GOD ON TRIAL

UK, 2008, 90 minutes, Colour.
Rupert Graves, Stellan Skarsgaard, Stephen Dillane, Eddie Marsan, Jack Sheppard, Dominic Cooper, Anthony Sher, Blake Ridson, Ashleigh Artus, David de Keyser.
Directed by Andy De Emmony.

God on Trial was made for television. It is based on a story about a group of Auschwitz men putting God on trial before their execution. The film was written by a Catholic, Frank Cottrell Boyce (many of the films of Michael Winterbottom like The Claim, Tristram Shandy, Welcome to Sarajevo and other films like Millions). It was directed by Andy De Emmony (many comic television programs as well as Fantabulosa, the story of Kenneth Williams and Filth: The Mary Whitehouse Story). After God on Trial, writer and director collaborated on the television movie, Framed.

The film is strong on dialogue, offering a range of arguments about the existence of God, the providence of God, the benevolence or cruelty of God in the light of the history of the Jewish people, biblical texts and rabbinic traditions as well as secular arguments. The cast is very strong and each member of the cast is able to put forward dramatic presentations of particular points of view.

Jack Sheppard as an older Jew and Eddie Marsan as the father of three children who were killed by the Nazis stand out amongst an excellent cast.

The framework for the film has a group of tourists visiting Auschwitz and moving then to flashbacks – with a moving finale where the men in the gas chamber mingle with the tourists who are visiting. The message of God on Trial, of the Holocaust, and questions about God’s providence are relevant at all ages.

1.The impact of the film, for a Jewish audience, for those who had relatives in the concentration camps? Non-Jews? The film written by a Catholic author?

2.The Auschwitz locations, the exteriors? The huts? The muted colour and tone? The musical score?

3.The tourists, their guide, payment to go in, the explanations of the camp and the behaviour? The insertion of the trial scenes?

4.The title and the case, a rabbinical case, needing three judges, the live Torah (and the rabbi being the Torah alive in their midst)? The charge of murder and collaboration?

5.The arguments for and against, intellectual, emotional, religious and secular, biblical, scientific, common sense, faith and tradition? Prayer?

6.The group, the arrest, the range of men, the line-up and the humiliation, the doctor and the decisions? In the hut? Facing death?

7.The new group arriving from Poland, the inmates’ reactions? Unsympathetic, sympathetic? Their range of backgrounds? Their stories, suffering, massacres?

8.The characters and their arguments, dramatically presented, intercutting, developing?

9.The lawyer: presiding, his control of the proceedings, speeches, his discussion about punishment, good men being punished and not Hitler? Asking was the Holocaust a punishment in proportion to crime? Should God be guilty because the survival of his people was not certain? His final speech, the explanation of his family, Jewish father and his death, mother, changing the name, his marriage, an ardent German, his children in the Hitler Youth? A Jew-hating German? No knowledge of the Torah? The question about Auschwitz and chaos and dirt, German deliberate organisation to prove to the Germans that their prejudices about Jews as dirty and disorganised was correct? The Germans taking everything from the Jews? His plea that they not let them take their God, their covenant (even if he didn’t exist)?

10.Schmidt, religious and devout, theological arguments, from the Scriptures, the dignity of suffering? The creation of a new world and Jews and Torah surviving? His intellectual arguments? The example of Abraham and Jacob arguing and struggling with God? His image of God as a surgeon, violence to purify people no a punishment, the flood and Babylon and the diaspora leading to good? A remnant with some great good? A sacrifice and Holocaust of the best? His emphasis on a new Israel? The issue of the all-powerful and just God and the nature of free will?

11.Mordechai: his accusation against God, a breach of contract of the covenant? Quoting the pledges of Exodus 19 and Psalm 81? Quoting the psalms about God destroying his enemies? His relationship with his father, commenting on his father’s blaming him for his secular life?

12.The father: old, in the line-up, his reaction to his son, his being prepared to die? Faith, prayer, respect for the Torah? His experiences, the emotional argument? His inability to believe that God wanted the Jews to be destroyed? His being upset about the denial of God, his son, his secular marriage, the lives of scientists and secularists? His emotional appeal? His love for his son at the end, the list?

13.Idek: the scholar, his learned arguments and explanations, his having to face the reality of the concentration camp? His explaining the martyrs in Jewish history, Masada? Asking where the Romans are now and where Torah is? Suffering as a privilege, part of God’s plan? That Hitler would die, the war would end, that Torah would live and therefore there should be a trust in God?

14.Lieble, Moche urging him to come forward? His silence, the story of his family, the massacre in the village? His three sons, the choice for one of them to live and the others to die? The issue of choice, his bewilderment about free will, his comments about feeling the presence of God? The fig tree and the wasps and the scientist’s argument, his talking about wasps and pollinating and bringing new life? Reflecting on his story, his not wanting free will, wanting his sons? The Nazi officer had a choice but he did not? His final affirmation of faith? His quoting the Scriptures, everyone putting on their caps?

15.Moche, young, angry, God an evil bastard? If he’s guilty, what? His taunts, young and brash? His interventions, wanting Lieble to come forward? His ultimate fear as he had to face death even though he was young?

16.Ezra, the appeal to him for his reflections, his being a glove-maker, a simple man, not understanding, not being able to give answers?

17.The Capo, his attitude towards the others? The criminal, his boast about having brains, wanting to live and survive? Staying alive till the end of the war, therefore pleasing the SS, therefore keeping the Jews in order? When more Jews came to the camp he thanked God and boasted that God did not strike him down?

18.The scientist, appealing to the number of stars, whether God made them or not? God’s attention on the small planet, on the Jews? The point of having a covenant only for faithful Jews? His argument that there was always another group, expanding the understanding of God, therefore the use of conquering and power, someone with a better idea of God – and Hitler finally saying that there was one God and it was him? His argument from the self-eating insects – and Lieble’s response for the creativity of other insects?

19.Akiba: his being silent, standing and his long speech, his appeal to the history of Israel, the reason for being in Egypt and coming out, the history of the plagues, the cruelty of the death of the firstborn, the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, Israel’s destruction of the Canaanites, the language of no mercy, Saul and Samuel and the slaughter of the king, the Amalekites and the Moabites? David and his slaughter? Those slaughters were the Moabites’ Auschwitz? Saying that our God is not good, only on our side? His stating that the Jews should have stood up to God, God was not good, only strong? That the SS had their motto, “God with us”?

20.The interruption by the doctor, examining the men, calling out the numbers, the emotional effect as numbers were called out?

21.The summing up? The men wanting to hear the conclusion: the comment that the trial and discussion was a kind of prayer? That people cannot know the mind of God, that God is too great, prayer and faith are important, the war will end? But the verdict that God was guilty of a breach of contract?

22.The men being taken out, put into the gas chamber, stripped, under the shower? The group in solidarity? The tourists, the scene where they intermingled with the victims, everyone in the gas chamber together?

HOMICIDAL

US, 1961, 87 minutes, Black and white.
Jean Arless, Glenn Corbett, Patricia Breslin, Eugenie Leontovitch.
Directed by William Castle.

Homicidal is one of several psychological thrillers produced and directed by William Castle in the late 1950s and early 1960s (The Tingler, I Saw What You Did). The film was in the vein of Psycho and is something of a psychological shocker. Castle himself introduced the film – with the gimmick of giving people a chance to leave the theatre if they didn’t want to be shocked!

The film is a thriller about a split personality. Jean Arless has to be both man and woman (not entirely persuasively). However, Eugenie Leontovitch as Helga is much more effective. There are the usual mix-ups of identity, heroines getting into danger, deaths and chases.

1.An entertaining psychological thriller? Shocker?

2.William Castle’s introduction? Was the film as frightening and as shocking as suggested? Black and white photography, the American town, Californian atmosphere? Light and darkness, night and day? Editing and shocks? Musical score?

3.The bluntness of the title? The homicidal maniac? Split personality? Madness and greed?

4.The focus on Emily – her youthfulness, her hiring Jim Nesbitt for two thousand dollars, the wedding ceremony? The sudden killing of the justice of the peace after the ceremony? Her speeding away? The house? Helga and her fear of Emily? The irony of Emily and Warren not being seen at the same time? Warren as the slender and weak young man? The background of his father and his sadism? Helga as his nurse? Emily and her relationship with Miriam, telling Miriam that Warren was her husband? Emily and the connection with the killing, Emily as mad? Her using Miriam’s name? The irony of Karl and Miriam telling Warren about Emily? Emily stalking Miriam in the house? The death of Helga? Her revealing that she and Warren were the one person? The truth about the justice of the peace and Helga knowing about the birth of Warren? The plan to eliminate Miriam as heir to the money? The credibility of the split personality? Warren and Emily as one person? Behaviour, violence?

5.Miriam and Karl as conventional hero and heroine? Miriam as Warren’s half-sister? Her concern about him, reaction to Emily, fears about Emily as a killer? Emily’s visits to the florist shop? Karl and his investigations? Confiding in Warren? Emily pursuing Miriam, the threat to Miriam? The truth?

6.Helga and her being paralysed, her terror, speechless? Genuine intimation of terror and horror? Emily’s persecuting her? Her death?

7.The use of horror conventions for the thriller: the house, the speechless old woman, the knife murders, disguises, stalking of a victim through the house? How effectively done?

8.The nightmare aspects of this kind of psychological thriller? The plausibility – but the dramatising of attitudes of victimisation, greed, violence?

MEN OF BOYS TOWN

US, 1941, 106 minutes, Black and white.
Spencer Tracy, Mickey Rooney, Bobs Watson, Larry Nunn, Darryl Hickman, Henry O’ Neill, Mary Nash, Lee J. Cobb.
Directed by Norman Taurog.

Men of Boys Town is a follow-up to the immensely popular Boys Town of 1938. The film told the true story of Father Edward Flanagan, who established a Boys Town, and who always believed that every boy had a good heart. It was an Oscar-winning performance by Spencer Tracy (who had won the Oscar the previous year for Captains Courageous).

The Boys Town story was an inspiring one especially for the 1930s. There had not been so many priests on screen during the 1930s but Spencer Tracy embodied the priest from San Francisco to Boys Town (and was to appear as a priest also in The Devil at Four O’ Clock in 1962). The other image of the priest was given by Pat O’ Brien in the gangster films from Warner Brothers with James Cagney.

Mickey Rooney, still looking very young, appears as a teenager who gets caught up with a friend who is a thief – and both are sent to Boys Town. However, the Maitland family have adopted him as a friend for their disabled son. The film has some melodramatic difficulties with regards to the two boys, their rehabilitation at Boys Town. Eventually, all is well as Father Flanagan wields his charm and his skills with the boys and the debts for Boys Town are repaid. Direction is by Norman Taurog who had won an Oscar early in the 1930s for Skippy and who was to direct a lot of popular entertainments, especially for Martin and Lewis.

1.The implication of growth in the title – and in Father Flanagan’s speech at the end?

2.Impressions of Boys Town? How good an institution in itself? Why were two hundred and fifty more Boys Towns needed? What values were preserved in the Boys Towns? How did the boys respond? The need for Boys Towns?

3.The 1940s style of the film? The picture of the United States, of American youth, of American gangster influence, reform schools? How sentimental in its picture of America? The presentation of Peewee?

4.What kind of man was Father Flanagan? A good priest, a practical man? An idealist and a dreamer? What motivated him? What influence did he have on the boys? Why did they respond to him? How could he influence the future of these boys? Which sequences best illustrated his relationship with the boys? His relationship with the board? With Dave Morris? How strong a sense of failure did he have at the end? Had he failed just because he had no money?

5.Was Whitey an attractive character? How had Boys Town changed him? What influence did he have in Boys Town? Why did he not want to be adopted? Did he try his best? Why did he go with Flip? Did this seem to contrive to get him into the reform school?

6.What kind of people were the Maitlands? Were they genuinely interested in Whitey? Did they understand him?

7.How important was Ted? The court case? His hitting of the warder? The picture of Marysport and the reform school? Did this seem farfetched? Whitey’s experience in balancing what Ted said? His need for faith in people?

8.How did the police help Ted? Their effort for the concert? Peewee’s influence on Ted? The dog?

9.The operation, Father Flanagan’s absence? The effect of the dog’s funeral?

10.The importance of Flip in the film – how had reform school hardened him?

11.Father Flanagan’s work in reforming the reform school? How effective? His speech?

12.How preaching was the film? Noble and sentimental? Do films like this really move audiences? The emotional impact at the end of the film? About Boys Town and such institutions and such people as Father Flanagan?

QUO VADIS, BABY

Italy, 2004, Colour.
Angela Baraldi, Gigio Alberti, Claudia Zanella.
Directed by Gabriele Salvatores.

Quo Vadis, Baby is actually a quotation from Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris – a film which features at various times here. The film tradition is also included with long excerpts from the film M, Fritz Lang’s film about the child molester, which has echoes in the fact that Ada’s father was abusive of her.

The film was a great success in Italy and led to a television series. It may be that this film served as a pilot for the TV series – with some aspects of character and plot not explored but left for the series.

Angela Baraldi is a rock singer and actress in Italy and this is one of her first major film roles. She portrays a private detective, a very tough woman nearing her forties, who is obsessed by the suicide of her sister sixteen years earlier. The two sisters had been close, but Ada had moved to Rome, wanted to be an actress, was in partnership with Giulio as well as pregnant to a mysterious man simply known as A. All this is revealed in a series of videotapes that she had made before her death. At the end, there is a final tape with the film M – but after Georgia has gone out, the tape continues with scenes between Ada and her father and his brutality towards her.

The film is in many ways a detective story as Georgia tries to find out the truth about her sister, goes to her partner Giulio, is in relationship with a film professor, the professor for her young detective assistant. He turns out to be the mysterious lover. They clash – but the audience realises that he did not kill her and that she killed herself.

The film is visually dark as well as thematically dark. Angela Baraldi is a tough, often unsympathetic heroine. Aspects of the murder mystery are signalled – but the film keeps the interest in the audience trying to work out what really happened. The film is a character study, a gradual unravelling of tangled relationships, a revelation of the truth as well as the solving of a murder mystery.

Gabriele Salvatores won an Oscar for his death Mediterrano. He has made a number of offbeat films including Denti (Teeth). He had great success with his thriller set in southern Italy, Io Non Ho Paura.

1.The film as a popular success in Italy? Universally? A television series?

2.The Bologna settings, the interiors, dark? Offices and homes? The streets and the city itself? The flashbacks to Rome? Musical score and songs?

3.The structure of the film: the introduction to Georgia, her work, her receiving the videotapes, her preoccupation about her sister, watching the tapes, her interactions with her assistant, interrogations of Giulio, the introduction to Andrea, the relationship with him, finding out his identity, the clash, the strained relationship with her father? The final tape – and her not seeing the solution but the audience seeing it?

4.The title, the quotation from Last Tango in Paris? The overtones of that film and its atmosphere? Sexual relationships, sexual experimentation? The victimisation of the woman? The self-centred middle-aged man?

5.Georgia as a character, her age and experience, working with her father’s detective agency? Her friendship with her assistant? Her discussions with him – and his explaining that he was gay? Her friend Aldo, the tapes, her looking at the tapes, the flashbacks to Ada’s life? Her decision to meet with Giulio, the discussions with him, the truth? Georgia and her friendship with Inspector Bruni, asking him for further investigations about her sister’s death? Lucio introducing her to Andrea? The dinner, the sexual relationship? Georgia and her showing the tapes to Giulio, knowledge of the pregnancy, his not being the father? Her visit to Rome, going to see Ada’s friend Anna? Anna knowing some of the truth but not the identity of the secret lover? Georgia’s return – and her father watching the tapes? The continued relationship with Andrea, discovering who he was? Her violent smashing of the apartment, attacking him? The details from Inspector Bruni about Ada’s body, the bruises? The confrontation with Andrea, the information about her father’s presence? Anna and her sending Georgia the video camera, the tape of Fritz Lang’s film? The inspector ringing, her going to meet him for discussion and dinner? Her not seeing what had really happened in the confrontation between Ada and her father? Ada and the accusations about him killing her mother, her demanding that he leave? The fact that Ada killed herself but Georgia did not see the evidence?

6.Ada, the older sister, the relationship with her father, her going to Rome, separating herself from the family? The relationship with Giulio? Her hoping to be film star, auditions, not succeeding? The relationship with A? Her pregnancy? Taking of the videotapes? Her death?

7.The father, the detective agency, the relationship with Georgia? Enigmatic? Drinking, his grief? Watching the tapes? The truth about his interaction with Ada on the night she died?

8.Giulio, the relationship with Ada, Georgia coming to interview him, watching the tapes, giving the information?

9.Andrea, the introduction by Lucio, the dinner, the relationship – and the irony of his relationship with both sisters? Her discovering the truth, her violent reaction and smashing things, attacking him? His being the father of the child?

10.Inspector Bruni, the friendship with Georgia, helping her with the information, the meetings – and the future relationship possible?

11.Anna, her friendship with Ada, giving information to Georgia, sending the video camera?

12.The film as a piece of detection? As an exploration of relationships? As intimating at the darker side of family relationships, sexual relationships?

THE DARK

UK, 2005, 94 minutes, Colour.
Maria Bello, Sean Bean, Maurice Roeves, Sophie Stuckey, Abigail Stone.
Directed by John Fawcett.

When American Maria Bello brings her troubled teenage daughter to visit her estranged British husband (Sean Bean) on the south coast of England, we are warned that darkness is ahead because of sinister dreams and visions. What follows is a mother searching for daughter drama with touches of ghost story and horror – in fact, the background story of the 1950s and physical abuse of children is quite horrifying.

The screenplay spins the suspense out, especially as we gradually discover who was the villain in the past and who is the girl that is haunting the mother and possessing the girl. Can she be saved?

The cast do their best with it all. It is not one of those slasher horror stories beloved of multiplex audiences. It is more of an intelligent thriller with some gory touches and one of those gloomy endings. (It is not too dissimilar from Silent Hill, a mother and possessed and lost daughter drama – where Sean Bean is once again the father).

1.An interesting horror thriller? British setting? British and Welsh mythologies?

2.The atmosphere, the Welsh locations, the cliffs and the coast? The sea? The ordinary homes? The underground hut? The interiors? Lighting and darkness? The musical score?

3.The title – and its reference to the literal dark, to the dark of the past, to the dark of the mythological world?

4.The scene with the sheep, the herds over the cliff? The 50s, the cult leader, the ordinary people also going over the cliff? The sheep, the mass suicide? The role of the leader?

5.The opening, the sense of realism – but mother and daughter getting lost? Sleep? The dark? Ominous dreams? Finding the house, Adelle and Sarah, finding James? The reconciliation? James and his decisions to leave the family, stay in Wales? Wife and daughter, their memories, their clashes, coming to see him?

6.Ordinary life, James in the house, his work? Adelle and her settling in? Sarah and her being with her father? The locals? Dafydd and his helping with the work?

7.The past, the 1950s, the cult leader and his daughter? The cult leader and his influence in the church, taking the people, his symbolic name of The Shepherd? The mass suicide? His wanting to get his daughter back from the other world? Her return? His treatment of her, his brutality, trying to exorcise the devil?

8.The eerie atmosphere, Adelle and Sarah on the rocks, Sarah’s disappearance? Adelle diving in the water to find her daughter? The other world beyond the water? The water as a portal? Adelle unable to find Sarah, finding Ebril? The child of her dreams? Plaintive yet sinister? Ebril’s story, Ebril guiding Adelle? Daffyd and his help, the brutality of his death?

9.Adelle and James, her pining for her daughter? James and his inability to help? The search in the house, the rooms, the echoes of the sinister times? The legends of the netherworld, of Annwin, the researchers in the library?

10.Adelle and her interactions with Ebril? Diving into the sea? Sacrificing her daughter? Adelle and Sarah coming back into the world – but James not able to see her? The irony that she was a ghost? Sarah and her being united with her father?

11.The evil aspect, Sarah being possessed again by Ebril? Adelle and her being in Annwin with The Shepherd?

12.An interesting exploration of horror conventions along with a sinister mythology?

36 QUAI DES ORFEVRES

France, 2004, 112 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Auteuil, Gerard Depardieu, Andre Dussolier, Roschdy Zem, Valery Golino, Daniel Duval, Frances Renaud, Catherine Marchal, Milene Demongeot, Aurore Auteuil, Olivier Marchal.
Directed by Olivier Marchal.

A complex police thriller from a writer-director, Olivier Marchal (who appears as the excrim, Christo) who spent some time working for the police force in Paris. The title of the film is the address for the main bureau.

This is a film that is continually on the move. It portrays in exact detail a robbery on a freeway in the early morning. It shows a stakeout to trap the thieves – which is botched and leads to disaster. It has a vigorous finale.

But, it is also a drama of character clash and is served particularly well by its two stars, Daniel Auteuil and Gerard Depardieu (who had appeared together almost twenty years earlier in the classic Jean de Florette).

Auteuil is the up and coming detective, special squad, who is in line to become chief. However, he is a man of action and a risk-taker. He and his squad share a strong bonhomie (with which the film opens) as well as unorthodox methods that would be subject to investigation. He has many good friends in the underworld. Depardieu is also on the short list for commander but he is a taciturn loner, unpopular, claiming to work by the book. The clash is complicated because Auteuil is married to the woman (Valeria Golino) who used to be with Depardieu.

When they are assigned to the same case, Depardieu’s crass decisions lead to mayhem in a siege and the death of a popular member of the squad. The men turn their backs on Depardieu at the funeral.

In the meantime, there is a further ingenious plot complication when a murderer out on leave just before his release is able to con Auteuil with promises of identities of the thieves but compromises him in establishing him as his alibi for his killing of an informer – who worked for Depardieu. This leads to more complexity involving Auteuil’s wife and daughter.

The two central characters are fascinating, Auteuil as the tough cookie who becomes victim, Depardieu as the power-hungry, imagination-lacking Javert-type who succeeds – but at great cost.

1.Interesting and entertaining? Police work, corruption, society? The comparisons with American versions of this kind of story (like Michael Mann’s Heat)?

2.Authentic, atmosphere, the 1990s, Paris, the locations? The director’s work as a policeman in Paris?

3.Editing and pace, dark photographic style, the use of the wide screen? Musical score?

4.The tone, the opening with the motorcycles, the street placard, the prank and the police dinner, the toasts, friendship, tribute to Eddie? Intercutting with the other cycles, the club, the brutality of the two brothers and their assault on Manou?

5.The gang and the robbery, the vehicles, the staging on the bridge, the early hours of the morning? The brutality towards the guards? The quick taking of the bags of money, the dead guard on the road?

6.The police arrival, the details of their work? Leo and Denis and their presence, rivalry? Eve and her beginning her work? Explanations about the rivalry?

7.Leo in himself, his age and experience, leading the anti-gang squad, seeing them at the toast for Eddie, the boisterous friendship of the group, tough? Leo and the possibility for promotion? His not wanting it? The rivalry with Denis – and Denis wanting it? Mancini and his comments about the two of them and Denis wanting power? His relationship with his wife, with his daughter? The scenes at home? The irony of his wife having been with Denis in the past? His work as a policeman, the pressures, the squad, his going to see Manou and learning who attacked her? His tenderness with her, the friendship with Cristo? Getting the name, attacking the brothers, the fall from the window and his not being injured? The group taking another suspect to the cemetery, the digging of the grave, stripping the man – and shooting over his head? How reprehensible were their techniques?

8.Denis in himself, his past, a Javert sense of duty? Mancini’s comment that he wanted power? His presence at the robbery scene, his own wife, the past with Leo’s wife? His gathering information, the possibility of his promotion, his discussions with Leo?

9.Mancini, his role, the police bureaucrat, his authority, pressures on him, his dealing with Leo and the squad, wanting Leo to take his place? His handling of the rivalry? His being seen as sitting on the fence? His later stepping down, his discussions with Leo about his prison situation? Leo’s getting out – and his keeping his distance? Leo’s contempt of him?

10.Eddie, his retirement, the party, the songs, the performances? Titi and his friendship? The spirit of the group, their brutality in dealing with suspects? Their part in the siege for the robbers? His being shot?

11.Silien and his imprisonment, his plan for leave, getting the gun, his chauffeur? Telephoning Leo, trapping him for a meeting, using him for an alibi for killing his rival? The bargain and his giving names about the robbers? His later interrogation and his alibi? The irony of the prostitute escaping, her being in the car with the victims? Denis tracking her down? Silien and his phone calls to Camille? The phones being tapped? His wanting to give her the money – Denis and his pursuit, the chase, the crash and the deaths?

12.The siege to get the robbers, the plan, Leo in charge? Denis and his presence, his motivation for going out, his alleged reconnaissance? Beginning the shoot-out? The chaos in the shoot-out, the fights, Eve being taken hostage (and her later jumping out of the car)? Eddie with the gun to his head, his being shot, Leo going to the morgue and seeing his body?

13.The funeral, the speeches, the authorities and their attitude, Leo paying his respect, Denis going to the coffin, the police squad turning their back on him?

14.Denis, his continued investigations, his contacts, the information from the prostitute? His using the information, the challenge to Leo?

15.Leo, the arrest, the interrogations? The judge and his hostility towards the squad and its treatment of people? The routine of his going to prison? Getting out, going to the judge, taking over, the visit from Camille? His not contacting his daughter? The seven years passing?

16.Camille, previously with Denis, married to Leo, the happy home, their daughter and their love for her, the domestic scenes, her going to school? Silien’s phoning her, her going to meet him, not telling the police? The car chase – and Denis shooting her? The pathos of the funeral with Leo there in handcuffs?

17.Denis, the chase, his shooting Camille – and his reasons that she was in agony? His getting the promotion, his inauguration, Titi urinating on him? His anger? The years of his success? His rigid manipulation and ordering of people?

18.Leo and his getting out, fighting Titi as a bouncer, getting information from him? Staying with Manou, her rehabilitation, her happy memories of Cristo? Getting the gun? Going to see his daughter, their discussions, his explanations?

19.Titi, the clash at the club, the fight, the brothers finding him, knowing that he was part of the deal and the siege? Their torturing him – injuries, hospital, brain-dead? His giving Denis’s name to them?

20.Leo’s plan, the reception, Denis and his wife, the ceremonial? Leo and the police following him, getting their badges, getting into the function? Confronting Denis in the toilet, the explanations? Leaving the gun for Denis to shoot himself – Denis’s survival instinct?

21.The gang, the information, knowing Denis was involved, the drive-by shooting and Denis’s death?

22.Leo free, going to the airport, meeting his daughter – and a new life?

23.Audience interest in the details of police work? Authentic? Questionable? Law and justice?

SLITHER

US, 2005, 96 minutes, Colour.
Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Tania Saulnier, Brenda James, Michael Rooker, Gregg Henry.
Directed by James Gunn.

Slither is a 21st century variation on the old B-budget horror films. The writer-director, James Gunn, had written the screenplay for the remake of George Romero’s The Day of the Dead (as well as Scooby Doo, Monsters Unleashed).

A meteorite hits a town, aliens start infesting the inhabitants, taking over their brains, turning them into zombies with the expected results.

The film has the courage of its convictions, showing the aliens as monstrous, using special effects to show the extraordinarily ugly transformations of the inhabitants. There is also some offbeat humour in the screenplay as well, especially considering the puffed-up sheriff and his comeuppance.

Nathan Fillion is the policeman. Elizabeth Banks is the surprising screen presence as the wife of the man who is initially infected and who is suspicious of her relationships. Michael Rooker, a veteran of many action and horror films, including Henry, the Portrait of a Serial Killer, is the man who is transformed into a monster.

The film, a variation on popular themes, achieves what it sets out to do – some gory horror, some frights, some sardonic humour.

1.The impact of this horror film? Tongue-in-cheek? Tribute to other such films?

2.The traditions of the horror film? The aliens? The gross appearance in their taking over humans? The portrait of the town? The victimising of the town? The growing monster? The confrontation? The grosser aspects of this tradition? The look of the monster? The language? The blood and gore?

3.The title? The monster? People being infected by the worms? Their finally becoming part of Grant and his monstrous shape?

4.The credibility of the plot – and that not mattering? The nature of the performances, the touch of deadpan? Corny acting – in the tradition of this kind of film?

5.The town, the look of it, the ordinariness? The tour of the town? The characters – and their not being particularly interesting? Audiences not identifying with them?

6.The asteroid – its hitting the outskirts of the town? Bill Pardy and the deputy, their not realising what had happened? Grant, his being out with Brenda? In the woods, finding the asteroid? The claw, attacking Grant? The beginning of the woes?

7.Grant, his character? Infidelity to Starla? With Brenda? His going home, the transformation? His threatening Starla? His gradually growing, the disappearance of the dog, the disappearance of the cattle? Starla finding him in the basement, his becoming huge, insatiable for meat? His continuing to plead with Starla?

8.Brenda, her being found, her need for meat? Gross? Her exploding – the worms? Their pursuing the town, entering by people’s mouths? The effect on the posse? Their being transformed, killed – the touch of the living dead?

9.Starla, ordinary, the teacher, her tense relationship with Grant? Her friendship with Bill Pardy? Her going home, the truth about Grant? Her phoning the police? Pardy and his suspicions, Starla and her reaction to Pardy? Their searching for Brenda, searching for Grant?

10.Grant, in the woods? Hiding? Devouring the animals? The worms and their going to the family house?

11.The portrait of the family, Kylie and her alienation, criticisms of her parents? The two sisters and their being goody-goodies? The parody of the family? The worms arriving, besieging the house, the destruction of the parents, the destruction of the two girls? Kylie and her being the intended victim – in the bath, escaping? With Starla and Pardy? The two sisters pleading with her to get into the car?

12.The place of the mayor, his gross attitudes, his rationalisations? The mockery of the stereotype of the mayor? His going along with people, his cowardice? His eventually being destroyed?

13.Pardy, deadpan delivery, the deadpan hero? His assistant? The other police, members of the posse? Their work together, the siege, their being overcome?

14.Grant taking Starla to the house? The people in the town and their becoming part of the monster? The attempts to kill Grant? His pleading? The grenade, his swallowing the gas? His being blown up?

15.Starla, Pardy and Kylie walking away? To what?

16.The comic aspects of this kind of film? Deeper meanings – possible or not? Social picture, social questions?

THE OMEN

US, 2006, 110 minutes, Colour.
Liev Schreiber, Julia Styles, David Thewliss, Mia Farrow, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon.
Directed by John Moore.

It is the 6th of the 6th 06 – and, in fact, the screening of The Omen this afternoon finished at 6.06 pm – so it seems a suitable moment for a statement on the film.

A preliminary observation. It has been amazing and irritating that in recent weeks we have been approached by newspapers and radio programs not so much about the film but about seemingly trivial matters. It was not for clarification of issues or the position of the Church. Rather, journalists were asking about women who allegedly don’t want to give birth on the 6th of June because of what they have heard about the number of the devil, 666. And they don’t want to call their sons Damien because that is the name of the devil.

People who declare that they are not religious, who are sceptical about the teachings of Christianity suddenly give credence to superstitions from who knows where or seemingly religious gossip. As regards the name Damien for the devil, that was invented by writer David Seltzer in the 1970s for the screenplay of the original Omen. Nothing to do with the Bible. And there are all kinds of discussion about the symbolism of 666 (not a date, let alone a date in our times) for the early Church and the Roman Empire.

So, in the immediate wake of The Da Vinci Code comes the remake of the 1976 film, The Omen. This present version is more respectful of the Church than Code’s blatant criticisms and implications, even if it opens with a bizarre-looking cleric at the Vatican observatory noting strange comets in the skies (echoes of stars over Bethlehem). The cleric hurries to inform a cardinal in Rome. The cardinal then explains recent events (Sept 11th, wars in the Middle East, hurricanes) to the Pope and the Curia along ultra-literal lines of interpretation of selected texts from the Apocalypse. (Actually, some very evangelical groups, especially in the US might not think them so far-fetched). One cannot imagine Benedict XVI listening to this kind of biblical hokum!

As regards the official church, there is nothing more, except a dying scene for the Pope where the Cardinal rushes to kneel by his bedside, presumably to tell him the bad news that Damien lives. And the Pope dies. There are two demented priests who have been caught up in the birth of the antichrist and have participated in having the baby adopted by an American diplomat who is the godson of the American president. Those who know the two Omen sequels are aware how significant this is for Damien’s easy entrée into world politics and business. (The riff given to the beast arising from the eternal sea is that this is not meant to be taken literally – while everything else is – and means the turmoil of the sea of politics).

Novelists and screenwriters as we realise, particularly at this Da Vinci hypothesis and conspiracy time, invent scenarios that rely on a medley of historical facts, legends and religious images. They are fascinated by apocalyptic texts, sometimes inventing them as in Omen 3, and eager to apply them to the present. They can be imaginative ‘what ifs…?’. The Omen is clearly one of these scenarios.

However. While non-Christians and non-believers can watch The Omen or dismiss it as a piece of imaginative nonsense, it is not so easy for believers to dismiss it.

One of the intriguing features of both Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), the first of the incarnation of evil films, and Richard Donner’s The Omen (1976) is that they postulate the incarnation of the devil. This came as something of a shock to us in the 1960s. We had not quite imagined this scenario. But it made Catholics reflect that, if the incarnation of God was possible, then so was the incarnation of evil. With the cultural and religious questioning of the 1960s, especially with Time Magazine’s take on the movements and opinions of say, Bishop John Robinson in the UK, ‘Honest to God’ and Paul Tillich and others suggesting in the US that there should be a moratorium on the word, ‘God’, with alternates like ‘Ground of our being’, the question was ‘Is God Dead?’. This was the black-background, red-letter cover of Time at Easter 1966 (which Polanski actually used in his film, the magazine that Rosemary read in the doctor’s waiting room). In the early 1970s came possession films, The Exorcist (1973) and its sequel and many derivatives. Audiences were invited to raise issues of the devil, incarnation and possession, that both fascinated and frightened people.

Is it the same today? Are we so apprehensive now with terrorist attacks, wars, earthquakes and tsunamis that we wonder about God’s presence and the presence of evil, of the demonic? Does the modern fascination with religious conspiracies add its influence? Has western culture lost its knowledge of Christian roots, symbols, images and teaching that audiences are prone to believe anything without checking it critically? These are questions that the Church today has to come to grips with.

In the meantime, The Omen itself?

David Seltzer has again written the screenplay, putting the events in a 21st century context. He has also made the parents of Damien (Liev Schreiber and Julia Styles) much younger than Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. Otherwise, it is very close to the original, relying on atmosphere and eerie suspense rather than horror (although the three upsetting deaths from 1976 are repeated in the same upsetting way here and the menacing dogs are present again). A footnote of interest is that the nanny this time is a fey Mia Farrow, looking surprisingly like Rosemary of 1968 rather than her sixty years. David Thewliss is the photographer and Pete Postlethwaite has melodramatic moments as the disturbing priest, Fr Brennan.

Dramatically and thematically, the film is quite pessimistic. It looks as though evil triumphs. After destroying his family and others who helped them, Damien survives and, as in the original, he stands at the graveside of his father, hand in hand with the president, turns to the audience with his perpetual malevolent expression – and then smiles. Obviously, it is all open to a sequel. For believers, fortunately, the sequel is optimistic, a sequel of grace.

For those who don’t know the original, The Omen may come as a surprise. For those who appreciated the original, the surprise element is long gone, so it is a matter of looking at the plot and questions more closely.

The Omen is a reminder to those who believe in God that there is evil in our world, that it is malicious and destructive. It is alarming to see it embodied in a five year old child who appears more and more sinister and ruthless. A diabolical passive-aggressive.

1.The impact of the original film in 1976? The theme, attitudes of the world in the 70s, belief, faith? The remake in 2006? The marketing for 6-6-06?

2.The quality of the remake, David Selzer updating his own screenplay, the differences, the cast, the issues? The remake following closely the original screenplay? The musical score – and incorporation of some of the original themes by Jerry Goldsmith?

3.Audiences of 2006, their attitudes towards religion, towards the church, belief and faith? The discrediting of faith and the church? Superstition abounding? Women not wanting to call their children Damien? The background of The da Vinci Code and conspiracies? Undermining the authority of the church?

4.The new cast, the younger leads, different age, less gravitas? The effectiveness of having a younger set of parents?

5.The prologue, the Vatican observatory, the strange-looking cleric, observing the stars and the comets, his hurrying to see the cardinal, the cardinal in his study and his writing, the cardinal addressing the pope and the curia, the explanation of the disasters of the 21st century, September 11th, the war in Iraq, hurricanes and tsunamis? According to the revelations of the apocalypse? The end of the film, the pope on his deathbed, the cardinal coming to give him the news, the pope’s death – and his spilling the cup of wine over himself?

6.Rome, the American embassy, the American staff, Robert Thorne and his work? The godson of the president? The death of the ambassador in the car crash and the explosion? Robert Thorne getting the UK job, Katherine and her happiness? The irony of the Satanists choosing this context for the incarnation of the devil? To go into politics? The interpretation of the eternal sea from which the beast would arise as the world of politics?

7.The hospital sequences, Katherine and her giving birth and her exhaustion, not knowing the child was dead? The priest, his discussions with Robert? His advising Robert not to see the baby? His explanation about the adoption, that it should be a secret from Katherine? Robert accepting this? Katherine and the early scenes with Damien, the baby in the hospital, growing up, her devotion and care of him? Her never knowing that he was adopted? Her later feeling with his alienation that she was not his mother? Robert and his feelings about the adoption later? Robert going to see the priest, finding the truth about the cemetery, seeing the corpse of the baby?

8.The transition of the family to the United Kingdom, the big house and their moving in, Katherine hoping that Robert would like it? Their life there, the years passing, the happy times with Damien?

9.Damien and his fifth birthday, the party, the crowds gathering, the lawn party, the cake and the candles? The nanny and her declaring she was doing what she did for Damien, hanging herself? People’s shock? Damien showing no emotion? Keith Jennings and his photographing the death? The interviews for the nanny’s job, Mrs Balylock and her late arrival, the interview, her producing her references? Saying that she wanted to serve? Her beginning to make decisions for Damien, especially about the dog? Katherine and Robert countermanding her decisions? Mrs Baylock and his protectiveness of Damien? Service for him? Finally taking him to the hospital, getting him to wait in the corridor while she killed Katherine?

10.Father Brennan, mad, his accosting Robert? The apocalyptic warnings? His wanting Robert to repent? His wanting to save himself? Keith and his taking the photos, at the party, the meetings with Father Brennan? The meeting under the bridge, Robert and his moving away, the storm, Father Brennan at the church, the lightning and his death, being transfixed?

11.Keith as a journalist, taking the photos, at the party, at the reception, his camera being smashed by Robert, Robert offering to pay damages? His taking more photos? His phoning Robert, offering him the evidence, the light in all the photos of the nanny and Father Brennan, the light over himself? His being involved, potential death? Robert accepting his help? Their going to Rome, meeting the nun, the information about the hospital burning down, the records being destroyed? Her own disfigurement? Keith and his looking up the interpretations of the scripture? Robert and his remembering the poem that the priest recited in the hospital in Rome, the destruction of people and the installation of the devil? The travelling to the monastery, meeting the old priest, his blindness, his giving the information about the cemetery? The visit to the cemetery? Going to Israel, the Palestinian territories, the diggings at Megiddo? The soldiers on the streets? Their going to see the archaeologist, his warnings, the issue of the knives, Robert not wanting to take them, Keith taking them? His catching up with Robert, the dropping of the knife, the accident and his being beheaded?

12.Katherine and Robert and their tension, Damien and Katherine’s feelings, going to the psychologist and the discussions, her being pregnant and deciding that she should have an abortion? With Damien, Mrs Baylock? Her watering the plant, Damien and his scooter, bumping into her, her fall and injury? Going to the hospital, Robert’s concern? His being absent when she died? Mrs Baylock? administering the poison and speaking soothingly to Katherine as she died?

13.The sequences in Rome, the nun and the news about the fire, the monks and their looking after the priest, the priest and his conscience?

14.The archaeologist, his eccentricities, drinking, information, advice, gift of the knives? Instructions about how to kill Damien?

15.The film’s emphasis on Israel – in the light of apocalyptic understandings and the clashes between Israel and the Palestinians?

16.Robert and his return on the plane, holding the knives, his motivation, going home, taking Damien, the confrontation with Mrs Baylock, her being run over? Hurrying to the church, the police following him, his being about to kill Damien at the altar, the police shooting him?

17.The funeral sequence, the military honours, the president at his godson’s burial? His holding Damien’s hand, Damien turning round and smiling? The future?

THESE OLD BROADS

US, 2001, 100 minutes, Colour.
Shirley Mac Laine, Debbie Reynolds, Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor, Jonathan Silverman, Nestor Carbonell, Peter Graves, Pat Crawford Brown, Gene Barry, Pat Harrington, June Allyson.
Directed by Matthew Diamond.

These Old Broads is a film about bringing veteran actresses together – mirroring, more than a small amount, real life. In fact, the actresses had to be good sports to play these roles which are both flattering and not flattering.

The film is obvious in its storyline. A film with the actresses from the 60s is a greater success on re-release – therefore put them on a television show together. Of course, they cannot stand each other, have had affairs with the same man in the past as well as a lurid history behind the scenes. In fact, the film mirrors the lives of the actresses concerned and has many humorous but self-conscious references. Shirley Mac Laine’s character is very similar to her own character (and she played the Debbie Reynolds similar character in Carrie Fisher’s script for Postcards from the Edge). Debbie Reynolds is much like herself – even to the owning of a casino. Joan Collins sends up screen and television image with some references to her dubious marriages and sexual reputation – and a joke about her British accent being her Hollywood accent whereas she really came from Kansas. Then Elizabeth Taylor appears as the tough agent looking like an older variation on her Martha from Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Unfortunately, much of her dialogue sounds like leftovers from Virginia Woolf. It is Jonathan Silverman as Shirley Mac Laine’s son, a would-be producer of documentaries who is asked to direct the reunion, who gives the most skilful performance. In the meantime Peter Graves appears as Debbie Reynolds’ husband, Gene Barry as the head of the studio. An uncredited June Allyson is the woman in the hotel who sees the old broads trying to dispose of Joan Collins’ husband.

There is a very strong sequence for those in the know where Debbie Reynolds and Elizabeth Taylor, in their characters, discuss the parallel situation that happened in real life when Elizabeth Taylor had an affair with Debbie Reynolds’ husband Eddie Fisher and then married him. The film seems like something of a reconciliation.

It all comes to light when it emerges that the screenplay was co-written by Debbie Reynolds’ daughter, Carrie Fisher. She also wrote the expose, Postcards from the Edge. If one listens to many of the lines spoken by Jonathan Silverman about his relationship with his mother, they seem very much lines that might well be the autobiography of Carrie Fisher.

So, the film is a comedy about old actresses burying the past and getting together. The dialogue is fairly rough at times, full of innuendo – and more explicit innuendo. So, it is a mixture of good and bad taste – and an intriguing look at Hollywood looking at itself as well as looking at the particular broads on show.

1.An entertaining comedy? Based on real life? Based on Hollywood? The title and its tone – and the stories, the allusions to Hollywood past, sexual scandals? The innuendo?

2.The Hollywood setting, the television stations, executives, studios? Hotels? The world of ageing actresses? The musical score? The song-and-dance routines? The final extravaganza song?

3.Audience response to the actresses? Their careers, their performances, as icons? Their screen images?

4.The basic plot, the success of the film, the planned reunion, the arguing and bitching, the crisis with Addie’s husband, the possible seductions, the arguments, the relationship between Kate and her son? The emotional clashes?

5.Wesley, his life, his work, ambitions for documentaries, making the pitch to Gavin? Gavin’s two-timing? His having to see the actresses, the different performance to get each of them to act? The visit to Beryl Mason? His being chosen as the director? The interactions with Gavin? The difficulties, his exasperations? His tense relationship with his mother? The revelation of the truth? His acknowledgment of his being gay? The episode in the gay club? The final success?

6.Gavin, nasty, the double-talk of the young producers? His assistant and his double-talk? The head of the studio and the appreciation of the actresses? The rehearsal and its all going wrong?

7.Tony, the gangster reputation, Joan Collins and her husbands? His escape, coming to the hotel room, the sexual encounter, his death – and the discussions about him? Wrapping him up, leaving him in the hotel foyer? The actresses being arrested – the headlines? The bail?

8.Kate, Shirley Mac Laine’s style, on the road with Mame? Not talking to her son? Her arrogance, being a star? Her disdain of the others? Her relationship with her husband, his leaving her? The truth about Wesley and his birth? Her finally admitting it? The comic aspects of Shirley Mac Laine’s performance - and relationship to her own life?

9.Debbie Reynolds, an image of herself, ebullient and bubbly? With Bill? Losing her money? Buying the casino, at work at the casino? Her keeping an eye on Bill, Addie’s possible seduction? The arguments? Her wig etc? The discussion with Beryl Mason – and all the references to Eddie Fisher?

10.Addie, the image of Joan Collins, the British jokes – and her sexual reputation?

11.Beryl Mason, Elizabeth Taylor’s appearance, sounding like Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The hard-headed agent? The pretence about her death – and her being in the audience? The irony of the conversation about her relationship with Debbie Reynolds’ husband and the reality of Eddie Fisher?

12.Wesley’s dialogue, the expression of growing up in Hollywood, distance from the star parent? Carrie Fisher’s experience and her incorporating this into the screenplay?

13.Addie’s mother, from Kansas, her being bullied by her daughter, saying the wrong things? Being inventive to get rid of the body?

14.Wesley’s friends, their support? The issue of his being gay – and this being accepted? The song and dance by Joan Collins and Debbie Reynolds for the gay club?

15.A cheerful film – tongue-in-cheek, echoing reality, but with the vulgar touch as indicated by the title?

SIMON MAGUS

UK, 1999, 101 minutes, Colour.
Noah Taylor, Stuart Townsend, Sean Mc Ginley, Embeth Davidtz, Amanda Ryan, Rutger Hauer, Ian Holm, Terence Rigby, David de Keyser, Jean Anderson.
Directed by Ben Hopkins.

Simon Magus is an interesting and rather exotic film. It is very much in the vein of Jewish tales that were told about communities in central Europe in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. This tale is set in what is now Poland in the 19th century, the time of industrialisation, changes in farming and marketing, the introduction of the railway.

Writer-director Ben Hopkins (who has not followed this film with a strong career) recreates the atmosphere of the period with great style. The location photography is beautiful. He uses light and darkness to great effect for creating atmosphere in this isolated village. The film focuses on the Jewish community, being depleted with people moving from the country to the city. When the threat of industrialisation and markets comes with trains, it could be the end of the life of the village.

The lord of the region (Rutger Hauer) is a cultivated poet whom the traders want to sell them his land. The studious Jew, played by Stuart Townsend, wants to persuade the lord to sell some land so that the Jews can build a station and establish their own market.

Noah Taylor is Simon Magus, a simpleton who is used by the prejudiced locals to be part of a plot to discredit the Jews. He is both pawn and martyr.

The film has a very strong cast and is well played. It is intriguing for those who are fascinated by the stories of anti-Semitism and persecution in central Europe in the 19th century.

1.The film as a fable? Jewish fable? The 19th century? The German- Hungarian empire? The Jewish tone, the traditions?

2.The 19th century settings, the village, poverty, the merchants? The squire and his home, culture? The railway, the markets? Industrialisation and the emerging 19th century?

3.The landscapes, the period, costumes and décor? The score and traditional songs?

4.The visual style, the aspects of German expressionism, silent film styles for example the credits? The use of light and darkness?

5.The title, Simon Magus, Simon the magician? In various traditions? In the Acts of the Apostles and the confrontation with Peter? Christian and Jewish relationships? Adapting the character to the traditions?

6.The portrait of Simon? A simple Simon? His age, intelligence, with the children, collecting the sewage? Practical jokes played on him? His awkward manner with people? With the Jewish group, to be part of them or not, their need for another man and whether they would accept him or not? With the squire, with the merchants? His encounter with the Devil? His being persuaded by the Devil to go with the merchants, to warn the people about the railway, curses? His talking to the plants? The plan, his being deceived? The cross, the priest? His nightmares? His being used? The Passover, the merchants’ plan, the parcel with the baby? His going to the Passover ceremony? The opening of the package – the intrusion of the merchants? Their being deceived? His vindication? The barbarity of the setting of the house on fire and his burning to death?

7.The appearance of the Devil, his look, manner of speaking? Simon recognising him? Talking at the crossroads? The Devil and his temptation, testing Simon, his Jewish belonging, not belonging, denying his background? The bargain? Christianity? The curses? The railway and the consequences?

8.The group of Jewish elders, the changes in the town, people moving away, the group, the requisite number, Simon coming in, whether he complemented the group? Their having to cope, the religious celebrations? The clashes with the merchants? The market, the station? The Passover celebration, Simon’s arrival? The ritual? The children? The anti-Semitic attack? The leader? Rabbi?

9.Dovid, a good man, his skills, studies, dairy farmer? His plan? Going to the squire, the discussions? The poetry? His encounter with the young woman, helping her to read? The poetry? His courting of Leah? Her being a widow, rejecting him? Yet her jealousy about his teaching the girl? The return to the squire? The effect of Simon and his denunciation? Dovid and his not wanting the land? His appreciation of the poetry, the discussion of the verse? The effect on the squire? His giving him the land? Dovid as happy, the plans? His going to Leah, the reconciliation with her? The happiness with her?

10.Leah, her place in the town, her shop, the cooking? Widow? Children? Good, industrious, the touch of jealousy, the reconciliation?

11.Bratislav, the inn, his serving people, his talk, advice? His friendship with the squire and the squire relying on him?

12.The squire, the gentleman, his culture, feeling that he was living in a backwater, writing his poetry? With Bratislav? With his servants? The visit of Dovid, the discussions about the poetry, teaching the girl to read – and the infatuation of the squire with the young girl? Her reading to please him? His attitude towards the railway, his finding the sound distasteful? The visit of Maximilian Hase? Money, lack of appreciation of the poetry – not having time to read? The motivations for his decision? The finale with Sarah?

13.The little girl, her illness, health, her being healed?

14.The old couple, their place in the village, the bonds together?

15.Maximilian Hase, the merchants, the presuppositions, the pressure on the squire, wanting the land, the plan for the market? Anti-Semitic? Their use of Simon? His curses? The raid at the Passover, the plan, Maximilian and his diabolical attack? His being deceived? Their taking out their vengeance and cruelty on Simon?

16.The priest, his role in the village, Christians and Jews? Simon and his interest in Christianity, the crucifix? The anti-Semitic aspects of the church?

17.The way the film ended – the camera roving through the village, seeing everyone, seeing them content? A humane film?