alan gowdy

This was on TV tonight. Even taking into account the circumstances of its production and accepting the integrity of the performances, it is perhaps the most unsubtle piece of propaganda produced in this country during WW2 and I found it embarrassing to watch at times.

"Don't forget... one of petrol, two of meths"

homeguard

So now you know not to watch it again. You could always switch over to Big Brother, which of course reflects present trends of obsessive self-interest rather than the cheesy self-sacrifice born of necessity so prevalent in wartime docu-dramas. Cheer up. Nobody's ever likely to ask you to work yourself to death.

With respect for your views, of course.
HG

picture show

Oh,Dear!...what a dreadful sound track,unusual for the Beeb.
This print had certainly not been 'digitally' remastered.The scratching sounded like sandpaper being rubbed together.

Anyone got the DVD,is it like that on your copy....except it did remind you how we suffered in those days in the cinema with 'scored' prints.Thus going from one cinema to the next.

Andy H

It was a pretty shabby print, but that doesn't matter much with a film of this calibre. You've got to bear in mind that these films were produced in time of war on a relative shoestring and that they were almost duty-bound to carry a strong message about the rights and wrongs of aggression and self defence.
This is one of the best low-key flag-wavers made. Leslie Howard and David Niven put in fine performances and the whole thing is a good example of restraint and dignity. Walton's 'Spitfire' music is perfect for it.

homeguard

Hear, hear! And some interesting archive footage of the Spitfire. I think Mr.Niven would have had his bum kicked, though, for showing-off to the top brass in quite so exuberant a manner.
A good pairing with We Dive at Dawn shown earlier.

Regards,
HG

GRAEME

Yes, I think the lack of balance shown to the Nazi regime was quite deplorable.

All men leak.

alan gowdy

I'm not critical of the sentiments embodied in the film - far from it. The people who went through what they did deserve our highest regard.
I just thought the way it was portrayed here was, at times, crude and embarrassing. I stick to that. It's NOT a good film, though it does have several good individual performances. Sorry to be the kid who says that the emperor is naked.
There are many much better examples in British wartime cinema of how-to-do-clever-propaganda (witness P&P's efforts and many others). I sometimes think that we are afraid to properly assess certain films and keep repeating the conventional wisdom on them without actually being honest with ourselves.

I'd never watch Big Brother so I can't comment on it, apart from observing that from the trailers I've seen it appears to be pointless.

"Don't forget... one of petrol, two of meths"

GRAEME

You have a high opinion of your own opinion, sir.

I think most people who have seen the movie would disagree and we are not sheep-like morons for so doing. Let's not be so chippy in future and just agree to disagree on matters of personal taste. You are making the mistake of ascribing rational objective value to a personal predjudice - assuming because you don't like something, it must have no value. It is an immature trait.

This a is a finely wrought, beautifully put-together film that does, yes, have a propagandist agenda - but is still a wonderfully human story for all that. It is an idealistic film that reminds us that there were once positive reasons for fighting a war - not just survival, maybe something nobler. It is romantic - but perfectly reflected the needs of the times.

All men leak.

alan gowdy

Graeme, I'm afraid I must continue to disagree with you. I think most people today who have less of a developed interest in cinema than we do, especially the younger generation, would view the film as faintly ridiculous. This, I hasten to add is not my view. It would be an interesting survey though.
It's thanks to the efforts of RJ Mitchell and many others that we retained the rights to freedom of speech and action in this country. Despite much recent and continuing erosion of these rights I will continue to exercise them regardless. It's all good and proper that others do too. Especially on this forum.
I'm happy to overlook absurdities and inaccuracies such as a new aircraft type being put through the most extreme aerobatics on its first flight and Mitchell choosing the name Spitfire (apparently he disliked it). The need for strong narrative sometimes requires there to be such distortions.
The scene with the Nazis at a dinner party at which Mitchell is a guest is a good example of what might have been. It starts well with the Brits appearing to be seduced by the bonhomie of their hosts. Gradually the true nature of the German intentions becomes apparent through the catalyst of the drunken ramblings of one of them prompting others to reveal the true intentions of the regime. Mitchell and the others decide to leave. It comes so close to working for me but somehow just goes that little bit OTT. In retrospect a surer and more objective director than Howard might have made a much better job of what is after all a 'ripping yarn' and I don't think he got anything like the sort of performances from some of the other actors that he should have done. He would have been well advised to relinquish that role to another. At least his own performance is impressive and I applaud the ambition of the film even if I believe the end result is less than the sum of the parts.

By the way - surely everyone has "a high opinion of their own opinion" otherwise why have an opinion at all?

Cheers.

"Don't forget... one of petrol, two of meths"