Look Back in Anger

"Look Back In Anger" is a mostly good reproduction of John Osborne's stage play about a college-educated Englishman trapped in a dank working class existence and lashing out at everyone around him. The performances are excellent all around; Mary Ure's I found the most moving as the fragile upper-class wife. My only complaint is the elements of staginess that were not expelled from the original incarnation: what Richard Burton does in this movie works better on the stage than it does on film. The screen is already larger than life, he doesn't need to expand the performance the way he does. As I was watching it, I found myself easily picturing Robin Williams performing the same material as a parody of gross overacting. For this, I blame the director Tony Richardson for not restraining him somewhat. I've actually liked Burton better in more modulated performances in lousy movies (the VIPs, The Comedians). Burton is a great talent, but he sometimes has the effect of a baseball pitcher with "great stuff"; he attacks the batters with pure heat and no finesse. There are also bits of business that should have been excised, like Burton and Gary Raymond's occasional breaks into Music Hall skits. That is exclusively a stage bit; it doesn't develop the characters and stops the dramatic flow.

Richardson, otherwise, shows good understanding of the film medium. The look of it is about right- the characters are the right distance from the camera to deliver their lines for maximum impact (in other words, the shots aren't cramped with close-ups in an already cramped apartment). And some scenes are shot exceptionally well: the last scene in the fog and mist with Burton and Mary Ure silhouetted is superb, as is the shot in the small doorway where Miss Ure must decide whether to join her husband or go to church with Claire Bloom's character, while Miss Bloom holds open the tiny door that exposes a flurry of street activity.

"Look Back In Anger" is a well-done film, although I think Richard Burton's assault of the audience as well as the other characters keeps it from true greatness. 3 *** out of 4

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.

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.

If you're a fan of Burton shouting, and if you're a fan of Burton not shouting, then this film is very well worth watching. If you're indifferent about him, watch at your own risk. If he's never appealed to you, skip it for sure.

I came away from it frustrated, respecting it nonetheless. Some classy camerawork. Makeup stands out in a good way. And given their performances, the supporting actors absolutely save the film.

It's important to take this movie into context, meaning when it was made and the lack of knowledge of mental health issues at the time. At best, Burton's character is a bully surrounded by codependents. At worst, he's an angry sociopath. Anger is a byproduct of fear.

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.