CASS

Australia, 1977, 78 minutes, Colour.
Michelle Fawdon, Judy Morris, John Waters, Peter Carroll, Max Cullen, Anna Volska.
Directed by Chris Noonan.

Cass is an odd telemovie. Taking an ordinary young woman of the modern Australian city, it shows her in many complicated situations of work, home, heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The world that she moves in is the somewhat bizarre world of advertising, art, show business. While the material does not seem to have been elaborated well enough in the screenplay (there is too much material), the performances of the expert cast are excellent, giving some credibility to the situations and the events. Michelle Fawdon, a singer who moved into dramatic work, is persuasive in the central role. Her films at this time included the award-winning Cathy's Child and Maybe This Time. Judy Morris also appeared in Maybe This Time. The male cast fare less well - and in fact there is a strong emphasis on women's issues.
Cass is an Australian Film Commission, Channel 9 telemovie, part of a batch of films made for release in 1979. John Waters plays yet another sullen and taciturn husband. Judy Morris portrays yet another eccentric type with sympathy. Peter Carroll is not very convincing as Tom. Sally Blake, who wrote screenplays for many experimental short films in the 70s and Chris Noonan who was a director of short features, worked on the screenplay which was finalised by Laura Jones, screenplay writer of another telemovie in the series, Say You Want Me. There is a feminist viewpoint to the fore in the film. The tone is didactic. The film also contains many ideas but unfortunately there are too many ideas for the time available and for the slander treatment. This means that many of the situations or ways of acting seem implausible and detract from the overall impact.

1. The overall impact of this telemovie? Interest entertainment, message? The quality of the Australian production, techniques, acting?

2. The basic ideas behind the screenplay; men and women and their individuality, relationships? Primitive society and civilisation? Personal freedoms, social freedoms? Work, rat race? Identity and breakdown? How important were the ideas, how adequate their treatment, how didactic, credible, persuasive?

3. For what kind of audience was the film made? The home television audience? "Committed people"? People belonging to groups, causes? The presuppositions about the ideas in the minds of the film-makers?

4. Michelle Fawdon's portrayal of Cass? How attractive, sympathetic? Seeing her in the plane and the flashbacks to her memories of the island, the ceremonies, the singer? Her capacity for work, the quality of her work - and seeing this in the film footage? The fact of the three months and its effect on her, the change of environment, different values and her exhilaration? Her various explanations of the experience and the effect it had on her? The return home, the contrast of Sydney, Mike and his standards, expectations, lack of listening to her, communication? The quality of the love between the two - the bedroom scene and the discussion about the pill, Cass' not wanting children yet? Seeing Cass at work, her dealings with the producers, her reactions against the ogling of the footage? Her reaction to the job on plastics? The visit to Georgie and her discussion about being hostess, entertaining? The formal dinner and the discussion with the psychologist about shock treatment? Her being gradually worn down by nobody listening to her experience? Lack of communication with Mike? The importance of Margo and Tom as support? Their listening as an alternate to her bottling up her feelings? How close was she to the verge of breakdown?

5. Margo and Tom and the audience's being introduced to them by Cass' visit? The nature of their house, representing current trends of conservation, anti-uranium etc? The sayings that they mouthed, especially Tom? The affection of Margo for Cass? The importance of Mike's visit and his antipathy, the way this was expressed, the clash of values? The house as a refuge for Cass and her feeling at home there, the reminder of the Pacific? Sympathy? The outings with Margo eg the swim? Her drunken intrusion and the lesbian interlude? Margo's response to this? Cass' bewilderment, trying to work things out? Her leaving Mike for Margo? Margo's making the break and explaining her selfishness? Tom's sayings and comments on interior journeys? How credible was the impact of largo on Cass?

6. How well did the film build up Cass' desperation? Her reaction to seeing the programme and the way it was made, the party and her drinking, her dance and song and people's reaction, the flight to largo and spending the night with her? The break with Margo? The stealing of the film and the atmosphere of suicide at the Gap? Her throwing the film over? The clash with Mike, his ridicule of her and exposing her to Georgie and her husband?What future did Cass have - peace, the hitchhikers, the lyrics of the final song? How much had her problems been resolved?

7. The portrait of Mike as the respectable student, doctor, middle-class suburban practitioner? His welcoming of Cass, love for her? His impatience at her lateness? His repressions especially of anger? His disdain for Margo and Tom? Friendship with Georgie and her husband, land deals? His treatment of patients as illustrated with Mrs Taylor, his reliance on drugs and Cass' reaction to his treatment, lack of listening, the needle? His wanting to soothe Cass with injections? How credible was his outburst against her? Would he be reconciled with her? His disdain of the affair with Margo?

8. The portrait of Georgie and her husband as a contrast with Cass and Mike? Middle class suburban, affected? Her plans for her list of dresses, meals, outings? Her pregnancy? The friendship with Cass and trying to help her but her inability? The presentation of the dinner and the discussion about shock treatment? Cass' reaction to the psychologist at the party? The people at the party and the various aspects of society that they represented?

9. The presentation of the film people, the television work, the editing? The men ogling the Pacific women? The sensational treatment of the material?

10. The importance of the footage from the Pacific? Did the footage shown indicate the quality of the material and its use for television? Audience response to seeing the women, the initiation rites? The men and their ogling? Cass and her mystical response to it? How much did it mean to her? The production manager and his insistence on trust while he betrayed it?

11. The platitudes expressed in the screenplay, the way of talking, the phoniness and Cass' response to it?

12. How helpful were the comparisons and contrasts of Australian society with those of the Pacific? How well was the message highlighted, in detail? The didactic tone of the film - how convincing?

13. How real do the people seem, how real the situations, crises? How adequate were the solutions and ways of behaviour? A mirror of contemporary society, problems and ways of behaviour?

CAPTIVES OF CARE

Australia, 1979, 50 minutes, Colour.
Julianne Newbold.
Directed by Stephen Wallace.

Captives of Care is a short feature docu-drama made for television. It shows an institute for the disabled, Lumeah, and is critical of the treatment of the disabled in such institutions. The film was made for the Year of the Disabled.
The film uses patients and a professional cast led by Julieanne Newbould. The film was directed by Stephen Wallace who made such effective shorts as Con Man Harry and the Others, and Love Letters from Teralba Road. His first full- length feature was the prison drama Stir. The film has a sense of compass- ion and urgency as well as a criticism of institutions. The criticisms are voiced very effectively by the patients. The film was successful on television and was nominated for various short feature awards in 1981-82.
1. The focus of the title and its nuances? The illustration of the title? The emphasis on captives and the background of imprisonment? The focus on care - its presence, absence, needs, goodwill?

2. The impact of the film for the Year of the Disabled? For cinema impact? Television impact? The dramatising of attitudes? The challenge to attitudes? An exercise in audience awareness: compassion, humanity?
3. The blend of documentary style with fiction? The authentic atmosphere? How persuasive? The combination of professional and amateur cast?
4. The structure of the film: the focus on Robyn and her entering the institution, the audience going with her? Her experiences, reaction, the build-up to confrontation? Robyn's story becoming the audience's point of view? The interview and the emphases, the illustration of characters and needs? The importance of challenge and confrontation?
5. The film's comment on the nature of disability: the standards of ability, the question of what is normal, accusations of freakishness? Disabled people being seen as human beings, individuals? As patients? Help, helplessness, self-help? Capitalising on strengths? The treatment of the disabled as adult human beings? Allowances made far age and experience? Rules for adults? Health, privacy, relationships, sexuality, protest, human dignity?
6. The character of Robyn: her youthfulness, touring around Europe, jobs, her reading? Sister Blayney? Matron? Mr Jenner? Seeing her at home? The friend at home? John's outing, deafness, Neil and the confrontation, her care and Sister Blayney, her being ticked off? The style of the television and her speaking out? The ring?
7. The contrast with Matron and her twenty years of experience? Mr Jenner? Questions of democracy, rules, decisions? Blayney and tiredness? Money? Robyn facing the situation and the possibilities for her action?
8. The group: together, institutionalised, the nature of the rules and their imposition, meals, the radio, rooms, curfews, the question of electric chairs?
9. The group and T Ward: the force and the truth?
10. John as character, his disability, as resident rather than patient, his rebelling against dictatorship, his place in the group, the outing, Neil, the medicine and deafness, the fair treatment, the phone call?
11. Neil and his speaking, attitude towards the rules, questions of relationships, antagonising, categories, games?
12. Jeannie and Jill and their speaking and issues eg age?
13. Les and his patients, speaking out, freedom?
14. The major issues that emerged from this dramatisation of the institution? The plight of the patients? Their needs and rights? The fact that they were captives in the name of care?
15. The build-up to the presentation of the executives, the dramatisation of their viewpoints (fairly, sympathetically, unsympathetically?), confrontation and the taking of sides? The danger of presenting stereotypes in confrontation?16. What was the audience left with in terms of understanding, sympathy? The need for action?

CRONOS

Mexico, 1993, 93 minutes, Colour.
Federico Luppi, Ron Perlman, Claudio Brook, Margarita Isabel, Tamara Shanath.
Directed by Guillermo del Toro.

Cronos won a great number of awards on its first release in 1993. However, it has grown in reputation given the subsequent career of its writer-director Guillermo del Toro. In Hollywood, he made Mimic but was hampered by studio restrictions. He made a big impact with his version of Blade and then, by way of contrast, his mysterious story of the Spanish civil war, The Devil’s Backbone (also a winner of many awards). He returned to the comic book style with Hellboy, again receiving critical acclamation. However, with Pan’s Labyrinth, he combined the comic book style with his concern about Spanish issues. Pan’s Labyrinth was set in 1944 during World War Two, showing a world of fantasy but also a world of grim reality. Winner of many awards and Oscars for cinematography, make-up and costumes.

Cronos is science fiction, a film about an extraordinary machine from mediaeval times which enabled people to have an experience of eternal youth. However, the machine is also sinister because of its creating a bloodlust, a vampiric thirst, which leads to the ability to live forever.

The film is very well acted by Federico Luppi as an old man who discovers the machine, is scratched by the machine causing him to bleed – and acquiring a thirst. This is difficult for his family, especially in his confrontation with his young granddaughter. However, the machine is also being sought by an old man who wants to live forever (Claudio Brook) and his agent with the ominous name of Angel – and the old man’s name is Jesus – played by Ron Perlman who appeared as Hellboy in the two films del Toro made of that comic.

While the film has frights, has a chase across roofs, the atmosphere of fright and terror is more important than mere shocks.

1. The imagination of Guillermo del Toro? Science fiction? Fantasy? Horror? Alchemy?

2. A Mexican production, production values, atmosphere? The city? The shop, its interiors? The atmosphere of the house? The international cast, moving from English to Spanish? The musical score?

3. The prologue, the machine, 1536? Alchemy and the creation of the machine? The transition to 1937, the earthquake? Death?

4. The device itself, in the form of the scarab, its nature, energy, its reaching out, gripping the humans, the blood, the claws? The promise of immortality?

5. The character of Jesus? In himself, his age, his antiques, his work in the shop? His relationship with his wife? His relationship to his granddaughter, Aurora? The visitors? The machine, the effect? The charge and the smash?

6. Jesus and the machine, its gripping him? His bleeding? His addiction to the scarab? The threat of the search and Angel as the messenger – of life and death? The increasing horror? The effect on Jesus? With his wife? The build-up the confrontation with his granddaughter? The good man and his being corrupted?

7. Jesus’ wife, her work with him, his changing? Aurora, her age, her relationship with her grandfather? The touching scenes between them? Giving more power to the threats?

8. Dieter de la Guardia, old, demented, his power, wealth? Angel and his being commissioned to find the machine? Angel and his mission, confrontation with Jesus? The threats? The chase across the roof? The loss for Angel and for Dieter?

9. The background of the other characters, supplementing the world of Jesus, of Dieter de la Guardia?

10. The machine itself, the close-ups, the detail of the mechanism?

11. The mythology of the film? The theme of the living dead, the desire for the fountain of youth, immortality? Lifeblood? The symbolic names?

12. A satisfying horror film? Horror atmosphere rather than shock? A portrait of insidious evil?

COP

US, 1988, 110 minutes, Colour.
James Woods, Lesley Ann Warren, Charles Durning, Charles Haid, Raymond J. Barry.
Directed by James B. Harris.

Cop is based on a novel by James Elroy, Blood on the Moon. Elroy wrote the novel, LA Confidential as well as The Black Dahlia. Writer-director James B. Harris (who worked with Stanley Kubrick in the 1950s) also produced the film version of The Black Dahlia.

One of the main reasons for seeing this film apart from the Elroy adaptation is James Woods as an intense, often manic, Los Angeles detective who is comfortable working outside the framework of the law. Woods portrayed a number of these cops over the years – to comic effect in The Hard Way with Michael J. Fox. In 2006 he created the television series central character, Shark.

There is support from Charles Durning, always at home in this kind of role (The Choir Boys). Lesley Ann Warren is the female lead.

The film is about a serial killer in Los Angeles, the detective work, the police corruption and cover-ups – familiar material from the writings of Elroy.

1. The popularity of police and detective stories? The 1980s? Vigilantes and the law? Moral perspective?

2. Los Angeles, the police precinct, the murders and the scenes of the crime, seamy and sleazy? Ordinary life, the family life of the detective, school, the streets? An authentic feel? The credits patter? The musical score?

3. Based on a James Elroy novel, a James Woods film?

4. Lloyd Hopkins as a plausible character, as embodied by Woods? His appearance, personal tics, manner? Way of speech? Hopkins at work, tough, tense, at the crime scenes, their ugliness? His relationship with Dutch, friendship, Dutch as his superior? Dutch as help? With the police superiors, other members of the force? The briefings? The clues for the investigation, the feminist themes, the poetry, the escort service and the ads? Joanie and the liaison, the photo? Dutch and his work? The stalking, the killings? Hopkins and his relationship with his wife, her exasperation, leaving? His telling his eight-year-old daughter the stories? His wife not wanting her to hear these stories? His routines, day by day, married to his work, meals on the run? The files, the elimination of suspects? Focusing on the dates? Kathleen, talking with her, going out, the discovery? The party with Dutch? The police chief clash and the insults, his suspension? Kathleen’s diary, the yearbook? Whitey, the interviews, the bugging? Birdman and the murder? The confrontation with Whitey? Joanie’s death? The lawyer and Kathleen? The warning, the phone calls, the build-up to the confrontation? The good news and the bad news? The portrait of a cop, pressures, motivation and drive, attitude towards the law and justice?

5. The sketch of the daughter, the night and the happy endings, his wife, sick, the confrontations, the phone calls?

6. The character of Dutch, superior, help, the raids? Information and files? Cover, the party, advice? Kathleen?

7. The chief, his religious perspective, the party, the suspension? The victim and the long look?

8. Joanie and the ads, the truth about the victim, sex, the phone and death?

9. Kathleen, her shop, feminist stances, the party? Her story – the court, the rape? The poetry? The sexual encounter with Lloyd? Hurt? The diaries, the lawyer, warning the killer?

10. Whitey – Birdman, ugly?

11. The murderer, the motives? The killings, smart, confrontation and death?

The police and the public, the pressures, norms and rules, issues of life and death? Questions about the police force and its action? A satisfying thriller?

MECANIQUES CELESTES (CELESTIAL CLOCKWORK)

Spain, 1995, 85 minutes, Colour.
Ariadna Gil, Arielle Dombasle, Evelyne Didi, Lluis Homar, Frederic Longbois, Olivier Granier.
Directed by Fina Torres.

Venezuelan director Fina Torres won the Camera D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1995. Her film is based on the opera Cinderella and uses many of its arias.

The film is a blend of the serious and the comic – all put together in a melting pot of free-wheeling comedy, music, farce.

Spanish star Ariadna Gil is Anna, a Venezuelan bride who flees her marriage to Paris to become an opera star. There she clashes with a popular singer, played by celebrated French actress Arielle Dombasle. However, she is under the protection of the Italian opera director and has a whole lot of eccentric friends to support her in her clash with the singer.

The film is in the Hispanic tradition – the eccentricity of the Latin American perspective with the old world of continental Europe.

1. An entertaining film? Hispanic sensibilities? Worldwide? Magic realism? The title, fate, Providence? The celestial clockwork for each character?

2. The Venezuelan settings, Paris? The contrasts? Dreams and reality?

3. The music, its range? The opera, Cinderella? Beauty, a modern adaptation of the story? With Latin American flavour and verve?

4. The visuals, the realism, the special effects, video, multimedia?

5. Anna, the wedding, the opening, her flight, her packing, the taxi, the inspiration of Maria Callas, the dress, the plane?

6. Anna in herself, audiences identifying with her? Paris, the taxi driver, the hundred dollars? The girls, her life, interaction? The music, her hopes? The teacher and his persuasion?

7. The bar, the boss, her meeting Armand? Help, the chat, the police? Anna and the sexual relationships? Help, the parents, singing, the marriage – the boyfriend and astrology?

8. Anna and her singing, the psychologist, weeping? Sharing? Love, the lesbian background? The clients and the television, money? The party and voodoo? The attitude towards America? The parody, the wedding?

9. Italo and his role, auditions, the television? With Celeste? The assistant, the auditions, the tape? The blonde, the loss? Hearing and happy? The prince?

10. The range of girls, the detail of their lives?

11. Celeste, ugly sister to Anna’s Cinderella? Her role in technology, the multimedia? Lies and seduction?

12. The police? Alcanie, her character?

13. Anna, the experience, the singing (and the actress dubbing)? Hopes, sadness, the party, Armand, Alcanie? The wedding?

14. Serious, comic, tongue-in-cheek?

KUKUSHKA (CUCKOO)

Russia, 2002, 105 minutes, Colour.
Anni- Kristiina Juuso, Ville Haapasalo, Viktor Bychkov.
Directed by Aleksandr Rogozhkin.

Cuckoo is an interesting film, a film about war and its aftermath.

Towards the end of World War Two, retreating Russians leave a Finnish sniper chained to a rock, dressed in Russian uniform – with orders to kill as many people as he can before he himself is killed. The first part of the film shows him escaping from the rock. A second character is a Russian who is being taken by vehicle to trial for anti-Soviet sentiments and who is stranded when the group is attacked. The third character is a Lapland widow whose husband went to war four years earlier and who survives in the forest. The plot brings the three together, each having a different language, attempts at communication, the woman not worrying about their political allegiances but helping them both back to health – and to relationships. The film is both serious and comic.

1. A Russian perspective on World War Two? Attitude towards the Germans? Towards the Finns? Towards Russia itself and its involvement? The war in Lapland? Fifty years on and perspectives?

2. The importance of the landscapes, the forests, the isolation, the bleak season, the rocks, the lake, tracks? The mood of the north? The musical score?

3. The title, the sniper and his role as a cuckoo, trapped, for death? Anni and the explanation?

4. The Nazi invasion of Finland, the use of the Finns, the German retreat? The sniper, the command, the chain, the rock, his escaping?

5. Veikko, the glimpse, the fire? The house, eating and drinking? Getting loose? Anni? The deaths?

6. The Russian, his arrest, warning the officer, the drive, relieving himself, the planes – and the deaths?

7. Anni in herself, her life, work, basic, the reindeer herd, the house, the food? Her healing the injured men?

8. Veikko and his arrival, the relationship with Anni, with the Russian, their working together? The tensions?

9. The plane, the crash, the women? The leaflets? The gun and the shooting?

10. The mystical background of life in Lapland, people and nature? The rituals of healing, the bark? The visualising of this? The dark?

11. The departures, the end of the war, a future?

12. Anni, the sexual relationship with the men? The aftermath, their departure? Her being left with two sons?

CROOKLYN

US, 1994, 115 minutes, Colour.
Alfre Woodard, Delroy Lindo, Patrick Kelly, Zelda Harris, Isaiah Washington, Spike Lee.
Directed by Spike Lee.

Crooklyn is a semi-autobiographical written by Spike Lee’s two sisters, Cinque Lee and Joie Lee. It is set in Brooklyn of the 1970s.

The film focuses on a husband and wife, the wife being a schoolteacher, her husband being a jazz musician. They have five children and try to cope with all the pressures of living in Brooklyn at the period. While there are scenes of happiness, the focus is on the young daughter, Troy (Zelda Harris), and her interactions with the other children. There is some tenderness, there is some harshness, there are scenes of glue-sniffing … the atmosphere of the period.

The film is also strong on the soul music of the period which pervades the whole film.

Technically, the film disturbs people because they think that the lens is out of focus but Lee uses the device of different lenses to show different perspectives on the action.

The film is also set in the deep south when Troy goes to visit her relations – with some harsh criticism of life in the south. Spike Lee made a great impact in the 1980s with his film She’s Gotta Have It. He then went on to achieve world fame with his Do the Right Thing. During the 1990s he made quite a number of films including the jazz film, Mo’ Better Blues as well as the interracial themed Jungle Fever. In 1992 he released his biography of Malcolm X.

He became much more prolific from the mid-90s on, with mixed results in films like He Got Game, Summer of Sam. He also did documentaries like The Original Kings of Comedy and Get On The Bus. He also made a great impact in 2006 with his four-hour documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. His most popular film was also released in 2006, Inside Man with Denzel Washington.

1. Response to the film as a Spike Lee film? His reputation? His films? His black perspectives? His critique of white America? A tribute to black America? Life in Brooklyn, the 1970s?

2. The focus on family, the film as a memoir, a contribution to consciousness, heritage? The technique of using the wide screen and the different lenses?

3. The atmosphere of Brooklyn, the homes, the streets? Calling it Crooklyn? The twenty to twenty-five years of change?

4. The streets of Brooklyn, the children, crowded, playing, glue-sniffing, the adults? The pervasive music? The drugs, the shops? Neighbours? The feel of Brooklyn? The soul music and its pervading the film?

5. The Carmichael household, the house itself, meals, the different rooms, the children watching television, the need for discipline?

6. The film as Troy’s story, her perspective? Her age, experience, hopes? Assessments? At home, looking after the other children? Her visit south, her return? Her mother’s illness? Death? Her father? The aftermath?

7. The portrayal of Carolyn Carmichael, Alfre Woodard’s presence, her style? As a teacher, her work? Her relationship with her husband? Her love? Fiery, the need for discipline? Getting the children up, getting them to eat their peas …? Her relationship to each of the children? Her relationship with Troy? The husband leaving? Her illness and its effect?

8. Woody Carmichael, his music, love, support of the family? Weakness and stubbornness? The ice cream episode? Trip, leaving?

9. The various children and their characters, the boys and the girls, watching the television, meals and food, their friends? Their mother’s illness and their grief?

10. Troy and the effect of life, her visit, her aunt and the fussiness, the touch of the caricature in the presentation of these characters? The cousins, the south? The difference between Crooklyn and the look of the south? The presence? The letter, Troy’s return? The effect of the visit south on her?

11. Her aunt, her style, the cousins, adopted, fussiness? The uncle?

12. The neighbours, the music, garbage, the clash – and the police?

13. The sadness of illness, death, the grief for the children, the repercussions and their having to stand on their own feet?

14. The supporting characters, their influence on the family, interactions?

15. A portrait of the United States in the 1970s, black America?

COBB

US, 1994, 128 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Lee Jones, Robert Wuhl, Lolita Davidovich, Ned Bellamy.
Directed by Ron Shelton.

Cobb is a biography of celebrated baseball player, Ty Cobb. Cobb was a champion in his time with records that still have not been broken. However, he had a reputation of being a mean, humourless and bigoted man. The film actually shows that this is basically true.

The film has the device of Al Stump (who wrote the biography of Cobb as well as some articles) coming to Cobb to arrange for interviews for the biography. As Stump learns more and more from Cobb, and is treated in the same way as everyone else, he finally decides to write two books, one about his career for Cobb himself, the other, noted on scraps of paper, the truth about Cobb and his personality.

While there are some baseball scenes, the film is not so much about the sport as about the players and their characters.

Tommy Lee Jones gives a very powerful performance as Cobb, a southerner, unlikeable, talented, brutal, misogynistic. There is a scene where he attacks a crippled fan – which, apparently, happened in real life. Robert Wuhl, a comedian, steps back somewhat from developing a strong personality as Al Stump, leaving the way open for Cobb to dominate.

The film was written and directed by Ron Shelton who had a reputation for writing and directing films about various sports. His directing films include basketball with White Men Can’t Jump, baseball with Bull Durham, golf with The Tin Cup, wrestling with Play it to the Bone. He also directed the police and detective stories, Dark Blue and Hollywood Homicide.

Lolita Davidovich, Shelton’s wife, also has a guest appearance. He directed her with Paul Newman in the 1989 Blaze.

1. The impact of the film? For American audiences? For those who knew about Ty Cobb? For worldwide audiences, not familiar with baseball or the man himself?

2. The mystique of baseball in the United States, its history, atmosphere? The popular sport? The sporting heroes? Knowledge of the game? Writers about the game?

3. The work of Ron Shelton, his writing, directing, perceptions on sport?

4. Ty Cobb and his legend, how much true, how much myth? As an idol in his time? His aggressive nature, clowning, his influence on the game, the interaction with rivals, his records? His place in the Hall of Fame, Coopertown?

5. The real Cobb, Al Stump and his research, the decision to write two different books? Cobb as a prince or a monster? The issue to publish or not?

6. The opening of the film, the information about the legend? His harsh attitudes – and what Cobb saw?

7. The structure of the film: the introduction, Al Stump and 1960, the commission, the trip to the Hall of Fame, the flashbacks, the blend of reality and lies?

8. Cobb as a child, his harsh childhood, his parents, the mayor? The Baptist background? His skills and capitalising on these? The confrontation, the train, no fear? The games, support, his fights? The six matches? The death of his father and its impact? The anti-psychology? The visualising of his brutality? His boast, children?

9. 1960, Cobb as a monster, the black writer, the accountant, the shooting, the deer? Stump and the bullying? The contract, the gun? ‘Prince’? Dictation, Cobb’s conditions, the contract? The driving, the black man, reckless, the crash?

10. Stump and his journalistic background, his attitudes, the touch of laziness, his call, the hopes? His return to writing – and the application of ‘print the legend’?

11. Reno and the snow, the ride, Cobb’s behaviour? Booking in, ill, dying? The club and the song? The dance, the sexual encounter, the money? Cobb and his brutality, reputation and gambling?

12. The incident with Ramona, the desk, cigarettes, dancing, the wig? Talking with Stump? Cobb and the thousand dollars?

13. The journey, Stump and his presence, the alternate vision, the alternates to the legend? Coopertown, the cheering? Shaking hands? The speech, the film, Cochrane and the tuxedo? Not going in to the game? The angers?

14. Stump and the issue of truth and lies, playing the game, drinking, the tone at the meeting in the Hall of Fame?

15. The visit to Georgia, Cobb’s daughter, the lies, the discovery of the manuscript? Going to the hospital, the gun? The doctors?

16. The impact of the quiet death?

17. The issue of needing celebrities to be heroes – why? Authors and their tributes? Insights?

THE LABYRINTH

US/Germany, 2010, 37 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Jason A. Schmidt.

The Labyrinth is a brief film but compelling.

The film is a collaboration between two Jesuit institutes, December 2nd Productions in the US and Loyola Productions in Munich. The priests responsible are Ron Schmidt SJ in the US and Christoph Wolf SJ in Germany.

The subject of the film is an Auschwitz survivor, Marian Kolodziejb. On the advice of his parish priest, he joined the Polish Resistance at the outbreak of World War Two but was arrested at the age of nineteen and spent the next five years or more in Auschwitz. He was very much influenced by Maximilian Kolbe giving his life for another man who had a wife and family and suffering severely before his execution. This story is brought into The Labyrinth very effectively. In fact, the Christian spirituality is pervasive of the film, especially showing Jesus falling on the way to Calvary and the comment made by the artist that he was going to his own Golgotha.

The focus of the film is Marian, fifty years after coming out of Auschwitz, taking up pen and ink drawings, providing art installations, quite a labyrinth in the basement of a church, dedicated to Maximilian Kolby, near Auschwitz.

The film spends a great deal of time roving over the artwork – graphic pictures of the Holocaust, familiar images from some of the photos as well as the artwork. In terms of the Jewish Holocaust, this film provides an art means of dialogue between Christians and Jews and their experiences in the concentration camp.

The musical score is solemn, reinforcing the impact of the images. It was remarked that the art is not so much about the physical suffering of the inmates, which is it, but of the suffering of their souls.

The narrative from the artist (who died in 2009) indicates familiar themes but highlights them with the visuals and graphics, the importance of a bowl for food as well as for washing, the necessity of hanging on to the bowl as long as possible. The picture of the guards and their tyranny is paramount. There are also scenes of hands reaching out – symbolic of hope.

When Marian was released from Auschwitz, he later became a theatre and art director, married, had a long and fruitful life. Eventually breaking the silence with this art, he was prolific in the wide range and number of artworks in his labyrinth.

The film won the Interfaith-SIGNIS award for best documentary at the Dakhar film festival in 2012.

ZIYARAT (THE PILGRIMAGE)

India, 2011, 110 minutes, Colour.
Daughter Suresh K. Goswami.

Ziyarat is an earnest film. It takes up the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) who have been expelled from Kashmir, especially with antagonism towards the occupying Muslims in that area of India. The film shows an attack by terrorists on a Hindu family, the murder of the elderly parents, the daughter and son-in-law fleeing for their lives, thinking their baby has been killed.

The film opens with a wedding, a Muslim wedding – somewhat resented by the family because they had taken in the Muslim boy when he was young and treated him as a son. However, with conversation and with a meal, the family are drawn together, with hopes for a happy life and harmony between Muslims and Hindus.

The Muslim son witnesses the attack by the terrorists and discovers the baby. He takes it home and he and his wife bring the child up for several years. The important thing for the man that he go in search of his family. This takes many years, something like a pilgrimage. He had intended to go on the Hajj, but at the end of the film his wife explains to him that this quest to find the family was the equivalent of the Hajj.

The film shows the various incidents that happen during the man’s search, interactions with local people, a car crash during a lift, an encounter with two social workers (who are both sympathetic and, at the end of the film, get married in a Catholic church with Hindus and Muslims both present). The latter part of the film has a long historical explanation of the clashes between Hindus and Muslims in that part of India, recounted by the son who fled after his parents were killed. Then, somewhat inexplicably, the couple entrust their child to the Muslim couple who have been bringing him up – and they walk off into the future.

The film sounds better in synopsis than it is in fact. The film plays something like an evangelical Christian film from the United States, the message very obvious, the earnestness of the message inescapable. However, the director who wrote the screenplay, photographed the film and contributed the musical score, is very basic in the screenplay as well as his interpretation, very stolid. It is as if he had decided on particular incidents and the way that they would be handled and then rather schematically presents them. Some of the shots go on for a long time, way beyond their value, especially in close-up conversations and speeches. The acting is very awkward, the performances drawing attention to themselves rather than to the characters as the cast seems to look towards the director and his instructions and simply obey them.

The evangelical earnestness as well as the stolidness of the direction and performances takes away from the fine colour photography, the basic message – and the final hope for some kind of peace in Kashmire.