THE MAN WHO LOVED CAT DANCING

US, 1973, 121 minutes, Colour.
Burt Reynolds, Sarah Miles, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, George Hamilton.
Directed by Richard C. Sarafian.

The title refers not to a kind of light-footed four step dance but the hero's Indian wife, Cat Dancing, The title is not only misleading in referring to the Indian wife, but probably also in referring to the man. It would seem that the central character is Cathy, who suddenly comes into the life of a troop of train robbers. Forced to accompany them, she changes their lives, even to the point of death for all of them, as well as having her own life changed. The film is, thus, a western with a difference - although the film contains many of the western conventions - robbery, chases, fights, shooting, Indians.

The screenplay is by Eleanor Perry, who has shown a flair for creating women characters for the screen (especially - David and Lisa; Last Summer; Diary of a Mad Housewife). Her women have been harassed women, under moral strain. The heroine of this film is no exception. Having led an empty, brittle, loveless kind of life, she is forced to defend herself, survive and depend on a man. She realises her capacity for love. Richard C. Sarafian is an interesting director (although his films are often more interesting in retrospect). He was a T.V. director and made such movies as the family film - Run Wild, Run Free; and the thriller - Fragment of Fear. Since 1970 his films have become more challenging. His film of the middle-aged easy car-rider - Vanishing Point - has become something of a cult film. After this he made the Richard Harris story of survival - Man in the Wilderness; then he directed a story of pointless feuds - The Lolly Madonna War. The present film echoes his last two works. The themes of the film are presented within the framework of the traditional western.

1. Was this a good western with the usual western conventions?

2. It is suggested that this is a western from a woman's point of view. It is written by a woman and the main character is a woman. Do you agree with its interpretation? Why?

3. Catherine's presence gives the framework to the film. What was the impact of her presence at the robbery? How incongruous was her arrival? How did it change her attitude - the suffering she underwent, the pursuit, greed and lust of the men? The fact that she was kept prisoner? Did her presence change their lives?

4. How well was the robbery filmed? Did the shooting and deaths alter the tone of the film?

5. What kind of a person was Catherine? Why did she marry Docker? Why had she run away and of what was she afraid?

6. Give your impressions of - Jay Grobart, Dawes, Billy, Crocker, Lapchance.

7. How was the interlude at Rally's farm a relief for the film? The loyalty of the Kellys towards Grobart? The encounter between Mrs Kelly and Catherine - their sympathy and understanding?

8. The impact of the brutality of the fight between Dawes and Billy?

9. What did the Indian sequence add to the film?

10. What was the emotional response to Dawes stealing the money and leaving Catherine? Did his death alter the nature of the chase and the pursuit? How did this lead into the final phase of the film?

11. Why did Grobart return for Catherine?

12. Did the companionship and the help develop into love? Why did Grobart love Catherine? (Especially in terms of his previous marriage to Cat Dancing?). How hesitant was Catherine in falling in love? How did the home, the remoteness, the mutual help make her realise the meaning of love?

13. The importance of the sequence with the Indians and Grobart - trying to get his son back? Did this redeem the reason for the train robbery - because he needed the money?

14. How important was Cat Dancing for the film, apart from giving it the title? The parallel between Cat and Cat Dancing? The contrast between the two?

15. What alternatives did Catherine have?

16. Here you surprised that Catherine shot her husband? Was it the result of her emotional involvement?

17. What themes did the film pursue in its presentation of justice in the west?

18. How did the film explore values? Was this a good film?

19. Details of characters:
a) Jay Grobart: What were your first impressions of him? As a villain? As a possible hero? The fact that he was robbing the train? His antipathy towards the villains? Towards violence? His protection of Catherine? How did he change during the film? Did you understand why he was robbing the train? Did this excuse him at all? (especially with his past war hero's record?)
b) Dawes: How utterly a villain was Dawes? Why was he so brutal? In the murder? In his greed? In his lust for Catherine? In his disregard for all human values? How evil was he?
c) Billy: How mindless? How average a villain? Was he all bad? Why did he pursue Catherine and attempt to rape her? Did he deserve the beating from Dawes? How did he redeem himself finally?
d) Crocker: Was he in any way sympathetic or attractive? How proud and vengeful? Did you at all hope that he would recover his wife? Why?
e) Lapchance: How well did he understand Grobart? Why was he pursuing them? What was his attitude towards Crocker? Towards Grobart? How well did we understand Grobart through Lapchance's point of view?

20. The interlude at the Kelly's farm: How was this a relief for the film? The loyalty of the Kellys towards Grobart? Our sympathy towards Grobart because of this? The others seemed more villainous because of this? The encounter between Mrs. Kelly and Catherine; their sympathy and understanding?

21. The impact of the brutality of the fight between Dawes and Billy? How ugly was this? Your sympathy towards Billy?

22. What did the Indian sequence add to the film? In terms of violence, pursuit, fear, lust, greed? Our sympathy towards Catherine? Her fear? Billy's revealing himself by helping Catherine?

23. What was the emotional response to Dawes stealing the money and leaving Catherine? Did his death alter the nature of the chase and the pursuit? How did this lead into the final phase of the film?

24. Why did Grobart return for Catherine? Was it just a good nature? Was it love?

25. Did the companionship and the help develop into love?

MAN OF LA MANCHA.

US, 1972, 130 minutes, Colour.
Peter O'Toole, Sophia Loren, James Coco, Harry Andrews, John Castle, Ian Richardson, Rosalie Crutchley.
Directed by Arthur Hiller.

Man of La Mancha was a great stage hit. The film version was received with much less enthusiasm. While a more creative director than Arthur Hiller (Love Story; The Hospital) might have enlivened it more, this version is a satisfying piece of musical drama. Dale Wasserman, author of the play, wrote the screenplay and the songs (well enunciated but not very melodiously sung) are well incorporated into the plot.

The structure of the film is intriguing: Cervantes defends himself to his fellow-prisoners by inviting them to participate in a morality play about the mad Don Quixote and his quest for good and against evil. The screenplay veers between prison and the exteriors of the story and allows the audience to make continual comparison between the prisoners and the roles they are playing. It is here that Peter O'Toole's performance stands out as he moves from Cervantes to Don Quixote, a demanding range for any actor. Sophia Loren fits into the part of Aldonza-Dulcinea? well. James Coco is a poor Sancho Panza. The British supporting cast gives strength to the film. Eternal themes of appearance versus reality, idealism versus realism, are fascinatingly explored and make this film entertaining as well as thought-provoking.

1. First impressions of the film? Was it an enjoyable film?

2. What impression did the dusty Spanish setting and the sombre Inquisition make? How did this set the mood for the film?

3. What impression did the theatricals make? Were they too puzzling or did they arrest attention? How significant was this for the film?

4. Why was Cervantes arrested? Did you like him and feel sorry for him?

5. What impression did the prison and prisoners make? Was the theme of the world as a prison made evident and Cervantes' defence a metaphor of the judgment?

6. How successful was the structure of the film: the defence in prison and moving out of prison? Peter O'Toole playing Cervantes and Don Quixote, the roles of the other prisoners, the use of music and song?

7. What did Don Quixote stand for - in terms of madness and sanity, truth, appearances, illusions and realities, courtesy and suffering for others? (A Christ-figure?).

8. Were the songs superfluous or did they add to the mood and significance of the film? Songs about Dulcinea, "The Impossible Dream", theme song?

9. How were Don Quixote and Dulcinea transformed by the impossible dream? Was this more realistic than "facing facts" proposed by Carrasco? How did Cervantes refute this?

10. What was the significance of Aldonza-Duicinea? in the allegory?

11. What was the significance of Sancho Panza? Did he help the Don by agreeing with him?

12. What was the significance of the Judge-Innkeeper?, of the traitor-prosecutor-fiancee? Was the latter a worthy adversary of Cervantes-Don? Quixote?

13. How inconclusive was Cervantes in his defence? Why did he add the ending with the Don's death, Aldonza's transformation into Dulcinea, and the madness triumphing?

14. Was this significant drama - enjoyable musical entertainment? The principal episodes: fighting of the giant windmill; meeting with Dulcinea; molesting of Dulcinea; vigil and knighting; relatives plots; entering the Don's madness; fight with mirrors; death

MAGNUM FORCE

US, 1973,114 minutes, Colour.
Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook.
Directed by Ted Post.

Magnum Force is the sequel to Dirty Harry, which was one of the critical and financial successes of 1971-2. It confirmed Clint Eastwood's popularity and was one of the best examples of the police genre the year that The French Connection won the Oscar.

Don Siegel directed Dirty Harry. This time T.V. and movie director Ted Post directs (Hang 'Em High, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, The Baby). The film is enjoyable although violent. Hostile critics pointed out that Dirty Harry reflected the policy of the Nixon administration - more power to the police to clean up the cities. Legal processes obstructed true justice. With Watergate, the Nixon administration wanted to rely on the law and the system, so now Harry Callaghan supports the system because there is nothing better. The villains are now extremist right-wing vigilante police. Clint Eastwood received posts from President Nixon. But whether such theories are valid, viewers can decide. Magnum Force is probably good, violent drama.

1. How did the film stand up as a police thriller? What were its best features? Its insights into the workings of the San Francisco police, murders, mystery, hijacking?

2. What kind of person was Harry Callahan - as a policeman, as a man, doing his own thing within the system, his sincerity? How humane was he? The visit to his family, casual relationship with the girl, ideas of justice? What motivated him to work in the police force?

3. What are the implications of the "Magnum Force"? Is there any value in having vigilantes?

4. Why did these policemen set themselves up as the magnum force? What right did they have to over-ride the system? Was the initial sequence convincing for establishing vigilantes?

5. Comment on the styles of execution by the force and their impact during the film. What were your reactions at these cold-blooded murders - executions?

6. What kind of people were Davis, Sweet and the other young policemen? Their clean-cut image, seeming sincerity, shooting ability? The good impression they made on Harry? Why was Briggs behind the vigilantes, what motivated him? What was his relationship to Harry?

7. How did Harry compare with the force as a policeman? What attitudes did he stand for, how reasonable did he seem beside them? Comment on Early, his companion?

8. Was the finale exciting? What cinema techniques did the film use to keep audience interest and to keep audiences excited?

9. Was the film too violent? What is your opinion of Americans and guns, police in such a violent society?

10. What picture of America did the film give - criminals, vice and injustice in the cities? The murders possible on the streets? The death of the unsuspecting policeman, attempts on Harry's life? Police corruption?

MADE

UK, 1972, 104 minutes, Colour/
Carol White, John Castle, Roy Harper, Margery Mason.
Directed by John Mackenzie.

Made is quite an interesting film and should provide a great deal of discussion material, especially for late adolescent audiences and for discussion between the generations. One could criticise it and say that it tries too hard to have something to offer to everyone.

Valerie, the heroine, (played with compassion by Carol White - of Cathy Come Home, Poor Cow, Dulcima) is an unmarried mother, supporting her mum and working at the telephone exchange. She is, in the words of the final song, a "twentieth century social casualty"; she is shown at the beginning and end on a merry-go-round. Valerie's main encounters and reactions are to her mother, an amorous suitor, a socially conscious do-gooding priest and a live-life-and-love-for-the-day pop singer. These last two offer Valerie choices and adequacies and inadequacies are explored. In fact, the sequence of Valerie listening to the pop singer's exploitive hit-song on her plight is rather harrowing. This is a limited picture of a limited world, a world of cliche, slogan and search; the film reflects this in many ways. However, it is an interesting and enjoyable film.

1. What is the meaning of the title - in reference to Valerie and the final song - twentieth century social casualty"?

2. The effect of the symbolism of the merry-go-round and the yellow, black and white silhouettes of the beginning and the end, of Valerie and those in her life?

3. Did you like Valerie - how typical was she of today's young girl in the cities? Her particular difficulties - unmarried mother, caring for her sick and complaining mother? What qualities did she have - personality, charm, vitality, reserve? What were her faults?

4. How much was Valerie influenced by her environment and its limitations?

5. Valerie is best understood in her relationships to the people in her life -to June, her mother, her baby, Fr. Dyson, Mike Preston, Mahdar Gupta.

6. How did Fr. Dyson and Mike Preston represent the two possibilities for her -responsibility and awareness of consequences versus living life daily with feeling and care without concern of consequences? The nature of religion and of the world? Who was right?

7. The sequences of Mike in America - what did they reveal about him? (Contrasting with Fr. Dyson in his church, at Brighton, caring for the dying Mrs. Marshall, listening to the tape of his sermon)?

8. Valerie's quarrel with Fr. Dyson? Why?

9. The final images of Valerie listening to the song? How did this affect her? Had Mike used her? Did he have any real feeling for her? Has the song cruel?

10. Was this a relevant drama for today? Significant? Too cliche prone? Why?

11. Details of character: Valerie, her inability to share June's cheerfulness; work for her mother, hospital, missing her mother's death; tragedy of the baby's death. Fr. Dyson: 'modern' priest with social concern, the Brighton trip, his disappointment when she did not change. Mike: interview answers, the affair, momentary consolation, his song, Mahdar Gupta: first visit, Valerie's using of him?

THE MAGNIFICENT

France, 1973, 95 minutes, Colour.
Jean-Paul? Belmondo, Jacqueline Bisset, Vittorio Caprioli.
Directed by Philippe de Broca.

Le Magnifique is one of several films that Philippe de Broca made with Jean- Paul Belmondo. These include Chinese Adventures in China and That Man From Rio during the 1960s. Jean- Paul Belmondo excelled at this kind of athletic charming hero. This time he is a writer of espionage stories. The difference is, that in his books he includes himself, his neighbour (played by Jacqueline Bisset) and his editor (played by Vittorio Caprioli who co-wrote the film with de Broca). This provides a spoof of the spy films of the 1960s and 70s, a sly sense of humour with some dark touches, a French interpretation of a very popular American and British film style.

1. Was this an enjoyable film? Why? In its reality? or in its fantasy? the juxtaposition of both? Of ambitions and of real life?

2. Comment on the success of the styles of the film: the realistic style in Paris? the humdrum life of the writer, the maid, plumbers and the glamorous Bond style?

3. What did the film have to say about fantasy and reality? How real was Francois’ real life? His being cooped-up writing? Living in fantasy world, his relationship to wife and son, maid, publisher, tradesmen, to Christine? Was the fantasy too much of an escape or was it necessary for him?

4. How much parody was there in Christine’s thesis about his books? About the appeal of the basic dreams and drives of people being illustrated in pop culture? How much reality is there in this thesis?

5. How much of a hero was Rob St Cloud? How exaggerated was his heroism? Why was it funny? In which particular instances?

6. What did Christine contribute to Francois’s life? What kind of heroine was she in his adventures? Which sequences illustrated this best?

7. Francois incorporating victims into his story: plumbers, typewriter, the publisher? Why was the publisher a villain in real life and in the story?

8. What did the film have to say about sex and violence and audiences wanting them? How was this best illustrated? Where? eroticism and blood?

9. Why did the adventures have so much panache? Colour and verve?

10. Comment on the satire, parody, human comedy of the film.

THE MIND BENDERS

UK, 1962, 109 minutes, Black and white.
Dirk Bogarde, Mary Ure, John Clements, Michael Bryant, Wendy Craig, Geoffrey Keen, Edward Fox.
Directed by Basil Dearden.

The Mind Benders is an odd grim thriller from the team of Michael Relph and Basil Dearden. This team had worked together for two decades producing a number of very interesting films culminating with Khartoum.

The film also features Dirk Bogarde in his years of transition from light comedy hero to serious actor. He was to make films like The Servant, King and Country and Darling in the next year or two. The film is a political thriller with science fiction background - there are themes of national security but the main focus (with a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde plot) is on brainwashing and experiments with torture by isolation. These are presented very grimly indeed and the film is rather jolting melodramatic entertainment. The film is interesting in retrospect with the reticence of the time about security and the revealing of secrets and experimentation and torture. It seems more plausible in hindsight.


I. An enjoyable film? principal reactions?

2. How realistic was the film in its setting and in its plot? How good as science fiction? What principal scientific ingredients did it demonstrate? too far fetched?

3. How did the film stand as a horror film, elements of Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? How well were these used?

4. How important was the contempory setting: England itself, the Oxford background, the type of experimentation, the equipment used, sequences such as the party? the whole atmosphere of realism? Would the film have had less impact with a less realistic setting?

5. The atmosphere of the opening, the trip in the train, the sudden death? What did this do for the audience and its anticipation of what was to follow? the implication of the title?

6. How was audience curiosity crouded? The discussion of isolation? The documentary film of isolation that was presented in the context of a murder?

7. Reaction to isolation? What was its purpose? Did it have any good purpose? For scientific benefit?

8. Impressions of the character of Hall ? His military and rigorous approach? Did he have the right to pursue his investigations as he did? Playing with peoples lives? The parallel and contrast between himself and Tate? Hall as cold, Tate as emotional? Tate’s emotional involvement with Oonagh?

9. What kind of person was Longman in himself? How was he introduced into the film? As a hero? As a don? As a scientist? Longman as a family man, and his relationship with his wife? His experience of fear and its results on him? Did the audience sympathise with Longman? Identify?

10. Why did Longman volunteer to come to isolation experimentation? Was it important for England for security reasons? For clearing Sharp’s name? Was Longman was under any obligation to undergo isolation experimentation?

11. Comment on the way the experiment was filmed? The machinery? Frankenstein overtones? Monster in water? The various phases of the suffering? Response to this control of a human being?

12, Did Hall and Tate have any right to go further with their brainwashing?

13. Surprise when Longman seemed all right again? Did this sufficiently account for Tate’s delay in inquiring about the experiment? His later visit?

14. What was the effect of Oonagh’s pregnancy on Longman? the failure of their holiday? response to Longman's behaviour in Amsterdam? At the party? His following of Annabel? (Jekyll and Hyde overtones?) What comment did this make on brainwashing? response to the experiment at this stage?

15. How interesting was it to see Longmans brain working against Hall’s and Tate’s brains? His avoiding of emotion?

16. How important was the birth sequence? In itself? In the relationship of Longman and his wife? In changing Longman’s attitudes? The effect on Annabel

17. The ending was happy but it might not have been. Reaction to the ending? Was it too easy? Was it right?

18. What did the film have to say about science? Sensation? the nature of human life? Experimentation? Human rights?

THE MILLION POUND NOTE

UK, 1953, 90 minutes, Colour.
Gregory Peck, Ronald Squire, Joyce Grenfell, Wilfrid Hyde White, A.E. Matthews, Maurice Denham, Reginald Beckwith.
Directed by Ronald Neame.

A light and pleasant comedy. It was directed by Ronald Neame, who had worked with David Lean on his Dickens adaptations. Neame was to film in England and then move to the United States. He was eventually to make such spectaculars as The Odessa File, The Poseidon Adventure, Meteor. His career in the sixties was with such light comedy adventures as A Man Could Get Killed, Gambit. The film is based on a short story by Mark Twain, better known for his stories of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, The Prince and the Pauper. It in also a pleasant star vehicle for Gregory Peck working in England as he did in the following year for the action adventure by H.E. Bates, The Purple Plain. The supporting cast in full of English character actors and actresses and comedians. This gives added pleasure to the story, the Edwardian atmosphere, the satire on money and its power. Reginald Beckwith has a good supporting role.

1. An entertaining comedy? Light period satire? Humorous comment on money and its power, the fickleness of people towards money? The relationships between the English and the Americans?

2. The creation of period, London in the early 20th century, streets, houses, restaurants, high society? The musical score and its use of Yankee Doodle Dandy? A pleasant atmosphere for the comedy, the satire?

3. The work of Mark Twain? his genial insight into Americans, the English?

4. The basic implausibility of the plot: the two old brothers and their bet, getting the million pound note? Henry Adams and the accident of his being in London and poor? The coincidence of the two brothers seeing him? His being a fit candidate for the bet? The humour of his big meals and the production of the note, chasing it down the street, the getting of the clothes? The build-up to people chasing him - in the hotel, charity, high society, the American Ambassador, his friend with the gold mine? The making of money, the rise and fall of the stock market, adverse publicity in the Press, the fickleness of people's attitudes? The winning of the bet? The romance and his being loved for his own sake, not for his money? The support from Rock?

5. Gregory Peck's genial presence as Henry Adams? The opening scenes of his hunger and people's reaction, the American Embassy? The conversation with the two brothers and his feeling he was being mocked? His enjoying the dinner and the passing of time? Reaction to the note and his shock? Chasing it down the street and the humour of the chase? Comic touches? The buying of the clothes and the fickleness of the people in the shop? The going to the hotel and the mix-up with Rock? His befriending Rock and employing him to help him? The high society outings? The falling in love with Portia? The Ambassador, his friend with the gold mine? The pressures on him and nightmares? The charity auction? The inability to tell Portia the truth, her reaction to the truth? The vindictiveness of the old Earl and the maid hiding the note? The newspaper exposure? The creditors and their fickleness? The Stock Exchange and his being thrown out? The vindication of the note and everything ending happily? The two brothers and the discussion of the bet? The happy ever after - with money, with Portia?

6. Portia as the strong British heroine? setting her sights on Henry, her manoeuvres. not believing him, the outings and her reaction, her happiness that he had just himself and not the money?

7. Rock and his not being able to speak, the humour of his being mistaken for Henry Adams and the long build-up? His continued support of Adams? A genial character?

8. The gallery of the English satirized: the two brothers and their extravagant bet, the proprietor of the cafe and his wife, the head of the clothes shop and his staff, the hotel management, high society, the American Ambassador? Clothes and money making the man and people taken in by appearances of money? The crowds confronting him in the hotel?

9. The genial experiences of Henry Adams? people looking after him, charity, entertainment? The nightmare? The change of mood when the note disappeared? The character of the old Earl and his confession about the note?

10. The points being made about money, people's attitudes. the power of money? A light touch, moral fable, in the Mark Twain vain?

THE MILLION DOLLAR RIP-OFF

US, 1976, 73 minutes, Colour.
Freddie Prinze, Alan Garfield, Christine Belford, Joanna Kearns.
Directed by Alexander Singer.

The Million-Dollar? Rip-Off? is a conventional telemovie, typical of entertainments made for television in the mid-1970s. It is a heist caper, an electronics genius and a gang of women friends who decide to pull off a big robbery. Alan Garfield plays a police officer who is suspicious of them. There are a few twists along the way. One of the main reasons for looking at the film is that it features a rare dramatic role for the comedian Freddie Prinze.

1. How entertaining a caper film?

2. The organisation of criminals, the master minding of the plot, the rehearsals, the gimmicks? The presentation of security and police? Electronics and robberies? How different with disguises, electronic information, the women?

3. City locations, music, trains, pickups, the police? authentic atmosphere for this kind of robbery?

4. The significance and tone of the title? Muff as a credible character, his work, electronic skills, prison? The planning of the robbery? The human element and the women's fears, the trail, Lubeck and his taking over the plot? The presentation of the police and their being bugged? The human side of the police? The build-up to the execution of the robbery, details, the humorous aspects, the disguises, the personalities of the women? Rendezvous, moments of tension with the truck, with Fogarty watching? The finale at the airport according to Muff's plans? Finding out the traitor?

6. The character of Muff as a credible criminal, smooth operator?

7. The four women and their roles? The other criminals? The portrayal of the police, Fogarty as sympathetic, harassed, trying to do his job, his assistant, relationship with authorities, his trying to thwart the crimes, exasperation e.g. with the garbage truck? shrewdness at the airport, the robbery? The irony of their money going up in smoke and their not being arrested? How seriously was it meant to be taken? Invitation to audience admiration for the mastermind and the execution of crime? Sheer entertainment?

MIRACLE IN THE RAIN

US, 1956, 108 minutes, Black and white.
Jane Wyman, Van Johnson, Peggie Castle, Fred Clark, Eileen Heckart, Josephine Hutchinson, Marcel Dalio, Barbara Nichols, Paul Picerni, Alan King.
Directed by Rudolph Mate.

Miracle in the Rain was one of the favourite tearjerker films of the mid-50s. It portrays a shy young woman played by Jane Wyman who encounters a private played by Van Johnson. Not only do they meet, bond with one another but the soldier has a transforming effect on the young woman culminating in a scene on the steps of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Fifth Avenue in New York City.

Jane Wyman was a versatile actress and had won an Oscar for her performance as a deaf mute in Johnny Belinda in 1948. Van Johnson was a popular leading man, especially in musicals and comedies. There is strong support from Eileen Heckart who was to win an Oscar for best supporting actress in 1972 for Butterflies Are Free.

The film is simple, sentimental in many ways, a satisfying film for those who like romance and tears.

The film was directed by Rudolph Mate, a cinematographer from Denmark who worked with Carl Theodor Dreyer and who made a number of thrillers and action films in Hollywood including The Black Shield of Falworth.

1. The significance of the title and its illustration in the film? How humane a film was this? How real was it in its characters? In its situations? How explicitly religious was it? How implicitly religious? The reality of the miracle? The change of heart? The mystical overtones of Ruth's experience at the end of the film?

2. How emotional a film was this? How much sentiment? How genuinely human and humane? What was the ultimate response to this film? How much sharing of people with ordinary lives and love? How much sharing in suffering? What was there to learn by sharing the experience of Ruth and Arthur? Was this film
made principally for women or was it acceptable for men and women?

3. How important was the New York background? The fact that the film was made in its streets? The city as an atmosphere and a reality? The dark? The people? The Cathedral? The restaurant? The homes and apartments, How important was the contribution of this atmosphere to the film?

4. Was Ruth an attractive character? Jane Wyman's playing of her? The audience's identification with her? How important was the atmosphere of her life? How well did the film fill in her background? her family and work? The reasons why shyness and few friends were part of her life? Her capacity for love? Her capacity for suffering?

5. The importance of her mother and her influence on Ruth? The suicide and desertion background? Her devotion to her mother? Her fearing to be like her mother? Her mother's hold on her? The contrast with her father? Brief encounters with her father and her response to him?

6. How attractive a man was Art? His first meeting with Ruth? His vitality and humour? His love for her? The impact of his love in her life? His style in walking around the park, meeting people, the restaurant, the church?

7. How successful a love story? The picturing of romance? The picturing of love? Which incidents showed this best? How?

8. The impact of war on them? How important was this theme? Its impact on the two? Intensifying love? Intensifying sadness and suffering?

10. How moving was the picture of sadness? After Art's death? Ruth's witness? The effect of this on her life? Her refuge in the cathedral? The advice of the priest and his kindness? Leading up to the miracle?

11. What contribution did Grace make to the film? How attractive was she as a person? Her friendship with Ruth? His wisdom and advice for Ruth?

12. What did Mr Jalonik add to the film? His affair with his secretary? The contrast of this kind of behaviour with Ruth's experience? The sophisticated city and its allies contrasting with her sincerity and straightforwardness?

13. How successful was the resolution of the film? Was it too mystifying? Did it seen at all possible? Did this matter?

14. What was the ultimate impact of the film? How optimistic was it? How helpful for people who shared the experience?

MINSTREL MAN

US, 1977, 100 minutes, Colour.
Glyn Turman.
Directed by William A. Graham.

A very interesting and entertaining movie, a piece of Americana. While it tells the story of a family with its complications, it also shows visually and offers insight into the black minstrels late 19th century and at the turn of the 20th century. It shows the origins of their style, the particular kind of entertainment and the effect that it had on black audiences and on white audiences used to whites dressing up as blacks. The film moves at a good pace, tries to draw the characters with some depth and shows an unusual piece of American History. Vigorous entertainment.

1. How enjoyable and interesting a telemovie? The history of
American music, theatre? Black music and entertainment? done by blacks, by whites in black and white minstrel shows? The themes of racism in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries?

2. The impact of the telemovie and its style? for home audiences, for an American audience, overseas audience?

3. The point of view of the film: the portrayal of the blacks, their social status in the 19th century? Prejudice? Rights? The inherent violence of the situation? The dignity of the blacks and their need to find a place in the United States society? as communicated through this kind of history and story?

4. How well did the film show the audience the minstrel history: the music, the songs, the humour, the joke routines, the whites and their make-up, the blacks and the stereotypes? Audience expectations of this kind of entertainment?

5. The Brown family as an example of these minstrels: the picturing of their routines, their success, the song and dance style, the tradition? Yet the humiliation? The hard life? The parades? The build-up of the father to his death? The mother and her concern for her sons?

6. The two boys and the family tradition of the minstrel shows? Harry and his brother? their dance and submitting to the various bosses they had? Humiliation? Renny and his ability to compose, his refusal to follow the rules? The decision to leave? Harry and his dancing in the streets and collecting money?

7. Harry's success in the show, his farewell? The meeting with Charlie Bates? Success? The Depression and the betrayal? His needing to find work, the humiliation of the carnival side-show? his breaking out of it and. frightening the audience? The effect on him and his bitterness, ambitions?

8. His decision to start a group: his methods of recruiting the group, the visit to Renny and seeing him in New Orleans, the girl and her singing in the choir, petitioning for her to come, the irony of her having a child and coming on the train? The train journey and building up the group? Their success? The encounter with the rival group?

9. How well portrayed were the characters: the girl and her son and her love for Harry, the various members of the group, Charlie Bates and his conman attitudes?

10. The atmosphere of the try-out in Cairo? Its failure? The originality of the singing and dancing? The audience becoming hostile and not accepting it? The attack on Renny? His hanging and the mockery? The effect on Harry?

11. Harry and his bitterness, determination, his demands in Chicago, his being put down, the defiance and the success?

12. The end with the transition to the 20th century? A glimpse of a particular style of American entertainment ? its human qualities. its racial origins, the bitterness and cruelty? A telling piece of Americana?