The Obscurer

Category: Media

Shepperton Babylon

Probably the finest work Harry Enfield has ever done was a one-off spoof documentary for Channel 4 entitled Norbert Smith – A Life. In the style of a South Bank Show special, and even “presented” by Melvyn Bragg, it followed the life and career of the fictional celebrated actor Sir Norbert Smith, a sort of Gielgud/Olivier/ Richardson composite. Through various parodies of different films we see Enfield/Smith star alongside Will Silly in Oh, Mr Bankrobber; in the gritty northern kitchen sink drama of It’s Grim Up North; as the uncool father in the Cliff Richardesque Keep Your Hair On, Daddio; and performing a song and dance routine in the MGM-style musical Lullaby Of London.

At one point we see a clip from Smith’s 1964 film Rover Returns Home, introduced as being part of the Rover series of films, poor British imitations of the successful American Lassie films (it also claims to be the first film to feature the chameleon like versatility of Michael Caine…as the dog). Curiously enough I have recently found out that there actually was a British series of Rover films; but rather than being copies of American movies the first Rover film actually predates Lassie by nearly forty years. Furthermore, 1905’s Rescued by Rover features the first use of many of the innovative cinematic techniques usually attributed to DW Griffiths in his landmark film The Birth of a Nation, which was released a full decade later in 1915.

The source for this information is a new book Shepperton Babylon – The Lost Worlds of British Cinema by Matthew Sweet, and I think the above example rather neatly makes the author’s point, and indeed the premise of the book; that British films have always been under rated and under valued, and that “no-one has hated British film more than the British” themselves.

And who is Matthew Sweet? Well, according to the blurb at the front of the book he is a “writer and broadcaster” who has been, among other things, the “film critic for The Independent on Sunday, presenter of Radio 4’s The Film Programme, and a reporter for BBC2’s The Culture Show”. Strangely absent from this CV is that Matthew and I were at school together, and although we have lost touch with each other over the years I count him as a friend. So, is this post just a plug for an old friend’s book? Well, yes it is, but if you cannot plug a friend’s book in your own barely read blog, then what can you do? (Jonathan Calder has beaten me by several weeks to writing the first review of this book in a blog; he is obviously a far faster reader than I am).

Matthew’s previous book Inventing the Victorians was a re-evaluation of that era, where he sought to show how the stuffy and staid image often associated with the period is false. In Shepperton Babylon he tries to show another side to the much-derided British film industry. An author with a penchant for revisionism then? Perhaps, and both books are clearly personal views; but even if you don’t agree with the author’s opinion (and when discussing films you haven’t seen you have to take a lot on trust) the style of writing is always engaging, and you cannot read his opinions without being fascinated, and becoming more open minded about the subject.

The book follows a largely chronological path beginning during the pioneering days of film, when Hollywood was just “a tangle of cacti and orange trees”, but Hove in Sussex hosted a studio on rails that was moved during the course of the day in order to catch the sun. I think there is something inside all of us that understands the magic of those early days of cinema, some innate sense of wonder; it is the same feeling I remember from watching my dad’s old super-8 cine films which seem so much more evocative and thrilling than the DV clips I have taken on my camera, inspite of the far superior technology we have today. In the early days of British cinema film-makers were happy to create movies with such fantastic names as That Fatal Sneeze (where weights were attached to the camera to mimic the ultimate sneeze itself), The Lure Of Crooning Water and the Venetian romance of The City Of Beautiful Nonsense, and presumably kept a straight face as they did so.

That last film featured Chrissie White and Henry Edwards, who though largely forgotten nowadays appear to have been the Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward of their age, and it is surprising how often you are reminded of the present while reading about the past. In 1928, long before 9/11 and the building of the channel tunnel, High Treason concerned itself with a terrorist attack on a cross-channel rail link. If you think Little Britain is an original and inventive comedy it is interesting to read about 1952’s Mother Riley Meets The Vampire, where Arthur Lucan performs what Matthew describes as “not quite a drag act”; dressed in bonnet and shawl Lucan shrieks, “I’m a Lady…and I defy you to prove it!” It is also strange to read about the 1916 film East Is East based around a Fish and Chip shop, just like the more well known, but entirely unrelated, film of 1999.

You would expect a book of this sort to wax lyrically about a slew of lost gems, and indeed the descriptions of such films as the 1929 IRA drama The Informer (“a scene in which he offers his condolences to the weeping mother of the man he has helped to kill is as powerful as anything in Cinema”) and the early Ealing films such as Pen Tennyson’s There Ain’t No Justice, and Went The Day Well, leave you itching to see them; but Matthew is happy to put the boot in when required. The Woman From China is “comprehensively hopeless”, and as he is one of only a handful of people who have seen it he is “qualified to pronounce upon the irredeemable awfulness” of the film. Similarly, the gay western of The Singer Not The Song gets a less than favourable review, and unsurprisingly failed to kick start a new film genre.

Just reading the two pages of acknowledgements at the front of the book gives you some idea of the work that has gone into Shepperton Babylon. How many of us can say we have interviewed Googie Withers? Well Matthew can. He has also suffered for his art, and gone places I wouldn’t dare; interviewing the unbearable Nicholas Parsons for one (I saw Parsons on a TV programme the other day talking about his time as a comedy straight man where he said “Although I am not a pompous person in real life, I am very good at playing pompous characters”; oblivious to the fact that only a truly pompous man would come out with such a line). His interview with Norman Wisdom is described as “an overpowering experience: my five hours with him feel as much like a hostage crisis as an interview”; Wisdom even feels the need to “perform a comedy stumble” when they are introduced. Christopher Lee, however, proves to be a rich source of unintentional humour. Irritated that people view him as being just a horror actor, and attacking “sloppy journalism”, he states he hasn’t starred in a horror movie since 1975; which makes you wonder what sort of genre his movies Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991) and Talos The Mummy (1998) fall into. He must have been furious when his 1970 film The Bloody Judge, a biopic of the 17th century Lord Chancellor George Jeffreys was released as Night Of The Blood Monster. Poor bloke; even when he breaks free from the shackles of horror and appears in Eugenie…The Story Of Her Journey Into Perversion (1991) he “insists he had no idea he was appearing in a porn film”.

The book is almost worth reading for the author’s descriptions alone; Barbara Cartland is a “flushed meringue”; Gracie Fields a “clog-shod Britannia”; George Formby looks like “a human being reflected in a tap”; Diana Dors is “a monstrous Zeppelin of blondeness”; while Dirk Bogarde “manages to suggest barrack-room bullying and buggery just by the way he leans on a mop” in one film; in another he resembles a “quiffed eel”.

As the book tells its story it is fascinating to see relatively unknown actors (at least, unknown to me) like the fantastically named Tod Slaughter make way for more familiar figures such as Lawrence Olivier. With the rise and fall of the studio system movies better known to me hover into view before I am in unfamiliar territory again with the chapters on exploitation and sexploitation films (honest). Along the way there are hundreds of revelations, some quirky, some significant; that 1936 saw the first screen kiss between black actors in Paul Robeson’s Song Of Freedom; how Rank’s move from making big prestige films to mass-market cheaper pictures was partly due to producer Filippo Del Giudice being fired for accidentally urinating on J.Arthur’s feet; that Kenneth More’s first role in cinema was literally in a cinema, monitoring “the audience for telescopes, binoculars, opera glasses and masturbation”; that Larry Taylor featured in the sexploitation film The Wife Swappers before finally finding “fame” as Captain Birds Eye (I will leave you to make up your own jokes).

The book ends on this note, dealing with the sub-Carry On… films of the seventies, a curious time when Adventures Of A Taxi Driver out-grossed Taxi Driver and filmmakers battled to win the Golden Phallus at the Wet Dreams festival in Amsterdam. I personally cannot even abide the Carry On… films, and I am unable to share Matthew’s obvious enthusiasm for them; so when he says that Emmanuelle In Soho is “a kind of endgame for British cinema” from which “ there was nowhere to go but upmarket” you know it must have been a stinker.

We largely know the path British film has taken since then; Matthew writes that “more has been written about the last twenty years of native production than the previous seven decades put together”, and so for a book dealing with “the unknown, the forgotten, the unrecorded” it is time to call it a day. Matthew is obviously a fan of many of these overlooked films, but he is never sentimental; he even asks us not to mourn the passing of such famous names as Elstree and Shepperton. By way of an example he recounts attending a party at the old Gainsborough studios in 1999, shortly before they were demolished in 2002. At one point he sneaks off, hoping to chance upon the ghost of Ivor Novello, but instead encounters only dead and dying pigeons.

In Paul Auster’s novel The Book of Illusions the central character David Zimmer discovers the films of the silent movie star Hector Mann, and it is captivating to read Auster’s descriptions of these imaginary lost works such as The Snoop and Mr. Nobody. I always wanted to be able to watch these films, but unfortunately they are all the work of Auster’s imagination. Matthew Sweet casts a similar spell with his book; the difference being that here he is describing films that actually exist, and which you are able to see. He fires your interest and persuades you of the value of these lost masterpieces, inspires you to endeavour to track them down for yourself; and that is reason enough for me to consider Shepperton Babylon a success.

PostScript: The relevance of the picture? Well, it features the cast of the children’s programme Balamory, including the original and best Josie Jump (her in the yellow). On the far left, wearing pink, is Archie, the Inventor, who for me bares a striking resemblence to Matthew Sweet. Coincidently, next to Archie is PC Plum, who it is claimed is a dead ringer for myself. This is something I refute entirely; but in this matter, as in so many others, I appear to be in a minority of one.

Commercial Break

I love terrible adverts. One of my favourites recently has been for Bonjela, I think. It features a bloke underneath a sort of clear plastic sheeting dome which he punches while shrieking in an effort to be the personification of a mouth ulcer. I’d just love to imagine how you carry this off with any dignity. I can’t help but imagine the scene as he gets home after the shoot…

“Good day at work, love?”
“Great, I played a mouth ulcer who was obliterated by antiseptic gel.”
“Ooh, things are looking up. Better than being in The Bill.”

I know acting is a precarious profession, and actors are probably just happy for any work to come their way, but if you pass the audition and are chosen to play an ulcer, do you have a skip in your step for a few days, wondering if this could be your big break? What would you think are the chances of a director from the RSC seeing the advert and thinking, “That’s the fellow! We’ve just found our next Iago”? I would have thought being obscured behind plastic sheeting in this case could be a benefit, so no one associates you with such an advert. Wither the Shake and Vac lady, who probably did all right for herself by appearing in that infamous ad, but who ruled herself out of any other acting job, ever. You couldn’t really see her subsequently popping up in an episode of Cracker, could you?

But my current favourite advert features no such unfortunate actor. The “At Home with Beefy and Lamby” ads for meat are astonishing. If you haven’t seen them (and if you haven’t, you can watch them here) they feature computer animations of Ian “Beefy” Botham and Allan “Lamby” Lamb…well, eating beef and lamb. Inspired.

You can see the thinking behind them; presumably advertising execs were having a brainstorm, probably considered using Ian Botham first because of his Beefy nickname (I would be amazed if it happened the other way round) and perhaps wanted another person to play alongside him whose name or nickname also had some sort of butchery theme. The probably asked themselves if there was a John Pork, or a Mike Chicken, perhaps even a Fred Slow-Roast, when suddenly.

“I’ve got it! Allan Lamb! There’s an Allan Lamb! And he was a cricketer too! They even played for England together!”
“It’s perfect. It cannot fail. Eureka!”

High fives all round. But in all the heady enthusiasm I wonder if they forgot to ask themselves just what demographic such ads would be aiming for. I like cricket, but I would have thought the vast majority of the population have no interest in it at all. Even among cricket lovers, there is probably an entire generation who have no idea who Allan Lamb is, and certainly won’t be able to associate with the CGI version of him. More people will of course know Ian Botham, if only because of his Shredded Wheat ads, but how many youngsters will know him as Beefy, and will recognise his animated caricature? And as for one advert where Beefy and Lamby bash out the “Soul Limbo” tune on the pots and pans, won’t there be a huge number of people who won’t get the reference, having been introduced to cricket via Channel 4 and Sky? It must be years since the BBC used that tune to introduce the Test Matches; although I guess “Mambo #5” is probably a bit more difficult to replicate on household percussion.

No, I am convinced that this advertising campaign is a grave mistake; which can only guarantee that it will be a huge success. It will win a string of awards, sales of Lamb and Beef will rocket as a result, and I will have found yet another career for which I am wholly unsuited.

Orange Alert

With apologies to The Filter^ who are currently trying to claim the noble colour orange as their own, I have a somewhat less positive feeling towards this particular hue. In my second year at University I shared a house with a lad whose choice of evening meal was, err, limited. It was basically a variation on- Fish Fingers or Breaded Chicken Burger / frozen oven-baked potato product (waffles, pancake, scallops) / baked beans or sweetcorn (Green Giant “Mexicorn” for that occasional exotic treat). Every day he sat down to a big plate of grim orange-tinted fare and I felt quite ill. I can’t say my diet was much healthier (I haven’t eaten Campbell’s Meatballs since graduation; I can’t even look at a tin), but it did at least have some sort of variety in colour.

I have been reminded of this while watching the series Jamie’s School Dinners on Channel 4, where Jamie Oliver has ditched his irritating chirpy Sainsbury’s mockney image to tackle the problem of school meals (yes, I know every other blogger under the sun has already covered this subject, but I am a bit slow. Sorry). The first day Jamie turned up at a school canteen he was greeted by a vast range of frozen, processed food arranged before him, and it was almost all a hideous orange in colour; from the bright yellow-orange of the chicken nuggets to the dull brown-orange of the burgers, and not a actual zesty, juicy orange in sight. Special mention must go to the burgers which were of that economy variety that fall apart when heated; meat that has been sandblasted off the bones of long dead carcasses, mixed with rusk and all held together with old chip fat.

Whilst I sympathised with Jamie’s cause – and agree that school dinners seem to have gone down hill even since my day – I couldn’t help but recall that my diet at that age was far from healthy, yet I was as fit a flea; I am far less healthy now even though I try to eat all the right things. Unlike Jamie, I wasn’t surprised that teenagers didn’t recognise asparagus; I probably wouldn’t either at that age. At school it was not unknown for me to just eat a plate of chips and gravy and spend the rest of my dinner money on cola bottles and toffee logs from the ice cream van. In summer I sometimes spent my entire dinner money on my own type of orange food; cider lollies.

Despite my reservations, there certainly were some genuine revelations during the series; while it is not surprising to be told that eating crap food can lead to diabetes and heart disease, it was incredible to see one family state that once they went on Jamie’s diet the whole house calmed down; on the one occasion they subsequently ate additive ridden junk food the kids suddenly became more boisterous and aggressive and started climbing up the walls. Similarly, it was interesting to hear from the teachers at one school who said that after converting to Jamie’s diet the pupils’ attention level and academic performance in the afternoons had improved, and from a school nurse who said there was no longer a queue of children needing to use the asthma inhaler after lunch.

Jamie certainly found it difficult providing a two-course meal for just 37 pence, and no wonder; it is all a far cry from his own restaurant where he thinks of a meal, finds out the cost of ingredients, and adds 65% on top to find the price. He was also hampered by ridiculous rules drawn up by well meaning but short sighted bureaucrats who said you couldn’t add salt to any foods; so those minging turkey twizzler things that look like broken pre-war rubber bands and are pumped full of fat, salt, sugar and preservatives are okay, but adding salt to potatoes to make mash is a no-no.

Of course what is bad for children is bad for adults, and this prompts some people to say we should have a tax on unhealthy and fatty foods. There are two justifications I suppose, the first being that we tax cigarettes and alcohol, so why not unhealthy food? This ignores that fact that people need to eat food, and some people need to eat cheap food; I feel uncomfortable raising tax on what is an essential. The second, perhaps more understandable, suggestion is that it could be considered that there is an element of market failure in play here; that food companies sell us shit food but don’t pick up the tab for the resulting illnesses and diseases, which is borne by the public sector. While I understand this argument, again I have to disagree. For one thing, the companies that sell unhealthy foods are the same ones that sell healthy option meals, and give us all a choice in what we buy; for another, the food industry already pays a large amount of tax (I don’t know the figures relevant to this discussion, but when it was suggested that pubs pay for the expected increased policing required to deal with the forthcoming relaxation in the licensing laws, it was pointed out that the licensing trade already hands over enough tax to pay for the UK’s police forces many times over). In any event, we can go round in circles with this debate; if people do eat unhealthily and have to go to hospital as a result then they have already paid for their treatment through their own taxes; and if they do shuffle gravewards early then we are spared paying their pensions. It could be argued that with an ageing society the food companies are actually doing us a favour; perhaps they need a tax rebate!

So I feel uneasy about taxing food, I think that essentially adults should be able to eat what they want at their own risk; but what about children? Presumably they don’t have total freedom to eat whatever they want at home, so why should they have that freedom at school? The state may not be able to tell adults what they can and cannot eat, but surely it has control over what it provides in its own schools?

Jamie soon realised the self-evident truth that if you give children the option of healthy food or shite food, they will go for the shite. Many adults would do the same. Much criticism was levelled at the private providers of school meals such as Scholarest for the food they were serving up, but you cannot expect anything different; their job is to make a profit, not to feed children healthily. The days when my mother worked in a school canteen and was told they had to provide over 50% of the recommended daily intake of proteins and vitamins have long gone. Unless minimum standards are issued and a menu devoid of junk food is introduced then children will inevitably continue to be offered rubbish, and they will choose it. If we want children to eat healthily at school then it can be done tomorrow; if we don’t care then we can carry on just as we do now.

As things stand, however, everyone seems to be a winner. The Government say they are reviewing school meals just in time for the election, Jamie Oliver has made people reconsider their opinions of him (there is even talk of a knighthood) and thanks to their exposure on Jamie’s School Dinners sales of Bernard Matthew’s Turkey Twizzlers have risen by 32%. Amazing. Personally I’d rather relapse and have a tin of Campbell’s Meatballs than eat those shrivelled lengths of MSG (although only just); at least meatballs don’t look like they glow in the dark.

Barley Whine

I was in two minds about discussing Nathan Barley (AKA trashbat.co.ck), the Channel 4 sit-com that ended last Friday; but then I thought of a piss-poor pun as a title and decided “what the hell”. I don’t have a great deal to say about the programme, so feel free to skip this post, but for what it’s worth I have enjoyed this series and it has been well worth videoing of a weekend, and watching it as and when. The main problem with taping it has been the possibility you end up with some of the dreadful Friday Night Project as well, but it is easily (and best) ignored.

While I have liked the series as it mocked the pretentious and moronic people who populate the dot.com and meeja landscapes, I did keep thinking that I should have been enjoying it more and finding it funnier. I appreciated much of Barley’s absurd lingo (“peace and fucking!”), and thought it was clever; but I wasn’t exactly laughing, just sort of smiling to myself. I don’t know, but I wonder if some of it went a bit over my head, that unless you are part of London’s medialand you simply won’t get some of the in-jokes. I could be wrong, but as I sat there being mildly amused by some of the comic scenarios, I couldn’t help imagining others creased up on the floor, screaming “oh it’s so, so true”. Perhaps that explains why I thought that the funniest moment was probably when Dan Ashcroft accidentally killed the barber’s cat. Not very subtle, perhaps, or nice; but I did laugh.

That said, I thought the series improved as it went along, and it started hitting a few more bullseyes; perhaps it was because I became more familiar with the style, but I also think that some of the later episodes included more recognisable and better drawn caricatures such as Mandy the teenage coke-head and the Commissioning Editor of Channel Seven; earlier figures such as the piss “artist” 15Peter20 and tabloid fodder Dajve Bikinus (great name though) seemed far weaker.

The acting was generally very good; Julian Barratt as Dan was perfect, you could really feel his world weariness seeping through the screen. Similar praise must go to the rest of the cast, but in particular to Nicholas Burns as the self facilitating media node himself, Charlie Condou as Jonatton Yeah?, Richard Ayoade & Spencer Brown as the two idiotic SugarApe journos and Claire Keelan as Dan’s sister.

Unfortuantely for me Dan’s sister, Claire, was one of the weak points in the series; she was clearly meant to be the most sympathetic character as she toiled to make a serious documentary while everywhere she looked there were idiots getting commissions. The problem was that she spent most of the time (understandably) moaning and complaining and saying “God, Dan!” or “I mean it, Dan!” or “Get me my money, Dan!”, so it was a bit difficult to see her as likeable. You could sympathise, but not exactly empathise with her.

Whatever my reservations, however, I have enjoyed Nathan Barley and will look forward to another series where perhaps some of the characters can be explored further. If nothing else it is something of a tribute to writers Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker that people are already referring to “the Nathan Barleys of this world”, in the same way that Alan Partridge (who also came to our attention via Morris) has entered the language, and that can’t be too bad. They must be doing something right.

The Night Before

I have just been reading a website called Last Night’s BBC News, a brilliant idea that is the brainchild of one Nicholas Vance. I don’t often have time to watch the news, so a blog devoted to telling me what I have missed is a splendid idea. I hope that in time he will broaden it out to include ITN and Sky, as I rarely see their bulletins either.

Only joking, of course. I was directed there by Biased BBC, a website I vowed not to read again (it’s just getting silly now, more and more like the Daily Mail On-line) but curiosity got the better of me the other day, and it made fascinating reading. In a couple of recent B-BBC posts, while complaining about the BBC’s less than balanced coverage of the Israel-Palestine situation, the comments section started to degenerate into out and out Islamophobia. It is only fair to stress that such statements were made in the comments section, not in the main blog itself, but it was still quite surprising to read some views professing an apparently widespread and paranoid concern about the impending threat of an Islamic dominated world. Very odd.

Anyway; back to Last Night’s BBC News. Biased BBC invited me to read this “great post” where Mr Vance was struck by a comment made by Stephen Sackur on the Ten O’Clock News, so I did. Discussing the events marking the anniversary of the Madrid bomb, Sackur said “Spain’s Muslims also used this day to issue a message: absolute opposition to terrorism.” This seems to have annoyed Nicholas Vance, who was moved to respond by stating “Spanish authorities believe there to be hundreds of Muslims actively plotting further terrorist atrocities”. What? Really? Do you reckon? Well thanks for that revelation.

What has so upset Mr Vance about Sackur’s report? I guess it would have been more accurate to have referred to “some” or “many” of Spain’s Muslims, but I think we can assume that Sackur is not claiming that every single Muslim stands opposed to terrorism; there are the terrorists themselves, for a start. Perhaps when they returned to the studio after the report, the newsreader could have said “And we would like to point out that some Muslims are in favour of terrorism, are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, and consider George Bush to be the great infidel”; but I think we know that already.

Mr Vance goes on “Mr Sackur would do well to avoid making sweeping generalisations about Muslim opposition to terror, just as he would never dream of making sweeping generalisations about Muslim support for terror”. Well yes, sweeping generalisations are certainly to be avoided, but again, I am not convinced Sackur was actually claiming that all Muslims are angels who oppose terrorism; some things can be taken as read. I doubt it occurred to him that there would be some picky sod taking notes and analysing every last word and phrase in order to bolter an argument about the BBC’s leftist bias, although he probably should know better by now.

But Mr Vance is not quite finished; he concludes with a flourish. “Consider also that the Spanish Muslims to which Mr Sackur is referring include a boy interviewed last week by the Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash: “I ask another Muhammad (‘just call me Muhammad’), a voluble 16-year-old, about last year’s bombings just down the road, at the Atocha station. Well, he says, he doesn’t like to see people dying ‘even if they are Christians and Jews.'”

Well there you go, proof if proof be need be; a Muslim boy (a boy, mind) isn’t too fond of Christian’s and Jew’s. I have seen the light. Personally, I suspect that some Muslim’s go further, and say even nastier things about Christian’s and Jew’s. You know what? The feelings are reciprocated; I know some people who have a few choice words to say about Muslims, and Islam in general. Just what point is Mr Vance trying to make here?

Quite baffling. In trying to attack the BBC, has Last Night’s BBC News in fact revealed the author’s own prejudices? Perhaps not, but how else does one explain someone feeling so aggrieved by an innocuous comment in a news report. To me it appears that some people are not qualified to accuse others of bias.