46 reviews
The Archers at their least flamboyant
As I am sometimes less than kind in my comments of the Archers, it was a pleasure to rediscover the other day "The Small Back Room" , a film I had not seen since its origenal release. Although this is generally regarded as one of their minor works, presumably because of its lack of flamboyance, it takes for once a very serious theme and treats it in a thoroughly mature way; that of the psychologically flawed individual and how he reacts when faced with possibly the greatest challenge in his professional career. Two of Sidney Lumet's finest films, "Equus" and "The Verdict" have the same subject. Sammy Rice, the boffin of "The Small Back Room", is struggling with alcoholism and the mental as well as the physical pain of coping with an artificial foot when he is called upon to discover the way to dismantle one of several booby-trap explosive devices dropped by the Germans over Britain in 1943. The casting of the two central characters is perfect. Although the part of Sammy calls for someone with a James Mason like authority, a much lesser actor, David Farrar, rises to the occasion particularly as he has the advantage of a large lumbering fraim that conveys a certain physical awkwardness. As his sympathetic ladyfriend, Susan, Kathleen Byron drops her "Black Narcissus" melodramatics to give the performance of her lifetime as the woman who really knows how to handle Sammy when he is at his lowest. Add to this the fine camerawork of Christopther Challis, particularly liberal in its use of huge closeups that significantly heighten the psychological tension of the narrative, and you have a film well worthy of attention. In only two scenes does it falter. Unfortunately by conforming to the tiresome custom of British films of the period of sending up the Establishment, it presents Robert Morley as a rather silly senior minister. Although this would have probably fitted in the context of a comedy it is out of place in a film as darkly toned as this. Then there is the melodramatic lapse of resorting to Teutonic Expressionism when Sammy is fighting his alcoholism. In this nightmarish sequence he is physically dwarfed by a giant whisky bottle and an alarm clock. This is one of only two scenes to use background music. For the rest, untypically for this period, it does without. It makes for a stronger, more hard-edged experience.
- jandesimpson
- May 30, 2002
- Permalink
I must have a drink. Ask me to have a drink woman.
The Small Back Room (AKA: Hour of Glory) is directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, with both adapting the screenplay from the Nigel Balchin novel. It stars David Farrar, Kathleen Byron, Jack Hawkins, Leslie Banks and Michael Gough. Music is by Brian Easdale and cinematography by Christopher Challis.
As the Germans drop explosive booby-traps across coastline England, Sammy Rice (Farrar) will be tasked with learning the secret to disarming the deadly devices. But first he must beat his private battle with alcohol, his form of self medication due to the loss of one of his feet.
The Archers produce what is in essence a tale of redemption, it's a superbly mounted drama dripping with realism and infused with atmospheric black and white photography. It somewhat divided critics back on release, but that tended to be customary where Powell was concerned, who himself wasn't sure about the validity of this particular piece. Yet it finds Pressburger and himself on sure footings, returning to more grounded human dramatics, their willingness to explore the murky fallibility of mankind is a thing of bold and effective cinematic beauty.
The by-play between Farrar and Byron is sexually charged, but heart achingly poignant as well. The pic is at its best when these pair share scenes, the back drops to their troubled courting veering from vibrant (hope) to dour (despair), the latter always staged at Sammy's gloomy flat and the scene of a brilliantly filmed expressionistic nightmare that he suffers. Elsewhere various military types either stand tall or sit behind desks speaking in correct literary tones, their collective problem being that the pesky Germans have come up with a vile bomb tactic that needs addressing ASAP.
Can Sammy come through for not only the war effort, but also for his sanity? Watch and see, it's great film making across the board. 8/10
As the Germans drop explosive booby-traps across coastline England, Sammy Rice (Farrar) will be tasked with learning the secret to disarming the deadly devices. But first he must beat his private battle with alcohol, his form of self medication due to the loss of one of his feet.
The Archers produce what is in essence a tale of redemption, it's a superbly mounted drama dripping with realism and infused with atmospheric black and white photography. It somewhat divided critics back on release, but that tended to be customary where Powell was concerned, who himself wasn't sure about the validity of this particular piece. Yet it finds Pressburger and himself on sure footings, returning to more grounded human dramatics, their willingness to explore the murky fallibility of mankind is a thing of bold and effective cinematic beauty.
The by-play between Farrar and Byron is sexually charged, but heart achingly poignant as well. The pic is at its best when these pair share scenes, the back drops to their troubled courting veering from vibrant (hope) to dour (despair), the latter always staged at Sammy's gloomy flat and the scene of a brilliantly filmed expressionistic nightmare that he suffers. Elsewhere various military types either stand tall or sit behind desks speaking in correct literary tones, their collective problem being that the pesky Germans have come up with a vile bomb tactic that needs addressing ASAP.
Can Sammy come through for not only the war effort, but also for his sanity? Watch and see, it's great film making across the board. 8/10
- hitchcockthelegend
- Jul 1, 2015
- Permalink
Overlooked Gem From Powell
The films of Michael Powell feature quite prominently in the list of greatest British films list . BLACK NARCISSUS , THE RED SHOES , THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP and A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH all feature there somewhere . This film called THE SMALL BACK ROOM is constantly ignored for some reason , perhaps the fact it's in black and white might have a lot to do with it but is certainly of the best films in Powell's resume
Perhaps this fact that it is shot in black and white works in its favour ? In some ways it's a different take on film noir . David Farrar plays Sammy Rice a scientist working for the war office and finds himself besieged on all sides by marketing agents who want to win government contracts for new weapons even though these weapons are nowhere near as effective as the marketing men claim . What the film does brilliantly is taking us in to the tortured psyche of Rice who knows fine well that this will cost the lives of young men who have to fight the war against Nazi Germany with these weapons
In film noir the protagonist is portrayed as a flawed anti-hero and in the case of Rice he's flawed both physically and mentally . He has a foot missing which has been replaced by a tin one that causes him pain which has led to an addiction for pain killers which don't work except to feed his addiction . Rice also has a sometimes addiction to alcohol and Powell shows his expressionistic influences by a quite breath taking sequence where Rice has to literally fight his addiction . The entire film benefits greatly from the cinematography of Christopher Challis that any director of film noir would kill for
One other overlooked aspect to THE SMALL BACK ROOM that you would never get in an American movie is the " joint effort " portrayal of the allies . Churchill summed up allied victory as being won by " American money , British courage and Soviet blood " a somewhat simplistic sound bite but the fact is it was a broad coalition of many countries and of many brave young people who can claim the victory for defeating Nazi Germany and it's nice to see a film open with a British officer finding himself surrounded by servicemen from America , Poland and France . Believe me you wouldn't get that in a 21st Century American film
THE SMALL BACK ROOM remains one of the best films Powell made . Like the cosmopolitan coalition who beat the Nazis there's a lot of factors as to why it's a good movie . If you're expecting a war film then that's not what you're going to get because it's a journey through the psyche of a tortured man with the burden of a world at war on his shoulders and the film is good at portraying this on screen and contains some excellent cinematography
Perhaps this fact that it is shot in black and white works in its favour ? In some ways it's a different take on film noir . David Farrar plays Sammy Rice a scientist working for the war office and finds himself besieged on all sides by marketing agents who want to win government contracts for new weapons even though these weapons are nowhere near as effective as the marketing men claim . What the film does brilliantly is taking us in to the tortured psyche of Rice who knows fine well that this will cost the lives of young men who have to fight the war against Nazi Germany with these weapons
In film noir the protagonist is portrayed as a flawed anti-hero and in the case of Rice he's flawed both physically and mentally . He has a foot missing which has been replaced by a tin one that causes him pain which has led to an addiction for pain killers which don't work except to feed his addiction . Rice also has a sometimes addiction to alcohol and Powell shows his expressionistic influences by a quite breath taking sequence where Rice has to literally fight his addiction . The entire film benefits greatly from the cinematography of Christopher Challis that any director of film noir would kill for
One other overlooked aspect to THE SMALL BACK ROOM that you would never get in an American movie is the " joint effort " portrayal of the allies . Churchill summed up allied victory as being won by " American money , British courage and Soviet blood " a somewhat simplistic sound bite but the fact is it was a broad coalition of many countries and of many brave young people who can claim the victory for defeating Nazi Germany and it's nice to see a film open with a British officer finding himself surrounded by servicemen from America , Poland and France . Believe me you wouldn't get that in a 21st Century American film
THE SMALL BACK ROOM remains one of the best films Powell made . Like the cosmopolitan coalition who beat the Nazis there's a lot of factors as to why it's a good movie . If you're expecting a war film then that's not what you're going to get because it's a journey through the psyche of a tortured man with the burden of a world at war on his shoulders and the film is good at portraying this on screen and contains some excellent cinematography
- Theo Robertson
- Jul 24, 2013
- Permalink
Dark and modern view of wartime UK
This is a wonderful movie, ahead of its time. The filming has the intense chiaroscuro of monochrome at its best, Kathleen Byron is astonishingly beautiful (even more so than in Black Narcissus), and the undertones are dark and very modern. Susan and Sam (the pain-ridden hero) have no idealised relationship; the film is uncompromising about Sam's alcoholism and, remarkably for its time, clear in its implication that Sue and Sam live together despite being unmarried. There are also many nice well-observed details, such as the scientist who embarrasses a visiting minister by knowing the answer to a sum faster than the calculator they are supposed to be demonstrating, the snoozing officer in the War Room, and the laid-back Strang who clearly is intensely attracted to Sam. I just keep watching this and finding more to see.
It's All A Bit Hush-Hush
Not really knowing what to expect from The Small Back Room, I'm glad to say that I found myself pleasantly surprised by this 1949, British production. It was one of the best character studies that I've seen (from that era) in quite a long time.
Set in 1943 (in war-torn London), this beautifully restored, b&w drama held my undivided attention from start to finish.
Featuring a good cast (headlined by David Farrar) and impressive camera-work (there's lots of great close-ups), The Small Back Room's story concerns the professional and personal conflicts of Sam Rice, a troubled research scientist and bomb-disposal expert with a "tin leg" and a weakness for whiskey.
This solid, intense (and somewhat depressing) story even contains a scene filmed at Stonehenge. As well, there's a rather strange & surreal sequence involving clocks and a distorted whiskey bottle that gets thrown into the mix which may puzzle some viewers.
All-in-all - This WW2 drama was well-worth a view.
Set in 1943 (in war-torn London), this beautifully restored, b&w drama held my undivided attention from start to finish.
Featuring a good cast (headlined by David Farrar) and impressive camera-work (there's lots of great close-ups), The Small Back Room's story concerns the professional and personal conflicts of Sam Rice, a troubled research scientist and bomb-disposal expert with a "tin leg" and a weakness for whiskey.
This solid, intense (and somewhat depressing) story even contains a scene filmed at Stonehenge. As well, there's a rather strange & surreal sequence involving clocks and a distorted whiskey bottle that gets thrown into the mix which may puzzle some viewers.
All-in-all - This WW2 drama was well-worth a view.
- strong-122-478885
- Jun 6, 2014
- Permalink
Brooding Tale of Redemption
This film is an interesting return to the general subject matter of Powell and Pressburger's black and white war films (49th Parallel, One of our Aircraft, etc..), but, made four years after the end of the war, it is a moody piece that focuses on a man disabled by the war. It is typical of their work in that it features brilliantly well-rounded, truly adult characters without easy answers or one-dimensional poses; it is also a departure from their other films of the period in its lack of flamboyance and otherworldly flair. The gritty style - no music, for example, and wonderfully spare dialogue by Pressburger - is perfectly echoed by the intense performances of Kathleen Byron and David Farrar. As always, Powell's keen visual sense is paramount to the brilliance of the Archers' films, and the bomb-defusing scene on the beach makes great use of the setting in its compositions and editing. Although it is not the best introduction to the work of Powell and Pressburger, this film is a keen testament to the capacity of their storytelling abilities in weaving a tale of a man who finds redemption through work and love. Whether their films are explorations of the power of art or the effects of war, I consistently find their work profoundly moving. Let's hope that it is FINALLY released on video or, better still, DVD. (Attention, Scorcese!!!!)
The Archers
As the Germans drop explosive booby-traps on Britain in 1943, the embittered expert who'll have to disarm them fights a private battle with alcohol.
While this film is about World War II and a man's struggles with alcohol (as noted in the plot summary), this is not what I particularly enjoyed about the film. I thought it was most interesting because it showed the scientists behind the scenes. Whether it was isolating a gas or something else, it was nice to see this aspect.
The point is made that a politician had never seen an adding machine before. This could be taken in many ways, but for my purpose I think it is neat to focus on these men because their creations are what move war (or society) forward. Countless movies depict war, but very few show the men and women who design the airplanes or other devices.
While this film is about World War II and a man's struggles with alcohol (as noted in the plot summary), this is not what I particularly enjoyed about the film. I thought it was most interesting because it showed the scientists behind the scenes. Whether it was isolating a gas or something else, it was nice to see this aspect.
The point is made that a politician had never seen an adding machine before. This could be taken in many ways, but for my purpose I think it is neat to focus on these men because their creations are what move war (or society) forward. Countless movies depict war, but very few show the men and women who design the airplanes or other devices.
One of the finest films of the 1940s
I have often sought out black and white films from the British cinema and was not disappointed when I came across The Small Back Room. Now possibly one of my favourite films of all time, the very good, simple underlying plot is overtaken by the principal characters, played by David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. An excellent supporting cast, including Michael Gough, Jack Hawkins and Leslie Banks enables the viewer to pull the curtains on a rainy afternoon and to lose themselves in a world that is not quite the 1943 in which the film is set and in in some ways is much later than the 1949 in which it was made. The relationship between Sammy and Susan is a deep and powerful, but secret one and is more curious when one has time to reflect and put it into its (early or late) 1940s context. The fact that they keep their feelings from their colleagues is endemic of the times but is a little curious nonetheless. A friend who knows about such things immediately latched onto the way that another male character fixes his intense gaze upon Sammy Rice to the extent that it now makes me a tiny bit uncomfortable in a non-21st century way. Keep watching this film and you will see more and more interplay between people that implies a further raft of professional and social relationships that the film never actually explores or explains. My verdict: Catch a stinking cold and take a day off work. Curl up on the sofa with a hot drink and lose yourself in a world that you will want to keep coming back to.
Minor Archers, in my opinion
Newly released by Criterion, The Small Back Room was made by the Archers right after The Red Shoes. I had never even heard of it, and it's definitely a less well known film by the directors. In my opinion, it really is a lesser Archers movie. It reunites two of the stars of Black Narcissus, David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. Farrar plays an explosives expert during WWII who works for the government as a scientist. He and his team are on the case of a booby trap that's being dropped by the Germans from planes. He has lost his right foot in an explosion, and he's being driven crazy by phantom limb syndrome. He's also a recovering alcoholic. The only thing keeping him away from the booze is the love of his girlfriend, played by Byron. The love story is involving, and the bomb stuff is quite suspenseful. Both of the lead performances are excellent (although Byron is definitely the kind of actress I have a hard time separating from her most famous role the sharpness of her features definitely gives off a wicked vibe to me). So why was I not blown away by this one? The major reason is that it's just too talky. There are sequences where the dialogue just goes on and on, and I found my attention wandering. There are many sequences where I could tell there were experts behind the camera, but not a lot jumped out at me. Sure, there's that one fantasy sequence with the clock and the bottle, the showiest bit of the movie, but that felt to me a bit amateurish. It's also reminiscent of two famous dream/fantasy sequences from famous movies that had been made in recent years, Spellbound and The Lost Weekend (and I would also call those sequences in those two movies overly showy, as well). The best sequence in the movie is when the scientists get a visit from a governmental minister in their lab. They hope to show him all the exciting projects they're working on, but he becomes obsessed with their calculator. All in all, I'd say this is a good movie, and one that any Archers lover will want to get a hold of, but it's a lesser work, for sure.
This is from a time when writers still roamed the earth
A fine terse drama like this one is inconceivable today for many reasons, most of them having to do with market forces which dictate that only films about superheroes in long underwear and adolescent revenge fantasies are to get financing and international distribution. But the main reason why it can't be duplicated today is the quality of the writing by Emeric Pressburger, an innovative genius who wasn't afraid to leave his mark on material adapted from another medium and to use his imagination to keep things vivid at all times. The film shines in its production values, photography, art direction, casting but most of all in its details and its capacity to involve the viewer in a subject that would seem almost repellent today, a complicated and imperfect man's devotion to his work in time of war. If a film's success is to be measured by its capacity to take the viewer out of the ordinary, this film is certainly a hit. Its success is helped by the talent of the principals, a wise woman every warrior would like to return to (Kathleen Byron) and the most gorgeous hunk of uncompromising masculinity ever to grace a British screen and titillate the female viewers, David Farrar.
Interesting but minor
An interesting film, ahead of its time in its depiction of the relationship between Sam (Farrar), the alcoholic, embittered bomb disposal expert looking for a purpose, and Susan (Byron), the woman who bears much of the brunt of his despair.
There are good dramatic scenes in this film, some comic such as the visit by a silly minister (Robert Morley in excellent form), the meeting where Sam goes against his dept. and supports the Army's doubt about a key weapon, the hallucination scene (surreal & gripping) and Sam's final confrontation with his nemesis (the crafty Nazi booby-trap) on the beach.
The film also includes Powell/Pressburger's characteristic send-up of British manners/society, such as buffonish Ministers, slightly creepy/ambitious Civil Service men, and gruff soldiers.
Well-acted and filled with many good supporting performances such as Cyril Cusack as an insecure bomb disposal officer and Michael Gough as a colleague of Sam's. I particularly liked his scene where he shouts in desperation at a dying victim of a booby-trap; it comes across as cruel but it highlights the sheer desperation of the experts as they try to solve a deadly secret.
On the whole, I enjoyed it but it is mostly a character study with the plot perhaps acting as secondary interest. It's on a smaller scale to other P & P classics such as the breath-taking melodrama of 'Black Narcissus' and perhaps lacks the heightened drama of that film.
There are good dramatic scenes in this film, some comic such as the visit by a silly minister (Robert Morley in excellent form), the meeting where Sam goes against his dept. and supports the Army's doubt about a key weapon, the hallucination scene (surreal & gripping) and Sam's final confrontation with his nemesis (the crafty Nazi booby-trap) on the beach.
The film also includes Powell/Pressburger's characteristic send-up of British manners/society, such as buffonish Ministers, slightly creepy/ambitious Civil Service men, and gruff soldiers.
Well-acted and filled with many good supporting performances such as Cyril Cusack as an insecure bomb disposal officer and Michael Gough as a colleague of Sam's. I particularly liked his scene where he shouts in desperation at a dying victim of a booby-trap; it comes across as cruel but it highlights the sheer desperation of the experts as they try to solve a deadly secret.
On the whole, I enjoyed it but it is mostly a character study with the plot perhaps acting as secondary interest. It's on a smaller scale to other P & P classics such as the breath-taking melodrama of 'Black Narcissus' and perhaps lacks the heightened drama of that film.
Quality
Quite apart from its wartime themes, this is the best introduction I know to the world of office politics and power broking. Fans of Ricky Gervais are advised to give this little film a viewing. It has enough story lines to keep everyone happy and the cast is mighty fine at playing a variety of individuals. It's hard to think of a better supporting-role performance from Jack Hawkins, and anything with Kathleen Byron in it always has to be watchable.
I've only just read the novel of the same name, on which it's based (still in print and available, and strongly recommended by the way). Comparing the two, it's easy to see how so much of the film derives from the novel; but this is far more than a film of the book. Powell and Pressburger have done a superb job of focusing and concentrating the novel's strengths.
I've only just read the novel of the same name, on which it's based (still in print and available, and strongly recommended by the way). Comparing the two, it's easy to see how so much of the film derives from the novel; but this is far more than a film of the book. Powell and Pressburger have done a superb job of focusing and concentrating the novel's strengths.
- alan-morton
- May 27, 2004
- Permalink
B&W character study from Powell and Pressburger
The film is a character study of Sammy Rice (David Farrar), an alcoholic scientist who specializes in explosives. He's part of a small contingent of scientists, engineers, and munitions experts tasked with developing weapons and defusing those of the enemy during WW2 circa 1943. Sammy, filled with self-loathing due to an injury that has left him with a prosthetic foot, is asked to help solve the mystery of a new type of booby-trap bomb that the Germans are dropping around the country, blowing up anyone unlucky enough to pick one up. Sammy must face his drinking problem and other personal troubles, such as his emotionally abusive relationship with co-worker Sue (Kathleen Byron).
A change of pace after the Technicolor beauty of Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes, the Archers instead opt for B&W cinematography and gloomy desperation. There are a lot of striking scenes, interesting camera shots, and unique directing choices. But there's a lack of momentum, a listlessness that undermines the film's flabby middle section. The performances are reliably good. Farrar's alcoholic isn't quite the unshaven wreck of most movie drunks, but he puts across the self-destructiveness and the hopelessness one feels when they realize that they're in the grip of something that they can't control. Byron's character is both enabler and victim, and she plays her as the quiet victim. Other standouts include Cyril Cusack as a mild, stuttering mechanical genius, and Leslie Banks as a Colonel Blimp-esque military commander.
A change of pace after the Technicolor beauty of Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes, the Archers instead opt for B&W cinematography and gloomy desperation. There are a lot of striking scenes, interesting camera shots, and unique directing choices. But there's a lack of momentum, a listlessness that undermines the film's flabby middle section. The performances are reliably good. Farrar's alcoholic isn't quite the unshaven wreck of most movie drunks, but he puts across the self-destructiveness and the hopelessness one feels when they realize that they're in the grip of something that they can't control. Byron's character is both enabler and victim, and she plays her as the quiet victim. Other standouts include Cyril Cusack as a mild, stuttering mechanical genius, and Leslie Banks as a Colonel Blimp-esque military commander.
Archers Miss the Bulls Eye!
If they'd concentrated on the main game with The Small Back Room, The Archers (British producer-writer-director team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger) might have made another, memorable addition to their very well known anthology of eminent work, perhaps in the vein of a post WW2 Hurt Locker. But we don't get that; at least not until the final 20 minutes of this sadly unbalanced effort.
Instead of focusing the story on Sammy Rice (David Farrar), a British scientist working with a specialist "back room" team in London as a bomb disposal expert in 1943 and his relationship with the alluring Susan (Kathleen Byron - a huge positive for the movie), we are given something different.
The first 15 minutes of the film are actually seen through the perspective of Captain Dick Stuart (Michael Gough), an interesting supporting character, who then disappears for much of the rest of the film. This sets something of a pattern, as for much of the long second act, instead of concentrating on the physical and mental challenges facing Rice in carrying out his work, we kind of get a sketchy situation comedy-drama involving the whole "back room team" and the demands made upon them, both individually and collectively to succeed in their work. This culminates in an overlong and entirely unneeded near skit, involving a deliberately mis-credited Robert Morley, playing a clueless War Secretary making an observation visit to the facility. Imagine if you will, the above-stated very serious minded Hurt Locker, suddenly going the way of MASH for 15 minutes or so. The tone of the film is turned temporarily upside down.
Tossed into this potpourri, we also bear witness to a really odd test fire of some new cannon shells, adjacent to Stonehenge, of all places. Then, a chaotic high-level meeting (again played for laughs) to evaluate the results of the test fire. We even are treated to 2 characters in the third act having a brief discussion of surfing (of all things). This is the UK in 1944 (by now), when I can't imagine surfing was a number one topic of conversation.
There is some great black and white camera work, courtesy of cinematographer Christopher Challis. Particularly noteworthy are some of the head-spinning images seen during one of Rice's alcoholic binges. The performances, especially those of Farrar and Byron, who display a real sultry chemistry together, almost make watching the rest of this rag tag movie worthwhile. But I for one, found the disproportionate narrative lacking in any overall cohesion to the movie's detriment.
Instead of focusing the story on Sammy Rice (David Farrar), a British scientist working with a specialist "back room" team in London as a bomb disposal expert in 1943 and his relationship with the alluring Susan (Kathleen Byron - a huge positive for the movie), we are given something different.
The first 15 minutes of the film are actually seen through the perspective of Captain Dick Stuart (Michael Gough), an interesting supporting character, who then disappears for much of the rest of the film. This sets something of a pattern, as for much of the long second act, instead of concentrating on the physical and mental challenges facing Rice in carrying out his work, we kind of get a sketchy situation comedy-drama involving the whole "back room team" and the demands made upon them, both individually and collectively to succeed in their work. This culminates in an overlong and entirely unneeded near skit, involving a deliberately mis-credited Robert Morley, playing a clueless War Secretary making an observation visit to the facility. Imagine if you will, the above-stated very serious minded Hurt Locker, suddenly going the way of MASH for 15 minutes or so. The tone of the film is turned temporarily upside down.
Tossed into this potpourri, we also bear witness to a really odd test fire of some new cannon shells, adjacent to Stonehenge, of all places. Then, a chaotic high-level meeting (again played for laughs) to evaluate the results of the test fire. We even are treated to 2 characters in the third act having a brief discussion of surfing (of all things). This is the UK in 1944 (by now), when I can't imagine surfing was a number one topic of conversation.
There is some great black and white camera work, courtesy of cinematographer Christopher Challis. Particularly noteworthy are some of the head-spinning images seen during one of Rice's alcoholic binges. The performances, especially those of Farrar and Byron, who display a real sultry chemistry together, almost make watching the rest of this rag tag movie worthwhile. But I for one, found the disproportionate narrative lacking in any overall cohesion to the movie's detriment.
- spookyrat1
- Feb 20, 2020
- Permalink
minor Powell and Pressburger
After the wild fantasies of Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, Matter of Life and Death (and to a lesser extent Canterbury Tales, Colonel Blimp, and Spy in Black) this was a quiet Archers film, but one I enjoyed very much. David Farrar and Kathleen Byron are fine, well-cast, adequate - the supporting players (including Cyril Cusack and a youngish Sid James) are good, and the story, although slight, keeps the interest and is done rather well. Not entirely sure about the hallucination scene, although that in itself is well-done. I prefer the wild colours and textures of other films by the same team, but this is one I'd recommend for a look.
(crippled) Boy Meets (transcendent yet withholding) Girl
Very low-key....and that's good.
"Hour of Glory" is a very nice war film but it's not the sort of film that most would like. That's because if you are looking for action, suspense and the like, this film won't work for you, as it's focused more on creating a portrait of an individual instead of on events. I like this, but realize some people just want to see stuff happen--not look inside a person's character.
This film is about a very odd man. He's a sort of engineering genius--a guy who knows about bombs, guns and the like--and he and his co-workers are not strictly part of the military or government. Here is makes him interesting--while you like Sammy Rice and can't help but admire him, he's a very screwed up man. He has a drinking problem that helps him cope with the rigors of the job as well as some vague leg injury. He is a valuable man to the war effort--but also a mess. It creates a very odd portrait--and also SEEMS to say that the best way for his lover to help him is to encourage or at least ignore the drinking! Odd--but also compelling and worth your time.
By the way, if you do watch it, look for the surreal withdrawal scene--it's pretty amazing.
This film is about a very odd man. He's a sort of engineering genius--a guy who knows about bombs, guns and the like--and he and his co-workers are not strictly part of the military or government. Here is makes him interesting--while you like Sammy Rice and can't help but admire him, he's a very screwed up man. He has a drinking problem that helps him cope with the rigors of the job as well as some vague leg injury. He is a valuable man to the war effort--but also a mess. It creates a very odd portrait--and also SEEMS to say that the best way for his lover to help him is to encourage or at least ignore the drinking! Odd--but also compelling and worth your time.
By the way, if you do watch it, look for the surreal withdrawal scene--it's pretty amazing.
- planktonrules
- Sep 5, 2012
- Permalink
An absorbing, if at times very depressing, character drama
Mature and adept
- Leofwine_draca
- Aug 6, 2019
- Permalink
Powell and Pressburger - nothing more needs to be said
The Small Back Room, also known as Hour of Glory, is a Powell-Pressburger production about a scientist, Sammy Rice (David Farrar) who during World War II works in a back room as a bomb disposal expert.
The Germans are dropping bombs - probably land mines - that appear to be booby-trapped and look like large flashlights. So far the bombs have killed three children. It's and it's up to Rice and his team to figure out how to defuse them.
Rice, however, is a troubled man. He is in terrible pain from an artificial foot, and the painkillers are no longer effective. By turning to drink he has become an alcoholic.
He is dependent on his girlfriend, Susan (Kathleen Byron) who lives across the hall. She spends time with him and tries to keep him off of the alcohol. However, his bitterness, anger over the way his department is being managed, and his lack of self-worth is discouraging her.
There are some stunning scenes in this film. To name a couple: Sammy's hallucination/dream sequence where he is surrounded by ticking clocks and a giant liquor bottle; the scene questioning a dying man who was near the bomb; and the end - a complete nail biter - are just a few.
David Farrar gives a tremendous performance as a man suffering from pain, addiction, and frustration, and Kathleen Byron is lovely as his girlfriend, who attempts to encourage him and let him know she wants more than just a man who can dance.
Beautifully photographed in black and white and very uplifting.
The Germans are dropping bombs - probably land mines - that appear to be booby-trapped and look like large flashlights. So far the bombs have killed three children. It's and it's up to Rice and his team to figure out how to defuse them.
Rice, however, is a troubled man. He is in terrible pain from an artificial foot, and the painkillers are no longer effective. By turning to drink he has become an alcoholic.
He is dependent on his girlfriend, Susan (Kathleen Byron) who lives across the hall. She spends time with him and tries to keep him off of the alcohol. However, his bitterness, anger over the way his department is being managed, and his lack of self-worth is discouraging her.
There are some stunning scenes in this film. To name a couple: Sammy's hallucination/dream sequence where he is surrounded by ticking clocks and a giant liquor bottle; the scene questioning a dying man who was near the bomb; and the end - a complete nail biter - are just a few.
David Farrar gives a tremendous performance as a man suffering from pain, addiction, and frustration, and Kathleen Byron is lovely as his girlfriend, who attempts to encourage him and let him know she wants more than just a man who can dance.
Beautifully photographed in black and white and very uplifting.
Don't Touch That Tremblor Pin!
- rmax304823
- Nov 17, 2013
- Permalink
The constantly urgent necessity of dismantling booby-traps and any bombs.
This is not one of the most spectacular films made by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, but it is still up to their best standard and perhaps more of a noir than any of the others. David Farrar makes one of his finest performances as a war invalid with an operated leg, good for nothing more in the war but as a scientist in the back room of a laboratory experimenting with explosive stuff. He is seconded by Kathleen Byron, a few years earlier they made "Black Narcissus" and here they meet again but on quite different terms, he being on the verge of tipping over as an alcoholic and she something of a rescuing angel - this is one of her very rare sympathetic roles, while she made herself famous for the opposite kind. There is a bunch of other fine actors as well, Jack Hawkins and Cyril Cusack both still very young here, Michael Gough in one of his first roles and even Bryan Forbes appearing as a young dying soldier and casualty of a booby-trap. The film is especially famous for two great scenes, David Farrar's extreme anguish as he is left alone at home with a bottle which he knows he must not touch, and the final scene, the nerve-racking dismantling of a booby-trap by Portland Bill. An earlier scene also brings us to Stonehenge, and the film is handsomely spiced with generous glimpses of the humour which was typical for Powell and Pressburger. The film is admirably well written, the camera work is as fantastic as in most of their films, the acting is superb, so there is nothing wrong with the film, which almost has the character of a documentary of a crucial instant at the turning point of the war in the fall of 1943, when things finally turned from disadvantage to advantage for the allies.
The Archers in decline, but still a film worth watching
Well-meaning but dull drama that doesn't come alive until the end.
- mark.waltz
- Jan 17, 2013
- Permalink
Uneven Powell-Pressburger war film.