THE TRAIN

U.S./France, 1964, 140 minutes, Black and white.
Burt Lancaster, Paul Scofield, Jeanne Moreau, Michel Simon, Suzanne Flon.
Directed by John Frankenheimer.

The Train is a documentary-like war film concerning the transporting of art treasure from Paris by a German General and the attempts of the French Resistance to halt the train. The ingenuity and energy given to this task make The Train a good suspense war film. However, the film has much more to it - Burt Lancaster's (too American?) verve as the central resistance man matching the bleak obsession of Paul Scofield's General. Michel Simon and Jeanne Moreau contribute atmospheric character performances. Highlights of the film are the action sequences which were all authentically reproduced. The theme is also of interest; the worth of one life compared with the worth of works of art.

John Frankenheimer directed the picture as a favour to Burt Lancaster. It had been begun by Arthur Penn. It belongs to Frankenheimer's early period - The Manchurian Candidate; Birdman of Alcatraz; Seven Days in May - all excellent thought provoking black and white films. Later he moved to explorations of the problem of ageing and the physical challenges of life. Burt Lancaster made - The Young Savages; Birdman of Alcatraz; Seven Days in May; The Gypsy Moths with Frankenheimer.

1. Was this principally a Burt Lancaster action film or did it present itself as something more?

2. The film looked partly documentary. Was it successful in this - how?

3. What impact do Resistance films have on audiences? Why?

4. What motivated Waldheim to transfer the paintings? What right did he have? As the difficulties and opposition increased, how much of an obsession did the transfer become for him? Why?

5. Why did Papa Boulle want to save the paintings?

6. Comment on the impact in the film, for suspense as well as the theme, on - the making ready of the train despite bombardments, the stratagem of painting the roofs of the carriages, of changing the names of the stations, of engineering the accident, of Christine's contribution to helping Labiche.

7. Why did the film ultimately become a confrontation between Labiche and Waldheim? How had Waldheim lost touch with reality?

8. Was the ending satisfying - the irony of the paintings lying on the ground?

9. What attitudes to war and to encountering an enemy did Labiche, Waldheim, Christine and Papa Boulle represent?

10. The film raises the dilemma - are art treasures worth any human lives, whether to steal them or to protect them? Why? John Frankenheimer said that they were not worth one human life. Is this evident in the film? How?

11. The action depicted was far less than occurred in fact. Was the plot plausible? (Should the Resistance have spent so much time and energy saving the paintings?)

12. How did Labiche stand as a symbol of the Resistance - in changing his attitude to the paintings and becoming involved with the train? The symbolism of his shooting Waldheim?

THE TERMINAL MAN

US, 1974, 105 minutes, Colour.
George Segal, Joan Hackett.
Directed by Mike Hodges.

The Terminal Man provides very interesting science fiction material on the level of ideas and so merits discussion. On the level of its cinematic impact, many audiences have found parts of it quite difficult. The novel was written by Michael Crichton, who also wrote The Andromeda Strain and Westworld (which he also directed). Crichton is fascinated with the advances of science and their repercussions on human behaviour, especially when human error enters. This is the mark of the previous films and is very much to the fore in this one.

The Terminal Man himself is an ordinary man who becomes psychologically unbalanced. Surgery is used to control his criminal and physical relapses. Something goes wrong. In this way the theme of the film is not unlike A Clockwork Orange.

1. Why are modern audiences interested in science-fiction? Was this a good science-fiction film? What presuppositions do science-fiction films have as regard their fiction? Audience-response in terms of fears, dangers, upset, prognostications of the future etc.? The use of adventures, thrills, experiments to communicate this?

2. The style of the film? The opening and closing with the helicopter, the diary technique, the eye looking through the hole and the words at the end? The blues and greens and silvers of the colours? The use of black and white clothing? The vividness of the blood and the roses? The whole antiseptic and clean atmosphere of the locations? The hospital, the factory, the modern houses etc.?

3. The appropriateness of the music, especially the Bach piano music and its mood and commentary?

4. Audience-response to the hospital, the medical background, the detail of the operation, the human-interest and the crisis for a human being, the psychological overtones of the film? How were these integrated into the science-fiction themes?

5. The meaning of the word "terminal"? A terminal-illness etc? The irony of this kind of terminal-illness. Mind-control as a cure and as an illness?

6. Discuss the conflict between physical therapy and psychological therapy. The discussions between the doctors and the psychologists? The nature of human illness in its physical and psychological realities? The repercussions on behaviour, especially anti-social behaviour? Illness and morals? Freedom and the capacity for decisions?

7. The impact of the photos of Harry setting up the mood of the film? The family happiness, the accident, the criminal change etc., the madness, the need for some kind of therapy?

8. The success of the lecture technique: the content of the lecture about the operation and Harry himself, Dr. Ross and her presentation, the disagreement, the questions, the Doctors' interest and observations, the important speech by the old Doctors opposing the operation? The film as a verification of his warning?

9. The personalities of the Doctors performing the operation - their confidence, playing with a man's life, the experimentation with animals, with men? The initial dinner discussion and the P.R.? The ambitions of the surgeon?

10. Harry himself: background by the photos, madness, obsessions about machines, violent turns and behaviour? His cunning and planning after his operation and his escape? His genuine feelings? The suffering? The experience of the operation in its detail? What the operation did to him, in terms of responsibility, human life? His fears and phobias? His response to Angela in terms of love and murder? His attitude towards the Catholic Church and his destructiveness? Destroying the computers? The attack on Dr. Ross? Wounded and going to a grave to die? Being shot like an animal?

11. Detailed presentation of the operation? Testing of the electrodes? The computers and the control and forecasting of turns? The human drama of the electrode test - the people in the controls. Dr. Ross and her human reactions, the varying responses of Harry as a child and as a man? The possibility of error?

12. Ordinary people, especially with their limitations: the nursing staff, the policeman and his comics and leaving the patient etc.? The comment on people's irresponsibility?

13. The drama of the escape - Angela's bringing the clothes, the wig, the car, the atmosphere of escape and its impact on Harry, his lack of awareness of what would happen to him?

14. The destruction - the impact of the murder of Angela, its visual presentation with white and silvers and then the blood? The importance of Harry's going to Mass and the atmosphere of the liturgy? His plea to the priest and then his killing him?

15. The ironic sequence of his destruction of the computers and its meaning in this film?

16. Dr Ross and her personality, efficiency in her work, her opposing the operation? Her concern for Harry and exhaustion. Her pity for him and her fears? The significance of her having a shower and then coming out to meet Harry? The significance of her stabbing him? Trying to help him at the grave?

17. What comment was being made by the long funeral sequence, Harry in his white suit bleeding and outstretched arms, his falling in the grave, the horror of his being shot?

THAT'LL BE THE DAY

UK, 1973, 91 minutes, Colour.
David Essex, Ringo Starr, Rosemary Leach, James Booth, Keith Moon.
Directed by Claude Watham.

That'll Be The Day is one of the nostalgic films of the early 70's in the U.S. and Britain. It was released at the same time as George Lucas’s American Graffiti to which it can be compared. However, there is an optimism and fresh innocence in American Graffiti which seems to be missing in this film. Rather, here is a sense of disillusion.

The film is strong in its recreation of the late 1950's and, like American Graffiti, it employs contemporary songs to communicate atmosphere and make some kind of commentary. The hero, well played by David Essex, has the difficulty of making himself sympathetic to the audience as well as being repellent in his selfishness and ambitions. To this extent, the film is worth seeing by teenagers as a picture of a particular generation to whom they can compare themselves. Parents will also find it interesting and it could serve as a good basis for dialogue between parents and teenagers.

1. What did the title mean? How important was the nostalgic atmosphere of the film?

2. Did the pre-credit story give the theme of the film?

3. What was the film saying about Jim, Mac Laine and the influence of his family life?

4. Was the film pessimistic? Did it offer hope for people, or were they doomed by their background, their emotions and relationships? Did it indicate that people had free choice to improve themselves?

5. What were your initial impressions of Jim? His leaving home was put within the framework of the atmosphere of 1957? How well did the film create this period? Comment on the use of details.

6. What happened to Jim while he was working at the beach? Was he beginning to experience life?

7. Why did he go to work at the camp?

8. Why did Jim return home? Did the film seem td show that he had prospects of living a happy life?

9. What kind of a girl was Juliette?

10. Comment on the marriage sequence and the wedding breakfast. What did this communicate about the way of life of these people?

11. Why did Jim change after he married?

12. Were you shocked at his leaving home? Why?

13. What values were being explored in this film? About individuals, society, the influence of society and environment on persons, love, hate, relationships?

14. How successful a film would this be for the discussion between parents and adolescents?

15. Comment on the value of particular sequences for communicating theme: Jim's father's adventure, leaving home; Jim's not 'studying, throwing his books into the river and leaving; Jim with the elderly lady, the girls, his mother's visit; Mike and drifter's influence, sexual exploits; the carnival, the girl with the baby; Jim's visit to the union; his mother's reception, minding the van, haircut; Jean and Jim before the wedding; the presentation of the groups and Jim's fascination and ambition; walking the baby in the park and remembering his father.

TERM OF TRIAL.

UK, 1962, 113 minutes, Black and white.
Laurence Olivier, Sarah Miles, Simone Signoret, Hugh Griffith, Terence Stamp, Roland Culver, Thora Hird. Directed by Peter Glenville.

Term of Trial is a very interesting film to see, even though it is not altogether satisfying in its ending (although this may have been intended). Written and directed by Peter Glenville (who made Summer and Smoke; Becket; The Comedians; Hotel Paradiso) it fits into the provincial English kitchen sink dramas of the early 60's (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning; A Taste of Honey; A Kind of Loving; This Sporting Life) but differs considerably in having a middle-aged man for its hero, a schoolteacher.

In this role, Laurence Olivier is excellent and shows his extraordinary versatility. His final speech in the courtroom sequence here is alone worth seeing. Sarah Miles, in her first film, plays innocence and guile that has marked her performances in The Servant; Ryan's Daughter; Lady Caroline Lamb. Simone Signoret is excellent in a very unsympathetic role. This a fine adult drama.

1. The significance and irony of the title?

2. Discuss the atmosphere of the opening of the film?

3. Describe Laurence Olivier's portrayal of the central role of Graham Weir.

4. What was the relationship between Weir and his wife? Why had they married? What kept them together? Why did he drink?

5. Did Weir, or his wife realise that Shirley had a crush on him? Should either of them have done anything to stop it?

6. How well was the central sequence in the hotel done? What was going on in Shirley's mind - in Weir's? Why was she so forceful? How well did Weir behave? Could he have done anything more?

7. How much would a man like Weir suffer because of being arrested and on bail, and his treatment by the police?

8. Describe the dramatic effect of the court scene.

9. Why had Shirley made him suffer? The interrogation by the defence council?

10. Analyse Weir's big speech on justice, the meaning of the speech and the theme of the film; its criticisms and double standards.

11. Why did his wife decide to leave? What was the impact of his lying to her and her acceptance and staying? Had he compromised? Should he have lied? Should he have stayed with principle and lost his wife though keeping his integrity? What future did they have together?

12. How real a film was this? Why? What insights into human behaviour?

13. The details of the portrayal of Weir, seedy, pacifist, provincial town, passed over for Head, lack of class control, timidity, pedantic, desire for truth and authenticity? The criticism of his wife: their quarrels, their conversations in bed (what more should she have done?). His walk through the city with its sleaziness - the irony for him, the gun? His wife's reaction to his contemplating suicide, her taunts?

14. The nature of the crush: how much was girlish, a reaction to her home and family (the sequence of the embarrassment of Weir's visit), the lessons, the excuses for seeing him, the gift and the telephone number? The last effect of the day in Paris on Shirley? The reaction of Shirley's kissing Mitchell on the station? Insight into adolescent crushes?

TAKING OFF

US, 1971, 92 minutes, Colour.
Buck Henry, Lynn Carlin.
Directed by Milos Forman.

Taking Off is a Milos Forman film made in America. In cinema style and techniques it resembles his comic looks at ordinary Czech society, providing insights into people and cultures by simply observing them a little more closely and sympathetically. A Blonde in Love; Peter and Paula; The Fireman's Ball are very good examples.

The result here is a film that is European in format, but quite perceptive about U.S. society and its difficulties. The Americans are not so different from the Czechs underneath despite different settings, emotional reactions and so on. There is also light and humour in the film. Forman looks at the dropouts from suburban life, the music cult of the young, the popularity of drugs. The film does not arrive at conclusions but shows us how to look at people better. Lynn Carlin and Buck Henry are excellent as the parents - they are sympathetic whatever their drawbacks. The use of songs is clever, especially the audition collage which shows us a lot about average American girls. Some episodes (and the film is episodic) are very funny including a lesson in pot-smoking to instil empathy into parents. Not a major film, but a good one.

1. What nuances are there in the title? How are they relevant for the themes of the film?

2. Comment on the successes of the film's style - use of song commentary, the concentration on humorous incidents, focusing on faces. Did these contribute to an understanding of average U.S. families?

3. Singing auditions - how did the song, edited for so many girls to sing a line each, comment on the characters and aspirations of the young?

4. Why did the girl leave home? Why didn't she communicate with her parents? Were they an average type of family?

5. How were the parents presented? How did the smoking, counselling, therapy, anxiety about their lost daughter, women's gossip, comment on the way they would relate to their children? Did you like the Camptown races routine?

6. What comment on adults did the father's encounter with the society mother make? Should the father have pursued the lost girl and rung her mother?

7. What was the reaction of the parents motoring to their arrested daughter?

8. Why was the Society for the Parents of Fugitive Children satirised? Was the pot-smoking lesson well handled? What was the point? Why was it funny?

9. Was the strip-poker funny? Why?

10. Why did the reconciliation dinner not succeed very well? Did this imply that the generation and communications gap are almost impossible to bridge? How was the boyfriend satirised?

11. How ironic was the finale with the father singing Broadway musical comedy, "Strangers in Paradise"? Why?

TARGETS

US, 1968, 88 minutes, Colour.
Boris Karloff, Peter Bogdanovich.
Directed by Peter Bogdanovich.

Target is a very interesting film in itself, but is even more so when seen in the light of the subsequent career of Peter Bogdanovich. He was a film critic and writer, generally in praise of the old Hollywood masters like John Ford or Fritz Lang. At the age of twenty nine (with some help from Roger Corman) he wrote, directed and acted one of the main roles (a screenwriter!) in this, his first film. It is a message film about violence and the schizophrenia in so many middle Americans and the gun laws. It is a thriller about a psychotic sniper. It is a satire on Hollywood film-makers and stars. It is a horror film, using a sniper at a Drive-in theatre where the audience is watching Corman's - The Terror (1963), which is also used for the credits. It is an exploration of the influence of movies on people, especially violence and horror movies. It is a tribute to Boris Karloff - his films, career, influence, especially in his final confrontation with the killer. All this is done in an interesting and entertaining way: two strands (the killer and the actor) developed and then coming together at the Drive-in where Karloff comes towards the killer as his screen image comes forward on the Drive-in screen.

Bogdanovich then went on to make the most successful Last Picture Show; What's Up Doc?; Paper Moon; Daisy Miller by the time he was thirty
three.

1. What did the title of the film suggest?

2. What was the importance of the prologue about U.S. gun laws? Did the film confirm this point of view?

3. How successful a horror film was it?

4. What comment did the film make in combining the horror movie style with the realistic style?

5. Did the film suggest that horror films disturb people and incite them to violence? Give your impressions of the credits as you watched footage from The Terror? What tone did this give to the film and the modern setting?

6. Was the Baron Orlock story of interest in itself?

7. What kind of man was Baron Orlock? Was he a friendly man, selfish? Was he obliged to go to the Drive-In?

8. How did the shots of the Drive-in, the roads, silos, prepare for the sniper's story? Was this effective?

9. The sniper - was he convincingly presented?

10. Did the patterning of the film from one strand to the other work well?

11. Why did he kill the family? Why did he need to kill others?

12. Did the comedy in the Baron Orlock sequence of the interviewer balance the horror?

13. The Drive-in sequence - was it well filmed and frightening?

14. Why did Baron Orlock go to the sniper? Did the audience pity the sniper?

15. What was the final message of the film?

16. Was this a successful entertainment - with a message?

17. Aspects of the message: the relationship between screen horror and violence and real situations - how did Targets hope to influence people? The parody of Boris Karloff and of horror films? Baron Orlock's watching himself on TV? The parody of Hollywood in the screenwriter and the secretary (the night at the apartment)? The real violence via the clean-cut American image, family reputation; the ease with which ammunition can be bought, the flashbacks to target' practice; family murder, the sniping of ordinary people?

TWO WOMEN

Italy, 1961, 109 minutes, Black and white.

Sophia Loren, Eleanora Brown, Jean-Paul? Belmondo, Raf Vallone, Renato Salvatore.
Directed by Vittorio de Sica.

Two Women is probably Sophia Loren's best film. She won critical acclaim and became the first actress to win an Oscar for a performance in a foreign dialogue film. Her performance incorporates all the qualities and natural vigour of the peasant Italian mother and her character in this film is symbolic of an Italy and its depth in World War II, invaded by enemies and allies who were brutal to the Italians.

The film was directed by noted Italian director, Vittorio de Sica, so well known for his post-war classics - Shoeshine; Bicycle Thieves; Umberto D. He went on to direct Sophia Loren in Boccaccio 70 (1962); Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (1964); Marriage - Italian Style (1965); Sunflower (1969). His Garden of the Finzi-Continis? (Oscar for Best Foreign Film, 1971) showed that he was still a fine film maker.

Two Women is very simple, dealing as it does with the fears, work, happiness, loves of ordinary people - the people on the sides of the roads cheering the troops in all those war films - and the everyday suffering as well as its brutality. The film presents violence in understatement rather than explicitly. One of the best Italian films for insight into the lives of human beings.

1. What is the significance of Two Women as a title? Is there a universality in these two women?

2. Did the film give a valid picture of Italy, Italian life qualities and values?

3. The film was set in a period and world of violence - how was this portrayed? Did the tendency to understatement help the impact of the film?

4. How does war change people's perspectives and lives?

5. What qualities were portrayed in the mother?

6. Would you describe Rosetta as a typical twelve year old girl? Why?

7. Why did they leave Rome? Should they have left?
8. How were they accepted at Santa Eufemia?

9. What was the significance of Michele in the film? Discuss the meaning and sadness of his death.

10. Contrast the quality of life in the country with Rome. Was it better there than in Rome?

11. Why was the rape sequence, though so reticent, so effective? How did the film prepare for this?

12. Discuss the reactions of to mother and daughter.

13. How important is the question of innocent suffering in this film, man's unnecessary inhumanity to man and the lessons of the victim who suffers?

14. How was the rape of mother and daughter a symbol of the savagery of the invaders on Italy?

15. How pessimistic was the film and its outlook on life and other people?

16. How much insight into the workings of human behaviour did the film offer?

17. How valuable a war film is this? How valuable a film for exploring the spirit of mankind?

18. Comment on De Sica's technical achievement in communicating his themes: the visual impact of Italy, Roman shops and streets, people in trains, country people and refugees, open-air meals, Bible-reading; the bombings - the man on the bicycle killed, the twittering of the birds and the ladybug after the strafing; Rosetta - weak heart condition, modesty, dependence on her mother; fascism - the brutal town fascists who fled, the pin-wearing relatives; Michele's readings and interpretation of Lazarus; sexuality -mother and daughter's talk about womanhood; the truck-driver; Rosetta's hardness after the rape, her weeping for Michele and this suffering breaking her of her bitterness.

THE TRIPLE ECHO

UK, 1972, 94 minutes, Colour.
Glenda Jackson, Brian Deacon, Oliver Reed.
Directed by Michael Apted.

The Triple Echo is not an outstanding film but it is quite enjoyable and satisfying - apart from the over-melodramatic ending. It is based on an H. E. Bates' story (as was Dulcima, with Carol White and John Mills, with which this film can be compared) and communicates the feel and atmosphere of rural England.

The atmosphere of The Triple Echo is World War II, its disruption of ordinary people's lives and the unlikely things that might happen. The details of this film seem improbable and yet the film makes them plausible enough - the disguising of an army deserter as a woman to conceal his identity whilst living on a farm.

Glenda Jackson is excellent as a very plain and ordinary woman this time (after Negatives; Women in Love; The Music Lovers; Bequest to the Nation). Brian Deacon carries the role of the deserter very well.

1. Discuss the meaning and tone of the title of the film?

2. How important was the location photography to the film? Creating the atmosphere of the farm, the countryside and of England?

3. How was the war atmosphere of the film created?

4. Who was the central character of the film? Why?

5. Alice Charlesworth - what kind of a woman was she, and why did she hide the army deserter?

6. Barton - what kind of a person was he? Why did he desert?

7. The Sergeant - how typical a military man was he? What motivated him?

8. Discuss Sam as a foil to the sergeant.

9. Was the ending plausible or was it too melodramatic? Did it fit in with the unusual and almost improbable story?

10. What comment did the film make on war and the changes that it has on people; war and its influence on relationships? Its influence on fidelity?

11. How did the film show human nature as prone to mistakes, being trapped by mistake?

12. How happy or unhappy was this film? Was it pessimistic? Did it imply that it is human to make mistakes and be destructive even in the pursuit of happiness?

13. Character was central for themes:
a) Alice as a farmer's wife, coping with the farm, coping with the war situation, lonely with her husband as a prisoner-of-war, her aggressive attitude towards tresspassers, her kindliness towards Barton, her response towards Barton's friendship, liking turning into loving, her wanting to protect him (how motherly)? Her turning him into her sister to protect him, her becoming more and more possessive as well as loving, the mistakes that she made in dealing with Barton this way, her turning a friendship and love into something destructive? Was this inevitable?
b) Barton as a simple and genial young man, his escape from the Army, why did he desert? His love for work on the farm, his response to Alice's kindliness, when did he fall in love with her? The joy of working on the tractor? Did he willingly take on the disguise? How did this become an imprisonment? He called it 'doing time'? How did this alter the relationship between himself and Alice? Why did he want to go to the dance? Why did he call himself Kath? Should he have gone to the dance, why did he not realise the danger? Why did he make the mistakes? Was his death the only way out? How sad was this love turned to destruction?
c) The Sergeant: how typical a boorish man? His military standards? His personal behaviour standards? His flattery of himself and his charm with women? Was it plausible that he did not see through the disguise? His surly attitude towards Alice? His flirting-with Kath? The dramatic impact of his discovery of the truth,? What motivated his revenge and his searching out of Barton?

DER AUFENHALT (THE TURNING POINT)

East Germany, 1983, 102 minutes, Colour.
Sylvester Groth, Fred Duren, Matthias Gunther.
Directed by Frank Beyer.

Der Aufenhalt (The Turning Point) is an excellent East German film. It is a true story, based on Hermann Kant's own experience when he was drafted into the German army towards the end of World War Two at the age of 19.

The film shows a bewildered young man, accused wrongly, imprisoned by the Army, ridiculed, with pressure on him by fellow soldiers. The setting is Poland and highlights the animosity between Poland and Germany. The young man discovers the horrors of war as well as the concentration. camps.

The acting is excellent, the pace and atmosphere very strong - one of the best portraits of a man in a prison situation.

1. The impact of the film? Emotional response? Intellectual response? Moral response?

2. An East German production? Colour photography, acting, editing? Authentic atmosphere?

3. The atmosphere of the 40s, an East German lock back at World War Two and re-assessing it? The Polish point of view? The war, prisons?

4. The title and the focus on Mark Niebuhr? Following through his harrowing experience? Of the experience as a turning point in his life? Where he had arrived at at the end of the film?

5. The opening with the accusation, his experience, taken, registered, stripped, the cell? The audience not knowing the truth as well as Mark not knowing?

6. The audience sharing Mark's point of view - the unknown, what was on the outside, the puzzle of imprisonment?

7. The film as a picture of prison life and suffering: the cell, his standing, writing, the details of the daily life, standing to attention? The Polish attitude towards German prisoners? Food, being watched? The interrogations? Cell and the vegetable? His being with others - the S.S.? Work, the heights, food, the fall, arm in plaster? The girls ? and Mark as a youngster? The Germans and their style, suspicion, treatment, friend and foe? Eric disowning? Comrades, drowning? Staying awake? The cumulative effect of this visualising of the prison experience?

8. The experience of an innocent sufferer? The impact of this kind of suffering on the audience ? the feeling of helplessness, fear, dread? The realities of coping and trust?

9. The Polish experience of the war, Warsaw, Lublin, officers, interrogation, the warder and the fish, the heights, doctor and no word ?no apology? The nature of justice?

10. The Germans in the group, the crimes, coping, rationalising, discipline, surviving, hostile, the hangings and executions?

11. The film as a vivid picture of the war experience?

12. The issues of the human person: Mark as an ordinary citizen, the effect on his life? The importance of human dignity?

TIM

Australia, 1979, 100 minutes, Colour.
Piper Laurie, Mel Gibson, Alwyn Kurts, Pat Evison, Deborah Kennedy.
Directed by Michael Pate.

Michael Pate's screenplay of Colleen Mc Cullough's novel concerning the tender relationship between a pleasant but retarded young man and an attractive, lonely businesswoman is unsensational and nice. So is his direction with its picture of Sydney, rather romantically presented. He is served by good performances from Piper Laurie and Mel Gibson in the central roles and by superb ones from Alwyn Kurts and Pat Evison as inner city suburban parents. Their sequences, especially those dealing with death, are excellent vignettes of an 'ocker romantic' way of life. Limited by sketchy episodes but attractive for those who relish love and tears.

1. Pleasing popular entertainment? For what audience was it made? The straightforward presentation of plot, old-fashioned presentation of values? Sentiment? Laughter, tears?

2. The reputation of Colleen Mc Cullough and her work? Expectations from this? The work of Michael Pate? His adaptation of the novel and his contribution in production and direction? The film as an adaptation of a novel? How much was omitted? was enough presented especially for motivation and characters? The loose ends in the development of the plot?

3. The strengths and weaknesses of the screenplay? The focus on Tim, on Mary? The establishment of Tim as retarded yet engaging? Mary and her age, career, loneliness? The portrait of Ron and Em as ordinary suburbanite couple? The sharp observation of city life? The sentimentality? The contrivance of so many of the situations and the dialogue? How well did this mesh together for satisfying entertainment?

4. Colour photography especially of the city of Sydney, its authentic atmosphere, suburbs, suburban life, the beaches? The romantic score and the use of the piano? How much did this affect moods, sentiment?

5. The focus on Tim and Mel Gibson's performance? An attractive man, audiences identifying with him? His simplicity, charm? How well did the film establish his retardation? Was this credible? Sympathy? Seeing him at work, getting the jobs of finishing off, his way of speaking, his reliance on his parents, acting like a very honourable child? The encounter with Mary and his enjoying her company, working with her, experiencing her affection? The bonds with his father and his devotion to him, love? The sequences in the hotel, meals at home? His mother? What love had he received from his parents especially with his retarded condition? The relationship with each member of the family, with Dawn? The quality of the bonds, the quality of love? A picture of family life – as it ought to be?

6. The establishing of Mary's character and background? Her arrival, getting the mail, chatting to her neighbour? Her loneliness in the big house? Getting Tim to work and enjoying his company? Piper Laurie's performance and presence and style? The American background? Her enjoyment of working with Tim and not thinking of scandal (and Dawn's outburst later in the film)? Sharing things especially work, holidays, learning reading, swimming etc.? The nature of the bonds and their quality? A man-woman relationship, mother-child relationship, old-young relationship?

7. How well and credibly did the film establish the relationship between Tim and Mary – from chance encounter through employment, friendship, dependence, affection, love to marriage? At work, the mutual respect? The reading sequences? The going to the beach and the running, the swims? The afternoon tea and the eating of cake, sugar in the tea etc.? Tim's childlike qualities and Mary's maternal instinct?

8. How did each affect the other? The balance of the office sequences and Mary's boss and his comments on the relationship? His attitude at the end? Ron and Em and their reliance on Mary?

9. The build-up to Dawn's engagement – Mary dropping Tim home, Dawn and Michael talking in the car? Dawn and her not listening to Tim's reading and her jealousy? Her father commenting on this? The announcement of the engagement and the family joy? The meeting at the hotel and the discussion about the engagement? The marriage and Tim's presence but not going to the reception and the reliance on Mary? The same with the funeral?

10. How dependent was Tim on people? His jealousy of Dawn going away and his moroseness and Mary's drawing this out of him? His reaction to his mother's death and the innate jealousy of Mary's comforting his father? The kiss and embrace sequence – its presentation, timing, length? The audience waiting for this culmination? The leading in to the marriage and the credibility of marriage?

11. The background of Dawn and Michael? Dawn as an ordinary suburban young woman, place in the family, dating, engagement, her attitudes at the meeting of the two parents and having Tim at the wedding? Her participation in the wedding? Her reaction to her mother's death? The ugliness of the clash with Mary in the kitchen and Michael's backing her up? Her father's reaction? Her scorn at the funeral? How credible was her change after being persuaded by Tim?

12. The portrait of Ron and Em? The skill of the performances, the quality of the dialogue? (Ocker sentiment). The details of their way of life at pub, work, meals at home, beer-drinking, wash-up, television? Em and her doing the shopping and returning home etc.? The quality of the love between the two especially as exemplified in Em's illness and death? Ron's talk about the gap that she made in his life The humorous contrast with the Harringtons and their wealth, society background? The toast to the newlyweds? Ron and his providing the reception for Dawn? The parents and their concern for Tim? The dramatic presentation of Em's illness, her being at home by herself and the full force of the heart attack, hospitalisation, death? The sadness of the funeral? The aftermath and Ron's coping with her death, announcing it to the family, the arrangements with Mary, the holiday by the seaside and his talk with Mary and arranging for Tim's care? His joy for Tim's marriage? His own death? The strong emphasis in the portrait of this couple of love, family life over a long period, fidelity and death?

13. The film's treatment of the theme of death, Mary's explanation of it to Tim? His father's explanation and the remark that they did not have the chance to say 'goodbye'? Tim's reaction to both parents' death?

14. The film's presentation of the Harringtons – and the critique of upper class attitudes? The critique of Michael especially when he backed Dawn against Mary?

15. The niceness and wholesomeness of the film? Especially in the character of Tim whose innocence, naively, his not understanding innuendo e.g. at the talk at the pub, Dawn's outburst, even his kissing Mary?

16. The television programme about retarded children, Mary's visit to the school, the personality of the counselor, his help? The discussion and his advice to Mary?

17. The wedding sequence and its joy, the minister and her comments from Scripture about love? The first night and the way this was presented – delicacy, the fullness of love, Tim's commenting about laughing and crying in joy?

18. The finale of the film with Ron's death, Mary's coping with it, the clash at the cemetery and the reconciliation? Hopes for the future?

19. The quality of observation of life at a popular level? How telling for the average audience especially identifying in incident, manner, values?

20. The film's sentiment and sentimentality? The danger of the ludicrous? How authentic? The wholesome atmosphere of family life, work, suburban decency, love and marriage, death?