ANCHORMAN 2: THE LEGEND CONTINUES

US, 2013, 119 minutes, Colour.
Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell, Paul Rudd, David Koechner, Christina Applegate, Dylan Baker, Meagan Goode, Greg Kinnear, James Marsden, Josh Lawson, Kristin Wiig, Harrison Ford, Fred Willard… and a host of cameos from big stars at the end (beware they are listed at the end of this review if you don’t want to know who they are beforehand).
Directed by Adam Mc Kay.

Enjoying Anchorman 2, and remembering Anchorman from 2004, I looked up the review and found a sentence I rather liked. And, of course, it is relevant to this sequel: One culture's hilarity is another culture’s stone-faced incomprehension. So, it is obvious that not everyone is going to enjoy Anchorman let alone warm to Run Burgundy’s personality.

We are still back in the past when anchor rivalries on networks could bring on warfare. This time round, boss Harrison Ford wages an attack on Ron, sacking him, while making a star of Ron’s wife and co-host, Veronica (Christina Applegate). While Will Ferrell has the capacity to create a character who is unlikeable and somewhat likeable at the same time, his Ron Burgundy is something of a dill, narcissistic, but fine at jokes and spoofs. What is Ron to do?

Fortunately, he is being headhunted for a new 24 hours TV News Service (which Ron thinks is silly, but the pay is good). He rounds up his old friends from last time and finds them in funny situations: David Koechner (racist and homophobic) has a fried food franchise – which fries bats; Paul Rudd is photographing cats; and Steve Carell thinks he is dead and attends and speaks at his own funeral.

The new network is financed by an Australian, Josh Lawson with a broad accent, owner also of Koala Airlines. Where did they get the idea for an Australian magnate who owns TV networks? Ron’s rival at the network is an equally narcissistic James Marsden.

The screenplay is sending up the origins of reality TV and the news as entertainment, a helicopter following a chase in the hope that there is something sensational. Just by filming it with Ron’s commentary has made it sensational and watchable. Ron appeals to his audience to think American.

So, we are off to silly shenanigans, like smoking crack on screen, which are not too far from what passes today for news. Foxnews? The others get their turn at the funnies, especially Steve Carrell as Brick, the most seriously obtuse weather man you could find – who falls in love with the humourless assistant, played by Kristin Wiig. His deadpan responses become better and funnier.

Ron has a romance with the manager, Meagan Good, goes blind for a time with Veronica trying to make up with him. Then defiance of the powers that be because of interference.

How can it end – mainly with his son’s recital of a piano piece he composed for his father – but not before a battle of the news anchors which brings in a whole lot of cameos from some performers you would not expect to see. So, there is a lot of entertainment in this fracas. (The cameos are from Sacha Baron Cohen, Will Smith, Kirsten Dunst, Liam Neeson, Marion Cotillard, Jim Carrey, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, John C. Reilly, Vince Vaughn, Kanye West).

Ron Burgundy, despite himself, would be welcome to come on screen again.

1. The popularity of the original? The success of the sequel? Comedy, comic characters, absurdity at an enjoyable level, the satire on the world of television and it’s becoming mediocre?

2. Inventiveness in situations, television, changing, the News, popular tastes, the public? The entrepreneurs and the owners of the station, their interventions? Their good and bad taste? Ratings and money?

3. The Australian owner, the parody of Australians, attitudes, accents, larger-than-life – and the reminder of Rupert Murdoch?

4. The work in San Diego, Ron and his life, with Veronica, their son, the newscast? Mark and his intervention, the interview and the questions, appointing Veronica, firing Ron, his mocking him?

5. Ron, upset, expecting success with Veronica, difficulties in relating with his son, Veronica and her decision, her career or her family, the argument? Ron and his self-centredness?

6. Ron, his despair, his values, himself, ambitions? His actions and absurdity, the dialogue, the touch of the outrageous and absurd?

7. Freddie coming to see him, 24-hour news, Ron mocking the idea, the offer, the money, his role? Finding his team? Where me and his career, the fried bats? Brian, the cat photography? Brick and his thinking he was dead, and his own funeral, his picture, his speech about himself, introducing the absurdity of bricks character and dialogue? The particular styles of comedy of each? William and his racism, the gay touch? Brian, sex, the condoms? Brick, robotic, comments, action, intervening at the wrong moments?

8. The discussions with the Australian proprietor and not understanding him? His air company and the later reporting and cover-up? Linda Jackson, meeting with Ron, his being taken aback at her being black and repeating the word?

9. The clash, the opening of the studio, Jack Lime and his vanity, his hangers on, the challenge, the bet with Ron, Jack and his success?

10. The idea for the television programme, the graveyard shift? Not giving the news that people thought they wanted? But giving them scoops, animals, patriotism? audiences watching the initial program, their quotes, the high ratings? Jack Lime having to call himself Jack Lame?

11. Brick, with Chane Lastname, they’re both being robotic, her inability to answer the phone properly, mailing emails, meeting at the soda machine, talk, sex, the kiss?

12. Jack Lame, is reaction, his vengeance?

13. Veronica, the work, watching the television, her relationship with Gary, love for her son? Ron and his visits? Gary as psychologist, Ron thinking he was reading his mind, also the son, the jokes about psychologists and mind-reading? Capitalising on this at the final battle?

14. Ron and Linda Jackson, her coming on to him sexually, the affair, his going to her family home, his parody of caricature black people, the family’s reaction, highlighting racism by portraying obtuse racism?

15. The various programs, smoking crack in the studio? Interviews and situations? Animals? Ron’s vanity, the others, their being put in the background, hurt?

16. Ron, the accident and being beaten, his blindness, retiring to the lighthouse, the jokes about being blind, excusing his not being able to feel or smell? Veronica and her arrival, with their son, helping, the happiness, the little shark, the rescue, rearing him, letting him go – and the finale with the shark, Ron going into the sea, the embracing the shark, the rescue? Veronica and concealing the fact that Ron could have an operation and see?

17. The operation, his success, his return, popularity, the clashes, the car chase and his going on air, describing the car chase, speculating about the
results, the lame ending but what might have been? Television audiences all watching it, loving it?

18. Ron, his decision to leave, interactions with his friends? Going through the park to his son’s recital? Jack Lime and his associates? The friends turning up? The build-up to the fight, the television announces all coming to fight, the jokes with such stars as Liam Neeson, Jim Carrey, Marion Cotillard, Will Smith, John C Reilly, Sacha Baron Cohen, Tina Fahey, Amy Poehler? The fight and mayhem?

19. Ron going to the recital, his friends, applauding his son? And the happy ending?

PRINCESS O’ROURKE

US, 1943, 94 minutes, Black and white.
Olivia de Havilland., Robert Cummings, Jack Carson, Charles Coburn, Jane Wyman, Gladys Cooper, Minor Watson.
Directed by Norman Krasna.

Princess Rourke won the Oscar for best original screenplay by writer-director, Norman Krasna (Bachelor Mother, The Devil and Miss Jones, Dear Wife).

This is a war effort film, a pleasant comedy, something of a fantasy, a fairytale – and, as mentioned in the film, a reverse Cinderella story.

Olivia de Havilland is very charming as the European Princess, a refugee from war-torn Europe. She is visiting the United States in a goodwill visit, with links to the White House (which actually allows some of its rooms for actual filming as well as President Roosevelt’s own dog, Fala, cutely appearing).

By a slightly contrived piece of drama, the Princess is in contact with a pilot who is about to be called up for the war. They spend some time together, he not knowing the reality. Part of her day is helping in the war effort, where she discovers she has no abilities at all and becomes the dummy for everyone to practice their first aid on. Ultimately, the truth comes out and the pilot is astounded, wanting to play Prince consort, but unwilling to give up his American citizenship. With some romantic comedy to touches, all is ultimately well in a secret wedding at the White House – suggesting that the President was on guard so that the wedding could happen.

Robert Cummings is agreeable as the pilot and has good support from Jack Carson and Jane Wyman as husband and wife. Charles Coburn enjoys himself as the uncle of the Princess, preoccupied with making good deals, especially with a pilot with so many boys in his family. Gladys Cooper appears only momentarily, Minor Watson is the state department representative.


1. A pleasant wartime propaganda film? Reflecting the US in the 1940s? And relationship to Europe in wartime?

2. Black-and-white photography, Washington, hotels, homes, basement for the war effort? Aviation, planes and flight? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on Maria, royalty fleeing from war-torn Europe? Refuge in England? The connections with America? Maria and her being welcomed at the White House? The Secret Service and following her?

4. Maria, Olivia to Havilland and her screen presence, age and experience, in the hotel, under the guidance of her uncle, protocols? Social outings? Her loneliness? The prospect of San Francisco, the flight, her apprehensions, taking so many sleeping tablets, difficult to wake up, the fog and the plane turning back? Eddie and his having to look after her, walking the streets, her French? Taking her to Dave and Jean and their helping?

5. At the hotel, her uncle, his blustering manner, phone calls to the King? The secretary and her help? The visit of the count and his idiosyncrasies and facial tics?

6. Eddie, friendship with Dave, flights, being called up for the air force? Jean and her concern Western Mark?

7. Maria, back at the hotel, her uncle’s concern? Her slipping out, meeting Eddie, his offer of the tour of the city, grants to? The Secret Service following, Eddie and his hitting the man? To Dave and Jean, Maria wanting to help with the war effort, going to the basement, the women and the interviews, their skills, military ranks, Maria’s interview, unable to do anything? Eddie and Dave listening, going to play handball, the truck coming on to the court? Their having to fill the bags with sand? Maria and her being used as the dummy for the women to practice first aid?

8. Kitty, falling in love with Maria, Eddie, falling in love with Maria? The proposal? The effect on her, her wanting to marry Eddie?

9. Returning to the hotel, her uncle and his attitude towards the marriage, her thinking it impossible, her uncle and his shrewdness, American relationships, royalty with an ordinary citizen, morale-boosting? The official from the State Department, gathering all the information about Eddie? And the number of boys in his family?

10. Maria and her phone calls, the on and off relationship? His being called to duty, the variety of phone calls in different places?

11. Maria wanting to bring Eddie to the hotel? Jean and her buying the ice-box and finding out where Maria’s cheque was paid for the flight? Appearances, Eddie dismayed, ready to forgive?

12. The amusement in Eddie discovering the truth about Maria, the uncle and his talk, the visit of Jean and Dave?

13. Going to the White House, the protocols, the documents to sign, concessions? Speaking to Maria’s father? Eddie not wanting to give up his American citizenship? Maria and her meek response? Her being upset in her room, locked in? Eddie going out, the policeman on guard, his having to go in again because he had nowhere to be? And President Roosevelt’s dog?

14. The plan in the middle of the night, the State Department officer, the elderly judge, the witnesses, the hasty marriage? And Eddie and Maria escaping – to their future?

MEA MAXIMA CULPA: SILENCE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD.

13th March 2013


Clerical sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has been a public focus for more than twenty years in some countries. Victims have been exploited by predators. Ways for seeking and finding justice have been difficult. Church authorities have had to face the charges, the recriminations, the failures in leadership. All Catholics have had to share the shame. And sexual abuse is not something that will pass from world attention in the near future.

This statement is being written on March 13th. The Cardinals went into the conclave yesterday. We will soon know who the successor to Benedict XVI will be and what will be the directions for the Church in the coming years. Hopes have been expressed and many predictions. But we do not know. This film can serve as a summary of the state of the question up till now – though filming was completed in 2011 and the film released in late 2012, early 2013. It did not anticipate the resignation of Benedict XVI, but the situation would have been the same had the Pope died in office.

But, there is a major difference. The Cardinals, in this world of instant communication and social media, are aware of the needs of victims and of the scandals. They had a week of discussions before entering the conclave without any emotional burdens of mourning a dead pope. Audiences who see this film may well think that it would have been beneficial for the Cardinals to have attended a screening of the film. It serves as an aid to examination of conscience as well as an effective summary interpretation of the abuse, starting from an American story of the 1960s on, moving more nationally, then internationally, an outline of the way that bishops handled cases as well as how the Vatican bureaucracy dealt or did not deal with cases, requests and civil and canon law.

It needs to be said that this is a very well-made film. Audiences will not agree with all the speakers or the expert ‘talking heads’. After all, the film marshals facts but, as is any film, it is an interpretation. The writer-director, Alex Gibney, has very good credentials. He made the surprising an alarming Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room (quite an expose) as well as winning an Oscar for Best documentary for another expose, this time torture in Afghanistan and Iraq, Taxi to the Darkside. Expose is his forte.

As with any successful film, the maker wants to draw the audience in. And that is what happens here. We are informed briefly about the woeful abuse career of Milwaukee priest, Lawrence Murphy. He is the offender for the first third of the film. But, the film is victim-focused, all the more emotionally telling here because we see men in their fifties and watch them tell their stories – ‘watch’ advisedly because the men are deaf and sign their stories, vividly and powerfully, while some articulate Hollywood actors speak their signed words.

Fr Lawrence Murphy, ordained in 1950, was a popular figure, fund raiser for the school for the deaf which he eventually ran for many years.

The stories of the men are told plainly, factually, especially of their childhood and family backgrounds. Some parents could not sign which put the boys at a great disadvantage in letting their parents know about the molestation. The stories are also told visually with many excerpts from home movies of the period, of the boys and their life at the school and of Fr Murphy himself. Which means greater repugnance from us the audience. We are not just hearing a story of someone whom we don’t know. We can see him and wonder how he could behave in such a destructive way.

The complaints and testimony are clear, detailed and, though some at the time could not believe the boys or such stories about a priest, undeniable. We hear their response to persistent abuse, some feeling of being singled out and special, their shock at experiences in confession and in Fr Murphy’s room and holiday house. And their resigning themselves to this fate.

The film moves on to their attempts to let others know what had happened to them, not heard at first. Or, heard, and not believed or believed and nothing done. It is pointed out that they lived in a time of protest and activism and this influenced their attempts to make their cases heard – including distributing in streets or outside church, posters denouncing Fr Murphy as an abuser. Evidence is shown that official complaints about Fr Murphy were made to the Apostolic Delegate in 1974.

That first section of the film was called ‘Lambs of God’. The next section introduces the veteran of studies of clerical celibacy, with interviews of priests over the decades, Richard Sipe. A former Benedictine, Sipe has written extensively. His introduction at this stage of the film enables him to offer something of the history of celibacy, deficiencies in formation of priests, the consequences of this as well as the loneliness in the celibate vocation. The selection of sequences with Sipe are judiciously chosen and make a great deal of sense (while not saying everything, as many would point out). Other experts seen in the film include another former Benedictine, Patrick , who had a mission of moving around examining cases but who ultimately found it, and his perceptions of covering priests, too much and so left the priesthood.

The passionate Fr Doyle, the American priest who has been constant in his work (and now, perhaps, feeling justified in his perseverance of cases and issues, especially in the context of law and Canon Law) has a great deal to day about cases, about the loyal impulses of priests, bishops and devout laity who have felt that they must protect the church at all cost.

There are some interesting sub-plots, so to speak, which enhance the quality of the film and its research. The story of Fr Gerald Fitzgerald and his founding of the Servants of the Paracletes in the 1940s, an order to work with priest sexual offenders as well as priest alcoholic. He advocated spiritual reform rather than psychology, but he and his order are praised for recognizing and acknowledging the problems andwanting the priests out of and away from ministry.

The other sub-plot concerns the career of money-raiser, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, confidante of Cardinals and Popes, who was a Jeckyll and Hyde perpetrator of sex crimes and injustices. His story, well illustrated in terms of clerical patronage, is told in the context of John Paul II (who favoured him) and Benedict XVI (who ultimately dismissed him to a life of prayer and penance, though beachfront footage of Jacksonville, Florida, is shown as his final home).

From Wisconsin, the second third of the film moves to Boston and the 2002 uncovering of scandals, the arrests and gaoling of Frs Geoghan and Shanley, the resignation of Cardinal Law (with adverse comments on his leadership on the issue in Boston) and his comfortable career and life in Rome. From there, the films to Ireland (the film does have some Irish finance in it), the case in focus being that of Fr Tony Walsh, a singing priest with a popular reputation, in denial of his abuse at first, then admitting it but not being defrocked until almost 20 years after the first reports.


We all need to be media savvy, knowing what we want to say and saying it, without ambiguity or leaving ourselves open to misinterpretation or ridicule. There is a terrible moment in an interview with Cardinal Desmond Connell of Dublin (who is later shown as having made some effort, though belatedly, in contacting Rome about cases). He is asked if it would have been good to have visited victims. He does admit it would, but, unfortunately, for himself and his reputation, he adds, even with traces of a smile, that he does have many things to do.


At different stages during the film, opinions are given as well as questions raised as to how anyone could commit such crimes. Some technical language is used, quite enlightening and suggesting further reflection. ‘Noble cause corruption’ is one contribution, the perpetrator’s belief in his own good. There are later quotations from Fr Murphy stating that he was trying to help the boys, some with sexual orientation difficulties, that he behaved as he did to help some boys through sexual confusion, that he recognised their needs, even taking their sins on himself – and that he prayed and confessed afterwards. There was also mention of ‘cognitive distortion’ in the way that the abuser interpreted his behaviour. On the other hand, one of the men remembers an occasion in the dormitory, a crucifix nearby, ‘There was Jesus on the cross, dying with a broken heart’ and not helping him.

The only other member of the clergy to be interviewed for the film besides Fr Doyle is Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, who talks frankly and with sorrow and shame about events in his own life (nothing to do with abuse of minors) who, when asked had he met Fr Murphy, replied that the main impression he made was that he was childlike in his self-delusions.

The film does return to the men of Milwaukee and their attempts to make their case heard, including relying on their lawyer, Jeff Anderson, the man who took out applications to sue the Pope, Cardinal Bertone and Cardinal Sodano who, by this stage of the film, does not look good at all, especially in his espousal of the cause of Fr Maciel and receiving his large donations, but who became notorious when he referred in a speech to the Pope about the sex abuse scandals as media ‘gossip’. (This scene is included.)

But, in the latter third of the film, the focus is well and truly on Rome. One of the difficulties is the constant referring to ‘The Vatican’. While the references to the Pope and the Curia are accurate in their way, it is particular people in the Vatican and its bureaucracy who are responsible. The whole section will be fascinating to many Catholics but may be too general or taking us into unfamiliar realms which may make it rather difficult for some non-Catholic audiences.

Here is where the investigative journalism can be hard work. The film tries to give some dates for letters coming to the Office of Doctrine of the Faith, of Cardinal Ratzinger’s decisions that all cases come to him which, as the narrator suggests, makes him the most informed person in the world on this abuse. Dates are given as are examples of letters sent and not answered, or material back to sender as unwanted.

The continual accusation is the slowness of authorities to reply, to act, to sanction. There is the difference in ideology in the past that abuse was a sin, and therefore to be repented of and forgiven, rather than a crime. Even in English-speaking countries which Rome thought were the only countries where this kind of abuse really took place, it was only in the 1990s that most realised or were informed that this sexual abuse of minors was a crime, police matter. Without in any way undermining the seriousness of the crimes, we can see that nowadays a lot of anger comes from assuming that what we know now was known clearly then and not acted on. (In Australia, this will come up in the Royal Commission into non-governmental organisations, but accusations of harassment and abuse in the Australian Defence Forces have been met with the now familiar defensive statements, the same with the BBC heads and their comments on the sexual predation of TV personality, Jimmy Saville).

It is in this section, that the film-makers offer many talking heads for our consideration: Robert Mickens, correspondent for the Tablet, Linda Goodstein from the New York Times, Marco Politi, an Italian Vatican expert, human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson who believes the Vatican should be sued and that it is not really a country, Pope John Paul, like many a bishop, may have initially disbelieved that such behaviour could occur. There is also an excerpt from a TV interview with William Donoghue, the loudly aggressive head of the Catholic League in the United States. Pope Benedict had so much data (the story of his sending a member of his office to the US to collect the data of Fr Maciel on the evening of John Paul’s death makes for interesting viewing) but delayed in acting on it. An excerpt where he says he is shocked that priests could behave like this is noted as indicating how he thought about priests and the dignity of priesthood first rather than victims. However, there is another excerpt from him, putting the victims first. (This may have come from his meeting with victims on his visits to the US, Australia and other countries, something which is not mentioned in the film.)

One secular reviewer called out as he left the film, ‘All I know is that Ratzinger’s to blame’. While allotting blame, that is not exactly the response to the film.

At the end we go back to Milwaukee. We see the men signing again, ‘Deaf Power!’. We see their desperation, their being acknowledged (after some scenes with Archbishop Cousins of Milwaukee in the 1970s whose response was erratic, inclined not to believe such stories about a priest, meeting with Fr Murphy rather than asking any of the other students and sending a nun (name and photo supplied in the film) to get one of the men to recant his statement and make an apology to the archdiocese). One writes a letter to Cardinal Sodano, telling the story, asking for Fr Murphy to be stood down, noting that he is still allowed to receive communion when others who are far less guilty are forbidden. Two of them went to see Fr Murphy before he died in 1998, with a camera, but he told them to go away, that he was an old man and wanted to live in dignity. He seems to have gone out, nevertheless, to play poker machines and collapsed, and buried in vestments as a priest. But, the men are alive, relieved and, still in the spirit of activism, American style, protesting.

Fr Doyle reminds us that the emphasis on the priest as sacred at this juncture is not helpful, nor is the loyal, traditional ‘Catholic mindset’. Archbishop Weakland adds that there has been a long held belief in the Perfect Church – and the sooner that is forgotten, the better.

So, in 2012-2013, here is a film that summarises much of the history of abuse and how it was handled and mishandled or not handled. It will be released in many territories after the election of the new Pope.


Catholics and faith. Someone remarks that many have lost faith in the hierarchical church – but that they have not lost their faith.


Note:

For reference, the main films produced and widely distributed – not the many current affairs and documentary films for television – on the sexual abuse of male minors, the particular focus of Silence in the House of God – include:

1990, Judgment, US, with Keith Carradine, Blythe Danner, David Strathairn
1996, Pianese Nuzio, Italy, with Fabio Bentivoglio
2002, Song for a Raggy Boy, Ireland, with Patrick Bergin, Aidan Quinn
2004, Mal Educacion, Spain, with Gael Garcia Bernal
2005, Our Fathers, US, with Christopher Plummer, Brian Dennehy, Ted Danson
2006, Primal Fear, with Richard Gere, Edward Norton
2006, Deliver Us from Evil, documentary, director Amy Berg
2008, The Least of These, with Isiah Washington
2008, Doubt, with Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2

US, 2011, 88 minutes, Black and white/Colour.
Laurence R. Harvey.
Directed by Tom Six.

If audiences found the original film repellent in its conception and in its execution, there will be more horror in this sequel. If it is watched on television or DVD, the fast forward might be well in action.

The basic concept is fairly repellent in itself, the making of a human centipede with 12 persons. The central character is a short and fat scientist who admires the first film and imagines going further. He lives with his mother who finds his work repellent, attacks her and he kills her. In fact, he goes around searching for people to kill, especially in car parks, and assembles them in a warehouse he hires (after murdering the owner) and stores the people there.

As in the first film, there is surgery which links each character mouth to anus for one digestive system. Some of the black and white photography is murky and, perhaps with some censorship, there is very little detail of his disgusting surgery. However, there are glimpses of the victims, their torture, their suffering.

The film uses the old horror motif of the mad scientist and his creating a monster. But this central character is repellent, in appearance, in manner, in behaviour, in cruelty. He spends a lot of time at his computer looking at the earlier film as well as scientific investigation. He is shown as the victim of abuse by his father and attacked by his mother, which is meant to explain his brutality. He is also linked with a pharmacist who supplies him with some breathing apparatus – and later encounters him with a prostitute in the car and disposes of him.

These comments give an indication of the theme of the film, as well as an indication of the way in which the theme is communicated. Perhaps the black-and-white photography lessons the graphic impact because it is not in full colour.

While it may be of interest in the history of horror cinema, it is a fairly repellent cinema experience.

INTIMACY

UK/France, 2000, 119 minutes, Colour.
Mark Rylance, Kerry Fox, Timothy Spall, Marianne Faithful.
Directed by Patrice Chereau.

This review is not meant to be a recommendation of Intimacy. Rather, this is a film which has won the main award at the Berlin Film Festival, 2001. It has also been the subject of a number of articles in the press, some of them rather sensationalist. It is a film which is an occasion for discussion about what is presented on screen and how it is presented.

As can be gathered from the title, the film concerns relationships, love and sexuality. There are several scenes which could be classified as of high intensity (adding up to about five minutes during a 2 hour film). For this reason the film has an 18 certificate. One of the words bandied about in the articles is 'pornographic'. This is not really accurate as the scenes are set within the context of a serious film about love and lovelessness in the contemporary world and are not designed as titillating. It is doubtful whether any audience would find the material seductive. Somewhat shocking, maybe, but not seductive. Perhaps a more appropriate word to describe the scenes is 'obscene' in the sense that they are of explicit sexual behaviour in the same way that graphic depictions of war can be described as 'obscene violence'.

Not everyone will want to watch such material. It requires a mature approach.

Unfortunately, much of the discussion will be about the five minutes rather than the other 115 minutes which is what the serious reviewer and commentator need to be concerned with as well as the viewer who goes to see the film. It is important to note that sensitivity to controversial presentations differs from culture to culture. What is unacceptable in mainstream United States may not cause problems in France. It should be said that, while Intimacy is set in London - which is very realistically portrayed - and the language of the film and the cast is English, it is actually a French production, directed by a Frenchman, Patrice Chereau.

The title Intimacy is ironic. The two central characters meet weekly for what is a casual and anonymous sexual encounter. They have avoided getting to know each other. They barely speak. In their loveless lives, they are literally groping for some kind of meaning. Eventually, the man (divorced with two sons) follows the woman and gets to know her background, her work, her husband and her son. He seems to be desperate for something more in the relationship. His interactions with the husband are part confession, part taunting and punishing him. For the woman, the experience is entirely different. She wants to break out of what she feels is a restrictive marriage but wants to preserve her secrecy.

This is the material for marriage counsellors, social workers, the confessional, the courts. As such, Intimacy has something to say to modern society. It does not provide answers, rather it provokes questions, reminding us that people whose behaviour is not what we would approve of may be stuck in dead ends or wandering in byways, but are still, sometimes desperately, as in Intimacy, searching for something more in their lives.


1. The awards for the film? The critiques? Issues of obscenity and pornography?

2. The work of the director? The stories from Hanif Kureishi? London stories? The use of locations, London as a character? The streets, houses, buses, the bars, the theatre? The musical school?

3. The issue of intimacy, presuppositions about the definition and the reality? Starting with explicit sexual intimacy, changing during the drama, its becoming more personalised, yet alienating?

4. The visuals, the nudity, the explicit sexual action, the context?

5. Beginning with the sexual encounter, animal passion, anonymity, meetings on Wednesdays, the flat? The change during the encounters? The aftermath?

6. Audience reaction to Jay, in the flat, preparing it, Clare’s arrival, the seeming anonymity, the conversation, the sudden passion, in detail? The repetition throughout the film?

7. Jay and his life, his wife, the past relationship, the separation, talking with her, going to the bed, fondling her, the masturbation? His relationship with his son, the communication between the two? The visits? Leaving, divorce? His attitudes towards women? The recurring sex? The obsession with Claire, following her, eluding detection, discovering that her life was ordinary, travelling on the train with her friend, their discussions, on the buses, on the streets, finding the theatre?

8. Claire, Andy and his being a taxi driver, her love for her son, a seemingly nice family? Her friend and their discussions? The meetings with Jay, the sexual encounters, the effect on her? Anonymity, regularity? Jay discovering her in the theatre, the small theatre and audience, performing The Glass Menagerie? Her teaching, the classes, the audition and the performance, with her friend, her strong reactions – talking about herself, weeping in the other room, confiding in her friend?

9. The Frenchman, his working at Jay’s bar, the workers, the reactions, the customers, making the drinks, expectations? His need for accommodation, Jay allowing him to use the flat, their discussions, the build-up in their friendship, conflicts?

10. Vic, his relationship with Jay, a wanderer, wanting money, wanting drugs, presuming on Jay, overstaying his welcome, the fights?

11. Andy, at the theatre, meeting Jay, watching the play, their talking, Andy listening to Jay’s hypothetical about himself? Seeing the play, his relationship with his son, the son coming to the theatre, and becoming friendly with Jay? Going to Jay’s bar? Knowing the truth? The party after the performance, with the cast? Claire, tense, her son, the melodrama of the situation? Reactions? Andy driving Jay home?

12. Claire, visiting again, the talk and communication, each of them talking about intimacy, alienation? Jay articulate about his feelings? The quick sexual encounter, her going? At home, staying with Andy, his knowing the truth and his reaction, speaking harshly to her about her lack of acting ability?

13. The story of an intimacy?

AMERICAN HUSTLE

US, 2013, 130 minutes, Colour.
Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert di Niro, Michael Pena, Louis C.K., Alessandro Nivola.
Directed by David O. Russell.

Some of this actually happened, is the introduction to the film. While some of the events may have been actual, one wonders whether this was the tone of these goings on. This is satire, an amusing and funny interpretation of oddball characters and their attitudes and behaviour.

This tone is set in the opening moments as conman, Irving, spends a lot of time putting on his comb-over – reference to his hairpiece often during the film. Later, Bradley Cooper, an intense and ambitious federal agent, has his hair in curlers for his frizzy hairstyle. Amy Adams has quite a few different styles, as does Jennifer Lawrence (hers straight out of fashion magazines) and Robert de Niro seems to have lost some.

By recounting this coiffeur information, it is an indication of the attention to detail (1970s style) that David O. Russell has given to this elaborate con story. Russell has made a variety of genres, from Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees to The Fighter and The Silver Linings Playbook. He works again here with several of his casts from these films. He is certainly versatile.

Back to the cons. Irving has many good things going for making money, being credible to naïve investors, taking his broker’s fee but getting them no money. Christian Bale (who won an Oscar in Russell’s The Fighter) comes across as very different from Bruce Wayne, let alone Batman, showing a flair for comic timing. He encounters Sydney (Amy Adams, also in The Fighter) who is his perfect complement in double-dealings. One of their targets is a mayor from New Jersey, an Italiano, who has mob links though he is earnest about his political influence (Jeremy Renner). Stealing the show whenever she appears is Jennifer Lawrence as Irving’s wife. It is a supporting role but she brings such energy and presence that she makes the very best of her screen time – ditzy and imprudent, often funny.

The hustling becomes complicated when an agent gets wise to what is going on and decides to employ Iriving and Sydney to set up a sting for the mayor and his Florida mob connections. Enter Robert de Niro as a Mafia chief – looking a great deal older (but with a brief flashback to remind us of what he was like in years gone by). And enter a fake sheikh, Michael Pena.

It’s all in the timing, making good when plans go skewiff, exercising trickster confidence.

Surprisingly cheerful, sometimes quite funny, with top performances and some smart dialogue. As they say, what’s not to like!

1. Critical acclaim? Awards? The American appeal?

2. The director and his work, a variety of genres, working with the cast in several films?

3. The screenplay, remarking that some of the events were actual, the humorous tone, sardonic, satire?

4. The New Jersey sitting, the 1970s and its style, costumes, hair, language? The range of songs, the moods, the lyrics?

5. American finance, the role of government, the banks, fraudsters, the Mafia? Greed?

6. Introduction to Irving, the long scene of his doing his hair, comb-over, his self-image? His background, as a boy, breaking the windows, getting the business for his family, the dry cleaners? Self-established? His idea about loans? The collage of his customers, their comments? This small investment from big investment – the clients getting no money? His office – and the later visit with Sydney to the dry cleaners and getting her to take whatever clothes she wanted?

7. Sydney, seeing Irving at the party, going to listen to Duke Ellington, their bonds? Hearing the truth about his business? Her own background, stripping, working for Cosmopolitan, her business sense? Returning to Irivng? Creating the character of Lady Edith? Her working with the clients, flirting, seductive, performance? Irving and Sydney together? In love, her control?

8. Carmine as mayor, in himself, his wife, his family, 10 years in office, wanting to do good? His interests, plans, especially for the casino in Atlantic City? His agent and the meeting with Irving? Interview? The case of money and the mayor walking out? Reactions? The plan for the casino, the benefit of the state, Irving and his group and their wanting to capitalise on it?

9. Richie, as a client, the interview, the cash? Sydney and her Edith persona, shrewd? Irving less shrewd? The request for the loan, the revelation that Richie was an agent, their being caught?

10. Richie as a character, living with his mother, curling his hair, his fiancee, his ambitions, promotion in the FBI? His work with Thorson as his boss? The discussions, the money layout? The story of the fly-fishing and it’s being continued, Richie drawing the wrong conclusions? At the end, the FBI bosses, Anthony and the interview, giving the cash for the final sting? Recordings? The interview with the alleged legal representative of Tellegi? Richie being taken in? The final meetings, Thorson and his injuries from Richie’s attacking him? The capture of the politicians? Richie relegated to the background?

11. The plan with Richie, their working together, Richie with Edith, infatuated by her, the sex scenes with her, her control, resisting him?

12. The sheikh, the idea, the Mexican agent and his posing, his being briefed? The plane, the meeting at the airport? The issue of the casino? The Mafia from Florida turning up? Tellegi and the interview, the sheikh not speaking? The toing and froing of the discussions, the deals? Wanting to catch Tellegi? Tellegi speaking in Arabic, the sheikh replying? The confirmation of the deal?

13. Tellegi, Miami, the Robert De Niro style, his henchmen, Peter, shrewdness, at the bar?

14. Rosalyn, her place in the narrative, sabotaging the frauds? Jennifer Lawrence’s performance? Marrying Irving, with her son, their both loving him, Irving adopting him? The bond with Irving but not loving him? The visits, the arguments? No divorce in her family, the issue of separation? The clashes with Sydney, the antagonism, ultimately fighting? Talk at home, the range of moods, a condemnation of Irving in front of her son, his being picked up from school? The gift of the microwave, her carry on about it, poisoning the food? Meeting Peter? Intending to go to Las Vegas? Going to the functions with the mayor and his wife, raucous, befriending them, their urging her to come to dinners? At home, listening into Irving’s phone calls? The ultimate danger, her books about positive thinking, encouraging Irving in his plan?

15. Peter, the Florida Mafia, Las Vegas? His role, flirting with Rosalyn, her conversation, realising the truth, giving the information? Taking Irving, the bag over his head and the threats?

16. The setup, the lawyer allegedly representing the Mafia? The interview, the words on tape? There being used as the means for the sting? The irony that the lawyer was a fake?

17. The collage of politicians, the money deals, their being arrested?

18. Carmine, Irving liking him, warning him, too late, his reaction, the anger of his wife, the range of children watching? But his getting as shorter sentence?

19. The final plan, Richie, Irving and Edith, telling the truth, granted immunity?

20. The catching of the politicians, Thorson as a character, his dealings with Richie, his boss, the money grants, fly-fishing story, the physical attack? Richie and his being broke?

21. A film that is tantalising, complex, with twists, spoof, funny – and the nature of American hustle?

SHALLOW HAL

US, 2001, minutes, Colour.
Gwyneth Paltrow, Jack Black, Jason Alexander, Joe Viterelli, Anthony Robbins.
Directed by Peter and Bobby Farrelly.

Shallow Hal is a comedy from the Farrelly Bros who had made an impression during the 1990s with a range of films including Kingpin, Dumb and Dumber, There’s Something about Mary. They started the 21st century with Shallow Hal and moved on to such films as Stuck on You.

The comedy style of the brothers is full of pratfalls and physical humour. They also choose stories about outsiders, often with physical and psychological disabilities, and with characters on the margins of society. This is the case here with the character of Rosemary, huge in size, looked down on by most people but finding that she could work for charities and the Peace Corps and get some acceptance. The hero himself, Hal, played by Jack Black with all his idiosyncrasies, thinks himself one of God’s gifts to women but is not exactly the handsome type. This is even truer of his best friend, Mauricio, Jason Alexander.

Tony Robbins was a self-help guru of the period and is seen in an encounter with Hal in an elevator, listening to him, but quasi-hypnotising him into seeing the inner goodness of people. When he sees Rosemary, he sees the perfect get Gwyneth Paltrow, the inner person. It is the same with children disfigured by burns in a hospital, a woman going to look after her grandmother to whom he gives a taxi, the Peace Corps workers, Rosemary’s mother. They all look pretty or handsome – but then later, we see their outer selves. In fact, there was some criticism of the film that it exploited the fat people, the audience seeing Gwyneth Paltrow as herself. However, there are glimpses of her as fat, as well as indications of her weight and collapsing chairs. But the point of the film is seeing everyone from Hal’s point of view and then discovering the truth.

Gwyneth Paltrow gives a sympathetic performance, even when wearing the fat suit. Jason Alexander portrays an obnoxious man who has to learn the truth and see people and their inner lives. It is amusing to see Joe Vitereli, often a Mafia type, this time with an Irish accent.

The Farrelly Brothers make their audiences uncomfortable at first but then, by guiding them through the story and the illustration of characters, help the audiences learn something.

1. The work of the Farrelly Brothers? Their perspectives on life? People on the margins? Sympathy? The earthiness and coarse touches?

2. An American urban story, Hal and his family? Clubs, the world of Hal and Mauricio? Apartments? Office work? Hospital? Women in their world? The musical score?

3. The prologue, Hal’s mother, his dying father and his bequest about women? Jack Black as Hal, his appearance, manner, tics, his own self-image, different from the way others saw him? His attitudes towards women, the clubs, sex, working solely on appearances? The comparison with Mauricio? Hell at work, his friends, their advice? Mauricio and Linda? Jill as the neighbour, Mauricio’s rejecting Linda because of her toe?

4. The chance meeting of Hal with Tony Robbins? Robbins and his reputation at this time, psychology, self-help, the celebrity? The talk in the elevator, Hal and his crass perceptions, Robbins hypnotising him? The change in Hal, meeting Rosemary, but only seeing the perfect Gwyneth Paltrow while others saw her as fat? Seeing the children in the hospital and seeing them later? The hotel owner, as a woman, then seeing her as real in drag? The girl and the taxi? Rosemary’s friends from the Peace Corps? His not accepting others’ reactions? not accepting Mauricio’s?

5. Rosemary and the truth, the audience seeing her as she was, the glimpses, but also seeing her through Hal’s eyes? Her interior self? The physical comedy, breaking the chair, talking about beauty etc? Breaking the bigger chair? Hal’s visit to her parents, his comments about them and her size? Her enjoying Hal’s company, cautions, eating, the pleasant talk with Hal, the sexual encounter? Her being hurt by Hal? Peace Corps, a friendship with them, her decision to go to Kiribati?

6. The character of Mauricio, crass, his talk, girls and their appearances, his being upset about the Tony Robbins effect, going to meet Robbins, getting the words to break the spell? His own self-image? The comic touch with the tail? The final girl and her being fond of puppies?

7. Rosemary’s parents, Hal and his job, discussions, the Hal’s ideas for her father, his business ideas, the presentation on their success, Rosemary’s father and his anger at Hal’s treatment?

8. Rosemary, going to Kiribati, his going to the hospital, the children telling him where she was? Seeing them for their real appearance? The girl from the taxi? Mauricio breaking the spell? Hal on the phone, not seeing Rosemary passing him? His going to the house, finding her, telling her the truth? His choice?

9. The children of the hospital, the severe nurse and her behaviour? Rosemary and her work there? Playing with the children? His going to the party? His talking to Mauricio? Finding the man from Kiribati? The friend not at all handsome? All going to the party?

10. The truth, the declaration? The audience seeing Rosemary as fat, sharing his journey from seeing her and her interior self to seeing her exterior self, the total person?

11. The Farrelly’s accused of exploiting their material – but their sense of realism, their compassion?

ARSENE LUPIN

France, 2004, 125 minutes, Colour.
Romain Duris, Kristin Scott Thomas, Pascale Greggory, Eva Green, Robin Renucci, Marie Bunel.
Directed by Jean- Paul Salome.

Arsene Lupin seems to be the equivalent of Sherlock Holmes in late 19th century French popular novels. However, he is not a detective. Rather, like Raffles, he is a skilled and suave burglar, a gentleman-thief. The author of the many Lupin books, Maurice Leblanc, published his first in the series in 1905 – and in 1908 created a confrontation between Holmes and Lupin. Leblanc died in 1941.

Over the decades there have been several film versions and many Lupin series for television. This film is a lavish re-creation of the late 19th century and the period before the outbreak of World War I. No expense has been spared to make it look good, costumes and décor and the transition from a horse and carriage world to that of the bicycle and the car.

A prologue set in 1884 introduces us to Arsene, the son of a martial arts trainer in an aristocrat’s house. Arsene’s father falls foul of the master for robbery but not before he has urged his son to be a skilful thief. He is then found dead after a police chase.

The adult Arsene (Romain Duris) is shown charming the ladies and surreptitiously relieving them of their jewellery, even in the middle of elegant soirees. He is also expertly acrobatic in his escapes. When he meets the daughter of the house, his childhood playmate, Clarisse (Eva Green), at his mother’s deathbed, he falls in love but also decides it is time for revenge on her father. He returns as a fencing instructor and is soon caught up in all kinds of plots.

A secret group of Royalists are plotting to remove the government. A gentlewoman thief and spy (Kristin Scott Thomas) is condemned to death by the group but rescued in the nick of time by Arsene who is beguiled by her. They are observed by a wily member of the group (or double agent) who has his own dark secret to be revealed at the end (Pascal Greggory), and what follows is a series of escapades, robberies, duels, betrayals.

It should be said that it is all done with a spectacular touch but also a light touch, a kind of 19th century swashbuckling tone. By the end, however, it becomes very serious as Arsene, the gentlewoman and the agent confront each other. And just when you thought it was all over, there is a tongue-in-cheek episode in 1914 involving assassination attempts on archdukes.

Clearly, an entertaining romp for French audiences. Entertaining for those who enjoy Gallic insouciance!


1. A popular French character? In literature and film? From the 19th century into the 20th century? Swashbuckling adventures? The Dumas… tradition?

2. The popularity of the novels, action, this film as a combination of several stories, becoming a film of a string of episodes?

3. The period, the 1870s, the countryside, mansions, costumes and decor? The move into the 1990s, change, modernity, the old and the new? 1913, a period of change, mechanisation, pre--World War I?

4. Arsene and his childhood, his bond with his mother, the boxing training with his father, the father alerting him to be on his toes? The aunt and her husband, aristocracy? Snobbery and disdain? Clarisse, his cousin, the bond with her? The sessions with his father? His father’s arrest, the father’s flight, his advice to his son to be always alert, he and his mother leaving the mansion? Finding the burned corpse of his father and its effect?

5. His adult would: his identity, created, using his father’s advice, his place in society, a fop, his pretending to be a policeman at the dinner, his clever stealing of the jewellery, the chase, his escape, the woman who recognised him and let him go with her sense of adventure? An introduction to his character?

6. His career, interactions with the police, his meeting Clarisse again, the revelation of who he was, the bonding with her, the effect, her pregnancy, the birth of the child? His being in and out of her life? His disguise and meeting her, meeting her father, his decisions, fidelity? Clarisse and her love for her husband, the confrontation with Josephine? Her being killed?

7. The Cardinal, the issue with the crosses, stealing them, the maps of the abbeys, identifying the places, the nobles in attendance to the Cardinal, relationship with the King? Anti-Republican?

8. Beaumagnan, is different identities, a rogue, even as a priest in a missionary, seduction? His relationship with Josephine and working with her?

9. Josephine, her being captured, tried, considered which, whether in the paintings in her resembling her mother, the stealing of the crosses and assembling them? Her being thrown into the water, rescued by Arsene who had heard everything? The confrontation with the Cardinal, his burning?

10. Josephine and her fascination with Arsene, the effect of the rescue, the ring, information, their work together, the growing rivalry, love and betrayal?

11. Beaumagnan and his relationship with Josephine, the pursuit, with Arsene, the revelation that he was his father? Arsene and his reaction, the shock of the evil of his father? His going to see his mother, in the institution, her death?

12. The sequence of the lighthouse, the cliffs, Beaumagnan and his death?

13. Josephine, jealousy, betrayal, wanting to kill Arsene?

14. Arsene, the map, his ingenuity, the place of the crosses?

15. The transition to 1913, Josephine and entangling Arsene’s son in her plans? In the square, the denunciation? The hypnosis? The cross? The final confrontation with Josephine and Arsene’s victory?

MY SOUL TO TAKE

US, 2011, 107 minutes, Colour.
Max Thieriot, John Margari, Zena Grey, Denzel Whitaker, Frank Grillo, Harris Yulin.
Directed by Wes Craven.

My Soul to Take comes from the prayer, now I lay me down to rest…
This is a Wes Craven film, coming after almost 40 years of making horror films, Craven became famous with Last House on the Left. His big breakthrough in the 1980s was the beginning of the Nightmare on Elm Street series. In the 1990s the Scream franchise began.

Perhaps this film has something in common with the Freddy Krueger films, a killer wanting people’s souls, but this is a lower key film, set in a small town, focusing on a serial killer and the aftermath of his death on which seven children in the town were born. 16 years later they remember the Ripper Day – and, of course, gruesome things happen including the success of deaths of six of the seven children.

The focus is on one, a reclusive boy played by Max Thieriot, revealed to be the son of the killer, saved when his mother was murdered by her husband. He is quiet and tentative, especially in the middle of the group. However, his best friend, Alex, Johnny Magari, is more extroverted and urges Bug, the quiet boy’s nickname, to be more outgoing and to listen, even to planting their cell phones in the girls’ toilet, to how he is perceived by the girls. He is badmouthed by his sister who, ultimately, comes to his rescue. There is a blind boy, there is an Asian boy who is almost immediately killed, there is the bullying boy who fancies himself, and the religious girl who continually prays and uses God talk.

The film takes place over one day, the different ways in which the young people are dispatched, the final confrontation between Alex and Bug, Alex being possessed by the killer.

Surprisingly, Wes Craven fans were very disappointed with the film, even hostile in their reactions. Perhaps Wes Craven was getting old – or, perhaps, the fans had built up expectations, wanting a much more grizzly film.

1. The popularity of Wes Craven horror films over many decades? His establishing norms for horror films, for slasher films? The tradition of Freddy Krueger, of the Scream franchise? This film in that tradition?

2. A different premise for the film, the serial killer, collecting souls, absorbing souls, difficult to destroy?

3. The small town, its atmosphere, the celebrations, the seven young people and their birthday? The memory of the serial killer? Fear? The police caution? The behaviour of the young people? Their fooling around and the sense of apprehension?

4. The prologue, the father, his schizophrenic behaviour, his seemingly being possessed, his pregnant wife? The background of the news of the serial killer? His moving in and out of his interior states, finding his wife dead? The irony that the child was later kept alive? The doctor and his intervention, the police and their arrival, police methods, the weapons, the father and his shooting, the death of the doctor, the killer’s death? His memory kept?

5. 16 years later, the group and their birthdays, the boy on the pedestal, identifying all the characters? The focus on Bug, at home, nervous, his mother, his reflection in the mirror, seeing other characters? The revelation that he was the son of the killer? Possessed by the killer or not? His best friend Alex, their being together, supportive?

6. The class, Bug and his awkwardness, Penelope and her religious support, with Alex, the bird disguise, the attack on the Brandon, the vomiting, the reaction of the teacher? Of the students? The burning of the bird disguise? The costume of the killer and the mythology of the bird?

7. The range of students, the phones in the toilet and listening in, the girl and her being influenced against Bug? Bug’s sister and her influence? Penelope, religious attitudes, her prayers, religious talk? Denzel and his blindness, the bonds with the other students? The Asian student, with the group, on the bridge, his being pursued, his death? Bug seeing him in the mirror?

8. The successive deaths of the students, the religious girl and Bug seeing her in the mirror? The girls, Denzel and his being attacked in the house?

9. Bug, his growing fears, the encounter with his mother, her death? The police? Alex and his disappearance, his return, Alex being possessed, the fight, death?

10. The police, the attacks on the house, deaths? Bug, his being the lone survivor, being the son of the killer, the killer coming into him? A future?

AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY

US, 2013, 130 minutes, Colour.
Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Ewan Mc Gregor, Julianne Nicholson, Juliette Lewis, Sam Shepherd, Margo Martindale, Chris Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch, Abigail Breslin, Dermot Mulroney, Misty Upham.
Directed by John Wells.

August in Osage County is very hot, which does not do very much for people’s moods. And the moods in this film can be sometimes quite grim, often angry, and manifested in bizarre behaviour and a barrage of coarse language. It is not the most cheerful of family dramas, but is fascinating in a morbid kind of way.

It began life as a play, winning the Pulitzer Prize for its author, Tracy Letts. He has adapted his play for the screen – and, it often seems like a play, relying on intense dialogue and quite a number of set scenes, including an eruption at a long and frustrating family meal.

One of the grimmest characters in Osage County is a successful poet, Beverley Weston (Sam Shepherd) who is immediately introduced as interviewing a young Native American (and much is made of this fact with the film set in Oklahoma) to look after his wife. She is Vi, an angry woman, ageing, ill, relying on a mass of prescription drugs which sends her high and the absence sends her low. She is not impressed by her new maid. So the film begins with tensions and really doesn’t let up.

When Beverley disappears, Vi becomes anxious. At home she has to rely on one of her three daughters, Ivy, Julianne Nicholson, whom she treats with some disdain. She relies much more on her sister, Mattie Fae (Margot Martindale) who is something of a hard case as well and harbours a family secret.

Coming on to the scene is the oldest of the three daughters, played by a gaunt-looking Julia Roberts, perpetually angry and contributing mightily to that barrage of language. She comes with her husband, a rather meek Ewan Mc Gregor, although it emerges that they are separated. They bring their daughter (Abigail Breslin) who has torn emotions about her parents and is experimenting with drugs. so, plenty more ingredients for difficulties as the family prepares for the funeral and comes back after the funeral for that eruptive meal.

Also in the mix is another daughter who has stayed away from home for a long time. She is played by Juliette Lewis, rather naive, a bit on the outer, with her latest boyfriend, Steve, Dermot Mulroney, tagging along.

The more calm members of the family are Mattie Fae’s rather quiet and tolerant husband, Chris Cooper, and their son, whom the father admires but the mother is continually ridiculing, and comes late for the funeral, played by Benedict Cumberbatch.

The omission in this review of naming the character and the actress playing her is that of Vi herself. It is Meryl Streep, yet another most impressive impersonation and a different kind of performance and character. She has to play her age and project a complex personality, loving her husband in the past and admiring him, alienated from her daughters, highly erratic in how she deals with people, focusing on her drugs.

Perhaps this could be called a film that is more interesting rather than entertaining, although it is fascinating to watch the ensemble cast and their interactions. This is a highly dysfunctional American family. Not that there haven’t been many films with this theme, but here it is portrayed both seriously and comically, deadly secrets which can ruin people’s lives, attempts to deal with harsh realities and generally not succeeding.


1. The impact of the film? Spending so much time with such unlikeable characters?


2. The transition from play to film? The set pieces, the dialogue, the opening out for trips to town and church? The meal sequence? The musical score?

3. The atmosphere of Osage, Oklahoma, the planes, flat, the terrain, the town, the homes, the church, the heat, the ethos of Oklahoma?

4. The strength of the cast of performances?

5. August, the heat, the characters in the heat, the reactions to the heat, the effect of the heat, of the weather?

6. The introduction, Beverley, the angle from which was photographed, talking to Johnno, employment, her being a Native American, her care of Vi, her medical history, the background of the marriage and the relationship, her pills, cancer, drinking? His quoting T.S.Eliot, the background of the marriage, as a husband, father, three daughters, his affair, Little Charles, his poetry and awards? His leaving, the note, the boat, the money issues, his death, the focus of the funeral?

7. Johnno, her background, Native American, her role for care, cooking? being insulted? Appreciated? Her listening? Slapping Steve? The end and the Pietà?

8. Vi, Meryl Streep’s performance, the matriarch, her age, history of illness, her cancer, continued smoking, the treatment and her hair, the wig and its impression? Being harsh, high on drugs? Gratitude, language, despising of Johnno, a severe mother? Her marrying Beverley, love for him, his affair and her knowing about it? Her relationship with her sister? Contrary, crass, her prospects, life and death?

9. Ivy, at home, her relationship with her father, and not being appreciated, her mother looking down on her? The discussion about relationships, her secret love? The revelation about Little Charles? Her relationship with her sisters? Love, plans to go to New York, revealing the plan to others, the revelation of the truth, the effect on her, the sad sister?

10. Beverley’s disappearance, contacting Barbara? Barbara and Julia Roberts? A rage, relationship with her mother, early leaving home, academic career? Her father’s pride in her? Her marriage, the years, her husband’s affair, the breakup? Covering up in coming to the funeral? Her relationship with her daughter, her concern about her? Rough manner, the language, the relationship with her sisters, the discussions? The arguments, the talks with a husband, with her daughter, and about her daughter? concerned? The church in the ceremony? The ups and downs of her moods, her concerns, her arguments?

11. Barbara and her toughness, the importance of the meal, eating, at the end of her tether, the attack on her mother, the fight, the end and her walking away? Her mother in the field?

12. Barbara’s husband, seeming nice, care, driving the car, with their daughter, the truth about the separation, his driving them to the funeral, around the town? Going to the shops? The situation with Jean, the drugs, with Steve?

13. Karen, her being away, brash, manner of talking, naive? The men in her life? Steve, bringing him, her surprise? His behaviour, talking with Jean, alcohol, the drugs, Jean accepting them, with him, the sexual approach, her reaction, Johnno and her attack on Steve? His being ousted?

14. At the church, hot, the ceremony, the clergyman, the effect? The tribute to Beverley? The variety of reactions from the family?

15. The build-up to the meal, the staging of the meal, the length within the film, what was said, how it was said? Truth and lies? Secrets? Deceit? Hurt? Physical attack? The possibility of catharsis or was the family not tragic enough?

16. Mattie Fae, Vi’s sister, taking sides, dominating her husband, ridiculing her son? The attitudes of her husband, placid, at the table, anger underneath? Whether he knew the truth about his wife and Beverley or not? A decent man, relating well to his son? Supporting him against his wife? His telling his wife the truth?

17. Little Charles, reputation, late, the bus, his excuses, the bond with Ivy, at the table, his being humiliated? His love for Ivy, the revelation about the truth and his father?

18. Vi, knowing the truth about Charles, Mattie Fae and her revelations and fears? Vi’s attitude?

19. Vi and her condition at the end? Her daughters leaving? Barbara, alone, driving the car? Vie in the field?

20. Human nature, the goodness of human nature, yet the malice, as demonstrated in this most dysfunctional family?