NONE SHALL ESCAPE

US, 1944, 85 minutes, Black and white.
Alexander Knox, Marsha Hunt, Henry Travers.
Directed by Andre de Toth.

A striking World War II story is the little seen, None Shall Escape (1944, director Andre de Toth). It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay by Lester Cole, one of the Hollywood Ten. Its plot presupposes the end of the war and an Allied victory. The setting is a war crimes tribunal, anticipating the trials at Nuremburg. The accused is a German officer, played with grim seriousness by Alexander Knox, who was a regional commander of an area of Poland where he previously been a teacher. It is a strong condemnation of an evil man who is guilty of rape of a teenager, sending his nephew’s girlfriend to the ‘Officers’ Club’ for prostitution, finally shooting this nephew for defying him and giving up his Nazi loyalties. The depiction does not let up on its portrait of Nazi inhumanity and ideology.

Three witnesses speak against the accused. One is a priest played by Henry Travers. He is a benign parish priest, gently performing his duties in his small Polish village. His good friend is the Rabbi with whom he talks, plays chess, and supports. He fills in the story of the accused from 1919 to 1923. This includes his niece breaking off her engagement because of her fiance’s harsh attitudes. The priest deals with the village’s sadness at the suicide of the girl who was raped.

The niece is the third witness against the accused. She has returned to the village at the outbreak of World War II, encountering her former fiancé when he returns as ruthless commander. He summons the priest, the rabbi and the mayor to make his intentions clear, even inviting himself to the priest’s house, bringing his own luxury food while he confiscates local produce for the German military.

Drama comes to a head when the Jews are rounded up for transportation and the Rabbi makes a stirring speech urging his people to stand against the Nazis. They are massacred, the priest witnessing the killings and being with the Rabbi as he died. He also conducts a service in the church for the murder of his grandniece at the Officer’s Club. He also attends to the accused’s nephew after he has been shot in the Church.

This is a benign priest rather than his having to be a heroic priest even though he stands up to the Nazis. It is interesting to reflect on this portrait of Catholic-Jewish? friendship considering the amount of anti-Semitism in Poland at the time.

1. An American film of 1944? At that stage of the war? Anticipating the end? Victory? The trials? The future peace? The condemnation of the Nazis and their behaviour? Concentration camps?

2. The re-creation of the Polish town, the Poles in World War One, the German influence, after the war, ordinary people, the town as Catholic, the presence of the Jews, the rabbi, the community?

3. As produced by Columbia, the work of Lester Cole, communism and later being blacklisted? The only work of the director? The Oscar nomination and the screenplay? A now-forgotten film?

4. The description of the Nazi leader as an evil monster? In himself, his motivations, his needs, behaviour, the disdain of freedom, his cruelty?

5. The studio representation of old Poland, the town itself, the square, homes, the church? The musical score?

6. The structure of the film, the war trial, the three witnesses and their testimony, the role of the judge, the role of the accused, denouncing the testimony as fabrications, not questioning the witnesses? The flashbacks, the cumulative effect of seeing the story from 1919 to the 1940s?

7. Henry Travers as the priest, in himself, work in the parish, his age, relationship with the people, his niece helping him, the status quo of Catholicism in Poland? The presence of the Jews, of the rabbi, the priest calling him his friend, their playing chess?

8. 1919, the effect of the war, people killed, people returning, Grimm and his return and teaching, taking up his old job, his bitterness from the war, loss of a limb, assuming that people found him hard to deal with, or repelled by his disability? Previously engaged to Marja, assuming she was repelled, her surprise? Going to the school, his arrogance, considering the Poles as inferior, the attention from the young girl? Her infatuation? His starting again?

9. Marja, her love for him, his return, his bitterness, casting aspersions on her, her hesitation, ending the engagement?

10. His reaction, bitterness, the rape of the girl, the effect on her, accusations against Jan, leaving home, drowning herself? At the church, the priest, her coffin? The arrest of Grimm? Jan throwing the stone at him? The audience not seeing the trial, the accusations from the collective evidence?

11. His being ousted, borrowing money from priest and rabbi? Repaying the loan? Or this from the testimony of the priest?

12. The brother’s testimony, 1923, his marriage and children, comfortable in Munich, his work as a reporter, with Hitler emerging as the leader, his not being taken seriously? Grimm arriving, moving in, previous lack of contact, pretending he had a glass eye, his leg wound? His friendship with his nephew? The passing of the years? The 1930s? Grimm in SS uniform, his views, receiving the medal, the brother’s decision to leave his work, go to Vienna, the family packing, his brother betraying him, sent to the concentration camp? Not knowing what had become of Grimm or his son?

13. Marja’s testimony, but having seen only once since he left the town? her own life, marriage, having a daughter? The experience of the war, the return home? The occupation, harshness, Grimm and his being in charge of the area, wanting to get his revenge, his despising of the people, bringing his nephew, the nephew’s brain-washing and his becoming a Nazi? Grimm’s meeting the priest, the rabbi, the mayor, his dominance? The dinner, bringing his own food? His wanting to find Jan? His being told that he was at the war? The impositions on the farmers, the lack of food, transporting people from the town, the trains, sending the Jews away?

14. The rabbi, his friendship with the priest, his stands at the railway station, his fearless speech and the history of the Jews, persecution, urging the people to take a stand? The massacre as the Jews exited the train, the rabbi being wounded, with the priest, his death?

15. The nephew, attracted to Marjar’s daughter, Marja wary, Grimm and his anger? Their seeing each other, falling in love? The challenge to the young man? His discussions with Marja, her explaining the evil of his uncle? The vengeance of Grimm, sending the daughter to the officers’ club, to be used as a prostitute? The young man’s anger? Her being shot, her body in the church, the priest and his defiance of Grimm? The ceremony? The young man going to the church, taking off the Nazi regalia, his uncle’s anger, shooting his nephew?

16. Grimm seemingly unredeemable? Not showing any sign of repentance or remorse?

17. The judge and his final speech with the hopes for world peace?

THE GATEKEEPERS

Israel, 2012, 97 minutes, Colour.
Ami Ayalon, Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon, Avi Dichter, Yuval Diskin
Heads of Shin Bet.
Directed by Dror Moreh.

The gatekeepers of the title of this film are of the heads of the Israeli security organization, Shin Bet.

Any documentary which studies contemporary Israel and its history of the last half century is of significance. Audiences, whatever their political stances, will be interested in Israel and its policies, especially towards Palestine, Palestinians and a Palestinian State. This film is of more than topical interest.

The director of the film, Dror Moreh, had the idea - it may have seemed quite improbable on paper - to do interviews with six of the directors of Shin Bet, from the 1980s to the present. The improbability was that they would agree to be filmed let alone be interviewed and express their personal as well as political points of view. But they did.

Were the film simply to consist of a succession of talking heads, it would be of paramount interest and importance. The six men are quite frank in expressing their views, their following orders, the influence on policy, the sometimes violent processes that they used for the security of Israel. But, also of importance, is the fact that each of them is in favour of a Palestinian State, and that they are critical of the views of the extreme right in Israel.

While the film has the interviews intercut each other, not just simply putting them in chronological order, the film also supplies a great deal of their background, as persons, as officials, as committed to the state. The film also incorporates a great deal of historical footage, especially of television coverage of the six day war, the Intifada, the surveillance of Palestinians, the assassination attempts instigated by Shin Bet as well as the rise of the right wing during the 1990s, the response to the Oslo agreement and the assassination of prime minister Rabin.

This background material provides the chronological development of the state of Israel, especially after the 1960s, the enlargement of its territory, the incorporation of the Palestinian Territories and the occupation.

This gives the audience quite an amount of information about which they may have very strong ideas. The presentation does offer an opportunity for challenging ideas and perspectives. One of the motif throughout the film is a focus on surveillance cameras and indication of the growing sophistication of the ability for authorities to focus and groups and individuals, even to the targeting of bombs and missiles. While this is interesting, yet it is frightening, focus on the leaders of Palestinian groups, getting information, infiltrating, putting explosives in telephones… There is also a tense presentation of the possibility of killing the hierarchy of Hamas but the difficulties in making life and death decisions with the issues of collateral damage for innocent people.

The presentation of the role of the political right and their religious views is important, especially in the events of the 1990s, the sudden assassination of Yitzham Rabin, the prevention of political and violent action by these groups for the greater good, as well as the freeing by the Knesset of some of those involved in Israeli terrorist attempts on buses and passengers, an unexpected angle on security issues in Israel.

While the film has been made by Israeli Group, it has alarmed and been condemned by some Jewish groups around the world. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2012.

1. The audience for this film? Worldwide? Information and material for reflection? The politics of Israel? For an Israeli audience? Palestinian? The Arab world?

2. Shin Bet, its origins, audience knowledge? The role of Mossad and its history? The role of shin bet, espionage, the gathering of information, interrogations, including torture, advice to the Israeli government? Ups and downs in its history? The 1980s, the rise of the right wing in Israel in the nineties, the Oslo agreement, prime minister Rabin? His assassination? The aftermath? Into the present?

3. The documentary style, the interviews, introducing the six chiefs of shin bet, their backgrounds, names and dates, the period of direction of the institution, reflecting the politics of the decades?

4. Newsreel footage intercutting, the six day war, of the wars, Lebanon? The visuals of terrorism, in Israel, in Gaza? The planning and carrying out of assassinations? Collateral damage and deaths of civilians? The Intifada?

5. The stances taken by the chiefs? Audience expectations? Spying, documents, the huge room and the filing cabinets of documents, the discussions of interrogation, discussions about torture, the range of surveillance techniques and the development since the 1980s?

6. The introduction to the film, the leader, his reflections, range of screens, the images, honing in on the cars in the streets?

7. The captions as chapters, strategy and tactics, collateral damage, victory and freedom, terror terrorists and freedom fighters, one of us… The insights from these captions?

8. The film presuming the establishment of the state of Israel, moving into the 1960s and seventies, the wars, extending of the boundaries of Israel, the 70,000 captive Palestinians, the occupation?

9. Israel, its development, the background of Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and the other Israeli prime ministers, their lack of interest in the Palestinians? The accountability of the Israeli government?

10. The past and Palestinians, the history, 1948, the wars, the occupation, the Intifada, terrorism and counter-terrorism? Palestinian anger?

11. Lebanon, the Lebanese wars? The 1980s, 1990s? 2006?

12. The issue of the settlements, rights, government decisions, the west bank, terrorist behaviour by the settlers, retaliation?

13. Politics in Israel, extremes, the religious right, fanaticism, the role of the rabbis, speeches?

14. The 21st century, the situation, Mossad, Shin Bet, the aftermath of the assassination of Rabin, the arrests, being freed by the Knesset? Shin Bet and the surveillance of Palestinians, attempts at killings, the telephone and the explosions? Hamas leaders in the one building, the decisions to be made whether to bomb or not?

15. The Shin Bet leaders and their views in the 21st century, the preservation of Israel, the two state solution?

16. The overall effect of the recent decades, Gaza, the West Bank, the building of the wall, peace talks, Oslo, Rabin’s assassination, fanaticism, Intifada, stalled peace talks…?

GAMBIT

US, 2012, 89 minutes, Colour.
Colin Firth, Cameron Diaz, Alan Rickman, Tom Courteney, Cloris Leachman.
Directed by Michael Hoffman.

This is a brief, light, comic story of art forgery and theft. It is humorous and easy entertainment. And then we discover that the screenplay was written by the Coen Brothers (who directed the rather dire re-make of Ealing Studios’ The Lady Killers, so perhaps it was better that they did not direct this one at the 21st century Ealing Studios.)

In 1967, Gambit was released starring Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine?. It was a frothy comedy caper of the period. Not the kind of film that would come to mind for a re-make. However, audiences who catch up with it will be pleased that they did. In fact, anyone who saw it on its first release will turn 60 next year! So one could say that there is an audience for a re-make.

This time the stars are Colin Firth and Cameron Diaz. Firth plays a rather more upper- class bespectacled version of Michael Caine in his day. He is an art adviser, resentful of his rather lowly status and the treatment by his boss. He devises a scheme to swindle his boss out of one is for favourite Monet paintings. He is more than aided and abetted by an old military veteran, played with aplomb by Tom Courtney. We see them in Texas, looking for the granddaughter of a veteran who may or may not have acquired the Monet during World War Two when it had been taken by Goerring.

Instead of a dancer, as Shirley Mac Laine was in the original, Cameron Diaz is a rodeo expert and can tie up a calf within seconds, something very useful in a really unexpected way later in the film.

The main twist is at the beginning of the film rather than at the end which makes it more entertaining.

While Colin Firth is expert at the uptight Englishman, Cameron Diaz is delightfully exuberant as the Texas cowgal. She is clearly enjoying herself in this kind of lively performance.

The target of the robbery is the proprietor of a whole range of magazines. He treats people in a detestable way, as only Alan Rickman can. He spurns Firth but then relies on him for expert art of advice, especially on Monday. However, there is a German expert in the wings who may get the job. He appears only twice, but does so amusingly in the form of Stanley Tucci.

While the plan may seem foolproof, it definitely isn’t. There are all kinds of mix ups in the hotel, with some PG-rated sex farce. There is the lavish party with a whole range of intoxicated and hungry Japanese who are to do a deal with Shahbandar but get sidetracked into karaoke.

In the meantime, Firth has to substitute the forgery for the real painting and encounters a form of security that he never dreamt of. It looks as though the whole plan will fall through.

Needless to say, the whole thing does work out to the satisfaction of everyone, including Shahbandar who is seen at the end contemplating his acquired forgery.

This is a soufflé of a movie, but fans of Colin Firth will admire his serious portrayal and his laughing at the end. Fans of Cameron Diaz will also enjoy her vivacious screen presence.

1. A caper comedy? Romance?

2. The film as a re-make, the spirit of the 1960s, of Ealing Studios in the past?

3. The strong cast, comic talent?

4. Texas, the wide open spaces, going to the rodeo, to the caravan with Grandma, to the bar, the approach, the fight?

5. London, the offices, the hotel, the Savoy, the mansion, the party, the airport? The musical score?

6. The introduction, the voiceover by the major? The Englishmen in Texas, the major and his career, forging? Harry, art adviser? The characters? Looking for P.J., watching the rodeo, discovering her? In the bar? After the brawl, her help?

7. The imagining of the caper, everything going smoothly, the suave manner of the major and Harry, P.J. arriving, her glamour, her style, Shahbandar and his arrogance, his company, wealth, Harry standing up to him? The discussion in his office, nude? The meeting with PJ, everything clicking, the substitution of the painting? Success?

8. Shahbandar, his character, mood, his secretary, Harry and his menial status, Shahbandar’s treatment of him, humiliations, the visit of the German art
critic? The plan, Shahbandar’s comment about the Monet in a caravan in Texas?

9. The visit to the grandmother, the photo, the image, in the magazine, Harry drawing Shahbandar’s attention? The story of World War Two, the plunder of artwork, Field Marshal Goering, the grandfather acquiring the painting? In Texas for decades?

10. P.J. and her coming to London, the expense for the passport, her cowboy hat, shorts, her style, everything wonderful, going to the hotel, meeting Shahbandar, the change of plans?

11. The comedy of the Savoy, the clerks, the room, the innuendo, the couples, the attack on Harry, his face, his wet pants and the ice, Shahbandar’s
reaction? His going out on a ledge, the danger, the repartee with P.J., no trousers, walking through the foyer? His criticisms of P.J.?

12. The party, P.J. and her style, the mask, meeting people, with Shahbandar, the Japanese and the karaoke, and their food?

13. Harry, care about security, changing the painting, the struggle with the lion, P.J. arriving and the lasso?

14. The German art critic, his examining the painting, declaring that genuine, Harry rubbing it, the queen appearing?

15. Harry keeping his job, but resigning? Going to the Airport, with the major, handing the painting over to the Japanese, the previous information about their wanting the painting? The transfer of the money? Upgrading P.J.? The happy farewell?

16. Shahbandar, admiring the painting, nude?

COMANCHE STATION

US, 1959, 75 minutes, Colour.
Randolph Scott, Nancy Gates, Claude Akins, Skip Homeier.
Directed by Bud Boetticher.

Comanche Station was written by Burt Kennedy who wrote a number of westerns and went on to direct several of them during the 1960s, including Welcome to Hard Times and Dirty Dingus Magee. This film was directed by Budd Boetticher, who had directed many of action films but worked with Randolph Scott in a number of films during the second half of the 1950s.
The reference to the town of Lordsberg, a reference to the title of the first film made by John Ford.
The film is really a short story, a man trading with the Indians for the return of a woman and his taking her back to her husband, with attacks by a group of outlaw whites.
Since the mid 1940s Randolph Scott had appeared only in westerns which is the way people remember him, although he appeared in dramas and even musicals and the 1930s with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. His last film, Ride the High Country, was to appear three years after this film.

1. An entertaining Randolph Scott western? His screen persona in the 1950s? Westerns only? This film coming towards the end of his career?
2. The contribution of the writer, Burt Kennedy, and his later career in writing and directing westerns? The career of the director, Bud Boetticher, and his several films with Scott?
3. The screenplay as a short story, a simple and brief tale of the west?
4. The locations, the mountains, the open spaces, a sense of the west, the widescreen process? The musical score?
5. The focus on Cody, his being surrounded by the Comanche, the gun, the bundle of goods, throwing the spear? The bargain? The woman, in captivity, the trade?
6. Cody as a loner, his age, experience, his decision to trade for the woman, not knowing of the reward, beating the other groups who wanted to trade? The character of the woman, leading her to safety?
7. Her story, married, her husband not coming to get her, his putting up the money? Her reaction in talking about her husband? Thinking that Cody blamed him? Her antagonism, her later apologising? The revelation at the end that he was lame and blind? Her having a little boy? The happiness of the final reunion?
8. The trek, the Indians pursuing the group of shooters, taking refuge with Cody, his pushing the woman into the water trough to save her? The killing of the Indians? Removing their bodies?
9. The character of Ben, the leader, giving orders to the two young men, his past history with Cody, cashiered from the army, Cody saying he should have been hanged? The talk, the collaboration? The plan with the two men, to kill Cody, to kill the woman because the reward was whether she was dead or alive, the plan for the money?
10. The two young men, Frank, a follower, obeying orders, the talk at night, Dobie as an earnest young man, quoting his father, seeing Cody as an ideal, making something of life, his sense of morality, despite intending to kill the woman?
11. Stopping, the woman washing her clothes and bathing, the possibility to kill her at that stage, Frank, his being killed? His saddle left for his name and memory?
12. Getting near the town, Ben and his making his move, shooting Dobie, the reaction of the woman? Ben and Cody, talking, drawing, Ben dead?
13. Returning the woman to her family? Cody not thinking of a reward?
14. An interesting, brief film about whites and Indians, dealings with the Indians, the outlaws, the gunfighters and the scalphunters?

BUTTERFLY WINGS

Sri Lanka, 2006, 90 minutes, Colour.
Somaratne Dissanayake.

Butterfly Wings is a significant film from Sri Lanka. It was successful in cinemas in Sri Lanka.
The film is set in the streets of Colombo, areas of poverty as well as areas of affluence. It is the story of a family with various afflictions, the deteriorating health of the father, the unstable health of the daughter. The mother, younger, has the care of the family. But the focus is on the small boy, Sira, and his work to support the family, rousing up support for street theatre, not having any formal education, but hoping to get a bike for himself and a doll for his sister.
Western audiences do not see many Sri Lankan films. However, this is a film well worth seeing.


1. A Sri Lankan story? The settings? The issues? The personal tale of a family?
2. The Colombo locations, the world of the poor, the parks, under the banyan tree, the hospital? Hotels, shop shops? Realistic portrayal? The musical score? Emotional score?
3. The title, children, the matter for? Wings, tinged, beauty, flying, but a short life?
4. The city streets, the bush, the crowds, the people in the hospital, the bike shop, the dolls, the park and life in the park, street theatre?
5. Issues of child labour, the boy and his work, the store, hard, the authorities, the police, the regulations?
6. The family, illiterate, the father and his health, the marriage, the tensions? The boy and his hopes? The daughter and her illness? The mother and the care for her children? Her being urged to prostitution?
7. The boy and his hopes, a bike, the doll for his sister? His performances? Rousing the crowds? His character? Audience sympathy?
8. The father, his age, illness, concern about his family? The mother, younger, care for her son, concern about her daughter? Her playing the instrument with her feet?
9. The western as visiting Sri Lanka, suggestions of pedophilia?
10. The role of the authorities, keeping order, children and work, children and education, lack of education?
11. The story of Sira? His age, experience, family life, his ambitions, how realistic? His future?
12. A story from Sri Lanka, realistic, engaging?

BLUEBERRY

France, 2004, 124 minutes, Colour.
Vincent Cassell, Juliette Lewis, Ernest Borgnine, Eddie Izzard, Djimoun Hounsou, Michael Madsen, Colm Meaney, Temuera Morrison, Geoffrey Lewis, Tcheky Karyo, Hugh O’Conor?.

Directed by Jan Kounen.

A French westen? Yes. It obviously pays homage to the European-made westerns like the so-called Spagghetti Westerns, although most of Blueberry was actually shot in Mexico, some sequences in Spain. It also pays homage to American westerns with Ernest Borgnine and Geoffrey Lewis in the cast. Also in the cast are Michael Madsen and Juliette Lewis. However, the hero is Vincent Cassel (his younger self being played by Irish Hugh O’Conor).

This is one of those films which seem more interesting to think about and discuss than watching the film itself. It is a bit long, repetitious, sententious and, even during the hallucination sequences, the mind tends to wander.

The distinctive aspects of the film are its emphasis on Shamanism and its being based on a popular French comic strip, not familiar to English-speaking viewers, the activities of a sheriff, Mike Blueberry. The western activities are familiar enough, pursuit of greedy gold-seeing villains who trespass in forbidden Indian territories. It is in the picture of Indian mysticism, the role of the Shaman, the trances brought about by altered mind states (especially from herbs and potions) and the need for individuals to go into their deeper selves, face their dark side and try to find the place in the universe and be linked to all aspects of the universe. This, of course, has a strong ‘new age’ appeal to viewers and may get the film a following from audiences who ordinarily would not watch a western.

1. The impact of the film? Based on a comic strip? A picture of the American west? Mexican locations? Mexicans and Indians? Myths, mysticism, shamanism? The combination of these elements?
2. The French background of the film, the writers, the Dutch director? The adaptation of the comic strip to the screen? The attitude towards the United States? To life in the west? To the myths of the west?
3. Mexican locations, a European perspective, the towns, mountains, desert? Authentic feel? The musical score?
4. The French lead, French cast, American cast, old and new?
5. The title, the hero, his origins, his early life, his family background, let go, imposing law and order, his tormented experiences, his mystical experiences? His achievement?
6. The boy, his uncle, oppressed, in the west, the orphan, his work, innocence, relentless?
7. The town, Madeleine, Blount, the attack, the school, the irony of what was happening, in his own inner life and torment?
8. Mike and his life, his uncle and company, the pubs, the Indians, the speculators coming, the owners of the land, the quest for gold, the deals? Mike’s character? Based on his being wounded, with the Indians, the annunciation, the rituals, the drugs? Going into his deepest self? The later testing and his true self? Imaged and the spiritual effect for hallucinations?
9. Prosit and Woodhead, in the desert, the maps, the journey, the Indians, the attacks, betrayal? Woodhead and his survival? The scalping? The town, the confrontation? Prosit and the others? Jimmy? Blount and his presence? Jail, the expedition, the hopes, fantasies, the double-deals, the quicksand?
10. Sullivan, the land, the deals, Maria? Love, relationship? Attack and death?
11. The range of characters of the west, typical, differences?
12. Violence, cruelty, racism?
13. The religious experiences, drug-induced, yet spiritual and depth in the inner life? The shamans?
14. The build-up to the psychedelic ending? Drugs, hallucinations, spirituality? The end for Blueberry?

ALAN QUATERMAIN AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD

US, 1986, 99 minutes. Colour.
Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone, James Earl Jones, Henry Silva, Robert Donner, Martin Rabbett.
Directed by Gary Nelson.

H. Rider Haggard’s King Solomon’s Mines has been filmed a number of times, in the 1930s with Leslie Banks, in 1950 with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr. While this film does take some of its inspiration from Haggard’s novel, it is very much in the line of Indiana Jones films, Raiders of the Lost Ark appearing in 1981.

The setting is the First World War, a focus on German occupation in Africa, a German official wanting to get locals to help him to find the mines in order to finance Germany’s activities. His agent is Turkish. Richard Chamberlain is Rider Haggard’s famous hero, Alan Quatermain. Chamberlain had been Doctor Kildare and in many popular films of the 60s, had leading adventure roles in the 1970s including The Three Musketeers, Four Musketeers and The Man in the Iron Mask.

Herbert Lom overacts as the German official – and was nominated for a Razzy as worst supporting actor (which he should have won). John Rhys-Davies? thunders and shouts. He was also in Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, this was the first major feature film for Sharon Stone. She had appeared briefly in Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories, a number of supporting roles and television appearances in the first half of the 80s. This film should not have given any producer encouragement to employ her again. However, they decided to produce a sequel, Alan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold. She gives overacted underacting in both films – and was nominated for a Razzy as worst actress for the Alan Quatermain film. This she also should have won. It is very difficult to see the future suave and possessed Sharon Stone in these erratic and flighty performances.

The storyline of Alan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is straight Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The producers were Menahem Golen and Yoram Globus, the famous Israeli couple who made many action films in the 1980s.

The films were made in Zimbabwe, good location photography, with a lot of artificial sets, especially in the second film, sets which resemble those in Raiders.

The first film follows the general outline of King Solomon’s Mines, but with 1914-18 there are cars and train trips. There are a lot of African tribes presented, various fights – and a generally superior attitude, even racist, towards the Africans. The film builds up to a climax, many threats for Quatermain and Jessie, a whole range of cliff-hanging episodes which were popular from the weekly serials.

With the second film, Quatermain and Jessie are about to be married but Quatermain’s brother is reported as lost. Quatermain decides to pursue his brother, allegedly knowing a lost city of gold. Jessie intends to go back to America, changes her mind, drives perilously close to a cliff edge and comes into the expedition with her usual flighty and bumbling presence. Once again Sharon Stone gives no indication of the star she was to become. Anchoring some of these proceedings is the presence of James Earl Jones, his famous voice used as one of the local heroes. Henry Silva gives an appalling performance as the priest in the city of gold, a black fright wig, terrible delivery, melodramatic performance.

The first half of the film is in the King Solomon’s Mines vein, a whole lot of cliff-hanging adventures. However, there is the presence of Swama, an excruciating performance from Robert Donner. In the second half of the film when they discover the lost city of gold, it turns out to be a strange kind of Utopia, with white-garmented white men, women and children as well as local Africans. A high priest has the population in control – and there are two queens, one vampishly bad, the one glamorously good. Once again there are all kinds of cliff-hangers – and a culminating battle.

These are matinee action adventures – but not for the discriminating audience.

BLACKJACK: GHOSTS

Australia, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Colin Friels, Marta Dusseldorp, David Field, Sophie Lee, Marcus Graham, Rhys Muldoon, Gigi Edgley, Paul Goddard, Glenn Hazeldine, Simon Lyndon, Sean Micallef.
Directed by Kate Woods.

Ghosts is the last of seven telemovies featuring Colin Friels as Detective Jack Kempson. It brings some development to his character, especially in relationship to his disabled daughter and her prospective marriage. It also develops the character of Sam Lawson, giving a glimpse of her and her relationship with her father. David Field as Inspector Terry Kavanagh has featured throughout the series, antagonistic towards Jack Kempson, especially so in this case – yet supporting him finally in the solution of a cold case. Sophie Lee is the forensic examiner in a relationship with Jack.

The film focuses on a killing in 1986, Marcus Graham as Harry Searle, finishing a twenty-year sentence – but framed for the murder. There are various complications with drug-dealing, robberies, especially with Simon Lyndon as the owner of a nightclub. Rhys Muldoon is the sympathetic stepfather of the young girl whose mother was killed in the initial robbery and escape. Sean Micallef, who created the series, has a guest role as a university lecturer, engaged to Jack’s daughter.

The film was directed by Kate Woods, prolific television director, who also made the award-winning feature, Looking for Alibrandi.

1. The last of the Jack Kempson series? Audience interest? Colin Friels as Jack, Marta Dusseldorp as Sam, David Field as Inspector Kavanagh? The workings of the police department in Sydney? The cold case bureau?

2. The opening credits, the robbery, the masked man and the destruction of the flat, Johnny Vale and his gun, the money being robbed, the getaway car, the shooting, the dead woman? Harry Searle and his being accused, found guilty? The pipe and the fingerprint?

3. Twenty years later, the information about the case? Searle, his serving his sentence, resigned? His drug background? His wife, her leaving him and going with Dave? His daughter, the letters and their being returned? His end of sentence, being released, his gratitude? The reconciliation with his daughter, Jack and his intervention? The money, going to Johnny Vale? His being beaten, hospital, his dying?

4. Jack, his character, the investigations, working with Sam, the long working relationship? Computers, evidence? The touch of the patriarch? The male-dominated atmosphere? His continued clashes with Terry Kavanagh? Being warned off? The police, corruption? Mc Evoy and the truth? The policeman in the toilet and his putting the foam on him? His meeting with Harry Searle ..

Jack, his relationship with his daughter, the dinner with Ian and Liz? Denise present? His suspicions? His being glad that Liz would not marry him?

5. Johnny Vale, the initial robbery, the shooting, his gun? The cover-up, the connection with the police? Twenty years later, the bar, the drug deals, the infiltration by the police? The interactions with Dave? His taking the daughter, the final confrontation after the bashing of Searle? On the roof, the gun?

6. Dave, friendship with Jack, looking after Jenny? His contacts with Vale? Suspicions? The revelation of the truth – the hand-bite, the money? The confrontation on the roof? His being held by Jack? Johnny Vale’s threat, falling to his death? Or was he injured?

7. Jenny, her relationship with Dave, her mother? Harry, the letters, Jack organising the meeting? Her relating to Harry? The father figure? Her grief at his death – hurrying away, taken by Vale, overhearing Dave?

8. Sam Lawson, her work, diligence, detective work, the inquiries? Collaborating with Denise, the forensic evidence, fingerprints? Terry Kavanagh and his putting them on suspension?

9. The interest in cold cases? Evidence, tampering, police corruption, cover-ups? The end of an interesting series?

THE BROWNING VERSION

UK, 1994, 97 minutes. Colour.
Albert Finney, Greta Schacchi, Matthew Modine, Julian Sands, Michael Gambon, Ben Silverstone, Jim Sturges.
Directed by Mike Figgis.

Older viewers may remember the excellent 1951 version of Terence Rattigan's one-act play, I'he Browning Version, with Michael Redgrave excellent as the desiccated classics teacher. Andrew Crocker-Harris?, and Jean Kent as his younger but brittle and faithless wife. There was also a BBC version with Ian Holm and Judi Dench.

For some reason, this Figgis version has been updated to the 90s (with little appreciable effect). Terence Rattigan's plays have been given a reappraisal in recent years after being dismissed by the "angry young men" playwrights such as John Osborne. But Separate Tables and The Winslow Boy are still very interesting plays, exploring British social issues.
Aibert Finney shows what a fine and subtle actor he is with his interpretatlon of Crocker-Harris?. Greta Scacchi is ideally cast as Laura, though she seems to have more tenderness than expected. The rival teacher has been Americanised with Matthew Modine. However, the film has a very British tone with Rattigan's dialogue and with the detail of the routines of the private school (crlcket included). Michael Gambon does a headmaster turn with great flair and Julian Sands is good as Crocker-Harris' successor. Ben Silverstone makes a very sympathetic Taplow. Intelligent entertainment.


1. The work of Terence Rattigan? His themes? From the 1940s and 50s? The Britain of the period? Adapted to the 1990s?

2. The British atmosphere, the education system, traditional schools, elitist, the schools and their ethos, the students – the old traditions but dramatised in the 1990s?

3. The visuals of the school, the village? The traditional school, beauty? Classes, laboratories, interiors, halls? The cricket matches? Homes? The musical score?

4. The audience identifying with the characters and the situations – or not?

5. The school: Tom Gilbert and his arrival, the audience going into the school with him, his hopes, meeting Frank Hunter, in a rush, meeting the students, the disciplinarian and his control of the students, the Cromwells for punishment? The assembly and the manner of the headmaster?

6. Andrew Crocker Harris, Albert Finney’s presence, appearance, age, his severity, his impassive behaviour, the Hitler of the Lower Fifth? Fifteen years at the school, love of the classics, giving marks no less and certainly no more? His interactions with Taplow, in class, Taplow’s laughing at the joke, his politeness, the boys and their criticisms? Gilbert sitting in on the class, lacking control? Crocker Harris’s disapproval? The final class, his reading of the Agamemnon? His illness, being moved on, his new job?

7. His life at home, fifteen years’ marriage to Laura, the tension? The initial love, yet incompatible? The end of love? Laura and her public face, her genial manner with the headmaster? Her relationship with Frank, meeting him early, looking at him? The issue of not getting the pension? Her visiting the town, flirting with Frank? Her criticism of Andrew as weak, at the cricket match, Taplow’s gift and her cynical remarks?

8. The classics, Crocker Harris’s love for the classics, his own translation in couplets, not published? His not getting the pension and the explanations from the headmaster? The exception for the master injured during the football match? The headmaster wanting him to speak first, to give the climax to the champion cricketer who was leaving? The headmaster, Lord Baxter, their discussions with Crocker Harris – during the cricket match, pausing for applause?

9. Taplow, his being picked on, the bullying in the shower, the insults from the prefect, the dormitory, the worms in the prefect’s bed? His wanting to change to science? Intelligent, his knowledge, watching the science class, interactions with Frank? In class with Crocker Harris, his laughter, his politeness? His browsing the bookshop, seeing The Browning Version, buying it?

10. His gift to Crocker Harris? Crocker Harris weeping? Laura and her harsh remarks about Taplow’s motives, doing an imitation, getting on Crocker Harris’s good side? Frank, going after Crocker Harris, reassuring him? Laura and her later apology?

11. Frank, his talk with Crocker Harris, urging him to make a new beginning, his past relationship with Laura?

12. The headmaster, over-jovial, public relations? The head of the board?

13. The staff, the various teachers, the wives? The choirmaster?

14. The concert, everybody present?

15. Laura, the decision to leave, her packing, Foster waiting for her, Foster’s comment to Crocker Harris?

16. The speeches, the cricketer and his surprise, his awkward speech, the applause? Crocker Harris, his speech, going down into the body of the hall, his apologies, his failure of the students? The farewell from the teachers?

17. Laura, coming into the hall, hearing Crocker Harris, her saying that it was well done? The farewell and her leaving? Crocker Harris and the prospects for his future, a new life?

AND IF WE ALL LIVE TOGETHER

France, 2011, 98 minutes. Colour.
Guy Bedos, Daniel Bruhl, Geraldine Chaplin, Jane Fonda, Claude Rich, Pierre Richard.
Directed by Stefan Robelin.

Daniel Bruhl plays Dirk, a young PhD student who wants to come to Australia to do ethnological studies of the aborigines. His girlfriend does not want to travel, so he agrees with former university lecturer, Jeanne, to study elderly Europeans, especially in France. So, he becomes the stand-in for the writer-director who wants to offer a portrait of five people in their 70s who begin to find it difficult to live at home or independently (health, dementia, mobility…) and decide that they will move into one couple’s home and live together. They think it is far better than a home for the elderly (which don’t look too good in this film either).

A good part of the interest in the film is in its cast, all of whom have had long and successful careers. The three French actors were in their 70s when the film was made and have been in films for decades. Claude Rich has had many a dramatic role as has Guy Bedos. The surprise for non-French audiences is to see that famous comic and farceur of the 1970s and 80s, Pierre Richard (The Tall Blond Man with the one Red Shoe and other comedies) who has worked continually but is here seen in a more serious role (with one or two comic lapses, especially for Dirk’s video of them all). The two women are better known worldwide since Geraldine Chaplin appeared in Doctor Zhivago and Jane Fonda is, well Jane Fonda, now looking very poised and dignified (Barbarella was a long time ago) and showing the benefits of aerobics into the mid-70s.

So, the group is quite an active, articulate group. Claude Rich is an old roué photographer with a still roving eye, sometimes unsympathetically lewd. And he has a past (as well as a son who irritates him with his concern, especially when he becomes ill and dependent). Guy Bedos is a social protester and has been for decades. Geraldine Chaplin is his wife (only 66 when she made this film). It is their house which becomes the centre for the five. Jane Fonda is Jeanne, the former university professor who has a terminal illness which she does not communicate to her loving husband (Pierre Richard) who begins to show signs of dementia.

The film offers a lot to think about in terms of getting old, dependent, and many unwilling to face these realities. There is pathos in the lives of the five, especially concerning illness and bewilderment as senility sets in. The five are not exemplary in their lives which makes them more ordinary despite the high profile cast. The film will probably challenge a lot more thoughts and emotions from the generation of sons and daughters who are facing the prospects of care for their ageing parents.

Some of it is amusing, some sad. And Dirk, when he is with the old people, is a strong part of the group but his personal story and the facile solution to his relationships, is much less interesting. But, there is also something about the film that makes it less impressive than it might have been, especially when one thinks of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. It is not quite compelling as it might have been, despite the performances. So, there is more room for another film on this important topic.



1. A film about the elderly? The elderly in France, Europe? A universal theme?

2. The French city, the town itself, homes, parks, hospitals, cafes? Authentic feel? The musical score?

3. The veteran cast, their careers, their personalities, their ages?

4. The focus on ethnography? Dirk, his study, going to Australia, the Papua New Guinea stories? Research in Europe? Jeanne and her advice? His research, observations, living with the group, sharing their experiences with them, the interviews? His confidence, his intervening in their lives, helping? Jeanne and her talks and encouragement?

5. The old people, the couples, those living alone, old age needs, illness, companionship, the beginnings of dementia? The benefits of living together, the disasters in living together – the overflowing bath, the need for refurbishment...?

6. The introduction to the group, the particular characters, their daily activities, occupations, their meetings, their friendships over forty years, their sharing?

7. Claude, his photography, aged seventy-five, his birthday celebration? In his darkroom, his preoccupation with women, sexual behaviour? His talk, with the other men? The news of his past affairs? The episode with the prostitute? His heart trouble, on the stairs, taken to hospital? His son and his concern? Claude and his disregard for his son? The friends, their visits to the hospital? The need for Claude to go to an institution? The friends, their visit, his disgust with the food, his impatience, their abducting him? The plan to live as a group? Jean and Annie and their house? Coping? Claude, the issue of sex, urging Dirk to buy Viagra, the outing, waiting for the prostitute, his son’s arrival? A likable man or not? Credible or not?

8. Jeanne and Albert, as a couple, married for more than forty years, her work at the university, his Jewish background, his stories about the war, his father’s death? Albert and the onset of dementia? Jeanne and her visits to the doctor, her terminal illness, tearing up the documentation, not telling Albert? Albert seeing the doctor, his realisation of what was happening, writing in his diary? The concern, Jeanne and her wanting the group to live together – for Albert’s safety after her death? Jeanne and her meeting with Dirk, the walks in the park, the frank discussions about sexual behaviour and attitudes, of the old? Jeanne’s poise? Albert, his age, genial, friendships, the mischievous behaviour with the video camera, his memories? His losing his memory?

9. Annie and Jean? Their demonstrations outside the apartment block, the reaction to the police? Jean and his history of demonstrations, social concern, anger over the years, absences from home? Annie, the long marriage, her drinking? Irritating each other? The invitation for people to share their home, coping, the disasters and Annie’s concern?

10. Albert, with Dirk, suspicious of him, looking for his trunk, opening the wrong one, the letters, the discoveries about Jeanne’s affair with Claude? Not wanting to believe? Not confronting Jeanne? Then discussing it with her? The bond and forgiveness?

11. Annie and Jean, the letters, the truth about Annie’s affair, the reasons, Jean’s absence? Their talking together? Albert and his forgetting and forgiving? Jean and his anger against Claude?

12. Life in the house, the putting in of the new pool, the huge delivery of meat, Albert and the bath and the overflow, watching television at meals? The others having to cope?

13. Albert and his bewilderment, growing concern, suspicions of Dirk, Jeanne going out, his confronting Dirk, taking Dirk to examine the case? Relying on Dirk?

14. Jeanne, the doctor, her death, the scene of her picking out her coffin, the funeral, her wanting a display, everybody drinking champagne? The sudden appearance of Albert and Jeanne’s daughter?

15. Bernard, his concern for Claude, coming to the gate, Annie and her hosing him down and sending him away? At the funeral?

16. The seeming lack of family for most of the group – and then the funeral, Albert’s daughter, suddenly the grandchildren for Jeanne and Albert, playing at the pool? The grandparents enjoying it – but finding it wearying?

17. Dirk, Soraya coming to work, his confiding to Jeanne about the kind of woman that he liked, his girlfriend, her not wanting him to go to Australia, not wanting him to be on the project, his concern, Soraya and her appearance, the sexual encounter?

18. The end, Albert looking for Jeanne – and everybody combining with him, calling out to find Jeanne?

19. A film for an older audience? Empathy with the characters or not, their situations? The film for the next generation considering parents and care?