Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
Search Index Here

Monday, September 07, 2015

Brits Put Cheek In Costumes

Tom Jones Gets the British Invasion Off To a 1963 Start

The saucy one that won Best Picture for 1963, then curdled somewhat in critical estimation (it dates, some say, or wasn't that funny to begin with). Also there's UA's negative gone pink plus loss of contrast in dark scenes; either way, Tom's no longer robust, even in HD. Could enough money salvage a once lush landscape, or more to point, would present owner MGM be willing to spend? Tom Jones is fun in a right spirit ... do revival houses ever use it? I'm curious as to how Tom would play to a modern audience. 1963 folk thought him the bawdiest delight of so-far cinema, a single-hand rout (by director Tony Richardson and writers) of long in-force censorship. I recall hot reputation the thing had, right unto NBC premiere play in later 60's, one of those for which you'd lower volume lest parents note what's on. Anyway, Tom seems to be among least-lauded "Best Pictures" of its era. 

Nicely Subtle and Suggestive 1963 One-Sheet
US release was brilliantly handled by United Artists, result an all-time blockbuster among Brit imports. Tom Jones was celebration of lechery and rough manners, a '63 public ready for just that. Who knows what something like this might have done a mere season earlier, or after. Certainly imitators went down trying: Paramount's The Amorous Adventures Of Moll Flanders only managed $1.6 million in domestic rentals, which surely got them out of puffed sleeves and wigs for a while. Perceived "dirty" movies were hits in seemingly  unleashed 1963: Irma La Douce, also from UA, did terrific biz, but like Tom Jones, isn't talked about so much now. UK observers might have called Tom an 18th century kitchen sink movie with laughs; people talk continually with mouths full, and in fact, eating stands in for sex from which the pic discreetly cuts away, a droll narrator mocking that screen convention.

Albert Finney looks at the camera like Oliver Hardy used to, a surprise conceit that delighted 60's audiences who'd not witnessed such cheek for years. Ugliness and cruelty of ye olden days aren't side-stepped: a hunt scene shows spurs dug into horseflesh close-up, and yes, it's sobering. Dogs and pigs are everywhere; we're made to know what a grubby era this was. Tom Jones stayed in profitable circulation for a long while ... I recall it coming back to our Starlight Drive-In on a double with Irma La Douce, the notion of paired libertines thought irresistible to parked viewership, in-car privacy lending opportunity to emulate salacious acts implied onscreen.


Blogger Reg Hartt said...

Whether it stands up or not any film with Hugh Griffith gets my attention.Shame about negative going pink. Those pennies saved cost big in the long run. Learned that long ago.I do remember that this movie was FUN in capitals. Also a huge breath of fresh air.

7:39 AM  
Blogger Mike Cline said...

Saw it theatrically. Looking back, I probably would have preferred to be at home "hunting and pecking" an English term paper.

Maybe I should give TOM another chance. No more term papers to write.

9:48 AM  
Blogger Dave K said...

Saw a 35mm print in 1970, thought it terrific. Crude, rude, great music score, a lot of fourth wall breaking and silent comedy techniques. Fancy period costumes with a faint barnyard stench. Haven't seen the whole thing since. Maybe it has dated, but I can think a lot of other Best Picture winners I'd be less likely to revisit.

11:50 AM  
Blogger Dave K said...

Was thinking some more about this. You mention Finney doing an Oliver Hardy, but it was Joyce Redman's turn to the audience (upon learning Tom's identity) followed by a little shrug that was promoted as the biggest single laugh in the movies since Joe E. Brown's punchline in SOME LIKE HOT. Well, that's what they were saying in the sixties. Still got a huge roar when I saw it in the early seventies. Wonder how a full audience would react today.

8:33 PM  
Blogger Dr. OTR said...

I saw this in a theater in my freshman year (so would have been Fall 1989 or spring 1990). It was tremendous fun, and I even briefly tried growing out my hair into a ponytail, inspired by the film (a look that simply didn't work for, and I soon gave up). Anyway, the film was a huge hit with the college audience. I seem to remember this being an anniversary edition -- perhaps it was circulated again in 1988 for its 25th?
I saw it again on TCM a couple of years back. It does drag in a few spots, but overall is still great fun. And Susannah York looks radiant.

10:36 PM  
Blogger Tim Bell said...

I saw the re-release in 1989 and it looked OK. Richardson trimmed a few minutes, but I can't recall any specific scenes cut. I expect it was just an attempt to goose the tempo for a contemporary audience. It seemed quite fresh when I saw it on TV in the late 60's/early 70's but alas, like many comedies, it was of its time.

2:30 AM  
Blogger Randy Jepsen said...

I saw this as a teen on the network showings back in the 60s. Thought it was great. Saw it at a retro theater in the 70s. Still thought it was great. Saw some of it on a recent airing & it didn`t hold up, alas.

8:20 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Craig Reardon offers some thoughts and memories re "Tom Jones" (Part One):

But I just wanted to say, John, that I enjoyed your nice acknowledgement of the anniversary (or, whatever was the occasion!) of "Tom Jones". I DO, but vaguely, remember some of the hubbub about the movie when it was new, but I think it was viewed to be more 'ribald' (great word, that) than 'obscene'. This, you realize, NOT a comment on any impression your remarks gave. I think only the really dug-in Puritans (and there are still plenty in this country) objected to this picture, but as answer to this I have the reply of your obviously real reproduction of the original (domestic US?) poster with its big, "tells the story" X on it! So, I could be very wrong!

I love this movie. I think it has it all. It's very sexy, very libertine, very "so sue me!" in its other-century, and/or "continental" attitude toward sex. Listen, I think it'd be great if it were ONLY possible to liberate sex from responsibility, but as a reliable (sometimes!) means of producing offspring, it gets a little complicated, that. Even birth control in all its intriguing forms has never completely eliminated the chance that your fun may come with a price tag that you'll have to put through college one day, etc, etc. But, that's what pictures and stories like "Tom Jones" are for, in a way---to make us willfully forget all that depressing stuff! And sure, my tongue is where it belongs: in cheek. But, is a wrecker of men, sometimes; there is no question of it. Again, however, as in a dance, I rebound to my appreciation of "Tom Jones" for deliberately celebrating the exhilarating aspects and letting the others go by the wayside. Hey, it's only one, little movie! Give us a break, bluenoses!

5:50 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Part Two from Craig Reardon:

Also think the score by John Addison is ravishing and also light and witty. Certainly his Oscar win set him up for quite a number of plum assignments subsequently, including replacing the great Bernard Herrmann (after he'd written a score!) on "Torn Curtain". And, that's a classic case of comparing apples and oranges, when you listen to Herrmann's since-re-recorded score and compare it to Addison's approach. I, a lifetime Herrmann fan, will speak heresy and say I think they're both good, both valid. I remember seeing Mr. Addison, Himself pull in at the main gate at Universal on some occasion when I was near enough to observe, around Christmas time, and he pulled out a nice, shiny package and handed it to the famous 'Scotty', the keeper of the main gate at Universal for many years. (And yes, 'Scottie' was Scottish and had the accent to prove it. I guess he was Ken Hollywood's rival for most famous studio gatekeeper; Hollywood, of course, so felicitously-named, was at MGM, and by gum he was STILL at MGM when I worked there on "Poltergeist" in 1981!)

I had the pleasure of seeing David Warner perform the role of The Devil in a live radio broadcast of Norman Corwin's wonderful verse play, "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas", which originated from the assembly room in the Thousand Oaks Library (yes, in Thousand Oaks!---CA) in 1992, I believe it was, around the holidays. And, what a cast Peggy Webber had assembled! It included Norman Lloyd (still with us at 100!), Richard Crenna, Roddy MacDowell, Sean McClory (Webber's husband, BTW), Parley Baer, Kathleen Freeman, Stan Freberg, Samantha Eggar, William Windom, and Marvin Kaplan! And---not to forget the great Norman, himself...Corwin, I mean!...who directed it as he had first directed it live on the air from CBS in NYC in 1938. Ray Bradbury attended, just to enjoy it, like the rest of us. "We're all here because we love Norman Corwin! ", said Ms. Webber. That's for sure. It was my great honor to be a personal friend of Norman from 1976 to the end of his long (101!) life, in 2011. One of the most intelligent, witty and honorable men I've ever known.

With apologies for the digressions, I also love Greenbriar Picture Shows!

5:51 AM  
Blogger Tbone Mankini said...

Yes I recall the TV prem well....does any know how much,if any,was trimmed from that broadcast,for S&P or time slot consideration ie commercials?...

12:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023