HERITAGE OF THE DESERT

US, 1939, 73 minutes, Black-and-white.
Donald Woods, Evelyn Venable, Russell Hayden, Robert Barrett, Sidney Toler, C.Henry Gordon, Willard Robertson, Paul Guilfoyle, Paul Fix.
Directed by Lesley Selander.

This is a Zane Gray story, the prolific writer of westerns in the 1930s, many of which were filmed. In fact this story was filmed in 1932 under the same title, an initial star vehicle for Randolph Scott.

The settings are familiar but interesting nonetheless. Donald Woods, perhaps a bit too charming as a city slicker and less convincing as a hero of the West, leaves Chicago after studying geology to investigate the family company which is now bankrupt. There is an attempt on his life on the way.

The villain of the piece, played by C.Henry Gordon, has been controlling the company and making demands on the cattle ranchers roundabout, not hesitating in killing the sons of a prominent leader, played by Robert Barrett. The hero survives the attempt on his life, is looked after by the ranchers, falls in love with the daughter, Evelyn Venable, who is the object of desire of one of the farmhands who is in league with the villain.

The film is particularly interesting to see Sidney Toler in a western rule, the shrewd bold ranch hand, quite prominent in this story on the ranch, training the hero to shoot, intervening in the action. This film was made at the time that he was beginning his long series as Charlie Chan.

There is the inevitable buildup to a confrontation, the hero meeting the villain who had made the attempt on his life and shooting him, the heroine persuaded by Sidney Toler to elope at the time of her wedding, her being captured by the villain and taken to his hideout, leading to a pursuit by the hero and Toler and then by the whole wedding party.

A variation on the stories of the range wars.

THE EQUALIZER 2


US, 2018, 121 minutes, Colour.
Denzel Washington, Pedro Pascal, Ashton Sanders, Orson Bean, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua.

Clearly The Equaliser was popular with audiences and at the box office. Hence, The Equaliser 2.

In the old days, it was Charles Bronson who was the avenging vigilante, loner righter of wrongs. In more recent times it is Liam Neeson or Denzel Washington. Not that Denzel Washington as Robert Mc Coll was a loner in the past. He worked with a team of agents, government-backed, official assassins. But, with the death of his wife, his being consumed with grief, he has gone out on his own when he sees a wrong to be righted.

This is made very clear in the opening sequence, Mc Coll travelling by train through Turkey (actually very attractive) and confronting the abductor of a child – and, anonymously restoring the child to its mother back in New York. She works in a bookshop which Mc Coll visits, buying the next volume of Proust which is working through. (Charles Bronson probably did not read Proust.)

Mc Coll now seems to be something of an Uber-driver, deeply contemplating the range of passengers with their problems, their issues, their needs – giving the audience time to watch these passengers with Mc Coll and be empathetic like him. He lives alone, has an old Jewish friend (Orson Bean) who has been searching for his long-lost sister from the Holocaust, is friendly with a Muslim gardener at his apartment block, tries to help his young African-American? neighbour (Ashton Sanders), to move him from drug-criminal friends, improve his self-esteem, foster his talent as an artist.

So, what is the violent plot element in this film? Suddenly we are in Brussels, a man arriving home to find intruders in his house, his wife at the dinner table, their both being executed. Mc Coll has a friend, Suzanne (Melissa Leo) who is sent to investigate. The criminals confront her – and, Mc Coll naturally becomes involved.

Actually, the plot is a bit complicated. Mc Coll goes back to the agency, especially his former partner, Dave (Pedro Pascal), a family man, who has thought Mc Coll dead for seven years. There are also other connections from the agency.

Then, the young artist, successful, is visiting Mc Coll’s room and he is trapped by the killers and taken as hostage. Fortunately, Mc Coll has surveillance cameras in all his rooms in his apartment and can see what is going on. The killers then realise that Mc Coll will go to the coast, to his wife’s house. They make for it – but, a hurricane is blowing in from the Atlantic, and the violent climax takes place in wind, rain and storms.

No spoiler to know that all will be well in the end – but all is well in the end for some of the minor characters as well, giving a niceness in our feelings after the brutality that we have witnessed. It is an ugly world – but everything need not be ugly.

1. The popularity of the television series? The original film with Denzel Washington? Action, vigilante, loner, righter of wrongs, moral stances?

2. Following on the original, the role of Denzel Washington, screen personality? Mc Coll, his past? In the train in Turkey, his Muslim disguise, the discussions in the dining car, the issue of the abducted child, the confrontation? Returning the child to Boston, anonymously, his visit to the shop, the child’s mother? His buying the copy of Proust and reading it?

3. The Boston atmosphere? The city lived in? The streets, apartments, neighbourhoods? The countryside? The coast and the storm? The contrast with Brussels? The musical score?

4. Mc Coll as a driver, the range of passengers and their problems, his empathy with them and his observations? Inviting the audience to observe and have the same kind of interest and empathy? His home, the apartment block, his apartment and the security setups? Fatima in the garden, the graffiti on the wall, racism against her? His interest in Sam, listening to his story, his missing sister? His encounters with Miles, living in the apartment block, the painting, eliminating the graffiti, Mc Coll helping him with his art, the criminals, rescuing him, setting him up for his work?

5. The scenes in Brussels, the man arriving home, his wife at the table, the thugs, the executions? Suzanne, going to investigate, the confrontation, the death?

6. The character of Suzanne, friendship with Mc Coll, meeting and talking, memories of the past? The husband, his writing, the book launch? Brian, the news of Suzanne’s death, his grief, Mc Coll preserving him from further attack?

7. Dave, partnering Mc Coll, thinking he was dead for seven years? His work, family, his being sacked, investigation, his betrayal, his team, threats? Going to the apartment, taking Miles as hostage, in the boot of the car? Going to the coast, shooting the security guard warning against the storm?

8. Miles, his character, family, artwork, the graffiti, his design on the wall? The criminals? Mc Coll supporting him? In the apartment, the cameras, hiding, in the boot of the car, the house, the bakery? Dave and his thugs, climbing the tower? Mc Coll and his using his wits, killing the opponents, using the flour and the fan? The final confrontation with Dave?

9. Dave, his group, their motivations, the town, sniper, Mc Coll evading him, the fight, his sport and death? Miles and the shooting? The rescue? The atmospheric hurricane?

10. The happy ending, Miles and his art and Fatima and the picture on the wall, Fatima in peace, Sam and the officials reuniting him with his sister?

KNOCK/ DR KNOCK

France, 2017, 114 minutes, Colour.
Omar Sy, Alex Lutz, Ana Girardot, Sabine Azema, Andrea Ferreol, Pascal Elbe, Helene Vincent, Rufus.
Directed by Lorraine Levy.

While this is a very watchable film, there is a certain uneasiness underlying the response. It concerns the conman, the nature of frauds, the effect on victims of the cons. One of the descriptions to use the central character in the original novel on which this film is based is that of “charlatan�, which is a bit more derogatory than “conman�.

The film is very, as the French might say “geniale�, and so is Knock, the conman. But there is the underlying question, when is a conman a rogue and when is he a helpful row.

The original novel was to written in the 1920s, adapted for theatre, filmed as something of a classic in 1951. The setting in this version is the 1950s, with reference to memories of World War II.

Knock is played by Omar Sy, who made such an impression in The Intouchables as well as Samba and Two is a Family (also appearing in Jurassic World and an X-Men? film). Sy can’t help but be charming – although at first he is seen being pursued by criminals to whom he owes money and being bashed. He gets away from them, taking a job on a boat to India, standing in, with the Captain’s consent, as a doctor. He has some success with patients and learns a lot, returning to Marseille in order to study medicine.

The bulk of the film takes place five years later in a very attractive Alpine village (beautifully filmed in widescreen format). He is still the conman, even though qualified, and his goal is to make money even as he helps people. And, help people he does, contrasting with the previous doctor who gave them herb teas. He gets in pleasant cahoots with the pharmacist who is not against making money either, nor his wife who becomes infatuated with Knock. At first he offers free consultations – with long lines coming. He is able to talk easily with people, the alcoholic postman, the rather harridan manager of a farm, a rich old lady, all the locals, in fact, so that business thrives.

However, he has a flair for understanding human nature and being able to persuade the patients to help themselves. So far, so good.

The young parish priest, Alex Lutz, takes in immediate dislike to Knock. He undermines him, contradicts him, accuses him of being a liar, is on the alert to catch him out at any cost, utilising gossip and some information from the confessional to denounce him, the exact opposite of the classic “Diary of a Country Priest� by Georges Bernanos, which was screening in France in those years. This makes the film anti-clerical, (anti-clericalism having a strong French tradition), the character giving just grounds for anti-clerical responses.

There is a dramatic crisis as Knock helps a serving girl with tuberculosis, the priest capitalising on a ceremony in the church for a final confrontation with Knock, but the congregation, the townspeople turning against the priest and supporting Knock.

Entertaining, a number of the characters in the town being rather stereotyped, a more sentimental interpretation of the conman – that is the nature of the conman’s charm.

1. The status of this film, the novel as a classic, stage adaptation, the 1951 film?

2. The 1950s, Marseilles, ships to India, the Alps, the villages, St Maurice? The town, the atmosphere, shops, hotels, the church? The countryside and its atmosphere? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on Knock? Omar Sy and his screen presence? Charm?

4. The issue of the conman, the rogue, the charlatan, with his charm? The impact on victims?

5. The opening, Knock and the pursuit, his owing money, his being bashed? Going to the ship, interview with the Captain, signing on as the doctor?

6. Typhus, the sick man, Knock using his wits? The man healing? The woman and her sunburn, creating the lotions? The effect? His popularity?

7. Five years passing, his studies for medicine in Marseilles? His taking of the country doctor position, his aims, making money, compensating for his past? Formal dress, his manner, the right of the station, the local doctor and his wife, the race issue barely mentioned?

8. The town, the pharmacist, the doctor and his prescribing herb teas, the issue of money, the pharmacist wanting to make money, his wife supporting him? Knock and his plans, the discussions? Befriending the postman, helping him with his alcoholism?

9. The free consultations, the postman announcing them, the crowds lining up, Knock and his manner, listening, the range of illnesses, real and imagined, his fees and the different rates because of incomes? The word of mouth, his medical help, his personal counselling and help?

10. Madame Remy, her experiences of the war, anti-German? His apartment, her help, the building of the clinic, the joy the building of the clinic – and the visit of the former doctor and his amazement?

11. The clients, the woman from the farm and her domination, her worries, his treatment, visiting her, the effect, her work, coping with illness? The rich lady, her interest, Knock and his helping her, her endorsement?

12. Going to the school, talking to the children, the reaction of the teacher, the townspeople coming to listen to him, the applause?

13. The mayor, his support, his assistant with his stammer?

14. Adele, nice, her being bullied on the farm, the cough, tuberculosis, Knock and his wanting to save her, in love with her, the lyrical scene on the mountains? His revealing the hardships of his past? Getting her to the sanatorium? The kiss as she left? His visiting her in the sanatorium?

15. The character of the priest, his age, his being anti-Knock, in the bar, talking with people, the constant critique, his jealousy, the denunciations, hearing the confession, taking the information out of the confessional, the confrontation with the mayor, the mayor rejecting him? His behaviour at the funeral, the denunciation of Knock?

16. The women in the town, attracted to Knock, the pharmacist’s wife and her seduction scene, the mayor dismissing this because of his own experience?

17. Adele, charming, in the sanatorium, Knock’s visit, the news of her death?

18. The funeral, the priest bitter, the reaction of the congregation, denouncing the priest, Knock and his packing up, intending to leave, the townspeople stopping him? A happy future?

THE BLACK CAMEL

US, 1931, 71 minutes, Black-and-white.
Warner Oland, Sally Eilers, Bela Lugosi, Dorothy Revier, Robert Young, Otto Yamaoka.
Directed by Hamilton Mac Fadden.

This is a second Charlie Chan film starring Warner Oland. The first film, Charlie Chan Carries on, is lost except for a Spanish-language version, with Hispanic cast, but using the original screenplay, which was filmed at the same time.

This film offers an interesting opportunity to see Warner Oland working with Bela Lugosi (Lugosi always seeming sinister with his accent but, while he plays someone who can foretell the future, is not a sinister character actor here, the film being made at the same time as his archetypal Dracula).

A Hollywood actress is filming in Honolulu but creates tantrums on set, clashes with her maid, becomes infatuated with a businessman, disrupting the filmmaking. She is killed. Which brings Charlie Chan into the action in his home area of Honolulu, a glimpse of one of his sons but not old enough to become Keye Luke, so active in later films – this time, an obsessive police assistant who behaves in exactly the same way, pursuing clues, coming up with suggestions…

There are plenty of suspects. However, the film also focuses on the assistant to the actress and her boyfriend, played by a very young and agreeable Robert Young. There is a complex story behind the murder, the actress having stolen the husband of another woman, then her abandoning him to marry the businessman. Her previous husband had been murdered and she has been present – which is why she wants to get advice from the man who could see the future.

It turns out that he grew up in Australia, is a brother of the husband, gets a confession from the actress about what happened – and her maid then turns out to be the initial jilted wife who does the murder.

And so, Charlie Chan is underway for the entertaining series of films throughout the 30s.

DEEP BLUE SEA 2


US/South Africa, 2018, 89 minutes, Colour.
Danielle Savre, Rob Mayes, Michael Beach, Nathan Lynn, Kim Syster, Jeremy Boado, Adrian Collins, Darron Meyer.
Directed by Darin Scott.

Deep Blue Sea was a popular action thriller of 1999. It is surprising to find a sequel coming 18 years later. And, it resembles the original very much in the outline of the plot, more of a remake. And, regrettably, it is a film that cannot be widely recommended. It is a brief action adventure, derivative of the original film, not particularly well acted, a time-passer for those who enjoy sharks menacing humans.

The film was made in South Africa, opening with two rather disreputable Afrikaners hunting sharks and cutting off the fins – only for them to be attacked by the sharks and killed. The sharks are being controlled by an implant and remote control.

As with the first film, there is a group experimenting, this time with the millionaire investing in a group of bull-sharks, the most deadly, and working out algorithms to work on the implants and control them, his desire to make them “more human� in their instincts and behaviour. He is played in a manic style by Michael Beach. Because he is wealthy, he has a special centre off coast with a great range of scientists and IT experts working with him.

At the centre of the film is a shark expert, Misty (Danielle Savre) seen giving a lecture, then urged to come to the off-shore centre, offered money to support her research but the mission not explained. She is accompanied by a very young husband and wife who have also been recruited.

The bulk of the film is looking at the sharks in action, the way they are controlled, the madness of the millionaire and his rantings and ravings, the reactions of the staff, and Trent (Rob Mayes) the heroic type who will be required to do the heroics along with the computer nerd, Aaron (Nathan Lynn). No survival for the nice young newly-weds.

Not only is the main shark turned hypo by the treatment but it seems she is pregnant and gives birth to quite a number of smaller menacing sharks who behave in piranha-like fashion.

The millionaire loses control. Power is shut down on the complex. Various members of the staff are killed along the way as there is an attempted escape, some heroism, especially on the part of Trent, and some heroic quick thinking and action on the part of Misty. And the millionaire is, of course, dramatically killed and devoured.

The film was made for television, in fact, and is intended as a pastime for less demanding viewers (not necessarily for fans of the original).

THE MYSTERIOUS MR MOTO

US, 1938, 63 minutes, Black-and-white.
Peter Lorre, Mary Maguire, Henry Wilcoxon, Eric Rhodes, Harold Huber, Leon Ames, Karen Sorrell/Lotus Long, John Rogers, Forrester Harvey.
Directed by Norman Foster.

This is quite an interesting Mr Moto story. It begins, quite improbably, on Devil’s Island with a criminal going through the jungle escaping along with Mr Moto. They escape a lot of the guards, find a captain who takes them to Lisbon and then they arrive in London.

The atmosphere in London is one of espionage as well as an association for assassination for significant figures – the atmosphere is a bit like some of Hitchcock’s films like Sabotage or The Man who Knew Too Much which starred Peter Lorre in 1934.

Mr Moto had been undercover, Interpol police agent, to infiltrate the association through the escaped convict (who is played by Leon Ames early in his career). Mr Moto reports the plan to Scotland Yard but serves as a servant to the escaped criminal meeting various members of the group who come to the house. The target in this story is a Czech inventor, a pacifist, but who has a formula for explosives which international powers want. There is a British character, a rough talking enthusiast who is part of the gang as well as a friend of the industrialist who turns out to be the arch-villain. Henry Wilcoxon is the inventor and Mary Maguire his loyal secretary in love with him.

Mr Moto also has a contact in Limehouse, a young woman, who gets information from the various criminals who frequent the pub.

The climax is at an art gallery, the intended victim to stand under a chandelier which would be loosened – but Mr Moto aware of the plot, arranges for the arch-villain to stand under the chandelier instead.

1. The popularity of the Mr Moto films? Peter Lorre incarnating him? Japanese, International agent, international police?

2. Small budget, supporting feature, Latin American settings, the transition to London, homes, art galleries, pubs, Scotland Yard? The musical score?

3. The opening, the escape through the jungle, the mystery? Surviving, the captain, the ship? Arriving in London? Mr Moto as the servant? His manner, subservient, small, manner of speaking?

4. The association for assassinations, the role of the escapee, the visit of the other members to the house, the international contacts? The plan to kill the industrialist? The phone calls, the threats, pushing the friend under the truck, the warning?

5. Mr Moto, visiting Scotland Yard and the discussions, wanting to move slowly and infiltrate? His going to Limehouse, the meeting with his friend, the information from her? His going to visit the industrialist? His being welcomed? His returning to the house, the plan to get him killed, to buy the fruit, the attack, his getting in the taxi and fleeing, the pursuit?

6. The industrialist, pacifist, his invention, from Czechoslovakia? The target for the assassins? His nonchalant attitude? His secretary and her devotion to him? The visit of his friend, the foppish touch, the discussions about art with Mr Moto? The friend trying to verify Mr Moto and going to Limehouse, reporting back? Saying that he had been to Scotland Yard and there were men protective for the industrialist going to the art gallery?

7. Mr Moto, shrewdness, his ability in fighting, evading pursuers? Disguises? In the art gallery, posing as the critical German? Overhearing the plans? His setting up the friend, the discussions about art, standing under the chandelier, knowing the signals, the music playing, the chandelier falling on the archvillain?

8. Mr Moto, going upstairs, the confrontation with the escapee, the fight, holding him?

9. An action adventure with the touch of espionage?

MR MOTO TAKES A CHANCE


US, 1938, 63 minutes, Black and white.
Peter Lorre, Rochelle Hudson, Robert Kent, J.Edward Bromberg, Chick Chandler, George Regas.
Directed by Norman Foster.

This is one of the least effective of Mr Moto films starring Peter Lorre as the famous Japanese agent, created in the novels by the J. P. Marquand. From 1937 to the early 1940s, Peter Lorre appeared in the number of small budget films in 20th Century Fox supporting features.

This one is set in French Indochina, in contemporary Cambodia, with a glimpse from the plane of Angkor Wat. The film has something of a colonialist attitude towards the native peoples but also towards the local rulers who are obligated to the French.

Mr Moto is on a digging site looking for a stash of weapons to be used by rebels, led by the sinister local high priest and his associates. At various times Mr Moto has to assume disguises, especially of an older venerable religious figure. The Americans, cavalier and rather ignorant of the people in the country, are taking documentary film material. There is also a pilot, in the age of Amelia Earheart and other women pilots, flying to Cambodia and deliberately crash landing. She is taken in by the local ruler who is attracted to her – and is later revealed as an agent to join with Mr Moto in exposing the rebels.

J. Edward Bromberg is the local chief, seemingly rather effete, but aware of the plots against him, attracted to the pilot, but ultimately hostile to Mr Moto and the agents.

Far-fetched, to say the least, and much less interesting than so many of the other Mr Moto films.

ROD TAYLOR: PULLING NO PUNCHES


Australia, 2016, 80 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Robert de Young.

Rod Taylor was a strong screen presence by the end of the 1950s. He had a prolific career during the 1960s in Hollywood, two high profile films a year as well as a television series, Hong Kong, and other television appearances. He was still significant in the 1970s but in the late 70s and into the 1980s he appeared in fairly routine action adventures. In 1997, returned home to Australia, he appeared in Stephan Elliot’s Welcome to Woop Woop as an eccentric character, Daddy-Oh?, and was asked by Quentin Tarantino who admired him to appear as Winston Churchill in Inglourious Basterds.

The film opens in a rather peculiar manner, giving a great deal of attention to a light romantic comedy of the early 1960s, Sunday in New York, with Taylor appearing with Jane Fonda. His biographer and other commentators praise him for his ability for light, comedy, indicating two of his films with Doris day.

Eventually, the narrative goes back to Taylor’s Australian life, his work, his studies as an artist, his interest in radio work and extensive appearances. It moves into his film career, some documentary material, appearing with Chips Rafferty in King of the Coral Sea, with Robert Newton in Long John Silver and then the invitation for him to go to the United States. Quite quickly he appeared in A Catered Affair with Bette Davis, Ernest Borgnine and Debbie Reynolds and then with Elizabeth Taylor in Raintree County.

The film gives brief but quite substantial comment on so many of Taylor’s films, especially in the 1960s, and quite a number of clips. A lot is made of his appearance in The Time Machine and its impact.

There are interviews, talking heads, with Australian critic Bill Collins who admires him, with writer Peter Yeldham and who wrote The Liquidator (quite some discussion and clips), a generous commentary by Maggie Smith who appeared within in the VIPs as well as Young Cassidy (and the contact with director and photographer Jack Cardiff and John Ford). Angela Lansbury also does a generous tribute to Taylor, especially commenting on his voice-over for the hero dog in 101 Dalmatians – a film which Taylor himself deprecates.

At the core of the film is an extensive interview with Taylor in his old age, a genial interview, putting himself down a lot while mentioning that all actors have a lot of ego. It traces his life, his career, his commentary on the various films and television programs, putting them in the perspective of his life, his admiration for such films as Dark of the Sun.

Seeing him as an Australian actor in Hollywood but keeping a very strong Australian tone there are interviews with Jack Thompson, director Baz Luhrman and Bryan Brown. Tippi Hedren and Veronica Cartwright make comment about the making of The Birds – with Taylor himself telling amusing stories about interactions with Alfred Hitchcock. Moving to more recent times there are interviews with directors Stephan Elliot and Susie Porter in connection with Welcome to Woop Woop.

Not every film is treated, especially after the mid-1970s but it is disappointing not have some comment on the very Australian film The Picture Show Man about the early pioneers of screenings around Australia and only a glimpse of his interpretation of John Cleary’s Detective, scoping Malone, in Nobody Runs Forever.

The film is useful as an overview of Hollywood from the 50s to the 80s. Rod Taylor makes enjoyable company. And, as a culmination, there is Tarantino’s acclaim of him on the set of Inglourious Basterds.

THE BREAKER UPPERERS



New Zealand, 2018, 82 minutes, Colour.
Madeleine Sami, Jackie van Beek, James Rolleston, Celia Pacquola, Ana Scotney, Jemaine Clement.
Directed by Madeleine Sami, Jackie van Beek.

If you were ever wondering what the New Zealand sense of humour is like, try this comedy.

One of the producers of this film is tech I what Tiki, made an impact with his television program, The Flying Concordes (and one of the co-stars, Jermaine Clement has a cameo in this film). What Tiki made the excellent film, Boy (with James Rolleston, one of the stars of this film), What they do in the Darkness, the very popular Hunt for the World of people and directed and performed, tongue in cheek, with Thought Iran-Iraq?.

In comparison with those films, this is rather slight, running for 82 minutes, set in suburban Auckland. Many of the hilarious bits where edited into the trailer for the film which means that the whole film is not quite as hilarious as suggested but, rather, amusing.

The opening collage it is quite funny, two middle-aged women, Mel and Jen, friends for years (although tangling because of love for the same man, part of the plot running throughout the film), who have set up a business. Their role is to break up marriages and relationships. They have a variety of scenarios, a variety of disguises, very eccentric situations and the audience immediately gets a feel for the characters and their business.

However, there is much more than they breaker up a work. Do they have any prospects themselves for relationships? How does Jen get on with her would-be aristocratic and raucous mother? What about Mel’s soft spot and touches of compassion for people while Jen is rather more hard-hearted?

One of the main episodes concerns Anna, Australian comedian Celia Bacall, who is absolutely distraught, and for a long time, about the breakup of her marriage. The to keep running into her so there are a variety of episodes, especially when she accompanies them to the police station and discovers that when they came to her house they were posing as police rather than the real thing. Celia Pacquolai does comedy and unhappiness very well.

Then there is the young football player, not the brightest member of the team, who wants to break up with his girlfriend who is tough, very tough, working as a teller in the bank. He agrees to the payment, Jen and Mel coming with plan scenario which Jordan absolutely sabotage is leading to all kinds of complications, especially in a relationship between himself and Mel.

So, this is how it goes. We get to know Mel and Jen, sometimes liking them, sometimes disliking them. We can feel sorry for Anna. We can shake our heads in dismay at how dumb and fickle Jordan can be. And Jen attempt to reconciliation with her ex from 15 years earlier but discovers he has a changed man and has grown up.

They do is discover some compassion which means, of course, that they will direct their skills not just of breaking up but in putting couples together.

A visit to Auckland with some humour.

1. The title? The tone? Themes?

2. The New Zealand film, New Zealand humour, visual, verbal, situations? Irony? Spoof?

3. The Auckland settings, the city and suburbs, homes, sports fields, clubs, restaurants? Audiences identifying with the atmosphere of Auckland? The musical score?

4. Cowriting, directing, stirring, the effect?

5. The initial collage of the breaking up sequences, the individual jokes, the humour?

6. Jen and Mel, their age, middle-aged, the past, love for the same man, falling out, that background? Jen, the visits to her mother, her mother’s behaviour, the meals, cocaine, exuberant? Her father? Mel, the Indian background, the bond between the two, their plans, the variety of creative scenarios for breaking up? Seeing them in action?

7. Jordan, his age, footballer, slow-witted, his girlfriend, meeting the two, wanting to break up? His taking over the scenario, not going according to plan, the girlfriend defying Mel, Jordan thinking of her being pregnant and following through? The chase after Jen’s intervention? His attraction to Mel, the difference in age, the relationship, her pregnancy? The effect on Mel?

8. The old boyfriend, coming back into focus, 15 years passing, his marriage, family, love, his meeting with Mel, her declarations, his rejection? The sadness?

9. Mel and Jen clashing, not talking to each other?

10. Mel and her pregnancy, going to the club, Jordan and the contract for the Gold Coast? Jen and a visit to Ana at the bank? Her entourage, invading the club, the performance, Jen as part of everything? Jordan and his fascination with Ana?

11. Anna’s story, the relationship with Brendan, the breakup, her grief, the later visits, her thinking that Mel and Jen were police, at the police station, discovering the truth, the two women and their taking over the police station? Mel and her visits and Anna’s rejection of her?

12. The experience of breaking up partners, and the decision to bring people together?

WHITNEY


UK/US, 2018, 120 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kevin Macdonald.

Most audiences will realise that Whitney is singer, Whitney Houston.

Interesting to note and for audiences to see, there have been two feature-links documentaries on Whitney Huston within the last two years, both directed by British documentary filmmakers, Nick Broomfield, Whitney: Can I Be Me, and now from Kevin MacDonald?, Whitney.

Both films are powerful in their way, offering a portrait of the singer, considerable amount of background of her growing up in New Jersey, her singer mother, her father who left but acted as her manager, stealing from her and then suing her for millions. And there are interviews with her two brothers, their wives and other relations. There are visual images of her close friend, Robin, but no interview. As might be expected, there are some interviews with Bobby Brown, her husband, but he is very restrained and limited in what he will say (more from him in the Broomfield film). Significant in Whitney Huston’s life was her mother, her career as a singer, her mother investing energy into her daughter’s career and her daughter then moving against her.

Audiences may well be delighted with the amount of performance of songs by Whitney Huston throughout this film, quickly establishing the power of her voice, in church choirs, singing publicly, on television, her rapid rise with her topping the charts so often, her tours in the US and beyond (and a reminder that she was the first American singer to tour post-apartheid South Africa and meeting Nelson Mandela).

There is commentary on her breakthrough performance in the film, The Bodyguard, her comments, scenes photographed on sets, comment from Kevin Costner, her co-star. While the film and its song, I Will Always Love You, moved her to the realm of star power, almost immediately, there were tensions in her marriage, Bobby Brown not having the success of his wife, a succession of infidelities, press interviews and probings.

This film does not necessarily explain Whitney Huston’s use of and reliance on drugs and her moving to addiction. It offers the information, the facts becoming public, harsh reactions, her attempts at rehabilitation, even filming another movie, Sparkle, in 2011-12. However, she was just a shadow of herself in these years, disappearing, then going on tours and people walking out of concerts demanding their money back.

The film gives some background to her relationships, with agents, managers, PR personnel who speak favourably of her but with great regrets about what happened to her. Particularly tragic is the story of her daughter, whom she took on stage with her when she was little, but then neglected, the daughter becoming addicted and dying at the age of 22.

As with so many stories of talented people, this is a story of sadness despite achievement, a powerful life with decline and regrets.