MovieChat Forums > If.... (1969) Discussion > To anyone who can answer:

To anyone who can answer:

posted 12 years ago by februaryac
7 replies | jump to latest

Specifically, what is this an allegory for? Or, what is the meaning/ moral of the film?

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

IF.... there were to be a true revolution in the UK,(in 1968) with even the middle classes' youth revolting, where might Britain stand then and the consequences for all of us? Remember the ground-breaking student riots in Paris about the same time, and there were fears in Britain, at that time, these riots might have been copied in English cities, toppling the established Government. Didn't happen of course, (thanks be to God!) It is an anti-Establishment film - didn't work on me but enjoyed it nonetheless.

[–] idgreenwood 12 years ago

It obviously stands against hypocritical pomposity, militarism, sanctioned cruelty, all those things you would expect a thinking person in 1968 to stand against. What it stands for is harder to specify, precisely because its protagonists are at the age when they simply do not know. But you may think it stands (among other things) for imagination, non-judgmental understanding, and freedom from pettiness.

Anderson tried to play down the 'hatchet-job on public schools' tag which tended to limit the general appeal or even meaning of the film, but at this distance I'm not so sure. The headmaster of Cheltenham, at which some scenes were shot, was outraged and felt that Anderson (an Old Cheltonian himself) had deceived him into allowing the film access. I reckon Anderson had some pretty specific, and no doubt personal, axes to grind. But if the British public school stood in many respects as a microcosm of British society - or at least its ruling echelons - then so much the better.

That said, what became of Mick Travis? In one incarnation, he becomes a travelling salesman (the film O Lucky Man!); in another, a Hollywood filmstar (the soon-aborted sequel to If....). Neither rings especially true, because Travis is an embodiment of youthful rebellion rather than a real character with a backstory and therefore a future. Which brings us back to the allegory. I'm not sure about this. Yes, some characters seem allegorical ('The Girl' is one), but many of the others are all too obviously human and probably drawn from life.

So, if The Girl is a figment of Travis's imagination (as I like to believe) and Travis an allegorical figure, the Young Rebel, does that help us enjoy the film better? What do you think?

[–] mirta1 11 years ago

Good post imo

[–] vertigothic70 11 years ago

Good post, Greenwood.
Anderson obviously had some things dating back to his own public school days he had to get out of his system. But the school stood for society in general. I think the film promoted rebellion against abuse of power, conformity, everything you mentioned and basically against accepting that you're expected to have no mind of your own.
You're right in pointing out how young the protagonists are. Which explains why in my opinion one of their main motivations is protest against the sheer boredom of their life. The whole fascination with militarism which rather jars, from today's point of view, with our perception of the counter culture of the late sixties, is largely based on the craving for excitement. The walls of their dorm room are covered with photos of soldiers like with pin-ups. War is the greatest adventure... apart from sex, I suppose.

The school and its characters are real... on the whole, you know what I mean.
Is the rebellion "real"? Yes, because Travis manages to annoy various "authority figures" considerably. Interestingly, not teachers, but the prefects who - I don't have to explain, it's clear. But he won't change a thing. We can assume he'll find his niche in later life, dull.
He has to have another dimension. Maybe it's his imagination, the whole shoot-out is a fantasy, so's the girl. Less dull to watch, you can read the film that way, but it still wouldn't be that interesting.

I think the way to see it is to look at it as an allegory all the way.
The question is - Travis as the Young Rebel, isn't that a rather ambivalent statement on rebellion? And does that make you like the film less?

[–] idgreenwood 11 years ago

I do not detect an ambivalence. Are you suggesting that Travis's youth-based, inexperience-based, ultimately futile rebellion is less genuine, perhaps, than a real, grown-up rebellion (such as maybe those of the Arab Spring)? Two different things, I suggest.

Perhaps it would be instructive to compare Malcolm McDowell's performance here with that of James Dean, 13 years earlier, in Rebel Without a Cause. Both play seductively, drawing you in to a character intended to represent a stereotype, but transcending the stereotype. I do not have the Nicholas Ray film to hand, but if I remember correctly the 'society' against which Jim Stark was rebelling was drawn in more realistic and general terms than the microcosm created for Mick Travis.

David Sherwin's 'novelisation' of the screenplay fleshes out the situations (and adds a few that weren't in the film) - it's well worth getting hold of a copy, published by Sphere.

Finally, 'Good post, Greenwood'! That takes me back 50 years... I'm inclined to reply 'Thanks Shepherd, or Hillman, or Marrack' - names that might have been a Knightly to my Travis, had I had the courage to stand up for myself a bit more.

[–] vertigothic70 11 years ago

First of all, thank you for mentioning the book – I'm collecting paperbacks from that era, but somehow I never came across that one. I will look for it. Hopefully the novelisation doesn't elaborate too much on things the film requires us to think out for ourselves, though?

I agree the ultimate futility of Travis's rebellion doesn't make it one iota less genuine. Nor does his motivation.
I realize now that what has become ambivalent is my view of it. When I first read about the film, I was still at school myself. It immediately was on the top of my list of films I was a little obsessed with, but it seemed unlikely that I'd have the opportunity to actually watch it anytime soon... That's funny in retrospect, my inner world consisted of a great number of things I had only read about! When I finally saw it a few years later, it was everything I hoped it would be.
If with anyone, I'd have to identify with the astronomy kid, I chose detachment over active rebellion. Nevertheless my admiration for Travis was immense. This was based on what he rebelled against, and that hasn't changed. But nowadays I question the selfishness of his motivation, and the destructiveness of his action. Maybe it's the effect of living in a post-Columbine world and having seen too many real-life revolutionaries who were corrupted or proven to have been nothing but egomaniacs all along.

That however is not the film's fault. I hardly think it promoted literally shooting people. And I find now that I regret the fact that it is I who has changed. Then again, the question, "what to do?" was right there in the film all the time. When you're living under conditions that are plain wrong, you have to stand up against them. That's the point. The story concludes in violence, but I don't think that was ever meant to be the answer and I wish I could "overlook" it like I used to. Maybe the answer simply was: "do SOMETHING!"

What could make me like the film less is the fact that one could justifiably say, well, it shows anti-social teenagers who just want to destroy everything. They were humiliated, sure, but that's life. Grow up and get over it. Obviously, I don't see it that way. I'd say someone who took that away from the film hadn't grasped the first thing about what it's all about, and I'd be very annoyed.
But I myself just wouldn't stand by Travis with a gun anymore, without hesitation. So to speak.

All this only leaves me even more impressed by Anderson's achievement. The setting might seem a bit dated from today's point of view, but in a way it's more relevant than ever. One of only two movies I rated ten, and that will stand.

(PS I haven't responded to your suggestion about Rebel Without a Cause. Frankly, I've only seen that once, ages ago, and somehow it failed to grip me completely. Therefore I cannot comment on that at all.)

[–] meguroutsubo 8 years ago

Since I never attended a British school, my opinion may be of no use, but here goes:

An allegory is a symbol of a greater system, so I'm guessing that College House, the fictitious school in the film, is an allegory for Britain itself. There is a rigid order of obedience and rank in the school that is meant to represent the British class system: beneath the Headmasters and staff, there are Whips, Seniors, Juniors and "scum." (And of course, the "Crusaders," who form an exiled clique that doesn't belong with the rest.)

The school has an armory, which represents the military and its interest in drafting youth to go fight in wars and occupy foreign lands.

The school, especially the Whips like Rowntree, make it their mission in life to break the spirit of "crusaders" like Mick Travis, who pines for freedom early in the film: "When do we live, that's what I wanna know..." When it becomes clear that he is punished for trying to escape the system, he cultivates an attraction to violence and revolution that is hinted at early in the film, when they pin a photo of an African freedom fighter next to a picture of Che Guevara on the wall of their room.

The school is an allegory for Britain, and the moral is that the system is so repressive and soul-crushing that it produces acts of violence against "society."