END PLAY

Australia, 1975, 114 minutes, Colour.
George Mallaby, John Waters.
Directed by Tim Burstall.

With only two main characters, it is surprising how the screenplay of this film gives an impression of lumbering along and of trying to be overly complex. It is a murder mystery with only two possibilities - and so an emphasis on whydunit rather than whodunit (although one is not sure until the end). George Mallaby, as the paraplegic brother, gives a tongue-lashing performance quite in contrast with the seeming lack of vitality in John Waters as the other brother. Technically very competent, the film holds the interest while on the screen, offers some local flavour, quite a melodramatic climax, but is not particularly memorable. Tim Burstall's next film was Eliza Fraser.

1. The significance and tone of the title? The emphasis and contrast with foreplay? The irony of the title and themes? The alternate title was "Brothers". Would this have been better?

2. The Australian setting and its visual presentation? How integral to the plot? How well used?

3. The importance of the structure of the film? As a murder mystery? The initial presentation of the murder and unknown murderer? The complicated plot, the visual and verbal clues. the psychological interactions the flashbacks of Robbie and h-is life (their colour?), the climax, the details of memory for Martin, the melodramatic climax? What effect did this all have? How involving for audience interest? Emotional response?

4. Was the plot fair in its presentation of themes and clues?

5. Why do audiences like murder mysteries? Suspense, thrills, insight into the perversities of human nature? What was of interest and appeal in this murder mystery?

6. What was the importance of behaviour for impact of this film? The emphasis on motivation? How clear. convincing. authentic? Audience response to Robbie? How much initial suspicion? What type of man was he, the explanation of his background. the flashbacks? As a paraplegic, the chip on his shoulder, the sports that he played especially archery? His being fixed to the chair yet his mobility? His medical background? His confrontation and taunting of Martin? Presence and absence of love? Attitude towards his cousin? The insistence of the visit to the theatre. the clash with the police? His trying to frame Martin? His fear, attitude towards self-protection, protection of Martin? His reaction towards Martin's trying to kill him? The vigour and the imagery of the final fight? The nature of the weapons? His fright.. his killing of himself? How clear ultimately were his motivations? How interestingly hinted at and explored? How credible that he would be a murderer? The style of the previous murders? The visualising of the murder at the end?

7. The contrast with Martin? How suspicious were audiences of him? His solemn attitudes. his removal of the corpse. the details of his plot of leaving the corpse in the theatre? His liaison with his cousin? Not wanting her to tell the truth to Robbie? His decision to kill Robbie to protect him? The threats in his almost being killed? The fact that he made a confession? How clear was his motivation? How convincing?

8. The role of the cousin as some kind of conflict between the two brothers? Romantic heroine?

9. How interesting a picture of the police? In their investigations. following up of clues? The humour of the silent sergeant?

10. The film's attention to detail: the house, the sport the films of the theatre, the hitch-hiker and her personality,, the getting rid of her corpse.. the weapons in the final fight?

11. How interesting and convincing was the film while on screen? How interesting a study of human behaviour? Does the same impression last after the film?