Closing the Ring, Britain / Canda / USA 2007

Richard Attenborough with Mischa Barton on the set of Teddy’s house

This turned out to be Attenborough’s final film as a director. The film was scripted by Peter Woodward. He was an actor, also a stuntman and then fight arranger. He branched out into post-production, including some script writing and scripted and produced a feature film. This was his first film as the scriptwriter proper. The basic idea seems to have been prompted by the discovery of an old gold wedding ring on an Irish hill. However, quite a lot has been added in the final film version.

The film has two main settings and cuts between them during World War II and the 1990s. The flashback structure is complex but relies on cast or locations to tie the plotting together. And important aspect of the plot only become clear to the audience at the climax.

The film opens in 1991 at a funeral in rural Michigan, in the North East USA. This obsequies for Chuck Harris are attended by a number of US war veterans. The eulogy is delivered by his daughter Marie (Neve Campbell). His widow, Ethel Ann (Shirley MacLaine) sits in the church porch, apparently drunk and supported by a close friend Jack Etty (Christopher Plummer). Following the graveside ritual it becomes apparent that Marie is furious with her mother and that there is a history of marital and maternal discord in the family.

In 1941 we meet the young Ethel Ann (Mischa Barton). She is friendly with a trio of young men; Teddy Gordon (Stephen Arnell): the young Jack Etty (Gregory Smith): and the young Chuck Harris (David Alpay). All three men are enamoured with Ethel Ann but she loves Teddy. A poor boy from farming stock. Teddy is building a house for himself and for Ethel Ann. All three friends are signed up for the USAF. When Pearl Harbour happens all three are called to service. Before they leave Teddy asks that if he does not return one of the others should care for Ethel Ann and selects Chuck. It is clear that despite his apparent disinclination Jack is upset by this.

In the same year in Belfast we meet the young Michael Quinlan (John Travers), working in the fire service during heavy bombing raids on the city. And in a scene in an air raid shelter we  meet the young Eleanor Riley  (Kirsty Stuart), an attractive girl with a reputation as a flirt. We also meet the young Cathal Thomas (Matthew McElhinney), a republican activist. In Belfast 1991 Eleanor now is a single mother with a son Jimmy (Martin McCann). On the Black Mountain [more a hill, just over a 1,000 foot in height], overlooking the city, Jimmy meets the older Quinlan (Peter Postlethwaite) who searches the mountain for debris from a B-17 bomber that crashed in 1944. Helping Quinlan Jimmy finds a gold and inscribed wedding ring. A complication for the future is that the mountain is also used as an observation post by the older Cathal (Ian McElhinney). And Cathal himself is being trailed by protestant members of Special Branch.

Jimmy brings the two separate groups, Michigan and Belfast, together when he manages to identify Ethel Ann as one of the names inscribed on the ring; the other is Teddy. The couple went through a non-legal marriage ceremony before he departed for war service. Jimmy is threatened by both the IRA and the Specials so Quinlan gives him the money to leave Belfast and he travels to  Michigan. His arrival brings the ghosts of the past to the surface for Ethel Ann, Jack and Marie. We learn that Jack had do tell Ethel Ann that Teddy had died. After a number of years she married Chuck but a wall of memorabilia for Teddy was kept and covered by a partition. This is now revealed to the anguished Marie, who leaves home.

Jimmy returns to Belfast but Ethel Ann follows. We learn that Jack and Teddy were flying in the same B-17 crew. However at a dance where Jack was dating Eleanor he and Teddy fought over Ethel Ann. Jack injured his leg and so did not fly next day. It was on the return from that bombing mission that the B-17 crashed into the mountain, killing the crew including Teddy. The final revelation occurs at the climax. A street bomb explodes killing a British soldier. Ethel Ann seems to find this a parallel to the death of Teddy and goes to cradle the dead body. But there is another second bomb. Quinlan manages to pull Ethel Ann away and then tells her that he was on the mountain when the B-17 crashed. He heard Teddy’s dying words for Ethel Ann; that she should be free to choose who she loves. Qunlan’s searches on the mountain were to find the ring that Teddy asked him to return to Ethel Ann.

In parallel on the hill Jimmy stumbles on Cathal who is shot by the Specials but dying sets off the second bomb, but no-one further is injured. Freed of past traumas Ethel Ann and Jack start a relationship and they are seen walking up a hill whilst Eleanor,  Jimmy and Quinlan are last seen at a picnic overlooking both the city and the sea.

The film received mixed reviews from critics. It failed at the box office taking far less in receipts than the production costs. IMDB states that it only received a video release in the USA. The film had a number of problems, many related to the basic script. The story seems to fail with the long arm of coincidence. The ring is found by Jimmy whilst Quinlan has spent fifty years searching; and just at the moment that Ethel Ann has become a widow and is therefore free for a new relationship. Jack conveniently breaks his ankle the night before the flight that ends in a crash; and the fledging replacement navigator appears to be lost just before it happens. And the use of time and space seems especially convenient. Teddy tells his friends he is broke which is why he is building the house himself. Yet in the space of less than a year it is completed and furnished. And Jimmy travels all the way to  Michigan from Ireland, seemingly with few problems en route; his first aviation trip.

The production values on the film are fine. Several of Attenborough’s regular collaborators worked on it. Roger Pratt’s cinematography is well done and there are overhead travelling crane shots, an Attenborough favourite. One opens the film and the closing shot is a reverse away from the final family event. Lesley Walker edits the film with real skill; some of the cuts are  brief shot, often of MacLaine, and then returning to the prior setting. This is assisted by the music, by Jeff Dana, with an Irish lilt for shots presenting Belfast.

The cast performances are pretty uneven, to a degree limited by the writing. MacLaine is convincing but overall it seems a little one-note. Plummer has the best of the writing and is a strong performance. Neve Campbell seems just angry and frustrated and little else. In the past neither Mischa Barton or Steve Arnell convince; their performances are all on the surface without much inner passion. Gregory Smith as young Jack is the strongest of this quartet. The Irish characters are better. Both Postlethwaite and Brenda Fricker are interesting whilst Martin McCann does well as Jimmy but the character as written does not really seem up to the various actions in which he is involved. There are a number or minor characters; two older women, neighbours of Eleanor and Jimmy, seem just caricatures.

Martin Martin McCann and Peter Postlethwaite on Black Mountain

One problem in the narrative is that we have this group of older characters, all with blighted lives. And it all seems rather unnecessary. The promise extracted by Teddy which imprisons Ethel Ann is not really convincing. And equally Teddy’s dying plea to the young Quinlan does not carry conviction either. And there is a gender problem here as well. We have five leading male characters and three leading female characters. Yet all of the latter are objects of the male characters. Eleanor is the freest of these but even her role is as mother to Jimmy. Even at the end Ethel Ann is still tied in the friendship circle set up in 1941.

There is also a problem with the sub-plot involving the IRA and the British security services. Some reviews commented on it as unnecessary. Certainly the only point in the plot where these activities matter is at the climax when Ethel Ann cradles the dead British soldier, killed by an IRA bomb. But what is supposed to be the relationship between him and Ethel Ann’s lost Teddy? It feels like a convenient add-on in order to make a point about the war in occupied Ireland, euphemistically known as ‘The Troubles’. It is not clear from the credits if anyone involved in the production had a particular stance to follow. As usual when British film-makers essay on this war there is little understanding of what is actually involved. The portrait of Cathal is typically that of a terrorist, and whilst the Special Branch characters are also violent and unpleasant there is no attempt to give them real context or motivation. There is no obvious production member with an interest in the war in occupied Ireland. However, Richard Attenborough frequently voiced his preference for non-violent resistance; he may have wanted to critically present armed resistance in Ireland.

The film is also interesting for another facet of the Attenborough thematic concerns. The bulk of his film output is historical and biopic; and there is a some of this in this film and in the preceding three titles. But all four films also privilege romances that in some way are cut short or unfulfilled. Shadowlands seems to me the best with the love between  C. S. Lewis and Joy Gresham. It struck me as the most effective of the four, partly because the settings reinforce the emotions in the relationship. In Love and War has the young Hemingway failing and then spurning a the love of Agnes. In this film the relationship does not quite add up to the historical characters. Grey Owl has the couple of Archie and Pony leaving for the wilderness where he dies; though in fact he had already started a new relationship with another woman. And in Closing the Ring Ethel Ann and Jack only start their relationship in their declining years, blighted by the actions of fifty years earlier. What stand out about Shadowlands is that it relies on a Britain that Attenborough knew well and appreciated. The following three are all, to some degree, set in foreign territories, and this seems to weaken the romantic and dramatic thrust of the later films.

Technicolor in 1.85:1, running time 118 minutes

 

Grey Owl, Britain / Canda 1999

“I found our eighth and most testing project in, of all places, my GP’s waiting room. Leafing through a tattered copy of Country Life, I came across a photograph of an imposing Red Indian chief, clad in the full regalia including a huge eagle-feather war bonnet. From the accompanying story, I learned that, before he was exposed as an impostor in the late 1930s, this extraordinary character – real nationality English, real name Archie Belaney – had toured Britain under his assumed Native Canadian identity, lecturing among other venues, at the De Montfort Hall in Leicester.” (Attenborough’s memoir, page 151)

This is a biopic but one that takes great liberties with the actual story of the titular character.

Helpfully Wikipedia summarises his life;

“Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938), commonly known as Grey Owl, was a popular writer, public speaker and conservationist. Born an Englishman, in the latter years of his life he passed as half-Indian, claiming he was the son of a Scottish man and an Apache woman. With books, articles and public appearances promoting wilderness conservation, he achieved fame in the 1930s. Shortly after his death in 1938, his real identity as the Englishman Archie Belaney was exposed.”

This is followed by a detailed history and it is worth noting that the film is vague on many dates. The film’s story seems to cover from the mid-1920s to Archie death in 1938, then in his forties. Apart from a flashback most of his life is missing. This includes several marriages and two children. It also includes the wilder aspects of his character with some rather serious incidents at school, in early employment and in his life in Canada. At the same time the film does emphasises his work as a conservationist and his influence through books and speaking tours.

The film was directed by Richard Attleborough and produced by him with Jake Eberts. Eberts had also been involved in Gandhi and was later involved in a film about Native Americans, Dances with Wolves (1990). Attenborough recalled that he had attended a lecture by Grey Owl in Leicester in 1936 together with his brother David. Both seemed to have been strongly influenced by this on the issue of conservation. I wonder if it was David who took Richard along; he was the one who remembered attending the lecture and then queuing to by a signed copy of the book.

The script is by William Nicholson, who wrote Shadowlands. As with that film there is an unlikely romance at the centre of this story, which works pretty well. But the wider context of Canada, Native Canadian Culture and the environmental challenges rather escapes him. The production company was Largo Entertainment, the company founded in 1989 starting promisingly with Point Break (1991). It also produced some interesting titles but Grey Owl was it last film before bankruptcy. The fellow production company was the British Allied Film-makers, which survived until 2010.

The film opens in 1936 as a journalist calls at Archie’s dressing room (Pierce Brosnan); he is on a speaking tour abroad and now back in Canada. In answer to his enquiry we get a flashback to 1934. Archie is already an established Indian character, living in the wilds and surviving by trapping but also writing for magazines. A client, Harry Champlin (Vasta Vrana), on a hunting trip, is a wealthy publisher, and suggests Archie could write a book. This segues into Archie meeting a young waitress at a cafe for tourists who visit this remote settlement, [actually years earlier]. Pony (originally Gertrude Bernard) has an Indian name of Anahareo, and is originally of Algonquin and Mohawk ancestry, (Annie Galipeau). Fascinated by the wilderness and her lost Indian culture she follows Archie back to his cabin. Their relationship is at first uneven but after he rescues her from a frozen lake it become sexual. Pony has a softening effect on Archie. In the evening in the cabin he starts to write, about his life, the wilderness and the threats to it.

An important sequence is when Archie, still trapping, kills a mother beaver. Her lost off springs are adopted by Pony. And as Archie softens he become involved and decides to give up trapping. The two young beavers, McGinnis and McGinty, become important characters for the couple and Archie’s developing public persona. It is Pony’s suggestion that leads to Archie giving a very successful talk to visiting tourists on the wilderness and on the beaver.

Pierce Brosnan and Anne Galipeau with the young beavers

Harry Champlin now follows up on his interest in publishing a book by Archie. This leads to a successful speaking tour in North America and in England. Archie appears in Indian regalia and speaks eloquently of the wilderness and the need for environmental protection., Short films shot of Archie and Pony in the wilderness accompany this. In England Archie, following a lecture, visits his actual home in Hastings. After the departure of his father and his mothers inability to cope Archie was raised by two maiden aunts. He now visit them and finds that they have kept his old teenage room as it was then; with Indian illustration, maps, models and literature.

As the film nears its end we return to the scene of the journalist visit to Archie. He has discovered who Archie really is; an English émigré posing as an Indian. Archie makes a farewell appearance and the journalist promises not to reveal the truth till after his death. There is a final scene of Archie’s at an Indian ritual, [a clip of the sequence runs under the opening credits]. The assembled chiefs quickly realise that Archie is not an actual Indian; something they find funny. A lead chief states,

‘men become what they dream – you have dreamed well’

Archie and Pony return to the wilderness. Online titles accompanied by a voice-over of Pony’s brother, Ned White Bear (Nathaniel Arcand) inform the viewer that Archie died in 1938. That after his death his real story was revealed. A long tracking shot over a northern lake accompanies restatement of his environmental concerns. [Not a Beaver in sight].

The film has good production values and some fine location settings and landscapes. It relies on a number of regular Attenborough collaborators: Roger Pratt cinematography: Lesley Walker editing: and George Fenton music; it also includes footage from the films of Archie shot by William J. Oliver in the 1930s. Overall the cast are solid but seemingly limited by the script; some of the dialogue seems very conventional. The ambiguity over dates rather undermines the narrative. Pierce Brosnan’s Archie lacks the volatile character suggested by Belaney’s biography. It is a rather one-note performance. Like a number of the cast Annie Galipeau is a Native Canadian, born in Quebec province where part of the film was shot. Her role is underwritten and, like Archie’s, leaves out important facts; she was herself also a writer and activist. And, in real life McGinnis and McGinty died young and were replaced with other young beavers.

The film failed at the box office and with the critics. There were some scathing reviews and the film may have been the last nail in the coffin of Largo. The film did have production problems, delays in getting off the ground. And there were more problems working with, in some cases, young and untried actors. But the greatest problem likely was fitting the personal drama and the epic settings into one film and that running under two hours. The romance worked better than In Love and War but less so than in Shadowlands. And the final movie never quite achieved some of the action in landscapes that was there In Love and War.

In Technicolor and Panavision, 2.35:1, running time 118 minutes. In English, Ojibwa, Sioux, and French, only partly translated with sub-titles.

 

In Love and War, USA 1996

Sandra Bullock with Richard Attenborough

This is a film adapted from ‘In Love And War: The Lost Diary of Agnes von Kurowsky, Her Letters, and Correspondence of Ernest Hemingway’ by Henry S. Villard and James Nagel. The book is based on Villard’s experiences as a volunteer ambulance driver in Italy in World War I and what he learnt later about people he knew there. Whilst in hospital Villard came to know Ernest Hemingway, also a volunteer with the Red Cross and wounded whilst at the front. Villard’s co-author, James Nagel, taught literature at Georgia University and was an expert on Hemingway. Villard also knew one of the hospital nurses, another US volunteer, Agnes von Kurowsky, who had a relationship with Hemingway. All three went their separate ways but after Hemingway’s death by suicide in 1961 Villard contacted and met Agnes. After Agnes’ death in 1984 her widower sent Villard both diaries and letters from the war period. All this fed into the book. The relationship between Hemingway and Kurowsky has intrigued scholars, especially as some of Hemingway’s writing refer to the romance, notably in his famous novel A Farewell to Arms.

What is uncertain is the depth of the affair and whether the couple actually had sex. Kurowsky stated not. Hemingway is an unreliable witness and his novel includes both sex and pregnancy. One complication is that Kurowsky was seven years older than Hemingway. In some letters she calls him ‘kid’. This seems to have been a factor in the end of the affair when Hemingway returned to the USA. After that they never met again.

So the book is not a factual record but rather three separate recollections of characters and events and the film takes liberties with the record in the book. The opening credits inform audiences that the film is based on a true story. As in most cases of mainstream film this is not completely accurate. Reviews on the film commented on how the narrative does not really address Hemingway’s later career, which presumably is what makes the story interesting or commercial; nor as written is there a sense of his well publicised character.

In the film Hemingway’s appearance is delayed and we first meet Henry Serrano Villard (Mackenzie Astin), a volunteer driver. He meets Agnes von Kurowsky (Sandra Bullock) among a party of US volunteer nurses; Harry immediately takes a shine to her. Then we meet the young Hemingway (‘Ern’ Chris O’Donnell), another US volunteer and chafing to be near the action. Later he makes his way to the front line distributing chocolates to the Italian soldiers; this seems to be in defiance of orders. He is injured in an artillery barrage but distinguishes himself by saving a wounded Italian infantryman. Both end up in the hospital where Agnes is working; later joined by Harry as well. Nurses have been instructed to avoid emotional relationships with patients. However Agnes has previous nursing experience at the US John Hopkins hospital and her experience there saves Hemingway from losing his leg in an amputation. He now makes a dead set at Agnes though she is at first resistant; she points out the age difference, given as seven years.

However, one night a patient commit suicide leaving an unfinished letter to his parents. All are distraught but Agnes takes the letter to her room in an attempt to finish it. Ern follows her and then dictates a fine ending for the letter. This is followed by an embrace and an ellipsis; but the later plot suggests that there was no actual sex.

This occurs when Agnes has been posted to a field hospital near the front line. She agrees to meet Ern at a village one evening. They rent a room at what is a bordello or brothel. And there sexual coitus is consummated. Then Ern is posted back to the USA. Meanwhile Agnes has also been courted by an Italian doctor and with a nurse friend visits him and his family villa in Venice. Torn by conflicting emotions Agnes agrees to marry the doctor and writes to Ern ending the relationship.

The final part of the film is invention. Agnes again changes her mind and breaks off with the doctor. She then visits New York and meets Harry. He tells her that Ern is at his family home and his letters are ‘raging and rambling’. Harry advises Agnes to visit Ern. She does and finds him fishing at local lake; something he had talked to her about in Italy. But Ern tells her

‘it wouldn’t work, not now’.

Agnes leaves whispering

“I love you” and adding to herself, “his pride meant he wasn’t able to forgive me.”

The film has very good production values. The production design: the costumes and props: and the  cinematography are all excellent,  as are the opening credits. The film uses locations in the north of Italy and in Venice to great effect. And the narrative provides space for Italian characters and plotting including Italian medical staff: Italian residents and citizens: and the Italian military. There is both English and Italian dialogue, with most of the latter translated in subtitles. This is a distinctive feature of what is essentially a Hollywood-style production. The production crew includes a number of craft people who had worked on other Attenborough projects. These include Production Design by Stuart Craig: Costumes by Penny Rose: Cinematography by Roger Pratt: and Editing by Lesley Walker.

The scripting involved a number of writers, however, Dimitri Villard, [whose father co-wrote the source book], worked on the screen story and was a producer. And Diana Hawkins, Attenborough’s long-time collaborator, was a co-producer. The attention given to Italy and to Italians widens the sense of the world of the story. It also provides settings that contribute to the atmosphere, and in the case of the Venetian villa, sumptuous sequences.,

The cast are good overall. Sandra Bullock and MacKenzie Astin are both convincing. Chris O’Connell tends to perform on the surface. Some of his sequences work well but he does not really generate the passion the character should feel. And, partly because of the writing, he is not really convincing as this emerging literary talent. Ingrid Lacey as fellow nurse Elsie ‘Mac’ MacDonald is good; as is Emilio Bonucci as Dr. Domenico Caracciolo, who provides an Italian romantic interest. The supporting cast are generally fine and convincing.

The film did well at the box office but not with the critics. One reviewer caustically claimed,

“Ernest Hemingway’s early life with all the stuffy tropes that the author would have excised in a second draft.”

Whilst the doyen critic Robert Ebert wrote,

“In Love and War is not much interested in Ernest Hemingway’s subsequent life and career, and even in its treatment of this early period, it doesn’t deal with themes such as his macho posturing, his need to prove himself, his grandiosity.”

It is interesting to compare this film treatment with Hemingway’s novelistic treatment of the affair and the two film versions of that work. Hemingway had a spare, muscular style. The novel embroidered both the affair and Hemingway’s experiences and presented these in the first person. It was also censored and considered over-explicit for the time. It offers the experience of War, or at least the particular type of war found early in the C20th. And it creates a powerful sense of the relationship and its problems.

The first film version was made in 1932 by Paramount Pictures. It was directed by Frank Borsage, an expert in creating on-screen romance. The two stars were Helen Hayes and Gary Cooper; the latter not the upright character he played in later years. The film compresses, changes and adds to the novel’s plot. But there is real chemistry between Hayes and Cooper and the romance, with a tragic conclusion, is powerful . In 957 David O Selznick produced a new version; so, of course, it starred Jennifer Jones playing opposite Rock Hudson, a popular romantic lead. The film opened out the story with Italian locations and much more background. But Jones and Hudson failed to create the romantic emotion of the earlier version. The 1996 In Love and War is much for effective than the 1957 film in its use of a wider story: locations and costumes: and a fuller background. But it does not generate the emotional power of the 1932 version. Interestingly neither does it generate the emotional power of Attenborough’s earlier Shadowlands; likely the closeness of that story to his own early years of adulthood had an effect.

Neither the book or the three films actually address the politics of World War I or those involved in the campaigns between Italy and Austria. Ironically the 1932 film version was banned in an Italy that succumbed to fascism after the war.

In colour and Panavision 2.35:1, running time 113 minutes

 

 

Shadowlands, Britain 1993

This film is adapted from two sources: a BBC Wales film produced in 1985: and a stage play from 1989. Both were written by Williamson but the original idea was a script for Thames Television by Brian Sibley and Norman Stone. Brian Sibley also authored a book on the subject Shadowlands: The True Story of C. S Lewis and Joy Davidman. This film includes the stage play in the credits but not the earlier television production.

The film opens in 1952 in Oxford. C. S. ‘Jack’ Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) is a don at Magdalen College but also an established writers and popular lecturer outside the University. His writings include popular books, almost fairy tales, for children. He lives outside the city in a rural setting, likely the family home where he grew up,  with his brother Warren ‘Warnie’ (Edward Hardwicke); they have a servant, Mrs. Parrish, who cooks for them. And he is a member of a small College circle, all in some sense Christians.

He receives fan letters from a U.S. poet Joy Davidman (Debra Winger), She visit Oxford and thy meet at what looks like the Randolph Hotel; very upmarket. Joy is living apart from her husband, with her son Douglas Gresham (Joseph Mazzello). Lewis invites them to spend Christmas with himself and his brother. He learns that Douglas is a fan of his books.

Lewis is portrayed as a very self-contained character; there is no suggestion of any sexual interests, either heterosexual or homosexual. He also tends to dominate those around him, including Warnie and his fellow academics. Joy is much more of an extrovert and frequently breaks through British reticence. Lewis, and we, also gradually learn that she is separated from her husband who is both a philanderer and an alcoholic.

After a sojourn in the USA  Joy and Douglas return and re-establish contact with Lewis. In order to secure residency rights Joy asks Lewis to marry her. They go through a civil wedding at a registrar, notable without a ring. Audiences will start to suspect that Joy’s feelings are more than just friendship; and there are hints that Lewis’ feelings are changing. Then Joy is diagnosed with advanced cancer of the hip; likely to be terminal. Lewis feels obliged to care for her but then discovers that his feelings for her have become powerfully emotional. They now have a religious wedding with a ring.

Joy has a remission but it not long-lasting. They go for what is a delayed honeymoon on a trip to ‘The Golden Valley in Herefordshire. The trip is motivated by a picture of this scenic spot hanging in Lewis’ study, which has hung there since he was a child. A sympathetic landlady explains to them that the ‘golden’ is a mistranslation of French into Welsh; it is a valley of water. But they still find it beautiful and a moment of real romantic engagement.

Inevitably Joy dies and Lewis is distraught. Warnie, who has stayed in the background but particularly cared for Douglas, tells Lewis he must care for the boy. The film ends with a voice over of a phrase Lewis learnt from Joy as we see Warnie and Douglas out in the countryside.

The first conundrum is the title of the film. It reads like Sibley chose this term which was then picked up by Williamson. How much the original script and the subsequent t book fed into the play and film is unclear. The term ‘Shadowlands’ makes sense though. Lewis’ children books for which he is best remembered describe fantasy lands, with a Christian subtest. One really strong motif is a magical wardrobe where a child push pass a fur coat to enter the magic land. Douglas is struck by this and is keen to see the house’s attic. There is indeed a wardrobe but no magical entrance to another land. It is Warnie who first shows it to him but at the end it is Lewis who sits with him in front of the wardrobe and offers some consolation.  Predictably the attic is a room of shadows.

But the relationship with Joy also brings the shadow of illness and death into the life of Lewis; which appeared relatively untroubled before that.

The key characters in the film are Jack/Lewis and Joy. Hopkins’ Jack is a fine performance. Early in the film he presents this self-contained character, with little emotion on the surface. Later in the film both his emotions and his vulnerabilities emerge convincingly. Hopkins  performances tend to act out dominant characters. With Jack perhaps this overstates his confidence; but the performance can cope with the failure of this. There is a humorous moment when Jack cannot order room service over the hotel telephone properly; something is it is clear Joy can easily manage. Winger’s Joy is also a fine and convincing performance. Whilst she achieves the extrovert quality she also suggests that there is a more beneath the surface. The other fine performance is Hardwicke’s Warnie. This character is almost  always in the background but there is always a sense of where he fits. The screenplay leaves a question mark over Warnie, whose only role seems to be a companion to Jack. The actual Warner, the older of the two brothers, suffered from neurosis, something the film leaves alone. Young Mazzello as young Douglas is also fine: in fact, he is from the USA, but does not really convince as a young North American: presumably this is down to the production and/or the direction. The fellow academics only have small roles in the film but Michael Denison as Harry Harrington and John Wood as Christopher Riley both have important scenes, very different in tone.

The screenplay clearly is one of the major factors in the effectiveness of the film. It was identified by Attenborough’s colleague Diana Hawkins,

“I told him [Attenborough] William Nicholson’s screenplay was one of the best I’d ever come across, and unlike any other, had reduced me to tears.” (Memoir page 243).

Likely having worked on the play and then the film had enabled Nicholson to refine the narrative to its most effective. There are changes from the actual story and the play. Joy actually had two sons, both of whom were to live with Lewis after her death. Their ‘honeymoon’ was actually in Greece, but I suspect the idea of a British site seem to fit with the very traditional English flavour of the plot.

“The stage play opens with Lewis giving a talk about the mystery of suffering, whereas this film intersperses a similar talk several times throughout the narrative.” (Wikipedia)

In fact, what we observe in the film is a series of talks by Lewis to different audiences in different settings. Generally these are large affairs, one with several hundred in the audience and in a very large hall. The audiences include both genders but women are in the majority. Several themes emerge in these talks: how God can allow disasters: the nature of suffering: and what exactly is love.

What we only learn through the dialogue is that Joy was, at some point, a member of the Communist Party USA. This is not explored but Davidman came from a Jewish family and joined the Party in 1938; a common response to the decade of Fascism among intellectuals. The activities of HUAC may have been a factor for her sojourn in England. She took up Christianity in some form and, of course, Anglicanism was a central feature of Lewis’ life.

The production is extremely well done. It includes a number of regular collaborators with production designer Stuart Craig, composer George Fenton and production craft people Terry Clegg and Simon Kaye on sound. The fine cinematography was by Roger Pratt, who was to work again with Attenborough on In Love and War. The filming included the actual Magdalen College and The Golden Valley. Hawkins records six weeks of sunshine and a happy production.

The film received positive reviewed and did well at the box office, surpassing its production budget easily. There are limitations to the film. The most notable are down to the conventional treatment of narrative which one finds in films directed by Attenborough. The film does essay the emotional pain as Davidman grows sick and approaches death. But the physical pain, including the visual impact of illness, is lacking. This is common in mainstream movies; Love Story is a prime example; also a film with a cancerous illness. In real life the final illness of Joy must have been debilitating and chronic. The film seems almost bland at times but there is an understatement which is very effective and fits the characters. . A prime example is the end of the film. We see Warnie and Douglas out in the countryside as a voice over  by Lewis repeats a line he learned from Joy.

“Why love, if losing hurts so much? I have no answers any more: only the life I have lived. Twice in that life I’ve been given the choice: as a boy and as a man. The boy chose safety, the man chooses suffering. The pain now is part of the happiness then. That’s the deal. “

But running after Douglas is a dog, a spaniel; the first seen in the film. This is similar to the addition for the final scene on the beach of The Road, also a dog. One of the Hollywood tropes for signaling either things are well or a character is good.

In Technicolor and Panavision 2.39|:1, running time 131 minutes, [cut to 115 minutes in Canada].

 

 

 

Chaplin, USA 1992

Richard Attenborough and Robert Downey Jr.

Richard Attenborough explained

“My wish is that people will come away from Chaplin with a greater feeling for what a wonderful medium the cinema is: a deeper understanding of the human foibles and frailties exemplified in this man who was a genius: and the reasons why he finds himself at such odds with what is accepted as proper and appropriate behaviour.”

This film was produced and directed by Richard Attenborough. The production company was Carolco (Tri-Star) with collaboration from Japanese Television, the French Canal and a video company. It is based partly on Charles Chaplin’s 1964 My Autobiography and David Robinson’s 1985 Chaplin, His Life and Art. Chaplin died in 1977 but his family, especially his widow Oona, resisted attempts to make a biographical film. Attenborough visited her in Switzerland and she agreed, partly it seems because she had liked his earlier Gandhi. The basic story was written by Diana Hawkins, and then several writers worked on the screenplay: William Boyd, Bryan Forbes and William Goldman. A continuing hurdle was fitting Chaplin’s life into a reasonable length film. It seems that Goldman added a fictional character, editor of Chaplin’s autobiography, as a structuring and linking device. The idea for this originated with Attenborough. It took some time to get the production going because of hesitations among the funding producers. A key aspect was casting Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role; Chaplin was his first major role.

The film opens with a relatively young Chaplin removing the make-up and attire of his famous creation, ‘the Tramp’. The scene starts in black and white and gradually changes to colour. A voice is hear on the soundtrack; it will later become apparent that this is the editor of My Autobiography, George Hayden (Anthony Hopkins) in 1963. It also becomes apparent that he has a list of questions regarding a manuscript of the intended book by Chaplin; his questions relate to issues that are not treated in detail in the book or are missed out almost completely.

Thus, apart from brief glimpses of Chaplin and Hayden at the Swiss mansion, the rest of the film is in flashback. First we get Chaplin’s childhood, with a particular emphasis on his mother Hannah; the father is almost completely absent. Starting to suffer from mental problems Hannah is booed off stage in a Music Hall; but the young Charlie takes her place  and wows the vocal audience. Charlie and his half- bother Syd are put in a workhouse and then separated. Later Hannah is committed to a mental asylum. Syd reappears and assist Charlie in joining the Music Hall troupe of Fred Karno (John Thaw). He soon becomes a star turn.

The troupe tour the USA and Charlie receives an offer from the Max Sennett film studio, already located in the developing Hollywood suburb of Los Angeles. Sennett (Dan Aykroyd) is at first sceptical of Chaplin’s youth, but Charlie convinces him and is soon starring in the typical one reeler films made at the studio; running about fifteen minutes each. Here Chaplin develops his on-screen persona of ‘the tramp’. Chaplin’s career in the teens of the C19th is severely compressed. But we see him evolving as a major star: becoming a director of his own films: acquiring his own studio: and earning increasingly large salaries. The only characters we see in this period are Max Sennett and one of his stars, Mabel Norman (Marisa Tomei): the cameraman who worked most frequently with Chaplin,  Roland Totheroh (David Duchovny): a young actress who becomes a regular leading lady Edna Purviance (Penelope Ann Miller): and Syd who joins Chaplin in Hollywood and acts as a sort of manager.

We move into the 1920s when Chaplin, like other comics, moved onto feature length films. He becomes friendly with Douglas Fairbanks (Kevin Kline), and the his wife-cum-star Mary Pickford (Maria Pitillo). An amount of attention is given to his first marriage to Mildred Harris (Mila Jocovich). An issue here is that several of Chaplin’s relationship are with young women under legal age in the USA. In Mildred’s case there is a divorce with her lawyers attempting to seize Chaplin’s latest film, The Kid. There is sequence, shot like a Sennett comedy, as Chaplin and his aides edit the film in secret.

There is also a scene of a dinner party attended by the future director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover (Kevin Dunn). Hoover indulges in his racist and homophobic views and Chaplin makes fun of him. For the film this provides the motivation for a long-running witch hunt by Hoover of Chaplin; though he was doing the same to countless other liberals and lefties.

In 1921 Chaplin visits England and gets a massive reception, though some people are still angry that he spent World War I in the safety of the USA. From this point Chaplin makes his home in the USA. The rest of what was a world tour is missing from the film.

The 1920s are also compressed though we gets references in the studio scenes to The Gold Rush. We also see and hear debates about the advent of films with sounds, ‘the talkies’. Chaplin resists following the almost total turnover of Hollywood to sound production; the example here being City Lights, which follows an argument between Chaplin and Syd over sound.

The 1930s bring his marriage to Paulette Godard (originally Marion Levy – Diane Lane) and his film Modern Times. Here Chaplin uses a soundtrack but not dialogue. There are several scenes with Chaplin supervising the recording of the soundtrack and the music. We do not see either Alfred Newman or David Raksin, both involved in the arranging and scoring. Chaplin plays the tramp for the last time and Goddard appears as ‘The Gamin’.

Wold War II arrives though the USA is isolationist. There is a scene where Chaplin refuses the hand of the German Ambassador. This is followed by the filming of The Great Dictator; there are scenes of the production and the filming of a scene where Chaplin makes a political but also sentimental speech.

There is the affair with a young actress Joan Barry (Nancy Travis). This later leads to a court case over claimed paternity of child. Chaplin’s case rests on blood tests that show he is not the father, but these are deemed inadmissible. There is a trenchant and deliberately rude portrayal of Chaplin by the prosecuting attorney, Joseph Scott (James Wood). In a film with many short scenes this is an extended declamation; designed to show how Chaplin was maligned in the USA, by such as Hoover.

A title, ‘Seven years later’ has Chaplin at a première for Limelight. By this time he has married Oona O’Neill; much younger than Chaplin but the partner in a successful marriage. She is played by Moira Kelly, who also played an earlier romance, Hettie Kelly; the film clearly trying to explore Chaplin’s romanticism with this parallel. Chaplin then finds that his visa for the USA, [he never took out citizenship] has been withdrawn. Ten years later Oona accompanies Chaplin when he travel to Los Angeles to be presented with an honorary Academy Award. First we see him waiting in a dressing room, now tied to a wheelchair. Then he sits on a darkened stage watching a montage of excerpts from his silent films, ending with the final shot from The Circus. The end credits follow. Characters appear alongside mini-biographies. The film is dominated by Charlie Chaplin, and his portrayal by Robert Downey Jr.. This won universal acclaim, and he and the film received nominations at different award ceremonious. But the only major award was for Downey at the BAFTAS. The supporting cast are generally very good. There are popular star sin many minor roles, most more than a cameo but not that developed. Paul Rhys Sydney and Geraldine Chaplin’s Hannah do both get developed. And to varying degrees Chaplin’s amours and wives are developed. In the 1920s Kevin Kline’s Douglas Fairbanks has a number of scenes. Kevin Dunn’s Hoover gets a number of scenes and is suitably malevolent. And Anthony Hopkins editor is frequent and important in structuring the narrative, but the scripted questions lack depth.

Sven Nykvist, Stuart Craig and Richard Attenborough

The production values are very good. The cinematography is down to the internationally acclaimed Sven Nykvist. The British Anne V. Coates is editor and clearly had her hands full with the complexity of scene changes and cuts. There are some very well done ‘classical’ techniques, such as the wipes in the Keystone sequences: and a brilliant pastiche of Keystone in the sequence as Charlie and his team flee the lawyers hired by Mildred Harris. The music by John Barry is also very well done. He makes use frequently of the music from Chaplin’s films, much composed by Chaplin himself. The most frequent is ‘Smile, a theme in Modern Times later turned into a song.

The film did suffer in pre-production by changes in the production company, Universal pulled out of the project, with the original idea of the project severely reduced and preparatory work, including sets being wasted. Presumably the long gestation period affected the final outcome.

Two criticisms of the final film were that it was ‘overly glossy’ and that it took ‘dramatic licence’ with some of Chaplin’s’ biography. The film really focuses on Chaplin’s personal life and his many romantic and sexual involvements. There are presented alongside his film work. But Chaplin himself always regarded his film work as the most important aspect of his life. At one point he says to the editor that one is ‘judged by what you did.’

And much of Chaplin’s film work is missing from the film. The teens are presented through Keystone, increasing earnings and Chaplin moving until he had his owns studio. However, between Keystone and United Artists Chaplin was contracted to Essanay, Mutual and First National. Moreover we only a see a few of the Chaplin titles of that period. Yet this is when his stardom and his career were established. So the film does not really justify the world-wide stardom that he achieved.

Missing from the 1920s is A Woman of Paris, a film that Chaplin directed but in which he did not star. That role went to Edna Purviance, but the film does not develop her at all; apart from a companion of Chaplin she played the lead in numerous of his fine silent shorts.

And in the 1940s  another missing film is Monsieur Verdoux. This film was not a success. But it revealed a particular sardonic streak in Chaplin and was his most direct attack on the social system in which he worked. Missing again is the later A King in New York; not a particularly good Chaplin feature but one in which he attacked HUAC, which was a public extension of the repression that Hoover organised through the FBI.

The overall film has the episodic form that is also found in the earlier biopics. But Chaplin also has an important difference. Young Winston, Gandhi and Cry Freedom all focused on the public face of their subject with the personal story given less emphasis. In Chaplin it is the personal that takes precedence over the public face.  As is demonstrated by the series of questions of the editor this is the opposite of Chaplin’s focus in his autobiography; and one that the film gives insufficient attention. Whilst this biopic addresses Chaplin’s personal character and ‘foibles’ it does not really illuminate cinema as a medium. Interestingly whilst David Robinson offers several pages on the film in the Dossier he does not offer a comment on how effectively the film presents Chaplin as a great film director.

In Eastmancolor with black and white sequences, 1.85:1, running time 143 minutes, with English, Italian and German and some sub-titles

 

 

 

Cry Freedom, Britain / Zimbadwe / USA 1987

This film was produced and directed by Richard Attenborough through Marble Arch Productions and Universal Pictures. It is based on two books by Donald Woods; he was an editor of the South African ‘Daily Despatch’ but had to flee the Apartheid State because of his work to expose the murder of a Black activist, Steve Biko. One book is Biko (1978) about the black activist; the other is Asking for Trouble The Autobiography of a Banned Journalist, recounting how he and his family fled their country to Britain. Woods had tried to interest several producers in making a film about Biko. He recounts how the proposed movie took the form that it did;

“Attenborough told Norman [Spencer] and me that he felt “a bloody good film” could be made on the basis of my books – provided the script with the right ingredients from both could be written. He thought that while Biko was the basic theme, Asking for Trouble provided “the way into” the movie, his reasoning being the same as Norman’s – that Woods’ story was the necessary balance to the Biko story if mass audiences were to be reached in Europe and the United States”. (Filming with Attleborough, 1987).

This was the basis for the screenplay by John Briley; he had written Gandhi and on this film was also a producer. Attenborough sold the project to Universal Pictures; note, they commissioned a survey to discover the recognition of Apartheid among U.S. citizens, the poll revealed 11%.

There were also issues with the South African regime, still repressing / oppressing the black majority.  Filming there was out of the question. However, the production was able to involve the Government of Zimbabwe, now liberated from white minority rule., The country had suffered serious violence between the two main political parties, partly based on tribal divisions; the violence died down in 1987 when the two parties formed a unified government, The Patriotic Front. The production used craft people, supporting actors and extras from the civilian population.

The film opens in an African township at dawn, the Crossroads settlement. An on-screen date, [telex-typed] gives 25th November 1975. Armed police in vehicles with dogs terrorise the inhabitants, wrecking homes in what was considered an illegal settlement; Black Africans were frequently restricted to reserves and forced to carry passbooks.

The film cuts to the offices of the ‘Daily Despatch’ where a photographer, Ken Robertson (Kevin McNally), brings Woods a record of the raid, and remarks that there were posters of Steve Biko in the settlement. Woods knew of Biko as a member of The Black People’s Convention and an advocate of a political philosophy, Black Consciousness. Woods writes an editorial critical of Biko and his philosophy. This leads him to being challenged to actually meet Biko, who was already subject to a state ban. These bans restricted a person’s movements and who s/he could or could not meet.

Despite this Woods and Biko meet; Woods is impressed with Biko, the more so when he gives the editor a surreptitious trip to a black township. We see both Biko’s activities to assist and support black people but also his public persona as an advocate of black autonomy. This includes being seized and interrogated by the security police and his testimony at a trial of black activists.  Then Biko is caught in a police check. Arrested he is interrogated for three weeks. At the end he is brain damaged from the torture and dies on the way to hospital.

Donald and Wendy Woods lead a rehearsal for the funeral

Woods, and his wife Wendy, are distraught and attend the funeral, which is a mass affair of black people with a few liberal whites in attendance. Woods then manages to get photograph of the body which disprove the State claim that he died on a ‘hunger strike’. Preparing to travel to the USA to give a series of lectures on Biko, Woods is arrested and subject to a banning order. By now he has a hidden manuscript on Biko. He decides that he needs to leave South Africa. His wife Wendy objects, partly on the grounds that he has not consulted her. However, the family are subjected to abuse and toxic parcels by the police and other racists. She agrees.

The escape has Woods travelling secretly to the border and crossing in to Lesotho from where he can fly via Botswana to London. Once across the order he will contact Wendy who will also have to travel secretly to Lesotho. Succeeding, they fly over to South African territory, fearful of interception by South Africa, but they survive this. The journey and the flight include flashbacks by Woods to events with Biko. Some of these comment on their situation, but others are about the struggle against Apartheid. The final flashback is the now infamous massacre of protesting school student in Soweto on June 16th 1976. As the plane flies on an on-screen lists records the black activists who died in police custody between 1963 and 1987.

Donald and Wendy Woods were involved in the pre-production and production of the movie, including all the filming in Zimbabwe. Woods describes this in Filming With Attenborough (1987). He describes in detail the whole filming process. As a non-professional Woods describes what he sees and hears: and provides a sense of just how different aspects of the filming work: something you do not get in Attenborough’s writings. He also emphasizes the painstaking attention to detail: in the look, dress and accents of characters: in the settings and décor: and in the particulars of any action. He also notes minor deviations, usually for clarity on screen. And he provides brief portraits of many of the regulars, crew and cast, who worked on Attenborough’s films.

Simon Kaye [sound], Donald Woods, Richard Attenboorugh, Kevin Kline [seated] and Wendy Woods

He also writes on the performances in the film. Denzel Washington and Kenneth Kline play very different characters but both are really effective. It is worth noting that Attenborough did audition African players for the role of Biko, but he felt that they lacked the appearance of the character and his charisma. Woods’ praise applies to the supporting cast, both from Britain and the USA and from Africa itself. There are couple of star cameos but not on the scale on the earlier historical biopics.

The film runs for 157 minutes but it is not really epic in the way that Gandhi or Young Winston aspire to be. Much of the film is about characters interacting, often with frequent close-ups. There are some fine exteriors and landscapers, filmed by Ronnie Taylor. And the several mass action sequences are dynamic and use a favourite trope of Attenborough’s, the crane shot, often tracking back from the action. The editing is well done but the demands of a dual narrative makes it sometimes obvious. The soundtrack is predominately in English but there is also Afrikaan, Xhosa, Zulu, and Sesotho: there are English sub-titles but not for all the dialogue. The music is composed or arranged by George Fenton. There are orchestral accompaniment that tend to mark passages of emotion but there is also an amount of African music, including ‘Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika’; this is an African Christian hymn that was a sort of a national anthem for the Black struggle, ‘God Bless Africa’.

Generally the film garnered positive reviews. And it received a number of Award nominations. It failed to recoup the production costs from theatrical rentals, but likely has made money since from other formats.

The film is limited in some ways by the narrative which, as Woods explained, combined a biopic with an escape thriller. This is really noticeable at times; there is a cut directly from the Biko funeral to Kruger [Minister of Police, John Thaw] watching the event on television and then to Wendy in the Woods Home. This is just on eighty minutes into the film, almost exactly half-way. The change in pace and tone as the narrative moves from Woods friendship with Biko to the family escape is something that some critics picked up on. The flashbacks to Biko during Woods’ escape seem to be designed to keep the audience aware of the principal character. It seems to have been a problem and it does not seem to actually deliver on the motives of Attenborough and other producers. The first eighty minutes of the film are about Biko, mediated by white characters like Woods. Thus this strategy could have been maintained for the whole film: still including a reduced escape plot: but with a fuller and more detailed representation of Biko and his philosophy.

Richard Attenboorugh and Donald Woods in front of Zimbadwe extras

There is a certain irony in a film written and produced in Britain; the originator of the divided and colonised Southern Africa. And the prime funders, in Britain and the USA, were very much part of the system that exploited Africans under Apartheid. The film actually falls into a wider genre, journalist reporting on Third World conflicts. Under Fire (1983) is an example where the journalists leave a successful liberation: The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) is an example where the journalist leaves chaos and violent repression: whilst in Place of Weeping (1986) a South African journalist investigating a rural racist murder returns to the city, unsuccessful. The common trope across these films is that, at the end, the white [frequently male] reporters leaves whilst the indigenous struggle on or even die in that struggle. Cry Freedom fits the genre; with the Woods leaving South Africa, and leaving the struggling black consciousness movement there. However, Woods carries with him the spirit of Biko in his manuscript, so this film adds a rather different emphasis.

The centre of Black Consciousness in the 1970s were the Black Townships. And they have also seen the focus of a number of films addressing Black Resistance and Black Consciousness. A key title is Mapantsula (South Africa 1988), released in the same year as Cry Freedom. Like the mainstream movie this film is set in an African township: it opens with a demonstration suppressed by the police: and its penultimate’s scene is again the violent suppression of a township demonstration. The film was directed by a white anti-racist film-maker, Oliver Schmitz and scripted by him and the film’s leading player, Thomas Mogotlane; the latter worked in the township theatrical provision. The film is unconventional using some of the techniques advocated in Soviet montage. The film’s focus is the townships and the black residents. And in the course of the narrative Black Consciousness is shown to work on the characters. The film was made by circumventing the South African censorship body; but once released it suffered restricted distribution. However, it was seen in basic township venues and in video venues by ordinary Black Africans. Oddly, it got a nomination for the Academy Awards by South Africa; this may have been occasioned by a screening at the Cannes Film Festival and a warm response there. It is an African alternative to Cry Freedom, made for and by black Africans; and Mogotlane’s performance in the film suggests that he could have taken on the role of Biko in the mainstream movie.

Rather like Gandhi, Cry Freedom demonstrates the contradictions of western liberals making movies about liberation struggles directed against the film-makers home and imperialist state. There tends to be a simplification in the politics of the oppressed; so this film only offers a few lines by Biko about black autonomy and black resistance. In fact, the Black Peoples Convention not only had a complex political standpoint but one conditioned by the social situation of the time. The African National Congress, [larger than the more radical Pan-African National Congress) had little influence or presence in the townships They had  a military wing operating in the state  from bases beyond the border but much of their efforts went on influencing international opinion and action. At the time the ANC was opposed to the line of the Convention; something apparent when the film was made, the ANC not opposing the film but not supporting it either.

In colour and Panavision 2.35:1, running time 157 minutes. Also released in 70mm blow-up and 16mm anamorphic. Cut by ten minutes in Canada.

 

 

A Chorus Line, USA 1985

The Chrous Line including Richard Attenborough

“That first evening on Broadway [viewing the stage A Chorus Line), I was immensely moved by several moment in the show. I remember particularly that when Maggie, one of the dancers, recalling her childhood, said, ‘Daddy, I would love to dance,’ tears rolled down my face in complete abandonment to sheer theatrical magic.” (Dossier, page 74).

This is a film adaptation of this highly successful Broadway musical. Even before the production began there were hesitations and questions about a film’s viability. A number of successful film-makers express a disinclination to work on the film; suggesting that it would be very difficult to adapt to the screen. Then Universal paid a lot for the screen rights but later sold it on to Polygram who were joined in the production by Embassy. The screenplay was adapted from the original book by Arnold Schulman, who had worked on the successful screen musical Funny Girl (1975). Richard Attenborough was recruited as director; note this was an Attenborough outing as director but he was not also producer.. Several songs from the stage version were cut or altered and there were some minor changes as to which character said or did what. And this was picked up by fans of the stage version.

The plot is simple. In an empty theatre a choreographer of a forthcoming musical, Zach (Michael Douglas), with his assistant Larry (Terrence Mann), has to whittle dozen of hopefuls down to a group of sixteen. Then this group go through a series of demanding auditions for a final eight parts in a chorus line. The audition include the dancers have to tell Zach about their hopes, ambitions, lives and experience with Zach adding quite intimidating questions. The group expands to seventeen when another dancer Cassie (Alyson Reed) manages to join the group late. She uses her previous relationship with Zach, they co-habited, as a way of persuading him. Finally the seventeen are reduced to the final and successful eight.

Zach sits behind a desk with a microphone and for the early part of the film in relative darkness. Larry is responsible for the onstage arrangements and instructing the group in dance routines. The finale of the film is a flash forward to the actual stage production when the eight dancers perform a number in gold costumes; and are gradually joined by all the previous aspiring dancers dressed identically.

Note in the original stage production Cassie seems to be there from the start. And the opening auditions are supervised by Zach on stage with the dancers. When we get to the final seventeen, a number not explained and seemingly odd, he rtreats to the auditorium. I looked at the a video of the original stage production but where he sat or stood in front of the proscenium was not clear. It seems unlikely that it will be as in the film where Zach is about a dozen rows back in the auditorium, with a desk, microphone, telephone and assistant. I also noted that with both stage and screen the auditioning dancers went straight into routines with just some guiding word from either Zach or Larry; I did wonder if auditioning dancers would be that familiar with a quite large variety of dance routines.

Michael Douglas plays Zach; his performance met mixed reviews but he seems to me eminently suitable to the character required by the plot. Terrence Mann’s Larry seems to have more onstage control in the film version. He also has several scenes away from the stage and auditorium with Cassie, which I suspect were added for the film. The actual dancers seem fine in both versions. They are clearly designed to offer a variety and diversity of characters.

Two Attenborough regulars, Ronnie Taylor cinematography and John Bloom editing, have to cope with the limitations of a film set which is merely the interior of a theatre. Both did extremely well. This was exacerbated by filming in the scope format of 2.35:1. That is fine for the long lines of the chorus but most of the film is more tightly staged and I suspect that 1.85:1 would have worked better; intriguingly academic ratio would have mirrored the original stage presentation.

Richard Attleborough [in his memoir] noted that the original budget was quite low and included using non-union labour at lower pay rates. The budget was expanded before the movie entered production. Attenborough does not provide more information on this issue but with his Equity background you would expect that he would insist on at least proper rates of pay.  I did wonder about the financial arrangements for dancers auditioning on Broadway for parts.  In the case of A Chorus Line, the final seventeen had a gruelling audition of quite a few hours: do the unsuccessful get any pay?

The other point that made me wonder was the personal stories by the dancers. This is apparently motivated by Zach who explains that there are some small parts as well as the chorus and that he wants to establish people’s potential. But he deliberately rules out performance; but for a musical the logical skills he would look for are exactly performance. It is the same in the stage version; I suspect that the original idea was to present the audience with the feeling and experiences of people auditioning for the parts, adding  motivation. However, certainty for the movie, this would have been better done by presenting the internal images and voices of the dancers; a well established cinematic trope. I found this, like the situation with Cassie, unconvincing. And another point that caught my attention was the age of the people auditioning. Attenborough in the publicity book [Richard Attenborough’s Chorus Line], refers to them as ‘young people’ and gypsies; it appears the latter term refers to people regularly seeking work in chorus lines. In fact, in the film, and it seems in the stage version, most of the dancers are in their mid twenties. But, with exceptions, we do not get that much information about their theatrical experience, though the ease with which they perform routines suggests quite an amount of experience.

The film had mixed reviews but a very poor box office, nowhere near the twenty million dollar budget. I think these reviews might be a factor in that but there is a sense that fans of the musical were not keen on a film version. Attenborough’s comment points to the theatrical nature of the musical. Also, the fears of experienced film-makers about working such a  confined setting were also probably justified. Finally, Attenborough was not his own producer. In comments he recalls disagreements with the producers; he seems to have resolved this well but I wonder how much the limitations of the production affected matters.

In Technicolor and 2.35:1 from Super 35, running time 113 minutes. There was a 70mm blow-up version.

 

Gandhi, Britain, India, USA, South Africa 1982

Gandhi is the central event of Attenborough’s life, not just of his career and creation. He devoted twenty years to the project and risked everything he possessed. Somehow both he and his grand idea survived the years of diappointment, delay, frustration, ridicule and obstruction without becoming stale or sour. By persistence and stubborness which would have seemed quixotic in anyone else, Attenborough finally achieved hisamabition – and more.” [David Robinson on page 66 of Dossier).

This twenty year odyssey by Attenborough started after he was approached in 1962 by Motilal Kothar who asked that he should become involved in making a biopic of the famous Indian leader, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Attenborough, who at the time had not directed a film,  read the biography by Louis Fischer and was immediately taken with the project. His travails in funding and actually producing the film are recounted In Search of Gandhi (1982). Finally the film was made by Goldcrest together with the National Film Corporation of India and support from Columbia Pictures. Over the period there were several versions of a screenplay, the final one used was by John Briley. There were also a number of actors proposed to play the lead role, finally settling on Ben Kingsley, who was Anglo-Indian with roots in the same area of India as Gandhi himself. There had been two previous attempts to make a film about Gandhi, and, less noticed, two documentaries: one made in the USA: and one made in India, the latter running over five hours. Attenborough does mention Nine Hours To Rama (1963), a fictionalised account of Gandhi’s assassin: Attenborough justifiably thought the film poor.

The final film runs 190 minutes, with an intermission. Even then it only covers parts of Gandhi’s life and work: an opening on-screen title makes the point that one movie cannot encompass the life of such a man. The title stemmed from arguments in India about what could justifiably be left out the biopic. The film tends to the episodic, and this is a characteristic of nearly all of Attenborough’s biopic and historical dramas. There are a number of established British actors cast in cameo roles

The film opens with the assassination of Gandhi in 1948 by a Hindu extremist. This is followed by the massive funeral procession with probably the largest actual crowd scenes on film. The film then cuts to 1893 when Gandhi, already a practising lawyer, travelled to South Africa to represent an Indian business man. He is thrown of the train for daring to sit in a first class compartment: addressed as ‘coolie’ and ‘kaffir’. This is a watershed experience and we see Gandhi playing a leading role in organised resistance among Indian population, Hindu, Moslem, Sikh; much of it bought to South Africa as indentured workers [i.e. slaves]. After resistance activities, meetings,  demonstration, and imprisonment, the Government, represented by General Jan Smuts (Athol Fugard), makes concessions on Indian civil rights. The campaigns have made Gandhi an international figure and he is invited to India.

Richard Ayyenborough with Ben Kingsley and extras on South African set

Arriving there in 1915,  Gandhi meets the leaders of Congress including Gopal Krishna Gokhale (Shreeram Lagoo). The latter asks him to put all his time and effort into the Independence Movement and advises him to learn about India. So Gandhi, his wife Kasturba (Rohini Hattangadi), and Charles Freer Andrews, an Anglican priest (Ian Charleston) travel by rail around the sub-continent. This is very much a series of landscapes but at one point we see a train derailed by ‘terrorists’ and Gandhi expresses his disapproval.

We next see him at an Indian National Congress where he espouses a more radical line that the other leaders; in particular there are already hints of the division between him and the leader of the All India Moslem League Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Alyque Padamsee). Gandhi has set up an Ashram (Community) devoted to simple self-sufficiency. Here he is visited by the young but rising Jawaharlal Nehru (Roshan Seth). He is also visited by poor peasants from the Champaran in Bihar region, where they are subjected to particular brutal exploitation by British landlords. Gandhi visits the area and, with help, compiles a dossier of the exploitative practices which force the government to make concessions. This makes Gandhi a national hero; but the film does not show the other mass moments in which he piloted ‘non-cooperation’ tactics. Led by Gandhi the Congress Leadership organise a day of prayer and fasting, [a strike] which takes affect across the sub-continent. The Congress leaders are arrested and Gandhi calls for non-violence. At this point the British General Dyer leads the massacre at the Sikh city of Amritsar, killing some 1500 people, men, women and children. The intermission follows.

Ben Kingsley with Richard Attenborough

Following the Amritsar massacre the new Vice-Roy attempts to placate Congress but Gandhi put that firmly down. Gandhi now initiates a boycott of British imported cloth and advocate all Indians wear ‘homespun’. The campaign results in mass mobilisations. However, a scene in the film shows  a riot that leads to the death of native policemen when their station is set afire; what is missing from the film is that the police first opened fire with live amunition on a demonstration. In the film [and in actuality] Gandhi’s typical response is to call for the end of the boycott and to fast until all violence has stopped. He succeeds but is once again imprisoned by the British.

On his release he is visited at the Ashram by the U.S. journalist Vince Walker (Martin Sheen, a character based on an amalgam of journalists). Walker becomes an important asset, both publicising Gandhi and his actions, but also acting as a confidant; thus Gandhi explains some of his philosophy and actions. The latest is a march to the sea at Dandi from the Sabarmati Ashram, [both in Gujarat), four days covering over 200 miles. The march grows in size and on reaching the sea Gandhi breaks the British salt monopoly by publically holding up a handful of salt. The Congress leaders, including Nehru, go onto sell salt from the beach. They are soon arrested. The next action is a satyagrahi.(non-violent resistance] at a nearby salt works. Despite the absence of Gandhi his followed march on the works’ gates where they are violently repulsed by Indian soldiers. Women administer first aid. Walker then files a graphic report by telephone and the incident creates waves internationally.

There is an Imperial conference on Indian Independence in London in 1930. However, this fails to deliver. The film jumps forward to World War II. Congress refuses to support the war though the Muslim League does cooperate. Many of the Congress leaders, including Gandhi and Kasturba, are arrested. Kasturba dies in prison and Gandhi sits with her at the end.

Now comes the new Labour Government and a willingness to finally leave India. Earl Mountbatten is sent to negotiate with Congress. However, Jinnah and the Muslim League are now committed to  a separate state for Muslims, Pakistan. Despite the opposition of the other Congress leaders, especially Gandhi, partition goes ahead. The film presents briefly the official handing over for both states, with the hoisting of their new flags. A cut shows Gandhi at the Ashram with a bare flag pole.

As predicted, violence breaks out between Hindu and Muslim. Brief scenes show the violence among refugees moving to their new homeland and urban violence, including in Calcutta. Gandhi again fasts in a bid to halt the violence. He goes to stay with Muslim family in Calcutta. The violence carries up but finally comes to a halt; and the news is bought to Gandhi lying bed and showing the ravages of the fast. The film now replays the assassination, shot slightly differently. We then see the funeral byre of Gandhi and his ashes scattered on a river, likely the Ganges with his voice on the soundtrack. Then the end credits.

The film is in many ways a tour de force. Ben Kingsley performance as the titular character is seriously impressive. The supporting cast are really good, and the star cameos are mainly convincing. And the scale of many of the sequences is impressive; down to David Tomblin and his control over extras and onlookers also appearing in the film. Terrence Clegg worked well with the crew who had to cope with the extremes of weather in the sub-continent. The handling of the production by Stuarts Craig looks fine and accurate on screen. There were two cinematographers, first Billy Williams, who suffered an accident, and then Ronnie Taylor. The landscapes look fine: there is some fine work with crane and tracking shots: and there are often cutaways, as in the Salt March, where the column is counterpointed at various points, once with a young boy up a tree, at another with a woman spinning by the side. The editing is controlled by John Bloom, and involves putting together an array of locations and sequences ranging from the vast to the intimate. The film has two types of music, orchestral by George Fenton, and indigenous by Ravi Shankar. Note, two Indian film-makers are included in the credits, working on the second film units. Govind Nihalani had already directed a film himself in India as had John Matthew.

Billy Williams, Simon Kaye, Richard Attenborough and Chic Anstiss

The amount of material included in the screenplay and its time span inevitably lead to an episodic form. And the timescale, whilst some dates are inserted by title for certain events, is not always clear. For example, there is more or less continuous action from the start in 1893. Then Gandhi sets sail for India and it is 1915. Twenty years have passed, a \World War has started, which is something of a surprise. And this only 45 minute into the film.

And the geographic dimension is also not always clear. The salt march from an ashram to the sea takes place in the state of Gujarat, which is on the North West coast of the sub-continent. Later, we encounter a second Ashram, at Porbandar, also in Gujarat but on the coast. Congress leaders have meetings with Gandhi here; this is a day’s drive from Delhi even now, which is where the other leaders apparently lived and worked.

The representation of Congress appears to see Gandhi emerge as a leader, with the main conflict between him and Jinnah. But Congress in the years of the Raj was  a much more complex organisation; it included liberals like Gokhale and members of Indian Communist Party. Gandhi retired from leadership early in the 1930s, which presumably explains why there is little action from that decade.

The portrayal of Jinnah is problematic. There is a tension in his relationship with Gandhi from his first appearance in the film. And following the war and the issue of partition, the dramatic conflict in the film is between Gandhi and Jinnah. This lets the British, including Mountbatten, off the hook. A rather different view of the British machinations can be found in Viceroy’s House (2017), though that film also fails to critically examine Mountbatten’s role. Events missing from the film are the mutinies in the British forces in 1946, by servicemen who wanted to return home; afflicting both an army and a naval base. This presumably was a factor in the British hasty withdrawal, which mean they took no responsibility for the chaos of partition despite it being their project. This is similar to the British evacuation and partition in Palestine only a year later A rather different portrait of Jinnah emerges in the film with his name (1998).

The film also fails to address the contradictions within the liberation movement. We see a couple of instances that show Gandhi’s disapproval of the armed struggle. But this was an important factor in both the 1920s and the 1930s. There were a number of organisations committed to the armed struggle, especially in Bengal. A factor here was the division of historic Bengal in 1905, roughly dividing the people on the basis of religion. This was a real factor in the later conflict which came to be called communalism. And in the late 1930s the Chairman of Congress was one Subhas Chandra Bose, committed to the armed struggle who during World War II became leader of the Indian National Army, which fought alongside the Japanese against the occupying power of the sub-continent. Bose died just at the end of the war, but in 1946 the British tried to try other INA leaders for treason. The resulting uproar forced Congress to take a stand against this. The response was a factor in the increase support for Independence and in convincing the British that India was now ungovernable. There were reports several years ago of a film about the INA Trials but it does not seem to have yet emerged. There is a film that does feature Bose briefly, including in newsreel footage. This is a ‘Bollywood’ production, with a drama based on fictional exploits of a famous Indian film star, ‘Fearless Nadia’. And Shyam Benegal has made, as well as his The Making of the Mahatma, 1996, a biography Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero, 2005 [which unforetunately I have not seen].

It is worth noting that Attenborough likely thought many of the above criticisms were not relevant to a biography and one that is as  much hagiography. The film assumes the values and interests that inform Attenborough’s other film works. And his admiration for Gandhi was based on the Mahatma espousing many of the values and interests that Attenborough himself espoused. Moreover, whilst there were criticisms in India during the lengthy pre-production phase and during the making of the film, the Indian political leadership supported the project and the finished film.There is an irony in a film about a leader of the Indian Indpenedence struglke bing portrayed by  afilm pordcution based in the old colonial exploiter. In fact, unwittingly this sppear sinm the screenplay and finshed film.

Ben Kingsley and Ian Charleson

Charlie Andrews, who first joined Gandhi in South Africa, visits Gandhi in prison at Champaran.

Gandhi – ‘I think Charlie, that you can help us most by taking that assignment you’ve been offered in Fiji.’

Charlie is stunned, and obviously hurt. Gandhi precedes more gently.

Gandhi – ‘ I have to be sure – they have to be sure – that what we have to do can be done by Indians – alone.’

The numerous awards testify to the predominantly positive response to the film, both crititcally and at the box office. In Search of Gandhi records Attenborough’s debt and thanks to numerous people in the film industry and in India. He is meticulous, [as usual], in recording the contributions made to the film’s production, including many of the craft people who contributed to the quality and success of the film.

And in many ways the film is representative of the film industry in advanced capitalist countries; those countries earlier involved in the colonial exploitation and oppression inflicted on the people of the sub-continent. The film was made in a world in which neo-colonialism remained a dominant force.

Whilst the film is mainly in English, with some Hindi and Urdu, it does rely to a great extent on indigenous casting and many of the production personnel; there was a Hindi-language version released in India. One official reason for supporting the film was that it would have a positive effect on indigenous film. There have been several films about Gandhi since 1982, however, as with one Gandhi, My Father (2007), these have not enjoyed mainstream distribution in the west.

In Technicolor with black and white, Panavision 2.35:1, running time 191 minutes; in English and Hindi with some subtitles.

Magic, USA 1978

This is a Joseph Levine production scripted by William Goldman from his own novel. Several film-makers and actors were considered for the production but finally it was Richard Attenborough as director and Anthony Hopkins playing the lead role.

Attenborough recalls careful preparation,

“Of course, when you go in for so much advanced planning you’re in an agony in case it’s going to appear self-conscious and pedantic in the result. Also vitally important from the outset is the casting – a usually largely underestimated part of the director’s armoury. If you get the casting wrong, you might as well pack up.” (Dossier, page 63).

This has been described as psychological horror; whilst it has some explicit violence it is the psychology that is the main focus.

Anthony Hopkins as Corky is a would-be stand-up comic. His first outing at an amateur entertainer event is a failure and he caps the poor performance by haranguing the audience. He describes this bitterly to his mentor, Merlin (E. J. André) an ageing and retired entertainer. He is advised to go away and find a distinctive act. The film cuts to a year later and we see Corky in a successful club performance. He plays a comic ventriloquist and his attraction is the dummy, called Fats; rude and foul mouthed but found very funny by a packed audience. He is seen by a major entertainment agent, Ben Greene (Burgess Meredith), who offers to get him a television contract with a major New York channel. When he succeeds Corky hesitates and then leaves New York secretly.

He returns with Fats to the Catskills, where he was raised and schooled. He takes a cabin at a run-down holiday business. This is run by Peggy (Ann-Margret), whose husband Duke (Ed Lauter) is absent at this point. We learn that Corky was at school with her and has retained the teenage crush. We also learn why Corky fled New York; his mental state is precarious even unbalanced. Much of the time he and Fats talk, with Fats increasingly dominant and possessive.

The situation deteriorates when Ben turns up having tracked Corky down. Then Duke returns and becomes jealous of the developing relationship between Peggy and Corky.  By this stage we know it is going to end badly.

Wikipedia helpfully has a list of other films where the relationships between a ventriloquist and his/her dummy becomes problematic. The obvious example is the final story of the fine British portmanteau film, Dead of Night (1945). Here Maxwell (Michael Redgrave) has a dummy, Hugo, who bears some affinity to Fats. The drama is finely directed by Cavalcanti from a story by John Baines, with likely some assistance from Angus McPhail.

Attenborough’s drama is a fine successor to that earlier and equally disturbing film; only time allows more literal violence. Anthony Hopkins and Ann-Margaret are really fine, catching the emotional tones of the characters. Burgess Meredith and Ed Lauter fill out the story with panache. The film has some fine location work by cinematographer Victor J Kemper and the experienced Jerry Goldsmith provides music that ranges from romantic to dark gothic.

The film is atypical of Attenborough’s directorial output; he was recruited to a planned production and finished script. His more personal movies have a greater input, often as producer; but the tone of the film is exactly right.

In De Luxe colour, 1.85:1 and a running time of 107 minutes.

The BBFC awarded an X Certificate noting detailed violence, strong language and moderate sex.

A Bridge Too Far, USA / Britain 1977

Attenborough and crew at the river crossing

Attenborough had serious initial reservations;

“I thought it was unscriptable. I could not fathom how something so complex could be given dramatic shape. If you are dealing with fiction you are free to do what you want. But when you are dealing with docu-drama there are certain hnour-bound criteria from which you simply cannot depart.” (Dossier page 54).

But discussions over the script persuaded him.

This film was produced independently by Joseph Levine; he later produced Magic with Attenborough and also had some involvement in the long preparation of Gandhi. The script was by William Goldman, a novelist and very successful screenwriter for Hollywood companies. This was his first major war story. He adapted the book by Cornelius Ryan which provided the title for the film. Ryan’s book was a critical study of operation Market Garden in 1943, following the D-Day Landings by the Allied forces. It was devised by General Montgomery [later Field Marshall] and aimed to shorten the war. It involved a massive airdrop of troops between the Allied front line and the border between the Netherlands and Germany. The object was to seize a series of bridges and hold then whilst British tank regiments, with supporting infantry, used the road and bridges to advance some seventy miles through German held territory. It failed with large losses in both casualties and prisoners. The various Generals and commanders involved tender to blame some other military or factor. The film opens with black and white found footage, [possibly newsreel], with an added voice over setting the scene. This suggests one factor in Montgomery’s plan was rivalry with the equivalent US general and tank commander Paton. Comments on Montgomery and the well-known feature film on Paton suggest that both were arrogant and unlikely to listen to other commanders. Paton did better in the European campaign but Montgomery had made a reputation in the African campaign.

The film open in Arnhem where locals report the apparent collapse of the German forces. Two Dutch characters, a Dutch underground leader (Siem Vroom) and his son (Erik van ‘t Wout) gather and report intelligence to the British. At the German HQ Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt (Wolfgang Preiss) arrives to put some backbone into the German defence. In a seemingly minor order Panzer tanks are moved to Arnhem.

In Britain Lieutenant-General Frederick ‘Boy’ Browning (Dirk Bogarde) explains Operation Market Garden to other senior commanders. There is Lieutenant-General Brian Horrocks (Edward Fox), responsible for the ground forces, [Garden) including the armoured columns. The airborne part, Market, includes Major General Maxwell Taylor (Paul Maxwell), responsible for the airborne US 101st division: Brigadier General James Gavin (Ryan O’Neal), responsible for the US 82nd Airborne division: Major-General Roy Urquhart (Sean Connery), responsible for the 1st British airborne division: and Major General Stanisław Sosabowski (Gene Hackman), responsible for the Polish Ist Independent Parachute brigade. The airborne troops will fly from Britain to the Netherlands and parachute or land in gliders behind enemy lines. The two US divisions are to seize bridges up to and including Nijmegen: the British airborne division is to land at Arnhem and seize the bridge there: the Polish Brigade will follow to support the British at Arnhem. The ground troops and tanks have to ‘punch through’ the enemy lines and race along a road of 70 miles to reach Arnhem in two to three days. The commanders appear enthusiastic except for Sosabowski, who all through the operation expresses doubts about its viability.

From the start there are problems. Intelligence suggests that the German forces are larger and more effective that the British suppose. Doubts about the reliability of the radios are raised; crucial for communications. And a landing zone at Arnhem is some way from the target bridge.  But Horrocks, receiving an enthusiastic reception from officers in his command, appoints the Irish Guards to lead the tank column, under Lieutenant-Colonel J.O.E. Vandeleur Vanderburgh  (Michael Caine). On the day the weather is fine on the designated day and most depart in a spirit of optimism.

Michael Caine with Richard Attenborough

Things then go wrong in the landings; some  groups are caught by Germans. At Arnhem the radios indeed do not work. And the jeeps to carry troops the 12 miles to the bridge are lost. As the Guards’ tanks get under way it is apparent that the road they have to cover is narrow and likely to suffer hold-ups.

At several German HQs news of the landings arrives fast. However, there are confused responses; some of this, for example at the HQ of Generalfeldmarschall Walter Model (Walter Kehut) is of dubious accuracy. Certainly Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Karl Ludwig (Hardy Kruger) makes haste to secure the bridge at Nijmegen. And before the 101st can seize a minor bridge at Sons it is destroyed by the Germans. Colonel Robert Stout (Elliott Gould) sets about obtaining a bailey bridge to use as a crossing. Surprisingly there is not one to hand; lack of planning? When this is completed  the forces press on but an unexpected problem arises when they reach Nijmegen the popular response of local inhabitants makes progress very slow.

At Arnhem, only part of the British Parachute forces, led by Lieutenant-Colonel John Frost (Anthony Hopkins) reach the bridge. There commences a battle with the Germans that takes days and is among the most violent sequences in the film. The German response prevent the rest of the force reaching the  bridge and start to encircle them. The commander, Urquhart, is cut off from his troops and communications are still inoperative. The Polish reinforcement are stuck in Britain due to bad weather.

Another battle develops at the bridge beyond Nijmegen, held by the Germans and mined in  readiness to be destroyed. Major Julian Cook (Robert Redford) leads a battalion of the 82nd who must cross the river and seize the other end of the bridge. There are delays due to hold-ups in the British ground advance. Finally, in broad daylight, the crossing is made in collapsible wooden boats with serious losses. Fortunately for the British tanks the German explosives on the bridge fail to explode.

By the climax the operation is coming up to nine days, three times longer than planned. The Polish Brigade arrive but are caught by troops whilst landing and then suffer severe losses trying to relieve the British airborne. The latter are being squeezed by the Germans. The loss of ground includes the dropping grounds for supplies, which fall into the hands of the Germans. Finally, gathered in a church tower, overlooking the battle field the commanders agree to withdraw the surviving troops, though many wounded have to be left behind.

We see the latter in a much battered villa and in the local villa of Kate ter Horst (Liv Ullman) where Dr. Jan Spaander (Laurence Olivier) is tending the wounded British. The survivors who make it home are in states of near collapse. Urquhart sees Browning who responds that Montgomery thought that the operation was a 9()% success and that the problem was ‘a bridge too far’. The latter phrase is likely apocryphal and the record suggests to be  a partial success. Many people thought even that was an overstatement.

The film follows Ryan’s book fairly closely, though the thesis of the book was criticised at the time of publication. In the film the most negative character is General Browning, played by Bogarde in an officious manner; and there are a couple of minor bureaucratic characters. Montgomery does not appear apart from the opening newsreel footage. I suspect aping his noted mannerism would not have induced audience sympathy. The rest of the command are shown coping bravely with adversity. The lower officers and the ordinary ranks are heroic and suffer in the latter stages with dignity. The Germans are presented in a fairly reasonable manner, unlike in films in the immediate post-war era; and there is little sign of Nazi values. The Dutch also receive positive treatment. Some of the failing, such as halting the tanks after crossing the Nijmegen bridge with orders to wait for the infantry stem from an unidentified higher command. General Paton in his more successful campaigns paid little attention to such restrictions.

The star performers dominate the narrative, and they do provide identification figures as the film cuts between numerous locales and participants. There are many scenes where leading commanders have scenes that attempt to explain the complicated operation and timetable. Some of these are fairly brief. This constant cutting and changing does tend to make the narrative episodic. There are occasional sequences where an ordinary trooper is the focus for drama or pathos: thus the British soldier who dies attempting to rescue a supply canister, ironically containing caps: and a little later a soldier playing a flute as the wounded await their German captors.

The military to a great extent are played by actors of the same nationality, including the Germans. The exceptions are noticeable. So the Polish Commander is played by Gene Hackman: I wondered if his scenes were a result of a star playing the character or a star played the character because of the number of scenes. And finally, at the end, a last shot shows Horst and Spaader, with children, pushing a cart alone along a raised road in a low angle long shot. Presumably this explained why two Dutch characters were played by an English knight and a Swedish award winner.

The performances in general are good and they are convincing; they are occasionally overplayed as with Gould’s Hungarian born Yank. The battle sequences are very well done and pretty brutal; but they have to cope in the numerous tween sequences on command activity and its explanations. The cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth is excellent as is the Production Design by Terence Marsh, a winner and nominee respectively as the British Academy Film Awards. The editing by Antony Gibbs seems fine but just too much is demanded in the cutting between so many differing spaces and times. John Addison’s music s fine but is really noticeable because it tends to come in or rise on the soundtrack when the film wants to evoke anticipation, achievements or pathos.

Attenborough’s direction is fine and his work with actors is notable. The episodic nature tends to come from the screenplay but is a common trope in this films. Two craft people, Stuart Craig as Art Director and David Tomblin as First Assistant were important regular collaborators with Attenborough. And there is the  usual attention to historical detail; that is, with the exception of the expensive Robert Redford who, at the time, suffered complaints about his lack of an appropriate haircut.,

David Robinson, in his portrait of Attenborough, suggested that,

“No doubt its possibilities for an anti-war statement appealed to him …..”

This, of course is a complete misnomer. What the film, its script and its source, all share is a criticisms of poor military planning and poor military leadership. The suffering and privations of the ordinary soldiery spring from command incompetence. It seems likely that the overall representation of the battle is both confusing and less than accurate. One notable confusion is that in the dialogue we are told several times that the targets involve three bridges; it seems that in fact there were nine, both over canals and over rivers. So the first problem, at the Sins Bridge, is somewhat of a surprise.

There was an earlier film, Theirs is the Glory (1946), which dealt specifically with the battles at Arnhem and nearby Oosterbeck. This used both film footage and recreations shot on the locations: it is generally reckoned to be more accurate about this part of the overall conflict: partly because it was able to use British army members and local people who had experienced the events.

In Technicolor and Panavision 2.35;1, running time 175 minutes; also released in 70mm blow-up