SEPTEMBER GUN

US, 1983, 92 minutes, Colour.
Robert Preston, Patty Duke, Jeffrey Lewis, Sally Kellerman, David Knell, Jacques Aubuchon, Christopher Lloyd.
Directed by Don Taylor.

September Gun is an entertaining telemovie – with a religious touch!

The film focuses on Patty Duke as a vigorous Sister Dulcina, a Sister of Hope, a missionary in Santa Fe looking after orphaned Apache children. The respectable citizens of Santa Fe want the Apache children out of there. She decides to take them to Columbine, Colorado (with a touch of irony in hindsight because of the shocking high school massacres in 1999 and Michael Moore’s Academy Award-winning documentary on gun culture, Bowling for Columbine). Patty Duke obviously enjoys herself as a feisty nun. She hires a retired gunfighter, Robert Preston, who is travelling with his ingenuous nephew, Jason (David Knell).

Life in Columbine isn’t easy, especially as a boss has taken over the church and is using it as a casino, hotel, brothel. The madam is played with some sympathy and style by Sally Kellerman. Christopher Lloyd is the boss. In the meantime, the alcoholic sheriff, Jeffrey Lewis, is unable to keep law and order.

The expected confrontations happen – and also the goodwill of Sister Dulcina, not judging the prostitutes, enables them to change their way of life and confront the bosses. Whether this kind of thing could actually happen, is up to the audience. However, as on screen, it is a diverting variation on a western theme with a shoot-out and a gun-toting Sister Dulcina.

Direction is by Don Taylor, an actor in many films like Father of the Bride and Father’s Little Dividend, who made the transfer to being a director for many television movies as well as some features including The Final Countdown.

1.An entertaining television movie? Variation on the western theme?

2.The title, the ageing gunfighter? The gun-toting nun? The background of the western gunfighters? Ben Sunday and his references to all the famous gunfighters of the west and his having been associated with them, having souvenirs and using them as models, like the OK Corral?

3.Sister Dulcina, by herself, in the habit, tough, her standing up to people, her physical violence and their cowering from her? Her looking after the Apache children, speaking to them in their own language? Her confrontation with the fathers of Santa Fe? The sheriff? Her sending for Ben Sunday? The priest, his exasperation with her, his putting her under a vow of silence? Her decision to go with the gunfighter, the trip to Columbine? Arrival in Columbine, confrontation of Jack Bryan, the church having been taken over? The antagonism of the town, the people not allowing her to buy goods in the shop? Momma Queen and her helping her, Sister not judging the prostitutes, giving her the prayer book? The encounter with the sheriff, his support? The antagonism with Ben, her pressurising him, challenging him as a coward? Her friendship with Jason? Settling the orphans? Their being taken by Jack Bryan? The decision for a confrontation, Ben Sunday training her in shooting? Their going into town, the confrontation, the High Noon stand with Ben Sunday? The change of heart with the prostitutes? Their helping? The transformation of the town? An amusing portrait of a feisty nun?

4.Robert Preston, veteran film star, appearing in many westerns, the grizzled ex-gunfighter? His stories – whether true or not? His taking Jason along, not wanting to be called Uncle? Promising to train him but not having confidence in him? Refusing to work for a dollar a day? His being called out by Sister Dulcina? Accompanying the group, the journey? The confrontation with Jack Bryan? The attraction to Momma Queen? His helping in the settlement, the abduction of the children and his teaching Sister and Jason how to shoot? His going into town, the High Noon stance with Jack, wounding him? Transforming the town – and his moving on, teaming up with Momma Queen?

5.Jason, the ingenuous young man, his uncle as a role model, his not being able to shoot well? His tagging along? Finding a home with the orphans?

6.The sheriff, alcohol, his story about his wife and children? His pity on himself? His inability to do anything? His friendship with Ben Sunday, Ben rehabilitating him, his falling back on the drink? His helping out – and his good heart?

7.Momma Queen, the stereotype of the saloon girl? Her strong stance, relationship with Jack? The kindness from Sister after she helped her with the shopping? The prayer book, the change of heart, moving the Temperance and other movements? Singing hymns? Taking sides against Jack? The other girls? Her relationship with Ben and a future?

8.Jack, the boss, arrogant, relationship with Momma Queen? His son, gunfighter? The confrontation with Sister, turning her out, pressurising the townspeople? His bluff being called, the High Noon shoot-out, his being wounded? Giving in?

9.The portrait of the west, New Mexico and Santa Fe and its respectability? Columbine as a frontier town? Echoing the transitions to respectability in the 19th century?

10.The humorous portrait of a nun – strong minded, strong willed, yet at the service of orphans and what is right? Her being like Christ and not being judgmental? People flocking to her and supporting her?

SCIENCE OF SLEEP

France, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Gael Garcia Bernal, Charlotte Gainsborg, Alain Chabat, Emma de Caunes, Miou- Miou.
Directed by Michel Gondry.

Plenty of sleep, very little (if any) science! A credit is offered at the end of the film to Rhys Ifans for the title. Director Michel Gondry and Ifans had worked together on the offbeat comedy (which did have a lot of science), Human Nature. They must have been having discussions about dreams and nightmares – and it has led to this fanciful comic essay on human nature.

Gondry had made another film in the United States after Human Nature, the well-received Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, written by a master of unusual screenplays, . Eternal Sunshine delved into the mysteries of memory and suggested (more science) techniques of eliminating unwanted memories and starting life afresh.

Now Gondry, writing his own screenplay, is pondering the world of dreams compared with the world of daylight reality – and what is more real. But, he does it in a comic style, visualising dreams in a non-sequitur colourful world, using animation for dream characters and events, to tantalise the audience into wondering about the interplay between waking and sleeping states.

Not all of it works – or it will depend on audience willingness to suspend disbelief and on personal tastes in comedy and visual flair. Some will find their funnybones continually tickled and their imaginations sparked. Others will find the feyness of some of the episodes too irrational and the comedy too hit and miss. Most will be somewhere along the continuum between love and hate.

Gael Garcia Bernal has been consolidating his international career after his substantial beginnings in his native Mexico. From Amores Perros, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Fr Amaro to Mal Educacion and Motorcycle Diaries. Bernal can be a bit fey at times and this suits the role of an illustrator (who has a portfolio for a calendar with memories of a disaster for the month) who slips into dreams and out of them with confusing (to him and to us) regularity. His colleagues at the publishing company are very tolerant, although they are a strange lot. His French mother (Miou- Miou) is much more down to earth and not a great deal of help. And he becomes infatuated with the girl next door (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who may or may not like him in dreams or in reality.

Like the experiences of the hero, The Science of Sleep is something of a hit and miss experience.

1.A playful entertainment? Dreams and fantasy/reality? Comic and romantic?

2.The films, writing and directing, of Michele Gondri? An offbeat imagination?

3.The Paris settings, the city of Paris, Paris life? Ordinary, workplace, office? The use of English, French and Spanish? The international cast?

4.Stephane’s imagination, the opening with his television show, his suit, the music, the announcements, his talking to the camera, the scream? (** screen? – not clear) Inviting the audience to go into his dreams? His dream world, the landscapes, the puppets, the inventions? His flying and swimming? Stephanie’s world coming into his dreams? The whole creation of the dreamland, especially at the end?

5.The title, sleep? The play on the word ‘science’, science and knowledge, science and consciousness?

6.Stephane and the difficulty of seeing him as his sleeping character and his waking character? Stephane awake, his arrival in Paris, the encounter with the concierge, the welcome, his room? His mother getting him the job, Guy and company at work, the boss, his drawings – and the calendar of disasters? His mother too busy to see him? Her relationship with Gerard? The later meal with them, his critical attitude towards Gerard? His mother’s comment about Stephane and his dreams and reality? The encounter with the girls, Stephanie and Zoe as neighbours? The audience seeing them in real life, in Stephane’s dreams? The staff reappearing in his dreams? His going to sleep, his room? The difficulty in telling the difference between the two worlds? His working on his inventions? His talk, falling in love with Stephanie, the discussions with Zoe? The difficulties at work? His decision to leave? His love for Stephanie and the happy ending?

7.The character of Stephanie, in real life, the pretence with Zoe, their actual work, precarious? Stephanie in Stephane’s dreams? Her encounters with the real Stephane? With the dream Stephane? The behaviour, the talk, the comic touches? Stephane being more forward in his dreams?

8.The effect on him, the passing of time, the difficulty between saying and doing?

9.Stephanie and Zoe, their apartment, the collapse? Their personalities? The work, going out, dancing, interacting? Stephanie being hurt?

10.The glimpse of Stephane’s mother, Gerard? His work, the discussions, her attitude towards her son?

11.The sketches of the staff, the boss and his decision-making, practical? Guy and his being in control? The two co-workers – issues of sexuality, gay, work?

12.An Alice in Wonderland world? A world of fantasy? Logic – and the lack of logic? What was true, what was false? What was on the surface, what was deeper and real? Audiences willing to go along with this playfulness?

THE DEVIL AND MISS JONES

US, 1941, 92 minutes, Black and white.
Jean Arthur, Robert Cummings, Charles Coburn, Edmund Gwynn, Spring Byington, S.Z. Sakall, William Demarest, Florence Bates.
Directed by Sam Wood.

The Devil and Miss Jones is a pleasant social comedy. It was written by Norman Krasna, writer of many light comedies with social point over the decades including Mr and Mrs Smith, It Started With Eve, Dear Ruth, Dear Wife, White Christmas and Indiscreet. It was directed by Sam Wood, veteran director who made a wide range of films from the Marx Bros’ A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races to such serious films as Our Town, King’s Row, For Whom the Bell Tolls.

The film is about unions and stores in New York City in the early 40s. Charles Coburn plays a tycoon who is angry at the unionisation of his stores and goes undercover to find out who the ringleaders are. Of course, he learns about real life as well as being charmed by the young union leaders. They are played by Jean Arthur and Robert Cummings. There is a pleasant supporting cast with Edmund Gwenn and Spring Byington as an older woman with whom the tycoon falls in love.

Jean Arthur appeared in a number of films like this including Capra’s Mr Deeds Goes to Town and Mr Smith Goes to Washington and You Can’t Take It With You. She was to team with Charles Coburn in George Stevens’ The More the Merrier in 1943 – for which Charles Coburn won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

1.The title, the credits?

2.The atmosphere of 1941, pre-World War Two involvement by the United States, business? Ordinary life? Social concern? The unions? The stars, the studio, its style, the musical score?

3.J.P. Merrick and his age, experience? The ruthless tycoon? His appearance and manner? The board meetings, his scaring them? The tyrant? His concern about money? His antagonism towards the unions? Wanting spies, trying to hire a private detective? Firing people? The challenge, his decision to go into the stores undercover?

4.Mary Jones, a good young woman, pleasant, at work? Joe O’ Brien as the leader of the group wanting the union? Elizabeth Ellis and her friendship with Mary? Work in the shop? The life in the store, the protest – and the hanging of the effigy of the tycoon?

5.J.P. and his application to get the job, the difficulties, Hooper and his continual nastiness towards J.P? J.P. trying to sell, the butler helping him? Mary and her kindness? The clashes with Hooper? His failure at sales, the returns?

6.J.P. and the change of character, the encounters with Elizabeth, lunch, his being seen as poor, his beginning to enjoy himself, the friendship with Joe, the attraction towards Mary? Learning from them? The importance of the outing, the beach? His being lost, the police and their treatment? His getting home?

7.The protests, Mary and Joe? Their love for each other, the clash, making up?

8.The shock of the truth? The board meeting and control? The revelation? Hooper and his comeuppance?

9.The happy ending, Mary and Joe together, the union, the humanising of the devil in J.P., the humiliation of Hooper, love for Elizabeth? A happy ending just prior to America in World War Two?

A DATE WITH DARKNESS: THE TRIAL AND CAPTURE OF ANDREW LUSTER

US, 2003, 90 minutes, Colour.
Jason Gedrick, Mala Sokoloff, Lisa Edelstein, Sarah Carter, Stefanie von Pfetten, Tom Butler.
Directed by Bobby Roth.

A Date With Darkness is based on the true story of Andrew Luster, the heir to the Max Factor fortune. During the year 2000, he abducted, drugged and raped several women. Three came forward to complain and he was investigated. When brought to trial, he was charged with eighty-six counts of rape, poisoning and drug possession.

The film uses a lot of the testimony in the court. It was in production when Andrew Luster, having broken bail and fled to Mexico, was captured again in Mexico. The ending was rewritten to incorporate his capture. He was sentenced to one hundred and twenty-four years in prison.

Jason Gedrick portrays Andrew Luster – though he is often in the background, especially during the court case. The film focuses on the three young women who came forward as well as the prosecutor and the defence.

The film offers information rather than exploration of motives. It seems that Andrew Luster was a pampered young man, heir to a fortune, depraved in character, doing what he liked and a sexual predator. In that sense, the film serves as a warning for young women to be careful, about this kind of man, about advances and the possibility of drug rape.

1.The film based on actual characters and incidents? The film as a warning?

2.The Californian settings, the beach, affluence? The courtroom?

3.The title, the focus on Andrew Luster as a sinister predator?

4.The delineation of Andrew Luster’s character, age, experience, wealth, vanity? His approaching the girls, innocently offering them a glass of water, drugging them? He and his friend taking them to the house, the behaviour of the women while drugged, the rapes? His letting them go? The fact that one of them lived with him for some years? his videoing his sexual experiences? His commentary? His phone call with Terri, his admitting the truth? The arrest, his lies? The interrogations, his bravado? His lawyer? Quiet in the court? Seeing him in the videos that he made? His relationship with his mother, her support? His flight to Mexico, his capture? His sentence?

5.The presentation of the girls, their being attracted by him, the offer, taking them home, uninhibited behaviour, their not refusing, their being frightened? Discovering the truth afterwards? The phone calls, the police and interrogations? The young women, their coming forward, the mother of the twins, her relationship with her husband, telling the truth, her shock at seeing the video? The miscarriage? Her antagonism towards Luster and her testimony in court, care because she was pregnant again?

6.The testimony in court, the defence and his vigorous attacking of the women under cross-examination, his later apology?

7.The ordeal of the women? The effect on their lives? Their final speeches in court explaining how this had affected them?

8.How well delineated the women, ordinary women, the risks they took, their being exploited?

9.Was this film a valuable contribution? The exploitation of situations? The American style of moralising through telemovies as well as keeping up with headline cases?

THE HILLS HAVE EYES

US, 2006, 107 minutes, Colour.
Aaron Stanford, Kathleen Quinlan, Vinessa Shaw, Emilie de Ravin, Dan Byrd, Robert Joy, Ted Levine, Tom Bower.
Directed by Alexandre Aja.

A remake of one of Wes Craven’s earliest horror films and something of a classic these days. Craven has co-produced this remake and chosen a French director, Alexandre Aja (Haute Coupure/Switchblade Romance) who has co-written the screenplay.

This one is much better than the similar Texas Massacre derivatives where interchangeable afternoon soap-opera look-alikes spend a lot of time bickering and are picked of in grisly fashion one after the other. This is more the thinking-audiences terror gorefest!

There are several reasons for this. The characters are far better drawn than usual. They are a family celebrating the parents’ silver anniversary, driving cross-country. They do bicker but they seem much more real and we get to know them better. When the nightmare starts, they elicit some sympathy. The other quality is the bigger-budget vivid photography of New Mexico locations – they are, in fact, in Morocco! The makers are obviously fascinated by their desert and mountainscapes. Then it all turns murderously sinister which may be too much for many audiences - all well staged and edited for maximum effect.

During the credits there is a long collage of reportage about the nuclear tests in New Mexico from 1947 to the 1970s. Later dialogue reinforces this with accusations by the mutants living in an abandoned test town: that mainstream America and authorities have made these monsters what they are. This means that there is an invitation to interpret all this allegorically: what authorities and the military do to its own citizens and the consequences. The film gets our adrenalin pumping as the survivors of the family defend themselves aggressively and gruesomely. While the ending is upbeat and seems to glorify self-defence for family values, there is one final image which puts a more cynical perspective on the proceedings, remaining critical of government and agencies.

1.The status of the original as a classic? Of horror? Of terror? A film of the 70s? The value of a remake? The new perspective of the remake? Its quality and potential classic status?

2.The work of Wes Craven, writer-director? Nightmares, horror and terror? Grisly films? Catharsis from the experience of horror?

3.The French perspective of the writer-director? Reinterpreting an American genre?

4.The New Mexico settings, the use of Morocco locations? The film as lovingly photographed, the vividness of the landscapes, the desert, the hills? The musical score, atmospheric?

5.The credits sequence: the collage of information about the nuclear tests in New Mexico, the headlines, the visuals of the bombs exploding, people’s reactions? The closing down of the tests, the abandoning of the towns? The miners remaining? The headlines?

6.The mutants: their presence in the desert, the miners of the past, their being warned to get out, their refusal, hiding down the mines, affected by the contamination? The inbreeding? The tendency to violence? Cannibalism? Their vengeance on the government, on outsiders? Their comment that everybody was to blame for the condition that they were in?

7.The atmosphere of horror, the use of horror conventions? The group isolated and being the prey of an alien group? How well did the film use the conventions? The terror, audiences identifying with the ordinary family, imagining themselves in similar situations? The special effects, the use of gore? Violent and bloodthirsty sequences?

8.The situation: the ordinary American family, the silver anniversary, travelling through the desert, Big Bob and his demands, his expectations, impatience? His relationship with his wife, memories of them in the 60s, the memories of their marriage? Ethel and her devotion, memories of the past, her being very prim, religious and the saying of Grace, the prayer before the difficulties in the desert? Her good manners, her reaction to her children? Her love for her husband? The sadness of her murder? Bobby and his age, the clashes with Brenda? In the back of the car, sparring with each other? Their age, not wanting to be on the trip? Lynne and Doug? Their marriage, travelling together, the baby? Big Bob and his continual criticisms of Doug, Lynne defending him? The bickering? The better delineation of characters for this kind of situation?

9.Stopping at the service station, filling up with petrol? The sinister man at the station? The audience knowing about him before they arrived? Filling up, giving them the advice about the short cut? Audience seeing him with the jewellery, the background of the mines and his going down? In contact with the mutants? Big Bob’s return, finding the jewellery, the encounter, the attack? The man shooting himself? Bob being taken, burnt alive and the family’s reaction?

10.The breakdown, handling the situation, Bob walking back to the service station? Doug walking ahead, finding the village? The abandoned cars, taking the toys for his baby? The return, waiting the night, the attack on Brenda, warding off the intruder? The return, the violence, Ethel’s death? The pathos of her dying, the comfort given her, her remembering her marriage? Lynne and her protecting the baby? The attack, the surprise of her death? Putting the bodies in the van? The three survivors having to cope throughout the night?

11.The morning, the young couple, their staying together, the wire to sound for alarm, the tumbleweed on the wire? Bobby and his being out the night before, searching for the dog, the death of the dog, his collapse? Holding the fort while Doug went to the town?

12.Doug, getting his courage, determined to prove himself? Glasses, considered a nerd? His going to the town, the gun? His encountering the little girl, her having the coat? News of the baby? His sense of being followed? Finding the man in the chair, paralysed – and the irony that he was in central control and command? Lizard and his sinister presence, his being warded off? His pursuing Doug? His encounter with the little girl, and the baby? The violent encounters between Doug and Lizard, the brutality? Doug’s wits, survival? The little girl and the baby, his getting the baby, the pursuit by Lizard, the fight on the top of the cliff, the girl saving him, falling over the cliff with Lizard?

13.The return, the survival, the emphasis on the family getting together, family values? A seeming sentimental ending – with the mutant looking through the binoculars?

14.The social comment on the film, American politics in the past, the present? The Americans victimised by government and secrecy? The government really responsible for the violence in the consequent mutants?

DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST

US, 2005, 117 minutes, Colour.
Stellan Skarsgaard, Gabriel Mann, Clara Bellar, Billy Crawford, Ralph Brown, Julian Wadham.
Directed by Paul Schrader.

Out on DVD, this is the first version of the prequel to The Exorcist. Towards the end of 2004, Exorcist: The Beginning, directed by Renny Harlin, was released. The producers had been unhappy with Paul Schrader’s film, not finding it box-office horror enough for the multiplexes, so they shelved it and spent more money on a script rewrite (almost all of it), a new director and reassembling most of the cast and adding new characters and more sensationalised effects.

Fortunately, for true Exorcist devotees, Schrader’s film is available, also with his commentary. (Unfortunately, the commentary is mainly about how he made the film rather than on the issues, which Schrader is personally interested in.)

The producers were quite right. This is barely a horror film. Rather, it is quite an intelligent drama about good and evil, about sin and personal conscience, about the demonic presence of evil in the world and its confrontation. A prologue shows Fr Merrin in Holland during the war, forced to select villagers as hostages to be executed by the occupying Nazis (which was also in The Beginning). The rational and religious explanations (with respectful and useful church and political background) of Fr Merrin’s being on sites in east Africa make sense. The part of Fr Francis is stronger in this film. He is played by Gabriel Mann who was not available for the re-make. Other priests and the archaeologist, Sarah, who becomes possessed in the other film are missing from this one.

Rather, the film develops quite logically: the unearthing of a church in Kenya (without the pseudo-historical background of the other film), the releasing of evil, an outcast cripple, cared for by Fr Merrin and a doctor, Rachel, a refugee from Poland, who gets healthier as the evil pervades, the British major who is uptight about empire, the sergeant major who is a racist bigot, and the locals who become more antagonistic to the British.

It is the cripple who is possessed. Attempts by Fr Francis to baptise him lead to his satanic manifestations (very restrained physically and in language from the originals) which challenge Fr Merrin’s guilt about Holland (allowing him a fantasy of what he might have done and what the results would be). The ritual is more ‘normal’ and the experience quite clearly enables Fr Merrin to complete a journey from disillusionment back to faith and to become the future Exorcist.

Stellan Skarsgaard is Fr Merrin (as he was in The Beginning) and he and his behaviour are far more credible in this version. In fact, this is a very interesting and credible exorcism film.

1.The history of this film? Paul Schrader making the film, the executives not being satisfied, not sufficient horror? The film scrapped, shelved and remade? The comparisons between the two versions?

2.The tradition of the original Exorcist: Father Merrin, his work as an exorcist, his background? (Exorcist II and his work in Africa.) The traditions of exorcism films established: the special effects, the sinister atmosphere, the language, the violence? This film not following exactly in this tradition? Transcending it?

3.The locations: East Africa, Kenya, the desert? The archaeological site? Nairobi? The village? The episodes in Holland and the winter? The interiors: the makeshift accommodation on the archaeological site and in the village? The exteriors and interiors of the church, the artwork, the statuary?

4.Special effects, computer graphics to recreate the archaeological site, the church? The experience of the exorcism? The musical score?

5.The linear presentation of the story, the attention to plausible details, Father Francis as a Maryknoll priest? The relationship with the Vatican? The British troops in East Africa? The refugees from the war and their work in Africa? The picture of the Catholic church? Authentic and straightforward?

6.The background of satanic possession, the presence of Satan on Earth, in a shrine like this church? The irony that this church was built to bury the presence of evil? The religious rituals, the quoting of the texts and the prayers? Holy water? Vestments? The ritual of exorcism and its repercussions?

7.Father Merrin, the prologue in Holland, the Nazi presence, the killing of the officer, the hostages in the centre of the town, the choice by Father Merrin of the hostages, his refusal? The brutality of the officer, killing the hostage? Father Merrin and his having to choose? The consequences for him, loss of faith, leaving the priesthood, going to Africa, his archaeological work? The Satan giving him the opportunity for an alternate course of action? His imagining it – his stronger attitude, yet the same massacre? A journey of faith, his experience of faith, scepticism? The encounter with Cheche, the healing, the possession? His decision to confront Satan, the ritual of the exorcism and its effect on him? The aftermath, his resuming his priestly vestments? His decision to go to Rome and continue his work? The preparation for the later Exorcist films?

8.The character of Father Merrin, his age and experience, his work on the site? Relationship with Father Francis? The friendship with Rachel and listening to her story? His care for Cheche and its having a healing effect? With Chuma and the translations? With the locals, the chief? His relationship with the British, going to Nairobi, Major Granville and the giving of permission? The troops present, his reaction to the troops? Major Granville and his shooting of the boy, Father Merrin confronting him? The troops and their helping in the crisis?

9.Father Francis, young, his training, Maryknoll missionaries? His work in Africa? Information, link with the Vatican, supervising Father Merrin? His personality, pleasant? His wanting to set up the school, the owner of the shop giving him the site, the two boys, the lessons, the boys coming later – but his discovering that they were afraid of Jesus and the harm that he could do? His concern about Cheche, Cheche revealing his past, the religious transformation, his wanting to baptise Cheche? The preparations, his getting the ritual? Discovering the possession? The effect on him, the violence, his death? Father Merrin at the end at his grave?

10.Rachel, her Polish background, her story of the war, her lies about herself and her giving in to save herself in the camps? Her work, skills? The doctor coming from outside and doing the operation on Cheche? Rachel and her care for him? The baptism, going into the church, her being trapped, released? Her becoming suicidal – but saved by Merrin and the exorcism?

11.Major Granville, the British presence in East Africa, the colonial attitudes, the racist attitudes of the men? His being liked by the men, his support of Father Merrin? The effect of the evil being let loose, its affecting him, the two soldiers and their robbery, their deaths, upside-down crucifixion and the beheading like John the Baptist? His anger, demands, shooting the hostage? His going mad, shooting himself after giving a message for Merrin? The sergeant-major, his attitudes? Racist? His keeping the peace, doing his duty? His final support of Merrin?

12.The local tribespeople, the chief? The local religion? The pregnancy of the wife, the difficult birth, the dead child? The reaction of the locals, turning against Father Francis, turning against the British? Major Granville and his humiliating attitude towards the chief? The rumblings and preparation for war?

13.The two soldiers, going into the church, robbing the jewels? Their deaths?

14.The presence of evil, its being let loose, the people going into the church, the statuary, St Michael, the discovery of the truth? The effect of evil as it permeated, the contrast with Cheche the outcast, the hospital, his healing? His transformation in language, wanting to be baptised, mouthing the Devil’s comments? Going into the church, his transformation – perfection? The confrontation with Merrin? The final word after the final credits: perfection?

15.Paul Schrader’s interest in religious themes? His career? His intentions of doing something different with the exorcism genre? His respect for religion? Themes of God, good and evil, Satan and the Devil, guilt, repentance, loss of faith, recovery of faith?

CONNIE AND CARLA

US, 2004, 98 minutes, Colour.
Nia Vardalos, Toni Collette, David Duchovny, Stephen Spinella, Dash Mihok, Robert John Burke, Debbie Reynolds.
Directed by Michael Lembeck.

If ever anyone proved herself a talent to be watched it was Nia Vardalos in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Not only did she star in the film and create a vividly memorable character, she wrote the screenplay and won an Oscar nomination. The film is one of the highest non-studio box-office winners.

She had another story, another screenplay - and here it is. If it reminds you of Some Like it Hot, of course it does. Two musicians (here, moderately successful lounge singers of show tunes who love what they do) witness a murder and have to hide out. Where else but in a girls…, well, not exactly band and not exactly girls - in an LA drag queens’ club. They are a rip-roaring success because the men assume they are men dressed as women whereas they are women pretending to be men dressed as women.

There are lots of show tunes, quite lavishly done in a high camp fashion, and an affectionately satiric picture of this gay world. It is, in the vein of Priscilla, To Wong Foo, Strange Bedfellows, a comedy plea for understanding before condemnation. By having a very straight man (David Duchovny) become attracted to Connie is bewildering to him and serves as a lesson for the wary straight audience.

But it’s the girls who provide the good fun. Nia Vardalos is Connie, big hair, big voice, big ambitions. Carla is Toni Collette in yet another different role in her versatile career. The two do their own singing, impressively so. (And draw on Barbra Streisand in Yentl at the end to explain what has happened!)

It’s all very silly, of course, but that does not matter much because it is a frothy musical comedy that advocates heart and understanding.

1.Entertainingly artificial? The theatricality? The film as a review?

2.The influences of different films: Some Like it Hot, Victor Victoria, Yentl, Sister Act? The film’s variation on these themes?

3.The importance of the songs, the staging, the costumes, the choreography? Connie and Carla and their singing styles? The original act? The transition to Los Angeles? The drag show? Debbie Reynolds and her coaching? The musicians?

4.Nia Vardalos and her writing of the script, her starring, her verve? Singing? Toni Collette and her versatility, performance, singing, drag?

5.Connie and Carla as children, singing Obla De Obla Da and other songs? Their friendship from childhood? The transition to the airports, their singing, songs, performance, changing of costumes? Their loving to sing? The relationship with Al and Mikey? Frankie as the boss? The borrowing of the money – and his death? The bag, their witnessing the crime? Fears, the hysterical touch, decisions of what to do?

6.Connie and Carla and the relationship with Al and Mikey, the possibility of a romance? Al and Mikey at work, discussions of their relationship? The irony of the crime, Rudy, the pursuit? Their decision to go to Los Angeles?

7.The decision, the car, the comments on Los Angeles, no culture? The streets of LA? The oddball types? The apartments? Going out, the men kissing, the drag club? Connie and her getting the idea?

8.The club, men and their masculinity, drag? Gay sensibilities? The customers? The range of types? The four dancers and singers, especially Robert? The comments about their inner selves? The meeting with Jeff, his being straight, a counterpoint to the other men, to Robert? The explanations? The comment about freaks? Connie and Carla getting used to the club? Letting people be?

9.The auditions, Stanley, the response? Their singing, popular, the customers’ response? The idea of adding dining? The building, the opening?

10.The personalities of Connie and Carla, in Los Angeles, their friendship, the tensions? Their depending on each other? The practicalities of concealing the fact that they were women? The apartment? On stage, their love of singing, the songs, the range, the zest? The other world? The transformation into drag queens, voice, walk etc? Connie meeting Jeff, the relationship with Al? Their talking, the bond between the two, the kiss and the embarrassment? Hanging out together? Carla and her fears, reactions? The fight with Connie, feeling stood up? The reconciliation, the final plan?

11.The group, their friendship with Connie and Carla, their becoming part of the act? Their characters? As men, as drag queens? Robert and his story? The alienation from family? The alienation from Jeff? The attempts to see him? Arriving at the restaurant, the embarrassment? Dancing?

12.The background of the thugs, their dealings, trying to keep track of Connie and Carla, losing them, Rudy and the pursuit? Bringing in Boris, his search, going to all the homes for the elderly, his singing Mame along with them all? His enjoyment of the Broadway hits?

13.The screenplay, the wit, the camp humour, the references for the movie buffs?

14.The build-up to the climax, the revelations, the violence and the shootings?

15.The reactions? Debbie Reynolds and her advice, her enjoying being in the show? The build-up to the finale – and the fulfilment of dreams?

THE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

Germany, 2006, 103 minutes, Colour.
Moritz Bleibtreu, Christian Ulmen, Martina Gedeck, Franka Potente.
Directed by Oskar Roehler.

Writer-director, Oskar Roehler, has adapted a well-known European novel by French writer, Michel Houellebecq). Dramatic, philosophical, controversial in its portrayal of intimate behaviour, the novel is one of those that commentators say defies adaptation for the screen. Many forget that a film is only a version and interpretation of a novel and demand that the film replicate the novel. This is not possible and the film must be judged accordingly.

The Elementary Particles is an impressive film, wide in its philosophical, psychological and social scope. It is very well acted and won for its star, Moritz Bleibtreu (Run, Lola, Run, The Experiment, Munich) the actor award at the 2006 Berlin Film Festival.

He and Christian Ulman portray two half-brothers who grew up not knowing that the other existed. Their mother was a free spirit who wafted off to India, blowing into their lives only now and again. Michael (Ulmen) is a mathematician, examining the particles of life and attempting formulae that will clone individuals – and eliminate the need for sex, something that plays very little part in his private life. On the other hand, Bruno (Bleibtreu) is sex-obsessed. He is unhappily married though a father. He makes advances on his literature students, visits brothels and finally goes to a holiday camp which could be politely described as permissive.

Each man has an important encounter with a woman, Bruno with a divorcee who could become the love of his life and transform him, Michael with the woman who, as a girl, was in love with him. Their lives and their tragedies run in parallel. They come together as their mother is dying and later because of further deaths.

In one sense, the film is quite pessimistic (though there is a verbal postscript describing what happened to the two men in future decades), though there is an attempt at a romantic touch at the end.

The characters are always interesting even when profoundly irritating or annoying offering the audience jolts by their behaviour, challenges by their faith and lack of faith, and hope that there are possibilities for some redemption.

1.The classic and famous novel? The acclaim, the difficulties in adaptation? A version of the novel?

2.The style of the film: narrative, the parallels between the two central characters, their quests? Sexual issues? The meaning of life? Women who were ill? The use of flashbacks? The musical score? Songs and lyrics?

3.The quotation from Einstein, the meaning of life, finding one’s way in life, the elements, the particles? Truth and its parts?

4.The intertwining of the stories, the two sons, the mother abandoning them, each looked after by a grandmother, the deaths of the grandmothers? Their memories? Their meeting as teenagers? Their experiences, adolescent sex – or not? Their respective careers? Their mother’s presence and absence, her dying and their being there, the different reactions? The parallel with the move to Ireland and the move to the clinic? Meeting the women, the possibility of life and love? Life and madness – madness a kind of life? The epilogue – and the information from the future about the lives of each of them?

5.The portrait of Michael, the academic, the opening with his writing the letter, his resignation, his expertise in maths, the application of theories and theorems to reproduction, the elimination of the sexual experience? Cloning? The photos, not kissing? His discussions with his mentors? The decision to go to Ireland, the reasons for his leaving in the first place? His wanting to verify his theories? The fact that they had been proven? His speech to the staff? The possibility of a career? A man involved in science, evidence, proofs, theories, reason?

6.The background of enlightenment theory, surrendering all to reason?

7.The contrast with Bruno, his background, teaching the literature class, the poetry of Baudelaire, the girl’s essay? The graphic masturbation? His making advances to the student, his desperation, her reaction? The strong sexual drive, his lack of control? At home, his wife? The baby, feeding it the tablets? His own articles, the deep colonialism, racism and fascism? People calling him reactionary and Nazi? His undertaking therapy? The interviews with the psychologist? Recalling his childhood, his grandmother and her scalding herself? His mother’s visits, looking at her bedroom, sex? His going to meet Michael? The adolescent friendship, the friendship with Annabel? Visiting Michael? The decision to go to the holiday, the camp? The people at the camp? His wanting sexual encounters – and his actually living out the pattern of his mother’s hippie style? The New Age courses at the camp, massage? His chatting up people? The girl from Brazil? His meeting Kristiana, the hot tub? Her promiscuity, their being together, forming a bond? The return, going to the club, her underwear and style, the visits to the club and the orgy? Her life, her illness, his going to the hospital, unable to stay? The phone calls? His hurrying and her death?

8.Kristiana, her husband, the separation, the five years? The discussions with Katya, about emasculation, about feminism? Kristiana being sick of it. The encounter with Bruno, the tub? At home, the lingerie, the clubs, her hurting her back, hospitalisation, alone and desperate, the return to her apartment, waiting for the phone call, her decision to kill herself? Her visit to her father? Her suicide?

9.Michael and his grandmother’s grave, the Stevens family? Meeting Annabel again? The photo, the swimming, the flashback to this scene? The importance of his memories? The discussions, the card and the letters to Annabel, her letters to him, his not replying? The friendship? The discussions about sex, the encounter? His decision to go to Ireland?

10.Annabel, as young, the love for Michael, friendship with Bruno? Her reappearance, her memories? Working as a librarian? Her partners? Her relationship with the dancer, the abortion? Her loneliness, meeting Michael again, the joy, listening to him, encouraging him, the sexual encounter? The decision to have an abortion, going to the doctor, her illness? Michael returning, her revival? Their visiting Bruno? Her looking at her parents, the film showing them at home, working together, mending the roof, putting the washing on the line – and her admiration for their long fidelity?

11.Bruno at the clinic, the kindness of the nurses, the psychiatrist and listening to him? The frankness of his talks? His imagination, seeing Kristiana again? Wanting her to forgive him?

12.The outing, Annabel and Michael, the beach, taking Bruno in the car, his imagining Kristiana present, sitting in the sun? Michael going to Ireland? Annabel going with him? The finale at the beach, content?

13.The philosophical themes through character, through the narrative? About life, age and illness, death? Accidents? Ordinary life, changing, the possibility of maturity or not? Issues of sexuality? Family, marriage, break-up? The role modelling by parents, the lack of guidance? Repression, adolescence, promiscuity? Singles bars, clubs, orgiastic behaviour? Love and fidelity? Science and reason?

BANGKOK DANGEROUS

Thailand, 1999, 105 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Oxide Pang Chun and Danny Pang.

Bangkok Dangerous is the first film by the celebrated twins Oxide and Danny Pang. They went on to make the very successful thriller The Eye.

The setting is Thailand, the seedy side of the underworld as well as its intrusion, Mafia-like, on business interests at large in the country. The film focuses on two hit men, one deaf, who are very successful at their work. However, it is beginning to affect one of them and he is betrayed by fellow gangsters.

After a visit to Hong Kong for an assignment, the deaf hit man returns and is disillusioned, wanting revenge on the death of his friend. However, his attitude is somewhat modified as he falls in love with a very sympathetic young woman at pharmacy. However, there is no way out, and he is pursued by the gangs, the police – until a final shoot-out.

What makes this film different from many similar films from Asia is the poetic style in which it has been filmed. The Pang brothers are masters of the camera, the variety of shots, the variety of cinematic styles they can use for confrontations, chases. An advertisement says that with this film John Woo, the action director from Hong Kong, meets Wong Ka Wai the romantic and dramatic director from Hong Kong. This actually is a fairly insightful comment on the style and content of the Pang brothers’ film. It was the winner of the FIPRESCI Prize in Toronto – with praise for its poetry of cinema and violence.

1.The Thai cinema? Content? Gangster films? The poetic cinema style?

2.Asian topics, gangster films, hit men, assassins? Self-realisation – the possibilities of redemption? Love?

3.The vivid Bangkok settings, the sleazy areas of the city? The apartment of the hit men? The contrast with the wealthy atmosphere, the wealthy targets? The hotels? The rooftops? The visit to Hong Kong – and the touristic look at the different aspects of that city? The musical score?

4.The cinematic style, shots, pace, editing? A poetry of violence?

5.The focus on Joe and Kong? Their work as assassins? Their careers, reliance on each other, support? Kong and his being deaf? Its not interfering with his work? Showing their work and the various targets, especially the shot of the executive from the rooftops? The touch with the little girl and her pretending to shoot from the opposite rooftop, Kong seeing this and it registering in his memory? His shooting nonetheless?

6.Joe and his disillusionment, their discussions together? The context for the flashbacks? The boys as children? Kong and his being deaf, his being persecuted by the other boys, the throwing stones? His reaction, vengeance? His career? A sociopath unaffected by what he did? His moving amongst the gangster bosses, getting his orders, getting the money, the envelopes? Meeting the dancers at the strip clubs? His future?

7.The job in Hong Kong, the look at the city, the task, his accomplishing his mission?

8.His meeting with the young girl, attracted to her, going out? Her sympathy, taking account of his deafness? Attracted to him? Bringing him home? Her mother? The possibility of love and redemption?

9.Kong, his disillusionment, the final vengeance, the contacts? The police? His going to the water factory, the hit men trying to kill him? The balletic style of the confrontation? His eliminating the opposition, getting the boss, holding him to ransom? The confrontation with the police? The girl coming to see him, his memories and happiness? His decision to kill himself? The bullet killing himself and his hostage?

10.The emotional impact of this kind of story of assassins? Entry into this amoral world? Issues of conscience? Assassins, violence? The film’s depiction of violence – exploitative or making comment?

KNOCK ON ANY DOOR

US, 1948, 100 minutes, Black and white.
Humphrey Bogart, John Derek, George Macready.
Directed by Nicholas Ray.

There has been a long tradition of Hollywood films about slums, gangs and delinquency. Humphrey Bogart appeared in a number of them during the 1930s including Dead End. This is a post-war version of the same theme with Bogart playing an attorney who came from the slums but who has a softer heart under his tough exterior and tries to defend the young men. A young John Derek is a ruthless killer from the slums. George Macready is the district attorney.

The theme of this story was taken up in the 1959 film Go Naked in the World with Ernest Borgnine and Gina Lollobrigida.

Nicholas Ray made a number of striking films in the 1940s and 1950s: They Live By Night, In a Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground, The Lusty Men and Johnny Guitar. With the coming of Cinemascope his films became longer and larger, culminating in the 1961 King of Kings and Fifty-five Days at Peking. Several films were made about him including a documentary by Tim Robbins.

1.The film as a social document? Was it true that if you knocked on any door you would find people like Nick Romano?

2.The structure of the film: the court case and the flashbacks? Did audiences expect Nick Romano to be innocent or guilty? How did this affect viewing of the film and sympathy with Andrew Morton’s story? The effect of finding that Romano was guilty? What effect did it have on all that Morton had said?

3.How did the film establish a parallel between Andrew Morton and Nick Romano? Valid for giving insight into the slum situation?

4.Andrew Morton as a person? Why had he got out of the slums? Insight into why he did have to go to work for the slum boys? The effect on their criminal careers? How did he sacrifice his own personal ambitions in working for the Romanos? Why did Romano still lie to him? The effect of his finding out that Nick had lied?

5.Did the film show convincingly the poverty of the Romanos and others like them in Chicago? The crowded home, the language barrier, the religion barrier? The need to prove oneself in tough ways in the slums? The effect of Romano’s death on the family? The blame attributed to Morton – and Morton’s blaming the whole of society and its systems? Was it inevitable that Nick should be as he was?

6.What motivated Nick during his career of petty crime? The effect of reform school? Was it too cruel? Could anything else have been done? Was he bad through and through or could he have been redeemed? His friends: Sunshine and the others? How did they lead him on? Or did he lead them? Their lying for him?

7.Could Emma have changed Nick? Why did he love her? How did she actually change him? The possibilities for change when Andrew took him to dinner? Why could he not hold down his jobs? Was Emma’s suicide credible? Its effect on Nick?

8.How interesting was the court case? The tactics used by both sides? The implication of the prosecution in their forming a case against Nick? How did this influence audience sympathies? How did this add to the shock that Nick was guilty?

9.The value of Andrew Morton’s final switch about the state of Chicago and the slums? Too nobly done? Sentimental? Artificial? Or was it still moving? Do these comments have continual validity?

10.The strength of the film as a social thriller? What value do films like this have? In changing people? In influencing their opinions?