I think there's something more going on in this film than any of the other posters have quite realised. First of all, Julie Christie doesn't get off the train in London and turn into anyone from ALFIE: she gets off the train and turns into Julie Christie from DARLING - who really isn't a very nice person (I know it's a different character with a different name, but the continuity seems clear to me).
She is made to seem terrifically attractive and smiley in this film, something helped by Christie's absolute gorgeousness, but she represents the sort of person whom almost all of John Schlesinger's British films rail against. She is flighty, irresponsible and frequently thoughtless. She is without roots. In Schlesinger's world this is not a good thing (see, as well as DARLING, A KIND OF LOVING or SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY).
Meanwhile, if Billy actually did get on the train, the film would be condoning petty theft (from Shadrack's cash-box), which very nearly amounts to embezzlement, along with all of Billy's lies, which, although outrageously amusing to us, have caused some degree of pain to his family, his two fiancées, and even, at the end of the dance-hall sequence, to his best friend (played by Rodney Bewes). Moreover, he would be leaving his family just at the point they most need him, immediately after the death of his grandmother.
And what exactly is waiting for him in London? A glib, supercilious (and probably fairly talentless) comedian who represents something much more hateful than what is in his home town.
The clever thing about this film is the way Schlesinger balances the opposing urges at the beginning of the sixties, something he saw, perhaps, more clearly than any other director of the time. It was a time of massive change, represented by the omnipresent building works, with old terraces being swept away by new blocks of flats, while Billy's northern town is characterised by the fact that he works in an undertaker's. It seems like death to stay, but Billy's apparent cowardice can actually be seen as bravery: by staying, he must face up to his "sins" and take on new responsibilities.
In Waterhouse's sequel (mentioned above, and well recommended), we discover that things didn't work out too well for Billy, but Schlesinger's subsequent films suggest that he would have been worse off down in London.
Sorry this is such a long post, but I think BILLY LIAR is a genuinely great film, partly for the reasons outlined above, which demands close attention (when we've stopped laughing with it) to understand what it's really saying.
reply
share
trpdean
16 years ago
I love how you turn it upside down! That is fascinating - you're right that there's no other reason of which I can think for:
i) inserting such genuine need to stay (his mother's impending death), and
ii) an idiotic reason to leave (the grinning insipid comedian he'd join). This isn't the Old Vic calling from London after all - as Waterhouse could have made the film - particularly given those Walter Mitty-esque fantasies).
I'm not at ALL sure you're right about the filmmaker's intention of how we should see him staying -- but it is remarkable how plausible your alternative interpretation is! Thanks!
reply
share
tsavc
16 years ago
I don't think it was necessarily Waterhouse and Hall's intention - but, as I say, Schlesinger's films do tend to have a strand running through them: characters must take responsibility for their actions. And Billy can only do that by remaining in his home-town - otherwise he's just running away.
reply
share
DD-931
16 years ago
Interesting. Only two things undercut that theory:
1. The ending as it plays in the movie isn't shown to be a positive resolution to the story.
2. Billy is still embracing his fantasies at the end. He seems no more capable of accepting responsibility for his life than he did at the film's beginning.
reply
share
tsavc
16 years ago
I think we can get around the first objection by arguing that, in order to see it as a positive resolution, we must dig deeper than the superficial appearance given, which is what I was trying to do, but....
I am completely in agreement with your second objection, DD. The final pan around to see him leading the troops of Ambrosia back up the hill to his house indicates exactly what you say (and prepares the way for the novel sequel).
My original post was inspired by a discussion about Laurence Harvey and Schlesinger's attitude to the "swinging sixties" in the film DARLING, and I was just trying (a little bit too hard, it would seem) to see if I could wrench this one (BILLY LIAR) round to fit into the same template.
I guess I always knew it would be hard work.
Still, of the options available to Billy - running off to London with a flighty girl who will almost move on again before he is ready/able to; running off to London to work for a glib, stupid comedian; or staying up north and facing up to his responsibilities - the one he chooses is the most "morally correct".
But, in the end, DD, you're absolutely right: Billy is a lost cause.
reply
share
marktayloruk (2375)
3 years ago
In London - writing for TV and living with Julie Christie who was so far above the insipid Barbara that there was no comparison
reply
share
shroomn
15 years ago
I think there's something more going on in this film than any of the other posters have quite realised. First of all, Julie Christie doesn't get off the train in London and turn into anyone from ALFIE: she gets off the train and turns into Julie Christie from DARLING - who really isn't a very nice person (I know it's a different character with a different name, but the continuity seems clear to me).
She is made to seem terrifically attractive and smiley in this film, something helped by Christie's absolute gorgeousness, but she represents the sort of person whom almost all of John Schlesinger's British films rail against. She is flighty, irresponsible and frequently thoughtless. She is without roots. In Schlesinger's world this is not a good thing (see, as well as DARLING, A KIND OF LOVING or SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY).
Meanwhile, if Billy actually did get on the train, the film would be condoning petty theft (from Shadrack's cash-box), which very nearly amounts to embezzlement, along with all of Billy's lies, which, although outrageously amusing to us, have caused some degree of pain to his family, his two fiancées, and even, at the end of the dance-hall sequence, to his best friend (played by Rodney Bewes). Moreover, he would be leaving his family just at the point they most need him, immediately after the death of his grandmother.
And what exactly is waiting for him in London? A glib, supercilious (and probably fairly talentless) comedian who represents something much more hateful than what is in his home town.
The clever thing about this film is the way Schlesinger balances the opposing urges at the beginning of the sixties, something he saw, perhaps, more clearly than any other director of the time. It was a time of massive change, represented by the omnipresent building works, with old terraces being swept away by new blocks of flats, while Billy's northern town is characterised by the fact that he works in an undertaker's. It seems like death to stay, but Billy's apparent cowardice can actually be seen as bravery: by staying, he must face up to his "sins" and take on new responsibilities.
In Waterhouse's sequel (mentioned above, and well recommended), we discover that things didn't work out too well for Billy, but Schlesinger's subsequent films suggest that he would have been worse off down in London.
Sorry this is such a long post, but I think BILLY LIAR is a genuinely great film, partly for the reasons outlined above, which demands close attention (when we've stopped laughing with it) to understand what it's really saying.
Interesting analysis though I believe it may stretch assumption a bit I still agree more or less with it.
reply
share
jj-patton
15 years ago
Interesting analysis, but I think Billy Liar is about something a little different again. Billy's family doesn't need him, the company doesn't want him. It's more about the pettiness of English society (in the world of the film) than about one character.
Everybody here is right about Billy not having the gumption to make it in London, so that's why he doesn't go. But why doesn't he have that gumption? I don't think the filmmaker is blaming the Christie character - matter of fact, I think she and Billy's mother are the only two decent characters in movie. Maybe another is the friend at work who writes the song with him, but that's about it.
Every other character was a stupid petty jerk. The father with his "bloody well don't say 'bloody' to your grandmother - see you killed her", the girlfriend with her "we're engaged but don't kiss me or touch my knee", the other girlfriend with her shrewish, violent demands for her ring (we supposed to think she "loves" Billy and wants truly to marry?), the "call me councilman" guy, and so on. The other co-worker (not the songwriter, the one who rags on Billy all the time) is great example - sure, for someone who is an immature schoolbully Billy is a perfect target and a lot of fun to razz. Fun it may be but it still proves the co-worker is an immature schoolbully. Another example is Billy's songwriting friend, who has a mother who makes his life hell for something Billy said. It just reveals petty vindictiveness of this guy's mother.
The movie does an excellent job of presenting this world Billy lives in, without condescending or finger-pointing. Billy is not an innocent accused, his transgressions are artfully situated beyond what would be excusable kid stuff and below what would be serious crimes. Taking the postal money is not excusable, but paying back the money and leaving his position is the best solution, after all, they don't want him there. The company, though, like everyone else in the film, gets petty about it and demands not just the money but reimbursement of "good will" (whatever that may entail) for a bunch of stupid calendars. There's no way to pay that back, why ask. Again, this doesn't excuse Billy's actions or make the company out to be villains; it's just a lack of wisdom brought to bear.
Lack of wisdom and empathy seems to me the theme of the film. The key to the movie for me was the speech Billy makes to his father toward the end, the "grateful" speech. Billy does have talent - he wrote song lyrics and everyone danced and liked it, his fantasies are more elaborate than normal daydreaming. And we learn in that speech what is going on - someone recognized his talent and gave him a scholarship, and even then Dad was petty and complained about the price of clothes for school. His father never once in the film admits to Billy's talent or gives him any credit or support, because character value for Billy's father is determined solely by getting up on time and following him into the business. Understand Billy's situation here - no kid could ever be grateful to a father who for petty reasons resents his son's talent for success. Yet that is what is demanded.
Essentially, the film Billy Liar is over before it begins. Billy is already a broken man at the start, his lying and dreaming are the residue of talent denied. He could go to London and at least try to make it, but the petty demands of his world engender his self-doubt. His reaction to this pettiness are fantasies where possible and death wishes when fantasies are not enough - death wishes like keeping the stolen calendars undestroyed in an obvious hiding place (he wants to get caught and dismissed), and getting off the train because he wants to miss it and run after it.
His fantasies are what imagination is in a world too concerned with the mundane.
reply
share