It’s a mistake to view/evaluate the movies/books/etc. from other periods without getting the proper frame of reference. While many question the length of the film, scenes like the 10 introductions at dinner reveal the expected dissatisfaction one might expect from having a German officer in the room at that time but also the extreme British Imperial thinking of the period.

The movie was about then, not now… That many characters are jingoistic does not mean the film is.

I would explain here, but I wouldn’t know where to begin, this is a very complex film. Deserving of far more active participation with its reflexive nature and ironic tone than you have afforded it.

I’ll just leave you with this quote which is completely at odds with your interpretation of the film as naive, patriotic example of feel-good wartime propaganda:

“No people in the world other than the English would have had the courage, in the midst of war to tell the people such unvarnished truth.” – Anton Walbrook

With the feel of what is coming next I thought: “Excellent! A British version of M*A*S*H!” Having done a cursory read of the “Netflix” slip I saw words, epic, war and 2 hours and 49 minutes so I hunkered down for a good ol’ WWII film, legions of soldiers crossing battlefields, Spitfires flying over mountains, “God Save the Queen” and all that rot. 15 minutes into the film and we’re now in serious flashback mode following the life of General Candy.

Seems this “war games” has gotten out of a hand and a young “soldier” has captured General Candy and is holding him and all his steam-bath mates prisoner! Giving ample time for General Candy to tell his story in flashback (well, he doesn’t so much as tell it as we so much as just watch it).

So we stop following the young chap and the 40’s swing music to the turn of the century and young General Candy going off to Germany to stop some silly propaganda going about that the British are using underhanded tactics to win a war (which war, I’m not exactly sure). In the process of being this unwanted envoy General Candy has a bit o’ a row with an old friend (enemy?) and a duel is to take place.

This international incident causes two things to happen. Well, one, it’s an international incident and, two, General Candy becomes life-long friends with his “enemy” Mr. “Frenchy-German Name.”

The film then follows their friendship – off an on – over the years. World War I, the Boer War (I think) and their love for the same woman (or women). During times of fear for people who are German and issues amongst the people about war – General Candy continues to always be the Gentleman. The type to slap you across the face with his gloves and challenge you to a duel, then the type to come up behind you with a steel chair and then power-bomb you through the announcer table. No, it’s the Germans who would do that.

As General Candy’s career in the military flounders he finds a job doing commentary for the BBC but when he admits defeat then fight “dirty” – he’s not only canned from his job but also fired from the military. But this old soldier won’t go down without a fight and he rallies the local men into creating “The Home Front” – a group of soldiers (I guess to, uh, flat-footed, to fight overseas) to protect England from incoming invaders. It is THIS group that the film started with and we pick up the story where it began with 40’s swing music and the “attack” on the steam-bath.

The film ends with General Candy thoughtfully wondering about his life.

What I liked:

This is one of those films that tries so f*ing hard to be romantic, patriotic, moving and be ABOUT something that I feel manipulated in trying to love it. I almost feel like I would be putting down the entire country of England by not liking this film so I feel I must write SOMETHING positive.

Okay: The 40’s swing music was great. The colors were fantastic. Print quality was uniformly excellent except for two jarring flaws late in the film.

What I didn’t like:

Well, well, well…there’s so much to dislike about this film. Let’s start with the obvious: the 2:49 minute running time. I’m SURE there were editors back in the day and it would have been great if they had chosen to hire one. Two particular scenes come to mind.

Scene 1: The Duel: There is an HUGE set-up to this duel that takes FOREVER. I kept thinking: JUST GET ON WITH IT! (Note, then they don’t actually show it.)

Scene 2: At one point, when Mr. “Frenchy-German name” comes to visit his long time friend, General Candy introduces him to EVERYONE at the table. And I mean, EV-ER-Y-ONE! All 10 what’s his, and who’s is. Those were both scenes that could have been cut to 30 seconds instead of 10 minutes.

The women? There is supposed to be this undercurrent of a romantic story going on here but the women are, pretty much, indistinguishable. Why? They’re all played by Deborah Kerr. I didn’t really notice because, well, none of them distinguished themselves. They all could have been played by box of “Whizzo Chocolates” for as much impact as they had to the story.

Speaking of story… This film was released/made in 1943. It is “epic” in some ways but not in the “Lawrence of Arabia” way of epic. Still, some money and casting were done during the height of the war (D-Day was still a year away). This is why (I assumed the film was done in the mid 50’s) there is a solid under current of propaganda that nearly fills every scene: “We’re the British, we don’t fight like that! Germans kill children and burn churches and rape our women! We do not!” As much as the Nazi’s did do all those things…I’m sure the British were guilty of a few war time atrocities, too. So the underlying jingoisticness of the film didn’t set too well with me…though I understand for the time why they made a film like this (and why in the USofA most films in the 1940’s were propagandaish in nature).

A couple weeks ago when Jason brought out the issue of the use of the “N” word during “Kind Hearts and Coronets” – I bring to issue the usage of killing animals as a way of showing the passage of time. During two montages the film-makers use the heads of big game animals placed on the walls of General Candy’s “den” (and their location and year of kill) as a way of showing the passage of time. Again, for the time, this was completely and entirely acceptable. For me it was grossly offensive and, well, sad.

There is really nothing like a character arc for our main character. He’s pretty much the same from 10 minutes in to fade out.

Lastly…and I agree this is splitting hairs…for the entire film the main character is referred to as General Candy or “Sugar” but he is never ever EVER referred to as “Colonel” or “Blimp” or “Colonel Blimp.”

Overall:

I’ll reiterate. The film tries so golly hard to be a rip-roaring adventure and a feel good war-time work of art that I feel foolish to give it a solid yawn. The fact that I invested nearly 3 hours of my life into watching this film makes me think even harder that I don’t want to say I wasted my time. I will say that as much as I felt some scenes could have been edited quite shorter, the film did seem to zip by without too much of sense of slog. Still…I can’t really recommend the film as I felt as much as it’s earnest attempt to be about SOMETHING it really came up short for me. Maybe others will feel different.