MovieChat Forums > The Sound Barrier (1952) Discussion > Wonderful film, despite its inaccuracies...

Wonderful film, despite its inaccuracies


Okay, the British did not break the sound barrier, that stuff about pushing the stick forward, counter-intuitively, to break the barrier is patent nonsense (doing so guarantees a fast crash), and I suppose some people will complain about the movie being "dated" after a mere 56 years.

But this is a great film nonetheless. Typical of David Lean, in this thoroughly untypical (for him) movie, he elicits magnificent performances from his actors, not least the amazing Sir Ralph Richardson (who won both the BAFTA and NY Film Critics Best Actor awards), while keeping all the elements of the story in balance. This film works on a personal level, at which Lean was so expert, exploring and revealing his characters' lives and feelings. But even more importantly it celebrates the exuberance of flight, the wonder of technology -- things that may be out of favor today, or at least be viewed in a blase manner by people accustomed to jet flight and quick trips across the globe. But in 1952 this era was just dawning, and the possibilites of flight, the sheer exhilaration of soaring above the clouds, even contemplating space travel, as an achievement of man's indomitable spirit and ceaseless need to advance, was breathtaking and invigorating. The sequence of flying from Britain to Cairo in five hours, past the glories of both the ancient and modern worlds, is the highlight of this film and beautifully encapsules its themes.

All in all, it's wonderful to at long, long last have this hugely acclaimed film available on DVD. And in an excellent print of the full-length, original British release, not the edited, retitled US version. Good show.

(But why they included this film in a so-called "World War" collection is beyond me, as virtually nothing in it takes place during, or has anything to do with, the Second World War. Still, I'll take it as I can get it.)

reply

The Sound Barrier is indeed a quite good film. IMO it has aged very well.

I got to see this movie almost by accident. I was looking for the english film "King & Country" and found that it was included in a 4-movie pack released that also featured this film by David Lean. Being a fan of David Lean that was enough reason to buy the pack. For my surprise the movie is much better than I expected. Sure, it's full of historical inaccuracies (like plenty of Hollywood flicks) however those aerial shots over Europe or the shots on the planes flying are astounding. Even more if we consider they were shot back in 1952!

As usual, David Lean's direction is remarkable.
Ralph Richardson is excellent in the role of the tycoon, half visionary, half demented.

I wonder why this film that won several BAFTA Awards (Including Best Picture) and got a couple of oscar nods (winning for Best Sound), remains practically unknown.
I mean even lesser works by Lean as "Blithe Spirit" are better known than The Sound Barrier.

8/10.

reply

I agree, Kinematico. This film just seems to have fallen through the Lean cracks for some reason, although oddly it was a big and well-known film in both Britain and America when it came out in 1952. Perhaps, as I alluded to in another post, it has become a bit overlooked because it is such an odd film to come from Lean, with its technological themes...at a time when Lean was known solely for his initmate romantic and literary adaptations. And of course it doesn't fit in with his later, grand-scale epics, either.

I ran this for an audience this summer and people liked it very much. Maybe it's nearing rediscovery!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Kinematico, you are not well.

reply

I love this movie even while it makes me cringe at times. I love Lean in his pre-epic films. This movie is full of so many great moments.

But I can't blame the British for making a movie that more or less ignores what was happening in the U.S. If anyone has seen OBJECTIVE BURMA with Errol Flynn, Hollywood gives the impression that the Americans were fighting all alone in Asia.

BTW, I got this as part of the ten DVD David Lean box. Although I'm in the U.S., if you have an all regions DVD player, it is a splendid way of getting most of Lean's early work for an amazingly cheap price. I'm not sure why DVDs are so outrageously expensive in the U.S., but more and more I've taken to ordering things from Amazon UK. Many of the films in the box set are not available in the US at all, let alone at this price.

This was the one David Lean film that I tried unsuccessfully for years to see. I had a copy of Halliwell's Companion and I underlined all the films I saw by various directors. This was the only movie under Lean that I hadn't underlined. Nice movie indeed.

reply

I agree with you about Lean, though like every director, his work, even his pre-epic work, varies in quality or effectiveness.

Though I'm American my wife is English and we have many Region 2 films not available on DVD in the US, for which an R0 player is very handy. (We use an R2 one when in the UK.) I think I know the British Lean set you refer to. There was supposed to have been an 8-film Lean box set released in the US in time for his centennial in 2008 but it was pulled, even though some of its DVD covers have turned up as artwork posted on some IMDb sites. It had a lot of his early works (In Which We Serve, This Happy Breed, etc.) and was to have been released via MGM/UA. Maybe it'll be salvaged some day. It appears the discs may have been struck. I have The Sound Barrier in R2 as well as R1.

As to the film's inaccuracies, I doubt, as another thread here alleges, that this movie was "payback" for Objective, Burma!. Of course, this film does not purport to be history, but, people being what they are, naturally many take such movies as being substantially accurate (like all the fools who actually believe Oliver Stone's mixture of fantasy, fraud and lies in JFK to be "the true story"). Still, they could have at least gotten the technical aspects right, i.e., not pushing the stick the wrong way in order to break the sound "barrier".

reply

This might help a little to show they weren't so stupid.

Supermarine Spitfire[edit]
Due to the unusually high speeds at which the Supermarine Spitfire could dive, this problem of aileron reversal became apparent when it was wished to increase the lateral maneuverability (rate of roll) by increasing the aileron area. The aircraft had a wing designed originally for an aileron reversal airspeed of 580 mph, and any attempt to increase the aileron area would have resulted in the wing twisting when the larger ailerons were applied at high speed, the aircraft then rolling in the opposite direction to that intended by the pilot. The problem of increasing the rate of roll was temporarily alleviated with the introduction of "clipped" wing tips (to reduce the aerodynamic load on the tip area, allowing larger ailerons to be used) until a new, stiffer wing could be incorporated. This new wing was introduced in the Mark XXI and had a theoretical aileron reversal speed of 825 mph (1,328 km/h).[2]

reply

Stupid about what? Wing design? The jets in existence in 1952 had such wings. The movie was only using existing technology there. And that didn't involve the dramatic license of the pilot pushing his controls forward in order to "break" the sound barrier. As Chuck Yeager and the other pilots who pioneered jet aircraft development in that era said (after seeing this movie), any pilot who made that maneuver would slam his plane right into the ground (and, incidentally, not hit the speed of sound).

The film seemed to need some unforeseen climax to put it over dramatically (just breaking the speed of sound in itself wasn't enough, I guess), so the writer and director came up with this nonsensical bit of anti-science to make the moment seem more exciting and unexpected. It's too bad this paean to the glories of flight and technology had to ruin things by resorting to an inaccurate and illogical "solution" to the problem of surpassing Mach 1.

reply

The article is a little incomplete so below is another one regarding Control reversal.

Screen writer William Goldman wrote that he was approached to write The Right Stuff but couldn't write about the space program without writhing about Chuck Yeagar and pulled out as he stated the Yeagar story is ultimately DULL, something Lean managed to avoid in his film. Also, in the mid 50's there were many things designers still didn't know about jet plane design and the public knew virtually nothing so the film has to get all the GEEK stuff over simply.


In 1942, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Aviation began a top-secret project with Miles Aircraft to develop the world's first aircraft capable of breaking the sound barrier. The project resulted in the development of the prototype Miles M.52 turbojet powered aircraft, which was designed to reach 1,000 mph (417 m/s; 1,600 km/h) (over twice the existing speed record) in level flight, and to climb to an altitude of 36,000 ft (11 km) in 1 minute 30 sec.

A huge number of advanced features were incorporated into the resulting M.52 design, many of which hint at a detailed knowledge of supersonic aerodynamics. In particular, the design featured a conical nose and sharp wing leading edges, as it was known that round-nosed projectiles could not be stabilised at supersonic speeds. The design used very thin wings of biconvex section proposed by Jakob Ackeret for low drag. The wing tips were "clipped" to keep them clear of the conical shock wave generated by the nose of the aircraft. The fuselage had the minimum cross-section allowable around the centrifugal engine with fuel tanks in a saddle over the top.


One of the Vickers models undergoing supersonic wind-tunnel testing at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) c.1946
Another critical addition was the use of a power-operated stabilator, also known as the all-moving tail or flying tail, a key to supersonic flight control which contrasted with traditional hinged tailplanes (horizontal stabilizers) connected mechanically to the pilots control column. Conventional control surfaces became ineffective at the high subsonic speeds then being achieved by fighters in dives, due to the aerodynamic forces caused by the formation of shockwaves at the hinge and the rearward movement of the centre of pressure, which together could override the control forces that could be applied mechanically by the pilot, hindering recovery from the dive.[22][23][b] A major impediment to early transonic flight was control reversal, the phenomenon which caused flight inputs (stick, rudder) to switch direction at high speed; it was the cause of many accidents and near-accidents. An all-flying tail is considered to be a minimum condition of enabling aircraft to break the transonic barrier safely, without losing pilot control. The Miles M.52 was the first instance of this solution, and has since been universally applied.

Initially, the aircraft was to use Frank Whittle's latest engine, the Power Jets W.2/700, which would only reach supersonic speed in a shallow dive. To develop a fully supersonic version of the aircraft a new innovation was incorporated; a reheat jetpipe - also known as an afterburner. Extra fuel was to be burned in the tailpipe to avoid overheating the turbine blades, making use of unused oxygen in the exhaust.[24] Finally, the design included another critical element, the use of a shock cone in the nose to slow the incoming air to the subsonic speeds needed by the engine.

Although the project was eventually cancelled, the research was used to construct an unmanned missile that went on to achieve a speed of Mach 1.38 in a successful, controlled transonic and supersonic level test flight; a unique achievement at that time which validated the aerodynamics of the M.52.

reply

Goldman walked away from writing the screenplay for The Right Stuff because he thought Yeager's story was dull?? Really?? Wow.

For me, Yeager's story was the best part of the movie. He proved supersonic flight is possible and taught everybody else how to do it. He was the personification of the Right Stuff, and I would have been happy if the entire movie was about him.

I'm a retired journalist who has had the great good fortune of being personally acquainted with several astronauts who flew in the Gemini and Apollo programs, and they told me the Tom Wolfe book and the movie were "right on" in the way it captured the Zeitgeist of the 60s and how the space program came into existence and got underway.

As military test pilots before they became astronauts, they also said Chuck Yeager was the mountain top role model and idol of every military and civilian test pilot in the business in the 50s and 60s. He is still the standard by which all test pilots are measured. But Goldman thought his story was dull. Sheeesh. Can't please everybody. Go figure.


Most of my friends who have inferiority complexes are absolutely right.

reply

Allow me to clarify as I might be doing Mr. Goldman a dis-service. He thought the story DULL when compared back to back with the Space race which the public were more interested in. He believed there should of been a stand alone film about Yeager without reference to the space race.

reply