Look Back in Anger

Rating:
Summary: From a real Osborne fan
Review: First, one of the other reviews for this film seems to be stating that Burton played Jimmy Porter on stage. This is not true. Osborne's autobiography describes Burton as needing a serious career boost after his previous toga films had gotten him nowhere (though, still, Osborne then says it was Burton's name that got the film financed). Burton took on the film for very little money (and, yes, he is too old for the part.) Mary Ure is the only actor from the stage production. (And at this late date it seems a great loss Alan Bates didn't reprise Cliff in the film.) My thanks to the reviewer who mentioned Pauline Kael's review. It certainly makes me reconsider how much power the film had in its time. But still everyone seems to be missing the point of the story. It isn't a conventional triangle. The play greatly upset the establishment in its day because it is an violent assault on class and cultural issues of the time. Jimmy is not a working-class hero. Kenneth Tynan described him as part of the "non-U intelligensia" but this is wrong. The film mentions, though perhaps doesn't make clear, that Jimmy has been to college, a very mediocre college. His working a sweets barrel is part of his rejection of the social order. But it is his marriage that is the central class conflict, as his wife, Alison, is from a very good family, father an old soldier returned from India, brother at Sandhurst, surely some day an MP. Her family instantly rejected Jimmy, and Jimmy resents Alison's inability to decisively choose sides, hates her for even writing letters to her mother. Alison believes Jimmy decided to marry her only after her parents rejected him. In the scheme of the play it is Cliff who is working class, Alison who is ruling class, and Jimmy in-between raging at the world. His rage, his need for a dust-up, is his response to a collapsing England, an England determined to be static, dead. The movie begins in a jazz club, which was wrongheaded, since the central image of a stiffling Sunday morning reading the papers (with no church attendance) is so important to the play. Jimmy wants to eat more and shout more and love more than the world around him affords him. A previous reviewer states Osborne gives us some pop psychology to explain Jimmy � Jimmy, when a boy, watches his father die � but one thing Osborne should never be accused of is being faddish. The point is that Jimmy's father died upon returning from fighting in Spain, dying for a cause, while his mother didn't care. It explains Jimmy's sense that there is no cause to fight for. Also it has left Jimmy a deep belief in honoring the dead, and this, in turn, causes him to feel Alison betrays him when she fails to appear at the funeral for Ma Tanner, his surrogate mother, the woman who bought him the sweets stall. (Spoiler warning). This take on death is what makes the ending meaningful when Alison miscarriages. It is why Jimmy cannot just be a bastard who dismisses his wife.

Or maybe it's all just Osborne's attack on his first wife in a very autobiographical play (his attacks on second wife Mary Ure in his autobiography can be equally savage).

On whole I find the film a disappointment. Burton's unconvincing performance cannot be saved by good work by Mary Ure and Claire Bloom. Worse, the film eliminates many of the most biting and relevant rages from Jimmy in the play, perhaps the best parts of the play. Nigel Kneale, who wrote some great science fiction, should never have been allowed to rewrite Osborne. The whole teddy bear/toy squirrel metaphor from the play makes no sense whatsoever in the film. I do like the scenes with Edith Evans, which Osborne at least in part wrote especially for the film, the character not ever actually appearing on stage in the play (Evans, priding herself on being Cockney, bought her own wardrobe for the role in second-hand shops). In some ways I prefer the filmed version of the play done years later by Lindsay Anderson with Malcom McDowell (though he too was too old for Jimmy). Oh, and reviewers please note, you won't find the phrase "angry young man" in the play. It was never a phrase Osborne liked. It was invented by the promotions man at the Royal Court Theater.

Rating:
Summary: From a real Osborne fan
Review: First, one of the other reviews for this film seems to be stating that Burton played Jimmy Porter on stage. This is not true. Osborne's autobiography describes Burton as needing a serious career boost after his previous toga films had gotten him nowhere (though, still, Osborne then says it was Burton's name that got the film financed). Burton took on the film for very little money (and, yes, he is too old for the part.) Mary Ure is the only actor from the stage production. (And at this late date it seems a great loss Alan Bates didn't reprise Cliff in the film.) My thanks to the reviewer who mentioned Pauline Kael's review. It certainly makes me reconsider how much power the film had in its time. But still everyone seems to be missing the point of the story. It isn't a conventional triangle. The play greatly upset the establishment in its day because it is an violent assault on class and cultural issues of the time. Jimmy is not a working-class hero. Kenneth Tynan described him as part of the "non-U intelligensia" but this is wrong. The film mentions, though perhaps doesn't make clear, that Jimmy has been to college, a very mediocre college. His working a sweets barrel is part of his rejection of the social order. But it is his marriage that is the central class conflict, as his wife, Alison, is from a very good family, father an old soldier returned from India, brother at Sandhurst, surely some day an MP. Her family instantly rejected Jimmy, and Jimmy resents Alison's inability to decisively choose sides, hates her for even writing letters to her mother. Alison believes Jimmy decided to marry her only after her parents rejected him. In the scheme of the play it is Cliff who is working class, Alison who is ruling class, and Jimmy in-between raging at the world. His rage, his need for a dust-up, is his response to a collapsing England, an England determined to be static, dead. The movie begins in a jazz club, which was wrongheaded, since the central image of a stiffling Sunday morning reading the papers (with no church attendance) is so important to the play. Jimmy wants to eat more and shout more and love more than the world around him affords him. A previous reviewer states Osborne gives us some pop psychology to explain Jimmy ' Jimmy, when a boy, watches his father die ' but one thing Osborne should never be accused of is being faddish. The point is that Jimmy's father died upon returning from fighting in Spain, dying for a cause, while his mother didn't care. It explains Jimmy's sense that there is no cause to fight for. Also it has left Jimmy a deep belief in honoring the dead, and this, in turn, causes him to feel Alison betrays him when she fails to appear at the funeral for Ma Tanner, his surrogate mother, the woman who bought him the sweets stall. (Spoiler warning). This take on death is what makes the ending meaningful when Alison miscarriages. It is why Jimmy cannot just be a bastard who dismisses his wife.

Or maybe it's all just Osborne's attack on his first wife in a very autobiographical play (his attacks on second wife Mary Ure in his autobiography can be equally savage).

On whole I find the film a disappointment. Burton's unconvincing performance cannot be saved by good work by Mary Ure and Claire Bloom. Worse, the film eliminates many of the most biting and relevant rages from Jimmy in the play, perhaps the best parts of the play. Nigel Kneale, who wrote some great science fiction, should never have been allowed to rewrite Osborne. The whole teddy bear/toy squirrel metaphor from the play makes no sense whatsoever in the film. I do like the scenes with Edith Evans, which Osborne at least in part wrote especially for the film, the character not ever actually appearing on stage in the play (Evans, priding herself on being Cockney, bought her own wardrobe for the role in second-hand shops). In some ways I prefer the filmed version of the play done years later by Lindsay Anderson with Malcom McDowell (though he too was too old for Jimmy). Oh, and reviewers please note, you won't find the phrase "angry young man" in the play. It was never a phrase Osborne liked. It was invented by the promotions man at the Royal Court Theater.

Rating:
Summary: Raging Burton
Review: On the surface "Look Back in Anger" is a very bleak picture which I wouldn't think I would admire. I was not a big fan of "The Entertainer", another adaptation of a downbeat play by John Osborne. Osborne and director Tony Richardson should be thankful for the calibre of the performances of the principle actors here that have made this a worthwhile enterprise. For starters, Richard Burton as Jimmy Porter, angry open-market candy salesmen, is a revelation. It's not just in the sililoquies that he rails against his station in life that are akin to Shakespeare. Burton's eyes show all the rage and self-hatred. Mary Ure as Porter's long-suffering wife, Allison, quietly demonstrates the pain of loving someone who is incapable of love. Claire Bloom is excellent as Allison's no-nonsense friend Helena who despite her better judgement falls prey to the indescribable spell that Jimmy casts on women who should know better. Gary Raymond as Cliff, Jimmy's best friend, does commendable work here as well. Also noteworthy is Donald Pleasance as Hurst, the overbearing market inspector. This film could very well be a relic of the angry young man period of British film but holds up because of the quality of the acting.

Rating:
Summary: he learned to be angry early and never looked back
Review: Perhaps Tony Richardson's film of the John Osborne play needs to be assessed at the time it was first released. In I Lost it at the Movies, Pauline Kael describes it as "bursting onto the screen, delivering some of the most electrifying dialogue of it's era". However seen today, it comes across as basically a conventional triangle, with Richard Burton's Jimmy Porter, known as an "angry young man", simply a frustrated cruel soul. Considering Burton's eloqution, it's hard to accept him as a working class hero, someone with lofty ambition but no means to achieve. He's the kind who settles for an income as a lolley seller in a street stall. When he does his "The Entertainer" vaudeville routines, one is more likely to be aghast than amused at the incompetence, since Burton is not the Archie Rice type. His Jimmy Porter famous rantings sound more like psychotic episodes, coming in reaction to some perceived blunder by his wife (Mary Ure), and one only wishes he could find the right medication to control his mood swings. Osborne gives us some pop psychology reasons for his anger and mysogyny - that he watched his father die when Jimmy was merely a boy, a death that his mother was indifferent to - but he remains a neurotic enigma. When Claire Bloom as a friend of Ure's, slaps him, he withdraws like a coward, confirming the earlier accusation when he had pushed Ure into an iron - though I suppose being a coward by not being aggressive is preferable to physical confrontation. Even when we see that perhaps his view of people can be true, in relation to Ure's middle class conservative parents, it doesn't make Burton any more likeable. Occassionally he gets a funny line eg he calls Bloom "a saint in Dior clothing", and at times is youthfully handsome. This film was made before his American success with Camelot, and his celebrity with Liz and Cleopatra. Richardson provides a nice cut from Burton crying for help to a group of running schoolchildren, and I liked how Bloom's slap leads to an embrace - the affair may not be a surprise since it's the usual animosity-hiding-desire, but Bloom is a welcome change to the dull Ure. Richardson actually gets an unintentional laugh when Ure is shown like a drowned rat to prefigure a loss. Mention is made of Edith Evans in a nice turn as a friend of Burton's.

Rating:
Summary: A Great (sorry, Mr. Burton) Classic
Review: Richard Burton - who started a legendary career (first on stage, later on screen) with playing Jimmy Porter - would probably have hated the description "classic". But it can't be helped: This movie adaptation of a theatre hit of the London Westend IS a classic by now. And that is mainly due to his wonderful, once-in-a-lifetime performance as Jimmy.
When John Osborne tried to put into words - and he indeed succeeded! as the great theatre critic Kenneth Tynan so rightly pointed out - the deep frustration, sadness and sometimes furious rebellion of the young generation of the 50s (not so far away from the frustration and rebellion of the young generation of today, mind you!), he was incredibly lucky to find a hitherto unknown, rebelliously minded young Welsh actor to play the lead! Burton's tremendously energetic performance became a legend in no time, - and it was and is great to see that he managed to transfer most of that energy into the film version.
It is also great that the wonderfully subtle performance of Mary Ure lost nothing of its riveting intensity in the film, and how convincingly she succeeded in playing up to her partner! Miss Ure (who in my eyes until today is only being matched by Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange and Kate Blanchett) was an actress of great beauty and tremendous talent. Above all, she radiated humaneness and vulnerability, but also great inner strength, in her parts.
Claire Bloom does not quite match the leading performances, but is also very good as the intervening guest who at first hates, and later is fascinated by the husband of her best friend.
It seems unlikely that this superb film version of a great play - after all, it does not seem accidental that Osborne's "angry young man" (Jimmy Porter) has long since become a figure of speech - will impress 'cool' young people as Peter Shelley from Australia who talks about "dull Ure" and finds it appropriate to refer to a wonderful supporting performance of the great Dame Edith Evans as "mention is made of Edith Evans in a nice turn". However, there is hope that a timelessly brilliant production as this will always and everywhere find its admirers - be they 19 or 90!

Rating:
Summary: A Great (sorry, Mr. Burton) Classic
Review: Richard Burton - who started a legendary career (first on stage, later on screen) with playing Jimmy Porter - would probably have hated the description "classic". But it can't be helped: This movie adaptation of a theatre hit of the London Westend IS a classic by now. And that is mainly due to his wonderful, once-in-a-lifetime performance as Jimmy.
When John Osborne tried to put into words - and he indeed succeeded! as the great theatre critic Kenneth Tynan so rightly pointed out - the deep frustration, sadness and sometimes furious rebellion of the young generation of the 50s (not so far away from the frustration and rebellion of the young generation of today, mind you!), he was incredibly lucky to find a hitherto unknown, rebelliously minded young Welsh actor to play the lead! Burton's tremendously energetic performance became a legend in no time, - and it was and is great to see that he managed to transfer most of that energy into the film version.
It is also great that the wonderfully subtle performance of Mary Ure lost nothing of its riveting intensity in the film, and how convincingly she succeeded in playing up to her partner! Miss Ure (who in my eyes until today is only being matched by Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange and Kate Blanchett) was an actress of great beauty and tremendous talent. Above all, she radiated humaneness and vulnerability, but also great inner strength, in her parts.
Claire Bloom does not quite match the leading performances, but is also very good as the intervening guest who at first hates, and later is fascinated by the husband of her best friend.
It seems unlikely that this superb film version of a great play - after all, it does not seem accidental that Osborne's "angry young man" (Jimmy Porter) has long since become a figure of speech - will impress 'cool' young people as Peter Shelley from Australia who talks about "dull Ure" and finds it appropriate to refer to a wonderful supporting performance of the great Dame Edith Evans as "mention is made of Edith Evans in a nice turn". However, there is hope that a timelessly brilliant production as this will always and everywhere find its admirers - be they 19 or 90!

Rating:
Summary: When Harry Met Misery
Review: This film is an abomination. I don't fault Burton, Malcolm MacDowell couldn't carry the remake either. The problem is the tireseome cliches of the social realist author, using the characters as mouthpieces for DEEP (and predictably painful) TRUTHS. If there are people who talk and behave as these characters do, one would do everything in one's power to avoid them. Pitiful, angry, self-indulgent, foolish people. The film unintentionally presaged (and was itself an example of) the age of utter self-indulgence and perpetual self-analysis that has eventually swamped us. It belongs with the swill in the self-help section. One can easily imagine Burton's character as the macho leader of a social movement to right all wrongs, while he can barely manage to feed himself.

Rating:
Summary: When Harry Met Misery
Review: What a horrid little film. This is hardly surprising given that Richardson has made a career of horrid little films. (He can thank Olivier for his one passable effort.) The lead is a ranting crybaby of the sort now familiar. He knows how the affairs of the world should be run, but can't be bothered to treat people with civility and maintain his own life with responsibility and dignity. He is, in short, the model enfant terrible of the post-WWII Left, whose battle cry was aptly put by Jim Morrison (himself in the same mold), "We want the world and we want it now."

There should have been a sequal in which the lead becomes prime minister of such-and-such country and turns it into a squalid, barbaric socialist paradise. Or he could have morphed into Ernesto Guevara and taken on Che's job of master of the death squads.