Skip to main content

What is it, hidden beneath this shell of lovely earth?

Penda’s Fen
(1974)

(SPOILERS) Confession time: I wasn’t even aware Penda’s Fen existed before reading a recent Fortean Times piece on haunted childhoods of the ‘70s, curious in itself as Play for Today wasn’t exactly teatime, Basil Brush and Doctor Who, viewing (I guess they’re taking in inquisitive teenagers). But it’s very easy to see why the piece, directed by Alan Clarke from a teleplay by David Rudkin, had an impact on impressionable young minds. It’s just the sort of fare, with its open countryside and occult undertones, that proves indelible, in the manner of Children of the Stones or The Owl Service (or Alan Garner generally). That, and simply the way that movies and TV were made then; the texture of film, the lingering of edits and weight of imagery and unnaturalistic dialogue.
 

That said, I’m not sure the more fantasy-tinged end of the spectrum was really Clarke’s forte (he also gave us the less than venerated Billy the Kid and the Green Baize Vampire). Whether it’s his reading of the script or just his eye, there’s a literalness to his depiction of young protagonist Stephen Franklin’s imaginings that’s rather less evocative than Mr Arne’s impassioned, paranoid rants at the local village meeting. Apparently, Dudkin requested Clarke for the gig, and the director admitted to never fully understanding the material. Dudkin commented of Clarke “He distrusted intellectual drama, and was wary of the story’s frames of scholarly reference: theology, Latin and Greek, classical harmony… I said he was to let all that aspect look after itself, and concentrate on the emotions”.


Stephen (Spencer Banks, also of Timeslip) nurses the readily recognisable (stereotypical?) symptoms of repressed sexuality, adopting a staunchly conservative (its difficult not to see a whiff of Michael J Fox’s character in Family Ties, only less humorously, in his morally severe attitude to the world and those around him). Living in the Malvern Hills, the son of a pastor (John Atkinson), Stephen juggles a confused passion for the milkman (Ron Smerczak) with his public-school affiliation to the combined cadet force and an obsession with Elgar, and more especially The Dream of Gerontius. He’s almost a parody of the prig in his behaviour towards others; his teachers and even his mother find his dogma tiresome, but the film takes him on an increasingly sympathetic journey of sexual, socio-political and spiritual awakening, one fuelled by the landscape around him, its myths and archetypes, in which visions form, guiding him to a place of new awareness.


As his father tells him, dreams are true: “The truth you need to know about yourself for your wellbeing”. And Penda’s Fen is accordingly about stripping away the outer paraphernalia to reach core truth. Stephen’s major influences, the father he has assumed is a traditionalist and the lefty writer (a positively youthful Ian Hogg’s Arne) towards whom he is initially antagonistic, lead him to reject those more formal props of appropriate behaviour, of schooling and the military, and of respect by his peer group (Honeybone, about whom Stephen has erotic dreams, like most of those around Stephen, recognises he is “different” and leads the rugby squad in a ritual humiliation).  


So Stephen starts off complaining of the “modern wilderness of amorality” and (suggestive that any such restrictive viewpoint is indicative of repression on the part of the proponent) gets all Mary Whitehouse about Arne’s work (there’s “always someone unnatural in his TV plays”). But because he translates “Know thyself” as “Discover thyself”, he takes the rejection by the presiding authority figures in his stride; he leaves the CCF, whereupon he is accused of being a non-cooperative (or unmutual: Number Six would be proud), accompanied by the inevitable impugning of his masculinity (the Major wonders if he wants to be a man at all). Stephen also reacts indifferently to being told he can’t be recommended for the sixth form club (“If that’s how you feel, sir”). It’s a necessary path; after all, it’s his inability to express himself that causes destruction (the death of a bird beneath the milk float while he is paralysed by Joel’s presence: Joel, who appears on his bed as a demon, and is forceful when he realises Stephen’s intentions – “That’s all”).


The pulse running through Penda’s Fen relates to a philosophical musing over Manichean forces, as proposed by Arne and debated between Stephen and his father, fuelled by Stephen’s visions of angels and demons and his obsession with The Dream of Gerontius (“What is to happen to my soul?” we hear Stephen ask at the opening; the Dream relates the musician’s experience after death as he comes before the throne of God (or Penda), encounters angels and demons, and hears “the dissonance that is the piercing gaze of God”). Arne speaks of the Manichean challenge, speculating that a church acts as an aerial for such forces, while the pastor admits “I am not sure which side the church has always been on”, taking a moderate view towards their “heresy” (to the Manicheans, Jesus was one of many sons of light in the “unending battle to save man’s spark of light”).


And there are nominal oppositions throughout. Arne considers himself subversive, albeit of his plays he admits “I make ‘em tamer now”. Stephen is subtly aware that the political troublemaker is less insightful than his father, so impassioned is Arne by his position (“Oh I don’t know” Stephen replies, when Arne suggests the pastor would be horrified by his tirades, because Stephen has already heard his father’s heresy: “You believe in God” he earlier asks in confirmation. “I believe in truth” his father replies, having also spoken of the “troubling historical and spiritual reality of God himself”. He is only conservative in terms of a reserved disposition, not of an exercised mind.


And symbolically, the final scene, as Stephen rejects the fake parents of his vision – “There you have seen the true dark enemies of England. Sick father and mother, who would have us children forever” – informs Penda’s Fen, tying in with Arne’s obsession with vile technocracy and Stephen’s vision of willing sacrifice of hands to the state (sacrificing their freedom, remaining children forever). So Stephen is able to marry and satisfying the twin opposing forces: “I am nothing pure. Nothing pure. My race is mixed. My sex is mixed. I am woman and man, light and darkness. I am mud and flame”.


Penda’s Fen has shares a romanticism towards the old religion with the likes of John Masefield’s Box of Delights. Something even the pastor recognises. Stephen lives in Pinvin – Penda’s Fen, the name though to reference the last pagan king of Mercia – and there are discussions tying paganism to the correct social grouping, the positive one, and so kicking against the urban (and implicitly Christian) one. Pagan means “belonging to the village” we are told, and it seems to me that a scathing review of the play on Amazon, that refers to it as having a “globalist” agenda (based mainly on the idea that Stephen’s final speech symbolises a unified world) is rather missing the point, that the Pastor explicitly puts the microcosm first when he sings the benefits of the centred village over the sprawl of the city, the community of the countryside. That, and Arne’s railing against the machine.


Brott: The British working man will never let a dictatorship happen. He’s too bloody-minded.

Arne explicitly rejects the metropolis for The Good Life, and I have to admit I found his conspiratorial tirades about the “strategically expendable populace” in response to emotive language being used to condemn strikes holding the country to ransom (very much flavour of the month at the time) the most engaging aspects of the play. Arne all but whispers illuminati agendas when he speculates “What is it, hidden beneath this shell of lovely earth? Some hideous angel of technocratic death? Some alternative city for government from beneath? Motorways there, offices, control suites. Silent there, empty, waiting for the day”, as there are numerous such theories and postulations regarding such vast underground complexes. Further, he digs into the occult obsessions of the elite when he notes “Those lonely places our technocrats chose for their extreme experiments” (Los Alamos for instance) and “Sick laboratories built on or beneath these haunted sites” even if he responds “Not in the least” when asked by the pastor if the is interested in the occult.


For Arne, the dystopia is inevitable – the forces will only rise – and the one hope for man is that the great concrete megacity inspires the seeds of “Disobedience. Chaos. Out of those alone can some new experiment in human living be born”. Accompanying Arne’s speculations is a confirmatory side plot, in which a burnt man is discovered in the countryside, an aspect that not only projects a similarly eerie apocalyptic feeling to Edge of Darkness but also expressly conjures the spectre of upper tier machinations when the very Roswell cover story “man injured by weather balloon” is released (yet the measure of the play is such that it would less lend itself to an “out there” hypothesis as an “in here”).


If I wanted to go further along this line, I might suggest the PINVIN changed to PINFIN in Stephen’s mind on signs is a representation of the Mandela Effect 40 years early. I have to admit, however, that the visionary aspect of Penda’s Fen is the least resonant aspect, because, as I’ve suggested, it’s so very literal. You could see Nicolas Roeg coalescing such material far more seamlessly, whereas Clarke gives us King Penda sitting atop a hill like he’s waiting around for a Depeche Mode video, a great crack appearing down the aisle of a church, and a really rather rote conversation between Stephen and Elgar (who resembles one of the hosts of History Today).


Penda’s Fen doesn’t offer much in the way of humour, about the closest it skirts is Stephen being told by his parents of his adoption, and that “Like the English language, Stephen, you have foreign parents too” (Britishness is itself just a mask, an illusion). The pastor then follows this up with the reassuring “Even Elgar has some Welsh blood”.


I’m not sure Penda’s Fen is quite the masterpiece its rediscovery makes out, but it’s a fascinating piece of work, the likes of which simply could not be imagined now, either in terms of writing or delivery. If it’s rather didactic at points with regard to the latter, the conversations are engrossingly literary. It scarcely matters if anyone talks like this outside of the realm of academia: they’re interesting. Rudkin and Clarke have created a textured, layered examination of identity, and the “identity” of Englishness.














Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?