REQUIEM

Germany, 2006, 93 minutes, Colour.
Sandra Hueller, Burghart Klaussner, Imogen Kogge, Anna Blomeier, Jens Harzer.
Directed by Hans- Christian Schmid.

During 2005, a surprise box-office success around the world was Scott Derrickson’s The Exorcism of Emily Rose, around $80,000,000 in the US alone.
There was a SIGNIS statement sent out in October 2005about the film and its treatment of demonic possession and exorcism, giving the background to the film, events which occurred in Bavaria in the mid-1970s. The screenplay for Emily Rose adapted some of these events and characters to the United States and fictionalised them.

At the 2006 Berlinale, a new German film, Requiem, was screened in the main Competition, winning a Silver Bear for the performance of Sandra Hueller as well as the award from the international federation of film critics (FIPRESCI). Critics at the festival tended to praise Requiem at the expense of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, sometimes indulging in the perennial critical pastime, the putdown of the Hollywood movie. They praised Requiem for its more direct storytelling and more straightforward in dealing with the psychological and religious issues of possession.

However, it needs to be said that Emily Rose is an American genre film, a psychological and religious thriller, and needs to be critiqued accordingly, appreciating the conventions it relies on and uses. Requiem is not a genre film. Rather, it is a serious-minded European-style drama.

Since the original events took place in Germany, with Catholic characters and raising Catholic issues, it is appropriate to offer comments made by Dr Peter Hasenberg from the German Catholic Bishops Conference to give a German response. Some comments on the issues will follow.

Hans- Christian Schmid, who has been called ‘the most serious among German directors’, has approached the theme of demonic obsession form a point of view diametrically opposed to that of Scott Derrickson in ‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’.

The title of the film indicates that it is not a thriller about exorcism, but rather a film about a tragic death brought about by complex influences. Set in a small town in Germany in the 1970s, the film tells the story of a young woman who seems to be at the brink of a new life when she goes to the university in Tübingen to become a teacher. She is disturbed by the fact that her already well-known malady – she has suffered from epilepsy since childhood – is coming back. She regards this as God’s punishment and begins to see visions of demons.

She turns for help to her parish priest who refuses to accept the interpretation that she may be posessed by demons but draws in a younger colleague who is more willing to accept the possibility of a demonic possession.

There is not the slightest trace of sensationalism in the film. The director’s aim is not to accuse but to understand. The documentary style reminds us that Schmid studied documentary film-making and that he is interested in the truth behind a well-known case. He depicts this tragedy of a young woman with a very sensitive approach to all the characters involved. Even though some of them may be guilty to some extent – e.g. the stern mother or the young priest – they are not depicted as evil influences. The tragedy lies in the fact that all the people involved are basically good-willed and would like to help but are unable to reach the young woman who cannot resolve the conflicts inside herself except by embracing her suffering as sent from God and accepting her death as a martyr suffering for a higher good.

The director and screenwriter have both stated that they do not believe in demonic possession. They see the experience of the central character, here called Michaela, as a physical and mental health condition. It is shown that Michaela has suffered from epilepsy since childhood. However, they wanted to present the possession of Michaela in as detached a way as they could. They respect the beliefs of Michaela and her family and want to tell the story so that audiences will be able to assess the different opinions on possession They want to present the story without bias. They have.

One of the difficulties for audiences watching films like Emily Rose and Requiem is that they have largely been pre-conditioned to expect rather sensational visualisations of possession as well as reactions to exorcism. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) has set a benchmark: physical contortions, bile spewing, levitation, gross language and abuse. Sequels and prequels and imitations over the decades have reinforced this. Emily Rose is quite restrained in its presentation of possession phenomena, relying on performance rather than special effects. This is even truer of Requiem. The possession does affect Michaela’s physical condition but not so grotesquely. There are some manifestations of loss of control (spitting at her mother) and some abusive language. There is only one exorcism sequence and, unlike the other films, where this always happens at night, it takes place in daylight.

The parish priest in Emily Rose is accused of negligent homicide because he supported Emily Rose in her decision to stop taking her medication. Most of the film takes place in the court. There are two priests in Requiem. The elderly parish priest who has known Michaela for a long time is wary of too supernatural an explanation. He asks a younger, more educated priest to help. This priest is more inclined to believe Michaela and is in favour of prayer to confront the demons. Both priests perform the exorcism in a rather low-key manner. (A postscript to the film informs audiences that Michaela experienced several more exorcisms and finally weakened and died.)

Most viewers, including Christians, will be more prone to accept the psychological explanation. This is certainly the ‘secular’ opinion. The screenplay of Emily Rose, however, reminds us that anthropological information gives evidence of demonic possession in many cultures other than Christian. That needs to be seriously considered.

However, there are two Catholic comments that can be made and they apply both to Emily Rose and to Requiem. Theologically speaking, the two films take similar stances. The two films can be seen as complementary.

The first point is that there is a long Christian tradition that chosen individuals, men and women, seem to have been singled out, with a ‘vocation’, to be tempted and tested, to suffer, to experience personal physical and mental torment. They witness to evil in the world. They witness to the need for repentance, reconciliation, reparation and atonement. Paul himself writes to the Romans about the torment of doing what he does not want to do and not being able to do what he wants. Stories, sometimes of rather lurid temptations, are ascribed to the early desert hermits and fathers and this tradition of victim saints has continued over the centuries. More recent saints who have had such experiences include St John Vianney of Ars and the Italian St Gemma Galgani. In Requiem, towards the beginning of the film, Michaela goes on a parish pilgrimage to an Italian shrine of St Katharine, a recluse who suffered great pain and died at the age of 33. Michaela is impressed by this saint and begins to understand her life and death as a parallel.

This is not a comfortable spirituality and the immediate reaction of most people is to reject it or even ridicule it. This was part of a reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. However, it is one of the key points of Kaszantsakis’s novel and Martin Scorsese’s film The Last Temptation of Christ. Giving up on one’s vocation is the last temptation. Jesus himself experienced all human temptation, as the letter to the Hebrews states, but in no way turned away from God. It is very clearly this spirituality that Michaela accepts, seeing herself as a suffering witness for God, a martyr.

The second point concerns what seems to be a clash between religion and science. Developments in the theology of miracles throw light on this issue. In the earlier centuries of the church, events which were proclaimed as miracles could well have been explained by natural causes, or were the product of suggestion or superstition. In the 18th century, in the Age of Enlightenment, Pope Benedict XIV drew up stringent criteria for assessing the truth of miracles of healing. To move away from piety and from superstition, it was decreed that miracles were cures beyond what was naturally possible. For the next centuries, there was rigorous examination of miracles (as in Lourdes) or those accepted for the processes of beatification and canonization of saints.

This, however, can relegate the context of faith to a lesser consideration. The important aspect of miracles (as in the Gospel narratives) is that the healing takes place in a context of prayer and belief. In that sense, the physical possibility of healing or self-healing is less important and can be acknowledged. It is the faith context which is all important.

A parallel can be used for possession and exorcism. While there may be medical, psychological and physical explanations for the condition and for the cure, the exorcism, it is the context of faith that is most important. There should not be any logical dichotomy between faith and science.

Emily Rose raises these issues of faith and science, prayer and psychology for the wide, multiplex, audiences so that they can reflect on the popular film they have seen. Requiem is a mainstream drama for many audiences, especially Europeans, but less likely to be popular in the movie complexes. But, it also raises many questions of faith. While the film-makers of Requiem do not profess faith, they have shown respect for faith and for those who believe. There is a key scene and line in Requiem when Michaela first arrives for lectures and is late. The professor asks her what she believes in. She simply says, ‘in God’. There is some general laughter in disbelief and mockery among the students. The professor remarks that that is where the trouble is. In scepticism.

1.Audience interest in the film, possession, exorcism, the tradition of other exorcism films? A European perspective on these issues?

2.The film as a non-genre film, a European drama focusing on characters, situations? Relying not on special effects or panache?

3.Bavaria in the 1970s, the town, the University of Tubingen, the alps, the visit to the Italian shrine? Authentic and realistic atmosphere?

4.The re-creation of the times, costumes, décor, the music, the style, the life of the church?

5.The issue of demonic possession: Michaela’s health, her mental status, her history of epilepsy? Her going to the doctors, the range of tablets? Her personal fears? Her relationship to her mother and father, her sister? Her ambitions to leave home, to go to the university? A religious girl, her piety, St Katherine’s shrine? Her hearing voices, their being identified as devils? The religious manifestations? Her inability to touch the crucifix, dropping the rosary? Her discussions with the priests? The reality/unreality of demonic possession?

6.Audience response to possession, audiences prone to a rational explanation, a health and mental and psychological explanation rather than religious? The anthropology of possessions around the world in different cultures? Religious context of possession? The professor at the lecture, asking Michaela what she believed in, her response that she believed in God, the students laughing and his comment that that was the trouble, that they did not believe in anything and were sceptical?

7.The portrait of Michaela, her age, background, her gentle father, her stern mother, her sister? Her joy at being accepted by the university? The family reactions, her mother’s reaction? Her booking into the dormitory, her father’s support, going with her, the warden showing them over, the possibilities for study, the father’s gift of the typewriter? Going to the lectures, coming late? Her friendship with Hannah, Hannah’s aloofness, snub, Michaela helping her cheat in the exam, Hannah’s response? Michaela’s mother’s snobbish attitude towards Hannah and her family? The bike ride, the swim? Meeting Stefan? Her study, the exams, her good work? Her studying pedagogy, ambitions to be a teacher?

8.The pilgrimage, the pilgrims in the bus, the song, the shrine of St Katherine?, the veneration of the relics, the story of St Katherine?, aged thirty-three, her suffering and being a martyr to witness to the world God’s goodness? The effect on Michaela? The discussions with the parish priest? The night, her torment, going downstairs, her father finding her downstairs and her waking?

9.Life at the university, ordinary? Working in her room? Her inability to touch the crucifix, her cowering under the desk, Hannah finding her and the reactions?

10.Her decision to visit the parish priest, her feeling that she was laughing at him, not laughing at her, not believing her? His old style, seeing him in the church? The fact that he was no help? Being introduced to the younger priest, his education, discussions, his attitudes towards prayer, praying with Michaela, wanting to help?

11.The Christmas festivities, Michaela going home, Hannah’s absence in Hamburg? The gifts? The confrontation with her mother, her mother slapping her – and seeing her mother singing the hymns with great piety in the church immediately afterwards? Michaela watching her? Stefan and his visit, the visit to the priests, Michaela and her feeling that no-one could help her?

12.Her study, the growing tension, inability to write the essay? Needing the ink? The devils, the voices? Her inability to tell Stefan? Going to him, the relationship with him, the sexual encounter? Her leaving him? The social background, Stefan and his helping her with the essay, typing? Her father’s visit, wanting to be reassured? The dance, her frenzy? Hannah’s return, shock at Michaela’s condition, telling Stefan the truth?

13.The visit, everyone trying to help, Michaela’s reaction? Her fear of going to the hospital?

14.Stefan bringing her home, her mother’s kindness, her father’s concern? Her growing weaker? Her spitting at her mother in the kitchen? The priest’s arrival, the decision to pray the exorcism? Her behaviour during the exorcism? The continued rituals? Her getting some peace?

15.Her going out with Hannah, the walk, the support?

16.The issue of piety, her being a martyr, the similarities with St Katherine?, her acceptance of this, the religious context of her possession?

17.The information about her death and the continued exorcisms?

18.The film as a challenge about reason and rationalism? About faith? About science and medicine? Secular explanations? Religious explanations? The attitude of the film-makers – not taking sides but trying to present the credibility of each stance?

RUN OF THE ARROW

US, 1957, 86 minutes, Colour.
Rod Steiger, Sarita Montiel, Brian Keith, Ralph Meeker, Jay C. Flippen, Charles Bronson.
Directed by Sam Fuller.

Run of the Arrow is one of many films, brief in running time but direct in action, written and directed by Sam Fuller in the 1950s. He was to continue with this direct kind of film-making in the 1960s. However, he fell on hard times during the 1970s, making fewer films. However, he achieved his masterpiece in 1980 with his war memoir, The Big Red One.

This film was made in the atmosphere of Hollywood’s change of attitude towards the presentation of Indians. This merged in the late 40s, early 50s with such films as The Devil’s Doorway and Broken Arrow.

Rod Steiger (with a terrible Irish accent) plays a Confederate soldier who shoots the last bullet in the Civil War. However, he takes the wounded man to be treated by a doctor. The lieutenant, played by Ralph Meeker, encounters him later and there is a confrontation. After the war, O’Meara? decides to join the Sioux and marries a wife there (Sarita Montiel, the Spanish actress whose career spans fifty years). Brian Keith is the sympathetic captain, Jay C. Flippen the sympathetic Sioux whom he encounters. Charles Bronson is the Indian chief.

One of the significant features of the film comes from the title, The Run of the Arrow, where the Indians shoot arrows and the survivor has to outrun the arrow shot. This is quite vividly portrayed with O’Meara? outrunning the arrow while Walking Coyote dies.

The film offers a perspective on the Civil War, the clash between North and South, the inability of many of the Confederate soldiers to accept the end of the war. It also highlights interrelationships between whites and Indians in the context of the 19th century and the aftermath of the Civil War and the opening up of the West.

1.The impact of the film? Its themes? Relevant in later decades?

2.The western settings, Appomattox, the desert, Sioux territory? The Indian landscapes? Colour photography? Editing and pace? Musical score?

3.The cast, Rod Steiger and the Irish accent, Charles Bronson as an Indian chief? The Spanish actress playing Yellow Moccasin?

4.The title, the feat of endurance, Walking Coyote and the explanations, Blue Buffalo and the shooting of the arrows? Walking Coyote failing? O’ Meara and his running, his bare feet, the collapse? His being rescued and hidden by Yellow Moccasin and her son?

5.O’ Meara and the Civil War, the Irish background, the glimpse of his mother after the war? His firing at Driscoll, wounding him, the last shot? Witnessing Lee surrendering to Grant? His refusal to surrender? Not feeling an American? His going into the West, the encounter with Walking Coyote, the encounter with the Sioux? His taking a wife? His surviving the run of the arrow? The military against the Sioux? His loyalties, acting as a scout? The friendship with Captain Clark? The antagonism with Driscoll? The conflicts, the battles? His final stances and decisions? The background of his love for his wife, his son?

6.Walking Coyote, his friendship with O’ Meara, explaining the role of the Indians, in the land? Running, dying?

7.The Indians, Blue Buffalo as chief? The members of the tribe? Yellow Moccasin and her place, concealing O’ Meara? Her son? The marriage? The scenes of domestic life? Her understanding when he went off to be a scout?

8.Captain Clark, the genial and kindly commander? The contrast with Driscoll, surviving, his ambitions, his antagonism towards the Indians? The confrontation with O’ Meara?

9.Popular western ingredients – for psychological portrayals, conflicts? Racial issues with the Indians?

JARHEAD

US, 2005, 123 minutes, Colour.
Jake Gylenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Dennis Haysbert, Lucas Black, Scott Mc Donald.
Directed by Sam Mendes.

This is a very uncomfortable film to watch.

Everybody has a stance on the Gulf War and the reason for President George Bush going to the aid of Kuwait and attacking Saddam Hussein. Everybody probably has a stronger stance on the right and wrongs of President George W. Bush and America and allies in the Iraq War and the subsequent events and insurgency. Jarhead is a kind of Catch 22/Full Metal Jacket/Platoon look at the Gulf War but, of course, in the light of the events in Iraq. Whatever our stand, Jarhead will be at some time quite jarring.

Based on a memoir by Anthony Swofford, the screenplay was written by William Broyles whose career includes being editor of Newsweek and serving in Vietnam. He writes from the inside of the US. Director is the British Sam Mendes whose work has been mainly in theatre, who won an Oscar for his first film, American Beauty, and then made the gangster drama, The Road to Perdition. He brings the tone of an outsider who understands the American psyche.

The star is Jake Gylenhaal for whom 2005 was an important year. Besides being the lead in Jarhead, he featured sympathetically in Proof and received an Oscar nomination for his performance in Brokeback Mountain. He is convincing as Swoff, a fairly callow youth, alienated from his family, about to be disappointed and dumped by his girlfriend, who submits himself to training as a marine. The first part of the films is the Full Metal Jacket part, the training by humiliation and abuse (often of the crass and sexist kind), regimentation and hard physical slog so that the marine will be ready to obey any order in the line of fire. Not everyone can survive this formation. Those who do are so are loyal to the marine code, the code of the ‘jarheads’ (after their complete haircut), an ingrained aggressive outlook on life that is lethally adversarial (to put it politely).

Jarhead follows the old genre of the single platoon movie where the audience gets to know the men as they get to know each other, josh and clash, form rivalries and friendships and get ready to go to war. Audiences who are anti war and wary of the involvement in Iraq will watch open-mouthed as the grunts watch the helicopter scene from Apocalypse Now and sing along with the Wagner, hyping themselves into a frenzy as the climax with the napalm drop approaches. They can see no humanity in ‘the enemy’. It is at this moment that they are called to go to the Gulf.

The wait in the desert for action, the training under scorching conditions and their ignorance of the enemy (except that it is the enemy) means boredom and Catch 22 situations and behaviour. They eventually go into action – but the war is very soon over. There are vivid moments: the platoon warily holding up some camel drivers in the desert, close-ups of latrine duty and a climax where Swoff and his friend Troy (Peter Sarsgaard) are keyed up for their first shot as expert snipers. And then it is back to the day-by-day ordinary US of the 90s.

Jamie Foxx has a strong role as the staff sergeant, both tough and humane, whose life is the marines. How war films have changed (and not) since World War II.

1.A 21st century picture of war? Anti-war? The US marines, the US military? Politics? The wars of both Presidents Bush? The Middle East? The mystery of the Middle East to Americans? Iraq, the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein? The Iraq war?

2.The point of view of the film? US patriotism and the rah-rah – as symbolised in the marines watching Apocalypse now? The marines and their life? The officers? The antiwar and the picture of the grunts, the brainwashing? The ethos of killing, aggressive and adversarial way of life? The cynicism of politics? The role of oil in the Middle East and for the US? Two differing cultures and their not comprehending each other? Where did the film stand?

3.The work of Sam Mendez, theatrical skill, film skill? A British director and his perspective? The film based on the autobiography of Anthony Swofford? Screenwriter William Broyle’s experience in Vietnam, writing other war films?

4.The title, the name the marines give themselves, the explanation of the haircut and the marines? The focus on the individual marines, the issue of their rifles and their not being an individual except with their rifle?

5.The realism of the film? Yet the surrealistic touches? Imaginative? The events chosen for portrayal? Training, waiting, the marines letting off steam, the encounter with the camel drivers, combat? The visuals? The colour – especially the burning oilfields? The editing and pace? The musical score?

6.The locations: ordinary USA, the boot camp, the desert, the camps in the desert, the burning oilfields, the return to ordinary USA?

7.The musical score, the songs – and the comment on the action, on the individuals, on the marines? The comment about Vietnam songs and the Gulf War needing its own songs?

8.The attitude towards the Gulf War? To Saddam Hussein? To President George Bush? To the oil issues of Kuwait and the 1990s? In the perspective of President George W. Bush? The Iraq war and occupation?

9.The conventions of the platoon story, the framework, the platoon and the individuals, the training, the bonding, their working together? Jarhead as a variation on this genre? The genre from World War Two and the heroics via Vietnam and disillusionment to this perspective on the Gulf War? The range of men, their backgrounds, their attitudes? The role of the staff sergeant?

10.The introduction to each character: Swofford, Troy, Kruger, Fowler and Fergus? The opening in the United States, the different occupations, the close-up of their face and the information given about them? Glimpses of their life – especially Swofford’s ill sister, his parents? Their arrival, Fitz and his verbal abuse of the candidates? The background of the ‘Full Metal Jacket’ training and abuse? Boot camp, the allotment to different huts, the initiations, the branding and the test of the new recruit? The issue of Swofford and his trumpet, being a bugler, having to play the tunes with his lips? Staff Sergeant Sykes, his attitude towards Swofford, towards the other men? The drills? The humiliations, the verbal abuse, the sexual imagery? The regime in the hut, the testing in the field, the dead recruit? Macho, aggression?

11.The men and their pride in belonging to the marines, having come through the training? Identification and identity with the marines? The screening of the Valkeyries helicopter sequence in Apocalypse Now, the men singing along, the pugnacious attitude? The call-up?

12.The transfer to the desert, the screen indication of time and numbers of troops? On the plane, flirting, the flight attendants? A war of the 1990s – in commercial aircraft and style?

13.The camp, setting it up, the platoon together? What they had achieved in boot camp? The interactions, their talk, relationships, hopes, boasts? In Saudi Arabia bored, the listing of the topics, the sex, masturbation? The effect on each? Swofford and the issue of the booze, his being sick? Fergus, his glasses, his going on duty, the barbecue sausages, the burning of the tent? Sykes and his putting Swofford on latrine duty – and the close-up of this work? The visit to the toilet of Major Lincoln?

14.Swofford in himself, his background at home, his relationship with Kristina, the glimpse of the sexual relationship? His identifying and identification with the marines, the friendship with Troy? The training and their sniper skills, the shooting sequences? Relationship with the others? The Christmas celebration and his being semi-naked, singing and dancing, the drink, the burning of the tent? His punishment? The letters, his worry about Kristina, her new friend, the phone call, glimpsing Kristina, her reaction on the phone? The move into action, after the long wait, digging the trenches, scouting, the encounter with the camel drivers and his speaking Arabic, saving the confrontation? The finale and his being asked to do his sniper’s work, with Troy, in the tower, the perfect shot – and Major Lincoln preventing them?

15.Troy, sardonic, his identifying with the marines, in command, the opening branding, his friendship with Swoff? His criminal record and the future? His control of the men? The encounter with the camel drivers? Going for the sniping kill, his being upset, tantrum and weeping? Return home – and Swoff going to his funeral, his lying in state?

16.Fowler, his talk? Fergus? Kruger? How well delineated as characters, their backgrounds, their behaviour, their interests, their role in the war?

17.Staff Sergeant Sykes, his explanation of his life, the alternate life that he could have had with his brother, identifying with the marines? The training? The dead recruit, his treatment of Swoff? Their discussions? His making decisions, the trenches? To send Swoff and Troy as snipers?

18.Major Lincoln, the encounter at the latrine, his coming into the tower, forbidding the sniping?

19.The brief war, its meaning? The burning oilfields? The Americans transferred to a desert they didn’t understand, for issues they didn’t understand, their not knowledge anything about the Iraqis?

20.Anthony Swofford and his return from this experience, writing his autobiography? The fact that it was filmed just after the invasion of Iraq by President Bush?

MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

US, 2005, 145 minutes, Colour.
Ziyi Zhang, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Lee, Suzuka Ohgo, Kenneth Tsang, Cary- Hiroyuki Tagawa, Ken Watanabe, Koji Yakusho, Youki Kudoh.
Directed by Rob Marshall.

This is a most beautiful film to watch. The colour photography by Australian Dion Beebe (who also shot director Rob Marshall’s Oscar-winning Chicago) is a continual delight. The lavish sets and costumes re-creating 1930s Japan are exquisitely shot, immersing the audience in this almost hermetically sealed world of the geishas which was to be suddenly destroyed by World War II.

Based on the novel by Arthur Golden, the screenplay by Robin Swicord (Little Women) takes us through the life of a young girl from a fishing village who is sold by her needy parents to the manager of a geisha house. The audience shares the apprehensions of this nine year old, her desperation, her entrapment in this world, her mistakes and working as a slave for the owner. When a kindly chairman of an electricity company buys her a strawberry ice, her life is changed and she submits to the geisha training and, under the tutelage of the most famous geisha in the town, she becomes her successor.

Life is never easy with her hard taskmasters but she also suffers the jealousy of the passionate and cruel geisha who is doomed to quick success and self-destruction.

The screenplay explains that geishas are not courtesans or wives, that they do not sell their bodies (although there is a custom for a patron to purchase the young geisha’s virginity) but that they are works of art in life with their manners, conversation skills, graceful movement, song and elegant dance.

Audiences do hear random broadcasts on the soundtrack about Hitler and Germany but there is little to indicate reasons for Japan’s entry into the war, although the chairman and his associate have fought in Manchuria. When the war does come, it means the end of the geisha world, the world of entertainment for men in high places, men in arranged marriages who rely on the geishas for company and entertainment.

The portrait of the occupying Americans at the end of the war is quite jolting, a crass group of liberators whose manners, jitterbugging and crude touristic commercialism is in rude contrast to the beauty and elegance of the geisha world.

The cast is excellent with three of China’s leading actresses most persuasive as the leads. Zhang Yiyi (Hero, House of Flying Daggers, Crouching Dragon Hidden Tiger) is a charming and vulnerable lead, Sayuri. Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Dragon) is the dignified Mameha, the geisha who coaches Sayuri. Gong Li (who made such an impact in such 90s films as Raise the Red Lantern, The Story of Qui Ju) chews the scenery as the spiteful Hatsumomo.

An intelligent, visual and historical immersion in a different world.

1.A famous novel? Adaptation? Audiences entering into another and strange world? The blend of fact and fiction? The background of the protest by the Japanese at Chinese actresses taking the main roles?

2.The acclaim for the film, awards and nominations?

3.The re-creation of Japan in the 1930s, the stormy coast, the small town, the enclosed world of the Geisha trainees, the residence, the restaurants, the streets? The beauty of Japan – the bridges, the rivers, the trees and blossoms? The background of Hitler in Germany in the 1930s – the snatches of broadcasts? The war experience and the contrast? Life in the countryside, hard work and the washing in the rivers? The transition to Japan, 1946, the American occupation, the garish American style? The ordinary world, the cars, the planes?

4.The colour photography, the exquisite compositions, the continued beauty? Costumes and décor? Pace and editing? The atmospheric musical score?

5.The voice-over and the perspective of Sayuri? The opening, the desperate father, selling his daughters, the rugged seacoast? The two sisters and their abduction? Taken to the town? The information about their mother and father dying? The journey? The Mother and her reaction, her kindly assistant? Sending the sister away? Chiyo staying? Aged nine, her grief, with the other girls, with Pumpkin? Trapped in this world?

6.The character of Chiyo, the nine-year-old, strong character, her feelings, longing for her sister, going out to search for her and failing, the plan to escape with her, her being trapped by the moodiness and the devices used by Hatsumomo and her being enclosed, locked away? The chores? The money debt?

7.Mother and her dominance? The assistant and her helping her? Hatsumomo and her attitude, her room, her possessions, Chiyo going in, spilling the powder, the punishments? Her being beaten? Her seeing Hatsumomo and the lover? The lies?

8.Mother, cigarette, cruel, her reputation, her decisions? The strict regime, Hatsumomo breaking the rules, her punishment? Her having trained Mameha? Mameha and her plans, the training of Chiyo, her decisions about her future? Mother and the inheritance of the house? Hatsumomo training Pumpkin? The financial offer, Mother deciding in favour of Chiyo? Her surviving the war, the aftermath? The assistant, looking after the girls, after the war?

9.The possibilities of being a geisha for Chiyo? Her watching the Geishas? The general, the baron and the men with the geishas? With Hatsumomo? Mameha and her strong sense of dignity, duty? Hatsumomo and her scheming, staining the precious kimono and delivering it? Chiyo being punished for this? The chance encounter with the chairman, his giving her the ice? Her decision then to become a geisha? Her love for the chairman?

10.The nature of geishas as explained in the screenplay? The strict training? The availability for the men? Not a sexual occupation? But to be a work of art? The selling of the virginity? Having a patron? The reputation of a geisha?

11.Chiyo and her name being changed to Sayuri? Her achievement? Mameha as her patron? The training, the rivalry with Hatsumomo, the plans to oust her? The hard work, Mother’s domination, movement, the training school, dance? Conversation? Her entry into the geisha world? The dance and its success? Mameha and cutting Sayuri’s leg? Going to the doctor – part of the plan? The bidding? The baron and his interest? Going to the house without Mameha? The attempted seduction, the rape? Mameha and her sorrow? Nobu and the Sumo wrestling, the chairman wanting Sayuri to be with Nobu? The talk, charming him? His interest in her? Her longing for the chairman, being with him, his avoiding her? After the war, Nobu’s return, his request, her becoming a geisha again, her having sex with the American – and the scandal for Nobu, his rejecting her? Pumkin’s betrayal?

12.The chairman, his status, electricity, Osaka, his planned marriage, going to the geishas? His gift to the young girl? Nobu and the Sumo wrestling? The dance, the meals? Appreciating Sayuri as a geisha? The war, his rescuing her? The destruction of the plant? The need for money after the war, American investment? Relying on Sayuri? His knowing of the liaison with the American? His love for her – his confessing the truth, a romantic ending?

13.The friendship with Pumpkin, the contrived rivalry? Hatsumomo fostering this? But not winning when she was exposed? Pumpkin after the war, an American callgirl, jitterbugging, saying she would help Sayuri but betraying her, her bitter speech about loss?

14.Mameha and her career, her relationship with the baron? Her helping Sayuri, training her, the details of the plans, the mistakes? The rape? Her sorrow? After the war, meeting Sayuri again, finding the kimono, trying to life again the geisha ethos?

15.Hatsumomo, showy, her fickle character, her relationship with the lover, Sayuri seeing them, the lover escaping? Her spite? Going to the Sumo wrestling, watching the dance? Being exposed, her anger, hurting Sayuri, the fire, burning the residence? Her rejection?

16.The role of men with the geishas, the geishas totally at the service of the men? The fixed marriages and the outlet in relationship with the geishas?

17.The coming of the war, the planes, the bombings, the fright and the escape? Sayuri and her work in the countryside, the washing? The effect on her, a normal if hard life?

18.Post-war Japan, the possibilities of reconstruction, the presence of the Americans, loud, tourists, bribes, sex? The relationship with the American general?

19.The geishas, Mameha and trying to charm the Americans, the contrast of the old world and the new?

20.The ending, Sayuri, the chairman, the declaration of love? The romantic happy ending?

NORTH COUNTRY

US, 2005, 126 minutes, Colour.
Charlize Theron, Frances Mc Dormand, Sean Bean, Woody Harrelson, Sissy Spacek, Michelle Monahan, Earl Patterson, Thomas Curtis, Jeremy Renner, Richard Jenkins.
Directed by Niki Caro.

A very impressive and moving film. Interesting to note that the US Bishops Conference reviewer listed it in the top ten films of 2006. Sad to say, the film was not well received at the box-office there. Perhaps its truths were too hard-hitting. It is to be hoped that it will succeed more in other countries.

The church’s social teaching always puts its initial accent on the dignity of the human person. This is the first principle in the Vatican’s recently published Compendium of Social Teaching. One of the key contemporary elements in this teaching is respect for woman, given the history of domestic and sexual abuse as well as harassment in the workplace. These are the themes of North Country.

The screenplay is written by a man, Michael Seitzman, but the film has been directed powerfully and perceptively by a woman, New Zealander, Niki Caro. Her previous film, Whale Rider, about a young Maori girl is worth seeking out for those who have not seen it. North Country also boasts an impressive cast of women, including three Oscar winners, Charlize Theron as Josie, the strong woman who confronts her boorish macho co-workers, Frances Mc Dormand as her friend and union representative, and Sissy Spacek as her mother. There are also fine performances by the men: Woody Harrelson as a lawyer, Sean Bean as a sensitive former miner and Richard Jenkins as Theron’s non-comprehending father.

The narrative here is based on actual events in the state of Minnesota in the 1980s. The epilogue notes that while the women received modest compensation for their treatment at the iron mine, the verdict in their favour led to reforms worldwide in legislation about the employment of women and their conditions.

Not that the film is simply a moralising look at an abusive situation. While it does have a documentary feel with detailed vistas of the rugged landscapes and close-up sequences of work in the mine, it is still a story that audiences can identify with – and has characters that really stir all kinds of emotions.

Josie is a single mother with two children who leaves her brutal husband, returns home and finds a tough job, cleaning, driving, doing repairs in the huge local mine. The men resent the woman’s presence and make life difficult by insults, crass innuendo and more obvious advances, and the crudest of treatment. Management, forced by law to employ women, do nothing to better the situations. When it becomes too much, Josie takes action. The other women don’t want to lose their jobs and are afraid. Her father sides with the men. Management act deviously.

What makes the film so affecting is Josie’s background story, her son’s resentment at the mystery of his father’s identity (which proves a pivotal plot development during the court case), her mother’s quiet care, her father’s almost disowning her, her union friend’s kindness as well as her suffering a debilitating disease. There is no lack of plot.

For those of us who have comfortable lives, this is a necessary immersion in a tough and harsh world where ordinary people try to manage, often without training and skills that will help them manage. Their workplace and treatment often belittles them but they have no way out if they want to earn enough to support their families. This has repercussions, of course, on family tensions, straining of relationships which will lead to damaging consequences.

Josie may have little education and, it is revealed, is more of a victim than we at first realise. But, she takes a stand and appeals for solidarity. There is a strong scene towards the end when she goes to a union meeting where the men jeer and the women are silent. She speaks but, more powerfully and emotionally, her father speaks in support of her. That prepares us for the courts where she will prevail.

1.The film’s acclaim, awards? Dramatic impact? Social conscience?

2.As based on a true story, adapted for the screen? The information at the end about the women, the success of their class action, repercussions for worldwide legislation?

3.The director, her female sensibilities, the cast, a strong women’s film in the best sense?

4.The Minnesota landscapes, the use of Panavision, aerial shots, the snow and the hills, the bleak seasons? The close-ups of the factory, interiors and exteriors? The vast expanses of the north country? The musical score?

5.The 1980s, the atmosphere of the times, the workplace, jobs and loss of jobs, factories and mines, economic difficulties, management and opportunities, legislation about equal employment?

6.The court sequences in the introduction, interspersed throughout the film? Josie, the attacks by the lawyer? The prosecutor and her innuendo? The issues?

7.The flashbacks, Josie’s life, teenage girl, at school, flirting with boys, the relationship with Bobby, sexuality and her attitudes? The detention, the teacher, his smooth words, the viciousness of the rape? Bobby watching, running away, unable to do anything? The repercussions for Josie? Bobby being haunted by what he did not do?

8.The opening and Josie battered, with the children, leaving the house, driving away, Sam and his criticism, his hatred of his mother? Karen and her being young? The later visit by the father and Josie’s rejection of him? The effect on the kids, the move, the new house, with Glory, at home, the meals, renting the house, Sam and his dislike? School, his repeating the attacks on his mother, calling her a whore? The children’s relationship with their grandparents? Sam’s anger, Kyle and his kindness, Sammy despising him, his work with the watches? Kyle giving Sammy the gift of the watch? The talk with Kyle, Kyle making him realise what had happened, his finally talking with his mother? A future?

9.Josie and her parents, her mother’s kindness, hearing the gossip at the social function, ignoring it? At home, welcoming Josie and the children? Her father and his dislike of her, the memories of the past, reputation, rejecting her? The work at the mine, his anger at her? At the socials, the dance? The father and his work at the mine, the building up of the case, his treatment of his daughter? Alice leaving and going to the motel? Sitting lonely? His reaction, going to get her? His going to the meeting, listening to Josie’s speech, rising to defend her, talking about being ashamed? Her response to his change of heart? In the court, learning about the teacher and the rape, his anger? His change?

10.Josie at work, the initial interview, the other women, meeting Glory and the bond with her, friendship with Kyle? Their welcoming her and the children to the house? Glory’s advice, work and learning? The men and their reaction to the women, experiencing the talk, the disgusting actions, the jokes, the abuse? Going to the foreman and his not really listening to complaints? Meeting the manager in the restaurant with her children, his promise to listen? Bobby and his advances? Earl and his roughness? Bobby inviting her to clean, walking and looking over the expanse from the height, his assault on her? His lies and the accusation by his wife? The effect on Josie?

11.Her decision about going to the management, to court? Glory not supporting her? The other women and their not wanting to lose their jobs? Her driving to Minneapolis, the meeting with the boss, the foreman present, the double-talk, the group stacked in prejudice against her?

12.The hockey sequences, Sam and his love for the game, his later withdrawing from the team? Glory introducing Bill? Bill’s story, career as a hockey player, injury, the law, the failed marriage, the return from New York? His friendliness with Josie? Her going to him about the court case, his deciding not to take it? The autographs sequence? His change of attitude, his work for Josie, the achievement possible for him? His wanting to help the women? His work in the court case?

13.Glory, pioneering women’s role in the mind, the union representative, going to the meetings? Driving the trucks? At home with Kyle, welcoming Josie, giving her advice? Her support of the other women? Her illness, wanting to keep it quiet? Josie’s visits, the debilitating disease, Kyle at home and his constant helping her? Her not being in the court? Her going to the union meeting and their rejecting her? Her going to the assembly, her support of Josie, the influence on the other women?

14.Sherry, flirtatious? Coming up to Bill? His not following through? The object of abuse? Big Betty and the other women? Peg? Strong women, their work, trying to keep their jobs? The pressure on them? Their lies? In court, testimony, the changing of their attitudes? Sherry and the abuse of her in the portable toilet, the disgrace and the humiliation?

15.Kyle, a good man, the experience in the mine, love for Glory, care for her, wise in his treatment of Sam?

16.The range of men, their characters, the good and the bad, the reality of their needing their jobs, the years of loss, the macho attitudes, the crudity of language, the sexual innuendo, explicit sexual advances, the excremental abuse? The bosses? In court? Management, the discussions with the prosecuting lawyer? Her warning about the consequences?

17.The key meeting, Josie and her decision to go, Bill’s support? Her speech, the regulations, the chairman trying to stop her? The men’s abuse? Her father, his response, the speech, some of the men applauding? The consequences for the court case?

18.The court case, the strong attitude of the prosecutor, their employing a woman? The bosses in the court? The realisation that they had lost?

19.An intellectual film in terms of a study of social conditions, the workplace, human rights, dignity? The emotional impact reinforcing the understanding of the issues?

STICKMEN

New Zealand, 2001, 98 minutes, Colour,
Robbie Magasiva, Scott Wills, Paolo Rotondo, Anne Nordhaus.
Directed by Hamish Rothwell.

Stick Men is a raucous New Zealand film - perhaps trying to show that young New Zealanders can be as rowdy as anyone else in the world. The film focuses on three young men who are expert at pool. They are unemployed or looking for jobs. They also have women trouble and tangles. These three strands are paralleled as they try to win an illegal pool competition, experience threats, find that the women are eventually their rivals, come through on a winning streak.

The film is mainly of interest as an example of New Zealand film-making at the beginning of the 21st century. Very much a lowbrow piece of entertainment.

Stickmen could be called a blue collar comedy drama. Its focus is on a group of ordinary men, some employed, some not. Their skill is in pool. (However, with the ambiguity of the title, the film uses playing of pool as an analogy for sex, intercutting sex scenes with the games.)

The film is set in Auckland, with a touch of the underworld. A pool tournament is arranged, an underground tournament with high stakes, presided over by a boss called Daddy.

The three young men are fairly happy-go-lucky types, in and out of love, in and out of wins and defeats in pool.

The film is well enough acted – and won several New Zealand awards for screenplay and direction. However, it is not a particularly interesting or entertaining film – except for those who enjoy company in poolrooms.

1.Impact of the film? For what audience? New Zealand? Worldwide?

2.The city setting, the poolrooms, the brothel, the flats? The bars? Authentic? A blue collar world?

3.The title, pool, sex?

4.The introduction to the characters: Jack, Wayne, Thomas? Their skills at pool? Their friendship? Sexual relationships? The pressure for them on the games, the competitions? With the team emphasising camp and gay? With the other teams? The individual characters, strengths and weaknesses, Jack and his relationship, leadership? Wayne, his job in driving the prostitutes, interactions with women? Thomas, his breaking up, his relationship with Sarah, his not being reliable for the games? Strong portraits?

5.The women, Sarah, her relationship with Thomas? Karen and Jack? The women and their following the pool games, their support?

6.Daddy, his domination, the loans, Dave and the bar, not making money, his thumb cut off, torture? The Maori spokesman? Addressing the audience? Explaining the situations? His being called the Man in Black?

7.The peripheral characters, the habitués of the bar, of the poolrooms? The madam, the prostitutes?

8.A light-touch look at the underground world of a New Zealand city?

A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION

US, 2006, 100 minutes, Colour
Kevin Kline, Meryl Streep, Woody Harrelson, L.Q. Jones, Tommy Lee Jones, Garrison Keilor, Lindsay Lohan, Virginia Madson, Maya Rudolph, Tim Russell, Lily Tomlin.
Directed by Robert Altman.

For thirty years or more, commentators have written about films having an Altmanesque style. They mean that the film often has long takes, that characters intersect, talk, talk over each other, pass by and that the director does not mind whether we can see and hear everything exactly. Rather, he wants us to share the experience in its complexity, getting as much out of it as we can but never mind if we miss some of the detail.

Looking back, we know that Nashville (his masterpiece?), A Wedding, The Player, Short Cuts, Kansas City, Cookie’s Fortune, Gosford Park, The Company, all work in this way. Now, at age 80, he has made a wonderfully typical Altmanesque entertainment, A Prairie Home Companion.

It is well worth seeing and enjoying. It is a celebration of life. And it has a strong sense of humour.

The person responsible for the humour is longtime broadcaster and writer, Garrison Keilor. His Lake Woebegone stories are a delight to read as mixtures of homespun and shaggy dog stories as well as literate writing. He has broadcast A Prairie Home Companion for over thirty years before a live audience. We now have the chance to share something of what that live audience has enjoyed.

Keilor himself appears as himself and lives up to his reputation even though he is a somewhat fictionalised character. For the film’s purposes and for a sense of dramatic edge, the story concerns the closing of the show, the bulldozing of the theatre (filmed in Keilor’s theatre with many of his regular cast, band and stage hands) for a car park. This is the last show before a Texas millionaire (Tommy Lee Jones) takes over. The spirit of the last show, the hope that it might be saved and the camaraderie between the players as well as their performances (and jokes and the singing of commercials) is what makes up the film.

It opens like a film noir with a private detective’s voiceover in a diner. Actually, the character is one created years back by Keilor, Guy Noir, who is now security for the theatre. As played by Kevin Kline, he is often hilarious, too serious by half, yet clumsy and deadpan. Dapperly dressed, he fumbles and pratfalls very much like Inspector Clouseau (and Kline had just come from his role as Inspector Dreyfuss to Steve Martin’s Clouseau in the remake). He also encounters a mysterious woman in a trenchcoat (Virginia Madsen) who turns out to be a fan, now dead, who is something of a guardian angel (with the touch of the avenging angel).

There are two groups of country and western singers. Two sisters, Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin, do quite a few numbers – Meryl Streep enjoying herself and letting loose. Lindsay Lohan is also there as her daughter. The other group consists of Dusty and Lefty who also do some numbers including the hilariously crass song, Bad Jokes (penned by Keilor). They are exuberantly played by Woody Harrelson and John C.Reilley.

This is a tribute to radio, live radio, the audiences, the homespun humour and music of the American mid-west and its values.

1.The acclaim for the film? Joy? Celebration? Americana – humour, folksy? Yet with irony, affirmation?

2.The film as Altmanesque – the big cast, the fluid camera style, the fluid style of the film, interweaving characters, situations, dialogue?

3.The personality of Garrison Keilor, his history, radio, stories, Lake Woebegone? The folksy touch for the Midwest? The country and western music? His comedy, irony? The characters he created, like Guy Noir? Playing before a life audience for so many decades? The sounds, the effects? His band? Writing the screenplay, wit and imagination, performance, the fictitious persona? His relationship with Guy, with the singers, with his staff? The audience? The sponsors?

4.The program, the title? The Midwest? The audience over the years for this program? The celebration of life, the celebration of the program? The closure? The millionaire from Texas, pulling down the theatre, the carpark? The Texan without regrets? The comment that people could get different jobs, would have to move on? The issue of what was lost by the closure of the program?

5.Guy Noir and the opening soliloquy, the private eye thriller? The diner, the lighting? Kevin Kline as Guy Noir, his appearance, his explanation of himself, his private detection, loss of his job, security for the program and the theatre? Well dressed, his dapper manner? Yet his Inspector Clouseau gaffes and pratfalls? Checking security, with the various members of the cast? His seeing the angel, his reaction, flirtatious, puzzled? With Garrison Keilor? The discussions about death? Coping? His gaffes with Loretta, her pregnancy? The phone call – with her standing by? The end – and his finger towards the angel trying to see who was to die? Giving a tone to the film?

6.The character of the angel – and her strange presence throughout the film? Virginia Madson, the glamorous blonde, the trench coat? Her different appearances, gliding through the theatre? Guy Noir’s explanation, her going to the church? Coming back to the theatre, wandering? The people who saw her and those who didn’t? Guy Noir seeing her, Keilor seeing her, the lunch lady? The others not? The mystery of who she was, why she was there? The plainness of her story, the car crash, her listening to the program? Her inability to understand and laugh at the penguin joke? Her discussions, explanation of her death, her being an angel? Her wanting to do good, share the happiness of life, care? Chuck’s death and her helping him? The discussions with the Axeman? In the car, his accident? Her wanting to save the program – but not saving it? Her final reappearance in the diner?

7.The Johnson family, Yolanda and Rhonda? Lola as the daughter? Strong characters? Their caring for each other? Symbolic of the other performances on the program? Arrival, their performance, their talk amongst themselves, the reminiscences, the story of their family, the older sisters who stopped singing, their mother teaching them to sing? Their nostalgia for performances? Their singing, the commercials, the songs? Their on-stage personalities, the two sisters complementing each other as they talked? Yolanda and her past relationship with Garrison Keilor, the edge to her interactions with him? Sentiment, Yolanda’s love for her daughter, Lola and her age, writing the poems, the theme of suicide? Reading her poems and people’s reaction? Her going on-stage, singing Frankie and Johnny, needing prompts for the lines? Her becoming an agent, coming into the diner, her matter-of-fact treatment of the family?

8.The various singers, Linda and Robin Williams? Their performances? Jearlyn and the commercials, her songs, her strong and buoyant personality? Chuck and his song? The band and their skills? The focus on the conductor, his piano-playing? The individuals?

9.The sound effects man – and the comedy of his five minutes of doing all the sound effects, improvising, his skills? Humour?

10.Chuck, his age, the flirtation with the lunch lady? His going down after the performance, preparing for the meeting of the lady? Ready for death, the angel helping him to die? His lying there, Dusty and Lefty finding him, Guy Noir and his awkward reaction? The lunch lady, the discussion with the angel? Her grief at Chuck’s death?

11.Dusty and Lefty, as personalities, working together, rivalry? The floor manager and his exasperation with Lefty’s vulgarity? The lassos, the songs? Their popularity? The Bad Joke song and the hilarious bad jokes? Coping with Chuck’s death?

12.The floor manager, the staff, the functioning of the program? Loretta, hard, her pregnancy? Her pretending that she was giving birth? Exasperation with Keilor, with Guy Noir – and the humorous phone call?

13.The Axeman, the Texan background, his reaction to the program? His saying that life must go on and change? His accidental death?

14.The place of radio in American media history, live radio, the audience? The exuberance? A 20th century art form – gone but celebrated?

DOSKONALA POPOLUDNIE (THE PERFECT AFTERNOON)

Poland, 2005, 91 minutes, Colour.
Michal Szernecki, Magdalena Poplawska, Jerzy Stuhr, Gosia Dobrowolska.
Directed by Przenyslaw Wojciszek.


A Perfect Afternoon is an entertaining Polish film, a slice of life from Warsaw at the beginning of the 21st century.

The perfect afternoon is meant to be a wedding and the wedding reception. However, the film focuses on a young couple and their relationship, their characters and their relationship, especially with their parents. The question is about inviting parents to the wedding and the reception as well as the expectations from the parents. The couple want a civil marriage, there is a question of a religious marriage. There are problems when the groom invites his mother and then his absent father and the clash between the two as they arrive at the wedding. The bride has a difficulty with her father who is a butcher, devoted to meat and she is a vegetarian. (And her parents bring sausages as the wedding gift.)

The film is gently incisive in its presentation of character as well as of situations.

While the film features upcoming actors, two Polish veteran stars are featured, Jerzy Stuhr, prominent actor and director as well as Gosia Dobrowolska who spent some time in Australia and featured in such films as Silver City, Around the World in Eighty Ways and a number of films by Paul Cox.

1.A picture of Poland at the beginning of the 21st century? Young people? The older generation and their experience of the Communist era? Changes? Prosperity? Possibilities for living in Poland? An upbeat patriotic ending?

2.The Warsaw sequences, the countryside, the other cities? The changes in fifteen years – and cities not changing? The authentic atmosphere?

3.The title, the culmination of all the preparations for the wedding, a happy wedding afternoon?

4.Mikolai and Anna, their relationship, the preparations for the wedding, wanting a secular wedding? The reaction against the church? Their publishing house, their first book, the wry comments about its success? Their searching for another manuscript? Their friend, his futuristic novel? The visit to him, persuading him, his agreement? The irony of his getting the offer from Warsaw, their returning and their reaction against him, his giving back the money? Their searching for the manuscript, finding the ideal novel, going to visit the author, his admiration for their other book, the agreement? The happy prospect of success in the publishing?

5.Mikolai and Anna and their relationship, their characters, backgrounds, relationship with their parents, Mikolai and his leaving his mother, his absent father, inviting them to the wedding? Anna and her father as a butcher, her being vegetarian, her reactions? Her father and mother bringing them sausages as gifts? The eating of the sausages – and her resistance?

6.Anna’s parents, the humorous comment on changes? The butcher and his beginnings, prosperity, shop, staff? His genial wife? The down-payment on the new car, withdrawing it, trusting them and giving the money for the publishing firm? His wife reminding him of his beginnings?

7.Mikolai and his parents? Andrzej and his not being willing to give the interview, travelling to Warsaw, looking for Maria? Finding her, her reaction? Their history together, her leaving him? His giving the lift to the young man on the way and explaining himself? The cinematic style for the meetings between Maria and Andrzej? The close-ups, the dialogue? Maria and her new life, her work, relationships? Their discussions, her expressing her hurt? The meals, her unwillingness to go, her relenting? Travelling together, sharing, remembering? Her hurts, his hurting the people that she loved? The Solidarity background? Her ringing her boyfriend, his coming, the clash between the two men? The clash with the boyfriend, her getting out of the car? Andrzej driving, Maria in the train, getting out? Their meeting, his falling in the mud? The rekindling of their love? The prospects for the future? Their arrival, the jokes, meeting the in-laws?

8.The authors, the publishers, contracts, the risk of a publishing company?

9.The friend, the colleague in the publishing, his son, the meetings, presence at the wedding?

10.The video, the initial interviews, Andrzej refusing? Mikolai and his being persuaded? The interviews, the glimpses? The black and white photography? The television companies not interested? The best marriage video? The videoing of the interviews with the authors? Of the ceremony, of the celebrations?

11.The perfect afternoon, everybody gathered for the wedding, the photo at the wedding table – and the prospect of happy lives and prosperity in Poland?

KAROV LA BAYIT (CLOSE TO HOME)

Israel, 2005, 90 minutes, Colour.
Smadar Sayar, Naama Schendar.
Directed by Dalia Hager and Vidi Bilu.

Close to Home is an Israeli film, filmed on location in the streets of Jerusalem and in the barracks, at the headquarters of the border police, at the borders themselves with their interrogation rooms. However, what makes it different, is that it is not about male soldiers but about Israeli women soldiers. The film focuses on two women. One is very shy and timid, a very nice girl. The other one is rather rebellious. The film shows in detail their work on the streets, with touches of humour, the friendship that actually binds them together. It also shows them having to deal with some of the difficulties of interrogations of Arab women, of explosions on the street and the consequences, on having to deal with crises.

The film focuses on the rebellious woman and the vitality of her life, getting around the rules, her relationships. The shy woman gradually is transformed, seeing her on her visits at home, the differenced that her family perceive.

The film was written and directed by two women, giving a female insight into the characters as well as the situation of women soldiers in contemporary Israel.

1.An Israeli film? A portrait of Israelis? Glimpses of Arabs? Local tensions? Images of tension? Feelings?

2.The title, Mirit and her military service, wanting to be away from home, her hopes? In fact, close to home?

3.The title and its reference to Israeli experience, these difficulties in Jerusalem, close to home?

4.The credits, the Palestinian woman, the close-up on her face, her being searched, the attitudes of the military women, harsh, the treatment, Dana and her protest, letting the women in, letting them go, being sentenced to jail?

5.Dubek and her tough manner, military background, obeying orders? Her supervising, her hard assistant? Her patrolling the streets? Being caught kissing her boyfriend? Giving the detail to Smadar and Mirit in the hotel, catching Mirit dancing, sending her to jail? The farewell to Julia and its warmth? The harsh stances, the military commander and his parade? Women in this military service?

6.Dana, her protest, going to jail? Mirit and her denunciation? Her meeting Mirit later in jail and her non-reaction?

7.Smadar and Mirit, eighteen years old, military service? Orders? Patrolling together? Smadar and her offhand manner, smoking, dawdling, her looking down on Mirit? Apprehensions about Dubek – and the mobile phone calls from the various women to let them know that she was supervising? Delays in the hat shop, the hairdresser’s? Eating? All against rules? The boyfriend, on the motorbike, at home with him? The bomb exploding, her changing attitude, Mirit’s helper? Going to Mirit’s home, the welcome by her parents, the room, the music? Catching Dubek and the kiss? At work in the hotel, allowing Mirit to dance? Merit going to prison, her visiting the helper, making demands on him? Her reaction? Going to prison, Mirit’s spurning her? The gift of the hat? The aftermath, the apologies, the growing bond? Her back at border duty, searching the woman, imposing the orders, the woman and her son eating and her refusal to obey? Getting her hair done, walking with Mirit, humorously stopping the Arab, his speculating about refusing to give his details – the men gathering round, attacking the Arab, the violence on him? The women asking them to stop? The final close-up freeze-frame of them on their bike?

8.Mirit, quiet, her parents? The orders, her conscientiousness, with Smadar and criticism of her? The visit to the home and the growing bonds? The hat shop? Catching Dubek and the kiss? The bomb, her injuries, the man helping her, seeking him out, walking past, his not recognising her? At the hotel, dancing? In prison, the encounter with Dana? Seeking out the man, he and his girlfriend and their laughing? Her antagonism towards Smadar, the change, the hat? The end with the violence on the man? On the back of the bike?

9.The glimpses of the other girls, walking in pairs, obeying the rules and not? Their way of life? Julia and her experience, going to Russia, the party and the farewell?

10.The glimpse of the parent generation, their memories? Their love for their daughters? Acceptance of military service?

11.The Arabs, the men, the humiliation, the workers late for buses, having to have their passes and IDs, the supervision on the buses? The final man and the violence that he experienced?

12.The bomb going off, the suicide bombs in Jerusalem, the effect?

13.The final allegory – of the Israelis misinterpreting the Arabs, wreaking violence on them?

14.The film from a women’s point of view, women writer-directors, the observation about women in the military, having to be with the men, like the men, expectations on them – yet their different approach?

JOHN AND JANE

India, 2005, 83 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ashim Ahluwalia.

John and Jane is an interesting and very topical documentary at the beginning of the 21st century. It is about western companies and their recruiting people in India to do telephone-answering jobs, soliciting sales, especially in the United States. This is a job which has featured in quite a number of English and American films – but here, it is criticised but shown to be one of the hopes for Indians who speak English, Indians who have ambitions to move into the world of business.

The film focuses on a range of Indians, filling in the background of their lives, their attitudes towards their work, their attitudes towards the Americans. It also features some training classes where the Indians are made to be quite Americanised in their pronunciation, language, their attitudes towards the people with whom they talk on the phone.

The film also focuses on the phone calls themselves, the quite different responses made by the Americans who are contacted by these Indians.

The film takes us into India, a different India from the traditions, an India of technological development, of outsourcing of jobs from Europe and America to the subcontinent.

1.The impact of the film as documentary and fiction? A portrait of people? A portrait of India in the 21st century? The impact of the United States and its culture? The impact for Indian audiences, American audiences, other international audiences?

2.The digital handheld New York opening, Times Square and the atmosphere of the United States? The voice – and finding that it belonged to an instructor in Mumbai? The contrast between India and the United States? The attempt at making a kind of United States in the offices in Mumbai? In the minds of the agents at the call centres?

3.The digital camerawork, the sense of realism, the focus on the people, the interviews, the workplaces, the environment of the new buildings? The old city of Mumbai?

4.India and the call centres, the flourishing industry, the Indians and their night work, especially for their American clients? The look of the offices, steel and glass? Modern? The phone booths?

5.The training sessions, the Indians having to lose their accent, acquire American accents? The practice of reciting sentences? The focus on John and Jane – the average American clients? The reminder of American qualities: individualism, achievement and success, privacy, the pursuit of happiness? The repetition of these values as a kind of brainwashing for the Indian agents?

6.The effect of this kind of work in India, on the Indian economy, culture and consciousness? On global finance? On the US with the clients? The world Americanised?

7.The presentation of the Americanisation? The agents’ voices, the dance styles, Pentecostal religion for an employee who used to be from the Hindu tradition, the visit to the Mc Donald’s and the various takeaway meals, the acquisition of the toys, the Coca- Cola culture? Food, language? The comments that the agents no longer felt Indian but American?

8.Glenn and his mother, waking him up, his going to work, seeing him at work, his friend, driving in the car, sitting looking over the slums? Sidney, his home life, his mother? Osmond and the dance routines, the instruction? Nikki and inheriting the guesthouse, her religious background, her sincere religious motivations of trying to do good for people? Nicholas, American mentality, seeing his wife, the preparation for the marriage, the different shifts, their meeting for twenty minutes, in the takeaway food? The toys? His wandering the environment, his absorbing American culture? Naomi, changing her Indian name, asserting that she was a natural blonde, looking for the ideal husband, absolutely Americanised?

9.The American voices on the phone, the contrast with American attitudes and Indian attitudes? The courtesy of the sales agents, their going through their routines, pressurising clients, in a gentle way, the negative views, the people hanging up, the people accepting? Their accepting this way of life?

10.What did the film say about India and its traditions, the present, an Indian future involved in the rapid economic growth, globalisation and American influence?