VALIANT

UK, 2005, 78 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Ewan Mc Gregor, Ricky Gervais, Tim Curry, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Laurie, John Cleese, John Hurt, Pip Torrens, Rik Mayall, Olivia Williams.
Directed by Gary Chapman.

One of the marketing difficulties with so many animated features these days is trying to determine just who the audience is for a particular film.

2004 saw quite a number of fine animation films, including Shrek 2 and The Incredibles. 2005 opened with Spongebob Square Pants, The Magic Roundabout, Robots and Valiant with quite a few more on the distribution lists. Are they really for children? Are adults meant to enjoy them? Sitting with children during screenings, one would come to the conclusion that the surest jokes to rely on for their laughter involve breaking wind (and Robots does have an extended joke like this that the kids loved). On the other hand, many animated films have wisecracks and movie references that make sense only to a movie buff – Shark Tale is full of these, with the fish voiced by Martin Scorsese looking like him, something the average six-year old may not pick up! Finding Nemo is the film that seems to have got the blend absolutely right. It’s a difficult market.

All of which is prologue to a consideration of a British animated feature that flew in at Easter: Valiant, a World War II adventure which pays tribute to the role of the Homing Pigeons during the war, many of whom were awarded the Dickin medal, the animal equivalent of the Victoria Cross – which came across as a tongue-in-cheek joke until you learn that this is perfectly factual and serious. Valiant might be humorous but it should also be taken seriously.

The reviewer for Sight and Sound thought that the younger audiences would enjoy the broad gags and fast action. I hope so but am not so sure. In fact, the audience which will enjoy Valiant is probably the 50s and over. The same Sight and Sound reviewer thinks that it is in the mission-based vein of 60s movies like Where Eagles Dare and The Dirty Dozen. If your memory goes back further then you know that Valiant is the stuff of the British film industry of the 1950s. Valiant could be Richard Todd or Kenneth More of John Gregson or Dirk Bogarde. This is the tradition of The Dam Busters, Reach for the Sky and all those movies where Britain won the war. It makes one realise that Ewan Mc Gregor (who voices Valiant) could be a contemporary version of these 50s stars.

What is striking is that Valiant presents an image of Britain, especially England, of the past which fifty years have changed considerably but which still lingers as some kind of model for being British. Watching Valiant, the immediate reaction was ‘stiff upper beak’.

Valiant who, it should be explained, is about as tall as Richard Todd or Ewan Mc Gregor compared with tall Hugh Laurie and John Cleese (who voice the officer pigeons) is the plucky littler feller who is rejected by the recruiting officers but who, of course, being small can get into literal tight spots and saves the day. In fact, it is just as well because the message he brings is that the D- Day landing is to be in Normandy.

But the qualities of the British hero that he aspires to and which the officers give witness to and which the gruff sergeant major (is there any other kind?), voiced by Jim Broadbent want to instil are the traditional British: the hero has an inner-world strong independence but is clear that orders must be obeyed. Orders are orders and one hops to it at once. The hero is responsible, dependable, singleminded and does not let emotion get in the way. In an emergency, hunches about an alternate way of achieving the goal could be permitted. And any grieving for loss comes after the job is done.

Just when ‘stiff upper beak’ seemed a good title for this article, the Sight and Sound review turned up with the comment: ‘Many of the characterisations fall back on ‘Allo, ‘Allo stereotypes for comic effect: the Germans are sadistic, the French flamboyant while’ (here it is) ‘the British are a mix of stiff upper lip pomposity and tally-ho pluck). Perhaps this stereotype of Britishness was never true – but it was often put forward as desirable.

Of course, there is a variant on the valiant: the city spiv. Valiant does have a great spiv, a con-bird called Bugsy, who is voiced with comic relish by Ricky Gervais. Since Sight and Sound reviewer, Matthew Leyland, is on a roll by this stage of his review, here he is again on Bugsy: ‘he puts on a display of shifty braggadoccio’. But, of course, Bugsy becomes a hero too.

PS. When you see Valiant, look out for Tim Curry’s General Von Talon torturing John Cleese’s Mercury and threatening, ‘We hef means of making you sqwark’.

1. An example of British animation? Collaboration with the United States? The very British story (and comparisons with American stories, especially about World War Two heroics)?

2. The style of drawing, the naturalistic tone, the art styles, the strong characters, the backgrounds, the action sequences?

3. The choice of voices, serious and comic? The stiff upper lip British tone?

4. The tradition of the 1940s and 1950s, the war heroic films? The sense of righteousness in the cause, sense of duty, heroism – with the touch of pomposity? The ordinary soldiers? The officers? The regimental sergeant majors and their training and shouting? The recruits? The mission, the dangers, being shot down, interrogations, deaths? Escapes and heroism? How well did Valiant use this pattern?

5. The stereotypes of British character, responsibility, sense of duty? Reliability? British heroes?

6. The stereotype of the British spiv, good heart, shrewd, confidence tricks, making mistakes, loyalty and friendship despite running away, coming through in the end?

7. The feminine, the nurse, sweetness and light, care, dancing, love, the restrained presentation?

8. The role of the homing pigeons during the war, the fact that they received awards? The Germans and their falcons? The contrast in imagery and symbolism of falcons and pigeons?

9. The prologue, the mission, the flights, the birds being downed in the Channel? The falcons’ pursuit and attack? Ditching and deaths? The prisoners? Mercury and his imprisonment, interrogation?

10. The contrast with rural England, the land, work, characters in the country towns, Gutsy and his speech, Valiant being moved? The hotel, the advice of Felix? The great sense of patriotism and the cause?

11. The recruits, Valiant seeming too small, his strong determination? Gutsy, his speech, the stiff upper lip?

12. Bugsy, his life, confidence tricks, the encounter with Valiant, his making the mistake of being recruited? His character? Humour?

13. The recruits, the training, the sergeant major and his being tough? The detail of the training and their coming through?

14. The picture of the falcons, the officers, the guards? Their treatment of prisoners, interrogations and torture? The parody of the Germans in the war films?

15. The important mission, arriving in France, the mice and the Resistance, helping the pigeons? The mission, their being captured after the pursuit, Bugsy and his seeming to have been lost? Valiant and the capture?

16. Valiant, being small, retrieving the message, the escape? Freeing Bugsy and the others? The pursuit, the flight home, the success of the mission?

17. The falcons’ attack, the character of the falcons, as seen in their interrogations of Mercury? Deadly pursuit? Valiant confronting von Talon?

18. D- Day, the message – and the film sixty years after the end of the war?

AMERICAN BEAUTY

US, 1999, 116 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari, Peter Gallagher, Wes Bentley, Chris Cooper, Allison Janney
Directed by Sam Mendes

American Beauty is a dark, satirical reflection on the suburban dysfunction in the realms of middle class America. It is a film reminiscent of The Ice Storm, but it focuses more on the tragic absurdity in the lives of the characters.

American Beauty is a film that irritates. Its very raw revelation about what lies behind the façade of a picture perfect house with a white picket fence around it and American beauty roses growing in the front yard is something we’d rather not gaze upon. This kind of life seems anything but funny, but its irony works.
Lester Burnham is in his forties, has allowed himself to be trapped in a suburban malaise that has kept him in a kind of routine inertia at home and in his job. He tells us as the movie opens that he will be dead within a year. What we see is his last chance at life and happiness. And, to a large extent, in a mildly suburban kind of way, he achieves happiness - which is symbolised (and shown twice) in a plastic bag blown and gusted by the wind among the leaves in patterns and rhythms of beauty which make him realise how much beauty there is in the world.

Lester Burnham seems to be locked into a hard world of advertising and of domestic acquiescence. Perhaps he could have achieved but got lost in superficial edges. In his forties, he notices the beauty of his acidic daughter's friend and this infatuation begins to liberate him: standing up to his wife and daughter, getting himself in shape, defying his young boss and 'blackmailing' him into giving a top redundancy payout, going back to his music and his pot of the 70s and going to work in a burger diner. He loses the pressures of expectations and, when he is killed, he is a freer and less predictable man than he was when the movie began.
American Beauty is British stage director Sam Mendes’ first feature film production. The film won five Oscars, and, in a rare move to a first time film director, an Oscar was awarded to Mendes for his brilliant work. Kevin Spacey also started his career on the stage and won his first Oscar as Best Supporting Actor for The Usual Suspects. Spacey won the Best Actor Oscar for his personification of Lester Burnham in American Beauty. Annette Bening, another stage-turned-screen actor, was nominated for an Oscar for her role as the strung-out wife. The screenplay is by Alan Ball, who also created, writes, and produces the HBO hit program, Six Feet Under.
Mendes went on to direct such American fare as The Road to Perdition and Jarhead.

1. The title: the rose, symbol? The American garden, home? American suburban surfaces? Realities beneath? The film made at the eve of the millennium? The perspective on the 20th century?

2. The awards and acclaim? In retrospect?

3. The writer and his abilities with satire? The director and his British perspective? From the theatre? The staging of the sequences? The fluidity of the film?

4. The environment of the American town, the affluent homes, the neighbourhood, the gardens? The convention centre? The basketball court? The house for sale? The fast food outlet? The musical score, the songs?

5. The structure of the film, Lester’s voice-over, the camera descending onto the suburb and the house? Lester explaining his death? The reality of his life, the sexuality at the beginning of the day, the fantasies? The fantasies throughout the film? The build-up to his death? The finale and the focus on each of the characters?

6. American families, dysfunctional? The ordinary family and its casual attitudes, the loss of love, the lack of initiative, work, going to seed, too self-satisfied? The angry teenager? The contrast with the martinet, American military background, his son doing drugs, institutionalised, crushing his wife? Angela and her story? Buddy and his relationship, separation? The perspective on relationships?

7. Lester as central, his confiding in the audience, his life and his death, his identity? In the shower, inability to communicate to the family, the breakfast, in a hurry to start the day, Carolyn chiding him, his dropping the case? At work, on the phone, the phoney smile? The interview, the job threat? The request for the job description – and the irony when he presented it? His capacity for blackmail because of the expenses of the boss? At home, the meal, the music playing, Carolyn controlling? Watching his wife in the garden and his comments about her, the past, her fussiness? His losing his job, his not caring? The setting for the crisis of the film?

8. Lester and his future? The basketball match, his focus on Angela, the immediate sexual fantasy, the young girl, the roses? His listening to her conversation with Jane? His trying to phone her and then running? His getting the sack, the financial deal and the blackmail? The interview at the fast food outlet with the young man? The party, his meeting with Buddy, saying that he wouldn't remember himself? His seeing the waiter, Ricky? The discussion about drugs, buying the pot and smoking it? Carolyn’s angry reaction and demands? Angela’s remark about his being fit, his beginning to exercise again? Jogging, meeting Frank while jogging with the neighbours? His greater sense of freedom, at the table, throwing the plate at the wall, demanding the music change? His working at the outlet, hearing Carolyn’s voice, catching her with Buddy? The relationship with Angela, his approach, her saying she was a virgin and his respecting her? The visit of Ricky, buying the pot, his relaxing, Frank seeing him and misinterpreting? Frank’s arrival, the kiss, his resistance? His death – and a seeming smile as he died? His life – to what purpose?

9. Carolyn, once loving, middle aged, fussy, demanding, surfaces? In the garden, her relationship with her daughter – and Lester telling Carolyn that her daughter hated her? The house for sale and the collage of her cleaning and polishing? The collage of her dealing with the clients, her sales pitch? The music at home? Going to the basketball match, proud of Jane? At the party, the relationship with Buddy, admiration? Her seeing Lester in bed and his fantasies? The sexual relationship and its effect? The change in Lester, his throwing the plate? Her taking up shooting and her being a good shot and feeling exhilarated? Singing on the way home? Her dilemma with the gun, finding Lester, hiding the gun? The conversations with Lester about communication and non-communication?

10. The opening with Ricky and Jane, his doing the video, her posing, her angers, his offering to kill her father? Her disdain for her parents, her behaviour at the basketball match? At school, friendship with Angela, discussions about sex? Home, the meals, her spurning her father, his trying to make contact? Her knowing that her father rang Angela? Her flirting with Ricky, walking home with him? Discussions, in his room, sexual relationship, Angela coming home, the clash with her? The finale and what she was left with?

11. Angela, her age, at school, her talk, friendship with Jane? The star cheerleader? As she appeared in Lester’s fantasies, the roses? The reality of her laugh, her boasting? Reaction to Lester’s attention, her gauging herself as successful, potential model? Her flirting? Her angers with Jane and Ricky, her not wanting to be ordinary, Ricky declaring that she was? The flirting with Lester in the kitchen, her declaration that she was a virgin, Lester leaving her alone?

12. Ricky and his video, his back-story, drug dealing, in the institution? At school? His intensity? Walking Jane home? The waiter’s job, a cover for his selling drugs? The friendship with Lester, sharing the drugs, only the best drugs? His sales, his lavish equipment in his room? His relationship with his father, the urine sample and the substitute? His disdain of his father? The discussions with Jane, the sexual relationship? Going to visit Lester, the ambiguity of the view from the window and his father’s interpretation?

13. Frank, the military background, clean-cut, crewcut? The discipline in his life? His relationship with his son, his disapproval? The institution? His wife, his crushing her? His meeting Lester, the two neighbours coming and his disdain of homosexuals? His discussions with Ricky in the car and Ricky’s saying that they were disgusting? Watching Lester? Watching from the window, seeing Ricky and Lester, his suspicions? His going to the house, kissing Lester? His being repelled? His coming and shooting Lester? Going back covered in blood, the gun?

14. Frank’s wife, crushed, vacant, sitting with nothing to say, apologising for the house? Her love for her son?

15. Buddy, the King of Estate Agents, his advertisements, his relationship, at the party, the flirting with Carolyn, meeting Lester? Carolyn and her flattering him, his partner separating? The sexual encounter? At the fast food outlet and their being caught?

16. A portrait of American women, adults, teenagers? Issues and identity in family? Love, relationships, sexuality? Infidelity and commitment? Weakness and strength? Moral and amoral behaviour? Images of American society?

INSOMNIA

Norway, 1997, 97 minutes, Colour.
Stellan Skarsgaard, Maria Matheson, Sverre Anker Ousdal.
Directed by Erik Skoljbaerg.

Insomnia has a strong reputation. It was co-written and directed by Erik Skjoldbjereg. It is set in the Arctic Circle, a police investigation with a detective coming from the capital to the north of Norway.

There has been a brutal murder of a girl. However, all is not as it seems. The film focuses on the work of the detective, the effect of going to the northern area of his country and of experiencing the continual sunlight and its psychological and physical effect on him, his inability to sleep. The film is also complex in its presentation of the detective in his interactions with his co-workers, especially his error in shooting one of his fellow detectives and the lengths that to which he went to cover up.

The film presents the local police, the interrogation of the adolescents at school, the unravelling of connections between the murdered girl and a celebrated novelist. The novelist is taunting the police to expose him and arrest him.

The film is strong, a fine performance by Stellan Skarsgaard, who had been successful in his native Sweden in such films as The Simple- Minded Murderer and carved out an international career for himself with films ranging from Good Will Hunting to Dominion, the prequel to the exorcist.

The film was remade effectively by Hollywood with British Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins) as director and Al Pacino as the detective. Robin Williams was the murderous novelist.

1. An entertaining thriller? Detective story? Police investigation? The Scandinavian settings – for a Scandinavian audience? Mood, atmosphere, characters? Universal interest?

2. The Arctic setting, the summer, the light? The normal day – the long day with the sun? The hotel setting, the police precinct, the town, the roads? The importance of water? Musical score?

3. The title: its effect on the detective, the consequences in his behaviour, deceit? Human frailty and limits?

4. The prologue, the murder, the girl? The killer, his fastidious treatment of the girl’s body, clothes? Cleanliness?

5. The detective and his associate, in the plane, their discussions, the filling in of the detective’s background, his skills, the cases? The bonds between the two – and the irony that he was to accidentally kill him?

6. The detective as a character, his age, experience, success? His power? Why was he allotted this case, the attitude of authorities towards him, the importance of the case for his own career?

7. His manner, arriving at the hotel, the girl at reception? The hotel itself, wanting to sleep, the light, trying to block the sun at the window? Going to the morgue, the body and the forensic information? The site of the killing? His theories? Dealing with the police?

8. The information about the novelist, his being the girl’s boyfriend – and the novel in the room? The interrogation of the friends of the victim, the school? The boyfriend, guilty or not? The girl and her information, driving with the detective, his flirting? The questions, their effect? The role of the policewoman, her skills, interactions with the detective?

9. The information gathered about the victim, about her friendships, her man friend? The jealousy, the clothes – and the visit of the detective to the room, finding the boyfriend and the girl together? Confronting them? The party? The boy, the arrest, his boast?

10. The portrait of the killer, the respected novelist? The quotations from the book? His thinking himself intelligent? His willingness to confront the detective? The detective’s visit to the house, his shooting and running? His observing what happened with the detective in the confusion? Holding power over the detective? His phone calls, the disappearance via the trapdoor?

11. The detective and the search, the all-day light, the effect on him and the tension to track the killer, his associate, his shooting him? His changing the evidence? His covering? Changing the bullet, the death of the dog? The planting of the bullet for the boy’s guilt? The puzzle of the associates, of the policewoman? The interrogations of the detective, especially about ballistics, the distance? His explanation? The finale and the policewoman helping him to cover what he had done? Her motivation?

12. The effect on the detective, psychologically, feelings of guilt, dreams? The fantasies and imagination? The heat? Trying to purge his guilt? And yet his flirting with the receptionist, with the young girl? Losing his sense of balance?

13. The confrontation about the distances, about the travel? The pursuit of the novelist, the policewoman and her finally shooting the killer?

14. The spectacle of the final pursuit of the killer, the Arctic terrain?

15. The effect of this as a portrait of detective work, the twist with the guilt of the detective, the psychological insights?

THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR

UK, 2005, 115 minutes, Colour.
Mark Rylance.
Directed by Peter Kosminsky.

The Government Inspector is a topical drama, written for television, particularly pertinent to the events leading up to the Iraq war, Tony Blair’s action in deciding to go to war following the information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, the film focuses on a government inspector, Dr David Kelly who was revealed as a source of information to BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. While Dr Kelly’s name was kept out of the public eye for some time, the Labour Party in England allowed it to be revealed. The effect for Dr Kelly, a quiet retiring scientist, was that he had to give testimony at an inquiry and later committed suicide.

Shakespearian actor and manager of the Globe Theatre for many years, Mark Rylance, portrays Dr Kelly with some asperity as well as with sympathy. Actors portray reporter Andrew Gilligan as well as Jonathan Cape portraying Alistair Campbell, the adviser to Tony Blair, very well remembered for his capacity as a spin doctor.

The film recreates the activities of Dr Kelly and his work as an inspector in Iraq. It also shows many of the Iraqi scientists and the interactions with Dr Kelly leading to his suspicions about their activities.

The film does not present the government sympathetically and is also critical of the role of the BBC.

The film is an interesting record of public feeling in the United Kingdom in the years immediately after the attack on Iraq.

The film was written and directed by Peter Kosminsky, a veteran director of political dramas for television on such themes as the Falkland wars and the Afghan war. He also directed on Hollywood film, White Oleander, with Michelle Pfeiffer.

1. An example of political cinema? Made and exhibited soon after the events it portrays? Polemical political cinema? History?

2. The topicality, the events, the Iraq war, the stance of Tony Blair, the advice about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The role of David Kelly, his suicide? The inquiries?

3. How much did the film depend on audience knowledge of the characters and events? The dossiers advising the British government, the war in Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction, David Kelly’s role in the 90s as an examiner? Andrew Gilligan and his reports? Tony Blair, the spin of Alistair Campbell, his clash with the BBC? The heads of the BBC?

4. Audience response to the Iraq war, to the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found? The scenes in Iraq, the contrast with David Kelly at home, at the beach? London, the BBC, Downing Street, the Foreign Office? The musical score and the chant? The religious dimensions?

5. The portrait of David Kelly at work, with the Foreign Office, with MI6, his scientific background, the examinations in Iraq? His background of discovering the nuclear material in Russia and his ability to negotiate its destruction? The tributes made to him because of this work? His being trusted in Iraq?

6. The structure of the film: how well did it portray the linear events of 2002 and 2003? The flashbacks to the 1990s, the Gulf War, the aftermath, the search for mass destruction weapons, Iraq in the 90s, at the beginning of the 21st century? The information about the first dossier, the construction of the second dossier, the lack of consultation with the Foreign Office, Alistair Campbell’s influence? Rushing it through? The issue of the forty-five minutes’ readiness for weapons? The BBC, the tapes, Gilligan’s own interview? The Nightline interview? The inquiries, the fuss, the hearings? The culmination with David Kelly’s suicide and Tony Blair being informed on the plane back from his successful visit with George Bush?

7. The perspectives of the film, the political stances, towards the BBC, towards David Kelly, towards the government, towards Andrew Gilligan? Kelly as a prickly character yet his integrity? The BBC and mismanagement? The government and wanting to win at all cost? Andrew Gilligan and his seeming lack of responsibility?

8. The portrait of David Kelly, in the 90s, his beliefs about the weapons, the science woman, her training in England, her being a Dr Death? His friend and his not believing him about the weapons? Seeing Kelly in action, the aftermath? 2002 and his not being permitted to go to Iraq, the visa questions and Kuwait and his return? His angry reaction? A private personality, his relationship with his wife, her illness? The preparation for the wedding, relation to his children, his going for walks in the countryside? His manner, taciturn? His talking to the reporter from Nightline? With Andrew Gilligan? His stances and motivation, his wanting to be honest, his explanation about being Baha’i and the compulsion to tell the truth? The source of information, not seeing himself as the source of discrediting the dossier? Going to New York, his return, his MI6 friend and the warnings, her discussions with him, the visit? The issues of truth and lies? Nick coming to his home, his loss of faith in him? Going to the beach to avoid the media? The television hounds? The Foreign Office and the discussions, his being the sacrifice for the government, his feeling that he was being used? The dramatic build-up to motivation for his suicide?

9. Andrew Gilligan, his methods of reporting, slipshod, notes, waking up in the morning, rushing to do his interview, the phrase of “sexing up” the dossier? His relationship with the BBC? His computer, altering the notes? Listening to the hearings and Kelly’s statements and feeling justified, the BBC and his being caught out?

10. Susan Watts, Nightline, talking to David Kelly, scenes of her at home, their sessions, the broadcast, her protecting her sources, her reaction to his death?

11. Tony Blair and the government, the dossier, the forty-five minutes, the pressure to go to war, the second dossier and no contact with the Foreign Office, Sir John Scarlett and the reaction about this? Tensions within government? Alistair Campbell and his phone calls, wanting the identity of David Kelly to be released? The reaction of Tony Blair, with President Bush, being told of the death on the way home?

12. Sir John Scarlett, the intelligence organisations, the Ministry of Defence, the personnel and the politics?

13. Andrew Gilligan as a person and personality, the pressures, the BBC, the contacts with David Kelly, his feeling himself vindicated?

14. The role of BBC management, the criticism in the report, the consequences and the resignations?

15. The film giving an insight into the workings of politics, government, advice, the use of advice, spin? The vindictiveness of some members of government in order to win?

16. The issue of the Iraq war and its justification – or not?

SOMETIMES IN APRIL

US, 2004, 140 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Raoul Peck.

Writer-director, Raoul Peck, was asked by Home Box Office, on the strength of his films on Lumumba, to make a film about the 1994 Rwandan genocide when militant Hutus massacred almost a million Tutsis and 30% of the third tribe, the Batwa (Twa). There have been documentary models of films portraying 20th century genocides (Shoa, S 21), fictions (Sophie’s Choice), docudramas (Schindler’s List) and biographies (Hotel Rwanda, The Killing Fields). Peck has opted to tell a family story set within the broad historical, political and social context of this small country of central Africa. The result is a profoundly moving experience, putting a human face on the suffering brought about by fanatical and brutal atrocities.

The screenplay veers between 2004, the tenth anniversary of the genocide, opening with a teacher and students watching a tape with a 1994 speech by President Clinton. The Hutu teacher (Idris Elba) remembers his military career, his Tutsi wife (Caroline Karemera), his children, his radio personality brother who had embraced and fomented the Hutu ascendancy. We see the horrible killings through the teacher’s memories although he still does not know the actual fate of his family. But the audience does.

Intercut with the barbarity of the killings are sequences of US and UN action and inaction, especially in the US State Department where a sympathetic bureaucrat, Prudence Bushnell (Debra Winger) tries to raise US consciousness beyond the rescue of American citizens and declaring to the media which side are the ‘goodies’. Also intercut are 2004 sequences of trials being held in Tanzania where the teacher’s brother has now pleaded guilty. The challenge is how to acknowledge the truth, whether forgiveness and reconciliation are possible, and how to build an inclusive Rwandan future – finishing with an image of teacher and students enjoying Charlie Chaplin tweaking the pomposity of tyrants in The Great Dictator.

The cast performs with both humanity and dignity. The visual portrayal of the killings is graphic but restrained enough for most audiences to be able to watch the film – which they should. They will grieve at such prejudice and inhuman cruelty.

1. The impact for a 21st century audience? Africans? The world at large? The memory of the genocide in Rwanda? The message never to forget?

2. The focus on Martin Luther King, civil rights, the impact in America? The reflection on Africa? The world, nations, the United Nations, the US and Europe? The response of the West to Rwanda, slow, critical, talking instead of acting?

3. The filming in Rwanda itself, an authentic look, cast? The perspective of the director and his films about Africa? The musical score, the soul music? The soul of Africa?

4. The overview of the history of Rwanda, the explanation of the history of the tribes, the influence of Belgium and colonialism, European powers, dominance? Favouring one tribe over the other? The exploitation of Africa, greed, arrogance of the Europeans and colonial assumptions, racism? The consequences for the Hutus, for the promotion of the Tutsis?

5. The structure of the film: the opening in 2004, the history of Rwanda since the genocide? The return to 1994? The intercutting? The effect of seeing the interconnection between the two periods?

6. The film as an indictment, a document of history, society, evil, brutality and grief?

7. The focus on Augustin: as a teacher, the opening, his class in 2004, the video of Bill Clinton, the questions for the kids, his own memories? His character? The Hutu, his relationship with his wife, with his boys, with his daughter? At home, the daughter and school? His relationship with his brother? His work, the men? The training, the military background, his devotion to the military? The introduction of the machetes? The rumours of war and violence? His friendship with Xavier and their being a team? The counterpoint of 2004 on this military perspective? 2004 and his relationship with Martine, a new relationship, new family? His letter from Honore? His not willing to go, the audience not knowing why, eventually going to visit him in Tanzania, in prison, his walking away? Going to the court? Going to his room? The discussions with the witness, the effect on him? Going to see Honore, hearing his story, seeing his grief? The memories of his wife? The shooting, the hotel and surviving?

8. The role of Honore in the uprising, in the genocide? The impact of the radio, the people listening, his being a radio personality, acclaim, going everywhere and people welcoming him? His ethos, the party, fomenting racism and violence? The American perspective on the radio and hate radio? The audio clips from his programs? Augustin and the car, the phone? The boy shot? Honore’s escape to Italy, his arrest? Guilt, confession, the prosecution? The defence, that radio does not kill but people do? Finally with Augustin, the reconciliation?

9. Augustin’s wife, the home life, her being a Tutsi, the racial status of the children? Their being warned, the household, the rumours? The watching of the flight and the plane being shot down? The consequences? Trying to escape, the unwilling help from the neighbours? Honore and the car, the boys? The groups on the roads, taking hostages? The priest, the help? The grenade?

10. Martine, the school, the teachers, the nuns, the girls gathering together? In the hall, the stance? The massacre of the girls? The daughter’s escape with the other, her dying? The woman helping though fearful of her husband? The swamps? Martine surviving?

11. The portrait of the military, the officials? The arrests and shootings, the roadblocks and the drinking, the confrontation with Xavier, his trying to defend himself, his being shot? The cruelty? The school? The farmers?

12. The trial, the finale and the people giving witness? Martine and her witness?

13. The need for the trials, their effect? The possibilities of reconciliation?

14. The effect on Augustin, his life before the genocide, his joy in family, career, his land? The extraordinary disruption? Audiences understanding the genocide through sharing Augustin’s experience? The visualising of his wife’s death, the church, the priest? His boy shot, the violence towards his daughter? His survival, the support of Martine, the reconciliation with Honore?

15. His showing the scene from The Great Dictator and the children laughing at the mockery of the humour? The message in these final images of such a powerful film?

THE COLOR OF PARADISE

Iran, 2000, 85 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Majid Majidi.

The Color of Paradise is one of many fine Iranian films that focus on the lives of children. It was directed by Majid Majidi, the director of Children of Heaven, a wonderful film about a family in Teheran and the loss of shoes and the consequences for the children trying to find them. Majidi also made the film about a blind man who temporarily recovers his sight, The Weeping Willow.

The Color of Paradise is a blind boy from the country, his life at school in Teheran, his waiting for his father to come to take him on holidays. The film also shows the wariness and reluctance of the father to acknowledge his blind son. When he returns home, he is welcomed by his family, especially his grandmother.

The film has a fine sensitivity to family life in Iran, relationship between the generations, the dominance of the hardworking male and his inability to relate emotionally. The film ends tragically – bringing to a conclusion a strongly emotional experience.

1. The Iranian film industry in the 20th century? Prestige? Dramatisation of values? The settings in the city? The Iranian countryside?

2. The contemporary setting, the contemporary city, the school, the roads? The countryside, the valley and its beauty? The musical score?

3. The title, the colour of God and Paradise? Its meaning? The Islamic background of the film?

4. The focus on the boy, in his, his age, blind? The other children in the school? The records and their identifying things? The end of term, packing up, the holidays? The teacher, the father being late? The mobile phone? The boy waiting, being hurt? His needs?

5. The father, the phone call, the bus? His watching his son? His pleading to the officials to take him? Hugging his son? The reasons for his not wanting to take his son home?

6. The journey, father and son, the bus? The descriptions? Walking, the horse? The reuniting with his family, his sisters, wanting to see his grandmother? The joy of the return home?

7. The family, his place in the family? His being helped? The zest, the presence? Out in the fields? The colours? His relating to each member of the family? His ability to read braille?

8. His father deciding that he should be an apprentice, the negotiations with the blind carpenter? His work with the carpenter, the precision? Yet his wanting to go home?

9. The portrait of the family, the father, the dead wife, the new marriage proposal? The reaction of his mother? The clash between the two, her accusations, his defending himself? The son and his being desperate? The father and his going courting, buying the bangle, the gifts? Proposing, the tea ceremony, blowing on his tea in the saucer? The woman having difficulty in finding a husband? The striking of a bargain?

10. The work, the building and repairs, the house? The flowers? The dye and the paint?

11. The father travelling with his boy, bringing him home, the horse, the bridge, its rearing, the boy falling into the river? His father spellbound, watching? Did he want him to die? Pursuing him? The boy going down the river? The seaside, the beach, the dead boy, the father with his son, the light and the finger?

12. The re-creation of the world of the blind? Joy and happiness? Limits? Others and their ability or inability to cope? The significance of the title in relation to the blind boy, the colour of God?

THICKER THAN BLOOD

US, 1998, 95 minutes, Colour.
Mickey Rourke, Don Fatoman, Carlos Albin, Josh Mostel.
Directed by Richard Pearce.

Thicker Than Blood is based on a play by Bill Cain, Stand- Up Tragedy.

The film is in the tradition of those about schoolteachers facing difficult students. One thinks of Dangerous Minds or To Sir With Love. This film, however, focuses on a small parochial school in New York City, in a Hispanic neighbourhood. The school is run by Father Frank Larkin, played with some dignity, almost underplayed, by Mickey Rourke. Dan Futterman (The Birdcage, writer of Capote) is a lawyer who gives himself to teaching to improve the students’ lot. He makes a great number of mistakes, yet befriends a young Hispanic artist, Carlos Albin. The film is interesting in its development of the relationship between student and teacher, the work of the teachers in this kind of school, the role of the teachers and of religion – especially in the character of Father Larkin and his sometimes depressed feeling that God does not exist or is not interested.

While the film is conventional, it receives good treatment by its director, Richard Pearce (Northern Lights, Heartlands, No Mercy).

1. The title of the film, its reference to the family, Lee and his awareness of family? The contrast with Griffin’s family? The title of the play, Stand- Up Tragedy – and its relevance to these characters, tragedy in the New York neighbourhoods.

2. The New York settings, the cityscapes, the neighbourhoods, the scenes in the church, in the school, in the tenements, the streets, the contrast with the museum? Musical score and songs?

3. The tradition of movies about schooling and education, dedicated teachers, their difficulties, mistakes? Difficult students? This film in that tradition?

4. The Catholic setting, the ethos, Father Frank Larkin, the opening with the funeral, Mickey Rourke in the role and being a convincing priest? His understanding of religion, belief in God, confidence in God, education?

5. Father Larkin, the opening at the Mass, burying the boy who died in the street, the school common room, his discussions with Camilla, reflections about God, the crucifix in the garbage tin? His giving advice, especially to Griffin? Not wanting to know a lot of the details? His theory of the ecology of the neighbourhood and not interfering in it? His judgment and lack of judgment? His insights into character, his trust in Griffin, even though challenging him? The relationship with Lee, with Henry – and Henry’s confession? The issue of the teacher who was robbed and stabbed and finding Henry using his camera, the expulsion? The graduation ceremony – the violence?

6. Griffin Boone, his age, experience, training to be a lawyer, changing his mind? Coming into the school, Camilla and her sardonic remarks? The trust from Father Larkin? His family’s expectations that he be a lawyer? His first class, meeting the students, seeing the hooker on the street – and his buying her the cup of coffee, Father Larkin’s reaction and his explanation of the consequences, the expectations that the teacher would buy more cups of coffee? His puzzle about Lee, interest in Lee, seeing his drawings, photocopying them? Going to his house, Lee’s resentment? Frank and his warnings? The challenge for Lee to come every day to school? The growing friendship with Camilla, the bet about his returning after Thanksgiving? The other teachers, the common room? His hopes? His taking Lee to the museum, Lee’s running away, defending him against the police? His going to the home, the discussions with Lee’s mother, with Tyro, getting him the job, trying to keep him in the job? Seeing him on the streets, selling the drugs, Tyro putting him in the drug-dealing position and proving that it was difficult money to earn?

7. Lee, his age, his art, silence, his relationship with Tyro, drawing him in the comic strips, his mother and the brutality, her drinking? The challenge by Griffin, coming to his home, Lee resenting it? The visit to the museum, his amazement, running away? The essay, the interrogation in class in front of Father Larkin whether Griffin had corrected the essays? Griffin reading it aloud, the promise of the prize, the dinner at home? Lee and his enjoying the Christmas dinner, laughing at Griffin’s idea of a family fight compared with his own? Father Larkin’s arrival, his having to move out, the rooftop, the artwork, the pigeons? The news of his getting the scholarship? His thanking Frank for taking him on? The graduation?

8. Tyro, selling the drugs, the money needed to pay the rent, his mother urging him to sell drugs? His admiration for Lee but their fights, the brutality – especially Lee getting angry and punching Tyro and then coming to Griffin? His giving up the job at the baths, resentment, coming to the graduation, his speech, his reactions, the struggle with Lee, the gun and the policeman shooting?

9. Lee’s mother, battered, her relationship with her children, her drinking, Griffin’s deal with her about Lee going into a home, her going to a refuge?

10. The teachers, the teacher and his resentment, especially of Henry – and Henry robbing him and stabbing him? His harsh judgments? The bearded teacher, his classes, giving people a chance, challenging Henry to learn nothing? His more compassionate attitude, sardonic way of expressing it, his shooting a basket during the match?

11. The build-up to the climax, the graduation, the speeches, the violence, Tyro’s intervention – and the tragedy as Lee died?

12. The pessimistic attitude towards life in the neighbourhood? The optimism that one person can actually change lives?

ESTHER WATERS

UK, 1948, 108 minutes, Black and white.
Kathleen Ryan, Dirk Bogarde, Cyril Cusack, Ivor Barnard, Fay Compton.
Directed by Ian Dalrymple and Peter Proud.

Esther Waters is based on a novel by George Moore, a re-creation of English life in the 1870s and 1880s. It was an era of upstairs-downstairs differentiation of the classes. The setting is a mansion, life among the servants – but, especially, with a young man who is interested in betting and racing. It is of interest to see how racing meetings were conducted in that period.

The film has the expected ingredients: the poor servant who has a Welsh Chapel background, charmed by the son of the main servant, seduced, pregnant, his leaving, her having to have the baby in the workhouse, the trials and tribulations she experienced, especially in service. There is some hope with a young preacher offering to marry her – at the time that the father of her son returns. There is generally a happy ending even though there is a touch of tragedy. It is the type of popular novel that makes a strong television miniseries.

Kathleen Ryan is a rather melancholic Irish actress in such films as Captain Boycott, Odd Man Out. This was the second main feature film for Dirk Bogarde and he showed his screen presence and skill in characterisation very strongly. Cyril Cusack is the preacher and Fay Compton is the kindly lady of the house.

The film seems very much of its period – even though it was made only sixty years after the events.

1. The popularity of this kind of costume drama, melodrama? The wages of sin…? An alternate title was The Sins of Esther Waters.

2. Black and white photography, re-creation of the English countryside in the 1870s and 1880s? The mansions, the servants’ quarters, the towns, the poorhouses, homes? The sequences on the racetrack? Musical score?

3. The background of Victorian England, the differentiation of the classes, the upper and middle class snobbery? The treatment of servants? The households? The restricted areas? The servants’ quarters, life amongst the servants themselves? The ball which the master of the house provided when the horse won the race? Dressing up? The workhouse, the harsh attitudes, the couples taking in children to starve them so that they would die? The pubs, the racetrack? An authentic atmosphere – and the spirit of the 19th century and Victorian times?

4. The introduction to Esther, her poor background, her father, her religious convictions, Chapel? The arrival, the encounter with William? The first reaction of William’s mother and the other servants? Her feeling humiliated? Her wanting to leave, her temper? Mrs Barfield and her kindness, the dress? Esther feeling more at home, doing her work, encouraged? The friendship with William, listening to him, differences of opinion, especially about betting? The attraction, his attentions to Peggy, his departure? The revelation that she was pregnant? Mrs Barfield and her kindness, Esther wanting to return home?

5. Esther as a strong character in herself, the impact of the seduction, the pregnancy? Her going to the workhouse after her father was missing and her mother dead? The difficulty of the birth? The discussions of adoption? Her being placed in service, the severity of the alleged charitable woman of the household? The child in care – the greedy couple and their starving the child, Esther denouncing them?

6. The years passing, Esther in service, sometimes successful, sometimes not? Her love for Jackie? The kindness of the policeman, taking her to his sister Florence, Florence looking after the boy?

7. Freddie, his sermon, kindness, his offer of marriage to Esther, the shock about the baby, his overcoming this? Her putting him off?

8. Her meeting William on the crowded train, his coming back into her life, the difficulties in making the decision for Freddie? William and his coming to see Jackie, offering him the gold sovereign, Esther’s anger? Her not wanting to see him again? Her discussions with Freddie – and her hesitations?

9. Going back to William, her love for him, his change? His explanations, his mother’s death? His leaving Peggy? His setting up the hotel? The betting? The marriage, the day at the races, the derby days? Randall and his place in service with Mrs Barfield, William helping him and his working in the hotel? The other staff?

10. Sarah, Mr Evans, the touts at the racing? William taking on Evans? The successful years, the prosperity, Esther learning how to manage the hotel?

11. William, his illness, the change of fortune, going into hospital, betting all the money, his death?

12. Esther, Randall and the bet, losing everything? Her strength of spirit, going to Mrs Barfield, in service with her? Jackie in the navy and his coming to visit?

13. The Victorian ethos of goodwill and strength of character overcoming all troubles?

THE GREAT LOCOMOTIVE CHASE

US, 1956, 85 minutes, Colour.
Fess Parker, Jeffrey Hunter, Jeff York, John Lupton, Eddie Firestone, Kenneth Tobey, Don Megowan, Claude Jarman Jnr, Harry Carey Jnr.
Directed by Francis D. Lyon.

The Great Locomotive Chase is based on an actual Civil War story (which was used for comedy effect by Buster Keaton in The General).

The film opens with a group of Unionists being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the first presentation in history. The film then goes into flashback to illustrate the episode for which they are being honoured. The episode focuses on the work of undercover agent James J. Andrews. He is played by Fess Parker, a rather tall, stolid screen presence who achieved success in film and television as both Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone. He is the leader of the Unionists penetrating into Georgia and Confederate strongholds in order to seize a train and help the taking of Chattanooga. There is an odd bunch of men who go with him, ranging from William Pittinger (John Lupton) who wrote up the events and is supportive, and Jeff York as William Campbell who is a continual danger because of his irascibility against the Confederates. The Confederates are played more sympathetically even though they are highly critical of the Union, especially the man in pursuit of the train, William A. Fuller played by Jeffrey Hunter. Kenneth Tobey is Anthony Murphy, the manager of the railroad.

Audiences unfamiliar with the story may think it is predictable. However, the locomotive chase is often very desperate, the Unionists only a few kilometres ahead of the Confederates, trying all their devices to get the train moving by taking up tracks, blocking the tracks, cutting down telegraph wires. However, there is a surprise when the train is taken and the Unionists are imprisoned. James J. Andrews is presented as a very loyal and upright man, supportive of his men, failing ultimately in taking the train and condemned to death by the Confederates. His final gesture is to respect Fuller and ask for him to shake his hand.

The film was made in the mid-50s, at a time when the Disney Studios were developing full-length live action stories like this one.

1. An entertaining Civil War story? As perceived in the 1950s? The patriotic American perspective on the Civil War? The attitudes towards the North, towards the South?

2. The cast, Fess Parker as the solid and stolid American hero? Noble and right-minded? Loyal and patriotic? Jeffrey Hunter as the Confederate, committed to the cause, committed to his pursuit of the train? Also an honourable man? The range of men in Andrews’ Raiders, Campbell and his criticisms, Pittinger and his leadership?

3. The Washington sequences, Georgia, Tennessee? The atmosphere of the 1860s? Sets and décor, costumes? Georgia and the South? The households? The countryside? The towns and prisons?

4. The locomotive, the tracks, the countryside? The action sequences for the pursuit?

5. The Congressional Medal of Honour, its being presented to the men, Pittinger’s memories? The tribute to Andrews?

6. Andrews in himself, cover, penetrating the South? Getting information? The pressure on him as a double agent, the strains on his sense of honesty and integrity? Deceiving people? This continuing throughout the episode with the locomotive, how it affected the other men – and the reflections on the demands, emotionally and in conscience for spies?

7. The mission, the military value? Getting weapons? Preventing the South moving weapons? The taking of the train, the reinforcements at Chattanooga? The progress of the war? The particular perspective on battles, defeats and victories?

8. Fuller, a gentleman, meeting Andrews on the train, their discussions? The discovery that the train had gone, his running in pursuit, getting the wagon, with Mr Murphy? The relentless pursuit, getting all kinds of help, trying to telegraph? The ultimate taking of the train? His success? His visiting Andrews in the prison, Andrews’ respect for him, wanting to make peace before he died?

9. The group of men, their military background and criticism of Andrews for being a civilian? Pittinger and his loyalty? Their wanting adventure? Their travelling over land, their cover story, meeting up, with the family, the meal, Campbell in danger of anger? Having to sing the songs, the toasts, to rejoice about the defeats of the North? On the train, the danger from Campbell giving things away? Diplomacy? Andrews and his leadership, the discussions amongst the men, their following him? The devices for stopping the pursuing train, the tracks, logs, the bridge – and the bridge not being fired and so their mission not being fully successful? The different personalities? Their finally being captured, using their cover story, all in the prison together?

10. The prison sequences, the attitude of the guards? Their plan, military techniques? The escape, some being recaptured, Andrews and his saving Campbell? Andrews and his execution?

11. A satisfying adventure? Played rather literally – in the straightforward style of the 1950s, and

THE MUPPETS’ WIZARD OF OZ

US, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Ashanti, Jeffrey Tambour, Quentin Tarantino, David Allen Greer, Queen Latifah and voices of Steve Whitmeyer, Dave Goelz, Bill Barretta, Eric Jacobsen, Brian Henson.
Directed by Kirk R. Thatcher.

For many devotees of the Muppets, this film might be something of a surprise and a disappointment. On the other hand, for those who have liked the Muppets for years and have travelled with them over the decades, it will be enjoyable seeing them in a 2005 adaptation of a popular story as well as an extended program just as in the old days. The Muppets had appeared in the 80s in their own movies like The Muppet Movie and The Muppets Take Manhattan. In the 90s they had their own Muppets’ Treasure Island as well as Muppets’ Christmas Carol and Muppets From Space. Eventually, they found their niche with these shows and adaptations of popular movies and stories on television.

The film uses the basic plot of the Wizard of Oz with which most audiences are familiar. This time, however, Dorothy is played by singer Ashanti. Aunt Em and Uncle Harry are played by Queen Latifah and David Allen Greer. The setting is Kansas but when the tornado hits as Dorothy is searching for her prawn (a dog was too expensive!), she has been dreaming of becoming a popular star in Hollywood, a celebrated singer.

In Oz, she meets the usual characters, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion. They have various adventures encountering the witches and going into Munchkinland. After surviving the encounters with the witches, they eventually get to Oz. There the Wizard is unmasked as a fake, a star from Hollywood who has his television show. The usual moral is made, while the Wizard can give gifts, the people wanting to be singers, brains, hearts and courage have these qualities within them. The film ends, of course, back in Kansas, Dorothy reconciled with her uncle and aunt who allow her to go off to be a star because she will always be at home with them. The moral of the Wizard of Oz is still valid in its affirming way.

Where the film is entertaining is in the fact that the cast of Oz are the Muppets themselves – all the familiar figures from the 70s onwards. It is a great opportunity to see them all again, especially as they act their roles. Kermit is the Scarecrow, Fozzie Bear is the Lion, the Great Gonzo is the Tin Man. They go through all the familiar characteristics of these roles with their search for brain, courage and heart.

The witches are all played by Miss Piggy herself – who gets the opportunity to voice all the arrogant and self-satisfied statements that we are used to. The Munchkins are played by the rats. There is also a cast of monkey-bikers.

Another advantage of the Muppets being the cast for the episodes in Oz is that all the familiar characters are there once again in different guises. Dr Bunsen is the manipulator of the effects for the Wizard. Dr Teeth and the Swedish Chef also appear, as does Sam the Eagle in his censorious role. Scooter, Janice and the band are all present. While the film may delight newer audiences, there is a touch of nostalgia for older audiences familiar with the Muppets seeing all the characters in their roles.

Ashanti is a touch awkward as Dorothy – and it was difficult for her to act everything with the puppets. Entertaining is Jeffrey Tambour as the Wizard. Queen Latifah and David Allen Greer obviously enjoy themselves as Uncle Henry and Aunt Em. A bonus for trendy audiences is the appearance of Quentin Tarantino who has a discussion with Kermit about the violent elements in the film, poking fun at Tarantino-like violence.

While the film may not satisfy purists, it is an entertaining opportunity to remember the points of the Wizard of Oz and to see the Muppets act the characters.