I have just seen this film for the first time in years. It remains to me as interesting as ever it was. Maybe the story is banal but soap operas re-work the themes endlessly for a reason. Apparently critics, on release, panned it and it did poorly at the box office. I guess the lack of an on-screen romance failed to appeal to the ladies and the lack of blood and guts failed to appeal to the gents. Never mind, when the film reached the small screen it passed on down the generations! I suppose the post-war generation was comfortable with letting the children see this one! It also reminded people of what they did for the war effort.
Very few reviewers here have commented on the mass takeover of traditional male jobs by females. It was simply a dramatised documentary at that level. (My mother thought that her Land Army work was the only really valuable job that she had done - although it was the poorest paid!) I am puzzled by the assumption by some reviewers of mass lesbianism - almost a million more of Britain's men had been killed in WW1 than women. That left a million women on the shelf, due to arithmetic, not lesbianism. And everyone smoked in those days!
A few incongruities stuck out. No references to the food shortages, weird. Would someone really have drunk a whole pint of milk for lunch? "Foyle's War" and "Dad's Army" do not make that mistake. And where were the "Doodlebugs"? Of course, with the outdoor filming taking place in 1943 there would have been none but the lack of reality for the 1944 audience must have jarred. Agriculture was not as backward as shown, Michael Powell would have been referring more to his youthful experiences than to wartime practice. Also forestry during the war was handled on very short term considerations. No shipping space for the usual imports so just about everything was lifted without regards to "sustainability" or even mediocre management. A few lumberjills in the film would have been realistic. Leaving them out was a bit odd. They were not rare.
(As an aside for a film released in May 1944 - was the army march through Canterbury a tiny part of the deception plan to deceive the Germans that the Allies intended to land in the Pas de Calais, not Normandy?) Other details stand out for me, such the sign of the bombed out Singer sewing machine shop stating where they had relocated to. When I was growing up I could see the largest Singer sewing machine factory in Europe from our living room window so the sign stood out. That scene also explained the slight disappointment I had with the shopping centre in Canterbury when I visited it for the first time - OK but it could have been anywhere in the country, nothing special about that 1950s rebuild. Canterbury suffered not just from the Baedeker air raids but also from the fact that any German bomber that did not think that it could reach London preferred to dump its load where it would do some damage other than churn up some fields. The cathedral was hard not to spot and there were (are) two important rail lines going through the town and were worth disrupting.
It is a pity that the film has not been colourised. It would not make much difference to the indoor scenes but the outdoor scenes would be given a great lift. I did once walk from Dover to Canterbury. Pleasant if unremarkable for most part. Crossing the M20 and going alongside it for half a mile does dilute the magic somewhat but as one approaches Patrixbourne from above, the Cathedral comes into view and appears like an ocean going liner towering above a sea of green. It is easy to understand why a filmmaker would want to make something of it.
Also worth noting is the long established pilgrimage from Winchester Cathedral to Canterbury (even medieval Italians have been recorded doing it!) Again, it is easy to understand why a filmmaker would want to play on its themes. Despite there being a "Pilgrim's Way" marked on the Ordnance Survey maps there was no one route - through Rochester Cathedral then along the straight Roman Road was just as popular a route as the "Pilgrim's Way" so it is easy for a filmmaker to contrive of different "ways" into Canterbury.
Very few reviewers here have commented on the mass takeover of traditional male jobs by females. It was simply a dramatised documentary at that level. (My mother thought that her Land Army work was the only really valuable job that she had done - although it was the poorest paid!) I am puzzled by the assumption by some reviewers of mass lesbianism - almost a million more of Britain's men had been killed in WW1 than women. That left a million women on the shelf, due to arithmetic, not lesbianism. And everyone smoked in those days!
A few incongruities stuck out. No references to the food shortages, weird. Would someone really have drunk a whole pint of milk for lunch? "Foyle's War" and "Dad's Army" do not make that mistake. And where were the "Doodlebugs"? Of course, with the outdoor filming taking place in 1943 there would have been none but the lack of reality for the 1944 audience must have jarred. Agriculture was not as backward as shown, Michael Powell would have been referring more to his youthful experiences than to wartime practice. Also forestry during the war was handled on very short term considerations. No shipping space for the usual imports so just about everything was lifted without regards to "sustainability" or even mediocre management. A few lumberjills in the film would have been realistic. Leaving them out was a bit odd. They were not rare.
(As an aside for a film released in May 1944 - was the army march through Canterbury a tiny part of the deception plan to deceive the Germans that the Allies intended to land in the Pas de Calais, not Normandy?) Other details stand out for me, such the sign of the bombed out Singer sewing machine shop stating where they had relocated to. When I was growing up I could see the largest Singer sewing machine factory in Europe from our living room window so the sign stood out. That scene also explained the slight disappointment I had with the shopping centre in Canterbury when I visited it for the first time - OK but it could have been anywhere in the country, nothing special about that 1950s rebuild. Canterbury suffered not just from the Baedeker air raids but also from the fact that any German bomber that did not think that it could reach London preferred to dump its load where it would do some damage other than churn up some fields. The cathedral was hard not to spot and there were (are) two important rail lines going through the town and were worth disrupting.
It is a pity that the film has not been colourised. It would not make much difference to the indoor scenes but the outdoor scenes would be given a great lift. I did once walk from Dover to Canterbury. Pleasant if unremarkable for most part. Crossing the M20 and going alongside it for half a mile does dilute the magic somewhat but as one approaches Patrixbourne from above, the Cathedral comes into view and appears like an ocean going liner towering above a sea of green. It is easy to understand why a filmmaker would want to make something of it.
Also worth noting is the long established pilgrimage from Winchester Cathedral to Canterbury (even medieval Italians have been recorded doing it!) Again, it is easy to understand why a filmmaker would want to play on its themes. Despite there being a "Pilgrim's Way" marked on the Ordnance Survey maps there was no one route - through Rochester Cathedral then along the straight Roman Road was just as popular a route as the "Pilgrim's Way" so it is easy for a filmmaker to contrive of different "ways" into Canterbury.
Tell Your Friends