Fellow Members & Movie Buffs:

Our “hiatus” is no fun for anyone. Roger Kuhrt’s memorial will in the main hall upstairs at the Pythian Temple, 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 11, 2012. Hope to see some of you there.

One of the Club’s Planning Committee members, Barbara Madsen, has contacted the Pythians and talked to them about the future for the TFC. It actually looks hopeful that we might be able to stay at 924 Broadway; all of you think positive thoughts for a week or two. We are having another Planning Committee meeting this next Tuesday, January 31, 2012, and soon thereafter we will try and get another newsletter message out to the blessed movie club multitudes.

So have patience, folks, while we go through some restructuring, and endeavor to set up some new contacts. We still hope to have something viable to work with some time in February; probably not the first week though. Your participation and fellowship is essential for future success, in this the Club’s eighth year.

Glenn

Fellow Film Club Members & Movie Buffs:

Cancellations: 

The Tacoma Film Club found itself unable to have its screening of LATCHO DROM on Friday, January 20, 2012. The in climate weather, which left many of us stranded, some without power forced us to reconsider the movie showing.

But the larger issue for us was the loss of one of our most vital film club members last Wednesday. Roger Kuhrt passed away peacefully at home after spending nearly two weeks in the ICU at St. Joseph. He was a long time member, who had volunteered himself to help administer the club’s affairs, helped to provide a space for the TFC meetings, parties, and screenings, provided most of the screening equipment, and was the club projectionist for a long time. He and Farishta prepared hot meals for us prior to screening nights for over a year as well. Honoring his memory, we have decided to go dark for the rest of the month while we retool and reconfigure the logistics for both screenings and meetings.

The theatrical film for January, THE IRON LADY, only has a limited exclusive showing a the Lakewood Mall theater, and with this bad stint of weather, we realized it will be difficult for many to get out and see this movie. We had a terrific turnout last Friday, to watch LITTLE VOICE, and this demonstrates every indication of still having an active interested group of members to participate in 2012 events. But even after pushing our TFC Discussion night back a week, we feel that it would be difficult to fulfill our club mission of seeing three movies prior to discussion. So, regrettably, we are going to cancel the Discussion Night that was to be held Wednesday, January 25, 2012.

So, we are grieving for member Roger Kuhrt, trying to regain our personal balance after this bout of blizzard and ice storms, have cancelled the 1/20/12 screening of LATCHO DROM, and have cancelled the monthly TFC Discussion night for 1/25/12. We will notify everyone through our newsletter on our plans for February 2012.

Understand that we cherish each of you members and participants who have kept this Club functioning for eight years, and we will get back on track as soon as it is feasible and possible. Our fellowship may emerge even stronger secondary to this adversity.

Glenn Buttkus

THE IRON LADY (2011)

Fellow Film Club Members & Movie Buffs:

January is fully upon us, with winter caressing us with snow and ice. What better time to huddle indoors with friends and watch a fabulous film together? The Tacoma Film Club is proud to be screening LATCHO DROM (1994) this Friday, January 20, 2012. The film was directed by Tony Gatlif, who is a Professor at La Femis, the French National Film School. He functions most of the time as writer and producer on his movies too. He is of Gypsy and Algerian descent, and he directed a trilogy of films about the Rom; LES PRINCES (1983), LATCHO DROM (1994), and GADJO DILO (1997). He has directed 19 films to date, including THE WAY OUT (1986), MONDO (1995), and EXILES (2004).

LATCHO DROM won awards at the Cannes Film Festival in 1993. As some of you know, this rare film is only available in Region 4 PAL format. Member Peter Farnum has loaned us his all region DVD player in order for us to view this fine movie.

LATCHO DROM (1994) 

Directed by Tony Gatlif @ 103 minutes.

The film stars La Caita, and Tony Gatlif.

Synopsis: This majestic French-made film transcends language and culture, using only music and imagery to chronicle the compelling story of Gypsy “Rom” migration from India to Europe.

J. Hailey wrote, “The film takes the viewer on a journey west, from India to Spain, with stops along the way, to dramatize Romany’s nomadic culture. This journey takes place over a year’s time, from summer through fall and winter to spring. Gatlif holds his camera on the elemental essentials of this life: water, the wheel, fire, beasts of burden and of sustenance, colorful clothes, jewelry, musical instruments, song, and dance. Throughout, via song and dance, young and old celebrate, embody, and teach the cultural values of family, journey, love, separateness, and persecution.”

James Berardinelli wrote,”LATCHO DROM uses Gypsy musicians from seven countries to convey its many-faceted message. With song and dance they tell of their long journeys, the anger directed toward their people, and their own indomitable will. This carefully constructed portrait of Gypsies could not be clearer, and the brushwork is accomplished without spoken words.”

So make the trek to downtown Tacoma this Friday, January 20, 2012, and watch LATCHO DROM with us. Prepare to tap your feet and clap your hands, folks, for this is one very spirited film! We are located at 924 Broadway, in the Pythian Temple, at street level, across from the Theater on the Square, in the heart of Tacoma’s Theater District. We had a wonderful turnout last week for LITTLE VOICE, and we are hoping to repeat that kind of attendance for this film. As is our new tradition, those of you who would like to share some snacks or beverages, please feel free to bring them along. I will be giving away a free DVD from my own personal collection of classic movies as a door prize; great fun. Admission is free, of course, but we do appreciate donations to assist us with renting the space and the films. LATCH DROM runs 103 minutes, and it will screen at 7:15 p.m. Please come early and join many of us who cherish fellowship and finger food. Doors open at 6 p.m. See you at the movies!

Glenn

Fellow Film Club Members and Movie Buffs:

January is here, and winter has so far been kind to us. We are starting a week late this month secondary to some equipment issues, but circle your calendars for the second Friday, January 13, 2012, and join us for the screening of LITTLE VOICE (1998). It was directed by Mark Herman, known as much for his writing as directing. He started out as an animation artist. His first big directing hit was BLAME IT ON THE BELLBOY (1992),  followed by BRASSED OFF (1996), and the incredible BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS (2008). Herman wrote the screenplay based on the play written by Jim Cartwright, THE RISE AND FALL OF LITTLE VOICE. It was written specifically for Jane Horrocks, who stars in the film. The play was directed by Sam Mendes, and it was a big hit.

LITTLE VOICE (1998) 

Directed by Mark Herman @ 97 minutes

The film stars Brenda Blethyn, Jane Horrocks, Michael Caine, Jim Broadbent, and Ewan McGregor.

Synopsis: Laura (LV) is a pathetically shy young woman who is a recluse, staying most of the time in her room playing her late father’s records; but at night she would sing along magnificently with the divas. She was overheard by her mother’s small-time agent boyfriend, and LV was forced to perform in public while others profited from her talent.

Taglines: “The comedy that breaks all the records” & “finding your voice can be magic.”

Michael Caine won a Golden Globe as Best Actor for his role in this film. Jane Horrocks sang all of her own songs in the movie; there is no lip-synching.

Roger Ebert wrote: “In this film everything leads up to, and wilts after, Jane Horrocks’ showstopper number–she is amazing, absolutely fabulous.”

So let’s start off 2012 with a bang and enjoy this English musical comedy, LITTLE VOICE. It will screen at 924 Broadway, located at street level in the Pythian Temple, across from the Theater on the Square, in the heart of Tacoma’s Theater District.

Come early and enjoy fellowship and chatter. Doors open at 6 p.m. Remember we no longer prepare a meal for these evenings. Those of you who would like may bring finger food snacks and/or beverages to share. There will still be a free door prize of a fabulous DVD from my personal collection at every screening. The winner gets to pick their prize from dozens of film choices. The new TFC 2012 membership cards will be made available for anyone who wants to join the club, or renew their membership. See you at the movies!

Glenn

Film Club Members and Movie Buffs:

Welcome to 2012. We are starting off with some complications relative to our projection equipment, so the January 6th screening of LITTLE VOICE  has been postponed for a week. Next week, on Friday, January 13th our screening schedule will resume. LITTLE VOICE will screen at 7 p.m. and the Social Hour begins as 6 p.m.

Remember that we are no longer serving a meal before the film shows, so if you wish you can bring finger snacks and/or a beverage. We will have the TFC membership cards available for those folks who want to renew their membership for this year. See you next week!

Glenn

Film Club Members and Guests:

Thanksgiving has come and gone, and the big Kahuna of holidays, Christmas is coming down on us rapidly, like Santa’s sled with jet propulsion. This year, this last Club party of the year, The Tacoma Film Club Potluck, will happen on December 3, the first Saturday of the month. We feel that will leave the rest of the month for holiday shopping, trips, and Christmas affairs.

“It is the personal thoughtfulness, the warm human awareness, the reaching out of the self to one’s fellow man that makes giving worthy of the Christmas spirit,” –Isabel Currier. 

As in the past, this invitation will go out to TFC members only, and they may bring guests. Usually there is a nice spirited turn out. Put a big red circle around Saturday, December 3, 2011, and plan to attend. The Club will not have any screenings ordiscussions in December. We will have the 2012 TFC membership cards available at the first Friday screening in January, so those folks who want to take care of their renewals can do it right out of the gate.

“Unless we make Christmas an occasion to share our blessings, all the snow in Alaska won’t make it ‘white’.”–Bing Crosby. 

The Christmas party, as in the past, is a pot luck, with people bringing whatever they want to share. Trying to regulate who brought what food was difficult to monitor and seemed restrictive to some members in the past. It will be held at 924 Broadway, our regular meeting place. Doors will open at 5:00 p.m. and the meals can start around 6:00 p.m. There is a microwave and oven in the kitchen area for those folks who want to warm up their food. Wine, soft drinks, and coffee will be provided free by the Club; part of our appreciation for your member support all year.

“Gifts of time and love are surely the basic ingredients of a truly merry Christmas.”

–Peggy Bracken. 

There will be no holiday film screening during the party, just fellowship and sharing. There has been volunteers who did the decorations and set up. Any one who feels they could help with the clean up after the party will be very appreciated. There will be separate tables for wine and beverages, entries, and desserts. Attire can be as formal or informal as you wish, but remember bibs are not provided.

“The primary message of Christmas is: ‘we are not alone’.” –Taylor Caldwell.

This third, and final, official TFC party of 2012 is always tremendous fun; a chance to hoot and holler, have some great food, and meet spouses and member’s friends who might not attend our regular events. See you at the party!!!

Glenn

Film Club Members and Movie Buffs:

November is over a week old, and we, also, are over a week older, with no time to waste; this would be a great opportunity to get out and see a classic film, and spend some time with the Tacoma Film Club. This Friday, in line with our theme this month of “coming of age”, we are screening the feel-good classic BREAKING AWAY (1979). It was directed by Peter Yates, a Brit, who spent a lot of time in Hollywood with his career. A graduate of RADA in the early 50’s, he first was an actor, and then began to work as an assistant director for Tony Richardson. Yates directed 28 films, including ROBBERY (1967), BULLITT (1968), THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE (1973), THE DEEP (1977), THE DRESSER (1983), and HOUSE ON CARROLL STREET (1988). 

Roger Ebert wrote, “With this film, Yates has gone for the human elements, but he hasn’t forgotten how to direct action; there’s a bravura sequence in which Dave, riding a racing bicycle, engages in a high-speed highway duel with a semitrailer truck.”

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED lists this film as #8 on their list of top sports films of all time.

It was written by Steve Tesich, a playwright who wrote scripts for 10 films, including THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP (1982) and AMERICAN FLYERS (1985). 

Trivia: Steve Tesich had been a college sports cyclist in 1962, and his inspiration for his character of “Dave” was his friend, David K. Blase, who led their team to victory in the little 500, and had an “Italian” fixation. The actual nickname for the Bloomington townies was “stoners” [for stone-cutters], but the film production team changed the name to “cutters”. 

Mom: He was very sickly until he began riding around on the bicycle.

Dad: Yeah, well, now his body’s fine, but his mind is gone. What are we going to do with that boy?

Mom: I don’t know–I guess we could strangle him in his sleep.

The cinematographer was Matthew T. Leonetti, who has lensed since the early 70’s, including THE DEADLY TOWER (1975), RAISE THE TITANIC (1980), POLTERGEIST (1982), COMMANDO (1985), RED HEAT (1988), DEAD AGAIN (1991), and PRIDE (2007). 

BREAKING AWAY (1979)

Directed by Peter Yates @ 101 minutes.

The film stars Dennis Christopher, Dennis Quaid, Daniel Stern, Jackie Earl Haley, Paul Dooley, and Barbara Barrie.

Synopsis: Four young men, freshly graduated from high school, are not quite sure what they want to do with their lives; but one of them is fixated on the Italian national cycling team, and he decides to become a professional cyclist–and begins to become “ Italian “ immediately. He falls in love with a college girl and talks his mates into forming a cycle racing team to compete with the snobs, and win her affection.

Taglines: Somewhere between growing up and settling down.

The movie that tells you exactly what to do with your high school diploma.

The film was nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actress.  It won an Oscar for Best Screenplay by Steve Tesich. It won a Golden Globe for Best Picture.

Roger Ebert also wrote: “The film is a treasure, a wonderfully sunny, funny, goofy, intelligent movie that makes you feel about as good as any movie in a long time.”

Written in AT-A-GLANCE REVIEWS: “Whimsy is a quality this film understands. It is not interested in shocking action and drama; no, it takes the riskier but more rewarding road, finding emotional depth, infectious delight, and even joy in every day life.”

So mark your calendars for this Friday, November 11, 2011, Veteran’s Day, and join us to watch Peter Yates’ delightful film, BREAKING AWAY. It will be screened at 924 Broadway, in the Pythian Temple, street level, across from the Theater in the Square, in the heart of Tacoma’s Theater District. For those film buffs who enjoy spirited fellowship, come early, like 6 p.m., and join the fun. Anyone who wants to–can bring “finger food”, wine or soft drinks to share with the rest of the gang. This not a pot luck, or a formal meal, as we have done in the past. Eat before you come, and bring a goodie to munch on. There is a free door prize giveaway; the winner choosing a quality DVD from my personal collection, from a selection of two dozen available. We will have club announcements and an introduction to BREAKING AWAY at 7:00 p.m., and it will screen at 7:15 p.m. The film runs 101 minutes, so the event will be over by 9:30 p.m. Look for the large TFC banner hanging over the front door. See you at the movies!

Glenn

The structure of the film is creative in ways that remind me of Memento. The story told in Memento was about a character who had a neurological memory deficit. The events portrayed in that film were presented in reverse order, a structure that allowed the audience to get an intuitive feel for what it would be like to try to interpret sensory inputs if you had to do so without having access to memories of what happened earlier (I discuss this issue in more detail elsewhere). Similarly, MMMM is a story about a young woman with a condition psychologists refer to as an Identity Disorder. She struggles to make sense of multiple, incompatible, versions she has of herself, such that she is not sure who she really is. The structure of the film, multiple seamless cross cuttings between two periods in her life, gives the audience an intuitive feeling for what her multiple self (Martha Marcy May Marlene) felt like. Music/sound is used to excellent effect to enhance our feeling of being inside MMMM’s head. We could feel the tension rise and fall as though we were experiencing the emotions inside her head as we viewed the events unfold on the screen.

[WARNING -- FOR ANYONE CONCERNED ABOUT SUCH ISSUES, THE REMAINDER OF THIS COMMENTARY CONTAINS SEVERAL SPOILERS]

A second important use of structure was to delineate the psychological stages MMMM passed through as she became identified with the cult she joined. The transitions between states were denoted by the screen going completely black. The first black screen happens just before the first time MMMM “voluntarily” crawled into the bed of the cult leader and allowed herself to be sodomized. The second happens just before she participates in drugging a new recruit to the cult, an act that will allow the recruit to be raped while unconscious by the cult leader. The third is just before she participates in a ritualistic murder performed by the cult during a home invasion. The final potential black screen is near the end of the film while she is swimming in the lake. This last one is ambiguous, the water definitely becomes murky but I am not sure the screen ever went completely black, corresponding to the ambiguity about the final psychological state of MMMM at the end of the film.

In the remainder of this commentary, I want to consider the question of what MMMM’s psychological state was at the end of the film. In the final scene we have an extended shot of her sitting in the back seat of a car while being driven by her sister and brother-in-law to a mental institution where she is supposed to get psychological treatment. What is MMMM’s psychological state as we look into her eyes during that final scene?

I am going to consider 3 possible psychological states. There are no doubt numerous others that one could evaluate, and these 3 are not necessarily completely mutually exclusive. However, I think these three are particularly interesting to examine given the evidence that was presented during earlier scenes in the film.

Psychological State #1: MMMM has a serious mental illness that has caused her to lose her grasp on reality. Her symptoms include both paranoid delusions (she mistakenly thinks cult members are out to get her and perhaps kill her) and hallucinations (she is hearing and seeing things that do not exist). Her symptoms might be of the kind that are typical of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) flashbacks, and/or could be related to a flooding of repressed memories into consciousness as is sometimes reported to happen in adults who were subjected to abuse during childhood. Under this interpretation, the look in her eyes reflects that of an insane person.

Psychological State #2: MMMM is sane, but frightened out of her wits, and for good reason. She witnessed serious crimes being committed, including first-degree murder of an innocent victim by members of her cult. She has now escaped from the cult, but knows the cult members will do everything in their power, including killing her if necessary, to prevent her from telling her story to authorities. Under this interpretation, what we are seeing in the last scene is a “deer in the headlights” look of someone who thinks she is about to be killed.

Psychological State #3: MMMM is a predator working for her pack, the members of her cult. During this last scene she is (regardless of how she came to be that way) angry with the outside world, and the people in it, and everything they stand for, including her sister and brother-in-law. And even though she has had some ambivalent feelings about the actions of her fellow cult members, when push comes to shove she knows her ultimate loyalties have to be to her group. They have asked her to give-up her sister and brother-in-law. She has sized them up, and is now ready to deliver them for the kill.

Lets now analyze a few scenes in the film that provide potential evidence in support of one or more of these three Psychological States.

There are a series of scenes showing how MMMM was indoctrinated into the group. The message instilled in her during this indoctrination was along the lines: I know you have been abandoned all your life; If you join us, we will never abandon you; And we know that you are special, you are a Marcy May, you are a teacher and a leader; But if you live here, you will have to become part of our group, and you can take some time to decide, but you will have to eventually find your role in the group.

An interpretation of these scenes consistent with State #1 would be that the process of undergoing this indoctrination drove MMMM insane. An interpretation consistent with State #2 would be that she was eventually able to resist this indoctrination and break free, but now faces the real possibility that they will find and kill her. The State #3 interpretation is that by the end of the film she has “found her role in the group.”

Next consider the opening scenes that show MMMM escaping from the cult, having a conversation with a cult member who followed her and found her eating in a restaurant, calling her sister on the telephone, and being picked up by her sister. These scenes make it clear that at least for a while during that morning, MMMM’s intent had been to flee and escape from the group. She may have had some ambivalence about doing this, but at least up until the time when she made the phone call, it seems pretty obvious that she remained intent on carrying out this escape. However, three hours elapsed between when she made the phone call and when her sister arrived, and the big unknown left for us to decide is, What happened during that 3 hours? We know that the cult members knew where MMMM was during those 3 hours (they had tracked her to the restaurant). We also know that the cult members knew MMMM was a witness to a cold blooded first-degree murder and that her testimony could potentially result in life-in-prison or even the death penalty for some cult members, including the cult leader. And yet, we see her 3 hours later, apparently unharmed, and waiting quietly for her sister to arrive. Now, I suppose it is theoretically possible that the cult just decided, “Oh what the heck, no problem, we’ll just let her go since she feels that way.” If you accept that as a realistic possibility, it probably also allows you to accept State #1; she escapes unharmed physically, but ends up insane as a result of her experiences. However, I have trouble thinking of a way to make this evidence consistent with State #2. Why would the cult let her get away, and potentially spill her guts out to the police now, but then setup some kind of elaborate scheme to come after her and her family weeks or months later. Perhaps in some silly B-grade movie, a screenwriter would use this kind of plot device, a kind of Friday The 13^th type scenario where the villain could have seemingly been killed off long ago, except that would not have allowed the film to keep going on and on and on. But MMMM seems to me to be at least a grade or two above those standards, so I can not see any way to make this evidence consistent with State #2. Another, more realistic, possibility is that what happened during the 3 hour gap was that the cult members found MMMM and “brought her around” before the sister arrived (as the cult leader had done earlier during the bathroom scene after MMMM appeared to be wavering in her solidarity with the group). This possibility would be consistent with State #3.

Some evidence can also perhaps be gleaned from the hug that MMMM gave her sister when she arrived in the car following the desperate phone call. That hug did not strike me as being consistent with State #2; She did not hug her sister as someone might be expected to do if she was frantically relieved to be rescued. The hug was probably consistent with State #1; the minimalist hug of a person with a psychological disorder who really does not like being hugged. However, it is also consistent with State #3; a Judas Kiss hug.

Consider next the scene in which MMMM wets her pants, takes them off and hides them under the mattress in her sister’s guest bedroom. I suppose this scene is probably consistent with all three possible Psychological States, but it is interesting to note its similarity to the cross-cut scene in which a cult member deliberately defiled a salad by spitting in it during a home invasion. Is MMMM perhaps deliberately defiling her sister’s home as part of a ritualistic setup to the upcoming kill?

Consider, finally, all of the aggressive behavior of MMMM towards her sister and brother-in-law. She strips nude in the presence of the brother-in-law, invades the couples private space in the bedroom during marital coitus, kicks the brother-in-law down the stars, informs her potentially pregnant sister that she will be an unfit parent, and gives condescending lectures to the brother-in-law that mock his lifestyle and values. When the brother-in-law has finally had enough, and lectures back, What does MMMM do? She sneaks to the phone and calls the commune. I suppose this set of behaviors is consistent with State #1 – MMMM is simply mentally ill and does and says inappropriate things sometimes. However, I have trouble finding a motivation for that phone call back to the cult that is consistent with an interpretation of State #2 (although the information MMMM received during the phone call, that her friend who had also earlier expressed concerns about the killing is not available to take her call, might reasonably be expected to give rise to State #2 from that point on in the film). But, the most parsimonious explanation for the phone call seems to me to lead to a conclusion of State #3; This is the signal the cult members have been waiting for – time for the kill.

Everyone, of course, has a right to interpret a film any way they wish – it is only a fictional work of art. However, if one wants to make an argument for an interpretation of the film that is most consistent with the evidence presented the film, I would assert that it has to be State #3. We might very well feel some amount of sympathy towards MMMM as a victim because of the events that led her to this final state. The film does not fill in the details of her early life enough for us to know why she initially joined the cult, or what her mental condition was at the time she first entered it, and she was clearly traumatized by what happened to her while she was in the cult. But make no mistake about it, at the point where we peer into MMMM’s eyes in the last scene of the film, what is revealed is a stone eyed predator.

I gave this film a rating of 5 out of 5 stars. Really looking forward to future films by this director/screenwriter.

Ron Boothe

boothe@tacomafilmclub.org