I'm a bit cynical about the nostalgia for the swinging London of the '60s. I'm pretty convinced it was only really swinging if you were well-educated and affluent.
This film was made in 1964 and life for Palmer in London looks decidedly staid for poorly paid Harry Palmer. Anyone else agree?
I disagree,the film is after all not about the social changes in 1960s Britain but Palmer in the film was having a much better life than his parents or grandparents.
Palmer is taking part in swinging London by wearing nice clothes and eating tinned mushrooms,he is not taking drugs or listening to the ROLLING STONES but he is still hip.
In real life it seems that working class people could become film stars,models or pop stars in a way impossible before the 1960s.
Even if you did not become a star even people in ordinary jobs had more income,better housing and greater job security than ever before,never mind more sex and all that great pop music.
There is a recent book about Britain in the 1960s,think it is called WHITE HEAT by Dominic Sandbrook
I prefer the swinging Carnaby Street 60's in an Austin Powers stylee to be honest.
shareI agree with the original respondent. Palmer was enjoying the swinging sixties though not in the cartoonish way satirized by films like Austin Powers or even James Bond. He had an appreciation for classical music and a talent at cooking gourmet meals. He certainly seemed to get alot of girls. I think the movie cleverly depicts a London in transition - from the old-fashioned aristocrats (i.e., Ross and Dalby) with their 'clubs' and derby hats to the new Briton - cockney Palmer, who could teach his elders a thing or two about music, food and culture. The scene in the park with the brass band playing Mozart was classic. Dalby (who knows alot less about music than he likes to let on) is impressed with the military band transcribing Mozart's Marriage of Figaro where younger, more cultural Palmer is incensed and says so.
shareRe: furled umbrellas.
Well done CalvinJarrett for the dogged persistence with your question and congratulations to screenman for a very witty expose on the "furled umbrella"
They, like bowler hats, have now disappeared in London (my town), and it's a sad loss. Cheap foldaway handbag-sized brollies are more practical, but certainly lack style.
If I could add one more iconic film reference, there was the British Major in "A Bridge Too Far" - the film about the Allied Landings in Arnhem - who carried a furled umbrella as a means of identification. Because, as he confides in Anthony Hopkins, "he could never remember the damned password".
Yeah; don't be fooled by Austin Powers `funky dunc'. People weren't continuously `dancing in the streets'. London was swinging, but the style and social revolution centred upon the areas where people (mostly the young) hung out. This movie wasn't intended to showcase swinging London so much as the seedier aspects of counter espionage. Photography and location was chosen to highlight this. So the sun is washed-out, the parks are drab, offices are dowdy, dull and spartan.
It could have been very different indeed if filmed on a nice Summer day with more chromatic film print, and set in Carnaby Street or the Kings Road. Pretty things in mini-skirts and Mary Quant style, would certainly have outnumbered bowler hats and furled brolly's.
By the same token; you won't see cycle-couriers, bendy-buses or pedestrians wearing i-pods in the BBC's latest production of `Little Dorrit'. But that doesn't mean they can't be found off set!
A few follow-up questions to your most informative post, screenman: What is Mary Quant style? What is a furled brolly?
I have to admit, at times it is spartan looking, but I felt it was sunnier than alot of other English movies or TV I've seen. I also thought some of the scenery was impressive and showcased a prettier side of London than others have stated. I forget the name of the library where Palmer first met Bluejay, but the statues and colliseum style staricases were very aesthetic. You see this especially through the telephone booth when he gets into a fight with Housemartin. When Ross and Dlaby were walking in the park on their way to Ross's club for lunch, it didn;t look like a nasty day outside at all. And interestingly, I wear an overcoat now that is strikingly similar to that of Colonel Ross's. His lapels are only slightly narrower. but it's the same shade of camel.
Re: CalvinJarrett.
Mary Quant opened a boutique on the Kings Road in the late 1950's and promoted brighter, more youth-oriented clothing towards the end of the austerity decade with an emphasis on availability. She was influential in raising hem-lines and became part of the avant-garde in 1960's fashion, particularly championing the mini-skirt, which she named after British Leyland's iconic little car. Her other dominant lines were brightly-coloured tights to complement the skirt and ranges of PVC coats in the spectacular colours that plastic allowed. I believe these fashions - with a heavy emphasis on `paintbox' cosmetics - helped give rise to the term `dolly-bird' ie: child-like and brightly coloured. Eventually miniskirts got about as mini as they could get short of arrest, and towards the end of the decade she introduced hot-pants - more associated with the early 1970's and glam-rock.
I agree with you that it was often sunny in the movie, and the trees were in full-leaf, but the sky is never seen as blue (at least, not on my DVD). It's just a bright, colourless glare. The colours do not (and never did) strike me as being brightly contrasted. Whereas the greens of the London's parks can be glorious in summer. Perhaps there's a discrepancy in the recordings here. Though it was screened on TV a few days ago and pretty much mirrored my DVD. Maybe you and I have our tellys adjusted differently?
I also agree with you about some of the location shots. Though even here they could have been taken to far greater advantage. I believe Palmer meets Bluejay in the engineering/science museum reference library. That's certainly the building depicted. and its proximity to the grand staircase where Palmer has a rough-and-tumble with Housemartin would be about right. The big circular building we glimpse is, of course, the Royal Albert Hall. Yet for the most part we observe it all furtively from behind or inside cars or the telephone box, marginalising these wonderful buildings to the incidental.
Wot's a furled brolly? Your 'avin a laff ain'cha'?
Your last line seems to remind me of something I saw in a Month Python movie, but again, I'll ask you what is a furled brolly? You mentioned it in your earlier post. I very much appreciated your explanation of Mary Quant. I can see a VH-1 documentary being made about her and her lines.
shareA furled brolly is just a tightly-rolled umbrella. One would go very well with that nice coat of yours. If you have a copy of `Get Carter' (1971), you'll see most of the young women dressed as if they actually shopped at Quant's. It was filmed in Newcastle and trends took a little longer to become established `oop north'. By the time this movie was released, hot pants were already becoming fashionable down in `the smoke'.
C5 are currently running a series on Mondays @ 9:00pm called `Sex, Drugs & Rock `n' Roll - The Sixties Revealed.' I haven't been following it, but if Mary Quant doesn't feature somewhere, then it's incomplete.
Ahh, I see. So a furled brolly is a long cane-style umbrella that winds tightly so that it can almost pass as a walking stick. I remeber those umbrellas from the scene between Ross and Dalby in the park where Dalby says that line, "What sticks in my craw is that they sold us damaged goods," when, of course, he was the (or one of the) masterminds behind the whole gambit. I was trying to figure out if they were using walking sticks or umbrellas. I settled on umbrellas because Dalby I could see as being enough of a dandy to use a walking stick though young and w/o disability, but Ross wouldn't do so. So I figured they had to be umbrellas - just tightly wound ones with decorative handles (i.e., furled brollies). And, yes, it would look good with my overcoat. As it stands, I use an 8-10 inch blue one that I got as a door prize to my 10 year law school reunion.
I did see the '71 version of Get carter. I liked it alot. I thought the fashions were very fitting for 1971 - if anything I thought the styles were more cutting edge than holdovers from the 60's. Another great Caine movie - though he's nowhere as nice a guy as Harry Palmer in it.
Yeah; but that's the point I was making about `Get Carter'. The styles did look good, but they were actually 1960's styles still in vogue in Newcaste in 1971, but by which time they were already becoming passe in London. If `Ipcress' had been filmed in the Kings Road or Carnaby St, those same `Get Carter' styles would have been all over the screen. As it was - located mostly in obscure offices, formal areas of Kensington, and some seedy run-down east-end dives - we are steered carefully around the swinging scene and some viewers like `funkydunk' are left thinking it never happened, or that its impact was exaggerated.
If you look at John Steed from `The Avengers', you'll see the `bowler & brolly' image brought to perfection.
And - no offence - but I really think you need to trade-up brolly-wise. It may be a sad reflection of out times, yet a good quality one with a long point and a heavy handle makes an excellent street-legal Kendo sword.
Hahaha - but the average lifespan of my umbrella is 2 months. I constantly leave them behind on trains, at restaurants, etc. It's no biggie losing a free or $7.00 umbrella, but a $60 - $80 furled brolly - I'd be really upset about that. Plus, I find that the bigger or longer they are the more likely I am to leave it behind somewhere because I can't just fit it into my raincoat (mack?) pocket or rest it on my lap.
shareOkay; have it you own way. But don't say I didn't warn you.
I also have a tiny umbrella that I carry in the car or on my scooter. But when I go walkies I take the Bishop.
Here's some pocket psychology. The reason you lose your umbrellas is because you know they have no value. Buy a really good 'un and you'll subconsciously keep track of it for that reason. A good brolly is a partner. And few people forget their wives and husbands and leave them on the train. Also, a brolly isn't an accessory; it's an institution. It enters into your life for years of service like a butler, and you adapt to its presence because its value outweighs its obtrusiveness.
A good brolly gives you poise. It shows that you esteem yourself. You can knock on doors with the handle and leave those within in no doubt that you mean business. You can rap on the desks of inefficient civil servants, prod things contemptuously and tap the floor with impatience. You can lean on it with disdain, hook onto things that are otherwise beyond reach, twirl it playfully or fondle it in meditation. And you can also shelter from the rain.
Swinging London was a bit of a media myth IMO, just like 'Cool Britannia' 20 years later. Kenneth Williams once claimed to have ridden on a moped round Piccadilly Circus in the 60s shouting 'where is swinging London, where are all the orgies' because he was fed up with the myth.
shareI think; in order to fully appreciate the impact of the 1960's, you had to live through the 1950's.
Because so much of the culture-shock was represented by music, the best guide I can offer is to compare the albums available in say 1956, just before the advent of rock-`n'-roll, with - say: `Sargeant Pepper' `Days Of Future Past' or `Pet Sounds', produced a decade later.
Or consider that the very first object in `mysterious' outer-space was `Sputnik-1', a little bleeping football launched in 1957. Yet again, scarcely more than a decade later, Neil Armstrong was standing on the moon.
Screenman, that wasa great endorsement of a fancy umbrella - I may have to give this "institution" one more try. And your pocket psychology is probably dead-on.
shareabsolutely, calvin,jarrett, I too enjoyed very much the description of the fancy umbrella, read it a few times even.
It is so exciting to be in the presence of such fancy words!
Re: furled umbrellas.
Well done CalvinJarrett for the dogged persistence with your question and congratulations to screenman for a very witty expose on the "furled umbrella"
They, like bowler hats, have now disappeared in London (my town), and it's a sad loss. Cheap foldaway handbag-sized brollies are more practical, but certainly lack style.
If I could add one more iconic film reference, there was the British Major in "A Bridge Too Far" - the film about the Allied Landings in Arnhem - who carried a furled umbrella as a means of identification. Because, as he confides in Anthony Hopkins, "he could never remember the damned password".
People weren't continuously `dancing in the streets'. London was swinging, but the style and social revolution centred upon the areas where people (mostly the young) hung out
Kenneth Williams once claimed to have ridden on a moped round Piccadilly Circus in the 60s shouting 'where is swinging London, where are all the orgies' because he was fed up with the myth.
~~~~the sun is washed-out, the parks are drab, offices are dowdy, dull and Spartan.~~~~~
Just like portrayals of the post-war USSR....
Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2010. Clio the cat, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.
Just came across this thread.
I was a teenager living in London in the 1960s and the original comment "it was only swinging if you were well educated and affluent" is spot on.
The other factor was that of geography. The "swinging sixties" were a feature of Central London - an area of a few square miles.
To quote from "Field of Dreams" for the majority of London's population, those of us living in the suburbs, we had "2 lots of the 1950s and moved straight on to the 70's".
The swinging 60s got no closer to Raynes Park (SW20) than Eel Pie Island.
Well - I guess there were degrees of swing & a lot of mythology. I actually lived in Yorkshire during the 1960's, so you were much nearer to `ground zero' than I was. But the transformation in culture and attitudes during the period 1959 - 1969 was groundbreaking even up north. Many of the pop groups originated in the north of England, with The Beatles and Gerry & The Pacemakers giving rise to `Merseysound', The Animals deriving from Tyneside, The Hollies from the midlands etc. London was certainly where the big money was (and still is!), but you didn't need to be rich or educated to buy into Mary Quant. Meanwhile, the pirate radio-stations along with Radio Luxembourg brought new music to everyone. As indeed did slick little 45rpm singles, and daring new programs like `Ready, Steady Go' & `Top Of The Pops'. Much of the message of the period was contained in the song lyrics themselves, and they were revolutionary compared to those of a decade earlier.
There was certainly a clique amongst the popbands, new-wave artists, fashionistas and their various hangers-on - the so-called `in-crowd'. But the swinging sixties was more a celibration of the end to drab, stifling grey fifties conformity than anything else. And everyone got to share that in some degree.
As for being a part of the swinging '60s it had not quite kicked off in full by 1964 when this was made, though hipsters like old Har were already living a high life, compared to what life would have been like 10 years (or even 5) earlier.
That was the coolest thing about Harry. He was a "working class lad" with no pretensions, but had very real interests like gourmet food and music. He had thrown off the expected lifestyle for a fellow like himself and forged his own for modern times. He dressed great. Had a very cool flat for the day (most folks I know were in bedsits then).
And...most importantly...Harry was way ahead of his time in the Sexual Revolution movement, too!
He never met a bird he didn't bed, evidently. Harry: A Man Ahead of His Time.
The coolest.
As for being a part of the swinging '60s it had not quite kicked off in full by 1964...
The "Swinging Sixties" only really happened to middle-class youth and Arts School students.
It passed the majority of working class youth (with boring jobs, low pay, financial insecurity and tighter morals) by.
The real sexual revolution happened in the Seventies, when the majority of younger people had access to free oral contraception and had heard something of the 'excitement' of drug-taking and 'free love'.
That's when society really began to re-order itself
Please don't read or listen to anything Sandbrook says - he always puts his "Daily Mail/Heil" political spin on any social commentary he writes - mostly prejudice dressed up as "fact".
swinging if you were well-educated and affluent.
As someone said above the book from which this film was adapted was written in 1962, which was really before London began to take off as a "hip" locale, so that was not the emphasis here.
An I think interesting comparator released in 1965 is Roman Polanski's repulsion. It has a similar look and feel especially outside of the apartment where Catherine Deneuve's character lived. Men even in their 20's wore ties and jackets in public for the most part, for example. Much changed from 1966 on. Compare that year's release of Blow-up, which showed Swinging London more or less full on.
i think you could swing if you weren't well educated and affluent, the Beatles after all came from poor working class backgrounds (apart from John who was somewhat more affluent). But Harry Palmer is a bit old to be swinging, he is after all in his 30s, he was probably young and hip in the 50s - maybe he was a Teddy boy or a beatnik.
shareThis is a rather more realistic and down-to-earth film than the Bond ones, and it is not really Swinging London.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
Wow, this thread sure is enjoyable. :)
"People get it wrong, but in today's world we don't live longer, we just die harder." -Bruce Willis