RAMPAGE

US, 1992, 97 minutes, Colour.
Michael Biehn, Alex Mc Arthur, Nicholas Campbell.
Directed by William Friedkin.

Rampage is a film studying an insane serial killer. It is very grim in its opening - but then steadies down to a courtroom drama and the background to a trial.

The film focuses on a young man, disturbed, whose cellar is full of Nazi symbols, sex symbols, human organs, since the man believes that he has been poisoned and needs to get new organs and drink human blood. He commits bizarre murders to get human organs - imagining himself as an animal. These opening sequences may be repellent to many audiences. However, as the film goes on, it settles down into the more routine study of the prosecution, the urging of the death penalty, the arguments for insanity, psychological insanity and legal insanity. Audiences will move in their response to the various arguments made.

Michael Biehn is the ambitious prosecutor. Alex Mc Arthur is very persuasive as the killer who, in general, appears as calm and serene.

The film was written and directed by William Friedkin - who had his outstanding years with The Boys in the Band, Oscar for The French Connection, The Exorcist. However, after The Exorcist he seems never to have reached such peaks of film-making. Later films include The Brinks Job, The Wages of Fear, To Live and Die in L.A., The Guardian.

1. The impact of the film? Portrait of crimes and a criminal? The justice system? The audience taking sides?

2. The California town, homes, ordinary streets? Authentic atmosphere for this crime? The prisons, the courts? Musical score?

3. The title and the reference to Charles Reece's behaviour?

4. The portrait of Tony as the successful district attorney and prosecutor? The intercutting of the initial killings with the Christmas Mass, Tony and Kate as devout Catholics? His work, his relationship with his wife, the sad memories of the death of his daughter and his being late at the hospital? The growing estrangement with Kate? His love for her, her own work, asking for time, her going to stay with her father, her return and asking for final separation? His dedication to his job? His being persuaded to go against his principles and Kate's to argue for the death penalty. His persuading himself that Reece was sane? The gruesome visits to the crime scenes? His investigations? Interrogations of Reece? Of the psychologist? The build-up to the court sequence, his brief? Studying at home? The interrogations of the doctors, the psychologist changing his testimony, his trying to pin down arguments for legal sanity? The discussions with the judge, the combating of the defence lawyer? The behaviour of Reece - especially his escape and killing the guards? The appeal to the father to testify - and sharing the experience of the death of his daughter? His skill in the courts, winning the case? The appeal? The scientific and technological background, the brain scans, the final brain scan and the decision of the judge? The indication of mental illness? His taping the message to Kate, apologising, going back on his strong attitudes, questioning what he had done? His future?

5. Kate, her love for her husband, the bond with their daughter, her illness and death? Her strength? Support of her husband, principles, her own career, the possible conference, wanting time with her husband? Going away, the return, suggesting the separation? Would they reconcile?

6. The visualising of the crimes: Charles Reece, his entering the home, shooting people, the carving knife, his taking the organs? Going in the kitchen door of the house, killing the mother, abducting the child? His being approached at the service station, his lies, running away? Legally insane? Mental illness? Paranoid schizophrenia? The interrogations, his distance from his behaviour, yet giving the right answers? Discussions with the psychiatrists? With his defence lawyer? His behaviour in court? His mother's explanation of the background, her going out from the family, the father beating her, his staying with his father, his father's death? The cellar and its gruesome contents? His own imaginings of himself as an animal? Behaviour in the court, in the van, asking for the doughnut, slashing the guards and escaping? Being caught again? Audiences' decision about his mental health? The brain scans? The conflicting testimony of the psychiatric experts? Dr Death? The plea for his life? The condemnation, the speech made about the meaning of his life only in killing people and a chance to reform? His taking his own life -or his mother killing him? Audience sympathy for the mass killer?

7. The attitude of the prosecutor, insanity, the interrogations, discussing with the psychiatrist? The stances against the death penalty? The summation speeches - the appeal of the defence lawyer for sparing a life, the appeal of Tony as prosecutor and the rights of the victims? The device of pausing for three minutes to experience the time in which a victim died? The jury and their discussions? The stances that they took - and their verdict?

8. The portrait of the victims, the glimpse of the family killed, the father and the mother, their two boys? The more personal touch with these killings? The return of the father, the boy discovering the bodies? The father's unwillingness to testify? Taking his boy away, their travelling, at the carnival - at the film's finale?

9. The picture of the psychiatrists, one influencing the other, reputations, culpability? Altering documents? Stances? Dr Death - and his strong opinions about mental health?

10. The judge, his fairness, his own experience of a brutal murder case? His fairness during the proceedings, getting the final report?

11. The district attorney, ambitions, going for the death penalty? Working within the system? Going to the scenes of the crime, the discovery of the young boy's body? The police? The two guards in the van - and their carelessness and their deaths?

12. The tradition of films dramatising such crimes? How sensationalist? How much insight into the criminal mentality? Audiences needing to experience the reality of these crimes? As background for understanding justice, jury work, penalties, especially the death penalty?