THE PHENIX CITY STORY

US, 1955, 92 minutes, Black and white.
John Mc Intire, Richard Kiley, Kathryn Grant, Edward Andrews, Biff Mc Guire, James Edwards.
Directed by Phil Karlson.

The Phenix City Story begins with ten minutes of actual interviews of people from Phenix City, Alabama. It is done in newsreel fashion with the interviewer talking to the widow of the assassinated nominee for State's Attorney- General as well as people involved in trying to expose corruption in the city. There is an interview with a journalist who spent six months investigating the scene. The film then makes a transition to a hard-hitting black and white semi-documentary style thriller. The director is Phil Karlson, a director of many a brief and tough action feature. John Mc Intire portrays the nominee for attorney-general, Richard Kiley is his son. Edward Andrews is the Mr Big of Phenix City and Kathryn Grant a young woman who works in the casino and witnesses the assassination.

The film was relevant in the mid-50s. There had been a senate investigation, led by Senator Estes Kefauver into crime in American cities. This hard-hitting expose is in the wake of that investigation, showing the political machines and political corruption, even in a relatively small town in Alabama like Phenix City.

While the clubs and the events might seem small and tame in subsequent decades, it was this kind of corruption all over America, with the Mafia and other political and corruption machines dominating elections as well as the lives of citizens. The emergence of cities like Las Vegas came at this particular time. However, corruption is endemic to society and merely, as the decades go on, changed form.

1. The impact of the film in its day? The senate investigation into crime? This film as a back-up and publicising of the findings and alerting the public?

2. The opening ten minutes, the interviews, the journalist and his work, the widow of the nominee, the people involved in campaigns against crime, the janitor and the deputy sheriff and his lack of fear, the man whose house was bombed? The taking up of these elements in the subsequent drama? The initial impact for a feature film having this kind of opening?

3. The film itself and its small budget, black and white photography, the atmosphere of Phenix City, 14th Street and the clubs, the slums? The information given about Phenix City, across the river from Fort Benning, Georgia, the military personnel coming for the gambling and prostitution? The drug-dealing? A picture of the 40s and 50s - in the light of subsequent information and the rest of the 20th century?

4. The picture of 14th Street, The Poppy Club? Rhett Tanner and his domination, his seemingly genial manner, with his employees, with Cassie, wanting the club to run smoothly? In the street, friendly? His visit to Albert Patterson and wanting him on-side? Reports of the anti groups? Their vigilante attitudes? His own syndicate, meeting them in the sauna? Having things under control?

5. The Poppy Club, the slot machines, the gambling, the prostitution? Fred Gage and his being there with Ellie, trying to persuade her to leave? Her security at the club? Cassie and her jealousy? Tanner and his support? His henchmen? The importance of the factories, the making of the machines? The marking of the cards, the loading of the dice? The elections and the police turning a blind eye?

6. The people campaigning against vice, their meetings, their vigilante attitudes, their getting nowhere? Their being victimised? Zeke and his work, his child being taken and being thrown dead on the front lawn as a warning against campaigners? The final attack, Ellie and her hiding, Zeke and the bashing, his wife? Ultimately being vindicated?

7. Albert Patterson, age, work as a lawyer, not committing himself, feeling weary? His disapproval of the vice? John and his wife and children returning, meeting them, driving past The Poppy Club, the immediate involvement, the bashings, John and his fight? His wife wanting to leave especially after the dead child on the lawn?

8. John and his campaign, confronting people in the club, fighting Wilson? His being targeted? Tanner and his hostility? Ellie and her acting as an informant? John and his being bashed, Fred Gage's death? His appeal against vigilantism? His talking about his father and the nomination for State's Attorney-General? The picturing of the campaign, the syndicate and the threats to people? The election, the brutality? The irony of Albert Patterson being nominated by votes from the rest of the state?

9. Tanner, his having to make decisions, his henchmen? The court case about Fred Gage and its being considered an accident even though the evidence was there? Albert Patterson leading the prosecution? His being elected, his being assassinated? John and his anger, confronting Wilson in Zeke's house, the fight, almost drowning him in the river, Zeke's appeal to him not to kill?

10. The final speech by John, his being elected attorney-general in his father's stead, his throwing down the gauntlet in the campaign against vice? The changes in Alabama?

11. The moral message of this kind of film, images of corruption, the importance of good people not doing nothing and letting corruption spread?

PITCH BLACK

US/Australia, 2000, 110 minutes, Colour.
Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell, Cole Hauser, Keith David, Lewis Fitzgerald, Claudia Black, John Moore.
Directed by David N. Twohy.

A mission to an outer planet goes wrong. Many of the crew are killed and when the remainder try to cross the surface to retrieve equipment to save the expedition, alien monsters rise out of the ground and begin to pick them off. It is left to the sturdy commander (Rhada Mitchell) and a convict with brute strength and eyes that see in the dark (Vin Diesel) to get them through. On paper, it sounds like a hundred and one Alien rip-offs. On the screen, it is quite eerie and works as a horror, space-thriller. Filmed in Australia.

There was a sequel five years later, Riddick's Chronicles, with Vin Diesel reprising his role and co-starring with Judi Dench.

1. The cult status of this science fiction film? Popularity? The contribution of Vin Diesel and his subsequent career?

2. The location photography, outback Queensland as the setting for the alien planet? The desert landscapes, the buildings, the ruins? The building of bones? The light and darkness? The filtered use of colour? The eclipse and the darkness?

3. The special effects, flight in space, the landing? The planet itself, the chase? The incidents, Fry and her falling down the well and being rescued? The monsters, their appearance, the mixture of bird, bat and dragon? The pursuit of the crew, the deaths? The atmospheric musical score?

4. The title, its reference to the eclipse, its reference to Riddick's eyes and seeing in the dark? Its reference to the monsters and their only being able to attack in the dark - and be repelled by the light?

5. The conventional background of the film, the spaceship, the travellers, the commercial flights in space in the future? The passengers and the crew asleep, their being awakened, the death of the captain? Fry and her taking command, her wanting to destroy the passenger cabin? Her not doing it? The crash-landing? The crew, the convicted prisoner, the passengers and their safety?

6. The exploration of the planet, the mysteries, the appearance, the arches of bones, the ruins, the survivor and his being shot? The puzzle about people disappearing? The mystery of the planet, the monsters, their devouring humans, the pursuit and destruction, appearing in the night, the eclipse and lack of safety, the journey and their pursuit, the light and their being destroyed? The finale with the spaceship taking off and destroying them in the engine and with the light?

7. Fry as commander, the woman in charge, Johns and his criticisms of her, collaboration, his drug-taking, his attitude towards Riddick? Helping with the group, impeding it? The fights with Riddick? His criticisms? His death? Fry and her being able to lead, her bewilderment, the disappearance of the first victim beneath the earth, her going down the well, her being entangled, calling out, her being saved? Her continued leadership, decisions? Getting the group to the spaceship, relying on Riddick? Her ultimately being taken by the monsters?

8. The range of characters: the Imam, his discussions about God and prayer, his support of the group? The discussions with Riddick about God, Riddick believing but cursing God? The other members of the Imam's group, their deaths?

9. Paris, his background in archaeology, pedantic, the wine, his survival longer than the others?

10. The young woman, her disguising herself as a boy, her being discovered, her wound, the pursuit? Her ultimately being saved?

11. The other members, the Aboriginal man and his death, his shooting the survivor? The woman, her strength, the attack in the open and her death?

12. Riddick, Vin Diesel's screen presence, his background as a criminal, being able to see in the dark? His being imprisoned in the spaceship, the decision to let him loose, Fry and her greater reliance on him and pointing out that he had not been destructive? Johns and his sense of duty, wanting to put Riddick down? Riddick and his sense of danger, his intuitions, his eyes?

13. The group and their attempt at survival, especially when the eclipse came? The rope, the lights, the pursuit, the dangers? Wanting to give up? The small group arriving at the spaceship?

14. The irony that the survivors would be Riddick, the Imam and the young girl? Riddick's final pause, turning off the engines, getting the monsters to crowd around the spaceship, suddenly turning on the engine and the light, destroying them and flying away to safety?

POSSESSION

US, 2002, 102 minutes, Colour.
Gwyneth Paltrow, Erin Eckhart, Jeremy Northam, Jennifer Ehle, Lena Heady, Toby Stevens, Graham Crowden, Anna Massey, Tom Hollander, Trevor Eve.
Directed by Neil la Bute.

Possession is based on the novel by A.S. Byatt. It was initially adapted for the screen by prolific screenwriter Laura Jones (The Well, Oscar and Lucinda, Portrait of a Lady, Angela's Ashes). It was then adapted by playwright David Hwang and the director of the film, playwright Neil La Bute.

In the mid 90s, Neil La Bute directed a film which seemed to its audiences extraordinarily misogynistic, In the Company of Men. He then went on to explore relations between men and women in Your Friends and Neighbours. He changed pace with the amusing satire on modern television consciousness in Nurse Betty, with Renee Zellwegger, Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock. His move into writing and directing Possession seems quite a large step away from his more contemporary concerns.

Watching Possession, audiences might think of the two parallel worlds in The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles, a picture of a 19th century novel and the contemporary actors who were performing in the film of the novel. Here, the focus is more literary. The contemporary characters are investigating the writings of a 19th century poet and rediscovering the secrets of his life and relationships as these are dramatised on screen.

In the Company of Men brought Aaron Eckhart to audience attention. He has also appeared in all of La Bute's film as well as being Erin Brockovich's boyfriend and the sheriff in The Pledge. Here he is joined by Gwyneth Paltrow, once again playing British so effectively as she did in Emma, Sliding Doors and Shakespeare in Love. The other central character in the contemporary story is a deceitful academic played by Toby Stevens. In the 19th century world of poetry, Jeremy Northam (familiar to this kind of role with An Ideal Husband and The Winslow Boy) and Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth in the television version of Pride and Prejudice). Lena Headey portrays the artistic companion of Jennifer Ehle.

The film parallels the two stories in terms of relationships and discoveries. It shows the genteel world of 1859 and the secrecy of the Victorians, especially in their relationships, but revealed in the elegant poetry and letters that they wrote. The 21st century is much more go-getting and much more openly blatant in its relationships and ambitions.

Some readers who value A.S. Byatt's novel were disappointed in this film version, stating that it simplified the characters and the issues, making the parallels too obvious. For those who have not read the novel, it is a very entertaining study of human nature as well as an absorbing look at two different British worlds.

1. The adaptation of A.S. Byatt's novel? The visual and verbal interpretation of the novel? The use of poetry, letters, the voices blending from the 19th century into the 21st?

2. The 19th century, the Victorian era, costumes, décor, music, manners? Blending into the 21st century, the university atmosphere, the apartments, transport? The settings in London, in Lincolnshire, in Yorkshire? The musical score?

3. The title, the reference to the manuscripts and who owned them, possession of each other by the different characters? The two stories of possession, the establishing of the parallels, the editing of one story into the other?

4. The focus on Randolph Ash, 1859, his reputation as a poet (the 21st century exhibition)? Ash and his relationship with his wife, no children? The dinner and meeting Christobel, chatting with her about reputation, the beginning of the correspondence, Blanche and her disapproval, their sharing their analyses of poems, the self-revelation? At home with his wife, playing chess, gentle with her? Explaining to her different kinds of love? Yet, Christobel as his muse? Christobel referring, in her letter to his wife, as his being the unwitting cause of all this? Grief? The visit to Yorkshire, the train, the hotel, the talk in the bedroom? His visiting France, Christobel keeping him out, the séance and her referring to his making her a murderess, his reaction? His dying? The finale and the audience knowing that he had seen and recognised his child?

5. Christobel and her reputation as a poet, at the dinner, talking with Ash? Her pre-Raphaelite look, cherishing his letters, Blanche and her jealousy, sharing her poems? At home with Blanche, their special relationship, playing the piano with her? Asking Ash for his letters back so that the letters could be together? Blanche and her saying she burnt the letters? Her going to Yorkshire, no regrets, in the town, the waterfall, her poem about the waterfall? The bedroom talk, their relationship, tearing up the poem and scattering it from the train? Going to France, her harshness towards her cousin, the birth of the child? The séance, saying she was a murderess - and saying later that it referred to Blanche killing herself? Her letter to Ellen, the confrontation? Christobel and the quality of her love with Ash, the effect of her pregnancy, the child, keeping it a secret, its being adopted, her being the aunt and not loved? Burying her letters under the dolls, the souvenirs in her grave? Her never receiving Ash's letter?

6. The world of the university, Professors Cropper and Blackadder, their lectures, research, their assistants, work in the libraries, auctions? Fergus and his career, using Maud, spying on Blackadder and Roland, the deals with Cropper? Professors and their rivalries, styles? The discovery of the documents, taking them from libraries? Secrecy? Cropper and the information from Fergus, going to Sir George, offering him money, digging up the grave?

7. Roland, his being assistant to Blackadder, the questions that he had to research about Mrs Ash's cooking, his interest in Ash? His clashes with Fergus, the discovery of the letter in the British library, taking it? Discussing the repercussions with his lawyer friend? Finding the dinner letter, the contact with Maud, her rebuking him, his rough, flush and brash style? Yet his writing poetry, his wariness about relationships? The encounter with Maud, visiting the Bailey house, the discussions with the Baileys, seeing the rooms where Christobel lived, the finding of the letters and reading them, Sir George's reaction? The decision to go to Yorkshire, the hotel, going to the shop and discovering the truth about the rings, the bedroom talk with Maud, the failure of the relationship, walking along the coast? His diving into the pool and finding the cave behind the waterfall? Taking the faxes that Fergus had sent? Maud and Roland going to France, the secretary, taking the documents? Reading them, finding out the truth about Christobel, the baby? The stealing at the grave, their routing Fergus and Blackadder? The relationship between Maud and Roland, their limitations, reserves, reluctance, willing to take risks? A future?

8. Maud, her relationship with Fergus, her academic background, prim and proper English? Meeting with Roland, sceptical, anti-Americans? Going to the Baileys, the dolls, working out the meaning of sympathy, finding the letters and reading them? The abrupt ending? Her own reserve, difficulty with compliments? Saying she was empirical? The possible relationship with Roland, especially in Yorkshire and their going to the waterfall, the shops? The reserve, her reluctance with him? His later return, her being glad he was back, their going to France, taking the manuscript, discovering the truth? The final self-assessment, the farewell to Fergus, commitment to Roland?

9. The Baileys, their welcome, Sir George's reaction about the letters, his irritation with Fergus on the phone, Cropper offering him money?

10. Blanche, her relationship with Christobel, love, jealousy? Her paintings and their all destroyed? Saying she burnt the letters? Her sending the letters to Ellen? Keeping them, her reaction to Cristobel’s pregnancy, drowning herself?

11. Ellen, the Victorian wife, devotion to her husband, childless, his reassurance? Her being hurt by Blanche and the letters, Cristobel’s letter?

12. Fergus, ambitious, unscrupulous, using people? The relationship with Cropper, the grave, running away?

13. The final image of the little girl, the encounter with Ash, the daisy chain, his recognising her, giving her the letter, her dropping it as she went to play? The poignancy of the closeness and yet the separation of Ash and Christobel?

14. Themes of poetry, imagination, creativity, inspiration and love?

PORNOGRAFIA

Poland, 2003, 115 minutes, Colour.
Krzysztof Majchrzak, Adam Ferency, Sandra Samos.
Directed by Jan Jakub Kolski.

Pornografia is based on a famous novel written by Witold Gombrowicz. The title is misleading when people expect a film called Pornography to be about sexual behaviour. Instead, this is a very meditative film, using the styles of eastern European directors, especially Tarkovski and Kieslowski. The film is very stylish in its photography, editing and pace?

The film focuses on Poland in 1943, the same time as Roman Polanski's The Pianist. However, this film is a world away from the Warsaw ghetto. Two middle-aged intellectuals go to the countryside and stay during 1943 on a country estate. The family on the estate is wealthy, have servants, plenty of food. The war seems a long way away. However, there is a local partisan chief to protect the people.

The pornography consists in the two men forming a plan to bring two young people together, even though that is not the intention of the young people. The lad works as a servant. The girl is the daughter of the house and engaged to a lawyer. The two men are quite sinister, especially Fryderyk who is mysterious, enigmatic, prone to abstraction. However, he emerges as particularly cruel as the events go by. The violence of the war seems at a distance but orders come from Warsaw to kill the head of the partisans who is now overcome by fear. There is a bloodstained ending which is not expected.

The film gives an explanation of the mentality of Fryderyk, his having been married to a Jewish woman, abandoned her, and lost his daughter. He himself had letters from a concentration camp but at one stage uses a machine to get rid of them. While this is the explanation on paper, the actor portraying him is so sinister that it is hard to understand what is actually going on.

The film would have great impact in eastern Europe, with people familiar with the events and with the styles of film-making.

1. The title? Its reference to the behaviour of Fryderyk and Witold? Their manipulating people? Their deceiving people? Cruel games?

2. Poland 1943, Warsaw, the country estate? A place of serenity from the war? The interiors, the dining room, the lofts? The exteriors with the open fields? The musical score? The quality of the photography? The changes of pace, moving to a more slow and contemplative style?

3. The credits, the child dancing on the feet of her father? The end and the explanation that this is Fryderyk, that he had abandoned his Jewish wife, lost his daughter, gone to a concentration camp but been able to get away? Sufficient motivation for his behaviour?

4. The character of Fryderyk, his sudden appearance, his comments about himself and his looks, looking in the mirror? Friendship with Witold? His plans, going away to the country estate, his relationship with the owner, the family? At meals, his manipulating conversation? His decision to manipulate Henia and Karol? The encounters with the head of the partisans? His continually having Witold in his confidence, getting Witold to do things? At church, his trance? In the fields? In the house? His sinister look? The discussions with Witold about the meaning of life? His atheism? Witold as a strong character himself, over-influenced by Fryderyk, participating in his manipulation? The setting up of the rehearsal for the theatre piece and getting the fiancee to see it and interpret it in a different manner? The deadly results of this manipulation?

5. Hipolit, master of the estate, his relationship with his family? With the partisans? Getting orders, the discussion about who should kill the officer? The execution? His wife, nice, at the table, managing the house, her secret drinking, her odd behaviour when drunk, the clash with her husband?

6. Waclow as a lawyer, engaged to Henia, his good manners, his presence in the house? His mother's arrival? The preparation for the marriage? The mother's sudden death, the young man who killed her with the knife in the kitchen in getting the cake? Her death? Waclow and his inability to cope with his mother's death, asking advice, Fryderyk and his brutal advice about survival? Their taking Waclow to see the play rehearsal, his misinterpreting it? His getting worse in health, psychologically? Volunteering to do the execution? The irony of his doing it and his being killed by mistake?

7. Henia and Karol, friends from schooldays as they were with Waclow? Henia as a flirt, the soldier? Relationship with Karol? Telling everything to Witold? Her skittish behaviour, the rehearsals with Karol? The decision about the murder, her volunteering, knocking on the door? Karol, his working, a good young man, his volunteering to do the killing, his killing Waclow?

8. The servants, relationships, the young man imprisoned after the killing of Waclow's mother? Weronika and her relationship with him?

9. The partisan chief, his role in the war, his place in the household, people disliking him, the orders coming for his death? His discussion about his fear? His being murdered?

10. A particular Polish perception of the war, the focus on Catholics and their life in the village? The atheists? A picture of a Poland abstracted from the problems of the war and of the Jewish question?

PASSED AWAY

US, 1992, 92 minutes, Colour.
Bob Hoskins, Blair Brown, Tim Currie, Frances Mc Dormand, William Petersen, Pamela Reed, Peter Reigert, Maureen Stapleton, Nancy Travis, Jack Warden, Teri Polo, Deborah Rush, Dan Futterman.
Directed by Charlie Peters.

Passed Away is an entertaining, if broad, comedy about death. Bob Hoskins plays the older son of Jack Warden who, smoking heavily after a heart operation, collapses at the beginning of a surprise party put on by his rather dim second son William Peterson. The film portrays the family gathering, the wake, the interrelationships within the family, the Catholic tradition of Chicago, the mix-ups and the funeral. Bob Hoskins is good as the bewildered older son, becoming even more bewildered when he suspects that the young woman, Nancy Travis, who comes to the wake, is his father's mistress. It emerges that she is not, but not until after he has made something of a fool of himself. Blair Brown is his patient and easygoing, understanding wife. William Peterson is good as the dim brother. Pamela Reed is enjoyably strident as the daughter who has not been able to reveal her divorce from Tim Currie for four years to the family, even though her mother, Maureen Stapleton, knows. Frances Mc Dormand plays a nun who has spent three years in El Salvador, has smuggled in an illegal and is being investigated by the police - much to the delight of Pamela Reed who has always found that she was too much of a goody-goody.

There are a lot of expected situations, but the strength of the cast and their performances move the film along, giving an enjoyable insight into this extended family with its skeletons in the closet, its hopes and ambitions, its capacity for love - and the leadership of Bob Hoskins as he takes his father's place and accepts his role within the family.

1. Enjoyable comedy, family and death American style?

2. The realism of the city, the offices, homes, the beauty salons, funeral parlours, cemeteries?

3. The title, comedy of death, the reality of death and its impact? Wake and celebration? The patriarch, his past, women, love, the unions? Cassie, the good that he did for her and her family? The discussions with Johnnie at the opening, planning to tell him about how he relaxed? Entering into the office, the surprise party, Frank speaking, his dropping dead?

4. Johnnie, his age, the long marriage, his pleasant wife, pregnant daughter, the son with the earring, the details of family life, the discussions in the kitchen? His work felling the trees? Talking to his father, his wanting a change of life, organising Frank, telling his mother, going to the parlour and the discussions about the coffin, digging the grave, falling into it? The body in state, Norah and her wanting to substitute the illegal migrant, working with Peter and Frank? Cassie? The aunts? His pregnant niece, Teri and her divorce? His infatuation with Cassie, following her, going to visit the beauty parlour, the discussions, her pulling him out of the grave, her being insulted? His arrangement for the motel and the older woman turning up? Norah and the illegal, the body? The funeral, his speech in the church? The changes of everybody in the cars on the way to the cemetery? The niece giving birth, his finding his place within the family, speaking strongly to the aunts, organising?

5. His wife, pleasant, knowing what was happening in him, her direct way of speaking, the sense of realism? The kids?

6. Frank, everybody thinking him thick, a good sportsman? At the office, the party, his father's dying? His father's tradition with the unions, Frank and his work, ineffective, the union leader and the confrontation, the threats, his being a figurehead? The coffin and his wanting a better one? His daughter's pregnancy and his worry about appearances? His wife, predatory, having had to marry him, putting stickers on the possessions in the house? His reputation? The funeral, the reality of the birth, his apology to his daughter? His daughter, her pregnancy, her grandmother knowing? The father of the baby, the clash, his coming to the funeral, the reconciliation, his presence at the birth?

7. Teri and her dancing, her past, her ex-husband, offering him the use of the space so that he would come and pose as her husband? His style, manner? Their fights, concealing the truth? Her mother knowing? With Peter, memories of the past, Peter and his love for her, making the waitress jealous - and Teri conniving with her while she danced with Peter? The sexual encounter in the room, her reaction to Norah, always thinking her perfect, finding her against the law and her satisfaction, unable to betray her? The moving of the body? Her future with Peter?

8. Norah, the new kind of nun, her listening to the Sermon on the Mount, going to work in El Salvador, justice, with the illegal, concealing him, her father's body?

9. Cassie, her presence, people's assumptions about her, talking to Johnnie, the truth, helping him out of the grave? Her not going to the funeral, having thanked the father for all that he had done for her?

10. Peter, his chequered history, drugs and prison, in love with Teri? Trying to make the waitress jealous? The sexual encounter, helping to conceal the body and the illegal? His future with Teri?

11. The Irish Catholicism, the priest and his friendliness, the bishop at the funeral, the young priest, the wake, his drinking, his exuberant singing, his collapse?

12. The cumulative effect of the portrait of a family, functional and dysfunctional, the bonds, the mistakes, the spirit, the Catholicism?

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

US, 2004, 118 minutes, Colour.
Jim Caviezal, Monica Bellucci.
Directed by Mel Gibson.

For over a year before the release of The Passion, there was worldwide discussion and quite some controversy about the film. This was based on apprehensions about how the film would be made as well as on sensitivities about Jewish- Christian history, anti-Semitism and current dialogue between Judaism and the Churches, especially in the United States. Some of the discussion, held on a high level, especially among theologians, biblical scholars and religious leaders was based on reports of initial drafts of the film.

The Passion of Christ has been a long-cherished project of actor-director, Mel Gibson. Gibson's Catholic affiliation and his support of traditional Catholicism was another controversial factor in the discussions.

Early screenings of The Passion as a work in process offered opportunities for Church leaders and Christians involved in media to see the actual film, offer their opinions and dialogue with Mel Gibson. There seemed to be a general consensus that the film was not anti-Semitic. Some Jewish leaders and reviewers like Michael Medved spoke positively about the film. Several heads of Vatican offices saw a show-reel of the film and spoke in favour of the film, including Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and Cardinal Dario Castrillon of the Congregation for the Clergy who issued a statement urging all priests to see the film. Cardinal Walter Kasper received comments from Jewish leaders and issued a statement that the Vatican at large was not recommending the film and that any recommendation would depend on people seeing the completed film. This was the stance of many religious leaders in the United States including the American Bishops Catholic Conference.

As regards the Jewish-Christian? issues and the explicit language about the Jews in the Gospels, especially that of St John, it is important to realise that the more formal, 'official' antagonism between Christians and Jews emerged in the early decades of the second century. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John emerged from Jewish communities. Luke's Gospel draws strongly on the Jewish scriptures interweaving biblical references and motifs throughout the text. The clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time was a clash within Judaism, a religious controversy about the Messiah (of which there were a number in this period) and Jesus' claims. Disciples who became Christians accepted his claims. Many religious leaders amongst the priests and the Pharisees did not. There were other converts like Paul, who was proud of his Jewish heritage and who took a strong stance about disciples of Jesus not being bound by details of Jewish law. It has been difficult, given the centuries of antagonism and the experience of repression and persecution of Jews by Christian, and Catholic, communities to enter into the context of Jesus' time and the mentality of the period.

The long traditions of Christians accusing Jews of being 'Christ-killers' also played their part in the debate. While the Catholic Church apologised for the long persecutions and the frequent anti-Semitism of the past in a Second Vatican Council document (1965) and Pope John Paul II visited the wailing wall in 2000 and inserted his own prayer in a crevice, questions about Jesus' death as being part of God's plan and how the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, fitted into this plan, continue to be raised.

BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

The Passion draws its narrative from each of the four Gospels, for instance, the quake and the rending of the temple from Matthew, the fleeing young man from Mark, the women of Jerusalem (here, Veronica and her daughter) from Luke, the Pilate sequences on truth from John. This linking of incidents in one narrative is the way in which the Gospel stories were remembered and written down. There is some material drawn from the later legendary stories and apocryphal gospels (Veronica and her veil, Desmes the 'bad' thief).

One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians who are not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be critiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels. They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned. This is a danger for The Passion. It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a 'version' of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.

This use of the four Gospels means that there are different perspectives on the Jews of the time in each Gospel. Matthew's Gospel presupposes detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and sees Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy. Hence the more 'apocalyptic' scenes at his death. Mark and Luke look on from the outside, Luke writing for readers familiar with Greek and Roman ways of storytelling. John's Gospel from the end of the first century echoes the roots of Christianity in Judaism but acknowledges the growing rift.

The screenplay is able to combine Gospel incidents into a coherent narrative of the passion with selected flashbacks to Jesus' infancy and life at Nazareth (his fall as a child, his making a table in the carpenter's shop, his relationship with his mother and his playful sprinkling her with water as he washes his hands) which are inventions in the spirit of the Gospels, to Mary Magdalene's past where she is combined with the woman taken in adultery of John 8, to Peter and his protests of loyalty, to the Last Supper. There is a flashback to the palm welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem during the heckling of the crowd on the way to Calvary. There is dramatic development of characters like Pilate and his wife, Simon of Cyrene, the centurion, the good thief and the thief who reviles Jesus (with retribution seen in the form of a vicious crow attacking him). Of interest is the portrait of the Satan, the Tempter, who appears early as an androgynous character, visual suggestions of female but male voice, growing more obviously feminine as the film progresses and finally appearing at the crucifixion (with a visual technique reminiscent of William Wallace seeing his loved one at his execution) carrying a child. Once again, this is imaginative license in interpreting Jesus' being tempted and tested.

As with most Jesus' films, much attention is given to Judas. His motivations are not made explicit in the film. It relies on audience knowledge of Judas. The film portrays his action in Gethsemane and subsequent dismay and return of his thirty pieces of silver. It introduces a theme of children meeting Judas and taunting him as he goes to his death.

THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The principal theological issues that concern viewers of Jesus-films are:
1. The humanity and divinity of Jesus,
2. The resurrection of Jesus

The humanity and divinity of Jesus.

The Passion of Christ generally follows the approach to the person of Jesus used by the Synoptic Gospels, a 'low' Christology, a focus first on the humanity of Jesus and moving towards an awareness of his divinity. When the film uses John as a source, it reflects that Gospel's 'high' Christology, the presupposition in the narrative that Jesus is divine and expresses this divinity in word and action. The Synoptic approach is seen in the flashbacks of incidents before the Passion as well as in the main events of the Passion, the Agony in Gethsemane, the treatment of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and Herod, the scourging and crowning with thorns, the way of the Cross and the Crucifixion itself. The Joannine approach is found in Jesus' declaration of his being the Son of Man at his trial (which is also in the Synoptics) and the discussions with Pilate about truth and about his kingdom.

This means that, theologically, the film presents the perennial teaching that Jesus, in his person, was both human and divine in nature.

The humanity of Jesus is often presented in a striking manner: Jesus working in Nazareth, the experience of deep human pain in his agony, scourging, falling on the way to Calvary, the nailing and his experience on the cross. It is there in his dignity at his trial, his composure with Pilate and Herod. The film also highlights Jesus' human anguish of soul and sense of abandonment in his agony and on the cross, along with his profound surrender to the Father.

While the Jesus of cinema is usually slight and slender in build, Jim Caviezel is a big and strong man, with some girth, a credible carpenter and a solid man. This makes the film's Jesus more real than usual.

The Resurrection

Some commentators criticise a film which focuses on the Passion for its meagre treatment of Jesus' resurrection. (This was a criticism in the 1960s and 1970s of Jesus Christ Superstar.) Theologically, the Passion makes sense only in the light of the resurrection.

While Mel Gibson's film wants to immerse its audience in the experience of the Passion, the final sequence has the stone rolled over the tomb. The stone is rolled away, the cloths wound around Jesus' body are seen collapsing and the camera tracks to Jesus in profile, sitting in the tomb as a prelude to his risen life. These are the images with which the audience leaves the theatre. The resurrection, presented briefly, is still the climax of the Passion.

The Eucharist

There are flashbacks to the Last Supper during the Passion, especially to Peter protesting that he would not deny Jesus and to Jesus washing the disciples' feet.

One of the major theological strengths of the film is the insertion of the Eucharistic scenes of the Last Supper during the nailing and the lifting up of Jesus on the cross. As Jesus offers the bread as his body, we see the body which is painfully broken and given for us. As he offers the wine as his blood, we are only too conscious of the bloodletting, blood poured out for us. Jesus tells his disciples that there is no greater love than laying down one's life for friends - and we see it in its fulness. He tells them to celebrate the Eucharist so that his passion and death will be present to them.

In this way, the screenplay highlights both aspects of the Eucharist, the celebration of the meal, the communion and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Mary

Mary has a strong presence in The Passion. She appears as a woman in her 40s, striking rather than beautiful. She appears in two flashbacks. Her demeanour is serious. She says very little. With Mary Magdalene and John, she follows the passion and the way of the Cross without any of the histrionics that characterise a number of portraits of Mary, especially Pasolini's mother in The Gospel According to Matthew. At one stage, she wipes the blood of Jesus on the praetorium floor after his scourging. She kisses his bloody nailed feet. The bond between mother and son is suggested several times by significant eye contact rather than words. The request for John to take care of Mary is included. After Jesus is taken down from the cross, she holds him in a Pieta tableau.

Most audiences should be satisfied with the portrayal of Mary. Those who find some of the cinema representations of the past too much like holy cards or plaster statues will appreciate a more biblically-grounded Mary.

Cinema background

The Passion of Christ comes after more than a century's old tradition of Jesus' films. The silent era produced short instructional films as well as features like From the Manger to the Cross, the Italian Christus and the Gospel section of D.W.Griffith's Intolerance. The major films of the 20s were Ben Hur and The King of Kings, Cecil B. de Mille's epic.

For thirtyfive years, 1927-1961, Jesus was not seen face-on as a character in American studio Gospel films. He was seen in a number of features made by American Protestant companies. He was glimpsed in part (a hand, an arm, his legs on the cross or was seen from a distance) in films as The Robe and Ben Hur in the 1950s.

After the gap, Jeffrey Hunter appeared as the King of Kings, Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told. When Jeffrey Hunter spoke in King of Kings, it was the first time audiences had heard an actor speak the words of Jesus. Pasolini made a powerful black and white version in the 1960s, The Gospel According to Matthew, and Rosselini made The Messiah in the early 1970s. Brian Deacon appeared as Jesus, a more evangelical approach in the film, Jesus (which was distributed in an edited version to pilgrims visiting Rome for the millennial Jubilee). This trend reached its peak with Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth in the late 1970s.

Popular musical movements of the late 60s produced Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell which were both filmed in 1973.

Most of the films aimed at presenting a 'realistic' Jesus but many of them (including Pasolini) used the straight Gospel texts (which were intended to be read) as a substantial part of their screenplays, an over-literal use of the Gospels. Zeffirelli, on the other hand, employed the same method as was used in the forming of the Gospels, taking incidents in Jesus' life and combining them dramatically to make an impact on the audience. Nevertheless, with the use of western actors, European or American locations, these films were not as realistic as intended.

The musicals highlighted how screen Gospel storytelling is more 'stylised' than 'realistic'.

Since 1988, there have been a number of screen portrayals of Jesus: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), which was a 'novelised' version of the Gospels, Jesus of Montreal (1988) and Man Dancin' (2003) which were stories of putting on a passion play in a modern city, the animated Jesus in The Miracle Maker (2000) and Jeremy Sisto's engaging blend of the human and divine in the American telemovie, Jesus (1999). More recently, there has been the rather American picture of Jesus in Paulist Film Production's telemovie, Jesus (2001, due for screening in 2004) and a more traditional Jesus in Philip Saville's The Gospel of John.

It is in this tradition that The Passion comes to the screen. Mel Gibson had indicated his skills in directing with Man Without a Face (1993) and his Oscar-winning, Braveheart (1995).

One of the principal intentions of the director and his co-screenwriter, Ben Fitzgerald, is to immerse audiences in the realism of the passion of Jesus. Actor Jim Caviezel was chosen to play Jesus (the only other name performer is Italy's Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene). Caviezel was the same age as Jesus when the film was shot. As mentioned earlier, he is a believable human Jesus, a big, solid workingman who was able to stand up to the terrible sufferings of the passion before he died.

One of the controversial aspects of the film was the early decision to have the film's dialogue in Aramaic and Latin but to have no subtitles. The language decision was followed through and works well. We needed the subtitles, many of which are quotations from scripture. There is no distraction in hearing anachronistic American or British voices and accents. Rather the audience hears what conversation was like in those days. It is helpful to be reminded that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English!

A useful distinction to be made is that between 'realism' and 'naturalism'. The latter refers to film-making that portrays action as it is, home movies being a popular example, as is footage shot for newscasts. 'Realism' is film-making that helps audience have a genuine feel for what is going on on the screen, as if it were real. A number of cinematic devices, such as the style of different compositions for the screen, the types of shots and the pace of the editing can be used to give this impression of realism.

Mel Gibson has opted for much of his film to be 'naturalistic'. He has plenty of time available and is in no hurry to take us away from the picture of Jesus' suffering. Perhaps a number of people in the audience will find the scourging (in two grim parts) too much to watch. With most of the characters being portrayed in a naturalistic way, the action seems authentic. However, Gibson is able to use cinematic devices which alter perceptions, helping us to realise that we are seeing a particular version of the Passion, as all of us do when we listen to the Passion narratives and use our imaginations. He frequently uses moments of slow-motion filming to make us dwell on a particular moment.

This naturalism is seen in the confrontation in Gethsemane, at Jesus' trial, with the scourging and the crowning with thorns and, especially, the way of the cross as Jesus struggles with the cross, falls with thudding impact, is nailed and the cross raised. The stylisation is seen in the close-ups, with the differences in lighting (Gethsemane blue, the confined space of the High Priest's court lamp lit, the broad daylight of the way of the cross), the framing of the characters with memories of the traditions of Christian painting, the lighting and some of the tableaux, the passing of time as Jesus hangs on the cross, his death and the apocalyptic aftermath, the intimations of the resurrection.

This offers a credible picture and understanding of Jesus. Gibson has introduced some effective elements to reinforce this. For instance, in the garden, Jesus is hit in the eye and from then on and during the trial, he has the use only of one eye; when he is able to open his injured eye, Gibson makes a great deal of his ability with eye-contact, with Pilate, with his mother and with John at the foot of the cross, simply looking at Jesus and nodding as he agrees to care for Mary.

Comment has already been made on the use and insertion of flashbacks.

Dramatically, familiar Gospel characters are briefly developed which helps the narrative: Peter, Judas, Pilate, Pilate's wife, Simon of Cyrene, Herod, the two thieves crucified with Jesus. Veronica is introduced as she watches Jesus pass and wipes his face with her cloth - but Gibson shows restraint by letting us see her holding the cloth and, if we look closely, suggestions of the outline of Jesus' face can be glimpsed. The Roman soldiers are also vividly dramatised: the brutes at the scourging with their sadistic commander, the drunken soldiery mocking and brutalising Jesus along the way and on Calvary, the more sympathetic centurion. The key figure who has powerful dramatic impact in every Jesus' film is Judas. The taunting of the tormented Judas and the children pursuing him to his death is dramatically effective.

The Passion of Christ offers a credible, naturalistic Jesus whose sufferings of body and spirit are real. What impact it will have on those who are not believers is very difficult to predict. For those who believe, there is the challenge of seeing pain and torture which are easier to read about than to see, but there is also the satisfaction of experiencing familiar Gospel stories in a different way.

1. Audience expectations of the film, the controversies about anti-Semitism, the faith of Mel Gibson? The biblical tradition of the gospels, the death of Jesus, the Passion, blame for the Jews, the Romans?

2. The theology of the one person of Jesus, humanity and divinity? The portrayal of the humanity of Jesus, intimations of the divinity?

3. The anti-Semitic issues, the responsibility for Jesus' death, the historical traditions, the antagonism of Christians calling Jews "Christ-killers"? The 20th century and the affirmation of the bonds between Catholicism and Judaism? The work of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II?

4. The screenplay and the judicious use of each of the four gospels, interweaving the different stories, the reference to apocryphal gospels (especially for the story of the thieves on Calvary)?

5. The decision to use Aramaic and Latin? The subtitles? The avoidance of American and British accents? The sounds from the vocabulary and intonations of Jesus' time?

6. The insertion of the flashbacks, enhancing the particular aspects of the Passion, the positioning of the flashbacks and their relationship to the Passion?

7. The use of Italian locations, the Garden of Gethsemane, the court of Annas, of Herod, of Pilate? The Praetorium, the way to Calvary, Calvary? The musical score?

8. The staging of the sequences, the realism - and, especially, the naturalism of the sufferings of Jesus? The camera movements, editing, slow motion, the stylised effects and their enhancement of the realism?

9. Audience presuppositions about Jesus Christ, the person, his teaching, the Jewish tradition of the Messiah, the claims of Son of God? Christian theological traditions? Non-Christians? - and an admiration for Jesus and what he did?

10. The performance of Jim Caviezal and the cast, the screen presence, using foreign language? Relying on expressions, eye contact, body language?

11. What was the impact of the film as one left the theatre, the impression of Jesus, experiencing the Passion of Christ?

12. The agony in the garden opening the film, the impact of the Aramaic language, the blue colouring of the garden, the light and the darkness, shadows? Jesus alone, his anguish, the words of his prayer, relationship with the Father, accepting this mission which culminated in his death? Seeing the disciples asleep? Judas's arrival, the troops, Judas kissing Jesus, the melee, Malchus and his ear being cut, Jesus healing it? His going with the soldiers?

13. Judas, seeing him with the high priests, the bargaining, taking the money, their tossing it to him and his dropping it? Intimations of his motivation? Going to the garden, his unwillingness to kiss Jesus, kissing him? Watching what happened, his change of heart, returning to the priests and giving back the money, seeing the children, their taunting him, their curses and following him, his hanging himself, the tableau of his hanging - and the possibility of repentance?

14. Peter, at the Passion, the agony, sleeping in the garden, violent with the sword and the cutting of the servant's ear? The flashbacks and his protestations that he would not deny Jesus? At the court, in the milling crowd, the passers-by questioning him, his denial, his seeing Jesus, weeping? Going to Mary and expressing his sorrow?

15. John, present at the Passion, following with Mary, at the cross, his nodding assent to look after Mary?

16. Mary Magdalene, her being with Mary the mother of Jesus, comforting her, following the Passion? The flashback and the film acquainting Mary Magdalene with the woman taken in adultery in John 8? The disdain of the soldiers and pushing her aside? Her following to the end?

17. Mary the mother of Jesus, her age, appearance, presence? In the flashbacks, watching Jesus as he fell and comforting him, in the carpenter's shop and testing the table, his flicking the water at her? At the Passion, action, silence? Following Jesus, the eye contact? The towel and wiping off his blood after the scourging? At the foot of the cross, John to take care of her, kissing his foot and her bloodstained mouth? The taking down of the body, the visual pieta? A portrait of Mary according to the gospels - and avoiding the statuary and kitsch of tradition?

18. The trial, the crowded room, the priests, their manner, dress, language? Calling the witnesses and their testifying against Jesus? Jesus, his presence, silence, slapped, spat upon? The condemnation after his declaration? Afterwards his being chained, alone - and his mother on the pavement floor above him?

19. Caiaphas, the priests, their attack on Jesus, their motivation, taking him to Pilate, the charge of blasphemy, calling for Barabbas, calling for his crucifixion? At the end, on Calvary, Caiaphas taunting Jesus to come down from the cross? The earthquake, the shattering of the temple, Caiaphas and his questioning what he had done?

20. Pontius Pilate, the Roman, speaking Latin, seemingly a decent governor, his relationship with his wife? His wife and her nightmares, waking, warning Pilate? Her watching the proceedings in dismay? Her consoling the mother of Jesus? The high priests and their taunting and testing Pilate, saying he was no friend of Caesar? The centurion, Jesus and the issue of truth, his kingdom, Pilate's power? Pilate and his plea to the people, the releasing of Barabbas? His relationship with his centurion, wanting Jesus chastised? The high priests finally persuading him with the political consequences - and his washing his hands?

21. The visit to Herod, Herod's appearance, fatuous, wanting a miracle, upset about Jesus and his not replying? The overtones of Jesus Christ, Superstar and the Fellini-type court?

22. The brutality of the guards, the brutality of the scourging, the second scourging? The battering of the crown of thorns, the mock words? The guards and their drinking, the brutality towards Jesus on the Way of the Cross, the demands made on Simon from Cyrene? On Calvary, the centurion watching, the playing dice, the overcast sky, listening to Jesus' words, the centurion and his respect? The other soldiers and their fear? Breaking the legs of the thieves, piercing Jesus' side and the blood and water spurting out?

23. The road to Calvary, long, the many falls and the way they were photographed, the crowd - and the flashback to Palm Sunday? The dragging in of Simon from Cyrene, his carrying the cross, his growing admiration for Jesus?

24. The nailing, the taunts of the thieves, the good thief and the promise of Paradise? The crow plucking the eyes of the bad thief?

25. Jesus being stripped, nailed to the cross, the brutality for his hands, feet, turning the cross over and letting him hang, jolting it into the ground? The flashbacks to Jesus washing the feet? The flashbacks to the Last Supper, offering the bread and the wine as his body and blood, as his body and blood were seen on the cross, no-one having greater love than to lay down his life for others?

26. Jesus suffering on the cross, his mother and John and Mary, the sop for his thirst, entrusting his mother to John, his feeling abandoned, the taunts of Caiaphas, his final surrender and death?

27. The apocalyptic overtones of his death, the darkening of the sky, the thunder, the quake and the temple being rent?

28. Jesus down from the cross, the pieta with his mother? The burial?

29. The intimations of the resurrection, the cloths, seeing them collapse and being empty, Jesus sitting within the tomb? The culmination of the Passion?

30. The cinematic effect, the combination of biblical background and theological insight? The conventions of film-making and communicating the Passion via film?

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

US, 2004, 118 minutes, Colour.
Jim Caviezal, Monica Bellucci.
Directed by Mel Gibson.

For over a year before the release of The Passion, there was worldwide discussion and quite some controversy about the film. This was based on apprehensions about how the film would be made as well as on sensitivities about Jewish-Christian? history, anti-Semitism and current dialogue between Judaism and the Churches, especially in the United States. Some of the discussion, held on a high level, especially among theologians, biblical scholars and religious leaders was based on reports of initial drafts of the film.

The Passion of Christ has been a long-cherished project of actor-director, Mel Gibson. Gibson's Catholic affiliation and his support of traditional Catholicism was another controversial factor in the discussions.

Early screenings of The Passion as a work in process offered opportunities for Church leaders and Christians involved in media to see the actual film, offer their opinions and dialogue with Mel Gibson. There seemed to be a general consensus that the film was not anti-Semitic. Some Jewish leaders and reviewers like Michael Medved spoke positively about the film. Several heads of Vatican offices saw a show-reel of the film and spoke in favour of the film, including Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and Cardinal Dario Castrillon of the Congregation for the Clergy who issued a statement urging all priests to see the film. Cardinal Walter Kasper received comments from Jewish leaders and issued a statement that the Vatican at large was not recommending the film and that any recommendation would depend on people seeing the completed film. This was the stance of many religious leaders in the United States including the American Bishops Catholic Conference.

As regards the Jewish-Christian? issues and the explicit language about the Jews in the Gospels, especially that of St John, it is important to realise that the more formal, 'official' antagonism between Christians and Jews emerged in the early decades of the second century. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John emerged from Jewish communities. Luke's Gospel draws strongly on the Jewish scriptures interweaving biblical references and motifs throughout the text. The clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time was a clash within Judaism, a religious controversy about the Messiah (of which there were a number in this period) and Jesus' claims. Disciples who became Christians accepted his claims. Many religious leaders amongst the priests and the Pharisees did not. There were other converts like Paul, who was proud of his Jewish heritage and who took a strong stance about disciples of Jesus not being bound by details of Jewish law. It has been difficult, given the centuries of antagonism and the experience of repression and persecution of Jews by Christian, and Catholic, communities to enter into the context of Jesus' time and the mentality of the period.

The long traditions of Christians accusing Jews of being 'Christ-killers' also played their part in the debate. While the Catholic Church apologised for the long persecutions and the frequent anti-Semitism of the past in a Second Vatican Council document (1965) and Pope John Paul II visited the wailing wall in 2000 and inserted his own prayer in a crevice, questions about Jesus' death as being part of God's plan and how the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, fitted into this plan, continue to be raised.

BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

The Passion draws its narrative from each of the four Gospels, for instance, the quake and the rending of the temple from Matthew, the fleeing young man from Mark, the women of Jerusalem (here, Veronica and her daughter) from Luke, the Pilate sequences on truth from John. This linking of incidents in one narrative is the way in which the Gospel stories were remembered and written down. There is some material drawn from the later legendary stories and apocryphal gospels (Veronica and her veil, Desmes the 'bad' thief).

One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians who are not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be critiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels. They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned. This is a danger for The Passion. It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a 'version' of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.

This use of the four Gospels means that there are different perspectives on the Jews of the time in each Gospel. Matthew's Gospel presupposes detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and sees Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy. Hence the more 'apocalyptic' scenes at his death. Mark and Luke look on from the outside, Luke writing for readers familiar with Greek and Roman ways of storytelling. John's Gospel from the end of the first century echoes the roots of Christianity in Judaism but acknowledges the growing rift.

The screenplay is able to combine Gospel incidents into a coherent narrative of the passion with selected flashbacks to Jesus' infancy and life at Nazareth (his fall as a child, his making a table in the carpenter's shop, his relationship with his mother and his playful sprinkling her with water as he washes his hands) which are inventions in the spirit of the Gospels, to Mary Magdalene's past where she is combined with the woman taken in adultery of John 8, to Peter and his protests of loyalty, to the Last Supper. There is a flashback to the palm welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem during the heckling of the crowd on the way to Calvary. There is dramatic development of characters like Pilate and his wife, Simon of Cyrene, the centurion, the good thief and the thief who reviles Jesus (with retribution seen in the form of a vicious crow attacking him). Of interest is the portrait of the Satan, the Tempter, who appears early as an androgynous character, visual suggestions of female but male voice, growing more obviously feminine as the film progresses and finally appearing at the crucifixion (with a visual technique reminiscent of William Wallace seeing his loved one at his execution) carrying a child. Once again, this is imaginative license in interpreting Jesus' being tempted and tested.

As with most Jesus' films, much attention is given to Judas. His motivations are not made explicit in the film. It relies on audience knowledge of Judas. The film portrays his action in Gethsemane and subsequent dismay and return of his thirty pieces of silver. It introduces a theme of children meeting Judas and taunting him as he goes to his death.

THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The principal theological issues that concern viewers of Jesus-films are:
1. The humanity and divinity of Jesus,
2. The resurrection of Jesus

The humanity and divinity of Jesus.

The Passion of Christ generally follows the approach to the person of Jesus used by the Synoptic Gospels, a 'low' Christology, a focus first on the humanity of Jesus and moving towards an awareness of his divinity. When the film uses John as a source, it reflects that Gospel's 'high' Christology, the presupposition in the narrative that Jesus is divine and expresses this divinity in word and action. The Synoptic approach is seen in the flashbacks of incidents before the Passion as well as in the main events of the Passion, the Agony in Gethsemane, the treatment of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and Herod, the scourging and crowning with thorns, the way of the Cross and the Crucifixion itself. The Joannine approach is found in Jesus' declaration of his being the Son of Man at his trial (which is also in the Synoptics) and the discussions with Pilate about truth and about his kingdom.

This means that, theologically, the film presents the perennial teaching that Jesus, in his person, was both human and divine in nature.

The humanity of Jesus is often presented in a striking manner: Jesus working in Nazareth, the experience of deep human pain in his agony, scourging, falling on the way to Calvary, the nailing and his experience on the cross. It is there in his dignity at his trial, his composure with Pilate and Herod. The film also highlights Jesus' human anguish of soul and sense of abandonment in his agony and on the cross, along with his profound surrender to the Father.

While the Jesus of cinema is usually slight and slender in build, Jim Caviezel is a big and strong man, with some girth, a credible carpenter and a solid man. This makes the film's Jesus more real than usual.

The Resurrection

Some commentators criticise a film which focuses on the Passion for its meagre treatment of Jesus' resurrection. (This was a criticism in the 1960s and 1970s of Jesus Christ Superstar.) Theologically, the Passion makes sense only in the light of the resurrection.

While Mel Gibson's film wants to immerse its audience in the experience of the Passion, the final sequence has the stone rolled over the tomb. The stone is rolled away, the cloths wound around Jesus' body are seen collapsing and the camera tracks to Jesus in profile, sitting in the tomb as a prelude to his risen life. These are the images with which the audience leaves the theatre. The resurrection, presented briefly, is still the climax of the Passion.

The Eucharist

There are flashbacks to the Last Supper during the Passion, especially to Peter protesting that he would not deny Jesus and to Jesus washing the disciples' feet.

One of the major theological strengths of the film is the insertion of the Eucharistic scenes of the Last Supper during the nailing and the lifting up of Jesus on the cross. As Jesus offers the bread as his body, we see the body which is painfully broken and given for us. As he offers the wine as his blood, we are only too conscious of the bloodletting, blood poured out for us. Jesus tells his disciples that there is no greater love than laying down one's life for friends - and we see it in its fulness. He tells them to celebrate the Eucharist so that his passion and death will be present to them.

In this way, the screenplay highlights both aspects of the Eucharist, the celebration of the meal, the communion and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Mary

Mary has a strong presence in The Passion. She appears as a woman in her 40s, striking rather than beautiful. She appears in two flashbacks. Her demeanour is serious. She says very little. With Mary Magdalene and John, she follows the passion and the way of the Cross without any of the histrionics that characterise a number of portraits of Mary, especially Pasolini's mother in The Gospel According to Matthew. At one stage, she wipes the blood of Jesus on the praetorium floor after his scourging. She kisses his bloody nailed feet. The bond between mother and son is suggested several times by significant eye contact rather than words. The request for John to take care of Mary is included. After Jesus is taken down from the cross, she holds him in a Pieta tableau.

Most audiences should be satisfied with the portrayal of Mary. Those who find some of the cinema representations of the past too much like holy cards or plaster statues will appreciate a more biblically-grounded Mary.

Cinema background

The Passion of Christ comes after more than a century's old tradition of Jesus' films. The silent era produced short instructional films as well as features like From the Manger to the Cross, the Italian Christus and the Gospel section of D.W.Griffith's Intolerance. The major films of the 20s were Ben Hur and The King of Kings, Cecil B. de Mille's epic.

For thirtyfive years, 1927-1961, Jesus was not seen face-on as a character in American studio Gospel films. He was seen in a number of features made by American Protestant companies. He was glimpsed in part (a hand, an arm, his legs on the cross or was seen from a distance) in films as The Robe and Ben Hur in the 1950s.

After the gap, Jeffrey Hunter appeared as the King of Kings, Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told. When Jeffrey Hunter spoke in King of Kings, it was the first time audiences had heard an actor speak the words of Jesus. Pasolini made a powerful black and white version in the 1960s, The Gospel According to Matthew, and Rosselini made The Messiah in the early 1970s. Brian Deacon appeared as Jesus, a more evangelical approach in the film, Jesus (which was distributed in an edited version to pilgrims visiting Rome for the millennial Jubilee). This trend reached its peak with Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth in the late 1970s.

Popular musical movements of the late 60s produced Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell which were both filmed in 1973.

Most of the films aimed at presenting a 'realistic' Jesus but many of them (including Pasolini) used the straight Gospel texts (which were intended to be read) as a substantial part of their screenplays, an over-literal use of the Gospels. Zeffirelli, on the other hand, employed the same method as was used in the forming of the Gospels, taking incidents in Jesus' life and combining them dramatically to make an impact on the audience. Nevertheless, with the use of western actors, European or American locations, these films were not as realistic as intended.

The musicals highlighted how screen Gospel storytelling is more 'stylised' than 'realistic'.

Since 1988, there have been a number of screen portrayals of Jesus: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), which was a 'novelised' version of the Gospels, Jesus of Montreal (1988) and Man Dancin' (2003) which were stories of putting on a passion play in a modern city, the animated Jesus in The Miracle Maker (2000) and Jeremy Sisto's engaging blend of the human and divine in the American telemovie, Jesus (1999). More recently, there has been the rather American picture of Jesus in Paulist Film Production's telemovie, Jesus (2001, due for screening in 2004) and a more traditional Jesus in Philip Saville's The Gospel of John.

It is in this tradition that The Passion comes to the screen. Mel Gibson had indicated his skills in directing with Man Without a Face (1993) and his Oscar-winning, Braveheart (1995).

One of the principal intentions of the director and his co-screenwriter, Ben Fitzgerald, is to immerse audiences in the realism of the passion of Jesus. Actor Jim Caviezel was chosen to play Jesus (the only other name performer is Italy's Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene). Caviezel was the same age as Jesus when the film was shot. As mentioned earlier, he is a believable human Jesus, a big, solid workingman who was able to stand up to the terrible sufferings of the passion before he died.

One of the controversial aspects of the film was the early decision to have the film's dialogue in Aramaic and Latin but to have no subtitles. The language decision was followed through and works well. We needed the subtitles, many of which are quotations from scripture. There is no distraction in hearing anachronistic American or British voices and accents. Rather the audience hears what conversation was like in those days. It is helpful to be reminded that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English!

A useful distinction to be made is that between 'realism' and 'naturalism'. The latter refers to film-making that portrays action as it is, home movies being a popular example, as is footage shot for newscasts. 'Realism' is film-making that helps audience have a genuine feel for what is going on on the screen, as if it were real. A number of cinematic devices, such as the style of different compositions for the screen, the types of shots and the pace of the editing can be used to give this impression of realism.

Mel Gibson has opted for much of his film to be 'naturalistic'. He has plenty of time available and is in no hurry to take us away from the picture of Jesus' suffering. Perhaps a number of people in the audience will find the scourging (in two grim parts) too much to watch. With most of the characters being portrayed in a naturalistic way, the action seems authentic. However, Gibson is able to use cinematic devices which alter perceptions, helping us to realise that we are seeing a particular version of the Passion, as all of us do when we listen to the Passion narratives and use our imaginations. He frequently uses moments of slow-motion filming to make us dwell on a particular moment.

This naturalism is seen in the confrontation in Gethsemane, at Jesus' trial, with the scourging and the crowning with thorns and, especially, the way of the cross as Jesus struggles with the cross, falls with thudding impact, is nailed and the cross raised. The stylisation is seen in the close-ups, with the differences in lighting (Gethsemane blue, the confined space of the High Priest's court lamp lit, the broad daylight of the way of the cross), the framing of the characters with memories of the traditions of Christian painting, the lighting and some of the tableaux, the passing of time as Jesus hangs on the cross, his death and the apocalyptic aftermath, the intimations of the resurrection.

This offers a credible picture and understanding of Jesus. Gibson has introduced some effective elements to reinforce this. For instance, in the garden, Jesus is hit in the eye and from then on and during the trial, he has the use only of one eye; when he is able to open his injured eye, Gibson makes a great deal of his ability with eye-contact, with Pilate, with his mother and with John at the foot of the cross, simply looking at Jesus and nodding as he agrees to care for Mary.

Comment has already been made on the use and insertion of flashbacks.

Dramatically, familiar Gospel characters are briefly developed which helps the narrative: Peter, Judas, Pilate, Pilate's wife, Simon of Cyrene, Herod, the two thieves crucified with Jesus. Veronica is introduced as she watches Jesus pass and wipes his face with her cloth - but Gibson shows restraint by letting us see her holding the cloth and, if we look closely, suggestions of the outline of Jesus' face can be glimpsed. The Roman soldiers are also vividly dramatised: the brutes at the scourging with their sadistic commander, the drunken soldiery mocking and brutalising Jesus along the way and on Calvary, the more sympathetic centurion. The key figure who has powerful dramatic impact in every Jesus' film is Judas. The taunting of the tormented Judas and the children pursuing him to his death is dramatically effective.

The Passion of Christ offers a credible, naturalistic Jesus whose sufferings of body and spirit are real. What impact it will have on those who are not believers is very difficult to predict. For those who believe, there is the challenge of seeing pain and torture which are easier to read about than to see, but there is also the satisfaction of experiencing familiar Gospel stories in a different way.

1. Audience expectations of the film, the controversies about anti-Semitism, the faith of Mel Gibson? The biblical tradition of the gospels, the death of Jesus, the Passion, blame for the Jews, the Romans?

2. The theology of the one person of Jesus, humanity and divinity? The portrayal of the humanity of Jesus, intimations of the divinity?

3. The anti-Semitic issues, the responsibility for Jesus' death, the historical traditions, the antagonism of Christians calling Jews "Christ-killers"? The 20th century and the affirmation of the bonds between Catholicism and Judaism? The work of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II?

4. The screenplay and the judicious use of each of the four gospels, interweaving the different stories, the reference to apocryphal gospels (especially for the story of the thieves on Calvary)?

5. The decision to use Aramaic and Latin? The subtitles? The avoidance of American and British accents? The sounds from the vocabulary and intonations of Jesus' time?

6. The insertion of the flashbacks, enhancing the particular aspects of the Passion, the positioning of the flashbacks and their relationship to the Passion?

7. The use of Italian locations, the Garden of Gethsemane, the court of Annas, of Herod, of Pilate? The Praetorium, the way to Calvary, Calvary? The musical score?

8. The staging of the sequences, the realism - and, especially, the naturalism of the sufferings of Jesus? The camera movements, editing, slow motion, the stylised effects and their enhancement of the realism?

9. Audience presuppositions about Jesus Christ, the person, his teaching, the Jewish tradition of the Messiah, the claims of Son of God? Christian theological traditions? Non-Christians? - and an admiration for Jesus and what he did?

10. The performance of Jim Caviezal and the cast, the screen presence, using foreign language? Relying on expressions, eye contact, body language?

11. What was the impact of the film as one left the theatre, the impression of Jesus, experiencing the Passion of Christ?

12. The agony in the garden opening the film, the impact of the Aramaic language, the blue colouring of the garden, the light and the darkness, shadows? Jesus alone, his anguish, the words of his prayer, relationship with the Father, accepting this mission which culminated in his death? Seeing the disciples asleep? Judas's arrival, the troops, Judas kissing Jesus, the melee, Malchus and his ear being cut, Jesus healing it? His going with the soldiers?

13. Judas, seeing him with the high priests, the bargaining, taking the money, their tossing it to him and his dropping it? Intimations of his motivation? Going to the garden, his unwillingness to kiss Jesus, kissing him? Watching what happened, his change of heart, returning to the priests and giving back the money, seeing the children, their taunting him, their curses and following him, his hanging himself, the tableau of his hanging - and the possibility of repentance?

14. Peter, at the Passion, the agony, sleeping in the garden, violent with the sword and the cutting of the servant's ear? The flashbacks and his protestations that he would not deny Jesus? At the court, in the milling crowd, the passers-by questioning him, his denial, his seeing Jesus, weeping? Going to Mary and expressing his sorrow?

15. John, present at the Passion, following with Mary, at the cross, his nodding assent to look after Mary?

16. Mary Magdalene, her being with Mary the mother of Jesus, comforting her, following the Passion? The flashback and the film acquainting Mary Magdalene with the woman taken in adultery in John 8? The disdain of the soldiers and pushing her aside? Her following to the end?

17. Mary the mother of Jesus, her age, appearance, presence? In the flashbacks, watching Jesus as he fell and comforting him, in the carpenter's shop and testing the table, his flicking the water at her? At the Passion, action, silence? Following Jesus, the eye contact? The towel and wiping off his blood after the scourging? At the foot of the cross, John to take care of her, kissing his foot and her bloodstained mouth? The taking down of the body, the visual pieta? A portrait of Mary according to the gospels - and avoiding the statuary and kitsch of tradition?

18. The trial, the crowded room, the priests, their manner, dress, language? Calling the witnesses and their testifying against Jesus? Jesus, his presence, silence, slapped, spat upon? The condemnation after his declaration? Afterwards his being chained, alone - and his mother on the pavement floor above him?

19. Caiaphas, the priests, their attack on Jesus, their motivation, taking him to Pilate, the charge of blasphemy, calling for Barabbas, calling for his crucifixion? At the end, on Calvary, Caiaphas taunting Jesus to come down from the cross? The earthquake, the shattering of the temple, Caiaphas and his questioning what he had done?

20. Pontius Pilate, the Roman, speaking Latin, seemingly a decent governor, his relationship with his wife? His wife and her nightmares, waking, warning Pilate? Her watching the proceedings in dismay? Her consoling the mother of Jesus? The high priests and their taunting and testing Pilate, saying he was no friend of Caesar? The centurion, Jesus and the issue of truth, his kingdom, Pilate's power? Pilate and his plea to the people, the releasing of Barabbas? His relationship with his centurion, wanting Jesus chastised? The high priests finally persuading him with the political consequences - and his washing his hands?

21. The visit to Herod, Herod's appearance, fatuous, wanting a miracle, upset about Jesus and his not replying? The overtones of Jesus Christ, Superstar and the Fellini-type court?

22. The brutality of the guards, the brutality of the scourging, the second scourging? The battering of the crown of thorns, the mock words? The guards and their drinking, the brutality towards Jesus on the Way of the Cross, the demands made on Simon from Cyrene? On Calvary, the centurion watching, the playing dice, the overcast sky, listening to Jesus' words, the centurion and his respect? The other soldiers and their fear? Breaking the legs of the thieves, piercing Jesus' side and the blood and water spurting out?

23. The road to Calvary, long, the many falls and the way they were photographed, the crowd - and the flashback to Palm Sunday? The dragging in of Simon from Cyrene, his carrying the cross, his growing admiration for Jesus?

24. The nailing, the taunts of the thieves, the good thief and the promise of Paradise? The crow plucking the eyes of the bad thief?

25. Jesus being stripped, nailed to the cross, the brutality for his hands, feet, turning the cross over and letting him hang, jolting it into the ground? The flashbacks to Jesus washing the feet? The flashbacks to the Last Supper, offering the bread and the wine as his body and blood, as his body and blood were seen on the cross, no-one having greater love than to lay down his life for others?

26. Jesus suffering on the cross, his mother and John and Mary, the sop for his thirst, entrusting his mother to John, his feeling abandoned, the taunts of Caiaphas, his final surrender and death?

27. The apocalyptic overtones of his death, the darkening of the sky, the thunder, the quake and the temple being rent?

28. Jesus down from the cross, the pieta with his mother? The burial?

29. The intimations of the resurrection, the cloths, seeing them collapse and being empty, Jesus sitting within the tomb? The culmination of the Passion?

30. The cinematic effect, the combination of biblical background and theological insight? The conventions of film-making and communicating the Passion via film?

LA PETITE LILI

France, 2003, 104 minutes, Colour.
Ludovine Sagnier, Robinson Stevenin, Nicole Garcia, Bernard Giraudeau, Jean- Pierre Marielle, Julie Depardieu.
Directed by Claude Miller.

For many years Claude Miller has made serious dramas which have been well-crafted and finely acted. This film has a lighter touch. He acknowledges his inspiration from Checkhov. In a holiday house, a family and friends gather to see the experimental short film made by the moody son and featuring the attractive young neighbour, Lili. What follows is partly comedy of errors, partly a comedy of reconciliation.

Amongst the gallery of characters are a film star mother with as much temperament as her son, her producer lover, her elder and crotchety brother as well as the owners of the house and their love-stricken daughter. Rounding out the group is the local doctor.

As a picture of a dysfunctional group, the film is interesting even if we are irritated by their behaviour. When the second part of the film moves into their all participating in a film of the first part, it is often amusing while highly, perhaps too highly contrived. Once again, it is the performances which stand out: Nicole Garcia and Robinson Stevenin as mother and son, Ludovine Sagnier as the ambitious Lili and, best of all Jean-Pierre? as the grumpy brother spouting hilarious lines (and being played by Michel Piccoli in the film).

1. An entertainment? The two parts? The basis on Chekhov’s The Seagull with its world of the theatre, transferred to the world of cinema?

2. The lake and the holiday atmosphere, its natural beauty? The contrast with the studios - and even the re-creation of the holiday house and the lake? The musical score?

3. The title and its focus on Lili, the focus on each of the central characters?

4. The portrait of the family, the group on holidays, the holiday tradition, the holiday atmosphere, the complexity of the relationships: Mado and Bryce together, Lili and her attraction to Julian, Jeanne-Marie? and her infatuation with Julian, her mother and the liaison with the doctor? The shifting relationships?

5. Simon, the older veteran, sleeping in the paddock, the cows coming, his grumpy comments about meals and everything else? His relationship with the doctor, the owner of the house?

6. The set-up for Julian to show his film, Lili coming over? The screening of the film, its artistic style, the poetry? Mado and her bad reaction, shifting, dropping the keys? The moodiness of the son and his walking out? Each of them having a truth, each of them being right? Both of them being rude? The complex relationship of mother and son?

7. Lili's response to the film, seeing herself, her performance, seeing Bryce watching it, his infatuation with her, her working on this, it leading her to become a film star?

8. The doctor, the shifty liaison with the mother, her pleading with him so that she could go away with him, his refusal? Her desperation? Her insensitive husband?

9. Jeanne- Marie and her talking to Bryce, his telling her that she was the most interesting of the characters? Her place in the household, with each of the family, her continued smoking, neurotic, obviously in love with Julian?

10. The portrait of Mado, the temperamental actress, popular actress, the work of Bryce as a producer of popular entertainments and his being spurned by Julien? Bryce agreeing in many ways with Julien's theories and charges?

11. Time passing, the decision to make the film about their holiday? The changes? The credibility of such a film?

12. Lili and her success, her approach to Julien to be in the film? His finally agreeing?

13. The characters playing themselves? Bryce and Mado being at peace, joining in the film? Bryce and his watching of Lili with her success? Julian now become much more normal, married to Jeanne-Marie?, their child? His skills as a director? The actor playing him and his directing him? Simon coming to visit the set, his discovering that Michel Piccoli was playing him, their repartee and memories of old days, especially about Brigitte Bardot?

14. The re-enactment of the dinner, the mirroring of what the audience had already seen? Helping the audience to understand - in the light of the consequences?

15. Lili, her performance, her final walk up the cliff, the applause, the ending of the film - and the set photo?

16. Cinema imitating cinema imitating life?

THE PRINCESS DIARIES

US, 2001, 110 minutes, Colour.
Julie Andrews, Anne Hathaway, Hector Elizondo, Caroline Goodall, Heather Materazzo, Sandra Oh, Mandy Moore, Larry Miller.
Directed by Garry Marshall.

Royalty seems to exert an extraordinary fascination for people who might never meet a royal in their whole life. This seems to be particularly true for Americans who fought a war against the British monarch and achieved republican independence. Which means that Americans have welcomed The Princess Diaries with box office receipts of $100,000,000.

Of course, The Princess Diaries is a modern fairytale. The setting is San Francisco today. The heroine is a fifteen year old high school student living with her artist-mother in a converted fire brigade station. She is the ugly duckling at school. She is a latterday Cinderella. She is successful only at being awkward and, at times, invisible. Her soap-opera glamorous fellow-students spend a lot of time either laughing at her or ignoring her. Her name is Mia Thermopolis.

It does not take too long for the fairy godmother to arrive. She is Queen Clarisse of Genovia (which is allegedly a small principality on the French- Spanish border, somewhere in the vicinity of the real Andorra). And, sure enough, Mia is really a princess though this has been kept a secret from her. Her father has died and, as the only blood descendant, she has to ascend the throne.

At this moment, the Cinderella story turns into Pygmalion as the Queen oversees Mia's transformation into beautiful swan and dignified royal (well, not quite, she still has a long way to go in not spilling and breaking things). But, will she or won't she accept the crown? And what about the media who pry, take compromising photos and do tabloid exposes?

By this stage, the story is becoming more familiar to British audiences as they think of princes and dukes who have married 'commoners' who have had to learn protocols and who have learned what continuous invasion of privacy means.

Perhaps this makes what is essentially a piece of escapist froth seem more serious than it is. However, it does ask us to think about these issues and what ruling a country, no matter how small, means in terms of not thinking of oneself and doing good for others.

This is a film of traditional feminine sensibilities. It is not for macho types and fans of 'Boys' Own Adventures'. As the media kit declares, this is a film of feminine wish-fulfilment and empowerment!
There is also a great deal of fairytale affluence in the mansions, the elaborate gowns, the jewellery to reinforce the wish-fulfilment.

Anne Hathaway is attractive as both the gawky Mia and Princess Mia. Queen Clarisse comes in the form of Julie Andrews, always welcome on screen, who is in elderly Mary Poppins mode (rather than Maria Von Trapp) - or, as Julie Andrews herself noted, doing a Professor Higgins in improving Mia.

The director is Gary Marshall who has made quite a few variations on this feminine fairytale myth including Pretty Woman and The Runaway Bride. Working for Disney, this time, he has produced a holiday confection for aspiring princesses in the audience, and their mothers.

1. An entertaining fantasy? For what audience? Adults, adolescents? Boys, girls? Different responses?

2. The realism of the plot? A princess in America? Memories of the Monaco situation of the 50s with Prince Rainier and Grace Kelly? The small duchies of central Europe? Memories of Diana, Princess of Wales, and her children?

3. The San Francisco settings, homes, schools? The embassy of Genovia? The ordinary world? The affluent world?

4. The Cinderella story? The focus on Mia, the ugly duckling, her appearance, hair, glasses, awkwardness? Her being invisible and wanting to be invisible? People actually sitting on her and not noticing her? Her friendship with Lily? At school? Her energy in mountain climbing and other things she could achieve? Her absent father, her mother and her artwork? Her not knowing her background? Her looking at Josh and being envious of Lana?

5. Her being summoned by the queen? Her anger with her mother for not telling her the truth? Her awkwardness at the embassy, walking on the lawns, dropping things? The queen and her initial reaction? The death of her father, her being heir to the throne, the short time for training, the dinner and the prospective announcement? The impact of this kind of information, her having to keep it a secret?

6. The details of the training, her awkwardness, gradual successes? Paolo and his assistance, his melodramatic style, his transformation of Mia? Her self-image? Lily's immediate reaction and ridicule? Her wearing a cap to school, her having to take it off, the reaction of the students?

7. The media, their discovering the truth? The revelation that Paolo had betrayed them? The queen's reaction? The principal and her kowtowing to the queen, her imitating her manner? The queen and her handling of the situation?

8. Mia and her promise to Lily to come to the cable program? To Michael to hear the band? Her being invited by Josh to the beach party, the preparation, her mother's advice? Her dreams about the kiss? Her enjoying the party, her being set up by the girls, Lana singing? The media, the helicopter, Josh and the going into the cabin, her thinking she was rescued? Josh and his performance for the media, the kiss? The girls trying to shelter her but her being exposed? The material in the newspapers, the queen and her angry reaction to Mia?

9. Joseph, his friendship with the queen, his looking after Mia, driving her, always turning up at the right time, with the other kids? His reprimand to the queen about her severity? His rescuing Mia when she wanted to run away, bringing her to the ball? His dancing with Mia, his dancing with the queen? The relationship between the two?

10. The queen herself, Julie Andrews' style, appearing regal, clothes, manner? Manners? The discussions with Mia's mother? The truth, her admitting her possessiveness, her admitting that she was like Mia when she was younger? Marrying into royalty? Assuming the responsibilities? Her love for her son, protectiveness? Her gradually relenting - and going out with Mia for the day, enjoying an adolescent's fun at the pier, the competitions? Driving the car, backing into the cable car - and handling the situation by giving the driver and the policeman the Order of the Rose?

11. Mia and her decision not to become the queen, her apologies to Lily, apologies to Michael? Exasperation with Josh and the other kids at school? Her wanting to run away? Her preparation, the cat, bedraggled in the rain? Getting her gift from her father, the diary, visualising her father, his message of encouragement?

12. The ball, all the socialites, the rival count expecting to be the ruler, his wife? Lily and her coming, Michael and his coming? Being stranded in the rain, the rescue by Joseph? The queen making the announcement, Mia and her acceptance of the throne? The support of her grandmother, her mother? The dancing?

13. Lily and her preparations to be the queen, going to Genovia? The possibility of visits?

14. The fulfilment of the fairy tale, the fulfilment of the Cinderella story, the beauty of the ugly duckling? The relevance of this kind of story in the 21st century? Audience love of fairy tales?

PAROLE

Iran, 2002, 96 minutes, Colour and black and white.
Directed by Mehdi Nourbaksh.

Parole is an art-house film (with festival written all over it). The film takes place over four days, a war-stricken man released on Tuesday and the film chronicling what happened to him until Saturday morning when he returns to the prison. He is a morose man, brought up in the prison. He meets his old cellmate, Uncle, who guides him around Teheran. He is bent on revenge. He discovers his sister who also helped to bring him up. She is in the drug trade. He also looks for his long-lost love and eventually finds her languishing. He also meets his old colleague, Sharif, and wants to kill him. However, he doesn't.

The film has aspects of realism but also aspects of existential angst.

The film is a mirror of the kind of Italian cinema of the early 1960s, the black and white photography, the symbolic characters, their wandering and searching as in the films of Michelangelo Antonioni.

While the young man is consistent in his behaviour but has to learn the realism of life, the uncle is a strange figure. At one time he is a petty criminal, master of all he encounters. At other times he reads very serious lectures to the young man.

In this way, the film is working at two levels - but it is often difficult to move from one level of realism to that of deep meaningfulness.

1. The impact of the film? The style of Italian cinema with its blend of neo-realism and existential angst? As a film of Iran at the beginning of the 21st century?

2. The style of the black and white photography, compositions, street scenes, focus on characters, close-ups? Cityscapes, the countryside, the snow-capped mountains? The musical score?

3. The dramatic impact of the film, on the level of realism with the film indicating in captions each morning and evening of the days of parole? The contrast with the symbolic wandering and searching of the characters as well as their verbal interactions?

4. The portrait of the young man, coming out of jail, unsmiling? The war experiences, the relationships with his stepsister, trying to make friends with her again, recapture the past memories? Her death? Relationship with Uncle, going on the town, the bars, pool, at home, watching the videos? The contrast with the serious talks? His going to the country, the village, finding his lost love, his grief? His sister-in-law dead and the consequences? Finding Sharif, the confrontation in the mountains? His possibilities of life, returning to jail?

5. Uncle, his exuberance, worldly-wise, on the streets, all his contacts? At the house, the video? Guiding the young man, the travels, the serious lectures?

6. The sister-in-law, the hardships of life, her explanations of herself, drugs, survival? Prostitution? Her death?

7. The young woman, hopes, pregnant, the man in jail, her languishing and death?

8. Sharif, age, experience, the confrontation in the mountains, his life being spared even though he asked for death?

9. The overall impact of this kind of existential dramatic and philosophical exploration?