list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Catch a Fire on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Catch_a_Fire/266939/default.aspx Title: Catch a Fire
Year: 2006
Director: Phillip Noyce
Plot: An apolitical South African oil-refinery worker and soccer coach is forced into terrorism as a means of fighting back against the brutality of the apartheid regime in director Phillip Noyce's dramatic look at the life of one-time political prisoner and freedom fighter Patrick Chamusso. In the 1980s, Patrick (Derek Luke) and his wife Precious (Bonnie Henna) lived a peaceful life until one fateful day, when on an overnight trip with his team, Patrick is singled out as the prime suspect in a bombing at the refinery. Placed in solitary confinement, with his wife and family brutalized by government agent Nic Vos (Tim Robbins), the young family man is eventually cleared of charges, but his life is in shambles. Devastated and distraught, Patrick soon begins working as a rebel fighter and political operative for Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. As the oppressed country's powerful apartheid regime continues to torture and torment its citizens, the now-radicalized Patrick must disappear from his family without a trace and go undercover if he is to aid in toppling the system that destroyed his family, and forever changed his outlook on the world. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 12
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:12:14 GMTCatch a Fire2006Phillip NoyceAn apolitical South African oil-refinery worker and soccer coach is forced into terrorism as a means of fighting back against the brutality of the apartheid regime in director <a href="/players/P___104729/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Phillip Noyce</a>'s dramatic look at the life of one-time political prisoner and freedom fighter Patrick Chamusso. In the 1980s, Patrick (<a href="/players/P___330665/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Derek Luke</a>) and his wife Precious (Bonnie Henna) lived a peaceful life until one fateful day, when on an overnight trip with his team, Patrick is singled out as the prime suspect in a bombing at the refinery. Placed in solitary confinement, with his wife and family brutalized by government agent Nic Vos (<a href="/players/P___108437/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Robbins</a>), the young family man is eventually cleared of charges, but his life is in shambles. Devastated and distraught, Patrick soon begins working as a rebel fighter and political operative for Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. As the oppressed country's powerful apartheid regime continues to torture and torment its citizens, the now-radicalized Patrick must disappear from his family without a trace and go undercover if he is to aid in toppling the system that destroyed his family, and forever changed his outlook on the world. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide12Tag Target (>10)212http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t97303akrb8.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Catch_a_Fire/266939/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30959.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:12:14 PM
Body: "Catch a Fire" is an interesting study in words, sides and colors. It's a story told from the oppressed majority, which is contrary to most films of its ilk that take the perspective of the oppressed minority. Here, the story of apartheid and all its associated ugliness is told through two people: everyman Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke) and special intelligence agent Nic Vos (Tim Robbins). Patrick, a foreman at a coal plant in South Africa, leads a relatively successful life. He is married to a beautiful woman, has to loving kids and holds a position of responsibility at work. He coaches the village children's soccer team and generally keeps his nose out of places it doesn't belong. On their way home from winning the soccer finals, the plant is attacked by the African National Congress-"terrorists", as the white population calls them. Soon, Patrick is targeted, as well as his family, for having a hand in the explosion. This film, directed by Phillip Noyce and written by the son of anti-apartheid activists, is as much a historical document detailing a certain time in South African history as it is an essay on the current state of the world. On a cursory glance, it would be easy to identify the "bad" guys and the "good" guys. But there is more to both sides than a simple white or black hat. Patrick is the protagonist without a doubt, but he isn't necessarily a good man. He's cheated on his wife and has a child with the other woman. We're also told he has promised Precious (wife) he wouldn't see the other woman again-ten times. So we know he is a liar and an adulterer, but somehow he's still the hero of the piece. It's not as if he doesn't love his wife he does, as evidenced in the scene where he takes full responsibility for the bombing when Precious has been brutalized. Patrick is a great father and loves both his daughters immensely. But he is painted as one of the nastiest kinds of people in the world: Vos calls him a terrorist. Terrorist. The word makes you flinch in our post 9/11 world. Before, terrorists attacked other places, not here. To hear a white man call someone a terrorist for allegedly blowing up a coal plant-where no one was hurt-is an attempt to demonize a group of people trying to secure their freedom and equality. As Vos tells Patrick, there are three million whites in the country and twenty-five millions blacks…yet the white men hold all the power. If the black people wanted to rise up and take what they wanted, there would be no contest. But the fact of the matter is that the people living in villages like Patrick's aren't terribly concerned or are intimidated to the point of inaction by the "oppressors". They tip toe around the white police it's like looking into America's past. The African National Congress, the group responsible for the aforementioned bombing, makes it crystal clear to Patrick that his mission is to kill no one. Not a single person can lose their lives in this "terrorist" attack because, as they correctly understand but do not articulate, buildings can be rebuilt, people can not. If a person of any race is killed, then their cause loses all sympathy. However, on the flip side, Vos sees the ANC as a terrorist organization, trying to instill fear and change in a society where the oppressors are outnumbered over 8 to 1. The "terrorist" terminology in "Catch a Fire" depends on whose perspective the events are being told through. As Ben Kenobi told Luke, he told the truth from a certain point of view. Patrick is a terrorist because he rebels against the establishment. Really, all he and the ANC want is equality and basic human rights. Why shouldn't all people be able to advance themselves and their families to the same levels? Why should one group control everything and live in posh housing while another calls a shack home? Being treated as human beings is all the ANC wanted. And Patrick would have been more than content to sit out the fight if Vos didn't take the fight to Precious. "Catch a Fire" is told primarily through Patrick's eyes however, with the few glimpses we get of Vos, we see him as a man conflicted about his role in what is essentially history. At one point, he understands he has made Patrick into a "terrorist" by destroying his life. He understands, to some extent, he is responsible for the situation in South Africa and, more personally, for turning Patrick into a terrorist. And that, as much as anything else, gnaws at him near the end of the film. The kicker is he may be the only white man to understand their perverted role in South Africa. They aren't there to make the country better they are there to exploit the people and land. Vos isn't a mustache twirling villain in the classic sense, even though he is the antagonist in this piece. It is under his orders that Patrick is let go after confessing to the bombing however, he is also the ringleader for all the torture, murder and despair that is present in the film. In the end, just as Patrick is not a purely good man, Vos is not a purely bad one. They are real men with their own demons. Pulling off that kind of juggling act within a political storyline is no easy feat. The only real downfall in the film is the nearly obligatory action climax which doesn't feel right or at home in this dialogue driven film. In the context of the characters, it works well enough and it is competently directed and scripted, but lacks the emotional punch the rest of the film has. The audience is never given a reason to care if the refinery is blown up. It isn't the headquarters for the oppressors and only has significance as the symbol of the oppression. This is a game we've seen dozens of times before: will the bomb be found before it goes off? It's standard fare only in the fact it is an action climax to the film. The roles for each character are reversed from normal productions. Vos, the antagonist, is trying to disarm the weapon planted by Patrick, the "good guy". The thing is, blowing buildings up is generally something the bad guy does. But Patrick has morality and ethics on his side with the mission. He is not doing this to be malicious or to hurt people. Rather, he wants to bring basic rights to people who have been disenfranchised in their own country. It's a powerful statement on the roles we as a society normally assign to people. "Catch a Fire", as I alluded earlier, is all about sides, colors and shades. There are more shades of gray in this film than most people would want to admit. It shows that the good guys are not always good and the bad guys aren't always bad. It's about the push and pull, politically and socially, internally and externally. This is a film that knows it has something important to say and won't let anything stand in its way. This is in my personal top five films of the year. Acting, writing, directing…all the elements came together to make "Catch a Fire" one of the very best films of the year. Better than, yes, "United 93" and "The Illusionist" and "The Departed". This is a standout picture in every way, one that should be talked about heavily at Oscar time. On the scale of 1 to 10, "Catch a Fire" gets an 8.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:12:14 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 1:12:14 PM"Catch a Fire" is an interesting study in words, sides and colors. It's a story told from the oppressed majority, which is contrary to most films of its ilk that take the perspective of the oppressed minority. Here, the story of apartheid and all its associated ugliness is told through two people: everyman Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke) and special intelligence agent Nic Vos (Tim Robbins). Patrick, a foreman at a coal plant in South Africa, leads a relatively successful life. He is married to a beautiful woman, has to loving kids and holds a position of responsibility at work. He coaches the village children's soccer team and generally keeps his nose out of places it doesn't belong. On their way home from winning the soccer finals, the plant is attacked by the African National Congress-"terrorists", as the white population calls them. Soon, Patrick is targeted, as well as his family, for having a hand in the explosion. This film, directed by Phillip Noyce and written by the son of anti-apartheid activists, is as much a historical document detailing a certain time in South African history as it is an essay on the current state of the world. On a cursory glance, it would be easy to identify the "bad" guys and the "good" guys. But there is more to both sides than a simple white or black hat. Patrick is the protagonist without a doubt, but he isn't necessarily a good man. He's cheated on his wife and has a child with the other woman. We're also told he has promised Precious (wife) he wouldn't see the other woman again-ten times. So we know he is a liar and an adulterer, but somehow he's still the hero of the piece. It's not as if he doesn't love his wife he does, as evidenced in the scene where he takes full responsibility for the bombing when Precious has been brutalized. Patrick is a great father and loves both his daughters immensely. But he is painted as one of the nastiest kinds of people in the world: Vos calls him a terrorist. Terrorist. The word makes you flinch in our post 9/11 world. Before, terrorists attacked other places, not here. To hear a white man call someone a terrorist for allegedly blowing up a coal plant-where no one was hurt-is an attempt to demonize a group of people trying to secure their freedom and equality. As Vos tells Patrick, there are three million whites in the country and twenty-five millions blacks&hellip;yet the white men hold all the power. If the black people wanted to rise up and take what they wanted, there would be no contest. But the fact of the matter is that the people living in villages like Patrick's aren't terribly concerned or are intimidated to the point of inaction by the "oppressors". They tip toe around the white police it's like looking into America's past. The African National Congress, the group responsible for the aforementioned bombing, makes it crystal clear to Patrick that his mission is to kill no one. Not a single person can lose their lives in this "terrorist" attack because, as they correctly understand but do not articulate, buildings can be rebuilt, people can not. If a person of any race is killed, then their cause loses all sympathy. However, on the flip side, Vos sees the ANC as a terrorist organization, trying to instill fear and change in a society where the oppressors are outnumbered over 8 to 1. The "terrorist" terminology in "Catch a Fire" depends on whose perspective the events are being told through. As Ben Kenobi told Luke, he told the truth from a certain point of view. Patrick is a terrorist because he rebels against the establishment. Really, all he and the ANC want is equality and basic human rights. Why shouldn't all people be able to advance themselves and their families to the same levels? Why should one group control everything and live in posh housing while another calls a shack home? Being treated as human beings is all the ANC wanted. And Patrick would have been more than content to sit out the fight if Vos didn't take the fight to Precious. "Catch a Fire" is told primarily through Patrick's eyes however, with the few glimpses we get of Vos, we see him as a man conflicted about his role in what is essentially history. At one point, he understands he has made Patrick into a "terrorist" by destroying his life. He understands, to some extent, he is responsible for the situation in South Africa and, more personally, for turning Patrick into a terrorist. And that, as much as anything else, gnaws at him near the end of the film. The kicker is he may be the only white man to understand their perverted role in South Africa. They aren't there to make the country better they are there to exploit the people and land. Vos isn't a mustache twirling villain in the classic sense, even though he is the antagonist in this piece. It is under his orders that Patrick is let go after confessing to the bombing however, he is also the ringleader for all the torture, murder and despair that is present in the film. In the end, just as Patrick is not a purely good man, Vos is not a purely bad one. They are real men with their own demons. Pulling off that kind of juggling act within a political storyline is no easy feat. The only real downfall in the film is the nearly obligatory action climax which doesn't feel right or at home in this dialogue driven film. In the context of the characters, it works well enough and it is competently directed and scripted, but lacks the emotional punch the rest of the film has. The audience is never given a reason to care if the refinery is blown up. It isn't the headquarters for the oppressors and only has significance as the symbol of the oppression. This is a game we've seen dozens of times before: will the bomb be found before it goes off? It's standard fare only in the fact it is an action climax to the film. The roles for each character are reversed from normal productions. Vos, the antagonist, is trying to disarm the weapon planted by Patrick, the "good guy". The thing is, blowing buildings up is generally something the bad guy does. But Patrick has morality and ethics on his side with the mission. He is not doing this to be malicious or to hurt people. Rather, he wants to bring basic rights to people who have been disenfranchised in their own country. It's a powerful statement on the roles we as a society normally assign to people. "Catch a Fire", as I alluded earlier, is all about sides, colors and shades. There are more shades of gray in this film than most people would want to admit. It shows that the good guys are not always good and the bad guys aren't always bad. It's about the push and pull, politically and socially, internally and externally. This is a film that knows it has something important to say and won't let anything stand in its way. This is in my personal top five films of the year. Acting, writing, directing&hellip;all the elements came together to make "Catch a Fire" one of the very best films of the year. Better than, yes, "United 93" and "The Illusionist" and "The Departed". This is a standout picture in every way, one that should be talked about heavily at Oscar time. On the scale of 1 to 10, "Catch a Fire" gets an 8. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2007/2/22/5706.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 2/22/2007 8:25:00 PM
Body: When Joe Slovo, a white man, was heading up the military terrorist wing of the African National Congress (ANC), he said to his daughter that, when this is all over, if you want to tell the story, tell the story of Patrick Chamusso, for he is a real live-wire. With Catch a Fire (2006), Shawn Slovo has provided a script which combines the story of Patrick Chamusso’s life and the fight to end apartheid in South Africa. It is 1980, and Chamusso (Derek Luke) is keeping his head down, working hard at the oil refinery, loving his children, and coaching the young boy’s soccer team when he is wrongly accused of bombing the refinery. Col. Nic Vos (Tim Robbins), head of the white regime’s anti-terrorist squad, has Chamusso tortured repeatedly, and then has his wife tortured as well. When released, the formerly apolitical Chamusso disappears to join the armed resistance, and he later actually attempts to bomb the factory. Freedom fighter or terrorist? Numerous American viewers dislike this movie because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Why? As far as I know, the US did nothing to support apartheid in South Africa. There is no explicit reference to the United States. I cannot even detect a subtext referring (note the word) to the US. The movie does, however, deal with issues relevant to Americans. For example, the relationship between torturing people and breeding terrorists. As another example, the efforts of a white minority for a military victory over a non-white majority. Viewers who claim the movie is attacking America are projecting their complex guilt onto the movie. This projection doesn’t have to involve the US military torturing Iraqis or invading countries, for some viewers disliked the movie because it reminded them of segregation in the US half a century ago. This reminds me of the American fellow I glimpsed in the trailer to Why We Fight: “When did we become such a puny nation that we can’t admit our mistakes and get on with fixing them!?” The strength of the movie is the point of view and the characterization. We actually see life from a black African’s point of view, and the guy is complex. Far from being saintly, Chamusso initially keeps his head down in the face of obvious racial injustice, and thus looks both a sly climber and a social coward as well as a friend who will help his fellow blacks out of tight spots. While Chamusso loves his family, he continues an old affair with the woman who bore his son. Later, when he joins the ANC terrorists, it is with some misgivings: He is reluctant to shout that he is prepared to die, and he chaffs under the waiting. His Afrikaans opponent, Col. Vos, is also a complex character. He routinely has people tortured, but when he sees what his men did to Chamusso, he is genuinely put off, and he calls for a doctor. Vos is tired, going through the motions in what he knows is ultimately a losing cause. Yet when he is closing in on a terrorist/freedom fighter, he is full of energy. He too has a family with two daughters, and it is pathetic that he teaches them to fire pistols. One of his daughters refuses, yet it is she who winds up using a gun in self-defence. Although Vos is despicable, he is more than that. The weakness of the movie is that it tells the “wrong” story. This leads to charges that the movie pounds home points that we already know, that it shows nothing remarkable. Maybe I would be better to say it tells the “easy” story—wrongly accused and sorely abused black man turns terrorist to free more than 20 million of his people from the fascist oppression of an elite of 3 million whites. The very last minutes of the movie give us a look at what I think would have been the “right” and “difficult” story to tell. After apartheid and its regime have been overthrown, Chamusso (Derek Luke) stalks up behind Vos and says in a voice-over that he could snap the neck of this man who ruined so many lives, but during the second 5 years of his 10 years in prison (with Nelson Mandela and others), he found it in his heart to forgive. Suddenly, the movie shifts from the actor to the real Chamusso outside his house in the hills of eastern South Africa. He has remarried and started a home for five dozen children orphaned by AIDS. He and the actor are having a great time on the soccer pitch as the credits role. We need to know not that racism is bad but how Chamusso overcame his rightful bitterness and anger, how he fought off the effects of apartheid long after it had been officially ended, and how he rebuilt his happiness and wound up doing so much social good.Jim Bell
]]>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:25:00 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog2/22/2007 8:25:00 PM When Joe Slovo, a white man, was heading up the military terrorist wing of the African National Congress (ANC), he said to his daughter that, when this is all over, if you want to tell the story, tell the story of Patrick Chamusso, for he is a real live-wire. With Catch a Fire (2006), Shawn Slovo has provided a script which combines the story of Patrick Chamusso&rsquo;s life and the fight to end apartheid in South Africa. It is 1980, and Chamusso (Derek Luke) is keeping his head down, working hard at the oil refinery, loving his children, and coaching the young boy&rsquo;s soccer team when he is wrongly accused of bombing the refinery. Col. Nic Vos (Tim Robbins), head of the white regime&rsquo;s anti-terrorist squad, has Chamusso tortured repeatedly, and then has his wife tortured as well. When released, the formerly apolitical Chamusso disappears to join the armed resistance, and he later actually attempts to bomb the factory. Freedom fighter or terrorist? Numerous American viewers dislike this movie because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Why? As far as I know, the US did nothing to support apartheid in South Africa. There is no explicit reference to the United States. I cannot even detect a subtext referring (note the word) to the US. The movie does, however, deal with issues relevant to Americans. For example, the relationship between torturing people and breeding terrorists. As another example, the efforts of a white minority for a military victory over a non-white majority. Viewers who claim the movie is attacking America are projecting their complex guilt onto the movie. This projection doesn&rsquo;t have to involve the US military torturing Iraqis or invading countries, for some viewers disliked the movie because it reminded them of segregation in the US half a century ago. This reminds me of the American fellow I glimpsed in the trailer to Why We Fight: &ldquo;When did we become such a puny nation that we can&rsquo;t admit our mistakes and get on with fixing them!?&rdquo; The strength of the movie is the point of view and the characterization. We actually see life from a black African&rsquo;s point of view, and the guy is complex. Far from being saintly, Chamusso initially keeps his head down in the face of obvious racial injustice, and thus looks both a sly climber and a social coward as well as a friend who will help his fellow blacks out of tight spots. While Chamusso loves his family, he continues an old affair with the woman who bore his son. Later, when he joins the ANC terrorists, it is with some misgivings: He is reluctant to shout that he is prepared to die, and he chaffs under the waiting. His Afrikaans opponent, Col. Vos, is also a complex character. He routinely has people tortured, but when he sees what his men did to Chamusso, he is genuinely put off, and he calls for a doctor. Vos is tired, going through the motions in what he knows is ultimately a losing cause. Yet when he is closing in on a terrorist/freedom fighter, he is full of energy. He too has a family with two daughters, and it is pathetic that he teaches them to fire pistols. One of his daughters refuses, yet it is she who winds up using a gun in self-defence. Although Vos is despicable, he is more than that. The weakness of the movie is that it tells the &ldquo;wrong&rdquo; story. This leads to charges that the movie pounds home points that we already know, that it shows nothing remarkable. Maybe I would be better to say it tells the &ldquo;easy&rdquo; story&mdash;wrongly accused and sorely abused black man turns terrorist to free more than 20 million of his people from the fascist oppression of an elite of 3 million whites. The very last minutes of the movie give us a look at what I think would have been the &ldquo;right&rdquo; and &ldquo;difficult&rdquo; story to tell. After apartheid and its regime have been overthrown, Chamusso (Derek Luke) stalks up behind Vos and says in a voice-over that he could snap the neck of this man who ruined so many lives, but during the second 5 years of his 10 years in prison (with Nelson Mandela and others), he found it in his heart to forgive. Suddenly, the movie shifts from the actor to the real Chamusso outside his house in the hills of eastern South Africa. He has remarried and started a home for five dozen children orphaned by AIDS. He and the actor are having a great time on the soccer pitch as the credits role. We need to know not that racism is bad but how Chamusso overcame his rightful bitterness and anger, how he fought off the effects of apartheid long after it had been officially ended, and how he rebuilt his happiness and wound up doing so much social good.Jim Bell http://www.spout.com/groups/Telluride_Film_Festival_2008/Films_I_saw_at_Telluride/144/2917/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: aaronBsmith
Post To: Telluride Film Festival 2008
Post Date: 9/11/2006 10:46:55 AM
Body: At Telluride, I saw:The Last King of ScotlandSeverenceJindabyneCatch a FireDirected by John FordThe ItalianVolverInfamousI would be interesting if anyone out there has seen the original version of Directed by John Ford. It came out in 1971. The version I saw at Telluride was more or less the same, but with more interviews from current filmmakers and actors as well as restored clips from many of John Ford's films.
]]>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:46:55 GMTaaronBsmithTelluride Film Festival 20089/11/2006 10:46:55 AMAt Telluride, I saw:The Last King of ScotlandSeverenceJindabyneCatch a FireDirected by John FordThe ItalianVolverInfamousI would be interesting if anyone out there has seen the original version of Directed by John Ford. It came out in 1971. The version I saw at Telluride was more or less the same, but with more interviews from current filmmakers and actors as well as restored clips from many of John Ford's films. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12476

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1474

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:38:55 GMT124763361474Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6175

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 606

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:41 GMT6175179606Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/torture/MemberTagFilms.aspxtorture
Number of films tagged: 571

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 104

]]>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:51:19 GMT57143104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/poverty/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoverty
Number of films tagged: 1505

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 70

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:28:37 GMT15053870Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/passion/MemberTagFilms.aspxpassion
Number of films tagged: 326

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 48

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:13:05 GMT3262748Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/forgiveness/MemberTagFilms.aspxforgiveness
Number of films tagged: 142

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 35

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:28:20 GMT1422235Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/South-Africa/MemberTagFilms.aspxSouth-Africa
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 14

]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:53 GMT13814Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bravery/MemberTagFilms.aspxbravery
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:40:17 GMT10510Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/apartheid/MemberTagFilms.aspxapartheid
Number of films tagged: 94

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:07:07 GMT9444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bombings/MemberTagFilms.aspxbombings
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:04:35 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/freedom-fighter/MemberTagFilms.aspxfreedom-fighter
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:04:34 GMT111Tag