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!

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once

If cinematically, the Wachowskis, Quentin Tarantino and Stanley Kubrick were to have a love child, this would be it! The Matrix meets Cloud Atlas meets Kill Bill meets 2001. Yes this film is highly derivative, but it makes no attempt to disguise it as it mishmashes a number of genres together in a high-octane psycho-philosophy fantasy that is also a morality tale. It is at the same time highly original. The format and many of the ideas are very Asian but the context, visualisation and narrative arc are Western. All very postmodern! I liked it.

To enter into watching this film unprepared would leave many viewers confused and numb. I felt I would number among them if I didn't do a little research before diving in. I'm glad I did as this is one film where knowing something of the plot before you watch enhances the viewing experience - at least it did for me. I reveal some of the plot below - but with this film, I really don't think it matters!

I'm not sure where to start. There are some very good acting performances here. For me the stand out was from Jamie Lee Curtis who played her 'dominating female in charge' role to chilling perfection as an IRS Tax Agent. A masterstroke was for her desk to contain a number of Employee of the Month awards in the shape of butt plugs. A wonderful comment on the necessary evil of tax gathering regimes worldwide.

The central character Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh), is having a midlife crisis in the midst of an IRS audit whilst her husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan), is desperately trying to get her attention for a simple conversation, her daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu) is in a committed same sex relationship with Becky (Tallie Medel) which risks upsetting Evelyn's father Gong Gong (James Hong) and spoiling the upcoming Chinese New Year Party for family and customers at the Laundromat they run. The dialogue is fast and furious, as is the action.

If all of this wasn't complicated enough, the story is told across a multiverse where each character exists in parallel dimensions created by the options and choices they face in their lives. Consequently, there is a lot of jumping between different parallel universes and differing expressions of the same characters within those universes in a titanic battle of good over evil. Evelyn is battling for good and has to make completely unpredictable choices, which is what she usually does anyway, as she flips between universes taking on the manifestation of evil in her daughter, who has created the everything bagel with everything on it, which has become a quantum singularity pulling everything into its gravitational field. All pretty non-routine stuff! I felt at home in the multiverse of this film as it reflected pretty well what is going on inside my head most of the time!

There is a lot of psychology, of varying traditions, in this film along with Freudian explorations of sexual fantasy, S & M and dominatrix scenes involving fingers that are hot dogs filled with American mustard! There is a lot of Kung Fu fighting and violence in the style of Kill Bill and The Matrix - all beautifully choreographed and fantasised.  As I said - non-routine.

If you can navigate your way through this cosmos of confusion, you might get to enjoy many of the comedic moments which manifest themselves when often least expected. What the film does offer is a story where courage, doubt, sacrifice and love all feature prominently. If you are looking for a postmodern retelling of the Gospel with a female Saviour, this film may just be for you.  The film invites us to reflect on our motivation for the choices we make in life and the possible consequences, both intended and unintended that arise. It also invites reflection on our relationships and how we invest in them and maintain them. As I said, I liked it. I'll give it 8/10.

Gemini Man

 

Maybe I'm getting back into watching movies - one of my long Covid symptoms. I feel I can agree to concentrate on the film for its entirety once again. Feels good. 😁

I hadn't seen this before and caught it on TV recently. Will Smith usually turns in performances in likeable characters and this time is no exception as he play DIA assassin Henry Brogan. There is plenty of action in this film, some clever special effects and a strong performance from Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Danny Zakarewski in support.

PLOT SPOILER

The premise of the film is quite simple although it takes a while to emerge. As an ageing assassin, Brogan is looking to retire. He is deemed to be such a valuable asset that the DIA cannot allow the loss of his services. One of Brogan's superiors, Clay Varris (Clive Owen) has seen this scenario developing and has taken action some years ago to negate the consequences. He sends Brogan on a mission with false data about the target who turns out to be an innocent scientist rather than an terrorist. This creates the pretext for Brogan to be labelled rogue, giving Brogan's Director the means to eliminate him. 

This is established fairly early on in the film and the narrative develops into a series of high action sequences as Brogan escapes his pursuers. As we might expect, any film directed by Ang Lee is going to have a lot of action!

Having eliminated the 'pack of pursuers' Brogan is left being hunted down by someone who seems to know exactly what he will do - even before he knows himself. It turns out the bent Director Varris cloned a new Brogan from a DNA sample some years before and the fitter, faster new version of Brogan seems to have the upper edge. Once the likeness has been established, clever CGI presents us with a youthful Will Smith trying to kill an older version of himself. Hence the title Gemini Man.

Apart from the questions about governments carrying out targeted assassinations on our behalf for the greater good (James Bond?), it raises questions about Eugenics where genetics are tweaked to enhance and improve the human condition, removing natural selection from the equation. If you want to explore movies with this theme, there are plenty more here.

At the end of the day this is an action film about good versus evil that uses an interesting mechanism to offer the entertainment. Standard Hollywood output. The film is set within the brutal world of clandestine cloak and dagger morality and lacks any finesse in the way the story lines are explored. Things are very black and white, which I guess is a good thing because I for one, really don't want this kind of thing going on - even if it is for my greater well-being. I'll give it 6/10.

Dune (2021)

 

I missed this in the cinema but watched the DVD yesterday with the sound cranked up and house vibrating. Excellent! I enjoyed it. A very expansive film which suited the huge scope of Frank Herbert's 1965 original novel. This is Part 1 covering on the first half of the book. Part 2 will follow as soon as they can reassemble the cast and crew spurred on by critical acclaim and box office success.

It is said that there is nothing new under the sun and this film felt a bit like The Matrix on the beach with added Jedi as the Bene Gesserit. Everything is derivative of something else and Herbert predates both George Lucas and the Wachowskis. 

Dune can be read many ways but I saw it primarily as a morality tale. The noble house of Atreides mysteriously given the planet Arrakis to govern by the Emperor, only to find themselves wiped out by the house of Harkonnen - the house they displaced. All for power, control and wealth wrapped up in a web of deceit and conspiracy. It all sounds horribly familiar! 

Set roughly 20,000 years in the future, it is clear to see that human moral and ethical behaviour development has not, on the whole, kept pace with technology. This is no Star Trek humanist utopia. The same weaknesses and foibles continue to beset the different races, all very reminiscent of a prototypical Edenic Adam. The new Adam or Saviour, with special powers he does not yet fully recognise or know how to control, is Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) who is guided by his father's top courtiers and of course his mother, Lady Jessica Atreides (Rebecca Ferguson) of the Bene Gesserit.

The planet Arrakis is the sole source of 'spice', a granular substance blowing on the winds of the planet and mixed in with the sand that covers most of the planet's surface. Within the sand live giant sandworms that travel at high speed and devour anything that gets in their way. They respond to rhythmic sounds such as walking or the operation of spice harvesting machines. Because of this and the extreme waterless climate, existence on the planet's surface is challenging. Spice is a valuable substance that bestows its users heightened vitality and expanded consciousness. It is critical for interstellar travel as it allows Space-Guiding Navigators to use a limited form of prescience to safely navigate interstellar space. Whoever is fief ruler of Arrakis, controls spice harvesting and supply across the universe - a powerful and lucrative thing.

With so much skulduggery at play, it is of course hard to know who to trust and who to avoid (or kill). The universe is a brutal and violent place. Paul Atreides will, of course, face many challenges on his quest to deliver salvation to the planet by bringing peace with the indigenous Fremen, maintain the honour of his house and capture the love of his life Chani (Zendaya), a Fremen.

If you like sand, worms, battle on an epic scale, heroism and love, then this is a tale for you. This is a faithful adaptation of Herbert's book and captures the ambiance and feel of Arrakis very well. The cinematography is stunning as is the original soundtrack - not to mention the sound effects in full Dolby Atmos. I am sure this will do well at the awards ceremonies and hasten the delivery of Part 2. I'll give it 8/10.

Belfast

I grew up listening to the twin soundtrack of the troubles in Northern Ireland and Vietnam. It is very hard to know what influence, if any, this experience had on my upbringing. This film's visceral and intimate  portrait connected deeply with memories I had long since buried deep within. The central character in this film is a nine-year-old boy called Buddy (Jude Hill). Set in Belfast in 1969 we are invited into Buddy's world as The Troubles begin to erupt on the terraced streets of the city. I am almost exactly the same age as Buddy and although I was physically far removed from Belfast, the film struck a deep resonance with me as I realised that this film could have been telling my story rather than Kenneth Branagh's.

This is in part a coming-of-age story. Buddy is trying to make sense of the world through his school work, a crush on classmate Catherine and guidance and wisdom he receives from his extended family. Into this already potent mix, the ugly horror of sectarian violence literally explodes outside his front door. Buddy's world is forever changed. Things suddenly get a lot more confusing and Buddy's context becomes one of black and white with little room for grey. The opening and closing scenes of the film are shot in vivid colour like some tourist promo for visiting the city. The story itself is beautifully lit and shot in black and white. The detailed sets took me back to my childhood and the reality of the story was reinforced by the inclusion of archive news stories such as Robin Day interviewing then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson.

As a semi-autobiographical film, it is very hard to question the story we are presented with as it flows from the subjective memories of nine year-old Branagh as he recalls them. Buddy lives on a street where Catholics and Protestants happily coexist as neighbours - why should it be anything other? Violence and threats are used to make the minority Catholic residents move out to create a pure Protestant ghetto. The British Army are deployed to maintain order amidst the growing unrest and the film manages to communicate the growing sense of unease amongst the families in the local community as they try to work out what is going on. This is not a conflict of their making or choosing and they struggle with being coerced to take sides.

At the heart of this film is the depiction of a family's honest struggle to survive, to do the right thing and to stay true to their heritage of being Belfast people. Buddy's father, Pa (Jamie Dornan) is a hard working joiner trying to provide for his family. Work is scarce in Northern Ireland and he works away in England visiting the family every couple of weeks. Trying to pay off his tax arrears and sustain his gambling habit stretches the family finances and creates tensions between Pa and Ma (Caitriona Balfe) which are heightened by the sense of threat The Troubles bring. Pa suggests the family emigrate to Australia or Canada where work is plentiful but the others do not want to leave their home and family. Pa's parents, Granny (Judy Dench) and Pop (Ciarán Hinds) impart their wisdom to the next generations as they approach the twilight of their lives. Family is at the heart of this film. Brannagh implicitly celebrates his family and the domestic security that nurtured him.

On more than one occasion the film's dialogue portrays the perceived Protestant collective understanding that Catholics are morally weak as all they do is go confession once a week and then live as they please knowing they can seek forgiveness again next week. At Granny's insistence, Buddy and brother Will (Lewis McAskie) attend chapel every Sunday. We share part of an impassioned sermon delivered by the Minister where the stark choice between the narrow straight road and the wide and easy road that descends to the eternal and inescapable lakes of burning sulphur is spelt out. More coercion in the name of religion. A painful reminder of sermons I sat through in the early days of my own faith and an encouragement to preach somewhat differently today!

The ensemble cast give a strong performance and the narrative arc is well paced and delivers some surprises. I feared other things might happen to the family but that merely demonstrated the power of fear and my imaginations ability to think the worst. This film has just picked up a pile of BAFTA nominations and I am sure it will feature at the Oscars too - and deservedly so. Branagh is a master storyteller and this film is so personal it draws you in and engenders empathy for Buddy and his family - as I watched, I began to care deeply what happened to Buddy. Yes, there are moments of gloopy sentimentality and I for one could have been spared the closing morality lesson delivered by Pa to Buddy in the final scene.

Ultimately this is a film about hope, love and relationships. It is also a film that shows how to tell a story in an uncomplicated way. It is a beautifully made film. I hope that it will inspire many people to visit Belfast and to discover not only something of the pain of the memories of The Troubles, but to explore the vibrant passion that has enabled a new Belfast to rise from the ashes and become the pulsating city it is today. I'll give it 8/10.

The Matrix Resurrections

 

Regular viewers of this blog will have no surprise that I caught this as soon as possible on release. The hype surrounding it's release was huge and the wall of uncertainty that had been constructed to obscure it's story and plot was both immense and effective. This all added to a growing pile of questions that I formed in anticipation of seeing The Matrix IV.

• Would I like it?
• Would I understand it?
• How many of the old characters would be in it and how would they interface with new ones?
• How would they explain Neo's resurrection.
• Would it be more overtly about transgender issues?
• How would the makers advance groundbreaking cinematography and would it represent another step change?
• Would it leave the door open for Matrix V?

I did like it and watching it was like putting on a familiar and well-loved top coat - it felt comfortable as the digital and real worlds were presented in accessible ways. I will need to watch it again - more than once - to gain a fuller understanding of the plot which is both a reflection on my limitations and the cleverness with which it was conceived and presented. 

The film continues to be situated in the centre ground of Postmodern philosophy and Baudrillard's questions and concepts are its anchor points. It explores concepts of what is real and what is not, as well as how do we know truth from untruth. It wouldn't be a Matrix film without blue and red pills and the consequences of the choices we make coming to define our identity. As I said, all very Postmodern. I liked it as it offers questions and not necessarily answers.

The blending of old with new was handled particularly well I thought. It was cleverly done and offered just enough of the old to make the plot development believable. There was enough that was familiar and enough that was new that required analysis and exploration. I feel it would be difficult to watch this film passively - it requires engagement and work. The start of the film is particularly clever and it's resonances will warm the hearts of die hard Matrix fans. I found myself joining in the dialogue in places as it stayed close to the tried and trusted Matrix formula.

The whole point of fiction is that it can go anywhere you want to as long as it is to some extent convincing. The utopian explanation for Neo's resurrection is pleasing and no more far fetched than any other part of the narrative. I was anticipating more fetish costumes and allusions to trans allegories but I found neither present.

The cinematography whilst eye popping at times, doesn't present any innovations on the scale of bullet time or circular slow motion sweeping camera movements, but there some interesting slow-mo sequences. The ever-present green cast of life in the Matrix is a helpful identifier - there is even a black cat called deja-vu! There are of course many fight scenes - featuring one-to-one, group and crowd scenes. Rather than presenting much that is innovative, they are a rehash of scenes from I-III with the volume turned up - and yes, there are helicopter gunships 😊!

As familiar as the beginning was, I did not anticipate the ending - and I'm certainly not going to spoil it for you. Does it leave the door open for Matrix V? In terms of plot, I'll leave you to decide. In terms of box office reception, perhaps not - but then the original Matrix back in 1999 was a sleeper for a long time before achieving cult status. I would happily watch it again - probably more than once! I'll give it 7/10.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I am a huge fan of the way Tarantino tells stories. I don't think there is anyone quite like him making films. This is a masterpiece. Growing up in the 1960s was the era when Westerns and American TV programmes were the staple on both TV channels. The visual texture of this film feels so spot on and the way the cinematography is lit and captured make it a feast for the eyes. Anyone who has been along Sunset Strip, driven past the iconic Capitol Records Tower or toured the Hollywood Hills will have recognised many of the famous sites. 

The fact that this film is a realist fairy-tale referencing and featuring many of the characters of the period only adds to, the at times, almost documentary feel of the film. Tarantino takes facts and real Hollywood characters, puts them in a bag and shakes them up, and then empties the bag, representing them in a jumbled retelling of the final years of Hollywood's golden era. It is literally as though Tarantino makes a memory dump onto the screen and arranges the images with a connecting narrative. Simply amazing.

Whilst the film captures the excesses of the times in its portrayal of drugs, sex and the rock and roll lifestyle, even featuring a scene at the Playboy Mansion, it also contains characters and acts which demonstrate great virtue. Whilst most of the characters in the film seem to be out to get whatever they can, Brad Pitt's Oscar winning character Cliff Booth oozes a cool strength and courage whilst being loyal to his friend and employer Rick Dalton played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Booth is however also capable of great violence - a not so virtuous trait. In the film Cliff Booth is rumoured to have killed his wife although he was never charged with her murder - surely more than a passing reference to Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner?

The innocent beauty of Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate wafts through the film punctuating it with a feeling akin to walking into a air-conditioned building when it's hot outside. The menace of the Manson gang holed up at the Spahn Ranch foreshadows the soon to pass Tate murders. After a six month spell in Italy shooting Spaghetti Westerns, Dalton returns to Hollywood with an Italian wife who is a conflation of Sophia Loren, Gina Lollobrigida and other Italian sirens of the period. The way in which this film interweaves fiction and reality, and then presents each as the other is extremely clever.

The fickle nature of celebrity which is an integral part of Hollywood is explored from many different angles. The whole premise of the film is that Dalton's career is waning and Booth's work as a stuntman has all but dried up. They feel disconnected from a Hollywood they no longer recognise. We see an emerging Bruce Lee (Mike Moh), Steve McQueen (Damian Lewis) at the height of his game and even Mama Cass (Rachel Redleaf) and Michelle Phillips (Rebecca Rittenhouse) from the Mamas and the Papas. 

This film offers a unique portrait of Hollywood in 1969. It is very cleverly conceived and Tarantino's screenplay and Direction are phenomenal. The casting is spot on even if many of the first choices either didn't pass audition or were unavailable through other projects. There is a huge and interesting exploration of the film on Wikipedia - well worth a look. As you may have gathered, I enjoyed this trip back to my childhood. Thank you Quenten. I'll give it 8/10.

Nomadland

I watched this film with a group of friends at church as part of our discipleship programme exploring themes of 'home' this term. I found the film to be very depressing but I'm glad I saw it as its multiple messages are important and need to be heard and seen. Others found the film uplifting. It's just as well not everybody is like me! I guess it's a 'Marmite" film - as it appears was the score of plinky piano and a cello being sawed in half - yep, I didn't like that much either!

For me this was a film whose story was primarily about two things: remembering and relationships. To remember literally means to put back together. For me, the film pivoted around a scene where a helpful friend had accidentally dropped a box containing some crockery that Fern (Frances McDormand) had very strong sentimental attachment to - and for good reason. A plate was broken that was part of a dinner service given to her by her now dead father - the design was Fall Leaves. As Fern painstakingly glued the pieces back together, she remembered her strong bond with her father and felt again the pain of loss.

The pain of loss lies at the heart of this film - yet there is hope for Fern and those she shares her nomadic lifestyle with. The town in which Fern and her husband lived and worked was a one employer town and everybody worked at the factory or in one of the businesses supporting the community. When the factory closed the town became a ghost town and everybody became jobless and houseless as the company also provided housing. Not long afterwards, her husband died. Fern had lost her job, her husband and now her home. All she had left was a van. The van became more than just a home for Fern. It contained many of her memories and she had customised the interior with things from her previous home and life and possessions of her husband. Although houseless, Fern never considers herself to be homeless, as home is somewhere deep within.

Other characters in the film - many of them real life nomads, have also experienced loss. With a social security system unable to provide a living pension, many of these people could not afford to live in a house or flat despite a lifetime of paying tax. A rent free van or RV and the empty desert was all they had. With monochromatic landscapes and shot almost exclusively with hand-held cameras (not even steadycams) and often in extreme facial close-up, the characters offer an openness and honesty which allies with the integrity of their way of life. Not once in the 103 minute run time did we see a law enforcement officer - there was no need of them. Often it is clear that the dialogue is improvised but it works so well.

What we did see plenty of was community. Relationships were the second key theme for me. Fern was widowed and childless. Later in the film we discover she has a sister. She forms attachments to a number of characters such as Linda (Linda May) and Swankie (Charlene Swankie) and is torn about her feelings for Dave (David Strathairn) with whom the prospect of a romance develops throughout the film. The group of nomads rally around Bob (Bob Wells) who delivers quasi-philosophical witterings that find an a welcoming home amongst the semi hippy nomads. His rhetoric helps them to find an identity as a group.

The starkness of the nomadic lifestyle forces each nomad to face up to the reality of death at some point. There is a lot tree-hugging New Age type communing with nature with a strong 'everything in the universe is connected' feel. We could learn much from this. The way the narrative plays out, sets up a dichotomy between a settled life with a job and a mortgage, family responsibilities and social engagements against the freedoms of being a nomad. Twice in the film, Fern is offered permanent accommodation, first with her sister and later with Dave's son's family. She rejects both offers and returns to the open road.

Whilst some of the nomads appeared to be fairly static or stayed within one locale, others were clearly on a never-ending road trip and others like Fern, followed seasonal work around the country. We see Fern joining the Christmas recruits at an anonymous Amazon Fulfillment Centre picking and packing goods for Christmas. She then moves on to working in a restaurant and then being an attendant at a  camping and RV ground and in the autumn works the sugar beet harvest. Throughout she demonstrates that she is no shirker, Fern is a hard worker with a strong moral code and a predisposition to always be looking out for others in her community. She is generous and loving - at least as far as her own limitations allow.

If ever a script had Frances McDormand's name on it, this is it - she also co-Produced the film. She not so much acts but feels like one of the real life nomads in the film (therefore is an excellent actor!). Her character Fern commands attention. With Chloë Zhao's sensitive and detailed Direction and the hand-held camera work, this film offers an intimate portrait of an important and growing slice of American society. Has the American Dream simply been illusory for them or are they living it? As I said above, this film has much that is important to say and its three Oscars testify to that. If you've not seen the film, do see it. I'll give it 7/10.

No Time to Die

At 25 has James Bond finally come of age? In Daniel Craig's last outing as 007 in the 25th film in the franchise, we find a more mature Bond and for that matter a more mature Bond movie. In many ways it's the same as its predecessors but at the same time there are welcome differences.

I was wondering if the 2:43 runtime would drag. It doesn't. The narrative maintains a steady march towards its conclusion. There are many strands to the narrative arc of this film's story. They intertwine and play with each other trading emotions as they do so. On more than one occasion we see Bond paralysed by confliction where the old and new Bonds battle for a decision. 

The exotic locations are there - stunning light in Puglia, lush vegetation in the Caribbean, frozen Norway with spectacular bridges and coastline, The Faroe Islands and of course Scotland. In the London scene above, I used to work in the building on the left in 1979! 

What is not there is the serial abuser of women. His harsh and brutal career has seemingly taught  Commander Bond what really matters in life. This is a film about love, truth, integrity, sacrifice and loss. Of course greed, revenge and megalomania all feature too, but these are left for others to inhabit.

There are plenty of wild and exciting chases using a wide variety of vehicles, death defying jumps and the ever present product placement - mainly of brands identified as British even if their owners these days reside in other territories. There are very strong acting performances from a great ensemble cast. Christoph Waltz emanates a power that transcends the confinement of his character, Léa Seydoux displays a vulnerability alongside steeliness,  Rami Malek is flesh-creepingly sinister and Ana de Armas will, I am sure, reappear to beautifully support the British Secret Service once again.

This film is sensitive to many of the things that increasingly matter in our evolving world. Dealing with a potential world-wide pandemic, showing greater respect to women, calling out a lack of integrity, two black women in lead roles and changing world order.

This is my first visit to the cinema in 21 months. It felt good. The sound and visual treats of this film demand the largest screen you can find to watch it on. Pay the extra if you can. This film does deserve the hype and I am sure it will go down in the canon of Bond films as one of the best.  I'm going to give it 8/10.

How are you?

 Dear Friends,

I hope that this finds you well and that wherever you are in the world, you are feeling more hopeful than you were in recent months. The painful reality of a global pandemic has brought the large screen jarringly into our lives and homes. We have been invaded by a fiction made all too real by the cleverness of globalisation.

We have all lost so much during these past 18 months. So many freedoms, so many ways to spend leisure time and find recreation and sadly too many loved ones.  We have had to find new ways of keeping ourselves entertained or distracted through enforced 'house arrest'.

I have continued to find it impossible to commit to sitting down to watch a movie all the way through - I hate watching in installments! I have kept up my subscription of Sight and Sound and have avidly read it each month (do you like the refreshed format? I do.) I have continued to buy DVDs but only to add to the pile of 'bought and not yet watched'. Just as well retirement is on the horizon. I have not been into a cinema in these Covid infested months either, neither have I been engaging in binging on boxed-sets of this that or the other. I continue to find myself watching as many food programmes as possible and endless recordings of medical emergency programmes of one type or another. 

I do however feel the stirrings of a desire to begin watching films afresh. In the autumn I am actually looking forward to restarting a monthly movie in the parish to watch with friends and reflect on together. I have amassed a growing collection to unleash on them!

The pandemic appears to have accelerated  a trend that was already underway which has led to many column inches of debate in the online and printed movie media. That is the developing of small screen streaming services for film and that some projects which previously would have been cinematic are now produced and shot for the small screen - although the average size of new flat screen TVs being sold in the UK is 65" - not such a small screen. This has led to much fretting about the long-term viability of cinemas and reflections on the funding that now comes from the streaming giants of Netflix, Amazon and Disney et. al.

In this month's Sight and Sound there is an in depth exploration of the future of cinema and film with many top film-makers contributing their spin on things. I was particularly taken by this from Director  Guillermo Del Toro in response to the question 'How do you see the relationship between cinema and the small screen developing' (p47)?

"Access is trumping 'eventising', of course - that's evident. You may like it or not, but we don't live in a monoculture any more and we are fused - in a transhuman istic way - to our portable screens. Those screens are a bio-extension of our 'self' (almost our id) so they serve a very different function than the big screen, which is collective. The small screen is with us almost 24/7. Therefore it 'wins' by virtue of that alone. But the big screen and its collective, almost humbling proportion soothes the soul."

Discuss!

Thank you for reading this and not giving up on my blog. I hope that before too long some new movie reflections will appear.

Please take care and stay safe.

Deepwater Horizon

This is the first film I've watched in nearly four months. How has lockdown been for you? I've not felt able to commit the attention span to watch a whole movie up until now. This might be an odd choice - to watch a film that centres on loss whilst in a prolonged period when we have lost so much and too many, might seem odd. As far as cinema is able to offer an escape, a suspension of reality, I choose to watch a 'based on true events' film. I wonder why?

This film is not a documentary, neither is it high art - except perhaps in the special effects department. The acting is solid and the way in which the movie is filmed gives a palpable sense of the claustrophobic, frenetic, noisy and physical nature of work on a rig. You can almost smell the grease and sweat. As it is indeed based on true events, you know where it is heading. The only question is, how will it get there?

Whilst the film makes no direct judgment, the way in which it sets out the story and the interaction of the characters makes the apportionment of heroism and blame easy. You never have to think too hard. Early on in the film characters' credentials are established, Mark Wahlberg's Mike Williams is the affable family man, level-headed, sensible, competent. Kurt Russel's Mr Jimmy is the boss every worker longs for - a team player, dedicated to employee well-being, friendly and approachable but a man you would not wish to cross. John Malkovich's character is the embodiment of corporate greed - profit is all that matters, who needs safety?

Sadly that is what the film is about - heroism contrasted with corporate greed. Cutting corners to save time on a project that was already over schedule, resulted not in the hoped for profits, but in the loss of too many lives, the livelihoods of too many Gulf fishermen and the biggest loss of reputational kudos on the part of BP. A decade on, American lawyers are still making claims on behalf of victims of America's worst ever environmental disaster, making 'Spillionaires' out of fishermen and leisure industry workers whose livelihoods disappeared in a massive gloopy lake of crude oil. Families still mourn those who died.

As the instinct of the rig management want yet more safety tests on this deepest of drilling experiments, the profit driven BP management want to see oil to begin to flow - they want to see a return on their substantial investment. Two divergent courses. As Mr Jimmy is with most of the crew in the rig mess hall receiving an award from BP for safety, a series of events begins, that will cascade and gather pace leading to the eventual blowout and spectacular fire is visible from an orbiting satellite. The irony of the situation is wonderfully portrayed on screen.

In what is almost exclusively a man's world, two female actors feature. One, the wife of Williams, in the 'traditional' role of stay at home mom, the other is Gina Rodriguez's Andrea Fleytas who as Bridge Officer was responsible for monitoring systems on the rig and ensuring that it maintained station. Fleytas is depicted as an adrenalin loving mechanic who likes maintaining her own Mustang and motorcycle. Pretty, vivacious and competent, she is shown to be able to hold her own as the only woman on the rig during the series of three week rotations she has been on for the last 18 months. She survived the disaster and hasn't worked in the oil industry since.

On the Bridge, in the chaos of an exploding rig there is confusion as to whether or not the well head should be closed. A weak Engineer needs orders and protocols whereas Fleytas feels the decision has already been made and that the safety override button should be pressed. The debate and ensuing delay proves to be a critical factor, although subsequently it is shown that the safety equipment is unable to withstand the immense pressure from the well. This short scene together with the mass evacuation of the rig captured the chaos, shouting and panic that characterised much of what was going on. In contrast others systematically attempted to bring emergency generators online to stabilise the rig and engaged a search for missing crew mates - both of which placed them in significant increased danger.

For a film based on true events, Deepwater Horizon does offer an escape as it portrays a world that is so beyond the experience of most people. It takes us to an unfamiliar world where we encounter familiar human traits such as greed, heroism, sacrifice and love. The closing segment of the film creatively portrays the dissociation caused by trauma through use of slow-motion and an altered soundtrack as Williams reunites with his wife and daughter. The drama is powerful without being over the top. I would recommend seeing this and award it a healthy 7/10.

Denial

Having marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz last week, I chose this film to watch with a group of friends form church. Like flat earthers, it's difficult to accept that there are some who deny that the Holocaust actually took place. Why? What is their motivation? What do they hope to achieve by setting themselves against nearly everyone else and an entire people?

Based on true events, this film explores a libel court case at the High Court in London when 'historian' David Irving (Timothy Spall) challenges what he claims is defamation of professional and personal character in a book written by American College Professor Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz). The quirkiness of British law means that in a libel case the burden of proof lies with the  accused who has to prove the accuser is indeed a liar and selective rewriter of history to suit his own ideology.

Whilst the film is most certainly set within the context of the horrors of the Holocaust and especially the things that went on at Auschwitz, it is fundamentally a courtroom drama which centres on the ingenuity of Lipstadt's legal team of lawyer Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) and barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) backed by a team of researchers. They plan to entrap Irving, who mounts his own prosecution, by appealing to his overdeveloped ego to try the case before a Judge without a jury as the technicalities of the case would be too intricate for laymen to grasp. Technicalities that Irving has spent his life mastering. Irving agrees. Lipstadt's team feel Irving would play to a jury and win them over.

Whilst the Jewish community in America is quick to offer financial support to enable the trial to proceed, British Jews try to persuade Lipstadt to drop the case and settle out of court as it will give publicity to Irving. Lipstadt is incensed that neither she nor any Holocaust survivors will be called to testify by her team. Her team have seen Irving tear such people apart and do not wish to give his cause oxygen. Instead, they concentrate on the forensic details of establishing that Irving changed his views and rewrote history to support what is presented as his own right ring, racist and anti-semitic ideology.

The story behind this film presents two opposing histories - one from a revisionist perspective of Hitler and one from the perspective of the Holocaust. They are incompatible and it falls to a Judge to rule which is truthful. Holocaust survivors are in court each day and pressurise Lipstadt to have their voice heard. She deflects the pressure by saying that she will ensure the voice of suffering is heard. Lipstadt makes repeated demands to be heard as a witness along with survivors - so much so that in the film her character becomes too whining and more than a little tedious.

Lipstadt undergoes an epiphany when she realises that the real denial here is the denial of the survivors to be heard and her own greater self-denial of not having a public voice while the trial is underway. She eventually places her trust in her legal team and the roller coaster proceeds much like a Heavyweight bout as two pugilists slog it out with the judges seemingly scoring each successive rounds first to Irving and then to Rampton. The outcome is unclear from the Judges 300 page written basis for his Judgment, the tension builds as the Judgment is given and he finds in favour of Lipstadt and in doing so, voice is given to the suffering that was endured and which continues.

We know the outcome as it is based on a real life story. What makes this film of interest is the characters and the methods they employ to achieve their intended aim. The acting is strong (even if Lipstadt is whiny) and the scenes filmed when the defence team visit Auschwitz on a foggy and frosty day add to the bleakness of the memorial and ramp up the pressure for Irving to be defeated. This is an interesting film, well made. To watch this alongside The Boy in Striped Pyjamas and God on Trial would make for a heavy but engaging triple bill. I'll give this film 7/10.

Parasite

If you've not seen this film and intend to, stop reading now and get down to the cinema - one with a great sound system as the sound in this film is wonderfully 360 degrees. (Thank you Everyman Birmingham.)

You cannot have escaped the hype surrounding this fim as it won many BAFTAS and the next week cleared out the Oscars. Is the hype justified? It's certainly an engaging film with a very clever narrative which delivers a massive unexpected and unforeseen twist at a critical point. The cinematography is top class and the ways in which the visualisations of the sets and their relative positions reinforce the core of the story, are masterful.

Whilst it has clearly charmed international audiences and juries around the world, I wonder if Koreans don't get a whole lot more out of it than Westerners? I had the feeling that many clever subtleties passed me by. The whole premise of always seemingly needing to have a plan even when the plan might be not to have a plan possibly means something more in Korea. When is opportunism simply deception? When is it wrong for people who are capable of performing a job but are unable to gain employment simply because they don't hold the right certificates or qualification to actually seize an opportunity for work when it presents itself?

The film is very clever in the way that it invites many questions without really delivering any  answers. The premise of the film is straightforward enough but the way in which it is enacted delivers a real life fantasy where we are made to believe things simply because they happened in the film - but isn't that a hallmark of great storytelling? The ensemble cast have no weaknesses and deliver performances where the comedic elements are always implicit leaving you to draw them out and appreciate them.

Ostensibly this is a film about different socioeconomic classes, about the haves and the have nots. The key line in the dialogue is "They're rich, but they are still nice" as though wealth makes good people bad and poverty makes bad people good. From the sub-basement squalor of cockroach and urine infested urban dwelling to the breezy and airy luxury of the hilltop mansion, this film is littered with visual and plot contrasts that never resolve themselves. That is left to the viewer. I am still unsure who is the parasite in this film! There are several candidates and the film holds up a mirror to the viewer. What was the rock about? Was it significant or did it only have significance because the son says it's significant? Its place in the story certainly changes as the narrative unfolds.

This film is multi-layered and the meaning of the layers, the narrative and the symbols are never really defined by the film itself. It's the highest form of audience participation - you decide! The film could so easily have become too clever or kitsch but avoids these potential problems and stays true to what it has to say - whatever you decide that is. There are goodies and baddies, victims and perpetrators, lucky and unlucky, hard workers and consumers of luxury. You work out which is which. It keeps flipping as the different layers come to the fore in their own turn.

It's certainly a great film but is it worthy of the hype when films like The Irishman, Lighthouse, Joker  and 1917 were very strong award contenders? Did it do so well simply because it is an international (we're not allowed to say foreign language any more) film, or is its artistic merit worthy of clearing out the Oscars? Well - that's something else for you to decide! I'll give it 8/10.

1917

This is as close to war as I ever wish to get - and this film takes you very close. For its entire 2 hours run time this film propels the viewer through the trenches and no-man's land of Northern France in the Spring of 1917. The acting is very good, the screenplay believable, but the thing that catches the attention is the cinematography. The film appears as two continuous shots punctuated only by a brief blackness as one of the lead characters becomes unconscious. The use of very long takes, seamlessly edited together give the impression of non-stop action. At one moment you are up close and personal with trench rats and the next you are flying high over the battlefield looking down on the unfolding combat, all seemingly without an edit. Visually stunning.

The film gives the viewer an impression of war similar to Saving Private Ryan and in that sense the story has parallels. However, I was glad I could not smell the film, experience the cloying clay or sense the actual dampness that characterised so much of the unimaginable reality of trench warfare. The gore and rotting flesh of no-man's land where soldiers lie alongside horse carcasses both being nibbled on by rats and ravens is other-worldly. It's a world I don't want to visit or even pretend exists. In a world where leaders execute warfare through the clinical detachment of drones and cruise missiles, perhaps they should watch this to be reminded of the human cost that is an inevitable consequence of war.

Whilst the explosions and sniper fire push home the deathly nature of conflict, the real conflict goes on in the minds and hearts of the two lead characters as time and time again they have to overcome fear and panic in order to simply survive and carry out their mission. Courage and heroism are inadequate words.

The cast includes such heavyweights as Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong who all play minor supporting roles leaving the screen to be inhabited by the two leads Dean-Charles Chapman as Lance Corporal Blake and George MacKay as Lance Corporal Schofield.  Both give excellent performances but miss out on Oscar nominations although the film does receive nine!

There are unexpected moments of extreme tenderness - friends sharing conversation and sparse rations as they rest for a moment, an encounter with a baby, a song in the woods. The story flows from war-time recollections from Director Sam Mendes' Grandfather to whom the film is dedicated. The 24 hour period covered in the film is cleverly paced as the tension builds. Gripping cinema.

This is a film for the big screen - prepare to be engaged visually and aurally through an excellent soundtrack, but most of all prepare to be engaged emotionally. This film offers an excellent study on human nature - the good and the bad that has you rooting for the lead characters. The narrative arc is straightforward and is established very early on. The course the narrative takes is anything but as predictable. If you have the stomach for this film go and see it now while it is in the cinemas. Not for the queasy. I'll give it 8/10.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

After 42 years, the narrative arc finally lands with the release of episode IX. What are we to expect? New plot developments? New characters? Surprises? Or, more of the same in a way that wraps up a story that has been going on for decades in a nice kind of way, in a galaxy far, far away? In J J Abrams as Director, the franchise is in safe hands and Disney/Lucasfilm surely wouldn't do anything than deliver just enough to keep the legions of fans happy as they buy into yet another merchandise opportunity at Christmas-time? This film satisfies without exciting.

There are a lot of action sequences in the 142 minute run-time. One or two new locations and several familiar ones. The battle between darkness and light remains the spine of the film and for the first time there is acknowledgement that it is not a binary choice but that each of us is inhabited by darkness and light and how we manage our internal balance is the thing that ultimately defines us. So this is basically Harry Potter in Space!

Major themes of love, family ties, betrayal, sacrifice and redemption continue to feature strongly as the story relentlessly ploughs on to its conclusion. The way in which the film visually and idealistically portrays the embodiment of evil is effective and made me feel uncomfortable. There were some pre-schoolers in the row behind - what they made of the visual images I cannot begin to guess. I imagine the moral and philosophical parts of the screenplay passed them by. What will be their abiding memory of having been exposed to such graphic violence, destruction and malevolence? I am certain that these parts of the film had greater impact than the scenes and actions that embodied more virtuous things. Perhaps that is why the dark side is so seductive?

There is a sense in which the screenplay tries, perhaps too hard, to resolve all the outstanding plot questions remaining from the previous eight films. They are all neatly brought together and tied off in a pretty bow. Perhaps the door is left ajar for episode X? There is however plenty of room for more spin-offs and parallels. May the force be be with you. I'll give it 7/10.

Two Popes

This is a generous and gentle film. It is nevertheless intriguing and stands on the performances of the two lead actors - Anthony Hopkins (Pope Benedict) and Jonathan Pryce (Pope Francis). This is 100% a character driven film as the plot is fairly thin and is really only of interest to ecclesiastical geeks! When a film says in its opening credits 'Based on true events' it's a pretty meaningless thing as it could mean that this is anything between an accurate biopic and complete fantasy. There are doubtless plot devices inserted along the way to make the film more digestible, but these are not overshadowed by the personalities of Benedict and Francis who steal the show. Oscar nominations highly likely.

Although the film is wholly about the Papacy, it is not a churchy film as such. It is more a film about how two men, seemingly with diametrically opposed views on many issues, come to an understanding that allows them to coexist peaceably.

As the conclave of Cardinals meets to elect a new Pope, Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires shuns any suggestion that he should become the next Bishop of Rome. Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising and Dean of the College of Cardinals openly campaigns for support amongst the Cardinals and is duly elected. Despite his protestations, Bergoglio is a clear second place choice.

As Benedict XVI, Ratzinger uses his experience as an academic theologian to steer the Catholic Church back to a more conservative position where the traditional teaching of the church on a range of issues is reinforced. As someone with a strong preference for introversion and having a passion for high art, culture and the finer things in life, Ratzinger certainly enjoys the luxuries that life in the relative seclusion of the Vatican can offer.

Over time, Benedict's health begins to fail and he considers stepping down before he becomes incapacitated. At the same time, Bergoglio becomes tired of the trappings that go with being a Cardinal Archbishop and seeks the Pope's permission to resign and return to parish ministry as a priest. Benedict refuses to agree and a series of conversations between the two produces a number of exchanges where respect is shown but agreement eludes. Like water dripping into a hot frying pan, the two spar using heir immense intellect and drastically varying church experience to debate points of doctrine. Historic sexual abuse by priests repeatedly bubbles to the surface in their exchanges  and each, unsurprisingly, has a different way of viewing the matter.

Generally, Bergoglio is more extraverted and has a passion for living a life more connected with the everyday person on the streets of Buenos Aires. He loves to Tango and is passionate about football. He knows what it is to love another and the cost of walking away from all that to follow the call of God. Bergoglio also carries a sense of guilt and shame from past episodes in his life. He struggles to cope with the lifestyle of Benedict as Pope - the summer palace, commuting by helicopter, Papal red slippers - seeing all of these things as imposing a distance between himself and 'the people'.

Through the conversations, the two men's respect and friendship grows - although they still struggle to find agreement on most issues. Eventually Benedict confides in Bergoglio that he will resign - the first Pope to do so in nearly 700 years. Benedict wants Bergoglio to succeed him. The Conclave of Cardinals duly meets and rather than retiring to parish ministry, the Jesuit Bergoglio is duly elected as Pope Francis.

Layering guilt and forgiveness throughout the conversations, this film delivers two stunning performances that embody grace and respect whilst maintaining opposing positions. The time simply flew by as I found myself totally drawn into and engrossed in this film. Few know about how life in the Vatican proceeds and whilst there is no widespread exposé, the film gives clues about how the character of successive Popes shapes the way in which the Papal household runs. This film is a generous gift - please do watch it. I'll start the year with a 9/10!

My House in Umbria

With a strong ensemble cast this gentle tale set in the rolling Umbrian hills is a pleasant way to spend an hour and a half. What saves it from mediocrity are the performances of Maggie Smith as Emily Delahunty and Timothy Spall as hew 'manager' Quinty. Ronnie Barker plays a retired General whom I expected to break out into a stammer for comic effect at any moment.

I think you can watch this film on two levels. The easier, surface viewing, is to see a troubled older lady with an upbringing and early life filled with abuse finally attain her 'family' in the idyll of rural  Umbria. Perhaps another way of viewing the film is to see the plot and dialogue as that of a unremarkable writer of romantic fiction which ultimately leaves a number of plot threads unresolved, thus inviting the viewer to construct their own conclusions and interpretation of how the narrative arc is resolved.

Either way, the plot is too fanciful, the premise of how Mrs Delahunty came to be in Umbria too bizarre to be believable and the utopian existence she enjoys too perfect for someone with such deep-seated psychological needs. The fact that all of these dissonant points find reconciliation on the pages of her trashy novels does not, for this viewer, redeem them. The realism comes from her heavy consumption of gin!

Having said all of this there are many things within this film to commend it. It is a film about guilt, loss, regret, hope and love. These emotions are played out and explored with empathy and the performances contain tangible pathos. I would imagine few people who watch this film who would be unable to develop a strong attachment to, or repulsion from, all of the main characters. Perhaps one of Delahunty's more memorable lines is "I was the only one who had not lost a loved one, having none to lose."

This feels like the made-for-TV movie it is. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile and entertaining watch that will leave you considering the possibilities and trying to disentangle reality from fiction. I'll give it 6/10.

The Irishman

Although Robert De Niro is in the lead role, this film belongs to Al Pacino. His energy thrusts his character Jimmy Hoffa, into the centre of the screen for more than half this film's three and a half hour runtime! Joe Pesci's Russell is also a strong performance and Harvey Keitel reprises his Winston Wolf role from UK TV! This is an intense film that does not drag at all. Director, Martin Scorsese knows how to wring all of the creative juice out of an ensemble cast of veteran actors that are unlikely to appear together again on screen.

The characters are compellingly believable. Okay, so many of the actors are reprising roles they've played multiple times before but this film has an earnest freshness about it which makes the characters endearing. You can't say that about too many mob and gangster movies!

The way the story is told uses multiple narrative devices which blend seamlessly together to tell a story spanning several decades. It is very clever story-telling and a masterful piece of cinematic art - at the pinnacle of the art form. It will do very well in the awards ceremonies over forthcoming months.

The two main  ways in which the story is told are in flashback and also through a road trip. These intertwine like the double helix to give the film its DNA. It begins in the here and now and the purpose of the flashbacks is to show how Frank Sheeran (De Niro) - the titular Irishman came to be in a nursing home in his final years. As the flash backs and Sheeran's narration build to the climax, so the road trip emerges from its routine pattern to deliver a twist at the end.

The story centres around mafia mobsters running their rackets and the powerful International Brotherhood of Teamsters - the truckers Trades Union in the USA and their charismatic leader Hoffa. In essence it is a morality tale told within an amoral world.

The leading characters, being 'good Catholics', are often seen in church, usually for baptisms in their ever expanding families. That contrasts sharply with a lifestyle centred on extortion, theft, assassination, bribery and fraud. Within the 'family' of each gang, there is a strict morality code of honour which if betrayed means death. So many of the conversations in the film were nuanced and by necessity obscured their real meaning by using euphemisms to avoid incrimination as orders were given for arson attacks, bombings and assassinations. Had I been a part of this world, I'm sure I would have missed half the cues and euphemisms and ended up with several holes in my head as a consequence!

Towards the end of the film some characters are seen with their priest as they seek to put their house in order but without feeling remorse or the need to confess their misdoings. They long for mercy from God in the life to come after living a life in the here and now in which no mercy was shown to those on the receiving end of their 'work'.

If asked "do you paint houses?" you are really being  asked "can you kill someone for me?" and the positive response is "yes and I do my own carpentry". The 'paint' is the blood that splatters the walls and covers the floors! Do You Paint Houses? is the title of a 2004 work of narrative nonfiction written by former homicide prosecutor, investigator and defence attorney Charles Brandt on which the screenplay is based. There are many wonderful one-liners such as, "A secret between three people is only safe if two of them are dead"!

This is a very masculine and patriarchal film. Women feature often but are portrayed as being quiet and subservient passive accomplices to the crimes of their men folk. As you would expect in an Italian-American subculture, families are extremely important. Saying thank you and showing proper respect are sacrosanct. There is a strict morality and high expectations surrounding how children are expected to behave and relate within the extended mob family - but killing people is okay.

Of course there is a lot of violence in this film - there has to be given the subject matter. The violence is always swift and clinical. Scorsese's Direction never lets the violent acts themselves become the focus of the story, they are simply nodes in a matrix of interwoven relationships that are unravelling.

There is much to lament and to be sad about as the film, like its ageing stars, it stumbles on its zimmer frame towards its conclusion. We know that Sheeran survives as the film opens with him in a wheelchair, white hair flowing, sitting in a corner of a nursing home telling his story. How many of the other characters survive with him at the end? The use of CGI technology to make the main characters appear more youthful to play themselves in the 1950's and subsequent decades and then to appear older at the end is subtle and unobtrusive. The sets are wonderful period pieces and the lighting, especially of characters faces, is sublime.

Despite the grim context of this film's story and the many splatters of paint, as you may have gathered, I really liked it. It is worth the investment of 3.5 hours of your life. You will enjoy great acting and an epic and engaging story. Do go and see it. I'll give it a 9/10.

Toy story 4

The power of story can be both amazing and enigmatic. How can a computer generated animation drive you to tears? We know the characters and even the actors voicing them. We know it's a children's story yet the Toy Story films (and much of Pixar Disney's production) communicate so much at both a deep and yet easily accessible level at the same time. Masterful filmmaking and storytelling.

We know by now that the premise of the narrative will be about abandonment, adoption, sacrifice, redemption and salvation - recurring themes from this stable but also appearing in a Bible near you. These themes resonate with the human psyche because we all want to be loved, valued and have hope of an eternal future that is positive. That is why these films connect at such a deep level.

The loyalty of the toys to their child is admirable. The lengths to which they go - especially Woody of course - are extreme. There is no guarantee of success or even that they will be wanted at the end of the escapade - but duty and hope spur them on. The subplot of this film is of course whether Woody and Bo will finally get it together - if you've not seen it, I'll leave you to find out for yourself.

There is the inevitable road trip that serves as a metaphor for the larger story. Acts of daring against impossible odds are common. New characters - some of them dark and disturbingly menacing (I have always had a fear of ventriloquists dummies!). There's also a new superhero in the form of Duke Kaboom appropriately played by Keanu Reeves.

This is a very enjoyable film but it's more of a Woody spin-off than a film giving fair exposure to the ensemble cast of toys. The plot of the main narrative is thin and any depth comes in the exchanges between some of the characters when they are one-to-one with each other.

It is however, still a very enjoyable film with familiar characters, a plot you know you will understand and because it's Disney, a happy ending. It is the poorest of the four offerings, but nevertheless worth seeing. I'll give it 7/10.