The director of tonight’s film, Akinola Davies Jr., left Nigeria aged 12 or 13, and states that because he left at that age, there is a part of him that wants to romanticise the country, “That’s always stayed with me – I want to cater to my younger self,” he’s admitted. My Father’s Shadow has allowed him to in part do that: Cinematically, children give you permission to dream, to make, I wouldn’t say magical realism, I’d say supernatural drama. A child’s perspective allows you to go into dreamlike vignettes, since kids are so curious about everything.

As a younger man he wanted to get into the film industry but not necessarily as a director, “I wanted to be involved in filmmaking originally as an editor. At college, my best friend’s father was an editor, and they lived a bohemian life. I wanted their family life for myself, and I thought if I could do what his father did, I could have a similar existence.”

He started to assist on music videos, initially as a runner and began to work his way up and started making music videos for friends who were trying to break into the fashion and music. When he directed a video for an experimental British Nigerian artist called Klein he started to believe that he could do the job professionally himself and for the last decade has been making music videos and adverts for luxury labels such as Gucci and Louis Vitton.

He wasn’t aware that his older brother Wale, a writer, had written a first draft of what would become tonight’s film and was surprised that “completely unprompted” he sent it to him. “I had a big emotional reaction to it,” said Davies Jr. “We didn’t know our father. We’ve always had to live in his shadow… …[Wale] has always idolised our father, whereas I’m the opposite, I was angry with my father for dying, even though he died of natural causes.”

It’d started as an exercise for Wale after watching an episode of Oprah, where guests were charged to write a letter to a deceased family member. “I never really got to meet my father, so there’s always been this projection back to me of who he is. So, effectively, I’ve always had to live in his shadow because I’m named after him.”

After making an award-winning short film alongside his brother Davies Jr. felt that if he only ever got to make one feature film he wanted it to be in service to his family, “We remember the hopes and dreams of our mother’s generation, and how, as quickly as those hopes and dreams came with this maverick politician, who everybody was excited to become the father of a country. We realised on the one hand, we’re telling a story of father and sons on a micro level. But on the other hand, we’re telling a story of nationhood. Those two things balance each other out.”

Reaction to the film has been very positive, in terms of awards and in responses especially amongst the Nigerian diaspora. “So many people have watched the film and are yearning to go back home, yearning to have more of a relationship with Nigeria. The film has transported people back to [a] Nigeria that they’ve long abandoned.”

“For the older generation, it’s been very cathartic, because they aren’t used to talking about their experiences of what happened. We hope that we can continue to foster that conversation and continue to have dialogue and intergenerational dialogue at that.”

Just under 4 out of 10 persons contributed feedback whilst marking the film with a score.  Two other persons provided written feedback but did not provide a numerical score.

One person had not cared at all for the film. They gave it a minimal score of 1 and expressed their rationale very clearly, “A patronising dud. Poor acting and a badly presented story line. Very amateurish”.

Of the rest of those that provided feedback, there were scores of about a third each for the mid to top scores of 3 to 5. Those giving it a mid-range 3 mark were varied in their comments. One person noted, “…how lucky we are to live in a peaceful country!” Another respondent was much taken with the, “…FAB picture of LAGOS’s LIFE!” Other mid-range scorers picked up on the emotion inherent in the film but appreciated it more than liked it.

Those giving it a 4 higher score were very engaged by the setting the story was in and the immersive sense of the culture and of the main characters of the family in the film and what they all went through. Comments to this effect were, “Real sense of Nigeria – vibrant & chaotic.” and “An emotional watch. Insight into Nigeria…and family life. Excellent cinematography. Wonderful music.”

Those giving it a top 5 score were drawn in fully to the emotion of the film and especially the relationship between the Father and his two sons. Comments made included “very moving”, “emotional” and for the film itself, “did not want it to end”.

A film, that, for those that provided feedback, had impact.

Richard Linklater’s relationship with the film that inspires tonight presentation goes back 45 years. When asked about the first French New Wave film he watched it was indeed, Breathless, “My dad took me to see it at a local university in the early Eighties when I was about 20 and just getting interested in cinema. I liked it but didn’t really understand it.” He hadn’t seen much international cinema back then but went onto say: “The second time I saw it, I realised what was going on.”

The University drop-out, who worked for a while on an oil rig, then started the Austin Film Society so he could show the films he wanted to see and, in the spring of 1988, screened 17 Godard films.

The New Wave movement made a huge impact on him: It was very influential immediately, I don’t think there’s ever been anything quite like it. With all the spontaneity and improv, the filmmakers were like great jazz musicians. Their films are the prototype for what we now call indie cinema or personal cinema. This revolution lowered the [narrative] stakes. Up to that point, a film had to be a big story in a genre: a musical, a melodrama, an epic… No one made a film about three days in the life of some kid, a film about some guy walking around.

After the French New Wave, you could make a film about anything – a trip you took, a love affair. Film, to me, became about freedom and personal expression. By the time I picked up a camera, I had incorporated that idea into my thinking. The debt I, and every generation since, owes to those filmmakers is pretty substantial.

Nouvelle Vague took Linklater back to the beginning of his career, namely 1990’s Slacker, his debut film, which follows an ensemble cast of eccentric and misfit locals through a single day. “I had my own radical first film, a film no-one understood, unconventionally scripted, hard to explain — it was my American indie version of Breathless” Slacker is now regarded as an Indie classic.

“I tell people I was 28 again and making my first film,” Linklater, who’s 65, says about making this film. “I was drawing on all that energy, all that terror and excitement, all the years of pent-up ideas.”

Linklater shot Nouvelle Vague differently to the original. “Breathless was fast-and-loose film-making,” he said. “But we had to be tightly-scripted and well rehearsed in order to make it look like that. We had to construct that looseness.” And the research went further: “We had all the archives, the camera reports. I could even tell you what lenses they shot with and how many takes they did. We even replicated the camera set-ups.”

Linklater recommends watching Nouvelle Vague first and then move onto Breathless. ….So, you know what your next task is….. He said that he wants to invite the audience to just come and “hang out” during the making of the original. “You’re almost seeing it like a crew member,” he says. “You’re kind of inside that movie a little bit.”

“Of course it’s a film for cinephiles, but to see people having fun and creating doesn’t alienate anyone, it invites them in.”

A bit over one third of the audience provided written feedback. There was a wide range of opinion and scores to match. Those giving it a minimal scoring of 2 felt like they had endured their viewing rather than anything else. Comments were, “It was very interesting seeing the greats of the French cinema but there was very little action and it was boring” and “Sorry didn’t enjoy it. Self indulgent”.

Those giving it a mid-range score of 3 felt more engaged – up to a point. Comments were, from the qualified, “Very interesting seeing all the famous French people of yesteryear but it was all a bit pointless” to the more upbeat, “So stylish! The whole thing worked. A clever concept”.

Those giving a 4 score and commenting were also much taken up with the period depicted and of the insight into the craft of making a feature film. This group provided the largest segment of those responding. Comments were summarised in the following comment, “A great insight into the world of film – quite absorbing, and plenty to mull over afterwards” and “Tres bien must see the original”. And indeed, running through all the higher scores and comments was an expression that the original film needed to be seen or watched again.

Those giving it a top 5 score were held emotionally by the film and this was reflected it the comments they made (sometimes in French). Comments were, “Strangely enough, I thought the film was wonderful. It captured what it was meant to” and even more succinctly, “Left me a bout de souffle. Magnifique”.

Once again, a film that those watching it and responding with feedback had not let it pass by unheeded.

The origins of Blue Moon date back to the 1970s, when a twenty-something Robert Kaplow dreamt of becoming a songwriter. He spent time researching his heroes, Richard Rogers being one of them, and he even corresponded with Rodgers, who sent him two letters. Kaplow also found a recorded interview in the Library of the Performing Arts in New York’s Lincoln Centre.

“I got to part of the tape where Rodgers is talking about leaving Hart and moving on with his career. It was a little chilling, it was so businesslike,” said Kaplow. “He had armoured and insulated his heart in a way that was going to let him get through it without cracking. Even at that moment I knew, someday, I’m going to write about this. It took me [several decades] and a lot of other projects, but I got there.”

Kaplow didn’t become a songwriter, instead becoming a teacher in English Language and Film Studies, finding time to write and perform comedy and also complete nine books, his best known being a novel, Me and Orson Welles, released in 2003 and adapted as a film in 2008.

The director of tonight’s film, Richard Linklater bonded with Kaplow during Me and Orson Welles which he also directed. That film was set in 1937, and in discussions with Kaplow told him of his love of music from that era. He recounted that Kaplow said, “I’m writing a thing about Lorenz Hart,” and Linklater responded, ‘Really? I’m a big Hart fan.”

Kaplow sent what he’d written even though he wasn’t sure what it was going to be. Linklater said that at that stage it was ‘a one-man show’ but he encouraged Kaplow to continue. It was the twist on an age-old premise that intrigued Linklater, “You see breakup movies, but you don’t see a lot of artistic breakup movies, which to me are much more fascinating,” As the script developed he felt that, “It was this little howl into the night of an artist being left behind. It was sad and beautiful and witty and irreverent.”

Linklater cast Ethan Hawke to play Hart but purposely waited over a decade before filming. Hawke was at an informal reading of the script and got really excited by the project. Linklater admitted that, “As Ethan’s friend, I knew this was such a heavy lift” and, in order to get Hawke to transform into Hart Linklater had to become, he says, a “naggy director.” as the 6ft Hawke had appear onscreen with a combover, fake teeth and 10 inches shorter.

“A lot of my directing was kind of nagging about these little details. Ethan wanted to put more on it, and I was like, “Just let the words do it. Larry’s a word guy. He sits in words. He’s not a showman. Just let the words carry the joke.” Linklater admitted that if they didn’t know each other so well Hawke would probably have punched him on occasion.

Linklater continued: “We had to erase Ethan and get to Larry. Larry – he’s not a physical specimen. All he is, is his wit, intelligence, mouth. He is words and personality.”

Linklater believed Hawke could play the role admitting, “It’s tough for Ethan, you’re playing a genius. You’re playing a wordsmith of the highest, wittiest order.” But after working together on nine films he was confident because, “He has that verbal ability.”

His final reminder to Hawke was: “We’re trying to make you lovable even though you’re irritating.”

Just over one third of the audience provided written feedback. Opinions on the film and scores ranged from the minimal to the best. The majority of responses lay in the middle with scores also registering at both ends of the marking regime. Whatever the response, there was a common thread running through all responses as to the excellence of the acting of lead actor Ethan Hawke.

Of those giving it a low score of 1 or 2 there was a common refrain running through their comments that it was “boring” or “sad” or “depressing” – or a combination of all three.

Those giving it a mid-range score of 3 were very much focused on the strength of the acting, especially that of Hawke. This was without denying other imperfections of the piece, notably that of it being too long. Comments were, “Amazing acting & thought provoking. A little too lengthy at the start!” and “Very good acting but my interest dwindled somewhat”.

Those giving it a higher 4 mark were as enthused over the performance of Hawke and largely focused on that. Once again, imperfections (and perfections) in the film were also duly noted.  Comments were as, “Music was lovely and superb action by Ethan Hawke. Very funny & witty but a bit too long for me” and “Too wordy in places, took a lot of concentration! Excellent acting by Ethan Hawke (The bartender didn’t work too hard!)”.

Those giving it a top 5 score were clearly gripped by the film as a whole. Comments were, “A compelling performance” and “Intense, fascinating. What a poignant story”.

All-in-all, a film that all who responded with feedback had emotionally responded to in their own way.

So; tonight’s film, Palestine 36.  No need to say what part of the world we are dealing with.

However, perhaps best to put it in a bit of historical context.

– Prior to 1918 and the end of World War 1 the whole Middle East was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. With their defeat, all their former territories got carved up amongst the victorious allied powers.  France got Syria and the UK got what was then known as Palestine.

By the mid-1930s (it’s 1936 we’re talking about here) things, never good, had come to a boil and there was a major Arab revolt against British rule. This is what this film takes on and does so through the various characters on each side.

As for the making of this film – as with all depictions of the past there is a point of view taken by the Palestinian filmmakers that made it.

And – indeed – they found themselves caught and swept up in history and current events themselves. With the film itself being made in October of 2023, the events of 7th October and those following, provided a backdrop to their work they could not have foreseen.

So, what should we make of this film? Is it simply a footnote to past history and overtaken by current events? Or, is it something much more?

Let’s all watch the film and form our own opinion.

Enough from me.

Thank you for your kind attention in listening.

A third of those in the audience provided written feedback. A few individuals gave a mid-range score of 3. However, the rest of the responses were split almost evenly between the top scores of 4 and 5.

One person provided a written response with no score marking but the comment, “Too much propaganda”.  Those giving it a mid-range score focused on the wider emotion and referenced the historical dimension that had led to the then current situation.

Those giving the film a 4 score were clearly touched by the drama and conflict that played out on the screen.  Also noted was the way the film had effectively blended in colourised archive newsreel footage of 1930s Palestine that was pretty well seamlessly intermixed with the ongoing story of the characters and their lives. Comments were as, “powerful, very violent interesting historically culturally” and “A difficult watch for a British audience… Good use of contemporary + live film & cinematography. Striking portrayal of betrayal sorrow + shock. Moving film”.

Those giving a top 5 score were very much engaged with the emotion and drama of the whole film and showed that in what they wrote. Comments were such as, “A superb film that pulled no punches”, “Very thought provoking…” and “Wonderful, beautifully shot and desperately sad but important film.”

–  And one (from a 4 score respondent) that summed up the entirety of the audience’s reaction to this film, “The quiet in the cinema spoke volumes at the end of this very sobering film.”

A film that many who watched may well remember for some time to come.

Like January’s film, The Marching Band, tonight’s film has as its major theme the power of music. “Music is an expression of community. It’s a way to survive” said director Nicholas Hytner. In the film he believes that given the circumstances the community is facing “There is an insistence that there are ways of getting to the other side without collapsing into complete despair. And I suppose that’s what music does in this film.”

He instinctively believed that the story was made for the big screen after Alan Bennett first showed him an outline of an idea, “It felt cinematic in structure, and it felt like the community in the town needed to be present in a way that only film can really do,” he said.

Of course, Bennett has been a huge influence on Hytner’s career, “We come from, more or less, the same part of the world, you have to make a very clear distinction between Yorkshire, where he’s from, and Lancashire, where I’m from. But there’s a realism, a sense of humour, a similar sense of irony.”

He also recognises in Bennett’s writing, “The lack of sentimentality in the way he explores both established relationships, marriages, and unrequited relationships, or relationships that are hard to requite. I resonate strongly with that.”

Hytner has had close relationships with writers, Wendy Wasserstein, writer of The Object of My Affection which he directed for example and compares it with his relationship with Bennett. He found both had, “A similar yearning for connection. Maybe an underlying melancholy, an underlying realism about how difficult connection is.”

In this instance he believes that Bennett is exploring, amongst other things the, “Really vigorous need that the young people have to connect to each other….. [and] That achieving and preserving intimacy is something that’s not easy. It’s not always wine and roses.”

The film reminded Hytner of when he used to sing in choirs: As a student I used to sing in choirs a lot, and I think that the first audience for this film is going to be people who know about that community. But what this film celebrates above all is people who, outside of their everyday lives, turn to music. It clarified, to me, the importance of that. To watch these actors, some of whom sang in choirs when they were young, come together to sing this music, which is quite challenging, was inspiring and moving.

Unfortunately, Alan Bennett hasn’t given any interviews about this film but there’s an undoubtedly personal element to it, especially with respect to Elgar’s The Dream of Gerontius being used, a piece that traces the journey of a man’s soul at the hour of his death.

Hytner can’t confirm whether the choice of music speaks to Bennett’s sense of his own end drawing nearer but it’s seemingly very important to him, The final section, Softly and Gently, Dearly-Ransomed Soul, was his final choice on Radio 3’s Private Passions in 2017 and he alluded to it in his memoir Keeping On Keeping On, recalling a sound that “seemed to hold out a vision of love returned, of transcendence and even triumph.”

Just under a half of the audience provided written feedback. Of those responding, a handful gave it a mid-range score with the rest giving it a higher score and two-thirds of the grand total of responses giving it a top score.

Those giving it a mid-range score appreciated it more in the round than otherwise. The following comment brought out that feeling, “It fell flat. Good for Elgar fans perhaps. The power of music, generally, came across. Some individual performances. Left me anything but uplifted.”

About one-third gave it a higher, although not top score and yet were much taken it by the emotion and context of the film. Comments reflected this, as in, “Poignant – the humour lightened a sad time in history” and “A true feeling of what it must have been like – wonderful uplifting music.”

Those giving it a top score were very full in their feelings of the worth of this film. Words used by more than one person were “poignant” and “brilliant” and “wonderful”. Longer comments reflected this with responses as, “Well cast with humour & sadness in balance. Location + setting was perfect” and “An absolutely brilliant film. Humorous, nostalgic. The best film I’ve seen in a long time”.

All-in-all, this was certainly a film that those that watched it and gave written feedback were glad to have seen.

Matty Hannon was born in Kent but soon left these shores as his family moved over to Indonesia when he was a youngster. It ‘was an amazing experience’, he said. ‘We lived in the thick of Jakarta, and I saw a lot of extreme poverty in the slums and the markets there. It taught me how privileged I was and showed me how hard some people have it in life – it rattled my little world at that early age. I ended up returning to Indonesia in my early 20s, and that’s the part that makes the film.’

When he moved to Australia after that second spell in Indonesia he felt stuck and needed to do something to break out of the career he’d embarked upon. “I’d had this idea in my mind for a long, long time to just book a ticket and go. No plan, really. Just to get out there, point south and see what happened….  …I went home, booked the flight. My hand was shaking over the confirm button. When I clicked, it was a happy feeling.”

Although he wanted to record his adventure he didn’t set out on the expedition with a planned narrative or a central theme to drive the piece. And he didn’t really have a budget to speak of, “I had no money,” he said. “Some days I’d just limit myself to two slices of white bread and smear some peanut butter on there and get on with it”

Initially he wanted to make a high quality short that he’d release straight onto the internet but with the situations he faced and the people he met he felt that there could be enough material for a full-length film. ‘To be honest I had no idea what I was in for, I’d never made a feature film before and so I was just fumbling along as I went. I certainly never thought it’d take as much time and money as it did.’

It was by all accounts, ‘Flying by the seat of your pants’ filmmaking. His approach was to head, ‘into the unknown to see what would unveil itself.’ As time went on he realized that, ‘We had a couple of narratives, one about 2 people on a wild adventure, while the second narrative was more of a multicultural enquiry into globalisation and cosmology.’

After filming finished and watching the results he realized that his footage from Sumatra was the key to unlocking the overarching story.

Most of their equipment wasn’t of a professional standard and was sourced as cheaply as possible, ‘So…’ Hannon admitted, ‘It was always breaking.’ He also admitted that: There were times when Heather and I argued, and the main culprit of that tension was probably the filmmaking process. I was determined (especially towards the end when I knew we had a story), probably too determined in a way, and maybe I ruined a couple of moments that could’ve been beautiful, by not enjoying them for what they were, choosing instead to film them.

However, he noted that, ‘The filmmaking process gave a sense of purpose to the trip; we weren’t aimlessly travelling, it led us to interview all sorts of inspiring people, and now with the benefit of hindsight, we’re both really glad that we put the effort in.’

He has two or three ideas ‘percolating’ in his mind which will explore similar themes to tonight’s film, ‘Those 3 ideas will probably coalesce into one film…. … I’m excited to dive into another feature – I’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years of what (and what not!) to do.’

Just over four tenths of the audience submitted written feedback for this film. One person commented but did not provide a score. Of the rest several individuals gave it a mid-range score of 3, whilst all of the remaining written responses was equally divided between top 4 and 5 scores.

Despite not allocating it a score the response from this individual was very positive, “Enchanting! Wonderful adventure. Visually stunning”.  This was partially taken up by those giving it a mid-range 3 score, with, “A heartwarming story of hope and love of nature”.  However, this was juxtaposed by someone not impressed, “Kids playing – for too long”.

For those giving it a 4 score there were several themes running through their responses.  Many had found it “thought provoking” and commentated on the experience of life and emotion as seen with the two central figures as they travelled. Their engagement with their horses and their environment was also reflected in what was written, for example, “Far better than I expected. An absorbing journey of discovery of places, self, environment”.

Respondents giving it a top 5 score were fully on board with the same sort of very positive comments. Again, mention was made of the film being “thought provoking” and the other wider themes previously mentioned. These are pretty well wrapped up in the following comment, “Stunning film both visually and in message. Emotional rollercoaster. So pleased it was not just a love story between people – that would be lazy – but a love story for the planet!”

A film that had been greatly enjoyed by those that had seen it.

Emmanuel Courcol, the director of tonight’s film never imagined that he would become a director. “It’s a late vocation. I never thought about directing. I had a decent career [as an actor] but nothing extraordinary.” As his career progressed he said that his, “desires sharpened”. “I needed more… …I began writing a play, then a screenplay, and I met a director by chance, who, after an audition, offered me the chance to collaborate on the script for his next film.” That opportunity allowed him to co-write several other films. “Then, a kind of dissatisfaction started to emerge, and I began thinking, “I wouldn’t have done it that way…” and eventually, “Why not me?” That’s how I transitioned into directing”.

About ten years ago he worked as a consultant on a script that involved a group of majorettes and their supporting brass band and he got to meet some members of the band. “I was struck by the warmth of the welcome and the strength of the bonds within this community. From this collaboration came the idea of an unlikely encounter between this popular world and a classical conductor.”

Eight years later, with writer Irène Muscari, they began to develop the script, the idea being to explore the power of music and its effect on society. As the story progressed they found themselves walking the line between comedy and drama. “What I love above all is reconciling opposites and finding a form of compromise or balance. This applies both in my life and in cinema: drama or comedy? Auteur film or popular film? Classical music or popular songs? Why choose?”

In terms of casting, he looked for actors who had to be able to play music, it was essential for Courcoul that the audience couldn’t distinguish between professional actors and real musicians as they went about their business. “Without making a pun, I’m very attached to harmony on set,” he said.

Benjamin Lavernhe (Thibaut) plays drums and guitar and can also play the piano and was coached for several months and on set by a conductor. Pierre Lottin (Jimmy) is a self-taught musician who plays the piano and took trombone lessons for the role. Sarah Suco (Sabrina) plays the accordion and took trumpet lessons. Both her and Pierre Lottin both reached a standard that allowed them to properly play with the band.

Shot in Lallaing in northern France using the Walincourt Musical Union who themselves featured in a documentary about brass bands Courcoul recognizes that, “The film has something of the British social comedy, but at the same time, it’s very French, no doubt because this northern region has a strong history and a real personality…” Although the band were reportedly a little intimidated on the first day he said, “The natural energy took over…. … Playing together helped create a true sense of ensemble, which you can feel in the film—the unifying power of music!”

“If the film touches people, as I hope it will, it’s because of the emotion and humanity of the characters, with whom we can identify. It’s about seeing generous people act despite the cruelty of life—people trying to find their place while carrying heavy burdens. That’s what feels good.”

Just a touch over half of those that attended the screening of this film provided written feedback. Of those that responded, over 80% gave it a top score of a 5 mark and of those, some felt it deserved more.

The lowest score was an individual response of 3 with the positive thought that it depicted, “1 strong willed brother 1 less confident coming together”. Two persons provided positive comments but no score, as “Much enjoyed” and “C’etait superbe. Merci”.

The fifth of respondents that gave it a 4 score were also very positive about it and remarked how much they had enjoyed it. One comment recorded their reaction and also gave a personal view of the larger story and its context, “An excellent film, giving an opportunity to listen to some fantastic music whilst exploring the intricacies of family relationships. Thoroughly enjoyed this film. Especially the brilliant ending”.

All those giving it a top 5 score, and provided written comments, were “as one” in their extremely positive reaction. There were many mentions of “brilliant” and “wonderful” throughout. Comments were represented as, “Marvellous film. It had everything pathos story and wonderful music. A very good French film from the heart” and “Excellent. Striking the right balance of tragic/comic”.

For all the audience that watched this film and provided a written feedback response this very clearly hit the right note.

Tim Key began his comedy career after successfully auditioning for the Cambridge Footlights student comedy troupe, this was a surprise as he wasn’t a student at Cambridge or in fact a student. He “volunteered some information about being a PhD student at Sidney Sussex College” but he had just in fact just graduated from the University of Sheffield and had moved back to his home city of Cambridge. His fellow members did eventually find out but by that point he was part of the team and was allowed to perform in their 2001 Edinburgh fringe production, which was nominated for a newcomer’s award.

He met Tom Basden when he directed him and a couple of other comedians in a production and they all went on to form the comedy act Cowards, who performed at Edinburgh, on Radio 4, and on BBC3 and BBC4. The group performed for about 5 years, between 2004-2009 and though they haven’t performed together since they have each worked together since. Key and Basden have worked the most closely together and performed as Freeze! for much of the following decade but with Key’s love of language and Basden’s musical ability their best-known work together, up until this film, is Tim Key’s Poetry Programme on Radio 4.

During a spell of writing and putting sketch shows together Basden remembered, ‘We were trying to work out ones that we thought were funny and found interesting. You read a lot of stories about musicians being flown out by a billionaire to play a gig somewhere, and we felt that was a really fertile subject for a comedy. And [with] the relationship between the client and the artist, there was a lot you could do there.” “This one just felt bigger than a two-minute sketch’ said Key, ‘And when we hit upon the idea of a millionaire scurrilously, under false pretenses, bringing his favorite musician to the island, it felt like it was a good fit for the type of characters that Tom and I play.” That contrast in character intrigued the pair who have done a series of sketches where Key is quite mean to Basden, who suggests that ‘people who’ve seen [this] film will be quite surprised that we can play that dynamic as well.’

Basden admits that after the release of the 2007 short film on which this is based that they always wanted to return to it, ‘If we had got our act together or even had someone really pushing the project like 10 years ago, we probably would’ve wanted to do it then.’ It wasn’t until the pandemic and work dropped off that the pair returned to it. “However,” he continued, “The real benefit of having waited this long is that we are now finally at the right age to play these characters. We were far too young for the characters when we made the short.” Which is on YouTube incidentally.

Its success has taken them both aback, especially in the US. “They’d never seen anything like Tim’s character,” noted Basden. “[They were like], ‘He just makes no sense to me.’ And then you show it in the U.K., and we all know people like that.” “It’s a very different thing [in the U.K.], where people just tap into the very British subtext of it. But American audiences have been really into it. I think they feel like they’ve discovered something really fresh.”

“You don’t always need to chase relevance. It can be really refreshing to give people something quite unexpected.”

Between a third and a half of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. A few individuals gave it a mid-range 3 – this was the lowest given score. However, of the remaining responses, a third were at the 4 level and the rest (two-thirds of everybody) scored it with a top 5 score.

A couple of respondents provided written feedback but whilst not allocating a score value were positive in their comments with, “Lovely & charming & beautifully acted” and “…a comedy that is a surprising ‘quaint’ taste of unusual characters.”

Those giving it a mid-range 3 score appreciated it more than enthused over it. Comments were, “Entertaining but shallow” and “Not really my humour but fabulous scenery and a very poignant film”.

Those giving it a higher 4 score certainly liked it and made specific note of its off-beat nature. Comments were, “Charming and uplifting movie. Unique and quirky in equal measure” and for the two leads, “Charles + Herb absolutely brilliant portrayals.”

For those giving it a top 5 score there was an unexpected bonus for one, “Enjoyed the fact that it confused the Americans”, elsewhere there was the palpable sense in the comments written of just how very, very, much they had enjoyed it. Comments ranged from the simple, “A delight” and “Simply wonderful. Thank you!”, to the longer, “Brilliant British film. Quintessential British humour. It was so enjoyable” and “Most enjoyable, the right film in the time running up to Xmas. Great choice!”.

All-in-all, this was a film that those that had watched and had provided feedback had been glad to have come and see on a cinema screen.

Sandhya Suri grew up in Darlington, where her father, a Doctor, worked as a consultant and spent his spare time documenting life in a new country. “He was a big movie fan,” Suri said of her father. “He wanted to be an actor but his dad wouldn’t really let him – it was his dream that his son would be a doctor, so he became a doctor…. But all the while he kept making films.” And it was a passion that she inherited.

She graduated in pure mathematics and German and received a scholarship to study documentary filmmaking at The National Film and Television School and in 2005 made I For India using home movies and voice recordings to tell the story of her family’s immigrant experience. Other films proved harder to get off the ground, so she spent three years running the Oxfam UK film unit which involved her travelling to disaster spots all over the world. After departing Oxfam, she resumed documentary filmmaking making The Field and Around India with a Movie Camera in 2018.

Suri was researching the subject of violence against women, trying to make a documentary about the issue but couldn’t find a starting point. She then saw a photo, around the case in Delhi in which 23-year-old Jyoti Singh was raped and murdered by six men on a bus in 2012. “There was a very big, angry group of women outraged by what had happened. Then there was a line of women police officers, because in India only women police officers deal with females.” “There was one police officer, and she has this amazing expression on her face, really enigmatic. Who is that woman, what is she thinking? She has a police uniform that holds so much power especially in India,” she wondered. “What was it like to be her?”

“I never wanted to make a police film,” Suri said. “But when I saw that photograph of the policewoman, I thought: ‘That’ll be my way in’. Suri wasn’t interested in going down ‘the system is rotten’ route, a staple of Indian cinema apparently. “It was about creating a sort of morally gray universe, where everybody has a certain shade of gray.”

Perhaps it was asking those questions that led to Indian film censors blocking the release of it over concerns about its portrayal of misogyny, Islamophobia and violence in the Indian police force. A decision she described as “disappointing and heartbreaking”.

The list of cuts were apparently so lengthy and wide-ranging that they would’ve been “impossible” to implement according to Suri and went on for several pages, “But in the end it was just too difficult to make those cuts and have a film that still made sense, let alone stayed true to its vision.” she said.

“All my work has been about India; one film was deeply nostalgic, another was super beautiful and sensual,” she said, “Yes, this one shows another face of the country. But there’s humanity in everybody in this film.”

Just under a third of the audience filled out and submitted a Feedback form. Of those that gave it a value score two-thirds gave it high 4 or 5 scores, with the majority being 4. A third of those giving written feedback gave medium to low scores and three respondents gave written feedback but felt unable to give a value score.

One respondent gave it 1 score and felt (and the person they were with) unable to watch the film till the end. Their comment was, “Not what we (2) came out to see. Walked out in disgust at the violence.”

Running throughout all the written feedback handed in was the noting of the level of violence in the film and of its graphic depiction throughout. As well; there was an equivalent and equal awareness of the depiction on screen of the Indian caste system and of how those in the lower castes were brutalised by those in higher castes.

Whilst those giving it a 2 score noted the “Horrible brutality!”, those giving it a 3 score felt more able to incline looking at the film as a whole, “Liked the naturalistic style of the film.”

Those respondents giving the film top scores of 4 and 5 were completely on board with the violence and inequality as depicted but were able to contextualise the film as a whole.  Comments were, such as, “A powerful exploration of the brutality of pragmatism”, “A very disturbing film but beautifully crafted and filmed showing the corruption & poverty.” and “Superb complex drama. The principle actor outstanding.”

This was a film that people (except those that felt unable to continue with it) watched all the way through to the end and did not shy away from accepting what was shown on the screen.

The Mr. Burton project had an unusual beginning. The script was written by Tom Bullough and Josh Hyams, a television producer. One of Hyams’ most notable programmes has been The Trip, starring Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. If you’ve seen the show you’ll be aware that Rob Brydon, who hails from Baglan, near Port Talbot, occasionally slips into a number of impressions, one of them being Richard Burton. “It made me think about how wonderful a voice it is,” Hyams said in an interview. “I went back and listened to the legendary recordings of Richard – particularly Under Milk Wood, and to watch his films. When I read about his background, what I learned was a real surprise.”

The initial idea was solely based on the tough upbringing of the young Richard Jenkins and his transformation into Richard Burton and many drafts were written, approximately 200, but as they went on they found themselves more interested in Philip Burton.

It was a part of his life that Richard never elaborated on, he himself said, “I can’t help the voice, it’s part of me, I didn’t cultivate it or anything, it was given to me.” but as I believe we’ll see tonight that’s not true and those that knew Burton were well aware of this fact. Elizabeth Taylor wrote, “Without Philip Burton there would never have been a Richard Burton”. “That great rolling voice that cracked like wild Atlantic waves would never have been heard outside the valley.”

Released nationally a little earlier in the year during what is 100 years since his birth he is, according to the film’s director, Marc Evans, more of a ‘cultural icon to us in Wales’ as a opposed to a familiar actor. “I didn’t grow up knowing his work and his genius is elusive on film. You have to look for it in dark corners. It was the voice we knew and felt we owned.”

And the voice appears to have been an aspect that appealed and intrigued everyone involved, Toby Jones included. He drew on his experience of working with vocal coaches but: “What spoke to me was that tradition of actors learning to lose their accent,” he says. “My father [the actor Freddie Jones] had to lose his voice from the Potteries, and he did it through learning tracts of poetry.”

Harry Lawtey, who plays Jenkins/Burton had to develop the voice over the course of the film. “The voice in some ways is everything—it’s a film about voice and how instructive that is to one’s identity.”

Lawtey even has a theory about the role of Burton’s voice in how he presented himself and how he used it, this was the man remember who was often ambivalent about his chosen career, and who once said, “The Welsh are all actors. It’s only the bad ones who become professional.” “This film is about how a voice speaks for us, and how we project who we are before we even get the chance to show people who we are,” Lawtey says. “With Richard, I think his drinking relates to that dichotomy – he clearly loved performance, but he also felt embarrassed by being an actor. It wasn’t a particularly manly thing to do.”

Just over a half of the audience filled in a feedback form. Of those that responded, the lowest score given was 3. Of the remaining feedback, a quarter of respondents gave the film a 4 score and the rest, three-quarters of the grand total, gave it a top ranking of 5.

The sole respondent giving it a 3 score felt it was “Enjoyable enough”. Of those giving it a 4 score, the high quality of the individual acting of both male leads (especially that of Toby Jones) and the chemistry on screen between the two was cited by many. Other elements that came to the fore were the created authenticity of the 1940s Welsh background and the dramatisation at the end of the film of Richard Burton’s performance as Henry IV at Stratford.

Those giving it a top score were emphatic in their praise of this film both in terms of the acting and of the overwhelmingly positive impact the film itself had on themselves.  Comments such as “Excellent”, “Wonderful” and “Brilliant” ran through the responses. This was summarised in the following comment, “Wow! Totally brilliant in every respect! I was captivated”.

This was a film that all those that had watched it and given written feedback had been glad they had done so.

There were many elements to why Gia Coppola wanted to tell this story. Firstly, she’s always loved Las Vegas and as a photography student would always stop there and take pictures. “One time my friend got pickpocketed [in Vegas], and we reported it. It led us down the back channels of the casino, where I saw a bulletin board for Employee of the Month. That always stayed with me, just wondering, what is the day-to-day life in Las Vegas?”

She was also looking for a small, internalized project to make. Looking to John Cassavetes as an inspiration who stripped back his films in terms of story and structure to keep as Coppola put it, ‘Creative autonomy.’

She happened across Kate Gersten’s play Body of Work, loosely based on the lives of the now closed Jubilee! show dancers, and found it had the elements she was seeking. ‘There are not many locations or casts. It is very concise. It allowed me to make space for Vegas as a character. We talked a lot about how to turn the play into a film, however, she is such a talented writer I did not have to do much.’

Set in 2016, the showgirl costumes used were the real thing. “We had the original costumes, some of which hadn’t left the building for 30 years. The dancers usually walk for just three minutes, but we were doing a movie so [the actors] must hold for longer. Their necks were cranking.’ ‘They’re intricate and heavy.’ Some of them still had the names of the women who had worn them still sewn in.

Coppola saw a picture of Pamela Anderson on Instagram who was promoting her documentary and thought, ‘She would be intriguing’ but knew nothing of her as an actor. Coppola watched her documentary and discovered ‘She’s so full of art and creativity. She’s so knowledgeable about arthouse cinema and poetry. She’s a beautiful writer and a person that had a lot of vulnerability and similarities to Shelly.’

Coppola went to her agent but got turned down within an hour. ‘A record time.’ in Coppola’s experience.

Anderson’s son was an executive producer on the documentary so Coppola asked friends if anyone knew Brandon, someone did and they went to dinner and he said, “Good news. She read the script, she loves it, she’d love to talk to you.” Coppola was surprised: “No, no. I want her to do this. I’m trying to sell myself to you.”

It appears that Anderson’s agents thought that it was an insignificant project with only a small fee attached so they turned it down on her behalf. They’re no longer her agents.

The response to her and the film has been largely positive; Anderson’s personally received the best reviews of her career. She no longer questions why it took so long for such a meaningful project as this to come along, “It all happened the way it was supposed to happen,” Anderson believes. “If I didn’t live [the life I lived], I couldn’t have played Shelly the way that I did. That it almost slipped through my fingers makes it even sweeter that I got to do it.

“To live in the mystery of not knowing what’s next is a romantic way to live,” she says, “I still don’t know what’s next—and that’s okay.”

Just under one half of the audience provided written feedback. The majority of the responses were in the mid-to-upper range of 3 and 4 scores with one individual score of 1 and a sizeable minority of scores giving a top score of 5.

The respondent giving it a 1 score had a clear opinion, “Awful” and was specific as to their assessment of how badly they felt the cinematography (by hand-held camera) had been.  Those giving it a slightly higher 2 score also expressed highly critical views of the technical aspects of the film.

Those giving it a mid 3 score were centred on the characters and story and also focused on the emotion. This was summarised in the following comment, “PA [Pamela Anderson] came across as human! JLC [Jamie Lee Curtis] was frightening in her professional & personal collapse. Overall good presentation of the utter shallowness of Las Vegas”.

With the 4 scores there was an even more central focus on the two female leads and how their performances had emotionally powered the entire film. This was best summarised by the following comment, “Searing. Fabulous performance from Pamela Anderson. Fabulous older women’s roles. JLC [Jamie Lee Curtis] also amazing”.

The several respondents that gave it a top score of 5 cited also the excellent performances of the two female leads and as well felt impelled to look towards the wider social landscape that these characters lived in, as in, “Very powerful film portrayed the traumatic demise of women ageing and how invisible they can feel”.

A film that, for all those that contributed feedback, had impinged on them while watching it and left its mark.