It was while watching coverage of the 1990 Commonwealth Games that I realised: lawn bowls is not just one of the few sports that isn't unbearably tedious to sit down and watch, it's positively tense and exciting; minute for minute, probably more so than any other sport.
Am I disappointed, then, that we see so little lawn bowls footage in "Crackerjack", and we never get even an overview of a complete game? Not at all. Lawn bowls isn't really cinematic in that way; unlike a game of cricket or chess, a game of lawn bowls has little in the way of narrative structure. It's shot-by-shot skill, and that's what the camera in "Crackerjack" concentrates on. We aren't even told the rules of the game, apart from what we need to know to understand individual shots. What we see of the game is still nail-biting, and it's still enough to make me wonder why I taken up the game myself in the past thirteen years.
A decade ago I thought of Mick Molloy as the Ringo Starr of the D-Generation comics - or failing Molloy, I thought of Judith Lucy in that role. Yet here they both are in a comedy far more assured than either "The Castle" or "The Dish"; better in every respect, in fact: wittier, much funnier, better structured, in the end more heartwarming, and with more bite. The swipe at poker machines is motivated by real anger - as it should be, since you could probably crowd every single citizen of Australia, who honestly believes that poker machines are a good thing, into the one garage, yet for dubious economic reasons which surely can't REALLY persuade anyone the machines are allowed to invade anyway.
The basic premise of "Crackerjack" is all too common in reality. A lawn bowls club has stood solid for decades, is still in use, still benefits people, still has all the equipment and staff it needs, cannot in any obvious way be changed for the better and is of more value than what would replace it if it were to disappear. Yet someone comes along to tell its members that they can no longer "afford" to keep the club the way it is. Can anyone take this seriously? Nobody in THIS film, thank goodness.
Am I disappointed, then, that we see so little lawn bowls footage in "Crackerjack", and we never get even an overview of a complete game? Not at all. Lawn bowls isn't really cinematic in that way; unlike a game of cricket or chess, a game of lawn bowls has little in the way of narrative structure. It's shot-by-shot skill, and that's what the camera in "Crackerjack" concentrates on. We aren't even told the rules of the game, apart from what we need to know to understand individual shots. What we see of the game is still nail-biting, and it's still enough to make me wonder why I taken up the game myself in the past thirteen years.
A decade ago I thought of Mick Molloy as the Ringo Starr of the D-Generation comics - or failing Molloy, I thought of Judith Lucy in that role. Yet here they both are in a comedy far more assured than either "The Castle" or "The Dish"; better in every respect, in fact: wittier, much funnier, better structured, in the end more heartwarming, and with more bite. The swipe at poker machines is motivated by real anger - as it should be, since you could probably crowd every single citizen of Australia, who honestly believes that poker machines are a good thing, into the one garage, yet for dubious economic reasons which surely can't REALLY persuade anyone the machines are allowed to invade anyway.
The basic premise of "Crackerjack" is all too common in reality. A lawn bowls club has stood solid for decades, is still in use, still benefits people, still has all the equipment and staff it needs, cannot in any obvious way be changed for the better and is of more value than what would replace it if it were to disappear. Yet someone comes along to tell its members that they can no longer "afford" to keep the club the way it is. Can anyone take this seriously? Nobody in THIS film, thank goodness.