Talk:The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been identified as a core article. Large improvements may make editors eligible for awards.

This is a good article! I especially like the critical quotations.Rayray 09:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent film! I will definitely attempt to turn this article into featured (once I get the time). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-13 20:17

Contents 1 Copy edit and cleanup of Synopsis 2 Boer War/Duel 3 Churchill and Blimp 4 Typically British

[edit] Copy edit and cleanup of Synopsis

I've done a copy edit and cleanup of the synopsis, which I believe clarifies some aspects of the story which were somewhat muddy in the old version. In the process, I moved a couple of commentary passages and asides to footnotes. These either really don't belong in the body of a synopsis or impeded the flow of the story. They can stay in footnotes, or be moved elsewhere in the article if an appropriate place can be found. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boer War/Duel

I've made some more changes to the Boer War duel section, because it wasn't quite accurate the way it was.

*"All parties" don't agree to pretend that the duel is about Edith's honor. We only learn about this once in the film, when one of the British officials tells Candy "It's generally assumed that the duel was ..." something or other about Edith (I'm semi-quoting from memory), and that's the only time it's mentioned. We never know if the Germans deliberately bought into this subterfuge, only that "It's generally assumed" and the British want it to go on being that way -- so we can't say anything about what "all parties agree".

*I like the addition of Theo's objection to dueling, but it's important to keep in that he was put into the position of dueling because he was chosen at random, and that the reason he volunteered was that the duel would uphold the honor of the Army -- very important at the time.

I know that the wording theree wasn't the best, but it's a bit better now, I think. It could possibly be improved, but I'd like not to muddy the two points above.

Also, I removed "major" from diplomatic incident. Clearly, from the behavior of the 2 German officers when they come to the embassy (consulate?), it's not a major incident at all -- or else it would be being dealt with at a higher level. It's merely another blip in the continuing disintegration of relations between England and Germany prior to WW1. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill and Blimp

One thing I've never understood was Churchill's attempt to if not deep-six the filming of Blimp, at the least to put hurdles in its way. From our point of view, looking back, the film is so clearly pro-British that it seems amazing that Churchill would be worried about it.

Let's face it, if P&P had actually made a film that showed the jingoistic Blimp character from the cartoons, that might have been the case -- and perhaps that's what Churchill feared, that such a film would hold British ideals and the military up to scorn and ridicule. The film they made, though, is so obviously sympathetic to Candy, who is shown as something of a "great man" -- a bit thick, perhaps, but honorable, resourceful, energetic, etc. etc., that I have to think that Churchill never saw it (who can blame him -- did he really have *time*?) or read a script, and was simply acting on the *possibility* of what the film might turn out to be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"A bit thick, but honourable", a lovely description of Clive Candy :)

The trouble was that Churchill didn't even see a script. He was sent a report by one of his ministers (Sir James Grigg, the Minister of War) which summarised the script that had been submitted - not for approval, just as a courtesy. P&P had already been in discussion with the War Office and the Ministry of Information. All the government people asked them not to make the film. P&P reminded them that even during a war we were still a democracy (Powell's version) and the government refused them access to army vehicles and uniforms, so they "borrowed them" i.e. stole them. And refused them the use of Olivier who was in the forces so they used Roger Livesey. Probably a blessing in disguise.

See 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' reconsidered. By James Chapman and Christie, Ian. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (script) by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger. London: Faber & Faber, 1994. ISBN 0-571-14355-5. Ian's book includes all the government papers and memos that showed them trying to stop the production - but the reason as to why is still speculative.

Winston Churchill met star Anton Walbrook when Anton was appearing in the stage play "Watch on the Rhine" while the film was still in production (he had to leave Denham studios early on matinée days) and Churchill was trying to get it stopped. A blustering, red faced (Blimp like?) Churchill proceeded to berate Anton saying "What's this supposed to mean? I suppose you regard it as good propaganda for Britain?" Anton calmly replied "No people in the world other than the English would have had the courage, in the midst of war, to tell the people such unvarnished truth."

Even after the film was made, and Churchill had seen it, he still didn't like it. The government withheld a license to export it for some time which is why it wasn't released in the States until March 1945.

Was it because it held up the Army, especially the "top brass" of the old school, to ridicule? Was it because the most intelligent person, the one that got the best speeches, was a German while we were in the middle of a fight for survival against Germany? Did Churchill fear the "Blimp" character, thinking that they were having a dig at him? That must all remain speculation -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All good points, and some that I hadn't considered. My other thought was just that the moment in time was so utterly different from ours that it really is difficult to see things through their eyes. Probably it seemed to them (the officials trying to stop the film) that what they couldn't ensure was absolutely going to be helpful in some way (i.e. official propaganda, morale boosting, keep your chin up stuff) was therefore best to consider harmful -- it's a wartime POV: if you're not with me (100%), you're agin me.

That's all understandable, what makes it ironic is that things have changed so much that most people now, I believe, would look on Blimp as a blatant piece of wartime proganda in itself! (Not that I think it is -- but they certainly trod lightly over the British behavior in the Boer War, which was in some ways fairly reprehensible.)

Certainly Churchill, as great a man as he was, was not one without {significant) flaws. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Churchill occasionally had to be reminded that although he was a great, much needed and much admired war leader, he wasn't a dictator.

P&P films, even up to this point had always been a bit odd, different to most British films of the time and were already attracting puzzled comments from the critics who thought that all British films should be realist. The Spy in Black and 49th Parallel had already had Germans in significant heroic roles.

And P&P had already declared their independence. They worked with the government (especially the Ministry of Information - the propaganda branch) but only to discuss ideas and to keep them informed. Never to get permission to make a film. The Ministry initially sponsored 49th Parallel. When it went over budget, Rank paid the rest.

They would follow the Ministry's guidelines for propaganda films, but in their own peculiar way -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typically British

Should we point out how "typically British" this film is?
Written by a Hungarian, filmed by a Frenchman, music by a Pole, design by a German with an Austrian as one of the leads. The other leads were Scottish and Welsh. Still, the editor and director were English :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like the trial scene in A Matter of Life and Death, when the jury is changed to one of "Americans" -- the same nationalities as the previous jury (more or less), only American citizens.

Jeez, who makes films like that any more? That's a serious question, is there any filmmaker you would see as in some way -- stylistically, whatever -- the modern equivalent of Powell and Pressburger? Because if there is, and I don't know about them, I want to. Mike Leigh? Who? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, to answer your question, I think it would be interesting to include that somewhere -- just the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who manages to do everything they did. Some, like the Cohen Brothers or Scorsese do parts of it. But remember that P&P had a very strange setup with Rank and then with Korda where they were given total freedom and control over their films. I don't know anyone else who has had such freedom before or since. -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was think about the Coen Brothers as well, especially when they get somewhat whimsical, as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is the "written by a hungarian..." section a direct quote from Powell, or a summary of what he said. I'm thinking that if it's a quote, it should probably be in blockquotes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a direct quote (or very close to it) but I can't remember where he said it. I'm fairly sure it was at the NFT or a similar on-stage interview before an audience. But he did quite a few of those in his later years -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)