source guides 1960s british cinema

National Library 1960s British Cinema 16 + Source Guide contents

THE CONTENTS OF THIS PDF CAN BE VIEWED QUICKLY BY USING THE BOOKMARKS FACILITY

All items marked thus " * " are particularly recommended. If your time, or access to resources is limited we suggest you at least look at this material.

INFORMATION GUIDE STATEMENT ...... i BFI NATIONAL LIBRARY ...... ii ACCESSING RESEARCH MATERIALS ...... iii APPROACHES TO RESEARCH, by Samantha Bakhurst ...... iv

SIXTIES BRITISH CINEMA: GENERAL REFERENCES ...... 1

FILM POLICY/INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF BRITISH SIXTIES CINEMA ...... 2 FILM CENSORSHIP IN THE 1960s ...... 2

FREE CINEMA AND THE BRITISH NEW WAVE ...... 3 Case Study: BRONCO BULLFROG ...... 6

DIRECTORS OF THE BRITISH NEW WAVE · John Schlesinger ...... 7 · Ken Loach ...... 7 · Tony Richardson ...... 8 · Case Study 1: Karel Reisz and SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING ...... 8 · Case Study 2: Lindsay Anderson, THIS SPORTING LIFE and IF ...... 9

BRITISH "SWINGING SIXTIES" CINEMA ...... 11 FOUR CASE STUDIES · ALFIE ...... 12 · GEORGY GIRL ...... 12 · BILLY LIAR ...... 12 · DARLING ...... 13

EXPERIMENTAL CINEMA ...... 13

FOREIGN DIRECTORS IN BRITAIN · Joseph Losey ...... 14 · Roman Polanski ...... 14 · Stanley Kubrick ...... 15 · Case Study: Michaelangelo Antonioni and BLOWUP ...... 15

GENRE: BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 16

FOCUS ON FILM: PERFORMANCE ...... 17

Compiled by: Christophe Dupin Sara Newman Andrew Ormsby Ian O'Sullivan

Layout/Design: Ian O'Sullivan Project Manager: David Sharp

ISBN: 0 85170 828 5

© 2000 BFI National Library, 21 Stephen Street, London W1T 1LN 16+ MEDIA STUDIES

INFORMATION GUIDE STATEMENT

“Candidates should note that examiners have copies of this guide and will not give credit for mere reproduction of the information it contains. Candidates are reminded that all research sources must be credited”.

BFI National Library i BFI National Library

All the materials referred to in this guide are available for consultation at the BFI National Library. If you wish to visit the reading room of the library and do not already hold membership, you will need to take out a one-day, five-day or annual pass. Full details of access to the library and charges can be found at: www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library

BFI National Library Reading Room Opening Hours:

Monday 10.30am - 5.30pm Tuesday 10.30am - 8.00pm Wednesday 1.00pm - 8.00pm Thursday 10.30am - 8.00pm Friday 10.30am - 5.30pm

If you are visiting the library from a distance or are planning to visit as a group, it is advisable to contact the Reading Room librarian in advance (tel. 020 7957 4824, or email [email protected]).

BFI National Library British Film Institute 21 Stephen Street London W1T 1LN Tel. 020 7255 1444 www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library

The library’s nearest underground stations are Tottenham Court Road and Goodge Street. For a map of the area please see: www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/visiting

BFI National Library ii Accessing Research Materials

Copies of articles

If you are unable to visit the library or would like materials referred to in this guide sent to you, the BFI Information Service can supply copies of articles via its Research Services. Research is charged at a range of hourly rates, with a minimum charge for half an hour’s research – full de- tails of services and charges can be found at: www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/services/research.html

For queries about article copying or other research, please contact Information Services at the above address or telephone number, or post your enquiry online at: www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/services/ask

Other Sources

Your local library

Local libraries should have access to the inter-library loan system for requesting items they do not hold and they may have copies of MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN and SIGHT AND SOUND. Some recent newspaper items may be held by your local reference library. Larger libraries will hold other rele- vant materials and should offer internet access.

Your nearest college/university

Universities may allow access to outside students, though you may not be able to borrow books or journals. Ask your reference librarian, who should be able to assist by locating the nearest college library holding suitable material. The BFI Film and Television Handbook lists libraries with signifi- cant media collections.

Your school library

Local bookshops

Some of the books mentioned in the bibliography will be in print and your bookshop should be able to order items for you.

The British Library Newspaper Library

The Newspaper Library will have all the newspaper items referred to in this guide. Contact the li- brary first if you wish to visit. 16+ students under the age of 18 will need to make an appoint- ment.

The British Library Newspaper Library Colindale Avenue London NW9 5HE Tel. 020 7412 7353 Email:[email protected] www.bl.uk/collections/collect.html#newsBL

BFI National Library iii Approaches to Research by Samantha Bakhurst

Why do research?

You cannot simply rely on your existing knowledge when approaching essays in Media Studies. Although you will have some understanding of the area being explored, it is not enough to enable you to examine the area in depth. If you were asked to write about the people in your street in de- tail, you might have some existing information about names, faces, relationships, issues and ac- tivities but this knowledge would not offer you details such as every single one of their names, who knows who, who gets on with whom, how people earn a living, what has happened to them in the past and so on. This extra information could change your opinions quite dramatically. With- out it, therefore, your written profile would end up being quite shallow and possibly incorrect. The same is true of your understanding of media texts, issues and institutions.

Before researching any area, it is useful to be clear about what outcomes you are hoping to achieve. Research is never a waste of time, even when it doesn’t directly relate to the essay you are preparing. The information may be relevant to another area of the syllabus, be it practical work or simply a different essay. Also, the picture you are building up of how an area works will strengthen your understanding of the subject as a whole. So what outcomes are you hoping to achieve with your research?

A broad overview of the area you are researching: This includes its history, institutions, conven- tions and relationship to the audience. Research into these aspects offers you an understanding of how your area has developed and the influences that have shaped it.

An awareness of different debates which may exist around the area of study: There are a range of debates in many subject areas. For example, when researching audiences you will discover that there is some debate over how audiences watch television or film, ranging from the passive con- sumption of values and ideas to the use of media texts in a critical and independent way. Any dis- cussion about censorship, for example, will be extremely shallow if you have no knowledge of these different perspectives.

Some knowledge of the work of theorists in the area: You need to demonstrate that you have read different theorists, exploring the relevant issues and investigating the area thoroughly in order to develop your own opinion based on acquired knowledge and understanding.

Information relevant to all key concept areas: You should, after research, be able to discuss all key concept areas as they relate to that specific subject area. These are the codes and conventions, representation, institutions and audience.

Types Of Research

Primary: This is first-hand research. In other words, it relies on you constructing and conducting surveys, setting up interviews with key people in the media industry or keeping a diary or log of data (known as quantitative information) on things such as, for example, what activities women are shown doing in advertisements over one week of television viewing. Unless you are equipped to conduct extensive research, have access to relevant people in the media industry or are thor- ough in the up-keep of your diary or log, this type of research can be demanding, complex and sometimes difficult to use. Having said that, if you are preparing for an extended essay, then it is exactly this type of research which, if well used, will make your work distinctive and impressive.

Secondary - printed sources: This is where you will be investigating information gathered by other people in books, newspapers, magazines, on radio and television. All of these sources are excellent for finding background information, statistics, interviews, collected research details and so on. This will form the majority of your research. Some of these will be generally available (in public li- braries for example); others such as press releases and trade press may only be available through specialist libraries. BFI National Library iv Secondary - online sources: Online sources are also mainly secondary. You will need to be able to make comparisons between sources if you intend quoting online information, and to be wary of the differences between fact and opinions. Don’t necessarily assume something is a fact because someone on a website says it is. Some websites will be “official” but many will not be, so you need to think about the authority of a site when assessing the information found on it. The structure of a website address (URL) can indicate the site’s origin and status, for example, .ac or .edu indicate an academic or educational institution, .gov a government body, .org a non-profit organisation, .co or .com a commercial organisation. Websites sometimes disappear or shift location - make sure you can quote a URL reference for a site, and perhaps keep a note of the last date that you checked it.

Other Media: When considering one area of the media or one particular product or type of prod- uct, it is very important that you compare it with others which are similar. You will need to be able to refer to these comparisons in some detail so it is not enough to simply watch a film. You will need to read a little about that film, make notes, concentrate on one or two scenes which seem particularly relevant and write all of this information up so that you can refer to it when you need to.

History and development: Having an understanding of the history and development of the media text which you are researching will provide a firm foundation and context for contemporary analysis. There is a difference between generally accepted facts and how theorists use these facts.

Theory: This is the body of work of other critics of the media. Most of the books and periodical ar- ticles which you will read for research will be written by theorists who are arguing a particular viewpoint or position with regard to an issue within the media. It is this which forms the debates surrounding the study of the media, in which you, as a media student, are now becoming in- volved.

Using Research

Organising your research: Before rushing headlong to the local library or web search engines, the first stage of research is to plan two things. When are you able to do your research and how are you going to organise the information gathered? You may, for example, wish to make notes under the headings listed above.

Applying your research: Always return to the specific questions being asked of the text. The most obvious pitfall is to gather up all of the collected information and throw it at the page, hoping to score points for quantity. The art of good research is how you use it as part of your evidence for an analysis of the text. The knowledge you have acquired should give you the confidence to explore the text, offer your own arguments and, where appropriate, to quote references to support this.

Listing your research: It is good practice, and excellent evidence of your wider reading, to list all references to secondary research, whether mentioned within the essay or not, at the end of your work.

References are usually written in this way:

1. Len Masterman, Teaching About Television, London, Macmillan, 1980. 2. Manuel Alvarado and Bob Ferguson, “The Curriculum, Media Studies and Discursivity”, Screen, Vol.24, No.3, May-June 1983.

Other media texts referred to in detail should be listed, with relevant information such as the di- rector, date of release or transmission, production company and, where possible, scene or episode number. Where you have compiled primary research, it is useful to offer a brief summary of this also at the end of your work.

BFI National Library v Although focusing on the period MURPHY, Robert General immediately following World War Sixties British cinema. II to the end of the fifties, Durgnat London: British Film Institute, 1992. References examines the British national 354p. illus. appendix. bibliog. index. character (particularly the middle class) as portrayed in the cinema Key text, covering all aspects of books of the time, showing the changes British cinema in the sixties, Cinema over the years which paved the including Free Cinema and ALDGATE, Anthony and way for the films of the sixties. Kitchen Sink films, fresh RICHARDS, Jeffrey approaches to criticism and the Best of British: cinema and society British New Wave, the decline of from 1930 to the present. HARPER, Sue cinema audiences, swinging London: I.B. Taurus, 1999. (Cinema Women in British cinema: mad, London films, popular culture and

British and Society). 262p. illus. filmog. bad and dangerous to know. musicals, and other genres such as index. London: Continuum, 2000. horror, crime, spy and comedy (Rethinking British cinema). vi-vii, films. The appendix offers an Traces British social history from 261p. illus. bibliog. indices. interesting guide to the 1960s in 1930, including two chapters deal- Britain for those unfamiliar with ing with films of the sixties: This book explores women’s expe- the decade, listing significant

Sixties Chapter 11 – “New waves, old ways riences in British cinema in two events and films by year. and the censors: THE LONELINESS parts: Part I examines representa- OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER” – tions of women on screen while offers a round-up of critical posi- Part II relates the contributions journal articles tions on the new social realist made by women behind the cam- films of the era and Chapter 12 – era, for instance as directors, writ- IN THE PICTURE “The revolt of the young: IF….” – ers and costume designers. No.36. Summer 1999, pp.20-23

Guides: shows critical reaction to IF…. in Chapter 5 – “The 1960s: delusions the context of the social and cul- of freedom” – suggests that One teacher’s experience of teach- tural changes at the time. Swinging Britain was a myth ing 1960s British Cinema to A level ce which bore little relation to many students. people’s experience, and that, in ASHBY, Justine and HIGSON, fact, the treatment of women in Andrew (eds.) sixties cinema was less liberal SIGHT AND SOUND Sour British cinema past and present. than in the fifties. Vol.3 No.8. August 1993, p.33

+ London: Routledge, 2000. vii-xx, 385p. illus. bibliog. index. Fog and drizzle, by Michael Eaton McFARLANE, Brian 16 Anthology of essays providing an An autobiography of British cine- Article refutes the Hollywood criti- historical perspective on British ma: as told by the filmmakers and cisms of British films and tv cinema from the 1930s to the pres- actors who made it. drama from the 1960s, ie. being too ent day. Chapter 15 – “’Under the London: Methuen, 1997. xiv-xvi, slow, wordy and dowdy. Points out skin horrors’: social realism and 656p. illus. filmog. index. how such drama has stood the test classlessness in PEEPING TOM and of time. the British New Wave” – and chap- Brief but interesting first person ter 16 – “Travel and mobility: femi- accounts by those involved in ninity and national identity in British cinema, including some FILMS IN REVIEW Swinging London films” – focus on influential players from the sixties Vol.40. No.5. April 1989, pp.213-219 films from the sixties. e.g. Karel Reisz, Lindsay Anderson, Ken Loach. The British Invasion of the 1960s: A breath of cheeky fresh air, the BOURNE, Stephen movies were a cinematic explo- Brief encounters: lesbians and MURPHY, Robert (ed.) sion much in the fashion that the gays in British cinema 1930-1971. The British cinema book. films of the Marx Brothers, W.C. London: Cassell, 1996. vi-xix, 268p. London: British Film Institute, 1997. Fields and Mae West had been in illus. appendices. bibliog. indices. vii-xiii, 279p. illus. index. the 1930s, by Ken Hanke

Taking a year by year approach to In its attempt to cover this wide- Part one of a 4 part series of arti- the representation of gay people in ranging subject comprehensively cles about British cinema of the British cinema, Bourne examines this book only touches on British 1960s written from the perspective many of the major 60s films. The cinema of the sixties. Chapter 15 – of their arrival in the USA and how controversial VICTIM gets its own Christine Geraghty’s “Women and they contrasted with American chapter as well as appendices sixties British cinema: the devel- cinema at the time. In this first dealing with audience and critical opment of the ‘Darling’ girl” – article, Hanke concentrates prima- reaction to the film on its release. looks at the changing position of rily on A HARD DAY’S NIGHT and women in British cinema of the how it “represented an attempt to sixties, focusing on A TASTE OF establish a new personal and artis- DURGNAT, Raymond HONEY, DARLING and HERE WE GO tic freedom”. Hanke pays atten- A mirror for England: British ROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH. tion to the style of the film, its movies from austerity to afflu- “comic documentary” aspects and ence. places the film in the context of London: Faber and Faber, 1970. ix-xiv, forerunners such as FRENCH 336p. illus. bibliog. filmog. indices. DRESSING (1963 dir. Ken Russell)

BFI National Library 1 and in the humour and vocal CLASSIC IMAGES DICKINSON, Margaret and STREET, word play of the 1950s British No.126. December 1985, pp.C26, C63 Sarah radio comedy series The Goons. Cinema and state: the film indus- British mod films of the 60s, by try and the government 1927-84. John Roberts London: British Film Institute, 1985. FILMS IN REVIEW 280p. illus. stats. bibliog. index. Vol.40. No.5. May 1989, pp.269-277 Article about British “mod” films of Cinema the 1960s (“mod” here used in the The final chapter – “In Search of a The British Invasion of the 1960s American sense and not specific to Policy”, pp. 227-239 – of this com- Part II: The movies were an anti- the 1960s British youth subcul- prehensive book on the relation- dote to the generally stodgy film- ture). ships between the film industry fare that marked the 1950s and and the state gives a detailed early 1960s, by Ken Hanke account of the structure and the

British FILM COMMENT evolution of the British film indus- In this second article, Hanke gives Vol.12. No.4. July/Aug 1976, pp.50-59 try in the 1960s. It also shows how further discussion on the filmmak- it was colonised by the Hollywood ing style which characterises A Britannia waives the rules, by majors and how the British gov- HARD DAY’S NIGHT, claiming for Raymond Durgnat ernment tried – not very success- example that its “fragmented edit- fully – to counter-attack. If you are

Sixties ing style is basically an outgrowth Durgnat explores genres and not particularly interested in this of the French New Wave Film”. themes in British cinema of the rather off-putting subject, it will Hanke also gives a detailed analy- sixties and seventies, with particu- not be an easy read. sis of THE KNACK…AND HOW TO lar reference to what he terms GET IT highlighting its politely “Angry Young Cinema” and its vari- anti-authoritarian stance, its treat- ous forms, such as kitchen sink WALKER, Alexander ment of the new sexual mores and drama and Free Cinema. Although Hollywood, England: the British

Guides: how the film came to capture a some thematic groupings seem film industry in the sixties. changing London, a city being arbitrary, the section “Anger and London: Michael Joseph, 1974. 493p. taken over by youth. onward” is interesting for its con- plates. index. ce trast between British and Hollywood films of the time. Alexander’s book is a mine of FILMS IN REVIEW information on sixties British cine- Vol.40. No.6/7. June/July 1989, pp.348-356 ma, but this very personal account Sour Film Policy/ of that subject does not have the

+ The British Film Invasion of the clarity of an academic book. 1960s Part III: The air of commer- Institutional Aspects Although it contains a lot of facts ciality was abruptly changed with Of Cinema and figures on the film industry 16 the making of The Loved One. and film policy, it is difficult to Here was an Invasion Film with locate them in this dense text (and teeth, by Ken Hanke books the chapter headings do not help either). A few chapters deal more The third article in this series BUTLER, Ivan specifically with the problems of gives in depth discussion about To encourage the art of the film. the British film industry and the HELP!, THE LOVED ONE, HOW I WON London: Robert Hale and Company, solutions sought both by the gov- THE WAR and MORGAN - A SUIT- 1971. 208p. plates. index. ernment and the industry (chap- ABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT. ters 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20). Finally, The British Film Institute was, in the appendix offers a very useful the 1960s, the main state-funded ‘industry chronology’ (pp. 467-481). FILMS IN REVIEW organisation in charge of the pro- Vol.40. No.8/9. Aug/Sep 1989, pp.405-413 motion of film (and television from 1961) in Britain. This books The British Film Invasion of the tells the story of the life and work F ilm Censorship in 1960s Part IV: The Invasion may of the BFI from its creation in 1933 have been predetermined to burn to the early 1970s. However, its the 1960s out, but it was a brave attempt analysis of the 1960s is by far the and the world of film is all the most detailed part of the book. It richer for its having happened, by particularly looks at the organisa- books Ken Hanke tion of the Institute, the work of the Film and TV Archive and of the ALDGATE, Anthony Fourth and final article on British Education Department, and the Censorship and the permissive 1960s cinema includes discussion early developments of the London society: British cinema and theatre of I’LL NEVER FORGET WHAT’S ‘IS Film Festival, the Production Board 1955-1965. NAME, YELLOW SUBMARINE, THE and the Regional Film Theatres. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. v-viii, BED-SITTING ROOM and an in- Butler’s study might not be the 171p. illus. bibliog. index. depth analysis of THE MAGIC best monograph ever written but it CHRISTIAN. is still the only comprehensive his- Charts the impact of censorship tory of the BFI published to date. between 1955 and 1965 on stage and film presentations. Chapter 4 – “Putting on the agony” – details the controversy surrounding LOOK BACK IN ANGER while Chapter 5 – “The outer limits” – shows how

BFI National Library 2 SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY * BARR, Charles (ed.) MORNING and ALFIE pushed the Free Cinema All our yesterdays: 90 years of boundaries of censorship. Chapter And The British British cinema. 6 – “A woman’s lot” – examines the London: British Film Institute, 1986. compromises reached on A TASTE New Wave 446p. illus. bibliog. filmog. index. OF HONEY and the final chapter – Contains two relevant chapters: “The party’s over” – shows how the Cinema decade 1955-1965 was crucial to books “Britain’s outstanding contribution the liberalisation of British cinema ARMES, Roy to the film”: the documentary- and theatre. A critical history of the British cin- realist tradition”, by Andrew ema. Higson, traces the documentary- London: Secker & Warburg, 1978. realist tradition in British film- MATHEWS, Tom Dewe 374p. illus. bibliog. index. making from Grierson to the tele- British Censored. vision work of Ken Loach and Tony London: Chatto & Windus, 1994. 291, In chapter 15 – “From Free Cinema Garnett. Considers Free Cinema [7] p. illus. bibliog. index. to Woodfall” – Armes criticises the and its emphasis on “poetic” middle class members of the Free rather than instructional qualities This is undoubtedly the most com- Cinema movement for failing to and points out the problematic prehensive book on film censor- address the ambiguities of their nature of a “realism” which Sixties ship in Britain from the very early privileged position and concludes emphasises universality of experi- days of cinema to the present day, that the British New Wave failed to ence rather than foregrounding even though the author admits break free from its literary and class relations. that he is very much indebted to theatrical antecedents. the work of other academics. Suggests that films of the British Chapters 10 – “The Board Breaks New Wave are remarkable not just Out”, pp. 147-168 – and 11 – ALDGATE, Anthony and for having working class protago- Guides: “Letting It All Hang Out”, pp. 169- RICHARDS, Jeffrey nists but for the way montage in 188 – examine the revolution Best of British: cinema and society these films has shifted from a doc- which the British Board of Film umentary emphasis on common ce from 1930 to the present. Censors as it was (BBFC) went London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1999. “objective” experience to a “subjec- through in the 1960s, especially in vii-ix, 262p. illus. filmog. index. tive” attempt to show the protago- its attitude towards sex and nudi- nist’s state of mind.

Sour ty. The opening sentence of chap- Chapter 11 – “ New waves, old ter 10 sums up Mathews’ theory: ways and the censors: The LONELI- “A literary cinema? British films + “As in no other decade, the prac- NESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUN- and British novels”, by Brian tice of film censorship in Britain NER” – usefully summarises criti- McFarlane traces the relationship would be transformed during the between British literature and cin-

16 cal positions taken by writers on sixties”. the British New Wave, notably ema, from the silent period to the Durgnat, Armes, Hill, Murphy and 1980s. Argues that too often films Wollen. Examines the BBFC’s role have been over deferential to their TREVELYAN, John in the production of LONELINESS… literary source and that the New What the censor saw. and suggests the harsher criticism Wave films based on the novels of Michael Joseph, 1973. 276p. plates. of the New Wave by some of the Alan Sillitoe, Stan Barstow et al. index. above writers is due to a lack of provide a break from tasteful , contextualisation. “heritage” cinema, which was Trevelyan is a major figure of briefly continued in adaptations British film censorship. He was like Tony Richardson’s TOM JONES the secretary of the British Board ASHBY, Justine and HIGSON, and Joseph Losey’s ACCIDENT and of Film Classification between Andrew THE GO-BETWEEN. 1958 and 1971, and this book is a British cinema, past and present. unique account of film censorship London; New York: Routledge, 2000. from the censor’s point of view, in vii-xx, 385p. illus. bibliog. index BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE, National a period when Britain was going Film Theatre through a process of liberalisation. Chapter 15 “’Under-the-skin-hor- Free cinema: programme notes for Trevelyan, whose principles were rors’: social realism and classless- the seasons of Free Cinema held ”the love of films and the disap- ness in PEEPING TOM and the at the national Film Theatre dur- proval of censorship in principle”, British New Wave” – by Adam ing 1956-1959. initiated a more liberal view on Lowenstein compares PEEPING TOM London, 1956-1959 censorship in the 1960s although, to ROOM AT THE TOP, and suggests as some commentators pointed that the latter creates a comforting Typescript. Collected programme out, the changes remained limited. distance between audience and notes, credits and synopses for the film, thus soothing the anxieties Free Cinema film seasons. about social change and the hor- rors of mass culture that PEEPING TOM graphically confronts.

BFI National Library 3 * CURRAN, James and PORTER, mately reduces working class life HOGENKAMP, Bert Vincent to a voyeuristic spectacle for the Film, television and the left, 1950- British cinema history. benefit of the middle classes. 1970. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 2000. 445p. tables. bibliog. Chapter 10 – “Landscape and sto- vii-xiv, 178p. illus. filmog. bibliog. ries in 1960s British realism”, by index. Chapter 18 – “Working class real- Terry Lovell – looks at A TASTE OF Cinema ism and sexual reaction: some HONEY focusing on questions of Impeccably researched follow up theses on the British “New Wave” gender and domestic interiors. to Hogenkamp’s Deadly Parallels: by John Hill – puts forward the film and the left in Britain, 1929- thesis that far from being progres- 1939 (Lawrence & Wishart, 1986). sive, the New Wave films are HILL, John This volume challenges the com- misogynist and reactionary. Sex, class and realism: British cin- monly held view that between

British ema 1956-1963. 1945 and the late 1960s, there was London: British Film Institute, “a void in political filmmaking” DICKINSON, Margaret (ed.) 1986. 228p. illus. filmog. (Hogenkamp, p xi). Hogenkamp Rogue reels: oppositional film in tells us what was happening in the Britain, 1945-1990. Wide ranging Marxist study, which period in terms of politically com- London: British Film Institute, 1999. traces the rise to prominence of mitted film besides Free Cinema.

Sixties vi, 330p. illus. bibliog. contemporary social issues in Good on political and institutional index. British film from the 1950s to the context. Ends with a chapter on early 1960s. Opening chapters the growing importance of televi- History of radical, independent deal with the social background sion, with a look at Peter Watkins’ filmmaking in Britain. Dickinson and the state of the film industry THE WAR GAME and the work of is critical of the emphasis on con- at the time. Hill also looks at the- Ken Loach, especially CATHY COME sumption in Free Cinema films ories of narrative and realism HOME.

Guides: and the fact that organisations – before discussing the films them- trade unions, co-ops – are all but selves, many of which are found to invisible. be ideologically suspect, particu- LOVELL, Alan ce larly in their representation of Breakthrough in Britain. women. Hill points out (as others, London: BFI Education DURGNAT, Raymond Higson in particular, have) that in Department, [1967?]. 19p. A mirror for England: British New Wave films location often Sour movies from austerity to afflu- serves no narrative purpose and Contains a “critical note” on LOOK

+ ence. argues that not only does this BACK IN ANGER, Free Cinema and London: Faber and Faber, 1970. 336p. emphasise the pre-eminence of ROOM AT THE TOP, which Lovell plates. bibliog. filmog. index. the director’s point of view but assesses as essentially the same 16 also removes characters from the as ODD MAN OUT and BRIEF Well known study of British cine- social and historical context. ENCOUNTER: an attempt to portray ma, essentially covering the period contemporary life that is nonethe- 1945-1958, but frequently straying Includes extensive filmography, less ”full of very old English beyond those boundaries. Durgnat featuring extracts from contempo- stereotypes”. writes perceptively, particularly rary reviews. about class and – a favourite theme of his – the puritanism of the left-wing British middle class- es. His assessment of Free Cinema as a minor movement, far less important to the success of the British New Wave than the success of not only literary and theatrical forerunners but also the rise of commercial television, is typical of his anti-elitist approach.

* HIGSON, Andrew (ed.) Dissolving views: key writings on British cinema. London: Cassell, 1996. iv-viii, 264p. bibliog. index.

Chapter 9 – “Space, place, specta- cle: landscape and townscape in the ‘kitchen sink’ film”, by Andrew Higson – investigates the nature of the tension produced by the con- trast between the “poetic” and “realistic” or drab qualities of films like SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING and A TASTE OF HONEY, We are the Lambeth Boys a tension which Higson finds ulti- (dir. Karel Reisz, 1959)

BFI National Library 4 LOVELL, Alan STEAD, Peter The British cinema: the unknown Film and the working class: the journal articles cinema. feature film in British and London: 1969. 8p. American society. SCREEN Vol.31. No.4. Winter 1990, pp. 357-376 London; New York: Routledge, 1989. Typescript of BFI Education 283p. illus. indices. Department Seminar. Lovell Landscapes and stories in 1960s Cinema argues that, with the exception of Chapter 7 – “British working-class British realism, by Terry Lovell Lindsay Anderson, the Free heroes” – is a chronological Cinema filmmakers fell into the account of the portrayal of work- Although difficult to follow at same traps they observed in docu- ing class men in British films from times, this article examines the dramatic use of domestic interiors mentaries of the 30s and 40s I’M ALL RIGHT JACK to KES. The (“obvious formulations of social rise of the working class actor as and urban landscapes in British

British issues”). The problem with lead man, was a significant devel- realist film and television of the Anderson is that the force of his opment. Albert Finney epitomised sixties, particularly in A TASTE OF HONEY, CORONATION STREET and personality can obscure the real the New Wave hero in SATURDAY SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY nature of his talents, thus leading NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING, but to a tendency to categorise him as he was soon eclipsed by the bur- MORNING. a one-off rather than trying to geoning careers of Sean Connery

Sixties understand through his work and Michael Caine. With the rise something about “the enigma of of such stars and the SCREEN British cinema”. “Hollywoodisation” of British film, Vol.25. nos.4/5. July/Oct 1984, pp. 2-21 Stead suggests it was left to British television to fill the gap in terms Space, place, spectacle, by Andrew LOVELL, Alan and HILLIER, Jim of “socially committed drama”. Higson Studies in documentary. Suggests that “kitchen sink” films, Guides: London: Secker & Warburg, 1972. particularly SATURDAY NIGHT AND 176p. illus. bibliog. filmog. STREET, Sarah British national cinema. SUNDAY MORNING and A TASTE OF ce HONEY, have only a surface real- Chapter 3 looks at Free Cinema in London; New York: Routledge, 1997. ism even though shot on location terms of its background, aesthet- (The national cinema series) ix-xi, in actual British landscapes and ics, its aims as a movement and 232p. illus. bibliog. indices. the importance of Sequence maga- the use of “That Long Shot of Our Sour zine. Suggests its achievements Chapter 3 – “Genres from austerity Town from That Hill” is poetic. Proposes kitchen sink films have + were limited and its impact not to affluence” – considers the out- sustained, largely because the put of films from 1945-1970 in an imbalance as they try to be movement was really the work of terms of genre. The chapter ends both documentary and cinematic 16 one man ie. Lindsay Anderson. with a look at KES, comparing it to examples of the British New Wave and suggesting that it is different CINÉASTE MARWICK, Arthur (ed.) from these earlier films in several Vol.10. No.4. Autumn 1980, pp. 26-29 The arts, literature and society. important ways, especially in the A fidelity to the real: an interview London; New York: Routledge, 1990. way in which landscape and nar- with Ken Loach and Tony Garnett, 332p. [32] plates. bibliog. rative are fully integrated with one by Leonard Quart another. Street argues that KES In chapter 9 – “Room at the top: also has a flexibility of tone, a the novel and the film” – Marwick sympathy to women and satirical Brief history of the work of these expresses concern at what he calls attitude to masculinity missing filmmakers, followed by an inter- view in which they discuss their “The international revolution of from, say, SATURDAY NIGHT AND politics and the effects they want the 1960s” which effected the radi- SUNDAY MORNING. cal transformation of British socie- their films to have on the audi- ence. ty. He argues that ROOM AT THE TOP, despite its traditional form, WALKER, Alexander amounts to a revolutionary treat- Hollywood, England: the British ment of sex and class issues, film industry in the sixties. SCREEN which paved the way for more rad- London: Michael Joseph, 1974. Vol.10. No.6. Nov/Dec 1969, pp. 51-66 ical films. 493p. plates. index. Britain’s social cinema, by Vicki Opening chapters look at the sig- Eves * MURPHY, Robert nificance of the Free Cinema Sixties British cinema. movement, the social background, Traces the development of British cinema of social realism from the London British Film Institute, 1992. the theatrical and literary precur- documentary movement of the 353p. illus. appendix. bibliog. index. sors of kitchen sink films and the thirties through Free Cinema to success of SATURDAY NIGHT AND the realist feature films of the six- Chapter 1 argues persuasively that SUNDAY MORNING. kitchen sink films, unlike most ties. Suggests that social realism British cinema of the 1950s, treat- was avoided in British cinema ed women seriously, whereas Hill until Free Cinema encouraged a (ibid.) takes the view that such more realistic representation of roles nonetheless still confine the class system. women to a familiar prison of domestic drudgery.

BFI National Library 5 Case Study: “belated postscript” to the British journal articles neo-realist film movement of a Bronco Bullfrog SIGHT AND SOUND decade earlier but whereas such Vol.40. No.1. Winter 1970/71, pp.46-47 (dir. Barney Platts-Mills, 1969) films as SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING dealt with the Around Angel Lane, by David “angry young men”, these have Robinson been replaced in BRONCO BULL- Cinema FROG with apathetic young skin- Production history of the film, heads. Kerbel draws parallels with deals with how the film was cast Karel Reisz’s documentary WE ARE using untrained actors - local THE LAMBETH BOYS (1958) which youths from the Stratford area of expressed hope for its victims of East London - and how the script post-war urban deprivation but

British was adapted by them into their BRONCO BULLFROG would appear own way of talking. Robinson to bear out the notion the options points out that the result is “an open to the young working class entirely consistent acting style characters in the film are as limit- which achieves the difficult feat of ed as ever. using the players’ own gaucheness and inarticulateness to express Sixties deliberately and artistically the NEW YORKER* gaucheness and inarticulateness 10 June 1972 of the characters”. Bronco Bullfrog, by Penelope Gilliatt MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN Vol.37. No.442. November 1970, p.215 Guides: Perceptive review which even criti- cises the poor sub-titling the film Although BRONCO BULLFROG was Synopsis and review. was given on its American release. ce made in 1969 (released in 1970) it Gilliatt acknowledges the central has more in common with the TIME OUT premise of the film, the idea of the style of the Free Cinema of the late No.46. 5 September 1970, pp.31-32 curtailment of opportunity afford- 50s and early 60s. The film repre- ed to the young people in the film Sour sents an interesting document Bronco Bullfrog, by Neil Lyndon because of the restrictive environ-

+ from the era as it is concerned ment they grow up in. with a group of working class Critical review which, although teenagers from Stratford in East acknowledging the strengths of 16 London and employed the use of the film (e.g. the portrayal of the NEW STATESMAN* local youths to relate a tale based oppressive and imprisoning envi- 16 October 1970 loosely on their own experiences. ronment of London’s East End), argues that ultimately the inten- Acting Yourself, by John Coleman BRONCO BULLFROG is available on tion of the film in showing a “slice of life” could be considered conde- video and DVD and can be ordered Coleman points out that BRONCO scending. directly from the film director’s BULLFROG has a lot in common own website: with Ken Loach’s KES in that both are low-budget films concerned http://www.barneyplatts-mills.com press articles with working class themes and despite the critical acclaim both The website also includes full text VILLAGE VOICE* films received they were victims of versions of some of the reviews 27 July 1972 cinema exhibitors lack of commit- listed below (plus others not ment to book them! ‡ included in this guide). These ref- Tender shoots in grim soil, by erences are marked with a * below. Michael Kerbel ‡ BRONCO BULLFROG was moved, Kerbel notes that the film is a despite successful attendances, from the old Cameo-Poly cinema in Oxford Street after only eight- een days to make way for a royal premiere of THREE SISTERS. This prompted Sam Shepherd, who played the character Bronco Bullfrog, to organise a demonstra- tion outside the cinema on the night of the premiere where Princess Anne, the royal guest of honour, was greeted on her arrival at the cinema by “a chanting, howling crowd of 200 East End skinheads and other young peo- ple” (reported in the Daily Telegraph on 3 November 1970 - “Princess Anne met by Skinhead mob at premiere”)

BFI National Library 6 TIMES* POOR COW and KES. Loach talks 16 October 1970 Directors Of The about the influence of Czech cine- British New ma and how this informed the Barney Platts-Mills: an exciting look and style of KES. new talent in neo-realist style, by Wave J.R. Taylor McKNIGHT, George Cinema Taylor likens Platts-Mills to John Schlesinger Agent of challenge and defiance: Lindsay Anderson and Ken Loach the films of Ken Loach. in that he puts his own stamp of Trowbridge; Flicks Books, 1997. identity into the film BRONCO (Cinema voices). vi, 234p. [8] plates. BULLFROG. Taylor regards the film filmog. bibliog. index. more as a study of character and

British atmosphere rather than a story- Collection of essays, interview, fil- film and believes its neo-realism mography and bibliography. style is on a par with, if not supe- Opening essay, Ken Loach: histo- rior to, anything created by the ries and contexts covers his televi- Italian neo-realism filmmakers of sion career, the social background the 1930s. and the politics of his early films. Sixties

GUARDIAN* 15 October 1970 journal articles

Review by Derek Malcolm FILM WEST No.35. February 1999, pp. 34-39

Guides: Derek Malcolm, like other review- ers in the British press at the time, books Ken Loach: lives less ordinary, by was a champion of BRONCO BULL- Tony McKibbin ce BROOKER, Nancy J. FROG, and was concerned that it John Schlesinger: a guide to refer- would meet a similar fate as befell Examination of Ken Loach’s body ences and resources. KES on its release, ie. despite of work and how his approach Boston, MA; London: G.K. receiving critical acclaim, the film compares to other political film- Sour Hall/George Prior, 1978. (A reference was not promoted vigorously makers of the sixties and seven- publication in film) 132p. bibliog. fil-

+ enough or booked on a wide basis ties. mog. index. in cinemas. Malcolm believed that the film deserved a wide audience SIGHT AND SOUND

16 Includes biographical background, and could be enjoyed beyond the Vol.8. No.11. November 1998, p. 21 critical survey, filmography with audience of “intelligent movie synopses and notes. goers”. Every fuckin’ choice stinks, by John Hill PHILLIPS, Gene D. Looks at Ken Loach’s use of melo- John Schlesinger. drama to voice his political vision. Boston: Twayne, 1981. (Twayne’s the- Includes filmography. atrical arts series). 199p. illus. bibli- og. filmog. index. FILM IRELAND Begins with a look at Schlesinger’s No. 49. Oct/Nov 1995, pp.144-148 background as an actor and docu- mentary filmmaker and continues The complete Ken Loach, by Paul with clearly written analyses of A Kerr KIND OF LOVING, BILLY LIAR, DAR- Ken Loach talks about his career LING and FAR FROM THE MADDING relating his films to the politics of CROWD which combine critical the time and the upheavals in the comment with production history British film and television indus- and comments from Schlesinger tries. himself.

Ken Loach books

FULLER, Graham (ed.) Loach on Loach. London: Faber and Faber, 1998. vi-xi, 147p. illus. filmog. bibliog. index.

Series of interviews which form a chronological account of Loach’s career. Chapters 1 to 3 cover his work at the BBC and the films

BFI National Library 7 FILMS AND FILMING WELSH, James M. and TIBBETTS, FILMS AND FILMING Vol.18. No.6. March 1972, pp.36-40 John C. Vol.7. No.9. June 1961, pp. 7, 41 The cinema of Tony Richardson: Spreading wings at Kestrel, by essays and interviews. The two worlds of the cinema, by Paul Bream Albany, NY: State University of New Tony Richardson York Press, 1999. (Cultural studies in Tony Garnett and Ken Loach talk cinema/video). vii-xviii, 295p. illus. Tony Richardson talks about his Cinema about how their production com- filmog. bibliog. index. experience of directing in Britain pany, Kestrel, came into being, as (A TASTE OF HONEY, THE ENTER- well as differences between work- Collection of essays and interviews TAINER) and in America (SANCTU- ing in television and cinema. They intended to give Richardson his ARY). also discuss KES and the difficul- critical due after years of neglect. ties they had in distributing the Chapter 4 – “Greatest pleasures”, British film, their approach to realism and by William L. Horne – considers A Case Study 1: the political impact of KES and TASTE OF HONEY and THE LONELI- Karel Reisz: CATHY COME HOME. NESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUN- NER. Horne takes issue with Peter Saturday Night And Wollen’s argument that the British Sunday Morning (1960) Tony Richardson New Wave lacked the formal Sixties rigour, modernism and authorial book books confidence of the Nouvelle Vague but his attempts to compare GASTON, Georg RADOVICH, Don Richardson to Truffaut and Godard Karel Reisz. Tony Richardson: a bio-bibliogra- do the British director no favours, Boston: Twayne, 1980. (Twayne’s the- phy. despite Horne’s detailed account atrical arts series) 166p. illus. bibliog. Westport, CT; London: Greenwood of Richardson’s careful alterations filmog. index.

Guides: Press, 1995. (Bio-bibliographies in the to Shelagh Delaney’s stage play. performing arts). 280p. index. Critical study which begins with a

ce look at Reisz’s Free Cinema films. Includes biographical essay which The following chapters deal each covers Richardson’s early career, journal articles with a specific film. In the chapter Free Cinema and the formation on SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY and success of Woodfall Films. SIGHT AND SOUND

Sour MORNING, Gaston looks at the Extensive filmography includes Vol.3. No.11. Nov 1993, pp. 30-33 style, imagery, use of sound, edit-

+ cast, credits, synopses and extracts ing, structure and the film’s recep- from contemporary reviews. Tony Richardson: an adventurer, tion. Includes comments from by Gavin Lambert Reisz about the character of 16 Arthur. Lambert writes a tribute to his friend, Tony Richardson. journal articles

FILMS AND FILMING FILM REVIEW Vol.23. No.9. June 1977, pp.10-16 May 1998, pp.56-61

Within the cocoon, by Gordon Gow Call Sheet - Saturday Night and Sunday Morning: Saturday Night Tony Richardson talks about his and Sunday Morning is a fine career and the differences example of the gritty work pro- between filming in Britain and duced by Britain in the ‘angry Hollywood. Includes filmography. young man’ period of the early sixties. Carole Zorzo goes behind the scenes, by Carole Zorzo FILMS AND FILMING Vol.12. No.5. February 1966, pp. 19-23 and A history of the production and Vol.12 No.6. March 1966, pp. 37-40 reception of SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING. Members of the Loved one, by Raymond Durgnat cast recall their experiences work- RICHARDSON, Tony ing on the film. Long distance runner: a memoir. Two-part article on the career of London: Faber and Faber, 1993. 313p. Tony Richardson, beginning with [32] plates. filmog. index an examination of the ideas SCREEN behind Free Cinema. Part one Vol.25. No.4/5. July/Oct 1984, pp.2-21 Autobiographical account of offers a detailed analysis of LOOK Richardson’s life and career with BACK IN ANGER and THE ENTER- Space, Place Spectacle: Andrew introduction by Lindsay Anderson. TAINER as well as SANCTUARY, Higson explores landscape and Tony Richardson’s first American townscape in the “kitchen sink” film. The second part traces his film, by Andrew Higson development through A TASTE OF HONEY, THE LONELINESS OF THE Focusing on SATURDAY NIGHT AND LONG DISTANCE RUNNER and TOM SUNDAY MORNING and A TASTE OF JONES. HONEY, Higson investigates how

BFI National Library 8 sink” films). Hedling emphasises the non-naturalistic, stylized, Brechtian (especially in IF….) aspects of Anderson’s work and argues that it is his formal contri- bution to cinema where his real importance and influence lies. Cinema

SILET, Charles L. P. Lindsay Anderson: a guide to ref- erences and resources. Boston, MA: G.K. Hall, 1979. (A refer-

British ence publication in film). 155p. bibli- og. filmog. index.

Includes biographical background, critical survey, filmography with synopses and notes and annotated

Sixties Saturday Night and Sunday Morning bibliography.

these films can be contextualised within notions of “poetic realism” Case Study 2: SUSSEX, Elizabeth and also the influence of the docu- Lindsay Anderson Lindsay Anderson. mentary realist style of film mak- London: Studio Vista, 1969. (Movie ing. The significance of the loca- books paperbooks). 90p. illus. bibliog. Guides: tions of these films is also dis- index. cussed in depth. GRAHAM, Allison First full length study of Anderson. ce Lindsay Anderson. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1981. (Twayne’s Straightforward account of his MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN filmmakers series). 171p. illus. bibli- career, up to and including IF…. Vol.27. No.323. December 1960, p.166 og. filmog. index. Sussex quotes extensively from Anderson’s own observations Sour Synopsis and review. Sympathetic study of Anderson’s about his films. + films up to and including O LUCKY MAN!. Graham gives Anderson his

16 press articles due as a director of formally and This Sporting Life aesthetically challenging and com- (1963) DAILY TELEGRAPH plex films but also gives weight to (TELEVISION AND RADIO) the problematic themes of free- journal articles 9 August 1997, p.3 dom and romanticism in Anderson’s work and the empha- SIGHT AND SOUND The mornings after the night sis on the individual’s conflict with Vol.32. No.2. Spring 1963, pp.56-59 before, by Stephanie Billen British cultural, political and intel- lectual traditions. Arrival and Departure, by Robert Billen accounts for the commercial Vas and critical success of the film and notes that the film represented a HEDLING, Erik Extensive article in which Vas new approach to film making in Lindsay Anderson: maverick film- states that unlike other films Britain, both in its dramatic sub- maker. before it, THIS SPORTING LIFE ject matter and also in the film’s London: Cassell, 1998. vii-x, 246p. [8] reflects the duality of contempo- treatment of sex. plates. bibliog. filmog. index rary Britain. Despite its very British outlook on life and people, the Critical biography. Anderson quot- film achieves a universality NEW LEFT REVIEW ed by Hedling as emphasising the through its “outcry against…being Nov/Dec 1960, pp.15, 16 pragmatic nature of Free Cinema. ashamed to feel”. Hedling suggests that the move- In depth review by Rod Prince. ment’s real significance is a nar- Prince focuses on how the original row but significant one: it helped FILMS AND FILMING novel has been translated into the create a “legend” for Anderson Vol.9. No.6. March 1963, pp.15-18 film and believes that the book “is which gave him a degree of free- most successful in its cinematic dom in his future work. Sport, Life and Art, by Lindsay aspects….and least successful Emphasises importance of New Anderson when it is trying to be a novel”. Wave’s links with theatre. Suggests that critics like Higson Interesting and extensive article and Hill have failed to give about the production of the film Anderson his due as a formally THIS SPORTING LIFE . Anderson and aesthetically innovative film- accounts for its adaptation from maker, pointing out complex nar- the original novel by David Storey; rative structure and use of flash- the problems with creating a script back in THIS SPORTING LIFE, (often which captured the essence of the seen as the last of the “kitchen novel, and the relationship

BFI National Library 9 between the actor and the direc- If…. (1968) SIGHT AND SOUND tor. Anderson regards the film as Vol.37. No.3. Summer 1968, pp.130-131 a “study of temperament” and book argues that the film was intended Anderson shooting If…. by David to be a tragedy. He points out that ANDERSON, Lindsay and SHER- Robinson the danger which faced British WIN, David cinema up until that time was that If….: a film Interesting behind the scenes Cinema audiences did not want to be London: Lorrimer, 1969. 167p. account of the film’s production “challenged or disturbed” and plates. written in diary form. hopes that the film would be part of a climate of change in the arts. Script with preface by Anderson. press articles

British MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN journal articles EVENING STANDARD Vol.30. No.350. March 1963, p.34 (HOT TICKETS SUPPLEMENT) FILM HERITAGE 12 June 1997 p.14 Synopsis and review. Vol.5. No.1. Fall 1969, pp.13-20 If…. by Alexander Walker If…. by Michael Dempsey Sixties press articles Brief retrospective review. Walker Extensive examination of the film believes that one of Lindsay TIME OUT suggesting that Anderson’s film is Anderson’s crowning achieve- 3-10 February 1999, p.173 not as clear cut a revolutionary ments in communicating the mes- call to arms as many reviewers sage of IF…. was his use of what Physical education: Devastating have suggested. Dempsey believes he called “poetic naturalism”. take on British masochism or that the film “questions and Guides: homoerotic paen to locker-room undermines the values and tactics culture? Lindsay Anderson’s This of the rebels too thoroughly to act THE TIMES Sporting Life may well be both…, 1 September 1994 p.18 ce as a pamphlet” and provides con- by Geoffrey Macnab textual examples to illustrate this viewpoint. A film that shook our world: Macnab argues that despite the Lindsay Anderson’s If… became masochism which runs through- the revolutionary blueprint for an Sour out the film, THIS SPORTING LIFE is SCREEN entire generation, says David + “as much a story about a thwarted Vol.10. No.2. Mar/April 1969, pp.85-89 Robinson love affair as a study of a self-pity- ing sports star”. Macnab also If…. by David Spears Robinson argues that whereas 16 addresses Lindsay Anderson’s col- Review which questions whether other films of the “Swinging league Gavin Lambert’s belief that the film’s conclusion is more a Sixties” were by nature modish, the director “played out his erotic fascistic rather than anarchic solu- IF…. is not and as such stands up fantasies on the screen, not in life” tion to the oppression represented today whereas many of its con- as exemplified by the footballer by the public school as society temporaries don’t. The film’s ini- and his world. microcosm. tial problems in attracting finance and distribution are dealt with and

OBSERVER If.... 10 February 1963

This Sporting Life, by Penelope Gilliat

Review in which Gilliat says that THIS SPORTING LIFE has “a blow like a fist” which expresses the “violence and the capacity for pain that there is in the English charac- ter”. Gilliat does not regard the film as a sociological study of the contemporary British male but believes that the film’s central character Frank Machin could have lived at any time.

BFI National Library 10 Robinson also looks at the influ- HEWISON, Robert ROMNEY, Jonathan and WOOT- ence of the film and how it was a Too much: art and society in the TON, Adrian (eds.) creative high point for its creator sixties 1960-75. Celluloid jukebox: popular music Lindsay Anderson. London: Methuen, 1986. xi-xviii, and the movies since the 50s. 350p. illus. index. London: British Film Institute, 1995. illus. bibliog. filmog. OBSERVER Discusses the arts and the social Cinema 22 December 1968 conditions in which they were pro- Andy Medhurst’s chapter – “It sort duced in the sixties. Although of happened here: the strange, Anderson’s masterwork, by there is little material specifically brief life of the British pop film” – Penelope Mortimer on cinema, Hewison offers an looks at lesser-known British pop interesting and alternative view of films from the late 50s and mid Mortimer accounts for her initial the period. 60s.

British unsympathetic reaction to the film’s ending, claiming that she thought it was a compromise. MELLY, George YULE, Andrew However, after a second viewing Revolt into style: the pop arts in The man who “framed” The she accepts that the culture of vio- Britain. Beatles: a biography of Richard lence embodied in the public London: Allen Lane/Penguin Press, Lester.

Sixties school in the film has bred vio- 1970. 245p. index. New York: Donald I. Fine, 1994. illus. lence and the film’s ending is the filmog. index. inevitable conclusion to the narra- George Melly puts British popular tive. culture of the 1960s into context, Anecdotal account of Richard analysing music, art, mass media, Lester’s career, including his mem- fashion and theatre. Section three ories of working with The Beatles NEW STATESMAN AND SOCIETY – “Film, TV, radio, theatre” – gives on A HARD DAY’S NIGHT and HELP.

Guides: 19 December 1968 an overview of changes in broad- casting, cinema and theatre with a To Serve, by Paul Mayersburg closer look at music films.

ce journal articles

Mayersberg points out that IF…. is JOURNAL OF POPULAR BRITISH about institutions and the way MURPHY, Robert CINEMA they divide society and often, in Sixties British cinema. No.1. 1998, pp.48-62 Sour the process, conquer it. The film is London: British Film Institute, 1992.

+ divided into eight sections each 354p. appendix. bibliog. index. Comedy, sexuality and “Swinging with their own title (eg. London” films, by Bruce Carson “Discipline” and “Resistance”) Chapter 6 – “Brave new world” – 16 which Mayersberg likens to a charts the rise of pop culture while ALFIE (1966), GEORGY GIRL (1966) medieval frieze, appropriately for Chapter 7 – “Swinging London” – and THE KNACK (1965) are three an institution such as the public looks at representations of British comedies that represent school with its reliance on rituals. London, the permissive society and explore the new “permissive- and notions of love. ness” in 1960s London. Their role in mediating a move from the ide- ology of earlier cinema is explored. British NEAVERSON, Bob The Beatles movies. “Swinging London: Cassell, 1997. (Rethinking MOVIE MAKER Sixties” Cinema British cinema). vii-ix, 149p. illus. May 1985, pp.22-25 bibliog. discog. filmog. index. The Swinging Sixties: Continuing books Critical history of the films of The his survey of British Cinema as a Beatles attempting to place them celebration of British Film Year, ASHBY, Justine and HIGSON, in the context of sixties popular David Wilford has reached the six- Andrew (eds.) culture. ties British cinema past and present. London: Routledge, 2000. vii-xx, 385p. Survey of British films of the illus. bibliog. index. RICHARDS, Jeffrey 1960s. Films discussed include Films and British national identity: TOM JONES, A HARD DAY’S NIGHT, Moya Luckett’s chapter – “Travel from Dickens to Dad’s Army. ALFIE and BLOW-UP. Wilford gives and mobility: femininity and Manchester: Manchester University a brief synopsis of each film and national identity in Swinging Press, 1997. (Studies in popular cul- discusses their salient characteris- London films” – offers a definition ture). illus. bibliog. filmog. index. tics and how they characterise of the Swinging London film, and British cinema and film-making analyses the link in these films Chapter 6 – “The swinging sixties from this period. between women and mobility, par- and after” – examines changes in ticularly in DARLING. British national identity through the films of the decade.

BFI National Library 11 Four Case Studies 1960s classic film raised around morality.

The following titles can be consid- Article about the production of the ered examples of the films which film and its reception. press articles dealt with the mores of the “Swinging Sixties”. They represent NEW STATESMAN a small selection but are listed MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN 14 October 1966 Cinema here as there is a fair amount of Vol.33. No.388. May 1966, p.70 critical and review material which Holding the baby, by John discusses them. Other titles which Synopsis and review. Coleman could be considered part of this genre and are worthy of discussion Synopsis and review. despite the lack of any real critical press articles British appraisal include BEDAZZLED (1967), SMASHING TIME (1967), SUNDAY TIMES Billy Liar HERE WE GO ROUND THE MULBER- 27 March 1966 (dir. John Schlesinger, 1963) RY BUSH (1967), THE JOKERS (1966) and CATCH US IF YOU CAN (1965). Spiv without secrets, by Dilys journal articles Powell

Sixties TAKE ONE Alfie Favourable review of ALFIE. Powell Vol.1. No.10. 1968, pp.19-22 (dir. Lewis Gilbert, 1966) believes the technique of Alfie addressing the audience directly to Billy Liar: A Study Guide, by Randi be a very effective one which Brehm allows the narrative and the com- ments made by Alfie to flow Brief, albeit useful, guide which

Guides: smoothly enough to avoid any raises points for discussion about incongruity on the part of the the film eg. Billy’s home and work audience’s perception of the story- environment, the different ce line. philosophies of the girls he encounters in the film.

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH Sour 27 March 1966 + Style of Stardom, by Margaret Hinxman 16 Review which focuses on Michael Caine’s central contribution to the role of Alfie in the film. Although the role of the “cockney Casanova” journal articles could have been handled effective- ly by other actors it is Caine’s per- ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN formance which is central to the Vol.70. No.1. January 2000, pp.32-35 success of the film and any mes- sages implicit in the narrative. Walls have feelings: cult films about sex in 1960s London, by Katherine Schonfield Georgy Girl (dir. Silvio Narizzano, 1966) Focussing on REPULSION and ALFIE which were made in a period of journal articles sociosexual revolution, Schonfield argues that the architectural disso- MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN The article also draws attention to lution between urban territories Vol.33. No.395. December 1966, p.185 techniques used in the film such acts as an analogy for the sexual as montage, sound etc with the penetration of the female body. Synopsis and review. invitation to discuss how these Both films “reveal a moment of impact on the subject matter of confident appropriation of the city the film. at large, and its female inhabi- FILM REVIEW tants, as legitimate territory for October 1996, pp.44-47 the male sexual adventurer”. SIGHT AND SOUND Call Sheet - Georgy Girl: Howard Vol.32. No.4. Autumn 1963, p.193 Maxford takes a look at the swing- FILM REVIEW ing ‘60s classic that outraged Review by Peter Harcourt. June 1998, pp.56-61 audience morals - and won a church award MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN Call Sheet - Alfie: Howard Maxford Vol.30. No.356. September 1963, p. 126 talks to director Gilbert Lewis, Article in which Silvio Narizzano actor Graham Stark and actress talks about problems with casting Synopsis and review. Julia Foster about this superb and production and the issues the

BFI National Library 12 screen and how script writer DICKINSON, Margaret press articles Raphael regards the lifestyle Rogue reels: oppositional film in embodied in the central character, Britain, 1945-1990. TIME OUT Diana, as reflecting contemporary London: British Film Institute, 1999. 25 June-2 July 1997, p.7 sexual mores which are ultimately vi, 330p. illus. bibliog. index destructive and unfulfilling. Hitting the small time: Geoffrey The first two paragraphs of chap- Cinema Macnab sees the hell of the little ter 2 – “Confrontation and man depicted in two very different Community”, 1966-1974 – give a films. concise analysis of the influence of the political context (“New Article in which Macnab draws Politics”, pp. 35-41) on the struc- parallels between BILLY LIAR and tures of the experimental move-

British LOOK BACK IN ANGER. Points out ment (“New Cinema”, pp.41-45). that both films are dismissive about the hypocrisies of small town English life and that Billy DWOSKIN, Stephen and Porter in LOOK BACK IN ANGER Film is: the international Free are incapable of escaping the “pri- Cinema. vate hells in which they’ve allowed Sixties London: Peter Owen, 1975. 268p. themselves to become caught”. plates. bibliog. index.

Dwoskin is an American avant- THE OBSERVER garde film-maker who emigrated 18 August 1963 to London in 1964 and played a crucial part in the development of The comedy of hatred, by Penelope Guides: the English avant-garde movement Gilliatt in the late 1960s. In this study of the film avant-garde in several ce Gilliat highlights the fact that Billy countries, Dwoskin devotes a Liar should not be regarded as a whole chapter to the development sentimental character but that his of the English avant-garde. He character is one of loathing and gives a foreigner’s interesting

Sour Experimental contempt towards his environ- point of view and proves very criti- ment and the reality of his life. Cinema + cal about the British attitude towards avant-garde film in gener- al. 16 Darling books (dir. John Schlesinger, 1965) * DUSINBERRE, Peter de Kay III (aka O’PRAY, Michael (ed.) Deke) journal articles The British avant-garde 1926 to English avant-garde cinema 1966- 1995: an anthology of writing. 1974 (MPhil thesis). IN THE PICTURE Luton: John Libbey Media/Arts No.36. Summer 1996, pp.24-26 London: University College, 1977. Council of England/University of 275p. bibliog. filmog. Luton. v-viii, 332p. illus. bibliog. The reaction of a group of A Level index. students to a screening of This is certainly the most compre- hensive study of the avant-garde DARLING. This book gathers a selection of in English cinema in the 1960s. articles by academics on British Dusinberre’s thesis suggests that experimental cinema throughout the movement was initiated in SCREEN the century. The article “English 1966/67 with the creation of the Vol.26. No.1. Jan/Feb 1985, pp.50-65 Avant-garde film: an early chronol- London Film-makers Co-op (LFMC) ogy” by David Curtis (pp. 101-121) and the Arts Lab. It then analyses Examination of female identity deals specifically with the 1960s. in great detail the development of and sexuality in DARLING. Curtis was directly involved in the this avant-garde until the mid- movement in the late 1960s as a 1970s. Alternating factual descrip- MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN film programmer for the Arts Lab, tion and a more theoretical Vol.32. No.380. September 1965, p.132 and his recollection of that period approach of the concept of avant- takes the form of a diary. Synopsis and review. garde, the book is always clear and accessible to non-specialists. Finally, the appendices reproduce REES, A.L. rare documents such as pro- press article A history of experimental film and grammes of avant-garde screen- video: from the canonical avant- ings, manifestos, reports and fil- DAILY MAIL garde to contemporary British mographies of selected English 14 September 1965 practice. experimental film-makers of that London: British Film Institute, 1999 period. In short, this is THE refer- What we set out to do was to v-viii, 152p. [32] plates. bibliog. index. destroy the female principle, says ence book on the subject. script-writer Freddy Raphael A short chapter titled “English Structuralists” (pp. 77-82) sums up Interesting article which traces the the development of the LFMC in history of the story from script to

BFI National Library 13 the late 1960s/1970s and its links collaborators and the films which with the ‘structuralist’ movement Foreign brought him international acclaim. represented by film-makers like Directors in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the book Malcolm Le Grice, Peter Gidal and cover the 1960s. A crucial 400- others. Britain page document on Losey’s work in Britain. The documents reviewed in this

Cinema STREET, Sarah section were selected because they British national cinema. examine specifically the work of PALMER, James and RILEY, Michael foreign film-directors in Britain in London: Routledge, 1997. ix-xi, 232p. The films of Joseph Losey the 1960s. They are not necessari- illus. bibliog. indices. Cambridge: Cambridge University ly the best or most comprehensive Press, 1993 In a paragraph called “Opposition, studies of these directors.

British Structuralism and Independence The book examines the career of 1966-1980” (pp. 169-173), Street the American-born director gives a brief account of the struc- ARMES, Roy through the analysis of five of his turalist avant-garde and the theo- A critical history of British cinema. most important films, all made in retical questions raised by the aca- London: Secker & Warburg Ltd, 1978 Britain between 1963 and 1975. It demic film journals in the late shows how Losey, who had to In chapter 16 – “The Foreign Sixties 1960s-early 1970s. leave the United States in the early Impact: Polanski, Losey, Kubrick”, 1950s because of his left-wing ELLIS, John pp. 280-299 – the author acknowl- views, uses his films to denounce 1951-1976: British Film Institute edges that in the 1960s “so many the injustices and hypocrisy root- productions: a catalogue of films of the most striking films were ed in the privileges of the class made under the auspices of the made by foreign-born directors”. system. It also looks at his close Experimental Film Fund 1951- After mentioning the failure of working relationships with Truffaut’s FAHRENHEIT 451 and the Guides: 1966 and the Production Board scriptwriter Harold Pinter and 1966-1976. success of Antonioni’s BLOWUP actor Dirk Bogarde. London: British Film Institute, 1977. (both made in 1966), he then ce 135p. illus. index. focuses his analysis on three directors – Roman Polanski, Joseph journal article Although the BFI Experimental Losey and Stanley Kubrick – who Film Fund and its successor the settled in Britain in the sixties. He SIGHT AND SOUND Sour relates the context in which they BFI Production Board were not Vol.48 No.3 Summer 1979, pp.145-147, 153 decided to come and work in + directly part of the avant-garde movement around the London Britain and tries to demonstrate in The Reluctant Exile, by Richard Film-makers’ Co-op in the late what way these directors “pro- Roud 16 1960s, its contribution to inde- duced work of an essentially pendent and experimental film- British culture” despite their back- Losey is interviewed about his making in Britain from the early ground. experience as a film-director in 1950s is far from negligible. Britain between 1951 and 1974, This publication is more than a and gives his view on the difficul- mere film catalogue. It examines Joseph Losey ties of British cinema in that peri- the evolution of the Fund/Board od. decade by decade. The second books chapter focuses on the period 1960-1969 and looks at the transi- CIMENT, Michel Roman Polanski tion between the Experimental Conversations with Joseph Losey Film Fund and the Production London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1985 Although Roman Polanski made Board in the context of 1960s three films in Britain between 1965 British cinema. It also reviews Interviewed in great detail by one and 1967 (REPULSION, CUL-DE-SAC every experimental film made by of the leading French critics, Losey and DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES), very little has been written specifically the Fund/Board in that decade. reminisces about his self-exile in Britain, his work with English on the Polish director’s British experience.

Beyond Image (dir. Sensual Laboratory, 1969)

BFI National Library 14 book Case Study: MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN Michelangelo Vol.34. No.401. June 1967, p.86 WEXMAN, Virginia Wright Antonioni and Synopsis and review Roman Polanski. Blowup (1966) Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1985 books SIGHT AND SOUND

Cinema Chapters 2 and 3 examine Vol.36. No.2. Spring 1967, pp.60-62 Polanski’s 1960s films, including HUSS, Roy (ed.) the three made in Britain. Focus on Blow Up. Blow Up, by Carey Harrison However, there are very few specif- Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: ic references to his contribution to Prentice-Hall, 1971 Detailed analysis of the film which British cinema in that period. focuses on the idea that capturing

British This book is a compilation of reality is something which ulti- reviews and articles on Antonioni’s mately eludes the photographer Stanley Kubrick film published in the late 1960s. Thomas in the film; that the “out- Its main merit is to offer English side world is just as opaque as the books translations of famous articles sets inside his studio”. written in foreign languages. The LOBRUTTO, Vincent most relevant text to our study is Sixties Stanley Kubrick a biography taken from Cahiers du Cinema New York: Donald I. Fine Books, 1997 (“Antonioni and the English Style: press articles A Day on the Set”, January 1967, pp INDEPENDENT Not only is this critical study of 13-15). 29 April 1993, pp.1,4 Kubrick’s career and films consid- ered by critics as one of the best Blow Up, Antonioni’s 1966 film documented, it also extensively WALKER, Alexander Guides: about a fashion photographer, is examines his work in England in Hollywood, England: the British back. Marion Hume and Tamsin the 1960s (Part 4: 1960-1964, film industry in the sixties Blanchard talk to the inspired and ce pp.197-254, and Part 5: 1964-1987, London: Michael Joseph, 1974 the inspirers pp. 255-264). Rather than giving a theoretical analysis of the films, “Why did Michelangelo Antonioni Collection of quotes from people the author focuses on their pro- choose London as the setting for who were in the film and those Sour duction and the context in which Blow-up?” is the opening question who were part of London’s fashion they were made. He also gives the of chapter 15 – “Cameraman’s + industry (photographers, designers reader a clear idea of why the Dream”, pp-315-331. etc) relating their views on the film-maker chose England in film and what it means to them.

16 which to make his films from the early 1960s. journal articles VILLAGE VOICE (FILM SPECIAL) LITERATURE/FILM QUARTERLY December 1991 pp.3,6,8 NELSON, Thomas Allen Vol.17. No.2. 1989, pp.134-137 Kubrick: inside a film artist’s maze Blow Up at 25: After the Orgy, by J. Bloomington: Indiana University Blow Up, Swinging London and Hoberman Press, 2000. (New, expanded ed.) the Film Generation, by Peter Lev Hoberman accounts for the film’s In this new edition of a classic Examination of the film’s econom- popularity in the USA despite the book about Kubrick, Nelson’s ic and cultural backdrop. Lev initial misgivings of its critics but approach is a theoretical analysis regards BLOWUP as a “schizoid points out that in contemporary of the director’s aesthetics. Each film, where film and art and a terms the film “doesn’t even rate a of his sixties British films is commercial popular culture cult (academic or otherwise)”. analysed in a separate chapter and uneasily coexist” and points out Despite this, Hoberman deals with is put in a historical and theoreti- that what distinguishes the film is the influence of BLOWUP on such cal context. Not an easy read but the extent to which art, popular American films as SHAMPOO and it does pay off! culture, Antonioni’s own vision BLOW OUT. and the context of “swinging London” become one.

Blowup

BFI National Library 15 types themselves, rather than social issues in the way that , for Genres simply mocking the people who example, 1970s American horror are being caricatured (though they films do. CHIBNALL, Steve and MURPHY, do that too). Argues that changing Robert (eds.) social attitudes spelled the end for Chapter 9 – “Exploring the under- British crime cinema. the series. world” – is a comprehensive look London: New York: Routledge, 1999. at the British crime film, suggest- Cinema (British popular cinema). vi-x, 251p. ing that by the mid-sixties a “vac- illus. filmog. index HUNTER, I. Q. (ed.) uous internationalism” had set in. British science-fiction cinema. Despite his attempt to cover every- Anthology of criticism about the London; New York: Routledge, 1999. thing, Murphy has time to look in British crime film genre. Chapter (British popular cinema). vi-x, 217p. more detail at films like THE 8 – “Ordinary people: ‘New Wave’ illus. filmog. index. STRANGE AFFAIR (1968) and PER-

British realism and the British crime FORMANCE which both “use the film”, by Steve Chibnall – argues Collection of essays. Chapter 2 – permissiveness of the Swinging that the New Wave, social realist “’We’re the Martians now’ British Sixties to display a more explicit films have been accorded a privi- sf invasion fantasies of the 1950s treatment of sex and violence”. leged position in histories of and 60s”, by Peter Hutchings – British sixties cinema, whereas looks at “narratives of defeat”. He Chapter 10 – “Frying tonight” – genre films have been margin- Sixties suggests (as Pirie also argues) that considers comedy, emphasising alised. One in three British films the post-Suez climate of national the disjuncture between the films made between 1959 and 1963 was uncertainty is reflected in films, of the early and late sixties sug- a crime film. Chibnall argues that like the QUATERMASS series, which gesting that by the middle of the films like Val Guest’s HELL IS A display an awareness of social decade whimsy and eccentricity CITY (1960) and Clive Owen’s OFF- change and Britain’s diminished was being traded in for smut and BEAT (1961) serve as an important importance as a global power. innuendo. Puts forward the theory index of the era’s cultural, social Guides: that the CARRY ON films of the late and economic anxieties. sixties participate in the permis- sive climate only to the extent that ce Carry On Up the Khyber (dir. Gerald Thomas, 1968)) middle-aged men are now able “to share the favours of sexually liber- ated young women”. Sour

+ PIRIE, David A heritage of horror: the English gothic cinema 1946-1972. 16 London: Gordon Fraser, 1973. 192p. illus. filmog. index.

Important study of the English horror film, which takes as its starting point the influence and tradition of the English gothic nov- elists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Includes chapters on Terence Fisher and Hammer’s Frankenstein and Dracula films, “Sadeian” movies (such as PEEPING TOM) and WITCHFINDER GENERAL director Michael Reeves.

ROSS, Robert The Carry on companion. London: B.T. Batsford , 1996. 192p. illus. chronol. bibliog. videog. index. CURRAN, James and PORTER, *MURPHY, Robert Vincent Sixties British cinema. Film by film look at the series, British cinema history. London: British Film Institute, 1992. with ratings for the films indicated London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 353p. illus. appendix. bibliog. index. by little laughing Sid James heads 445p. tables. bibliog. (the more Sids, the better the film) Devotes three chapters to the neg- but little in the way of serious Chapter 19 – “Carry On… follow lected subject of British 60s genre analysis. that stereotype”, by Marion Jordan films. – offers an analysis of the CARRY ON series. Jordan remains ambiva- Chapter 8 – “Other worlds” – con- STREET, Sarah lent about the films but suggests siders horror (dominated by British national cinema. that, in part, they are successful Hammer’s output) and science fic- London; New York: Routledge, 1997. and funny because the characters tion. Murphy warns that 60s (The national cinema series). ix-xi, and situations are so exaggerated British horror films rely on con- 232p. illus. bibliog. indices. and grotesque, that they poke fun vention and do not engage with at the ridiculous nature of stereo-

BFI National Library 16 Chapter 3 – “Genres from austerity dated is that it deals with all the to affluence” – considers the out- themes “aesthetic, political, philo- journal articles put of films from 1945-1970 in sophical and sexual” that the six- terms of genre. The chapter ends ties threw up and which still dom- SIGHT AND SOUND Vol.5. No.9. September 1995, pp.20-23 with a look at KES, comparing it to inate “our intellectual and emo- examples of the British New Wave tional lives”. MacCabe can be and suggesting that it is different abstruse but is good on the details Possession: 25 years on, Peter Cinema from these earlier films in several and sets the scene vividly in terms Wollen examines dandyism, deca- important ways, especially in the of the culture of the time. His dence and death in Performance way in which landscape and nar- study is divided into sections deal- rative are fully integrated with one ing with: production background, Wollen takes as his starting point another. Street argues that KES Cammell’s biographical details, the observation made by Marianne also has a flexibility of tone, a the script, cast, the shoot, the edit Faithful that PERFORMANCE is “an

British sympathy to women and satirical and the release. allegory of libertine Chelsea life in attitude to masculinity missing the late 1960s, with its baronial rock stars, wayward jeunesse from, say, SATURDAY NIGHT AND dorée, drugs, sex and decadence”. SUNDAY MORNING. SWAIN, John Bleeding images: Performance and The film is put into the social con- the British gangster movie. text of the time with reference to The Rolling Stones. Wollen dis- Sixties London, 1998. BFI/Birkbeck College Case Study: cusses the breakdown of class bar- MA Dissertation. 52p. bibliog. filmog. Performance riers in social circles, how the (dir. Donald Cammell, 1970) Swain sets the film in the context upper class “Chelsea set” co-exist- books of genre tracing the gangster film ed and mingled with the working from its Hollywood beginnings, class underworld and how this through early British examples came to inform the subject matter CHIBNALL, Steve and MURPHY, of PERFORMANCE. Guides: Robert (eds.) and then post-PERFORMANCE offer- British crime cinema. ings like THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY London: New York: Routledge, 1999. and THE KRAYS. He writes about ce the importance of mirrors and SIGHT AND SOUND (British popular cinema). vi-x, 251p. Vol.3. No.5. May 1993, pp.14-18 illus. filmog. index. doppelgangers and is particularly interested in the way in which the film pitches the underworld of the Snapshots of the Sixties: The 60s

Sour In chapter 9 – “Performance: inter- gangster against its “double”, the may haunt us - but what exactly view with Donald Cammell”, by did happen when pop music and + Jon Savage – Cammell talks about British sixties underground culture of music, drugs and sexual liber- Swinging London took to celluloid the experience of directing and in films from A Hard Day’s Night editing PERFORMANCE. tinism. 16 to Performance?, by Jon Savage

WALKER, Alexander Referring primarily to A HARD LANZA, Joseph DAY’S NIGHT, BLOW-UP and PER- Fragile geometry: the films, phi- *Hollywood England: the British film industry in the sixties. FORMANCE, Savage discusses the losophy, and misadventures of lasting influence of 1960s pop cul- London: Michael Joseph, 1974. 493p. Nicolas Roeg. ture. New York: PAJ, 1989. 176p. illus. bibli- plates. index og. filmog. index. In “No sympathy for the devil”, pp. 411-425, Walker is good on the pro- TAKE ONE The first and, by common consent, Vol.4. No.1. Sep/Oct 1972, pp.12-18 the best book on Roeg. Lanza duction background, particularly embraces the contradictory, multi- details on Warner Bros.’ involve- ment in the film, and Sandy Redemption & Performance, by Bill layered nature of Roeg’s work and Nichols reflects this in his own writing Lieberson’s role as producer. He which draws on themes of frac- sets the scene well in terms of the cultural clash between the deca- In-depth structural analysis of the tured time and identity, meta- film which takes as its premise the physics and terror in the films, dent, late sixties milieu inhabited by Cammell, Jagger, Pallenberg et notion that the structure of the while still setting them in their film functions not by creating cultural context. Lanza’s commen- al. and the lingering puritanism of the US majors epitomised by believable characters or suspen- tary is interspersed with inter- sion of disbelief in its audience but views with Roeg. PERFORMANCE is Warner Bros.’ initial horrified reac- tion to the film, tracing how through the “repetitive, cluttered, described as “a swansong to the cumulative impact of its very sixties” and Lanza gives good takeovers and changing personnel at the studio eventually led to the style”. The style of the film forces account of the outrage which the audience to make its own con- greeted the film on its release. release of PERFORMANCE in a Manhattan cinema in 1970. nections and associations and the overall effect is to create a world where anything seems possible. MacCABE, Colin Performance. London: British Film Institute, 1998. (BFI film classics). 87p. illus. bibliog.

The crux of MacCabe’s argument is that the reason PERFORMANCE remains compelling and hasn’t

BFI National Library 17 MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN The article is perhaps notable NEW STATESMAN Vol.38. No.445. February 1971, p.27 more for accounting for the per- 8 January 1975 sonality which coloured the direc- Synopsis and review. tion of PERFORMANCE rather than Well, Blow my Mind, by John any in-depth analysis or produc- Coltman tion history of the film as such. TIME OUT Interesting review in which Cinema No.C. 1970. Poster Magazine, pp.1-16 Coltman questions the validity of (unnumbered) DAILY TELEGRAPH the film’s attempt to draw paral- (WEEKEND MAGAZINE) lels between the bohemian and About the development, produc- 3 June 1995 pp.24, 27-28, 30 criminal worlds as places which tion, casting and characters of PER- harbour outsiders. FORMANCE. Contains an interview Performance was the film that

British with Mick Jagger and short fea- blew the minds of everyone who Although the two worlds do collide tures on the cast and crew mem- saw it - and everyone who made on perhaps an occasional basis, bers. it. There was as much sex, drugs the failure of the film is to insist and rock ‘n’ roll on the set as on the parallel between them. there was off. One star turned to Coltman praises the film’s style press articles heroin, another to God. Mick and the acting but feels that with-

Sixties Brown tells the story of the film out so much of an insistance on DAILY TELEGRAPH and its aftermath the collision of values of the pop (WEEKEND MAGAZINE) world with the underworld, the 9 May 1998 pp.32-35, 37, 39, 60-62 Extensive and very interesting arti- film could have existed as a fine cle on the inspiration behind and thriller on its own terms. The Final Cut: Donald Cammell’s the production of PERFORMANCE. unique directorial debut with Brown believes that “More than

Guides: Performance - a dark story set in any other film (or book, or record), GUARDIAN the drug-hazed, sexual overload of it stands as the quintessential 12 January 1971 Sixties London - won him a cult record of the Sixties London of ce following. Yet the obsessions it hedonism, amorality and violence What a performance: Derek portrayed horrified Hollywood and in its exploration of sexuality and Malcolm discloses the struggle ultimately became a self-fulfilling the mind bending properties of behind the screen to get a release prophecy for his own life and hallucinogenic drugs, the meeting for one of the best British fims for Sour eventual suicide. Mick Brown of the worlds of pop music and years

+ reports on a Hollywood tragedy. crime. The London of the Rolling Stones and The Krays and the Article starts with a copy of the This article was written to co- lines that connected them.” letter of complaint written by 16 incide with the screening of the Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg documentary DONALD CAMMELL to Warner Brothers in the light of THE ULTIMATE PERFORMANCE. the company’s censorship of, and Brown gives an overview of the life a perceived lack of support for, and work of the director and some PERFORMANCE. Malcolm draws discussion is given over to the PER- comparisons with this lack of FORMANCE. enthusiasm to the treatment by the companies responsible for IF…., KES, and BRONCO BULLFROG. Both Cammell and Roeg are inter- viewed, giving their views on film itself and the failure of Warner Brothers to recognise its intrinsic value.

Performance

BFI National Library 18