It Follows : A Film Review

Dir: David Robert Mitchell. Starring: Maika Monroe, Keir Gilchrist, Jake Weary, Olivia Luccardi. 94 min.
The terrifying thing that is the teenage mind adjusting to a largely unknown inexperienced world. Born in the USA is a paradise for the horror genre.
Firstly the terrifying Brady Bunch and all the generalities made can be chewed up and spat out with undue repentance to harm and the devil take the hindmost John Carpenter sense of freedom of suspense driven drama.

Spooky and hooky all the teenager vulnerabilities are played upon with a force and vitality which brims with jeopardy.

The horror opens as the child becoming a teenager in an instant, Maika Monroe as Jay , takes on and into her life through the opening terrifying incident at her home, the stricken future promised to her by this it thing.
It is the shape of things to come.

Deliciously and delightfully the standard United States of America suburban landscape is visited once again, not by hurricanes, the industrial implosion, the swathes of reposed houses and the shopping mall culture but by the vicissitudes of the any town pathway between the green blades scorn to a certain height. Even Dallas Buyers Club had this suburban presence.
The landscape is purposely the container of more than.
The film club wishing for reality through the morality of recent movies from Twelve Years a Slave, Selma, Boyhood, Still Alice, Her, The Theory of Everything, even Dallas Buyers Club and with relevance here drawn to the studious Under the Skin – identified here! In a previous critique as a certain cult classic is restorative like a new age enlightenment – showing the questions are astute and plentiful.
Oscar my dear
Julianne Moore has secured an deserved Oscar. So many years a custodian of the woman’s voice of filmic portrayal of – remember the Short Cuts legacy as a reality check. We are in a period of perturbed America. Still Alice is persuasively what the title projects and Julianne portrays.

Unexplained It Follows is a Horror movie of studious independence and holds no golden moment of revelation so standing apart from this reality fix found across the Film industry.

This should be a modest box office for its (normal meaning inferred) set of deserving collaborators. The credit list for extras is practically the entire roll call of a school which I didn’t see coming but shows these days everybody counts.
Horror maketh the known
Except it is all a lie over a truth never revealed.
Not when the puerile lapped up diet of Sniper and the passable comedic escapism of sentimental passage of youth films which are every young persons diet of cinematic large screen initiation.
We of later years use cinema for different purposes. Listening to the traffic of themes passing we are underwhelmed often by genre pics.

That said this is a film intelligently drawn and delivered. It is widescreen America as well as the manicured lawns of middle America. The claustrophobic nuanced interior life’s are quickly brought to the filmgoers attention with the preoccupation with the ordinary disrupted.
Director excels
The writer-director, David Robert Mitchell has excelled in adding to the stalker in every guise and at every possible inconvenient moment.
The pass it on theme is quickly up and running.
Is it running in the terrified mind of the teenager, is it a part or deposit of life which must be cast off or erased? The horror requires an entourage to protect the followed Maika Monroe. They come in the form of her friends with a newish older friend whose few years advantage later becomes a more assured voice of the possible reach of the follower.
Nighty Nighty
Firstly there has to be, one third in the sleepover to stay within the home of dreaded encounter. The sleepover follows on from the Educational Campus of State education. The Pavlovian essentials of the locked doors and the experience within and between the walls is extremely well delivered and built around the experience only being felt initially by Maika Monroe.
The Relay of Horror.
And then some. It is on the prowl and becomes the unseen except by the Maika playing visually her literal disturbed self with deft darkness and dark sorrowful eyes often wet with crying. Her mind implants these figures as we see them getting closer and closer in their relationship to herself. They are progressively from her past.

The old woman who appears early I was unsure of, except it being Carpenteresque. The indulgences only heighten Horror movies it (normal use) seems, it is the enhanced carried knowledge. Like a relay of Horror. I love this exhibit of entailing dragging film cross fertilisation. In terms of Under the Skin we are between the lens and film, between the innovation of inverted thought. The prospect of reading in our purview these recollected reflections are very artfully profound occurrences. This is what the Croneburg, chronological contextual shifting verb and adjective. The piece of derision laden depiction of failed and troubled humanity is absolutely spine tingling in places when it gathers on the senses.

DisasterPieces is the music ensemble that delivers a score which is modern tone shifting tension riven rifts and shifts true and plentiful. It requires it’s auditory piercing stabbing, point making double six hit. It carries.

The work becomes a journey between past places revisiting the past and the left behind desolated part of any town another place destroyed and the reverse side of the coin.

The deeper reading of this is the stripped back past place which is in the present time replaced by relative comfort.
It may represent the Troll. After I was musing on the internalised Ibsen like influence of narrative taken along a path. Such as the Wild Duck. The inescapable place within that we reside alongside buffered by the use of conformity as well as the device of useful escape mechanisms.
Ibsen Ipso Facto
Why did the mind attack Maika Monroe so? Why do the appearances occur within one without another. They are alone not shared (often the genre requires bulk packaging so resorts to it it The Damned etc.!) there you have it – one genre deconstructed as I do with the mighty Ibsen once more my compelling lead to this place.
The Lady from the Sea anyone?

Talking of which water and swimming feature. There is a visit to a pool and you can mix music with water.
Local band featured here are Go Swim. They are cool to explore the water environment but the film takes on water in an entirely unmethaphorical way. It provides the close to dangerously good cinema wished for but shocking in its effect.
For Go Swim Go See.

Death of the Pilgrim? Death of the Follower? Death of the Followed?

The irredeemable inexhaustible truth is that before long someone else will be along with an even better version of the stalker as self or unself.

To visit the place first try the widescreen of the world.

Conclusion. ###+ 3+
How is the shape of the film let of the hook by being similar in its (normal use) trace to Horror films familiar and of the recent past?
The famille is everything for the genre. The psychosis a very confrontational deep dish. We eat of the plate from the forest floor and survive the increasing complexities and more conflicting stories the senses take in.

This is a film with plenty of shocks and conveyed terror. It is not a slasher context movie but handled with dexterity and skillful ness by its young cast, the exception being the old lady whose part is all make-up! And a meander through the sets. This is a continuum narrative with no (apparent) flashback. It follows the film is a notable watch. Be watchful.

John Graham

26 February 2015

The purview is laid out in the shape of cartoons storybooks, space age science interlocked to the bourgeois system that divides down the line whatever your background the curriculum becomes you unless your mind has opened

What is more terrifying than growing up believing the World is a b

The Duke of Burgundy : A Film Review

Dir. Peter Strickland, UK, 2014. Cert. 18. 1hr 44mins.
Cast. Sidse Babette Knudsen, Chiara D’Ana.
Cherií as in Burgundy
Some strong hints, in fact heavy hints are deployed by Writer and Director Peter Strickland in positing his films theme.
It is a poor and lame set of metaphors unnecessarily deployed.
The simple fact is most viewers relying on this inroad to the story are not in need of this engagement let alone the subject plainly central, the sum of insects and chiefly the butterfly are infuriatingly numbing.

The sole characters are, save a few lecture hall speakers and a distant neighbour given to leaf sweeping are Cyntia, a dominatrix role playing Lepidopterist – that of said butterfly motif, by Sidse Babette Knudsen, and Evelyn, played by Chiara D’Ana, the younger hireling.
It is almost a costume drama as the clothes Sidse wears are vintage decent decadence and poor Chiara gets to don the simple peasant dressing befitting her sub-servant role. You can never be certain what in the spaces between is offered as equalityoutsideof the roles.

The only thing not depicted in metaphor or on the deployment of graphics is the possibly phallic slim antennaed body of the butterfly pairing the stations of the dual wings. The absence of maleness is opening of the forebearing recurring receptiveness of the gynaeceum. The host and house.

An Ottoman becomes the house. Becomes the chamber and is deployed into action in the more illuminating scenes of relationship needs.
The levels of entry to the story are vexed and misshapen male concepts reporting on the female attitude to her sexual role. That role is well evoked in some of the sado-masochistic approaches.

Both women wish to experience the interior lives of their own sexuality each needing different urges to be satiated.

The Fall to Winter
Now it is the season of love, a love for all seasons is as inextinguishable. For most encounters encountered are inhabited timelessly making anything possible if one closes another season of loves fervour responds to the sun or moon also rising. The Duke of Burgundy opens in the fall.

The landscape is European. The atmosphere is surreal. It is dense, forested, isolated, with in the choice of cinematic excursion here set in Hungary. The place able to offer the unusual heightened but faded opulence with a strangely unregarded temperature. Clothes are mere adornments, uniform for signatory place.
So it is excusable, given the subject of love, to begin with an Audrey Hepburn anecdote. The one – according to Hepburn herself, of her discovery when she was stationed with the 1952 film production company of ‘Monte Carlo Baby’ in the south of France for brief location filming, the fairly unnoticed assignment part of a standard contract. Hepburn at the time little known after the Armistice in a European film industry devastated by World War II. This week her co-star in ‘Gigi’ Jean passed away aged 93.

The springboard for exploring the relationship between two women is the entwined shared domesticity and setting found in all relationships eschewed or avowed. Either that or the external issued fan tasty world of ‘Gigi’ were one the fabric is lifted on demand and at a price. Similar fantasy role play is engaged here in this film taking its name from a rare butterfly.
Is there a further feminine Cher, Central France it’s being Bourges?

Cheri is the colour of Burgundy. The least said about that apocryphal use the better. It didn’t appeal on any level as a movie device.
Was it in the least necessary as the thoughts and portrayals were – when you leave and set aside thoughts of the butterfly – more productive.
Butterflies may be ephemeral and beautifully corporeal but that is baggage whereas this film has two sets of thought contesting each other’s extent of loving.

The loving felt is at its tenderest in the bed and touching is singularly a recovery for their relationship. It is also a place of command and struggle but is a place of recoiling physical bonding.

Colette chanced to see the young Hepburn walking across the lobby of the hotel and immediately said to her companion of the moment, “There is my Gigi!”
Colette whose 50 something novels were the French antidote to war and they created the ‘Belle Époque’ world as escape and no one came close to the wise naturalé, evocative, erotic, gravitas with which the French traverse as a fine line between hypocrisy and cant and are able negotiated inside and outside reality, with of course due recognition to Colette.
Léa, in what some regard as the finest of all novels Chéri she demonstrates all the survival skills which Colette associates with femininity which this Duke of Burgundy lesbian affair courts by introducing us to an (unknown?) element of seduction and control which is another inbound s+m chase.

Butterfly Error
The negotiation of romance, intrigue is the whole quotient vessel filled to near overspill in the tumbling dice world of The Duke of Burgundy.
It may involve the fragility of a butterfly.
In the acting of role play inevitably, given time, given devotion, flaws creep in and that grates alike with the viewer and the pair. The imperfections show up the love and utter dependence on this device as a focal part of their loving. It exposes the dynamic a little but not the intrinsic belonging which obviously exists between them.

Perfection is often implied as a goal and the butterfly has this consciously but, well, it’s best left alone. Go onto pleasure in its messy way seems to be one outcome, one possible learnt path on which we happen to tread.

Filmmakers find little to do when love making is underway except use genitailia as the excursion trip without being inside or outside the carriage.
Therefore the use of nudity is ignored so we can use the imagination from early on and absorbing the style of ‘reveal’ the author has chosen.

The actors are blessed with separate forms of beauty. One waif like, suitable to play the submissive. The other more mature, more curvilinear, suited to the solid mind games.

It is where pornography lives, repeat the feat, repeat the feat, are you finding this repeatative, but without the porn. This film does repetition in an entirely provocative way and through strangeness.

Bound over
Colette has given her characters feelings recognised everywhere, by that literal skill she deployed in life and literature. “What a beautiful life I’ve had.” Is her reported reward despite her later life being wheelchair bound.

Feminine Guile
The Duke of Burgundy is not an old fashioned tale of courtesan and pupil.
The femininity is capital currency taken at a slowness, the Milan Kundera slowness lovingly French again, with space and air between the bodies sufficiently involved to suspend, put time away.

One leads, petit mort, the Colettish murder of the passion enflamed.
It is one who leads who falls into the trap set by the victim who in the words of Bukowski suggests ‘Find what you love and let it kill you.’

The game awaits
Ways is there. There never is anything but a complicit and propulsion for the sexual frisson to take the external internal. Have a same word and act out the game. Who is the finest? Who loves the most in whatever role? The play you need to find the deepest pairing without measure is what challenges them? To know how far it can go.

This is a game based film. The erotic of an internal but visually consumptive union replaces repeative sexual performance that film after film produces as the literal filler content. Seed planted, bread rises. Will you do that again? Also the written story they have constricts their reaching their goal.
It is not that straightforward.

Firstly do not ask. It is not for you to ask. You need to listen for the instruction. Do it again. Then the previous interaction is repeated.
Same timeline, touch, pace, continuity precisely as before.
Here it is marked on the floor. The scene has a theatre direction, the Film Director aware of the frame line as well as the entire appearance.
It is exquisite compelling controlled love and the ultimate join up.
Sometimes I found myself analysing the occasions went outside, the nature and occasional v shaped frames of the descending stairs, steps down from the house. The wide cinema and the dense heavily wooded body of the frame.
Does the film work?
Perhaps it does but it is at times very structurally slow. It through the narrative of role play accounting for nearly two thirds of it highly repeatative. The descriptive tale told is of the proximity of the antecedents of the developed and developing relationships and who chooses the effects physical and mental. The music by ‘Cats Eyes’ is Schrodingers Cat. It is at times excruciatingly over indulgent as soundscape as are the clouds of the flights of insects. Overblown.

Is it quotidian?
Certainly the beauty of the spaces in which these beautiful habitations are not. The quotidian is the place in the minds seeing what eaches need is.

Conclusion. ###3.
What is a film without a few kinks?
The strangeness of certain relationships are worth looking at for how well drawn they are as explorations of unique sexuality.
To communicate this simple two woman chamber piece ponderously slow, repeatitiveness is almost pathological. Prudent in dialogue and each character, I don’t recall even a name for the principles, – they have them of course, Cynthia and Evelyn – the butterflies get the names is unfortunately for me not convincing but a worthy attempt and anti-dote to other cinema treatments gotten into with the self same subjects.
It is very, very watchable with the portentousness of over visually satire like? approaches it becomes relatively indulgent.
It is not markedly English or European even. The book I am reading currently is Henry Fieldings, Joseph Andrews and Shamela (1742) which is full of firm settlements and ejectment all in the course of a virtuous life sought. The plainer it is written the more complex it’s direction becomes and is well equipped for our own obedience to our times?

The playing is tangentially cool and neatly if not inescapably drawn – they are after-all actors acting people acting role play. A candour exists.
A safe word exists! The actors have the burden of constraint heaped upon them unfortunately but deal with it decorously, methodically and beautifully.

Love sometimes passes you by. Only when its past will it become clear?
Can I leave that as an note from which to seek your own tuth?

I’m off to see if I can find where the Chalkhill butterfly, (its one in a frame above their bed) lives it’s short life.

John Graham

19 February 2015


Opening at QFT Belfast this Friday 20 February through to Thursday 5 March 2015

Selma : A Film Review

Selma 2014 US/UK Cert. 12a.
Director. Ava DuVernay. Cast: David Oyelowo, (Martin Luther King Jr.), Carmen Ejogo, (Coretta Scott King), Tom Wilkinson, (Lyndon Baines Johnson), Andre Holland, (Andrew Young), Omar J. Dorsey, (James Orange), Tessa Thompson, (Diane Nash) Colman Domingo, (Ralph Abernathy), Wendell Pierce, Tim Roth, (George Wallace), John Lavelle, (Roy Reed), Jeremy Strong, Dylan Baker, (J. Edgar Hoover), Oprah Winfrey, (Annie Lee Cooper).


Selma in the 1960’s
When the Television hit the living rooms of modern life in the shapes of mass produced plastic boxes, carrying life through the lens of the Networks and state Media outlets which quickly had become the news digest medium of moving image broadcasting.

The war in Vietnam covered a long period but when in 1960 US President Eisenhower pledged American assistance to the South Vietnamese after decades of sporadic involvement which went back to the early days of the century and further the Television was there there to bring pictures.

Ava DuVernay the Director of Selma clearly is aware of the media presence, the new media, in tackling Selma and the story of the war fought inside America in respect of Racism. The division of white black and other races was a complete unresolved and to a large extent still remains an unresolved mammoth in the Politics of the United States of America as well as every continent on the planet.

Lyndon Blaine Johnson was only a small part of it.
As far as Martin Luther King Jr. was concerned he was the principle obstacle.
So what linkage has the Film with LBJ and what he was at?
There were 5 U.S. Presidents during its involvement in the Vietnam War. They were:
1. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
He wanted the breakup of Vietnam to stop the influence of Communism in South East Asia.
2. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
He decided to use Machinery sending masses of aid. Three weeks before he was assassinated he had organised a coup against Diem who he was also ‘aiding’.
3. Lyndon Johnson (1963 –1969)
He became embroiled in 1964 vastly upgrading the inner war by the Operation Rolling Thunder. US Combat troops had hit the ground in March 1965. He instituted the draft in the face of anti-war protests across campuses and Wider America.
In 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred and its resolution gave Johnson more powers to wage the war in Vietnam. He was the President who ordered the bombing campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder and sent the first combat troops to South Vietnam in March 1965 after an attack of Viet Cong on U.S air base in Pleiku. The draft was instituted soon after that and caused many anti-war protests nationwide especially inside campuses.
4. Richard Nixon (1969 -1974)
He decided Vietnam was not enough and decided to go into Loas and Cambodia. His Christmas bombing of 1972 an especially personal act of retribution on North Vietnam
So this is the background to the film.
The Proximity of War
To wage war you need troops and so for Texas anti-communist Lyndon Blaine Johnson it must have been obvious that as he had a war of continuous making; it was an inherited war against Communism, sometimes fought with the US also.
The arms industry was a widescoping and labour intensive work and profit wielding operation, giving with it the supremacy of power sought against the Eastern Bloc of Communism post-war that Russia had become and the quite Maoist China had grown into against its agrarian broadly egalitarian principles, the modern America had within it the black community disenfranchised and treated as second class citizens.
Producing Product
Brad Pitt in Producing role and Ava Du Vernay the Director must have sat down together and looked about at a script or treatment to sort out into Selma. The casting is odd and the Criminal Americans, George Wallace, LB Johnson with principle British Actors complete with wavering Texas, Alabama accents and frankly dumbed down ‘psychotic minds and blood thick contempt’ are cop outs by Americans not wishing to put that nest of vipers on their own doorstep.
It makes you wonder do they have what it takes to tell a complete story.
The counterbalance is also that perversely the Mr and Mrs King performances of the good characters is splendidly accurately and deeply prescribing the emotion and humanity both these people undoubtedly possessed. Oprah is not sole a exception in delivering a stunning and extraordinary memorable acting part. There is seldom an American who does not inhabit nor convince you this reality is now in the room.
Civil Rights
To tell the story of Martin Luther King is a grand project. Quite literally he alone turned the United States of America to the mirror and look into itself.

The hatred , the division, the sectarian, the discriminatory, the exploitation, the inequality the cultural gulf was theirs to own in the USA.
David and Carmen
David Oyeloyo is introduced to us as Martin Luther King in the Brad Pitt peacock way, in a plush hotel room with the peacock feather flock wallpaper alongside the doting wife Coretta played beautifully and smartly by Carmen Ejogo. The Nobel Peace Prize awaits and The scene is our introduction as the Ascot tie is unfurled and retired as with customary and honest reflection, David Oyeloyo conveys the differences existing throughout America as they both have come to this citadel of honorable notoriety.

A very Scandinavian backdrop of pastel mistreatment sand geometric clashes of subdued angst cover the walls behind him on acres of canvas as he receives the acclaim and he has the opportunity to deliver his soliloquy.

The stage is set and we are next to see the memorable, very, very, accomplished performance of the central embodiment of the issue in the form of Oprah Winfrey as Annie Lee Cooper, a nurse sought her right to vote in Selma Courthouse. It is a scene of oppression and dignity plainly conceived and effectively delivering for its writer Paul Webb his and our grasp of where we shall be going.

It is the straight and narrow path which it has been the vision of Martin Luther King to symbolism, focus and harness around the odd gospel doctrinarians that stood the Black communities in good faith through the venal hardships of white slavery and which manifested all over the world in various non-believing forms.

The he actors are well up to this task as most and probably all a have a large part of the memory, the history, the feelings of hurt manifested and manifesting in every core of their existence. This is the story as noted above of holding up mirrors and seeing the reflection inside and out. Of seeing through the impressive though tangibly flawed concept of film another reminder of ourselves flawed and unable to breakdown fears.
Black Power for a War?
Tom Wilkinson as Lydon Blaine Johnson plays the role of the US President (the one the film ignores who saw the need for troops and Black troops suiting his warring ambitions against Commmunism) as a vexed, lagubrious control freak leader manipulating all about him in an ill fitting suit and displaying cockamayne bullshit language as a means of acting plain stupid when he utilised it as another tool in the armoury. David Oyeloyo is never outplayed and neither is given the reign to overbalanced the other in direction. Quite literally this combat of words and gestural conflict are brilliantly handled by Ava DuVernay.

The same is with almost every passage through the film.

The delivery of the Selma town as being atypical Alabama and spokes town for the cities. The Boston’s, Philidelphias, the Chicagos of America as MLK distilled into a real life narrative to focus, focus and bring explicitly and implicitly onto the new TV screens of America.
Ferguson another Ulster name.
DuVernay composes the bridge scenes when the central plank of the film which is the march to set out from Selma to the town of Montgomery (I wonder now about the white settlers from Ulster? erstwhile fundamentalists?) which has as it’s first physical obstacle the Edmund Pettus Bridge. This happened in 1965. It’s was a scene of passive activism meeting with violence unleashed under the authority of Alabama’s Wallace and with the probable blessing of US President Johnson.
Neither of who wanted any power to reach the hands of ordinary people bearing in mind the Black majority in States of the South.

Such was their land theft and exploitation of white and black workers the whole edifice of control was part of an even broader picture of modern empire.

The scenes on the bridge are pivotal and while large parts of America are adjusting to difference, that it was there to stay in many immigrants from Europe’s eyes, it is was entirely different for the Native American and those whose own history was the relatively young slave nations and continued exploitation throughout America.

DuVernay delivers vividly the issue through pieces of dialogue between for example, Malcolm X played Nigel Thatch and Coretta with Carmen Ejogo understanding only too well how personally high the stakes are set against them both.

There is also the civil rights movement, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee whose players have the raw anger of youth and played out by the respective actors superbly.

On March 7th, “Bloody Sunday,” is the centrality.

Lorraine Toussaint as Amelia Boynton,is brutalised on the march, likewise Tessa Thompson as Diane Nash.
Bloody Sunday and the Courts
In the Courthouse Martin Sheen as presiding Judge has a small role and this must have been another tilt at Hollywood’s finest remaining in the room under the invasion of outsider acting.

I noticed and it is not a spoiler, that as well as being a continuity key, DuVernay has a black and white girl on the central steps of the Court staircase conversing leisurely as the case is awaited, adjudicated and discharged.

It is a bit of sisterhood over the male violence which is at the fearful root of the hatred.

Conclusion. ####4

This is a very pivotal film for America to be making as it will be soon bro into the habit of commemorating and making sense of these times after and amid conflicts fought since elsewhere.

The film is a great accomplishment regardless of any caveats, Americans and Foreigners bring to it. It is smoothly achieved without being overwrought. Without rancour it repeats sometimes in the frame of the old footage of TV. Black and white footage without the sight of blood that it had excess of and it is for people like Oprah to get this story told over and over in countless ways. The witness of the United States of America needs is of campus, State museums right in the heartlands telling each part of the story from wherever it reveals the truth of the divisions. The inter gyration of communities need united in principles and seem through the mirror of History.

Despite misgivings on casting and they are in my mind intentionally non-committal moves of intent, the lack of addressing the Politics in an analytical observant way by critics and commentators, it delivers a many vectored and visually impressive and solid story of Historical narrative handheld with excellence by writer, director and the vast bulk of the cast.

It is a wonderous achievement – the achievement of Martin Luther King that is brought In no small part alive and it should not be the only vehicle to explore and inhibit more adventurous filmmaking in looking into the mirror of America. US Cinema should be up for it having so long relied on false narrative, escapism, fantasy for its Cinematic canon.

Less fantasy please America, more of this opinion shaping medium.

The USA needs this continued analysis and the connections run back in many directions, slavery, imperialism, religious division, to the dislodged from the little Island of Ireland for one. Further as well to the more worrying presently pressing, fore bearers of Jewish diaspora from Europe whose religion is like Middle East politics entwined in the industrialisation of War and all have completely undermined their futures in failures to contend with content of the Bible. The commandment not to kill a fundamental evidence of blind faith.

John Graham

4 February 2015

Go see it at QFT from
Friday 6th February to Thursday 16th February 2015

“Glory,” a song by Common and John Legend ends the film.