The Ealing Comedies

No, I’m not dead. However, a mixture of unending coursework writing and pure bone idleness has prevented me from really doing anything creative at all. Instead, what precious spare time I have had has been spent generally sitting about absorbing a good film or two. I’ve lately been mass-purchasing random DVDs, for the sheer bloody joy of it. Generally, I’ll have finished watching a DVD main feature about 2 days after I’ve bought it, at the most. Last night I watched a film I’d owned for 2 months yet hadn’t seen. It was an Ealing comedy.

The Ealing Comedies are rather strange. I bought the two Region 2 Ealing Comedy box sets; overall, 7 films. None were comedies.

"Hang on, my old mate – surely they must have been comedies since that’s what they said on the boxes!" I hear you greeble. Well, none of the films were what I’d call comedies. This isn’t a slight against them – 4 of the 7 were extremely good, and 1of these has even managed to get into my Top 10 films. But I think the word "comedy" was mixed up with the phrase "light-hearted."

We generally think of a comedy as a program or film that makes us laugh. "Only Fools and Horses" is a comedy series (it even has a laughter track to prove it). Inevitably, humour adjusts over the years. Each decade produces programs completely different from the decade previously. The "Carry On…" film series was thought of as rather near the mark in terms of what it tried to get away with; show them to any teenager now and they’ll wonder what the fuss was about (I know; I’ve tried). One of my personal favourite shows is "Hancock’s Half Hour" (the radio series – never saw much of the TV series). Made in the 1950’s, such a show would have no place here today. It’s regular line up constantly changes, often without explanation. Indeed, there were three episodes that didn’t even have Tony Hancock in them; Hancock ran away to France for a spell and Harry Secombe was dragged in at short notice as a replacement. Such a thing would never happen now; the series would just get cancelled. However, more importantly, the humour is too different. I’ve always been stuck in the past, and can appreciate the wit of these early programs. However, most of the jokes in "Hancock" generally raise a smile rather than a genuine laugh; only the appearances of Kenneth Williams playing "Snide" (a whiney voiced pedant who annoys everyone but is totally oblivious) in the 3^rd and 4^th series of the radio show (and in the later series 2 episodes) really generate uproarious laughter. The character only needed to show up to get the audience applauding like mad people, with his "Good evenin’!" catchphrase. The character usually gets most of the actual jokes: for example, in one episode he’s supposed to be guarding a rich woman’s diamond necklace. When it gets stolen, the woman says "What are you going to do?", to which he replies "Well since there’s nothing to watch I might as well go home!" (or words to that effect). Tony Hancock himself spends most of the episodes making observations about things, which, as I said before, usually get a wry smile out of the listener, rather than a belly laugh.

It’s this "wry smile" factor that is easily attached to the Ealing Comedies. Watching the 7 films in the DVD sets, most don’t have that many jokes in them – and the jokes that are included generally fall flat. Only "The Ladykillers" comes close to being a real comedy as such, and even that film is a dark comedy.

As I said, 2 DVD sets: 7 films. I shall go through each in turn, all the while scratching my head trying to work out why on Earth they’re supposed to be funny.

Made in 1947, this is the earliest "Ealing Comedy". It’s fairly dated because of its portrayal of the characters, which consist mainly of children. Though they’re supposed to be working class (indeed, working class children, most with no previous acting experience, were hired to play the characters), they behave in a peculiarly stilted way – in the same way that we raise an eyebrow whenever one of the Famous Five says "You rotter!" in a way that is supposed to convey extreme venom. In the film, one particularly overly imaginative teen reads a comic called "Trump", and, against his wishes, becomes engrossed in the comic and purchases several issues. He suddenly finds that most of the situations played out in the comic happen in reality – the comic concentrates on Boys Own style crime thrillers, and the kid starts recognising road names and vehicle number plates. After pestering a detective inspector (Scottish, naturally) for a while, he strikes out with the rest of his gang, and uncovers a crime syndicate that uses the comic to pass codes and form plans. The criminals are exposed by almost every kid in London after a big punch up.

It’s a very pleasant film overall, with a very well thought-out plot that contains several twists. An adventure yarn that seems aimed at children, I would however debate its label as a comedy. There are precious few jokes in it, even though popular comedy actor Alastair Sim features in it as the paranoid comic writer. It’s fairly dark in places too – criminals menace and attack the children, though it’s mainly the teenagers that are menaced. However, scenes such as a man throttling a schoolchild in the hope of obtaining information, and the same man throwing bricks at the schoolchild later on, in the hopes of killing him, would probably not get past the censors nowadays. Such scenes would probably belong in a gritty adventure or action film – yet here they are plonked in a film billed as being light entertainment!

There’s some wonderful direction in it, and the scenes of children playing in a bombed-out London are fascinating to a modern viewer. The climactic final scenes in which hundreds upon hundreds of children run through streets and across the London bridge (about 17 years before the Daleks) are very well done. However, no matter how good the film is as it stands, I definitely wouldn’t bill it as a comedy. But, with typically good-natured fun mixed with dark drama, it’s difficult to really pinpoint the exact genre of the film.

Moving forward a couple of years, we come across "Passport to Pimlico". Looking at it, one can see how these films were billed as comedies – most have a very fanciful, whimsical plot. Just like in "Hue and Cry" we had a gang of crooks using a comic as a means of passing information, here we have a plot in which an old document dictates that the section of London known as Pimlico technically belongs to France.

You can see how this one was meant to be a comedy. Unlike "Hue and Cry", there are no dark scenes. However, unfortunately it’s not very funny. As a political satire, it falls flat, as many satires of this time did. It doesn’t go far enough in it’s political barbs, yet so desperately wants to try and make itself different, and as a result falls between two stools. Most of the jokes and situations flew over my head completely – I was at a loss as to why, for example, the citizens of Pimlico decide to start stealing things from their own shops, just because they’re actually Bergundians. Apparently, they decide that the English laws and tax regulations don’t apply to them – however, surely France has legal laws much the same as our own? And, once they’ve stuck two fingers up at English politics and rules, they start uproar when every policeman is taken from the area. The characters, rather than appearing good natured and silly, just come across as greedy idiots, who can’t accept responsibility for their actions.

The cast is generally of a good quality, with Margaret Rutherford stealing most of her scenes. Raymond Huntley and Sydney Tafler are both what my uncle refers to as "B-list actors" – both appeared in loads of films at the time, but never seemed to star in anything. They’re both good in this and every other film they appeared in, but unfortunately they never seemed to hit the big time. Look out also for a young, pre-"Carry On…" Charles Hawtrey, wandering about looking thoroughly depressed.

Overall, as a supposed comedy, it misses the mark. A complete lack of good jokes, coupled with a gibbering plot, makes this one of the few duds in the collection.

1949 again, and here we are with one of the most famous "comedy" films of all time. It’s "the one where Alec Guinness plays 8 people". It’s also not a comedy.

Dennis Price, always value for money, wants to claim the Dukedom that has been kept from him by his family, who cut off his mother from them after she married someone that didn’t meet with their approval. Narrated by Price, we see his character develop his thoughts and ideals for a fair while into the running time of the film. When his mother dies, and her wish to be buried in the gardens of the family castle is refused, Price’s character takes it upon himself to murder everyone in the family.

Ho ho ho, ripping good laugh, eh? Truth be told, there are a few good laughs to be had, mainly through Prices’ masterly narration, with witty and spiked comments made throughout. However, the actual joke count is very low, and, what with several murders and romances thrown into the mix, almost all comedy is squeezed out. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a wonderful film, with a great twist ending; it’s just not really a comedy.

Oh dear. For a film often labelled as one of the best of Ealing’s output, I was rather disappointed. It has a wonderfully silly yet clever plot – a bank clerk has built up a reputation of being extremely timid yet loyal over the years, so that he is chosen to help in the transportation of gold bullion. He masterminds a scheme in which the gold can be stolen and melted down into small Eiffel Tower paperweights, so that they can be smuggled out of the country and sold abroad. It’s a good notion, and with Alec Guinness starring, what could go wrong?

This film suffers from the twee factor – lots of things happen that drag the film down to despairing levels. Sid James plays his usual loveable rogue – unfortunately, what the plot really demands is a cool, calculating and villainous type, who Guinness’s bank clerk calls upon to help in his schemes. The fact that one of the "toughest crooks in England" accepts Guinness at face value is quite strange, and later, when he can’t accompany Guinness and the gold out of the country, he trusts his new boss enough to just let him take the gold away and return with his share later on. It’s totally unbelievable. Scenes that include a police officer singing "Old MacDonald had a farm" in a loud, jovial manner are enough to make you saw your own ears off and assault your eyes with a cheese grater.

There’s some good direction, including the highly acclaimed scene in which Alec Guinness and Stanley Holloway run down the steps of the Eiffel Tower. However, this film, like "Passport to Pimlico", presents us with a good plot but doesn’t go anywhere with it. There are, once again, few jokes, and the plot often seems to suddenly go off on a tangent for no discernible reason, which is merely frustrating. This may be a silly comment from the chap who thinks "Casino Royale" is one of the funniest films ever made, but the swinging plot doesn’t really hold up in this film. Most of the plot changes take place about 50 minutes in, as if the writer decided he’d written himself into a corner and couldn’t think of what to do. Most of the characters in the first half are quickly disposed of (Sid James, for example, completely disappears after Guinness and Holloway take the gold to France – he never does come back to get his money) and new ones brought in to replace them. The result is a confusing mess that ought to have been a tidy little feature. Oh, and it’s not funny either.

Lord, for what we are about to receive, may we be truly grateful. After the dodgy affair of "The Lavender Hill Mob", we get this, one of my top 10 films. It has nearly everything: a strong cast, including Alec Guinness’s best acting role; a good story; some top notch satire; great direction; and a "Frankenstein"-esque chase through dark and gloomy streets at the end. The one thing it doesn’t have is… well, guess for yourself.

Alec Guinness plays a scientist who tries to get money to fund his experiments into making a new fibre. Eventually, he is allowed to do this, and develops the fibre of which he has always dreamed. It is indestructible, and anything spilt on it merely comes off straight away. After fashioning a suit out of the material, Guinness prepares to show his discovery to the press. However, the managers of the clothes and textiles industries wish to suppress it, fearing that this one new fibre will collapse almost every other business; progress is halted for the sake of profit.

This satirical edge gives the film a strong pace, and we really feel Alec’s desperation as everyone who he thought was his friend turns against him, trying to suppress his life’s work. As he tries to escape everyone in a manic chase through the streets, the viewer is sitting on the edge of his (or her) seat, urging him on. It is a very involving and rewarding film, and even the obligatory romance subplot crowbarred into the film plays well.

However, once again, there is precious little comedy. Aside from a few comical explosions as Guinness experiments in his lab, the joke count is low. It even has a fairly downbeat ending (though Guinness’s little smile as he walks into the sunset warms the heart of the viewer immediately). No one really seems to know what genre it best belongs in – I’ve seen it billed as a drama, a satire, and even science fiction. It seems that, because of who made it, it gets chucked into the comedy genre, where it doesn’t really belong.

One of the best films of all time certainly, but a comedy? Not really.

After the dizzying high of "The Man in a White Suit", we are brought back down to Earth with this rather uninvolving and dull film about a vicar and his friends who want to uphold the steam-run railway of their village. Nothing much happens in it and every plot twist seems bolted on to increase the running time. There’s no sense of natural progression at all; every time it looks as if the plot will advance, someone comes along and stops everything. The acting is variable, with only the chap who plays the vicar giving a good performance – once everything finally goes well, we smile along with him. However, by then, the film’s over, and the viewer feels that he’s wasted 80 minutes watching a story that could have been told in 30.

The best label for it is "charming" – it’s a nice film, and pretty harmless. It doesn’t do anything wrong, but equally doesn’t do anything right either, and so sits about being rather mundane. It’s labelled a comedy even though it’s never funny; I don’t think I laughed once during its duration. As one of the few colour films discussed here, it’s ironic that this film is probably the dullest. Only a scene in which a runaway steam train rolls through the streets of a town does the film really achieve a magical charm, but there’s nothing else to recommend in this little yarn.

It’s difficult to review this film in the way that I am doing so without giving away the ending. Beware of spoilers.

I’d hate to end this article on a poor film – luckily I don’t have to. "The Ladykillers" is as good as they say it is, and fully deserves its "classic" label.

A gang of crooks rent some rooms in a house owned by a sweet little old lady. Once they’ve established themselves, they quickly set about stealing money during transit between a bank and a train station. Once they have this money, they intend to leave; however, after an unfortunate mishap, the old lady discovers their crime. They decide that the only solution is to kill her; however, none can bring themselves to do it, and eventually they kill each other off, one by one. The old lady survives, and gets the money.

A strong cast, including Alec Guinness, Herbert Lom, a young Frankie Howerd and (yay!) Peter Sellers elevates this film to legendary proportions. Katie Johnson, as Mrs. Wilberforce, the old lady, is magnificent. Some reviewers have stated that her constant interruptions when the crooks try to formulate their plan are annoying, and that overall the guilty joy of the film is willing the criminals to bump her off. I thought she was wonderful, myself, and the ending, where she toddles off home with the money, vowing to buy herself a new umbrella, was very heart-warming.

However, we once again come to the question: "Is this a comedy?" Earlier, near the beginning of this article, I stated that "The Ladykillers" was the closest to a genuine comedy out of this selection of films – this is true. There are several funny moments throughout, including Sellers trying to retrieve a fleeing parrot, and Lom’s parodying of Mrs. Wilberforce. When One-Round, the "heavy" of the gang, kills off Seller’s character because he thought he killed Mrs. Wilberforce, he later sees that Mrs. Wilberforce is sill very much alive. He responds to the remaining gang members with the marvellously delivered "So all right! So I made a mistake!" It’s gloriously dark moments like this that make the film. It has a fair few jokes in it, but, by the very nature of the plot, it has its gloomy moments too. It gets rather serious once the death count piles up during the last third of the film (Sellers is beaten to death off screen, Cecil Parker is pushed off a roof, One-Round is pushed off a bridge, Herbert Lom is kicked into the path of an oncoming train), and Guinness’s death, cracked on the head by a train station signal, is so shocking that one will either respond to it with a gasp of horror or a short, sharp laugh.

It’s a fantastic film, and just about makes it as a comedy, albeit a very dark one.

So, after 7 films, have we learnt anything? Generally, I think the films come under 3 sections:

1. Those that try to be funny, and fail ("The Lavender Hill Mob", "Passport to Pimlico")
    

2. Those that actually are funny ("The Ladykillers")
    

3. Those that aren’t comedies in any sense of the word (the others, basically)

 

Not being particularly funny doesn’t automatically condemn one of the films under the "Ealing Comedy" umbrella; "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and "The Man in the White Suit" are brilliant, and both only have a handful of jokes. However, most of the Ealing Comedies… ain’t. Some are good, some are bad; almost all aren’t funny. This shouldn’t put you off watching any of them; indeed, I hope I’ve swayed you to take a look at some of these films yourself (repeat "I will watch ‘The Man in the White Suit’" over and over again); it’s just that I tell ‘em as I see ‘em, guv’.

17th February 2004