REC 4: APOCALYPSE/ REC 4: APOCALIPSIS


Spain, 2014, 95 minutes, Colour.
Manuela Velasco, Paco Manzanedo, Hector Colome, Ismael Fritschi, Crispulo Cabezas.
Directed by Jaume Balaguero.

The Rec series was very popular, the first being hailed, the second being appreciated, the third not being appreciated. This finale to the series takes up the themes of the first film, the star journalist who went into the infected building and became involved in all the action – but here, having to be rescued, with the fear that she has been infected, the need for doctors to examine her, to determine whether she has a parasite and to try to prepare an antidote.

The first films used reportage, hand-held camera – this film is much more classically photographed, for the better.

While there are some scenes in the infected building, the medical explanation from the early films seems to be confirmed while the religious dimension, the intervention of the Vatican, the demonic possession, are referred to but not followed through.

Most of the action takes place on an isolated ship, the doctor and his team working secretly to investigate the virus and prepare an antidote. Needless to say, they fail and become victims. It turns out that the journalist is not infected but one of her rescuers, one of the military, is now the host – which brings a whole lot of final conflict, the death of many of the crew, the doctors, with only the journalist and friendly IT expert the survivors.

This film is directed by Jaume Balaguero, who directed the first two films.

1. The popularity of the original film (and American remake, Quarantine)? The sequels? The lack of support for the third film? Critical appreciation of this conclusion of the series?

2. The basic premise of the original film? The building and the quarantine? The role of the journalist and her being inside and experiencing everything? The police and the military and the other special forces? The victims, plague, becoming the living dead, infecting others, the need for rescue? The physical explanations in the first film? The introduction of the religious dimension, possession in the second film? This finale and return to the original premise? Some references to the religious dimension?

3. This film taking up the story of the journalist, her enterprise, in the first film, initiatives? In this film, rescued, the possible infection? On the ship?

4. The introduction of the two guards, the friendship, setting of the detonations, the need for the rescue, the escape? Transferred to the boat?

5. The previous film’s relying on reportage, hand-held camera? The photography more objective?

6. The setup on the boat, the mystery? The details of the ship, the cabins, the corridors, the laboratory, sealed off? The captain, the steering, the IT expert?

7. The isolation, the secrecy, the work against time? The experiments with the survivors? The journalist on board, seclusion? The old lady from the wedding, the dimension, eventually being transformed?

8. The living dead, their preying on each other, destruction of the crew?

9. The two officers, their roles, trying to save the journalist?

10. The doctor, his associates, their experiments, the monkey, the monkey getting free, its death? Wanting the journalist, suspecting her of housing the parasite? The experiments, her escape?

11. The two men, helping her, the realisation that she was free of the parasite, that it was in the guard? The threats, the dangers, destruction?

12. The captain, his plans, his last voyage, failure?

13. Nicki, his expertise, his role on the ship, his technical skills, the surveillance, the journalist destroying the cameras, his giving information, guiding her?

14. The survival, the end of the infection? Or a new beginning?

COLE YOUNGER, GUNFIGHTER

US, 1958, 78 minutes,,.Colour.
Frank Lovejoy, James Best, Abby Dalton, Jan Merlin, Douglas Spencer, Frank Ferguson.
Directed by R.G. Springsteen.

If the Cole Younger, Gunfighter story seems familiar, then the story, The Desperado, by Clifton Adams, was filmed in 1954, a small budget black and white feature with Wayne Morris, called The Desperado. The new film, more spectacular with widescreen colour, follows the story very closely.

Frank Lovejoy seemed more suited to 20th century stories and is not entirely convincing as the Western outlaw. However, James Best is good as the young man, betrayed by his best friend, Jan Merlin, who turns up with Younger, is charged with killings that his friend committed, appears in court and is saved by Younger. Abby Dalton is the romantic interest.

1. The small western, colourfully photographed?

2. Audience knowledge of Cole Younger? In the west? In Texas?

3. The location photography, the deserts, the mountains, the town? The musical score?

4. Governor Davis in Texas, ruthless, the Bluebellies and their behaviour?

5. Life in the town, reaction against the Bluebellies, the mock hanging, the explosion in the town, the reaction of the Sheriff, the witnesses?

6. Kit, returning to the church function, the raffles, Lucy and the auction, romance? The arrival of the authorities, intruding, taking Kit and Frank? The
brutality towards Frank, his vengeance? Kit and his confessing, their escape, the farewell to Lucy, the intervention of their fathers, going into the hills?

7. The encounter with Cole Younger, wary, Frank and his decision to leave, going back, surrendering, becoming an informant, blackening Kit’s name, wanting Lucy? Her reactions?

8. Kit and Younger, travelling together, the twin’s horse, shooting him, his brother coming along, wanting vengeance? His testimony against Kit?

9. Kit and Younger, working with the cattle, the owner and his spying on them, and reporting, their being taken? Kit in the court, Frank and his testimony, his
lies – and the incident in the bar when he killed the authorities rather than Kit?

10. The testimony, the court, Younger intervening, saving Kit, leaving?

11. Kit, safe, the end of Governor Davis’s rule, Kit reunited with Lucy?

SIGNIS STATEMENT

December 1, 2015

THE LETTERS



The Letters in the title of this film of those written by Mother Teresa of Calcutta to her spiritual director, the Jesuit Father Celeste van Ekem, over a period of almost 50 years. Mother Teresa died in 1997.

This does not necessarily sound an attractive title for audiences to go to a feature film. It sounds more like a documentary. However, the letters are always in the background of Mother Teresa’s story, sometimes coming to the forefront, so that the action of the film concentrates on her life and her work.

It is significant that the letters concern Mother Teresa’s dark nights of soul and senses, not only difficulties of belief in God but a dread sense of being abandoned by God. This does is addressed right at the beginning of the film where the promoter of Mother Teresa’s cause goes to visit Father Celeste van Ekem in retirement in England to receive and read the letters and evaluate them in the light of Mother Teresa being declared Blessed. There also scenes from the Vatican where meetings are held to discuss the miracles attributed to Mother Teresa – with a glimpse of this miracle at the beginning of the film – and their place in the approval of her beatification. (There are also a number of Vatican scenes from the 1940s, petitions for Mother Teresa to leave Loretto, to establish her congregation – exceedingly formal and stiff, not in the vein of Pope Francis!)

The Letters will be a film of great Catholic interest, Mother Teresa being well-known to so many Christians, Catholics and others like. Because she was such a public figure over such a long time, there will be an audience right around the world for this film. Since the release and the financial success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ in 2004, commentators have noted that there is a greater appetite for specifically and explicitly religious films. Again, because of Mother Teresa being a public figure, most admiring her, some critics writing against her, the film offers an opportunity to look at Mother Teresa’s life, her work, her motivations, her achievement and assess them in the context of her committed faith life and her ministry and service.

The film was written and directed by American William Riead, radio journalist, television cameraman, director of “The Making of…) Documentaries in the 1980s and 90s. In terms of some reputable acting power, the promoter for the cause is played by Rutger Hauer and the spiritual director himself by the venerable actor, Max von Sydow. Max von Sydow brings considerable gravitas to his presence and performance.

There have been two television films on Mother Teresa: Mother Teresa: in the Name of God’s Poor, 1997, with Geraldine Chaplin and, in 2003, Mother Teresa with Olivia Hussey. This time the casting is British actress, distinguished for her stage and screen work, Juliet Stevenson.

One of the great advantages of this film is that so much of it was filmed on location in India and with an Indian cast.

While the letters on Mother Teresa’s religious experience pervade the film, it actually tells the story of her work from 1946 to 1952, her discerning whether to leave her community life and her teaching at school in Calcutta and to work amongst the poor. They were long delays in receiving a reply from the Vatican, her moving out of the convent, initial resistance to her presence in work by many of the Indians fearing that she was proselytising amongst the Hindus, her early companions, the support of the Archbishop of Calcutta, the advice of her spiritual director, the final approval – and glimpses of her shrewdness in dealing with authorities, persuading them to give her material and financial support, and the interest of the media in her story.

With Juliet Stevenson’s performance, a broken English accent, the slight stoop that Mother Teresa had, the film offers an opportunity for the audience to reflect on the whole process that led to the establishment of the work of the Missionaries of Charity. The screenplay, which does show the young Loretto sister making her vows in Dublin in the early 1930s as well as her classes in the College, gives audiences enough time for the audience to ponder her motivation, the poverty in the streets at the time of India’s Independence, the practical difficulties of her work, the hostilities, even demonstrations against her when she is given a disused Hindu temple as a hostel for men and women dying in the streets.

The audience also realises that Mother Teresa was not an immediate, overnight success in her new work. She had to move carefully and prudently, adopted local clothing (not a habit, although it has become one) so that she could identify as ordinary amongst people. The permissions were given gradually, not always with the support of the Loretta superiors, and there were discussions, with Mother Teresa and her certainty of her mind and intent, about the establishment of her religious congregation, its rules and canonical status.

Because some American media took some interest in her story in the late 1940s, audiences also realise that she became a media topic almost immediately which continued for the next 40 years or so, leading to greater acknowledgement around the world, including being awarded the Nobel Piece Prize in 1979 – a sequence, with her speech, with which the film ends. No need to show the details of her life and work in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, most of the 1990s, because it was a continuation of the initial work, service and spirituality. Not everybody agreed with Mother Teresa’s methods, many considering them to limited – but no one can take it away from her that she was actually there in the streets, assisting.

While the screenplay is certainly geared towards a faith audience, it is also written in such a way that people of non-faith who admired Mother Teresa can be interested in and involved in her story.

Credits:

THE LETTERS

US, 2015, 114 minutes, Colour.
Juliet Stevenson, Max von Sydow, Rutger Hauer and a large Indian cast.
Written and directed by William Riead.

SIGNIS STATEMENT

SPOTLIGHT

10th of December 2015



Since its screening in competition in Venice, 2015, and its subsequent screenings at various festivals, then award nominations, including several for Best Film of 2015, the reputation of Spotlight has grown. For the statement by the SIGNIS Jury in Venice, see below.

It is primarily a film about investigative journalism, the work of the Boston Globe in 2001. Memories of this kind of film go back to 1976 and the Watergate exposé in All the Presidents Men. At the same time as the release of Spotlight, there was a very powerful film on investigative journalism that is well worth seeing, Truth, about the NBC investigation of George W. Bush’s going into the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam – showing the detail of investigation but also highlighting the need for consistent verification otherwise the investigation is not credible.

The Boston Globe’s investigation focused on sexual abuse, clergy and survivors. This means that it is a film of particular Catholic interest. Cardinal Sean O’ Malley, Archbishop of Boston and a member of the papal committee on sexual abuse, wrote a statement in October, acknowledging the realities of abuse in the church, acknowledging that the film treats an important subject. Again, see below.

There have been films on clerical sexual abuse since 1990, quite a number, documentaries and feature films. They have been serving as a contribution to an examination of conscience by the church, an acknowledgement of realities for victims and survivors, a critique of the behaviour of church authorities, the need for a recognition of sinfulness in the church. And, in their ways, they have contributed to a better, even wiser, understanding.

Reviews of Spotlight have been very favourable. The screenplay, co-written by Josh Singer and the director, Thomas Mc Carthy, is carefully and strongly written. Performances are quite powerful. The film keeps audience interest. The four journalists in the Spotlight investigative team are played by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Mc Adams, Brian d’Arcy James. At one stage it emerges that each of the four was Catholic educated but no longer practising, some “pissed off” at the church and one of them, after reading the documents, saying that he had hoped to return to the church, but now… There is of course, a sad emotional impact, audiences identifying with the journalists in their quest, disgust at the stories that are revealed, compassion for those who have suffered.

One of the difficulties about the film is its setting in 2001. Because the film is focused on Boston and the Spotlight team who undertake the investigation, the film gives an impression, a kind of American triumphalism, that it was the Boston Globe which was the first to do this kind of investigation. In many ways, the American church was slow off the mark in acting (admitted by the journalists in the film), while investigations were under way, led by Canada, and making progress in such countries as the UK, Ireland, Australia, in the first half of the 1990s. Investigations in European countries came later. A government enquiry in Ireland was to be inaugurated not so many years after the work of the Boston Globe. In Australia, the documents Towards Healing (and the Melbourne Response) were launched at the end of 1996.

It is interesting to note that there is little or no reference to the police and their enquiries into complaints about sexual abuse. There is no discussion of reporting to the police. Investigations preceded the Spotlight investigations because Father Geoghan was arrested the same month as the first article appeared in the Boston Globe.

Reference is made in the screenplay of Spotlight to material being sent to the paper as early as 1993 and then in 1996 but the paper did not follow through at the time. The Boston story, according to the film, went into action with the appointment of the new editor, Marty Baron, who had noticed a column about offender Father John Geoghan and suggested to his team that it needed following up, asking about knowledge by the hierarchy, including Cardinal Bernard Law, and an investigation that would expose any systematic faults, rather than an attack on individual church hierarchy.

There had been a film, Our Fathers, 2005, where there was a focus on Boston victims of abuse, their telling their stories, the work of lawyers, encounters of some of the victims with the perpetrators, and meetings with Cardinal Law who was played by Christopher Plummer. Spotlight has very few images of priests themselves, concentrating on interviews with the survivors with their harrowing stories. There is a brief prologue in 1976, complaints against Father Geoghan, the child, parents, and a reassuring priest helping the family, suggestions that information was given to the hierarchy but not followed on up, highlighting the transfer of offending priests from one parish to another.

In fact, the main priest in this film is Cardinal Law himself, receiving Marty Baron in his house, offering to collaborate with the media, Baron assuring him of the independence of the press, and the Cardinal giving him a gift of the Catholic Catechism. He is also related glimpsed as a Catholic Charities function. But, there is a great deal of talk about him, what he knew and what he didn’t know about abusive priests, the considerable number, his working in-house on cases, working with various lawyers for settlements and their keeping all this information confidential. The documents were sealed and it is only when the Boston Globe intervenes that a judge allows them to be released. A letter written by one of the auxiliary bishops of Boston years earlier, maintaining secrecy and confidentiality, becomes part of the screenplay.

There is one priest in the film, Father Richard Paquin, who lives with his sister in retirement, interviewed by a journalist – who admits to her the truth of his experience with the boys but emphasises several times that he got no gratification from the experiences. One of the journalists discovers to his horror that his house is not very far from one of the houses designated for treatment of priests. At the end he is seen delivering a big number of papers with the article at this house.

As has been mentioned, more vivid pictures of the priests emerge from the interviews with the survivors, with the head of the organisation, SNAP (Survivor’s Network of those Abused by Priests), Paul Saviano who had sent material to the paper in 1996 and felt frustrated at their lack of action. Listening to his description of his own experiences, his age, the grooming, the process of trust, leading to the physical, sexual and psychological abuse, makes the point very strongly. An interview with an awkward man, groomed by Father Shanley who was later arrested, highlights once again grooming, the use of pornography, nudity and sexual gratification for a young boy who is discovering his homosexual orientation. A third man, Patrick, explains the process of the priest singling him out, the affirmation felt, and then the touch and his freezing, and the abuse. The drug scars in his arm are quite evident.

The sequences of interviews are possibly stronger in their impact, the audience listening to the words and seeing the body language of the survivors, than if there were visuals of the abuse.

The work of the investigative team is meticulous, painstakingly followed through over a very long period, checking sources, persuading interviewees to speak and be recorded, checking clips from the vast archives of Globe, trolleys and folders of them, searching in the Catholic Directories of these years and discovering so many priests listed as sick or absent or on leave. The journalists were able to make a list of 87 clergy through this method of discovery. (In 2011, Cardinal O’ Malley made public the release of a list of offending clergy in Boston, their names, 159 of them.) Emotionally, the audience is invited to identify with the journalists. The targets of their research tend to be seen as villains, especially when the verification is clinched, the ‘Gotcha’ moments.

In the film, there are many sequences where the journalists make contact with lawyers handling victims cases, knowing that there was a great deal of confidentiality, but continually checking with them as more information became available. It is one of the Catholic lawyers who had been defending the Church’s silence who is finally overwhelmed by what has been uncovered and, emotionally reluctant, does indicate the truth about the list of abusive priests.

One of the experts over many decades is the former priest, Richard Sipe, who has written extensively on these issues. His book becomes one of the sources for information and for the journalists to try to understand the mentality of the abusers, issues of infantile sexuality, sexual orientation, issues of clerical celibacy. He becomes a character in the film, voiced by actor Richard Jenkins, in a number of phone interviews.

Cardinal Law was transferred to Rome at the end of 2002. The film also lists a number of places and countries where abuse has taken place. In 2002, the American Catholic Bishops Conference affirmed a policy of zero tolerance in abuse cases.


Statement of the Jury - Venice Film Festival - Spotlight

SIGNIS Jury, Venice Film Festival, 2015.

When director Tom Mc Carthy’s “Spotlight” premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 3 it received a prolonged standing ovation. The film stars Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachael Mc Adams, Liev Schreiber and John Slattery as the Spotlight team and publishers of the Boston Globe newspaper that successfully investigated the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston beginning in the 1990s. This investigation resulted in a series of articles in 2002 that revealed a pattern of covering up the activities of pedophile priests and hushed payoffs to dozens of child victims over many years. Stanley Tucci plays the attorney who represents the victims.

With the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law in December 2002, some say as a result of the revelations, further investigations exposed similar crimes against children and consequent covert ways of dealing with accused priests - or not dealing with them but moving them around - in diocese after diocese in the United States, Australia, Canada, Ireland and other countries.

"Spotlight" is an engrossing film based on the actual story of journalists who tell the biggest ongoing story about the Catholic Church in this century. The two key protagonists are powerful, global institutions: the press facing off against the Catholic Church.

The investigative team of the Boston Globe received the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Journalism for Public Service, in 2003 for their investigative journalism. In the film, the Spotlight team admits its own culpability when it ignored information going back several years about clergy sex abuse and the Church’s failure to take action to protect children.

"Spotlight" is a straightforward and unadorned film that avoids exploiting the story. Some critics feel it is more the quality of television than cinema.

Nevertheless, the enduring importance of “Spotlight” will reinforce the work that the Boston Globe did between 1999 and 2002 in calling the Catholic Church, including the Vatican, to transparency and responsibility for how it dealt with clergy who sexually abused children and what policies the Church would put in place to prevent abuse in the future and to bring the guilty to justice.

At the end of the film, before the credits, lists of parishes and dioceses where clergy abuse occurred, scroll down the screen, followed by all the countries where the scandal has spread. So perhaps the one thing missing from the film is a footnote stating that the since the 2002 articles by the Boston Globe, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued “ The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People ” to prevent further child abuse and to deal with clergy that are accused of sex abuse, including possession of child pornography. Although slow in development, in 2014 Pope Francis established the Holy See’s Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.

Was it necessary to make a mainstream feature film to tell the story of the committed journalists who uncovered this pattern of deep scandal in the Catholic Church? Because the problem of sex abuse by Roman Catholic clergy continues in the United States and in other countries around the world and victims continue to seek justice, “Spotlight” is a film that challenges the Catholic Church to be the moral leader it claims to be. With this film, cinema and journalism are indeed prophetic gifts for the Catholic Church.


Cardinal O’ Malley’s full statement on Spotlight as it appeared in The Pilot :

The Spotlight film depicts a very painful time in the history of the Catholic Church in the United States and particularly here in the Archdiocese of Boston. It is very understandable that this time of the film’s release can be especially painful for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy.

The media’s investigative reporting on the abuse crisis instigated a call for the Church to take responsibility for its failings and to reform itself—to deal with what was shameful and hidden—and to make the commitment to put the protection of children first, ahead of all other interests.

We have asked for and continue to ask for forgiveness from all those harmed by the crimes of the abuse of minors. As Archbishop of Boston I have personally met with hundreds of survivors of clergy abuse over the last twelve years, hearing the accounts of their sufferings and humbly seeking their pardon. I have been deeply impacted by their histories and compelled to continue working toward healing and reconciliation while upholding the commitment to do all that is possible to prevent harm to any child in the future.

The Archdiocese of Boston is fully and completely committed to zero tolerance concerning the abuse of minors. We follow a vigorous policy of reporting and disclosing information concerning allegations of abuse. Any suspected case of abuse should be reported to civil authorities and to the Office of Pastoral Support and Outreach


Other STATEMENTS on Abuse:

Since 2002,SIGNIS has published statements on several films concerning clerical sexual abuse:

Song for a Raggy Boy (2003);
Mal Education/ Bad Education (2004)
Our Fathers (2005)
Deliver us from Evil (2006)
X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
Doubt (2008)
Oranges and Sunshine (2011)
Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (2013)
Calvary (2014)

To find these Statements, Google Peter Malone’s Website and scroll down to SIGNIS STATEMENTS.

For a background to films on clerical sexual abuse, two articles, one from 2005, the other from 2015, are found at the end of the SIGNIS STATEMENTS.

PATIENT KILLER

US, 2015, 89 minutes, Colour.
Victoria Pratt, Barbie Castro, Casper van Dien, Richard Burgi, Patrick Muldoon.
Directed by Casper van Dien.

Patient Killer is a psychological thriller, focusing on the psychotherapist and her clients. One of them is obsessive, wanting everything to be tidy, who is rather infatuated with the psychotherapist – and, at her book launch, she signed his book saying that he is her favourite patient (Patrick Muldoon).

At the launch a woman approaches her and later comes for a session, talking about bad dreams (which have been visualised at the beginning of the film) and undergoes therapy, noting her dreams, talking about a killing.

This has an effect on the psychotherapist who consults her own doctor and remembers her past with someone she loved dying. He turns out to be the woman’s brother. She starts disrupting the psychotherapist’s life, assaulting the therapist’s boyfriend (Casper van Dien, the director of the film). With the help of the detective, the case is resolved.

The scenes of psychotherapy are quite interesting – but the film moves to ultimate melodrama.

1. A psychological thriller, the focus on the psychological, the therapy sessions, the effects on the clients? Then moving towards the thriller aspects with the touch of melodrama?

2. The title, the ambiguity of patients, patience, and the revelation of the killer?

3. The American city, apartments, offices, bookshops, doctor’s waiting rooms, police precincts? Musical score?

4. Victoria’s story, a competent psychotherapist, seeing her sessions with Derek, his finger mannerisms, obsessions, wanting things tidy, the steps in her treatment, the book signing and his being her favourite patient, his return, lapses, infatuation with her? Her personal life, relationship with Jason? Her own fears, the experience in the past with the boyfriend, his death? Her consultations with her doctor?

5. The woman at the launch, just wanting to meet Victoria, coming for therapy, Victoria recording the sessions, the talk about the dreams, the woman taking notes on her dreams, bringing the stories, the killer?

6. Jason, love for Victoria, her being very busy, their finding time to be together, the meal? His being attacked, hospital, sitting by his bedside? Recovery?

7. Blaire, her personality, her attachment to her brother, the opening nightmare and his death, the visit to the launch, seeking therapy, the various sessions, her dreams, taking notes, her breaking out, attacking Jason, attacking Victoria?

8. Audience interest in psychological dimensions of crime stories?

BALALAIKA

US, 1939, 102 minutes, Black and white.
Nelson Eddy, Ilona Massey, Charles Ruggles, Frank Morgan, Lionel Attwill, C. Aubrey Smith, Joyce Compton.
Directed by Reinhold Schunzel.

Balalaika is one of several MGM musicals made with singer, Nelson Eddy, without Jeanette Mac Donald. His co-star is Ilona Massey, a Hungarian actress who had also appeared in Rosalie with Nelson Eddy.

The setting of this film is in Russia, 1914, prior to the outbreak of World War I. The focus is on a group of Cossacks, led by a prince, Nelson Eddy, who ride, singing, into town and go to a cafe, The Balalaika. There is a great deal of singing, dancing, Russian style, and the famous theme song. The singer at the restaurant is Lydia, Iona Massey. Her family has fallen on hard times and she has to make performing and mixing with the soldiers, rowdy lot, to support them.

The prince is attracted to her and she to him, but he does not reveal who he really is. He offers her an audition for the opera, Frank Morgan is the manager, and she is fulfilling a lifetime wish, going to the cemetery to confide in her dead mother. In the meantime, her brother is making speeches against the government, is killed when the Cossacks attack the protesters. A revolutionary has a hold over Lydia’s father and plans an assassination of the prince’s father during the opera performance. However, a message comes through about Germany attacking Russia and the assassination is foiled. The two lovers have told the truth about each other but the Prince feels it patriotic he has to go to war.

There are some trench and battle scenes – with a moving moment where the Germans are heard singing Silent Night and the Russians listen with the prince joining in the chorus.

The action cuts suddenly to Paris after the war, the prince’s assistant now owning a restaurant where a number of the Russian nobility are working, the servants previously working for the nobility, the nobility now serving the servants. This includes the prince, his father, the theatre manager and his wife. One evening, Lydia arrives and there is happy reunion and a happy ever after.

The film includes a range of songs, including some operate pieces, the Toreador song from Carmen, Scheherezade by Rimsky-Korsakov? as well as some popular melodies like Balalaika.

TARZAN

Germany, 2013, 93 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Kellan Lutz, Spencer Lock, Joe Cappelletti, Jaime Ray Newman, Mark Deklin.
Directed by Reinhard Kloos.

Tarzana is a German animation film based on the celebrated classic by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Adult audiences may have expectations, especially from the 1930s and 40s series with Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan and Maureen O’ Sullivan as Jane. At the time, they moved the stories from the 19th century into the contemporary 20th century – and were accepted as such.

There were other Tarzan include Lex Barker, Gordon Scott. Perhaps the most faithful version of the film was the very serious Greystoke (1983) with Christopher Lambert and Andy Mac Dowall, a lavish production, period story, directed by Hugh Hudson.

There was also the popular Disney version of the late 1990s.

With this film, the story has been brought forward into the present and given a very environmental message. Some Americans are seen doing archaeological work in Africa and, as they return home with a young son, going through extraordinary locations which they have been searching for, they are killed in a crash. The young boy survives and grows up to be the expected Tarzan.

One of the survivors of the expedition also has a daughter, Jane. When an American company executive pretends to be interested in the environment but is merely interested in mineral development and exploitation, they all travel to Africa where they encounter Tarzan who, in the expected fashion, has grown up with the animals, is at home with a wide range of animals who tend him. He encounters Jane, they have a series of adventures together, the villain of the company is unmasked and right prevails as does romance and the at homeless of humans with the animals.

The film did not receive very good reviews, older audiences remembering the past. However, at a very basic level, it could be enjoyed by a very young audience and as a means for getting across an environmental message to them.

THE MAN OF THE HOUSE

US, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Lee Jones, Cedric the Entertainer, Christina Milian, Kelli Garner, Annd Archer, Brian van Holt, R. Lee Ermey.
Directed by Steven Herek.

There is no real need to see this one – not even on a plane.

Five Texan cheerleaders witness a murder. After a short time, the unkind thought enters one’s strained and impatient mind that the plot might have been better had they been the victims. For most of the film most of them behave in a murderable fashion. One is inclined to agree strongly with Tommy Lee Jones, who is the Ranger assigned to protect them, every time he refuses them their petty and selfish requests and realises how dumb they are. Of course, you know that by the end of the film they will all be great friends and that the girls will have saved the day. That is what happens – though it does not save the film.

There is a complicated plot about a corrupt Texan businessman, his henchman killing off his debtors and a bad apple FBI agent who is the actual murderer and threatens the girls. There is a fairly preposterous showdown on the highway on the Mexican border.

It should be mentioned that this is meant to be more of a comedy than a thriller, with Tommy Lee Jones posing as a cheerleader coach to maintain cover and having to deal with the girls and their dumb comments and behaviour. He also gets to romance Anne Archer with beauty treatment help (to little avail) from the girls. Some of the complaints about the film are that its portrayal of the girls is sexist. But, there is a little homily on cheerleading and its importance for enthusing and inspiring.

That is what the film is not – enthusing and inspiring.

THE RAGE: CARRIE 2

US, 1999, 104 minutes, Colour.
Emily Bergl, Jason London, Dylan Bruno, Amy Irving, J. Smith- Cameron, Mena Suvari, Rachel Blanchard.
Directed by Katt Shea.

The Rage: Carrie 2 comes over 20 years after the original film which made such an impact, enhanced the reputation of its director Brian De Palma, helped make a star of Sissy Spacek, received Oscar nominations including for Piper Laurie as Carrie’s mother. John Travolta was in the supporting cast. Amy Irving, who now appears in this film as a school counsellor, was one of the students taunting Carrie in the original.

This is not a sequel, but rather a development of the themes of the original.

Rachel, British actress, Emily Bergl, has kinetic powers – and the film later explains that she has inherited them from her father who was also the father of Carrie. Her strict religious mother has been put into an institution and Rachel is in foster care, with a very strict family.

The action takes place at school, Rachel being upset with the suicide of her best friend Lisa, Mena Suvari. There is a group of football jocks at the school and one of them is responsible. In the meantime, another jock, Jason London, falls for Rachel – to the jealousy of his cheerleading girlfriend and her coterie of friends and admirers.

They plan a revenge and humiliation of Rachel but, of course, this unleashes her kinetic powers and leads to extreme mayhem.

There was a remake of Carrie some years later with Chloe Grace Moretz as Carrie and Julian Moore as her mother.

1. The impact of the original film? Becoming something of a cult classic?

2. The film as a development rather than a remake, although using many elements of the original film?

3. The links between the two films, Carrie’s father, his kinetic powers, handing them on to his two daughters? Sue Lang as the survivor from the first story and her role in the school and with Rachel in the second? And her death?

4. The American small town, homes, school, the difference between the 1970s and 1990s? The students, jocks and cheerleaders, rivalries, jealousies, relationships?

5. Rachel as a child, relationship with her mother, her mother’s severity, strictly religious, the effect on Rachel?

6. The mother being taken away, Rachel put in foster care, the couple and their family, discipline, harsh, the effect on Rachel?

7. Rachel, the girl of the 1990s, her look, age, not having many friends, the loner, people taunting her, tricks?

8. The other girls, cheerleaders, attractive, jealous and catty? The group of friends?

9. The boys, football, macho attitudes, sexual relationships?

10. Eric, his relationship with Lisa, her happiness, confiding in Rachel – and then the suddenness of her suicide? The challenge to Eric and the boys, their callous attitudes and denials? The authorities in the school? Eric’s father and his dominant attitude?

11. Rachel, the manifestation of kinetic power, the effects? Her being in denial? Correct genetic

12. Sue Lang, her personality, role in the school, her memories of the past, taunting Carrie? The interviews with Rachel, wanting to help her? Going to visit Rachel’s mother in the institution, bringing her out, the hopes to help Rachel? Sue being caught up in the mayhem, her death?

13. Jesse, one of the jocks, his girlfriend, her expectations and jealousy? Her role in humiliating Rachel? Her group of friends – and taking Rachel shopping, building her up for the party, the preparation for humiliation?

14. Jesse, liking Rachel, the relationship? Sexual? The effect on each of them?

15. The party, the mother watching, Rachel and the enjoyment, the jibes, the humiliation, the laughter?

16. Rachel humiliated, reaction to Jesse? The unleashing of the powers – and the visual detail of the mayhem? The deaths of her enemies? Eric?

17. Rachel, survival, Jesse?

18. The comparisons between this film and the original in terms of plot, characters, situations, behaviour, tone?

THE STEEL HELMET

US, 1951, 85 minutes, Black and white.
Gene Evans, Robert Hutton, Steve Brodie, James Edwards, Richard Loo, Sid Melton, William Chun.
Directed by Samuel Fuller.

The Steel Helmet is one of the more interesting films made in the early 1950s about the Korean War. It was written and directed by Samuel Fuller at the beginning of his career, making films like Pick up on South Street at this time. From the 1950s to the 1970s, he made a striking number of small-budget, tough films on a range of subjects from westerns to World War II.

It was in 1980 that his masterpiece on World War I and World War II with Lee Marvin, The Big Red One was released – and an interesting similarity of motif between that film and The Steel Helmet. In Korea, a sniper hides behind a statue of Buddha to pick off the enemy. In The Big Red One, snipers in both wars use a statue of the crucified Jesus as a picking off point and a shield.

Gene Evans is particularly good as the hard Zack, the character of contradictions, hard-boiled yet with some feelings – and an anticipation of Lee Marvin with the young soldiers in The Big Red One.

1. The films made about the Korean war in the early 1950s? This film among the first, an early perspective on American involvement in the war? But harking back to the films of World War II?

2. The director, his hard-hitting films, social comment? In the light of The Big Red One of 1980?

3. Black-and-white photography, musical score? The focus on the small group?

4. The British, the Americans? Working together?

5. The action sequences, the battles?

6. The Koreans as enemy, executions, Zack and his survival, the bodies lying in the snow? The encounter with Short Rround? His becoming something of a mascot?

7. Zack, his personality, tough? The encounter with the British? The tank, the personalities, interactions?

8. The Americans, the range of men, the platoon? Zack and the other soldiers, hard, the response to him? Tactics, decisions?

9. The religious dimension of Korea, the statue of the Buddha, its symbolism, image of peace? Its being used as a cover for the sniper?

10. The attacks, the wounded, deaths? The doctor, black, education, working with the men, his motivation, in battle?

11. The refuge in the shrine, the Americans under attack, the sniper?

12. The Communist prisoner, declarations, propaganda, fearlessness, his death?

13. The effect of the war on Zack, the effect of Short Round with the group, his survival, his death?

14. A satisfactory, small-budget war film?