DVD Review - The Halfway House (1944)

The Halfway House, 1944.

Directed by Basil Dearden.
Starring Mervyn Johns, Glynis Johns and Sally Ann Howes.


SYNOPSIS:

A group of strangers take shelter at a remote Welsh Inn during a storm where they are soon brought together by a series of unsettling events.


If you are yet to enter the competition here at Flickering Myth to win a copy of Ealing Studios' production The Halfway House on Digital Versatile Disc, I do suggest that you hurry up and get a move on. This is a film worth seeing for three very good reasons. Pay attention ladies and gentlemen and I shall outline them for you.

Firstly The Halfway House is a fragment of history, a slice of our country’s past, and an especially engaging and vivid one too. For those of you enjoying the developments in three dimensional cinematic viewing or perhaps partial to the high definition of your colour television sets, it might be rather off putting that this is a film presented in mere black and white. I readily admit that I am not an avid viewer of black and white pictures myself.

I can assure you though that the lack of variation in colour is more than made up for by numerous other qualities. In fact, I’d go as far as saying that it added to the charm of the film. In any case, this is top notch black and white, because The Halfway House has been digitally restored to a wonderful standard, so that it is, to all intents and purposes, as good as a modern day release.

This film was originally released in 1944 and judging by references to the date during the plot, filmed in 1943. It is therefore significantly influenced by the context of the ongoing Second World War in Europe. A number of the characters have lost friends, colleagues and relatives during the conflict. Others are affected in other ways.

The Halfway House is somewhat inaccurately and crudely labelled as a horror but in reality it is an interesting infusion of ghost story, fable and propaganda. The propaganda element is particularly fascinating and marks the film out as a genuine historical artefact. It is not overdone to affect the level of satisfaction for a modern audience, but certainly during the conclusion an Irishman’s change of allegiance from neutrality to supporting the Allies is noticeably underlined.

The second principal reason you should see The Halfway House is the impressive and rounded characterisation, forming part of a touching and timeless narrative. Whilst the historical background to the plot is crucial to setting it apart from modern releases, the quality and nature of the storytelling is also no longer replicated by studios today.

The first half of the film introduces a wide range of characters across Britain (showcasing unusual scope and variety of outdoor locations for Ealing Studios), each with their own problems, from terminal illness to divorce and criminality. The second half then brings all of these characters together at The Halfway House, a Welsh inn that may or may not have been destroyed by fire. The kindly and wise owners of the inn, who speak almost poetically at points, help the guests to help each other. Gradually they all gain perspective on their issues and worries by taking time out from the everyday grind. Such an intricately woven moral is still just as relevant today.

The Halfway House is superbly acted, even by modern day standards. It has a marvellous script that seems to transfer something from the original play by Denis Ogden. Primarily that something is dialogue which allows characters to breathe and grow convincingly, as they would on stage. Somehow The Halfway House is full of excellently fleshed out characters, despite the ensemble cast.

The third key reason for seeing The Halfway House is that it is tremendously amusing. Part of that humour arises inadvertently from the old fashioned and outdated formal register of the dialogue, which I have tried unsuccessfully to mirror regularly throughout this review. In certain situations the tone and accent of 1940s British speech, along with that persistent formality, is unavoidably hilarious.

However most of the comedic moments are intentional, with a mixture of fabulous and average one liners on show, alongside character humour enabled by their believability. One moment in the opening segment, in which we meet a dodgy dealing crook, is amusing due to role reversal; our criminal dismisses an employee for NOT having a criminal record and lying about it. This is also an example of one of many moments where the war has turned things upside down.

As if those three major reasons alone weren’t enough to at least have a go at the competition, there are also too many minor points of interest to mention. Director Basil Dearden has been underrated for years, only to be steadily recognised more and more recently as a groundbreaking filmmaker, with films like Victim starring Dirk Bogarde challenging taboos long before that was easy to get away with and just an arty saying. His direction here is simple for the most part, with the exception of one smartly edited action sequence which could fit into a modern film, but effective and professional. It’s remarkable enough they were making films as entertaining as this with the war raging on.

Good luck in the competition! But basically make sure you see The Halfway House when it’s released on the 20th of June. It’s an unseen and unappreciated classic of British cinema.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)

Movie Review Archive

Short Film Showcase - Cashback (2004)

Cashback, 2004.

Written and Directed by Sean Ellis.
Starring Sean Biggerstaff, Emilia Fox, Stuary Goodwin, Michael Dixon and Michael Lambourne.

Cashback centres on an aspiring art student, Ben (Sean Biggerstaff), who spends his nights working the graveyard shift at his local 24 hour supermarket. While his co-workers all have their own methods of wasting time as the clock ticks down on their shift, Ben has his own unique technique for fending off boredom by imagining that time stands still, giving him the freedom to explore his creative side.

Although Cashback received some criticism towards its excessive nudity, the short went on to win 14 awards including Best Narrative Short at the 2005 Tribeca Film Festival, while it was also nominated for the Academy Award for Live Action Short Film in March 2006, losing out to Martin McDonagh's Six Shooter. Cashback also went on to inspire the full-length feature of the same name, which premiered at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival before receiving theatrical runs in the UK and North America.


Click here to view more short films and public domain features.

DVD Giveaway - The Halfway House

June 20th sees the release of the Ealing Studios ghost story The Halfway House on DVD, and to celebrate Flickering Myth have three copies to give away to our readers courtesy of Optimum Releasing.

Read on for the full synopsis and details of how to enter...

"The Halfway House is an enjoyable mystery tale of a group of strangers driven to take shelter at a remote Welsh Inn during a storm. Each has a personal problem to hide, but they are soon brought together by unsettling events perhaps precipitated by their hosts, the enigmatic innkeepers. Starring Mervyn Johns and real-life daughter Glynis, The Halfway House was written by Anghus McPhail (Whisky Galore!, It Always Rains on Sunday), Diana Morgan (Went the Day Well?, Pink String and Sealing Wax) and T.E.B. Clarke (Passport to Pimlico, The Titfield Thunderbolt) from the stage play by Denis Ogden."

To be in with a chance of winning all you need to do is drop us an email with your contact details, the subject heading "HALFWAY", and an answer to the following question...

The Halfway House director Basil Dearden won a BAFTA Award in 1960 for which of his films?

A) Dead of Night B) Sapphire

The competition closes at 5pm on Sunday June 19th. UK entrants only please.

The Prize Finder - UK Competitions
Loquax Competitions
Competitions Today

DVD Giveaway - Java Head and Tiger Bay

June 20th sees the release of the Anna May Wong double-bill of 1934's Java Head and Tiger Bay on DVD, and to celebrate Flickering Myth have three copies to give away to our readers courtesy of Optimum Releasing.

The first Asian American movie star to become an international star, Anna May Wong's career spanned over four decades, starting in Technicolor’s first two-strip color movie, The Toll of the Sea (1922) and was chosen by Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. to be in The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and co-starred with Marlene Dietrich in Shanghai Express (1932).

Read on for the full synopsis and details of how to enter...

"JAVA HEAD: The port city of Bristol, England, in the 1800s is home to Java Head, a sailing ship line company. The owner has two sons. One, a handsome seafarer, is in love with a local girl, but cannot marry her due to a long-running feud between their fathers. After a lengthy voyage, he returns with a very exotic, noble Chinese wife, which scandalizes the conservative town. His other son, a "landlubber", seeks to convert to steamships, to the disgust of his father. Even worse, he is secretly dealing in contraband."

"TIGER BAY: A young Englishman abroad, Michael, visits the local low-life spot of Tiger Bay to test his assertion that the spirit of human romance survives even in the most unpromising of circumstances. He intervenes when a local criminal protection racketeer targets a Chinese nightclub, and falls in love with the owner's young English foster-sister. But Olaf's gang have only just started their campaign against Lui Chang, the cultured, elegant woman who owns the premises... and she is determined not to be intimidated or driven out of business under any circumstances..."

To be in with a chance of winning all you need to do is drop us an email with your contact details, the subject heading "ANNA", and an answer to the following question...

Anna May Wong made her final feature film appearance alongside Lana Turner in...

A) Portrait in Black B) Imitation of Life

The competition closes at 5pm on Sunday June 19th. UK entrants only please.

The Prize Finder - UK Competitions
Loquax Competitions
Competitions Today

Jameson Cult Film Club - Monsters (2010)

Jameson Cult Film Club screening of Monsters (2010) at The Royal College of Surgeons, London, 3rd March, 2011.



Written and Directed by Gareth Edwards.

Starring Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able.





SYNOPSIS:



A NASA space probe containing alien spores crashes in Mexico, turning the northern part of the country into a quarantined area known as 'The Infected Zone'. Photojournalist Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) reluctantly agrees to escort his boss’s daughter Sam (Whitney Able) back to America, but their only way is through the infected zone and the alien 'monsters' which reside there.





Having heard nothing but good things about Jameson's Cult Film Club events, I was especially keen to see what they'd do with British director Gareth Edward's debut, Monsters, which I'd seen on it's release last year and been very impressed with. The focus on films becoming events to lure the average cine-fan from his home-cinema and comfy sofa has been on the rise of late, with Secret Cinema, Curzon's Midnight Movies and now Jameson getting in on the act. Some fine early choices for screenings (Taxi Driver, Aliens) mixed in with a cocktail of themed gimmicks and well, cocktails, made for an intriguing mix.



As locations for a cult sci-fi film night go, I'd be pressed to think of a better one than The Royal College of Surgeons in Holborn - a grand, pillared building, lit up for the night in ominous green, foreboding against the icy London sky. The interior of the college seemed to have required only minor scenery adjustments, the long stone halls, giant photographs of the college founders and display cases lending themselves perfectly, giving the air of some sinister government institution, it's purpose unclear at best. More green lighting, a smattering of foliage and staff running around in decontamination suits added to the atmosphere, with actors portraying the characters moving through the crowds, playing their film likeness's parts rather well . The giant infected zone map at the end of the entrance hall was a great finishing touch, painstakingly recreated from the film.



Once inside the auditorium, we were treated to a brief Q & A session with director Gareth Edwards and editor Colin Goudie, although the pair remained frustratingly tight-lipped about the upcoming Godzilla reboot, recently announced as the director's next project. However Edwards did share his experience of timing the amount of time the shark is actually on screen in the first hour of Jaws (three seconds apparently) and how he adopted this approach when making his own feature.



Monsters, despite the presence of the title creatures, bears very few similarities to the monster or horror movies it was initially lumped in with. Obvious comparisons to Cloverfield and District 9 were banded around upon it's release but the monsters are minor characters here , a presence the world has largely adjusted to and sectioned off safely. Rather, the real focus of Monsters is the main characters, Kaulder and Sam, and their slowly blooming relationship. Equally reliant on each other for survival (Kaulder as the 'protector', Sam with her grasp of languages) the pair's interaction is realistic and believable, helped by naturalistic, improvised dialogue.



Initial expectations of a 'monster film' give way to a kind of indie drama by way of the road movie, with the characters discovering themselves and each other via probing questions (“Doesn't that bother you? That you need something bad to happen to profit?”) and hazardous situations , all against the backdrop of a post-alien world. It's been said that Monsters is very much a post-modern creature-feature, in that the monsters are almost a mundane inconvenience and are no longer the fantastical, main focus of the story.



Reenforcing this, the only moment when we really see the aliens properly (as opposed to mere glimpses) occurs at the end of the film in a scene so serene and touchingly handled that the aliens are practically humanised - dangerous yet misunderstood, with the same will to survive as our two leads, who stand and watch the creature's mysterious interaction with awe and respect.



Edwards has apparently stated that he had no intention of any kind of political subtext, but given the setting and the plot (and to a certain degree, the legacy of District 9) implications are unavoidable, but they work in the film's favour, further grounding the film in reality. America's recent relationship to Mexico and immigration in the wake of the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (to give just one example) has been rather hostile, and the swift quarantining of the northern part of the country in Monsters could be read as a comment on America's approach to immigration, erecting a great wall to protect the US from 'aliens'.



Part road movie, part character study, Edward's has conjured up something entirely fresh with Monsters, utilising an on-the-fly approach to film-making to create a spontaneous, energetic and personal feature, a small-scale drama masquerading as a hulking monster movie. With such a smart approach to cinema, it should come as no surprise that he's been handed the reigns to reboot the much-cherished Godzilla franchise. A Brit in charge of Japan's most famous monster? You'd better believe it.

Roger Holland



Movie Review Archive

365 Days, 100 Films #3 - The King's Speech (2010)

The King's Speech, 2010.



Directed by Tom Hooper.

Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Jennifer Ehle, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi, Guy Pearce and Timothy Spall.



SYNOPSIS:



Plagued by a stammer, Britain's Prince Albert strives to overcome his speech impediment in order to rally his country for war with Germany.





I stupidly didn’t book a seat for my first attempt to watch The King’s Speech on the Saturday of its opening weekend. We had to go and see 127 Hours instead, which isn’t the easiest going film for a date. The Tuesday afternoon, almost a fortnight later, fared only a little better. The screen was rapidly filling up to capacity – for a 2.25pm showing on a Tuesday. Not by rowdy teens or romantic couples, but by an elderly, creaking horde. So I was pushed a little to the back and a little to the left of where I usually sit, and surrounded on all sides by pensioners and pensioners-in-waiting. But aren’t we all?



Rather than being annoying, there was a certain charm to all this. This film has found huge resonance with the British public, and only the deeply cynical can deny the romance of it all. The King’s Speech deals with events still in living memory, yet it is essentially a period piece – possibly the most recent a period piece can be (any later and it would be a ‘war film’), as it somehow feels shackled to the Victorian costume drama. The pensioners on all sides of me could have very well experienced the period details, quaint nostalgia and historic events first hand. My grandfather was born in 1930. He would have been nine at the film’s conclusion. I doubt many can remember what being nine was like, but I’m sure they can recall what the 1930s were like, just as those of us in our 20s can remember the 90s in a Fresh-Prince-esque haze of clashing colours. It appears as though the Academy shares these sentiments, preferring The King’s Speech’s past to The Social Network’s uncanny present for the Best Picture, Director and Actor Oscars. The King’s Speech is a period piece from living memory – a memory undoubtedly shared by many in front of the screens in which it is projected. Being amongst such collective age and experience is really quite humbling.





The King’s Speech is a very good film. The sort that makes you choke up in misty eyed nostalgia for a time of which you were never even a part. When stiff upper lips and smart hats were standard fare. One is connected to those apparels through the history books in school and archive footage on television. The nostalgia, like most nostalgia, has a longing ache to it. It arguably depicts the last era when Britain was internationally regarded as Great– limping a little from World War 1, but not yet crippled by its sequel.



If a film is so closely linked to themes of British pride, it’s probably best to cast a national treasure as the protagonist. Colin Firth is quite superb as King George VI (Bertie), and will most likely be rewarded for his portrayal. However, one must not overlook the other performance that contributes so significantly to the film – Geoffrey Rush as Bertie’s speech therapist and antithesis, Lionel Logue. Because, fundamentally, The King’s Speech is a buddy movie.



There are little thrills to be had at the period detail and recognisable faces (Timothy Spall chewing away as Winston Churchill), but the true satisfaction comes from the class-differing relationship between Bertie and Logue. Bertie’s stammer is chronic, which the film effectively conveys in its opening scene – a speech to a stadium of people for the British Exhibition and, slightly more intimidating, the millions listening around the world on radio. According to some surveys, the majority of people are more terrified of public speaking than their own death. Most of us are familiar with the crushing stage fright. The dry throat and mental stalling, the unbearable heat on the back of the neck – Firth manages to stutter this all without sounding comedic, a trap into which speech impediments often fall.



Bertie’s anguish is ever present in his contorted face and closed expressions. The eyes sometimes let a little out, like a glimmer of hope or love, but mostly stay stern and angry. In comparison, Logue’s features are an open window, the curtains drawn back with the sun pouring through. A failed actor and Australian immigrant, Logue works as an experimental speech therapist. His techniques are far removed from the ancient exercises (marbles in the mouth) used by the therapists to whom Bertie is accustomed. Desperate to help her husband, Helena Bonham Carter (the future Queen Mother) goes to Logue for help. However, Logue requires absolute equality with Bertie for his unique therapy to work. Bertie, not because he is a spiteful man, but because things are just not done that way, refuses such demands. So maybe it’s more of a class-clash, buddy movie.



The coming of war is only ever a background murmur, yet it seeps the film’s otherwise unimportant narrative – treating a stammer –in historic significance. The murmur becomes more anxious as the film progresses, when it becomes apparent that Bertie will become King, and that he must address the nation on the eve of war. Imagine a stuttering monarch against the aggressive staccatos of Hitler.



Bertie’s debilitating stutter is not just conveyed by Firth’s performance, but by the deep-focused lens and large interiors of the film itself. Space is a very important part of The King’s Speech as its framing is consistently used to isolate characters within the screen, trapping them in a room or wall. Consequently, objects appear either further apart in the focused, long shots and completely alien to each other in the shallow close-ups (like the blurry microphone that obscures Bertie in the film’s opening scene). There are two great examples of how this can have contrary effects in The King’s Speech; firstly, of an overwhelming isolation; secondly, of intense intimacy when it is abandoned.



Before Bertie’s brother has abdicated the throne to be with his (twice-married) American girlfriend, Wallis Simpson, Guy Pearce hosts a party for his friends and family. The influence of Simpson has made it a very relaxed affair, not what the other Royals, dressed in formal attire, were expecting. It is during this scene that Guy Pearce first displays the cruel taunting of Bertie’s stutter of which had only previously been hinted. Although only childish, the mocking is undoubtedly mean, made worse by our strong identification with Bertie thus far. There is a shot of the two brothers at the side of the door to where the party is being held. It is tall and long, dwarfing Bertie in its size. After the spiteful mocking, Pearce leaves him, walking into the party and popping a bottle of champagne. The cork bounces off a wall and down onto the ground, rolling back towards us where Bertie stands alone. Those inside the party are ecstatic, cheery and laughing, listening to music and occasionally dancing. And then there is Bertie, standing outside the room slumped against the wall. No one can see him and he can’t see party. Only we can juxtapose the two simultaneously. Bertie, despite regally dressed in a kilt and jacket, becomes a child, the one teased and laughed at by all the others. Rarely has a man been framed so alone.



But shortly after his father’s death, Bertie runs to the only non-royal friend he knows – Lionel Logue, his speech therapist. Logue, surprised at Bertie turning up unannounced, but affectionate enough not to show it, offers a cup of tea. A whiskey would suit him better, Bertie replies. This is one of the sole instances where Bertie talks of his childhood, not indulgently, but with hurt restraint. Remarkably, for a character that has hitherto been so pent-up, his sudden release feels wholly naturalistic. And so Bertie and Logue sit, this future King and Australian amateur actor, share a drink, and talk. But the dialogue is filmed far more conventionally than the empty frames of before and a comforting tempo develops between its shot/reverse shot structure. The warmth comes from the closer framing of each character. This intimacy is made all the more poignant in a film full of cold and vast interiors. Logue and Bertie are not just becoming closer emotionally, but also perceptively, to the audience, they are together.



Looking at The King’s Speech alongside The Damned United, Tom Hooper’s only other theatrical film (although he has a considerable body of work for television), one can see similarities in their visual styles; of man-made interiors - rooms, palaces, and football stadiums – which dwarf the characters that inhabit them. David Thompson wrote that Hooper “seems to have no visual style”, but this was before The King’s Speech’s release and his Best Director Oscar. Did he deserve it? Maybe, but not as much as David Fincher for The Social Network. The Academy does tend to operate a “swings and roundabouts” policy for empty-handed directors though.



Hooper may be without a substantial oeuvre to assess yet, but already he shows a consistency in his visual style. Thematically, too, of real stories from history and enduring male relationships. Perhaps cinema is freeing Hooper from the ‘house-style’ of television to assert his own vision through film.

Oli Davis



365 Days, 100 Films



Movie Review Archive

BAFTA to pay tribute to acclaimed James Bond production designer Ken Adam

On Monday 4th April the British Academy of Film and Television Arts will pay tribute to BAFTA and Academy Award-winning production designer Sir Ken Adam with a belated 90th birthday celebration at a ceremony at London's Royal Institute of British Architects. In a career spanning over five decades, Sir Ken has received five Oscar and nine BAFTA nominations and was responsible for defining the look of the early James Bond films (including Dr. No, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), while he also created one of cinema's most iconic images, designing the War Room from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.

In celebration of his career - which also includes credits on the likes of Barry Lyndon, The Ipcress Files, The Madness of King George and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - BAFTA will explore Sir Ken's extraordinary body of work, with tributes from colleagues such as Steven Berkoff, Nicholas Meyer, Roger Moore, Lewis Gilbert, Anouk Aimee and Guy Hendrix Dyas.

BAFTA’s immediate past Chairman, David Parfitt, said: “I am delighted that BAFTA is paying Tribute to Ken who is a great artist and one of cinema’s truly brilliant creative minds. I had the great privilege of working with Ken on The Madness of King George for which he won his second Oscar. His sketches of sets are regarded as works of art in their own right and I’m very proud that a couple of them (copies I’m afraid!) hang on my walls at home. Ken has inspired generations of other artists and his influence goes well beyond the reach of most production design for the big screen.”

Supported by The Albert R. Broccoli and Dana Broccoli Foundation, the event marks BAFTA's annual film tribute, which honours individuals who have made a truly outstanding contribution to the industry, with past recipients including Ray Harryhausen, Douglas Slocombe and Nicolas Roeg. The evening begins at 6.30pm in the Jarvis Hall at the Royal Institute of British Architects (London W1B), with public tickets now available through BAFTA's official website priced at £13.

Keeley Hazell comedy Venus and the Sun set for premiere

If you cast your mind back to November you may recall we posted a news piece about an upcoming British short entitled Venus and the Sun, a comic retelling of the Venus and Adonis myth described as "a mix of live-action and animation that celebrates the power of stories and explores themes of vanity, identity and societies obsession with image".

Directed by Adam Randall (Hooded, Easier Ways to Make a Living) and produced by Andy Brunskill (Tamara Drewe, The Other Boleyn Girl, The Men Who Stare at Goats), Venus and the Sun marks the first foray into acting for page 3 beauty Keeley Hazell, who stars alongside comedian Will Smith (The Thick of It) and Ukweli Roach (StreetDance 3D).

Now completed, Venus and the Sun is gearing up for its premiere on Thursday night (10th March) at the Rich Mix cinema in Shoreditch and will also be available via download and DVD from the official site, and the short is also set to be released as the first ever film iPhone app, which you can download from iTunes.

You can watch a clip from Venus and the Sun here.

Movie Review - Ironclad (2011)

Ironclad, 2011.



Directed by Jonathan English.

Starring James Purefoy, Paul Giamatti, Kate Mara, Brian Cox, Jason Flemyng, Mackenzie Crook, Charles Dance, Jamie Foreman, Aneurin Barnard and Derek Jacobi.





SYNOPSIS:



In 13th century England a Knights Templar and his rag-tag band of warriors struggle to defend Rochester Castle against the tyrannical King John.





The King’s Speech ruled at the Oscars and did so because of and despite of, three core ingredients. It’s a film that’s independently financed, based closely on historical events and proudly British. It proved that independent films could be both critically acclaimed and box office smashes. It brought to life even stuffy costumed history in a dramatic and engaging way. And it highlighted the world’s appetite for thoroughly English storytelling.



Director Jonathan English is aptly named then in the film industry at this precise moment. His latest project, Ironclad, is out on the 4th March. It shares many of The King’s Speech’s potential handicaps. It took eighteen hard months to raise the money for its ambitious scale and according to the earnest production notes, is a tale “torn from the pages” of English Medieval history. All those involved with the Ironclad team will be hoping that their film also shares some of the success enjoyed by this year’s big Academy Award winner. Producer Andrew Curtis certainly believes that like Tom Hooper’s Royal epic, English’s gritty medieval battle drama will prove that Britain is more than “this little village of filmmakers”.



It’s very hard to find any more comparisons between Ironclad and The King’s Speech. Yes there’s a Royal involved, but Paul Giamatti’s megalomaniac King John in 1215 is poles apart from Colin Firth’s stuttering Bertie. He’s just been forced to sign the Magna Carta, a vital document that would go on to form the foundations of common law in England. This much is well known history, but the film claims the untold story is what John did next; hire an army of Scandinavian mercenaries to kill those behind the drafting of Magna Carta. It’s a piece of paper that concedes too many of John’s powers over his citizens, a humiliation, that he’s pretty damn pissed about. In a rage John sets out to retake his kingdom, only to be blocked by a handful of opponents at strategically important Rochester Castle. From the very start Giamatti plays John, a historical villain we’re all very familiar with, as a man having an endless strop with catastrophic consequences. Revealingly Giamatti comments in the production notes that “I play Hitler, basically”.



Ironclad’s impressive cast is undoubtedly an asset for the film and most of the actors are likeably convincing in their roles. But just as there is a vast gulf between the characters of King John and King George, there is a chasm separating the performances of Firth and Giamatti. In the trailer my expectations for the film were drastically lowered by the sight of Giamatti’s unavoidably ridiculous face barking angry orders; adorned with a silly beard clogged by drool and drizzle. To my pleasant surprise he was better as John than the trailer makes him appear. This however does not change the fact that the American’s accent regularly has the odd wobble and that his scenes are generally the least enjoyable in Ironclad. There’s something about his portrayal of the King that just failed to convince me. Admittedly I do think a lot of this doubt was down to my unease at his weak, unintentionally comedic appearance, obvious from the very beginning and before he had opened his mouth.



I was astonished to read a quote from Rick Benattar, one of the film’s producers who had worked with Giamatti before on Shoot ‘Em Up, that said: “We got him (Giamatti) signed up to play King John and cast the movie around him. That’s how it really started.” Now as I’ve said, Ironclad’s cast is genuinely impressive. British heavyweights like Brian Cox, Derek Jacobi and Charles Dance star alongside established actors Mackenzie Crook, Jason Flemyng and Jamie Foreman. One of Giamatti’s better scenes in the film is so good because he’s trading insults and witty jibes with the formidable Brian Cox, manning the ramparts of Rochester Castle with his soldiers. There’s also impressive young talent on show in the form of Kate Mara as the central love interest and Aneurin Barnard as a youthful, idealistic and inexperienced squire. I found the concept of a Medieval Magnificent Seven intriguing and those actors within the castle walls pull it off. But Giamatti’s John is Ironclad’s single biggest flaw and I find it incomprehensible that he was the starting point for such a diverse, quality cast of Brits. More than anything else, he just doesn’t look right as King John.



Enough negatives then, let’s start talking about the good Ironclad has to offer. Perhaps the main reason I was so surprised by how integral Giamatti was to the creation of the project, was that James Purefoy seemed to have the far more pivotal (and praiseworthy) role. He plays an initially mute Templar knight called Marshall, which is an interesting background for the hero of any movie to have. Marshall’s characterisation in the script may not all be remarkably subtle but it is for the most part original and Purefoy’s performance captivating. He more than capably handles the physical side to Ironclad’s action and apparently enjoyed wielding an authentic 5ft sword.



As producer Benattar says, Purefoy made his name as a “spectacular leader and lover” in HBO TV series Rome. Whilst he again plays the man that rallies those around him and falls for a woman in Ironclad, his restrained Templar knight battling a crisis of faith, is very different to arrogant, swaggering Mark Anthony and demonstrates Purefoy’s range of ability. Looking back at his career it’s a real shame that Purefoy hasn’t had more opportunities to completely inhabit a central figure in the narrative as he does here. Before Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, Purefoy was talked of as 007, and he certainly would have looked the part and had the acting chops coupled with a distinctive style. He is the heart of Ironclad and that’s saying something given the rest of the cast.



Aside from assembling such a well known, talented cast, director English was keen to make Ironclad stand out with visceral, realistic and gritty action. From the point of view of historical accuracy, Ironclad feels authentic, whatever liberties it probably took with actual events. The variety of weapons and the set all tend to convince, with the exception to the realistic feel being some dodgy CGI of the castle and surrounding area during otherwise good action set pieces. At times the desire to be hard hitting and true to the reality of Middle Ages gore also went too far, with some blatant green screen shots of limbs being cleaved off or bodies hacked in two. But again generally the filmmakers’ attempts to show “what it’s really like to kill someone with an axe” translate into gripping action.



What picking such fine actors allowed English to do was really ramp up the violence, action and drama and then count on his performers to lighten the sombre mood now and again. An interesting side plot of love between Derek Jacobi’s character’s young wife, played by Kate Mara, and Templar Marshall, is slightly different and a touch more interesting than your conventional diversionary romance, due to the knight’s vow of celibacy. There are also flashes of genuinely amusing and very British humour I wasn’t expecting from such a dreary looking film shot in rain-battered Wales.



Vibrantly realised characters deliver one liners, which could be terribly bad, with attractive style. Asked whether the French will really come to the rescue, Charles Dance’s kindly Bishop of Canterbury, wryly quips “God knows”, glancing to the heavens. And Cox’s Baron D’Albany warns his companion as he makes him hold his sword, that “We may need protection” as they enter a brothel. Only such screen legends could deliver these lines in a way that doesn’t deflate the drama but enriches it with humanity and sprigs of light.



I cannot help but applaud Ironclad for what it proves; that British cinema can compete with the world and produce well acted, exciting action movies. It feels real and very English and director Jonathan can be proud; he deserves his film to succeed. But I can’t help but have reservations. Apart from the occasionally disappointing visual effect, Ironclad’s Achilles heel is Paul Giamatti. He is not terrible but feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the story. It’s a shame the producers felt the need to recruit an American star as an integral part of a very British project. For me his casting undermines the aim of a successful, British and independent film somewhat. That uneasy feeling I regularly got during his moments in the limelight was the only real disappointment of Ironclad; otherwise I found it a good and engaging film.

Ironclad is released in UK cinemas tomorrow.



Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)



Movie Review Archive

British film studio 'Valleywood' facing an uncertain future

Valleywood, the informal shorthand for the Richard Attenborough-chaired Dragon International Film Studios, is facing financial uncertainty in light of debts to creditors and a lack of productions coming to the Welsh movie studio. The £330 million complex boasts 4 silent stages, an office building and a replica of a Norman Castle.

The castle was recently put to good use in the filming of the James Purefoy and Paul Giamatti starrer Ironclad (released today) which, so far, is the only feature film to make use of the studio. Future plans for the site include a grand total of 14 sound stages and a housing development of 2,000 homes.

It had originally been hoped that the lower costs associated with filming in Wales would tempt filmmakers from London, but this has not yet proved to be the case. This could be partly to do with the fact that administrators Price Waterhouse Coopers have been in fiscal control of the studio since 2008, with the studio owing £15 million to creditors right on the upsurge of the economic crisis. The adminstrators admit that this has held the studio complex back from being able to expand and entice film projects and could see the complex sold off for re-development.

DVD Review - Cuckoo (2009)

Cuckoo, 2009.

Directed by Richard Bracewell.
Starring Laura Fraser, Richard E. Grant, Antonia Bernath, Adam F. and Tamsin Greig.


SYNOPSIS:

Trapped in a dead-end job and with her relationship falling apart, a young woman finds herself questioning her grip on reality and turns to her boss for support, but he has a dark secret of his own.


Cuckoo is a thriller that tries to play on the fact that a professor gradually becomes more obsessed with his star pupil. Unfortunately for me I didn’t believe in that element of the story and if I’m honest I think the focus of the plot was shifted too much for the film to be enjoyable.

One of the main problems I personally had with the film was that the characters were very one dimensional. They each had problems and issues but I neither believed or cared about any of them. Richard E. Grant is a well respected actor but I wasn’t convinced with his performance in this movie.

I also thought the film was very slow paced. It reminded me of Andrea Arnold’s film Red Road in the fact that I was bored senseless while watching it. I was frustrated by Red Road, not because of how dull it was but because it was critically acclaimed and won awards. Thankfully this wasn’t the case with the this film too.

Having struggled to find the main focus of the story of this movie (and there were a number to choose from, such as a relationship break up, a sibling relationship and the apparent main plot) it seems that all synopsis of this film I’ve read point to the obsession between Richard E. Grant’s professor and his model student Polly (Laura Fraser). I didn’t pick up on this element of the narrative until the final act when Polly herself discovers her Professor's problem so I feel that the story should have focused on this a lot more, which would also entice the audience to feel more involved in the drama of a potentially very interesting issue. One of the best films I have seen that focuses on unhealthy obsession is One Hour Photo - this film could learn a lot from that movie.

Overall I would say I’m disappointed with the way the narratives were delivered in this film as they do have a lot of potential. Maybe next time they should be portrayed a way that is not so mind-numbingly boring.

Jason Oliver

Movie Review Archive

365 Days, 100 Films #1 - Without a Clue (1988)

Without a Clue, 1988.

Directed by Thom Eberhardt.
Starring Michael Caine, Ben Kingsley, Jeffrey Jones, Lysette Anthony, Paul Freeman and Peter Cook.


SYNOPSIS:

Dr. Watson (Ben Kingsley) creates the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes as cover for his own crime-solving exploits, hiring a drunken actor (Michael Caine) to portray the legendary sleuth when the British government request the aid of the country's greatest detective.


When did everything get so fast? In comparison to Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, Without a Clue plays like syrup on the eyes. Both find their source in Arthur Conan Doyle’s deductive detective. Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is surprisingly faithful to the books, but thinks nothing of its pacing. Without a Clue is the opposite.

Its premise has John Watson (Ben Kingsley) as the brain behind the duo. In fact, Sherlock Holmes is nothing but a literary invention of Watson’s. Not wanting to sacrifice his medical integrity as an occasional crime solver, Watson creates the Sherlock Holmes character. But, as Homles’ popularity increases, the public demands to see him. So Watson finds an actor, Reginald Kencaid (Michael Caine), to perform for the 19th century media.

Kencaid is a drunk, a gambler and a womaniser, clinging onto his one great performance pre-Sherlock Holmes. Watson is a cultured, intelligent man who finds Kencaid insufferable. Kencaid is too drunk to care. They make quite the odd couple.

The film initially grates because it is just so slow. The comedy deserves a much snappier delivery. One longs for Without a Clue to at least break into a jog, but alas. Think of Fawlty Towers with John Cleese slamming doors, running in and out of various rooms - that is the sort of farcical mayhem the viewer will yearn for. But when did the film ever declare itself as a bawdy, slapstick comedy? Was Ritchie’s Holmes really so good that all adaptations before it have been cast into a sluggish slumber?

But then, after a while, little parts of Without a Clue start to click into a rhythm, like a good run of brick shapes in Tetris. I don’t know whether the film quickened, or whether I adjusted to its pace, but everything became rather effortlessly fun. The occasional slapstick set-piece eased the flow, snowballing into a comical sword fight for the final scene. In the end, looking back, there was a Peter Sellers, Pink Panther sheen to it all.

This leads me to think that Without a Clue is probably a pretty good film at a certain time. Not for a boozy, lads’ night in, nor for snuggles with a loved one. No, Without a Clue, to appreciate it fully, must be watched on a Sunday afternoon, between 2pm and 5pm, on a full, post-roast dinner stomach, and with a cup of tea. For optimum viewing, the more dedicated amongst us might even wait till it’s on ITV4. Those commercial breaks open up so many tea-brewing possibilities.

Oli Davis

365 Days, 100 Films

Movie Review Archive

Movie Review - Never Let Me Go (2010)

Never Let Me Go, 2010.



Directed by Mark Romanek.

Starring Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield, Sally Hawkins, Charlotte Rampling, Nathalie Richard, Domhnall Gleeson and Andrea Riseborough.





SYNOPSIS:



After spending their childhood in a seemingly idyllic English boarding school, three young adults must come to terms with the sinister truth behind their existence.





The way in which I discovered the story to Never Let Me Go is typical to our cultural age. Last year I discovered a trailer which hinted at a marvellously moving tale, stuffed with fine acting, a soaring soundtrack and an intriguing premise. Then there was a second trailer, less gripping and more melancholy than the first, which turned out to more accurately reflect the film. Haunted and beguiled by the tremendous first snippet though, I sought out the novel and determined to read it before the film’s release in 2011.



It was the first time I’d read a book by Kazuo Ishiguro and I’ve since become a fan. It was satisfying to discover the subtle, incredibly English tone of the book so well mirrored in that first trailer. It was rewarding too to delve deep into the joys of Ishiguro’s fabulously realised narrator Kathy H, so attractively played in that teaser by Carey Mulligan. Ultimately the book felt so real, raw and affecting, and the writing was so beautiful, that my allegiances switched devotedly to the original work, despite that snapshot of film hooking me in the first place. However in our modern world of innumerable choice, adaptation and interpretation, I realise the futility of being a snob about such things. Just because I’d embraced the true complexity of the original work, did not diminish the potential power of the film.



I say complexity, but the real merit of the novel was its immense simplicity. It’s perhaps this that the film struggles to adequately capture. Cinema usually requires more than the touchingly mundane. I’ve commented before on my blog that the adaptation would struggle to balance the different chronological segments of the novel. Reading it leaves you with a vivid sense of childhood nostalgia and an unquestionable understanding of the importance of youth and school to Kathy H and the other main characters, Tommy and Ruth. The sinisterly picturesque boarding school of Hailsham is clearly of paramount importance to the characters in the latter stages of the film too, but it was not as vibrantly established earlier on.



That said the filmmakers do a wonderfully thorough job of making the childhood scenes convincing. The younger incarnations of Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan in particular look remarkably spot-on. More importantly all the key performances from the younger actors are excellent. Ella Purnell, as the young Ruth, even gives a far superior performance to Hollywood starlet Knightley as the grown up. If you’ve read the novel you’ll appreciate the way Purnell better captures Ruth’s good and bad sides, whereas Knightley seems rather one dimensional in her portrayal of Ruth as predominantly vindictive. If you haven’t read the book you’ll still see the Pirates of the Caribbean star’s turn as the weakest of the three leads.



Mulligan continues to impress. She stole the show in what’s widely hailed as the best modern Doctor Who episode, Blink, and has gone from strength to strength ever since, breaking through internationally with her performance in An Education. Here she does a wonderful job with some tricky bits of voiceover. As a general rule, voiceover as a story telling device can either be atrociously bad or astoundingly good. Mulligan’s efforts to replicate the tone of melancholic memory from the first person narration of the book ensure that in Never Let Me Go, voiceover tends to tread closer to the positive end of the spectrum.



She’s also regularly fabulous in her scenes with Knightley and Andrew Garfield. Her pained expressions and displays of emotional restraint come just about as close as possible to the brilliant subtlety and ambiguities of the novel. She’s as likeable as Kathy H should be. Garfield also adds another respectable notch to his CV, coping admirably with Tommy’s notorious rages and his place at the centre of a slow burning, heart wrenching love triangle. Despite Knightley giving the least classy and layered performance, she also doesn’t do a bad job. In many ways she may have been limited by a necessarily narrow interpretation of Ruth’s character in the book and a lack of time for her character to redeem herself in hospital scenes with Kathy on screen, as she does on the page.



The book was finely crafted, composed and executed, to produce a tender, touching and intelligent final product. To an extent the film is also brought to life with bags of quality. There are some luscious shots from director Mark Romanek that conjure feelings of nostalgia; windswept British landscapes and colourful toys abandoned in the summery grass. It’s for the most part perfectly acted, with good contribtutions from Charlotte Rampling as Miss Emily and Sally Hawkins as Miss Lucy alongside the leads. In general the whole film is full of evocative and eerie period detail, given the slightly sci-fi premise.



On the page the fact that there was a mere whiff of sci-fi, that didn’t actually lead to some groundbreaking revelation, was perhaps a minor disappointment. But in a way it allowed for a more pure distillation of relationships, love and the human capacity (or perhaps a very British ability) to cope with suffering and endure with dignity, rather than run away. The film was always going to require some more direct references to the purpose of Hailsham and its children. And because there is no huge, thriller like conspiracy, Never Let Me Go will feel a letdown to most and unbelievably light on plot and originality. There’s simply never a sufficient peak to the drama, just a constant tasteful simmering of emotion.



It certainly would have been a mistake for Alex Garland’s script to transform hidden truths, memories and secrets into contorted plot twists. Part of Never Let Me Go’s refreshing realism, maturity and originality is its subdued approach. But it also led to people leaving the cinema in front of me bemoaning the whole idea of the story as weak. Somehow the film needed something more and if the novel had one fault it was its lack of a satisfying, big reveal. The poignancy of the writing meant the lack of drama mattered less that it does on film.



However just because Never Let Me Go is an inferior adaptation with a fatal flaw and is often a bit dull, does not make it bad. Some scenes really stand out with every little ingredient almost perfect. It’s undoubtedly superbly made. Even those cinemagoers leaving with disappointments around me were singing the praises enthusiastically of the acting talent on show. It’s a mystery to me how the actors at least did not get some awards season nominations for this film. And as a fan of the book it’s disappointing the film failed to capture its distinctive essence and live up to the intoxicating promise of earlier trailers. I guess the only real way to judge Never Let Me Go, whether you know the story or not, is to see it yourself. Personally for its refusal to be bombastic and sensational alone it’s a worthwhile watch.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)



Movie Review Archive

Arrivederci Millwall arriving on DVD in March

This March sees the first official DVD release of Arrivederci Millwall, a hard-hitting British rarity about football hooliganism in the dark days of the early 80s, which is credited as having inspired the recent wave of football hooligan flicks such as The Football Factory (2004, dir. Nick Love), Green Street (2005, dir. Lexi Alexander) and Awaydays (2009, dir. Pat Holden). Made in 1992, Arrivederci Millwall is directed by Charles McDougall, who has since carved out a successful career directing TV shows such as Queer as Folk, Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives and The Office, along with the acclaimed TV movie Hillsborough (1996).

Take a look at the synopsis and check out the trailer below...

"Set in 1982, Billy Jarvis and his gang of hooligans prepare to go to Spain for the World Cup. At the same time the Task Force sets out for the Falklands. They view themselves as an unofficial task force, but behind the nationalistic fervour Billy plans his own personal revenge for the death of his brother in the Falklands conflict."


Arrivederci Millwall is released on March 21st.

Win a copy of British thriller Cuckoo on DVD - NOW CLOSED

To celebrate the DVD release of Verve Pictures' British thriller Cuckoo on February 28th, Flickering Myth have three copies of the film to give away to our lovely readers.

Described as a "thriller about sounds and lies", Cuckoo is directed by Richard Bracewell (The Gigolos) and stars Richard E. Grant (Withnail & I), Laura Fraser (A Knight's Tale), Tamsin Greig (Tamara Drewe), Antonia Bernath (St. Trinian's) and Adam Fenton, a.k.a. multi-platinum drum & bass producer 'Adam F'. Take a look at the synopsis...

In one of his darkest roles, Richard E. Grant plays an ageing professor obsessed with his star student, Polly (Fraser). Polly is trapped in a dead-end job working for intrusive Professor Julius Greengrass (Grant). Her relationship with boyfriend Chapman (Adam Fenton) is falling apart, and jealous sister Jimi (Antonia Bernath) rarely leaves her side. When Polly has the chance to escape, her nearest and dearest have other ideas.

Alone in her flat, Polly struggles to keep her grip on reality. Mysterious sounds surround her, voices in the darkness, whispers of deceit. Polly knows she’s not cuckoo, but why won’t the noises go away? She turns to the one person she can trust – her boss. But Julius has a dark secret of his own. He wants Polly, and he’ll do anything to get her.

To be in with a chance of nabbing one of the DVDs, all you have to do is drop us an email with the subject heading "CUCKOO" before 6pm on Sunday, February 27th with your contact details (UK entrants only, please).

Check out the trailer for Cuckoo here, while you can also pre-order the dvd via VivaVerve.com.

The Prize Finder - UK Competitions
Loquax Competitions
Competitions Today

Matthew Vaughn interested in bringing Jonathan Ross' The Golden Age to the screen

Jonathan Ross' comic book The Golden Age could soon be coming to the big screen courtesy of Matthew Vaughn, director of Kick-Ass, Layer Cake, Stardust and the upcoming X-Men: First Class.

Vaughn has said that a major Hollywood studio is ready to back the picture and he has mentioned Ross' wife Jane Goldman (screenwriter for Kick-Ass, Stardust and First Class, amongst others) in connection with scripting duties, but Goldman may miss out due to scheduling conflicts. As of yet, details are up in the air and Vaughn has also said that he may produce instead of direct.

With The Golden Age centering on octogenarian superheroes being brought out of retirement, Vaughn has stated that he sees the project as perfect for some older stars to immerse themselves in, with Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty mentioned by the writer/director/producer.

Ross is an avid comic book fan and already has one title under his belt as a writer, with the four issue miniseries Turf – a tale of vampires and gangsters set in prohibition-era New York, which was released last year.

Lean Times: A David Lean Profile (Part 2)

Trevor Hogg profiles the career of acclaimed filmmaker Sir David Lean in the second of a three-part feature... read the first part here.

“It was one of the worse times I’ve had in my professional life,” reflected David Lean on the circumstances surrounding Ronald Neame’s sophomore directorial picture The Passionate Friends. “I should have never allowed myself to be put in that position. I wanted to help Ronnie, so I was torn in two directions. I saw the rushes and realized at once that it was no good. Then I took over. I stopped for two weeks, got the script and rewrote it with Stanley Hayes. We wrote like hell.”

Based on a sprawling tale of adultery by H.G. Wells, the movie heightened the growing competitiveness between the Cineguild partners. It did not help matters that Lean wrongly believed that Neame lacked the makings of a good director. The other thing bothering the filmmaker caused him to do something unusual. Camera operator Oswald Morris stated, “David hated noise on the set. Even when people were lighting they had to be quiet, and he came up with the idea that maybe they’d be quieter if there was a pianist. He had a grand piano at the back of the set and a pianist played music quite softly. And everything else became softer. David had these very big ears and he could hear dialogue the other side of the stage.”

When asked what he thought of the film, which was released in 1949, Lean answered: “It was not a great success, but I’m quite proud of it. I think it’s rather good.” Upon further reflection the Englishman remarked, “The trouble is you cannot have a real hit with a picture that doesn’t go up at the end. When I say go up, I don’t mean that you’re cheering. But you can be touched, it’s got to have some kind of wave that reaches a certain height and I don’t think it had that. It was rather cold.” The use of flashbacks within flashbacks made the narrative of the movie so confusing that one unimpressed critic wittily wrote, “Mr. Lean has a brief encounter with the inflammation of the flashback.”

Replacing fiction with fact, the subject of the British director’s next cinematic endeavor Madeline centred around a woman who was tried for poisoning her lover during the 1850s. Ann Todd, the leading actress and Lean’s wife at the time, remembered a particular incident that occurred while filming, “There was one scene of me,” she said, “when I ran down the stairs David hurried up the camera [used slow-motion] just for that one shot and my Victorian skirt billowed out. The timing was extraordinary. He used to say that the little scenes in between the big scenes were sometimes more important than the big scenes themselves.” She also remarked, “David liked to have every detail under his thumb. He was the first director I’d worked with in this country to have that sort of presence, to be the master on the set. There used to be moments when he’d get on the set and everything had left him. He’d go and sit very quietly, talking to nobody and we all had to sit quietly until the imagination came back.”

Editor Geoffrey Foot recollected watching the film for the first time with Lean. “Now it’s all together,” Foot suggested to him. “Let’s see it, just the two of us in the theatre. He sat through it in silence and the lights went up and he said, ‘Well, we’ve got a turkey, haven’t we?’ It ran about an hour-fifty then. He went back on the floor and did some extra shooting and then we organized a sneak preview.” The screening proved David Lean’s original assessment to be correct. The audience whistled and hooted so much that Ann Todd left the theatre in tears.

“One of the essentials in the movies is for the audience to feel that they are in the hands of a good storyteller,” remarked the director when assessing why the movie was so poorly received when released in 1950. “They are being led, and what leads them is the intention of the scene. If it has the intention, you will nearly always win through. It somehow carries you on like a wave which breaks on the shore and carries on the beach. All great things have an intention behind them. We didn’t have a real intention on Madeline.” He continued, “It is rather a cold film. I was looking at it in the wrong way. I had no particular feelings for anybody in the picture and as far as movies are concerned that is pretty well fatal. I am not saying that one should sit back and say, ‘This is going to excite the audience.’ I’ve never done that. I set back and say, ‘Does it excite me?’ Somehow it didn’t’ and I think that’s the answer.”

After reading a newspaper article about a plane crash, the filmmaker got the idea for his 1952 movie entitled The Sound Barrier. Collaborating with British producer Alexander Korda, the director spent months visiting aircraft factories and talking to pilots. “One of the chief difficulties,” he said, “was that all the flying people were worried that I was going to do a great big melodrama, that I’d overdo it; then after a short time they saw that I was serious about it, and they were a tremendous help. The more I saw, the keener I became on the subject. This was all before we started to write it. Although we had a dramatic story we really had no story at all, we had a mass of background material.”

Rather than follow the path of previous flying pictures such as Wings (1927), Hell’s Angels (1930), and Dawn Patrol (1938), the decision was made to focus on the postwar accomplishments of the civilian engineers and aviators. With this settled, there remained a major problem which needed to be overcome. “We filmed the opening flying sequence,” revealed Lean, “as a prologue to the credits for a very special reason because round about the time we were doing the script, several people said that nobody would understand what the sound barrier was, so we thought we’d open the film on an incident that actually took place during the war. A pilot put his Spitfire into a dive, and he went faster and faster, and suddenly the machine started to shake, and he pulled on the stick to correct it, and the harder he pulled, the more the nose went down, until he finally throttled back and pulled out of the dive. Now the aeroplane had been shaking madly, and he didn’t know quite what had happened. In fact, he had touched the edge, as it were, of the sound barrier, and we show this as the opening of the film, then follow it with the title Sound Barrier so the first sequence describes what the film is about.”

The second film unit led by Anthony Squire shot the aerial footage while Lean concentrated on filming in the studios as well as capturing a few exteriors required for the story. The British moviemaker opted to use the traveling matte rather than the blatantly obvious back projection for the close-up shots. It was a choice he never regretted revealed Ann Todd who played the wife of the doomed test pilot, “David said the cockpit shooting was the summit of his career as a technician.”

The accolades for The Sound Barrier went well beyond the movie reviews and audiences as the film was awarded Best Foreign Picture by the National Board of Review, Best Picture at the BAFTAS, and an Academy Award for Best Sound.

Six months after seeing the play Hobson’s Choice, which deals with a tyrannical cobbler who has three daughters who are eager to get married, David Lean started to work on the screenplay with Norman Spence. Cast in the title role was a British acting legend. “I adore Charlie,” declared Lean. “Someone asked Laurence Olvier if he had ever worked with a genius and he said, ‘Yes, one - Charles Laughton.’” In reference to the actor’s performance in the original Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), the director remarked, “Remember him as Bligh? I’m sure he was a cardboard cut-out in the script yet Charlie took it, threw it in the air, whirled it around, blew life into it and out came this extraordinary character. And that is a sort of a genius, isn’t it?”

Using the huge cobblestone set featured in The Third Man (1949), Lean constructed the famous “moon walk” sequence where a drunken Hobson chases the elusive reflection of the moon in various puddles until he falls down a barrel chute and into a cellar. To create the moon, a piece of tracing paper on a hoop was lit by a high-intensity spotlight and reflected in a puddle. As for the opening scene, the filmmaker decided to parody the one he used for Great Expectations with the rain, the boot sign creaking in the wind, the deserted shop, and the branches banging against the skylight. Suddenly a door swings opens and a looming shadow emerges which lets out an almighty burp.

During the filming of the 1954 movie, David Lean, like his younger brother Edward, was awarded the CBE – Commander of the British Empire; the honours were not only being bestowed upon him. Hobson’s Choice won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival and at the BAFTAS was voted Best British Film.

Summertime (UK: Summer Madness), released in 1955, starred Katharine Hepburn and was David Lean’s favourite movie to make, “I’ve put more of myself in that film than in any other I’ve ever made.” The director did not care for the play The Time of the Cuckoo; however, the concept appealed to him according to his writing collaborator, Norman Spence. “He liked the idea of a sex-starved, spinsterish schoolmistress from Akron, Ohio, going to Venice and being overtaken by the Latin approach towards sex. That’s what hit, David.”

The first draft, written by playwright Arthur Laurents, too rigidly followed his original creation. “Our script became so bloody glamorous it wasn’t true,” remarked Spence on his and Lean’s own attempt to compose a screenplay. Hepburn suggested screenwriter Donald Ogden Stewart who won an Oscar for The Philadelphia Story (1940), but his contribution lacked originality and was aborted. With the shooting date quickly approaching, the situation was becoming desperate. Good fortune arrived in the form of novelist H.E. Bates who went on to write the final script with David Lean. “I knew him first,” told the director, “through his short stories – some of the best English short stories ever written. And there are dozens of them. There was one short story when he describes the bubbles of water on a girl’s back as she sits by a swimming pool. Terrifically sexy.”

Impressed by William Wyler’s Roman Holiday (1953), which was shot on location in Rome, the filmmaker decided to produce the movie in Venice. “A lot of Summertime takes place in a pensione,” explained Lean, “and Kate [Hepburn] had a scene where she was walking across the terrace. She did a rehearsal and tripped over a loose tile. I thought, ‘Oh, damn, what a nuisance. Let’s do it once more.’ She tripped again and I realized there was nothing wrong. I examined the spot and there was no loose tile at all. She used the tripping to show her nervousness of the situation. She was adept at sliding things in like that, things you would never dream were invented.”

Plagued by production delays, the film was thousands of dollars over budget. “I was shooting her [Hepburn] final close shot,” said David Lean, “as she sees the flower, nods, waves and sees him disappear from view. She somehow produced real tears and I was so delighted that I went along the corridor, put my arm around her and told her how pleased I was. Swallowing back the tears she said, ‘You darned fool you’ve given them the end of the picture.’ She was right.” The pressure to finish the filming escalated to the point that one of the movie’s producers had Italian police tell the director he had forty-eight hours to leave the country. The problems with the producers did not end there; when the final cut was screened David Lean was overruled when he insisted on that line of dialogue Rossano Brazzi says to Katharine Hepburn, “You are like a hungry child who is given ravioli to eat. No, you say, I want beefsteak. My dear girl, you are hungry…eat the ravioli.” should remain in the picture.

Summertime went on to receive Oscar nominations for Lean and Katharine Hepburn; the British moviemaker went on to be honoured as the Best Director by New York Film Critics Circle Awards.

Attracted by the novel The Wind Cannot Read, David Lean decided he would film author Richard Mason’s tragic love story. The project was aborted (later revived by director Ralph Thomas in 1958) with the death of Alexander Korda and the arrival of Hollywood producer Sam Spiegel, who had another book in mind for his new creative partner. Written by Pierre Boulle, the satirical tale was called Le Pont de la Rivière Kwai which translates into English as The Bridge on the River Kwai.

http://www.davidlean.com

http://www.bfi.org.uk/lean

Read part three right here!

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.