THE CINEMA
It's That Man Again." At the Tivoli and the Marble Arch Pavilion. —" The Circus." At the Tatler.—" Algiers." At the London Pavilion.
COMEDY has never been the strong suit of the British film industry. On the stage and over the radio we have had comedians not unworthy of comparison with the best to be enjoyed overseas, but no sooner do they sttempt their antics for the movie-camera than one is con- fronted with the gaucheries of amateur-night in the local work- house. There are honourable exceptions—Will Hay and Max Miller must be named, and the Crazy Gang once made a very funny film ; but for the most part our national film comedians appear to have their eyes firmly riveted on the lowest common denominator of public taste and by keeping their production costs as cheap as their jokes they appear to find it not unlucrative. It's That Man Again tries to do something better, but with what likeli- hood of financial reward is difficult to assess. The cinema and radio publics are by no means identical and the popularity of the " Itrna " programme amongst listeners may not be repeated at the box-office. Watching the film with an audience which was not especially " low-brow " one was struck by the fact that the loudest laughter followed the slap-stick rather than the wit. " Wit " is perhaps hardly the word to use in reference to the curious pattern of inconsequence and verbal ritual which Tommy Handley and his company have developed into one of the few radio programmes which attempt to employ the full possibilities of the medium, but at least one can say that imagination and an exuberant vitalityhave gone into the broadcasts and that a conscientious and lively attempt
has been made to transfer these qualities to the screen. On thz radio the individual situation is self-sufficient ; unencumbered by any visual ties the listener can be whisked from wisecrl.ck to wise- crack without reference to the physical demands of changing loca!e. On the screen the Mayor of " Foaming at the Mouth," Lefty, Sam Scram, Mrs. Mopp, Soso and the rest must have not only voices and punning, alliterative catch-phrases, but they must also be endowed with visible bodies and backgrounds, and with the back- grounds come problems of continuity from scene to scene. The solution adopted has been to introduce a narrative—a crazy story of municipal funds invested in a derelict theatre and a stolen play's first performance sabotaged by the pupils of a Handley- managed dramatic academy. If this should seem regrettable it must be remembered that even the Marx Brothers never managed to make a film completely without story, and although Mr. Handley's troupe is not yet ready for comparison with such great masters of burlesque surrealism, they have made a break-away from the paralysis of tempo and imagination which is the common affliction of British screen comedians.
The Circus is in many ways so bad a film that its sponsors must have had grave doubts of the wisdom of bringing it out of obscurity seven years after its Moscow production. The reason was, no doubt, less due to the, great current appeal of any work from our Russian allies than to the propaganda the film makes against colour discrimination, propaganda which will be of special significance to many U.S. soldiers now stationed in this country. The story is of a white American circus artist with a coloured child who is hounded from her own country and goes to Moscow with her German manager to appear in the State circus. She falls in love with a handsome young Russian, but the romance is obstructed by the jealous German, who threatens with all the extravagance of an old silent melodrama to expose her shameful secret.
When he does so, from the centre of the circus ring, the film takes a turn for the better. What might well have been the most em- barrassing moment of all is pleasantly handled. The audience., of course, is not in the least troubled by problems of miscegenation, laughs the German to scorn and the film finishes with a series of lullabies sung to the half-caste baby by representatives of different races contained within the U.S.S.R. The film contains some spectacular circus acts but is remarkable chiefly for its unusual propaganda line--..(cleverly rendered acceptable by the emphasis thrown on the gay, intelligent little baby) and by the fact that the same direttor (Alexandrov) and, star (Orlova) were responsible for last year's best musical comedy—Volga Volga. Even in 1936 Orlova showed great versatility and command of her medium, but Alexandrov at that time appears to have had little to recommend him save an ability to handle spectacular scenes and a certain broad humour of approach ; the subtlety of his recent direction was obviously a later acquisition. The progress of musical comedy in Soviet studios during the past few years is a phenomenon which Hollywood cannot match ; and, indeed, as evidence of an opposite trend, we have in the revival of Algiers this week a reminder that what was only a good American film in 1938 can look 1;ke a master-
Previous page
