THE SPY BEHIND HOME PLATE

US, 2019, 101 minutes, Colour/black and white.
Directed by Aviva Kempner.

This is a documentary about the American baseball player, Moe Berg, lawyer, intellectual, quiz show participant – and employed by the OSS during World War II.

A feature film was made about him, The Catcher was a Spy, directed by Ben Lewin with Paul Rudd in the title role (2018).

For the first 30 minutes, the documentary is geared towards baseball fans, principally American baseball fans who knew of him in the 1920s and 30s. There is background about his family coming from Europe to New York, setting up in business, three sons. Moe’s father did not approve of his baseball interest and career and never saw him play a match. As with these biographical films, there is quite some historical footage to illustrate the early part of the 20th century in New York City and beyond, quite a deal of baseball footage especially when Berg discovered his talent for catching.

Interestingly, the filmmakers have received permission to use clips from many feature films of the period, James Cagney prominent and quite a few scenes from the MGM film about the Manhattan project, The Beginning or the End. Also the connection with Ian Fleming (and excerpts from the film starring Dominic Cooper).

Berg is shown as a Jewish boy joining a local baseball club associated with churches, his talent, sports commentators remembering him, managers talking about his skills, his taking time off to study law, some injuries, his ability to catch, a tour to Japan in the 1930s with Babe Ruth and a team (and his taking time off to photograph aspects of Japan, photos which were used in preparation for attacks on Japan during the war).

Non-baseball fans will have two bear with the first 30 minutes but then the documentary moves into Berg’s role as employed by the American government as a spy.

He was very qualified with his knowledge of law, with his high intelligence and extraordinary capacity for retaining a range of information, his speaking many languages.

In his 40s, he spent time in Latin America, moved to Europe, was influential (and very quick) in discovering scientists in Germany and Switzerland, making contact with them, able to comprehend the basics of their nuclear lectures, arrange for some to be brought to the United States.

The film spends a great deal of time on the Manhattan Project, the influence of Einstein on Roosevelt, Oppenheimer and his team and the work at Los Alamos, the secrecy, the attempts to discover the progress of German scientists in the film explaining who they were and their the background. Quite a number of Berg missions in Europe were connected with the scientists and the Manhattan Project.

He was awarded the medal of freedom at the end of the war but refused, his family later accepting it.

He did some work for the CIA after the war but was generally self-employed, living with his family until his death the age of 70 in 1972.

The title is rather sensational but it does highlight the efforts made by various celebrities (with some emphasis in this film on the war effort Marlene Dietrich), their patriotism and government reliance on them.

PAVAROTTI

US, 2019, 120 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ron Howard.

In retrospect, it is amazing how people the world over responded so favourably to Luciano Pavarotti.

Initially, he quickly became known to the music world, the cognoscenti, influenced by his father, a strong tenor, he entered competitions, was successful and, by 1961 had his theatrical debut. For the next 40 years he was a dominant figure in the world of opera, all around the world, having a base at Covent Garden, at the Metropolitan in New York, and La Scala. He built up quite a repertoire of tenor roles in opera, singing with a great number of divas, with great admiration for his work with Joan Sutherland. Quite a number of singers contribute their opinions in this film.

A great deal to delight is in seeing and hearing Pavarotti singing, many favourites, other excerpts.

At the beginning, the question is posed to him about his opinion of himself as a singer and of himself as a person. While he was always nervous before going on stage, “I go to die�, he became alive with the response of the audience, charming them, fascinating them, especially with his vocal range (able to reach the high C). Amongst those interviewed are Placido Domingo and José Carreras as well as his long-time producers and managers. At the invitation of conductor, Zhuban Mehta, he joined the very popular group, The Three Tenors, initially performing in Rome at the Baths of Caracalla, a spectacular event, each contributing arias, and a mock competition in the rendition of Nessun Dorma, a highlight of the concert, a highlight of the film. And, it is appropriate that this is how this documentary ends – plus Pavarotti singing O Sole Mio during the final credits.

Pavarotti was not camera shy. There was no shortage for director Ron Howard (who had previously made the documentary about The Beatles) of footage of Pavarotti and his family, of his travels, of his television interviews (Clive James, Johnny Carson, Phil Donohoe…), his playful jokes and commentaries. While he comes across as larger-than-life, with plenty of photos of his young days to show how he grew larger, he seems perpetually jovial although there is reference to some moods and tantrums.

In fact, he seems forever genial. However, the film does not go into great detail about his personal life although his wife is strongly forthcoming in interviews, certainly making allowances for his behaviour, as do the interviews with his three daughters. There are some more intimate interviews with his assistants and, then, his relationship with Nicoletta Mantovani, the divorce, the refusal of the Vatican to allow him to remarry in church (although he was given strongly Catholic burial), his marriage, twins, the death of his son, the growing up of his daughter. Underlying the jollity, there are more than a few indications of his behaviour, his attitude towards women, compounded by the fact that he spent such a lot of his time away from his wife and daughters.

However, audiences will enjoy the film and his performances, respond to his joviality, and realise that with his performances, his recordings, television presence, collaboration with popular musicians in concerts (and extensive interviews in this documentary with Bono), he reached and touched the hearts of millions of audiences around the world.

WHAT WILL BECOME OF US

Australia, 2019, 75 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Steven Cantor.

This is a portrait of the self-made millionaire/billionaire, Frank Lowy. He collaborated with the filmmakers, allowing them into his home and into his life, and suing all their questions.

To that extent, this film is more like a eulogy of Frank Lowy rather than an analysis of 20th century capitalism and business practices.

The film was able to trace Lowy’s origins in Czechoslovakia, modern-day Slovakia, his bond with his parents, especially his father, who disappeared one day when they had moved to Budapest. It was only later, in a chance encounter that Peter Lowy met someone of the same name, no relation, in Palm Springs who explained what had happened to his grandfather. This is a great consolation for Frank Lowy himself.

Initially, members of the family went to Israel, on the refugee boats that went to Cyprus, eventually going to Israel itself. However, some other members of the family migrated to Australia. So did he. In Australia, he married Shirley, had three boys who all worked in his company, a marriage of 65 years and more to Shirley who, sadly, as is seen throughout the film, now suffers from Alzheimer’s.

While the film is set in 2017, with Lowy at 87, making the decision to sell his company and, perhaps, retire, plus some more recent speeches and social events, these are interspersed throughout the narrative about his life.

Beginning at Blacktown with a delicatessen and then a cafe, he went into partnership, started a company in 1960 and, it would seem, there was no turning back. Capitalising on American know-how in terms of malls, Lowy is best known for his establishment of a range of Westfield malls in Australia, and in the United Kingdom. At the time of the making of the film, he is going into partnership with a European company which means they will take over the Westfield company.

His main regret, he says, is not spending more time with his sons – however, their interviews are very favourable towards their father and they all work in executive capacities in his company.

Lowy is also well known for his support of football, soccer, very much involved in the attempt for Australia to host the World Cup in 2022.

The film is something of a homage to Lowy himself.

EMU RUNNER

Australia, 2018, 95 minutes, Colour.
Rhae- Kye Waites, Wayne Blair, Rob Carlton, Georgia Blizzard, Maurial Spearim, Stella Carter, Mary Waites, Lindsay Waites, Rodney Mc Hughes.
Directed by Imogen Thomas.

This film was made in the North-Western? New South Wales town of Brewarrina, capitalising on the town itself as well as the surrounding countryside. It was made with the collaboration of many people in the town, the schools and the students.

The title refers to a nine-year-old girl, Gemma (and appealing Rhae- Kye Waites in her only screen role so far). She belongs to an aboriginal family, a genial mother who collapses and dies, a sympathetic but often tough father (another good role for Wayne Blair), an older sister and an older brother who works with his father but is at the age to get into trouble.

Gemma goes to school, is particularly good at running. Her capacity for running is revealed in her watching some of the emus wandering the outskirts of the town, her being told that they run very fast and she showing her skills in chasing them. Actually, she becomes more involved with the emus, stealing all kinds of food, quite expert at being surreptitious, and feeding the birds. In fact, she wags school quite a number of times to be with the emus, confiding in her schoolfriend, a white girl, Tessa.

The film fills in the background of life in the town, the father and his jobs, his son getting entangled with a local girl and some fighting with her boyfriend, the family getting the help of the grandmother. When the father learns of Gemma’s interest in the emus, he takes her to see her Uncle Les – and there are a number of pleasing scenes where he explains the aboriginal heritage, the connection with nature, the emus, the spirituality of birds (the film showing a great number of sequences with groups of birds and single birds).

What people seem to get on fairly well in Brewarrina, there is a young social worker on her first appointment, inexperienced of living in the bush, coming from Sydney and not used to being in a country town, who does her serious best in trying to help Gemma. They become involved in a minor crisis, stranded on a remote, rough country road, Gemma quietly reassuring the young woman, and using her running skills to get help.

In many ways, this is a quiet film, a film for a children’s audience, for a family audience, an opportunity to see white and aboriginal Australians together. And, with the emphasis on the emus, it might seem something of a cousin to South Australia’s Storm Boy.

1. The title, the focus on the emus, in the bush, feeding, giving birth? The capacity for running, fast, not flying? Gemma and her capacity for running fast?

2. The country settings, the town of Brewarrina, streets, homes, worksites, shops, school? The surrounding countryside, fertile places, the desert? The musical score?

3. An aboriginal story, the family, the background, life in the town, father and his work, vehicle, reliability? His son, teenage, working with his father, getting into trouble, the girlfriend, the drugs, his being hit by the boyfriend? The two girls, the bond together? With their mother, a genial woman, caring for the family, her collapse and death? The family group and the singing at the cemetery?

4. The other members of the family, the grandmother, her care, old Uncle Les? Friends and the community?

5. The focus on Gemma, her age, love for her mother, her place in the family, relationship with the rest of the family, grief at her mother? Her ability to cope? The wisdom of a nine-year-old? Her discovering the emus, the stories, their running? Looking at them, the food, going to the shops, stealing the sweets, people shopping? Wagging school?

6. Her friendship with Tessa, Tessa’s family, the black girl and the white girl together, bonded? Tessa going to school, giving excuses for Gemma’s absence? The going to the emus together? The long walk?

7. Gemma at school, skilled in running, the principal, his encouraging her? Her missing from school? The discussions with her father? With Heidi?

8. Heidi, young, inexperienced in the country, from Sydney, her interventions, awkward, not fully understanding? Wanting to do the right thing? The drive with Gemma, the old road, the breakdown, Gemma and Heidi talking, growing in mutual understanding, Heidi and her mother? Gemma, collecting the wood, seeing the emus, able to start and keep the fire going? Her decision to run back and get help, her speed, the exertion? The rescue, the policeman, sometimes suspicions, the father and his friendship, the clashes?

9. The scenes with uncle Les, opportunities for Gemma to learn about her heritage, for the audience to hear something of aboriginal traditions, affinity with the land, with nature, the emus?

10. Back to school, the race, Gemma winning, the family there in support?

11. A film of empathy and understanding? The children’s audiences, family?

PERFECT OBEDIENCE

Spain, 2014, 98 minutes, Colour.
Juan Manuel Bernal, Sebastian Aguirre,
Directed by Luis Urquiza.

The case of the founder of the Mexican congregation, The Legionaries of Christ, Marcial Maciel, is a great scandal of the Catholic Church. Despite many rumours during his lifetime, he was not condemned by Pope John Paul II. Later, however, he was condemned by Benedict XVI and ordered to retire to a monastery. He died there two years later at the age of 88.

This dramatisation of his case opens with that sequence. It also focuses for some time on a young man – audiences realising that he was a principal victim.

The setting is in the 1960s and 70s, the time of Pope Paul VI. The place is a junior seminary where a young lad, Julian, who comes from a very staunch Catholic background, begins his seminary training with a new group and some older students. The behaviour of the students is rather more open, concerning sexuality, than that of students in English-speaking minor seminaries.

Juan Manual Bernal portrays Father Angel, the founder and superior of the Crusaders of Christ. He presents well, speaks well, exhorts priests and students piously and religiously. Julian settles in, sometimes disturbed by the behaviour of the other students, but then chosen, groomed by Angel. The film portrays with some intensity the process of grooming by a predator.

There is also something unhealthy about a number of the priests. They are very pious on the one hand. Several of them also have some sexual problems. This is particularly true of Angel – and the double standards of his life, the contradictions in his behaviour from the gospel, his manipulation of students, the favouritism towards Julian and his exploiting him and another student are portrayed strongly, implicitly rather than explicitly visual.

The film serves as a challenge to formation issues in the church, the completely inappropriate behaviour of some of the clergy, the processes of cover-up.

Another film to be seen in this connection is By the Grace of God by François Ozon about a sexual predator in France, and the trial in Lyon for inaction of the Cardinal of that city.

1. The title? Religious dimensions? Exploiting of obedience?

2. The film based on a true story? The reputation of must seal? His behaviour? Condemnation by Pope Benedict XVI?

3. A drama from Mexico, the Mexican background of the story, credible, audience disbelief and disgust?

4. The opening, the Bishop, the Pope and his condemnatory letter? Retirement to the monastery? The silent focus on Julian grown-up, his looking into the distance, memories of his experience?

5. The period, the 1960s and 70s, Paul VI as Pope, attitudes in the church, the changes, the traditions being preserved?

6. The seminary, the boys, their ages, the new recruits, the older boys, juvenile behaviour, preoccupation with sex, the priests and the supervision, the desire to save souls, putting the clergy on a pedestal, not criticising superiors? The emphasis on doing God’s will? The arrival, wearing soutanes, in the Chapel, the dormitories, the showers, the girls assisting with the cooking, the episode of the boy ogling the statue of Mary? Julian amongst these boys, the effect?

7. The regime, the priests, on the pedestal, speaking religiously, piety? The religiosity of the atmosphere? Classes? Sports and soccer? Supervision of the showers? The priest getting Julian to shout and express his anger? The effect on Julian? Susceptible at his age?

8. Father Angel, his name, his appearance, well-dressed, smile, the Superior, the touch of superciliousness, meetings, exhortations, piety and religiosity, classes, Holy Thursday ceremony and the washing of the feet, on occasion for his looking at Julian? The camera observing him? His place in high society, the women, the benefactors, the Papal medals? His interest in money?

9. The effect on Julian, his age, breaking the contact with home, having seen him initially with his family, pious Catholics, the meals, the games, the siblings, their pride in his becoming a priest? His joining the activities the boys, the sexy magazines, smoking pot? Yet the regime? The perfect candidate for grooming?

10. Angel and his behaviour, worldly manner, talking spirituality, the contrast, hypocrisy? Choosing Julian, his speech to him, his capacity for grooming, sanctifying his behaviour, Julian and his special quarters, becoming special, the public? Angel and his smoking and drinking, Julian seeing him with the sexual encounter? The bishops calling him to task, urging behaviour with women rather than with males? Double standards? The past relationship with Alberto, his pain and calling Alberto to help him, the masturbation?

11. Alberto, the effect, talking with his mother, with the priest, not believing her son? His having a special holy card? Julian searching his locker? Angel’s playing, the explanation, the relief, letting Alberto go?

12. Julian taking his place, the playing and the sexual using? The scene at the beach, the swim, the sexual encounter, Julian on the sand?

13. The reality of these events, the seeming exaggeration? The Hispanic atmosphere, towards sexuality, more overt than English-speaking countries, issues of scandal and standards? The end and the audience remembering Angel and his condemnation?

TERMINATOR: DARK FATE

US, 2019, 128 minutes, Colour.
Linda Hamilton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mackenzie Davis, Natalia Reyes, Diego Boneta.
Directed by Tim Miller.

Here comes another Terminator action film, fully 35 years after the original appeared in 1984 and made such an impact. An impact not only for Arnold Schwarzenegger and the following Terminator franchise but also for the director, James Cameron. Cameron gets a credit here as an executive producer.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day was considered to be the best of the Terminator films, something of a classic in 1991. There were two other sequels but they did not make much of a mark. While, in theory, Terminator fans should enjoy this particular sequel, a quick look at the bloggers on the IMDb shows that trolls are winning in the comments, minimal comments in favour. Which seems a pity because there is quite an amount going for this particular chapter.

One of the major advantages is the return of Linda Hamilton as Sarah, star of 1984, mother of the future saviour of the human race, John Connor. (And, at the opening of the film, that is another terminator attempt at killing John leading to Sara’s grief and vengeance.)

In many ways, the plotline is a rerun to the original Terminator, greedy powers in the future under siege and wanting to send a robot back in time to kill the leader of the rebellion of the future so that the future will be changed. It didn’t work then – we are sure that it won’t work now!

Two characters from the future suddenly appear in Mexico City, one a young woman, Grace (two point Davis), the other young man, no-name Terminator (Gabriel Luna). It is revealed that the latter has been sent on the destruction mission, Grace has been sent to protect a young woman, Dani, in Mexico City who, we soon realise, is to be the saviour in the future.

With the focus on Dani, Grace and Sarah, one is tempted to think of this version as Terminator #MeToo.

For any audience which has been feeling spectacular-movie-crashes-deprivation, rest assured there is plenty of compensation in the first part of the film. The action in the latter part of the film includes helicopters, a huge dam and the cavernous spaces behind and below the dam.

And, we are kept wondering for quite a while, where is Arnold Schwarzenegger himself? When the women discover that they are being sent coordinates with a message “For John� from somewhere in Texas, they have to cross the Mexican-US border (shades of President Trump and his wall and detention), and find that their destination is a cozy house in the countryside. And, there he is, and now a grey-bearded terminator who calls himself Carl, and is protective of a woman and her son, earning his keep selling drapes. While Carl can’t be truly human, he has been learning how to behave in a human way for more than 20 years – and, in his famous deadpan way, announces that one of his qualities is that “I am funny�. And, there is an amount of deadpan dialogue to back that up!

Ultimately, there is an explanation of why Grace is on her mission and has not revealed it thus far, absolutely committed into her protection and Dani who gradually grows in character and forcefulness during all the action. The bad Terminator continues in deadly pursuit until a final confrontation with the women and with The Terminator himself.

And so, the future is once again saved – but there is no reason that screenwriters could think up another opportunity for it to be threatened!

1. The popularity of the original films, the classic status of Judgement Day? The status and impact of the sequels? This film and the focus on the women, terminator #MeToo?

2. Science fiction background, futuristic? AI, the role of robots, deadly robots, capitalistic companies and power? Violence?

3. The time shifts, going to the past, saving the future? The theme of the original film? Repeated here? Sara, returning? Memories of John and his role?

4. 1997, Sarah and John, happy, the role of the Terminator, killing John? The impact on Sarah?

5. 2019, the Mexican settings, homes, the city, the car factory? The countryside? The Mexican-American? border, detention centres? The move to Texas, the home in the countryside? The move to the dam, the subterranean buildings? The musical score?

6. Grace, her name, arrival, enhanced human, the violence with the police, changing clothes? The arrival of the male Terminator, confrontational, his clothes? Grace and her mission to protect Dani? The malevolence of the male terminator?

7. Dani and Diego, at home, ordinary, with their father, going to work, Dani’s promotion, the father bringing the lunch? The sinister consequences?

8. The missions of destroying and protection? The future, Legion, sending back the terminators, to kill the potential saviour?

9. Sarah, her background, in herself, Linda Hamilton reprising the role, her memories, John, her grief? Receiving the coordinates, the caption “for John�? Her intervening, Dani’s reaction, the car and the pursuit? Grace and her reaction?

10. Dani, the car, the impact of the chases, the crashes? Diego and his death? Dani and the rescue? Grace present, no explanations – but later and their effect?

11. Dani as a character, pleasant, mild, at work, some assertiveness, grief about her family, her being saved? Sarah and her story, Grace and her mission? The range of dangerous experiences?

12. The information, sharing the coordinates, going to the border, the train, the detention centre, the guards, the cells?

13. The terminator, changing shape, the pursuit, his information and technical know-how? His surviving, the pursuit, the border, Grace and her injuries, health needs, the supermarket and demanding medication? Open the doors for the detainees? Getting the helicopter?

14. Going to meet Carl, Schwarzenegger with his beard, his cover as a terminator, 22 years on Earth, learning human ways, protective, as a husband, his wife and her son, saying that he was funny, his deadpan humour, the drapes? Sara confronting him, the angers? Grace and the information, the explanations? Dani’s response? Moving out the family, driving to the dam? The plan, the room for the confrontation? The detailed action?

15. The terminator, his mission, in pursuit, the intensity, going to the dam? The buildup to the confrontations, with the women, with Carl?

16. Grace, her death, saving Dani? Carl, his quiet, the red lights going out?

17. Grace, the flashbacks and the explanation of the future, the role of Dani as a saviour?

18. The ending, 2019, the young Grace seen by Sarah and Dani? Hopes for the future?

SLAM

Australia, 2018, 115 minutes, Colour.
Adam Bakri, Rachael Blake, Rebecca Breeds, Darina Al Joundi, Danielle Horvat, Abby Aziz, Damian Hill, Russell Dykstra, David Roberts, Nicholas Hope.
Directed by Patho Sen- Gupta.

This is a very disturbing film for an Australian audience. It focuses on contemporary issues in Sydney suburbs but which have all kinds of international and social consequences. It is well worth seeing.

The “SLAM� of the title (and you just have to to add an I for Islam) refers to poetry performance. An explanation may be useful: A poetry slam is a competition arts event, in which poets perform spoken word poetry before a live audience and a panel of judges. Culturally, poetry slams are a break with the past image many may have had of poetry as an elitist or rigid art form. Wikipedia

The film opens with a young woman, veiled, close-up, reciting intense poetry, criticisms of the status quo, revolutionary, fierce acknowledgement of the inhabitants of the land and denouncing colonialism. The poems will recur during the film and will provide an unanticipated climax at the end.

The young woman, Ammena (Danielle Horvat) disappears. Her mother, from Palestine originally, is distraught and phones her son, Tariq (called Ricky), Palestinian actor, Adam Bakri, who eventually goes to the police to report a missing person. We in the audience, having listened to the poems, immediately suspect that she might have joined a radicalised group or even gone overseas to support Islamic State.

On the one hand, the film is about the search for a missing woman, the stance that a sympathetic policewoman, Joanne (Rachael Blake) takes and acts on. Later, we find that she has had her own suffering in connection with Middle East violence and is estranged from her husband. But, given contemporary attitudes, fear of terrorists, policies to make Australia safe, Border Force issues, we probably share the initial presumption that Ameena has left the country.

On the other hand, one of the main effects of the film is to share the experiences of the rest of the family, of Tariq who has married locally, has a daughter and his wife is expecting their second child. They have established a business, a cafe, building up custom. And, Tariq’s wife and family are completely accepting – though disturbed by the police and the media, hiring a lawyer friend for Tariq to hold a press conference and explaining his situation.

The police intervene and Tariq taken in and interrogated as, at least, a person of interest, presumption that he is somehow involved in radicalism. The media, relentless, camp outside his suburban house ready with cameras and microphones at the slightest indication of action or even Tariq and his family opening the door.

While Joanne wants to keep investigating the disappearance as that of a missing woman, her police superiors, national agencies, want to act with immediate caution and suspicious presumptions.

There is a solution to the mystery of Ameena’s disappearance. But, the important impact of the film is on the treatment of Tariq and his family, aspects of Australia’s xenophobia, of response to wars and terrorism in the Middle East, touches of paranoia, a plea for acceptance and understanding rather than presumptions of guilt.

Interestingly, the film was written and directed by Patho Sen-Gupta? who was born in Mumbai and grew up there, working in the Bollywood film industry, later moving to France where he worked in films for a decade, his partner then coming to teach at the University of Western Sydney and his moving to Australia – obviously absorbing the atmosphere of his adopted country.

1. The title? The poetry and performance? By Ameena? By Tariq at the end?

2. The poetry itself, performance, the themes, critique, anger, revolution? Indigenous people in the poet? Colonial attitudes?

3. Sydney, the suburbs, homes and streets, police officers, the cafe, musical score?

4. Introduction to Ameena, the focus on her, the hijab and is long, the Palestinian background, the range of her texts, the impact, her delivery and performance? Her waiting outside, phone call and texting? Her disappearance?

5. Tariq, called Ricky, his marriage to Sally, his daughter, Sally’s pregnancy? Their life, their love for each other, establishing the cafe, working there, customers? Sharing?

6. Tariq, the phone call from his mother, her anxiety, the Palestinian background? Ameena’s disappearance? The flashbacks in Tariq’s mind, the torture sequences? The migrants from the Middle East, the alien experience, acceptance or not, questions about language? Tariq going to the police, giving the information, Ameena listed as a missing person?

7. The background of the Middle East, Isis, the downing of the Australian pilot, his being paraded, executed? The sequences on the television in the news? Intimidating for Australian viewers, anger at the executions?

8. Joanna, her work in the police office, her tensions, her being on probation, the gradual revelation of the death of her son, her drinking? Ricky talking with her, her making notes, sympathetic, going home, weary, the shower, the appearances of her son, Shane and the broken relationship, his waiting for her, inside the house, his assault, talking about his needs, the sexual violation and violence, his grief and anger?

9. Ameena, her background, studies, missing? The response of the police? The response of the agencies? Suspicions, the atmosphere of the downed pilot, the media and the hounding of the family, encamped in the street?

10. The effect on Tariq, the family being besieged, the effect on his wife, her wanting to stay, his urging her to go to her family? Her father, his arrival, packing, anxieties, going out to the press crowd?

11. The effect on Ricky, the police interrogations, his catching up with his friend who was in prison, the clash, punching each other? Is wearing a hooded, identifying himself to get into the house? Alone at home?

12. Sally’s father, his concern, the lawyer friend, the discussions, the eventual press conference, Tariq’s disclaimer of all responsibility and knowledge?

13. Sally and her family, the meals, comfortable with Tarik as a son-in-law?

14. Sally, stalled in the car, the rain, her being upset, the tests of the baby, joy?

15. The birth, the celebration, everybody together, racial tolerance and acceptance?

16. Joanna, coming with the police, the news? Scenes of her searching, finding the body, the mutilations? In the flashbacks explaining Ameena is an abduction?

17. Ricky, reciting the poetry, the family all there, his mother, Sally, her family, and Joanna?

18. The challenge themes for the contemporary Australian audience?

AT THE COLISEUM de LUXE

Australia, 2019, 72 minutes, Colour/Black and white
Narrated by Bruce Beresford.
Directed by Anthony Buckley.

This is a significant documentary for those interested in the changing patterns of popular entertainment in Australia, from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. The film is based on a book by collaborators Anthony Buckley and Les Todd, getting the collaboration of many archivists, from theatres, from local councils, from National archives.

The focus is on the building of the Coliseum de Luxe in North Sydney and traces its building, its purposes, changing purposes, a range of developments, its collapse.

The narrative is arranged in various chapters highlighting the activities of each period.

Audiences may be surprised at the popularity of rollerskating at the end of the 19th century, a number of buildings in Sydney and Melbourne devoted to it, reaching its peak at the end of the century. A lot of footage is included, including same-sex couples skating together although regulations forbadde it.

Then comes the transition with moving pictures, a lot of background of the developments during the 1990s in both France and with Edison in the United States, the agents travelling around the world and to Australia, filming various events, the various theatres incorporating film screenings along with live action and vaudeville performances.

There is some background to this, especially in Melbourne, but since the Coliseum is in Sydney, the remainder of the film focuses on the Sydney experience.

The film reminds audiences that there was no Sydney Harbour Bridge until the early 1930s and that North Sydney was reached from central Sydney by ferry. There were comments about the suitability of North Sydney for such an entertainment centre and the population. Interestingly, there are many sequences showing the buildings, the look of the suburbs and streets in the first part of the 20th century.

While there were ups and downs in the history of cinema screenings, the development of sound in cinema, the growing popularity of the movies, the film also has some background of a range of performances, styles and personalities, highlighting the history of various significant individuals and entrepreneurs.

The film also focuses attention on Doris Fitton, a significant figure in Sydney Theatre, her Independent Theatre, financial difficulties and the recommendation that she go to North Sydney and set up her Independent theatre with the Coliseum. The first performance there, French without Tears, took place within weeks of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, 1939.

A great deal of the film highlights Doris Fitton’s efforts, the difficulties, her persevering during the war, the development of the Independent Theatre, with some attention to Sumner Locke Elliot’s Rusty Bugles, rehearsals, political interventions to ban the play, highlighting the somewhat restrictive attitudes towards censorship in those times.

The film moves us through the 1940s and into the 1950s – now seen is very much part of Australia’s history rather than a record of events that live in people’s living memories.

The film is narrated by Bruce Beresford in a straightforward manner, a great deal of facts and figures and information, more authentic because of Bruce Beresford’s career and stature. We realise that there could be many such film about popular and cultural history, not just in Sydney but in the various capitals as well is in country centres.

MAN ON THE BUS

Australia, 2019, 84 minutes, Colour/ Black and white.
Directed by Eve Ash.

Eve Ash is a prominent Australian psychologist who has made number of films, documentaries, television series and, now, an exploration of her family, uncovering a variety of mysteries.

While the film is set in the present, Eve’s mother, Martha, was an avid recorder of family, travels, friends, and left a box with many containers of these home movies. This documentary draws on them considerably.

Eve Ash explains her family background, her parents from Poland (now Ukraine), both married at the beginning of World War II but each losing their spouse. They experience the war differently, her father, Felix, in a local concentration camp but, with another man, getting a machine gun, affecting their escape and the deaths of all the guards. Felix and Martha meet and marry and then decide to migrate to Australia, arriving with their daughter, Helen. After some years in Australia, Martha gives birth to Eve.

Eve Ash visits the site of towns, castles, concentration camps in Ukraine and the audience gets an impression of the war experience and the internment of Jews in central Europe.

The screenplay for Man on the Bus offers a gradual unfolding of unusual events, anticipating a little, but keeping up the gradual pace. As a girl, Eve sees that she is different in appearance from her sister and speculates that she was adopted or has a different father. Neither of her parents offer any alternate explanations. However, in the footage, she discovers a man called Dixie and wonders about him and a relationship with Martha, especially with the way she films him and he responds.

The bulk of the film is the exploration to find out whether Dixie is actually her father. She co-opts help from her sister, Helen, who appears on screen, with reminiscences about the family and growing up, she and her daughters helping Eve in her quest. Later, Eve’s agent receives a mysterious email from Micheline who claims to be Dixie’s daughter and Eve’s half-sister.

This leads to further detective work, the audience puzzled and curious, yet invited into a very complex world of relationships, lies, betrayals. Eve and Micheline discover that Dixie has several more children, 10 in all. They also discover that he is still alive, was a surveyor, had named streets in the Melbourne suburbs after his lovers and children. He also stands for Labor Party pre-selection.

The last part of the film is the meeting with Dixie, the revelation, and his further opening up about his past, the 15 year relationship with Martha, even his presence at Eve’s birth. Yet, he had a great respect for Felix. Eve has many conversations with Dixie and even persuades him to be part of a re-creation of the events where Dixie and Martha met on the bus.

There are many scenes where Eve talks to family friends – and their immediate disbelief that there was such a scenario with Martha.

The end result is satisfaction for Eve to discover the truth, to deal with the situation and its ambiguities. However, Micheline still holds great animosity for her father.

An unusual story, not the 15 year relationship so much but Eve’s continual quest to discover the truth, puzzled about her mother and her behaviour, admiration for her father, Felix, and getting to know and have affection for Dixie.

LOCUSTS

Australia, 2019, 87 minutes, Colour.
Ben Guerens, Jessica Mc Namee, Andy Mc Phee, Steve Le Marquand, Nathanial Dean, Damian Hill, Malcolm Kennard, Ryan Morgan, Peter Phelps.
Directed by Heath Davis.

At the outset, there is a definition and explanation of locusts, and locust plagues. Locusts, small, menacing, even shape-changing, moving in hordes, descending on target, stripping it bear, almost an annihilation.

Perhaps that is a bit too strong for the drama that follows, but it certainly focuses attention.

What starts as a drama moves into the realm of the thriller as well as a crime story. It is brief, holding the attention, adding some unexpected details and challenges, and audiences thinking of the metaphor of the locusts.

While the film opens in Sydney, familiar scenes, Harbour Bridge, business offices, reminders of tech companies, the mood of the film changes as the central character, Ryan (Ben Geurens), seemingly a successful businessman, travels out to Western New South Wales, to vast desert country (which looks, at times, that it has been attacked and devastated by locusts). We have also been shown at the beginning of the film that this is mining territory, vast quarries.

In fact, filming was done in and around Broken Hill. And, for those who remember significant films, the situations, some outback desperation, some fierce macho attitudes, they will be reminded of Wake in Fright.

In fact, Ryan is going to his father’s funeral, a father he has resented in the past (with some grim flashbacks) and has not seen for many years. He also encounters his brother, Tyson (Nathanial Dean), who has spent time in prison and just survives in this raw atmosphere.

There are some local locusts who want to exploit Ryan, who are resentful of his father’s violence and its effect on them, who expect that Ryan has inherited significant money, pursue him off the road, abduct his brother, holding him to ransom.

On the other hand, another memory of his life in the town is Izzy (Jessica Mc Namee), helping her mother in a store, working as a lap dancer at night in the local club. We rightly expect that there is a connection between the two from the past – but there are some that we might not have anticipated.

The money? The possibility of a crime? Set-ups, dangers, consequences? While Ryan has been helped by an old family friend, Jake (Andy McPhee), we sometimes are wondering about how supportive he is. His character also introduces some environmental themes, search for oil, water contamination and consequent illness.

Ryan experiences more than he bargained for in his travelling out west for the funeral. We, and he, are not sure what is going back to Sydney for. But, on the evidence of this experience, he is a survivor.

1. The title? The explanation? The devastating insects, swarms, targets and annihilation? The title as a metaphor for the characters and action

2. The opening, the familiar Sydney settings? The contrast with the drive out to the west? The landscapes, mining and quarries, devastation of the land, indications of contamination of the water? The heavy vehicle, the discovery of a hand in the rubble? The musical score?

3. Story, age and experience, well-dressed, wealthy, the car, tech developments, hopes for the deal, visiting the doctor, prescriptions of pills and nerves? His fashionable car,
driving out to the west?

4. The significance of his father, the death, the funeral, those attending? Ryan having left the town when young? Meeting up again with his brother Tyson, the distance between them? Meeting the group, the sense of menace, driving him off the road, the demand for $100,000? His phone calls, knowing that he didn’t have the money? The time spent with his brother, their being no money in the inheritance, the souvenirs, the knife and its later use, the car for his brother? Their drinking? His brother’s abduction?

5. Jake, the hunter, the longtime friend, his offering to help Ryan, the desperate Ryan going to stay with him? His helping, the collaboration with Ryan and Izzy about the robbery? His helping hiding the money? Audience suspicions of him? The revelation, the violence, his property, the plans for fracking and the gas, the contaminations? His being bound and left beside the contaminated water?

6. Ryan, going to the club, the elaborate interiors, the customers, the pole dancing, the girls? Ryan meeting Izzy, memories of the past, his going to the diner, Izzy and her tough treatment of the customers? Her daughter and her illness? Her wanting to be in on the plan to rob the club? Forcing Ryan to collaborate?

7. The plan, the owner of the club, his drugs, his routines, counting the money, the safe? Izzy and the laxative, the effect on the owner? Her covering the security cameras? Ryan, nervous, agreeing, trying to avoid the local policeman, assuming he was in on the deal? The owner, in the lavatory, Ryan getting the key, the blurring on his arm of the code?

8. His finally getting the money, with Izzy, the owner not dead, the confrontation – and the shock of his being hit by the truck?

9. The burying of the money? The gang, the father and the wheelchair, the other toughs, Caleb and his ambiguity? Ryan delivering the money, their knowing about the robbery, the buildup to the confrontation, Ryan and Tyson tied up, getting loose, stabbing and shooting? The father and the wheelchair, confronting Ryan? Caleb entering, the gun, shooting the man in the chair? Audience realisation that Caleb was Ryan’s son?

10. Izzy, tough, her decisions, the appointment with the doctor for her daughter? Caleb going with Ryan – to what?

11. The film as family drama, thriller elements, crime and robbery, issues of drilling for gas and contaminating water, environmental issues?