Scott of the Antarctic: The Movie
May. 2nd, 2016 10:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinIn 1948, Ealing Studios produced a film about Scott's Last Expedition. There were still quite a few survivors kicking around, and despite initial misgivings, most eventually came around to the idea of supporting it. Frank Debenham, who founded SPRI and was more or less the official keeper of the Terra Nova flame, did a fair amount of consultation on the film, and got a credit of thanks. Cherry, on the other hand, "was asked to sign a form permitting the film-makers to change his character into anything they liked, and he replied by giving the studio bosses a good telling-off."1 He never saw it.
The film was popular when it came out, and my impression is that it has been a staple of British television since the latter went mainstream, often getting shown around Christmas. I believe it's largely because of this film that the majority of people here will recognise the line "I am just going outside and may be some time," and all you need to do to set up a Scott-based comedy sketch is start out with the sound of howling wind and a flapping tent.
Nevertheless, despite all my obsession, I had never seen the film. It wasn't easy to find Stateside, and after I moved here there were so many other things clamoring for my attention. But, as always, the BBC loves me and wants me to be happy, so it aired the film a few days ago, and I finally got to see.
I'm afraid I have to side with Cherry on this one, but it was very interesting to see it at last, and it made me think ...
Having worked in Hollywood for a few years, and attending a few screenwriting seminars, for once made me more forgiving of a film than less. There were some liberties taken with the story, though surprisingly few; they mainly came down to a shift in focus and presentation rather than outright falsification. I could understand how some of the decisions might rankle, but I could also see, quite plainly, screenwriters doing what screenwriters do, and I find it hard to blast someone for doing their job, even if they didn't take their current project as seriously as I do.
Nevertheless I was a little frustrated with them – and more so with the director – for not executing what they were apparently trying to do as well as they could have done. All in all the filmmaking felt a bit rushed and half-considered. I had to keep reminding myself they were working in what was, at the time, a far smaller, poorer, and less sophisticated British film industry than we have today, and that the advances in cinematic storytelling that were made starting in the 60s, which I take for granted, still lay in their future. I could easily forgive the painted backdrops, somewhat less easily forgive the civilian costuming (the 1910s were only 30-odd years before this film was made, surely there were vintage clothes available somewhere), and with noble sufferance even forgive some of the stilted editing. It's much harder to forgive the lack of filmic poetry with which plot and characters are described and furthered, emotional beats played out, and atmosphere conveyed. Scott of the Antarctic, the classic blockbuster feature film, and Mark Gatiss' Worst Journey in the World, done on a shoestring for a TV backwater, seem to have similar constraints of resources – it feels cheap on the part of the feature because of what we expect from a feature, but the two productions are roughly parallel – yet the Gatiss drama's art transcends its faults to be something transporting, whereas the film feels merely workmanlike, from a modern perspective.
Scott of the Antarctic also made me think about acting, generally. John Mills was quite good as Scott, and the others had their moments, but for the most part, well ... they looked like they were acting. I have always been somewhat skeptical of "Method acting", but having seen this I can see how it would have burst like a bombshell on the film acting world, if this was the status quo. And, if this was the lull between the clear 'stagey' acting of the silent/post-silent years and the surge of fresh air brought by Method, I can see why the people who did display genuine presence onscreen would be made the sort of superstars one associates with the 40s and 50s. So thank you, Scott of the Antarctic, for that valuable perspective.
Probably my personal favourite thing about the film, though, is the fact that a fair few of the expedition members saw it – the BC Archives holds a letter from Griff to Silas concerning his thoughts on the film, which I eagerly plan to revisit as soon as I can find my transcription of the darn thing ... But to read their reactions to it, and be able to compare that to my memory of the same film, is ... kinda neat.
So there you go: TL;DR: Scott of the Antarctic – kinda neat.
1Sara Wheeler, Cherry, p. 288
The film was popular when it came out, and my impression is that it has been a staple of British television since the latter went mainstream, often getting shown around Christmas. I believe it's largely because of this film that the majority of people here will recognise the line "I am just going outside and may be some time," and all you need to do to set up a Scott-based comedy sketch is start out with the sound of howling wind and a flapping tent.
Nevertheless, despite all my obsession, I had never seen the film. It wasn't easy to find Stateside, and after I moved here there were so many other things clamoring for my attention. But, as always, the BBC loves me and wants me to be happy, so it aired the film a few days ago, and I finally got to see.
I'm afraid I have to side with Cherry on this one, but it was very interesting to see it at last, and it made me think ...
Having worked in Hollywood for a few years, and attending a few screenwriting seminars, for once made me more forgiving of a film than less. There were some liberties taken with the story, though surprisingly few; they mainly came down to a shift in focus and presentation rather than outright falsification. I could understand how some of the decisions might rankle, but I could also see, quite plainly, screenwriters doing what screenwriters do, and I find it hard to blast someone for doing their job, even if they didn't take their current project as seriously as I do.
Nevertheless I was a little frustrated with them – and more so with the director – for not executing what they were apparently trying to do as well as they could have done. All in all the filmmaking felt a bit rushed and half-considered. I had to keep reminding myself they were working in what was, at the time, a far smaller, poorer, and less sophisticated British film industry than we have today, and that the advances in cinematic storytelling that were made starting in the 60s, which I take for granted, still lay in their future. I could easily forgive the painted backdrops, somewhat less easily forgive the civilian costuming (the 1910s were only 30-odd years before this film was made, surely there were vintage clothes available somewhere), and with noble sufferance even forgive some of the stilted editing. It's much harder to forgive the lack of filmic poetry with which plot and characters are described and furthered, emotional beats played out, and atmosphere conveyed. Scott of the Antarctic, the classic blockbuster feature film, and Mark Gatiss' Worst Journey in the World, done on a shoestring for a TV backwater, seem to have similar constraints of resources – it feels cheap on the part of the feature because of what we expect from a feature, but the two productions are roughly parallel – yet the Gatiss drama's art transcends its faults to be something transporting, whereas the film feels merely workmanlike, from a modern perspective.
Scott of the Antarctic also made me think about acting, generally. John Mills was quite good as Scott, and the others had their moments, but for the most part, well ... they looked like they were acting. I have always been somewhat skeptical of "Method acting", but having seen this I can see how it would have burst like a bombshell on the film acting world, if this was the status quo. And, if this was the lull between the clear 'stagey' acting of the silent/post-silent years and the surge of fresh air brought by Method, I can see why the people who did display genuine presence onscreen would be made the sort of superstars one associates with the 40s and 50s. So thank you, Scott of the Antarctic, for that valuable perspective.
Probably my personal favourite thing about the film, though, is the fact that a fair few of the expedition members saw it – the BC Archives holds a letter from Griff to Silas concerning his thoughts on the film, which I eagerly plan to revisit as soon as I can find my transcription of the darn thing ... But to read their reactions to it, and be able to compare that to my memory of the same film, is ... kinda neat.
So there you go: TL;DR: Scott of the Antarctic – kinda neat.
1Sara Wheeler, Cherry, p. 288
