After two large-scale historical dramas, Mr. Turner (2014) and Peterloo (2018), both of which the club screened, Hard Truths marks a return to a more modern tale. “It seemed very natural to get back to doing contemporary film… you could say it’s my natural habitat,” he said.

“It was certainly about time me and Marianne got back together. We’ve been talking about it for a while.”

They did so: “Because we’re on the same wavelength, we’re friends, and share a sense of humour, we just clicked into place and got on with it.”

Of course, getting on with it is never straightforward for Leigh, “What happens with my films is I say to backers, ‘We can’t tell you anything about [the project] because we don’t know what it is yet, we can’t tell you the cast and you can’t interfere [with it].’ Which means that most backers tell you to get lost.” He pitched one project to the BBC a couple of years back and was rejected because of those strictures.

When he was asked about tonight’s film and the issues of mental health and isolation that it explores he replied by saying: I did not decide that those would be the themes. That is not what happens or happened. We started to investigate these characters, create them and put them together and it slowly grows.”

“Of course, what happens is, as I am in the process of figuring out what the film is, I realize I am tapping into all kinds of preoccupations and experiences. That investigation led to opening up this area of behavior and family dynamic.”

Leigh doesn’t actually write the script himself, but “scripts through rehearsal.” And it leads to moments he admits that he couldn’t sit in a room and script.

Marianne Jean-Baptiste outlined the building of character in an interview prior to release, “On your first day of rehearsal, in isolation with Mike, you come in with a list of people that you know, these might be people you know well or someone that works in a bakery you’ve gone into – they don’t even have to be that interesting! The list gets shortened until you have about five you start merging to build a character. Then you go through from their first memory to the age you’re going to play, year after year.”

And when it’s almost time to start work, there’s one final important element.

“You have the naming ceremony,” said Baptiste. “You pick names and go through them with Mike. Pansy was my first choice with this one.”

After being turned down by a number of film festival Leigh was concerned that, “We’d made a shit film”, but fortunately “Toronto went bonkers about it” and the response has been positive from there.

Leigh believes that, “People will react to [the film] in a whole variety of different ways, according to their own experience of life and all sorts of things, including how perceptive they are or how empathetic they are.”

Approximately a third of viewers responded with written feedback. Over half of those that responded gave it a high score of 4 with a few individuals giving it a lower score and a couple giving it a top score of 5.

Those giving it a lower score were together in the quality of the acting but felt it very much accentuated the downbeat in life. Comments were as, “Superbly acted but ultimately an exploration of dismal routine and locked-in loneliness” and “And they lived unhappily ever after”.

For those giving it a 4 score there was a common thread running through denoting the high quality of the acting in the film. Comments otherwise were nuanced leaving individuals unsure in their reactions but definitely not at ease. They continued, ”Typical Mike Leigh – depressing! Very well acted”, “A very strange film full of mixed emotions & anger” and “what was Mike Leigh trying to say/achieve?” The film contained the full gamut of emotions in this instance, ‘What a wonderful, though at times heartbreaking and depressing, film that was.’

One member thought it a ‘Masterpiece’ and ultimately, ‘A hopeful film’

‘Pansy’s acute pain is finally surpassed by Curtley’s actual pain and she will respond to his silent anguish, I have no doubt that’s what happens…..’

‘A beacon of light for those who have little experience (fortunately) or knowledge of damaged relationships which are left unopened.’

For those that gave it a top score of 5, there was no doubt, “brilliant, brave and beautiful.”

Jesse Eisenberg had been trying to adapt his short story Mongolia into a feature but was struggling. Like tonight’s film it was the story of two young men, college friends in this instance, one grounded, the other impulsive, who travel to East Asia in search of ‘the experience of a lifetime’ and end up at an ecotourism centre. He had got 30 pages into the script and came to the realisation it wasn’t working.

It was at that time, when he was contemplating starting a new project, an advert popped up on his computer which caught his attention, also offering the experience of a lifetime: Auschwitz tours, with lunch.

‘The tour would go through the Holocaust sites of Poland with’, said Eisenberg, ‘all of the creature comforts that an upper middle class American tourist would want. I read the ad with a mix of awe and shock. I thought that was a phenomenal framework to set this movie.’

Eisenberg lives with OCD, a general anxiety disorder and was briefly admitted to a mental hospital as a child and grew up trying to understand what being a third-generation survivor of the Holocaust meant. His parents couldn’t help as they didn’t know anything about their family’s history because their parents had never talked about it.

‘That’s the great irony of our modern pain. We talk about it more than previous generations and feel less of it.’ One of the emerging themes he wanted to explore as the idea developed is the validity of pain across generations and experiences and if and how it can travel down the ages.

Embarking on the project allowed him to further explore the family history, he had started to discover more when he was 18 years old and got to know his dad’s aunt, Doris. She inspired the grandmother character in the film tonight. He admits that he became obsessed with her history because, ‘I felt a certain lack of meaning in my life as I became a professional actor and became celebrated for something that didn’t feel worthy of celebration.’

Eisenberg wrote the film, he says, crying in libraries. “As a third-generation American, I was surrounded by material security, by a kind of jaded New York arts scene, and I felt like I was missing some meaning in my life,” he says. “You can get that by volunteering and trying to alleviate the pain of others, maybe feeling like you’re part of something more important. But my exploration into my family’s history was really just my attempt to get some meaning in my otherwise boring life.”

The experience of writing and shooting of the film, combined with various visits for research appeared to connect him with his Polish lineage, so much so that it led Eisenberg to apply for Polish citizenship which was granted earlier this year, something which he declared as the “honour of a lifetime”.

And he’s delighted that audiences are connecting with the film, ‘People are seeing this as a universal story. It’s not just about American, Jewish and Polish experience, but rather, it’s about being interested in your history to try to explain your present. That makes me so happy.’

Just over a third of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. With one score of 2 the majority of scores were in the mid to upper ranges of 3 and 4. The remainder of the feedback responses submitted (a quarter of all responses) gave it a top score of 5.

The individual that gave it a 2 mark was very certain in their view of the film, “Not very amusing and inconsequential. Irritating piano music score.”

Those giving it a mid-range score of 3 liked it more but only up to a point and with reservations. Comments were, “Well acted, sad story. A man lost in his history”, “Had mixed feelings about this. Beautifully done but somewhat strange” and “Very strange. They didn’t seem at all changed by their experience.”

With those respondents giving it a higher score of 4 there was a sense of having had a more nuanced experience as to what they had seen on the screen. Comments were as “Loved the way the comedy lightened a fabulously emotive story. The concentration camp scenes were excellently depicted. Mixed feelings but overall moved.” and “A very moving and original insight of what it looked like to reach out for your roots.”

Those giving it a top score of 5 and responded with feedback and expressed their real liking of this film. Comments were, “Very well acted. Good history. Very good film.”, “A fabulous film – emotionally a rollercoaster.” and to the point, “The film took me on their journey with them.”

All-in-all, this was a film that those that had provided feedback had not felt to be lightweight but having substance.

Guan Hu is a leading figure in the so-called ‘sixth generation’ of Chinese film directors, who came of age in the early 1990s emerging in the shadow of Tiananmen Square. They were the first set of filmmakers to examine the economic and social transformations happening at that time. Hu’s debut, Dirt, was released in 1994 and set around the growing rock music scene in Beijing. Though most of the sixth-generation films didn’t receive state funding or backing, Hu paid nearly $2000 to gain state studio affiliation, allowing the film to be distributed in China and screened abroad. He seemingly knew how to play the game as in the plot a character’s choice to have a child rather than an abortion has been seen by some film critics and scholars to have played a part in why the film received official permission to be screened abroad, in contrast to a similarly themed film named Beijing Bastards.

More recently he directed one of China’s biggest ever budgeted films, The Eight Hundred, set during the early days of the Second Sino-Japanese War, which was fought just ahead of the WWII, when the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Shanghai. He’d been preparing the film for 10 years and had a huge cityscape consisting of 68 buildings built, most of which went on to be blown up judging by the trailer.

Black Dog is his tenth feature as a director, but this isn’t the first film based around an animal, in 2009 he wrote and directed Cow, a black comedy, set around the time of The Eight Hundred where a villager cares and protects said cow from soldiers and bandits after a Japanese attack leaves him and the cow as the only survivors.

Guan says that he always wanted to make Black Dog, not least because of his love for his German shepherds. “I have dogs myself, and I spend time with them whenever I have any spare. Spending time with them inspired me to make this kind of film.”

He also wanted to show some of the tremendous change China has gone through over the past few decades using 2008 to represent that change. “With Black Dog, I wanted to explore what happened in these small remote places during those times. I felt that these distant towns [near the Gobi Desert] were very symbolic in their own way. In the 1960s, they were very prosperous places. But now they have no resources, almost all of the people have left, and the only thing that remains are the buildings.”

That contrast Guan is apparently trying to capture within the film is the “unparalleled pride” of the Olympics, but also the “immense sorrow” of the Wenchuan earthquake, which struck in May of that year, killing nearly 70,000 people.

“The biggest challenge was patience,” says Guan, of the experience of working with a canine cast. “Even if we rehearsed for a long time, and things were going well, once we were on set the animals could get tired or annoyed, and may not perform as well as we imagined, or even worse than in training.”

For Guan, the film is as much about communication as it is about companionship. Black Dog is his attempt to portray the “indescribable” communication between man and dog “that doesn’t require words.. …The dog isn’t just a pet. He acts as a character – an extension of [Lang’s] own lonely soul.”

Just under a third of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. With a few mid-range scores of 3 and also a few top scores of 5, the great majority of respondents gave it a very good score of 4.

A few individuals made written comments but declined to allocate a score. Their comments included the terms, “spellbound” and “I got carried away.”

Of those that had scored it, those giving it a mid-range 3 score liked it and especially praised the cinematography. They described it as “extraordinary” and “enigmatic” but “not sure I understood it!”

Those giving it a high-end 4 score had, by their comments, felt fully drawn into the interior emotional life of the story. Comments reflected this with examples such as, “A film full of pathos and far remote from life in Beijing”, “A long slow film, but a test of a completely different world that is about to radically change, is it true I ask?” and “Amazing story of a beautiful friendship between a man and his dog.”

Those giving it a top 5 score very much liked it and expressed this in their enthusiasm.  Comments ranged from, “Amazing!”, “Really enjoyed it!” to “Deeply moving” and “Very unusual film. Lots to think about.”

All-in-all, this was a film that everybody that provided feedback found engaging to watch and many greatly enjoyed, even if they had to struggle with parts of it.

Pedro Almodóvar said that he was ‘hooked’ by the novel on which tonight’s film is based. His original plan was to make a short but soon felt it should be a feature film, however, “From the moment that I got past that point of the proposal, I never went back to the novel.”

What was it that attracted him to the story? “I think of mortality almost every day. It’s something that I’m very concerned about. I ask myself, how many movies will I do? I’d like to keep on making movies for the rest of my life. So, how many years are ahead of me?”

Whereas Pain and Glory, which the club screened in 2019, explored illness and aging, The Room Next Door goes a little further. “The older I’ve gotten, the more I have experienced things like pain that I didn’t use to experience in my youth, so I have begun to approach the topic from a dramatic vantage point. [I used to be] more excited by pleasure or crazy things or living intensely.”

There are perhaps other indications of Almodóvar’s maturing within this film, “The look is more restrained, contained,” he said. “I didn’t want to make melodramatic sequences or be very sentimentalist. So, when you speak of mortality, it’s easy to fall towards melodrama. I didn’t want to lean in that direction. I wanted to remain contained and austere.”

As for the language, Almodóvar has always used formal Spanish in his films, therefore, “I was very concerned about the English,” he said. There was no question of the language being anything other than English, “The characters are American, so they should be speaking English,” he stated. “My films have never been naturalistic. I have never aspired to the mumbling or babbling or pausing or some of those things that happen in regular language. I like my language to be concentrated and precise. In Spanish, it has worked well.”

His approach and understanding of English did cause issues, both Swinton and Moore argued with him about some of the lines. “Sometimes they told me, ‘Pedro, I think this line, it will sound much better in this way,’” “They would say to me, ‘This particular phrase… ..it sounds a little too literary. And it’s not colloquial.’ Even though I explained to them that I don’t use colloquial language, they insisted. I listened to them, and I did change a couple of phrases. I couldn’t compare my English with their English. And I finally had to give in and change the language a bit.”

Although he might not have been in full control of the language and dialogue, he remained in control of the look of the film, “I didn’t want the story to be necessarily a sad story or a boring story, I wanted death to also be vibrant and alive. It is part of Tilda’s character’s vitality that she decides to take death into her own hands. I wanted this vitality to be visible, which is why they’re in a beautiful place, surrounded by nature, surrounded by colorful furniture with the reds and the greens”

“Vibrant colors are part of my authorial signature, and even though I wanted to be contained in the narrative visually, I will always turn to colour.”

Very nearly a half of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. With a few respondents giving it a low score of 2 or 3, about four-fifths gave it top scores of 4 or 5 with comments to match.

For those giving it a medium score it was felt that was well-acted but far too down-beat.  Such views were reflected in comments as, “Too gloomy for my liking, long and drawn-out -well-acted.”  Views also noted the screen relationship between the two central woman leads as showing, “the power of female friendship” whilst reflecting Director Almodóvar ‘s, “preoccupation with death.”

With the high scores of 4 and 5, the comments focused more on the wider aspects of the film.  A number of respondents described the film as “Thought provoking”.  There were comments such as, “Important theme well-done and rarely covered” and “…dealing with topical difficult subject.”  There was a strain of comment that focused on the two lead characters and how they were differently perceived and highlighted by the following comment, that, “A well-made film…The suicide’s [Tilda Swinton] total selfishness truly exceptional.  The friend [Julianne Moore] was the opposite.”

With this caveat, the rest of the top scores echoed that it had been very thought provoking with a number of comments drawing specific focus on the way the director Pedro Almodovar had photographed the film – and the conclusion “beautiful”.

For those that had contributed feedback, this was a film that had been watched and had left an impact.

Pablo Larraín says that he was ‘very lucky’ as an eight-year-old boy because his parents had season tickets for the opera house in Santiago, so he saw not only opera, but ballet and classical music being performed too. He still goes there to see productions with his mother some forty years later. He says that, “I think I know more about music than movies,” “It’s my life. I have this fascination toward the exercise of music as the ultimate poetic act.” As he became a teenager he got more interested in rock and pop music but when he became a filmmaker, he returned to classical forms of music stating that, ‘Most of what contemporary film score music is comes from the opera composers who had to compose dramatic music.’

That early passion, in part, drew him to make Maria. As part of his research, he read nine books about her and watched every documentary and interview he could find. He admitted after having done all of that, “I had no idea who she was,”

After meeting and talking with Steven Knight, the writer of Peaky Blinders and Rogue Heroes amongst other things, they embarked on the project together: “It was quite scary in the beginning, to be honest with you, because there are so few movies about opera and opera singers and the opera world… …But we took the chance.”

Angelina Jolie admitted that she ‘knew some’ of Callas’ music but much of the script and process was a ‘discovery’ for her. ‘It was daunting’ She admitted, ‘ At first, I really didn’t understand opera, so I was naive enough to think that I was just going to take singing classes.. ..Then it became very clear to me that you really can’t fake opera, and that I was going to actually have to learn how to sing.’ Prior to shooting she trained for two months on posture and breathing, then another four months practicing specifically for the performances in the film. During the actual filming she trained for another two hours a day leading up to the Anna Bolena scene at La Scala.

You would imagine that Larrain and Jolie, in reproducing some of Callas’ performances, that they would be aiming for perfection but that wasn’t something Callas herself aimed for.

“This idea of perfection is exactly what she didn’t do. There’s something that’s unrepeatable about what she did’ says Larrain.

‘It was the live recordings that meant most to her’, says Larrain, ‘Not those in a studio… …Even those recorded by the audience in their seats.’ He mentions that she followed the populist bel canto tradition, not the form and attitude, that he attributes to the Germans, which has made opera, ‘Elitist, $500 seats kind of shows.’

And it appears that it was this tension between her approach and the critics’ perception of how an Opera should be that Larraín has mined as part-inspiration for the film.

‘If this movie,’ he says, ‘Can make one person, five, ten, one million, or whatever it is, interested in opera, then I feel that we will have succeeded in a very beautiful way, because we’re trying to put opera where it belongs, back to the masses.’

Just under a third of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. Only a third of the total gave it a score under 5 and of those the majority gave it a 4 mark. The rest gave it a top mark of 5.

Those giving it a score below 5 were still very much engaged positively by the strength of the film and the central performance of Angelina Jolie as Maria Callas. Comments were as, “Excellent. Loved it.”, “Bit confusing and jumped around, but quite good (…) Bit difficult to follow.” and “A haunting well performed tragic opera in its own right. Angelina was a Tour de Force”.

Those giving it a top ranking of 5 were wall-to-wall fulsome in their praise of Jolie in her depiction of Callas in the film’s central role and also of the film itself. Comments were, “Angelina Jolie carried the Film throughout. She was perfect in the role”, “Thoroughly enjoyed. Only film can deal with past & present so well. A. J. excellent.” and “Brilliant film – haunting – glorious music – superb acting – stage sets lovely.”

From those that had provided feedback this was a film that had all that had seen it had greatly enjoyed.

Small Things like These started out as a short story told from the point of view of a boy. One who accompanies his father on his coal delivery rounds and finds another boy, of a similar age, locked in the coal shed of a boarding school. His father delivers, locks the door then goes on to make the next delivery, nothing is said.

As the writer Claire Keegan fleshed out the narrative the coalman’s point of view took over and she became preoccupied with how he would carry this knowledge around with him and the resulting book developed from there.

Cillian Murphy, like many others, appreciates Keegan’s work though it appears that it was his wife who suggested it. When he and the director Tim Mielants were looking for material it was Murphy’s wife who waved the book in front of them saying, “You should do this.” They assumed the rights to the novel wouldn’t be available but they were and Murphy had “An inkling it could be very cinematic.”

Given his current success one might have assumed that he would gravitate to bigger budget projects, but Murphy was determined to make this film. “We were already trying to get Small Things off the ground and then Oppenheimer came along,” he said. “The scale of any project is secondary – it’s always about the quality of the writing.”

This is the first feature production from Murphy’s production company and was financed by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s company. The connection was made when Murphy and Damon were cast together in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer.

Murphy, approaching his 50s, said that he sees himself with, “A foot in both versions of Ireland: the very conservative, very religious Ireland that existed up to about 20 years ago, and then now the very progressive, liberal country that we have today. So I kind of recognize both worlds.”

“It’s a very seemingly simple story, but, in fact, it’s really, really complex on a personal level for the characters, but also on a social and political level, I think, for the country.”

“Art is a gentler way to look at these traumatic events,” he’s said, as opposed to “commissions or reports that nobody reads.”

Murphy had worked with Tim Mielants on tv programme Peaky Blinders and wanted to find a way team up with him again. “He’s a real artist and is extraordinary with actors. I also liked the fact that he’s Belgian, not Irish. If you look back at a lot of the great Irish films of the last 20 years, many are made by directors who are not from Ireland. With a film like this, it was important to have some distance from the subject.”

The film has prompted conversations in the audience after the film ends. “The beauty of the movie is that it really starts when the film ends,” Murphy explained. “That’s when the real story starts, and it’s caused an awful lot of discussion, not just in Ireland, but everywhere it’s been shown. And I’m really proud of that.”

Just over a third of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. There were scores in all values. A few respondents gave it low scores of 1 or 2.  However, the remaining four-fifths of respondents split evenly on their marking with equal thirds of them giving it a score of 3, 4 or 5.

Those giving it a low score below 3 were somewhat underwhelmed by the film and gave comments as, “very gloomy” and “Disappointing! There’s slow and slow”.

Those giving it a 3 score observed the measured pace of the film and felt it was also, “too slow” and akin to “watching paint dry”. The cultural circumstances of where it was set and the time and the perceived darkness of both were specifically noted by more than one respondent.

Those giving it a 4 score were as taken by the emotions yet felt more nuanced by the work as a whole. Comments made were as, “Haunting and thought provoking”, “Understated & powerful re-telling of known facts.” and “Cillian Murphy carried the movie – very poignant & traumatising. Very sad.”

Respondents that had given it a top 5 score and left written feedback were as deeply taken up by the context and emotions of the film as other respondents. There were also comments made as to the technical excellence of the film with comments as, “A wonderful film. Particularly enjoyed the cinematography + lighting as well as the acting.” and “Beautifully shot.”. One respondent summed up what the evening had meant for them, “This is why I come to film club! Challenging & gripping (but an awfully clean coalman).”

From those that had provided feedback this was a film that had touched emotions and not just on the surface.

Tonight’s film is based on a 2010 play of the same name by the film’s co-screenwriter, Mark St. Germain. He got the initial inspiration from a book, The Question of God by a Harvard University psychiatrist named Armand Nicholi, which was published in 2002 and compared Freud and Lewis’ writings on questions of faith and human nature.

In the last chapter, Nicoli mentioned that a young Oxford don had visited Freud before his death and he thought that by placing these two men in a room together and dramatising their differences he could have the makings of a play.

It was first performed in 2009 and St. Germain said that he personally received a very positive reaction. He’s told of one letter he was sent from a couple who had recently seen it, ‘One was staunchly in Freud’s camp — any belief in God is a foolish thing — the other more in Lewis’ camp. They went to dinner afterward and found out they had totally reversed their opinions.’

The script was written over the course of six years but the director, and co-writer, Matthew Brown wasn’t initially keen. After finishing The Man Who Knew Infinity, a biopic about the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, he said that he was, ‘Ready to run for the hills.’ and when the idea was first suggested about making this film he was quite adamant. ‘No, no, no,’ he said, ‘My father’s a psychiatrist, it was just so close to [home].’ But it was the underlying themes that drew him back.

Brown has noted that a film about a reasoned exchange between people with opposing views is arriving at a significant time. “People are afraid of conversation,” he said. “We’re all in our different tribes. And what was so great about this is you had two of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and the idea that the two of them would come together and really want to battle it out and talk about it, and with respect at the same time.”

The film also takes on and addresses other aspects of the two men’s lives, with regards to Freud, it’s Anna, his daughter, and Dorothy, it’s ‘Something that nobody wanted to ever, ever address or talk about,’ said Brown. ‘Even today, it’s not something that’s not really well known.’ And it’s the same for Lewis, who of course Anthony Hopkins played in Shadowlands in 1993, and his relationship with Janie Moore. “If you want to know anything about these people,’ said Brown, ‘Then you probably should know the truth, because it’s who they are.’

A fifth of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. The lowest score given was 1. With a few mid-range scores of 3 and also a few top scores of 5, the great majority of respondents gave it a very good score of 4.

The respondent giving it a low score of 1 was very much of the opinion that it was very much “not my cup of tea”. There were no 2 scores.

Those giving it a mid-range 3 score could see its worth as cinema but to themselves, felt it had limitations. Comments were, “Well acted but quite indulgent, Not really anything you’d watch twice” and “Superficial dealing with both psychoanalysis and religion but a gripping story superbly acted despite [the] limitations of the script”.

Those giving it a 4 score felt fully engaged by the intellectual atmosphere of the film and the idea of the nature of God and of God’s existence as argued for and against by these two heavy duty intellects. Several comments used terms such as, “Educational”, “Thought provoking”, “imaginative” and “A superbly scripted and acted intellectual skirmish”.

Respondents that had given it a top 5 score and left written feedback were fulsome in their praise of the quality of the film, both of the acting (commented on throughout the feedback) and of the way and depth that the subject matter was addressed. One comment encapsulated this as, “Both characters brilliantly portrayed. Film kept moving and portrayed many aspects of the subject. Food for thought for both arguments and much to ponder”.

From those that had provided feedback this was clearly a film that individuals had grappled with and found the exercise worth doing.

Colman Jason Domingo was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1969 and has moved onto the screen exclusively it now seems after having maintained a successful screen and stage career which began in the 90s. He’s won awards in both mediums, an Emmy for television, two Tony Awards and in 2014 earnt himself a nomination for an Olivier Award for reprising his role as Mr. Bones in the Broadway musical The Scottsboro Boys.

Early roles in television in the Law & Order tv series were balanced with numerous Shakespeare productions before the move to Broadway and roles in the 2005 play Well, the 2008 rock musical Passing Strange and the aforementioned The Scottsboro Boys.

Generally perceived as a respected character actor opportunities had seemingly dried up to such an extent  that he had thought about quitting acting before he was cast as Victor Strand in over 70 episodes of the tv series Fear the Walking Dead which started in 2015 and ended last year, the series was the companion to The Walking Dead, the hit series set in a zombified America. That was his breakthrough role and he subsequently went on to win that Emmy as a recovering drug addict in the HBO series Euphoria which brought him real prominence. He’s also the lead in a Netflix series, The Madness, which was released a fortnight ago and due to play the father of Michael Jackson in a forthcoming biopic.

Domingo wasn’t aware of rehabilitation programme prior to being contacted by the filmmakers, “I was hooked not only by the idea of it, but their [the producer and director’s] passion for it. I felt like they want to be in service to the stories that I think are very important, yet very marginalized.”

The story is based on an Esquire magazine article by John H. Richardson who in 2005 heard about a rehabilitation programme where prisoners were using acting to understand themselves. What he witnessed jarred his moral compass. “Watching killers sing and dance is an odd thing,” he said.

That juxtaposition intrigued Domingo also, ‘The RTA programme creates a tender space to have all these feelings and do all this deep soul work in a dangerous environment. I thought that was an act of revolution.’

Not only that: ‘My heart is connected to this story,’ he’s said, ‘Because I am a Black man in this world who could be wrongly accused of a crime and end up in one of these institutions… ….It’s really uncomfortable for me to watch the film because it taps into something so deep within me.’

Richardson noticed the vulnerability displayed as the prisoners sought validation and a sense of pride for their efforts which Domingo felt he had to explore: ‘I had to pour more of myself into this role than I think I ever have,’ he admits. ‘I realised I had to bring my own vulnerability, my own fears of being incarcerated and having my dreams deferred. I literally put myself into this man’s shoes.’

My hope is for people to understand that there should be no fear going into this film, because it doesn’t suffer from the tropes of a prison movie. Sing Sing is not a prison movie. It’s a movie about our better angels and how we can find light in dark places. It’s about the human spirit and having faith in something.

Just on a third of the audience filled out and returned a Feedback form. The lowest score given was 1. The great majority of respondents gave higher scores with the 5-score accruing more than the rest of the other scores combined.

Those giving it a low score of 1 and 2 were very much of the opinion that it was very much not their sort of film. Comments were that it was, ‘very boring’ and ‘too long and drawn out’ and ‘Quite unbelievable in many ways’.

Those giving it a mid-range 3 score felt they gained from watching it but were qualified in their feelings towards it. Comments were as, ‘Need to see it again. Good to enter a different world’ and ‘Well acted and interesting film but rather slow’.

Those giving it 4 were taken with the emotion of the story in the lives of the men involved. Feedback was of the type, ‘Very moving. Full of hope’ and ‘An interesting look at sadness and joy. And the creative spirit’.

Respondents that had given it a top 5 score and left written feedback were full-on in their positive engagement with this film and what they came away with from having watched it.  Two comments that sum up these emotional responses are, ‘So good to see men opening up to each other, and importantly to themselves too. A brilliantly crafted film’ and ‘A powerful superbly acted story of hope’s triumph over adversity and despair’.

Clearly: this was a Film Club presentation that for those, that had watched it and provided a written response in feedback, had felt their evening to have had point and focus.

Michael Winterbottom began his career working in British television before moving into features.

After starting in the cutting room his television directing career began in 1989 with a documentary about Ingmar Bergman and he went onto make everything from children’s television shows, made-for-TV films, period detective dramas and possibly, most notably, the pilot episode for Jimmy McGovern’s Cracker.

He moved onto feature films in 1995 averaging a film or project a year since and had two films competing for the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival within four years of his debut. His first American studio film in 2002 was not a success, The Claim was filmed in Canada in which he got frostbite during shooting to compound the experience.

He returned to the UK and made 24 Hour Party People about the creation of Factory Records and the Manchester music scene to great success and used that springboard to make perhaps the most eclectic range of films that a British director has yet pursued, he relocated Tess of the D’Urbervilles to India, made a science fiction love story about genetic compatibility, a film about the plight of refugees in Pakistan, adapted an American 1950s pulp novel and made the most sexually explicit film ever to receive a general release in the UK amongst others and also returned to documentaries investigating the economy and Palestine and wove documentary styles and aspects into dramas about Guantanamo Bay and life on the road with rock band Wolf Alice.

He also found time to make four series of The Trip with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, travelling around Europe whilst trying to best one another with their Michael Caine impressions.

The idea for Shoshana began when Winterbottom visited the Jerusalem Film Festival in 2008 and he read a book called One Palestine, Complete, by Tom Segev about the British Mandate era. He didn’t know anything about the history and thought “It seemed like a really interesting time” so he started researching it.

Getting this project onto the screen has, “been a long process,” he said. The initial idea was to explore the period from the viewpoint of the British as an occupying power. Then after finding the story of Shoshana and Tom he said the project, “Became a kind of classic love story.”

He was also inspired by Graham Greene’s The Quiet American in using a love story to paint “a really vivid picture of colonialism.”….  “Through Tom and Shoshana, you could see the way in which the bigger political forces, bigger historical forces, the conflict itself, impacted people’s lives,” he stated.

It nearly got off the ground in 2010 under the title Promised Land but Winterbottom recognised there being nervousness being attached to the subject matter. He wonders if it only got made now because, “There’s a sense that you’re either my enemy or you’re my friend. That’s what the central strand of the film is about. It’s about the way in which political violence or political extremism can drive people apart, and maybe that seemed more relevant now than it did when we first started.”

How does he feel about the film now, in light of recent events? “In some ways, I think it’s more relevant now,” he said. “If you want to have a moral for the film… political violence is bad. Political violence destroys people – and drives people apart. To have a political argument and be able to disagree with someone and try and find a way through… that is what the film is about.”

Just under a third of the audience filled out and returned a Feedback form. The lowest score given was 2 and the great majority of respondents gave higher scores with the top 4 and 5 scores comprising almost all of the total response.

Of the 2 scores, it was clear that the respondents had not enjoyed the film. Comments were, “Rather long and repetitive” and “Unpleasantly violent”.

A few gave it a middle score of 3 and saw its cinematic value but again felt there response was split between approval and distress and expressed with a comment such as, “Very well acted. Troubling, confusing. Amazing scenery”.

Those giving it a 4 score had fully taken on board the circumstances of the time of the film and its turmoil and reflected these in their comments. These were, such as, “An extremely powerful film with such brutality. A sadness. And so it continues…”, “Powerful, moving, thought provoking. Brilliant acting.” and “It was very violent but showed the situation and that it hasn’t improved to this day.”

Those giving it a top mark of 5, in their comments were, as well, also totally aware of the turmoil of the events of the time and circumstances as shown on screen. In their comments several individuals described the film as, “Excellent”. Two respondents summed up the feeling of this group about the film in the following comments, “Very good film, but very difficult to watch. Shocking.” and “I knew it was not going to be jolly. No one wins?!”.

Once again, this was a Film Club presentation that for those, that had watched and given feedback, had had a definite emotional reaction to and gave a response towards.

Michael Winterbottom began his career working in British television before moving into features.

After starting in the cutting room his television directing career began in 1989 with a documentary about Ingmar Bergman and he went onto make everything from children’s television shows, made-for-TV films, period detective dramas and possibly, most notably, the pilot episode for Jimmy McGovern’s Cracker.

He moved onto feature films in 1995 averaging a film or project a year since and had two films competing for the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival within four years of his debut. His first American studio film in 2002 was not a success, The Claim was filmed in Canada in which he got frostbite during shooting to compound the experience.

He returned to the UK and made 24 Hour Party People about the creation of Factory Records and the Manchester music scene to great success and used that springboard to make perhaps the most eclectic range of films that a British director has yet pursued, he relocated Tess of the D’Urbervilles to India, made a science fiction love story about genetic compatibility, a film about the plight of refugees in Pakistan, adapted an American 1950s pulp novel and made the most sexually explicit film ever to receive a general release in the UK amongst others and also returned to documentaries investigating the economy and Palestine and wove documentary styles and aspects into dramas about Guantanamo Bay and life on the road with rock band Wolf Alice.

He also found time to make four series of The Trip with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, travelling around Europe whilst trying to best one another with their Michael Caine impressions.

The idea for Shoshana began when Winterbottom visited the Jerusalem Film Festival in 2008 and he read a book called One Palestine, Complete, by Tom Segev about the British Mandate era. He didn’t know anything about the history and thought “It seemed like a really interesting time” so he started researching it.

Getting this project onto the screen has, “been a long process,” he said. The initial idea was to explore the period from the viewpoint of the British as an occupying power. Then after finding the story of Shoshana and Tom he said the project, “Became a kind of classic love story.”

He was also inspired by Graham Greene’s The Quiet American in using a love story to paint “a really vivid picture of colonialism.”….  “Through Tom and Shoshana, you could see the way in which the bigger political forces, bigger historical forces, the conflict itself, impacted people’s lives,” he stated.

It nearly got off the ground in 2010 under the title Promised Land but Winterbottom recognised there being nervousness being attached to the subject matter. He wonders if it only got made now because, “There’s a sense that you’re either my enemy or you’re my friend. That’s what the central strand of the film is about. It’s about the way in which political violence or political extremism can drive people apart, and maybe that seemed more relevant now than it did when we first started.”

How does he feel about the film now, in light of recent events? “In some ways, I think it’s more relevant now,” he said. “If you want to have a moral for the film… political violence is bad. Political violence destroys people – and drives people apart. To have a political argument and be able to disagree with someone and try and find a way through… that is what the film is about.”

Just under a third of those attending provided written feedback. Without exception, all respondents thought very highly of this film. Of the total of all received responses, one third gave it a 4 score and all the remaining two-thirds of respondents gave it a top score of 5.

Those giving it a 4 score were as much engaged by the Director (Ken Loach) and his worldview as by the film itself. Comments were such as, “Hard hitting as ever any other Ken Loach film and thought-provoking”, “Ken Loach tackles such difficult subjects with empathy. Good acting too!” and more generally, “Very depressing!  Powerful and well-acted”. However, alongside this there was a caveat that the ending was “[A] bit too ‘idyllic’ and even, “If only? A nice bit of social realism but unfortunately a fantasy”.

All those giving it a 5 top score very much endorsed the sentiments expressed by those giving it a 4 mark. As with those views; the power of the film, its subject matter and its narrative on screen, had been clearly equally experienced by these respondents.  Comments made were, such as, “Brilliant – if a bit idealistic!”, “Balanced – showing pain of local people as well as refugees – Hopeful” and “Amazing – moving, emotional, thought provoking – An excellent choice”.

All-in-all, across all respondents there was a uniform sense (with caveats) that this was a very solid piece of cinema containing profound meaning and which stated something of importance about the reality of the human experience.

As the daughter of a famous director, and as someone who found herself in the spotlight, Sofia Coppola was both engrossed and sympathetic when reading Priscilla Presley’s memoir Elvis & Me whilst on a holiday. So moved by it was she that she approached Priscilla to ask her about adapting it as a film.

“I’m always interested in stories about identity and how people become who they are,” said Coppola, “I am fascinated by the image of a dream on the outside and a nightmare on the inside.”

Coppola recognised that that she might be repeating themes she’d explored in Marie Antoinette made in 2006, which was released to mixed reviews at the time but has undergone some reassessment of late. “I was aware of the similarity to both stories,” Coppola said in an interview, “I asked myself if it’s maybe even too similar to Marie Antoinette, but this one felt new and different. Priscilla drives her own story where Marie Antoinette doesn’t.”

It was also the first time she’d made a film about a real person, living history if you like: I had to think not only about how to express myself, but also about the responsibility to tell her story as she saw fit. But I feel like she really gave me enough freedom to make my film. She told me her story, but she never came to the set – she really wanted me to make my film.

Not all of the Presley’s wanted the film to go ahead though, two weeks before filming began Priscilla and Elvis’ daughter, Lisa Marie, sent two emails complaining that the screenplay characterised Elvis as “a predator and manipulative”, and that this was a result of Coppola’s “shockingly vengeful and contemptuous perspective”. She continued: “As his daughter, I don’t read this and see any of my father in this character, I feel protective over my mother who has spent her whole life elevating my father’s legacy. I am worried she doesn’t understand the intentions behind this film or the outcome it will have.” Coppola acknowledged that in movie terms she could have made Elvis the ‘bad guy’ but she said, “I wanted her [Priscilla] to feel comfortable with this film. I also tried not to make him the villain but show him through her eyes. How she saw him and remembers him.”

Coppola did reply to Lisa Marie writing, “I hope that when you see the final film you will feel differently and understand I’m taking great care in honouring your mother, while also presenting your father with sensitivity and complexity.” Lisa Marie never got to see the final film as she died soon after filming finished, at 54 years old.

Coming from a photographic background Coppola has sometimes accused of being detached from her subject matter, she admits to being visually driven and aims to create an atmosphere that supports the emotion of the story but perhaps that ‘distance’ comes more from her not being judgmental of her characters:

“I do like movies where things aren’t all spelled out. I really just wanted to show this experience through her eyes, and then let the audience take it in however it affects them. It’s tricky, because you don’t want to be condoning things.”, “And I think you present things to an audience for them to think about and make their own decisions.”

For what it’s worth Coppola was relieved when Priscilla saw the film and was moved by it, “In the end, she told me: this is what my life looked like.”

Just under a half of the audience filled in and returned a Feedback form. All scores were 3 and above. Of those that had contributed, just over half gave it a 3 score and of the remainder, half of those gave it a 4 score and the rest awarded it a 5 top score.

Those giving it a middle 3 ranking found it generally too slow paced but still picked upon the emotion, especially with regard to the central character of Priscilla herself. Comments were, “A very sad but moving film rather slow”, “Poignant side to that Elvis story. Priscilla like a caged bird” and “What a lifestyle. How could a young girl resist that approach. But she was groomed.”

For those giving it a 4 score there were comments on the well-acted nature of the piece.  Comments were such as, “Totally engrossed – so well-crafted to tell such a sad story”, “It opens up a whole new view on an icon that was idealised by many” were representative of those responding that felt it showed the larger picture of Elvis’s life and the bubble in which he lived.

Those several respondents giving it a top score of 5 were much taken by it and precisely that the story was told through the eyes of Priscilla herself.  Comments were such as, “Great to see it from Priscilla’s point of view. And focused on her not him”, “A sad fairy tale. I wished she had left him earlier. Priscilla was his plaything. Priscilla beautifully acted.”  One respondent made specific reference to the Film’s Director, Sofia Coppola, “Very sensitive director.”

All-in-all, a film that the audience weren’t overwhelmingly enthusiastic about but still veered to the positive on having watched it.