by Sam Juliano
John Boorman’s Hope and Glory stands apart from nearly-all other World War II-themed films in that it presents an idyllic view of terrible events, seen through the eyes of a ten-year old boy. By displaying the humor and the resilience of the boy’s family and the British people in general, the film at first broaches denial, and then segues into domestic life wrought under danger and hardship, where luck plays a large part in the survival game. Hope and Glory is for it’s writer-director a semi-autobiographical work centering around his own experiences of a child growing up during the war, and of the psychology of a nation not yet ready for such a calamity. When a school teacher quips “a few bombs may wake up this country” and the boy’s mother complains that they’re “starting a war on such a beautiful day”you know that many aren’t prepared for, nor aware of the deadly battle of wills that is to soon ensue.
Young Bill Rohan, played by a spunky young actor named Sebastian Rice Edwards, lives with his parents and two sisters in a London suburb. His father, who is too old to serve in combat, is assigned to a military desk job early in the film, so the young boy is surrounded by females and a close friend of his mother. His daily routine is in large measure to attend school, engage in mischief with friends, and scour through the wreckage caused by bombs that penetrate the blimp defense employed around the country. You don’t have to be British to be stirred by an emphatic school master’s patriotic speech invoking Churchill and and the brave young warriors enlisted to defend the country, with the strains of Elgar’s “Pomp and Circumstance” underscoring the noble defiance. When Billy holds up the cover of a war periodical at the end of the sermon, we’re reminded that the kids think it’s a big adventure, no different that when Billy plays with his collection of soldiers before going to bed. And few mothers won’t be able to relate to a wrenching scene when Bill’s mum breaks down a the train station, at the planned prospect of sending Billy and his youngest sister away to safer pastures until the end of the war, only to change her mind and be rejected by the officials.
From the opening scene in a movie theater, when grim newsreel footage displays a somber Neville Chamberlain, who asserts that war is imminent, to the deliciously ironic ending when a child celebrates the destruction of a school by an errant bomb by shouting “Thank you Adolf” Hope and Glory is infused with humor and the care-free nature of children, who can’t register the dread and horrors of war. After the latest bombings they run around the streets gathering up shrapnel and other collectible souvenirs. Billy even gets to rain on the parade of his older sister Sammi, who is making out with her boyfriend in the remains of a bombed out building, by having his friends heave stones at the young lovers. Boorman deliberately refuses to have Billy see even a wounded soldier, as it would compromise what he was trying to suggest in the film, and would invariably tread the same territory as films that focus only on death and destruction. Boorman seems to be saying that the war didn’t dehumanize people, rather in the face of extreme danger, it’s love and outlook that matters most. Granted, Hope and Glory often pushes the envelope on sentiment, but as the film was written as a recollection of past events by an adult reflecting on them, this kind of feeling is woven into the fabric of the story, which poses the question “So what did you do during the war years?” The air raids, the plane dogfights and the scorched landscapes (a particularly effective sequence shown in silhouette with golden light of soldiers gathering the dead, is complemented on the soundtrack by Chopin’s haunting “Prelude in E minor”) are daily routines and reminders in war there is little reason to be upbeat. Yet, ever the Englishman, Boorman provides levity in the eccentric nature of many of his compatriots in an outstanding sequence when a German soldier lands on British soil. The bobby who takes control of him leads him through a vegetable patch, explaining to him “Here are the brussel sprouts” an amusing moment dealing with the British predilection with order. And when the father returns to the family with a can of “German jam” the mother poses that it’s an axis plot to poison the entire population.
Of course Boorman plays for comedy up front in the film’s last section at the country home of the boy’s lovably cantankerous maternal grandfather, who plays cricket and tells the kids to “catch fish,” an order they comply with after a bomb explodes nearby causing all the fish to rise to the surface, subsequently enabling the kids to return with a few hundred. This ironic form of ‘salvation’ is another example of Boorman’s suggestion that good emanates from bad. The incredulous geezer announces “My, you’ve outdone yourselves this time!” The British actor Ian Bannen is excellent as the habitual complainer with a soft side.
The gifted cinematographer Philippe Rousselot gives the film a striking period feel in muted color that beautifully evokes Britain in the 30’s and 40’s. Peter Martin’s subtle score, especially the title theme-music perfectly evokes the film’s sentiments and mood, and his use of classical standards like the aforementioned Chopin, Porter’s “Begin the Beguine” and Wagner, are effectively employed, in establishing mood, period and national culture. Of the performers not yet mentioned, Sammi Davis as Billy’s love-starved older sister gives an affecting performance, but Sarah Miles as the mother overacts. David Hayman is fine as a loving father, even if the role is a stereotype.
Never before in Boorman’s career, which includes action-adventure films like Point Blank, The Emerald Forest and Deliverance, has he then or since exhibited the sensiblities prevalent in Hope and Glory. But only in this instance did he have a personal story to tell, and as such this material was dearest to his heart. Hope and Glory’s unassuming spontaneity is a breath of fresh air in a film genre rarely marked by levity. It’s a lovely work, my favorite film of 1987, and and one of the best film of its decade.
Note: In 1987 when ‘Hope and Glory’ was released I escorted 15 sixth-grade students to the Guttenberg Theatre to see the film. It was a most successful experience, and a few of the gifted kids wrote great reviews. The film was a linchpin in commencing with a World War II unit.
Well, compared to this absolute embarrassment, I’d take any of the Spielberg films in the countdown, which says it all.
hahahahahahaha!! Is that why it finished Number 11 in a polling of 38 voters for this countdown? Well the reviews across the board on both sides of the Atlantic speak for themselves of course, but here we go, a film that dares to show a little emotion, and to boot that I love it as much as I do. That spells doom. Your original rating for this film was a solid 3.5 (which is still way lower than most people) but now you declare it is an absolute embarrassment?! Why would such a film get a 3.5, if it is that awful? I don’t get it. Did John Boorman, a Brit, have nefarious commercial motives when he made this low budget autobiographical film in the U.K. with low expectations for any profit at all?
In any case I do appreciate the comment. 🙂
Low budget?
It was made for over 9 million 1987 dollars, which translates to about 23-25 now. Not a huge budget, but, for a film of this type, not minuscule at all. Then, it was distributed by Columbia Pictures, who at the time were part of Tri-Star, a huge conglomerate owned partly by Coca-Cola. By 1989 it was flipped to Sony in one of the largest media acquisitions of all time (3.4 billion in cash), marking the first such sale to a Japanese company.
This dove-tails the Spielberg conversation. These aren’t indies we’re talking about. The companies have told us they are, but we’re foolish to continue believing them.
Jamie, not sure where you are coming from here. Comparatively speaking and even in broad terms the budget for HOPE AND GLORY, considering its wartime subject matter was relatively minuscule. Boorman was always known to make the most out of his finances. Of nearly all the award worthy films that came out in 1987, only one – John Huston’s THE DEAD at 3.5 million had a lower budget than HOPE AND GLORY and that includes two popular Swedish films, a Danish film, a French film that is always mentioned as extremely low-budget (6 million Francs/10 M in US) and an Italian one. When a relatively minor Woody Allen film almost doubles your budget you know you are operating on a shoestring as Boorman was. To show you in specific terms:
Empire of the Sun 38 M
Ironweed 27 M
The Untouchables 25 M
The Last Emperor 23.8 M
Broadcast News 20 million
Dark Eyes 18 M
Pelle the Conqueror 17 M
Full Metal Jacket 17 M
Radio Days 16 M
Moonstruck 15 M
Wall Street 15 M
Babette’s Feast 12 M
Fatal Attraction 11 M
My Life as a Dog 11 M
Au Revoir Les Enfants 10 M
Hope and Glory 9 M
The Dead 3.5 M
So yes, “low budget” fits figuratively, comparatively and creatively. Of these 17 films, it it is Number 16 in cost.
The film was released by Goldcrest, and as you note by Columbia in the states, where it did rather mediocre business. All told it barely recouped its investment, though of course it was a huge critical hit. This film was an inde in concept, form and modest production, regardless of who Boorman knew from prior work to get it released.
I don’t think listing a bunch of major studio films and their higher budgets makes the argument you think it does…
Jamie, since when are AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS, MY LIFE AS A DOG, BRIGHT EYES, PELLE THE CONQUEROR, BABETTE’S FEAST and RADIO DAYS “a bunch of major studio films?” Where do you get that reasoning?
Besides, all I did here was to choose a mode of comparison, restricting the conversation to all the award contenders, as I didn’t have time to research 400 films released in 1987. But this smaller sample will be repeated over and over when expanded. HOPE AND GLORY was an exceedingly low-budget film by any barometer of measurement or comparison, and the war theme only strengthens that fact. Just comparing it head up with AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS speaks volumes.
No, my point was that it was an ‘average’ budgeted major studio film for it’s era and was distributed by a worldwide conglomerate. In short, about a 180 from the term ‘independent’.
That term, for 1987, would go to something like MATEWAN for drama, BLOOD DINER for horror (or worse…), etc.
I’m nit picking, but it’s a vital point that’s strange to me how small major studio films have supplanted our discourse for ‘independent’.
I understand what you are saying, and I don’t say you are at all out of the ballpark, but if the 180 degree turn from inde is a fair assertion I’d also say the end result of this frugal film is about the same distance from “major studio release.” As I said there are films out there like THE DEAD, and you did add MATEWAN as well. But really, Boorman had no business coming in with that kind of figure for a film about the London blitz. But the way he cut corners is a story in itself.
I don’t always think that because it’s about the blitz it needs to cost a lot. I understand the assumption is there, but a film could be made like a chamber piece and be set entirely in a shelter for 90% of the film and evoke the blitz really well.
Meaning I don’t see it as a feat that it cost as much as it did. Nor would I think it outlandish either if it cost more.
Only point was that this wasn’t an indy. An important thing to agree on around here recently…
I will agree that the term “independent” for this film is indeed a stretch. And true about this film -or any film- about the blitz not necessarily running up tabs, but I do credit Boorman for his manner of finding creative ways to avert going over budget. I am not positively sure, but this could be his cheapest film to make.
The embarrassment is its placing above so many great films. It’s like a list of the greatest cities of the world – the expected likes of Paris, Rome and London are there but floating below Hull or Pittsburgh.
Mr. Fish it looks like Pauline Kael isn’t with you. She also in this excerpt deals with the issue of the director looking to play down sentiment:
“It’s hard to believe that a great comedy could be made of the Blitz but John Boorman has done it. In his new, autobiographical film, he has had the inspiration to desentimentalize wartime England and show us the Second World War the way he saw it as an eight-year-old. The war frees the Rowans from the dismal monotony of their pinched white-collar lives. He doesn’t deny the war its terrors. Yet he gives everything a comic fillip. That’s the joy of the film: the war has its horrors, but it also destroys much of what the genteel poor like Grace Rowan (Sarah Miles), have barely been able to acknowledge they wanted destroyed. It’s like a plainspoken, English variant of the Taviani brothers’ The Night of the Shooting Stars.”
Peter, thanks very much for bringing Kael’s capsule here, especially since she rivals Allan in her repudiation of films that are overly sentimental. But to be honest the reviews for the film across-the-board were superlative, as well they should have been.
Allan, that is a nice city metaphor, but it does little to mitigate taste. Obviously the 38 voters in this countdown thought it one of the best childhood films, and I do fully concur. 🙂
Sam, this is a delightful appraisal of a film I remember vividly. The final scene of the the boy saying “Thank you Adolf!” sums up the spirit of the film, which as you state is bittersweet. One scene of the boy walking down the street picking up pieces of shrapnel seems to imply that there is always another day. The scene in the school with the animated headmaster was great too. I did love the score too!
Frank you do indeed have vivid memories of the film, and I know you have strong feelings for films set during wartime. Great to hear you are a fan of the score too. Thank you my friend!
I agree with almost all you said here Schmulee, in your very fine essay. I Boorman, I feel, intentionally had the adult actors go slightly over-the-top to differentiate the over-important feelings they had about the situation, whereas the children just see it as another day in their lives, albeit some strange happenings. This is a lovely film that stays with the viewer for a long time after the credit scroll. Phillip Rousellot’s cinematography is perfect in realizing beauty in a landscape scorched by haze and smoke. He would later use those same talents to capture the almost magic quality of the Montana Mountains and fly-fishing with his Oscar-winning work on Redford’s beautiful A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT. Nice little essay Schmulee.
As I recall, this film was released the same year as Spielberg’s EMPIRE OF THE SUN. Both films were praised. I know HOPE AND GLORY nominated for the BEST PICTURE Oscar, but both were being considered for the nomination. I find it interesting that both films are about a child’s perspective of World War II, yet both are completely different in tone. This, of course, doesn’t mean one is right or wrong. Rather, they are different because the experience are different. In both cases though, Spielberg and Boorman focus on the boys fascination on the “coolness” of war and the innocence upon which they look at it. Where they differ is Boorman looks at it in a more loving way and Spielberg slowly travels the route of turning it into a condemnation of war. I prefer the Spielberg film, ultimately, but HOPE AND GLORY was hot on its heels.
Fantastic comment Dennis! I am of course with you too on EMPIRE OF THE SUN. Boorman’s film is wholly exhilarating!!
“wondersinthedark” calls this film an “embarrassment?” What he must mean is that it embarrasses most of the other films out there on the subject.
Beautifully written review, Sam. The director nails the aspect of a terrible war that usually isn’t even covered; that there is so much fun when you are young, and that a positive attitude conquers all. Even a normally lame skit like a man getting his coat caught in a car works. The old geizer of a grandfather has some of the funniest scenes. Anarchy is alive and well on both sides of the battle lines.
Er, no, that’s as close to what I meant as Tiera del Fuego is to Lapland.
Celeste, thanks so much for the thoughtful comment! I am definitely thinking in your terms!
The film is a homage to the brave people of Britain who endured night after night of bombing and alarms during the blitz. The Rohan family could be just about any other in the country. I share your deep feelings for this Sam, and salute you for pushing it on those sixth-graders. Your lovely piece captures the disarming temper of the film, and the idea that the worst time in someone’s life can produce the most unforgettable moments. I completely understand why everyone loved the film upon release and it holds up quite well.
Lovely response here Peter! Many thanks. Yes the film had an impassioned fan club back in the day, and is arguably Boorman’s most beloved film.
Sam,
I certainly understand your fondness for the film. I find it to be less memorable for me, so I excluded from my list. I think with the fact that there are several other films about boys during wartime that it didn’t strike me as being something I’d include on my list. I prefer The Tin Drum, Ivan’s Childhood, Germany Year Zero, Come and See, and there’s also a solid film called The Song of the Grey Pigeon. For me, the competition in this particular area of focus is very tough. Sadly, there aren’t any films regarding the experiences of girls during the war…..I’m not sure why I’m not thinking of any right now.
Well Jon, as always I do respect your position and greatly appreciate the comment, but we are obviously far apart with this one. For me it is one of the very best films about children during a war largely because it dares to imply that kids will find a way to have fun. The fact that it is autobiographical adds a measure of authenticity to the proceedings. I can never get enough of the film. 🙂
Sam, not much to add (don’t I always start my comments with these words), fantastic review and you hit all the right moments in the film.
At any rate…this is one of my all time favorite films from my childhood. I guess I was about eight when I saw it upon its initial release (on VHS, or wait, probably Betamax back then) and it has stuck with me ever since. This is one of those films I love to return to again and again…and I never tire of it.
I always had a thing for Sammi Davis, too — she was equally hot to trot in period garb in the excellent TV nighttime soap, “Homefront”. I wonder what ever became of her? Aside from Ken Russell’s uproarious “Lair of the White Worm” (hands down my favorite Hugh Grant film ever) — I don’t recall ever seeing her in anything else.
David, thanks very much. I haven’t forgotten how much you love this film, and your comments here are extremely important to me. Ms. Davis was indeed ‘hot to trot’ but I haven’t seen her since. I’ll have to ask Allan if she’s appeared in anything else other than “Lair.”
Of course, HOPE AND GLORY was a very popular film in 1987, made dozens of ten-best lists, and received those Oscar nomination for Best Picture, Best Director and Screenplay. It was a better film than the one that won, Bertolucci’s THE LAST EMPEROR. I can relate to why you keep going back to it, as I seem to similar taste with you. I watched again yesterday for the umteenth time before I wrote the review, and I was caught up again in the humor and emotion. What a beautiful film.
Oh and I also might add it was my NUMBER ONE! As I explained here….
Utterly amazing David! This is quite a list, and to have HOPE AND GLORY at poll position says it all! I’ll certainly be adding my two cents! Thank you!
I do think the film well deserves this kind of lofty regard. As expected your review is astounding Sam.
*mad on jam*
Ha David, nice to see you remembered that scene in the family kitchen. Many thanks my friend!
Excellent piece, Sam. Must admit I find the whole final section with Ian Bannen as the grandfather over the top… but I did like all the earlier section about the Blitz and the boy’s excitement when his school is bombed is a classic scene. I recently enjoyed the belated follow-up, ‘Queen and Country’ .
Thanks so much Judy!! Yes, I know the section with Ian Bannen has rubbed some people wrong, and that’s fair enough. But you did like those earlier scenes, which I thought were great. And I too much enjoyed QUEEN AND COUNTRY, during its run at the Film Forum. Boorman spoke at length before the film began.