THE SAPPHIRES

Australia, 2012, 103 minutes, Colour.
Deborah Mailman, Chris O’ Dowd, Jessica Mauboy, Shari Sebbens, Miranda Tapsell, Tory Kittles.
Directed by Wayne Blair.

Quite a crowd pleaser – and deservedly so.
Who were the Sapphires? They were a group of Australian singers who went to Vietnam in the late 1960s to entertain the troops. They have not loomed large in the Australian memory. Why? Was it because the Sapphires were an aboriginal group and their tour of Vietnam took place just after the 1967 referendum on the aboriginal vote?

The film is an adaptation of a musical play written by Tony Briggs whose mother and aunt were members of The Sapphires. It has been directed with feeling by actor, Wayne Blair. It is not intended as a documentary account of what happened. Rather, it is an entertainment, an often-thoughtful entertainment, developing story lines from the original experiences.

It is a delight to see pictures of the women at the end of the film and learn of their more than forty years of service to the aboriginal communities, especially in Redfern.

On an aboriginal mission in country Victoria, some girls enter a competition in the local town, much to the prejudice of the hotel proprietor and many of the people attending the talent quest. The girls don’t win. And some bigoted, even vicious comments are aimed at them.

Meanwhile out on the mission, two young women are part of the group, (Gail, the ever-impressive Deborah Mailman, and Cynthia, Miranda Tapsell) performing to the delight of parents and the community – and a younger sister, Julie who sings best (Jessica Mauboy) who is determined to be part of it (and wangles getting into town). The breakthrough comes with the lackadaisickal compere at the competition, Dave (Chris O’ Dowd). He becomes alert to the talent and offers to be the girls’ manager. Not easy because, Gail, the older sister, has a highly developed sense of responsibility. She clashes vigorously with Dave but is persuaded that they should go to Melbourne for an audition.

While the film offers many images of aboriginal life and status in the late 1960s, it also introduces the theme of the stolen generation when the girls need a cousin who lives in Melbourne, passing as white to her subconsciously racist friends, Kay (Shari Stebbens). Gail has issues with Kay which will surface when they are on tour.

To their delight and glee, the girls impress at the audition and they and their manager are en route to Saigon.

Audiences are familiar with the visuals of the Vietnam war from classics like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter, grim pictures of jungle battles, snipers in unfamiliar terrains, the Viet Cong. Apocalypse Now and, especially Bette Midler’s singing of In My Life in For the Boys, have stories of the entertainers. While the same elements are present here, convincingly portrayed, life in Saigon, the American presence, the touches of sleaze, but it is the range of songs, the situations where the concerts are held, the appreciation of the American soldiers which give verve and energy to the film.

The interesting thing is how the girls respond. Cynthia is out for a good time, boys, drink, even drugs. Julie, who has a little boy at home, is more cautious, but reacts against Gail’s supervision, but gets the opportunity to impress entrepreneurs. Kay is attracted to a soldier but conscious of her mixed race background. In the meantime, Dave and Gail fight, are caught up in dangerous situations, including a bombardment – but, of course, they are really attracted to each other, despite Dave’s often drinking, gambling and missing bookings.

There is use of some footage from the period, a recreation of the sense of the war in Australia at the time, protest and support. But, it is the characters and the amazing tour that they would not have anticipated as well as the range of songs of the time (and Jessica Mauboy’s performances with the others’ backup), that makes the film both lightly and seriously enjoyable.

1. The popularity of the film? In Australia? Overseas? Feelgood yet serious?

2. Based on a true story? The final photos of the original Sapphires? The tribute to their work for Aboriginal issues?

3. The title, popular musical groups of the 1960s, their songs, popularity of country and western songs amongst Aboriginal people? US soul and its being transferred to the Vietnam situation, spirit and experience?

4. The prologue, the four girls, their song, the status of Aborigines and mission stations in 1958?

5. The credits, the visual collage, the 1960s, involvement in Vietnam, protests, war action? The later use of footage to contribute to the sense of period? Black and white and colour? Martin Luther King, the assassination? Aboriginal protests? The referendum of 1967? These themes as undertone to the story?

6. 1968, life on the Aboriginal town, cleaner than expected, families, the popularity of song? Parents, grandparents? Children, engagements, hopes?

7. The group going to town, Gail and Cynthia, Julie not being allowed to go? Her age (yet her having the child)? The songs, Yellow Bird, the mother joining in? Gail and Cynthia not getting a lift, the issue of racial prejudice? Julie getting a lift and going to join the girls?

8. The talent quest, the local hotel, the country town, Dave and his being MC, waking in the van, his trousers, the various acts, the girls singing a Seekers song? Gail and Cynthia, Julie joining them? The comments from the audience, their lack of interest, bigotry? The boy as the only one applauding? Gail and her comments about the land, taunting the audience? The walkout? Dave and his being impressed, joining in with the piano? Their not winning, the upset? Out on the street, the bigotry of the owner, Dave sacked?

9. The group, talking with Dave, his urging them to sing soul music rather than country and western? Gail and the clashes with Dave? Julie and the advertisement, pretending not to read, the issue of groups going to Vietnam?

10. The trio, Cynthia as vivacious, the subplot with Jimmy, the engagement, the flashback and her excitement? Calling it off? Julie and her age, her son? Gail as the loyal daughter, mothering, the leader, the arguments with Dave?

11. Dave and his story, his marriage, separation? Wandering Australia? The ad, the phone call, his managing the group? Going to the town, Dad and his comments about fishing and Catfish and its interiors? The mother not wanting Julie to go? Giving the blessing?

12. The character of Kay, the flashbacks, her mother, her being taken, the stolen generation? The other children hiding from the authorities? Kay, her return for her mother’s funeral, wearing the school uniform, her mouthing the work ethic and attitude towards Aborigines? Gail and her being unforgiving? The grandmother knowing where Kay lived? Going for the visit, the Tupperware party, Kay’s friends, their snobbery, the attack? Kay and her decision to go?

13. The rehearsals, the awkwardness, their getting the hang of singing and performing? The sexy attitude of Cynthia? Gail as leader? Julie as the singing force? The audition, the impact, the plans for Vietnam?

14. The picture of Vietnam, location photography, Saigon in the 1960s, the old city, recreated for the film, the newsreel footage? The streets, bars, the Americans, the Vietnamese, the issue of the Viet Cong and spies, the clubs, prostitution?

15. The local agent, Gail asking for money, the hotel accommodation, Kay going to the pool, seeing Robert, the attraction?

16. The performances, the wariness at first, the soldiers all joining in, dancing, success? The performances for small groups, for the hospitals – and their weeping at the injuries? The morale needed after the assassination of Martin Luther King? The number of African Americans on duty in Vietnam?

17. Cynthia, her place in the band, her attitude towards sex, freedom, performing for the crowd, getting off the stage, Gail and her anger with Cynthia?

18. Julie, her being overwhelmed, her songs, her talent, the US possibilities for a career?

19. Kay and Robbie, going out, their talk, the issue of who was black? In the helicopter? The final rescue?

20. Dave, managing, playing the piano? The interaction with each of the girls? Talking frankly with Gail, attacking her for her big mouth? The issue of cash? Receiving the money, his drinking, gambling, mistaking the phone call, no military escort, the dangers?

21. The drive, the Viet Cong stopping them, singing Sadie the Cleaning Lady, Kay talking the Yorta language, their being let through? Greater acceptance of Kay by Gail?

22. The performances, the songs, the spectacle?

23. Dave, Gail, talking, the phone call, from their mother, talking to everyone at home?

24. The attack, running, the helicopters, deaths, Dave and his searching, shot? The audience reaction? Gail’s reaction?

25. The importance of Dave’s letter, Gail reading it, the feelings, the truth?

26. The rescue, the helicopter – and still the bigotry with the American soldier not wanting nigger hands on him, his dying?

27. Dave, being wounded, in the hospital – everybody’s relief that he was alive?

28. Back home, the proposal, the father and his comments on love? The jokes at Dave’s expense? The song, the group, the men on the station joining in? Jimmy and Cynthia? Julie and the bespectacled young man?

29. The final tribute to the actual Sapphires, their photos?

30. A cinematic achievement, for Australian audiences and their perspectives on Aborigines? Overseas?

SOUND OF MY VOICE

US, 2011, 85 minutes, Colour.
Christopher Denham, Nicole Vicius, Brit Marling, Davenia Mc Fadden, Richard Wharton.
Directed by Zal Batmanglij.

The voice in question is that of Maggie, played with confident allure by Brit Marling (Another Earth, Arbitrage) who co-wrote the screenplay. It is a charming voice, but can it be trusted?

As the film opens, we see a young couple being showered, robed, bound, blindfolded and transported to a mysterious destination. On arrival, we realize that they are coming to a cult group and are about to be received. Then, Maggie, with breathing apparatus support, comes in veiled, suggesting a sacred presence. She seems to be from the future and has returned to bring salvation to chosen ones.

We then realize that the couple are documentary film-makers, getting footage surreptitiously to expose Maggie as con and fake. Most of us will realize that we share their scepticism and listen to Maggie’s plausible moralizing, her condemnations and her embracing her disciples. Brain and emotion-washing.

It is not as easy to infiltrate a cult as the couple imagination and Maggie is a mixture of charm and insightful insinuation. She also makes a demand of the young man which could put him outside the law. Will he do it? Has he succumbed to Maggie’s persuasion?

As is probably proper for this kind of hypothetical situation, there are enough indications that Maggie is a fraud, but also some moments where we wonder whether she is actually who she claims she is. Which means that there could be a lot of discussion and argument after the final credits.


1. Audiences’ interest in cults, the New Age movement, time travel? Combination of these themes? The title and its tone?

2. The Los Angeles settings, the apartment, the work of film-makers, primary schools, the museum, ordinary life? The contrast with the cult’s basement, rooms? The storeroom? The medical room? The musical score?

3. The screenplay divided into chapters, the effect, continuity and episodes?

4. Peter and Lorna, the process of gaining entrance to the cult, the shower, the scrubbing, the robe, arms bound, the blindfold? The twenty-minute drive? The characteristic handshake? Klaus, the introduction to the group, the Chinese couple? The cult setting?

5. The introduction to Maggie, her oxygen, her robe, hair, her appearance? Her status as leader?

6. Her story, wandering Los Angeles, falling to Earth? Her being helped, meeting Klaus, hiding in the basement? The establishment of the cult? The choosing of disciples, preparing them? The ritual entry?

7. The sessions, the tones of brainwashing, loyalties, the soothing voice, life in the future, back to the present to save it?

8. Peter and Lorna, Peter wearing the glasses with the camera? Not achieving much footage? His swallowing the camera – and Maggie’s cajoling him, his retching? Sceptical attitudes? The audience sharing them?

9. Lorna and her participation, listening to Maggie? Yet questioning? Going for the walk in the woods, the target practice? Her vegan and not eating the worms? Suspicions? Love for Peter? Observing him being seduced by Maggie’s power?

10. Peter, ordinary, his teaching primary school, the children, Abigail and her problems in class, the bullying, the other members of the staff, with the students at the La Brea Museum? His drab life?

11. Maggie, her way of talking, singing the popular song of the future and discovering it was written in the 1990s? Her talking with Peter, questions about his past, getting inside his mind and emotions, his vomiting? Changing him?

12. The eating of the worms – the conservation reasons? It being distributed like Communion?

13. The eating of the apples, the bitter taste, the group spitting them out? Retching?

14. Lam and his questions, his being asked to prove events prior to his birth, his mistake about Kennedy? His being ousted? Christine staying?

15. The FBI agent, arriving, debugging her hotel room? Making contact with Lorna? The information about Maggie, robbery and arson? Setting up for trapping and arresting Maggie?

16. Abigail, her fits, her being bullied at school, her father injecting her, the target of Maggie’s interventions?

17. Peter, his agreement to the abduction, the arguing with Lorna? The discussions with Maggie? Criminal behaviour? His finally agreeing? Lorna and her leaving, coming back, agreeing to participate, Peter and knifing the tyres, the teacher unable to supervise? His role with the children, the bus, the museum?

18. The plan, the members of the cult, accusing Peter of betrayal? Abigail, the explanation of consultation for family, the handshake with Maggie, her being Maggie’s mother?

19. Peter, the final bewilderment, was Maggie telling the truth, from the future, coincidence, scam?

20. The plausibility of Maggie coming from the future, falling to Earth, the robbery and arson as her way of survival? Amnesia? Or was this all just a ploy to create a cult, a militia, exercise of power?

ACT OF KILLING

Indonesia, 2012, 159 minutes (Director’s cut), Colour.
Directed by Joshua Oppenheimer.

This is one of the grimmest films you are likely to see.

Nevertheless, for those who can sit through it, it is a film to be recommended. It won an Ecumenical award at the Berlin film festival in 2013. Anyway, the title can act as a warning.

With the fall of the Soviet empire, one of the questions which lurked in people’s minds was: whatever happened to the KGB officials, their prison guards, the torturers?

And the same question could be raised about ex-Stasi, or any of those police regimes where there was a sudden transition and those who were in power, with a capacity for violence, had to merge into a different kind of society.

This is the background to this film. It is an Indonesian story. It takes us back to the anti-communist massacres of that year of living dangerously, 1965. There were many killers during that time. Many of them are still alive, living ordinary lives at home.

The idea behind this film is for the director to make contact with some of the killers of that time, especially Anwar Congo, who seems more than willing to participate in a film. He prides himself on being a movie fan, working in cinemas in the past, and really liking Elvis Presley. The film-makers had a plan to interview some of the killers, find out what made them tick in the past, and what they think and feel in retrospect. Another idea was then for them to re-enact a number of the killings, in whatever dramatic way they decided and wanted to.

The director, Joshua Oppenheimer, stays behind the camera and does not intrude personally into the film. This gives some control to Anwar Congo and the friends and associates he brings into the film. One is a rather more controlling killer from that era. The other is a rather large and younger man, who remembers some of the events when he was a child, tags along with Congo, likes to cross-dress, especially for the film, and finally decides that he should stand for election in a campaign for local issues. God forbid, that he should win! A momentary spoiler: he doesn’t. But he continues to hang around the film, participating in the re-enactments, giving audience plenty to think about when they encounter this kind of character in Indonesia today.

It seems best simply to say that Congo has no remorse. In fact, he has no reluctance to go back to the past, talking about the killings, the brutality of stabbings and bashings, moving to garrotting for which he gets some associates to help him re-enact with quite some vividness. At other times he is content to discuss matters and compare notes with his old friend. And he’s certainly not hesitating in talking to camera.

He takes for granted that the communists were the enemy and had to be eliminated. This was the period of the Vietnam war and American and allied antagonism towards the communists in Indochina. There were government implications in the hiring of these killers. With some nods to American movies, they saw themselves as gangsters. However, gangsters was not a slighting term. Rather, Congo explains several times, gangsters were those who really free – he says that is the main meaning of the word (with a touch of the 1965 song, Born Free to illustrate this. So, of course, this meant that the gangsters were the good guys and whatever they did, the massacres, were good.

There are many scenes in the latter part of the film where there are local elections, and some of the politicians in Sumatra give their views on the way elections work, especially in terms of bribes, special deals and promises. There also are some official scenes of banquets with these politicians who made no secret of their way of life. Then, it is something of a shock, to see Congo interviewed on local television where the role of the interviewer, a bright young woman, is to enable them to talk without any embarrassment about what they have done in the past - and receive her congratulations.

Part of the intrigue of the film is the different ways in which Congo and his friends decide to dramatize what they did. Sometimes there are very realistic, getting help from some of the local women and children to role play what I was like to be a communist and be arrested and tortured. At other times there are quite some surreal moments, especially at the opening with a strange kind of building, a cross between a Nissan hut and a giant tortoise, from which a group of dancing girls appear and in rather strange local dramas, especially with the larger man and his impersonating a cross-dresser, which make demands on the audience imagination of what they symbolize.

The director’s cut runs for over 2 ½ hours, so the film is something of an endurance experience. However, it is a document about a particular era in Indonesia’s history, the elimination of communist enemies of the state, the brutal massacres and the carefree attitudes of their murderers, even after almost half a century of from the events.

The film, harrowing as it is at times, represents not only the face of evil, but the faces of actual evil.

1. The title and expectations?

2. The violence in its time? The re-enactments? Attitudes towards the violence and to the re-enactments?

3. The film-makers, going to Indonesia? Coming to grips with the issues? The cast? The approval of what they did? Audience disapproval?

4. The locations, northern Sumatra? The villages, the streets, houses, crowds, markets? The politics, the campaigns? The interviews in the street, the bribes? The election results? Interviews with ordinary people? The picture of contemporary Indonesia? The contrast between then and now?

5. Finding the characters? Congo, his memories, his life, his re-enactments, his memories of the communists, the people he tortured, murdered? His memories of the movies and Elvis Presley? Money? Gangsters? Any remorse?

6. 1965, the government, the military, the role of the Communists, the aim to destroy the Communists, rounding them up, interviews, torture, execution, the illustration of a garotting? The gangs, criminals? Ordinary people?

7. Gangsters, the definition of the gangster, good, the used by authority to purge the criminals, gangsters as free men? The money, the influence, relying on the government? The government relying on them?

8. The re-enactments? The initial shell with the dancers emerging? This used as a refrain? Its purpose?

9. Herman, the big man, his life, age, cross-dressing, symbol, his participation in the films? His characters? His interest in politics, his hopes, his explanations, wanting the money? Failing?

10. The contemporary politician, carefree, with Congo, his memories, his torturing people, his later life, detached from the past events?

11. The situations, the actors, the women and children, training them to weep, to re-enact the suffering?

12. The social, the wealthy, corruption not seen as corruption but pay to politicians, yet the boasting about protection money? The observations of the modern politicians?

13. The TV interview and the host praising Congo?

14. The victims, the torture, the suffering?

15. The 20th century, the 50 years perspective?

16. The ultimate impact of the film, faces of evil?

THE BUTLER

US, 2013, 132 minutes, Colour.
Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, David Oleyo, Cuba Gooding Jr, Lennie Kravitz, Terrence Howard, Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Redgrave, Clarence Williams III, Robin Williams, James Marsden, John Cusack, Leiv Schreiber, Jane Fonda, Alan Rickman.
Directed by Lee Daniels.

The Butler was very successful on its release in the U.S. in 2013. It is based on the story of Cecil Gaines, a butler at the White House serving under six presidents.

This is an interesting and entertaining film that can be dismissed by more serious film buffs and critics as being too popular and populist, obvious in its race message, and in its moralising. However, the action takes place over an 80 year period, crucial years in the change of attitudes towards African Americans in the United States.

It is a portrait of Cecil Gaines and his wife, Gloria – Gaines portrayed with great dignity by Forest Whitaker, a noble man yet a man of limitations and failings, especially with his wife and children. It is a portrait of Gloria, an ordinary woman who found herself married to the butler, proud of him, yet his not taking her to the White House, his working overtime and her feeling alienated, even to an affair, but reconciling with and supporting her husband. She is played with great strength by Oprah Winfrey.

The brief opening of the film is quite effective, taking place in Georgia in 1926, in the cotton fields where the black workers are still doing the equivalent of slave work. Cecil is a young boy. His mother is sexually assaulted by the son of the owner of the plantation, Alex Pettyfer, who shoots the boy’s father. Vanessa Redgrave portrays the mother, kind, yet still racist in attitudes. It is a powerful reminder of race relationships in the early 20th century.

As bigotry continues it is dramatized by the protests in the American south in the late 1950s and the first half of the 1960s until the changes in legislation. This is personalized in the film when Cecil’s and Gloria’s older son, Louis, David Oleyo, chooses to be part of the protests in the south, experiencing the prejudice, the Ku Klux Klan, 16 times in prison, sympathy for the Black Panthers.

In the meantime Cecil is employed at the White House, one of the many black staff who were not paid the same wages as the white staff, even for decades. The history of America and its race issues is portrayed over the period 1957-1988. During that time there were six American presidents. Some of them are portrayed in cameos, quite effectively, a serious Robin Williams as Eisenhower, a young and eager James Marsden as John F. Kennedy, a rough and ready Lyndon B. Johnson by Liev Schreiber. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter are seen only in archival footage. But Alan Rickman appears as Ronald Reagan, sometimes kind, sometimes stubborn, especially in the issue of the raising sanctions against South Africa. He is against the sanctions. Surprisingly in view of her political past, Jane Fonda appears as Nancy Reagan.

Then the film moves 20 years to the election of President Obama, including one of his speeches. Cecil Gaines has lived from being a virtual slave in the cotton fields to witnessing the election of a black American president.

The film was directed by Lee Daniels who made an impression with his film Precious, caused some controversy with his film The Paperboy, but received great acclaim for The Butler.

1. Acclaim for the film? Its appeal? To Americans? African-Americans? Other groupings? World audiences?

2. An overview of American history for 80 years? Race issues? Society? Politics? Protest? Legislation? Changes in attitudes - and attitudes remaining the same? The different audience response codes?

3. The cast, bringing the story and characters alive? Styles for the focus? Cameos, of interest, the ironies of casting, for instance, Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave?

4. The framework of the story, the White House, Cecil and his sitting waiting, the image of the lynchings?

5. The film and its screenplay as accessible, a strong message, even moralizing? Different audiences identifying, admiring, amazed about the changes in the decades?

6. 1926, the visuals of the plantation, cotton, the men and women and children working in the fields, the father’s explanation about cotton picking? The house, the family, traditions, the slave tradition and conditions? Cecil as a boy, his mother being taken by the plantation owner, being used, Cecil urging his father to protest, his father being shot? His being taken into the house, the house-nigger? Being looked after by the mother? His learning and its standing him in good stead?

7. The son of the landowner, using and abusing people, the woman’s scream, the father helpless, the shooting, the mother and her helping the boy, yet her racist attitudes? Urging him to go? His mother’s descent into madness?

8. Cecil leaving, his being urged to leave, looking for jobs, the cake in the window and his breaking the window and stealing? The kind protector, his work, succeeding, his being recommended for the DC job?

9. Washington, DC, the 1950s, Cecil’s skills, serving at the hotel, personal, not listening to the talk, his being recruited, the interview, the black manager of
staff, the contrast with Warner and his not responding to Cecil even though he recommended him? The later visits to his office, the interviews, Cecil not being invited to sit down, the discussion about wages, the rejection, the intervention of President Reagan- a comeuppance for Warner?

10. Cecil and his family, his love for Gloria, his sons, Gloria and her drinking, happiness, meals at home, Louis and his attitude, studying, choice of university, the black university? Gloria and her friends, the dancing, with her friend’s husband, the later affair, talking together, her putting an end to it? His reaction? A sense of realism rather than glamorising the characters?

11. Life at the White House, the uniforms, crockery and cutlery, cleaning, the rules, urging discretion, the two faces of the African American, the real face for themselves, the face for the whites? The rule not to listen to conversation? Life in the kitchen, Cecil and his friends, their work, over the years, Carter and his smutty talk, the laughs in the kitchen? Over time? His not going home, Gloria and her feeling neglected? His not taking her to the White House?

12. Eaisenhower and his attitude, watching the television, talking with Cecil, both from farms, the bond? Nixon as vice-president, coming to the kitchen with his campaign badges, the staff listening to him? His self-focus?

13. Louis, his age, serious young man, the contrast with Charlie? The decision to go to the university, going south, attending the meetings, the activist girlfriend? Going to the diner, sitting at the counter, the protests, the bigoted attitudes of the whites, arrest, going to jail 16 times? Travelling in the freedom bus, the blockade and the roads, the Ku Klux Klan? Smashing the bus windows, escaping before the flames? Phoning his father? Cecil not giving a positive response? His staying in the south, the protests? After the change in legislation, joining the Pink Panthers, the uniform, coming with the girl to the house, her bad manners, the bad impression, Cecil ousting his son? Changing legislation, the scene with Martin Luther King, asking about Louis’ father, the subversive roles of butler’s according to King? His assassination? Charlie going to Vietnam, Louis trying to persuade him against it? Death and his brother’s funeral? Yet getting his master’s degree? Gloria later telling the story of her sickness, soiling herself and Louis cleaning her? Standing for Congress? His father not supporting him? The 1980s, the South Africa issue, Cecil changing his attitude, joining in the protest, the arrest? Louis being elected? His marrying, the family, lawyer taking umbrage at her daughter-in-law and her choice of name?

14. John F. Kennedy, genial, Jackie and their coming to the White House, Cecil and his telling the story to Caroline? Kennedy lying on the floor, his back pain, watching the television, Bobby Kennedy’s change of heart, John F. Kennedy’s change? The impact of the assassination, at the White House, Cecil upset, Carter rushing to the television, Gloria’s response? Jackie Kennedy and the bloodstained clothes? Not changing? The suggestions of an era?

15. The contrast with Lyndon Johnson, his style, rough, on the toilet, facing the legislation, his own Texan background, the Vietnam War, His attitudes towards Cecil?

16. The act now, the visuals, Charlie and his volunteering, Louis warning against it, their discussions, enlisting, his death, happening so quickly, grief and household, the funeral and its formalities?

17. The sketch of Nixon, in decline, his interviews and comments?

18. The passing over the Ford and Carter eras, with television and news footage?

19. Cecil and Gloria, the clashes, alone after the absence of their children, Charlie’s death, the reconciliation?

20. The Reagan era, Nancy Reagan, personal, discussions with Cecil, inviting him and Gloria to dinner, Gloria happy to be at the White House, Cecil not enjoying it? The jokes from his fellow workers when they served? Reagan, his generous donations, asking them to go through Cecil so that Nancy would not know? The senators and the audience with Reagan, sanctions on South Africa? Regan taking a hard line? His intervening with Warner about paying conditions for black workers? The formal scenes with the Reagans?

21. The years passing, 20 years later, Louis and the acceptance, Cecil in his nineties, Gloria, sitting in the table, her quiet death?

22. The election of president of Obama, his speech, the change of a 80 years?

23. Themes of hope, change, the symbol of Cecil giving out cookies in the White House and the rush on them earlier, the later children saying ‘thank you’?

24. An entertainment, interesting, social commentary?

 

 

 

 

RUNNER RUNNER

US, 2013, 90 minutes, Colour.
Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, Gemma Arterton, Anthony Mackie, John Heard.
Directed by Brad Furman.

This is one of those thrillers which might have sounded well worthwhile on paper but that somehow doesn’t quite deliver on screen.

While the setting is gambling, casinos, and the gambling culture in the US and in Costa Rica, it is once again the story of the young man, ambitious, who overestimates his capacities and becomes the victim of someone he admires and then discovers is devious and an exploiter. Memories of such stories as the Grisham’s The Firm.

This time the young man is played by Justin Timberlake, a student who has a father with gambling addiction, who organizes online play at his college campus. Warned by the head of the college, he decides to go to Costa Rica to meet the man whom he considers the top of online and international gambling. He is played with suitable aplomb and ever-growing sinister behaviour by Ben Affleck. Also in the picture is Gemma Arteton who does become involved in the plot but seems to be there more for conventional decoration, and she doesn’t give a very lively or credible performance.

Anthony Mackie appears as one of the more ruthless FBI agents on screen in recent times, relentless in his pressuring of American young men who become involved with the boss and gambling types, who would be arrested as soon as they set foot on American Territory. Also in the mix is John Heard as the hero’s father, being set up to pressurize his son to do whatever the boss asks.

Our hero learns the way of the world in being smart and outsmarting opponents. Having been bashed, he then calls on the help of those who were his opponents but now want the opportunity to get back on the boss.

There are some dramatic moments at the end of the film, reinforcing the cleverness of the hero, especially in his outwitting the boss.

Just OK and watchable while it as on the screen, then out of mind and memory.

1. The world and gambling? Crime, exploitation?

2. An entertainment: Richie and his being young, enterprising? Ivan and his schemes, exploitation? Richie being used? Smart retaliation?

3. An American story, the American College, Richie his voiceover, the students and their debts, his making money? The interview with the dean and the dean’s warning?

4. Richie and his needs, his father’s gambling, payment for his college tuition? His plan, going to Costa Rica, entering a Hispanic world? His settling down? Going to see Ivan, prevented, managing an introduction? Accusing Ivan of swindling him? Ivan meeting him, the reaction, his being welcomed? Richie and his meeting Rebecca, the attraction? His position in the company, the other young American men, Andrew and his skills? The aims? Promoting gambling? In the context of Costa Rica, legislation, bribes?

5. The FBI, the agent and his intrusion, the warnings, taking tough stances? Threatening Richie, threatening Andrew?

6. Ivan, as a person, Rebecca as his assistant, this past relationship? His smooth style?

7. Richie being passed to deliver the money, the bribes, the officials, the confrontation, talk, ignorance, his being bashed, his reaction? His anger with Ivan?

8. The portrait of Richie’s father, Ivan bringing him to Costa Rica, the internment, talking with his son, warning his son? His later being rescued?

9. Richie and the truth, Ivan’s plans, using all the funds and moving on, Andrew and his being beaten, his deal with the group who bashed him, his contact with the captain and his plane? Bribes in bags, delivering to the police? Preparing for his retaliation and escape?

10. Rebecca, going along with the plan, antagonism towards Ivan, defying him? The plan to transfer to Antigua? Getting Ivan on the plane? The irony of the landing in Puerto Rico?

11. Richie and the FBI agent, the deals and promises, Richie leaving on the plane with Rebecca and his father, the anger of the agent, the delivery of the USB and his satisfaction?

12. Richie and his shrewdness, using the captain of the plane, getting Ivan on American territory, his arrest? Richie’s escape and move into a new phase in his life?

 

RUSH

US, 2013, 132 minutes, Colour.
Chris Hemworth, Daniel Bruehl, Alexandra Maria Lara, Olivia Wilde.
Directed by Ron Howard.

Any fan of Formula One will not want to miss Rush.

And for those who are not so keen or dislike it intensely, there is a human drama here amongst all the races and competitiveness which is of more than ordinary interest.

The focus of the film is on the Formula One races of 1976. The film has established both the characters of British James Hunt and Austrian Nicky Lauda. They both come from wealthy families and have fathers who disapprove of their choices of racing driving. However, they are independent-minded, stand up to their parent and decide that this is their vocation. James Hunt is the very British public school student who lives a privileged life - and rather exploits it in his partying and womanising. He has a group of friends who finance him in his move up the rungs towards Formula One. Lauda, on the other hand, invests money in racing companies and makes himself indispensable to them, especially with his engineering skills and his ability to work on cars to make them go faster.

Both coming on the scene at the same time brings an almost inevitable move towards the competitiveness - although it appears that they shared rooms initially, something omitted from the film to highlight the rivalry.

Chris Hemsworth who has proven himself a very reliable Thor in both the original film as well as The Avengers and the soon-to-follow new adventures of Thor. This time he has a fine opportunity to create a character and he does so with great aplomb. Daniel Bruehl is a very reliable screen presence in many films from Germany and Spain (he has parents from both countries) as well as in a number of English-language films. Hunt is handsome and debonair, Lauda is a driven and disciplined man in a severely Teutonic way, has some protruding teeth which, he acknowledges, makes him look rather rodent-like. However, whenever he looks like, he is a champion driver and absolutely determined.

The film then settles down to show the races of 1976. They are filmed with a pounding musical score as well as the inevitable noise volume of the cars, heightened by the sound engineering, so that fans will feel (and hear) that they are actually watching races in real life. The filming and editing of the racing sequences is expert, capturing all the excitement not only for an observer but with shots from inside the cars, the drivers’ take on the speed, the dangers, evading other cars, finding the gaps, as might be facetiously said, from their vroom with a view

Then comes the gruesome accident where Lauda is severely injured, especially in his face, which required some reconstructing. The film shows the pain he put up with in the process of healing, urged on by his watching Hunt on television beginning to catch up on point scores for world champion. Within weeks, the relentless Lauda is back on the track, determined to preserve his championship status from the previous year.

The film makes many points about the dangerous nature of Formula One at that time, Lauda organising a meeting of fellow drivers to ask them not to race because of the dangers. He is not a persuasive negotiator and they refuse.

Once back on the track, in the Formula One race in Japan, Lauda decides that the rain and wet track is too dangerous and withdraws from the race. Hunt perseveres in the very difficult circumstances and is able to achieve 1976 world champion status, by one point.

The film has an interesting gallery of supporting characters, especially from the different companies, and sponsors, indicating the background of finance needed to race Formula One cars. There is also some attention given to the human interest stories in the relationships of the two men. Profligate in his relationships with women, Hunt meets Susie Miller and impulsively decides to marry her. He is involved in his sport and partying life. She works in New York. The marriage is doomed, especially when she meets Richard Burton who leaves Elizabeth Taylor for the second time and marries her. The relationship between Nicky Lauda and his wife is much more serious, beginning with a humorous episode where she doesn’t believe he is a racing driver. When her car breaks down and two men give them a lift and are overawed that Lauda is driving their car. She is a strong-minded woman, allowing Lauda his passion for driving, not intrusive but very supportive.

We are informed at the end that James Hunt died at the age of 45 of a heart attack, and probably from very hard living. Nicky Lauda went into flight company work and established his own airline.

Two years ago there was a documentary on Ayrton Senna and his rivalry with Alain Prost, an intriguing and well-regarded film. But here is biography, semi-documentary, wiith a screenplay written by Peter Morgan (The Queen, The Last King of Scotland, The Audience, Frost/Nixon) and directed by Ron Howard, an expert in making films which are very popular, well-crafted. Howard is oone of the best Hollywood story-tellers (though no studio would finance this film and he made it with independent companies – with Lauda-like tenacity).

1. Audience interest in Formula One? Its history and the 20th century? The champions, competitiveness, rivalry, the danger of the sport? The lifestyles of the champions?

2. Ron Howard as director, his ability to tell stories, popular stories, the variety in his career?

3. Audience knowledge of Formula One, important for appreciating the film? The fans? For non-fans?

4. The RE-creation of Formula One and the races, the noise, the pounding score? A subjective point of view from the driver’s seat, surveying the course?

5. Two stories intertwining? Hunt and his origins, Lauda and his origins? Both being wealthy and comfortable? Their fathers’ disapproval? There accepting driving as their career? The considerable skills? Relationships? Hunt and his being a social animal, partying, womanising? Lauda being the opposite, meticulous and disciplined? Their different dedication to their careers?

6. The introduction to the two, before there arriving at Formula One status? Hunt in himself, appearance, manner, his range of friends, party, the lord and his financing him, but his not being skilled and losing his money? Hunt’s going up the ladder at the levels of racing? Lauda by contrast, his appearance, the comment about looking like a rodent? His talking and buying his way into the sport? His manner, Germanic? His discussions with the companies, improving the speed of the cars? The different races, Lauda and his superiority?

7. Hunt, his age, manner, skill in driving, the public school background, his accent, playboy, with women, the liaison with the nurse and the hospital, his fans, escorting different women to functions, the meeting with Susan Miller, their interactions, the impulse of wedding? She in New York? The upset about his career? His treatment of her? Her marrying Richard Burton and the consequences?

8. Niki Lauda, his team, fellow drivers, especially Clay Regazzoni? The bosses? Lauda and his blunt manner, discipline, winning the races, his determination, fostering of the rivalry?

9. The difficulties of getting into Formula One, Hunt and the bankruptcy of his backers? Lauda and his team work?

10. Lauda meeting his wife, driving, her not believing he was a celebrity, the breakdown, hitchhiking, the men ignoring her feminine charm and fascinated by the fact that Nicky Lauda was driving their car? The excitement, speeding, the bond between the two? The marriage? Her not being intrusive, her being supportive?

11. The focus on 1976, the succession of races and the results, Lauda moving ahead as world champion? The meeting about the dangers on the track,
the drivers ignoring Lauda? Their reasons, his not being diplomatic?

12. The accident, the brutal injuries, the fire and his being burnt, rescuing him, hospital, the pain in the treatment and his undergoing it, watching Hunt on television and increasing his tally, the reconstruction of his face, the press conference? His return to racing?

13. Japan, the weather, his pulling out, the dangers? Hunt, determined to continue, the difficulties of the course, his winning? Lauda congratulating him? Hunt winning by a point, becoming world champion?, his lifestyle, his reputation, dead at 45? The contrast with Lauda, his interest in planes, his airline?

14. A successful blend of sports film, focus on Formula One, character study, presentation of rivalry?

IN BOB WE TRUST

Australia, 2013, 104 minutes, Colour.
Fr Bob Maguire, John Saffran.
Directed by Lynn- Maree Milburn.

With a title like that, there is an air of divinity attributed to the larger-than-life subject of this very well-made documentary, Fr Bob Maguire of the archdiocese of Melbourne.

The context of the film is the requirement of all parish priests and bishops to offer their resignation from the position at the age of 75. It is low-key to say that Bob was not willing to go from his parish, Sts Peter and Paul, in South Melbourne. At the top of the poster is a statement that this is a conflict of biblical proportions, a David and Goliath struggle. With the towering presence of Bob throughout the film, one suspects at times that Archbishop Hart, the definite villain of the piece, might be the David!

‘Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?’ – Henry II on St Thomas a’Beckett.

This is a partisan documentary. It is Bob Maguire’s campaign against his removal from the parish, the film-makers and photographers following Bob around for quite some time, shooting footage in the church, in his presbytery (and with his dog), in the streets, outside the James Good Building where the Archbishop has his office. There is lots of Bob to camera – not hesitating to give his opinions of the archbishop, sometimes muttering the word ‘fascist’ to camera.

A note at the end says that both Denis Hart and George Pell (shown at the end going into the Victorian Inquiry into sexual abuse) were offered the opportunity to be interviewed but declined.

Bob is nothing if not articulate – though very extroverted in manner, in the vein of ‘how do I know what I think until I’ve said it!’ This makes for a lot of repartee which can be quite amusing, though making an audience laugh does not necessarily mean that you are right. Over the years, Bob has developed, even cultivated, a persona which many audiences, even outside of Melbourne or Victoria, will have heard on many radio interviews (excerpts here from studio interviews with John Saffran and with Neil Mitchell – the film also includes Neil Mitchell questioning Denis Hart about the resignation issue) and on television, especially on the ABC and SBS. He is the bluff, rough and ready priest, something of an ecclesiastical ‘shock jock’, glad to be a bloody stirrer, ever ready to speak out about bullshit, with an accent that favours a slangy approach and a larrikin tone and a blokey dropping of g’s at the ends of words.

On the other hand, he has lots of Shakespeare references, Churchill quotes and mention of theology books which belie the bluff exterior and voice. Often advising those near him, if they have not got the reference, to look it up or Google it.

One of the clever devices for the film is the framing of the story as a benign spoof of the scene from Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, where Death plays chess with the Knight and they discuss life and fate, with John Saffran, bespectacled as Death and Bob dressed as the Knight, reminding us that his battle is a crusade. The film goes back to this black and white seaside chess joust throughout the film.

Another device is a long collage at the beginning of the film, incorporating a great deal of classic art pieces of Jesus Christ, intercut with an impressive number of brief clips from biblical films, including De Mille’s The King of Kings, The Ten Commandments, King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Pasolini’s Gospel According to St Matthew (although the commentary on St Paul is accompanied by Finlay Currie as St Peter in Quo Vadis). And, all the while there is Bob’s voiceover history of the Church, very larrikin-style in vocab and observations, comic but not designed to stand up to close scrutiny for accuracy.

After we have settled into the dimensions of the Crusade, with interventions by ardent supporters from South Melbourne parish, we move back to Bob’s ardent charity work on the streets of Melbourne, and get some glimpses of his growing up and his family story. There are some moving examples shown of people he helped from the streets to survive and find some dignity.

It is entertaining to listen to and watch Bob’s primary school teacher, Sister Maria Kavanagh, at the end of the film recounting the story of Bob’s autobiographical stories and imaginings when he was at school and at the seminary in Weribee (where, in a final story, he finishes up becoming a bishop, dying and lying in state).

What we finish up getting out of the film is a portrait of Bob and his vision of his priesthood and his life in the Catholic Church, more at the edges than in the centre. Yet, for many in Melbourne he has become the face of the Church, something that this film reinforces. With his blunt remarks and criticisms, and his jocoseness and his ironies, he makes it easier to be critical of authorities. A pity they didn’t take part in the film. It would have been interesting to listen to a to-and-fro between Denis Hart and Bob and discover that, perhaps, the archbishop might have had a point or two in his favour.

But, Bob, age 79 at the time of the release of the film, is still battling on, working for his charities, and that the Capuchins moved into the South Melbourne presbytery – their superior makes a sympathetic appearance.

However one responds to the on-screen Bob Maguire, we can say that Lynn- Maree Milburn knows how to put a film together and tell a story.

TAKEN 2

France/US, 2012, 91 minutes, Colour.
Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Rade Serbedzija, Luke Grimes.
Directed by Olivier Megaton.

Liam Neeson is an actor who seems to be able to bridge any gap between action fans and more serious cinemagoers. In recent years, he has opted for a number of action films, The A- Team, Taken, Unknown. On its first weekend in the US, Taken 2 gained $50 million at the box-office, audiences being older rather than younger.

The original Taken (with some flashbacks here for reminders) was an abduction story, security agent Bryan Mills (Neeson) has to rescue his young daughter who was taken in by a smooth-talking Frenchman and found herself captive with a group of brutal Albanian sex-trade smugglers. Mills hounds them down and rescues his daughter – of course.

This sequel is far more straightforward. The head of the Albanian gang (Rade Serbidzija) is bent on revenge for the death of his son. His wife and daughter (Famke Janssen and Maggie Grace) join Bryan for a holiday in Istanbul. As foreseen by the audience, Bryan and his wife are abducted, his daughter escaping. And, after shootouts and a smasheroo car chase, Bryan confronts his enemies – and wins, of course.

One very interesting aspect of this thriller is Bryan’s skill, not just with guns (no doubts of that) but with his mind. During the abduction, he notes all street turns, counts between each turn, notes any sounds. This enables him to calculate where he is – with the help of a concealed mobile phone and conversations with his daughter, her setting of grenades so that he can count and calculate distances from the sounds… Brains and brawn.

Down with the Albanians – again. They seem to be ready villains these years in the movies, especially targeting Eastern Europe and the sex-trade.

Liam Neeson is a big man, commanding with his screen presence, always a good man, even a nice man at times, who nevertheless draws on his guns and his wits to rescue those in peril, a hero that appeals to older audiences who can accept him as an action hero.

The film ends comfortably back in LA with some humour about his daughter’s passing her driving test (after surviving all that speed and crashing in Istanbul) and a meal where her boyfriend is invited. Well, of course, he could be the subject of abduction in Taken 3 – all that is needed is a photogenic city, after Paris and Istanbul, for it all to take place.

1. The popularity of the original film? The story? The action? The subtheme of abducting women for trading? The popularity of Liam Neeson?

2. The sequel as a reworking, less complex, the straightforward revenge theme?

3. The American settings, ordinary, homes, offices? The contrast with Istanbul, the city, the landscapes, the beauty, the streets, the roofs, the dingier aspects? The thumping musical score for atmosphere?

4. The audience familiar with the characters, the quick scenes of flashbacks, Kim’s abduction? The reminder of the Albanians and their brutality?

5. Bryan and his life, separation from his wife, his love for his daughter, visiting Lenore, her warning about Kim having a boyfriend, his going to the house, using his GPS? Kim and her reaction? His surveillance, his wanting her to be at the driving lesson? The tensions in the family?

6. Lenore, upset, her relationship with Kim, the possibility of a holiday? The failure of the plan? Bryan being in Istanbul? The surprise visit?

7. Bryan as an agent, security guard, his being careful, the case with his weapons, being well paid? The abduction of his wife and himself? Blindfold, his counting between turns in the streets, identifying the sounds, calculating the distance, his ability to reconstruct? The mobile concealed? Using his foot, lifting it, ringing Kim? The calculation of where he was, his getting her to use the grenades, the steam and the (**or ‘in the’? not clear) chimney, freeing his wife, Kim on the roof, putting the gun down the chute? Using his wits, his skill with his gun, the drive to the American embassy? The buildings, his return, the confrontation with Murad? Murad’s lying, reaching for the gun, its being empty, his death?

8. Kim, the driving in Istanbul, the special effects, the stunt work? The irony of her driving lesson at the end?

9. Lenore, her ordeal, her neck being cut, the blood draining to her head, her being taken again by Murad? The final rescue?

10. The embassy, the crash, the phone call to the agents and their playing golf, being freed?

11. The final pursuit of Murad, his bodyguards, their deaths? Bryan and his skills, his motivation, his trying to persuade Murad to go home and be at peace with his surviving sons? Murad, his followers, the brutality of the Albanian hierarchical system? His vengeance – no matter what his son had done? Family honour? His giving his word – and his lying? His death?

12. The easy ending, Kim and her driving lesson, a perfect score, the meal at the diner – and Jamie turning up? A future Taken 3?

FIRELIGHT

US, 2012, 100 minutes, Colour.
Cuba Gooding Jr, Q’orianka Kilcher, De Wanda Wise, Rebecca Rivera, Sianoa Smit- Mc Phee, Emily Tremaine.
Directed by Darnell Martin.

Firelight is a Hallmark Hall of Fame television film. It is very inspirational – edifying and encouraging for people concerned about young people, crime, rehabilitation.

The film shows life in a correctional institution for young women. The focus is on Caroline (Q’orianka Kilcher) who is arrested as an accomplice with her boyfriend after a robbery. In prison, she is self-contained, a touch resentful. She encounters several of the inmates, especially De Wanda Wise as Terry, in prison because of her behaviour in a hit-run accident. However, Terry is a serious person, has an ailing mother in hospital, is the leader of a special squad, designed for helping the girls to achieve skills and for rehabilitation. This is the brainchild of one of the counsellors, played sympathetically by Cuba Gooding Jr. The women are trained as fire-fighters, learning how to back-burn, control fires. However, there is also the tough girl, Pedra played by Rebecca Rivera.

Caroline comes under the influence of Pedra, but realises she is being exploited and wants to be her own woman. Befriending Terry, she becomes interested in studies, especially in Plato and the Republic (quite some dialogue about Plato and his philosophy).

Terry and Keisha are hoping for parole, Terry not being granted parole. This creates some tensions. Caroline, however, begins to respond to Terry, moves away from Pedra, even into protective custody where she continues to study. She finally is accepted on the team for the fire-fighting and the film shows her training.

The culmination of the film is a dangerous rescue by the squad, a young man whose car has crashed over a cliff. The self-worth that the young women experience helps them in their rehabilitation.

There are several subplots about some of the other inmates, especially Emily Tremaine as Amy, a white-collar thief who cannot bear facing her father, and Sianoa Smit- Mc Phee (the sister of Kody Smit- Mc Phee) as one of Pedra’s followers.

The film is sympathetically written and directed by women, writer Ligiah Villalobos and Darnell Martin.

1. The Hallmark Hall of Fame and its reputation, making edifying and inspiring films? Realism? Hope?

2. The title, the fires, the squad, their work, rehabilitation?

3. The introduction to Caroline, the robbery, her boyfriend and the attempt to escape, the arrests, her going to court, the sentence?

4. Caroline as a person, seventeen, disillusioned, dependent, on the bus, seeing the squad and their work with the fires? The check-in, her cell?

5. Prison life, small, ordinary, no overt violence, no overt sexuality and relationships, the cliques, the program?

6. Cuba Gooding as Dwayne Johnson, his role, as a person, the program, his family life? The help from his wife? Getting to know the girls, listening, talking, affirming them? The establishing of the squad? Terry as leader? His concern about Keisha, Amy and her not visiting her father? Visiting day? His discussions with Caroline, Plato and the discussions, her studies, giving her the DVD? Caroline and her drawings of the inmates on visiting day? Caroline in protective custody? His interest in the parole hearings, supporting Terry, disappointment at the rejection? Helping her to cope?

7. Caroline, the focus of the film, initially sullen, Pedra and her taking over, the exchange of letters, Pedra and her dominating? The therapy session, Caroline and her participation? The drawings and their skill, the reactions of the inmates, Amy and the picture of her father? Plato, the DVD, reading Plato with Terry? Terry urging her to better things, her defying Pedra, going into protective custody, joining the squad, the training sessions, her morale? Her eighteenth birthday?

8. Terry as a person, in charge, helping Keisha, helping Caroline, defying Pedra? Reading Plato’s Republic? Preparing for the parole board, the meeting, her statement? The flashback to the hit and run, her behaviour, her relationship with her mother? Her mother’s visit, hoping for parole, her mother in hospital, the news of her dying alone? Her disappointment, her sense of responsibility?

9. Keisha, agreeable, parole and being granted parole, her dependence on Terry, on the women, her return to prison?

10. Amy, her back-story, the financial fraud, her shame, her seeing herself as a thief, unable to face her father? Her heroism? Her father coming to visit her – and her seeing him?

11. Pedra, personality, defiant, her followers, the clashes with Terry, walking out of therapy, tough? Her resentment of Caroline’s becoming independent of her?

12. Amy, her discovering the car crash? Terry and Caroline, going down with the ropes, the danger in the car, the victim and his desperation, the car falling, the ropes, Caroline and her decision, saving the young man, Terry’s help? The response of the media?

13. Terry and her final parole speech, accepting responsibility, accepting blame? Granted parole – and her leaving?

14. Caroline, her achievement, hope?

15. The value of this kind of film for the general public, understanding prisons better, understanding the young criminals, the juveniles, the possibility for rehabilitation, the quality of the programs?

BENEATH THE DARKNESS

US, 2011, 96 minutes, Colour.
Dennis Quaid, Aimee Teegarden, Tony Oller, Stephen Lunsford, Devon Werkheiser.
Directed by Martin Guigui.

Beneath the Darkness is a mixture of serial killer genre, high school students friendship drama, touches of horror.

The film opens with a ghastly murder, committed by Dennis Quaid as the local mortician. Time passes – and there is discussion about ghosts in his house. One of the young people, Travis, cuts the mortician’s lawn. They return and see the mortician dancing with what seems to be a ghost in his house. As they intrude, they are caught, one of the young people is killed by the mortician. The police won't believe the teenagers because the mortician has such respectability in the community, was a famous quarterback in football when he was young.

However, the young people continue their confrontation with the mortician, he wounds them, abducts the girl and hides her in his wife’s coffin. He had preserved his wife, keeping her in the house, dancing with her.

However, he is quite mad, seemingly respectable and the police believe him. The truth is that his wife was unfaithful, he buried her lover alive, was still infatuated with his wife even though she had betrayed him. The film builds up to a melodramatic climax, the coffin, the fight between Travis and the mortician – and his being interned in an institution.

The film is more respectable than most films of this kind, given the cast and treatment. The director, Martin Guigui, is from Argentina.

The film is more a mainstream drama than an example of the horror genre – and horror genre people will probably be disappointed.

1. The title? The night? The house at night? The cemetery? The graves?

2. The local town, the high school, the young people and their homes? Their behaviour at school, their friendship? The house, the touch of the haunted? The musical score?

3. The focus on Ely, his madness, his role as a mortician, his jogging, his meeting John on the road, his abducting him, putting him in the grave, burying him alive – with the torch? The later revelation of what John had done, the betrayal with Ely’s wife? Or did he imagine this?

4. The focus on the young people, at school, their friendship? The scenes together? Abby and her family? Brian and his crassness? Travis and his sensitivity? Danny and his fooling around? The sports background? Classes? The teacher and her interest in drama, the rehearsals for Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth? The literary references? Brian and his not understanding? Abby and Travis and their bonds?

5. Suspicions of Ely, going to the house, seeing the silhouette of his dancing? The decision to go into the house? Their being caught? Danny and the confrontation, Ely pushing him down the stairs, stamping on his head? Travis witnessing? The police, the investigation, Ely giving a good account of himself? Suspicions against the young people?

6. Travis and Abby, the decision to go into the house again? Ely appearing? Abby, the abduction, her being put in the grave? Travis and his being shot? The doctor, the warnings? His return to the house?

7. Ely and his bizarre behaviour, with Abby, keeping her alive? The two in the van? Getting out? Travis confronting Ely at the grave, his being forced to dig it as John was, the coffin? Abby and her putting on Ely’s wife’s dress – her being in the van as well? Her pretending to be his wife? Ely’s confusion? His being overcome?

8. The end, Abby and Travis, rescued? Ely and his sitting in the cell?