THE STONE KILLER

US, 1973, 96 minutes, Colour.
Charles Bronson, Martin Balsam, Ralph Waite.
Directed by Michael Winner.

Michael Winner turns out two neat, slick entertainments a year that focus often on law and order in the West or the gangster world. With Charles Bronson, it is the police and Mafia World here. Winner's films are compellingly watchable, even if he drags in an objectionably impossible chase and much violence. He portrays well enough the ruthlessness of criminals who abide by few codes and the pressures on police who (rightly) can't be trigger-happy or as lawless as the men they are trying to protect ordinary citizenry from. As experience and such films remind us, solutions are not easy in theory - and practice happens in the heat and uncertainty of the moment.

1. A good action film? Too violent? How sympathetic can audiences be to characters like Lou Torrey? How revolting is the world in which policemen like Torrey move? Does this make the plots of such action films revolting? Why? Are films like this genuinely portraying their material? Or are they exploiting sensation for box-office success? Why?

2. What was the meaning of the title? The Stone Killer as an official killer? To whom did it refer? To the Mafia killers? To Lou Torrey himself?

3. What point of view did the film have on killing? On justice? On the rights to kill for the policeman? For criminals?

4. What did the film have to say about the law and its authority? The limitations of violence? The initial view of Torrey and his violence with newspaper reaction? Was it right for him to be transferred to Los Angeles? What motivated Torrey and his need for exercising violence? Was it merely exasperation at criminals and their getting away with murder? What philosophy of life did Torrey have about his vocation as detective and his role in society? How was this reflected in his work with Matthews? How did Matthews highlight Torrey's attitudes towards law and violence?

5. What authority should the Press have? In their campaign against Torrey? And transferring him? Did the film emphasize this?

6. How interesting was the plot in Torrey's discovery of the major conspiracy and his following it through? How real are conspiracies like this? Did the film make its story seem credible?

7. What was your impression of the portrayal of the underground world of criminals in this film? The Malibu comfort, the use of negroes, informers, perverts, etc.? Did the film give any insight into the personalities of the criminals e.g. Armitage, Langley the trombonist etc.?

8. Did Torrey's chase of Langley add to the excitement of the film? Was it too violent? The chase in the streets and the crashes into innocent people and their shops? How enjoyable should such chases be?

9. What insight into the Mafia and its modern workings did the film give? The personality of Vescari and his organization? Were you surprised at the vastness of his organization, his buying people, his army and the arrangements, his plans for the massacre? How much revulsion for audiences was there with Vescari?

10. Was the private army credible? The organization, the hidden plans and the training in the desert? The types of men who would belong to such an army? Why? The comment by the film of the criminal nature of the Vietnamese war and its effect on soldiers?

11. How revolting was the massacre? Could Torrey have prevented it? Were people glad that the criminals had wiped each other out? The fact that Vescari escaped? What moral comment here?

12. How human are films like this? Does this matter? What is the ultimate effect on audiences?