How does this 2004 film, based on the book of the same title, portray the importance of High School football in the life of the town of Odessa Texas? How does the film contrast with the book, and what choices were made as to what to emphasize in the film, and why were those choices made? Why does the film downplay racial elements? How does the case of half-back Boobie Miles illustrate the tragedy of ‘placing all of one’s eggs in one basket’? Why do Boobie and his uncle downplay the nature of his knee injury? How do the recruiting practices of major universities that are courting Miles illustrate Kantian ethical principles with regard to using people as ‘mere means’ to their ends? How do the town influencers mirror this behavior with regard to balancing football’s power to drive Civic pride, and the academic well-being of student athletes? Does toleration of criminal behavior in the Carter football team illustrate this same principle? How have things evolved with regard to college players licensing of their likenesses? Should colleges treat their football teams more in line with practices in minor leagues of other sports, sponsoring teams, claiming naming rights, and providing salaries for players? We see this sort of arrangement in minor league hockey and basketball. Such a practice would no longer require players on sponsored teams to be students. Would this be a better arrangement, all things considered?

What does this 1980 film, based upon the true story of a series of courts-martial carried out toward the end of the Boer War at the turn of the 20th Century, tell us about the morality of guerilla war, and responses to such tactics? What defense is presented for the actions of the members of the Bushveld Carbineers in placing civilians at the head of trains, and for their summary execution of POWs? Does the film accurately portray the courts-martial as being carried out for primarily political reasons? Did the overall commander of British forces, Kitchener, actually order POWs shot, as the defense claims? How does the case resemble similar cases during WW II and the Vietnam War? Why has there been a tendency in Australia to excuse or Lionize Morant? Should he be lionized? What do Australian authors Peter Fitzsimons and Kit Denton now believe?

What does this 2023 tell us about its various characters, and the challenges involved in running the Manhattan Project, not only for Oppenheimer, but General Leslie Groves? How does the film explore the tragic flaws in Oppenheimer and his nemesis, Lewis Strauss? Why does the film focus more on this aspect of his story and its two main characters’ tragic flaws, rather than the moral questions surrounding the atomic bombs? Why does the film make short work of the Interim Committee meetings, where the decisions were made regarding ‘the gadgets,’ and why does it portray Truman and Stimson as being shallowly political and callous with regard to the decision? Were the concerns with Soviet espionage in the Manhattan Project justified? Were concerns for Oppenheimer’s loyalty justified? What does the success of this film tell us about audience demand for historical films?

What does this 2014 film based upon the Marvel Comic character, Captain America, tell us about counterintelligence and counter-terror surveillance? How does the film cash in on conspiracy theories using the idea that the secret organization, "Hydra," is in control of the major governments of the world, as well as terror organizations? How does the film explore the ethical challenges involved in the balancing of free society and security? How does the film explore the issues surrounding military use of human enhancement? How does the character Bucky illustrate? How does the film portray the ethical issues involved in whistle-blowing? How does the film explore Captain America’s status as a symbol during WWII? Why does he feel guilt for his role as contrasted with that of his sidekick Bucky? Does this superhero’s being portrayed and taking part in major battles during WWII undermine public appreciation for the front-line soldiers who actually fought that war?

What does this 1959 film, based upon the Nevil Shute novel of the same name, tell us about the threat of thermonuclear war, and thought surrounding the notion of doomsday machines? How does the story relate to other films that explore the theme, most notably Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove? How does the story develop the idea of the so-called “cobalt bomb”? How do the American naval captain Dwight Towers and his crew cope with his knowledge that his family back in the United States has most likely perished? How do the Australians he lives and works with, respond to the fact that they have limited time before they die? The film portrays mankind as ‘keeping calm and carrying on’ in the face of imminent extinction nine months hence. Is this realistic? How does Shute’s story contrast with other works of post-apocalyptic fiction that portray chaos, the breakdown of social order, and a Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’? Which prediction is closer to being an accurate picture of human nature in such dire circumstances? Why has anxiety about the prospect of major thermonuclear war dissipated in the eight decades since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does the fact that no such war has occurred vindicate the thought of such strategic thinkers as Herman Kahn and Edward Teller? Why or why not?

What does this 1984 film, a largely fictional account of the relationship between Mozart and fellow composer Antonio Salieri, tell us about the mix of jealousy disgust and admiration that motivates Salieri as he deals with the profane Mozart? How does the movie portray Salieri’s conflicted love/hate relationship with God, and use the contrast between Mozart’s profane life and personality, and the profound and sublime beauty of his music, to motivate that conflict? How does Salieri’s plot to convince Mozart that his deceased father has commissioned him to compose a Requiem Mass illustrate? Does Salieri ever reconcile himself with his own mediocre talent? Why does this film largely fictionalize the actual relationship between the two men, which did have elements of friction, but was largely professional and, to a degree, collegial? How does this film from the 1980s reflect the hard living by pop stars in the 1960s and 1970s? How does the film comment upon censoriousness with regard to art? How does it comment upon the musical tastes and political concerns of the aristocracy of the day, upon market forces, and reflect similar dynamics in today’s film industry?

How does this 2023 film, which is set in post-WWII Japan, explore the complex emotions of its main character, Koichi, as he deals with survivor’s guilt? How does he compound the shame he has for having been too afraid to undertake his kamikaze mission in the late days of the war? When he and his unit are attacked by Godzilla why does he fail to carry out his part of the counterattack? How does the film portray post war Tokyo, and Koichi’s relationship with survivor Noriko and the orphaned child, Akiko, who she cares for? How does her action to save Koichi’s life during Godzilla’s attack on her home town compound his survivor’s guilt? Do elements of the film amount to a critique of Imperial Japanese attitudes toward life and death? How does the film portray comradery between Koichi and the men he works with as they clear mines, and later, confront the mutated Godzilla? What is symbolized when Koichi flies a modified jet aircraft into Godzilla’s mouth, and ejects before the explosion? What does Sosaku’s provision of an ejection seat symbolize? Is the film a conservative political statement of some sort? Why does the film have the Americans stepping back from confronting Godzilla? Do Godzilla movies symbolize Japanese feelings about the country’s Imperial past, along with the more obvious inspiration derived from Allied use of atomic weapons?

What does this 1976 film, which tells the story of a failing television network, and the psychological breakdown of its primary news anchorman, Howard Beale, tell us about market forces in media and the import of ratings in generating income? Why does the programming director, Dianne Christinsen, have no problem with exploiting Beale’s mental breakdown? What message is sent by the ironic fact that the communist party USA enters into contract with the network and a leftist splinter group, the Ecumenical Liberation Army to create a reality show? Are they not behaving exactly as the capitalists do? How does this film portray the cynicism in the arrangement and mirror the exploitative relationship between the establishment Communist Party and the splinter group, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the relationship between the CCA holding company, the UBS Network and Howard Beale? Why does CCA head, Arthur Jensen, sell Howard his “corporate cosmology,” yet not seem concerned as the message causes ratings to decline as Beale takes it up on the network’s revamped “news” show? What does the broadcast assassination of Beale tell us about all the parties involved in the conspiracy? How does the Hollywood of the time reflect the cynicism of the 1970s? Does this film’s message and “cosmology” have relevance for today's media environment?