27A

Australia, 1974, 86 minutes, Colour.
Robert Mc Darra, Bill Hunter, Graham Corrie, Richard Moir, Haydn Keenan.
Directed by Esben Storm.

27A was one of the very striking films of the Australian film industry soon after its renaissance in 1972. It was written and directed by Esben Storm who was to direct In Search of Anna in 1978, With Prejudice (about the Ananda Marga trial) in 1982 and a number of children’s films for the Winners series. He also directed an interesting and provocative thriller about Aboriginal issues, Deadly.

The film focuses on a middle-aged man who is on the margins, a metho drinker. He joins AA in order to get some help. He undergoes a psychiatric examination and it is decided to hold him in an institution for the criminally insane. The reason for this is the Queensland Mental Health Act and its number 27A. His treatment in the institution is appalling.

Robert Mc Darra portrays Billy Donald, the alcoholic. It is a very strong performance. Mc Darra had appeared in a number of television series and appeared in Mad Dog Morgan the following year before his death. In the cast are Bill Hunter, one of the most reliable of Australian actors, who appeared in Ned Kelly in 1970, in most of the television series like Division 4 as well as making a name for himself in many Australian films, especially Newsfront and Gallipoli. A young Richard Moir, who worked for Storm in In Search of Anna, is also in the cast.

An interesting piece of social comment as well as a perspective on history of legislation about alcoholism and the criminally insane.

1. What was the overall impact of the film? Why?

2. How real did it seem? The explanation of the legislation about 27A? The reality of the character of Bill and the explanation of his beckround? The realism of the mental home? The realism of the Australian setting and Bill's ecapes from the home? The brutal realism of the interaction between patients and nurses? the kindliness of the doctor? How important was this sense of realism for the success of the -film?

3. Where were your sympathies? Did you symp-athise entirely with Bill? What defects of character besides his alcoholism? Were you sympathetic with Peter the doctor? Why? dislike of Cavendish? of the young assistant in the asylum and his change from ordinary clerk to LSD victim? What of Billy's daughter? How did this playing of sympathies give a rich response to this particular film and make its impact more telling?

4. How typical an Australian was Billy? Comment on the techinque of the film's comnunicating his background, a file? What had reduced him to the state he was in at the beginning of the film? Whose fault was it? Wife and family? His own? The war? What were you impressions of Billy's life in the early days at the hospital? The treatment that he received? His being pushed around, the loneliness of his room, communication by whisper between walls?

5. Was Cavendish a realistic figure? Was he too brutal? What motivated him? Was he power-addicted? Did he have any sympathy for the people that he helped? His philosophy of not being emotional? His dislike of the doctors? Was he too much of a caricature for audience sympathy? Was this fair to nurses in hospitals who do similar kind of work? Were you sorry when he was killed? Why?

6. How interesting a character was Dr Peter? The contrast of his treatment of Billy with Cavendish's? The use of first names, the casual talking, Billy's suspicions, his change of attitude, the playing of golf together and Billy's reminiscing? What effect did Peter's treatment have on Billy? Even when Billy continued escaping? The importance of Peter's allowing Billy to go to his dying wife? How sympatheric were the film-makers to Peter's approaches?

7. Comment on the overall impression that the staff at the institution made? The nervous assistant to Cavendish and his emotional breackdown and final going? The Cavendish types? Their actions, the patients?

8. Comment on the picture of the patients, the variety of personalities in the cameo performances? The young marihuana users, the guitar-player, the migrant and his wanting a present when Billy escaped and his helping him with the key? How interesdting was this picture of suffering mental patients? What audience response did it demand?

9. How intense was the picture of suffering in this film? How did this come across most forcefully?

10. What impressiorns of asylums did the film give? Of government-run asylums and their inadequacies? How fair was this? what audience response did it demand? Futher action in Australia?

11. How hard was the judgement on families in the film? On Billy's family? The nature of his daughter's visits and wanting him to stay? Her inability to look after him? Did she have any othe options? If he came out and stayed with her?

12. What compelled Billy to keep escaping? His sense of freedom? And his wanting to be cured? Which was the best place for him? How well was he rehabiliated?

13. Comment on the irony of the young university student and his working in the asylum. What effect did it have on Billy and his plight? How did he disintegrate in working in the office in the asylum? His use of drugs? Why did he go berserk? The striking nature of his stark walk through the asyum and its madness? The fact that he then became a file and a patient to be looked after?

14. How rushed was the resolution of the film? The visit to the cemetary, the need for freedom, the legal proceedings about the by-laws? Were they too rushed or did this give a satisfactory ending to the film?

15. The film was made by local talent, with limited resources. How good a film was it technically? Camera work, editing, photography? The nature of the acting for a film like this? As an important documentary for Australians? The possibility of its being seen and impressing?

TELL THEM WILLIE BOY IS HERE

US, 1969, 98 minutes, Colour.
Robert Bedford, Katharine Roes, Robert Blake, Susan Clark, Barry Sullivan, John Vernon.
Directed by Abraham Polonsky.

Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here is a modest Western that achieves considerable success. It has as much excitement in its action-chase as any Western; but its interest lies in its theme of the dying Indian minority. It captures the transition period of the West in the first decade of the 20th century. The theme was important in 1969-70 Westerns as The Wild Bunch, The Ballad of Cable Hague, The Good Guys and The Bad Guys, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid). With cars, a touring President, and ageing Indian fighters, it implies that the end of an era is at hand and some of the old traditions and myths of the West are anachronisms. But the Indian is the victim of the transition period. Subdued and dwindling in numbers, Indians are not allowed much place 1n the emerging twentieth century, Willie Boy is not a hero; he is a vagrant with enormous chips on his shoulders. The sheriff who pursues him is an ambiguous hero. But both are forced to take a stand. Willie Boy is forced by history and the situation to take a defeatist stand.

The film received critical acclaim and marked a return to directing by Abraham Polonsky, a director of the late forties (e.g. Force of Evil), blacklisted during the Communist fears of the fifties.

1. Do you consider the film as just on ordinary Western or is there more to it? Why?

2. What does the film say about the status of Indians in 1909 - the reserves, the dedication of white workers, education, traditions?

3. Why did Willie Boy have a chip on his shoulder? Was it only his character? What goals did he have? What was the attitude of fellow-Indians to him? Did he have any chance of success in life?

4. Why did Lola go with him after the shodting? Did they love each other? What hold did they have on each other? What impact did the death ritual have? As regards their love? As regards their being Indians?

5. When Willie telte Lola to go back to the pursuers and shouts, "Tell them Willie Boy is here" is he meant to be heroic?

6. The Sheriff - dramatically, is he the equal to Willie Boy? He is presented ae cold, tough, a dedicated job man, emotionless and rootless, whose skill demands respect. How typical is he of Western heroes? How admirable? His relationship with the doctor?

7. Is the doctor admirable - in her work, her motives, her emotional confusions?

8. The film has the hullabaloo of the President's tour as background to the story - town trying to impress, trains, cars, journalists. What coment does it make on the U. S. ?

9. The Indian fighter - admirable? He did a job and enjoyed hunting Indians but has forgotten why. The film presents him as an anachronism. How does his presence comment on the 1909 situation?

10. Explain the significance of Willie Boy's death - defeat, weariness, suicide, symbolic extinction of race? Was it lack of courage, weakness or the crushing of humanity in the Indians?

THE THIRD MAN

UK, 1949, 92 minutes, Black and white.
Joseph Cotton, Trevor Howard, Orson Welles, Alida Valli, Bernard Lee, Wilfrid Hyde- Whyte.
Directed by Carol Reed.

The Third Man has become a cinema classic, shown by specialist film groups, repeated on television and used for film study. Viewing it will quickly show why.

Carol Reed captures the atmosphere of post-war Vienna and its sinister rackets and military administration vividly. Graham Greene's screenplay is an excursion into "Greeneland", realistic and pessimistic, with mordantly witty dialogue, especially about failure and death. The zither music, the profiles, the angle shots are all worth a close look. The actors also contribute a great deal, from Joseph Cotton's callow hero forced to make a decision to Alida Valli’s Bergman-style sorrow, Trevor Howard's British Briton and Wilfrid Hyde-Whyte's perpetual performance giving effective comic relief.

Orson Welles, of course, has made Harry Lime a memorable figure in only a few appearances He has the famous line about the cuckoo clocks and it is his hand clutching at the grating.

The Third Man is worth study and discussion on the levels of both technique and theme and repays the time given to watching it again.

1. Even though thio film is quite old now, why does it still make such an impact?

2. How is the post-war? Vienna setting quickly established? How well is it used?

3. How effective is the black and white photography used - light, shade, darkness? Why are angle shots used at times? Close ups of faces and profiles?

4. What does the zither and music contribute to the film?

5. What picture of the by-product of war, black market dealings, did the film give? Why do rackets begin and grow? What kind of men become involved in them? Bow horrible was the penicillin racket?

6. What kind of a man was Holly Martens? Was the audience able to identify him easily? Why did he press on with his investigations about Harry Lime?

7. Calloway seemed a hard man. Was it necessary for his job in Vienna? Why? How did Payne, his assistant, balance the picture of the stern English?

8. How did the film build up a picture of Anna - at the funeral, her walking away, her acting in the theatre (so different from her personality), her loneliness, love of Harry (the letters), her forged passport, her horror at Harry's racket, yet her love and loyalty to him, her final walk?

9. How did the film present its villains - the baron, his smile, dog, violin; Papesco, Dr Winkle (Vinkle) carving the meat?

10. How well did the film build up a picture of Harry Lime and his character before he was seen? Orson Wellee had little time to communicate a rounded character, yet he did: how? - Harry's smile, his concern about indigestion, attitude to Holly, indifference to Anna, his threats. Note lines of dialogue -e.g. looking down on dots rather than people from the ferris wheel (and dots are not the equivalent of money); no one thinking in terms of persons, but people, proletariat, suckers and mugs; war and the Italian Renaissance producing Leonardo, Michelangelo etc, , whereas for the Swiss, six centuries of brotherly love produced the cuckoo clock.

11. Did Martens do right in betraying Harry Lime? Why? Why did this disgust Anna? Was she right?

12. How effective was the final chase - the shadow approach of the man, the balloons, the sewer ohase, Harry's shooting Payne, Harry's fingers through the grate in the street, Holly's shooting him?

13. Why did the film end with the funeral and Anna's walk?

14. How did the film create suspicion, tension, excitement - even in sequences in broad daylight - e.g. the porter, the child watching the argument with his ball and his pointing out Harry to the crowd, the taxi ride to the lecture, the lecture fiasco, Papesco's questions, the parrot, Harry Lime's face, the ferris wheel?

15. Graham Greene is always expert at black, sardonic comment. What parts of the screenplay impressed you? Note the porter's pointing to Heaven and Hell, the use made of Holly's being a writer, death being at the bottom of everything, Harry Lime's sayings.

16. A common theme in literature is that of American innocents abroad in Europe being bettered by old European experience. Did the film fit this kind of theme? How?

THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR

US, 1968, 108 minutes, Colour.
Steve Mc Queen, Faye Dunaway, Paul Burke, Jack Weston.
Directed by Norman Jewison.

The Thomas Crown Affair was a very popular entertainment for the end of the 60's. It corresponded to the entertainment mood of the times: the robbery thrillers were to the fore and provided a whole genre full of ingenious plans and executions for stealing jewels and money. Here the ingenuity is masterful and the cat and mouse play of suspect and investigator presented with precision, smartness and timing. The opulence of the characters and their situations appealed to the public -wealth, position, the amoral comfortable life, are the staple of the escapist movie and are used to compelling effect here.

Steve McQueen? and Faye Dunaway (just after Bullit and Bonnie and Clyde) provide the toughness, glamour and sex-appeal of the popular stars of the 60's. Steve McQueen? is an all-round sportsman and is a good driver. His Thomas Crown incarnates so many of the aspirations of the 60's. Faye Dunaway is a clever, sophisticated, chic Bonnie, after her man and trying to outwit him. The formula could hardly fail.

The film is also interesting in its theme of the rich man who robs to find himself, break the system and get kicks -another twentieth century fantasy. Here Thomas Crown becomes god and we probe a little modern man's need for a god, even if it has to be himself.

Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, Jesus Christ, Superstar) directed with the slickest of styles (including split-screen) which suits this film well.

A most entertaining thriller, sophisticated and with implications.

1. What distinguished this film from other crime thrillers?

2. How did the slick techniques contribute to the mood, atmosphere and style of the film, especially the split screen techniques, the playing with focus, the chess game, the long kiss?

3. Comment on the effectiveness of the musical score for atmosphere -did the song "The Windmills of your Mind" make any comment on the theme of the film or was it just a pretty accompaniment? Why was it played during the credits with the montage of the images and during Thomas Crown's glider flight?

4. What kind of man was Thomas Crown? How successful a businessman? How successful a man? Comment on his home style, his varied sports, driving skills, beach house, golf bets.

5. Why did Thomas Crown want to rob a bank? What kind of achievement was it for him? How did he play God in his planning? Why did he want to mastermind a breaking of human systems and manipulate men? Note how he saluted himself in the mirror, his triumphant laughter and his pleased smiles.

6. How doee Thomas Crown stand for so many of the dreams of modern aspirations - wealth, comfort, pleasure, control, freedom, one-upmanship, being one's own god, defying others, outfitting others. "Who will I be tomorrow?" was all he had to think about.

7. How clever was the robbery? How clever was Thomas Crown?

8. What kind of woman was Vicki Anderson? Why was she in her job - just for the money? How clever was she - in working out how Thomas Crown was the likeliest suspect? - in her finding Brian and confronting him with Thomas Crown? - in her manoeuvring of Crown?

9. How emotionally involved did she become - the dinner, chess, beach-house?

10. How emotionally involved did he become? Why did he want to test her?

11. Was there any special significance in their eating a 'Last Supper' before the second robbery and Crown wanting some comforting and testing his followers?

12. Why did Vicki try to trap him in the cemetery? Why did she cry at the end - for losing Thomas Crown, for the money, for herself?

13. How did the opulence of the situations, fashions, sport, style of living affect the impact of the film - "crime in a twentieth century dream world"?

14. How cynical of standards and values was the film?

THEY SHOOT HORSES DON'T THEY?

US, 1969, 118 minutes, Colour.
Jane Ponda, Michael Sarrazin, Suzannah York, Gig Young, Bonnie Bedelia, Red Buttons.
Directed by Sidney Pollack.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is a very pessimistic film. It is a glimpse of one aspect of the Depression, the Dance Marathons, that attracted desperate people eager to win big money prizes and to get three meals a day while they were in the contest. The compere of these Dance Marathons was a key man, keeping the partners moving, whipping up enthusiasm in the crowds who paid up to watch, thinking up new gimmicks to keep the crowds coming.

The film confines itself to one of these marathons, a difficult task for the director who has to keep his audience interested in the narrow confines of the dance floor and the dormitories where the participants try to rest. He also has to establish his characters by conversation and action within the marathon. The film succeeds here.

The interest is in a central couple, the hard-bitten, cynical Gloria (Jane Fonda) and the rather naive and gentle Robert (Michael Sarrazin) who has nothing to do and is invited in when Gloria's partner is excluded from the marathon. Contrasts of characters come with glimpses of other participants, Alice from London, hoping the Hollywood talent scouts will spot her; Sailor, ageing, humorous, trying to win; Ruby, pregnant but kept going by her husband. Gig Young acts the central role of the compere, a hardened cynic who knows his trade and how to handle people. Gig Young won an Oscar for his performance as the compere; Jane Fonda was nominated (she won other awards for her role) as was Susannah York.

The film is a grim comment on America, the world and human nature and offers no hope or salvation for its participants.

1. What it the- meaning of the title of the film? How is it illustrated during the opening credits? How is Robert as a man and as a boy linked to this meaning? Why does Robert say these words when he is arrested at the end? How do they apply to Gloria? Do they apply to the other characters in the film? (Gloria says that the only difference between the dancers and cattle is that cattle don't know they are lined up for slaughter.)

2. What impression of the Dance Marathons do you have after seeing the film? Do you believe that this is how it was? What was wrong with them? What effect did they have on the participants, the audience? (Comment on the use of the song, "Easy Came, Easy Go".)

3. Why did people go in the Marathons? Do people like torturing themselves? Do audiences feel better after watching people suffer? (Is it too far-fetched to compare these Marathons with Roman circuses Why?)

4. What comment does the film make on the U.S., its style, its beliefs in itself ("forget the old Depression") , the ballyhoo? Can you imagine these marathons done in the same style in any other countries?

5. Was this dance floor meant to be a 'microcosm' of our world – a leader who calls the tune and makes inhuman demands on the poor who have to submit or else they are counted out and who entertain the rich, who throw money to them as if to animals in a zoo?

6. How pessimistic is the film? Does it offer any hope or salvation for any of its characters? All seem to be beaten; their ends are madness, death, prison. Waff the finale credible? Did Robert have enough motivation to kill Gloria?

7. What did you think of the flash-backs which turned out to be flash-forwards? Were they puzzling or did you work it out? Did they mean that Robert was doomed beforehand to prison?

8. Did you like Gloria? Did you sympathise with her? What was her background? Why was she so cynical? Why did she despair - was she a loser? Crying when her stockings tore? Her partner walking out on her? Being asked to marry? Finding out about the fraud with the prizemoney? Was her suicide convincing?

9. Did you like Robert? Was he too naive, gentle? Note his being asked to be Gloria's partner; his continual desire to see the sun and the sky; his discovery of Alice's dress; his shooting Gloirat did he understand Gloria - of, the flash-forwards and his remark "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"

10. How different from Gloria was Alice? Why did she go mad?

11. Did you like Sailor? Why? What impression did his death make on you, his trying to keep going so they raced around the floor?

12. Why was the pregnant Ruby introduced into the film? What comment did her presence make on the marathons and the depression?

13. What kind of character was the compere - cynical, (the man who really knew what the marathon issues were all about), corrupt, a showman? He said his father was a fraud faith-healer - how was he similar to his father? Would you say the film implied that the compere is a symbol of the type of men who call the tune of the world?

THIS PROPERTY IS CONDEMNED

US, 1966, 110 minutes, Colour.
Natalie Wood, Robert Bedford, Charles Bronson, Kate Reid, Mary Badham, Robert Blake.
Directed by Sidney Pollack.

This Property 1s Condemned is based on a one act play by Tennessee Williams. It is set in the familiar Williams' territory of the Southern states. The time is the depression. As with other plays a condemned building serves as a symbol of decaying society (as in the floodbound home in The Seven Descents of Myrtle, Blood Kin). The building symbolises the railway junction that is closing down because of changes in production and carting.

Natalie Wood plays the Williams’ leading lady, the mixture of pride and sensuality and tragedy. Robert Redford (in pre-Sundance days) plays the hero quietly. The film is long and rather slow-paced, but most visits to Williams' country are interesting.

Sidney Pollack directed Castle Keep and They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

1. What is the meaning of the title?

2. Why did the screenplay make Willis tell the story, dressed in Alva's things, walking on the railway line?

3. Did the film communicate the way of life in the 30s, in a railway city, with the depression closing in?

4. Did you understand Alva's character, spoilt and beautiful, "the main attraction", selfish yet with a roving imagination, and wishing for better things for herself?

5. How did Alva show her character in her first meeting with Owen and her throwing herself at him? (and her reactions to Sidney, J.J., and Mr. Johnson)?

6. What kind of man was Owen? Was he likeable, attractive? Was he superior to the people of Dodson City?

7. What kind of woman was Mrs. Starr - the type of boarding house she ran, J.J., her plans for Alva and Mr. Johnson, her age?

8. What role did Willis play in the film? Was she a convincing charaeter: How did she contrast with Alva? Was she a typical tomboy? How did she relate to Owen?

9. How did the railway situation influence the drama? Was Owen doing the best he could? Did he feel for the men? Could he have done anything else? Was it fair for the men to bash him?

10. Why was Owen attracted to Alva? Why was she something special to him? Why did she protest so much? Discuss Owen's conversation with her when she was hiding in the garden from Mr. Johnson, What was the significance of the conversation in the old carriage - her dreams and fantasies, his lack of dream and vision and his "realism".

11. Was Mrs. Starr right in asking her daughter to live with Mr. Johnson? Why did Alva react so strongly against it? Why did Owen believe Mrs. Starr's phone call about Alva's willingness to go? Why did he hurt Alva?

12. Was Alva's marriage to J.J. credible as a reaction against her mother, a hurting and defying her mother, an escape from Mr. Johnson?

13. New Orleans was Alva's dream. How did the train trip, her walks in New Orleans and her meeting the people seem to her? Were they the fulfilment of her dream?

14. Were you glad she and Owen were reconciled? Was this the best thing for them? Was the ending inevitable? Why did her mother act in such a cruel way? Did she have grounds for revenge?

15. How did Owen react to the news of the marriage? Would he have forgiven her?

16. Was Alva's death too melodramatic?

17. How effective were the symbols. - e.g. the decaying house, the paperweight, the old carriage, the cemetery above ground in New Orleans, "Wish me a Rainbow", etc, ?

18. Was this a typical film presentation of the Southern States? Could this story have happened elsewhere?

THREE INTO TWO WON'T GO

UK, 1968, 92 minutes, Colour.
Rod Steiger, Claire Bloom, Judy Geeson, Peggy Ashcroft, Paul Rogers, Elizabeth Spriggs.
Directed by Peter Hall.

Three Into Two Won't Go is a study of contemporary marriage and a rather caustic and pessimistic study at that. Peter Hall (formerly director of the Royal Shakespeare Company of Stratford-on-Avon) directs the film whose screenplay is by feminist Irish novelist, Edna O'Brien. (The 1963 film Girl with Green Eyes showed Miss O'Brien's preoccupation with the rights of women, her antagonism towards men and the domination of Irish attitudes and the Catholic Church.) An Irony of this film is that the nine year old marriage between stars, Rod Steiger and Claire Bloom, broke up soon after the completion of the film.

Some critics have found the film somewhat cold and dispassionate. However, it is an excellent study of an unsuccessful marriage and the amoral, 'modern', marriage-breaker and it is worth seeing and discussing. The fine acting of the two stars 1s supported by one of Judy Geeson's best performances and by performances of noted English actors associated with the Royal Shakespeare Company, Dame Peggy Ashcroft, Paul Rogers and Elizabeth Spriggs.

1. The film builds up quickly, relying an small details to convey character and communicate atmosphere
- the hitch-hiking girl making the driver come back to where she is standing to pick her up. Steven ae the type who picks girls up, well-known at the hotel.
- The love-making, posing as a loving couple, yet the point is that this is hollow and they are merely goinq through the notions of union: the girl's diary and classification of men.
- Steven, as deceitful but looking resources to cope with his situation.
- The girl dominating the situation and Steven, as she threatens to scream in the hotel, and as she takes a job and her uniform at the hotel.
- The nudity: as the way the girl chooses to make herself attractive and exciting, also her 'freedom' and 'lack of hypocrisy' as she runs naked down the stairs.

2. Steven and Frances' marriages
- appears friendly as he arrives; the atmosphere of moving house.
- soon degenerates into conventional bickering,
- then to Frances' frigidity and her driving Steven to others.
- Frances' desire for children, even adoption.
- her attempt to make the new home a tie for the marriage.
- Frances as devoted and wronged and Frances as cold and irritable.
- the role of Frances' mother - living with them
- sent to the institution
- visited by Frances
- resenting her own husband’s behaviour (the influence of this on Frances).

3. The girl and the 'freedom' of the 19 year-old:
- turning up as she likes,
- not embarrassed at arriving at Steven 's home, talking with Frances and helping her paint,
- the manoeuvre of -tike pregnancy; lies about the hotel-manager,
- pleasing herself whom she would be nice to or nasty to,
- she takes over Steven at his office,
- she forces Frances to negotiate with Steven at the office instead of at home,
- she drives Frances' mother at home,
- she forces them all out of their own home: note the effect of the endings after driving them out she sits and watches pop-songs on T.V., then gets her haversack and goes on her way to start all over again.

4. Thus the film is a version of the eternal triangle, but set in the bitter mood of to-day's attempt at love, a 1960's version of the picaresque, the stranger who enters people's lives, changes them all and leaves. In this futile attempt to bridge the generation gap, the stranger wins and leaves only the husk of a marriage.

3:10 TO YUMA

US, 1957, 92 minutes, Black and white.
Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, Felicia Farr, Henry Jones, Leora Dana, Richard Jaeakel.
Directed by Delmer Daves.

3:10 to Yuma has become something of a classic over the years. It is an unpretentious story of the West, told well. Inevitably it invites comparison with High Noon (1952) with its theme of a man's obligation to his conscience and his being left alone to follow it.

Glenn Ford plays the killer with an oily charm. Van Heflin gives a fine performance as the quiet farmer who takes a job for the money for water for his drought-stricken cattle-run. And, even though his employer and the weather release him from his obligation, he knows that he must put the prisoner in his care on the 3:10 train to Yuma. Delmer Daves and Glenn Ford made three Westerns in 1956-8, Jubal and Cowboy being the other two. This seems to be the best. It came at a peak in Ford's popularity. From 1955 to 1959 he appeared in at least fourteen films.

3:10 to Yuma is a good film for any audience.

1. How did the film create an atmosphere of the West - the coach, scenery, robbery, drought, isolated town, etc. ?

2. Was the audience meant to have any sympathy with Ben Wade after he shot the stage driver? Did he have any good reason for shooting the driver?

3. Dan Evans and his sons were bystanders. Could they have done anything else? If they had, would it have been worth it?

4. What kind of man did the film make out Wade to be - his relationship with his gang, with the girl in the hotel, in the scene where Dan contributes to his arrest?

5. Why was it important for the film to build up a picture of Alex's being the town drunk and something of a fool? (Yet he wanted to be given a chance to prove himself - did he?)

6. Did Dan take on the job of guarding Wade merely for the money? Did he feel any sense of duty or responsibility at this point of the film?

7. What influence did his wife, children and the needs of his land and the cattle have on him?

8. Did the film build up suspense well - the use of the clock, Dan’s growing edginess, the attitudes of Wade, the drunk sleeping in the hotel foyer?

9. Did Dan at any stage succumb to Wade’s temptations of money to set him free? Did Dan have a struggle with himself? How did Van Heflin's face convey his feelings in watching Wade?

10. What impact did the funeral sequence have? Did the funeral affeot Wade?

11. Did the people of Contention City have any obligation to guard Wade and fight off his gang? Were they entitled to walk out on Dan?

12. Did Dan have any obligations towards Wade when Butterfield released him from the job and promised the $200 anyway? Why did Dan feel it was right and go on with it? How important was Alex's murder? How important to Dan was his idea of having a safe society where people would not go in fear?

13. How important was the rain? It also meant that he would not need the $200.

14. Was Dan's wife right to stand by her husband's decision?

15. Why did Wade get into the train and protect Dan? Was it merely that he was grateful for Dan's saving his life in the hotel room and that he oould easily escape from Yuma? Or was there more to it?

16. Did you admire Dan and what he stood for?

17. Was the final rain too sentimental an ending or did it fit in with the closing of the film?

18. What did the song contribute to the film by way of mood? the repeated theme, Wade whistling it, the girl in Contention singing it?

THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS

US, 1970, 85 minutes, Colour.
George C. Scott, Joanne Woodward, Jack Gilford.
Directed by Anthony Harvey.

They Might Be Giants is a social fantasy that does not quite come off but has many good features and a certain charm about it. James Goldman and Anthony Harvey, who were writer and director for The Lion in Winter, performed the same tasks for this film.

George C. Scott plays a judge who suffers from paranoia and thinks he is Sherlock Holmes, Scott's impersonation of Holmes, hat, pipe and cap and, especially, the finding and following of clues, is delightful. Justin - Sherlock Holmes lives in a logical world of clues and the searching out of evil for combat, but it is an unreal world. In the real world, he is being pursued by his brother and by criminals;and his associates, the poor, the oppressed, the eccentric are hounded by society.

He is helped by a psychologist, Dr. Watson, (Mildred), played by Joanne Woodward as a more sophisticated and urbane Rachel, Rachel. Dr. Watson helps him in his troubles, is analysed accurately by Holmes and comes to some understanding of herself. But she has to decide about Justin-Holmes?. After a Madwoman of Chaillot-like procession of the slightly mad through the city, Dr. Watson goes on alone with Holmes and enters his world. Unfortunately, the film seems too often a juxtaposition of whimsical, but satirical, fantasy and social realism. The audience might find the plot confusing during the film. But it is worth reflecting on and sorting out afterwards. The two stars are excellent, carry the film, and generate a tenderness that is too good for this evil world.

1. What did the quotation at the opening of the film mean? Does everyone have some evil to seek out and destroy as Don Quixote had his windmills and Holmes his Moriarty?

2. What is the significance of the title for the film? Justin says that Don Quixote was mad because he was certain the windmills were giants. However, we should not be so sure, nevertheless, we should be open because they ‘might’ be giants.

3. How did the credits sequences give a mood to the film - the confined atmosphere of the bunsen flame and Justin's intense eyes?

4. The theme of the film was true and false madness, the nature of reality and unreality. Who was mad in the film and who was not? What was real and what was not?

5. Why did Justin unconsciously choose to be Sherlock Holmes? What attracted him about the character? Why would Holmes be an interesting person to be? Did you enjoy George C, Scott's impersonation of Holmes? Why?

6. As Holmes, Justin was investigating himself and passed many corments on himself. How symbolic was this search for identity and refusal to face and accept facts?

7. Justin-Holmes? soon established himself ae a doer of good. Were you moved by MB treatment of HP. Small's silence?

8. Did you find the fact that Joanne Woodaard played a Dr. Watson acceptable? What was the significance of this and how was it followed through in the film? What did Dr. Watson do in the stories? Did it make any difference to Justin that Dr. Watson was a woman?

9. What was the impact of the first visit scene to the laboratory? she was overjoyed at finding a classic paranoia; he followed the elves and analysed her.

10. There was logic and method in Justin'a madness, a perfect following of leads and clues within the terms of his reality. What was the point of the clues' sequence?

11. In their search, Holmes and Watson encounter needy ordinary people. They are presented as victims of society, forced into difficult situations and helped, even saved, by Holmes. This gives the film an opportunity for social satire and comment. Was this effective? What comment was made?
- the girl at the telephone exchange,
- the woman on the switchboard,
- Wilbur (he was a true friend, he yearned to be the Scarlet Pimpernel)
- the people at the cinema watching Westerns (why did Holmes praise the straight presentation of justice in Westerns?)
- Justin's sister-in-law,
- Mr. Small and the nurse,
- the city cleaners.

12. These ordinary people, the poor, the oppressed, the eccentric, had a triumphant Pied Piper procession through the city. What did this mean? Why were they not prepared to follow Holmes and Watson all the way to Moriarty?

13. Who were the villains
- Justin's brother and the gangsters,
- Dr. Strauss (with his institution and incongrous drawl),
- the telephone exchange rules,
- the police,
- the cinema managers.

14. How did Holmes transform Dr. Watson's life - the significance of the dinner scene?

15. Why did Dr. Watson hesitate at the end? What choice did she make? Why did she hear Moriarty 's horses 'steps? What was the significance of the ending? What was the point of this fantasy on madness?

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

US, 1968,150 minutes, Colour.
Keir Duties, Gary Lockwood, Robert Beatty, Margaret Tyckzak.
Directed by Stanley Kubriak.

2001: A Space Odyssey 1s one of the greatest films of the 60's. Stanley Kubrfck satirically blew up the world at the end of Dr. Strangelove. Here he grapples with the realities of our universe and does not come up with completely pessimistic answers.

2001 is a cinema poem, relying on images and on very few words. Its scope is enormous, the whole history of our universe and the transcendent influences on it. Thus it opens with a poem on evolution, the dawn of man, where primitive apes are influenced by a mysterious artifact and learn to use tools and to kill. There is immediate transition to 2001 and the Blue Danube in space, space-craft gliding through the luminous vastness. The human race has progressed. Again, on the moon, the astronaut encounters the mysterious artifact, the monolith. The scene advances eighteen months to a mission to Jupiter. It is here that the astronaut encounters the malice of the machine, the computer, Hal, and is almost destroyed. But the monolith is here also. Finally, he relives his life, grows old and dies reaching out to the monolith. An embryo appears. This space odyssey of the human race still goes on.

Mmuch has been written on the film. It was not very popular on first release, so very few people saw it in the original Cinerama beauty. However, it has become almost a fashion and quite a talking point on science, philosophy, poetry, cinema, religion.

1. What are the full implications of the title of the film and how do they throw light on the themes of the film?
- 2000 - a new millennium, sense of prophetic achievement, new era.
- 2001 - the first year of the new millennium, when the era settles down to ordinary living.
- space - as the environment for technological progress and for human frowth, self-exploration and knowledge.
- odyssey - like Ulysses (Odysseus), an epic hero, man, wandering the seas (of space) in strange adventures, but eventually wandering home?

2. The film has been described as a cinema-poem - so little verbal dialogue or commentary, so much emphasis on images, colour, space and music. How successful a cinema-poem is the film?

3. The theme of the film is humanity, history, life and destiny. An individual man is presented in the last segment of the film who represents the history, life, destiny process in himself. Are these adequate summaries of the film?

4. Kubrick sees the film as religious. The monolith is not said to be divine, but it is, at least, extra-terrestrial, superhuman and the product of intelligent and skilled craftsmanship. What is the religious symbolism of the monolith - affecting the apes' lives, work and attitudes to each other, as present in all times and on earth, and in apace, mysterious on the moon, flying beyond Jupiter, present to the man as he dies and reaches out to be united with it?

5. The film is also a film of this world, especially the world of present and future technology. Was this convincingly presented? What vision of technology did the film present?

6. How did the music contribute to the words of the film? HSow did Strauss' Thus Spake Zarathustra add to the dignity and symbolism of the opening and to the evolution of the apes?

7. What was the significance of the prologue on the dawn of the human race? How well was it done? Some have seen it as good poetic science as well as a visual version of an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis 1. Do you agree?

8. How did the monolith affect the life of the apes? What did this segment teach you about human nature?

9. What was the significance of the famous transition from prehistory to the present, to primitive murder to scientific technique and achievement in luminous space and the place and harmony of The Blue Danube Waltz? (Despite murder, we can still transcend evil and achieve.)

10. What is the quality of life in our space future - travel, Hiltons, telephones, yet lack of communication, fear, international briefings?

11. What is the significance of the monolith on the moon, the search for it, the encounter and the effect of the electronic music) ?

12. 2001 - why was the mission to Jupiter organised? What connection had it with the monolith? How impressive was the space-craft and the technique and technology behind it?

13. What was the quality of life of the astronauts? How personal were they, despite their degrees and cleverness? The mundane things done on the craft - meals, drawings, exercise, chess, birthdays?

14. What role did HAL play in the film? What was the significance of his strong personality (the B.B.C. interview and HAL's patronising friendship with Dave and Frank) and the fact that his brain knew more than the astronauts and could plot against them?

15. Why did HAL murder?

16. When Dave dismantled HAL (who had no emotional instinct for self-preservation), what victory was there for the human race?

17. What was the point behind the "Beyond Jupiter and the Infinite" segment? Where did Dave go? What could he do? Why the psychedelia landscapes and the monolith there?

18. Where did Dave arrive? Why the classical decor? Why the swift phases of ageing and death? How did Dave, the Everyman wander, die? Why did he reach out for the monolith?

19. What was the significance of the "star-child" at the end?

20. Was the film pessimistic or optimistic? Does the space odyssey of the human race go on after 2001? What possibilities of success and achievement are there?