Look Back in Anger

There's a very angry lad by name of Jimmy, lives on a squalid upstairs floor, that's rather dingy, seems to hate his gorgeous lass, because she has a bit of class, a perpetual complainer whose quite whingey. Things get worse when wife's friend Helena arrives, as they lock horns, and he goes into overdrive, rage and fury then ensue, there's nothing Alison can do, she calls her father, who picks her up, and off they drive - and right on cue, Helena drops her drawers!

Why on earth would such a lovely lass marry a person with such an uncontrollable rage, almost to the extent that it comes across as a mental illness. For me, Richard Burton layers on the anger so much that it detracts from the frustration a man in his position would more realistically feel, and the way it would present.

Fine dialogue, the rest of the cast are brilliant, just an over the top performance from someone playing the most melodramatic way they can, detracts from the whole, unfortunately.

Before George and Martha there were Jimmy and Alison, the vituperate couple at the heart of Osborne's legendary play and I suppose you could say the British Kitchen Sink movement started here. The difference, of course, being that while the Arthur Seatons and Colin Smiths of this world were unequivocally working-class kicking against the system and the intelligentsia, Jimmy and Alison were the intelligentsia playing at being working-class. And therein lies the rub; unlike later 'kitchen sink' movies "Look Back in Anger" isn't so much looking back as mired in the past, an uneasy amalgam of the kind of British films that were coming out in the late fifties and the kind of ground-breaking British cinema that would come to prevail in the early sixties.

There is no denying it is extremely well played. Burton is loudly splendiferous as Jimmy yet he seems strangely miscast at the same time. Perhaps it's that booming, melodious voice; this is a Jimmy that is more Shakespeare than Osborne, (note how Olivier completely subsumed his Shakespearean tendencies to become the definitive Osborne hero in "The Entertainer"). By the time Burton got around to playing George in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" you could say he had grown into the part.

Better cast are Mary Ure as Alison and Claire Bloom as Helena. Their performances feel new and edgy, a move away from the traditional kind of performances that British actresses had been giving up to then while Gary Raymond is an admirable Cliff and a miscast Edith Evans does what she can with Ma Tanner. Tony Richardson opens it out from the Porter's depressing flat to give a more 'cinematic' feel yet it still feels stagey and not in a good way. It's a refreshingly 'grown-up' movie but you may still wonder what all the fuss was about when the original play first opened.

What must have seemed like a stunning piece of "kitchen sink" realism at the time, now looks a bit too staged and artificial because the performances are keyed to the stage rather than film. Ironically, they work against the natural, low-key settings of the dingy flat that is the centerpiece of the story--at least for much of the film.

Tony Richardson has opened the stage play with the result that he's had to cut down on all the expository stage dialog to give us a direct view of the angry young man (RICHARD BURTON) in his present surroundings. Burton attacks his role with a ferocity that is reminiscent of the way Kirk Douglas attacked such a role in YOUNG MAN WITH A HORN, another angry young man American style.

The film successfully followed the pattern of other such stories that emerged during the hectic '50s, the James Dean struggles for independence as a troubled youth, only here the accent is on the slowly disintegrating marriage of Burton and MARY URE, repeating the role she played on the London stage, while he lashes out at society for condemning him to a dreary working class life he knows is below his station.

RICHARD BURTON plays the lead with theatrical flourishes and GARY RAYMOND and CLAIRE BLOOM (as "the other woman") are fine in less showy roles.

Summing up: Stripped of most of the explosive dialog that made the play such a steamy hit in London, the film manages to be little more than an atmospheric B&W look at the squalor and depression of the times among the lower classes.

Burton overacts and the dialogue is not that of a normal person but that of considered script. It doesn't ring true. Jimmy is just abusive to his wife, his friend and her friend. Through a modem lens, few would put up with him. Is this an insight into post war Britain? I don't know but I can imagine an angry post war generation. Maybe this notion makes the film more compelling and bleak.

LOOK BACK IN ANGER has the distinction of being one of the first kitchen sink dramas that would become all the rage in the early 1960s. It's an adaptation of the famous John Osborne play about an angry young man and the love triangle in which he finds himself involving his wife and her best friend. I was surprised to see that Nigel Kneale adapted the story for the screen as this is well away from his comfort zone of science fiction and weirdness.

The film features a typically bullish performance from Richard Burton as the protagonist who spends the entire running time bullying the women in his life (apart from his mother, as he loves her). Yes, the film is in essence a couple of of hours of Burton abusing people, so I didn't find it particularly entertaining. The characters are certainly well drawn with plenty of depth and more than realistic, but as a slice-of-life story nothing much really happens during the running time (there are no character arcs or anything like that) and I was left feeling depressed about what I'd just watched more than anything else.