I'm All Right, Jack - Classic Movie [some spoilers]

Yesterday I watched, for the first time having somehow missed it before, I’m All Right, Jack, a 1959 comedy, one in a series of classic comedies from the Boulting brothers.

Perfectly cast with every role inhabited by a character actor of enormous talent - Ian Carmichael, Terry-Thomas, Margaret Rutherford, Peter Sellers - the movie is also one of the few that equally satirizes both the working class and the upper class. The satire is simultaneously broad and understated, a feat that only the British seem capable of pulling off.

Good film, lots of stuff to talk about, but it’s the last few minutes of the movie that drove me to posting.

Ian Carmichael goes on a live television show and opens the bag of loose one-pound notes that he has been given as a bribe. As he scatters them the entire audience mobs the set, rioting to grab the cash. Out of nowhere a pack of actors from another show costumed as Vikings descends on the cash as the scene fades. The show is called “Argument.” What are the odds that the Pythons drew inspiration from what for them was a recent movie?

Carmichael is thought to have sustained a breakdown and is stripped of his job and sent home. His father is a nudist and lives next to a nudist camp filled with nothing but young pretty girls. They try to get Carmichael to play tennis with them but he is too shy. So shy that when they come into his yard he runs away, even though he is naked himself. A dozen obviously nude young women run chasing after him.

Besides the fact that this scene would have been impossible for any American film of the day, even though the girls are just photographed from behind and at a distance, everything about it is weird. Why is Carmichael running? Is it his character, which is the most naive man on earth, or is it some commentary on the upper classes I’m not getting? It’s not because of the association of homosexuality with the upper classes; earlier in the film he had been enthusiastically necking with Liz Frazer, the character actress with the biggest breasts in England.

And the women are obviously supposed to be stunning lookers. They are also overweight and flabby by today’s standards, probably 10 to 20 pounds too heavy to get hired for such a role in any movie today, British or American or European.

When you think that Swinging London and Twiggy and miniskirts were only a few years away, this is a lost world picture that Americans especially should see if only to understand what the British bands would be rebelling against in the early 60s.

I recently read about this film on IMDB, because I had just seen the entire lineup of Margaret Rutherford’s Miss Marple movies. I wanted to see what other films feature her so I could look out for them. IARJ sounded like a winner, but I never thought it’d be shown where I could see it.

How did you see this film? Was it on TCM? If so, I missed out!

Also, don’t forget that the movie’s theme song has the phrase “blow you” mentioned prominently. Of course, in 1959 many Americans maybe didn’t know what it meant (or maybe it meant something different then than it does now).

Yes, it was on TCM a month or so ago. Just got around to watching it.

“Blow you” is a euphemism for “fuck you.” Nothing to do with fellatio.

True, but I’m still surprised that slipped by American censors in 1959.

I don’t know what the reception was in America but it’s hard to believe that the censors would care about a euphemism. The whole point of euphemisms is that they allow you to say forbidden things in public. There wasn’t any official censoring body at the time, anyway. States had individual censorship boards and the Catholic Church still issued edicts that some films couldn’t be seen by good Catholics, but mostly it was understood by all moviemakers that no swearing would be included. The Production Code, which was on its last legs anyway, wouldn’t apply to a foreign film. The real issue for Americans would have been the nudity. That would have kept it out of all theaters except for a tiny number of art houses and a bit of non-swearing wouldn’t have made any difference.

I think he runs partly because to do so is in character and partly because many naked men confronted by a dozen similarly clad females would not be entirely at their ease, especially in Britain in 1959. I can’t recall much about the pulchritude of the women doing the chasing but I’ll get back to you when I’ve chanced to see the film again. Seriously.

The entire cast does a terrific job (Sellers got a BAFTA for his Fred Kite) but the wonderful Irene Handl steals all her scenes as the discreetly conservative-minded Mrs. Kite.

A couple of other points come to mind. The movie is almost a sequel to Private’s Progress, another Boulting brothers collaboration produced three years earlier, the first film being markedly inferior IMO. Five of the characters from the 1956 movie reappear in I’m Alright Jack.

Furthermore, I’m pretty sure the film was removed from a planned slot in the TV schedules in the runup to the 1979 General Election. The Labour party feared the somewhat unflattering portrayal of trade unions therein might adversely affect its share of the vote so it complained to the Independent Broadcasting Authority, who bumped it.

I should really take issue with the accolade you award to Liz Frazer’s breasts but I wouldn’t like to see this thread derailed. Suffice it to say that while Frazer is definitely on the podium in this regard she has Hattie Jaques looking down on her from above, probably blocking out all available sunlight with her formidably configured top shelf.

A deliciously subversive film.

Yeah, but Hattie Jacques’ *waist * was also bigger than Liz Fraser’s breasts. That seems to take her out of the competition. :slight_smile:

It’s probably my favourite film of all time. Virtually a documentary on British industrial relations and foreign policy in the 50s.

The scene you described with the money makes me wonder about Pink Floyd. As in, “Money, get back/im all right, jack/keep your hands off of my stack”. Surely PF drew that phrase from this movie?

The movie took its title from the phrase, which was already in common use in England. The Pink Floyd reference might have reminded people of the movie, but they probably heard it every day in regular life too.

Ten months later…

In general, I don’t think the women are particularly attractive, except maybe for a couple of them. Obviously, that’s a judgement call. I’m especially sweet on the girl sunbathing in the background when Stanley is talking to his father early in the piece. On the issue of weight, you could argue for a little excess here and there but the extent of it wouldn’t really bother me personally. I agree that today’s standards would call for something more akin to a latter-day female ideal.

If the movie had really called for a nudist camp populated by really stunning women then it could have done better. I can’t think why it didn’t, except for the possibility that the scene demanded a cross-section of females with varying degrees of attractiveness as representative of typical nudism aficionados. I don’t like that explanation but it’s all I’ve got. Maybe we shouldn’t read too much into it.

It’s a pleasure to see I’m Alright, Jack again. It’s still very funny.