Festival of Film
Also published on my History Usherette blogspot - see foot of post for link
Before the
opening credits of ‘The Magic Box’ (1951), the Festival of Britain logo flashes
onto the screen. The film was shown at the Festival, before it went on general
release. We can therefore assume that it was meant to fit in with the ethos of
the Festival – a celebration of British achievement. It certainly showcases the
best of contemporary acting talent, with a long list of stars performing in
tiny cameo roles. Some parts are so tiny, it is literally a case of blink and
you will miss them. I certainly missed
seeing Googie Withers, Sheila Sim and Marius Goring. Others have slightly more
prominent five-minute pieces, giving us a taste of the kind of role that they
were famous for. Margaret Rutherford as a bossy yet coquettish dame, Laurence
Olivier as an incredulous policeman, Joyce Grenfell as a fussy spinster and
Eric Portman as an angry businessman. I
could go on. It is a veritable pageant of drama skills.
The talent is a
literal celebration of British film-making. But the storyline also looks at the
life of film pioneer William Friese-Greene (played by Robert Donat). Fitting in with the Festival’s celebration of
British science, it seems to say – ‘Look! It was us that invented film! But we
are so modest with our achievements while other nationalities blow their own
trumpets so loudly that they drown us out!’
Having watched
the film myself, I wasn’t impressed with the character of Friese-Greene. He is
portrayed as a very selfish man, who puts his inventing before his wives and his
children. His first wife dies of ill health – the film suggests that this was
exacerbated by the debts that her husband ran up by eschewing proper work. He
marries again and his six sons are all shown as suffering from his single
minded attitude. In the end, three of them join World War One as under age
soldiers in order to stop becoming a financial burden on their parents. This
second marriage ends when his wife can take no more. He apparently destroyed the opportunity to
become a rich society photographer because of his obsession with developing a
moving picture. I was flabbergasted at
this – surely he could have invented at evenings and weekends? This is how the rest of us have to follow our
dreams!
I wonder if the
1951 audience took a different attitude? Were they meant to view him with sympathy as
a man who gave up everything and got no recognition for his ground breaking
work? This would sit more comfortably
with the Festival ethos. Does ‘The Magic Box’ depict a long gone set of values,
when it was understandable to put genius before family? When a man could get
away more easily with neglecting his sons? A fascinating question of 1950s
morals and mores.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home