It's Nice Up North

A 20th anniversary screening of the spoof documentary featuring Graham Fellows character comic John Shuttleworth.  Always bumbling and inapropriate, Shuttleworth sets for Shetland to prove his theoiry that people are nicer in the UK the further north you travel.  To record this he's recruited photographer Martin Parr, along with a tech team, to make the film of his journey and investigations.  Of course, John being John, it isn't all slick and predictable, as he makes his way around in an old Austin Ambassador...

The result is often badly filmed, awkward, full of minutae, with rambling commentary and moments of unexpected sadness.  Plus some arguments between subject and cameraman!  And it's still, after 2 decades, hilarious.  Fellows clearly has a lot of warmth and affection for his comedy creation, and for the people he talks to in his 'investigation'.  The best moments are often improvised, frequently with people in the street they hadn't even planned to talk to.  It's all beautifully done as parody of the real thing, and fun to see so much going wrong.

There was a chat with Fellows after the screening, which told us more about the making of the film (which mentioned that the on-screen tension between Fellows and Parr was often real!), the unintentional additions which made things worse (better!), like the helicopter cameraman they hired who turned out to genuinely awful.  Shuttleworth still has a life on stage, and will for some time to come.

And yes, he did find people were nicer up north!

The Incomer

Whimsy. Suspension of disbelief essential. Embrace the weirdness. It's so easy to pick holes in the reality of writer/director Louis Paxton's film, but where's the fun in that? Better to sit back and accept that you have entered the world of fairy tales and folk tales, enjoy the eldritch feel of this off-kilter world. There's a malicious selkie bobbing in the water, a sprinkling of cartoon violence, and a smidgen of Hitchcockian terror. And while there is some effort to provide a meaningful ending - humans are social creatures and we should accept people as they are - it's best not to think too much.

Siblings Isla (Gayle Rankin) and Sandy (Grant O'Rourke) have been living in isolation on Auk Island since they were children, half convinced they are descended from seagulls. Daniel (Domhnall Gleeson), a socially inept council worker, is sent over to serve them an eviction notice, as the island is regarded as a wildlife sanctuary. Which goes against the residents belief that they must repel all Incomers...

Daniel is met with resistance, but gradually wins the pair over, only to have his work undermined when a more feral colleague, Calum (Emun Elliot), batters his way into the setting. Relationships are tested, and reinforcements combatted, as tensions rise and solutions sought.

Good performance all round, in roles which demand some over-the-top elements. Michelle Gomez, as Daniel's over-ambitious hardnosed boss, makes for an easily disliked 'baddie' figure, and there are plenty of laugh out loud lines spread through the script. O'Rourke's deadpan delivery is a delight. Plus there's the dulcet tones of one John Hannah...

The Incomer joins a line of whimsical Scottish films that twist the world into something slightly magical, and provide memorable characters and imaginative cinematic moments (like Daniel 'flying'). Warm hearted and quirky make a good combination.

Amélie

 The 25th anniversary of the release of this classic slice of French whimsy, and one I was eager to revisit.  Going back to an old favourite can often be disappointing - but this one exceeded my already high expectations - there really is nothing quite like it.

The eponymous heroine grows up in a sttangely repressed family, has an isolated childhood, and finds it hard to make friends as an adult.  Instead she has an active inner life, a vivid imagination, and intense curiosity in the minutae of the world around her. That leads her to a discovery - she can make herself happier by making others happy, preferably in secret.  And so her undercover life begins.  But it needs a most unlikely friendship to develop before she discovers how to be happy for herself.

While the basic plot is simple enough what stands out is the idiosyncratic charm, throwawy details, and a strong visual identity.  It's colourful, at times near cartoonish.  Not only cinematographic, but photographic - there are so many images you feel you want to freeze and study more closely.  Which connects it to a theme of actual photographs which runs throuht the film.  The story is full of little twists, facts, dates, love affairs, sadnesses, revenge, reunions, and explosive sex in a toilet.  Surreal and yet conected to the streets of Paris.  Where elase will you experince the continuity of a bluebottle, a peripateic gnome, nuns playing swingball and a man in awe of his own brain functions?  All of these feature, but only one of them has any relevance to the plot.

Whimsical, funny, quirky and human.  I think I might be in love with Amelie all over again.

Hamnet

Based on the Maggie O'Farrell novel of the same name, it tells a story of the brith anddeath of the son of Agnes Hathaway (Jessie Buckley) and William Shalespeare (Paul Mescal) - yes, that William Shakespear - and the grief they endure in their different ways. 

First meeting, courtship, disapproving parents, marriage, children.  The playwright spend ing much of his time away in London, leaving wife and household to cope, as he builds his reputation and career.  With inevitable tensions in the marriage, made worse by their differing approaches to the loss of their child.  He throwing himself deeper into his work, she withdrawing deeper within herself.  It takes the prodcution of Hamlet to bring understanding and resolution, but it's a herd road to get there.

The coulourless life of the sixteenth century, and the inherent sadness of the theme, can make it a hard watch.  Both leads are excellent, bringing the characters to life, with real emotional depth, but that still doesn't stop it from dragging at times (I almost fell asleep at one point...) so that my overall feeling was one of disappointment.  I'd enjoyed the novel, and had hopes for the film as a result, but felt short changed by the slowness of the plot and the over realiance on shoskc moments.  

The Baker's Wife (La Femme du Boulanger)

 A black and white French comedy classic from 1938.  Villagers are excited that a new man has taken over the old bakery (the only one they have).  His loaves are perfect, and he has a very attractive wife who draws the men in to purchase their bread.  But when the wife runs off with another man (a local), and the baker stops baking, the locals know they have to intervene - they want their fresh baguettes back!

Farce meets an expert view of small town life, of rural mores and communal action.  There are well delineated characters and relationships, conservative values and hypocrisy,  a storyline that never flags.  Very funny, very observant, very enjoyable.  Sometimes old is best.

I Swear

 A biopic of John Davidson,the Galashiels man with Tourette's Syndrome who overcame a difficult early life to become a well known champion to promote wider understanding of the condition.  It begins with his childhood, when a  well liked lad and promising goalie suddenly becomes a social pariah, misunderstood at home, and life becoming a misery.  

The adult John is adrift, unhappy with home and his mother who still doesn't understand his condition.  Until a chance meeting with an old pal, takes him on a different path where he will gain understanding, employment, mentoring, and a place in the world.  And even without the man who became his mentor he is able to develop and become a champion for incresing knowledge and understanding of Tourette's.  With a few significant bumps along the road.

While the film takes some liberties with the detials of John's real world story, the message remains, and it it feels a fitting trubute to a man who overcame and achieved so much in life.  Tourette's is a more widely known condition now, and medical science is helping those with the disability to live easier lives (advances which we also see Joh playing his part in).  Yes it can be sentimental at times, but it's also funny, upsetting and satisfying.  Go and see it.

The Naked Gun

I'm generally wary of remakes of classics, whihc can rarely reach the standards of the original.  Anyone who saw them has fond memories of the sheer silliness and crazy verbal wordplay of the Leslie Neilsen trilogy.  Fortunately the 2025 version is much more homage than remake, and has several nods of respect to it's predecessors (including a sharp comment on OJ...).

Liam Neeson is excellent as the deadpan detective, there's a constant deluge of absurdity, and loads of throwaway visual gags passing across screen - you need to keep paying attention.  There's not as many bad puns as I'd maybe hoped for, the gags are as hit and miss as they were in the originals, and the plot is as daft as they come.  Which makes this a lot of fun, and a worthy part of the canon.

The Roses

He meets she. They fall in love immediately and have sex in the cold store.  Ten years on they are over the pond in California, he is hugely successful, she's bringing up the kids.  A thing happens, roles are reversed, resentment builds, marriage steadily disintegrates.

A simple enough premise.  And a thin plot that can be taken in a number of different directions, depending on how the writer and director see it, depending on the casting and acting.  I've seen some very negative reviews of this film, and that seems to come down to expectations, and sometimes ciritcising something for what it's not, rather than what it actually tries to be.  Based on a novel by Warren Adler, The War of the Roses was a hit film version in 1989.  It was a black comedy, bitter and biting in it's treatment of the fight between the couple.  And if that's what you were expecting this time around then I can understand the disappointment.

But I came to this with no knowledge of the novel or first film version,  I came from seeing a trailer that made it look a lot of fun, and the reputations of the two leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman.  I cam seeing something much lighter and funnier than those other critics came to see.  And I got what I hoped for.

There's not much in the way of drama here. although it has it's moments.  There are no real life lessons to be learned, other than maybe being thankful that you and your partner are relative 'failures' in the rat race side of life.  There are, however, a lot of laughs, a lot of great scenes, a lot of brilliant smaller parts (Allison Janney's shark of a divorce lawyer being particularly fun).  This is light entertainment, but with great acting and a sharp and witty script.  I loved it.

The Life of Chuck

Based on a Stephen King story (so you know there'll be something creepy...), this is a story told in three parts, in reverse chronology.  

Part one sees society falling apart due to a (largely unexplained) apocalypse.  As the lights go out all that remains is an enigmatic viral marketing campaign thanking Chuck Krantz for 39 wonderful years.

In part two, set a few months earlier, we get to meet Chuck, a boring accountant who suddenly launches into a street dance inspired by a busker, and hints at the disappointments of his past.

The meat of the tale, such as there is, lies in the final, and longest, segment, when we see Chuck's childhood.  Brought up by his grandparents, given a love of dance, he is surely going to be a star...

In the end there's a message.  Or you can take one if you choose to.  Individuals are special and should feel so.  Something like that.  Carpe Diem.  Something like that. It's not really clear.  This confusion, a heavy handed narration, and overuse of coincidence to link the 3 segments, leave an unstaisfactory feeling.

Which is a shame, as there are some great individual performances, notably Chiwetel Ejiofor in part 1, as the man confused by rapidly unfolding events, a man we can all identify with.  And there are some very entertaining scenes, like the adult Chuck (Tom Hiddleston) dancing to a street drummer.  But the whole is so much less htan the parts.  

From Hilde, With Love

Low key, but all the more powerful for it, this is the mostly true story of Hilde Coppi, a young woman in Nazi Germany who finds herself falling into a small resistance group.  Their resistance isn't dramatic, more the kind of amateurish effort that concerned citizens feel obliged to take part in when face with the horror of a dictatorship.  Sticking up slogans, making radio calls to Moscow, listening in to banned radio stations.  Low level bravery, doing the best they can rather than passive acceptance.  They might not achieve much, but they take up the regime's resources, and every small sting counts.

The film begins with the arrest of Hilde and boyfriend Hans, and follows the by-then-pregnant young woman through her questioning, imprisonment, giving birth, and the end that we know from the start will be inevitable.Flashbacks show her falling in love with Hans, falling into the group he was a part of, not as an ideologue, but as someone persauded to do her bit to fight back.  The group are ordinary young people, aware that their government is evil.

Yet the functionaries they encounter in the system are not, by and large, the monsters we like to imagine, but ordinary people, trying to go about their jons.  Showing an human side at times.  Not fanatics, but full of the gullibility that comes with the urge to fit in with the system.

The acting is excellent, especially Live Lisa Fries as the scared but stoic heroine.  It's an impressive film, a hard watch at times, but for all the right reasons.  And a reminder that we must not be won over by fascism, but resist in whatever way we can.  Reform must not win here.

Four Letters of Love

 An Irish love story.  

When career civil servant William Coghlan (Pierce Brosnan in brooding mode) finds the sudden inspriation to leave the boring work on his desk in Dublin, and head to the west coast to paint, he leaves his wife (Imelda May) and teenage son Nicholas (Fionn O'Shea) confused, angry and bereft.  His landscapes and seascapes take in the wildness and beauty of the area, including a small island where teenager Isabel Gore (Ann Skelly) is being sent off to convent school on the mainland by parents Muiris (Gabriel Byrne) and Margaret (Helena Bonhan Carter).  

It takes a few deaths, and crossed pathways, but eventually the youngsters will fall in love, after life has erected fences to keep them apart.  So is there forever love or are they doomed to stay apart?

The cinematography is as lush as you'd expect given the wonderful landscapes.  The acting is excellent, notably from Byrne and Carter.  There's a strong 70s period feel, with some great cars of the time making an appearance.  Overall the film has a wonderful ambience.

But the plot is strained, convoluted, confusing.  It relies too heavily on unfounded assupmtions, unlikely coincidences and ridiculous events (including a miracle cure!).  Plus a haeavy dose of sentimentality and schmaltz.

Beautiful, but unsatisfying.

Superman

 "Let's try something different" we said. "It might be fun." And this was certainly different to anything I've been to see for, well, maybe decades. As for the fun... it turns out there was a good reason why I hadn't revisited superheroes for so long.

I grew up as a kid aware of Superman, and something of his story. I enjoyed all the Christopher Reeve film versions of the character. So what could possibly go wrong? As long as the cast and director recognised the inherent silliness of the concept, it should provide that fun we were looking for.

This 2025 version casts David Corenswet as the Man of Steel. He's got the looks, he acts well, and displays a vulnerability and a soft side to the character that this storyline tries to show. But there is something missing.

The plot, such as it is, has Superman being the good guy, everybody's hero, then the bad guy, framed by the evil Lex Luthor, and then, of course, the good guy at the end. He gets beaten at times, but ultimately wins. He works with other superheroes to defeat the baddies. He has his romance with Lois Lane, and a bit of father and son bonding. All within a framework of an evil billionaire influencing the US government (complete fantasy of course...?), a war between a big tech state and one that appears to only have farm implements to defend themselves with (complete fantasy of course...?), and something called a 'pocket universe' in some different dimension. Or something like that. It was all so daft and so messy that I found myself not really caring.

The Reeve versions were probably just as daft. But they had 2 huge advantages. There was no CGI back then. And they had Christopher Reeve. Whereas now we have something that looks like a bunch of nerdy kids have been given every CGI tool of their dreams, and told to go wild. Plot? Don't bother. So the hugely overlong fight sequences seemed utterly confusing - or maybe I really couldn't be bothered by then. Good cinema is about storytelling. If you want to understand how CGI can be a filmmaking boon, then see Life of Pi.

And then there was Reeve. As with the likes of Harrison Ford and Roger Moore, he had that ability to play these daft action hero roles straight, whilst also showing that he didn't take it all that seriously, that he recognised the inherent puerility of the character's concept. Corenswet is good, and manages some comedy, but he lacks that indefinable talent which is essential to avoiding these kind of roles looking ridiculous to all but the most ardent of fans.

It wasn't all bad. The dog was fun. And the best line was "So is Gary". But I'm grasping at straws. This was an experiment I don't see myself every repeating again.

Cinema Paradiso, Filmhouse

In a small Sicilian town an elderly woman is calling her son, who she hasn't seen for 30 years.  In Rome a successful film director returns home late to find a message from his mother - Alfredo is dead.  He is unable to sleep as he returns to his childhood and remembers what Alfredo meant to his life.

A few years after the end of the war, Italy is still recovering from the damage.  In the village the cinema is a vital community asset, albeit dictated to by the censorius local priest.  Projectionist Alfredo walks the line between religious complaince and cummunity approval.  He is also the hero of mischevious 8 year old Toto, and an unlikekly friendship forms between the pair that will seal the bond between the child and the film industry he will make his life.  In time they will each find the other owing them a huge debt, but when the time comes for Toto to leave in search of a new life, it is Alfredo who gives him the impetus to go, and the advice never to return.

So Toto, once again known by his given name of Salvatore, only returns to see his mentor buried, and is caught up in the memories it forces upon him.  Not just of his roots in film, but of his first love affair, which has similarly dominated his life.  

CP is recognised as a classic, and rightly so.  The script is frequently hilarious, but there is genine emotion and pathos in the relationship between the pair behind the projector, and so much life in a community that is full of characters.  It has been criticised as being overly sentimental and schmaltzy, and that's true.  Yet it feels appropriate for a film that plays so heavily on the golden age of schmaltz from Hollywood, and is as much a tribute to that period of cinema as it is about the vivid relationships.  It was a delight to see again.

Final word must go to the venue, as it too was a delight to see again.  After several years boarded up the Filmhouse is back.  The foyer and cafe still look a bit bare, but that will change.  There's a fourth screen now.  And Screen 1, where CP was showing, has much imporved seating and comfort.  The Filmhouse is returning as one of the most important cultural centres in the city.

The Last Journey

 Heartwarming and enjoyable.  But also disturbing and worrying.

Filip Hammar is worried about his 80 year old father, Lars, who seems to have almost given up on life.  He is, his son says, rotting away in an old armchair.  So, with the agreement of his mother, he plans a road trip to France with his dad.  Lars, once a French language teacher, was always a Francophile, and many of Filip’s happiest memories with him are centre on holidays in a seaside town on the Riviera.  

So he buys a lovely old orange Renault 4, like the one dad used to drive, ropes in best friend Fredrik, and the 3 of them set off.  Plans are disrupted when Lars ends up in hospital just as they are about to leave Sweden, but eventually the trip continues.  Along the way, and at their destination, Filip arranges for his father to see old places, old friends, and some carefully staged incidents, all designed to bring back memories and rekindle Lars’ feeling for life.

There are some genuinely moving moments, where the old Lars almost resurfaces, and sadness at seeing Filip come to some acceptance that things can never be as they were.  There is a sweet scene near the end where some of the teacher’s ex-pupils pay tribute to their mentor.  Cue tears all round.

But.  This is filmed as a fly on the wall documentary, meaning there is some sort of film crew present for some intimate moments.  I read the Filip and (the very likeable and funny) Fredrik are a bit like Sweden’s Ant & Dec, famous presenters who always come as a pair.  Obviously wealthy, and obviously well connected with the TV world.  Which begs some questions…

What came first?  Filip’s desire to help his father, or the idea for the film?  Because the filming took place from an early stage of the process (I did not get the impression they could have gone back and asked Lars to act some of the early stages…).  There’s also a queasy sense that Filip, for all that his love for his parent shows as genuine, was at times bullying and manipulative.  It can come across as a rich man spending money to show off his love, whilst producing something box-office-worthy.  

Call me cynical, but for all it’s virtues, there are some worrying undercurrents to this film.

The Ballad of Wallis Island

Charles (Tim Key) lives a lonely life on the remote and sparsely inhabited Wallis Island.  A double lottery winner, he is also an obsessive superfan of long defunct folk duo McGwyer Mortimer.  Two further facts about Charles - he’s extremely irritating, in a can’t-shut-up-or-stop-telling-shit-jokes kind of a way, and he’s really rather sad and lonely, for reasons that become apparent as the plot unfolds.  To mark a special occasion he’s invited both halves of the duo to the island to give a one-off concert, to a one person audience.

First to arrive is Herb McGwyer (Tom Basden), wet and grumpy, and surprised at what he finds.  But his biggest surprise is the arrival of ex musical partner, and lover, Nell Mortimer (Carey Mulligan), with American husband in tow.  Their being thrust together rekindles musical, and other, memories, but also reminds them of why they split.  Charles has started more than he realised, and his dream, and memories it conjures up for him, is not turning out to be what he expected.

The screenplay comes from Key and Basden, both former writers on the Alan Partridge shows, and that background shines through strongly.  If you loved Partridge you’ll probably enjoy this.  Charles is a sub-Partridgesque character, often with a similar inability to read the room, but he has redeeming qualities that make him much more than a figure of fun, and Key does a wonderful job of making him a figure of sympathy.  Basden is similarly able to give the grumpy Herb a human side, and these performances dominate.  In a good way.  Mulligan is excellent support, along with a couple of other minor characters, but it’s the Tim/Tom duo that give this film it’s charm, laughs and pathos.  And a dose of romance.

Basden also wrote and performed the songs, and shows himself competent in both roles.  And Key squeezes in a rarely seen romantic side to his acting.

While it does have things to say about revisiting memories, relationships and grief, this is a film to enjoy for the performances and the snappy script.  Whilst it’s no classic, it is very enjoyable.  More so if you’re a fan of awkward.

Hard Truths

 Pansy (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) is angry.  And anxious.  She’s angry with her plumber husband Curtley (David Webber).  With 22 year old layabout son Moses (Tuwaine Barrett).  With her younger sister Chantelle (Michelle Austin).  With pretty much everyone she meets - in car parks, supermarkets, her doctor and dentist, the list of targets for her anger never ends.  And her anxiety makes her fearful of the world, where there is no safety.

Chantelle is a hairdresser, charming and confidence inspiring with her clients, fun and happy with her two daughters.  She wants Pansy to come with her to their mother’s grave, for the anniversary of her death.  Pansy even gets angry with that.

But she will eventually go, and the two families get together.  But even there the contrast between the two trios is stark.  While the shadow of Pansy’s anger hangs over everyone.  

So what will she do with faced with a situation that requires her to act with love?

Jean-Baptiste is superb, a tightly strung band always on the verge of unwinding dramatically.  Her rants are epic, her disdain apocalyptic.  But the vulnerability is never far away.  The reasons behind her behaviour leak out gradually.

.If this all sounds a bit grim you’d be wrong.  Pansy’s ire is hilarious viewing (although you wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end) because it has no rationale.  We’ve all known someone like her, someone whose grumpiness and resentment is unending.  

The filming is up close and personal, filled with delightfully awkward silences and mumbled excuses, while the Chantelle aspect gives off vibes of real joy.  This is ordinary life in spades, the inconsequential gossip, the families that barely co-exist, the people who tolerate and those who don’t.

Another Mike Leigh masterclass in the everyday.

September 5

Anyone my age or older will probably remember the event, and how horrific it was at the time.  One of those world events you never completely forget.  It's all well documented now, so it's easy to read up on what happened to the terrorists and their victims.

But this film takes a new slant on what happened.  This was the first time that a terrorist event was able to be covered live on satellite TV, meaning the events in Munich found their way around the world immediately.  A team of sports broadcasters, from the American ABC network, suddenly found themselves in groundbreaking broadcast territory, and a sudden deluge of unfamiliar moral decisions to make.  If a hostage was murdered live on camera, should that be broadcast or not?

While the politics of the situation are touched on, it's largely in the context of how it determines the team's decisions.  This is about the human beings behind the cameras, and the strains it put on them.  The filming is claustrophobic, largely confined to the control studio, and using contemporary (grainy!) footage to show the unfolding drama being covered.  The tech is very much from the pre-digital era, and there's a lot of improvisation required.  Younger viewers will be shocked at how primitive it will all seem, but this was the cutting edge of TV sports broadcasting in 1972.

The focus is on the moral and emotional issues.  The mistakes made in a situation where the world is watcvhing through their lens.  The instincts of journalists wanting to pursue the story (and having to fight off the views of their own management who wanted a news team to take over - but the sports guys were the only ones actually there, on the scene).  Versus the moral responsibilities of playing their part in trying to achieve a safe ensding for all involved.  They even find themselves being invaded by German police at one pojnt, for hampering the efforts fo the authorities.  Are they reporters or voyeurs or accomplices.  The lines are sometimes blurred.

The style is often cinema verite, following characters rushing from one moment to another.  The messiness and confusion and need to make decisions comes across well.  There are some excellent performances, notably from John Magara as Geoff, the studio dierctor trying to hold it all together, and Leonie Benesch as Marianne, a (fictional) young German assistant, reflecting the mortification of her generation at the sins of their elders.

It's a strong drama, worth watching for the tension alone.  But the film also provides useful insights into the moral demands on journalists in life or death situations, and a the sesne of global trauma that came with those terrible events.

A Complete Unknown

This is the young early 60s Dylan (Timothee Chalamet), from his arrival in New York until the storm of controversy that erupted in Americn Folk Music after his famous/infamous electrified set at Newport Festival.  A formative period not just for the man who would become one of the greats, but for the future direction of US music and beyond.  

Seeking out the legendary Woody Guthrie, now in hospital, he also meets Pete Seeger, who takes the young Bobby under his wing, and into his family.  With that lift, and lyrical quality of his songs, Dylan will take the folk world by storm, but wants to be more, wants to explore different directions and fusions.  Along the way relationships will be made and broken, fans won and lost, and our=trage generated.

The movie has a wonderful period feel, conveying the state of the US folk world of the time.  Plenty great music too, noit just Dylan songs, but Guthrie, Seeger, Baez, Cash...  The quality is impressive, the more so when you learn that the actors performed the voals themselves.  If you get Dylan's voice and phrasing right he's not too hard to impersonate, as his strengths do not lie in the techincal quality of his vocals.  But all credit to Monica Barbaro for doing such a great job in capturing the purity of Joan Baez.

Chalamet's also hit Dylan's mumbled speaking voice, which can be an issue, and there were times when subtitles would have helped!

It would be easy to pick up the few flaws in the movie, and the only one that irked was a lack of editing.  The movie felt overlong, and the final scene with Guthrie unnecessarily loaded with symbolism.  But the overall impression is triumphant.  A celebration of the times, a warts and all portrait (Dylan isn't always the best of human beings in his realtions with others), and a striking impression of just how big an impact his decsion to go electic was at the time.  

Well worth seeing.

Conclave

The Pope dies and the College of Cardinals must go into conclave to choose his successor.  The task of heading up the process falls to Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes), who is on the more liberal wing of the church, and favours Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci) to get the job, however reluctant he may appear to be to put his name forward.  There are other contenders of course, either slightly less liber, or far further to the right, and Lawrence and Bellini are joined in opposing the possibility of that backward-looking arch conservative Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto) becoming their boss.

Preventing that, and navigating all the other challenges involved, requires a lot of backroom negotiating, skullduggery, and a few dirty tricks.  Added into the mix is a mystery cardinal who none of the others were aware of, Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz) from Afghanistan.  Why had the Pope kept him hidden away, and what views does he adhere to?  Who will win through in the end, and how many will be disgraced along the way.

An excellent cast, a reasonably gripping plot and some excellent cinematography.  Fiennes is at his best, despite one hammy moment of 'looking shady' as he investigates the secrets of the dead man's bedroom.  There are even a few laughs along the way, and it certainly has a surprise twist to the ending.  So it's not as dull as the subject matter might suggest.

But.  I found myself lacking any empathy for, or emotional engagelemnt with, any of the characters.  A bunch of old men choosing another old man to issue diktats to millions of people?  It's hard to sympathise with any of them, even those who are protrayed as more 'liberal'.  Maybe it was because the last film I went to see was Small Things Like These , but have any positive feelings for officials of the Catholic church were impossible to dredge up!

One element did make me laugh though, and I am still wondering if the image was coincidental or deliberate.  There were several visual references to The Handmaid's Tale, with the mass of Cardinals often looking like so many Offreds.  It certainly helped to poke fun at some of the more sinister aspects of the closeted plotters.

Small Things Like These

Based on the book by Claire Keegan, the setting is the small Irish town of New Ross in 1985. The title sequence immediately gives us the theme of the story - a rotating skyline of the town, dominated by one point, the local church.

Bill Furlong (Cilliam Murphy) runs a coal merchants, drive the lorry round the town to make deliveries, before returning to his wife and five daughters.  He's a well known, well respected member of the community, treats his staff well, although his wife reckons he's a bit "too soft".  One morning he goes to make his delivery at the convent and finds, locked in the coal shed, a terrified young woman, begging him to take her with him.  He takes her in to the sisters, who fuss over and take her quickly away, then leaves.  But her fear remains in his mind.

Furlong has to decide.  Between the safety of acquiesence, as advocated by his wife (and given added persuasion by the Mother Superior).  Or the risk of becoming a social pariah, if he follows his conscience.  More information about the convent becomes obvious.  It is one of the infamous 'Magdalen Laundaries', where young women, pregnant and unmarried, are used as slave labout before thier babies are sold to childless families.  A practice that continued well into the nineties.  

These are the kind of nuns that give penguins a bad name.  This a society still in the grip of the church, which nefoces social convention and dictates who is unacceptable within the town.  The tension, the sense of oppression, is well conveyed, even as the town celebrates Christmas.  Murphy is excellent as the quiet man wrestling with the biggest decision he has ever faced, knowing that if he does the 'right thing' it will go badly for him and his family.  Knowing that standing up to this kind of evil has consequences well beyond himself.

It might be set in the past, but it feels so recent, with TV programmes and cars that many of us can still easily recall.  It is still very relevant, for that kind of oppression has many forms, and the fascist verion is looming over us so much nowadays.  A poerful reminder of the need to stand up to evil.