HWAL (THE BOW)

Korea, 2005, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kim Ki- Duk.

Kim Ki- duk has built a strong international reputation in the last six years as one of Korea’s pre-eminent directors. He is not afraid of unconventional themes. His film, The Isle, was beautiful to look at but was a study in sado-masochism. He has ventured into the world of crime and gangsters. In recent years, he has reached a wider audience with his meditative Spring, Summer, Autumn, Spring and his imaginative ghost story, Binjip (3 Iron).

His themes and style come together in The Bow. Set entirely at sea and on a boat, it is a portrait of an old man who has kept a foundling on the boat for ten years and is about to marry her when she turns seventeen. He plays a quaint stringed bow – which also serves for arrows when a growing number of his rich business clients who come aboard for fishing make advances on the girl. He also uses the bow to shoot arrows at the side of the boat where the girl rides on a swing, a method by which they are able to tell fortunes.

The inevitable happens when a young man comes aboard. The drama concerns the reactions of the old man, the changes in the girl. What happens is not quite predictable and makes for dramatic intensity in the resolution. Ki- duk offers images of the Buddha and wedding ceremonials which give his film not only an exotic beauty but invite religious as well as mythic interpretations of what is happening.

1. The work of Kim Ki- Duk, his acclaim, the range of his films? Violence, sexuality to Buddhist contemplation? These themes gathered together here?

2. The title, the bow that was played, the bow for the arrows?

3. The limited locations, the sea and the boats? The detail of the boats, the cabins, the deck? The open sea?

4. The musical score, the piano and the strings, the bow and the old man playing it?

5. The visual images with Buddhist overtones, the suggestion of myths and legends? And the realism of the characters and story? The fact that the two central characters did not speak (except for the whispers of telling the fortune to each other and to the clients)?

6. The situation, the old man and the girl, people thinking she was his granddaughter? Ten years on the boat? The story of her being found, staying on the boat for the ten years? The daily routines on the boat? Her relationship with the old man, the two bunks, his holding her hand? The preparation for the wedding?

7. The wedding plan, her seventeenth birthday, his marking the calendar – and cheating? Buying the dresses and clothes, storing them?

8. The old man, his age, his having the girl on the boat, wanting to marry her? His absolute devotion to her? Bringing the clients, the rich fishermen? Their asking for their fortune, the girl on the swing, his firing the arrows, whispering the fortune? The attitude to the men making advances, his shooting the arrows at them? His shopping, storing? Washing the girl, sleeping? The day-by-day routine?

9. The character of the girl, from six to sixteen on the boat, no other world, her innocence? Sleeping, waking, eating, on the swing? The arrows fired at her? The molestation – and her curiosity, attraction, repulsion?

10. The clients, rich, coming to fish, their attacking the girl, the two trying to rape her, the innocent man to whom she made advances, the range of people and the arrows being shot at them, their being ousted?

11. The young man, coming with the group, fishing, his attention to the girl, giving her the CD player, having his fortune told? The return, her advances, on the boat with him, the old man and his reaction? Bringing the papers, the story of the parents searching for her? His staying, love, observing the wedding, with her at the end?

12. The gift of the CD, the old man stopping her listening to it, her anger, growing spite, not wanting her hand held? The change, putting on the clothes while he was away? Her advances to the young man? Joy at his coming?

13. The old man, his grief, the couple leaving, getting the rope, trying to choke himself, trying to cut loose, the girl realising what was happening, cutting loose, the return? Her comforting him, bathing him?

14. The ritual and ceremonial of the wedding, the young man watching? The clothes and the solemnity? The old man and the girl together?

15. The young man, the chickens, his waiting?

16. The old man, the marriage, his diving overboard and disappearing? The girl and the young man going away, happy forever? His self-sacrifice?

HEROINA (HEROINE)

Spain, 2005, 110 minutes, Colour.
Adriana Azores, Javier Pereira.
Directed by Gerardo Herrero.

Heroina is a Spanish drama, a film with a campaign against heroin addicts and addiction. It is compassionate insofar as the focus – and an ambiguous play on words with heroin and heroine – is a mother who discovers that the son she loves is not only an addict but a liar and a thief. She has to face judgments about how she will handle the situation, the combination of love as well as harsh attitudes and behaviour in trying to get her son off the drugs.

Adriana Ozores won the award for best actress at the Montreal Film Festival, 2005. She portrays a mother who is shocked to find what has happened to her son, alienates her husband as she tries to move him to act against her son, even allowing him to go to jail.

The film is also about her own journey, the initial shock, her questioning of herself and her parenting, her going to psychologists for advice and finding a group of men and women in similar situations. The film, set in the 80s, shows her as a leading campaigner concerning the prohibition of drugs and police action against drug dealers. The film also shows corrupt dealers, millionaire dealers living in luxury as well as those who run the bars where drugs are dealt.

The film has its harrowing moments – although, in a passionate Hispanic way, it becomes not only a drama but also a propaganda film against drug dealers. This undermines its impact for a more matter-of-fact audience, not willing to be so caught up in the emotions and feeling manipulated. However, it is a worthy film with a worthy cause.

1. The title, the reference to the drug, Pilar as heroine?

2. The dedication of the film, to the mothers, based on a true story, a tribute? The film as worthy, a cause, a crusade film? The effect of the crusade on the structure and dramatising of the film?

3. The re-creation of the 80s and 90s, Spain, Galicia, the city of Vigo? Its environs, homes, bars, prisons and the courts? The musical score?

4. The focus on Fito: on the train with his friends, getting off, with his mother, the revelation of his addiction? At home, moody and erratic? Stealing from his brothers, from his parents, selling the family cutlery etc? Going out, at the bars, the drug dealers? The robbery, his being set up, arrested? In prison, the treatment, in the cold in the van overnight, his parents giving him the blanket? His relationship with his parents, going court, inside the jail, its roughness, his being hit on? His mother’s visits? The long sentence? The years passing, coming out, surface repentance, the reality of his going back on drugs instantly, needing the money, getting his mother to trust him? The next bank robbery, the evidence of the car? His being released, willingness to go to the rehabilitation centre? Portrait of a young addict, victim of the exploiters, ill? The final hope or not?

5. The reality of drugs, the availability, heroin, the dealers in the bars, the addicts on the streets, Pilar and her search for her son in the squalor of the city, the world of the dealers, the wealthy top men, political corruption, police corruption? The judge and his decisions? The imprisonment of Pilar and Fina?

6. Pilar, her desperation, taking her son to the psychologist, meeting the other parents? The group and the crusade? The friendship with Fina? The psychologist and his support? The protests, the banners, the singing of the songs? Outside the bars, the reaction of the dealers? Outside the courts? Their office, their centre? Their being ejected from the court? The journalist, friendship with Pilar, seeing her as a spokesperson, her television appearances, radio interviews? The growth of the group over the years? Outside the boss’s mansion? The dangers, the threats, the perseverance of the group and its effect?

7. The portrait of Pilar as heroine: seeing her at the station, with her son, at home, with her two sons, husband? Her response to Vito, always concerned about him, the neglect of the others? Covering his stealing? An emotional woman, with the psychologist, with the other mothers? Her involvement with the group, growing activity, the protests, working with the journalist? This protest changing her personality, the touch of the TV celebrity, watching herself? Her neglect of her husband, his response? The other two boys? The husband and his comment that she was pampering her son? His wanting support, sexual support? Her statements? The protests, the confrontation of the drug dealers? The meeting in the church, the speeches, the dealers and the bars, their mercenary attitudes, the addict and his speech? At the court? Her being arrested with Fina, the humiliation, in the cell? The support of the other prisoners? The release? The political implications, her thinking of being a council woman? The clash with Fina and her taunts? The centre, the years passing, the need for support, finance? At home, the death threats? With Fina in the car and the brakes loose? Vito and the visits to the prison, his getting out, her believing him, his disappointing her? Her feeling alone, the discussions with her husband? Their getting the car and hiding it, the numberplate in the river? Her supporting Vito as he came out of prison?

8. Pilar and her image of herself, trying to do the right thing, seeing her son as a victim, the critique by her husband that she was more gracious to others than to her family? A strong woman – also blinded to her own faults?

9. The portrait of the husband, the banker, long-suffering, his concern about his son, not expressing himself so articulately? His support of his wife, the growing alienation, sharing so much with her, with the two boys? Coming out of prison and his being there? Wanting some kind of sexual rapport? Her being busy? The talk at the waterfront, his clear critique of her? The younger son, his life, affected by his brother? Manuel and his being robbed by his brother, his angers? His answer to the death threat on the phone?

10. Fina, her sons, desperate, her daughter? At the psychologist’s? Her protests? The funeral and her grief? Her anger with Pilar and taunting her about her political ambitions? Their reconciliation? Pilar and her insistence that Fina come down from the gate at the mansion? The other members of the group, the range of parents, their work, interviews? The psychologist and his continued support?

11. The sketch of the drug addicts, their age, experience, being hooked, their doing the deals, stealing, with the police, their personalities, their dependence, their betrayal of each other?

12. The dealers, owning the bars, their contempt for the protesters, the going to the meeting in the church, their double standards? Talking about being mugged, having to make a living? The boss, his mansion, his wealth, his influence with the police, the judge? The erasing of the tape and the manipulated evidence?

13. The portrait of the courts, the judges? Evidence, appeals? The police, some sympathetic, some contemptuous, their treatment of Vito, their treatment of Pilar and Fina?

14. The overall impact of the film, its earnest protest against the dealers, corruption? A crusading film with moments of powerful drama?

WORLD WITHOUT THIEVES

China, 2004, 125 minutes, Colour.
Andy Lau, Renee Liu, Ge You.
Directed by Xiaogang Feng.

A beautifully crafted and photographed film which invites its audience into the remote regions of China and takes them and the characters on an adventurous train ride. It is a journey which has touches of the comic, of the romantic and of the tragic.

The central characters are almost all thieves. Li and Bo are con artists who have spent years on successful swindles, especially luring older businessman into making sexual advances and videoing these for extortion. But things have changed. She wants to stop. He does not.

Into their lives comes a good and naïve young man who carries a large amount of money earned by his building work at a Buddhist monastery. He becomes a target of Bo but also of an organised gang who work the trains.

What would it be like to have a world without thieves? No gangs and their unscrupulous attacks? A world where thieves reform and are kind to people, restoring their goods? A world like that of the young man where people are all good and he cannot really imagine evil?

Enertaining, funny, sad, and wistful for goodness.

1. The title, realistic, ironic? The world of thieves? The young man and a world without thieves?

2. The Chinese film industry, 2004, the craftsmanship in the making of the film, quality of photography, performance, editing, score?

3. The structure of the film: the robbery and swindle, the train ride? The locations and their variety, the car trip, the countryside, the ruggedness, the beauty of the mountains, the plains? The Buddhist monastery?

4. The prologue, the English lesson, the demure teacher, the businessman and his trying to learn English, sending his wife away and the maid? The sexual advance? It being videoed, the extortion plan, their taking of the BMW?

5. The journey in the car, the tensions between Li and Bo, their argument, the crash, Li getting out, her changes of moods – and the later explanation of her pregnancy? The argument about the swindles, the money?

6. The Buddhist monastery, its atmosphere, Li and her prayer? Bo and his robbing the mobile phones?

7. The separation between the two, never wanting to see each other again, the credit card, the money?

8. The monastery, the work of reconstruction, the young man, his going home to be married, the amount of money, his talking too openly and naively? A man of faith and simplicity? Meeting Li and Bo?

9. The young man on the train, as an easy mark, the gang wanting to get his money, Li and her compassionate attitude, her pregnancy, wanting to make reparation? Protecting him? Arguing with Bo? The money changing hands so many times and the young man being oblivious?

10. Li's pregnancy, her attitude towards the young man, her prayer, wanting to do good? Bo, his love for Li, his harsh attitudes, criminal background, his gradually changing?

11. The encounter with Uncle Li, his performance, the gang, the different encounters, the contests with Bo, the fights, the train roof and the daring of ducking before the tunnel, the henchmen, Uncle Li taking the finger of one of them? A ruthless gang, preying on passengers on the train?

12. The girl in the gang, her various disguises, robbing the money, her relationship with Uncle Li, the police charade?

13. Li, the various techniques for robbery, his henchmen, the girl and taking the money and leaving the note?

14. Getting off the train, Bo and his decision, the young man and his giving blood, fainting?

15. The police, on the train, checking the identities of Li and Bo, their plan? The two confessing, the man wanting to drop the charges?

16. Li in the roof, getting the money, the confrontation with Bo? The fight, the hooks? Li escaping, Bo dying?

17. The aftermath, Li and her pregnancy, the police explaining Bo’s death? Her new way of life with her child?

18. The symbol of the eggs, the magical peeling, the raw egg, Li's sleight of hand in helping the young man to understand what had happened about his money?

THE BLOSSOMING OF MAXIMO OLIVERAS

Philippines, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Nathan Lopez, J.R. Valentin, Soliman Cruz, Neil Ryan Sese, Ping Medina.
Directed by Aureaus Solito.

The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveras is a small-budget film made with digital cameras. It was filmed in the streets of Manila, in the slums, a story of a criminal family and their survival.

These are the themes so prevalent in so many of the Tagalog films coming from Manila. The theme is social injustice and poverty – with a significant absence of the presence of the church except for devotional statues and pictures.

The film also follows the lead of many Filipino directors in focusing on gay themes and characters. Maximo is a young boy, fond of dressing in women’s clothes and uncomplainingly doing all the family domestic work. He also covers for them, especially his older brothers, in their activities.

When a policeman, Victor, an idealistic young officer, comes into the precinct, he becomes very friendly with him. Victor is sincere in his work against criminals and confronts the family. However, the authorities are on the take and there is collusion between criminals and police. When Victor himself is bashed, Maximo goes from his home to look after him – with dire results for both.

There is a genuine human feeling about the writing and direction of this film, a sympathy for the young boy and his need for establishing his identity, on his need for a family, a place in the family, and yet his breaking free of their constraints as well as the nature of a strong friendship with the young policeman. The incidental background provides a great deal of visual impact for the situation of so many millions of people in the city of Manila.

1. The authentic life of Manila City? The filming on location? The range of characters, poverty, crime, religion? Authentic?

2. The use of video camera work, hand-held, stylish for views of Manila, the tracking shots giving a sense of movement within Manila life? Colour photography, bright, dark? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on Maxie? The nature of his blossoming?

4. The introduction to the characters, the steady tracking through the streets, the beauty, the flowers, the colour? The squalor? The people, poverty, clothes, shops, haggling? The criminal element? The police?

5. The focus on Maxie, twelve years, acting like a girl, the expectations of him and his pre-teen being gay? This taken for granted within the family? The other similar boys? Friendships? Talking together, girlish manner, women’s role in the family? The dead mother and her shrine? Maxie taking her place? The pageantry of the fashion show and the boys dressing up for competition as glamorous women? The background to the family story, Maxie and his emotions, relationship with his family, defending them, being taught to do the right thing, his attraction towards the policeman and helping him?

6. Maxie, at home, cooking the meals, doing the sewing? Wandering the city? His love for his father? His older brothers? His knowing their criminal activity? Going with his friends to watch DVDs? His wanting to grow up and sell DVDs? Issues of piracy? His being attacked in the street, being rescued by Victor? Indebted to him? Liking him? Going to the police station and the police comment? His going to his house, helping him with his meal, their discussions? Victor being bashed and Maxie rescuing him, tending him, staying the night, the shower sequence? The bond between the two? Victor and his moral stance, the criminals? His wanting to break from Maxie? The shootings, Maxie and his grief for his dead father, the shrine for father and mother? The changes that these experiences forced on him? Getting ready for school, older, walking down the street, passing the police? Walking into a future? What kind of future?

7. The portrait of the father, bringing up his sons, the dead mother? His devotion to her? Saying that he brought his sons up to be thieves and not killers? The deals, the influence with the police, the pay-offs? The scenes at home, generous with his money, love for Maxie, getting him to do the shopping? His reaction to the death of the student, his son being the killer? Maxie and his relationship with Victor, his tolerating it? Victor and his stances, accusing his son? Organising the bashings and taking part? The new police chief, the past antagonism, the confrontation, the police chief shooting him?

8. The two sons, the older, his working with his father as a thief, the mobile phones? His caring for Maxie and bringing him up? For his younger brother? The dilemma, the shooting of the student, the police investigation, his father’s anger? The bashing of Victor? Boggs, the younger son, happy-go-lucky, with Maxie, with the girls around the street? His place in the home, taking the blame for the shooting? Participating in the bashing?

9. Victor, coming from the provinces, a good man, devout? His rescuing Maxie? Their friendship, talking with him? At home? At the police station, the other police taunting him? His investigation of the dead student, the accusations, pressuring Maxie to give him information? His being bashed? Maxie rescuing him? The aftermath, the new police chief, wanting to promote him – but asking him to exercise violence? His future in the police force?

10. The Manila police, the toughs, the officials, at the station? Bribes, a way of life? The new police chief, tough, violent?

11. The ordinary people in the neighbourhood, their shops, dealings, ordinary life? The poverty of their homes, clothing, occupations?

12. An interesting glimpse of Philippine life? The contrast with other cultures and other lands? The role of religion, prayer and superstition – despite evil, corruption and crime?

RED MERCURY

UK, 2005, 110 minutes, Colour.
San Shella, Alex Caan, Novin Chowdhury, Juliet Stevenson, Stockard Channing, Pete Postlethwaite, David Bradley, Ron Silver, Clive Wood.
Directed by Roy Battersby.

Red Mercury is a timely British thriller. However, its timing for widespread release was very bad. According to the director, the film was viewed by the police terrorist force in the UK on July 6, 2005. The bombings of the underground and the bus occurred the following day. While the film was pencilled in for release, as of the beginning of 2007 it had failed to get release.

This is a pity because the film is not only well made, it actually reflects many of the stories that were uncovered about the bombers of July 2005, those who succeeded and the group who failed two weeks later.

The central group are three young men who have converted to Islam. Their backgrounds are typical of many of those revealed to be terrorists. They include a young man who grew up in the working-class Birmingham council estate, a bit of a renegade until he was converted. Another has a double first in Natural Sciences from Cambridge. There is a third who worked at his father’s wine warehouse, an excellent wine-taster.

The film shows the three working together. However, when they are urged to leave their flat, they find their car clamped and in the pursuit, take refuge in a restaurant. They decide then to hold the customers as hostages.

The film shows the workings of the authorities, led by Juliette Stephenson and Pete Postlethwaite. The film also shows the reaction of the hostages – some in the restaurant in good faith like a novelist and his family, some in bad faith including a businessman having lunch with his mistress. The proprietor of the restaurant is played by Stockard Channing. Ron Silver portrays an American manager having a meal in the restaurant.

The interplay between the police presence and attempts to take the terrorists with the terrorists themselves and their interactions with the customers make for excellent drama.

There is an ironic ending about the red mercury which is capable of being introduced to make a dirty bomb and the manipulation of the terrorists.

Direction is by Roy Battersby whose career was very strong in television rather than for cinema. The screenplay was written by Farrukh Dhondy, the Bombay-born screenwriter whose screenplays include topics like terrorism in Pakistan, Karachi, the prisoners in Guantanamo and the screenplay for the big-budget Indian film on the mutiny: The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey.

1. A topical film? Completed before the London bombings of July 2005? Seen and analysed in the aftermath of the real experience?

2. The background of the war on terrorism, the place of the United Kingdom, Britain and its Asian British subjects? Pakistani and Bangladeshi background? The Muslims? The role of the United States? The role of the police and action? MI5 and MI6?

3. The background of public opinion about terrorism, terrorists? Fear?

4. The role of the media, hounding people, the leaks, pontificating on issues? The jokes at the expense of the BBC?

5. A plausible scenario, the British Asians, the next generation and their strong experience of education and work? The role of ideologies? Loyalty to Islam? Extremism? Mushtaq and his statement that Britain had robbed him of his human dignity?

6. The questions directed towards the public, towards the parent generation of British Asians, to the younger generations? To Islam? To the police and authorities?

7. The authentic locations, the range of London locations? The river, St Paul’s, the central London restaurant, Hounslow? The musical score and its atmosphere?

8. The perspective of the screenplay, sympathies, understanding?

9. The basic situation, the group and their being recruited from different backgrounds? The different histories of the three men? The attraction towards extremism (and the group outside the school that Sofia visited)? Intelligent, wanting to make the bomb? The courier, his delivering the ingredients? The false notes for payment? The driver and his ringing the police for a tip-off? The red mercury, the risk for a dirty bomb? The Russian background and experimentation? The discovery, the warning to leave, their running from the building, the clamped car? The police pursuit?

10. The Ithaca restaurant, the Cyprus background, Greeks and their history? Midday, the customers and their meal, the range of the group? The American lawyer, the novelist and his family, the man and woman for a sexual rendezvous, the nurse? The staff? Penelope as the owner? Their experience, fear, humiliation, taking off their clothes (and the women being treated for modesty)? Having to stand, the need for water, sitting, their hunger, the duration of the siege? The meals?

11. The portrait of the three men? Shahid and his pleasant manner, the scientist and his intensity, the cold and ideological PhD? All being called Mo? Their not having a plan, their reaction to the situation, the discussion about martyrs, the Koran? The quotation of texts? The purity of Islam, anti-British way of life, anti-American? Anti-materialism? The reaction of the group, their different stances? Mushtaq and his leadership? The mix of the fanatic and the ordinary, the violence and the guns?

12. Their stories: Shahid, his being brought up in Birmingham, his white mother, his alcoholic father? Going to school, the report of the deputy head, the comments on him as slipping through the education system, yet his comment about reading the novel, writing stories? Assif, well-mannered, intelligent, his father and the wine business, his being a wine taster? His mother being dead? Mushtaq and his having no story except answering the twenty questions about his career?

13. Penelope, the Cypriot and Greek background, her funny lines, a mother, wanting her daughter safe? The discussions, the comments? The cooking with Assif and attacking him with the food? Sidney and his American background, law, wealthy, taxes, his being in London at the time of 11 September, 2001? Comments on strategies? His bad back, the nurse? The couple, their lies, the rendezvous? The novelist, his comments, his family? The nurse and her helping Sidney? Fate and chance gathering them together? The range of their reactions, phlegmatic British? The talk, the bonding, taunts and critique? The woman used for her mobile phone, her lies to her husband about being in Edinburgh, her being let out? The man and his wanting to find out what happened, his being shot in the leg?

14. The developments, the contact with the parents, identifying the terrorists, the smoke bomb thrown in and thrown out for fingerprints? Their using the television to talk to their parents but give a phone number to their colleague? The television and the possibility of taking out the bomb? Their contact and his phone call, its being monitored? His being caught? His phone call and pleading for them to give themselves up?

15. The media, observers? The minister, his wanting to call in the SAS, his arrival, the revelation of the truth about Britain having sold the red mercury, its being fake, trying to flush out the terrorists? The morality of this kind of collaboration with terrorists?

16. Sofia, her skill in her work, handling the situation, seeing it as a siege, realising it was more? Her establishing the rules, having a room at headquarters? Her visit to her daughter, her daughter’s problems, Neville, the collapse, suicidal, drugs, her discussion with her ex-husband, his taking her to hospital? The ex-husband about red mercury? Her skill as a detective, going to Shahid’s mother and getting information from her, going to the school? Assif’s father, going with her ex-husband, talking about the wine? Persuasive, talking to the terrorists on the phone?

17. Roy, his skill as a policeman, being in charge, relationship with Sofia, his staff, efficient? His confrontation of the minister?

18. The variety of police, the negotiator and his skills, phone calls, detection, identifying the suspects?

19. The ending, the SAS rushing in, violence, the possibilities of the death of innocent people?

20. The hostages and their release, their comments to the terrorists, the novelist, Penelope – and Assif saying, “See you in court”?

21. The value of this kind of film, for understanding people and issues, giving faces to headline stories?

AGORA

April 13th 2010

Agora is not a film which will draw large audiences. It is a film for those who are interested in and entertained by historical films and by those who would like to see a film which dramatises a period, not well known at all, in Christian history.

Some reviewers who have seen the film suggest that there is a need for some kind of historical background, especially about the Church in Egypt, in the city of Alexandria, at the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century. But, first some words about the overall impact of the film itself.

The film is impressive to look at, a combination of sets and computer generated locations. It was filmed in Malta (with a fair percentage of the population seeming to be present as extras, lots of crowd scenes). It runs for 128 minutes, which is quite demanding for a film about such an unfamiliar period. It was directed and co-written by Spanish director, Alejandro Almenabar (whose varied films include, Open my Eyes (remade as Vanilla Sky), The Others and the drama about assisted suicide, The Sea Within).

Some review comments

The film is also quite demanding in its content and dialogue. The central character is the renowned pagan philosopher, Hypatia. She is played with some authority by Rachel Weisz. Her philosopher father, Theon, is played by the French actor, Michel Lonsdale. Several sections of the film, some lengthy, are classes and discussions about the nature of the universe and speculation on the Ptolemaic theories of the relationship of the earth to the sun and the planets and how the stars move - or does the sun, or does the earth? Audiences who are not strong on astronomy or geometry may find these sequences too difficult, even baffling. But, it is quite a daring thing to present a feature film which raises these issues and asks its audience to think about them.

However, it is the religious background of the film which needs some explaining. By and large, the screenplay is accurate enough, especially about Hypatia, Orestes the governor of Alexandria and Sinesius, bishop of Cyrene, a pupil of Hypatia, who demands an assent of faith from her at the end of the film but who actually wrote in defence of her theories and died before her murder. There are problems with the presentation of Cyril of Alexandria, bishop of the city, later declared a saint and an important doctor of the church with his contributions to the theology of the humanity and divinity of Jesus.

The film might have been more satisfying for those who know something of the period had it alerted the audience to the fact that relations between pagans, Christians and Jews were not quite as straightforward as they are presented here. While it is accurate enough in general, there is much more to the feuds, hostilities, persecutions and massacres.

391-415 AD

The 4th century was one of the most difficult in the Church's history and the source of much of the difficulty was, in fact, Alexandria.

From the 2nd century AD, the centres of intellectual debate and theological argument were in the schools of Alexandria and Antioch. By 300 AD, there were great developments in sophisticated theological thought in Alexandria. Agora does not really reflect this reality of the Alexandrian Christians. We see the Christians reflecting on the Scriptures (the Beatitudes in particular), the bishop preaching to the faithful and, later, the reading of texts from Pauline letters which are restrictive on the activities of women in the Church. But – and this may have been the case - most of the Christians are not well educated and easily swayed by populist demagogues, one of whom challenges the pagans to walk through fire unharmed as he does. He is seen as a miracle worker – the dared pagan goes up in flames. However, this is balanced by the same man showing a convert slave the ordinary miraculous in supplying bread for distribution to the poor. Reasonable enough and a fairly sympathetic view of Christians.

But, what had been most important in Alexandria at the beginning of the century was the teaching of the local priest, Arius, whose understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son emphasised the humanity of Jesus as somehow making him inferior to the divine Father. His opponent was the bishop of Alexandria, St Athanasius, who found himself exiled from his city more than once. The historical complication was that this was the time when the emperor Constantine declared that Christianity not be a banned religion, 312 AD. Clashes, both ideological and physical, between pagans and Christians, spread throughout the empire as did the response of governors to the new situation, some for, some against.

While the Church resolved the Christ issue at the first of the ecumenical (worldwide) councils in Nicaea, a suburb of Constantininople, in 325, and enshrined it in a creed formulation that is still recited on Sundays at Masses around the world, the followers of Arius, maintained their stances and influenced a number of political rulers who used their adherence to Arianism to combat bishops. This would have been the case at the time of Hypatia. This could have been incorporated into some of the discussions in the film which would have heightened the reality of the persecution of the Christians by the pagans which resulted in fanatical and violent response, massacres in revenge for the killing of Christians and vandalism in destruction of the world's greatest library.

Hypatia, declaring herself a seeker after truth and an investigator of the universe, escaped the attacks and survived.

Further councils in 431 (Ephesus) and 451 (Chalcedon in Constantinople) led to further work on the theology of the humanity and divinity of Christ.

The second half of the film takes place in 415, the year of Hypatia's death. The bishop of Alexandria is Cyril. Checking Google references for him shows that he was as irascible as portrayed in the film. He fomented clashes with Orestes who had become a Christian as had many of the pagans and rulers. Another of his targets was the Jewish community. There is a similar difficulty in the portrayal of the Jews as stone throwing zealots and then victims, though not as viciously fanatic as some of the Christian zealots, especially a group of monks who patrol the city supervising morality.

There are records of Jews being in Alexandria since the early 6th century BC, the prophet Jeremiah and others fleeing there after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 587. Much intellectual reflection on the Jewish scriptures and the translation of books from Hebrew to Greek were done in Alexandria. The book of Wisdom, accepted in the Catholic biblical canon comes from this city in the 1st century BC. It is said that John's Gospel was influenced by the Alexandrian philosopher, Philo. Which means that at the time of the Jewish-Christian? clashes in the film, Jews had been a significant part of Alexandria and its intellectual life for about a thousand years.

An Egyptian historian, Damascius, claimed that Cyril was responsible for the death of Hypatia and her very cruel martyrdom. Agora's screenplay follows this. Historians say there is no other evidence that this is exact – some 19th century authors took it up again. However, historians do say that Cyril's bitter approach fomented the pervading atmosphere of hostility which led to Hypatia's death.

So, there is much in Agora for audiences interested in films which dramatise unfamiliar periods of history. And, it may be more accurate than many others. The above background might have been incorporated into the screenplay to make it more solid and nuanced.

Hypatia the martyr

While initially the pagans are shown as clinging to their gods and to their own civil status and initiating persecution of the Christians, the Christian response (which was regrettably repeated down the ages, think St Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572 against the Huguenots) is rabble-roused fanaticism. With the Jewish-Christian? clashes, there is a huge heritage of history and persecution which puts the sad experience of the 20th century in the audience's mind.

At the end, Hypatia is presented as a martyr and quite movingly declaring her own integrity (rather than faith) and bravely and heroically facing her death. This is strongly reminiscent of, even parallel to, the way that the Christian martyrs were portrayed in the storytelling of the early church.

Actually, there was much more vitality and sophistication in the Christians churches of this period. St Ambrose was bishop of Milan at this time and St Augustine repented of his past in 397 and became the leading theologian of the western church. When Hypatia died, he was bishop of Hippo further west from Alexandria in north Africa, not all that far from the film' real character, Sinesius, bishop of Cyrene. By the middle of the 5th century Attila the Hun was at the gates of Rome, barbarians at the borders and the western empire was on the verge of collapse.

Amenabar himself says that the film is not against Christianity but 'a film against fundamentalism, against those who defend their ideas with weapons. It is not against Christians and most certainly not against the Christians of today'.

OUR FATHERS

8th June, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In these cases, the sins of the fathers affect their victims who need compassion and they affect all those who belong to the church.

SONG FOR A RAGGY BOY

5th April 2004

Song for a Raggy Boy is one of several Irish films, made in 2001-3, on themes of physical and sexual abuse in the Irish Catholic Church. They include The Magdalene Sisters, Sinners, Evelyn, Conspiracy of Silence.

Audiences who regret the dramatisation of Catholic scandals on screen will be upset by these films. The films can be seen, however, as a necessary part of people's coming to terms with abusive behaviour by official church personnel, an acknowledgement that it occurred and had lifelong damaging effect on victims, that compassion was sometimes slow in coming from the authorities and that alarm led to slowness or reluctance in dealing with abuse. This is part of the church's examination of conscience concerning revelations about what has occurred in recent decades. Patrick Galvin, author of the novel on which the film is based, spoke about the effect of writing the book and of collaborating on the film as an 'exorcism' of the past for himself. Often the victims want only an acknowledgement by the church and the perpetrators that these events happened.

This film is set in 1939 in a school reformatory for boys, some younger than twelve, managed by the local bishop with a priest in charge and staffed by brothers. The brother-prefect is a stern disciplinarian who resorts to excessive physical punishment and humiliation of the boys. One brother is a sexual abuser. There is only one sequence of sexual abuse, visually reticent, but all the more horrendous because of this. It is a disturbing reminder of the reality of such abuse, the pathology of the brother and, particularly, the pain of the reluctant victim who speaks of this in the confessional and is advised to keep what has happened to him to himself.

The physical abuse is alarmingly violent and, dramatically, over the top. Many older Catholics, however, will have stories of these kinds of punishment. For the sake of the narrative, they are put together in a hundred minute film which can give an impression that this was the sole way of dealing with problems.

Song for a Raggy Boy, like the other Irish films (and the presentation of dominant clergy in such films as Ryan's Daughter, The Butcher Boy or Lamb) asks pertinent questions about the severity of the Irish Church, the collaboration with the state in running institutions of correction (and using the same methods of discipline and punishment that were prevalent in those times in state and other institutions) and the screening and training of clergy and religious.

Older Catholics and members of religious congregations can attest that in those decades, and even up to the 1960s, training was often very harsh, a formation in subduing the will by self-denial and severe and penitential practices that led to a sometimes morbid spirituality. The renewal in religious congregations asked for by the Second Vatican Council was intended as a rediscovery of the original Gospel spirituality of the founders with a consequent spiritual, moral and psychological maturity. Processes of healing of memories have been encouraged. This film is a reminder that religious men who entered an order in their mid teens and underwent this kind of formation absorbed it and saw it as the pattern for their ministry in schools but applied it sometimes in unconscious compensation for their lack of emotional development.

Actor, Iain Glenn, who portrays the sadistic Brother John, is quoted as using this kind of background to understand how his character could act in the way that he is portrayed.

It should be noted that there is a sympathetic older brother, played by Dudley Sutton, and a superior who wants change and compassion but who has learned to live with the limitations imposed by authoritarian superiors.

This is not to say that the film is joyless - a comment made on The Magdalene Sisters. In fact, the model for the film is the genre of dedicated teacher (Dead Poets Society, Dangerous Minds, The Emperor's Club, Mona Lisa Smile) who comes in to share a passion for their subject (here English and Irish language and poetry), educates students and transforms them as well as challenging the status quo. Aidan Quinn is William Franklyn, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, who is the first lay teacher in St Jude's school.

Critical comment on the film has been quite varied. It has been invited to several festivals, from Karlovy Vary to Hong Kong. Many critics, who are not aware of the realities underlying the plot, have dismissed it (and laughed at it) as over-dramatic, even hysterical. Those who know the issues from the inside may agree that the violence shown, especially towards the end, is too much for the drama to be fully effective, but will find much in the film that speaks to their experience, much to reflect on.

Post-script: Catholics will notice quite a number of erroneous details, from vestments and selection of religious pictures to thinking that brothers are ordained. Advice from a technical adviser would have quickly remedied these details.

THE CRIME OF FATHER AMARO/ EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO

December 15th 2002

The Mexican film, El Crimen del Padre Amaro, was nominated in the category of Best Foreign Language Film for the Academy Awards for the films of 2002.

When it was released in Mexico in mid-2002, it received a large amount of press coverage which highlighted its 'controversial' Catholic Church issues. The film was popular at the Mexican box-office. At the time a number of Mexican Bishops expressed their protest at the themes of the film. The secretary of SIGNIS Mexico, Rodolfo Guzman, wrote more positively of the film's technical qualities, of the treatment of the characters and their interactions, especially concerning money issues and clerical celibacy as well as the challenges to the church which such films offer to look again at structures and abuses.

Towards the end of 2002, the film was released commercially in the United States and received a negative review from the critic of the American Catholic Conference classifications office. The film was judged as vicious and corrosive and referred to some sequences as hurtful to Catholics. As with so many issues, regional and national sensibilities differ considerably and have to be taken into account when making recommendations or issuing condemnations.

El Crimen is based on a book dating from 1875, a reminder that problems of relationships between church and governments and the potential for corruption as well as difficulties with clerical celibacy are issues of long standing. This is particularly the case for nations which have centuries-old Hispanic tradition from Catholic countries and societies so different from those influenced by the 16th century Reformation, most of the countries of Europe as well as the United States.

It needs to be acknowledged that the style of the film is that of the telenovella so popular in recent years in Latin America. Critics from less emotional societies find the telenovella style particularly melodramatic, highly volatile and emotional with characters and situations often presented in broad and sweeping strokes. This is an accepted way of storytelling. As the critic for Variety shrewdly pointed out, the audiences for which El Crimen was geared would have no trouble in appreciating its style.

The Catholic Hispanic (and Iberian) culture also has a long history of what might be called anti-clericalism. 'The Mission' is a cinema reminder of 18th century clashes between civil authorities and the church in South America which led to pressure on the Pope in 1773 to suppress the Jesuits. During the 19th and 20th centuries there were the revolutions for independent nationhood as well as the 1930s Spanish Civil War. This is true of Mexico, so it is not unexpected to find a film that takes a critical look at the local church. By the 1940s, Graham Greene had written a classic novel of such Catholicism in The Power and the Glory.

El Crimen del Padre Amaro has been described as anticlerical. It is truer to say that the film is anti-clericalism rather than anti-clerical. It is critical of the power plays (clericalism) of some clergy, of misconduct by some priests and members of religious orders who profess to live exemplary lives. It does not say that all clergy are like this. In fact, one of the heroes of the film is a priest who tries to live the Gospel injunctions of service to the poor and oppressed but who becomes the victim of the power plays, this clericalism. The film also presents sequences of bizarre and supersitious religious practices. The broad sweep does not necessairly imply general condemnation as is sometimes felt by audiences whose sensitivity is bruised by such presentations. A film about individual or group police corruption or political corruption is not necessarily anti-police or anti-government.

With the contemporary contempt for official organisations (the misconduct of financial corporations, the lack of credibility of government action), it is not unexpected that Church organisations are targets for criticism. Since the Church has always acknowledged that it comprises both saints and sinners, that the Church continually needs reforming (the old Latin adage, Ecclesia semper reformanda), the actions of sinners, no matter how distasteful and hurtful for those strongly committed to their Church, are able to be dramatised, criticised and, where necessary, be held accountable.

These are the implications of a film like El Crimen del Padre Amaro. Documented material would indicate that the lack of commitment to vows of celibacy are not rare, that officials can be corrupted by financial ambition or greed, that drugs, dealing and export are a continual problem in many Latin American countries. These are some of the topics of El Crimen. The implication of the critique offered by the film of several of the central characters is that this is not what the Church professes and not what its members expect it to be like. So, the film offers a challenge to an examination of conscience and the need for reform.

AMEN

March 1st 2003

Amen is the title of the film by Greek director Costa- Gavras. Costa- Gavras made his name in cinema with an impressive range of films on political issues. His drama about the rule of the Greek generals, Z (He Lives), won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film of 1969 and was greeted the world over as showing how a film could offer insights into social struggles. Other films from the seventies include The Confession and State of Siege. His 1982 drama about oppression by the Pinochet regime in Chile, Missing, starred Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek and was also Oscar-nominated.

His intention in making Amen was to contribute to the continuing discussions about the role of the Catholic Church in defending the rights of the Jews, especially in Nazi Germany and during World War II. The controversies, which are frequently discussed in the Catholic media, centre on Pope Pius XII with arguments about his seeming public inaction and his and the Church's assisting Jews behind the scenes.

Because the focus on Pius XII has been persistent, Costa- Gavras's film is still timely. What has annoyed many commentators is that Amen is a film version of Rolf Hochhuth's play, The Deputy, performed first in the 1960s. At the time, critics were strong in declaring that Hochhuth had taken a biased stand against Pius XII and that his fictional and weakly-researched treatment of the serious issues was offensive. This has been the presumption of critics of the film who were quick to denounce it earlier in 2002, especially when it was screened in competition at the Berlin Film Festival and then given general release in France. Particular criticism was made of the advertising campaign (which is not the same as the film itself) for its logo of a cross combined with a swastika. The French Bishops condemned the advertisements.

But what of the film itself? A number of elements need to be taken into consideration. As a film, Amen will not draw the crowds. Many critics were harsh on it in Berlin, including some Catholic reviewers, because its style is a throwback to the 60s. It was considered 'old-fashioned' and lacking in dramatic impact. Another difficulty is that it is one of a number of films made these days with funding from all over the European Union where the producers decide that the film is to be made in English as the most widely understood language. The result is a screenplay that sometimes sounds archaic in its expressions. And, with a cast from different countries, the English accents vary considerably. Both these elements can alienate audiences.

As regards the content of the film, Costa- Gavras has modified Hochuth's attack on Pius XII. The central criticism is still there but Pius XII is not isolated from other church and civic leaders of those times. The film indicates that German Protestant leaders were slow to believe information coming out of the concentration camps. The Papal Nuncio in Berlin wanted proof of the claims of genocide, suspicious that the revelations were being made up by a member of the Nazi party who had been involved in developing the gas chambers' technology. Church people feared that the claims were a set-up. Swedish diplomats and US diplomats in Italy and the Vatican are also shown as holding back. Pius XII opts not to denounce the atrocities in his Christmas message of 1943, believing that he is saving others, especially Church officials and ordinary people, from harsh Nazi reprisals.

This has been the stuff of controversy now for more than fifty years.

Where the film is worth seeing is in its portrayal of the German scientist who comes to realise what cruelty is being perpetrated against the Jews and who tries, generally in vain, to make his message known so that the killing will be stopped. Also forceful is the fictional character of a young Roman Jesuit who works in the Papal Nuncio in Berlin and uses his family connections in the Vatican to try to persuade the Pope and the Curia of what is going on and for the Pope to speak out.

The final ironies of the plot reflect some of the injustices concerning Nazi personnel after the war. The decent whistleblower is condemned as a war criminal. The Jesuit opts to identify with the Jews and be executed in the camp with them. The commandant does a deal with a church official to escape to Argentina.

The study of history is not always comforting and the sins of the past, as Pope John Paul II has constantly reminded us, have to be acknowledged, confessed and reparation made. While the controversy about Pius XII and what he did and did not do will continue to be debated, Amen is not an attack on the Church as such, but a drama that is critical with the luxury of hindsight.