NOAH

US, 2014, 138 minutes, Colour.
Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connolly, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, Anthony Hopkins.
Directed by Darren Aronofsky.

Noah has been produced as a big budget entertainment movie for world release. It is not a documentary, and it is not a visual aid to study of the book of Genesis. It is the brain-child of writer-director, Darren Aronofsky. Commentators note that his dramas are preoccupied with a range of obsessives, Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, The Black Swan. Noah joins their obsessive company.

The film is divided into two parts: the establishment of the character of Noah and his family, his sense of mission, the building of the Ark. This part plays very much like an epic movie, or one of those Marvel Comics movies. The second part has the family on the Ark, focuses on the character of Noah, especially his interior life, his doubts, his questioning of his mission. The way the film is written and performed may remind audiences of Greek tragedy, or of Noah being something like a King Lear. The popular audience will appreciate the first part of the film but might find the second part hard going. A more thoughtful audience will probably appreciate the second part, possibly wanting to forget the first part.


Religious audiences will immediately realise that God is not mentioned at all in the film. Rather, the makers have opted to use the term, The Creator. In fact, this alternative to God, works particularly well, reminiscent of the creation accounts and emphasising The Creator’s intentions in making the world and all living things, including humankind. This leads to what could be called a subtext about creation, the environment, and ecological message. But, throughout the film, it is alluded to so often, and then made explicit, that it becomes something of an instruction about care for the world.

On the other hand, The Creator, according to Noah’s experiences, is The Destroyer.

There is an interesting section of the film when Noah and family begin their Ark journey. Noah recites the key Genesis 1 text of the days of creation and there are visuals to illustrate each of them, a sequence that is very effective.

Noah has an enemy, Tubal-Cain?, who has killed his father and defies Noah, offering another variation on the Genesis theme, when Tubal-Cain? stows away on the Ark. He is given a speech, using the old translations of Genesis 1, about the role of humans to subdue creation. He upholds old values of domination rather than respect for creation and the environment.


A particular difficulty is the variation on the Genesis text about the three sons of Noah taking their wives on board. This time only Shem has a wife, the rescued orphan girl. Noah has become so obsessed by this time that he threatens to kill the child if she is a girl and predicts that, if it is a boy, he will be the last of the humans to die. Ham has gone amongst the people to seek a wife to take on to the Ark, but is thwarted by his father, later resenting him (and giving support to the stowaway, Tubal-Cain). This means that the film raises the question of how the human race is to continue, the same question that is implicit in the story of Cain, Seth and their descendants and how children came to be.

This gives people the opportunity to discuss the Noah and Deluge story, what it meant in the times that the saga was created and handed on by word of mouth and finally written down, to discuss the religious and theological meaning of the Flood story as part of the basic relationship between God and humans.

As regards the film itself, the locations have the look of the prehistoric, pre-apocalyptic (or post-apocalyptic for those fond of the many movies about dystopian societies are wars of destruction) and were filmed in the various terrains of Iceland. They are both interesting and exotic. The film also relies on computergraphics, especially for the animals assembling and going into the Ark, the flights of birds first, then the procession of animals, all computer-generated. Noah’s wife is able to induce hibernation by swirling a kind of incense.

While the film makers actually built an Ark, using the specifications in the book of Genesis, the flood and the sea of waters are also computer-generated. As, of course, are the Watchers, their building of the Ark, their defence against the enemies, the battle sequences and their ascension to the skies, experiencing their own distinctive Rapture.

The sequence in the book of Genesis, chapter 9, where Noah drinks of the wines that have been cultivated and lies naked, drunk, and his sons respectfully move backwards to cover him, is included in this film, but immediately after the waters subside. Noah is still in confusion about his mission his behaviour and becomes drunk, with his sons covering him as described in the Bible.

The production design and the costume designers have opted for quite anachronistic choices, manufactured material, metal buckets and pipes, armour and weapons. And the choice for clothing looks a variation on the modern, a denim and leather look and something of an ancient T-shirt culture.

Russell Crowe gives a very dignified performance as Noah and Jennifer Connelly has dignity, loyalty and patience as his wife. On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins gives only a slight variation on his Welsh-accented genial performance as Methuselah. Ray Winstone, a little more subdued than usual, is a vicious Tubal- Cain. Emma Watson, post-Harry Potter, is the orphan girl. Most of the principal cast are not Americans and it is interesting to note that Jennifer Connelly and Logan Lerman as Ham use a more English accent.

Some audiences may think the film a winds down in the second half concentrating as it does on Noah, his interior life, his questioning of the commission, his relentless understanding of The Creator’s intentions for destroying the world and wanting to remain faithful. This makes him something of a tragic figure, his growing older, less certain, mentally disturbed, crazed even to wanting to destroy his son’s child. He is like a tragedy figure, with a tragic flaw which will destroy him and those around him. As mentioned, it is something like a variation on King Lear.

The film-makers have counted on this being a commercial success. Religious audiences may well be interested, interpreting the story according to their beliefs. Audiences who have little interest in religion may not want to see the film, although they will support its environmental message and may judge Noah as being deluded by voices, a fundamentalist believer that this is God’s revelation. And with its striking differences between each part, word-of-mouth may well be cautious.

Noah is an entertainment, one might say of biblical proportions. But it is not a film that would be compulsory for students of the Bible.

1. Audience expectations of the film? Religious interpretation? Non-religious interpretation? Christian response? Jewish response? Muslim response – and Islamic countries banning the film? The impact from non-believers?

2. The range of Biblical interpretation, literal and fundamentalist, the reading of Genesis and creation and sin, the Fall, the generations, human sinfulness, the need for purging? The Deluge, Noah, the Ark, a new beginning?

3. 21st-century interpretations of the Bible, the creation story and creationism, the Bible story and an evolutionary interpretation, the focus on the environment? Care for the earth? The old translation of ‘subdue the earth’, the role of humans and the destruction of the Earth?

4. The work of the director, his range of films, obsessive characters? Noah joining them?

5. The location photography, in Iceland, pre-apocalyptic, looking like post-apocalyptic? The musical score?

6. The special effects, the forest appearing? The Watchers and their role? Building the Ark, the battles, their Rapture? The flood and the sea?

7. The Ark and the dimensions for building the set, from the Bible?

8. The anachronistic clothing, tools, implements? Did this matter?

9. The introduction to the three icons and their recurring throughout the film: the slithering snake, the apple on the tree, the silhouette of Cain bludgeoning Abel?

10. The interpretation of Genesis, symbols, creation, sin, the Fall, murder and brutality? Noah and his reciting Genesis 1 and the seven days of creation to the family, the visuals – to be interpreted in a creationism way, in an evolutionary way?

11. Russell Crowe as Noah, his gravitas, age and ageing? The patriarch, with his family, strong character? As a child seeing his father murdered? His love for his wife, his sons? Wanting their survival?

12. The film using the title The Creator? An expression of faith? Or not? Noah and his experience of The Creator, speaking with him, inspired by him, dreams, voices, sense of vocation, his inner life?

13. The desire to travel, following The Creator’s inspiration? The difficulties of the terrain, the dead bodies in the pits, the finding of the little girl, alive, wounded, the decision to save her, carrying her on the journey?

14. Arriving at the mountain of Methuselah, his age, living in the cave, his desire for berries? How did he survive with food and water in the cave? The children bearing a gift? His potion and giving it to Noah, his drinking it, the effect in his consciousness, vision? Noah’s wife and her visit to Methuselah, pleading with him to save the family? The visit of Ila, explaining that she was barren, Methuselah touching her and healing her? The final scene of Methuselah in the forest with the berries, his death?

15. Noah and the family settling, the sense of doom, the evil humans, the destruction? The response of The Creator?

16. The conception of the Ark and the flood? The building of the Ark?

17. The Watchers, visualised like trolls or transformers? 21st-century audiences familiar with action epics accepting this? The Giants of the book of Genesis? Fallen angels? The rebellion, encased in rock, ability to communicate, talking with Noah, the importance of their actually building the Ark, defending the family and the Ark from the attack of Tubal- Cain and his followers? Their being wounded – the rock falling away, their light ascending to heaven, a Rapture?

18. Noah getting older during the building of the Ark, the children becoming adults? Shem, his work, his love for Ila, her not being able to bear children? The prospect of going on to the Ark and the destruction of all women? Her being healed, the love-making with Shem? Her pregnancy?

19. Ham, rebel, wanting a wife, going to the city, searching, finding the girl in the mass grave, rescuing her, love for her, the communication, the attempted return, her being crushed by the enemy? His resentment towards his father?

20. Tubal- Cain, the leader of the humans, a warrior, his character, the confrontations, interactions with Noah as he visited him in the city? Religious or not? Perceptions of The Creator? Leading the attack on the Ark? Battling the Watchers? His getting into the Ark?

21. The birds and animals, instinct drawing them to the Ark, two by two, settling in the Ark, Noah’s wife and the incense leading them to loss of consciousness, hibernation? Surviving the deluge?

22. The second part of the film, like a Greek tragedy, King Lear? Noah and his becoming much older, crazed, hearing the voices, his sense of The Creator’s will, The destroyer? The voyage? His explanation of the end of the human race, the last human to die? His decision about Ila’s child? His wife and
her challenging him, the plain talk, her love and devotion, but that he was going too far?

23. Ila, her fear, the pregnancy, not being able to deliver, the birth sequence, the fact of twins, twin daughters? Afraid of Noah, daring him to kill the children quickly? His seeing them, the weapon, his heart being touched and his not killing them? Shem and his relief?

24. Ham, his resentment, Tubal- Cain and his stowing away, poisoning Ham’s mind, killing the animals for food, Ham’s shock? Being persuaded, luring his father to confront Tubal- Cain? Their interactions about the role of humans, to subdue the earth rather than care for it? The fight to the death?

25. Ham, the change? Some reconciliation with his father? The sending out of the birds, their return, finally discovering land?

26. Noah, his delusions, disillusionment, onshore, drinking, in the cave, his reasons, a sense of despair? His son seeing him the covering him and moving backwards? Ham not doing this?

27. The biblical text and the differences in the screenplay and their effect? The role of Tubal-Cane?, not taking wives onto the Ark as the text says, the problem in the past about procreation and the continuing of the human race, how would the earth be populated after this experience of the flood?

28. Religious film, a secular film? Both?

SIGNIS STATEMENT


PHILOMENA

Philomena is a good old-fashioned Catholic name, a bit like Christopher, names which derive from saints whose authenticity was questioned. So, Philomena is an apt name for the central character evoking a past Catholic Church, a strong and triumphant Church, which is now shaming so many Catholics around the world. This film has subject material that has been brought up in many government enquiries, particularly in Ireland where the key action of this film takes place. The fate of unmarried and pregnant young women in Ireland was often a kind of internment in institutions run by sisters, using the young women as Magdalenes in their laundries. Films which dramatised these situations include The Magdalene Sisters and the telemovie, Sinners.

Some reviewers have raised the question as to whether this film is an attack on the Catholic church, especially the reviewer of the New York Daily Post.
An atheist movie reviewer has criticized the new film “Philomena” as “another hateful and boring attack on Catholics,” saying that it unfairly shows the Church as exploitative and coercive.

“Anyone who is honest understands that it lambastes the way Irish Catholicism played out in 1950s Ireland, using falsehoods whenever necessary to underscore the point,” said Kyle Smith, a movie critic for the New York Post.

“Some like ‘Philomena’ for that reason. Some think there should be a little more art than diatribe to a film,” he continued.
… “a witless bore,” “90 minutes of organized hate,” and “a diabolical-Catholics film, straight-up.”
This is a reminder that the Catholic Church has been criticised in a number of films, especially in the context of clerical sexual abuse. Catholics are being asked to examine the conscience of the Church and acknowledge more sinfulness than they might have imagined in years gone by. Whatever the stance of Philomena, it contributes to this examination of conscience.

The challenge of the film will be more extensive than others since it stars the ever-popular Judi Dench as Philomena and she gives one of her best performances, already nominated for awards. Philomena is getting widespread distribution.

Older Catholics, especially in English-speaking countries, could recount similar stories to those in the film: harsh attitudes towards these young women, severe and authoritarian behaviour of nuns and clergy. But, so many Catholics, while decrying this behaviour, remained steadfast in their faith – as does Philomena Lee, the actual subject of the film. She wrote a letter to Kyle Smith criticising his review and professing her faith.

The US Catholic News Service reviewer, John Mulderig, takes a more balanced approach in considering the Church issues:

… properly viewed, "Philomena" may serve to illustrate the dangers that can result when appreciation for the virtue of chastity degenerates into puritanical repression — and when objective moral truths are misused as judgmental bludgeons.

With the exception of one seemingly temporary crisis, moreover, Philomena herself is shown to cling tenaciously to the very faith by whose representatives she was so cruelly mistreated. In fact, her Gospel-based beliefs help to set up the contrast in personalities between the two leads on which much of the movie's drama — as well as many of its interludes of much-needed comic relief — turn.

Throughout their interaction, Philomena's religiously inspired enthusiasm for life, friendliness toward others and willingness to forgive are shown to be in stark opposition to Sixsmith's jaded, isolating air of condescension.

Mulderig makes the important point:Even so, the challenging material on offer here, including a conflicted but not fundamentally hostile outlook on faith.

And the film itself.

It was written by Steve Coogan, best known as a comic performer and writer, himself an ex-Catholic portraying journalist, Labour government adviser, Martin Sixsmith (also ex-Catholic), who worked with Philomena Lee in the search for the son who was suddenly taken from her when he was about six. While Coogan has written all the anti-Catholic comments in the film and Sixsmith demands an apology from Sister Hildegarde, morally intransigent in her attitudes towards the young women, declaring that they deserve their pain and suffering for their immoral behaviour, Coogan has devoted his energies to this story. (There is dramatic licence here since the actual Sister Hildegarde was dead.)

Audiences can forget that it was Coogan who also wrote the faith statements of Philomena as well as her criticisms of Sixsmith’s anger and seeming bitterness.

Judi Dench perfectly embodies Philomena, now elderly, a former nurse, who signed a document of silence about what happened to her and her son. She is a simple woman, not so quick on jokes, loves to recount the plots of Mills and Boons type novels. Martin Sixsmith decides to investigate where the boy might have been taken – which leads to the US.

The search is a blend of hope and disappointment, finally reaching a sad solution, once again highlighting the cruel decisions of the sisters concerning concealing information from Philomena and her son.

While the performances are powerful and the subject so serious, there is a great deal of humour (like the bit in the trailer where Philomena refuses a drink on British Airways, Martin telling her that it is free and she relenting, remarking that you have to pay for everything on Ryanair).

The director is the prolific Stephen Frears, a master of all kinds of genre. His other film with Catholic themes is Liam, a story of Catholics in Liverpool in the 1930s, written by Jimmy McGovern?.

Both Liam, in 2000, and Philomena, 2013, won the SIGNIS (World Catholic Association for Communication) award at the Venice Film Festival.

22nd July 2013

SIGNIS STATEMENT

THE CONJURING

The Conjuring is not exactly a film that would normally merit a SIGNIS Statement. However, it has been the subject of discussion in the media, especially about what the Catholic Church thinks of this kind of horror film based, allegedly, on actual events. (And, it made $42,000,000 in the United States alone in its first days of release.)

Not that it is not an interesting film, and delivers for its audiences enough scares and shocks for people to jump in their seats. The director, James Wan, was the director of the first Saw film and has made a number of horror thrillers, including Death Sentence and Insidious, to prove that he is more than adept at this kind of film.

The main interest is the theme of satanic possession, the presence of evil in the world, mediated through human beings, the experience of hauntings and the possibilities of exorcism.

The Conjuring is based on a story by Ed and Lorraine Warren, the latter acting as a consultant for the film, a Catholic couple who have been involved in investigating hauntings and possessions for many decades. Their pictures appear in the final credits as well as do the family who are the central focus of this particular film.

Because there are references to the Catholic Church in the screenplay, with the Warrens being Catholic, and having a familiarity with Catholic rituals, especially for exorcism, and consulting a priest about this particular case, many have thought that it is a Catholic film. However, it is difficult to say that The Conjuring is ‘a Catholic film’. The references are scattered, sometimes slight, relying on crucifixes and holy water, and the general statement that Hollywood writers of fond of, ‘it will need approval from the Vatican’, without explaining who in the Vatican, how or why this kind of approval is needed or given. This contrasts with the original The Exorcist, 1973, which drew on an actual case, had Jesuit advisers and used the text of the ritual exactly. It also contrasts with the film, The Rite, 2011, which showed audiences aspects of the course on exorcism currently available in Rome.
Later in the film, because the Vatican approval has not come through, Ed Warren performs the exorcism himself. The introduction to the film states that he is one of the few lay exorcists approved by the church.

This is really a haunted house film, all stops out. A family of father and mother with five daughters moves out of the city into an old house sold by the bank.

They should have checked on its reputation because it is connected, not with any Catholic history at all, but with descendants of a Salem witch of the 17th century, Satan worship in the 19th century which leads to human sacrifice and suicides. It is these characters who are haunting, wanting to get back into the world with their malevolence, taking possession of the mother (Lily Taylor subject to terrible torments), while inhabiting some of the daughters at times. So, there is religious background from the Protestant past. The haunted family is not religious at all, though the Warrens suggest it might be better if they were baptised.

But, ‘the Catholic thing’, is the background of the Warrens (Ed dying in 2006, aged 80) and Lorraine, now 86. They have been described as devout Catholics and this is taken for granted in the film. The most famous case, movie-wise, is that of the Amityville house and its haunting, filmed in 1978 as The Amityville Horror, with half a dozen sequels for television, and remade in 2005. There have been other films based on their cases, The Haunted, 1991, and A Haunting in Connecticut, 2009. They appeared in a number of television programs and are described as ‘paranormal investigators’, he a demonologist and writer, she a clairvoyant and medium.

While Ed Warren, played rather stolidly here by Patrick Wilson, mentions scepticism quite often, he and his wife, a sympathetic Vera Farmiga, give lectures which are packed out with eager students asking questions. There are some episodes where they visit a house and explain the sounds and creakings quite rationally. But it is a reminder that it is often easier to believe in a haunting than to believe in God, that the credibility of possession is more credible than that of a truly spiritual world. While the Warrens have been consistent and public in their work, there have been accusations of fraud and hoaxes.

So, The Conjuring is an entertainment of the ghosts/poltergeist/hauntings kind. The clever writers, Chad and Carey Hayes, have drawn on the conventions of the horror genre and borrowed, without depthing, some Catholic associations.

SIGNIS STATEMENT

March 27, 2014



NOAH

SIGNIS STATEMENT

March 27, 2014

NOAH

US, 2014, 138 minutes, Colour.
Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connolly, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, Anthony Hopkins.
Directed by Darren Aronofsky.

Noah has been produced as a big budget entertainment movie for world release. It is not a documentary, and it is not a visual aid to study of the book of Genesis. It is the brain-child of writer-director, Darren Aronofsky. Commentators note that his dramas are preoccupied with a range of obsessives, Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, The Black Swan. Noah joins their obsessive company.

The film is divided into two parts: the establishment of the character of Noah and his family, his sense of mission, the building of the Ark. This part plays very much like an epic movie, or one of those Marvel Comics movies. The second part has the family on the Ark, focuses on the character of Noah, especially his interior life, his doubts, his questioning of his mission. The way the film is written and performed may remind audiences of Greek tragedy, or of Noah being something like a King Lear. The popular audience will appreciate the first part of the film but might find the second part hard going. A more thoughtful audience will probably appreciate the second part, possibly wanting to forget the first part.


Religious audiences will immediately realise that God is not mentioned at all in the film. Rather, the makers have opted to use the term, The Creator. In fact, this alternative to God, works particularly well, reminiscent of the creation accounts and emphasising The Creator’s intentions in making the world and all living things, including humankind. This leads to what could be called a subtext about creation, the environment, and ecological message. But, throughout the film, it is alluded to so often, and then made explicit, that it becomes something of an instruction about care for the world.

On the other hand, The Creator, according to Noah’s experiences, is The Destroyer.
There is an interesting section of the film when Noah and family begin their Ark journey. Noah recites the key Genesis 1 text of the days of creation and there are visuals to illustrate each of them, a sequence that is very effective.

Noah has an enemy, Tubal-Cain?, who has killed his father and defies Noah, offering another variation on the Genesis theme, when Tubal-Cain? stows away on the Ark. He is given a speech, using the old translations of Genesis 1, about the role of humans to subdue creation. He upholds old values of domination rather than respect for creation and the environment.


A particular difficulty is the variation on the Genesis text about the three sons of Noah taking their wives on board. This time only Shem has a wife, the rescued orphan girl. Noah has become so obsessed by this time that he threatens to kill the child if she is a girl and predicts that, if it is a boy, he will be the last of the humans to die. Ham has gone amongst the people to seek a wife to take on to the Ark, but is thwarted by his father, later resenting him (and giving support to the stowaway, Tubal-Cain). This means that the film raises the question of how the human race is to continue, the same question that is implicit in the story of Cain, Seth and their descendants and how children came to be.

This gives people the opportunity to discuss the Noah and Deluge story, what it meant in the times that the saga was created and handed on by word of mouth and finally written down, to discuss the religious and theological meaning of the Flood story as part of the basic relationship between God and humans.

As regards the film itself, the locations have the look of the prehistoric, pre-apocalyptic (or post-apocalyptic for those fond of the many movies about dystopian societies are wars of destruction) and were filmed in the various terrains of Iceland. They are both interesting and exotic. The film also relies on computergraphics, especially for the animals assembling and going into the Ark, the flights of birds first, then the procession of animals, all computer-generated. Noah’s wife is able to induce hibernation by swirling a kind of incense.

While the film makers actually built an Ark, using the specifications in the book of Genesis, the flood and the sea of waters are also computer-generated. As, of course, are the Watchers, their building of the Ark, their defence against the enemies, the battle sequences and their ascension to the skies, experiencing their own distinctive Rapture.

The sequence in the book of Genesis, chapter 9, where Noah drinks of the wines that have been cultivated and lies naked, drunk, and his sons respectfully move backwards to cover him, is included in this film, but immediately after the waters subside. Noah is still in confusion about his mission his behaviour and becomes drunk, with his sons covering him as described in the Bible.

The production design and the costume designers have opted for quite anachronistic choices, manufactured material, metal buckets and pipes, armour and weapons. And the choice for clothing looks a variation on the modern, a denim and leather look and something of an ancient T-shirt culture.

Russell Crowe gives a very dignified performance as Noah and Jennifer Connelly has dignity, looyalty and patience as his wife. On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins gives only a slight variation on his Welsh-accented genial performance as Methuselah. Ray Winstone, a little more subdued than usual, is a vicious Tubal- Cain. Emma Watson, post-Harry Potter, is the orphan girl. Most of the principal cast are not Americans and it is interesting to note that Jennifer Connelly and Logan Lerman as Ham use a more English accent.

Some audiences may think the film a winds down in the second half concentrating as it does on Noah, his interior life, his questioning of the commission, his relentless understanding of The Creator’s intentions for destroying the world and wanting to remain faithful. This makes him something of a tragic figure, his growing older, less certain, mentally disturbed, crazed even to wanting to destroy his son’s child. He is like a tragedy figure, with a tragic flaw which will destroy him and those around him. As mentioned, it is something like a variation on King Lear.

The film-makers have counted on this being a commercial success. Religious audiences may well be interested, interpreting the story according to their beliefs. Audiences who have little interest in religion may not want to see the film, although they will support its environmental message and may judge Noah as being deluded by voices, a fundamentalist believer that this is God’s reveleation. And with its striking differences between each part, word-of-mouth may well be cautious.

Noah is an entertainment, one might say of biblical proportions. But it is not a film that would be compulsory for students of the Bible.

SON OF A LION

Australia, 2007, 92 minutes, Colour.
Niaz Khan Shinwari, Sher Alam Miskeen Ustad.
Directed by Benjamin Gilmour.

Some of a Lion is an impressive film, well worth seeing.

The writer-director, Benjamin Gilmour, had little experience of filmmaking before he went to live amongst the Pushtan tribes of north-western Pakistan. He collaborated with locals to make this film, using some of them in the key roles.

The context is Pakistan at the beginning of the 21st century, its long traditions, the role of the Mujahadeen in defying the Russian forces occupying Afghanistan. The Pushtans produce rifles and ammunition, continuing their warlike tradition. This is seen in the character of the father, who fought against the Russians, who is a devout and strict Muslim, who has a strong work ethic and imposes it on his only son.

The son symbolises the hopes and dreams of Pakistanis in the 21st century, respecting traditions, but not living the life of their ancestors, hard at work, with no education. In the middle is the father’s brother who had killed somebody in an accident and had to move to Peshawar where he lives a contemporary life and wants to enable his nephew to enrol in school.

One of the great advantages of the film is its location photography, the beautiful mountain scenery, life in the small town, the contrast with Peshawar.

The film is respectful of Islam but is also critical of its more puritanical interpretations of the Koran.

Interestingly, the film has various characters discuss the role of the United States in the Middle East, discussions about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and financial support to leaders in Pakistan.

The film offers an opportunity for audiences to immerse themselves in this particular way of life in Pakistan and its perspective. That it was made by an Australian is quite significant.

1. The quality of the film, the perspective on Pakistan, the North West Frontier, the 21st century, the historical heritage, change, the future? For the Pushtans?

2. An Australian production, the director going to Pakistan and wanting to make a film, the local collaboration, the dangers of filming for the director, his crew and the performers? The Australian perspective on Pakistan?

3. The impact of the location photography, the North West Frontier, the town, the streets and shops, homes, the mountains and scenery? Peshawar, modern, the streets, offices, school, Niaz and his wandering the streets?

4. The atmosphere after September 11, 2001? after the invasion of of Afghanistan? Iraq? The discussions about these events? Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction? About Osama bin Laden?

5. Attitudes towards the United States? Critique?

6. The title, Niaz and his father, and the relationship between the two? The father, the old traditions, a member of the Mujahadeen, its history, fighting against the Russians, defeating them? The Pushtan and making weapons? The military experience? The father hard on his son, severe work ethic, his having no schooling, therefore his son having no schooling? The boy, softer than his father? Parents and their expectations, children and their different dreams? The Muslim background, the father’s puritanical attitudes, prayer and rituals, the slaughter of the animal? Quoting the Koran?

7. Old Pakistan, the country town, the mountains? Shooting in the mountains? Working, making the guns? Niaz and his work with the artist? The television and the dancing girl, the father turning it off? The grandmother, keeping house, the way of life, the harshness? No escape for Niaz?

8. Pakistan, the political situation, the tribes, the warlords and chiefs, the remoteness of the capital? Peshawar as the local centre? American patronage of politicians?

9. Islam, devout following, the mats on the highway, prayer? The traditions, the Koran… Going to China to seek out knowledge…? The presence of the Taliban? Rigorous and puritanical attitudes?

10. Niaz, age 11, his being bullied, not having brothers and sisters, dependence on his father, his skill in shooting, his work? His uncle? The visit to Peshawar, going to the school, seeing the children, their asking questions about munitions? The boy and the music? Niaz and his love of music? Going to the dentist, the consultation and experts? The artist, Niaz and his decision to run away?

11. The father, not understanding anything about education, the grandmother and her care?

12. The uncle, his daughter, the uncle’s past history, the shooting accident, his having to leave the town, to go to Peshawar? The rumours about him?

13. The father going to the artist, not approving the artist?

14. The local shops, the handwork and Diaz participating?

15. The bully, Pite, his being beaten and Niaz helping with the injuries? Pite’s father and Niaz’s father asking him to stop the bullying? Expressing gratitude for Niaz helping with his son?

16. The issue of school, the enrolment, the principal and his phone call to the uncle? The uncle phoning his brother?

17. The local shopkeeper, hash?

18. The dentists – serious and humorous?

19. The father and his final decision, asking how long it would take to learn to read? Niaz and the possibility of a future and a different Pakistan?

RAMPART

US, 2011, 19 minutes, Colour.
Woody Harrelson, Robin Wright, Cynthia Nixon, Anne Heche, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Foster, Jon Bernthall.
Directed by Oren Moverman.

Rampart is a tough film, using the police genre, but not in unexpected ways. It is based on the screenplay by celebrated author, James Ellroy, who wrote Black Dahlia and LA confidential. Writer-director, Oren Moverman, worked on Ellroy’s screenplay. Moverman had worked with Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster earlier in The Messenger and utilises the talents very well here.

Rampart is a section of Los Angeles, the setting is 1999, the decade of riots and the Rodney King episode. Harrelson portrays Dave, a local policeman, a controller and open to corruption. He is also presented as racist and violent, and has been involved in the murder of a rapist some years earlier. He is interrogated by internal affairs and is confronted by the local Board. He has served in Vietnam and he is proud of that, his father being a policeman, and his intention being to clean up the city of Los Angeles. However, he is arrogant, throws his weight around with groups of young men, even with his own fellow-police.

In his private life, he has had two wives and two daughters. They live close by, in something of a commune. But the women are tired of his behaviour, his womanising, his violence, and they want separation.

The film has a very strong cast along with Harrelson. Cynthia Nixon and Anne Heche portray the two women and Brie Larsen is the older daughter. Sigourney Weaver is the internal affairs investigator. Audra McDonald? is a woman that Brown picks up at a bar. Robin Wright is a lawyer that Brown meets also at a bar and they begin a sexual relationship which is ambiguous because of her work as a lawyer. Ned Beatty portrays a friend of his father.

Fans of police films would not choose this as an entertainment – but it is a film which raises issues about police, racism, violence. Comparisons could be made with LA Confidential and The Gangster Squad, a film about crime boss in LA, Mickey Cohen.

1. The film based on the work of James Ellroy, his research into the LA police force of the decades, LA Confidential? The writer-director working on Ellroy’s script? The strong cast?

2. The police genre, usually glossy, this unvarnished and an unpolished film? The hand-held camera, the sense of realism, yet quite stylised?

3. The title, LA police force, the traditions, the 1990s, corruption, violence, racism?

4. Audience interest in the police force, in David Brown, changing sympathies towards him?

5. His behaviour, scaring groups of black youths, his racist attitudes and language, his brutality, physical and psychological, the precinct, with fellow police, chatter and talk?

6. In action, his partners, his forcing the officer to eat her fries? His participation in action, racist type, language, his background in Vietnam and its effect on him? His ambitions in the police force, to do the right thing, his ideas, crime and cleaning up LA?

7. His two wives, daughters, living in a kind of menage, meals together? His attitude towards his wives? towards his children? Helen and her ignoring him? Barbara and Helen, Catherine and Margaret, their feelings of betrayal, initiating divorce?

8. The picture of the daughters, age, school, the contacts? The young girl, friendly, at table? Helen visiting, going to understand her father, the conversation? Her dissatisfaction? His? The two girls visiting at the end? His love for them? Ambiguous attitudes from them?

9. Importance of the past case, Date-rape? The rapist’s death? Deliberate or not? The varying descriptions to different people, to the supervisor, internal affairs? Superiors?

10. Hartshorn, his friendship with his father, advice, support, issues of money, on the beach? Turning against him?

11. Internal affairs, his tone against the supervisor, the fact that she was female? The different interviews with her? The board and her presence on it, his attitude towards the board, his disregard? And yet his extreme articulation about the issues, his background with law?

12. Leaving home, going to the bar, the conversations with Sarah, talking, going back to her house, the sexual encounter, her puzzlement at his attitudes afterwards?

13. Linda, attracted to the bar, their talk, the sexual encounter? The friendship, the further contacts, the sexual attraction and tension? Her job with the lawl, seeking her out, his reaction? At the motel, strained relationship, his puzzlement? Her ousting him?

14. His collapse, his life and his wanting to control, his contact with General Terry, reliance, the cigarettes, leaving him?

15. His final admission and motives?

16. The police genre, the same but different?

MANDELA: LONG WALK TO FREEDOM

UK/Africa, 2013, 141 minutes, Colour.
Idris Elba, Naomie Harris.
Directed by Justin Chadwick.

Nelson Mandela was one of the most significant personalities of the 20th century. His life, and especially his endurance, if they were the subject of fiction, might seem exaggerated. But his story was well known all over the world, finally written by Mandela himself in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom. Now screenwriter, William Nicholson (Shadowlands, Nell, Les Miserables, Everest) has adapted the autobiography for the screen, a difficult task in compressing 94 years of life into 2 ½ hours screen time. It is clearly the material for a television mini-series. However, audiences will be pleased to have this cinema biography available.

The film is in the traditional biopic style, a fairly straightforward presentation of Mandela’s life. It follows his life chronologically, with some alerting sequences when he was a boy, his family, initiation ceremonies in the 1920s. We also see something of his early professional life as a lawyer, an excellent scene which sets a tone for the film where a black woman is accused of stealing a white woman’s lingerie, the woman in high dudgeon at being questioned by a black man who effectively wins the case for the accused, not without some humour. But, at this stage he is not politically active though sought after by the African National Council.

Injustices are dramatised effectively, and the humiliating treatment by the white population. With the legislation for apartheid in 1948, Mandela, who had married and had a family, opts for protest, leaving his wife and family, and becoming involved politically. He becomes increasingly radicalised, showing his abilities in leadership. As is well-known, after the failure of protest, he opts for some sabotage activity, shown briefly in the film, and he and his comrades are arrested, tried, and, to avoid making them martyrs, the judge sentences them to life imprisonment.

Many audiences will be aware of this part of Mandela’s life but it is interesting for it to be fleshed out, however briefly. It was at this time that he encountered Winnie whom he married. The group is sentenced to Robben Island, off the coast at Cape Town.

Again, audiences will know something of the 18 years he spent on Robben Island and the further nine years in prison on the mainland. But, it is dramatic to see the island, the cells of the prisoners, the courtyard where they worked, the quarry where they slaved, and, again, the humiliating treatment by the warden and the brutality of most of the guards.

For those interested in Mandela’s influence on South African politics, the film shows the discussions with the white politicians, with President De Klerk, the combination of shrewdness and practical idealism that marked Mandela’s ability to change South Africa. Ffter his release, there were riots and killings of traitors amongst the black Africans (shown graphically). But, in showing the broadcast where he spoke plainly, offered leadership, explaining that fighting the whites was a war that could not be one, we see him as the elder statesman, stressing peace. His final words in the film are about people not being born haters, their having to learn that, but that human beings are born with the capacity to love.

Idris Elba is able to capture the manner and the speech patterns of Mandela. Perhaps he is made to look too old before his time and audiences may focus on the make-up for the older Mandela, a bit too obvious. But this does not detract from the performance and the communication of the spirit of Mandela.

While the story of the man himself is familiar, and he is seen, not perfect, as strong, even with touches of heroic leadership, from his early years, it is the story of Winnie that is dramatically effective in the sense that she has to move from a devoted young woman and wife, mother of Mandela’s children, to a woman who is arrested, tortured, kept in solitary confinement 17 months, who becomes a leader, ever more embittered, alienated from her husband’s non-violent approach, becoming actively militant, even to military uniform, separating herself from her husband’s way of achievement, and their personal separation and divorce. Which is a sad, openly public, comment on the complexities of the anti-apartheid movement and the walk to Freedom.

Morgan Freeman made a great impression as Mandala in Clint Eastwood’s Invictus. He was played by Denis Haysbert in a little seen film of 2009, Goodbye Bafana), a drama of Mandela’s final prison years and his emergence on the world scene with a focus on the sympathetic guard, played by Joseph Fiennes, who is also dramatised significantly in this film. Other portrayals of interest include a 1987 biopic (worth looking at in retrospect) with Danny Glover and in two films about Winnie Mandela.

Long Walk to Freedom ends in 1994, Mandela is elected President, confounding the expectations of both black and white South Africans, unthinkable six years earlier when the discussions about his release began.

This is a worthy film, and an opportunity for audiences to obtain more knowledge about Mandela, about apartheid, about South African politics, and the extraordinary phenomenon that was Nelson Mandela himself.


1. The impact of this film? First released while Mandela was alive? Worldwide release after his death? Audience knowledge of Mandela, appreciation of him, seeing this film after the completion of his life and work?

2. His autobiography, adapted for the screen, the 2 ½ hours? It’s being seen as an overview, a portrait?

3. The African locations, the countryside terrain, the mountains, the villages, the rivers? Johannesburg, the 1940s, the streets and buildings, vehicles, government buildings, law courts? The further scenes of Johannesburg and the development over the 20th century? The musical score?

4. Sharpeville, Orlando, Soweto? In themselves, the various sections, better-off, poorer?

5. Pre-apartheid South Africa? The separations? The superior attitudes of the whites, the day-by-day arrogance, calling the men ‘boys’? The laws?

6. Legislation, separation, violence, the arrest of the drunk young man without a document, the consequences?

7. The title, the autobiography, the emphasis on the very long walk, the fact that it was a walk, the nature of freedom in South Africa? Audience awareness of pre-apartheid South Africa? Knowing Mandela’s life, especially his imprisonment and on Robben island, later? His time as president? His ultimate status?

8. A man of the 20th century, extraordinary, man of principles, the ultimate statesman?

9. As a boy, in the 1920s, life in the village, his dreams about the members of his family, his family at home, the initiation ceremonies, the painting, in the river, the rituals, his becoming a man?

10. The change to the 1940s, his studies, his poise, people calling him ‘boy’ in the street, going to the court, the woman accused of stealing from her mistress, his taking the case, pleading the case, the white woman in the dock and her melodramatics of being insulted, the humour with the underwear, winning his case? The ANC members and their interest in him, his not being interested in politics? His personal life, at the club, relationship with women? His wooing his first wife, the marriage, children? Her anger with him and leaving? His sympathetic assessment of his wife and hard on his own behaviour?

11. The protests, the issues, the crowds, the need for leadership, separating from his wife in the crowd, her going home, his not going home, joining the protests, politicised?

12. The 1950s, the action in protest against the new apartheid, his learning, the encounters with Winnie, the courtship, in the countryside, the marriage? The further oppression, getting information about how to make bombs, the explosion and sabotage, the group being arrested, taken to court? The discussions between the group, and the prosecutors and defenders? Mandela as the first accused, the decision to plead guilty, even to die? Winnie in the court, on the television, her demeanour? The judge and his sentence, his explanation of not making them martyrs, life imprisonment?

13. The plane, landing in Robben Island, the warden and his speech, his social status, his own wealth and not needing to be there, making their life a misery? The guards, the brutal treatment? The regime, the cells, basics, the work, sitting in the rain, working in the quarries, smashing stone in the courtyard? His receiving the letter and the cut-outs in censorship? No visits, the change over the years, Winnie’s visit?

14. The group, the characters in person, the National African Council, their views, relying on Mandela’s leadership?

15. The 18 years, remaining the same, the routines, his ageing, the young men arrested and critical of him, growing tomatoes? His explanation of separate fingers, the hand together with force?

16. Winnie, the drama of her life, young, going to court, as a mother, the attacks on her house, not wanting police to touch her, not touch her children? The arrest, the brutal treatment, solitary, the physical examinations? 18 months? Ageing, the effect, the militancy, disagreeing with Mandela, visiting him?

17. The intercutting of world reactions, significant figures like Desmond Tutu, the financial situations and boycotts, sanctions? Protests?

18. Transfer from Robben Island, the dormitory and their all bring together, the better treatment?

19. The pressure on the South African government, the visit of the officials, the discussions? Mamdela’s standing firm? De Klerk and the meeting, his
integrity, Calvinist spirituality, political pressure and personal conviction? Mandela making no concessions? The group against his soul negotiations? The group vote, his disagreeing? His being released, media coverage, Winnie and her meeting him?

20. The pleasant guarded, his friendship with Mandela, supervising the visits, of Winnie, of the daughter and her meeting her father almost for the first time? His supervising the transfer from Robben Island?

21. Mandela’s freedom, the effect, the riots, the young and yet angry South Africans, Winnie and her military uniform?

22. The separation of husband and wife? Their long life together? Her not being able to tolerate his stances? His kindly words about her?

23. His radio speech, a voice of leadership, anti-violent, relying on the vote? The importance of peace? A statesmanlike address?

24. The election of 1994, the exhilaration of the people voting, the queues?

25. Mandela elected as President, his final words about hate not being natural, having to be learnt? Love being natural?

26. A portrait of his considerable achievement?

ANY DAY NOW

US, 2013, 98 minutes, Colour.
Alan Cumming, Garrett Delahunt, Isaac Levya, Frances Fisher, Gregg Henry, Don Franklin, Mindy Stirling.
Directed by Travis Fine.


In retrospect, some of the details of situations or character may not be as credible as they seem while seen on the screen. Nevertheless, while the film is there, it is often very, very moving.

It takes up quite a number of issues and gives the audience plenty to be emotional about and to try to understand. We are accosted, so to speak, at the opening when we realise that this is Alan Cumming as Rudy, performing as a drag queen in a club. During his number, he notices a very straight, up-and-down man has moved into the club. They talk, relate sexually, are approached by the police. When it emerges that Paul (Garrett Dillahunt) works for the DA’s office, it is clear that same-sex relationships will be a key issue for the film. The setting is 1979.

When Rudy goes home, a dingy place where he finds difficulty in paying the rent, he finds a boy with Down Syndrome, neglected by his slatternly mother. Another issue, the life of and care for a boy with Down Syndrome.

Rudy approaches Paul’s office for legal help, Paul is immediately unresponsive. However, the two men are attracted towards each other and Paul finds a solution, with the mother signing away the right to care for her son during her imprisonment and the two men looking after the boy. His name is Marco and he is portrayed with great sympathy by Isaac Levya. Another issue, temporary adoption and fostering, especially by a gay couple.

Because Marco is so sympathetic (it might have been more credible for the plot and the challenges for Rudy and Paul had he had some difficulties, temper tantrum, for instance, or become ill), audiences will really respond to the parenting by the two men and the response of Marco. They involve him in a school for special students, with a very sympathetic and affirming teacher.

Life wasn’t meant to be easy, and difficulties arise for the two men, especially in their going through the courts to gain custody. Initially, the judge (Frances Fisher) is wary of Paul’s challenge for her to listen sympathetically. She is handicapped by the attitudes of the times. The prosecuting lawyer (Gregg Henry) is aggressive, seemingly homophobic in his detailed interrogations of Rudy, his work, his behaviour, in exposing Marco to his way of life. Paul acts as the defence.

The film is not as predictable as one might have thought, leaving the audience with some emotion and a challenge to think through the realities of adoption, the role of the law, awarding a child to its mother, even when she is unable to care for the child.

There is quite some humour in the film, along with the pathos. Any Day Now offers an accessible story to audiences to help reflect on the issues.

1. A film many themes and issues? Emotional response? Intelligence response?


2. The title, the song? The range of songs and lyrics? Commenting on the action and relationships? Alan Cumming and his performance?

3. Los Angeles, 1979? Apartments, bars, district attorney’s office, institutions, the courts?

4. The opening with Marco, wandering? The reprise at the end, his continued wandering, the pathos of his death? His life in between?

5. Marco’s story, his neglectful mother, how affected? The loud music? Rudy finding the doll, giving it to him, not taking him to the authorities? Marco at 14 and 15? Down’s syndrome? His appearance, his behaviour? Intelligence? An agreeable boy? His mother’s disappearance? Rudy’s help? Taking him from the institution? Rudy and Marco going to Paul? Paul’s advice? The mother signing the documents for them to care of him? Their going to the court, the approval? Paul and his invitation them to move in? Marco and his eating donuts, the details of their life at home, Rudy telling stories with happy endings? His going to the club, during rehearsals, well-minded? His physical appearance, physical check-up, his needing glasses? His being involved in the classes? Singing the Star-Spangled? Banner, writing sentences, the approval of his teacher? His being taken again? The emotional hurt? Foster- parents, return to the institution? His weeping? Being taken to his mother’s house and saying it was not his home? His mother, the sexual behaviour, his being iin the corridor, walking away, wandering, ultimately dying?

6. The film as supportive of life? Fostering growth? The relevant legislation and judicial decisions, the mother, the good of the child? And the mother not being able to fulfil her obligations?

7. Rudy, singer, drag, the songs, the club, his companions? Paul at the club, reticence, in the car, the sexual behaviour, the police critical, Paul and his work and the district attorney’s office? His card, Rudy phoning, Paul not taking his call? The visit, shaming Paul? Paul going into action? Rudy’s personality, the landlord, difficulties with the rent, his work in the club, discussions with the singers? Noticing Paul? The sexual encounter, the police? The doll in the corridor, Marco and his mother, telling him off? Rudy’s finding Marco, compassionate? The clashes with the landlord? Affection for Marco, instantly? Going to the court, the mother’s papers, Rudy and Marco moving in? Life with Marco, happy, the home movies? The role of the law? The judge and her manner and decisions? Testifying? The prosecutor, the intensity of his questions, Rudy’s character, way of life, sexual behaviour, and its effect on Marco? The appeal, going to the top lawyer, the conspiracy from the DA’s office, the mother taking her son back?

8. Paul, the background of his story, in the closet, his marriage, divorce, coming to LA, going to the club, the sexual encounter, police? The phone call, Rudy’s visit, shaming him, the decision to help, his loving Rudy, Marco’s life, joy? The donuts? his secretary flirting with him, at the party, the DA and his observations, drawing conclusions? Having offered Paul a particular case, and believing that he was having an affair with the secretary? Firing him? Paul and his ideas? Take the case, the defence, advice to Rudy? His compassionate speech about Marco? The direction of the other lawyer?

9. The judge, application of the law, interpretations in 1979? Paul’s plea? Her decision, her motivation?

10. The prosecuting lawyer, hard attacks, homophobia?

11. The African- American lawyer, the discussions with Paul, taking on the case? Continuing to fight?

12. The mother, harsh, drugs, prostitution, arrest, prison, signing the document, prison, getting out, persuaded to take custody, the sexual behaviour, putting Marco in the corridor?

13. The Inspector, coming to the house, questioning Paul and Rudy? Offering testimony in court in support? The support of the teacher?

14. Issues of same-sex relationship, orientation, behaviour, private behaviour, criminal behaviour?

15. The issues of adoption, the adoption of the Down Syndrome child? Gay couples and their adoption, for and against? The issue of confusion of the child?

16. Look at 1979-1980? Perspectives now?

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER

US, 2014, 137 minutes, Colour.
Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L.Jackson, Robert Redford, Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders, Emily Van Camp, Frank Grillo, Toby Jones, Jenny Agutter.
Directed by Anthony Russo, Joe Russo.

Captain America: the Winter Soldier is the second in the series of Marvel comics on Steve Rogers, Captain America. Audiences were introduced to Captain America in the initial film of 2012, the story of Steve Rogers, a small weedy character who was transformed into Captain America. Captain America had been wounded in World War II but frozen until he was needed, thawing in the 21st century. Captain America has been popular – but the way that he is written, the all-time good guy, always doing the right thing, means that he is a less complex character and lacks the charisma of other characters, for instance, of Anthony Mackie as his friend, Sam.

In this film, Captain America is getting up-to-date with the 21st century, especially the Internet and technology. He is called to a mission where pirates have captured a ship and taken hostages, including some officials of SHIELD. His partner in this enterprise is the former KGB agent, the Black Widow, Natasha, played by Scarlett Johansson, obviously relishing the opportunity to get into the action. They are under the control of Nick Fury, played as in the other films by Samuel L. Jackson. He is now subordinate to the official, the Secretary, played by Robert Redford. Audiences will be surmising that Redford will turn out to be the villain and, of course, this is the case. It is interesting to see Redford agreeing to be in one of these blockbusters. And his villain is very urbane, quite phlegmatic, even in the face of defeat and death. He is not one of those ranting and raving villains.

The film begins with conversation and then moves to bam-bam-bam. This is the pattern of the whole film, conversations, then fights, conversations, then fights… There are car chases through the city, there are fights in space vehicles and on the them - all building up to a final split-second climax.

Harking back to the first film and the establishment of Hydra during World War II and its continuance into the 21st century (even to Gary Shandling having a walk-on role as a rogue Senator), the principal issue is fascism, a belief that there is a superior ruling class and all the rest of the populace should be subservient, that those in authority know best, that they can destroy what they consider weak in order to control, allegedly for the common good. At a time when there are wars in very many parts of the world as well as extremist governments, the message of Captain America is worth exploring.

For those who’ve seen the original film, there is an interesting unexpected twist which brings some drama to the whole proceedings and some complexity for Steve Rogers.

Fans will enjoy this particular episode, but it lacks something of the oomph of such films as for Thor and, especially, the Iron Man films.


1. The popularity of Marvel comics, characters, plots, good versus evil?

2. Captain America, the first film, establishing his background, World War II, the confrontation with Hydra, action capacities, frozen, his thawing? His personality? Insertion into the 21st century?

3. The title? The irony of it referring to Bucky? His role in the past? Friendhsip with Steve? His death, his wife, the transformation, working for Hydra, working for Pierce? His becoming Winter Soldier? To confront Captain America?

4. The contribution of action, stunts, special effects, fights, flying, his shield and defence, the technology?

5. SHIELD as being infiltrated? Hydra and its history? The pirate attack? Nick Fury and his, plan, the call to Steve Rogers and Natasha? The secrecy? Secretary Pearce? The plane, Rogers diving without a parachute? Arrival on the ship? The fights? Natasha arriving? Taking control? The hostages? The mystery?

6. The opening, Steve and Sam, running, the introduction, Sam later sheltering Nick Fury, the invitation to join in the mission, his own equipment flying, battles? Commitment to the future?

7. Nick Fury, his command in SHIELDED, his participation in other Marvel stories? Samuel L. Jackson and his style, the chase, his being caught, his relationships with Pierce, his being blocked out of all communication? His being sheltered by Sam? The pursuit, his seeming death, in hospital, secret, his emerging, the confrontation with Pierce?

8. Natasha, her background as the Black Widow? Her work with SHIELD, picking up Steve, going to the ship, her personality, her being discovered by Arnim Zola? The warehouse in New Jersey and her finding it? The explosion? With Nick Fury? The plan, working with Steve? The disguise as the member of the Council, fighting, her being poisoned, giving the poison to Pierce?

9. Pierce, Robert Redford as villain, urbane, phlegmatic, credible, control, the encounters with Nick Fury? With the Council? At home, with the Winter Soldier, shooting the maid? The plan, his motivation, confronting the Council, fascist, control of the world, his death?

10. Pierce’s henchman, seemingly with Captain America, against him, leading the pursuit, the antagonism, the fight in the vehicle? His death? The group of those loyal to Pierce?

11. The agent, guarding Fury, at his home, at the office, the rebellion against the Hydra forces?

12. The pursuit, Steve taken, in the ambulance, the agent and her control? Helping with the escape? Her controlling the communications with Steve at the countdown? Steve getting his uniform from the museum?

13. The climax, the time running, fights, the vehicles in the sky, the weapons fired against them, Steve and his changing the files? His falls? Success at the last minute?

14. Bucky, his seeming to recognise Steve, programmed by Hydra, Pierce and his control, the fight with Steve, Steve rescuing him?

15. The trailers during the final credits? Anticipating the future and the sequel?

MR MORGANS LAST LOVE

Germany, 2014, 116 minutes, colour.
Michael Caine, Clemencei Poesy, Justin Kirk, Gillian Anderson, Jane Alexander.
Directed by Sandra Nettlebeck.

After 50 years in films, Michael Caine can still get top billing. Here he is playing Matthew Morgan, an expatriate philosophy professor, who has lived in Paris in retirement with his wife but who is still grieving three years after her death from cancer. Interestingly, Michael Caine is playing a character who is his exact age, 78 at the time of filming.

The film opens with his wife’s death and his stubbornness concerning the removal of her body. But, he has survived for several years, going through various daily routines, somewhat alienated from his son and daughter who live in the United States. Perhaps not a great premise for an almost two hour film. In fact, it is, with the first hour showing a light and happy touch, the second hour becoming more serious.

When Mr Morgan stumbles in a local bus, a young woman, Pauline, assists him, accompanying him home. She has a lively and attractive personality and when Mr Morgan sees her in a bus again, he gets out at her stop – and thus begins a most genial acquaintance and friendship. Mr Morgan starts going out more frequently, discovering that Pauline is a dance teacher, cha-cha and other lively dances. Slowly he becomes a participant. But, he has always had thoughts of suicide after his wife’s death and he makes an attempt with pills, fails, and finds himself in hospital.

His son, Miles, arrives from America, finds his father embracing the young woman and thinks the worst, that she is a gold-digger after his father. He is an angry man, his wife leaving him, with his resentment towards his father and his poor parenting as well as seemingly preventing himself and his sister from saying farewell to their mother at her dying abroad.

The sister also arrives, a much tougher character than her brother. This leads to many discussion sequences, the sister returning to America, the brother staying, antagonistic towards Pauline, not happy with her intervening to make peace. In the second half, after our sympathetic attitude towards Mr Morgan, we begin to see the other side of his life and behaviour, his inability to affirm his son, his keeping his distance, and the perceived selfishness in keeping their mother’s death from her children.

Clemence Poesy is charming as Pauline. Justin Kirk is Miles and Gillian Anderson is the sister. But, Michael Caine’s American accent sounds forced and reminiscent of his terrible accent, despite his winning the Oscar) in The Cider House Rules.

Towards the end there is rather sudden or too-sudden dramatic development, which the audience is not quite prepared for, but it paves the way for a resolution, for Miles, Pauline and for Mr Morgan himself.

This is a film for older audiences who will identify with Mr Morgan and his situation, with his wife and her terminal illness. It is a film for middle-aged audiences who have to think about their relationship with their parents and imminent old age and death.

1. The title, the focus on Mr Morgan, his experience at his age?

2. The title and its application? The title of the original novel of

3. Paris, the city, ordinary Paris, not touristic Paris, one inclusion of the postcard of Notre Dame? The Eiffel Tower as part of the area? The streets, the buses, hotels, cafes, restaurants, the dance centre? The musical score?

4. Matthew, his relationship with his wife, the opening with her death, his stubbornness, removing her body? The tone of his grief? his wife reappearing to film, talking to her husband, memories, intimacy and love? The cancer, dying, her wanting to stay in Paris?

5. Three years passing, Mr Morgan’s routines, his landlady and her help, going out, books, the philately exhibition, the man giving his advice? The bus, Mr Morgan stumbling, Pauline helping him, walking him home? Seeing her the second time, getting out at her stop? The conversations, a genial kindness, mellowing Matthew, his going to the dance studio, watching, deprecating, joining in the steps?

6. Pauline, the good woman, dead father, not having a college education, the mother saying she lacked ambition? Dance instruction, enjoying it? The momentary scene with the boyfriend? Sharing with Mr Morgan, the meals, the restaurants, their lives? Her changing Matthew?

7. Yet Matthew’s desire for death, taking the pills, going to hospital, Pauline keeping vigil, the embrace?

8. Miles, the phone calls from Matthew, talking to his son? His arrival, shock at seeing the embrace, immediate suspicions, upset? Pauline and the Coca- Cola, talking? Miles and his anger? His sister, the visit to Matthew, a more matter-of-fact person, her family, returning to America?

9. Mile, staying at the hotel, his relationship with his father, his angers resentment, the talks?

10. The audience seeing Matthew in a different light, from the perspective of his son? Parenting? Philosophy professor, reading, lecturing? His always
blaming Miles and lack of achievement? His rationale for this> That he did not know how to affirm?

11. Memories of St Malo, holidays, Matthew and Pauline going, the house, his wanting to leave it to Pauline, not selling? She leaving the house? He returning to Paris in the taxi?

12. Pauline and her attempts to mediate, the invitation to the meal, Matthew upset, Miles upset? Miles and his discovery of the dance centre, seeing his father doing dance steps and enjoying it?

13. Matthew telling the truth to Miles about his mother’s request that she die in Paris? Miles saying that he and his sister wanted to say goodbye to their mother? The prospect of his divorce, his pregnant wife to another man, having his son with him?

14. The surprise of Miles and Pauling embracing? Matthew seeing, his reaction?

15. Matthew, happy with his son, the house at St Malo, Pauline, Miles with Pauline? His walking through the door – death, or suicide?

16. Pauline sitting on the bench? Matthew with her? Miles arriving, their walking away, what future?