THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

US, 2005, 120 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Lee Jones, Barry Pepper, Julio Cesar Cedillo, January Jones, Dwight Yokum, Levon Helm, Melissa Leo.
Directed by Tommy Lee Jones.

One of the very interesting features of this film is its sympathetic look at life on the US-Mexican Texas border. Not that there is not a lot of prejudice shown, especially in some of the border patrol and police characters, but there is concern for the plight of the Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally.

Director and star is Tommy Lee Jones, quite a macho presence is many of his films. He is somewhat the same here. However, he plays a cattle man who befriends the illegal cowboy, Melquiades Estrada, and is so grieved when he is shot dead that he is compelled to do two things: to take the body to the Mexican village where Melquiades requested to be buried and to force the man who shot him to take part in this journey. The three burials of the title indicate the quick internments in Texas and the proper burial back in Mexico.

The screenplay is by Guillermo Arriaga who wrote Amores Peros and 21 Grams. Arriaga likes threes. The previous films had three stories or three central characters whose lives were intertwined – which made it a bit hard for the audience at first to work out who was who and whether they were being shown present or future. It is somewhat the same here with the three burials signalled by captions (as well as the central part, The Journey) and the plot moving from present to past without our sometimes realising it. Once we have that sorted out, we are ready to understand Melquiades as a gentle and good man, to appreciate his friendship with Pete Perkins (Lee Jones) and to be challenged by attitudes towards Mike Norton (well played by Barry Pepper), the man who shot Melquiades.

The film certainly creates the atmosphere of isolation in the border towns, the potential for boredom, tangled relationships and the trigger happy men who take on the jobs of surveillance.

However, the core of the film is the journey, a horseback ride through mountainous and sometimes desert terrain, carrying the body of the dead man (and trying to preserve the body for burial). There is a significant encounter with a blind old man who helps them but wants to die. The group meet the Mexicans that Norton had treated brutally but who now save his life. The journey becomes a pilgrimage and, finally, a journey of atonement and belated penitence for wrong done.

It looks like a Western but Western fans may find it too slow. Non-Western? audiences will find that it ultimately works as an allegory of human nature, fall, sin and atonement. Quite an accomplishment for Tommy Lee Jones who won the Best Actor award in Cannes, 2005, while Arriaga won the Best Screenplay award.

1. The career of Tommy Lee Jones, actor, director, screen presence?

2. The Texas settings, the town, the border, the mountains, the rivers, the desert? Mexico? A sense of realism about the Mexican-American? border? The musical score? The Mexican tone?

3. The 21st century issues of Mexicans, illegals, coming into the United States? The reasons, the needs? The border patrols, their work, training, attitudes towards the Mexicans? The realism of the antagonism on the border?

4. The quality of the photography, wide-screen landscapes?

5. The title, expectations, the irony of the different burials?

6. The western tradition, the hero, the villains, the victims – postures and stances, 21st century?

7. The structure of the film, the captions, the past, the interweaving of present and past without information? Audiences alert as to what had happened and what was happening?

8. The opening, the coyote, the hunters and the guns, the discovery of the body, the repercussions? The attitude of Pete, his friend dying? Belmont and his strict police attitude, lack of interest? The border patrol? The autopsy? The reality of the death, the burial?

9. Melquiades and his being present in Pete’s memories? His riding in, meeting Pete, friendly nature, his being interested in a job, Pete employing him? Buying the clothes, their working together, his taming the horse? The photos of the two of them? His setting up a home, his dream for living in the United States? His story about his wife, family? The pathos of his death and the unfulfilled dream?

10. The picture of the Nortons? Their looking over the trailer home, the background story and their coming from Cincinnati, the work, being together at home, Lou-Ann? and her being bored at home, watching the television, the soaps, the sexual encounter while she watched the television, her looking at the uncommunicative neighbours? Going to the diner, being friendly with Rachel? Her meeting with Melquiades? Her being tied up by Pete, leaving the TV on? Her decision to leave her husband?

11. Belmont, his attitude towards the town, his police work, the information about Melquiades, his being lazy, the visits to Rachel and the sexual encounter? His being handy with the guns, threats to Pete, shooting or not? His decision to avoid any decisions and go on holidays?

12. The presentation of the border patrol, the personnel, training, the commander, their work, handy with the gun, chasing illegals? The confrontation with the group? Mike and his brutality?

13. Mike Norton, personality, his appearance, haircut, sullen attitude? His sense of duty – but his being lax, his returning home, expectations from Lou-Ann? Sexual encounters? Lack of personal warmth and love? Out on duty, looking at Hustler magazine? His impatience with the groups, punching the woman? His hearing the gunshots, presuming he was being attacked, shooting Melquiades? His discovery that he had killed him? Removing the body, lying?

14. Rachel, her place in the town, her love for Bob, the marriage? Her relationship with Belmont, her relationship with Pete? Taking Lou-Ann? to the meeting with Pete and Melquiades? Her getting the information? The possibility of leaving – but staying because she loved Bob? Life and work in the diner, Bob and his personality, the reason for her remaining?

15. The latter part of the film as a journey, a pilgrimage? Pete and his attitudes, the experience of Melquiades’ death, the burial, digging up the body? His harshness towards Mike? The saddle, the riding, the horse falling over the cliff? The trek through the desert, Mike and his attempting to run, Pete’s pursuit, relentlessness? The shirt and the shoes? Peter following him?

16. The encounter with the old man, listening to the radio, not understanding Spanish but enjoying the sound, his giving the food, his wanting them to shoot him, his son not coming back to get him? Abandoned in the desert? His lying to the pursuers about Pete and Mike?

17. Mexico, Mike and his being bitten by the snake, the encounter with the illegals’ group, the girl whom he had punched, her healing him, her punching him in return? Fording the river, his being healed? He and Pete going on together?

18. Melquiades’ story, his map, the description of the landscapes, the names of the village, Pete and his inquiries, the head man of the village, their being no such place? Finding the spot for the burial, Mike digging the grave, the burial?

19. Pete and his attitude towards Mike, making him atone for what he had done, Mike and his growing desperation, his asking for pardon, for forgiveness, Pete letting him live?

20. The future for Pete, return to the US or not, Rachel and her refusal to go with him? Mike, the experience of sin, forgiveness and atonement, no wife to return to? His future?

OUR FATHERS

US, 2005, 130 minutes, Colour.
Ted Danson, Christopher Plummer, Brian Dennehy, Daniel Baldwin, Ellen Burstyn, Kenneth Welsh, Will Lyman, Wayne Best, Jan Rubes.
Directed by Dan Curtis.

Our Fathers was screened on US cable channel, Showtime, on May 21st, 2005. It was also screened in the market at the Cannes Film Festival for sales for cinema exhibition or television screenings in countries outside the US.

2002 was a most difficult year for the Catholic church in the United States. Many victims of clerical sexual abuse and molestation made themselves known to authorities, especially after the court proceedings against Fr John Geoghan in Boston. It was a harrowing year for these victims with their memories and hurt and for their families. It was also a harrowing year for many in authority in the Church, from bishops to diocesan directors of communication who had to find ways of responding to media demands while always offering compassion to those who suffered. It was a year of apologies. It was a year of judicial proceedings and attempts to formulate appropriate protocols for the American church.

Our Fathers, directed by Dan Curtis, and based on the book, Our Fathers: the Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, by David France who had covered the story when a senior editor at Newsweek, is a dramatized interpretation of the year in Boston which began with the Fr Geoghan trial, continued with other priests being accused and ended with the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law. The film is generally carefully written, giving voice to a range of perspectives, questions and attitudes that have emerged in connection with the sex abuse cases. The legal aspects of the case are frequently centre screen. As might be expected, the film is supportive of victims and critical of church authorities, personalities and procedures.

Since the cases were so prominently featured in all the media over a long period, the events are in the public domain. It is part of the healing of memories for the victims as well as for Catholics, both in authority and in the pews, that films like Our Fathers are seen and discussed. When the story cuts deep, it is an opportunity for examination of conscience as well as for atonement. The church has been facing these realities, sometimes forced to face them and reluctantly, but cannot shirk them. It is important to remember, as Cardinal George Pell of Sydney declared after accusations were made against him that he would step down from office during the time of the investigation into the allegations, that he was not above civil law or canon law. The investigation was carried out. The allegations were found to have no substance and he resumed his ministry as archbishop of Sydney. Americans remember that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was falsely accused of abusing a seminarian and went to visit the man in hospital as he was dying. The abuse experience has called for both honesty and compassion in the church.

It can be important for audiences, especially Catholic audiences, to watch dramatisations of cases like those of Fr Geoghan and Fr Birmingham (they are on the record). Newspaper headlines and reports do not always tell the human story behind the media story. Analyses in papers and magazines, on radio and television help to clarify ideas but do not always communicate the experience and the feelings of those concerned. The media of theatre and film are able to do this. The play Doubt, where a nun suspects a priest of abuse, won several Tony awards. There are quite a number of films dealing with abuse of children, many of them with church themes: Song for a Raggy Boy, Mal Educacion, The Boys of St Vincent, The Magdalene Sisters…

Our Fathers shows the victims of abuse in their adult years and the damage that they still bear, ranging from low self-esteem and marital difficulties, even to suicide. Sometimes Catholics who have not personally encountered someone who has experienced abuse are not really aware of the consequences of the abuse and the long-term spiritual and psychological damage – and alienation from priests and the church. They are not aware of the constant feelings of shame and self-blame that the victims retain. Our Fathers uses discreetly filmed flashbacks (with the emphasis on verbal communication rather than visuals of the molestations) to bring home the reality of the abuse within the context of family life, school, church and the plausible pretexts that the clergy used to deceive parents and rationalize their behaviour with the children.

The film, which starts with Fr Geoghan’s ordination and the bishop asking the seminary rector whether this candidate was worthy, also fills in aspects of the accused priests’ lives and behaviour. Opinions of fellow priests are indicated and their wariness. In dramatic terms, one of the most moving sequences has an adult character remember his experiences with Fr Birmingham and then reveal to his fellow-victims that he had visited the priest as he was dying in hospital thirteen years earlier to find some kind of forgiveness for his hatred of him.

Many critics blame lawyers for inflating the cases for the sake of greater financial compensation. This theme is tackled well in the film. Ted Danson portrays Mitchell Garebandian, the lawyer who found himself in deeper waters than he anticipated and pursued Fr Geoghan. He is portrayed warts and all, his callow attitudes as well as his more personal involvement in the cases, his temptations to celebrity as well as his decent behaviour. The screenplay traces the steps he took to find evidence and documentation concerning the priests, letters written by complaining parishioners, a formal report from the 1980s commissioned by the church, which were not made available by Church authorities until a judge compelled them to. The decisions of the Boston Globe to pursue the issues and the people are also dramatized.

Christopher Plummer appears as Cardinal Law. He interprets the Cardinal in a complex way. He is a churchman of the old school who sees it as his duty to protect the church and its reputation. He is a prelate who comes to realize that he has made grave mistakes in judgment – the scene where he speaks of his mistakes to Pope John Paul II has moving moments and takes us into the mind and heart of the Cardinal. The other sequences which repay viewing to try to understand how the Cardinal saw his role include a visit of one of the victims (who has been ignored and put off even when the Cardinal had said he would meet victims) confronts him in his residence and forces the Cardinal to listen and empathise as well as persuading him to attend a meeting of victims and families where he has a tough reception.

A sub-plot concerning a sometimes disgruntled priest, Fr Dominic Spagnolia (Brian Dennehy in a no holds barred performance) who speaks in his pulpit against Cardinal Law and demonstrates against him sometimes distracts from the main thrust of the film. Towards the end of the film, however, it becomes very serious as this priest has to face his own demons as well as allegations.

Films like Our Fathers are not easy to watch, even for those who do not share Christian faith, because they portray the scandal of men who are publicly committed to God and goodness abusing their trust in a predatory and secret way. The scandals have been more widespread around the world than anyone would have imagined twenty years ago. They have significance for the credibility of the church and the clergy. They have all kinds of repercussions on the faith of the faithful. The financial compensation to victims has led to diocesan bankruptcies and the curtailing of many charity and educational projects.

In these cases, the sins of the fathers affect their victims who need compassion and they affect all those who belong to the church.
1. The impact of the film for Americans? For people of Boston? For world-wide audiences?

2. The film based on facts, on the book by the Newsweek reporter, real characters, aspects fictionalised? The screenplay for dramatic interpretation? The impact?

3. The purpose for making the film: information, recording history, journalistic coverage? Entertainment, shock, disgust, an attack on the church, a portrait of the victims and their plights?

4. The Boston settings, the background of the victims, Cardinal Law (and the church, Father Spagnolia? The Vatican sequences? The musical score?

5. Boston in 2002, the accusation against Father Geoghan, Father Birmingham? The year for Cardinal Law and his advisers? For the victims? For the law and processes? For the lawyers? The American bishops? The Vatican and Pope John Paul II?

6. The title, the status of priests, the expectations of priests in the church, people’s regard for priests? The opening with the ordination, the request to know whether John Geoghan was worthy? The contrast with his life? Seeing him in action, the pastoral situation in the home, his choosing his victims, the plausible reasons for being in rooms with them? The focus of the title on priests and the church at large? The focusing on sexuality, aberrant and abusive behaviour? Civil law, church law? The critique of priests? The repercussions for vocation work, choices and training?

7. The consequences of sexual abuse, the long-term consequences for victims, illness, psychological disturbance, long-held trauma, suicide? For wives and families? The consequences for clergy, the authorities, the reputation of the church throughout the world? Issues of money and compensation? Bankruptcies for dioceses? The focus of consequences for abusive clergy, the application of the law, prison – and the information about the murder of John Geoghan in prison?

8. How fair was the screenplay, the particular perspectives, for and against the church, for and against the lawyers? The portrait of victims and their lives?

9. The screenplay and its allusions to all aspects that have been raised in discussions about sexual abuse by clergy: priests and their appointments, letters of complaint to authorities, the treatment of clergy in institutions for their mental and emotional illnesses, the information given by psychologists and doctors and its adequacy, re-entry of abusive priests into ministry, the possibilities for offending again? The reports done for church officials in the 80s? The role of lawyers, their money-seeking and ambition, their commitment to causes? People being out to get the church? The victims, their shame at being victims, blaming themselves about why they were chosen?

10. Life in Boston, ordinary life, the workers, their families? The churches? The world of the cardinal?

11. The structure of the film, the linear drama of 2002? Interweaving the flashbacks, especially for Father Geoghan and Father Birmingham and their victims? The treatment of the theme, the visuals of the offences, the verbal descriptions – and the avoiding of the prurient?

12. The focus on John Geoghan, the flashback to his ordination in 1962, the later flashback to seminary days, the smoking seminarians and their opinion of Geoghan and his properness? Seeing him in his pastoral activity in the 60s, his consoling the family, taking the boy to the bedroom? The boy’s dreading his visits? His later ministry, reputation, the mother writing the letters to the cardinal? His being sent for treatment? People’s shock about his reappointment – and the casual news given to Angelo de Franco? The reports of the psychiatrists? Geoghan in court, old, in tears? The guilty verdict, prison – and his being murdered?

13. The focus on Joseph Birmingham, as a priest, in himself, the classroom sequences and his taking the boys out, their dreading this? The families? The aftermath? His dying in 1989, Tom Blanchett’s visit, asking for forgiveness for his hatred, the possibilities of reconciliation?

14. The complexity of the Father Spagnolia story, Brian Dennehy’s bluff performance, his being against the cardinal, speaking out, in church, his sermons, joining protests, the media, his speaking at the meeting and people’s reactions? The phone call and the accusations about his relationship? Being true? His going to the bishop, the discussion? The discussion with his friend – and his admitting the truth? His press conference, his leaving the presbytery, the end – and his awaiting investigation? The background of homosexuality as an issue, the priest and his orientation yet his possibilities of ministry, Father Spagnolia’s time out, the one relationship? The differentiation of homosexual orientation from sexual abuse?

15. The complexity of the life of the priest, the good priests, the bad, all tainted by the accusations? The portrait of church officials, secretaries, auxiliary bishops? Protecting the church? The ordinary people, supportive of the church, going to mass – and walking through the group picketing the church?

16. Christopher Plummer’s performance as Cardinal Law? In himself, the 1980s and 1990s, reputation, management of the diocese, as a cardinal? The 1980s and the letter from the mother whose seven sons had been abused? The Doyle report and his not reading it? The medical and psychological reports on Father Geoghan and his reassigning him? The Geoghan situation in 2002? Seeing the church lawyer, heeding his advice, the deals – especially monetary compensation? The ecclesiastical advisers, the auxiliary bishop? His attitude to the situation, wanting to protect the church and its reputation, his relationship with priests? His sympathy for the victims but not having time to see them? Ord and his confronting him, entering the residence, sitting down with him, the cardinal telling him to call him Bernie? His listening to Ord, Ord’s anger? His going to the meeting, the rough reception, the apologies? Always a churchman? The protests? The attitude of the Boston Globe? The American bishops going to Rome, Bishop Wilton Gregory and the press conference about the situation? Cardinal Law and his going to the pope, kneeling before him, the tears, acknowledging his mistakes, his bad judgment, offering to resign? The pope’s advice? His having to cope, the build-up to his final resignation? His character, strengths and weaknesses, a prince of the church – the postscript and the aftermath about his being one of the celebrants for Pope John Paul II's mourning days?

17. The bishops, the auxiliary bishop, his interrogations, advice, attitudes? The ecclesiastical lawyer, the meetings, presumptions? The judge, her being a loyal Catholic, but her judgment that all documents should be available?

18. The glimpse of the pope, Rome, the attitude towards the American church, the abuse and the scandals, the pope speaking out, the scene with Cardinal Law?

19. Mitchell Garabedian, in himself, a lawyer, his career? Angelo de Franco and the others seeking his help? The case against John Geoghan? Following through, his brash style, crass, his assistants and their work? His motivation? The interviews, the meeting with the journalist from the Boston Globe? Angelo de Franco, Patrick McSawley?, the discussions with them? Cavalier, the reality of the case, his preparation, the visits, going to Mary Ryan and getting the copy of the letter, the building up of the dossier, Father Doyle’s report, meeting Father Doyle? The church lawyer and the possibility of deals, his own percentage? Going to court, the trial itself, the plaintiffs? The discussions with Angelo about the monetary payout, his being challenged by Angelo’s attitudes? The case, his achievement? The postscript about his being the Massachusetts lawyer of the year?

20. The Boston Globe, the journalist in the bar, talking with Garabedian? The editor, the editorial discussions, the decision to pursue the case? The journalist returning to see Garabedian at the end? Their Pulitzer Prize achievement?

21. Angelo de Franco, disturbed, with his family, tensions with his wife, the nightmares, the group of friends and the background of their being abused? His family situation, the broader family? Approaching Garabedian, discussions with him, motives? His anger, not wanting the money, hesitating in signing the document? His memories and their being visualised? The other victims, his concern about his brother? Talking with the victims, Ord and his attack on the brothers in the shop? His congratulating him? The end – and his wanting exposure of the case?

22. The Boston victims, their friendship, meeting, drinking, their illnesses, trauma, discussions? The insertion of the visualising of the memories? The taunting Ord, his going to Cardinal Law, outside, the confrontation with the housekeeper, the secretary, his confronting the cardinal, the earnest speech, asking him to empathise, going to the meeting? His achievement?

23. Patrick Mc Sawley, his memories, the effect, drugs, living in the caravan, his collaboration, the difficulties in communicating, his suicide?

24. The cumulative effect of the film: the facts, the shock, cover-ups, the truth, justice, scandal, hurt, apologies, trials, resignations, the image of the church, faith?

25. The effect of storytelling rather than a news report of headlines – audiences needing this kind of story to understand and appreciate the experiences and how they should be handled?

SWIMMING UPSTREAM

Australia, 2002, 117 minutes, Colour.
Geoffrey Rush, Judy Davis, Jesse Spencer.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy.

Swimming Upstream is the family autobiography of Tony Fingleton, a Queensland swimmer and backstroke champion, silver medal winner at the 1962 Commonwealth Games in Perth. However, he did not go on to an Olympic swimming career, preferring rather to accept a scholarship to Harvard. While the film is a sketch of his own early life and character, it is more a portrait of his parents.

On paper, Harry and Dora Fingleton sound like stereotypes. On screen, they come powerfully to life because of the intense screen presence of Geoffrey Rush and Judy Davis. Harry Fingleton is what we could call an ‘ordinary bloke’. We first see him labouring on the Brisbane waterfront in the late 1950s, sometimes only casual work, sometimes laid off. He and Dora have five children, four boys and a girl. Home life seems to be ordinary. Dora is what people in the past called an ‘ordinary housewife’. She cooks, she washes, she cleans. She has little time for anything else. She is a dowdy dresser, too busy to worry about her clothes or her appearance.

Harry seems your average quieter than louder Australian. He lives in the present although one of the destructive aspects of his character is the demanding dream he has of swimming success for his son, John.

One of the difficulties in understanding Harry is the story of his childhood. His mother drank, entertained a range of men at home with Harry there – one of her customers, a company executive, taunts Harry with this during a picket protest at the wharves. He was also a talented footballer but the Depression prevented him from playing for his country. These embarrassments and frustrations have eaten into him. He is a wife-basher and imposes his dreams on his sons. Harry junior (who has absorbed the bullying aspects of his father’s character) is pushed as a football talent only to be dropped when Harry sees John’s ability in the pool. He has an inbuilt contempt for Tony who is tormented by Harry junior, is inept at boxing and football and likes to play the piano. The word ‘poofter’ is aggressively bandied about. Harry can see Tony’s swimming skills but bypasses them to focus on John, John’s failure to dedicate himself to swimming means that he destroys his father’s dream. This also means that we often seen Harry angry, drunk, pushing his sons, attacking Dora, becoming caught up in his dream and acting over-emotionally.

Dora Fingleton is a good woman. She has loved Harry despite himself and herself. She knows that he is ‘difficult’ and makes allowances for his mood swings and brutal behaviour. She has been able, over the years, to keep him on an even keel for much of the time. But, as his sons grow up and he imposes his expectations on them, she is able to calm him less (though there is a fine sequence illustrating this when Harry is out of work, throws a tantrum and won’t get out of bed for breakfast, and Dora throws the eggs all over him; he pursues her into the yard but the humour of the situation and his appearance get the better of them and the family all burst into laughter).

Dora has not been able to lead an outgoing life – though when her sons begin to swim competitively, she enjoys going to the races and cheering them on. Her life is the proverbial humdrum of housekeeping. She does not really rebel against it. In fact, though it is arduous, she does it well. She has managed the house well and brought up the children very well. She appreciates each of her children and is able to be a refuge for Tony whenever his father attacked him and, later, when he grudgingly acknowledges Tony’s swimming talents. Harry is at his worst when he cannot bring himself to watch Tony’s race at the Commonwealth Games. Her confrontation of the drinkers in the pub is a reminder of her strength of character; her taking the cakes home from the fine restaurant for the kids is a reminder of her maternal love and care.

And this is how things were in those days. Not everywhere, of course. But, this was an expectation of life in the suburbs. The men were expected to dominate, be a man; the women were expected to be subservient, be a woman. Life in those days – when so much was about to change in the 1960s – was swimming upstream.

1. An Australian perspective on family, sport, the Australian ethos – especially of the 1950s?

2. The visualising of Australia in the 1950s, Queensland, Brisbane and its suburbs, the city, the homes in the working-class area, the wharves, the pools? The state venues for the swimming competition?

3. The feel of the 1950s, costumes, décor, music?

4. The title, its relationship to Tony Fingleton and his swimming, John Fingleton? The competition? Tony’s final decision not to compete?

5. The film as autobiography, Tony Fingleton in collaboration with his sister, the voice-over and its tone, his perceptions on himself, his father and the struggles with his father, his relationship with John, his mother, his brothers and sisters? His achievement?

6. The portrait of the Australian family, poor, working-class, life at home, the details of meals, the family being together, clashes? The religious background of Catholic and Protestant? Dora, her hard work, her love for her children, life at home, the washing, the meals, her enjoyment of the sports events, the trophies – and the shrine to John? Harry, his erratic moods, the memories of his mother, the children, their love for each other? The humdrum life?

7. Geoffrey Rush and the portrait of Harry, seeing him at work on the wharves, his being laid off, the various strikes (and Harry demonstrating and the man taunting him with the coins about his mother)? Dora, her friendship with the neighbours, enduring Harry’s moods? The change of mood? His brutality, the breakfast in bed and Dora throwing it at him? His drinking? His memories of the Depression, not being able to play football? Wanting his children to live his life? His antagonism towards Tony, the ‘poofter’ taunts about his playing the piano? Seeing him in the pool and changing his mind? The tough attitude with Harry Jnr, getting him to box with Tony, bashing him? Seeing John and his swimming? Pushing him, deciding to favour him over Tony? His dealing with John, going back to the wharves, the drinking? His dream, the training, harsh, getting them up early in the morning, making him swim laps again? The brutality at home and the children’s reactions? Dora’s finally leaving him, his collapse? His moving out, giving up the drink, the final discussions with Tony – and going back to the wharf to talk to his mates?

8. Dora, as wife and mother, cooking and washing, her love for the children, Harry’s brutality and yet her loving him, being able to laugh off the violence, realising that he was a difficult man? Talking to a neighbour? Her joy in her children’s achievements, her holding back Harry Jnr in his fighting Tony? Encouraging Tony? Watching the swimming events, at the edge of the seat? The final confrontation, her attempted suicide, the children walking her to keep her going, her leaving?

9. Harry Jnr, his bullying attitudes, especially towards Tony, the fights? His father neglecting him after discovering Tony and John as swimmers? His drinking? At home, moving away, Tony asking him if he was rivalling his father in the drinking? Meeting Tony in the pub, their discussion together, a reconciliation? John, his being a good friend to Tony, sharing the room, talking, swimming together? John and his dreams, his achievement, his father pushing him? The rivalry, his father giving him secret training, the clash, Tony’s being hurt by John’s behaviour? John and his losing, his father’s writing him off? The reconciliation between the two? The other brother, in the background, Diane, her perspective (and her collaboration on the screenplay)? The pressure on the children, their joy when their father sang “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”, their dismay when the mood didn't last long? Their all going to the pool, its being empty, their all jumping in and being united underwater?

10. The portrait of Tony, his being different, his brother bullying him, his playing the piano, the pool, his skill at backstroke? The difficult relationship with his father and trying to please him? Love for his mother – and talking to her looking out to sea? The swimming, the training? The achievement, the shrine to John, his winning races – and his father and his grudging respect, Harry not even watching him in his winning championships – but looking slyly at the television when he was at the Commonwealth Games? The friendship with John, the falling out over the competition, his going to the Games, the interviews, on television, being second, the success of the silver medal? Murray Rose and his admiration, Dawn Fraser? His decision to go to Harvard, the scholarship, the final visit to his father, watching him at the wharf?

11. The neighbour, her help for Dora, the cakes?

12. The swimming world, the races, the split screen to show the race and the audience watching?

13. The picture of Australian society, the harshness of the era? The heritage of the Fingletons and other Australians and the change at the end of the 20th century?

AT THE MERCY OF A STRANGER

US, 1999, 90 minutes, Colour.
Joanna Kerns, Tim Matheson, Stephen Lane.
Directed by Graeme Campbell.

At the Mercy of a Stranger is a popular telemovie, focusing on a woman who has been married for seventeen years to a prominent doctor. He has been aggressive, even pulling a gun and the marriage is falling apart. She stays because of her three children although she’s considering divorce with her lawyer. Unbeknownst to her, her husband has hired a hit man to kill her. However, the hit man is infatuated with her, tells her the truth, concocts a plan to convict the husband.

The plot seems somewhat far-fetched – but is done with the customary telemovie gloss to make it credible and entertaining. Joanna Kerns is very dignified as the victim wife. Tim Matheson is believable as both the hit man and the hit man who changes his mind. Stephen Lane has appeared as many villains in films and telemovies and does so again.

1. Entertaining telemovie? Credibility? Probability?

2. The affluent house, neighbourhood, town? Police precincts, lawyers’ offices? Motels? Credible atmosphere for the film? Musical score?

3. The title, it being borne out by Liz’s dependence on John?

4. The family situation, Liz and her love for her children, the teenagers and their rebellion, the little boy and his dependence on his mother? The estrangement from her husband – the flashbacks, the socials, his criticism of her alleged flirting, his pulling a gun on her? This known to lawyer friends and the police? Her wanting a divorce, going to see her lawyer?

5. The portrait of Thomas, at the hospital, prominent surgeon? His dismay at his wife’s wanting to divorce him?

6. John Davis, his encounter with Liz, the discussion at the restaurant, his explanation of the situation, her disbelief? Her memories and the discussion of her marriage with him? His plan, going to the motel, her attempt to escape through the window? Her becoming dependent on him, believing him? Going out to the restaurant? The special occasion? The discussions? The evident admiration John had for her, in love with her? Her trying to deal with the situation?

7. At home, Thomas and his severity with the older daughter and her boyfriend? Making the evening meal, the discipline, with the little boy? The children’s puzzle about their absent mother? His telling the older daughter about the potential divorce? The children and their suspicions?

8. Liz persuading John to go to the lawyer, the explanation of the case, the tapes and whether they were admissible? Liz persuading him to go to the police, his being willing to testify? The discussions with the police, his past record? The plan, the phone call to Thomas, his coming with the children? Liz running to the car, getting the children? John keeping his cool, getting Thomas talking, counting the money, recording? The confrontation of the police, Thomas’s arrest? The arrest of John because of the unlicensed gun – to ensure his presence at the trial of Thomas?

9. The aftermath and the explanations, the short sentence for Thomas, John’s subsequent life, Elizabeth having to find a new identity and home for the children?

VERA DRAKE

13th September 2004

Vera Drake, a film by Mike Leigh, won the Golden Lion at the 61st Venice Film Festival. This British film won a further boost when Imelda Staunton was named as Best Actress.

When it screened halfway through the festival, headlines appeared: a film about abortion. The presumption seemed to be that Vera Drake was 'pro-abortion'. A potential scandal makes for ready copy. This continued in most of the reporting about the film and its awards. The buzz about Vera Drake being a front-runner for the big award led to speculation about how the Catholic Church would respond. Italian journalists are said to have a reputation for being critical of the church, if not stridently anti-clerical at times, so this would provide a field day.

In the event this did not happen, although the members of the Catholic jury for the SIGNIS award (for the World Catholic Association for Communication) were alerted to the sensitivity of the situation.

Two factors contributed to a more intelligent discussion of the film. First was the film itself. Mike Leigh is a master film-maker. He has won awards in Cannes for Naked and his very moving, Secrets and Lies. Other films include the Gilbert and Sullivan portrait, Topsy Turvey as well as the picture of very ordinary London life, All or Nothing. Vera Drake is in the All or Nothing tradition. Vera Drake is a fifty year old housewife in North London in 1950. She is generous to a fault. Nothing is too much trouble for her. Everyone says she has a heart of gold. She is the proverbial good woman. The first half of the film is a moving portrait of this woman whom Imelda Staunton's performance makes memorable.

Without any lead in we are shown how she also performs syringe abortions for women and girls 'in need'. She has done this for twenty years or more. Her family know nothing about it. When one girl suffers complications, hospital authorities inform the police and Vera is subject to questioning and arrest.

The second factor for discussion was Mike Leigh's press conference. He was quick to point out that his films treat social issues but never provide unequivocal answers. He provides the equivalent of a case study (something like what seminarians explored in the past during their moral theology course). Leigh noted that, while we bring our own agenda to the story, we are invited to consider a wider range of perspectives. It is not simply, or simplistically, moral judgment by unnuanced application of moral principles. Catholic confessional practice has traditionally urged for more delicacy of conscience and a greater appreciation of what full knowledge and full consent mean in the context of responsibility for actions and for sin. Leigh said that some audiences would view Vera as a saint, committed to assisting women; others would see her as a monster, destroying lives.

Most audiences hurry out as soon as final credits roll. For those who stay, they will see that Leigh dedicates his film to his parents, a doctor and a midwife.

The difficulty with labelling a film 'about abortion' is that this merely tells us the subject, or one of the subjects, of the film. The Biblical story of David and Bathsheba is about adultery and murder but that is just a labelling description. What we need to know is 'how' these issues are presented. This is the criterion for a moral evaluation of a film. This means, as a correspondent for Vatican Radio was reported as saying on air during the Venice Festival, that Leigh's film is ‘difficult and interesting’ and ‘avoids propaganda and tentative and facile conclusions’. Catholic teaching has always urged the faithful to condemn the sin but not the sinner. Leigh's portrait of Vera Drake contributes to that way of looking at her despite what she does.

A post-script on Mar Adentro, The Sea Within.

A helpful comparison with the approach of Vera Drake to its moral issues could be made with Alejandro Amenabar's film, Mar Adentro (The Sea Inside) for which Javier Bardem was named as Best Actor for his role as a long-time quadriplegic pleading for assisted suicide.

This is a beautiful, classical and often lyrical film to watch. Once again, it can be seen as a case study. However, the tone is often propaganda-like in its presentation of the plea for legislation to be changed and the emotional reasons for assisting someone incapacitated to die. This is quite clear in a final scene where Ramon, the quadriplegic, drinks cyanide and dies. In the process of taking the drink, he speaks to a video to explain once again what he is doing and why. He has spent 28 years as a quadriplegic, entirely dependent on others. He still has vitality and has a strong capacity for friendship and encouraging others to life. However, he feels that this quadriplegic kind of life lacks dignity. This, of course, is debatable but
cannot be simplistically dismissed because we do not agree with it. The film's screenplay, in fact, provides characters who do not agree with the assisted suicide, especially his brother.

Once again journalistic headlines were not entirely accurate. Mar Adentro is not concerned with euthanasia explicitly. Its focus is on 'assisted suicide', which is not the same thing. Moral discussion is never effective when it is merely based on headlines which may or may not be correct.

There are two responses to material with which we do not agree on moral terms. One is polemic which merely repeats strongly the views that are already held. The other is dialogue, a listening to an opposing point of view with respect to see what further light is thrown on the issue in order to
find some meeting of hearts and minds.


Appendix

Posted: Sun., Oct. 17, 2004, 6:00am PT

Inside Move: Leigh pic plays both sides

'Vera' hoping to ride controversy to success

By GABRIEL SNYDER
<http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=bio&peopleID=2310>

With "Vera Drake," helmer Mike Leigh may have accomplished the impossible: making a film about abortion that both sides of the debate can admire.

Fine Line hopes the pic — about a homemaker and abortionist in postwar London — will be the next film to ride controversy to success, a la "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11."

It's even enlisted pro-choice groups like NARAL and consultants who worked on "Fahrenheit," to push the pic. But so far there hasn't been any controversy. Pro-life groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have only had positive things to say about the film.

Harry Forbes, who classifies films that are considered morally offensive for the USCCB's Office of Film & Broadcast, actually gave "Vera Drake" a
rave review.

Noting the story doesn't "proselytize for abortion," he wrote, "Leigh's script has all the subtle nuances of 'real' people reacting to a
domestic crisis." Imelda Staunton's performance, he says, "is acting of the highest order."

Forbes echoes other official Catholic voices on the film.

Shortly after "Vera Drake" won best film honors at the Venice Film Fest, World Catholic Assn. for Communication prexy Peter Malone praised the
film despite its subject matter. "It is not simply, or simplistically, moral judgment by unnuanced application of moral principles."

Staunton hasn't tried to stoke the political flames, either.

"I'm not Susan Sarandon," she told the Guardian. "I don't want to bang a drum. I think I'm just going to say, 'I'm pro-choice,' and leave it at
that."

In this shrill season, how refreshing.

NO GREATER LOVE

March 30th 2010


The title of this religious film is a familiar phrase from the Gospel of John. Jesus, in his farewell discourse after the Last Supper, uses it to declare that no greater love is shown than when someone lays down their life for a friend. People often use the phrase in relation to martyrdom. But, it can also refer to those who lay down their day-by-day life for friends or in any service of others.

The title of this documentary refers to this kind of love. The Carmelite Sisters of Notting Hill, London, lay down their lives in cloistered community for others.

Michael Whyte, who directed and edited this 105 minute documentary for the cinema, lives in the same square as the nuns. He had requested permission to make a film ten years earlier. The time was judged not right by the nuns but finally they agreed that it was. Michael Whyte filmed for a year or more, given full access to the convent.

There is no controversy with this film. Rather, it is a film which will be of interest to Catholic audiences whether they are familiar with this kind of enclosed life or not. Those who do not share Catholic faith, or even Christian faith, may well be wondering what a contemplative Christian vocation consists of. The film does provide many answers.

This kind of interest was manifest, especially in Western cultures, with the 2006 release of the film, Into Great Silence. That was made by an outsider to Christianity, observing the life of Carthusian monks who live a life of contemplation and silence. However, it was a kind of jigsaw of scenes and sequences, giving an impression of the life rather than any explanation. Catholics would not have learned a great deal about the Carthusian spirituality and its perspectives on God, the person of Jesus and the liturgy which is so important for day by day monastic living. There were some interviews, but the film was a visual portrait of the monks rather than a film offering exploration or insights. It was a film from continental Europe which often prefers a poetic or an abstract, atmospheric portrait rather than tell a linear story.

While No Greater Love is a portrait of the nuns and their way of life, the Anglo-Saxon? way is evident insofar as there is a linear development of plot, a year in the life of the monastery, the interviews providing explorations of spirituality and prayer and offers answers to questions that observers might have: about how the nuns can manage such a way of life, enclosure and silence, about awareness of God, about prayer and separation from the world, about contemporary communications technology and what approach the nuns should have to radio, television, newspapers and the internet.

Because the nuns are Carmelites, it would have been even more interesting to have more explicit reference to the traditions of the order, the nature of Carmelite prayer and contemplation and how the great names in that Carmelite tradition, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Therese of Lisieux contributed to the developing Carmelite spirituality. There could be more presented explicitly on these themes.

Several of the sisters are interviewed during the film, including the superior. They give reasonable accounts of themselves. The personal witness is the witness that has greatest impact. While many may not quite understand or appreciate this way of life, they will find the sisters' reflections of great interest and, even, inspiration.

The Anglo- Saxon practicality is also evident in the selection of day-by-day sequences, from the daily celebration of the Eucharist, with the nuns assisting, especially with communion, and the recitation of the prayerful offices, to the meals, the cleaning of the house, the making of hosts for Masses and their preparation for postage – and lots of work in the garden. There are some recreation sequences where the nuns both chat and sew, and enjoy a laugh, even sometimes a modest dance or jig. The human face of the sisters.

The point is made that contemplative groups in any religion offer a valuable witness to deeper values and some silent reflection in a world that is increasingly louder and 24/7 active – made all the more vivid as the camera rises from the monastery at the end and audiences see that it is located in the middle of suburban London.

LA NEUVAINE/ THE NOVENA

12th August 2005

This is not a statement about a controversial film that involves religious issues. Rather, it is a statement to draw attention to a film that is religious in the best sense of the word.

Many explicitly religious films fall short of expectations because they exhibit a too earnest proseletysing zeal or depict aspects of piety that many audiences find puzzling, incongruous or simply alienating. La Neuvaine succeeds in portraying simple faith with great respect and without being patronising. It is also able to portray lack of faith in God in contemporary secular society with sympathy and understanding.

Writer-director, Bernard Emond, is an anthropologist by training. He has worked in Inuit television and has made short films, documentaries and some feature films. He declares that he is a non-believer but he affirms the long tradition of Catholic faith in his native Quebec. He is also concerned that today's Canadians in the province of Quebec are in danger of cutting themselves off from this religious tradition and losing this heritage.

In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, the church of Quebec reacted quickly to change in the Catholic Church and many Catholics found themselves rejecting so much of their religious upbringing and practice, eager to throw off what they saw as ecclesiastical authoritarianism. Some of the clearest cinema expressions of this reaction are found in Denys Arcand's 1988 Jesus of Montreal. His Decline of the American Empire (1987) and its Oscar-winning sequel, The Barbarian Invasions (2003) should be seen in this perspective.

Emond clearly inhabits the world that Arcand suggests. However, he brings to La Neuvaine the simplicity of film language that marks the films of Robert Bresson, a plainness and an austerity of style that communicate directly but suggest deeper meanings, especially some opening to what we might call 'the transcendent'. To continue the cinema connections, it could be added that the central character of La Neuvaine, a non-believing doctor, would be at home in her search for meaning in her life in Kieslowski's Decalogue.

The title is something of a challenge. Novenas, even amonst Catholics, are not in vogue everywhere as they once were. They are a feature of populr religious culture. Nine days of continued prayer for a special intention, even some kind of miracle, has been a popular practice over the centuries. In La Neuvaine, Francois, a young man who personifies goodness in a kindly but down-to-earth way, helps on a farm, works in a small supermarket in a provincial town. When told that his grandmother is dying (she has brought him up since his parents were killed in a car crash when he was very young), he decides to make a novena for her recovery. He goes on a daily pilgrimage to the shrine of St Anne to invoke her assistance. The shrine has a priest, in his vestments, always available in a kind of shop-front to bless the pilgrims. (The credits indicate that the shrine is under the care of the Redemptorists who will be glad of the attention given to their ministry.)

The central character is Jeanne, a highly professional doctor who has experienced the long illness and death of her child. There is no place for faith in her life. She has also taken care of a battered wife and her daughter and experienced the anger of the violent husband. Her recuperation takes her to the vicinity of the shrine and a sympathetic encounter with Francois.

La Neuvaine does not push the religious experiences of its characters and does not push religion at its audience. Ultimately, there are no obvious miracles and no obvious conversions. Rather, the audience appreciates Francois' straightforward faith and piety - and sees that Jeanne's kindness towards his grandmother as she dies, is a real answer to prayer. The audience appreciates the change in Jeanne, that she can continue her healing work as a doctor - she has to respond to a sudden emergency outside the shrine as a man suffers a heart attack - and can minister to the grandmother. Deeper possibilities for hope emerge.

Throughout the film there are interludes of voiceover as Jeanne quietly discusses her non-faith with a probing questioner. It is only at the end, when she stands watching the priest in the blessing room, that we appreciate she has been exploring her life and its meaning with him.

La Neuvaine was entered in competition in the Locarno Film Festival, August 2005. It received serious attention, packed houses and favourable reviews. This surprised many festival-goers: that a secular audience would be so moved by religious themes, even explicitly Catholic themes. It won the ecumenical award for the quality of its film-making and the skill in its presenting its religious and values content. It also won the best actor award and a special award from a jury of young people.

It will prove a valuable resource for discussions about contemporary faith.

THE NINTH DAY/ DER NEUNTE TAG

November 26th 2004

This film statement is not about a controversial film. Rather, The Ninth day concerns OCIC (the former Organisation Catholique Internationale du Cinéma) and SIGNIS (the present World Catholic Association for Communication).

It is based on a memoir written by Fr Jean Bernard at the end of World War II, after his release from Dachau. At the outbreak of war, the OCIC Secretariat in Brussels was occupied by the Germans. Jean Bernard was the secretary general. Abbé Brohée, the president, remained during the war years as chaplain to a convent outside the city. He died in 1947. Jean Bernard had returned to his native Luxembourg. However, he was arrested at the French border and sent to Dachau. OCIC was targeted by the Germans because its reviews had not praised the films of the propaganda machine that were already being released.

After the war, Jean Bernard went to Switzerland to recuperate but was back in Brussels by 1946 preparing for a congress. He became president of OCIC in 1947 and remained in that position until 1972. During his presidency, OCIC began its jury work at world film festivals, in Venice in 1948, Cannes in 1952, Berlin in 1954. During the 1950s, juries were established in Spain and in Latin America. There was also an annual Grand Prix. Winners of this award included La Strada (1954), On the Waterfront (1955), The Prisoner (1956).

Jean Bernard contributed to church thinking on media at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and in subsequent years. He also steered OCIC through difficult times when there was strong questioning of its decisions, a prize to Pasolini’s Teorema in Venice, 1969 (who had previously won the prize there in 1964 for The Gospel According to Matthew) and to John Schlesinger’s Midnight Cowboy in Berlin, 1970. After his retirement he returned to Luxembourg and worked for Catholic media. He also hosted several OCIC meetings there. He died in 1994.

Jean Bernard did not speak about the nine day leave he was given from Dachau in January 1942. The screenplay for the film, The Ninth Day, speculates and creates a plausible scenario. In the film, Bernard is called Henri Kremer (played by Ulrich Matthes). He comes from a respectable family, his brother an industrialist working for the regime. Kremer has been told by a young SS officer (August Diehl) to visit the Archbishop (who has retreated to his home, refusing to collaborate) and persuade him to support the occupying administration and save the Catholic Church, promising that in the post-war Reich the Church would play a significant role. The varying opinions about the role of Pius XII are discussed. If Kremer does not return by the ninth day, the priests in Dachau will be executed.

Distinguished German director, Volker Schloendorff, has made an intelligent drama that raises the principal issues of the war in Europe: Aryan supremacy, the extermination of the Jews, occupying forces and government, collaboration and resistance, torture and executions, the role of religion and the Catholic Church. The young SS officer (who is revealed to have been a seminarian and ordained deacon but who opted for the Reich to better the world) argues that Jesus went beyond Judaism and that this was the vision of Judas, that his ‘betrayal’ of Jesus and his own past was a heroic action. Kremer returns to Dachau.

Audiences have seen concentration camp films for many decades. Schloendorff, however, brings a forcefully grim style to his sequences, including the crucifixion and crowning with barbs of a Polish priest. He also highlights the moral integrity of the prisoners, especially Kremer’s acknowledging to himself on his return that he is in the place where he should be, where God wanted him to be.

The film’s Luxembourg premiere, held on November 25th, 2004, revealed the country’s admiration for Jean Bernard and his heroic stances. Volker Schloendorff himself payed tribute to him as a model of authentic priestly commitment. He spoke of his contribution as a Catholic priest to the dialogue between the Church and professional cinema worldwide. It was fitting that he should receive a memoir and a tribute in a film.
The film premiered at the Locarno Film Festival in 2004.

In February 2005, it was selected for the official international competition in the Fajr Festival in Tehran, Iran. The international jury was a multi-faith jury representing Iran, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Russia, Lebanon and the US. The Ninth Day was awarded prizes for Best Film, Best Director and Best Actor.

On a personal level, I felt touched and proud to be one of his successors in OCIC and SIGNIS.

THE NATIVITY STORY

26th October 2006

The Nativity Story is precisely that, a year in the life of Mary which culminates in the birth of Jesus, the visits of the shepherds and the magi to the stable, Herod’s brutal response in massacring the innocents and Joseph and Mary escaping to Egypt.

Most audiences will find a great deal to interest them, evoking their emotions concerning this story and its part in their religious memories, devotion and reflection on their Christian faith. It also offers a great deal of background to the infancy narratives of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels for those who are not Christians.

MARY FILMS

The Nativity Story, as a film, takes its place in quite a long list of films that portray Mary. While there are several films which focus on apparitions (The Song of Bernadette, The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima, Gospa) and films which have Mary as a character (The Miracle) as well as characters who parallel Mary’s story in some way (Agnes of God), the main film focus has been on Mary herself and her being the mother of Jesus.

A brief reminder of these films may be of interest, especially for comparisons with the treatment of Mary in The Nativity Story.

Mary appears in a number of the early silent films which dramatised the life of Jesus. They are now lost, although stills are often reproduced. Mary and the infancy stories were very popular as was her role at Cana and her being at the foot of the cross.

D.W. Griffith includes the sequence of the miracle of Cana in his 1916 biblical and historical epic, Intolerance. He also used a Mary image of the eternal mother rocking the cradle of children. Mary is also featured with reverence in many episodes of Cecil B. De Mille’s 1927 story of Jesus, The King of Kings.

From 1927 to 1961 when King of Kings was released – the first mainstream Gospel film in which Jesus spoke – there was an absence of Jesus films. This seems a strange phenomenon for such a long period which included the Depression, World War II and the early decade of the Cold War. By the early 1950s, with The Robe, Jesus was glimpsed or part of him was seen, like his lower legs and feet in the Crucifixion scene in The Robe or seen from the back in Ben Hur. Mary is seen as a crib like figure in the Bethlehem tableau.

It can be noted that independent Protestant film-makers, especially in the 1940s and 1950s had no hesitation in presenting Jesus as a fully seen and speaking character.

Four films from the period 1961-1971 really introduced the character of Mary to cinema. Irish actress, Siobhan McKenna? played her in King of Kings and Dorothy Mc Guire in The Greatest Story every Told (1965). While they were full characterisations of Mary, the treatment tended to be of the very reverent and restrained kind. The danger with this kind of representation is that Mary seems to be something of a statue or paining come to life, but still the equivalent of a painting.

It was Italian directors who had most success in making Mary more of a flesh and blood character. As early as 1964, in Pasolini’s Gospel According to Matthew, the director cast a young girl for the nativity scenes and the flight into Egypt. She was not a professional actress and Pasolini wanted audiences to appreciate her youth and innocence and her response to what God was asking of her. When it came to the Passion sequences, he cast his mother. The weeping and wailing Mary at Calvary, rather Italian histrionic in style, was an older woman who had experienced life and suffered with her son. Roberto Rossellini also brought this Italian style to his 1971 The Messiah.

One of the most popular screen portraits of Mary is found in Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth (1977). With its large scope and eight hour running time for television, the director had plenty of time to show Gospel scenes at length. Olivia Hussey was Mary, both as a young girl and as a mature woman. Zeffirelli and his writer, novelist Anthony Burgess, spent a great deal of time on the infancy narratives, including an Annunciation where the presence of the angel Gabriel is suggested rather than seen as well as the grief of the Crucifixion.

Audiences on either side of the Atlantic had different reactions to the Monty Python’s Life of Brian, North Americans tending to find it too irreverent, even blasphemous, while the British enjoyed the style of its satire. Whatever the reaction, it was another perspective, not so much on the Gospel stories as on the way they were solemnly treated in biblical epics. Brian’s mother was a screeching harridan, upbraiding the Magi on their visit (where they hurried away to the real birth of the Messiah up the street) and urging the gullible crowds away from the grown-up Brian with the now famous words, ‘He’s not the Messiah, he’s just a naughty boy’.

Post- Python, it meant that the Gospel stories would have to be made differently and not leave themselves open to satire.

The late 70s and early 80s saw the popularity of the telemovie and the mini-series. Two Mary films came out of Hollywood. The first dealt with the same period that The Nativity Story covers, Mary and Joseph (1979). Reviewed poorly, it nevertheless had quite some appeal for younger audiences who were able to imagine what her experiences must have been like for Mary (even though the protagonists were particularly American in look and sound). There was also The Nativity, focusing on this same period and the birth of Jesus (1984).

The only appearance of Mary on the cinema screen during the 1980s was in Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). All the characters here are shown as down to earth and earthy, in keeping with the origin of the film as a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis rather than a Gospel. One interesting appearance in this film is Mary, along with other guests, men and women, at the Last Supper.

Again, the 1990s did not have so many Gospel films (except for local religious groups in different countries making their own films for localised audiences). The Italian, Mary, Daughter of her Son, dramatised the life of Mary as did the French Mary of Nazareth, by French director, Jean Delannoy (1995) which was a rather literal rendition of the Gospels with many sequences hurried because of the small budget. But, from 1999 there have been quite a number.

These include a film explicitly named Mary, made for CBS television in anticipation of the Millennium. Mary is portrayed with great reverence by Pernille August. At the same time, there was a Jesus for the Millennium with Jeremy Sisto giving an attractive performance as a very human Jesus yet one who conveyed his sense of divinity. Mary appears quite extensively in this film, very much present during the public life and ministry of Jesus. She was played by Jacqueline Bissett.

Mary appears in the animated The Miracle Maker, in the television film, Judas, where the Annunciation is explained verbally as Mary talks to Judas in her kitchen. The Canadian-made The Gospel of John includes the complete text of the Gospel with Mary appearing at Cana and at Calvary. The appearance is confined by the use of the actual text.

Which leads to Mary in The Passion of the Christ (2004). Mel Gibson’s take on Mary shows her as older, with an inner serenity that manifests itself in profound, emotional but restrained grief. There are brief flashbacks to the very human Mary, anxious as the child Jesus trips and falls, a playful scene at Nazareth as Jesus makes a table and he splashes her as she urges him to his meal. She is shown in the company of Mary Magdalene, especially at the scourging after which they attempt to mop up Jesus’ blood and at the foot of the cross. Not only are there echoes of the Pieta, but Gibson has a prolonged take of the silent, sorrowing Mary staring straight to camera.

In forty five years, Mary has moved from devout and reverent Gospel figure to a flesh and blood character. This is the context for The Nativity Story at the end of 2006.

THE PRESENTATION OF MARY

There is very little detail about the life of Mary, especially before Jesus’ birth, in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. We know that she is from Nazareth and was betrothed to Joseph who is later referred to as a carpenter. We read the stories of the annunciation, Mary’s visit to her pregnant cousin, Elizabeth, Joseph’s bewilderment and dream and his taking Mary as his wife, the journey to Bethlehem and the birth of Jesus in humble circumstances. Mary is described several times in Luke as ‘pondering all these things in her heart. While Luke evokes the story of Jesus’ presentation in the temple, his growing up in Nazareth and the journey to Jerusalem where he was lost and found, there is nothing else about Mary after the flight into Egypt.

The early Christian centuries saw imaginative speculation about Mary’s childhood, her betrothal and incidents in Jesus’ childhood. It is from these rather than scriptural writings that we learn names for Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne. There are the stories of the presentation of Mary in the Temple and fanciful stories of the choice of her husband: a story of Joseph’s rod, amongst all the other suitors’ rods, blooming into a lily. Another story involved a family helping Mary and Joseph on their way to Egypt and one of this family being Dismas who turned out to be the good thief on Calvary.

What writer Mike Rich has done with The Nativity Story is to set the historical scene, especially the tyrannical rule of Herod the Great, his heavy taxing of the people and his lavish building program. This establishes the situation of Roman rule in Palestine and the administration of Herod – offering the background to the census which requires Joseph to travel to Bethlehem.

Rich uses the opening of Luke’s Gospel with the prayer of Zachary in the Temple, Elizabeth’s unexpected pregnancy, Mary’s visit and the birth of the Baptist. This gives something of the religious background of the Judaism and religious practice of the time. What Rich does is to imagine what it was like to live in an impoverished Nazareth, find a language for Mary and her parents to communicate in, establish Joseph as a character and the plausibility of the betrothal. He uses the text from Luke, quite frequently verbatim, as well as Joseph’s dream from Matthew. The Magi story is an embroidering of Matthew and his references to Wise Men, stars and astronomy, and their coming from the East (with their costly gifts). The massacre of the innocents is also a Matthean story.

This means that the screenplay is a blend of biblical texts and scenes and some re-creation of period and what it might have been like in Nazareth. He has written his characters with empathy and insight so that these incidents are attractive and credible – though, as always, many will have particular reservations.

BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

For an authentic portrait of Mary in her times, it is not simply historical background that is necessary but biblical background. This is where so many of the Mary presentations fail to give a rich portrait. Mary, Joseph , their relatives and friends and, of course, Jesus himself are the last figures of the Old Testament as well as being at the beginning of the New. This means that the Mary portrait needs to indicate aspects of the Old Testament as part of Mary’s religion and spirituality. The Nativity Story does this quite insightfully at times.

As has been noted, attention is given to the Temple rituals with Zachary’s turn as priest going into the Holy of Holies (with some Hebrew recited to remind us of the language of the bible). Later, Herod is present in the Temple for the ritual slaughter of a cow as part of a scapegoat ceremony for the removal of sins. When Joseph eats during the journey to Bethlehem, he prays a grace in Hebrew. This helps an Old testament atmosphere permeate the film.

Then there are explicit texts which are worth noting. The prologue is from Jeremiah highlighting the need for a saviour to come for salvation for the people. As regards the coming of the saviour, there is a very pleasing episode where a woman is teaching the scriptures to a group of children and Mary comes to deliver cheese. The teacher leads them in the text of God’s special presence on Horeb to Elijah. God is not in the fire. God is not in the wind. The children attest out loud that God is present in the gentle breeze. This recitation precedes Gabriel’s arrival and annunciation of God’s gentle incarnate presence. The text is later quoted by Elizabeth, and Mary joins in.

When Mary and Joseph arrive in Jerusalem, a street preacher is shouting texts (and is arrested and taken away). He is quoting the early chapters of Isaiah which herald the coming of a special saviour child. Herod is somewhat paranoid as regards threats to his throne and declares that it is a mistake not to take notice of prophecies. With the priests, and then with the Magi, he looks at the text from Micah about the saviour coming from Bethlehem. While the Magi are presented as more interested in details of astronomy, they are shown initially as studying ancient Hebrew texts and, on their way, they also quote from the book of Isaiah. This is the text which is the basis for stories of people from the East coming to Israel in search of the saviour.

Luke’s use of the Old Testament is a poetic use, weaving in strands and quotations from many of the books. Matthew is specific in naming prophecies that are being fulfilled and quoting them. One ‘if only…’ would be that the screenplay had incorporated more of these to make the context richer. Where the screenplay excels is in its omission of Mary’s canticle, The Magnificat, from the Visitation story but making it the conclusion of the film. As the holy family go through the desert to Egypt, Mary proclaims many of the
verses of the Magnificat (as the strains of Silent Night come up for the closing credits). With The Magnificat, the film ends on a biblical high.

THEOLOGY

The Nativity Story is not a theological work but it presents sound theology. The virginal conception of Jesus is clear from the way that the Annunciation is staged and the consequences for Mary and her reputation in Nazareth and Joseph’s dilemma as to what he should do about his betrothal and impending marriage. It is quite clear that the residents of Nazareth, including Mary’s close friends, girls her own age, take a very dim view of her pregnancy. We see Mary being stoned – although this is part of Joseph’s dream, it reminds us of the applications of the Mosaic law (remembering the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8).

The Lukan narrative offers Elizabeth’s pregnancy as a sign for Mary. The film gives its full attention to the Zachary and Elizabeth story in Luke and Mary’s presence in her visitation for the last three month’s of Elizabeth’s pregnancy.

Jesus as saviour is to the fore in the film, especially with the allusions to Old Testament prophecy. Interestingly, this theme is emphasised in the Herod story, not only the discussion of the texts with the Magi but Herod’s initial reading of the texts that the Messiah from Bethlehem would be an adult. Hence his welcoming of the census. There is a sequence where Joseph is stopped and interrogated on his way to Bethlehem as the soldiers search for the alleged Messiah. It is only after the meeting with the Magi that Herod looks for a newborn child.

The more conventional presentation of the manger and the crib, with the visit of the shepherds and the gifts of the Magi, reinforce the perspective of the divinity of Jesus in conditions that are witness to his humanity.

SPIRITUALITY

It might he useful to make some distinctions between piety, devotion and spirituality, even if they overlap.

Piety is a simple religious appreciation of a mystery of faith. The Nativity Story offers a grounding for Marian piety though its style is not particularly pious. It is only the presentation of the Nativity itself, especially the manger sequences with their tableau of baby, mother and Joseph, the animals and the visits of shepherds and Magi and light beaming (rather too much like a celestial searchlight from the symbolic start) on the stable, that the film could be described as pious. These scenes are like a Christmas play, very different from the more down-to-earth scenarios that have preceded them.

Rather, the film offers more for devotion for believers. Devotion is more an attitude of mind and heart that is deeper than piety. Devotion means that there are consequences for belief, stronger understanding of the mysteries of faith and the overflow into prayer, whether it be the saying of prayers (the Rosary, of course, comes to mind) or a more wordless, meditative prayer.

Audiences interested in devotion to Mary should be well satisfied. Only at the nativity itself is she the Madonna. Prior to that, she is a credible young girl who experiences God in an extraordinary way and allows this experience to shape her life. She is ordinary in the best sense, audiences being able to identify with her and her experience, especially the months of her pregnancy and the journey from Nazareth. She is not presented as the moving equivalent of a statue or a holy card as was the case in some previous films. This Mary is real.

Audiences who have a devotion to Joseph will be very happy with this portrayal. Here is a vigorous young man, down-to-earth, puzzled but honourable. He is presented as a three-dimensional character, definitely not a statue. The scenes where he discusses with Mary what it will be like with Jesus and whether they will be able to teach him bring the reality of the incarnation alive in pleasant detail.

Spirituality is the foundation of piety and devotion. Spirituality is a way of life in prayer and action. The Nativity Story was not intended as a spiritual cinema work. But much of it will work this way. Some devotions separate out particular aspects of Mary’s life. By telling a story of Mary in the year before Jesus’ birth, a credible story imagining what that year might have been like, the film gives us Mary as a person. Mary is presented in real situations, difficult situations of poverty, hardship and taxation. She is presented in an almost impossible situation, her pregnancy outside marriage and the consequences for her and Joseph amidst her own people. We see her developing as a girl, a young woman of surrender and faith – which culminates in joy in the birth of Jesus. The film ends with her Magnificat prayer but not the promise of an easy happy ending as she escapes with Joseph into Egypt.

One striking thing about the screenplay is Mary’s awareness of Messiah’s in her time. Some commentators suggest that Mary was privy to the details of God’s plan from the time she encountered the angel Gabriel. Others emphasise what she did not know and how, gradually, she had to learn what her motherhood of Jesus meant. With the prevalence of upstart revolutionaries against Herod and against Rome at that tome, with the prevalence of Messiah claimants, it was ‘in the air’ so to speak that Messiah’s would be born. To that extent, Mary’s listening to Gabriel and learning of her destiny would not be at all unknown or alien to her.

THE FILM

By way of review.

The Nativity Story is a worthy enterprise that, by and large, comes off well. It is also a modest enterprise. It is to the credit of New Line Cinema that they were prepared to venture into this kind of religious film-making. Of course, the box-office success of The Passion of the Christ and the realisation that there was an audience for this kind of religious film was an encouragement. Screenwriter Mike Rich (The Rookie, Finding Forrester) has a church background and a respect for his biblical sources. Director Catherine Hardwicke (Thirteen, Lords of Dogtown) was an architect and production designer before her work as a director and she brings a detailed eye to sets and the re-creation of the era. She has brought a personal devotion to the enterprise as well as a female perspective to the story.

New Zealand actress, Keisha Castle- Hughes (Whale Rider) fits the role of the young girl, Mary, very well – a bit stern at first but mellowing when Joseph accepts her. Oscar Isaac as Joseph brings him to life. The Iranian actress, Shohreh Aghdashloo is Elizabeth and the Israeli actress Hiam Abbass is the mother of Mary. The whole cast, quite international, performs with the same slightly accented English.

As has been noted, the screenplay is well-grounded in the biblical texts, both the heritage of the Old Testament as well as the text and spirit of the Gospel infancy narratives. This gives the film an advantage over narratives which limit the perspective to a literal reading of texts and rely on piety traditions for visual presentation. It has also been noted that the screenplay offers substantial historical background to understand Palestine in these times and how the characters were influenced by their environment as well as by the harshness of authorities.

As with the apocryphal gospels of the early Christian centuries, the film is imaginatively inventive concerning incidents not in the Gospels as well as presenting scenes which are. Nazareth was not an easy place to live in. The residents were poor and oppressed, especially by taxation. This had its consequences on work in the town, the fields and harvests, the making of basic foods and selling them, the work of builders and carpenters. This is the credible and realistic setting of the film. The other major invention is that of the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. This is a very pleasing part of the film, giving enough time for us to appreciate the hardships (lack of food, desert crossings, dangerous rocky paths, the swirling Jordan, the approach to Jerusalem with road blocks, wayside preachers, fortune tellers, the bustle of the city) as well as conversation between Mary and Joseph about the future.

When the screenplay uses direct texts from the Gospels as part of the drama, it is not so effective. They move too quickly. This is the case when Mary arrives at Elizabeth’s house and, barely, turning round Elizabeth utters the greeting verbatim from Luke and the acknowledgement of Mary as the mother of the Lord.

There are a lot of Magi sequences (too many) with more emphasis on the astronomy than on the Hebrew texts they also quote. Their differing characters provide touches of broad humour as well. On the other hand Ciaran Hinds is a sinister, egoistic and paranoid Herod – with a rather oily Antipas, his son, giving him sinister advice.

There will be some discussion about some of the visuals, especially the appearance of Gabriel. He is a voice only for Zachary. He is a swiftly place-changing physical presence to Mary (although the annunciation works quite well when it is filmed in close-ups of Mary and Gabriel in conversation). He appears briefly in Joseph’s dream. There is a bird motif at various moments representing the Holy Spirit that is sometimes too long and obvious. The star and the light shining on the crib is too static and Christmas card-like. The Silent Night ending seems a bit much but, on the other hand, it evokes memories of Christmas for the audience.

The appeal of the film is to the Christian audience which should welcome it – with the hope that it will have a wider appeal to non-Christians.


STUDY GUIDE: in conjunction with the release of the film, a study guide, written by Sr Rose Pacatte FSP, has been published by Pauline Media, Boston. Sr Rose has also edited a series of essays by women on Mary, also published by Pauline Media, Boston.

BAD EDUCATION/ LA MALA EDUCACION

May 13th 2004

Pedro Almodovar is Spain's leading director, with a strong international reputation and two Oscars (for All About My Mother and Talk to Her). He was initially provocative with his films of the 1980s, especially in his attitude towards the Catholic Church and in his treatment of sexuality, especially of homosexual themes and characters.

In recent years, he has perfected his style, his ability to create intelligent melodramas, channel his flamboyant still into thoughtful and moving explorations of the human experience, often bizarre experiences. All About My Mother won the Ecumenical award at Cannes in 1999.

Bad Education has been in planning stages for many years. In 2002, when Almodovar announced that he would move into production, there were immediate claims that the film would be anti-clerical. It would be a film about his own experiences of Catholic education in Spanish schools of the 1960s. This was re-iterated in articles and interviews and was the first question at the press conference in Cannes where Bad Education was the film chosen for Opening Night.

However, Almodovar himself has been disclaiming the anti-clerical charge. He has said that had he made the film twenty years earlier, it would have been quite anti-clerical. He says now that he has mellowed and that, although he does not have what he calls 'the luxury' of believing in God, he values much of what he experienced in the Church (especially in liturgies, celebrations and art) during his childhood. He says he asked God to give him faith when he was a boy but God did not give it to him. He also said recently that the priests at school said that watching films was a sin and that he had to choose sin. These themes are incorporated into Bad Education.

The other aspect of the film that hit the headlines before its release was that of sexual abuse. While not experiencing it himself at school, he was aware of it. English-speaking countries have been aware of this widespread problem since the 1990s, culminating in the US crisis in 2002. The issue is beginning to emerge more forthrightly in continental European countries. While the issue is important, Almodovar treats it quite differently from the way it was portrayed, for example, in the recent Song for a Raggy Boy, where the audience briefly saw the truly abusive side of unscrupulous behaviour and the pain of the victim. Almodovar spends more time showing the emotional behaviour of the abusing priest, his obsession and emotional immaturity, but puts more blame on how the priest handles the situation and jealously exploits his authority and power within the school. This is portrayed in the visualizing of a story written later by the victim. We then see the priest in real life, having left the priesthood and married, but still a sexual predator.

Almodovar's treatment of abuse is more complex and thoughtful than what might have been expected. His judgments are mellowed at times with some compassion for the emotions of the perpetrator. His sympathies are with the victims, although he also raises questions about adolescent attitudes towards sexuality, especially in the context of Catholic upbringing, Church teaching and a sense of sin.

Almodovar is a very clever writer and is able to construct quite intricate plots. For its full impact, the film needs to be seen with as little knowledge about its structure as possible. Audiences will leave with a great deal to think about concerning all the central characters, about what is real, about what is memory, about sexual orientation, about sexual intimacy, about childhood experiences and their effect on adult development or the impeding of development, about moral choices and about God and religion.

To put all this into a proper perspective, it is necessary to acknowledge what Almodovar has said in many interviews. That, perhaps, he should not have called his film Bad Education because the past in the school sequences is only one of about half a dozen plot segments, that he sees the school sequences as a launching place for his interest in his characters as adults and how they interact.

Bad Education offers an opportunity to see something of abuse issues dramatized. For many people, for Catholics, the stories are often sensational headlines, condemnatory articles, court cases where justice must be done and where people in the Church have to accept responsibility. They do not have a sense of the stories, of the human dimension of what victims have experienced, what abusers have done. In this sense Almodovar's film contributes to the Church's continuing examination of conscience, especially in some countries which have not yet faced the crises experienced in the United States and other places.