DEAR WENDY

Denmark, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Jamie Bell, Bill Pullman, Michael Angarano, Danso Gordon, Novella Nelson, Chris Owen, Alison Pill, Mark Webber.
Directed by Thomas Vinterberg.

Dear Wendy relates to a gun, not a person.

This is a strange and eccentric as well as insightful film written by Lars von Trier. He has set a number of his films in the United States even though he has never visited it. This was particularly true of Dancing in the Dark, his film with Bjork and Catherine Deneuve. It was also true of his trilogy, beginning with Dogville, with Nicole Kidman and moving on to Mandalay with Bryce Howard. These films are indictments of American culture, especially the proneness to violence.

The film, however, was directed by his protégé, Thomas Vinterberg who made an outstanding contribution to the Dogme series and its austere film-making with Festen. He also made the eccentric It’s All About Love with Joachim Phoenix, Clare Danes and Sean Penn.

This film focuses on a young boy in a mining town. He is played by Billy Elliot’s Jamie Bell. When he finds a gun, he is drawn to it, establishes a club with his friends – The Dandies. Their philosophy is a mixture of love for guns and pacifism, they are not to draw their guns. However, with life in the town being particularly ambiguous, they are drawn into gunfights. This is precipitated by the role of the sheriff, Krugsbi, played by Bill Pullman.

Other members of the gang include Michael Angarano (Sky High) and Mark Webber (Winter Solstice, The Hottest State).

The film is a strange mixture of the cerebral, with an emphasis on ideas, with the emotional, audiences being invited to identify with the strange characters and their dilemmas.

1.A Scandinavian perspective on the United States, on gun culture? The writing of Lars von Trier – and his never having visited America? The screenplay? Vinterberg’s direction?

2.The locations – the artificial American town, the tradition of Dogme and other von Trier films in setting up an American location? Theatrical? The mine, the town square? The glimpses of the landscapes outside the town? The film’s action as being confined, staged? The information about the guns given via diagrams, mathematics, formulas?

3.The musical score, the range of songs, the lyrics and their commentary on the action – especially about the season?

4.The framework, the letter to Wendy? Dick’s voice-over? The feeling in the love letters? Wendy and her identity? The revelation that Wendy was the gun? The parallel with the relationship between men and women? The gun as real and symbolic? Dick’s passion, falling in love with Wendy, the development of the relationship, the alienation, the saving? His being killed by Wendy? The film’s paralleling the experience with the gun with a love affair?

5.Dick’s story, the voice-over, the letter and the refrain? His father, wanting him to go into the mine, his father’s life? Dick going down to the mine, coming up again? Pampered by Clarabelle? The muffins and the shop, the meeting with the sheriff – who always referred to him as a good boy? His love for reading? Clarabelle urging him to give Sebastian a gift, going to the shop, the encounter with Susan, buying the gun? Deciding not to give it to him but keep it? Giving him The Picture of Dorian Gray with the pages missing? His work, the supermarket, his friendship with Stevie, meeting the others? Finding the gun and its changing his life?

6.His pacifist ideas, his being bookish? Theoretical? The friendship with Stevie, at work, Stevie and his skill with guns, his talking about the gun from the Civil War? The friendship with Hughie, Hughie’s disability, with Freddie? The younger brother? The meeting with Susan, friendship? The place of the group in the town, their meeting, the growing friendship, the interest in guns and Dick’s philosophy of guns, Stevie’s skill?

7.Hughie and Freddie, the bullying at school, Hughie and his self-assertiveness? Stevie explaining the guns? Susan and her place in the group? Those who were followers, Dick the leader?

8.The idea of the Dandies, the clothes, the rituals, the use of the guns, the pacifist philosophy? The bonds with the guns, the ritual engagement? The names for the guns? The letters? The Dandies and their foppish manner, elegance?

9.The sheriff, his role in the town, seeing Dick as a good boy, bringing Sebastian, the proposal that Dick be a kind of parole officer? Dick and his being unwilling? The past antagonism towards Sebastian? His love for Clarabelle? The supervision? Sebastian and his touching Wendy and Dick’s reaction? The shooting, the rivalry, Dick and his blindfold, Sebastian and his skill?

10.Sebastian and his having killed someone, relationship with Clarabelle? His reaction to the group, thinking they were silly? His skill in shooting? His gradual change, watching the rituals, wanting to become part of the group?

11.Clarabelle, in Dick’s household, looking after him? The muffins? Her retirement, her fear of going out, the plan to escort her, her fear, with the gun, the sudden pulling of the gun and shooting the deputy dead? The return home, the further attempts to take Clarabelle, the success of their mission?

12.The sense of mission, the initial attempt, the failure, the detailed plans, Clarabelle and her killing the deputy? The sheriff and his reaction? The second attempt leading to the siege? The sheriff and his talk, the snipers, the strategies, the atmosphere of High Noon? Each of the members of the group and their death, the pathos of their deaths? Dick taking Clarabelle and achieving success? Stevie and the Civil War gun – and its failing just as in the Civil War? Sebastian seeing that Dick would be shot, in the framework of the window, his getting Wendy, shooting him?

13.The film as realistic or not? A fable? About guns, human nature, pacifism and aggression, the gun culture, self-deception – and American gun culture as seen by European film-makers?

LEFT BEHIND

US, 2000, 96 minutes, Colour.
Kirk Cameron, Brad Johnson, Janaya Stephens, Clarence Gilliard Jnr, Colin Fox, Gordon Currie, Chelsea Noble.
Directed by Vic Sarin.

After The Omega Code did not induce millennial fears, film-makers turned their attention to the series of best-seller novels with the at-first puzzling title of Left Behind. The producers employed TV star Kirk Cameron to introduce the film on video as well as give a post-movie exhortation for audiences to spread the word about Left Behind, with the urging that the film be then released in cinemas across the United States. This did not happen although it was commercially successful in some centres like Grand Rapids, Michigan, with their strong evangelical background and belief in the rapture.

Like The Omega Code, the hero of the film is a reporter, found initially covering disasters in Jerusalem, especially concerning plans to create food for the starving millions. Warned by a friend in America, that there are strange goings on in the world, the reporter is asked to go to London. During the flight, people simply disappear with piles of clothes neatly placed on vacant seats. Needless to say this evokes some panic in those who remain, who have been left behind. The pilot of the plane and the flight attendant with whom he has been romantically involved (and who are not taken up in the rapture) try to deal with the situation. On their return, the pilot finds his wife and son gone but his teenage daughter left behind. Further investigation leads to revelations (especially on a video by a preacher who has also now disappeared) about the meaning of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians concerning the last times when those who are faithful are taken up in the clouds to the Lord (the rapture) while those not worthy are left behind and must work for their salvation.

Since the authors of the novels have signed long-term contracts for the series, it is clear that their option is to be left behind!

The Omega Code and Left Behind are made with great earnestness which is very easy to mock. Kirk Cameron's pleas for acceptance of the important message run the danger of being laughed at by ordinary viewers let alone cynics. These films make no contribution to an understanding of Christianity despite references to the Scriptures and visits to churches. In fact, they mistake faith for a loyalty to a simplistic form of religious enthusiasm.

1.The impact of the film in 2001? In theatres? On video? Amongst church audiences? Amongst secular audiences?

2.The title, the meaning of The Rapture? The preparation of the time of Tribulation? The adaptation of the popular series of novels? Audiences who had read the books and their expectations?

3.The location photography, the United States, the scenes in the air, Jerusalem and Israel? The United Nations? The musical score and the range of popular songs?

4.The theology of the film: Matthew 24 and the explanation of the end times, the seven years of tribulation? The Book of Revelation and antiChrists? The nature of The Rapture – and the references to St Paul to the Thessalonians? Their being presented as fact? The presentation of the Bible, looking up texts – Buck and his scepticism, the information given, especially about Ezekiel 38 as if that reference of 580BC was to the United States around 2000? The nature of literal and fundamentalist interpretations of such passages? Applying them solely to the United States and to the present times?

5.The image of God, a vengeful God? A God taking those who are beloved in Rapture? Those left behind? Sin? Judgment?

6.The apocalyptic nature of the story? End times? The world on the brink of war and destruction? The apocalyptic nature of the Rapture?

7.Audience understanding of the Rapture? The experience in the plane, in Steel’s home? The disappearance of people around the world? The clothes left? The old lady and her bewilderment on the plane, the plane crew? The tape and Bruce Barnes showing Buck, the minister who made the tape about the Rapture three years before it happened?

8.The Jerusalem setting, the Israeli photography? Chaim and his plans, the fruitful crops in Israel? Buck and his reporting? The sudden aerial invasion, the planes exploding in the air? His broadcasting to the American public? The authorities and their watching – and the Psalms and prophecies from the Old Testament as referring to Israel’s enemies in the north? Syria and Iraq? The relevance for the 1990s and the 21st century?

9.Buck, his character, his work? His return to America, bewilderment, his discussions with his source? Going to England, talking with Hattie, the experience of the Rapture on the plane? His return, his meeting Chloe Steel, with Rayford? Talking with government connections, with the television broadcast connections? His investigations, interest in Nicolae Carpathia, getting the true story about the manipulation of the food scheme in Israel? His experience with Rayford, the church, Bruce Barnes and the video, the Scripture explanations, his immediate belief? His going to Nicolae, going to the meeting of the United Nations, witnessing Nicolae and his confrontation with his friends and his murdering them, the brainwashing of the associates? His helplessness? His taking refuge with the Steel family in the church? The build-up to the sequel?

10.Rayford Steel, the pilot, his relationship with his wife, son, daughter? At home, going on the plane? The tension with his family? His experience on the plane, the revelation of the relationship with Hattie? The experience of the Rapture, his bewilderment? Going home, his wife and son gone? Meeting with Chloe, going to the church, the influence of Bruce? The meetings with Buck in the home? His praying, being a refuge for Buck? Chloe, her love for her mother, criticisms of her father, going to the exams, on the road, the Rapture, her surviving? Meeting Buck, falling in love with him?

11.Bruce Barnes, his beliefs, explanation of the Scriptures, the tape about the Rapture, praying with Ray?

12.Nicolae, his personality, his ascendance to authority, the exercise of power, his manipulation? His ruling the world – and Buck hearing him identify himself as the antiChrist?

13.The credibility of the story as drama, as religious drama, as plausible fact? The response of audiences believing in these events as if they were real?

IN MY COUNTRY

UK, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Samuel L. Jackson, Juliet Binoche, Brendan Gleeson, Menzi Ngubane.
Directed by John Boorman.

It is a pity that this film had troubled production and delays and has not had a wide release. It is not the best film about South Africa but it has something to say and gives audiences worldwide an opportunity to see and hear something about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings.

The screenplay is based on a book by the journalist, Antjie Krog, Country of My Skull. She covered the hearings for the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Her story is also autobiographical fiction, a portrait of her Afrikaaner upbringing with its inherent dominance and prejudices, a picture of her marriage and an affair with a fellow journalist and the need for confession, honesty and reconciliation in her own life. She is played with her customary sensitivity and intensity by Juliette Binoche.

The American journalist is played by Samuel L. Jackson, a reporter for the Washington Post, who arrives in South Africa with a strong bias, even prejudice against whites and Afrikaaners, drawing on his own experience of American racist attitudes. He is outspoken and initially clashes with Anna and her African assistant. This gives the opportunity for the screenplay to dramatise the issues underlying apartheid and the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.

While the film gives a lot of its attention to the relationship between the two journalists, the back story in Washington has been cut (and can be seen in the deleted scenes on the DVD). This gives a priority to Anna’s story, her response to her family, to the hearings (including emotional breakdown) and to acceptance of guilt and responsibility. The affair seems dramatically contrived, although it actually happened. But, it gives the opportunity for Anna’s mother to reveal secrets from her own past and urge Anna to be truthful to her injured husband.

What makes the most impact, of course, is the work of the Commission itself. Several witnesses tell their harrowing stories of disappearances, of torture and of murders. Anna’s broadcasts lead to several further witnesses coming forward and giving information which leads to the pathos of recovered corpses and the knowledge of further murders.

There is also a dramatic motif throughout the film as the Washington journalist conducts a series of interviews with one of the police officers (Brendan Gleeson) who is unrepentant about the role he played and the torture and killings he administered. Other officers come forward during the hearings to testify that they were politically motivated and following orders thus enabling them to receive amnesty.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was based on the principle that all South Africans were interconnected and that forgiveness and atonement were more important than vengeance.

In My Country was directed in South African locations by John Boorman (Point Blank, Deliverance, Emerald Forest, Excalibur, Hope and Glory).

1.The South African setting, time, place? South African history? Apartheid and the fall of apartheid? World opinion about South Africa?

2.The background of apartheid, moral responsibility, policing, atrocities, the records? The post-apartheid reaction? For blacks, for Afrikaaners? For South Africans in general? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

3.The filming in South Africa, locations, the Orange Free State and the farms, the towns and the townships, homes, churches and schools? The musical score?

4.The title, the original book being Country of My Skull? The poems quoted in the screenplay?

5.The quote from Nelson Mandela? Information given to the audience, statistics, the perspective of the screenwriter?

6.Anna’s story, her perspective, based on a true story, the journalist’s work? Her attitude towards apartheid, her own family, relationship, especially with Langston Whitfield? Her father, her brother, her mother and the revelation about her relationship with the poet in the 1950s? Her mother urging her to tell the truth? Seeing her father’s attitude towards Langston? Her brother, the photos from the past, the bonds between the two, him shooting himself? The personal story?

7.The background of Anna, her Christmas visit to her family, the tensions about her reporting, her husband, the children? The impact of the affair? Her telling her husband the truth?

8.Langston and his story, in the United States, a black reporter, prejudice, his judgments on Africans, especially Afrikaaners? His initially being assertive? More empathy, having to learn? His relationship with his paper, with his wife, son? The interviews and his listening to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? The confrontation with de Jager and this motif throughout the film? His relationship with Anna, the affair? His return home? A future?

9.The Truth and Reconciliation Commission? The minister in charge, the other members of the bench? The explanation of the amnesty, the motivation, black Africans and their forgiveness after the reconciliation? White police and their admitting the truth, the political motivation? The belief that all lives were interconnected? The stories being told at the commission, the emotional telling of the stories, especially by the widows and mothers? The response of the board, of the reporters? The mothers, the old man and the boy with him, Anderson and his fulfilling the traditions?

10.Anna and her broadcast work, with Dumi, the friendship, the studio? The effect on Anna herself, the information she gave, the impact on her listeners? Leading to more information, the finding of the body of the girl on the hillside and her being raped? Her mother listening? The discussions about rape at the table, the white guests and their wanting to leave? Rape as a political weapon?

11.Anna and the effect, her emotional reactions, weeping, breakdown? The collaboration with Dumi? The initial encounter with Langston, his questions, his hostility towards her, her answers? Her being forced to be near him? The connections, the social encounters? Her attempts at explanations? Her suffering, weeping, the collapse and his supporting her? Her desperate need for affection, the affair? The bond? The car breaking down, the three in the room – and Dumi drunk, the jokes about past sex crimes? Her taking Langston to meet her parents, the mother’s gift of the book, the father and his rudeness? Her attitudes, her wanting to accept the responsibility of guilt?

12.Langston, as a character, his interactions, prejudice, the black perspective, the American perspective? The comparisons being made between American blacks and South African blacks? His hard-hitting article, Anna’s reaction? The drinking, the learning, the breakdown, the three in the bed, the affair, his visit to Anna’s family, the gift of the book, his reading it on the plane home?

13.Langston and his interviews with de Jager, de Jager symbolising the atrocities? The comparisons with the other police in the courtrooms, their confessions, breakdown – especially the police officer who had killed the boy’s parents, confronting the boy, his weeping, offering him money for education? The boy embracing him? De Jager and the police, the harsh stances, the National Security and the violence? The language of terrorism and war? His antagonism towards Langston? Langston wanting to walk out, the revelation of the farm, the torture implements, the discovery of the corpse? His going to trial, his not being given amnesty because of the proportion of violence that he executed? His information about Anna’s brother, her confrontation of him, his shooting himself?

14.The revelation of the truth, the violence and the descriptions of torture? Murder?

15.The credibility of the affair between Anna and Langston, his marital background and his son, her husband and family – especially in the light of her visits home and her being with her children, her husband? The affair becoming a symbol of deceit, cover-up? Her mother persuading her to tell the truth – truth and reconciliation?

16.A film of the 1990s? Focusing on the future of South Africa? Its place in the world?

17.The ending, the recitation of the poetry – and the visualising of the landscapes and The Country of My Skull?

LEFT BEHIND: WORLD AT WAR

US, 2005, 95 minutes, Colour.
Louis Gossett Jnr, Kirk Cameron, Brad Johnson, Jessica Steen, Gordon Currie, Janaya Stephens, Charles Martin Smith, Chelsea Noble, Arnold Pinnock.
Directed by Craig R. Baxley.

In October 2005, the premiere of Left Behind: World at War (complete with searchlights and stars) was held not in a theatre but in the Hollywood Presbyterian Church. The following weekend it was screened, not in cinemas, but in 3200 churches across the United States. Monday then saw the DVD release. This is the third film in the Left Behind series which is based on the best-sellers by Reverend Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins.

A brief review/critique would acknowledge that the Left Behind films are well-crafted, although budgets are not large as blockbusters go and this is sometimes evident in the limited special effects. In World at War, it looks as though the global conflagration is confined to the Washington DC area with some explosions and two glimpses of a semi-demolished White House. More attention is given to the musical score and songs by popular Christian composers and performers.

The quality of acting is standard with the screenplay giving the cast some conventional lines about danger and war but also asking them to portray earnest people who are not afraid of expressing their faith in the Lord, in the words of the Bible and in the times of tribulation and the Antichrist. Kirk Cameron is not a vigorous performer and his acting, though genial, is not particularly forceful. Gordon Currie, on the other hand, knows that the devil usually gets the best lines and communicates a diabolical ruthlessness as Nicolae Carpathio. World at War does have the advantage of Louis Gossett Jr as the embattled president of the United States. At best, the movies can be described as generally competent and meeting the expectations of their audience.

But, in an era where The Da Vinci Code is taken as gospel by millions of ‘secular’ readers (which will increase when the movie version is released), what of the theology and spirituality behind the Left Behind series? What of the biblical scholarship?

The issues are not those of mainstream Christians around the world. Rather, they are of immediate interest to more evangelical groups, especially those with a more apocalyptic perspective on the world, that judgment is deserved and may well be coming soon. They see plenty of signs and portents and in 2005 with tsunami, famine, hurricanes and devastating earthquakes in Asia, Africa and the Americas, even more strikingly. For Christians who take their bible literally and for those anticipating ‘the rapture’, the films are even more compelling.

Interpretation of the bible is over-literal. Matthew 24 is explicitly quoted in several of the films. In World at War, Buck simply opens the Gospels at this text, reads a few lines to the bewildered American president and shows him that the signs that Jesus offers to the disciples who ask about the ‘end of the age’ are happening now. Matthew 24:40-41 are key rapture quotations: that of two men in a field, one taken, one left; two women grinding at a mill, one taken, one left. The image and the metaphor, in this interpretation, become the reality.

Nicolae Carpathio (with the help of the United Nations) has destroyed his enemies and controls the now globalised world. He is the Beast of the books of Daniel and Revelation. His power is challenged by the Tribulation Force in World at War. But, with the end of the third film, there is still much more to come.

This takes no account of the original biblical context nor of the literary forms, the poetry and symbolism, of the mentalities and imaginations of the authors. The interpretation is fundamentalist, a literal application of words about events in the past to the present. Clearly a biblical faith listens to God’s word to discover its meaning for our times but appreciates the literary forms, the mentality of the times in order to discover richer and deeper meaning.

While there are some allusions to a forgiving God, the image of God in the Left Behind films is one of a powerful creator but, more, of a powerful judger of human sinfulness. Those who are beloved might be taken up in rapture to heaven, but most people are left behind. By using the natural disasters as signs of God’s judgment, the image of God as an angry, even vengeful, judge is reinforced. In World at War, the president is forced to see the errors of his reliance on the worldly power of Nicolae and the military when his life is threatened and his Vice President is blown up. Pestilence is infecting people, including Bruce and Chloe. The Tribulation Force, a remnant at best, are in the service of a mighty God but a God to whom it is difficult to relate to in any personal, experiential spirituality. Buck’s conversion in the original Left Behind (which is based on rational arguments) comes about very quickly. His converting the president to his faith way of thinking is, once again, too rational and too rapid.

There is one striking episode in World at War when Bruce and Chloe are dying from the menacing pestilence. It seems from out of nowhere, but the ill Chloe produces some bread, some wine and a chalice. Dramatically, this is unexpected and difficult for credibility. However, her inviting the Tribulation Force to share in eating the bread and drinking the wine in Jesus’ name does indicate some feeling for spirituality.

It would be interesting if future movies, developed themes of a more compassionate and forgiving God as well as exploring and dramatising a more personalised living of faith, some devotion and manifestation of spirituality like the Eucharistic episode in World at War.

1.The popularity of the Left Behind novels? The readership? Christian? Secular? The popularity of the films? Audience knowledge of the books, of the Rapture, of the Tribulation?

2.The title, the indication of the Rapture (as in the first novel and film)? The Tribulation in the second film? The continuation of the Tribulation?

3.The theology of the film: Buck and his use of Matthew 24:3 to explain the Tribulation to the president? The Book of Revelation? Interpreted realistically, in a contemporary setting? Symbolically?

4.The film’s attitude towards faith, a word tradition and the assertion of faith? The role of personal experience of faith? Christ as personal saviour? The image of God, creator? Sin and redemption? The harshness of the judgment?

5.The apocalyptic tone of the film? The world at war, the images of Washington, the destroyed White House, the explosions?

6.President Fitz Hugh? The dominance of Nicolae, the president believing him? The opening, his reflection, the flashbacks? The game with the vice-president, the vice-president’s death and the car explosions, the chase? The world at war, his dismay? His getting the Trib group? Their attempts to find out what was happening, feedback to him, Buck explaining the Scriptures? Their advice? His having to cope?

7.The attempt on his life, security? The opening raid and the Christian group? The military?

8.Buck, his personality, reputation from the past films? His wife? Ray and his support? Their being together, the pestilence, the attack on Bruce, the infected people, the pestilence as the sign of Tribulation? The dangers? Buck and his wife dying? The bread and wine, the Eucharist scene? Recovery? Bruce’s death? The characters and the presuppositions from the earlier films? The help of Carolyn Miller, working for Nicolae, working with Buck to uncover the truth?

9.Nicolae, personality, rise to power, the Antichrist? Sinister, accent, exercise of power?

10.World War Three, as seen on the television, the newscasts, the explosions around Washington, the destruction of the White House?

11.The picture of the Tribulation – but any sign of Christian hope?

GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

US, 2005, 93 minutes, Black and white.
David Strathairn, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jnr, Patricia Clarkson, Ray Wise, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, Tate Donovan, Robert John Burke.
Directed by George Clooney.

This is a film which invites its audience to think. It also invites its audience to think about the present in the light of the past, especially the mistakes of the past. When we do not learn the lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them.

The anti-Communist activities of Senator Joseph Mc Carthy of Wisconsin, his hounding of anyone suspected of having Communist links strengthened the atmosphere of fear created soon after the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. The United States turned its back on its wartime ally, the Soviet Union, when the Iron Curtain came down. House Committee hearings on Un American activities were held in the late 1940s and early 1950s which led to the blacklisting of many alleged Communist party members or sympathisers in the public service, the armed forces and the entertainment industry. Playwright Lilian Hellman called this period in American politics 'Scoundrel Time'. Arthur Miller's play 'The Crucible' served as an allegory of these witch hunts.

There have been a number of films on this era including a portrait of Mc Carthy in Tail Gunner Joe with Peter Boyle, of Mc Carthy’s adviser, Roy Cohn in Citizen Cohn with James Woods. Cohn appears in the 1990s critique of the US, Angels in America. The Front and Guilty by Suspicion were films about Hollywood and these times. Journalist and television personality, Edward R. Murrow, was played by Daniel J. Travanti in Murrow. Murrow is now the subject of Goodnight, and Good Luck, which was his signing off phrase for his broadcasts.

This film has been widely acclaimed, David Strathairn winning the Best Actor award in Venice and George Clooney and Grant Heslov winning for Best Screenplay. The film has been directed by Clooney who also appears as Murrow's producer, Fred Friendly.

Good Night and Good Luck has been shot in black and white, symbolic perhaps of the public stances of the times which did not allow for any greys. This enables Clooney to incorporate actual footage of Mc Carthy and the hearings instead of having an actor play the senator. This footage ends with the famous challenge to Mc Carthy by judge Joseph Welch, 'Have you no decency, sir?'.

This 90 minute film confines itself to the challenge made by CBS television to Mc Carthy by Edward R. Murrow. Murrow had built up a reputation for solid and fearless journalism with broadcasts from London during the war. We see his research and legal team at work, the stances of Bill Paley (Frank Langella), head of CBS in the face of political pressure and pressure from the sponsors, Alcoa. We see a television news anchor (Ray Wise) hounded by the conservative press. We see two people on the team (Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr) who conceal their marriage because CBS rules did not allow couples to work for the company. We see Murrow interviewing Liberace and the entertainer answering questions about his hopes for his marriage. We also see Murrow as a heavy smoker and his endorsement of Kent cigarettes. This reminds us that fifty years ago, honesty and concealment were major issues for celebrities in the public eye but smoking was not.

David Strathairn, a reliable actor who has supported many significant films, is most impressive as Murrow, a man of principle, fearless and articulate. His rendition of several of Murrow's broadcasts remind us of how relevant his stances are today, including his statement that dissent does not mean disloyalty.

Directed with passion but control by Clooney, this is a film both to watch and to listen to

1.Acclaim for the film? History? Relevant to the 21st century?

2.The choice of black and white, the 1950s style of photography, close-ups? Fluid camera work, studios? The clips from television coverage of senate hearings? Authentic?

3.The range of songs, their being used as a chorus, the lyrics and comment?

4.Audience knowledge of the characters, the events? Of Murrow, Mc Carthy, CBS?

5.The framework: the honour and the award to Murrow, Sig Mickelson’s speech, the introduction, Murrow’s speech and the flashbacks? The audience appreciating – but uncomfortable? The focus during the credits on the assemblage for the dinner, the focus on the guests and their talk?

6.The opening of the film, the focus on the guests, the feel for the times? CBS and its history? Celebrities on television? The end, the critique, the critique of TV entertainment as mindless? Analysis – and the reference to Ed Sullivan and Steve Allen being substituted for education programs? Audiences fifty years on? The song about television – 1953 style?

7.The 1953-54 setting, the heritage of the House Committee on Un American Activities? The Mc Carthyist era? Public service and entertainment industry fears? The experience of the black list? Lives and careers being affected? The need for integrity? Power and its use? The fanaticism of anticommunism at the period and fear? The reference to Julius Caesar – and destiny not in the stars but in ourselves? The finale with Judge Welsh and his comment on Mc Carthy’s lack of decency?

8.Television, the role of Edward R. Murrow? His celebrity status, his own integrity, the issues, his stance against Mc Carthy, the two colonels visiting and discussing the case? The interviews with William Paley? The attitude of CBS, the freedom to produce his programs? Alcoa and the sponsorship of the program, the possibility of the withdrawal of advertising revenue? The introduction of the Detroit case and the discussions about programs? The footage of the soldier being interviewed? His being dismissed because of his father’s alleged communist associations, his own views, his sister’s? The interrogations at the Mc Carthy hearings? The focus on Annie Moss, the fact that there were two Annie Mosses, the footage of her being interviewed by Mc Carthy? The senators and their listening to Mc Carthy, the stance of the Constitution and freedom of speech?

9.Murrow on-screen, his program, seeing him at his typewriter, composing his words? The images of Mc Carthy? His comment? Themes of dissent not meaning disloyalty? His comments on the need for evidence, facts being verified? The responsibility of the press? The conservative journalist O’ Brien and his attacks on Murrow, on the news anchor? Offering Mc Carthy the right of reply, the screening of the whole program, Mc Carthy and his vilifying Murrow, the false accusations and Murrow’s explanation? The New York Times journalist saying that Mc Carthy dived into a pool and found that Murrow had drained it? The contrast with his more intimate programs – the visit to Liberace’s house, the discussions with Liberace, especially about his intended marriage and the indication of other cover-ups at the time?

10.David Strathairn’s performance as Murrow, his presence, character, seeing him only as a reporter, not knowing particularly much about him as a person, his family? His discussions with Fred Friendly? With William Paley, with Mickelson? His staff, the affiliates? The group discussions, watching the program, the applause? The footage? His plans? His continued smoking, the whisky, with Paley and the confrontation? His friendship with Don, urging him not to read the journalist, not sensitive enough to the fact that he was suicidal? His short obituary for his friend? The continued smoking – and the insertion of the Kent cigarette ad and Murrow’s endorsement of Kent? The final meeting with Paley, Fred and himself being ousted – and the irony that Mc Carthy, though disgraced, was still in the senate?

11.George Clooney’s presence and style as Fred Friendly, as producer, participation in the discussions, the interview with the colonels, with Paley? The authorities? The bond with Murrow, remaining with him at the end?

12.Sig Mickelson as news editor, as the boss, his discussion with Murrow about the possible sackings and streamlining, his introducing him at the dinner?

13.The picture of the staff, their work, loyalties, suspicions about communist connections?

14.Joe and Shirley, their work, their being together, the fact that they were married, CBS policy not allowing this, the scenes at home, taking off the ring to go to work? The consultation about their leaving – or at least one of them?

15.The role of Mc Carthy, his influence in the United States? Ray Cohn? Roy Cohn as his adviser? The advice given to Mc Carthy about going too far, the senators, Judge Welsh? The investigation into Mc Carthy, his disgrace and condemnation? Lilian Hellman’s referring to this period in American history as scoundrel time?

A COOLER CLIMATE

US, 1999, 95 minutes, Colour.
Sally Field, Judy Davis.
Directed by Susan Seidelman.

A Cooler Climate is a television movie, a star vehicle for Sally Field. She portrays a divorcee in her fifties, who has lost all her possessions, has taken a job in a remote oceanside town as a maid. Judy Davis portrays the rich woman, a neurotic woman with a low self-image who dominates people, who makes Field’s life something of a misery.

The film is a portrait of the divorced woman, her trying to come to terms with her new situation, trying to work with her neurotic employer. She becomes involved in the family situation, the philandering husband, the rebellious daughter. She has her own problems with her own daughter, a well-qualified lawyer, who blames her affair for the break-up of her parents’ marriage.

She also becomes involved with people in the local town, especially a boat builder with whom she begins an affair.

The film is particularly well acted, has a screenplay by playwright Marsha Norman (‘night, Mother). Susan Seidelman directed such films as Desperately Seeking Susan, Cookie and episodes of Sex in the City.

The feminine perspective is very strong in the film, with strong performances by both Sally Field and Judy Davis – leading to some kind of self-understanding on the part of both women, a reconciliation, possibilities for independent and strong lives for the future.

1.The impact of a film by women about women? Audience identification? Experience? Challenge?

2.The picture of the town, away from the cities, a sense of isolation? The community? Homes, the beach, hotels? Authentic? The musical score?

3.The title and its symbolic understanding of the place, the situation of the two women?

4.The focus on Iris, the present, the flashbacks? The train ride, her keeping aloof from the passengers, her arrival and Paula meeting her, Paula’s haughtiness? The nature of the job, thinking it a mistake? Her talking and Paula’s reaction? Wanting to leave? Her room and Paula’s intrusion? Her history, the long marriage, the daughter and the estrangement, her clash with her husband, the younger man, the divorce, losing practically everything? The experience at her age?

5.In the house, working for Paula, buying, fixing the car, meeting the policeman? Meeting the bookseller, going to the drama reading? Meeting Jack? Paula’s husband and his absences? Beth, surliness, bringing the man home, walking around the house naked, the food, having to clean up? Her coping, responsibility? The husband asking her to keep an eye on Beth, increasing her wages?

6.Paula, her personality, her marriage, haughty, low self-esteem, self-assertion? Affluent style? The visit of her friends and their attitude towards her? Her husband, wanting to stay married, his affairs, the estrangement? With her daughter? Iris and her beginning to rely on her? Going to find Beth, the fight, the truth? Her husband leaving her, her complete withdrawal? Beth and the drugs, going to meet her? Going for the walk with Iris, Iris’s fall, helping? The possibility for change?

7.Jack, pleasant, his own history, the friendship with Iris, the relationship, the affair?

8.Beth, alienation from her father, attitude towards her mother, bringing the man home, going out with Iris, talking with her, a new mother-daughter relationship? The drugs, her mother rescuing her?

9.Iris going to work, the computer courses, going for the interview at the hotel, getting the hospitality job, success? Her daughter visiting her and the reconciliation?

10.Themes of marriage, brittle marriages, divorce? The two daughters and the relationship with their mothers? The struggle of a middle-aged woman in this experience?

NANNY McPHEE

UK, 2005, 98 minutes, Colour.
Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Kelly Macdonald, Angela Lansbury, Celia Imrie, Imelda Staunton, Derek Jacobi, Patrick Barlow, Thomas Sangster.
Directed by Kirk Jones.

The title ‘Nanny’ takes us back to an England of a hundred years ago or more – or back to Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins has imprinted herself on the world’s imagination, not only through the Disney film but with the new and successful musical. And a nanny looks like Julie Andrews.

Enter Nanny Mc Phee.

The screenplay for this fantasy-comedy was written by its star, Emma Thompson. She had read some stories by Christianna Brand about a severe Nurse Matilda. Since Nurse didn’t sound as severe as Nanny and since Roald Dahl had commandeered the name, Matilda, the title Nanny Mc Phee was chosen for bringing Christiana Brand’s children-changing blend of witch and fairy godmother to the screen. Emma Thompson is very well served by commercials director, Kirk Jones, whose only other film has been the entertaining Waking Ned.

It is quite an enjoyable show. Perhaps it should be said that it seems designed to appeal to a more feminine sensibility, younger girls, their mothers, grandmothers and aunts. Actually, fathers who become desperate at misbehaving children might also enjoy it when they see Nanny’s tactics for obedience and control. And, actually, I have been told that children get a lot of laughs at the various antics.

Nanny Mc Phee (no personal name at all) looks the opposite of Mary Poppins – well, at least the opposite of Julie Andrews. Swathed in black, she has a double nose, startling warts, wispy bunned hair and a tombstone buck tooth. She does not claim to be practically perfect but she exudes a certain presumption that she believes she is. And, by the end of the film, she has woven her magic and we have seven well-behaved boys and girls.

These seven are the children of newly-widowed Colin Firth, an undertaker who has withdrawn from his children, grieving the death of his wife. The children have become champions of malice in getting rid of seventeen nannies – they really are most obnoxious, not just naughty. However, the scullery maid, Evangeline (Kelly Macdonald) sees the goodness beneath the surface (and we are not surprised at her final Cinderella- Eliza Doolittle transformation).

While Nanny Mc Phee has the advantage of just banging her stick on the floor to bring about some magical change, she also relies on the children themselves to use their brains and their better instincts to remedy bad situations. Some of these still have the touch of the farcical, but the good intentions (and accepting of the consequences) are important. Indeed, Nanny Mc Phee’s methods after the instilling of some discipline and good manners have the qualities of sensible counselling.

The film has some broad jokes and some witty dialogue. Emma Thompson makes the character of Nanny her own. She creates a very interesting character – and we can look forward to articles about her and her pedagogy and psychology.

The children are a motley lot – and not all that attractive even when they are finally good. But Thomas Sangster as the eldest son, Simon, should be on the way to a successful career.

Adults will enjoy Colin Firth as a kind of distracted Mr Darcy. There are some supporting cast to relish, especially Angela Lansbury as the snooty Aunt Adelaide and Celia Imrie as a common, gold-digging widow and fearfully prospective stepmother. Imelda Staunton is the harassed cook and Derek Jacobi and Patrick Barlow do a kind of pantomime duo dame impersonation as two funeral parlour assistants.

It is all comic make-believe but it does make its point about good behaviour and good parenting.

1.Audience impressions of nannies? 19th century tradition? Early 20th century? The Mary Poppins image?

2.The re-creation of England about 1900, the country house, the village? Interiors and exteriors? The jaunty score?

3.Colour photography, the special use of garish colours? Icing and cake – and the culmination in the cake fight?

4.The world of magic, the combination of witch and fairy godmother? Nanny Mc Phee in the tradition of nannies – and the opposite of Mary Poppins?

5.The expected plot, the father, the children, the nanny, disobedience and obedience, transformation? Audiences waiting for the transformation – but how?

6.The children’s misbehaviour, the nannies leaving in despair, Cedric Brown and his story, his grief for his wife, his looking after his children, not being able to control them? The detailed scenes of their being naughty – and obnoxious? Evangeline and her liking them? The cook and her exasperation, preparing the meals? Their father, disobedience, sending them to bed without a meal? The reasons for his behaviour and his not coming to terms with the death of his wife? Talking to her in the chair?

7.Evangeline, nice, liking the children, wanting to give them extra meals, obeying orders, her infatuation with Cedric, her interactions with the cook? Her being sent to Aunt Adelaide for training and reading? Her trying to read – and Nanny Mc Phee talking about the book, Evangeline’s return as a lady, the combination of My Fair Lady and Cinderella? Her story being the end of the book and her not having to read it?

8.The introduction, the voice-over, the explanation of the chair? Cedric and his talking to his wife? Going to the office, his being closed to listening to his children? His exasperation with the nannies, going to the office, its being closed, hearing the voice? The newspaper with the telephone number missing? Aunt Adelaide and her demands that he marry within the month? His dependence on her? The decision that Mrs Quickly would be a possible wife? His relationship with his assistants, at the mortuary, with the dead bodies? The practical pranks of the assistants?

9.Nanny Mc Phee’s sudden arrival, her entering rooms but saying she had knocked? Her look, clothes, the air of mystery, her sense of presence, her stare with the atmosphere of Zen contemplation? Her manner of speaking? Finding the children messing the kitchen? Controlling them, their moving faster and faster, Simon having to say ‘please’? The going to bed, pretending to have the measles, unable to get out of bed? Their changing, her relenting? Allowing them to have a meal? Her rules and lessons and listing them?

10.Simon as the oldest child, in charge of the children, the nice sister and her trying to do the right thing? Mischief, malice? The baby? The reasons for their behaviour? Simon refusing to say ‘please’ but being forced to? The gradual transformation in the children, Nanny Mc Phee knowing their names? Change in manners? Simon and having to use his brains? Aunt Adelaide and her wanting to take one of the children, substituting Evangeline? Encouraged by Nanny Mc Phee, going to his father at the office, exasperation at his not listening? Mrs Quickly and the mischief at her visit, the apology? Nanny Mc Phee making him realise the consequences of decisions? His visiting Nanny Mc Phee’s room? The wedding, the clothes they had to wear, the hint about the bees, their theatrics with the bees – leading to the cake fight? And their father calling off the wedding? Success, nominating Evangeline?

11.Mr Brown in himself, his dependence on Aunt Adelaide, his reliance on Nanny Mc Phee, bewildered, the approach to Mrs Quickly, her garish clothes, the visit, his being scared off? The apology, the wedding? His breaking it off? Admitting that he loved Evangeline?

12.The sketch of Mrs Quickly, her vulgarity, garish clothes, her friend? The plans, the visit and all the mischief the children went on with, eating the worm…? The children’s apology? The build-up to the wedding, her exasperation, the cake fight and her leaving?

13.The sketch of the assistants, their pantomime style? Assisting Mr Brown and supporting him?

14.Aunt Adelaide, haughty, promising her word and keeping it? Her comment on her niece and her children? Her control over Cedric, wanting him to marry within the month? Offering to take a child, taking Evangeline, transforming her? Her arrival for the marriage – and her being pelted with cake?

15.The physical transformation of Nanny Mc Phee, each time the children obeyed and learnt her lesson, her wrinkles and warts disappearing? Her saying that when she was needed she would stay, but when she was wanted but not needed she would go?

16.The happy ending, Evangeline and her transformation – and reverting to type, her love for Cedric, being a stepmother, the reconciliation with the children? Nanny Mc Phee’s achievement, control, manners? Family: love and communication?

DREAMER

US, 2005, 98 minutes, Colour.
Kurt Russell, Dakota Fanning, Kris Kristofferson, Elizabeth Shue, David Morse, Freddie Rodriguez, Luis Guzman.
Directed by John Gatins.

Dreamer bears the subtitle, Inspired by a true story. Just as well, because it does seem a bit far-fetched. However, we have seen Seabiscuit and know that horses which have been injured and written off can rise to occasions and become champions. The press book gives information about the story on which Dreamer is based and the real horse seems to have been even more successful in races than Sonyador in the film.

Director John Gatins has made a career of writing sports films. They include Coach Carter (basketball) and two baseball films, Hardball and Summer Catch. He knows the successful formula for a heart-warming sports film.

However, this reviewer’s heart turns a little cold when Dakota Fanning appears on screen. A journalist described her as ‘the whey-faced girl with the frightening work ethic’. This work ethic is to the fore in Dreamer. We know she is a little girl who likes horses but she comes across less as a child than as a mini-adult in the way she bears herself, walks and talks, She has no scruples in emotionally blackmailing her father after he did the right thing in letting the horse go – and, not only does he buy the horse back, he makes her a major owner with power to make decisions, front acceptance boards and confront a tycoon owner. She also has to face up to a tycoon sheikh to get over $100,000 dollars to enter her horse in the championship race. Of course, she does. She is never plagued by self-doubt.

So, if you don’t mind Dakota Fanning and her precocious presence, the rest is standard ‘family’ fare with Kurt Russell agreeable as the father, Elisabeth Shue with less to do as the mother and Kris Kristofferson as the grumpy then kindly grandfather. There are some exciting race and training sequences which make it a pleasantly standard racing film.

1.The perennial appeal of films about horses? Children? Racing? The popular formula?

2.The focus on the horse, the races, the injury, the work on the horse, the challenge for its recovery, the racing, the opportunity for success?

3.The Kentucky settings, the farm, the racecourses? The musical score?

4.The intended audience, children, family? Horse and racing lovers?

5.Cale and her voice-over? Her explanation of the family, its history, her grandfather, father, training of horses? The difficulties? The differences between her father and grandfather? Her father and his employers, the experience of Sonador? Sonador and the race, the warning, the fall? The horse coming to their stable? Her love of horses, her interest in Sonador, the training? Her regret when her father had to let it go? Her tantrum and demands? Her being part-owner, major owner? Her decision? Her dream of its success – fulfilment?

6.Cale and Dakota Fanning’s screen presence, her age, acting like an adult, her relationship to her father, to her mother, to her grandfather? Her observing the training, her shrewdness, watching the horses, the race, her dismay at the treatment of the horse, her ownership? Her confrontation of the board? Confrontation of Palmer? Her success?

7.Ben, his hard work, giving Palmer the information about the horse, its collapsing? His relationship with his father and the tension? His being sacked, his deal with getting Sonador? His getting information from the vet? Horses with similar injuries? Trust? His father helping? Balon and Manolin and their being sacked, working with him, caring for the horse? The horse’s development, training and timing? The decision to enter it in the race, its success? The decision to enter it in the big race – and the discovery that the horse had been sold? Ben and his relationship with Cale, getting the horse back? The risk, the ownership? The negotiations for the money, going to the prince, the success and the winning of the race? His relationship with his wife – tensions, her work, love for her?

8.The grandfather, the clash with his son, love for his granddaughter? Sardonic, pessimistic about the horse? The growing interest, the help? His mellowing? His regrets about his relationship with his own son and Ben’s dreams?

9.Lily, at home, loving mother, at work, supportive? The renewed relationship with Ben?

10.Manolin and Balon, Hispanic, their work, being looked down on by Palmer, working with Ben, helping with the horse? The part-ownership?

11.Palmer, his arrogance, racist attitudes? The injury of the horse – and his deal with Ben? His later confrontation with Cale?

12.The Arab sheikhs, the brothers and their rivalry, the failure of Sonador? Ben going to the rival brother, his giving the money?

13.The photographing of the races, the excitement, success?

14.A popular family film – according to the racing formula?

HARD RAIN

US, 1998, 96 minutes, Colour.
Morgan Freeman, Christian Slater, Randy Quaid, Minnie Driver, Edward Asner.
Directed by Mikael Salomon.

A combination of heist thriller and disaster spectacle, the action takes place over several hours during which rain pours down, an armoured car is robbed, criminals pursue the hero, the police are ambiguous and a dam bursts, all in 96 minutes.

Special effects are effective, especially with all the action at night and in pouring rain. The cast have to wade, row, swim and dive almost as much as those in Titanic. The action is taut and well edited. It all makes for an entertaining thriller. Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater are strong leads and the screenplay is by Graham Yost who wrote Speed and Broken Arrow and knows his stuff. Action in the rain.

1.An entertaining action thriller? Heist? Disaster film? An entertaining combination?

2.The Indiana town, only at night? The town and the evacuation, the mayor leaving? The police in charge and evacuating people? The old couple who stayed? The van, the security, the money? Being caught by the flood? The basis for action drama? The musical score?

3.The title, the emphasis on the rain, the flooding, the dam and the release of the water, the overflow? The town gradually being submerged? People and their deaths in the hard rain?

4.The set-up, Tom and Uncle Charlie and their getting the money, driving the van, caught by the rain? The confrontation with the criminals, Charlie ringing for the National Guard? The confrontation, the shoot-out – and Charlie’s death? The irony of Jim revealing to Tom that Uncle Charlie had been part of the plan?

5.Tom, his past life, the opportunity for a job, relying on Uncle Charlie, their arguing? Charlie’s death? Tom and his taking the money, getting into the town, hiding it in the cemetery? The pursuit in the boat through the offices? His taking refuge in the church, Karen hitting him over the head? The sheriff and his arrest, interrogation? His being put in the cell – and locked there? The rising water, his devices for keeping alive, inability to get the key? Karen coming and saving him? The deal with the sheriff? The pursuit by Jim and his gang? Meeting the old couple and their giving them the boat? The action in the cemetery, in the church? The betrayal by the sheriff? Jim and his men being killed? Jim helping Tom? Rescuing Karen and shooting the banister to free her? The final confrontation, the shoot-out, the death of the police. Allowing Jim to get away with the money, his telling lies to the authorities? A future with Karen? Typical heroics from the almost anti-hero?

6.The sheriff, his men, his ridiculing the slow-witted men? Evacuating the town? His hostility towards the mayor? His grudges, going about the money, the decision to take the money for himself, to get the support of his men? The confrontation with Phil? The confrontation with Jim, the shoot-outs, the pursuits? The final confrontation with Tom – the shooting? The deaths of the other men – trying to escape? Phil and his help, telling Tom where Karen lived in order to save her?

7.The gang, Jim as leader, Kenny and his erratic behaviour, the shooting – and his being electrocuted, Jim reassuring him as he died? Mr Mehlor? and his place in the group? Ray? The taking of the money, the shooting, the pursuit of Tom? The boats, the rising water? The deaths, Jim’s survival, in the cemetery, getting the money, confronting the sheriff? His final escape?

8.The sketch of Mr and Mrs Sears, his low-key style, her continually carping at him, their not wanting to leave, the boat, their being stranded in the tree – and her relying on her husband?

9.The popularity of this kind of action adventure? The heist and the pursuit? In the context of spectacular special effects for the rain and the flooding?

GOAL

UK, 2005, 118 minutes, Colour.
Kuno Backer, Alessandro Nuvola, Marcel Iures, Stephen Dillane, Anna Friel, Sean Pertwee, Frances Barber.
Directed by Danny Cannon.

A celebration of English football which most audiences will enjoy.

The media often paints an ugly picture of bad sportsmanship on the pitch, the prima donna tantrums of exorbitantly highly-paid players, the hooligan behaviour of supporters. In recent times, films like The Football Factory and Green Street portray alarming violence of ‘the firms’ and their brutal clashes. Goal! takes a very positive tone yet it does not shirk the negative issues.

There are not many football films. In the 80s there was an entertaining World War II escape story with Sylvester Stallone, Escape to Victory, where the prisoners played football (and Pele starred as one of them). There was The Miracle of Berne two years ago where film-makers re-created the glory days of German football (soccer to those outside the world of football). Now, we have the English celebration. It is a likeable film, one of those emotional rags to riches and championship sagas that may be fairytales but do come true so often with those who are very talented in sports.

The film has been written to appeal to the widest range of football enthusiasts. The hope is that it will draw the American football fans (not the fans of American football, a very different sport). With a Latino hero, it is clearly going to be a winner amongst Hispanic audiences.

Most of the time, dreamers go off to America to fulfil their hopes. This is a really serious contender for movie surprise of the year! This time someone from Los Angeles leaves it for his dream, going to England and, more specifically, to the wet and wild city of Newcastle and its football club.

Goal! opens with illegals crossing the Mexican border. Then it shows a poor family making a life in LA by working in mansion gardens. The father knows that this is the world his family is confined to, no wealth, no opportunities except to buy a truck and set up an independent business. And that’s it. His older son, Santiago (Kuno Becker) has a great talent for football. When an English former scout (Stephen Dillane) notices him, he backs him and persuades him to come to Newcastle to try out.

The screenplay does not give Santiago a dream run. His first play is in pouring rain and sloshing mud that he has never experienced in LA. Some of the Reserves are bullies with nasty insults to Santiago. The coach (a persuasive continental European performance by Romanian Marcus Iures) seems aloof. However, Santiago is presented as a decent and principled young man, well brought up by his grandmother and pleasingly polite, even when his team-mate takes him to boozy, sexy clubs. He is tempted to give up but doesn’t – and people appreciate him and support him.

For those who love the game, they will feel right at home even if they are not Newcastle supporters. Quite a lot of match play sequences. The film uses the actual city and stadium locations as well as the turbulent sea-front very effectively. We are drawn into identifying with Santiago. We really want him to succeed, to win over the coach, for his father to acknowledge that his choices are the right ones.

Kuno Becker is a very personable young man (and a popular star in Mexico) and has no trouble in getting us on his side. Anna Friel has a nice role as the team’s nurse and his girlfriend. Allesandro Nivola gives a flamboyant performance as the equivalent of an ageing Wayne Rooney (or substitute whichever player has proven himself a yob role-model) who, in this world of dreams and hopes, can actually come to his senses and do the right thing. If only…

1.The popularity of sports films, sports and talented stars?

2.Audiences expectations, humble beginnings, scouts, opportunities, differences between the US and the UK, tryouts and failure, success, personal crisis, achievement? Family and personal background?

3.The conventions, the types? Good and bad? Tests, training, temptations, difficulties overcome?

4.The Latino Mexico background, the family coming across the border, the border guards? Los Angeles, Santiago’s father and his business, the work in the pools and gardens, Santiago helping him, the girls in the car watching, the mansions? His own more humble home, his playing sport, going to church? Authentic setting?

5.His father, his fixed ideas, two classes in the world, the rich and the poor, his low expectations? His family, his wife walking out, his mother staying and looking after his sons, the two boys, wanting to buy the truck, taking Santiago’s money? Santiago going in the middle of the night with his grandmother’s and brother’s support, not saying goodbye? His father going to watch his son on the TV? Not communicating with his son, refusing to answer the phone? His death?

6.The grandmother, the good woman, her selling her belongings to pay for Santiago’s future? His brother, the phone calls? The final phone call? Santiago learning as his father had watched him?

7.Santiago as a boy, not going back to get his beloved ball as he crossed the border? Teenager, work, in the pool, his going to play football, the pride of his coach? His father and the family watching him? His job in the Chinese restaurant? Saving his money? Playing, the encounter with Glenn? The discussions, the promise for the agent to come, his not coming? Glenn and his promise, Santiago and his saving, his father taking the money for the truck? His father trying to shatter his dreams as unrealistic? His going to Newcastle, the phone calls? His grief at his father’s death but not going? No peace?

8.Glenn, his background and career as a footballer, his family, death of his wife? His watching Santiago, contacting Barry Rankin? His ringing Erik Dornhelm in the early morning? At home, his work, his album of photos? His pleading with Dornhelm for Santiago to have a tryout? His continued support, taking Santiago in, sharing his victories? Fulfilment?

9.Santiago in himself, his age, experience, ignorance? A good and courteous young man? His work principles? Not wanting to owe money to people? Going to London, the arrival, the rain? Glenn lending him the money and his later paying it back? His courtesy and respect?

10.The encounter with Roz, the hospital, their talking, the bond? His lying about his asthma? His breaking the breathing apparatus? Playing without it? His being fired? His being offered the chance, especially with Gavin Harris? Admitting the truth?

11.The coach and the coaches, sympathetic, the tryout in the mud and his not having experienced this? His plea to the coach, to Dornhelm? The practices? The hostility of some of the players, the racist jibes of Hughie Mc Gowan? Mc Gowan and his later changing? The dressing room, his failure, his playing the ball and not passing – and the decision to let him go?

12.Gavin Harris, full of himself, the big payments for contracts, the press confrontation and his performing for the journalists? For the public? His skills and his not using them? His behaviour, girls, drinking, the clubs, being late, Dornhelm and his criticism? His helping Santiago? The bond between them? Santiago moving into his flat? Observing Gavin’s lifestyle? Gavin taking him to the club, the girls, the photos and the scandal? Dornhelm and his severity? The straight talk? The possibility of Harris being ousted? His change? A good heart, supporting Santiago, success?

13.The coaches and their dealings with Santiago, sympathy, the training? The reserves? Santiago and his promotion? Looking at the lists, playing with the main team?

14.The characters of the players? The cameos by the real-life footballers? Jamie and his showing Santiago the town? In the club, his injury, hospital? Hughie Mc Gowan, the discussions about his sister, his change of heart? Team play?

15.Santiago and his experience, the poor background yet the possibilities, learning the difference between telling the truth and lying? His relationship with Roz, their dates, his courtesy to her mother? The effect of success, with Gavin, the photos, his shame, the explanation? Talking with Gavin’s girlfriend and her walking out on Gavin? Into the team, learning to play for the team, integrity? The triumph of the final goal?

16.The choreography of the matches, football fans enjoying them?

17.The final match, the stadium as a cathedral, worshippers? The score and the edging ahead? The television screenings – and the American viewers? His achievement? Goal?

18.The significance and importance of sport, its place, ethos, the contrast with the old days and the less financial professionalism? The contrast with the 21st century, players being spoilt? The games, coaching and skills?

19.The film as inspirational and encouraging?