Nuremberg

 

This film sets up a titanic confrontation between Psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Remi Malik) and former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe) (or Freddie Mercury against Gladiator!). In the days at the end of WWII Göring and his family are captured in Austria whilst fleeing from the Allies. He along with 21 other surviving members of the top ranking Nazi leadership are held in solitary confinement as the Allies work out how to put them on trial before they are killed.

Although the film is nearly 2.5 hours long, it never drags. History tells us the destination of the narrative - the only question is how we get there. Most of the film centres on the encounters between Kelley and Göring as Kelley attempts to assess the state of well-being of the Nazi leaders. It is a complex and difficult task. One feigns amnesia, one has a nervous breakdown, another commits suicide. As Kelley and Göring play intellectual cat and mouse games, Göring continually tries to become Kelley's friend in an attempt to undermine the doctor/patient relationship. How far he succeeds is open to question such is the subterfuge going on.

There are few female characters in this story. A journalist Lila (Lydia Peckham) who writes for the Boston Globe and who will prove to be Kelley's downfall and Göring's wife and daughter who are holed up in a village nearby. The lead American prosecutor, Robert H Jackson's (Michael Shannon) secretary and adviser Elsie (Wrenn Schmidt) is also present but the world of the film is very much a man's world.

Eventually the Allies manage to gather a consensus that an International Military Tribunal will be set up to try the Nazis in Nuremberg - the site of their grand rallies in the 1930s. The Tribunal will have four judges, one each from the USA, UK, France and Russia. First of all, the Allies had to decide how to proceed when there is no case law that can guide a trial in an international context. What happened at Nuremburg laid the foundation for the international laws that exist today and which safeguard nations against other nations (supposedly).

Lead American Prosecutor Jackson, is a bit rusty in terms of engaging in courtroom cut and thrust as he has been a judge for many years. The lead British prosecutor, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (Richard E Grant) on the other hand is sharp and his questions penetrating, which eventually get the job done. As part of the prosecution case, newsreel footage is shown of a number of Concentration Camps being liberated and there is no holding back on what was discovered and shown in the film. This makes extremely uncomfortable viewing - be warned.

This film is not about the destination but the journey. Both Crowe and Malik turn in extremely good performances. It has a couple of twists and turns, including Kelley teaching Göring a magic trick which has serious repercussions. A lot of the dialogue is about who might hold the moral high ground and the ins and outs of how the relationship between Kelley and Göring unfolds exposes human hypocrisy on all sides. Kelley is exposed for being no different to the rest of humanity and that invited me ask the question if Göring and company were just the same as me or is there a difference. I'd like to think there is.

I was born in the 1950s in West Germany in the wake of the aftermath of WWII and as a consequence I felt the wind of hopeful change Nuremberg ushered in. The fact that West Germany no longer exists is good news. Except for the Balkans, and the odd military coup, Europe has enjoyed peace throughout my lifetime which is extremely encouraging - particularly given the times we live in now. The single most important lesson to come out of Nuremberg is to ensure that there is no need for another Nuremberg at some stage in the future.

In the years after the Nuremberg trial, Kelley writes a book on the episode and is invited to be on a panel on a radio show. He is convinced that the behaviour exhibited by the Nazi leadership is present in all cultures at all times - including the USA and only needs the right set of circumstances for it to come to unsavoury fruition. Caveat emptor! I'll give this film 8/10.

Up

 

This 2009 animation from Pixar won film of the year - and deservedly so. It is a gentle tale with likeable characters, a great story and a strong message.

As a young boy Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner) is mesmerised by his hero, the explorer Charles Muntz (voiced by  Christopher Plummer) who explores remote areas of South America around Paradise Falls. He brings back the skeleton of a large bird but it is deemed by the scientific community to be fake and Muntz is banished. He returns to South America to capture a live specimen of the bird and so show himself to be honourable.

Carl stumbles on Ellie, a girl of similar age (voiced by Elie Docter) who uses an abandoned house as a den where she too is fixated on exploration and Muntz. Eventually they marry, buy the house and renovate it. Ellie builds a scrapbook and keeps most of it for her adventure of a lifetime - a visit to Paradise Falls in Venezuela.

Life for the couple goes on - Ellie as a keeper at the zoo and Carl as a balloon seller also at the zoo. In old age in her hospital bed Ellie gives her scrapbook to Carl before she dies. With the neighbourhood around the home being redeveloped by high-rise blocks, Carl holds out against the developers. He is eventually forced to move into a retirement home but instead attaches thousands of balloons to the house which breaks free from its foundations and flies off into the skies. 

Carl is enjoying the flight when he is disturbed by a knock at the door. Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai) is a Wilderness Explorer Scout aiming to earn his final badge - helping the elderly. He has stowed away under the porch when the house took off. As the journey progresses, successfully navigating several hazards, Carl and Russell forge an uneasy relationship with Carl being grumpy and fixated on fulfilling his promise to Ellie.

Miraculously, the house lands in sight of Paradise Falls (only in a Disney story). As they explore, the couple meet Dug a talking dog (voiced by Rob Peterson) who knows the area well. They encounter a living giant bird (Kevin) with bright plumage and soon after other talking dogs which it turns out are the eyes and ears of Muntz, now advanced in years but seeking the bird as proof.

Muntz has soured and become nasty in his isolated existence and there are some great action sequences involving the characters. Eventually Carl, Russell and Dug commandeer Muntz's airship and journey home. Carl presents Russell with his badge to complete his collection.

Unbeknown to Carl, winds pick up the house and drop on the top of Paradise Falls thereby fulfilling Carl's promise to Ellie. In reflective mood, Carl opens Ellie's scrapbook and turns the pages reaching the title "My greatest adventure" which was intended to be used to record the trip to Paradise Falls. Instead the pages are full of pictures and notes from Ellie who lived her greatest adventure as Carl's wife and had a great life!

The message of the film is simple - don't waste your life waiting for your great adventure - go and live it now! An excellent film with great characters and animation. I'll give it 8/10.

The remains of the day

 

This film is as endearing as it repugnant. That said, I wasn't there at the time, I hadn't lived with the aftermath of WWI and who knows to what extent I would bend by morality if I thought peace rather than war was achievable? Also, I have never been a Butler!

My significant other really enjoyed the book and was keen to catch up on this 1993 period film out of the Merchant-Ivory stable. There is no doubt that the acting, sets, screenplay and cinematography are all first class - a film worthy of eight Academy Award nominations although it won none because of the opposition. Anthony Hopkins - Stevens and Emma Thompson as Miss Kenton command the screen as the atmosphere between the two of them fizzes and sparkles with the tension of unspoken attraction.

This is a film about duty, honour and unrequited love. Set between the wars in the country seat of Lord Darlington (James Fox) - Darlington Hall, it traces two intertwined stories. In the first, Lord Darlington uses his influence and international contacts to convene a gathering of politicians and influencers who might just be able to redress the crippling terms of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany and head off another conflict.

The second story is the relationship between Stevens and Kenton which Stevens never allows to get beyond the professional. Stevens allows himself to be defined by his role and he has no capacity for anything else beyond that. Always dutifully on call, anticipating the needs of Lord Darlington and the many house guests while managing a large domestic staff. He manages to get his father taken on as an under Butler but his father's failing health means he is no longer suited to the role and as he lies dying in his bed in the servant's quarters upstairs, Stevens chooses to continue serving his Lord at table. Duty prevails.

The life of being in service is one where marriage is not an option as you cannot serve two masters. The film reeks of Victorian values and unspoken social codes. Despite his unvoiced, even unacknowledged feelings for Kenton, Stevens is conflicted when she announces that she has accepted a proposal of marriage and will be leaving Darlington Hall. Inwardly, he is cut to the core but outwardly he offers her congratulations and accepts her resignation. They part. Duty prevails.

What is not immediately apparent, at least to me, is that Lord Darlington and his cronies are not mere appeasers, but actually becoming full-on right wing fascist sympathisers. This becomes apparent in later meetings where the servants of the house are party to all kinds of conversations which of course they choose not to hear. Their duty to their master prevails.

Although most of the film is set in the inter-war years, it opens in 1958 postwar Britain as a wealthy American who has bought Darlington Hall wishes to recapture the grandeur of its heyday - including keeping Stevens on as Butler. The American is former Senator Lewis (Christopher Reeve) who was part of the 1930's meetings that attempted to find a peaceful solution to the growing tension between Germany and the Western allies. He had the foresight to call Lord Darlington and his cronies amateurs who were in over their heads.

In further flashbacks to the 1930's we see Lord Darlington increasing his support for the Nazis and entertaining an Oswald Mosley type figure. He even arranges a meeting between the British Prime Minister and the German Ambassador von Ribbentrop.

In 1958 Lewis insists that Stevens should take a holiday. Having received a letter from Kenton after many years of silence, Stevens learns that she is now separated from her husband and longing for the fulfilment of the time she worked at Darlington Hall as Housekeeper. Stevens is urged to take the Daimler by Lewis and so he sets off to Somerset to find Kenton. 

En route he runs out of petrol and is forced to seek shelter in a local pub where he is mistaken for being a gentlemen. A local Doctor sees through Stevens and the next day whilst helping him refuel the car, confronts him and when her learns he is the Butler at Darlington Hall challenges stevens about his former employer's Nazi sympathies. To begin with Stevens denies things but eventually confesses to being party to overhearing many unsavoury conversations, stating that it was not his place to object - duty prevails.

Eventually Stevens and Kenton meet up and enjoy a pleasant afternoon tea together. Stevens is reticent about inviting Kenton to return to Darlington Hall, whilst Kenton states that she wishes to remain in Somerset close to her now pregnant daughter although she leaves the door open to be persuaded otherwise. Stevens, having missed the opportunity, leaves a  bitterly disappointed and tearful Kenton to vanish into the distance on the bus. Duty prevails.

Stevens returns to Darlington Hall where Lewis asks him if he remembers his speech all those years ago. Stevens replies he was too busy serving to pay attention to the speeches that were made.

This is a great film but ultimately leaves me feeling sad about the Stevens-Kenton situation and annoyed that I was taken in by Lord Darlington who all along was a Nazi sympathiser - hence my opening remark. The characters are very strong, but how close to any truth the story is, I do not know. It is however, a powerful exploration of the British class system and the blindness required by the duty of a Butler. Both quite depressing really. I'm finding it hard to score this excellent film because of what it did to me - a certain confirmation that it is indeed storytelling and acting of the highest order.

Deliver me from nowhere

This film is not about the songs. This film is all about the songs! As a Springsteen fan, I was filled with anticipation. What I got from watching this film was unexpected and much deeper than anything I could have imagined.  

This biopic takes a slice of Springsteen's life in 1981. Much has been made of the contrast between onstage and offstage Springsteen. Onstage he is 100% energy projecting a persona that personalises the songs in a way that connects with the audience. Offstage he is quiet and withdrawn, shunning the limelight and fame that comes with his growing success.

Springsteen (Jeremy Allen White) is welded to his blue-collar New Jersey upbringing. This is the lens through which he interprets life and the world that produces his earthy, industrial lyrics that make such a strong connection with his fans. The fact that this is a natural and not contrived process deepens the impact further.

There are frequent flash-backs to Springsteen's childhood where an eight year-old boy with no siblings lives in constant fear of violent outbursts from his alcoholic father (Stephen Graham). He is shown as being constantly distracted and in the film admits that High School was a bit hazy in his memory. The flash-backs add more and more context to his troubled childhood but don't go much beyond him as eight years old. The adult Springsteen in the film takes a narrow slice of 1981 as he withdraws from potential public stardom to a rented villa in a remote location, close to the town of Freehold NJ where he grew up.

Coming off the back of a hugely successful US tour, Springsteen is being pressured by his record label CBS to produce another album with hit singles, to tour and maybe even star in a movie - Born in the USA. Springsteen is clear he wants none of this. In the seclusion of his villa, he turns his bedroom into a rudimentary four-track recording studio on which he produces a cassette tape of songs which, because of the method of recording, sound rough and unpolished.

The inspirational catalyst for these new songs is a movie Springsteen catches on TV - Badlands and from which he decides to research the crime spree of Charles Starkweather who features in the film. Initially Springsteen writes lyrics that refer to the murderous Starkweather as 'he'. As the painful flash-backs come more frequently, a tormented Springsteen crosses out 'he' replacing it with 'I'. This completely transforms the power of the song. 

During this period, Springsteen hooks up with the younger sister of an old High School class-mate Faye Romano (Odessa Young) and a romance develops. This too offers raw material for some of the increasingly dark and sombre songs being recorded in the bedroom sessions. In the end, there is enough material for a double album and Springsteen presents his manager Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) with an unboxed cassette tape as the demo for the next album.

They begin recording in New York City and lay down a powerful version of Born in the USA from the movie script Springsteen had been offered. The other songs are given the same polished production technique and while the musicianship of the East Street Band is never in doubt, the songs have lost their acoustic rawness which for Springsteen is an integral part of their identity.

A titanic struggle ensues on three fronts. Firstly for artistic control of his own material with the record company who want a polished hit-single filled album. Secondly in his own mind over his relationship with Faye and Springsteen's seeming self-doubt that he could never love her as she deserves to be loved. Finally within Springsteen's own psyche as he wrestles with the demons of his past as he tries to reconcile them to the person he is now.

Of these three, the only 'victory' comes in the external battle with the record company who release an album Nebraska with no publicity, no tour and without Springsteen's picture on the sleeve. It rises to number three in the US charts. The rest of the material that was recorded goes on to form the next album - Born in the USA which was to propel Springsteen to global stardom.

Springsteen's parents, who have since moved to Los Angeles are struggling and a phone call from his mother Adele (Gabby Hoffman) who is distraught as his father has gone missing and is off his 'meds', sees Springsteen respond by flying to LA to find him. This he does in a bar. He admits him to hospital and gets him back on his medication.

Shortly afterwards, Springsteen decides to relocate to LA to be nearer his parents and to cut his ties with Faye. The parting is messy and painful as Faye accuses Springsteen of being unable or unwilling to face up to his fears. They part.

Springsteen is driven to LA by his friend and mechanic Matt Delia (Harrison Sloan Gilbertson) and as the journey progresses Springsteen slides deeper into psychosis and in Lubbock Texas experiences a mental breakdown. Eventually reaching LA, Springsteen is delivered to his new mansion in the Hollywood Hills with panoramic views of LA symbolising to me, that he is king of all he surveys - he has conquered the music world.

Feeling suicidal, he reaches out to Landau who urges him to seek professional help. Springsteen engages a therapist and we cut to 10 months later and the end of a gig in LA where Springsteen announces to Landau that it is good to be back on stage. His parents are at the gig and he is ushered into a locker room where his father sits isolated and disconnected. He asks his son to sit on his lap which Springsteen reluctantly does. He tells his father this is the first time he has ever done that. His father tells him he is very proud of his son and all he has accomplished. The movie ends. An epilogue tells viewers that Springsteen continues to seek treatment for depression.

This film allows us the privilege of a peek at the powers and memories that inspire creative people to create or at least this creative person. Those of us who do not have such creative outlet channels have to find other ways of channeling our inner angst and making our relationships work as we seek to love and be loved in the midst of trying to understand who we are.

I will never listen to the songs of Nebraska in the same way again. Great acting performances and of course great songs! I'll give this film 8/10.

F1

Yes, this is a film about motor racing - but it's much more than that. There is a lot of in-car tight action camera shots as Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris) and Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt) race against the likes of Hamilton, Verstappen and LeClerc. But, there is strong acting across the cast to deliver characters with great complexity and a couple of romances thrown in for good measure.

The narrative arc of the film is quite simple and covers the final nine races of the F1 season. The ailing 
APXGP F1 team is owned by Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem), a one-time friend and team mate of Hayes 30 years previously. In desperation to save the team and stave off $350m of debt, Cervantes turns to his friend to become the lead driver and rescue the season before the board sell off the failing team.

What makes this film so compelling is the way in which it feels like APXGP F1 is simply another team in the F1 paddock as many scenes integrate real pit lane activity with all the F1 stars in the background and on the track. Commentary even features SKY F1's TV presenters Martin Brundle and Crofty. At times it feels much more like a docudrama than a movie such is the realism that is created.

There is even a "Bernie Collins' character in the guise of Technical Director Kate McKenna (Kerry Condon) whose Irish charm, sparkly eyes and razor sharp brain combine to deliver the perfect foil for the uber-cool and laid back Sonny Hayes.

For those who are willing to look behind the flashy and noisy F1 circus, this film delivers a number of engaging character studies. The age and experience of the peripatetic loner Hayes against the driving ambition of live-with-his-mum Pearce, creates a tension that sparks and throbs throughout the film. The likeable but desperate Cervantes anchors the story. The sleazy Peter Banning (Tobia Menzies) adds an element of someone you love to hate. The completely likeable Jodie (Callie Cooke) who becomes very clumsy in the presence of Pearce lifts the scenes she appears in.

There is inevitably a lot of testosterone and machismo in this film given that it represents the pinnacle of male competitive sport. But as I have said, there is a lot more to it as we are invited to explore all the characters including Pearces mum (Sarah Niles) and manager (Samson Kayo) as well as the APXGP Team Principal (Kim Bodnia). In a world where there is easy temptation to cut corners, it is good to see people holding out to do the right thing in the right way. Tenderness, love, self-doubt and forgiveness all have their parts to play. This film is character driven rather narrative drive. The narrative is simply a vehicle.

I saw this at my local IMAX cinema and the pictures and soundtrack were immersive. Plenty of low-end rumble! I would recommend this film - even to those who are not motor racing fans. I'm going to give it 8/10.

Salt Path

It's hard to believe that a film about a couple walking the south west coastal path of England can be anything more than observational documentary or low budget reality TV. Context is everything! What sets this film apart is the fact that it is rooted in a real life tragedy which through many ups and downs eventually delivers a triumph. It is a story of love, commitment, victimisation, perseverance and an openness to be transformed by the experiences that life gives to you.

Many will have read the book. I am informed by a reliable source that the film is true to the spirit of the book. The story is about a couple who have been made homeless and who decide to walk the south west path from  Minehead to Lands End as they have nothing else to do. This film is so much about the journey and not the destination. It is not an action movie and proceeds at a slow plodding pace which helps the viewer to enter into the monotony and struggle of the ups and downs of the coastal path, which mirror the ups and downs of the couple's experience.

What is unclear in the film is if there is any culpability on the part of the couple, Moth (Jason Isaacs) and Raynor (Gillian Anderson), for facing the bailiffs and having their home taken away. There is mention of poor investment choices at one stage but the story is not about how they got into their predicament, but how they confront it. The scenes of the eviction catch in graphic detail the fear and anxiety such an experience generates. So, virtually penniless and with just a tent and the clothes they are wearing, they set off for Minehead.

What complicates matters is that Moth has been diagnosed with a degenerative neurological illness that has given him a left-sided weakness which makes walking difficult - especially up and down the hills and coves of a coastal path.

The couple are mostly cheerful and embrace the freedom of their situation with no deadlines or responsibilities. Moth's condition limits their speed, but Raynor never complains. They meet and are able to encourage a number of folk along the way. They both give and receive hospitality - even spending a night or two in a commune where Raynor has a mind-bending experience.

Along the path they experience a wide range of encounters. Several times, older people walking their dog yell at them telling them that they "can't camp here". There are encounters with different groups of animals which the cinematography turns into a quasi-spiritual encounter - deer, fish, rabbits, goats and seals all feature to offer a 'thin place' encounter. The couple seem to be periodically accompanied by a hawk that squawks and swoops to guide them on their way.

In one seaside town they meet a girl Sealy (Gwen Currant), who seems to be under the control of her aggressive partner. Recognising her predicament they invite her to join them but she refuses but later, for a time, accompanies Moth and Raynor along the path before turning back. I guess this encounter shows that we are not able to help everybody.

The film offers a stunning travelogue for the coasts and communities of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. Wild, windy and sometime wet, the views are breathtaking and the sunsets mesmerise. One annoying thing that happens a couple of times is that the sea is on the wrong side if they are heading West! Much of the film shows the face of either Moth or Raynor full-frame as they drag themselves along the path and up and down the hills. A hirsute Jason Isaacs  contrasting with the natural beauty of Gillian Anderson whose accent does wander a bit throughout the film.

This is a slow and gentle film which evokes a slow and gentle response. It invites the viewer to reflect as Moth and Raynor are forced to do the same as they process what is happening to them and the reason they are on this pilgrimage. Ultimately the experience is a very positive one, but it is as much about the journey as arriving at Land's End. This is a hopeful film. I encourage you to seek it out and do your own reflecting on where your life's journey has taken you. I'll give it 8/10.

Inside Out 2

It is rare for a sequel to live up to the original but in this case it surpasses it! I watched this with a group of friends form church and we reflected on it together afterwards. We had seen the original about three months ago and that had been well received.

This is a Disney Pixar animation which shows the state of the art with graphics that look so smooth and life-like. In describing the film, I have to give a little bit of the plot away but I don't think that will spoil things for you as this is not a plot-driven film.

The central premise is that we spend most of the film inside the head of Riley - a girl who in the first film was eight and who now reaches 13 and puberty! Riley is controlled by a number of emotions who appear as anthropomorphised avatars at the control console of her emotions. As the emotions tussle for influence and control so Riley undergoes changes in mood and behaviour.

In the first film, Joy was the dominant emotion - as it should be in childhood. Alongside Joy were Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust. A nice neat quintet. With the onset of puberty a maintenance crew turn up to upgrade the console and with the new console comes some additional emotions. Life for Riley is about to become much more complicated.

As Riley makes the jump to High School which enforces a separation from her two closest ice hockey playing friends, so she also has to navigate relinquishing some of her sacred childhood totems as she tries to step up in the world and join in with the big girls.

With new emotion Anxiety taking control of the console and the former set of emotions banished, Riley struggles to get to grips with Envy, Embarrassment and Ennui. The former emotions embark on a journey to recover Riley's sense of self which was banished to the back of her mind by Anxiety. Can they succeed and integrate the old emotions with the new in a way that Riley can cope with, without having a breakdown and which helps her developing teen-self, develop a healthy and evolving sense of self?

Again, the script and narrative are based on well informed psychology and highlight all the right issues, so much so that some watching found that it uncomfortably reawakened their struggles with their transition through puberty. Not bad for an animation!!

This film is a gift to those leading teenage youth groups or working with youngsters that could profit from this indirect way of inviting conversations about our emotions, how we use them and how we can try and maintain a healthy balance. I thought it was excellent and give it 9/10.

Conclave

 

How can you make a drama about 108 old men choosing one of their number to become their leader? Director, Edward Berger manages to produce one of the most gripping films I have ever seen. This film is wonderfully scripted, brilliantly filmed with so many framed shots and full-face closeups, mesmerisingly detailed in its sound production and above all, acted with such power, it is simply stunning.

Following the death of the Pope, Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is tasked with Presiding over the Conclave of all the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church as they gather from around the world in the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican to cast their votes to elect a new Pope.

On the face of it, it is a straightforward task and process. The film shows that even Cardinals are human and open to the same lapses as the rest of us. Watching this film at a time when in reality His Holiness is so unwell adds an edge to the proceedings. Additionally, as the Mother Church of the Anglican world is also attempting to gather its own conclave in the guise of the Crown Nominations Commission to choose its next leader, there is a further uncomfortable echo.

The Cardinals meet, they talk, try to drum up support for their chosen nomination, vote and elect a new Pope. That is all so simple on the face of it, but the intrigue and politicking that goes on in the name of God - well I'd like to say that it's unbelievable but sadly I can't. The film offers nothing other than a damning indictment of a human institution that conducts itself in ways that are alien to the teachings of its founder. It is very sad.

In a predominantly male context, the film allows plenty of room for women in the church to play pivotal roles. I won't list the ins and outs of the scheming that goes on, or the conclusion that is reached. You can discover them for yourself. Yes we all know the narrative arc - a bunch of old guys are locked away enjoying good food and wine and the occasional prayer, until they choose one of their number by two thirds majority to become Pope. But the way this film navigates that arc is masterful. It is so engrossing that I forgot I was watching a film - I was there! 

For me, what shone brightest was the integrity shown by the character of Cardinal Lawrence. The angst and pain etched on Cardinal Lawrence's face (see above) never disappears. He had a task to do and he was not going to allow himself to become deflected from completing it and so fulfilling the trust placed in him by the previous Pope. All the Cardinals were under Papal scrutiny and it was Lawrence who was chosen to Preside over the Conclave. I felt such a deep connection to his character that I wonder if he and I share the same personality type! (ISTJ - or he might be INTJ.)

With the Oscars being handed out tonight it will be interesting to see how this film does. I hope it does well. I'll give it a very rare 10/10!

Kinds of kindness

 

This film is set within a series of reference frames that are different to the ones within which I usually choose to operate, emotionally, psychologically, morally and intellectually. To be honest I really struggled with this film. I stuck it out until the beginning of the third tryptic and then I had to walk.

Without doubt this film is very clever and is as much about the vector of storytelling as it is the story that is told. Maybe it was simply beyond my intellectual grasp. The fact that it carries an 18 certification for violent and extended sexual activity but makes no mention of the physical and psychological violence that is a constant feature of the film, assumes a level of normal that I am not prepared to collude with.

The film is billed as a black comedy. I found nothing remotely comedic in it at all. In the first tryptic I found the portrayal of the need to be controlled and the need to control very disturbing. In the second tryptic the lack of sympathy for the husband was disappointing but as the story develops his behaviour becomes increasingly psychotic although there is always a sense that he is the only one seeing the true reality.

Perhaps I should have stuck it out and maybe the third tryptic unlocks a clear sense of meaning. However I didn't and what I'm left with is a dark exploration of the human need to control others and the human need to gain and express greater self-confidence. It is also about our innate need to be liked and the fear of rejection. Where the kindnesses came in depends on how you define being kind. I found no kindness that I recognised save perhaps in the self-sacrifice of Liz the wife in the second tryptic. There was no facility for saying so far but no further. Everything was always taken to the fullest extreme and perhaps in doing so reveals a side of human potential behaviour that scares me.

The acting performances are very strong. The same troupe playing different characters in the three related tryptics. Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Margaret Qualley, Willem Dafoe, Hong Chau, Mamoudou Athie and Joe Alwyn reappear and deliver very convincing character studies - Plemons picking up best actor at Cannes where it premiered.

I would only advise seeing this if you have three hours to waste and are so thick-skinned that everything that has the potential to wound you simply bounces off. I'm sure it's top class cinema for those who have eyes to see but for me I'm happy I didn't have bad dreams after having seen it. I'll give it 3/10.

One Life

 

This is an important story that needs to be told as some parts of humanity seem to be unable to stop repeating the errors of past generations. The story is about a 29 year-old English stockbroker, Nicky Winton played by Johnny Flynn and also Anthony Hopkins as a 79 year-old Winton. The film flicks between 1938 and 1978. Winton was the son of German-Jewish parents who fled Germany because of rising anti-Jewish sentiments and settled in London. 

Hearing of the plight of refugees and Jews fleeing the advancing Nazis, Winton travels to Prague in Czechoslovakia to see for himself. Winton is so gripped by the desperate plight of the people that he formulates a plan to rescue as many of the children as he can. The children will travel by train with visas to enter Britain and be placed with foster families until they can return home. With bureaucratic hurdles and no resources other than determination, it seems an impossible task.

Winton works through the offices of the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia who put him in touch with a Prague Rabi who has a list of the most vulnerable and at risk Jewish children attached to his synagogue. Slowly Winton earns the trust of the people and sets about gathering information to enable visa applications to be made. Meanwhile his mother Babette (Helena Bonham Carter) is tasked with tackling the government department processing visa applications which of course with war imminent, is overrun with applicants.

Fifty years on and Winton's house is filled with archive boxes full of photos and papers from the operation which successfully ran eight trains from Prague to London and rescued 669 children whose fate otherwise would certainly have been transportation to Nazi concentration camps. In the bottom drawer of his desk is a briefcase which he at first is unable to even touch, let alone 'deal with' as his wife Greta (Lena Olin) constantly urges him to do. Greta goes away to visit their daughter who is about to produce the first grandchild and this acts a catalyst for Winton to burn all the archive boxes and eventually reveal what is in the briefcase.

I won't spoil anything of how the story unfolds and flicks between the two time periods. This is a compelling story, well told with very good performances especially from Hopkins and  Bonham Carter. Tissues will be needed. For me, the irony of the story is being played out on our TV screens with coverage of the current conflict in Gaza. It is not inconceivable that some of those rescued by Winton could be the grandparents of IDF soldiers currently attacking Palestinian families with children in Rafa. Will we never learn? As a film i'll give it 9/10 - well worth seeing.

Dune 2

 

A saviour who was prophesied, who seemingly dies, then is resurrected and leads the people to paradise - sounds familiar to me. Dune Messiah is of course the next book in Herbert's series and never was the ending of a film left so open as to invite a follow up. Whether it be Herbert's Dune or Asimov's Foundation, organised religion is put under the spotlight and with some Hollywood magic makes the leap to Science Fiction. Perhaps an imagined future feels easier to deal with than an historical past?

Director Denis Villeneuve's barnstorming sequel which he describes as an "epic war movie", is the all-action counterpoint to the first film's more contemplative feel. The relentless nature of the combat scenes reminded me of Lord of the Rings but this time on a beach. If you like fighting on a grand scale, this will sate your appetite. I appreciate that Villeneuve was creating an epic, but did it really need to be 2:45 long? For me passages dragged and the narrative arc was constructed so slowly it was painful as the outcome was never in jeopardy.

The whole film is visually stunning and I imagine the IMAX rendition would be something special. The soundtrack is excellent as it never intrudes but always supports. The acting is powerful with Timothée Chalamet carrying off Paul Muad'Dib Atreides with aplomb and strong performances from Zendaya as Chani, Rebecca Ferguson as Paul's mother Lady Jessica, Javier Bardem as Stilgar, Josh Brolin as Gurney Halleck and Austin Butler as the terrifying psychopath Feyd-Rautha.

The Bene Gesserit Sisterhood are a manipulative order whose goal is to breed the Kwisatz Haderach - a male Bene Gesserit with mental powers that bridge space and time and who would be the saviour of the universe. They have been working on this for millennia by controlling bloodlines through seduction and coercive marriages - always working indirectly, never seeking to rule themselves.

The dark and deceptive Bene Gesserit and the brutally violent leaders of the House of Harkonnen are the balance to Paul Atreides and Chani - even if Atreides is driven by revenge. The original book - which my better half says is is much better than the films - was written in 1965 at the height of the Cold War, so it is no surprise that the ultimate deterrent in this film is the threat of unleashing nuclear weapons.

This film left me with conflicting feelings. Whilst it is a visual feast with very good acting and special effects, the relentless fighting, plotting, at times muddy dialogue and slow plot development detracted from the enjoyment for me. I have to say that I was disappointed and didn't enjoy it as much as Dune 1 and can only award it 6/10.

Chocolat

 

Although I have watched this film many times and have used it as a film to invite theological reflection, it has not yet appeared on this blog! Time to rectify that. I watched it earlier this week with a group of friends from church and I have to say it still holds its own.

Set in a rural community in South West France in 1959, with the aftermath of both world wars continuing to be a lived reality for some of the villagers, this film explores the choices people make about the way they live their life, how they respond to the pressure to conform and the positive power of transformation.

With a strong ensemble cast and five Oscar nominations this film, which was released in 2000, begins on the eve of Lent in a community that almost uniformly does what is expected, most of which is anchored by regular church attendance where Count Reynaud (Alfred Molina) who is also the mayor, welcomes townsfolk to each service. He then takes the seat of honour at the front where he can exert his control on the new young priest who has already had his sermon heavily modified by the Count. 

The Count represents a rigid, harsh and controlling way of following religion in a world where there is only black and white. A statue of the First Count stands looking over the village square outside the church - the Count who expelled protestant Huguenots from the village centuries earlier. All of this presents a less than attractive image of the Catholic Church - but I could think of some churches of other traditions that present an equally uninviting image of the God they worship!

The Count, who is a student of history and is predisposed to maintain inherited values and customs, presents a sad figure who carries the weight of the responsibility of being leader of the community as well as the loss of his wife. His wife is on an "extended Italian tour" but it is clear that she will not be returning. The Count surrounds himself with photographs of her and with crucifixes to bring consolation. All of this makes the Count lacking in joie-de-vivre as he constantly reminds villagers of the behaviour the Church expects of them.

As winter gives way to spring so a strong North wind blows and against the grey of the dull village, Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol), robed in red caped cloaks battle the elements to find lodging and shop they can run. The colourful cloaks strike a strong contrast with the village, a contrast that is to become disruptive and ultimately transformative in a good way.

Vianne, who is half Mayan, is an itinerant evangelist - her Gospel of choice being Chocolate - especially when combined with chilli in ancient Mayan recipes. Chocolate proves to be more than a sexual aphrodisiac as it eventually has the power to re-enliven and re-energise the entire community.

The battle between life-sapping Church and the overbearing Count and Vianne's life-gving chocolate continues throughout the six weeks of Lent. The narrative is punctuated by individual battles of temptation when faced with chocolate, the illness of Vianne's Landlady (Judy Dench) and also the arrival of Irish Romanies, led by Roux (Jonny Depp) who drift in on the river by boat. With each piece or cup of chocolate, Vianne dispenses Choco-wisdom that challenges the dull status quo and which invites people to become a technicolour version of themselves as the true person they were created to be. This is a feel-good film that is life affirming.

On the eve of Easter, the Count sees Caroline (Carry-Ann Moss), his young widowed secretary to whom he is attracted, leaving the Chocolateries. With the chocolaterie's windows shrouded by paper to conceal the big display of new chocolates celebrating new life and Easter, the Count determines to break into the shop and destroy everything. In his frenzied attack on the chocolate, a speck falls on his lip and he tastes it. In an instant, not unlike St Paul's Damascus Road experience, he is converted and gorges himself on chocolate thus breaking the asceticism of his Lenten feast. Exhausted by fasting and battle with Vianne he falls asleep in the shop window where he is found the following morning. Vianne gives him a seltzer drink to revive him. 

As much as the Count is trapped within his self-made prison, so Vianne is trapped by her heritage and itinerant ministry led by the chill North wind. Anouk continually asks if they are going to stay this time rather than having to uproot and move yet again. Vianne carries her Mayan mother's ashes in a vase that during a tussle between her and Anouk becomes broken spilling the contents down the stairs. A contrite Anouk attempts to gather up as much of the ash as possible. This is the beginning of Vianne's own transformative breaking free. When the North wind next visits, Vianne open an upstairs window and casts the ashes into the wind to be blown to the next town to empower someone else to "heal the wounds of friends she hasn't met yet"! 

A repentant and apologetic Count leads the townsfolk into Church for the Easter Sunday celebrations where the Priest preaches from his heart rather than the Count's script and delivers a sermon that places our shared humanity above the following of empty and dead religious rules. Throughout the film, Anouk has narrated the story and as it ends, she describes further tales of life-affirming transformation in the lives and relationships of the villagers - and Roux returns the next summer to be with Vianne and Anouk. And so it seems, everyone lived 'happy ever after' - enjoying each other - and chocolate! 

Although Church features prominently in the film, it is not directly a religious film. However, for those with an eye to see and ears to hear the reading into the story of the power of God through the Holy Spirit to bring positive transformation is in plain sight and sound. The challenge for us is how can be emulate Vianne's life-affirming message. I'll give it 9/10.

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes

Overall a pleasing prequel. Set 64 years before the first Hunger Games of Katniss Everdeen, the film charts the rise of a teenage Coriolanus Snow (Tom Blyth) on his way to becoming President of Panem. The film is set closer to the time of the first rebellion by the Districts against the Capitol. Snow's father, a General fighting for the Capitol in a feudal Panem has recently died as . The family falls from grace and power and Coriolanus sets about reviving the family's status and fortunes.

As an 18 year-old Academy student, Snow is selected to mentor District 12 tribute Lucy Gray Baird (Rachel Zegler) in the 10th annual Hunger Games which are suffering a ratings slump. The games' creator Casca Highbottom (Peter Drinklage) is anxious to revive the popularity of the spectacle and offers both encouragement and sadistic twists to Snow and the other mentors.

In a dystopian world that is increasingly mirroring our own, the Hunger Games play out with Snow closely involved in the Games and at times actually appearing in the arena. His mentee, tribute Lucy Gray Baird, is a free-spirited songstress who charms viewers by her singing during the reaping ceremony. The Games proceed with the usual violence and spilling of blood under the direction of scary head gamemaker Dr Volumnia Gaul (Viola Davies).

Lucy Gray is depicted as a 'type' of Katniss Everdeen - she is her own woman, charming and beautiful with an inherent distrust of all but her own own people. She is resourceful, kind and compassionate - an underdog that everybody roots for. As the story unfolds, in a very lumpy and inconsistent way, Snow is shown to be ever the ruthless opportunist who will use everyone and everything to his advantage to advance his power and status.

Fans of the franchise will probably be satisfied with this offering with the Hanging Tree motif linking it with the earlier trilogy. The end certainly leaves the door open for further explorations and with the box office bringing in over $250m in the first two weeks of release, the film has already recouped the estimated production budget of $100m. This film could have been a lot worse - but then it could also have been a lot better. The strong points are Drinklage's performance which gives the film gravitas and Zegler's singing. I'll give it 7/10.

The Fabelmans

First section no plot spoilers 😁

Steven Spielberg's long-awaited semi-autobiographical movie delivers the greatest home movie ever made! The film was in gestation for over 20 years, but out of sensitivity to his parents remained unmade until their passing. That in itself demonstrates Spielberg's sensitivity to the emotions of others - a central theme of this film's plot. This sensitivity is like one of two cords twisted together, the other being a passion for storytelling through film. I imagine that it would be possible to view the film and see only one cord which would present a good movie. However, to recognise the two cords and how they are linked in the soul of Spielberg is to watch a great movie!

This allows the film to be seen on the one hand as a two and half hour session of family therapy, whilst on the other, a record of how someone's vocation to be a storyteller through film, is sparked into life and nurtured to powerful fruition. Choosing for himself the family name Fabelman in the film, reinforces his storytelling credentials.

There is so much in this film. It is a gift from a legend whose 34 movies include some of the most memorable of the last 50 years. You could watch this film from its Jewish angle, or from a family dynamics angle, or a love triangle, or movie making or the power of a story to move you. You cannot miss the impact that editing in the art of storytelling has, and how Sam, from an early age, understood and used this power to great effect. If a story doesn't move you, it has failed. This is a most moving film and I'm very happy to give it 9/10.

This fuller section contains some plot spoilers

The opening scene of the film sets up the twin cords beautifully. Outside a New Jersey movie theatre, Sam Fabelman's parents are anxious as they take five year old Sammy to see his first movie - The Greatest show on Earth. They are worried about his reaction to the film. Sammy's father Burt (Paul Dano), explains the technical and scientific principles that underlie filmmaking and why the characters will appear to be so large on the screen. Sammy then turns 180 degrees to receive his mother Mitzi's (Michelle Williams) explanations which are all about art, creativity and emotion. This sets up the central tension between Sammy's parents - the nerdy, scientific, seemingly cold father and the existentialist, creative and passionate mother.

Young Sammy is traumatised by a train crash in the film in which a train carrying a circus on tour, hits a car on the track before ploughing into a second train, also part of the circus entourage. The ensuing violent destruction of people and property is what causes Sammy his difficulty. So affected by what he saw, Sammy asks for a train set for Hanukkah and after receiving it, one night stages a reconstruction of the train crash with his toy train, a car and a wooden Noah's Ark filled with animals like the circus train.

The noise wakens the sleeping the family and Sammy is chastised by his father for damaging expensive engineering whilst his mother immediately sees it as Sammy's way of trying to understand and in some way control the crash he had seen in the film. Recognising how important this process is to Sammy, his mother gives him the family 16mm film camera and invites him to recreate the crash one more time and film it. That way he can watch the film over and over again rather than having to smash up the train set. She says to him "don't tell your father. It will be our little secret".

This introduces a recurring theme whereby on a number of occasions, Sammy is told by a variety of people "this will be our little secret". Sammy becomes the keeper of secrets. Realising the power of film to tell a story Sammy begins making home movies with his sisters before advancing to making films with his Scout Troop. The acquisition of an editing machine allows him to cut and paste different scenes which adds another dimension to Sammy's ability to tell stories through film.

Burt's understanding of the developing technology of computing means that he is head-hunted and given a senior role in a tech company in Phoenix, Arizona meaning that the family uproots and moves south. Burt's best friend and business colleague Bennie (Seth Rogen) is given a job in the same company and relocates with the family to maintain his relationship to Sammy as a surrogate uncle and friend of the family.

The family, along with the ever present Bennie, who is as annoying and he is likeable, take a camping holiday in the Arizona countryside. Sammy captures the fun and frolicking of the holiday on film. Shortly after the vacation, Mitzi's mother dies. In the death scene we have one of many cinematic 'devices' that the film contains. The camera zooms in on the mother's pulsating jugular as the monitor beeps in rhythm. The pulsating stops, the monitor falls silent and the worst is feared. Mitzi is distraught.

Slumping into a depression, Mitzi mopes around the house and is unable to energise and find an outlet for her creativity or passion. Sammy has more movie shooting scheduled with the Scouts when his father asks him to set aside his 'hobby' and edit the vacation film in an effort to produce something that will lift Mitzi's spirits. In the same way that Sammy's earlier home movie of the train crash was a vehicle for his understanding and response to develop, so Burt asks Sammy to make a movie to achieve similar outcomes for Mitzi.

As he reluctantly edits the pieces of film together, Sammy notices that the camera has caught several scenes with Mitzi and Bennie in the background carrying on in  away that clearly shows they have feelings for each other. Sammy decides not to put these scenes in the final edit for his mother but edits them into another movie telling a very different story.

A surprise visit from Mitzi's uncle Boris (Judd Hirsch) a former lion-tamer who has also worked in the movies results in a physical and violent encounter between Boris and Sammy where Boris tells Sammy that both his family and his art will tear his heart apart! This leaves a lastin impression on Sammy.

Sammy increasingly cold-shoulders his mother and they have a confrontation after which Sammy shows Mitzi his Mitzi/Bennie movie by way of explanation. She again becomes distraught and they are reconciled. This becomes another little secret to keep. Bennie is also given the cold-shoulder by Sammy.

Burt's success in his field results in another act of head-hunting which uproots the settled family as they move to Saratoga, California - this time without Bennie. Tensions increase, the family becomes even more dysfunctional and at High School Sam experience anti-Semitism, bullying and romance. As the family relocate from a rental property to a new build, Mitzi's growing depression and Burt's discovery of the affair, result in the announcement of a divorce which devastates Sam and his three sisters.

Mitzi and the girls return to Phoenix and Bennie, whilst Sam lives with Burt in Los Angeles. Sam wants to drop out of college and pursue his vocation of film making. Burt finally encourages Sam to continue writing to film and TV production companies and finally he is offered a junior role on the production of Hogan's Heroes (which I remember fondly from my childhood!). He is introduced to legendary Director John Ford who, in an ill-tempered five minutes, gives him a lesson on where to place the horizon in a shot to make it more interesting. Elated by this gem of advice he skips down the studio lot and the camera tilts to reposition the horizon!

There is plenty of the story that I have not touched on, so I hope I haven't spoiled it for anyone who hasn't seen it. Enjoy!

The Big Lebowski

 

I am a huge fan of the Coen brothers and rate No Country for old men amongst my top ten all time films. I'm not sure how I managed to miss this film and had been looking forward to it. As genius as the Coen brothers can be, they can also make films that simply provoke the question "why?".  Burn After Reading, Hudsucker Proxy and Brother Where art thou among them. Sadly for me, this film joins that list.

This is not a plot driven film - it is character driven by Jeff Bridges' portrayal of the Little Lebowski - The Dude. The film is slapstick comedy with many inept characters. The constancy of Bridges' performance is the unifying thread that draws the film together. Julianne Moore delivers a trademark excellent and offbeat performance as a naked abstract painter - the daughter of the Big Lebowski.

Quite why this has become a cult classic I'm not sure. That a Church of the Latter Day Dude exists is as bizarre as the film itself and the phrase "The Dude Abides" sums up the religion the Dude's disciples follow. 

A major part of the film is set in a Bowling Alley -  The Dude's other activity - his main one being to lounge around drinking White Russians. An unemployed layabout, The Dude is never deflected from the course he sets himself despite a number of extreme and at times violent interventions against him and his possessions. He is not concerned with the detail of events that surround and impact him, but remains focussed on being The Dude.

The are good performances from John Goodman as Walter Sobchak and Steve Buscemi as Donny Kerabatsos as The Dude's friends and bowling partners. But the fanciful plot involving a porn king, his trophy wife and nihilist Germans is too fanciful to be fulfilling. The absurdism is of course intentional and a part of the Coen's storytelling art. I guess you either get it or you don't and on this occasion I didn't. I was looking forward to watching it and was disappointed in the end. I'll give it 5/10.

Barbie

This film makes a simple point in a nuanced and complex way. It is a point worth making and the film does it well. I did however feel it was a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - it was like having got the Barbie juggernaut rolling, the producers were intent on milking the franchise for all they could get. Not unlike the portrayal of Mattel in the film.

Margot Robbie in the titular role is stunning and Ryan Gosling is well cast as an all singing and all dancing Ken. The film explores fantasy and imagination and our ability to create worlds. It is essentially a film about making meaning and being true to yourself. 

PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT

At the opening of the film, Barbieland is filled with a variety of Barbies and Kens - and an Alan as a nod to those who don't identify as either a Barbie or Ken. The lead Barbie is a 'Stereotypical Barbie' - a point made so many times that it becomes too repetitive in the film. Yes, we are all guilty of stereotyping through unconscious bias and for too long we have allowed consumerism to cajole us into colluding with the status quo.

The utopian Barbieland serves up a pastel, syrupy and idealised beach-front landscape from the American Dream of the post-war era. All the jobs in Barbieland are filled by women from the President to the bin collectors. Ken's function is to do 'beach'. Whilst Barbie is happy to drive to the beach and back every day and host a girls' night in her house every night, Ken is left aching for attention from Barbie for whom he has been made and for whom he has unrequited love. This is the first indication of dysfunction in Barbieland.

Barbie's monotonous routine is broken when she awakens one morning with a preoccupation with death and everything begins to turn sour - even her breakfast milk is off! Such is the state of her malady, that she is sent by the Barbies to see the Scary Barbie who is the only one capable of offering a remedy.

It transpires that Stereotypical Barbie has been affected by the fears and anxieties of her owner playing with her in the real world. In a scene reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz Barbie travels to the real world to confront her owner. Like an alien encounter from Star Trek, Barbie, accompanied by Ken, blunder their way through Venice Beach which is completely strange yet confusingly familiar to them. Having mentioned two films, many more are referenced by a clever script: 2001, Toy Story 3, Matrix, La La Land, Clueless, Midnight Cowboy, Singing in the Rain - the list goes on and on and Director Greta Gerwig admits to being 'inspired' by 29 films in an interview with Letterboxd.

There is much to laugh at in this film and much to shed a tear over. It holds up a mirror and allows the viewer to examine themselves, their prejudices and relationships. The placement of Mattel is brazen as the creator of Barbie and the world's second largest toy maker. The Board of the company is beautifully portrayed in a stereotypically Barbie-kind-of-way and Will Ferrell as the CEO is fantastic. Mattel allowed themselves to be cynically portrayed as a mega-corporation because the film will no doubt launch a massive range of new Barbie paraphernalia - only this time the target will be much wider than has traditionally been the case. Undoubtedly this film will make a lot of money for Mattel. 

I won't spoil all the fun - I'll leave you to watch the film and work out how the dysfunction is accommodated in an evolving Barbieland. But I will say that in another wonderful piece of stereotyping, the pivot around which the story moves, is a speech from Latina single mum Gloria:

It is literally impossible to be a woman. You are so beautiful, and so smart, and it kills me that you don't think you're good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we're always doing it wrong.

You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can't ask for money because that's crass. You have to be a boss, but you can't be mean. You have to lead, but you can't squash other people's ideas. You're supposed to love being a mother, but don't talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman but also always be looking out for other people.

You have to answer for men's bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you're accused of complaining. You're supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you're supposed to be a part of the sisterhood.

But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful.

You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It's too hard! It's too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.

I'm just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don't even know.

My significant other helpfully suggests that this speech could just as easily be about men - the point the film makes (repeatedly).

This film is very clever and full in your face, it is visually stunning. It is very pink. The acting is very good and Greta Gerwig as Director and screenplay co-writer deserves plaudits for her creativity, inventiveness and ability to handle a tricky subject in a way that leaves all kinds of people in a better place. For me the film was too long and had too much to say that was repetitive. For its quirkiness and courage, I'll give it 7/10.

Oppenheimer

 The scope of this film is huge. I watched on an IMAX screen which together with a stunning soundtrack made for a completely immersive experience. Often the camera is pulled back offering a wide vista but each frame is packed tight with so much detail. My eyes were kept busy for the entire 3 hours which flew by. This is one of the best films I have ever seen.

This film is not a documentary, neither is exclusively a biopic about Oppenheimer. Essentially this is about people having to make difficult decisions, often with only partial knowledge, in difficult and often time-pressured times. There is no doubt that Christopher Nolan's screenplay depicts Oppenheimer as a conflicted genius with a high moral code and unwavering allegiance to the USA. The way the story is told shows that others saw him differently. My reflections below are not intended to spoil the plot as that has long been in the public domain. As I left the cinema I immediately wanted to go back in and view it again simply because there is so much going on in the film and I wanted to check out my understanding of some of the roles of some characters in the stories. 

The story of this film is non-linear as there are three intertwined threads which are edited together as the narrative progresses in each of them - a trademark of Nolan's film-making:

• Oppenheimer's journey from Cambridge in 1929 to Los Alamos in 1945.
• Oppenheimer's security clearance hearing in 1954.
• Admiral Lewis Strauss' congressional clearance hearing in 1959.

Each of the threads has its own different pace which is a very clever device - the 1954 security hearing being shot in black and white - a first for IMAX. This works very well but seeing many of the same characters simultaneously in three different time-frames takes a lot of concentration.

In addition to Cillian Murphy in the title role, the film contains many of the great names of scientific advancement made in the twentieth century. Tom Conti delivers an endearing characterisation of Albert Einstein,  Kenneth Branagh as Niels Bohr, Matthias Schweighöfer as Werner Heisenberg and Benny Safdie as Edward Teller. There are very strong acting performances from Robert Downey Junior, Florence Pugh, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. A stellar cast.

The film clearly depicts Oppenheimer as a driven man but it also shows him as being impulsive, at times petulant, able to show high degrees of empathy and understanding of people and always highly principled. Once appointed to lead the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, Oppenheimer shows a deft touch in recruiting the right scientists to work on the different aspects of the project and in resolving the inevitable clashes of personality and ego. His clashes with Lt General Groves (Matt Damon) over the project's progress being slowed by the need for security-driven compartmentalisation brought energy and passion from both characters. His sexual liaisons with the Communist Jean Tatlock (Pugh) who herself was psychologically unstable, added intrigue and the masterfully shot sex fantasy scene during the security clearance hearing was pure artistry from Nolan. 

Oppenheimer's continued association with known Communists and the fact that his brother was one, served to undermine Federal confidence in his allegiance. His oral and financial support for Spanish Republicans was also seen as a possible indication of a lack of patriotism as the monies were channelled through Spanish Communists. Oppenheimer's wife Kitty (Blunt) was also a former Communist which added further ammunition to those seeking to question Oppenheimer's allegiance. The weight of circumstantial evidence was growing.

From early on, the film sketched out the ethical considerations of turning the theory of atomic fission into reality and the possible consequences of that in military hands. Einstein cautions Oppenheimer who is throughout the film exercised by doubt about the human and political cost of detonating such a weapon of mass destruction. He was not in a hurry to divert resources to developing the even more powerful Hydrogen Bomb and in a later meeting with Truman urged the President to exercise restraint and caution which was seen as a sign of Oppenheimer's weakness. It is clear that Oppenheimer was haunted by the destructive power of what he had created and showed remorse for the thousands of innocent civilians killed in the two Japanese cities. He is portrayed as regretting not having completed the project in time for the bomb to be deployed against Hitler to end the Holocaust whilst noting that the majority of top German scientists working on the project were also Jewish.

The race was on between the Germans, Russians and Americans to develop the technology first and therein lies the intermingling of politics and militarised science. As soon as the experimental Trinity detonation was successful, the project was completely taken over by the military and symbolically the bombs were driven away from Los Alamos for deployment to Japan. As the trucks drove across the New Mexico desert, the chains on the cases clanked as though to symbolise that humanity was now in bondage to the deadly potential of this technology.

An area of contrast that ran throughout the story was that of morality and ethical standards. This was explored in a number of ways from Oppenheimer's support for a wide range of social causes to the politicians using whatever means to advance their own position. In the end, this became focussed in the persons of Oppenheimer and Strauss and their respective hearings. One side was shown to be shallow, manipulative and completely narcissistic, whilst the other was principled and did things for the greater good at considerable personal cost. The politicians came out this very poorly whilst the scientists gave me faith that they had acted in the best of the majority's interest. Whether this was a construct of Nolan's screenplay or close to the truth I don't know - but I like to believe it.

As I said this was so good I wanted to back in to watch it again - one of the best films I have ever seen. I cannot give it anything other than 10/10!