THE MIND OF MR. SOAMES

UK, 1969, 94 minutes, Colour.
Terence Stamp, Robert Vaughn, Nigel Davenport, Donal Doneley, Christian Roberts, Judy Parfitt.
Directed by Alan Cooke.

The Mind of Mr. Soames is a fine minor film and worth seeing, although not a film designed for popular box-office success. It is a film of medical science-fiction with a strong sense of humanity running through it.

John Soames, 30, has been in a state of coma since birth. He has been kept alive and is physically well. An expert stimulates his brain and he awakes. There is potential for sensation here, and towards the end there is, but the interest of the film lies in John Soames1 education and training and the clash between English Dr. Maitland, with his rigid and planned control of education, and American Dr. Bergin, who stresses the need for play, exploration, a sense of freedom and choice.

Television curiosity comes in for caustic attack as reporters intrude and want film of anything and everything. An expert cast keep audience interest and many scenes, such as Soames adult baby actions (taking a coin and wanting to chew it, playing with a frog) are delightfully human. Terence Stamp performs a difficult role well, although at times his eyes look a bit too intelligent. Robert Vaughn continues to impress as an actor of warmth and sympathy.
(An interesting note is that the English science-fiction film Trog, directed by Freddie Francis, starring Joan Crawford, treats the education of a Troglodyte in quite similar fashion and detail.)

A good film; some comparisons could be made with Ralph Nelson's film Charly with Cliff Robertson and Claire Bloom. It had a similar theme.

1. Would you classify this film as science-fiction or not? Why?

2. How realistic is it - Mr Soames surviving in coma to the age of 30, being educated to adulthood?

3. How did the opening hospital scenes and the sight of John Soames set the mood for the film?

4. What motivated Dr. Maitland - science, ambition, concern for Soames? Some, or all of these?

5. Was his method and plan for educating Soames right or wrong? Partially right? Where?

6. What was the significance of showing Dr. Bergin first being kind to a mother and child? What motivated Dr, Bergin?

7. Was Dr. Bergin's method and his emphasis on play, exploration, sense of freedom and choice wrong? Did John Soames’ violence prove his approach wrong?

8. Did you approve of the television people being present at the operation? Of the way they conducted themselves? What was the attitude of the screenplay and the director towards the T. V. people? Illustrated by the attitudes of the main commentator. What other indications were there?

9. How effective were the subjective sequences of eight and sound as John Soames woke up? (The T.V. intrusion again.)

10. Did Terence Stamp's acting convince you that he was a baby in adult form, learning baby things - comment on his facial expressions, pouting, smiling, eating.

11. How did the filmmakers show the passing of time and the learning programme in a few minutes screen-time? Was the technique effective?

12. Did you like the playing scenes and the sequence where Soames explored the garden? Why?

13. How destructive and how murderous was Soames when he hit his keeper and took the key? Was he adult or child?

14. Was Soames' runaway experience plausible? What did it tell you about a child's view of life and adults? About adult behaviour?

15. Was the barn sequence a satisfying dramatic climax for the film? (Dr. Maitland's attitudes, Dr. Bergin’s actions, the T.V. intrusion.) What was Dr. Bergin trying to do? Did Soames suffer as he cried out in the arc lights?

16. Why did Soames have to learn to make a choice? Was he capable of this?

17. What do you think happened to Soames after the film? Did the final sequence of Soames smiling at the assistant doctor give any indication?