CLASS DIVIDE

US, 2015, 75 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Marc Levin.

This is an HBO documentary, a film made especially for residents of New York City, especially those in south-western Manhattan, the Chelsea area.

The title indicates the theme. It focuses on a particular street. On one side stand the Projects, with 4500 people living there, poor, many African- Americans. These people are very limited in their opportunities for education, employment, careers. On the other side of the street is a comparatively new high school, The Avenues, very modern in its approach to curriculum, to study methods, roundtables and discussions in preference to traditional classroom layout, all kinds of resources, teachers who are also tutors with creativity. The annual fee for attendance of the school is $40,000.

The film is also about urban development and gentrification. An abandoned rail line above the area was remodelled in 2012, providing a spacious walkway for many blocks, providing an incentive for the development of restaurants, the development of more expensive and lavish apartment dwelling.

The film is strong on visuals of both the Projects, the High Line, The Avenue School.

However, there are many talking heads. This is especially true of people in the projects, especially a young girl who is particularly articulate, in her assessment of the Projects and her life there and the lack of possibilities, her awareness of what is happening across the street. There are also interview with a range of parents, with some young African- Americans (one of whom remarks that he noticed the changes when he got out of prison).

On the other hand, there are interviews with parents, professional people who have the finance to send their children To the Avenues. Also interviews with some of the teachers.

What is happening in West Chelsea certainly stands as a symbol of what happens with gentrification in urban development – but, this is quite striking, because it happens on each side of the street.

KING LEAR

UK, 2018, 210 minutes, Colour.
Ian Mc Kellen, Sinead Cusack, Danny Webb, Mark Corrigan, Anthony Howells, Claire Price, Kirsty Bushell, Lloyd Hutchinson, Luke Thompson.
Directed by Jonathan Munby.

This is an impressive version of Shakespeare’s play. It was designed for a small theatre for the Chichester Festival and transferred to London and filmed at the Duke of York’s Theatre.

The film is a star vehicle for Ian Mc Kellen (who had previously played the role, even for television in 2008). He performs this role at the age of 79. He has great dignity and bearing on stage. Yet, at times there is a touch of the playful, a great attention to detail in articulation of his lines, even the plosive sounds at the end of words, and attention to minute detail of physical action, relishing Shakespeare’s undertones of humour.

The play has a contemporary setting, even using the British and French flags and emblems. There are sounds of motor horns of stage, turning on the radio for music, hospital and a drip. And yet, there is also a timelessness about the play, even to contemporary clothes, military dress, women’s fashions mixed with what could have been worn at any time.

There is an excellent supporting cast with the change of the Duke of Kent to the Countess of Kent who is played by Sinead Cusack. Mark Corrigan is very strong as Edmund. Danny Webb makes the most of his interpretation of Gloucester. Anthony Howell is the Duke of Albany. And there are very distinctive, even disturbing performances by Claire Price as Goneril, serious but susceptible, and Kirsty Bushell as one of the most eccentric and provocative interpretations of Regan.

Looking comically modern, Lloyd Hutchinson is the Fool. Anita- Joy Uwajeh plays Cordelia – and, with the military emphasis at the end of the film, and her being part of the attacking force, she is a stronger and more military presence than might have been expected.

The film uses a full text of the play. The stagecraft, though limited in space and possibilities for effects, means that the audience is quite immersed in the play.

This version can be recommended for those who are eager to hear the text articulated clearly and with an emphasis on the flow of the iambic pentameter. It offers clear opportunities for audiences to hear the famous quotations in their context.

And, the film serves as a tribute to Ian Mc Kellen’s acting skills.

A PRAYER BEFORE DAWN

UK, 2017, 116 minutes, Colour.
Joe Cole.
Directed by Jean- Stephane Sauvaire.

Tough, hard tough, hardest-tough. This is true of the film itself, of its central character, Billy Moore, of the prison situations, physically and emotionally. And it is certainly tough for the audience to watch. Words that come to mind include visceral, even gut-wrenching.

Joe Cole, in a convincing performance, plays a young Englishman abroad, based in Thailand, a boxer, practising several forms of kickboxing. In the opening bout that we see, after careful preparation and oiling, he loses the fight, loses control and bashes his opponent. We see as well that he relies on drugs for the boost in the ring and is an addict.

He is taken in by the police and sent to prison. Audiences will have seen films about drug dealers and imprisonment in such countries as Indonesia and Malaysia. The Thai prisons that we see here (filmed in Thailand and in the Philippines, Cebu) are places audiences would never want to find themselves in. The questioning and examination at entry are the usual, but rougher. Because of the heat, the prisoners wear shorts – which enables the audience, perhaps rather astonished at the site, to see so many men and so many tattoos, all over torsos, backs, necks, even faces and scalps, and not just random tattoos but carefully constructed designs and colours.

Washing and toilet facilities are minimum. The prisoners sleep on rugs or on the ground, piled together. And there is a general air of hostility of the prisoners amongst themselves. And Billy is the only Westerner, white Westerner in the prison.

The audience shares Billy’s humiliation and endurance – although one of the guards does supply some drugs for him, forcing him to bash some Muslim prisoners on his behalf. With a knife at his throat, Billy is forced to watch a brutal sexual assault. There is no sign of any fulfilment of the title, although there are moments when there are some rituals of prayer and a statue of the Buddha in the prison yard.

There are some moments of lightness with the arrival of prisoner “lady boys� who staff the canteen in the prison, especially one Billy befriends who is called Fame.

It is the boxing which enables Billy to move toward some kind of redemption. He trains, wins the approval of the coach, fights hard, although a doctor examines him and tells him that his spleen is ruptured, he could bleed to death in fights and his whole system has been wrecked by drugs and alcohol. But, one of the authorities is impressed by him and suggests he trains for an inter-prison competition.

There is a final fight, perhaps in the Rocky-vein, but more unexpected and far less triumphant.

A spoiler warning. This reviewer saw the film not knowing that it was based on a memoir – so, it is surprising to find that Billy Moore has transformed himself, that there really was something of a prayer before the dawn, that he has devoted his life to rehabilitation as well as helping others in similar situations. (A final scene has Billy’s father visiting him in Thailand – and then the title over the picture of the father indicating that this is Billy Moore himself.)

1. The title, grim? Possibilities for redemption?

2. Locations in Thailand and the Philippines? The countryside? The confinement of the prisons, the exteriors, interiors, vineyards, cells, dormitories, showers and facilities? Boxing, the arenas, the crowds and audiences? The training? The musical score?

3. A memoir, true story, the end, the presence of Billy Moore – and the real Billy Moore?

4. The kickboxing, the ballots, the choreography, the camera movement, atmosphere? Visual and visceral impact?

5. The opening, atmosphere, Billy being greased, prepared for the fight, his associate? The fight itself, the close-ups? His losing, taking the drugs beforehand, the violent outburst?

6. Drugs, his arrest? The police, the guards, hard?

7. Prison, The entry, the routines, humiliating? The guards and their behaviour, the searches? The range of prisoners, their appearance, age, crimes, the extent of the tattoos? Later Billy getting a tattoo?

8. The prisoners, altogether, wearing shorts, the tattooed is visible, the crowded sleeping quarters, in the yards, the various groups, showers and toilets, sleep, waking, the meals? Rough life? The isolation cell?

9. The impact of the scene where Billy has a knife at his throat and forced to watch the sodomy?

10. The lady boys, Fame, running the shop, the cigarettes, Billy and his use of Fame, coming into being? The emotional and sexual attachments? The singing and dancing of the lady boys? Watching about?

11. Billy and his physical condition, spleen, drugs and addiction, going to the doctor, the warnings? The further taking drugs? The guard and is giving him drugs – and later getting into bash the Muslim prisoners?

12. The decision to go for boxing, training, the trainer and his cigarettes, recognising Billy’s talent? The training, rehearsals?

13. The authorities, choosing Billy for the bout, the presence, travelling to another prison, the better conditions?

14. The fight, the surprise win in the knockout, Billy collapsing, in hospital?

15. The letter from his father, his father’s visit, his reaction?

16. The contact from his father, the possibility for change, for rehabilitation? Billy Moore is writing, his social work?

KILL’ EM ALL

US, 2017, 96 minutes, Colour.
Jean- Claude van Damme, Autumn Reeser, Peter Stormare, Maria Conchita Alonso, Kris van Damme.
Directed by Peter Malota.

By this film, Jean- Claude van Damme had been making action thrillers for three decades. He certainly looks older and somewhat the worse for wear, although that is part of the plot of this film.

This is a film for Jean- Claude van Damme fans and those interested in kickboxing.

The film offers some detail of the background of the Balkan Peninsula in the 1990s, the changes with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dividing of the countries and the civil wars, the role of the Serbs, massacres, gangsters and politicians, the desire for revenge.

The screenplay is very complicated, moving forwards and backwards in time, audiences needing to pay attention.

When it goes back, it offers the background of Philip, a young boy in the Balkans, a lyrical scene of the family, his father being shot. His mother has to get him out and he has a patron who trains him in the martial arts. And he has a desire for revenge. He becomes attached to the gangster-politician who murdered his father with the intention to get revenge and kill him. However, he acts as one of the politician’s hitmen, along with several others in the group (one played by van Damme’s son – and having some fights with him on screen).

The focus is a young woman, a nurse, Suzanne (played by Autumn Reeser). She is being interrogated by two FBI agents in Los Angeles as a consequence of an attack on the gangster politician in the hospital and suspicions about Philip. The interrogators are played by Peter Stormare and Maria Conchita Alonso.

The interrogation goes badly and well, alternating, seemingly dependent on the moods of the interrogators who are trying to find out what actually happened, put it all in chronological order. (And chronological order is not the key mark of the film.)

Which means then there are details of Philip and his entry to the hospital, thugs pursuing him and some shootouts as well as kickboxing bouts, the nurse with him, his protecting her, their gradually going upstairs – where Philip is able to kill his enemy. He then escapes, despite being wounded. The interrogators, thinking that they have the story, let the nurse go and there is another flashback to show that she was Philip’s associate, taking a uniform from a nurse, getting out the building, removing her wig and driving off with Philip.

Certainly complicated – but for those who like this kind of action movie.

HUMAN TRACES

New Zealand, 2017, 82 minutes, Colour.
Sophie Henderson, Mitch Mitchenson, Vinnie Bennett, Milo Cawthorne.
Directed by Nic Gorman.

This film opens like an anthropological study, insertion of black-and-white footage throughout the credits, men getting supplies and sailing towards an island in the Southern Ocean. While this is the background to Human Traces, it is actually a psychological thriller. And it has a number of twists.

There is a changing of the guard on the island, the group going back to New Zealand, a new group coming in, especially scientist Glenn and his associate, his former student, Sarah. It seems that Glenn is an idealist, critical of human behaviour and its effect on evolution, wanting to study animal life on the island – and then revealing that he wanted to stay there, abandoning civilisation.

The film is divided into three parts. The initial focus is on Sarah, her background, farewelling the previous group, meeting a newcomer, unexpected, in the squad, Riki. There is a mutual attraction that she is loyal to her husband. However, pressure increases and she wants to radio New Zealand and for a helicopter be sent. The radio was broken, Glenn unwilling to fix it. Then Riki disappears, presumed drowned. Sarah then decides to inflict wounds on Glenn so that someone will have to come to rescue him, tying him up, stabbing him with a scalpel – although he is able to move and goes to the fields to the cliffs.

The second part of the film focuses on Glenn. More is explained about his background and his attitudes, some scenes with Sarah, more scenes with Riki, interrogating him, puzzled about his background and his presence on the island, warning him away from Sarah. There is also the episode where Riki disappears – and Glenn returning and being stabbed.

The third part of the film focuses on Riki. He has a Maori background, has been sacked from a job, has been given a job on a boat by an in-law. There is a young intern who settles on the boat – and the audience has previously seen that he is dead, wrapped in a tarpaulin. In fact, the boat smuggles drugs. The young intern can’t swim and, intentionally or not, Riki pulls him into the water. He has absorbed the intern’s background, change his passport (something which has troubled Glenn), and the audience sees him on the island, his work, the attraction towards Sarah, and a celebration of her birthday with party hats and crackers.

However, he is wanting to recover the drugs which have been hidden in a cave, is disturbed when the body of the Intern surfaces when it was not expected to.

The audience is left with an unfinished story after a probing of the three characters and their interactions.

1%

Australia, 2017, 92 minutes, Colour.
Ryan Corr, Abby Lee, Matt Nable, Simon Kessel, Josh Mc Conville, Aaron Pedersen, Jacqui Williams.
Directed by Stephen Mc Callum.

The title is arresting but could be about anything! In fact, it is about bikies – and there needs to be a distinction immediately between bikie gangs and bikie clubs. One of the meanings of 1% is that these are the gangs who capitalise on drugs and money laundering.

Not everyone will want to see a film about bikie clubs let alone bikie gangs. This one is about gangs. The bikies look formidable sitting on their high-powered machines, helmets which may be protective but make them look sinister. Then there are the jackets, the emblems, the tattoos. Some of them look so hard, tough, that they do not elicit audience curiosity.

This film is frighteningly watchable.

The setting is Western Australia, the focus on to gangs, one of which is led by a rather terrifying Sugar, Aaron Pedersen, the rival gang temporarily led by Mark (“Paddo�) Ryan Corr while the “President� Knuck (a title which he over-relishes), played by Matt Nable, who wrote the screenplay, is serving a three-year sentence in prison. While Mark is temporarily in charge, he is encouraged to make a deal with Sugar for laundering the drug money. He is encouraged by the President’s girlfriend, Hayley (Simon Kessel). They have an audience in prison with the “President� but he resents anyone interfering with his power.

And then he gets out. He throws his weight around, has his loyal followers, especially in the clubhouse, a big area where members can play pool, drink, horse around, indulge in sexual activity. At the bar is Mark’s wife (Abby Lee, model and actress for Victoria’s Secret, Calvin Klein, appearing in both American and Australian film is). We discover that looks can be deceiving. She is pretty and glamorous, even at the bikie club. But, as many have noted, she soon begins to remind us of Lady Macbeth, the power behind the would-be throne.

Knuck is a jealous man, loving his partner but not necessarily in love with her. In prison, he has had homosexual experiences and, on release, has something of a roving eye, especially on a young accountant, friend Mark, who becomes Knuck’s victim.

The action soon becomes quite bikie-Shakespearean, Knuck continually asserting his authority is acting capriciously, Mark having to go to Sugar to try to recently negotiate the deal. Clearly, the setting up of battlelines.

There are brawls at the club. There is even a siege of Mark’s house in a pleasant suburban street. There are bodies lying in the garden and backyard.

The pawn in all of this activity is Mark’s rather simple brother, Skink (a very convincing performance bringing in quite some emotion by Josh McConville), who makes all kinds of mistakes, regrets, dreams of a relationship with a girl but is betrayed by one of the women down at the club, has to be defended all the time by Mark. He also becomes a pawn in his sister-in-law’s ambitions which leads to mistakes, Skink having to be defended, deaths and, as in Shakespeare, the end of an era and a new kingdom being set up. We cannot predict who will be the survivors.

As was said earlier in this review, frighteningly watchable.


1. A grim film? Frightening? The world of bikies? Clubs? bikies and their codes?

2. The title, the 1% of bikies working outside the law? Deals, percentages?

3. The West Australian setting, the ordinary suburbs and houses, the streets? The bikies, en masse on the roads? At the club houses? The interiors of the clubs? The musical score?

4. The audience response to the bikie’s, the clubs, the gangs, the types, their lifestyle, the quality of the bikes, their uniforms and clothes, badges and symbols?

5. The introduction to Mark, deputy, his age, his past, relationship with his wife, love, her urging him on? The meeting with Sugar, the discussion of the deals, the money laundering? His relationship with Stink, Stink and his mistakes about the money and the drugs, Sugar’s reaction and threats? Mark and his care for Stink, loyalties?

6. Sugar, his character, leader of his gang, hard, the discussions with Mark, the propositions? The later interviews, the deals? The clash with Knuck?

7. Mark going to the jail with Hayley, Hayley and her trying to sell the deal to Knuck? The interview with Mark, his listening, turning down the deal, asserting himself as President?

8. The club, the clubhouse, the men, the bar, the pool table, the beer and drinking, the sexual activity?

9. Knuck as President, the experience in jail, taking himself seriously, his status, the sexual activity, homosexuality, the sexual encounter with Hayley, loving her, but avoiding her? His eye on David, the assault, his concern about his reputation, the homophobic language?

10. The rejection of the deal, three years absent, jealous, Hayley encouraging him, at home, staying away, Hayley’s disappointment in him?

11. Stink, his age, brother to Mark, the influence of Mark’s wife? The drugs, his mistakes, his mental condition? Simple? The sexual focus, the magazines, the encounter with Josie – seeing her with others, disappointment and hurt? Giving her the drugs? Her confessing and naming Sting? Sugar, the reprieve, with Mark? Mark, his reaction? Stink at home, Mark being tough with him, confining him to his room? Mark’s wife and her using Stink? To kill Knuck? The gun, his going to the house, his fears, Hayley confronting him, firing the gun?

12. Mark’s wife, the overtones of Lady Macbeth, urging her husband on? Mark and his wanting to leave, to go to Queensland? Her not wanting this, her wanting to stay, wanting him to be president, owning the club in the bar? Her urging Stink? His mistake, the dire consequences?

13. The range of club members, David the accountant, Knuck eyeing him and abusing him, David subservient, their loyalties, the setup for war. the fight, the siege in the suburbs, the shootings, the deaths, men riding out?

14. Mark, shot, Knuckk and the violence? Hayley and her being wounded? Mark’s death?

15. The aftermath, Mark’ wife, going to the bar, shooting the barman? Hayley coming in, wanting to be the boss? Mark’s wife shooting her?

16. The overtones of Macbeth, vaulting ambition, the role of the wives, the leaders, murder, a new era?

OPERATION DIPLOMAT

UK, 1953, 70 minutes, Black-and-white.
Guy Rolfe, Lisa Daniely, Patricia Dainton, Sidney Tafler, Ballard Berkely, Anton Diffring, Brian Worth.
Directed by John Guillermin.

Operation Diplomat is worth looking at, especially for those who are fans of small British thrillers from the early 1950s. This one was an adapted from a thriller by Francis Durbridge and from a television series, six-part, the year before.

Guy Rolfe, often a successful villain with his tall gaunt stature, is a surgeon on his way home from work, reading his paper when he is appealed to for help with a case, is abducted to a mysterious location where he discovers that his patient is the head of Western European security and has been abducted. There are various mysterious characters at the venue including a deregistered doctor, Anton Diffring, a nurse from Europe, Lisa Daniely, a guard, Sidney Tafler and a mysterious colonel.

The operation is successful, the surgeon returned (after being knocked out by Mercury cigarettes) but is determined to find out what is going on. He reports the matter to the police but they are sceptical, confirming that the alleged patient is in fact in Germany.

There is a further complication by an impatient patient and her son – with her being murdered and her son being revealed as the mastermind.

There are further complications, the surgeon finding the body of the murdered woman, interrogations by the police, the European nurse appealing to the surgeon for further help – and his assistant nurse abducted, some of the operatives killed including the deregistered doctor, the European nurse giving some information before her death. The reference she gave turns out to be a container to be placed on ship to smuggle out the diplomat.

Some quick action at the end and the solution of the case.

There is quite an arresting musical score which begins, uncharacteristic for a British film, with a jazz background – leading to various variations of orchestral, suspense music…

Directions by John Guillermin who was making a number of small British films at this stage, including the comedy Miss Robin Would, but it was eventually to go to Hollywood and directed such films as The Towering Inferno and the 1976 King Kong.

1. An interesting and entertaining brief thriller? The title and expectations?

2. England in the early 1950s, hospitals, the police, diplomacy and abductions, car chases, the wharves? The musical score? The Jazz opening, the variety of musical styles?

3. Dr Fenton, his reputation, on the street, the ambulance, his being taken to the venue, the operation, his recognising the patient, the Mercury cigarettes, his being returned to the hospital, the discussions with his nurse and her involvement in the case?

4. The scepticism of the police, the diplomat allegedly in Berlin? The further investigations? Dr Fenton and his insistence, his discovery of the murdered woman after her impatience at the hospital, the role of her son? His phone call to the police, denial, owning up to it?

5. The European nurse, her assistance, her appealing to him again, the travelling in the car, listening to the lights, the cracked bell, with the inspector, retracing the steps, discovering the venue? The nurse and her being abducted?

6. The further deaths, the deregistered doctor, Wade at the desk?

7. The return to the venue for the operation, everything cleared, the Mercury cigarette box?

8. The European nurse, taken to hospital, the piece of information – the discovery of the ship, the container and being lifted, the code number, Terry and his trying to get the container onto the ship, the captain and his defiance, the police at their insistence, Fenton and the other is going up the crane, landing the container on the ground?

9. A satisfactory solution?

MEGAN LEAVEY

US, 2017, 116 minutes, Colour.
Kate Mara, Edie Falco, Ramon Rodriguez, Common, Geraldine James, Will Patton, Tom Felton.
Directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite.

This film is based on a true story. It is a story about the Iraq war. It is a story about the Marines. It is a story about the sniffer dogs and a tribute to them.

Kate Mara is Megan Leavey, initially leading an idle kind of life, wanting to get out of her home town, seeing a Marine recruiting poster and joining. The film traces the role of a woman in the Marines, interactions with the officers, suddenly put in charge of the sniffer dog in an emergency, initially cautious, getting advice to show confidence and bond with the dog.

There is action in Iraq, working border control and testing vehicles for weapons. Women are supposed to work checkpoints and not go out in the field, but there is an emergency and her dog, Rex, is successful in finding a large cache of weapons. During a more complicated action, there are explosions which affect both Rex and Megan.

On her return, Megan is listless, offers to adopt Rex but this is considered too dangerous for him among civilians. Ultimately, after clashing with her mother, the father of her dead friend urges her into action, she goes to a group for therapy, starts to get petitions about adopting Rex. This is finally recognised and a tribute ceremony to the sniffer dogs who went to Iraq.

There is a background romance. Megan Leavey continues to work in security and training dogs.

1. Based on a true story? The border of Megan Leavey? Harsh upbringing? Her achievement in the Marines?

2. A film about the role of sniffer dogs, in the Iraq war, insecurity? A tribute to the dogs and their trainers?

3. The opening, the small town, homes? The recruiting poster? The transfer to marine training, offices, training supervisors? The introduction to the sniffer dogs, their training, bonding with their trainers?

4. Megan, her harsh background, drugs and the death of her friend, her attempt at jobs, failure and being fired? Her seeing the recruiting poster and acting on it? The difficulties at home, her critical mother, stepfather, the friendship and support of the father of the dead friend?

5. Megan, her jobs, the trainer with the dog and his injury, the commander, ordering her to take the dog? Her diffidence? Wary of Rex?

6. The dogs, their breed, isolation, training, testing, for security? The trainers, the bonding? Megan and her being given the dog, failing the first test, the reprimands, the effect on her? Gaining in confidence, bonding with Rex? His success? The encounter with the vet supervisor and clashing with her?

7. The urgency of the dogs going to Iraq? Megan going with Rex? Arriving, Morales, friendship with Megan? His dog? Supervision? Her being received, women in the job?

8. Women on point duty, the episode with the man in the vehicle, his young son, the warning not to fraternise? The tension at point duty? The emergency, her having to go on site, Rex and his achievement? The house, the man protesting that he was religious, Rex finding the cache of weapons? The congratulations?

9. Rex and the surveillance of the open space, mines, setting the flags to indicate the frequency? The attack from the house? The going to the ruined houses, the schoolroom, being fired on? The vehicles, the attempted escape, the explosion, the effect on Megan and on critics? Their being repatriated, on the helicopter?

10. Megan, her relationship with Morales? Her return home, post traumatic stress disorder, her concern about Rex? Her wanting to adopt him? The officer and his warning about the dangers for injury of others in the streets? Her going to the supervisor, the testing and the file on Rex, her antagonism towards the supervisor?

11. At home, the mother welcoming, the gift, later the antagonism rising again? Leaving home, going to the father of the dead boy, his support? Her being urged on by him?

12. Her inability to do anything, not responding to Morales gift, going to the group, the discussions, her weeping?

13. Putting on a uniform, going to the politician, the appeal, on the street getting signatures? The television appearances? Phone calls about Rex, the final information, reunited with him?

14. The ceremony, the honouring of the dogs?

15. The final information about Rex, life with Megan, Megan and the development of her career in security, and training the dogs?

NATIONAL LAMPOON’S EUROPEAN VACATION

US, 1985, 95 minutes, Colour.
Chevy Chase, Beverly D' Angelo, Dana Hill, Jason Lively, John Astin, Paul Bartel, Eric Idle, Victor Lanoux, Maureen Lipman, Mel Smith, Robbie Coltrane.
Directed by Amy Heckerling.

This is the third in a series of National Lampoon Vacation films, made during the early part of the 1980s, Vacation, Christmas Vacation and now, European Vacation.

Chevy Chase and Beverly D’ Angelo appear as Clark and Ellen Griswald, opening the film by winning a competition, live television, the Griswalds actually being not too smart and when the wife calls out her husband’s name, Clark, it is the correct answer to the quiz!

The characters have been established, Clark being an enthusiast but also in control, urging his family to enjoy what he encourages, Ellen loving and submissive. The 15-year-old son, Rusty (Jason Lively) is a girl mad. Audrey (Dana Hill) has a boyfriend at home and does not want to leave.

There are four destinations with national jokes accordingly: the British are very friendly, even when they suffer in accidents (especially with several with Eric Idle as if he is doing a Monty Python routine). On the other hand, the accommodation in London is very cramped, some bathroom mixups (with Robbie Coltrane) and a lazy concierge played by Mel Smith. Also the jokes about driving on the left-hand side of the road and a fantasy in which the family meet the Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Diana). And, there is comedy about Clark not being able to get out of a roundabout in London and on a visit to Stonehenge backing into one of the rocks and the whole historic site collapsing.

The film was a bit severe on the French and their disdain of Americans and Americans using English. A waiter is completely insulting, according to the subtitles, while the family think that he is being genial. There is a funny joke on the top of the Eiffel Tower, with Maureen Lipman holding a poodle, Rusty objecting to the beret that Clark wants the family to wear, Clark relenting and tossing the beret over the parapet with the poodle immediately leaping out to u and catch the beret in midair and land in the pool beneath. The whizz tour of the Louvre also pokes fun at Americans’ attitude towards culture.

The go to visit Germans relatives, mistaking the number of the house, an elderly couple, assumed to be the relatives, actually welcoming them, cooking a meal, enjoying a meal, sleeping the night and both sides being none the wiser.

They also visit Rome but tend to be exhausted, although Rusty finds an agreeable American and has a flirtatious day, Audrey wants to return home to see her boyfriend. The crisis in Rome is that earlier in the film, Clark had filmed Ellen doing a provocative dance in the bathroom, had promised to erase it but did not and the camera was stolen from them in Paris. Here is Ellen in a provocative pose on a poster outside the Rome cinema… There is also a complication when some thieves want to use them as fall guys for getting rid of the bank guard being tied up, leading to crashes and smashes – and the reconciliation.

Amy Heckerling had made her mark as a director a few years earlier with Fast Times at Ridgemont High. She also invented the Look Who’s Talking films and directed Clueless. The screenplay was written by John Hughes’s reputation was at a peak in the 1980s with such films as The Breakfast Club, 16 candles…
A mixture of some clever funny moments and some lowbrow humour in the National Lampoon vein.

CURFEW BREAKERS/ NARCOTICS SQUAD

US, 1957, 79 minutes, Black and white.
Paul Kelly, Cathy Downs, Regis Toomey, Sheila Urban, Alexander J.Wells.
Directed by Alex Wells.

A standard police investigation film from the mid-1950s. The focus is on a squad dedicated to investigating drugs, especially amongst high school students.

21st century audiences might be surprised by the prevalence of drug use in high schools at the time, statistics given for increases from the mid-40s to the early 1950s, the drug of choice being heroin. There are the dealers and the pushers, those luring high school students to experiment and get them hooked. In more recent decades crystal meth and ice could be substituted for heroin.

The film is very earnest in its presentation, clearly a film designed to educate as well as to warn teenagers against drugs, presenting vivid scenes of enforced cold turkey, the risk of incurring the wrath of criminals, being murdered for betrayals to the police, two young people desperate for fixes because when the drugs are removed from general use, prices go higher and there is a need for money, the two involved in a garage hold up, killing, a car pursuit, a crash. The film also highlights how the young people will pawn as much as they can get hold of or steal.

Veteran Paul Kelly plays the detective in charge, serious and earnest. Cathy Downs is the guardian of a young man who becomes an addict and is murdered. Regis Toomey is on the staff of the school, eager to help in eradicating the drugs.

While the film works well within its limits, it is of interest historically as a dramatising of the drug issues in the United States in the 1950s.