User Reviews

History of the finest kind, the social and the cinematic -- and a convergence of both.

By contemporary standards it's over-long and over-wrought, yet its power to enthral rarely slips. And, damn it, it's cute: never mind the fallen woman's (Estelle Brody, magnificent) forlorn father, there's much more fun to be had watching the accurately rendered transition of the outraged mother into venal hag, desperate for the money and status her daughter's wedding now seems guaranteed to bring (and so compensate for the yesteryear failings of her husband -- yeah, back-story, and in 1927 too).

Above all though, it's subversive, a Brit film so upbeat it makes you wonder why Kazan ever bothered with 'Splendour In The Grass'.

Because the message of this movie is unencumbered by hysteria: sex is no big deal. Sex is good. Sex is normal. A girl takes a fancy to a fella, a fella takes a fancy to a girl. Falling in love: that's different. And getting wed. . . why, that's different again.

Signal end of empires, crash of cathedral roofs, collapse of an entire social order -- all of which undoubtedly happened, and in all of which works like 'Hindle Wakes' played a crucial role (and for which purpose they were expressly written in the first place).

So. . . watch Fanny having illicit fun in Llandudno (must be the first time anyone ever has, but that's by the way). And in amongst the dissolves and fades and SFX of eight decades past, consider too the brilliance of the inter-titles, the dialogue that's here presented with such phonetic accuracy that it's arguably the first, and last time, industrial Lancashire has been voiced so well on the silver screen.

Do not, however, actually listen to the movie: the 'modern' score created for it lacks resonance in every respect, a repetitive, aimless farrago that endlessly reprises a distinctly unappealing motif as if in hope that at some stage during the proceedings, what's happening on screen will actually chime with what's happening on the soundtrack.

That it never does would no doubt bring another smile to the face of the fabulous Fanny. . .

Perhaps you've been under the impression that premarital sex wasn't invented until the 1960s. But, after seeing this film you'll find out this is not so--and apparently our grandparents and great-grandparents were quite a randy bunch.

This film begins in the town of Hindle in Lancashire, where once a year the factory shuts down for a week and everyone goes on vacation. The film also takes place in towns like Llandudno as well as Blackpool--resorts on the west coast. I've actually been to these places--something you'd never expect of the average person from the States...or even England or Scotland, actually--at least when it comes to Llandudno. When I recently passed through, I never saw this particular Welsh town as a place of sin--perhaps I need to go back and visit it again, as I just passed through on the way to visit some castles!

The first 30 minutes or so does not appear to be a narrative in a traditional sense--it really looks more like a documentary of this time and place and nothing more. However, at about the 30 minute mark, the story begins to slowly unfold. Two couples are involved in this reverie and both men try their hardest (perhaps a bad choice of words) to get inside the ladies' skirts. One dutifully fights off these advances--the other (the aptly named 'Fanny'--ask a Welsh person about this slang term) seems a lot more willing--though they are pretty vague as to how far this went--at least in this point in the film. When she returns home--days later--her parents are angry and they suspect she's been of easy virtue.

What makes this premarital tryst interesting, however, is that the man is quite rich--the son of the mill owner and the lady is poor. Her father and the mill owner grew up together and the rich man insists that his son MUST marry the poor girl as he has 'dishonored her'. So, instead of marrying the rich daughter of another mill owner, he now faces the prospect of marrying someone far beneath him socially. Plus, his fiancée (the rich one) doesn't want him now that she's learned the truth. So, without much choice, he consents to marry the poor girl.

When the families of both the prospective bride and groom meet to discuss the coming nuptials, it's an interesting study in contrasts. They obviously are so unlike each other and it's a rather uncomfortable scene--especially when the two mothers begin arguing. Then, the film takes a funny twist. She then refuses to marry the guy! I think this was because no one asked her and everyone just assumed she was the victim. Instead, she's rather liberated and is one of these 'modern girls' who enjoys sex! Shocking for 1927 and a bit today as well since too many delude themselves into thinking premarital sex is just a recent phenomenon.

By the way, if you are a non-Brit who is curious about Lancashire (the region in which this town is set), it's in the western portion of England--north of Wales and south of the Lake District.

Presented by A.C. and Reginald C. Bromhead for the Gaumont Company. Not copyright in the USA. New York opening at the 55th Street Playhouse: 9 November 1929. U.S. release: 17 November 1929 (sic). U.K. release: February 1927. 98 minutes. U.K. release title: Hindle Wakes.

SYNOPSIS: For one short week in each long year, the mills of Lancashire are silent and the bond slaves of Cotton know the ecstasy of freedom. This is "Wakes" week.

NOTES: Re-made in 1932 by producer Victor Saville, this time as adapter and director rather than producer. Both Norman McKinnell and John Stuart repeat their roles, but Fanny is now played by Belle Chrystall, with Sybil Thorndike as her mother and Edmund Gwenn as her dad.

COMMENT: The first of the two versions that Victor Saville made of the Houghton play is actually not only a more faithful adaptation but a whole lot more interesting. It runs 20 minutes longer, partly due to the captions but also because it contains more background information to build up the characters and their setting.

Even more important is the far greater skill of Elvey's direction. He has not only evoked the town and its "wakes" more powerfully, but drawn wonderful performances from all his players, particularly from Estelly Brody who creams the far less subtle interpretation offered by Belle Chrystall.

As critic John Gillett aptly commented, "Brody has a homely sturdiness and looks more in period, whereas Miss Chrystall, though spirited enough, has a somewhat 'West End' approach and her accent is far from convincing." (By "West End", Gillett means more theatrical. The West End is London's equivalent of Broadway).

The brief outline is

A poor factory worker, with a dominating and ambitious frustrated mother and dominated father goes on a week vacation, with a neighbor friend (girl). On the other side of track is the factory owner's son. The factory owner incidentally is an old friend of girl's father, who had risked and hence gained, the girl's father didn't want to, and remained in the rot. But still there is vibe between the friends and also the owner values the 'Supervisor's dedication and knowledge. The boy is engaged to a girl of his own class (rich mayor's daughter). The fiancee off to London with her father, the boy too heads for the resort where the other of the factory have gone. There the boy and girl meet, and then had an affair. The girl along tries to stop it, but not only couldn't but was convinced to be an accessory (posting later with the postmark of the place, while the two went off to a costly resort). Unfortunately the friend is drowned, and when the protagonists is back, her lie is caught. And the available evidences point to the boy, without her assistance. The greedy mother, hen-pecked father accost the boy's parents, and the friendship and also honor dictate that the two should marry., and the mayor's daughter too, aware of the incidence breaks the engagement. But then the girl makes volte-face against the wish and the imagination of all, not only screen, but also off screen (audience) - telling it was an casual affair, which isn't for marriage but fun. If you as a man can have it, I too, as a woman is equally entitled to that.

This has been equated to the equality of sexes - the single standard way in some movies - especially due to the above dialogue (non-verbatim). But it really doesn't go that way, it is much more serious and practical than that. It does amount to gender-equality, but not fully so, or may be even more than so.

While watching it, I recalled a later movie, a french masterpiece La Fille du Puisatier (1940) - the well digger's daughter - that too goes in the same way - the rich playboy seduces the poor girl, and in this, in addition, the girl is burdened with a baby of the seduction, while the boy goes off to war.

Here too, in the end boy, with his parents come to the girl, to ask for her hand in marriage. Only the end is different, there the girl accepts. But before the final yes, it goes exact parallel.

The question asked by the girl there, Fanny didn't ask, but probably it wasn't necessary here "Do you want to marry me because of love, or compulsion? If you want the baby, we can go and you will get it, for that you don't have to marry me"

If one closely observed those few seconds especially after she has refused telling "It was mutual fun" or a few moments before, she had practically asked the same question, or rather without asking she got the answer.

In both the cases, one can't claim that she followed the "Single Standard" - both the girls were in love, and allowed the so called indiscretion along with it, they were not the so called promiscuous/ play-girl as both cases the boys were. They went along, since it was with the object of their affection. The marriage was to be considered only if the affection was returned, not due to some duress put on the boy. In Puisatier it was, and once convinced, she agreed to marry. In HW, she knew it wasn't and she refused, even though she was still in love, but she didn't let that override the practicality of an unhappy shot-gun marriage.

Of course throwing the daughter, that too only child, off on roads, was a bit unthinkable, but may be at that time the social conditions were like that.

This movie in fact goes to show almost today's condition - at least from the girl's view point (The boy of course was a Worm). Living together, and then if one finds that the relationship isn't going to endure, break-off.