POLICE STORY - A CRY FOR JUSTICE

US, 1979, 100 minutes, Colour.
Dennis Weaver, Robert Culp, Diana Muldaur, Larry Hagman, Sharon Acker.
Directed by Bob Kelljan.

A Cry For Justice is a telemovie well above average. While it covers material in so many police series, it has a very serious tone about the administration of justice, police work, cover-ups, personal ambitions, personal integrity. The film was directed by Bob Ke11jan, noted for his two Count Yorga horror films in the '70s. There is a very strong cast and an excellent performance by Dennis Weaver in the central role of the policeman with integrity. Weaver is always a likable and reliable actor - and this film indicates why. Diana Muldaur has quite a good supporting role as his wife. However, there is an excellent performance by Robert Culp as the ambitious hustling policeman who wants to be always right. It is an excellent counterpoint to Weaver's performance. There are many guest roles, especially one from Larry Hagman as a shady Defence Attorney. The atmosphere of California is well captured and the film is excellently paced and has good serious themes well worth reflecting on.

1. The significance and tone of the title? The focus on police, their work, personalities? The similarity to the material of television series? Police work in its detail, integrity? Systems? The administration of law? The interrelationship of law and justice? The American tone of the film - and the need for personal integrity and honesty?

2. The effectiveness of the film as a telemovie, for home audience and concentration? The colour photography, the editing and the pacing, especially in the opening sequences and segments? The camera on the move, the screenplay and characters on the move? The slowing down for concentration and the detective work and administration of justice? The atmosphere of California: streets, police officers, courts, homes?

3. How strong was the screenplay: the reliance on particular incidents in the opening, dates and places? The focus on the Conrad situation? The transition to Price and his prestige? The solving of the Conrad case and the passing of time? The 18 months difference and the robbery? The re-opening of the investigation, Bentley emerging as the central character, his pursuit of justice and the solution? Audience interest, involvement, reflection? Emotional response to the situation, to Price's attitude, to Bentley's?

4. The build-up of the Conrad situation: the robbers in their car and the drinking, Conrad's coming to them, his suspicions, the shooting? The policeman and his bike and the skid (with the consequences of suspicion of him and his being relegated to Archives?), the pace of the hospital sequences, Conrad's wife and her hysterics (and the irony of the later divorce), Conrad being pressurised by Price to see the films of the criminals in the Colorado prison, the hypnosis sequence with the anxiety of the wife and the disgust of Dr. Burke, Conrad being brought to the line-up and his quick identification of the criminals? His being crippled, still working as a policeman, his wife's divorce? The sequence where he recognised the photos of the true criminals? How well presented was this segment? The portrait of the rookie policeman, his tragedy, the consequences? The need for the record to be set right?

5. The transition to Price - his work with Bentley, the chase amongst the purp1e Christmas trees? The media and his presenting himself modestly but arrogantly? His heavy approach towards Conrad, the film and the interview with the California police, hustling Conrad to the films, pushing the hypnosis and having Bentley there (and Bentley trying to protest, Dr. Burke resenting?), his relentlessness in nailing the criminals? The build-up of his reputation and the joke about 'the Price is right'? The irony of the sequence with his wife and her drinking and their not being able to go out with the Bentleys? His asking Bentley for privacy? The quick talker? The possibility of his being wrong in the Conrad case? His using his quick talking techniques to try to dissuade Bentley, making phone calls over Bentley's head, the interrogation in the prison? His trying to argue Bentley out of the situation in the motel? Shepherd's not having him in for the confession? The irony of the credit and his eagerness to take it? Bentley's suspicions of his own motives towards Price, his ultimate despising him? An accurate portrait of this kind of arrogant man?

6. The contrast with Bentley, the second in the partnership, his assisting Price, the Christmas tree arrest, the presence at the interviews with the police about Conrad, the films, his wariness about the hypnosis, his reaction in discussing it with Jessie? The visit to the Prices and the embarrassment about the alcoholic wife? The contrast with the home sequences with Jessie, his discussing his work with her and his worry about Conrad? His daughter and her birthday? The opportunity for investigating a case and his decision to pursue the Conrad case? The phone calls to the wife of the criminal, the interview at Amoco Oil? His building up the evidence, finding the parking ticket? The interviews with the prisoners and his hostility, his reaction at Price's manner? The visit to the District Attorney and his threats? Rushing in to the judge and his being ticked off but the judge listening to him? The contact with Shepherd, the friendliness between the two men, Shepherd's help? The taping of the confession? The shock of the heavy sentence? The praise for them as a group and its mainly going to Price? His shock and disgust? His continually examining his motives? His explaining to Shepherd his background, ambitions to be a policeman, his seeming to be square, his sense of right and wrong? The American hero with the sense of integrity? His wife affirming that this was what people saw and admired him for?

7. The character of Shepherd - the flamboyant prosecutor-turned-Defence Attorney, wealth, drinking, yacht, meals? His listening to Bentley, his interest in him, his dealing with his clients, his turning Price away, the taping of the confession and his handling of the situation, his praise of Bentley? An interesting guest appearance?

8. Bentley's skill as a detective, his investigation, the phone calls, the building up of the evidence, especially with the traffic ticket?

9. The portrait of the criminals - their drinking and waiting, the shooting of Conrad, their defying Bentley, their willingness to do the deals, the telling of the story? The justice of the heavy sentence?

10. The police chiefs and their attitudes towards the Conrad case, the District Attorney and his arrogance, the judge as a heavy-sent6ncing judge - his reaction against Bentley, finally. agreeing with him?

11. The final freeze frame with Price and Bentley and the audience making their judgment?

12. An interesting view of police work, the administration of law, the need for a sense of justice? The system? Individual policemen and their contribution? The consequences of mistakes? The need to rectify and justice to be seen?

THE BRIDGE

Germany, 1959, 116 minutes, Black and white.
Folker Bohnet, Fritz Wepper, Michael Hinz, Frank Glaubert, Gunther Hoffman.
Directed by Bernhard Wickhi.

The Bridge is one of the most effective and shattering of anti-war films. It takes place over a period of two days only. Schoolboy friends, preoccupied with their own world and their family backgrounds, are called up towards the end of the war, enlist eagerly and within twenty-four hours are at war. What was intended as a holding action on the bridge to the town, becomes a microcosm battlefield of the whole of the war. The slaughter is cruel, painful and meaningless. The Bridge takes some time in establishing the personalities and characters of the boys, their clashes, their adolescent romance, idealism and capacity for being hurt by unwitting parents. Once we know them, we like them and feel with them. Their consequent mad crusade for the fatherland seems all the more terrible and the film has a tremendous impact.

An anti-war must.

1. How would you describe your final impressions of this film; how did it affect your attitudes to the realities of war?

2. Why did the director take his time in leading up to the war sequences? What did he gain by this?

3. How well did you feel you knew the boys before they were called up? Do you think they were a good cross-section of town boys?

4. Which of the boys came across to you as the most interesting personality? Why?

5. What were the boys' relationships to their parents?

6. What was the role of the teacher in the film? Was his role too obvious?

7. How were we continually reminded of the boys' young age - games, clothes, school, "Romeo and Juliet", idealism, shyness, shock at parents' behaviour, etc.?

8. Why were they so eager to enlist? (Are boys like that these days?).

9. Was the sergeant wise in protecting the boys by placing them to guard the bridge?

10. How serious were the boys in their war and defending the bridge - pride of doing their job, idealistic playing of soldiers?

11. How did they react to the battle - killing, horror, death?

12. Did you think the battle scenes effective - the suspense before the American tanks arrived, the old man in the house, the American soldier, the bullets ripping people open?

13. It was an accident that the sergeant was killed and the boys left alone. The action was futile. What comments did the film make on war?

14. How was this story a reflection on the wider issues of war and people's involvement in war, their sense of duty to a cause of which they do not understand the meaning?

15. Was the film completely pessimistic? Why?

THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI

UK, 1957, 161 minutes, Colour.
William Holden, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, Sessue Hayakawa, James Donald, Geoffrey Home, Andre Morell.
Directed by David Lean.

The Bridge on the River Kwai was the beginning of a new phase in David Lean's career: the mammoth, intelligent spectacles with which his name is constantly linked - Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965), and Ryan's Daughter (1970). Previously he had made such excellent films as Brief Encounter, Oliver Twist and Summertime.

The Bridge on the River Kwai also introduces a new phase of war film. Until the mid-50's the U.S. was gloriously refighting the war and the British were paying tribute to their heroes. Kubrick's Paths of Glory and Aldrich's Attack appeared at this time and Lean's criticisms of war and the waging and waste of war joined these and influenced the cinema-going public.

Alec Guinness won an Oscar for his performance as the principled Colonel Nicholson, a victim of his principles. The film and the director also won Oscars and the film won many international awards. Superb photography of Ceylon, some cogent dialogue and good performances make this an intelligent comment on war.

1. Was this film pro-war or anti-war? Why?

2. How important was the atmosphere, scenery and wide-screen scope for the film: how was the importance of the environment communicated?

3. What were your first impressions of the prison camp?

4. What impression did the British marching behind Nicholson, and whistling, make on you? How did this contrast with Shear and the burying of the dead prisoners? How did this symbolise some of the issues of the film?

5. What kind of man was Nicholson? He said he joined the army before World War I. How had the army moulded his life? How was he a typical army man? What were the good features of this? The bad?

6. what was the point of his stand on the Geneva Conference, on the officers' not working, on allowing the officers and, especially himself, to undergo the suffering in the oven?

7. Did you admire him or was he foolhardy?

8. Did Saito have the right to ignore the Geneva Convention? Was he cruel or was he just doing his duty?

9. What kind of man was Shear - in himself, when it was revealed who he really was? How did his opportunism, his American outlook, his yearning to escape contrast with the British? With Nicholson?

10. What role did Clapton take? As medical officer? As mediator with Saito? As commentator on what was going on?

11. How humiliating was Saito's losing face to Nicholson? How important was Nicholson’s stand and victory to the morale of the men, to himself?

12. Why did Nicholson take over, especially the bridge? Were his reasons for building the bridge - morale, boosting achievement for the men (contrasting with their shoddy work for the Japanese), its potential use after the war -good reasons? Were they the real reasons? How important were his own ambitions? Did he deceive himself? Why did he not take notice of Clapton?

13. How obsessed did Nicholson become with the Bridge - from the briefing meetings, to his supervision, to his asking the sick to work? In these instances was he any better than Saito who had wanted to do this?

14. How interesting was Shear's escape?

15. Did the interlude with Shear convalescing help the film - human interest, contrast with the jungle, show Shear's real choice in leaving this and going back to the jungle?

16. What kind of man was Warden? Why was he in this job? How did he persuade Shear to go~ What did this and the interview with Greene show of English attitudes and diplomacy?

17. Why was it necessary to destroy the bridge on the river Kwai?

18. How exciting was the going to the Kwai - endurance, relationships, the jungle, accidents, determination?

19. Shear said that Warden was as bad as Nicholson in the way they played heroics in war. Was he right? Why?

20. How important dramatically were the sequences prior to the blowing up of the bridge - the prisoners' concert, Nicholson's deep satisfaction, the culmination of his relationship with Saito, Saito's image of himself and the British building the bridge, the river going down, the discovery of the fuse?

21. How successful were the dramatics of the fighting and the blowing up of the bridge?

22. Why did Shear die? Of what value was his death? What was the effect of Shear and Warden's shouting desperately for Joyce to kill?

23. What was the effect of it all on Nicholson? Did he realise what he had done? Did he deliberately blow the bridge or did he accidentally fall on the detonator? Was this important?\

24. Did you share Clapton's comments on the purpose of it all, accompanied by shots of the debris floating down the river?

25. What was the ultimate message of the film?

THE BEGUILED

US, 1970, 100 minutes, Colour.
Clint Eastwood, Geraldine Page, Elizabeth Hartmann.
Directed by Donald Siegel.

The Beguiled is meant to be an atmospheric horror story. It is minor and fairly successful, although quite slow-moving in the first half. Cloistering, education, repressed personality and sexuality have been a common theme for horror stories, probably because when repressions break out the results must be somewhat bizarre. Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw" (and its film version The Innocents) is an example of this. A more recent example is The Finishing School which is more of a horror story than this one.

Clint Eastwood successfully portrays a soldier wounded in the Civil War (the action is portrayed in sepia stills with sound effects during the credits) who is taken into a small girls' school managed by two repressed spinsters. The inevitable happens in the minds of the spinsters and in their dreams but what happens in reality differs, and there are strong clashes. The horrors -darkness, amputation, poisoning - are worked into the plot rather than added just for audience scares.
The hero is ambiguous and repellent in many ways, so that the audience does not identify with him, nor with the two spinsters. In fact, the only sympathetic character is the little girl who finds him and rescues him and who, eventually, maliciously kills him. The actresses are good and direction is by Donald Siegel (whom the French critics always praise as a genius but who considers himself an unpretentious director of crime films or westerns). Coogan's Bluff, Dirty Harry, Kill Charley Varrick and even his comic western Two Mules for Sister Sara, show a hard streak in his work. In this film The Beguiled Siegel's hardness finds a satisfactory vehicle. However, it might have been much better in black and white.

Bizarre. For those who like horror films with some perspective and style.

1. What was the purpose of making this psychological horror film?

2. What did the title mean? To how many people did it refer?

3. How did the sepia stills of the civil war plus the sounds of battle in the background create atmosphere for the film?

4. The film was a variation on the theme of the outsider who changes everyone's life before he leaves. Was this plot convincingly portrayed?

5. What kind of man was Burney? Was he likeable? His actions in the flashbacks contradicted what he said. Did he have any redeeming qualities?

6. Was he merely trying to seduce the spinsters or was he trying to use them to escape?

7. How did the atmosphere of the place contribute to the film - the enclosed grounds, the school, the lessons, the confederate camp not far from the school, the patrols, the odd pocket of civilisation in a war which seemed to have been on for a long time?

8. How normal were the two teachers? In what way were they frustrated? Had they never had the chance to meet people and broaden horizons?

9. Why did Miss Martha not hand him over to the patrols?

10.What was the significance of Miss Martha's dreams? What did they tell you about her, her attitude to Burney, the place itself?

11. How did the film reveal something of the feelings of jealousy, shame, hatred?

12. How did everyone regard the amputation of the leg? How did he regard it? How was it a symbol of imprisonment and punishment?

13. Why did Edwina forgive him? Did she love him? Did he really love her or was he planning to escape?

14. Why was the killing of the tortoise so significant? Why was the little girl's hatred so implacable? Was she mirroring the adults?

15. Who decided to kill him? Who Has responsible (as they all passed the mushrooms on)?

16. What should Edwina have done when she realised the mushrooms were poisonous?

17. What had the film achieved at the end - only a chilling, psychological horror story, or something more?

THE BALLAD OF JOE HILL

Sweden, 1971, 118 minutes, Colour.
Thommy Bergrenn. (Sung by Joan Baez).
Directed by Bo Widerberg.

The Ballad of Joe Hill is a very fine film. Directed by Bo Widerberg who gave us the visual beauty of Elvira Madigan and the same beauty with a social conscience in Adalen 31, the film is as good as these and well worth seeing.

It is strange how yesterday's villains become tomorrow's heroes. Joseph Hillstrom, a Swedish migrant to the United States at the turn of the century, made his way - with more downs than ups - and gradually became an active socialist because of his experiences. Involved in a potential scandal, he avoided embarrassing a lady, and was made a victim of anti-socialist hatred in Utah and executed. This film is his ballad and Joan Baez sings his song.

As a piece of film-making on politics and social awareness, the film is very good indeed and Widerberg's colour photography is beautiful (a more modern version of Troell's The Emigrants and The New Land). Thommy Bergrenn (from Elvira Madigan and a Hollywood jaunt in The Adventurers) is engaging and convincing as Joe and some of his scenes, especially his execution, are memorable.

1. Did the film prove to be a ballad of Joe Hill rather than a developed character study? How did the words of the actual ballad, sung by Joan Baez illustrate the film? How important was this sung ballad, especially for the mood of the film?

2. How did the opening of the film create an atmosphere of optimism - for migrants arriving in a land of hope? How effective was the re-creation of the turn of the century New York streets and way of life - jobs (Joe sweeping in the bar), poverty (and the Fox stealing), desperate feelings (Joe chasing the Fox), loneliness (the letters back to Sweden)? The sequences of Joe and the girl listening to the opera?

3. What kind of person was Joe Hill, how typical of the migrants of the time?-How did Thommy Bergrenn portray him? How likeable and engaging a personal! was he? Why?

4. What picture of life all over America did the film give - what impact (emotional and intellectual) did the sequences of train-jumping (and the humour, walking the country, shouting from mountains, working in farms, being sent away - have on you?

5. How did all this change Joe's attitudes? How much had he suffered? What h, he learnt about the plight of migrants and workers?

6. What impact did his "You'll have pie in the sky when you die" song have? W. he fair to the Salvation Army? What point was being made? Did he have justice on his side?


7. Why did the men join him? Did they have the right to demonstrate and sing on the box? Why did people oppose them? What was the meaning of the gibes of "communist" etc., and the opposition and riots?

8. Why did Joe become a rallying point for workers and socialists?

9. Comment on the sequence where Joe enjoys his meal (and the wine) and then goes to wash-up with the consequent strike? Are moves like this justified? Why?

10. What was the impact of meeting the girl again? Why was he heroically discreet in keeping her out of publicity?

11. Were you shocked at his arrest? At the trial? What was wrong with his trial? Why would they not listen to him? What was he really being tried for? Would he have done his cause better by less emotional outbursts?

12. Did the film convey well the desperateness of the appeals (e.g. the interview with the President, the disregard of the Governor of Utah and his political worries)?

13. What kind of prisoner was Joe - the effect of his friendship with Harry; his refusing to escape?

14. The effect of his final meeting with his friends, his testament poem, his crossing 'the floor drawing of America on his way to death?

15. How effective was the execution sequence (and as a plea against capital punishment) - blindfold, struggle, fear, the relentlessness of the end, the executioners, especially the young man, the blank bullets and the anonymous barrels facing the prisoner, the chair, the doctor pinning the heart? What was the effect of all this at this stage of the film? What emotional effect did it have? Why?

16. Was the epilogue effective - the speeches, cremation, posting out the ashes? What comment was being made in their going up to dance?

17. What effect has a film like this in communicating ideas, political and social attitudes, emotional responses that could lead to political changes?

18. Was the film manipulating audiences? Was it propaganda? Was it convincing? Was it a good film? Why?

THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE

US, 1970, 119 minutes, Colour.
Jason Robards, Stella Stevens, David Warner.
Directed by Sam Peckinpah.

The Ballad of Cable Hogue is a Sam Peckinpah western and worth seeing for another facet of his views on the west and the myths of the west. His other westerns are Ride the High Country, Major Dundee and the Wild Bunch.

This film describes itself as a ballad and focuses attention on its hero. He is less than romantic, although a hero of the west. His exploits are presented and extolled with a chorus composed of a blonde with a heart of gold and an eccentric rascal of a self-ordained minister of religion.

But the west of Peckinpah's films is the ageing west, the period of the turn of the century when legends of the west live on and men tried to emulate them. But it is too late. The legends were really legends. The heroes were generally dirty heroes and the west was a tough place for survival. And this kind of west is over: the twentieth century with its new ideas and machinery is taking over the old. Who wants a horse? Who needs water? Who even needs a gun when a man has a car? The new west is arriving and it kills off the old. These are some c the themes of Cable Hogue1 s ballad. Butch Cassidy, Willie Boy and the Wild Bunch were three films of 1969-70 which questioned the old myths. Cable Hogue joins them and the films of 1970 which question the myths of the Cowboys and Indians, Little Big Man, Soldier Blue and the Last Warrior.

Not an action-packed film, but a reflective western comedy.

1. The film describes itself as a ballad - a song about a hero and legendary events, magnifying him in verse and repeated choruses. How does 'ballad structure' help you to appreciate the film?

2. Why is Cable Hogue a 'hero' of the west?

3. What legendary events are told about him?

4. What myths of the west does the film use? Does it break any of the traditional myths of the west?

5. How strong an atmosphere of cruelty and revenge was there about the film?

6. What role did water - part of the myths of the desert - play in the film -in Hogue's survival, his shrewd enterprises and in his- becoming outdated?

7. Taking Hogue, the Preacher and the Prostitute as people of the west, and the main representatives of human nature in the film, what picture of the comm. man emerges? Did the film look down on this kind of 'ordinary humanity'? What attitudes did it take?

8. The preacher - an eccentric; how seriously should he have been taken? Hot typical of the weak and hypocritical man on the make was he? (His own religion for his own purposes?).

9. How were the old themes of success, greed, revenge and forgiveness present at the end of the ballad?

10. The setting of the film was the turn of the century. How did the film show the end of an era and the passing of the old west? How important was the car (substituting for the coach and horse) and gasoline (substituting for water)?

11. What was the symbolism of Hogue dying because he had been run over by a car? What kind of influence does the past have in forming the present?

12. What was the symbolism of the religious man, in black, on the back of a bike?

13. Was the film much more than a conventional western? Why?

BUTTERFLIES ARE FREE

US, 1972, 107 minutes, Colour.
Goldie Hawn, Edward Albert, Eileen Heckhart.
Directed by Milton Katselas.

Butterflies are Free was adapted by Leonard Gershe from his successful stage play. Although keeping close to the structure of the play, the film does not seem confined at all and, in fact, is an excellent piece of screen entertainment. It is full of sentiment, humour and good sense. Well worth seeing by possessive mothers and children harassed by possessive mothers!

Goldie Hawn gives the best performance of her career to date. Her giddiness can be used for humour or pathos, but when she is required to act with feeling and depth, she can rise excellently to the occasion. Edward Albert makes an impressive adult debut in films as the blind son. He is sympathetic and intelligent and convincing in his role. Eileen Heckhart has played domineering mothers before (most notably as George Segal's overbearing Jewish mom in No Way to Treat a Lady). Here she has excellent lines, a mixture of humour, irony and genuine feeling and gives a most impressive performance. Oscar-winner for Best Supporting Actress, 1972.

A fine film for enjoyment and discussion between parents and teenage children.

1. What was the significance of the title? In its original quotation from Dickens? In its use in the song and throughout the film?

2. The film was based on a stage play. Was this obvious in the structure of the film? In the dialogue? Did it detract from the film?

3. Since the film was principally the interaction between three characters, each could be considered and the themes of the film seen in their regard.

Don - how balanced was he? Did you agree with his choice of leaving home? Was he coping well? Did you realise he was blind? What was your reaction when you discovered this? Had he accepted his blindness well? He told Jill not to put herself down. Did he put himself down much? How? How negative was he about himself and his mother? Was he a happy person? Or, as Jill said, "a beautiful person, inside and out?" Why did he enjoy the shopping, the meal? How emotionally involved with Jill did he become? (With Linda Fletcher?) How did he cope with his mother's intrusion? Why did he resent her? How much did he love her? Why did he break down and want to go home? How did the crisis change his attitude to his mother? Why did he go to pieces when Jill left? Would he have been able to get over her, had she not come back?

Jill- Was Goldie Hawn's "scatterbrained" performance convincing? What kind of girl was she - her mother, her marriage, her separation, her involvement with Don, her fear of hurting anyone, her unwillingness to become involved or committed? How did she help Don? After her reaction to his blindness? Did she pity him? Love him? How convincing was her clash with Mrs. Baker? Why? Why did she decide to go off and leave Don? Don pressed her on this to make her admit that she did love him. Did she? Was her return convincing?

Mrs Baker - Were your first impressions of like or dislike? Why? Was she too possessive? Catty? Did she put down Donny too much? In her exchange! with Jill, did she emerge as a concerned mother? What points that Jill made really struck her? Why did she change? Did she understand herself and Don better? Was her leave-taking of him the right way? Why?

4. Obviously, physical blindness and sight are used as images of deeper blindness and sight. How were they used in this film? How blind was Don? Jill (note the final words of the film)? Mrs. Baker? Who saw properly at the end?

5. How well was the theme of maternal possession treated? How perceptive is the distinction that was made between giving a person help and giving a person confidence?

6. How well was the nature of love and temporary and permanent commitment explored?

7. Was the film sentimental? How well did it communicate genuine feeling? How did it do this? How did it keep its audience smiling and laughing? Was the mixture of sentiment and humour effective?

BURN

Italy, 1969, 112 minutes, Colour.
Marlon Brando, Renato Salvatori, Evaristo Marquez.
Directed by Gillo Pontecorvo.

Burn is director Gillo Pontecorvo's next film after his highly acclaimed Battle of Algiers. In it he takes up several themes that were considered in the former film - colonial tyranny, revolution, race relationships, causes and freedom -and explores them in a West Indian context of the nineteenth century. Portuguese and British rule come under direct criticism and attack and the film becomes a dramatic plea for tolerance and justice.

Marlon Brando returns to his Fletcher Christian type characterisation for Sir William Walker, a British trouble-shooter, who invents and sells wars. As the slave chosen by Walker to lead his revolution, Evaristo Marquez has enormous strength and human intensity and becomes the focus of the film.

The complete film does not come across as a complete success, but it is well worth seeing and discussing.

1. What were the meaning and overtones of the title? (cf. the use of colour in the credits).

2. Was the structure of the film effective: the two halves of Sir William Walker's interventions with the English bridging sequences? Why?

3. Comment on the impact of the music. Did it enhance the plot?

4. Was it important that Marion Brando took the part of Sir William Walker? If a less known actor had taken the part, would the film have had different impact?

5. Did the film set its mood well - the geographical and historical accounts for Sir William's benefit? The West Indian colonial feeling?

6. What were the main issues of the film? It was obviously a message film? What did the director feel most strongly about? Was he biased? Was the film convincing?

7. Was the colonial situation convincingly portrayed - both Portuguese and British (and the new local colonialism?)?

8. What kind of man was Sir William Walker? What motivated him? Why did he go to Quemeida? What scenes communicated his character most tellingly? E.g. insulting the natives.

9. Trace his manoeuvring of Jose Dolores and his followers, of Teddy Sanchez and his followers. How clever was he? How well did he play on their deeper feelings? Were his insights into character accurate? How necessary was the revolution? Who gained? How? Who lost?

10. How was Jose Dolores transformed? What did he become?

11. Why did he assume power over Teddy Sanchez? What was the lesson of his failure at government? What effect did this have on all concerned?

12. Was Teddy Sanchez a convincing character - in his relationships with Sir William Walker? In the assassinations, in ruling?

13. How important was the English interlude - in tone, in information, in the cynicism of colonial politics and economics?

14. Why did Sir William go back? Was he admirable at all?

15. What right had Jose Dolores to rebel and harass the interim government? (What had happened to Sanchez and government in the meantime?)

16. How cruel was Walker - in the severe seeking out of Jose Dolores? (What was the impact of the relentless severity, the execution of Teddy Sanchez, native fighting native, the intervention of Britain and the young soldier, the slaughter?)

17. How proud was Jose Dolores? Was he right to die rather than accept Sir William's kind of freedom?

18. What had been achieved politically and economically by the end of the film?

19. How important for Britain was the failure of the myth of Jose Dolores and stopping its spread?

20. Comment on the dramatic repetition of the mulatto offering to carry Sir William's bags.

21. What was the impact and lesson of his murder?

22. What message has such a film on colonialism for today?

BREWSTER McCLOUD

US, 1970, 110 minutes, Colour.
Bud Cort, Sally Kellerman, William Windom, Michael Murphy, Stacey Keach, Margaret Hamilton, Jennifer Salt, Shelly Duvall.
Directed by Robert Altman.

Brewster McCloud? was Robert Altman's next film after his success with M*A*S*H. It was nowhere near the critical and commercial success of that film. This time Altman takes a wider subject of satire, American society at large. He has chosen a hero to represent oppressed innocence striving to escape from the U.S. earth and fly away. This flying-bird symbolism then becomes central for the whole film and bird-myths and emblems, clever and crude, are the unifying point of the film. Villains are murdered by Brewster's lady protector and the bird on her wrist leaves its calling card, identity mark on the victims. Meanwhile typical U.S. people, attitudes, beliefs and commodities are ridiculed.

There are plenty of isolated successful bits but one wonders whether it all hangs together well enough - it is more like modern satirical pop-art. Again, as with the heroes of M*A*S*H, Brewster and his avenging angel are not entirely sympathetic or innocent, which makes them ambiguous hero and heroine. As in M*A*S*H they seem to get off scot free, until Brewster himself suffers the worst defeat in death. However, in reputation he remains innocent, society is the villain.
Altman uses a number of those who acted for him in M*A*S*H, Bud Cort, Sally Kellerman and Michael Murphy.

There is a lot of clever improvising in the film and some strong satire. But, for those who don't live in this kind of America, it will probably not be the successful mock it might be in the United States.

1. What was the point of making this film?

2. The film is a satire: what are its targets? Is the satire on target, or is the whole film spread so wide that the satire is ineffectual?

3. Is the film funny? When? Why?

4. Is the film too local, too American, for non-Americans to appreciate the points being made? Give detailed examples.

5. Is Brewster Mc Cloud an agreeable hero? Is he meant to be? Does he provide a focus of interest and values for the film? Is he meant to be 'innocent'?

6. Why does Brewster build his wings? Why does he want to fly away from the world?

7. How is the bird imagery used, cleverly and crudely, throughout the entire film?

8. The people who are murdered are obviously targets of satire - why?
- the patriotic and impatient lady singer.
- the tyrannical miser.
- the greedy drug squad cop on holidays.
- Weekes, authority trying to interfere all the time.

9. What was Louise meant to symbolise? She was a guardian, symbolic mother. But she also protected by theft, murder and escaped all punishment. Her bird on her wrist?

10. What was Schafft meant to symbolise? Self-assured but ineffectual detective democracy with Johnson. (Satire on the police - the waddling policeman, the chase, etc.).

11. What was Weekes meant to symbolise (with his advisers) - satire on authority?

12. Were American attitudes to sex satirised, taken seriously or exploited? With Louise, with the girl-friends? Brewster's exercises and his girlfriend's frustration; the girl who seduces him and betrays him.

13. What was the lesson in Brewster's failure to fly very far - failure of wings, strength and being shot at by society? What comment was this supposed to make on America?

14. What was the significance of the final credits (with Brewster lying dead) was it merely a gimmick, or did it have a point?

15. Did the whole film work? Was it worth seeing and discussing? Why?

BREEZY

US, 1973, 100 minutes, Colour.
William Holden, Kay Lenz.
Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Breezy is clearly in the Love Story school and the romances that followed that box-office record breaker for a number of years. However, Breezy is one of the more vigorous offerings and is both enjoyable and helpful for discussions about love and marriage.

William Holden capitalises, even as he gets older, on the charm that made him a famous leading man. Here he is involved with a young girl, Breezy, attractively played by Kay Lenz. Some of the dialogue is quite sharp, some of it obvious, much of it quite wise.

Clint Eastwood is here directing his third film. Those used to his laconic western heroes or policemen will be surprised at his capacity for romance and sensitivity, parks and pounding surf as well as cosy firelight. Eastwood's first film as director was the thriller Play Misty for Me, which included an over-lyrical love sequence to 'The first time ever I saw your face'. He then went to the allegorical Western High Plains Drifter (which the protagonists of Breezy go to see!) and now has moved back to romance and lyricism. Breezy is good discussion material and would appeal especially to teenage girls (and to their fathers).

1. How did the name correspond to the mood and style of the film?

2. Was this a film about critical situations and real people? How real was Breezy? Were the issues that she talked about real? Did this alter audience response? Did it have a real impact?

3. How attractive was Breezy herself? The impact of the actress playing Breezy and her style? Your first impressions of Breezy during the credits and her relationship with Bruno? What principles did she have? How real was her life story? Why did she leave home? Was she typical of the younger high school generation of the middle seventies? Her life style? Her emotions? Was she real as an emotional person? The importance of the sequence when she was hitch-hiking? Her later waving to Bruno who did not recognise her? Her imposing herself on Frank?

4. Were real ideas explored in the film?

5. What kind of person was Frank? Typical of middle-aged Americans? Our first impressions of him with the girl in his home? What standards did he live by? Was he a good kind of person? Did he work hard and have good friendships? His relationship with Betty? The nature of his marriage and why it broke up?

6. What happened in the interaction of Breezy and Frank? How was the generation gap manifested? How little understanding was there on both sides? How much understanding? How did the generation gap come to be bridged?

7. Why did they grow in love? What self-giving was there? What esteem for each other? What effect did each have on the other?

8. What symbols did the film use for this growing in love and uniting them? The dog? The visit to the beach? The warmth in the home? The shared meals? The shared ideas?

9. How did the relationship between Frank and Betty comment on the relationship between Frank and Breezy? Why did Frank want to marry Betty? Why had he not succeeded with her? Why had she chosen to marry someone else? How was this important when Betty had the accident and threw light on Frank's situation at the end?

10. How did Frank use his work to live life instead of relating emotionally to people? The importance of the sequences of Frank with his friend? Their tennis games and the comments of the friend? The nature of their marriage? Contrasting with and paralleling Frank's situation? The envy of the friend of Frank's freedom and of his ability to relate to Breezy?

11. What comment did Breezy and her relationship with her friends make on the central relationship? The young people and their liaison, the dependence of the girl on the boy, the drug situation? How did Breezy react to this? How did it throw light on her relationship with Frank and the need for permanence?

12. How important to the film was the sequence with Frank's wife in the restaurant? Why was the impact of this sequence so strong (the angle at which Frank's wife was filmed - from Frank's point of view)? What did it show about the wife? Did it indicate why the marriage had broken up? The effect of this on Breezy?

13. How did the film show they had grown in happiness - the time with the clothes, the time in the park?

14. How do you account for Frank's breaking with Breezy? Why was he frightened? What influence did his friend have? How cruel was he to Breezy? Relentlessly? Her response to this? Could she do anything else? Was she capable of doing anything else?

15. The impact of Betty's accident? Frank's sincerity and friendship for her? Betty's account of the happiness she had in the week of marriage - how did this influence Frank in understanding his love for Breezy?

16. How happy was the ending? How plausible? Was a permanent relationship between the two of them possible? Was the message of true love a valid one?

17. How good a film was this? It may have been sentimental and romantic, but due to Eastwood's direction - despite a lot of romantic, surf, park and firelight sequences - he got to grips with the characters. He got excellent performances from the supporting actors. How important was this?