“THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” (1969) Review

“THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” (1969) Review

Back in 1965, filmmaker Ken Annakin and 20th Century Fox studio chief released a all-star comedy about an international air race between London and Paris in 1910. “THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES” not only proved to be a major hit, it also received numerous movie award nominations in both the United States and Great Britain. Four years later, Ken Annakin created a sequel to the 1965 movie called “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” (aka “MONTE CARLO OR BUST”).

“THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” told the story about a group of international racing car drivers who participate in the Monte Carlo Rally in 1929. Superficially, one would not view this movie as a sequel to“FLYING MACHINES”, since it is about a road race, not an air race. But the movie was made by the same producer/writer/director as the first film, Ken Annakin. It possessed its own jaunty theme song – “Monte Carlo or Bust”, which was performed by Jimmy Durante. The movie also featured three actors from the 1965 movie – Terry-Thomas, Eric Sykes and Gert Fröbe. More importantly, Thomas’ character, Sir Cuthbert Ware-Armitage, proved to be the son of Thomas’ character from “FLYING MACHINES”, namely Sir Percival Cuthbert Ware-Armitage. In fact, Sir Cuthbert’s reason for participating in the Monte Carlo Rally stemmed from a mistake committed by his late father. So, yes . . .“JAUNTY JALOPIES” is a sequel to the 1965 film.

The Monte Carlo Rally began as an endurance test for many drivers and the vehicles they drove. The competitors would set off from different locations in Europe and meet in Monaco. The day after the competitors reach Monte Carlo, they would end up racing each other via a road that threads through the Maritime Alps and back to Monte Carlo and the finish line. Although “JAUNTY JALOPIES” indicated that the race began at five different European locations, the movie featured competitors starting at three:

*From John O’Groats, Scotland – Wealthy American automobile magnate Chester Scofield won half of the Ware-Armitages’ automobile factory in a poker game with Sir Percival Armitage-Ware. Following the latter’s death, his son Sir Cuthbert challenges Chester to enter the Monte Carlo Rally. Whoever crosses the finish line first – officially – wins as sole owner of the company. Sir Cuthbert blackmails his company foreman Perkins into serving as his co-driver. And Chester, who began the race alone, acquires a co-driver in the form of an English aristocratic beauty named Betty (surname unknown).

*From Stockholm, Sweden – Eccentric British Army officer Major Digby Dawlish and his aide Lieutenant Kit Barrington enter the Rally to advertise Dawlish’s odd inventions for his car. Both end up clashing with a German convict/race driver Willi Schickel (who is impersonating a murdered driver named Horst Mueller and his co-driver Otto Schwartz, who have entered the Rally to smuggle stolen gems for an exiled Russian aristocrat named Count Levinovitch.

*From Ragusa, Italy – Two Roman police officers named Angelo Pincelli and Marcello Agosti enter the Rally to earn a big enough reward for Angelo to avoid marrying the promised daughter of a supervisor. They end up mainly competing against a French doctor named Marie-Claude and her two co-drivers, medical students Pascale and Dominique; who enter the Rally in the name of Women’s Rights.

While reading a few articles about “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES”, I noticed that many bloggers and critics tend to compare this film with the 1965 movie . . . and to the former’s detriment. Many regard“THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THE FLYING MACHINES” as superior to “JAUNTY JALOPIES”, regardless of whether they liked the latter or not. I recall one major criticism that film critic Leonard Maltin made about “JAUNTY JALOPIES”. He claimed that the 1969 movie failed to completely re-capture the atmosphere of the late 1920s in the way “FLYING MACHINES” managed to re-capture the late Edwardian era. And I am afraid he is right. Despite the mid-1960s beehive hairdos worn by the actresses, watching “FLYING MACHINES” made me feel as if I had stepped back into those last years before the outbreak of World War I. On the other hand, “JAUNTY JALOPIES” did not exactly re-capture the atmosphere of the late 1920s. Mind you, Production Designer Ted Haworth and Costume Designer John Furniss gave it their all. Their work certainly contributed to the movie’s late 1920s setting. But in spite of their work, the movie still failed to fully re-capture the era of its setting. One person I cannot help but blame is composer Ron Goodwin. Although Goodwin had wrote an entertaining score that emphasized the movie’s comedy and sense of travel, it failed to invoke a sense of the Roaring Twenties – at least in Europe. And unlike “FLYING MACHINES”, which featured several scenes in which the competitors and other characters managed to socialize; “JAUNTY JALOPIES” only featured one scene that featured all of the competitors together. I am referring to the scene in which the competitors meet at an inn in Chambéry, France for an overnight stay, before they set on the road to Monaco. “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” also had one or two scenes that seemed to have been cut rather quick by the film’s editor, Peter Taylor. I got the feeling both Ken Annakin and Taylor were trying to rush the movie’s narrative along – especially before the last sequence of the race. And although I liked the movie’s pre-credit sequence that introduced the Digby Dawlish and Kit Carrington characters in British Indians, I found the sequence’s portrayal of Indians a little tacky and racist . . . even if it was spoofing British Imperialism and characters like Dawlish and Carrington.

But despite the movie’s naysayers and some of its flaws, I liked “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES”. Actually, it is one of my favorite movies released in the 1960s. And I also like it more than “THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES”, of which I am a big fan. One, it has the advantage of being a movie about a road trip. In the case of “JAUNTY JALOPIES”, it starts out as three road trips that merge into one. The humor featured in this film is very similar to the humor featured in “FLYING MACHINES”. Another reason why it enabled me endure it a lot more is that the major characters struck me as more rounded and complex than most of those featured in the 1965 film. A good comparison would be the characters portrayed by Gert Frobe in both films. His Colonel Manfred Von Holstein character from “FLYING MACHINES” has always struck me as the cliché of a typical high-ranking German Army officer and a very narrow one. On the other hand, Frobe portrayed a former German race driver-turned-criminal in “JAUNTY JALOPIES” named Willi Schickel, who seemed a lot more complex (and clever) than the one-dimensional character he had portrayed in “FLYING MACHINES”. Even Eric Sykes’ role as Terry-Thomas’ subordinate and plant manager in this film struck me as an improvement over the sniveling chauffeur he portrayed in the 1965 film. “JAUNTY JALOPIES” also benefited from better on-screen romances. Hell, the romances featured in this film – either between Chester and Betty, or Marcello and Marie-Claude – were MAJOR improvements over the romances from the first movie.

In my opinion, the biggest virtue that “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” possessed over“THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES” proved to be its narrative. If I must be frank, the second film possessed tighter writing. To this day, I remain frustrated that the air race featured in the 1965 film only lasted during its last 45 minutes – one third of the film. Due to Ken Annakin and Jack Davies’ screenplay and the movie’s setting, the Monte Carlo Rally was featured in MOST of the film’s narrative – aside from the first 15 to 20 minutes that introduced the major characters and the sequence in Chambéry. Not only did I find this to be a big improvement over the 1965 film’s narrative, I am grateful that most of “JAUNTY JALOPIES” is set during the actual race. And I am surprised that not one other blogger or film critic has ever noticed this.

I tried to recall if I found any particular performance off putting. And if I must be honest, I did not. “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” featured some funny and excellent performances. Tony Curtis was very charming, yet zany as American driver Chester Scofield. I liked how he balanced Chester’s aggressive ambition with a shy sweetness toward his leading lady. Speaking of her, I really enjoyed Susan Hampshire’s portrayal of the complex and aristocratic Betty. In fact, due to her charming and manipulative nature, I found her to be the most interesting female character in both movies. One would expect Terry-Thomas’ portrayal of Sir Cuthbert Armitage-Ware to be an exact replica of the character’s father, the mustache-twirling Sir Percival. Yet, I found his Sir Cuthbert to be more subtle and manipulative than his father . . . and better company, despite his villainy. Eric Sykes, who also appeared in the 1965 film, got a chance to portray a more rounded character as Perkins, Sir Cuthbert’s semi-brave factory manager, who ends up being blackmailed by his employer to serve as a co-driver.

What I found interesting about “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” were the screen pairings that seem to dominate the film. And they all clicked so well. Gert Frobe’s portrayal of the extroverted Willi Schickel contrasted very well with Peter Schmidt, who gave a nice performance as the former’s reserved and slightly nervous co-driver and fellow convict, Otto Schwartz. Among the movie’s cast were Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, who portrayed the two British officers, Major Dawlish and Lieutenant Kit Barrington. Cook and Moore were already a screen team when they made this movie. And both proved in this movie that their chemistry was as strong and funny as ever. Mireille Darc, Marie Dubois and Nicoletta Machiavelli made a charming and intelligent trio as the three French drivers who entered the Rally on behalf of women’s rights. But I was very surprised by the chemistry between Walter Chiari and Lando Buzzanca, who portrayed the two Italian policemen, Angelo Pincilli and Marcelo Agosti. Not only did they proved to be a very effective screen team, I found them just as funny as Cook and Moore. I should not have been surprised, considering that they had worked together before. Bourvil portrayed the pompous, yet sarcastic Rally official, Monsieur Dupont. And I found him especially funny in a scene with Mireille Darc, as her character convinces him to allow women to participate in the Rally and in that bizarre, yet hilarious scene at the Rally’s finish line.

As I had stated earlier, there are many who regard “THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES” as not only inferior to 1965’s “THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES”, but something of a loss in the end. However, I am not one of them. It has its flaws. But there are too many aspects of the 1969 film that struck me as an improvement over the 1965 film. More importantly, I found “JAUNTY JALOPIES” so entertaining that it has become one of my favorite comedies . . . and movies that was released during the 1960s. I have to thank writer-director Ken Annakin, along with the all-star cast led by Tony Curtis, Susan Hampshire and Terry-Thomas for making this movie so entertaining for me.

Advertisements

“THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” (1982) Review

“THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” (1982) Review

Back in 1982, the BBC turned to 19th century author Anthony Trollope for a seven-part miniseries called “THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES”. The miniseries was based upon the author’s first two Barchester novels about the Church of England. 

Directed by David Giles and written by Alan Plater, ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” is an adaptation of ”The Warden” (1855)and ”Barchester Towers” (1857). The novels focused upon the the dealings and social maneuverings of the clergy and gentry literature concern the dealings of the clergy and the gentry that go on between the citizens and members of the Church of England in the fictitious cathedral town of Barchester. Episodes One and Two, which are adaptations of ”The Warden”, center on the impact upon the Reverend Septimus Harding and his circle when a zealous young reformer named John Bold launches a campaign to expose the disparity in the apportionment of Hiram House, an almshouse for bedesmen, and its income between the latter and its officer, Reverend Harding. Mr. Bold embarks on this campaign out of a spirit of public duty, despite his previously cordial relationship with Mr. Harding and his romantic involvement with the latter’s younger daughter, Eleanor. Mr. Bold attempts to enlist the support and interest of Tom Towers, the editor of The Jupiter, who writs editorials supporting reform of the charity, and a portrait of Mr. Harding as being selfish and derelict in his conduct of his office. Despite the efforts of his bombastic, but well-meaning son-in-law, the Archdeacon Grantly, to ignore Mr. Bold’s reform campaign, and continue his position as warden of Hiram House. But Reverend Harding concludes that he cannot in good conscience continue to accept such a generous salary and resigns the position. John Bold, who had tried in vain to reverse the injury done to Mr. Harding, returns to Barchester and marries Eleanor.

In the remaining five episodes, based upon ”Barchester Towers”, the beloved Bishop of Barchester dies and many assume that his son, Archdeacon Grantly, will gain the position in his place. However thanks to a new Prime Minister, a newcomer, the Reverend Proudie, becomes the new bishop. His overbearing wife, Mrs Proudie, exercises an undue influence over the new bishop and becomes unpopular with right-thinking members of the clergy and their families. Her interference in the reappointment of the universally popular Mr Septimus Harding as warden of Hiram House is not well received, even though she gives the position to a needy clergyman with a large family to support. Even less popular than Mrs Proudie is the bishop’s newly appointed chaplain, the hypocritical Mr. Obadiah Slope, who takes a fancy to Harding’s wealthy widowed daughter, Eleanor Bold. He hopes to win her hand in marriage by interfering in the controversy over the wardenship of Hiram House. Due to Mrs. Proudie’s influence, the Bishop and Mr. Slope order the return of Dr. Vesey Stanhope from Italy. Dr Stanhope has been there, recovering from a sore throat for 12 years and has spent his time catching butterflies. His wife and three children accompany him back to Barchester. Dr. Stanhope’s only son also has eyes on Eleanor and her fortune. And the younger of his two daughters, the serial flirt Signora Madelina Vesey Neroni, causes consternation and hostility within Mrs. Proudie and threatens the plans of Mr. Slope.

Over the years, ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” has become a highly acclaimed television production amongst costume drama fans and the critics. It also received several BAFTA nominations and won an award for Best Design (Chris Pemsel). Many fans and critics have also viewed it as the production responsible for one of Donald Pleasence’s best roles and the start of Alan Rickman’s fame as a skilled actor. When the miniseries first aired in the United States nearly two years later in October 1984, I tried very hard to enjoy it. I really did. Looking back, I realized that I was too young to really appreciate it and ended up getting bored. I never had any intention of ever watching again. But when I purchased a DVD set featuring ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” and two other miniseries productions based upon Anthony Trollope’s works, I figured that I might as well give it another shot. And I am glad that I did.

“THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” turned out to be a sharp and funny look at the Church of England during the 1850s. The miniseries was filled with characters that have become so memorable to me that I find it difficult to erase them from my mind. In fact, I can honestly say that the characters really made the miniseries for me – especially characters such as Mrs. Proudie, the Reverend Obadiah Slope, Signora Neroni and the wonderfully charming and sweet, Reverend Harding. But the characters alone did not impress me. I was also impressed by screenwriter Alan Plater’s adaptation of the two novels. In my review of the 2007 miniseries, “CRANFORD”, I had complained that it seemed disjointed to me and was more suited as an episodic television series, due to the fact that it was based upon three of Elizabeth Gaskell’s novellas. Although ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES”was based upon the first two of Trollope’s Barchester novels, it did not seem disjointed to me. Perhaps I felt this way, because the subject of the first two episode – namely Reverend Harding’s position as warden of Hiram House – also had a major impact on the plotlines of the last five episodes. I must admit that my knowledge of the hierarchy of the Church of England barely existed before I saw ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” for the second time. After viewing the miniseries, it is still rather vague. But the controversy over Hiram House and the backstabbing, the romances and the manipulations that occurred between the characters really made watching the miniseries rather fun. There were moments when the miniseries’ pacing threatened to drag. And I could have done without a full sermon from Reverend Slope in Episode Three. But these flaws did not hamper the miniseries in the end.

I found most of the performances in ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” top-notch. Mind you, there were some excursions into hammy acting – notably from Nigel Hawthorne as Archdeacon Grantly, Peter Blythe as the feckless Nigel Stanhope and yes, from Geraldine McEwan as Mrs. Proudie. Even Alan Rickman had a moment of hammy acting in his very last scene. But, the cast was generally first-rate. Despite their moments of hamminess, I must admit that I was very impressed by Hawthorne, McEwan and Rickman. Especially the latter, who gave a star turn as the slippery and obsequious Obadiah Slope. And Clive Swift gave a deliciously subtle performance as the weak-willed Bishop Proudie, who allowed himself to be bullied by his wife and manipulated by Mr. Slope. I was also impressed by Susan Hampshire’s performance as the manipulative and sexy Signora Neroni. The series did not go much into her character’s problems with her Italian husband, despite her negative comments on marriage. But watching her manipulate Rickman’s Reverend Slope really impressed and entertained me. And I also enjoyed Angela Pleasence’s portrayal of Archdeacon Grantly’s wife, Susan Harding Grantly. In many ways, she seemed like a more respectable version of the Signora Neroni – feminine, soft-spoken, a little manipulative and strong-willed. But the one performance that shone above the others for me was Donald Pleasence’s portrayal of the Reverend Septimus Harding. Characters like Reverend Harding usually tend to bore me. But Pleasence’s Reverend Harding was not only interesting, but also entertaining. I enjoyed how he managed to maintain his mild-mannered personality, while displaying a great deal of backbone against the aggressive maneuverings of Archdeacon Grantly and Mrs. Proudie, and his hostility over the slippery manipulations of Reverend Slope. My only quibble about Pleasence’s performance is that his scenes with Janet Maw, who portrayed Eleanor Harding Bold, left me feeling a bit uneasy. I realize that Reverend Harding and Eleanor had a close relationship, but there were moments – thanks to Pleasence and Maw’s performances – when their interactions seemed to hint a touch of incest. Very creepy.

Does ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” still hold up after twenty-eight years? Perhaps. The miniseries was obviously filmed on video tape. And the pictures are not as sharp as they could be. But I must admit that the photography was rich with color. And I just adored Juanita Waterson’s costume designs, which were shown with great effect in scenes that featured the Proudies’ soirée at the Bishop’s residence and the Thornes’ garden party. She effectively captured the styles of mid-Victorian England. Perhaps some of the performances were a little hammy at times. And there were moments when the miniseries’ pacing threatened to drag. But overall, ”THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES” was a first-rate production that featured a well-written script by Alan Plater, an excellent cast led by Donald Pleasence and solid direction by David Giles. After twenty-eight years, it remains a sharp and entertaining miniseries for me.