1960s British Cinema 2000

8/18/2019 1960s British Cinema 2000

1/25

source guides

National Library

1960s british cinema


2/25

1960s British Cinema

contents

THE CONTENTS OF THIS PDF CAN BE VIEWED QUICKLY BY USING THE BOOKMARKS FACILITY

All items marked thus " * " are particularly recommended. If your time, or access to resources is limitedwe suggest you at least look at this material.

INFORMATION GUIDE STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iBFI NATIONAL LIBRARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iiACCESSING RESEARCH MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iiiAPPROACHES TO RESEARCH, by Samantha Bakhurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

SIXTIES BRITISH CINEMA: GENERAL REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

FILM POLICY/INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF BRITISH SIXTIES CINEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2FILM CENSORSHIP IN THE 1960s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

FREE CINEMA AND THE BRITISH NEW WAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Case Study: BRONCO BULLFROG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

DIRECTORS OF THE BRITISH NEW WAVE· John Schlesinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7· Ken Loach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7· Tony Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8· Case Study 1: Karel Reisz and SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8· Case Study 2: Lindsay Anderson, THIS SPORTING LIFE and IF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

BRITISH "SWINGING SIXTIES" CINEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11FOUR CASE STUDIES· ALFIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12· GEORGY GIRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12· BILLY LIAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12· DARLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

EXPERIMENTAL CINEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

FOREIGN DIRECTORS IN BRITAIN· Joseph Losey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14· Roman Polanski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14· Stanley Kubrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15· Case Study: Michaelangelo Antonioni and BLOWUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

GENRE: BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

FOCUS ON FILM: PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Compiled by: Christophe DupinSara NewmanAndrew OrmsbyIan O'Sullivan

Layout/Design: Ian O'SullivanProject Manager: David Sharp

ISBN: 0 85170 828 5

© 2000 BFI National Library, 21 Stephen Street, London W1T 1LN

16 + Source Guide


3/25

BFI National Library i

16+ MEDIA STUDIES

INFORMATION GUIDE STATEMENT

“Candidates should note that examiners have copiesof this guide and will not give credit for merereproduction of the information it contains.Candidates are reminded that all research

sources must be credited”.


4/25

BFI National Library

All the materials referred to in this guide are available for consultation at the BFI National Library.If you wish to visit the reading room of the library and do not already hold membership, you willneed to take out a one-day, five-day or annual pass. Full details of access to the library andcharges can be found at:

www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library

BFI National Library Reading Room Opening Hours:

Monday10.30am - 5.30pmTuesday10.30am - 8.00pmWednesday1.00pm - 8.00pmThursday

10.30am - 8.00pmFriday10.30am - 5.30pm

If you are visiting the library from a distance or are planning to visit as a group, it is advisable tocontact the Reading Room librarian in advance (tel. 020 7957 4824, or email [email protected]).

BFI National LibraryBritish Film Institute21 Stephen StreetLondonW1T 1LNTel. 020 7255 1444

www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library

The library’s nearest underground stations are Tottenham Court Road and Goodge Street. For amap of the area please see:

www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/visiting

BFI National Library ii


5/25

Accessing Research Materials

Copies of articles

If you are unable to visit the library or would like materials referred to in this guide sent to you,the BFI Information Service can supply copies of articles via its Research Services. Research is

charged at a range of hourly rates, with a minimum charge for half an hour’s research – full de-tails of services and charges can be found at:

www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/services/research.html

For queries about article copying or other research, please contact Information Services at theabove address or telephone number, or post your enquiry online at:

www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/services/ask

Other Sources

Your local library

Local libraries should have access to the inter-library loan system for requesting items they do nothold and they may have copies of MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN and SIGHT AND SOUND. Some recentnewspaper items may be held by your local reference library. Larger libraries will hold other rele-vant materials and should offer internet access.

Your nearest college/university

Universities may allow access to outside students, though you may not be able to borrow books or journals. Ask your reference librarian, who should be able to assist by locating the nearest college

library holding suitable material. The BFI Film and Television Handbook lists libraries with signifi-cant media collections.

Your school library

Local bookshops

Some of the books mentioned in the bibliography will be in print and your bookshop should beable to order items for you.

The British Library Newspaper Library

The Newspaper Library will have all the newspaper items referred to in this guide. Contact the li-brary first if you wish to visit. 16+ students under the age of 18 will need to make an appoint-ment.

The British Library Newspaper LibraryColindale AvenueLondonNW9 5HETel. 020 7412 7353Email:[email protected]

www.bl.uk/collections/collect.html#newsBL

BFI National Library iii


6/25

Approaches to Researchby Samantha Bakhurst

Why do research?

You cannot simply rely on your existing knowledge when approaching essays in Media Studies.Although you will have some understanding of the area being explored, it is not enough to enableyou to examine the area in depth. If you were asked to write about the people in your street in de-tail, you might have some existing information about names, faces, relationships, issues and ac-tivities but this knowledge would not offer you details such as every single one of their names,who knows who, who gets on with whom, how people earn a living, what has happened to themin the past and so on. This extra information could change your opinions quite dramatically. With-out it, therefore, your written profile would end up being quite shallow and possibly incorrect. Thesame is true of your understanding of media texts, issues and institutions.

Before researching any area, it is useful to be clear about what outcomes you are hoping toachieve. Research is never a waste of time, even when it doesn’t directly relate to the essay youare preparing. The information may be relevant to another area of the syllabus, be it practicalwork or simply a different essay. Also, the picture you are building up of how an area works will

strengthen your understanding of the subject as a whole. So what outcomes are you hoping toachieve with your research?

A broad overview of the area you are researching: This includes its history, institutions, conven-tions and relationship to the audience. Research into these aspects offers you an understanding of how your area has developed and the influences that have shaped it.

An awareness of different debates which may exist around the area of study: There are a range of debates in many subject areas. For example, when researching audiences you will discover thatthere is some debate over how audiences watch television or film, ranging from the passive con-sumption of values and ideas to the use of media texts in a critical and independent way. Any dis-cussion about censorship, for example, will be extremely shallow if you have no knowledge of

these different perspectives.

Some knowledge of the work of theorists in the area: You need to demonstrate that you have readdifferent theorists, exploring the relevant issues and investigating the area thoroughly in order todevelop your own opinion based on acquired knowledge and understanding.

Information relevant to all key concept areas: You should, after research, be able to discuss all keyconcept areas as they relate to that specific subject area. These are the codes and conventions,representation, institutions and audience.

Types Of Research

Primary: This is first-hand research. In other words, it relies on you constructing and conducting surveys, setting up interviews with key people in the media industry or keeping a diary or log of data (known as quantitative information) on things such as, for example, what activities womenare shown doing in advertisements over one week of television viewing. Unless you are equippedto conduct extensive research, have access to relevant people in the media industry or are thor-ough in the up-keep of your diary or log, this type of research can be demanding, complex andsometimes difficult to use. Having said that, if you are preparing for an extended essay, then it isexactly this type of research which, if well used, will make your work distinctive and impressive.

Secondary - printed sources: This is where you will be investigating information gathered by otherpeople in books, newspapers, magazines, on radio and television. All of these sources are excellent

for finding background information, statistics, interviews, collected research details and so on.This will form the majority of your research. Some of these will be generally available (in public li-braries for example); others such as press releases and trade press may only be available throughspecialist libraries.

BFI National Library iv


7/25

Secondary - online sources: Online sources are also mainly secondary. You will need to be able tomake comparisons between sources if you intend quoting online information, and to be wary of the differences between fact and opinions. Don’t necessarily assume something is a fact becausesomeone on a website says it is. Some websites will be “official” but many will not be, so you needto think about the authority of a site when assessing the information found on it. The structure of a website address (URL) can indicate the site’s origin and status, for example, .ac or .edu indicatean academic or educational institution, .gov a government body, .org a non-profit organisation, .co

or .com a commercial organisation. Websites sometimes disappear or shift location - make sureyou can quote a URL reference for a site, and perhaps keep a note of the last date that youchecked it.

Other Media: When considering one area of the media or one particular product or type of prod-uct, it is very important that you compare it with others which are similar. You will need to be ableto refer to these comparisons in some detail so it is not enough to simply watch a film. You willneed to read a little about that film, make notes, concentrate on one or two scenes which seemparticularly relevant and write all of this information up so that you can refer to it when you needto.

History and development : Having an understanding of the history and development of the media

text which you are researching will provide a firm foundation and context for contemporaryanalysis. There is a difference between generally accepted facts and how theorists use these facts.

Theory: This is the body of work of other critics of the media. Most of the books and periodical ar-ticles which you will read for research will be written by theorists who are arguing a particularviewpoint or position with regard to an issue within the media. It is this which forms the debatessurrounding the study of the media, in which you, as a media student, are now becoming in-volved.

Using Research

Organising your research: Before rushing headlong to the local library or web search engines, thefirst stage of research is to plan two things. When are you able to do your research and how areyou going to organise the information gathered? You may, for example, wish to make notes underthe headings listed above.

Applying your research: Always return to the specific questions being asked of the text. The mostobvious pitfall is to gather up all of the collected information and throw it at the page, hoping toscore points for quantity. The art of good research is how you use it as part of your evidence for ananalysis of the text. The knowledge you have acquired should give you the confidence to explorethe text, offer your own arguments and, where appropriate, to quote references to support this.

Listing your research: It is good practice, and excellent evidence of your wider reading, to list all

references to secondary research, whether mentioned within the essay or not, at the end of yourwork.

References are usually written in this way:

1. Len Masterman, Teaching About Television, London, Macmillan, 1980.2. Manuel Alvarado and Bob Ferguson, “The Curriculum, Media Studies and Discursivity”, Screen,Vol.24, No.3, May-June 1983.

Other media texts referred to in detail should be listed, with relevant information such as the di-rector, date of release or transmission, production company and, where possible, scene or episodenumber. Where you have compiled primary research, it is useful to offer a brief summary of thisalso at the end of your work.

BFI National Library v


8/25

General

References

books

ALDGATE, Anthony and

RICHARDS, JeffreyBest of British: cinema and societyfrom 1930 to the present.London: I.B. Taurus, 1999. (Cinemaand Society). 262p. illus. filmog.index.

Traces British social history from1930, including two chapters deal-ing with films of the sixties:Chapter 11 – “New waves, old waysand the censors: THE LONELINESSOF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER” –offers a round-up of critical posi-tions on the new social realistfilms of the era and Chapter 12 –“The revolt of the young: IF….” –shows critical reaction to IF…. inthe context of the social and cul-tural changes at the time.

ASHBY, Justine and HIGSON,Andrew (eds.)British cinema past and present.London: Routledge, 2000. vii-xx, 385p.illus. bibliog. index.

Anthology of essays providing anhistorical perspective on Britishcinema from the 1930s to the pres-ent day. Chapter 15 – “’Under theskin horrors’: social realism andclasslessness in PEEPING TOM andthe British New Wave” – and chap-ter 16 – “Travel and mobility: femi-ninity and national identity inSwinging London films” – focus onfilms from the sixties.

BOURNE, StephenBrief encounters: lesbians andgays in British cinema 1930-1971.

London: Cassell, 1996. vi-xix, 268p.illus. appendices. bibliog. indices.

Taking a year by year approach tothe representation of gay people inBritish cinema, Bourne examinesmany of the major 60s films. Thecontroversial VICTIM gets its ownchapter as well as appendicesdealing with audience and criticalreaction to the film on its release.

DURGNAT, RaymondA mirror for England: British

movies from austerity to afflu-ence.London: Faber and Faber, 1970. ix-xiv,336p. illus. bibliog. filmog. indices.

Although focusing on the periodimmediately following World WarII to the end of the fifties, Durgnatexamines the British nationalcharacter (particularly the middleclass) as portrayed in the cinemaof the time, showing the changesover the years which paved theway for the films of the sixties.

HARPER, SueWomen in British cinema: mad,bad and dangerous to know.London: Continuum, 2000.(Rethinking British cinema). vi-vii,261p. illus. bibliog. indices.

This book explores women’s expe-riences in British cinema in twoparts: Part I examines representa-tions of women on screen whilePart II relates the contributionsmade by women behind the cam-era, for instance as directors, writ-ers and costume designers.Chapter 5 – “The 1960s: delusionsof freedom” – suggests thatSwinging Britain was a mythwhich bore little relation to manypeople’s experience, and that, infact, the treatment of women insixties cinema was less liberalthan in the fifties.

McFARLANE, BrianAn autobiography of British cine-

ma: as told by the filmmakers andactors who made it.London: Methuen, 1997. xiv-xvi,656p. illus. filmog. index.

Brief but interesting first personaccounts by those involved inBritish cinema, including someinfluential players from the sixtiese.g. Karel Reisz, Lindsay Anderson,Ken Loach.

MURPHY, Robert (ed.)The British cinema book.

London: British Film Institute, 1997.vii-xiii, 279p. illus. index.

In its attempt to cover this wide-ranging subject comprehensivelythis book only touches on Britishcinema of the sixties. Chapter 15 –Christine Geraghty’s “Women andsixties British cinema: the devel-opment of the ‘Darling’ girl” –looks at the changing position of women in British cinema of thesixties, focusing on A TASTE OFHONEY, DARLING and HERE WE GOROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH.

MURPHY, RobertSixties British cinema.London: British Film Institute, 1992.354p. illus. appendix. bibliog. index.

Key text, covering all aspects of British cinema in the sixties,including Free Cinema andKitchen Sink films, freshapproaches to criticism and theBritish New Wave, the decline of cinema audiences, swinging London films, popular culture andmusicals, and other genres such ashorror, crime, spy and comedyfilms. The appendix offers aninteresting guide to the 1960s inBritain for those unfamiliar withthe decade, listing significantevents and films by year.

journal articles

IN THE PICTURENo.36. Summer 1999, pp.20-23

One teacher’s experience of teach-ing 1960s British Cinema to A levelstudents.

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.3 No.8. August 1993, p.33

Fog and drizzle, by Michael Eaton

Article refutes the Hollywood criti-

cisms of British films and tvdrama from the 1960s, ie. being tooslow, wordy and dowdy. Points outhow such drama has stood the testof time.

FILMS IN REVIEWVol.40. No.5. April 1989, pp.213-219

The British Invasion of the 1960s:A breath of cheeky fresh air, themovies were a cinematic explo-sion much in the fashion that thefilms of the Marx Brothers, W.C.

Fields and Mae West had been inthe 1930s, by Ken Hanke

Part one of a 4 part series of arti-cles about British cinema of the1960s written from the perspectiveof their arrival in the USA and howthey contrasted with Americancinema at the time. In this firstarticle, Hanke concentrates prima-rily on A HARD DAY’S NIGHT andhow it “represented an attempt toestablish a new personal and artis-tic freedom”. Hanke pays atten-tion to the style of the film, its

“comic documentary” aspects andplaces the film in the context of forerunners such as FRENCHDRESSING (1963 dir. Ken Russell)

1 6 + S o u r c e G u i d e s : S i x t i e s B r i t i s h C i n e m a

BFI National Library 1


9/25

and in the humour and vocalword play of the 1950s Britishradio comedy series The Goons.

FILMS IN REVIEWVol.40. No.5. May 1989, pp.269-277

The British Invasion of the 1960sPart II: The movies were an anti-dote to the generally stodgy film-fare that marked the 1950s andearly 1960s, by Ken Hanke

In this second article, Hanke givesfurther discussion on the filmmak-ing style which characterises AHARD DAY’S NIGHT, claiming forexample that its “fragmented edit-ing style is basically an outgrowthof the French New Wave Film”.Hanke also gives a detailed analy-sis of THE KNACK…AND HOW TOGET IT highlighting its politelyanti-authoritarian stance, its treat-ment of the new sexual mores andhow the film came to capture achanging London, a city being taken over by youth.

FILMS IN REVIEWVol.40. No.6/7. June/July 1989, pp.348-356

The British Film Invasion of the1960s Part III: The air of commer-ciality was abruptly changed withthe making of The Loved One.

Here was an Invasion Film withteeth, by Ken Hanke

The third article in this seriesgives in depth discussion aboutHELP!, THE LOVED ONE, HOW I WONTHE WAR and MORGAN - A SUIT-ABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT.

FILMS IN REVIEWVol.40. No.8/9. Aug/Sep 1989, pp.405-413

The British Film Invasion of the1960s Part IV: The Invasion may

have been predetermined to burnout, but it was a brave attempt and the world of film is all thericher for its having happened, byKen Hanke

Fourth and final article on British1960s cinema includes discussionof I’LL NEVER FORGET WHAT’S ‘ISNAME, YELLOW SUBMARINE, THEBED-SITTING ROOM and an in-depth analysis of THE MAGICCHRISTIAN.

CLASSIC IMAGESNo.126. December 1985, pp.C26, C63

British mod films of the 60s, by John Roberts

Article about British “mod” films of the 1960s (“mod” here used in theAmerican sense and not specific tothe 1960s British youth subcul-ture).

FILM COMMENTVol.12. No.4. July/Aug 1976, pp.50-59

Britannia waives the rules, byRaymond Durgnat

Durgnat explores genres andthemes in British cinema of thesixties and seventies, with particu-lar reference to what he terms“Angry Young Cinema” and its vari-ous forms, such as kitchen sinkdrama and Free Cinema. Althoughsome thematic groupings seemarbitrary, the section “Anger andonward” is interesting for its con-trast between British andHollywood films of the time.

Film Policy/Institutional AspectsOf Cinema

booksBUTLER, IvanTo encourage the art of the film.London: Robert Hale and Company,1971. 208p. plates. index.

The British Film Institute was, inthe 1960s, the main state-fundedorganisation in charge of the pro-motion of film (and televisionfrom 1961) in Britain. This bookstells the story of the life and workof the BFI from its creation in 1933

to the early 1970s. However, itsanalysis of the 1960s is by far themost detailed part of the book. Itparticularly looks at the organisa-tion of the Institute, the work of the Film and TV Archive and of theEducation Department, and theearly developments of the LondonFilm Festival, the Production Boardand the Regional Film Theatres.Butler’s study might not be thebest monograph ever written but itis still the only comprehensive his-tory of the BFI published to date.

DICKINSON, Margaret and STREET,SarahCinema and state: the film indus-try and the government 1927-84.London: British Film Institute, 1985.280p. illus. stats. bibliog. index.

The final chapter – “In Search of aPolicy”, pp. 227-239 – of this com-prehensive book on the relation-ships between the film industryand the state gives a detailedaccount of the structure and theevolution of the British film indus-try in the 1960s. It also shows howit was colonised by the Hollywoodmajors and how the British gov-ernment tried – not very success-fully – to counter-attack. If you arenot particularly interested in thisrather off-putting subject, it willnot be an easy read.

WALKER, AlexanderHollywood, England: the Britishfilm industry in the sixties.London: Michael Joseph, 1974. 493p.plates. index.

Alexander’s book is a mine of information on sixties British cine-ma, but this very personal accountof that subject does not have theclarity of an academic book.Although it contains a lot of factsand figures on the film industryand film policy, it is difficult to

locate them in this dense text (andthe chapter headings do not helpeither). A few chapters deal morespecifically with the problems of the British film industry and thesolutions sought both by the gov-ernment and the industry (chap-ters 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20). Finally,the appendix offers a very useful‘industry chronology’ (pp. 467-481).

Film Censorship in

the 1960s

books

ALDGATE, AnthonyCensorship and the permissivesociety: British cinema and theatre1955-1965.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. v-viii,171p. illus. bibliog. index.

Charts the impact of censorshipbetween 1955 and 1965 on stageand film presentations. Chapter 4

– “Putting on the agony” – detailsthe controversy surrounding LOOKBACK IN ANGER while Chapter 5 –“The outer limits” – shows how




10/25

SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAYMORNING and ALFIE pushed theboundaries of censorship. Chapter6 – “A woman’s lot” – examines thecompromises reached on A TASTEOF HONEY and the final chapter –“The party’s over” – shows how thedecade 1955-1965 was crucial tothe liberalisation of British cinema

and theatre.

MATHEWS, Tom DeweCensored.London: Chatto & Windus, 1994. 291,[7] p. illus. bibliog. index.

This is undoubtedly the most com-prehensive book on film censor-ship in Britain from the very earlydays of cinema to the present day,even though the author admitsthat he is very much indebted to

the work of other academics.Chapters 10 – “The Board BreaksOut”, pp. 147-168 – and 11 –“Letting It All Hang Out”, pp. 169-188 – examine the revolutionwhich the British Board of FilmCensors as it was (BBFC) wentthrough in the 1960s, especially inits attitude towards sex and nudi-ty. The opening sentence of chap-ter 10 sums up Mathews’ theory:“As in no other decade, the prac-tice of film censorship in Britainwould be transformed during thesixties”.

TREVELYAN, JohnWhat the censor saw.Michael Joseph, 1973. 276p. plates.index.

Trevelyan is a major figure of British film censorship. He wasthe secretary of the British Boardof Film Classification between1958 and 1971, and this book is aunique account of film censorshipfrom the censor’s point of view, ina period when Britain was going

through a process of liberalisation.Trevelyan, whose principles were”the love of films and the disap-proval of censorship in principle”,initiated a more liberal view oncensorship in the 1960s although,as some commentators pointedout, the changes remained limited.

Free Cinema And The BritishNew Wave

books

ARMES, RoyA critical history of the British cin-ema.London: Secker & Warburg, 1978.374p. illus. bibliog. index.

In chapter 15 – “From Free Cinemato Woodfall” – Armes criticises themiddle class members of the FreeCinema movement for failing toaddress the ambiguities of theirprivileged position and concludesthat the British New Wave failed tobreak free from its literary andtheatrical antecedents.

ALDGATE, Anthony andRICHARDS, JeffreyBest of British: cinema and societyfrom 1930 to the present.London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1999.vii-ix, 262p. illus. filmog. index.

Chapter 11 – “ New waves, oldways and the censors: The LONELI-NESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUN-NER” – usefully summarises criti-cal positions taken by writers onthe British New Wave, notably

Durgnat, Armes, Hill, Murphy andWollen. Examines the BBFC’s rolein the production of LONELINESS…and suggests the harsher criticismof the New Wave by some of theabove writers is due to a lack of contextualisation.

ASHBY, Justine and HIGSON,AndrewBritish cinema, past and present.London; New York: Routledge, 2000.vii-xx, 385p. illus. bibliog. index

Chapter 15 “’Under-the-skin-hor-rors’: social realism and classless-ness in PEEPING TOM and theBritish New Wave” – by AdamLowenstein compares PEEPING TOMto ROOM AT THE TOP, and suggeststhat the latter creates a comforting distance between audience andfilm, thus soothing the anxietiesabout social change and the hor-rors of mass culture that PEEPINGTOM graphically confronts.

* BARR, Charles (ed.)All our yesterdays: 90 years of British cinema.London: British Film Institute, 1986.446p. illus. bibliog. filmog. index.Contains two relevant chapters:

“Britain’s outstanding contributionto the film”: the documentary-realist tradition”, by AndrewHigson, traces the documentary-realist tradition in British film-making from Grierson to the tele-vision work of Ken Loach and TonyGarnett. Considers Free Cinemaand its emphasis on “poetic”rather than instructional qualitiesand points out the problematicnature of a “realism” whichemphasises universality of experi-ence rather than foregrounding class relations.

Suggests that films of the BritishNew Wave are remarkable not justfor having working class protago-nists but for the way montage inthese films has shifted from a doc-umentary emphasis on common“objective” experience to a “subjec-tive” attempt to show the protago-nist’s state of mind.

“A literary cinema? British filmsand British novels”, by BrianMcFarlane traces the relationshipbetween British literature and cin-ema, from the silent period to the

1980s. Argues that too often filmshave been over deferential to theirliterary source and that the NewWave films based on the novels of Alan Sillitoe, Stan Barstow et al.provide a break from tasteful ,“heritage” cinema, which wasbriefly continued in adaptationslike Tony Richardson’s TOM JONESand Joseph Losey’s ACCIDENT andTHE GO-BETWEEN.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE, NationalFilm Theatre

Free cinema: programme notes forthe seasons of Free Cinema heldat the national Film Theatre dur-ing 1956-1959.London, 1956-1959

Typescript. Collected programmenotes, credits and synopses for theFree Cinema film seasons.




11/25

* CURRAN, James and PORTER,VincentBritish cinema history.London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.445p. tables. bibliog.

Chapter 18 – “Working class real-ism and sexual reaction: sometheses on the British “New Wave”by John Hill – puts forward thethesis that far from being progres-sive, the New Wave films aremisogynist and reactionary.

DICKINSON, Margaret (ed.)Rogue reels: oppositional film inBritain, 1945-1990.London: British Film Institute, 1999.

vi, 330p. illus. bibliog.index.

History of radical, independentfilmmaking in Britain. Dickinsonis critical of the emphasis on con-sumption in Free Cinema filmsand the fact that organisations –trade unions, co-ops – are all butinvisible.

DURGNAT, RaymondA mirror for England: Britishmovies from austerity to afflu-ence.London: Faber and Faber, 1970. 336p.plates. bibliog. filmog. index.

Well known study of British cine-ma, essentially covering the period1945-1958, but frequently straying beyond those boundaries. Durgnatwrites perceptively, particularlyabout class and – a favouritetheme of his – the puritanism of the left-wing British middle class-es. His assessment of Free Cinemaas a minor movement, far lessimportant to the success of theBritish New Wave than the successof not only literary and theatricalforerunners but also the rise of commercial television, is typical of

his anti-elitist approach.

* HIGSON, Andrew (ed.)Dissolving views: key writings onBritish cinema.London: Cassell, 1996. iv-viii, 264p.bibliog. index.

Chapter 9 – “Space, place, specta-cle: landscape and townscape inthe ‘kitchen sink’ film”, by AndrewHigson – investigates the nature of the tension produced by the con-trast between the “poetic” and

“realistic” or drab qualities of filmslike SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAYMORNING and A TASTE OF HONEY,a tension which Higson finds ulti-

mately reduces working class lifeto a voyeuristic spectacle for thebenefit of the middle classes.

Chapter 10 – “Landscape and sto-ries in 1960s British realism”, byTerry Lovell – looks at A TASTE OFHONEY focusing on questions of gender and domestic interiors.

HILL, JohnSex, class and realism: British cin-ema 1956-1963.London: British Film Institute,1986. 228p. illus. filmog.

Wide ranging Marxist study, whichtraces the rise to prominence of contemporary social issues inBritish film from the 1950s to theearly 1960s. Opening chaptersdeal with the social backgroundand the state of the film industryat the time. Hill also looks at the-ories of narrative and realismbefore discussing the films them-selves, many of which are found tobe ideologically suspect, particu-larly in their representation of women. Hill points out (as others,Higson in particular, have) that inNew Wave films location oftenserves no narrative purpose andargues that not only does thisemphasise the pre-eminence of the director’s point of view butalso removes characters from the

social and historical context.Includes extensive filmography,featuring extracts from contempo-rary reviews.

HOGENKAMP, BertFilm, television and the left, 1950-1970.London: Lawrence & Wishart, 2000.vii-xiv, 178p. illus. filmog. bibliog.index.

Impeccably researched follow upto Hogenkamp’s Deadly Parallels:film and the left in Britain, 1929-1939 (Lawrence & Wishart, 1986).This volume challenges the com-monly held view that between1945 and the late 1960s, there was“a void in political filmmaking”(Hogenkamp, p xi). Hogenkamptells us what was happening in theperiod in terms of politically com-mitted film besides Free Cinema.Good on political and institutionalcontext. Ends with a chapter onthe growing importance of televi-sion, with a look at Peter Watkins’THE WAR GAME and the work of Ken Loach, especially CATHY COMEHOME.

LOVELL, AlanBreakthrough in Britain.London: BFI EducationDepartment, [1967?]. 19p.

Contains a “critical note” on LOOKBACK IN ANGER, Free Cinema andROOM AT THE TOP, which Lovellassesses as essentially the sameas ODD MAN OUT and BRIEF

ENCOUNTER: an attempt to portraycontemporary life that is nonethe-less ”full of very old Englishstereotypes”.



We are the Lambeth Boys(dir. Karel Reisz, 1959)


12/25

LOVELL, AlanThe British cinema: the unknowncinema.London: 1969. 8p.

Typescript of BFI EducationDepartment Seminar. Lovellargues that, with the exception of Lindsay Anderson, the FreeCinema filmmakers fell into thesame traps they observed in docu-mentaries of the 30s and 40s(“obvious formulations of socialissues”). The problem withAnderson is that the force of hispersonality can obscure the realnature of his talents, thus leading to a tendency to categorise him asa one-off rather than trying tounderstand through his worksomething about “the enigma of British cinema”.

LOVELL, Alan and HILLIER, JimStudies in documentary.London: Secker & Warburg, 1972.176p. illus. bibliog. filmog.

Chapter 3 looks at Free Cinema interms of its background, aesthet-ics, its aims as a movement andthe importance of Sequence maga-zine. Suggests its achievementswere limited and its impact notsustained, largely because themovement was really the work of one man ie. Lindsay Anderson.

MARWICK, Arthur (ed.)The arts, literature and society.London; New York: Routledge, 1990.332p. [32] plates. bibliog.

In chapter 9 – “Room at the top:the novel and the film” – Marwickexpresses concern at what he calls“The international revolution of the 1960s” which effected the radi-cal transformation of British socie-ty. He argues that ROOM AT THETOP, despite its traditional form,

amounts to a revolutionary treat-ment of sex and class issues,which paved the way for more rad-ical films.

* MURPHY, RobertSixties British cinema.London British Film Institute, 1992.353p. illus. appendix. bibliog. index.

Chapter 1 argues persuasively thatkitchen sink films, unlike mostBritish cinema of the 1950s, treat-ed women seriously, whereas Hill

(ibid.) takes the view that suchroles nonetheless still confinewomen to a familiar prison of domestic drudgery.

STEAD, PeterFilm and the working class: thefeature film in British andAmerican society.London; New York: Routledge, 1989.283p. illus. indices.

Chapter 7 – “British working-classheroes” – is a chronologicalaccount of the portrayal of work-ing class men in British films fromI’M ALL RIGHT JACK to KES. Therise of the working class actor aslead man, was a significant devel-opment. Albert Finney epitomisedthe New Wave hero in SATURDAYNIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING, buthe was soon eclipsed by the bur-geoning careers of Sean Conneryand Michael Caine. With the riseof such stars and the“Hollywoodisation” of British film,Stead suggests it was left to Britishtelevision to fill the gap in termsof “socially committed drama”.

STREET, SarahBritish national cinema.London; New York: Routledge, 1997.(The national cinema series) ix-xi,232p. illus. bibliog. indices.

Chapter 3 – “Genres from austerityto affluence” – considers the out-put of films from 1945-1970 interms of genre. The chapter endswith a look at KES, comparing it to

examples of the British New Waveand suggesting that it is differentfrom these earlier films in severalimportant ways, especially in theway in which landscape and nar-rative are fully integrated with oneanother. Street argues that KESalso has a flexibility of tone, asympathy to women and satiricalattitude to masculinity missing from, say, SATURDAY NIGHT ANDSUNDAY MORNING.

WALKER, Alexander

Hollywood, England: the Britishfilm industry in the sixties.London: Michael Joseph, 1974.493p. plates. index.

Opening chapters look at the sig-nificance of the Free Cinemamovement, the social background,the theatrical and literary precur-sors of kitchen sink films and thesuccess of SATURDAY NIGHT ANDSUNDAY MORNING.

journal articles

SCREENVol.31. No.4. Winter 1990, pp. 357-376

Landscapes and stories in 1960sBritish realism, by Terry Lovell

Although difficult to follow attimes, this article examines thedramatic use of domestic interiorsand urban landscapes in Britishrealist film and television of thesixties, particularly in A TASTE OFHONEY, CORONATION STREET andSATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAYMORNING.

SCREENVol.25. nos.4/5. July/Oct 1984, pp. 2-21

Space, place, spectacle, by Andrew

Higson

Suggests that “kitchen sink” films,particularly SATURDAY NIGHT ANDSUNDAY MORNING and A TASTE OFHONEY, have only a surface real-ism even though shot on locationin actual British landscapes andthe use of “That Long Shot of OurTown from That Hill” is poetic.Proposes kitchen sink films havean imbalance as they try to beboth documentary and cinematic

CINÉASTEVol.10. No.4. Autumn 1980, pp. 26-29

A fidelity to the real: an interviewwith Ken Loach and Tony Garnett ,by Leonard Quart

Brief history of the work of thesefilmmakers, followed by an inter-view in which they discuss theirpolitics and the effects they wanttheir films to have on the audi-ence.

SCREENVol.10. No.6. Nov/Dec 1969, pp. 51-66

Britain’s social cinema, by VickiEves

Traces the development of Britishcinema of social realism from thedocumentary movement of thethirties through Free Cinema tothe realist feature films of the six-ties. Suggests that social realismwas avoided in British cinemauntil Free Cinema encouraged amore realistic representation of the class system.




13/25

Case Study:Bronco Bullfrog (dir. Barney Platts-Mills, 1969)

Although BRONCO BULLFROG wasmade in 1969 (released in 1970) ithas more in common with thestyle of the Free Cinema of the late50s and early 60s. The film repre-sents an interesting documentfrom the era as it is concernedwith a group of working classteenagers from Stratford in EastLondon and employed the use of local youths to relate a tale basedloosely on their own experiences.

BRONCO BULLFROG is available onvideo and DVD and can be ordereddirectly from the film director’sown website:

http://www.barneyplatts-mills.com

The website also includes full textversions of some of the reviewslisted below (plus others notincluded in this guide). These ref-erences are marked with a * below.

journal articlesSIGHT AND SOUNDVol.40. No.1. Winter 1970/71, pp.46-47

Around Angel Lane, by DavidRobinson

Production history of the film,

deals with how the film was castusing untrained actors - localyouths from the Stratford area of East London - and how the scriptwas adapted by them into theirown way of talking. Robinsonpoints out that the result is “anentirely consistent acting stylewhich achieves the difficult feat of using the players’ own gauchenessand inarticulateness to expressdeliberately and artistically thegaucheness and inarticulatenessof the characters”.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.37. No.442. November 1970, p.215

Synopsis and review.

TIME OUTNo.46. 5 September 1970, pp.31-32

Bronco Bullfrog, by Neil Lyndon

Critical review which, althoughacknowledging the strengths of the film (e.g. the portrayal of theoppressive and imprisoning envi-

ronment of London’s East End),argues that ultimately the inten-tion of the film in showing a “sliceof life” could be considered conde-scending.

press articles

VILLAGE VOICE*27 July 1972

Tender shoots in grim soil, byMichael KerbelKerbel notes that the film is a

“belated postscript” to the Britishneo-realist film movement of adecade earlier but whereas suchfilms as SATURDAY NIGHT ANDSUNDAY MORNING dealt with the“angry young men”, these havebeen replaced in BRONCO BULL-FROG with apathetic young skin-heads. Kerbel draws parallels withKarel Reisz’s documentary WE ARETHE LAMBETH BOYS (1958) whichexpressed hope for its victims of post-war urban deprivation butBRONCO BULLFROG would appearto bear out the notion the optionsopen to the young working classcharacters in the film are as limit-ed as ever.

NEW YORKER*10 June 1972

Bronco Bullfrog, by PenelopeGilliatt

Perceptive review which even criti-cises the poor sub-titling the filmwas given on its American release.Gilliatt acknowledges the centralpremise of the film, the idea of thecurtailment of opportunity afford-ed to the young people in the filmbecause of the restrictive environ-ment they grow up in.

NEW STATESMAN*

16 October 1970Acting Yourself , by John Coleman

Coleman points out that BRONCOBULLFROG has a lot in commonwith Ken Loach’s KES in that bothare low-budget films concernedwith working class themes anddespite the critical acclaim bothfilms received they were victims of cinema exhibitors lack of commit-ment to book them! ‡

‡ BRONCO BULLFROG was moved,despite successful attendances,from the old Cameo-Poly cinemain Oxford Street after only eight-een days to make way for a royalpremiere of THREE SISTERS. Thisprompted Sam Shepherd, whoplayed the character BroncoBullfrog, to organise a demonstra-tion outside the cinema on thenight of the premiere wherePrincess Anne, the royal guest of honour, was greeted on her arrivalat the cinema by “a chanting,howling crowd of 200 East Endskinheads and other young peo-ple” (reported in the DailyTelegraph on 3 November 1970 -

“Princess Anne met by Skinheadmob at premiere”)




14/25

TIMES*16 October 1970

Barney Platts-Mills: an excitingnew talent in neo-realist style, by J.R. Taylor

Taylor likens Platts-Mills toLindsay Anderson and Ken Loachin that he puts his own stamp of identity into the film BRONCOBULLFROG. Taylor regards the filmmore as a study of character andatmosphere rather than a story-film and believes its neo-realismstyle is on a par with, if not supe-rior to, anything created by theItalian neo-realism filmmakers of the 1930s.

GUARDIAN*15 October 1970

Review by Derek Malcolm

Derek Malcolm, like other review-ers in the British press at the time,was a champion of BRONCO BULL-FROG, and was concerned that itwould meet a similar fate as befellKES on its release, ie. despitereceiving critical acclaim, the filmwas not promoted vigorouslyenough or booked on a wide basisin cinemas. Malcolm believed thatthe film deserved a wide audienceand could be enjoyed beyond the

audience of “intelligent moviegoers”.

Directors Of TheBritish New Wave

John Schlesinger

books

BROOKER, Nancy J. John Schlesinger: a guide to refer-ences and resources.Boston, MA; London: G.K.Hall/George Prior, 1978. (A referencepublication in film) 132p. bibliog. fil-mog. index.

Includes biographical background,critical survey, filmography with

synopses and notes.

PHILLIPS, Gene D. John Schlesinger.Boston: Twayne, 1981. (Twayne’s the-atrical arts series). 199p. illus. bibli-og. filmog. index.

Begins with a look at Schlesinger’sbackground as an actor and docu-mentary filmmaker and continueswith clearly written analyses of AKIND OF LOVING, BILLY LIAR, DAR-LING and FAR FROM THE MADDING

CROWD which combine criticalcomment with production historyand comments from Schlesingerhimself.

Ken Loach

books

FULLER, Graham (ed.)Loach on Loach.London: Faber and Faber, 1998. vi-xi,147p. illus. filmog. bibliog. index.

Series of interviews which form achronological account of Loach’scareer. Chapters 1 to 3 cover hiswork at the BBC and the films

POOR COW and KES. Loach talksabout the influence of Czech cine-ma and how this informed thelook and style of KES.

McKNIGHT, GeorgeAgent of challenge and defiance:the films of Ken Loach.Trowbridge; Flicks Books, 1997.(Cinema voices). vi, 234p. [8] plates.filmog. bibliog. index.

Collection of essays, interview, fil-mography and bibliography.Opening essay, Ken Loach: histo-ries and contexts covers his televi-sion career, the social backgroundand the politics of his early films.

journal articles

FILM WESTNo.35. February 1999, pp. 34-39

Ken Loach: lives less ordinary, byTony McKibbin

Examination of Ken Loach’s bodyof work and how his approachcompares to other political film-makers of the sixties and seven-ties.

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.8. No.11. November 1998, p. 21

Every fuckin’ choice stinks, by John Hill

Looks at Ken Loach’s use of melo-drama to voice his political vision.Includes filmography.

FILM IRELANDNo. 49. Oct/Nov 1995, pp.144-148

The complete Ken Loach, by PaulKerrKen Loach talks about his career

relating his films to the politics of the time and the upheavals in theBritish film and television indus-tries.




15/25

FILMS AND FILMINGVol.18. No.6. March 1972, pp.36-40

Spreading wings at Kestrel, byPaul Bream

Tony Garnett and Ken Loach talkabout how their production com-pany, Kestrel, came into being, aswell as differences between work-ing in television and cinema. Theyalso discuss KES and the difficul-ties they had in distributing thefilm, their approach to realism andthe political impact of KES andCATHY COME HOME.

Tony Richardson

books

RADOVICH, DonTony Richardson: a bio-bibliogra-phy.Westport, CT; London: GreenwoodPress, 1995. (Bio-bibliographies in theperforming arts). 280p. index.

Includes biographical essay whichcovers Richardson’s early career,Free Cinema and the formationand success of Woodfall Films.Extensive filmography includescast, credits, synopses and extractsfrom contemporary reviews.

RICHARDSON, TonyLong distance runner: a memoir.London: Faber and Faber, 1993. 313p.[32] plates. filmog. index

Autobiographical account of Richardson’s life and career withintroduction by Lindsay Anderson.

WELSH, James M. and TIBBETTS, John C.The cinema of Tony Richardson:essays and interviews.Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press, 1999. (Cultural studies incinema/video). vii-xviii, 295p. illus.filmog. bibliog. index.

Collection of essays and interviewsintended to give Richardson hiscritical due after years of neglect.Chapter 4 – “Greatest pleasures”,by William L. Horne – considers ATASTE OF HONEY and THE LONELI-NESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUN-NER. Horne takes issue with PeterWollen’s argument that the BritishNew Wave lacked the formalrigour, modernism and authorialconfidence of the Nouvelle Vaguebut his attempts to compareRichardson to Truffaut and Godarddo the British director no favours,despite Horne’s detailed accountof Richardson’s careful alterationsto Shelagh Delaney’s stage play.

journal articles

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.3. No.11. Nov 1993, pp. 30-33

Tony Richardson: an adventurer,by Gavin Lambert

Lambert writes a tribute to hisfriend, Tony Richardson.

FILMS AND FILMINGVol.23. No.9. June 1977, pp.10-16

Within the cocoon, by Gordon Gow

Tony Richardson talks about hiscareer and the differencesbetween filming in Britain andHollywood. Includes filmography.

FILMS AND FILMINGVol.12. No.5. February 1966, pp. 19-23 andVol.12 No.6. March 1966, pp. 37-40

Loved one, by Raymond Durgnat

Two-part article on the career of Tony Richardson, beginning withan examination of the ideasbehind Free Cinema. Part oneoffers a detailed analysis of LOOKBACK IN ANGER and THE ENTER-TAINER as well as SANCTUARY,Tony Richardson’s first Americanfilm. The second part traces his

development through A TASTE OFHONEY, THE LONELINESS OF THELONG DISTANCE RUNNER and TOM

JONES.

FILMS AND FILMINGVol.7. No.9. June 1961, pp. 7, 41

The two worlds of the cinema, byTony Richardson

Tony Richardson talks about hisexperience of directing in Britain(A TASTE OF HONEY, THE ENTER-

TAINER) and in America (SANCTU-ARY).

Case Study 1:Karel Reisz:Saturday Night AndSunday Morning (1960)

book

GASTON, Georg Karel Reisz.

Boston: Twayne, 1980. (Twayne’s the-atrical arts series) 166p. illus. bibliog.filmog. index.

Critical study which begins with alook at Reisz’s Free Cinema films.The following chapters deal eachwith a specific film. In the chapteron SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAYMORNING, Gaston looks at thestyle, imagery, use of sound, edit-ing, structure and the film’s recep-tion. Includes comments fromReisz about the character of Arthur.

journal articles

FILM REVIEWMay 1998, pp.56-61

Call Sheet - Saturday Night andSunday Morning: Saturday Night and Sunday Morning is a fineexample of the gritty work pro-duced by Britain in the ‘angry young man’ period of the earlysixties. Carole Zorzo goes behindthe scenes, by Carole Zorzo

A history of the production andreception of SATURDAY NIGHT ANDSUNDAY MORNING. Members of thecast recall their experiences work-ing on the film.

SCREENVol.25. No.4/5. July/Oct 1984, pp.2-21

Space, Place Spectacle: AndrewHigson explores landscape andtownscape in the “kitchen sink”film, by Andrew Higson

Focusing on SATURDAY NIGHT ANDSUNDAY MORNING and A TASTE OFHONEY, Higson investigates how




16/25

these films can be contextualisedwithin notions of “poetic realism”

and also the influence of the docu-mentary realist style of film mak-ing. The significance of the loca-tions of these films is also dis-cussed in depth.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.27. No.323. December 1960, p.166


press articles

DAILY TELEGRAPH(TELEVISION AND RADIO)9 August 1997, p.3

The mornings after the night before, by Stephanie Billen

Billen accounts for the commercialand critical success of the film andnotes that the film represented anew approach to film making inBritain, both in its dramatic subject matter and also in the film’streatment of sex.

NEW LEFT REVIEWNov/Dec 1960, pp.15, 16

In depth review by Rod Prince.Prince focuses on how the originalnovel has been translated into thefilm and believes that the book “ismost successful in its cinematicaspects….and least successfulwhen it is trying to be a novel”.

Case Study 2:

Lindsay Anderson books

GRAHAM, AllisonLindsay Anderson.Boston, MA: Twayne, 1981. (Twayne’sfilmmakers series). 171p. illus. bibli-og. filmog. index.

Sympathetic study of Anderson’sfilms up to and including O LUCKYMAN!. Graham gives Anderson hisdue as a director of formally andaesthetically challenging and com-

plex films but also gives weight tothe problematic themes of free-dom and romanticism inAnderson’s work and the empha-sis on the individual’s conflict withBritish cultural, political and intel-lectual traditions.

HEDLING, ErikLindsay Anderson: maverick film-maker.London: Cassell, 1998. vii-x, 246p. [8]plates. bibliog. filmog. index

Critical biography. Anderson quot-ed by Hedling as emphasising thepragmatic nature of Free Cinema.Hedling suggests that the move-ment’s real significance is a nar-row but significant one: it helpedcreate a “legend” for Andersonwhich gave him a degree of free-dom in his future work.Emphasises importance of NewWave’s links with theatre.Suggests that critics like Higsonand Hill have failed to giveAnderson his due as a formallyand aesthetically innovative film-

maker, pointing out complex nar-rative structure and use of flash-back in THIS SPORTING LIFE, (oftenseen as the last of the “kitchen

sink” films). Hedling emphasisesthe non-naturalistic, stylized,Brechtian (especially in IF….)aspects of Anderson’s work andargues that it is his formal contri-bution to cinema where his realimportance and influence lies.

SILET, Charles L. P.Lindsay Anderson: a guide to ref-erences and resources.Boston, MA: G.K. Hall, 1979. (A refer-ence publication in film). 155p. bibli-og. filmog. index.

Includes biographical background,critical survey, filmography withsynopses and notes and annotatedbibliography.

SUSSEX, ElizabethLindsay Anderson.London: Studio Vista, 1969. (Moviepaperbooks). 90p. illus. bibliog.index.

First full length study of Anderson.Straightforward account of hiscareer, up to and including IF….Sussex quotes extensively fromAnderson’s own observationsabout his films.

This Sporting Life(1963)

journal articles

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.32. No.2. Spring 1963, pp.56-59

Arrival and Departure, by RobertVas

Extensive article in which Vasstates that unlike other filmsbefore it, THIS SPORTING LIFEreflects the duality of contempo-rary Britain. Despite its very Britishoutlook on life and people, thefilm achieves a universalitythrough its “outcry against…being ashamed to feel”.

FILMS AND FILMINGVol.9. No.6. March 1963, pp.15-18

Sport, Life and Art , by LindsayAnderson

Interesting and extensive articleabout the production of the filmTHIS SPORTING LIFE . Andersonaccounts for its adaptation fromthe original novel by David Storey;the problems with creating a scriptwhich captured the essence of thenovel, and the relationship



Saturday Night and Sunday Morning


17/25

between the actor and the direc-tor. Anderson regards the film asa “study of temperament” andargues that the film was intendedto be a tragedy. He points out thatthe danger which faced Britishcinema up until that time was thataudiences did not want to be“challenged or disturbed” andhopes that the film would be partof a climate of change in the arts.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.30. No.350. March 1963, p.34


press articles

TIME OUT3-10 February 1999, p.173

Physical education: Devastatingtake on British masochism orhomoerotic paen to locker-roomculture? Lindsay Anderson’s ThisSporting Life may well be both…,by Geoffrey Macnab

Macnab argues that despite themasochism which runs through-out the film, THIS SPORTING LIFE is“as much a story about a thwartedlove affair as a study of a self-pity-ing sports star”. Macnab alsoaddresses Lindsay Anderson’s col-

league Gavin Lambert’s belief thatthe director “played out his eroticfantasies on the screen, not in life”as exemplified by the footballerand his world.

OBSERVER10 February 1963

This Sporting Life, by PenelopeGilliat

Review in which Gilliat says thatTHIS SPORTING LIFE has “a blow

like a fist” which expresses the“violence and the capacity for painthat there is in the English charac-ter”. Gilliat does not regard thefilm as a sociological study of thecontemporary British male butbelieves that the film’s centralcharacter Frank Machin could havelived at any time.

If…. (1968)

book

ANDERSON, Lindsay and SHER-WIN, DavidIf….: a filmLondon: Lorrimer, 1969. 167p.

plates.

Script with preface by Anderson.

journal articles

FILM HERITAGEVol.5. No.1. Fall 1969, pp.13-20

If…. by Michael Dempsey

Extensive examination of the filmsuggesting that Anderson’s film isnot as clear cut a revolutionary

call to arms as many reviewershave suggested. Dempsey believesthat the film “questions andundermines the values and tacticsof the rebels too thoroughly to actas a pamphlet” and provides con-textual examples to illustrate thisviewpoint.

SCREENVol.10. No.2. Mar/April 1969, pp.85-89

If…. by David SpearsReview which questions whether

the film’s conclusion is more afascistic rather than anarchic solu-tion to the oppression representedby the public school as societymicrocosm.

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.37. No.3. Summer 1968, pp.130-131

Anderson shooting If…. by DavidRobinson

Interesting behind the scenesaccount of the film’s productionwritten in diary form.

press articles

EVENING STANDARD(HOT TICKETS SUPPLEMENT)12 June 1997 p.14

If…. by Alexander Walker

Brief retrospective review. Walkerbelieves that one of LindsayAnderson’s crowning achieve-ments in communicating the mes-sage of IF…. was his use of whathe called “poetic naturalism”.

THE TIMES1 September 1994 p.18

A film that shook our world:Lindsay Anderson’s If… becamethe revolutionary blueprint for anentire generation, says DavidRobinson

Robinson argues that whereasother films of the “Swinging

Sixties” were by nature modish,IF…. is not and as such stands uptoday whereas many of its con-temporaries don’t. The film’s ini-tial problems in attracting financeand distribution are dealt with and



If....


18/25

Robinson also looks at the influ-ence of the film and how it was acreative high point for its creatorLindsay Anderson.

OBSERVER22 December 1968

Anderson’s masterwork, byPenelope Mortimer

Mortimer accounts for her initialunsympathetic reaction to thefilm’s ending, claiming that shethought it was a compromise.However, after a second viewing she accepts that the culture of vio-lence embodied in the publicschool in the film has bred vio-lence and the film’s ending is theinevitable conclusion to the narra-tive.

NEW STATESMAN AND SOCIETY19 December 1968

To Serve, by Paul Mayersburg

Mayersberg points out that IF…. isabout institutions and the waythey divide society and often, inthe process, conquer it. The film isdivided into eight sections eachwith their own title (eg.“Discipline” and “Resistance”)which Mayersberg likens to a

medieval frieze, appropriately foran institution such as the publicschool with its reliance on rituals.

British“Swinging Sixties” Cinema

books

ASHBY, Justine and HIGSON,

Andrew (eds.)British cinema past and present.London: Routledge, 2000. vii-xx, 385p.illus. bibliog. index.

Moya Luckett’s chapter – “Traveland mobility: femininity andnational identity in Swinging London films” – offers a definitionof the Swinging London film, andanalyses the link in these filmsbetween women and mobility, par-ticularly in DARLING.

HEWISON, RobertToo much: art and society in thesixties 1960-75.London: Methuen, 1986. xi-xviii,350p. illus. index.

Discusses the arts and the socialconditions in which they were pro-duced in the sixties. Althoughthere is little material specificallyon cinema, Hewison offers aninteresting and alternative view of the period.

MELLY, GeorgeRevolt into style: the pop arts inBritain.London: Allen Lane/Penguin Press,1970. 245p. index.

George Melly puts British popularculture of the 1960s into context,analysing music, art, mass media,fashion and theatre. Section three– “Film, TV, radio, theatre” – givesan overview of changes in broad-casting, cinema and theatre with acloser look at music films.

MURPHY, RobertSixties British cinema.London: British Film Institute, 1992.354p. appendix. bibliog. index.

Chapter 6 – “Brave new world” –charts the rise of pop culture while

Chapter 7 – “Swinging London” –looks at representations of London, the permissive societyand notions of love.

NEAVERSON, BobThe Beatles movies.London: Cassell, 1997. (Rethinking British cinema). vii-ix, 149p. illus.bibliog. discog. filmog. index.

Critical history of the films of TheBeatles attempting to place themin the context of sixties popular

culture.

RICHARDS, JeffreyFilms and British national identity:from Dickens to Dad’s Army.Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1997. (Studies in popular cul-ture). illus. bibliog. filmog. index.

Chapter 6 – “The swinging sixtiesand after” – examines changes inBritish national identity throughthe films of the decade.

ROMNEY, Jonathan and WOOT-TON, Adrian (eds.)Celluloid jukebox: popular musicand the movies since the 50s.London: British Film Institute, 1995.illus. bibliog. filmog.

Andy Medhurst’s chapter – “It sortof happened here: the strange,brief life of the British pop film” –looks at lesser-known British popfilms from the late 50s and mid60s.

YULE, AndrewThe man who “framed” TheBeatles: a biography of RichardLester.New York: Donald I. Fine, 1994. illus.filmog. index.

Anecdotal account of RichardLester’s career, including his mem-ories of working with The Beatleson A HARD DAY’S NIGHT and HELP.

journal articles

JOURNAL OF POPULAR BRITISHCINEMANo.1. 1998, pp.48-62

Comedy, sexuality and “SwingingLondon” films, by Bruce Carson

ALFIE (1966), GEORGY GIRL (1966)

and THE KNACK (1965) are threeBritish comedies that representand explore the new “permissive-ness” in 1960s London. Their rolein mediating a move from the ide-ology of earlier cinema is explored.

MOVIE MAKERMay 1985, pp.22-25

The Swinging Sixties: Continuinghis survey of British Cinema as acelebration of British Film Year,David Wilford has reached the six-

tiesSurvey of British films of the1960s. Films discussed includeTOM JONES, A HARD DAY’S NIGHT,ALFIE and BLOW-UP. Wilford givesa brief synopsis of each film anddiscusses their salient characteris-tics and how they characteriseBritish cinema and film-making from this period.




19/25

Four Case Studies

The following titles can be consid-ered examples of the films whichdealt with the mores of the“Swinging Sixties”. They representa small selection but are listedhere as there is a fair amount of

critical and review material whichdiscusses them. Other titles whichcould be considered part of thisgenre and are worthy of discussiondespite the lack of any real criticalappraisal include BEDAZZLED(1967), SMASHING TIME (1967),HERE WE GO ROUND THE MULBER-RY BUSH (1967), THE JOKERS (1966)and CATCH US IF YOU CAN (1965).

Alfie(dir. Lewis Gilbert, 1966)

journal articles

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNVol.70. No.1. January 2000, pp.32-35

Walls have feelings: cult filmsabout sex in 1960s London, byKatherine Schonfield

Focussing on REPULSION and ALFIEwhich were made in a period of

sociosexual revolution, Schonfieldargues that the architectural disso-lution between urban territoriesacts as an analogy for the sexualpenetration of the female body.Both films “reveal a moment of confident appropriation of the cityat large, and its female inhabi-tants, as legitimate territory forthe male sexual adventurer”.

FILM REVIEW June 1998, pp.56-61

Call Sheet - Alfie: Howard Maxfordtalks to director Gilbert Lewis,actor Graham Stark and actress Julia Foster about this superb

1960s classic

Article about the production of thefilm and its reception.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.33. No.388. May 1966, p.70


press articles

SUNDAY TIMES27 March 1966

Spiv without secrets, by DilysPowell

Favourable review of ALFIE. Powellbelieves the technique of Alfieaddressing the audience directly tobe a very effective one whichallows the narrative and the com-ments made by Alfie to flowsmoothly enough to avoid anyincongruity on the part of theaudience’s perception of the story-line.

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH27 March 1966

Style of Stardom, by MargaretHinxman

Review which focuses on MichaelCaine’s central contribution to therole of Alfie in the film. Althoughthe role of the “cockney Casanova”could have been handled effective-ly by other actors it is Caine’s per-formance which is central to thesuccess of the film and any mes-sages implicit in the narrative.

Georgy Girl(dir. Silvio Narizzano, 1966)

journal articles

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.33. No.395. December 1966, p.185


FILM REVIEWOctober 1996, pp.44-47

Call Sheet - Georgy Girl: HowardMaxford takes a look at the swing-ing ‘60s classic that outragedaudience morals - and won achurch award

Article in which Silvio Narizzanotalks about problems with casting and production and the issues the

film raised around morality.

press articles

NEW STATESMAN14 October 1966

Holding the baby, by JohnColeman


Billy Liar(dir. John Schlesinger, 1963)

journal articles

TAKE ONEVol.1. No.10. 1968, pp.19-22

Billy Liar: A Study Guide, by RandiBrehm

Brief, albeit useful, guide whichraises points for discussion aboutthe film eg. Billy’s home and workenvironment, the differentphilosophies of the girls heencounters in the film.

The article also draws attention totechniques used in the film suchas montage, sound etc with theinvitation to discuss how theseimpact on the subject matter of the film.

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.32. No.4. Autumn 1963, p.193

Review by Peter Harcourt.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN

Vol.30. No.356. September 1963, p. 126





20/25

press articles

TIME OUT25 June-2 July 1997, p.7

Hitting the small time: GeoffreyMacnab sees the hell of the littleman depicted in two very different

films.

Article in which Macnab drawsparallels between BILLY LIAR andLOOK BACK IN ANGER. Points outthat both films are dismissiveabout the hypocrisies of smalltown English life and that Billyand Porter in LOOK BACK IN ANGERare incapable of escaping the “pri-vate hells in which they’ve allowedthemselves to become caught”.

THE OBSERVER

18 August 1963

The comedy of hatred, by PenelopeGilliatt

Gilliat highlights the fact that BillyLiar should not be regarded as asentimental character but that hischaracter is one of loathing andcontempt towards his environ-ment and the reality of his life.

Darling(dir. John Schlesinger, 1965)

journal articles

IN THE PICTURENo.36. Summer 1996, pp.24-26

The reaction of a group of A Levelstudents to a screening of DARLING.

SCREENVol.26. No.1. Jan/Feb 1985, pp.50-65

Examination of female identityand sexuality in DARLING.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.32. No.380. September 1965, p.132


press article

DAILY MAIL14 September 1965

What we set out to do was todestroy the female principle, saysscript-writer Freddy Raphael

Interesting article which traces thehistory of the story from script to

screen and how script writerRaphael regards the lifestyleembodied in the central character,Diana, as reflecting contemporarysexual mores which are ultimatelydestructive and unfulfilling.

ExperimentalCinema

books

* DUSINBERRE, Peter de Kay III (akaDeke)English avant-garde cinema 1966-1974 (MPhil thesis).London: University College, 1977.275p. bibliog. filmog.

This is certainly the most compre-hensive study of the avant-gardein English cinema in the 1960s.Dusinberre’s thesis suggests thatthe movement was initiated in1966/67 with the creation of theLondon Film-makers Co-op (LFMC)and the Arts Lab. It then analyses

in great detail the development of this avant-garde until the mid-1970s. Alternating factual descrip-tion and a more theoreticalapproach of the concept of avant-garde, the book is always clear andaccessible to non-specialists.Finally, the appendices reproducerare documents such as pro-grammes of avant-garde screen-ings, manifestos, reports and fil-mographies of selected Englishexperimental film-makers of thatperiod. In short, this is THE refer-ence book on the subject.

DICKINSON, MargaretRogue reels: oppositional film inBritain, 1945-1990.London: British Film Institute, 1999.vi, 330p. illus. bibliog. index

The first two paragraphs of chap-ter 2 – “Confrontation andCommunity”, 1966-1974 – give aconcise analysis of the influenceof the political context (“NewPolitics”, pp. 35-41) on the struc-tures of the experimental move-ment (“New Cinema”, pp.41-45).

DWOSKIN, StephenFilm is: the international FreeCinema.London: Peter Owen, 1975. 268p.plates. bibliog. index.

Dwoskin is an American avant-garde film-maker who emigratedto London in 1964 and played acrucial part in the development of the English avant-garde movementin the late 1960s. In this study of the film avant-garde in severalcountries, Dwoskin devotes awhole chapter to the developmentof the English avant-garde. Hegives a foreigner’s interesting point of view and proves very criti-cal about the British attitudetowards avant-garde film in gener-al.

O’PRAY, Michael (ed.)The British avant-garde 1926 to1995: an anthology of writing.Luton: John Libbey Media/ArtsCouncil of England/University of Luton. v-viii, 332p. illus. bibliog.index.

This book gathers a selection of articles by academics on Britishexperimental cinema throughoutthe century. The article “EnglishAvant-garde film: an early chronol-ogy” by David Curtis (pp. 101-121)

deals specifically with the 1960s.Curtis was directly involved in themovement in the late 1960s as afilm programmer for the Arts Lab,and his recollection of that periodtakes the form of a diary.

REES, A.L.A history of experimental film and video: from the canonical avant-garde to contemporary Britishpractice.London: British Film Institute, 1999v-viii, 152p. [32] plates. bibliog. index.

A short chapter titled “EnglishStructuralists” (pp. 77-82) sums upthe development of the LFMC in




21/25

the late 1960s/1970s and its linkswith the ‘structuralist’ movementrepresented by film-makers likeMalcolm Le Grice, Peter Gidal andothers.

STREET, SarahBritish national cinema.London: Routledge, 1997. ix-xi, 232p.illus. bibliog. indices.

In a paragraph called “Opposition,Structuralism and Independence1966-1980” (pp. 169-173), Streetgives a brief account of the struc-turalist avant-garde and the theo-retical questions raised by the aca-demic film journals in the late1960s-early 1970s.

ELLIS, John1951-1976: British Film Instituteproductions: a catalogue of filmsmade under the auspices of theExperimental Film Fund 1951-1966 and the Production Board1966-1976.London: British Film Institute, 1977.135p. illus. index.

Although the BFI ExperimentalFilm Fund and its successor theBFI Production Board were notdirectly part of the avant-gardemovement around the LondonFilm-makers’ Co-op in the late1960s, its contribution to inde-

pendent and experimental film-making in Britain from the early1950s is far from negligible.This publication is more than amere film catalogue. It examinesthe evolution of the Fund/Boarddecade by decade. The secondchapter focuses on the period1960-1969 and looks at the transi-tion between the ExperimentalFilm Fund and the ProductionBoard in the context of 1960sBritish cinema. It also reviewsevery experimental film made bythe Fund/Board in that decade.

ForeignDirectors inBritainThe documents reviewed in thissection were selected because theyexamine specifically the work of

foreign film-directors in Britain inthe 1960s. They are not necessari-ly the best or most comprehensivestudies of these directors.

ARMES, RoyA critical history of British cinema.London: Secker & Warburg Ltd, 1978

In chapter 16 – “The ForeignImpact: Polanski, Losey, Kubrick”,pp. 280-299 – the author acknowl-edges that in the 1960s “so manyof the most striking films were

made by foreign-born directors”.After mentioning the failure of Truffaut’s FAHRENHEIT 451 and thesuccess of Antonioni’s BLOWUP(both made in 1966), he thenfocuses his analysis on threedirectors – Roman Polanski, JosephLosey and Stanley Kubrick – whosettled in Britain in the sixties. Herelates the context in which theydecided to come and work inBritain and tries to demonstrate inwhat way these directors “pro-duced work of an essentiallyBritish culture” despite their back-

ground.

Joseph Losey

books

CIMENT, MichelConversations with Joseph LoseyLondon: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1985

Interviewed in great detail by oneof the leading French critics, Loseyreminisces about his self-exile inBritain, his work with English

collaborators and the films whichbrought him international acclaim.Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the bookcover the 1960s. A crucial 400-page document on Losey’s work inBritain.

PALMER, James and RILEY, Michael

The films of Joseph LoseyCambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993

The book examines the career of the American-born directorthrough the analysis of five of hismost important films, all made inBritain between 1963 and 1975. Itshows how Losey, who had toleave the United States in the early1950s because of his left-wing views, uses his films to denouncethe injustices and hypocrisy root-ed in the privileges of the classsystem. It also looks at his closeworking relationships withscriptwriter Harold Pinter andactor Dirk Bogarde.

journal article

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.48 No.3 Summer 1979, pp.145-147, 153

The Reluctant Exile, by RichardRoud

Losey is interviewed about hisexperience as a film-director inBritain between 1951 and 1974,and gives his view on the difficul-ties of British cinema in that peri-od.

Roman Polanski

Although Roman Polanski madethree films in Britain between 1965and 1967 (REPULSION, CUL-DE-SACand DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES), verylittle has been written specificallyon the Polish director’s British

experience.



Beyond Image (dir. Sensual Laboratory, 1969)


22/25

book

WEXMAN, Virginia WrightRoman Polanski.Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1985

Chapters 2 and 3 examinePolanski’s 1960s films, including

the three made in Britain.However, there are very few specif-ic references to his contribution toBritish cinema in that period.

Stanley Kubrick

books

LOBRUTTO, VincentStanley Kubrick a biographyNew York: Donald I. Fine Books, 1997

Not only is this critical study of

Kubrick’s career and films consid-ered by critics as one of the bestdocumented, it also extensivelyexamines his work in England inthe 1960s (Part 4: 1960-1964,pp.197-254, and Part 5: 1964-1987,pp. 255-264). Rather than giving atheoretical analysis of the films,the author focuses on their pro-duction and the context in whichthey were made. He also gives thereader a clear idea of why thefilm-maker chose England inwhich to make his films from theearly 1960s.

NELSON, Thomas AllenKubrick: inside a film artist’s mazeBloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 2000. (New, expanded ed.)

In this new edition of a classicbook about Kubrick, Nelson’sapproach is a theoretical analysisof the director’s aesthetics. Eachof his sixties British films isanalysed in a separate chapter andis put in a historical and theoreti-cal context. Not an easy read butit does pay off!

Case Study:Michelangelo

Antonioni andBlowup (1966)

books

HUSS, Roy (ed.)

Focus on Blow Up.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, 1971

This book is a compilation of reviews and articles on Antonioni’sfilm published in the late 1960s.Its main merit is to offer Englishtranslations of famous articleswritten in foreign languages. Themost relevant text to our study istaken from Cahiers du Cinema(“Antonioni and the English Style:A Day on the Set”, January 1967, pp13-15).

WALKER, AlexanderHollywood, England: the Britishfilm industry in the sixtiesLondon: Michael Joseph, 1974

“Why did Michelangelo Antonionichoose London as the setting forBlow-up?” is the opening questionof chapter 15 – “Cameraman’sDream”, pp-315-331.

journal articles

LITERATURE/FILM QUARTERLYVol.17. No.2. 1989, pp.134-137

Blow Up, Swinging London andthe Film Generation, by Peter Lev

Examination of the film’s econom-ic and cultural backdrop. Levregards BLOWUP as a “schizoidfilm, where film and art and acommercial popular cultureuneasily coexist” and points outthat what distinguishes the film isthe extent to which art, popularculture, Antonioni’s own visionand the context of “swinging London” become one.

MONTHLY FILM BULLETINVol.34. No.401. June 1967, p.86

Synopsis and review

SIGHT AND SOUNDVol.36. No.2. Spring 1967, pp.60-62

Blow Up, by Carey Harrison

Detailed analysis of the film whichfocuses on the idea that capturing reality is something which ulti-mately eludes the photographerThomas in the film; that the “out-side world is just as opaque as thesets inside his studio”.

press articles

INDEPENDENT29 April 1993, pp.1,4

Blow Up, Antonioni’s 1966 filmabout a fashion photographer, isback. Marion Hume and TamsinBlanchard talk to the inspired andthe inspirers

Collection of quotes from peoplewho were in the film and thosewho were part of London’s fashionindustry (photographers, designersetc) relating their views on thefilm and what it means to them.

VILLAGE VOICE (FILM SPECIAL)December 1991 pp.3,6,8

Blow Up at 25: After the Orgy, by J.Hoberman

Hoberman accounts for the film’spopularity in the USA despite theinitial misgivings of its critics butpoints out that in contemporaryterms the film “doesn’t even rate acult (academic or otherwise)”.Despite this, Hoberman deals withthe influence of BLOWUP on such

American films as SHAMPOO andBLOW OUT.



Blowup


23/25

GenresCHIBNALL, Steve and MURPHY,Robert (eds.)British crime cinema.London: New York: Routledge, 1999.(British popular cinema). vi-x, 251p.illus. filmog. index

Anthology of criticism about theBritish crime film genre. Chapter8 – “Ordinary people: ‘New Wave’realism and the British crimefilm”, by Steve Chibnall – arguesthat the New Wave, social realistfilms have been accorded a privi-leged position in histories of British sixties cinema, whereasgenre films have been margin-alised. One in three British filmsmade between 1959 and 1963 wasa crime film. Chibnall argues thatfilms like Val Guest’s HELL IS A

CITY (1960) and Clive Owen’s OFF-BEAT (1961) serve as an importantindex of the era’s cultural, socialand economic anxieties.

CURRAN, James and PORTER,VincentBritish cinema history.London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.445p. tables. bibliog.

Chapter 19 – “Carry On… followthat stereotype”, by Marion Jordan– offers an analysis of the CARRYON series. Jordan remains ambiva-lent about the films but suggeststhat, in part, they are successfuland funny because the charactersand situations are so exaggeratedand grotesque, that they poke funat the ridiculous nature of stereo-

types themselves, rather thansimply mocking the people whoare being caricatured (though theydo that too). Argues that changing social attitudes spelled the end forthe series.

HUNTER, I. Q. (ed.)

British science-fiction cinema.London; New York: Routledge, 1999.(British popular cinema). vi-x, 217p.illus. filmog. index.

Collection of essays. Chapter 2 –“’We’re the Martians now’ Britishsf invasion fantasies of the 1950sand 60s”, by Peter Hutchings –looks at “narratives of defeat”. Hesuggests (as Pirie also argues) thatthe post-Suez climate of nationaluncertainty is reflected in films,like the QUATERMASS series, whichdisplay an awareness of socialchange and Britain’s diminishedimportance as a global power.

*MURPHY, RobertSixties British cinema.London: British Film Institute, 1992.353p. illus. appendix. bibliog. index.

Devotes three chapters to the neg-lected subject of British 60s genrefilms.

Chapter 8 – “Other worlds” – con-siders horror (dominated by

Hammer’s output) and science fic-tion. Murphy warns that 60sBritish horror films rely on con-vention and do not engage with

social issues in the way that , forexample, 1970s American horrorfilms do.

Chapter 9 – “Exploring the under-world” – is a comprehensive lookat the British crime film, suggest-ing that by the mid-sixties a “vac-uous internationalism” had set in.Despite his attempt to cover every-thing, Murphy has time to look inmore detail at films like THESTRANGE AFFAIR (1968) and PER-FORMANCE which both “use thepermissiveness of the Swinging Sixties to display a more explicittreatment of sex and violence”.

Chapter 10 – “Frying tonight” –considers comedy, emphasising the disjuncture between the filmsof the early and late sixties sug-gesting that by the middle of thedecade whimsy and eccentricitywas being traded in for smut andinnuendo. Puts forward the theorythat the CARRY ON films of the latesixties participate in the permis-sive climate only to the extent thatmiddle-aged men are now able “toshare the favours of sexually liber-ated young women”.

PIRIE, DavidA heritage of horror: the Englishgothic cinema 1946-1972.London: Gordon Fraser, 1973. 192p.

illus. filmog. index.

Important study of the Englishhorror film, which takes as itsstarting point the influence andtradition of the English gothic nov-elists of

1960s British Cinema 2000

Documents

Transcript of 1960s British Cinema 2000