THAT CERTAIN FEELING

US, 1956, 103 minutes, Colour.
Bob Hope, Eva Marie Saint, George Sanders, Pearl Bailey, Al Capp.
Directed by Melvyn Frank and Norman Panama.

That Certain Feeling is a strong Bob Hope comedy. He plays an almost normal character, a cartoonist in this film rather than the victimised wisecracking character that he ordinarily did. Eva Marie Saint portrays his ex-wife. He is up against George Sanders as a rival cartoonist. A young Pearl Bailey appears as the maid and Al Capp, creator of Li’l Abner, appears as himself.

Melvyn Frank and Norman Panama were a writing duo and directed a number of films. The two films prior to That Certain Feeling were the two excellent Danny Kaye vehicles, Knock on Wood and The Court Jester. During the 70s Melvyn Frank directed some strong comedies including A Touch of Class, for which Glenda Jackson won an Oscar, Neil Simon’s The Prisoner of Second Avenue with Jack Lemmon and Anne Bancroft, The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox with Goldie Hawn and George Segal and Lost and Found with Glenda Jackson and George Segal.

This film is an appealing film, an interesting portrayal by Bob Hope with substantial support form Eva Marie Saint and George Sanders.

1. Was this a good American comedy: situations, characters, wise-cracking dialogue, satire? How typically American and how enjoyable as American comedy? Bob Hope comedy? Sentimental American comedy?

2. How good was the film as a Bob Hope vehicle? The type of character Bob Hope portrays? The loser/winner? The wise-cracker? The sentiment and the human feeling?

3. How did the style of George Sanders and Eva Marie Saint contrast with Bob Hope? Did this work for success?

4. How glossy a comedy was this? The use of colour, New York locations, Gussy and Pearl Bailey's style, the songs, Gussy’s confiding in the audience? What was the overall impact of this?

5. Comment on the satire of the world of the cartoonist. How real did it seem? how realistically was it presented? The artificiality, Larkin's TV sessions, the boy scout codes and the grim satire in Larkin's using his ideas and beliefs on Norman? The use of cartoons and the satire contained in those contained in the action of the film?

6. How real did the film seem in terms of the human situations? Dignan's marriage? His relationship to Norman, the effect of the people on Norman, his running away, final reconciliation?

7. How interesting was the psychological background of the film? The psychiatrist and the use of the psychiatrist? His wisdom in helping Dignan? Dignan discovering himself by talking with the psychiatrist? The nature of his fears, his inability to speak, his love for Ethel, the impact of his feelings? Was this a genuine touch to the comedy?

8. What kind of person was Dignan? How likeable? The effect of success on him? His skill as a cartoonist? His ability and inability to understand the truth? The effect of Norman on him? The fact of seeing Larkin proposing to his wife? The encounter with Ethel, the dinner, the night, the aftermath? Was Bob Hope's portrayal a deep character study or was it a humorous caricature? Or something in the middle?

9. How attractive a heroine was Ethel? Her use of the name Dunreath? Forgetting her background, the reason for her marriage to Dignan, her leaving him, her ambition, trying to be more then she was? Her relationship with Larkin, trying to save his face, unwilling to face her love for Dignan? The effect of Dignan and Norman on her? The importance of the night with Dignan and her final choice?

10. How enjoyable was the satire on Larkin? As a phony, hypocritical public statements, his use of politics, and the quietening of the Governor, the final exposure on the television program?

11. How amusing was the satire by the use of television? Larkin and the programme, the fact that the culmination on the farce depended on the fact that it was seen by a TV audience?

12. Which sequences gained the most laughs? Dignan's take-off of Larkin's television programme? which sequences# had the most warmth and human values? What human values do films like this presuppose in the audience and appeal to? How successfully?

THAT LADY

UK, 1955, 100 minutes, Colour.
Olivia de Havilland, Gilbert Roland, Paul Scofield, Francoise Rosay, Dennis Price, Christopher Lee.
Directed by Terence Young.

That Lady is one of the popular costume dramas of the mid-50s, 20th Century Fox using Cinemascope in 1954 and 1955 to boost the popularity of films, open up the wide screen to the audience.

The setting is 16th century Spain and it is presented quite colourfully. It is an atmosphere of intrigue rather than of battle. Of interest is the pairing of Olivia de Havilland with Paul Scofield. Olivia de Havilland had been popular for twenty years on the screen. Paul Scofield was a British stage actor who made only rare appearances on-screen. However, he was to win the Oscar for his performance as Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons in 1966. Gilbert Roland, also a popular star of the time, completes the trio.

Direction is by Terence Young who had directed a number of British action thrillers like Storm Over The Nile and The Red Beret at this time, was to continue with such action adventures until he made the first James Bond film, Dr No. He also directed From Russia With Love and Thunderball and was to continue with action adventures into the1980s.

1. The significance and tone of the title, irony, indicating themes?

2. The appeal to audiences of costume drama? Fantasy, spectacle, comparisons of culture? Insights into human behaviour?

3. The attractiveness of Spain in the sixteenth century, sets, widescreen presentation, Spanish castles and monuments? The value of the narrative structure of the film?

4. How did the screenplay focus on Ana? The quality of Olivia de Havilland's interpretation? Audience sympathy for Ana, interest in her character and behaviour? The nature of her notoriety? Ana as a person, the background of her life, her love for the king, for Perez, the pressures of the
political situation?

5. The film's presentation of the relationship between Ana and the king? Ana an a widow and her prestige in Spain? The nature of her love for Perez? The political implications? its changing her life?

6. The effect of intrigue on Ana, her being used? The details of politics, predicaments and dilemmas for her? The nature of her choices, her going to prison?

7. How well did the film present her death? How moving? As a culmination to a public political life?

8. Perez as the hero of the film? His style, background to the Spanish Court, advice to the king, being victimized by rivals? involved in a world of murder and intrigue? The reason for his staying in Spain, his final escape? Was he a credible historical character?

9. The film's presentation of King Philip? What kind of person, qualities of character, living out his role as king, subduing personal feelings, exercising power?

10. The film's presentation and judgement on political life and intrigues, the Escovedo family, the trials, Vasqez?

11. Themes of justice, the administration of justice, legal trials, torture?

12. What is the value of this kind of re-creation of history?

THAT LADY IN ERMINE

US, 1948, 89 minutes, Colour.
Betty Grable, Douglas Fairbanks Jnr, Cesar Romero, Walter Abel, Reginald Gardner, Harry Davenport.
Directed by Ernst Lubitsch and completed by Otto Preminger.

That Lady in Ermine is based on an operetta by Rudolph Schanzer. It has all the ingredients of an Austro-Hungarian? story and operetta.

Betty Grable has the opportunity to portray two characters: Angelina, the countess of an Italian state in the 1860s who finds the state invaded by the Hungarians. She is helped by the woman in the portrait, her ancestor of three hundred years earlier, Francesca – again Betty Grable. The leader of the invading army is played by Douglas Fairbanks Jr – and, of course, in operetta fashion, the countess falls in love with the invader.

The film is a light musical, with some recitative. It was directed with the light touch by Ernst Lubitsch, the director of many a light comedy in Germany and then in the United States. However, with his final illness and death, the film was completed by Otto Preminger.

1. The success of the film as a musical comedy? Betty Grable vehicle?

2. The film had two directors, was this evident? Ernst Lubitsch was noted for his light and ironic touch, Otto Preminger is noted for his heavy touch. Was the film spoilt because of the change of directors?

3. The appeal of romantic films, costume dramas, fantasies? How well did the film fulfil expectations in these regards?

4. How enjoyable was the basic situation in terms of realism, fantasy, musical comedy? The light touch on European politics?

5. What did the songs contribute to the film? The title song, the romantic songs, the song about the Hungarian? The people who sang them, Betty Grable, the ancestors?

6. How successful was the presentation of the plot parallel? The expectations of death, changing to love?

7. The humorous portrayal of the ancestors in the portraits,
coming down, their influence on Angelina?

8. How attractive a character was Angelina? Was the character developed? Francesca coming down from the portrait? Her influencing Angelina? The fluid moving from one character to the other?

9. The character of Mario and his cowardice? Returning as a
gypsy? Romantic complications for this kind of light plot?

10. The Colonel and the Duke as hero/villains? The expectations of the Colonel and his arrival, his romantic dash and derring-do? The comparison with the Duke of the past? The dreams? Instead of his being killed, remaining alive?

11. The transition from death in the past to love in the present? How well did the film treat the light themes of love and war?

THAT LUCKY TOUCH

UK, 1975, 89 minutes, Colour.
Roger Moore, Susannah York, Shelley Winters, Lee J. Cobb, Jean- Pierre Cassel, Raf Vallone, Sydne Rome, Donald Sinden.
Directed by Christopher Miles.

That Lucky Touch is a minor, fluffy comedy. It has a background of issues about armaments, NATO and war.

Roger Moore is an arms dealer who goes to a conference. Susannah York is a journalist investigating the issues. They initially spar on each other but then fall in love. In the supporting cast is Lee J. Cobb as a lieutenant general and Shelley Winters as his wife.

The film is based on an idea by celebrated screenwriter and playwright, Moss Hart, and the screenplay was written by John Briley, responsible for such films as Cry Freedom and Gandhi as well as Molokai: The Life of Father Damien.

1. Why do audilences like this kind of film? The tradition of light frothy entertainment, romance, old fashioned conventions? Was this a good example?

2. How much flair and style did the film have? Its European settings, the irony of NATO, the picture of society, the satire on socidty and military, the throwaway lines and humour, the character types, the farcical elements, romance?

3. The importance of the structure, the opening and establishment of the main characters, the various intertwinings, the moving towards climax, and expected romantic ending?

4. How attractive were the stars and the way they fitted their roles? As romantic leads? The support of Shelly Winters for comrody? The tone of the credit joke about President Ford?

5. How attractive was Julia? Susannah York's personality and style? Julia as the divorced wife, the journalist with a campaign, anti militarist, her love for her son? Her manoeuvering of the party, the manoeuvering of people for her own ends? Her involvement in the farce of being locked out of her bedroom? Her romance with Michael Scott? How credible was it that she could sabatage the NATO war games? Her giving in at the end? Can audiences identify with her? Is she real? (Does this ratter for the film?)

6. Roger Moore and his personality aa Scott? The credibility of his gun running, his wit, sophistication, his deals, his jogging? His role as a wolf? His participation in the farce of being locked out? In the rain? His involvaent in romance? His reluctance at the games? His change of attitude? Is this type of character credible, does it matter?

7. How telling was the film's anti militaristic tone? The farcical presentation of NATO? General Steedman, the guns, the war games and the possibility of their confusion, the headlines at the end?

8. The satire on the American couple and Diane and Harry? Shelly Winters comic style as the American wife and mother? the characteristics of this American satire? The satire on Harry and his militarism? Right wing attitudes?

9. The satire on the Italians in the form of the general? His nationalism, the Italian charm, his being out-witted by Julia?

10. The satire on the English and the prosaic attitudes of the English? Especially in the war games and the clash with the Italians?

11. The farcical presentation of the Viscount and the ruining of the war gamesma in his property?

12. How enjoyable are films like this? Their impact on the popular audience? Does the audience get the satire and the points? Their method of communicating a message via a comedy medium?

THAT MAN FROM RIO

France, 1964, 110 minutes, Colour.
Jean- Paul Belmondo, Françoise Dorléac, Jean Servais, Adolfo Celi.
Directed by Philipe de Broca.

That Man From Rio is in the vein of the James Bond films. However, it is a star vehicle for Jean- Paul Belmondo, star of a number of films for Jean-Luc? Godard including Breathless, who made a name for himself in many of the action adventures similar to this one including such titles as Chinese Adventures in China.

Belmondo also appeared as a very serious actor during the 1970s and 1980s especially in such films as Borsalino and its sequel Borsalino and Co and the period drama Stavisky. His leading lady is Françoise Dorléac, the sister of Catherine Deneuve, who was tragically killed in a car accident in the mid-60s.

Philipe de Broca had a career as making light-hearted and colourful action adventures with the comic touch.

1. How enjoyable a film was this? in its adventure, comedy, parody? How well did it use the conventions of the genres and transcend them?

2. Why do films like this appeal to audiences? Their blend of fantasy, reality, heroics? How well did this film blend these?

3. Comment on the hero and heroics: the seven days leave context, the quick thinking agile hero, his use of coincidence, his ingenuinity, his pursuing of the heroine, his avenging justice on the villains? The styles of the heroics and mock heroic? Jean Paul Belmondo's personality and style?

4. How attractive was the heroine? Did she fit in well with the style of the film? Reality and unreality, serious and comedy, a parody of the traditional heroines?

5. How well did the film utilise its Brasilian and Parisian backgrounds? The presentation of Rio and Brasilia? The jungles and the rivers, the exotic atmosphere of exploration, statues, poison darts, exotic jewels? How seriously were these presented?

6. How successfully portrayed was the adventure itself: the conventions of the robbery, the parody of robbery films, the statue, the kidnappings, the parody of car chases and plane chases? How well did the film portrgy the expedition to the caves, the rivers? the earthquakes and the parody of serious adventure films?

7. Comment on the details of parody - the utilisation of the hero of buildings, cars, bikes, planes, the shooting of crocodiles etc.?

8. How conventional was the villain? Did you suspect him? Did you suspect DeCastro? How well did the film use a poor looking villain and trick the audience?

9. How obvious was the ending and its bland irony? Was it a satisfying ending for this particular film? What is the purpose of making a film like this?

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT

US, 1974, 134 minutes, Colour.
Narrators and hosts: Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby, Gene Kelly, Peter Lawford, Liza Minnelli, Donald O’ Connor, Debbie Reynolds, Mickey Rooney, Frank Sinatra, James Stewart, Elizabeth Taylor.
Directed by Jack Haley Jr.

That’s Entertainment was the last film made on the MGM lot in the 1970s before it was sold off for residential development. It is a tribute to the MGM musicals with generous clips from many films from The Wizard of Oz, An American in Paris, Singin’ in the Rain, Gigi, Showboat, The Toast of New Orleans. There is a star-studded gallery who serve as co-hosts and narrators and many of the stars are seen in significant clips.

The film was immensely popular in the 70s and led to two sequels and a film called That’s Dancing. It is an opportunity to have a look at some of the key sequences in the MGM musicals from the golden years of Hollywood.

1. How entertaining a film was this? What was the film's definition of entertainment? Did it entertain and did it show entertainment in the past? what is entertainment in itself, especially in this musical achievement? How does it respond to people's expectations of entertainment?

2. How impressive was this presentation of the musical? Did it pay good tribute to this achievement? In what did the achievement consist? were the excerpts well chosen and presented?

3. Comment on the sense of history in the film, the span from 1929 to 1957? what changes were evident in the styles of the musical over the decades? The relationship to the social backgrounds of the times? To the budgets? To popularity? To change in techniques? How impressive an achievement was this?

4. How well did the film trace the technical changes in these decades? what were the major changes? Comment on the technical achievement within this film: the use of small screen, cinemascope, seventy millimetre? The use of black and white and colour? The choosing of excerpts and the blending with commentary by the stars?

5. How impressive were the comments by the stars? Comment on their age and the comparisons with their screen appearances.

6. How attractive was the dancing in the film? How did the film emphasize the dance musical? What were the major achievements here? Why?

7. Did the film pay adequate tribute to the singing musical? Who were the most impressive singers? How were the songs incorporated into musicals?

8. Comment on the spectacular side of the musicals, the use of the Ziegfeld style sets, Esther Williams musicals, Gene Kelly musicals, Fred Astaire simple styles etc? How important is the spectacle for musicals?

9. Comment on the impact on the stars? In their own time, over the decades. Was the star system a valuable thing? Why?

10. What insight was given into the life and the careers of the stars by the collages: for Clark Gable, Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney etc? How interesting and attractive were these?

11. What was the impact of the tributes e.g. Gene Kelly's tribute to Fred Astaire and vica versa?

12. Did the film offer a valid presentation of nostalgia? Why were 70s audiences so interested and entertained by old musicals? The sense of history, the music, the colour, the joy, the songs, of innocence and the role of cinema in people's lives in those days? Is that what is meant by entertainment?

THAT SPLENDID NOVEMBER

Italy, 1969, 98 minutes, Colour.
Gina Lollobrigida, Gabriele Ferzetti, André Lawrence, Paolo Turco, Margarita Lozano.
Directed by Mauro Bolognini.

That Splendid November is a minor film by Mauro Bolognini. He had been making films since the 50s and made some striking realistic films in the early 1960s including Il Bell Antonio. During the 1970s he made quite a number of period dramas including Metello and The Ferramonti Inheritance.

This film was set in Sicily (as was Il Bell Antonio) and focuses on a young man who becomes infatuated with his aunt, discovers that she is not faithful to him, becomes jealous and violent. His parents are free-thinking in their moral stances.

The film offers a picture of permissive life in Sicily and the implications of critique.

1. The emphasis of the title, November and autumn, splendid? for whom? Indication of themes and ironic treatment?

2. The impact of the film for an Italian audience, Sicilian? For a non-Italian audience? The potentially Italian themes of family, society, the bourgeosie, the structures of the bourgeosie and their corruption? The creation of atmosphere of this kind of world and the immersion of the audience in it?

3. The quality of the colour photography, interiors and exteriors? The portrait of Sicily from within and looked at from without? The portrait of Sicily old and new? The musical background and commentary?

4. How well did the film create its atmosphere of old and new? Styles of photography, angles, claustrophobic atmosphere of rooms, the camera in slow movement, the blend of slow movement and music?

5. The film's presentation of an old Sicily and its critique? The image of the woman? The atmosphere of the new Sicily? The old as a prison, enclosed, isolating within a large crib? The effect of this kind of prison on the characters?

6. The importance of the introduction of the family in the church with the cynical commentary? The audience being introduced to each character? The particular cynical point of view of the young man pointing them out? How accurate was he in his observations? Did it predispose the audience to judging the characters?

7. The two boys and their point of view? The younger generation and the possibility of change, escape? The older boy wanting to stay and yet finally leaving? Nino and his leaving but his final decision to stay? The atmosphere of corruption and being tainted by this corruption?

8. The moral tone of the film and its ambiguity? The tradition of the Catholic Church, the spoken morality and yet the immorality under the surface? The atmosphere of death? Sexuality, lust and love? Power? The interrelationships of the people pointed out in the church? Uncle Alfio and his shooting himself and his liaison? Marriages and their failure? Attitudes of freedom, hypocrisy? Was it inevitable that the younger generation would be caught up in this and repeat it?

9. The focus on Nino and his being challenged by this way of life? As a pleasant young man, hope for the future? The importance of the visualizing of his memories especially about his mother and his aunt? (The film often had aunt and mother together in profile, significance?), his age, position in the family, his relationship with Giulietta? With his young friend? His attitude towards his mother and the love and lack of love between them? His attitude towards the others, acknowledging their presence, ignoring them? The build-up to the arrival of Cettina? The importance of his infatuation, the fact that it had lasted so long, the memory of their being together in years gone by? His vision of her? Her arrival, his helping her unpack, his attitude towards her husband, to Sasa? The build-up of his jealousy? His sensual preoccupation with her? His moodiness and reflection, for example, lying on his bed? The growing jealousy and his watching her at the meal? His visit to her room, telling her, the kiss and the fulfilment? The irony of her not alloying him to kneel in the chapel next to her? The exhilaration of the swim? His continued watching, his jealousy at the opera? The build-up of the hunt with its overtones of violence and the symbolism of guns? His seeking her out and his brutalizing her? The release that this gave? The effect of this experience on him? How did it alter his choice of marrying? The irony of going to the old house with Giulietta and the sexuality? The basis of this marriage?

10. The film's focus and the audience's watching of Cettina? Gina Lollobrigida and her style and beauty? Her arrival and its drama, an eruption into the old ways of Sicily? The emphasis on her modernity in attitude, dress? Going for the ride in the sports car? With Sasa? Her explanations of her past, her not wanting to be tied by hypocrisy, her freedom, marriage, affairs? Nino attracted by her personality, her freedom? The bonds with Biagio and yet Biagio forcing her into a liaison with Sasa? The deceit of her relationship with Sasa? the car ride, telephone calls, the opera, the hunt, the old house? Her being punished by Nino? The irony of her presence at the wedding and the indications that the liaison could continue? The significance of this portrait of a modern Italian woman?

11. Biagio and the portrait of the Italian male? Successful in business, relationship with his partner, his attending to business and neglecting his wife, the bonds with his wife and yet being too tired for her? Almost pushing her into Sasa's arms? The irony of his final comments to Nino? The contrast with Sasa and his presence amongst the family, his car, his talk about his mother and business, presence at the opera?

12. The importance of the presentation of Nino's mother, Nino's flashbacks, the death of her husband, the affair? Her discussion with Cettina about dress and going to the opera? The two profiles an two aspects of the modern Italian woman?

13. How important was the detailed portraiture of the family: their sequences together as they sat inside, their presence in the chapel, at meals, apparent at the final wedding? The overall impression of the bonds and the style of this family life? Its good points, its disintegration and the reasons for it? Amalia and her madness, relationship with Alfio, with her daughter? Her odd behaviour and laughter etc.? Alfio and his injury and his double standards? The old mother with her retarded son? The uncle going to the maid's room each night?

14. The film's presentation and comment on family life, ritual, individuals trapped within this, Nino himself remaining there?

15. The insight into human nature, Italian society of the past, present and future?

OKURIBITO (DEPARTURES)

Japan, 2008, 130 minutes, Colour.
Masahiro Motoki, Tsutomu Yamazaki.
Directed by Yojiro Taki.

A fine, often beautiful, film that can be recommended. It won the 2008 Best Foreign Film Oscar over Waltz with Bashir and The Class, strong competition.

However, you might be wondering during the first ten minutes. It begins slowly and solemnly with ceremonial and ritual for the dead. The, without warning, it becomes quite farcical and you wonder where you are. This is pre-credits. And immediately after the credits there is an orchestra playing Beethoven's Ode to Joy with a full choir. What is this film? What are the departures?

Actually, the central character of the film, the young Daigo, a cello player whose orchestra is shut down, wonders about this same question when he applies for a job on returning to his home town. He thinks he will work for a travel agent or be a tour guide. The Japanese title of the film is said to mean, 'the one who sees persons off...'. But, he is to be a 'coffinator', an embalmer of the dead who performs his duties with religious atmosphere, reverent ceremonial and a decorum that enables the grieving family and mourners to pay their respects to the dead and experience the solemnity of the final rite of passage. Death is seen, in Buddhist and eastern religion terms, not as the end but as the gateway to the next stage of existence.

We are fascinated with the repetition of this ceremony, the ritual meticulously the same, but the response of the mourners so different – and we realise that the manager and Daigo are contributing to a sense of human dignity and an acknowledgement of the life of the dead person as well as the survivors.

That all sounds very, very serious, and so it is. However, the film is interspersed with a great deal of humour, especially in Daigo's personal journey from being very sick at his first case to a final ritual which brings the whole drama, the embalming, his marriage, his family and the absence of his father, to a very satisfying conclusion.

Masahiro Matoko gives a finely nuanced performance, just the right seriousness and comedy, an acute sense of timing and facial expressions indicating the depths of the character. Tustomu Yamizaki brings a blend of the offhand and the dedicated to his role as the manager.

Beautiful to look at (which is sometimes rather challenging through our tears), it is a wonderful combination of the realistically mundane, the sadness of life and its uncertainties, yet the funny side of human foibles, the emotion of music and an opportunity (without being preached at) for the audience to really respond emotionally to and intellectually think about the deeper aspects of life and death.

SIGNIS award winner, Washington DC, 2009.

1.The awards? The Oscar? Canadian and Japanese awards?

2.The title: the reference to deaths, the Buddhist theme of death as a gateway, people meeting again? The attitude of the variety of religions presented? Embalming, coffinating? The literal title: the one who sees people off…?

3.The treatment of life and death, people able to face the realities of death, the Japanese tradition? The contrast with western avoidance of death?

4.The blend of the serious and the comic, the range of moods, the flow from one mood to the other? Life as funny, life as serious? The prologue illustrating this? The travel for Daigo, his job, the mourners, the ritual and the ceremony, the serious presentation of death and decorum? The discovery that the girl was a man? The family reaction, the argument, the tone, the farcical aspects? Setting up audience expectations?

5.The structure: the present, the flashbacks, the images of Daigo as a child with his parents? These recurring flashbacks? The crisis, the climax, the resolution? The issue of Daigo’s relationship with his father and the ceremonial way of completing this?

6.Daigo, his age, experience, love of the cello, playing in the orchestra, Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, his paying for the cello, the shock of the orchestra being disbanded? Telling his wife? His love for her? Her reaction, the cooking, the octopus, throwing it into the river, its death? The later images of salmon swimming upstream to their home? His decision to return to his town, the memories, selling his cello? His father urging him to play the cello? The bond with his mother? Leaving her, missing her death and funeral? His need for a job, the advertisement, going to the firm, the secretary and the discussion, the puzzle, the brief interview with the boss? His shock at the job? The reaction? The woman dead for two weeks? His reaction, being sick? His not telling his wife?

7.Japanese treatment of the dead, the reverence for the bodies, yet the public opinion thinking that this was an unclean job? The work, the reputation? His wife’s disdain? His friend urging him not to work at his job? Yet life and death, the traditions, the purpose of the ritual, the culture, respect for the dead, the religious beliefs, the attention to detail, the washing of the body, clothing the body, the garment, the makeup, the special clothes or things associated with the deceased, the reverent placing of the hands, the interment in the coffin, burial and cremation?

8.The range of bodies and people and Daigo’s reaction? The transvestite in the prologue? The old lady long dead? The grandmother and the joy of her children, the man angry at his dead wife and their being late? The lady managing the baths? His father and the final ceremony? The final credits and the opportunity to see Daigo doing the whole process?

9.Daigo and his life, his work, his relationship with the boss, the boss’s attitudes? His sharing with the boss, learning on the job, learning respect? The decaying body and the smell, going to the baths, meeting the owner, her memories of him, her son wanting to sell the baths, his wife and child, Daigo playing with the child? The old man and his presence, playing the game with the owner? His bond with her? Daigo seeing him on the bridge, the discussion about the salmon? Taking his wife to the baths? The subplot of the son as the civil servant and wanting to sell, his mother’s refusal?

10.Daigo playing the cello, his memories, playing as a child, his rediscovering his cello, the stone hidden there and his opening it, the memories? His playing for his wife, her delight? His sitting on the side of the road, the emotion in the playing? Playing for the secretary and the boss?

11.Daigo’s wife, love, not questioning him, going to the town? In the house, cooking? Her horror at learning his job? The reaction, threatening him, leaving? Yet her love, sharing? Daigo and his need for her – especially after the first experience with the body, lovemaking? Her pregnancy? Her return, the pregnancy, her demands? Her respect for the old lady, seeing Daigo and his reverence towards the woman, changing her ideas, standing by him? The news about his father’s death, the whereabouts, her urging Daigo to go? Sharing the experience of his caring for his father?

12.The secretary and her story, Daigo’s anger in hearing it, abandoning her children? Yet her urging him to go to his father? The sadness of her story, her personality, the boss and his support of her?

13.Daigo’s father, the message, his anger, his being persuaded to go? His memories of his father, the records, his wife’s comment that his mother must have loved her husband and not thrown out his records? The town, people talking about his father? The undertakers and their lack of reverence? His performing the ritual, the closure?

14.The theme of stones, searching for the stones as a child, his father and the stone, the stone in the cello, going to the river, the stone for his wife?

15.A film of Japanese culture, yet a film of human nature, human sensitivity with a universal appeal?

DES HOMMES ET DES DIEUX (OF GODS AND MEN)

France, 2010, 120 minutes, Colour.
Lambert Wilson, Michael Lonsdale.
Directed by Xavier Beauvois.

One of the finest religious films, and one of the best Catholic films, in years.

No controversy here. The film won the Ecumenical Prize at Cannes 2010. It also won the Grand Prix du Jury from the festival itself.

The subject is the Trappist community of Mt Atlas, Algeria, in the 1990s. Living their monastic life amongst the local people and ministering to them, especially with medical services, they were viewed more and more with suspicion in the country, especially because they were French expatriates, by government troops who were becoming more active against the increasing terrorist attacks, and by the terrorists themselves. Seven of the monks were killed in the latter part of May, 1996.

While the film expertly builds up the background of post-colonial Algeria, corrupt government, extreme Islamists imposing something like Taliban terror in the towns and villages, the role of the military is ambiguous. Later, and with stronger evidence emerging in recent years with documentation more open and available, the violence perpetrated by both sides, including the military is now under review. The centre of the film, however, is the life of the monks and their preparation for death.

Filmed in Morocco, the film is both beautiful and austere in its landscapes and in the interiors of the monastery – and in the interior lives of the monks and their commitment to God and to their order.

The director, Xavier Beauvois, shows an instinct for depicting the detail of monastic life with sensitivity and a strong awareness of what it means. His technical advisers have offered expert information which he has absorbed. And the casting is perfect. The actors look, move, speak and act as if they were authentic monks. Lambert Wilson shows the complexity of a man elected to be superior but who has a tendency to make decisions himself but is ultimately willing to be guided in discernment by the whole community. They are eight, while a visiting monk at the end is caught up in the tragedy. Veteran Michael Lonsdale is the ageing doctor who shows practical wisdom in his medical skills and down-to-earth counsel as well as in his religious life.

There is a very striking sequence (making us wonder how we would handle such a situation) where the leader of the rebels comes to demand the doctor come to his camp to tend to a wounded man. The superior stands his ground, says that weapons are not allowed in the grounds and offers to speak outside the walls. He also refuses to give medicine, stating that they cannot give what they have not got. The leader accepts this after they exchange a quotation from the Quran. He offers his hand to the superior to shake. The superior accepts and explains that it is Christmas eve, which the leader understands. Later, the superior and the community will marvel at what they did and how they then went to celebrate Midnight Mass.

The film is able to cover all aspects of the religious routine of the monastery in accurate detail (allowing for Trappists to point out some small things which may not be quite right, but these are not evident to a Catholic eye). In fact, it communicates the life and spirit, the prayer, Eucharist, sung liturgy, silence and contemplation, the detachment of the vow of poverty, the taken-for-granted sacrifices of the vow of chastity, the work, the meals and the readings, the community meetings, the outreach. This is shown in episodes throughout the film which are as effective, even more effective, than a documentary. The film could well serve as a recruitment vehicle because it shows the life as both credible and authentic.

The screenplay does not shy away from deep and reflective words which support the visual action. First of all, the words from the scriptures are most apt, especially about two together, one taken, one left, and the text on losing and gaining one’s life. But, each of the monks is given several opportunities to speak about his vocation and his commitment. This is stronger as the risk situation becomes more dangerous and their lives are threatened.

All the time, the audience is challenged to wonder what they would do in such dangerous circumstances, especially after official advice from the area is given, recommending the monks leave and return to France. At a community gathering, the superior asks them all to give voice to whether each wanted to stay or leave. Some speak in favour of leaving and explain why: family, illness, the opportunity to continue their work elsewhere. Some are still uncertain. Others wish to stay, intuitively knowing that this is where God wanted them to be.

After this, each of the monks has to discern his path in terms of his commitment and understanding of God’s will. One of the monks experiences dark night in his prayer and the sequence where the superior listens, allows him to voice his doubts, is moving, and enables him to find some peace of soul.

After the advice to leave, the monks listen to the opinions of the local people, especially those who come to the monastery for medical help. Their argument is that the monks remain in solidarity with the people. At the final discernment meeting, this argument is given great attention, with Gospel backing and the spirituality of Jesus who stayed faithful until his death. This inevitability of death has been shown to great dramatic effect in the 1989 film Romero, where the archbishop of San Salvador knows that his words and actions and the anger of his opponents can lead only to death.

For an audience wanting to know and understand something deeper about Christian spirituality, something deeper underlying, despite the sins and failures of the church and of church people and the consequent anger at abuse and scandals, these scenes offer a great deal to ponder.

So does the letter that the superior writes before the monks are abducted in vans, audio-taped for their identity, knowing that they are hostages, and led into the snow and the mountains to their deaths. He goes over the decisions and the motivation but also acknowledges that the monks have lived in a Muslim country with its Quranic ideals and spirituality and its God, far from the fanaticism of those who do not really read their scriptures fully or are caught up in bellicose righteousness. There is a quotation from Pascal about the satisfaction in war of those who fight because of religious conviction – which may be merely a worldly ideology rather than religion. The superior's development of the theology of the incarnation and how they themselves will live this theology as they go to death in the same way that Jesus did.

These Trappists of Algeria were not considered saints in the ordinariness of their religious lives. They did their best. However, faced with the reality of impending death, like many a religious or a secular hero, they found their depths, despite any fear, and discovered a martyr’s saintliness in giving a life for others. The director offers this very movingly, without words, as the community sits to enjoy something of a last supper together, the camera focusing on each, their smiles, then their tears, then their deep resignation, drinking a glass of wine together, and all to the powerful rhythms and melodies of Tchaikowsky’s Swan Lake.

Perhaps this makes it sound as if the film is offering a sermon rather than a movie story. It is a movie first and foremost and that is how it delivers its message, through story and in words and moving images.

1. The impact of the film? A story of Algeria, the 20th century, terrorism? A story of monks, Catholics, the Catholic church, martyrdom?

2. The facts of the 1990s, later information about the fate of the monks?

3. The location photography in Morocco: the Atlas Mountains, the villages, the roads, the landscapes?

4. The monastery on the hill, the grounds, the building itself, the chapel, interiors?

5. The monks in the monastery, enclosed but accessible, working with the locals, especially with medical help? Relationship with the military, with the terrorists? The monks and their outreach, social, pastoral, dialogue with the government?

6. The background score, the use of chant, hymns, to create the sacred atmosphere?

7. Audience knowledge of the Trappists, of the order, community life, a small group, commitment and life, the rooms of the monastery, study, chapel, dining room, infirmary? Prayer, liturgy, Eucharist, silence and contemplation, the detachment of poverty, the commitment of celibacy and chastity, obedience and discernment? The role of the superior, orders, community discernment? Spirituality? A spirituality of the incarnation – especially at the end, when Christian explains why the monks have stayed, the reality of the incarnation of Jesus and the monks repeating this incarnation in their own times?

8. Monastic life as lived, the role of the superior and his leadership, at mass, leading the chant? His knowledge of the Bible, writing? His knowledge of the Koran?

9. Luc and his age, his work in the infirmary, his medical background? His ability with people, care? His healing the terrorist? Down-to-earth? The discussion about love and its meaning with the young girl? His asthma and his illness? His staying, working with superior? Providing the wine at the last meal? Playing Swan Lake?

10. Christian and his studious background, elected by the group, his leadership, contacts with the government, discussions about whether the monks should stay or leave? The interfaith meetings? His study, the confrontation of the terrorist leader, his telling him that arms should be outside the monastery, not being able to give the medicine? Explaining it was Christmas Eve, the leader acknowledging this and shaking hands? Their shared discussion of a Koran quote? His being asked by the military to come and identify the body, his prayer over the dead body and the resentful reaction of the military? Community meetings, putting his own ideas forth, the monks challenging him, putting their own views, a community discernment? Their choices to leave or stay? Listening to the government’s proposal that they leave? Listening to the local people that they stay? The final meeting, the text of his letter in voice-over, the explanation about the monks, the spirituality, the incarnation, Jesus and his death, the role of Islam, pure Islam, fanaticism? The monks seen together – with the helicopter hovering?

11. Amadee and his age, a joyful man, hiding under the bed and surviving?

12. The characters of the other monks, their ages, some ill, the detail of their work, the cook? The hesitation in some of the decisions? Time for prayer and reflection? Their final decision to stay?

13. The monk who was afraid, his praying but not hearing any voice from God, a dark night of the spirit, the superior supporting him, discovering peace, the courage in his decision?

14. The monks with the people, with their staff, going to the celebration for the young boy and participating? Sometimes wearing their habits, secular dress going outside? Moving around, the car, the phone, selling honey at the market? The car breaking down – and the walking group of women fixing it?

15. The detail of work in the monastery, the honey-making, the selling at the market, ploughing the fields?

16. The terrorists, their background, fanaticism, reports of their killing teachers because of teaching the girls about love? The arrival on Christmas Eve, the leader, the confrontation? Later bringing the wounded man to the monastery, Luc tending to him? The terrorist leader and his death, Christian identifying him?

17. The governor, his advice, his reminder of the colonial past and France plundering Algeria? The monks as expatriates? The arguments for them to leave?

18. The meeting with the people, their memories of the past, their reliance on the monks, the monks identifying with them and they with the monks, enabling them to face the terrorists?

19. The Gospel quotations, the incarnation of Jesus?

20. The moving scene of the last supper, the wine, Swan Lake? The camera tracking their faces, happy, in tears, resigned?

21. The helicopter, the group of monks ready? The abduction during the night? The two escaping? The monks in the vans? Audiotaping their identities? Being marched up the hill into the snow? The value of the film not showing their execution?

22. The final information and its impact on the audience after this religious experience?

BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL

Italy, 1977, 127 minutes, Colour.
Dominique Sanda, Robert Powell, Eland Josephson, Virna Lisi. Directed by Liliana Cavani.

The Night Porter director Liliana Cavani has written a study/bizarre fact-fantasy treatment of the last years of Friedrich Nietzsche - reminiscent of Ken Russell (though not too much to make him jealous). Nietzsche has "freed" himself from his Lutheran family piety by the death of God and the new morality (passionate but never compassionate). He degenerates into lust, idleness and gradually insane fantasies. His closest disciples, played by Robert Powell and Dominique Sanda, share the futility and barrenness of permissiveness and self-centredness.

Ingmar Bergman collaborator, Eland Josephson, plays Nietzsche tellingly and Virna Lisi is a surprise as his repressed sister. It presupposes knowledge of and interest in Nietzsche and mature response to him.

1. An interesting film, entertaining? How much did response depend on audience knowledge of Friedrich Nietzsche? As a person, as a philosopher, his influence thinking in the 19th century, German thinking in the 20th century? How well did the film communicate this in itself?

2. The film as an interpretation of Nietzsche, his personality, his influence? A subjective impression and interpretation of the director compared with an objective biography or portrait? What was the audience left with as regards Nietzsche and his values and life?

3. The structure of the film: entering at a later point in Nietzsche’s life, introducing the characters of Paul and Lou-Salome? The development of this threesome, an earthly trinity, the interplay of their relationships and values beyond good and evil? The insertion of memories of Nietzsche especially of himself as a child, his visit to the prostitute? The insertion of Paul's memories and imagination especially his sexual voyeurism? His insight at the end when he substituted himself for the prostitute with Nietzsche? The insertion of Nietzsche’s fantasies especially the satanic figure in Venice, his presence in the room, the long ballet sequence with the two men representing Christ and Satan in Nietzsche’s fantasy? The momentum of the plot narrative, the subjective presentation, memories and fantasy? The finale with Lou's memories? The selection of the events and characters in Nietzsche’s experience?

4. The title from Nietzsche’s work and his attitude towards morality? How well did the film fill in Nietzsche’s background: his strict Lutheran upbringing, its puritanical overtones, his attitude towards the Lutheran God and his decreeing the death of God (yet the remnants in his imagination of the presence of Christ and of Satan and the diabolical)? His called 'the little pastor' when he was young? His reaction especially in terms of sexuality - compared with his sister Elizabeth's repression, his mother's strictness, his flaunting his attitudes towards his family, the visit to the prostitute and what he said he learnt from her? His philosophical status in Europe, professorship, books? The super man beyond good and evil? 9he discussions about nor= of morality, of self affirmation, of selfishness? His association with people of socialist leanings? A man of intellectual and a priori theories? The lack of relationship between his intellectual theories and his emotions, his daily living? The film's presenting of his morality and its being lived out, pro and con? The films as a critique of his stances and of his life? His life as a critique of his theory? The growing sexual involvement, sadism, dissociation, madness? His finally being in the asylum and lost with his memories? His living in people's minds as a memory? The pathos of Nietzsche’s career?

5. How good a portrait of Nietzsche was the film? Erland Josephson and his interpretation, his appearance, age, manner, way of speaking? Seeing him initially -involved with opium , piano playing, the prostitute, suffering from syphilis and his later explanation and flaunting of this? His behaviour with the prostitute and Paul's voyeur action? His relying on his reputation with his books, lectures? The fact that very little of this was shown in the film - except his discussion about his sabbatical? The nature of his bond with Paul, friendship, master-disciple? Paul's later sexual interpretation? His fascination with Lou and his pursuit of her through the Roman ruins? The decision to set up house? Based on his morality? The importance of the journey to his home, the encounter with Elizabeth and her infatuation with her brother, her violent and hysterical reactions against him, the incestuous overtones? His lack of ability in really caring about people, his carelessness with Elizabeth and his arguments against her? His going to Leipzig and setting up house with Paul and Lou? How happy was this arrangement? In theory, in reality especially in terms of possessiveness, relating. jealousy? The night out in the German tavern and his comments on the singing woman. his drunkenness, the anti-Semitic comments? The sexual relationship with Lou? Paul's jealousy? Paul and Nietzsche reacting with the man that Lou brought in? The inability to stay with the couple? His return to Venice, the years passing.. the need for the sabbatical, his friendship with the musical composer, his relationship with the woman? The deterioration of his imagination., seeing devil-figures in Venice? The importance of his visit to Berlin. the opium seizure. Lou's inability to visit him, Paul's visit? The return to Venice and the growing deterioration, the significance of the satanic ballet with its homosexual overtones? The complete collapse and his talking with the horse, identifying it with Wagner? The pathos of his being in the asylum, his reaction against his mother and Elizabeth? His wanting to be used by the German government? The final pathetic return home, the playing of the piano, his inability to respond to Lou? A portrait of a man and his life, values, relationships, politics, sexuality, influence in Germany? His speech about syphilis. his discourses about morality? The focus of the turn of the century and Nietzsche and Lou coming into their own century?

6. The portrait of Lou? Her presence at the socialist discussion and her boredom with it, the encounter with Paul and his fascination and obsession with her, the long walk through Rome especially with the prurient looking at the prostitutes, the homosexual activities in the ruins? (And the musical score associated with these scenes and their memories?) Her happiness to set up the threesome? Her wanting to be free? Her vivacity. her Polish background, Jewish background? The cause of anti-Semitic feeling and statements? The train ride., her presence in Nietzsche’s how, Elizabeth's jealousy and their clashes? Her playfulness with Nietzsche? Her taunting of Elizabeth? Her presence in Leipzig, the sequence in the tavern? Her taunting of Nietzsche and Paul with the man in the room? Yet her bond with each of them? Her going to Berlin and studying, her self-development. the relationship with Carl? The on-and-off relationship with Paul? The long attention given to the sexual liaison with Carl? Marriage and his attempted suicide? Her grief, her giving her word and the effect of this violence on her? Her later erratic behaviour, her setting up home with Carl? Her not going to see Nietzsche during the visit to Berlin, her sitting and eating his letter? Her reaction to Paul's death, her grief, her going to the seance with Carl and Paul's explanation of himself? Her decision to visit Nietzsche, the playing of the piano, the confrontation with the family, the end of the film with Lou and her lyrical memories of happier days when the theory might have been possible in real life?

7. Paul and his friendship with Nietzsche? An eager young man, the disciple, the voyeur overtones? The infatuation with Lou, rescuing her, his explanation of his gambling, the walk through the ruins and the importance of these memories in his later life? The proposal, the train trip and his happiness? Leipzig and his joy, the set-up of the house. his experience in the tavern and his humiliation. jealousy? The almost raping of Lou and his happiness? The intermittent relationship and yet his desire for permanence? Berlin, and his completing his studies and gaining a career? His enthusiasm for Nietszche's ideas? His erratic behaviour and wanting to possess Lou? Seeing him in detail at his work? The significance of his lack of contact with Nietszche but seeing him on the visit to Berlin? The significance of his substituting himself for the prostitute and his homosexual awareness? The visit to Carl and his missing Lou? His going to the tavern,, the erotic memories.. the ugliness of the violence and rape and his death? The importance of his presence at the seance and his flippant explanation of his homosexuality? Did this explain him? A portrait of a man influenced by Nietzsche, gaining some happiness and insight, with a possibility of a work of service. going beyond good and evil to tragic death?

8. The portrait of Elizabeth and Nietzsche’s family, Nietzsche’s mother and her strictness and memories of the past, Elizabeth's fiance and the anti-Semitic tones, the severe attitudes taken towards Nietzsche, wanting to use Nietzsche’s philosophy for Germany at the turn of the century? The vividness of Elizabeth's tantrums, cutting her hand with the glass, her talk about sexuality, the innuendo, the jealousy of Lou, the confrontation and her being sick at the table. her orders? Her reaction to Nietzsche’s madness? The visit to the asylum? The final view of the family with Nietzsche playing the piano? A portrait of repressed Lutheran repression?

9. The picture of Carl, his infatuation with Lou, the love relationship, sexuality? The sudden violence of his suicide attempt? His jealousy of Paul and Nietzsche, coming to understand them and in peace? His liaison with a maid and his having the child? The pact with Lou? Accompanying her to the seance? His finding some practical peace?

10. The portrait of 19th century salons and their discussions? At Rome with the socialist emphasis? The world of artists, Venice opera? 19th. century European culture?

11. The background of European religion, Christianity and its traditions, the Lutheran shackles. Nietzsche’s cutting away the traditions of Christianity, the declaration that God was dead? The forming of a new morality? Yet the overtones of Christ and the Devil - the significance of the images, the importance of the ballet sequence as a symbol?

12. Themes of morality, 19th. century norms? 20th. century moral attitudes in the audience? To Nietzsche, to his philosophy, to the menage, to his permissiveness. to relationships, to responsibility and selfishness?

13. The use of music throughout the film - the various themes, the use of the classics, ballet, ominous and particular styles e.g. for Paul's voyeur sequences?

14. The emphasis on sexuality - valid, exploitive? The prostitutes and their behaviour - the visit to Nietzsche’s apartment, the brothel sequence? The sexual presentation of the menage? Paul and his voyeur scenes in Rome and their continued memories? The significance of the sequence at the station where Paul hired the prostitute to have intercourse with the railway worker, his observation and laughing? His substituting himself for the prostitute with Nietzsche? The ugliness of his final sexual provocation and death?

15. The subjective style of the film? How carefully written was the screenplay. the baroque and exaggerated aspects, the blend of visuals and spoken discussions? The effect of this kind of subjective interpretation of a historical figure?