THE LONG DAY'S DYING

UK, 1968, 93 minutes, Colour.
David Hemmings, Tom Bell, Tony Beckley, Alan Dobie.
Directed by Peter Collinson.

The Long Day's Dying is the war crisis on a small-scale: three soldiers on one day in France struggling to outwit the enemy and survive. The constant use of interior monologues to contrast with actual speech and action is not entirely convincing, but it does highlight the complexities of war. Audiences able to take the usual blood and guts might be embarrassed at the prolonged visual violence. They will be forced to realise that war must mean continued violence and pain. David Hemmings, as a pacifist forced and forcing himself to fight, leads a small but effective cast. The end is a pessimistic comment on the futility of war; although the film would not appeal generally, it is worthwhile viewing.

1. For what audience was this film made? Impact, message?

2. The significance and tone of the title? The indication of themes? Preparation for the end of the film?

3. This particular day and these four men as a microcosm? A symbol for existence. the war of existence and its difficulty, futility? Life and death? What is the value of having one day as a symbolic microcosm, one day of war? How do audiences respond to this symbolism?

4. The use of wide screen; would a standard size have been more appropriate? The use of colour? The presentation of time and the passing of the day. the place and its confinement,. a small area of war? The concentration of the screenplay on the four men?

5. How well characterized were the four men? Could audiences identify with them? What aspects of human nature did they represent? Sympathetic and antipathetic aspects of human nature? Placed in the context of confinement and war?

6. The central focus on John? How much a hero for this film? His background as a pacifist and his explanation of this? His involvement with violence, volunteering? That he had not seen a German or killed one? His pride in his skill? The actions that he performed that day? His killing, eating, voting? His heroic behaviour in the siege? His survival? His killing of the German? His death? In what way was this an image of an ordinary man going through life?

7. The contrast with Cliff? An unsympathetic character, his violence, for example with the chicken. his hunger. laughing. his religious background and Grace before meals, his killing, his wanting to souvenir the Luger? How could audiences identify with the uglier aspects of his character? What were his redeeming features? Was he a man doomed to go through life to death?

8. The contrast with Tom Cooper? Again, how much of an ordinary man? As the leader. making decision, for survival? His not caring on the human level? The soldier? His final agonies and death? As representative of a man going through life?

9. How well did the two levels of talk and comment go through the film? The irony of what was said and what was thought? what was real and unreal? The levels of thinking and feeling. instinct and rationalization? How important for the themes?

10. The presentations of the Germans, as enemy, threat and menace, unseen, their deaths? The man fired into many times, the German who was stalked, the contingent that was ambushed?

11. Helmut seen as one of these Germans? The unexpected appearance of the enemy, his controlling the men, his menace, suddenly losing control, pain and survival, shrewdness and planning, his speech and his inward comments, his comment on the whole situation, watching the others die? The fact that John killed him at the moment of survival?

12. How good a war film was this? Presentation of a particular situation and survival? The presentation of war and the film's comment on it? The meaning of war?

13. Men in war and its effect on them? The pacifist, the animal aspect in man, killing, changing? The desperate nature of survival in the midst of bombing and slaughter? Survival and pain?

14. How well did the film portray the interactions between the men? Comment on the growth of love and hate, friendship and disdain?

15. How pessimistic was the film? Its presentation of life as futility? The men could have died that morning without living through the pain of the day?

16. How much did the film rely on the detail of its incidents, for example, John's description of scanning the countryside, the killing of the chook, its cooking and the smell attracting the Germans, the siege of the house and the fact that the Germans were dead, the final explosions?

17. The impact of the ending? John's lengthy speech after his killing Helmut? His frozen figure and the playing of 'Land of Hope and Glory'? Too unsubtle?

18. What is the value of this kind of film for understanding man and the modern world? Its universal message about human nature and war?