ELIZABETH – THE GOLDEN AGE

November 3rd 2007

This week’s movie headlines proclaim that the Vatican has condemned this sequel to the 1998 Elizabeth. The Golden Age is denounced as an attempt to undermine Christianity and the makers of the film are seen as part of an atheist plot promoting secularism. This film is not to be confused with The Golden Compass, based on the novels by Philip Pullman which the Catholic League in the United States has condemned before its December 2007 release and has already published a booklet to combat the film and Pullman’s ideas, again a promotion of atheism.

This means that Catholic reviewers and commentators will be involved in these discussions in the coming months.

A point of clarification. The condemnation of Elizabeth – The Golden Age comes from a historian, Professor Franco Cardoni who has taught in the Lateran University in Rome. He and other like commentators have pointed out that the antagonism between England and Spain in the latter part of the 16th century have been played up: the bitter aftermath and persecutions that came from the Reformation and the role of the Papacy, itself a temporal power as well as a church power, in the wars of Europe. The claim is that the film does not adequately represent history, in fact, misrepresenting it.

Of course, this is what happens in many dramatisations of past events in theatre and cinema. We accept it in Shakespearean ‘histories’. We accept it in biopics. These are dramas rather than documentaries.

Another point of clarification. ‘The Vatican’ speaks with many voices and writers in L’Osservatore? Romano and speakers on Vatican Radio, for instance, who catch the eye of the media, especially when controversial, are referred to as ‘The Vatican’ as if the opinions expressed are the Pope’s or the Roman Curia’s views.

The main problem with Elizabeth – the Golden Age, however, is that it treats an extremely sensitive period in English history in a jingoistic and overly partisan manner: the aftermath of the excommunication of Elizabeth, the aftermath of the executions of Protestants by Queen Mary as well as the persecution of Catholics by the government, the tensions with Spain, the execution of Mary Queen of Scots and the attack of the Spanish Armada and its defeat. This is all stirring stuff and has been included in various films and television programs about Elizabeth and about Mary Queen of Scots.

The problem with this film for all audiences and especially for Catholics is the tone, the simplistic English patriotism and the blackening (literally in their dress) of Catholics. Some of the dialogue sounds quite outmoded, straight out of those antagonistic days of suspicions of other churches, something that applied to all suspicions and spats between Papists and, in the schoolboy jargon of previous decades, ‘Protty dogs’. Serious advisers to Elizabeth tell her that every Catholic in the realm is a danger to her, a potential assassin. While the film rightly shows the plots of Philip II of Spain, the Babington attack on Elizabeth and some Catholic conspirators, the ‘every Catholic’ rhetoric is a bit much. Fortunately, Elizabeth herself is given some lines which moderate this extremism – although she is also made to say that if the Armada lands it will bring the Inquisition which seems to be on board. She proclaims freedom of thought, which is not quite accurate in view of her persecutions and executions.

This is a film which would not be helpful as a basis for ecumenical discussions between Anglicans and Catholics.

As a film, it is a colourful spectacle that covers 1585-1588, momentous years with the death of Mary Queen of Scots and the Armada. The title is misleading. Elizabeth’s ‘golden age’ was to follow this period, the subject of the next sequel, perhaps. Another fact is that Elizabeth was 52 at the opening of the film and, despite Cate Blanchett’s best efforts (and she is one of the reasons for seeing the film), she does not seem near 52. There is romance with Clive Owen’s debonair piratical Walter Raleigh, intrigue with Geoffrey Rush’s world-weary Walsingham, and Drake’s confrontation of the Armada is dwarfed by Raleigh’s heroics (who uses his cloak over the puddle as his ticket of introduction to the queen). But, while the film has many interesting sequences, the total lacks the forceful impact of the original.

Demonising the enemy can be a deliberate plot – or, as in this case it would seem, not a plot but lazy scripting, black versus white stuff. Philip II is played as devilish caricature, with a bandy-legged walk, fidgety in the extreme (often with his rosary beads), blessing the armada, denouncing Elizabeth with epithets of ‘bastard’ and ‘whore’ and proclaiming Catholicism in a style reminiscent of the current president of Iran when he rants against the west. He is surrounded by grim-visaged monks and perpetual religious chant – with all in black. Rhys Ifans also turns up as a fanatical Jesuit (parallel to Daniel Craig’s assassin priest in Elizabeth). No redeeming features here – except, perhaps, the dignity with which Samantha Morton’s Mary Queen of Scot shows on the gallows.

We do not usually talk about ‘angelising’ but this is what this film does for Elizabeth. While the screenplay helpfully shows the weaker sides of Elizabeth’s behaviour, her infatuation with Raleigh, her jealous outbursts against her lady in waiting, Bess Throckmorton, most of the film proposes her as angel to Philip’s devil. Beautiful, beautifully gowned, articulate, noble demeanour, she becomes more and more the competent stateswoman, eventually donning armour to support the troops against the Armada, sitting horseback offering rousing encouragement in the manner of Olivier’s Henry V and then, ethereal in nightdress, roaming the fields and standing, in a long shot, like an angelic icon on the cliffs confronting the enemy, a guardian angel of her soldiers. And that is describing it mildly.

Elizabeth – The Golden Age is something of a surprise and a letdown. The potential to make a 21st century historical epic that was able to acknowledge the passionate beliefs on both sides along with the wrongs would have made stimulating and relevant cinema. Bias, as always (think Braveheart or The Patriot) would have been inevitable but, unfortunately, this film gets carried away with itself.

THE CHURCH IN TRANSITION: DOUBT

2nd December 2008

Doubt is a film of strong Catholic interest.

It can be viewed in the light of the current Church experience of sexual abuse by clergy. However, this is not the central issue of the film. Doubt is a film about Church structures, hierarchy, the exercise of power and the primacy of discipline and order.

Set in the autumn of 1964 in the Bronx, New York, the film focuses on the suspicions of the primary school principal, Sister Aloysius, that the local priest and chaplain to the school, Fr Flynn, is taking an unhealthy interest in one of the students, aged twelve. There are some suggestions, several ambiguous clues, about what might have happened but the actual events remain unclear as the priest defends himself against the nun' strong intuition against him and the nun discusses the problem with the boy's mother. As the title of the film indicates, the drama leaves the truth unclear because it is the stances of the two characters in conflict, especially the determined nun and the truth struggle, the power struggle, the conscience struggle, that is the point of the film.

John Patrick Shanley (Oscar for the screenplay for Moonstruck and a prolific playwright) has adapted and opened out his Pulitzer-prize winning play for the screen and directed it himself. Shanley has indicated that he is not so much concerned with the issue of clerical abuse of children as of pitting two characters against each other to highlight the uncertainties of certainty and the nature of doubt. The drama is all the more powerful because of its naturalistic atmosphere, recreating the period and the life of the school, the convent and the rectory, and because of the powerful performances by Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Fr Flynn. Amy Adams gives contrasting support as the gentle and somewhat naïve Sister James who teaches the children. Viola Davis is the mother of the boy.

It can be noted that the nun on whom the film's Sister James was based and who taught Shanley at school in the Bronx has acted as a technical adviser. The film, by contrast with so many others, represents the details of Church and liturgical life accurately – although there is a breviary in English, which was not the case in 1964, the children sing the Taize Ubi Caritas at Mass although it was composed later and Sister James is allowed to go to visit her sick brother which most nuns were not permitted to do at that time. However, the film has a Catholic atmosphere which, while it might baffle audiences who were not there at the time, will ring true and bring back many memories to Catholics who lived through this strict period.

As with most organisations by the beginning of the 1960s, secular or religious, the Catholic Church was hierarchically structured. Everyone knew their place, whether they liked it or not. A pervading Gospel spirit of charity and service pervaded the Church but it was often exercised in a way that seemed harsh and demanding, especially by those who saw their authority being backed by a 'grace of state'. Many of those who left the Church in this era give anecdotes of the treatment they received from priests and nuns as reasons for their departure, even of their loss of faith. When John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in January 1959 and it opened on October 11th 1962, in his phrase, windows were opened, and change began to sweep through the Church. This coincided with the changes, especially in Western society during the 1960s and the widespread protests symbolised by the Vietnam War and the hippy movement. In fact, this was also the decade of enormous changes in Africa and the moves for independence. Independence was a key word of the 1960s.

This is the theme that Doubt takes up.

Sister Aloysius

Sister Aloysius, who, we learn, is a widow, is a strong-minded superior of the strict, intervening school of religious life. She sees herself as an authority figure and what she says goes. This was the spirituality of God's will spoken through the Superior – though, in retrospect, this often seems more the whim of the superior. She believes in discipline and she does not expect to be liked. She trusts her intuitions and assumes that they are correct. She does show some consideration to the health and mental states of the older sisters and has moments of kindness to Sister James but, the kind of Church and religious life she has inherited mean that she is constantly on the alert, wants proper order everywhere and sees herself in the chain of hierarchical authority that goes up via parish priest, bishop, to Rome and to the Holy Father.

Shanley is giving us an image of this kind of nun and her ethos and religious motivations. At its best and worst this can be seen in Fred Zinneman's The Nun's Story (filmed in 1958 while Pius XII was still alive and the assumption was that this is how religious life would be forever) but released in 1959 after John XXIII had called the Council which asked for renewal in all religious orders. Sister Aloysius is experiencing the first signs of a more transparent church, a church where a more adult obedience and discernment would replace any blind obedience and any childish exercise of power. A year after the story of Doubt, the Council would issue its Constitution on the Church which would respect hierarchy but interpret the life of the Church as that of the People of God, with the principles of subsidiarity and shared responsibility.

Fr Flynn

This kind of Church is what Fr Flynn is foreshadowing in the film. It is not as if there were not friendly priests – Fr Bing Crosby received frowns from Fr Barry Fitzgerald in the 1944 Oscar-winner, Going My Way, for being too open and relaxed – and got into some trouble with the school principal, Ingrid Bergman, in The Bells of St Mary's, both films being interesting companion pieces to Doubt.

At the opening of the film, Fr Flynn gives a sermon on experiencing doubts. This cuts no ice with Sister Aloysius. Fr Flynn is already on her hit list because of his friendliness towards the children in the school. He coaches basketball. He talks with the children and affirms them. This kind of pastoral outreach was about to be encouraged by the Council's document on priesthood.

The film also offers a contrast between the silent, rather ascetical meals in the convent with the jovial conversation and joking at the priests' parish table.

Certainties and doubts

The confrontations between Sister Aloysius and Fr Flynn become quite desperate for Fr Flynn when he realises that the nun is so certain and dominating and has taken investigations into her own hands rather than respecting him as a person let alone a priest. We see the conflict between the old authoritarian style and the new, more personable style of interactions. While Shanley himself states that he has some sympathy for the old ways, rituals, silence and devotion, his drama clearly shows the inadequacy of the authoritarian hierarchical model of Church in dealing with human relationships. Something had to change. And it did.

The sisters in the film are the Sisters of Charity founded in the 19th century by Elizabeth Bayley Seton,canonised a saint in 1975, and they are still wearing her dress/habit and bonnet. Within the decade, that would change, sisters wearing a less formal habit or ordinary clothes with an emblem indicating their religious order. Community life would be less rigid as would the relationships between the sisters. There would be different relationships between the parish clergy and the sisters would worked in the parish.

Doubt offers an opportunity to look at the two models of Church and to assess their strengths and weaknesses, especially in the light of subsequent events and the nature and life of the Church at the present day.

The film wants to create doubts in the minds and emotions of the audience by contrasting the two styles of pastoral outreach, Sister Aloysius as stern, Fr Flynn as amiable. As regards the doubts about Fr Flynn's behaviour, contrasting clues are offered: Fr Flynn's manner and friendliness with the boys, his singling out Donald for attention, Donald's drinking the altar wine in the sacristy and Sister Aloysius' conclusion that Fr Flynn had given it to him, Fr Flynn's calling Donald out of class to the rectory and Sister James' wariness about this. On the other hand, Fr Flynn has explanations of Donald being the only African American boy in the school and the antipathy and bullying he received and wanting him to remain as an altar boy despite the offence which required his being dismissed as a server, his drinking the wine because of his father's beating him because he suspected his homosexual orientation. This is complicated by the conversation between Sister Aloysius and Donald's mother whose sole concern, irrespective of what Fr Flynn might have done or not done and her husband's violent treatment of Donald, is that Donald remain in the school for the next sixth months so that he will graduate and have the opportunity to go to a good high school.

Shanley's images of Sister Aloysius at the end indicates that he believes we should all have doubts and not take the moral high ground of untested certainties.

(There are several films that take up this transition in the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. At the time, there were some films about nuns handling the changes: The Trouble With Angels, Where Angels Go... Trouble Follows and Change of Habit. The small-budget film, Impure Thoughts (1981) has some very funny scenes of reminiscences about sisters and prriests in a parish school of 1961; Heaven Help us (1985)is set in a Franciscan boy's high school in 1965. This was the year Paul VI went to New York and addressed the United Nations – an event which is part of the background of Polanski's film of Rosemary's Baby. For a stronger focus on the changes for nuns at the time, the Australian mini-series, Brides of Christ, is probably the best. A telemovie, starring Kate Mulgrew as Mother Seton, about the founding of the Sisters of Charity is A Time for Miracles (1980).)

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED
and its Catholicism

17th September 2008

Evelyn Waugh's celebrated 1945 novel was something of a departure from his more satirical books like Decline and Fall, Vile Bodies,Scoop. It was a serious observation of a traditional and wealthy English Catholic family of the 1920s and 1930s, the nature of their allegiance to the Church, particular aspects of their faith and its being part of their aristocratic culture. The observations are made by Charles Ryder who comes from a middle class family, who declares himself an atheist, who is both fascinated and repelled by this kind of religious faith and behaviour just as Waugh himself satirised but seemed to be drawn to the Brideshead way of life and its snobbery. The novel was sub-titled 'The Sacred and Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder'.

Waugh himself was a convert to Catholicism in 1930.

Response to this 2008 film version, which did not perform well at the US box office and is about to open in the UK , Australia and other English-speaking countries in October, will depend very much on the audience's age. There will be those who have read the book and have their ideas on how literary adaptations should be filmed. There will be those who saw the 1981, 12 episode television series, which still has the reputation of a television masterpiece (written by John Mortimer and starring Jeremy Irons, Anthony Andrews, Diana Quick with celebrity cameos by Olivier, Giulgud and Claire Bloom). A film running just over two hours cannot hope to compete in storytelling with this series.

For a younger audience unfamiliar with novel or series, this may seem just another 'English heritage' film along with those from the Merchant-Ivory? company. Not having lived through the period, they may well find the portrait of Catholicism alien to their sensibilities and younger Catholics, in particular, unless they belong to current traditionalist movements or frequent such Churches as London's Brompton Oratory, may find that it does not correspond much with their ideas and experience of faith and the Church.

Some audiences have reacted favourably to the film. A number have judged that the film is anti-Catholic.

Leaving aside a review of the film as drama and not commenting on performance, photography, musical score and other technical aspects, the film is worth discussing in terms of representations of the Catholic Church.

The type of Catholicism in the film is very much that of of pre-1960s church. While a great deal of what the family pray, say, discuss and do bears the imprint of a rather sombre church (inherited from the 18th and 19th centuries steadfastness in the face of secular or, as the sub-title of the novel suggests, profane challenge), it represents a hierarchical, aristocratic interpretation of the Gospels and spirituality and devotions. While the characters have varying degrees of belief and lived commitment of faith, it is a faith that is part of ancestral heritage and status, sometimes more cultural than religious. Lisa Mullen, in her Sight and Sound review of the film (October 2008), tellingly refers to the Marchmain's Catholicism as 'an ancestral edict that cannot be shirked'.

The audience is invited to observe and assess the Catholicism through the eyes and experiences of Charles Ryder. He states that he is an atheist. Lady Marchmain suggests that he is really an agnostic but he insists on atheist. While he takes some holy water and genuflects as he first visits the home chapel with Sebastian, he says he is simply trying to fit in. But, he fits in less and less. He is dismayed by Lady Marchmain's frequently expressed language of God's will (when much of it is her own will or, actually, whim) and refers to 'God's limits'. He listens to Cara's version of easier-going Italian Catholicism and its sin, go to confession and sin again pastoral practice. He respects Lord Marchmain's wish not to have a priest at his deathbed but is both moved and puzzled by the change of heart which leads Lord Marchmain to accept Fr McKay's presence, the sacrament of Extreme Unction (its name at that time) and his sign of acceptance by making the sign of the cross as he dies.

This is material that the audience needs time to reflect on as does Charles. When he returns to Bridehead, occupied by the troops during the war, he goes into the chapel, remembers the Flytes and goes to extinguish the candle, hesitates, and does not. This is a fine evocative visual symbol for open-mindedness – that, while there is no problem dramatising the doubts of a believer, audiences tend not to be sympathetic to or are surprised at the doubts of an atheist.. As Charles listens to his ordinary military assistant and his blithe summing up of life as birth, living and death (the philosophy of the brave new world and hopes after World War II), Charles' experience of Bridehead and the Flytes suggest that he reassess his memories, both sacred and profane.

But what is the nature of these sacred memories?

The Flyte experience of the Catholic Church is from the tradition of the Recusant families, those who stood fast against the Reformation for both religious and civil ideologies and who, at best, developed a profound belief and devout practice. Their chaplains in the 17th and 18th centuries, many trained in France, often brought back more rigid ideas and practices which emphasised the language of sin and saving one's soul, as Julia laments about her mother's attitude to her when she was a girl, that she was 'a bad little girl'. By the 20th century, the class system had separated families like the Flytes from ordinary people and, indeed, ordinary Catholics. There was a great deal going on in the English Catholicism of the 1920s and 1930s. The Catholic Church was more that of the working classes (and the presence of Irish Catholics since the 19th century migrations) and the middle classes. The 1930s was a strong era of Catholic Action, of writing and publications and rethinking theology, of talks, discussions and arguments at Hyde Park Corner and the like, of Catholic Education and hospital and social care. Think Chesterton, for instance. While the Flyte family may have had connections with this kind of vital Catholic life, there is no evidence of its influence in the screenplay. The family gather in the chapel after dinner, pray together and sing the Salve Regina just as their ancestors did in the penal days.

This means that the Catholicism of the film is a niche Catholicism, so to speak. And, while it is accurate enough and needs to be portrayed, it is a pity if the average audience comes away thinking that this is it as far as Catholicism goes.
The danger is also in stereotyping – which does not mean that the stereotypes were not real: the genial Irish priest and his eagerness to administer the Last Rites, the easy and sometimes glib 'out' to refer to confession and absolution as the simple Catholic way of dealing with sin, the emphatic God language, the pervasiveness of guilt.

However, one of the striking things about the screenplay by Andrew Davies (a veteran of adapting literary works for the big and small screen) and Jeremy Brock (who may or may not have extensive knowledge of matters Catholic), is the character of Lady Marchmain, brought to vivid and sometimes alarming life by Emma Thompson, and the words put into her mouth.

She speaks about the Church, about faith, about sin, in a way that a majority of clergy spoke at that time and earlier. She has a hierarchical approach to everything, observing life and behaviour from a higher moral ground which leads to an assumed certainty and a snobbish and sometimes intolerant imposition of what she believes and wants in the name of God. She does back down somewhat as she loses her children, something which bewilders her (as it still does bishops, clergy and devout older Catholics faced with their sons and daughters abandoning church practice in the last four decades).

In this way, we can see in the film that her behaviour as mother is parallel to some traditions of 'Mother Church'. She avows to Charles that she has wanted what was best for her children, something which has, in fact, hindered their growth, Julia confident on the surface but with a pervasive fear of her mother and of God, Sebastian and the complexities of his homosexual orientation and his alcoholism. Bridey is simply Lady Marchmain in the next generation.

But mother, and Mother Church, in imposing religious values and practice by simply demanding them rather than assisting the children to grow, assimilate the values and mature into an adult faith, either reproduces replicas, stifles moral growth or alienates the children, driving them away and, in making their experiences bitter, leads them to reject everything their mother stands for.

In this way, the film of Brideshead Revisited, while focusing on a limited and exclusive section of the English Catholic Church of the past, does offer a real model of what has happened in the broader Church, especially in the latter part of the 20th century in terms of lack of interest, rejection or hostility towards the Church.

Brideshead Revisited does not seem to be anti-Catholic as a film dramatising the changes in much of 20th century Catholicism – which may irritate those who love the Church – but, rather, a film challenging beliefs and practices. Which could lead to healthy reflection, re-assessment and discussion.


Note:

The press kit for the film (not always the most trustworthy source for opinions and statements) offers an interesting writer's perspective in quoting screen-writer, Jeremy Brock.

Referrring to Lady Marchmain: A staunch Roman Catholic, she is the religious centre of the novel and the film, binding all the characters together and, in the case of the Marchmain children, largely informing who they are, directing their decisions both subconsciously when they were growing up and consciously as they become adults. Brock says, 'She carries the burden of the religious themes. She is the most articulate advocate for the Catholic point of view in the film and stands out because of that. It also inevitably means she is going to be one of Charles' main adversaries... As religion is one of the central themes and narratives spinning around the central love story, the film explores how religion plays into people's lives, how it informs who they are and how they attempt to escape it or rewrite it in order to become themselves. Brock also refers to the difficulties Charles Ryder faces as an atheist trying to comprehend the power of that faith.

Hayley Attwell, speaking of her performance as Julia says, 'At the beginning of the film she describes herself as half heathen, as she rebels slightly from her upbringing in this big house and very dominant Catholic family. Charles then enters her life and opens her eyes to a new world, but ultimately she is on a journey to discover whether her life is predestined or whether she has the freedom to follow her heart. It's a struggle for her, to find out who she is and what she truly desires compared to what she thinks God wants from her and for her. She ultimately chooses God, the greatest good and highest source of all life, over Charles and romance. But I think it's far more complicated and interesting than just giving up man. Julia finally discovers who she really is and she is happy. It's a revelation rather than a sad ending for her. She's taking on a faith which is a huge thing – quite a miraculous and wonderful thing for many people.'

This kind of comment on religious and church issues is not often found in connection with a film and it is to be welcomed.

BOMBON, IL PERRO

Argentina, 2004, 97 minutes, Colour.
Juan Villegas, Walter Donardo, Rosa Valsecchi.
Directed by Carlos Sorin.

Here is a film with sub-titles that has attracted a wider audience than might have been expected. You don’t have to be Argentinian to enjoy it.

It’s a dog’s life! Never truer than in this extremely amiable (well, not exactly ‘shaggy’) dog story. Director, Carlos Sorin took his audiences several years ago to Patagonia with three modest but effective short stories in Historias Minimas (which also included a story about a lost dog). We are now back again in what is for most people one of the most remote parts of the world. After Patagonia, there is Cape Horn and Antarctica. Sorin makes sure that we get a good look at it all, the mountains, the desert terrain. We also experience life there, the isolation as well as the small towns – which are still big enough to put on a dog show.

Juan (Juan Villegas) is trying to sell knives after being put out of work. When he is given a dog by a widow he has helped, he is advised to seek out Walter, an expert on pedigree dogs. The dogs we like are a matter of taste. Bombon is referred to as a champion and everybody admires him. Well, he seems to be something of a big brute with a touch of the uglies. For audiences who really enjoy their dog films, it is probably a good thing to recommend that very funny comedy about American dog shows and the eccentricities of their owners, Best in Show.

Actually, the cast look pretty plain themselves. In fact, one of the attractive things about the film is that the main protagonists do not look in the least like film stars. Juan is a simple, quiet fifty-something man. Walter is big, full of bravado. Maybe, he is a bit of a conman, but he knows dogs and is exuberant in his enthusiasm. When Bombon (Lechien) wins a prize and they celebrate at a Lebanese restaurant, Walter finishes up in jail after a brawl whereas Juan meets Susana, a middle-aged singer (no glamour either) who reads his fortune in the coffee grinds.

The dramatic crisis of the film is that Bombon won’t service the dogs he is paid for breeding. Apparently, he has a weak libido though a champion in all other respects. It may seem a strange thing to say but there is an explicit unsimulated sex scene at the end of the film which audiences will welcome!! There is a happy ending.

Sorin likes people and he likes animals. He portrays them all with great empathy. He also has feeling for poorer people who have fewer chances in life. He seems to be saying that this is the lot of most people in this part of Argentina. They suffer from unemployment and hard financial times. However, his film is one of hope and humour. Winner of the award from the World Catholic Association for Communication, SIGNIS, in Troia, Portugal, June, 2005.

1. A human story, an animal story, positive hope and values?

2. Patagonia, isolated, distances, the roads, the mountains, dry? The bar, the dog show? The context for this story? The plaintive and melancholic score?

3. The title, the focus on dogs, audience response to dogs? Dogs in themselves, pets, in show, their skills, characters and personalities, successes and failures?

4. The employment situation in Argentina, ordinary people, scarcity of jobs, the service stations, the café, the singers, the dog trainers, the brick factories?

5. Villegas and his trying to sell the knives, the bargaining? The policeman and the private property, the bribe? The widow, the dog? His receiving the dog? The response of family, friends? The relationship between the dog and himself, tensions, bonds? In himself, age, personality? Quiet? His going to find Walter? Walter building up his hopes, his enjoyment of the dog’s behaviour, the training, the difficulties for training, Walter’s perseverance, the third prize, the winning in the division? The joy of the two, going to the café, his meeting Susanna, admiring her singing? Walter in jail? The going back to the house, reading the coffee grounds? The bond between Susanna and Villegas? The problems with the dog, going to the kennel, the vet explaining that it lacked libido? The decision for Walter to go with the dog, Villegas remaining behind, discovering the escape, the search, the factory, the wild people, seeing the dog with the black dog? The fulfilment of hopes? The return to Susanna, the bond with her, a future? His giving the lift to the young people? Portrait of a gentle man?

6. The contrast with Walter, his size, work, enthusiasms, experience with dogs, memories of Miami, hopes for money, the details of training, the plan, in show, the winning of the division, his getting Villegas to participate? The dance at the restaurant, the taunts, the fight, in jail? The fact that the dog would not mount the other dog? His taking the dog away? The dog escaping?

7. Susanna, her singing, her back-story, loving singing, the Lebanese background, learning the lyrics by phonetics? The lift home, reading the coffee grounds? The final discussion between Susanna and Villegas, hopes for the relationship?

8. The background people, buying knives, the police and the bribery, the widow, family, the judges of the show, the people in the restaurant, at the police station, the wild people, the makers of bricks? Background and authentic atmosphere?

9. The gentle pace of the story, a dog story, the humour, the sentiment, the serious implications, humanity and loneliness, relationships? The final image of the road, the young people, hopes for all?

KILOMETRE ZERO

France/Iraq, 2005, 91 minutes.
Nazmi Kirik, Eyam Ekrem.
Directed by Hiner Saleem.

Now, here is a film with a definite, even exultant, strong point of view. It is a Kurdish film, with French collaboration. Right at the outset we hear Kurds announce that President Bush and the US might be imperialists but they did get rid of the loathed Saddam Hussein. If it had been France or Switzlerland who did it, the Kurds would have welcomed them. The dread name of ‘Chemical Ali’ is invoked and we flash back to 1988.

The contempt of Iraqis for the Kurds is palpable. The feeling is, of course, mutual. Men are arbitrarily taken, some shot, others conscripted and sent to Basra to fight Iran. They are humiliated. This is especially true of a fat Kurd called Sami who is made to run, dance, his feet beaten and generally made a laughing stock ( but still expected to fight for Iraq).

The bulk of the film is a trip back to Kurdistan by Ako, who has wanted to move his wife and son and his dying father-in-law away from danger. He accompanies an Iraqi driver as they drive a ‘martyr’ of the war back to his home town. They clash, they fight, military officers bark orders and insults. They are their own civil war.

The film is crisply photographed bringing out the dust of the desert and the majesty of the mountains. The theme is (very) serious but there are spoof moments, especially with Sami, with Ako wanting shells to destroy his leg in the trench so that he can go back home – and trucks going up and down the countryside with saluting statues of Saddam Hussein.

As a film, plot and acting, it is fairly ordinary. It is the passion and the theme that keep our attention, as it ends on April 9th, 2003, with Ako and his wife in exile in Paris shouting exuberantly that the Kurds are now free.

1. An Iraqi film, French collaboration? In the setting of 2005, after the Iraq war, the freedom of the Kurds?

2. The strong point of view, the Kurdish loyalty, the clashes with the Iraqi, the persecution of the Kurds by the Iraqis? Mutual hatred?

3. The photography, the opening, the closure in France? The Kurdish landscapes, the mountains? The homes, the towns? The contrast with the Iraqi desert? The musical score?

4. The opening, the comments on President Bush, American imperialism, the freedom of Iraq, the toppling of Saddam Hussein? The invitation to whatever country, France or Switzerland?

5. The rounding up of the men, the barbarity of the soldiers, the executions at the whim of the officer, the electrician being killed, Arko being allowed to live? The humiliation of Sami, making him go down the steps backwards, dance, run? The humiliation by the Iraqi soldiers of the Kurds?

6. Arko, his relationship with Selma, her dying father and his being cantankerous, the temptation to kill him? His love for his boy? The option of going to the guerrillas in the mountains or to fight with the Iraqis?

7. The three friends, Sami, Arko and the other soldier? Their training, the treatment by the officers? The buildings, wanting to escape but not having any way of doing so? The bombardments? In the trenches, action? The absurdity of Arko wanting them to shoot off his leg as he had seen the man without a leg in his home town? The irony of Sami and his not running, the later information about his death?

8. Arko and the driver, their long trek through the desert with the corpse? The many martyrs and their being returned to their homes? Through the desert, to the posts and the officers not wanting the bodies being seen, insulting the Kurds, their being hungry and difficult to get food? Travelling through the night? The bridge

9. The clash between Arko and the driver? The mutual hatred, the fights, laughing together, fighting together? Their sharing the hunger together? Stranded in the desert, taking the coffin off the van, the driver going and not returning? Arko and the desert, his anger and desecrating the Iraqi flag? Leaving the coffin with the note?

10. His going to the town, finding the man without the arm, his proposal, Selma, the boy and her father coming? The possibility of settling down, on the border with Turkey? The happiness of husband and wife together?

11. Putting the old man under the tree, the sudden incursion of the planes, the bombardment – and the indication of chemical weapons and the destruction of the Kurds?

12. The finale, fifteen years later, Arko and Selma in France, the news of the taking of Baghdad? The joy and their proclaiming their freedom?

13. The impact for those in favour of the Iraqi war, the freedom of the Kurds? For those against the war? For those who wanted Saddam Hussein toppled?

SANGRE

Mexico, 2005, 90 minutes, Colour.
Cirilo Recio Davila, Claudia Orozco.
Directed by Amat Escalante.

Sangre just stops. The end. Maybe, Diego, the central character, a middle-aged, very ordinary man, balding, with a cast in his eye, just has nowhere else to go.

First time writer and director traps his audience in the humdrum life of Diego and Blanca. With his almost permanently fixed camera, in long takes (sometimes very long –30 seconds for Blance to trim her toenails), it is if we are caught in a Mexican reality TV program where very little happens. Activities run the range from intimate sex, through Diego eating his tacos and fried egg, to lying watching telenovellas (which actually sound more interesting than what we see of Diego and Blanca).

Of course, this is a portrait of unvaried, often banal lives which make us ask what life is all about. Diego goes a good deed for a woman whose son is abducted and Blanca angrily tosses a table at him. She apologises. Diego’s daughter asks can she live with him. He puts her up in a hotel. In the last 30 minutes, there are some complications with Diego’s daughter and his almost zombie-like manner of dealing with the crisis. And then he and the film just stop.

1. The impact of the film? Life in Mexico? Attachments and detachments? Purpose?

2. The visual style, the static camera, the limited movement, action within the frame – or not? The influence of reality TV style? Editing, long takes? Score?

3. The title, the beginning, the man at the end and his confrontation with the young man?

4. Diego’s story: lying and with the blood and wound, at home, his relationship with Blanca, the clashes, her asking pardon? Watching the television soap operas? The sexual relationship? Going to bed, waking in the morning, breakfast, driving to work, dropping Blanca, at work, taking Marta home after her son was abducted, Karina and her phone call, meeting her, her wanting to live with him, his fearing Blanca? To the hotel, the back-story about Karina? Blanca’s refusal? The long breakfast with the tacos and egg? Driving, finding Karina dead, buying the tools at the shop, the bag, putting her in the bag, driving her to the garbage disposal, at the tip, watching, the cows, walking on the water, getting the fruit, falling into the water, the family – and the blood? The sudden end?

5. Blanca, at work, busy, tidying up, at home, the bathroom, sexual relationship with Diego, clipping her toenails, watching the TV? Her yelling at him, always asking his pardon, buying his favourite takeaway food? The breakfast, not wanting Karina?

6. Karina, relationship with her father, the phone call, the meeting, her explanation of her boyfriend, doing anything for him, including cocaine? His not seeing they were a couple, his friends? Her death?

7. The workplaces, Marta and the abduction (and the television with the news about violence in the country)?

8. The final family, out in the countryside, the confrontation between the two men – and the final image of Diego?

LEMMING

France, 2005, 129 minutes, Colour.
Laurent Lucas, Charlotte Gainsborg, Charlotte Rampling, Andre Dussollier.
Directed by Dominik Molle.

Beware lemmings, those furry rodents from Scandinavia who, myth says, rush to cliffs and leap over to their deaths. This film says otherwise: at a time of overpopulation they migrate; but when they are swimming across large lakes, they die from exhaustion. Now, what that has to do with this film is another matter. They may be symbols for us to ponder. They may just be red herrings, Hitchcock’s Mc Guffin.

It’s not easy to describe Lemming let alone categorise it. It seems to belong to a new set of films (see, for instance, John Maybury’s The Jacket) which are psychodramas of the sub-conscious, life as it might be lived for good or evil, not necessarily life as it is being lived. And, at the end, to highlight his point, the director has the song ‘Dream a little dream of me…’.

The director is Dominik Moll who made the strikingly offbeat thriller, Harry, He’s Here to Help. It is co-written with Harry collaborator, Giles Marchand, who directed Who Killed Bambi. The acting credits are very impressive as well, actors well cast and carrying us on with this strange story. Laurent Lucas is a hotshot automation inventor, happily married to Benedicte (Charlotte Gainsbourg). They live comfortably but when the boss (Andre Dussolier) and his wife (Charlotte Rampling) come to dinner, things begin to go haywire. At this point, it is wise to leave plot development because that is the point of seeing the film: looking at what Moll presents and trying to discern what is real and what is not.

Lemming is the kind of film that grows on you with reflection.

1. The title, the literal explanation of lemmings, the real explanations beyond the myth? Not suicide but exhaustion? The symbol of the lemmings in the film – or a red herring? Yet an omen of things to come?

2. The French settings, Bel Air, the modern uncomfortable suburb? The offices, the laboratories for technological development? The contrast with the tranquillity of the mountains and the lakes?

3. The realistic style of the opening? The contrast with the sequences which indicated dreams? Psychological states? The different camera styles and editing for each section? The different musical scores, especially the piano, the silences, the chords, the insistent pounding? The orchestral music? The use of 'The Blue Danube’? ‘Dream a Little Dream’?

4. The editing, the pace? The naturalism? The comic touches, the serious? Transitions?

5. The prologue, the demonstration, the surveillance device, flying through the air, the mundane example in the model house, the plumbing? Technology and the future? The later bad demonstration and the breaking of the machine? Alain later using it to spy on Richard and Benedicte? The executives, international success?

6. The company, Richard’s management? Alain and his assistant? Technology, laboratories? The international flavour, Richard going to Korea, Francine working in the office? The meetings at Biarritz?

7. Alain and Benedicte, at home, their love for each other, demonstrative, three years married? The pleasant and easy way of life? Benedicte cooking, the sink and its blockage, Alain finding the lemming? The boy who was slapped across the street? The waiting for the guests, the detail of life and the cumulative effect of Benedicte and Alain and their relationship?

8. The guests being late, Richard’s apology, Alice reluctant to get out of the car, going to the meal, the wine, Alice seeing the kiss in the kitchen, going to the toilet, her return, rudeness, her dark glasses, questions, accusations against her husband, throwing the wine in his face as a relief, doing it with style? Their going? Alain and Benedicte coping? Their later reflections on it?

9. Benedicte and her taking the lemming to the vet, the explanation of lemmings, its being alive? Nicholas Chevalier and his opinions, the legends, lemmings not committing suicide, dying of exhaustion after overpopulation? His later returning the lemming to Alain? Alain and the dream of all the lemmings in the kitchen, following him, his fall down the stairs, their biting him? The lemming leaping at him and biting his hand? Its dying? And the final realistic explanation of the neighbours bringing the lemming from Finland?

10. Richard and his apologies, discussion about meetings, Alice wandering the laboratories late, asking about her husband’s interrogation, her praise of Alain’s loyalty, the attempted seduction, her wanting to see her husband die after explaining that he had tried to kill her, the failure of her attempted seduction? The later interrogation by Richard of Alain and his saying that if Richard and Benedicte did not know, it might have been all right?

11. The cleaning of the drain, the camera going down the drain and computer-controlled? Practical surveillance? Alice’s arrival, talking with Benedicte, wanting to sleep? Her talking about the seduction, then saying she lied about Alain’s behaviour? The effect on Benedicte? Alice going to the room, to sleep, her smashing the room, shooting herself, the ambulance taking her to hospital?

12. The couple coping with the suicide, the police coming? The phone call to Korea, Richard’s return and thanking Alain? His going to Biarritz with Alain, his being with the women in the room, the phone call, Alain’s upset, driving back to Paris, his dream about the lemmings, waking up in hospital, the car crash? Benedicte and the cremation, Richard’s visit? Richard thankful to Benedicte?

13. Alain and the puzzle about what happened to him, going to the lake, driving through the mountains to the Blue Danube? The water, Benedicte swimming, their sitting, Benedicte asking Alain about the seduction, his difficulty in remembering? Her becoming Alice, wanting him to call her Alice, the lovemaking, her repeating the exact words that were said? Her abandoning him, his getting the lift back, arriving home, Benedicte absent?

14. Her absence with Richard? His anger, confronting Richard in the office? Richard and his explanation of himself, his attraction towards Benedicte, saying that that was life? Alain arriving home, Benedicte leaving in the taxi?

15. The set-up of the surveillance, his going to the house, the machine going in, his controlling it, seeing Richard and Benedicte?

16. His going into the house, his smothering Richard, carrying his body downstairs, setting it up in the kitchen, taking Benedicte out, the gas (and Richard previously saying he liked to cook with gas)? The explosion?

17. With Benedicte, Alaine and his talking with her?

18. Benedicte awake, saying she had a strange dream, that she was Alice? The puzzle, the future? Alain and what really happened – a man of control, losing control? Richard committing suicide or not? Alain telling the truth – whether he did kill Richard or not?

19. ‘Dream a Little Dream’ – and the realism of the aftermath, the conversations with the neighbours, and the boy bringing back the lemming?

20. What actually happened? Subconscious possibilities of love, hate, seduction and betrayal, violence and murder?

THE INTERPRETER

US, 2005, 130 minutes, Colour.
Nicole Kidman, Sean Penn, Catherine Keener, Jespar Christensen, Ivan Attal, Michael Wright, Earl Cameron.
Directed by Sidney Pollack.

Very smart casting to have Oscar-winners, Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn, starring together. Audiences expecting romance on screen will detect some teasing possibilities but will have to admit that this is not at all the focus of The Interpreter.

Rather, it is a contemporary thriller, a plot like many of those 500 page novels that people buy at airports, an entertaining read. This is an entertaining watch - a bit of Ludlum-like international conspiracies, some secret service police work and, because this plot has an African background, there are echoes of Wilbur Smith. Quite effective ingredients.

The appeal is to an older, more thoughtful audience.

Mention of Africa reminds us how topical this story is. The screenwriters must have had Robert Mugabe and recent history in Zimbabwe firmly in mind when they created a liberating hero who had lost his early ideals and had turned his country into something of a police state. They could well have had the Congo in mind as well with echoes of the tragic events in the Rwanda genocide of 1994. There are also reminders of 2004 events where Mark Thatcher was linked with European mercenaries involved in toppling a government.

We realise that this kind of screen story twenty years earlier would have been set in Latin America, in Chile or El Salvador, with secret police and ruthless dictators. Events have moved on to more peaceful democracies in that part of the world – although it still provides many stories of abductions and drug lords. Now it is the turn of Africa. This is a thriller that is also meant to make its audiences consider pressing issues in the contemporary world.

The setting is the United Nations, under fire in recent years, especially with criticism from the US government. The Interpreter is strongly on the side of the UN with discussions about the relative effectiveness of violence versus diplomacy. ‘Diplomacy might take longer but it is more lasting.’

So, this is the kind of film that does not appeal to those of a more hawkish disposition and who prefer to go into action quickly and solve problems. Those who are more sympathetic to dovish stances will be on side. It is the kind of film that could be characterised as somewhat left-wing liberal, wearing its heart on its sleeve. It believes that goodness can overcome evil, even terrible evil.

Perhaps this appealed to Sean Penn’s political views. He gives a solid performance as a man grieving the death of his wife, a secret service agent who is commissioned to protect a witness and prevent an assassination in the UN chamber. Nicole Kidman is the interpreter, a refugee from a fictional southern African country (with accent to match), who has information about the assassination but who only gradually reveals the truth about herself. Catherine Keener is Penn’s tough and efficient partner.

Since the action, apart from a prologue in Africa that highlights the ruthlessness of death squads, takes place over a few days, action has to be tight and well-paced. It also means that back stories have to be filled in so that audiences can be emotionally as well as intellectually involved in the issues of liberation, terrorism (and there is a horrendous bus crash sequence in mid-town New York) and national and international security agencies.

The United Nations building plays a crucial role and the audience has a strong sense of its environment and the whole city of New York.

Direction is by veteran Sydney Pollack (The Way We Were, Tootsie, Out of Africa) who made the 1970s conspiracy theory film, Three Days of the Condor. He has not lost his touch.


1. The United Nations in the 21st century? Its history? Ability to peace-keep or not? Defiance of the US and the UK? Facing international terrorism? The issues for different countries, for individuals?

2. The UN and its status, filming in the UN, authentic atmosphere, the hall and the sessions, the booths and translators, the foyers and offices?

3. The vistas of New York City throughout the film, the chases in the streets, the apartment blocks, the bus? The reality of the US? The opening with Africa, the dust, the roads, the stadium? The musical score?

4. Sidney Pollack and his career, dramas, espionage?

5. The opening, the dusty roads of Africa, the vehicles, audiences thinking about Africa in the 20th and 21st centuries? The modelling of Zimbabwe and Congo? Other parallels? The history of revolutionary leaders, young and vigorous, idealism, the uprisings, the gaining of power, wealth, getting older, corrupt? Politics, change, dictatorship? The visit to the stadium, Simon and the photographer, the leader? Going into the stadium, the kids playing, discovering the bodies, the shootings? The officials arriving? The assassin? The photographer and his fear, escape? Setting the tone for the drama?

6. The reconstruction of the uprising, the leaders, the alternative leaders? Sylvia, her past, her love affair with Xola, the photos of her with a gun? Separation, the death of her family through the landmines? Her loss of contact with Simon, going to the US, her hopes?

7. Sylvia in New York City, at the United Nations, her skills in translation, her knowledge of the local language? Music, the clearing of the United Nations, the security guard allowing her back? Overhearing the conversation – intended or not? Her knowledge of the language, her fear, initially not telling the authorities, finally giving information, their scepticism? Her personal story being gradually revealed? Her reticence?

8. The authorities, tapes, identifying voices or not? Sylvia at home, her fears? Surveillance? On her motorbike, chased, rammed? The attack in the apartment? The photographer’s visit, her going out, trying to elude the police following her? Her going to the alternate leader, the discussion with him in the bus, her blaming him, her getting off – and the explosion?

9. Sean Penn as Tobin Keller, the death of his wife, listening to her voice on the answering machine? Coming back to work? Dot Woods as his partner, friend, her advice? His morose attitude? His not believing Sylvia, telling her that she was the most suspected? The surveillance, communicating with her through the phone, watching from the other building? The interrogations, his exasperation? The continuing puzzle? The attack in her apartment, her going out to meet the photographer, discovering that he had killed himself?

10. Dot, tough, collaborating with Keller, her advice?

11. Philippe, his escape in Africa, the message to Sylvia, his coming back to New York, the talk, his not telling her the truth, the letter and his killing himself?

12. The alternate leaders, Xola murdered in Africa with Simon? Kuman-Kuman? in New York, his following, in exile? Sylvia getting to him? Travelling on the bus, his constituents? The terrorist on the bus, the FBI agents, the radio contact? Sylvia getting off, the explosion and the death of the agents?

13. The head of security for Matobo, sinister, Afrikaaner style? The past and apartheid regimes? The discussions with Keller, wanting to be present, his overstepping his authority in interviews? Keller getting him to back off? The irony of his true task?

14. President Zuwanie, the plan for his address to the United Nations, to justify himself? The background of unrest in Matobo? The security plans and the details for the visit? The killer and the plan? AIDS sufferer, promises of payment to his family? Gamba as the assassin in Africa, in New York City, his taking the place of the worker, murdering the worker? On the bus? His being shot by Keller? The build-up to the United Nations visit, the police on the trail? The assassin, getting into the building, the confrontation with the head of security, his being shot? The staging of the overall plan?

15. The president, security, his conniving in the assassination attempt? Sylvia and her being hurried out of the country, her not going to the airport? Her card and getting into the building, finally confronting the president, Zuwanie and his book, his ideals, her shaming him?

16. Sylvia and the gun, the possibility of resorting to violence? The temptation? Keller and his explanations, persuasive?

17. The trial, the aftermath, Keller meeting Sylvia, the feelings that had grown up throughout their contact? Their double grief? The future and the invitation to Africa?

18. The significance of the story, the details the topicality of such a film?

THE SECRET AGENT (JOSEPH CONRAD’S THE SECRET AGENT)

UK, 1996, 95 minutes, Colour.
Bob Hoskins, Patricia Arquette, Gerard Depardieu, Robin Williams, Christian Vale, Jim Broadbent, Julian Wadham, Eddie Izzard.
Directed by Christopher Hampton.

Playwright, Christopher Hampton, was the author of Dangerous Liaisons and moved to film direction with Carrington. Now he has adapted Conrad's study of terrorists in 1880s London, a dark story, darkly told and with few concessions to audiences who want mere entertainment.

Conrad is famous for his Heart of Darkness (the source for Apocalypse Now). The Secret Agent is a microcosm of the heart of darkness. Alfred Hitchcock made a version, called Saboteur in the mid-30s. Now Bob Hoskins is the agent, a committed little man, used by international powers beyond his capacities. Patricia Arquette is very good as his wife, concerned about her mentally slow brother. Their tragedy is uncompromising.

Uncredited but strongly present on screen as the framing character is a sinister Robin Williams as the complete anarchist (`I have no future, but I am a force'). A strong supporting cast, including Gerard Depardieu, have brief roles. This is a grimmer London than that of Dickens, a London that will produce Jack the Ripper, the underside of Empire and of Victorian England. Fine, serious film-making.

1. A version of a Joseph Conrad novel? Anarchists in London? Psychology, suspense, international politics?

2. Hitchcock and his version, Sabotage? Comparisons of the two films?

3. The work of Conrad, a literary classic, the Pole writing in English? His perspective on English politics, anarchists, the 19th century?

4. The re-creation of Victorian London, dark, seemingly sinister? The streets, dirt? The shop, the home? The cafes? The political centres? The Russian embassy? The contrast with Greenwich and the open green fields and the park? The musical score?

5. Anarchists in the 19th century, taking refuge in London? Revolutions in the 19th century? Russians, dissidents? Their meeting in London? The discussions at the meeting, the types that were present – and Stephen listening in? His fears?

6. The character of Verloc, Bill Hoskins as the little man, put upon? His relationship with Winnie, the intensity of his love for her, the sexual relationship? His looking after Stephen? The shop? With the anarchists? His being summoned to the Russian embassy, the lecture from the ambassador, the demands that he give information? The revelation that he had been a spy for twelve years? His preventing assassinations? His going to the British authorities, the discussions? His being a double agent? The visit of Inspector Heat? His decision to create a diversion, the advice of the Russians? His contacting the professor for the explosives? His taking Stephen into the country? His giving Stephen the bomb, the explosion and his having to escape? The return home, Winnie finding out, her despising of him? His desperation, telling her (while eating the meat because he was hungry)? Her reaction and killing him? The little man, the loser?

7. Winnie, her marriage to Verloc, her wanting a father for Stephen? Her mother, the opening of the film and her mother moving away? Her love for Stephen, care for him? Her allowing the subversives to meet in the shop? The relationship with Verloc, the sexuality? The news of Stephen’s death, the presence of Inspector Heat? Her overhearing Heat and Verloc? Her anger, grief? Her killing Verloc? Her friendship with the dissident, going for his help, getting on the train, on the boat, her disappearance, the newspaper on the first suicide?

8. Gerard Depardieu as the dissident, his presence at the meetings, his looking at Stephen’s drawings and praising them, his devotion to Winnie, her going to him for help, his getting the ticket, on the train, jumping off? Meeting the professor in the café? Reading the headline about Winnie’s death?

9. The professor, his ominous walking through the crowds during the opening credits? Robin Williams in this role? Explosives? Anarchy, yet control? His clients? Giving the material to Verloc? Telling Inspector Heat? His presence with the dissident at the end? The international terrorist?

10. Stephen, age, not quite right in the head? Upset about death? Listening in to the discussions, his fears, his drawings and the dissident admiring them? His being sad with his mother going away, Winnie and Stephen taking their mother, coming home in rain? His devotion to Verloc, going away with him? His carrying of the bomb, his death – and his head in the tree?

11. Inspector Heat, Scotland Yard, his investigations, the bombings, suspicions? Discussing with the professor and getting the name? Going to the shop, his waiting for Verloc? Winnie’s anxiety? Verloc’s return, the discussions?

12. The official, Heat’s discussion with him, their plans? The official and his going to Verloc, Verloc as a double agent?

13. The Russian ambassador, new, throwing his weight around, his impositions on Verloc?

14. Christopher Hampton as playwright, film director – the nature of the screenplay, the non-linear presentation of the events and the effect? Hearing about them and then seeing them in flashback? How dramatically effective? The film as a film of gloom, death and loss? Reflective of Conrad’s novel? For the period?

SEED OF CHUCKY

US, 2005, 87 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Tilley, Red Man, Hannah Spirit, John Waters. Voices of: Jennifer Tilley, Brad Dourif, Billy Boyd.
Directed by Don Moscino.

There must be a sizable niche market out there for Chucky thrillers. After three Child’s Play films, which introduced the murderous doll which was inhabited by the spirit of a serial killer (voiced always by Brad Dourif) who continued his spree through Chucky, it wasn’t enough. In 1998, Don Moscino, who has written all the screenplays) must have been inspired by the Frankenstein films of the 30s and invented Bride of Chucky. It’s not difficult to see where this is leading… and here he is: Glen (or if Tiffany the bride doll had her way, Glenda), voiced with a cultivated androgynous voice by Billy Boyd.

We first meet Glen who is tormented by strange nightmares and who lets loose murderous instincts on a family that said he was the ugliest doll they had ever seen. He escapes to America in a delivery plane and van and ends up in LA where Jennifer Tilly (sending up her image) is having a career slump and connects with the director of a biblical epic (Redman). And Glen or Glenda meets his/her mum and dad, especially Mum who is envious of Jennifer Tilly’s career (the joke, of course, being that Tiffany is also voiced by Jennifer Tilly). Mum is actually on a 12-step program to stop her addiction to busy-ness which, in her case, is disposing of unwanted people. Meanwhile Chucky goes out with Glen on a bout of splatter bonding.

This means that the film is more tongue-in-cheek cheeky than usual with a lot of quite funny references to the Chucky movies themselves and humorous barbs including the targeting of Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson and his religious movies.

It’s all very silly in a clever kind of way, some crass moments, some frightening moments, some funny parody moments. Of course, it is only for the Chucky-converted.

1. The popularity of the Chucky films? The doll, the menacing doll, the murdering doll? Macabre humour? The Bride of Chucky? The consequences for the Seed of Chucky?

2. The opening English settings, the family home? The transition by air and van to Los Angeles? Los Angeles, Hollywood, homes? Authentic atmosphere for this kind of horror? The atmospheric score?

3. Audience suspension of disbelief, the doll and the voodoo curse, the doll with the spirit of the serial killer? the creation of the bride? The creation of the child?

4. Glen, the opening, his being the gift, the British family, the birthday? Their all saying he was the ugliest doll? His murderous instincts aroused? His menacing of the wife in the shower, menacing of the father, menacing of the little girl? His killing the family? His self-consciousness? His dreams and nightmares about murder? His escaping on the van, the plane, to Los Angeles?

5. Chucky and Tiffany in Los Angeles, their tradition of murder? Tiffany and her wanting to reform? Her twelve-step course, busy-ness? The advice, the psychology? Her making exceptions? Chucky and his innate evil? Their voices?

6. Jennifer Tilley, her sending up her career and style? Her wanting jobs, her career in a lull? The irony of her wanting to play the Virgin Mary? Her discussions with agents? Going to see Red Man, the effect on him, her throwing herself at him? Together?

7. Tiffany and her jealousy of Jennifer Tilley’s career, her own ambitions to be a film star? The control, the pregnancy of Jennifer? Red Man and his death? The pregnancy, the effect on Jennifer?

8. The arrival of Glen, Tiffany wanting him to be Glenda, Chucky wanting him to be Glen? His English accent, way of speaking, androgynous? Women’s clothes, men’s clothes? Chucky taking him out for bonding, the killing?

9. The effect of the birth of the baby? Twins? The irony of possession? Tiffany and her career in Jennifer? Chucky and his continuing to be his evil self? Glen and Glenda in the children?

10. The film as self-referential, the other films? The range of Hollywood jokes? The parodies of the horror genre? The mixture of the spoof and the macabre?