Father Geek here in Central Texas... Our man in Rome, Italy has sent in some reviews from Ol' London...

Black and White

Director: Craig Lahiff; Robert Carlyle, Charles Dance, Kerry Fox, David Ngoobujara, Ben Mendelsohn; 99 mins

Black and White is based on the true story of Max Stuart (David Ngoobujara) an Aboriginal man charged with the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl in the late 1950's. Local hack solicitors David O'Sullivan and Helen Devaney (Robert Carlyle and Kerry Fox) are his lawyers, but with the shocked community's reaction to the crime and the fact that Max is a drifter, high-flying Roderic Chamberlain (Charles Dance) finds it easy to get a guilty verdict.

But O'Sullivan is not convinced; he is sure that the confession was written after Max had been beaten and threatened, but because they have no money to chase any leads or provide any more clues, it looks like Max is going to hang anyway.

Then a young newspaper editor called Rupert Murdoch (Ben Mendesohn) enters the fray - he smells a good story and whips up a media frenzy about the Death Penalty and protests Max's innocence. Issues of race, colonialism and inner-country politics come into play as it becomes a race against time and prejudice to try and convince the High Court and then a Privy Council (the highest authority in the land) that Max is innocent.

An interesting premise, Black and White is ultimately let down by a woefully structured, misdirected and leaden script. We're never quite clear what the story is, or whose story it is - is it O'Sullivan? Max? Murdoch? Chamberlain?

Crucially, the characters don't really convince: our hero O'Sullivan (played well by Carlyle) seems to miss evidence and issues that seem obvious. Maybe that was true at the time, but surely a film would be more involving if it upped the ante and maybe ignored that in order to make the story more engaging.

Also, Kerry Fox - a great actress - is utterly wasted and underused. She has no impact at all and when the pace did eventually pick up as Murdoch entered the story, you realised that was when the film should have started - not just seeing O'Sullivan learning nothing as time after time he blasts his mouth off in court and helps himself lose appeal after appeal.

Ultimately, the case did bring about a change in Legal Aid, but it wasn't really due to O'Sullivan's investigative or court room efforts - it was a political decision based on media pressure - and that's how the story should have been angled.

It's had critical praise on many levels it's an adequate, atmospheric and worthy story, but to me it's a wasted opportunity. It only occasionally veered out of TV movie territory and with this sort of cast involved, they should have done better than that.

The fault lies at the door of the writer (Louis Nowra - who wrote the excellent Navigator some years ago but also bomb K19: Widow Maker) and the director. See the recent Rabbit-Proof Fence for a far superior look at Australia and its relationship with its Aboriginal ancestors.

Bright Young Things

Director: Stephen Fry; Starring: Stephen Campbell Moore, Emily Mortimer, Fenella Woolgar, Michael Sheen, David Tennant, Jim Broadbent, James McAvoy; 106 mins

It's 1930's London and the beautiful people of the day are partying and snorting their way into the gossip pages of all the newspapers. Our hero is Adam (Stephen Campbell Moore) a wannabee writer who is trying to raise enough money to marry Nina (Emily Mortimer). He wins £1000 from Ginger (David Tennant) in a bet, but then gives it to a dubious Major who suggests a cert in a horse race - and then promptly disappears.

Adam's quest to find the Major - and enough money - follows him throughout the story, but it's difficult for him to remain on the straight and narrow because one of the huge group of friends, aristocracy, fat cats and hangers-on always seems to be throwing a party.

It's all super fun (and the bills can always be put off or a rich friend can lend you the money), but when things start to go sour and secret gossip columnist Simon Balcairn (James McAvoy) commits suicide, it seems that we could be seeing the end of the Bright Young Things.

Adapted from the Evelyn Waugh book "Vile Bodies" (originally called Bright Young Things), this film bears obvious comparisons with the celebrity-obsessed world that we live in today, but therein lies its advantages and disadvantages: whilst the 30's looked great fun, the hardest thing they had (or that we see) was cocaine.

Today's celebs - and the audience who idolise them and are being persuaded to go and see this film - are not as shocked by homosexuality or casual drug use as much as the 30's public were and will find the "What ho!" and "Super darling!" dialogue only suitable for parody.

That said, writer/director Fry's script is witty and his direction is pacy, the set-pieces are great and he shows some great touches. The editing is clever too; kind of a mix between modern editing and silent film/newsreel techniques.

The performances from the ensemble cast are also good; each gets a chance to shine, especially Agatha (Fenella Woolgar), the preening Miles (Michael Sheen) and newcomer lead Stephen Campbell Moore, whose matinee looks could bode for a long career. With a host of actors in bit parts or cameo roles (Richard E Grant, Jim Broadbent, Sir John Mills, Stockard Channing, Simon Callow, Imelda Staunton) this has rightly won critical plaudits and will no doubt do well at the BAFTA'S.

Also, Anne Dudley's score (including the hilarious "hymn") harks back to her work on the TV series Jeeves & Wooster (which also starred Fry) and adds real atmosphere to the film.

That said, I am still not sure who the audience is - Waugh fans? Fry? (a best-selling novelist and respected wit in the UK) or modern celebrity worshippers - and overall this advantage/disadvantage is such a heavy weight to bear that the film ends up a rather inconsequential - but very fine - period piece.

James Bartlett

That's all for today

Robert Bernocchi

rob.bernocchi@caltanet.it

http://cinema.caltanet.it/