CHARLES AND LUCIE

France, 1979, 97 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Ceccaldi, Ginette Garcin.
Directed by Nelly Kaplan.

Charles and Lucie is an offbeat road film by South American director Nelly Kaplan. It is both comic and satirical in its situations and characterisations. It is also a joyful picture of eccentric old age.

1he film captures the atmosphere of French cities and the French countryside - but always with the touch of the absurd. Nelly Kaplan's reputation as an offbeat film-waker has increased over the years.

1. An entertaining comedy? Road Picture of elderly people?

2. The work of Nelly Kaplan? The feminine perspective on old age? Eccentric characters? The French?

3. The atmosphere of Paris? Charles' and Lucie's home, job? The contrast with the picaresque adventures on the road? French locations? Editing and pace? The pleasing musical score?

4. The title and its focus on the couple? Audience appreciation of them, interest in then? As a sympathetic couple? Their age, the pathos of their lives, their concierge's lodge? Charles work as an antique dealer? The Picasso fakes? His selling odds and ends? Lucie's background as a Parisian singer? Her work as a charwoman? The surprise of the long-lost cousin and the fortune, the car, the villa in the south of France? The problem of legal fees? Their arguments? Charles persuading Lucie to sell off the contents of their flat? The journey to the south? The discovery of the old shack, the car being stolen? Their pursuit by the police? Their assumption about Charles' rival and his wanting the chest of drawers? The encounter in the church, the child murderer and disarming him, the hijacking of the bus with the child murderer's gun? In the boat, out to sea, the rescue? The fortune teller - travelling and wealth? The hoodlums pursuing them, taking their clothes? Their getting the clothes from the scarecrow? Having the meal with the funeral guests? The telling of their sad story to the company - and the taking up of the collection? The police and the accusation that they are con-artists? The irony of the value of the Van Gogh portrait? The money in cash, setting off on their travels, their future as a double act in the cafes and theatres around the French countryside? The engaging nature of these picaresque adventures? A mirror of French society? The character of Charles and his relationship with Lucie? Her response to Charles? Love, disagreements, fights, shared adventures?

5. The range of characters that they meet and the quick depiction of them - the Police, the lawyer, the child-murderer, the fortune-teller, the hoodlums, the people at the funeral breakfast, the people that they met in their performances?

6. An engaging picture of elderly people - the experience of a lifetime, pathos and regrets, new hopes? Possessing things and not possessing things? The eccentric way of life and its zest?

CHARLIE'S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE

US, 2003, 106 minutes, Colour.
Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Bernie Mac, Demi Moore, Robert Patrick, Rodrigo Santoro, Shia la Boeuf, John Cleese, Carrie Fisher, Jaclyn Smith, Bruce Willis, Justin Theroux, Crispin Glover, Luke Wilson, Matt Le Blanc.
Directed by Mc G.

Full Throttle is as apt a title as any for this sequel to the popular action show, Charlie's Angels, and tribute to the popular television series of the 1970s. (Part of the tribute is in still using John Forsythe's voice for Charlie and having Jaclyn Smith appear to Drew Barrymore, like a guardian angel, to urge her to have faith in herself). Otherwise, this film is definitely of the 21st century, fast, flip, full of action, humour, tongue-in-cheek, just like a music video in its editing and pace as well as its offbeat glamour, the specialties of its director, Mc G.

The Angels themselves are given stronger personalities this time, a bit of family background and some boyfriends. They still have time to disguise themselves every few minutes (from exotic club dancers to nuns) and to enjoy themselves as they go into action to save the American Justice system from criminals who have stolen rings with the coded identities and addresses of everyone in the Witness Program protection system (including Dylan) and want to sell the information to the highest bidder. Would any government rely on two rings for this data!!

Drew Barrymore is the earthier angel, Lucy Liu the more educated and accomplished angel and Cameron Diaz simply holds centre screen whenever she is on, glamorous, singing and dancing and doing funny impersonations. The men play second fiddle, with Bernie Mac as one of the least effective of the Bosleys, the go-between for Charlie and the Angels. There are some boyfriends, including Matt Leblanc taking time off from Friends to do a parody (or repeat) of his Friends' persona, with a few jokes at the expense of Mission Impossible 2.

It is surprising to see Demi Moore looking so fit. But she is at the stage of her career where she plays villain in this kind of film. Other guest spots include John Cleese, Bruce Willis and Luke Wilson.

1. The popularity of the television series? The angels themselves, their jobs, Bosley as intermediary, Charlie and his coming through only as a voice? The commissions, achievements?

2. The popularity of the remakes? The new Angels? Glamour, personalities, working together as a team, bonding? The back stories and their personalities? The variety of disguises, including nuns, and their turning up unexpectedly? The missions? Bernie Mac as the new Bosley? John Forsythe reprising his role as Charlie? Dylan and her vision of Jaclyn Smith exhorting her to achievement? The musical score?

3. The attention to comedy? Spoofs? The three Angels and the different styles of comedy? Cameron Diaz as all-out, Lucy Liu as more intelligence, Drew Barrymore with more energy and fight? Her story of being in witness protection? Their admiration for Madison, the meeting, discovering she was the villain? The variety of slapstick comedy?

4. The verbal comedy, the interchanges, Matt Le Blanc and John Cleese? The double entendres?

5. Action, pace, special effects, stunts? A film with verve?

6. The opening, rescuing the secretary, the Mongols, their drinking, the Chinese, holding Dylan, Alex in disguise, Natalie coming in and distracting them, riding the bull? The successful operation, the escape? Gathering together with Bosley, his personality, his participation in their work, the car chase and Alex on the skateboard, holding up the traffic?

7. The problem, Bruce Willis and his guest appearance, with the rings, on the plane, everybody dead? The mission to recover the rings?

8. The various adventures, pursuing Randy Emmers, the racing, Natalie in pursuit? Recovering the rings?

9. The Irish gang, the leader and his escape, tracking down Dylan, her putting him away? The jokes about her real name, Helen Zass? His confronting her? Her not feeling capable, going on her own, imagining what it would be like with three other Angels in rejecting it? Her return? The confrontation with the Irish and defeating them? The presence of the Thin Man? His fall?

10. The plausibility of the plot, the rings having all the data of people in the witness protection program? Ultimately easy to get the rings back?

11. The realisation that the rescued agent was faking it, that he had the rings, that he was in league with Madison, her shooting him? The confrontations with Madison, the range of fights and the stunt work? Her defeat?

12. Alex’s father, thinking his daughter was a nurse, hearing all the agency stories from Jason? Natalie and her relations with Peter, his moving in, her overhearing him, happy ending? Dylan, happy at the end? Alex and her further exploits?

13. This female variation on the superheroic stories?

CHEF

US, 2014, 115 minutes, Colour.
Jon Favreau, John Leguizamo, Sophia Vergara, Scarlett Johansson, Emjay Anthony, Dustin Hoffman, Bobby Cannavale.
Directed by Jon Favreau.

Chef is very much the feel-good (feel-goodest!) film, a story about a chef, naturally, about his particular expertise in cooking and presentation of food, both high-class and popular, but it is also a story about family, especially the relationship between a son and his previously neglectful father.

By the end of writing, directing and starring in this film, Jon Favreau must become something of an expert in the kitchen, studying up how to work with implements, how to blend various ingredients, how to cook them exactly, how to present them. He is seen at the end of the film, during the final credits, having a lesson from a professional cook on how to prepare some dishes – which means that the audience staying for the credits would not be reading any of them because they will be focusing on the chef and his teacher.


Karl Kaspar is a big man, friends with his former wife (Sofia Vergara) but unable to live at home, rather neglectful of his son, Percy (played with quite some aplomb by young actor Emjay Anthony). He has a loyal staff, led by Martin (Jon Leguizamo), Molly (Scarlet Johansson) and Tony (Bobby Cannavale). He is up early, early to work, especially on the day that the food critic (Oliver Platt) is to visit the restaurant. Karl wants a special menu but his intransigent boss, played by Dustin Hoffman, insists on the tried and true menu, with the result that the critic posts an negative review.

Besides being a film about kitchens and chefs, this is a film about modern communications technology, especially Twitter (it might almost look that Twitter had investment in the film).While his son is expert on communications, and texts instantly to his mother, getting permission for things before Karl has had time to think twice about them, Karl decides to put a tweet against the reviewer, neglecting to realise that if he uses abusive language, it is out in the Twittersphere forever. Of course, this leads to his being fired and a continued feud of tweets. But it also means that all those following him on Twitter know where he is, what he is cooking, especially as his son continues to supply this as they travel to Miami where they buy a Food Truck and their journey back home through New Orleans and Austin, Texas. When they get to the cities, there is a crowd already lining up.

In Miami, they go to meet Karl’s wife’s former husband, a curiously comic cameo from Robert Downey Jr (who worked with Favreau on the Iron Man films) talking at cross purposes about three different subjects all in the one sentence! But he supplies the truck, Martin comes over to work with him, they decide to make Cuban and Hispanic food – and all goes well, even with the reviewer becoming less than recalcitrant and investing in a restaurant. Karl becomes a loving father and spends quality time with his son. The son appreciates working, working hard, with his father. And his mother is delighted with what is happening for the family. Happiness all round – except for Dustin Hoffman whom we never, just as well, see again!

This is very genial film which most audiences could enjoy full of exuberant Cuban music – though, a pity about the repetitious coarse language. Advice: keep looking at the food and ignoring the language.


1. Audience response to the film? Feel-good? Food delight? Bonding between father and son? Family? Social media? The blend of all these themes?

2. An American story, the Hispanic focus? Characters, music, food?

3. Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Austin? The scenery across America? An American road trip? The musical score? The range of songs, tempo, rhythms?

4. The title, precise? Restaurants and details of work, cooking skills, motivations, staff and orderliness, restaurant owners, food critics, bloggers, customers? Reputations? The chef and is being fired, the bad review on the blog, the issue of the Truck? The menu and its range? The setup of the truck, buying it? Popularity of the food? Food and cooking? Cuban? The emphasis on Twitter and followers? The involvement in work? Family?

5. The work of Jon Favreau? Writing the screenplay, directing, the central role? His feel for the character, for cooking, the work, the details, relationships?

6. His dedication, Carl arriving at early hours, with Martin and Tony, with Molly? The bonds, the preparation of the food? Riva and his self-assertion, owning the restaurant, harsh attitudes, the menu and his wanting the tradition? The preparation for the food critic? Serving the critic, starting to read the review, the initial praise, the two stars, the criticism and personal comments, Carl’s weight, eating the food sent back…? Everybody reading the review? And wanting to avoid the situation?

7. Casper, his family situation, living alone, his marriage to Inez, the divorce, not seeing his son often, thinking himself a bad dad? The outings with the boy, the sharing, going to the movies? But the more ordinary talk, the bonding, via social media, the plan to go to New Orleans? Carl not able to go, his apology to his son? The character of Percy, his age, bonding with his mother, love for his father, the encounters with him – and improving?

8. The role of the social media, Twitter and the clash with the critic, everything becoming public, the growing number of friends? Carl, his being fired, everybody filming the clash with the critic on their mobile phones? The promotion of Twitter, as well as the realisation of the dangers for everything made public? The people following Carl, the humour of the policeman in Miami recognising him, wanting the photos for his family? The crowds following him?

9. Inez, formerly married to Marvin, the divorce, marrying Carl? Her work, her secretary? The arrangement for Carl to go to visit Marvin? His pregnant secretary? The cross-discussions about the pregnancy, the truck, Marvin’s business? Carl and his wondering about continuing her sexual relationship with Marvin?

10. Martin, genial, a good friend to Carl, working in the kitchen, with Bobby, the talk, the drinks at the bar? Supporting Carl, his becoming sous-chef? Tony, the initial hangover, going to work, supporting Carl, Riva and his outburst, offering the chef job to Tony, his hesitation, taking it? His later apology to Carl? Martin and the news of the truck, his coming instantly to Miami?

11. Carl and Percy in Florida, going shopping for the equipment, needing to lift the oven and Martin arriving? The Hispanic layabouts, their helping because of Martin’s threat to their migration status?

12. The scenes of cooking, creating the menus, Cuban food? Percy, his enjoying being with his father, learning to cook? Painting the truck? Driving round Miami, parking, the customers, the policeman and the permit, having to move further away – after the photos? The crowds coming to the truck? Going on the road, New Orleans, shopping in New Orleans, Percy and his getting all the information to Twitter? The surprise crowd? In Austin, the singers, the cash that they were pulling in? And the road trip through the American states?

13. Road film, time of bonding, Carl and his time and attention to his son, Percy sharing in the work, enjoying the work? Phone calls to his mother, her arrival? The tangled comments about loving, and a realisation in them both?

14. The social networks, the power of Twitter, the number of followers, and people literally following the truck? The impact of the insults between Carl and the critic, the visuals of the fight? Percy and his instant texting to his mother to get permissions and her replies? The one second films, Carl eventually watching the compiled film, memories of their trip? The older generation not always clear on the social networking, the younger generation taking it for granted?

15. The film critic and his view about the theatrics of the clash? Carl feeling hurt? The critic enjoying the food, selling his blog and wanting to invest with Carl. The popular restaurant in LA?

16. Arriving home, the continued work with the truck, the possibility of Percy working weekends and after school?

17. Inez and Carl, mellowing, love, the ending and the marriage ceremony and feast?

18. The credit sequence with Jon Favreau being trained by a professional cook for the sandwiches?

19. An enjoyable screen experience?

NEXT GOAL WINS

Samoa, 2013, 96 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Mike Brett and Steve Jamison.

The title gives it away – well not quite, the goal being a clue, but the football code for the film is Soccer, in the wider world, Football. Those who love the code will have no difficulty in watching this entertaining film. Those who know nothing about it may give up, although the excerpts from particular matches are well edited, well-paced to keep up the adrenaline flow if not to help out in knowledge.

But there is obviously much more than soccer in this film. The country of location is American Samoa, the country’s team (country of only 65,000 people) have been playing, with little success, sorry, no success for more than a decade. They are on the FIFA list of countries, at the very bottom.

So, this is a film about underdogs, way way under. We are treated in the opening match to a clash between American Samoa and Australia, the latter winning 31 to nil! But the team is not absolutely dispirited. They keep on training, have a strong esprit de corps in the team, try out a number of coaches – with minimal success. We see an American Samoan man, living off-island, as they say, who does his best to build up the players, exasperated at their lack of stamina, fumbling the ball, kicking erratically, and the goalkeeper letting too many through. They bring back from Seattle their best goalkeeper (even though he was there for the 31-0 defeat).

Eventually, the president of the local club does some scouting, finding a number of American Samoan players who have joined the American military and living in the US. These are talented men and bring some life to the team. He also goes to the United States to find a coach, a Dutch-born coach, Thomas Rongen, who is pretty tough, initially exasperated with the men, but determined to do something with them. He more than puts them through their paces.

As might be realised, this is also a film about American Samoa, about the American influence, about life on the island, families, society – and a very explicitly devout religious sense and prayer. But, there is not enough for the young men on the island to do and many of them have joined the American military and move away. Their hearts, however, seem to be very much on the island.

A particular feature of the film is the character, Johnny. At first, audiences will be thinking that a girl is playing, and they aren’t entirely wrong. However, Johnny is a transgender person, living the life of a woman, but at times that of a man. The technical term for this third gender on the island is… fa’afafine. Johnny is also called Jaiyah by the members of the team who accept her/him, especially with such commitment to the game.

The drama of the film is all building up to South Pacific games – the team steadily keeping up its reputation for losses. But Rongen comes to prepare them for qualification matches for the World Cup, enlisting the presence of the expatriates, pressurising them all during their training regime.

If you don’t want to spoil the ending, skip this paragraph. Clearly from the dynamic of the film, the team is destined to have a victory, even if it is just one. They defeat Tonga. It is such a moment of triumph that the audience cannot help joining in the exhilaration and sentiment. They play well in a couple of other games, and, to the delight of the President of the club, find that they have jumped 18 places and are substantially away from the bottom of the ladder.

So, this is a sports film for those who love soccer and are interested in seeing a very weak team (even being defeated in one competition by Tuvalu!) build up a spirit and achieve a modest victory. The film is also an interesting sketch of life in American Samoa.

POLICEMAN

Israel, 2011, 106 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Nadav Lapid.

Policeman is a film that divided audiences in Israel in 2011. At that time, there were protests about wealth and the separation between rich and poor in Israel itself. The protests were widespread, but this film is a small focus, symbolising the protest. It had nothing to do with Arabs, despite initial suspicions. The protest was by young Israelis against wealthy Israel.

The film was divided into two parts: the first half shows one of the police, his tenderness towards his pregnant wife, their ordinary life, families. It also shows a group of Counter-terrorist police and their camaraderie, getting on well together. They have been accused of using more violence than necessary but have a plan that their sick colleague, suffering from terminal cancer, will sign the documents to say that he was responsible. He agrees to this.

In the meantime, we are introduced to a group of protesters, idealistic, allegedly not wanting violence and preferring to use poetry and images, speeches, to plead to wealthy Israelis. The leader comes from a wealthy background. In the event, they choose to protest at a wedding, taking a billionaire and his wife captive, as well as their son and his bride, taking them from the ceremony itself and the joy of the photographs. They interrogate their captors, preach at them. One of the group has been shown in more detail, going home to his father who was a protester in the past, who then joins his son and the group in this protest, realising that they will be killed.

All comes together when the Counter-terrorist squad arrives, plans the attack, chooses their weapons. They do attack and all the protesters are killed. And that is where the film leaves its audience.

1. An interesting Israeli film? For Israeli audiences? At the time? Protests and marches and criticism of the gap between rich and poor? Symbolised in this film? A film for international audiences?

2. Israel, Tel Aviv, families and homes, celebrations? The life of the Counter-terrorist group, on the town, at the beach, camaraderie? The contrast with the protesters, their wealthy backgrounds, their meetings? The world of the wealthy, the wedding, the billionaires? The confrontation in the bare room? The attack by the unit?

3. The structure of the film: the introduction to Yaron and his wife, the counterterrorists, their work together, the authorities, the pending case, responsibilities? The transition to the terrorists, their work together, the plans, Oded and his father, the build-up to the confrontation? The wedding, the two groups coming together in conflict?

4. Yaron, the opening with his wife, tenderness, soothing her with oil, anticipation of the baby? Their going out, the meals, the family? Yaron and his character, with his friends, fooling around, wrestling, at the beach, at the cafes, drinking? The particular characters, distinctive? The colleague with the cancer, taking him to the hospital, the diagnosis? His stiff upper lip? The plan that he should take the blame for the accusations of their violence in the arrest of a terrorist? Reporting to the authorities who accepted this? Yaron and his love for his wife – but his flirting with the waitress at the cafe?

5. The protest group, the young girl, her background, her family, using poetry and imagination to make a point? The writing, the rehearsing? The leader, his wealthy background? The other member of the group? Oded and the scenes at home, the background of his father and protest, his father locking him in the room? Finally letting him out, participating in the terrorism?

6. The wedding, the photos, everybody included, the background of people involved, companies, wealth, husband and wife, the son, the bride?

7. The protesters, taking the two couples, cuffing them, in the basement room? The accusations? Reading the declarations? The reaction of the people, especially the bride and the girl abusing her, not a woman only a bride? The billionaire, herded and his panic, shooting him dead? The reactions of the group? The father and his words, knowing that they would die? The focus on the girl, her seeming fragility, her determination?

8. Yaron and the birth of his child?

9. The assembling of the Counter-terrorist police, the plans, the weapons, the attack, opening the door, the shootings?

10. The critique of class distinctions in Israel, rich and poor, the role of the police, terrorism? Internal terrorism?

THE BAY

US, 2013, 88 minutes, Colour.
Will Rogers, Kristin Connolly.
Directed by Barry Levinson.

The Bay is a brief film, with touches of horror, in the Blair Witch Project vein. In 1999, this film encouraged several sequels as well as many imitations, allegedly true stories, with the cast representing people going out with cameras to investigate something mysterious and then disappearing. One of the other consequences was the ‘Found Footage’ horror genre. These were films compiled from alleged found footage, like the Paranormal Activity films, video material with dates and times. There were others recounting invasions by zombies as well as other monsters overtaking cities.

This time the film is less emphasising horror but, rather, has an ecological message, in the vein of Jaws.

The day is 4th July. The place is a town on Chesapeake Bay. Everybody is celebrating – but then a woman, covered with boils, emerges from the bay and there are reports of thousands of dead fish on the surface of the water.

The film purports to be a documentary made by a reporter who experienced the day and tells us, face to camera, that authorities have covered up what happened behind the scenes. For some years she has been collecting material and this is what she has put together, reconstructing the day, showing the doctor at the hospital, the contact with experts on diseases, the role of the police, ordinary citizens and trying to cope. There is also explicit condemnation of the mayor, an exploiter, who has built a desalination plant which gives water to the vast chicken farms – and so provides a lot of excrement that goes into the Bay and is suggested as the possible ecological cause of the disaster and so many deaths.

It is a surprise to see that the film was directed by Barry Levinson, a citizen of Baltimore and Maryland, who had made a wide range of films, including the ecological horror film, Sphere. He won an academy award for directing Rain Man.

1. The film as entertainment? Touches of horror? Environmental message? Critique of authorities?

2. The plausibility of the plot, the thousands of dead fish and the effect on the environment? 4th July, the celebrations (echoes of Jaws), people in the water, the woman coming out, covered in boils, the blood, her wanting people to take her to the hospital, her bewilderment? People not responding? The beginnings of the spread of the virus, the deaths?

3. Chesapeake Bay, the town in Maryland, ordinary, holiday? Characters, enjoying themselves, shops? The couple in the boat sailing from North Carolina? Audiences identifying with the characters?

4. The tradition of the Blair Witch Project, the attempt at cinema verite, the hand-held camera work? The development of the style after Blair Witch? Its use in horror, cities being taken over, post-apocalyptic, zombie films…? This film in that tradition?

5. The ‘found footage’ genre? effectively used here? The opening with Donna, the talking to camera, the authentic touch, documentary touch? Her explaining the situation, and the visuals of the situation? Her explanation that she was a film student, collecting the material, getting it together to make a film, wanting it to be seen? The story behind what the public saw and the media reported?

6. The role of the mayor, genial, talking about developments, the water purification, the chicken market, the speeding up of production? The recurring scenes of his optimism? The condemnation that his office was sent the material and there was no reply? Seeing him in the car with the policeman, the infected policeman, shooting his driver and himself? The car accident and the death of the Mayor? No ambulance because of the traffic disruption?

7. The visuals of people being infected, going to hospital, the waiting room, the surgery, the cutting of the limbs? People dying, in the street? The number of the dead?

8. The doctor, trying to cope in the hospital, eventually sending his staff home, the telecommunications with the experts, giving information, sending footage, the experts, trying to deal with what was happening, the range of experts, their opinions, the virus, analyses? Dealing with the police chief and getting no satisfaction?

9. The diving experts, their analyses, finding the polyps within the fish? Sending their information? The diving, the deaths?

10. The couple on the boat, the baby, arriving, bewilderment, the dead bodies, trying to ring the family, the disbelief at the other end of the phone? The husband infected, dying? The wife hurrying away with the baby to save it? Her not giving any information to Donna for her film?

11. The police, in the car, going to the house, the infection? The later return? Police trying to deal with the situation?

12. The device of showing the time and the date, the documentary style of giving information and the passing of time, coping and not coping with the outbreak?

13. The range of characters, the performances, including Donna and her cameramen, together, documentary impression rather than drama or fiction?

14. The impact of this kind of film, ecological message, the excrement from the chicken farms going into the bay, affecting the fish, the dire repercussions for humans? Ecology and money and profit?

THE FAMILY MAN

US, 2000, 126 minutes, Colour.
Nicolas Cage, Tea Leoni, Jeremy Piven, Josef Sommer, Saul Rubinek, Don Cheadle.
Directed by Brett Ratner


Jack Campbell farewells his girlfriend, Kate, leaves for England and a successful banking career. He forgets her. Thirteen years later, he is at the pinnacle of his profession, an expert in company takeovers and very persuasive in the boardroom. Success and wealth are before him.

It is Christmas Eve. He walks home in the snow encountering a hold-up in a store. Unexpectedly, he
he offers to help the owner who does not believe his street customer has a winning lottery ticket. But it is Jack who is the winner when the hold-up man turns out to be an 'angel' who offers Jack a glimpse of what his life with Kate might have been,

Jack wakes up on Christmas morning with Kate and with two children. He has been married for thirteen years, works for his father-in-law as a tyre salesman. Jack tries to cope with this new situation and adapt to a more friendly and loving atmosphere - something he has no practice in doing. He also uses his ingenuity to cover over gaps in his knowledge. While he yearns at times for his old life, even going into the company office and seeing what might have happened without him, he finally realises that he loves Kate and really appreciates what it is to have a family.

When his angel returns him to his old life, he is unwilling to go. He had forgotten a message to ring Kate and does so. He finds that she is a successful businesswoman on the verge of going to Paris. They have coffee and Jack describes the life that could be theirs...

A pleasing Christmas-time movie - plenty of sentiment and goodwill, but with some sharp lines and quips that undermine the sweetness a little but add to the entertainment. The writers have surely seen It's a Wonderful Life, probably several times, and have given us a variation on its theme of someone having a second chance and realising what the world would be like without them.

The hero is an unlikely Nicolas Cage, who carries off the romance and comedy with panache. His character, Jack, is a 'hot-shot' tycoon, a company and people manager, who, without realising it, shows that he really does have a generous heart deep down by risking his life for a stranger during a hold-up in a store. A 2000 alternative to Capra's angel, Clarence, (or a Dickens' 'Ghost of Christmas that Might Have Been') in the form of streetsmart Don Cheadle, offers Jack a chance to get ' a glimpse' of a different life had he married his sweetheart, Kate, and not gone to England and become a financier.

Bewildered when he wakes up in a strange house complete with Kate as his wife and with two children, he has to live his alternate life as a family man. As we would guess, he would have been a far nicer person as a New Jersey tyre salesman. This career would have been humdrum, but he would have been happy.

This is familiar material. In fact, it is very similar in plot to the earlier movie, Me, Myself, I which has a female version of the story, where Rachel Griffith finds herself living the family life she might have had. This movie is played well by Cage and by Tea Leoni as his newly-discovered wife. It's about integrity and having a heart.

1. A Christmas story? What if…?

2. The opening in the 1980s, the airport? The trip to England, pledges of love, Leone’s apprehensions that the relationship will break?

3. 2000, Jack and Wall Street, the offices, hotels? The contrast with Leone in New Jersey? Home, tyre sales, the streets? The musical score?

4. The title, expectations? The parallels with It’s a Wonderful Life?

5. The fantasy, what if…? Cash and his offering a glimpse of an alternate life?

6. The airport, Jack and Kate, in love, the trip to England, the possibilities for career, Kate wanting him to stay?

7. Jack, his age, affluent, clothes, apartments, his relationships, women in his apartment? The company, his status, advice, control, walking in and out, his dealings with Peter Lassiter, Alan? The issue of the merger, Christmas Eve, the secretaries commenting, his staying behind? His sense of achievement?

8. The worker, his tension, going out, wandering the street on Christmas Eve?

9. The episode with the gun, Cash and his presence, Jack risking his life? Doing a good deed, the possibilities for him to lead a good life?

10. Cash, a contemporary angel, the situation? Talking with Jack? The offering of a different life, a glimpse? Jack meeting him in the shop, asking for help, his not getting any? Later in the film, the drive, Jack’s choice and leaving him with it?

11. Jack waking, in bed, the shock to see Kate, the kids? His knowing the truth throughout all these sequences? The others not knowing? Knowing his alternate life?

12. His learning about the alternate life, the photos, the friends, Kevin and his explanations? His father-in-law, his company, his illness, Jack having to step in, his work in the tyre market, the other members of the staff, his office, having to learn? Seeing him in action? Kate, her life, sacrificing her work, the marriage, her joy with children, the pro bono law work, not bringing in much money? His shock about her sensibilities? His wanting to buy the expensive suit? The green suit that she bought him? The anniversary gifts and his forgetting? His being attracted to the baby, having to clean it up? His daughter, her knowing something of the truth, her getting him information, school? The parties, the friends? The effect? His relationship with Kate, falling in love with her again? Her exasperation? Not understanding him, his going out and disappearing? His career thwarted, his ambitions – but the possibility of a more personal life?

13. Lassiter, the car, coming to the station, Jack and his seeing the newspapers about the merger, talking with Lassiter, proposing strategies, his visit to the office, his interactions with Alan and his threats, becoming assertive? The decisions, the possibilities?

14. Talking things over with Kate, the regrets about his career, the possibility of doing something good? Cash not giving him any answers, his having to make them for himself?

15. Jack and his opting for his family? The good dimensions of the film?

SPRING BREAKDOWN

US, 2008, 84 minutes, Colour.
Amy Poehler, Parker Posey, Rachel Dratch, Seth Meyers, Amber Tamblyn, Missi Pyle, Sophie Monk, Jane Lynch, Mae Whitman.
Directed by Ryan Shiraki.

Spring Breakdown is quite a silly movie – but entertainingly so. Enjoyment will depend on audience response to the stars, creditable comedians in their own right. From the spoof title, it is clear that this comedy is a parody of Spring Break films – although they are indulging in their style at various times.

The film opens in the early 90s with the three central characters performing on stage at college. They perform with great enthusiasm a rather staid song – they are fans of Amy Grant. Flushed with achievement, they go to take a bow and the whole audience is gob-smackedly silent. They are the college ‘dorks’ or whatever the phrase for female nerds was at that particular period.

Move on 15 years. They don’t seem to have improved much. They meet together, talk about what they have achieved, make special pizzas. Amy Poehler talks about going to a graduation ceremony. It is for dogs and their owners – including one blind man who responds very well to her and whom she invites to an Amy Grant concert, but when he feels her face he gives up. He is played by Amy Poehler’s then-husband, Will Arnett, with whom she performed in various films and television programs. Rachel Dratch, the most geeky of the three, Judi, is in a relationship with a man whom everybody can see is very openly gay and catches him with the pool attendant. As regards interesting jobs, Parker Posey’s Becky, she has the best, she is on the staff of a Texas Senator, doing many office management jobs.

A great benefit of this film is the presence of Jane Lynch as the Senator, very much the Texan, very much out loud, with a gun, insulting people, and possibly the next vice president of the United States. The other guest performer in the film is Missi Pyle as the proprietor of a fairly rundown hotel in the Spring Break resort, full of zest, into every activity, even joining the rather conservative group for their final performance.

What will the three do for their vacation? Becky is asked to go down to the resort to keep an eye on the Senator’s daughter, played by Amber Tamblyn, very much in the vein of what the three were like back in the early 90s. However, she has lost her boyfriend to the glamorous student and is just determined to kick over the traces. But, if she does and is publicised, she undermines the chances of her mother’s promotion. She goes around with two rather reserved friends, one of whom is played by Mae Whitman.

Off the three go, and they immediately get caught up in the atmosphere of the Spring Break which looks like any of those others Spring Break movies with students in swimming gear and bikinis, while drinking, dancing - extroverts en masse - and wet T-shirt competitions…

Amy Poehler pals up with a glamorous group – who are ignorant but very religious in their manners – and she becomes their coach for the dancing competition, and drinks a lot. Rachel Dratch is tricked into drinking more than one shot and that is the end of her as regards sobriety, getting caught up with the young people, finding herself in bed with a tall handsome young man who wakes up beside her, bewildered. Parker Posey keeps to herself but has to intervene to save the Senator’s daughter, only to get caught up in female salsa wrestling, all kinds of photographs, and having to face the music when the Senator turns up.

They all join in a final performance for the competition, joined by Amber Tamblyn and her friends as well as Missi Pyle. Once again, the audience and the judges watch in complete silence and bewilderment. However, they start, cry against men – and everybody cheers them on.

Who knows what will become of them after the film ends! Quite amusing while on screen.

CHILD’S POSE/ POSITIA COPILULUI

Romania, 2013, 119 minutes, Colour.
Luminata Gheorghiu, Bogdan Dumitrache, Ilinca Goia, Vlad Ivanov.
Directed by Calin Peter Netze.

For audiences who are drawn in immediately to this film, its visual style and techniques, its portrait of a 60ish woman, there will be no problem. For audiences who are not immediately drawn into the film, who find the hand-held camera work and the simple moving of camera to focus on one person in a conversation and then on the other, they should wait for 10 minutes or so when there is a sudden announcement of plot development the changes the whole film.

The Romanian title of the film is not just simply a child’s pose, rather it is a technical term for how the victim of a road accident is positioned on the road. In this film, the victim of the accident is a child.

The film received many awards, including the Golden Bear at the Berlin film Festival of 2013. As the film progresses, and the delineation of characters becomes more powerful, and as the moral dilemmas become more focused, as well as critique of Romanian class distinctions, there is little doubt about the power and quality of Child’s Pose.

There have been many possessive mothers portrayed on screen, but the performance of the Luminata Gheorghiu is outstanding. Right from the start, when she is talking to her sister-in-law and complaining about her son’s seeming disdain for her, we realise that she is a woman who is focused on herself, on her own feelings, and has a world view that centres on herself. We see her in conversation. We see her at her birthday party, mixing with the socially wealthy in Romania. We see her present at an opera Masterclass. She has a comfortable life, separated from her husband, but still possessive of her adult son.

With the news of the accident, she goes at once into self-serving mode, ringing police authorities with whom she is acquainted, challenging the police in their own precinct, dominating her son and wanting him to change his official statement, especially about the speed at which he was driving when he overtook a car and the accident occurred. She even arranges a meeting with the other driver, wanting him to change his statement, and manoeuvring with him for a payoff. She goes to clean out her son’s apartment, has a meeting with her former husband, her son and his partner, whom she does not like at all.

As the film goes on, we realise what a smothering monster she is, told by her son’s partner that she is ‘not the nicest person in the world’, an understatement.

And, yet, with the performance, and while we despise so much of what she does, we do realise that there is a concern about her son that evokes, or could evoke, some sympathy.

The son is a weak character, showing the results of his mother’s control of him, her ’smother-love’, not at all living up to her description, at length, of what he was like as a boy and as a growing adult.

Much truth is told in conversations, especially about the son’s partner and her sexual relationship with him and his not wanting children, a shock to the mother. Eventually, the son speaks more plainly to his mother. The culmination is a visit to the parents of the dead child, a very powerful sequence with all concerned – and some final emotional moments where the audience sees what is happening but does not hear and has to assume that there is some resolution to the film.

The director’s use of the hand-held camera is still dominant in the film, but one is so drawn in by the characters and the situation and their handling and mishandling of it, that attention is devoted predominantly to the characters and their self-revelation.

1. Acclaim for the film, awards? The Romanian film industry, its strong reputation in the early 21st century? Subjects, style?

2. The title, the boy who was killed or Babu? The implication of the title in the positioning of the body in an accident? Seems of mothers and parents?

3. Camera style, hand-held, moving from subject to subject in conversations, dark scenes, a sense of naturalism, realism? The editing? The musical score?

4. The portrait of Cornelia as a person, as a mother? Her initial chatting with her sister-in-law, her complaint about her son, her focus on herself? The criticism is of her son’s relationship with Carmen, her unhappiness? Separation from her husband? Confiding in her friend? At home? The party, her friends, her position in society? The presence of the masterclass? A rage, life, style? Summoned from the class? The news, its effect, her phone calls, her stubbornness, her emotional response, contacting police chiefs? Concern about her son, about herself? Going to the police station, the arguments with the staff, domineering? Concerns about herself? All the action focused on her? Talking with her son, the situation? Wanting him to change his statement and the speed at which he was going? Her tidying his house? With her husband, the dinner, the comments that she dominated her husband, party in her hands, the reaction? With her son, the tensions? The arguments about the accident? Going to see the witness, his explaining with diagrams the reality of the accident, the overtaking, the hitting of the child? The discussions of the bribe, her control? His one-upmanship? Meeting Carmen, her attitudes, discussions about her son, Carmen’s role? Carmen and the reality, explaining Babu is not wanting children, his sexual behaviour, the reason for the separation? Babu not letting Carmen let his mother in? The decision to go to the house of the family? The argument with Babu, his barbs against his mother, in the car, asking Carmen to go into the house with her, sitting with that parents, her version of her son, over praising him, offering the cash, the father’s refusal, wanting to go to the funeral, the father advising against? Talking with the mother, the son who survived, Cornelia losing her only son? Babu going to the gate, meeting the father, the audience seeing them at not hearing them talk, the handshake, the reconciliation? Babu getting back into the car, his mother with the commission, leaving?

5. The situation of the accident, the Babu and his tailgating the driver, the comparison of cars, wanting to overtake, the driver and his going slowly, Babu overtaking, hitting the child? The child crossing the freeway, his father is upset, blaming himself for not telling his child not to cross? Babu and his lack of responsibility? Coping, the law, the moral issues, the police in the investigations, the accusation is that the police were corrupt?

6. Babu, his life, his mother describing his childhood, boyhood, studying for his degree? His life, the reality, cowardly, the relationship with Carmen, her daughter liking him, not wanting children, his sexual behaviour, but his getting out of the car and shaking the hand of the father?

7. Barbers father, support, the phone calls from his wife, but not intervening?

8. Carmen, her relationship with Babu, her child, living with him? Attitudes, her life, the separation, her explanations? Accompanying Cornelia into the house?

9. The family, the anger, the father with the bat and his attack at the police station, at home, listening, refusing the cash, not wanting them to go to the ceremony? The talk with Babu and the handshake?

10. A form of social realism, critique of Romanian society, classes, responsibility, manipulation of the law?

11. A powerful portrait of a dominating and possessive mother?

CANOPY

Australia/Singapore, 2013, 84 minutes, Colour.
Khan Chittenden, Tzu-yi Mo.
Directed by Aaron Wilson.

Canopy, in the title, refers to the luxuriant jungle growth outside the city of Singapore. It becomes a protection for an Australian soldier, his parachute caught in a tree and having to cut himself down and make his way through the jungle to escape the Japanese.

The setting is 9th February, 1942, just two months after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. It is surprising to realise how swiftly the Japanese attacked so many of the countries of the Pacific, ranging from China to Australia in those early months of 1942. They took Singapore, occupied it, leading to Winston Churchill’s decision to draw a line at Singapore and not committing any forces to defend below that line. The film opens in darkness, with only sounds, of talking, music, then of explosions and the audience realising what has happened in Singapore.

The Australian soldier has to make choices of what he will carry on his trek through the jungle, relying on a compass. Japanese patrols pass close by him and he is successful in hiding. Then, suddenly, he bumps into another person and the two of them shape up to fight. However, the newcomer is able to explain that he is Chinese and the two bond together, no longer two men alone, lonely in the jungle, trying to survive.

There is pathos in the character of the Chinese, especially when he is wounded and the Australian has to sew his wound, causing great pain to the Chinese.

This is a different story about Singapore and its fall. There was larger scope in such films as A Town like Alice and Paradise Road. This scope is small, over a day or more, two men’s brief experience of war.

There are some moments of dreams, remembering home in Australia, nightmares of what had happened in the jungle, and a sad but hopeful final glimpse of the Australian soldier back home after the war.

Khan Chittenden portrays the soldier. This is Aaron Wilson’s first feature film – illustrating talent and craft, an appeal to an arthouse audience for atmosphere, but multiplex audiences will find it too slow moving for adrenaline tastes.

1. An Australian- Singapore production? Memories of World War II? The fall of Singapore, the experience of war, the Japanese invasion and occupation? Australian involvement? Chinese involvement?

2. The title, the jungle and its growth, covering, protection, assent to the sacred? The vivid visuals of the impact? Musical score?

3. The introduction, 9 February 1942? Black screen, music, voices, the attack, explosions?

4. The man hanging in the tree, his parachute caught, unconscious, awaking, hearing the sounds, cutting himself down, choosing what to save, assessing it, carrying it? The jungle terrain? The mud, the water, the creek, the trees, the opportunity to drink and wash?

5. His trek, hope, the destination, uncertain? With the compass? Hearing the Japanese advance? Hiding? Day and night passing?

6. Bumping into the Chinese, mutual fear, fists, the Chinese indicating who he was, the Australian becoming calm?

7. Company for each other, helping each other, not feeling alone? The Japanese patrols, their falling into the grass, hiding? Offering the chocolate to the Chinese?

8. The attack, the Chinese being wounded, the Australian sewing his wound, the pain, the blood, having to keep silence? Surviving?

9. Finding the dead Chinese, the soldier’s grief?

10. The Japanese, the patrols, on the bikes?

11. Hiding in the tree trunk, Jim dreaming about his wife, standing at the gate, the field? Dreaming of what he had experienced? The Chinese and his dreaming? His putting the hand over Jim’s mouth to silence him? Waking, looking at the Chinese – the close-up?

12. Being captured, the Chinese, his pain, the Japanese, the threat with the gun, his death? Jim and his being dragged on the back of the truck? The transition to the truck on the road in the country? Jim, older, standing with his back to the field, contemplating?

13. The experience of war, survival, friendship? The relevance of this kind of story today?