THE POWER OF THE WHISTLER

US, 1945, 66 minutes, Black-and-white.
Richard Dix, Janis Carter, Jeff Donnell, Loren Tindall, Tala Birrell, John Abbott.
Directed by Lew Landers.


A series of eight films began in 1944, small supporting features at Columbia. Four of the films were directed by William Castle who, during the 1950s, directed small budget action adventures like Slaves of Babylon, Saracen Blade. From 1958 to 1968 he made a number of exploitative horror films with all kinds of gimmicks to scare audiences, House on Haunted Hill, I Saw What you Did. He also produced Rosemary’s Baby.

• The Whistler - 1944, directed by William Castle
• The Mark of the Whistler - 1944, directed by William Castle
• The Power of the Whistler – 1945, directed by Lew Landers
• Voice of the Whistler – 1945, directed by William Castle
• Mysterious Intruder – 1946, directed by William Castle
• The Secret of the Whistler – 1946, directed by George Sherman
• The Thirteenth Hour – 1947, directed by William Clemens
• The Return of the Whistler – 1948, directed by D. Ross Lederman


As with the radio program, the films are introduced by a shadowy figure walking across the screen, with his signature whistling, which sometimes recurs throughout the film is. He begins to speak, is a narrator of stories about crime, sometimes intervening with narration during the action of the films.

The star of seven of the eight of the films was Richard Dix who had begun his silent film career in 1917, was a popular star for the next 30 years, appearing in the 1931 Academy Award winning Cimarron.

The interesting point about Richard Dix’s presence is that he portrayed a different character in each film. Most of the characters are not entirely sympathetic, ambiguous in their moral attitudes, sometimes swinging between the law and working outside the law.

This is the third in the series. It is one of the best of the series, directed by veteran of many genres in small budget films, Lew Landers.

Once again, Richard Dix plays a different character from his performances in the other films. The Whistler tells us that he is on a strange mission – but, he suffers an accident in the street, hit by a car, and suffers some amnesia. At the same time, Jean, Janis Carter (who was to appear in another Whistler film), is with her sister and her fiance and looks at fortune-telling from the cards, the ace of spades and the two of clubs coming up twice concerning the mysterious stranger. She decides to help him.

They examine things in his pockets which lead them to in interview with a Broadway star who denies knowing him though roses were sent to her by him. He stays the night at her apartment with her sister, Jeff Donnell, who has been very wary. However, he is perfectly charming and Jean refers to him as George. They plan to spend the day tracking down clues, dividing them between Jean and her sister.

This leads to a buildup of all kinds of clues, a mysterious prescription though the address is actually a bookshop where the mysterious man had visited the week before, examining a book about poison by an author, who had written a prescription allegedly, but who had been dead for 50 years. While Jean is in the shop, George minds a cat for a little girl but it dies – as does the bird in the apartment and later a squirrel in the park.

The sister has more success, following through an order for birthday cake and finding where it is to be sent.

The twist in the plot is that George has escaped from a mental institution, pretending to be on the rebound, but intending to murder the judge who consigned him to the institution. The cake is for the warden of the institution – and there are some tense moments where his wife and son are about to eat some of the cake.

The sister goes to the police, giving all the evidence, eventually persuading the police to follow through, contacting local police to protect the warden and the judge. In the meantime, George tells Jean that he has recovered some of his memory, is going to travel to Woodville. He also declares that he has fallen in love with her.

The final moments include Jean realising her danger, escaping through the woods, George pursuing her, trying to woo her and her killing him.

Dix, once again, portrays a very different character from the other Whistler films.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE

US, 2018, 110 minutes, Colour.
J.Michael Finley, Dennis Quaid, Brody Rose, Trace Adkins, Taegen Burns, Madeleine Carroll, Nicole Du Port, Tanya Clarke.
Directed by Andrew Erwin, Jon Erwin.

In the United States, I Can Only Imagine went immediately into the box office Top 10 and, in its second week, was number three, after Pacific Rim and Black Panther. The audience which responded are the numerous Christian audiences, especially in the more evangelical communities and congregations.

To see the film in Australia, one has to search out cinemas in the so-called Bible areas of our cities.

This is a faith-based film, based on the story of the song, triple platinum in the US, the most popular religious song of recent decades, I Can Only Imagine. At the opening of the film, the composer of lyrics and music, Bart Mallard, is being interviewed by the popular singer, Amy Grant. He tells her that it took only 10 minutes to write the lyrics and to compose the music. Her response is that he did not create it so rapidly but the song is the result of a lifetime.

And so it is.

The film goes back to Bart has a 10-year-old, in 1985. He comes from Texas, lives with his mother and father, his father a violent and sometimes brutal man, his mother a victim of this brutality. Bart develops a hatred for his father, especially when his mother walks out on her family after taking Bart to a Baptist camp where he meets friends, is encouraged to journal, has religious experiences – and he writes “the best week of my life�.

Bart’s father is played by Dennis Quaid, giving a strength of performance to the film. The young Bart is played by Brody Rose. The older Bart is played by J. Michael Stickley in his first film. As we hear him sing, especially when he is persuaded by a teacher, very much against his intentions, to play Curly in Oklahoma and he sings ‘Oh, what a beautiful morning’, we hear a very fine singing voice. (And learn that Michael Stickley has appeared in many Broadway productions.)

When Bart escapes from his father and from the town, he works as a technician which leads him to contact with an aspiring band who are lamenting that they have no singer. And, when Bart joins them as the singer, they begin to have great success, travelling around Texas, drawing youth audiences, responding to the ‘secular’ style of the performance but also to the tone of religious lyrics.

As is often the case in these stories about music, the connection is with Nashville, to an agent (Tracy Adkins rough and ponytailed) who is taken by the performance and organises concerts – but record company representatives feel that Bart is not good enough and the suggestion is that he go deeply into himself and discover what emerges.

This requires him to go back home, leave the band for a time, meet up with his father again and, disbelieving, finds that his father has discovered God. The challenge is for him to forgive his father – something which he had written in his camp journal when he was little. And, so a transformation begins, in Bart, in his father. And, always in the background is the young girl that he always cared for, Shannon (Madeleine Carroll) who goes to college rather than joining him on the road.

And, forced back into himself, and religiously inspired, Bart writes his significant song. The agents are impressed, they contact Amy Grant who is prepared to launch the song but, with Bart in the audience, she invites him up to sing – and, it would seem, he has never looked back after the success of the song and testimonies to its inspiration in people’s lives, marrying Shannon, reunited with his mother, rejoining his band, Mercy Me, 21 hits – and his performing at a White House Breakfast in 2017.

Critics are wary of the word “inspirational� in descriptions of films because they think/fear that this actually means “manipulative�. But there are many audiences who respond to the inspirational, who want to be moved, and find Bart Mallard’s story does this for them quite powerfully. Because the American evangelical tradition is quite extrovert, more introverted individuals and more introverted religious communities might find it a bit much even while they admire what it is doing.

1. The title? The song? Music, creative, religious?

2. The impact of the film as faith-based? The target audience? American Christians? The Baptist background? Texas?

3. The title, Bart Mallard and his song? His life, reputation, success, faith?

4. The American musical background, the secular music, traditions and rock, blues and country? Nashville? The home of producers, record companies, this settings for concerts? The impact for the United States? The world?

5. A hard American story? Dysfunctional family, brutal father, victim mother, victim son? Abuse and violence, beatings? The mother abandoning her family? Brutal father as a single parent? Issues of dreams and reality? The father and his emphasis on reality, destroying dreams? The child absorbing this? Hatred for his father? Ultimate escape? Success but the deep wounds? Discovering love and forgiveness? Going deeply into the experience? Producing a song from this experience, authenticity?

6. Bart’s telling his story, the presence of Amy Grant, her career and reputation? The effect? His delight in first meeting her?

7. Bart, as a boy, hard work, for his grandmother, her payment, going to the store, music? His imagination, creative? Love for his mother, her hard life? Her taking him to the camp, the disappearance? Later trying to contact her, his father taking him back? His father’s brutality? Playing football, the years with his father, the physical and psychological damage?

8. The experience of the camp, meeting Shannon, his other friends there, keeping the journal, loving and sharing, the pastor, the singing, on the radio?

9. Playing football, the accident, hospital, never playing again? At school, the clubs, Shannon himself, going to the Glee Club? In the wheelchair? The sardonic teacher? Becoming the assistant technical help? The teacher hearing him sing? Refusing to be in Oklahoma? His performance on stage, the acclaim, the photo in the paper?

10. Leaving home, on his bike, going to the boss, Shannon not responding to Bart’s invitation?

11. Meeting the band, Oklahoma, six months later, technician, becoming the singer? The collage of the concerts?

12. The decision to go home, the first visit and his father smashing the plate on him? The second visit and his father and change, but not believing it, his angers, finding it impossible to forgive his father? Finding his journal, the statements when he was a boy, the happiness of the camp, wanting to forgive his father? The memories, God in his father’s life, transformation, his father reading the Bible, questions about Leviticus? His father’s illness, working with his father, present at his death? The impact of the funeral?

13. The consequence, writing the song? The group waiting for him? His agent listening to it, making the contact, offering it to Amy Grant? The interview, the preparation for the concert, her preparing to sing?

14. Bart at the concert, Amy Grant calling him to the stage, his singing, the reaction? The enormous success, the impact of the spiritual message?

15. The aftermath, marrying Shannon? Bonding again with his mother? Mercy Me and the range of hits? Singing at the White House at the Breakfast?

16. The impact for religious audiences? Non-religious audiences?

KANGAROO: A LOVE-HATE STORY

Australia, 2018, 100 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kate Mc Intyre Clere, Michael Mc Intyre.

For audiences who want to see close-ups of kangaroos, front on, profiles, individuals hopping, groups hopping, mothers with Joeys in their pouch, this film offers many opportunities.

But, a warning, this is a very strong documentary about kangaroos and their treatment in Australia, especially the hunting down of kangaroos, their being seen as “pests and plague� and their being culled, shot, not always immediately killed, and some brutal bashings.

As can be seen by the title, this is not only a partisan documentary about the kangaroo situation in Australia but it is quite militant. The directors have spent a great deal of time travelling around Australia, photographing the kangaroos, getting photos of night culls, and interviewing a great number of people.

There is great deal of reflection on the symbolism of the kangaroo and the new and the ironic comments that these two symbols, on our coins, notes, symbolically above the new Parliament house, have a history of being eliminated. Some of the Americans interviewed the film cannot understand this, offering the opinion that kangaroos a great tourist draw. And, probably for many city Australians this is true as well.

The film also traces the history of the use of kangaroo as meat, for pet food in past decades, then to using restaurants, the issues are exporting kangaroo meat and some of the bands that have occurred, for instance in Russia and in California (and subsequent Australian lobbying in both territories). It also traces the history of the use of kangaroo hides and kangaroo leather, with some testimony by David Beckham about football boots and English and other teams choose to the use of this leather in their countries.

So, there are a lot of visuals which are particularly disturbing – especially taken by a couple in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales where they had set up a free zone farm but are bordered by farmers who eliminate the kangaroos. And some of this testimony film has been presented to governments, especially New South Wales – with regretful comments that enquiries have been closed down. Significant in the film is the Upper House politician, Mark Pearson, staunch supporter of animal rights.

The talking heads in the film are not completely partisan. There are a number of farmers who give their views, indicate the destruction of grazing country by the kangaroos, seeing them as a pest to be eliminated in the area. There are also parliamentarians who speak about farmers rights as well and is emphasising the importance for kangaroo meat and trade connections.

The directors have lined up a significant group of talking heads to alert the audience about the role of kangaroos, the value of the statistics/or not about their being pest and plague, on conservation, preservation. They include Tim Flannery, strong spokesman on the environment. There is also Peter Singer noted for his comments on animal welfare. There is Terry Irwin speaking about zoos. There is a character from outside Alice Springs who calls himself Kangaroo Dundee who does tourist tours for kangaroo-seekers. Other speakers include politicians as well as tax expert, Kevin Henry.

So, the love-hate of the title is well to the fore in the film.

Documentaries like this, while they promote a cause, can foster conversations, changes of mind and attitude, appeals to the public, possible political changes and economic changes.

Not always easy to sit through, but a significantly provocative documentary, especially for Australian audiences.


1. The impact of the documentary? Partisan, militant? The truth? Convincing? Doubts?

2. The Australian perspective, criticism, stances? The kangaroo industries? The role of the farmers, the shooters? The contrast with animal protesters, political interventions, humane behaviour?

3. The history of kangaroos in Australia, long on the continent, the aboriginal testimonies, the song lines? White settlement, grazing and felling of trees, the proliferation of cattle, the proliferation of kangaroos, the accusations of plague and pest, the culling? The nature of the slaughter, the traditions of bashing the animals, shooting, regulations for shots in the head, shooters missing the heads? Audience memories of Wake in Fright? The nature of the arguments?

4. The kangaroo and the emu, Australian symbols, coins, notes, at the top of Parliament House? And the elimination of the emus and kangaroos?

5. The range of talking heads, Mark Pearson, his campaign, election to the New South Wales Upper House, his campaigns and activities? Peter Singer? Tim Flannery? Terri Irwin, Lee Rhiannon, Kevin Henry, the Australian academics, the American academic, the professor from Tel Aviv, the Dutch testimonies? The Senators from the National Party? The farmer from Queensland and his explanations of his attitudes? The couple in the Blue Mountains, the photographing attacks, reports to Parliament? The former shooter and her testimony?

6. The visuals, the night shoots, culling, the brutality of the deaths? Injuries, limping kangaroos, dead joeys? The carcasses, the bones?

7. Four Corners in 1969-70 and the reports?

8. Kangaroo food, for pets, humans? Leather? The sporting goods companies? David Beckham and his protest? The issues of the California ban, Australian firms and government lobbying California, the various politicians as talking heads? UK protests? Russian ban, the tests, salmonella? The politics, the National Party and their stances, Barnaby Joyce, Kim Beazley and lobbying?

9. New South Wales, the election, Pearson, his office, speeches, research, his campaigns, going to Russia? The couple from the Blue Mountains, their evidence and its examination? The promise of investigations, the shutting down of enquiries?

10. The range of animal welfare personnel, their concern?

11. Statistics, models, corrections – and the embarrassment of the man trying to explain the statistics for the kangaroo population?

12. Kangaroo Dundee, Alice Springs, his park, the tourists, his being a guide? Terri Irwin, her background with Steve Irwin? Her views, the Zoo, tourism?

13. Documentaries and campaigning, against whaling, The Cove, against Sea World and other parks, Blackfish, the effect on public opinion? Political action? Industry action?

STEP BY STEP

US, 1946, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
Lawrence Tierney, Anne Jeffries, Lowell Gilmore, Myrna Dell, Harry Harvey, Addison Richards, George Cleveland.
Directed by Phil Rosen.

This is an enjoyable entertainment, just over an hour, produced by RKO with some quality, a spy drama at the end of World War II.

Lawrence Tierney, usually a villain, is a sympathetic hero this time, a Marine just returned from the war, encountering a woman swimming on the Malibu coastline, caught up in a mystery of her disappearance. She is secretary to a Senator, pretending to have experience because she needs a job. The Senator is involved in gathering information about the post war German fifth column in the United States. His contact has a list but finds he is being bugged so puts the list in his jacket.

When the Marine is locked out of his car, with his scene dog, Bazooka, he goes back to the house only to find it taken over by the Germans. It all becomes very complicated, especially as he is wearing only bathing trunks, when he is confronted by the leader of the criminals posing as the butler.

There are quite a lot of chases, after the Marine rescues the secretary and discovers that the Senator has been knocked out and is ill. This assumption is made that he and the secretary are collaborators and that they are the criminals. In the meantime, the criminals themselves try to make an escape but cannot find the list of German spies.

Both groups finish up at a motel run by a very genial old sea captain, played by George Cleveland in a very engaging way – who resists any temptation for a reward and helps the young couple, even in the chase where the car ends up in the sea.

Dangers galore. The Germans capture the couple and are about to put them in a leaky boat so it will be assumed that they died in the car crash into the sea.

However, honourably, the Marine had been dictating an explanation for the police and it is left behind only for the police to find it, verify everything and arrive just the right moment.

The couple had been posing as a eloping couple so what better ending than a wedding!

The film is directed by Phil Rosen, a veteran of this kind of entertaining short supporting feature.

THEY MADE ME A KILLER

US, 1946, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
Robert Lowery, Barbara Britton, Lola Lane, Frank Albertson, Elizabeth Risdon, Paul Harvey.
Directed by William C.Thomas.

While the title is sensational, the film is rather lower key. Not that it does not have some action and some fights.

A young man, upset at the death of his brother, decides to move west, giving up a good job as a motor mechanic, skilled at reconstructing cars. On his way, he decides to sell his car and is approached by a young woman who is impressed by it. She says it is to be a birthday present from her fiance – who arrives but asks them to wait, even though the police want to move them on from this parking area. We realise that a bank robbery is probably in process and he will be the getaway driver, unwittingly. Also involved is a young man who is rather infatuated with the woman.

The bank is robbed, lots of shots are fired, a policeman is killed, as is the young bystanding man. The hero is forced to drive, pursued by the police, getting away but crashing, knocking him out and the criminals getting away.

The sister of the injured young man is also concerned. The hero is arrested, no one believing him. He makes an escape, disguises himself as an intern at the hospital, encounters the young woman and is able to persuade her to help him track down the criminals.

They find some clues which indicate that the woman worked in a diner. They visit the various diners and eventually find the right one where the criminals are hiding out under the protection of the initially meek-sounding owner but who is as brassy as her daughter. Surprisingly, she is played by veteran actress, Elizabeth Risdon.

There are lots of fights, complications, two genial policeman who frequent the diner, lots of fights and the defeat of the criminals – and happy matrimonial ending.

THE WHISTLER

US, 1944, 60 minutes, Black-and-white.
Richard Dix, J. Carroll Naish, Gloria Stuart.
Directed by William Castle.

The Whistler was originally a radio program on CBS, from 1942 to 1955.

A series of eight films began in 1944, small supporting features at Columbia. Four of the films were directed by William Castle who, during the 1950s, directed small budget action adventures like Slaves of Babylon, Saracen Blade. From 1958 to 1968 he made a number of exploitative horror films with all kinds of gimmicks to scare audiences, House on Haunted Hill, I Saw What you Did. He also produced Rosemary’s Baby.

• The Whistler - 1944, directed by William Castle
• The Mark of the Whistler - 1944, directed by William Castle
• The Power of the Whistler – 1945, directed by Lew Landers
• Voice of the Whistler – 1945, directed by William Castle
• Mysterious Intruder – 1946, directed by William Castle
• The Secret of the Whistler – 1946, directed by George Sherman
• The Thirteenth Hour – 1947, directed by William Clemens
• The Return of the Whistler – 1948, directed by D. Ross Lederman


As with the radio program, the films are introduced by a shadowy figure walking across the screen, with his signature whistling, which sometimes recurs throughout the film is. He begins to speak, is a narrator of stories about crime, sometimes intervening with narration during the action of the films.

The star of seven of the eight of the films was Richard Dix who had begun his silent film career in 1917, was a popular star for the next 30 years, appearing in the 1931 Academy Award winning Cimarron.

The interesting point about Richard Dix’s presence is that he portrayed a different character in each film. Most of the characters are not entirely sympathetic, ambiguous in their moral attitudes, sometimes swinging between the law and working outside the law.


As with the radio program, the films are introduced by a shadowy figure walking across the screen, with his signature whistling, which sometimes recurs throughout the film is. He begins to speak, is a narrator of stories about crime, sometimes intervening with narration during the action of the films.

The star of seven of the eight of the films was Richard Dix who had begun his silent film career in 1917, was a popular star for the next 30 years, appearing in the 1931 Academy Award winning Cimarron.

The interesting point about Richard Dix’s presence is that he portrayed a different character in each film. Most of the characters are not entirely sympathetic, ambiguous in their moral attitudes, sometimes swinging between the law and working outside the law.

In the original film, Dix portrays a man who goes to a bar near the waterfront, contacts a man who has connections with the underworld and pays for a hit on himself. It emerges that he was unkind to his wife, that she was captured by the Japanese and imprisoned by them – although later telegram comes to say that she has been freed.

His character is erratic in coming to the office, helped by his secretary, played by Gloria Stuart who had a long career and who, half a century later or more, appeared in Titanic. There are quite a number of interesting characters in small roles, a sympathetic bartender, the deaf mute who delivers messages to the killer, the killer himself, played by J. Carroll Naish, who intends to do the contract even when he hears that the man himself does not want to be killed. There are complications as he follows his target and actually shoot another man in a factory, pursued by the law, conversations with a wealthy friend who encourages him, a final confrontation with his target.

The plot is complicated when the agent for arranging the killing is soon shot by police, he being a killer himself.

Dix’s character undergoes all kinds of trauma, sympathy from his secretary, concerns about him from his business partner, concerns about his wife, his desperate efforts to stop the contract on himself, a car trip with the wife of the agent – and his escape from a crash, amnesia, going to the port, trying to carry goods onto a ship for Red Cross relief – and then rescued and discovering the truth that his wife has died in the camp, and about himself.

MYSTERIOUS INTRUDER

US, 1946, 61 minutes, Black-and-white.

Richard Dix, Barton Mac Lane, Nina Vale, Regis Toomey, Helen Mowery, Mike Mazurki, Pamela Blake, Charles Lane, Paul E. Burns, Kathleen Howard.
Directed by William Castle.

The Whistler was originally a radio program on CBS, from 1942 to 1955.

A series of eight films began in 1944, small supporting features at Columbia. Four of the films were directed by William Castle who, during the 1950s, directed small budget action adventures like Slaves of Babylon, Saracen Blade. From 1958 to 1968 he made a number of exploitative horror films with all kinds of gimmicks to scare audiences, House on Haunted Hill, I Saw What you Did. He also produced Rosemary’s Baby.

• The Whistler - 1944, directed by William Castle
• The Mark of the Whistler - 1944, directed by William Castle
• The Power of the Whistler – 1945, directed by Lew Landers
• Voice of the Whistler – 1945, directed by William Castle
• Mysterious Intruder – 1946, directed by William Castle
• The Secret of the Whistler – 1946, directed by George Sherman
• The Thirteenth Hour – 1947, directed by William Clemens
• The Return of the Whistler – 1948, directed by D. Ross Lederman


As with the radio program, the films are introduced by a shadowy figure walking across the screen, with his signature whistling, which sometimes recurs throughout the film is. He begins to speak, is a narrator of stories about crime, sometimes intervening with narration during the action of the films.

The star of seven of the eight of the films was Richard Dix who had begun his silent film career in 1917, was a popular star for the next 30 years, appearing in the 1931 Academy Award winning Cimarron.

The interesting point about Richard Dix’s presence is that he portrayed a different character in each film. Most of the characters are not entirely sympathetic, ambiguous in their moral attitudes, sometimes swinging between the law and working outside the law.

The fifth film in the Whistler series. It was directed by William Castle who directed three others.

This time Richard Dix is a private detective, on the shady side, with The Whistler making comments on his moral stances throughout the film. He takes on a case with an elderly gentleman who is trying to track down a young woman whom he knew in the past. He has something from her mother, cylinder records of singer Jenny Lind from the late 19th century.

As with the other films, there are quite a number of interesting brief cameos for a range of characters. The private detective has a very disapproving secretary. He also hires a young woman to impersonate the woman being searched for – who is convincing for the moment, is apprehended by a criminal, Mike Mazurki, who abducts her but lets her go when he is she is not the genuine woman. He has murdered the old man who is commissioned the search.

The real young woman is found in a sanatorium having been involved in a car accident. She approaches the detective, is suspicious of him, but he puts her in charge of a formidable woman until he tracks down the recordings. In the meantime, the fictitious stand-in is also murdered with the private detective under suspicion. Her landlord, rather prim, has discovered her body.

The police are in pursuit, led by Barton Mac Lane, the detective tracks down a friend of the murdered man – and then he is murdered – and discovers that the landlord and an associate are responsible for the crimes. There is a shootout with him – but he does not realise the police are close by and there is another shootout in which he is killed – with the irony that the bullet has gone through the box with the recordings in them and destroyed them!

On to the next Whistler film.

SIGNIS STATEMENT

March 24th, 2018


PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST

US, 2018, 107 minutes, Colour.
James Faulkner, Jim Caviezel, Olivier Martinez, John Lynch, Joanne Whalley.
Directed by Andrew Hyatt.

This biblical film was released in the same month as Garth Davis’ Mary Magdalene with Rooney Mara as Mary and Joaquin Phoenix has Jesus.

Mary Magdalene was produced by a production company that was not overtly religious. Paul, Apostle of Christ, by contrast was produced by a company for faith-based films, Affirm. The screenplay, which has strong elements of realism in its presentation of Rome, is also quite devout in its presentation of its central characters in the early Christian community, their way of speaking, their faith, their outreach to the persecuted, their mutual support. Many audiences may find this too devout for their taste

THE FILM

This story of Paul has been made for specifically Christian audiences, the whole range of denominations. Its appeal to non-Christian audiences will be in its depiction of ancient Rome in the mid-60s, the aftermath of the fire, the rule of Nero, his persecution of Christians, their being burned as human torches in the Roman streets, their being sent into the arena to be killed by wild beasts. In this, the film is successful, providing a rather vivid picture of the times, Roman rule and oppression, the small Christian community, persecutions.

The Christian audience will also be interested in this depiction of Paul in his later years, a prisoner in the Mammertine prison, oppressed in his cell and flogged, given some reprieve at the end, though finally, with great dignity and decorum, beheaded. The other central character of the film is a Luke, having written his gospel, visiting Rome to see his friend, Paul, and to continue writing of Paul’s mission, ultimately, The Acts of the Apostles.

As a biblical film for a faith audience, there is much to commend in its depiction of the times – and it does incorporate into the screenplay a number of gospel texts and, especially, quotations from Paul and his epistles - with the interlude in the prison writing and listening to Paul’s memoirs and dictation.

A classification caution – very early in the film there are scenes of the Christians being mounted on poles in the Roman streets and being set alight and burning. Later, more by suggestion than actual scenes, the martyrdoms in the amphitheatres have gruesome overtones. Which means that the film, which might have been helpful for children and learning more about Paul and Christian history, has a more serious adult rating.

(There have been some television films featuring Paul, especially the 1980 Peter and Paul with Anthony Hopkins as Paul and Robert Foxworth as Peter.)


SOME COMMENTARY ON THE FILM AND ITS THEMES.

• The film presupposes a great deal about the life of Jesus, his gospel message, as well as the mission of the early apostles and disciples – though there are some scenes of Paul as Saul, persecuting the Christians, especially a re-enactment of Stephen’s martyrdom, with Paul’s subsequent conversion, his retiring to Arabia for several years to absorb the gospel message.

• The film also presupposes some knowledge of Paul and his mission, his journeys, the various communities which received his letters, their message and their tone.

• Two of the central characters in Rome, featured strongly during the film, are the tentmakers Aquila and Priscilla, the tentmakers from Ephesus who are referred to in Acts, 18 with whom Paul worked and lived, and who began to preach, then journeying with Paul. (There are explicit greetings to them in Romans 16, one Corinthians 16, 2 Timothy 4.) A reading of this chapter of Acts and the chapters around it would provide helpful background to appreciating the film, its characters, conversions and persecutions.

• Paul is presented as something of an elder statesman. James Faulkner’s portrayal of him as an old man is of a very dignified, serious disciple of Christ, reflecting on his mission, reflecting on his death, welcoming Luke, conversing with him. In some ways the performance presents Paul more as an icon, quoting the Scriptures and his letters, rather than as a developed character. It is up to the audience to supply, from their knowledge of Paul, the strengths, emotions, of his character.

• The film ends with a lengthy quotation from 2 Timothy (which scholars say was not written by Paul himself but is used as part of the screenplay, the summing up of Paul’s perspective on his life and mission, as written by him).

• While there is some mention of Peter and other disciples, these references are minimal, perhaps surprising because of the possibilities of Peter’s presence in Rome at this period.

• With audience aware of his playing Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, Jim, Caviezel (with American intonation is in contrast with James Faulkner, British, Joanna Whaley as Priscilla, British, John Lynch as Aquila, Irish, Olivier Martinez as Mauritius, French- accented English and a selection of European actors) is a centre of audience attention. He portrays Luke with some dignity, seeming sinister at first sight because he is hooded and trying to avoid the Roman authorities. He makes contact with the early Christian community, witnesses their way of life, makes contact with Paul, converses seriously with him.

• Luke features with a fictitious character, Mauritius, played by Olivier Martinez. He is a Roman soldier, in charge of the prison, very loyal to the Emperor, initially seen as firm on rules and regulations. However, the wife whom he loves is very concerned at home about the serious illness of their daughter. Finally, Mauritius will appeal to Luke who has been functioning also as a doctor amongst the community, to come to his daughter, diagnose what is wrong with her, heal her. Which Luke does, Mauritius then is able to give some leeway to Luke, Paul and some freedom to walk in the gardens, and to the Christians.

• The presentation of the Roman soldiers is mixed, some inhumane and authoritarian, some with the more human touch and sympathy, enabling Luke at times to move around more freely, though there is always the possibility of betrayal and enunciation to the authorities.

• With the burning of Rome and the persecutions, the small Christian community is rather close-knit, some migrants from Asia settling in Rome, like Aquila and Priscilla, others local converts – especially a young man who volunteers to communicate outside the Christian community but is set upon violently and killed.

• The film raises the dilemma for the Christians as to whether they should stay in Rome (again no reference to Peter and his leadership). Aquila and others are keen to move back to Asia. Priscilla states that she has come to love Rome and the Romans and feels that she should stay, especially with the persecutions and the deaths.

• There are some rebels, like the zealots of the gospel, who want to rise up against the Romans and overthrow them – especially, a young character, a Roman, called Cassius. However, they are defeated by the soldiers.

• Many of the Christians are rounded up and imprisoned, threatened with death in the arena, men, women and children. However, they are reminded that their horrible torture
and deaths will last only a few moments and then they will be free and with Christ. They are shown going into the arena in this spirit.

• In older decades, a lot of religious instruction was done through catechisms and, especially for some Catholic schools, Bible History stories as well as those of the early church, text and drawings for the students to imagine and memorise their Bible History. In some ways, this version of Paul, Luke, the early Christians and Rome is a cinema equivalent of this kind of Bible History instruction.

PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST

SHORT REVIEW

PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST

US, 2018, 107 minutes, Colour.
James Faulkner, Jim Caviezel, Olivier Martinez, John Lynch, Joanne Whalley.
Directed by Andrew Hyatt.

This biblical film was released in the same month as Garth Davis’ Mary Magdalene with Rooney Mara as Mary and Joaquin Phoenix as Jesus.

Mary Magdalene was produced by a production company that was not overtly religious. Paul, Apostle of Christ, by contrast was produced by a company for faith-based films, Affirm. The screenplay, which has strong elements of realism in its presentation of Rome, is also quite devout in its presentation of its central characters in the early Christian community, their way of speaking, their faith, their outreach to the persecuted, their mutual support. Many audiences may find this too devout for their taste

This story of Paul has been made for specifically Christian audiences, the whole range of denominations. Its appeal to non-Christian audiences will be in its depiction of ancient Rome in the mid-60s, the aftermath of the fire, the rule of Nero, his persecution of Christians, their being burned as human torches in the Roman streets, their being sent into the arena to be killed by wild beasts. In this, the film is successful, providing a rather vivid picture of the times, Roman rule and oppression, the small Christian community, persecutions.

The Christian audience will also be interested in this depiction of Paul (played by James Faulkner) in his later years, a prisoner in the Mammertine prison, oppressed in his cell and flogged, given some reprieve at the end, though finally, with great dignity and decorum, beheaded. The other central character of the film is Luke (Jim Caviezel), having written his gospel, visiting Rome to see his friend, Paul, and to continue writing of Paul’s mission, ultimately, The Acts of the Apostles.

As a biblical film for a faith audience, there is much to commend in its depiction of the times – and it does incorporate into the screenplay a number of gospel texts and, especially, quotations from Paul and his epistles - with the interlude in the prison writing and listening to Paul’s memoirs and dictation.

The film presupposes a great deal about the life of Jesus, his gospel message, as well as the mission of the early apostles and disciples – though there are some scenes of Paul as Saul, persecuting the Christians, especially a re-enactment of Stephen’s martyrdom, with Paul’s subsequent conversion, his retiring to Arabia for several years to absorb the gospel message.

The film also presupposes some knowledge of Paul and his mission, his journeys, the various communities which received his letters, their message and their tone.

A classification caution – very early in the film there are scenes of the Christians being mounted on poles in the Roman streets and being set alight and burning. Later, more by suggestion than actual scenes, the martyrdoms in the amphitheatres have gruesome overtones. Which means that the film, which might have been helpful for children and learning more about Paul and Christian history, has a more serious adult rating.

In older decades, a lot of religious instruction was done through catechisms and, especially for some Catholic schools, Bible History stories as well as those of the early church, text and drawings for the students to imagine and memorise their Bible History. In some ways, this version of Paul, Luke, the early Christians and Rome is a cinema equivalent of this kind of Bible History instruction.

(There have been some television films featuring Paul, especially the 1980 Peter and Paul with Anthony Hopkins as Paul and Robert Foxworth as Peter.)


LONGER REVIEW AND COMMENTARY

PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST

US, 2018, 107 minutes, Colour.
James Faulkner, Jim Caviezel, Olivier Martinez, John Lynch, Joanne Whalley.
Directed by Andrew Hyatt.

This biblical film was released in the same month as Garth Davis’ Mary Magdalene with Rooney Mara as Mary and Joaquin Phoenix has Jesus.

Mary Magdalene was produced by a production company that was not overtly religious. Paul, Apostle of Christ, by contrast was produced by a company for faith-based films, Affirm. The screenplay, which has strong elements of realism in its presentation of Rome, is also quite devout in its presentation of its central characters in the early Christian community, their way of speaking, their faith, their outreach to the persecuted, their mutual support. Many audiences may find this too devout for their taste

THE FILM

This story of Paul has been made for specifically Christian audiences, the whole range of denominations. Its appeal to non-Christian audiences will be in its depiction of ancient Rome in the mid-60s, the aftermath of the fire, the rule of Nero, his persecution of Christians, their being burned as human torches in the Roman streets, their being sent into the arena to be killed by wild beasts. In this, the film is successful, providing a rather vivid picture of the times, Roman rule and oppression, the small Christian community, persecutions.

The Christian audience will also be interested in this depiction of Paul in his later years, a prisoner in the Mammertine prison, oppressed in his cell and flogged, given some reprieve at the end, though finally, with great dignity and decorum, beheaded. The other central character of the film is a Luke, having written his gospel, visiting Rome to see his friend, Paul, and to continue writing of Paul’s mission, ultimately, The Acts of the Apostles.

As a biblical film for a faith audience, there is much to commend in its depiction of the times – and it does incorporate into the screenplay a number of gospel texts and, especially, quotations from Paul and his epistles - with the interlude in the prison writing and listening to Paul’s memoirs and dictation.

A classification caution – very early in the film there are scenes of the Christians being mounted on poles in the Roman streets and being set alight and burning. Later, more by suggestion than actual scenes, the martyrdoms in the amphitheatres have gruesome overtones. Which means that the film, which might have been helpful for children and learning more about Paul and Christian history, has a more serious adult rating.

(There have been some television films featuring Paul, especially the 1980 Peter and Paul with Anthony Hopkins as Paul and Robert Foxworth as Peter.)

SOME COMMENTARY ON THE FILM AND ITS THEMES.

• The film presupposes a great deal about the life of Jesus, his gospel message, as well as the mission of the early apostles and disciples – though there are some scenes of Paul as Saul, persecuting the Christians, especially a re-enactment of Stephen’s martyrdom, with Paul’s subsequent conversion, his retiring to Arabia for several years to absorb the gospel message.

• The film also presupposes some knowledge of Paul and his mission, his journeys, the various communities which received his letters, their message and their tone.

• Two of the central characters in Rome, featured strongly during the film, are the tentmakers Aquila and Priscilla, the tentmakers from Ephesus who are referred to in Acts, 18 with whom Paul worked and lived, and who began to preach, then journeying with Paul. (There are explicit greetings to them in Romans 16, one Corinthians 16, 2 Timothy 4.) A reading of this chapter of Acts and the chapters around it would provide helpful background to appreciating the film, its characters, conversions and persecutions.

• Paul is presented as something of an elder statesman. James Faulkner’s portrayal of him as an old man is of a very dignified, serious disciple of Christ, reflecting on his mission, reflecting on his death, welcoming Luke, conversing with him. In some ways the performance presents Paul more as an icon, quoting the Scriptures and his letters, rather than as a developed character. It is up to the audience to supply, from their knowledge of Paul, the strengths, emotions, of his character.

• The film ends with a lengthy quotation from 2 Timothy (which scholars say was not written by Paul himself but is used as part of the screenplay, the summing up of Paul’s perspective on his life and mission, as written by him).

• While there is some mention of Peter and other disciples, these references are minimal, perhaps surprising because of the possibilities of Peter’s presence in Rome at this period.

• With audience aware of his playing Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, Jim, Caviezel (with American intonation is in contrast with James Falukener, British, Joanna Whaley as Priscilla, British, John Lynch as Aquila, Irish, Olivier Martinez as Mauritius, French- accented English and a selection of European actors) is a centre of audience attention. He portrays Luke with some dignity, seeming sinister at first sight because he is hooded and trying to avoid the Roman authorities. He makes contact with the early Christian community, witnesses their way of life, makes contact with Paul, converses seriously with him.

• Luke features with a fictitious character, Mauritius, played by Olivier Martinez. He is a Roman soldier, in charge of the prison, very loyal to the Emperor, initially seen as firm on rules and regulations. However, the wife whom he loves is very concerned at home about the serious illness of their daughter. Finally, Mauritius will appeal to Luke who has been functioning also as a doctor amongst the community, to come to his daughter, diagnose what is wrong with her, heal her. Which Luke does, Mauritius then is able to give some leeway to Luke, Paul and some freedom to walk in the gardens, and to the Christians.

• The presentation of the Roman soldiers is mixed, some inhumane and authoritarian, some with the more human touch and sympathy, enabling Luke at times to move around more freely, though there is always the possibility of betrayal and enunciation to the authorities.

• With the burning of Rome and the persecutions, the small Christian community is rather close-knit, some migrants from Asia settling in Rome, like Aquila and Priscilla, others local converts – especially a young man who volunteers to communicate outside the Christian community but is set upon violently and killed.

• The film raises the dilemma for the Christians as to whether they should stay in Rome (again no reference to Peter and his leadership). Aquila and others are keen to move back to Asia. Priscilla states that she has come to love Rome and the Romans and feels that she should stay, especially with the persecutions and the deaths.

• There are some rebels, like the zealots of the gospel, who want to rise up against the Romans and overthrow them – especially, a young character, a Roman, called Cassius. However, they are defeated by the soldiers.

• Many of the Christians are rounded up and imprisoned, threatened with death in the arena, men, women and children. However, they are reminded that their horrible torture and deaths will last only a few moments and then they will be free and with Christ. They are shown going into the arena in this spirit.

• In older decades, a lot of religious instruction was done through catechisms and, especially for some Catholic schools, Bible History stories as well as those of the early church, text and drawings for the students to imagine and memorise their Bible History. In some ways, this version of Paul, Luke, the early Christians and Rome is a cinema equivalent of this kind of Bible History instruction.

ALL FOR ONE


Australia, 2017, 100 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Marcus Cobbledick, Dan Jones.


For cycling fans, this is a must-see documentary. For Australian cycling fans it is a must-must-see documentary. And, even for those who know practically nothing about cycling, there is an optimism and humanity underlying this story.

The fans will know Australian involvement in the main cycling events throughout the world – and the limited presence prior to the first decade of the 21st-century. However, a number of entrepreneurs who loved cycling, took the initiative, found the finance, to set up an Australian team, Greenedge Orica. And this is the story.

While the film has its quota of talking heads and commentary, there is a great deal of storytelling, enthusiastic promotion, and a focus on individual characters and their achievements.

The early part of the film shows the initial scouting for talent, training regimes, camps away from home, the varieties of expertise both physical and psychological. There is also a general bonding amongst the members of the team, quite a large group from whom star riders will be selected, others will be support and backup.

There is also mention of the main cycling events in Europe, starting with the Tour de France, the Spanish Tour, Italian rides focusing on Milan, and the Paris- Roubaix competition. There are many sequences throughout the film of all these events. There is the exhilaration of those in the lead. There is the crowding of riders at the start and their beginning to thin out. There is the endurance of the different terrains that have to be undergone. There are the technical difficulties. And, the film does not shy from the frightening crashes and the tumbling of so many riders onto the road.

The film’s screenplay also uses the chronology, with dates on the screen, from 2012 onwards, indicating the developments, some of the successes, a number of the disappointments, the camaraderie amongst the team.

Several individuals are singled out for consideration. The first is Simon Gerrans who had established himself as a rider and as a personality, especially with the Tour de France. He had great success, supported by wife and family. There is also the moving sequence where he could have continued wearing the leader’s colours but gave them to him his co-rider, Daryl Impey.

There is a focus on the two individuals. There is Matthew Heymann, older, successful but not as he would wish. There are also his injuries. The latter part of the film, that shows his almost super-human effort to overcome injuries and to compete in the Paris- Roubaix. The film shows various cyclists and managers listening to the commentary ultimately surprised and overjoyed with Heymann’s final success.

There is also the story of Esteban Chavez, a young cyclist from Colombia. He had suffered significant injuries which might have put him out of professional cycling for a long time, especially without the backup and finance of an organised team. There are several scenes of him at home and scenes of his parents, grateful to Orica for giving opportunities for their son.

He is a lively character on screen, youthful, learning English (and Australian expletives), glad to be part of the unit, training, singled out by the coach (who is very direct, abrupt, taking no prisoners) and finally being encouraged to ride. The film shows his successful ride, especially an extraordinary uphill sector and his overcoming his previous difficulties and winning.

Obviously, the story is still in progress – but the film offers an opportunity for a celebration of what could be achieved and what has been achieved.