Skip to main content

Do you think that we Hollanders who threw the sea out of our country will let the Germans have it? Better the sea.


One of Our Aircraft is Missing
(1942)

Noel Coward went on to employ most of the crew from this Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger film, following a set visit that mightily impressed him (including editor David Lean and cinematographer Ronald Neame). He’d have been better to just ask Powell to direct In Which We Serve, which is both stagey and mannered; it hasn’t aged nearly as well as Aircraft, the first production from P&P’s The Archers production company.

The Archers was formed as a result of a bet between Powell and cinema mogul Arthur Rank, who informed the director that the idea was defeatist and wouldn’t sell tickets. Powell believed it would be big success and he and Pressburger went ahead and made it under the banner of The Archers. Of course, Powell proved to be right. And, to his credit, Rank was forthcoming in admitting his error.

As with Coward’s film, Aircraft was made in consort with the Ministry of Information - the British Government’s wartime propaganda department. While it is unabashedly patriotic, Powell is far too sensitive and intelligent a filmmaker to resort wanton jingoism or nationalistic fervour. As with the previous year’s 49th Parallel (which won Pressburger an Oscar for its screenplay; Aircraft had to make do with a nomination), Powell follows a downed crew behind enemy lines. But whereas his earlier effort placed German submariners in Canada (a bid to encourage America to join the war), here a British aircrew bails out of their stricken bomber (B for Bertie) over the Netherlands.

There’s a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach to the subject matter, rendering it distinct from earlier P&P collaborations. Powell’s aim was for “complete naturalism”, so there is no music score. They would not utilise a documentary style, rather a “detached narrative, told from the inside, of what it is like to be a pawn in the game of war”. The director employs devices such as the bomber crew introducing themselves directly to camera, conscious that this would be the first time most of the audience would encounter the interior of a Wellington.

Which isn’t to say the result is not as dramatically compelling as any of their previous fictional films. But they are not aiming to replicate the heightened atmosphere of, say, The Spy in Black. While Neame’s black and white photography is often stunning to look at, Powell is intent on suggesting a realistic tone. He treats the story as an actual event, introducing the film with title cards informing the viewer of reprisals taken by the German army against Dutch civilians who helped British airmen escape back to England. The action of the crew moving from place to place is punctuated by the sight of German documentation granting permission to the Dutch to engage in every day activities.

Powell thought that the opening, with the bomber hitting power lines and exploding, would be an instant audience-grabber. What sticks out about it now is that it’s one of the few moments where you are conscious of the limitations of the model work; in contrast, the extended sequence of B for Bertie bombing Stuttgart remains impressive 70 years later.

It would be a mistake to see the film simply as a tale of plucky Brits engaging in derring-do to escape the fascist aggressors. Aside from some fisticuffs towards the climax, the British are a largely passive presence; it is the bravery of the Dutch underground that is continually in focus. And their representatives are chiefly women (played by Pamela Brown and Googie Withers, both delivering winning performances). The crew are played by Godfrey Tearle, Eric Portman (who was one of the German U-boat crew in 49th Parallel ), Hugh Williams, Bernard Miles (whom Coward would nab for In Which We Serve), Hugh Burden (playing the pilot and Dutch speaker), and Emrys Jones, spend a fair bit of time debating who should be the leader on the ground. But when it comes down to it Tearle’s WWI veteran volunteers that Withers is their leader.

Tearle’s character of Sir George Corbett was inspired by Sir Arnold Wilson, an MP who joined the Royal Air Force at the age of 51; he was killed in action in 1940. It was Powell’s intention that the story should see the crew unite under the pressure of their situation (in contrast to the crew in 49th Parallel), ultimately risking all to save the old codger who had initially been dismissed as a pain in the neck. I’m not sure how strongly this theme comes across; it is certainly much less distinct than the message concerning the efforts of the occupied Dutch.

Of course, there are a number of speeches during the proceedings that announce the mettle of those who would resist the occupying forces and underline the importance of allied co-operation (the Dutch do not have much to eat, but still, “We can think, hope, fight”). This is, quite intentionally, a mutual appreciation society. But Powell is not interested in presenting the Germans as inhuman, although for most of the film they are purposefully present only on the outskirts of the narrative. He makes a point of having Miles reminisce about a German girlfriend during the flight out. Later, Googie shows she is not without empathy, despite being as hard as nails.

Jo de Vries: They’re an unhappy people. I would rather be a Dutchman here than any German soldier. They want to believe that somebody is their friend. And that’s the trick.

When we see some German soldiers up-close, they are the cheerfully unthreatening occupants of the rescue buoy that the airmen have commandeered. The use of a buoy was arrived at when P&P were puzzling how to furnish the crew with a believable escape route; they would surely be shot to pieces on the open sea.  While there are some tense scenes during their escape, it’s also a remarkably smooth-running process that has the knock-on effect of suggesting this sort of thing isn’t all that hard (they hide from the Germans almost in plain sight, make short work of the few who threaten them, and then just need to have a good hard row to ensure rescue from the British Navy). While Powell’s tone may suggest the factual, you’re nevertheless conscious of how genteel and civil all the exchanges are (the closest to frostiness is from Brown, suspecting that the crew may be Germans, positioned to entrap the Dutch).

Powell’s such a fine director that even a film made under the auspices of the war effort appears more insightful and balanced than much of the fare made during subsequent decades. The following year, P&P would hit a stride of greatness that would continue for nearly a decade, beginning with The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. It was a film that would incur Churchill’s disapproval and would take as its central theme the friendship between a German and a British army officer over the course of three conflicts. Made at the height of the Second World War.

Aircraft was the first film role for the positively skinny Peter Ustinov, who plays a priest. Also appearing is the strikingly featured Robert Hepmann as German collaborator. A ballet dancer, he would go on to star in both The Red Shoes and The Tales of Hoffman for Powell. But he’s probably most recognisable for causing many a youngster nightmares as the Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

**** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.