CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY

UK/South Africa, 1951, 92 minutes, Black and White.
Canada Lee, Charles Carson, Sidney Poitier, Joyce Carey, Geoffrey Keen, Michael Goodliffe.
Directed by 'Zoltan Korda.

Cry, The Beloved Country is based on Alan Paton's novel, one of the finest to come out of South Africa and one giving a great deal of insight into that country's multi-racial situations. Paton himself wrote the screenplay for the film.

It is beautifully acted by Canada Lee who died soon after its filming. A young Sidney Poitier plays the role of a priest in Johannesburg.

The film traces the journey of a clergyman from a country village to the sprawling city and its shanty-towns, and through a world of poverty, petty crime, bitterness and murder; a lament for what South Africa, the beloved country, has produced. Noted song-writer, Kurt Well, and poet-dramatist. Maxwell Anderson, wrote a musical based on the novel entitled Lost in the Stars.

Cry, The Beloved Country is a very moving film that can be highly recommended.

1. The significance of the lament of the title and its verification during the film?

2. The basic message of the film - how convincingly did it come across, how sincerely? Was the message too dominant? Has the film propaganda about South Africa?

3. The presentation of the country itself - the opening, its description, the train ride to Johannesburg and the changing facets of the country, the city -suburbs and scanty-towns, villages and farms? Did something of the real South Africa come across?

4. What was the basic message about black and white races in South Africa -shaking hands, Arthur Jarvis's writings, new learning from tragedies?

5. How compelling was the plot? How neatly constructed - the two fathers and the deaths of the two sons? Has this convincing?

6. The sense of realism for the plot ~ the location photography, the small details of ordinary life - the child with the letter, the people on the train, the man who stole the ticket, money etc.?

7. What kind of man was the Rev. Kumalo? How did the case for the humanity of black Africa rest on him during the film? How did he present it? How good a man was he? How good a priest? Why was his family a failure -was he to blame? How important for him was it to go to Johannesburg? How difficult? How sorrowful was his search - for sister, brother, son? Why did he have to bear such sorrows? How well did he cope with them?

8. Johannesburg as a character - corrupting and destroying black Africans lost there - the mines, the shanty-towns, job opportunities, wages, prostitution (the sister}, smug self-satisfaction (the brother}, crime and reformatories (Absolom)? How was this city a symbol of what was wrong with South Africa?

9. The priests of Johannesburg - a welcoming community of black and white?
- Fr. Mismanger - his kindness, knowledge of the city and its people, yet his anger. Why was he angry?
- The Superior - his kindness yet firmness?

10. The Reformatory Officer - his work, dedication and trust? His pride, suffering and anger? Why could he be so angry?

11. The Jarvis family and white attitudes? James disagreeing with his son, fraternising, his mother proud of him. How typical were the attitudes of these two? Why was Arthur Jarvis so involved in working for black Africans?

12. The irony of his death - reactions? Why? His father and mother? The press reporters? Rev. Kumalo? The priests? The people at the funeral - the grief of black and white? The letters to Arthur Jarvis, his writings? The effect of his death on people?

13. The sadness for all, especially Rev. Kumalo that Absalom was the killer? Why had he attempted the robbery? Why was he afraid? Why did he give himself up?

14. Was it right that he should die? (The bitter irony of the other's discharge and the self-congratulation of John Kumalo)?

15. The scene between the two fathers and its significance? The change in James Jarvis? The film implied that all people like him could change when touched personally. Is this possible?

16. The sadness, yet hope, of the ending - the return to the village and the dawn of execution and a new beginning?

COOGAN'S BLUFF

US, 1968, 90 minutes, Colour.
Clint Eastwood, Susan Clarke, Lee J. Cobb, Don Stroud, Tisha Sterling, Betty Field.
Directed by Donald Siegel.

Coogan's Bluff is another of Don Siegel’s tough thrillers exploring the attitudes of criminals and police and how they stand for so many of the attitudes of contemporary American society (The Killers, Madigan). It is also the first of his films with Clint Eastwood - fresh from his Dollars and Good, Bad and Ugly successes. Eastwood has since appeared in Siegel's comic western. Two Mules for Sister Sara and the horror thriller. The Beguiled.

Eastwood here gives a similar character portrayal as his individualistic man-with-no-name westerns. In the west, he could succeed. Here he comes from the west where he can succeed, but is sent to New York with its sophistications, complexity and exploitation and the individualist man-with-just-a-surname is lost and is defeated. As an image of clashes in U.S. society, the film is very interesting. Eastwood is good at this kind of role, a kind of repellent attractive brutality, laconic, tough. But, at the end, his bluff has not worked and he is part of the system.

Supporting players do regular jobs well. The film is concisely made; there is a concession to love, but Coogan, the individual clashing with sophisticated city is the main interest.

1. Did you like Coogan? Did you admire him? Why?

2. Was Coogan in any way a 'typical American'?

3. What did you learn about Coogan in the early Arizona sequences - as a policeman, a hunter, a man, in relation to his prisoner, Millie, McCrea?

4. How did Arizona Coogan compare with the New York world?

5. Coogan was self assured, always right, a cowboy, as people kept saying to him. How much of a 'Western' was this film, even though set in New York? (The final chase is ridden on motorcycles.)

6. One could say that a theme of the film was the contrast and conflict between the two Americas, Arizona and New York. Which wins out in the end? What did Coogan learn? What did the audience learn about the two kinds of worlds? Which is better, or are both bad?

7. What did Coogan learn about New York and people from his cab-driver, the hotel clerk, porter and prostitute, the black detective, from Lt. McElroy?, Julia, Linnie Raven, Mrs. Ringermann?

8. Coogan would have been smart and 'big-time' in the west in his bluff at Bellevue, at Mrs. Ringermann's and with Linnie Raven. Why did he come off second best here?

9. How did Julie react to Coogan? Did she understand why he had no pity? Did he understand her at all? Was he right asking why she came to abuse him?

10. What kind of a picture of American society did the film give you? Was it pessimistic? How did it show the perennial clash of the individualist and the system? What is the meaning of the title?

CONNECTING ROOMS

UK, 1969, 103 minutes, Colour.
Michael Redgrave, Bette Davis, Alexis Kanner, Kay Walsh, Leo Genn.
Directed by Franklin Collings.

Connecting Rooms is a little known film scarcely released and yet it is quite moving and worth seeing and discussing.

It is based on a play called "The Cellist", and the play structure shows at times. It also probably tries to do too much in its presentation of the worlds of the older and younger generations and their clashes. When it focuses on the stars and their personal inadequacies and loneliness, it is quite moving. Michael Redgrave does another performance of a failed schoolmaster, very reminiscent of The Browning Version. His speeches in this film are wonderful. Bette Davis, taking a rest from horrors and gore, reminds us of her talents in her portrayal of a cellist who is used by a callous young man on the make. Alexis Kanner plays this role. A Canadian, he appeared in Don Levy's interesting The Ernie Game, and a repelling British film called Goodbye Gemini.

1. The film was based on a play - was this obvious?

2. The film attempted to combine the 'mod' contemporary world with an old-fashioned British world and characters. Was it successful? Which sequences best illustrated this?

3. The boarding house looked like, and represented, an older style of life - how was this illustrated in the character of Mrs. Brent? How did the house, with its different floors and connecting rooms influence the characters?

4. What kind of man was James Wallraven? How did Michael Redgrave's performance communicate his character? Was he a sympathetic character? Pitiful? Why?

5. How did Wallraven's plight move the audience - his looking for work, loneliness, humiliations, obvious looking out of place, being discovered by Mickey, his despair and contemplation of suicide, his injury in the demonstration?

6. Was his revelation of himself to Wanda moving? Why? Was he treated unjust. by the school? (Was this illustrated by his application to his old friend, Dr. Norman, for work and his refusal?}. To what extent was he responsible for the boy's suicide? Should this have affected his life style as it did?

7. Wanda - what were your first impressions of her? Did you believe her stories about herself? Was she likeable, sympathetic? Why did she take Mickey as a 'protege'? Did she really see through him all the time? Why did she give him presents? How sad was his ignoring of her birthday? How lonely was she? How disillusioned was she with Mickey's abandoning of her? Was she wise to buy him the car? How sympathetic was she to Wallraven?

8. What did Wanda and Wallraven have in common? How important was his telling the truth for both of them? How significant was his discovering (and her admission) that Wanda played the cello for coins? What future did they have?

9. What kind of man was Mickey? How callous? Was he in any way sympathetic -to Jean, Mrs. Brent, using Wanda, using Claudia Fouchet, exposing Wallraven

10. The Claudia Fouchet episode - its place in the film? In itself?

11. Mrs. Brent as a character?

12. The success of the film as an entertaining parable about loneliness and ageing in our modern world?

CHE

US, 1969, 92 minutes, Colour.
Omar Sharif, Jack Palance, Cesare Danova, Frank Silvera, Woody Strode, Barbara Luna, Abraham Sofaer. Directed by Richard Fleischer.

Che did not receive good reviews at all when released in 1969. It pleased neither Left {not an adequate picture of a hero) nor the Right (who thought any film of a man like Guevara bad propaganda). Omar Sheriff's portrayal of Che was considered poor and, obviously, attitudes to Castro and Cuba have changed when we think of 1962 and look at Jack Palance's performance.

And yet the film is interesting to watch suggesting a re-creation of events and disputes of recent history. The screenplay leaves judgments to the audiences and uses a pseudo-documentary style of interview with leading characters. The film presents Che as a dreamer gone out of touch with the world and gone wrong.

Richard Fleischer seems to be able to direct any kind of film. This is well enough made and quickly provides talking points about Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Latin America and communism.

1. Did this film presuppose some knowledge of who Che Guevara was? Did it presuppose in the audience some kind of intellectual and emotional attitude towards Che?

2. What impression did the credit sequences give with Che as a seeming martyr-hero, the insets of riots and revolution and Che’s words on the nature of total revolution?

3. The film used a flashback technique as well as a documentary interview style. How did this affect the impact of the film, e.g. knowing that Che was dead and was being transported, the opinions of people who knew Che (and seeing their involvement with him) and the bias of their opinions?

4. Has the film pro or anti-Che? How did the film try to achieve objectivity?

5. What was your initial reaction to Che, in the invasion of Cuba - his role as a doctor, his asthma yet his driving of himself, his heroism and daring, his opinions and intensity?

6. What was your initial reaction to Fidel Castro? Was he played well and sympathetically? (Did the portrayal correspond to your image of Castro?) Was he an effective leader?

7. Was the background of the Cuban revolution well enough defined - the poverty and repression, the role of the army, the motivation of Castro and his men, the backing of Miami-based exiles? Why was Che, an Argentinian doctor, there?

8. What happened when Che became a guerrilla leader? It was said that a "latent martinet" emerged. Was this necessary for the revolution? Did you agree with his style of discipline? How did Che himself change as a person? (E.g. the executions?). How did Fidel become dependent on him? Why?

9. Was Che sincere in his role in the early years of the revolution - his austerity and humility contrasted with his portfolios and influence?

10. What was Che's position in the Cuba crisis? Was he prepared to risk nuclear war for the sake of the success of the revolution in Cuba? How had he changed by this time? Was he obsessed? Why did he hate both the American and Russian capitalists? What position did Castro take? Was his moderation more realistic? (How has it been vindicated since 1962?).

11. Was Che's plan to go to Bolivia a good one? What motivated him? Did Latin America look to hint for leadership? What had he sacrificed in his life to achieve this?

12. What was wrong with Che's approach to the Bolivians? Why did he despise them? How did his lofty ideas on revolution contrast with his attitude towards the people he was liberating?

13. How successful was he in Bolivia?

14. Despite his lack of success, how did Che's endurance show?

15. Was it true, that, at the end, in desperation, he had become ineffective and as cruel as a bandit? Did Castro interpret his letter correctly, that he had lost touch with reality?

16. How influential were the C.I.A. in hunting Che? Why did the U.S. want to destroy him? Why did his opposition use his own text on guerrilla warfare?

17. How disillusioned was Che when he was finally captured - his being rebuked by the Bolivians? How true were the accusations, his cliched speech about freedom and revolution to his captor, the goatherd's speech (reality?) against Che and against the army, that no one had consulted him and he didn't know what he was being liberated from?

18. How did the Bolivian government handle the news of his death? Why?

19. This film was produced within four years of Che's death. Why? Was it meant to be instructive? Propaganda? Exploitation of a popular figure? Entertainment? A good story? What?

CASABLANCA

US, 1943, Black and white.
Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre. Directed by Michael Curtiz.

Casablanca has become one of the classics of motion pictures, not that it is necessarily an excellent film, but it is certainly a most enjoyable film. It won the Oscar for the best film of 1943 and an Oscar for director, Michael Curtiz (especially noted for his swashbuckling adventures with Errol Flynn). Since then it has been the subject of praise, admiration and an amusing tribute in Woody Alien's Play it Again, Sam, in which he parodied the Bogart-type hero and fashioned a comedy to parallel the theme of Casablanca (showing the ending of Casablanca at beginning and end of his film).

Humphrey Bogart's memory has been enhanced by this film as has Ingrid Bergman's place as a heroine of the 40's cinema. Claude Rains, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, in somewhat typical roles, are reminders of the style of Warner's films of the time (and their popularity). The music and song ‘As Time Goes By' are still played.

The film is interesting in its theme of war and people being trapped by a war situation. The patriotism of the film must have been strong in 1943 amid the uncertainties of the war itself.

Top class enjoyment and film study.

1. What was the aura around Casablanca during the war? How did the film capitalise on this? How did it give the significance to the theme of the film?

2. How do you think the film came across during the war itself? Patriotic attitudes? The uncertainty of the outcome of the war?

3. Why do you think that this film is important in the Humphrey Bogart mystique? What is so special about him in this film?

4. The film is famous also for the theme "As Time 'Goes By". Why?

5. What was the meaning of the city of Casablanca during the war? As regards the war? For escape? The people there and their conflicts?

6. How did the film create this kind of atmosphere? The introductory explanations, the people, talking in the clubs, the clubs themselves, both Rick's and the rivals, the planes leaving for Lisbon, the French authorities, the girl who wanted to get the visas for herself and her husband, the corruption in the city?

7. How did the incident in the nightclub concerning the assassinated messengers set the tone for the film? For suspense? For Rick's behaviour during the film?

8. Comment on the French authorities, especially Renaud. Why was he a servant of the Vichy government? Did he explain his lack of principles well? Why was he an opportunist? Did he like the Germans? What authority did the Germans have? Mere they presented justly?

9. What kind of a person was Rick? Why was he in Casablanca? Had he made a success there? Why did he have such strict rules for his Club and his clients? Has he really a sentimentalist? Was he trying to help the underdog? His relationship to the piano player?

10. How did Elsa change Rick's life? What impact did she have on him? Why did he begin to go to pieces?

11. How effective was the flashback? Did it fit in appropriately? Did it explain why Kick fell in love with Elsa and vice-versa? How did each affect the others personality? How serious was Elsa's disappearance for Rick? Did this explain his behaviour in Casablanca?

12. What kind of person was Elsa? Did she explain herself well? was she an attractive person? Did she love Lazlo? why did she admire him so much? What kind of person was he? What values did he stand for? Has he a consistent hero? Why was it so necessary for him to leave Casablanca? Why were the Germans afraid of it? And of his staying?

13. How did Casablanca create turmoil in Elsa - in her relationship with Lazlo, with Rick? Did she cope with the situation well? Why did she try to save Lazlo? Did she really want to stay with Rick? Has this resolved well at the airport?

14. Why was there turmoil in Rick? When did he decide to stay behind and let Elsa and Lazlo go? Did he intend this all the time? Or did he intend to leave and then did he change his mind?

15. Did Rick make the right choice? Did he see the truth? How exciting was his manipulation of their escape? The significance of the final conversation with Rick and Elsa at the plane?

16. What did this ending show of Rick's character? Has he a sentimentalist at heart, as accused? Did he always pity the underdog? What of his conversation with Reno? Their decision to go and fight against the Germans? (Has this too sentimental an ending - or appropriate for 1943?),

17. Why do you think this film is so famous?

CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

US, 1971, 98 minutes, Colour.
Jack Nicholson, Arthur Garfunkel, Candice Bergen, Ann- Margret, Rita Moreno.
Directed by Mike Nichols.

Carnal Knowledge traces the experiences of two men at the ages of twenty, thirty and forty, the emphasis being on their sexuality. The style is ironically comical, the screenplay being by cartoonist-playwright, Jules Feiffer, and sketches the period, their feelings and their reactions rather than giving lengthy and deep insights. As such, the film gives only a partial glimpse at its characters and shows them as leading inadequate, disappointed and unfulfilled lives. They finish some rungs below those they stepped on to early in their lives. To that extent, the film is a depressing look at contemporary men and does not get us very far in our understanding of them.

The film is excellently acted with Jack Nicholson outstanding as Jonathan, unfortunately overshadowing the fine performance of Arthur Garfunkel and his significance in the film. Candice Bergen is good as is Ann-Margret? (Oscar Nomination, 1971) as the model who goes downhill through her emotional involvement with Jonathan.

Many have found the film too crude. However, it is a wry observation and comment on twentieth century man. Direction is by Mike Nichols (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, Catch 22).

1. What impression did the title give you? What are its overtones of sexuality, flesh, its use in legal terms, the Biblical meaning of the phrase? Are these meanings relevant here?

2. The title of the film selects a partial aspect of man's personality by which he does express himself. However, some people have taken the film to imply that 'carnal knowledge' does express the totality of man and gives a priority to sexuality. Did you gain this impression from the whole film?

3. If it is granted that the film takes an important, but partial, aspect of man's life, does it focus attention on it and consistently give the audience insights into man by it - its good and evil, a man's growth and development, a man's self-centredness and stagnation?

4. Some say the film is disgusting and immoral, others say that it points its moral too explicitly. If the film has a moral, how would you express it? Does the film make it too obvious?

5. How effective was the conversation during the credits - what did it reveal about the fascination and curiosity of sex?

6. Did you find the structure of the film effective - the glance at three periods and impressions created by sketch, satire, selected incident? Is the hand of Jules Feiffer as a cartoonist evident here?

7. How was the atmosphere of the first phase conveyed - the college style of manners and morals, brashness, boasting concealing timidity, the beginnings of communication?
- Jonathan - did you like him; how vain was he, how selfish? How close were he and Sandy? How did he use Sandy? How serious was this betrayal? Do you think that he was thus responsible for the later breakdown in Sandy's marriage?
- Sandy - did you like him, was he a 'nice guy'? How did he relate to Susan? How did his loving her transform him? How close was he to Jonathan? why did he confide in him and trust him so much? Were you sorry that Jonathan and Susan deceived him? Should he have married Susan? Did they go into marriage in any way prepared?
- Susan - what kind of girl was she? How innocent? How calculating? Why was she attracted to Sandy? Why did she deceive him and not tell him the truth? Why was she attracted to Jonathan? Was her affair with him applauded by the film? Was it significant that she appeared only in the first part of the film?

8. At what stage of maturity had they arrived by the end of the first part?

9. How much more sophisticated was Jonathan at the age of thirty? How successful was he professionally? (Was this important for the film?) How interesting a person was he? How was his sex-life presented - sympathetically or as a fact?

10. How much more sophisticated was Sandy? How much happiness had he found in marriage and family? How much love? Why did he still remain friendly with Jonathan? How did they communicate? How successful was he professionally?

11. How empty were their lives? How happy? How sour?

12. How did Jonathan become involved with Bobbie? Was there any love there?

13. What kind of person was Bobbie? How sympathetic? Why did she cling to Jonathan? Was her role solely sexual gratification? Why did she go downhill - lazy, slatternly, sleeping, depressed? Did she want marriage? Would a good marriage have fulfilled her?

14. How callous was Jonathan towards Bobbie? The tennis game, new dates, ignoring her except for sex, humiliating her, arranging swaps? Why did he drive her to suicide? Did he have any real feeling for her? What was Sandy's reaction?

15. At forty: had they grown as human beings? What did each of them have left? How cynical were they? Why were they still friends - or how friendly were they? On what level did they communicate? What was wrong with each of them as a man?

16. How callous was the honesty of Jonathan's slide-show? What did it reveal about him? (Were your surprised to hear of Bobbie's fate?) Did Sandy deserve to have the revelation about Susan?
17. What future did Sandy have?
18. What was the significance of Jonathan's final visit to the prostitute - was sexual potency all that was left for him? Had the possibility of carnal knowledge become the whole of his life? How cynical, critical, moralising an ending was this?

19. Was this film worth making? Why? Was it moral? Why?

20. How typical of twentieth century men were the heroes?

CRACK IN THE WORLD

US, 1965, 96 minutes, Colour.
Dana Andrews, Janette Scott, Kieran Moore, Alexander Knox.
Directed by Andrew Marton.

Crack in the World is popular science-fiction of the mid-'60s. It was directed by Andrew Marton, an action director and second unit director for action films of the '50s. The film has a competent international cast.

Despite the Saturday matinee style of the film, it is enjoyable science-fiction. It shows earnest scientists trying to work the earth's inner energy but almost causing the world's destruction.

There is an emphasis on special effects - but the intention the film seems to be a warning about megalomaniaca1 scientists and their belief in themselves at the expense of concern for the world its future. The film can be seen as one of several films of early '60s concerned about nuclear development and nuclear destruction. Specific films on the theme at the time-included Panic in Year Zero, Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe and Seven Days in May. This has something of the same message - but for a wider audience and more popular style.

1. An enjoyable science-fiction film? Enjoyable science-fiction? The importance of the setting in the present, a dangerous present, warnings for the future? A moralising science-fiction fable?

2. How pessimistic the outlook of the film - the universe, humankind's role, destructive potential? The optimism in human ability to control - even mistakes? The picturing of the universe as bigger than humankind, energy, humanity within this universe find his needs? Human beings playing God?

3. The film as a product of the mid-'60s, the background of the nuclear scares of the time? The relevance of the film in later decades?

4. The plausible beginning of the film: the presentation of the project, Sorenson and his reputation as a scientist, Maggie and her work and devotion to Sorenson, the commissioners and the audience entering with them and surveying the project? The presentation of Ted's objections and Sorenson having him out of the way? Hopes, a positive outlook for the harnessing of energy? The overlooking of risks?

5. The character of Sorenson? The scientist and his skills, the temptation to play God? The importance of illness and urgency? His willingness for risks for his own goals? His marriage to Maggie, love of her yet his jealousy? Pushing her out of his life? His support from his staff? His downplaying of Ted's objections? His persuasiveness with the commissioners? A credible scientist? (The implication that humanity and its future, risks in science, are dependent on personalities such as this.)

6. How attractive a character was Maggie? As a woman, scientist, relationship with Ted, her choosing to marry Sorenson, her wanting the child and being hurt by her husband? Alienation, her relationship with Ted, letters, meeting him? Fostering the jealousy in her husband? Yet her support of him in the project, in his illness?

7. How interesting was the demonstration of the possibility for the crack in the world? Was the audience sufficiently aware of risks? To make a judgment about the project going on or not?

8. The character of Ted, his arrival, realisation that he was out of the way of the commissioners, his objections, the importance of his trip to London and the persuasion of the commissioners? His loyalty in trying to remedy the crack in the world?

9. The build-up to the explosion, the melodrama of the phone call and Sorenson not taking it? The initial reaction to the press conference? The contrast with failure, the amount of destruction of cities, the huge number of lives lost? The scientific data? Lack of fear of its authenticity? Did it please the audience what happened? Is such a crack possible?

10. The effect of failure on Sorenson, his illness, accepting the consequences of his taking risks, not taking them, guilt? His collaboration in trying to remedy the situation? His desperation at the end? Still the scientist, even trying to record before his death?

11. Audience interest in the investigation, underwater photography, the new bomb and its being close to the volcano, risks and death? The nature of heroism and the need? The background of science and trying to get solutions? The commission, the army and the points of view? Havoc?

12. The irony of the crack's changing direction, converging at the project? The melodramatic background, especially the tram load of people and its crashing?

13. How integrated into the science plot were the human elements, the marriage triangle, the bonds between Ted and Maggie, her returning to her husband, their trying to save him, slaving at the end? The possibility of the future with them?

14. Colour, African location, geography, music, scientific special effects, special disaster effects? Melodramatic aspects?

15. A moral fable in scientific clothes? The point of the fable?

CLOAK AND DAGGER

US, 1946, 106 minutes, Black and white.
Gary Cooper, Lilli Palmer, Robert Alda, Vladimir Sokoloff, J. Edward Bromberg, Ludwig Stossel, Marc Lawrence.
Directed by Fritz Lang.

Cloak and Dagger was directed by veteran German film-maker Fritz Lang (Siegfried, Metropolis, M, and later in America, Fury and many excellent thrillers in the 40s). Lang says that his film was altered by Warner Brothers - the happy ending changed. Lang had intended to expose the Nazi experimentation on nuclear fission with the dramatic finding of a factory and 60,000 workers dead - with Gary Cooper emerging to comment that this was in Year One of the Nuclear Age.

Lang suspects that the Warners executives altered the film after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What remains is a conventional spy thriller, popular in every decade (resurrected in the 60s and 70s) but in its time a parallel with such action thrillers as O.S.S. with Alan Ladd. The screenplay was written by Albert Maltz and Ring Lardner Jnr (of the later Hollywood Ten). The film has a studio-bound European atmosphere and setting with a Max Steiner score. Although Lilli Palmer had acted in Europe, she was "introduced" in this film.

1. An interesting spy thriller? In its time? The end of World War Two? Later decades? Comparison with later complex spy thrillers? Action? Moralising?

2. The use of studios? The creation of the European atmosphere? Italy? Black and white photography? Sets? The importance of the special effects - especially for the ending? The editing for suspense and for effects e.g. the hero's fight with the villain in the alley? Max Steiner's score?

3. Audience expectations: the laconic American hero, Gary Cooper style? The moral dilemma? His having to go to Europe? The O.S.S. and its war activities? The European Resistance groups? Nazis? Confrontations, escapes? Self-sacrifice? The end and the means? How well done?

4. The background of the O.S.S. and its war activities? Revelations after the war? The picture of units operating in Europe? Radio contact, covers, executions and the getting through of messages? The difficult situations and the need for Americans to be brought in? The work of Professor Jasper? The Washington officials putting the case to him? His anti-war stances, his principles of science and investigation, the moral dilemma for the peaceful man in World War Two? His decision to go to Europe? Arrival, contacts, cover? The spies - and the plausible woman spy? The build-up to the seeking out of the professor, the sharing of opinions? The finding of the Italian scientist, his daughter? The help of the Italian Resistance? Spies, killings? The final siege and the escape?

5. Gary Cooper as war hero: credibility as a scientist, motivation, skills' Arrival in Europe and mistakes - at the airport, drawing attention to himself? Spies and insinuations? Contact with the scientists? The growing dangers, physical activity, threats on his life? The encounter with Cina? Falling in love - re-meeting after the war? Pinky and his resistance? Final heroism? Dr Polder and his importance? The contact with the Nazis and the sympathisers - especially the fight in the alley with Luigi? The final heroism? Help for Alvah?

6. Gina and the Italian Resistance? Final self-sacrifice? Falling in love?

7. Pinky and the various members of the Resistance? Conventional characterisations?

8. The portrayal of the Nazis, the spies e.g. Ann Dawson? The final confrontation and shoot-out?

9. The implications of nuclear investigation, nuclear warfare, the consequences of living in the Atomic Age? The stances of the film on espionage - the title, the activities of the O.S.S.? The consequences for the post-war world?

THE CHINA SYNDROME

US, 1979, 123 minutes, Colour.
Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas, Scott Brady, Peter Donat, Wilford Brimley.
Directed by James Bridges.

With Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1979, nuclear fact overtook nuclear fiction (with extraordinary detailed resemblances). This filler has a strong anti-nuclear point of view in terms of risk and accidental consequences urging, rightly, greater security and unstinting vigilance matter what the cost. The thriller elements prevail here, chases, siege, disaster threats, but the TV news background gives the plot an urgency and plausibility as well as emotional punch.

Time Magazine rightly remarked that praising Jane Fonda's acting is almost superfluous these days, so good she is - herself, but always subtly different. Jack Lemmon is excellent too, so that the human interaction of the plot is persuasive. A thoughtful, social message drama.

1. A successful thriller of the late '70s? Its qualities as thriller, social message, fable? A didactic film through the conventions of thriller? The wider themes than nuclear power - television, the media, communications, finance, government, safety regulations?

2. The presuppositions in the audience about nuclear power, the pros and cons? How well were these articulated in the film in events, speeches by the characters? The emotional impact to the accident? To the power play of those in authority? To ruthlessness? Could such a film change views?

3. The impact of the film as commercial thriller, the use of such commercial films as vehicles for message? Audience interest in plots, conspiracies, ruthlessness? The original name of the film was The Power. America and its role in nuclear power and controls in the '70s? The background of political cover-ups and exposes? The importance of the stars and their presence, styles, skills? Jane Fonda and her causes?

4. How authentic was the film? The technical advice given, the quibbles made about accuracy in detail, the overall authenticity? The presentation of a nuclear plant? The authentic world of the television studios, cameras, offices? Split-second timing? Political pressures, commercial pressures? The Californian setting - locations, roads, countryside, city? The importance of the editing for tension and pace? Musical score?

5. The invitation to the audience to identify with Kimberly? An attractive television personality, Jane Fonda's style? Her patter, the subjects of her programmes? Her being tired of her job, wanting more? The introduction of themes of feminism and women's careers, sex as a means of drawing ratings and attraction? The cautions given to her and her being relegated to her role? Her being eager for opportunities, taking them? Discovering the issue, her emotional response, her pursuing it relentlessly? The personal dangers? The opportunities for herself as a reporter?

6. The impact of the opening and Kimberly's presence: her poise, style, the type of television reporter? The TV bosses and making her do what she did best e.g. the Live Wires (how humorously satirical) , the tiger, the fish, items at the zoo? Her pace - rushing to the make-up room, her smoking, preparing the specials, her crew, her turning on her smile when immediately on camera? Her relationship with the bosses, with Richard? A picture of a media professional?

7. The introduction to Ventuna? Kimberly and Richard being part of the group, the ordinary tour, explanations? The TV eye taking this all in and recording it? The P.R. man and his explanations? The tremor, the indications of accident? The reaction of the people on .the plant? Richard and his filming? The immediate tension and audiences identifying with this and carrying it through the whole film?

8. Tensions in a nuclear plant - the professional response, the people with responsibility, technological know-how, estimation of situations, the technology for remedy? The emotional response to danger, nerves? The possibilities of such accidents? The thriller techniques to communicate the dangers?

9. Kimberly in her world - meetings, discussions about the freedom of the media, going to parties, preparing her Special, the discussion with experts? Her interest in Jack Godell and her talking with him? Her reaction to his lying, to his personality? The build-up to getting the evidence, her going to the hearing? The importance of the accident with the evidence? Her being present at the siege and the effect that she had had on Jack? Her weeping, the expose? what happened to her through this experience? Is this what would happen to in such a situation?

10. Richard as contrast? The demonstrator, the 60s type, his ethics and lack of ethics, sense of responsibility, his jargon and protest? His skill at his work, his being an independent, his studio and his assistants? His filming the reaction to the accident? His being prepared to use it, stealing the film, showing it to the experts - and the importance of the screening with the experts and their reaction? His friendship with Hector and his reliance on him? Hector and the accident? Richard's motivations, his right to communicate such information?

11. Jack Godall and Jack Lemmon’s performance - devoted to his work, tired, surprised at mistakes being made, at people's reaction to the accident? Seeing him at work and his skill, his reaction to the crisis, his report, the Commission and his evidence? The joy when the Commission exonerated the group? His being a bachelor, wedded to his work, his presence at the bar and the seedy atmosphere, his making a pass at Kimberly? His being forced to examine the situation, Royce, at home, watching the television? The initial hostility towards Kimberly? The realisation of the cover-up? His treatment by the company? The set-up for the exchange of the evidence after his examination of the plans and discovery of the defects and inadequate supervision? The exchange, the drive, his chase and the eluding of the pursuers? His setting up of the siege? His incoherence on the television and people's judgment of this? His being shot? His being attacked personally and the response of people to vindicate him? A martyr? How rounded a performance - for audiences to be interested in, identify with, understand the issues by?

12. The world of P.R., Gibson and his role, his talk? McCormack? and his being boss, Herman and his supervision, his not expecting anything to happen, his following orders? The picture of power and communication, the unwillingness to face the truth? The old man and his evidence? The investigations, the experienced old man and his testimony? Scapegoats, lies? The repetition of the accident? The moneyed interests and the background of Senate hearings and investigations about further nuclear plants and their suitability? The importance of the hearings sequence with the protesters and the validity of their protest?

13. The background of protest - Richard, questions of nuclear waste, nuclear bombs? The nature of the hearings and the demonstrators? The variety of speeches giving pros and cons about the nuclear issue?

14. The presentation of the TV executives, their responsibility for what they broadcast, the law? Fears and pressures? Their role, their duty? The world of scoops, hard news, ratings? Kimberly within this world and her articulating reaction against them?

15. The picture of the accident, the various factors causing it, the reality of such accidents, risks and security, thoroughness of checks? The significance of the China Syndrome as explained - and its consequences?

16. The human drama within the thriller techniques - Kimberly at work, at home, her phone calls? Jack and talking with him? The weeping? Jack at the station, giving his all to his work, the seediness of his life? The danger in his life and his death? Richard and Hector? Hector's accident and the response of Kimberly and Richard?

17. Themes of contemporary society, energy needs and energy crisis, the common people taking energy for granted, the arguments for nuclear developments and plants?

18. How accurately did the film show dangers, the domination of money and power, authorities prepared to take risks? The exercise of influence and power over others?

19. Themes of social responsibility, roles, exposes and cover-up? What has the public a right to know? The overall and final impact of experiencing this kind of thriller?

CHAIN REACTION

Australia, 1980, 89 minutes, Colour.
Stephen Bisley, Ross Thompson, Anna- Maria Winchester, Ralph Cotteril, Hugh Keays- Byrne, Richard Moir, Lorna Leslie.
Directed by Ian Barry.

Chain Reaction is reminiscent of Roger Corman's direct action features: fast pace, basic outline of plot and characters and issues (without too much detail explanation, motivation) and let the film go on its own momentum. Also reminiscent of thrillers where ordinary people are threatened, endure dangers and act heroically as well as sinister pursuers and amnesia victims, this thriller takes current nuclear contamination fears and warnings, ruthless official cover-ups killings. There is good stunt work, especially in car chases. Steve Bisley is the ocker hero, Anna- Maria Winchester a sympathetic heroine and Ross Thompson German scientist. A well known supporting cast is either genial or sinister. Briskly enjoyable, but not for meticulous analysis.

1. The quality of the film as a thriller in itself, its value as a nuclear film and warning, as a police and government cover-up thriller? The blending of these trends?

2. The appeal for the Australian audience? International audience? The multi-national background and its effect on Australia? The use of an Australian setting and atmosphere: H.A.L.D.O. and all that it implied? Nuclear plants and contamination, nuclear waste and storage? Australian problems? Locations, people, style of dialogue?

3. The contribution of the colour photography, the N.S.W. mountain scenery? The style of the musical score and its contribution to atmosphere and suspense?

4. The structure of the screenplay: the establishing of the nuclear problems and the search for Heinz, Harry and Carmel and their marriage and holiday, the town and its ordinary life, Gray and his henchmen and their search for Heinz? The editing in of each segment and the counterplay? The building up of suspense?

5. The film's presentation of the nuclear issues: the possibility of earthquake and the disturbance of the plant, the red alert and the disaster, the effect of contamination on human beings, the spill of water and the chain reaction for grass, animals, humans? The focus of the title and its dangers?

6. Themes of power - H.A.L.D.O. officials and their control, their responsibility and accountability? The control of the doctors in treating Heinz? The anti-nuclear protesters and the picture of the street demonstrations and the park speeches? Gray and his responsibility to the H.A.L.D.O. officials? His henchmen? Ruthless pursuit of people, murder and cover-ups? The motivation for the possession of power and keeping it?

7. The contrast with ordinary people, their becoming involved in a crisis, their care for those in need, participation in dangers, rising to the occasion, heroism and survival? The little people overcoming ruthless multinationals? How persuasive were these themes?

8. The initial focus on Heinz, the power plant and his response, his inability to save the situation? The use of colours, sounds, water and special effects? The recurring images of this throughout the film? His hospital treatment and his warnings? The plausibility of his escape? The ugly killing of the truck driver? His having only three days to live? The amnesia and its effect on him? His killing, hiding, the encounter with Larry and Carmel? His response to their care? The stories of 1957 and the effect of the screenplay reminding people of what attitudes towards nuclear power and scientific development were? Playing the piano, memories of Germany and childhood? Larry's suspicions and reaction? Carmel's care and listening? The suggestions for jogging his memory and the visual suggestions? His being captured, final illness and its proliferation? His wanting to be taken as a warning? The contact with Eagle? His dying in the crash? A German scientist type? Audience sympathy for him? The moralising device of his experience?

9. The contrast with Larry at work, his mates and their talk, his knowledge of cars? Carmel's arrival? The children? The holiday, the phone call? The preparations for enjoying the holiday? The lovemaking sequences? The contrast of the violence? Larry as ocker? Carmel and her calmer style? The compatibility of the two, their relationship, their reactions to Heinz? Larry as mechanic, Carmel as nurse and the screenplay's use of these talents?

10. Their response to Heinz, Larry's harshness, his driving away for the police, the long chase and his escape, his trying to hide in the town, his arrest, accusations of murder? His frustration in the jail, the contact with Eagle and the explanations? The contrast with Carmel and her care for Heinz, their walking to the old gold town, the scenery, jogging of memories? The lyric touch?

11. Eagle and his speech in Sydney, the demonstrations, his arrival, the chatting with Gloria, watching, running over the bicycle, his explanation in prison, the carrier pigeons and the television helicopter coming at the end?

12. How persuasive a character, plausible?

13. The picture of the town, Gloria and her serving in the shop and wanting excitement? The telephone exchange woman and her listening in, her murder? The ordinary people and their watching, the senior policeman and his fishing, the junior policeman and him taking himself seriously, his bike? Their becoming involved in the issues?

14. The portrait of Gray and his relentlessness? The H.A.L.D.O. bosses and their interrogation of Heinz? The semi-trailer, the disguised uniformed men for decontamination? Oates and the fact that he had to use sign language? His tracking of Heinz, killing the lady at the exchange? His pursuit, the violence of his own death? Gray and his self-assurance, his hold over people, his participation in the chases, his enjoyment of the pursuit? Threats, his death?

15. The faceless men and their impact? A means of Larry's escape?

16. Larry and Carmel and their endurance, the build-up to their escape after decontamination, the long pursuit, their survival?


17. The nuclear warnings and the ending? The validity of the point of view? Its persuasiveness?

18. The use of thriller techniques for message films? The direct presentation of character and plot, the reliance on special effects and stunts - especially the car chases? How satisfying for a popular audience - enjoyment, reflection on themes?