I was confused a little as to whether to call the film Fires Were Started or I Was a Fireman, I just knew the title better listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and either way I had an idea what it may entail, and finding out it was a British made film I was interested to see how it would turn out. Basically the film consists of real firefighters playing fictional London based firefighter characters, and the story within the documentary is about a new man joining the civilian team, during the time of World War II. He gets to know the men and women of the fire brigade well, and he gets to enjoy leisure time with them, but the real test comes when he goes out on his first assignment with them. The mission sees the team tackling a burning building near the London docks, an explosives warehouse on Trinidad Street packed, so there is the danger of the out of control flames, the risk of dynamite blowing up, and raids from above. Starring Philip Dickson as Walters, George Gravett as Dykes, Fred Griffiths as Johnny Daniels, Johnny Houghton as S.H. Jackson and Loris Rey as J. Rumbold. Director Humphrey Jennings, acclaimed for his real-life films, retained his imagination whilst still trying to portray the reality of the firefighting world, that is why he has real firefighters playing parts, and the burning buildings seen on screen are ones that were already bombed in the London raids, it works more almost as a propaganda for British force, all in all it is an interesting Second World War documentary drama. Very good!
17 Reviews
Courage Under Fire
richardchatten14 September 2020
I stand be corrected, but I don't think we actually see any enemy planes in this reenactment of one day (and night) in the life of a team of firefighters using actual firemen, which treats the Blitz more like a natural disaster than an act of aggression from abroad.
The cast of 'Fires Were Started' were all non-professionals, but Wally Patch later briefly appeared unbilled as a civil defence warden arriving alongside Dr. Reeves in 'A Matter of Life and Death' to remind us that people were killed doing this job; and ending the film in wartime with the funeral of one of the team required considerable horsetrading with the authorities.
The cast of 'Fires Were Started' were all non-professionals, but Wally Patch later briefly appeared unbilled as a civil defence warden arriving alongside Dr. Reeves in 'A Matter of Life and Death' to remind us that people were killed doing this job; and ending the film in wartime with the funeral of one of the team required considerable horsetrading with the authorities.
The Tower Bridge Inferno...
ElMaruecan8229 July 2021
TV decision-makers have developed such a low opinion regarding the viewer's intelligence that even the well-meaning and insightful reality "immersion" programs (24 hours in the hospital, police, fire brigades or airport custom services) must rely on fast-paced editing, on-the-nose voice-over or intrusive background music to overemphasize the heroism of their subjects.
One can easily diagnose it as TV symptomatic mimicry of cinema driven by an unfair assumption about reality's appeal (or lack thereof). Just as if the camera wasn't effective enough a window on the real, producers need to make their docs as thrilling, suspenseful, emotionally engaging and ultimately as entertaining as movies or series... and that's why today, documentaries show and tell, tell what to know and how to feel; that should be useful for National Geographic but when It deals with humans, what these programs show should be telling enough.
"Fires Were Started" is such a program.
The documentary (or film shot documentary-style) was released in 1943 and consists on a day's work in a firemen unit at the height of the Blitz, from the phone operators to the dispatching and logistics. The closest to a 'central' protagonist is a rookie, a young volunteer named Barrett. Before we get to the action, in intimate scenes shot in studios, we see firemen as relatable average Joes, enjoying leisure time, drinking tea, playing ping pong, snooker, having fun with an improvised piano session with the "Mow Meadow" song that sets the well-times mood whiplash occurring shortly before the end of the first half.
Indeed, when the alarm rings and a building neighboring the London harbor is under the flames, we're taken to the second half that has nothing to envy from the punchiest reality program. Naturally the film is closer in spirit with movies like "Battle of Algiers" (with a naturalistic approach that could have inspired Altman and oddly enough, I even thought of "Car Wash"). It's interesting that it used real firemen (quite good actors) and reconstructions over already destroyed buildings instead of simply shooting the real thing, the result is a successful "entertainazation" of reality and without the constant reliance on these hyperbolic effects (narration, voice over, etc.) music is sporadically used, there's no flooding of emotions (Spielberg should take notes) and that the film ends up affecting you with its poignancy says a lot about the storytelling talent of Humphrey Jennings.
Jennings doesn't go for effects, he lets the camera rolls at every department and inflicts us many unglamorous sequences about fire hydrants, assignments and the same order being repeated five times, we're not supposed to get everything, except the essential: efficiency-driven processes, organization, and men and women working together. Once we gather that, we get to a lengthy leisure sequence culminating with "Mow at Meadow" song and I could see why director Lindsay Anderson called Jennings a poet. Anyone can make a 'propaganda' film showing brave firemen defeating fire, climbing unsteady ladders, under the pressure of backdrafts or lack of water pressure, watching their comrades hurt or dying but it takes a certain coolness to show these men having fun and enjoying their time before the call of duty, highlighting their humanity before their vulnerability.
Jennings is a poet of the everyday folks showing us that heroes are nothing but ordinary guys, jeopardizing their life for principles, but not acting like holy sacrificial lambs. And once again, British cinema prove its capability to display the upper lip spirit less through the characters' bravery or courage but their stoic attitude under the fire. Although I doubt everyone would have stayed that cool under German bombings (some smiles might strike as a tad unrealistic given the film's context).
There's one image that speaks a thousand words though, when Barrett finds the crushed and burnt helmet of a partner in the ruins and that image symbolizes the ultimate bravery of men whose job consists as facing the very fire and ashes Winston had promised. It's a sad irony that Jennings died in 1950 after an accident while looking for locations as if embodied the very courage he showed in his film. "Fires Were Started" is a rather minor propaganda film but I mean it as a compliment, it's a great tribute to men who fought the big fight and to a director who could have given a little more and who certainly inspired the New British Wave of he 1960s with Anderson, Reisz, Schlesinger.
So, don't let its short runtime and lack of juicy casting fool you, if you admire firemen and their heroic sacrifices all through history, this is a film you can't refuse.
One can easily diagnose it as TV symptomatic mimicry of cinema driven by an unfair assumption about reality's appeal (or lack thereof). Just as if the camera wasn't effective enough a window on the real, producers need to make their docs as thrilling, suspenseful, emotionally engaging and ultimately as entertaining as movies or series... and that's why today, documentaries show and tell, tell what to know and how to feel; that should be useful for National Geographic but when It deals with humans, what these programs show should be telling enough.
"Fires Were Started" is such a program.
The documentary (or film shot documentary-style) was released in 1943 and consists on a day's work in a firemen unit at the height of the Blitz, from the phone operators to the dispatching and logistics. The closest to a 'central' protagonist is a rookie, a young volunteer named Barrett. Before we get to the action, in intimate scenes shot in studios, we see firemen as relatable average Joes, enjoying leisure time, drinking tea, playing ping pong, snooker, having fun with an improvised piano session with the "Mow Meadow" song that sets the well-times mood whiplash occurring shortly before the end of the first half.
Indeed, when the alarm rings and a building neighboring the London harbor is under the flames, we're taken to the second half that has nothing to envy from the punchiest reality program. Naturally the film is closer in spirit with movies like "Battle of Algiers" (with a naturalistic approach that could have inspired Altman and oddly enough, I even thought of "Car Wash"). It's interesting that it used real firemen (quite good actors) and reconstructions over already destroyed buildings instead of simply shooting the real thing, the result is a successful "entertainazation" of reality and without the constant reliance on these hyperbolic effects (narration, voice over, etc.) music is sporadically used, there's no flooding of emotions (Spielberg should take notes) and that the film ends up affecting you with its poignancy says a lot about the storytelling talent of Humphrey Jennings.
Jennings doesn't go for effects, he lets the camera rolls at every department and inflicts us many unglamorous sequences about fire hydrants, assignments and the same order being repeated five times, we're not supposed to get everything, except the essential: efficiency-driven processes, organization, and men and women working together. Once we gather that, we get to a lengthy leisure sequence culminating with "Mow at Meadow" song and I could see why director Lindsay Anderson called Jennings a poet. Anyone can make a 'propaganda' film showing brave firemen defeating fire, climbing unsteady ladders, under the pressure of backdrafts or lack of water pressure, watching their comrades hurt or dying but it takes a certain coolness to show these men having fun and enjoying their time before the call of duty, highlighting their humanity before their vulnerability.
Jennings is a poet of the everyday folks showing us that heroes are nothing but ordinary guys, jeopardizing their life for principles, but not acting like holy sacrificial lambs. And once again, British cinema prove its capability to display the upper lip spirit less through the characters' bravery or courage but their stoic attitude under the fire. Although I doubt everyone would have stayed that cool under German bombings (some smiles might strike as a tad unrealistic given the film's context).
There's one image that speaks a thousand words though, when Barrett finds the crushed and burnt helmet of a partner in the ruins and that image symbolizes the ultimate bravery of men whose job consists as facing the very fire and ashes Winston had promised. It's a sad irony that Jennings died in 1950 after an accident while looking for locations as if embodied the very courage he showed in his film. "Fires Were Started" is a rather minor propaganda film but I mean it as a compliment, it's a great tribute to men who fought the big fight and to a director who could have given a little more and who certainly inspired the New British Wave of he 1960s with Anderson, Reisz, Schlesinger.
So, don't let its short runtime and lack of juicy casting fool you, if you admire firemen and their heroic sacrifices all through history, this is a film you can't refuse.
Not the film I was expecting - but superbly made
MrGeorgeKaplan1 February 2006
I'd been trying to track this movie down for a while so I had high expectations of it, and on some counts it disappointed and on others it actually excelled. I was expecting a propaganda film with a plummy BBC voice-over intoning: 'Here we see the lads of Heavy Unit one, sector c 14, enjoying a pint of bitter and a sing song before their shift.' Instead, I was presented with a proper film with characters and a plot and everything! This struck me as particularly extraordinary having seen the first film on the DVD which was a motley collection of clips of Britain at work for the War Effort, inter-spliced with a lunchtime concert (blitz spirit etc.) featuring Myra Hess wearing what looked like a lab-coat playing piano rather animatedly.
To make a film with such high production values in wartime, with everything seriously rationed is quite extraordinary. Okay, it portrays the firemen as heroes, but it presents them in a light that is far from uplifting. They are men who work tirelessly and they take great risks, and then they go and do it all over again the next night none of this wandering off into the sunset with a girl on your arm. By 1943, when the film was made, the blitz was pretty much over, but the horror and uncertainty of the V1s and V2s was yet to come and although the tide seemed to have turned, there was no end in sight at this point. Jennings' stroke of genius was to create a film that identified with its audience and was honest with them, while actually having the humour to keep morale up.
The use of actual firemen for the characters has its pros and cons some of them are decent actors, others are very poor, but I should imagine that in 1943 people in possession of an equity card were rather few and far between. There is obviously some stock footage used in the long shots of the burning warehouses, giving a broader picture of what the crew of one pump were up against, which is no bad thing. The stock footage is actually pretty important as it gives a reality that would otherwise be lacking (see also Malta Story).
All in all this is a triumph of realistic, humanist film-making from the darkest days of our darkest hours.
To make a film with such high production values in wartime, with everything seriously rationed is quite extraordinary. Okay, it portrays the firemen as heroes, but it presents them in a light that is far from uplifting. They are men who work tirelessly and they take great risks, and then they go and do it all over again the next night none of this wandering off into the sunset with a girl on your arm. By 1943, when the film was made, the blitz was pretty much over, but the horror and uncertainty of the V1s and V2s was yet to come and although the tide seemed to have turned, there was no end in sight at this point. Jennings' stroke of genius was to create a film that identified with its audience and was honest with them, while actually having the humour to keep morale up.
The use of actual firemen for the characters has its pros and cons some of them are decent actors, others are very poor, but I should imagine that in 1943 people in possession of an equity card were rather few and far between. There is obviously some stock footage used in the long shots of the burning warehouses, giving a broader picture of what the crew of one pump were up against, which is no bad thing. The stock footage is actually pretty important as it gives a reality that would otherwise be lacking (see also Malta Story).
All in all this is a triumph of realistic, humanist film-making from the darkest days of our darkest hours.
A realistic drama documentary about the blitz.
shrbw3 February 2002
As in 'The Silent Village' Jennings is here experimenting with improvised dialogue (there was no proper shooting script) and an amateur cast (who were all serving London firemen). However, the result has been expanded into what is virtually a full-length drama.
Again, there are haunting images. But the whole thing is played in such a low-key fashion that everything looks natural. (One of the fireman who took part said that it was an accurate representation - apart from the omission of the universal swearing!)
The most famous scene is the group preparing for the nights work. Each enters to a verse of the old counting song 'One Man Went To Mow', which is being accompanied on the piano. How many will be left by morning?
The film was released in two versions - hence the two titles. It was very well received, but eclipsed by the release of another (more conventional) film about the fire service called 'The Bells Go Down', starring the popular comedian Tommy Trinder. (This is not to disparage this feature film, which was also realistic in its approach.)
Again, there are haunting images. But the whole thing is played in such a low-key fashion that everything looks natural. (One of the fireman who took part said that it was an accurate representation - apart from the omission of the universal swearing!)
The most famous scene is the group preparing for the nights work. Each enters to a verse of the old counting song 'One Man Went To Mow', which is being accompanied on the piano. How many will be left by morning?
The film was released in two versions - hence the two titles. It was very well received, but eclipsed by the release of another (more conventional) film about the fire service called 'The Bells Go Down', starring the popular comedian Tommy Trinder. (This is not to disparage this feature film, which was also realistic in its approach.)
Just Alright
gavin69423 July 2013
A new man joins the civilian firefighters at a London unit during the Second World War. He meets his fellow firemen and firewomen, manages to enjoy some leisure time with them, and then goes on his first mission with the crew as it attempts to save an explosives warehouse on Trinidad Street near the London docks.
So this is a drama showing civilians helping the British war effort by being fire fighters. That is cool. I guess I would have preferred it was a documentary, or at least had stock footage, but I cannot ask for what was not done.
Overall, it is a decent little story. Not particularly memorable, but maybe worth a peek if you are interested in the career and work of Humphrey Jennings.
So this is a drama showing civilians helping the British war effort by being fire fighters. That is cool. I guess I would have preferred it was a documentary, or at least had stock footage, but I cannot ask for what was not done.
Overall, it is a decent little story. Not particularly memorable, but maybe worth a peek if you are interested in the career and work of Humphrey Jennings.
A documentary made as a movie or a movie made as a documentary?
Boba_Fett113826 November 2008
Seems strange that this movie is being listed as a documentary, fore this movie is made as a real movie, with scripted dialog and situations. Nevertheless it still can be seen as a docudrama, which concentrates on the London civilian fire brigade during the bombings of WW II.
The movie gives a real insightful look in this little unknown piece of history. It shows under what circumstances the men and women involved with the fire brigades had to work. It shows the whole organization behind it all and how things got communicated. It of course also shows how the actual fires were being fought by the brave men. Just like most British young men were fighting elsewhere in Europe, these men fought they own wars against the fires in the big cities.
What surprised me was that this movie was not a typical British war time propaganda piece. This is a bit odd, since the production company Crown Film Unit, was a movie-making propaganda arm of the Ministry of Information at its time. It doesn't try to glorify anything and just show things as they are. The movie also doesn't have an annoying all knowing voice-over, who comments and the 'brave' actions and all. The movie is actually pretty straightforward and raw shot. Although everything in this movie is being scripted it still feels all very real. It's a true engaging- and therefore also really powerful and effective movie.
Yes, it's truly being shot as a movie. I was actually quite impressed by some of its camera-work and editing at times, which seemed to be decades ahead of its time in certain sequences! Not that I have ever seen anything else by Humphrey Jennings but I'm definitely interested now to see more by him. Unfortunately he died very young in 1950, when he fell of a cliff while he was scouting for locations in Greece for his new movie. Still a total of 33 directed movies are behind his name, so more than enough stuff to still check out!
A real unique classic within its genre!
9/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The movie gives a real insightful look in this little unknown piece of history. It shows under what circumstances the men and women involved with the fire brigades had to work. It shows the whole organization behind it all and how things got communicated. It of course also shows how the actual fires were being fought by the brave men. Just like most British young men were fighting elsewhere in Europe, these men fought they own wars against the fires in the big cities.
What surprised me was that this movie was not a typical British war time propaganda piece. This is a bit odd, since the production company Crown Film Unit, was a movie-making propaganda arm of the Ministry of Information at its time. It doesn't try to glorify anything and just show things as they are. The movie also doesn't have an annoying all knowing voice-over, who comments and the 'brave' actions and all. The movie is actually pretty straightforward and raw shot. Although everything in this movie is being scripted it still feels all very real. It's a true engaging- and therefore also really powerful and effective movie.
Yes, it's truly being shot as a movie. I was actually quite impressed by some of its camera-work and editing at times, which seemed to be decades ahead of its time in certain sequences! Not that I have ever seen anything else by Humphrey Jennings but I'm definitely interested now to see more by him. Unfortunately he died very young in 1950, when he fell of a cliff while he was scouting for locations in Greece for his new movie. Still a total of 33 directed movies are behind his name, so more than enough stuff to still check out!
A real unique classic within its genre!
9/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Good historical document, but a dull movie
Jeremy_Urquhart30 June 2022
One of the most British movies ever made, being about a group of firefighters during the early years of World War 2, with the most interesting part of the film being that real firefighters effectively played themselves. It's certainly not a documentary, but given that the story and dialogue aren't very interesting, I sort of wished this had been a documentary.
It works as a historical document, and what you see of London in the 1940s will always be interesting, and will probably become more so, as WW2 drifts further and further back into the past. But beyond the novelty of how it was made and the time capsule it's proven to be, there's not much else that's too engaging about it, unfortunately.
It works as a historical document, and what you see of London in the 1940s will always be interesting, and will probably become more so, as WW2 drifts further and further back into the past. But beyond the novelty of how it was made and the time capsule it's proven to be, there's not much else that's too engaging about it, unfortunately.
Another Masterpiece from Humphrey Jennings
john-harry-adams19 May 2004
This film is a remarkable document. Jennings extracts actor-quality performances - plus that bit extra from using actual firemen and firewomen - from the cast. Add a good story, quality editing and Jennings' eye for a scene or situation and you have a real masterpiece.
Most of the East End of London has now been more successfully bombed by Hitler's successors - the planners and developers - but, miracle of miracles, the fire station at Wellclose Square is still there, back as a school again. Go there!
With respect to other reviews, stock footage IS used - but it doesn't detract. As for the reviewer from New York. I wonder if he can see this film in a more charitable light since 9-11?
Most of the East End of London has now been more successfully bombed by Hitler's successors - the planners and developers - but, miracle of miracles, the fire station at Wellclose Square is still there, back as a school again. Go there!
With respect to other reviews, stock footage IS used - but it doesn't detract. As for the reviewer from New York. I wonder if he can see this film in a more charitable light since 9-11?
Remarkable Piece of Social History
l_rawjalaurence17 November 2013
Produced to celebrate the work of the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS), FIRES WERE STARTED is a drama-documentary recounting a day in the life of those men charged with the responsibility of dousing fires during the Blitz of 1940-41 in London's Docklands. None of the actors are professional; they have been encouraged to play the roles of 'ordinary' people. As a result some of the performances are better than others. What renders the film truly remarkable is the fact that it was produced under very difficult conditions with high production values: the re- enactments of the nighttime air raids are convincing, with staged scenes intercut with actual footage. Produced as a propaganda piece to celebrate the virtues of community, of people pulling together at a time of great stress, FIRES WERE STARTED shows the difficulties experienced by Londoners at that time; not only during but after the nightly raids; how the city picked itself up and continued working, even after the heaviest bombing. The actors manage to create a spirit of community - not only through working but also singing, eating and drinking together. The film is an invaluable record of life during the Second World War: should be required viewing for any social historians interested in the period.
I can't hear you.
mrdonleone31 May 2020
Impressive reconstructions of real fires make for a gripping docu-drama
dr_clarke_225 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Fires Were Started is probably the best known work by documentary filmmaker Humphrey Jennings. Just over an hour long (a longer first cut, I Was a Fireman, also exists) the 1943 film follows a crew of fire-fighters as they tackle a huge blaze caused by the London Blitz; made "with the full co-operation of the Home Office Ministry of Home Security and the National Fire Service", it is very much an exercise in wartime propaganda and a remarkable piece of filmmaking.
Fires Were Started is a docu-drama, which stars real firemen instead of actors and features an impressive reconstruction of a large fire in a burned out building (Jennings had bombed-out buildings set on fire in order to film the firemen putting them out, and reportedly, one of the firemen claimed that the reconstructed fire was more dangerous than the original one). There are claims that the film has been mistaken for an actual documentary, which is a credit to Jennings' talents, even if it is now blatantly obvious from the way that it is filmed and edited that it isn't. Jennings (who wrote the screenplay) concerns himself with the lives of his characters as well as the famous inferno scenes, with the early scenes showing the firemen heading off for a day at work, exchanging banter in the canteen, swapping stories about their pasts and playing snooker. The piano playing scene shows the firemen relaxing as a team before the night's bombing starts.
Not surprisingly, the acting during the non-action sequences is somewhat variable, but for the most part it is surprisingly good; indeed, Fred Griffiths, who plays Johnny, went on to become a professional actor. The first half works better than one might expect by allowing the audience to invest emotionally in the small group of men who later leap into action, and the second half is a tribute to the bravery and ingenuity of the characters, ordinary people all.
It is undoubtedly the second half of the film that is responsible for the film's reputation; mostly filmed on location in London (although the fire station is actually a set), it has a gritty realism resulting in large part from sequences of the firemen attacking the huge blaze that threatens to engulf a nearby munitions ship. Given that the fires were real and that the cast members actually put them out on camera, it is little surprise that it all looks so convincing, but it certainly helps that it is very skilfully shot by Cyril Montague Pennington-Richards and the drama arises quite simply from watching men striving to fight the inferno. This is followed by silent scenes of the damage left afterwards, and as the firemen clear up one finds the helmet of a comrade who died in the line of duty and looks wordlessly at it. The film ends, sombrely, with his funeral.
It is probably safe to say that Humphrey Jennings is not a household name: aside of cinephiles, few people nowadays have heard of him, and his back catalogue of wartime propaganda films might easily be dismissed as an historical curiosity. But Fires Were Started demonstrates a real talent for directing. In the post-war years, Jennings continued making documentaries until his accidental death in 1950; one can only speculate that had he lived longer and continued his career, his name might be better known today.
Poetry
danbpear28 October 1999
Fires Were Started has no stock footage. However, it is similar to such in that an ignorant 1990s eye risks being unable to see through the strangeness of 1940s Britain to the lives and tensions portrayed in this film. Fires Were Started is a witty, poetic account of the war effort understood as the acts of everyday Londoners. You can work hard watching it dissecting the poetic sequences of imagery; you can take it easy and enjoy the people we meet or you can follow the exciting narrative of 24 hours during the bombing of London. Poetry.
Professional and well made docu-drama
bob the moo15 June 2008
Although I do watch a terrible load of rubbish at times, I do also make a bit of effort to make sure my viewing has a bit of rounding and significance to it. It was for this reason that I searched out a film by Humphrey Jennings. The first I found was the documentary drama looking at the service of the civilian firemen who defended London during the Blitz. The film is a mix of drama and documentary, with the story essentially being a typical day and night in the life of the crew but it is delivered with the civilians themselves rather than professional actors. The risk of this is clear but, aside from some very wooden performances, mostly it works because the majority of them are quite natural and convincing in how they are.
Jennings' approach to the telling was also a bit of a risk because the film is not just a glowing presentation of these people as flawless heroes so much as quite a realistic presentation of them and their role. The risks they take and the price some of them pay is clear from the film and it is well presented as such, even though it could have been seen as demoralising in the way that Jennings didn't glamorise them or put much more of a patriotic gloss on them. It does work really well though and I was impressed by how professional and well made the film was. The images are sharp and even the recreations of the fires look convincing.
I don't know enough to say where Fires Were Started sits in regards Jennings work but from my limited point of view it is an impressive film. By modern standards it isn't great of course but this is one of those films that can be viewed in context because it was made for a certain time and reason. This doesn't mean that if it were a bad film that I would be blind to those weaknesses though because it is still effective in what it sets out to do and is worth watching today.
Jennings' approach to the telling was also a bit of a risk because the film is not just a glowing presentation of these people as flawless heroes so much as quite a realistic presentation of them and their role. The risks they take and the price some of them pay is clear from the film and it is well presented as such, even though it could have been seen as demoralising in the way that Jennings didn't glamorise them or put much more of a patriotic gloss on them. It does work really well though and I was impressed by how professional and well made the film was. The images are sharp and even the recreations of the fires look convincing.
I don't know enough to say where Fires Were Started sits in regards Jennings work but from my limited point of view it is an impressive film. By modern standards it isn't great of course but this is one of those films that can be viewed in context because it was made for a certain time and reason. This doesn't mean that if it were a bad film that I would be blind to those weaknesses though because it is still effective in what it sets out to do and is worth watching today.
War at Home
tedg10 November 2006
This is among the best "British Home" movies I know. I'm watching a few of these because I'm involved with the 7-up series and am fascinated by how the Brits like to define themselves in film.
This has a lot that recommends it in that way. It was made about the war during the war. Nearly all films of that period focused on the elements of being English that the citizens themselves wanted woven into their story.
It is about firefighters, a sort of military type but placed in the middle of lives. At home, not abroad. So they dance and joke as men in their native land, not in an alien place. Its defense in the purest of senses. The story in fact involves the Germans trying to bomb the docks to prevent war materiel from embarking. And you see valiant acts to protect the ships from the burning warehouses.
But most of all, it employs non-actors, real firemen of the time in their real firehouses and suits, more or less acting as they would (but we discover, with no swearing).
The whole thing is amazingly engaging. Sure the story is trite; nearly all are. Sure the actual cinematic values are ordinary. But it gobsmacks you to know that you are not seeing a set with actors. This is the real destruction. These are the real men.
Its no slick "Ladder 49" or "Private Ryan." Its far better.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
This has a lot that recommends it in that way. It was made about the war during the war. Nearly all films of that period focused on the elements of being English that the citizens themselves wanted woven into their story.
It is about firefighters, a sort of military type but placed in the middle of lives. At home, not abroad. So they dance and joke as men in their native land, not in an alien place. Its defense in the purest of senses. The story in fact involves the Germans trying to bomb the docks to prevent war materiel from embarking. And you see valiant acts to protect the ships from the burning warehouses.
But most of all, it employs non-actors, real firemen of the time in their real firehouses and suits, more or less acting as they would (but we discover, with no swearing).
The whole thing is amazingly engaging. Sure the story is trite; nearly all are. Sure the actual cinematic values are ordinary. But it gobsmacks you to know that you are not seeing a set with actors. This is the real destruction. These are the real men.
Its no slick "Ladder 49" or "Private Ryan." Its far better.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
British neo-realism
kekseksa19 August 2017
"Just alright", "very boring"!!! One wonders a little at the jaded appetites of some viewer and reviewers.
Part of the problem is the way British films have tended to sell themselves - as modest "social documents" akin to home movies. And this has obscured the fact that the documentary movement in Britain launched in the twenties by John Grierson was central to the development of the European neo-realist style during the thirties and forties. Not even the most obtuse reviewer would approach the work of De Sica or Rosselini with the same disrespect (their reputation would oblige them to watch with a little more care) but the work of Jennings is just as important and just as worthy of proper attention.
While the 1936 Night Mail (Basil Wright, Harry Watt and Cavalcanti) does receive something of its due (the virtuosity of the sound can hardly be ignored) as do the experimental animations of Len Ly (at the more avant-garde end of the GPO Unit repertoire), the same respect is rarely extended to the other work of the GPO Unit (later the Crown Film Unit). Yet as a corpus of work it is absolutely outstanding.
Jennings began his work as a film-maker with Dufay Chromex making short films to advertise the heart-stoppingly beautiful Dufaycolor process and his first short film for Dufay, Farewell to Topsails, is already a fine film. After joining the GPO Unit, he took some time to find his feet with films whose intention was to some extent promotional and ditto from 1940 when the Ministry of Information takes over and the emphasis is on war propaganda. One of the limiting factors for the British documentary movement was Grierson's insistence that it should, as it were, earn its living and not flirt (à la Flaherty) with sensational drama.
This - his only full-length feature - is nothing short of a masterpiece. Th use of non-professional actors and elements of impromptu dialogue (as with De Sica's Bicycle Thieves) is significant but should (as again with De Sica) blind one to the fact that this is a very carefully composed film - the "one man went to mo" sequence is superb - beautifully filmed and expertly edited.
Most remarkable perhaps is the orchestration of dialogue. This was a particular strength of the British movement and would remain an enduring strength of British film (in the films of Ken Loach and in the scenarios for instance of Harold Pinter - arguably a more important body of work than his dramas).
British neo-realism runs parallel with the Italian variety but always remains distinct from it; it remains socially committed and does not flirt in the same way with melodrama or with flamboyant "humanism". It may be less exciting on the surface but, watched with the respect and attention they deserve, the best of these films are both important and, to my mind enthralling.
Part of the problem is the way British films have tended to sell themselves - as modest "social documents" akin to home movies. And this has obscured the fact that the documentary movement in Britain launched in the twenties by John Grierson was central to the development of the European neo-realist style during the thirties and forties. Not even the most obtuse reviewer would approach the work of De Sica or Rosselini with the same disrespect (their reputation would oblige them to watch with a little more care) but the work of Jennings is just as important and just as worthy of proper attention.
While the 1936 Night Mail (Basil Wright, Harry Watt and Cavalcanti) does receive something of its due (the virtuosity of the sound can hardly be ignored) as do the experimental animations of Len Ly (at the more avant-garde end of the GPO Unit repertoire), the same respect is rarely extended to the other work of the GPO Unit (later the Crown Film Unit). Yet as a corpus of work it is absolutely outstanding.
Jennings began his work as a film-maker with Dufay Chromex making short films to advertise the heart-stoppingly beautiful Dufaycolor process and his first short film for Dufay, Farewell to Topsails, is already a fine film. After joining the GPO Unit, he took some time to find his feet with films whose intention was to some extent promotional and ditto from 1940 when the Ministry of Information takes over and the emphasis is on war propaganda. One of the limiting factors for the British documentary movement was Grierson's insistence that it should, as it were, earn its living and not flirt (à la Flaherty) with sensational drama.
This - his only full-length feature - is nothing short of a masterpiece. Th use of non-professional actors and elements of impromptu dialogue (as with De Sica's Bicycle Thieves) is significant but should (as again with De Sica) blind one to the fact that this is a very carefully composed film - the "one man went to mo" sequence is superb - beautifully filmed and expertly edited.
Most remarkable perhaps is the orchestration of dialogue. This was a particular strength of the British movement and would remain an enduring strength of British film (in the films of Ken Loach and in the scenarios for instance of Harold Pinter - arguably a more important body of work than his dramas).
British neo-realism runs parallel with the Italian variety but always remains distinct from it; it remains socially committed and does not flirt in the same way with melodrama or with flamboyant "humanism". It may be less exciting on the surface but, watched with the respect and attention they deserve, the best of these films are both important and, to my mind enthralling.
Very Boring
estott23 April 1999
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
