ESCAPE FROM PRETORIA

Australia, 2020, 106 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Radcliffe, Daniel Webber, Ian Hart, Mark Leonard Winter, Nathan Page, Grant Piro.
Directed by Francis Annan.

With escape in the title, there is always a promise of action adventure. The main South African escape story was the popular Cry Freedom, the story of Steve Biko and journalist Donald Would and his escape from South Africa.

This is a smaller scale film, written and directed by Francis Annan, London based, black background.

The particular escape focuses on two young white men, anti-apartheid protesters, planting bombs in popular places, streets, and their exploding sending anti-apartheid leaflets into the air. It is 1978 – and little political prospect for the end of apartheid.

They are Tim Jenkins and Stephen Lee, played by Daniel Radcliffe, not looking at all like Harry Potter, and Australian actor, Daniel Webber. They are arrested, tried, sentenced to prison in Pretoria, a prison for white criminals.

The film shows their incarceration for over a year, indicating time passing by captions with particular indications of days in prison. Tim is the leader, determined to escape. Stephen is loyal support. They encounter a strange prisoner, French background, Antoine (played by Australian actor Mark Leonard Winter, quite different from his other performances, Measurable Measure, Disclosure). They also find a veteran prisoner, Dennis Goldberg (played by Ian Hart) who is serving a long sentence for anti-apartheid behaviour. The guards in the jail a brutal and racist.

The film, based on a book by Tim Jenkin, shows the men sharpening their ideas, especially for the making of substitute keys, ways of getting impressions, woodwork, as well as other means for the escape. With the keys, they are able to explore at night the opening of various doors.

There is some tension in the time passing, the development of the plan, some pathos in Antoine’s son visiting him, allowed thirty minutes a year, and the guards interrupting the visit. Dennis Goldberg and other veterans decide not to participate in the escape – questioning where they would go.

There is also quite some tension in the actual escape – and some time spent on the exhilaration of what it was to be free, a taxi ride, crossing into Mozambique, Tanzania, and, eventually, to London to continue with anti-apartheid activities.

Some bloggers complained about the bad South African accents and the film not being made in South Africa. Some of the bloggers seem to misread the film about its political stances. In fact, the film was made in South Australia with Screen Australia finance as well as finance from South African producers.

1. A true story? From apartheid times? 1978?

2. Audience knowledge of the background of apartheid, apartheid in the 20th century? Racist attitudes, the contrast between segregated blacks and affluent whites, illustrated with the whites on the beaches…? The police, brutality against the Blacks? Prisons, the choice of guards, brutal? Racist insults? The background of Mandela and his imprisonment on Robbin island?

3. The opening, Tim and Leo, acting like bombers, the bags, the streets, busy, depositing the bags, the explosions – and the irony that it was the scattering of anti-apartheid leaflets? Their arrest?

4. In court, Tim and his girlfriend and her help? The judge and his severe comments? The jail sentences? Their parents present? Their being taken, to the prison, the searching, Tim concealing the container – and later recovering it? The contents? The cells?

5. Pretoria prison, for white criminals, the protesters against apartheid? The attitude of the guards? The prisoners in blue, violent crimes? The other prisoners? In the dining room, tables, in the yard?

6. Cells, the locked doors? Getting out, meals, exercise, work in the laundry, carpentry, in the garden?

7. The indications of days passing, the numbers on screen? For over a year?

8. Tim and his presence, looking timid, strong-minded, glasses? Small? The contrast with Stephen, his collaboration with Tim? The aim to escape?

9. Dennis, with Mandela, the imprisonment, lifetime sentences, separation from wife and children? His age, encouraging Tim, talking, the advice, with the other prisoners, their decision not to escape, no destination? His encouragement, the lightbulb at the end, getting the cards, creating a diversion? His final laughing at the guard and his dismay at the escape?

10. The details of the planning for escape, Tim and his thinking, confining his plans and his focus, the keys, his skill in testing the locks, carving the keys after his designs? The range of keys? The testing of the keys, the tension and the dangers, going out of his cell? The black man working in the prison, cleaning in the dining hall, his helping getting clothes?
Hiding the contents in the thermos flask and the base, burying them in the garden, minimal material in his cell, the carving folding photos?

11. Antoine, the French background, firebrand, the visit of his son and the disturbance, the son taken away? His friendship with Tim and Leo, the discussions, willing to escape? Collaboration in the preparations?

12. The picture of the guards, the taunts of the regular guard, the supervisor and Tim sleeping in, his tantrum? The searching of the cells? The old guard, his stomach troubles and the toilet? The escapees getting past him?


13. The details of the actual escape, the keys, the doors, the change of clothes, hiding, difficulties, hacking the wood for the final door? The danger of the sniper? Their getting out?

14. Walking out the gate, walking down the street, mingling, the exhilaration, the taxi and the money, the drive to freedom? The contrast with the guard upset in the prison, the other prisoners exulting?

15. The final information, crossing the border to Mozambique, to Tanzania, to London, the continued fight for black freedom in South Africa? Dennis and his being released? The fall of apartheid, the election of Mandela? Tim Jenkin writing his story – leading to this film.

JEEPERS CREEPERS

US, 2001, 84 minutes, Colour.
Gina Phillips, Justin Long, Jonathan Breck, Eileen Brennan., Patricia Belcher.
Directed by Victor Salva.

Jeepers Creepers was something of a phenomenon on its release in 2001. It was the kind of horror film popular at this time – but there was the complication of the reputation of the director, Victor Salva, who had pleaded guilty to child assault and downloading pornography, serving a jail sentence. However, Salva saved his reputation and went on to make a sequel and other films.

In many ways, the plot is straightforward. Two twenty-somethings, brother and sister, played by Gina Phillips and Justin Long, driving home for the holidays, notice a strange vehicle and some activities as they pass a church. They are concerned, return, the brother looking down a vast well-whole, falls, discovers some bodies, then a whole basement full of so many bodies. His sister is terrified, he returns in shock.

Then follows a number of encounters. They go to a diner and try to ring the police, discover that their car has been damaged, sense the mysterious presence. There is a phone call from a woman who wants to warn them and indicates the song, Jeepers Creepers. They see the mysterious presence near a dark house, encounter a woman with a house full of cats (Eileen Brennan) who is threatened by the mysterious figure. They go to a police station where the mysterious woman of the telephone call, Jezelle, is ridiculed by the police. However, a prisoner is killed, a police officer is killed.

Brother and sister are in the car, the strange creature, now with the demonic face, is able to avoid attacks by leaping over their car. However, they run over him and destroy his leg.

Eventually, the brother is caught by the strange creature – and, down in the basement, his skin with open eyes is seen and the film stops.

There have been several sequels.

1. A successful horror film? Demonic?

2. The ending, pessimistic, seemingly incomplete? The making of a sequel?

3. The road journey, the open roads, the countryside? The church, the sinister basement? The old house and the cat lady? The diner, the customers, the coming of the police? The police precinct, Jezelle and her premonitions, the cells, the basement? The sinister vehicle? The musical score? The use of the code song, Jeepers Creepers?

4. The situation, audience identification with Trish and Darry? His studies, location, her picking him up, travelling home? The interactions between brother and sister? The mysterious vehicle and its effect?

5. The vehicle, the returning to the church, having seen the carrying of the bodies? The well shaft? Darry falling down, the discovery of the corpses, the range of corpses, so many? The effect on him? Trish afraid, running to the car, his appearance and frightening her?

6. On the road, wanting to get to a phone, the diner, the customers reactions? The mysterious phone call from Jezelle, warning, the song? The police arriving, Trish’s car damaged, the fingerprint?

7. Stopping with the cat lady, her not having a phone, eccentric so many cats, the scarecrow, the Demon appearing, her shooting and his explosion? His invasion in the house, taking possession of the woman, killing her? Trish and Darry escaping?

8. On the road, the police escort, the apparition on the road, his leaping over the car, the destruction of the police vehicle, decapitation? The appearance of the Demon? Trish mowing him down, his legs, the demonic wings?

9. At the police station, the phone call to their mother? Gisele and her premonitions, the reaction of the police? The code song? The prisoners, the cells?

10. The disturbance, the appearance of the Demon, power shortage, the Demon attacking the prisoner, attacking the policeman, as hanging?

11. Trish and Darry escaping the car, back to the church, Darry confronting the Demon, his being taken?

12. The pessimistic ending? The skin the holes for eyes?

POWDER


US, 1995, 111 minutes, Colour.
Sean Patrick Flanery, Mary Steenburgen, Lance Henrikson, Jeff Goldblum, Brandon Smith, Susan Tyrrell, Ray Wise.
Directed by Victor Salva.

Powder works on several levels. It is the story of a boy with a physical handicap who is mocked by his fellows and forced to live in an institution from which he finally escapes. It is the story of a prodigy who is an intellectual genius, capable of reading the inner thoughts of people and able to heal them and bring them back to life. It is a parable to teach us that some individuals have powers beyond those we can imagine. They are accepted by some people, rejected by others. They do good but are not understood. They are feared.

The teacher, played by Jeff Goldblum, discusses a quotation from Einstein with Jeremy Read, Powder: that our technology has surpassed our humanity. He hopes that the day will come when our humanity will surpass our technology. While the movie suggests a physical explanation to Powder's abilities, focussing on electricity, energy and the commands of the brain, it leaves open more mysterious, more mystical, perhaps more supernatural explanations. Audiences familiar with the Gospel stories will have no difficulty in seeing the parallels that the screenplay draws between Powder's life and that of Jesus. It takes us from his strange birth through his hidden life, his acceptance and rejection, a passion and his literal ascension into the heavens.

Two years later, Jon Turteltaub's Phenomenon dealt with similar themes in the character played by John Travolta who is transformed for a short time into a genius and a saviour.

Powder is played with dignity by Sean Patrick Flanery who was to appear in many films including Simply Irresistable and The Suicide Kings. Director Victor Salva had a personally checkered career. In 2001, he made the horror thriller, Jeepers Creepers.

1. The title? Suggestive? The nickname for Jeremy Reed?

2. A piece of Americana? The Texas settings? The farms, the towns, school, homes, sheriff’s offices, ordinary atmosphere? The musical score?

3. Jeremy’s story, his pregnant mother, lightning, the electromagnetic force, the physical transformation, albino, unable to grow hair, the personal transformation, powers, insights, vision, healing?

4. At work on the farm, his mother’s death, the reaction of his father, brought up by his grandparents, never going out? Education through books? His grandfather’s death? Coming to the attention of the authorities?

5. Jessie Caldwell, her professional role, concern about Jeremy, taking him to the home? Ward of the State?

6. Enrolment in school, Donald as his physics teacher, friendship, encouragement, Donald learning of Jeremy’s powers? The reaction of the students, curiosity, mockery, bullying?

7. The antagonism by John Box, the gun, threats, the noise of the shot, Harley Duncan and his shooting the deer? The aftermath, Harley and his not breathing, Jeremy and his action, Harley experiencing the pain in the death of the deer? Repercussions for Harley, clearing out the guns? The sheriff keeping him on as deputy, but without firearms?

8. The sheriff, his concern, asking Jeremy’s help, telepathy, the sheriff and his ill wife, not able to communicate,, Jeremy communicating the message, wanting to die with her ring, but reconciliation between father and son?

9. Lindsey, the response to Jeremy, the possibilities of a relationship, her father’s intervention? His explanations to Lindsey about his powers, the interconnectedness of everything?

10. Going to run away, trapped by John Box, his watching the boys in the shower, accused of homosexuality? The boy stripping Jeremy and taunting him?

11. The eruptive response, the effect on the boys’ clothes, on themselves, the large spherical electromagnetic pulse, consuming them all? John Box motionless, Jeremy reviving him?

12. Jeremy running away, Jessie, Donald and Doug coming to find him, urging him to come and be with them, to protect him from people? HIs running into the field, struck by
lightning, his disappearing in the light?

13. A figure of goodness – and the parallels with other historical characters who did good, comparisons with Jesus?

PERSONA: THE DARK TRUTH BEHIND PERSONALITY TESTS

US, 2021, 85 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Tim Travers Hawkins.


This is a documentary about psychological tests, especially in the United States. Its subtitle suggests sinister aspects.

The principal focus is on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI, established by two Americans, mother and daughter, Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers. It is based on Personality Types by Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung, (with visual quotes from him in the film).

There are some cautionary remarks to be made. They are being made in this review by a practitioner of the MBT I for almost 4 decades.

The first caution is about the use of the word “test�. Although this is said by sympathetic talking heads in this film, not necessarily heard by the filmmakers or others, the MBTI is an Indicator, never considered a psychological test. Its questionnaire is not geared towards exploring mental health. Nor is it, as criticised by a number of characters throughout the film, to be used as criterion for job applications or job employment. To do so is an abuse of the Indicator. Rather, this is just one focus on personality. There are others which are complementary or overlap. (Some of the Talking Heads refer to the questionnaire lightly as a ‘quizz[.)

On the positive side, the story of Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers is told verbally, by way of a collection of photos, from home movie clips. This story is generally well explained, backgrounds, the intentions, their experiences, the forming of the first questionnaire during World War II as a contribution to peace and harmony. And, throughout the film, there are quite a number of quotations from Isabel Myers as well as visuals of the indicator, the 16 emerging types.

Also on the positive side, two of Isabel Myers’ granddaughters are interviewed, speak very well of their experience with their grandmother, are able to talk with some insight into the Indicator and its use. There is also an important interview with Richard Thompson, CEO of the Myers Briggs enterprise, who voices accurate information, descriptions, and, very importantly, noting how there has been scrupulous observance of copyright and clarity about the Indicator but that many people, especially in the social media age, have developed “knockoff� often easy to access derivatives which have been employed, not approved by the authorities, by a number of companies for sorting out job applications, acceptance and rejection is. But, that is the nature of anything that is created and enters into a competitive, sometimes exploitative, world.

Another advantage to the documentary is the presence of Frank James, a stand-up comedian who, over the years, has created quite a number of You-Tube? performances illustrating the Indicator and various aspects of the Indicator. He is often very funny. He is often very accurate.

However, Merve Emre, who serves as Executive Producer, author of The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs? and the Birth of Personality Testing, after explanations of the origin of the MBTI, turns against it: Persona is informed by the 2018 book The Personality Brokers by the Oxford University professor Merve Emre, “I wanted to understand how these two women who had no formal training in psychology had come to design the world’s most popular personality test.� (Isabel Myers had…written a wildly racist novel. “You have this woman who, on the one hand, is committed to a certain set of progressive ideals, particularly for her time, and on the other, everything she’s doing is weighed down by a very troubling set of ideologies,� Dr. Emre says in Persona. The test contains traces of her racist, sexist, ableist, and classist ideals.�

It is these accusations that granddaughter, Katherine Hughes, refutes.

While there is consideration of other approaches, including The Big Five, along with information about some tests have been used for hiring and rejecting, the focus on their dark side and use leads to MBTI guilt by association.

In terms of guilt, Personal has a film within the film (or, it might be asked, is the treatment of MBTI a film within the film that is the very sad story of Kyle Behm, a young man with bipolar disorder, interviewed extensively throughout: his personal background, his tests for job applications, his being rejected by the tests, his depression and, tragically, his suicide. And the grief of his father and his moves to lobby for legislation against tests and some applications. The father is interviewed. And with the deep emotions that Kyle’s story elicits, right up to the end of the film, there is emotion against the use of tests for hiring, emotion against the MBTI.


There are people speaking in sympathy with Kyle and his treatment, sequences with a school in New York concerning tests and jobs and, forcefully, with the frankness and directness associated with autism, “Personality tests are by and large constructed to be ableist, to be racist, to be sexist, and to be classist,� says the disability justice advocate Lydia XZ Brown (with her noting her Asian background, her gay sexual orientation). “That’s what happens when you have a test … based on norms devised from college-educated straight white men with no known disabilities. Personality tests are useful for individual people sometimes on journeys of self-discovery. But when they’re used to make decisions by other people affecting someone’s life, they become dangerous tools.�

Information can be found online, many sites quickly noting the documentary with its release on March 4th. In Australia, it screened on Foxtel Showcase on March 17th with many repeats.
_
For reading after watching the documentary – headings and quotations from a range of online sites, from HBO to personal sites. Many of the comments come from watching the trailer, responding to HBO publicity material. (The trailer is on YouTube?.)

1. Taking a personality test can provide useful insights into our sense of self, but many may not realize how deeply embedded personality assessments are in everything we do. PERSONA explores the unexpected origin story of America’s great obsession with personality testing, uncovering the intriguing history behind the world-famous Myers-Briggs? Type Indicator, while raising a slew of ethical questions and demonstrating how some personality tests may do more harm than good – like impacting online dating matches or job prospects. This eye-opening documentary reveals the profound ways that ideas about personality have .
Rotten Tomatoes.

2. A documentary exploring the history and growing dangers surrounding the seemingly innocuous Myers–Briggs? personality test.
medium.com

3. But as the decades have gone on the purpose of the Myers–Briggs? test and others like it has changed. What started as a self-help tool useful for analyzing your personal beliefs, aspirations, and challenges has morphed into a new way to sort people both in the workplace and in their dating lives. Persona will seek to explore a number of ethical questions about our society’s reliance on these tests and if they’re actually creating another class of people to be discriminated against.
decider.com

4. Persona is informed by the 2018 book The Personality Brokers by the Oxford University professor Merve Emre – also one of the documentary’s executive producers – which traces the history of the two women who created the namesake Myers-Briggs? instrument. “I wanted to understand how these two women who had no formal training in psychology had come to design the world’s most popular personality test. Emre says in the film.

5. Ultimately Hawkins hopes the film will make us all approach things like personality tests with a more critical eye. “We’re often drawn to systems that seem to explain the world in a way that’s simple and seems to be neutral, but I would always want people to be wary and to think about where these instruments come from. All of these instruments have a past, and if you really delve into them, you can start to find out things about why they exist that might make you uncomfortable.�

6. “Personality tests are by and large constructed to be ableist, to be racist, to be sexist, and to be classist,� says the disability justice advocate Lydia XZ Brown. “That’s what happens when you have a test … based on norms devised from college-educated straight white men with no known disabilities. Personality tests are useful for individual people sometimes on journeys of self-discovery. But when they’re used to make decisions by other people affecting someone’s life, they become dangerous tools.�
The Guardian

7. Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests offers a glimpse of quiz dystopia. (Mashable)
“Persona� argues convincingly that it’s time to stop personality tests.
"Persona" explores the dark history of personality tests like Myers-Briggs? — and how they're used to oppress (salon.com)

8. Exploring the unexpected origins of America's obsession with personality testing, this documentary takes a look at the profound ways that ideas about personality have formed the world around us.
IMDb synopsis

9. One of the documentary’s pivotal moments is the inevitable milkshake ducking of Isabel Briggs Myers, one of the co-authors of the Myers-Briggs? assessment. Long story short: She was a white supremacist who believed people with lower IQs were incapable of self-perception and designed her first tests based on the idea that men and women have different natural aptitudes. That triple punch of racism, ableism, and sexism isn’t surprising considering the state of pop psychology in the early 20th century, but Persona brings up this revelation only to drop it a few moments later for one of its many disparate narratives about personality testing. Alexis Nedd on mashable.com

10. Tim Travers Hawkins’s doc takes a deep dive into how the personality test evolved from a way to self-identify into a “dangerous tool� in the hands of the powerful.


11. “It’s being used to make decisions about who’s worthy and who’s unworthy,� an interview subject say in the trailer.
deadline.com

12. “The Myers-Briggs? Company has for decades taken a public stance against using the MBTI® tool for hiring or selection,� a spokesperson from the company told Refinery29 in a statement. “We do know that Isabel and Katharine created the MBTI with the intention of bridging differences and bringing people together.�

13. (Isabel Myers had…written a wildly racist novel. “You have this woman who, on the one hand, is committed to a certain set of progressive ideals, particularly for her time, and on the other, everything she’s doing is weighed down by a very troubling set of ideologies,� Dr. Emre says in Persona. The test contains traces of her racist, sexist, ableist, and classist ideals, Dr. Emre says.


14. Molly Longman, refinery 29.com

15. Persona leaves room for the idea that Myers-Briggs? and tests like it can be used on an individual level to further our personal journeys and to help us understand ourselves.
Molly Longman

16. But Persona, from HBO Max and CNN Films, exposes a piece of information about Isabel Briggs Myers that calls all of her work into question, according to Merve Emre, an associate professor of English literature at Oxford University and author of the book The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs? and the Birth of Personality Testing…..But while researching her book, Emre came across a startling find: Briggs Myers wrote a little-known second installment called Give Me Death that Emre describes as “a really horrifyingly racist novel.� “I was completely stunned to realize that Isabel was a successful novelist before she designed the Type Indicator, and in the late 1920s, she had written a mystery novel,� Emre said in Persona. “And then I realize that she had written a second novel, but that novel wasn’t advertised anywhere on the website. It was very difficult to track down in any mainstream library, and when I finally found it and I read it, I understood why — because that novel features the same team of detectives, only this time they’re investigating a series of suicides that take place among an old aristocratic, Southern family. And it turns out that the reason the members of this family are committing suicide is because they believe they have a single drop of African-American? blood in their veins.�

Emre felt “betrayed� while reading it, she said.

“Because you have this woman who, on the one hand, is committed to a certain set of progressive ideals, particularly for her time — and on the other hand, everything she’s doing is weighed down by a very, very troubling set of ideologies,� Emre continued.

“It was really telling to me how Isabel’s prejudices, which it would be very easy to dismiss as being of her time, were not of her time. They were of our present, and they continue to be used today to sustain the powers of the dominant classes.�
moviemaker.com

17. But Bri ggs Myers’ granddaughter, Kathleen Hughes, says her grandmother has been misunderstood.

“Merve Emre came out with a book The Personality Brokers — she made some assumptions and implied some things I don’t even want to repeat because I found them so profoundly offensive,� Hughes said in Persona. “Isabel did care deeply about preventing another Hitler, about intolerance. And I think her primary focus was to appreciate your own uniqueness and being able to appreciate people who are different.�

On the Myers Briggs website, there is a page dedicated to explaining that “All types are equal,� and that no type is better than another: “The goal of knowing about personality type is to understand and appreciate differences between people. As all types are equal, there is no best type.�

MARY

US, 2019, 84 minutes, Colour.
Gary Oldman, Emily Mortimer, Emmanuel Garcia- Rocco, Stefanie Scott, Chloe Perrin, Owen Teague, Jennifer Esposito.
Directed by Michael Goi.

This is a different thriller about diabolical possession. This kind of possession is usually in human beings and animals. And, there are haunted houses. This time it is a haunted ship, a sailing boat, called Mary.

It is also a brief thriller, B-budget material but with top stars, Gary Oldman as a veteran sailor, employed for taking tourists around, wanting something more, seeing an opportunity in an old boat found abandoned, Mary, renovating the boat and going on a trip with his wife, played by Emily Mortimer. They have two daughters. On-board also is a boyfriend of the older daughter and the father had rescued from juvenile detention. Also a sailor who has his eye on the wife.

Documentation and newspaper reports surface, the history of Mary, cruise disappearing.

After the images of the boat abandoned at sea, there is the framework for the whole film where a Coast Guard officer, played by Jennifer Esposito, is interrogating the wife. She narrates the story in flashbacks, her husband buying the boat, the opposition, acquiescence, the renovation, the celebration and the launch, setting sail.

However, the film includes some premonitions, mysterious ghostly faces, nightmares, and, eventually, some diabolical experiences and death threats.

The wife explains to the Coast Guard interrogator that evil can possess anything.

By the end, there are questions for the audience to ponder, whether it all really happened, whether it could happen, or whether there is something more mundanely sinister about the behaviour of the wife.

1. Story? Haunted ship? Classy cast?

2. The Florida settings, Coast Guard headquarters, the Bay and the Marina, the yachts, the floating yacht? The open sea, the yacht, the interiors? The horror effects? The musical score?

3. Sarah telling the story, to the Coast Guard authorities, the framework for the narrative, her flashbacks? The conclusion? The haunting? Sara’s imagination? Demon possessing the ship? Or possessing Sarah?

4. The history of the yacht, found floating, the crew vanished? Later information about previous voyages, families disappearing, owners disappearing, crews? The figure on the bow? The yacht itself, floating, refurbished? On the voyage? Mike and the destruction?

5. The ghostly appearances, the ship as the embodiment of evil, appearances, Tommy taking the photo, the dreams? Taking possession of the girls? Tommy’s ghost, Lindsay to hang herself?

6. David, the tours, wanting his own boat, working for Jay, relationship with Sarah, with the girls, the memory of her infidelity, forgiveness? Buying the boat, Sarah’s outburst, the money, her consenting, the loans, the refurbishment? Mike and his help? Tommy? The photo and the apparition?

7. David, ambitions, sailing? Sarah, agreeing, participation in the voyage? Lindsay, the attraction to Tommy? Tommy’s background in detention and David helping him? Mary and her drawings? Mike and his help?

8. The details of the voyage, happy aspects, deterioration, evil taking possession, the effect on Mary, Lindsay and the hanging, the dreams?

9. Mike, the destruction of the sails, their overpowering him? His getting free, the attack on David, David tying him up? The girls tied up, Lindsay and her being thrown overboard, surviving, freeing the girls?

10. The interrogator, believing or not, attentive listening, the surveillance cameras? Sarah wanting to see her daughters?

11. The audience left to decide whether Sarah was telling the truth or not?

TOM AND JERRY

2021, 101 minutes, Colour.
Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Peña, Jordan Bolger, Rob Delaney, Patsy Ferrn, Palarvi Sharda, Colin Jost, Ken Jeong, voices of Bobby Cannavale, Lil Rel Howery, Tim Story.
Directed by Tim story.

Tom and Jerry look as sprightly as ever up there on the big screen in 2021. They are great advertisement for Stayin’ Alive!

Nostalgia reminds this reviewer that he saw Jerry dancing with Gene Kelly back in 1945 in Anchors Aweigh and, in 1953, Jerry swimming with Esther Williams in Dangerous when Wet! The IMDb tells us that William Hanna Joseph Barbera created the Tom and Jerry cartoons in 1940 – making this reviewer a few months older than they! They were probably very popular with the great grandparents of star, Chloe Grace Moretz. (Later Hanna and Barbera were responsible for many, many, many cartoons including Scooby Doo, the Flintstones, the Smurf’s.)

But, enough of the past where their continual feuding, chases, tactics, slapstick violence, kept us entertained and wanting more. But, that is how they come across in our contemporary world. No ageing here!

One of the attractions of this film is that, while it is an animated cartoon, it is also a live-action film, set in New York City, streets, hotels, parks, a recognisable world. And, to cheer us up even more, Tom and Jerry are not the only animated characters. There are some singing pigeons to open the film. There is a ferocious large bulldog (marvellous for chases and creating a visual mini-tornado), a preening pretty cat, peacocks – and, surprisingly taking part in a wedding in the Royal Gate Hotel, a ferocious tiger and two elephants, delighting in pretty butterflies but alarmed and frantic because of a mouse!

The storyline, which one reviewer expressed disappointment at because it was so unsubtle – but, who wants or needs subtlety in this kind of comedy adventure! (He also expressed disapproval that the highlighting of the huge interior dome in the hotel, glass galore, signalled that it was sure to be destroyed – isn’t that what signalling means and intends, that we are looking forward to that moment when there will be the huge crash and smash!). With Tom and Jerry pursuing each other, memories go back to the energetic chases of the Roadrunner and Wily E Coyote and other memories of slapstick enjoyment.

Which means, then, that there are enough hijinks, cat and mouse games, pursuits, one upmouseship, cartoon environments, to keep the younger audiences amused. With the wedding story, something to occupy adult attention. And, interest in the other storyline where Kayla, Chloe Grace Moretz, is sacked from her job, pretends to be an events expert, has the gift of the situation exploiter, gets the job, to the displeasure of Terence, Michael Peña, the actual events manager who explains that he has clawed his way to the middle! They both have to rid the hotel of the menace of Jerry, employing Tom, fiascos all round.

The event is a lavish wedding, which gets lavisher and lavisher as the film goes on. But, there are some nice admissions of irresponsibility at the end, some pleasant reconciliations and, after an extraordinary New York chase, Jerry on a drone, Tom on a skateboard equipped with Wi-Fi?, pursue a limousine to make sure that the bride comes back for a simple and happy wedding celebration.

And, if you are eager to see the most elaborate wedding smash and schmozzle, everything crashing down (contributed to by Ken Jeong as an angry chef), book now!

1. The popularity of Tom and Jerry? From the 1940s? The range of cartoons? Acting with MGM stars? Cartoons over the decades, some updating, television? And now their feature film?

2. Computer animation, Tom and Jerry as they looked and sounded in the past, features, characters, behaviour, chases, conflicts…?

3. A live-action story, the insertion of the animated characters, the singing pigeons, the peacocks, the bulldog, the pet cat, the tiger, the elephants, the butterflies…?

4. The live-action story, New York City, the grand hotel, the interiors, the streets, Central Park?

5. The musical score, the songs?

6. The live-action story, Kayla, not successful at her work, sacked, at the hotel for a free meal, the encounter with the applicant, pretending to interview her, taking the resume, the interview with the manager, Terence and his reaction? Her explanations, living in, uniform, doing the job?

7.

8. The live-action story, the celebrities and their wedding, the preparations? Preeta and Ben, the different backgrounds, Indian? Money no expense? The preparation of the décor, the scenes in the kitchen and the chef, the drinks, the growing extravagance, the idea of the elephants? Preacher and her finding it too much, losing her ring, Kayla returning it? Ben, somewhat dumb, his not holding back?

9. Tom and Jerry in the story, the preliminaries of chases, Tom pretending to be blind and playing the piano, Jerry dancing, the money? The pursuits and defiance? Tom crashing into Kayla? Jerry and his going to the hotel, up into the attic, making his room luxurious? Tom and his pursuit? Kayla and her commission to get rid of the mouse, the cheese and traps, Jerry leaving the note about traps, her hiring Tom? The range of slapstick comedy in the pursuits? Tom getting rid of Jerry, Jerry returning?

10. The manager, his approval of Kayla, the reputation of the hotel? Terence, not liking Kayla, not liking Tom? Tom and Jerry picked up by the animal welfare, going to the centre, seeing the Street Cats Tom tangled with earlier? Terence and his visit, his doubletalk, to each of them, their being released? Terence and his being fired? Revenge?

11. The shambles of the wedding, the elephants, upset by a mouse, Tom pursuing Jerry, the cake and the chef smashing it, the preparation with the glass dome and its collapsing?

12. Preeta, leaving the airport, Ben upset? Kayla, taking over, promising a good wedding, the drone and Jerry on the drone, Tom and Ben’s skateboard with the Wi-Fi?, the pursuit of the limousine, a different car chase?

13. The return to Central Park, the more simple wedding? Kayla and her confession of the truth and taking responsibility? The manager pleased with her? Terrance and his job? Everybody at the wedding?

14. Tom and Jerry, the success of the film – and possibly some more?

SAINT MAUD

UK, 2019, 84 minutes, Colour.
Morfydd Clark, Jennifer Ehle, Lily Knight, Lily Fraser, Rosie Sansom, Marcus Hutton.
Directed by Rose Glass.

No, this is not hagiography. But, the central character, Maud, feels she is called to be saintly in her work as a palliative carer.

The trailer seemed to indicate that this is a horror film. There are a few moments which looked like horror film material, but they are a few moments. Rather, this is a psychological study, of a young woman, her nursing experience, her tasks in palliative care, her relationship to her patients/clients.

We do see Maud initially kneeling on the floor, with blood on her hands. We are initially suspicious. Some explanation will be given much later. But, then we see Maud, in the Yorkshire town of Scarborough, a very small flat, a dingy street, her commenting that she was not well, going to the bottom of a high hill, trudging up to the mansion she glimpses, welcomed by the departing carer, settling in, meeting her client, Amanda, terminally ill, a former choreographer and dancer.

Maud is played by Morfydd Clark. Amanda is played by veteran, Jennifer Ehle.

Maud looks plain, dresses in uniform, is devout, signs of the cross, crucifix, Marian statues, religious iconography in her flat, grace before meals. So, an introduction to St Maud. She is diligent in her work, preparing meals, sharing and supervising physical exercise for Amanda, even, at Amanda’s invitation, talking about her experience of God, her all-pervasive sense of God, even the physical repercussions of her sense of God’s presence.

She shares with a sympathetic Amanda, who calls Maud her little saint, gives her an inscribed book of the art of William Blake which stirs Maud’s imagination, especially with images of God, flexed Annunciation organised religion as a detrimental to spirituality. But this will have unexpected consequences for Maud.

Maud’s proper and disapproves of Amanda’s relationships, visitors, even taking one visitor aside to warn her not to come back and disturb Amanda.

And, there is continual voice-over, Maud’s voice, praying to God, talking to God, God talking back.

And, with some of her behaviour, wondering about her past, Maud encountering a friend from past work and finding she has another name, we are also wondering about Maud’s mental state. And, the rest of the film gives quite some cause for our wonder and concern. Schizophrenia suggests itself, Maud and her alternate name, alternate behaviour, Maud indulging in severe bodily mortification, burning her hand willingly, nails in her shoe as she walks…

Morfydd Clark gives a persuasive performance, perhaps reminding the audience of a young Sissy Spacek in look and manner (and, at the end of the film, reminiscent of Sissy Spacek in the climax of Carrie).

While the film’s screenplay leaves it to the audience to assess Maud and what happens to her, the finale, on the beach at Scarborough, reinforces both Maud’s sense of holiness, even martyrdom, as well as destructive madness.

Quite a challenging case study.

1. The title? Expectations? Reference to Mary Magdalen? Audience expectations of a saint?

2. The UK settings? The town of Scarborough, the town itself, the sea, the waterfront, entertainment centres? The hill, the mansion on the hill, interiors? The narrow streets, Maud’s flat? The ominous musical score?

3. The opening, Maud and the blood on her hands, Terra? Sitting at home?

4. The contrast with Maud, her modest flat, her comments about her health, menstruation, going to work, Amanda as her new client? Arriving, the information from the departing nurse, her room?

5. Amanda, her background as dancer, choreographer, the photos, the videos? Her illness? Terminal? Her personality? Maud and her care, the conversations, preparing the meals, the baths, the physical exercise? Maud living in, observing?

6. Maud and her religious perspective, the crucifix, statues and pictures in the flat? Her talking about her religious experience? The experience of God, feeling God, God taking over, the audience seeing the physical takeover? The discussions with Amanda, Amanda listening, saying she shared the experience? Calling Maud her little saint? The gift and inscription, the images of God through William Blake, Maud cutting them out, pasting them on the wall, black and his comment about organised religion is against spirituality?

7. Maud, sign of the cross, grace before meals, her talking to God, her expressing her religious experience?

8. Richard, his visit, Maud’s disapproval, Richard and Amanda together? Carol and her visits, Amanda and the sexual liaison? Maud disapproving, taking Carol aside, warning her not to come back?

9. Maud, the encounter with joy on the street, indications about Maud’s past, in the hospital, the death? The revelation that her real name was Katie?

10. Katie and the change, the revealing dress, going to the pub, flirting, the sexual encounter with the young man, the group at the other table, her bumping into the man who took her home, the sexual encounter, the aftermath?

11. The audience understanding Katie/Maud’s mental state, two different names, two different worlds, two different behaviours, evil and holiness and service, schizophrenia?

12. Maud and mortification, kneeling, burning her hand on the stove and picking it, the nails and her shoe and walking?

13. Maud going back to work, the party, doing the shopping, preparing the savouries, Amanda and the range of guests, Carol present, Amanda ridiculing Maud, the revelation about her talking privately to Carol? Maud’s violent reaction?

14. Maud back at home, the preoccupation with God, cleaning the flat? Going for the war, the conversation with Esther, Esther and the vocation of palliative care? Maude walking off?

15. Joy and her visit, encouraging Maud? The aftermath, Maud in the robe, talking with God, the continued conversations about God testing her, calling her, what God does to friends – and worst for those he disapproves of?

16. The final madness, going to the beach, dousing herself, seeing the people on the beach near down and raise their hands in admiration? Setting fire, the brief visuals of the fire? The end? And leaving the audience to assess Maud, her mental state, her interpretation of being a saint?

MISS

France, 2020, 107 minutes, Colour.
Alexandre Wetter, Pascal Arbillot, Isabelle Nanty, Thibault de Montalambert, Stefi Celma, Quentin Faure.
Directed by Ruben Alves.

This is an imaginative tale, almost contemporary fairytale, about a young boy whose ambition was to be Miss France. It is a film about gender identity, a boy with female and feminine sensibilities, self-discovery, self-assertion. At the end, when asked about his bid to become Miss France, Alexandre replies that he wanted to be in touch with his female side.

The central character, Alexandre, is played by Alexandre Wetter, quite persuasively. The actor has the advantage of his build (although the competition personnel comment on his rugby shoulders and his large shoe size), his appearance, so that he can pass without too much difficulty as female.

The fairytale has a background of a commune in Paris, a home, streets, the local gym where Alexandre works as a cleaner, a very ordinary background and, with the characters who live in the commune, multicultural. They are presided over by an older woman, tough spoken, Yolande, who is something of a surrogate mother. There is also something of a surrogate mother in a cross-dressing elderly prostitute who lives in the commune, Lola, who gives sympathetic support and, at times, wise advice.

When Alexandre decides that he wants to be Miss France, he auditions successfully, is able to transform himself into Alexandra, and gets the advice of a school friend who is now a champion boxer, trains physically, self-assertion, Lola getting advice from an older woman about Alexandra’s presentation as female, so that when the competition for the local Miss Ile de France takes place, Alexandra wins, becoming eligible to move forward to the Miss France competition.

There is a lot of background about many of the candidates for the competition, especially Miss Corsica, who shares a room with Alexandra, discovers her secret but does not divulge the truth. Then there is Amanda who presides over the competition, who seems to have worked out Alexandra’s secret and continues to challenge her as well as support her.

Many scenes of rehearsals, many fashion sequences, the contrast where it is decided that the competitors should take on a conservation theme and they go to work, and photo opportunities, on collecting rubbish on Belgian beaches.

There are some emotional crises, Alexandra’s nervousness, TV interviews with the family and her exclusion of Lola and then apologising, Yolande’s collapse which means that the commune friends have to watch the final competition from the hospital.

It is no surprise or spoiler to know that Alexandra wins – but it is standing on the stage, her speech, self-revelation, boos and applause which make a final impact.

More interesting and enjoyable than might have been anticipated.

1. Title? Miss France? Ambition? For Alexandre? Male contestant? Testing who he was? In touch with his femininity?

2. The Paris settings, the city, the streets, the commune, the gym? The offices for the competition? Television? Rehearsals, competition? The visit to Belgium, the coast, environmental activities? The musical score, accompanying songs?

3. Alexandre’s story, as a little boy, his love for his parents, car crash, his grief, his memories of them later, telling Elias? During his acceptance speech?

4. The children in class, their ambitions, laughing at Alexandre? His memory of this? His orphanage experience, going to the commune, Yolande and her care, the friendship with the various people in the commune, sharing his room? At the gym, cleaning the toilets? The meeting with Elias?

5. The friendship with Lola? Lola, age, in drag, prostitute on the streets, with the customers, the charges, insulting the man in the car? At home, the female style? Place in the group in the commune, supportive of Alexandra, the quest? Later getting the job as a beautician, getting angry with the proprietor, going into business? Alexandra keeping her out of the television interview, hurt, in the street, Alexandra dressed for the street, Lola taking her back home?

6. Yolande, collecting the rent, tough, the rooms, the meals, her clothes, headdress? Her blindness about the competitions, a feminist criticism? Blunt on television? Blunt with Amanda? For the final television program? Her collapse, hospital, Alexandra delayed, Yolande providing, watching the competition?

7. The friends, the Indian women, their work, qualifications elsewhere, boarding in the commune? The two men, ethnic backgrounds, life in comments? Supportive of Alexandra?

8. The meeting with Elias? In the diner, his acceptance of Alexandra? Her request for him to train her, self-assertion, physical development? The others helping in her training, poise, style, dressing?

9. The audition for the application, the range of women presenting, capable, some satire on some of their presentations? The auditioning group?

10. Alexandra, presentation, dress, manner of speaking, story, accepted in the list? The details of the grooming for the competition, comment on physical appearance, size, height, wearing the corset (and the advice of the makeover and the heavy cost), shoe size, shoulders? Voice? The experiences of make up, the range of dresses to be worn, style?

11. Relationship with the other women, their presentations, the competition for the local quest, Alexandra and her success?

12. The role of Amanda, in charge, the president, his criticisms and threats? Her liking for Alexandra, knowing the truth, urging her on, emotional response? The private talks, encouragement, not opting out, the embrace and the hotel corridor? Alexandra being late, the reprimands, the training?

13. Everybody happy with Alexandra winning Miss Ile de France? The consequences, training for Miss France? The excursion, the disappointment in going to Belgium, on the beach, cleaning, posing, rubbish disposal, the filming?

14. The strong sequence of Alexandra and her comment on the smug host, her attack on men like him, talking about his humiliation of Lola?

15. Amanda urging Alexandra to be social with the others? Sharing the room with Miss Corsica? Suspicion of drugs, reporting, discovering the truth, the inspection, Amanda intervening? Friendship? Secrets, Alexandra relaxed and singing with the competitors?

16. The competition, nervous, the other women, the rehearsals in the dressing, the dancing? Alexandra and her dismaying experience, the television interview and the rest of the family, excluding Lola, on the street, apologising? Yolande’s collapse, going to hospital? The others urging her to go? Late?

17. The performance, making a good impression? The selection of six, her winning? The applause of the friends in the hospital, Elias and his wife? The people of the club?

18. The drama of the speech, hesitation, talking about her family, taking of the dress, the reaction of the audience, the boos, the applause, the other women, the judges?

19. Alexandra discovering the real identity, in touch with the famine and, the meeting with the whole group as a finale?

FREAK SHOW

US, 2017, 91 minutes, Colour.
Alex J.Lawther, Ian Nelson, Anna Sophia Robb, Celia Weston, Abigail Breslin, Bette Midler, Larry Pine, John Mc Enroe, Laverne Cox.
Directed by Trudy Styler.

Young Billy Bloom sees himself as something of a freak show. When young, he was loved and promoted by his mother, Bette Midler, but distant from his father, Larry Pine. When his mother disappears (later discovered to be in rehab), he transfers to the South, living in a mansion with his father and going to the local school.

This is a film about gender identity, a boy and his discovering of his female side, that he was gay, his option to be openly gay, a camp manner, flamboyant cross dressing. Initially mocked at school, he asserts himself, makes a number of friends, decides to become a candidate to be Prom Queen.

British actor Alex J Lawther gives a strong and, perhaps, courageous performance as Billy Bloom. (Lawther had a very strong role in the French film, The Translators.).

The film is a blend of comic extravagance along with some emotional sequences, especially as Billy makes friend with one of the local jocks who really wants to be an artist. Then there is the campaign for him to be Prom Queen, extravagant floats, dancing girls, Billy having coaching of how to be Prom Queen, interview with TV, in the form of transgender actress, Laverne Cox. In the meantime, his opponent, Lynette, Abigail Breslin, has her coterie of friends, but is particularly gauche in her interviews, TV performance.

Billy needs the affirmation of his father, is encouraged by the housekeeper at home, a sympathetic Celia Weston, and ultimately is reconciled with his father after being disappointed by his mother.

The film was directed by Trudy Styler who obviously has very strong show business connections by having Bette Midler as the mother, John Mc Enroe as the sports coach, Laverne Cox as the TV interviewer.

The film could be compared with the 2020 French film, Miss, with a central character has ambitions to be Miss France.

1. Title? The tone? The alternate television title, Billy Bloom?

2. An American story? Universal story? Gender identity? Choices?

3. The Connecticut settings, home, school, comfortable life? The transition to the South, the mansion, school, classes, gym?

4. Audience response to the issue of gender identity, in children, comfort in their own bodies, psychological and emotional repercussions? Acceptance by parents? The transition to teenage? Decisions about identity, manifesting identity, transition?

5. The telling of Billy’s story, the past, his relationship with his mother, their devotion to each other, as spoiling him? The absent father and Billy not identifying with him? His mother’s antagonism towards her husband? Her leaving, later discovery of her problems, addictions, rehab? Billy having to go to live with his father, unwilling? Deep down sense of absence of his father?

6. Billy, as a character, his manner, out-there, gay, camp style, expressions, demeanour, manner? Dressing up? The wide range and flamboyance of his costumes? Make up?

7. At home, his father’s presence, absence, puzzle? Florence, devotion to the family, interactions with Billy, helping him, critical, supporting him? The visit of Billy’s mother, the clash with Florence? Barbs? Billy delighted for his mother to visit, her story, his disappointment, the fact that she came to get money from her husband?

8. At school, the reaction to Billy, mockery, touches of bullying? The range of characters at school? Mary Jane and her support, his calling her Blah-Blah?, her conversations, devotion? The contrast with Lynette and her devotees, spurning Billy? In the classroom? With the principal? In the gym, John Mc Enroe is the coach? The climbing exercise, the sexual repercussions, the coach handling the situation?

9. Flip, his befriending Billy, the footballer, the potential jock, the bonding with Billie, the conversations, shared experiences, flip wanting to be an artist, his sketch of Billy? Billy and his carry on, provoking people, flip and his attack on Billy, his being ashamed? Flip injured, not being a sports representative, coming back to Billy, flip sense of freedom, talking with Billy? A future?

10. Billy deciding that he wanted to be prom Queen, the announcement, the flamboyance, the coaching, performance, the elaborate floats and campaign, popular support? The advice to go to the ordinary students, there are identifying with him? Mary Jane and her campaign management?

11. The presentation of candidates, Lynette and her razzmatazz, Billy dressed plainly, speaking plainly, identity? The TV interview and style? Lynette’s poor interview?

12. Sports match, the principal, flip and his injury?

13. The announcing of the vote, Billy and his expectations, the net winning, the repercussions for Billy? Mary Jane, flip?

14. The previous confrontation between Billy and his father, his father reaching out, Florence urging him on, his presence of the vote, reconciled with his son?

15. An offbeat story with a flamboyant style?

INCITEMENT
Israel, 2019, 125 minutes, Colour.
Yehuda Nahari, Amitay Yaish Ben Ousilio, Anat Ravnitzki, Yoavl Levi, Daniella Kersetsz, Sivan Mast.
Directed by Yaron Zilberman.

Incitement was an Israeli nominee for consideration for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. It deserves the nomination as well as awards that it won in Israel.

This is an important film for an Israeli audience, and important for a worldwide audience who is interested in the history of Israel, the 1990s peace talks in Oslo, dialogue with the Palestinians, the role of Prime Minister Rabin and of the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat. It is significant about the mainstream of Israeli thinking, conservative attitudes and animosity towards the Palestinians, the building spread of the settlements, compared with more “secular� Israelis and Jews around the world who are open to negotiations, to a two state country. But, it is also illuminating in its dramatising of the attitudes of extremists in Israel, especially amongst Orthodox Jews.

To that extent, while it does give some background to characters and events, the impact of the film depends on audience knowledge of the events and the atmosphere around them. For those who know the film will end in assassination, this is an opportunity to try to understand why. For those who do not know about Rabin’s assassination, it will be is a very strong suspense story.

And, for a film of 2019, it looks back on the presence of Benjamin Netanyahu, his criticisms of the peace talks, his coming to power after the death of Rabin, his constant presence for almost 25 years in leadership in Israel, his friendship with the United States, especially in the Trump era, the development of settlements, animosity towards Iran but peace deals with Arab countries.

The film is actually a portrait of Yigal Amir, the man who shot Rabin. We see him as a 24-year-old, from an Orthodox family, his father a student of Torah but interested in negotiations, his mother a rather dominating woman, fostering her son’s ambitions, with animosity towards Palestinians. He is at the University studying law. He has a romantic attachment to a young woman who finds him to overpowering.

He is against any dialogue with the Palestinians, going to sit at the feet of a number of rabbis and hearing their opinions, especially their interpretations of Torah and of philosopher from the Middle Ages, Moses Maimonaides, and the singling out in the literature of Informants and Pursuers, who are to be condemned, a legitimate use of violence against them. Rabin is designated as an Informant, and Pursuer.

The film shows Yigal Amir, his brother and friends, getting a stash of weapons from an old friend in the military, target practice, going to demonstrations and protests. His attitudes become firmly ingrained, willing to debate them, giving speeches, testing out the responses of rabbis.

The film shows his religious fervour, his ingrained political beliefs with theological background, his looking for cues to encourage him in his violent mission. And he does, tracking down Rabin, waiting for him, chatting to security, then emerging and shooting him.

The film and leaves the audience to consider the issues, the political and regional and religious situations in Israel, the impact of fanaticism.

1. The title? In the Israeli context? The 1990s? Subsequent history?

2. Audience knowledge of the characters and events? The 1990s, peace talks, slow decisions, President Clinton? Rabin and Yasser Arafat? Orthodox Jews, hostility towards Palestine, peace talks?

3. The Orthodox Jews, life in Israel, homes, universities, meetings, Torah studies? The role of the rabbis? Interpretation Torah, of Moses my mid-90s? The issue of Informants? Pursuers? To be condemned as traitors? The legitimacy of violence?

4. The portrait of Yigal Amir? A convincing performance? Age, studying at the University, background, prospects, intelligent, religious studies, Orthodox? His place in his family, his father and the Torah, open to negotiations and peace? His strong mother, fostering her son’s ambitions? Anti- Palestine? Anti-Rabin? His sister, his friend wanting to marry her, her independence? The wider family and visits?

5. The insertion of actual footage of Oslo, the peace talks, those responsible, Washington, the Accord? Rabin and his speeches? The footage of Rabin at the site of the massacre? The insertion of footage of the assassination?

6. Yigal, his behaviour, his thinking, discussions, his brother, friends? The rallies against Rabin and their violence? The young people in rebellion? The response of the police?

7. Yigal, ideas, listening to the rabbis, his giving speeches, his friend in the military, getting the weapons, training? Becoming ever more militant?
Nava, the attraction, the discussions, meeting her family, the interrogation by her grandmother, Yigal’s response? The discussions with Nava, proposal, her walking away? Her marrying his friend?

8. Meeting Margalit? Her support, her rabbi relative? Yigal and his rabble rousing speech, looking at the reaction of the rabbi?

9. Yigal and his decision, taking off his religious shirt, the T-shirt, the weapons, mingling, talking with the police, standing by the van? Rabin coming down, Yigal shooting him?

10. The response to the film in Israel? Awards? Oscar nomination? The response of Jews around the world? The response of the Orthodox? A film trying to understand the mentality of the Orthodox in the 1990s, leading to assassination? And Benjamin Netanyahu in the forefront, his speeches, his attitude towards Palestinians, the peace talks, his election and his continued presence in leadership in Israel?