oxfam1uk

Well, this is a strange one. I'd never seen this until today, and I was quite disconcerted (and maybe disappointed). The hit record that became the opening theme of this film in no way represents what happens in it.

For a film that has the reputation of being about "Swinging London" (groan ...), this seems more like a throwback to the Fifties. Maybe it's the fact that is in black-and-white, and has so little of the fashions that we think we remember (hey - this film must have been in production at the time I was born ) The scenes in James Mason's huge house are quite blatantly recorded in a film studio.

The script doesn't really make a lot of sense, at least not to me. I see that it was adapted from a novel by Margaret Forster. Maybe if I read that, I would gain a greater appreciation for the story, which (at the moment) seems pretty thin and confused.

I was also strongly put in mind of a TV sitcom (maybe it was Bill Owen's fault !). Several scenes strongly reminded me of "On the Buses", of all things !

I have read that this film was a humungous hit in America - which greatly surprises me, as it is not so good as "Alfie", for example, though it does share that film's sexual frankness and flippant discussion of abortion (hard to imagine in earlier British or American films). I would be very interested to read other people's views of this film, as it was not at all what I was expecting.

julian_craster

Charlotte Rampling made a big impression on me when I saw Georgy Girl in 1966 - the negative aspects of SWINGING LONDON were embodied in her character Meredith, I think ......

Mr Cosmo

I agree with Oxfam inasmuch as I was looking forward to seeing this on its reissue - it was the b movie to the disappointing Anthony Quinn film The Happening - and I thought it was disjointed, immoral (I was 16 at the time), and the disappointment was compounded by the fact that Margaret Forster was the wife of Hunter Davies who did HERE WE GO ROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH, so I probably expected it to be a bit more like that.
I watched it on TV a few years later and rewatched as a mature 20 something, but I was right first time. What a dreary forgettable film. How wonderful to find someone else out there who agrees!

oxfam1uk

I just had another watch of this on video, and I appreciated it a little better than the first time. Once I had accepted that there simply isn't much of a story, I could enjoy some of the individual scenes quite a lot.

If there ever was a script for this film, it seems pretty clear that they just threw it away halfway through filming, and encouraged the actors to ad-lib, with variable results. In fact the production reminds me a lot those BBC "Play for Today" low-budget productions, such as Up the Junction and Cathy Come Home, but with more humour. However, the humour is decidedly cruel and callous, and sexually explicit - maybe this explains its financial and popular success in the Sixties.

And what a socially "conservative" message it ends up with !!! (Not that I disagree with this, by the way). Georgy ends up married to a millionaire and cradling a baby, while The Seekers trill "Isn't that what you wanted all along ?". So much for the Swinging Sixties ! I read somewhere that this film received an award from an American Catholic organisation, and I can see why.

So, overall, some enjoyable and cheeky scenes (I thought Lynn Redgrave was very good and sexy) - but a complete absence of story.

Bulldog Jack

Yes, the very young Charlotte is great to look at but otherwise I thought the movie pretty lousy and an embarrassment to watch. How did the great James Mason get roped into this? If you want a good '60s "Swinging London" period piece, go for SMASHING TIME. It's not a perfect comedy cum satire. Sometimes the laughs are a bit forced, and Michael York's role was a lot contrived, but it's streets ahead of the very hyped up GEORGY GIRL.


BDJ

NappieB

I couldn't agree less!! I thought this was a GREAT movie - superb 60s "swinging London" period piece and one of the best of the genre.

There's not much storyline...there isn't supposed to be, that was part of the 60s experience - to coin a phrase "...the futility of it all." (Hey, I was there!!)

It's far better (in my opinion) than SMASHING TIME (circa 1967) and OTLEY (circa 1968). I think the plot (what there is of it) is perfectly believable, typical 60s, typical swinging London.

The movie is brilliantly acted with credible, rounded characters, and a contemporary script that is indeed refreshing when viewed against most of today's "estuary" drivel.

As for James Mason, I think he must have been delighted to play this role, somewhat unbecoming as it may have been but a welcome reprieve from his villainous part in LORD JIM the year before!

"The future is yet to come" - George W. Bush

Bulldog Jack

De Gustibus non Disputandum est said the lady who kissed the cow, but Mr NappyB, Sir, which planet did you say you were from. Well acted, well rounded? I think it's time for your pill.


BDJ

oxfam1uk

Maybe my video copy has poor sound, but I really couldn't understand what the characters were saying sometimes. Alan Bates spoke so fast, and in an annoyingly Americanised manner, that I may have missed some of the story exposition.

After he and Lynn Redgrave had enjoyed a night of hows-your-father, did she fall pregnant or something ? Because Alan Bates says something like "bad luck on your first time..."

I'm still very surprised that this was a big hit in America, because they surely couldn't have understood more than half the dialogue. Maybe this is one of those films that students went to see merely for the sex scenes !

Dave Rattigan

I didn't really get into this one either. Maybe it was just a problem of expectation, since I was expecting something more like Schlesinger-style social realism. I have the DVD, so I think I'll revisit it, as it's been about a year.

oxfam1uk

Just one more observation:
I thought that in the first half of the film there were some definite implications that Georgy had a "crush" on her female flatmate.

Maybe that's another reason why the film was so popular in America...
Or is it just my mind?

Hugo

When Georgy Girl was first released, as far as I can remember, it got reasonably positive revues but did badly at the box office. Then a few weeks later the title song by The Seekers became a big hit record, (possibly No 1?) and the film was hurriedly relaunched and did really well.

NappieB

Indeed, there's no accounting for taste!

However, quality never goes out of style! Quid Erat Demonstratum!

"The future is yet to come" - George W. Bush

Steve Crook

"Quid Erat Demonstratum"?
Does that mean "I'll show you for a pound"?

Steve

Mr Cosmo

Then a few weeks later the title song by The Seekers became a big hit record, (possibly No 1?) and the film was hurriedly relaunched and did really well.

The title song entered the US charts at the very end of 1966 and the record climbed to #2. It was issued in February in teh UK and it reached #3 and yes - I think it added a few bums on seats.

stevie boy

I think it is a fablous film, but everyone has differing points of view, it is just that they are wrong