Continuity editing is very much Hollywood in that directors wanted to tell stories that were relatively easy to follow for anyone who came to see the films. Whereas montage editing came from a much more artistic background where the appreciation of art was elitist in concept, continuity editing was designed to make following cinematic stories accessible to anyone and heavily linked to the business of filmmaking. If your punters cannot understand or follow your films then they are unlikely to come back to the cinema and spend their hard earned cash.

So, a new grammar of film was born to make popular films or movies that would entice a large audience to watch them. The elements of continuity editing contained a reliance on chronology. Generally, actions happened in actual time sequence even if the time was shortened or lengthened for dramatic effect. One action leads to a consequential action. This was occasionally interrupted when directors began to use flashbacks to add depth and understanding to stories.

Secondly, two adjacent scenes were usually linked in some way. It could be one of a number of ways. The same location, the same people. There was usually at least one constant in both scenes. There was also the technique of the dialogue of the second scene coming in before the visuals of the second scene – a linking mechanism. Vice versa the dialogue of the first scene foreshadows the location or persons of the next scene before you actually see it. That way, the audience can see how the scenes are joined and prevents them having to think too much about the progression of the story. They are  merely being swept along with the director’s vision and narrative of the film. It’s like the director is whispering in the collective ear of the audience explaining what is going on. In a purely montage film, the director is more like an reclusive artist who says to the audience make of it what you will. There may be a message hidden in there but you have to actively work to find it.

If it wasn’t for continuity editing then cinema would be very elitist and cinemas would be like art galleries today. It made the cinema open to everyone, young and old, rich or poor, educated or uneducated. It allowed the audience to be entertained and formed the bedrock for current popular cinema.

You won’t find these at the cinemas regrettably but on TV. Lately, there have been several series that look like epics in that they are cinematic across a wide canvas telling cracking stories in vigorous and visceral ways. The two new Spartacus series create a whole new Roman aesthetic – combining razor sharp scripts and interesting dialogue with comic strip ultra violence, outrageous sex and a compelling revenge plot. The look and feel is hot dirty and sweaty and the CGI is graphic and excellent. All of the story spreads around the naked ambition of Batiatus, the lanister, played with gusto by John Hannah and his wife Lucretia, Lucy Lawless, and their vicious and implacable drive to raise their social standing. The two series may be garish and certainly not for the prudish but they have epic visions and would not look out of place in the cinema.

The second of my new epics is Game of Thrones. Where the Spartacus series are tightly bound by their location, Game of Thrones has much loftier ambitions in terms of scope and storytelling. Think Lord of the Rings meets The Godfather. This is a full blooded fantasy thriller, again with gratuitous sex on occasion, but populated by many dark and devious characters inhabiting many diverse lands. It has a feeling more of Elizabeth with its foreboding and suspense and some surprising twists. Don’t expect your favourite characters to prevail.

The portrayal of the various lands and their peoples adds enormous interest. It takes a while to take in the host of characters and cultures but it is worth it. The sets themselves are of epic proportions and the opening credits are spectacular in showing the territory covered by the story. This is probably why it could not have been made into a standard epic film and needs the series format for the plot and the characters to be absorbed by the audience. The Winterfell folk are portrayed as dour Northerners whilst those at King’s Landing are devious Southerners and the savage horse tribes across the sea add yet more colour and depth to the plot and backdrop. We have yet to see how the monsters from beyond The Wall will affect the balance of power. Hopefully, this will manifest itself in the second series. One of the revelations of the series is the performance of Peter Dinklage as Tyrian Lanister, the dwarf son of the fearsome Tywin Lanister, who treads a fine line between lovable rogue and monster like his father. Add into the mix the possibility of dragons and fearsome creatures beyond The Wall and I cannot wait for the next series.

A different kind of new epic is Boardwalk Empire. It is famously known for having the involvement of Martin Scorcese (who also directs the pilot episode) as a producer and having a major part of the Boardwalk at Atlantic City rebuilt in painstaking detail. You could dismiss this as yet another gangster  film or series but you would not be giving the series the credit it deserves. It can be seen as a political story of how Atlantic City was built and is a microcosm of the birth of the modern USA. It shows you the early beginnings of the Mafia and the blood stained struggles for power with the fledgling FBI beginning its rise to prominence after the first World War.

At the centre of it is Enoch (Nucky) Thompson, treasurer of Atlantic City, trying to maintain his hold of the marionette strings in the face of challenges to his authority from outsiders. Played by Steve Buscemi, Thompson is a bit of an enigma, the ultimate cool political wheeler dealer who starts to show compassion to the young widow played by Kelly Macdonald whose abusive husband is murdered on his instructions. Interwoven into the story are well known characters, Al Capone, “Lucky” Luciano and Arnold Rothstein, but the real character of the story is the Boardwalk itself. You have to marvel at the sets and the feel of the series. It reeks of the 1920s and the formal set pieces in the theatre transport you to that era effortlessly. Quality acting and attention to detail rank highly here. The one thing I did not particularly like was the pace of the action. It seemed interminably slow in parts, interspersed with occasional bouts of gratuitous sex that did not spur the plot along sufficiently. A little bit self indulgent if you ask me but I can forgive that for the memorable moments and plot twists. The teasing last episode of the first series is a cliffhanger intimating that all the people that Nucky depended on to maintain his hold of power, including his brother, were now plotting to get rid of him for their own various reasons. Friends becoming enemies. Watch your back Nuck.

Maybe this is a new category of filmed entertainment – the epic series. TV has become the natural home for such sprawling ambitious pieces that cannot fit into the cinema format. CGI has come of age and is becoming less expensive. It has become the medium to create the epic feel to the series. When directors of the stature of Spielberg and Scorcese start working within the TV medium it is time to take epic TV projects seriously.

In the same year came one of the best of the recent westerns. Glory was the story of the first black regiment to fight for the North in the civil war and how they overcame prejudice from their own side to gain respect and dignity for blacks in America. Directed by Edward Zwick, it lit the tinderbox for the careers of a young Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman and told a moving story about the difficulties faced by them and the young white officer charged with leading their regiment.  The ending always brings a lump to my throat when I see it. Oscar glory followed with 3 gongs for best supporting actor (Washington) and best cinematography (Freddie Francis).

Westerns became cool again. The next year we were treated to Dances With Wolves (1990), a stirring Kevin Costner western, looking at prairie life from the point of view of the native Americans and a disaffected cavalry officer. Costner collected 2 Oscars for it and went on to make other westerns but never reached the heights that he did with this film. Open Range was a return to form but Dances With Wolves was the pinnacle.

Clint Eastwood successfully returned to westerns in 1992 both acting in and directing Unforgiven. This film was a gritty and realistic account of how Clint’s character is paid to avenge the disfigurement of a prostitute. It is a character-led piece with occasional bursts of explosive and bloody action. The supporting cast are pitch perfect and some of the myths of the west are exposed. It won 4 Oscars including best picture and best director.

Gettysburg (1993) directed by Ronald F. Maxwell recreated the famous civil war battle and gained many admirers for its attention to detail and stirring battle scenes. It also spawned a prequel – Gods and Generals (2003) – showing the events leading up to civil war.

So the western is alive and well and can still thrive in the mainstream. When Spielberg does mini series about westerns (Into The West) and old stories can be reinvigorated to reach a new generation then it will always have a place in Hollywood.

The most famous mutation of the traditional western was the spaghetti western. These were films made largely in Europe (Spain being the most believable location to double as Arizona or Texas) by Italians mainly that created an identifiable sub genre with its own characteristics.

Important directors on the world stage came out of this movement such as Sergio Leone and Bernardo Bertolucci. Leone put his case forward as one of the world’s great directors with such films as the Fistful of Dollars trilogy and Once upon a Time in the West, a candidate for the greatest western of all time. Bertolucci, at this stage in his career was involved as a scriptwriter for Leone and emerged later on as a fine director in his own right outside the western genre.

There were scores of spaghetti westerns made during the period 1965-1980. They were recognisable for their stylistic differences to the traditional westerns. In particular, the use of closeups of the characters’ expressive faces usually dripping with sweat or smoking a cigarette before an explosively violent scene ramped up the tension in these westerns. The villains were colourful and hideous and psychopathic. No horrific act was out of their range. They even made that Hollywood western stalwart, Henry Fonda, into a steely-eyed child killer in the epic Once Upon a Time in the West.

Heroes were not the archetypal heroes of old westerns. They were much more complex. More like anti heroes. Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name in the Fistful of Dollars trilogy typifies this. He is probably the least disagreeable character in the film but is no angel himself. In Once Upon  a Time in the West the main protagonists are symbols more than characters telling the painful story of the opening up of the west. None is without sin but there is a chance of redemption by the end for some of them.

Spaghetti westerns are violent and sometimes unpredictable interms of plot and ending. One notable example of this is The Great Silence directed by Sergio Corbucci. It is sometimes referred to as the Alpine western with its backdrop of mountains and snow and is a very dark tale with a completely miserable ending. No heroes riding off into the sunset here. Very little light relief during the film aswell. Italian directors were definitiely experimenting with stories, characters and visuals to create unique films that could still be called westerns.

No self-respecting spaghetti western was complete without a quirky yet mesmerising soundtrack from Ennio Morricone that emphasised the difference between this western and the traditional Hollywood western. Sometimes beautiful and evocative, sometimes downright irritating, Morricone’s soundtracks make the spaghetti westerns even more distinctive.

The western was also influenced from further east, Japan. Hollywood film makers saw the upsurge of spaghetti westerns and knew they would have to up their game. So they looked for new storylines and John Sturges used Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai as the template for The Magnificent Seven. Both of these films were successful in their own genre. Leone used the basic plot of Yojimbo directed by Kurosawa as his base line for A Fistful of Dollars. And yet Kurosawa openly acknowledged his regard for John Ford’s westerns. So chicken… egg?

Despite all the critical acclaim given to westerns, all was not well. By the mid 1980s the western was dead as a genre. Nobody was making significant western films. What happened? I’ll talk about that next time.

But the western started to become more of an art form in cinema when John Ford made his Cavalry trilogy in the forties and fifties. They coined the term “horse opera” and could be seen as works of art. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Fort Apache and Rio Grande all  had the panache of a director at the top of his game with action and the western genre.

However, the most important film he made was The Searchers bringing out a performance by John Wayne, his long time leading man, which is the best of his career. The Searchers also uses the interiors and exteriors to suggest danger and isolation both physical and psychological with a strong performance by the supporting cast. It explores the issues of racism, friendship, loss and grief within the boundaries of the the western genre. It is probably the most complete western film of all time – strong in story, cinematic image, action and acting.

Perhaps the most over-looked and under-rated John Ford western is My Darling Clementine. Someone described it as more of a poem than a story. More lyrical in pace and narrative. It was a retelling of the gunfight at the OK corral but uses pacing and imagery to provide a unique beat to the film. A gem of a film by a master director.

And who can forget John Ford’s initiation into westerns with Stagecoach giving an young and then unknown actor called John Wayne his big break.

Later period John Ford westerns such as The Horse Soldiers, Sergeant Rutledge and Two Rode Together did not hit the heights of the earlier films although there was a brief return to form in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. He did direct the civil war segment of How The West Was Won and finished his westerns with Cheyenne Autumn, an unusual film of its time that looked at the west from the point of view of the native Americans. This was ground-breaking in its day.

A John Ford western could be characterised by ravishing visuals of the landscape with Monument Valley providing the inevitable backdrop in many of his westerns. Dust and desert, sunrises and sunsets, rousing soundtracks and music, exquisite action and horsemanship, strong story lines and usually some humorous scenes to counter balance the serious and dangerous aspects of the film. He blended it together to produce moving and rousing entertainment and, some would argue, high art as well. He is one of the first “auteurs” as he had his own signature on most of his films. That indelible stamp influenced many directors that followed and was the baseline of development for the western genre.

Post John Ford westerns started to diversify but all owed a debt of gratitude to Ford for setting the benchmark by which westerns were to be measured.

The western is as old as Hollywood and is indigenous to America but has influenced many film makers across the world and in turn has itself been influenced by other genres and non US film makers. The development of the western has lead to a genre with many familiar characteristics and stories.

How would you categorize a film as a western?

• Does it have to be set in that period of history between, say, 1800 and 1910 when the country of America was being opened up by white settlers and immigrants?
• Does it have to have cowboys on horses (and, sometimes, “injuns” or native Americans) as the dominant characters?
• Does the film have to be set in the wild and wide open spaces of the mid west prairies, or the dusty expanses of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas or the high country of Montana or Utah?
• Does it have to have recognisable characters – the lone cowboy hero, the black-hearted villain, the wise-cracking tart with the heart of gold, the bar tender, the farming sod buster etc.
• Do guns and violence have to be included in the story?

These are just a few of the things you expect in a traditional western. However, if you pare it back and generalise a little bit there are some key themes that recur in westerns and add to the composition of the genre.

Firstly, the natural world, the environment makes a big contribution to the western genre. Who can forget the iconic images of Monument Valley in the John Ford westerns? The environment is a character which can be helpful or unforgiving to the humans in the film. Big skies, stunning landscapes wild and beautiful. Westerns are about celebrating or taming the natural world of the west. One of my old teachers said it could be seen as gardening! Man’s struggle against the natural elements.

The western tends to have recognisable heroes and villains because it is on the edge of civilisation. We are in the wild west where lawlessness is common. Some people flout the law and others try to enforce it. In the absence of recognised law enforcement, the characters make their own rules. The code of the west. Horse thieves are hung and a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do.

The west is a man’s world. The land of the lone cowboy. The embodiment of the American dream. There are riches out there for you but you have to carve it out yourself. A land of opportunity and danger. The corporations have not got there yet. Few women are seen other than fiances coming to meet their beaus from the civilised east or prostitutes making a living above the saloon from the roving cowboys.

The probability of conflict and violence is high. Most men carry guns. It is easy to pick arguments. There are no wine bars out here, the saloon is a dangerous place. The army is tasked with surpressing the indigenous tribes. Settlers are harrassed by the locals. Sheep herders fight with cow barons. Authority is always mistrusted.

In terms of story types there are several staples. The western is a fertile ground to grow a revenge plot. Unforgiven shows the revenge plot is alive and well in westerns. The cattle drive is usually an epic journey and vehicle for redemption for one or more of the characters. Red River and Lonesome Dove spring to mind as examples. Clash of cultures between the original inhabitants and the newcomers. Dances with Wolves and Cheyenne Autumn are good examples of this. Survival is a key element in many stories about the west – survival against the natural environment or survival against the hostiles. Just watch A Man Called Horse. It is about man’s humanity being tested in harsh and uncontrolled conditions. Basic and raw emotions are on show. There are few nuances here. Only big bold issues.

In the next post I will explore a little how the western has developed over time and its worldwide influence. I will also look at the interesting phenomenon of cross genre films.

“Interesting” doesn’t come near to describing this film of extremes. It is an assault on the senses, a real shocker in the true sense of the word. I don’t know whether I liked it or not but I will certainly not forget some of the scenes in the film in a hurry.

To pigeonhole it, I suppose you might call it a revenge thriller. You have to admire its bravado and confidence in the cinematography and acting. The premise of the movie is that the central character has been imprisoned in a room for 15 years and it follows his escape and his attempts to find out who imprisoned him and why. If you can suspend disbelief at the start it becomes a roller coaster of a film charting the effect on him of regaining his freedom and his eventual search and revenge on his captor.

There are scenes of extreme torture, memorable fight sequences, graphic sex and one scene where the central character eats a live octopus! The tentacles were still wriggling around his chin during the scene. And there is a twist involving incest near the end which heightens the extreme nature of the film.

The acting is very good. “Over the top” works very well in this film and seems normal. It is not a film for subtle acting. The screenplay on the face of it should not work as it is unbelievable and it is difficult to empathise with most of the characters. The plot is convoluted but if you can stay with it (I got lost a couple of times but regained it later) it has a feel of “Seven” about it especially with the late realisation of a horrific act.

There are some wonderfully realised scenes during the film, quite bretahtaking really. Some of the earlier scenes showing his madness during captivity and the 2D fight sequence as the “hero” fights his way through a dozen or so thugs to reach the end of a corridor show a very creative visual force behind the film. This force is ever present during the movie and is surely the work of the director Park Chan Wook.

Why is it that Asian film directors are so adept at creating such gut-churning violence and shocks? And then Hollywood does a remake that sanitises the film to make it palatable for western audiences. The shocks are not the “jump out of your seat” variety but more the “why would you ever consider showing THAT!” variety.

But with Old Boy you have a director who is clearly gifted in translating the implausible narrative into a coherent set of images and scenes that draw you into the film. You have to admire the creative force that spawned this movie, his confidence with the extreme subject matter and his mastery of the film making arts.

Whether you like the movie… well that’s another matter.

]]> http://films.davesinfocafe.com/old-boy-asian-extremism/feed/ 0 http://films.davesinfocafe.com/daves-movie-analysis-framework-introduction/ http://films.davesinfocafe.com/daves-movie-analysis-framework-introduction/#comments Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:24:00 +0000 Dave http://films.davesinfocafe.com/193/daves-movie-analysis-framework-introduction/ I’ve always loved watching movies. Good ones. Bad ones. And those in between. I also like to work out why I liked them or hated them or was indifferent to them.

I do like to analyse films and find out why they work or don’t work for me. I enjoy them in the moment , watching them. But then I like to reflect on them afterwards. Sometimes I repeat scenes (if I have a dvd) or, more usually, I rely on my memory and feelings and emotions to run through the film again.

It’s a mental process that highlights scenes, deconstructs elements of the movie, checks memories, questions, compares with other films and other experiences. but it does so in a pretty random way. It does not have the rigour to provide great insight yet but I thought I would embark on a series of posts to try and construct a more rigorous framework for analysing movies using my experience and my learning so far.

The main objective of this series of posts is to end up with a relatively simple tool , maybe even a checklist, that could be used for film criticism and analysis of any film. Not couched in high brow, esoteric terms but more a working man’s tool for understanding and appreciating films based on intelligent perception, reasoning and evidence. It should be capable of getting to the heart of a movie and understanding how the elements all work together or not. What makes the movie tick? How good is it? Why?

I am not aiming to astound the world with a new thesis but just to order my own thoughts and, in the process, produce something that will help others appreciate films and understand their qualities.

My aim is not to pigeonhole films or categorise them in a new way but to understand the building blocks, how they were constructed and what effect they have on an audience and society, even.

It may take me a while to finish this on past performance but I think it is a worthwhile project anyway. See you on the journey.

]]> http://films.davesinfocafe.com/daves-movie-analysis-framework-introduction/feed/ 0 http://films.davesinfocafe.com/starship-troopers-2/ http://films.davesinfocafe.com/starship-troopers-2/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:44:03 +0000 Dave http://films.davesinfocafe.com/190/starship-troopers-2/ This film has always intrigued me. I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame. It is quite intoxicating in a very strange way.

Its origins are from a book by the acclaimed science fiction author, Robert Heinlein, but, after seeing the film, you might think it came from a comic book or graphic novel.

Paul Verhoeven, best known as director of “Basic Instinct” is at the helm for this roller coaster of a movie

It is at the confluence of several film genres. Is it a war movie? Very much so. Plenty of bug zapping action and camaraderie amongst the ranks. It could actually be a cowboy movie if you substitute hostile injuns for the arachnids. Is it a horror movie? Well, yes. The arachnids are pretty darn terrifying and the liberal sightings of gore and body parts tell of horrific deaths. Is it a science fiction movie? Yes. But only because it is set in the future. Not 1984 more Beverley Hills 90210. The CGI effects are pretty special and create a wonderful, exciting and dangerous world inhabited by the cast.

But, more than anything, it is a teen movie with all the angst and clichés of young people and their relationships. There are coming of age themes involved but Verhoeven concentrates on the beautiful young things and their sexual awareness. It wouldn’t be Paul Verhoeven film without the titillation of lingering shots of naked breasts.

A teen movie wrapped up in a war/ horror/cowboy cloak with a clanking political message about totalitarianism or fascism. All in the style of a comic book or cartoon. Weird. Yet it somehow works. The story trots along at a cracking pace with action sequences at just the right points in the film. Whilst there is only a little empathy with the main characters it is enough to keep you hooked until the next stunning action sequence. The camerawork and photography is stunningly garish. The acting is enthusiastic rather than exemplary.

The politics are interesting in that the world has clearly evolved as a totalitarian state with the government outwardly focussing on the bug threat and ruthlessly suppressing any dissent. Citizens follow the will of the state. Propaganda is used as a device to ram home the message. Not entirely convincing and none too subtle but it gives you a feel of the oppressive environment these young people are being brought up in.

The bugs are the main feature though. Their sharp edges and stabbing pincers are used to great effect in dispatching many fleshy and vulnerable humans. They swarm and are killing machines and take a lot of teamwork and rounds of ammo to take out. The brain bug sort of takes away some of the menace even though it can suck the brains out of your head. Marvellous creations.

Still we are suspending disbelief throughout the film and apart from some continuity and medical issues towards the end of the film. (Why does Carmen lose sooo much blood and yet at the end is smiling and up with the rest of them in the triumphant finale of the capture of the brain bug). Maybe it’s because we aren’t meant to take it too seriously and that it really is meant to be a live action cartoon.

It has proved so popular that it has spawned a franchise of sorts. The second film – Starship Troopers 2 – is a bit of a let down with its downbeat feel and less of the teen movie.  However, the third – Starship Troopers 3 – Marrauder -  goes more for the feel of the original and back to some of its themes. It shows how the original teen hero – Rico – has grown up during the bug wars and more of the politics of the totalitarian state. Whilst not wholly successful it is more of a return to form with the original screenplay writer now at the helm and Paul Verhoeven producing for a change.

Starship Troopers is  a high octane romp for the teen generation with references for older audiences as well. And strangely hypnotic. Possibly, because it panders to our more base instincts (geddit) and prejudices. What odds on Starship Troopers 4?

]]> http://films.davesinfocafe.com/starship-troopers-2/feed/ 0 http://films.davesinfocafe.com/southern-comfort/ http://films.davesinfocafe.com/southern-comfort/#comments Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:34:37 +0000 Dave http://films.davesinfocafe.com/?p=169 Every so often I see a film on TV that I remember from long ago that surprises me. Southern Comfort is one such film that I feel is a hidden gem. Not only has it got much to offer cinematically speaking but it has balls and attitude.

Southern Comfort is a film that follows the (ultimately tragic) exploits of a troop of National Guardsmen on a training exercise in the swamps of Lousianna as they upset some local Cajun hunters and pay a shockingly high price for their misdemeanours.

The troop is a standard mix of rednecks, loners and bureaucrats who are better at warring with themselves than the enemy. There are no big stars just an ensemble of excellent character actors – Keith Carradine, Fred Ward and Powers Boothe most notably – who carry the story forward in a believable fashion. Tension abounds from the beginning as the disparate troop argues and fights within itself. A tragic encounter with some local Cajun hunters leaves them fighting for their lives as they become the prey.

The tone is set from the start as the beautifully evocative slide guitar soundtrack by Ry Cooder creates a mood of foreboding and alienation, something tragic is coming our way. (He does something similar in Paris, Texas). This complements the stunning cinematography of the swamps creating an oppressively claustrophobic stage for the action to be played out. Its timeless and directionless and alien to the city boys in the troop. All the troop wants to do is get outta there but which way?

The director is Walter Hill, a director most famous at this point for his controversially violent film The Warriors which traces the attempts of an urban gang to get back to their own turf across town. During the film they have to cross other gangs’ turf and survive to reach their goal. One could argue that Southern Comfort is a grown up riff on that story with the troop entering (and messing with) Cajun territory. Certainly the violence meted out is quite graphic and resonant with the Warriors. But there are more levels to the film than that. It can be seen as a post Vietnam analysis of the USA, a country with lots of divisions and arguments and opinions and attitudes struggling to come to terms with resolving conflict. It could be seen as an allegory of Vietnam itself with an arrogant army going into an alien landscape and coming up against a very different culture and getting a very bloody nose.

The ending is not surprising in what happens but the way that it happens. The two remaining survivors of the troop eventually come across a Cajun village. Up until now the Cajuns have been represented by the partially seen hunters. Now we see the Cajun everyday life of the village and the hospitality afforded to the troopers. Nevertheless the troopers are wary discovering that the hunters have returned to the village to finish them off. So after a game of cat and mouse they fight and kill the hunters and hobble off down the road out of the village until they meet an army vehicle.

The peculiar thing for me about this ending is that the film seems to be saying that Cajuns are not all bloodthirsty killers by portraying the village life and the obvious enjoyment. It could also be saying that the Cajun everyday life is a warm and cuddly myth because when the fight for survival in the village begins everything carries on as if nothing is happening! No one seems to be perturbed about shots being fired and the troopers obviously sustaining knife wounds. What does that say about the local populace? Mixed messages I think and puzzling to me any way.

Nevertheless, in the final analysis it is a gripping action thriller with overtones of so much more and whilst not getting into the great film category Southern Comfort has much to commend it.