MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT

US, 1959, 118 minutes, Black and white.
Fredric March, Kim Novak, Glenda Farrell, Albert Dekker, Martin Balsam, Lee Grant, Lee Phillips, Joan Copeland.
Directed by Delbert Mann.

Middle of the Night is based on a play by Paddy Chayevsky who adapted it for the screen. Chayevsky had made a great impact in television in the 1950s and transferred some of his television plays to the big screen including Marty and The Bachelor Party by Chayevsky. Mann had just directed Separate Tables and was to direct The Dark at the Top of the Stairs and a number of lighter films during the 1960s. In 1968 he began making telemovies – over thirty of them in succeeding decades.

Fredric March, who had already won two Oscars for Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde and The Best Years of Our Lives, plays the manager of a company who is a widower. He becomes intrigued and then infatuated by one of his employees played by Kim Novak. Critical opinion differs on Kim Novak. She had made some impact in such films as Picnic and then was chosen by Hitchcock to appear in Vertigo the year before this film.

The film is very strong in its dialogue, in its insights into the older man and his problems, the insecure young woman, the tentative relationship and the reaction of people around them.

1. The tone and implications of the title? Waking up, dreams, time passing, love?

2. The importance of the black and white photography and atmosphere? was it evident also that the film was based on a play? Did the film show any staginess?

3. What was the basic impact of the film and its message? Did it ask for sympathy for its characters? Did it give Insight into humanity and people's plights?

4. What did the film have to say about age and experience? The contrast between inexperience and experience? What did it have to say about as ageing men, loneliness, their needs, the foolish impulses to fulfil these needs?

5. What did the film have to say about love? Its importance? Its possibility in unlikely circumstances? In Jerry Kingsley as a basic need, after a full life with his wife and family? Love for Betty on the surface, a divorcee? The portrayal of love in the marriage of Lilian and the fighting? The disillusionment of Lockman? The bitter, narrow love of the sister? What does the film indicate as the basis of love? What kind of change does it require in people? What demands does it make? How much more than infatuation is it? How much sharing? The impact of love on Jerry and Betty? The contrast with Betty as a child, her delight, yet her inability to respond?

6. Did the film give much insight into the character of Jerry Kingsley? As a man, husband, father, brother? His loneliness and needs? His involvement with his work? His confronting old age? His inability to confront love? His infatuation? The difference between talking and acting? Having to cope with his sister, daughter? His discovery of their response in this new situation? The importance of his annoyance, moods, religious background? How hurt was he by this experience? Why did he make the final decision to go back to Betty? Was this realistic? What prospect of success did the relationship have?

7. How well portrayed was Betty? As a typical secretary, adolescent attitudes towards marriage and love, her being seen with the other girls, flattered by the attentions of the older man, rather childish in her reactions?

8. Her relationship with her husband? Her telling Jerry the truth about their night together? Her confusion by love? Her inability to understand his needs and demands? Would they have a future together?

9. How were the comments of Jerry's sister and daughter important for highlighting the real love? The sister and her being hurt? The relationship between Lilian and her husband? The importance of his angry scene with her?

9. The importance of Lockman and his death as a contrast to Jerry and his future?

10. How well was this all situated in the world of the business firm, New York, apartments, the Kingsley house, the streets, restaurants etc.? How did this add to the atmosphere of the film?

11. How important was the dialogue for the telling of truth and for the exploration of the theme? What was memorable about the dialogue?

12. Was the ending credible? Did it gain audience sympathy? Was success augured for the future?

JANA ARANYA (THE MIDDLEMAN)

India, 1976, 131 minutes, Black and white.
Directed by Satyajit Rey.

The Middleman is one of Rey’s best films of the 1970s. After making a great impact in the 1960s with his Apu Trilogy as well as a number of other films like Charaulata, Satyajit Rey became one of the great screen directors of the 20th century. Many of his films are based in his city of Kolkota. This film shows the transitions of the 1960s and 70s, the beginning of some modernisation (and the period of Mother Teresa’s work in that city).

The film focuses on a college graduate who is unable to find a job, experiencing all kinds of strange interviews – which provide some of the humour for the film. Eventually, a friend sets him up as a middleman, preying on client weaknesses in order to make money. The middleman then finds that this is soul-destroying and that he must make a more moral decision for his life.

The film is beautifully shot in black and white, has a great deal of verbal reflection in the screenplay, takes us into moral issues in the world of India and especially of Bengal.

1. The impact of this film as an Indian film? Its impact on Indian audiences, on foreign audiences? How did the film help the audience to enter into the Indian world and understand its people? India in the 20th, century, its traditions, and yet the influence of the whole world?

2. The importance of black and white photography? Calcutta locations, the atmosphere of the city, the use of light and darkness, Indian music, the detail of editing. the language question? Indian spoken with so much English? How did these technical aspects help audiences to get an Indian flavour of the film?

3. What presuppositions about India and India in the 20th century did the film have? What presupposition about India do audiences have? How would they influence response to this film?

4. The detail of Calcutta, the initial crowds, university results, home life, family traditions and pride, lack of opportunities for work, the factories and big business?

5. The focus of the film on Somath? The presentation of him in Indian society, the university, his indifferent results, his friends and their attitudes? His relationship with his fiancee and her marrying? Seeing him in the light of his family, the comparison with his brother, with his sisters, the expectations of his father? His frustration with the interviews for the jobs? The accident and meeting the older adviser? His initial response to the broker's work? His success as a middleman? His skills in helping people? How much of life was open to him in the early stages of the film? How could audiences identify with this kind of man?

6. The contrast of his father's attitudes? What values did his father hold for? The past and the future? The father's attitude towards the two sons? His disappointment in his son and his lack of success? The pressure of hie father's expectations?

7. The support of his mother? Her understanding of him? Her permissiveness when faced with moral crisis?

8. The portrayal of business people? This ordinary way of doing things, the bribes and the corrupt atmosphere? Its impact on Somath? His need to make decisions?

9. Somath and his friends? The manager of the factory, the sexual overtones, the private detective and his snooping? How well did the film suggest an atmosphere of business and moral corruption?

10. The philosophy of bribes? As explained by the older brother? The speech of the private detective?

11. How real were the choices open to Somath? The reasons for his changing his business, continuing? Somath an weak?

12. Somath and the transition to the final corruption? The long sequence of finding the girl, taking her to the hotel, leaving her with the manager? The irony of the father's rejoicing at his son's success? Leaving the audience with this message?

13. How wise a film about innocence, corruption, society and its pressures, individuals in the modern world? Moral choice?

THE MIDAS RUN

US, 1969, 106 minutes, Colour.
Richard Crenna, Anne Heywood, Fred Astaire, Ralph Richardson, Cesar Romero, Maurice Denham, Jacques Sernas, John Le Mesurier, Adolfo Celi.
Directed by Alf Kjellin.

has a lot of good credentials but is merely average entertainment. Direction is by Alf Kjellin, Swedish actor and director, former collaborator with Ingmar Bergman. His work as director in America has been mainly confined to small budget features and telemovies. The film is also a star vehicle for Fred Astaire who enjoys himself immensely in a league of gentlemen kind of role as a would-be robber who wants to solve a crime in order to receive a knighthood - which, by foul means, he eventually does. Richard Crenna and Anne Heywood are rather colourless in the central roles. However, there is an excellent cameo by Ralph Richardson, leading quite a number of guest stars. There is a colourful use of European locations and a bright musical score by Elmer Bernstein and an attractive theme song. It is a pity that the film is not more effective.

1. The entertainment value of this kind of European caper thriller?

2. The conventions of the caper - the magnitude of the amount of gold to be robbed? The ironic situations for establishing the group to do the job, manipulation, detailed plans, double-crosses? Confrontations? flow well did this film use the conventions?

3. The contributions of colour photography, the European locations? The affluent sets in Italy? The very British atmosphere of the Public Service? Venice, Austria, the countryside of Italy? The contribution of the musical score and the theme song? Special effects?

4. The plausibility of the plot - sufficient for the purposes of the comedy thriller? John Pedley and his work, his setting up the robbery, his power over the protagonists, his solving the mystery, his knighthood? (this kind of behaviour in view of British revelations about spying during the latter part of the 20th century?) The hero from America with his knowledge of war games, the leading lady? The use of criminals throughout Europe? The build-up to the shipment of the gold, the robbery, the disposing of the gold? The final confrontation and happy amoral ending?

5. Fred Astaire's style and personality as John Pedley? Was it credible that he should have gone to such lengths for money and knighthood? The satiric point being made? His work and his being Midas run passed over? Wister and his goading him, helping him? The relationship with Henshaw and the other authorities? His use of Wells as assistant and for manoeuvring? His enjoyment of war games and using this skill? The getting of Mike from America, manipulating him into doing the job? Using Sylvia? Double-crossing them? His vanity as he solved the case and put down Wister? His going off to the knighthood at the end? An enjoyable amoral hero?

6. Mike and his American background, being out of work, being led on by Wells? The pressures put on him by Pedley? Sylvia leading him on? His thinking he was inviting Sylvia to the job? The various plans, the sequence in the church, the Italian connections, the Austrian connections and the pilot, the drivers? The setting up of the house in northern Italy? The robbery itself and the use of the tank, etc.? Getting away? The double-crosses and arrest? The double dealings
and finale? Sylvia and her husband, her linking with Mike, sharing the experiences and her participation, the double-crosses and the happy ending?

7. The contribution of the minor characters and their guest roles - Ralph Richardson's humour and pomposity as Renshaw, John le Mesurier as the very English assistant, Maurice Denham an Crittenden presenting the insurance people? Adolfo Celi as the master Italian criminal? The group in Austria?

8. The creation of atmosphere - American riots and protests, British diplomacy and detection, Italian society, the war criminals and the mafia criminals in Italy?

10. The action sequences - especially the gunning down of the plane, the tanks and the actual robbery, the chases? A pleasant entertainment combination of familiar ingredients?

THE MEMBER OF THE WEDDING

US, 1952, 92 minutes, Black and white.
Ethel Waters, Julie Harris, Brandon De Wilde, Arthur Franz, Nancy Gates, James Edwards, Dickie Moore.
Directed by Fred Zinnemann.

The Member of the Wedding is based on a play and a novel by Carson Mc Cullers (The Heart is a Lonely Hunter). This film is a tour-de-force for Julie Harris who, at the age of twenty-seven, plays a twelve-year-old girl. She received an Oscar nomination for this performance. She plays Frankie, who spends a lot of time talking to the black cook in the household. The cook is played by Ethel Waters (who had appeared with Jeanne Crain in Pinky). Brandon De Wilde (who was to make Shane the following year) is her brother. Julie Harris had a long career on screen and stage and was soon to appear in East of Eden.

The character of Frankie is somewhat precocious, a rather more knowing twelve-year-old than would probably be found in real life. However, the theme is important as a clinging young girl, imagining that she will be able to go and live with her brother, has to face her growing up and come to terms with her immaturity.

The film was directed by Fred Zinnemann who at his stage of career was to direct High Noon and win an Oscar for From Here to Eternity. He won a second Oscar as best director in 1966 for A Man For All Seasons.

1. The meaning of the title as explained in the film? How apt for the film? The importance Frankie of being a member? The importance of belonging to a family?

2. The film was closely based on a play. Was this evident in the screenplay? The use of locations? The outside sequences? The use of close-ups? The dramatic use of heavy music? How successful were these devices?

3. How important was it for the film to focus on Frankie? Did the film explain her as a twelve year old girl well enough? ( Was Julie Harris convincing? She was in her mid-twenties at the time?) Did you understand Frankie within the framework of her family? Her relationship with her father? Especially her visit to his store? Her disgust at the town? As a girl typical of her age? As a romantic girl romanticising the wedding? Her rages about people? Her wanting to belong to the club and her rejection? Her desperate need to belong? Her love for Bernice and John-Henry? Her idealisation of Jarvis and Janice? Which were the best dramatic points where these feelings were best communicated?

4. How important was Bernice for the film? Her love for Frankie? Her capacity for listening to Frankie and making wise comments? Her trying to teach Frankie by her own experience of her husband? Bernice’s love for her brother, Henry? her wisdom and concern? How noble a person was Bernice? How important for the fact that she was black and the relationships between black and white?

5. How important was John- Henry in the film? As contrast with Frankie and a comment on her? His lines and the various gestures he had? How enjoyable a performance was this?

6. How well did Frankie relate to her father? How did he neglect her? His pride in Jarvis and Janice? His incapacity for listening to Frankie? How important was this at the time of the wedding and his reactions to her? Where did audience sympathise with her?

7. How delightful were the opening sequences with Jarvis and Janice? Of Frankie's delight in this? Of her repeating all about it afterwards? Of her wanting to go with them? Could you see why she wanted to go? Why? Why could she not heed Bernice’s advice and wisdom?

8. How poignant and hurting were the sequences of the wedding? Especially Frankie and the car? Of them trying to drag them out? Of Jarvis and Janice going on? How traumatic an experience was this for her? That she could not be a member of the wedding?

9. Were the sequences of her running away convincing? As regards motivation? As regards style? The frightening overtones of her running away and her loneliness?

10. The importance of the sequence of her encounter with the soldier? How real was this? The effect on her? As motivation for her returning home?

11. How convincing was John-Henry's death? he was a withdrawn child? the relationship with Frankie? The sequence of his fever? The emotional impact of his death? especially in connection with the long discussion of death and people who had died?

12. The complication of Honey and his escape from the police? Did this add to the film or was it a distraction? As revealing something about Bernice?

13. How important were the final sequences of Frankie grown up by some months? How had she changed? Her hair, appearance, dresses? Her friendship with Barney and Mary, Little John? The inconsistencies with what went before? How quickly children change? The change of romanticism? The fact that she was growing up?

14. The film ended with Bernice in close-up? how did this sum up the film? her face, expression, singing? How did we share this wondering about Frankie and youth and old age?

15. What were the major issues in this film? How well were they explored?

THE MESSIAH

Italy, 1975, 145 minutes, Colour.
Pier Maria Rossi.
Directed by Roberto Rossellini.

Unfortunately, Roberto Rossellini’s 1975 portrait of Jesus, The Messiah, has not been widely seen. Rossellini emerged at the end of World War II as the great protagonist of Italian neo-realism with Paisan and Rome, Open City. During the 1950s, he made several brief but telling dramas with his then wife, Ingrid Bergman. However, from the 1960s, he devoted a lot of his attention to the screen studies of famous historical personages, especially philosophers and theologians, including Socrates (1971), Blaise Pascal (1972), St Augustine (1972) and Descartes (1975). He also showed great interest in religious themes, already making his celebrated film about St Francis of Assis, Francesco, giullare di dio in 1950 and his austere, Joan of Arc at the Stake in 1954. In 1959, he directed a television mini-series, The Acts of the Apostles. This is the artistic lineage of his The Messiah.

It runs for almost two and a half hours. It is not a biblical spectacular which is not surprising given Rossellini’s style. The cast are not well-known and it is not full of crowd scenes. Rather, the screenplay stays close to the Gospel texts, relishing the power of words, but also of silences.

The significance of the title The Messiah becomes clear in a prologue of twenty minutes or more where Rossellini
Offers his audience an introduction to the Old Testament which includes the background of Moses and the Exodus, the fidelity and infidelity of the people to the Covenant. There follows the settlement in Canaan and the establishing of the monarchy. An unexpectedly long section is devoted to the prophet Samuel and, in a conversation between himself and Yahweh, the nature and significance of the kingdom and its kingship is discussed – with visuals of the wars against the Philistines and the oppressive behaviour of some of the kings. This is the heritage of the descendants of David and of the Messiah.

More time is given, before the appearance of Jesus, to the history of Herod the Great (more than the attention given to the Gospels’ infancy narratives, although Herod’s dealings with the Magi, a tableau of mother and child and the slaughter of the innocents are there with indications of the floight into Egypt. The Roman response to the reign of Herod prepares the way for the power of Roman rule in Jesus’ time. The question arises: the dramatic impact of so little on the actual birth of Jesus.

While there are homely touches with scenes of Jesus as a boy in Nazareth, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is featured, giving another opportunity for social and religious background to Jesus, this time the Jewish religious traditions in the temple and the official sacrifices.

Mary comes more to the fore at this time, the human search for Jesus. But she appears throughout the film with some human touches, giving Jesus his cloak, her rushing to the Synagogue when he preached, her presence at the Sea of Galilee, at the various episodes of his public life and her being called by John at the time of his trial. At the end she hurries to the Cross where she comforts Mary Magdalene. She shows peaceful resignation after Jesus has been taken from the Cross (a brief Pieta scene). She is seen again at the tomb, her eyes raised to the sky to indicate Resurrection.

There are some surprises in Rossellini’s treatment compared with other Gospel films. There is no appearance of the miraculous though there is talk about Jesus' miracles, an indication of the feeding of the crowd but no actual miracle sequences.

More focus is on John the Baptist and his strength, the vigour of his preaching and people repenting at the Jordan, his performing the baptisms, Jesus appearing suddenly within this context and going straight away to be baptized. John’s disciples see Jesus and following. John the Baptist exercises a prophetic function, his defiance of Herodias and his imprisonment in squalor where Herod visits him and their talk seems to lead to their growing friendship. The film includes the famous dance and Herod having executed in front of the guests.

Popular sequences from Jesus' public life are included: Jesus naming Peter, Philip finding Nathaniel and Nathaniel's encounter with Jesus; the build-up of disciples, fishers of men, going out fishing at his command; his arrival in Nazareth, reading the text and alienating the people of Nazareth and their rejecting him, the many sequences on the road with his disciples, the personal touch in his relationship with them, his smiles and kindness to the children, the visit to the meal with the Pharisee and the woman who was the sinner in the city, the call of Matthew and the reaction of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus is shown as skilled in carpentry and doing his work, a blending of the ordinary, his sense of mission, religious leadership and message.

For Rossellini, Jesus’ words and message are important: the telling of parables, the Good Samaritan, the weeds in the field, the wineskins. Jesus also prays and teaches the Lord’s Prayer as they all knelt and prayed. Jesus is seen thinking along the road and then speaking the Gospel phrases. The film offers a composite picture of Jesus Gospel preaching.

The other principal feature is the hostility towards Jesus, the presence of the scribes and Pharisees, their rigid religious attitudes, the letter of the law. The Sanhedrin meets and plans, Caiaphas’ famous prhase about one man dying for the nation. Contact is made with Judas but much is left to the audience's imagination.

Once Rossellini comes to Jesus’ we see Jesus’ initial joy at the procession with palms but the film soon moves to the preparation for the Last Supper, the arranging of the room checking that all was well. Jesus speaks of Judas’ betrayal and sends him out. For the Eucharist sequence and its sense of reverence, the camera follows the bread and the wine around to each of the apostles. Rossellini keeps Jesus washing the apostles’ feet and its meaning as well as his prayers after the supper? There is only a brief indication of Jesus’ fear in his agony. The trial and passion sequences show the familiar details: Jesus' face slapped, the arraignment of the witnesses, as well as showing John with his explanation of what was happening. There is some build-up to the arrival of Pilate and his long descent from the battlements, then his interview and his puzzle over Jesus, the reaction of the scribes and Pharisees, the freeing of Barabbas, the scourging and shouts for crucifixion?

There follows a device of showing children singing and then the raising of the camera to show Jesus carrying his cross. The death scene is only brief Mary and Mary Magdalene watching the undramatic but telling moment of Jesus' death.

In the aftermath, Mary anoints Jesus and preparations are made for his burial, the tomb sealed. The treatment of the Resurrection is also very brief: the mourners approach, they find the stone rolled back and Mary lifts her eyes to the sky, the sky indicating that Jesus still lives.

As with so many of Rossellini’s films, this might be described more as a cerebral portrait of Jesus and the meaning of his Messiahship rather than an emotional portrait. Jesus is portrayed with feeling but the director seems determined that his view of the Gospels and the mission of Jesus is one of an intelligent enquirer after truth.

1. A satisfying film experience of the life of Christ, the personality of Christ, his religious impact? Audience expectations of a film of Christ? His personality and images, the picture of his life, his manner? expectations of a religious film, religious feeling and sentiment? To induce in the audience a religious experience? Expectations of the interpretation of Scripture, literal, imaginative, theological? A film as limiting one's response to Christ? How were expectations fulfilled or not fulfilled?

2. The importance of the colour photography and its clarity, the Tunisian locations, the atmosphere of Palestine in Jesus' time, the acts and the suggestion of Jerusalem, Galilee and the sea of Galilee, Judea? Costumes, authentic atmosphere, an appropriate musical score?

3. The significance of the title and its focus on the Messiah as a person, Messianic themes? The significance of the introduction from the Old Testament with the background of Moses, the Exodus from Egypt, the role of the people and fidelity and infidelity to their God? The setting up of the kingdom after the settlement in Canaan? The purpose of the long sequence with Samuel? The significance of the discussion about Yahweh?, the people’s voicing the desire for a king, organization, parallels with neighbouring kings, the kings as evil? Samuel and his consulting with Yahweh and allowing the king and himself to decline? His comments on the consequences of having, a king and the visuals of the Philistine wars, the oppression of the kings? Why this particular selection of history from the Old Testament? What did it contribute to the theme of the Messiah, to the expectations of Jesus?

4. The large contribution of the film with the background to Herod the Great? Much more on Herod than on the material from the Infancy Narratives? Was it presented to explain the background of Jesus? Herod and his court, love of power, the Magi and the interpretation of scripture, his deceiving the Magi, the slaughter of the Innocents and the brief but vivid portrayal of this? Herod, illness, treatments, his vindictive attitude towards having the Wise Men and the others slaughtered so that he could be free at his death? Roman reaction to Herod's reign and the division of his kingdom? Preparation for the Roman rule in the time of Jesus? The brief presentation of the Magi, their visit to Herod, arrival in Bethlehem, the tableau of the Mother and Child and the brief indication of the flight into Egypt? The dramatic impact of so little on Jesus himself and his birth?

5. The transition to focus on Jesus as a boy in Nazareth, ordinary way of life there, the children playing games? The significance of Jesus at twelve? The pilgrimages to Jerusalem, the visualising of the sacrificial victims and buying them, presenting them and their slaughter? The focus on Mary as an ordinary girl and on Joseph? The caravan home and the human search of Mary and Joseph, the return to Jerusalem and Jesus' answer when the found him? A satisfying visualising of this mystery of Christ's childhood?

6. The importance of Mary's presence throughout the film, the human touch e.g. giving Jesus his cloak, her rushing to the Synagogue when he preached, her presence at the Sea of Galilee, at the various episodes of his public life? Her being called by John at the time of his trial, her hurry to the Cross and her presence with Mary Magdalene and comforting her? Her peaceful resignation after Jesus was taken from the Cross? Her presence at the tomb, her eyes raised to the sky to indicate Resurrection? How satisfying a picturing of Mary, as a person, a woman of her times, her relationship with her
son?

7. How important was it that there was no appearance of the miraculous, there was talk about Jesus' miracles? the indication of the feeding of the crowd but no actual miracle sequences. Why? Did the film need this?

8. The focus on John the Baptist and his strength, the vigour of his preaching and people repenting at the Jordan? his performing the baptisms, Jesus appearing suddenly within this context and going straight away to be baptized, John's response? The importance of our first seeing the adult Jesus in the context of his baptism, asking for the baptizing by John?

9. The disciples of John seeing him and hearing the words and questioning him and beginning to follow? The following of Peter and Andrew and Jesus naming Peter, Philip finding Nathaniel and Nathaniel's encounter with Jesus? The build-up of the following of the disciples and their talking about him calling them fishers of men? Their experience of him at the Sea of Galilee, going out fishing at his command?

10. The portrayal of John the Baptist and his prophetic function? his defiance of Herodias and her having him arrested, his imprisonment and its squalor, Herod and the information given to him, his enquiries, his visit to John in prison and their growing friendship and talks? Salome and her dance and the hurt to Herod but his having to keep his word in saving John? John's being summoned from prison and his execution in front of the guests? The reaction of Herodias and Salome and Herod?

11. The film's portrayal of Jesus' public life? his arrival in Nazareth, reading the text and alienating the people of Nazareth and their rejecting him, the many sequences on the road with his disciples, the personal touch in his relationship with them, his smiles and kindness to the children, the visit to the meal with the Pharisee and the woman who was the sinner in the city, the call of Matthew and the reaction of the scribes and Pharisees? The importance of Jesus often being shown as skilled in carpentry and doing his work? The blending of the ordinary, his sense of mission, religious leadership and message?

12. How well did the film communicate Jesus and his message? the telling of parables, for instance the Good Samaritan, the weeds in the field, the wineskins? Jesus at prayer and the teaching of the Our Father as they all knelt and prayed, his thinking along the road and then speaking the Gospel phrases? How good a composite picture of Jesus Gospel preaching did the film offer?

13. The background of hostility, the presence of the scribes and Pharisees, their rigid religious attitudes, dreams, the letter of the law e.g. criticising the husks of corn on the Sabbath? The Sanhedrin meetings, the plans, Caiaphas, statement about Jesus dying after the discussion of Lazarus being raised? The contact with Judas and leaving it to the audience's imagination? The arrest, the brutality of the arrest and the trial, the slapping of Jesus' face, the witnesses?

14. Jesus and the joy of the procession with palms, the Pharisee's reaction, jubilation and Jesus' joy? The transition to the preparation for the Last Supper, the arranging of the room checking that all was well, Judas and the announcement of the betrayal and his being sent off, the Eucharistic sequence and the sense of reverence and the camera following the bread and the wine around each of the apostles? The importance of Jesus washing their feet and the attention given to this, his prayers after the Eucharistic Supper? The transition to the Garden and the brief indication of his fear, the apostles sleeping, Judas' betrayal? The transition through the trial, Jesus' face slapped, the arraignment of the witnesses, John and his explanation of what was happening? The build-up to the arrival of Pilate and his long descent from the battlements, the quality of his interview and his puzzle over Jesus, the reaction of the scribes and Pharisees, the Barrabas situation? The scourging, the pressurising to crucifixion?

15. The device of showing the children singing and then raising the camera to show Jesus carrying his cross, the brief presentation of his death, Mary and Mary Magdalene watching, the undramatic but telling moment of Jesus' death?

16. The transition to the Pieta sequence, Mary anointing Jesus? The preparations for his burial and the sealing of the tomb?

17. The brief treatment of Resurrection but sufficient for this film? The approach on the Sunday, the stone rolled back, Mary lifting her eyes to the sky, and the sequences of the sky indicating that Jesus still lives?

18. How good a cinematic treatment of the life and personality of Jesus? How religious a film? The final work of a master Italian film-maker?

MOMENT TO MOMENT

US, 1965, 108 minutes, Colour.
Jean Seberg, Honor Blackman, Sean Garrison, Arthur Hill, Gregoire Aslan.
Directed by Mervyn Le Roy.

Moment to Moment is a lavish melodrama set in the south of France, filmed beautifully, glamorously. It was directed by Mervyn Le Roy who had begun his career with rather grim films in the 1930s including Little Caesar, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, Anthony Adverse, They Won’t Forget. He then moved to MGM where he directed a number of lavish romantic films including Blossoms in the Dust, Waterloo Bridge, Random Harvest, Madame Curie. In the 1950s he directed very colourful films including Quo Vadis, Lovely To Look At and Million Dollar Mermaid. His budgets became bigger in the 60s with such films as The FBI Story, The Devil at Four O’ Clock, Gypsy. Moment to Moment was his last film although he did some uncredited work for John Wayne’s The Green Berets.

Jean Seberg was popular on the Continent at the time, having appeared in a number of French films, especially for Jean- Luc Godard, in the classic Breathless. Honor Blackman had just appeared as Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. Sean Garrison was a star of only a few films and then disappeared.

The film is romantic, becomes a crime melodrama – and has been described in an old-fashioned way as a woman’s film.

1. The meaning of the title? The impact of the song and its recurrence during the film? The jigsaw pieces during the credits? The use of colour, the lush backgrounds and lush atmosphere of the film?

2. Why did audiences find the film enjoyable: the details of the plot, the characters, their interaction, the issues, the Riviera sets and backgrounds?

3. This has been called a woman's film. Is this true? What makes it a woman's film? Why would it appeal to women more than men?

4. How real was the film: in its plot, characters? How real were the values explored? What values in the audience did it appeal to? How do popular films like this come across as moral tables for popular entertainment?

5 Critics tended to condemn the film as 'sentimental and phoney'. Do you agree?

6. Comment on the structure of the film, the initial discovery of the body, the explanation of the flashbacks, the moving forward with the impetus of the flashbacks, the trying to bring Marc Dominic to his memory, the dramatic impact in the implications of this?

7. How did the film work on its audience? The initial puzzle, suspecting Kay or not? The value of the explanation and sympathy with Kay? The dramatic impact of re-creating Marc Dominic's situations? The audience wanting Marc Dominic to regain his memory, yet sympathy for Kay? The anticipation of danger?

8. How was Kay the focus of the film? Her initial panic, Jean Seberg's niceness, the presentation of Kay as mother and wife, her loneliness as an attractive woman, running the risk during a busy Sabbatical? The quality of her love for her husband, the continued phone calls? Her response to Marc Dominic? The disastrous aspects of this? The death, the help from Mrs Held? The relationship with Neil on his return? The anticipation of Marc Dominic's regaining his memory? The intricacies of the cat and mouse game with Del Parge? What kind of woman was she? An ordinary woman for audiences to identify with? How understandable was her situation?

9. How interesting a character was Marc Dominic in himself? The initial scene of him painting, his family background, his background of the Navy? As a pleasant personality? The effect of Kay on him? The effect of drink? The melodramatics of his shooting? The melodramatics of his memory and the reconstruction of events? Did he do the right thing in
his reticence at the end?

10. What comment on busy husbands was made via the character of Neil? His neglect of Kay, his busyness about his work, continually on the run? The way that he related to Kay on his return? His helping Marc Dominic? The dramatic tension as he was helping Marc Dominic to remember? ultimately, that it was Kay when he had encountered? Did he do the right thing at the end?

ll. What was the role of Daphne in the film? The contrast with Kay, the sailors visiting her place, her pushiness and style? Pushing Kay into a relationship with Marc Dominic? Helping Kay with the body? Supporting Kay during the investigation? Was her friendship with Kay genuine?

12. Del Pargo as an interesting policeman? His skill in detecting the truth? His treatment of Kay?

13. How important was the re-tracing of Marc Dominic's situations? The sentiment behind these? The city, the towns, the mountains, the winds and leaves, the games? The use of the mule?

14. What did the film have to say about love and marriage? About romance and mistakes?

MIRACLES

US, 1986, 87 minutes, Colour.
Tom Conti, Teri Garr, Paul Rodriguez, Christopher Lloyd.
Directed by James Kouf.

Miracles is an adventure, comedy - of intention rather than achievement. It is clearly a film in the vein of Romancing the Stone, but far less clever and entertaining. It was written and directed by June Kouf (Class). It has excellent
technical qualities - but the material is just not bright enough. Perhaps the lack of success of the film is due to Tom Conti, a good screen presence, but playing an American less than convincingly. Terri Garr, usually ) a good comedienne, is rather more strident in this film.

It fitted into the vein of Indiana Jones, Romancing the Stone comedy adventures of the '80s.

1. The popularity of the romantic overseas adventures in the 1980s? The caper with the comic touch? The quality of this film in comparison with the others?

2. New York, the city atmosphere? The world of the professionals? The transition to Latin America and the exotic jungle locations? The stunts and special effects? Musical score?

3. The title and its focus on what happened to Jean and Roger in the jungle? The healing of the locals? The god interpretation?

4. Roger and Jean, their professional life as surgeon and as lawyer? The divorce? The crash and their meeting? Their personalities and styles? The clash between the two? Their being kidnapped, the SWAT attack, the plane, bailing out, the crash-landing, the police and the arrest, the criminals and the gun battle, the drifting, Roger falling overboard, the Indians and Jean rescued? Their re-meeting each other and remarrying? With what success?

5. Juan and the criminals, the kidnapping, their leaving the plane to Roger and Jean?

6. The range of characters in Roger's and Jean's adventures - criminals and the gun battle, the Indians and the illness, Roger and his healing? The contrast with local customs?

7. Audience enjoyment of the adventures - comic strip style? Serial and suspense ending of adventures style? The comic touches?

8. The popularity of this kind of romantic adventure? What if ... ?

THE MIRACLE ON 34th STREET

US, 1973, 100 minutes, Colour.
Sebastian Cabot, Roddy Mc Dowall, Jane Alexander, David Hartman, Jim Backus, Suzanne Davidson.
Directed by Fielder Cook.

The Miracle on 34th Street is an updated '70s remake of the 1947 George Seaton classic. That film was very popular in its day, had Maureen O'Hara and John Payne as the attractive parents, Natalie Wood as the daughter and Oscar-winning Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle.

The plot outline remains the same. However, the film is given colourful New York settings. Jane Alexander is the busy '70s businesswoman organising Christmas Parades. David Hartman is the pleasant lawyer. Roddy Mc Dowall enjoys himself as the department store's psychiatrist. Suzanne Davidson is the daughter and there are enjoyable roles by Jim Backus, James Gregory as a lawyer and Tom Bosley as the judge. However, as with the original, it is Kris Kringle's film. Sebastian Cabot does not have as engaging a screen personality as Edmund Gwenn - but he gives an entertaining performance and probably will endear those who are not familiar with Gwenn's characterisation.

The film shows a lonely old man in an old people's home who imagines himself to be Santa Claus. He takes on the role in parades, in Macey's (helping people to go to other shops if Macey's do not have their presents at a good price). After some upheaval, Macey's believe that this is a goodwill gesture. However, the psychiatrist tries to help him, there is a court case where Kris Kringle has to prove that he is not insane. As with the original, the whole is resolved by the American Post Office sending all its Santa Claus mail to Kris Kringle. The little girl is happy with the house that he had promised her - with his walking stick left behind.

The whole piece is one of Christmas whimsy - attractively so. It focuses on the American way of life, the commercialisation of Christmas, the popularity of Santa Claus, parades and presents. It highlights marriage, family. It also focuses sympathetically on senior citizens. But one always prefers the original.

1994 saw another version with Elizabeth Perkins, Dylan Mc Dermott, Mara Wilson as the little girt and Richard Attenborough as Kriss Kringle.

THE MIRACLE OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA

US, 1952, 102 minutes, Colour.
Gilbert Roland, Frank Silvera, Angela Clarke, Jay Novello.
Directed by John Brahm.

The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima was made in the early 50s, at a time when devotion to Mary under this title and memory of the apparitions was very strong. A statue of Our Lady of Fatima toured the world during the '50s and Father Patrick Peyton made many gospel films with Hollywood stars and spread the devotion, made focusing on the mysteries of Christ and the decades of the Rosary, often made with Hollywood stars. These were very popular.

The prologue of the film indicates that it is certainly a film of the U.S. in the 50s: anti-socialist, anti-communist, wary of police states and taking a strong stance. It seems to use religion against socialism.

The film re-creates the atmosphere of Portugal in the early 20th century, tastefully looks at the family, the children, the apparitions. It can be compared, of course, to The Song of Bernadette from ten years earlier. Gilbert Roland is the star - a character who is able to voice scepticism and a lot of ordinary people's reactions about visions - and then of course he is converted. It does not compare dramatically with Henry King's 'The Song of Bernadette', but it is an interesting example of specific film-making about religious topics.

For Catholic viewers, a glimpse of devotion and faith in the early 20th century. For non-believers, a pious and religious film, tastefully done.

1. For what audience was the film made? Catholics? Christians? Non-Christian? audience? Adapted for a religious audience of the fifties? The early 20th century religious aspects of Catholicism and emphases? How appropriate was the Hollywood treatment of a religious topic? The characteristics of the Hollywood treatment? Representation of historical episodes, religious feeling, religious experience? How much emphasis on the pious? The tasteful style of the film, reverence, piety? Credibility?

2. A film of the 50s? Impressions later? Religion, reverence? Catholic perspective? The 50s, the prologue, the comments on the socialist revolution in Portugal, the police state, comparisons with the Soviet Union? Religious anti-communist propaganda?

3. The re-creation of Portugal and the Portuguese in the early 20th century? An American view of Portugal? Audience knowledge of Portugal, the background to the visions? Understanding of Mary? Fatima and the visions? The aftermath? Portugal in 1910, the socialist revolution, the scenes of revolution -tableaux? The priests and religious arrested and numbered? Churches shut? The comment on the police state? The contrast with the people of simple faith in the countryside?

4. The impact of religious people and their experience? Peasants, simple people, simple faith? The visions and their acceptance within this community? Steady authenticity? Criticisms by government, tests by church authority? Superstition and eager piety by the ordinary people? The place of the Virgin Mary in the piety of the people? Traditions of visions of Mary? How well did the film portray the village and the range of people there? The parish priest and his place within the village? The basic religious traditions? The introduction to the anti-clerical society, the authorities and their attack on religion? Their control? The religious phenomenon of Fatima within this anti-clerical experience?

5. The portrait of the children? Their family backgrounds, their work in the fields? The initial experience of the vision and their naivety and simple faith? The compulsion to go back on the arranged days? The way that family pressures were visualized especially from Lucy's mother? The parish priest and his situation, his pleas with them? his relationship with the authorities? Prison? Themes of simple religion, faith? The children illustrating this and their running away to the place of the visions? Their own prison experience and the prisoners saying the Rosary? how credibly? The scenes of the visions themselves? 7. The sketch of the children, their friendship, the quick Rosary and its echoes, the experience of the apparition, Francisco not seeing, the Rosary, his seeing, Mary, her message? Prayer? The later visions, the message, intimations of war, World War One and Two, Russia, Conversion?

6. Fatima, ordinary village, Sunday with people at Mass, Francisco and Hugo in the bar? The priest and his influence? The life of the village, the church? The children after Mass going to the hills?

7. The children, their relationship with their parents, the priest and his questioning, the police and the authorities, the interrogations, the accosting of the crowd for finding the children, Hugo giving the wrong advice to Lucia? The threat of torture? The authorities and their lies about taking the children to the bishop, putting them in the prison? The prisoners and their support and the Rosary? The difficulties in getting to the hillside? The finale? Sketch of their characters, their background, reasons for the vision, effect? The elderly Lucia and her going to the graves, with Hugo?

8. The characters to highlight the drama of the situation? Gilbert Roland as recognized Hollywood star and his performance? The humorous and ironic character that he portrayed - conventional comic, sentimental man around the town? his helping the children especially in the confrontation with the authorities and handing over the false Lucia? Selling the rosaries at the place of the vision? His being in prison?

9. The pressures on the families to cope? The reaction of the crowds and their eagerness, hysteria, sensationalism? How much sensationalism and hysteria behind such faith?

10. The sketch of the parents, their strictness, Lucia's mother hitting her, the father and his drinking, change of heart? Their support?

11. Hugo and his scepticism, saving Lucia, arrested for impeding justice, prison, helping the children at the end with the crowd? His final visit to Lucia?

12. People's response, superstition, faith, moods, demanding miracles, the impact of the sun? The cures?

13. The ecclesiastical judgment by the parish priest and his wariness? The tradition of church testing of such visions? The picture of government in Portugal, the authorities and the people's antagonism towards them?

14. The vindication of the children? The phenomena of the weather and the sun on October 13th, 1917? How is the impact of these visions explained? The popularity of Fatima throughout the 20th century? Basilica, place of pilgrimage? The early deaths of the two children and Lucy remaining alive for so long?

15. The basic message of the experience of Fatima - for Portugal, for the church, for the world? How persuasive was this film version of a religious phenomenon? The postscript and the aftermath of the visions, devotion in Fatima? A significant devotion of the 20th century?

A MILLIONAIRE FOR CHRISTY

US, 1951, 91 minutes, Black and white.
Eleanor Parker, Fred MacMurray?, Richard Carlson, Douglass Dumbrille.
Directed by George Marshall.

A Millionaire for Christy is a pleasantly inconsequential '50s comedy, much ado about very little. Eleanor Parker enjoys herself as the secret partner of a law firn and as a gold-digging, swooning and pursuing the millionaire that she has to inform about his grand fortune. Fred MacMurray? also enjoys himself as a radio personality (for corny stories and advertisements) and the inheritor of the money. There are a lot of misunderstandings since it is his wedding day. Much noise, driving, being stranded on the beach, with Spanish-Americans?, with a psychiatrist, everything is finally resolved. In the meantime, MacMurray? has foolishly signed away all his fortune not knowing that he really had inherited the money. Richard Carlson also enjoys himself as the scheming, psychiatrist.

Direction is by George Marshall, a veteran of Westerns and comedies. The film is a pleasant diversion on the American dream. It has a pleasant Victor Young score and the song 'I Don't Have a Ghost of a Chance Without You'.