THE LIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE WORLD

US/Spain, 1971, 98 minutes, Colour.
Kirk Douglas, Yul Brynner, Samantha Eggar, Fernando Rey, Renato Salvatore, Jean-Claude? Drouot, Massimo Ranieri.
Directed by Kevin Billington.

The Light at the Edge of the World is a light-house at Cape Horn, 1865, and the title of a Jules Verne story. This one has no science-fiction adventure, but is rather a sombre account of a man surviving against evil - of both man and nature. This variation on the Robinson Crusoe theme was used in 1971 in the Richard Harris film, Man in the Wilderness, (directed by Richard L. Sarafian).

Kirk Douglas gives one of his intense performances as the man against evil. Yul Brynner gives a coolly menacing portrayal of the insane Captain of pirate-wreckers who take over the lighthouse, lure ships on to the rocks, kill crew and passengers and plunder the goods. The scenery and environment (photographed by Henri Decae) are important in establishing the isolated locale for the inevitable struggle.

On the surface, it is an adventure film, interesting as such. But as a presentation of the survival theme, it is more than interesting. Renato Salvatore (Rocco and His Brothers), Fernando Rey (Viridiana Tristana, The French Connection), Massimo Ranieri (Metello) and Jean-Claude? Drouot (Le Bonheur, Laughter in the Dark) take supporting roles

1. How did the title of the film and the lighthouse itself embody some of the theme of the film?

2. How well did the film convey the isolated environment of the lighthouse? Much footage of the film was given to roaming over the rooky seascape. What did this contribute to the mood and meaning of the film?

3. How was a sense of joy and content conveyed at the opening of the film - through the new lighthouse, its cleanliness and light, the Captain, the boy and his monkey, the orderly work, the tracking of the goat, the calmness of the sea?

4. What picture of Denton did you have before the wreckers arrived?

5. Was the intrusion of cruelty and brutality too sudden with the view of the crew of the ship and the deaths of the Captain and the boy? Sow did the mood of the film change?

6. How did Denton illustrate the theme of goodness versus evil, of man against nature and craft, of survival in barren isolation? Was this theme well illustrated, well explored, made convincing? How important was Denton’s past?

7. How heroic Was Denton? How skilful?

8. How did Denton contrast with the pirate chief? Did Yul Brynner portray the Captain in a way convincing enough to make him an equal opponent of Denton? How did Yul Brynner achieve this?

9. How repelled were you by the wreckers? In themselves and their behaviour? In their luring of the boat on the rooks and their massacring of survivors? Why did they want to plunder?

10. What kind of man was their Captain? Bow sane was he? How proud? What characteristics of power did he portray? How were these symbolised - his horse, black attendant, wealth, style of living (and their contrast with Denton’s survival) ?

11. How did the scenes of cruelty and vengeance affect you? Why?

12. How effective was the sequence of the plundering of the ship?

13. Did the girl have an important part to play in the story - her assuming her mistress’s identity, her protection by the Captain, his using her as a lure for Denton, her unwillingness to be rescued, her mass rape and death?

14. How important was Giuseppe - as a companion for Denton, as encouragement, as a mirror survival and failure to survive?

15. Did Denton act well in destroying -the plunderers' goods, shooting Giuseppe, firing on the ship? Why?

16. How effective was the climatic fight in terms of realism and in terms of the symbolism of the lighthouse and its burning?

17. Was the film optimistic or pessimistic about human nature?

18. Was the film meant merely to be an adventure, or something more?

LOVE WITH THE PROPER STRANGER

US, 1963, 101 minutes, Black and white.
Natalie Wood, Steve Mc Queen, Edie Adams.
Directed by Robert Mulligan.

Love With the Proper Stranger showed two popular stars of the 60's in a drama that dealt with sordid realities, but presented them with sympathy and feeling; the unmarried mother, the responsibilities of the father, the reality of abortion. The film is frequently sombre but engaging and moving.

Robert Mulligan has made a number of moving dramas about grim aspects of life; To Kill A Mockingbird, Up the Down Staircase, The Stalking Moon, The Summer of '42. Natalie Wood acts well here as does Steve Mc Queen, although he seems to have a number of repetitive mannerisms of facial gesture and uncertain shuffling of his feet.
The authentic black and white realism of the New York streets, shops and houses makes the problem more real - this may be why most people are put off by the sudden goonery' like ending (reminiscent of the tone of the ending of The Graduate). Nevertheless, a good American social drama.

1. What did the title mean?

2. What meanings of the word "love" emerged from the dialogue and action of the film?

3. Who were strangers to one another - merely Rick and Angela? What about their families?

4. What was the point of introducing the title song in the middle of the film? What comments were made on its sentiments? Were they just?

5. Authentic black and white photography of New York streets and buildings was used. How did this affect the mood of the film? Was it in keeping with the film's themes?

6. What was the purpose of the opening crowded and noisy scene? What did it suggest about crowds, strangers, communication, anonymity in a city, Rick's character, Angela's predicament?

7. What kind of man was Rick on first impression - out of work, egotistical, promiscuous, tough? Did your opinion of him change as you got to know more about him? Did you like him after a while? When?

8. What did the Italian family background tell you about Angela - under strict surveillance, migrant mother, protective brothers, "Don't love me so much, I can't breathe. I've got to do something or else I'll choke". Does this explain why Angela went with Rick? Does it justify it?

9. How does the film illustrate the generation gap, the culture gap?

10. What impression did the planning for the abortion make an you? The amateur finding of someone, finding the money, being asked for more, the actual abortionists (was the latter sequence too horrific?). Why did Rick change his mind?

11. When did Rick and Angela begin to communicate? How important was the conversation after they were chased - where Angela comments on the song, wants real love, where she says people who really live alone are dead? (Rick says married people are "the prisoner of Zenda”).

12. Why was the wife of Rick's friend shown at the play area? What impression did she make on Rick - her age, looks, former friendship and present inability to communicate?

13. "I'm willing to marry you - to take any medicine." Was Angela right in refusing to marry on these terms? (Even though her brothers, mother and the priest were surprised.)

14. Why did Angela really return to Anthony? Was he a good man?

15. What did Angela's preparation for Kick's visit tell you about her feelings for him?

16. Why was the dinner a flop? Why was it easier for her to go with him when she did not know him than when she did?

17. The end. Were you satisfied with its meaning? The style -or was it too artificial?

LOVE STORY

US, 1970, 100 minutes, Colour.
Ali Mc Graw, Ryan O'Neill, John Marley, Ray Milland.
Directed by Arthur Hiller.

Love Story has had the fortune or misfortune to become a legend at the beginning of its lifetime. It is very hard to judge it objectively so much fuss has been made about it and so much money has it earned.

Its basis was a formula screenplay by Harvard classical scholar, Erich Segal, who then wrote it up in novel form to take the world's bestseller lists by storm. As the novel is short, very short, it could be read in association with the film discussion, preferably after the film has been seen.

There certainly have been better and deeper love stories, but this one is as good or as bad as any other popular one. The older generation wept at it because it was a relief from the frankness in art of the late 60's. Perhaps younger audiences identified with it for its romance (although the heroine is an externally tough, swearing, ironic-remark-making girl and the hero plays dirty at sport); if they did not, they could have been cynical at the WASP (White, Anglo- Saxon, Protestant) Harvard values and world-view that it offered. Some of the heart-burning American social concerns were mentioned, but they barely intruded on the love and struggling lives of Oliver and Jennifer.

Music is Francis Lai award-winning themes. Dialogue is frequently trite, corny or expletive. Love and death are geared to draw the audience tears. The principal characters are quite attractive (and were nominated for Oscars, as was John Marley as Phil, as was the film itself) and director, Arthur Hiller keeps the pace moving. (Hiller, director of The Americanisation of Emily, Popi, The Out of Towners, helped production costs by agreeing to take a percentage of earnings instead of a salary!)

What will audiences think in five, ten, twenty .... years' time?

1. Is this a very good film, average, or poor? Why?

2. If there had not been so much publicity for the film, do you think it would have drawn a big following on its own merits?

3. Is the film a satisfying love story? What are the usual ingredients of a love story? Are they here?

4. What are the best ingredients of a love story? Are they here?

5. What kind of picture of American society 1970 does the film give? Is it an adequate picture of American society? Are any important facets omitted or glossed over?

6. Did you like Oliver? Was he an attractive personality? Did he have a strong character? How did family background, wealth, playing sport, relationship with his father, dating of Jenny throw light on his character?

7. Did you like Jenny? (was she attractive? Was her rough, swearing, behaviour a sign of strength of character? How did her family background, average income, musical studies, pursuit of Oliver throw light on her character?

8. Were they idealists? Here they real (many critics called them 'plastic people' who never came alive)? Were they typical of College and University students?

9. Did Oliver and Jenny genuinely love each other? Why did they choose to have the marriage ceremony as they did? Did Jenny's reciting of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's words convince you?

10. Contrast the two fathers. Why did they appear so different? Why was Oliver Barrett Sr. so unsympathetic, while Phil Cavalleri was so likeable?

11. Was Barrett Sr. fair in disinheriting Oliver?

12. How happy was Oliver and Jenny's married life? Why were they happy?

13 Why did they quarrel? Jenny says that love means never having to say you're sorry. What does she mean? Is she right? She also said she tried never to hurt anyone.

14. How did Jenny face up to her death? Well? What about her religion? She said she was formerly a Catholic but did not believe in God. Did she make a religious show in her illness just for her father?

15. How did Oliver face her death? Did he do the right thing? Should he have been reasonable with his father earlier?

16. Was the death sequence too drawn out or too unrealistically romantic?

17. Is the film sentimental? Can you see why people cried so much an its first release?

18. Do you think the film corresponded to a more romantic mood of the times?

19. Comment on the effect of the music; on the impact of lines like 'She loved Mozart, Bach, the Beatles and me.' 'I 'm studying; I 'm really studying. ' 'Love means never having to say you're sorry. '

20. This was a love story of our times. It was a story of marriage. What values of love and marriage did it communicate? Did Oliver and Jenny 's love impress you as so complete that it was unique and permanent?

21. Do you think the film and the performances merited nominations for Oscars?

LORD OF THE FLIES

UK, 1963, 92 minutes, Black and white.
James Aubrey, Tom Chapin.
Directed by Peter Brook.

Lord of the Files is the film version of William Golding's novel, filmed by Peter Brook of the Royal Shakespeare Company, whose films include screen versions of Weiss's Marat/Sade and King Lear with Paul Scofield. Using unknown boy actors on location in the West Indies, Brook has made a satisfying film version of the novel, although he has been criticised for various infidelities. However, much of the criticism is based on a viewing of the film as if it were a novel. It is difficult to communicate what is going on inside Simon's head without words, but we should look at the boy's face in the context of the film and the character he has built up to see if something of Simon's mystic fear and insight comes across. On the other hand, the boys who play Ralph, Jack and Piggy, seem perfect embodiments of the characters.

Brook has added cinema touches in the use of stills of nuclear war during the credits and an imaginative musical score throughout the film. Lord of the Flies raises enormous Issues of humanity, sin, evil, Instinct, authority, law, order, conscience. It is very much worth reflecting on.

1. Were the stills of atomic warfare effective in creating the mood of the film as well as in getting enough information across to the audience so that the film could begin on the island?

2. Comment on the use of music throughout the film, the various themes associated with different characters, e.g. the medieval fanfare music of the 'Kyrie Eleison' of the choirboys.

3. Was Ralph the hero of the film? What qualities of leadership did he display?

4. What role does Piggy play - adviser, intellectual, butt, victim, comic relief? Comment on each of them.

5. The boys were only twelve and younger. William Golding has said that he made the boys this age so that they were motivated by the most basic human instincts. What were these instincts and how were they manifested?

6. Jack - was he a villain or not? Why? What was wrong with Jack?

7. What role did Simon play? What experiences different from the others did he have? What insights did he get? Did the boy who played the part convey this well by his facial expression?

8. Why did the boys need the conch? What happened when they took no notice of who held it? Are law, order and authority necessary in every group?

9. How did the fire show who was responsible and who was irresponsible?

10. What was the effect of the exhilaration of hunting and the pig's blood?

11. What was the beast? Why did they make it an offering? What does this show about owe human nature?

12. Simon said that the beast might only be themselves. How right was he? How much was it a projection of their own superstitions and fears?

13. Lord of the Flies translates Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. What light does this throw on the film?

14. How did Simon's death come about? Were the boys guilty?

15. What was the symbolism of Jack's hunters painting themselves?

16. Why was Piggy killed?

17. Why was Ralph hunted for his life? (Sam and Eric warned him but were powerless to do more.)

18. What was the effect of the ending? What did Ralph think? What did Jack think?

19. How different was the world they had created on the island from the world they were to return to, involved as it was in nuclear war?

20. Many see Lord of the Flies as an illustration of Original Sin. What do you think?

22. If you have read the novel, discuss how the film differs from the book and whether you think this was a good cinema version of the book, embodying and communicating the mood and message of the book.

LONELY ARE THE BRAVE

US, 1962, 92 minutes, Colour.
Kirk Douglas, Gena Rowlands, Walter Matthau, Carrol O'Connor, George Kennedy.
Directed by David Miller.

Lonely are the Brave is an offbeat Western which won critical acclaim at the time of its release. Time Magazine listed it as one of its Ten Best Films of 1962. However, it did poorly at the box-office. Released in 1969 or 1970, it might have had more success for its theme had become popular by this time. It shows the clash of the cowboy and his old standards and way of life clashing with the modern age, its pace and its machines. The cowboy loses. This is shown in symbolic ways, the aeroplane over the west, the chase where helicopter chases horse, the highway where speeding cars and trucks destroy the old way of life. Sam Peckinpah shows something of the same thing in Cable Hogue's being run over by a car in The Battle of Cable Hogue. These are the themes of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Wild Bunch, Monte Walsh and a number of other later westerns.

Kirk Douglas is at home in this kind of role after films like Paths of Glory and Spartacus. Walter Matthau is effective as the pursuing sheriff. This is not a popular film. It shows a man out of harmony, out of touch with his world. It is a western worth discussing.

1. Why is this not a typical Western? Does it have many features common to other Westerns?

2. Is this a 'symbolic' Western, a 'message' Western? Do you think the principal characters stand for attitudes or principles? Do various props or parts of the scenery have symbolic significance - e.g. highway, hills, horses and trucks, helicopters? Why?

3. Is John W. Byrne a hero? Why? He served with distinction in Korea - is this relevant to his heroism?

4. What is the significance of the title? Do you agree with it?

5. Comment on the mood set by the opening of the film - plane, man and horse, 'got to get going', fences, 'Closed areas', Byrne's cutting the wires and riding through closed areas, crossing the road and the pile of wrecked cars.

6. What image of the cowboy does Byrne give? Has he any, place or relevance in the 20th century or are his attitudes, behaviour, relics of last century and a less mechanised way of life?

7. Did Byrne live in a real world? Was he a hero for living his own way of life or was he unrealistic and a fool?

8. How did his behaviour throw light on his character (and on the brave cowboy myths)? - his relationship with Paul's wife, bathroom fixtures, 'Don't make trouble' - 'That's what I'm here for', his apologies for tripping to the one-armed man, his communicating by throwing bottles?

9. What identity did he have - especially in relationship to the law?

10. How were the sheriff and his deputies presented - too comically? Why?

11. How was the prison sequence symbolic - the spiritual man (what was Paul's crime?) who fought and did not win and was imprisoned, the brutality of the upholder of the law, 'breaking into jail for a friend', Byrne'e fight with the guard? The 'natural man' and 'freedom'.

12. The contrast between Paul and Jack. Paul grew up and changed, had wife and child for responsibility; Jack aid not. He is a child - (the Kirk Douglas grin) - 'a horse has more sense', says Paul's wife.

13. The symbolism of the hilly chose, the mechanised posse against the man on the horse - radio, helicopters, jeeps, army manoeuvres, planes and shooting the helicopter?

14. Contrast the pursuer and pursued and what they stood for?

15. How was Byrne 'a death prepared for? What was the significance of the build-up throughout the film of the truck-driver’s journey?

16. What was the significance of Byrne's being killed by a machine as he cut across a highway?

17. The people watch him after the accident and he is puzzled. Why?

18. Time Magazine, naming the film as one of the best of 1962, said it presented a picture of 'man as God made him in a world God never made'. Is this good comment?

LITTLE BIG MAN

US, 1970, 137 minutes, Colour.
Dustin Hoffman, Chief Van George, Faye Dunaway, Martin Balsam, Jeff Corey, Richard Mulligan, Amy Scales. Directed by Arthur Penn.

Little Big Man is a picaresque epic embodying a large portion of American history and the American heritage of the nineteenth century, It belongs to those films of 1969-70 that tried to make the world aware of Indian justice (Tell Them Willie Boy is Here, A Man Called Horse, Soldier Blue, The Last Warrior) and it is the best of these films.

It opens in our time with tape-recorded interviews and brash young reporters and the 121 year old hero, Jack Crabb, takes up his story, his life amongst Indians and whites. Crabb's family was massacred by Indians but he was brought up by the Cheyenne as one of their own. He was exploited by the whites - a parson's wife, a medical quack. He tried to be gunfighter, storeman with wife, but the frontier life spoiled his life and drove him wandering back to the Cheyenne life. He was at Little Big Horn for Custer's last stand and he witnessed the dying resignation of the conquered Cheyenne chiefs. This was the American West and the near-extinction of a people.

Arthur Penn has shown fascinating insights into the American people, especially in terms of violence: The Left-Handed? Gun (about Billy the Kid), The Miracle Worker (about Helen Keller), Mickey One (America Kafka-style), The Chase (Lillian Hellman and the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald), Bonnie and Clyde, Alice's Restaurant (Arlo Guthrie and friends). A viewing of all of Penn's films would give an intense, personal view of the United States. (An 86 minute award-winning documentary was made for T.V. on Penn's making of Little Big Man.)
Here, violence is to the fore, but the style of the film is picaresque and laced with the sardonic humour of Jack's reminiscences (true, false or middling). The humour is part of the satisfying impression the film makes - the major flaw seems to be the over-satirical presentation of Custer's megalomania, especially at Little Big Horn.

More is done for the appreciation of the Indian as a person than ever before in the performance of Chief Dan George, seen also to advantage in Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josey Wales. A tremendous dignity shines through this man. Dustin Hoffman shows his versatility once more and is a fine actor. This is an entertaining and valuable film.

1. Would it be fair to call this film a 'tragi-comic history' of the United States?

2. Why was this film made? What impact would it have in the U.S. in the 1970's? What impression of the U.S. sensibility of the 70's does the film offer?

3. Did you like Jack Crabb? Did you share his reaction to the condescending and glib modern reporter?

4. What difference to the impact of the film did its modern setting make and then its delving into history? What about Jack's comments, especially the comic comments? Did you believe that everything he said was exactly true?

5. How did the Indian massacre of his family affect Jack's life and outlook? Was this massacre underplayed in the film?

6. How did the scenes of Jack's growing up with the Cheyenne and his learning their ways and customs show the humanity of the Indian's way of life? What did you think of the Cheyenne's continually referring to themselves as 'the human beings'?

7. How did the Indians like Jack?

8. Why did Jack return so willingly to the white men?

9. What was being satirised in Mr Pendrake 's religious wrath and Mrs Pendrake's religious lust? Why was Jack so disillusioned with U.S. 'respectable society'? Was Jack too simple and naive?

10. What was being satirised in the con-man with his patent medicine and the cures and people's gullibility? Was Jack too honest?

11. Did you enjoy Jack's gunfighter period with Caroline and Bill Hickock? What image of the west was the target of this segment of the film?

12. Did Jack love Olga?

13. Was the characterisation of Ouster a caricature or just ironic -e.g. in his imperious 'Go west' advice with its comic sequel parodying westerns?

14. Why did Jack Seek Olga? Why did he veer between Indians and whites?

15. Why did Jack become a tramp? Who forced him to it? How did Bill Hickock force him to self-respect? How did Mrs. Pendrake? Were you surprised to see her again? Here?

16. What relationship was there between Jack and his grandfather and the other members of the tribe?

17. How disgusting were the massacres of the Indians?

18. Was Jack as happy married to a Cheyenne as he was to Olga?

19. What was the effect on him (and the audience) of Custer's massacre of the village (women and children not to be killed unless they resisted)?

20. How effective were the sequences where Custer was almost killed by Jack and then took his advice at Little Big Horn? (He was eventually killed by Jack in some way.) How was the Last Stand made to look foolish with Custer insanely concentrating on his power bid?

21. How much dignity did the chief have - what impression of Cheyenne life did he give to the audience?

22. Why did Jack's saga end with the Chief planning to die, going through the whole rite, but living on - is this meant to be a symbol and image of the survival of the Indian to-day?

23. Despite the caricatures, the parodies, the picaresque style and the yarns, was this a just picture of American history?

LILIES OF THE FIELD

US, 1963, 94 Minutes, Black and white.
Sidney Poitier, Lilia Skala.
Directed by Ralph Nelson.

Lilies of the Field has become a favourite film about the race question and about religion. Produced and directed by Ralph Nelson who has made a number of popularly appealing films about social problem areas, (insanity and science in Charley, American racism in Tick- Tick- Tick, the Indian minority in Soldier Blue), the film came out in the big year for civil rights in America, 1963.

Sidney Poitier was nominated for the Oscar for Best Actor and won it. Homer Smith, a black private contractor-builder, comes across a group of East German nuns In Arizona and ends up building their chapel, as well as befriending them. However, he meets his match in the authoritarian Mother Superior who, only at the end, realises that 1n her continual promulgating of God's will, she has never said 'thank you' to him. What could have been a sentimental Hollywood religious picture stands on its own feet as truly heart-warming and humorous entertainment for all.

1. How attractive is Homer Smith? Mainly good, a bit weak, but basically likeable? Is he an ''Everyman'?

2. What impression did Mother Maria make? Realistic (the nuns came from East Germany across the wall)? What of her authoritarian attitudes and identification of her will with the will of God? Homer calls her Hitler. Does she deserve this? What about her anguish when she has no money?

3. Why did she never think to say 'Thank you' until it happens at the end?

4. Did the other nuns make the same impression? Why? Did they appear as adult working women or simple or childish? Or were they somewhat lost in U.S. as simple immigrants?

5. What did you think of Juan's attitude towards God? "It's better to be sure and take out some kind of insurance policy" - so he helped with the building? Is he typical?

6. Was there a need for a Church? Did the chapel help to identify and unify the local community?

7. How similar was Homer to Mother Maria when he stubbornly wanted to build the church by himself and refused help?

8. What sense of achievement did he experience when he had completed the church?

9. What impression did Father Murphy make on you; as a priest? as a dedicated man?

10. Was the film sentimental or did it have genuine sentiment, without being overdone?

11. What was the meaning of the title of the film? - See the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:28-9).

12. What effect did the singing of the song 'Amen' have on the story and mood of the film?

13. What did the film have to communicate about human relationships, happiness, food, work, achievement, song?

THE LIBERATION OF L.B. JONES

US, 1969,102 minutes, Colour.
Lee J. Cobb, Anthony Zerbe,
Roscoe Lee Browne, Lee Majors, Barbara Hershey, Lola Falana, Arch Johnson.
Directed by William Wyler,

The Liberation of L.B. Jones is another critical look at the South and the conflict between black and white. It is competently done, although stark and brutal in tone. There is a complex story line, but each of the characters seems to represent a characteristic attitude or pose: the noble black, his sluttish wife who has an affair with a white policeman, the brutal and servile policeman, the elder compromising attorney, the idealistic young lawyer, the young ex-convict black seeking revenge. These characters interact, making a martyr out of dignified undertaker, L. B. Jones, disillusioning the young lawyer, and calling for the eternal compromise of the South, preserving the status quo at the expense of justice for the black man and telling face-saving lies for the white man.

Roscoe Lee Brown has frequently played African Americans with dignity. Here he is excellent. Lee J. Cobb repeats his veteran attorney role. Anthony Zerbe is convincingly disgusting as the 'typical’ white villain. Veteran director William Wyler (Mrs Miniver, The Best Years of Our Lives, Ben Hur, Funny Girl) directed.

1. Does this film say anything new on racism? Does it present a case about injustice to African Americans?

2. The film begins and ends with a train arriving and leaving, the same black and white passengers, but each changed by the events of the film. What is the effect of this technique? (e.g. on arrival the whites are welcome; the black, man hides; the audience rides into the South and leaves, changed. )

3. Is the idealistic lawyer (Lee Majors) convincing? Is his role important to the issues of the film?

4. L. B. Jones - is he a hero for the film? What kind of character did he have? How do you explain his infatuation with his wife? (What is the point of the scene where he sits watching the young dancer?)

5. How strong was his conscience, sense of justice, sense of law and order? Why did he make a decision to go on, even though death was the result?

6. Was he a martyr? A martyr is one who witnesses by death to values and beliefs. What did his death achieve? What did he believe about his own death, about refusing to run and staying to make a stand?

7. What were your reactions to the scenes of inter-racial love? To the furtive nature of this love, and the partners using each other, especially the policeman pressurising to stop the divorce proceedings?

8. Southern whites are shown as thinking they are immune to justice. The character of the policeman and his servility to authority and his brutality to those beneath him? Did he have any sense of the value of a black man's life?

9. Discuss the role of the policeman who was a bigot and yet an ordinary farmer. Is this type of character credible?

10. The ending, the compromise? Were you relieved or disgusted? Was the ending factual?

11. How effective was the film as a social commentary on the South?

THE LEARNING TREE

US, 1969, 106 minutes, Colour.
Kyle Johnson, Alex Clarke, Estelle Evans, Dana Elcar.
Directed by Gordon Parks.

Gordon Parks is a prominent photographer-journalist in America. His book, The Learning Tree, was his autobiography, the story of a negro boy, growing up in rural America in the early decades of this century. Parks wrote screenplay and music for this film adaptation of his book as well as producing and directing it. The Learning Tree, therefore, is one man's testimony to his American life and background. It is not a bitter testimony, though it has many harsh things to say, and speaks of murder and hatred. This single testimony, which might seem too gentle for many of to-day's African Americans, keenly conscious of rights and injustices, needs to be complemented by the single testimony of a fierce crusader, whose growing up was in a squalid urban background, like James Baldwin in The Fire Next Time or Go Tell It on the Mountain.

Beautifully photographed (perhaps bowing too much to such fashions as slow-motion running through grass and trees) and well acted.

This is a film about 'growing up'. Its elements include:
- A black background of home, friends, school, church.
- rural Kansas poverty.
- the family influence of strong mother and upright father on a youngest child.
- friends, good and bad, with whom one could swim or steal apples and run the risk of violence.
- a southern white sheriff.
- violence, and violent death of a black shot by the sheriff or a white man bashed by a black man.
- sex experience.
- love and betrayal: a black girl seduced by a white ne'er-do-well,
- education and ambition of further education,
- work.
- humiliation in cafes.
- hatred from fellow negroes.
- and the culmination of an awareness that man has a responsibility, a conscience and that he must follow his sense of right and wrong no matter what the consequences.
- in this way, a boy becomes a man, his town has been his learning tree.

LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (L'ANEE DERNIERE A MARIENBAD)

France, 1961, 93 minutes, Black and white.
Delphine Seyrig, Giorgio Albertazzi, Sacha Pitoeff.
Directed by Alain Resnais.

Last Year at Marienbad has become famous as one of the films which seems to sum up best the transformation in cinema techniques and the broadening of consciousness of content in the cinema of the 60's. It won the Grand Prix at the Venice Film Festival in 1961 and has been quite commercially popular as well as a favourite with film groups.

Novelist Alain Robbe- Grillet wrote the screenplay. He has since made the film Trans-Europe? Express. Director Resnais made the famous short documentary Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog, 1955) and won acclaim for his feature Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1959). He has since made Muriel (1963) and La Guerre est Finie (1965), collaborated in Loin de Vietnam (1967) and made Je t'aime, Je t'aime (1968).

Last Year at Marienbad is so complex that it is very difficult to prepare an ordinary set of questions. Rather, some references are given for background reading and some of the important features are referred to. ,

References:
1. "Film Makers on Film Making" (ed..Harry M.Geduld, Pelican, 1967). This book includes a short interview with Resnais on Marienbad as well as a discussion with Resnais and Robbe- Grillet about, the film.
2. "The Cinema of Alain Resnais", Roy Armes, Zwemmer International Film Guides.
3. "Man and the Movies" (ed. W. R. Robinson, Pelican, 1969).
4. Time Magazine gave the film a full page review, March 16, 1962, p. 55.

1. Time, appearance and reality. Time is past, present, future and conditional; all are illustrated. What is the chronology of the plot? Is this possible? relevant? The film is a riddle, an enigma, open to many (any?) solution.
The relativity of truth; are appearances truth and reality; where is truth, where reality? Who lies in the film? "What is reality if it is not what one thinks it is?" Critics say time is 'Dismantled' in the film and the audience is consequently immersed in 'total cinema'. What does this mean? Can the causes of actions be found, understood? In its playing with time, the film explores blind alleys of action as well as real avenues for achieving goals. Alain Resnais says the film is about 'Degrees of reality'. Resnais gives the example of meeting a friend who had been in India. He thought of her as at the ruins of Angkor in a blue dress. She had never been to Angkor and she was wearing the blue dress when he met her. How real, therefore, is Resnais' insight into this woman's being in India? (In the film consider the clashes of sound, comment and visual image. Which is true? Consider the woman with
300 photographs in her drawer.)

2. Points of view.
Robbe- Grillet says that as he sees it, the meeting never happened and the man is persuading the woman. Resnais says that he shot the film thinking that the meeting happened last year. The man, therefore, performs something of the function of a psychiatrist forcing the woman to accept the events she is repressing. The hotel is something of a clinic. (A Caligari image.) Resnais says he is interested in films of pure feeling and their interplay even without clearly defined characterisations of the persons whose feelings are explored. The film visualises the way memory works: not the tedious repetition of the details of what happened, but the recalling of one's feelings and impressions during that time. Consciousness is a stream; it has various levels - surface impressions, explicit knowledge and feeling in depth, hidden and subconscious wishes.

3. Audience response.
Resnais says this should be contemplation, meditation, a series of advances and retreats. The film is like a sculpture, the audience can move around it appreciating it from different angles. Because of this 'dismantling' of time, the audience can put it together again in its own way' the audience becomes part of the film and creates its own interpretation. la this process too exhausting so that the human spirit resists the challenge and cannot sustain such a long analysis?

4. Story and theme.
Some see the story as that of a seduction. The authors suggest the title. Persuasion. Human passion and love. (Is this film cold or tender concerning love?) The theme of the necessity of making a decision.

5. Symbols.
Resnais says there are no symbols or allegories in the film but things that can be taken as symbols.
The Baroque architecture and decoration (usually exuberant, but here made lugubrious).
The ordered gardens.
The Statue and the interpretations of the statue.
The changes of clothes.
The formal patterns of costume, manners, stances.
The impersonal, unemployed and fashionable jet set (and their games and immobility).
The monotony of the voice of the man (and the organ music).
The game that is played with matches, cards, etc. How does one win or lose?

6. Techniques.
The role of the organ music.
The widescreen images, the roving camera, the variety of shots, lighting, cross-cutting, editing.

7. Myths.
Several myths suggest themselves in connection with the film: The Eternal Masculine and Feminine; the coming of Death and his giving a year's respite to his victims} the quest for the Grail; the Labyrinth; heroes, sleeping beauties; two ghosts looking back to life.