Skip to main content

... of whom the opinion of all was that he was born to be hanged.

Tom Jones
(1963)

(SPOILERS) It’s my impression that retrospection hasn’t been overly kind to this streamlined adaptation of Henry Fielding’s substantial novel, chiefly because of the quirky filmmaking ticks and devices employed by director Tony Richardson, many of which are now regarded as injudicious or undiscerning. Certainly, Tom Jones hasn’t remained on everyone’s lips as a go-to great Oscar winner (the picture was an instant hit in Britain despite iffy reviews; it was only when the French critics embraced it that its rep built across the pond) .

In contrast to such a trend, I think Richardson’s jaunty irreverence (aided by a fine screenplay from John Osborne) captures Fielding’s tone perfectly, right down to the witty mock-prurience and moralism of the narrator (added during the editing process according to Albert Finney). Few Best Picture Oscar winners since have come close in terms of quality of writing, but Tom Jones also captures a new-wave-of-cinema cusp in a rare zeitgeist moment for the awards, since it’s a film that marks a new generation’s approach – here the advent of the swinging part of the decade, laying to rest the angry young man movement Richardson had been at the vanguard of bringing to the screen – every bit as much as the inevitable bust of Easy Rider and Bonnie and Clyde towards its end. It’s uproariously funny, deliciously sly and immaculately performed.

Narrator: But a hero cannot be lost until his tale is told. For heaven be thanked, we live in such an age, where no man dies for love, except upon the stage.

The narration is magnificently delivered by a knowing Micheál Mac Liammóir, and while I don’t wish to suggest Kubrick was slumming it in copyist mode with Barry Lyndon, almost everything thatpicture does with austerely rigid wit is first achieved by Tom Jones, but with a sense of brio and near-abandon, revelling in its bawdiness and boasting a sense of Shakespeare in Love’s “Strangely enough, it all turns out well” even during Tom’s darkest moments. Some have complained that the film seems ridiculously tame now, but I don’t believe it would have been nearly as effective had it been made in a few years further in to its progressively less censorious era (indeed, The Bawdy Adventures of Tom Jones proved the point thirteen years later, arriving in the wake of the Confessions of a… sex comedy boom) as many of its sleights – the food-as-sex scene – are a result of libidinous creativity on the makers’ parts, suggestiveness being more artistically fruitful than frankness (the picture nevertheless received an X certificate in the UK).

Richardson could only see the picture’s faults, however – he made seven minutes of cuts for its 1989 reissue, “all trims, the kind I would have done then if I’d been smart enough” – and cinematographer Walter Lassally suggested the picture had rather got away from him in the editing, that he was “endlessly fixing what was not really broken”. It’s curious this one chagrined him so, since his subsequent career was far from acclaimed, even if there have been (deserved) reappraisals of various later pictures since. Indeed, one could see Jones as a pretty strong dividing line, the director having been on a roll in features for half a decade prior. Lassally suggested the chief problem was Richardson acting as his own producer – if he’d had a strong one on hand, he might have gently removed the director from the cutting room for a spell in order that he got a little distance from his work.

I should stress that I’m a fan of the majority of Richardson’s choices, especially the energetic manner in which he grabs hold of the material in the edit and pitches straight into the meat of it (by way of a silent film parody, complete with subtitles), but Lassally expressed the view that “the first rough cut in my opinion was better than the final cut”, essentially because it was more straightforward, the cinematographer citing intercutting as causing the greatest damage (the first twenty to twenty-five minutes were severely cut down and broken up).

The Narrator: It is widely held that too much wine will dull a man’s desire. Indeed, it will… in a dull man.

There are definitely decisions here that seem hasty with hindsight, though – the decision to speed up scenes of bawdy pursuit (pixilation, as Lassally refers to it) can only ever evoke a passing sensation of the Benny Hills now – but far more succeed than don’t, particularly the fourth wall-breaking moments, applied to even incidental walk-on characters, and as Finney noted, they’re equivalent to the author’s asides to his reader in the novel. Perhaps the most legendary of these is Mrs Waters (Joyce Redman, Oscar nominated), whom Tom earlier, “like Orpheus leading Eurydice from hell” rescued from gutless would-be rapist Northerton (Julian Glover, relishing malignancy as only Julian Glover can) – there are quite a few would-be rapists here, and a few casual ones too, as one might expect – before indulging in the famous meal seduction scene; she obliges a mischievous “Oops, ah well” look upon being informed of her unknowing incest with “Your son, Tom Jones” (this is, of course, revised a scene or so later).

The Narrator: With our usual good breeding, we will not follow this particular conversation further but attend results on the following day.

Trainspotting came to mind more than a couple of times during viewing – and not just because Ewan McGregor played a young Finney in Big Fish, although that helps – Jones being something of a stylistic antecedent to that much-acclaimed picture (albeit not enough to get over its scurrilous subject matter and receive more than nominal Oscar attention). Both were manufactured in the edit, employing playful visual and soundtrack choices – John Allison furnished the Oscar-winning score, and was later nominated for the also-playful Sleuth – to render its impact. If Jones hadn’t been made in the early ‘60s, one might easily have conceived it as a McGregor-Boyle vehicle, perhaps instead of dodo A Life Less Ordinary (as it was, B-list McGregor Max Beesley starred in a five-part BBC version that same year). I suppose, less charitably, one might name check the colourful period messes of Baz Lurhmann, intent on throwing everything at the screen in terms of stylistic and editing quirks and seeing what sticks. Finney veered towards such an assessment when he commented “If there is any style in Tom Jones, it’s because of the mixture of styles”.

The NarratorHeroes, whatever high ideas we may have of them, are mortal and not divine. We are all as God made us, and many of us much worse.

Finney’s Tom “... of whom the opinion of all was that he was born to be hanged” lands amusingly and irrepressibly, despite the actor’s disinclination towards the material; he didn’t think it was serious enough, no doubt due to his being a certified angry young man at the time and having a reputation to uphold (I expect his 10% profit share did something to quell his upset). What’s most striking on revisit – I think probably as result of having revisited The Wrong Box a couple of months ago – is how the actor’s clearly basing his vocal performance on professional pisshead and co-star Wilfrid Lawson (who gets hardly any lines). Tom is, much like Barry Lyndon, something of a louche cypher, with the vibrancy and colour provided by the supporting types around him, but in Finney he’s a highly personable one (Ryan O’Neal not so much).

Of those supporting types, there’s an embarrassment of riches. Lasally regrets so much of future Mrs Connery Diane Cilento ending up on the cutting room floor, but she makes a strong impression in her scenes that remain (to the extent that she was Oscar nominated). Playing Tom’s eventual father-in-law Squire Western is Hugh Griffith, Oscar winner for Ben-Hur a few years prior; he received an Oscar nomination here too, for, reportedly, being pissed throughout the shoot, often in tandem with Lawson (and actually hitting Finney with his riding crop, and being punched in response). He’s a force of nature in the movie, so it’s quite believable, whether its casually taking a roll in the hay, falling of his horse (actually pissed) or throwing his protesting daughter over his shoulder.

Then there’s Edith Evans (also Oscar nominated) as Griffiths’ very proper and interfering sister, keen for David Warner’s oozing worm Blifil (Warner in his movie debut, but he has the presence of an old hand) to marry her niece Sophie (a radiant Susannah York, albeit she’s mostly called on to offer rebukes and refusals). Peter Bull (the Russian ambassador in Dr Strangelove, amongst many others), his face an apocalyptic boil, is Tom (and Blifil’s) malignant tutor, and there are other notable roles for George A Cooper (Grange Hill) and Patsy Rowlands (Carry On).

Lady Bellaston: He’s a pretty fellow.

There’s also, in the later stages, Joan Greenwood, she of the most fabulously seductive voice ever, as Lady Bellaston, the older socialite who takes Tom as her young bit of stuff and showers him with gifts (that he finds “suitably embarrassing and quite irresistible”). It’s a thoroughly Machiavellian role – think Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons, but sexy too – one in which she enlists David Tomlinson as Sophie’s would-be-seducer/rapist (“Are you frightened by the word rape?”) in order to keep Tom to herself.

Indeed, it can be no coincidence that, despite several very deserving performances being ignored (York, Greenwood, George Devine as Squire Allworthy), Tom Jones garnered five acting nominations (three in the Best Supporting Actress category, a first and only thus far for the Academy; Margaret Rutherford took the prize for The VIPs). Finney lost to Sidney Poitier, although Richard Harris was probably the most deserving that year. Richardson for his troubles, was recognised over Frederico Fellini, Elia Kazan and Otto Preminger.

Of the main prize, there’s little doubt Tom Jones remains the most esteemed of the films that year, even if some are probably better known, such as the bloated likes of Cleopatra and How the West Was Won. It’s curious then, that it had no direct or immediate effect on its industry peers; it certainly didn’t pep up the period piece, preceded by Lawrence of Arabia and followed by A Man for All Seasons, with traditional musicals winning honours in between, and one has to look to later Euro puddings (The Adventures of Gerard, or Richardson’s own The Charge of the Light Brigade) for such stylistic experimentation. Indeed, the most direct result was probably the likes of Richard Lester, with his ultra-contemporary A Hard Day’s Night. It’s also worth noting that this is a rare comedy win, albeit something of a period hybrid like Shakespeare in Love, making its irreverent achievement that much more notable. Richardson may have despaired, but he was ahead of his time, and for once the Academy was right there with him.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend t…