PRISON MUTINY

US, 1943, 61 minutes, Black-and-white.
Edward Norris, Joan Woodbury, Jack La Rue, Milburn Stone.
Directed by Phil Rosen.

An expected prison film, filmed in San Quentin, but with a reforming agenda in mind. It was directed by Phil Rosen who worked with Thomas Edison in the early 20th century and became a director of many small-budget supporting features until 1951.

Edward Norris plays Johnny Gray, an arrogant playboy who intends to marry a socialite but her father disapproves, especially when he is pulled over by the police for speeding, one of any number of difficulties with the law. He promises reform. However, a gang who has robbed a bank find their car has broken down and they commandeer his, he intending to speed and so trap them by the police but they accusing him of being the mastermind of the robbery. He appears in court. The media is against him. He is condemned to prison.

He spends the first half of the film in a very surly mood, asserting that he was framed, not believed, getting involved in scuffles and in solitary. His main contact is Cain, played with self-confidence (until the last images of the film) by Jack La Rue. He is planning an escape, testing out Johnny with whom he shares a cell.

In the meantime, there is a prison guard who is keen on reform, referred to by Johnny as Little Warden. Fauntleroy. The current warden is sadistic and is removed from his post by the Governor, Frank Sanders replacing him. Sanders is friendly with Amy, the daughter of one of the guards. She knew Johnny when they were at college.

Eventually, Johnny is touched by a man about to be executed and wants to see petunias from his cell window, Frank arranging that Johnny do gardening for Amy’s house, but still surly. However, there is an attempted escape by the bank robbers, shot as they try to climb the fence, one of them in hospital confessing that Johnny is innocent. At the invitation of Frank, supported by Amy, Johnny makes a decision to stay within the prison system and becoming guard, invited to train them in sport.

At the final mutiny, Johnny and Amy’s father are attacked by Cain, put in a cell, Cain trying to persuade the rest of the prisoners to escape with him, Sanders speaking over the PA system. Eventually, the warden prevails. And a happy romantic ending!

MADE IN ITALY

UK/Italy, 2020, 93 minutes, Colour.
Liam Neeson, Micheal Richardson, Lindsay Duncan, Valeria Bilello.
Directed by James D' Arcy.

This is light entertainment for audiences who want an easy film to watch. In many ways, it is also slight. However, there is quite an emotional underlying theme and audiences will find some emotional satisfaction at the end.

The two central characters, Robert Foster and his son Jack, played by real-life father and son, Liam Neeson and his son Micheal. There is a are some echoes in the screenplay of the sadness in their actual lives, the skiing accident of Natasha Richardson, her untimely death. In fact, in 2016, Micheal officially changed his surname to that of his mother. And, through his mother, he is part of the several-generations Redgrave family. (He also acted with his father in the thriller, Cold Pursuit.)

Jack manages a gallery in London, is separated from his rather haughty wife whose family owns the gallery. They are going to sell it. Jack, who has invested so much of his life in the gallery, approaches his father, artist Robert, trying to persuade him to sell their family Palazzo in Italy so that he can buy the gallery. The house has not been lived in for 20 years.

So, on the one hand, there is all the comedy and drama of finding the house again, assessing its disrepair, making resolutions to improve the property, getting local help, the role of the estate agent (a rather acerbic Lindsay Duncan), potential buyers (who seem rather obnoxious).

On the other hand, there is also the story of Natalia, single mother, working in her local restaurant in England, returning to renovate an old building and making a success of her local restaurant. (No need for the gift of prophecy to see where this will lead!).

But, at the core of the story, is the relationship between father and son, the audience discovering that the father has protected his son after the death of his wife in a car accident, sending the son, age 7, off to boarding school, trying to protect him by removing all memories of his mother (but, Jack, later finding them all stored in the Palazzo). So, some emotional scenes, recriminations, understandings, reconciliation, love.

And, once again, the gift of prophecy is not needed to anticipate what will happen about the gallery and the sale as well as what might happen with the building.

Enjoyable performances, audiences charmed, as Jack is, by Natalia, Valeria Bilello. And, of course, constant vistas of the Tuscan countryside (made more forcibly by some sequences as Jack returns from Italy and walks around London, near Stockwell Underground, the narrow streets and the old cafes.

The film was written and directed by actor James D’ Arcy (Hitchcock, Dunkirk).

1. The title? Italy? Tuscany? And the vast contrasts with London? The location photography, the vistas, the Palazzo, the village, restaurants? The musical score?

2. The theme of father and son, bonds, alienation, misunderstandings, opportunities to get to know each other, transformations, understandings, reconciliation?

3. Liam Neeson and Micheal Richardson, father and son, playing father and son? Some similarities with their real life and the death of Natasha Richardson?
4. Jack, age and experience, marrying his wife young, alienation, separation, her family owning the gallery, wanting to sell it? Jack and his skills, exhibitions, investing his life in the gallery? Wanting to buy it?

5. Making contact with Robert, Robert never going to the gallery (and Jack finally finding out that his wife had urged Robert not to)? Robert and his way of life, Jessica/ Jennifer? Driving to Italy with Jack? The background of the Palazzo, their family home, Robert and the death of his wife, grief, shielding Jack, sending him to boarding school? Hoarding all his wife’s belongings in one of the rooms? Its decaying condition? The plan to sell?

6. Finding the house, the dark, the walls, holes, weasels, decaying aspects, solid bone structure and its walls? Water system? Electricity?

7. Kate, estate agent, rather acerbic, her reaction to the house, of Robert’s painting on the wall? Her comments, bringing the American clients and their rude behaviour, Robert ousting them? Her gradually mellowing?

8. Father and son, working together, meeting with some of the locals, the locals gathering and working on the repairs?

9. Jack, wandering into the town, the restaurant, the encounter with Natalia? Her cooking the meal? Her story, a year in England, learning English, the restaurant, the return, renovating the restaurant? Its success? Jack and Robert later going for the meal, the birthday celebration, Natalia story and her husband going off, the issue of custody of their daughter, her ousting him from the restaurant? Robert and Jack pretending to cook the meal?

10. The successful renovation? Jack and his spending time with Natalia? Recounting his memories, not having memories? The tyre on the rope, its being restored, his falling into the water? Her falling in?

11. Jack deciding to return to England, seeing Natalia with her former husband and the girl, his wrong conclusion? In England, its drab appearance round Stockwell Underground, the streets, the restaurant, meeting with his father?

12. The importance of Jack discovering the room with his mother’s belongings, the paintings, the toys? The discussions with his father, his father’s explanation, shielding him? Jack not crying at his mother’s funeral? Being a man? The impact of the room and the mementos of his mother, the paintings? Taking some to England?

13. Going to the gallery, the encounter with his wife, the divorce papers, no sale for the gallery?

14. His return to Italy, his father selling his London house, giving Jack the money? The Palazzo, restored, Kate and her idea, the art lessons, the visitors? Robert and his coaching?

15. And Jack and Natalia together? A local gallery? Made in Italy?

DARK FORCES/ FUEGO NEGRO.

Mexico, 2020, 81 minutes, Colour.
Tenoch Huerta, Erendira Ibarra.
Directed by Bernardo Arellano.


This is a brief thriller/fantasy for audiences who enjoy the weird. Others will want to give it a miss.

A mysterious helmeted bike rider, Franco, stops at a seedy hotel, situated in seedy streets. On the other hand, the audience is given night overviews of the city. It seems that Franco is in search of someone who has disappeared (several flashbacks) and it emerges that it is his sister.

In the hotel there is quite a range of strange characters, quite a gallery. The receptionist looks very polished and organised but offers the guest a selection of escorts. When the water system doesn’t function in his room, a workman, old, one eye destroyed, comes to fix it. And there are some sinister women who give Franco the eye. In particular, the victim of one of her clients, is Rubi, whom Franco rescues. She in fact works as a waitress at a diner and Franco and Rubi’s lives intersect, in real life as well as in his sexual dreams.

He is searching for a psychic girl, an albina, finds her with the sombre woman in charge, asking a vast amount of money for advice for his search – and, there are sequences of her fantasies, her processes, her psychic abilities, and the information she gives – leading Franco to a room full of women who have been rounded up for prostitution, just missing his sister and he goes in search of her.

There is also a strange psychic man who has written a book, Dark Forces, who keeps intervening in Franco’s life as well as in his dreams.

It emerges that he is a renegade hitman, encounters some of his past associates who blame him for loss of trade. Which leads then to some violent confrontations.

This review makes the film less weird than it is while one watches.

 

 

 

ORIGINES SECRETOS/ UNKNOWN ORIGINS

Spain, 2020, 96 minutes, Colour.
Javier Rey, Brays Efe, Veronica Echegui, Antonio Resines, Ernesto Aleterio, Alex Garcia, Leonardo Sbaraglia.
Directed by David Galan Galindo.

In his novel, The Never Game, Jeffrey Deaver has his hero visit a diner in Silicon Valley, all the young customers bent over laptops – and he makes the comment “exuding geek�. One of them takes him to a huge gaming centre, more geek.

A quick review of Unknown Origins: highly recommended for geeks.

And, not just for those who are gamers, who know the tradition of popular comics, graphic novels, details of characters and plot incidents, like to dress up as characters for conventions or parties, but as a guilty pleasure for those who are familiar with the DC World and the Marvel Universe through the movies.

At the opening, there is a sequence of real heroism, a policeman going back into a fire to rescue those trapped and dying in the attempt. That is not quite the image of heroism that follows. The dead man's father, however, is a skilled veteran, forced into retirement, with terminal cancer. His boss, Norma, is an absolutely dedicated fan of super heroism and dressing up, even skilled at making costumes. The policeman's son is Jorge, an absolute nerd, looking and acting like a young Jack Black, running a specialist store with all kinds of superhero memorabilia. He is asked by his father to accompany the new investigator, a particularly buttoned up, suit and tie, policeman, David.

So far, so geeky. However, the film goes into quite some higher gears, continually revving up as it progresses, some ghastly (understatement) murders with comic book-reference clues which Jorge can interpret. They are all based on comics which portray the origins of their hero. It is all a bit much for David but, he reveals that his parents were shot as they came out of the cinema and he witnessed their deaths (and we pat ourselves on the backs when we make the Wayne family connection and the possibility for David to be a Batman equivalent.)

There are several visits to the morgue, quite some analysis of what went on by the rather jocose mortician, all kinds of suggestions and theories for what has happened. There is also an oddball cameo from celebrated actor Leonardo Sbaraglia as a black market entrepreneur in comics and superhero memorabilia.

So, with suspected villains to be tracked down, there is a challenge to David, especially to avenge his parents. Will he do this in suit and tie? The villain wants him to don a costume and to give himself a comic book name. All building up to a climax involving the veteran policeman who solves the mystery, Norma and Jorge who have to let David do his avenging thing.

Screenplay draws its characters credibly enough within this fantasy Detective world. While the film is laced with humorous references, especially some Batman jokes, it opts for broad humour, pratfalls and farce, rather than indulge in subtlety.

1. Title? The origins of superheroes? The references to the comics, the stories, the details?

2. Madrid, the opening with the fire, the attempted rescue? Cosme and his career, illness, retirement? The sense of realism?

3. The transition into an alternate world of fantasy? The range of gruesome murders? The victims? The style of the murders, the elaborate procedures, costumes, and references to the comic books? The visits to the morgue? The mortician, his light hearted commentary, serious, explanations of what it happened? And the irony of the final revelation?

4. Cosme, his age, his expertise, his working with Norma, her being the boss, urging him to retire? The revelation of his cancer? The death of his son, the policeman, and the heroic rescue? His regret that he had not affirmed him enough? Jorge, at home, the old man cooking, concerned about Jorge and his shop, the superhero memorabilia, his costumes?

5. David, his becoming a policeman, buttoned up, shirt and tie, questioning, disapproving of the behaviour of Jorge and Norma? The advice from Cosme? The commands from Norma? The introduction to Jorge, as his partner? The visits to the murder sequences, the successive murders, successively gruesome, his being sick at the site? The visits to the morgue and the mortician?

6. Jorge, his comic skills, his manner? The group of friends, their dressing up, David seeing them as losers, their explanations of their professional life? Their enjoying the world of comics and superheroes? The later party, their being poisoned with the lemonade and collapsing?

7. David, the investigations, interactions with Norma, the kiss, her reaction?

8. The successive murders, the comic references, Jorge and his explanations? The attention to all the details of the origins?

9. David, the story of his parents, the parallel with the murder of the Wayne parents and the child witnessing it? The setup for a Batman kind of vengeance?

10. A suspect, visiting his house, his being dead for five years? The further clues?

11. The visit to Paco, eccentric, dealing in black-market ware? His getting the information? (And his appearing in the final post-credits confrontation with David?)

12. David and his having to make a decision about wearing a costume? His unwillingness? Going to the party, the criticism? Norma making the costume? His putting it on? Cosme, his dead son’s uniform, Jorge having it in the cupboard, bring it out, David wearing it?

13. The venue for the confrontation, Cosme going to the office, working out who the criminal was? His being held – the conversations, his being killed? David in the car, leaving Norma behind, leaving Jorge behind?

14. Driving, echoes of the Batmobile, the moon and the sign in the sky, coming up to the upper floor, seeing Cosme killed? The confrontation, the costumes, the killer and the acid distorting his face? And the fact that he had not killed David’s parents? But had used the event? The fight, going over the side, his death?

15. David and the arrival of a new superhero?

 

POUR VIVRE HEREUX/ FOR A HAPPY LIFE

Belgium, 2018, 88 minutes, Colour.
Sofia Lesaffre, Christopher Zeerak, Atiya Rashid.
Directed by Salima Glamine, Dimitri Linder.

On the one hand, this is a film about Asian migrants, especially from Pakistan, to Europe and settling in countries like Belgium. On the other hand, it has a universal theme about arranged marriages, the role of parents, the role of young people and their choices for whom they should marry.

The theme is familiar, especially in the context of marriage planning, marriages within families, some of the traditions from such countries as Pakistan. The film also offers portraits of those who have migrated and are settling into some of the Western lifestyles, occupations, the younger generation becoming more assimilated, studies, occupations and ambitions.

The central character is Amell, not Pakistani, but in love with a young Pakistani man. The man works for his uncle, his mother’s brother, and there are plans for him to marry into the family, a rather reserved young woman, age 17, bound by family traditions but also branching out in studies. Several men have been offered to her, or rather imposed on her but time passes and she misses out. The young man helps his uncle with IT and has hopes of moving to London for further studies. Amel, in love with him, also hopes to move to London. Her father is a taxi driver with a stern outlook – but begins to break through in teaming up again with someone he knew when young, a European woman, which is a challenge to his daughter.

On the one hand, with the film opening with celebrations at a very Pakistani-style wedding, there is a great deal about these communities in Belgium. On the other hand, the younger generation goes out for lectures, the camaraderie of the young women and their moves towards greater freedom.

There are lot of family tangles, emotional tangles, the younger generation inhibited from speaking frankly to the older generation, some unexpected revelations within these contexts and some devastating effects on many of those concerned.

TERET/ THE LOAD

Serbia, 2018, 98 minutes, Colour.
Leon Lucev.
Directed by Ognjen Glavonic.

This is an arthouse film which won many nominations and awards at film festivals. It is a film that would be appreciated in art houses and festivals – very heavy-going for most audiences.

The setting is the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. The focus is on a truck driver who has a mission to take a truck from its country setting to Belgrade. It is not revealed what the contents are – suggestions, especially when held up by the authorities, that it is special and secret.

The film is a portrait of the driver, middle-aged man, his wife is ill, his making phone calls to enquire about her. There is a fire on the highway and he has to seek an alternate route, a young man who has worked with a band asks for a lift, has some conversation with the driver and revealing something about himself and his situation with the war, his band and his family. The driver stops to make enquiries and is given alternate routes, especially through the mountains. At one of the stops, he encounters people celebrating a wedding. He drives through the mountainous terrain, coming to a crossroads, and taking a risk where he turns.

Eventually, he arrives and delivers the truck and then returns to his family, his 16-year-old son who has some resentment for his father being absent, encountering his wife, and watching young people gather hay and burn it .

Early in the film there is a mysterious sequence where number of people get off a boat and one man goes to an inn where he has a conversation with a woman.

While some appreciated the atmosphere of the film, life in the time of war and bombardment, others found it too puzzling – and too tedious – for their sensibilities.

JOURNEYS END

UK, 1930, 120 minutes, Black-and-white.
Colin Clive, Ian Maclaren, David Manners, Billy Bevan, Anthony Bushell.
Directed by James Whale.

This is a film version of a celebrated play by R.C.Sheriff – remade for television in 1988 and with another cinema version in 2017. The success of the play and then of this film ensured that it was part of the British consciousness about World War I, war in the trenches, the consequences of warfare.

Most of the action takes place in the trenches and the audience is immersed in those trenches, the limitations, the conditions, the claustrophobia, idling and boredom, drink, clashes…

The film is strong in dialogue from the play. James Whale was at the beginning of his career and was soon to make an impact with his Frankenstein. But he also directed versions of Waterloo Bridge and, perhaps unexpectedly, Showboat, 1936. (He was portrayed by Ian Mc Kellen in the film, Gods and Monsters.)

Great praise is given to Colin Clive for his portrayal of the officer, Stanhope. Clive was to be Dr Frankenstein in James Whale’s two Frankenstein films.

Interesting comparisons can be made with the 2017 version, made 100 years after the events whereas in 1930, the events were only 13 years back and playwright and director had served in the trenches.

1. A film of 1930? Early sound techniques? Of its time? Yet its impact and power?

2. The play by R.C.Sheriff, his serving in the trenches? The fact that James Whale also fought in the trenches? Bringing the authenticity of their experiences?

3. Audience response to World War I stories, the impact of the war, memories of its politics? The involvement of the British? So many young men called up? The veterans? Active service, in the trenches, going over the top? The consequences for the men? Fear, boredom, claustrophobia, interactions – leading to stress or death?

4. The recreation of the atmosphere of war, the setting in the trenches, the physical effect of the trenches and the limitations? The musical score?

5. The portrait of Stanhope? In charge, the pressures on him, interactions with the men, the decisions? Sometimes severity? His drinking? The support from Osborne? Uncle? Having to deal with cowardice, Hibbert? The support from Mason? Some humour? His care for the young man, Raleigh? The good humour of Trotter?

6. The portrait of Raleigh, his age, experience, inexperience, in the trenches, dependence on Stanhope?

7. The portrait of Trotter, older, friendly, supportive?

8. The portrait of Osborne, older, the nickname of Uncle, his experience, supportive?

9. The portrait of Hibbert, the war experience, fears, cowardice, his situation handled by the others, by Stanhope?

10. The presence of the cook, his work, support of the men, touches of humour?

11. The immersion of the audience in the trenches, the atmosphere, the enemy, getting to appreciate the men, and the prospect of going over the top?

WATERHOLE No 3

US, 1967, 95 minutes, Colour.
James Coburn, Carroll O’ Connor, Margaret Blight, Claude Akins, Timothy Carey, Bruce Dern, Joan Blondell, James Whitmore, Rupert Crosse.
Directed by William A. Graham.

Waterhole #3 is a satiric western, the kind of film that Coburn was making during the mid-60s including the Flint series and such satires as The President’s Analyst.

This was a period in which outlandish satire was beginning to be accepted on screen. Kubrick had made Doctor Strangelove in 1963. Arthur Hiller had made The Americanization of Emily (also with Coburn) in 1964. M*A*S*H and Catch 22 were to come.

The film should be seen in that light – and in terms of the satirical song by Roger Miller, ‘The Code of the West’, and his voice-over commentary.

The film parodies the codes of the west, parodies the violence, the misogyny, the sexism. Some critics at the time and audiences took this rather literally.

James Coburn was adept at this kind of character. Carroll O’ Connor, later to be seen in All in the Family, is the sheriff. There is a good supporting cast of veterans like Joan Blondell and James Whitmore and up-and-coming actors like Bruce Dern.

The film was directed by William A. Graham who had a forty-year career in television – this was one of his few feature films.

1. Audience response to comic westerns? The western conventions, the comic styles and conventions,# their blending? How well did this film blend the varying conventions?

2. How seriously was the film meant to be taken? How much a satire on the west, its conventions and people? How much a parody of the robbery western? A parody of the western hero and heroine, sheriff etc.? What is the effect of this kind of satire and parody? Enjoyment, insight into the bases of a western?

3. The importance of the ballad used to introduce the film and to comment throughout? The pointed irony of the lyrics and their effect?

4. The film's treatment of the themes of gold, greed, the army, dishonesty, chases, death?

5. How engaging a character was the hero? James Coburn's style? His background, card-playing, trick gambling, gun fighting? His response to the map, stealing horses, raping the marshal's daughter, trekking for the gold, surviving in the desert, making friends and enemies, outwitting people? A parody of the western hero?

6. The satire on the sheriff and his assistant? The sheriff and his double values, his wishes to be a criminal? The assistant being a 'yes-man’? The sheriff's priorities about his horse, his daughter and the rape, the deals with the hero? Did he get his appropriate comeuppance?

7. The parody of western heroines in the portrayal of the daughter? Infatuation with the hero, rape, her relationship with her father, chasing them, her getting the gold?

8. The satire on the army and the face that military men had robbed the gold, hidden it, had schemes for recovering it, were able to redeem their face in the light of discovery?

9. The pathos of the Dutchman as a man who was used by everyone?

10. The enjoyment of the chase and its details? the parody of the western chase, the comment of the ballad?

11. The typical portrayal of the saloon and the brothel? The prostitutes with the hearts of gold etc.?

12. The climax and all the double talk? Rewards for all the criminals, condemnation of the innocent? The moral point of view of the film, its questioning and poking fun at values?

PROJECT POWER

US, 2020, 113 minutes, Colour.
Jamie Foxx, Joseph Gordon- Leavitt, Dominique Fishback, Rodrigo Santoro, Amy Landecker, Courtney B Vance, Colson Baker, Kyana Simone Simpson.
Directed by Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman.

What seems like a superhero epic is not quite!

This is a futuristic story where unscrupulous scientists have been developing pills, medication with extraordinary transforming powers. They can be for the good, if timing is right for the duration, for enabling those who take the pills to use their power for good. On the other hand, they can be addictive and destructive. And, in desperate situations, they can be used for domination.

It is interesting to note that in 2020, the archvillain of the company producing the pills is female, simply called Gardner, played by Amy Landecker. But she does have a crew of big and brutal male thugs. And, in some kind of balance, the heroine of the film is played by a young adult, female, Dominique Fishback, Robin, a school student who wants to be a rap-artist.

The setting is New Orleans, a focus on the marketing of the drugs illegally, a ship in the port with huge supplies, young people taking up the challenge (although, to make the point, singer Colson Baker, playing an eager dealer, takes one of the pills and is immediately destroyed spectacularly). On the other hand, Robin has been dealing, and is building up a cache of cash to help her ailing mother.

Also in the action is one of the local police, played by Joseph Gordon- Leavitt, who is prepared to take the pills in order to achieve it in his police work, but always careful to check the timing so that it will keep the effect of the power under control.

The other principal character a also an African- American, Jamie Foxx as a military man who has been trained in action but also manifesting special powers. His daughter has inherited them and she has been into abducted by the pill manufacturers.

So, the action is set, after some suspicions, the hero team of the soldier, the policeman, the would-be rap artist, go into action to confront the criminals, rescue the soldier’s daughter – with the use of wit, brawn, shrewd action (and with the policeman, some pills and power).

Needless to say, after quite some spectacular action on the ship, all is well – or, at least, almost, some self-sacrifice being necessary.

Obviously geared to fans of this kind of action: some have enjoyed it, some have said it is the same-old, same-old. So, one might say, it is geared to those who have a tolerance of this kind of story and action.

1. The title? The issue of powers? Superpowers? Chemicals, the effect on the human body and brain? Health use? Power use? Abuse? Moneymaking and marketing?

2. Audience interest in this kind of action story, the touch of super heroism, crime, investigation?

3. Race issues and African- American screen presence? Issues of women? The arch-villain? The young adult heroine?

4. The credibility of the plot? The chemical developments? The power of the pills? The effect, timing, creative, destructive?

5. Gardner, in charge of the enterprise, her strong stances, her associates, violence, brutality?

6. The background story of but, the military, the superheroes, training, medication? The consequences? Art and his daughter, her inheriting the developments from him? Her being abducted? Used to promote the developments of the drugs? Art and his mission to find her save her?

7. The company, the marketing of the drugs, the young people in the town, selling them, making the money? Newt, his eagerness, taking the drug, its devastating effect?

8. Robin, family background, her mother ill, needing the medication? Bond between mother and daughter? Robin at school, the lesson about pregnancy – and her later using the information? Her ambition to be a rap artist, the songs, her ability with rap, the students and their applause?

9. Frank, his role in the police, his superior officer, missions? His taking the drugs, timing them, putting them to use in his police role? The mission to find Art, taking him in? Frank and his connection with Robin and her mother?

10. The action, Frank and Robin working together, the encounter with Art, the dangers, Frank believing Art?

11. The ship, the drugs, Art’s daughter on the ship, the infiltration, the confrontations, the fights, Frank and his taking the drugs, timing, confronting the thugs?

12. The ship sailing out of the harbour, Gardner and her demands, Robin and her finding the daughter, freeing her? Frank and his doing battle? Art satisfied with the rescue of his daughter, offering himself, self-sacrifice for his daughter?

13. A film for the fans of this kind of genre and its conventions?

SWIMMING FOR GOLD

Australia, 2020, 91 minutes, Colour.
Peyton List, Lauren Esposito, Daniel Needs, Olivia Nardini, Johrel Martschinke, Ray Chong Nee.
Directed by Hayley Mac Farlane.

No mystery in the title. This is definitely a film for those who are swimming fans, especially competitive swimming.

This is a tale with many familiar aspects, designed for a younger audience, young adults, older teens, younger teens. And, there is a definite appeal to a female audience who will respond immediately to three of the central characters, some initial disapproval, a lot of exasperation, quite a number of hopes, and as expected, there is some reconciliation. And there is also the energy of competitiveness. Not that there is not an appeal to a male audience, an invitation to identify with the very presentable young men swimmers and their stories.

In fact, the central character is American, played by Peyton List who has appeared, since she was four, in many American films and television shows. She is Claire Carpenter, a former champion who has developed a phobia about water, has walked away from competition and is idling her time at home. Her patient and considerate father eventually arranges for her to become the assistant coach in Brisbane. Off to Australia.

All the action is in Australia, scenes of Brisbane, a swimming camp in quite a mansion outside Brisbane, with its swimming pool, shared rooms, dining room… And an attractive bush excursion to a special waterfall and pool.

Actually, credibility is seriously challenged when we are introduced to the coach, Bodhi, of Indian ancestry (Ray Chong Nee), with humorous overtones, someone we might never associate with training a swimming team. A talent (?) for motivation, reflecting, visualising, and cultivating plants for healthy drinks. He has known Claire’s father in the past. He hands over to Claire – but she is generally disagreeable, reserved, rather indolent. (This is especially highlighted by the character of Annabelle (Olivia Nardini), a hyperactive swimmer, Claire’s fan, with bursts of hysterical enthusiasm.)

The two central characters are Liam (Daniel Needs), an agreeable medical student who loves swimming, attracted to Claire, but very disappointed in her – and, thank goodness, challenging her in her attitudes, especially towards coaching. The other character is Mikayla (Laura Esposito), a former rival, and they find themselves sharing a room which adds to Claire’s hostile feelings.

One doesn’t need to be a prophet to appreciate what is going to happen – its going along with what happens on the way that is the important part of the film.

Will the team win the national competition…?!!

1. The title and expectations? A swimming story? Competitions? Rivalry and victories?

2. The target audience? Young adults? Older teenagers, younger teenagers? The appeal to female audiences? Secondarily to male audiences? To all swimming fans?

3. Queensland setting, Sundale mansion, interiors, exteriors, the swimming pool? The visit to the bush, the waterfall and pool? Some Brisbane sequences and walks? The final competition? The musical score?

4. The introduction to Claire? Her swimming career, her age, the phobia, her walking away, the journalist in the water and its being videoed and circulated? At home, idle, her father concerned, organising her to Australia? To assist in coaching? Drawing on his friendship with Cambodia?

5. Bodhi, the Indian background, greetings, motivational techniques, Indian traditions? As a personality? Eccentric? And the credibility of his being a swimming coach? His encouraging Claire, his going away to visualise – and her urging him to this?

6. Claire, the chip on her shoulder, unpleasant? The initial encounter with Daniel? The attraction? Meeting Bodhi? Having to share a room with her rival, Mikayla? Hostility, the division down the centre of the room? The rules for the room? Mikayla tidy, Claire and her mess?

7. Annabelle, ultra-enthusiastic, the touch of hysteria? Claire’s fan, haunting her, Claire resisting? Annabelle becoming her assistant? Her own swimming career?

8. The male swimmers, the group, Daniel, his parents and their wanting him to study medicine, his enthusiastic swimming performances, friendship with Cooper? The other members of the group? The training, hopes and ambitions? Bodhi and his being ineffectual? Claire and the initial sessions, their idling and playing? Daniel eventually challenging Claire?

9. Clare, dislike, the water throwing prank? The later apology? The phone calls from her father?

10. The moment of transition? The influence of Daniel? Her taking the coaching seriously? The training sessions? Time and punctuality? The exercises, the styles? The group gradually responding?

11. The frank talking with Mikayla, the accusation of stealing the goggles, the revelation was the Chinese girl? The mellowing between the two, apologies? Claire tidying the room?

12. Cooper, friendship with Daniel, but his preferring gaming?

13. The buildup to the competition, time passing, the practice, Daniel and his parents and the medical meeting, his talking with Claire, bonding?

14. The competition, Bodhi and his arriving, the drink and the mixture of herbs, his visualising? The fans, the parents? The rivalry with the Chinese? Memories of the past? The races, Annabelle coming second and delighted? Daniel winning, Cooper coming third? Mikayla beating the Chinese rival? The group winning the competition, their centre not being close down, the sponsors renewing? Emu milk!

15. Daniel, the excitement of his parents? Cooper telling his parents that he wanted to be a gamer – their excitement at his being in competition?

16. The invitation for Claire to stay Australia, her meeting Daniel’s parents, being his girlfriend?