LAST HOLIDAY

US, 2006, 112 minutes, Colour.
Queen Latifah, L.L. Cool J, Timothy Hutton, Giancarlo Esposito, Alicia Witt, Gerard Depardieu, Jane Adams, Susan Kellerman, Michael Nouri.
Directed by Wayne Wang.

Queen Latifah as Alec Guinness? Now that’s a stretch of the imagination (or a trick question for Trivial Pursuit). The answer is that Wayne Wang’s version of Last Holiday is a US adaptation and remake of an Alec Guinness film of 1950. Novelist J.B.Priestly wrote the screenplay at the time of the making of the film of his classic play, An Inspector Calls.

The plot outline is much the same, except for the very end.

Wayne Wang made a number of small budget films in the 1980s, Dim Sum and Eat a Bowl of Tea. He moved into the major league with The Joy Luck Club. Since 2000, he has been making very American romantic comedies with sentiment: Anywhere But Here, Maid in Manhattan, Because of Winn Dixie. Last Holiday is one of these.

Imagine Queen Latifah as a quiet, somewhat fearful and repressed sales representative in a large department store. We don’t have to make such an effort for this, although that is how the film opens. When she is diagnosed as terminal, she decides to break out and to branch out and live her last holiday to the full. She goes to Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic, to the top hotel, to meet a chef she admires (who turns out to be Gerard Depardieu looking genially dishevelled, despite the fact that the credits say he had a costume asstant and a hair stylist to make it look as if he had just got out of bed).

She lives it up but she is an innately kind person who speaks her mind clearly and changes the lives and attitudes of all the people she meets, staff and millionaires alike. The most dastardly of these is Timothy Hutton, holidaying with his mistress and trying to bribe politicians to pass legislation to benefit his company. LL Cool J is the ardent admirer of Queen Latifah, but also reticent and low-key.

What happens when you have only a few weeks to live? The answer here is that you live the capitalist dream, you live it up in luxury, do all the things you didn’t know you wanted to. But, be nice.

1.A Queen Latifah comedy? Sentiment and humour?

2.The original film? Alec Guinness? The screenplay by J.B. Priestley? The adaptation to the United States, the update?

3.The New Orleans settings, George’s home, the department store, the transition to Czech Republic, Carlo Vivari? The hotel? The mountain scenery and the snow? The action sequences? The high life, costumes and décor, the emphasis on food and the visualising of banquets? The musical score?

4.The image of Queen Latifah, going against type, her being poor and quiet, the transition and the high life in the Czech Republic.

5.The central idea: the woman in poverty, prim, diligent, her illness, the diagnosis, the decision for the holiday, the transformation, feeling free? The mistake? Her future? Credible? The treatment?

6.Georgia in herself, her age, singing in church, her life, her feeling weak and ill, the conversations with her friend in the store, her reserved attitudes? At home, the meal, the boy, her book of Possibilities? Her friendship with Sean, not able to talk to him, dreaming that she might marry him? At the shop, her work, the boss and his hard attitudes? Her buying the grill, her having bought one earlier? The discussions with Sean, her collapse? The tests, the doctor, the diagnosis? The time left? Her facing this future?

7.Her decision, her going to the boss, resigning? Her interest in travel, Carlo Vivari, her interest in food? The television cook and her cooking the meals herself, photographing them? The DVDs of Matthew Kragen and the materialistic and businesslike side of the ethos of the shop? The boss and the books that he read, his aping Matthew Kragen?

8.Georgia and her plane ride, wanting more space, going into first class, enjoying the luxury? The helicopter ride to the hotel? The discussions about the room, getting the presidential suite? The reaction of the staff? Her clothes, her being outfitted? The meals, taking all courses and enjoying them? Meeting the chef Didier, friendship, conversations? Her encounter with the senator, reprimanding him about his not going to see his constituents? Kragen and his girlfriend? In the spa, Frau Gunther as a spy, severe attitudes? The masseuse and her friendliness? The various activities, the training, tobogganing – and the rivalry with Kragen? Skiing? The high dive – and Kragen pulling out?

9.The senator, attracted to her, his life, constituents, busy in Washington, money and deals, his lies, charm? Her reforming him?

10.Kragen and his greed, Miss Burns, his treatment of her? Separation from his wife? His wanting the chef to attend to him? Congressman Stewart and his wife? The senator? His not going on the jump, trying to find out about Georgia, bribing Gunther? The clash with his girlfriend? Getting desperate, sitting on the ledge, suicidal, Georgia helping him and his coming down?

11.Miss Burns, her relationship with Kragen, her ambitions, working in the department, the company? Her hopes, her rudeness to the masseuse, Georgia taking her aside, talking frankly to her, the transformation, her having the strength to stand up to Kragen?

12.Congressman Stewart, his wife, their interest in Georgia, friendship? Spurning of Kragen?

13.Sean, in the store, finding out the truth about Georgia, the doctor, the boy, going to Carlo Vivari, the snow blocking the road, trekking over the mountains? Meeting her, happy times together?

14.The doctor, discovering the mistaken machine, faxing the message?

15.Gunther, her severity, the caricature German, Kragen giving her the bribe? Reading the fax, changing, her friendship with Georgia?

16.Gerard Depardieu as Chef Didier, the range of food, going to the market, with Georgia, the feast?

17.The postscript to the film – Georgia and Sean opening the restaurant – and everybody turning up for the celebration?

18.The final information, tongue-in-cheek, of what happened to everyone afterwards?

KIDULTHOOD

UK, 2006, 89 minutes, Colour.
Aml Ammen, Red Madrell, Noel Clarke, Jamie Winstone, Adam Deakin, Femi Oyeniran, Nicholas Hoult.
Directed by Menhaj Huda.

Not a bad coinage, ‘kidulthood’, to describe the pressures on teenagers to act like adults (or to mimic adults behaviour which they really don’t understand). (Also impressive is a coinage from an Australian Baptist minister who wanted to describe the retrogression in adult crises, ‘middlessence’!)

This is a West London slice of life which is depressing and makes one despair about the future. Obviously things are not always as bad as what we see in this 48 hour period of young people’s lives. Writer, Noel Clarke, who plays the central school bully, 19 year old Sam, is in fact now 30 and draws on his own experiences in his screenplay (even filming in his neighbourhood and flat to save budget expenses). The film has that sense of realism. However, Clarke in interviews has made the point strongly that ‘the film is not trying to promote, rationalise or justify’ any of the behaviour we see.

And the film is not lacking in disturbing behaviour – which Clarke says is reported daily in the news. The film opens with very cruel and physical bullying leading to a suicide. There are drugs easily available, as well as sex and teenage pregnancy. There is the background of London gangs and brutality and torture. Parent ignorance and/or neglect. And more affluent kids throwing parties in their parents’ absence where violence breaks out and someone is killed. Reminiscent of Larry Clarks 1995 look at New York teenagers (though less prurient), this is a call to awareness and vigilance. But, has society let things get out of control?

Kidulthood, convincingly acted in scenes which we would hope are exaggerated, is both depressing and alarming.

1.British education, 2005? The picture of school life? Family, neighbourhood? The consequences of this kind of life?

2.The work of the writer, his own experiences, his own home for budget purposes, as an actor?

3.The title and its play on words? Insight into the experience of these 15-year-olds?

4.Authentic story and issues, the stories from the headlines of the media? The adolescents and their age, educational background, functional or dysfunctional families? The violence in the atmosphere, pressures, peers, expectations? The drug background? Sexual relationships?

5.The visual style, the pace, the moods, the use of light and darkness, locations, intimate scenes? Musical score? Songs?

6.The school scenes, the bullying, the groups in the yard? The bashing? The humiliations? The helplessness of the teachers?

7.Katie, her friend, her being bullied at school, the humiliations? Her going home, her parents being busy and offhand, playing the music in her room, writing the note, killing herself?

8.The reactions, the adolescents and their feelings? It not having much effect? Their not having school? The heartless touch? Some puzzled about why Katie killed herself? The students named in her note? Her brother, his reaction, wanting revenge? His masked attack at the party and the gun, the violence?

9.Trife and his friends? His parents? The three meeting? Jay and his self-image, small, his sexual view of himself? Trife and the decision to raid Sam’s flat? Mooney and his playing games, following Trife? Their going to Sam’s house, taking the CD? The consequences? Trife and the day, after the raid, his relationship with Alisa?

10.Trife and his uncle, his doing the job on the guns at school, the discussions with his uncle, the car, the young man who was the thief? Meeting his uncle later, the pressure on Trife to violence, to cut the face of the thief, his hesitation, doing it, the aftermath? With Alisa, their ups and downs, her pregnancy, his disbelief, his accusations? His change of heart? Going to the party, the possibilities, the reconciliation with Alisa, the prospect of the baby? The fight, Sam, his death?

11.Mooney, Jay, their following, participating, their own self-image? The repercussions of Trife’s death?

12.Alisa, her friendship with Jamie? At home, her mother? Their talk, admitting her pregnancy? The phone call to Trife? His rejecting her? Their going shopping, the dresses, the prospect of the party? Going to the drug men, the sexual behaviour and favours? The abortion? Her decisions, changing her mind about the party, going home, being invited, the climax, the possibilities of a future with Trife, his death? Her going to the ambulance to go to the hospital?

13.Jamie, her self-centredness, listening to Alisa, the issue of the abortion, her drug friends, her blasé sexual attitudes, the drugs, the shopping, the party?

14.Sam, at home, bullying at school, the gang, his mother? The raid and his mother’s reaction? His wanting vengeance on Trife? The day, the sex with his girlfriend, offhand, her just being a follower, her mother? Going to the party, the confrontation, the shooting?

15.Forty-eight hours in the life of these adolescents, a glimpse? Hope or pessimism?

16.The well-off students in the area, white, throwing the party, parents away, Blake and his being the host, trying to get on well with all the racial groups? The party itself, getting out of hand, the violence, the consequences?

ROAD TO GUANTANOMO

US, 2006, 95 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Michael Winterbottom and Matt Whitecross.

After a screening at the Berlin Film Festival where it won the award for Direction, The Road to Guantanomo was given a cinema release, a television screening and DVD distribution within a few weeks. It is well worth catching.

Michael Winterbottom has had a prolific output during the last ten years including Jude, Wonderland, The Claim and, most recently, A Cock and Bull Story. However, he has also ventured into the political and social areas with his Welcome to Sarajevo (1997), a picture of an American journalist experiencing war in the Balkans and his Berlin Golden Bear winner, In This World. In This World traced the journey of a young Afghan refugee from his life in the camps, across Iran into Europe and his getting to England. It was brief, documentary-like and filmed in authentic locations.

Winterbottom and his co-director, Matt Whitecross, have created a film that combines documentary style with feature film storytelling, all the more vivid because of this. As might be expected, it takes a stance very critical of the Americans and their treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and, finally, in the camp at Guantanomo Bay. Its partisan attitudes have been supported by reports from Guantanomo and reports about it, especially from the United Nations.

The film takes on the story of three young British men from Tipton who went to Pakistan for a wedding. They were not saints and some had police records for petty offences. They ventured into Afghanistan out of some kind of solidarity (which critics of their story say is at least imprudent but suspect more sinister motives) and soon found themselves under fire with the American invasion. They tried to get back to Pakistan (one of their friends disappeared) but, instead, found themselves among the Taliban prisoners.

The film re-enacts the treatment they received. At times it is quite brutal. They are treated with deep suspicion. Psychological pressure is put on them, naming them as terrorists, forcing them to confess. After these camps, they are blindfolded and sent to Cuba, to Guantanomo. Again, the film spends a great deal of time showing the bullying (to say the least), the isolation and psychological pressure, aspects of contempt by guards of their Muslim beliefs and continued aggressive interrogations. It should be said that some guards are presented as more humane.

In assessing the reality of American treatment and accusations of brutality, we remember the trials of military personnel for torture in Baghdad. What seems very much to the point is a reminder of how recruits are trained in the US – think the first part of Full Metal Jacket, think Jarhead. American authorities put their own men through tough, humiliating training where they are sworn at, mocked and put under severe physical and psychological pressure. This training becomes a model and pattern for dealing with others, especially when force is considered to be necessary.

The three were eventually released from Guantanomo and are free. They themselves are interviewed throughout the film and we finally see them at the wedding in Pakistan.

Topical, sobering and challenging.

1.A topical film of 2006? Impact? Distribution? Awards?

2.The work of Michael Winterbottom, his emphasis on war and social problems: Welcome to Sarajevo, In This World? His perspective on the Middle East?

3.The documentary style, cinema verite, interviews, war footage, re-enactment, politicians? The blend of all these elements?

4.Audience response: intellectual, emotional? Information about the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanomo Bay? The American stances? British stances? The treatment of prisoners, attitude towards the Taliban? Prison and torture?

5.Abuse of human rights, treatment of prisoners and the quality of society in the way that it administers punishment? Physical torture? Deprivation? Psychological torture? Poor conditions? The nature of interrogations? The good cop, bad cop technique? Lying to trap interrogated prisoners? Demands made on them?

6.The relevance of the film to the West and its attitudes towards the Middle East? The West and Islam?

7.The four central men and their stories? Their age, Pakistani background, living in Birmingham, in Tipton? Their ordinary way of life, not practising Islam strictly? Families, jobs? Trouble with the police? The arranged wedding in Pakistan, the groom going? His friends deciding to go to support him? The spirit of their travels? The time in Karachi, enjoying the atmosphere? The interviews with them after their ordeal? Their comments, memories, retrospect?

8.Their decision to go to Afghanistan, their reasons, their sense of Pakistani support, trying to help, doing little in fact, crossing the border, trying to do some work? One being sick? The bombings after 9/11? Their being caught in the atmosphere, their fear, the escape, running to get on the truck, the man sick in the bus, the arrests and their treatment?

9.The re-enactments of their ordeal, their story? Making their story more credible for the audience?

10.Their experience as prisoners, together, the treatment, the interrogations, by the British, by the Americans? The presumptions that they were guilty? The nature of the torture? The long periods? The pressure to confess?

11.The long time, the hunger, the cold, sickness, being able to pray or not? The guards, especially at Guantanomo, and their spurning of religious customs for Muslims?

12.The portrait of the marines, memories of the stern way in which they were trained, abusive? Their applying these techniques to the prisoners? The ordinary men in the marines, shouting orders, battering people, the officers, the orderlies? An atmosphere of brutality? The guards in Guantanomo – and some of the sympathetic guards, talking, helping, asking to hear the rap song?

13.The transition to Guantanomo, the blindfolds, the plane? The situation in Guantanomo Bay, the nature of the prison? The comments by President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld? The men being given numbers, the nature of the cells, squatting outside, the continued interrogations, the British, the American woman?

14.The realisation that errors had been made in the files? Still keeping prisoners in Guantanomo? Their being better fed, reading?

15.The aftermath, the interviews for this film? The men and their judgments, the change in their lives, facing the future?

16.The return to Pakistan for the wedding, the scenes of a wedding and joy? Some hope?

17.The film as a contribution to understanding, change and reform?

RIOT AT THE RITE

UK, 2006, 90 minutes, Colour.
Adam Garcia, Alex Jennings, Rachel Sterling.
Directed by Andy Wilson.

Riot at the Rite is a film about the preparation for and the first performance of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring in 1913. It gives the opportunity for audiences (who need some kind of preparation for Stravinsky’s music and Nijinsky’s choreography – which the audience in 1913 found itself unprepared for) to appreciate the film.

The film shows the relationship between Diaghilev and Nijinsky, the sexual relationship – which was interrupted by Nijinsky’s marrying Romola and the separation from Diaghilev who expelled him from the company. The film also shows Stravinsky and his composing music which seems strange to the tastes of France in 1913.

Adam Garcia (Bootmen, Love’s Brother, Riding in the Car with Boys, Coyote Ugly), a trained dancer, is Nijinsky. The film focuses on his rehearsing the strange and unexpected choreography for Stravinsky’s music and his intense response to the performance. British stage actor, Alex Jennings, is Diaghilev. Rachel Sterling (Diana Rigg’s daughter) is the choreography mistress.

The film focuses on the interiors of the ballet world, the rehearsal rooms, the theatre and performance. The film gives the opportunity for audiences to see a performed, edited version of The Rite of Spring. What is of interest, as the title indicates, is the audience response to the piece. Allegedly civilised audiences behaved badly with hooting, interventions, whistling. Stravinsky, however, insisted that the company perform no matter what.

Director Andy Wilson and writer Kevin Elyot (My Night with Reg) have collaborated on a number of television programs including adaptations of Agatha Christie’s Poirot stories and Miss Marple stories.

1.Audience interest in Stravinsky, his music and its impact? Nijinsky and his dancing and choreography? Diaghilev and his productions?

2.The opportunity to see a performance of The Rite of Spring after the rehearsal sequences and the explanation of the theme?

3.The title, audience response, well-dressed audiences behaving badly? The catcalls, the hissing? Those wanting to like the play and the ballet?

4.Stravinsky, his background, his compositions, Paris audiences, his Russian influence? The modern music and the breakthrough from traditions? His character, push? Rehearsals, his clashes with Nijinsky about the choreography? The performance and his insisting it go through? The satisfaction at the end?

5.Diaghilev, his reputation as a producer? Russian background? His relationships, homosexuality, influence over the dancers? His not appreciating Stravinsky’s music, putting in the earplugs? Yet his wanting to produce, his putting his power behind the performance? The anticipation of the bad reception? During the performance? The scenes between himself and Nijinsky, sexual, intimate? Nijinsky’s reaction and walking out on him? His dismissing Nijinsky?

6.Nijinsky, his age, experience, Russian background? His skill as a dancer? Choreography? The Afternoon of a Faun and Debussy’s music? Intercutting the scenes of his curtain call for this piece? His being persuaded to choreograph The Rite of Spring, the intensity of the rehearsals, his hard dealings with the dancers, insisting they continue? His personal life, the relationship with Diaghilev, his not wanting the relationship? The encounters with Romelar, the attraction, the kiss? In the audience? The aftermath of his marrying her? The information about his schizophrenia and his surviving for another thirty years?

7.The dancers, the difficulties of a new ballet, the steps, turning their toes inwards? The stamping and gesticulations? Modern dance being introduced and cutting through traditional ballet? The influence of the Russian tradition?

8.The audience, those in favour, those against? The sarcastic remarks, the catcalls? The effect on the dancers? People holding Nijinsky back? His counting and urging them to go on?

9.The celebrities at the performance, Picasso and his drawing, Jean Cocteau?

10.The influence of The Rite of Spring? Its not being performed very often, Diaghilev taking it from the repertoire? Yet the impact on modern dance? Stravinsky’s influence on music in the 20th century?

I’M WITH LUCY

US, 2002, 90 minutes, Colour.
Monica Potter, John Hannah, Gael Garcia Bernal, Anthony La Paglia, David Boreanaz, Henry Thomas, Harold Ramis, Julie Christie, Julianne Nicholson.
Directed by Jon Sherman.

I’m With Lucy is a romantic comedy – one of those that you enjoy if you are in the mood for it. Otherwise…

The focus is on Lucy, suffering from allergies, lacking self-esteem, wary of her parents. She dates five men – and the audience has to guess which one she will end up with. Towards the end this becomes fairly obvious.

Monica Potter has appeared in a range of films including being the villain in Along Came a Spider as well as a tough lawyer in Reversible Decisions. She also appeared with Robin Williams in Patch Adams.

The men are played by a wide variety of actors, international selection: Scottish John Hannah, Mexican Gale Garcia Bernal, Australian Anthony La Paglia, Americans David Boreanaz and Henry Thomas. Her parents are played by director Harold Ramis (Ghostbusters, Analyze This, Multiplicity) and Julie Christie.

The film is very light in its touch – of more appeal to the age group of the protagonists of this story.

1.The appeal of the film? Romantic comedy? For what audience? Older or younger?

2.The New York settings, the excursion to Miami? Songs and score?

3.The structure of the film: the indication of boyfriends, of dates, of the time of the year and season? The intercutting of these dates? The cumulative effect? The consequences for each of the boyfriends? Lucy’s choice?

4.The portrait of Lucy: her age, background, work? Her sister and friends? The break-up with Peter, her thinking that the commitment was forever, his cavalier attitude in the elevator? The various dates? Her unwillingness, drinking, sensitive, committed to a relationship, dreaming of what might be? The final choices, the courting by Barry, her infatuation with Luke? Her coming to Barry’s party? The commitment – and her caution after the rollerblading and his giving her the ring? The happy ending with the marriage? Her relationship with her parents – and the fact that it was Barry whom she brought home, had the meal with?

5.The suitors: Doug, Scottish, repressed, his relationship with his wife, the divorce, taking Lucy out, her being drunk, his timid manner, the meal, concern for her health, the discussions, his surprise at her frankness?
Bob: brash, his reputation, baseball player, rough, expecting people to know who he was, signing autographs, going to the concert, bumping people, uncouth? In the car, his jokes? Later meetings, his sense of humour, Lucy’s being calm with him – and also upset? At the wedding? Making a line for her girlfriend?
Gabriel: playwright, Caesar in another life, romantic, the bedroom scenes, his talk, the cooking? No prospect of commitment?
Luke: medical, charming, the excursion to Miami, fishing, Lucy on the phone and describing the fishing, the boat? His going away, return, her commitment, in the loft? At the restaurant, the spilling and his severe reaction with the waiter? Her realising that he was not for her?


6.Barry: childhood, his being tense, the bad day and firing people, her allergies, his going round the city to find some medication for her? Tension, relaxing? His being ordinary? Going to her house for the meal, the fussing by her parents, she and her mother fighting and spilling stuff over him, the change of shirt? His taking her rollerblading, courting her, giving her the ring? Living in hope? Seeing her with Luke? Showing the home movies on the wall? His relating to her parents, their being keen on him? The karaoke, her coming? Declaration of love? Marriage and happy ending?

7.Lucy’s sister, friend? Their discussions about boys, relationships, forcing Lucy out? Phone calls, dependence? The wedding, Bob doing the line for the friend?

8.Jack and Dori, Lucy’s parents, her not at home with them? The awkwardness of the meal, discussions, her mother telling her private stories? The home movies? Their being pleased with Barry? The happy wedding?

9.A happy ending – and Lucy’s and Barry’s future?

SEA OF SAND

UK, 1958, 97 minutes, Black and white.
Richard Attenborough, Michael Craig, John Gregson, Vincent Ball, Barry Foster, Percy Herbert, Ray Mc Anally.
Directed by Guy Green.

Sea of Sand is one of the many films made in the mid to late 1950s recapitulating the war effort. Many of these films starred the stars of this particular film. John Gregson was a great favourite at this time. Richard Attenborough continues his role of cheeky young men in service – which started with In Which We Serve in the early 1940s. Michael Craig was a solid romantic lead in British movies at this time.

The film has nothing particularly new but does it effectively with strong black and white photography and the film was made in Libya itself. The film shows a small group behind enemy lines during the preparations for hurling back Rommel in the North African desert. The small group clashes within itself, confronts Germans, suffers losses and has to make its way back to camp, walking in a bedraggled way through the desert.

Guy Green was a cinematographer who started to direct films in the late 1950s and moved to Hollywood in the 1960s and made some of the blockbusters there during the 1960s and 1970s, such films as Jacqueline Sussan’s Once is Not Enough, Light in the Piazza, A Patch of Blue and A Walk in the Spring Rain.

1.The popularity of this kind of war film at the time? Now? An opportunity to see the kind of action that took place in World War Two? The British war effort? British spirit?

2.The location photography in Libya? The military headquarters? The desert, the sand and the dunes? The title? The musical score – and the cheery whistling by Brodie, the more serious and ominous tones of the score?

3.The British action in North Africa? The confrontation with Rommel? Audience knowledge of the history of what took place? The British raids prior to the final confrontation with Rommel? Behind enemy lines, the exploding of fuel dumps?

4.The British in the desert, the rah-rah spirit? Away from home, memories of home? Family lives? The importance of the radio programs which White listened to as he was left stranded in the desert? The music, the garden programs?

5.The focus on Captain Williams, straight up and down, military career? His arrival, the reaction of the men, especially Captain Cotten? The contrast between the two? Clashes of mentality? On the raid together, their interactions, relying on each other? Williams and his final self-sacrifice? The stiff upper lip?

6.The contrast with Cotten, his background as an architect? His surliness, anger? Interactions with Williams, criticising him? His part in the raid? Heroism? His acknowledging his debt to Williams at the end?

7.Brodie, Richard Attenborough and the cheeky style, the driver, the whisky? With the men, jokes? On the raid? His drinking, the rebuke of the superiors? His return? A typical English character?

8.Sergeant Nesbitt, the Australian background, cheerful, his contribution to the raid? Good humour? Matheson, young, married, afraid, his panic? His apologies?

9.The range of British soldiers, those in authority, the ordinary soldiers? Their skills in carrying out the raid? Their courage? The realism of the raid, being fired on, discovered, the Germans turning on the light, the truck seizing, the punctures…? White and his injury? His being left behind, Brodie not being allowed to stay? The struggle of the walk back to camp?

10.The picture of the Germans, seen as the enemy? Their skills, the discovery of the raiders, the firing on them, the lights?

11.A picture of action in war? The war of the past?

STRAPPED

US, 1993, 104 minutes, Colour.
Bokeem Woodbine, Michael Biehn, Kia Goodwin, Fredro Star, Paul Mc Crane, Samuel E. Wright, Isaiah Washington, Craig Wasson.
Directed by Forrest Whittaker.

Strapped is a New York streets thriller, a black neighbourhood of Brooklyn. It focuses on a young man who has been in jail but who is now concerned about the safety of the baby of his pregnant girlfriend.

She has been arrested for dealing in drugs. One of the ways out of the situation is to do a deal with the police (Michael Biehn) who operates on gun crime in Brooklyn.

The film raises the moral dilemmas and the race dilemmas for young people – and the setting of the 1990s was the setting of the past as of subsequent years. Should the young man be a snitch and collaborate with the police and so endanger his life on the street? Should he make decisions solely for the care of his girlfriend and the baby? In fact, the film takes a rather pessimistic tone and does not really resolve the issues, certainly not in a happy ending style.

Bokeem Woodbine is persuasive in the central role? Michael Biehm (Aliens, The Abyss) is the tough policeman. There is a good supporting cast including Craig Wassen as a gunrunner, a suburban New Yorker selling guns on the street to young people. In fact, with the information given about deaths at the end of the film as well as the proliferation of guns, it is a very strong anti-gun film.

The film was directed by actor Forrest Whittaker (Good Morning Vietnam, Bird, Panic Room, Green Dragon). It is a tough film with the language and the music of the streets. Whittaker, however, was to go on to direct very romantic films: Waiting to Exhale, First Daughter, Hope Floats.

1.The slang of the title? As applied to the various characters, especially those in trouble, especially Diquan?

2.A film of the street, the African American neighbourhoods? The traditions, the poverty, families trying to make good, possibilities for crime, drug-dealing, addiction, prison sentences, lack of rehabilitation after prison, the gun culture, the casual shootings on the streets, the accidents? A grim picture?

3.The film as a story about guns, the gun culture of the United States? The gun culture with the police, with the African American community in the big cities? An anti-gun culture film?

4.The shootings in the film: the opening, the fight between the two young men, one suddenly pulling the gun and killing the other? Diquan and his helping his friend, hiding the gun? The easy availability of guns during the film? The shops and the questions? Ben as the gun dealer? The gangs getting guns? The individuals, the young boy? The shooting in the shop? Bamboo and his anger with the Korean storekeeper, pulling the gun, hearing the noise, shooting the child? The callous and unfeeling attitudes?

5.Diquan, his age, background, not studying, drugs, in prison? At home, his mother and grandmother, his sister? Their dependence on him? Helping his friend after the shooting? His concern about Letitia, her pregnancy? Wanting the best for her? Her arrest? The encounter with the police? With Matthew Mc Crae? The discussions, his anger, wanting the deals? Not trusting the police? His giving the information? Trying to keep out of sight? The information not being enough, the judge and the attorneys and their decisions? The gun-dealing, Bamboo, Ben and his being present, Ben’s antagonism? His giving the information to Mc Crae, the filming of the deals? The arrest – but not enough evidence for conviction? His desperation, the friendship with Bamboo, the visits to Letitia in the prison? Her getting out? The plans for the baby? His plans for moving away, starting a new life? The shooting, his running? The interrogations? His final decision not to give information about Bamboo? Running the risk of death on the streets? Bamboo and his going into the home, the shots, pursuing Diquan? Going to court, admitting to the killing that he didn’t do? Protection in jail? Protection for Letitia?

6.Letitia, pregnant, her selling the drugs, in jail, pregnant? The visits, the bashing in jail, wanting to get out? The plans, going to the bus station – and waiting?

7.Mc Crae, his work in Brooklyn, white background, black partner? The work with gunrunners on the streets? His listening to Diquan as he came in and attacked the desk sergeant? The plan, the deal? His inability to fulfil the deals? Antagonism with Diquan, Diquan’s verbal abuse, his threatening him? The information about the guns, pursuing it? Ringing the attorney and getting the okay for dropping the charges against Letitia? The frustration of his work?

8.Ben, the suburban man, selling the guns, his pride in his guns? Getting the parcels, having the permit? The arrest at home, his confidence with the police? The district attorney saying there were no grounds for continued arrest? His putting the word out against Bamboo? Finally seen continuing his work? His clients, their age, the gangs, the kids?

9.Bamboo, callous, the gun deals, his age, family, friendship with Diquan, the shootings, callous? Running from the police – and being released and on the streets?

10.The various young men in the neighbourhood, the gangs, the guns, the drugs, hanging out? Lack of prospects?

11.Law enforcement, the district attorneys, the judges, the deals, the court cases, the frustrations?

12.The background music, the rap, the lyrics and their comment on what was going on? Authentic atmosphere?

13.A film of the New York streets – always relevant?

GRBAVICA

Bosnia, 2006, 90 minutes, Colour.
Mirjna Karanovic, Luna Mijovic.
Directed by Jasmila Zbanic.

This is not the kind of film that many people have heard of. It is a modest first feature from a woman director in Sarajevo. It runs for just over 90 minutes. Yet now it has a place in film history as winner of the Golden Bear at the 2006 Berlin Film Festival, a surprise win given that there were so many other high-powered films in competition.

The director of the festival, Dieter Kosslick, when speaking about the film at the ceremony for the independent jury awards (before the announcement of its win) was almost in tears. The Ecumenical Jury then announced that it was its award winner.

Grbavica is the suburn of Sarajevo where single mother, Esma, a dressmaker who applies for a waitressing job at a local club, lives with her young teenage daughter, Sara. There are strong bonds between mother and daughter, although mother often loses her patience and Sara can be ungenerously cantankerous.

The film is powerful in its presentation of mother and daughter. Esma is played by veteran Serb actress,
who appeared in Kustirica’s Underground and has been a supporter of peace between Bosnia and Serbia for years. is Sara. There is a lot more to be learnt about the relationship towards the end of the film, some of which is quite shattering for the characters – and for the audience.

What makes Grbavica special is that it takes up the theme of how the wars in the Balkans affected the parent generation, with loss of family, brutality and abuse, loss of years. And it takes up the theme of what the consequences are for the young generation born during and after the conflicts. Sarajevo now looks and sounds like anywhere else. But there are deep wounds and scars. The club setting with its neo-gangsters and violence also reminds us of these consequences.

The film makes a strong appeal to audiences to appreciate that it is not just the experience of war while it is being waged that is traumatic – and that is traumatic enough – but it is the suffering in the aftermath that lingers. Outsiders, glad that hostilities cease, underestimate the long-term damage of war.

The film has an important women’s sensibility with the contributions of the writer-director (who was 30 when the film was made) and the two actresses.

1.Audience response to the history of the Balkans during the 1990s? The war, the atrocities? The women? The aftermath, ten years later? A film of insight, sympathy and empathy? Hope for the future? The healing of memories?

2.The universal appeal, the experience of war and the aftermath, the experience of women, coping, healing, rape and its consequences, survival? The losing of parents, the losing of children? Children and the future?

3.The Sarajevo settings, the title and the suburb of Sarajevo, the working-class suburb, the clubs, the centres, the building sites? Authentic atmosphere?

4.The musical score, the range of songs? The club sequences? The patriotic song for Bosnia at the end? The children singing it in hope for the future?

5.A women’s perspective, the writer-director, the actresses?

6.The opening, the focus on the faces of the women, their grief, silence? The contrast with the club, the music and the noise? Returning to the centre, for the women and their grants? The laughter, the sadness? The woman in charge? The possibilities for some kind of financial support? The final sequences – Esma and her tears?

7.The portrait of Esma? The audience not knowing she had been raped until the end of the film? Her presence at the centre, amongst the women, coping with grief? Dependent on the centre for financial support? Her going to the job interview, her luck, the boss and his hiring her – her later forgetting to put on the bet and his violence towards her? Her friend Sabine and the factory? Her working as a dressmaker at home? At home, single parent, Sarah(?? – Sera?) as a teenager, playing with her? Yet the tension about the trip, the cost, the certificate about her father and his reputation? Tensions at home, the meal, the trout and her buying it at the market for her daughter, the tantrum at the table, cutting the toenails and fingernails, the fish being cold? Awkwardness at home? At work, her friendship with the waitresses, the busty lady dancer? The boss and his visitors? The man giving her the lift, the attraction, the ride, the cup of coffee? The stories – and their both trying to identify parents at the morgue? Their former meeting? The grill and the barbeque, the kiss? The violence and her horror? The boss, the loan, his refusal? His aggressive attitude towards her? Sabine, care and anger? Checking Sarah? The slap? Leaving her daughter alone? The collection of money for the trip? Her anger with her daughter, the final revelation of the truth? Going to see her off on the trip, waving goodbye, the future?

8.The portrait of Sarah, teenager, playing and wrestling with her mother, kicking at school, the fights, the clash with the girls? Her teacher, the discussions, talking about her mother’s cancer? Her lies? Friend at school? The boy, fighting him, going off, talking? On the building site? The gun and the later threatening? The kiss? Love for her mother, the tantrums? Going shopping? Seeing Pedla and her fears, thinking her mother would leave? Her rudeness to Sabine? Shopping, the planning for the trip, her father and his reputation, telling the other girls he was a hero? The truth and its devastating effect? Her coping? Going on the trip? The next generation and the need for healing and memories, the search for origins?

9.Sabine and her work, Esma bringing her the dress at work, her showing it off? The issue of marriage and men? Her babysitting, Sarah’s antagonism? The truth, the collection for the trip?

10.The bosses, the clubs, the gangster’s style, the bets? His treatment of Esma? His treatment of Esma? His bodyguards? The guests, courtesy? The loan and his abuse of Esma for her forgetting the bet, bashing? The rival gangs and the threats to his life?

11.Pedla, his age, the job, historian studying economics, the war? Trying to identify his father’s body? Caring for his mother? His job, the bodyguard, the rivals and the plan to kill the boss? His partner? His taking Esma for rides, talking, the grill, the kiss? The crisis? His sisters?

12.The children, the post-war generation, the girls, at school, friendships? Their fathers and the deaths in their family?

13.The club, the life in the club, the customers, the drinks, the dancers, the women?

14.School, fights in the school grounds, the teacher and the concern? The interviews with Esma?

15.The background of tragedy – and the possibilities for hope?

TWO FOR THE MONEY

US, 2005, 122 minutes, Colour.
Al Pacino, Matthew Mc Conaughy, Rene Russo, Armand Assante, Jeremy Piven, Jaime King.
Directed by D.J. Caruso.

Scripture is often quoted as saying that ‘money is the root of all evil’. That is not quite exact. The actual quotation is that ‘the love of money is the root of all evil’. That is certainly the text for this film. It is a film about gambling, about gambling addiction. This reviewer had to react carefully as gambling is not one of his favourite pastimes.

This is a moral film. By the end it is a moralising film. It has taken us on a journey of self-discovery by Brandon Lang (Matthew Mc Conaughy), a boy who wanted to please his father with his sports talent, who went on to be a champion college footballer (but whose alcoholic father walked out on the family) and who, in one of his greatest scores, suffered a leg injury that stopped him from playing again. In the meantime (which turned out to be six years), he worked as a sales phone operator.

On to the other end of the phone comes Walter Abrams with an offer to good to refuse. Walter is played by Al Pacino, not quite so over the top as in recent years, but a strong performance that mesmerises both Brandon and the audience. Pacino has already had the opportunity to play Satan in the modern business world in The Devil’s Advocate. While this is something of a re-run, it is a creative variation on the theme.

Walter runs a legal, though shady and morally dubious, betting company that gives comprehensive tips for wins but does not handle bets. What it does handle is a percentage on winnings that result from advice given. Obviously it is worth millions (well, not ‘worth’ millions but that is the kind of income the company makes).

Walter is also a gambling addict who has been ‘clean’ for eighteen years. However, his business risk-taking is just another form of addiction. He also confesses that he gets a thrill from the experience of losing – and he finally risks the loss both of his friendship and partnership with Brandon as well as of his wife and daughter. The film is obviously about Walter’s moral journey but this is a highways and byways (and dead ends) kind of journey, much less obvious than Brandon’s succumbing to Walter’s wiles and the get-rich-quick – and now – philosophy of life. Brandon can succeed because he is a whiz at tipping football game winners.

Another quotation, this time from the poet W.B.Yeats, reminds us that in a time of crisis, ‘the centre cannot hold’. Walter so pressurises Brandon that he has no life left for himself. Brandon also discovers that Walter is more manipulative of people’s lives than he had ever suspected. And when he starts to pressurise customers into higher risk-betting, his conscience starts to get to him. This is reinforced when he starts to unravel in his tips and is bashed by a Puerto Rican billionaire (Armand Assante) who relies on his advice and loses.

What will Brandon do? What are the real choices in a hedonistic, materialistic world? To go with the flow or to take a moral stance?

The film capitalises on the contrast between the hyperactive Pacino and the extremely laid-back McConaughey? who tends to rely on his kind of aw-shucks charm and his image as what PR calls ‘ a hunk’ (he is fit and does spend a lot of movie time doing push-ups). Rene Russo (whose husband, Dan Gilroy, wrote the screenplay) appears as Pacino’s wife, a former drug addict for whom every day is a challenge to keep going and not fall back.

In the background are the phone sales staff with their intense patter and pressurising of customers, their victims whom they con and who allow their addictions to con them.

1.Interesting drama? Character portraits? The theme of gambling? The struggle between good and evil? Addiction? Choices?

2.The voice-over, Brandon Lang and his story? The more folksy beginning, Brandon as a boy, his relationship with his father and his achievement? Proving himself to his father? His relationship with his mother? His growing up, his sport success, seeing him playing, his skills, the final run, his injury? In hospital? His inability to play again? His job, the passing of six years, his phone-answering service? His comments on his life and career?

3.The phone call from Walter, the proposal, his decision to go, his wanting to help his brother, his mother? His father having disappeared, alcoholic? His arrival in New York, being welcomed by Walter? Walter as a substitute father figure – dominant father figure?

4.Al Pacino as Walter, his appearance, manner, age? His intense performance? The rhetorical style? Overstated or not? His background, drugs and alcohol, gambling addiction? Off for eighteen years? His attendance at meetings – and his later taking Brandon to the meeting, his behaviour, his speech, his giving out cards to exploit the possible lapses of the gamblers? This symbolic of his intensity, his desire to succeed? His business, advising? Within the law? Yet exploiting addictions? His television program, his manner on-camera, his assistants and their spiels? His explanations of his system to Brandon?

5.Brandon’s decision to go along with the job offer? The interview with Walter, Walter liking him? His sending him to Toni? The manicure – and its actually being the interview? His making a pass, discovering that Toni was Walter’s wife? Walter on the phone organising the elephant for the birthday party? The atmosphere of wheeler-dealing? Brandon and his decision to be part of this? His initial success, the repercussions, success, money?

6.The staff, the various members on the phone, sales? Others working out systems? Jerry and his personal system, his looking down on Brandon? The other members of the group? Introductions, seeing them at work? Walter and his hierarchy, offices, different floors, Brandon staying in the apartment? Gradually being introduced to the wider work? Appearing on TV? His visual transformation, clothes, haircut? His becoming John Anthony? The reason for the name John Anthony? Walter getting him to rehearse spiels, recording them, Walter rejecting them? His finally succeeding? Going on-line, talking to clients?

7.Brandon and his success, it becoming the all-absorbing part of his life? The sample customer, Amir, pressurising him, later sharing his success, later being abused for Amir losing everything and his pressurising him? The only family life with Walter and Toni and their daughter? The meals? The bet that he could not get the girl to go out with him, spending the night with her, going to see her later in his troubles, her telling him the truth that it was all set up by Walter? The effect on Brandon?

8.The decision to go to Puerto Rico? Novian as the millionaire gambler, his assistant? The spiel? Walter and the intensity, keeping quiet and letting Brandon speak more directly? Their getting the contract? The great success? The record number of wins? Brandon’s collapse, Novian ambushing him in the park, the bashing?

9.Brandon, Walter blocking his father’s calls, the talk with his mother? His being disturbed by Walter’s manipulation even though wanting him as a father figure? Walter and his being absolutely persuasive? Brandon on television, not giving the spiel, talking from the heart? Getting clients? His beginning to slip, not wanting to care? Finally tossing a coin? The advice on-air, the risks of the game? His beginning to lose? The scenes of abundance of money compared with the tension as the staff waited for the results? Walter’s anger – yet still trusting and praising Brandon’s gifts?

10.The set-up for Toni and Brandon? Walter saying he was going out of town? Not turning up for the meal, spying on Toni and Brandon, the kiss, his conclusions? The later confrontation of Toni? Her explaining that Brandon had worked out what was happening, his anger, their setting Walter up? Walter’s collapse, his reliance on Toni, the reconciliation?

11.Walter and his philosophy of winning and losing, the buzz coming from losing the chips? How much did this influence him in his addiction, wanting to win in business, the relationship with Toni – and perhaps wanting it to fail?

12.Jerry, cocksure, his system, spurning Brandon, being rejected in the TV studio, being fired?

13.Alexandria, the set-up in the restaurant, Brandon going to see her, her telling him the truth?

14.The profiles of the addicted gamblers, at the meeting, the phone calls? The film’s explaining the nature of the addiction, how it was channelled?

15.Sport, the bets, all during the week? The finale with Brandon leaving the message, Walter finding it? Brandon watching the match at the airport – and the win?

16.Brandon, back home, doing the coaching?

17.This kind of idealism in a capitalistic and hedonistic world? Materialistic? The easy fulfilment of the American dream? An assertion of better values, choices and principles?

SHOOTING DOGS

UK, 2005, 116 minutes, Colour.
John Hurt, Hugh Dancey, Dominique Horwitz, Louis Mahoney, Nicola Walker, Claire- Hope Ashitey.
Directed by Michael Caton- Jones.

An impressive cinema achievement. Also impressive in its portrait of a priest and the Catholic Church.

However, the subject of the film is one of the most shameful episodes in human behaviour in recent times: the genocide in Rwanda, 1994. As the dominant Hutus massacred the Tutsis – 800,000 men, women and children were brutally bashed, hit by machetes or shot from April to July – the United Nations peacekeeping force stood by their mandate of not intervening, to shoot only when shot at and the superpowers discussed the definition and application of ‘genocide’. These events took place at the same time as the wars in the Balkan peninsula where the UN and other nations intervened militarily.

David Belton who co-wrote this story and has produced the film for BBC Films, was in fact a BBC director for Newsnight and was present at the events portrayed in the film. He had also reported from Bosnia and asks the questions about race and racism concerning intervention in the Balkans and non-intervention in Africa. Belton says that this is a film from a western viewpoint for western audiences rather than an inside look at the events and their meaning. This is a major means for those who live far away and do not feel connected with places and tragedies to see and to empathise. This was the principle behind such films as Cry Freedom, City of God and Beyond Rangoon.

Shooting Dogs refers to the experience of dogs outside the school grounds where over two thousand Tutsis took refuge and are being sheltered by the resident priest. It is also the designated base for the UN troops. As the dogs scavenge the many brutalised corpses lying out in the streets, the UN chief says they must be shot for hygiene’s sake and to save lives. The priest ironically asks why they can shoot dogs and not the marauding gangs who are butchering innocent people in full view.

The structure of the film is life a diary, 6 days in April 2004 and confined to the school and its surroundings. The opening scenes take us into the daily routine, ordinary things, sports, classes, Mass. Officials turn up to scrutinise the presence of Tutsis. Lists are compiled. When the president is killed by rocket attack, the guns begin to fire and the rampage begins. The president’s UN security guard are executed. No one is safe.

Then the UN troops retreat to the airport taking the Europeans but leaving the Tutsis. While there are many Tutsi characters to empathise with, the screenplay focuses on an idealistic young volunteer teacher (Hugh Dancy) and the shock he experiences and his moral crises in what he can and cannot do. It then centres on the veteran missionary, Fr Christopher, who has spent thirty years in Rwanda. (David Belton says that the priest on whom he based this character was, in fact, from Bosnia.). Fr Christopher is one of John Hurt’s great performances. It is commonsensed, low-key and committed.

The screenplay introduces several spiritual and theological themes: the place of prayer in African life, surface and deep faith, the power of the Eucharist and the issues of God and evil, the meaning of Jesus’ passion and death. In answer to a young girl’s question about loving one’s enemies, Fr Christopher says that God might not like the things we do, those are our choices, but he still loves all of us. The issue of Jesus’ loving sacrifice gives meaning to Fr Christopher’s choices, for giving his life to save others.

Last year, Hotel Rwanda made a strong impression with its story of the man who gave refuge to Tutsis in Kigali’s prestigious hotel. Still to be released in the UK is the powerful Sometimes in April, a story more from the inside and broader in scope about the genocide than the other two films. They are all worth seeing and are complementary.

Shooting Dogs is a film that Catholics and everyone with a sense of justice should support.

1.The strength of the film? The impact? Films of such atrocities? For what audiences? For what purpose?

2.An English experience of the Rwanda genocide, for a western audience? Complementing the stories told by Africans for Africans and for the world?

3.The experience of David Benton, his memories, the tribute to the people that he knew, the tribute to the priest who was killed? The message for the world after the event? The actors and the crew and their experience of the genocide, relatives who were killed? The film using the same locations for the film as where the action happened?

4.The significance of the school, international, Catholic? The students? The priest in charge? The sisters who worked there? Lay staff? In Kigali itself? The authentic atmosphere for the film?

5.The structure, the diary of six days in April? A microcosm of the subsequent months?

6.The meaning of the title, the experience of the scavenging dogs, the United Nations force wanting to shoot the dogs? Their keeping the peace, following orders? The decisions not to fire on any person but on the dangerous dogs? Father Christopher’s comment that the people were doing more killing and were more dangerous than the dogs?

7.The opening with the peaceful atmosphere, ordinary daily life, the games and the running, Joe and his being chirpy, the commentary? A happy atmosphere? The shops, the staff at the school, Father Christopher and the discussions with the sisters? Father Christopher going shopping? What Kigali could have been like?

8.The police and their rounds, the politicians and their suave manner, making enquiries about the United Nations force, making lists of the Tutsis in the area? Seeing the officials later – and the supervision of the massacre?

9.The explanation of the Hutu-Tutsi? clash? The Tutsis in the minority, having the support of the Belgians in the past, the Belgians using them? The Hutu majority, their reaction, forming government? Seeing the Tutsis and calling them as cockroaches? The politics of government, the peace-keeping force? The airport assassination of the president? The news that the UN bodyguard had been killed? Moving beyond law?

10.The Hutu mobs, being roused, running around, the machetes, the drink? The pressure from peers? At the roadblocks? Their surly attitudes towards vehicles and drivers? The machetes, their beginning to hack people to death, the film showing the merciless killings? The animosity, the presumptions, radio propaganda? Peaceful members of the school staff becoming murderous killers?

11.The presence of Joe in Rwanda, his British background, volunteering, teaching? With the children, fooling around, the commentary on the race, friendship with Marie? Father Christopher saying she had a crush on him? The effect on him? In class, the difficult theological questions about the Eucharist, his not knowing how to talk about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Father Christopher coming to the rescue? Phoning home – and being cut off? His expectations of his time in Rwanda, the gradual realisation of what was happening, the horror of it, the emotional effect? His going out of the compound to Marie’s home to get her and her family? Discussions with Christopher, Christopher giving his advice – that it was beyond any help from the bishop? The witnessing of the atrocities outside the school? His friendship with television crew, his going to get them, bringing them back, being held up at the roadblock, a sense of helplessness? His interactions with the UN forces? His promise to Marie? The growing desperation, the discussions with Father Christopher about the escape plan compared with celebrating mass? His attending the final mass? His decision to leave – his fears? His later comment in England that he was afraid to die?

12.John Hurt as Father Christopher? Thirty years in Rwanda, a committed priest, an ordinary man, his clothes, manner? Gentle? Helping people? Knowing the language? Going shopping, being interrogated by the government official? Relationship with the UN forces in the school? Celebrating the mass, the people singing? Rescuing Joe in the classroom and the questions about the Eucharist? The limits of what could be done with the uprising? His driving to get the medicine? His finally taking the Tutsi children away, concealing them and their escape? Having the Tutsis in the camp? His welcoming the television crew? The final Communion, the discussions with Joe, his talk about sacrifice, his answer to Marie about God not approving all that we do but loving people nonetheless? Saving the children, the confrontation with Julius, his being shot? His explanation of Jesus dying on the cross, self-sacrifice – and his being a Christ figure?

13.The United Nations, their role, following orders, the reality of the situation, in the school, the officer in charge and his moral dilemmas, reactions to situations, his explanations? The personnel? The reaction to the massacre of the UN forces? On guard, watching the Hutus outside, wanting to shoot the scavenging dogs? The TV personnel? The rescue of the whites? The withdrawal to the airport?

14.The television crew, the reporter and her discussions with Joe? Attitudes, the response to the invitation to come, being held up at the roadblock, the danger, the equipment? Filming? Leaving?

15.Marie, the other children at the school, her family, her father and the friendship with Father Christopher? Her crush on Joe? The questions about God loving people? The Tutsis and the refugees in the camp? The difficult birth, Father Christopher and getting the medicine for the woman? Their attempt to escape, the woman hiding with her baby, the baby crying, their being hacked to death? The people who stayed, Marie’s father and his plea for the UN forces to kill them? The children escaping from the truck? The information that 2500 were killed?

16.The Hutus and their behaviour, barbaric, credible given the history, tribalism in Africa? The aftermath?

17.The picture of the American discussions, the United Nations, the definitions of genocide and the arguing about the meaning?

18.Joe back in England, Marie coming to visit him, Father Christopher’s school, the possibility of reflecting on what had happened? The effect on their lives?

19.A genocide of the 1990s, a horror for the world of the 20th century, people’s ability to learn from such experiences that they not happen again?