NOWHERE IN AFRICA

Germany, 2001, 141 minutes, Colour.
Juliane Kohler, Merab Ninidze, Sidede Onyulo, Lea Kurka.
Directed by Caroline Link.

Nowhere in Africa won the 2002 Academy Award for the Best For Foreign Language film.

It is not very often that audiences are offered a woman's perspective on life in the Nazi era. The usual focus, as with the recent award-winning The Pianist, is on men, with women in the background. With Nowhere in Africa, we now have not only a woman's story but the story of a young girl who flees Germany in 1938 with her parents and spends the next ten years in Kenya.

This is the kind of film that audiences can enjoy. It makes its audience aware of very serious issues while, at the same time, telling a story that most people can identify with. It is rather old-fashioned film-making, beautifully crafted and photographed, with a straightforward story. The point of view is not just female but, if one can say it, particularly feminine. The film is based on a memoir by Stephanie Zweig and has been written and directed by Caroline Link.

We have become familiar with stories of Jewish families suffering hardships in Germany at the end of the 1930s. Here there is only a short glimpse of that life because attention is immediately on a young lawyer who has been able to arrange for his wife and daughter to flee to Kenya. The rest of the family stay and are ultimately killed or taken to concentration camps.

The film is principally about how this young family cope with life in a different culture. It is shown through the eyes of the young girl, Regina. We realise that children are adaptable and Regina quickly becomes at home in this land which seems so hostile to the parents. She makes friends with the local tribes and shares their customs and rituals.

The film also makes us look through the eyes of the young mother, uprooted from the culture she knows, set down on a farm, struggling to accept the fact, becoming more distant from her husband. We realise, and her husband tells her, that her attitude to the Kenyans resembles the way Germans were looking at Jews. It takes her a long time to come to terms with Africa and its ways. In this way the film is valuable in taking us on a journey where differences have to be acknowledged, then accepted and then appreciated.

The family also experiences internment because they are Germans but the British eventually acknowledge that they are not supporters of the Nazis and allow them to manage a farm where the owner is on active service. The father himself eventually joins the British forces. His final dilemma is whether to stay in Africa or return to Germany to contribute to its reconstruction. By now almost ten years in Africa, mother and daughter have absorbed the culture and are asked to wrench themselves away from the land they now feel as their own.

There is enough plot in Nowhere in Africa for a miniseries, enough issues about tolerance, culture and prejudice and enough emotional sharing with Regina and her mother to help audiences feel that they have had a Kenyan experience.

1.The impact of the film? For German audiences? Worldwide audiences? Jewish audiences? The winning of the Oscar for best foreign language film?

2.The European locations, Germany, Braslow 1938? The atmosphere of pre World War Two Germany? The contrast with Kenya, the locations, the scenery, the homes? Authentic atmosphere of Kenya? The musical score?

3.The title, the perceptions of Jettel, Walter? The German Jews and their migration? At home or not in Africa? Regina and the second generation? The Africans and Kenyans at home in Africa?

4.The introduction to Jettel, her presence in Germany, her daughter? The arrangements for Africa? The letter from Walter? His reason for being in Africa, the German Jew? The journey, the experience of going to Africa? The farm? The contrast of Kenya with Germany?

5.Jettel, her not being satisfied in Africa? The difficulties in the marriage? Her response to Walter? Getting to know Susskind? A poorer life, her experiencing the harsher environment? Her attitude towards Regina settling in, telling her to avoid the local children? The massacre on Kristallnacht, the impossibility of returning to Germany?

6.Walter, his liking Africa, managing the farm? His friendship with Susskind? Susskind’s experience in Africa? Walter and the difficulties in the marriage? The news on the radio about Kristallnacht? The impossibility of going back? The outbreak of war, Walter and the camp, the British authorities? The contrast with Jettel and Regina in the luxury hotel?

7.Mother and daughter in the hotel, luxury, the other German women, the children?

8.The British officer, his relationship with Jettel? His helping her, her visit to Nairobi, the Jewish community? The negotiations for Walter’s release? Jettel’s sleeping with the English officer?

9.The new farm, the money, Regina in the school, learning English? Walter’s decision to serve in the British army? Jettel and her looking after the farm? The war years, Walter’s absence, Regina growing up? The farm?

10.Owuor, the Kenyan cook, his friendship with Regina? As a person, symbolising Kenya and all it had to offer?

11.The details of the Kenyan way of life, the Kenyans themselves? The contrast with the Germans?

12.The end of the war, Walter finishing his service, his returning to Kenya, the information about his father and sister and their deaths in the camps? The reconciliation with his wife? The pros and cons of returning to Germany? The decision to return?

13.The return to Germany, his being reinstated as a lawyer? Life in post-war Germany? Regina, the effect of having to leave Kenya, her farewell to Owuor? Her new life in Germany?

14.A perception of German history? Jews and non-Jews? The impact of the persecution of the Jews? The Holocaust? World War Two? The vision of a different Germany and the future of post-war Germany?

PRICK UP YOUR EARS

UK, 1987, 111 minutes, Colour.
Gary Oldman, Alfred Molina, Vanessa Redgrave, Frances Barber, Janet Dale, Julie Walters, Margaret Tyzack, Lindsay Duncan, Wallace Shawn.
Directed by Stephen Frears.

Prick Up Your Ears is the title of John Lahr’s biography of playwright Joe Orton. It is the basis for this screenplay, written by celebrated playwright, Alan Bennett (Talking Heads, The Madness of King George, The History Boys).

The film was directed by Stephen Frears who has had a singularly successful career in both the United States and his native UK for over thirty years. His range of films includes My Beautiful Laundrette, Dangerous Liaisons, The Grifters, Liam, The Deal, The Queen.

The film is the biography of playwright Joe Orton. From Leicester, John Orton went to London as a student at RADA. There he met Kenneth Halliwell, a would-be novelist. They form a friendship, move in together and live together for ten years. Gradually, Orton finds a voice and writes a BBC radio play and enlists the help of agent Peggy Ramsay. By 1967 in his early thirties, he has success on the West End with Entertaining Mr Sloane. He went on to write such plays as Loot and What the Butler Saw as well as a screenplay for the Beatles (which incurred the displeasure of their manager Brian Epstein).

The film focuses on the development of John Orton into Joe Orton. It traces his skills in writing, his writing his diary and his detailed observations. It also focuses on Kenneth Halliwell, fastidious, his hair falling out, getting a wig, becoming jealous of Joe, announcing himself as his personal assistant. Ultimately, the pair begin to drift apart, Orton with success, Halliwell with lack of success (despite a photographic exhibition) and Halliwell bludgeoned Orton to death and took his own life.

Gary Oldman, who had previously appeared as Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy, embodies Joe Orton perfectly. It is a tour-de-force performance. Alfred Molina is also excellent as Kenneth Halliwell. There is a very strong supporting cast with Vanessa Redgrave at her most lovey and darling and dear as the agent. Frances Barber appears as Orton’s sister and Julie Walters as his mother. Wallace Shawn appears as the biographer, John Lahr.

The film moves backwards and forwards, opening with the deaths, Lahr interviewing Peggy Ramsay, flashbacks building up the picture of Orton’s life with continual return to the present and the investigations for the biography.

While Orton was talented as a writer, the film focuses on his sexual orientation and his sexual behaviour. It is sometimes quite explicit – very much so for 1987 but much less so for succeeding decades. Orton was promiscuous, a cruiser, trying to draw Halliwell into this kind of behaviour, having sex holidays in Morocco. The film then shows the enigma of the private life with the talented public life.

1.Audience response to Joe Orton? His plays? His life, career, the heritage of his theatre work?

2.Joe Orton and his life, tragedy, the early death? The film as both biography and portrait? The emphasis also on his private life? Twenty years after the events?

3.Orton and his achievement, seeing the rehearsals for Entertaining Mr Sloane, his visit to the theatre during the performance of Loot? The sequences of his writing the screenplay for the Beatles, the phone call with Brian Epstein and his offhand remarks suggesting homosexual behaviour by the Beatles and Epstein’s reaction?

4.Alan Bennett, his skills as a playwright, adapting Lahr’s biography, the insight into Orton as a person, as a writer? Peggy Ramsay and her continued support, her taking of the diaries, making them available to John Lahr?

5.The structure of the film: opening with the death, the doors and the bashing them down, Peggy at the scene, taking the diaries? The return to the sequence at the end, the reaction of the landlady, the police? The two funerals, many at Orton’s, few at Halliwell’s? The sister and her putting the two ashes together (with Peggy Ramsay’s remark about it not being a recipe)? The scattering of the ashes?

6.The flashbacks, Peggy and her explaining the situation to John Lahr, meeting with his wife, the reminiscences, the Lahrs at home, Mrs Lahr? and her asking her mother to read the shorthand, their visiting Leonie Orton? The comments from Orton’s brother-in-law about Leicester?

7.The Leicester background, the silent father, the talkative mother, her hopes for her son, his sister and the siblings? His diaries, the recounting of the sexual experience at fourteen? His rehearsing, dressing in the sheets, the creditors coming to the door? His going to Madame Lambert for lessons, her saying he had no talent, his defying her, getting scholarship to RADA, the exercise in imagination, the lecturer, everybody passing the cat to each other, Halliwell miming the killing of it?

8.Leaving Leicester for London, going away from his family? The friendship with Kenneth after the class, their looking at the flat together, moving in, arranging it in the way they liked, the ten years passing and their life together? Kenneth as a person, his age, his legacy for study, his novels, their writing together, taking the sex novel to Faber and Faber, sitting on T.S. Eliot’s chair? John and his promiscuous behaviour, the sex, the pickups? Getting the wig for Kenneth, setting him up for a passer-by? Kenneth being needy for affirmation from the pickup? The police raid and their running? Orton’s homosexuality, brazen in what he said to people, following pickups? Getting Kenneth to participate? Kenneth being fastidious? His preoccupation with Kenneth? Wanting to meet Peggy and asking to bring a ‘friend’?

9.Peggy and her reflection on the ten years, their learning from each other, Kenneth and his becoming the inferior in the relationship, announcing himself as the personal assistant, feeling humiliated, becoming petulant, moods, needing psychological help, his jealousy, the visits to the theatre, his outburst during the rehearsal, his not being a guest for the party? His exhibition, Peggy buying a picture, the lady talking to him and mocking the paintings? His eruption? His being soothed? Joe taking him out and picking up a man?

10.Joe writing the radio play, the response from the BBC, visiting Peggy, bringing his friend, promising to write something better, three years passing, Entertaining Mr Sloane, the rehearsals?

11.The decision to go on the holiday to Morocco, the sun, sexuality, the men? His phone call with Brian Epstein? The return, things being much the same? Kenneth’s outbursts?

12.The death of his mother, going to Leicester, the quiet father, Leonie, the brother-in-law, the laughing at the funeral, his mother being laid out? The pickup after the funeral?

13.The performances of Loot, success, going to visit the theatre, encouraging the actor?

14.The final night, going to bed, discussions with Kenneth, the possibility of their separating? Kenneth and his simmering, the reflection, bashing Orton to death? His suicide? The note and the reference to the diaries?

15.The place of Joe Orton in the development of British theatre in the 60s, his award speech and cheekiness? His defiance? Potential? Peggy seeing herself as his widow? Lahr and the biography twenty years later?

APT PUPIL

US, 1998, 112 minutes, Colour.
Brad Renfro, Ian Mc Kellen, Bruce Davison, David Schwimmer, Joshua Jackson, Ann Dowd.
Directed by Bryan Singer.

Apt Pupil is a sinister film. It focuses on a sixteen-year-old boy, seemingly a very ordinary All- American type, from a wonderful family, good at sport, good at his studies, possibly first in his class. As he listens to lessons on the Holocaust, he becomes morbidly absorbed. When he discovers a man whom he thinks is a Nazi war criminal hiding in his town, he researches him, confronts him, gets him to tell the stories of the Holocaust and what it felt like. As he becomes more involved, he neglects his studies. However, the Nazi officer turns the tables by pretending that he has a bank deposit box in which he has left the story of what has happened to be found on his death.

The two become interdependent, the officer discovering his zest for his Nazi past, the boy becoming more and more powerful and absorbed. A crisis comes when the officer kills a beggar and has a heart attack. There are complications because the officer has posed as the boy’s grandfather in order to meet the counsellor at school. With the investigation by the FBI into the officer because it has been revealed by a fellow patient in the hospital, the young boy is interrogated but is able to get out of the situation. Finally, he uses his power to control the counsellor who wants to expose him – by suggesting that he would accuse him of molestation.

The film was based on a Stephen King short story. It is very well written, very well acted by Ian Mc Kellen as the Nazi and Brad Renfro (The Client, Bully) completely believable as the young boy. The supporting cast includes Joshua Jackson as his best friend, Bruce Davison and Ann Dowd as his parents and David Schwimmer is the counsellor.

Bryan Singer had made a big impact with the Oscar-winning The Usual Suspects. He then went on to direct two of the X- Men films and Superman Returns. Ian Mc Kellen worked with him in the two X-Men? films.

1.The work of Stephen King? This story as different from his horror stories? A psychological story, social history?

2.America in the 1980s, the Californian town, affluent homes, school? The gymnasium? Hospitals? Situations familiar to audiences? A context for the sinister happenings?

3.The visual style of the film, the straightforward narrative, the insertion of dreams and fantasies, superimpositions, different angles and crane shots for disorientation of the audience? The musical score?

4.The title, the relationship between Dussander and Todd? The end and Todd exercising power over Edward French? Todd as the apt pupil?

5.The emotional response of the audience to Nazism, to the Holocaust, to meeting Dussander, to Todd and his exploration of the themes?

6.Todd as the centre of the film, his age, experience, a good family, ordinary life, his support of the family, his being tops at his studies, at sport? Joey and his friendship, talking? The later distance between them? The classes on the Holocaust, the information, his response, gathering data?

7.Todd and his being on the bus, seeing Dussander, doing the research, the fascination? The reasons, his motivation? Inner curiosity, malice?

8.Ian Mc Kellen as Dussander, his age, the story of the past, Berlin, and the United States? His papers, identity? The Jewish search for him? His life, alone? Todd’s initial visit, his hostile reaction, Todd’s command over him, talking, his explaining the stories? The collage of the stories, his relishing them? Todd as a threat? The uniform and Todd forcing him to wear it, marching, his later dressing up, seeing the beggar? His going to Todd’s house, meeting the parents and grandparents, the genial meal?

9.Todd and the effect of listening to the stories, deceiving his parents, the meal and his being quiet, sports, the shower – and his imagination of the concentration camp showers? The people in his dreams? Alienation from Joey? His becoming more avid, yet his marks and his failure at school, the interview with Edward French?

10.His going to Dussander, the power, Dussander and the threats, the story of the deposit box and his narrating the story of what had happened, control? His decision to pose as Todd’s grandfather, the genial interview with Edward French?

11.Todd and his despair about study, Dussander forcing him to study, constant, the good results, his graduation, the encounter with Edward French and his puzzle?

12.The beggar, seeing Dussander in the uniform, accosting him, wanting something to eat, their discussions in the house, Dussander stabbing him, pushing him down the stairs? His heart attack, ringing Todd? Todd and the confrontation with the beggar, the shovel and killing him? Dussander asking what it felt like? The ambulance, Todd’s father and his looking through the house?

13.The hospital sequences, Todd and his visits, the patient calling him a good boy? The patient, the recognition of Dussander? The memory and the agony? Dussander waking and finding the FBI, the Jewish researcher? The discussions, his denials? The last time for seeing Todd?

14.Dussander and the FBI coming for him, the protests outside the hospital? His suicide?

15.Todd, the support of his father after the interrogation? His handling the interrogations of the FBI well? Seeming innocence? Edward French’s visit, threatening to expose him, Todd as the apt pupil exercising his power and the threat of denouncing him for molestation?

16.A sinister film, amoral and malevolent people?

CHICKEN RUN

UK, 2000, 84 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Mel Gibson, Julia Sawalha, Jane Horrocks, Miranda Richardson, Tony Hagarth, Phil Daniels, Timothy Spaull, Imelda Staunton, Benjamin Whitrow.
Directed by Nick Park and Peter Lord.

Chicken Run is the first full-length feature from Aardman Studios. They had achieved great success with the Wallace and Grommet short films, winning several Oscars. They also did the series of Creature Comforts and contributed to a lot of advertising campaigns with their idiosyncratic creatures.

The process of animation in Aardman Studios in Bristol was painstaking with the various small models and organising their movements as well as their photography and the final editing. Voices were also important – in this case the leads from Julia Sawalha and Mel Gibson as well as comic turns from Miranda Richardson, Timothy Spaull and Phil Daniels. There is a very jaunty score.

The film is a kind of remake or tribute to The Great Escape and all the prisoner-of-war films of the 1940s and 1950s. There are some direct homages to The Great Escape.

The idea is novel – the chicken coop envisaged as a concentration camp, patrolled by Mr Tweedie the owner (who was dominated by his strong wife), and his dogs. We see the attempts to escape, the harsh punishment, the growing rebellion amongst the chickens, the old rooster who participated in the war (as a mascot as it turns out), the cheeky American rooster who is bamboozled by Scots accents, talks a lot, pretends that he is more than he is. Ultimately, the chickens build a plane and fly out to freedom.

The film is very entertaining, the action would entertain the children, the dialogue is particularly witty and adults would enjoy it as well.

1.The work of Aardman Studios? The particular style? Success over the years?

2.The animation, the creatures, movement, expressions?

3.The quality of the voice talent, Mel Gibson and his American style, the British, the Scots accent, the old officer from the RAF?

4.The appeal in plot, characters, situations, dialogue, crises? The happy ending?

5.The tribute to the war films, the remake of the prisoner-of-war films, The Great Escape? The musical score – echoing The Great Escape?

6.The coop as a prison camp, the wires, Mr Tweedie as the guard, the patrol, the fierce dogs, the escape, arriving at Mrs Tweedie’s door, her being worse than her husband? Mrs Tweedie and her contempt for her husband, his paranoia about the chickens plotting?

7.The escape attempts, the spade, Ginger as leader, the fat chicken unable to get through, the escapees being tossed in the bin, pursued by the dogs, the variety of attempts?

8.Ginger and her vision, another life? The others having no vision? Babs thinking people disappearing went on holidays?

9.Life in the coop, the demands for eggs, the lists, Mr Tweedie and his demands, Mrs Tweedie and her reading the magazine, doing the figures, seeing the machine, ordering it, its delivery, Mr Tweedie having to assemble it? The testing of the machine and the execution of the chicken, her becoming a pie? The billboard advertising the pies – and Mrs Tweedie going through it at the end?

10.Ginger, becoming desperate? Her leadership, her trying to control the others, the meetings, the planning, the squabbles? Fowler and his stories? Saluting, the drill? Old style? His unwillingness to share his bunk with Rocky, after Rocky’s heroism sharing it, his giving him the emblem, the revelation that he was only a mascot, his having to fly the plane at the end?

11.Rocky and his crash, his poster, his hiding, wanting Ginger’s help – and her bargain or she would scream? Fowler’s hostile reaction? His being a con artist, his stories, his injured wing, his going through the motions of training the chickens, the drill, their going in circles, his boasting? Ginger’s exasperation, his calling her Dollface? The reaction against the Americans? His inability to understand the Scots accent? The dance, his getting better, Ginger and her being taken, his helping her in the machine, their adventures together, the dangers? Getting the medal? His leaving and the note? His cycling away, seeing the billboard, his decision to return?

12.The various attempts at flying, the slapstick and the crashes? The chicken feed, Babs and the chickens getting fat?

13.The decision to build the plane, everybody collaborating?

14.The rats, their personalities, their chatter, the deals with the chickens, wanting eggs in payment? Their being conned by Rocky to get rooster eggs? Their decision to help steal the tools, disguised as gnomes, participating in the building of the plane?

15.The machine being fixed, the need for the take-off, Mr Tweedie and his being tied up, Rocky’s return, lifting the platform, Mrs Tweedie pursuing and clinging to the plane, Ginger and the scissors, her flying through the billboard? The machine, everybody escaping? Mrs Tweedie in the factory, Mr Tweedie locking the door on her?

16.Paradise, telling the stories to the chicks, everybody happy ever after?

17.The finale, the rats and their discussion about which came first, the chicken or the egg?

SYLVIA

New Zealand, 1985, 95 minutes, Colour.
Eleanor David, Nigel Terry, Tom Wilkinson, Mary Regan, Martyn Sanderson.
Directed by Michael Firth.

Sylvia is a portrait of the New Zealand educationalist and novelist Sylvia Ashton Warner. Born in 1908, she died in 1984 just before this film was made.

The film opens with some interview material with Sylvia Ashton Warner, her reminiscences about her breakdown, her drive, destructive forces, education. During the 1940s she pioneered methods of educating Maori children to read, not by the traditional methods, but by associating words that they liked with drawings, getting them to write their own stories. She was not appreciated by the powers-that-be in Wellington. In fact, she was more welcomed overseas than in New Zealand in the ensuing decades.

She also began to write – and a film was made based on her novel The Spinster with Shirley Mac Laine and Laurence Harvey in 1961.

This film is based on her book Teacher, about her methods, and another book I Passed This Way.

British actress Eleanor David is quite moving in the central role, a strong woman who has experienced breakdown, a creative woman. Her husband is played by Tom Wilkinson (ten years before Priest and twelve years before The Full Monty which led him to a very strong international career). Nigel Terry is Aiden Morris, the inspector. New Zealand actress Mary Regan is the district nurse.

The film was directed by Michael Firth who made a number of films, including Heart of the Stag, in the mid-80s in New Zealand.

This is a very interesting film on methods of education, a re-creation of the 1940s, a focus on the isolation of New Zealand and a focus on developments with the Maoris in New Zealand.

1.Sylvia Ashton Warner, her personality, her work, writing, educational methods, reputation? The credits and the interviews with her?

2.New Zealand in the 1940s, the remote town, the house, the school, the pub? The shed? The attention to detail and re-creation of the period? The scenes in Wellington and in the offices?

3.A film about language, issues of spelling, the alphabet, learning the alphabet, singing the alphabet song? Personal words, choices of words? The Maori language? Words not being destructive, but traditional methods getting children to feel self-conscious, rebel? Her methods getting them to eventually read in the mainstream?

4.A film of music, the piano, Sylvia playing, the children spontaneously dancing, the alphabet song, singing for the inspectors, Sylvia going to the recital in Wellington? The background musical score – piano?

5.The background interviews, her breakdown, her marriage to Keith, the three children, the opening memories of her hospitalisation? On the bus, travelling to the town, the distant welcome from the townspeople, walking to the house, the isolation, setting up the house? Sylvia and her parcels from her sister in Wellington – the touch of civilisation? The school, Keith and his work, her inability to keep discipline, the introduction to the school by the army man and his strict discipline? Her interactions with the children, her lack of control? Playing the piano? Inspector Gulland and his pep talk on her taking the job, his trust in her? Her managing, not managing? With her own children?

6.The issue whether she was a teacher or not, her drawings, playing the piano? The children and their discovery of words and word association? Her paintings on the wall, the events and her transferring them to pictures? Taking them out into nature? The bonds with the children? Getting them to write their stories, the reading them out to the unimpressed inspectors? Her explanation of the drawings and their anger at her as authority? Aiden Morris and his inspection, his not being pleased, his response to the alphabet song? His return, calling in to see her, his support? Staying the night, the rugby match, going to the picnic – and the kiss during the rain? Taking her manuscripts to Wellington? Her visit to Wellington, seeing him with his wife? The inspectors, their disdain, their brush-off? Their giving her nil for her assessment?

7.Opal, a friend, the district nurse, talking and sharing, the sculpture, Opal and the stress about her not being married because of the war, the deaths and her inability to save lives? The outings, the picnic? Opal in herself, her work? Her stories?

8.Keith as a person, his love for his wife, supportive of her, the children? The headmaster of the small school, his liking to be in charge, wanting eventually to be a headmaster in the city? Hard work? Letting Sylvia have the shack, helping her paint it? His friendship with Aiden, the inspection, the rugby match, the picnic? His hopes?

9.The people of the town, in the pub, the experience of the war, the patriotism for Mother England, the films in the school, the racist outburst in the pub?

10.The children, the Maoris, their inability to learn, the western ways, the development through Sylvia and her encouragement, the farewell – and their being subjected to rote times tables?

11.Education, the bureaucracy, the cups of tea, the lack of imagination, authoritarian?

12.Sylvia, her change, the infatuation with Aiden, love for her husband, the bonds with Opal and being able to share with her, the children, her creativity?

13.Audiences seeing the foundation for her methods, her explanations of her creativity and how she understood the children? The information and the aftermath of her career?

PASSION OF THE MAIDEN

Iran, 2007, 80 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Seyed Masoud Atyabi.

Passion of the Maiden is a film for Iranian audiences, very difficult for western audiences who do not understand their religious background and traditions.

The film focuses on a young woman, Jeanette, from an Armenian Christian background. She is engaged to marry Andre, a Muslim. However, there are tensions and she is nervous. According to old traditions, her parents had made a promise to an Islamic saint that their daughter would have children and have given her a Muslim name, Fatima. She is embarrassed by this name.

The situation changes when she knocks down a woman in the street and does not stop. She is bothered by this, goes to the hospital, sees a family group lamenting the death of a woman who was run over. She sees the grief of the girl’s fiancé, follows him and he eventually discovers her pursuit. They become friends and she is alienated from her fiancé. She is also angry at the preparations for the marriage celebration – and the blend of Islamic art with Christian art. She also seeks the counsel of the priest.

To understand the background, the family are Armenian Christians. The Armenians also have some Islamic devotions incorporated into their spirituality. The film focuses also on the life in the church, ceremonies, icons, painted screens and a picture of the Sacred Heart which is to be completed. The rest of the plot involves the dead girl’s fiancé, his finishing a painting for a man who was gassed during the Iraq- Iran war – and who also dies.

The climax comes when it is revealed that the woman that Jeanette hit did not die – there was another accident in the street. Relieved, she accompanies the dying artist in an ambulance. They are stopped by a celebration of Imam Hussein and the ritual celebration and pageantry including the burning of a tent in the city square. However, the film combines this celebration with the image of the Sacred Heart, a dove flying through the church and dropping a feather – symbolising images of healing.

The film is full of coincidences, is rather turgid in its melodramatic plot – but is of interest in the presentation of the coexistence of Islam and Christianity in Iran.

1.Audience interest in the religious themes? Islam, Christianity, the various traditions, the interweaving?

2.The city of Tehran, the streets, homes, churches, the city squares and re-enactments of theatrical rituals? The musical score?

3.The title, the focus on Jeanette, her suffering for various reasons, her name, her family, the engagement, Islam versus Christianity or collaboration, the hit-run accident and her conscience? Her compassion for the dead girl’s fiancé?

4.The interaction between Jeanette and her fiancé, the tensions, the meeting in the restaurant, her behaviour, the tranquillisers, his looking at her purse, her anger? The consequence with the hitting of the woman in the street? Her stopping, her imagination, the reality, her leaving? Her later possibly running over the cat and her getting out to search?

5.Going to the hospital, seeing the grieving family, the sadness of the fiancé? Her following him, stalking him? His discovery, especially at the church? Her inability to explain? The friendship, going to the artist’s house, meeting the artist, seeing the painting? Understanding the fiancé more? Their discussions, religious matters? The later discovery in the church, the fiancé and his anger? Her helping the artist, the putting up of the painting? The later helping the artist to go to the hospital after his collapse? Accompanying him in the ambulance? Her receiving the news that there was another accident, that she was not responsible for the death? Her relief? The possibility of forgiveness? Her relationship with her father, Andre’s parents, going to the photography store, taking the photos? Her finally seeing the photos? Her anger at the setting up of the Islamic imagery in the garden, tearing them down? Her final acceptance? Her relationship with her mother, visiting her in hospital? The possibility of a reconciliation and a marriage?

6.The fiancé, his manner, tension with Jeanette, following her, suspicious? The final reconciliation?

7.The grieving family, the dead girl? The fiancé, his personality, his puzzle about Jeanette, discussion about her name? Showing her the art? The painter, finishing the Sacred Heart, the installation?

8.The parent generation, the man in the photo shop, the cousin, Jeanette’s father? The promises and prayers? The celebrations? The wise advice? The cousin and her understanding and help? The sick mother and her looking out the window, passive?

9.The artist, the experience of the war, his inability to finish the picture, his death? The atmosphere of the miracle and his opening his eyes?

10.The religious imagery for the Christians, the Armenians, the rather Protestant-like service with the altar, the missal and Bible enshrined, the two leading the prayer, the singing of the hymn? The image of the church? The contrast with later and the more eastern traditions, the icons, the screens? The picture of the Sacred Heart as an icon, the western suggestions? The characters thinking it was beautiful? Its role in the miracle, the close-ups, the eyes? The dove flying through the church, the dropping of the feather?

THE NIGHT BUS

Iran, 2007, 90 minutes, Black and white/colour.
Directed by Kiumars Purahmad.

The Night Bus is one of many films about the Iraq- Iran war. This time the focus is small, the action taking place over one day. The main Iranian protagonists are an eighteen-year-old rookie soldier, the elderly driver of the bus (who has an artificial leg) and another soldier who had been a student in London before returning for the war. Their mission is to take thirty-eight Iraqi prisoners back in the bus to base for internment.

The film focuses initially on the character of the young man, a young innocent up to the age of sixteen but then called up and involved in war. His behaviour at times is erratic, naïve, but ultimately loyal with some compassion. The bus driver has a son at the war and is a wise old man. The third person is a genial soldier, finds that he has friends with the medical aid amongst the prisoners, sharing common friendships before the war, who is wounded during the surveillance during the trip, blinded, cared for by the nurse – but ultimately killed by a mine. His wife is waiting for him at the base but he does not return.

The film shows the thirty-eight prisoners, blindfold, travelling in the bus. One is an epileptic and has fits. Another is asked to help with the changing of a tyre. Ultimately, one prisoner who has concealed a knife takes the soldiers hostage – but the roles are reversed by the sympathetic man who changed the wheel, whose father was Iranian and his mother Iraqi.

There are many episodes along the way, interactions of characters, difficulties with the bus, flat tyres, dead ends, minefields. However, ultimately, the group arrives at base.

Two of the Iraqi prisoners, the man who changed the tyre as well as the nurse, are given very strong anti-Iraqi, anti-Saddam Hussein and Baath party speeches and there is an affirmation of common humanity and the need for peace.

1.The impact of the film? Prisoners of war? Comparisons with western films and the treatment of prisoners of war? The role of the guards? The particularly Iranian tone of the film?

2.The black and white photography, the desert, the interiors of the bus, day, night? The touches of colour towards the end? The musical score? The local music?

3.The title, the focus on the bus itself, old but manageable, the engine heating, the barbed wire and the flat tyre, changing the tyre? The survival in the bus?

4.The focus on the young soldier, his being cheeky, especially to the bus driver? His memories of being sixteen? His being eighteen? The mission, his being in charge, his associate? The discussions about the situation? His character developing during the bus trip, his having to take responsibility, instilling discipline and silence, the threats of violence, his inability to shoot, being taken hostage, carrying the rock and going through the minefield? The role reversals? His learning something of humanity? His return? His talking to his associate’s wife, unable to tell her the truth about her husband? Giving in the letter to the authorities? Speculation about his future?

5.The bus driver, old, non-combatant? Thinking the boy was cheeky? His driving skills, his having to help with the discipline? His interactions, using commonsense especially about the bus overheating, the need for water, the medical aid, the changing of the tyre, the dead ends? His being bashed by the Iraqi soldier, his leg thrown out of the door? The restoration, finishing his mission?

6.The assistant, casual, helping with the discipline? The man with the fit, the meeting with the nurse, the reminiscences of the past? His going for surveillance, the explosion, the damage to his eyes? The morphine and his suspicions? His journey? Dragging the stone, going through the minefield, not wanting to live, his letter to his wife, his death?

7.The Iraqi soldiers, as a group, blindfolded? Information as to the various countries they came from round about and from north Africa? Their being passive and accepting their prisoner-of-war status? The commander with the knife? His eventually revealing it, cutting the other man loose? Taking over? The need for water, the man having the fit? The man changing the tyre? The differences between Farsi and Arabic? Non-communication?

8.The takeover by the Iraqi commander, his militaristic tone, the rebellion of the man who changed the tyre? The role reversal, putting the two prisoners in the luggage compartment? The rest journeying to prison? The man who changed the tyre, his family background, travelling, his stories, family? His dream for the future with a bridge across the river and people sharing enjoyment?

9.The medic, his sympathies, his wanting to be like the other men so blindfolded, helping the man with the fit, the friendship with the soldier, the memories, at the end and meeting the assistant soldier’s wife? Their reminiscences?

10.The visualising of war, the desert, the explosions, the minefields? The danger for the bus? The base, the tank and the initial fear, testing out the tank? The officials at the base?

11.The explicit message about the Iraq- Iran war? Human nature? Possibilities for peace?

MINA FROM THE SILENT CITY

Iran, 2007, 120 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Amir Shahab Razavian.

Mina from the Silent City is a significant film for Iran in 2007 insofar as it shows a character coming back from overseas after thirty years. He is a medical practitioner, a top surgeon and Germany and was educated there from the age of fifteen. He has married there, is now divorced, is in strained relationship with his daughter. When he returns to Iran to perform an operation, he is persuaded to go to his own city, Bam, devastated by the earthquake of 2004.

This gives him the opportunity to look at contemporary Iran – especially through the breezy character of a young taxi driver who has no knowledge of the past – and to try to come to terms with his past and his growing up outside his land. Eventually, he accompanies a friend of his father back to Bahm and tries to recover some of his past memories.

The doctor is a stern man, gradually unbending as he returns to Iran. His father’s friend is a genial old man, disappointed in his past, but coming to a form of reconciliation with the doctor at the end.

1.A film of Iran, its past and present, the differences of the generations, the Iranian abroad and the effect of his return? An individual journey, a journey for the national consciousness?

2.The locations in Hamburg, in Tehran, in Bahm? The atmosphere of the 20th century, the transition to the 21st century? The differences between Europe and Asia? The reality of Bahm, the earthquake, the aftermath?

3.The sequences in Germany, the doctor and his work in the operating theatre, a very serious man, bitter, silent at home, the empty house? The effect of the divorce? The strained relationship with his daughter? Her reaching out to him? His cold manner, going to the airport, her presence and his wanting her away, the gift and his forgetting it? The images of Germany – which will contrast with those of Iran?

4.The doctor and his expertise, going to Germany at the age of fifteen, educated and growing up there, separated from his past? The effect on him, a sense of alienation? His marriage, the divorce? His memories of Mina in Bahm, the failure of that relationship? The images of his father, stern, military, the memories of the children at play, the marbles (and the gift of his daughter)? The photos of his family?

5.Cantankerous at Tehran Airport, the doctor and the taxi driver, his listening to the taxi driver’s patter, the observations of the city of Tehran? His being called to do the operation, the progress of the operation and its success?

6.The friend of his father, his music lessons, singing? The decision to go to Bam?

7.The taxi driver, cheerful, modern, talkative, explaining the different honking of the horns? Mobile phone? Music? No pre-revolution memories? His style of driving? His offer to drive the doctor? Their bonding? Driving him to Bam?

8.The doctor talking with his daughter via computer, the opening of the gift? A gradual change?

9.Bahm, the visuals, the wreckage from the earthquake, the people? The criticism of his not coming when there was need? His defence?

10.Finding the palm groves, explaining the engineering needed to get the water to them, the possibility of his taking them over?

11.Finding the house, the memories, Mina?

12.The old man and his memories, his love for the doctor’s mother, singing at the wedding? His regrets?

13.The ending, the end of the journey, the final image of the two men and reconciliation together?

MAINLINE

Iran, 2007, 80 minutes, Black and white/Colour.
Baran Kosari, Bite Farahi.
Directed by Rakhshan Bani Etemad and Mohsen Abdolvahab.

Mainline is a film about a young girl drug addict. It takes place over twenty-four hours. The story has been done in the cinema of many cultures – thinking of Australian films like Little Fish, Candy as well as many American films. However, in some senses, this is a breakthrough for Iranian cinema. Up till the year 2000, there was little allusion to drug addiction in Iran. After that time it gradually became a presence in some of the stories, especially about some rich families with the young adults becoming addicts. The family in this film is also quite wealthy, educated, and the daughter subject to a broken marriage mixes with unsavoury types and becomes addicted.

The central character is very well performed – a tour-de-force by the young actress portraying the range of moods of an addict as well as the cravings. She is also very good in the emotional sequences with her mother during the day and her father.

The film focuses on the young woman, who has been promised in marriage to an Iranian who lives in Canada and who will come back to Iran in a month to announce the engagement. He is seen on some videos, waltzing and dancing, speaking affectionately to his fiancée via video. They communicate on the phone. However, he does not know that she is an addict. The mother is desperate, trying to take her to a rehabilitation centre but the daughter gets up to all kinds of ruses and devices in order to get the drugs. She buys some diluted drugs and is sick, gets out of the car many times, abuses her mother, runs away, depends on her mother for money. The mother is at her wits’ end trying to decide what is best to do for her daughter. They finally arrive in the country at the coast at her father’s house where mutual recriminations about the break-up of the marriage occur. Finally, they arrive at the centre for rehabilitation.

The film is very well acted, quite atmospheric – though the choice for black and white photography with the tinting of many pale red and blue object within the film is a bit hard to fathom. Is it meant to be some kind of unreal view of things that would affect an addict?

The film is salutary for Iranian audiences, a warning and graphic look at the effects of addiction.

1.The impact of the film? For Iranian audiences? The admission of drugs and problems, especially in the cities, the dealers, the middle-class wealthy who buy the drugs? Parents having to cope? Methadone programs?

2.The impact for international audiences, comparisons with films about drug addicts from different national cinemas?

3.The device of the black and white photography and the tinted objects? For what purpose? The effect – realism or surrealism? The finale with the orange tree close-up? The musical score and its moods? Opening with The Blue Danube and the waltz, using The Emperor Waltz, concluding with it? The contemporary songs?

4.The title, indication of drug addiction, dealing, programs?

5.The prologue, the opening of the blinds on Toronto, The Blue Danube, the waltz, the mother and daughter imitating the waltz in their own room in Iran? Arash(**??) and his looking forward to coming, his love for Sarah? The wedding dress? The impact of this on Sarah? On her mother? The phone calls to Arash, the mother ringing in the middle of the night, his phone call back? The question whether to let Arash know about Sarah’s addiction, the mother not wanting him to know, the father thinking that he should know?

6.The bond between mother and daughter? The preparation for the wedding, her going to Toronto? The next morning, Sarah’s disappearance? Her going to the city, getting drugs? Her mother’s desperation, the phone calls, to the doctor whose daughter was also addicted? Her defensiveness about her daughter? The daughter’s return, the exasperation?

7.The moods of Sarah, up and down, antagonism towards her mother? Learning later about her growing up with her father, her mother leaving to become an engineer, spending her teenage years with her mother? The father and his wives? The effect? The company she mixed with? Becoming an addict? On a methadone program? Trying to go cold turkey but failing, many ‘last times’? Wanting to be ready for Arash, really loving him, her delight in talking with him on the phone?

8.Persuading her mother to go to the mall, looking for the drugs, the connections with the dealers, the police and the crackdown? Seeing the woman, going to the square, the young man with the flower at the window of the car, giving her dirty drugs? Her being sick? The moods in the car, the phone calls? The intended visit to the rehabilitation centre? The ups and downs of her mother’s moods, the daughter sleeping, taking the injections? The mother weeping? Continuing the journey? The daughter driving the car, the police block, getting safely through it? Going to her father’s place? Her attempt to slit her wrists, going to the hospital, being bandaged? Feeling a failure and not being able to kill herself? The times when she got out of the car, running away? The mother hiding the drugs, giving them to her finally, throwing them into the water, her desperate search for them? The revelation of what it was like to be an addict? The physical pain, the cravings, the mental pain? The viciousness towards loved ones?

9.The portrait of the mother, her background, trying to deal with her daughter, do what was best? The pain and the hurt? The love, trying always to help?

10.The visit to the father, the wife going out leaving the father alone, Sarah going in to see him, playful? Phoning her mother? Her mother sitting by the water, not wanting to go in, the memories of the past? Being persuaded to go in, the meal together, the discussions, the recriminations? Sarah and the wedding dress, listening to her mother and father? The goodwill together, drinking together – and the scene from the sea, in full colour?

11.The morning after, the mother and the decision to drive to the centre, ringing her friend? The ups and downs of the daughter, the final desperate conflict? Her finally going?

12.The final scene, the mother talking with her friend, wondering about the marriage, the courses, the friend reassuring her that nothing was impossible?

13.The final glimpse of the group at the centre, their going indoors for a session, the receding camera and the orange tree?

BAREFOOT IN HEAVEN

Iran, 2007, 83 minutes, Colour.
Amin Tarokh.
Directed by Bahram Tavakoli.

Barefoot in Heaven is a very spiritual film in the Muslim tradition. It is about belief, self-sacrifice, even holiness. It is the work of a thirty-year-old writer-director, Bahram Tavakoli, who has written and directed a number of short films. It is one of many Iranian films which look at religious traditions like Conversations with God, and films which dramatise the relationship with Christianity like Son of Maryam, Robin, The Sun Shines on Everybody Equally, Passion and the Maiden.

The focus of the film is on a clergyman who goes to an institution as chaplain. The institution is for an incurable disease which affects the immune system. Iranian reticence in 2006-7 did not refer to the disease by name as AIDS. Terminal patients are put in a special section by themselves – which is nicknamed The Paradise.

The film is very sombre in its tone with the visuals of the institution, seeing it in the rain, the interiors and the corridors, the laboratory, the interview rooms, the exteriors and the soccer field, at night. The colour photography is muted, with dark tones? Black and white sequences are inserted as well as video material.

The film begins rather philosophically with the clergyman’s reflection on time and the passing of time, with remarks about prayer, the sameness of the routine in the institution. He also has a vision of a burning man. Then there is a flashback to his entrance into the institution.

The audience does not know anything about the clergyman coming to the institution, about his decision. The man seems to have no back-story, is alone, is very serious-minded. We simply see his arrival in the rain, waiting at the gate, eventually let in, the soldier guiding him, the institution grim in appearance and the discussion about the disease with the incurables in their own ward. The other personnel include an attendant with his frozen face, the doctor and his explanations. The clergyman has nowhere to stay and does not seem to feel whether he is welcome or not?

As the film progresses the audience begins to understand the role of the clergy, the role of the chaplaincy and being on call. We are impressed by his devotion, his capacity for listening and observing him in action with the range of people there, his reactions to the people that he first meets, his work with different patients as well as one of the soldiers and his being able to empathise with people, even rejoicing with them for instance at the prospect of a wedding. However, being with the patients takes its toll – as it does on the doctor who is trying to alleviate pain and experimenting with drugs on himself to find a cure. The doctor talks with the clergyman and his own stances are seen in his interviews with the patients. His own experiments do not save him. He finds a rash on his arm, takes a blood sample and examines it while filming a video explaining his illness. He offers another motivation for alleviating the sufferings of others.

The clergyman also ministers within the institution and outside it, illustrating a pastoral and spiritual outreach. The soldier on guard has his cigarettes thrown away but he finds he is able to talk with the clergyman, tell his story about the girl, building the soccer field, the video camera. He wants the clergyman’s help in bringing the girl over – she is in the incurable ward. However, the soldier wants to marry her and the clergyman promises. The soldier sings.

More dramatic is his work with the silent man, opening up to the clergyman about his adopted son and the attitudes of his wife. Then he sets himself on fire. The clergyman puts out the fire but burns his own hands. In the aftermath, the son comes to visit him. In a symbolic gesture the clergyman makes a paper boat and floats it down the river. Another man tells his story, the clergyman listening. His wife visits, sharing biscuits. In the final discussions during his illness he says he wants to see the snow? After his death, as he is being carried out, his hand touches the snow.

More warmly, a woman who works at the institution is concerned about her son. She shows great friendliness, helping the clergyman. But then she has to move – in her discussion about her job, she shows self-sacrifice as well, saying that somebody would need the job more than she did.

The clergyman has been warned that infectious material is on the floor of The Paradise. At the end of the film, with the experience of those he has helped in mind, he carefully removes his shoes, unlocks the door, walks on the floor and out into the snow. It is a gesture of final self-sacrifice.

At one stage in the film, one of the characters remarks that the time for saints living with lepers has passed. The clergyman disagrees – and so the film is akin to Christian characters like Damien of Molokai (see Paul Cox’s Molokai for this comparison) who elect to live and die with the suffering.

This is the journey of the clergyman, the effect of life in the institution, his faith, his religious sensibility, holiness, a living martyrdom, his choice.

1.The impact of the film? Character study? Grim situations? The religious dimension? Self-sacrifice?

2.The visuals of the institution, seeing it in the rain, the interiors and the corridors, the laboratory, the interview rooms, the exteriors and the soccer field, at night? The clergyman’s outside visits to families? The muted colour photography? The dark tones? Editing, score? The insertion of black and white sequences? The video material?

3.The title and the end? The explanation of what was The Paradise? The infection on the floor? The clergyman going barefoot? Unlocking the door, seeing the snow – the desire of one of the inmates before he died? The time for saints living with lepers? Heroism, holiness?

4.The framework and the remarks about time, the remarks about prayer? The experience, the routines? The flashback and the meaning of this ending? Giving the background for clergyman’s decision?

5.The audience not knowing anything about the clergyman? His decision, arrival in the rain, waiting at the gate, eventually let in, the soldier guiding him, the institution and the discussion about the disease, the incurables in their own ward? The attendant with his frozen face? The doctor and his explanations? Having nowhere to stay? The clergyman feeling welcome or not?

6.The role of the clergy, the role of the chaplaincy, on call, his devotion, capacity for listening, observing, in action with the range of people? His own prayer? Discussions about belief in God or not? The overall effect and his final motivation?

7.The doctor, his talk with the clergyman, the interviews with the patients, his stances? His own experiments, the rash on his arm, his taking the blood sample, examining it, doing the video, explaining about his illness? His motivation for alleviating the sufferings of others?

8.The soldier and his simplicity, guiding, on guard, the cigarettes and the clergyman throwing them away, his talking with the clergyman, the story about the girl, building the soccer field, the video camera? Wanting the clergyman’s help, bringing the girl over, the discussions – and the impact of the girl’s story, the father and the virgin, her coffin? The relationship of this to the girl and her being in the incurable ward? The soldier wanting to marry her, the clergyman’s promise? The soldier singing?

9.The silent man, the interviews, his adopted son, the attitude of his wife, not talking? Opening up to the clergyman? Setting himself on fire, the clergyman putting out the fire, burning his own hands? The aftermath and the visit to his son? The son coming to see him? The paper boat, the clergyman making it, the symbolism of it floating down the river?

10.The other man, his story, the clergyman listening, his wife’s visit, sharing the biscuits? His illness, the final discussions, wanting to see the snow? The story about the shoes? His death, being carried out, his hand touching the snow?

11.The woman who worked at the institution? Her son? Her friendliness, helping the clergyman? Her having to move – and the discussion about somebody who needed the job more than she did?

12.The soccer field, the joy, preparing it, the video camera, the playing?

13.The journey of the clergyman, the effect of life in the institution, his faith, his religious sensibility, holiness, living martyrdom, his choice?