Les combattants (AKA Love at First Fight)

Dir: Thomas Cailley

2014

****

Les Combattants, or Love at First Fight as it is also known, is a touching and rather unexpectedly sweet tale or romance when opposites don’t, and then do attract. I don’t like to generalize but I find that the French always manage to produce a sweeter kind of romance film, ones where the quirky, while very much there, never distract from the chemistry of the couple in question. Les Combattants literally translates as ‘The Fighters’, which goes some way in telling the audience that this isn’t going to be your typical boy meets girl scenario. It is neither conventional or predictable, but it is rather wonderful. The ‘boy’ in this ‘boy meets girl’ tale is Arnaud (Kévin Azaïs), a carpenter in business with his far more enthusiastic brother. He’s easy going, relaxed, mild-mannered..docile even. He takes life in his stride, carpentry doesn’t really seem for him but while he might wonder if he is meant for other things, he certainly isn’t looking. That said, he would never let down his brother. In the opening scene, he and his brother Manu are informed of the passing of their father and the pair set about making a coffin for him, only to be told home-made coffins are not allowed at burials. While visiting a couple who are interested in having a pergola built in their garden, Arnaud is distracted by their daughter Madeleine (Adèle Haenel). Madeleine is strange, determined and almost nihilistic. She is obsessed with mastering the art of extreme survival skill and spends hours holding her breath in her parent’s pool. She is determined to be ready for the end of the world, should it be on the immediate horizon. The pair clash immediately, Arnaud is intrigued but confused by Madeleine’s attitude and Madeleine doesn’t seem to give a damn about anything but her own survival achievements. It is clear however that both are unsure of their futures, while their ways may feel quirky and even a little extreme, they are very much typical teenagers approaching adulthood. Arnaud is strangely drawn to Madeleine and Madeleine does not push him away. When Madeleine declares that she is joining the French Army, Arnaud takes everyone by surprise and joins up too. Madeleine then becomes annoyed, even more so when Arnaud does well in training while she struggles at the bottom of the class. Over time Madeleine realises that her dream is lost, Arnaud is clearly attracted to her but how could she possibly be with someone who only highlights her failures. The behaviour of the two characters is strange but the script is written so beautifully, you realise that actually this is the evolution of what would become a romantic relationship. I’ve never joined the army for love, but I did some strange things in my teenage years, mostly in the pursuit of love. The film then takes a wonderful path of awakening when the pair decide to run away from the camp to live in the woods. There, they flourish, as does their love for each other. Finally Madeleine is surviving how she imagined, catching her own food and sleeping under the stars. It is only when she eats a piece of uncooked squirrel does it all come crashing down. Falling desperately ill, Arnaud carries the unconscious Madeleine to the nearest village, only to discover that it has been evacuated. With ash falling from the sky, it feels that this could actually be the end of the world. It isn’t of course. A nearby fire has caused the village to be evacuated and the pair are found by the army. One wonders whether it was one of their fires that caused it. At the hospital Madeleine realises that she has failed in her mission to become a survival expert, worse than that she was saved by someone with no interest in the subject, a boy no less. However, he could never have saved her without the training he had no interest in and in the forest all they needed was each other, thus, all you really need is love. It’s subtle and quite wonderful. Thomas Cailley’s direction is wonderful, thanks to him and the brilliant performances from Adèle Haenel and Kévin Azaïs, it really did feel like witnessing true young love. You can’t fight it. To find the balance of romantic and quirky is hard, most rom-com are awful because they get either one of both counts wrong but here Cailley gets it spot on, thanks also to his co-writer Claude Le Pape’s excellent screenplay.

The Duke of Burgundy

Dir: Peter Strickland

2014

****

I was put off watching The Duke of Burgundy for many different reasons. The hype surrounding Fifty Shades of Grey was tiresome and I found the way the media was confusing domestic violence with consensual dominance rather worrying. I didn’t see much promotion for The Duke of Burgundy and I actually learned of its existence when standing in line for autographs at a Star Trek convention. I overheard half the crew of The Next Generation talking about how some of them watched it the night before and how much they loved it. True story. With further research I saw that it was directed by Peter Strickland, Berberian Sound Studio was one of my favourite films of 2012, so I was pretty much sold on it there and then. The few reviews I read about it made many references to it being a sexy lesbian film, LGBT erotica, a gay version of 9 1/2 Weeks, Last Tango in Paris and Secretary, all of which totally overlook the point of the film. The film explores the different aspects of dominance and features two women (there are no men in the entire film) to keep the balance level. To tell the story between a man and a women would totally detract from the overall message. The film begins with wonderful mystery as we see a timid Evelyn cleaning the house of Cynthia. Evelyn is clearly doing her best while Cynthia comes across as a cruel employer. It soon transpires however that both are romantically involved. Evelyn is studying lepidopterology (the study of moths and butterflies) under Cynthia, who frequently lectures on her studies. Evelyn works as a maid in her home, where she is subject to strict behavioural expectations and high standards for cleanliness. When Evelyn does not complete tasks to Cynthia's satisfaction, she is punished. As Cynthia increasingly falters in her dominance, it becomes apparent that Evelyn is orchestrating Cynthia's role in the relationship by writing instructions and scripts for specific scenes, which the couple acts out in the same way each day. While Evelyn finds the scenes to be sexually exciting, Cynthia only acts them out to appease her lover – who it has to be said is younger and more attractive in her eyes. She attempts to please Evelyn by ordering a carpenter to construct a bed with a drawer underneath for Evelyn to sleep in as a punishment; however, Evelyn is unhappy with the length of time it will take to produce the bed, and ultimately refuses the gift. Evelyn begins to demand that Cynthia lock her in a trunk in the evening as a new punishment. Cynthia agrees, but she is resentful about the new physical separation. Cynthia also becomes self-conscious about her aging, having injured her back moving the trunk to her bedside. She expresses her unhappiness on Evelyn's birthday, when she demands that Evelyn bake her own birthday cake, which Cynthia eats while reclining with her feet resting on Evelyn's face. Evelyn does not enjoy the scene and calls out her safeword, pinastri, which Cynthia ignores. The couple's relationship becomes more strained as Evelyn's expectations go unfulfilled. Finally, Cynthia accuses Evelyn of polishing another lecturer's boots, which she considers to be an act of betrayal. The two eventually seem to make up, and Evelyn agrees to put less emphasis on her sexual needs. The film ends with the couple going through the same play routine seen at the film's start suggesting that perhaps all relationships go through the same motions. This is what I really loved about the film. For all the hype about it being raunchy, full of lesbian sex and forbidden fruit, it really is all about the reality of any relationship. The title of the film refers to the Duke of Burgundy (aka Hamearis lucina) butterfly, although it is no longer known how it received that name in the first place, any reasoning being lost in the mists of entomological antiquity. Much like their relationship, they’re not sure how they got there but here they are anyway. The moths also act as a metaphor in the case of being drawn to a flame scenario, but also the many butterflies pinned and mounted that occur throughout the film reflect the love/abuse relationship in that the very beauty that attracts some people cause them to act in cruel way to the object of desire. Much like Peter Strickland’s other films, there is an other-worldliness to the story, which gives it a fantasy edge that doesn’t have a time point. Cynthia’s lectures are given to a group of women, half of whom are actual mannequins, something that clearly isn’t hidden, especially when you consider the directors well known attention to detail. This gives the film a wonderful sense of theatre that suits the story perfectly. Sidse Babett Knudsen and Chiara D'Anna are brilliant as Cynthia and Evelyn respectively. The film looks like a cult film straight out of the 1970s and you can tell Luis Buñuel is a big influence on Peter Stickland, not only in style but also because one of the characters in the movie is called Dr. Viridana. It’s a great piece of drama, overlooked, misunderstood and well under the radar but an absolute gem of a film.

The Water Diviner

Dir: Russell Crowe

2014

****

Before sitting down to watch The Water Diviner, a film I knew little about, I did wonder how and why, an Australian of all people, could think about making a film about Gallipoli after Peter Weir had made his masterpiece on the subject. The answer, of course, is that he, Russell Crowe, didn’t, rather he made a film about what happened after the battle of Gallipoli and how wounds are best healed. Loosely based on the book by Andrew Anastasios and Dr Meaghan Wilson-Anastasios, The Water Diviner deals with regret, honour and redemption. The film begins in 1919, just after the First World War, and centres around Joshua Connor (Russell Crowe who stars and directs), an Australian farmer and water diviner. His three sons Arthur (Ryan Corr), Edward (James Fraser), and Henry (Ben O'Toole) served with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps during the military campaign in Gallipoli four years previously and are presumed dead. After his wife Eliza (Jacqueline McKenzie) commits suicide out of grief, Joshua resolves to bring his sons' bodies home and bury them next to their mother. Joshua travels to Turkey and stays in a hotel in Istanbul run by war-widowed Ayshe (Olga Kurylenko), but is unable to travel to Gallipoli by road. Ayshe treats Joshua with contempt at first but learning the purpose of his journey, she tells him to bribe a local fisherman to travel to Gallipoli by boat. When he arrives, Joshua learns that ANZACs are engaged in a mass burial detail and all civilians are banned. Major Hasan (Yılmaz Erdoğan), a Turkish Army officer assisting the ANZACs, persuades the ANZAC captain Lt-Col Cyril Hughes (Jai Courtney) to prioritize helping Joshua with his search, arguing that while they can’t necessarily every father who has lost their sons, he is the only father that has come looking. After finding Edward and Henry's graves, Joshua sees in his dreams that Arthur survives the battle. Hasan recognizes Joshua's surname and tells him that Arthur might have been taken prisoner. Joshua returns to Istanbul, but fails to find out which prison camp Arthur was transferred to, as many Turkish records have been burned. He returns to Ayshe's hotel and learns that she is being pressed to marry her brother-in-law, Omer. Their argument becomes heated and Omer retreats when Joshua intervenes. Ayshe lashes out, blaming Joshua for making things worse and tells him to leave. As Joshua leaves the hotel, Omer and a few of his friends attack him, only to be stopped by Hasan's subordinate, Sergeant Jemal (Cem Yılmaz). Jemal takes Joshua to Hasan, who explains that the Greeks have invaded and they are going to defend their country as the British are not intervening. Joshua decides to travel with Hasan's group, who will pass through the region where his son might be. As Joshua returns to the hotel to retrieve his belongings, Ayshe apologizes for her earlier words. While on the train, Greek soldiers attack with only Jemal, Hasan and Joshua surviving the initial assault. Joshua saves Hasan as a Greek officer prepares to execute him but Jemal is killed in the resulting struggle. Joshua and Hasan flee to a nearby town where they spot a windmill, which Joshua saw in his recurring dream, the sort he taught his son to build before he went to war. There he finds Arthur alive but traumatized. Arthur reveals that at the end of the battle, Edward was still alive but badly wounded. He pleaded with Arthur to end his suffering, and Arthur reluctantly complied. Blaming himself for his brothers' deaths, Arthur felt he could never return to his family. The Greek soldiers who previously attacked the train begin to attack the town, and the two men try to escape through the mountains. Arthur refuses to follow his father, but relents when Joshua says that without his wife and sons, he has nowhere else to go. They successfully evade the Greek army and return to Ayshe's hotel. The film ends with Joshua drinking a cup of coffee made by Ayshe with lots of sugar in it, which, thanks to an earlier conversation, indicates that she has fallen in love with him. I have a few issues with the story but these are generally overshadowed by what I really liked about it. I really didn’t think it needed a romantic story line, especially as Joshua still clearly loved his wife who had only recently killed herself. Life goes on for sure, but it was a little too soon I feel. I also felt the dream sequences let the film down, surely finding Arthur by chance would have had far more impact. It would have certainly made the film a lot less predictable, one of the big things it has against it. However, I hugely respect the film for the way it handles war. It addresses wrongs made on both sides and shows that there really aren’t any winners in war. It looks at prejudice and redemption without shying away from the brutality of things. The depictions of one of the brothers, dying slowly and helpless is a shocking and upsetting scene but exactly the sort of thing a film about war should never shy away from. The story concept originated from a single line in a letter written by Lieutenant-Colonel Cyril Hughes who was a worker in the Imperial War Graves unit. The footnote simply said, “One old chap managed to get here from Australia, looking for his son’s grave.” After a year of research the writers were unable to identify the man or his son which gave them the freedom to imagine a story which would become their screenplay and thankfully they saw fit to examine both sides of the historic battle. While I feel the film was a little ambitious I thought it was very well constructed. That said, co-screenwriter Andrew Knight's own grandfather had fought at Gallipoli, so he and fellow writer Andrew Anastasios were able to derive elements from his diary. In addition, they read a lot of Turkish accounts of the war and the period immediately after to try to tap into the prevailing mood in the country and the different political and social divisions that existed. The screenwriting duo of Knight and Anastasios actually based the water diviner aspect of the character of Joshua on Anastasios's own grandfather, who was a real water diviner in the countryside of New South Wales in Australia. It’s personal passions that make good films like this and it comes through as clear as day. It is a fine debut feature by Russell Crowe and it has a great script, but it also represents a sad farewell to the brilliant cinematographer Andrew Lesnie, as this would be his final film.

Maidan

Dir: Sergei Loznitsa

2014

*****

There are many types of documentary and these days we are spoiled for choice in terms of style and content. Sergei Loznitsa’s Maiden is that rare sort of film that passes no comment and simply captures events as they happen. Focusing on the Euromaidan movement of 2013 and 2014 in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Ukraine's capital Kiev, Maiden is a document of history. It was filmed during the protests and depicts different aspects of the revolution, from the peaceful rallies to bloody clashes between police and civilians. It’s a slow but effective film and I can understand why it is somewhat of a challenge for most viewers but I think it is important to appreciate what it is that Loznitsa has achieved. This is a film without comment or editing, it is purely a recording. History happens in real time and as much as possible, even the details, needs to be shown otherwise it is a pointless exercise. It means that the film is long but it also ensures that it is pure and authentic. It’s a film where the viewer is allowed to make its own judgement and it’s a pretty bold move. You could describe the film as minimal but then the scope is vast. The title Euromaiden was coined through a twitter hashtag that was attached to a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine, which began on the night of 21 November 2013 with public protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti ("Independence Square") in Kiev. The protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government's decision to suspend the signing of an association agreement with the European Union, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. The scope of the protests soon widened, with calls for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych and his government. The protests were fueled by the perception of widespread government corruption, abuse of power and violation of human rights in Ukraine. Transparency International named President Yanukovych as the top example of corruption in the world. The situation escalated after the violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November, leading to many more protesters joining. The protests led to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. During the Euromaidan, there were protests and clashes with police throughout Ukraine, especially at the Maidan central square in Kiev, which was occupied and barricaded by protesters, along with some administrative buildings, including Kiev City State Administration. On 8 December the crowd toppled a Lenin statue nearby. Protests and clashes increased in January, after the Ukrainian parliament passed a group of anti-protest laws. Protesters occupied government buildings in many regions of Ukraine but Loznitsa pointed the camera on Maidan central square only. The protests climaxed in mid-February. Riot police advanced towards Maidan and clashed with protesters but did not fully occupy it. Police and activists fired live and rubber ammunition at multiple locations in Kiev. There was fierce fighting in Kiev on 18–20 February and as a result of these events, the Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine was signed on 21 February 2014 by the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition under the mediation of the European Union and the Russian Federation. The signing was witnessed by the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Poland and the Director of the Continental Europe Department of the French Foreign Ministry, Eric Fournier. Vladimir Lukin, representing Russia, refused to sign the agreement. Shortly after the agreement was signed, Yanukovych and other high government officials fled the country. Protesters gained control of the presidential administration and Yanukovych's private estate. Afterwards, the parliament removed Yanukovych from office, replaced the government with Oleksandr Turchynov and ordered that former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko be released from prison. Events in Kiev were soon followed by the Crimean crisis and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine. Despite the ousting of Yanukovych, the installation of a new government, and the adoption of the Ukraine - European Union Association Agreement's political provisions, the protests have sustained pressure on the government to reject Russian influence in Ukraine. It is clear that the film is of great importance but as this chapter of history is not yet over, we don’t fully understand yet just how important it is (making it very important already). As well as the crowds, mood and conversations, Loznitsa’s film also captured the controversy and the deaths. The first of major casualties occurred on the Day of Unity of Ukraine, 22 January 2014. Four people were permanently blinded and one man died by falling from a colonnade. The circumstances of his death are unclear. At least five more people were confirmed dead during the clashes on 22 January with four people killed from gunshot wounds. There are photos of Berkut (special police unit officers) utilising shotguns such as the RPC Fort, and reporters verified the presence of shotgun casings littering the ground. Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office confirmed pursuing several lines of inquiry into these murders, including that they may have been committed by Berkut officers. On 31 January it was discovered that 26 unidentified, unclaimed bodies remained in the Kiev central morgue; 14 of which were from January alone. Journalists revealed that a mass burial was planned on 4 February 2014. On 18 and 19 February, at least 26 people were killed in clashes with police and Journalist Vyacheslav Veremiy was murdered by pro-government Titushky and shot in the chest when they attacked his taxi. It was announced that an additional 40–50 people died in the fire that engulfed the Trade Union building after police attempted to seize it the night before. On 20 February, gunfire killed 60 people, according to an opposition medical service. In total, more than 100 people were killed and 2,500 injured in clashes with security forces. The death toll included at least 13 police officers, according to Ukrainian authorities. Loznitsa captures the attacks on journalists as well as some of the crowds and the funeral processions that follow. The acts of unlawful violence from the Berkut is clear as day, another reason why this film is necessary and so vital. It’s a hard sell to many and I doubt there is much money in it but if only there was a Sergei Loznitsa in every country then maybe so many of our political mistakes would not be repeated. It’s such a privilege to have history in the making recorded in this manner that should never be taken for granted.

The Salt of the Earth

Dir: Wim Wenders

2014

****

The Salt of the Earth is a stunning document on the life and career of Brazilian photographer Sebastião Salgado that explores his passion and the importance of what he has achieved. Salgado was born in 1944 in Aimorés, in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. After a somewhat itinerant childhood, Salgado initially trained as an economist, earning a master’s degree in economics from the University of São Paulo. He began work as an economist for the International Coffee Organization, often traveling to Africa on missions for the World Bank, when he first started seriously taking photographs. He chose to abandon a career as an economist and switched to photography in 1973 after his wife bought him a camera as a gift, working initially on news assignments before veering more towards documentary-type work. Salgado's work typically explores natural environments and the humans who inhabit them and he is particularly noted for his social documentary photography of workers in less developed nations. His black and white photographs illuminate how the environment and humans are exploited to maximize profit for the global economic market. Following the timeline of his life, the documentary uses his own photos and videos to illustrate Salgado's life and work beginning with his exile from Brazil and his subsequent transition from economist to artist and explorer. The documentary follows him as he travels around South America, including the countries neighboring his native Brazil, spending time among and photographing native tribes, living lives not much touched by the modern world. Co-directed by Salgado's son, Juliano Ribeiro Salgado, the film contains recollections from childhood of a father who was absent much of the time and the times he accompanied his father on trips to discover who Salgado was beyond his childhood conception. Next, Salgado traveled to the Sehel region of Africa, shown in unflinching and heartbreaking video and photographs. Salgado referred to the famine in Ethiopia as a problem with sharing, not just a natural disaster. He documented the largest ever refugee camps and the innumerable deaths that occurred there, from hunger, cholera, and cold. His work covering famine in Africa brought worldwide attention to the region and the underlying causes. The film follows forty years of Salgado's work from South America, to Africa, Europe, the Arctic, and back home to Brazil focusing on international conflicts, starvation and exodus, and natural landscapes in decline. One of his more famous collections of photos came as he happened to be the first photographer on the scene of the Kuwaiti oil fires back in 1991. Among these different projects, the film also touches on the work Lélia and Sebastião have done since the 1990s on the restoration of a small part of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. In 1998, they succeeded in turning this land into a nature reserve and created the Instituto Terra. The institute is dedicated to a mission of reforestation, conservation and environmental education. The transformation is incredible. The film is like a glossy Werner Herzog documentary without the philosophical narration – like many of Wim Wenders’ films are. While I felt it lacked the flare of Wender’s previous documentary (2011’s Pina – a biopic of the work of dancer and choriographer Pina Bausch), this was a very different picture. In many respects, Sebastião Salgado directed the film, as it is his images that we see constantly throughout. It also must be said that Juliano Salgado's co-direction jolts the film somewhat and makes it a little too personal to him. It’s a great film but its not a 100% Wim Wenders film – which is how it should be – even though I think I would have preferred it if it had been. Again, the images are awesome and everything is covered, I just think that sometimes it’s not always in the interest of a document to be told by the person it is documenting. Sometimes the picture needs to be looked at by someone else. It’s just a slight niggle I have and I wouldn’t even have it, had the film not have been made by the great Wim Wenders. The title of the film is a biblical reference, Matthew 5:13: 'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.' It has since been known as a description of a good person who performs good deeds but not for selfish reasons or personal gain. It’s a fair description. Sure Salgado has become successful but his is a life that has been essentially sacrificed for a greater cause. This documentary captures the selflessness, the passion and the great achievements made but without self congratulation. Salgado takes part in the film not to pat himself on the back, but to highlight each cause he has worked on and to help spread the message that his photographs capture. The images are stunning and they speak for themselves.

Testament of Youth

Dir: James Kent

2014

***

Adapted from the heartbreaking memoir written by Vera Brittain, 2014’s Testament of Youth concentrates on the crux of the novel, omitting much of what really happened. I’m not sure a memoir such as this should be shortened or edited in any way and a Television mini-series would have been far more appropriate. That said, the direction and performances are grand. I thought that the introduction to the memoir was especially well handled, when we see Vera (played by Alicia Vikander) in 1914 arguing with her father (played by Dominic West) after expressing her desire to escape her traditional family in Buxton, by attending Oxford University with her younger brother Edward (Taron Egerton) and his friends Roland Leighton and Victor Richardson (Kit Harington and Colin Morgan). Against her father's opposition, but with the support of her mother (Emily Watson), she passes the entrance examination for Somerville College, Oxford. Before enrolling at Oxford, Vera and Roland, who shares her interest in writing and poetry, begin a romance, although she knows that Victor is in love with her. After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand starts World War I, Vera helps convince her father to let Edward join the army instead of Oxford; Roland and Victor also join, and Roland is the first to reach the Western Front. As long lists of casualties appear in newspapers, Vera leaves Oxford to volunteer for the Voluntary Aid Detachment as a nurse tending the wounded in a hospital in England. His friends still see the war as exciting, but Roland tells Vera of his traumatic experiences from trench warfare at the front. He proposes to Vera; they will marry during his next home leave. Roland returns to France, now with Edward. Roland writes in late 1915 that he has been granted leave, and is safe away from the front. As Vera awaits his arrival during the Christmas holiday, Roland's crying mother tells her on the telephone that he has been killed. The army tells Vera and Roland's family that he died "bravely and painlessly". After she demands the truth, George Catlin, who saw the wounded Roland in Louvencourt, admits that Roland died from his abdomen gunshot wound in agonizing pain. When Victor, blind from his own injuries, arrives at Vera's hospital, she proposes to him out of kindness, sympathy and because it would be something Roland would have liked her to do, but he gently turns her down before suddenly dying from his head injury. In 1917 Vera asks to transfer to France to be closer to Edward, but her first assignment is to treat wounded Germans. She is reluctant, but learns that they suffer and die like English soldiers. Vera finds Edward among the dying, and helps save his life. After recovery she is glad that he is sent to the safer Italian Front. Edward insists that Vera return to Oxford after the war. Vera returns home after her mother has a nervous breakdown. She sees a telegram being delivered and learns, from her father's weeping, that Edward has died. With the death of Geoffrey Thurlow, another friend of Edward's, Vera has now lost in the war the four young men closest to her. In 1918 Vera cannot celebrate as crowds cheer the Armistice with Germany. Back at Oxford, she has nightmares about Roland's and Edward's deaths. Winifred Holtby, another student at the college, helps Vera cope with her trauma. Vera attends a public meeting where speakers debate how to punish Germany for the war. Most of the audience is against George Caitlin (her future husband), who warns that "the philosophy of 'an eye for an eye'" could cause another war. Vera confesses her guilt over persuading her father to let Edward join the army, and tells of how she held the hand of a dying German soldier, who was not different from her brother or her fiancé. She says that their deaths have meaning "only if we stand together now and say 'No'" to war and revenge. Now a pacifist, Vera promises to her dead men that she will not forget them and the film ends with a very poignant dedication to them. The BBC had previously adapted the book as a five-part television serial which was transmitted in 1979 which is perhaps why they decided to make a feature length adaptation instead but in my opinion the film could have done with far more time. The character development is fine but it needed longer, the characters needed more time to really flourish and become established. It felt like a great novel was edited down to soundbites, missing out many other details that would have built the story higher. It does feel like a TV movie but a very cinematic one, in its defense. That said, the film had the support of Shirley Williams, Brittain's daughter, and of Mark Bostridge, Brittain's biographer, editor, and one of her literary executors, who was reportedly acting as consultant on the film, giving it authenticity and a feeling of sincerity. It is a tricky one really, as it feels like the big element missing from this war film is the war, but this is a tale told through the eyes of Vera, who wasn’t in trenches or on the front line. She had also worked as a nurse in Malta though and the ship she was travelling on was almost sunk by a torpedo which could have added a bit of much needed action to the film but I’m guessing the budget nor run time would allow it. I’ve always said though, that a good war film is an anti-war film and that is exactly what it is. The fictional moment that Vera met her future husband George Catlin is a little heavy-handed and a little unfair on Catlin as he did volunteer at the beginning of the war but was rejected. However, he did serve in Belgium as a soldier late in the war. It’s a nice film, hard to pick fault with, it just needed more time devoted to it, given the importance of the novel and the story’s message. I’m an avid movie film above all else but sometimes a story needs to be told properly and a lot of the time that means it should have been on TV rather than on the big screen.

Queen & Country

Dir: John Boorman

2014

***

When I heard that John Boorman was going to make a sequel to his 1987 modern classic Hope and Glory I was thrilled. I’m generally against sequels but this film made sense to me, as it was auto-biographical and Boorman himself was back to direct. I thought it would be brilliant having the original cast back as well but alas, only David Hayman returned as Billy’s father as he mysteriously hadn’t aged in twenty-six years. It would have been wonderful to have seen the rest of the cast but then the film should have been made in the early 90s. Still, I had no complaints about the cast, indeed it features some greats, such as David Thewlis and Richard E. Grant. However, it just isn’t quite the same as the original. I first saw Hope and Glory in the late 80s around the same time as I read The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole and a whole new world of humour was opened up to me (before then all the humour I knew was Russ Abbott, the Carry On films and my funny uncle who once told me underpants grew on trees whom I believed for many years). I would liken Queen and Country to Adrian Mole: The Cappuccino Years, the fifth in Sue Townsend’s series that had all the same characters that I knew and loved, but wasn’t quite the same. The film starts in the early to mid-1950s where Bill (played by Callum Turner) is now 18 and receives his call-up papers for national service. Reporting to the army training camp, he quickly makes friends with fellow-conscript Percy (Caleb Landry Jones). Though most of their intake are sent off to fight in the Korean War, he and Percy are made sergeants and spend their days teaching typing. The bane of their life is Sergeant-Major Bradley (David Thewlis), a decorated veteran of World War II who is obsessive about doing things by the book. An ally against Bradley is the orderly Redmond (Pat Shortt), who teaches them the military arts of "skiving". However, Bradley succeeds in getting Bill charged with subverting a private's will to fight by telling him some truths about Korea. The case is thrown out when Bill shows that all he said had been printed in The Times newspaper. Outside the camp, both friends explore what the town offers by way of women. Bill falls for a beautiful but depressive upper-class girl he calls Ophelia (Tamsin Egerton), while Percy is smitten by a bubbly student nurse called Sophie (Aimee-Ffion Edwards). On leave for the Queen’s coronation, Percy steals a car to join Bill, who is with his family on the Island. Both are delighted to find Bill's renegade sister Dawn (Vanessa Kirby), who has returned from Canada, and Dawn is soon charming Percy. Ophelia makes a brief visit but has to dash back into London. On the television, the family spot her in Westminster Abbey as one of the nobility, something which Bill did not know. Back in camp, Bill gets word that Ophelia is again in hospital with mental problems and, when he visits her, she rejects him brutally. Shocked and in tears, he is found by Sophie, who leads him to an empty room and takes his virginity. Percy then confides that he lost his to his sister Dawn. Percy however is finding military life a strain and with Redmond concocts an absurd scheme to steal the mess clock, a gift from Queen Victoria. An investigation pinpoints his guilt, upon which Redmond betrays him. A court martial sentences him to military prison and Bill is allowed to escort him there in handcuffs. Dawn jumps on the train and says she will wait for him. Bill then goes to visit Bradley, who has cracked under the strain of Percy's persecution and is in a military hospital on mental grounds, but Bradley rejects him brutally. In a ward he sees the private he allegedly dissuaded from fighting in Korea, who has lost a foot there. The film ends back on the Island where his family live, where Sophie is in the river acting while Bill with a new film camera is filming her. Leaving the camera running, he jumps in to embrace her. It’s a personal end that signifies Boorman’s transition into film and a future with his wife, although its not 100% true to life. It’s a very different sort of film from Hope and Glory, just as our lives a different from one decade to the next but I don’t feel the humour was quite as strong. The films should have felt ten years apart but you could see every single twenty-eight year that it took to make. It was a little too glossy for me and all of the warmth of the first film was lost. I do wonder whether it is of regret to Boorman that he hadn’t made the follow up sooner and with as much of the original cast as he could. Expectations were perhaps a little too high with all things considered so the anti-climax hit a little harder than it should have. I really enjoyed it and there isn’t anything to fault it on, other than perhaps Caleb Landry Jones’ strange accent. It just doesn’t feel like a continuation of the same story and nor do the characters feel the same. The first film is a modern classic but the second film feels like a above average made-for-TV film, like I said, its good, but it just doesn’t have the same magic as the original.

Horrible Bosses 2

Dir: Sean Anders

2014

**

2011’s Horrible Bosses got a lot of hate but I liked it. However, it was what it was and should have been left well alone. It made money though, and when a film like this makes money then a sequil is unavoidable, and why not, it’s not art and everyone needs money, I totally would have made another if it was my film, even though sequels of this nature pretty much always suck. Now Horrible Bosses 2 doesn’t suck as much as most sequels of this nature do, but it does suck. The two new additions to the cast; Chris Pine and Christoph Waltz, both bring superb performances with Waltz giving a much better bad guy than he did in Spectre and Pine proving that he doesn’t always take himself seriously but overall they are let down by a familiar story. They didn’t learn anything from the Hangover films and even though the original had a unique story, I feel they could have come up with something a little more original. Years after the events of the first film, is appears that Nick, Dale and Kurt (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis) have moved on with their work lives after they have decided to start their own business, tiring of working for ungrateful bosses. Their idea is a car-wash-inspired shower head called the "Shower Buddy". They have trouble finding investors until they are approached by Bert Hanson (Waltz) and his son Rex (Pine). Bert admires their commitment to manufacturing the product themselves, while Rex prefers to outsource to China, and agrees to invest if they can make 100,000 units. Taking out a business loan, the three rent a warehouse, hire employees, and manage to produce their output. However, Bert backs out of their deal at the last minute, claiming that he never signed an agreement, and he plans to take their inventory in foreclosure and sell them himself re-naming them the ‘Shower pal’, while leaving the three in $500,000 debt with their outstanding loan. Seeking financial advice, Nick, Dale, and Kurt visit Nick's old boss, Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey), who is in prison after murdering Kurt's boss Bobby Pellit in the previous film. He tells them the three friends have no feasible legal options to recover their losses. The three then resolve to kidnap Rex and hold him for ransom. They seek the help of "Motherfuckah" Jones (Jamie Fox), who says the best way to kidnap someone who knows them is to keep the victim unconscious for the duration of the kidnapping. The three create a ransom note asking for $500,000 and go to the office of Dale's old boss, Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), to steal a tank of nitrous oxide. While there, Kurt and Dale are almost caught by Julia's sex addiction group meeting; after the group leaves, Nick has sex with Julia, providing the distraction that allows Dale and Kurt to escape the building. The trio then go to Rex's house, but while they hide in the closet, Dale accidentally turns on the tank and they pass out. When they wake up in the morning, they find Rex gone. When they arrive back at the warehouse, they find Rex tied up in the trunk of their car. Rex gets out and reveals he found them hiding in his closet, but decided to stage his own kidnapping with them due to his strained relationship with his dad and numerous personal debts. Rex sent the ransom note to his dad and increased the ransom to $5 million. The three are uncertain of Rex's plan, but Rex threatens to go to the police if they back out. They call Bert to inform him of Rex's kidnapping, threatening to kill Rex if Bert calls the cops. However, the police, led by Detective Hatcher, subsequently arrive at their warehouse to question Nick, Dale, and Kurt due to their involvement with Bert. When the police leave, Rex breaks down, knowing Bert cares more about his money than his son. Now sympathetic to Rex, the trio agrees to work with him in the fake kidnapping, and all four devise a plan to outsmart the police and take the ransom money, utilizing untraceable phones, a basement garage to block out any tracking signal, and Kurt disguising himself as Bert. While the plan is in motion, Nick, Dale, and Kurt find that Kurt left Bert his own phone instead of the untraceable one. They nevertheless call Bert on Kurt's phone to give him the instructions. Before they leave, Julia arrives at their hotel room and demands to sleep with Dale or else she will report them for breaking into her office. Dale's wife Stacy, whom Dale has three daughters with, arrives and believing Dale is cheating on her with Julia, storms off. Dale angrily locks Julia in the bathroom so the three can leave. In the basement garage, Nick, Dale, and Kurt wearing homemade masks tell Bert to give them the $5 million, and the cell phone. However, Bert is killed by Rex, who reveals that, after seeing that his father did not care about him, he decided to kill Bert and frame Nick, Dale, and Kurt in order to inherit the family business. Rex forces Kurt to switch pants as Rex's pants have Bert's blood on them. As the trio are about to be cornered by the police, Jones arrives, as he anticipated that the three would be betrayed and killed and was seeking to claim the ransom money for himself. He attempts to help them get back to the warehouse where Rex is supposed to be tied up, with the police chasing them before Rex does so they can prove their innocence. When they get back to the warehouse, Jones escapes with the money and the police arrive to find Rex tied up. Before the police arrest Nick, Dale, and Kurt, Kurt's phone rings in Rex's pocket, and the police recognize the ringtone as the same phone that was left to Bert by the kidnappers. Rex tries to claim the phone is his, but when Hatcher asks why Rex did not bother to call the police if he had a phone, Rex takes Hatcher hostage. Dale attempts to attack Rex, but Rex shoots him, which distracts Rex long enough for Hatcher to subdue and arrest him. A few days later, Dale wakes up in the hospital to find out the three did get in trouble, but because Dale helped save Hatcher's life, the police dropped the charges. He also finds out Julia helped make amends with Stacy, although she hints at having had sex with him during his coma and promises to have sex with his wife as well. In the aftermath, their business goes into foreclosure but is subsequently purchased by Harken in prison, who allows the three of them to stay employed. In many respects this could lead to an original story for the next film but I doubt it’ll happen, now that Kevin Spacey has been blacklisted by Hollywood. It’s not all bad but it is definitely time to put this series to bed, the humour is a little grubby and a little sad now, best to quit while they're not quite ahead.

Belle

Dir: Amma Asante

2014

*****

I remember director Amma Asante when she played a schoolgirl in Grange Hill during the golden years of the late 1980s. I’m not knocking Grange Hill – at all – but from that to being one of the most interesting contemporary directors working today is an impressive step. I don’t exaggerate either, Assante’s film is sublime and one of the best of 2014. Belle tells the story of Dido Elizabeth Belle, or at least what is known of her. The film is inspired by the 1779 painting of her alongside her cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray, at Kenwood House, which was commissioned by their great-uncle, William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, who was then the Lord Chief Justice of England. Dido Elizabeth Belle Lindsay (played by the captivating Gugu Mbatha-Raw) was born in 1761, the natural daughter of Maria Belle, an enslaved African woman in the West Indies, and Captain Sir John Lindsay, a British Royal Navy officer. After Dido's mother's death in 1765, Captain Lindsay takes her from the West Indies slums and entrusts her to his uncle William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice (played by Tom Wilkinson), and his wife Elizabeth (Emily Watson), who live at Kenwood House, an estate in Hampstead outside London. Lord and Lady Mansfield raise Dido as a free gentlewoman, along with their niece Lady Elizabeth Murray (Sarah Gadon), who came to live with them after her mother died and her father remarried. When the two cousins reach adulthood, the Mansfields commission an oil portrait of their two great-nieces, but Dido is unhappy about sitting for it as she is worried that it will portray her as a subordinate, similar to other portraits she has seen depicting aristocrats with black servants. Dido's father dies and leaves her the generous sum of £2,000 a year, enough to make her an heiress. Lady Elizabeth, by contrast, will have no income from her father, whose son from his new wife has been named his sole heir. Arrangements are made for Elizabeth to have her coming-out to society, but Lord and Lady Mansfield believe no gentleman will agree to marry Dido because of her mixed-race status, so while she will travel to London with her cousin, she will not be "out" to society. Lord Mansfield agrees to take a vicar's son, John Davinier (Sam Reid), into an apprenticeship for law. In 1783, Mansfield hears the case of Gregson v. Gilbert, regarding the payment of an insurance claim, for slaves killed when thrown overboard by the captain of a slave-ship — an event now known as the Zong massacre. Dido helps her uncle with his correspondence and after John tells her about the Zong case, she begins sneaking correspondence to him which he believes will advance the cause of the abolitionists. Lord Mansfield and John have a disagreement on the main issue of the case. John is told not to see Dido again, and his apprenticeship is at an end. Dido’s aunts, Lady Mansfield and Lady Mary Murray (Penelope Wilton), Lord Mansfield's sister, seek to steer Dido into an engagement with Oliver Ashford (James Norton), son of a scheming grand dame and younger brother to the bigoted James Ashford (Tom Felton). At first James is interested in Elizabeth but stops courting her once he discovers she will have no inheritance. Oliver, who is without fortune, proposes to Dido and she accepts, although she continues to see John. James takes Dido aside, tells her she will disgrace his family's name, then insults and manhandles her. Dido later tells Elizabeth of his true character and says she will give part of her inheritance to her for a dowry so she can find a different match. Lord Mansfield finds out about Dido's visits to John and confronts both of them. During the confrontation, John professes his love for Dido. Sometime later, Dido meets with Oliver and breaks off their engagement. Dido is relieved when the painting is unveiled, showing her as Elizabeth's equal. She tells Lord Mansfield that the portrait commission proves that he can defy convention. Dido sneaks into the balcony of the Inn of Court, so that she can hear Lord Mansfield narrowly rule that the Gregson slave-trading syndicate, based in Liverpool, is not due insurance payments for the slaves the crew threw overboard during the voyage. The ship's officers claimed they ordered this action because they were out of potable water. Lord Mansfield discovers, however, that the Zong passed by many ports without stopping for more water, before killing the slaves. It appeared to Lord Mansfield that the slaves' quarters were over-crowded, making them sick and not likely to fetch a high price at auction, so the officers decided they would be worth more in insurance payments after their loss. Lord Mansfield sees John and Dido outside the Court after his ruling and says that Dido can only marry a gentleman. Therefore, he agrees to resume John's apprenticeship in law, so that he can become a lawyer. Dido and John share a kiss, both in full acknowledgement of their romantic feelings. Learning about how Belle was (and wasn’t) accepted in society is an amazing insight into how many an opinion could have been changed during such an important time in history. The film is fiction in that Belle really didn’t get involved with the case at all but she was taken in by Lord Mansfield and was loved by him. The film reads between the lines and sugar-coats it somewhat – and to be honest Lord Mansfield only really asked for a re-trial due to a lack of evidence, it was an earlier trial - Somerset v. Stewart – that was key in abolishing the slave trade but most of the issues raised in the story ring true and must have been true of the time and situation. The film hits all the right notes, just not necessarily in the right order which I think is rarely acceptable but with exceptions. The script is utterly sublime as are the performances that deliver it. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is phenomenal as is Tom Wilkinson. I really liked Sam Reid also and Penelope Wilton was wonderful as always. Everyone else was brilliant too but I can’t help but think Tom Felton has fallen into the type-cast trap and it was almost impossible not to see Miranda Richardson’s Lady Ashford as anything but a toned-down Queenie, the role she played for several years in Blackadder. However, all the performances were great and the film is near perfect, except in its forgivable historical accuracy.

Wild Tales

Dir: Damián Szifron

2014

*****

Damián Szifron’s glorious collection of short stories is a celebration of violence and vengeance. Each story is vastly different from the next and thankfully they aren’t all about redemption, chance and karma, they are just what they are, pure unadulterated revenge. There are six stories in total, the first short ‘Pasternak’ being the ultimate way to start a film. During a flight, a man (Darío Grandinetti) starts a conversation with a woman (María Marull) and tells her he can’t help but not tell her how beautiful she is. The woman is coy and lets the man continue. She then asks questions about him and he tells her he is a music critic. His name is familiar and she remembers that he reviewed the work of her former boyfriend and savaged a piece he had written, a review he never quite got over. Another passenger who is listening in apologises for listening and asks if the man in question is called Pasternak. He is. Several other passengers soon intervene and claim to know Pasternak as well, and soon it is obvious that everybody on the flight is connected to him, and all of their relationships with him ended negatively. A flight attendant reveals that Pasternak is the plane's cabin chief and has locked himself into the cockpit. Amidst the panic, Pasternak crashes the plane into his parents' house. Like I said, it is a hell of an intro. The second film, ‘Las Ratas’ takes us to a small restaurant off a rainy highway in the late evening. A loan shark (César Bordón) stops for a bite and finds he is the lone patron. The waitress (Julieta Zylberberg) recognizes him as the man who ruined her family and caused her father's untimely death. The man treats the waitress very poorly when he arrives and when he orders his food. The cook (Rita Cortese), who reveals she has been in prison, offers to mix rat poison into the man's food. The waitress refuses the cook's offer but the cook adds the poison anyway, unknown to the waitress. When the waitress finds out she does not take the food from the man. The man's teenage son then arrives and eats the same food; feeling guilty that the boy might eat it, the waitress tries to take the poisoned food away. The man attacks her after she throws food in his face so the cook rushes out of the kitchen and kills him with a chef's knife.The son is so shocked by this he vomits.The last scene depicts the son getting medical treatment from a responding ambulance while the waitress sits next to him. The cook is arrested and driven away in a police car. The film’s third film is definitely the most violent of the six shorts. In ‘El mas fuerte’ (The Strongest), we see Diego (Leonardo Sbaraglia) driving through the desert as he tries to overtake a slower, older car, that constantly blocks him. As he finally passes, he insults the other driver, Mario (Walter Donado). Further up the road, he gets a flat tire and Mario soon catches up with him. He parks his car in front of Diego's, blocking him in in intimidating fashion. Diego remains in the car and apologies for insulting him but Mario smashes his windshield and then defecates and urinates on it out of revenge. Just as Mario is about to leave, Diego pushes him and his car into the river and drives off. Fearing he will be arrested and still wanting the upper hand, Diego soon returns to run Mario down, but loses control and crashes into the river. Mario then enters Diego's car through the trunk and both start to fight. After grappling and expelling the fire extinguisher, Mario leaves Diego strangling by a seat belt. Mario rips a piece of his shirt, lights it on fire and places it in the gas tank in an attempt to incinerate the car, but Diego grabs him and prevents him from escaping. A tow truck driver (called earlier by Diego) arrives as the car explodes. The police discover the two charred bodies holding onto each other and mistake them for lovers who died in a tragic accident. In Bombita (Little Bomb), Simón Fischer (Ricardo Darín), a demolition expert, picks up a cake for his daughter's birthday party and discovers his car has been towed away. He goes to the towed-car lot and argues, insisting there were no yellow lines indicating no parking, but to no avail. He grudgingly pays the towing fee and misses his daughter's party. The next day, when he is again refused a refund now at DMV, he attacks the glass partition and is arrested. The story makes the news and Fischer's company fires him. His wife (Nancy Dupláa) seeks a divorce and sole custody of their daughter. Fischer applies unsuccessfully for a job and discovers his car has been towed again. He retrieves the car and packs it with explosives in a tow zone. After it is towed again, he detonates the explosives, destroying the towing office with no casualties. Fischer is imprisoned and becomes a local hero, with calls on social media for his release. His wife and daughter visit him in prison for his birthday, bringing him a cake in the form of a tow truck. It is the only story where the protagonists acts of violence are weirdly rewarded. The film’s penultimate story is the darkest in many respect. In La Propuesta (The Proposal) a teenager, in his father's car, arrives home after committing a hit-and-run on a pregnant woman. On the local news, the woman and child are reported dead, and her husband swears vengeance. The driver's parents (Oscar Martínez and María Onetto) form a plan with his lawyer (Osmar Núñez) to have their groundskeeper José (Germán de Silva) take the blame for half a million dollars. The local prosecutor (Diego Velázquez) sees through the scheme because the car's mirrors were not adjusted for the caretaker. The lawyer negotiates to include the prosecutor in the deal for more money. The caretaker asks for an apartment along with his money, and the prosecutor asks for an additional payment to pay off the police. The guilty son says he wants to confess to the gathered crowd. Frustrated, the father calls off the deal, telling his son to confess. The lawyer renegotiates and the father agrees on a lower price. As Jose is taken away by the police, the dead woman's husband strikes him repeatedly on the head with a hammer. The final short is the collection’s grand finale and the film’s piece de resistance. In Hasta que la muerte nos separe (Till Death Do Us Part), we enter a Jewish wedding party just as the couple arrive at the reception. Damián Szifron takes his time introducing us to the characters and main players but soon the bride, Romina (Érica Rivas), discovers that her groom, Ariel (Diego Gentile), has cheated on her with one of the guests. She confronts him as they dance in front of everyone and he soon admits to his infidelity. She runs off in distress to the roof, where a kitchen worker comforts her. Ariel eventually finds her and discovers her having sex with the worker. She vindictively announces to him that she will sleep with every man who shows her interest, and take him for all he is worth if he tries to divorce her, or when he dies. They return to the party and continue the festivities. I thought that the story could have ended there in such a devilish note but it goes on as Romina continues to drink. Romina pulls the woman Ariel slept with onto the dance floor, spins her round, and slams her into a mirror. She insists that the photographer film Ariel and his mother weeping, declaring that she will show it at a future wedding. The mother attacks her, and is pulled off by her husband and Romina's father; Romina collapses. Ariel approaches her and extends a hand. They dance, kiss, and begin to have sex by the cake as the guests leave. The revenge has been had and it feels that for the first time in the film, that the need for revenge is extinguished and this is a happy ending. Albeit an unconventional one. It’s a masterpiece of anger, disdain, impatience and violence, but the skeptic in me wonders whether the film would have been nominated for awards such as the British Baftas and American Academy Award if it had been an English language film. It matters not though, as it was justifiably successful and utterly delicious in its darkness. The stories came about when Szifron had a break from directing and producing TV series and focused on writing. Alongside working on three major projects at the same time (a science fiction film series, a western and a love story) he found himself writing short stories just to "let off steam", and eventually realized they were related. There were initially twelve tales, out of which he chose the "wilder" ones. The second, third, fourth and sixth segments were partially based on real-life situations Szifron went through; the second was written in a road immediately after he had an argument with an Audi driver. At first, all stories were written as independent ones, and each of them could have been made into a film. However, Szifron thought that grouped they would have more impact so he decided to "reduce the conflicts to its minimum and find their climaxes.” Often described as a black humor film, Szifron stressed the stories were not planned as comedies but rather as a thriller or as a drama depending on the part, in fact "they begin as dramas. The humor is a consequence of what these characters feel in a very dramatic situation.” Ultimately, he thought neither comedy nor drama were appropriate labels, and considered that "catastrophe movie" is a good term for it, making the film even darker than you originally might think. Each film has its own visual identity and style as if each were a different movie, with its own spatial dimensions, colors, style, textures and set decoration. Szifron has stressed they "are vital organs of the same body" that sustain the film and "together they are more robust and make a larger universe". It is a great piece of escapism, a primal scream that everyone can relate to and enjoy.

52 Tuesdays

Dir: Sophie Hyde

2014

****

Sophie Hyde’s fascinating drama 52 Tuesdays is a slow-burner and I have to say I didn’t warm to it all at first, however, there is a good reason for that and it is the same reason why I think the film is such a triumph of independent film and creative writing. Our story begins in suburban Australia. 16-year-old Billie lives with her lesbian mother Jane and her uncle Harry. Her father Tom is divorced from her mother, following the realisation that she was a lesbian. Her uncle Harry is more like a brother to her and you could say her childhood has been unconventional but decisions are made as a family and everyone is always open with one another, with Tom still very much part of the family. One day Jane reveals plans to undergo a gender transition, now calling himself James. She has put off telling Billie until the last minute as she is worried about how she would take it. Tom and Harry are clearly irritated by the way she has decided to tell Billie and that it has taken her so long to make the decision – one that they’ve seen coming for a while. James decides he wants Billie to live with Tom for a year, with which Tom has agreed, as she doesn’t know how she will be reacting to the hormone treatment and needs time and space alone. Billie accepts her mother’s transition with no issue but she doesn’t like the fact she is being kicked out of the house. She forces James to give her a time limit, to which James responds ‘a year’. A decision is made then to have regular weekly visits restricting the time Billy is together with Jane/James to Tuesdays from 16:00 - 22:00, starting on the 23rd of August. The film is then divided into the corresponding 52 segments, each covering one Tuesday, and starting with a title card showing the date with a world event that also happened on that date. At first the meetings a stifled as the two simply have dinner together and watch a bit of television. After catching two older students, Josh and Jasmine, being intimate with one another in a school store room, Billie ends up befriending them and meeting them regularly. The three students begin to experiment with each other on a sexual level but they can only meet on Tuesdays as they only have access to the store room on that day. When the students loose access to the room, Billie hatches a plan and pretends to her father that she is now going to spend longer at James’s house on Tuesdays and will now be home at 12.00. She asks Harry to cover for her as well as lending her access to an apartment he has keys for. Billie then films the sexual experiments of the threesome, as well as interviewing them. After a few months James suffers a setback and is told that he has to stop testosterone injections because of a rare condition of his body not tolerating it. Billie becomes more distant and more interested in her friends as James becomes more and more low. Tom finds out about Billie’s lies and Jasmine also get tired of Billie’s films. She feels that it is all about Billie’s film and doesn’t want to be part of her experiments anymore. After sending a nude photograph of herself to Jasmine, Billie gets into trouble as this is considered child pornography. The school principal, James, Tom and Jasmine strongly disapprove it. Billie is shocked that James destroys one of her tapes, and refuses further contact with him. Josh does not want physical contact with Billie anymore because of Tom's disapproval. Later Billie is willing to destroy a remaining tape, but since it is in James' house who she no longer visits, she is dependent on Harry, who finally destroys it for her. When her father is involved in a motorcycle crash everyone is forced to reassess what is important. When the year is finished, Billie reconciles with James and arrives home, moving in at precisely the same time she left one year before. Billie, Josh and Jasmine soon become friends again. The initial problem I had with the film was the disjointed narration. The beginning of the film is constantly interrupted with footage Billie has taken of herself talking nonsense into the camera – clearly retrospectively from the future. Most of the footage is of her pausing for excruciating lengths of time. It really only became obvious that this was about a young girl’s look at sexuality and adult relationships at about a third of the way in. I wondered why we didn’t see more of James’s transition – which I thought was the point of the film. However, the more I learned about the film, the more I understood it. The film has rules. The Six Rules of Making '52 Tuesdays' were as follows: (1) The film will be shot once a week, every Tuesday (and only on Tuesdays), over a full year (or 52 Tuesdays) ; (2) The film will be shot chronologically; what is shot on a specific Tuesday is what happens on that Tuesday (i.e. no re-shoots!) ; (3) Something from each of the fifty-two Tuesdays has to be shown ; (4) It will be a scripted drama but will allow the script to be heavily influenced during the year, with the writing continuing until the final Tuesday ; (5) A non-professional cast will be used who can be different but connected to their characters and will influence their story ; and (6) Rather than artificially creating change, allow the subtle but genuine changes over the course of the year to challenge our own expectations of time and change and influence the story we tell. That must have been a huge undertaking, one that really took effort and discipline. After halfway through the film the changes start to become obvious, not just in James but in every one of the characters. It’s quite remarkable. Screenwriter Matthew Cormack said: "It seemed to me how we made the film, confining our narrative and shoot time to fifty-two consecutive Tuesdays, could inform the very ideas of what the characters were grappling with, especially around the pursuit of authenticity and the promise of change. Ultimately, however, as a writer, it was not about relinquishing control to some kind of chance and circumstance but about the opportunity to embrace the chaos of the unknown in a way that would hopefully show me (and consequently an audience) something about the challenge of constructing a life, a story, an identity, a gender, a sexuality, only with the materials we're given in our short, limited lives." For me, this is brilliant film making – I want to say guerrilla film making but that isn’t what it is, it’s something far more profound. None of the cast were professional actors but I think after this film they are probably more qualified than most. Of growing up on screen, lead actress Tilda Cobham-Hervey said: "When I began working on '52 Tuesdays' I was 16, I had never had a boyfriend...Over the course of this project I became an adult, I fell in love, completed high school, talked about things I had never even let myself think about, I learnt what sad was and angry was and I escaped a bubble and learnt about the incredible wonder and tragedy of the real world. I learnt what the words 'real' and 'true' meant, which are far more wonderful than any other word in existence. One of the questions that was often discussed during this process was "are you living an authentic life?" A loaded question that was my basis for taking control of my own person and actually deciding how to get on with this thing called 'growing up'." The wonderful thing about this – and with all the other characters – is that you can see it on screen. The start of the film only makes sense when you reach the end, so while the film really needs perseverance, the rewards are fruitful. My only niggles is that I wanted to learn more about the transition process.