input: I agree with the previous comment in naming the film's content "everyday madness" but would like to specify that: "Dog Days" is about how women are treated in (a male) society. The episodes we get to see here show some variation in everyday discrimination of women, mostly categorized by age group. There is a senior man who makes his new partner look and act the way his late wife had, treating her like a doll that shall act "worthy of wearing" the former's dress. There is a middle-aged couple in whose relationship she is nearly a slave and he a (violent) master. Further we find a somewhat younger man who does not communicate with his friend/wife and instead of being really jealous about her affairs even makes friendship with his competitor(s). A young adult man makes clear to his friend - a girl who is really troubled by being pretty enough for him - that she has to be the jewelry at his side and to follow his narrow viewed rules of etiquette. Finally there is a man in his late fifties who calculating his own advantage delivers a simple-minded hitchhiking woman to a furious client who - taking her for guilty in having scratched his car - natural beats her up. To complete the examples we find the pal of the man in the "master-slave"-couple - after collectively abusing her - threatening and humiliating the former "in her sake" for she shall get rid of her partner and take himself as her new "master". During all this the inhabitants of the lately built neighborhood in which the action takes place rests under the burning summer-sun - absolutely motionless (sic!). Unfortunately I have not seen the last minutes of this shocking and authentic portray of the archaic structures that still reign in the relationship between women and men, but what I have seen convincingly analyzed the repertoire of discrimination. Probably a helpful tool in teaching even the less sensitive spectator what goes wrong - due to good visualization.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not cliched) motions of time passing by with titles etc everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive