"Carry On Teacher" 1959

I was flicking around the Internet Movie Database, looking up reviews for some of these films, just to see what comments they’d generated. My eyes skipped over many short four-line "reviews", saying things like "corny but fun," "hilarious though possibly a bit dated," and "avoid like the plague". Ho hum, yes, very ordinary, spic-and-span, all is right with the world etc. My interest was however drawn to a series of reviews, covering the first twelve "Carry On…" films, written by an American viewer. Now, though the films were sold to America and shown there (as I mentioned in the previous article, "Carry On Nurse" was a big financial hit in the US), I can’t remember exactly how many were screened, and whether they were at all popular. Certainly they didn’t take off in America as they did here. To this day, close to two thirds of the series (covering the period the films were owned by the Rank Organisation) have yet to get a Region 1 DVD release. However, on with the point I was vaguely making. I read the reviews, curious to see what an American thought of this precious series, though I wasn’t going to draw too many conclusions – after all, these earlier instalments hardly embrace the "Carry On…" spirit that the series is renowned for.

The viewer stated that Kenneth Williams was usually quite good, though even he scoffed at Williams acquiring a love interest in "Nurse". Sid James attracted criticism – it would appear that his general characterisation doesn’t appeal to Americans – as did dear ol’ Kenneth Conner: "Clearly, this person Kenneth Conner was to be the center [sic] of attention. From an American viewpoint, he doesn't shine through." "Carry On Cleo" was very much liked, which was hardly a shock. However, though a dislike of "Carry On Screaming!" (thought by many to be one of the classics of the series) was a bit more eyebrow-raising, the biggest surprise came when he announced "Carry On Teacher" was the best of the lot.

Now, this was interesting. I personally love "Carry On Teacher"; it’s one of my favourites, in my top 5 of the series. Like "Sergeant" it has some great characters, some wonderfully funny moments, and a lovely ending that makes you feel all warm inside. It’s a very simple film, there’s no real depth – it doesn’t quite have the emotional gravitas of "Carry On Sergeant" which it is so desperately trying to emulate. Indeed, the basic ingredients of "Sergeant" would be reused several times, in here, and in "Constable" and "Cruising" – a man with an ambition which is threatened by a group of misfits of whom he doesn’t have complete control over. In "Teacher" this is played slightly differently – for once, the regulars aren’t playing the buffoons. However, as high up in my affections as this film is, I couldn’t help but wonder exactly why he, the American viewer, would like it so much, or at least more than the other eleven he’d seen.

Basically, "Teacher" was funnier. That’s what it came down to. I wasn’t exactly expecting such a simple answer. Watching the film yesterday, however, I must confess I spent most of my time laughing at the superbly crafted and delivered lines, and some physical humour that for once actually worked. The cast of "Teacher" seems far smaller than it usually does, with the upshot that nearly every character has a chance to shine. The fact that we are presented with yet another new "star" face who would never return doesn’t really matter – Ted Ray is adequate, without really managing to grab much of the comic limelight. It’s really a comfort film, it’s one you’d watch if you were feeling ill and were confined to a sofa with a blanket and a cup of lemon tea. And if you’ve been watching them in order it’s even better – it’s just like seeing some old friends turn up to do their usual thing. No one’s flexing their acting muscles, because the film simply doesn’t ask for them to do so. It is simply a very, very enjoyable little feature.

Reading the plot line for this film might make you more than a little suspicious – I mean, it’s set in a school. It has children in it. Everyone knows that children shouldn’t be let within fifty miles of a camera. And, as a story, it’s a bit flimsy: schoolchildren cause havoc in classes. Teachers try to stop them. Headmaster gets worried. It’s a mini adventure. But, and here’s the thing, the children are actually good. They’re not required to do much, and aren’t given a lot of screen time – after all, we’re here to see Kenneth Williams and Leslie Phillips, not some teenagers running about in sweaters and a young Larry Dann before he became famous due to "Carry On Emmannuelle" (yes, yes, I’m being sarcastic, ha ha, aren’t I a one?) But we actually believe that they’re slightly irritated kids in a school, just wanting a bit of fun – for all I know, they were just that; maybe they just got yanked out of school for a few weeks to do the picture. However, in a time now where a child can’t be in a film without a cartload of "fun yet biting" quips and a cheekily cute expression that makes you want to give them a slap, seeing some children in a film reacting vaguely normally is quite refreshing (for more of the same, see the 1947 Ealing Comedy "Hue and Cry"). Yes, yes, I know, most of them were probably older teenagers, but shut up, I’m waxing lyrical.

The important thing is, this could easily have descended into a relentlessly embarrassing 82 minutes of tweeness. I mean, you might watch it and think that it is. However, in my view, there’s only one cringe-worthy bit on behalf of the "kids", and that’s in a scene in which an exasperated Joan Sims repeats the word "Bomb!" several times in a fashion that provokes the girls she’s speaking to to reply "Bomb bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb… bomb bomb!" Yes, it doesn’t really work written down; don’t worry, it doesn’t work on screen either. Nevertheless, that’s the only source of worry to be drawn from the performances of this lot. Be prepared for some slightly bizarre Charles Hawtrey chortling, and the ever-frightening presence of Miss Rosalind Knight (yes, she’s back, mercifully sans glasses and Gumby expression for the most part), but you need not fear a jumped up little sod in short trousers and a catapult saying "Yah boo sucks, nark!"

For the most part, the film is left in the very capable hands of the group of actors and actresses accumulated over the last two films. Rather than a "them v. us" battle, with the teachers breathing down the necks of the rotten young scoundrels that they’re forced to teach, most of the joy is drawn from watching the interplay of the leads, whether they’re on their own, or in pairs, or as one group in the staff room. Watching the sparks fly is great fun, and seeing the difference between their characters is equally entertaining. Or you could just be sensible and just listen to the jokes.

Kenneth Conner plays a sort of mutant hybrid of his characters from the first two films. Whereas he was a bundle of nerves in "Sergeant" and the confident chortling boxer of "Nurse", here he’s a fairly laid back science teacher, often with his head in the clouds ("Forgotten? Me? Heh heh…. Forgotten what?" "After all… he who listens most, listens least!… No, er…") who nevertheless falls to pieces in the company of a woman. However, when that woman is Rosalind Knight, one can understand his terror. Anyway, Conner sort of drifts through the film, stuck into one of the two romance subplots that the Carry Ons embraced at this time, though still given his fair share of rather top notch moments. Ted Ray’s headmaster, knowing that something shall inevitably go wrong during the school inspection being carried out by Ms. Knight (and Leslie Phillips, but more on him later), decides that should she fall in love with one of the teachers then she might be persuaded to give a more pleasing report. It’s a curious and very quaint sort of attitude – and, for inexplicable reasons, Ray’s foresight proves to be correct. No sooner has Knight clapped eyes on Conner then from then on she’s all his. I can’t quite understand why, to be honest – it’s never explained why on Earth she should like him, nor why Conner should suddenly fall in love with her by the end of the film either, given that he was forced into the role by Ray and didn’t seem to have any attraction to her before that point. I suppose it’s one of those things that you pass over as it was made in simpler times so shouldn’t be thought about.

The other romance concerns Leslie Phillips and Joan Sims. Shed of the constraint of having a wife (he might have one, but it’s far cosier to think that he hasn’t), Phillips’s character is free to stalk about, eyebrows raised and moustache twitching on a search for a bit o’ crumpet. That the object of his desire turns out to be Joan Sims is somewhat surprising – for a couple of films at this time she was meant to be the female love interest, which in hindsight is hard to fathom due to her "nagging wife" persona of the majority of the later films. However, well, Phillips fancies Sims here, so there you go. Given one of the best names of the series, Miss Allcock, Sims is introduced to Phillips’s psychologically-minded inspector – and no other actor could possibly say "Miss Allcock…" in the way that Leslie Phillips can. Coupled with an immediate "Ding dong!" and we know we’re in safe hands. The Carry On’s penchant for saucy dialogue begins in earnest here, when Knight and Phillips interview Sims’s PE teacher:

RK: Are you satisfied with your equipment, Miss Allcock?

JS: Well I’ve had no complaints so far!

JS: Oh, equipment, yes… I have everything I need, thank you.

LP: Do you find mental relaxation follows physical activity?

JS: Oh, always!

LP: Splendid! That’s all…

RK: … Do you favour the Swedish method?

JS: Well I always say it’s the same the whole world over!

Yes, OK, it’s obvious, simple stuff, but if it makes you smile, then so what? It’s all in the delivery and expression anyway, making my transcription utterly pointless. So why is it there? Why, to fill up space in this article, of course.

Before "Camping" with Barbara Windsor’s exploding bra comes Joan Sims and her ripping gym shorts, a scene that does not go by unappreciated by our favourite wolf (whose expression can be seen in the screenshot floating nearby this paragraph) who proceeds to mention the event at every opportunity thereafter ("I do hope Miss Allcock’s pants aren't ruined," which throws Kenneth Williams in the next scene, and later, of his mentor, "How his eyes would have lit up to have seen those pants split.") The relationship goes into a wobble when Joan Sims reads Phillips’s book on how to handle children and decides it’s all a lot of cobblers, but by the end they’re back in each others arms, Phillips wisely deciding "Free expression is just the thing for other people’s children." It’s certainly Phillips’s most satisfying role of the three films he did for the series (leaving out "Columbus"… for the moment). It’s interesting that after several straight-faced romances, both of those in "Teacher" are played out with comical inflections, which is how most subplots of this nature would be presented throughout the rest of the series. One could perhaps point out that Conner uses scientific analysis in his quest for love and succeeds, whilst Phillips does the same but fails. However, now that I’ve mentioned that I have no idea what conclusion I could draw. I don’t think I’ll bother to make one.

It goes without saying that Hattie Jacques is fantastic, so we’ll go onto the "rent-a-star" part of Ted Ray. Well, he’s good. Not great, but, well, it’s a pretty underdeveloped part anyway. It’s simply the "man overseeing the bunch of idiots" role of "Sergeant", though whereas William Hartnell came through with flying colours due to a more likeable characterisation and the personal benefit of being William Hartnell, Ted Ray is given a far sketchier part, there simply to provide a bit of narrative thrust. His manipulations of Kenneth Conner make the viewer a bit uneasy, though by the final scene, where he tells the eager children that he won’t be going to another school (which was his wish throughout the film) and will "see you next term," the viewer is on his side, and pleased to see everyone getting along so well. However, in between the beginning and the ending, he does very little, besides gawping, gurning and chewing his fist in frustration as all around him carry on regardless (a bit of foreshadowing there). He only really gets one quotable line, when practising explaining away some drunken teachers to Knight: "Alcohol from the lab found it’s way into the staff room kettle. Happens all the time!… No, I better not say that…" He’s not bad, but not dazzling. Perhaps if he’d appeared in the next film in the same role then we’d have seen his true prowess; however, given that he was succeeded by Sidney James, perhaps we should be thankful that "Teacher" was his only shot. Nothing against the talents of Ted Ray (I assume he had some), but can you imagine the Carry Ons without Sidney James?

Far more interesting is Charles Hawtrey, who is very frightening indeed. For perhaps the only time in the series, and for reasons maybe to do with the script or his performance, Hawtrey plays a decidedly unlikeable person, arrogant, selfish and almost as snooty as Kenneth William’s snob character (which gets trundled out again, to great effect). It’s quite strange to see Hawtrey play this type of character, and I’m glad he returned to being the happy innocent for "Constable" – this is certainly far away from the "Oh hello!" playing of later years. Charlie is also an actor who can’t do cries of alarm without breaking your eardrums, and given that his character is continually assaulted throughout the film this happens quite a lot, which quickly gets irksome. His piano collapses, he gets covered in flour, splattered by paint, falls through the floorboards and falls prey to a bomb scare – not necessarily in that order. It’s quite a lot for one man to cope with, so maybe we should be lenient on poor Charlie. Still, I’m glad he didn’t do it again.

However, when coupled with Kenneth Williams, magic is made. Unaccustomed to having his snob role shared, Williams launches an all out attack on Hawtrey throughout the film, criticising his music and handling of the all important school play (Hawtrey is in charge of the music, whilst Williams is directing the drama itself). These scenes quickly become the most entertaining of the film, though maybe that’s just down to personal taste; a battle of wills can become tiresome quickly, but with duologues like "[My music] is all in the mind," "That’s the best place for it!" and "He could play with his dirk!" "Or chuck it at you!" then it’s all marvellously entertaining. Forget Sid James, I always saw these two as the titans of the Carry Ons; though they’re paired together for quite a few future endeavours, this is the one time where a full scale character-assassinating massacre evolves between the two, and it’s great fun to watch.

But things can’t always go right. For, like a spectre in the shadows who stalks the night and attempts to smother all that’s good and decent, we have the relentless, soulless, primal rage of Rosalind Knight.

Confined to one scene in "Nurse", here she’s free to run wild, gurning and sneering at all and sundry like a vulture in drag. Playing her part of the prim and proper inspector completely straight, she still manages to instil terror and looks as if she’s about to explode into an insane whirlwind at any moment. The scenes where she appears to lust after Kenneth Conner as he backs away in horror are some of the most frightening scenes committed to celluloid. "Anything, anything!!!" she whines, and Conner can be seen searching in vain for his crucifix. Readers may suggest that I’m exaggerating a little. However, readers may also be advised to watch Rosalind Knight’s performance first. At midnight. In the dark. Where the jollities of Charles Hawtrey and the resonance of Kenneth Williams’s voice shall not be able to help you…

Freed of the "sketch show" formula of "Nurse", "Teacher" nevertheless has it’s "event" scenes, the bits that people will remember this film before – mainly the scene where Williams’s English teacher tries to talk to his class of pupils about "Romeo and Juliet" whilst avoiding the pitfalls of sexual matters ("I’m not interested in your dad’s marriage customs!"), and the aforementioned school play scene, where things go wrong and hilarious hijinks ensue. It’s a terribly obvious film, and you’ll know everything shall be well in the end – but therein lies the appeal. You know you’ve got a happy ending to look forward to, so until it happens you can curl up safe in the company of a class act (there’s a joke there somewhere) of comedic personalities, and eat a chocolate for every time Leslie Phillips says something saucy. Go on. It’s a rattling good idea, you know.

Next up: "Carry On Constable"