Skip to main content

Some fool has invented an indestructible cloth.


The Man in the White Suit
(1951)

Alexander Mackendrick’s highly astute film is spun from a very simple “What if?” premise; a scientist creates a fabric that will not wear-out or retain dirt. From this he weaves a scintillating satire on capitalism that takes potshots at both the the workers and the industrialists, whose views connect at the point where the status quo is endangered.

Some have pointed to the dismay of Sidney Stratton’s (Alec Guinness) landlady, “Why can’t you scientists leave things as they are?” as a summary of the main message of the film itself (she, in particular, is marked as sympathetic as she forwent rent so Sidney could continue with his work). While the issue of (scientific) responsibility is certainly one of the themes present in the script (tellingly, Sidney requires radioactive materials as part of his shopping list of chemicals), it doesn’t resonate as the central one. Sidney himself is virtually a cypher, played with benign self-righteousness by Guinness but displaying little in the way of moral or ethical awareness of the implications of his project; the concerns expressed by others that his invention may impact their livelihoods do nothing to sway him (it has been suggested that he is essentially dislikable, unthinking of consequences and disregarding of others, but made sympathetic by Guinness). Indeed, he believes he is right even at the close. Meanwhile, those who oppose him on both sides have no qualms about detaining Sidney against his will if it guarantees their security.

Perhaps the film’s position is best summed up by a comment made on the imdb boards; the film is designed to make you think, not tell you what to think. While Ealing Studios at its creative peak was informed by a guiding social conscience (“the perfect studio for the welfare state”), there is also something darker at play in Mackendrick’s films (and also evident in the likes of Robert Hamer’s Kind Hearts and Coronets; The Man in the White Suit was co-scripted by Mackendrick, co-writer of Kind Hearts, John Dighton, and Roger MacDougall, who wrote the original play); a streak of pessimism regarding human nature. The textile barons and trade unions come across as essentially two sides of the same coin, so it is futile to look for right thinking from either.

In large part, the film plays out on their reactions to Sidney’s invention. One might read from the film that if ever a utopian society seemed feasible, one where, say, the current mechanisms and controlling elements of capitalism were no longer required, it would be rejected outright through shortsightedness and greed.  That is not to discount the theme of “what happens when the balance of nature is upset” or the idea that it condemns the notion that we do not need to foster responsibility for our actions. But, if that were really the guiding principal, we would surely be invited to sympathise with those whom Sidney’s “misguided” actions upset. We would also expect a clear negative signifier attached to his experiments, yet, as far as we are aware, his invention has no untoward health or environmental consequences (indeed, the process of the explosive honing of his formula is played for laughs).

Frank: You’re not even born yet. What do you think happened to all the other things? The razor blade that never gets blunt? The car that runs on water with a pinch of something in it? No, they’ll never let your stuff on the market in a million years.

It puts one in mind of conspiratorial stories of energy companies buying up patents on notional free-energy devices.

Daphne: The whole world’s going to bless you.

But in fact, the reverse is true. The very worker who tells him he doesn’t understand how things work quickly comes to the realisation:

Frank: But if this stuff never wears out, we’ll only have one to make.

And following this through to board level, production of the wonder material does not go ahead. Sidney is told:

Alan Bimley: To announce it now might upset the delicate balance of the market.

Everyone is profoundly cynical except for Sidney. There is no will to make the world (society) a better place because its “fabric” will not support the idea his invention represents, let alone the reality of it. Sidney’s invention is the antithesis to industry, which is based upon cyclical consumption and planned obsolescence. It is easy to see why all (bar the two women in Sidney’s life, opposites in terms of privilege but not so far apart in basic empathy) laugh in relief when Sidney’s suit exhibits a limited shelf life. But idealism (as expressed here in the purity of scientific theory) will out, and Sidney ends the film smiling with the realisation of where he went wrong.

Mackendrick’s film is not only beautifully shot and edited (his visual language is both economical and imaginative, his comic timing perfection itself) but boasts a wonderful cast. Aside from Guinness, who knows that the most impact comes from underplaying, foremost of the thespians is the glorious Joan Greenwood. Her character, Daphne Birnley, is the daughter of Cecil Parker’s textile baron, and we spend a good deal of the film unsure of her motivations. She is curious, attracted to Sidney for how different he is, but it only becomes fully evident that she is on his side following the scene where she is essentially invited to prostitute herself by all those concerned by Sidney’s behaviour (including her fiancé, Michael Gough’s Michael Corland). I suspect that Mackendrick was partly playing on audience familiarity with Greenwood’s devilishly self-serving character in Kind Hearts and Coronets, making the eventual reveal all the more powerful. As an aside, I wonder whether the aged character of Sir John was the inspiration for the decrepit head of George Clooney’s law firm in Intolerable Cruelty. Given the Coens appreciation of Ealing, I shouldn’t be surprised.

The Man in the White Suit ends, as it begins, with the comical sound of Sidney’s machine distilling away. It’s this, and Sidney’s sense of optimism, that prevents the film from finishing on an entirely downbeat note. It feels magnificently fresh 60 years on, mainly because the idea it explores are unchanging in their relevance. They must surely continue to be so as long society is structured according to, and dictated by, market forces. 

*****

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the