THE THINGS OF LIFE (LES CHOSES DE LA VIE)

France, 1970, 89 minutes, Colour.
Michel Piccoli, Romy Schneider, Lea Massari.
Directed by Claude Sautet.

The Things of Life looks like a typically French, colour romance, descended from A Man and A Woman, even to lengthy sequences of car-driving. However, it takes the car-driving a step further and the framework of the film is a car accident which is shown in part several times and twice fully - in slow motion and at normal speed. The main part of the film is flashback. The story is familiar and slight - an older married man making a decision to leave his wife for his mistress. However, the film is made with a light touch. The actors draw audience response of interest and concern and the romantic colour photography, full of warmth and light, gives the tragedy a lyrical tone. Audiences can enjoy and be interested in such a treatment of a serious theme (even though critics point out that the style of the film is that used so frequently for commercials).

A humane film which raises the frequently met issues of love, marriage and responsibility.

1. Was this just another glossy, woman's story, cigarette-commercial style, sentimental romance? (Some critics said it was.)

2. How effective were the flashbacks in view of the accident and the audience's knowledge that the story ended with the accident?

3. Did you get to know Pierre as a person? What kind of a man was he? Why did he behave as he did? Was he an ordinary kind of man?

4. What kind of people were his wife, Helene, his son, his business associate and friend? Why did all of them like him? Why were they saddened by his death?

5. Why had Pierre fallen out of love with his wife? How do the flashbacks show this?

6. What kind of a girl was Helene? Why did she love Pierre? How much happiness did she expect or want? Did her mother explain her daughter's shyness well?

7. What was the point of showing the actual accident in such detail? What was the effect of showing it twice, once in slow motion and once at normal speed? Was this just a gimmick or did it help you to understand the role accident and death played in the film?

8. Why was Pierre happy although severely injured and dying? Did he die happy? What impact did his imagination of death as a swimming, drifting away from his family and drowning have on you?

9. What were Pierre's wife's feelings when she read his letter to Helene? Did she think he had stopped loving Helene? Is this why she tore up the note? Was she happy?

10. What was the irony in the wife's reading his note and seeing Helene run to the hospital? She actually prevented Helene from being unhappy by tearing up the note.

11. Critics said the film was derivative of the commercial-style of A Man and A Woman - colour, lush, natural settings, car drives, romantic music. Do you think this took away something from the film?

THE THING

US, 1982, 103 minutes, Colour.
Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, T.K.Carter, Richard Masur.
Directed by John Carpenter.

The Thing is John Carpenter's remake of Howard Hawks', Christian Nyby's early '50s classic. The screenplay was written by Burt Lancaster's son, Bill Lancaster.

This film remains closer to the original story, Who Goes There, by John W. Campbell Jr. (pseudonym Don A. Stuart) of 1938. The film emphasises the isolation of an Antarctic team, the growing paranoia and suspicion as men begin to mistrust one another. The film also visualises the monstrous thing described in the story - this was rather avoided in the Hawks - Nyby film. The visual effects are impressive. In fact, they are almost too horrible. They are the work of Rob Bottin, who worked on The Howling, transforming humans into werewolves in one sequence. While this adds to a certain amount of fantastic realism, it seems at times so horrible that it can distract the audience from the drama.

John Carpenter is an expert at various film genres ranging from science fiction in Dark Star to police sieges in Assault on Precinct 13 to his horror in the fog, Halloween. He also made the futuristic fantasy Escape from New York. His star is Kurt Russell, who appeared in his telemovie of Elvis and in Escape from New York. This is a very clever film - but in many ways it overwhelms its audience.

1. The impact of horror films? Scaring audiences? Visualising nightmares? What if .... ? The quality of this horror film - style, content? Entertainment value? The seriousness of this film - or exploitation horror? The classic status of the original story, the original film? The work of John Carpenter and his skill in film genres?

2. Comparisons with the Howard Hawks - Christian Nyby classic? The original B-material and B-treatment with its atmosphere of horror? This film's big budget and location photography and special effects? Its closeness to the original novel? The visualising of the Thing? The discussion as to whether explicitness is more horrifying than implicit suggestion?

3. The visuals of the Thing, horror, reality and unreality, the monstrous imagery? The contrast of the monster with the landscapes and snow scapes of the Antarctic? With the interiors of the American base with the electronic games, the ordinary mess atmosphere etc.?

4. The importance of the opening for creating atmosphere: the Antarctic landscapes, snow and mountains, the helicopter flight, the dog being pursued through the snow? Audiences' sympathy with the dog? The suggestions of paranoia, the Norwegian going berserk? The build-up of suspicions? The transformation from the opening sequence to the interiors with the men wary of one another? Experiencing horror? The visualising of the Thing, the exploding animals and humans? The mounting terror and the mutual hatred? The journey from day to night?

5. The title and its vagueness? The Thing as buried in the Antarctic ice, a thing of the past, the discovery by the Norwegians, the response to the warmth, the possession of the dog, the transformations and the ingesting of people, the Thing and its self-preservation, its being destroyed in its mutant forms? Was it ultimately destroyed?

6. Antarctica and American missions, the isolation, landscapes, the cold and freezing, the pressure on nerves? The facilities of the base? For work and research? For recreaction? The reactions of the men cooped in isolation, antagonisms, suspicions? Friendliness and antipathy? Boredom? Professionalism? The encounter with the Norwegians - and the visit to their base and its destruction?

7. The dog chase and the suspicions? The death of the Norwegian? The dog in the case and its explosion? Pervading terror and explicit horror?

8. Mac Readie as the tough hero? His isolation in his hut? Appearance, drinking, chess-playing and anger, helicopter skills? His flights and his searching the Norwegian base? His control of the men? Suspicions? Practical action? His being isolated but let into the huts? The blood tests? His destruction of the mutants? Survival? He and the negro survivor facing the dark night? An American hero?

9. The range of men: Blair and his age, capacity for investigation, rears, destroying the communications, realising the repercussion of the Thing's taking over humanity, his computer calculations, his being isolated, his escape and death? Garry and his control, antagonism, suspicions, his being tied up? The surgeon and his search of the Norwegian headquarters, his examination of the suspects, his arms being bitten off, his death? The negroes - the cook and his jollity, lack of consideration for others, his fears, death? The angry negro and his antagonism, survival? The researchers and the working men - suspicions, their being tied up, the blood tests, the monstrous mutations and their deaths? The black man and the white man surviving at the end of the world in the night of Antarctica?

10. The visual experiences of explosions, ingestions, mutations? Monstrosity with tentacles, bones, distorted and screaming faces? Gore and blood? The ability of an audience to respond to the visual horror?

11. The underlying fear, suspicion, paranoia? The echoes of so many films like The Old Dark House? (The links with Alien, etc.)

12. For what audience was the film made? Young or old? Science fiction fans? The status of the original film? How does this film match it as a classic?

THE THING (THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD)

US, 1951, 87 minutes, Black and white.
Robert Cornthwaite, Kenneth Tobey, Margaret Sheridan, Bill Self, Dewey Martin, James Arness (as The Thing).
Directed by Christian Nyby.

The Thing, which R.K.O. somewhat nervously sub-titled From Another World, was a B movie success in its day and has risen to the status of a science fiction classic. It was made in the atmosphere of quite a number of B budget science fiction films which relied for their inspiration on popular stories as well as comic strips. They resembled in many ways the popular serials. However, they were beginning to gain a bit more respectability with the work of such directors as George Pal and Byron Haskin e.g. Destination Moon, When Worlds Collide. Director Christian Nyby made a few features but worked mainly in television.

The film is generally attributed to his producer, veteran director Howard Hawks. Hawks made many action classics including Hell's Angels and Only Angels Have Wings. He was noted for his John Wayne westerns: Red River, Rio Bravo, El Dorado, Rio Lobo. He always considered a man's director and showed men in difficult situations - their comradeship and confronting difficulties - with a touch of tough humour. The women were always strong men's women. Critics comment that this is the atmosphere of The Thing. The musical score was by Dmitri Tiomkin, the noted musician who wrote such popular themes as High Noon, The High And The Mighty, Friendly Persuasion. The film is more realistic in tone than so many films of the time. It is also very much anti-science - Hawks said this emerged from the making of the film, it was not intentional at the beginning. James Arness is the monster, The Thing. The Thing has been reshown in many science-fiction festivals and has become something of a model for this kind of alien confrontation. It was seen on television in John Carpenter's horror film Halloween and has been imitated and admired in such films as Ridley Scott's Alien.

1. The reputation of the film? In its time? The reasons for its classic status? The background of its writing, production? The stars and non-box office names? Howard Hawks and his work as producer - influence of his style?

2. The production values of the film: the re-creation of the Arctic, the airbase, the planes, special effects? The portrayal of The Thing itself? Black and white photography? The Dmitri Tiomkin score?

3. The Hawksian themes: men isolated, robust, facing crises, making mistakes, fighting them? The isolated situation and the requirements for toughness? The place of women in this atmosphere? The women standing up to the Hen? The ironic and humorous touches?

4. The background of science fiction film around 1950? B budget and production? The artificial nature of science fiction? The conventions? The influences of the serials - contrived drama, cliff-hangers etc.? Shock rather than suspense? How were these conventions transformed in this film? The reliance on suspense rather than shock?

5. The realism of the film: 1950s in America, attitudes towards flying saucers, interest in science and technology and its development, reliance on it, the armed forces and the protection of America, the cold war? Experiments? The possibilities of invasion from other planets? Headline news and media coverage? The need for people to cope with life from another world? Audiences identifying with this at the time? How dated does it seem now? In the light of later elaborate science fiction?

6. The film playing on fears of flying saucers, things from outer space, keeping such invasions secret, newspaper headlines? The importance of the end and the warning given to the audience? (Echoes of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds?)

7. The presentation of the base - realistically: Hendrie and his toughness, coping with difficult situations, pilot, making decisions? His friendship with Nikki - and the memories of their competing in drinking, her tying him up to get advantage? Giving him the notes? Scotty and his interest in the news story? Getting on with his job? Carrington and the overtones of the obsessed scientist, the emphasis on the rational and emotionless pursuit of science and technology? The doctor? Mrs. Chapman? The crew and their duties? The easy interplay of the dialogue between the characters on the base? Fluid movement of the camera around the base so that the audience got to know it? A sense of the place and the bonds between the people there?

8. The atmosphere of authenticity: life at the base, the Geiger readings during the flight, the discovery of the submerged flying saucer, the famous circle to measure the size and shape of the saucer? The explosions? The discovery of the Thing in the ice cube? Its being preserved?

9. The humans coping with the extraordinary: keeping the Thing frozen, acknowledging fear, the creation of an atmosphere of tension, the irony of the ice falling, the Thing killing the dogs, the screams? The discovery of the nature of the Thing and provision against it? Carrington and his experiments? The build-up of suspense as to what the Thing would do and how the group would cope?

10. The film's attack on scientists and their obsessions? Carrington and his personality, his views, the emphasis on the rational? His stealing of the plasma? His discovery about the plants and the Thing's capacity for reproduction?

11. The Thing and its ominous menace? The fact of its being at the Arctic, theories about the invasion. the plant characteristics and the development, the capacity for destruction, control, the need for blood? The final confrontation and destruction of the Thing? The spectacular use of electricity?

12. Themes of ingenuity, heroics, the ordinary citizen being heroic? Practical? The emphasis on science fiction? How authentic is the story in retrospect? Why has the film then become a classic?

THIEVES LIKE US

US, 1973, 123 minutes, Colour.
Keith Carradine, Shelley Duvall, John Schuck, Bert Remsen, Louise Fletcher.
Directed by Robert Altman.

Thieves Like Us is a striking film. Director Robert Altman is not too worried about making allowances for his audiences. Which means that his films are not great box-office. He is more interested in immersing his audience in a particular world, which he re-creates with great detail without continually drawing attention to it. Glimpses of situations, snatches of conversation are integral to the mood of the film. The world of this film is that of Bonnie and Clyde, the mid-west Depression robbers, "thieves like us". Given Altman's skill in style, and developing characters within his world, this film seems one of his best, with excellent performances by Keith Carradine and Shelley Duvall, supported by, amongst others, Louise Fletcher.

1. The significance of the title and the juxtaposition of "thieves" and "us"? The significance of "like"? The title as used during the film? The evocation of robberies, and audience appeal in robberies?

2. The importance of cinema technique in the film? The initial shot, editing, close-ups? The importance of the prologue and the several minutes of the one take? The angles at which robberies were filmed? The attention to sounds and background?

3. The importance of colour, the locations of the '30s, the detailed attention to sets, the milieu of 1937? The especial importance of sounds: the radio, the serials and their music themes, songs, Romeo and Juliet, Roosevelt's speeches, the speech of Father Coghlan and his voice during the final shot of people in slow motion going up the stairs?

4. The background of the Depression and its effect on people? The Depression as a theme of the film? Making people thieves and prisoners, keeping them thieves? The type of cavalier thieves during the Depression? Robberies as a kind of game.

5. The presentation of prisons, the theme of imprisonment? The initial picturing of the prison escape the guards? The later presentation of prison, especially with Chicamaw and his escape? The portrayal of the guard at home with his wife, eating his dinner? His execution of Chicamaw?

6. The themes of escape and freedom? The initial escape and the consequences, the final escape and the consequences? The similarities and contrasts? The various types of imprisonment and lack of freedom during the film?

7. The themes of individual and group defiance, themes of right and wrong, regrets, pride? what were the standards and values of the principal characters? In the society in which they lived? Their code of honour amongst themselves?

8. The themes of crime and selfishness? Cavalier attitude towards crime? Pride in crime? Selfishness and brutality?

9. The world of the minor characters as supporting the main characters, for example, Jazzbo, Dee Mowbley, the guards at the prison, the guard and his wife at their meal etc.?

10. The three thieves as a group? Their belief in themselves and their functioning as a group? Their harmony and their gelling together? The reason for the bonds, the reasons for tension between them? The way that they executed their crimes? The irony of the ease with which they committed their crimes? The contrast to the speed and violence?

11. The film's focus on Bowie? Audience sympathy for the young man, the sympathetic character? The explanation of his past and his killing a man? The fact that he was a country boy, with baseball ambitions? A sympathetic young man with a dog etc.? His involvement in crime and his pride? The growth of his relationship with Keechie? His courtesy towards Matty and his wiping up etc.? His involvement in the accident and being taken on by Chicamaw? His growing in love with Keechie and their equivalent marriage? A presentation of choices to him and his choices? The motivation for Chicamaw's escape? His respecting him? The pathos of his death and his body being carried out? How much insight into this character?

12. The film's presentation of Keechie as a character? As first seen with Dee Mowbley, her working, in the shop, her personality and lack of personality, her style, smoking and talking, drinking Coca Cola? Her gradual falling in love, tending for Bowie, moving with him, the significance of the baby? Her illness? Her revulsion at his death? The irony of her being at the station and talking about Bowie. his death seen as a betrayal? The film ending with her walking up the stairs?

13. T-dub and his style? His ambitions to be a criminal? His genial personality, his help of Bowie? His leg? His attitude towards people's presentation of him, the papers? His love for Lula? His help of Matty? The irony of his death? What kind of thief was he like? His own initiatives a victim of the time?

14. The film's portrayal of Chicamaw? His aggression, his skill in the robberies. the humorous and ironic aspects of his character. his drinking? His violence and shooting the police after the accident? His being imprisoned. rescued by Bowie. the outburst about his pride? His shooting the guardsman and his being left on the road by Bowie? How sympathetic and unsympathetic? Why was he a thief?

15. The importance of Matty in the film? The sequences of the family and their style of life? The humour of Matty's authority in the house, cleanliness etc.? Her attitude towards the children? Towards Lula? Her role at the end in comforting Keechie, in informing about Bowie? The ordinary citizen? The contrast with Lula? Her skill at hairdressing, tending T- but actually marrying him?

16. How fatalistic was the ending? How pessimistic? Is death the inevitable fate for 'thieves like us'?

17. How particularly American was the film, its plot and its treatment, its themes? How does it reflect the atmosphere of the '30s? The '60s and '70s in their looking back at the world of the gangsters? Trying to understand the past and its significance?

THE THIEF WHO CAME TO DINNER

US, 1973, 105 minutes, Colour.
Ryan O'Neal, Jacqueline Bissett, Warren Oates, Jill Clayburgh, Charles Cioffi.
Directed by Bud Yorkin.

The Thief Who Came To Dinner is a very entertaining piece of froth if you are in the mood for froth - a stab at our dishonest world by an honest thief. There is enough humour (and strong audience identification with the robberies) to make the amoral joke worthwhile. Ryan O'Neal is the thief and the film is clearly made for fans of his style. All he has to do is look athletic and genial (a lovely thief) and frequently don a smug smirk that certainly won over a fairly large audience of ladies. Warren Oates is very good as the frustrated insurance investigator. A pleasant way to spend 100 minutes.

1. How enjoyable a comedy was this? What was the point of its being made - besides frothy entertainment? Did it have a point?

2. Comment on the role of computers in this modern comedy. The computer world and the heroes opting out of it. Computers for his chess game? The atmosphere of machines and humans in today's world? The nature of the hero in this atmosphere? Opting out of his job, divorcing his wife, abandoning traditional rat-race, abandoning morality? How did audiences identify with him as a hero?

3. The highlight on the thief. The fact that he was the hero, Ryan O'Neal's personality, his belief that everybody robs? Therefore, he was an honest thief. Is there such a thing? Did it matter for the enjoyment of the film? What attitudes to morality did it presuppose in the audience?

4. How attractive a hero was Webster McGee? On seeing his practising his skill, his casing his first house, posing as a plumber, succeeding in the robbery? How was the audience made accomplice to this? our seeing things from his point of view?

5. How ingenious were his robberies? How successfully filmed were they? Enjoyment and excitement? His relationship to Laurie? The use he made of blackmailing? Invitations to dinner and entry into society? The satire on snobbery?

6. How interesting a heroine was Laurie? Typical Hollywood heroine? Her testing of Webster for his breaking into a house? Why did she take up with him? Did their relationship develop into love? Why did she partner him in his crimes? How amoral a character was she? Did it matter for this film?

7. How was the astro-ball and the intercutting of the robbery a highlight of the film? The nature of the car-chase in this film, the role of the police? Was this comparable to robbery films? Was it better?

8. Comment on Deams and dynamite. The role in society of fences? The comedy that they provided? Their relationship to Webster McGee?

9. Did you enjoy Warren Oates as Dave Riley? Why? The comedy in this performance? The relentlessness of his pursuit? His foolishness? That he was so likeable? Did you hope he would succeed in catching Webster McGee? How did Dave Riley's pursuit add to the drama of the comedy?

10.How enjoyable was the duel with the chess expert? The use of the computer, the cheeky leaving of a chess piece and the next move? The frantic play of the expert?

11.What happened to Webster in his robberies? His vanity? His self-esteem? The ex-wife coming to try to reconcile with him because he was so successful? (The ironic comment in this?)

12.How interesting was the big robbery? How well communicated to the audience were the plans for its success? The museum itself, the renting of the house, his disguise as a priest? How exciting was the robbery and the fact that he almost did not get away? The chase and the flight away? Was this a successful part of the film? Why?

13.The effort that Webster made to deceive Dave Riley even when he was wounded? The fact then that Dave Riley was sacked, and yet caught Webster when he was not officially in pursuit? The dilemma with which Webster escaped? Were you glad? Did you feel sorry for Dave Riley?

14.How enjoyable was this film on the whole? Its comments on crime? its comment on modern morals? Its comment on American society?

THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD

UK/France, 1978, 96 minutes, Colour.
Roddy Mc Dowell, Peter Ustinov, Kabir Bedi, Frank Finlay, Terence Stamp, Pavla Ustinov, Ian Holm.
Directed by Clive Donner.

This has been a popular story for films - and variations of the story have been used in a thousand and one Arabic and Arabian Nights stories. Douglas Fairbanks was the thief in the spectacular silent version. Alexander Korda's production of 1940 was the masterpiece presentation of the story -with the vivid characterisations especially from Conrad Veidt as the evil Vizier. Sabu also starred. There were excellent special effects. This version is more straightforward but capitalises on the atmosphere of the older English version. A variation on the theme was made in Arabian Adventure by Kevin Connor - with Christopher Lee at home in the role of the soulless Vizier.

This is a British/French co-production with a varied cast including Peter Ustinov and his daughter Pavla. Terence Stamp was make a come-back in the late 70's with this role as well as Meetings With Remarkable Men and Superman II. Direction is by Clive Donner, a director with a mixed career including versions of Pinter's The Caretaker in 1963, Raphael's Nothing But The Best 1964, What's Up Pussycat 1965. In the 70's he directed such scripts as Vampira and The Nude Bomb as well as a tele-movie of Rogue Male starring Peter O'Toole.

1. Popular ingredients for stories, films? The background of the Arabian Nights? The fairy-tale and fantasy aspects of the plot - and their popularity? Scope for visual imagination for the screen?

2. A re-make of the story for the 70's? The adaptation of the basic story, the use of Arabian nights conventions, stock characters and plot? The reliance on impact for the special effects?

3. The quality of the international production - the international star cast? Colour, costumes and decor? Special photographic effects? The score?

4. The straightforward presentation of the plot: introduction of characters, the natural momentum of the intrigue? The adventure aspects, comedy, quest, romance, magic? The confrontation of good and evil?

5. The appeal of fantasy - what if? The possibilities of the control of nature? Loyalty, the ordinary people? The thief and the use of his wits? The Prince and his quest? The soulless evil Vizier? The build-up to the confrontation between good and evil? Evil destroyed, good rewarded? The basic ingredients of so many stories?

6. Prince Taj as hero - his father's adviser, the confrontation with Jaudur? The quest for the Caliph's daughter, the voyage to Baghdad, the attack by the bandits, Taj's escape, the stealing of the melon, the chase through the streets, his being saved by Hasan and his not being believed? His impact on the Caliph, on the Princess? The confrontation with Jaudur, the duel? The quest and the travels of Taj? The help of Perizadah? The temple? Taj looking back and being
turned into stone? Hasan's rescuing him? The encounter with the genie? The wishes and the return and saving the Caliph and Jasmine? The confrontation with Jaudur and his destruction? The happy ending? The ingredients for the romantic hero? His dashing style? Audience identification with him?

7. The contrast with Jaudur? His lack of justice, ambition? His using the old King's adviser? his capacities for magic? His having no soul? His persecution of Taj? The duel? His exercising his magic powers? His seeking for the all-seeing Eye for the Temple of Truth? His stealing the eye? The evil spell for his marriage to Jasmine? Taj and his confrontation? His dissolving? The special effects associated with his magic - the carpet, the horseman, the gifts?

8. Hasan and the title of the film? His tricks, his encounter with Taj, his role in the market place, accompanying him? The attraction of Perizadah? The adventures with the all-seeing Eye? His success in not being turned to stone? His being rescued? His humour and wit?

9. Peter Ustinov's comic style as the Caliph - his hamming up his role? Love for his daughter, encounter with Jaudur, Taj? The advice? Treaties? His being under the spell? The happy ending?

10. The conventional princess and her role in the court, love for her father, fascination for Taj, the spell to marry Jaudur? Happy ending?

11. The character of the old gatekeeper, his vision of the truth, his advice?

12. The genie and his coming out of the bottle, the three wishes, his being tricked by Taj? Helping him?

13. The visual impact of the battle sequences, the violence, the magic?

14. The background of the film - the atmosphere of Arabia, the landscapes of desert, temple and mountain, the evil?

15. The culmination of excitement in the confrontation, the battle, the death of Jaudur? The basic ingredients of the legend and folklore? The perennial appeal?

TRAVELLERS AND MAGICIANS

Bhutan, 2003, 108 minutes, Colour.
Tshewang Dendup, Sonam Kinga.
Directed by Khyentse Norbu.

Travellers and Magicians is the second film of the writer-director, a native of Bhutan. His previous film, The Cup, was an Australian- Bhutan collaboration focusing on two young monks interested in soccer at the time of the World Cup.

This film was actually made in Bhutan itself, utilising the beautiful mountain scenery of the Himalayas. Once again it is a Bhutan- Australian co-production. The film was shot entirely in the language of Bhutan itself.

The film is a story of two journeys, two spiritual journeys. The chief officer in a remote village in the mountains realises he cannot remain in his town and wants to travel abroad, especially to America. He has a vision of himself working in the fields. He hitchhikes and meets a monk, an old apple seller, a paper maker, his young daughter – to whom he is attracted.

The second journey is the story recounted by the monk, a fable that paralyses the officer’s journey. The film intercuts between the two stories. The fable is about a farm boy who studies magic, leaves his village, while having a meal with his brother, he goes on his journey, meets an old recluse and his wife. He falls in love with the wife – and the film has a warning ending.

The dilemma, of course, for the officer is whether he wants to leave his home or not.

The film has a Buddhist spirituality sense pervading it, the perspective of the writer-director (as was also the case with The Cup).

1. The impact of the film as entertainment, as insight into the life of Bhutan, of deeper themes and storytelling?

2. The Bhutan settings, the village, the mountains and the valleys, the roads? The different visual styles for the contemporary story and for the story within the film? The musical score?

3. The structure of the film? The focus on the young man, his ambitions to go to America, his life in the village? On the road, the encounter with people, the monk and the storytelling, the interweaving of the story as the group went on their journey?

4. The contemporary story: the young man, (pointed / appointed)? as an official in the village, his encounter with the monks and their archery? The official in charge, suspicious of him? His friend, their discussions? His wanting to be modern, his posters, the music, the girls? His waiting for the letter, the long delay, the final delivery? His excitement, getting permission to leave, going to the road, interrupted by people wanting to give him things? Missing the bus? On the road, nobody giving him a lift? The encounter with the apple seller, the old man and his paper, his daughter? The monk and his cheerfulness? Their being on the road, camping at night, the meals? The storytelling? The young man and his attraction to the girl, giving up smoking? The monk and his taunts? Jovial? The final lift, the young man staying with the girl, his becoming part of the monk's storytelling?

5. The monk, cheerful, telling stories? The apple man? The old man and his daughter, giving up her studies, helping her father? The people on the road, the cars passing, the bus drivers, the trucks?

6. The story within a story, the father with the two sons, their different characters, the older son going off, becoming lost, the encounter with the old man, his daughter? The infatuation with the daughter, her pregnancy? The plan to poison the old man, his death? The death of the woman and haunting the man?

7. The Buddhist background of the film, ways of Buddhist storytelling and moralising?

TATTOO

Germany, 2002, 109 minutes, Colour.
August Diehl, Christian Redl, Nadeshda Brennicke, Johan Leysen.
Directed by Robert Schwentke.

Tattoo was very popular at the German box office in 2002-2003. It also travelled well around the world.

The film is set in Berlin and focuses on police and investigations. However, with the design, production, colour design, the film is evocative of such other films as David Finch's Seven. It has a sinister look, shows a Berlin underworld, even makes the police look suspicious.

The concern is for a serial killer who is taking tattoos from the bodies of the victims. What is revealed is an international link, based on the Internet, for a collector to have a museum of elaborate tattoos. Murder is no obstacle.

The old police inspector is concerned about the disappearance and death of his daughter. The young policeman, who is on drugs, is persuaded by the old chief to join him in the investigation, to enter into the Berlin underworld in order to discover the truth. This he does, though he falls foul of a femme fatale who, of course, turns out to be the ultimate villain, her own body being completely tattooed. The film works as an interesting police investigation story but also works as a very eerie look at a strange criminal world. In this way, it is reminiscent of the films of the 20s and 30s in Germany, especially those by Fritz Lang with Dr Mabuse, which created these kinds of elaborate and exotic criminal worlds.

1. An atmospheric thriller? Berlin, Germany? The surface Berlin, the underground Berlin?

2. The locations, the police precincts, the nightclubs? The world of the tattooists? The museum of tattoos, a world of madness and beauty?

3. The focus on Schrader, his joining the police, his destiny, at a desk in the office? His private life, the nightclubs, the police raid, his escape? Leaving behind his jacket, the drugs in the pocket? Detective Mincks and his knowing about the drugs, the interview? Offering him a job in Homicide Department, the alternate to be charged with the possession of drugs? Mincks's proposal, the disappearance of his daughter, the hardened veteran who was anxious about his child? His belief that she was lost somewhere in the drug subculture, wanting Schrader to search for her?

4. Mincks, age, experience, tough investigator? His relationship with his daughter, his grief at her disappearance? The motivation for putting pressure on Schrader?

5. Schrader, his moving around the rave scene, finding the daughter, her unwillingness to let her father know the truth?

6. The investigation of the victims of the serial killer? The examination of the bodies, the gruesome close-ups? The tattoos and their being missing from the corpses?

7. Schrader, his inquiries, his meeting Maya, her gallery? The discussion about tattoos, the discussions about Oriental art? His learning that she knew one of the murder victims? His further investigations, the interrogation of the drug addict, the information about the lawyer, Schouba, his collecting of tattoos? The approach to Schouba, Schrader and Mincks and their interrogation? His information about the unknown figure, the name Irezumi? The Internet chat room, the coordination of the trade in tattoos?

8. Schrader and Maya, the affair? Maya and her passion? Schrader and his love for her? Mincks and his knowledge of the affair, his wanting to use Maya as a lure to the criminal? Her own body tattoos? Marie being murdered, her tattoo being sent to her father? His grief, killing himself?

9. Schrader, his reaction to Mincks's death, his asking Maya to be the bait, the police, the attempt to catch the mysterious Irezumi? The failure of the set-up, Maya and her disappearance? The irony of Schrader's later discovering that Maya herself is Irezumi?

10. The end of the film - and the opening for further developments? Maya at a restaurant, her looking at someone with a tattoo? The future?

11. How effective a detective story, an exotic world of crime and violence? The visuals and sounds to suggest this kind of world?

TIME LINE

US, 2003, 116 minutes, Colour.
Paul Walker, Frances O'Connor, Gerard Butler, Billy Connolly, Anna Friel, Neil Mc Donagh, Ethan Embrey, David Thewlis, Matt Craven, Michael Sheen, Lambert Wilson, Marton Csokas, Rossif Sutherland.
Directed by Richard Donner.

Having read Michael Crichton's Timeline and enjoyed its kind of Saturday matinee adventures, I was looking forward to the film version. It begins exactly as the novel does. The last scene is the same as in the novel. And, in between, it stays very close to the novel as well. The result is an entertaining adventure in the past and some imagination concerning time travel in the present.

When an archaeologist (Billy Connolly) working on the ruins of a 14th century fort and village disappears, especially when a message dated 1357 is discovered, his rather gung-ho son (Paul Walker) and the archaeological team (headed by Frances O'Connor and Gerard Butler) are naturally concerned. What they never dreamed was that they would be following the professor within hours back into the 14th century. Not only do they have to find him and bring him home, they have to take an active part in the battle between the English and the French, rescue the Lady Claire (Anna Friel), defeat the English lord (Oliver), confront a scientist who finds himself more at home in medieval France - and get back themselves. Which is - more or less - what they accomplish. The enjoyment is in finding out what is the more and the less.

Michael Crichton's novels are a bit like theme parks (well, of course, Jurassic Park really was one) and this version takes us on a medieval adventure of knights, damsels and battles with 21st century Americans all the while trying to disguise themselves (although it is yet another case of the yanks coming to the rescue of the Europeans!). Even the technological plant where the time machine operates is a different kind of theme park. Richard Donner (Omen, Lethal Weapon, Maverick, Superman) set out to make a rollicking adventure without pretensions to literate dialogue of method acting. And he has.

1. The novel by Michael Crichton? Imagination, science, fantasy? Adaptation to the screen?

2. The contemporary settings, science fiction, time travel, laboratories and experimentation? The contrast with France in the 14th century, the mediaeval town, the way of life, the battles? The combination of the two worlds?

3. The title, the credibility of the plot? The possibility of this kind of time travel? The technology, the experience of time travel, being in another century with one's contemporary consciousness? The experience of another time, the dangers, death? Opting to stay? The possibilities of returning?

4. The present: the technology corporation, its work? The opening with the scientist on the road, his wounds? The mystery? Robert Doniger and his being the head of the firm, relentless, his knowing what had happened, his wanting to develop his technology, ruthless? The assistants, their work? The professor, the possibility of his going into the 14th century? His being lost, Doniger and his wanting to get him back? The revelation that others had gone in time travel and returned? The guard who did not return but stayed? The decision to send Chris and the team to the 14th century to recover the professor? Doniger's decisions, his wanting to get them back, the change in the technology, his ruthless attitudes and wanting to destroy them? His own going back into the 14th century, confronting the battle, his death? The successful return of the group? The film's comment on this kind of technology, the ruthlessness of those who wanted power and who were greedy for money?

5. The people working on the archaeological site, Chris and his relationship to the professor? Kate, Andre and the others? The discoveries, the reconstruction of the town, the secret passages? Their knowledge of what was happening in 1357? The French, the English, the siege, the danger to Lady Clare? Lord Oliver and his attack? Their agreeing to go to look for Professor Johnston?

6. The experience of the time travel, their arrival? Their ability to disguise themselves? The issues of language - and Francois speaking French?

7. The immediate dangers, the pursuit by the troops? Their getting into the town? Scouting, surveillance? Their assessment of the war situation? Their becoming involved in the war, with Lord Oliver? Seeking the professor, going into the dungeons? The continued danger from spies? The meeting with Lady Clare, Lord Arnaut? Siding with him?

8. Lord Arnaut, the dangers, his position? The politics? The military siege? Lady Clare, her antagonism, the reaction to Andre? Her believing the group? Her being destined for execution? The rescue, falling in love with Andre?

9. The search on the site for the hidden passage? Chris and his having to become a hero, the dangers, the fights, the military? Andre and Kate? Collaborating, their clashes? The explosion and their gradually finding the passage? The possibility for rescue?

10. The professor, his work on the archaeological dig, his relationship with Chris? His going to the technology corporation, travelling, their finding his glasses, the diary entries? Their finding him in the 14th century, rescue?

11. The build-up to the climax, Lord Oliver, tyranny, his oppression of the town? Lady Clare? The encounter with the group? The build-up to the battle, the presentation of the battle, the fiery arrows? The attack, the siege? The death of Lord Oliver?

12. The guards, their travelling with the group, their being killed? The discovery of Robert de Kere, his decision to remain in the 14th century, his becoming the enemy, the confrontation and his death?

13. The presentation of life in a 14th century village, the attention to detail, the streets, the houses, the shops, the castle? The attention to detail of the military, the siege?

14. The tongue-in-cheek approach to the whole story - Saturday matinee style entertainment?

THUNDER AND LIGHTNING

US, 1977, 95 minutes, Colour.
David Carradine, Kate Jackson.
Directed by Corey Allen.

Yet another story of bootlegging in modern America and chases on the road. It is reminiscent of Charles B. Pierce's stories about bootlegging, and such films as Stock Car Hero, Greased Lightning. This one is not as expert as the others but is interesting enough in its way. David Carradine of TV’s Kung Fu and Kate Jackson, one of Charlie’s Angels are perhaps one of the main reasons for the film. The conventional story of bootlegging, clashes with modern takeover business methods and chases on the or road are conventional enough material.

1. The significance and focus of the title? The American bootlegging film genre? The American films of cars and the highways? How well did they blend in this one?

2. American response to these stories, issues and characters? An overseas response? The impact of the two stars with their television background?

3. Interest in the opening, the stills, the old men, the old tradition of bootlegging and its transport? The contrast with the new men, Hunnicut as boss? Violence?

4. The contribution of fast boats, speed?

5. David Carradine and his style as Harley? In himself, helping the old men, involvement in bootlegging, in car sports, his skills? As a type? His principles? Harassed by his relationship with his girl friend, her father? Saving the victims of poisonous whisky?

6. How attractive was the heroine, in herself, relationship with Harley, different worlds, her father, her participation in the adventures?

7. The various thugs and their portrayal? The violence? The contrast with the New York hit men and their violence? Individual scenes of brutality?

8. Hunnicut and his attitudes, respectability, bootlegging, communications? henchmen?

9. The portrait of the police and their attempts to control the situation?

10. The atmosphere of violence, smashes etc.? The impact of the chases?

11. An American picture, values, moral tone and attitudes?