l_rawjalaurence Set on the General Election night of 1979, Barrie Keeffe's filmed play takes us back to a world where suspects could be held under the controversial 'sus' law - in other words, be held for questioning without being charged for long periods at a time. The production deliberately contrasts Margaret Thatcher's election speech, with its sycophantic thanks to the police for their efforts in sustaining public order, and the institutionalized racism of the two officers (Ralph Brown, Rafe Spall) questioning an African-Caribbean man (Clint Dyer) about the death of his wife. Set in a claustrophobic interview-room, interspersed with graphic shots of the dead woman, SUS is at times very difficult to watch, especially when the officers physically abuse the suspect. They are not particularly interested in obtaining a conviction, but rather to (ab)use the suspect as an outlet for their own racist resentments that Britain has apparently been overrun by immigrants, and ruled by governments dedicated to the cause of "human rights," while neglecting the rights of the indigenous population. What renders the film more shocking is to reflect on how little has changed in the 35 years since Thatcher came to power. Even after the much- publicized "reforms" of the police in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence case, there are still officers within the force who harbor equally racist sentiments, while the success of Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party (UKIP) in recent elections reveals the extent to which the British people dislike what they perceive as the so-called "malign" influence of immigrants. Thirty-five years ago it was the African-Caribbeans; now it is the Eastern and Southern Europeans. SUS stands as an object lesson to show how prevailing attitudes seldom change, despite the protestations of successive governments to the contrary.

huh_oh_i_c I suppose there are whites for whom this would be hard to watch as well, but I guess black people will identify more with the victim, to a deep emotional level.This film won't come entirely as a shock to those who know the many injustices of American justice system. The Trayvon Martin case shows that there's still a humongous amount of class justice, or rather racist justice over there, one set of laws for whites, and one set for blacks.This is exactly at the heart of the events in this film. A black man is brought in for questioning, because his wife was found dead in their house, having bled out. Now, as the situation becomes clear during the film, you really get the feeling, to a point of certainty, that if this had happened to a white family, the husband would NOT have been hauled in for questioning, would NOT have been treated like a criminal, would NOT have been separated from his kids all night. The problem of not being able to call a lawyer wouldn't even have arisen.The policemen are feeling that the election of Thatcher allows them all sorts of rights they previous were denied by the Labour government: Now they feel empowered to harass every non-white person, sent them back if "they step out of line", even once.So that's the situation: Two policemen, who feel overjoyed that the Thatcher win has now allowed them to bring their inner racist out in the open. And they judge the situation completely through a racist lens: black woman, dead, bled out, black husband, and of course blacks are animals, who are such savages that they wouldn't even use the NHS to get an abortion, so they used a screwdriver instead.That, and not whatever a doctor told the policemen what happened, has led to the horrendous police brutality shown here.The police jumped to the most racist conclusion their fascist minds could think up about the situation, without ever even trying to be objective about it. No! Because "blacks are animals, everyone knows that!" It took me about 2 minutes to realize that I didn't really wanna watch this movie, and I tried not to, but I got sucked in by the situation and the quality of acting.Great movie.The Melancholic Alcoholic.

jules (ronansdad) Sus is economic in cast and location, one room three characters, and its theatrical roots are evident. It gets a high score from me because it was on late night and I wasn't planning to stay up, the power of the performances kept me there to end. Its 90 minutes felt like an hour. Of course a low budget movie like this doesn't compare to big set and big budget cinema but it works. It is good to see a film that relies on good dialogue and excellent acting. Late night TV has become quite the venue for low budget movies and ones that failed to get wide distribution and box office takings. But amongst a lot of really dreadful movies there is the odd gem of which Sus is one. One other point, it is an historical movie set in 1979, I remember the issues but if you are the other half of the population, under 40; then you may find it educational.

jackgavin Sus does not work as a film. Its pretty faithful to the play its based on - it should be as the screenplay is by Barrie Keefe who also wrote the play. However no adjustment has been made to accommodate for a film audience. Because of this watching Sus is like watching a play, which would be great if you are sitting in a theatre. The performances by Ralph Brown, Clint Dyer and Rafe Spall are totally solid and stand up, even allowing for the fact the script has dated badly since it was written in 1979.But it just doesn't work as a film. It reminded me of the Plays For Today that used to be on BBC in the 1970's which were exactly that, filmed plays.I wonder just who the film-makers thought they were making this for? There is nothing wrong with filming plays if the film-makers allow for the differences between the two mediums which this production does not.