LOLA

Director: Andrew Legge (Ireland, UK). Year of Release: 2022

We start with opening titles telling us that we are about to watch found footage filmed in 1941, but only recently discovered in the cellar of a country house in Sussex. The film is monochrome, grainy and in old-style 4:3 ratio. One of the first things which we hear is a woman’s voice saying: “Thom, I hope this film will find you and stop you.” But just when we think that it’s going to go all Blair Witch Project on us, LOLA starts to do something much more interesting.

It’s 1938, and sisters Thomasina (Thom) and Martha (Mars), have created a device which enables them to see radio and tv broadcasts from the future. Their first vision is of David Bowie playing Space Oddity. You’re going to carry on watching after that, aren’t you? Especially if the machine, which they name LOLA after their mother, can show you future horse races, on which they can bet and earn a little money to spend on wine, a sports car, and their own horse.

At first, I wasn’t sure whether their need for money was a bit of a misstep. Mars and Thom live in a huge mansion, and speak in cut glass accents, rhyming “papa” and “mama” with “hurrah”. Why would someone like that need money? Well, it turns out that both parents are dead, and the slightly older Thom has been bringing up Mars since they were very young. Besides which, Thom prefers her own company, and doesn’t relish the thought of spending too much time with People.

The Second World War is coming, so the sisters decide to put their invention to arguably more productive use, warning residents of working class London of imminent bomb attacks before they happen. They prefer to remain anonymous, showing a healthy disregard for authority, and soon become known in the media as the Angel of Portobello. But it’s not too long before an aspirational lieutenant tracks them down and forces them to show him how their machine works.

This is when something strange happens. They set the time and date for an early Bowie performance, but Bowie is no longer there. Maybe he became a dentist instead. Instead, they see a singer called Reginald Watson, who has all of early Bowie’s Anthony Newley-esque intonations, but there is something missing. Besides which, the contents of his songs like To The Gallows and The Sound of Marching Feet which show the sinister direction in which Bowie was once heading.

The lieutenant – Sebastian – incorporates them into the war effort. Mars, who is developing a crush on Sebastian, is fine with this, but Thom, who prefers working alone, is less excited. LOLA inspires the British army to spectacular successes, which helps them make gains in the war. Then they learn of a planned German attack in the Atlantic. They use this information to destroy the German navy, but deliberately allow a US American passenger ship to be destroyed.

There is a historical precedence for this. Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry without warning civilians, although he knew in advance that it was going to happen. Right wing historians will tell you that this manoeuvrer was necessary to win the war. There are those of us who believe that Churchill was a bastard who hated working class people of all nationalities and didn’t care if they died. Potato, potahto.

What this means in the film is that the US army stays out of the war and Germany conquers Britain. Hitler installs Oswald Mosley and an unnamed king (presumably the Nazi Edward VIII) in power. We hear a little more from Reginald Watson, whose anti-gay lyrics insist that anyone who “fraternises with perverts” should be dobbed into the police. Credit here to Neil Hannon, who may have provided songs for the apparently unwatchable Wonka, but here is spot on.

In a number of films set in the past, anachronisms pop up to show how little research or thought the writer has put in. Here, it is entirely deliberate that the sisters use terms like “cool” and “groovy”, much to the consternation of their bewildered correspondents. Their knowledge of what is to come also enables them to behave in a much more liberated fashion that was allowed to women of their generation.

LOLA also avoids most of the problems that I have with most science-fiction films. Shifting time zones to change the future can mean that everything is possible, which removes any dramatic tension. LOLA, though, sets clear rules within which it remains consistent. Thom and Mars cannot change the past or the future, but they can look at what should happen and alter the behaviour in accordance. This has the side-effect of changing the future, but they cannot control what happens.

In a sense, the film embodies Marx’s idea that people make history but not in conditions of their own choosing. Thom and Mars have agency, and use the information they learn from LOLA to act. And yet the consequences of the Butterfly Effect means that they have no idea of what the consequences of these actions will be. In this way, the characters are allowed to make decisions, without us having the feeling that everything is preordained.

But before we get too deep, can I also say that this is a very funny and quirky film? The other problem I have with most science fiction films is that they take themselves way too seriously. They seem to believe that they are telling us earth-shattering truths, when mainly they consist of some B movie actors running around dressed in Bacofoil. LOLA, by contrast, revels in its low budget. It is well written, structured and acted, but it did not blow the budget on irrelevant CGI.

And yet, LOLA does contain a large degree of depth. Initially, the two sisters are almost interchangeable, looking very similar. But as the film develops, differences emerge. Martha, the idealist, loves Bob Dylan because he he sings about “the freedom and heartbreak of a nation lost” and the “joy and pain of an authentic soul.” Thomasina, who is more committed to scientific research, is above such sentiment, but it also means that she is able to be co-opted by evil.

Whether you want to think deeply about society or to just watch a couple of funny gags, LOLA has something for you. It is not particularly profound, nor does it fully hold together, but it is fun. Also, at less than 80 minutes, it is finally a film which is not too long. We need more of this nowadays.