'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.
195 Reviews
One of the greatest of all British films
MOscarbradley3 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.
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.
"Don't forget boy Look over your shoulder 'Cause there's always someone coming after you"
Galina_movie_fan9 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.
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.
Excellent, absorbing, biting
I_Ailurophile13 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.
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.
Anderson and McDowell - A revolution.
duffjerroldorg25 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.
Love And Anger
maureenmcqueen5 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!
More than a warning, a prophecy
Dr_Coulardeau27 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
Dark and Surreal
freemantle_uk15 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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...
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...
Minor milestone of British cinema
Leofwine_draca4 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Complex psychological drama from director Lindsay Anderson, who would later complete his bizarre trilogy with O LUCKY MAN! and BRITANNIA HOSPITAL. Layered with subtext and impossible to fathom with just one viewing, this is the classic "rebellion" story, this time set in a posh private boy's school rife with hatred, class warfare, and struggles for power and leadership. Although the physical aspects of the storyline have dated somewhat in the turbulent years since this film first came out - with films like CLASS OF 1984 and others putting the violence in this one significantly into the shade - the artistry, visual style, complex characters, and detailed performances put it above the rest. The film always remains grounded in realism with no flights of fancy and the action is subtle and thus more true-to-life than many other movies using the school setting as a battleground.
Physical aspects of the film are highly accomplished, from the photography to the music, even right down to the settings and costumes. Even the haircuts in this film are important as a symbol of rebellion and uprising. Due to budget constraints, many scenes are shot in black and white, giving the movie something of a pretentious tone but these were more of a result of Anderson running out of money than anything else. The film marks the debut of actor Malcolm McDowell, perfectly cast in the leading role of Mick Travis, a student who has had enough, and any fan of McDowell from later in his career will find him contributing his usual powerful performance at this early stage. Many strong actors fill out the supporting roles, with plenty of familiar faces from respected British actors willing to take part. Anderson achieves many powerful moments in his movie, especially the caning in the gym which stands out in my mind as one of the most shocking I've seen despite the lack of on-screen violence. IF.... is in many ways a brave and original movie and deserves to be seen at least once by those with an interest in British cinema.
Physical aspects of the film are highly accomplished, from the photography to the music, even right down to the settings and costumes. Even the haircuts in this film are important as a symbol of rebellion and uprising. Due to budget constraints, many scenes are shot in black and white, giving the movie something of a pretentious tone but these were more of a result of Anderson running out of money than anything else. The film marks the debut of actor Malcolm McDowell, perfectly cast in the leading role of Mick Travis, a student who has had enough, and any fan of McDowell from later in his career will find him contributing his usual powerful performance at this early stage. Many strong actors fill out the supporting roles, with plenty of familiar faces from respected British actors willing to take part. Anderson achieves many powerful moments in his movie, especially the caning in the gym which stands out in my mind as one of the most shocking I've seen despite the lack of on-screen violence. IF.... is in many ways a brave and original movie and deserves to be seen at least once by those with an interest in British cinema.
With All Thy Getting, Get Under Cover
slokes24 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?"
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?"
One for your sons
StevieGB19 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.
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.
Some movies are like milk...they don't get better with age.
planktonrules6 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When "If..." came out, it was the right sort of film at the right time. However, when seen today, the movie looks terribly choppy, lacks focus and especially humor. Like a gallon of milk, this film does not get better with age! Roughly first half of the film is like a documentary--a recreation of the horrid life in a British public college (to translate into American, a 'private high school'). It appears to be a fascist system where there are many rules just for the sake of rules, abuse of arbitrary power the norm and a rather homo-erotically charged atmosphere predominates--and it was both interesting and a bit said. However, when it came to the actual story, this is where the film really let me down. Despite setting up a horrid atmosphere where the plot should have been easy to construct, the plot just seemed, at times, irrelevant and very episodic....and often incoherent and meandering. I know many consider this a classic and it's achieved a level of respectability now that it's part of the Criterion Collection, but the movie just seemed cheaply made and incomplete---and not just because random portions of the movie are in black & white. While controversial and counter-culture back in the 60s, now it just seems bad.
Who was Malcolm McDowell's character and who were his very nameless and faceless friends? We never know anything other than very superficial things about them--like Malcolm's character steals a motorcycle. But WHY did he do this? And, why wasn't there any follow up on this? And what about the naked lady towards the end the film who walks through the dorms?! What's all this about--what is going on and why? It just seemed random and pointless. And why did a few scenes seem funny and surreal...and yet NOTHING was done with this and it was never exploited!?! For example, I loved seeing the minister in the drawer---but with nothing preceding or following it, what was this?! And, with 95% of the film very serious, this seemed out of place and irrelevant. And, for that matter, the entire ending was that way. While having the four problem students (though at times they are only three--did you notice that one appeared and disappeared in scenes?!) destroy the big ceremony was potentially a great idea (like the ending of "Animal House"), it was a lost opportunity for me because instead of ruining things, they started killing people. Killing people in a mass murder like the Columbine Massacre didn't seem funny...just awful. Nothing's funny about mass murder (I know, I know...I am quite a prude in this department).
Had this film appeared in 2010, critics would have rightfully torn it apart for being incomplete and incoherent. Yet, oddly, it's a classic!
Who was Malcolm McDowell's character and who were his very nameless and faceless friends? We never know anything other than very superficial things about them--like Malcolm's character steals a motorcycle. But WHY did he do this? And, why wasn't there any follow up on this? And what about the naked lady towards the end the film who walks through the dorms?! What's all this about--what is going on and why? It just seemed random and pointless. And why did a few scenes seem funny and surreal...and yet NOTHING was done with this and it was never exploited!?! For example, I loved seeing the minister in the drawer---but with nothing preceding or following it, what was this?! And, with 95% of the film very serious, this seemed out of place and irrelevant. And, for that matter, the entire ending was that way. While having the four problem students (though at times they are only three--did you notice that one appeared and disappeared in scenes?!) destroy the big ceremony was potentially a great idea (like the ending of "Animal House"), it was a lost opportunity for me because instead of ruining things, they started killing people. Killing people in a mass murder like the Columbine Massacre didn't seem funny...just awful. Nothing's funny about mass murder (I know, I know...I am quite a prude in this department).
Had this film appeared in 2010, critics would have rightfully torn it apart for being incomplete and incoherent. Yet, oddly, it's a classic!
Some sort of great movie
bandw21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie about how three rebellious teens in a British boarding school react to a hidebound society is difficult to analyze. The theme of revolt of the free-spirited against a repressive society is there, but what is real or imagined, what is fantasy or fact is not clear. In the final analysis I came just to accept this as a work of art whose qualities I came to appreciate.
There are many memorable scenes, some of exquisite beauty, some of harsh cruelty. The scene with the riders on the motorcycle is one of the purest representations of freedom ever recorded on film. But, don't break it down or it loses its effect. The motorcycle was stolen, someone stood to lose money on the deal, the pristine grass they were on was being torn up, the machine was polluting, standing on a motorcycle is dangerous, and so forth. So, just ignore all of that and appreciate the artistry of it - this goes for the movie in general.
No matter what you think of the film, it would be difficult not to be captivated by Malcom McDowell's magnetic performance. He had quite a run there, what with this film, "O Lucky Man!," and "A Clockwork Orange," in a period of five years. And who will be able to forget the scene in the Packhorse Cafe between McDowell and Christine Noonan - it has to be one of the greatest sex scenes ever filmed. And in black and white no less.
I think it is misguided to compare the revolt of these three students with the school shootings in recent years. The school shootings have been committed either by highly unstable individuals or by those desiring revenge for personal slights. Here I see the motivations as a revolt against a repressive society - the educational system, religion, the military, you name it - and not against individuals per se.
The filming is quite accomplished and the music compelling, particularly the excerpt from the Missa Luba.
The effect the final scenes had on me completely typifies my reactions to the movie in general. On the one hand I was horrified, but on the other I was laughing. I found the scene with the priest and the knight in armor running for cover disturbing on a personal level, but gleefully humorous on the level of the idea of upending dogmatic religion and centuries old traditions. And how realistic are those final scenes? The headmaster gets shot in the head, but in the very next scene there is no evidence of his being where he was standing. I imagine the final scenes had an appeal to the "don't trust anyone over thirty" generation at the time.
The fact that you can take this for real, for absurdest comedy, for satire, or in many other ways, speaks highly of it.
You are disposed to answer the questions, "What is freedom and how much does it mean to you?"
There are many memorable scenes, some of exquisite beauty, some of harsh cruelty. The scene with the riders on the motorcycle is one of the purest representations of freedom ever recorded on film. But, don't break it down or it loses its effect. The motorcycle was stolen, someone stood to lose money on the deal, the pristine grass they were on was being torn up, the machine was polluting, standing on a motorcycle is dangerous, and so forth. So, just ignore all of that and appreciate the artistry of it - this goes for the movie in general.
No matter what you think of the film, it would be difficult not to be captivated by Malcom McDowell's magnetic performance. He had quite a run there, what with this film, "O Lucky Man!," and "A Clockwork Orange," in a period of five years. And who will be able to forget the scene in the Packhorse Cafe between McDowell and Christine Noonan - it has to be one of the greatest sex scenes ever filmed. And in black and white no less.
I think it is misguided to compare the revolt of these three students with the school shootings in recent years. The school shootings have been committed either by highly unstable individuals or by those desiring revenge for personal slights. Here I see the motivations as a revolt against a repressive society - the educational system, religion, the military, you name it - and not against individuals per se.
The filming is quite accomplished and the music compelling, particularly the excerpt from the Missa Luba.
The effect the final scenes had on me completely typifies my reactions to the movie in general. On the one hand I was horrified, but on the other I was laughing. I found the scene with the priest and the knight in armor running for cover disturbing on a personal level, but gleefully humorous on the level of the idea of upending dogmatic religion and centuries old traditions. And how realistic are those final scenes? The headmaster gets shot in the head, but in the very next scene there is no evidence of his being where he was standing. I imagine the final scenes had an appeal to the "don't trust anyone over thirty" generation at the time.
The fact that you can take this for real, for absurdest comedy, for satire, or in many other ways, speaks highly of it.
You are disposed to answer the questions, "What is freedom and how much does it mean to you?"
Just utterly,utterly marvellous
ng27115 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.." 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!!
Lindsay Anderson's paper tiger.
ianlouisiana10 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer "Town" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his "Gannex" mac,Lindsay Anderson's "If" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called "summer of love" was followed by the "October Revolution" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous "Them" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the "October Revolution" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his "State of the Country" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of "Stalky & Co."written by the man whose much-maligned poem "If" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.
If only they had shown this at school!!
iaingmacg4 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.
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.
A stunning work from a consummate master
smiths-418 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!!
Message film, but lack of plot may frustrate
bob the moo4 January 2002
The adventures of public school boy Mick Travis as he faces the obstacles of being in a lower year. This was the first of the Mick Travis films and looks at social class in Britain by setting society within a house in a public school. Travis represents the middle classes, trapped below the upper, ruling class, represented by the seniors and the staff, with only the worthless working class, juniors, below him.
This sees Travis taking on the upper classes and refusing to yield totally to their ruling system. However his superiority towards the juniors is also seen, but not judged as much as I though it should have been. The story is quite thin in terms of actual narrative relying on the social commentary to give meaning to the film. This can make it quite frustrating for the first half until the meaning starts to become clearer.
The cast is well filled out with British actors and Malcolm McDowell is excellent in the lead. The story may not be to everyone's taste - indeed the heavily armed retribution Travis may have taken on his school may not seem such a fantasy now and might not be something everyone can view as harmless fairytale (even if it is metaphor for rising up over the ruling classes).
As a film it doesn't totally convince but as a message about social standings it is very well observed in not totally to everyone's taste.
This sees Travis taking on the upper classes and refusing to yield totally to their ruling system. However his superiority towards the juniors is also seen, but not judged as much as I though it should have been. The story is quite thin in terms of actual narrative relying on the social commentary to give meaning to the film. This can make it quite frustrating for the first half until the meaning starts to become clearer.
The cast is well filled out with British actors and Malcolm McDowell is excellent in the lead. The story may not be to everyone's taste - indeed the heavily armed retribution Travis may have taken on his school may not seem such a fantasy now and might not be something everyone can view as harmless fairytale (even if it is metaphor for rising up over the ruling classes).
As a film it doesn't totally convince but as a message about social standings it is very well observed in not totally to everyone's taste.
A Big If....
Lejink21 April 2021
As I watched Lindsey Anderson's "If....", two thoughts came to mind. Firstly, in the fifty plus years since the film's release, the number of revelations of physical and psychological abuse of young children at various private schools, convents, orphanages, even football clubs and secondly that four out of the last five Prime Ministers of this country had a private school education, although I hope that their own experiences were different to those suffered and endured by the youngsters here. I also couldn't help but be reminded of the atrocities which can be carried out in everyday society if sufficiently motivated people can get easy access to weaponry
Told in eight titled sequences, inexorably building up to the unforgettable climax, the film excoriates the prevailing attitudes and practices at fee-paying private schools in this country. Anderson unsettlingly flits between colour and black and white photography, making the link between the present day and the past, the monochrome scenes looking as if they could have been shot for a 40's or 50's historical movie a la "Tom Brown's Schooldays", the point being that the bullying, fagging and downright sadism which we associate with the supposedly bygone Victorian era are all in fact still very much with us today.
While the school headmaster seems to evince a degree of sympathy and understanding for the pupils under his charge, in fact he is tacitly turning a blind eye to the inhuman practices of the form-masters who rule the roost, as they use their seniority in age and position to demand complete servitude from their younger fellow-pupils while the senior teachers likewise look the other way or are somehow unaware of what is going on outside lessons.
Malcolm McDowall's Mick Travis is the worm who spectacularly turns, a maverick mid-year pupil pushing back or being pushed towards rebellion by every succeeding act of pettiness and example-setting made against him. Anderson cleverly has us rooting for him and his cohorts right up until he crosses the line into retaliatory madness.
Of course, being a film of the 60's, the narrative is juxtaposed with unusual and unexpected scenes which range from the mundane to the very odd, none more so than that of Arthur Lowe's senior teacher's buxom wife sauntering down the school hall completely naked.
Timing, of course, is everything and the film gained increased notoriety as it seemed to anticipate the worldwide student riots and mass protests of the summer of 1968 while the Kent State School killings on campus occurred barely two years later, while the film title itself ironically comments on the old Kipling poem from a bygone era which nobly celebrates aspirant youth. There's nothing noble about the actions of the privileged oiks here whose every whim is indulged and justified solely by outdated attitudes of privilege and deference, where they can violently thrash their juniors for daring to show insolence and expect their victim thank them for it afterwards.
I don't pretend to get everything Anderson was trying to put across here but in its various depictions of violence, nudity, bullying, abuse and masochism, he certainly challenged the norms of the day and in the process created some of the most enduring cinematic images of any other film from the era.
Told in eight titled sequences, inexorably building up to the unforgettable climax, the film excoriates the prevailing attitudes and practices at fee-paying private schools in this country. Anderson unsettlingly flits between colour and black and white photography, making the link between the present day and the past, the monochrome scenes looking as if they could have been shot for a 40's or 50's historical movie a la "Tom Brown's Schooldays", the point being that the bullying, fagging and downright sadism which we associate with the supposedly bygone Victorian era are all in fact still very much with us today.
While the school headmaster seems to evince a degree of sympathy and understanding for the pupils under his charge, in fact he is tacitly turning a blind eye to the inhuman practices of the form-masters who rule the roost, as they use their seniority in age and position to demand complete servitude from their younger fellow-pupils while the senior teachers likewise look the other way or are somehow unaware of what is going on outside lessons.
Malcolm McDowall's Mick Travis is the worm who spectacularly turns, a maverick mid-year pupil pushing back or being pushed towards rebellion by every succeeding act of pettiness and example-setting made against him. Anderson cleverly has us rooting for him and his cohorts right up until he crosses the line into retaliatory madness.
Of course, being a film of the 60's, the narrative is juxtaposed with unusual and unexpected scenes which range from the mundane to the very odd, none more so than that of Arthur Lowe's senior teacher's buxom wife sauntering down the school hall completely naked.
Timing, of course, is everything and the film gained increased notoriety as it seemed to anticipate the worldwide student riots and mass protests of the summer of 1968 while the Kent State School killings on campus occurred barely two years later, while the film title itself ironically comments on the old Kipling poem from a bygone era which nobly celebrates aspirant youth. There's nothing noble about the actions of the privileged oiks here whose every whim is indulged and justified solely by outdated attitudes of privilege and deference, where they can violently thrash their juniors for daring to show insolence and expect their victim thank them for it afterwards.
I don't pretend to get everything Anderson was trying to put across here but in its various depictions of violence, nudity, bullying, abuse and masochism, he certainly challenged the norms of the day and in the process created some of the most enduring cinematic images of any other film from the era.
Excellent movie that holds up 50+ years later
Laight27 April 2021
When this movie came out its graphic violence shocked some movie goers but the violence was not at all gratuitous -- it was an organic outcome of the movie's well-structured plot. Everything else about this film continues to impress as well: the acting (amazing considering that the kids were just that, kids), the directing, the editing... it's all an example of how to do everything right. This film is often voted one of the top 15 British movies of all time and it deserves to be.
surreal Lord of the Flies feel
SnoopyStyle1 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.
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.
'One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place.'
Boba_Fett11384 November 2011
"If...." is a true rebellious movie, in which Malcolm McDowell and his close friends are kicking against the established system and customs, 3 years before he would be doing the same in "A Clockwork Orange", which does definitely shows some parallels with this movie.
It's about the clash of new versus old really. The grown ups versus todays youth, old customs versus modern progress. In that regard this movie also really doesn't feel all that outdated. These are themes that are of all times and ages really. It's what keeps the world going and helps moving it forward, for better or for worse.
You shouldn't take this movie very literally. Most of the movie its sequences can be seen as having a deeper and symbolic meaning to them. I won't pretend like I understood everything this movie was trying to do and say but let me make clear that the movie at all time still remains a perfectly accessible one, no matter how odd and symbolic things might seem, which especially gets the case more toward its ending.
It's simply because "If...." is such a compelling watch. You get sucked in by the movie its visual style and slow way of storytelling, that sets things up very nicely. It helps to make the characters some really great ones as well, most notably of course the Malcolm McDowell one, who is a true, classic rebel, who's fed up with the current system and decides to stand up against it, on his very own rebellious sort of way.
It's actually surprising this movie got directed by a woman. Surprising, since this is a movie that is clearly set in a 'man's world'. It's set at a boy's only, old, English, established private school. The sort of place that is being very strict about the rules and makes sure everyone knows about them and keeps to it, as well as knowing the importance of the, quite literally, ancient traditions.
It really is a well crafted movie, that gets its point across but above all things is a really great and compelling one, that you just need to keep watching, even if you don't fully understand what its trying to say.
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's about the clash of new versus old really. The grown ups versus todays youth, old customs versus modern progress. In that regard this movie also really doesn't feel all that outdated. These are themes that are of all times and ages really. It's what keeps the world going and helps moving it forward, for better or for worse.
You shouldn't take this movie very literally. Most of the movie its sequences can be seen as having a deeper and symbolic meaning to them. I won't pretend like I understood everything this movie was trying to do and say but let me make clear that the movie at all time still remains a perfectly accessible one, no matter how odd and symbolic things might seem, which especially gets the case more toward its ending.
It's simply because "If...." is such a compelling watch. You get sucked in by the movie its visual style and slow way of storytelling, that sets things up very nicely. It helps to make the characters some really great ones as well, most notably of course the Malcolm McDowell one, who is a true, classic rebel, who's fed up with the current system and decides to stand up against it, on his very own rebellious sort of way.
It's actually surprising this movie got directed by a woman. Surprising, since this is a movie that is clearly set in a 'man's world'. It's set at a boy's only, old, English, established private school. The sort of place that is being very strict about the rules and makes sure everyone knows about them and keeps to it, as well as knowing the importance of the, quite literally, ancient traditions.
It really is a well crafted movie, that gets its point across but above all things is a really great and compelling one, that you just need to keep watching, even if you don't fully understand what its trying to say.
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Even without definite answers, some "what if?" questions are worth being asked...
ElMaruecan8219 January 2019
Every once in a while, you bump into movie that leaves any attempt to rationalize it completely futile.
Having just finished Lindsay Anderson's "If..." I'm still in an intellectual digestion phase. And to be quite honest, a second service didn't even help. I can say I was genuinely shocked but not appalled and somewhat absorbed by its own moral detachment, even hooked to its total amorality.
Whatever you can think of the movie, the least that can be said is that it's quite unique, and for someone who uses movies to contemplate society, "If...", Golden Palm winner of 1969 is quite a challenge. So, where to start?
A look at the timing. 1968. Europe. Schools. It doesn't take a history major to guess how deeply rooted the film is in its historical context and social environment, it's a more cynical vision than "Blow-Up" where a young British man was basically looking for a ghost. The protagonists here are pupils in an English public boarding school, whose ages vary from 12 to 18, the newcomers undergo the hazing of the elder ones and some harassment from adults, the sixth-formers enjoy their position of authority; expressing it in the most sordid fashion while a minority rebels against the rules, proudly brandished by the headmaster and the teachers.
That the film takes place in one of the most civilized countries of the world and most ancient democracies speaks for itself. There's always something rotten in the zealous attachment to traditions and discipline when they alienate you from the practical teaching of positive values. There are basically three categories of people in the school: bullies, victims and rebels who fall in both categories and highlight the fact that you always reap what you sowed. The ending of "If..." whether meant as a warning or a surreal fantasy ironically finds stronger resonance in today's context where young people commit acts of violence in the name of abstract angers, just for the kicks of exercising violence and purging the world from a stank they don't realize they're part of it, or maybe they do.
Speaking for myself, I was never a rebel to begin with, I could never relate to rebellion and always took discipline as a structuring necessity. A speech before the climax explains that to build a real man, capable to exercise his own power, he must learn obedience first, it's a matter of give and take. But there's an arithmetic dissonance: some give just too much of themselves, others can only take, and a few took so much they end up giving a taste of their own medicine and it isn't pleasant. I never was a rebel because I think the real rebellion is within yourself first, one must get rid of his own dogmas and find his own truth, but even that is a double-edged sword because it depends on your initial upbringing.
Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell) is one of these rebels without a cause, this slice of youth that took the extreme way to express his refusal to submit to the world. He strikes first as a romantic but the signs don't fool us: posters of Che Guevara and Mao in the dorm, the haunting theme of "Sanctus" shows his fascination for the revolution. His nickname Guy Fawkes foreshadows his existential action, but while the camera does have a fascination for him as a subject, his actions are never given any intellectual weight, they're mostly shown through his quest for true, genuine and raw emotions: stealing a motorbike, playing erotic fight with a Girl he just met and one thing leading to another, starting to use real weapons against his vision of autocratic alienation. An anarchist, maybe?
We're never sure how the portrayal of the life going in the college, shown with a gritty documentary-like realism, is able to make us empathize with him and his friends. Are they trying to demolish the order or reverse it? Do they have any political ambition? Is destruction a means or an end? It's left to the viewer, torn between moments of social introspections and other of pure realism. The film is rather graphic showing difficult scenes where kids are being bullied and tormented in a way that would make today's audience cringe, but maybe the treatment in the end plays like an euthanasia against a society whose cancer is just a sort of inner decadence, when you believe you're in your total right, you make yourself enemies who'd believe the same, it's one extreme for another, and in-between, there can only be victims.
The film was certainly admired for its creative use of black and white and color, its profusion of vulgarity and depravation, its total non-commitment to any narrative rule. While seeming to have a common thread, the film is a contradiction by itself as if it tired to capture the putrefying effect of generation gaps and dated notions. Being a teacher for a few months, I notice many students, some good ones, rebel for no other reason that they enjoy it. I punish them but sometimes I secretly envy them. Lastly I was thinking of that pupil who's in the midst of an adolescence crisis and that I have a sort of difficult relationship with, I thought of "Elephant" and if that kid ever had such impulses, I might be on the top of his shooting list.
I'm going too far in my presumption, but if Lindsay Anderson's film ever proved something is that "if..." is a legitimate question and just because you don't have definite answers, it's worth asking them. The film might be chaotic, anarchic, bizarre and puzzling, it does have that truth about youth, they'll always behave that way even in the most civilized countries. If the ending is too far-fetched, it's because cinema is here to push the boundaries of realism and invite us to consider the weirdest scenarios. And within its own bizarreness, the ending seemed plausible.
Having just finished Lindsay Anderson's "If..." I'm still in an intellectual digestion phase. And to be quite honest, a second service didn't even help. I can say I was genuinely shocked but not appalled and somewhat absorbed by its own moral detachment, even hooked to its total amorality.
Whatever you can think of the movie, the least that can be said is that it's quite unique, and for someone who uses movies to contemplate society, "If...", Golden Palm winner of 1969 is quite a challenge. So, where to start?
A look at the timing. 1968. Europe. Schools. It doesn't take a history major to guess how deeply rooted the film is in its historical context and social environment, it's a more cynical vision than "Blow-Up" where a young British man was basically looking for a ghost. The protagonists here are pupils in an English public boarding school, whose ages vary from 12 to 18, the newcomers undergo the hazing of the elder ones and some harassment from adults, the sixth-formers enjoy their position of authority; expressing it in the most sordid fashion while a minority rebels against the rules, proudly brandished by the headmaster and the teachers.
That the film takes place in one of the most civilized countries of the world and most ancient democracies speaks for itself. There's always something rotten in the zealous attachment to traditions and discipline when they alienate you from the practical teaching of positive values. There are basically three categories of people in the school: bullies, victims and rebels who fall in both categories and highlight the fact that you always reap what you sowed. The ending of "If..." whether meant as a warning or a surreal fantasy ironically finds stronger resonance in today's context where young people commit acts of violence in the name of abstract angers, just for the kicks of exercising violence and purging the world from a stank they don't realize they're part of it, or maybe they do.
Speaking for myself, I was never a rebel to begin with, I could never relate to rebellion and always took discipline as a structuring necessity. A speech before the climax explains that to build a real man, capable to exercise his own power, he must learn obedience first, it's a matter of give and take. But there's an arithmetic dissonance: some give just too much of themselves, others can only take, and a few took so much they end up giving a taste of their own medicine and it isn't pleasant. I never was a rebel because I think the real rebellion is within yourself first, one must get rid of his own dogmas and find his own truth, but even that is a double-edged sword because it depends on your initial upbringing.
Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell) is one of these rebels without a cause, this slice of youth that took the extreme way to express his refusal to submit to the world. He strikes first as a romantic but the signs don't fool us: posters of Che Guevara and Mao in the dorm, the haunting theme of "Sanctus" shows his fascination for the revolution. His nickname Guy Fawkes foreshadows his existential action, but while the camera does have a fascination for him as a subject, his actions are never given any intellectual weight, they're mostly shown through his quest for true, genuine and raw emotions: stealing a motorbike, playing erotic fight with a Girl he just met and one thing leading to another, starting to use real weapons against his vision of autocratic alienation. An anarchist, maybe?
We're never sure how the portrayal of the life going in the college, shown with a gritty documentary-like realism, is able to make us empathize with him and his friends. Are they trying to demolish the order or reverse it? Do they have any political ambition? Is destruction a means or an end? It's left to the viewer, torn between moments of social introspections and other of pure realism. The film is rather graphic showing difficult scenes where kids are being bullied and tormented in a way that would make today's audience cringe, but maybe the treatment in the end plays like an euthanasia against a society whose cancer is just a sort of inner decadence, when you believe you're in your total right, you make yourself enemies who'd believe the same, it's one extreme for another, and in-between, there can only be victims.
The film was certainly admired for its creative use of black and white and color, its profusion of vulgarity and depravation, its total non-commitment to any narrative rule. While seeming to have a common thread, the film is a contradiction by itself as if it tired to capture the putrefying effect of generation gaps and dated notions. Being a teacher for a few months, I notice many students, some good ones, rebel for no other reason that they enjoy it. I punish them but sometimes I secretly envy them. Lastly I was thinking of that pupil who's in the midst of an adolescence crisis and that I have a sort of difficult relationship with, I thought of "Elephant" and if that kid ever had such impulses, I might be on the top of his shooting list.
I'm going too far in my presumption, but if Lindsay Anderson's film ever proved something is that "if..." is a legitimate question and just because you don't have definite answers, it's worth asking them. The film might be chaotic, anarchic, bizarre and puzzling, it does have that truth about youth, they'll always behave that way even in the most civilized countries. If the ending is too far-fetched, it's because cinema is here to push the boundaries of realism and invite us to consider the weirdest scenarios. And within its own bizarreness, the ending seemed plausible.
If you only ever watch one Lindsay Anderson film, make sure it's this one
dr_clarke_26 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
British director Lindsay Anderson rests largely upon a body of feature films that is actually quite small. He is best known for his gritty kitchen sink drama This Sporting Life and the so-called "Mick Travis trilogy" and it is the first of the latter - if.... - which arguably remains his masterpiece.
Released in 1968, if.... is based on a screenplay by David Sherwin, in turn based on a script he wrote with John Howlett, and it is a blistering satire of public school life. Based on Sherwin's own experiences of the public school system, it depicts it as a vision of hell, with tyranny, bullying and implied sexual abuse. There's a potent sense of anger here, at the petty officiousness of the entire system, with cruel Whips gleefully enforcing rules and regulations with a fervour that borders on sadism. This is a world that not only institutionalised bullying but prepared the bullies for a life in public office. Significantly, authority figures such as the Headmaster and visiting speaker General Denham espouse the benefits of obedience and tradition over individuality. Pupils at the school are expected to conform, but what they are expected to conform with is stifling bureaucracy.
The film follows Mick Travis and his two friends Wallace and Knightly, non-conformists whose small acts of rebellion gradually escalate into full blown insurrection as their transgressions are met with increasingly draconian responses. Sherwin's screenplay condemns a system in which some pupils are awarded power - often physically - over others; the Whips are entitled to mete out punishment on anyone who misbehaves, with the brutal caning of Travis and his friends heavily ritualised; Travis is expected to shake hands with his tormentors after being soundly thrashed. Travis and his comrades' gunning down of their enemies from a school rooftop during the famously bloody climax is undoubtedly Sherwin's metaphorical revenge on his own school.
Sherwin tells this story via a screenplay filled with eccentricity and wickedly observed humour, peppering the script with witty dialogue and memorable characters. There's a rich vein of humour running through the film, some of it quite surreal, such as when the Headmaster pulls open a drawer to reveal the Chaplain inside. The teachers - including Peter Jeffries' Headmaster and Arthur Lowe's Housemaster Mr Kemp - are stuffy, pompous bores, but in the midst of them for a single scene we have Graham Crowden's wonderful History master, whose eccentric teaching style leaves his class looking baffled.
Given this material to work with, Anderson elevates it to even greater levels. Critics often focus on the fact that parts of the film are shot in black and white rather than colour, which has been hypothesised to be a result of the money running out, but which was actually a stylistic decision by Anderson, which he uses to enhance the occasional surrealism of the film. He brings great beauty and elegance to the screen, for example in scenes such as Wallace performing gymnastics in slow motion. The whole sequence from Travis and Knightly larking about in the town and stealing a motorbike to meeting the girl and riding the bike with her atop their shoulders is mostly free of dialogue and often filmed in long shot, save for the scene in the café in which Travis imagines wrestling naked with the girl. The film is awash with small, significant touches: Travis' room for example is filled with famous revolutionaries, providing a hint of things to come at the end. Title cards divide the film in chapters, each focusing on a specific theme of themes.
Anderson coaxes fine performances out of all of his actors, many of them children, and assembles a fine crop of talent from experienced cast members like Jeffries, Lowe (a regular Lindsay collaborator) and Crowden, to new faces like Richard Warwick and David Wood as Wallace and Knightly. But the undoubted star is Malcolm McDowell, an often underrated actor who made his breakthrough with this film as Mick Travis. He brings charisma and a sense of brooding menace to the role, which would stand him in a good stead when A Clockwork Orange followed, Kubrick having been reportedly impressed by his performance here.
Anderson and McDowell reunited for the second two films in the "Mick Travis trilogy", O Lucky Man! and Britannia Hospital, but neither of those films garnered the same praise or subsequent reputation as if.... For all that This Sporting Life is a fine film, if you only ever watch one Lindsay Anderson film, make sure it's this one.
"If..." I could have my two hours back. A bad '60s movie beloved by political dilettantes
heckles5 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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews