THE FOREMAN WENT TO FRANCE

UK, 1942, 87 minutes, Black and white.
Tommy Trinder, Constance Cummings, Clifford Evans, Gordon Jackson, Robert Morley, John Williams, Francis L. Sullivan, Mervyn Johns.
Directed by Charles Frend.

The Foreman Went to France is a piece of British propaganda for World War Two, Made at Ealing Studios and released in 1942. It goes back to the beginning of the war, the blitz on Britain and the need for British manufacturers going to France to retrieve machinery that had been sent for the Allied cause before the Germans took over. This means that the film is a mission, accomplished by the foreman of the factory with the help of the American secretary of the company in France.

They meet a couple of soldiers (Tommy Trinder cracking jokes and singing a few songs) and Gordon Jackson (aged nineteen at the time). They also encounter a Fifth Columnist mayor (Robert Morley) and an officer (John Williams). The foreman is played by Clifford Evans and the secretary by Constance Cummings (an American actress who stayed in England and worked in such films as The Battle of the Sexes). At the end, after getting through enemy lines, confrontation with German officials, help from Sisters of Charity in a convent, they arrive at the Channel and are helped by a group of French trying to flee to England, led by Francis L. Sullivan.

The film is quite interesting still and creates the atmosphere of the period, filmed in the aftermath of the rescue at Dunkirk.

1. A British war effort film? Ealing Studios? The cast? The impact at the time? Now?

2. Black and white photography, England and France? The French countryside? The Channel? The musical score? Tommy Trinder’s cheerful songs?

3. The situating of the war, the men and the memories of World War One, their stories? Britain 1940, manufacturing? The Blitz and the planes? The issue of the machinery in France? Fred and his wanting to get it back, approaching the boss, the authorities, the difficulties in getting his passport? His arriving in France, limited language, talking to the stationmaster who reported his information to the mayor?

4. The character, his determination? His going to the village, getting the machinery? The intervention of the mayor? Anne and her information about the mayor? Finding Tommy and Jock, getting the truck, their help? Fobbing off the mayor with signing the document?

5. Their journey, the truck, needing petrol, the farmhouse and the food, seeing the lines of refugees, the children and their help? Taking them to the convent? The enemy lines, the shootings? The officer and his being Fifth Column, the confrontation about documents, the shoot-out? The escape in the truck? Seeing the turn-off to the coast, the shootings, the plane strafing them, their downing the plane, Jock being killed? Their getting to the boat, the decision of the Free French and allowing them to take the machinery at the expense of their luggage?

6. Fred, his work, being wounded? Tommy and Jock, their friendship, banter, stories about the buses in London, night school? Anne, looking for her sister, her background? Their getting to England with the machinery?

7. The atmosphere of France, the German advance, the French government, surrender? The German presence, the Fifth Column and spies, the beginning of the Resistance?

8. The comments on Britain, muddling through, stiff upper lip – but the spirit of enterprise for winning the war? The optimism for victory in the film? Justified?

FINAL CUT

UK, 1998, 93 minutes, Colour.
Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Sadie Frost, Holly Davidson, John Beckett, Mark Burdis, Lisa Marsh, Ray Burdis, Dominic Anciano.
Directed by Dominic Anciano and Ray Burdis.

Final Cut is a peculiar film, a kind of psychodrama played out amongst friends. A group of actors, who are friends in real life (although Jude Law later separated from his wife Sadie Frost) sit around and improvise on themes of cocaine, law, sex, betrayal. While there is a skill in the material that they improvise, there is a rather ugly perspective to what each of them imagines and is encouraged to imagine by the directing team (who had also made a mock docu-soap, Operation Good Guys).

The film was set in North London and reviewers complained that it was so localised that audiences beyond that part of London would not respond well to the film – that they should show an interest in the world beyond the borders of their postcodes!

Reviewers also refer to the narcissism of the cast in putting their own names to the characters. The film can be seen as an experiment in British film-making of the 90s and an attempt to raise issues of the shadow side of British society.

1. The impact of the film? For what audience? London, British, universal?

2. The small budget, the cast and their using their own names? Their friendship off-screen? The improvised nature of the exercise? The style of photography, editing? Musical score and songs?

3. The title, the reference to film-making, to the injuries imposed on each by the other?

4. The discussions, the interactions? The marriage relationships? The situation, Sadie’s flat, the partner and his death, the sudden death? The wake? The cameras present?

5. Watching the footage, the documentary, Jude directing the material? The scenes, the hidden cameras, their reactions – not favourable? The cocaine in the bathroom, urinating in the sink, looking in the laundry basket? Holly and her stealing Lisa’s purse? Ray’s reaction? Holly and her comments about her relationship with John (and his being in a wheelchair)? John and the prostitute?

6. The repercussions for the group, the reaction to the footage, the revelation of character, the shadow side of character? The intermission, Bill and his response to Lisa? Ray and his confronting Sadie?

7. The relationship between Ray and Lisa, their marriage, his reaction to the sequences, especially the stealing of the purse? His brutality towards Lisa, physical brutality? His relationship with Sadie, and advance on her?

8. The drug deal, Jude and his role, Dominic, Burdis and Bill, their being tricked by him? Holly and the illicit videotape, her trying to blackmail Jude?

9. Holly, her reaction, wanting to leave the house, Bill and his strong-arm tactics, preventing her leaving, Sadie’s orders?

10. Jude, the sexual relationship with Lisa, Ray and the anger with Jude, his killing him? Ray and his trying to escape, being captured by the police?

11. The film presenting characters and caricatures – any insight into people’s behaviour, characters, interactions?

FORCES OF NATURE

US, 1999, 103 minutes, Colour.
Sandra Bullock, Ben Affleck, Maura Tierney, Steve Zahn, Blythe Danner, Ronny Cox.
Directed by Bronwen Hughes.

Forces of Nature is a modern version of the old screwball comedy. It focuses on an eccentric young woman, her behaviour in a plane crash, her interactions with a rather staid man on his way to his wedding. The various incidents along the way mean that his composure is threatened and she finds she has to settle down. The ending is not quite the one that we have been expecting.

The film was made in 1999 when Sandra Bullock was on a roll with a variety of dramas and comedies. Ben Affleck was also on a roll – though, as frequently in his films, he is particularly wooden. There is a stronger supporting cast with Maura Tierney and Steve Zahn. This is one of those films of which there are many – entertaining in the moment but no memorable.

1. The title, its ironies?

2. The popularity of romantic comedies, popular stars, echoes of the 30s screwball comedies? Expectations – met or not?

3. The New York settings, Savannah, Georgia, the American road? The musical score and songs?

4. The bachelor party, noise and the usual shenanigans? Alan and his role? The grandfather and his heart attack? The mood, the customs for the bachelor party? The marriage, the relationship between Bridget and Ben? The video? The travel? On the plane, the divorcee? Sarah and her history, the crash, the couple on the train, Bridget’s parents, the oldies’ point of view? The bridesmaid? Ben’s parents? Love?

5. Ben and his parents, love, the phone call? The timing, the airport, the plane, the encounter with Sarah, the impact of the crash? His phone call, the car and the lift, the series of disasters, the drugs and the truckie, their being arrested, prison, getting the money? Getting the train, left behind? The bus and the driver? Their being exposed? The cash burning? The striptease and Ben’s performance? The final storm – and the effect of the forces of nature?

6. Sandra Bullock’s style as Sarah, a free spirit, at the airport, her interactions with Ben, the shared journey, the crash?

7. The fights, the clashes, the truth? Going to the wedding?

8. The portrait of the parents, their attitudes, relationship with Ben? With Bridget?

9. Alan, friend, the party, support?

10. Bridget, her love for Ben, the preparation for the marriage, her parents, the encounters, the boyfriend?

11. The range of different characters, the people that they met, the old people, the characters on the train, the gay bar?

12. The wedding, the storm? The decisions – Sarah and her coming to her senses, going to visit her child, the toy? Ben and his going on to the marriage?

13. The popularity of this kind of light romantic comedy?

ERAGON

US, 2006, 104 minutes, Colour.
Edward Speleers, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Guillory, Robert Carlyle, John Malkovich, Garrett Hedlund, Alun Armstrong, Gary Lewis, Djimon Hounsou, Joss Stone. Voice of: Rachel Weisz.
Directed by Stefen Fangmeier.

Christopher Paolini began writing his Eragon novels at the age of fifteen and he was published before he was twenty. These stories are well researched by a young writer who knows his mythologies and the literary tradition. He cites Tolkein, Pullman and the principal writers as influences.

So, here we have a sword and sorcery saga that has a seventeen year old as its hero and is aimed at that age audience. Jeremy Irons solemnly intones the origins of the legends as the film opens. The wonderful days of Riders and their dragons have died out with feuds and deaths. Only the evil king (John Malkovich) has survived and he uses sorcerers called Shades to do his bidding to stamp out rebels and uprisings.

This does not sound too original. But, as with all mythic battles between good and evil, the dark and the light, a young hero is chosen by destiny to lead the oppressed to victory. And the hero is a farm boy hunter, Eragon (Ed Speleers) who discovers a magic egg which hatches to produce a dragon, a friendly dragon. Eragon, with the mentorship of Jeremy Irons, becomes a Rider.

As with all these stories, there are journeys, magic swords, ambushes and fights, a maiden in distress (Sienna Guillory), a potential traitor (Garrett Hedlund) and a dignified group of hidden rebels.

Special effects and computergraphics enable the arch Shade, the evil sorcerer Durza (Robert Carlyle) to cast spells and, ultimately, to have a mid-air dragon battle that is more spectacular and faster than Quidditch.

These days of mythology offer much more equal opportunity because Eragon’s dragon is female and voiced by Rachel Weisz.

Eragon is colourful, fast-paced, with all the familiar ingredients for a more modest post-Tolkein entertainment.

1. The adaptation of the popular novel? Sword and sorcery? The world of dragons? Geared for a teenage audience? Heroics?

2. The locations and settings: the mountains, the farms, the cliffs, the dark castle, the world of the Varden? The special effects, computer graphics? For the Shades? For the dragons? For the battles? The rousing musical score?

3. Brom and his narration? The good versus evil? The history of the Riders, dragons? Issues of power, the king, the dark, the Shades, the warriors, the battle? The story to be continued?

4. The character of Eragon, as an orphan, living with his Uncle Garrow? Love for him, his work, out hunting, the deer, finding the egg? Trying to barter it at the store? The storekeeper’s fear? Watching it, its hatching? The baby dragon, the relationship with Eragon? Its speaking? The story of the king, encountering Brom, listening to his stories, his insults against the king, their clashes, Brom discovering the truth about him, his advice, the setting out on the mission?

5. Arya, the pursuit at the beginning, her being captured by Durza, the Shades, the torture? The egg, her quest, her being freed, Brom’s help, his disappearance, her going with Eragon and with Murtagh? In the land of the Varden? The final battles? The final farewell?

6. Eragon and his choice, his destiny, the journey, the action, the pursuit, Brom as a mentor? Murtagh and his being saved by him? Meeting Arya? In the land of the Varden, the new clothes? His relationship with Saphira, riding, swooping? Her being able to read his thoughts, communication with her? The trek, with the Varden? Saphira proving that Eragon was genuine? The build-up to the battles, the fight in the air, the wounding of Saphira, the fall, recovery, his powers and healing her? His future?

7. Brom, the old Rider, in the marketplace, the taunts of the soldiers, the stories of the dragons, his jokes, his taking Eragon under his wing, the mentor, the mission? His fate?

8. Murtagh, sudden appearance, his help, suspicions, his being made a prisoner of the Varden, his proving himself, getting out? Eragon saving him?

9. The King Galbatorix, his history, dark, the executions, his relying on Durza, the Shades, the troops, his wanting to cling to power? His vindictiveness towards Durza?

10. Durza, his appearance, his power, his will, the capture of Arya, the clash with the dragons, his failures and going to the king, the build-up to the final battle, the fight with Eragon and his being destroyed?

11. The king’s warriors, their appearance, their power, the multitudes, Durza’s leadership, in battle, the defeat?

12. The Varden, the chief, his assistant? Suspicious of Eragon, his proving himself? The rebel community? The preparation for battle? The success?

13. The restoration of order? The further confrontation with the king? The Varden liberated? The world of Riders and dragons? Heroism?

EXILS

France, 2004, 105 minutes, Colour.
Romain Duris, Lubna Azabal.
Directed by Tony Gatlif.

Algerian-born director, Tony Gatlif, has made many films about gypsies and about music. This time he has two wanderers, ultimately, two pilgrims, who represent his own attitudes towards his homeland and its history over the last half century.

Romain Duris and Lubna Azibal play exiles in Paris, he from a rich family who has experienced imprisonment, punishment and exile since the 60s, she a poor and mysterious woman who has little feel for her land of origin. She initially laughs heartily at the idea of travelling to Algeria.

But they do, and we journey with them – by foot, by train, by car and truck, by boat. We pass through the prosperous French countryside, the plains and deserts of Spain. We meet migrant workers who squat in ruined buildings, gypsies, dancers in Seville. And, once across the Mediterranean, the empty landscapes of Morocco and Algeria until the city of Algiers. They get rides, they do casual fruit picking work, their sexual relationship is tested. We spend a great deal of time with them.

However, the important part of the film is the time in Algiers itself, the young man coming to terms with his homeland and his heritage, the girl unwilling to bow to local traditions of dress and head cover but finally caught up in a long trancelike dance which brings her some – at least – temporary exorcism and catharsis.

Beautifully photographed with plenty of Gatlif music and songs, the impact will depend on how strongly audiences will identify with the themes of exiles and finding home and how patient they can be with the two, often querulous, leads.

1. The work of Tony Gatlif over the decades? His Algerian background but not having been there for over forty years? His work in France, interest in gypsies and gypsy life? Interest in music? His personal stories?

2. The opening, the music, the themes of democracy? The range of songs throughout the film, Gatlif’s own social lyrics? The songs of France, of gypsies, of Algeria?

3. Audience knowledge of Algerian history, the French colony in the 50s, the imprisonment of political activists, the war with France, deaths and executions, exiles? Those who stayed in Algeria? Their life over the decades? The exiles in France and their settling there? The passing of time? The desire to go back and find roots?

4. Paris and the apartments, the scenery of France – from the train, as the couple walked, passing through the towns? Spain, the countryside, Seville? The ruined buildings and the workers squatting? The fruit-picking? The Spanish port, the Mediterranean, North Africa, Morocco and its landscapes and people, Algeria, the city of Algiers? The aftermath of the earthquake?

5. The film as a journey, road movie? Zano and his wanting to find his identity, suggesting walking to Algeria? Naima and her laughing at him? The character of each of them, their backgrounds, relationship, love and sexuality, their stances towards Algeria? The making of the journey, surviving, using their wits, bluffing, work?

6. The opening and the focus on each of them, naked? The idea, the reactions, the laughter? The scenes of travel, on the train, hiding and getting off the train? The rain, washing in the fountains in the city? The ruins of building and squatting? Their meeting the two Algerian workers, their ambitions to be students, their wanting papers, wanting to stay in France? The friendship, meeting them later, the girl giving the letter to her family in Algiers? Seville, the dancing, the flamenco? Naima and her being eyed by the man in the bar, the sexual encounter? Zano and his angry reaction, jealousy? His not understanding? Their making up? The fruit-picking – and the sex among the trees? In the vehicle, boarding the ship?

7. The irony that the ship was going to Morocco, landing there, getting local help, information about documents and losing them, crossing the border? Travel by bus, the breakdown and being stranded? The young boy, his information, walking?

8. Algiers, the city itself, the visuals of the city, the couple making a pilgrimage, meeting the family? The overview of the city, the tour? Naima and her having to wear a veil and long dress – and her angry reaction, her not wanting to bow to customs and sensitivities? The young man from the family and his help?

9. The visit to the family home, Zano and his meeting the people, the room and house still preserved as it was, the box of photos, his finding his roots, his weeping?

10. Naima and her resistance, she and Zano going with the group, the Soofies(?) and their musical tradition, the trance, the pain, Naima and her wound, the woman knowing what had happened to her, inviting her to participate in the music and the trance? A kind of exorcism and catharsis?

11. The two, their future, in Algiers, in France? Their sense of themselves? Their achievement in the pilgrimage to Algeria? As alter-egos for the writer-director himself?

ERIN BROCKOVICH

US, 2000, 132 minutes, Colour.
Julia Roberts, Albert Finney, Aaron Heckhardt, Marg Hellenberger, Peter Coyote.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh.

Julia Roberts has no need to prove that she is adept at light comedy. Here she tries a dramatic role and excels. She plays Erin Brockovich, a twice -divorced mother of three, who loses an accident damages claim in court and demands a job from her lawyer.

She is matched by Albert Finney in one of his best performances as Ed Masery who finds himself confounded by Erin. Finney plays well off Roberts giving the movie a tone of ironic humour. Aaron Heckhardt (who first hit the screen as the archetypal misogynist in In the Company of Men) plays a tough biker who is able to bring domestic warmth to Erin's children.

The movie was directed by Steven Soderbergh whose varied and unpredictable career has produced Sex, Lies and Videotape, King of the Hill, Out of Sight, The Limey and Traffic.

It is a David and Goliath story, parallel with 1999's A Civil Action where John Travolta plays a lawyer who reluctantly helps a community whose water has been contaminated by industrial companies and The Insider which came out at the same time, the story of the whistleblower, Jeffrey Wiggand, who exposed the tobacco industry.

Erin also discovered that she was worth something in herself and that with energy and compassion (and some aggression) she could help people, showing up the professionals whose skills were not exactly people-oriented. In that sense the movie is inspiring.

1. The reputation of the film, acclaim, Oscar-winning?

2. The real Erin Brockovich, audience knowledge about her, her work? The jokey cameo with the real Erin Brockovich appearing as the waitress, Julia, in the diner sequence?

3. The authentic atmosphere of Erin Brockovich’s world, California, ordinary suburban streets, homes, law offices? The contrast with the open road and the desert landscapes? The town of Hinkley, the homes in Hinkley, the factories? The musical score?

4. The title, the focus on Erin as a person, her mission, her being transformed personally? As portrayed by Julia Roberts?

5. Erin and the background of her early life, the beauty queen in Wichita, her several husbands, the children? The men walking out on her? Her ability to take care of the children, their love for her? The initial accident? Her going to Ed Masery, her being primed for the court, the prosecutor and his accusations, her outbursts, swearing, the reaction of the judge, the reaction of Masery? Her losing the case? Her going to Ed’s office, her anger with him? The collage of her job-seeking? The children and their support? Her having to care for them at the same time? The lack of money, the lack of food? Going to the diner? Her not eating? Her going to Ed, asking him for a job, asking him not to make her beg? His taking her on? Her coming to work, her clothes and style, the stares of the other members of the staff, their patronising her, their comments, her angers?

6. Her looking after files, the condescending explanation of how to do it? Her curiosity, starting to read, getting Ed’s permission to follow through but his not understanding this? Going to the university, the discussions about chromium and its effects? Her going to the department, getting documents? The young man and his being attracted by her, giving her the documents? Arriving back, being sacked? Her heavy reaction, her leaving? Ed and the phone call from the university, his visiting Erin’s house, her bargaining for a raise and health benefits?

7. The children, their ages, their day-by-day life, the various people looking after them? Meals and reading? George’s arrival, making the noise, his caring for the children? Her relationship with George, depending on him? His finally wanting to leave, travel? Erin and her taking the children with her, the long journeys, the fare? Matt reading the documents and beginning to understand what his mother was doing?

8. George, the biker, his charm, making noise, apologies? His asking for the number – and her sardonic list of all the numbers in her life? His looking after the kids, her initial reaction, his relationship with Erin, sharing the concern? Becoming the nanny? His growing resentment? The day at the fair, her work, interviewing, giving out information? His decision to leave? His return, going with Erin to the interview with Donna to tell her about the award?

9. Albert Finney as Ed Masery, in himself, middle age, his work, the challenge of Erin, her story and the taking on of the work? His acceptance of Erin, his discussion about her appearance – and her retort about his tie? His sacking her, the change, the effort of working together, his defence of himself and his health, his hard work? The information, the public meeting and his trying to explain the situation in the courts? Kurt and his background, Ed giving him the case, his sitting with Erin with the representatives of the company? The growing success, the end and the achievement, his ironic apology to Erin and giving her the cheque?

10. Erin and her visits to the people of Hinkley, the discussions with Donna, the focusing of her story, her beliefs? The various documents? The couple visiting her? Going to visit Pamela and her refusing, changing her mind? The collage of visits? The discussions with people, the continued journeys, her knowing all about individuals, their gradually trusting her? The meeting, her ill-health, the class action, the settlements, the implications, the angry reactions, thinking through the consequences? Erin and her relationship with Kurt, her not liking Teresa and giving her the phone numbers and the information? Her going round to get all the signatures, the six hundred-plus signatories, her ironic sex comment about them?

11. Kurt, his skills, taking over the case, Teresa as a buttoned-up lawyer, Teresa getting off on the wrong foot with Erin, her going to the farm and not wanting to get her shoes dirty, her alienating people?

12. The company officials, the meeting, Ed and his getting the members of the staff to sit as a panel? Offering the drinking water and the official refusing?

13. The man in the bar, his seeming sinister, being at the fair, his approaching Erin, thinking her was hitting on her, discovering the truth, the phone call, the supplying of the documents, the motivation because of the deaths?

14. Erin and her personality, having a chance to be respected, to achieve something, her speeches to her children, to George? Her style, clothes, glamour, swearing, straight talk?

15. The companies, the chemicals, the pollution, the consequences for the people in the town, the pay-offs for medical bills, the cover-ups?

16. Erin Brockovich’s achievement, the huge award made by the courts? Visiting Donna? Erin Brockovich’s successive career?

THE ELUSIVE PIMPERNEL

UK, 1950, 110 minutes, Colour.
David Niven, Margaret Leighton, Cyril Cusack, Jack Hawkins, Robert Coote, Patrick Macnee.
Directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

The Elusive Pimpernel is yet another version of the famous story by Baroness Orczy. The classic version is that with Leslie Howard and Raymond Massey, made in 1934. This film can be seen as a lavish remake, with emphasis on spectacle, costume and décor and pageantry rather than giving full rein to the action, adventure and espionage.

The film was written and directed by The Archers, the team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. They had made great impact during World War II with The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, after the war with A Matter of Life and Death as well as with other film like The Canterbury Tales and The Small Back Room. This film preceded another attempt at historical drama, Gone to Earth. They continued to make films during the 1950s but, with Peeping Tom, Michael Powell found that he was not so welcome in England and indeed made They’re a Weird Mob and Age of Consent in Australia.

David Niven is debonair as the Elusive Pimpernel but doesn't have the commanding screen presence of Leslie Howard. Cyril Cusack is a mincing and sinister Chauvelin. It is a surprise to see Jack Hawkins as the Prince Regent (and, if noticed, doubling as a footpad in an attack on the highway). Robert Coote and Patrick Macnee can be seen in supporting roles.

There was a television remake in the 1970s with Anthony Andrews and in the beginning of the 21st century with Richard E. Grant.

1. The popularity of the Elusive Pimpernel story? The many versions? The adaptation for World War II with Pimpernel Smith? The story of the Vatican monsignor who spirited prisoners out of Italy, The Scarlet and the Black, with Gregory Peck?

2. The colour photography, costumes and décor, re-creation of the 18th century in France, the aristocracy, in England? The riots and the executions of the French Revolution? The musical score?

3. The introduction to the Pimpernel, the old hag and her getting through, the technique of disguise adopted by the Scarlet Pimpernel? His moving easily in and out of France? The use of Mont San Michel as a rendezvous for the ships? The support of the abbot? His work in helping the aristocracy to escape to England?

4. Percy Blakeny, his manner and foppish style in London, at the baths, with the Prince Regent and discussion about his clothes? His creating the poem? His disguise, manner? His wife being deceived? His work with his band of supporters? Their using the Prince Regent as a cover?

5. Dover, the arrival of Percy’s wife, her arrogance, the French and their disdain of her, her history of betraying royalty to the revolution (and her later explanation of the assaults on herself)? Her discussions with Percy, his putting her off? The pressure from Chauvelin during the ball, her betraying Sir Andrew, her talking to Percy, her discovery of his room with the disguises, going to France to support him and to save Sir Andrew? His saving her at the end?

6. Percy and his double life, his shrewdness, getting into France, disguising himself as a French official, as Chauvelin? Dressing up in Chauvelin’s clothes? The rendezvous at Mont San Michel? Chauvelin and his troops, underestimating the tide coming in? His thinking that he was executed after letting his wife go? Percy’s return, with his band? Helping the refugees to escape?

7. Marguerite’s brother, the messages from France, the use of carrier pigeons?

8. England at the end of the 18th century, the aristocracy, George III, the Prince Regent and his foppish manner, the race to Brighton? With ladies, reciting the Pimpernel poem?

9. Percy and his group of supporters, their disguises in France, helping with communications, transport, the dangers? In Mont San Michel for the climax?

10. The activities of the Scarlet Pimpernel during the revolution, the perspective of the aristocracy rather than the revolutionaries? The attitude of the English? A perennially popular story – but very much linked with monarchy and aristocracy?

THE ENGLISHMAN WHO WENT UP A HILL AND CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN

US, 1995, 99 minutes, Colour.
Hugh Grant, Tara Fitzgerald, Colm Meaney, Ian Mc Niece, Ian Hart, Kenneth Griffith, Robert Pugh.
Directed by Christopher Mongers.

A nice, British film - very Welsh. Two foreigners (English) arrive in Wales in 1917 to measure mountains. When the local mountain fails by 16 feet to get its title, the townspeople get together to remedy the situation. It needs the lighter, smaller 50s Ealing Studios touch to get away with it rather than the huge screen, heavy comic style it has. Still it's a humorous story with Hugh Grant doing his by now trademark befuddled performance. Slight Welsh comedy.

1. A pleasing comedy? Quirky British comedy? The Welsh?

2. The period setting, 1917, the comments about World War One, the shell-shocked soldiers, the war effort, the cartographers? The town, chapel, the pub, homes? The Welsh pride in the mountain? The musical score and its moods?

3. The title, the focus on Reginald Anson, his visiting Wales, his job, the issue of the hill, his life in the town, getting to know the people, wanting to stay, his collaboration in making the hill a mountain?

4. The voice-over and its commentary, the wry Welsh tones, the comments about the English, Welsh history and the invaders, Wales as ancient Britain? The end, the comments about the making of the film, the subsiding of the mountain to become a hill again, the efforts of the descendants of 1917 to make the mountain again?

5. Anson and George Garrad and their arrival, seen as alien English, the reaction of Morgan the goat, welcoming them? The life in the town, the measuring of the mountain, everybody interested? Their needing help, Johnny Shellshocked, the twins and their assistance? The day after the measuring, the bets, the mountain being declared a hill? George and his making Anson do the communication with people? His hypochondria, taking to his bed, the breakdown of the car, the telegrams, no trains, Miss Elizabeth, his being resigned to staying in the town? His staying in bed?

6. Anson, young, telling Betty about his being shell-shocked at Verdun, his place in the town, work on the mountain, the bets, telling the people? The breakdown of the car, its flooding, the station, no trains? His seeing the arguments, getting to know the people, the attraction of Betty and talking with her? The efforts to keep them in the town, his participating in the rebuilding of the mountain, finding it exhilarating? The declaration of the mountain? His decision to stay?

7. Morgan the goat, his reputation in the town, the red-headed babies, his relationship with Blod Jones? Persuading the English to stay? The bet about the size of the mountain? The effort to increase the mountain, his selling the beer? The antagonism with the Reverend Jones? His getting Betty to help him, Johnny and his being shell-shocked, the fit on the hill? Taking him home? His going to church, borrowing Anson’s shirt? The collaboration with the building of the hill? Reverend Jones, confiding his desire to be buried on the hill to Morgan?

8. Betty, as a maid, coming in to keep the men in the town, putting the beer on her tab, the clashes with Morgan? Helping with Johnny’s fit? The discussions with Anson, her being a maid, asking him about himself, helping on the mountain, his staying with her?

9. Johnny Shellshocked, the experience of war, not speaking, his working, the getting of the sods, his beginning to speak, especially for building the mountain? In the rain, his fit?

10. Thomas and his twin brother, not saying much, their observations, helping, knowing the weather? Getting the sods from the football field?

11. The Reverend Jones, his age, sermons, denouncing the war, making people go to chapel, the attacks on Morgan the goat? Having to talk with him, not trusting him? Not going into the pub? His sermon on the Sunday, reading the psalm, urging people to build the mountain, his collapse, his wanting to be buried on the mountain?

12. The sketches of the other characters in the town, Mr Williams and his running the garage, the breakdown of the car, helping Johnny in the fit? The grocer and his giving the sugar to put in the car? Blod Jones with her brother? Tommy Two Strokes and his going on the bike to Cardiff? The police sergeant? The teacher and his being against the project, the children being called from school, the digging up of the football field?

13. The town enterprise, Welsh pride, the first mountain in Wales? The community effort and achievement? A pleasing film about individuals, communities, achievement?

DÉJÀ VU

US, 2006, 128 minutes, Colour.
Denzel Washington, Paula Patten, Val Kilmer, James Caviezel, Adam Goldberg, Elden Hensen, Bruce Greenwood, Matt Craven.
Directed by Tony Scott.

If one was asked to describe the genre for Déjà Vu in a few words, one might say that it is a crime thriller masquerading as futuristic science fiction or, on the other hand, science fiction masquerading as a crime thriller – with a romance (in reverse) thrown in. It is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by Tony Scott, so it is quite big, loud and booming.

The setting is New Orleans, the first film to be made there after Hurricane Katrina and the film pays tribute to the city. Denzel Washington is his genial and honourable self once again as an investigator of the brutal explosion on a river ferry with many deaths. So far, so straightforward. He is approached by FBI agent, Val Kilmer, who seconds him to a specialist team to track down the terrorist.

And then it changes. We move into the realm of time travel. In Minority Report, Tom Cruise was preventing crimes before they happened. Denzel wants to rectify a crime that has already happened.

There is a great deal of scientific jargon offered to explain how the space time continuum can fold on itself – and how people can meet their former selves, take an alternate path in time and a whole lot of other hypotheses that seem to be physically and metaphysically impossible. Now, if you are patient and tolerant of all these theories, you may well have a wonderful time as the events are relived, how the screenplay takes us back to literal déjà vu of the opening, of events in the life of the terrorist’s hostage which we have seen from the other side and now understand what happened – or might have happened.

If you have a low frustration tolerance of the seeming logic covering the lack of logic in time travel, then your patience might not hold.

As a crime investigation, there is plenty to interest us. As time travel, maybe. And as a romance where the hero first comes across the woman as dead, then, as they say, it is romance in reverse, from death to life, it is pleasingly emotional.

Paula Patton is attractive as the hostage and Jim Caviezel has the chance to be diabolical rather than Christlike as the terrorist.

1. An entertaining thriller? The popularity of thrillers with terrorist themes? Investigations? The thwarting of terrorist activity? In the light of 11 September, 2001 and its aftermath?

2. A time travel film, the plausibility of time travel, scientific explanations, going into the past, changing the past – yet saving people from death in the past?

3. The title, the sense of déjà vu, the audience seeing the past again from the opening with the boat on the river and the repeat of the episodes?

4. New Orleans, post-Hurricane Katrina, the river, the riverboats, the crowds of people, the happiness on the boat, the glimpses of wreckage after the hurricane? The police, the homes, authentic atmosphere? Musical score?

5. The work of Tony Scott, action director, background in commercials, pace, editing? Thrills?

6. The opening of the film, the sailors, the canal boat, the captain and the siren? The people, the families, the music, ‘When the Saints Go Marching In”, people in profile, joyful? The car, the attendant, the Beach Boys music – and the explosion? The disaster, the bodies, the numbers of the dead, the people in the water, the survivors, the rescue? The beginning of the investigations?

7. Denzel Washington as Doug Carlin? His screen presence, genial, practical, his work, with the people, the investigations, the interrogations, the speculation about the bridge? The various theories?

8. The various authorities: Agent Pryzwarra, FBI authority, his personality, friendship with Doug? Jack McCready?, authoritative, his speeches to the press? The various approaches, the levels of competence, the discussions, the river officials, the police? The information gathered? The Special Squad?

9. The office and laboratory of the Special Squad? The explanation of the technology? The discovery of being able to see the past? Signs and theories, space-folding? The four days, the focus on particular events, the reconstruction, the lens moving around to survey? Issues of surveillance, close-ups, prying and prurience? The use of the technology for discovery, conclusions? Denny and his explanations, Shanti and her work? Doug and his reaction? The investigation of Claire, seeing Claire, knowing that she had died, his getting the body from the river? The effect on him?

10. Doug, the close watching of all that had happened? His going to Claire’s house, seeing the cloths with the blood, the message and the phone call? The mystery, the intrigue? Clare’s dead body, the dress? The issue of the vehicle with the bomb?

11. Denny and the various members of the staff, their skill at their work, speculations, discoveries?

12. The discovery of the killer? The performance of Jim Caviezel and his screen presence? Quiet menace? Madness? The religious dimensions? Apocalyptic? The individual to be sacrificed for the greater good? His lack of conscience? The means for tracking him? Seeing him, the house, the vehicle, the encounter with Claire, his killing her? The bomb? Going to the boat?

13. Doug, the possibility of going back in time, his decision, the process? His arriving four days earlier, the importance of his partner, leaving the note – and the partner going, leading to his death? The encounter with Claire, her concern, suspicions of him? The killer abducting her? The car chases in the past – with the cars in the present? Doug being wounded, Claire looking after him, the blood and the bandages? Her suspicions and ringing, leaving a message for him? The rescue of Claire, the confrontation with the killer, the explosion and the house going up in flames?

14. The irony of time, time change? Doug’s partner’s death? The audience seeing what had happened on one side of the mystery and having seen the other – the message and the phone call back? Claire’s making it and the reasons for it? The pursuit of the killer, the strategy, Doug on the boat, Claire and the warning?

15. Claire and her personality, first seen dead, Doug’s watching her, involvement with her, emotionally? His going back, her going into action? On the boat, her inability to stop the killer?

16. The killer and his plan, the vehicle, taking Claire’s, killing her? Going to the boat, his being surprised, the change of the timing – the bomb, its going overboard, not causing the mass killing? The audience seeing the people that they had seen at the opening of the film – and their not being killed?

17. The reality and unreality of time travel, space-folding? The motivation to save lives? Claire meeting Doug, not knowing him, the future?

18. Which genre prevailed: time travel, terrorist thriller, police investigation, romance in reverse?

THE DEATH OF MR LAZARESCU

Romania, 2005, 153 minutes, Colour.
Ion Fiscuteanu, Luminita Gheorghiu.
Directed by Cristi Puiu.

Ultimately, the death of Mr Lazarescu is an overpowering film. It runs for over two and a half hours and its cumulative effect is relentless. It won the prize in Un Certain Regard in Cannes, 2005, has been acclaimed at many festivals and has won Ecumenical and SIGNIS awards.

The title sounds ominous. The audience is made privy to the last hours of the life of Mr Lazarescu, a lonely and unwell man in his early 60s. An engineer, widowed, alcoholic, with ulcerous legs, seemingly bereft of family and friends, dependent on national health advice and the generosity of neighbours, he collapses with painful headaches and begs some tablets from the people next door.

All this is presented in a gritty, realistic cinema style. We are right there in Mr Lazarescu’s apartment, seeing and feeling everything with him.

Eventually an ambulance arrives and then begins a five hour journey for him, a hospital odyssey of rebuke, rejection, busyness, arrogance and inefficiency. Kindness is in short supply.

There has been a bus accident and ambulance and hospital resources are stretched, making Mr Lazarescu an extra victim. He is shunted from hospital to hospital. Doctors misdiagnose and underestimate his pain. Everyone smells his breath, lectures him on his drinking and dispense with any compassion. Sometimes authorities are prevailed on to look more closely, ultimately to offer a scan. But, it is too late. Mr Lazarescu, not always the most patient patient, deteriorates before our very eyes.

While the film is really castigating officials for their puffed-up self-importance which prevents them from acting professionally let alone humanely and castigating the meanness which seems to be inherent in human nature, it is not entirely pessimistic. The qualities of humanity are seen in Mioara, a fifty five year old woman, herself not so well and very tired, who is an ambulance assistant and accompanies Mr Lazarescu, standing up to doctors and nurses for him (and often being rudely put in her place), cares for him, understands him and offers him some companionship and comfort.

The acting is absolutely convincing. Ion Fiscuteanu embodies Mr Lazarescu – one would at times think we were watching a documentary as we see him dying in front of us. Luminata Gheorghiu is the wonderful Mioara. The smallest roles of doctors, nurses and drivers seem to be played by the real thing rather than actors.

Emotionally gruelling but excellent cinema.

1. The achievement of the film? The many awards? A humanitarian film? The Romanian setting? For Romanian audiences? Universal audiences?

2. The length of the film and its impact? The time span of the evening and the early morning? Audience involvement? The naturalism in the detail? The realism of the situation and characters? Editing and pace?

3. The title, the process of Mr Lazarescu dying? The end and his death?

4. The plausibility of the situation? The background of Mr Lazarescu and his life, his work, injuries, having to give up his job? Living alone? At the flat? His daughter living at a distance? His neighbours, friends, keeping their distance? Getting the ambulance? The background of the serious accident and the hospitals being overcrowded? Crises?

5. A film about human nature, suffering? A cantankerous and arrogant old man? An unsympathetic patient? Yet audiences beginning to understand him, his suffering and pain? His strengths and weaknesses?

6. The world of the professionals, their busyness, arrogance, self-importance? Considering the patients lower than themselves? Their talking about their qualifications and despising the non-qualified? Use of their qualifications and flaunting them?

7. Mr Lazarescu, his age, his story, wife, children, his work? His injuries, his veins and the disability of his legs, the aftermath of his unemployment? His drinking? Age, living alone? His sister and the phone call? The arguments? The issue of money, her decision to come the next day?

8. Mr Lazarescu as Everyman? On the edge of society? A man of failures? Ill? His deserving of care and sympathy?

9. Mioara, with the ambulance, her years of service, her ability in her job? The background of her family? Her own precarious health? Fifty-five years old? Her presence, attentive, professional, concerned? Giving comfort to Mr Lazarescu? Urging the ambulance staff, the doctors and nurses? Drawing on her friendship with the nurses? Yet her being humiliated by the doctors?

10. The ambulance personnel, their doing their job, efficient and effective, partly involved, not becoming involved, waiting for Mr Lazarescu, driving him to other hospitals?

11. Mr Lazarescu and his head, his headaches, their being dismissed? His reputation for drinking, everything being blamed on his alcoholism? The pills? His calling for help from his neighbours, their giving him assistance, yet lecturing him? The phone call? The discussions about Mr Lazarescu, whether he should have the ambulance or not, the explanations?

12. The background of the bus accident, on the news, the number of casualties? The victims being taken to the different hospitals? The audience and the focus on the crisis, concern about Mr Lazarescu?

13. The old lady, the doctor, advice?

14. The three different hospitals, the presentation of the staff, their smelling Mr Lazarescu, criticising him for drinking, the quality of the treatment? Their personal arrogance, conceding the possibilities that he could be worse than they thought? The nature of the delays, their effect on Mr Lazarescu? The audience seeing his decline? The scan? The medication? The inability of the doctors to cope, sending him on? Miaora being persuasive? The nurses, some being kind, some not? Miaora begging for favours?

15. The various refusals, finally his being allowed in the hospital, the diagnosis, the scan and the experience, the revelation of the cancer?

16. The audience seeing the visualising of Mr Lazarescu’s physical and mental decline, his legs and his sores, the ulcer, his being despised because of the drink, wetting himself, soiling himself, his clothes? The change of clothes? His angers, impatience? The continual ache in his head? The explanation? His consciousness – and then losing consciousness? Bewilderment? Finally comatose?

17. What was the audience left with in terms of compassion for a sick man? A man on the fringe of society? The quality of society and its care? The arrogance of the professionals? The critique of ambulance and hospital systems? Impersonal bureaucracy? Lack of care?