THE HONOURABLE WALLY NORMAN

Australia, 2003, 87 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Harrington, Shaun Micallef, Alan Cassell, Greig Pickhaver, Bryan Dawe.
Directed by Ted Emery.

The Honourable Wally Norman is an entertaining comedy with point about Australian battlers and Australian politics. The film was directed by Ted Emery, a veteran of much television comedy, especially the programs with Jane Turner, Gina Riley and Magda Szubanski.

The film takes place in a fictional South Australian town – which is considered to be a safe measure for the political fortunes at election time.

The film parodies the Liberals and the National Party, with a portrait of a double-dealing politician played by Shaun Micallef. Alan Cassell portrays the Labor-style veteran who blots his copybook by drunkenness and unseemly behaviour while Minister for Trade. His name is Willy Norman. Wally Norman is a worker at the meatworks, played with charm and sincere naivety by Kevin Harrington. His name is submitted by mistake as the candidate for the elections.

Much of what happens is, of course, predictable but enjoyable nonetheless. Wally Norman faints when he has to make a speech, especially after his greyhound wins the local race. However, in order to cover their mistake, Willy Norman and the associate from the city decide to coach Wally. However, Willy Norman has much shrewder ideas and wants to do deals with the opposition in order to retain his seat.

The film shows all the faux pas, the mistakes Wally makes during the campaign, especially the sneering of television interviewers (one of whom is Bryan Dawe, John Clarke’s companion on his long-time television interviews of politicians). The campaign also has repercussions on Wally’s family life, the daughter falling in love with the aide from the city, and with his fellow workers who see him betraying the cause, especially when the meatworks are closed down.

Greig Pickhaver (television’s H.G. Nelson) enjoys himself thoroughly as the co-ordinator of the campaign.

The film idealises the Aussie battlers, draws on these traditions, is critical of the ultra-sophistication and manipulation of contemporary politicians.

1. The Australian appeal? Appeal beyond Australia? The glimpse of ordinary Australian life, hard work, the battlers? Politics, politicians, deceit and honesty? The role of the media?

2. The Aussie battlers, old-fashioned, values? Integrity and honesty? The battlers being victims of politicians?

3. The blend of reality and fantasy in this creation? Ted Emery and his talent for comedy? Quirky Australian comedies?

4. The background of Australian politics at the end of the 90s and into the 21st century? The role of the National Party? Labor, Liberals? The good and the bad?

5. The situation, the election coming up, the campaign, the nominations? The chairman and his strategies in the city? The personalities, the officials, the candidates, the dirty tricks, responses and responsibilities?

6. The town, its people, ordinary, the Norman family, the preparations for the goat race, the cheering of the crowd, the bets? The parody of races, the pit stops? Winnings and losses? The commentary from the television on the race? The nature of the electorate as measured by this town?

7. The meatworks, Wally and his position, the other workers, the detail of the processing of the meat? Ken Oates and his visit, his patronising the workers, photo opportunities? His messing things? The encounter with Wally? The approach of the thugs, the financial deals, the three hundred jobs to be lost? Ken and his covering, the money gains for himself, the public announcements, the lockouts and the police? Oates and his putting on a good face?

8. Wally and his family, the boy and the goat, the daughter, the devotion of his wife? Hard work, skills at the meatworks? The win at the race, the drinks for everybody, fainting at making the speech? His reaction to Ken Oates? The rhetorical and powerful speeches on politics at home?

9. Myles, his age, his being chosen by the chairman? Going to the town, his briefing? Giving out the leaflets at the race? The rally, his admiration for Wally? His working with Willy, his being forced to drink, the mistake in the nomination? The reaction of the chairman, Myles and the rectifying of the situation? Willy and his saving face, the choice of Wally?

10. Wally, his being told of the nomination? His reaction, the family? His friends and their moods? Willy and his coaching, Wally fainting, the speeches, with the babies etc? Going on TV, making a mess of the interview? His being disheartened? The faux pas with the sign changed for ‘Tuck Shop’? His giving people the finger by mistake? The change of heart, the taunts of his mates? His decision to be honest and upfront, the irony of the goat eating his speech (and Willy’s hat)? His speech and people changing? The TV interviewers and their bet?

11. The strong wife, her support? The daughter, falling in love with Myles? Myles and his character, sincere, caught up in the political world, trying to help Wally?

12. Willy and the stories told about him, the flashbacks to his drunken behaviour? As minister, vomiting? Taking Wally to the hairdresser – and his affair with her? Going to Ken, explaining the deal, the situation of the bribe? Ken turning the tables on him at the debate? His writing Ken’s television speech – and watching it and mouthing it with him?

13. The campaign, speeches, the television, the interviews, the meat issues – and Willy suppressing them?

14. The debate, Ken giving the information about the mistake, Wally and his resigning, the wife punching the opposition, his speech, Myles’s support?

15. The chairman, going with every flow, blaming Myles, sacking him? The confrontation with Willy? Going to the debate – and Wally continuing and his opportunistic singing of the song, continued support?

16. Wally’s success, becoming Minister for Trade? His information about where the meat exports went to? Three years passing? The family, Myles’s return, the baby, putting Myles in as the nominee?

17. The points made in humorous way about people, ambitions, corruption, integrity? The irony of the politician saying truth hurts and suppressing it? Truth being a benefit rather than hurting?

THE FIELD

Ireland, 1991, 105 minutes, Colour.
Richard Harris, John Hurt, Sean Bean, Brenda Fricker, Tom Berenger, Sean Mc Ginley, Frances Tomelty.
Directed by Jim Sheridan.

The Field is a powerful adaptation and opening out of a play by veteran John B. Keane. It is set in the early part of the 21st century, along the rugged Irish coast. The landscapes are beautiful but harsh.

The film also focuses on the Irish issue of the land. Richard Harris portrays the patriarch who claims a field owned by a widow (who is tormented for ten years by the mischievous action of the patriarch’s son and one of the locals). When the field comes up for auction, the patriarch is challenged by an Irish visitor, with interest in hydroelectric developments.

Richard Harris is at his best as Bull Mc Cabe – and received an Oscar nomination for this performance. He is supported by John Hurt as the toadying local and Sean Bean as his son. Bean went on to a significant international career as did Brenda Fricker who appears as Bull Mc Cabe’s wife. Tom Berenger is the American visitor.

The film retains much of the dialogue of the play and has some fine set speeches for Richard Harris – along the lines of an Irish King Lear. As with Lear, the film focuses on madness, obsession about ownership, the next generation, betrayal.

Director Jim Sheridan was to become famous in 1989 with his Oscar-nominated My Left Foot (with Oscar wins for Daniel Day Lewis and Brenda Fricker). He went on to make The Field, In the Name of the Father and The Boxer, focusing on Irish Troubles. He also made a semi-autobiographical film about his coming to America, called In America. He then made Get Rich or Die Tryin’, a portrait of American violence and gangsters and the music industry, featuring rap performer Fifty Cents.

1. The impact of the film? For Irish audiences? World audiences? Awards?

2. The work of J.B. Keane, the piece written for the theatre, Jim Sheridan doing the screenplay and opening out the film?

3. The strong cast, Richard Harris and his performance and Oscar nomination?

4. The language of the play, the rhetorical speeches, the transition to external locations and action? The visualising of the field? The fights, the climax at the edge of the cliff with the cattle?

5. The beauty of the Irish locations, the coast, the town, the re-creation of the period, cars, carts and bikes? The musical score and themes?

6. The title and the focus on the field? The explanation of the law of the land? The hard work in cultivating the field, issues of inheritance, bequeathing property to the next generation? Owners and rights? The history of the field, the Mc Cabe family and their contribution? Bull’s story about working the field, his father, his mother’s illness and still getting in the hay before getting the priest? Tidghe and his not being obsessed with the field, yet devoted to his father, his tormenting the widow to make her sell? The issues of law and morality as interpreted by Bull? The widow and her ownership, the ten years, Tidghe and Bird haunting her, creating fear, her decision to auction the field, leave the village? The hundred pound reserve? The auction and the American, claiming his Irish heritage, wanting to mine the limestone, build the hydroelectric plant, cover the field in concrete? The bid by Bull, a hundred and one pounds? The Yank losing his life for the field? The priest and his comment on the morality, the interdict for the village because of their behaviour, their lies to the police? The final destruction – and Tidghe not wanting the field?

7. The donkey episode, pushing it into the lake? Tidghe’s behaviour, Bull covering for him, the tinkers wanting the blood money, their pressuring Bull, discovering the body of the donkey? The parallel with the treatment of the American? Getting the crane, getting his body – and the iconic image of his hanging high on the crane?

8. Richard Harris’s portrait of Bull? The Mc Cabe family, his love for his sons, his boy hanging at the age of thirteen, his being haunted by this, blaming himself? The falling out with his wife, not speaking for eighteen years? His determination to do everything for Tidghe? Seeing him at work, the peat and the bogs, the sales, on the coast selling the peat? Trying to raise the money for the field? His vigorous eating, his sleeping in the house, with the other men, his authority and the followers? Bird and his use? Outside the church, not going in? The auction and his tactics with Bird? The dance in the hall, the intensity, his planning for Tidghe’s wedding, the matchmaking, the discussions? The dance and the collapse of the girl? His anger at the tinker girl – but dancing with her? His reaction to the American? The ‘no trespassing’ sign and his going to the police, to the priest – with the letter written on the presbytery paper?

9. The impact of his speech to the priest, the depth of feeling, Irish history, oppression, the land? His speech to his wife? His speech to Tidghe? The confrontation with the Yank on the lakeside? The fight, urging Tidghe on, his anger, killing the American, embracing him? His lies? His going to the church and being denounced?

10. Tidghe, his age, the death of his brother and his not knowing the details? Love for his mother? His drab life, hard work, tormenting the widow, the smoke, the haunting? The donkey and its death, going too far? The tinker girl, the attraction, her taunting him about obeying his father, always following his father? Drinking in the pub, with the other men? The friendship with Bird? The dance, his father planning his marriage, dancing and whirling the girl, the collapse? His relationship with the tinker girl, the affair? The fight with the Yank, his defeat, his father urging him on? His boasting to the girl – and the news getting around the village? The confrontation with Bull, his leaving with the girl? The news about his father and the cattle, hurrying to rescue the cattle, on the cliff edge – and his death? Lying on the beach?

11. Bull’s wife, her hard life, her work in the house, advice to her son, the burial of their son – not in holy ground because of his suicide? Her not talking to Bull? Her cooking for him, keeping house? The final speaking, her concern about Tidghe, wanting Bull to see the truth? Bull and his spade and wanting to bury his son in the cemetery?

12. Bird, his appearance, making mischief, slow-witted yet shrewd, a follower, always after money, his lies, his not wanting to be a snitch, his betrayal, his treatment by Bull, his working with Tidghe? The people in the village, the night of the fight, his watching? His being denounced by Bull?

13. The Yank, the car, his arrival, background, visiting the graves of his ancestor? His friendship with the priest? The discussion of the plans and the development? Visiting the field? Going to the auction, the bid? Going to dance? Going to look at the property, the fight, his besting Tidghe, killed by Bull? The picture of the Americans coming back to Ireland, Bull’s taunt that his family stayed during the famine while others left?

14. Flanagan, his running the pub, the law, the auction?

15. The men of the village, the auction, supporting Bull, their lies, going to church?

16. The widow, her fears, her decision about the auction, her leaving the town and the men’s taunts, Bull defending her?

17. The world of the tinkers, their life on the outskirts of the town, the girl and her provocative behaviour towards Tidghe, at the dance, dancing with Bull? Her taunting Tidghe? Their night together, leaving with him?

18. The priest, the role of the priest in the village, his friendship with the American? The discussions of the plan? The celebration of Mass, the men not going into the church? His final confrontation, his sermon, his disgust with the people, placing the church under interdict?

19. The build-up to the climax, Bull and his madness, the cattle on the cliff – Tidghe’s death? His wife at the cliff top? The last glimpse of him wading into the water?

20. Insight into the history of Ireland, the harshness of life, the oppression, the comment by the priest that religion was only a veneer over paganism? The violence, the ruggedness? In the light of the changes at the end of the 20th century?

PROOF

US, 2005, 99 minutes, Colour.
Gwyneth Paltrow, Anthony Hopkins, Jake Gyllenhaal, Hope Davis.
Directed by John Madden.

Films about mathematics, especially at university level, are not the first titles that come to mind in wondering what would be most popular at the box-office.

However, during the 1980s, there was an interesting and challenging film about difficulties in schools in Hispanic East Los Angeles. The subject being taught was calculus. The film was Stand and Deliver with Edward James Olmos as a dedicated teacher who wanted to improve standards and possibilities in life for his students. It turned out to be quite popular.

More recently, a film about mathematics and the nature of intellectual genius won the Oscar for Best Film and was seen by millions. This was Ron Howard’s biography of Nobel Prize-winner, John Nash, memorably played by Russell Crowe. While there were many maths sequences, there was a great deal of plot beyond the maths. John Nash was diagnosed as schizophrenic. He lived part of his life in an interior world populated by espionage and code breakers as well as imaginary friends who dramatised other facets of his personality.

Proof is more in this vein.

It is based on a successful play by David Auburn which won awards on Broadway and was seen successfully around the world. In London, Gwyneth Paltrow played the leading character on the West End.
Proof is more of a specialist film and it would not be expected to be big box-office, despite Gwyneth Paltrow bringing her theatre performance to the screen.

But that does not mean that Proof is not worth seeing – and sitting back for some sequences where the talk about proofs and theorems and equations and prime numbers is more than a bit beyond most of us.

It is probably more accurate to describe Proof as a film about genius and about madness. Films about the mind and the psyche are often fascinating explorations of human nature, strengths and weaknesses.

The central character is 27 year old Catherine Llewellyn (Paltrow) whose mathematics professor father, Robert, has just died. She is grieving since she has been caring for him for three years, giving up her studies and her ambitions to tend him. A brilliant scholar in Britain and then in the US, he has been suffering from forms of madness for years, working away diligently at his studies but producing only notebooks of gibberish.

Her older sister, Claire, turns up, a practical woman wanting to interfere and control under the guise of taking care of Catherine. A maths teacher, taught by her father, Hal Dobbs, also turns up. Ultimately (but not without some severe tests of trust), he provides an alternative for Catherine’s life. She herself is like her father, a maths genius, but afraid that she too will descend into madness. An elaborate 40 page proof is at the centre of the crisis and the question of who wrote it, Robert or Catherine.

The credentials on this production are impeccable. David Auburn has adapted his play with the assistance of screenwriter and director, Rebecca Miller (Personal Velocity, Ballad of Jack and Rose – and daughter of Arthur Miller). Director John Madden guided Gwyneth Paltrow to her Oscar in Shakespeare in Love.

Gwyneth Paltrow herself brings a subtle poignancy to her quiet performance, suggesting vulnerability as well as determination, showing devotion but also deep apprehensiveness about her own mental condition. Hope Davis, often acting in lesser known independent films, is completely convincing as the ever-talking, list-making and busy Claire. Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Jarhead, Brokeback Mountain) is sympathetic as the do-gooding Hal.

As Robert Llewellyn, Anthony Hopkins gives an assured performance, appearing at times in his daughter’s imagination, seen in a series of flashback which show his mental deterioration, his determination and his sad acceptance of his condition.

Proof is a specialist film but it is interesting and thoughtful.

1. The impact of the film: the education background, mathematics, sanity and madness, family, father-daughter relationships?

2. The title, proofs as beautiful, like music? The fear of peaking at twenty-three for mathematicians? Mathematicians and their desire to have proofs, verifying theorems? The drugs? The conversation of culture with mathematics? Big ideas? Katherine’s comment that it is not big ideas, but working away, chipping away at a problem like her father? Coming from the side, weird angles, keeping to the grind? The film and the focus on the life of mathematicians?

3. The basis of the film as a play, the playwright adapting his play with Arthur Miller’s daughter, Rebecca? The intellectual background, the reliance on speech and speeches? Details of mathematics? The confined world of the university, academia, mathematics? The confined world of the play – and opening up the screenplay? Exterior scenes, close-ups? A successful adaptation? Performances?

4. The action in the present: Robert Llewellyn’s death, Katherine’s birthday, the preparations for the funeral? Hal’s visit, Claire’s arrival and her interactions and interference, the funeral, the aftermath, the issue of the proof, decisions about New York, the truth?

5. The flashbacks and their insertion? Robert as present to Katherine, the initial appearances to her, explaining his life, his death, his funeral? Her talking to her dead father? Her materialising her father and interpreting him? The development of the memories, the father as sane, talking about her birthday, at the university with Hal? His concern about Katherine’s going to school? The development of the proof, his exhilaration, their working together, his finally finishing, Katherine reading it, her dismay? His appearance at the end?

6. Gwyneth Paltrow and the portrait of Katherine: aged twenty-seven, clever, the younger sister, her difficult relationship with Claire, her love for her father, devotion to him? Living in the house, caring for her father and his madness for so many years? Cleaning house? Cleaning him? Coping with his madness? Claire and her absence in New York, having a life of her own? Her knowledge of maths, working with her father, wanting to go to school, North-Western? University and his comments about distance? Her love for maths? Her physical health, her fears of being like her father and mental breakdown? Claire and her interrogations? Her interaction with Hal, his coming on her birthday, the champagne, the discussions of his band, I As The Imaginary Number? His looking through the manuscripts, her discovering the manuscripts and her anger and calling the police? His wanting her father’s words to be a gift to her? Claire’s arrival, concern about her hair, going shopping, the discussion about the police and that she imagined Hal? Her reaction to the police, saying “I spat”, her swearing? Her explaining Hal? Her tantrums against Claire, buying the dress? Her moods? Her anger with Claire – and the vegetarian chilli? Meeting Hal in the street and his being real? The funeral, her nerviness, her getting up to make the speech, the bluntness of the speech about her father and his condition, about the friends who didn’t visit him? The social afterwards, going to her room, Hal and his being with her, playing in the band, going to her room, the books about maths, inhibited, the sexual encounter? Her feeling like an egg about to be cracked open? Giving Hal the key to the desk, saying that she wanted him to be the first to see the proof? The prospect of New York? The issue of the house, her arguments with Claire about the house? The proof, Claire’s anger, not believing that she wrote the proof, Hal and his doubts, not trusting her?

7. The portrait of Robert, his reputation, skills, lectures, Hal as his student, his lucid time and Katherine and her birthday? His study? Katherine’s speech about him and the aliens, how he stank? The description of his exhilaration? His madness, working, looked after by Katherine, watching television? His continued work, collaboration, urging her not to waste her life, counting the number of days wasted? His joy at having the proof? Her reading it aloud – and his collapse?

8. The contrast with Claire, overbearing, a currency analyst, absent from Chicago and making a life of her own? Arrival at the airport, phone calls, incessant talking? Her attacks on Katherine, interfering, calling her Katie? Her stories about Mitch, the plan to marry? Interrogating Katherine during the shopping, about Hal and the police? Meeting him? Claire’s reaction to Katherine’s eulogy? The party, laughing out loud at the band, the theoretical physicist, her hangover? Wanting Katherine to move, her plan, the selling of the house to the university? Defending her life? Suggesting that her father would have been better in an institution, arranging doctors in New York for Katherine, not believing her about the proof, urging her to go to New York, at the airport – and her explanation of her lists? Katherine leaving her?

9. Hal, his studies, dissertation? His supervision by Robert? The chance encounter with Katherine – and her remembering? Her birthday, the champagne, the manuscript, trying to smuggle it out, the truth that he wanted to give her a gift? His band? Wanting to go to the funeral, at the funeral and his concern, following her out? At the social, the band playing, her room, the kiss, the sexual encounter, saying that he wanted to spend time with her? Her giving him the key to the desk?

10. The funeral, the people arriving, the eulogy, the music, Katherine and her speech? The criticism of the friends and their absence? The social, people chatting, Katherine morose, the band playing?

11. Hal and the manuscript, his joy, willing to go through all to find the professor’s work? Katherine giving him the proof? The importance of the proof about prime numbers? Claire’s reaction, Hal’s reaction, the consequences – and Katherine announcing that she wrote the proof?

12. Katherine’s memories of the study, the professor and the discussions and her explaining to the professor about her homework, that she was involved in further research? His wanting her to do the ordinary work? The ordinary professor? Katherine’s concern, phoning, phoning Claire, the discussions with her father, the sadness in reading his gibberish? The meal and the professor saying that she was lazy, the thirty-three-and-a-quarter days, that she should stop moping? Her giving him the book? His not responding to her work?

13. The dispute about who wrote the proof, Hal’s reaction, the issue of handwriting? His not believing Katherine? Planning to take the proof to professors? His reasons for doubt? The verification? Claire and her attack? Katherine’s bitterness, wanting to tear up the proof?

14. Claire and her packing, Katherine tossing all away, weeping? The going to the airport – the talk at the airport, the lists?

15. Hal and the verification, the professors, his eagerness? Katherine’s bitterness? Their talk – and his running, tossing the manuscript into the taxi?

16. Katherine’s soliloquy, the image of searching the house, unable to get out? Hal coming, talking? Her fears that she was like her father? His offering to disprove negatively that she was insane?

17. The overall effect, understanding people’s lives, intellectual lives, imagination, emotions? Genius and the fear of madness?

STAY

US, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Ewan Mc Gregor, Naomi Watts, Ryan Gosling, Bob Hoskins, Janeane Garofalo, B.D. Wong.
Directed by Marc Forster.

Director Marc Forster came to world attention with his sombre drama Monster’s Ball for which Halle Berry won the Best Actress Oscar. This was tough and frank drama. He surprised his fans by making a completely different film next – the story of J.M.Barrie, Finding Neverland, with Johnny Depp. It was a charming and thoughtful film, an excursion into early 20th century British sensibility. Now, Stay, is something completely different.

However, it may be too difficult in terms of plot clarity and issues to win the support that his previous films have gained.

It is probably best described as a ‘supernatural thriller’, though, in reality, there is not so much supernatural in it. Is it a ghost story? Is it a story of psychological possession? Is it a story of therapy – and its failure? Is it a kind of purgatorial story of atonement and expiation? Or all of the above? Maybe the best advice is to sit back and be absorbed – but my guess is that many will be tempted simply to give up and tune out.

Stay opens with a car accident and ends with another death on the Brooklyn Bridge. Ryan Gosling portrays a mysterious young man seen walking from the accident – and then his face is superimposed on that of Ewan Mc Gregor. Mc Gregor is a psychologist, living with an artist (Naomi Watts) whom he has saved from a suicide attempt. Suicide becomes one of the themes as the young man lets his therapist know that he plans to kill himself: Saturday, midnight, the Brooklyn Bridge.

What transpires before that is the random appearance and disappearance of the young man, the psychiatrist’s attempts to find him and save him as well as encounters with a blind professor friend (Bob Hoskins) whom the young man claims is his father, with the man’s mother (who is supposed to be dead) and a burnt-out therapist. At times Mc Gregor is mistaken for the young man. Those who know the young man do not recognise him.

So, is this New York a kind of hell (as the young man suggests) is it a place of making an account of one’s life, a purgatory? The end and the gathering of the people in the man’s life suggests the latter. But…?

1. A psychological thriller? A study in a psychological case? The clarity of the plot? Obscure?

2. New York City, the dark side of America? The Brooklyn Bridge? Apartments and offices? Authentic feel – or surreal? The mood of the score?

3. The title and its references to Henry, to Sam, to Lila – and to taking one’s life instead of staying in this world? The mystery of staying in this world after death?

4. The opening accident, suggestions in the flashbacks, the accident at the end? Themes of death, spirits, spirits wandering? Overtones of Purgatory? Direct references to Hell? The individual being alone? The pessimistic ending?

5. The atmosphere of ghosts? Henry and Sam becoming interchangeable? Lila and her attempted suicide? Her recognising Sam but calling him Henry? Henry’s mother recognising Sam? Henry’s father – the professor or not? The bookseller not recognising Henry on the train?

6. Themes of identity, others identifying a person? The possibilities of possession and doubles?

7. Henry’s story, the arts student, seen with his studies, his artwork? The exhibition? His love of reading? His psychological breakdown? Relationship with his parents, their deaths, the accident? Going to the psychologist – and Beth having a breakdown? Sam taking her place? His coming and going? Enigmatic statements, the reference to the hailstorm? Sudden appearances? The smoking on the train and his being told off by the bookseller? Visiting the professor, claiming he was his father? Coming to him again, healing his blindness? Sam visiting his mother? His knowing about Lila and her attempted suicide? His reappearance, Sam searching for him? His plan, the suicide on Brooklyn Bridge, the model of his favourite artist? Reading all the books? On Brooklyn Bridge, the accident, his death? Sam and Lila trying to help?

8. Lila and Henry’s mother saying that Sam was Henry? The bookseller not recognising Henry on the train? The audience seeing interchanging images of the two faces?

9. Sam and his work, his skills, taking Beth’s place – and his visit to her and her breakdown and erratic behaviour? Living with Lila, love for her? The story of his saving her from her attempted suicide? At work? Ordinary yet becoming possessed by Henry? The sessions, his psychological questioning? Henry’s vanishing? Sam and Lila caught in the hailstorm? His visiting the professor, playing chess? Going to visit Henry’s mother, her wound, offering him food? The discussion with the other psychiatrists? Frederick and the talk? His watching the class? His continued search for Henry, going to the bookstore? His bewilderment? Lila wanting him to confide in her? Going with Lila to Brooklyn Bridge? Henry’s death? The aftermath?

10. Lila, with Sam, her ordinary life, the motivation for her suicide attempt? Her wanting to talk about Henry, wanting Sam to trust her? Wanting him to break the rules? Her art, her need for affirmation, low self-esteem? Understanding Henry, his art? The search, present at his death?

11. The professor, his skills, blind, playing chess with Sam? Henry’s going to meet him – and his being healed of his blindness? His talking with Sam afterwards?

12. The professors, their work, their lectures? Beth and her work?

13. The bookshop owner, on the train, in the shop, knowing Henry, his assistant?

14. The presence of all these significant characters at Henry’s death? As if his life was going by him?

15. The questions about life after death, ghosts, spirits?

THE WINNERS

South Africa, 1973, 90 minutes, Colour.
Joe Stewardson, Richard Loring, Murray du Tuiat, Tony Jay, Madeleine Usher, John Higgins, Ken Leach.
Directed by Emil Nofal and Roy Sargent.

The Winners has become something of a classic South African film, produced by Emil Nofal who was producing films during the 1960s and 1970s. While the impact may be strong in South Africa, the film doesn’t travel so well.

The focus is on a white family and the domination by the patriarch, Will Maddox, played by Joe Stewardson. In his intense determination to win at everything, even wanting to defeat his sons at squash, he alienates his whole film, especially with his sons dying in accidents and crashes. Eventually, he has to come to terms with himself.

The film at times seems rather stilted. It also has on its soundtrack an incessant replaying of Frank Sinatra and My Way. The film was so popular it led to a sequel, Winners 2.

1. The meaning and irony of the title? The winners in the film? The gold statue and the trophies?

2. What did the film have to say about winning? About achievement and having a go? The importance of the song, My Way and its implications for the film?

3. How successful was the screenplay? Did it show real human situation"? Was it too contrived? Did it balance sentiment and reality? Realism and idealism? The use of the camera, photography, colour and landscaping, close-ups for sentiment?

4, Was it obvious that this was a South African film? What was your response to it as a South African film?
Comment on the opening of the film: the banquet, the happy faces, the list of achievements, and the sense of irony which the rest of the film had?

6. Did you find Will Maddox an attractive character? Did the film illustrate his life well? What drove him, his moving from nothing to everything? His relationship with his family, lack of communication, love for them as extensions of himself, selfish? Listening to Uncle Nat and taking his advice? His relentlessness in the sports field driving his children, timing them etc? His work in the firm and his pushing, his sense of achievement? The marathon being called after him, the effect of his children leaving him? The effect of going, in the marathon itself? His final throwing the stop watch, pacing his son his getting up and running to the end? How did he change during the film? What made him change? Could the audience like him or not?

7. What did the film have to say about family life? About expectations from parents and pressures? Which sequences and incidences best illustrated this?

8. Audience interest in Tony? His racing and paying for a win? His pursuit of Jillian and his love for her? The impact of his accident and his striving too hard? The courage of his walking again? His change in attitude by the end of the film? What point was being made via his character?

9. Did you like Paul? Why did he leave his father? The impact of his work dealing with ordinary people, meeting with Gina and her father, with Mario and the restaurant, his work on the wharves? The impact of Barry's death on him, the impact of Gina’s going back to Italy to the convent? Why did he run in the marathon? What paint was being made via his characterer?

10. How interesting was Barry? His American accent, his understanding of his father? Was his death too contrived or did it have a good impact in the film? The effect on the others?

11. The importance of Sandy, as a daughter, her relationship with her mother, her father’s driving her in swimming, her fear of losing and the impact of coming second?

12. What point was made via Will's wife? Her criticism of him, her standing by and supporting as a wife?

13. How attractive a character was Nat? The friend helping all of them, his standing by Wills his pacing of him, support? What point was being made about friendship here? Nat's response to the dirt digging journalist?

14. What did the film have to say about the tempo and quality of modern life. its effect on people and family. on love? Gillian and Gina?

15. The film’s point of view on achievement, on sport in itself, and as a symbol of achievement?

16. What values did the film stand for ? Was its moral convincing? What impact on audiences would it have? Make them better in their attitudes towards life and achievement?



WINNERS II

A sequel to the 1972 South African film 'The Winners’. The film is a rather sentimental, television type family drama with the recurring theme of the song ‘My Way'.

Its theme in winning in all fields especially with the focus on business and sport. Many of the game situations are repeated with variations in this sequel. The director, however, is different. Of interest as an example of film-making from South Africa in the seventies.

1. How interesting and entertaining a South African film? Its merits on its own, as a sequel to the original?

2. The South African production values: atmosphere, themes, way of life? For A South African audience, non-South African audience?

3. The basic appeal of the soap opera the human drama? Melodramatic touches, ordinary human touches? On what level did this drama work? serious drama or soap opera?

4. The contribution of colour, locations, local flavour?

3. The theme song of My Way and its implications and use throughout the film? The musical score, songs? The theme of winning? the critique of winning at all costs and yet the strong emphasis on winning and its approval?

6. The focus of the film on Joe? As a dynamic person, his push, his place in the building industry? His relationship with his family? His high expectations of them and demands? His reaction to Paul's illegitimacy? Letting him go but contriving for a girl to do the detective work? The clashes with Fran and her decision to leave him? The support from Nate and yet their clashes and Nate moving away from him? The pressurizing of Tony to come in on the job his admiration of him, his reaction to being edged out and taken literally by his son? The world of business deals, the hard line he took on his men, his family? His expectations of Sandy and the gymnastics? His sports background. taking achievement in sport as a basis for his expectations? His running? The decision he had to make for Paul at
the end? How credible a character? Typical of the hard self-made businessman?

7. Audience response to Paul’s story? The sudden Information about his illegitimacy, his decision to search out his father, the people he met at the bar especially the owner and the Orthodox priest, their help? The encounter with the suicidal girl and his being drawn in to help her? and the irony of falling in love and yet finding out the truth? Becoming a fisherman, sailing the boat, discovering his father? What kind of man was his father? Alone with the birds on the island? (the visual picturing of this way of life as a contrast to Paul's life in the family?) His judgment on his father and his running away, being reassured about his love for his mother, his decision to return to his family? The running and support of Joe?

8. Interest in Tony's story the pressures from his father and leaving motor racing, his interest and skill in sky diving? His return to the industry, his skill in his work, edging out his father and yet bringing him in on the success part of it? The bond with the secretary, potential for marriage? The irony of his sudden death? The strong visualizing of the sky diving and the alarm with the parachute not opening?

9. Sandy's story: her reaction to her father, his expectations, her skill as a gymnast, leaving her mother, her longing for her father, the decision to try her best at the gymnastics, the long presentation of the competition and her skill and achievement?

10. Fran's story - her love for her husband, support from Nate, love for the children, taking Sandy away the reasons for her return, the reconciliation? Was this credible?

11. The character of Nate and his continual presence – especially his involvement in the telegram about the birth of Paul? His strong words to Joes and his continued advice?

12. The romantic themes e*specially the place of the girl who was spying on Paul, falling in love? romantic subplot?

13. The use of sport as a symbol for winning? How ambiguous was the attitude of the film towards winning and the critique of people who make winning a be all and end-all? The significance of the final marathon and the father running with his son, the song?

BREATH

Korea, 2007, 84 minutes, Colour.
Chang Chen Zia.
Directed by Kim Ki- Duk.

In recent years Kim Ki- Duk has achieved a world-wide reputation and has been making brief, more focused films (Binjip, The Bow). It is the same here, a small drama in 84 minutes.

A lonely housewife is fascinated by the TV news of a murderer on death row attempting suicide. She visits him in prison, bringing some colour and joy to his life, and some intimacy. This is a relief for him as he is in a cell with several others who torment him. Her unfaithful but demanding husband has to deal with this situation.

Breath is life. Breathing corresponds to our moods, our emotions, our crises. The woman gives herself to the prisoner but wants to take his breath before he is executed. Fellow prisoners want to take his breath. A blend of the realistic and the stylised, Kim Ki- Duk offers a challengingly strange short story.

1.Kim Ki- Duk’s reputation? His making brief films, regularly, annually? Their intensity?

2.The Korean settings, the city and streets, affluent homes, prison cells, the prison yards, the snow? The musical score, the range of songs?

3.The blend of the realistic and the symbolic? Stylised? Especially the end in the snowman and the prisoners all together?

4.The prison story: the walls, the knives and the scraping on the walls, the art? The relationships, sexual? Dependence? The inherent violence? The prisoner and the sharp object? Suicide or murder attempt? The previous attempts? Hospital, recovery? His being due for execution? Murdering his family? No explanation? The clashes in the cell, the photos and the prisoners destroying them, chewing them?

5.The other prisoners, their personalities, life in the cell, the mixed attitudes, warmth, violence?

6.The woman at home, her bond with her child, her sculpture, nothing else to do at home, the expectations of her husband, the television information about the prisoner, his attempts? Her husband, his infidelity? The woman, her deciding to visit the prison, the initial encounter, her warmth, the prisoner wary? His never having had visitors – but curiosity about the woman visitor? The further visits, the pictures of the seasons, her clothes, the songs accordingly? The kissing and embrace? The reaction of the authorities? The beating of the prisoner? Her giving him her picture?

7.The husband and his macho expectations, his own cheating, his brutality towards the woman, following her, watching the television, his bashing his wife, repenting, breaking off with the girl, her coming to the door and slapping him? The wife throwing the remote control at him?

8.The woman and her smashing the statue? The aftermath of her husband’s treatment?

9.The portrait on the wall, prisoner sketching the woman? The other photo – and the woman photographing herself naked? His execution due, the final visit, the husband taking his wife, the little girl in the car, the husband playing in the snow and building snowmen? The snowball fights?

10.The woman, the sexual encounter, the effect on the man, on herself? The bare walls, no seasons? The breath in the sexual experience? Her breath, wanting to take his life with her breath and save him from execution? His breaking free and breathing? She being exorcised of her demons, going outside, playing in the snow with her family? The final song?

11.Back in the prison, one prisoner killing the other, taking his breath? The tableau at the end?

SICKO

US, 2007, 122 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Michael Moore.

Michael Moore may not be a White House favourite, but he certainly is at Cannes.

To criticise him as partisan is not really relevant. Being partisan is the point. Moore has the talent to be both serious and funny in his polemic. He offers anecdotal evidence in moving stories, interviews and telling television footage of targeted politicians and business leaders.

He is on surer ground in Sicko. Any visitor to the US knows that they must not get sick there without insurance as ill-health and hospital cost the earth. Moore wants to show that the US health insurance system can be detrimental to sick Americans with its policy of scrutinising contracts to avoid payouts – sometimes with dire results.

Moore visits Canada, the UK and France (very flattering to France!) to examine how the national health schemes work well (despite local complaints). He also takes a group of ‘victims’ of the US policy to Cuba because of propaganda about the good health conditions of Guantanomo Bay prisoners. They are well received and helped by the friendly Cubans.

He may be annoying or intrusive, but American needs Michael Moore and his films.

1.Michael Moore and his achievement, in film, television? His partisan approach? A crusader? The challenge to him about the truth, his challenge for people to find errors in his films?

2.Moore’s ability to keep audience interest, local stories, a narrative, his own voice, presence, humour? Sardonic, the critique of the powers-that-be?

3.The issues of the film, clear for all, especially for non-Americans going to America and frightened by hospital bills? The political background of the medical system, Richard Nixon, the tapes, the lobbies? The bribes, the jobs with companies afterwards? Hillary Clinton and her attempt at reform, everybody opposed to her? The pressures? The system devised – for profits, capitalism, the insurance agencies and their aim to make money and to refuse people, the procedures?

4.Most fifty million Americans not insured, the initial stories of those not insured and the difficulties, the severing of fingers and the choice of which finger to repair? The elderly couple with heart attacks and cancer having to move in with their children?

5.The Americans who are insured, the various firms, naming and shaming them? The clauses, the decisions to stop the money being given to those in need? The evidence of those who worked for the companies, the open confessions? Feeling bad? The government presentation and the signing of the bill by President Bush, the congratulations all round?

6.Moore’s visit to Canada, his cousins, their getting insurance even for one day, his discussions, discoveries about the Canadian system – and the collage of American media representations of socialism in Canada? The visit to the United Kingdom, Hammersmith Hospital, the facilities, the National Health, the cashier giving out money for fares, the doctors and their wages, comfortable living? The visit to France, American animosity towards France, the health system, the French complaining, the services available? The expatriates in each country commenting favourably?

7.The conclusions to be drawn about American health – the further stories, the hospitals, the pathos of the stories of deaths needlessly caused – by refusal of help to the man with the bone marrow and the companies calling it experimental? The little child who died?

8.The visit to Cuba, the US media representing the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as having the best medical care? Moore and his decision to take everybody to Cuba, to share in this? Sailing to Cuba?

9.The background of the prisoners in Guantanamo and their treatment and the contrast with the non-registered volunteers for 9/11 and the subsequent illnesses and the lack of support?

10.Havana, the hospitals, the people being taken in, diagnosis, medication? The treatment, the bonding of the firemen? The film’s comment on the forty-five years’ criticism of Castro?

11.The conclusions of the film – especially about America, justice, health for all, capitalism – and Americans going into other countries – but not learning from them?

THE BAND’S VISIT

Israel, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Sasson Gabai, Ronit Elkabetz.
Directed by Eran Kolirin.

What if an Egyptian police band turned up to the wrong Israeli town to play at the inauguration of the Arab cultural centre?

A pleasing premiss for a light story of friendship and understanding. Director Eran Kolirin remembers his past when there was such a visit, the days when families in Israel used to watch soap operas from Egypt on TV. He also says that the question for this part of the world is not how peace can be achieved but, more deeply, ‘why peace?’.

As we see the band leader reminisce with the woman who owns the bar and they exchange stories, as we see the assistant conductor at home with a husband who has had an argument with his wife, as we see the young policeman coaching a gawky local how to charm a young woman at the local skating rink, something of the answer comes across in a light, often charming, way.

1.A pleasingly entertaining film? Ordinary people, situations?

2.The Israeli locations, places and people? Egyptians in Israel?

3.The visit of the orchestra, the memoirs of the director? Arab television, Egyptian films, romances? The contrast between the 80s and the present?

4.The comic style, the men and their arrival, the minibus, no-one to meet them, the man taking the photo, getting the information about the buses, the young man flirting with the attendant, the bus ride, the discussion about conducting, arrival – and nothing?

5.The conductor, his leadership, age, having to speak English, his assistant? A composer? The various men, the line-up? The mistake about the destination? The conductor making decisions?

6.The three people at the café, Nina and her friends? Friendly, the explanation, inviting them to stay, discussions?

7.The conductor and Nina, sitting in the open area, imagining it was a park, talking about fishing, Nina getting him to tell his story, his wife, his son, the death of his son, his not understanding, his wife dying of a broken heart? Nina not having children, too late?

8.The young man flirting, with the girls, easygoing manner, the skaters, dancing on the skating floor, the music, Simon and his shyness, the girl approaching for a dance and Simon’s refusing, the young man coaching him, the hand, the arm, the drink? The handkerchief? The sad girl and her response? The kiss?

9.Haled and his wife, the fight, the baby? The assistant and his playing the music, Haled explaining the music of the ordinary home?

10.The assistant phoning, the arrangements for the future?

11.Leaving, everybody waving goodbye?

12.At the correct place, playing, enjoyment?

13.The director’s statement that the important question is why should there be peace amongst Arabs and Israeli rather than how?

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

US, 2007, 122 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald, Garret Dillahunt, Tess Harper, Barry Corbin, Stephen Root.
Directed by Joel Coen.

The Coen Brothers are back to their idiosyncratic world, this time with a story based on a novel by Pulitzer Prize winner Cormac Mc Carthy. Intolerable Cruelty was a soufflé and the remake of The Ladykillers was misguided.

This time the setting is 1980. The initial voiceover of a weary sheriff tells us that this is a new west. It is more lawless and deadly than the old days of sheriffs and bad guys: Vietnam has scarred American consciousness and the gangster crime dramas of the past (and of the cities) are now played out in the Texas desert.

With plenty of their dry, wry humour and off-kilter characters, even in the smallest roles of clerks and kids, this is a chase thriller with a high body count as well as a frustrated attempt to administer law and order in a decent way. The Coens and Mc Carthy are telling us How the West was Lost.

Tommy Lee Jones has become something of a rugged icon of Texas. Here he is the decent one, the old-time sheriff who is a man of common-sense, practical action and useful intuitions.

Javier Bardem (who was raving made in a similar kind of role in Perdita Durango) is a memorable killer (if one wants to remember screen killers). Josh Brolin is surprisingly persuasive as the good man who illustrates the biblical maxim that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Philosophical about good and evil, with a number of yarns rolled in, this is the Coens reworking both crime and the west.

1.The work of the Coen brothers? Their reputation, style and interests, their creation of worlds and atmospheres, idiosyncratic? This film in their canon?

2.The title, the reference to the past, old men and change? The sheriff’s voice-over, the history of Texas, sheriff’s and the west, the past, not even wearing guns? The weariness in the present? Growing disillusionment? The passing of the old west, the losing of the west? The 1980s setting? Post-Vietnam? The drug era?

3.The adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, the style, literary, the beauty of the locations, the delineation of characters, issues, drama? The musical score?

4.Llewelyn out hunting, the deer, wounding the deer, chasing the deer, seeing the wounded dog, finding the massacre and the cars, the man still alive wanting water, finding the drugs, the man under the tree, the case of money, his taking it? His decision to keep the money? A good man in himself, his own Vietnam experience, two tours? The love of money as the root of all evil – and the consequences for him and his wife? His being a decent man? His love for Carla Jean, at home, the return, going out in the night to give the water, his being caught, chased, in the river, the attack of the dog and his shooting him, his wounds? Getting the medicine, urging Carla Jean to go?

5.The impact of Anton, the initial arrest, handcuffs, the deputy on the phone, Anton strangling him, taking his car, pulling the driver over, shooting him? Taking the car? The nature of his weapon? Getting stores, the dialogue between the old-timer and the issue of tossing the coin, his life being saved? Going to the site of the drug deal, with the men, killing them? Chasing Llewelyn? The monitor indicating where the money was?

6.Llewelyn, going to the motel, the discussions with the woman, getting the room, getting a second room, hiding the money in the ventilation cast, buying the goods, the clothes, preparing the pole, hearing Anton and the deaths in the next room, his hurry, Anton’s pursuit, driving, finding the hotel, finding the bug? Waiting for Anton, looking under the door, Anton turning out the lights, opening the door and his shooting? The escape, in the dark, getting the truck and the driver being shot? His wounds, the blood, Anton wounded? The pause in the drama for each to recuperate?

7.The portrait of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, at home, his wife and the discussions, his work, with Wendell? Laconic, dry sense of humour, commonsensed? The western heritage? His ancestors? Riding with Wendell and getting the clues? Discerning, not doing anything unnecessary, the paperwork, his assistant and the discussion about commitment? Going to Carla Jean? At work, going to the motels?

8.Llewelyn, his being wounded, deciding what to do, across the border, buying the jacket from the boys, getting the beer, pretending to be drunk, passing over into Mexico, the sleeping guard? Throwing the case over the fence, checking into hospital, the treatment?

9.Carson, with the officer in charge, his confidence, knowing about the bug, his having seen Anton? His finding Llewelyn within three hours, going to the hospital, explaining the situation, returning to the hotel – Anton present, their discussion, the phone ringing, Anton killing him?

10.Anton and his trying to track Llewelyn down, going to his caravan, the discussion with the obstinate lady at the desk, not giving any information?

11.Anton phoning Llewelyn, his escape, back to the US, his getting more clothes, contacting Carla Jean – and the subplot of her mother’s health, cancer? Advice to go to El Paso? The information picked up?

12.Anton and the car bomb, it exploding, his getting medication from the pharmacy, treating himself and the detail, going to El Paso, hijacking the chicken man’s truck? The massacre at the hotel? Llewelyn, waiting for him, the girl at the pool, Llewelyn’s defiance – and his death? The massacre at the hotel?

13.The sheriff, arriving late, having to tell the truth to Carla Jean? Carla Jean burying her mother? Anton’s arrival, talking with her, her refusal to toss the coin, accepting death?

14.Anton and his confidence, hiding in the motel, driving in the street, the accident? Buying the boy’s shirt, disappearing?

15.Ed, his reflections, going to the motel, failing to find Anton? The visit to Ellis, the discussions about the past, Ellis as a veteran, the cup of coffee with him? His being at home, the dreams, telling the stories about his father, his wife’s support?

16.The film set in 1980, the end of an era, the beginning of a new age? Seen from the perspective of a quarter of a century on?

TERROR’S ADVOCATE

France, 2007, 132 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Barbet Schroeder.

For anyone who has the slightest interest in 20th century history, in wars of independence, in contemporary terrorism and the role of politics, law and journalism, this is a must-see film.

The focus is on French lawyer (parents from Vietnam and Reunion) Jacques Verges. Those from the English-language tradition may not know of him but, by the end of the film, we may not yet know him but we know a great deal about him. He himself (at eighty) appears in interviews throughout the film.

His legal life has involved him particularly in Algeria in the 50s and 60s and led to a long life of defence lawyer work. He had contact with Swiss Nazis, with Carlos, with Iranian assassins of the 1980s, with Cambodia, and defence lawyer for Klaus Barbie, ‘the Butcher of Lyon’.

An amazing number of interviewees appear, speaking frankly about their lives and their exploits (especially from the war between France and Algeria). Their comments build up an extraordinarily detailed (and yet this is only partial) account of uprisings, networks, terror bombings.

Congratulations to Barbet Schroeder who has made a documentary that is as interesting and challenging as any of his feature films – or more so.

1.The role of a documentary? The director and his skill in both documentary and feature films? His strong narrative? The insertion of the witnesses? The linear progress of history from the 1940s to the beginning of the 21st century?

2.The film about Jacques Verges? The focus on him, the title, the public perceptions of him, his own interviews, at great length, as a person, his posing? His history, Vietnamese and Reunion parents, his studies, war service, involvement in Algeria, his defence of the bomber, marrying her? A hero for Algerian nationalism? After the end of the war, independence – and what he was do to with the rest of his life after this achievement?

3.The footage of the 1945 massacres in Algeria, the bombs in various cafés and banks in Algiers? The 40s and 50s? Into the 60s? The events, the news excerpts from television, newspaper articles, archives?

4.Verges after Algeria? What to do? Involvement in cases, leaving the left, the communist party? The Nazi connection in Switzerland? His interest in Palestine and Palestinian independence? Verges’ visit to China, received by Mao? His student friendship with Pol Pot, going to Cambodia? The eight years of his disappearance in the 70s? As an agent, the possible theories, his reappearance? The connections with Magdalena Kopp? His debts, to the airlines, repaying them? Cases full of money? His activities in France in the 80s and 90s? With the Iranian assassin? With Klaus Barbie?

5.The Barbie issue, his unpopularity, French expectations of him? His wanting to show that the French in Algeria committed similar atrocities to those of the Gestapo in France?

6.His subsequent clients? Cheyenne Brando, Omar Raddad, the Holocaust denier, Garaudy, his helping Milosovich, offering to defend Saddam, the defence of the president of Kampuchea and crimes against humanity …?

7.His explanations of himself, his stories, his shrewdness in his work, the story of the case and his identifying with the condemned, feeling that he should be a defence lawyer? The change as the years went on, the change in the footage, his talent to disturb, looking more confident, the later images with the cigar, his age?

8.The range of witnesses and their contribution? Consistent, contradictory? Insights into the war in Algeria, the importance of his defending Dgamila Bouhired (and marrying her)? Hans- Joachim Klein as the chauffeur? Sine as the cartoonist, Klaus Croissant and his work in East Germany? The phone calls with Carlos in prison, Weinrich, Carlos’s associate, Magdalena Kopp? The Palestinian connection? Francois Jenoud and the Nazi connection, Palestine? Anis Naccache, Ayatollah Khomeini ordering him to assassinate people from Iran in Paris, his failure, in jail? The range of journalists, the range of lawyers?

9.The film as an opportunity for an audience to learn, fifty years of world history, especially Europe and North Africa, the uprisings, moves to independence, the development of terrorism, the networks, the variety of motivations, betrayals, personal stories, political stories, political stances? Acknowledging the complexity for security in the world today?