FRIGHT

UK, 1971, 87 minutes, Colour.
Susan George, Honor Blackman, Ian Bannen, John Gregson, George Cole, Dennis Waterman.
Directed by Peter Collinson.

Fright is not exactly an original story – it is the familiar story of the babysitter menaced by a mad parent. However, the film is quite effectively done, providing some chills and scares.

Susan George was emerging as a leading actress in the UK at this time and appeared in Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs. Honor Blackman and Ian Bannen were always reliable standbys in later British films. 1950s veterans John Gregson and George Cole appear and Dennis Waterman was more at the beginning of his career.

The film was directed by Peter Collinson who made his mark during the 1960s with such strong films as Up the Junction, The Long Day’s Dying and the very popular The Italian Job. After that he moved during the 70s into a series of thrillers, Innocent Bystanders, Open Season as well as remakes of And Then There Were None and The Spiral Staircase. His last film was made in Australia, The Earthling with Ricky Schroeder and William Holden.

1. A sensational terror film or something more substantial?

2. The situation of the terrorised babysitter – almost a cliché. Did this film handle the situation better than usual? How?

3. How did the settings, atmosphere, details prepare the audience for the terror?

4. Was Amanda a sympathetic heroine, could the audience identify easily with her? How necessary for the success of the film?

5. Were Helen, Jim and Dr Cordell any more than cardboard characters necessary for the plot? How well developed was the character of Helen? How necessary for the climax of the film?

6. The purpose of the introduction of Chris? Was his murder necessary or unnecessary?

7. The character of Brian, essential for the success of the film? Was he merely a frightening psychotic who was rightly destroyed after terrorising Amanda and the baby or did Ian Bannen’s portrayal offer something more? Did his performance make the character sympathetic in any way, understandable, pitiful? How did Amanda respond?

8. The visual alternation of Amanda/Helen in Brian’s mind? Was it well worked into the film?

9. The credibility of the ending, especially Amanda shooting Brian?

10. The title – and how frightening was the film? Interesting, exciting, plausible?

11. The techniques of light and shadow, darkness, editing? Atmosphere?

12. Is this kind of film dangerous in arousing the audience – or just terror-entertainment?

FRITZ THE CAT

US, 1972, 79 minutes, Colour.
Voices of Skip Hinnant, Rosetta le Noire, John Mc Curry, Phil Seuling.
Directed by Ralph Bakshi.

Fritz the Cat was somewhat notorious in its time – an X-rated animation film.

Its director, Ralph Bakshi, had been working in television since the late 1950s. However, with Fritz the Cat he began a decade of significant animated films, adult themes directed for an adult audience. With Fritz the Cat he was co-writer with comic book writer, Robert Crumb (himself the subject of a significant documentary in 1994).

Fritz the Cat shows a rather lewd cat going through all the permissive motions of the hip-type characters of the 1960s, the free love era, experimentation with drugs, on the university campuses. The police are represented in the animation as actual pigs.

The film presents a tongue-in-cheek look back at the 1960s. It also enjoys itself, even indulges itself, in its breaking of permissive barriers.

Bakshi went on to make several very significant films during the 1970s: Heavy Traffic, Coonskin, Wizards, American Pop – and the animated version of the first part of J.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, this version of The Lord of the Rings was not commercially successful enough to raise the funds for a continuation. Audiences had to wait another twenty-five years for Peter Jackson’s epic.

Bakshi then went back to working in television.

1. The purpose of the film: entertainment, social comment?

2. The advantage of using animation? The quality of the animation – too Disney-like, or sufficiently ‘realistic’ to avoid distraction by too much stylised work.

3. The film purported to be a look at America in the 1960s. Did it show a realistic America? How much? A just estimate of life in the US in the 1960s? Or did this matter?

4. Who did Fritz the Cat the cat stand for? Typical America?

5. The significance of his encounter with the girls, their ‘in’ conversation with the crow about blacks and Jews? Pretentious or not? How were they exposed in their mouthing of truth in the orgy sequence? The comment in this sequence?

6. The orgy itself, its purpose in the film, blackness, crudity? Necessary or too crude? Disgusting or was it just funny?

7. The satire on the police – clever, subtle, just?

8. The meaning of the synagogue satire? As integral to the film, its meaning for a non-Jewish or non-American audience?

9. The sequence of the burning of the books? Well communicated?

10. The visit to Harlem, the style of African American life: poolrooms, fights, white attitudes? Big Bertha and Fritz’s leaving her to call on the revolution? The whites and the death of Duke? Was this well observed and telling comment on New York?

11. The impact of the car chase?

12. The trip across the US, billboards etc? Fritz’s inability to fix the car, the old farmer’s criticism of hippies?

13. The Hell’s Angels, how ugly? Drugs, sadism, revolution – Fritz caught up in this? His love for Harriet, blowing up the plant?

14. The finale – what did it say or offer? A solution or a copout?

15. Was this a cynical picture of the US or a well-observed satirical comment? Did it play with social ideas, show an awareness only to flee back into the comfort of hedonism? The treatment of sex, drugs, violence?

16. Did the stills in the final credits add to the impact of the film?

THE ERNIE GAME

Canada, 1970, 89 minutes, Colour.
Jackie Burrows, Leonard Cohen, Alexis Kanner.
Directed by Don Owen.

The Ernie Game is a film produced by the Canadian Film Board. The Board was noted in the 60s and 70s for the quality of its documentary film making, for its quality in animation, for its range o f imagination in short films. It has not made many feature films. However, this is one example and was made by director Don Owen. Probably more interesting for Canadian audiences. It shows some human themes well explored. but is not exactly popular entertainment.

1. The significance of the title?

2. The Canadian Film Board made many ‘slices of life’ message documentaries. The Ernie Game fits into this style. Was this evident – in the screenplay, photography, techniques? Were the techniques successful?

3. The basic theme of the film? Basic message?

4. What kind of person was Ernie, sympathetic, ‘typical’, what was wrong with him, physically and mentally? Why did he not relate well to people? Why was he so unreliable – leaving the house at the beginning, his relationship with the thin girl, with Donna? Too self-centred, the story he was telling, his security?

5. What kind of girl was Donna? Pursuing Ernie? Her child, independence, men, friends, her attitude towards Ernie on his first visit, a type of seduction, her dance for him? How did her relationship with him grow? Did each change? How?

6. Comment on the social situation in which Ernie lived, job-seeking, pawning the typewriter. Did Ernie want to work?

7. What did the sequences of Ernie’s looking in the mirror mean, his imagining himself in different types of clothes, what did this reveal about Ernie’s opinion of himself?

8. How selfish was he to the thin girl, after she had prepared the lunch? To Donna (arriving at her place in the middle of the night and shouting)?

9. The significance of the Leonard Cohen song? The group’s listening to it? Its place in the mood and style of the film?

10. Why was Ernie picked up by the homosexual? Why did he get involved in the robbery plans, the shooting? Was there nothing to stop him?

11. By this stage, Ernie felt that he could not relate normally, quietly and satisfactorily with anyone at all. Why? Who was to blame: society, his friends, himself? Was his suicide inevitable?

12. How sad was the suicide sequence? How pathetic watching Ernie’s desperate need to communicate? The significance of talking to Donna?

13. The effect of Ernie’s looking at the children and his discovery that he wanted to live and love life?

14. How moving a film? How particularly Canadian? Relevant for contemporary audiences?

THE MAT (MADUR)

India, 2005, 76 minutes, Colour.

The Mat is a small-budget Bengali film, a direct contrast to the films made from Bollywood, more in the vein of small-budget and serious Iranian films.

The film is set in a remote village amongst mat-makers. The film recreates the life of the village, the personalities, the hardships, the gossip. It also highlights the precarious nature of the mat-making industry with the coming of factories. However, there are talented artists in the countryside.

The film moves from social comment into rather intense personal drama, understated in its dialogue and visuals. The wife of the mat-maker is attracted to the young man who comes to the village looking for mats. This precipitates a crisis in the marriage – showing that human nature is the same in the village and in the city. However, the whole matter is treated with great delicacy – with black and white flashbacks for the torment of the husband, with looks and touches between the couple. The ending is striking in the action of the woman – with the moral that money does not matter, but love and family.

1. Indian film-making? Bengali film-making? Seriousness, simplicity, values?

2. The portrayal of the village, the environment, nature, the homes, the workplace? The musical score?

3. The social view of the village, its people, poverty, making ends meet?

4. The personal and psychological drama in this context? Handled with delicacy? Intensity?

5. The title, the actual mat, its beauty, its symbol of Isad, his life, work? Its being for his wife? Not selling, the bids from the salesman? The symbolism of the mat – especially the ending?

6. The philosophy of life, values, the wife and wanting money, future for her children, practical, contrasting the dreams of her idealistic husband?

7. Isad and the opening song, his joy, a poet? Forgetting the vegetables, borrowing them from his friend? His wife and her scolding? The children and their laughter? The meals, his work? Making the mat? Teaching his art to his son? The villagers, the talk and the workers?

8. The portrait of the wife, scolding, practical, her attitude towards the mat, ensuring a future for her son, exasperated with her husband? The family, the four children, the sexual relationship?

9. Industry and craft, the coming of the factories, the individuals and their skills, their art? A dying art?

10. The salesman, his stepping on the children’s castle, apologies, winning over the children, persuaded to stay, sharing the meals, attracted to the wife, his many visits, staying, the gifts, the jewellery for the wife, the toys for the children? Holding the wife’s hand, asking her to eat so he would not eat alone?

11. Assad, the gossip amongst the workers, the fish and the bangles as gifts from the salesman, people laughing at him, the black and white flashbacks and his feelings, his going out to walk, seeing the salesman touch his wife’s hand?

12. The decision to sell the mat, getting it out, his feelings, the reasons for selling, its loss of the symbolism that it had for him?

13. The wife, her reaction to this news, the salesman and his buying the mat, the wife rushing to buy it back, throwing the money away – and the freeze-frame as she was hurrying back to Assad?

14. The film working at various levels, social, psychological, moral?

KRANTIKAAL (CRITICAL ENCOUNTER)

India, 2005, 118 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Sekhar Das.

Krantikaal is an interesting and significant Bengali film, very different from the light entertainment coming from West India and Bollywood. This is a film from Kolkotta, in the tradition of Satiyajit Ray. The director is Sekhar Das who has produced a number of elegant films.

The film is set in north-eastern Bengal. It reflects the effects of Partition of the 20th century as well as terrorism in the beginning of the 21st century and the use of terrorism by separatist movements.

The film is set in a remote town which also houses a wealthy estate. A terrorist is wounded and takes refuge in the estate, having an effect on each member of the household, communicating with an aged grandfather, the father-in-law who is still living in the past, a civilised gentleman, and the daughter-in-law who relates well to the terrorist and supports him.

The film makes audiences look at terrorism from the different perspective, from the political aspirations, to questions about the use of violence, to the human element in supporting life.

The film is beautifully photographed, shows the countryside to advantage as well as the mansion.

The film also has echoes of contemporary issues with people watching news about the Palestinians, people watching Vertigo on television, the place of the piano and musical culture in the household.

An interesting film which takes audiences from outside Indian into the experiences of the subcontinent – and an interesting experience for an Indian audience to think more deeply about issues through films.

1. The impact of the film for India, Bengal? Political and national issues? Universal issues and audiences?

2. A film of elegance, classical style, beautiful framing? Editing and pace? The insertion of songs (for characters, part of the plot, for commentary)? The musical score?

3. The title, the critical encounter in India of its various provinces, various language groups? The aftermath of partition? The 21st century and terrorism? Separatist movements? The message of revenge versus patience?

4. The prologue: the family, descended from royalty, the elegant palace, the interiors? The father-in-law playing the piano? A world of decorum? Masters and servants? Memories of India of the past? The suddenness of the attack, the staging of the battle, attack, soldiers and deaths?

5. Rajib, his part in the attack, his escape? His comments on his friends’ deaths? With the gun, intruding into the house? With Sabarna, the threats? The threats to Debi? Her fear? The hostage situation? His desperation – yet civilised and a gentleman? Sabarna and her handling of the situation?

6. The portrait of the household: the grandfather, aged ninety-two, dementia, his wandering, inability to speak, communicating in sounds and feelings, emotions, eating, his joy, his apprehensions and fear? The father-in-law and his memories of the past, his skill at the piano, a civilised gentleman, intelligent, his intellectual conversation? His initial attitudes towards Sabarna, disapproving, her husband leaving her, his changing attitude? Debi and her age, the breakdown after her father’s departure, her ability to sing and play the piano, psychosomatic ailment, in the wheelchair? Her fear? Watching television (Vertigo)? The Palestinians? Her being charmed by Rajib? The range of servants? The women from the refuge and their illnesses?

7. Rajib, settling in, the grandfather’s room, supervision? Coping? Sleeping, his dealings with the old man? The day passing, ordinary things happening, the phone calls? His posing as a relative? The newspaper’s arrival – and his shaving and cutting his hair?

8. The father-in-law, his realisation who Rajib was? The confrontation, accusing him of audacity? His singing with his granddaughter – and the Tagore and the beauty of nature and harmony? The heart attack, his being calm? His talk with Rajib about India, the different separatists’ points of view, his hankering for the past – and their critical agreement?

9. The old man and his fear, delights, the crown and Debi, his later desperation seeing what happened to his son?

10. Debi, the change, her singing with her grandfather?

11. The servants, coping? Their loyalty?

12. The women downstairs, the woman who cried all night, refusing food, the grandmother and her story and her being abandoned? Rajib and his sympathy, helping the women? His realising that one of the women was a spy? The spy’s ringing the police?

13. The woman from the women’s institute, her concern, discussions with Sabarna, coming to visit the house? The social concern?

14. The college, the students and their admiration for Sabarna? The teachers, the common room? Her friend, in love with him, talking about the hostage situation, his wanting to visit? His coming to the house, Rajib’s reaction, their discussion, memories of an armed past, idealism, practical action, violence or not?

15. The police, calling to warn the household? The phone calls? Police station, the spy? The final attack and killing Rajib?

16. Rajib, his kindness, the discussions with Sabarna, her urging patience instead of revenge? His story, his family, oppression? The attack, defending himself, knowing that he would die? His statement of his spirit living on in others?

17. The beautiful locations, the insertion of nature and beauty, especially during the songs, at the beginning of the day? The palace and its dignity? The songs, their being intercut with nature?

18. The ending, the camera ascending to the sky – and the open door on the roof?

19. The action, the people, the palace – symbolic of an India that was past, trying to cope with the 21st century?

AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Norway, 2005, 91 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Erik Skjoldbjaerg.

An Enemy of the People is significant in that it is a Norwegian adaptation of Ibsen’s play and, secondly, that it relocates Ibsen’s drama to the beginning of the 21st century. The transition works particularly well. Ibsen’s concern about the contamination of the environment as well as his insight into manipulation and corrupt politicising is just as relevant, even more so, at the beginning of the new century.

The film uses Ibsen’s framework, structure, characters and their psychology, their interpretation of events.

The film comments on the majority and the majority being wrong – and this is especially clear in the context of television in the 20th and 21st century with the central character having a TV career, putting it on the line, his relationship with his wife and son and the issue of contaminated water and the need for the public to take action.

The hero then becomes the enemy of the people – standing by what he believes in, despite everything.

The film’s themes are reminiscent of a number of films about the environment including A Civil Action with John Travolta and Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal with Marsha Mason. An Australian variation of the theme was Three Dollars with David Wenham.

An American version of Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People was filmed in 1979 with Steve McQueen?, a serious role and one of his last film appearances.

1. The impact of the film as a contemporary drama? Contemporary issues of pollution? Of big business and cover-ups? Of personal integrity and sacrifice?

2. The Norwegian locations, the summer countryside, the beauty of the mountains and lakes, the caves? The town? The musical score?

3. The adaptation of Ibsen’s play, from 1882, to 2005? How appropriate the update? The character as a television nutritionist expert instead of a doctor? The same issue of making water available? People and human nature? The use of television – especially for majority decisions, democratic voting by audiences?

4. The issue, the prosperity of the village, the pure mountain water, the contamination, the factory, investment, jobs for workers, the town supporting the project? The background information of the infertility of the people – the contamination of the water? The truth, the expose, the fear of the media, the pressure of industrialists? The rejection of the majority?

5. Ibsen’s comment on the majority, the majority being wrong? Tomas and his statement that the majority are stupid? People’s reaction to these comments?

6. The establishing of the situation, the characters, Tomas and his TV career? The programs? His relationship with his wife and son? At the restaurant? The bringing up of the issue of water?

7. The family going to the town, the return to their home town, Katrine and her dread? Eilif and his age, his relationship with his parents? Independent and dependent? Katrine and her not wanting to see her father? The drive, the arrival, her father meeting them, her apprehension? Their going to the rally, Tomas’s speech, on stage with Peter, the prospect of prosperity?

8. The establishing of the factory, Petra and her PR work? The staff? Tomas and his not getting the letter? Peter and his getting it, underestimating it? The phone call, Tomas’s alarm, going to the office, reading the letter, going to test the water? Taking his son, the inner pool? The moral dilemma about the contamination in the water? His own stances, his discussions with Katrine, with Peter?

9. Tomas as a character, his strength of character, a celebrity? The hopes of prosperity, the family name, his face on the advertising? The background of his clashes with his brother, fraternal rivalry? How important was this in the discussions about the documents, the cover-up, the offer of promotion to Tomas? The board? The fights?

10. Katrine’s father, his past disgrace, the people against him? His drinking? The hiding of the toxic cans? Digging them up? His being responsible for the contamination? His heart attack, his not wanting to be blamed? In the hospital, Katrine opting for her father against Tomas? Her owning the farm, the mortgage, wanting it for her son, the grandfather and his going through humiliation again?

11. Katrine, her relationship with Tomas, going back home, settling in? The massage for Peter and the discussion? The moral decisions, her fears, digging up the barrels, her father’s collapse, the vigils in hospital? Her turning against Tomas, the mortgaging of the farm, the investment in the shares? Her denying knowledge of the barrels? Her driving away, not answering the phone? The finale, Tomas’s flashbacks of the happy times? Katrine and Eilif coming out into the rain to be with Tomas?

12. Eilif, his age, going with his father, in the cave, the torch? His driving and recklessness? His devotion to his father, mother, grandfather? Fear of his mother moving out? His saying he didn’t want the money, to be responsible for poisoning? His walking out of the studio when his father attacked people for being stupid? Coming out into the rain?

13. Peter, running of the firm, clashes with Tomas? Denying the report, fabricating an alternate report? Shredding? The public clash, the cover-up, the offer of the job? His own ambitions? Using another member of the board against Tomas? Tomas barricading himself in the office? Peter going to the show, his plausible explanations, contradicting Tomas, the crowd on his side, the public vote for him?

14. Petra, the PR work, at the cave? The journalist, his doing the interview in the cave, asking the direct questions? Peter putting pressure on him, his not being independent, giving up? Peter taking the copy of the interview? Petra and her being sacked? Bringing the researcher?

15. The people in the town, the mayor and her urging Tomas to advertise the water? Her clash with him at the end, his smashing her car? The board members, the workers? The townspeople and their turning against him?

16. The TV show, the host, the questions, public opinion dictated by TV audiences, TV audience votes? The comments on democracy?

17. Tomas, alone, not wanting to harm Eilif’s inheritance, Eilif urging him to go to the program, his leaving and following his son? The hostility in the bar? Their smashing his car, kicking him, the police taking him to the station, helping him, urging him to leave?

18. His going to the house, watching through the window, sitting in the rain – and saying he did not want to be alone? His future?

19. Issues of truth, integrity, self-sacrifice? Honour? The pressures of family, public opinion?

CAFÉ TRANSIT

Iran/France, 2004, 95 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kambozia Partovi.

Café Transit is a fine Iranian film. It is set on the western side of Iran, as the roads lead into Turkey and into Europe. The film focuses on a woman who wants to reopen a café which was managed by her recently dead husband. When she decides this, she raises the anger and disapproval of her family who consider this inappropriate for a woman. She is discouraged from opening the café as well as people putting various physical and moral pressures on her. The chief of the opposition is her brother-in-law, the very conservative Nasser. He is played by Parviz Parastoei, one of Iran’s leading character actors who can give such diverse performances as the would-be mullah in The Lizard as well as the blind man in Weeping Willow. He is also motivated by wanting to take the woman as his second wife which custom allows.

Despite everything, the widow is a strong-minded and strong-spirited woman and makes a success of her café, employing offbeat characters in the staff who give her a great deal of support. She is also supported by a number of the truck drivers who pass by, several of them from eastern Europe, others from Holland and western European countries. There are also migrants on the road who seek the help of the truckies.

The film is strong on atmosphere, helping audiences to live in this part of Iran. It is also strong on values – and won the Best Film at the Bangladesh film festival as well as the Signis interfaith award in 2005 in Tehran.

Another feature of the film is its emphasis on local food – in the tradition of food movies like Big Night and Babette’s Feast as well as What’s Cooking.

1. The acclaim for the film, its awards? Values?

2. The Iranian industry, this film’s place in the industry, the human perspectives, feminist perspectives, religious perspectives? Its challenging of the traditions and the patriarchy?

3. The locations of the Turkish border, north-west Iran, the terrain, the mountains and the roads, the cars and the trucks passing by? The village, the homes? The café itself? Realistic atmosphere? Musical score?

4. The introduction, Zachari and his talking and memories of the café? On the crossroads in eastern Europe? The young woman, on the roads, in the cafés, her memories, her praise of Reyhan? The recapitulation of these sequences at the end? The impact of Reyhan on them? Their cherishing and celebrating their memories?

5. Nasser and his interview with the local authorities, his complaint about Reyhand, the importance of the codes of honour, the male chauvinism and patriarchy? His criticisms of Reyhan, her coming from the south and not understanding the traditions of the north? The tradition in which she had to marry him and he would care for her children? His building the home for her and the children? The house, his expectations, schooling for the children? The subordinate place of women? His character, age, his relationship with his brother, with his wife? The women in the household? His restaurant business? The elements of jealousy?

6. Reyhan, as a woman from the south, with her own traditions, leaving her land and loving and marrying her husband? Her becoming a widow, the closing of the restaurant? Her independent mind, her love for her children? At home, not wanting to move, listening to Nasser, defying his plans and his not understanding? Talking to the women in the family, their support? Her going away and leaving the older daughter, her return? The decision to reopen the restaurant?

7. The mourning crowd visiting the restaurant, the memories of Ismael? The closing, expectations that it would not be reopened, especially with Reyhan in charge?

8. Reyhan and her wanting to open the restaurant again, her shrewdness, her friendship with Oujan, relying on his help? Cleaning up, repainting? Nasser and his visits and watching? Karim and his watching – and his ultimate brutality, smashing the café, breaking Zachari’s leg?

9. The hard work, the preparation for the opening? The lack of clients, the eventual driver, the reputation of the food, it becoming a popular truck stop? Reyhan in the kitchen, relishing her work, the children and their waiting, washing up? Oujan and his managing? The satisfaction in the success of the café?

10. Zachari and his Greek background, truck driver, searching for his wife – and unwilling to face the truth that she had walked out on him? His idealising of her and her memory? Bringing his own food, disliking Iranian food? Reyhan’s reaction, cooking him a special meal, his being urged to taste it, his delight – and saying that it reminded him of his wife? His relationship with the other truck drivers? His courtesy to Reyhan? Love for the children? Bringing them toys?

11. The young girl, drunk, nineteen years old, wandering the roads, the death of her family, Russia? Her being hidden by Reyhan, helped and affirmed? Her staying, helping with the vegetables and the cooking? Wanting a lift – and prepared to prostitute herself? Her being hidden from the authorities? Her eventually having to go – but the impact of Reyhan and her devotion to her?

12. Nasser, his visits, his brooding, his lack of customers in his own restaurant, Karim’s brutality? Going to the authorities? The officials, the interviews, finally coming and locking the café?

13. The unrest at the borders? The truck drivers and their having to stay, the wait, Karim, the fight and his brutality, breaking Zachari’s leg? The later celebration and Zachari dancing, despite his leg?

14. Zachari and his offers to Reyhan, the possibility of a future for her? His love for her? Her refusal and her motivation? Not against him, but herself, the children?

15. Reyhan and the future, seeking for a job cooking elsewhere, the impact of the locking of the café? Her concern for her children, her wanting to be independent?

16. Nasser, his being defeated, the closure of the café? Yet his drinking and being frustrated?

17. The portrait of a good and strong woman, devoted to the memory of her husband, caring for her children, generous in providing for others, self-reliant? An ideal woman?

IN THE NAME OF GOD

India, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Jayaraaj.

In the Name of God is a particularly interesting Indian film for the beginning of the 21st century. Its title, In the Name of God, indicates that it is a film about Islam and the devotion to Allah and its consequences in a literal interpretation of the Koran.

While the film is a message film, it can also be seen as a women’s film. The focus is on a young woman, her place in her household, her love for her father, her place in the hierarchy of the household and the preparations for an arranged marriage.

However, the film takes a different line from that expected. The woman loves her husband – but he is a student, becomes involved in radical Islamic movements and involved in terrorism. He is arrested and jailed. He disapproves of his wife and her behaviour, especially as she becomes involved in the media, writes a book, becomes something of a celebrity.

Different audiences will bring very different presuppositions to this film. A western audience will be interested in the emancipation of women, their status in Islam, the bucking of patriarchal expectations and conventions. Islamic audiences, especially men, may well be somewhat scandalised by the behaviour of the woman and the film’s exalting her. They may be much more sympathetic to the role taken by the husband and his conversion and his willingness to participate in violence.

The story is interesting, the issues contemporary – even though the film does take a more partisan stance for the woman and her place in society, her place in the world and the quality of her life.

1. A film for Indian audiences? Muslim audiences? Beyond Islam? Beyond India? Themes of 2005, religion, fanaticism, terrorism? Peace and change?

2. The film as a message film – explicit message, earnest message? Propaganda?

3. A woman’s film? Sakhina and her place in her household, the flashbacks to her as a young girl, her love for her father, playing with her sister? Her place in the household? Sakhina as older, her strength of character, relationship within the family, the preparation for the arranged marriage? Seeing her husband-to-be, flirtatious, sharing experiences, culture? Falling in love with him? Her hopes, the preparation for the marriage, the dress, the jewellery, the engagement ceremony? His change? Phone call, the haste, wanting her to come to him, her seeing the differences and her apprehension?

4. The opening, Sakhina at the jail, waiting, the maimed child and her mother, the nature of the injury? The guards? Her husband refusing to see her? The recurring theme of the child, the explanation of what had happened, the visualising of the terrorist explosion, the girl herself, her continued smile, going to the prison, the gift of the book to the husband, his continued reaction to the girl – and his memory of his horror of knowing that she would be injured?

5. The husband, his relationship to his own father, place in the household, his liberal studies, the arranged marriage, his wooing Sakhina? In love with her? The engagement? The transformation, the ideology, the cause, the growing fanaticism? The consequences? The group, the mind control, the objectivity, not worrying about injuries, the loyalties? The interpretation of the Koran, of law? His dominance of his wife, wanting her to observe the purdah? Her reaction, his brutal treatment of her?

6. The terrorist incident, the motivation, the old man and his shop, the rebuke, the little girl carrying the bag, the bomb’s explosion, her injuries?

7. Sakhina and her puzzle about her husband, his behaviour, his flight, his appeal to her because of his hunger, her locking him in the room, informing the police?

8. Sakhina and the bond with her husband’s father, sharing, ideals, ideas? His support? Her decision to go to the police, her reasons? People’s reactions, for and against, the condemnation of her? Her being exiled, her relationship with her family, her sister coming to visit?

9. Her stances, the reasons, the explanations, informing the police, saving lives? Her reading, studies, her writing? The achievement, the media interviews, the television? The elders meeting and their reproaching her, burning her manuscript? The impact of the loss of the manuscript? Her father-in-law and his urging her to write again?

10. Her husband in prison, the harsh treatment, the guards, his refusal to see his wife, the visit of the girl, giving the book, his seeing his wife on television? His reading the book, lying on his bed, reflecting, the challenge, the possible change?

11. The effect of the experience on Sakhina, the dire aspects, her strength? The role of women in Islam, in their relationship to their husbands, brutality? The traditions and the good and the bad? The patriarchal elders and their condemnation, intolerance of women? The experience of terrorism? Reaction? The response of the audience – whether they agreed or not, persuasive of change of those who hold fanatical views?

SHOP GIRL

US, 2005, 115 minutes, Colour.
Steve Martin, Claire Danes, Jonathan Silverman, Bridget Wilson Sampras, Rebecca Pidgeon, Frances Conroy, Sam Bottoms.
Directed by Anand Tucker.

This is not the kind of romantic comedy that one would automatically think of for a review in The Universe. Hollywood is forever turning out pleasant variations on the romantic theme and they simply come and go. At times Shopgirl seems like this but, by the end, we realise that there is some more depth this time.

This can be attributed to Steve Martin. Over the decades, moviegoers have become used to him as a screen comedian. At his best, especially in the 1980s, he was intelligent and funny in such films as All of Me, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid and Roxanne. At his worst, he just goes in for some lazy and silly mugging, something he has been doing too much of recently with the two Cheaper by the Dozen films (which bear little resemblance to the classics of the 1950s that older audiences probably cherish).
.

The mention of Roxanne reminds some audiences that Martin started his career as a writer, especially for television comic performers. He wrote the screenplay for Roxanne, a modern version of Cyrano de Bergerac where Martin’s performance showed he could do pathos as well as funny. Since then he has written plays and some novellas. Which brings us back to Shopgirl. He has written the screenplay for this film based on his novella.

Shopgirl has a resoundingly mundane ring about it. And that is what Martin intended. The central character, played appealingly by Claire Danes, is Mirabelle (not such a shopgirl name). She has come from a perfectly ordinary family in Massachusetts to make her way in Los Angeles. We find her as a salesgirl in the gloves department in Sacks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills – of course, Sacks is not a perfectly ordinary store, but watching her at work, we find she spends most of her time simply looking at customers passing by.

She has found a small apartment, has made a few friends, but there is nothing special about her life. She does meet an eccentric, rather bizarre young man, Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and, out of loneliness, has an on-and-off relationship with him.

The point of the film, however, becomes clear when a wealthy and ageing businessman, Ray (Steve Martin himself) buys a pair of gloves that she recommends and send them to her. He invites her to dinner… and so it goes on. She is gradually drawn into the relationship and comes to depend on him. So far, so familiar, perhaps.

However, we are given a glimpse of the man talking to his therapist and hear him declare that he is really just amusing himself with the affair, that he is incapable of communicating real feelings and has a fear of commitment. This makes the audience complicit in what happens to Mirabelle. She might want to change him, but she won’t be able to.

‘Bittersweet’ is the usual word used to describe this king of overwhelming experience for the girl and even for the man who ultimately will let her down.

Two things make this film different and worth looking at and discussing.

First is that Mirabelle had urged the scruffy Jeremy, almost absent-mindedly, to go out into the world and achieve something. Surprisingly he does (and scrubs up better than we could imagine). Second is the more significant. We see the aftermath of the break-up. We are given time to reflect on what has happened. The impulses, the use of others, the mistakes, the hurt and to see people admitting and learning by their mistakes and trying to build a new life in the light of what they have learnt. This means that Shopgirl is a moral fable as well as a romantic comedy.

It is to the credit of Steve Martin (who gives himself a quite unsympathetic role) that he offers to the wide audience a reflective comedy on today’s moral dilemmas.

1. A Steve Martin film? The novella, his screen adaptation, the star performance? His perspective on life? Comic, wry?

2. The film as a romantic comedy with edge? The young woman? The older man? The young eccentric man? Romance, sexual liaisons, responsibility, decisions? Consequences?

3. The Los Angeles settings, the different areas? Beverly Hills and Sax Fifth Avenue? The ordinary apartments? The contrast with the rich apartments? The world of art? The music world? The streets? A credible and authentic atmosphere for the film? The musical score and songs?

4. The title, the focus and its ordinary sound, ordinary girl, expectations?

5. Claire Danes as Maribel, a memorable character? Her age, the Massachusetts background, seeing her parents in the latter part of the film, the ordinariness, quiet? Her visit to them? Their support? Her father and his experience in Vietnam, silent, yet loving his daughter? Maribel in Los Angeles, her hopes? Her work at Saks, standing behind the counter, watching people go by, boredom? The clients, their wealth? The contrast with Lisa and her glamour? The other shop girls? The management? Going to her apartment, quiet, the cat? Her drawings and talent? Selling a few of them? What were her prospects as the film opened?

6. Her group of friends, out, discussions? The meeting with Jeremy? His eccentricity, his skill in his work? His friends? His forward attitude towards her, going home with her, the awkwardness, his advances, the night together, the consequences? The visits, his pleading for her to come in the night and help him? His gift? Her reaction to his talent, her remarking that he should believe in himself, his believing it? It changing his life?

7. Maribel and the shop, Ray and his coming to the counter, his approach, discussion about the gloves, the gift? Her receiving the gift, wondering about it, his motivations? Her decision to follow through? Going out, the dates? Sharing so much with him? The meals? Going to his home, his affluence? The development of the relationship? What she was hoping from it? Her estimation of his character, position, travels? His work in IT? Her not knowing of his relationship with Christie? The background of his divorces?

8. Ray and the psychologist, his expressing his views honestly, his lack of commitment, the difficulties of commitment, his wanting a casual relationship?

9. The comparison with Maribel, her assessment of herself, of him, of the relationship?

10. Jeremy on the road, the performances of the group, his love for the music, helping with the equipment? Refusing the drugs? The gradual change as he travelled on the road, his reading, taking responsibility, respectability, the visual transformation, his hair, cleanliness, clothes?

11. Lisa and the other shop girls, curious about Maribel and the relationship with Ray? Seeing her dress and Lisa making the enquiries? The information about the card? Her going to the exhibition, mistaking Jeremy for Ray, her coming on strongly, the night with Jeremy, the effect on him, the discovery of the truth and her anger?

12. Ray, his relationship with Christie, his going away, the phone calls, Maribel and her longing for him? The truth, her being hurt, accepting that she should be hurt in the short term? The effect on her, going home to her parents, needing time?

13. Steve Martin and his writing the dialogue for Ray, presenting the older man in the bad and critical light?

14. The exhibition, Maribel’s artwork, the change in herself, her self-reliance? The contrast with the period and her suffering depression, needing the tablets, then giving them away, her relapse? Her pain, overcoming it? Ray and his wanting to buy the drawing? The meeting with Jeremy, her astonishment, his praise of her? The possibility of a relationship – on equal footing?

15. The film going on after the resolution, showing the consequences of the affair, not just simply a focus on the themes? Mistakes and learning from mistakes?

PRIME

US, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Meryl Streep, Uma Thurman, Bryan Harrington.
Directed by Ben Younger.

Prime could be described as a romantic comedy with edge. In fact, there are several edges.

The cultural edge is that this is a New York Jewish story. While the central character, fashion model, Rafi, is not Jewish, she begins a relationship with a young artist, David (Bryan Greenberg) who is Jewish (but is not as deeply involved in and understanding of his traditions as his parents). The other edge has to do with age. He is 23. She is 37.

As regards the romantic comedy, the style is modern, two people falling in love regardless of what others think and, sometimes, regardless of the consequences. They feel that the difference of fourteen years is nothing. Rafi, a recent divorcee, feels that David fulfils all her emotional needs and her sexual needs. David is entranced by this sophisticated woman and that she could love him. Needless to say, romance has to face up to reality, especially the differences in intellectual life (computer games versus conversation, for example) and general maturing experience. As such, Prime is a light and light-hearted look at characters experiencing these dilemmas.

But, back to the Jewish theme. David’s mother (Meryl Streep looking both frumpish and glamorous) is Rafi’s psychiatrist. She is wholly affirming of Rafi, especially encouraging her in the new relationship – until…! David is her son and Rafi is not what she wants for him. She is not Jewish. She is too old. This leads the film on to questions of confidentiality, what happens when therapists are involved emotionally in their clients’ lives and just how manipulating some mothers can be.

Uma Thurman brings glamour and presence to her role. Meryl Streep makes the most of her double-takes and maternal anguish. Ultimately, this can be also described as a bittersweet comedy – which asks its audience to appreciate how much people relish the present moment but that, finally, life requires decisions, courage and responsibility.

1. A romantic comedy – with edge?

2. The title, David and Rafi – and their relationship, sexuality, personal maturity?

3. A New York story, the city, apartments, the world of modelling, the world of art? The world of psychiatry and counselling?

4. A Jewish story, the religious background, cultural background, the attitudes and beliefs of the different generations, expectations – especially as regards mixed marriages?

5. Rafi’s story, Uma Thurman and her screen presence? Her age, the break-up of her marriage, the effect on her, her divorce, at work as a model, her range of friends, the modelling world? Her going to psychiatrist, the visualising of her sessions, the confidentiality, her own confidence in herself through the sessions, permission for acting, relationships, choices?

6. David and Morris, the incident with the pies and Morris hitting the women with pies? Their friendship? Going to the Antonioni festival, David being locked out and meeting Rafi? The coffee afterwards, the friendship, his nervousness, the phone call, hanging up, his talking with her, inviting her out? The fact that they clicked? The issue of age – and its permeating the film? The younger man, the older woman? Working well together, the relationship, emotional, intellectual, sexual? The affair? Companionship – and the repercussions?

7. Rafi and the relationship, its effect, her saying that she was fulfilled, the sexual fulfilment? Her consciousness about the age issue and mentioning it? The consequences for her?

8. Meryl Streep as Lisa, as a psychiatrist, frumpy-looking – with a touch of glamour? As mother, her treatment of her son, the alienation? Her work with her husband? His quiet attitudes, at home? With her clients? With her parents? The importance of the Jewish background? The sessions with Rafi, affirming her, giving her permission for the relationship? The realisation that she was talking about her son, the challenge, the change, the reactions – not of a psychiatrist? Her wanting to thwart the affair? Her own therapy and explaining the situation? Her finally telling Rafi, before dealing with David?

9. The home scenes, the Jewish home, the controlling mother, the quiet father, the grandparents – and David staying with them? David and his mother, Rafi reporting innocently everything he said about her, the clashes, the age?

10. Lisa and her telling Rafi, Rafi’s reactions, the issue of trust, the changing relationship, the realisation of the consequences, Lisa having heard intimate and explicit details about her son and its effect?

11. Rafi and David, their talking, his persuading her to visit the home, the frankness of the discussion?

12. David and meeting the model, his drinking, spending the night with her, admitting his mistake, Rafi hearing the model’s gossip, her reaction and anger, David confessing? Ousting Morris? His being a man of his age, early twenties – especially with the computer game? His sensitivity towards Rafi but not realising what an older woman required in terms of presence and attention?

13. The changes in each of them, a realisation that they were not for each other?

14. Rafi, the lying about her age, David lying about Rafi’s age to his mother? The issue of needs, intimacy, intellectual companionship – and the realisation that David had to grow up?

15. David, his friendship with Morris, their talks, the issue of the pies, buying the pies, in the face of the women?

16. Parents and children, the nature of relationships, control, age and responsibility?

17. Rafi and David breaking up, David seeing Rafi after the year – looking in the window, her waving? The change and maturity each? The effect of the relationship on each of them?

18. Themes of a value system, freedom and responsibility, reality and its consequences? David and his art, Rafi’s encouragement, the paintings, the exhibition – and the affirmation of him doing something that meant importance for his life?