MichaelArell.com
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Buy
    • Christmas- Music for solo piano
    • St. Mary's Choir Favorites
    • SLIM Original Soundtrack
    • SLIM >
      • SLIM- Accolades
      • SLIM- Letter To The Viewer
      • SLIM- Behind The Scenes
    • Why Are Comedy Films So Critically Underrated?
    • Disorder In The Court
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Buy
    • Christmas- Music for solo piano
    • St. Mary's Choir Favorites
    • SLIM Original Soundtrack
    • SLIM >
      • SLIM- Accolades
      • SLIM- Letter To The Viewer
      • SLIM- Behind The Scenes
    • Why Are Comedy Films So Critically Underrated?
    • Disorder In The Court
  • Donate
  • Contact
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

Self-Directing

film director, independent film, movie making, support independent film, film history, music history, music theory, comedy movie
Thank you for visiting my blog!
Here I share what I have learned about my passions--teaching, music, and film.
Use the categories and archives features to sort posts.
Let me know what you think [email protected]

Categories

All Film Music Profiles Teaching

Archives

August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020

5/17/2021 0 Comments

Profile- The Ladykillers (1955)

Picture

Context

American movies dominated the motion picture market of the English-speaking world for most of the Twentieth Century.  In order to fully understand the ability of British comedies to succeed globally in the 1950s, one must first understand the situation in the United States at the time.  

First, with the American film industry during much of the 1950s living in fear of the Communism investigations by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, comedy, as the most subversive of all film genres and the most critical of the status quo, stood the most to lose.  Second, when television became extremely popular in the 1950s, it welcomed tamer comedians such as Lucille Ball, Jackie Gleason, Red Skelton, Jack Benny, and Sid Caesar.  Third, as a reaction to the popularity of television, film studios attempted to win back audiences with big-budget, widescreen epics, featuring grand, dramatic subjects.  Of course, most comedy was not well suited to this sort of exhibition.  

The fourth reason that we do not see much pure comedy film in the 1950s is because so much of the comedy of the time appeared in the form of musical comedy.  Unlike comedies with musical interludes, like many of the Marx Brothers’ pictures, the musical numbers in a musical comedy are part of the action—in fact, they drive the narrative.  While the Marx Brothers could perform a song as a mere aside, the characters in a musical share their thoughts, feelings, motivations, plans, and reveal plot points through song within the scope of the narrative.  Comic stars such as Gene Kelly, Danny Kaye, Bob Hope, and Bing Crosby featured most of their work in the form of musicals.  Even most of the films of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis are arguably musical comedies.  With American film focused elsewhere, other English language comedies could arise.

England’s Ealing Studios, under the direction of Michael Balcon, first excelled in the field of documentaries before Balcon realized that British comedies could carve their own niche in the international film market. The most significant performer at Ealing studios was Alec Guinness, who starred in what are today considered Ealing’s greatest comedies, Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer 1949), The Lavender Hill Mob (Charles Crichton 1951), The Man in the White Suit (Alexander Mackendrick 1951), and The Ladykillers (Mackendrick 1955).  

Today, when film historians write about British film comedies of the 1950s, most likely they are speaking of the Ealing comedies, which set the tone for later British comedies.

Sir Alec Guinness (1914-2000) was one of the Twentieth Century’s most versatile actors.  He began his career on stage and appeared in dozens of plays throughout England, transitioning to mainstream film in the 1940s, although he never left the theatre.  In 1946, Guinness first worked with director David Lean on Great Expectations, resulting in a nearly 40 year collaboration with director Lean in such notable films as Oliver Twist (1948), The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965), and A Passage To India (1984).  Later in his career, his portrayal of Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi in George Lucas’ Star Wars saga brought him millions of more fans from younger generations.  Guinness brought experience to the cast of Star Wars as the most respected actor involved in the production at the time.  
Throughout his career, Guinness demonstrated that an actor did not need to specialize in comedy or drama in order to achieve success—indeed, his comic knack for timing complemented his dramatic sense of character study.

Picture

Reception

The Ladykillers was a commercial hit across the world.  Most critics’ reviews at the time were favorable, though many agree that the film has several flaws, of which the reader will soon learn.  Variety liked the picture, especially the cast, “Cecil Parker strikes just the right note as a conman posing as an army officer. Herbert Lom broods gloomily as the most ruthless of the plotters, with Peter Sellers contrasting well…. Danny Green completes the quintet”, although the reviewer felt that “Guinness tends to overact the sinister leader”, apparently unaware of the Principle of Comic Logic, particularly the quality of exaggeration.  Bosley Crowther of the New York Times called the film a success, also praising the cast, especially Johnson, “a performer who does one of the nicest bits of character acting you could ask for at any time”.  He adds however that he felt it was “slightly labored. Perhaps it does have the air of an initially brilliant inspiration that has not worked out as easily as it seemed it should” and that “Michael Balcon’s production in color gives the whole thing a slightly garish look that is not wholly consistent with the humor”—once again supporting the argument that the praised technology of the time, particularly full-color presentations, did not always serve comedy film well.  Andrew C. Mayer of The Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, an American trade publication, was more critical of the film than his contemporaries, stating it “takes itself a little too seriously…. The film is therefore necessarily miscast because it is badly conceived; but it does have its humorous moments”.  He was especially critical of Guinness, “in his new role he is far less attractive; in all his previous performances he was, basically, a sympathetic character who occasionally got away with murder, or some lesser offense…. The lighthearted quality of Guinness' early pictures is gone”, overlooking Guinness’ preference for playing a broad array of characters in his career.  I believe that Mayer misses the distinctly British qualities of its humor—the understated manner and utterly serious delivery.

Recent reviews have been more favorable than the contemporary reviews.  In 2002, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian (London) called it “Subversive, hilarious and more English than Elgar, though written by the American expatriate William Rose, this is one of director Alexander Mackendrick’s masterpieces and a major jewel in the Ealing Studios canon”.  Adrian Hennigan of the BBC described it as a “wonderfully macabre black comedy that really does improve with age”.  Hennigan praised the cast saying, “Guinness delivers a typically mesmerising performance…. While Guinness’ teeth could have won a best supporting actor award in their own right, every performance shines through in smog-filled London”.  It is important to note that these two domestic reviewers give the film more praise than the following American reviewers, who come from a different cultural background and experience of comedy.  While James Kendrick of QNetwork called it “very much a stagy production”, he adds, “it is still one of the funniest and most wicked British comedies ever made”.  As with any film, there are of course reviewers that find it flawed.  Many such critics note how Mrs. Wilberforce seems almost too oblivious throughout the picture—not acknowledging how she follows the absentminded quality of the Principle of Comic Sense.  Although he liked the film, Clark Douglas of DVD Verdict did say, “The film’s premise is honestly a little bit thin”.  Dennis Schwartz of Ozus’ World Movie Reviews agreed, adding that the film is “Always witty but never fully believable (it takes a lot of crafty writing and smart acting to make the flawed plot line so workable)”.  The worst review comes from Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com, who gave it 3 out of 5 stars in a 2004 review.  In the review, he said, “As black comedies go, The Ladykillers is neither terribly black nor terribly comedic”.  It is important to note that, unlike many other British comedies, reviewers from both the United Kingdom and the United States seemed to agree on many aspects of the film.

Picture

Legacy

Around the time of Ealing Studios’ 100th Anniversary in 2002, James Christopher of The London Times called it “THE finest Ealing comedy…. The humour is so dark, steely, and polished that it slides through the drama like a knife”.   


In the liner notes to the 2002 DVD of the film, filmmaker Rand Vossler describes the appeal of the comedy, “Mackendrick deftly handles Rose’s masterful script that derives most of its humor by contrasting the callousness of the thugs with the polite Victorian sensibilities of their landlady and her circle of friends”.  The addition of The Ladykillers to the canon of British motion pictures added not only to the prestige of British comedy worldwide, but of British film in general.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Michael Arell Blog: Teaching, Music, and Movies


    [email protected]

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.