Great Guns
Had never managed to watch Richard Attenborough’s OH! WHAT A LOVELY WAR — TV screenings in my youth made it look unwatchable due to panning and scanning or maybe I just didn’t have a big enough telly. It’s a very handsome film on a decent sized screen with a DVD, and I should think a 35mm viewing would be almost overwhelming in its beauty. The design and the cinematography are really top-notch, and it’s all on a colossal scale.
Richard Lester described it as “GENEVIEVE with guns,” because the overall effect is nostalgic and reassuring, whereas Joan Littlewood’s source play created a feeling of desperation. And I think that nails it — Attenborough is trying to fuse Littlewood’s Brechtian epic theatre with David Lean’s epic cinema. Politically, the two seem unlikely to fit together neatly. Certainly a defiant middlebrow like Attenborough seems a preposterous choice to attempt the deed: to his credit, the movie seeks to preserve the theatricality and the revue-style plotlessness, which would count as bold in any era other than the sixties, but this is a sixties movie. Tony Richardson or Joseph Losey might have brought the necessary whiff of Godardian agitation.
I think part of the problem here is that the theatrical devices tend to be in the wrong place: a gorgeous wrought-iron palatial interior serves as a sort of Olympus for a bunch of theatrical luminaries cast as the key political and military leaders of the war. They move like trundling waxworks through this lambent, tented space, intoning lines from history in the most stilted way you could ask for, or that Dickie Attenborough could ask for.
Whereas the war scenes tend to look REAL, except everybody’s bloody singing and dancing. It genuinely gives the impression that some of this war was fun, in a musical comedy manner. And it doesn’t manage to make you feel any tension between our idea of war’s reality and this all-singing, all-dancing, all-mustard gas version. You don’t feel anything. There’s a bit of mud, but no other unpleasantness really: no blood, dysentery, maiming, mental illness, rats, frostbite, desertion or firing squads. Lots of gallows humour, poppies and white crosses.
Some of this SHOULD work — you ought to be able to imply the slaughter and horror without overplaying your hand. Most of it shouldn’t work, has no chance of working, but one can admire the skill and splendour. I do admire it. But if that’s the main takeaway, then it’s not an antiwar movie at all.
(Attenborough’s all over the place: celebrating Gandhi and Biko but also Churchill and the battle of Arnhem. Vaguely liberal, I suppose, but the kind of cinema he aspires to has CONSERVATIVE written all the way through like Brighton Rock.)
Really lovely titles. The movie is co-produced by writer Len Deighton, who also did ONLY WHEN I LARF which also had super, sort of similar titles. My theory is that Deighton’s Sunday supplement magazine cookery column experience put him in touch with great layout people who could transfer those skills to the movies…
OWALW guest-stars Bilbo Baggins, Gustav Von Aschenbach, Louis XIII, Henry IV, Richard III, Elizabeth I, General Allenby, Captain Scott (of the Antarctic), Lord Fortnum (of Alamein), Alice ‘Childie’ McNaught, Professor Minerva McGonagall, Professor Bernard Quatermass and Doctor B. N. Wallis, C.B.E., F.R.S.
November 16, 2018 at 11:13 am
I saw this in the cinema not long after The Charge of the Light Brigade, and remember finding it all quite cosy and antiseptic after TCOTLB had shocked me out of my 13-year-old socks – the charge itself pretty much having had the same sort of visceral impact as Saving Private Ryan’s Omaha Beach sequences had for many filmgoers.
I liked the songs (I think I might even have owned the soundtrack album at one point) though I don’t think the film or even Littlewood’s stage production could lay claim to those, but have never ever felt the urge to revisit the film. I can’t say this for sure, because it would require watching all his films again and I have no desire to do that, but was Richard Attenborough the Kenneth Branagh of his day? As a director, I mean – I think Attenborough was a better film actor than Branagh has ever been.
November 16, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Yes, Branagh = Attenborough as director. Both have a sense that they ought to do something big and interesting, though Branagh yields to this vague impulse more regularly. But with equally ineffective results. OWALW is certainly Dickie’s most unusual film in conception, and it doesn’t really achieve *anything*. A Bridge Too Far is probably his most successful because, despite the huge scale, it has the clearest sense of its own goals. The others tend to get a bit muddled.
Attenborough apparently admired The Charge — he included a clip in his (dull, middlebrow) British Film Year documentary, and prophetically said, “I suppose one day television will find a way to show widescreen films.” But, as usual with his work, you can deduce an influence but he never seems to achieve the affect of what he’s aiming at (as a comparison of Magic and Dead of Night will show).
November 16, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The late, great Raymond Durgnat gives it a sharp swipe in this complex, multi-faceted piece about British cinema.
November 16, 2018 at 3:56 pm
A MIRROR FOR ENGLAND despite its errors is still one of the most insightful and stimulating books on British Cinema ever written. David C., inclined to agree with what you say about “Bunter” Attenborough as he was known in the industry
November 16, 2018 at 5:32 pm
I collaborated with Ray and Jonathan Rosembaum for a piece in this issue of “Film Comment” (Alas I can’t find a direct link to the piece.
November 16, 2018 at 5:56 pm
I wonder if the reference was to bun-loving schoolboy Billy Bunter or to Lord Peter Wimsey’s manservant? Both chubby public schoolboy or factotum to the ruling class seem apt references.
TERRIFIC actor, though.
I had an all-too brief correspondence with Durgnat at the end of his life, and bought bootlegs from him of a couple of ultra-rare Michael Powells on VHS.
November 16, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Billy Bunter, I think.
November 17, 2018 at 1:54 am
Seeing this as a dependent on a U.S. Air Force base, while troops were flying away to Vietnam half a block from the barracks-theater, was a formative high school experience for an American kid with only half-baked notions about war. I’m sure I didn’t get 50% of the Brit dialogue or cultural associations. Yes, the endless graveyard at the end is a soft finish, but I was blown away. I too was bored by the Gandhi movie and offended by the Biko movie (Apartheid is really bad for concerned whites!), but this was the right movie for me at the time. The musical numbers are terrific, and no, I do not think I would like to see Richard Lester do it — the movie was nasty enough, even in its niceness. That’s the thing: I was in the middle of the Vietnam War at home, and it WAS NEVER AN ISSUE, just like this for the clueless civilians buying the patriotic sales job. Your cast list should contain The Horrible Dr. Hichcock as the officer offended by a human leg being used as a trench beam. You’re right, there’s no gory close-up of a severed leg.
November 17, 2018 at 2:47 pm
The titles are by Raymond Hawkey, who was Len Deighton’s best friend from art college and did all his book covers too.
November 17, 2018 at 3:44 pm
Excellent, Alex! I’m even more sure he must have done Larf too, even if the IMDb doesn’t admit it.
Yes, should’ve mentioned Dr. H, and Judith Caroon and God also.
The strongest, and most particular point of this movie probably is the casual/celebratory way the populace accepts war. Interesting that the mass media have changed that a bit, just not enough.
November 18, 2018 at 11:50 pm
I don’t know about Tony Richardson doing a better job. A bit better, maybe. My feeling about TCOTLB is that it had all the ingredients of a masterpiece, minus a director with the talent to combine them properly.
November 19, 2018 at 5:48 am
Yes, Curtiz and Erroll were much more cinematically dynamic.
November 19, 2018 at 9:12 am
Horses for courses: you can’t directly compare the Charges because the intent is different. Completely.
Charge is my favourite Richardson and he does some stunning work. Guilgud rising from out of frame bottom when the first cannon goes off is an amazing coup de cinema (tip of the hat to Brownlow, who edited it).
Ironically, my other favourite Richardson, directorially, is The Loved One, which he was sabotaging as he went along.
November 19, 2018 at 10:08 pm
Richardson’s TCOTLB is full of great moments, certainly. That version of My Heart’s in the Highlands is achingly lovely. And any film that casts both Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews is to be commended.
November 22, 2018 at 11:34 am
I think TCOTLB is great despite Richardson, rather than because of him – it owes as much to its cinematography, production design, editing, stunts, Charles Wood’s screenplay etc as to its director. And it has stood the test of time – costume and makeup designers resisted the temptation to give it the sort of 1960s look you often see in period films such as Doctor Zhivago, so it now looks pretty timeless. And while the screenplay’s critique of the British military establishment and class system was very much of its era, that has only become more pertinent with time, and of course all too perfectly skewers today’s Brexit mentality.
It’s an amazing line-up of heavyweight acting talent, and (the element that first made me want to go and see the film after catching an extract on TV) Richard Williams’s animations are magnificent.
The other thing that made me want to see it was that I fancied David Hemmings. (In subsequent viewings, I began to appreciate the way he’s presented as a dashing hero, but is every bit as thoughtlessly elitist as all the other toffs, and is almost as much to blame as his superiors for the cock-up at Balaclava.) Imagine my horror when he was killed off even before the Charge properly got underway. I kept expecting him to get up and say hey, I’m OK after all. It was something of a life lesson.
I do realise, however, that I first saw this at that impressionable age when films have a tendency to imprint themselves on your psyche for ever and ever (better TCOTLB than Star Wars). It was one of the first ‘grown-up’ films I saw, and one of the first to have such a massive impact on me. I became a little obsessed with it, went out and read everything I could find on the Crimean War, and developed an interest in military history that persists to this day.
When the BFI asked me to write something for their Modern Classics imprint in the mid-1990s, TCOTLB was on the shortlist of suggestions I submitted. (One of the other contenders was Richard Lester’s Musketeer diptych. I ended up writing about The Thing.)
November 22, 2018 at 8:34 pm
Richardson could certainly make bad films as readily as good, but I wouldn’t say thisThe Charge is good in spite of him. Wood and Watkins would be happy to give him credit for the way it turned out, reading their descriptions of the process.
I would love there to be a book on this one — or a good Blu-Ray.