THE DA VINCI CODE

SIGNIS issued a press release from Cannes after the screening of The Da Vinci Code which opened the Festival.

Cannes 17th May 2006.

‘MUCH ADO ABOUT VERY LITTLE.'

A film which, finally, the Church has little to be concerned about.

Many Christians from different backgrounds and sensibilities were anxious about the release of the film of The Da Vinci Code, directed by Ron Howard. However, far from being a cinema masterpiece, the film is simply a popular entertainment. While the early scenes set us on an exciting treasure hunt, the wordiness of the drawn out twists of the later part of the film will disappoint many cinemagoers.

A film is something that no one need be afraid of. It is a personal or a commercial venture. The novel attempted to persuade its readers that some dubious hypotheses and some mumbo-jumbo theories were true. The film wants rather to please everyone and not upset them too much. The writers have added quite a number of dialogue exchanges which downplay the more controversial statements of the novel about the Church, the divinity of Jesus, the role of Mary Magdalene and even Opus Dei.

The media controversy which followed the publication of the novel has led to an enormous impact from the promotion campaigns for the film. We hope that the Church can benefit from this phenomenon in explaining the theological foundations of faith and the hopes of all Christians.

__



SIGNIS STATEMENT THE DA VINCI CODE

Peter Malone

17-5-06


Further questions and considerations on The Da Vinci Code

1.WAS THE FILM WELL MADE?

The film is, first and foremost, a visualising of the novel.

The locations are one of the most important features: Paris, the French countryside, London, Edinburgh are shown to great advantage and will please audiences. There is attention to detail in the Louvre, Saint Sulpice, the night streets of Paris, Westminster Abbey (with Lincoln Cathedral standing in for the Abbey interiors), the Temple Church in London, Rosslyn Chapel.

The cast is commercially strong, although Tom Hanks delivers one of his more stolid performances as the mid-40s academic, reciting ‘facts’ and suggesting alternate hypotheses in a very po-faced manner. Audrey Tautou is tres francaise as Sophie. Ian Mc Kellen obviously relishes his role as the villain, giving it more flair than Dan Brown might have imagined. Jean Reno does his weary and earnest policeman turn and Alfred Molina is the heterodoxly orthodox bishop. Paul Bettany has to snarl, writhe and erupt violently as Silas. They bring the characters to melodramatic life.

The film includes many flashbacks. Some are to the early life of Sophie Neveu and some to a well accident suffered by Robert Langdon when he was seven leading to adult claustrophobic dread. We see more of the sadistic treatment of Silas when he was young.

There are also some ‘historical’ flashbacks to Mary Magdalene pregnant, leaving Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion and giving birth to a daughter in France; there are brief re-creations of Templar battle activity and some sinister papal dealings. The brief flashback to squabbling bishops at the Council of Nicaea looks ludicrous. There is also an alarming flashback to the persecution and execution of witches by the Church. The style is desaturated colour, unpolished digital style photography that suggests art work, both painted and sketched.

Ron Howard has not been afraid to offer many subtitled sequences for a general public. The French characters speak in French to each other. The Opus Dei bishop, Silas and The Teacher communicate in Latin.

Akiva Goldsman has kept quite closely to the plot outline of the novel. However, he and the screen doctors have been seriously at work taking notice of church responses, especially the negative criticisms of ideas, hypotheses and conclusions, and have introduced a great number of modifying pieces of dialogue, suggesting that many of the statements made by characters could have different interpretations or be wrong. This means the film causes far less concern than the novel. However, the basic ingredients of hypothesis and ecclesiastical cover-up are all there.

For those familiar with the plot line and the issues, the film will satisfy as a fairly faithful rendition of the book. Those who read the book and were irritated may be somewhat mollified. For those who have not read the book and for whom the issues are unfamiliar and bizarre, or esoteric nonsense, they may well be baffled – and laugh, as did the first Cannes Festival press preview audience at the solemn utterances of how Sophie was in fact the Grail and the direct descendent of Jesus.

So, a Gnostic potboiler and some re-writing of history.


2.DOES THE FILM STAY CLOSE TO THE NOVEL?

As indicated earlier, the film retains the basic outline of the novel and the central characters and action. To this extent, it is very close. The flashbacks mentioned are a development from the novel.

The main difference is the introduction of so many sections of dialogue which throw some doubt on the claims about Jesus’ divinity as a doctrine being imposed by Constantine on the Council of Nicaea. There are also some questions as to the historical validity of the Gnostic Gospels and a Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The contemporary Vatican is distanced from the secret goings on of the secret French Catholic society which wants to protect the church (even by murder) from the claims about Mary Magdalene. Opus Dei is not villainous as in the book. Rather, some members behave in a sinister way. Could anyone really think that Silas, with this behaviour, is in any way typical of the organisation?


3.OPUS DEI?

Representatives of Opus Dei requested Sony Pictures to add a disclaimer to the film print stating that the treatment of the organisation was fictitious. Sony declined.

However, the equivalent of disclaimer has been incorporated into the screenplay. In the film, it is not really Opus Dei who are the villains ordering murders to protect the Church. Rather, it is individuals who do belong to Opus Dei but do not represent it. Bishop Aringarosa (which means ‘red herring’) takes the responsibility for this. He also belongs to a very secret and secretive group of church personages who are the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Priory of Sion – who are more in the vein of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre in their doctrinal attitudes than of Opus Dei. Bishop Aringarosa condemns ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ and his goal is the protection and purity of the Church.

A scene is inserted where the Bishop is interviewed (just after we have seen Silas whipping himself and removing the chain – dug deep into his leg and drawing blood – that Opus Dei members wear for some hours a day. The bishop points out in his interview the different kinds of members of Opus Dei and the limitations of their penitential practices.

4.IS THE FILM MISLEADING?

The word often used in recent statements from Opus Dei is that the novel is ‘misleading’. That is a useful word because it is true and because it does not sound defensive.

Once again, the screenplay has inserted a number of statements and questions, spoken by the authoritative Robert Langdon that serve as warnings to make the audience careful. He refers to ‘sifting the truth’ from the documents and theories. He gives a mini-lecture on the ‘re-writing of history’ and ‘historical distortions’. During his opening presentation on art, he display different slides to the students asking them for the subjects only to show a fuller picture to show Poseidon’s fork rather than the devil’s and what looks at first glance like a Madonna and child is Osiris. He then remarks that the mind sees what it wants to see and does not see what it does not want to see. He also explains that a picture is worth a thousand words: ‘but which words?’.

There is already an extensive industry concerning the theories underlying The Da Vinci Code. Websites proliferate, with the Opus Dei site registering hundreds of thousands of hits. Evangelical Christians have produced an overwhelming number of articles, pamphlets, books, CDs and DVDs answering the difficulties. They have taken it as an opportunity for dialogue about significant theological and historical issues. Several Catholic hierarchies (Scottish and US, for instance) are releasing their own DVDs on the occasion of the film’s opening. The US Bishops conference video is called Jesus Decoded.

As indicated, the screenplay is at pains to suggest to the audience that there are alternative positions on all the controversial areas. The Vatican and Opus Dei are not presented as the villains of the drama.

Issues which could preoccupy some viewers:

the hypotheses veer away from the four accepted Gospels (except in some discussions about the Last Supper) and put all the narrative emphasis on apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels of the 2nd or 3rd centuries (or later) without acknowledging that it was a common enough practice in the early church for writers wanting to fill in the traditional gospel stories with more colourful detail to invent their own Gospels and ascribe them to a New Testament personality. They often gave names to unnamed Gospel characters – it is only in this period that names like Salome, Dismas, Longinus first appear. Some writers wanted to illustrate their particular spirituality of hidden knowledge being revealed to them by the Holy Spirit or to advance the status of particular Gospel characters. These latter were Gnostic Gospels.

the hypothesis that Jesus was merely human, certainly a great prophet, and that this was the thinking of the early church until the 4th century – which ignores the writings of John and Paul, many of the early writers like Justin or Iranaeus and the records of theological disputes before and leading up to the Council of Nicaea where Constantine did not impose the divinity of Jesus on the participants. (Actually, the 4th century church was still divided for many decades on opinions on whether Jesus was equal to the Father or subordinate (the widespread heresy of Arianism), not a Constantine-unified Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.)

the hypothesis that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, pregnant at the time of the Crucifixion and fled to France where she gave birth to a daughter. This is all much later speculation.

Stories of the Grail – which did not emerge until the early Middle Ages with the tales written by Chretien de Troyes. These became popular and encouraged several more books on the Grail and locations where it was taken (to Spain, to Glastonbury in England where Arthur’s knights could go on quests). The screenplay suggests that Christian faith is centred on the Grail as the cup of the last supper – which would be news to most Christians.

The development of the code of the Grail, that it be interpreted not as SAN GRAEL (the holy vessel) but as SANG REAL (the holy blood). Sir Leigh Teabing explains this with power point illustration in the film.

This has led to the hypothesis that Mary Magdalene was the Grail, holding the child of Jesus in her grail-womb, the vessel of the holy blood royal. Which is where Leonardo da Vinci comes in with the speculation that John in his painting of the Last Supper is really Mary Magdalene, linked to Jesus in a feminine V space, thus establishing the Sacred Feminine – which means that Mary Magdalene’s story was suppressed in favour of Peter’s authority in the early Church. She should have been the leader of the church – which, of course, means male cover-up and a 2000 year old lie.

For those who would like a clearer exposition of this, the film does supply one: the speech that Ian McKellen?, as Sir Leigh Teabang, makes in the middle of the film. He truly believes it. Robert Langdon keeps offering cautions. Sophie is a sceptical listener.

The Priory of Sion, alleged to have been founded in 1099, a continuation of groups protecting the secret of the Grail. Many television programs have played interviews recently with the French originators of the Priory of Sion in the 1950s. However, prior to the plagiarism trial against Dan Brown in the UK earlier in 2006, Richard Baigent, co-author of the 1982 Holy Blood and Holy Grail, declares that underlying the fiction is a reality.

The press kit made available to journalists at the film’s release is quite open about the Priory of Sion being an invention.

The Knights Templar. There is a lot of truth in the portrayal of the Templars though speculation about their acquiring wealth from pilgrims to the Holy Land needs examining as does the lead up to their suppression in 1307. the screenplay lays the blame for this and their persecution on the Pope of the time who looks like a caricature villain in his non-speaking cameo. Equal or more time should have been given to King Philip of France who really wanted them suppressed and achieved this end.

Witches. Dan Brown gave a heightened figure of witches executed, more than a million. The screenplay gives the horrific but more accurate figure of 50,000 over several centuries.

5.IS IT MISLEADING TO MEDDLE WITH HISTORY FOR FICTION’S SAKE?

Authors do this all the time. Some readers with a bent for accuracy prefer to read history or watch documentaries rather than fiction based on history. (however, the writing or screening of ‘history’ is never as it ‘really was’; there is always a point of view, selection of what facts and events are included and what excluded; the criteria for choices means interpretation.). Other readers enjoy interpretation and a certain freedom of interpreting the facts and events for dramatic purposes. The validity of the interpretation is more important than complete accuracy.

It can be said that the Gospel tradition, from the preaching of Jesus to the preaching of the Apostles and the later writing down of the stories means that we should not be looking first and foremost for accuracy in the Gospel accounts but the validity of the truth.

Shakespeare did it, of course. And we all believe that Mark Anthony made a speech staring with ‘Friends, Romans, countryman’! In Verona, a tourist may visit the tombs of Romeo and Juliet (when one dismayed visitor noted, ‘They’re empty!).

Films about the lives of the saints receive this kind of treatment. Films on St Francis of Assisi sometimes tell the legendary stories of the Little Flowers of St Francis (Rossellini), or see Francis and Clare as the flower people of the 13th century (Zeffirelli) or present a traditional Francis for the early 1960s 1960s (Curtiz) or a more earthy Francis for the 1990s in the form of Mickey Rourke (Cavani).

It is the same with the even more numerous films about Joan of Arc, the action of the Dauphin and the presidency of the court of Bishop Cauchon (incarnated in Luc Besson’s version by Dustin Hoffman).

On a less saintly level, look at all the books and films and hypotheses on who was Jack the Ripper.

The Da Vinci Code has led to amusing imitations of a secular kind which nobody, it seems, has been tempted to think are true. The Legend of Zorro has a French aristocrat come to California with a power conspiracy for power. More to the point, the entertaining actioner, National Treasure, with Nicolas Cage has a similar Templar treasure story. This time, they transported their vast (by the look of it at the end of the film) treasure to the Americas. And where is the Code hidden? On the back of the Declaration of Independence, written in invisible ink. Has there been a rush, like that to Saint Sulpice or to Rosslyn Chapel, to Philadelphia?

Of course, the Da Vinci Code goes to some core Christian beliefs which means the hypotheses, however ill-based or however ludicrous, are taken more seriously.


6.IS THE DA VINCI CODE FAITH THREATENING?

No one need be afraid of a novel now matter who provocative? As with the Da Vinci Code, there are more than enough experts available, both Christian and secular, who have answered the claims and shown how some of them are hoaxes and others do not bear close historical, literary, art history, architectural history scrutiny.

It should be said, however, that cleverly portrayed fiction (and sweeping generalisations) have a great power to appeal and are an enticement to persuade. They work on our feelings more than on our brains – and they appeal to the conspiratorial and wary suspicion syndrome that most of us have. (I was taken aback when it was first pointed out that the figure of John looks more like a woman in Leonardo’s Last Supper and was ready for anything until the wily Sir Leigh Teabing, right in the middle of the press preview, asked Sophie Neveu if she noticed that Leonardo had painted only bread on his table. There was no cup or chalice! Ergo, he was saying that Mary Magdalene was the cup, she was the Grail.)

We all need to check our gullibility quotient. We all need to check our wariness of religious authorities, drawing on those we have disliked and generalising in our suspicions.

On the other hand, we have had the phenomenon of pious and devout people who prefer oil-weeping Madonna statues in suburbia or the likeness of Jesus’ face in a root of asparagus (a 2006 British experience) to the Gospels and concentrate their prayer there instead of to the revelation of the scriptures.

Actually, The Da Vinci Code has made us think

DELIVER US FROM EVIL

March 2007

Those who watched the telecast of the Academy Awards in February 2007 will have noticed that one of the nominees for Best Feature-length Documentary was Deliver us from Evil. There was a brief clip of a cleric giving video testimony in court. The film did not win. The Oscar went to Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.

"A call for an examination of conscience for the Catholic church and a call for compassion for the victims of this abuse"

An Inconvenient Truth could have been the title of Deliver us from Evil . The stories of clerical abuse have been with us for more than twenty years, although the wide American focus came as late as 2002. The truth has certainly been inconvenient but it has also been appalling. It has been a call for an examination of conscience for the Catholic church and a call for compassion for the victims of this abuse. The question of how to deal with offending clergy has also been very difficult and has caused many moral, legal and financial problems.

Somebody wisely pointed out that, until the recent revelations, the sexual abuse of minors was not considered by many (most?) people as a crime. It was judged as a sin, certainly, but a sin required different handling from a crime. Events have led the Church to realise that it is dealing with a crime that has police and judicial repercussions not simply a pastoral question as to whether a priest be corrected and moved to another place of ministry hoping that he has repented and will not offend again. The traditional act of contrition may have given rise to the belief that all could be well, easily well if one made strong acts of the will: ‘and I firmly resolve by the help of thy grace never to sin again and amend my life. Amen’. In reality, the abuser of under age minors, especially, has a serious psychological aberrant condition and needs treatment as well as being put out of the way of harm to children.

These themes are explored in Deliver us from Evil, a meticulously made documentary by a director, Amy Berg, who is not a Christian and is looking at the issues from outside the Church. Clearly, there will be argument about some of the detail included and Amy Berg’s interpretation but she sought advice and legal counsel about the truth of the claims made in the film.

The focus of the film is Fr Oliver O’ Grady, an Irishman who worked in Northern California, from the 1960s to the 1980s. The film has significant ramifications for the Church today as, prior to his appointment to be archbishop of Los Angeles in 1985, Cardinal Roger Mahoney was auxiliary bishop in Fresno (1975-1980), bishop of Stockton (1980-1985).

Oliver O’ Grady emerges from the film as, at least, self-delusional. On the one hand, he admits what he has done. On the other, he cheerfully excuses himself and compartmentalises his behaviour. As a portrait of a priest offending over decades, the film offers an alarming portrait.

In September 2005, the BBC’s Panorama program featured Oliver O ’Grady. The film-maker, himself a victim of abuse in Ferns, Ireland, asked O’ Grady to indicate how he ‘groomed’ a young girl for abuse. He cheerfully did so, straight to camera, an astonishing performance (and the BBC, to its discredit, featured this sequence in the promotion of the broadcast as well as including it at the head of the program as well as during it). Fr O’ Grady’s behaviour and comments as late as 2006 are bizarre and reprehensible.

Deliver us from Evil works dramatically and powerfully. The range of interviews with victims and their parents are placed throughout the film. They have been judiciously selected so that the audience shares the experience of the families, the initial welcome to Fr O’ Grady as he took a pastoral interest in them and became firm friends, being invited to meals and becoming part of the family. Families did not realise what was happening to their children. Such behaviour on the part of a priest was unthinkable to most.

As the truth emerged and Fr O’ Grady went to different parishes in Northern California, the families were surprised, dismayed and shocked. Their outbursts, especially on the part of one Japanese- American father, are kept to the end so that, dramatically, the audience shares his pain. Some of the victims are also interviewed and tell the sad aspects of their stories.

Along with the chronicle of the history of Fr O’ Grady’s activities are the testimonies of Cardinal Mahoney and different church officials from Stockton diocese. Since the United States uses videocameras for depositions, the film incorporates footage of the actual questions and answers.

This is where there can be some controversy. The director has selected particular sections - and they sound to the detriment of the churchmen. The cross-examination shows that, as we realise, bishops were not so well informed about the nature of abuse, especially its criminality, and made decisions to move priests around - which resulted in further abuse. On the one hand, one can argue that in retrospect, bishops made poor decisions which resulted in some disastrous behaviour. On the other, we have more clarity now than then and it is easy to be judgmental in looking back. However, what is important is what is to be done now in terms of truth, justice and reparation.

Oliver O’ Grady participated in the making of this film. He has been extradited to Ireland after serving his sentence in the US. His behaviour in Ireland, especially in terms of writing to his victims, indicate an erratic personality, and his being something of a showman.

One more alarming aspect of the film is the featuring of Fr Tom Doyle who, since the 1980s and his working in Washington DC and becoming involved in Bishops Conference decisions, has been something of a whistleblower and a friend of victims. He makes some very strong and critical statements during the film which also need examination and attention.

A useful exercise is to look at the Internet Movie Database on line referencing Deliver us from Evil and read the comments posted there by viewers of the film who feel free to offer their opinions for and against. There are some intellectual arguments there, some appeals to emotion, and quite some anger. Googling

Oliver O’ Grady provides quite a number of entries with information about him and his offences.

More information on www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com

ARE WE THERE YET?

US, 2005, 95 minutes, Colour.
Ice Cube, Nia Long, Jay Mohr, M.C. Gainey, Aleisha Allen, Philip Daniel Bolden.
Directed by Brian Levant.

This is the question that occurred to me numerous times while watching this film. It has to end sometime, the sooner the better. It is one of those American ‘family’ films that glorify the most obnoxious and precocious children who could lead one into temptation of murder! And, what is worse, after being spoilt and mischievous, they are going to be wringing our hearts for sympathy before the end.

Ice Cube, once a tough gangster-rapper type is now turning into Bill Cosby. When he agrees to take the children of a friend by plane (they mess that up), by train (they make him miss it) and then in his new, expensive car which is progressively demolished during the trip, you know you are in for the long haul. His forbearance is nothing short of miraculous. If you like cheeky kids wreaking mischief on adults with slapstick humour and tears at the end… so be it!

1. The intended audience? Younger audience? Adults, parents? The black audience? White audience? Worldwide?

2. The success of the comedy, the slapstick, the tangles between children and adults, precocious and demanding children and their interference? Adults having to cope?

3. The title? The exasperation during the trip by the children, by Nick?

4. The Oregon settings, the town, the highway between Oregon and Vancouver? The affluent settings in Vancouver, the restaurant, the streets? The musical score and songs?

5. Nick, Ice Cube in a comic role? His stances, the sports store, not liking children? The encounter with Suzanne, the attraction? Her divorced status, her two children? His giving her a lift after the car broke down? His driving her to work? His falling in love, her resisting the kiss? His promise to take the children to Vancouver? The attempt to airport and its being thwarted, at the railway station? His friendship with his partner and the warnings? The car, the gradual destruction of the car? The incidents along the way, the cantankerous children, his coping? The phone calls to Suzanne? The clash with the trucker and the police? The crashes? The help, gradually arriving in Vancouver? His exasperation?

6. Suzanne, divorced, love for her children, spoiling them? Her going to Vancouver, relying on Nick – the relationship, resisting him, falling in love, exasperation when he arrived, his going out of his way to make the reconciliation, the children persuading her that there was a future?

7. The children, age, precocious, the initial sequences in thwarting the suitor, the “home alone” style? Their personalities, dangerous? Their resistance to Nick, the various devices in the train, the airport, in the car? The restaurant? The crashes? Their leaving, his finding them? Their wanting to see their father – and the pathos of looking through the window and seeing him with his new wife and family? Their change of heart, reconciliation with Nick, supporting him in all the problems in Vancouver?

8. The truckie, the clash, his interfering, the police, the chase in Vancouver, the reconciliation and his support?

9. The humour (or not) of the children’s pranks, the penknife at the airport, getting off the train, the gas station and locking him out, driving it into the sign, signalling to the truck driver about their kidnap, the crash, the freight train, the change of heart when they support him?

10. Popular American comedy – but what appeal?

SPANGLISH

US, 2004, 130 minutes, Colour.
Adam Sandler, Paz Vega, Tea Leone, Chloris Leachman, Shelbie Bruce, Sarah Steel.
Directed by James L. Brooks.

If there can be Franglais, then why not Spanglish!

James L Brooks won an Oscar for Terms of Endearment but directs few films. His last was the 1997, As Good as it Gets. He is in something of the same thematic area here although the setting is Los Angeles and we have two mothers and daughters.

This is a kind of fairytale with a realistic ending. Part of it is the dream for Hispanic migrants to find a well-paid job and provide for the family in America. Part of it is the nightmare of working in a dysfunctional American household and finding that the daughter wants nothing more than to be just like the Americans.

It works and it doesn’t, but it’s the kind of goodhearted film that you should give the benefit of the doubt to – and, then, maybe its Brooks’s close association with the Simpsons over the years that he writes a kind of live-action Simpsons.

Whatever the characters and caricatures, one thing is certain, Brooks as director and writer seems besotted with Spanish star, Paz Vega (Carmen, Sex and Lucia). The camera loves her and so do we. She is Flor, the maid and housekeeper, beautiful, vivacious, generally common-sensed and principled. Shelbie Bruce as her daughter is a convincing young actress and has some marvellous scenes where she not only translates but acts out the conversations she is translating.

So, the Hispanic side is pretty good and the themes worth responding too.

Now, the American family. Tea Leoni is a mother of two who is an emotional wreck, driven, incessantly talking and commenting on her behaviour, insensitive to her non-slim daughter and grating on her long-suffering husband. She blames her alcoholic ex-singer mother for being crazy and mixed up. (It is a pleasure to see Cloris Leachman as the mother – she has the good lines.)

And, Adam Sandler is the husband, a master chef, a kind man and loving father. In fact, Flor is amazed that his sensibility seems more like that of a Mexican woman. He wanders befuddled through the film, affirming his daughter, bewildered by his wife, dissatisfied that the personal touch is being removed from his acclaimed and over-booked restaurant and more and more drawn towards Flor. This is not the Airheads Sandler. Rather it is the Sandler of Punch Drunk Love and he makes the character his own.

The film really is sometimes irritating, sometimes lovable.

1. A successful romantic comedy American style? The romantic aspects, comic? Insights into character, family, relationships? The American perspective? The Hispanic perspective?

2. The tone of the clever title, humour? The use of Spanish in the film, reminding Americans of the domination of the Spanish language in the US? The daughter translating her mother’s statements for John? John’s statements for her mother? The highly expressive translations?

3. The Mexican opening, the visuals of Mexico compared with those of California, Los Angeles? The ordinary Hispanic versus American affluence? Homes, the restaurant? The musical score?

4. The introduction to Flor via her daughter, the voice-over, the writing the letter to the university, the framework for the film? Her praise of her mother? Her experiences? At home, Flor weeping outside her house and not letting her daughter know? The husband’s departure? Their being abandoned, the decision to go to the US – the difficulties and the ease of crossing the border?

5. Jobs, interviews, language difficulties, emotional connections, especially with Deborah?

6. Debbie and her character, incessant talk, not reflecting, her attitude towards work, her humiliation of Bernice about her size, her mother and her drinking, John and his work? Her being flustered, facial tics and manners? Emotional outbursts, moods? Going out? The difficulties in pronouncing Flor’s name? The meaning of her life, her relationship? Her daughter’s clothes and her daughter’s reaction? The decision to go to the beach, her putting pressure on the family, on John, on Flor? The affair, talking to John, blaming her mother and her bad example, the final confrontation with John? Her mother’s advice on what to say and what not to say? Her relationship with her daughter, taking Christina as a surrogate daughter, gifts, hairdressers, to school, taking over her life, the application for the affluent school, pulling strings? Her having to face the reality that Christina was Flor’s daughter?

7. Adam Sandler as John, his manner, at work, relationship with the staff, his success as a restaurant manager and chef? Friendship with the staff? The critic and his enjoying the meal, everybody in the family reading the newspaper report? His not wanting to be a star restaurateur? Wanting people to come and enjoy their meals? The discussions with Flor, the clash with her, the big argument about her interfering with Bernice’s clothes after she was resentful about him giving Christina money? The going to the beach, the holiday and the summer? His strained relationship with Debbie, trying to cope with her? The affair, the truth? Walking out, going with Flor to the restaurant, the bond between them but the reticence and restraint? Love, talk? His reaction to Flor’s final decisions? The farewell? Flor estimating that his temperament was more that of an emotional Mexican woman rather than a macho man?

8. Bernice, age, appearance, fat, her mother’s taunts, the clothes, Flor altering them? Her joy, the friendship with Christina, sharing school, sleepovers? The end and the separation?

9. Debbie’s mother, her age, her continued drinking, the funny one-liners, her shrewd observations? Her past, accepting the blame? Giving up the drink and people not noticing? The bonds with Flor and understanding her? With John and supporting him? Debbie, her affair, confessing to her mother, her giving advice, being useful?

10. The portrait of Flor, in herself, age and experience, the failed marriage, her love for her daughter, the weeping, coming to America? The interview for work? Being accepted? Trying to cope with Debbie? Altering Bernice’s clothes for her? The shock at the kinds of chores she had? Having to go to the beach? The fight with John about his giving the money, her reaction to altering Bernice’s clothes and how this was interpreted? The decision to learn English, the collage of her learning, the cassettes? The issue of Christina’s schooling, Debbie’s interference, her being hurt? The celebrations at home, Christina and her going to get her from the sleepover? Her leaving, going with John to the restaurant, expression of love, her decision to leave, talking, going? The difficulties with taking her daughter away, the clash in the street, at the bus stop? Her daughter’s future? Flor’s future?

11. Christina, the framework of the voice-over, her skills in interpreting, her needing to learn, wanting to learn? The friendship with Bernice? American life, her mother saying that she was becoming like all Americans? The school, with the girls, her snobbery, the sleepover, the crisis? Fight with her mother, feeling she would be deprived? The learning experience for her?

12. The restaurant staff, their lives, admiration for John, working on their own, the visit of the critic – the man who wanted out and John wanting him to stay, increasing his payment?

13. The principal, influenced by Debbie? The tour of the school, the kind of school she ran?

14. A film of romance, a film of comedy, a film of eccentricity? Relationships, family, values and principles?

COACH CARTER

US, 2004, 137 minutes, Colour.
Samuel L. Jackson, Rob Brown, Ashanti, Robert Ri' chard, Rick Gonzales, Antoine Tanner, Debbie Morgan, Denise Dowse.
Directed by Thomas Carter.

Back in 1989, Morgan Freeman appeared in the film, Lean on Me, the true story of a school principal in a tough neighbourhood who imposed discipline (with the help of a threatening cudgel) in a no-nonsense manner and improved the standards in his school. Perhaps the real Ken Carter, on whose career as a basketball coach this film is based, saw Lean on Me. He doesn’t wield any implement but he is in the strong disciplinary tradition. His ‘weapon’ is respect. He demands that his players call him ‘Sir’ and he calls them ‘Sir’. He demands absolute punctuality, infringements leading to running and push-ups. He also demands a contract whereby the players will maintain an agreed average in their studies (guaranteed by teachers’ reports). Gradually, he build up a team In Richmond, on the outskirts of San Francisco which plays together and wins. On the personal interactions, the build up is more gradual, the students (mainly African American but not exclusively) have home problems, relationship problems and academic problems. The situation comes to a head when the students fail to honour the contract with their studies and Coach Carter imposes a lockout, to the anger of the parents and the school board. The climax is not quite what you expect, but it is based on faith in the goodness and fairness of human nature.

This actually happened in 1999.

The film is in the tradition of the American coach movies (think Denzel Washington in Remember the Titans). The sport is basketball and there are plenty of matches to delight fans – plus some coaching tips and strategies. This is Samuel L. Jackson’s film and he is completely convincing as Ken Carter, a principled man and former school champion, good husband, stern father (not prone to use the word ‘love’ at all) but fair, courageous in sticking to his guns despite animosity from critics, yet aware of the needs of his students.

It is more interesting and enjoyable than one might have anticipated and will appeal to those who think that a tough line in discipline is more effective than being nice. To Sir with basketball.

1. The impact of the film as a true story? The 1990s? Relevance for the 21st century? Social issues in American cities? Racial issues? Education, humanities, sport? Human relationships? Opportunities in American society?

2. The Californian setting, the bay area, Richmond and its poor neighbourhoods? The picture of the streets and the gangs? The school and its toughness? The range of homes, apartments? The musical score, songs?

3. The tradition of sports films, the human spirit, hard work and training, the endeavour, the discipline, issues of leadership, the winning and losing of matches, the role of the coach, the spirit in the team, the difficulties along the way?

4. The film as a message film, inspiration film? The fact that these events happened in fact? The relationship between sport and studies? The boys and their transition to men? Coach Carter’s final speech about this transition? The taking of responsibility?

5. The introduction, the matches, the scores, the St Francis team, the Oils? The coach watching, his wife and son? His wanting to intervene at the bad behaviour? The poor spirit, the locker room fights? The lack of prospects? The coach, his desperation, wanting to hand over? The discussions with the principal and his taking the job – and his reasons?

6. The screen presence of Samuel L. Jackson, strong, commanding? His demands that people use the title “Sir”? The wearing of ties, coats? The students condemning him as being uppity? His primary demand for respect? His ability to talk, the physical reactions and his menace to the young men? His psychological know-how? The significance of the contract, its implications? For study and achievement? His son, wanting him to go to a better school, the son pulling out, wanting to be in his father’s team, his own contract, its more difficult clauses?

7. The practice sequences, the consequences of impertinence, reactions? The suicides, the push-ups, the running? Those willing to do it and not? Cruz and his withdrawal? The first match, the impact of the win?

8. The variety of players and their stories? Familiar characters from this kind of film?
(i) Cruz, the drug dealing, his cousin as a drug pusher, the tough stances, the question about what he feared (and his rather rhetorical speech at the end)? His walking out, asking to come back , the push-ups, the rest of the team doing them with him and for him? His play, the coach not wanting him to be an individualist star? The strike, his walking again, refusal to study? His cousin, being shot in the street? His going to the coach’s house at night, the embrace?
(ii) Kenyon and Kyra, their relationship, age, at school, fondness and love, her pregnancy, talking about it, her looking after her nephews, Kenyon and his offhand attitude, the bootees and his facing the fact of being a father, his plans for going to college, Kyra and her refusal, the clash at the dance? The issue of abortion? Taking it for granted? Kenyon inviting Kyra to share his future and discovering the truth about the abortion?
(iii) The white boy, tough, the stances of his uncle?
(iv) Worm, with the girls, his cheeky behaviour? Junior battle, his being slow at studies, not studying, not fulfilling the contract, the coach dismissing him, his mother coming to plead?

9. The further training, the successful matches, the coach and his relationship to his son, the son participating with the other members of the team? The invitation to the competition, their winning? The locker room spirit?

10. The aftermath of the victory, going out to the party, Damien and his going, with the girl in the pool, his father finding that the students had gone, going in the taxi, the taxi driver helping, the meeting the other parents and their racist attitudes, going into the house, his demanding the boys’ return?

11. The lockout and its consequences, his reasons? The meeting in the library, the teachers? The press? The importance of the contract, the teachers and their previous refusal to give the reports? The clashes with the principal? The meeting, the principal and the teachers, the vote, the parents and their reactions? The window smashed in the coach’s house?

12. The board meeting, the severe results with the dismissal of Carter?

13. The reaction of the students, their going to study? The teachers helping?

14. The final match, the fact that they lost – but the effort and the victory?

15. The information about Carter, its repercussions, the end of the film? The necessity for this kind of social work, urban difficulties, American issues?

QUICKSAND: NO ESCAPE

US, 1992, 85 minutes, Colour.
Donald Sutherland, Tim Matheson, Felicity Huffmann.
Directed by Michael Pressman.

Quicksand: No Escape is a conventional telemovie but done with some style. Tim Matheson is a harassed architect whose partner has bribed city officials to get a contract, unbeknownst to him. He then encounters a corrupt policeman who wants to blackmail him. They struggle and the policeman is killed. However, there is a sinister presence, Donald Sutherland at his most smiling and evil, who shoots the policeman and attempts to blackmail Matheson.

The film focuses on the bewilderment of the architect, his trying to do the right thing, his being trapped in the blackmail, not wanting his family harmed. Sutherland, on the other hand, revels in the power he holds over the young man – wanting him eventually to be like him, even to killing a rival.

There is the expected suspense as the police close in and Matheson has to deceive them to survive. There is a violent ending – which is satisfying insofar as the villain is got rid of – but the final words of the film show the ambiguity and the sense of guilt that the architect will continue to have.

1. Interesting television drama? Values, conflict of values? Violence?

2. The Los Angeles settings, the fashionable home, the office? The venues for the meetings between Scott and Murdoch, their range? Mulholland Drive and the scene for the death? The musical score?

3. The title, indication of themes?

4. The portrait of Scott: skilled, neglecting his family because of his work, his wife’s fears and setting a private detective on him? The presentation to the executives and success? The discovery that his partner had bribed the officials? His moral dilemma? The encounter with Towers, the fight, the discovery that he had been shot? His denials to the police? His continuing to work, his relationship with his wife, tensions? The children? The encounter with Murdoch? The discussion, the pressure on him, the first $25,000? The continued meetings, his explaining his situation? Learning more about Murdoch? His nerves, not presenting well, the clashes with his partner, eventually leaving? Murdoch’s plan that he stalk the Mafia man? His doing it, his being pressurised to kill him? The motivations, being free from Murdoch? Murdoch and his leaving the watch in the house, picking up the son from school? His discovery of his wife’s file, their talking things over, his putting things in Murdoch’s house? Going to the Mob man, the possibilities – and the Mob man killing Murdoch? His wife saying they would be free – and his saying they would never be free? The plausibility of this kind of situation, character?

5. Murdoch, seeing him following Scott? The proposal, his smiling, sinister? His knowing all about Scott? The proposal, the money, the pressure? His power over him, relishing it? His explanation of himself, vice squad for twenty years, meeting corrupt people and they being friends? His continued pressure, getting Scott to stalk the man? The proposal of murder? In the house? The scene with Joanna and the explanation of his knowledge of Scott? The final plan, going to Las Vegas, making sure he was seen, the jackpot – and his being shot? His final words about always losing?

6. Joanna, her love for her husband, fears, the detective, the meeting with him, discovering he was only having an affair with his work? Her going to the office seductively? Her wanting to be supportive, to be friends? The discovery of the truth, her final comment?

7. Towers, corrupt, putting the pressure on Scott? The other police, their investigations, questions, searching the house, trying to scare Scott? The clash with the commissioner?

8. The world of business, contracts and bribes? Personal integrity – possible or not?

9. The murder, Scott’s response, lying – better to tell the truth and take the consequences or these consequences? The final solution – and his not feeling free?

HIDE AND SEEK

US, 2005, 101 minutes, Colour.
Robert de Niro, Dakota Fanning, Famke Janssen, Elizabeth Shue, Amy Irving, Dylan Baker, Melissa Leo, Robert John Burke.
Directed by John Polsen.

In The Sixth Sense, a traumatised Haley Joel Osment saw dead people. In Hide and Seek, a traumatised Dakota Fanning sees mysterious companions that no one else sees. In The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis was a psychiatrist who discovered something unexpected. In Hide and Seek, Robert de Niro is the psychologist who has to deal with his daughter and make some unexpected discoveries. In a way, The Sixth Sense was so good at ‘misdirecting’ audience attention that it meant that audiences are more alert to plot twists – but, personally, it was only just before the truth was revealed that it occurred to me what was really happening. A reviewer can only hope that audiences will enjoy the plot development and the surprises.

It is actually pleasant to see Robert de Niro acting the part of a quietly normal character for a change, bespectacled, concerned, domestic and worried about his daughter’s strange behaviour after her mother’s violent death. Dakota Fanning is always a knowing little actress and she is convincingly gaunt and troubled here. Some good actresses are also part of the scenario, Amy Irving, Famke Jannsen, Elizabeth Shue and Melissa Leo.

Australian director, John Polson (Siam Sunset, Swimfan) keeps the whole thing fairly edgy even as everyone is trying to help the little girl back to normal, but the climax is overly American as it resorts to violence to solve everything. But it is an entertaining, sometimes off-kilter psychological thriller.

1. An entertaining thriller, psychology, death trauma, murder, mental illness? A satisfying combination?

2. The New York City settings, affluent homes, hotels? Upstate, the countryside, the country town, the locations, the houses, the water? The holiday house and its interiors? The musical score?

3. The title, the games and their references? The deeper meaning, Charlie hiding within David?

4. The misdirection of the audience, the focus on Emily instead of on David, assumptions made? The satisfying shock when the truth was revealed?

5. The psychological plausibility of the film, David’s character, Emily’s? The interaction between the two? David and his attitude towards his wife, towards women? As David? As Charlie?

6. The initial situation, Alison and the merry-go-round, the glimpse of David? Her goodnight to Emily? The inability to talk to David? Six past two in the morning, the suicide, the bath and the candles, Emily seeing her dead mother and the blood?

7. The focus on Emily, her relationship with her mother, in the playground, at night, seeing her dead mother, the shock? At the institute, in the playroom, her drawings? With Katherine? The focus on her illness and the possibility of recovery?

8. The character of David, Robert de Niro as ordinary, with glasses, his work, the tapes and his copying the verbatims in his notebook? The grief, the reliance on Katherine? The decision to take Emily to the country? The initial encounter with the sheriff? With the estate agent? His memories of Alison and her death? The chance encounter with Elizabeth and Amy? The next-door neighbours and their own grief? Laura and her bringing gifts? The suspicion of Steven? The film setting up suspicions of Steven?

9. Emily and her life in the country, her silence, looking wan, her talking to her father, the discovery of Charlie, and the audience not seeing him? Her explanation of the games, the dark drawings of Charlie? The hide-and-seek?

10. David’s perspective, carrying on as normal, his kindness, cooking for Emily, her not eating the meal? His trying to persuade her to get better? The discussions about Charlie and his puzzle?

11. The weeks passing, the routines of life, Elizabeth and her friendliness, bringing Amy for friendship? Emily’s suspicions? Her harshness towards Elizabeth? Warning her? Amy and the games? The gifts of books, flowers? Talking with Elizabeth?

12. The situation between David and Elizabeth, Amy, Elizabeth’s personality? The horror of her death?

13. The flashbacks to Alison, the revelation of her affair, the effect on David? The clues indicated for understanding what was really going on?

14. Laura, her grief, David’s visit, the sympathetic listening, her keeping the mementoes? The husband, his being in the grounds – his coming to the house, David knifing him?

15. The estate agent, friendly, bringing the key in the middle of the night, David’s suspicions?

16. The sheriff, his suspicions, the final attack and his death?

17. The point when the audience realised what was happening? The shift of emphasis? Emily being seen as normal, the effect of David’s behaviour on her, the audience not seeing Charlie, and then seeing David transform? The character of Charlie, his viciousness? Her fears? Her helping Charlie, the blood on the walls – and David cleaning them?

18. David’s breakdown, the emergence of Charlie, Robert de Niro’s performance as Charlie? Menacing Emily? Menacing Katherine? The revelation of his jealousy, his attitude towards his wife, killing her? The knife and his pursuit of the sheriff, of Steven?

19. Katherine, the phone calls, pleasant, her coming to the house, the confrontation with David? Her being hit, into the cave, the shooting?

20. Emily, her escaping the house, in the cave, the violent ending and the melodrama with Charlie and his being shot?

21. The end – and the indication of Emily’s multiple personalities?

SOPHIE SCHOLL: THE LAST DAYS

Germany, 2005, 117 minutes, Colour.
Julia Jentsch, Fabian Hinrichs, Gerald Alexander Held, Johanna Gastdoif, Andre Hennicke, Florian Stetter.
Directed by Marc Rothemund.

For non-Germans, Sophie Scholl and the young opposition group to which she belonged, The White Rose, are not familiar at all. However, Michael Verhoeven and Percy Adlon both directed films about the movement in the 1980s. Since then, transcripts of the Gestapo interviews with Sophie Scholl have become public as have transcripts of the court proceedings where she and her brother and the writer of their statements were found guilty of treason. Marc Rothemund’s film is a reconstruction of incidents but, principally, a verbatim dramatisation of interviews and trial.

Julia Jentsch won the Best Actress award at the Berlin Film Festival as Sophie. It is a quietly commanding performance. A young woman courageously offers to distribute a paper critical of Hitler and the military effort after the debacle for German troops at Stalingrad. She is caught, interviewed at length by an expert interrogator, Hans Mohr. With her clear, succinct and plausible answers, she persuades him that she is innocent. When her brother is found out, she declares straightforwardly what she did and why. The trial is conducted by the notorious judge, Roland Freisler, who seems to be emulating the Fuehrer with his histrionic rantings.

There are moving sequences in the prison with her cellmate, the visit of her activist father and concerned mother, the final bonding of the condemned trio before she is guillotined.

This is a serious film, a film of words and body language, continually demanding attention. The sequences where Sophie draws strength from her Evangelical faith and prayer are reminiscent of the faith of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Oscar nomination in the Best Foreign Language category.

1. The impact of the film for a German audience? World audience? Those familiar with the White Rose and the German Resistance?

2. The background of the German Resistance, the young students, the White Rose? 1943, the fall of Stalingrad, the role of the Gestapo, the powers of the judges, the interrogators? The Nazi ethos and the Resistance?

3. The film based on actual interviews, verbatim use? The documents and the re-creation of situations? A verbal drama via interrogations and the trial?

4. 1943, Munich, the streets, homes and flats? The office? The university, the prison cells, the court? The musical score, the songs of the period – both American and German?

5. The opening and the introduction to Sophie, her girlfriend? The Billie Holliday song? The two girls, enjoyment of life – and the last five days?

6. The workers for the White Rose, the office, the duplicator, the envelopes and the statements, the stamps – and their being found? Hard work, the plans, undergoing the dangers in distributing the leaflets? The anti-war stance?

7. The Scholls, at home, the meetings, the plan, the brother and sister going to the empty university, leaving the papers at the doors of the rooms? The planned return, being seen by the custodian, mingling with the students leaving the lectures, their arrest?

8. The personalities of Hans and Sophie, their family background, the activist father, the older mother? Their experience, strong personalities, stoic? Ordinary citizens? The evangelical religious background and their faith?

9. Mohr as interrogator, his skills, devotion to Hitler – and the touch like Hitler? His assistant with the Hitler moustache? The range of interrogations, the verbatim use of the documents? His attitudes, beliefs? His psychological skills, his stances and the reasons for them? His suspicions of Sophie, finally believing her? Seeing him at the end, his sympathy, Sophie speaking to him?

10. Sophie, calm, arrested, her answers, her courage at the university? Her quick thinking and ability to explain every situation? Seeing her brother, being told her brother had admitted guilt, her wanting to take responsibility, changing her answers, ever more defiant?

11. Going to the cell, the attitude of the guard? Meeting Else? Their discussions, the different backgrounds, the bonds between the two, preparing Sophie for death?

12. The trial scenes, the judge and his fury, the inactivity of the lawyers, the officers in the courtroom, the public?

13. The accusations, the limits? The response of each of the accused? Their being broken? The plea?

14. Sophie and her writing her letter, the visit of her parents, their appeals, the embrace?

15. The preparation for the execution, Christoph Probst and his place in the group, writing the documents, his being married, having a family, wanting to live, the three having their final cigarette, the embrace?

16. The guillotining of Sophie?

17. The influence of the White Rose at the time? The impact of their story sixty years later?

PARADISE NOW

France / Germany / Netherlands, 2005, 90 minutes, Colour.
Ashraf Barhom, Mohammed Bustami.
Directed by Hany Abu- Assad.

One of the acclaimed films of the Berlin Film Festival was Paradise Now. It won a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language film and was nominated for an Oscar in that category. It was written and directed by Hany Abu- Assad, a Palestinian from Israel who lives in Holland. While the director says he was working on the script before September 11th 2001, it took on more significance after those events and in the light of the 2000 intifada.

This is a necessary film.

Most people all over the world are continually stunned by headlines of killings by suicide bombers. How can this be? What really motivates a suicide bomber? Is it the Prophet’s vision of heaven, a reward for self-immolation? Or is it the desperation that decades of poverty, oppression, curtailment of rights and freedoms have brought about.

Paradise Now introduces us to two ordinary Palestinians living in Nablus. Life is manageable but not comfortable. They work at mechanics’ jobs and ‘hang out’. Then the word comes for them to go on a suicide mission.

The film takes us into the lives of these two men, one a cheery gung-ho enthusiast who uncritically believes all he has been told, the other a more sombre man who has stored up years of humiliation and anger. Supporting characters offer varying perspectives on the mission and the quest for peace, the director firmly believing that talks and understanding are more effective than violence and killing. The intellectual leader of the cell and his deputy portray the intensity of the political and violent groups along with the filming of the video of the bombers stating their dedication to their mission after undergoing an almost religious ritual of shaving, washing and purification. A human rights activist, daughter of a martyred bomber, puts the peace and dialogue point of view. The mother of the about-to-be terrorist, shows the human face and reality of the grief that these actions bring about.

The way of life in Nablus is presented in day-to-day detail and it is something of a shock when the final sequences in Tel Aviv show an affluent, prosperous modern city, an enormous difference between standards of living in Israel compared with those of Palestine.

1. The impact of the film, topical? The 21st century and the 20th century heritage in Palestine? The history of Palestine, relationships with Israel?

2. The perspective of the director? Background in Israel? Palestinian? Living in Europe?

3. World perceptions of Israel and Palestine, reinforcing attitudes, challenging?

4. Entering into the mind of suicide bombers, the credibility of their beliefs, actions? Making their decisions intelligible?

5. The locations, Palestine, the city of Nablus, poverty, hard lifestyle, the fence with Israel, the symbolism of the barriers? The contrast with Tel Aviv, the affluent city, the resort? The musical score?

6. The perception of Palestine and the Palestinians, the possibilities for life, development? Confined, feeling themselves imprisoned? Local freedoms, lacking general freedoms? The martyr tradition? Collaborators with Israel and their dealing with them? The cells for uprising, for terrorism? Education, indoctrination, readiness for self-sacrifice, anger and revenge?

7. The title, the promises of the Koran? Islamic beliefs – and the attitudes of Islamic non-believers? The importance of prayer, the ethos, the bombers and their religion, those in charge of the terrorist cells?

8. The opening, the girl, the bus, crossing the frontier, the humiliation, the search? The reputation of her father? Normal aspects of life, the car? Taking it to the garage? Her friendship with Said? With Khaled? The house, Said, help, watching? The cemetery? Her being the mouthpiece of Human Rights Through Peace, other ways than terrorism? Her declaration that people should not see themselves as victims or the same as their oppressors?

9. Said and Khaled, the working on the car, the bashing, fired, the cantankerous owner? Khaled and his mother? Said and his family, his mother, brother in the T-shirt, the sister? The smoking, listening to the cassette, the tea and the boy coming up the hill for them, their ordinary way of life, day by day in Nablus?

10. The revelation about the plan, the teacher’s arrival, his being a leader, explaining the mission, persuading the men that this was their time? The final night, the making of the video, its not working, the messages? The ritual preparation, the haircut, the washing of their bodies? The bombs and the danger? The control, carrying the bombs, detonation, their suits, looking respectable? Said and his relationship with the young woman, the visit to her?

11. The fence, getting through, the signal of the lights, the car, having to go back? Khaled getting through, his being debriefed? Said lost in Israel, going to the bus, coming back? His bewilderment, his mother at the window? His going to the rendezvous and finding it empty, going to the garage, fixing the car, with the girl, getting his watch fixed, the visit to the cemetery, his father? His personal struggle? The memory of his father killed for collaboration? His sense of responsibility for his mother?

12. The work of Khaled, going to the bosses, handling the situation, finding Said?

13. The next day, the repetition of the ritual, the rendezvous? Discussions, Khaled and his changing his mind, Said continuing? The motivation for the change, wanting to live, not wanting Paradise now?

14. The final collage of the faces of all those involved, the young woman, the two men, the bosses, the families? Said in the bus and the inevitability of his suicide mission?

15. The film immersing audiences in the life of Palestine and the beginning of the 21st century?

RED EYE

US, 2005, 85 minutes, Colour.
Rachel Mc Adam, Cillian Murphy, Bryan Cox.
Directed by Wes Craven.

Here is a film which delivers exactly what it promises – very entertainingly so.

If you would like a suspense drama, try Red Eye. It is directed by Wes Craven better known for Nightmare on Elm St and Scream. This time he has turned away from horror, although in the second part, he capitalises on his skills as the strong heroine confronts the intruder in her house.

This Red Eye is a flight from Dallas to Miami. The passenger is Lisa (the vivacious Rachel Mc Adam), a manager at a luxury hotel. It is better not to spoil the suspense by simply saying that the plot draws on the war against terrorism and leads us on step by step as Lisa tries to deal with the crises. She uses her wits (even though she is not keen of flying) to try to foil the plot and shows a remarkable amount of good sense and energy. Brian Cox is her father, central to the plot.

Also starring is Cillian Murphy whose career is on the rise. After appearing in such a diverse range of films from 28 Days Later to Girl With Pearl Earring, he was the young villainous doctor in Batman Begins. On this performance, he may become the versatilie Gary Oldman of the next generation.

While the plot is contemporary, Red Eye is something of a satisfying old time suspense thriller that keeps moving rapidly, close-up while on board the plane, pacy editing while on land. Even though the film is under ninety minutes, it establishes characters, motivations and covers all its plot strands credibly.

1. An old-style suspense thriller? Contemporary themes? Entertaining combination?

2. Wes Craven and his film career, his being a master of horror? His use of horror film styles for creating suspense?

3. The sequences in the plane, the airports? The attention to detail, the accurate dialogue, audiences familiar with the situations, authentic atmosphere?

4. The scenes in the hotels, the guests, reception, management, security, crises and complaints? Authentic?

5. The home sequences, ordinary life, watching TV, security, intruder and invasion and violence? The streets?

6. The background of terrorism after September 11, 2001? The television interview with the defence secretary, his straightforward talk, challenge? Assassins and terrorists? Rippner and his shadowing Lisa? The gunman on the boat? The elaborate security for politicians and officials?

7. The title, the plane, the experience overnight, the pressures of time?

8. The introduction, the stealing of the wallet, the father and his mentioning the loss, telling Lisa? The irony of who took it, its use for pressurising Lisa?

9. The hotel, the replacement, the guests and their rudeness, her desperation, ringing Lisa in the taxi, Lisa’s father anxiously ringing at the same time? Lisa and her handling the situation, showing her to be very competent, effective, quick?

10. Lisa’s situation, her grandmother’s funeral, the irony that Rippner had to follow her to Texas, knowing her presence, eight weeks shadowing her?

11. The delays, the lines at the airport, the staff, the angry man, the irony of his being the doctor at the end to treat Rippner? The woman in the queue, talking about Dr Phil, Lisa giving her the book, the book’s use during the flight, Lisa writing the note, Rippner discovering it? Audiences thinking that he might have killed the old lady – but his not doing so? The little girl travelling alone, hearing the interaction in the toilet, tripping Rippner as he left the plane?

12. The flight attendants, their having to cope? Lisa ringing the bell, Rippner’s story, going into the toilet, the attendant remarking that it was not a motel, referring to them as trash, Rippner taking her scarf at the end?

13. Jackson Rippner and his name, talking in the queue, the invitation to have a drink, Lisa and the accident and her changing her clothes, seeing him at the bar, his guessing her drink, his phone calls – ominous? The coincidence with the seat, his helping the woman with the luggage?

14. Lisa and her fear of flying, his asking questions to distract her, the gradual revelation, her reaction? His wanting her to make the phone call, the pressure, the storm and the phone cutting off, her going to the toilet, writing the message on the mirror, taking the book and writing the message? His bashing her head? His small talk with the attendant?

15. Her being persuaded to ring the hotel, talking with her replacement, security, the change of room? The glimpse of the flight, the family together – and their arrival, the pleasure at standing on the balcony? The security checking out the boat in the water, the search of the boat? The sailors getting the box, firing the missile and escaping?

16. Lisa ringing her father, her being reassured, his watching TV, the man outside? The irony of Lisa finally arriving in the car, his holding the gun, her driving into him?

17. Her stealing young man’s pen, stabbing Rippner in the throat, escaping from the plane, the chase through the airport, her ability to elude him, on the shuttle?

18. Her going to the house, with her father, the dead man and ringing the police, Rippner in the house, the cat-and-mouse throughout the different rooms, the frights, the repairs in the house, the nail gun, his death?

19. Lisa going to the hotel, the confrontation with the angry guests, the replacement, her standing up for her?

20. A satisfying film on all counts – modest in scope, effective in entertainment?