerned with the loss of Ryusei, in the house, his father and discipline and demands, impersonal? High expectations? The mother, not feeling initially close to her son, gradually feeling love him?

9. The outings, the behaviour of each of the children, the group of children, the different parents and enjoying the outings? Ryota and his seriousness? The photo and the later looking at it?

10. Ryota and his own father, stern, his mother and his father’s treatment, running away to see his mother, the visits, the phone call? His behaviour influenced by his father, like his father?

11. The visit to the forest, the artificial forest, the insects and movement, the cicadas and developing over 15 years? The symbolism of this visit?

12. The two boys, the request to call the parents mother and father, Keita and his fitting in, playing, the bath with the brother and father? At ease?

13. Ryusei, alone, looking at the window, the high-rise? The request to call Ryota father, the boy continually asking why? Bashing the piano, his father disciplining him? Some acceptance, the computer games, the mother beginning to love him, living up to some of his father’s expectations? Happiness, the wish, his declaring he wanted to go back home?

14. The two women and the bonding, mothers and their shared experiences?

15. The father, talking to the boss of the company, wanting him to slow down?

16. Ryota, the camera, Ryusei not wanting it? Discovering Keita’s many pictures of him, at rest, asleep? Going to visit, the father and son walking on separate parts, meeting, not fully embracing? Yet making the decision, and the two families together, going into the house?

17. The process of Ryota’s change of heart and behaviour? Playing with Rusei, able to relax with the children? The result for his wife?

18. Audience response, thinking what they would do in similar situations? The effect on children aged six, able to comprehend what was going on, change, the future? The audience thinking what advice they would give to parents in similar situations?

52 TUESDAYS

Australia, 2013, 109 minutes, Colour.
Tilde Cobham- Harvey, Del Herbert- Jane, Beau Travis Williams, Mario Spate.
Directed by Sophie Hyde.

52 Tuesdays is a documentary or, rather, a docudrama, set in Adelaide. it has won several international awards, including one at the Sundance Festival.

The filmmakers have used the technique of filming every Tuesday for one year at a specific time, building up something of a cinematic/video diary of two of the central characters. This means A cumulative effect over the year, taking account of the different changes, even in appearance, of the characters.

While this technique is interesting in itself, one might compare it to the documentary A Day in the Life, which used the contrary method of filming many episodes on the one day all over the world and editing them into a feature film.

But there is a particular interest in this story. We are introduced to a teenager, Billie (Tilde Cobham-Harvey), who immediately confides her situation straight to camera. She says that she has never had any secrets from her mother but is overwhelmed when she discovers that her mother, Jane (Del Herbert-Jane) has made the decision to have a transgender physical and psychological treatment to become James.

Most audiences are probably not familiar with anyone who has had a transgender procedure. This is an opportunity to see, to understand, what a person who has made this decision has to go through for themselves and for their family.

Jane is quite a sympathetic character, separated from her husband (Beau Travis Williams) but on good terms. Jane thinks it better if Billie goes to live with him during the time of the transition. At first unwilling, Billie decides to go. In the interactions, and clashes, about what is to happen, mother and daughter arrange to meet every Tuesday for a year. As the film proceeds, it lists the date as well as the number for the interaction.

Billie is a strong personality and as we follow her year, and her change of appearance, we see her bewildered, becoming obsessed with sexuality, observing and filming her friends and their sexual encounters. This brings her into trouble at school and with her friend with whom she is close. Her parents are informed and have to deal with the situation. Billie has moods over the year, unhappy with her mother at times, coming to terms with calling her James, reacting to material sent by computer from the US where James encounters transgender people. Billie also discovers the James is in a partnership with a woman friend.

James is doing something very different and is always trying to come to terms with what is happening, physical changes, psychological changes, emotional changes, dealing with Billie as a parent at the same time – which takes its toll.

There is a final confrontation, to do with the video material, with her parents, with the mother of her friend, and with her uncle (quite an odd and unexplained character with a daughter) with the teenage Billie having to come to terms, at least temporarily, in the situations of her life.

Some audiences may find the successive Tuesdays a strain on their attention and interest, even repetitive and at times tedious. Others will find the film an arresting documentation of characters in unusual situations.


1. The themes? Transgender issues? Youth and adolescence issues? Sexuality and growing up, family? Bonds?

2. The impact of the techniques, the non--professional cast, the 52 Tuesdays, the script written for filming once a week, the look of the characters week by week, the changes? The passing of one year?

3. Adelaide, the realistic settings, naturalistic treatment, the short episodes, like film clips, the way that they were edited, the effect, the impact over time?

4. The cast, the performances? Credible?

5. The introduction to Billie, her age, initially talking to camera, her situation, her relationship with her mother, secrets and confiding? Her shock at the news about her mother’s changing to be a man?

6. The character of the mother, as Jane, separated from the father, her decision about transgender, the background, her awareness of herself as male? Separating from her husband but wanting her daughter to stay with him? The role of Harry, James’s brother, his daughter and the visits? The household?

7. Billie’s story, relationship with her mother, going to live with her father, the shock, the deal of meeting every Tuesday, the specific times? With her father? Her friends from school, her truancy? The preoccupation with sexual matters? The camera? Photographing herself, her friends, the sexual experiences? The effect on her? Her clashes with her friend, the visits to her mother, some successful, some not, talking, irritation, her mother’s exasperation? The issue of sex, Roger? The parents being called to the principal, the discussions about Billie’s behaviour?

8. Jane becoming James, her experiences over the 52 Tuesdays, the captions given as to the dates, and the number of Tuesdays? Billie and her missing some of the Tuesdays, or delaying, James and the phone calls? Going to the US, the interviews with the transgender people, Billie watching them on the computer? The effect on James’s health, changes, breasts, uterus surgery? James and the partner? The discussions? Billie learning of this? The clashes between the two, Billie punching her mother, the hospital sequences? The significance of the film and destroying it? The strong words from her father? Harry with the back up, his putting it outside the door and his destroying the footage?

9. Jane to James, the physical changes, psychological, the female experience, the male experience, look, medication, surgery? The effect of dealing with Billie? The support of her husband? Harry? The demands on her as a parent, whether mother or father? The visit to America, the friends, the discussions of the issues?

10. James’s partner, life together, secrecy?

11. Billie’s father, his work, love, the separation, the importance of discipline? His hair and beard changes over the year? The issue of the video, going to the principal, talking plainly to Billie? His accident, in the hospital at the end?

12. The significance of Harry, his look and manner, his daughter, ambiguous?

13. The friends from school, together, the clashes, the girl’s mother and her illness? The issue of the footage, the girls showing it to her mother? The reconciliations?

14. James and the end, becoming a man? Billie and her getting through her adolescence – for the better or not?

FINAL DESTINATION

US, 2000, 98 minutes, Colour.
Devon Sawa, Ali Larter, Kerr Smith, Sean William Scott, Tony Todd, Daniel Roebuck.
Directed by James Wong.

Final Destination made quite an impact on its first release in 2000. It was a film aimed at the young adult audience, aspects of high school life, interactions, hostilities and touches of love. But, it was a disaster film with touches of horror.

The film opens with a group assembling at the airport to go on a school trip to Paris. One of the students, played by Devon Sawa, goes to sleep when he gets on board and suddenly wakens, having experienced a premonition of the plane exploding. He and a number of students exit the plane, clash in the gate lounge until the plane does explode after take-off.

The film echoes those old stories like The Lost Patrol, or Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None. However, it is something mysterious that causes the successive deaths of those who survived. There is effective special effects work for mounting the horror for some of the deaths, others happening quite suddenly.

Tony Todd, Candyman, appears as a sinister funeral director who warns the young people about fate.

When the deaths stop, the three survivors go to Paris – and the film ends!

There were four sequels.

1. An entertaining disaster thriller, with touches of horror? The immediate impact in 2000? The resulting sequels? Keeping something of the same formula?

2. The American city, suburbs? Homes, streets, cafes? The sinister aspects of the locations, interiors, bathrooms, garages – and all with potential killing material? The finale in Paris? The musical score?

3. The title, sinister? Affecting the main characters?

4. The opening, the focus on Alex, with his parents, preparing to the trip? Meeting the others at the airport, friends, clashes? The teachers? The group? Paris, French?

5. Going on board, the students finding places, changes? Alex and his position, foreseeing the future, waking, fear, hurrying from the plane, the other students, the teachers? The nervousness outside, the group that went with him, some support of Alex, some critical, the fights? The female teacher staying with the group? The take-off, their arguing, the explosion in the background, all that Alex foresaw? The arrival of the police, the interrogations, explanations? Grief for those would die?

6. Alex, his character, the effect of the accident? His parents’ support? The clashes with Carter? Getting to know Clear? Her personality, something of a loner?

7. The undertaker, his sinister warnings, prophecies? The effect on the group?

8. The first death, the young man at home, the bath and his being strangled? Suspicions of suicide?

9. The growing fear as to who would be next? The issue of the seat plan and the order of deaths? The carefree girl in the street, Carter and his arguments, the girl being hit by the car?

10. Carter, scepticism, in the car, stuck on the railway line, the approaching train, Alex getting Carter out of the car, no one killed – and then the debris killing Billy?

11. Clear, by herself, the water, the electricity lines, the dangers, getting into the house?

12. Six months later, of the group in Paris, feeling safe, the accident and the neon sign falling, Alex saving Carter, the return of the sign and his being killed? The moment for the ending of the film?

13. Audiences identifying with the characters, the story, the fears, fate?

BELLE

UK, 2014, 109 minutes, Colour.
Gugu Mbatha Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson, Sarah Gadon, Miranda Richardson, Penelope Wilson, Sam Read, Tom Felton, James Norton.
Directed by Amma Assante.

A film which many audiences will thoroughly enjoy.

On the one hand, it is in the tradition of the elegant English heritage dramas, especially those films of Jane Austen’s novels. Belle is set in the 1780s, only a quarter of a century or so before the Jane Austen period. On the other hand, Belle has a strong message about racial inequality and racism at the time, centred on Britain’s role in the slave trade. In this way, it is in the tradition of social reform films, especially the story of William Wilberforce and abolition of the trade in Amazing Grace.

There has been no budget stinting on costumes and décor. We see the beauty of the world of the wealthy. We are taken into darker and more realistic areas of London and the ports.

And who is Belle? She is an actual character, a young mulatto girl (the phrase of the time), daughter of a wealthy Naval officer who takes her to live with his uncle, Lord Mansfield, who is the Chief Justice. He and his wife and the governess are taken aback. Yet, they abide by a set of rules which acknowledges the young girl, who is called Dido, her inheritance – but also society rules and customs which prevent her from dining at table with the rest of the family and visitors.

Dido is played by a young English actress, Gugu Mbatha Raw, who is both charming and convincing, as she grows up in this ambiguous situation in the company of her cousin, Bet (Sarah Gadon). In the atmosphere of the times, both girls are looking for husbands, Bet without a dowry, Dido with her personal fortune. They encounter the Ashford family (where the sons are also looking for wives, preferably wealthy). Lady Ashford (Miranda Richardson) is the ambitious, avaricious and bigoted mother. What follows is very much Jane Austen scenarios.

During the film, Bet’s portrait is painted, Dido unwilling to pose – she sees that all paintings with black individuals have the black in a subservient position. However, we see the portrait at the end – and the actual portrait from this period. Dido is not subservient.

At this time, a slave-carrying ship, the Zong, has caused a public furore, the owners pushing slaves overboard, allegedly because the ship was not carrying enough water. Should the owners be paid insurance for their loss? The Lord Chief Justice (Tom Wilkinson in a substantial role) delays in his decision, challenged by his wife (Emily Watson) to think back to his legal origins and idealism, concerned about Dido whom he loves like a daughter, and spurred by a zealous lawyer, Davernier (Sam Reid) who loves Dido. If the Justice finds for the insurers against the owners, many see that it will destroy the trade and endanger Britain’s economy.

The film offers a lot to think about in its well-written screenplay, and a lot to look at in its striking visuals.



1. An entertainment? An interesting drama? Romance? Social concern?

2. England in the 1760s and 1780s? The difference in class? Searching for spouses and financial security? The background of the slave trade, legislation, moves for abolition? The film combining elegant society with a significant abolition story?

3. The film based on a true story? The final image of the actual portrait? The film imagining the life of these two young women? The significance of the black woman not inferior to quite?

4. 1769, the background of the navy, visualising of the ports, the activity? Lindsay, his life and career, his relationship with Dido’s mother, his going to find the child, the tender scene with her, taking her home? Lord Mansfield and his wife? Aunt Mary? Immediate reactions? Hostility? Questions? Propriety, rules? Society’s rules? Lindsay and his plea, affectionate talking to his daughter, Dido’s memories of these movements and cherishing them? The situation, in the house, as a niece, Lindsay’s money, the inheritance from her father, the strict rules, especially about her non-presence of meals? Inherent racism?

5. The girls playing together, growing up together, the social situation, with Lord Mansfield and his wife? Aunt Mary looking? A kind of Pride and Prejudice situation? The family, members, the breakfasts together, the staff? Dido and status? The search for husbands? Dido and her inheritance? Bet and her lack of inheritance? The background of her father, leaving, new wife and family, his estate for them?

6. Lord Mansfield, his role as Chief Justice? The Zong case? Taking his time, examining the law, the rules, the issues of society, the abolition of slavery, the financial consequences? His taking on Davernier? Lord Ashford and the aristocracy? The issue of insurance?

7. The Zong situation, the slave trade, too many slaves on board, cramped conditions, illness, the decision to throw them overboard, the alleged reason being lack of water? Dido and her obtaining the documents with the indication of the ports where water could have been obtained? The ailing slaves not saleable? The pressure, Parliament, courts, the question of upsetting British standards and empire, the finances of Britain? Davernier and his pamphlets, his arguments? The Lord Chief Justice listening to him? Davernier expounding his views before the hearing? The Chief Justice and his delivery of his opinion, the situation, justice, the law, morality and humanity? The consequences?

8. The Ashford family, coming to the meal? The girls excited? Lady Ashford meeting Dido and her obvious racism? James and his dislike of Dido, snobbery? Oliver, the attraction? The visits, Oliver walking with Dido, her considering the marriage? James and his criticism of the courting, discovering that Bet had no money, keeping away? Oliver, Dido, the proposal, Dido happy? Society’s expectations? Confiding in Bet? Oliver and his sincerity? The visit, Dido’s refusal, the harsh reaction of Lady Ashford and Dido’s pointing this out?

9. James and Oliver, the relationship, James and his confronting Dido, the molsting? His learning Bet had no money? Seeking other prospective wives, in the carriage with his mother, their both being upset?

10. The effect of Bet, crying, Dido trying to help, telling her the truth, Bet unable to accept this? Dido offering to give money for the dowry? Bet accepting it as for James? Dido and her promising to find another husband? The visit, the suitor calling on Bet, Dido approving?

11. Lady Mansfield and her change, the time it took, but still some underlying prejudices? Love of the two nieces? Accepting the rules? Going courting with the girls? Going shopping? Her hopes? Being present when Dido broke the engagement? Reminiscing with her husband, about his past humble origins, proposal, ambitions, the change? Her influence in her husband? Lord Mansfield as a character, changing over the years, the ordinary sequences at home, the breakfast table, the conversations?

12. Dido, the black maid, helping with her hair, liking her, and supporting her? He wage according to Lord Mansfield? Dido and the coachman, his taking her out?

13. Aunt Mary, strong character, spinster, her explanation of herself and her story, the suitor and his dying? Bonding with the girls? Sharing their hopes, listening?

14. Davernier and his character, the visit, Dido being angry with, his attempt at apology? The clergyman’s son, interest in the law, changing the world? With Lord Mansfield, helping him? Going on his own, in Kentish Town, his study, his writings, the pamphlets, his interest in the Zong case? The encounters with Dido, in the garden, the bonding between them, sharing ideas, her secret visits, the discussions and walks, getting the documents, Lord Mansfield discovering the visits, confronting them, issues of responsibility? Lord Mansfield and his change?

15. Dido, the relationship with Davernier, love, the simple life and her desires, the permission to marry?

16. Her objections to being painted, finally seeing the portrait, so many paintings showing black characters in subservience situations? The audience seeing the real portrait? And the further information about the characters after the film’s story?

HITLER’S MADMAN

US, 1943, 85 minutes, Black-and-white.
Patricia Morrison, John Carradine, Alan Curtis, Ralph Morgan.
Directed by Douglas Sirk.

Hitler’s Madman is the story of the assassination of Hitler’s Protector in Czechoslovakia, Reinhard Heydrich, cruel in his administration of the country after its invasion and occupation. The same story appears in Fritz Lang’s Hangman Also Die. There was a short film, a documentary at this period, made by the celebrated Humphrey Jennings. And in 1975, Lewis Gilbert directed a more elaborate and crafted film, Operation Daybreak.

This film was directed by Douglas Sirk, who came to the United States from Germany in the late 1930s. He had a successful career, moving to small budget films and Universal in the 1950s and then making his celebrated romantic melodramas including All That Heaven Allows and The Magnificent Obsession in the 1950s.

This is clearly a propaganda film, capitalising on audience revulsion at the massacre in Lidice. A Czech national is parachuted into urge locals to participate in resistance and sabotage. The leading businessmen of the town (Ralph Morgan) opts for quiet acceptance, quoting the parish priest, but when the priest is brutally killed by Heydrich (John Carrdine) during a procession, he changes his mind, praying in the church for a sign. This comes with the wife of the media, disillusioned with nuts is on the death of her sons, telling him when Heydrich was to drive through the area the next morning. The group ambush Heydrich and he is wounded, later dying. Himmler arrives from Berlin and orders the destruction of Lidice, the massacre of the men and women and children going to a concentration camp.

1. The film reflecting events of the war on the continent of Europe, in Czechoslovakia? The film emerging in the year following the events of June 10, 1942 and the destruction of the town of Lidice, the massacre of the men and the internment in concentration camps of the women and children?

2. The director, his German background, moving to Hollywood in the 1930s, his career, his perspectives?

3. Audience knowledge of the events at the time, in retrospect? The Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, the occupation, Heydrich as the protector, his treatment of the people, their subservience? Nazi authorities in each town? Nazi propaganda and the taking and execution of hostages?

4. The atmosphere of Czechoslovakia, the studio sets, the American performers?

5. Karel and his being parachuted into the area, his return home, the various men parachuted into different parts of the country to urge resistance? Karel and his return to the town, is going to the cave, meeting the hermit, getting him to round up the citizens of the town for a meeting? His meeting Jarmilla, their love? His going to the house, meeting her mother, her concern?

6. The meeting, the urging of resistance, the men wary, Jan and his preferring no action? His daughter and her enthusiasm?

7. The media, the Nazi appointee, his pomposity, loyalty to the Fuhrer, his wife being less enthusiastic? His promising to phone Prague to get the hostage release and his not doing it? Anticipating his sons visiting, the news of their deaths? The effect on his wife? Her disillusionment with Nazism? Going to the church, meeting young, giving him the information about Heydrich’s driving through the village?

8. The authorities in Prague, Heydrich and his arrogance? The local authorities, the decision about taking Bartok as a hostage, the arrest, his wife’s plea, its being disregarded, his being brought home in the coffin?

9. The invitation to sabotage, its happening, the effect?

10. Karel and his love for Jarmilla, his returning, the news about Heydrich and his car, young and his change of heart, the group ambushing Heydrich, the shootings, Karel and Jarmilla and they getting away, the pursuit, Jarmilla being killed?

11. Heydrich, his arrogance, driving through the town, the procession, his driving speedily through, the confrontation with the priest, the discussion, shooting him? The reaction of the people?

12. Heydrich, not immediately dying, Himmler coming to see him, Heydrich wanting to live, not interested in idiology, Himmler and his manner, arrogance, phoning Hitler, flattering Hitler about Heydrich’s last words about him? Himmler and his ordering the destruction and massacre at Lidice?

13. Jan, his prestige in the town, the other men in the shops, the mines? His being disillusioned after the procession and the priest’s death in the? Praying in the church, wanting a sign, the man’s wife and the information, taking it is a sign? His ultimately being arrested?

14. The authorities arriving in the town, the decision about Lidice rather than the other town where there was a munitions factory? The assembling of the men, the segregating of the women and children? The visuals of the massacring of the men?

15. The film in retrospect, dramatising a significant event in World War II, and the impact of the film in its time, Hollywood and its concerns for defeating Hitler?

AND THE OSCAR GOES TO…

US, 2014, 95 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman.

Filmmakers Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman have specialised in documentaries, winning awards for The Times of Harvey Milk in 1984. They also made some feature films including the award-winning Milk, with Sean Penn as the gay activist who was assassinated in San Francisco, Penn winning an Oscar for his performance. They also made Howl, the poem of Alan Ginsberg, the film Lovelace, the story of Linda Lovelace and her life as well as her relationship with her brutal husband and the making of Deep Throat and the celebrity that ensued as well as her change of heart and her campaign for the rights of women.

This is a very entertaining documentary, an overview of the Oscars from the inception in 1928 to scenes from the awards celebration of 2013. It is narrated by Angelica Huston.

it is not presented in chronological order, though it does highlight the first celebration, the winners knowing that they had won before the announcement, only 12 awards and the best film, the silent film Wings. The screenplay then moves backwards and forwards in time, arousing of anticipation in audiences of what they are to see and whom they are to see.

The film highlights the role of Bob Hope as the MC for so many years, giving quite a few selections of his humour. And the transition from radio to television in the 1950s.

What the film does is to take the various categories, give scenes of where winners accepted their awards and spoke, as well as interviewing an expert in each of the various fields which gives some kind of explanation of the meaning of each.

Actors, like Benicio del Toro and Jane Fonda have extended time with interviews, quite illuminating in the perspectives of the actors, the feelings, the awards, the repercussions, dele Toro having a final word when asked where his Oscar is and he points to his head and says in his mind. Jane Fonda has an explanation of her stances on Vietnam when she received the Oscar for Klute and the explanation about her father and his award for On Golden Pond.

The writing and directing perspective is given by Phil Alden Robinson (Field of Dreams).

Whoopi Goldberg is a key interviewee, especially from the perspective of hosting the Oscars and there are some comments from Billy Crystal and examples from Goldberg herself and Steve Martin.

Producer Kathleen Kennedy goes back to Spielberg and his continued losses of Oscar until his success with Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan – with discussion about this film and its making, based on Robert Capa’s 12 surviving photos of the Normandy landing, with Janus Kaminski elaborating. The Colour Purple had 11 nominations and no wins.

Throughout the film there is pleasant conversation with Helen Mirren and the experience of winning the Oscar for The Queen – and being applauded by people in the baggage collection area of an airport.

For those who have followed Hollywood, who love Hollywood movies, this collection of clips is a definite must.

THE CAMERAMAN

US, 1928, 69 minutes, Black-and-white.
Buster Keaton, Marceline Day.
Directed by Edward Sedgwick.

Buster Keaton had proven himself an expert comedian, po- faced, sometimes sad, but nevertheless an expert in comic timing which could make people laugh out loud. His heyday was in the silent era, physical humour rather than verbal. He was less successful in the sound era, making films now it again even up to A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Donald O’ Connor impersonated him in the 1957 The Buster Keaton Story.

This film, made by MGM, has some satiric touches about the cameraman for the newsreels, getting tips, rushing to scenes to film, getting scoops, performing a service to the public. This is acknowledged in the first few minutes and then we are told there are other photographers and we meet Buster Keaton trying to take portraits on the street, people getting in the way, pushing, being crowded, failing. But he does see an attractive young woman who is friendly but goes off with the MGM cameraman.

The next part of the film has him going to the office searching for the girl, not noticing at first, being ridiculed by the cameraman in the office, being ousted by the boss – with some comic business with his camera and tripod hitting and missing people and breaking glass.

Told there is a fire in a warehouse, he mixes up, with the captions, with the where and house. Then he goes round filming all kinds of things, only to fail with his audition.

He has a pleasant Sunday walk with the girl, a funny scene with him talking on the phone to her, her continuing to talk and his running to be with her when she hangs up. He also has a tangle with a monkey who then accompanies him causing some mischief but, ultimately, causing success. There is a very funny business at the swimming pool where he has to share a changing room with a very large man and they manoeuvre to get from their clothes to their swimming togs, he having the big man’s. Buster Keaton shows off in diving, swimming, even losing his swimming togs and having to borrow some surreptitiously from a large lady.

The sequences were incorporated into the 1950 Red Skelton comedy which was based on aspects of this film, Watch the Birdie.

The girl gives him a tip that there is a festivity in Chinatown and off he goes. It turns out to be an ambush, a gun battle in which he is continually standing, or avoiding shots or people, and filming everything. However, the monkey has mixed up the boxes of film. When he sees the girl and the newsreel cameraman on a lake and overturned, he rushes out to save her, while the cameraman saves himself, then taking the credit when he finds the girl lying on the beach.

It all culminates in the monkey providing the proper box rather than the empty camera that the boss saw and turfed him out. Not only is there good footage of the battle, but it is revealed that the cameraman didn’t rescue the girl.

Running just over an hour, this film, along with The General, this is a fine example of Buster Keaton’s work.

ON THE ICE

US, 2012, 96 minutes, Colour.
Josiah Patkotak, Frank Qutuk Irelan.
Directed by Andrew Okpeaha Mc Lean

On the Ice is a feature film from Alaska, a focus on the town of Barrow, an isolated community of native locals. While Alaska is removed from the other states of the United States, a lot of the modern attitudes have taken hold in the North, youth and boredom, unemployment, alcohol and drug addiction and their consequences.

This film focuses on two friends, Qaali and Aivaaq, the former being a quiet young man, rather introverted, planning to go to college, the latter a drink and drug addict with a young child. In the background is the parent generation, some drunk and addicts, others, like Qaali’s father, an officer and involved in search and rescue.

The centre of the plot is the death of a friend of Qaali and Aivaaq, James, also a drinker. There is a fight on the snow between the two drunk men and an accidental killing, with the friends making the decision to hide the body and the sled under the ice and snow. This has repercussions for each of them, Aivaaq becoming emotional and unstable, Qaali trying to decide what should be done and what should be communicated or not.

There is a climax in the snow, Aivaaq feeling the compulsion to take the body back to the town, leaving Qalli to walk back, thinking over what has been done and what will be done in the future.

1. A film from Alaska? Locations, characters, situations? Authentic?

2. The location photography, the town of Barrow, homes, streets, traffic, working stations? The scenes of the ice, the sea? The musical score?

3. The title, reference to location, to the characters and their experience, dangers?

4. The presentation of the local people, the Inuit origins, American, remoteness of Alaska from the other states? Its contemporary experiences, music and dancing? Issues of alcohol and drugs?

5. The opening with the traditional dances, the applauding audience, the young men dancing? The introduction to Qalli and Aivaaq? Their friendship, aged? Qaali and his hopes to go to college? Even dark and his social situation, his young child?

6. The families, evokes father’s death, his alcoholic mother? Qaali and his stable family, his father and search and rescue and other responsibilities?

7. The party, Aivaaq and his drinking, Qalli and his going to see his aunt, playing cards, staying with her, not drinking?

8. Qaali going out on the ice, discovering Aifaaq and James fighting, his intervention, the knife, James being killed, Qaali hitting Aivaaq, to stop him killing James? Recovering consciousness, Aivaaq thinking to kill himself, Qaali and his suggestion that they put James and his sled in the water?

9. The repercussions, the news of James’s death, his family, his father upset, Michelle and telling Qaali about the breakup, fearing she was to blame for the death? Qaali and his affection for Sarah?

10. Aivaaq, his drinking, going for more drugs, inconsistent behaviour, Qaali telling him the truth, believing it, not believing it, thinking that Qalli was taking the blame for him? Going to the wake, the two boys, Aivaaq leaving?

11. The search and rescue, the father and his responsibility? Qaali eventually telling him about Michelle? The father and his earnestness?

12. Out on the snow, Aivaaq and his binding Qaali, taking the body back, to tell the truth?

13. Qaali’s father, the discovery of the body, his being prepared to bury it in the water and snow? His concern about his son, reputation, going to college?

14. The film ending with Qaali walking back in the snow? The future for Aivaaq, for Qaali? The consequences for the inhabitants of Barrow?

HIT THE DECK

US, 1955, 112 minutes, Colour.
Jane Powell, Tony Martin, Vic Damone, Debbie Reynolds, Ann Miller, Russ Tamblyn, Gene Raymond, Walter Pidgeon, Kay Armen, Alan King.
Directed by Roy Rowland.

Hit the Deck is an MGM musical of the 1950s, coming out in 1955, using the new Cinemascope cameras, offering spectacle as well a song and dance. But it was the final years of MGM contract actors and the end of the popularity of the musicals.

This one is perhaps on the second rung of musicals, coming at the time of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and the Sigmund Romberg biography, Deep in my Heart. While it uses some of the songs of Vincent Youmans and the Broadway show, it has a very slight plot, three sailors on leave (with echoes of On the Town), their romances, getting involved in a fight, the shore patrol trying to find them and the Admiral stepping in to cover for his son and daughter.

Tony Martin was a popular single at the time, but on screen not in the league of such singers as Howard Keel. Vic Damone was also popular as a singer rather than the actor but had appeared with Jane Powell in Rich, Young and Pretty. Russ Tamblyn was very young, had already made an impression in Seven Brides and was to be remembered always for his performance in West Side Story. Jane Powell had been very popular at MGM, Debbie Reynolds was full of life – and, unlike the others, was to have life in film from many decades, moving to comedy and serious roles. Ann Miller showed once again what a talented tap dancer and screen presence she was.

There are some veterans in the cast including Walter Pidgeon as the Admiral, Jane Darwell as the maid, Gene Raymond as the Broadway star and, veterans in future decades, Richard Anderson as the lieutenant and Alan King as one of the shore patrol. The film introduced Kay Armen, popular as a singer, who made only a few films – which, given her screen presence, is a great pity.

The film was directed by Roy Rowland, not a noted director of musicals, but a director who could make films in many genres.

1. The popularity of MGM musicals of the 1950s? This film late in the day? Its appeal, up to MGM standard?

2. The screenplay based on a Broadway show, Hit the Deck? Incorporating of the songs by Vincent Youmans, Why and Wherefore…? The performances of the songs, the range of singers and their popularity at the time, the dance routines?

3. Use of Cinemascope, the Arctic and the exercises, the kitchen, the party? The jungle? San Francisco and its wealthy homes, the theatre, hotels and departments, flower shops…?

4. The focus on the three sailors, Bill, Rico, Danny? The atmosphere of the Navy, the commanders, the birthday cake? On leave in San Francisco? Bill and his going to see Ginger, the six years engagement, her exasperation? Rico and his going to see his mother? Danny and his going to see his father and his sister? His keeping his identity as son of the Admiral from all his friends? His father wanting him to go to Annapolis?

5. Rico, his mother, her friendliness with Mr Peroni, his shock at the age of her son, his mother’s strength of mind and character, liking Mr Peroni, the incident with the flowers, the happy ending for his mother? Singing Alleluia with the chorus?

6. Danny, at home, his father’s strictness, the navy family tradition, Susan and her wanting to be in the Broadway show, going to the audition, to the hotel? Danny trying to track the address? The encounter with Carol, the rehearsals, her performance, his getting into the dance routines? The three going to the hotel, the confrontation with Wendell Craig, the fight, damage to his eye? Rescuing Susan, her explaining she didn’t want to be rescued, her choices? The audition, her singing, getting a job?

7. The shore patrol, characters, comedy, tracking down the three, even to the theatre performance and getting involved in it? Going to the Admiral’s home, having his name and address? His sending them out again, rounding up all the shore patrol to track them down?

8. Susan and her clash with Rico, finding him intrusive, the song routine, his accompanying her, falling in love with him, he in love with her?

9. Ginger, Ann Miller and her performances, her dancing skills? The hard-boiled character, the comedy with Bill? Turning him in? Going to Rico’s home? Walking out? The issues of whether he proposed to her and not, the others urging him on, finally?

10. Bill, in charge, with the others, with Ginger? The fight?

11. Carol, song and dance, liking Danny, getting the huff with him, the phone call, the routine in the haunted house at the fair?

12. At the Admiral’s house, Jenny the maid, covering for the children? The argument with their father, his acknowledging the difficulty of having an Admiral as a father? The issue with Wendell Craig, his injuries, having a wife, Lt Jackson and the negotiations, withdrawing the charges – and everybody happy ever after?

13. The slight plot – but giving the opportunities for both songs and dances?

CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR

US, 2007, 97 minutes, Colour.
Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Om Puri, Ken Stott, Ned Beatty.
Directed by Mike Nichols.

It is difficult to know what to make of Charlie Wilson’s War. For the Golden Globe awards, it was listed under comedies. While there is some verbal repartee, it is not exactly an overall comedy. In its picture of a ‘good-time Charlie’ congressman who gets himself involved in the Afghan struggle of the 1980s against the Russians, it presents as a kind of hero or anti-hero a man who did deals for upping the budget appropriations for covert operations to defeat the Russians. Admirable? Despicable? Hero? Patriot? American who acted self-confidently according to the national doctrine of ‘manifest destiny’, guilty of a huge presumption?

Tom Hanks has developed a screen personal of the upright American, so it is more than a bit disturbing to see him snorting cocaine in a jacuzzi full of strippers and receiving the highest award from the organisation of covert agencies. Julia Roberts can act Brockovich-tough, but who is this wealthy Houston woman who takes up an interest in the Afghans and pressures legislators and donors behind the scenes, declares she is a born-again Christian but whose behaviour gives born again a double standards name? These are very ambiguous characters, of ambiguous moral stances, who are seen as the true anti-communist patriots – which may justify everything.

So, this means that Mike Nichols’ film is quite unsettling. And, with Philip Seymour Hoffman giving another of his outstandingly different performances as a disgruntled CIA operative who finds a cause worth manipulating for in Afghanistan, it is even more unsettling.

Clearly, we are meant to be thinking about American policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan post-September 11th, and that makes the film more disturbing. What is going on now? Covert and overt? We have seen Redacted, Rendition, In the Valley of Elah and, especially about Afghanistan, Lions for Lambs.

At the end, the CIA agent warns that with the retreat of the Russians in 1988 after the American-supplied arms brought down so many Russian planes and helicopters and destroyed so much artillery, that mad crowds were coming into Kabul. Charlie Wilson suggests a modest appropriation for building schools in Afghanistan but the DC powers that be have lost interest in the country and in the people. And, so, enter the Taliban.

I hope Charlie Wilson’s War is not passed over as an American comedy. Its themes are far too deadly for that.

1.A portrait of American foreign policy in the 1980s? Covert operations? Congress and the appropriations? The parallels with the war in Iraq? The impact, history, retrospect, learning?

2.The framework, the decoration to Charlie Wilson, for covert operations? The information about the Soviet Union, its collapse? Charlie Wilson’s contribution to the change?

3.Tom Hanks as Charlie Wilson? A more ambiguous role for Tom Hanks? In the Congress, representing East Texas, his character, the playboy, alimony, cocaine, in the jacuzzi with the strippers, watching the television, the discussions about the television series like Dallas, the producer and his pressure, the playboy style, the background of the arrests and charges, his getting off? His type, flip and one-liners? His staff and their loyalties, Bonnie, her earnestness, the glamorous girls and their style?

4.His interest in Afghanistan, wanting to listen to the television, Dan Rather and his presence undercover in Afghanistan? How serious a politician was he? The constituent and the issue of the crèche, his daughter, Charlie discussing the situation, the possibility of moving the crèche? Having sex with the daughter?

5.His earnestness, how much was his initiative, how much was he being used? The role of the CIA at this time? Gust and his influence, persuasion? Joanne, socialite background, wealth, her influence, pressures, the consequences?

6.The anti-communist stances, covert CIA operation, the small budgets becoming large budgets, pressures on Congress personnel, the deals behind the scenes, the role of the staffs, Charlie and his getting membership of the Kennedy Centre, the right-wing perspective? Anti-communist and not pro-Afghan?

7.The role of Pakistan, President Zia, the execution of Bhutto? The refugees pouring in from Afghanistan? Zia, the discussions, his generals, Charlie and his gaffes, his having to learn diplomacy? Zia and his visit to Joanne, her hosting him? Her comment about his not murdering Bhutto? The tough talk, the visit and the banquet, Pakistani politics and alliances? The alliance with the US?

8.Political advisers, the Cairo meeting, the role of Israel, the Saudis? Talks with Israel behind the scenes? The deals, the Saudis matching American money? The budget increases? From five million to a billion?

9.Doc Long, his talk, ignorance? Joanne’s invitation, the religious motivation? The visits in Afghanistan, seeing the children, Doc Lang’s mood, his speech, his son being killed in Vietnam? Attitude towards the communist? His feeling good – with God on his side?

10.The character of Joanne, her life, the absent husband? Born-again Christian? Power with God on her side? Her sexual behaviour, the liaison with Charlie Wilson? Considering the Playboy strippers as sluts? Her phone calls, going to Afghanistan, the reasons for her interest? The influence on Long? Her sense of achievement?

11.Gus, the CIA, his long career, in Finland, his anger with the head, smashing the windows? Jobs? Involvement? Meeting with Charlie Wilson, their getting on together, his blunt manner of speaking, the sexual innuendo with Joanne? His style? Stirring?

12.The appropriations, the statistics of the 80s, the information and names and dates, the destruction of the Russian weapons, the helicopters, their being shot down? Victory, the Russian retreat?

13.Charlie Wilson’s achievement, for good reasons or bad?

14.The warning by Gust, the crazies going into Khabul? The issue of rebuilding schools and rebuilding Afghanistan?

15.The lack of interest in the development of Afghanistan, not giving the appropriation, leaving the Taliban, leaving Afghanistan in a mess? Post-9/11 bombings of Afghanistan and the 21st century consequences of these policies?

16.The tone of the film, drama, comedy, satire? American beliefs, self-confidence, achievement? The abandoning of countries after going in militarily? The pattern of the 20th century? The 21st century?