Skip to main content

The plot, I found a shade torturous, but the exposition of it, remarkably adroit.

Goodbye, Mr. Chips
(1969)

(SPOILERS) Goodbye, Mr. Chips really oughtn’t to be as agreeable as it is. More still, it ought to stink. Its raison d’être is, after all, a complete bust: James Hilton’s novella reconceived as a musical. Perhaps the manner in which the songs entirely fail to take centre stage – unless the songs are diegetically taking place ona stage – saves this element; by and large, they’re solo soliloquies utilising montage or controlled choreography, rather than flamboyant budget busters. It would still have been preferable had they’d been entirely absent – and easy to see why a number of them were initially cut following the premiere – but then we would likely have been denied the pleasure of Petula Clark. It’s her chemistry with her leading man, and particularly the remarkable performance of her leading man, that rescue Goodbye, Mr Chips.

Terence Rattigan signing on apparently assured Peter O’Toole’s involvement; Richard Burton was initially attached – I could see him having hit all the wrong notes, I mean in performance, rather than tune – but dropped out because he didn’t want to play opposite a “pop singer”. O’Toole’s no great crooner; he’s hardly Rex Harrison in spoken-word terms, but you can tell he’d have come a cropper were he “going for it”. He was, however, a phenomenal thesp. Consequently, it’s almost a shame this performance is attached to a musical, because it automatically reduces its creditability as a “drama”. His immersion in fusty, starchy, disciplinarian teacher Arthur Chipping – “Ditchy, short for dull as ditch water” – whose life is transformed by love of Pet’s music hall soubrette Katherine Bridges, is supremely affecting and life-affirming: heart-warming in a manner that, due to Chips’ essential reserved nature, avoids the pitfalls of sentiment even when the songs are demanding that very quality. Sure, it’s wish-fulfilment fantasy, but the difference between the same being corny and moving is all in the playing.

It amounts to a strange choice for a musical, at that or any time; MGM’s thinking was likely that they should strike while the genre was still hot, and they’d had a treatment knocking around since the early 1950s. Nevertheless, one might argue the very nature of a tale – however “modernised”, which really means it’s been moved up a few decades, from the 1920s to the 1950s – in which Katherine states “All I ever want to be is a schoolmaster’s wife” is positively reactionary. That side doesn’t really resonate because O’Toole and Clark play an entirely complementary meeting of souls, chalk and cheese who adapt each other.

Tom Milne in Time Out called the picture “incredibly bloated” but testified to O’Toole’s excellent performance, and that his “metamorphosis from passionless pedant into loveable eccentric is perfectly credible”. Pauline Kael likewise had issues, but sung O’Toole’s praises as an “actor who can make us feel that he has ‘heart’”, “a romantic performance, not a bathetic one”. She added that he “treats that man with such extraordinary respect that Chips grows in stature as the character must grow if the movie is to succeed as romance. And when Chips stops growing, O’Toole manages, through what in an actor is heroic intelligence, not to make him an endearing, stomach-turning old codger… He plays the part from within and the externals are kept to a minimum”.

Kael referenced the source material’s “soggy gentility”, and Rattigan offers a light rain of class and mores challenging the old school’s assumptions (the novel has Katherine as a governess espousing female empowerment). A threat to their bliss inevitably arises, in the form of Lord Sutterwick (George Baker, voice of James Bond that year, well partially), who knows of Katherine’s “debauched” history.

In that sense, her popularity with the pupils is more allayed with later buckers of trends in the likes of Dead Poets Society or School of Rock. Indeed, if Goodbye, Mr Chips misses out on something significant, it’s fleshing out Chips’ relationship with his pupils. We see him incurring their discontent (preventing the junior tennis champion from competing by detaining the class as punishment for under-par exam results) and his later, easier-going manner, but there’s insufficient development there to see why he should become so beloved (as his final appearance at the school, now headmaster by default during WWII, leads to a tear-stained departure amid gales of applause).

Chips’ final reflection that he can but hope, if nothing else, he taught them “How to behave to each other. Yes. We did try to teach them that” is valid, along with the implicit recognition that all this education may be essentially worthless – Chips teaches dead languages Latin and Greek, assuming the former was ever alive, of course – but there simply isn’t enough of that side of his character and attitude (anything approaching an interrogation of the education system – à la if – is far from the picture’s remit, even if it doesn’t go quite as far as extolling an artificial sense of its sanctity). That this feels like no paramount failing rests – or rather takes flight – on the central relationship.

Quite what it is that attracts Katherine to Chips remains elusive, other than his being the antithesis of everything that is her life, but I don’t know that you need this underlined; the playing between Clark and O’Toole communicates in abundance the tug between the interiorised, stifled duffer and the open, expressive chanteuse. Their initial meeting following her performance in Flossie from Fulham, in which his brief review clumsily lays ruin to the musical while attempting to say she was very good, finds her immediately curious of him, so different is he to all those confident men in her midst. Their later chance meeting in Pompeii – maximum production value here from cinematographer Oswald Morris, during a run of musicals that included Oliver! and Scrooge – is wonderfully staged amid the acoustics of a ruin as they discuss egg sandwiches. If the quiet life of a dutiful wife seems an in surmountable ill fit, Clark conveys it as a choice of endless opportunities for expression, and the picture affords them more time together than the novella’s couple of years (fifteen) before she is boshed by a WWII bomb (O’Toole’s playing of the news of her loss is incredible).

Like Kael, I found the age between the two something of a distraction, and it has to be said the hair and makeup department wasn’t exactly running at full strength (her perm doesn’t seem very 1920s to me). Chips is 48 when they meet in the novel, so is presumably not so far from that here, but both leads were the same age (37 or thereabouts). When we first see them, they don’t look dissimilar in age, and the references to Chips being old and Katherine being young are consequently distracting. So too later, when Chips tells her she hasn’t aged at all while he’s sporting a lightly talced hair and tache, it seems more like the departments praying desperately O’Toole will convey the years by sheer power of will (he still seems remarkably capable of running at a pace, all gangly arms and legs while knocking on sixty).

The supporting cast mostly leave you wishing for more, which is generally a positive. Michael Bryant is Chips’ fellow master Max, destined to return to Germany at Hitler’s behest and a ready companion for comparing word usage (Webster does not curry favour). Michael Redgrave is the kindly headmaster, Jack Hedley his not so much replacement Baxter. Michael Culver (The Empire Strikes Back’s Captain Needa) is the good loser when it comes to Katherine, Clinton Greyn (The Two Doctors’ Field Marshall Stike of the Ninth Sontaran Battle Group) the less-so suitor. The magnificent Jack May appears, uncredited, as animal-sanctuary master. Best of all is Siân Phillips, then Mrs O’Toole – making the line “I adore this man, when you finished with him will you lend him to me” a nice in-joke – as Katherine’s super-luvvy friend; she’s a ready source for delightful outrage and memorable lines (“Darling, I revel in early English perpendicular”).

The musical was far from over at this point – Fiddler on the Roof and Cabaret would be released in the next few years – but the expense/profit ratio was beginning to miss more often than it hit. Hello, Dolly! was just tooexpensive, however much Streisand was a guarantee of bums on seats. The likes of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Finian’s Rainbow, Sweet Charity, Paint your Wagon and Scrooge either bombed or cost too much in the first place, regardless of receipts. Arthur P Jacobs, who score big time with Planet of the Apes (and sequels) took a bath with Doctor Dolittle, and then did the same again with Goodbye, Mr Chips (undeterred, his final productions would be Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn musicals).

The Oscars that year mainly took notice of Hello, Dolly!, with O’Toole getting an acting nod (he wuz robbed). As did the “Score of a musical picture”, illustrating why the category was ditched the following year; you could just make up numbers, regardless of merit. Anthony Holden suggested, had O’Toole won, it would have been a “sentimental injustice” but I’d argue otherwise; it’s a magnificent performance, unfairly obscured by the picture’s musical shortcomings.

You’ll find a lot of reviews slating Goodbye, Mr. Chips. On musical grounds, that’s entirely justified. There are those taking shots at Herbert Ross – never my favourite director, particularly once he hit the 1980s – and some of those digs are also fair. Although, by and large, I think his work is fine here, and I even quite like the contrasts in execution – Vincent Canby’s “the zoom, the boom and the helicopter” – and canvas. As a romance, though, the picture is heartfelt and winning, delivered by two leads who shine together.





Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

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

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was