THE ROMANTIC AGE

UK, 1949, 78 minutes, Black-and-white.
Mai Zetterling, Hugh Williams, Margot Graham, Petula Clark, Carol Marsh, Raymond Lovell, Paul Dupuy, Judith Furse, Jean Anderson, Adrienne Corri.
All Directed by Edmond Greville.

It would be very interesting to read up on how this film was accepted in the late 1940s. In the 21st-century, there is a much greater awareness about the role of older males, especially teachers, and their responsibility towards female students and relationships with them.

This film is something of a combination of the themes from Lolita and a variation on Fatal Attraction.

Swedish actress, Mai Zetterling plays a precocious French student at a British finishing school, spoilt, manipulative, provocative to her new, very serious, teacher, Hugh Williams. He reacts badly to her so she decides then to seduce him. The film shows her manoeuvres. It also shows his gradual involvement and attraction and stupid decisions, possibly ruining his life.

Some of the teachers at the school raise the issues of suspicion about a male teacher and young female students. The teacher also has to deal with his former concert pianist wife, Margot Grahame, and his teenage daughter who is now enrolled in the school, Petula Clark.

In one sense, a curiosity item, moral issues of the past, seen in the light of the present. This is particularly the case at the comic ending when the put-upon butler, played by Raymond Lovell, is so irritated with the young French girl that he threatens to spank her, thinks the better of it – and then put that aside and does!

1. The title? The light touch, girls at 18? Yet the serious subject? The alternate title, Naughty Arlette?

2. The English setting, the countryside, the late 1940s? The finishing school for girls? The interiors, dormitories, classrooms, offices? The contrast with the mansion in London? Nightclub sequences? The musical score?

3. The serious theme, touches of Lolita, a variation on Fatal Attraction? Arlette and her determination to humiliate Arnold Dickson? Feeling insulted by him, vengeance, playing up to him, his response?

4. The issue seen in the context of the 21st-century, sexual harassment, legal issues?

5. The ethos of the girls’ school, the principal, the decision to have a male teacher, the reactions of the more conservative staff? Warning the principal?

6. The girls, seen as a group, individuals, Arlette standing out, French, wealth, her manner, arrogant? Her reaction to Arnold, provocative in the front row, upset by his reactions, his getting her to carry books…? Discussions with the other girls, the bet about seducing him?

7. Arnold, background, serious, academic, the arts? His accepting the position, contrasting with teaching boys? His wife, concert pianist and her career, giving it up? Julie, her age, exuberant, going to the school, making friends with the other girls? With Arlette?

8. Arnold, his classes, serious tone, the response of the girls, the interruptions? Arnold at home, with his family, strict with Julie? Urging her not to be friends with Arlette?

9. Arlette, her determination, being present with Arnold? Pretending to be sick, his home visits and her being provocative?

10. The treasure hunt, Arlette lost, the setup in the hut, her shoe, the rain, the kiss, his carrying her to the bus, his reaction at home? The consequences, his infatuation? Arlette playing up to it?

11. Julie, her visit to Arlette’s house, meeting the Frenchman, his offer to paint her, her return home, her father smelling the alcohol? Seeing her father at home, her being upset, at the swimming pool, her decision to forge the letters, going to the club, her father arriving, her frantic dancing, his taking her away? Their talking, the confession?

12. Arnold, correcting the work, his wife playing the piano, her being upset? His planning to leave? Going to the club, his reaction to Julie’s dancing? The decision to go to Arlette, to say goodbye?

13. Arlette and the girls, Mission accomplished, her travelling to Rome? The denunciation of Arnold?

14. The butler, his service in the house, Arlette’s treatment of him, his threatening to spank her – and his actually spanking her? Audience reaction – spanking inappropriate, but on his side!

PENGUIN BLOOM

Australia/UK, 2020, 95 minutes, Colour.
Naomi Watts, Andrew Lincoln, Griffin Murray- Johnston, Jackie Weaver, Rachel House, Leeanna Walsman, Lisa Hensley, Gia Carides, Abe Clifford- Barr.
Directed by Glendyn Ivin.

Penguin Bloom is a film that most audiences would enjoy seeing. It is based on a true story – with a fine culmination for those not familiar with the story of the characters. It is set in Sydney, along the coast with its beaches. It is a story about a family, joy, tragedy, and some inspiration for hope. And, one of its central characters, and an emblem, is a wounded magpie who is nicknamed Penguin. (The Australian classification is PG, with the advice: mild themes and coarse language – but, presumably this means mild coarse language, but this reviewer did not hear any!)

We are introduced to the Bloom family by the oldest of three sons, Noah, a more introspective type than his two younger brothers who are raucous-personified! He begins to tell the story of his parents, their friendship since childhood, their marriage, surfing and the sea, their children, and their time together during a holiday in Thailand.

But, very early in the film, we learn that the mother, Sam, has lent against a fence on a rooftop, some of the wood rotting, giving way, and her falling, and confined to a wheelchair. She is played, very convincingly, by Naomi Watts (who also went on a holiday to Thailand in the film, The Impossible, and experienced the disaster of the tsunami). Her husband is played by British actor, Andrew Lincoln, a stalwart of the television series, The Walking Dead. And Jacki Weaver is there as Sam’s fussy and tidying mother, over-emotionally worrying about her daughter. And the three boys.

While the family live in a comfortable beachside house, that can be little comfort when one is confined to a wheelchair, confined to the house, unwilling to move outside, preoccupied with the injury and daily pain, and the danger of indulging in self-pity. Cam, Sam’s husband, a photographer, does his best to deal with the daily tasks, the boys’ lunches, getting them off to school… But Sam is unwilling to go outside.

Then Noah finds a wounded magpie, brings it into the house, the boys trying to work out a name, Noah choosing Penguin. Clearly, the wounded Penguin becomes an evident symbol for Sam, their wounds, their confinement, and the question has to be, what is their fate.

It is Penguin who brings Sam out of herself, Noah asking his mother to take care of the bird while he is at school. Initially unwilling, and just calling her Bird, and Penguin causing mischief. Sam has to rescue Penguin from being trapped in spilt honey (the family have bees and produce honey). And so begins a bond, and the parallels between Sam and Penguin emerge.

Part of the joy of the film is Cam’s wonderful idea to suggest that Sam take up kayaking. She loved water, has strength in her upper body and arms. And part of the joy for the audience is getting to meet Gaye, Rachel House, a genial, wonderfully friendly, trainer for the kayaks, making demands on Sam, even testing her by telling her to fall into the water and use her arms for swimming. Of course, this will be Sam’s salvation, and more – as happened in real life.

But, what about Penguin? Recovering, the possibility of being able to fly, the need to break free, whether she would return to the house familiarity, finding her own independence and new life?

It is good to see photos of the actual family during the final credits, especially Sam herself and her achievement, and seeing that the family was very much involved in the production of the film. Director, Glendyn Ivin, has built up a strong reputation for directing television programs and series. And a great compliment to the magpie trainers and handlers (the cast list has the name of magpies!).


1. The story? Audience knowledge of the characters or not? Sarah Bloom, her injury, her later sports achievement?

2. The family contributing to the making of this film, Cameron Bloom cowriting the book, the family serving as producers, advisers?

3. The title, the focus on the magpie, Noah calling her Penguin?

4. Noah’s initial voice-over, description of the family, relationships, the trip to Thailand? The visualising of the trip, the family enjoyment, activities, sport and the water?

5. The filming of the background, Sarah and Cam, knowing each other from their childhood years, Cam as a photographer, Sarah as a nurse, the three boys and their growing up, rowdy?

6. Thailand, the accident, the initial suggestions, the rotten wood, Sarah’s fall? The later visualising of the accident, of Sarah falling, of her on the ground?

7. The family, the scenery, the beaches and cliffs, the water?

8. The consequences of the accident, Sarah in the wheelchair, no feeling in her legs? Her psychological state? Suppressed anger? Self-pity, morose? Staying at home, in the dark? Feeling she was nothing, not able to act as mother? The growing frustration, inability to move, the breaking of the honey jar…?

9. Cameron, loving husband, getting the boys ready for school, dropping them, helping Sarah, turning her, helping her with the chair? Meals? His photography work – and the bickering family?

10. Sarah’s mother, visits, tidying up, fussing? The outing for the meal with Kylie? The walk, the encounter with Bron – and Sarah not wanting to see her, Bron leaving the food?

11. Noah finding the magpie, wounded? Bringing it home, caring for it, the names, Penguin? Sarah calling it just bird? Saying that it had to be eventually freed?

12. The parallels between Sarah and Penguin, the evident comparisons, throughout the film? Injury, isolation, being tended, unable to fly…?

13. Noah asking his mother to look after Penguin, her care, growing attached, Penguin in the honey and her washing and drying it, something of a transformation, her going outside? Penguin and the attack by the two magpies?

14. Cameron and his desperation, struggling, Sarah not wanting him to ask how she was?

15. Cameron and his idea of the kayak, Sarah and willing, venturing out, meeting Gaye? Gaye and her enthusiastic personality? Advice to Sarah, in the kayak, arm muscles, rhythms, asking her to fall in the water, reluctance, swimming? The continued practice?

16. The birthday, celebrations, the meal, Sarah and her friends, Gaye, her mother? The tension in her mother expressing all the fears, the what if, addressing Cameron, as if Sarah was not present?

17. Penguin, the bonding with Noah, the bonding with Sarah, attempts at flying, eventually flying away? The family searching in the rain?

18. Sarah, the photos of athletic days, her smashing them? Noah and his wanting to put them together? Noah and his video? His blaming himself, responsible for the trip to the tower, on the roof? Feeling his mother blamed him? Her looking at the video, the reconciliation?

19. The other two boys, raucous, movement, jumping, the trampoline, noise… The oysters, sick on the floor?

20. Noah, jumping, on the trampoline, transformation?

21. Penguin, the return, flying off free?

22. The subsequent information and photos, the family, Sarah and her sports achievements?

 

 

 

 

THE MARKSMAN

US, 2021, 108 minutes, Colour.
Liam Neeson, Jacob Perez, Juan Pablo Raba, Katheryn Winick.
Directed by Robert Lorenz.

Once upon a time, the go-to stars for an action show tended to be the martial arts champions. For the last 12 years, it has been Liam Neeson, averaging an action show for a year (with Denzel Washington looking as if he is the next competitor!). Think the Taken series, Non-stop, Cold Play¦ During lockdown in the United States, with limited screenings, two of Liam Neeson's action show topped the box office, The Honest Thief and this one, The Marksman.

We are introduced to the Mexican cartels. Ruthless, hidden bosses issuing death sentences, underlings (forced into working for the cartels since they were children), ordered to carry out the sentences. Here, they pursue a mother and her young son, Miguel, as vengeance for an uncle stealing from the cartel. And they pursue them to the US border, mother and son finding a break on the fence, but a shootout…

Because, Liam Neeson is Jim, as an Arizona ranger at the border and there he is, a marksman, calling Border patrol, but shooting, the mother wounded. And she bequeaths her son to the marksman.

So, the setting for a drama because Jim is a widower, his wife dying the year before from cancer, in debt, the bank wanting to foreclose on his property. And Jim is on the border, with the boy, handing him into his stepdaughter who works on the border police, changing his mind, gathering his possessions, slipping the boy out from custody, and turning this story into a road film, driving across the US to deliver the boy to some relatives in Chicago.

That is the nice part. Although Miguel does not have time to grieve and deal with such violence, suspicious of Jim, but, and we enjoy this, the boy mellowing, Jim sheltering him, feeding him, telling him stories about top hotdogs with mustard in Chicago, driving.

The not so nice part, but the exciting part for the audience, is that Jim has shot the posse leaders brother and he is out for revenge, interestingly drawing on the technology resources of the cartel, identifying where Jim has used his credit card… So, a pursuit, and the pursuer is vicious, killing witnesses along the way, in service stations, are corrupt policeman who has held the two up but has failed to stop them, manager of a motel from which the to escape.

Since Jim has been a Marine and has skills as a marksman, he also has strategies and the last part of the film, the showdown, involves some manoeuvres with vehicles, Jim is a sniper in a local farm, Miguel having to help, and, satisfyingly for our emotional response, Jim delivering him to his relatives.

But, Jim has been wounded, gets on a Chicago bus and the final credits come up. And the thought occurs, survival and sequel?

 

1. The title? The Marine? Weapons, accuracy, tactics?

2. The settings in Mexico, the town, homes, the cartels? Arizona, the open plains? Towns, border offices? On the road, the variety of locations across America, Chicago? The musical score?

3. The cartels, power, violence, ruthlessness? The heads, the underlings? People forced into membership of the cartels and working for them? Vengeance?

4. Miguel, happy, home from school, the phone call, his uncle, having to leave, the uncle tortured and hanging? Getting to the border, the guide, the car in pursuit, the break in the wire, getting through? Jim and his watching, phoning the border patrol? The confrontation, the shooting, Miguel's mother shot, bequeathing her son, the money in the bag? Her death? Jim taking Miguel? His unwillingness? Not having time to grieve?

5. Jim, his ranch, financial difficulties, the agent coming, the threat of sale, memories of his dead wife, her cancer, payments? Sarah, her bond with Jim, her mother?

6. Jim, the boy, his decision, packing up, leaving his house? Getting the boy out of isolation? Driving away, the plan to go to Chicago? His phone calls to Sarah, her urging him back?

7. The drive across the country, interactions with Miguel, his speaking English? The various stops, buying the atlas, Miguel marking it, stopping for the petrol, the engine, the old man and repairing it? The night at the motel?

8. Miguel, his age, his knowledge about what happened, reluctant, Jim urging him to eat? Stories about Chicago and hot dogs? His bond with Jim's dog?

9. Mauricio, the shootout, the death of his brother getting across the border, the corrupt US police paid off at the border? The network, the technological savvy, tracking Jim with his credit card? The group in pursuit? Jim pulled over by the policeman, in the pay of the cartel, taking the guns, the fight, Jim and Miguel escaping? Mauricio catching up, the shooting of the policeman? The raid on the motel, the killing of Jim’s dog, the two hiding? Finding the mark on the atlas? The pursuit? Look out on the bridge, the information?

10. Jim, going on the side road, the tactic of blocking the road, the cartel car and its crash, the pursuit on foot, Jim and Miguel hiding at the farm? Jim and his Marine tactics, the sniper, Miguel and the false shot, his being taken, the confrontation with Morrissey oh, the issue of the military medal, Mauricio giving it back, the fight, the shooting, Jim leaving him with the gun, the shot?

11. Hitchhiking to Chicago, Jim delivering McGill?, giving him the medal? Jim, stabbed by Mauricio, getting on the bus? The ending?

12. The religious motifs throughout the film, the opening profile of the statue of Jesus, the crucifix, rosary, the church and the funeral ritual, the discussions about heaven?

 

BLOOD ORANGE/ THREE STEPS TO MURDER

UK, 1953, 76 minutes, Black-and-white.
Tom Conway, Mila Parely, Naomi Chance, Eric Pohlman, Andrew Osborn, Richard Wattis, Michael Ripper.
Directed by Terence Fisher.

In 1953 thriller, just a few years before Hammer Studios ventured into their horror series. Producer Michael Carreras and director-writer Jimmy Sangster were involved in this film – and then were successful with the horror films. It is also directed by Terence Fisher who directed some of the key Dracula and Frankenstein films.

The star of this film is Tom Conway, George Sanders older brother, looking and sounding like his brother and adopting his suave, sometimes detached manner. And his character’s name in this film is Tom Conway!

The film opens with an elaborate robbery of jewels, Eric Pohlman as an entrepreneur who was robbed, Tom Conway as a former-FBI agent investigating for him. Pohlman is involved in the jewellery industry with several shops. The film also goes into the world of fashion, behind the scenes in the workroom, designers, models, and then various fashion displays for affluent guests. Tom Conway frequents the shows and becomes very friendly with a model who was sacked, played by Naomi Chance. Prominent in the action is the head designer, a passionate woman, and her partner, rather cool and detached.

There is a complication when an imperious woman notes that one of the jewels on sale had been robbed from her. And she is murdered.

Quite some complications, Tom Conway becoming involved with the rather cool model who had been sacked. But, then, Conway is detained in Pohlman’s house, makes his escape, the police arriving, arrests of a number of the criminals. However, bluffing that a parcel of perfume is actually a bomb, Pohlman escapes, only to make a mysterious phone call, go to a rendezvous in a car park where he is murdered.

Quite a number of complications – the hysterical designer wanting to kill herself, her cool partner discovered to be working with the model…

It is very much a surprise to see Richard Wattis as the police investigator, difficult to detach this role from his many prissy and fussy comedy roles in many British comedy.

LE NOM DE GENS/ THE NAMES OF LOVE


France, 2010, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jacques Gamblin, Sara Forestier, Zinedine Soualem, Carole Franck, Jacques Boudet, Michelle Moretti,
Directed by Michel Leclerc.

This is a film that needs a French audience. While it is of interest to those not familiar with political life in France at the end of the 20th century, into the 21st century, the story is very much located in its culture.

This is the story of two families. However, the stories emerge as the screenplay focuses on two very distinctive characters. First there is the quiet scientist, interest in birds and diseases, Arthur Martin (which seems to the popular name of appliances in France, everybody remarking on the ordinariness of his name), played by Jacques Gamblin, is interrupted during a television interview about birds by a particularly free and wild spirit, Bahia Benmahmoud, played by Sara Forestier, an absolutely uninhibited attack.

The two continue to encounter each other and the audience learns the background of their families. Arthur has not known that his mother had a Jewish background and that her parents were killed in Auschwitz. She has been very reserved about her family background, but always tense, fearing deportation. She has married an older man – and, throughout the film, whatever his age, the father is portrayed by the older actor, Jacques Boudet. The two tend to be very savvy about engineering and technological developments, making that their focus of communication. The father also served in the war in Algeria.

Bahia, on the other hand, has a French mother who was a rebel, hippy style, in the 1960s, very frank about her views. And she has married an Algerian, a genial man, working on repairs but also an artist at heart – who, at the end, can fulfil his ambitions.

Arthur and Bahia begin a relationship, quite stormy, he rather infatuated with her, she a woman of eccentric principles, campaigning for the left, having sexual relationships and encounters with men from the right so that she can convert them! Her free spiritedness is illustrated throughout the film by her lack of inhibitions in appearing naked.

So, there are various ups and downs in the relationships, visits to families and discussions, gradual revelations – and, ultimately, the two falling in love, genuinely.

There are continued political references throughout the film, scenes of voting, comments on various politicians of the time including Mitterand, Giscard D’ Estaing, Chirac, Sarkozy, Lionel Jospin - and, in fact, Jospin makes a guest appearance.

For an audience who like French politics and French cinema.

EARWIG AND THE WITCH

Japan, 2020, 82 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Goro Miyazaki.

This is very much a 21st-century film from the famed Japanese Ghibli Studios. It has been directed by the son of the celebrated veteran director, Hayao Miyazaki.

It is of interest that the son was originally not interested in animation because of the reputation of his father but, asked to design the Studio Ghibli Museum, he did move into animation with Tales from the Earthsea, 2006, followed by Up from a Poppy Hill. He directed a television series on Rhonda, the Robbers Daughter, followed by this film.

This reviewer prefers the films of the father, Studio Ghibli has a long tradition of imaginative fairytales set in a magical world. Like the Oscar-winning, Spirited Away, or Pondo or Howl’s Moving Castle. As with other Studio Ghibli films, this one is based on a book by a British author, Diana Wynne Jones, and has some British settings, especially the religious orphanage.

While the film is in a world of magic, it is a mysterious magic of witches. It is also set in a modern world of pop stars, concerts, cars and motorbikes…

A mysterious redheaded singer leaves a baby on an orphanage steps and disappears, indicating that she has to flee the curse of 12 witches. The little girl grows up, rather dominating, especially with a studious boy who reads science-fiction called Custard. Then the little girl is adopted – as it turns out by the two mysterious members of the pop group, the talented drummer and the mysterious tall writer.

The little girl adapts to the life in the house but encounters a magic talking cat whom she befriends. A lot of magic follows, some of it the kind of thing that pleases the little girl, worms and other tricks. She experiences the talent of her two guardians, eventually winning them over, the drummer performing, the writer getting praise from the little girl and being successful.

It is very brief, geared for television audience, very colourful, lots of special effects and magic, a different Studio Ghibli film.

EDGE OF FURY

US, 1958, 78 minutes, Black-and-white.
Michael Higgins, Lois Holmes, Jean Allison, Doris Fessette, Malcolm Lee Beggs, Mary Boylan, John Harvey.
Directed by Robert Gurney Jr.

Edge of Fury is a little seen supporting feature. It has a cast of character actors, not well known.

The film is a psychological drama, particularly low-key in retrospect. It is a case study of a man with mental and emotional problems, played by Michael Higgins.

The framework of the film is Higgins as Richard, an artist painting on the beach, a voice-over indicating that he has mental problems which has had consequences and the police are to arrest him on the beach. The narrator then goes back to describe Richard’s case.

Richard is not given much background except that he has had mental problems, works in a bookshop helped by a sympathetic but tough owner, is not always reliable. Walking along the beach, he has seen a for let sign near a hut and decides that it would be good for a studio and for him to be based there. He has befriended family, a mother with two adult daughters, and has identified with them, going to the agent for rental, mentioning the family as a guarantee. He then goes to visit the family to persuade them to rent the house.

The mother is sympathetic. The older daughter is somewhat aloof, with the touch of the glamorous. The younger daughter is sympathetic, attracted to Richard, even falling in love. They move to the house.

Richard is erratic in his behaviour towards them, but they are welcoming, especially the younger daughter. Richard wants to have his vacation with them but is warned off by the book shop owner. She gives him money and arranges that he goes to a supervised place for his holiday – but, of course, he goes off to the sea.

He is rather prudish in his behaviour, attracted towards the young daughter, but not wanting touch. Ultimately, he does break out and is somewhat brutal in his kissing the girl. He also arranges to host a meal, buying a great deal of kitchenware, inviting the mother, the two girls and their two escorts - and a humiliating failure in cooking crêpes with one of the visitors succeeding..

Richard’s mental state is communicated by his body language, his erratic behaviour, until the attack on the daughter which breaks him, his becoming more paranoid, suspicious of the family, of the mother, eventually killing her violently.

A film of the 1950s for the record, anticipating films of mental condition and violence (Hitchcock’s Psycho being released in 1960).

HI DIDDLE DIDDLE

US, 1943, 78 minutes, Black-and-white.
Adolphe Menjou, Martha Scott, Pola Negri, Dennis O 'Keefe, Billy Burke, June Havoc, Walter Kingsford, Barton Hepburn.
Directed by Andrew Stone.

For those interested in the history of film, in the history of Hollywood, this is a must-see.

Hi diddle diddle – the cat and the fiddle (and there is a lot of financial fiddling in the screenplay), the cow jumped over the moon, and there are some justice preposterous goings-on during this comedy, more than a touch of the screwball.

The screenplay is entertaining, wit and wisecracks. And, it is quite improbable. The tone is set with animation openings (from prolific animation artist, Friz Freling, from Disney to a range of animated characters including the Pink Panther). And then there is the over-dramatic proposals from Dennis O ’Keefe playing Sonny, a sailor on service in World War II. Then he is proposed to by Martha Scott (later to be seen with such a dignity in The Ten Commandments and has Ben Hur’s mother).

Sonny is delayed in disembarking in time for the wedding so the guests enjoy the wedding breakfast first, the Reverend there is harried by time because he has to do a baptism so that is incorporated into the celebration. However, top billing is given to veteran star Adolphe Menjou, playing Sonny’s father, referred to as Colonel, but this is one of his many cons. And he is married to an opera singer played by silent star, Pola Negri. She has several scenes singing Wagner. It is one of those contrived marriages which leads to chance encounters and many mixups.

At the wedding, with Billie Burke during her perpetual ditzy performance as the bride’s mother, she and her friend, Peter (Barton Hepburn) explain that the mother has lost all her money in gambling, deceived, testing whether Sonny was marrying his fiancee for her money. The colonel promises to get the money back – which involves going to a club, a magnet under the table, naive Sonny investing his money – and winning it all back. However, he is caught at the club and gets entangled with his father’s singer friend who is sharing in the scam. She is played by June Havoc (an actress in her own right but well known, because of Gypsy, as Gypsy Rose Lee’s sister who performed under the name of Baby June) who has several songs, including accompanying herself seen singing on a television screen.

Lots of mixups, misunderstandings, tangles.

And, the couple can’t get away on their honeymoon because of the need to get the money back. Then, almost settled, the new wife is called out to do a raid warden duty! There are more tangles when his father indulges a huge scam selling for shares and then wants to set Sonny and his wife up in his own apartment without telling his wife – which means that practically everyone turns up at the apartment except that Sonny and his wife keep missing each other, getting in the taxi to go back, imposing on a passenger who wanted to go only two blocks and who accompanies them back and forth!

At the end, while Sonny and his wife are happily back in her mother’s house, everyone else is in the apartment, an impresario present with the Colonel’s wife, and some visitors including a singer who knows Wagner and everybody joining in singing Wagner – while, on the wall, there is an animated sequence with Wagner and his family on a picnic and Wagner closing his ears, upset, not wanting to hear the singing!

Director Andrew Stone made a number of entertaining small-budget features, venturing in the 1970s to more spectacular films, especially with music including The Great Waltz and Song of Norway.

STEP DOWN TO TERROR

US, 1958, 76 minutes, Black-and-white.
Colleen Miller, Charles Street, Rod Taylor, Josephine Hutchinson, Jocelyn Brando.
Directed by Harry Killer.

This is a small budget supporting feature from the late 50s, a story of a charming and sinister man with mental problems.

Those familiar with Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt, will quickly realise that this is another version (also filmed for television in 1991). As might be expected, this is a slight version compared with the original.

However, Charles Drake makes an impression as the charming Johnny Walters who is initially seen evading pursuers. But he sends a message that he is returning from New York to California after six years of silence to visit his mother and family.

He is welcomed by his over-doting mother, Josephine Hutchinson. His brother has died the year before and his widow, Helen (Colleen Miller) is living in the house with her son. Johnny is welcomed and all seems to be very nice.

Johnny acts suspiciously as he tears an item from a newspaper, rousing Helen’s curiosity. He also wants to avoid a reporter and a photographer who are coming to the house to do a story about the family and to photograph the house. The reporter is played by Rod Taylor during his early years in Hollywood. In fact, he plays an investigator, trying to discover whether Johnny is a serial murderer – of widows, stealing their jewellery.

Johnny can be extravagant in his use of money, especially in supporting his nephew, an avid baseball player, offering to build a clubhouse. But he does not want the boy to have a bicycle, remembering an accident with his brother, and he drives over the bike. Johnny can erupt with anger, and this is particularly true of his dealings with Helen, her suspicions, attempting to kill home by manipulating wooden staircase. Then Johnny tries to poison her – but, the investigator is attracted to her, tries to phone, the phone off the hook, then finding her and reviving her.

Ever the gentleman, Johnny agrees to go quietly so that they do not upset his mother.

Entertaining in a small-time way in itself, and interesting as an echo of Hitchcock.

SIEMPRE, LUIS

2020, 95 minutes, Colour.
Luis Miranda, Lin- Manuel Miranda.
Directed by John James.

With the success of Hamilton on Broadway and, then, throughout the world, the name of Lin- Manuel Miranda has become very well known. However, while he does appear in this film and there are many references to Hamilton, this is an interesting documentary about his father, Lewis Miranda.

Luis Miranda is a figure who is larger than life. While the structure of the documentary moves backwards and forwards in time eras, it does provide a linear story of Luis, his origins in Puerto Rico, his strong affiliations to the people of Puerto Rico even if he has spent most of his time in the United States. He was a vigorous protestor in the 1970s, then to study in New York in 1974.

For those not familiar with the history of Puerto Rico and its status in connection with the United States, there is information about its Spanish status, the defeat of the Spaniards, its place within the United States, not a state. There is quite a lot of colour for Hispanic background to this story. There is also the personal story of Luis and his meeting with his wife, life together, their children, moving to the United States.

Luis Miranda was something of a powerhouse in the United States, becoming highly politically involved, concerned about justice issues, especially for Hispanic migrants, but going beyond. Because he had a way with words, and a strong physical presence, he became very influential in his public speaking, in his support of campaigns, and in his association with many political figures, advisor to them, appearing with them, supporting them. Early in his career this was very important in New York, his relationship with Mayor Ed Cox.

Later, he was to be influential on a federal level, especially during the presidency of Barack Obama.

This documentary also focuses on the devastating hurricane, Hurricane Maria, that swooped on Puerto Rico in 2017. The commentary also highlights the inadequate response by President Trump and his government, the lack of financial and moral support, Trump’s dismissive commentary.

Which means then that Luis was interested in the rebuilding and refinancing of Puerto Rico. He was supportive of another occasion where Hamilton would be brought to Puerto Rico for a special performance, expensive tickets for the tourists, lottery and better tickets for the locals. Lin-Manuel? appears on stage in the damaged theatre to promote this event – but young protesters coming with banners, critical of the Mirandas. However, Luis is able to take charge of the situation and it proceeds.

So, this is a blend of social history of Puerto Rico, social history of migrants to the United States, the power of political representation, and a move into the world of the Broadway musical and its power to inform and entertain.

Which is what this documentary does.