THE TOWERING INFERNO

US, 1974, 165 minutes, Colour.
Steve McQueen?, Paul Newman, William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Jennifer Jones, Richard Chamberlain, Robert Wagner, O.J. Simpson, Susan Blakely, Susan Flannery, Robert Vaughn.
Directed by John Guillermin.

Audiences supposedly inured to disasters may find many sequences in this epic quite nerve wracking, quite shatteringly involving. The plot is fairly obvious, the stars and characters solid but conventional, the photography and effects excellent. Which means success depends on how it all works. Stairwells, lifts and tall buildings are commonplace enough for us to feel these filmed dangers threatening even if the sufferers are on rich society level. Steve McQueen? and Paul Newman have spectacular heroics but give the main impression of being very sensible. Some details, especially burning people, are somewhat sensational, and sentimentality lurks, but this is excellent disaster spectacle.

1. The appeal of the disaster film in the '70s? The art form of the '70s? The nature of disasters, causes, repercussions, risks? The spectacle of disaster? Dangers, injury, death? The vicarious identification with characters faced with such risk? The soap opera background to the disaster films? The fantasy of this vicarious identification ? good or not? The reason for the popularity in the '70s, later?

2. The reputation of this film? Big budget, two production companies, the number of stars? The popularity of the conventions? The importance of the special effects? The popularity of the theme song and its playing throughout the film?

3. The Panavision colour photography, California, San Francisco? The world of affluence? The building and its plush luxury, the atmosphere of party? Technology? The importance of the title and the building in itself, the modern giant (with the overtones of the Titanic)? The models used for the building and the way they were used for fire and water? The theme of the big building with its dangers, the cutting of costs,, laws and ordinances and the cutting of these? The way the film built up the first fire, the computers missing the detail,, the confining of the fire yet the risks? The chain reaction and the growing danger and the spread of the fire? Questions of responsibility? The message of the film especially at the end as given by Chief O'Halloran?

4. Audience response to fire? The causes of fire, power of destruction? The horror of burning? The hellish overtones? The first hour of the film and the gradual build-up of the fire and its getting out of control? The rapidity with which it spread? People becoming enveloped in the fire? Its putting escape routes out of action so quickly? The fire brigades and their morale, skills, techniques and strategies? The firemen and their dedication? The ways of controlling fire? The responsibilities for ways of controlling? The film as a tribute to the fire brigades?

5. The structure of the film and audience involvement in the disaster atmosphere: the entry to San Francisco, the unveiling of the building with all its luxury and atmosphere, the settling of the occasion, the society and social issues,, the introduction to the various people, their interaction,, the dividing of the film into episodes highlighting the characters and their interaction, the mounting aspects of the disaster, the need for rescue and the suspense in the success of the rescues or not, the various climaxes, the grand climax? The score and the them as background to this?

6. Themes of human behaviour in crisis, the amount of heroism, people drawing on their resources of courage, people revealed in panic? An ordinary day and people transformed into their better or worse selves?

7. The ever present theme of death and the meaning of life and the way this was illustrated in each of the central characters?

8. The build up at the beginning of the film with Doug Roberts' arrival, the flying over San Francisco, the revelation of the building., the overpraise of the building and the parallels with the Titanic? The architect and his responsibility for the building, the builder and his skills, vanity, meanness with contracts? The reliability of security guards and maintenance? The film's attention to the detail of security and surveillance?

9. The focus on Doug Roberts and the fact that Paul Newman played him? How convincing was he as an architect? His attitude towards the building, the lack of supervision of security, having the opening and the party too early? The personal background of his story and his relationship with Susan? Faye Dunaway and her glamour? The romantic interludes and this as background to their relationship throughout the film,, especially with the dangers? Doug and his involvement with trying to put out the fire, discovering the poor wiring, being ready for helping when the disaster happened? The build-up to the party? Audience being like invited guests observing the glamour? The various people there and their relationship with Doug? His avoiding the party and being involved in the rescue ? especially of Liselotte and the deaf children, the drama on the stairs and the children having to climb down, Liselotte climbing down? His going through the roof of the building to get the cement blasted away? His arranging the numbers for the drawing of lots? The helicopter and its explosion? His having to work with O'Halloran for setting the explosives? His surviving? How well drawn was the character, especially with his sitting with Susan at the end 0'Hallorhan's warning?

10. O'Halloran as hero? How persuasive was Steve McQueen? in this role? Work, skill, businesslike managing of the situation, strong presence? Relationship with his men, supervising their activities, his being present? Tired, having a rest? The incident in the lift, their going down on the ropes, the importance of the cable and the chairlift from one building to the other, the helicopter and the lifting of the scenic elevator, his presence at the end and his ominous warning?

11. The portrait of the various firemen and their characters, Jernigan and the security group, the armed forces and their collaboration? The dangers, the explosions, the deaths?

12. William Holden's portrait of Duncan as the tough builder, ruthless and relentless, his love for his daughter Patti, his despising Simmons, his son-in-law? His being the host with the Mayor and the Senator? His refusal to move the party, his having to take more and more responsibilities? His trying to calm the group, his decision to leave last, his helping people to survive? The fact that he survived? How much was his responsibility?

13. Simmons as villain, a cad, the domestic clashes with his wife, his drinking, his callous attitudes towards cutting costs and his defiance of his father-in-law, his resentment of his wife as being an image of her father, his need for escaping, his humiliation when he rushed down the stairs and had to return, his rebelling , against the lots,, his rushing the chair, his death? The portrait of Patti, his wife, and her keeping calm, wanting to support him, surviving?

14. The subplot of Dan Bigelow and Lorrie, the romantic interlude, the threat of death, their having to cope, the ugliness of their deaths?

15. Liselotte and her being pleasant, her interest in Harlee, the rescue of the children. the stair dangers, her going down on the scenic lift and the suddenness of her death? Fred Astaire's style as Harlee, the importance of the sequence of his telling the truth, their love for each other, his grief at her death? The pathos or not of his receiving her cat at the end?

16. The Senator and his presence at the party, his helping to manage the chairlift. his death because of Simmons and his panic? The Mayor and his wife and their helping, the human touch, the wife's survival? Carlos and his serving the people, rescuing the wine, his death?

17. The aspects of panic and the need for order? Decisions and doing what one was told? People rushing lifts, going down stairwells? Not tying themselves securely when the water was exploded, the unnecessary deaths because of people's panic?

18. The various set pieces, the mounting disasters, the various fire sequences, explosions, the explosion of the helicopter, the chairlift in its collapse, the scenic elevator and the helicopter rescue?

19. What was the audience ultimately left with? An enjoyable piece of disaster hokum? Spectacular soap opera? The fantasy about life and death?

TOWARD THE UNKNOWN

US, 1956, 115 minutes, Colour.
William Holden, Lloyd Nolan, Virginia Leith, Charles McGraw? Murray Hamilton, L. Q. Jones, James Garner, Paul Fix, Karen Steele.
Directed by Mervyn Le Roy.

Toward the Unknown is a film about the American Air Force, the type of film popular in the mid?'50s e.g. Strategic Air Command, The McConnell? Story. William Holden is, as usual, the hero. Lloyd Nolan has a stronger character study as the commanding Brigadier General. There are character sketches from people like Charles McGraw? and Murray Hamilton. The film is an early vehicle for actors like Jones and James Garner.

The film was directed by Mervyn Le Roy, a director of taut thrillers at Warner Brothers in the '30s and longer romantic melodramas at MGM in the '40s. At Warner Brothers in the '50s and '60s, he directed a number of somewhat inflated vehicles like A Majority of One, Gypsy, Mary Mary. A film of its period.

1. Interesting study of the American Air Force of the '50s? Character study and clashes?

2. Colour photography, Californian locations? The importance of the aerial photography? Its excitement? Musical score?

3. The title and the indication of the Air Force testing new planes, rocket programmes? (The British title was: Brink of Hell).

4. The situation in the '50s, the experience of World War Two, the Korean War? Test pilots and their skills and courage? The Californian air bases? Planes, rockets?

5. William Holden as Linc Bond? His imprisonment in Korea, the germ warfare confession, the visit to California, his hopes for his career as a test pilot? His persuading General Banner? His going on routine flights? His discovering the faults in the programme? His being on the X2 rocket programme? The test, his saving the life of McKee? His awareness of the dangers? The clashes with Banner? Experimenting with rocket power? Ignoring orders? The firing of the rockets? Bailing out? The response of Banner? His success in testing? The personal story, the love for Connie? Clashes, reconciliation?

6. Banner and his role as commanding officer, the plans, the faults, the tests, McKee’s? life being saved, Banner and his age, health, wanting to do the tests himself? His going to a new assignment?

7. The portrait of the various pilots, interactions, friendships, suspicions, rivalries: McKee?, Lee, Sweeney, Craven? The authorities?

8. The film as a record of the kind of activity of the American Air Force during the '50s? A fictional tribute?

TOUGH ENOUGH

US, 1982, 101 minutes, Colour.
Dennis Quaid, Carlene Watkins, Warren Oates, Wilford Brimley, Stan Shaw, Pam Grier, Bruce McGill?.
Directed by Richard Fleischer.

Tough Enough is a pleasant Rocky derivative. It even acknowledges this in the training sequence. Denis Quaid (who sang in The Night the Lights Went out in Georgia) is an ambitious singer who has a capacity for fighting (and even a liking for it). Supported by a hesitant wife and by a black couple who befriend him, he enters the American Tough Man contest. Warren Oates in his final role portrays the organiser of the tough man contest.

The film, in many ways, has its cake and eats it. It portrays the fights fairly strongly, at times brutally, yet raises criticisms of the contest. The film has the touch of the fairy tale, echoing Rocky, where the simple young man eventually, through determination, becomes the champion and finishes what he undertook. Direction is by Richard Fleischer, a veteran of many genres of films from Tora! Toral Tora!, Dr. Doolittle, Fantastic Voyage, The Boston Strangler. A folksy film aimed at a wide audience, but pleasing in its way.

1. The title, the focus on boxing, the derivation from Rocky? The quality of the film in itself?

2. The authentic contemporary backgrounds: life in Fort Worth, Texas countryside, Detroit? The atmosphere of the cities? The musical score, the songs?

3. The boxing and the choreography for the bouts? Boxing skills, amateurs? Violence and brutality? Sport and talent? The circus atmosphere of the Tough Man contest ? and exploitation? visual impact, sound, editing?

4. The Texas country & western style? The variety of songs. Denis Quaid’s singing? Their TV presentation? The background score?

5. The title, the Tough Man contest, the point behind the contest, fans, contestants proving themselves, masculinity and macho style? Boxing and its skills? Its dangers? Political views? Attitudes of the fans? The response to fight and violence?

6. Art and his singing, his capacity for fighting, his appearance at the Wet Shirt contest, the tone of the film with its blend of music and fighting and Art as the country & western cowboy?

7. Art as a character, coming home, relationship with Caroline, with Chris? His singing and taking it seriously, wanting Caroline's support? Financial difficulties? The ups and downs of their relationship yet their solid marriage? His relationship with his parents? Going home, his mother's support, working with his father and talking about ambitions? His parents at the bout in Fort Worth? Grandfather looking after Chris? His father being pleased to accept his trophy? Supporting him in Detroit? A pleasing picture of the family?

8. Art and his singing, his composing songs, his ambitions, his singing on the television and the dedication to Caroline, the music going round in his mind during the bout - symbolising his success in his talent as well as his fighting? The background of the recording contract?

9. The encounter with Neese and his assistant? The Wet Shirt contest and Neese's razzamatazz? The invitation to the contest? Neese supporting him? The visualising of the various candidates? their signing up. Neese's interrogation. their names for the public? The bouts and their being rigged? Neese's palaver for the crowds? The huge auditorium? Art and his winning the contest? P.T. and his being eliminated? The effect of Art? Going home to Caroline? The ambitions to go back for winning? To go to Detroit? Caroline and her reluctance, her being persuaded?

10. The character of P.T. and Myra? The black couple in comparison with the white couple? P.T's boxing skill, success in the bouts, his being eliminated by Neese? The help for Art? Friendship, training? The discussions about going to Detroit, Myra and P.T. frightening Caroline in the van? The training in Detroit and the growing friendship?

11. The training sequences (and the echoes of Rocky), the gym and the workouts? The television interviews and Art singing his song, dedication to Caroline? The variety of contestants e.g. the married couples on the television show, Gay Bob and his friend?

12. The contract, joy for Art, Caroline's wanting him to opt out? The meal beginning in celebration and the change of mood? Art's determination to go on, Caroline's reluctance, the reconciliation before the fight? Neese discussing the bout with him in the locker room, the contract. Art realising Neese controlled everything?

13. The character of Neese, the entrepreneur, the smooth talk, the arrangements of the bouts, compering, the short rounds, the pressures, television politics, injuries and deaths, finance, his explaining to Art that the Tough Man contest was the equivalent of a circus and exploitation? His wanting Logan to win? His change of heart at the end and applauding Art?

14. Logan as the professional the harsh fight and the build-up by contrast with his winning his rounds and art winning his? Art and his being scared, the encouragement of P.T., the choreography of the final fight, his hearing the music and gaining the melody for the song as well as winning the fight? His reaction? The crowd supporting him?

15. The wide audience the film appealed to? A piece of Americana? The blend of toughness and tenderness? Hope for the American audience?

A TOUCH OF CLASS

UK, 1973, 106 minutes, Colour.
George Segal, Glenda Jackson, Paul Sorvino, Hildegard Nell, Cec Linder.
Directed by Melvin Frank.

A synopsis would make this film sound like a mindless glossy comedy about an extra-marital affair, flitting from London to Spain, an exercise in superficial entertainment. However, it is a sophisticated piece of humorous froth, showing us the ups and downs of an affair and the inevitable moving towards the pain of the end of the affair. What makes it superior is a fine blend of excellent comedy acting (George Segal again and Glenda Jackson, her second Oscar role, handling it well), entertaining lines and funny situations, and a sense of it being more plausible and real than most popular concoctions. It is obviously adult entertainment and, as such, can be recommended.

1. The high reputation of this film as an entertaining comedy? Box office success? Oscar nominations? The skill of comedy in the 70s? The screwball comedy in the tradition of the 30s as presented in the 70s? The box office value of the stars? Attractive potential for a wide audience?

2. The comic talents of Glenda Jackson and George Segal? Their individual talents, how well did they blend and mesh? The types they represented, the controlled style, the articulation of the dialogue and wit? A battle of the sexes?

3. The indications of the title, waning, tone? The class of Vicki, of Steve, of their affair? The irony of the lack of class in the Spanish episodes? In the English episodes? The quality of a comedy about relationships and sexuality?

4. The use of Panavision and colour: the British sequences - homes, office, theatre, workshop, apartment? The contrast with Spain: the plain, the roads, the Marbella hotel, the coastal scenery, the holiday resort? Appropriate atmosphere for this comedy?

5. The contribution of the music, the songs: the title song with its bounce and lilt, She Loves Me as composed by Steve and sung by Vicki? The other songs, musical background, Beethoven, a touch of class with the music?

6. The film seen as a basic triangle melodrama? As updated and presented in modern setting, exploring relationships and the lack of relationships? Men, women, relationship - affair, love? Family? The affair and needs, deceit? The light touch but serious implications? The comic touch for audience laughter and identification, for reflection? The bittersweet ending?

7. The light-hearted introduction via the baseball: the chance encounters with their comedy, the taxi, the wet etc.? Flirting, the meeting at the hotel, Vicki and her straight talk and Steve's reaction? The plan for the weekend (and the comedy about the various changes of the ticket both with Vicki's presence at the office, the phone calls about the family?).

8. George Segal's portrayal of Steve as a typical ordinary American in London? His strengths and weaknesses of character, vanity, inferiority complex, superiority? His ability at his work? His bonds with his wife, children, in-laws? An ordinary marriage? The importance of the 'seven year itch' syndrome? His style of dealing with this, his coping with life? The comedy on the domestic front?

9. The contrast of characterization with Glenda Jackson's Vicki? Divorced, her work, the rag trade and the visualising of this in detail?

10. The transition to Spain: the anonymous ride, the hiring of the car, the comedy with the car and the rent-a-car girl? The chance meeting with Walter and his shadow over the whole holiday? How successful was the comedy in the arrival at the hotel, the unsatisfactory room, climbing the stairs, the fight with the manager caught in between them? The hubbub of the complications and the visual comedy?

11. How well did the film explore themes of sexuality? The bond between the two, mere physical sexuality with no strings attached? Their fighting, Steve's hurting his back and the humour of trying to remedy this? Their violence, lovemaking? The importance of the argument about how they enjoyed themselves? The clash and the verbal battle, the truth told about each? Making way then for some kind of bond between them after truth had been told?

12. How was this balanced by the holiday sequences - the golf game and the skill of the boy? Their singing together? Shopping, meeting Walter and his wife independently and the meal together with its ironies?

13. The contribution of Walter to the comedy, to the themes? His background, the irony of his work with 'spaghetti westerns' etc.? His typical wife and her buying things? Walter's reflection about affairs and his pessimistic outlook on the consequences? His communicating this to Steve? His acting as a kind of conscience for Steve?

14. Their having to return and the humour of this with the mix up about planes and tickets? Their decision to carry on their affair which was against what they had originally intended? The scouting out of the flat, the Soho area, the importance of their building up and beautifying the flat together? A pleasant arrangement - leading to serious consequences? The serious side of Steve's visit to the flat, his meals? The effect on Vicki? The importance of the farcical elements of his taking the dog for a walk, the number of meals?

15. How did this build up to a head with the concert, the playing of Beethoven and his running backwards and forwards?

16. His work, the inevitability of his decision, the sending of the telegram and his regrets, the ironies and the end of the affair? His not following Vicki? Was this inevitable? Are affairs doomed to this kind of ending? The prospect of his return to Gloria and living his family life?

17. How valuable is this kind of comedy for exploring human relationships?

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER

UK, 1976, 93 minutes, Colour.
Richard Widmark, Christopher Lee, Honor Blackman, Denholm Elliot, Nastassja Kinski.
Directed by Peter Sykes.

Satanism and devil incarnation as bases for horror films
are popular at the moment. Perhaps it reflects the superstition of the times (as a compensation for the loss of religion); perhaps the supranatural elements of folklore and mythology hold a mysterious fascination. Christopher Lee acts as usual as a cold, satanic, excommunicated priest. His adversary is a novelist of the occult, played vigorously by Richard Widmark. In a sense, it is formula material but well done in its way with people like Honour Blackman and Denholm Elliot in support. The Catholic Weekly reviewer said it was for horror connoisseurs - because not everyone wanted to see Bee1ze's Bub! Quite right.

1. Was this a successful horror film, in style and themes?

2. The appeal of horror films for audiences? In the themes, the background of the Devil, evil?

3. The film's presentation of Satanism in the modern world? was it plausible? Real? The comment that 98% is unreal? What of the other 2%? The reality and sickness of Satanism? Its goals and purpose?

4. How plausible was this story? In its plot, contemporary European and London settings? How plausible in its response to realism from the audience?

5. The significance and tone and solemnity of the opening excommunication? Christopher Lee as Father Michael? Seeming a victim? Yet the villain? The significance of his planning for twenty years? The irony and sinister nature Of his convent, plan? The suspense for the working out of his plan? The horror of incarnating the Devil?

6. The details of the way of life in Bavaria, the people involved in Satanism, the doctors, the nuns, Beddoes, his wife? And the contrast then with the modern world of planes and airport terminals, etc.?

7. The film's focus on John Verney? Richard Widmark in this role? As a novelist, his occult background, his relationships to Anne? David? The scenes at the book launching? Beddoes and his intrusion? and Verney's decisions? The motivation for his helping Beddoes?

8. Beddoes as a character. the revelation of his role in the Satanism? His fear, confiding in Verney, shooting the messenger? Father Michael's dominance over him? The spells and his fears? His concern for Katherine? Her role in the film? The gradual revelation of the plot? The flashbacks to her birth? Her fears and dreams, for instance the demon in the mirror? The significance of her nightmare and the birth sequence and their relating of this dream?

9. Comment on the film's detailed portrayal of the occult, the various rites, the power ?even at a distance, the nature of the plan? Did this seem credible? The motives of those involved?

10. The balance of Anne and David as ordinary people? David wanting to get involved? The relationship with John Verney? With Katherine? The violent repercussions of them both? The horror of Anne's death? The ugliness of David's burning?

11. The dramatic aspects of the chase, Beddoes and his pact. the repercussions on Verney and David?

12. Verney's way of countering Satanism? Consulting the Bishop, reading the forbidden books, breaking the spells, etc.?

13. The climax and the atmosphere of the Satanism, the taking over of Katherine? The ugly rites and the succubus atmosphere? The visualising of the Devil as a monstrous child?

14. The dramatics of the final confrontation of Father Michael and Verney? Father Michael and his exercising of power over the various characters, the fact that he could be thwarted, the final thwarting of him? The inevitable rescuing of Katherine? Appropriate for this film?

15. Themes of good and evil, superstition, religion, use and abuse of religion. Power and sexuality? The final quotation from Denis Wheatley and its significance about light and darkness?

TORTURE GARDEN

UK, 1967, 95 minutes, Colour.
Burgess Meredith, Jack Palance, Barbara Ewing, Peter Cushing, Michael Bryant. Beverley Adams. Maurice Denham, John Standing.
Directed by Freddie Francis.

Torture Garden is a horror film and quite an entertaining one, using a fortune telling technique to narrate stories about different characters. Bizarre, with some cliches as well as some scares, it also is designed as an entertaining thought provoker or examination of conscience. This is a highly successful commercial device; it gets people not only interested but involved and frightened as they imagine what would happen to them if they went into a situation where the consequences of their worst fault became a living reality. This is the frightening torture of a carnival side-show, The Torture Garden, run by what seems to be the devil himself in the human form of Burgess Meredith.

The four stories told here are uneven but sufficiently varied and odd to hold the attention of all types of audience, ordinary and sophisticated. In fact, a film like Torture Garden might be a good introduction to groups who are backward at discussion to talking about films and the points they raise. Even admitting some of the ideas in public is a bit like Torture Garden.

1. Did you think this was just another horror film? Was it scary? Did it differ from Frankenstein-type films?

2. Is the story possible? Were the characters in some way hypnotised by the statue of fate so that they imagined the whole story?

3. Who was Diavolo? Was he merely a sideshow manager?

4. Why could you say the film is an examination of conscience?

5. The four people paid a lot of money in a desire to see something horrible? Did they get their money's worth? Why would a person's deepest sin be the most horrifying thing?

6. What were the deep faults of the four characters whose stories are shown? Name them and explain how the story illustrated them. (Greed, ambition, domination, possession.)

TORPEDO RUN

US, 1958, 95 minutes, Colour.
Glenn Ford, Ernest Borgnine, Diane Brewster, Dean Jones.
Directed by Joseph Pevney.

Torpedo Run is typical of many war films made in the '50s. Although the memories of World War II and its action were dimming somewhat by the end of the '50s, the tributes and the explorations of action during the war still flooded the screens.

This film was written by Richard Sale, a storywriter with an interest in the sea e.g. Abandon Ship (1957) which he himself directed. Direction here is by Joseph Pevney, a director of many comedies and action films at Universal including the Jeff Chandler vehicle Away All Boats.

The film is a star vehicle for Glenn Ford, at the height of his career and making numerous films, as well as for Ernest Borgnine who had just won an Oscar for Marty. Dean Jones was at the beginning of his career. The film remembers the American action in the Pacific, especially submarine action. but highlights aspects of the drama with a crisis of conscience for the Commander in attacking a Japanese warship which is being screened by a ship bearing prisoners of war. including his wife and daughter. The action sequences and the crisis give some impact to the film.

1. An interesting war film? An interesting human drama? Impact in the '50s? Now? The memories of World War II?

2. Cinemascope, colour photography? The emphasis on technical detail with the submarine? The techniques of tracking warships, strategies for destroying them? The musical score?

3. Audience familiarity with this kind of film? The situation in the Pacific, the role of the Americans, the taking of the Philippines, American prisoners of war? The skill of the Japanese Navy and submarine commanders? The clash in war? Human crises? Conscience? Heroism? How were the conventional devices used?

4. Audience identification with the situations? The focus on Barney Doyle and his skills as submarine commander? Archer Sloan as his assistant? The collaboration of his crew, loyalty? The English observer? The situation with the Shinaru? The sense of mission? The skill with torpedo destruction? The missing of the Shinaru and the destruction of the prisoner of warship? The personal crisis? Interactions? Naval authorities? The final heroism?

5. The portrait of Barney Doyle - Glenn Ford's style? Intensity? The flashbacks for his wife and daughter, the life in the Philippines, the courting and proposal, the birthday party? Archie's presence and his friendship? The reality of his wife and daughter being on the ship? His sense of duty? The destruction of the prisoner of war ship? The reaction? The naval authorities and their attitude? His antagonism towards Sloan and suspicions? The mission to destroy the Shinaru, the going into Tokyo harbour, going through the net? The success of the mission? The escape from the waterlogged submarine? A portrait of a Navy commander?

6. The balance with Archie? His loyalty, support, help in the running of the ship? Relationships with the men? The human touch? Refusing his own command? Being put down by Barney? The final working together? The importance of Archie being seen in the flashbacks and the bonds of friendship from the past?

7. The impact of the flashbacks: Barney and his shyness, proposing to his wife, life in the Philippines, the pathos of her imprisonment and death? The audience sharing this?

8. The anonymity of the Japanese, being seen as the enemy? Their skills and strategies? The use of prisoner of war ships as screening? Audience response to the final destruction of the Shinaru.

9. The sketch of members of the crew - their working together, drill, the human touch? Fears? Response in difficult situations? The strategy of the English observer?

10. The action sequences and their power? The final escape from the submarine?

11. Themes of war, death and destruction, heroism, sense of duty? Personal crises and crises of duty?

TORN BETWEEN TWO LOVERS

US, 1979, 95 minutes, Colour.
Lee Remick, George Peppard, Joe Bologna.
Directed by Delbert Mann.

Torn Between Two Lovers is a somewhat sensational title for quite a perceptive and telling telemovie. It is the Brief Encounter situation once again, this time in contemporary America and at Kennedy Airport instead of a private country railway station. The treatment is very American, more emphatically emotional than the subtle and suggestive British film. However, with Lee Remick in the leading role, the film is persuasive. George Peppard gives a subdued performance as the other man. Joe Bologna is somewhat strident as the husband. It is an age old situation, focusing on the dilemma for the heroine.

The direction is by Delbert Mann who made many important features of the '50s and early '60s including his Oscar winning Marty and such films as Separate Tables. There is a rather sentimental and slightly sensationalist song during the credits and at various times during the film - something of a distraction.

1. The basic appeal of this kind of 'women's film'? The soap opera tradition? The perennial theme of love and fidelity? American style?

2. The impact of the film as a telemovie? For how audiences, identification? The emotional response? Message? The identification with the moral dilemma? The pacing of the film, character delineation, pause for commercial interruption?

3. The atmosphere of Kennedy Airport for the opening? Homes in Chicago? Art galleries? The affluent American world and the way that it was presented? Audiences identifying with this world? Or not? Musical score? The theme song and its lyrics, insertion into the plot?

4. The basic plausibility of the plot: the encounter during the delay at Kennedy Airport, the background of Diane's marriage and her personality? Paul and the encounter, charm, availability? Ted and his presumptions about his marriage, his work? Infidelity? The effect on Diane? torment, decision, moral courage? Paul and his persuasiveness? Ted and his anger, over-reaction? The possibility of reconciliation and a future?

5. Lee Remick's portrait of Diane? as heroine, American woman, wife, mother? Her age? The encounter at Kennedy Airport with the poster, the enjoyment of the shared experience of talking? The comparisons with her coming how, her relationship with her husband? Taken for granted? Family, friends? The pressure Paul put on her? Her decision not to see him and her breaking it? Falling in love? The moral pressure for her to be have otherwise? The build-up of the dilemma? Her happiness with Paul, the hurt to Ted and family? What persuaded her to break with Paul? and the way she was able to do it? The return? An appropriate solution for the situation?

6. The portrait of Paul, charm at the airport, background, wealth, profession? Seeking out Diane, enjoyment of her company? The confrontation with Ted? His putting pressure on Diane? His disappointment in Diane's choice? A plausible alternative for Diane?

7. Ted, the ordinary husband, taking for granted his relationship with Diane, the years and their build up? His work? His reaction to Diane's telling him the truth? Hurt, anger? overreaction with his secretary? His trying to understand Diane's situation? The bitterness, inarticulate response? The possibility of building the marriage again?

8. The portrait of the minor characters and their support? the family situation, friends, secretary? How well delineated? Their involvement in the action?

9. The atmosphere of soap opera and romance? the long lingering scenes of restaurants, meetings, art galleries? The lonely walks and times for reflection? Bitterness and recriminations? How effectively handled?

10. The importance of the basic themes? An understanding of love, fidelity? The testing of love and fidelity? Hurt, pain, integrity?

TORA! TORA! TORA!

US/Japan, 1970, 145 minutes, Colour.
Jason Robards, Martin Balsam, E. G. Marshall, Joseph Cotten, James Whitmore, George Macready and a large Japanese cast headed by Soh Yamamura, Tokahero Tamura.
Directed by Richard Fleischer (and Toshio Masuda and Kirifi Fukasuku).

Tora! Tora! Tora! was supposed to be the war film to end all war films, the most spectacular film ever made. It is not. Rather it is an interesting piece of co-operation between the U.S. and Japanese government and filmmakers in reconstructing the events of Pearl Harbour 1941, and what led up to the bombing on both sides.

The film is basically a reconstruction. It opens as documentary, characters being identified with name captions, places being similarly identified. There is constant change of location ? from Hawaii to Japan to Washington to Berlin. Objectivity seems to be the keynote. There is no special story of individuals involved in the events. The stars merely portray historical personages and are not overemphasised.

The second part of the film shows the attack. The audience is well prepared, sharing the American lack of readiness, the expert Japanese preparation and the inevitable mistakes and chances. The actual attack is quite spectacularly done. The film could have been inspired, but probably because of the quest for objectivity, it remains on the level of the interesting ? it is not really absorbing. The film has been criticised because it shows the Japanese as intelligent and well-drilled and briefed for the mission, while the Americans are seen as singularly inept. This is not necessarily SO. This could be blaming the Americans with the wisdom of hindsight. While the Americans were lackadaisical, they were not expecting such an attack in such a place and could not have been expected to make elaborate preparations.

1. Do you think the film was fair to both Americans and Japanese?

2. As you watched the film, did you feel you could begin to understand why the Japanese acted as they had and how the Americans were caught off guard?

3. Do you think the documentary style was best for this kind of film rather than concentrating on the story of one or two people involved in the same events? Did the documentary style give the impression of greater objectivity?

4. Why did the Japanese decide to bomb Pearl Harbour? Were officials unanimous in their decision?

5. Why were the Americans not ready? How easy is it to use hindsight to say they should have been prepared?

6. How much was due to chance and accidental incidents and how much to lackadaisical attitudes on the part of the Americans?

7. How different were the Japanese sailors and airmen? different from their American counterparts?

8. How realistic do you think the bombing sequences were? Were you impressed? What was the effect of having the flying instruction plane and the incoming U.S. B525 mixed up with the Japanese forces?

9. How remote did this film make Pearl Harbour and 1941? Did it seem like history or still an episode of our modern world?

10. Do you think the making of such a film, especially the Japanese American cooperation, contributes to world understanding and peace?

TOP SECRET

US, 1984, 86 minutes, Colour.
Val Kilmer, Omar Shariff, Jeremy Kemp, Warren Clarke, Lucy Gutteridge, Michael Gough, Peter Cushing.
Directed by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker.

Top Secret is a piece of lunatic entertainment. It was written and directed by Jim Abrahams, David and Jerry Zucker, the team who produced the first Airplane/ Flying high film (not the sequel).

The team has a skill in sending up the genres and conventions of traditional Hollywood movies. Their films provide an excellent catalogue of such conventions and the way that they can be ridiculed. After working successfully on the popularity of the disaster film, they turned their attention to espionage and war.

The setting is ambiguous ? contemporary East Germany or, on the other hand, Germany during World War Two. The characters and the incidents seem to interchange. The hero is an American rock and roll star, Nick Rivers (played excellently by Val Kilmer, especially in his imitations of Elvis Presley). He has to give a concert instead of an opera star ? but it is to an elite audience and he performs 'Tutti Frutti'. This brings him to the attention of the German Command. There is satire on the typical Nazi officers ? led by Jeremy Kemp. There are also a number of visual gags including jokes about the perspective, for example of telephones in filming.

The plot then becomes a typical war thriller with the heroine (the attractive Lucy Guttridge, Little Gloria, Happy At Last) and her science expert father working for the enemy on a secret rocket. By chance Nick destroys the rocket and the formula but is captured and imprisoned. Suddenly a group of French Resistance appears linked with the heroine Hillary. The Resistance is led by Nigel, a seemingly gay character and there is a flashback parody of Christopher Atkins’ and Brooke Shields' Blue Lagoon. Needless to say, there is a shoot-out, the arrival of the police, the rescue of the doctor from the prison and the rendezvous with the R.A.F. who bring them all to freedom. There is satire in the entry into the castle with the cast disguised as a herd of cows!

A number of stars appear as guests including Michael Gough as Dr. Flammond, Peter Cushing doing an odd piece with a magnifying glass in a bookshop and Omar Sharif getting into all kinds of trouble and sending up him image.

The blend of irreverence, highlighting the strong entertainment points as well as the silliness of the genres and a blend of all kinds of music along with visual and verbal jokes make Top Secret zany entertainment.