CONSENSUS #19. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)

 

SUMMARY: This very British film follows Clive Wynne-Candy (Roger Livesey) from dashing young British soldier through WWI-weary general to doddering old Home Guard commander in WWII Britain. Along the way he has significant relationships with a German officer and three consecutive women (all played by Deborah Kerr). His play fair philosophy becomes outdated when the British face the Nazi threat.

BACK-STORY: “The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” was released in 1943 and was directed by the legendary team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger (The Archers). They also directed the respected “49th Parallel”. It was the most expensive British movie made up until then. The movie was shot in vibrant Technicolor. It is about as British as you can get. Although the movie is usually said to be inspired by the comic strip character, in fact the idea came from a scene cut from The Archers’ previous film (“One of Our Aircraft is Missing”). A character says “You don’t know what it’s like to be old”. Film editor and future great director David Lean suggested a movie be constructed around that line.

Interestingly, Churchill tried to stop the film and did not allow the British military to cooperate. He felt it perpetuated the stereotype of Blimp-like British officers. Some suggest he was standing up for his peer group. The film went through anyway, but did not do well mainly because the British public in 1943 was not keen on a sympathetic German character.

TRIVIA:  Wikipedia

 

1.  The title comes from the comic strip, but the idea came from a line in Pressburger and Powell’s previous film, “One of Our Aircraft Is Missing”.  An old man says “You don’t know what it’s like to be old”.

 

2.  Winston Churchill hated the premise of the film and tried to get it stopped.  He may have seen Blimp as a parody of himself.  He loathed the idea of a movie perpetuating the image of a Blimp-style officer.  He prevented any kind of military cooperation, but Pressburger/Powell claimed that had enough connections to “steal” what they needed. 

 

3.  The producers wanted Laurence Olivier to play Candy, but Churchill caused the Fleet Air Arm to refuse to release him from active duty.

 

4.  The movie was not seen in the U.S. until 1945 because Churchill put an export ban on the film.

 

Belle and Blade  =  N/A

Brassey’s              =  5.0

Video Hound       =  N/A

War Movies         =  N/A

Military History  =  #87

Channel 4             =  #72

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  no

Rotten Tomatoes  =  #29 

ACCURACY: The movie is fictional, so historical accuracy is not really an issue. The one possible inaccuracy that stands out is – would the Home Guard have been practicing to repel an invasion as late as 1943? I doubt it, but it is possible. There were Germans who fled because they disagreed with the direction the Nazis were taking Germany, so Theo’s immigration to England is plausible. I am sure there was a debate in England of how dirty to fight the Nazis. Obviously, the dirty-fighters won that argument as the movie implies by Candy’s fall from grace.

OPINION: This movie has caused me some soul-searching. As a war movie lover, I have assumed that I know a good war movie when I see one. Granted, I did not go to film school, but I am intelligent and have seen many war movies. So why don’t I “get” this movie? I actually read a critic saying this is the greatest British movie ever made.

This movie is not a “masterpiece”. At least it would certainly not seem so to an American audience. I doubt many Englishmen under age 50 would argue that it is. It’s not really a war movie. It is more of a social satire. It is a period piece. Blimp represents the snobby, uppercrust British officer class. In fact, you need to be British to get a lot of the cultural references (and to understand some of the slang). Most Americans will not “get” this movie. Our officer class has not been traditionally from the nobility, so most would not recognize Blimp as a stereotype.

With that said, it is not a bad movie. It is interesting to see the evolution of Candy from a young, impetuous lieutenant to an old, moss-backed general. However, some of this character evolution does not seem realistic. His pre-WWII sentiments of fair play belie his apparent conduct in WWI. The movie is well-acted, especially by Walbrook, but even his character contradicts himself. The first half of the movie moves along briskly, but after the trio breaks up it goes downhill. It is also a good example of a propaganda film with the message being that England should not be required to fight fairly against the Nazis. Give "The Archers" credit for having a sympathetic main character argue for the opposite. (The city of Dresden can tell you which argument won.) There are references to German atrocities in WWI and the stated fact that the British were the good guys in the war, albeit naively good. There is some humor, but it is very British.

My main complaint is the flashing back and forward skips over what should have been the most interesting parts of the movie. I know critics will chastise me for wanting to see the duel, but who’s with me on this? We watch the negotiations for the duel, but not the duel itself? Are you kidding me?! I know you might want to leave something to the imagination, but when the actual scenes are action-free, why not substitute a scene that shows what Candy was doing from 1914-1917?

Oh, and by the way, for an alleged comedy, it ain't funny!

In conclusion, I don’t see why critics love this movie.  It is not a great movie and certainly is not a great war movie.  It infuriates me that it is ranked higher than a movie like “The Great Escape”.  But that is just one example of one movie.    There are many that are superior and yet ranked lower, or not at all.  Due to the methodology of this list, it is clearly overrated because the only book that reviews it gave it 5 stars.   It pains me that my system allowed it to get to #19, but it does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this list is not my opinion.