Stephen Hackett visits in Vietnam

Stephen Hackett returned from Vietnam praising the enthusiasm of our MSC confreres. Some pictures, especially his meeting with those in formation,

He will return next year to follow the recommendation of the Chapter, which is to organise a gathering regarding the current and future Vietnamese MSC Ministry

Acknowledging Joe Ensing MSC, turning 80

Joe Ensing has a Dutch family background, Queensland, student at Downlands. He made his first profession on February 26^th 1963, ordained 31^st May 1969.

Golden Jubilee of ordination, with Paul Cashen

Joe has spent most of his over 50 years of priesthood in Papua New Guinea, mission, catechetics, religious education, in recent times, the Community Leader. In a letter for New Years 2021, the Covid times, he wrote about Eastern Papua. It gives some idea of his life in PNG mission:

All continues to go well with me in Papua New Guinea, also known as the land of Paradise and it is surely living up to this name in regard to the Corona Virus Pandemic. My most recent official figures of 10/12/20 country wide is only 8 deaths and 720 confirmed cases out of a population of about 8 million. Even allowing for the low level of testing there are no reports of possible serious outbreaks at present. Our Capital City, Port Moresby has recorded the vast majority of confirmed cases at 360 out of the 16 Provinces, with my home province, Milne Bay at only 2 cases.

Milne Bay

Where ever I go, particularly to town, life is much as usual. Not much evidence of social distancing, and masks only in shops and places of business such as banks, with notices of warnings and advice to avoid the disease.

Pray that we may continue to be spared any major outbreak in this country which has very limited medical resources to cope.

I continue on at our Diocesan Pastoral Centre for the formation and training of local Church lay leaders in a variety of Ministries.

The rest of the time has been at home taking part in short courses and seminars, apart from 3 weeks last month, November, traveling around the islands to the East, from Misima to Rossel, on behalf of the Bishop. I was happy to do this as I spent about 20 years in that area at Nimowa Parish.

He is pictured with his co-author and fellow workers with their book: COUNSELLING BEST PRACTICE (Co-authored Joe Ensing MSC and Sr Valentina Pozzi SdR), TRAINING MANUAL FOR COUNSELLING IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA,

A New Book: Dear More Dear Movies, Peter Malone MSC

Back in Covid lockdown days, the cinemas were closed, 2020, from mid-March to mid-November (and some weeks in 2021).

What was a film reviewer to do? Well, for many, Netflix and/or Foxtel was a major answer. The other thing to do was to keep writing on movies. 2020 quietly saw the publication of Dear Movies by Coventry Press – 101 letters to the movies themselves, sharing autobiography with them, the impact they had in their time, later, the issues they raised, Australian themes, religious and spirituality themes.

So lockdown led to more watching and more writing: Dear More Dear Movies, 85 letters this time, the same process: life, issues, themes, spirituality… And Coventry Press again said yes.

This is an endorsement by John Mulrooney MSC: I once wrote to Peter Malone - “you have spent at least one third of your waking hours living in the dark!” “Ah,” said Peter, “but I have had a bright screen in front of me filled with images of life and humanity”. And this is what he writes about in his letters to movies.

I sometimes come out of a movie theatre deeply moved by what I have watched and often have to ask myself: “why was I so moved by this film?”

Peter ties many films to various periods of his own life and personalises his responses to the films. He uses his extraordinary gifts of memory and detail to explore themes that emerge through films: forgiveness, redemption, reparation and so on. (Clint Eastwood’s films) Films such as The Nightingale and The Drovers Wife and other Australian movies evoke the “need to feel and be (and learn to express): sorry.” Films like Six Degrees of Separation remind us “when we connect, we touch the hand of God”.

Peter writes letters to movies that show human life in all its richness, beauty, colour, light, darkness and brokenness. If you love movies, this book is for you.

HAUNTED MANSION

US, 2023, 123 minutes, Colour.

LaKeith Stanfield, Rosario Dawson, Owen Wilson, Tiffany Haddish, Danny DeVito, Jamie Lee Curtis, Chase W .Dillon, Jarrod Leto, J.R.Aducci.

Directed by Justin Simien.

This review has been very much influenced by the experience of watching Haunted Mansion at a media preview, reviewers present but also a great number of children with their parents, youngsters.

At the end of the screening, the critics dismissed the film, seeing little value in it, finding it tiresome. And, that is confirmed by a number of reviewers and, checking the bloggers on IMDb, so many dismissing it as boring, unfunny, trite, seen it all before…, critical of Disney for remaking the story.

However, the experience of watching the film was for this reviewer quite different. Quickly becoming conscious of the youngsters in the audience, their responses of delight, especially with the ghosts, the hauntings, the struggles with the ghosts. This was made easy because one of the central characters is a nine-year-old boy, his father dead, his mother wanting to start a new life, their going to the mansion and immediately being haunted and terrified, fleeing, but the ghosts continually dragging them back to the mansion. There were several jump moments which seemed to delight the young audience.

The other thing noted about the young audience was its response to the jokes, to the funny lines, to the humour. Reviewers and bloggers dismiss this as being old hat, obvious, not very funny. But, it would seem that the young audience found these jokes very funny, a lot of out-loud laughter. While the adults may have heard the lines before, maybe this was the first time for the youngsters and they found it all quite funny.

In fact, the film has a strong cast, a very sympathetic LaKeith Stanfield as the sad widower, physicist, dragged into photographing the ghosts with a camera he had been working on. Rosario Dawson is a nice mother and Chase W. Dillon, an engaging nine-year-old. And the film has the comic skills of Danny DeVito as an ageing professor, Owen Wilson as an unconventional (emphasis on the con) priest, Tiffany Haddish as a loud medium and, rather surprisingly, Jamie Lee Curtis as a medium ghost from the past. An unrecognisable Jared Leto is the villain. The director, Justin Simien, has a reputation for satirical film and television, especially Dear White People.

So, an entertainment, PG rated, geared especially for children from 10 to 15 or so who can be accompanied by the parents who may be pleased that the young ones are actually enjoying the haunted mansion and the ghostly hijinks.

1.     The Disney theme park? Various film versions? Bringing the theme park ride alive?

2.     The Louisiana setting, city of New Orleans, ordinary life, the visualising of the mansion, exteriors, interiors, the ghosts, the special effects, the mansion and surroundings? The visit to the city, the police, the University…? The Crump mansion? The musical score?

3.     The focus on Ben, his personality, reticent, science, optics, the encounter with his wife, discussion about ghosts, her tours? Transition to his being down and out, crusty, the tourists, his comments?

4.     Gabby and Travis, the U-haul, the mansion, entering, the darkness, Travis and the room, the ghosts, their escaping back to the city?

5.     Father Kent, an Owen Wilson character, clerical, deadpan humour, challenging Ben? The offer of the money? Ben going, his camera, pretending to take photos and notes, driving away?

6.     The ghosts, appearances, pursuing the characters, forcing them to return to the mansion? Camping in the mansion, the experiences after midnight?

7.     Harriet, the medium, dress and style, reputation, self-promotion, conducting the seances, the strange phenomena, the pen and the writing? Her leaving, having to return? The story of Madame Leota, her reputation, wanting to get in touch, finding her head in the globe after unpacking the trunk? Contact with Madame Leota? The silence, Harriet not affected, then entering into the other world?

8.     Bruce, age, reputation, never having been to the mansion, wanting to go, his heart condition, the repartee with Father Kent? The discussions, the documents, Father Kent stealing them, Bruce coming to the mansion, trapped?

9.     The back story, gradual uncovering, William Gracey, the portrait, suicide, the death of his wife? The gradual revelation about Crump? The change of perspective on the ghosts, 999, their being trapped, Crump needing one more willing human to become a ghost?

10.  The seances, Ben and his experiences, the pursuits, getting advice from Gracie, getting onside with the ghosts and their support? The advice of Madame Leota?

11.  The human story, Travis, wanting contact with his father, Ben as a father figure, relationship with his mother? Bonding with Ben? Aiming to protect him, his going down the hall, retrieving the hat, in the car, coming out, his involvement? Gabby, her love for her son, protecting him?

12.  The stunt work, the chases, the transforming mansion, the ghosts?

13.  Father Kent and the truth about his identity?

14.  The buildup to the confrontation with Crump, his appearance, hat in the box, diabolical, Ben, his grief, memories of his wife, telling the sad story of her death, his being willing to sacrifice himself? Then turning against Crump, defying him, Crump gradually going down into the grave?

15.  The range of personalities of the ghosts, their being onside, helping, the old captain and taking him back to the sea, Gracey and his collaboration?

16.  The popularity of the Disney ride, on screen, the target audience of families and youngsters?

THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE CHILDREN

US, 2023, 92 minutes, Colour.

Alisha Wainwright, Amanda Crew, Carlos Santos, Zach Gilford, Briella Guiza, David Mattie.

Directed by Roxanne Benjamin.

A small, quite effective, horror story with sinister children (and memories of Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw and the various film versions).

Two couples go on a holiday, one couple without children intentionally, one couple with two children. They are friends and seem to get on well. One morning they go on a track and discover a cave with a sinister well. The children see a green light.

On the domestic side of the drama, there are themes of friendship, suspicions, infidelity, confession, reconciliation, the unmarried couple offering to mind the children for a night while the other couple has time together. The children disappear. The husband goes searching, especially of the cave, seeing the children, falling into the well. The rest of the film is a blend of tension between the couple’s, especially the husband who is on medication for some kind of mental problems, the couple as parents distraught about their children – and then the children returning, and behaving in a sinister, tormenting manner.

The plot becomes grimmer as it progresses, the husband interacting with the children, the well, falling in, the green light, then the behaviour of the children towards their parents, the husband confronting his wife, inviting her to join the sinister existence with the children.

Effective in its way.

1. The title, and its fulfilment?
2. The holiday, the holiday house, the couples, one unmarried, the other with children, friendship? The countryside setting, the forest, the cave, the well? The musical score?
3. The introduction to each couple, the unmarried couple, careers, work, the bonding, decision about children, desire or not? The couple with children, devotion to the children, the tension within the marriage, the wife and her affair, the husband’s discovery, resolution, reconciliation?
4. The night, the unmarried couple looking after the children, the morning, the children disappeared, the husband going in search, to the well, seeing them die? Being distraught, returning, the news? The reaction of the married couple, angry, attack?
5. The children reappearing, their eccentric behaviour, a catalogue of mischief, malevolence? Their ages, characters, tormenting the adults?
6. The husband, going to the cave, his fall, the shining light, becoming one with the children? The return?
7. The children, the reaction of their parents, the wife and her grief, the husband offering his life?
8. The surviving wife, her husband, his menacing her, with the children, driving off, this standing on the road – and a sinister future?

GRAY MATTER

US, 2023, 87 minutes, Colour.

Mia Isaac, Jessica Frances Dukes, Garrett Dillahunt, Andrew Liner.

Directed by Meko Winbush.

This is part of the Project Greenlight program, background to the film is in the television series. To that extent, this is an experimental film, an opportunity for a new director, Meko Winbush. It is a horror film about special powers, supernatural, in a special group of people. Given the central character, a teenage girl, African-American, this would seem to be principally a Young Adult drama.

The film opens with a sinister situation, a woman, Ayla (Jessica Frances Dukes) confronting a policeman after a chase, threatening, the policeman killing himself. Then a transition to 15 years later, the woman now with her daughter, Aurora (Mia Isaac), protecting her daughter, homeschooling, isolation, the young girl with powers and her mother training her to exercise them, to control them. But, the rebellious daughter does sneak out of the house and encounters an agreeable young man. She meets him again, with his friends, and a terrible situation arises, Aurora unable to control her powers, the death of the young man.

She goes into frenzy, unconsciousness, and is rescued by Derek (Gareth Dilllahunt) who also has the powers and knows all about Aurora and her mother. He offers to help – and most of the film is in Aurora’s consciousness, scenes from the past appearing, her trying to control her memories, to stop Derek entering into her consciousness. And her imagination takes various forms including the dead young man, her mother, all pleading with her to reveal where her mother is. Derek, initially kindly, seems all the more sinister. Ultimately, Aurora meets her mother and explains the truth, Derek accusing her of murders, her helping Aurora go back into the past and see that Derek was responsible and has been blaming the mother and pursuing her.

Which all builds up to a confrontational climax. In many ways slight, but an interesting initial exercise for the director, a film for younger target audience.

1. The title? The brain? Gray areas of responsibility?
2. The basic premise, people with special powers, the control, exercise, for good and ill?
3. The opening, the chase, Ayla and the confrontation with the policeman, the threats, her control, his death?
4. 15 years later, mother and daughter, the mother protecting her daughter, homeschooling, the teenage girl, exercising her powers, control? Continually on the move, her mother asking her to exercise the power on moving the box of books? Aurora and her reaction?
5. Aurora, rebellious teenager, the watching of the television sitcom and its themes?
6. Aurora slipping out, the encounter with the young man, friendly, slipping out again, the group playing, talking, the bond with the young man, her seizure, uncontrolled, the effect on the young man, his death?
7. Aurora being rescued by Derek, her bewilderment, his offering to help? Trying to into her mind, Aurora blocking him? His wanting the whereabouts of her mother? Blame for murders?
8. The core of the film with Aurora’s nightmares, the various locations, situations, appearances, her mother, the dead boy…? Their all asking the whereabouts of her mother? Aurora and her resistance? The characters appearing and disappearing, Derek and his continued questions?
9. Aurora eventually meeting her mother, suspicious, her mother telling her the truth, revisiting the situation, Derek and the killings, blaming the mother?
10. The buildup to the final confrontation with Derek, the visuals, the drama, the superpowers? And mother and daughter safe?

STRAYS

US, 2023, 93 minutes, Colour.

Voices of: Will Ferrell, Jamie Foxx, Isla Fisher, Randall Park, Brett Gelman, Rob Riggle, Josh Gad, Sofia Vergara. With Will Forte, Denis Quaid.

Directed by Josh Greenbaum.

With a comedy like Strays, words that come to the reviewer’s mind include: raunchy, crude, crass, gross, offensive. And it can be said, they are all applicable. But, response very much depends on sensibilities, whether this kind of crude comedy appeals, on sensitivities which find the jokes and the treatment objectionable, too much. But, this is not the case for everyone, and the reviewer or also has to keep this in mind.

While often it seems very much like a cartoon in characters and situations, this is a live-action film about dogs. In fact, dog lovers, despite the jokes, might very well be intrigued by the extraordinary performances of the dogs themselves, and wonder how much is the training of actual dogs and how much is the use of animatronics, especially with the dogs and their moving mouths for the dialogue. Yes, the dogs really come alive, and are very convincing characters.

And a review had better note that the humour, pervasive, relies on constant (incessant) four (and beyond)-letter words and exclamations, probably tiresome even for tolerant viewers, magic mushroom hallucinations, a lot of sex jokes, explicit and innuendo, and bodily parts and bodily functions. Definitely crude, often crass.

But, strangely enough, the story is actually full of sentiment, even sentimental at times, and moving towards a very nice ending, domestic bliss. In a way, the audience can’t help liking the dogs. And, who are they? First of all, there is Reggie (voiced by Will Ferrell), who was at the beck and call of Doug (Will Forte creating a character who is an extreme slob), who resents Reggie because he was the pet of a girlfriend who walks out on him. He persecutes Reggie, verbally abuses him, tosses the ball as far away as possible – but the good-natured Reggie thinks this is all a game and thinks Doug is a wonderful owner. When Doug takes Reggie on a three hour drive and strands him, he is befriended by a smart-talking Bug (voiced by Jamie Foxx). Gradually, with the help of Bug’s other friends, Maggie (Isla Fisher as an Australian collie) and Randall Park as a former police dog trainee, now with a cone and working at an old folks home, Hunter, Reggie learns the truth. And the film becomes a quest, a revenge film, Reggie wreaking havoc on Doug (and we know where).

There are lots of adventures along the way, meeting police dogs looking for a young girl, the real Dennis Quaid with binoculars seeing a giant eagle swoop on Bug, getting lost, finding landmarks, and an eventual confrontation between Reggie and Doug (and what we might have imagined does happen).

Lots of jokes, many crass, others very funny, and, as has been said, quite a deal of sentiment, the talent of the voice cast blending with the expert photography and training of the dogs, their looking to camera, the tilt of their heads, the cheeky looks, which means that the dogs really become credible characters! But, as the government classification advice says: MA: Strong crude humour, sex, coarse language and drug use.

BLACKBERRY

Canada, 2023, 118 minutes, Colour.

J ay Baruchel, Glenn Howerton, Matt Johnson, Martin Donovan, Saul Rubinek.

Directed by Matt Johnson.

For many of us, sitting at our computers, the 1990s does not seem all that long ago and we are amazed at the developments and transitions in our work with IT and what we have lived through. Those born in this 21^st-century will find that this film is an excursion back into the 90s, something of ancient history – a history which should be looked at and understood, those extraordinary developments of the 1990s, thinking Bill Gates, the many movies made about Steve Jobs. But, what about the Black Berry? Here are some answers.

The film is billed as a comedy as well and is a drama although the issues in it are very serious, the rise and fall of Black Berry and its promotion and use. At the beginning, the audience is warned that this is a fictionalised story based on actual characters and events. For those wanting to know more about this history and the characters involved, there is quite an amount quickly available on Wikipedia (and a more sympathetic presentation of the key characters in real life, especially their considerable philanthropy).

This is a Canadian film and a Canadian story. It focuses on a small somewhat backyard-company of IT developers, Research in Motion. The brains behind the enterprise is Mike Lazaridis, something of a nerdish (Jay Baruchel). Supporting him is his good friend, Doug Auguin, played by Matt Johnson who co-wrote the screenplay and directed the film. So, in the 1990s, they were working on IT phone developments which led to the Black Berry. Mike is very serious, Doug acts as spur and spokesman (long hair with a bandanna, a cheeky manner). What are they to do with their invention and the need for financial support?

The focus of the film then moves to business, promotion, contracts, especially focusing on Jim Balsillie, ambitious, self-promoter, less than honest in his dealings with in his company, appropriating others’ plans, fired. He goes to seek out Mike and Doug – with significant results as well as some dire results. Jim is played by Glenn Howerton who brings the ambitious co-getting Jim very much dramatically alive, a powerhouse, pressurising, manoeuvring Mike, hostile to Doug, for more than 10 years wheeler-dealing with big American companies and CEOs, also involved in ice hockey with ambitions to own teams.

Interestingly, there is scarcely a woman to be seen in this film, one of the workers at Research in Motion, a government investigator at the end. There is no back story given of any of the central characters (though, in real life, they were married with families).

So, the story of the rise is exhilarating as well as comic, Mike and his awkwardness, his being called co--CEO of the company but his abilities with finance minimal. And the staff of the company and again rather nerdish but expert, casual in their approach to work, postponing work each week for movie night which they loudly and enthusiastically enjoy. But, Jim Balsillie put an end to that, employing a big tough supervisor (played by veteran Michael Ironside). And Doug becomes more and more bewildered.

But this is a story of rise – and fall, Jim’s ambitions larger than he can achieve, lots of meetings with executives, possibilities for deals, poaching expert technology from companies like Google, altering the books for contracts. It catches up.

But then there is Steve Jobs, Mike Lazaridis completely underestimating the impact of the iPhone (and the film includes the sequence where Jobs himself introduces the iPad).

So, a dramatic reminder, of what has gone on behind the scenes, and in public, which has influenced our stooping over our phones and a realisation that they are indispensable for contemporary living, except for those who do not have one.

1. The changes in IT technology from the 1990s to the 2020s? For those who have lived through the developments and kept pace with them? For younger audiences who take this IT world and social communications for granted?
2. The statement that this film is a fictionalised version of what actually happened, the characters, the Black Berry, the Canadian background, finance and the US?
3. Audience knowledge of the Black Berry, those who followed its development, used it, those unfamiliar with it, its peak success, its failure of the business?
4. The Canadian settings, Ontario, the cities and office buildings, interiors? The contrast with Research in Motion, the headquarters, the labs, the workers, easy-going atmosphere? Yet technological success?
5. Introducing the world of big business, Jim Balsillie, his role in the company, asking the boss for promotion guarantees, his rival with the plan, his stealing the plans, presenting them to the board meeting, the boss and reactions, his being fired?
6. The characters of Mike and Doug, Mike and his talent, science and engineering, Doug and the touch of the late hippy, freewheeling, supporting Mike, making decisions for him? Their coming to the board, the demonstration, the failure, their not being picked up? The loan, the amount of money, the needs?
7. Jim, initially dismissing the two, his making contact, the meeting, the proposal? His lack of knowledge of technology? His instinct for business, for deals? His ambitions? The film not showing anything about his back story, his private life, his family? Just the focus on him and his business interests?
8. Mike and Doug, their friendship, success, the phone, the computer, combining it into the Black Barry? The film showing nothing of the back life or families of the two of them?
9. Jim and his play for the company, money issues, wanting to be CEO, Doug in the assistance of Mike and urging him is co-CEO? The members of the staff, young, their expertise, casual, the atmosphere in the company, joking, movie night and the enjoyment?
10. The visit to the American company, the President and his scepticism, Jim not making a good impression, Mike, leaving the prototype model in the taxi, coming late, Jim failing, Mike explaining, getting the attention of the company? The financial situation, the progress?
11. The development of the BlackBerry, on the market, success, sales? The change for Mike, growing older, more of business sense, relentless? The contrast with Doug, always happy-go-lucky? Jim’s disapproval?
12. The hiring of the large supervisor, his presence, stopping movie night, telling the workers that they were children and needed to grow up, the change of atmosphere in the company? The effect on Doug?
13. Jim, the range of meetings, heads of companies, deals, his poaching experts from other companies, going to Google, the $10 million offer, backdating the documents? Building up the expertise? Paul, the Asian, the Asian man and his shrewdness in knowing what was going on?
14. The years passing, success? The background of Steve Jobs, the 1990s, his emerging in the to thousands, the iPad, the insertion of the actual scene of Jobs presenting the iPad? Mike and his unwillingness to see what was happening, underestimating Jobs?
15. Jim, under suspicion from the authorities, the phone calls? Jim and his liking for ice hockey, the games, support for teams, the clash with the CEO who did not like hockey? Yet wanting to do deals, his flying to New York, to Atlanta, being turned down, his wanting to buy teams…?
16. The authorities, the phone calls, coming to see Mike, Jim arriving, Mike having done a deal, the downturn of the company, being outdone by Steve Jobs, not developing the BlackBerry to match it, Mike and his preoccupations about the screen, the keyboard…?
17. Doug, leaving the company, financially secure? Jim, avoiding jail, fishing? Mike, being anti-Chinese manufacturing, submitting, testing the phones, the rattle which he had been able to eliminate earlier, in the vast number of cases of phones, all non-functional?
18. A story of rise and fall, a chance to look back over what it happened with computers, phones, communication, the 1990s, extraordinary developments, and everybody having a phone?

SANCTUARY

US, 2022, 95 minutes, Colour.

Margaret Crowley, Christopher Abbott.

Directed by Zach Ziglom.

This is a psychodrama. It could also serve as a dramatic illustration of a psychosexual situation. It is a two-hander and practically all of the action takes place in a hotel room – some moments outside the room in the corridor and an opening elevator. The invitation for the audience is to observe, possibly identify with one or other of the characters, reflect on the interactions, the interdependency, the future of the characters.

The film opens with the young business executive, Hal played by Christopher Abbott, with a business-looking blonde young woman, Rebecca, entering and going through the details of a legal contract with him. But, Hal begins to object to the questions – and it emerges that he wrote the whole scenario and dialogue himself. The two are in a role-play, created by Hal, performed, ever more independently, by Rebecca.

What we are shown is a dominatrix situation, Rebecca employed by Hal who feels he has been belittled, underestimated by his successful father (seen in a photograph with his son). The issue is Hal’s inadequacy as a person, and the connection of this inadequacy with his sexuality. Interestingly, in terms of understanding himself, it is Hal who writes the various scenarios, seeming to have some insight into himself but then very dependent on Rebecca’s responses. She humiliates him, his having to clean the floor, self-deprecation, sexual experiences.

As the film progresses, Rebecca seems to assert more independence from Hal and the scenarios, walking out, tantalising him that there was video of all their activities and his consequent smashing of the room to find the camera. Rebecca attempts to leave, Hal bringing her back. And Rebecca assert herself once more, discussing the contract, wanting Hal to invest his salary in her, and the suggestion arising that instead of Hal, Rebecca could be the CEO with Hal remaining at home in support.

Since this is a psychodrama, all options are open however practical, pragmatic or non-pragmatic they might be in reality. And the final question, the final image, what is the real relationship between Hal and Rebecca.

Which means that this psychosexual exploration may have limited interest and appeal, especially because of the claustrophobic confinement.

1. A psychodrama? Psychosexual issues? Domination? The screenplay film as a case study?
2. Audience response to this kind of psychodrama, observing, identifying, questioning, reflecting?
3. The claustrophobic effect of the drama, in the one hotel suite, main room, bathroom? Going out to the corridor, the open elevator? The musical score?
4. The introduction to Hal, his age, appearance, the photo with his father, his father the entrepreneur? The arrival of Rebecca, her appearance, blonde wig, stern, her papers, contracts? Initial audience response to each of them? Changing throughout the film?
5. The reality of the situation, Rebecca and the lines, going through the scenario, Hal and his reactions, the fact that he had written the scenarios? The previous relationship, the contract, her role as a dominatrix, his role as the client, his having some kind of control through writing the scenes?
6. The drama of the interactions, Rebecca and her control, the lines, criticism from Hal, her improvising, the discussions? The humiliation, stripping, cleaning the floor? The sexual encounter and her tantalising him, controlling him? The video, his searching for a, smashing the room, electrocution, the sexual effect? Sanctuary as the safe word"
   
7. Hal, his relationship with his father, his father’s treatment of him, humiliating him, his mother, preparing to go to the function with her?
8. Rebecca, the interactions, the control, her leaving, Hal coming to the elevated to get her back, twice?
9. The development of the scenario, Hal and his suggestions, Rebecca in control? The issue of her payment, the money, the discussion of his salary, giving it to her, the possibility of selling his shares in buying back the company, Rebecca and her place in the company, becoming the CEO, his becoming the equivalent of the wife at home?
10. The revelation of Rebecca’s strengths, of Hal’s weaknesses, the finale and the relationship between them, the kissing, the future?

Family Care Sisters (The ‘Grey Sisters’) closing their house for mothers at Croydon 

MSC students and members of the Croydon Monastery community, Brothers and Priests, from the 1940s to the 1980s, will have had contact with the Sisters. And, the Sisters invited us to use their community house at Canterbury for Heart of Life, 1986-2002. We have had some strong bonds with the Sisters.

Now there are only two, Jill Harding and Michele Toussaint.

Their ministry for some years has been linked with the Sisters of Mercy. Many Mercy Sisters were present at the Mass.

Saturday August 19^th saw a Mass of Appreciation as the Sisters move from their house in Alto Ave, Kewn Kreestha. It was celebrated in the Croydon parish church – which was formerly the Monastery chapel.

Paul Castley MSC presided at the Eucharist.

Jill and Michele participated, Eucharistic ministers, thanking those who had come to celebrate with them.

Intercessions led by Lis Teggelove RSM and Sue Gesell, long associated with the Sisters.

Some mothers spoke of their times at Croydon and presented floral tributes.

Fr Gerard Dowling who lived in the cottage at Canterbury was present as were members of several Sisters’ congregations, a welcome to the ceremony by MSC Sisters Provincial, Tess Veenker.

After the Mass, quite an afternoon tea spread – in what used to be the community refectory, the solid tables and the strong chairs from the past still there.

Jill and Michele will live at Canterbury and continue their ministry.