SACCO AND VANZETTI

Italy, 1971, 123 minutes, Colour.
Gian Maria Volonte, Ricardo Cucciola, Cyril Cusack, Geoffrey Keen.
Directed by Giuliano Montaldo.

Italy, 1971, 120 minutes, Colour.
Gian Maria Volonte, Riccardo Cucciolla, Cyril Cusack, Geoffrey Keen, Milo O’Shea?, William Prince.
Directed by Giuliano Montaldo.

Sacco and Vanzette is a significant film, based on a true story. Two anarchists, workmen, were tried for murder during a bank robbery. The evidence was stacked against them and they were condemned for their political views rather than for criminal offences. The case raised a lot of attention in the United States – and around the world. It is another story of prejudice in the American justice system.

Gian Maria Volonte had appeared in a number of political films after some of the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s. He was the star of An Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion, he took the role of Lucky Luciano, he appeared in The Mattei Affair, The Death of Mario Ricci and Open Doors. Ricardo Cucciolla is very good as Sacco to Volonte’s Vanzetti. A number of English-speaking actors appear in the supporting cast including Cyril Cusack.

The film was directed by Giuliano Montaldo who had made Grand Slam and Machine Gun McCain?. He was interested in the American gangster styles but also in the political repercussions of such stories. His films have not appeared widely outside Italy after the 1970s. However, he had a featured role in Nanni Moretti’s Il Caimano (2006).

1. The impact of this Italian production on Italian audiences, Americans? World-wide audiences?

2. A glimpse of American history, an indictment of injustice and prejudice? A portrait of Italian workers? The point of view of the screenplay, sympathies, critique? Social principles? Political point of view?

3. The international nature of the cast? The impact of the two Italian leads? The Irish and British and American cast? Colour photography, re-creation of period? Atmosphere of the '20s in the United States?

4. The black and white prologue? The rounding up of the Italian workers? Deportation issues? The role of the Consul and his later criticisms? Atmosphere of fear? The reasons for the round-ups - those given? The later attitudes of Katzman and his criticism of Italians and their being absorbed into American society? American reaction overall to this kind of racialism?

5. The portrait of Palmer, his attitudes, his-press conferences? The attack on the unions? On Italian workers? The role of the police - the recurring image of the man falling from the building? The role of the law and Attorney Generals using it? The later atmosphere of conspiracy: the District Attorney, the judge? The use of methods to win a case? The Governor and his assessment of the situation and Thompson's appeal after Palmer's defeat? Sufficient indication of the atmosphere of the time, the role of American politics?

6. Sacco and Vanzetti as radicals, socialists and therefore useful victims? Their arrest, the interrogations, the placing of charges and the bases for these?

7. The reaction of each to the arrest and charges, to the imprisonment, to the trial? Their presence throughout the trial? Their lack of English? The way that they were questioned during the trial? Indications of their background: time spent in America, family, their work, socialist and radical issues e.g. leaving for Mexico during the call-up of 1917? How well did they present themselves? As criminals or not? Sacco and his collapse, his illness? The continued shouting and support from outside the prison and its breaking him down? His being taken away? Vanzetti and his surviving in prison?

8. Katzman and his style - in the initial interrogations, his patronising attitudes towards Sacco and Vanzetti? His conduct of the prosecution and his severity? The judge being on his side? The attacks on Moore? His witnesses, the pressurising of them? The way of addressing the jury, his outbursts, giving them photos of socialist riots? The irony of the later revelations? His presence during the appeal hearings, the attacks on Moore?

9. Moore and his sympathy towards Sacco and Vanzetti, his boorish way of conducting the defence, his angers and frustrations, his interrogations? Criticisms of judge and Katzman? His highlighting the issues of racialism - and Katzman's German origins? The judge's exasperation with him? The disappointment of Sacco? His presence at the committee meetings? His move for the appeal - and his pressurising witnesses? His leaving things to Thompson to try to win? How much was the fault of Moore - especially when he expected the~ jury to give 'not guilty'?

10. The judge and his partiality? His interventions in the case? His control of the courtroom? His continued rejections of appeals? Thompson's scathing attack on him?

11. Thompson and his interest in the case, his presence at the society party, his friendship with the journalist? His being in court? His help to the committee? His being beaten when the police charged? His decision to take on the case, the long and detailed investigations of archives, witnesses, criminals? His building up a solid ground for appeal? His presentation of the grounds and the judge's rejection? His long attacking speech on the judge and administration of law in the United States? His appeal to the Governor? The sympathetic presentation in comparison with Katzman?

12. The witnesses and their vagueness: the line-up and the way that this was held with Sacco and Vanzetti having to hold out their hands as if with. guns, the trying on of caps in court, the device of having the flashbacks indicating the witnesses were very vague? The later revelations about their being paid off? Moore's standing over them? Thompson's methods of discovering the truth?

13. The grounds for appeals and their rejection?

14. The importance of public reaction - the demonstrations outside the jail, the work of the committee? Moore and Thompson and their help? The presentation of the long petitions to the Governor? The statements of the universities? World-wide opinion? The device of having the newsreel material to show world support of Sacco and Vanzetti?

15. Sacco and Vanzetti as being victims of the law throughout the film? Throughout the main trial? The atmosphere of the statement of their guilt by the jury (after having their free meal)? Vanzetti's speech and his assessment of himself, the issues, his being used for political purposes? Sacco's silence?

16. Themes of freedom - the final days of Sacco and Vanzetti? The build-up to death? Capital punishment and the state murdering its citizens? Sacco and Vanzetti as victims?


17. The insight into characters? The quality of the portraits of Sacco and Vanzetti, of the men involved in the law? The adequacy of the social insight into the United States of the '20s? Issues of work, race,

SABRINA

US, 1954, 113 minutes, Black and white.
Humphrey Bogart, William Holden, Audrey Hepburn, Walter Hampden, John Williams, Martha Hyer, Marcel Dalio.
Directed by Billy Wilder.

Sabrina is a pleasant fairy tale from the affluent 1950s. What might have been a screwball comedy in the 1930s, is given a rather more gentle, extended and comfortable treatment here. Director is Billy Wilder, acidic writer of so many comedies and dramas (from The Major and the Minor to The Apartment to Fedora). Here he blends the charming with the acidic.

William Holden had worked with him in Sunset Boulevard and his Oscar-winning Stalag 17 (and in Fedora in the late 1970s). Audrey Hepburn, fresh from her Oscar in Roman Holiday, worked with Wilder and Gary Cooper in Love in the Afternoon. There is a very strong supporting cast led by John Williams and Walter Hampden. The setting is wealthy Long Island, there are jokes at the expense of the wealthy class - but the film is nevertheless a Cinderella story, American style. It was remade in the mid-90s as a Harrison Ford vehicle with Julia Ormond and Greg Kinnear.

1. An attractive and appealing romantic comedy? The '50s style? The tradition of cinema romantic comedies, - especially the '30s screwball comedies? Popularity in the '50s? Later?

2. The work of Billy Wilder and his detached at ironic tone towards life? Has he brought this to bear on the basic fairytale material? Straightforward humour and charm, irony? The quality of the star cast and their ensemble working together? The strong supporting cast? The star aura of the main leads and what it brought to the film?

3. Black and white photography, Long Island locations? Affluence, New York? Suggestions of Paris? The romantic score - the use of old songs e.g. 'Isn't It Romantic?'

4. The popularity of the Cinderella fairy tale? Sabrina and her narrative comments, especially with the opening? The quick moving by Sabrina out of her chauffeur's daughter situation? The ups and downs of her courtships, infatuations? The happy ending?

5. The picture of American society, snobbery. Fairchild as snob. class distinctions, staff and cars. the places for people in cars? The Larrabee family photo? The Larrabees and their owning of everything, offices, international mergers and deals, entertaining and parties

6. The picture of industry in the '50s: wealth, monopolies, mergers and marriages? The film's satire on these - the happy merger as well as the happy romantic ending?

7. Audrey Hepburn as Sabrina: presence, appearance, style of acting, speaking? Her opening narrative? The irony of her cleaning the cars? Comfortable home, relationship with her father? Watching David - and her jealousy? The giggling girl in the indoor tennis court, her suicide note and attempt, the rescue by Linus? Paris and the jokes about cooking? Her failures? The letters home? Glamour and the Baron? Her transformation? Arrival at the station and David's picking her up but not recognising her? The dance and her glamour and hew knowing he was engaged? Linus and her reaction to being paid off? The various dates with Linus? Meals, theatre? The dilemmas? The phone call from the building and Linus' presence? His telling her the truth? Her going onto the ship? The happy ending?

8. David and his playboy style, cars, speed, marriages, the giggling heiress in the indoor tennis court, 'Isn't it Romantic?', his ignoring Sabrina? His irresponsibility and Linus' dictating letters to him? The infatuation with Sabrina, the engagement with Elizabeth and his reaction against it? The party and neglecting Elizabeth? His father summoning him, Linus making him sit on the glasses? The extraction of the glass, the hammock? His believing Linus? His realisation of the truth - and his final responsible appearance and performance at the board meeting?

9. The contrast of William Holden's style with that of Humphrey Bogart? Serious, businesslike - and his dealings in the car, relationship with Fairchild, discovering Sabrina's attempted suicide, concern for mergers, the tennis court sequence and the attraction towards Sabrina, making David sit on the glass, the outings (and the irony of going to see Billy Wilder's Seven Year itch), his reactions, the change, David's attack on him? His giving up Sabrina and arranging for the ship? The happy ending and its credibility? Humphrey Bogart's terse and serious style of comedy? (Cary Grant originally intended for the role.)

10. The servants and their interest in the household, in Sabrina? Fairchild and his work, inverted snob. cautions about Sabrina? Miss McCardle? and her devotion to Linus?

11. The picture of society heiresses - giggling girls and glamour?

12. The merger, Elizabeth Tyson and her infatuation with David, plans for the wedding?

13. The Larrabee parents and their style - especially the father and his smoking and drinking, literally in the cupboard?

14. Verbal humour, visual humour? An entertaining comedy from the Golden Years of Hollywood?

THE SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN

 

US, 1968, 157 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Quinn, Laurence Olivier, Oskar Werner, David Janssen, Vittorio de Sica, Leo McKern?, John Gielgud, Burt Kwouk.
Directed by Michael Anderson.

 

Morris West's novel was strikingly topical in 1963 with the death of John XXIII, the election of Paul VI and the progress of Vatican 11. It had some good plot elements but many readers and reviewers objected to the sensational treatment, not only of the Papal story, but of the Italian social and, government background as well; some took exception to the pages and pages of sermons on renewal, freedom of research and the reflections of Teilhard de Telemond; many were offended by West's satiric barbs at ecclesiastical conventions and behaviour and at Church structures. In contrast the film of 'The Shoes of the Fisherman' seems remarkably straightforward: some good stories a bit sensational with sermons playing a secondary role. The satire has been practically eliminated. The result is a film of interest and entertainment for all, without being taxing.

 

For a Catholic, the background, the events, the style of the film are familiar and most authentically reproduced. This is Rome and the Vatican. For the outsider to Catholicism? The surface treatment would appear more readily because the viewer would not supply mentally and emotionally the necessary background. This seems especially true of many of the 'big' scenes and climaxes: the conversations which lead Cardinal Rinaldi to proclaim Kiril, the reconciliation of Kiril and Leone, the advice of Kiril for Ruth's marriage, the proposal to sell the wealth of the Church. The words and the shortness of each episode are not nearly strong enough to support the ideals and solutions they are supposed to. And Fr. Telemond's doctrine. There is talk of the 'cosmic Christ' and 'faith in the world', but how telling and intelligible is this to the audience?

 

The answer to this lies in the acting. Anthony Quinn seems so natural in the part of Pope Kiril; we like him, understand him, with the result that whatever he does, however incredible it might seem, we accept because of him. In this, way, his outing in Rome is, much more easy to take in the film than in the novel.

 

Again Oscar Werner is so good as Telemond and seems so, convincingly a priest, that we become involved in his anxiety over the investigation Of his work, that it does not seem to matter if we cannot understand his profession of faith. Leo, McKern? is outstanding as Cardinal Leone and Vittorio de Sica is a natural as Cardinal Rinaldi. Laurence Olivier, looking more himself and relying on an accent for variation, makes the Russian Premier believable and a strong counterpart to, Kiril. The Faber plot and the acting there were very ordinary and not of really great interest. Audiences will like the film on the whole. It is meant to be popular and spectacular rather than deep and reflective. With the help of fine actors, the beauty also of Rome and the Vatican, it fairly succeeds.

 

When Morris West's novel first appeared in 1963, it was regarded as prophetic about changes which had just begun in the Catholic Church as the Second Vatican Council opened in October 1962. Pope John XXIII died in early June 1963. While Paul VI was elected (and continued to work for detente with Soviet bloc countries), it was on the death of his short-lived successor, John Paul I, that the Slavic Pope was elected. John Paul II is considered to have been one of the chief influences in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Morris West was even more prophetic than people realised.

 

The film is a big-budget spectacular with a starry cast. Anthony Quinn gives a credible performance as the Pope while Laurence Olivier looks severe as the Soviet premier. The journalist sub-plot seems somewhat trite. Oskar Werner's character is based on Teilhard de Chardin. Leo McKern? and others enjoy themselves as Vatican cardinals.

 

The film does raise issues that are often discussed, especially about the wealth of the church and the plight of the poor. Selling Vatican treasures to galleries or millionaires is a temporary solution that seems simplistic, but the issue is raised in the film as a symbolic one.

1. The popularity of this film? For what audience was it made? A religious product of the 'Sixties? Big budget Hollywood
religion?
2. The film had a Catholic atmosphere and reflected Catholic attitudes. How well were these presented and communicated? How important were they? The impact on non-Catholic audiences?
3. The background of the Papacy, its presentation in terms of the Vatican, its look and pomp, its tradition, the personalities involved? The film's treatment of the mystique of the Church, the Vatican, the Papacy and the status of the Pope? His influence in world affairs?
4. How plausible was the plot» the role of the Papacy in a future world, the influence of the cardinals, the international situation for Russia and China, the influence of the Papacy? How much of the plausibility was based on the experience of the 'Sixties? Morris West's insight into topical situations and his understanding of the 'Sixties? The issues of the wealth of the Church and the
poverty of China? The plausibility of the ending as regards\the Church's wealth?
5. What was the picture of the international situation! Russia and its ambitions, relationship with China, fears of Chinese aggression, nuclear fears? How did the Russians see the Church as a mediator in this kind of world? The attitudes of both Russians and Chinese? Was this credible for the 'sixties? For later?

 

6. The strength of the film in the portrayal of Pope Kiril? The skill of Anthony Quinn in his performance? The importance of the opening and seeing him as a prisoner in Siberia, the background of his imprisonment, the previous career in the Church and as a leader? The impact of his release? His interview with Kamenev? The personal characteristics? His going to Rome and its impact on him? His encounter with various cardinals, with Father Telemond? With George Faber? His attitude towards the reigning Pope? His human ideals? His response to his election? His attitude towards protocol, his wanting to experience ordinary human contacts? His decisions as regards diplomacy? His final decision at his coronation? What insight into the role of the Pope did this portrayal give?
7. How did the Pope contrast with Kamenev? His character, as a
Russian ruler, as a gentleman, diplomat? His relationship with his advisers? With the Chinese? His expectations from the Pope?
8. The portrayal of the state of the Church in the film in the person of the elder Pope, his councilors, the cardinals, the transition from one-.Pope to the other?
9. The portrayal of the Vatican officials? The various cardinals and their attitudes, Cardinal Rinaldi and his forcefulness, Cardinal Leoni and his ruling of the Vatican and his expectations of being Pope? The clashes? The visiting cardinals and their response to the election? The Conclave and the Indian cardinal proclaiming Kiril as Pope, the applause?

10. The hopes of the Church in the new election?10. How credible was the China sub-plot and the presentation of the Chinese and their expectations?

 

11. What did the Faber sub-plot contribute to the film? The personality of Faber and his work as an interviewer, his relationship with his wife, mistress, the Vatican?

12. The importance of the Ruth Faber sub-plot? Her relationship with her husband, her antagonism towards him, her role as a doctor? The chance encounter with the Pope, the visit to the dying man,
the advice she received? Did this contribute to the impact of the whole film?13. The importance of the character of David Telemond? The parallel with Teilhard de Chardin? His philosophy, as a Jesuit, science? His illness? The importance of the Inquisition scenes and the personalities of his interrogators? His defence of himself and his insights? The Pope's friendship with him and reliance on him? The impact of his death in the Pope's arms and its influence on him?

 

14. How reverential towards religion was the film? The Catholic emphases, the Pope comforting a dying Jew, the ecumenical outlook and contact with the modern world? Was it really a religious film, or religious in the Hollywood style?

 

 

HOUSE OF MORTAL SIN

UK, 1975, 104 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Sharp, Susan Penhaligon, Stephanie Beacham.
Directed by Pete Walker.

English director Pete W alker has a penchant and a reputation for odd horror thrillers. Schizo and The House of Mortal Sin were written by British Film Institute critic David Mc Gillivray. The central characters are mad - audiences are fascinated by watching the madness act itself out in bizarre and gory killings. Father Meldrum of the 'House of Mortal Sin' provides a textbook of offences for moral theologians (and there are continuous references to updating and Vatican II). Schizo is a straightforward and, at times, as sensational as it sounds. Titles are plain and Walker is not prone to subtlety in theme or treatment. But who really expects subtlety anyway?

1. The title and its emphasis? The purpose of making this film in terms of entertainment, thriller, murder mystery, horror? How effectively did it blend these ingredients? Did it exploit them?

2. How interesting was the picture of the Catholic Church: the role and function of priests, the role of confession and the abuse of the power, the presentation of the other sacraments? Life in the presbytery, the style of priestly living of the conservative old priest and the modern young priest? The effect of the Vatican Council? The effect of this kind of cinematic presentation of priests as villains, and as disturbed in their vocation? A reflection of the 60s and the 70s?

3. How well did the film present and explore issues of murder and madness? Were the characters and events plausible? Psychologically, religiously?

4. The introduction and atmosphere of the opening death? Its violence, its history? The comparison of the ordinariness of Jenny and Vanessa? What kind of girl was each? Her work, shock, personalities, morals? The relationship of Jenny with her boyfriend? The encounter with Fr. Bernard? How credible a man and a priest was Bernard? The modern young priest, his willingness to help, his relationship with Fr. Meldrum, his living in a flat, his entanglement with Jenny, the overtones of sexuality? Was he effective as a priest? Dedicated?

7. Fr. Meldrum as the centre of the film? As an older priest, his way of life and style, personality? The revelation in the encounter with Jenny in the confession, his preoccupation with sexuality and sin, his eagerness to hear details, the surprise of his having tapes, his using them for blackmail? His demented wanting to help and convert? His operating with the logic of madness? How horrifying was this? The abuse of power and a self-appointed guardian of morals? How seemingly blasphemous were the killings? The use of the various sacred implements: the incense, the censor, the rosary, the poison in the Eucharist, the murdering of the two mothers by the communion? Audience response to this? Plausibility? The film's comment on sexuality and religion, moral stances, conscience, modern society and who makes the judgement about morals?

10. The skill of the screenplay in presenting Fr. Meldrum and his credibility? The fact that he always had answers to what had happened and protected himself?

11. The build-up to the various deaths: Jenny's boyfriend and his burial, Miss Brabazon, her role in the presbytery, her hold over Fr. Meldrum, her work with his mother, her being killed and being accused as the murderess? The murder and his mother, of Vanessa, the threat to Jenny?

12. The irony of the ending with Fr. Meldrum reassuring Bernard about the obstacles to his vocation being gone, of his remaining, the preservation of the status quo?

13. The menace of the ending as Fr. Meldrum went to murder Jenny? What did this leave the audience with?

14. Is the thriller and the horror film a good vehicle to explore issues like morals, sexuality and religion? Is there an implication at the end that the status quo looks all right but underneath religion there is all kind of abuse?

MY STEPMOTHER IS AN ALIEN

US, 1988, 105 minutes, Colour.
Dan Aykroyd, Kim Basinger, Jon Lovitz, Alyson Hannigan, Seth Green.
Directed by Richard Benjamin.

My Stepmother is an Alien is one of those old '50s science fiction titles - but is a variation on E.T. for the late '80s.

The film was directed by Richard Benjamin, has a fairly moderate performance by Dan Aykroyd and has Kim Basinger impersonating an alien trying to learn human ways. Jon Lovitz is fairly heavy-handed as Aykroyd's ogling brother.

The film is a variation on all the came-from-outer-space stories, especially E.T. Scientist Aykroyd is able to draw in from a far distant planet and galaxy. Basinger is the technologically advanced but humanly inept visitor. She learns human experience - most amusingly learning kissing from a whole series of vintage movies on television.

The film is a moderately amusing contribution W tie alien genre.

1. The popularity of outer space films? E.T. and the '30s? Variations on these?

2. The American settings: the technical background and laboratories, the special effects for galaxies and outer space, for bringing space ships into Earth for close encounters? The contrast with the ordinariness of the American home? The comic special effects for Celeste and her learning how to cope as a human being? The musical score?

3. The title and its focus, on extra-terrestrials, on the young girl and the marriage of Celeste to Steve?

4. The focus on Steve - widower, his daughter, his assistant and devotion, his worldly brother? The authorities and their concern about him? His using extra power, the plan to draw information from the galaxies? The storm and the sci-fi overtones? his success? Celeste and her materialising? His having to cope with her, his personal limitations and his being a dedicated scientist? The encounters with Celeste at the party, her behaviour, his infatuation, going home with her? At home, his daughter and her approval? The build-up to the marriage? Sex - and the comic tones? The build-up to her getting the information, her trying to infiltrate his response? The authorities? The storm, the information from the galaxy and his trying to reproduce the storm? Her staying? The happy ending?

5. Celeste and the introduction to her, as an alien, her assuming human form and clothes, her glamour? The odd creature in her handbag? Her learning processes? intelligence rather than emotions? Her arrival, the plan to get the formula, her behaviour at the party and the exaggerations, eating and drinking the wrong things, her dancing? Her taking things too literally? Trying to get Steve to give the formula? Going out with him, sexuality and her being ignorant? Trying to find out? The pornographic movie, the kisses from the gallery of famous films on television? her drinking the battery fluid? The daughter's suspicions? Preparing the enormous breakfast? The build-up to the crisis, in contact with her authorities and their visit? The creature in her purse and the betrayal, trying to trap her? The climax in the laboratory? Her decision to stay?

6. The creature in the bag, its appearance, slightly obscene? The obscene the transforrmations, supplying her with fashions and dresses? The wedding dress? The betrayal and imitating
voices on television?

7. Steven, attraction towards Celeste, puzzle about her behaviour, the battery fluid, her father not listening to her? The happy ending?

8. The ogling brother, his style, causing the success of the experiment with his going off into space with the creatures?

9. The space authorities serious, comic touches? The elders from the other planet?

10. A popular concoction of familiar themes of the '80s - with comic and satiric variations?

THE SHIRALEE

Australia/UK, 1957, 99 minutes, Black and white.
Peter Finch, Dana Wilson, Elizabeth Sellars, George Rose, Rosemary Harris, Russell Napier, Niall MacGinniss?, Tessie O’Shea?, Sid James, Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell, Reg Lye.
Directed by Leslie Norman.

The Shiralee is based on the popular novel by D'Arcy Niland. It tells the story of Jim Macauley who finds his wife with another man and decides to take his daughter with him on the road. The shiralee is a swag, also meaning a burden, and applies to the young daughter, attractively played by Dana Wilson.

The film is interesting in its portrait of a father and daughter, especially a carefree father who finds that his life on the road takes on greater responsibilities in looking after his little girl – and her ability to transform him.

There is a very strong British cast including Rosemary Harris who, for more than fifty years, was a prominent stage and screen star, best known in her later years for her role as Aunt May in the Spiderman films. The supporting cast is Australian including Bud Tingwell before he went to England to appear in films and television.

The film is directed by British Leslie Norman who made The Long, the Short and the Tall as well as the film version of The Summer of the Seventeenth Doll in these years of the late 1950s.

The film was remade by George Ogilvie in 1987 as a miniseries with Bryan Brown, Noni Hazlehurst and Rebecca Smart as the daughter.

1. How enjoyable an Australian film was this? Its most interesting features? Involvement and warm response?

2, The meaning of the title, the aboriginal word for 'burden"? The theme?

3. The impact of the locations and the black and white photography? The Australian atmosphere of the bush, the towns homesteads, Sydney? How particularly Australian was the film?

4, The presentation of Australia of the fifties, a different era from the present, the slow life of the towns, the shearing and the farm work, the nature of work and building etc? What did this add to the film's impact?

5. The importance of the introduction and a commentary on the wanderer's way of life? The significance of this in Australian culture?

6. The interest in McCauley? as a character, his style? His relationship with his wife, the discovery of her with Don, his anger and violence? The reason for his continual wandering, the reason for his marriage? His attachment to Buster, his right in taking her away from his wife?

7. The relationship growing between McCauley? and Buster: the scenes of their walking, the nature of the bond, the friction, Buster's complaints, McCauley's criticism? In what detail did the relationship build up? What was the effect on McCauley? having his daughter with him?

8. McCauley? and the details of his way of life? the lack of direction in the wandering, the Australian roads, life in the towns, the shops and the hotels, the finding of work, the nature of fights and their violence? Sickness overtaking Buster on the roads? How much sentiment in her acting? How much realism? The style of the child on the road? The kangaroo, her relationship with her father, her getting tired and sick?

10. The film's presentation of people in an optimistic way: the truck driver, the shop keeper giving the kangaroo? The violent people especially the tough men in the town?

11. The significance or the Parker homestead: Parker's hatred of McCauley? McCauley's lack of awareness about the child, his memories of Lily, his ability to leave her? His relationship with Beauty and Beauty's relationship to McCauley? His helping the little girl? Parker's and Lily's sympathy?

12. The love/hate relationship between Lily and McCauley? Lily as a contrast with McCauley's wife? Lily's resistance and later concern for Buster and McCauley?

13. How enjoyable were the sequences with Luke Beller? Their effect on Buster?

14. The importance of the court case: the harsh attitude of McCauley's wife's visit to the bashing of McCauley? by the thugs, the negations about the case?

15. The encounter with Desmond and his philosophy about life? The accident and Buster's illness?

16. How appropriate was the happy ending? The future for them all?

17. What values did the film stand for? How agreeably did it communicate these? With what feelings?

THE SOUND OF LOVE

Australia, 1978, 75 minutes, Colour.
John Jarratt, Celia de Burgh.
Directed by John Power.

The Sound Of Love is one of many films made by the South Australian Film Corporation in the late '70s. It is a pleasant love story with a difference. The hero is going deaf and, after an accident, goes completely deaf. He encounters a mute girl who is a hitch-hiking thief. It seems an unlikely love story but with the skill of the actors, it generally succeeds - especially for the home audience for whom it was designed. John Jarratt began a very successful career in films and television in the '70s. The direction of the film is by John Power (who adapted an original screenplay by Lew Hunter). Power directed The Picture Show Man (1977)

1. An enjoyable telemovie? Presentation of themes and characters for the home audience? Telemovie style for home audience attention?

2. The South Australian locations, colour photography? The authentic atmosphere of the city, the countryside, the institute for the deaf? The musical score and the theme song?

3. The importance of sound, music, sounds and their absence? The highlighting of the plight of the deaf with particular sounds and soundless sequences?

4. The tone of the title? A love story for the deaf? How strong? Sentiment? Treatment of love between the disabled for a telemovie audience - understanding, sympathy? The brevity of the telemovie for impact?

5. The introduction to Eileen - discovering that she was deaf and dumb, sympathy for the hitch-hiking girl, her flirting with the drivers, audience response to her stealing, her taking in the men drivers? Her being chased and caught? Her going to the home? How well did the film quickly establish her character?

6. The introduction to David - at work, the noise, his mechanical skills, car racing, his not hearing well, his deafness being the cause of the accident? His bitter reaction after the accident, especially to his friends? How well did the film quickly establish his character?

7. The portrayal of the institute for the deaf and the trainers? Skills, their consulting between themselves, being prepared to take risks? Sequences for learning sign language, for lip-reading? The party for the deaf girl with its sentiment and feeling? Disappointment in Eileen's staying away for the night? The trainer with his deaf parents and deaf daughter? A realistic presentation of those who train the deaf?

8. David and his learning sign language, the difficulties of lip-reading, watching television and feeling frustrated, not hearing the kettle boil, his relationship with his friend - and growing acceptance of his support and the return to work? The initial encounter with Eileen and his anger with her in the car? Their outings, communicating, attraction? The tender tone of the love sequences? The exhilaration of the fast ride? Sharing experiences, fixing up the flat? Eileen's reaction to David's friend and stealing his wallet? Their clash?

9. Eileen and her resistance to the people at the home, her concealing her knowledge, her playing the piano and dancing and reaction to the applause? The discovery of her name? Her proving that she was intelligent by putting the headlines in order? Her attraction to David, hiding in the car, going for a ride? The jealousy of the friend and stealing the wallet, her being hurt by the clash. her returning the wallet?

10. The bonds growing between the two? The outing in the countryside, the waterfall, watching the train? The possibility of a future together?

11. Eileen's being hurt with David's insistence about not being deaf? Her leaving? His chasing her in the car, following the two men who picked her up and tried to assault her?

12. David's defiance and insisting he wasn't deaf, his going through the tests and accepting his deafness?

13. The future for the two? Insight into the disabled - either congenitally or by accident? Personal fulfilment and needs, love?

DON'T LOOK BACK

US, 1995, 87 minutes, Colour.
Eric Stoltz, John Corbett, Josh Hamilton, Billy Bob Thornton, Annabeth Gish, Dwight Yoakam, Peter Fonda, Amanda Plummer, R.G. Armstrong.
Directed by Geoff Murphy.

Don't Look Back is a small-budget thriller but has quite an impact. It was written by the team of Billy Bob Thornton and Thomas Eperson (Slingblade, One False Move). Billy Bob Thornton also appears as a threatening drug lord. However, the film belongs to Eric Stoltz, the star of many such low-budget films and adept at playing washed-out drug addicts. John Corbett (My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Sex in the City) is one of his friends, Josh Hamilton the other boyhood friend. Annabeth Gish plays Hamilton's wife. There are cameo appearances from Peter Fonda and Amanda Plummer and a strong performance by R.G. Armstrong as Eric Stoltz's grandfather. Dwight Yoakam, the country and western singer, appears briefly as a drug dealer.

The film is familiar material, an addict finds a case full of money and absconds with it, going back to his boyhood town in Galveston, being pursued by the criminals, getting the support of his friends, a final shootout. However, with the performances, the tight writing and the direction of New Zealand's Geoff Murphy (The Quiet Earth, Young Guns 2), the film is far more effective than many such routine films.

1. Portrait of a drug addict and his possible redemption?

2. The Los Angeles drug area and bars, apartments? The contrast with Galveston, the coast, the town, ordinary families? Musical score?

3. The title, the pre-credits sequence with the three boys and their playing together on the island, their bonding? The irony of Jesse's separation for seven years? Looking back on his past as he went home to Galveston? The impact, confronting his difficulties?

4. The portrait of Jesse: unkempt, drugs, Los Angeles, seeing the shootout, taking the money and running, with Bridget, going to Galveston? Establishing contact with Morgan, the memories of the friendship, Steve and his attack, the reconciliation? Michelle and her suspicions? Going to see his grandfather, the story of his mother, the bonds with his grandfather? The money, gradually telling the secret? Marshall and co coming to town, the confrontation with his grandfather, his grandfather being shot, hospital? Marshall threatening him, taking him to the island, the money, digging it up, the attack by Morgan and Steve? The chase, the shootout, Morgan's death? Jesse and his change of heart, the bait shop with his grandfather, reconciliation with Steve? Putting the past behind him?

5. The contrast with Morgan and Steve? Morgan, the services, gung-ho in his attitude, welcoming Jesse back? Letting him stay with him, going out with him? Drinking, buddies? The contrast with Steve, his marriage, child? Going out, caution? Michelle's reaction, coming to tell Jesse to stop leading Steve astray? Morgan and telling the story of Steve's mother and Jesse's saving her? The bonds between the three, Jesse in trouble, the two sailing the boat, the shootout on the island? The death of Morgan? Steve and his future?

6. Skipper, the shootout in Los Angeles, losing the money, trying to track down Jesse? Seeing him at the crossing on the road? Marshall and his henchmen, their dominance? Pressure on Skipper? Going to see Bridget in the bar, torturing her, her being murdered? Going to see the room-mate, the pressure on him? Going to Galveston, the cover, the confrontation with the woman bringing the dinner for the grandfather - and her almost being murdered? Pretending to be music agents? The confrontation with Jesse, the island, the shootout? Their deaths?

7. The supporting characters and giving tone to the film: Bridget and her relationship with Jesse, the bar, her murder? Peter Fonda as the dealer who was roughed up? The fat room-mate and his drumming? The woman on the island? Michelle?

8. A "crime does not pay" story, the drug setting, middle America in Texas? A satisfying portrait of a young man in today's difficulties?

NOISES OFF

US, 1992, 101 minutes, Colour.
Carol Burnett, Michael Caine, Denholm Elliott, Julie Hagerty, Marilu Henner, Mark Linn- Baker, Christopher Reeve, John Ritter, Nicollette Sheridan, Zoe R. Cassavetes.
Directed by Peter Bogdanovich.

Noises Off is the film version of the celebrated farcical play by Michael Frayn. While Frayn had written a number of comedies (Remember Me for cinema), he is also very well known for such serious plays as Copenhagen (adapted for television) about quantum physics and nuclear reactors and developments in the 1940s.

Noises Off is the cue for noise to be heard from the wings of the theatre during a play. There are various noises in this farcical story.

The film is in three acts. Michael Caine, as director Lloyd Fellowes, is anxious at the Broadway opening and cannot watch the play, wanders the streets and remembers three performances which grew increasingly worse. The first act is the performance in Des Moines, the audience of the film seeing it as part of the audience of the play, only seeing what happens on stage. The second act is a performance in Florida where the director suddenly arrives unbeknown to the rest of the cast, finds various crises, and all the action is seen from backstage, the audience relying on their memories of what had happened in the first act. The final act of the film is a performance in Cleveland where everything goes wrong both on stage and behind stage, the personalities and clashes in full force.

The film has a very strong cast, American actors impersonating American actors impersonating English characters on stage, especially Carol Burnett and John Ritter. Carol Burnett is the housekeeper of an English house and audiences will enjoy her typical performance. Denholm Elliott is the ageing alcoholic actor who repeats everything that is said by the others, thinking that he had originated the ideas himself. Marilu Henner is the sympathetic member of the cast who tries to help everyone else. Christopher Reeve portrays the handsome but rather dim actor who needs explanations for motivation. John Ritter is having a liaison with Carol Burnett and becomes very jealous throughout the run of the play. In the meantime, the director, Michael Caine, is having an affair with the dumb blonde who portrays the dumb blonde in the film but is also having a liaison with Julie Hagerty as Poppy, the dogsbody behind the scenes. Mark Linn-Baker? is the stand-in for the male characters as well as the handyman backstage.

The cast is very good – many people find the film hilarious, getting the benefit of the extremes of farcical misidentifications, comings and goings and coincidences, centred on plates of sardines. However, what works very well in the theatre, with expert timing, is not as effective on screen as the camera moves from character to character. The timing here is excellent and audiences may enjoy the film – but it is very much a piece that would be more successful in the theatre.

1. The impact of farce, comedy, the staging of farce, the timing?

2. The title, theatre, the cue? And the acclaim?

3. The transition from theatre to screen, a stagey presentation, what happens on stage, behind the stage, in the audiences, at rehearsals, performances, mishaps?

4. The three acts of the play transferred to the screen? The linking material written for the screen for the director what had happened and his own feelings? The reliance on the performances, the differences in performance on stage and behind stage? And the audience knowing the development of the play so that they know what is going on?

5. Lloyd and his voice-over, on Broadway, his fears, memories, Des Moines, Florida, Cleveland? On stage, his handling of the rehearsals and his exasperation, the complications behind stage, the complete fiasco of the performance in Cleveland? The happy ending and the audience applauding the play? The curtain call?

6. The cast, Americans having to be British, the British performers, accents and farce?

7. The nature of farce, the stereotypical characters, stereotypical situations, coincidences, timing, corny jokes, the kind of laughter? The irony of Fred and his demanding motivational explanations from Lloyd for farcical characters?

8. The play itself, Nothing On? Corny, the housekeeper, the estate, the owners avoiding tax, the sheikh coming to buy the house? The burglar, his dithering, recognising his daughter? The play seen from the front, then from the back, then in a mess?

9. The initial rehearsals, the deadline for the play, people not knowing their lines, forgetting their cues, getting angry, wanting motivation, Selsdon and his drinking, the director and his relationship with Poppy, the demands on Tim?

10. Behind the scenes, the rooms and the dressing rooms, the jealousies, moods, Lloyd and the flowers for Brooke, Poppy finding them, the bottle of whisky, Selsdon and his finding it – and the clever passing of the bottle from one character to the other? People causing mischief? The elderly audience, Lloyd in the audience, the various times for people taking their seats, the need for improvising? The fiasco and the personal animosities, the accidents, the practical jokes, improvising, collapse?

11. Carol Burnett and her style, Dotty and Garry and their relationship, her accent, the motivations, her exasperations, her jealousy?

12. Garry, the relationship with Dotty, his being petty, jealous of Freddie, the performance, his meanness like stamping his feet?

13. Freddie, nice, but not too bright, asking for motivation, in awkward situations, especially with Dotty?

14. Brooke, the dumb blonde, her contact lenses and the searches for them, in her underwear, her not paying attention? Her relationship with Lloyd, the flowers, the cactus?

15. Belinda, her place in the play, pleasant, explaining things to people, helping Selsdon, doing good?

16. Selsdon, old, his opportunity, drinking?

17. Poppy, her frustrations, doing everything behind the scenes, with Lloyd, announcing her pregnancy?

18. Tim, the variety of jobs, the understudy, the fiasco of going on in Freddie’s place, as the sheikh and his wife? The flowers, the drink, the mess, the cactus and getting the points out of Lloyd’s trousers?

19. The range of audiences, their reactions?

20. The final curtain call – and a happy ending and success? Life in the theatre?

THREE COLOURS: WHITE

France/Poland, 1994, 91 minutes, Colour.
Zbigniew Zamachowski, Julie Delpy, Janusz Gajos, Jerzy Stuhr.
Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski.

Three Colours: White is the second in Kieslowski’s famous trilogy, Blue, White, Red, the colours of the French flag signifying liberty, equality and fraternity.

The first of the trilogy, Three Colours: Blue, made a very strong impact, winning many prizes, including the Golden Lion in Venice. Juliette Binoche made a singular impression.

Three Colours: White is very different. It is smaller, low-key, ironic – rather than high-minded as were the other two films. The film focuses on a Polish man called Karol Karol (people see echoes of Charlie Chaplin) who has married a Frenchwoman, Julie Delpy, and moves to Paris where he is unable to work, consummate the marriage, manage, even with the language. The film opens with their divorce proceedings. Dominique cuts off her husband and he is forced to go on the streets. However, he meets a Polish man who recognises the melody that Karol Karol is playing. The film becomes somewhat absurdist as the arrangement is made to transport Karol Karol back to Poland as air luggage. He is successful when he returns, however Dominique goes to Poland, is embroiled in a tangle with her husband, charged and is sent to prison. The irony is complete.

With the emphasis on white, Kieslowski makes sure there is something strikingly white in every sequence.

Many people feel that this is the least of the three – while others, relishing the irony rather than the nobility, are very strongly in favour of it.

1. Kieslowski and his trilogy, the French flag, the emphasis on liberty, equality and fraternity?

2. The title, the use of white throughout the film, the objects, the bridal dress, the doves, the decor?

3. The Paris settings, the courts, the Metro, the streets? The contrast with Poland, the shops, the streets? The musical score – and the song whereby Mikolaj recognises Karol Karol as Polish?

4. The sense of realism, the surrealism, farce and absurdity, serious issues?

5. The marriage, real, symbolic? The Polish background of the director? Politics? Society?

6. The court proceedings, Karol and Dominique, the testimonies, the judge and his attitudes, the divorce, Karol in need of a translator? The decision? Dominique and her haughtiness, cutting Karol off?

7. Karol’s testimony, the issue of impotence, not before the marriage, after the wedding? His decision to go to Paris, the difficulties of the language, his impotence, her coldness?

8. Karol destitute, the Metro, the streets, the music, the meeting with Mikolaj, talking, Mikolaj agreeing to help?

9. Mikolaj and his character, in France, the nature of his help, his own story, marriage?

10. The airport, the package, the smuggling, the package and its arrival, the comic touches?

11. Karol at home, at work, his resentment against Dominique, the plan, the bullets and the gun?

12. Dominique, in Poland, cold, marriage and the ring, the charges? The two at the end and their reversed roles?

13. The ironies of relationships, language, love, falling out of love, revenge?