Next Train's Gone!

J Field Amanda

Description

In the 1930s, British film producers and critics championed the idea of 'quality' pictures - thoughtful, intelligent films that would project a particular and positive view of Britain. The result was to drive a wedge between 'national' cinema (which reflected middle-class values) and 'popular' cinema (which reflected the working-class values of the majority of cinema audiences). 'Popular' became a term of abuse, particularly directed at comedies, whose roots often lay in music-hall. A very different image of Britain emerges from these comedies, as this insightful analysis of two Will Hay films - Oh Mr Porter (1937) and Ask a Policeman (1939) reveals.

Informations

• Publié par: Andrews UK
• Date de parution: 24 mars 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781909183810
• Langue: English

Extrait

Title Page
NEXT TRAIN’S GONE!
Will Hay: An Alternative View of British National Identity
Book 2 in the Short Takes Film Studies Series
by
Amanda J Field



Publisher Information
First published in 2015 by
Chaplin Books
1 Eliza Place
Gosport PO12 4UN
www.chaplinbooks.co.uk
Digital edition converted and distributed by
Andrews UK Limited
www. andrewsuk.com
Copyright © 2015 Amanda J Field
The right of Amanda J Field to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder for which application should be addressed in the first instance to the publishers. No liability shall be attached to the author, the copyright holder or the publishers for loss or damage of any nature suffered as a result of the reliance on the reproduction of any of the contents of this publication or any errors or omissions in the contents.



Will Hay: An Alternative View of British National Identity
In the 1930s, following the introduction of sound films, the search for box-office popularity intensified. Hollywood cinema had a huge English-speaking audience at its fingertips: selling films to Britain (whose audiences were always eager for Hollywood output) was a bonus. It ensured high profitability even for the most expensively produced movies. The situation for British films was a more vulnerable one. It was hard to make a profit on ‘prestige’ films if they were to be restricted to domestic distribution. Cracking the US market was thus the key to increased profitability - and to raising the profile of British cinema. In the view of critics and of many producers, however, this quest for popularity was only legitimate if it went hand-in-hand with two principles: the need for ‘quality’ pictures and the need to project a particular and positive view of Britain to foreign audiences. The result of adhering to these principles was to drive a wedge between ‘popular’ cinema and ‘national’ cinema - with national cinema tending to represent bourgeois values and popular cinema “hardly worthy of critical appreciation” (Higson 1995:p5/9).
The quest for ‘quality’ was almost certainly a reflection of the snobbery of critics, who were strong advocates of the aesthetics of the documentary and of European art-house films. It also referred to the high production values needed to match Hollywood output; an area where British films were often seen to be lacking. British films seemed to fall short of the slickness of their American counterparts, despite a steady rise in the technical, artistic and dramatic quality of British pictures throughout the 1930s (Richards 1984:p30). John Ellis has analysed what 1940s critics thought constituted a ‘quality’ film and points out how influential their views were to be for decades to come. The war would, of course, have had a bearing on their views: the pre-war films they were criticising probably seemed too rooted in fantasy for a post-war age. They were not against the entertainment-value of films, but straightforward entertainment was not enough. Filmmakers should be “encouraged to make films about subjects which demand and deserve thought” (Ellis in Higson 1996:p75). The way subjects were treated was also important. They looked for restraint, both in actors’ voices and in the overall ‘attitude’ of the film, restraint being “the mark of its good taste and intelligence”. They wanted authenticity rather than caricature in the way that ‘ordinary’ people (presumably the working classes) were depicted, with the filmmakers being careful not to shade into farce (ibid:p83).
Essentially, they are describing a cinema for the middle classes - despite the fact that the majority of audiences were working class. So it is hardly surprising to discover that the favoured films of these critics did not enjoy British box-office success: “quality films, it seemed, could not be made for the mass audience” (ibid:p88). Jeffrey Richards sums up the problem neatly, though implies that it might have been more of a success than Ellis will allow. Cinema audiences, he says, were “being programmed to accept the concepts of propriety and decorum that prevailed amid the lace curtains and porcelain teacups of suburbia” (Richards 1984:p106).
Middle-class values were inseparable from notions of Britishness, something which was also seen as important to portray to non-domestic audiences.