If.... (1968) User Reviews

Excellent, absorbing, biting

[I_Ailurophile · 8/10 · 13 March 2022]

More so than with any other film I've watched in recent memory, I rather don't entirely know what to say after watching this. There's a stark, jolting precision and brutality to much of the movie, even well preceding the abject violence, yet also a weirdly poetic beauty at many points. This is as true for Lindsay Anderson's direction as it is for David Sherwin's screenplay, in all ways, but also for the acting. Performances are exact and practiced, but also fluid and natural. Whether presented in pure black and white, or in color under drab skies or sunny blue, the very image before us and cinematography is rich and lush. For viewers such as myself whose perspective on schooling in the United Kingdom is informed wholly by cinematic exhibition and not personal experience, the strict regimentation and forced social arrangements are both fascinating and uninviting - to say nothing of what embellishments the movie makes in imparting its tale. When all is said and done, the result is that for any similarities one could find to this, that, or the other thing in more than 50 years since, 'If....' still feels quite unlike anything else.

For all the pomp and circumstance and plays for power and social position, and the inherent fictional nature of the feature, there's an earnestness to every aspect - characters, dialogue, scene writing, narrative, direction, performances - that comes off as very real, organic and relatable. It's an enticing balance maintained at all times between various moods and tones, with the interactions between characters taking foremost precedence as a focal point and anchor, whether trending toward antagonism or camaraderie. And with that said, not to belabor the point, but the contributions of the actors seems particularly essential in 'If....' to cementing the picture. As I've suggested, I think everyone on hand does a fine job of helping to bring the story to life with portrayals of nuance, poise, and personality, yet this goes above all for those whose characters are ultimately dubbed the "crusaders." While credited alongside those more prominent, Rupert Webster and Christine Noonan have little more than bit parts as Philips and "the girl"; we know so little about their characters, and one wishes they could have been fleshed out more at least to solidify motivations. Still, Webster and Noonan make strong impressions despite their limited time on screen. David Wood and Richard Warwick are decidedly more visible as Knightly and Wallace, and both actors do well in embodying the sneering disregard of the boys. But of course it's unmistakable Malcolm McDowell, starring as protagonist Mick Travis, who stands out most of all. There are subtleties in McDowell's distinct vocal timbre, and in his expressions and body language, that communicate definite confidence, defiance, and attitude, and just as it's hard to imagine anyone else as Alex DeLarge in 'A clockwork orange,' he is a perfect fit to depict the boiling malcontent of young Travis.

I don't feel that it's perfect. As well made as it is, and as enjoyable as the viewing experience is, there's a part of me that think maybe my perception of shortcomings is actually just an inability to glean the artistic choice behind certain inclusions. Again speaking to the characters of Philips and the girl - we're given minimal information of them generally, and little or nothing that would meaningfully serve to explain their participation in the finale. Jute is given a fair amount of screen time early on, then wordlessly fades from the narrative. One could infer to a reasonable certainty the significance of a specific scene featuring Mrs. Kemp, but in the end it just seems superfluous to the whole. Broadly speaking, it just seems like the writing could have stood to be a little tighter and more concrete; by no means does this completely dampen the value, but it's a notable aspect of the production.

Subjective faults notwithstanding, however - by and large, 'If....' is pretty fantastic. I'm not sure that it totally met my expectations based on what little I had read of it, but for the most part, I'm glad to have been surprised. It's a wonderfully subversive story of individuality and discontent set against the rigidity and corruption of the establishment, and it's presented with a refined touch behind almost every element. Even if something about the feature feels a little off, and not fully copacetic, that sense is minor in comparison to the engrossing drama to play out. Minding content warnings for violence and nudity, this isn't going to be for everyone, but I think it's solid enough that I'd have no qualms about recommending it to just about anyone. Though perhaps not altogether essential, 'If....' is an excellent, satisfying picture that's worth checking out if one has the opportunity.

With All Thy Getting, Get Under Cover

[slokes · 7/10 · 24 August 2008]

Lindsay Anderson's "if...." presents a fable disguised (most of the time) as a slice-of-life set in a British upper-class boarding school. Bouyed by the twin-barreled audacity of Anderson and the film's breakout star, Malcolm McDowell, "if...." fiercely, timelessly encapsulates the spirit of 1960s rebellion even as it threatens to go off the rails every five minutes in the second half.

McDowell is Mick Travis, a returning upperclassman at College House, one of several houses that constitute a British boarding school. While other older boys, called "whips", enforce a nasty form of discipline on their juniors, called "scum", Mick and two friends contemplate an act of revolution to disturb College House's rigid hierarchy once and for all.

"Violence and revolution are the only pure acts," Mick declares.

In case one doubts his cold-blooded dedication and impatience for change, his next line sends Columbine chills up your spine. Told someone dies of starvation in Calcutta every eight minutes, his reply is a succinct: "Eight minutes is a long time."

There are points where one can't help feeling the script needed another round of polishing, like the way it introduces characters like the teacher Mr. Thomas and the "scum" Biles and Jute only to drop them in the second half as Mick's story takes over completely. But Mick's hardcore attitude of radical chic and the surreal nonsense that spurts out now and then before taking over entirely actually give "if...." much of its rich, iconoclastic majesty. With its attention to institutional detail, the sound of boyish babble echoing off the linoleum, you really feel yourself another inmate in College House, and are eager for Mick to effect your escape as well as his.

For me, that's why the first half works so much better than the second half. It sends up the public-school culture in such a way that its actual demolition later on seems unnecessary. Robert Swann sets the right tone as the head whip Rowntree, a toffee-nosed princeling who carries his thrashing cane like a kingly scepter and tells one young scum: "Markland, warm a lavatory seat for me. I'll be ready in three minutes." Swann's as brilliant a villain as McDowell himself would be in many later films.

Watching McDowell here is to see his Alex from "Clockwork Orange" in embryonic form, his simpering smile, his animalistic fury, his waggish ease-putting charm. A case can be made that Mick is a more disturbing character than Alex, since he is presented so much more sympathetically and acts out even more violently by the film's end.

Ah, the end, what can be said about that that hasn't been said. I won't spoil anything, but I do think the film's surrealism needs to be factored in more than it has in considering the moral implications of Mick & Co's final act. Logic seems to flee from the corners of the screen long before. One long sequence features Mick and friend Johnny stealing a motorbike without consequence and Mick coupling on the floor of a coffee house with a town girl, who later waves to him when he spots her with a high-powered telescope. If you can't see the madness in moments like that, then maybe you deserve to think the end of the film was played straight.

I'm not much for the ending of the film. "Do you find it facile?" asks the History Master played by the marvelous Graham Crowden, and my answer would be yes. As I said, I think it's a flawed finish, not just for its unpleasant resonances but the way nothing is resolved, no narrative or character arc.

But "if...." is still bracing, still tough, and still refreshing in the way it presents McDowell in raw, undistilled form, in a setting fully deserving of his visible scorn. Anderson makes you want to lash out, too, making the most of "if...."'s enigmatic tagline: "Which side will you be on?"

1960s British Rebellion

[dflynch215 · 8/10 · 16 December 2020]

I saw "If . . ." on an American military base where I was stationed in 1969. It's hard to believe that a U.S. Army base would present a film about violent insurrection at a British boarding school. Somebody screwed up. The base's theater recently offered "Where Eagles Dare". However, the film "If . . ." provided a welcome diversion from the rigors of military life. It also triggered colorful conversations and head scratching back at the barracks.

Brilliant mixture of social criticism and fantasy rebellion. One of the most powerful movies of the 1960s.

[Infofreak · 29 January 2003]

'If...' is a fascinating and powerful film set in an oppressive and archaic public (that's private to us non-Brits) school. It is one of the most original and innovative of all British movies of the 60s, a decade which began in some ways with 'Peeping Tom' and ended with 'Performance', two much maligned movies which in hindsight are astonishing achievements. 'If..' is equally as striking (and disturbing) as those two criminally underrated movies, but in contrast actually achieved quite a level of popularity on its original release. Even so I don't believe the movie gets the attention it deserves. Hopefully it will be rediscovered by a new generation of movie lovers as it is still very relevant and powerful even now, thirty five years later. Malcolm McDowell (his film debut) stars as the ring-leader of a small group of dissatisfied students who don't fit in with their ultra-conformist contemporaries. His performance is first rate, and in several scenes you can almost see Alex, his droog to be ('A Clockwork Orange'). The movie mixes documentary like realism with fantasy sequences involving "The Girl" (Christine Noonan), and eventually violent rebellion. A movie very much of its time it still is very watchable today and has lost little of its power and ability to surprise. Lindsay Anderson, arguably Britain's most underrated director, continued to expand upon McDowell's Mick Travis character in two subsequent movies, but 'If..' has a very different feel from those "sequels", if they can truly be termed that, and can be watched as a stand alone movie. I was impressed with this movie when I first saw it on black and white TV as a young lad, and I was still impressed when I watched it again the other week. And I will guarantee it will not be my last viewing of this brilliant film! A must see for anyone with any interest whatsoever in 1960s pop culture or film.

Love And Anger

[maureenmcqueen · 10/10 · 5 April 2017]

This glorious 1968 film is a document not just of its times but of the eternal and mysterious communion between two enormous artists. Lindsay Anderson, the director, the mentor, the older man and Malcolm McDowell his young, brilliant, loving disciple. The trust between this two men is overwhelming and the results are in every frame in every nuance. For me, to see this film after many years was a remarkable emotional experience. Daring, visionary with a Malcolm McDowell that broke new ground with the fearlessness of an explorer venturing into totally virgin territory. Brilliant, beautiful, unique. Lead by the magical hand of Anderson and McDowell we confront the anger of the artists with their love for each other. Wow!

One of the greatest of all British films

[MOscarbradley · 10/10 · 3 January 2008]

The best film ever made about school life; the rituals, the drudgery, the humiliation and ultimately the excitement. Anderson's masterpiece works on a number of levels, not least as one of the cinema's great pieces of surrealism. It's a state of the nation movie, a fantasy, an account of public school life told with an almost documentary-like precision and it's as fresh today as it was when it first appeared, (hard to believe that was almost 40 years ago or that Malcom McDowell was ever this young).

Using Jean Vigo's "Zero De Conduite" as a template, (it's not a remake), Anderson's movie is quintessentially youthful and so accurately does it depict its milieu as to appear almost arrogant. He handles revolution with a grandstanding authority and homosexual, (and heterosexual), schoolboy yearning more romantically than any other film I can think of, (Wallace's display in the gymnasium as blonde, beautiful, tousle-haired Bobby Phillips looks on is blissfully homo-erotic), and he does this with a masterly control of the medium. (His comments about financial restraints dictating the fluctuations between black-and-white and colour photography may well be true but the choices seem inspired, nevertheless and the great Miroslav Ondricek's camera-work is superb).

He was also a great actor's director, often working with many of the same actors both in theatre and in cinema and he extracts marvellous performances from the likes of Arthur Lowe, Peter Jeffrey, Mona Washborne and Geoffrey Chater representing the Establishment as well as pitch-perfect performances from David Wood, Richard Warwick, Rupert Webster, Robert Swann and Hugh Thomas, all new to cinema, as the students.

The film made Malcom McDowell a star and for a few short years, (here, in "O Lucky Man", as Alex in "A Clockwork Orange"), that star burned brightly before he sold out to Hollywood and his career began to flounder in a series of mediocre American movies, reaching a nadir with "Caligula". But his performance as Mick Travis is a marvel and both it and the film that first encapsulated it remain among the finest achievements in British cinema.

surreal Lord of the Flies feel

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 1 July 2015]

The student are returning to a British boarding school. Mick (Malcolm McDowell) and his friends are the constantly chaffing at the Whips, the upper classmen in charge of the students. The adults defers to the Whips. The lower classmen or Scums are menial servants for the Whips. It culminates in Mick and his friends being canned by the Whips. Mick gives his friends some bullets. Together they go on surreal shooting sprees.

I have never been in a boarding school and it's a little tough to get a feel for this movie. This seems more like 'Lord of the Flies' with rules and traditions. Then it throws in some surrealism. This seems very unreal but I can't tell what's reasonable and what's not. I was actually glad when the movie goes fully surreal in the last act. The last half is definitely shocking and takes a left turn somewhere.

Anderson and McDowell - A revolution.

[duffjerroldorg · 10/10 · 25 October 2017]

I was in a sort of daze for hours after seeing If...for the first time in 2017. A work of art? Certainly but also a poetic historical document. After all the film dates back to 1968. 1968! when things were really changing and youth was taking a step forward, reminding the older generation that we'll be suffering the consequences of your thoughtlessness. So move over or else. I remember my father despising this film, he call it, propaganda. Propaganda?Maybe that's why I never saw it, until now. I was really moved by the film. Malcolm McDowell is the perfect man to incarnate the revolution that was about to come. It also made me look for all of Lindsay Anderson films - Just half a dozen feature films but my God! What an extraordinary director.

Not what it wants to be

[Spleen · 6/10 · 14 April 2001]

There are at least half a dozen moments of inspired surrealism, or at least, something that comes very close to surrealism without crossing the line. A pity I can't tell you what they are; it's best if they take you by surprise.

A pity also that the film as a whole is such an incoherent jumble. Surrealist or semi-surrealist moments can give a coherent film a real kick - consider the giant face that suddenly appears on the skyline in "Brazil", or the ballet sequence in "The Red Shoes". Here, they do little more than keep us hoping against hope.

You might have heard the film flits between colour and black and white in the most perplexing way. You may also have heard that the director, Lindsay Anderson, claims this is was done for purely economic reasons. Oh - so that makes it okay? I wasted a lot of time because I was under the impression that colour represented one thing, and black and white another; once that idea is abandoned, all that's left is to absorb the overall effect of semi-random alternation. It's like flicking through a scrapbook. This is appropriate, given the disorded nature of the film, and not ENTIRELY a bad thing. The best that can be made of this film is a kind of demented school yearbook, which is certainly better than nothing.

"Don't forget boy Look over your shoulder 'Cause there's always someone coming after you"

[Galina_movie_fan · 9/10 · 9 October 2007]

The first entry to the Mick Travis trilogy ("If...", 1968, O Lucky Man, 1973, and "Britannia Hospital", 1982), "If.." is a surreal black comedy about an English private boys' school and a student rebellion. In his three films, Anderson had covered all aspects, politics, and institutions of British Society from 1968 to 1982 with its complex system of class differences and privileges. "If..." which was released in 1968 at the peak of youthful rebellion in Europe and USA, received BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations and won the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival where it competed with 27 films from all over the world.

Anderson was in part inspired by Jean Vigo's 41 minutes long "Zero for conduct" (1933) about the similar to "If..." subject. Like in Vigo's film, Anderson inserts some surrealistic episodes shot in black-and-white and according to him, it was driven by budget rather than style. Malcolm McDowell in his first big screen role and the first of three Mick Travis' movies is a charismatic leader of the rebel students who call themselves the Crusaders and like to break the rules. The cruel corporal punishments from the faculty and the older students provoked a bloody uprising against the school system.

Made almost 40 years ago, "If.." still has a power to shock as well as to entertain and it remains an outstanding and controversial depiction of the problems that have not disappear from the English public school system or from any school system as well as from society in general.

I am sure that Stanley Kubrick saw "If..." and was impressed by McDowell's debut performance, by his charisma that shines through his close-ups and especially in the final shot of "If...", and by his face that strangely combines innocence and youthful openness with cynical scornful almost reptilian contempt for humanity. I believe that "If..." was the reason Kubrick offered the part of charming psychopath Alex to the young actor.

But....

[z_crito2001 · 6/10 · 22 September 2001]

(Warning: I mention parts of this film's plot in the comments below)

Well after 17 years I recently saw this film once again and to be honest it just doesn't seem as memorable as I remember it. Maybe it's because of all that has happened the past few years but this film's ending seems just plain cruel, out of place and unnecessary.

It's also odd but the last time I saw this film I could have sworn its title "If..." didn't pop up at the very end but was right before an ending that showed the school on a typical day as if nothing had happened and the violent ending was only a possibility (hence "If...."). I must have dreamed that ending.

It's still a well made film with a provocative title and good original music by Marc Wilkinson (a song called SANCTUS from the African mass "Missa Luba" is also used).

Unfortunately -- at least for me -- there's only one memorable scene in the entire film and it's a turning point in it. It occurs in section #6 (called "Resistance"). While Mick (another Mick?) the amateur astronomer gazes into the night sky with his telescope he tells Mick Travis "Space you see Michael is all expanding at the speed of light...". Mick Travis asks if Mick is with them in the planed rebellion by handing him a bullet. Mick (probably one of the few normal older students) hands the bullet back and offers Mick Travis a glance through the telescope. Mick gazes into the sky and lowers the telescope to see his girlfriend in a distant window. She waves back. (She either has very good eye sight or he adjusted the telescope's view while scanning down?). It's a well made scene that I still remember from 17 years ago. It's also funny but this time I noticed on this latest viewing how much the music in that section sounds like something off of The Moody Blues' "Days of Future Past" album (you remember: "Breath deep the gathering gloom...").

If this is basically just an all boys high school in England like you would have in the U.S. (Is it just a high school? Am I correct about that?) then most students would be between 14 and 18 years old. Maybe it's because most of the older students at this school are played by actors in their twenties (Malcolm McDowell was 25 at the time) and the fact that most of the younger students look like they're about 11 years old, but for the older students it looks like the greatest sadness in their lives isn't the regimented environment they live in at this school but that they are basically treated like children or same as the youngest students. Sure the older ones have additional responsibilities but they are basically treated like they're 11 -- they can't go into town (it's off limits) and everyone must be inside by 5 PM, etc.

One final thought: There are a few quotes mentioned under this Web page's "Memorable Quotes" section but not listed are the ones I always thought were this film's most unique, which are:

Headmaster: Work, play, but never mix the two.

Headmaster: Those given most, have most to give.

One for your sons

[StevieGB · 10/10 · 19 April 1999]

To get the most out of this film you have to be English, male and a teenager; in 1979 when I first saw it I was all three. In the years that followed I would catch it wherever I could, be it on television, in the college bar or in some local, flea-ridden rep cinema. Now, of course, I own the video. Every few months I dig it out and watch it, and more than any other film or book it reminds me what it was like to be young and rebellious and have my whole life ahead of me.

This was to England what The Wild One or Rebel Without A Cause was to America. Show it to your teenage sons; they'll remember it for the rest of their lives, and one day they might even thank you for it.

To dispel an old myth, while I'm here. Some scenes in the film are in black and white while most of the film is in color. The reason for this has nothing to do with art; they were short of money, and black and white was cheaper in those days.

Enjoy.

Interesting, But A Bit Rough Around The Edges

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 18 October 2008]

"If" offers a compelling depiction of life in what appears to be an upper class British boarding school for boys. Unfortunately, in the end, I also found it somewhat unsatisfying and largely unresolved, leaving too much open-ended. This is reflected, I suppose, in the title itself. I'm not quite sure what "If …" is supposed to suggest. If what?The story revolves around the character of Mick (played by a very young Malcolm McDowell in a memorable performance.) Mick is a bit of a rebel, whose rebelliousness grows as he's exposed more and more regularly to the harshness of life in this place, culminating in his being caned along with several others for having a poor attitude. It's also at that point when the movie begins to break down a bit, though (the caning being what I thought was the climactic scene of the movie.) The downward spiral began immediately after with the scene in which the naked woman walks through the dorm (for no apparent reason that I could see) and then descends through increasingly bizarre scenes, culminating in a very violent ending which really didn't resolve anything because we don't know how the confrontation depicted ended.

There were other factors that made this movie a bit difficult. Chapter numbers and titles may work well in a novel, but not quite as well in a movie. The scenes in this are separated by those divisions, and the end result was that the story was a little bit rough and lacking in flow. Director Lindsay Anderson also used a strange blend of black and white with colour throughout the movie, and, again, there didn't seem to be any clear reason for why certain scenes were filmed in B&W. Again, it was ultimately distracting and took away from the flow of the movie.

Even with those weaknesses, though, this was a very interesting and watchable movie. Whether it's an accurate depiction of what life in such schools was like in 1968 is an open question. If it was, then it's surprising that such things didn't happen more often in real life! It's well worth watching, and offers a clear reflection on the rebellious nature of the 1960's in general. 6/10

"If..." I could have my two hours back. A bad '60s movie beloved by political dilettantes

[heckles · 1/10 · 5 November 2007]

I just saw "If…" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.

Just utterly,utterly marvellous

[ng271 · 15 May 2004]

My word!

"If.." has always been a firm favourite of mine, particularly as I have been in much the same situation (minus B+W/Colour changes, and gun battles, naturally), and indeed still consider myself a hair rebel. It captures perfectly the horrors of public shool-The fawning, smarmy head-master, the rigors of cadet training and founder's day, it's all drawn from horrible reality.

Saw a late night showing yesterday, and on the cinema screen the fabulous direction and power of the photography- so still and unobtrusive, yet so iconic-becomes apparent. That final looped shot of Mick firing the brenn Gun is just stunning! I left the cinema feeling so goddamn moved!

At times the sheer 60s-ness, and random dialogue ("I like Johnny") can seem to undermine the viewing experience, but the spirit of bold rebellion which saturates this marvelous film wins you over. A favourite joke which I had never spotted before, is near the start, where the whips tick off a list that goes something like "Measles, tape worm, conformation class"..marvellous..

GO SEE!!

If only they had shown this at school!!

[iaingmacg · 9/10 · 4 December 2007]

Made in 1968, this film still made me shiver even though I started at public school in 1977. Things had changed somewhat by then, but not beyond recognition, and for sure I felt powerful echoes in this movie. By the time I left, the country was steeped in Thatcherism, and the style of self advancement that came with it was replacing the old guard watchers of 'If....' would recognise. The housemaster and headboy were 2 characters I can especially recall, but there are flashes of others in many of the characters.

When you see this film, see it as a historical satire, with first the historical atmosphere of a public school being accurately recreated, then second the satire taking form just in time to administer the purgative judgement of the surreal denouement.

There. Spoken like a public schoolboy.

More than a warning, a prophecy

[Dr_Coulardeau · 10/10 · 27 July 2007]

A strange film from 1968. A film on education in Great Britain. The education of the middle class or what could be called the bourgeoisie, second social stratum after the aristocracy. Education in a boarding school, with prefects, whips, and everything like corporal punishments and mean nasty segregational attitudes towards those who have too much personality or do not accept to be wimps marching along to the dictatorial rule of the prefects, whips and other real or false headmasters. It is all wrong from the very start. It represses originality, initiative and creativity and develops the desire to be on top one day to become the torturer who will be able to impose on smaller ones what they have been imposed by bigger ones when they were small. Democratic slavery. You have to submit to the system totally in order to become the slave master later on and compensate your frustration when you were a slave on the slaves under your control. This is no education, this is taming. This is not teaching morality but teaching savage displaced vengeance. Of course the film is showing exactly what may happen when you victimize the more brilliant, the more original because they are more brilliant and original than you are (two meanings intended). It is the survival of the old feudal education system that was making all children who were to be in the superior class later on be pages or chambermaids, as soon as they had crossed the first year or so of puberty, in the hands of aristocrats. They just had to do what they were told to do, including personal service to their masters and mistresses, or they had to suffer punishment that could be of the most violent type. To educate the future leaders of our society by making them go through the false and fake choice of submission or rebellion, being used in the most debilitating ways or being punished with the most vicious means, being humiliated or being violently broken. It cultivates rebellion without a cause in these young people, and we say it is without a cause without any clue at all about what it is really, because to be humiliated, victimized, brutalized, and even violated is the best cause to be rebellious, though it is not rebellious they should be but plainly advocates of the violent change of this society. It is that survival of feudal customs and methods that produced the revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, whose leadership had been too often forced to go through this process of humiliating the future master out of the humiliation itself. The end of the film then is purely phantasmagoric but it is exactly what this society deserves: good old strong deadly bullets right in the center of the forehead. This film is the British pioneering version of the American "Zabriskie Point", just a few years later. We are coming back from deep deep under in the dark realm of Hades and we are far from the clear and trans-lucid target of total transparency and honesty. This film, in its way is just as powerful and brain raking as "Clockwork Orange" or "The Dead Poets Society".

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

If... I had seen this when it was first released.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 14 December 2021]

I definitely would have ranked this higher. It certainly cannot be compared to other films about education made around the same time, "Up the Down Staircase", "To Sir With Love" and "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" to mention a few, are the most popular of those films which showed a change in education that were a far cry from "Goodbye Mr. Chips", "Cheers for Miss Bishop", "The Corn is Green" and "Good Morning Miss Dove". This film is seen from the point of view of the students at a British boy's school where the newcomers are labeled as scum and treated horribly, with violence and degradation, a longtime tradition in these halls of education.

Filmed with sequences in both color and black-and-white, this doesn't really have a lead even though Malcolm McDowell is top billed. You can easily see it almost as a prequel to "A Clockwork Orange" as his character Shirley is deranged. Other films he did during this time we're similar in nature of an oddball society of violence and sexual perversion, which goes to show why a decade later he would be cast as Caligula.

The scenes of the inhumane treatment of some of the boys are difficult to watch, among them a moment in the laboratory where one of the boys is tied upside down over a toilet and another where someone is suffocated with a plastic bag over their head. I'm not sure, but I think it might have been the same boy. This certainly is not a film that everybody will like, but it is well acted even if a lot of the characterizations are of vile and unlikable people. Veteran British character actress Mona Washbourne is recognizable as the school nurse but has little to do. This is the type of film that you only will probably see once because for most cases, once is enough and in others, once is more than enough.

A stunning work from a consummate master

[smiths-4 · 10/10 · 18 October 2002]

I first saw this movie when i was 15 and it shook up my world. I was aware of Malcolm McDowell having previously seen him as Alex delarge in Clockwork Orange. This film is a perfect surreal study of teenage rebellion and should be seen by everyone who is able. The direction is brilliant the supporting cast shine (Arthur Lowe etc)and the film as a whole is made up of memorable images that you'll take to the grave. Lindsay Anderson is one of the most important director geniuses of an era and i was very sad to hear of his demise. The memory of him lives on through this film and its two "Mick Travis" sequels!!

A Cult Classic And Must See

[BarneyMFilms · 7/10 · 29 March 2019]

"A Clockwork Orange" is one of my all time favourite films, and Malcolm McDowell is a big part of that. So obviously I sought after other things that featured the man, and this was his first claim to fame. This film is very interesting, to say the least. It's revolves around a revolution in a private school, led by McDowell's Mick Travis.

During the first 70 minutes of the film, it's all very played down and restrained, as it's all very simple revolts, such as Travis and two of his friends drinking a bottle of Vodka, so the characters are meant to be relatable for teen-ages who enter that rebellious stage.

However as the films progresses the acts of rebellion grow with it. At one point during a school-wife military drill, Travis and his friends switch out their false ammunition's for real bullets and then shooting at several students and members of staff, and full on physically assaulting a teacher.

And as the film reaches it's climax, Travis and the gangs biggest act of revolt. As punishment for the gun incident, the boys are forced to clean out underneath the stage in the hall, there they inexplicably find ammunition and guns. They rig the room to fill with smoke during the colleges founding day, which causes everyone to run outside, where they would unleash fire upon the civilians. Suddenly the climax of "Inglourious Basterds" seems awfully familiar.

Despite being quite despicable people, Travis and his mates are quite likeable people, and McDowell and his co-stars all give good performances, as does Arthur Lowe (Day's Army) as Mr. Kemp, the boys' housemaster.

From what I understand, the film is connected to another, called "O' Lucky Man", as it features McDowell reprising the role of Mick Travis, so I guess I'll watch that soon too. But "If..." is a pretty solid film.

If... not so far fetched

[aussiedad · 9/10 · 28 March 2005]

I first watched "If…" about thirty years ago on a black and white TV. I'm not sure whether the sensors had been active or my memory has faded. Probably the first option although the second option is also valid as many movies can and have been watched in the space of thirty years. The film struck me at first as having a strong resemblance to the school that I attended ie. A Certain College which was an ultra conservative military type school run in the old English style where there was no room for individuality. Having attended there in the same time-frame as "If…", both Malcolm's and my headmaster's comments and policies were of a not so convincing attempt to be cool and trendy. The hair cut rules, uniform rules, and the underlying fear of homosexuality were all present. The pecking order where the seniors or "whips" could have a free run with any lad who they fancied or abhorred by piling pleasures or punishments on them was something I also lived through. If fact the film "If.." was not all that far fetched. Upon seeing the film after a thirty year lapse and then being asked to write a report for my daughter who is at the age that I was when I left the establishment I mentioned was certainly a treat. After seeing the film again, I believe the sensors did have a field day in 1975 as they did in many films of that era. Most of the gun-play in the final scenes was cut out as were Malcolm's dalliances with the young lady. Some of the scenes depicting homosexual innuendo were also missing although, as I mentioned earlier, my memory could have something to do with that. The switching from colour to black and white was something that went unnoticed the first time I saw the movie. Upon discussion with my daughter I was relieved to find it was a financial shortage rather than some sort of intense flashback that I missed or didn't understand. I was thrilled at the opportunity to see the movie again. It was everything I remember it as being and more. The cast was great and the plot was realistic until the end when all hell broke loose. I'm sure I will enjoy it again next time.

But (re) seeing...

[vjdino-37683 · 6/10 · 17 March 2020]

1968, then If .. was disruptive for the subversive charge it described, in line with the historical-social period. Expression of a British cinema that sought new stylistic forms, in what was identified as free cinema, of which Anderson was the main component. The considerable interest that aroused, translated into a Palme d'Or in Cannes. But (re) seeing it today especially for the new generations, which have a vague echo of the period, proposed by parents if not by grandparents, that subversive charge appears completely tarnished if not obsolete. And also from the stylistic point of view, with some naivety such as the random change from color to b / w, he cannot grasp what the director wanted to affirm with difficulty. Paradoxically (being the Italian director) an Antonionian Blow-Up, shot a few years earlier, is more coherent in representing a boiling English company (London) and with a stylistic result that will remain forever. So going back to If ..., it remains a filmic expression more crystallized than ever in the release period, useful for students in the history of cinema!

Dark and Surreal

[freemantle_uk · 10/10 · 15 March 2008]

I have just watched this film for the first time and I thought it was excellent. The plot of If... was it was set in a English Public School where senior students ruled and the younger students had endure a harsh regime. The teachers were not much better giving out harsh punishments including cold showers and caning. Malcolm McDowell plays Mick Travis who along with his friends refuse to conform to the system. The films shows how they resist and how the teachers and follow students are unable to deal with them. The films ends with Travis and his friends taking violence action against the school.

The film was influenced the counter-culture movement of the 60s. It also would have been influenced by youth movements such as the Mods and Rockers. Politically the film was also Left-Wing, showing photos of Marxist leaders such as Mao, Lenin and Che Guenna and Travis practising shooting on photos of the Queen and Politicians. Travis and his friends are shown to be intellectual, reading and coming up with statements such as 'Revolution is the only pure act.' If... also coinsided with the Paris riots and has been mistaken for being influenced by the events.

The film also combines a grim and stark view of the Public School system which was a target of the film, and shows things that possibly really did happen, but it also has surreal dream sequences. I feel the two together worked very well. If... also reminded me of A Clockwork Orange, which also started Malcolm McDowell. This was because of the idea of show a dystopia society (on a smaller scale) and the idea of youth running wild and uncontrolled. I would say if you liked A Clockwork Orange then you would like If...

Not really for me, but I can understand the appeal

[adamscastlevania2 · 6/10 · 27 August 2014]

(55%) A bad tempered poke in the eye towards not only pubic school, but the British ruling class. This is a very well made, well acted, and well written look into a part of the world that so few films ever tread, but for me it was just a little too barren in what it had to say. Most of the time the characters are just plain bored (which is at least true to what school was mostly like), so a need for surrealism to keep the picture going comes into play leading to a weird feeling of what is real and what is fantasy, as it becomes increasingly intermixed. The ending is beyond manic, and sadly no longer a twisted fantasy of angered youth. Very much an acquired taste, and it's not really for me, but I can understand the fondness many have towards it.

Hasn't aged well - revolution or fake revolution?

[petrelet · 5/10 · 16 March 2015]

(It's hard to "spoil" a movie whose denouement is the main thing everyone knows about the movie, but marking this as "spoiling" allows me to mention whatever I please.)

I missed this film when it first came out, so I am now seeing it on DVD after nearly 50 years. Possibly it seemed totally daring to the critics of the time, a harbinger of youth revolution. Today, to me, it seems dated, narrow, and sad.

Time hasn't served it well, and I don't refer only to the fact that we have now seen a lot of actual mass school shootings and are less likely to get excited about them. Nor to the fact that repression of the children of the elites and wannabes in UK "public schools" is not so much a contemporary issue.

Possibly the world of 1968 was not so quick as we are now to notice that, hey, every named character in this film is an obnoxious misogynistic white male twit! I can testify personally that there was a period of a few years when misogynistic white male twits could get a lot of attention leading protests on US campuses. Actually one could take this film as a warning that people like Travis and his followers are to be shunned by persons serious about change, but if that was its message it gets lost.

Particularly in the second half a lot of apparently surrealistic elements start to appear. When a clergyman who also leads military training was produced from a large drawer, this set me wondering about other events and images. Did an instructor's wife actually wander naked through the halls? Did Travis actually steal a motorcycle at all, or throw a crocodile on a bonfire? Or are these Travis's fantasies? And if so, is the whole concluding scene of violence maybe really just another fantasy, something that might happen "If...." ? (This would explain how the nameless "The Girl" ends up on the scene. I'm not confident that she even exists.) No doubt all these questions are answered in commentary or interviews somewhere, and if I were a professional I would look them up, but I'm only an amateur reporting on my impressions.

But it doesn't terribly matter whether these are Travis's fantasies or the filmmakers' fantasies. The question is how revelatory or instructive or inspiring or artistically attractive they are. And frankly after it all I'm not terribly impressed.

I would be more impressed if the 13-year-old enslaved "scum" had picked up arms to defend themselves against their manifest oppression, torture, and degradation, but that isn't the story. Instead, you have Travis. We learn nothing of his family or backstory. He is contemptuous of the whips and faculty, who deserve contempt, but what has he to offer himself other than some tired snippets of laziness passing for anarchism, about how "war and violence are the only creative acts" and "one man with a gun can change history", and a blood pact with his mates which is about what you would expect of Tom Sawyer playing Red Indians. Why does he stay in the damned school at all? If he left and tried to deal with the issues of his actual life that would also be more impressive. But he strikes me as someone with a sense of ruling- class entitlement just as monumental as that of any of the oppressors, who feels that he should be allowed to just wallow in inaction and play on someone else's dime, and, when he gets whacked on the bum a few times (not exactly the worst thing to happen to anyone in the year of the My Lai massacre), wants to just kill everyone in sight for it.

So, to be fair, maybe the makers are entirely aware that Travis's "Crusaders" are as horrible examples as the powers and principalities of the school. Maybe they know that the dilettantish so-called resistance grounded in pique of these children of the ruling class is as much a target for "satire" as the institutions of privilege. Maybe. But they don't make it clear to me that they do. The Monty Python troupe satirized this whole ground a lot better, and apart from satire, what's left here?