thisbluespirit (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
thisbluespirit) wrote2017-09-10 10:04 am
thisbluespirit) wrote2017-09-10 10:04 am
Entry tags:
Ealing (& Other) rarities
I find this post has been lurking in draft since the end of June, so I think it's about time I posted it, really. I've watched a fair bit in summer and posted less than usual. Anyway, this is a post of various Old Films.
I got another Ealing Rarities collection (Vol 2) for my birthday, and this one was a bit of a disappointment compared to the previous installments. It contained Midshipman Easy (1935), Brief Ecstasy (1937), The Big Blockade (1942), and The Four Just Men (1939), and this post has been lurking mainly because I couldn't think what to say about Midshipman Easy, but I shall solve that by not bothering. The rest of this post I wrote two and half months ago, as is:
Brief Ecstasy was... well. Couple meet for one evening, the guy is a pilot and v stalkery (because he only has one evening), then he flies off somewhere round the world and sends a telegram asking her to marry him (it was a really great evening, okay), which she doesn't get. So, she gets a science degree, but then marries her science professor, who persuades her to go stay at home, because men are basically rubbish, possibly, I'm not sure what else it was trying to say. And then of course, the marvellous evening guy turns out to be Science Prof's nephew/godson and they are TRAGIC at each other, even though it takes him a full day to recognise her (but as soon as he does he wants her to elope with him). They go off flying in a plane together, everybody angsts and FEELS, the Mrs Danvers-esque housekeeper gets her come-uppance, Pilot guy gets sent away and Our Heroine is left to be stifled to death by Science Prof. And that was about it, really. The brief ecstasy was indeed very brief. Paul Lukas was good, but you can't feel too sorry for him being in this ridiculous angsty love triangle he never asked for, because of his determination to stifle the heroine (which is shown as such; this is one of the things I like about 30s films whereas 50s films would probably be on his side).
It said at the start that the story was thought up by the director, Basil Dean, which explains a lot, as it was rubbish as a story, but there were some nice directorial set-pieces in it, especially the literal Chekhov's gun that repeatedly didn't go off. They just needed to be attached to a less baffling narrative.
Disc 2 contained a WWII propaganda film (Big Blockade), which I didn't feel like watching, so I moved onto The Four Just Men, which was really enjoyable until the last twenty minutes when suddenly it broke into an unexpected burst of rabid patriotism. I can't blame them too much, because 1939, obviously, but it does feel so off in tone from the rest of it that I can't help wondering if war was declared when they were halfway through making it and they felt obliged to suddenly alter the ending to be properly supporting the war effort. It's all: la la la shenanigans shenanigans WAIT NO I LOVE THE LITTLE COUNTRY LANES GOD SAVE THE KING AND THE BRITISH EMPIRE THE END and Anna's Lee's reporter character fades away in the blast of it. (The first 2/3s are fun, though.)
However, I was particularly amused when one of the four just men (who was an actor) decided to impersonate the evil MP and give a speech in Parliament. It was all v well done, but the MP in question was played by Alan Napier, who was nearly twice the height of everyone else in the 1930s. (IMBD says he was 6"6 and I see no reason to doubt it in this case). It wasn't quite as excellent as that time Patrick McGoohan decided that of all the random impoverished artists in 60s London he was going to impersonate, he should pick David Collings, but it was pretty close.
(Nobody noticed in either case. You have to worry about TV/film people sometimes.)
I also finally got The Stars Look Down (1940) film starring Michael Redgrave and Margaret Lockwood and directed by Carol Reed, set in a small mining community in the north east. What could possibly go wrong? Well, nothing. It was a good film, really. I just happened not to like it, which was v sad-making. I did not know it was possible for me to dislike a film made by Carol Reed with Michael Redgrave and Margaret Lockwood that anticipates 1950s kitchen sink stuff, but apparently it is. I can see why, though, and it's not the film's fault; it just struck a bunch of notes I don't enjoy.
I do think, though, if you're going to set a film in the NE, it's fine to have a fictional mining village, but what is the point of having people regularly go off to 'Tynecastle'? That's just pointless and distracting. I spent most of the film going, "Just say Newcastle, dammit!"
[September addition: This is the one my Mum accidentally had to buy on eBay. She was disappointed by it, too. But then she thought it was set in Wales and wondered what was up with everyone's accents. A fair point, though, even if you know they're supposed to be Geordies. It's not as easy an accent as General Worzel or Yorkshire.]
Happily, in between all this, I recorded Pride & Prejudice (1940) off the telly, and this was pretty much an unmitigated delight, although I was rather taken aback by the ending where it suddenly veers sharply away from the book into blink-inducing crack. My least favourite part of this being that Lizzy neither has a letter from Mr Darcy, nor visits Pemberley and thus changes her mind after... er... well, Mr Darcy does get to say some of the letter's content in their argument? Plus, she fancies him. (Fair enough, I suppose.) AND THEN LADY CATHERINE WAS IN CAHOOTS WITH MR DARCY AND EVERYONE GOT MARRIED AT ONCE. EVERYONE. Well, not Lady Catherine but if they'd had one more minute, probably.
However, it truly was a delightful thing and now it's joined the ranks of films that I recorded off the TV to save buying but now clearly need my own copy of anyway. Also I said nobody would ever displace Benjamin Whitrow's Mr Bennet in my heart (the true reason P&P 1995 is forever my favourite) but this one had a very good go at dislodging him by casting Edmund Gwenn (frequently one of the best things about any given 30s film he's in, as far as I'm concerned).
I got another Ealing Rarities collection (Vol 2) for my birthday, and this one was a bit of a disappointment compared to the previous installments. It contained Midshipman Easy (1935), Brief Ecstasy (1937), The Big Blockade (1942), and The Four Just Men (1939), and this post has been lurking mainly because I couldn't think what to say about Midshipman Easy, but I shall solve that by not bothering. The rest of this post I wrote two and half months ago, as is:
Brief Ecstasy was... well. Couple meet for one evening, the guy is a pilot and v stalkery (because he only has one evening), then he flies off somewhere round the world and sends a telegram asking her to marry him (it was a really great evening, okay), which she doesn't get. So, she gets a science degree, but then marries her science professor, who persuades her to go stay at home, because men are basically rubbish, possibly, I'm not sure what else it was trying to say. And then of course, the marvellous evening guy turns out to be Science Prof's nephew/godson and they are TRAGIC at each other, even though it takes him a full day to recognise her (but as soon as he does he wants her to elope with him). They go off flying in a plane together, everybody angsts and FEELS, the Mrs Danvers-esque housekeeper gets her come-uppance, Pilot guy gets sent away and Our Heroine is left to be stifled to death by Science Prof. And that was about it, really. The brief ecstasy was indeed very brief. Paul Lukas was good, but you can't feel too sorry for him being in this ridiculous angsty love triangle he never asked for, because of his determination to stifle the heroine (which is shown as such; this is one of the things I like about 30s films whereas 50s films would probably be on his side).
It said at the start that the story was thought up by the director, Basil Dean, which explains a lot, as it was rubbish as a story, but there were some nice directorial set-pieces in it, especially the literal Chekhov's gun that repeatedly didn't go off. They just needed to be attached to a less baffling narrative.
Disc 2 contained a WWII propaganda film (Big Blockade), which I didn't feel like watching, so I moved onto The Four Just Men, which was really enjoyable until the last twenty minutes when suddenly it broke into an unexpected burst of rabid patriotism. I can't blame them too much, because 1939, obviously, but it does feel so off in tone from the rest of it that I can't help wondering if war was declared when they were halfway through making it and they felt obliged to suddenly alter the ending to be properly supporting the war effort. It's all: la la la shenanigans shenanigans WAIT NO I LOVE THE LITTLE COUNTRY LANES GOD SAVE THE KING AND THE BRITISH EMPIRE THE END and Anna's Lee's reporter character fades away in the blast of it. (The first 2/3s are fun, though.)
However, I was particularly amused when one of the four just men (who was an actor) decided to impersonate the evil MP and give a speech in Parliament. It was all v well done, but the MP in question was played by Alan Napier, who was nearly twice the height of everyone else in the 1930s. (IMBD says he was 6"6 and I see no reason to doubt it in this case). It wasn't quite as excellent as that time Patrick McGoohan decided that of all the random impoverished artists in 60s London he was going to impersonate, he should pick David Collings, but it was pretty close.
(Nobody noticed in either case. You have to worry about TV/film people sometimes.)
I also finally got The Stars Look Down (1940) film starring Michael Redgrave and Margaret Lockwood and directed by Carol Reed, set in a small mining community in the north east. What could possibly go wrong? Well, nothing. It was a good film, really. I just happened not to like it, which was v sad-making. I did not know it was possible for me to dislike a film made by Carol Reed with Michael Redgrave and Margaret Lockwood that anticipates 1950s kitchen sink stuff, but apparently it is. I can see why, though, and it's not the film's fault; it just struck a bunch of notes I don't enjoy.
I do think, though, if you're going to set a film in the NE, it's fine to have a fictional mining village, but what is the point of having people regularly go off to 'Tynecastle'? That's just pointless and distracting. I spent most of the film going, "Just say Newcastle, dammit!"
[September addition: This is the one my Mum accidentally had to buy on eBay. She was disappointed by it, too. But then she thought it was set in Wales and wondered what was up with everyone's accents. A fair point, though, even if you know they're supposed to be Geordies. It's not as easy an accent as General Worzel or Yorkshire.]
Happily, in between all this, I recorded Pride & Prejudice (1940) off the telly, and this was pretty much an unmitigated delight, although I was rather taken aback by the ending where it suddenly veers sharply away from the book into blink-inducing crack. My least favourite part of this being that Lizzy neither has a letter from Mr Darcy, nor visits Pemberley and thus changes her mind after... er... well, Mr Darcy does get to say some of the letter's content in their argument? Plus, she fancies him. (Fair enough, I suppose.) AND THEN LADY CATHERINE WAS IN CAHOOTS WITH MR DARCY AND EVERYONE GOT MARRIED AT ONCE. EVERYONE. Well, not Lady Catherine but if they'd had one more minute, probably.
However, it truly was a delightful thing and now it's joined the ranks of films that I recorded off the TV to save buying but now clearly need my own copy of anyway. Also I said nobody would ever displace Benjamin Whitrow's Mr Bennet in my heart (the true reason P&P 1995 is forever my favourite) but this one had a very good go at dislodging him by casting Edmund Gwenn (frequently one of the best things about any given 30s film he's in, as far as I'm concerned).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Four Just Men is based on a novel that is now remembered less for its literary merit than for a publicity campaign that went horribly wrong. The author decided to drum up sales by leaving out the solution to one of the novel's mysterious events, and offering a substantial cash prize to the first person who wrote in with a correct explanation. The plan was that the extra sales revenue generated would be enough to cover the prize money, and it more or less was -- except that he made a goof in the competition's terms and conditions and ended up on the hook to pay out prizes to everyone who wrote in with a correct explanation, which completely ate up the book's profits and drove him bankrupt.
no subject
except that he made a goof in the competition's terms and conditions and ended up on the hook to pay out prizes to everyone who wrote in with a correct explanation, which completely ate up the book's profits and drove him bankrupt
LOL, that is a terrible cautionary tale for an author!
no subject
no subject
At least you managed to find one good old film and if all the films were great it would have made Yuletide noms even harder;p
no subject
At least you managed to find one good old film and if all the films were great it would have made Yuletide noms even harder
This is true! I was a bit worried the shiny was wearing off, but I think it was just a disc that was much less to my taste, overall. I keep enjoying the things I record off the TV.
no subject
no subject
LOL! I can see being totally confused over that.
I love 1940's Pride and Prejudice. It's a pretty terrible adaptation but a lovely film. The ending (as you said) is bonkers. I think they ran out of time and had to wrap it up quick, so sent in Lady Catherine to sort it all.
no subject
Yes, exactly. And since we have multiple other adaptations that are all good in different ways, it's very easy just to enjoy this one for what it is.
The ending (as you said) is bonkers. I think they ran out of time and had to wrap it up quick, so sent in Lady Catherine to sort it all.
It does feel like that!
no subject
In other news, I read the Mannerling books. I hadn't expected the house to be quite so obviously, aggressively evil. ^_^ May I ask what happens in the last one, if you remember? My library hasn't got that either. :-)
(And then I dreamed this incredibly bonkers gangster noir adventure with barnstorming sharks. I have no idea what to even do with that. ^_^)
no subject
Aw, shame. I mean, as an adaptation, it's kind of terrible, but as a marshmallow delight of a film, it's top notch. YouTUbe seem to have it at a price, and Daily Motion seem to have the last 50 mins, but not the first half, if either of those would be of use.
In other news, I read the Mannerling books. I hadn't expected the house to be quite so obviously, aggressively evil. ^_^
Yes, talking of bonkers and Regency stuff... It is, isn't it? I've read some of her Regencies before, so I was prepared for the random and the pages of contemporary things shoved in to make up the word count, but the endlessly evil house was something else again. :-D
May I ask what happens in the last one, if you remember? My library hasn't got that either.
Ohh... *racks brain* Well, I am pretty sure the house tried to kill people, and someone jumped off the bannisters, but the youngest sister married her Duke in the end and they didn't live at Mannerling, but then there was an epilogue and they visited it and it was sinisterly calling to one of her young daughters.
Seriously, I have no idea what that series is. I'm going to the library myself on Friday, so I shall see if they still have the last one and I can at least tell you more than that, and possibly contemplate Yuletide. (Nominations are already open! But I think we have till Sunday. I have nommed Shadow of the Tower, but find myself completely undecided on everything else after all, which is unhelpful!)
And then I dreamed this incredibly bonkers gangster noir adventure with barnstorming sharks. I have no idea what to even do with that.
Well, I suppose it's different??? *hugs*
no subject
Oh, no need to exert yourself on my account, that's basically what I wanted to know anyway! :-) It is a hell of a premise, isn't it? Sort of reminds me of that one piece, what was it... The Terrible Doom That Came to Honeysuckle Cottage, that's it. Except more evil, rather than indifferent and cloying. :-)
no subject
And I think if I'm going to nom and request it, I need to check out at least one of the books if they're there, and the last is as good as any.
no subject
Also I feel like I'm alone in this opinion, but I don't think Lawrence Olivier made for a great romantic lead anyway. >__>
no subject
Also I feel like I'm alone in this opinion, but I don't think Lawrence Olivier made for a great romantic lead anyway. >__>
I was expecting not to like him that much as one myself, but actually I thought he was good as Darcy - maybe it's pre-him being a bit much in everything! (Or maybe I'm unfair, I'm not sure what I've actually seen him in, besides Henry V, although even I can't have missed him in everything else. I think...)
no subject