Movie review - "Wham!" (2023) ***1/2

 Fun look back at the famous band benefiting from terrific home movie footage and much  contemporary footage. Back up singers clearly important. Human League vibe. Hilarious dancing. Good looks and high spirits important with George michael's genius as the X factor. Doesn't mention legal hassles between the first two albums.  Llindsay Anderson directed the China footage.

Book review - "Hollywood England" by Alexander Walker

Invaluable account of the British film boom of the 1960s and subsequent bust, with a skilful appreciation of the talents involved and the artistic and corporate industry within which they worked. Occasionally it falls into the trap of whininess - all of Walker's British film industry books have this flaw, "why did they do it that way?" 

He also waffles at times and overlooks some key films from the era - there's nary a mention of horror or comedy, two massively popular genres from the period.

But there is some terrific stuff, such as the story behind the Bonds, early works of Schlesinger, Boorman, Richardson etc, the role of Nat Cohen, the finale involving Bryan Forbes, the regimes of United Artist and Universal, etc.

Movie review - "Brittania Hospital" (1982) ***

The third in the Lindsay Anderson-Malcolm McDowell "Mick Travis" trilogy isn't as good as if or O Lucky Man but has a similar zany spirit - I know the word "zany" is considered old fashioned these days but it's true. Maybe "anarchic" as well. 

This is very much of it's time - I don't think we'd buy a movie today about unions being able to bring a hospital to a crushing stop. It's England in decline, something they seem to constantly worry about - nothing works, hospitals, public transport, royal visits. There are digs against Africans which could be interpreted as racist (dictators, radicals, chickens in the hospital) but to be fair the movie mocks everyone with equal savagery - royals, establishment, union officials, etc. I really liked the Frankenstein subplot. 

But it's not hard to see why this wasn't a hit. That has been blamed on the Falklands factor but the fact there is no sympathetic or at least empathetic lead I think counted more.

Movie review - "O Lucky Man" (1973) ***

Lindsay Anderson is an odd figure among British film directors - he's well known, has inspired lots of critical writing, but didn't make many films and doesn't seem to enjoy a unanimously good reputation as a director. I guess he wrote lots about cinema and himself, and films like this gave critics plenty of write about.

This is an insane movie which is unlike any I've seen. It goes for three hours, is full of theatrical devices (actors doubling up, a Greek chorus), in jokes (Anderson appears as himself at the end and casts Malcolm McDowell in a movie "O Lucky Man"), stylistic devices (use of titles, black and white and silent sequences, a white actor "blacks up" to play an African), story shifts (one minute McDowell is a coffee salesman, then a prisoner, then a patient, then an assistant to a rich man), broad satire (judges being spanked, people turning into sheep), endless targets (big business, dictators, medicine, capitalism).

It's a big, sprawling, indulgent, ambitious mess. I can understand why people hated it but its ambition and novelty is endearing in an era of homogenised theatre. The jokes could have been better - heck, the whole script could have been better, and in no universe is the idea of Alan Price singing songs that spell out the subtext a good idea. But I took to the film - I went with it and enjoyed it. Wonderful support cast including Rachel Roberts, Helen Mirren (young and lovely), Ralph Richardson. Might have felt different if I'd plucked money down in the cinema, though.

Movie review - "if... " (1968) ****

Terrific film which combines documentary realism with 60s anarchy. People who want to send their kids to boarding school after seeing Harry Potter would do well to see this - of course I'm sure some things have changed but maybe not more than you think: petty tyrannies (of senior students as well as teachers), oppressive environment, freezing cold showers and beds, camaraderie, the stench and crappy items, lecherous staff members, obsession with sex, etc. Throw in the fantasies and surrealistic sequences and you've got something special.

Malcolm McDowell is excellent as an insolent student and the support cast are good too - although I'm confused that the girl is there for five seconds during the film then appears at the end. Wonderful anarchic climax though. An incredibly influential movie and deservedly so.

Movie review - "This Sporting Life" (1963) **1/2

Every actor should get a vehicle like Richard Harris got with this when they are young, strong and spunky - in it's way it's as great a launch pad as Tom Cruise had with Risky Business or Errol Flynn with Captain Blood: Harris gets to glower and swagger, thump around on the rugby league field, kiss and roger (and slap) women, suffer unrequited love, have people lust after him (even his male manager squeezes his leg), rail at the unfairness of life like the Hairy Ape, be nice to kids, have tormented relationships with everyone.

It's very 60s New Wave - black and white, Northern England setting, non-linear narrative, frank depiction of sex, working class heroes, etc. Lindsay Anderson directs with verve - it feels real and authentic, great atmosphere of the clubs, on the field, back grooms, dingy boarding houses. Harris is a charismatic star with his bulk and glowering presence.

But it goes for too long - it's over two hours - and is depressing and lacking in warmth. Harris is meant to love Rachel Roberts but he seems to rape her in one scene and slaps her in another and she's a miserable git too. There's an awful lot of Acting (yell! I want to love! yell!) which is easy to mock but it does have power. There's a strong line up of character actors (people like Colin Blakely) and it's probably the best movie ever made about rugby league.