MovieChat Forums > Look Back in Anger (1959) Discussion > Amusing

Amusing

posted 14 years ago by Lionrock
10 replies | jump to latest

that bluesdoctor reviewed this as something not even PBS would have the guts to show (in 2007) anymore -- just caught it on PBS; an absolutely fantastic film.

[–] cnd3211 14 years ago

I just watched it tonight on PBS also. It's fairly tame by today's standards. The words "pregnant" and "abortion" are implied but never used. PBS is actually pretty good about showing old films from the '50s and '60s that were edgy and controversial when they were new. Uncut and commercial free, in their original aspect ratios too.

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

I read bluesdoctor's review, too, and was amused because PBS showed it tonight.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

yeah, it is for sure a good one.

A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AssetsonFire 10 years ago

Bluesdoctor has a habit of being wrong about lots of things.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Not about this phoney though - it feels like the actors are trapped in some ridiculous, preposterous stage play with dialogue written by an upstart desperately trying to make it sound literary and poetic, with utterly fake and often risible results. Burton's continuous bursts of venom seem comical in their empty aimlesness and the attempts to give his character more depth only make things sappy. And it's all supposed to be such a gravely serious statement about the barely identified ills plaguing the English middle-class anno 1959... what dreary, misguided little film.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] telegonus 8 years ago

Very funny, Franzkabuki. Look Back In Anger captured the zeitgeist of its era. I think it's fair to say it doesn't play so good today, huh? But that's what separates works of art from "products of their time". I think there's some artistry in the play,--or maybe skill is the better word for it--but mostly it's rants and ravings, I agree; and not much of a story. There's a pettiness to it all. But look at what came out of the next decade. In America, especially, it feels like all like smoke and mirrors to me: self-pity masquerading as hipness. Just because your life is miserable doesn't make you profound.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

There's a number of those British "angry young man" films that came out in the following years and did a fairly good job at capturing all those things that, I think, eluded Look Back In Anger. I mean, it's so tonally off and its aspirations are so lofty that the apparent lack of even remotely corresponding literary skill makes it seem unbearably pretentious.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] telegonus 8 years ago

Truly, Jimmy's rants do for the most part ring false, and even when they seem true it feels more like a matter of "if you rant long enough you're bound to be right sometime". Jimmy's "epiphany" at the end about getting down dirty into the nitty gritty of life, and if you can't do that you may be a saint but you'll never be a human being (I paraphrase), sounded great the first couple of times I watched the film, but by the third go-round it fell flat. It's too perfectly stated, sounds like writing, not speaking, and its truth is to my way of thinking questionable, to say the least. Yet sitting around with friends, mates, whatever, drinking beer or getting stoned, in a certain context, a line like that can ring true so long as one doesn't have to ponder it, especially if its aimed at someone everyone else in the room regards as a moral prig. I can imagine author John Osborne (or someone he knew) got off a zinger like that at a party and he never forgot it. Agreed that there were many far better "angry young man" films right around the corner.