Flame in the Streets

Flame in the Streets was adapted from a stage play and often feels like it. The acting is occasionally stilted and other times too heavy-handed. Not the worst offender nor entirely out of step of other performances of its mostly pre-method era. It's just that, given it's serious subject matter, it didn't need any extra help to wind up the audience and it might have done a better overall job if it was more clever and subtle in its approach. Additionally, some of the dialog, especially from minor characters, is very on the nose and almost comically rote. In some ways this film feels more like it's from the 30s or 40s and not the early 60s.

The plot involves a union leader who, full of righteousness, defends a black man's promotion to a minor management role in a manufacturing company. His progressivism and sense of fairness is challenged and turned on its ear when he learns his daughter intends to marry a black man. All of this takes place amid the backdrop of his crumbling marriage and a neighborhood that has started to boil over with racial tensions.

While it's easy to criticize the execution, I appreciated how directly and incisively it goes after its controversial themes, particularly that of the half-way liberal who will righteously advocate for the downtrodden as long as, on some level, he can continue to see them as lower and separate from himself, and those truly close to him. That hypocrisy is still very relevant today as many talk endlessly and fiery about inclusion, but at the end of the day still seem to be surrounded by people who look the same as they do.

This film is a very enjoyable and courageous film about racism in London in the early 1960s. Apparently, there was a lot of negative feeling towards West Indians living there--and it's all quite similar to the feelings in much of the US at the same time.

The first portion of the film involves workers and their union. A major problem is that a lot of white workers are resentful of blacks--especially when they are placed in positions of authority. One of the union reps, Jacko Palmer (John Mills), believes in promoting people according to their merits--and goes to bat for these people.

Ironically, at the same time this is happening, Jocko's daughter is dating a Jamaican man. She is uneasy about how people will treat her but she loves the man and wants to marry him. When she tells her 'liberal-minded family', they show themselves to by hypocritical butt-heads--and the mother is truly vile in the way she talks about blacks and shows herself to be a shameful mother. How is all this to work out by the end of the film?

I liked the film and appreciate that it didn't pull its punches. I love "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" but at times it did seem a bit too sanitary and 'nice'. In contrast, this British film used extremely disturbing and graphic language--and better showed the ugliness of racism. Well worth seeing.

Roy Ward Baker, who had a good track record for directing colourful films (eg: The Vampire Lovers), gives us an extremely interesting retrospective of racial tensions in London in the early 1960's with Flame In The Streets. Race issues still exist and it would be naive to pretend otherwise judging by some recent events in 2020 although mixed marriages seem to have cleared hurdles that were more of an issue in 1960 which is the dominant theme in this film. Sylvia Syms, never looking more beautiful, falls in love with a black colleague and wants to marry him, much to the aggravation of her prejudiced mother. Mum, played with gusto by Brenda De Banzie (never better) is shocked to her core when she discovers her daughter is seeing the young black man. Dad, played by John Mills is far more liberal and as a union leader, he's argued for equality in the workplace for recent immigrants and in a particularly punchy scene, fights for Earl Cameron to be promoted. Mr Cameron only recently passed away at the grand age of 102 by the way. What surprised me, looking back 60 years, is that the film seems so relevant still today with black and white issues. It will be better when things can eventually unite peacefully and I have seen improvements in my lifetime but we still have a long way to go otherwise we wouldn't still recognise some of the issues in Flame In The Streets so readily. It's a film that although dated is an interesting snapshot that many could learn from if they recognised the obvious human failings depicted in it, particularly from De Banzie's prejudice, some of the ugly thuggery carried out by white youths and the bad attitudes of some of John Mills' work colleagues. Beware also of offensive racial language although it would be dishonest if all these films were hidden away as we can learn from historical films like this and be aware.

Some people might steer clear of this movie because of its race relations theme. They'd be missing a good movie.

Despite a few warts, this is mostly a well-acted and well-directed drama. To be sure, some of the issues that the characters confront are dated. However, other issues are as relevant today as they were in 1961 when this film was made.

Above all else, I enjoyed the dominating performance of the always reliable John Mills. I enjoyed his stirring speeches as Jacko Palmer, a leader in his labor union. I also enjoyed his sensitive handling of family issues, trying to negotiate a difficult path between the starkly conflicting viewpoints of his wife Nell and his daughter Kathie.

Some of the dialogue in this movie is painful to hear. A couple of white factory workers tell Jacko `We don't like to take orders from spades.' Nell Palmer tells her daughter `They're not like us . If you marry him (her West Indian boyfriend), you'll have a roomful of black children . The thought of them (Kathie and her boyfriend) in bed makes me sick . You're worse than a whore.' Nell uses the `N word' twice.

Not surprisingly, Kathie shrugs off her mother's acid-tongued advice. However, it's harder for her to ignore her father's advice, which is geared toward making her understand the risks of her (marriage) decision. Her reasoning is so clouded by love that she tells him `Prejudice will end someday.' Well, not in her lifetime, as we in the 21st Century know.

The movie is sometimes heavy-handed and melodramatic. Even the title is somewhat `inflammatory' (There is only one flame in the movie ... a large bonfire, a British tradition for the celebration of Guy Fawkes Day). The movie ends without a tidy resolution, but this is fitting considering the predicament of the characters and their social environment.

I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.

Considering this was made over 60 years ago it still packs a powerful punch, not least because of the use of extreme racial language which is not considered PC today.

The sound and vision is amazing. It could have been made last week.

Sylvia Syms and John Mills give stellar performances.

I wonder how it would be received today by the snowflake generation.

The fights at the end, possibly inspired by the 1958 Notting Hill Riots, somewhat distracted from the real issues within the film. These were about relationships and prejudice, non more so than Brenda de Banzie's shameful character.

Historically this is a very interesting and important film.