Paul Darke’s Paper /
Lecture
Given at the Coventry University
Conference 1999
I
look at film and genetics in two ways: the Medical Model and the Social Model. The
model I work to is the Social Model primarily and the fundamental basis of the
Social Model is that there is no such thing as people with disabilities. We, disabled people in general, are, as
such, disabled only by external factors:
i.e., it is not us who are disabled it is society that is disabling and
oppressive. The Medical Model, on
the other hand, advances the ideology that it is us (within and on the
individual) who are disabled as a pathological reality; it places the problem
within our body and our minds.
Thus, it ‘pathologies’ disability as a personal issue. The Medical Model puts the whole
problem onto, and within, the individual; so, equally, it individualises
disability: ‘….the reason that I can’t get into a building is
because I can’t walk if it has steps’. Of course it’s not my problem it has steps it’s
the buildings and the ideology of a culture which excludes others in such a
way; it is a construct, it is a social factor.
So,
it is society disabling me. I
don’t have a problem, it is not me with a problem, it is society. Thus, the Social Model is a very
different way of looking at things than the Medical Model would and from the
interpretation normally used. The
most conventional view, the dominant view, is the Medical Model, a paradigm, or
ideological nexus, that looks upon disability as a personal tragedy. Whereas in the Social Model
‘disability’ is social oppression: it is not a tragedy that I can
not walk but what is a social fact is that society create things that oppress
me, excludes me, and disabled people.
Two
of the writers in England who are mainly responsible for this in England are
Michael Oliver and Colin Barnes.
They have recently written a book called Social Policy and
Disability and this reduces these
models even further so that the Social Model is about, at its basest,
identifying social exclusion.
Thus, the aim is to achieve, through the application of the Social Model
inclusion as opposed to the more insidiously normalisation ideology of
integration.
If
you look at the Social Model in detail you can see that it talks about lack of
education - a lot of disabled people don’t do well in society because we
are uneducated and, as such, it is not because we are disabled it is because
society has excluded us. The
Social Model reveals that discrimination is disability not that we are impaired
– it reveals such issues and realities to be social factors not
pathologically related to the nature of an impaired body. In employment we suffer discrimination,
we get segregated services, we live in poverty and endure inequality –
these, by the application of the Social Model, are revealed to be social
constructions unrelated to the pathological nature of impairment.
The
Social Model talks about three key areas of discrimination: institutional - that’s like government, benefits things, an
educational system that creates different education for us from them -
that’s institutional. Environmental, physical barriers that exclude us: steps; lack of
lifts; and loads of other kinds of barriers. Then there is attitudinal – people’s attitudes towards the disabled
that are constructed socially and reinforced by socio-cultural/medical factors
such genetics.
The
biggest problem the Social Model identifies for us is the hegemony of the
Medical Model; the paradigm that places everything within us, in me, when, in
fact, disability is a political issue.
It is not a personal issue.
The application of the Social Model is how I look at films; by applying
the Social Model to see what model(s) any given film is using and seeing what it
is saying. Is everybody fairly
clear on that? Any questions? You can ask questions at any time. It is not me, the disabled, who have to
change, it is society and that’s my, and disabled people’s, right.
So,
the Social Model is about identifying what is the true cause of disability,
it’s not that I can’t walk it’s that society consciously
created barriers that exclude me.
So, what the Social Model identifies is the social exclusion of us. We
still have impairments and that’s the difference: there is disability -
social exclusion - and then there’s impairment - which is that I
can’t walk. To some extent a
very rigid interpretation of impairment is that the two (disability and
impairment) have nothing to do with one another; they are totally unrelated.
The
Medical Model on the other hand sees disability as an individual thing and as
such it’s the enemy. It
objectifies us it makes us pathologically aberrant. It individualises what is a social problem and it creates
systems and structures that oppress us.
For example, social workers oppress us as they are the gatekeepers to
services whilst they do not deal with disability. So, society, as part of its oppression and discrimination of
us, sets up special schools, therapists, doctors and our lives are dominated by
these people in a socially disabling way which is not to do with our
impairment. A good example of that
in England is that if you are disabled you go to the doctor every three months
even if there is nothing wrong with you and they still do it, pointless, except
as a form of control and oppression.
Is everybody clear on the differences of
the models? Medical Social: if my doctor says I can’t walk that’s
about my impairment it not about my disability. Disability - I have a friend who says use the double
‘D’: if you are going to use the word disabled see if you can
replace it with the word discrimination.
If you can you are using disability in the correct, Social Model Way.
I
recognise that we are not there yet.
I may go and see my doctor but that’s due to my impairment not
because of my disability. That is
the distinction between the two words – impairment / disability - which
is vitally important. Whereas, for
the medical profession, it is all one thing: ‘disability’. The distinction is that if I need to
see a doctor I need to see a doctor about my impairment not because of my
disability. My disability is the
fact that the doctor insists on seeing me every three months un-necessarily. The need to control and regulate the
impaired is always about the profession not the person - all I ever wanted to
do was get in a wheelchair, give me a wheelchair and I was happy.
We
have impairments and that’s what the individual thing is, we are all
different in that respect. But we
all experience social discrimination, that is the collective aspect of the
Social Model.
Any
other questions on that? The
Social Model is the way I look at what I see; I am going to use that model from
now on when looking at films and how they reinforce the pathologising nature of
genetics to marginalise disabled people even more that ever.
Perspectives
on disability: way of looking at disability. The argument is the Social Model argues, as with most
progressive ideas, that it is right the model, the Medical Model is wrong. The Social Model recognises that
disability is a social discrimination issue and then there are also the
impairments of individuals.
Alternatively, the Medical Model pathologises the whole kit and caboodle
of impairment and disability.
Anyone
else got any views on this? Or am
I talking bollocks to you all.
No. I think most people
agree actually.
Using
the Social Model the aim is to identify art, and that includes cinema and
images, that individualises disability; art that pathologises impairment as
disability. Art so often implies
that the reason that a person is in the situation that they are in, in any
given movie for example, is due to their individual pathological impairment. For example, this slide is a painting
by Millais, The Blind Girl, she is
a beggar, she’s poor. The
implication is that it is a result of her blindness, whereas the Social Model
would say that this is a mystifying perspective because the reason is that
it’s much more complex than that and there are many other issues which
are marginalised whilst pathologising impairment as disability. Disability is universally eternally.
Although
disability is not totally seen as an individual essence as it is in this
painting by W.H. Hunt called The finding of the Saviour in the Temple. Here
with the disabled beggar, in the left-hand corner, the disability (and
impairment) is resulting from sin (given the context). A lot of the individualising stuff of
disability in art comes from the main texts that dominate society and in western
culture that is the bible. There
is a very interesting work on Jewish culture and how texts within that have
done the same (Abrams, Judaism and Disability).
Alternatively, there is the need for thr good body to compare the
aberrant one to. So you have the
bad: the individual suffering the personal tragedy - for that to work
effectively, you have to have the good, the ideal and the supreme and I think
this sculpture by Jacob Epstein of the body is the epitome of the good body. The type, image, of the body which
artists use – fascistically – is designed to marginal different
bodies (be they black, abnormal or sexually other). So you’ve got all of these images which create the
good ‘normal’ and the bad ‘abnormal’. Even when its not conventional: these, for
example, are two paintings of an different elderly women. A fairly straight forward conventional
one (Rembrandt van Rijn’s Portrait of an 83-year-old Woman) but then you get the next slide by Massy (A
Grotesque Old Woman); very different
interpretations of graceful old age, very different portraits of an elderly
woman. Even the titles:
‘Grotesque’, the pejorative, to ‘83-years-old’, the
descriptive. Already in the
artistic world you are getting the good – normal - and the bad-
abnormal. And mark my words, this
perspective is still the dominant form of artistic representation of
disability.
On
occasion some have tried to challenge this, Frida Kahlo is one example; the
work she’s done about, not necessarily the Social Model, is work that is
about identifying disability from a Social Model perspective. Even when exploring impairment /
disability, she is exploring it in a personal way which isn’t reducing it
to personal tragedy but is actually saying much more. Other painters, like Paul Kosoff have done the same;
there’s another artist film-maker called Steve Dwoskin who is
excellent. If you ever go and see
on of his films, they are very good.
It is about exploring disability in another way, so often what the
application of the Social Model would identify is that if something in
exploring disability as an external social form as a social expression of
discrimination that’s good.
It’s a lot more complex than that but we’ll keep it to that
for now.
Theatre
has done the same: a lot of theatrical productions which have done the same as
film, pathologising of impairment as disability, have become films: i.e., The
Miracle Worker about Helen Keller. Also, there are many others: A Day
in the Death of Joe Egg, which is
about a couple’s attempt to deal with a child with cerebral palsy (which
was also a successful play in England, written in the 60’s, and is usually
playing in a theatre in the UK all the time. Equally, suspect is the fact that it is also often an
‘A’ level text. The
play is a deeply personal thing, where the solution of the play is the death of
the child, a necessary fact in the play to enable happiness to exist. So, it’s a pretty damming
indictment of disabled people from the author. Though it is a 1960’s play it is, tragically for us, a
standard text. It also became a
film, with Allan Bates, which I would not recommend. Even more recent plays, i.e., Arthur Miller’s Breaking
Glass about Kristelnacht, in the rise
of Nazism in Germany, used disability in a similar derogatory and metaphorical
form. Disability is often used
metaphorically for aspects of human nature which are seen as negative:
weakness, dependency, ineffectualism and infantilism (be that in individuals or
society). Disability is used to
reinforce society’s normalising ideologies through the negative use and
implications of disability – the very thing that is seen as necessary and
in need of genetic rectification.
Images of disability reinforce the negative to justify the acts of
destruction it seeks to carry out against Others: disabled people. The degree to which they do this is revealed in the degree
to which medical hegemony sacrifices a significant number of its own
‘normals’ in order to maintain its control. For example, in carrying out various
pre-natal tests to screen out disability over a 1000 ‘normal’
babies are destroyed a year. Now
that’s hate.
Television
is full of stuff that does exactly the stuff just in a slightly different
form. More ‘positive’
representations put a new light on it when it shows the heroic disabled
individual and the normalised disabled individual. Such a process, of represented individualisation (and
medicalisation), are part of the process of de-politicising the issue of
disability onto the personal issue of impairment. So, again, representations are still individualising
disability as impairment, but it makes a very clear distinction that if you as
a disabled person who wants to get on, the only way you are going to do so is
if your more like the ‘normal’. If you are more normal that does not validate disability or
impairment or disabled people at all; all it is doing is validating normality -
the very thing, through these images, that is used to oppress and reinforce
disability (‘double D’ – discrimination). That does not stop it being enjoyable;
I absolutely love, for example, Ironside and I watch it most days but there is a deeply suspect ideology behind
it.
If
we go back in time, films are often come along in very distinct periods and
times. You have seen Freaks, the objectifying of disabled people, making them the
object of disability, implying that it is nothing to do with society; it is all
about them, individualising disability as a deeply negative thing. Freaks, Hunchback of Notre Dame, are good examples. Even right up to today, films like Young Frankenstein follow a similar tradition; but the issue is much
more complex. For example, Young
Frankenstein is, I personally think, one
of the best and most disability politics films of all time (along with The
Idiots) but we are not going to go
into that today because of the complexities of what it’s dealing with,
but it use very standard images.
The
distinction I would make from a lot of other writers is that they talk about
stereotypes of disability, the freak being one of them. I think there are very few stereotypes
of disability, there are archetypes: the presumption is disability uses these
images because its true, disabled people are all of these things - they are
pathetic, they are dependent, they are a burden, they are vengeful, they are
tragic (tosh). Archetypes can be
redefined and demystified, as stereotypes if we, the disabled, stand up and say
that such archetypes are misrepresentations and wrong. But the presumption is that they are
true which is why they are much more difficult to challenge. But again Frankenstein (the original) and Young Frankenstein - see the two films together they are brilliant but
one can see the difference immediately.
Comedy
uses disability all the time, again often to ridicule the individual though
there are examples where it does more than that, or that it is fun. I do not want to say everything
is bad (or that x, y or z should not be allowed) but if looked at from the
Social Model perspective impairment as disability is used in a very negative
way. There are still great things
that can be enjoyed about it.
Harpo Marx, for example, is to me a master, but his use of muteness is really suspect if one looks at it in a very
politically dogmatic way (I do not).
The freakish film is still made
today. And until the Social Model
is universally acknowledged Freaks
and its ilk will still be made – even for kids in a film like The
Mighty. An American Independent film called Gummo, a very recent, and a very, very doggy film, is much
worse than Freaks. Another similar kind of film, I’m
just flicking through these 100 slides, is Tell Me That you Love Me Judy
Moon, Edward Scissorhand, and Eraserhead, they are of the same ilk.
A revisionist
view of disability of this kind of freaky imagery took place after the second
world war when, using Martin F. Norden’s label, the dominance of the
Noble Warrior came on the imagery scene - we in the UK would more likely call
them the Super-Crip (because they are not always war-linked). We call such images the Super-Crip,
those who expend their entire lives trying to be normal. The Social Model would say if the
individual wants to do that that’s all well and fine but it doesn’t
improve the lives of disabled people and actually marginalises those unable to
be normalised even more. To extend
the debate further I must say that I am not, in this brief lecture/paper
getting over the complexities of the issue. If one looks at it very simply, in society some disabled
people now are better treated than they have ever been in Western culture - not
how we want it but its true. How
we are treated and socially integrated has, over the last 200 years, improved
enormously. But, and it is the
biggest but on earth, the flip side of that is that the population of people
who are born disabled is decreasing due to abortion; depending on the
impairment, it can be a reduction of almost 100%.
Lets
put that in context: is it all right for me to sit up here as a white middle
class man who has been to university, who has benefited due to luck, but if you
(or me, literally) are going to be born with Down Syndrome you won’t be
born - you will not see the light of day - in 99% of cases due to
abortion. It is the same with my
impairment, Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus. The idea that it is better now has a nightmare flip side
which genetics is reinforcing and will ensure the extermination of most
congenital disabled people. These
images, I believe, reveal that completely and its something that we all should
be aware of and it should inform what we do, think and feel and allow around
the issue of genetics.
The
Nobel Warrior, or Super-Crip is so often picked up. If we look at the whole notion of positive and negative
images – a pointless differentiation in my view - the Noble Warrior is a
good example. Let me go through some of them: The Men, Marlon Brando; Bad Day at Black Rock, Spencer Tracy; Coming Home, John Voight and Jane Fonda; Inside Moves, Harold Russell’s only other film made 40 years
after The Best Years of Our Lives;
and even Forrest Gump - not
actually Forrest Gump but the other character in the wheelchair played by Gary
Sinese. A modern variation on the
theme is The Waterdance, its not a
war accident but has the same kind of theme and ideology. If you think about most people seeing
one of those films or the brave person who normalises themselves to progress
and get the rewards of society - even a film like My Left Foot is the same – the image is crass but so
hegemonically dominant that it dictates governmental policies and
inter-personal relationships between the non-disabled and the disabled). The positive/negative debate about
images of disabled people – discriminated against people - is powerful
but a retrograde step in the battle to improve the value of disabled people. We, in all these films looked at,
depending on how we look at them, can be positive and/or negative.
So,
for example if we take the Medical Model as true - I suffer in life because I
can’t walk - if I see normalising images of someone who can’t walk
but makes the effort, gets fit, walks on crutches, gets up stairs, or what ever
impairment it may be, if I believe the Medical Model then this is a positive
representation as it tells me what I believe to be the truth (it is not –
but that is a separate issue). It
is apparently showing me the way forward.
But, from the Social Model, it is a negative image because it completely
ignores society, blames the individual who does not do that for their
marginalisation, or praises the individual for doing individual things, such
imagery blames the individual disabled spectator for disability and its
resulting discrimination – such images are typically
individualistic. The negative /
positive debate is so difficult because what one disabled person sees as positive
another may see as negative because they are not seeing it as the same thing
because they are coming from different interpretative perspectives. I think that makes it easier to
understand and why, to convince one another of their arguments won’t work
because often they are coming from these models that they are using to
interpret – model which are diametrically opposite.
The
idea that if disabled people start making their own products – images -
it will make a difference; it could do.
I think it often will but, obviously, because I come from the Social
Model perspective only if such images are constructed within a Social Model
paradigm. For example, The
Waterdance, with Eric Stoltz, was
made by a disabled guy but the disabled person is in Nobel Warrior archetype
that is somewhat reactionary and in no way progressive. Again, what specific individuals do is
not an issue - we all do what we have to – equally, we don’t live
in the Social Model world we live in the hegemonically dominant world of the
Medical Model …
Is
everybody getting that difference?
One of the interesting things about cinema is its obsession with
blindness - visual impairment.
Which I think is very interesting.
I personally feel that it is because its cinema, cinema is something conventional
that you see – it is light and shadow. It is about the use of light, thus blindness as a
subject is very interesting.
Hollywood and most other countries have gone into it in a big way, from
films like The Enchanted Cottage
and Eyes of the Night - this is a
blind detective story in which the detective gets his man at the end because he
turns the lights out. I love
cinema even though I may be sounding very negative but I love seeing what it
does and how it does it. For
example, this is a picture from Torch Song with Michael Wilding and Joan Crawford. It is all about looking and
seeing the whole picture - which is a man at a piano in his tweeds, nice, got a
suit on, and there’s a woman next to him who is showing herself of like
there is no tomorrow. But
obviously as a blind man Wilding is looking far off in to the distance unable
to see the beauty in front of him.
That’s what is so interesting about cinema; how it constantly
creates this kind of mis-en-scene,
a cinematic construction which is, and they so often are, wonderful, incredibly
creative.
This
is a still from the film Night Song, which again I love, a wonderful example because
the blind man is in bed in a hospital ward and, conventionally, it would be
quite a closed ward, but not this ward.
The guy is blind (awaiting a cure) so you must have out of his window
the most spectacular view – a view he cannot see. Again, this is about marginalising
blindness, denigrating the blind, but its not just the beauty of the scene
construction, it is saying that to not see – be sighted - you are missing
out on life. It is making very
basic statements. There are many
more examples.
Disabled
woman don’t appear very much, disabled black people even less, the
argument for that is that, as Aristotle once said: ‘women are but
disabled men’. Women are
already disabled by being women so if you want to marginalise women who are
disabled you just have to show women; that’s the logic of it. The same is true of black images of
disability – they are not necessary in the construction of normality
as they are the other.
People
with a Learning Difficulty don’t get much of a better deal either, again
it comes back to this thing about society. It, society, is rewarding disabled people who attempt to normalise
themselves: you get jobs if you do the right things. Cinema reveals this process to the audience but equally it
reveals by its absence that society is also practising mass extermination of
disabled people of certain groups: people with Spina Bifida, Downs Syndrome, et
cetera. You are just not going to
be born and that list is growing (genetics will extend it more and more). Thus, such group are not in cinema’s
repertoire - so society is dealing with these complexities.
One
of the few LD characters to appear is Forrest Gump, there is also Lenny in Of Mice and Men. Fundamentally
my perspective of images of disability is that disability is used in order to
create what the ‘normal’ is in opposition to what abnormality –
impairment as disability – is.
In society the ‘normal’ doesn’t actually exist, it
only exists in opposition to the abnormal - that’s why there are so many
images of disability in cinema and culture – including disability television. There are 1000s in UK alone and some disabled people would
argue that disabled people are invisible in the television, invisible on the
cinema, not on the stage, et cetera, but images of us are, quite literally
everywhere. One of the beauties of
how it is done is that you don’t see it, as such, that itself reveals it
to be complex but not invisible. Disability is not represented but impairment
is unavoidable if you exist in culture. But medically, socially and culturally (and the cultural
notion of genetics simply perpetuates the illusions and delusions that a normal
exists) impairment as disability is used to create the normal; fundamentally,
by saying what is good and what is bad in a comprehensively corporeal way that
is easily understood by all.
So
the good disabled person is, or what often disabled people will sadly say is
positive, is the disabled person who is married has kids has a nice job, but that
that image bears no relationship to most disable people conceived is irrelevant
– most are terminated with malice. Equally, in England, for example, 80% of disabled
people live in poverty – so the normalised images of the disabled person
as a fully constituted citizen of the state has no relationship to reality. What it does do, conversely, is create
the negative of disability which is the bad, the personal tragedy, the miserableness
of it (from a Medical Model perspective).
It is saying that if your not normal that’s the kind of life you
can expect so make sure you stay normal or all those other things are down that
line.
On
that basis what to me is positive, not positive but good, are those images that
challenge the whole concept / dichotomy of normal / abnormal; film’s that
set out to undermine those two distinctions are the best example of what is
good from both a disability perspective but also creatively. The best example would be The Idiots by Lars von Trier, a film that came out last year; I
don’t have slides of that.
Two of the previous films to do this were both Spanish: El Cochetito – ‘The Wheelchair’ - in the 1950s
and Accion
Mutante, because they challenge the whole concept of what is normal. They
don’t necessarily do it well but at least they try. That is the challenge ahead – to reveal
to the normal that they do not exist and then, and only then, will they stop
trying to destroy us.
Archetypal
Mystification
Iconography
Mise en scene
Metaphor
Melodrama
Mind-body dualism
Making special
Catharsis
Aesthetics
Aesthetic distance – suspension of disbelief
Acculturation
Atavism
Always-already read – frederick jameson
Simulacrum
Verisimilutude
Ideology – common sense – set of beliefs –
ideological effect
Idealism
Reason can subsume suffering under concepts – Theodor Adorno
Give suffering a language (harold schweizer) by calling it suffering
Schopenhauer – aesthetic: a knowledge without desire
Aesthetic
standards presented as essential are void now as they are neither timeless nor
universal; they reflect the values and beliefs of euro-patriarchy. (Mary
Devereaux)
A Day In The Death Of Joe Egg GB 1970 (Released 1972) writer Peter Nichols (from his own play) director Peter Medak
music
Elgar
The Raging Moon GB 1970 (USA title: Long Ago Tomorrow)
writer director Bryan Forbes (from a novel
by Peter Marshall)
Malcolm McDowell, Nanette Newman, Georgia Brown, Michael Flanders
The Elephant Man EMI/Brooksfilms (Stuart Cornfield)
US 1980 director David Lynch photography Freddie Francis
John Hurt, Anthony Hopkins, Freddie Jones, John Gielgud, Michael Elphick
Whose Life Is It Anyway?
US 1981 writer Brian Clark (from his play) and
Reginald Rose
director
John Badham
cast
Richard Dreyfuss, John Cassavetes, Christine Lahti, Bob Balaban
Duet For One
GB 1987 writers Tom Kempinski (from his play),
Jeremy Lipp
and Andrei Konchalovsky
director
Andrei Konchalovsky music Bach (and various others)
Julie Andrews, Alan Bates, Max Von Sydow, Rupert Everett, Liam
Neeson
My Left Foot International/RTE (Noel
Pearson)
GB 1989 writers Shane Connaughton and Jim
Sheridan
(from book by Christy Brown) director Jim Sheridan
Daniel Day-Lewis, Ruth McCabe, Fiona Shaw, Ray McAnally, B. Fricker
Accion
Mutante Spain
1995 Dir:
Alex de la Iglesia
Afraid
of the Dark GB
1992 Dir:
Mark Peploe
The
African Queen GB
1951 Dir:
John Huston
Almost
an Angel US
1990 Dir: John
Cornell
Annie
Hall US
1977 Dir:
Woody Allen
Annie’s
Coming Out Australia
1984 Dir: Gil
Brealey
Antonia’s
Line Holland
1995 Dir:
Marleen Gorris
Bad
Boy Bubby Australia
1993 Dir:
Rolf de Heer
Bad
Day at Black Rock US
1955 Dir:
John Sturges
Batman
Returns US
1992 Dir: Tim
Burton
Baxter GB
1972 Dir:
Lionel Jeffries
The
Best Years of Our Lives US
1946 Dir:
William Wyler
Beyond
the Stars US/Canada
1988 Dir:
David Saperstein
The
Big Lebowski US
1998 Dir:
Joel Cohen
Bitter
Moon GB
1992 Dir:
Roman Polanski
Blind
Fury US
1989 Dir:
Phillip Noyce
Blind
Terror GB
1971 Dir:
Richard Fleischer
Blink US
1994 Dir:
Michael Apted
Born
on the Fourth of July US
1989 Dir:
Oliver Stone
The
Boy Who Could Fly US
1986 Dir:
Nick Castle
Breaking
the Waves Denmark
1996 Dir:
Lars Von Trier
Brimstone
and Treacle GB
1982 Dir:
Richard Loncraine
Broken
Silence Germany
1996 Dir:
Caroline Link
La
Buena Estrella Spain
1997 Dir:
Ricardo Franco
Cactus Australia
1986 Dir: Paul
Cox
Carlito’s
Way US
1993 Dir:
Brian de Palma
Carry
On ... (generic) GB
1958 >1992 Dir: G.
Thomas / R. Thomas
Cat
O’Nine Tails Italy
1971 Dir:
Dario Argento
Charly US
1968 Dir:
Ralph Nelson
Children
of a Lesser God US
1986 Dir:
Randa Haines
A
Christmas Carol US
1938 Dir:
E.L. Marin
Citizen
Kane US
1941 Dir:
Orson Wells
A
Clockwork Orange GB
1971 Dir:
Stanley Kubrick
Coming
Home US
1978 Dir: Hal
Ashby
Crash US
1977 Dir:
Charles Band
Crash Canada
1996 Dir:
David Cronenberg
Crescendo GB
1969 Dir:
Alan Gibson
Crush New
Zealand 1992 Dir:
Alison Maclean
Cutter’s
Way US
1981 Dir: Ivan
Passer
Dance
Me To My Song Australia
1998 Dir:
Rolf de Heer
The
Dark Angel US
1935 Dir:
Sidney Franklin
Dark
City US
1997 Dir:
Alex Proyas
Dark
Victory US
1939 Dir:
Edmund Goulding
Day
of the Locust US
1975 Dir:
John Schlesinger
Dolores
Claiborne US 1995 Dir:
Taylor Hackford
Dragonwyck US
1946 Dir:
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
The
Eighth Day Belgium/France
1996 Dir:
Jaco Van Dormael
Elmer
Gantry US
1960 Dir:
Richard Brooks
The
Enchanted Cottage US
1945 Dir:
John Cromwell
Ethan
Frome US/GB
1993 Dir:
John Madden
Eye
of the Cat US
1969 Dir:
David Lowell Rich
Eye
of the Needle GB
1981 Dir:
Richard Marquand
Faster
Pussycat Kill Kill! US
1966 Dir:
Russ Meyer
Forrest
Gump US
1994 Dir:
Robert Zemeckis
Four
Weddings and a Funeral GB
1994 Dir:
Mike Newell
Frankenstein US
1931 Dir:
James Whale
Frankie
Starlight GB/US
1995 Dir:
Michael Lindsey-Hogg
Freaks US
1932 Dir: Tod
Browning
Gattaca US
1997 Dir:
Andrew Niccol
Gigot US
1962 Dir:
Gene Kelly
Go
Now (aka Love Bites: Go Now) GB
1996 Dir:
Michael Winterbottom
The
Good, The Bad and the Ugly Italy 1966 Dir:
Sergio Leone
Gummo US
1997 Dir:
Harmony Korine
Hana
Bi Japan
1997 Dir:
Takeshi Kitano
The
Heart is a Lonely Hunter US
1968 Dir:
Robert Ellis Miller
Hearts of Fire