Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer, 1949)

"It is so difficult to make a neat job of killing people with whom one is not on friendly terms"

Introduction

Last week I noted how Stanley Kubrick seemed to be a theme in these articles, well it seems that Alec Guinness is additionally becoming a bit of a focus point with Great Expectations, The Ladykillers, and now, Kind Hearts and Coronets all starring the unforgettable actor. As all three films were released between 1946 and 1955, they all deal with issues of class and social difference. Additionally, alongside If..., all four films feature in the Top 13 BFI British Films. Its seems that we Brits have issues about social class.

As discussed previously, Great Expectations portrays Pip supported by finances that are not his, whilst The Ladykillers portrays an educated 'Professeur' conduct a bank-robbery. Kind Hearts and Coronets is much more direct. Our lead character Louis Mazzini (Dennis Price) has been cut-out of his inheritance due to his Mothers choice to marry a "poor" singer - opposed to marrying someone from money. Louis' father dies when he is born and Mother and Son struggle to cope financially - constantly asking for support from their relatives but to no avail. So Louis takes matters into his own hands and, one-by-one, kills off each of the family so that he will become the next member of the family to inherit the estate of the D'Ascoyne's.

Re-released in 2011

Peter Bradshaw for The Guardian, on the films re-release, stated how this film shows how "the Ealing genre reached utter perfection". Akin to Alfred Hitchcocks' upper-class thrillers such as Rope, Dial M For Murder and Suspicion (if the film had the original ending), the story portrays a serial killer who is intelligent, arrogant and expects life to always go to plan. Louis is quite comfortable in the murder of each family-member, with no regret or remorse - only the frustration at the end that he was sentenced to a crime he did not commit.

Unlike many Ealing Comedies, this film was dramatically changed when originally released in America. As I understand, the US Criterion collection has released a double-disc set with both versions of the film. Crucially, what was originally a highly-ambiguous ending became clear cut as the Hays Office clarified Louis' arrest - opposed to an ending to the film that hints at the threat of his arrest, without showing it.

Chalfont and the D'Ascoyne's

In a similar way to Sleuth, the castle and estate which Louis desperately seeks, clearly shows how much is at stake. The castle is, in fact, Leeds Castle, in Kent, and dating back to 1119, like Sleuth and Great Expectations it is clear that location represents the old idealogies and what has changed. Like Michael Caine's Italian roots, Mazzini has the same paternal background and, as the younger generation, they are replacing the older generations traditions. At one, very telling point, the upper-class love-interest of Edith D'Ascoyne states how the D'Ascoyne's know much about "The rights of nobility and little of its duty".

This sentiment may be true, but it is clear that the successor in Louis Mazzini assumes he has a 'right' to the financial wealth and believes it so much that he will murder others for it. His duty is corrupted as he gains more power in the family and assumes control of their assets and businesses.

Alec the Chameleon

If someone was asked to name an actor who played multiple roles in a single film, the first three that many may consider are Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professer, Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future Part II and Peter Sellers in Dr Strangelove. I can only stress how incredible Guinness is in Kind Hearts and Coronets as he portrays eight different characters - from Captains who go down with their ship to Lady Agatha, a womens-rights activist, shot down in an air balloon. Each role is barely recognisable if you didn't pay attention to his thin-lips and distinctive nose - his mannerisms, accents and attitude is completely different between each character. It comes as no suprise that Alec Guinness would go on to become an international film star working alongside David Lean in The Bridge on the River Kwai and on Lucas' Star Wars. But if you were ever unsure about whether he could 'do' comedy, it is clear here that he can.

The super-suave serial killer Louis Mazzini and multi-role-playing of Alec Guinness are not the only aspects to take away from the film. The photography was directed by Douglas Slocombe, who had worked on multiple Ealing comedies including The Lavender Hill Mob and The Man in the White Suit - both of which featured Alec Guinness. But Spielberg fans will recognise him more from his later credits in the first-three Indiana Jones adventures - in fact, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is his last film credit in 1989.

You can see from Kind Hearts and Coronets that the Ealing Studios clearly had something very special - stories with social and political talking points whilst casting actors who could not only play the required role, but also bring a personal touch that effortlessly ensures that the film remains timeless. I am sure that you could further explore the duality between the two love-interests of Louis Mazzini and clarify how the women may represent different social-classes - and the unique position Louis Mazzini is in as someone raised in poverty and yet, how he is desperately ambitious to work his way back into the family he had been removed from - but that would take the fun away from the sheer joy of watching the events play out to a finale that raises more questions than it answers.

The Ladykillers (Alexander Mackendrick, 1955)

"I always think the windows are the eyes of a house, and didn't someone say the eyes are the windows of the soul?"

Introduction

One thing which is fascinating about Classic Cinema is how the themes and ideas represent the social context - but in many cases, it represents the current social climate too. The Ladykillers was remade by The Coen Brothers, starring Tom Hanks in the role originally played by Alec Guinness, and moved from Kings Cross in London to the Missisippi, USA. This original, far from merely using the word "f***" over 80-times (a useful piece of trivia about The Coens remake), according to Geoff Andrew is a "black comedy of English manners" which, at the time, served to "reinforce a society trapped in the past". Personally, I believe it holds many themes that link with society today - and crucially the corrupted, mixed-up logic of those who are intelligent enough to pull-off a bank-job ... but who cannot face the music when confronted by someone who is sincere enough not to join their gang, and who would rather the men take responsibility for their actions.

Mrs Wilberforce

The crux of this film is Mrs Wilberforce (masterfully played by Katie Johnson) and she is what engages us fully in the story. Mrs Wilberforce is a staple to the society - she regularly assists and speaks to the police about the local issues. She knows the local shop-owners and they know her. She is very much a citizen who takes great pride in what defines and ensures a successful society by actively playing her role. You could argue that this trust in her nature is what is gets her into this mess - as she ultimately trusts the shadowy man who follows her home. Professer Marcus (Alex Guiness) is the shadowy-figure that asks to rent her accomodation. Well-mannered, well-educated and, in an arty-kinda-way, well-dressed. He is still a sleazy and creepy. And then there are his crew of thieves...

The Group of Bandits

The characters created are creatively simple and clear-cut. We have the Army Major (Cecil Parker) - clearly one of the infliences of Stephen Fry's character in Blackadder Goes Forth. The everyman Mr Robinson, which ironically, is played by Peter Sellers - an actor famous for his multiple-role playing antics on Dr Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying And Loved The Bomb. Next up is "One Round" (Danny Green), the big-dope - a towering, well-built man ... who is also a tad slow. And the gang is finished off with the Italian Gangster, Mr Harvey (Herbert Lom) - a little bit too dangerous and only on this theft through the recommendation of Professeur Marcus. Mr Harvey is the 'loose' cannon and you never quite trust him - off the top of my head, a more comedic version of "Raoul" in Panic Room. Nobody is clearly from the same sect of society Mrs Wilburforce hails from - a high-ranking Major in the Army, a "Professeur", a well-spoken "everyman", a well-dressed Italian and ... well, maybe "One-Round" is your average working-class gentleman.

Regarding Mrs Wilburforce, we are also introduced to her friends briefly - all small women with little glasses and small hats, wearing cardigans. Mrs Wilburforce is not alone.

The 'Human' Element

The final act of the film kills off one-character at a time as the bank-robbers try and (a) steal the money for themselves and (b) attempt to choose who will kill-off Mrs Wilburforce. As the group gets smaller and smaller, we eventually see Mr Harvey and Professeur Marcus discuss the night previously and the frustration the Professeur feels - he realises Mrs Wilburforce is "the human element" and that this is what has destroyed their plan.

The ideas we can take from the film are profound as the bank-robbers get away with their crime - it is Mrs Wilburforce, the citizen of the country, who forces them to acknowledge their crime. The bank-job itself shows how, like those responsible for the recent financial crash, those who can commit the crimes are intelligent people and are more than capable of pulling it off. Indeed, no-one has been held responsible for the bank-job of the last decade. As noted, they are intelligent and well-educated - and the argument that its "only a farthing per person" is the type of logic we need to accept with regards to how we are to get "out" of this finanical climate - as noted on my analysis of If... - the British Prime Minister claims "we are all in this together". We all pitch in and the original crime is ignored.

The gang kill each other through their efforts to double-cross and con the other members of the group - is this hinting at the idea that all this greed over years - possibly centuries - will ultimately just destroy itself in one way or another. The criminals cannot kill the decent woman who they have decieved - the reason they can commit such a crime is because they don't see those who are affected. Detached, they can rob a bank - and it hints that Mr Harvey kas killed people - but when they get to know who is directly affected and are held accountable for their actions, they cannot bring themselves to continue in this manner. In fact, they don't even seem to like the 'Old Lady', or Mrs Lopside (implying that her attitude is off-balance?), and so it could even be highlighting the social divide between the white-collar criminals and the upper class against the "general public".

The film clearly portrays how, despite the moral-issues surrounding the definition of what is right and wrong, this is the society we live in and those who are in the position to rob a bank - our five-piece gang - are, in fact, right in their assertion that the money will be re-distributed. Mrs Wilburforce finds out in the final scene that she can keep the money and it doesn't make a slightest bit of difference on the grand scale of things. The difference in how that money is used is what is at the forefront of our minds in that final scene. The greed of those who commit the crime meant that the money is not distributed effectively whilst Mrs Wilburforce is happy to hand over huge sums of money to the artist in the street and will spend her money sensibly (on umbrella's) whereas, the detached, destructive, greedy Ladykillers only thought of themselves. It seems that Mrs Wilburforces socialist attitude towards the economy is held by people who are directly part of society, unlike those who simply want to make money from society.

Still don't think it is relevant to todays world? It turns out that the play is enjoying a run on the West End in London as this is published ... with star-of-In-The-Loop Peter Capaldi playing the Alec Guinness role...

Great Expectations (David Lean, 1946)

"I have come back to let in the sunlight!"

Introduction

The trailer for Great Expectations displays the text "What forbidding mystery lay behind the shutters of Satis House?". By 1946, Citizen Kane and Xanadu had already screened across the world whilst, prior to that, the Oscar-winning Rebecca portrayed the mystical Manderlay too. It seems that cinema had a huge interest in large, decaying buildings - a relic of the past and an old tradition that, within its walls, secures madness in the mind of its tenants. Great Expectations is much less obsessed with the 'mystery' of Satis House - despite what the trailer says - and is much more obsessed with the world outside of the house and the fascinating characters that inhabit that world - we all know Pip, Estella, Magwich, Mrs Havisham and Mr Jaggers - and, more importantly, we find out about the different strands of society these characters come from.

A Historic Text

The story was originally written in 1860 by Charles Dickens and, since then, it has been portrayed many, many times - with a 2012 release directed by Mike Newell (Ironically, another Harry Potter director in Alfonso Cuaron helmed the 1998 adaptation) and to star Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes and Jeremy Irvine as 'Pip' (The screenplay adaptation is by David Nicholl's - the writer of One Day, Starter for Ten and The Understudy). The fascination resides in the multiple themes Dicken's raises that are still relevant today - issues about class and society, the idea about your heritage and where you are from - the insight into identity and how your upbringing affects your outlook on life and how you treat others. Our lead role in Pip (John Mills) is a role whereby from the very start we see how, through no fault of his own, he is forced to commit a crime - stealing bread and food for an escaped-convict (Finlay Currie). Though this guilt is carried throughout the film, it is nevertheless an attitude which is condoned in the morals of his good friend Joe (Bernard Miles) who states that he "wouldn't let someone starve to death". This kind gesture of Pip, though criminal in its theft, is an act which contributes to the rest of his life as an unknown beneficiary funds Pip to move to London and become a 'Gentleman of Great Expectations'.

Small-Scale to Grand-Epic

David Lean is either known for the sprawling epics he created in the 50's such as Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai or the small-scale theatre-adaptations of Noel Coward including Brief Encounter and Blithe Spirit. Great Expectations is the film which shows how Lean is moving away from the small-scale drama's and towards bigger and grander stories. We have the small-scale story involving Pip and Joe or Pip and Hubert becoming close friends whilst Pip and Estella cross paths at multiple points. We also have the much more ambitious scale as we see the opening-shot of Pip running across the marshes towards his parents grave - almost hinting at the deserts of Lawrence of Arabia and potentially the single-child running across the frame akin to Empire of the Sun. The silhouettes backed onto the stunning vista's lose no sense of scale in black and white. Even the themes become much more prevalent as we see the judge sentence a group of convicts to death - the slow pan across each criminal reveals the area of society they hail from. These are the underclass and poverty-stricken people who are forced to turn to crime merely to stay alive. This theme shows a bigger story to tell - and a scale that is not small at all, but in fact a global issue regarding the divide between the upper and lower class. Even the isolated, controlling and heartless character of Mrs Havisham (Martita Hunt) is clearly representing the upper-class and their lack of love and kindness - the very idea that the upper-class are blissfully unaware of the havoc they cause to other sects of society.

It is worth noting how Joe Wright looked upon David Lean's Great Expectations as an influence for Atonement. I can see how John Mills and James McAvoy both have an air of innocence and yet a rugged working-class look that fits well in David Lean's British films. Joe Wright specifically noted how:

"There are moments like Pip running through the graveyard with the trees wiping the frame from right to left as he runs. Then Pip slams into a great trunk of a tree which turns out to be Magwich. It's another moment of genius ... There are technical lessons to be learned from Lean - but emotional ones as well".

That sequence is heightened by the great sound effects of wind and tree's bending and twisting - as if to say that at any moment something will break...

The Future Looks Bright ... 

It truly is a great film - and I think the only thing which may turn people off is the Georgian context: You either like period drama's or you don't. David Lean's use of shadow and scale is something to be marvelled at throughout the film, but it is by no means exclusively static shooting. In fact, an expressionistic sequence as Pip is ill and staggers home to bed rivals those regular New York scenes as Pip walks directly to camera as passers-by knock past him and we see light flashing as the camera takes us to his bedroom before he passes out. 

One of the closing lines are "I have come back to let in the sunlight!" and indeed, David Lean is working on a bigger canvas and larger scale - Lean is opening the windows and showing all the detail to these characters and situations. We see Jean Simmons and Alec Guinness in early roles whilst a short sequence as Pip and Wemmick (Ivor Barnard) have to nod at different points to entertain Wemmick's "Aged P" sprinkle a little humour into the mix. It was still a few years off before Lean set off for Hollywood, but clearly they knew he was coming. As the film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Writing at the Oscars ... it was only a matter of time before he would arrive.

A-Z #30: Bridge on the River Kwai

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and justifying why I own the films... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#30 - Bridge on the River Kwai 

Why did I buy it?

I swear, my Dad has so much to answer for my interest in film. As much as he might despise the film-obsessive attitude I have, he has much to answer for. Akin to Ben-Hur, this 3+ hours epic film was a favourite for those Sunday afternoons. I never knew the importance of the film until many years later - David Lean directing, winning Best Picture at the Oscars for 1957, alongside winning big at the BAFTA's and the Golden Globes.

Why do I still own it?

 

Because the story is fascinating and, dare I say it, incredibly unique. Alec Guinness is captured and, as a Prisoner of War, is ordered to build a bridge and takes so much pride in the bridge that he doesn't realise that he is ultimately helping the enemy. An awesome finale - "my god - what have I done" before, Guinness falls on the lever.

But is it too big and sprawling? Maybe you don't need so much David Lean?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.