I rented the BFI DVD of this film.Looking at the extras first of all I wondered what a Crown information film about VD and the CND protests had in common.Well I soon found out.The young Austrian Au pair unfortunately puts herself about a bit and she and everyone else seems to end up with an infection.However with a little understanding and some sang froid everyone seems to cope.It really seems to be an odd combination.There is the doctor moralising about sex before marriage and there are scenes from a striptease club.Producers used to do two versions one,where nothing was shown,would be for the UK market and a continental version for the rest of Europe where everything was on view.So as soon as the stripper starts to turn around the film cuts back to customers in the club.Given that the film has no stars,and the distributors were a small outfit,i reckon that it is unlikely that it was shown in many cinemas outside Soho.
6 Reviews
Wink Wink Nudge Nudge Gone Wrong
boblipton11 September 2020
It's London in the swinging Sixties, so it's fun fun fun all the way... except for the syphilis. And the children born out of wedlock. And....
This movie tries to tackle some real issues, but winds up taking more of an exploitation movie attitude towards matters, with Margaret Rose Keil having a great time as an Austrian (everyone asks "what do Austrians think of Hitler?") au pair who likes to party hearty until VD raises its ugly head; also Linda Marlowe, who,enjoys a good time too, until the rabbit dies.
Blame director Gerry O'Hara. He started as an uncredited Old Mother Riley assistant director, and wound up credited on some big films through the 1960s. Along the way, he started directing, but they were competent trash like this one.
This movie tries to tackle some real issues, but winds up taking more of an exploitation movie attitude towards matters, with Margaret Rose Keil having a great time as an Austrian (everyone asks "what do Austrians think of Hitler?") au pair who likes to party hearty until VD raises its ugly head; also Linda Marlowe, who,enjoys a good time too, until the rabbit dies.
Blame director Gerry O'Hara. He started as an uncredited Old Mother Riley assistant director, and wound up credited on some big films through the 1960s. Along the way, he started directing, but they were competent trash like this one.
That kind of film
Chrid-9096 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It was easy to read through the other reviews of this film, as there are only five! One of them seemed to have some kind of handle on the plot, although I still feel confused - where, from whom, did perky Eva the au-pair pick up her STD?
Can anyone help? Was it from old-enough-to-be-her-father Elliot?
There is, quite late in the film, a scene where he forces his attentions upon her in the street but it is brief and interrupted by a passing bobby who fails to catch the fugitive Elliot. He takes her to the station where she is interviewed and subsequently tested by medical staff and found to have syphilis. Does this mean that the scuffle in the street was actually a full-on rape? She is then given a note to give to the other boys she has had relations with. Both these boys, when they go for check-ups, are found to have contracted syphilis.
So... if she contracted the disease from Elliot, how could she have already given it to the other guys?
Oh well, maybe I missed something.
As for the film itself, it's not a bad snapshot of its time, although at this point I feel the need to point out that several of the other reviewers seem to harbour some misconceptions when they say that this film takes place at the height of the 'swinging sixties'. First of all, this film is from 1963. The swinging sixties did not really get going until at least 1964, started to swing in 1965 and was really swinging (in London that is) by 1966.
Before this, Britain was still locked in a sort of post-war drabness where young people wore pretty much the same clothes as their parents and had basically similar values.
The few who did not conform gravitated, according to this film, to idealistic 'ban the bomb' marches, or hung out at 'groovy' coffee bars or 'beat clubs'. But films about young people were not made by young people in 1963. They were made by an older generation, whose 'rebellion' had been, and still often was, listening to jazz.
This is borne out by the fact that, although the kids in this film are continually shown dancing the twist, they're not dancing to pop or rock 'n roll, but to jazzy music. Even when Janice tells her visiting boyfriend Keith that she has some "new records", a bunch of 45's (in other words pop singles) and she puts one on the record player, the music that we hear is not the Beatles, who were just emerging that year; not the Dave Clarke Five or the Searchers, nor even Cliff and the Shadows; no, the music is the same blaring orchestrated jazz that they play at the beat club.
The CND demonstrators are portrayed in this film as either childishly naive or pretentiously intellectual. Note the happy-sappy soundtrack music which accompanies the marchers as they are shown wending their way through a village.
Who is actually the "that kind of girl" in this film? Is it blond and leggy but initially virginal au-pair Eva (is she naughty or naive?) or is it prim and proper girl-next-door Janice, who consistently asks Keith to wait but finally 'gives herself' to him in an excruciating angst-ridden scene which is rather martyrdom than pleasurable discovery.
Yes, this film is a strange concoction of semi-permisiveness, chauvinism, conventional values, anti-casual sex invective with an old-fashioned romantic ending.
It's worth one viewing. However, if you want to see a REALLY GREAT British film that deals with somewhat similar issues then check out "Billy Liar" that came out that very same year.
Can anyone help? Was it from old-enough-to-be-her-father Elliot?
There is, quite late in the film, a scene where he forces his attentions upon her in the street but it is brief and interrupted by a passing bobby who fails to catch the fugitive Elliot. He takes her to the station where she is interviewed and subsequently tested by medical staff and found to have syphilis. Does this mean that the scuffle in the street was actually a full-on rape? She is then given a note to give to the other boys she has had relations with. Both these boys, when they go for check-ups, are found to have contracted syphilis.
So... if she contracted the disease from Elliot, how could she have already given it to the other guys?
Oh well, maybe I missed something.
As for the film itself, it's not a bad snapshot of its time, although at this point I feel the need to point out that several of the other reviewers seem to harbour some misconceptions when they say that this film takes place at the height of the 'swinging sixties'. First of all, this film is from 1963. The swinging sixties did not really get going until at least 1964, started to swing in 1965 and was really swinging (in London that is) by 1966.
Before this, Britain was still locked in a sort of post-war drabness where young people wore pretty much the same clothes as their parents and had basically similar values.
The few who did not conform gravitated, according to this film, to idealistic 'ban the bomb' marches, or hung out at 'groovy' coffee bars or 'beat clubs'. But films about young people were not made by young people in 1963. They were made by an older generation, whose 'rebellion' had been, and still often was, listening to jazz.
This is borne out by the fact that, although the kids in this film are continually shown dancing the twist, they're not dancing to pop or rock 'n roll, but to jazzy music. Even when Janice tells her visiting boyfriend Keith that she has some "new records", a bunch of 45's (in other words pop singles) and she puts one on the record player, the music that we hear is not the Beatles, who were just emerging that year; not the Dave Clarke Five or the Searchers, nor even Cliff and the Shadows; no, the music is the same blaring orchestrated jazz that they play at the beat club.
The CND demonstrators are portrayed in this film as either childishly naive or pretentiously intellectual. Note the happy-sappy soundtrack music which accompanies the marchers as they are shown wending their way through a village.
Who is actually the "that kind of girl" in this film? Is it blond and leggy but initially virginal au-pair Eva (is she naughty or naive?) or is it prim and proper girl-next-door Janice, who consistently asks Keith to wait but finally 'gives herself' to him in an excruciating angst-ridden scene which is rather martyrdom than pleasurable discovery.
Yes, this film is a strange concoction of semi-permisiveness, chauvinism, conventional values, anti-casual sex invective with an old-fashioned romantic ending.
It's worth one viewing. However, if you want to see a REALLY GREAT British film that deals with somewhat similar issues then check out "Billy Liar" that came out that very same year.
entertaining B-material on the horrors of British VD
Matt Moses9 July 2001
It amazes me how the British manage to take a small budget to far greater lengths than Americans. Perhaps some research into the workings of the British film industry would shed some light onto this situation, but for now I'll just watch any British B-movie product in awe. This one's kind of a stinker, story-wise, but as per usual the acting holds its own and the cinematography is excellent. Set within the climate of protest and political change that ran throughout the West in the early 60's, we find peace protestor and part-time librarian Frank Jarvis making eyes at continental cutie Rose Margaret Keil, in town as a live-in babysitter, at a swinging coffeehouse. Much to his dismay, she lets suave ad executive Peter Burton have a few dances. Despite protests from her host family, she goes on a peace march with Jarvis but really hates it. Meanwhile, aspiring student David Weston, who looks a bit like Peter Noone, can't wait to marry Linda Marlowe but her uptight dad objects. Naturally, he walks out on her and immediately picks up Keil. They spend their first date skinny-dipping in the Thames and exchanging the dose of the clap she caught when earlier violated by Burton. Before they figure this out, however, the lovely couple get back together and poor innocent Marlowe gets VD as well - funny how the stuff spreads like wildfire in such a purportedly sexually repressed country. The film end with a whirlwind of coming clean, both symbolically and physically. Britain was way ahead of America in shedding the layers of censorship solidified in the previous two decades. Girl contains a number of risqué moments that the MPAA wouldn't dare approve. Indeed, I'm guessing that the print I saw, which contains an interestingly curt strip show, was somewhat censored, especially as it had the American title in the credits. Leave it to the Brits to weave double entendres into just about any spoken or written media; Keil gets an especially good one when she says "When I'm married I'm going to have six," referring to the number of children she hopes to communicate with a twist of the tongue from her accent. Girl also has its fair share of moralistic mumbo-jumbo; doctor John Wood spends all his screen time in the office, lecturing away about the dangers of promiscuous sex. Unlike many cheapo films, this fun flick maintains a breakneck pace throughout, tearing through Keil's woos and woes at a rate best befitting screwball comedy (although the moralistic sermons tend to drag). That said, the story is a total mess and never seems to know which character will be the focus of the next scene until it gets there. My ultimate analysis: a short, preachy but ultimately harmless movie.
Teenage Tramp?
Bribaba19 August 2012
This unheralded film from Gerry O' Hara is a strange and sometimes preachy mix of the perils of sex outside marriage. English morals and sense of duty are put to the test when a free-spirited Austrian au pair arrives in a London on the verge of change. On the face it she's a blonde bombshell so beloved of the era. In truth she's sensitive and intelligent, just a little ahead of her time.
Made in 1963 when moral rearmament co-existed with CND rallies (replete with marchers in big woolly jumpers), it's hard to tell if the title is meant ironically. The US release is less equivocal in this regard - the distributors renamed it Teenage Tramp. Either way, it's an excellent snapshot of the period
Made in 1963 when moral rearmament co-existed with CND rallies (replete with marchers in big woolly jumpers), it's hard to tell if the title is meant ironically. The US release is less equivocal in this regard - the distributors renamed it Teenage Tramp. Either way, it's an excellent snapshot of the period
A real gem of a movie
jerbar20046 April 2010
This is a good film It shows the swinging sixties, and to be honest they were not really that swinging. The very petty au-pair goes round London given almost everyone she meets the Clap. But what I liked about the film was outdoor shots of London, BMA House, was interesting because I used to work there, and the back ground demo of the the ban the bomb marches. The opening title shots, around the City, and the Barbican have nothing to do with the story, but still this is British movie making at its cheapest. All the women seem to be good looking, while all the men seem B or maybe C rate actors. Still this film is a gem and should have a wider public. See it and enjoy it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
