A TOUCH OF LOVE (THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH)

UK, 1968, 109 minutes, Colour.
Sandy Dennis, Ian Mc Kellen, John Standing, Eleanor Bron.
Directed by Waris Hussein.

A Touch of Love 1s a woman's picture that men might find a bit hard to take but shouldn't. It is the story of the girl who keeps men sufficiently at bay during her studies and succumbs unexpectedly to a romantic television announcer and then becomes the familiar figure of the unmarried mother.

Unmarried mothers is the main theme of the film and we are made to share the emotions and decisions of such a mother, especially when she decides to bring up the child herself. The film succeeds more than others because, athough it is full of sentiment, it avoids mawkishness with down-to-earth English realism (especially a grim look at the British National Health Scheme) and humour. Eleanor Bron 1s a great asset here. Sandy Dennis tones down her mannerisms to acceptability in this and makes a success of the film. Not meant to be a masterpiece, but certainly above average.

1. Did this film tackle a real situation?

2. How real was the main character - her absent parents, her interests, playing off her two admirers against each other, mixing in the B,B,C. world?

3. Why did she consummate the brief affair with the T. V. announcer?

4. Were the abortion issues presented clearly? Did the heroine make the right choice?

5. Did she face up to the realities and responsibilities of pregnancy well?

6. Was Lydia a good adviser? Was she a good friend? How?

7. What impression of the British National Health Scheme did the film give? How accurate do you think this picture of off-hand doctors and cruel nurses was? The inspection by doctor and medical students?

8. Was the heroine right in not letting the father know about the baby?

9. Should she have kept the baby or should she have had it adopted?

10. Did the film show the joys and sacrifices of motherhood - the worry, the illness, the need for money, friendship, education of the baby?

11. Comment on the ironic sequence where the B.B.C, showed the programme on continental sex films and the commentary talked about love while the pregnant heroine looked and stretched awkwardly?

12. Was the film a satisfying study of a contemporary girl?

THE TOUCH

Sweden, 1971, 125 minutes, Colour.
Elliot Gould, Bibi Andersson, Max Von Sydow, Sheila Reid.
Directed by Ingmar Bergman.

The Touch is Ingmar Bergman's first film 1n English. Many critics felt uncomfortable about his knowledge and use of English idiom and seemed disturbed that he had made merely a love story.

As an exploration of love, the film is Interesting, tracing, as it does, the falling in love of a 15-years married wife to a foreign archaeologist. The film explores the relationship from the point of view of the wife. Bibi Andersson, one of Bergman's regular performers, plays this role with an illuminating intensity. Other critics have looked at the film with the archeologlst as the central character, a rough, strange, Jewish outsider, who comes to unearth old Swedish Christian traditions and finds them decaying inside. Elliot Gould is the outsider.

This does not seem to be one of Bergman's major films, but for him, it is an unusual one and one which demands more thought than might at first appear.

1. What did the title of the film mean?

2. Much was made at the time of Bergman's first film in English, his first love story and his using Elliot Gould. Was it noticeable that the dialogue and style were from a non-English-speaking director? How? How important was this?

3. Was The Touch just a love story, another look at an ordinary theme, hence the sometimes trite, hackneyed and romantic style of the film? Or was it more than just a love story?

4. Who was the central character, David or Karin? Why?

5. What kind of woman was Karin? How was her married life pictured? was she happy? How ordinary was her life? How rooted was it in Swedish traditions and ordered way of doing things? Did the film help you to understand her as a person, as a woman, wife and mother?

6. What kind of man was David - the outsider, seemingly coming from nowhere, the Jew with a persecution background, an archeologist, a barbarian in looks and manner, wild yet attractive? Did the film help you to understand him?

7. Did you understand Andreas? Was his character obvious? Was he a good man? Why didn't he hold the love and affection of his wife?

8. Were the pictures of the Vergerus household well done? How was this atmosphere created?

9. What was the significance of David's being an archeologist - an outsider digging into Sweden's past, a Jew discovering something Christian? Was the Jewish-Christian? theme important for the film or was it merely incidental? Why?

10. How symbolic was the statue of the Madonna? How did Bergman make his film identify the statue with Karin? What meaning was there in the statue's being buried, half-excavated, then taken out but found to be eaten away inside - and David's connection with all this?

11. Why did Karin fall in love with David? Were the motivations given, explored or just presented? What did she want from him, need from, have to offer him? How passionate was she? Baa did the deception work on her? What was her attitude to Andreas?

12. Why did David fall in love with Karin? What did he need? Why was he so passionate? Why did he scream in an incomprehensible language? What did David stand for?

13. How did David's absence affect Karin? How was this shown, and the time, in the texture of the film?

14. How did Bergman bring his theme to a head?

15. What impact did Karin's trip to London have? How did the English setting create a different atmosphere from the Swedish?

16. Were you surprised to find Sarah? Did she explain David any better to you? What was her relationship to him?

17. Where did the film lead to? How was the film resolved?

18. Was the film accurate in its portrayal of marriage, cynical, destructive ?

19. How do the themes and the treatment compare with other Bergman films?

THX 1138

US, 1970, 93 minutes, Colour.
Robert Duval, Donald Pleasence, Maggie Mc Omie.
Directed by George Lucas.

THX 1138 is fascinating, if depressing, science-fiction. It is a very good attempt at a visual "1984" or "Brave New World". The plot is a variation on these themes, set in the 25th century where men, with computer indexes for names, live underground in a completely mechanised world where feelings are illegal and all life is functional. Nature is absent.

George Lucas, who wrote the screenplay as well as directing the film, uses many of the techniques and unusual styles of underground movies to excellent effect. Cutting and juxtaposing of images creates an eerie world along with the marvellous design and colour of the sets. Most of the sequences are patterned in a stylised way which contributes to the impersonal yet compelling tone of the film. The actors, despite the fact that they represent depersonalized humans, make a significant impact. The stylishness of this production, the literacy of the film and its pessimistic vision will probably make it a fashionable science-fiction feature for some time to come.

1. What was the basic message of this film?

2. Was it an effective 1984-style parable?

3. How successful were the filming and editing techniques in creating an atmosphere for the film?

4. A lot of the techniques of underground and experimental movies were used in this film. How effective and appropriate were they?

5. Comment on the use of colour (and white).

6. Comment on the impact of the musical score.

7. What is the quality of life in the 25th century? What is wrong with it? What kind of physical environment is there - nature is absent?

8. What has happened to the human race? Is it well-off?

9. Discuss the role of the computer in this future and man's relation to it - the seeking of computerised advice, the use of television screens and computer card information, the lack of privacy?

10. How were men and women depersonalised - their names, the control of emotional and sexual relationships (sexual partners as functional; room companions computerised), their work, their conversation, their clothes, their impersonal baldness.

11. Comment on the robot~police controlling people.

12. Why was THX arrested?

13. Comment on his imprisonment, his trial, torture, his being used as a scientific guinea pig.

14. What was the significance of the cinema technique transferred to this 25th century and the nature of the chase?

15. What happened to THX's room companion and his helper?

16. Why did authority give up chasing THX - was it too costly? Was this the measure of his importance?

17. What was the impact of the whole film - its story, its techniques, its vision of the human as a mechanised body lacking almost all spirit and any manifestation of spirit being crushed or rendered useless?

18. If this is how we might be, wouldn't it be better if we destroyed the universe?

TOYS IN THE ATTIC

US, 1962, 90 minutes, Black and white.
Dean Martin, Geraldine Page, Yvette Mimieux, Wendy Hiller, Gene Tierney, Larry Gates.
Directed by George Roy Hill.

Toys in the Attic is another of Lillian Hellman's caustic plays about the decaying South, the ancestor of which was her famous The Little Foxes. Here we have the proud Bernier family, two spinster sisters who have spoilt their younger brother who now wishes to make good. One sister, Carrie, so wishes to possess him herself that she breaks up the family with an intense destruction. The American South is a frightening world. The ingredients make for strong drama and Lillian Hellman's dialogue has bite, but somehow the film does not emerge as the major drama it might have been. Nevertheless, it does have considerable force.

Dean Martin shows that he is an actor capable of serious work. But the film is Geraldlne Page as Carrie, although it is a role she is in danger of re-creating too often (Summer and Smoke, Sweet Bird of Youth, The Beguiled). Wendy Hiller, in unexpected casting, is excellent as the wiser sister, Anna.

George Roy Hill has directed some interesting films Including The World of Henry Orient, Hawaii and Butch Cassldy and the Sundance Kid.

1. What was the meaning of the title of this film?

2. There are many films that have the Southern U.S. states for their setting and portray it as inbred, decadent and partly insane. Was this film typical of this presentation of the south?

3. What kind of man was Julian? Had he grown up? Had he been too pampered by his sisters? Why had he married Lily? Did you think he was having an affair after you saw Lily follow him and worry about him?

4. What kind of woman was Carrie? How important to her were the Bernier name and house? How attached to Julian was she?

5. What kind of woman was Anna? How did she contrast with Carrie?

6. How did the sequence of Julian's bringing home the gifts and the ship tickets reveal the relationships in the family?

7. What kind of woman was Lily? Why had she not grown up? How had her relationship with her mother affected her? Why was she so suspicious? What did Carrie and Anna think of her?

8. What aspect of the south did Lily's mother represent (and her chauffeur)?

9. What significance and impact did the short sequences concerning Walker and his wife have? Did it make what followed credible?

10. Why did Anna and Carrie quarrel? Did Anna speak the truth about Carrie's attitude towards Julian? Should she have?

11. Why did Carrie use Lily - to hurt her? To hurt Anna? To hurt Julian? To bring Julian back to her? Something of all these motives? How deliberately malicious was Carrie?

12. Was Anna right in getting Lily to stand by Julian no matter what happened?

13. When did Julian finally see through Carrie? How did she give herself away? Was this inevitable?

14. Was the ending the only ending possible? Did Anna have any obligation to Carrie? What would become of Carrie?

15. This film was heavily 'southern' in mood, tone, language. Could this story have been set elsewhere and have made the same impact?

TWO FOR THE ROAD

UK, 1967, 109 minutes, Colour.
Albert Finney, Audrey Bepburn, Eleanor Bron, William Daniels, Claude Dauphin, Judy Cornwall, Jacqueline Bissett.
Directed by Stanley Donen.

Two for the Road looks at times like a glossy romance of a rich English couple holidaying in France. At times it is this. But the film is a bitter-sweet look at a modem marriage. The point of view is the presem with the couple rich, with one rather neglected child, ambitious, used to each other, hurting each other. They remember the past, not in any real ordered sequence, but in flashes, the origin of the marriage, early love and lack of money, old holidays, later infidelities. Thus the film works on several time levels all at once and this cross-cutting of time makes ironic comment on the marriage and on the couple.

Screenplay is by Frederic Raphael (Darling, Nothing But the Best, Far From the Madding Crowd). The two stars are good, but remind us of their other performances. English Eleanor Bron (Bedazzled, A Touch of Love, Women ir Love) adds comedy to her American Mom role. The film was directed by StanleyDonen? whose subsequent films included Bedazzled and Staircase.

A look at modern marriage, both comic and sour, worth discussing.

1. What was the significance of the road symbol for the whole film? The credits need the road and the road signs. What tone did this use give to the film - serious, facetious, clever, ironic?

2. How is the structure of the film explained? How were the different levels of time indicated? Was the film easy to follow? What was the effect of intermingling the different times? Was there a centre pair, of reference which measured the significance of these times?

3. The film was a study of marriage in its origins, growth, development and stagnation. Would it have been deeper and more incisive if the narrative had been straightforward and chronological or did the film benefit by showing marriage not as lived but as a mixture of aonfusec memories? Why?

4. Did the real ages of Finney and Audrey Hepburn make the flash-back sequences hard to take or were the too actors convincing in each period?

5. How well did the film make its comments obliquely - e.g. the contrast of attitudes to money, travelling the same road, the difference in th meals at the same place over the years, beds?

6. Why did they fall in love during their hitch-hiking? (Was the mislaid passport an effective symbol?) Did they have enough basic love for a successful marriage?

7. How did the couple change over the years? How did the film indicate this? Did the trip with the American couple (overdone but funny in itself) add anything to the film? Did it offer any contrast to the central couple? Why was it included - and such devices as the speeded-up tour?

8. Why did the couple quarrel so much? What did the husband's adultery with the girl in the bar and the wife's affair reveal about them?

9. Did the film resolve itself well? Did they have a future together?

10. How successful had they become? How important were wealth and position to them? How likeable were they by the end of the film?

TO SIR WITH LOVE

UK, 1967,103 minutes, Colour.
Sidney Poitier, Susy Kendall, Judy Geeson, Christian Roberts, Lulu, Adrienne Posta, Ann Bell, Patricia Routledge.
Directed by James Clavell.

To Sir With Love was one of the most popular of Sidney Poitier's films and, no matter how many objections hardened realists make about its idealism, his performance is warm, endearing and communicates something uplifting. E. A. Braithwaite's story of a coloured teacher in a London Dock's school is a best-seller and shows a teacher grappling with the problems of education and solving them when he treats the children as potential adults, as human beings who respond to kindness, sympathy and real goals and values. The average teacher could not hope to emulate the success of Poitier's Mark Thackeray, but will get a big lift from watching this story and this performance.

Many young British stars had their first major role in this film - Judy Geeson, Suzy Kendall, Lulu and Christian Roberts. The film was directed by novelist-director James Clavell who also made the interesting film of the Thirty Years' War, The Last Valley.

1. "Blending idealism with realism" was Time Magazine's caption for its review of this film. How well does it sum up your impression of To Sir With Love?

2. What kind of a man was Mark Thackeray? Did you find him someone to admire, even imitate? What were his good qualities which stood out?

3. What kind of a school was North Quay? Did you get a better understanding of the school, the kids and their need for discipline in seeing their parents and the area (the opening bus-ride, the market, etc.)?

4. What impression did the staff make? Why was Weston so cynical - did he have reason to be?

5. What did you think of the early class-room scenes? Were they funny or did you feel sympathy for Thackeray or did you think it was fair enough for the class to enjoy themselves as long as they could?

6. What were the main problems in the classroom? loutishness, ignorance, race attitudes, poverty? What were the main problems of some of the boys and girls?

7. Why did Thackeray change his teaching approach? (Why was he disgusted with himself at losing his temper?)

8. Why did he succeed with his new methods? Was it merely because he treated them as adults? Comment on his bid for courtesy, "no one loves a slut for long", change his classes on marriage, cooking and survival. What effect did he have on the boys and girls amongst themselves?

9. Why did "Pom get a crush on Sir?

10. Why did Denim dislike him?
11. How did the Physical Education incident bring things to a head - and the consequence of Denim boxing with Sir?

12. Did you enjoy the sequence of the outing - the song and the stills? How did it communicate happiness and the widening of horizons of the mind?

13. How did Thackeray advise Mrs Dare?

14. Why was the funeral such a big issue? Why did the fact that they swallowed their fears and prejudice by coming show that Thackeray had succeeded?

15. Was the graduation dance too good to be true?

16. What was the point of Sir's dancing with Pam and then the presentation? Was this all too sentimental?

17. What made Sir change his mind to stay?

18. Real, achievable goodness is presented in the film. Do you think the effect of a film like this is to give people a big lift (especially teachers)? Why?

TOM JONES

UK, 1963, 126 minutes, Colour.
Albert Finney, Susannah York, Hugh Griffith, Edith Evans, Joan Greenwood, Diane Cilento, Joyce Redman, David Tomlinson, George Devine, David Warner, Rachel Kempson, Jack Mc Gowran, Peter Bull, Julian Glover, Lynn Redgrave, narrated by Michael Mc Liammoir.
Directed by Tony Richardson,

Tom Jones has become a favourite film, very popular with most audiences. John Osborne's screenplay caught the spirit and the principal characters and situations of Henry Fielding's classic novel of 1749 in a remarkable way and Tony Richardson succeeded in using a wide range of cinema techniques to keep the film moving at a rapid pace - silent film techniques, narrator, racy music, cleverly comical editing, characters speaking to the audience, and so on. From this point of view, the film is certainly worth seeing.

Tom Jones is the story of the average man, a man caught up in accidents of birth and upbringing, a man moulded by his times and the society in which he lived, a good man with faults, but whose faults are those of wlldness rather than malice. Albert Finney is a perfect Tom Jones and is complemented well by an expert English cast, including Susannah York's lively interpretation of Sophia. Flnney was nominated for an Oscar, as were Hugh Griffith, Edith Evans, Diane Cilento and Joyce Redman, although all missed out. However the film itself and Richardson won the awards.

As a visualisation of eighteenth century England, country and city, Its manners, characters and beliefs, you could hardly beat Tom Jones.

1. This film won the Oscar for the Best Film of 1963. Audiences all over the world hope enjoyed it very much. Why do you think it has been popular?

2. How interesting technically is the film - the use of the lightly ironical commentary, the stylised silent film opening and credits, the dissolves, the actors addressing the audience? How do these techniques affect the mood of the film?

3. How good a picture of eighteenth century life did the film give: country life, aristocracy and farmers, the hunt, the army, travelling, morals, landon life, Hogarthian London, Vauxhall Gardens, the nobility, Tyburn? Within the length of two hours, this picture is built up. How has the screenplay communicated such a vivid picture?

4. Tom is the hero, yet he has many faults, makes many mistakes. How does the commentator tell us that he is still a hero? He says his faults were those of wildness, not malice. Is Tom a typical ordinary hero of any century?

5. Sophia could have been a romantic and sentimental heroine, yet she is vigorous and attractive. What does the screenplay make her do to appear ae a strong heroine?

6. Comment an the portrayal of the following characters, their humanity or their failings and how they typified some eighteenth century characteristics (and twentieth century characteristics):
- Squire Allworthy, his love for Torn, his justice, his seeking the truth,
- Bridget Allworthy as a genteel lady (and revealed as Tom's mother),
- Blifil, self-righteous prig, deceitful and cunning hypocrite,
- Thwackum and Square, learning and religion on a superficial and hypocritical level,
- the servile steward who betrayed the letter to Bliful,
- George Seagrim and his wife, hard, plain farmers, the poaching,
- Molly, the promiscuous country girl (and the epic fight at the Church),
- Honour, Sophia's maid.

7. What did you think of the Westerns? Did you enjoy Hugh Griffith's portrayal of Squire Western? Why? Was he a typical country squire of the times? Where did he get his code of behaviour? What did his attitudes towards poachers, the clergy, his farm, his dogs, his sister, his daughter reveal about him? Why did he vary in his attitudes towards Tom? How much of a snob was he?

8. Why was the hunt scene included? Why was it technically so impressive? What did it say about eighteenth century attitudes? How disgusting was it?

9. What did Miss Western stand for? How much of a snob was she? How hypocritical were her moral standards?

10. Comment on the idyllic sequence of Tom's recovery at the Westerns. How did it build up the relationship between Tom and Sophia with romantic interludes, colour, music and humour -e.g. the rowing, the riding?

11. Why was Tom ousted from the Allworthy household? How was Tom shown to be a typical victim of society's hypocrisy?

12. Why is the eating scene between Tom and Mrs. Waters so famous? Why was it technically so successful? What did it reveal about Tom and Mrs Waters? About passion, appetite and lust?

13. Did you. like Mrs Waters? Why?

14. What impression of the army did you get from the Upton Inn sequence? What kind of man was Southerton? How did he contrast with Tom – in the jokes about Sophia, in the treatment of Mrs Waters, in the fight, in courage?

15. Why was Partridge a sad figure? Did you enjoy his highwayman performance?

16. What did the Fitzpatricks add to the film?

17. What impression of London did you get as Tom and Partridge walked th streets? What do you think of that poor London? How did it contrast with the elegant London, and the masques at Vauxhall Gardens?

18. What kind of women waa Lady Bellaston? Was she meant to represent typical aristocracy? Why did Tom fall wider her power? How did she humiliate Tom by buying his clothes for him? How did she use Tom? Can you understand how Tom, who loved Sophia, could play up to Lady Bellaston?

19. What was being satirised in Lord Fellamar - in his jaded appearance, ineptitude, courting of Sophia and his violence towards her?

20. How was Tom a victim of circumstances and society in London and in being put into prison? How effective were the scenes in London and at Newgate and the hanging sequence?

21. What picture of eighteenth century Londoners did this part of the film give?

22. Was the happy ending right? Was justice done and seen to be done?

23. If you have read the novel, how does the film compare? did it capture the spirit of the book, the characters, the panorama of English society, the comedy of human nature?

THUNDER PANTS

UK, 2002, 87 minutes, Colour.
Simon Callow, Stephen Fry, Celia Imrie, Paul Giamatti, Ned Beatty, Bruce Cook, Rupert Grint, Bronagh Gallagher, Victor Mc Guire, Adam Godley, Leslie Phillips, Robert Hardy.
Directed by Peter Howett.

Thunder Pants is an unlikely story for a children's film insofar as the quality of the central character, Patrick Smash (Bruce Cook), is that he has two stomachs and a prodigious ability to break wind. He is only ten years old. However, his friend at school, Alan A. Allen (Rupert Grint, from the Harry Potter films), is a genius at scientific inventions and builds underwear that give some kind of control for poor Patrick. Alan also builds a machine that will assist flight, based on the physiology of Patrick's stomachs. When the world's second-greatest tenor (played by Simon Callow) cannot reach a high note, Patrick is able to do so because of his flatulence. He goes on a world tour with the tenor. However, there is a vengeful tenor in the offing, Placido P. Placeedo, a nod, of course, in the direction of Placido Domingo. When the tenor is killed, Patrick is accused, tried in court but finishes up going to the United States where various officials, Ned Beatty and Paul Giamatti, are able to get him to work with a range of child geniuses who are inventing rockets at a space centre. Patrick becomes a hero and goes into space, the fulfilment of his ambitions.

The film has a strong supporting cast in guest roles including Simon Callow, Stephen Fry as a lawyer, Leslie Phillips as the judge, Robert Hardy as a director.

Director Pete Howett made a range of films including Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, the family film The Borrowers and the inventive Whatever Happened to Harold Smith.

1. An entertaining film? For young boys? For children, for adults?

2. The title, Patrick Smash's physiological phenomenon, Alan A. Allen and his inventions, underwear, and the invention for space travel?

3. The British settings, the Smash household, school, laboratories? The contrast with the world tour with the tenor? The American space station? Reality and fantasy? The musical score?

4. Patrick Smash as hero, his breaking wind - and the jokes for children, for adults? His friendship with Alan, Alan having no sense of smell, the underwear and its being a success? Patrick at home, his relationship with his parents? The medical discovery, his double stomachs? Alan inventing a further machine, the non-assisted flight competition? Patrick and his involvement, the machine, the competition, the comedy of the race, his winning? The disappearance of Alan?

5. Sir John Osgood, the world's second-greatest tenor, his pomposity? His dilemma, his wanting to hit the high note, the flatulence enabling the sound to emerge? His deal with Patrick, their tour? The audiences and their acclaim? Sir John Osgood's vanity? The rivalry of Placido P. Placeedo, competitiveness, vengefulness, exposing the truth? His death, the falling spotlight?

6. Patrick, going to court, the accusations, the lawyer, the judge - the realism and fantasy of the court case? Patrick being sent to the firing squad after his being found guilty?

7. The government officers, their contacts with Patrick, with Alan? Their getting him to America? The space dilemma, the stranded astronauts? Alan and the group of children, the prodigies, their laboratories, inventiveness? The new rocket, based again on Patrick? Patrick going into orbit, becoming an astronaut, the rescue mission and its success? Patrick as hero?

8. Patrick, his appearance, haircut, awkward manner, embarrassment? Children identifying with him and his discomfort, with his success, with achieving his ambitions?

9. The humorous tone of the film, the slapstick jokes, the verbal humour, the caricatures of the characters, Patrick's situations, Alan's seriousness and inventions, the style of the sets, the fantasy touch, the green colours, the atmosphere of a children's fantasy adventure?

THEM

US,1954, 94 minutes, Black and white.
Edmund Gwenn, James Arness, James Whitmore, Joan Weldon, Onslow Stevens.
Directed by Gordon Douglas.

Them was one of the earliest attempts at serious science fiction in the early '50s (consider The Day The Earth Stood Still and many B-budget studio-bound science fiction films as well as those of George Pal with his imagination e.g. Destination Moon).

Them was praised on its release and has a very good reputation since. It is very relevant in later decades with its criticism of America's not knowing the consequences of atomic blasts and experimentation. The film uses what has become popular material - mutant creatures as a result of radioactivity and their effect to human kind. The film uses all the dramatics of the popular science fiction and the creatures vs. humanity - but does so solidly within the context of human scientific and technological progress and uncritical acceptance of this.

The film has a strong cast - with Edmund Gwenn as a likable befuddled but acute scientist. Direction is by Gordon Douglas - director of many successful action films. Score is by Bronislau Kaper, composer for many M.G.M. films. The special effects for the ants are quite good for the early '50s. By the '60s and '70s this kind of material was respectable rather than something offbeat. Them stands quite well with later films of its kind.

1. The reputation of the film? Impact in its time? "The science fiction film has not been with us very long ..." (Monthly Film Bulletin September 1954)? The early science fiction of America in the '50s? Audience expectations - not very high?

2. The film's initial impact and acceptance, influence on further science fiction films? Seen in retrospect? Creatures menacing humanity genre? Warnings about radioactivity and its effect on creatures? Development of atomic technology? The fact that in the 50s there was strong public pressure in favour of atomic experimentation? The plausibility of the plot? The sense of realism? Contrivances? The warnings for earth? Quotations from Scripture, the apocalyptic tone with the end of the world - in a nuclear context?

3. The background of the nuclear age, the repercussions of the '40s and Hiroshima, the early '50s and tests? Mutations - as symbols of what might happen? The appropriateness of the warning in retrospect?

4. The opening with the murder investigation setting, the atmosphere of New Mexico and the desert, the winds? The detective and the crises, the destruction and the puzzle? The audience 'at home' with the genre of investigation? Becoming involved - and then the transition to science fiction?

5. The strength of the cast - representing various types? The police, the F.B.I., scientists, doctors, the military? Interaction between them? The quick suggestions of relationships and tensions as background to the investigation and the combating of the ants?

6. The effectiveness of the opening: the little girl wandering in the desert, the puzzle, the destroyed campervan, old Cramps and the discovery of his body? The wind, the desert, the clues, the violence, the print of the foot, the bit of claw, the sugar, the visualising of small ants?

7. The picturing of the police, the death of the policeman on guard? The local investigation by Ben Peterson? The arrival of Robert Grahame and the F.B.I.? The arrival of the Doctors Hedford - and the device of having the old man with his daughter? Interest of Washington - and later sequences in Washington with lectures, explanations and the press trying to uncover the truth?

8. The details of the investigation, the search, the discovery of the ants? The smell of acid? The devising of the plan to trace the ants? Helicopter search? The siege of the giant anthill, the dangers?

9. The ants in themselves? Mutations? The visualising of the special effects? The gruesome deaths? The documentary film about ants - and their militancy? Dr. Hedford's explanation? The militant menace, the queens and the drones, the flying ants, the sequence on the ship and its destruction, the deaths, the flying to Los Angeles, the settlement in the drains and the attacks?

10. The military situation: the briefings, plans, security, information, Los Angeles and the announcements of the truth and people's reaction?

11. The human stories to give emotional impact to the plot: the little girl and the interrogation, her being in shock, the smell of the acid and her reaction, 'Them'? The police? The ship? The boys and the glider and their anxious mother?

12. Edmund Gwenn's style as Dr. Medford? His ingenuity as well as his absent-mindedness? His daughter and her work, attraction towards Robert Grahame - and his becoming a hero? Ben Peterson and his strength, giving his life for the boys and saving them? The military personnel and their involvement?

13. The fight in the anthill? The repetition in the Los Angeles drains?

14. The contribution of the film to the development of science fiction films? What if ..... ? Later sophistication? Yet the relevance of the story and its warning?

THREADS

UK, 1984, 113 minutes, Colour.
Narrator: Paul Vaughan. Karen Meagher, Reece Dinsdale.
Directed by Mick Jackson.

Threads is a British telemovie, reminiscent of Peter Watkins’ The War Game in its dramatisation of nuclear holocaust and its effect on a British city. It also uses the ploy of voice-over with information and data. The War Game was banned by the BBC in the mid-1960s. Threads was screened by them. It received television screening in Australia on the Nine Network, introduced by Michael Willesee and without commercials. Its impact was very strong.

The film is a British equivalent of The Day After and highlights the differing sensibilities of Americans and British. While the American film was broad, used soap opera style to inform and have an effect on its audience, the British style is much more matter-of-fact, focuses on a small group and works by understatement along with dramatising the enormity of the situation. Threads is particularly well-made. However, like the consequences of a nuclear holocaust, the screenplay seems to lose a direct and logical force as the film goes on - it mirrors the drift and uncertainty of the survival after the dropping of the bombs.

Dramatic impact, important information - a significant film.

1. The importance of this kind of telemovie? In the tradition of films about nuclear issues? Its impact on its audience?

2. BBC production values? Audience intended? British, worldwide? British style and quality?

3. A warning to the audience via story and identification with characters: ordinary lifestyles in Sheffield, ordinary experiences and situations, characters? The reality of the crisis? The impact of the suffering? Backed by information, forecasts?

4. The tradition of nuclear films - warnings? The 80s and the fact of the dropping of the bomb? The highlighting of the consequences and having to cope?

5. The title and the theme of webs and threads, strands strong and vulnerable? Interweaving? The interweaving life of individuals, communities, cities, countries, the world? The threads of politics, power and the military? The human threads for people who have to cope?

6. The structure of the.film: the focus on days and dates, weeks, months, years? Pace and the screenplay giving various strands and threads? The focus on Ruth and Jimmy and their family? The Sheffield committee? The ordinariness compared with the political background, international information, crises? The aftermath and the threads torn apart, gradually pulling together? New beginnings - possible or not?

7. The portrait of Sheffield: the typical British city, the information given throughout: population, industries, military targets?

8. British readiness for nuclear crises? The commentator and the information given? The book of plans?
'
9. Sheffield and ordinary.people? Their sayings - 'Over my dead body', 'You don't want the whole street going up in flames'? The landscapes of the city, the city lights, the cliff overlooking the city, people's homes, the pubs, workplaces? The focus on the young, falling in love, sexuality, pregnancy, marriage, tensions, plans, a home? Ruth and Jimmy as the typical couple? The talk on the cliff, the visits to the in-laws, the aviary, the pub and the girls? The families and their talk about the marriage, abortion? The neighbours? The girl studying? The paper-boy and the video magazine? Churchgoing?

10. The international background: given in the background by papers, radio, television? The consciousness-raising -and people ignoring it? America, the USSR, the situation in Iran: the visuals, the experience of the '70s and '80s and the plausibility? The reporters and the commentators?

11. British awareness: the committee, the books, food and fuel, the school and the delivery of the blankets, the hospitals, the roads? The British support for the United States? The crowds, the protests, the moving of the art from the gallery, the opening up of the office? The campaign for nuclear disarmament and the hecklers, the communist accusations? The Salvation Army band? People praying the Our Father?

12. The question of who will win a nuclear war? The ultimatums, the exchanges of bombs, the facts, the distance? The actual dropping of the bomb? The two-hour period? The visuals highlighting the reality?

13. The facts of the bomb-drop: the explosions, fireball, mushroom, wind and debris, collapsing buildings, the dust, the fallout, the effects of radiation, clouds and darkness, the nuclear winter? The explanations of these? Injuries, burns, symptoms of fear and radiation, exhaustion? Calculations about the injured and the dead and how to cope? Food and distribution? Rationing? Looting and shooting?

14. The committee and the personnel, setting up their officom, coping, the dropping of the bomb, tensions, arguments, management, the doctor, their being buried - and found dead?

15. Jimmy and his wandering, the old people? Ruth and her pregnancy, the search, the rats, moving to the country, the wheat crop and grinding it with a stone, the sheep and eating the raw meat, boarding in Brixton and being thrown out? The birth of her child in the stable, the caption with the 25th. of December and the tableau of the crib (irony)? Ruth and her wandering, surviving, moving into a new Dark Age like the mediaeval period, her daughter, the anguish of her death? Her pregnant daughter and the death of the child?

16. The information given about days after the drop, weeks, months? The escalation of problems of food and sanitation, sores, psychological listlessness, the need for law enforcement, fuel being used up, the poor crops, the darkness and hunger? The irony of the video game and its working? The use of collages and photos to highlight this?

17. Government, police , planes and instruction, people moving to neighbouring towns, billeting and the resentment of the owners of the houses?

18. The possibility of redevelopment - slow, the crops, the ozone and the ultra-violet rays, cancer and leukemia, crop diseases? The three to eight year period and the population of Britain going to four to eleven million?

19. The new Dark Ages, the visuals of the mediaeval period? Deaths? The surviving children and their learning by videos? The memories of the past? The rascals and their slang? The hospital dormitory?

20. The final impact of the blood and the dead child? What was the audience left with?