But as the CFF’s modest programme of low cost,
independently produced, quality adventure yarns began to hit its stride over the
course of the 1950s and ‘60s (providing a popular platform for the talents of a
healthy roster of both previously established and the up-and-coming writers, directors, film
technicians and actors then making their way in the British Film Industry),
just what it was that society truly deemed suitable, or morally instructive, material for children inevitably began to change with the times -- ever more so
as the decades passed, and just as assuredly as did the conventions in acting
styles, along with films' approach to realism in general. The CFF always
maintained its commitment to supplying clear-cut family drama that, above all
else, put comedy and adventure and a morally
centred (though non-preachy) approach to its young protagonists’ relationships with the adult world at centre stage: while authority figures could often be
portrayed as incompetent or villainous, and dishonesty and trickery was an
everyday fact of adult life, the character, integrity and resourcefulness of
the resilient children placed at the core of the narratives always affirmed them as
being more than a match for any wrong-doing, and, in the early days of the
Foundation at least, the reassuring, hierarchical order of what was still viewed as a fundamentally
decent adult world, could always be relied upon to prevail in the end.
The BFI has released four previous
volumes of CFF films over the last few years, grouped and themed to showcase the
Rank ethos in action across a wide range of popular genres. Each of these
single disc three-film collections document the changes that can be discerned in the CFF’s approach to particular types of story material across a span of four decades, and reveal how an
essentially unchanging philosophy has been realised with a varying emphasis down
the years, to fit the mores of the times that the films were being produced to
cater for. This fifth volume, which deals directly with children who find
themselves relegated to the fringes of society, and which therefore contains a
set of films which all, in one way or another, depict children having to deal
with a morally ambiguous world, offers perhaps the most jarring side-by-side contrasts yet in its
charting of three the CFF’s representations of
the problematic figure of the child runaway -- offering a startling picture of
the genre’s evolution that starts with Lewis Gilbert’s charming 1950s
evocation of an idyllic multi-cultural community of orphaned children living
in the Scottish Highlands, who offer a young Polish refugee respite from the
harshness of urban racism; and finishing with the greyer, socially bleak urban landscape
highlighted by writer-director Frank Godwin’s final film in the collection (which was one of the very last Foundation productions ever made), shot in the
mid-1980s when youth gangs, record unemployment and street crime were seen as
an inescapable fact of life -- and when the romanticism of former decades is disconcertingly
thin on the ground.
Johnny on the Run (1953), the first and
earliest film to feature in this set of three, is a Dickens-styled tale of
childhood neglect and want that takes place in early 1950s Edinburgh. Eugeniusz
Chylek plays the film’s orphaned hero Janek -- a Polish migrant, fostered
by the unsympathetic Mrs MacGregor (Mona Washburn): a middle-aged mother played
as a berating landlady figure, with two infant mouths of her own to feed plus
that of a baby, and no father about, either seen or mentioned. Both Mrs MacGregor and
her son Kenneth (Keith Faulkner) make no bones about the fact that they resent
Jan’s presence and practically scapegoat him for their deprived circumstances,
despite the fact he’s helping to feed the family just by being in the house at all, because the council pays Mrs MacGregor a stipend to foster him. He’s racially
bullied by both, as well as the other kids out on the cobbled streets of Edinburgh, who jeer and pester him whenever he’s sent on shopping errands while his foster siblings are out enjoying
the school holidays (‘If you want to live here you’ve got to work you know;
they don’t pay me enough to have you sitting about all day!’). Only Janet
(Margaret McCourt), his little foster sister, ever shows him any sort of
consideration or kindness, and she’s never listened to by anybody ...
In fraying tweed jacket and short pants, Jan cuts a suitably tear-provoking and desultory figure, with child actor Chylek (who doesn’t seem to have appeared in anything else but this one film) proving particularly efficient in the business of eliciting audience sympathy as this lonely outsider who keeps his spirits up by fantasising about one day going back home to Poland; a dream that is encapsulated in a leaflet he picks up in a general store while he’s out shopping for Mrs MacGregor, advertising a £17 trip (£500 in today’s money) from Dundee to Danzig. The thoroughfares and narrow downward sloping alleyways and stone arches of the Old Town quarter of Edinburgh are exploited for all their worth to cast poor Jan as a tiny, isolated figure cast adrift in a hostile though picturesque cityscape, shot in gorgeously inky monochrome by Gerald Gibb (Whisky Galore!, Quatermass 2).The language of Hitchcock’s British thrillers provides the film’s narrative template after the boy feels forced into going on the run out of shame and guilt for inadvertently endangering the life of the MacGregor baby, after he lets go of its pram during a fight with some street bullies only to see the carriage careen down the hilly cobbled streets and almost clatter over the edge of the famous Vennel steps leading from the top of Edinburgh Castle, in a sequence culled from Eisenstein’s famous Odessa Steps sequence in Battleship Potemkin.
The moment after the baby is
saved just as disaster seemed to beckon, and the entire street -- children and
adults alike – gather to surround Janek, turning their accusatory looks on him
as the initially tiny figure of a police officer in the distance strolls closer
and closer, cutting off the boy’s only avenue of escape, is pure Hitchcock suspense-building
in theme and character and the innocent-man-on-the-run motif extends as far as
having the boy later attempt to find refuge in the midst of the idyllic
splendour of the Scottish Highlands, after falling in with a pair of
trilby-tipping housebreakers (who are portrayed as traditional comedy cockney
figures despite this being set in Edinburgh). He even stays for a night with a
gruff crofter (Archie Duncan) in his secluded cottage on the moors (John Laurie,
who played a similar crofter role in Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps, also turns up later here as an Edinburgh Police
Constable). Before this, Jan is further mired in guilt after being tricked into
assisting the two thieves – ‘Flash Harry’ Fisher (The Lavender Hill Mob’s Sydney Tafler) and ‘Fingers’ Brown (Michael
Balfour) -- steal an expensive jewelled broach from the wall safe of a house in
a well-to-do neighbourhood, when they persuade him to crawl through the open
fanlight above the front door by telling him they've lost their keys, and are merely
seeking entry to their own property. The broach is subsequently hidden by Harry in
a torn seam of Jan’s jacket after the coppers give chase, and is still there
when the boy gives him the slip later on, only to wind up alone in the
Highlands, dwarfed by a striking landscape of idyllic rolling hills and mossy
banks of waving ferns under expansive skies.In fraying tweed jacket and short pants, Jan cuts a suitably tear-provoking and desultory figure, with child actor Chylek (who doesn’t seem to have appeared in anything else but this one film) proving particularly efficient in the business of eliciting audience sympathy as this lonely outsider who keeps his spirits up by fantasising about one day going back home to Poland; a dream that is encapsulated in a leaflet he picks up in a general store while he’s out shopping for Mrs MacGregor, advertising a £17 trip (£500 in today’s money) from Dundee to Danzig. The thoroughfares and narrow downward sloping alleyways and stone arches of the Old Town quarter of Edinburgh are exploited for all their worth to cast poor Jan as a tiny, isolated figure cast adrift in a hostile though picturesque cityscape, shot in gorgeously inky monochrome by Gerald Gibb (Whisky Galore!, Quatermass 2).The language of Hitchcock’s British thrillers provides the film’s narrative template after the boy feels forced into going on the run out of shame and guilt for inadvertently endangering the life of the MacGregor baby, after he lets go of its pram during a fight with some street bullies only to see the carriage careen down the hilly cobbled streets and almost clatter over the edge of the famous Vennel steps leading from the top of Edinburgh Castle, in a sequence culled from Eisenstein’s famous Odessa Steps sequence in Battleship Potemkin.
The film thereafter takes on an attractive idealistic flavour, with Jan’s bucolically picaresque wanderings amid the rural heartlands of Scotland eventually brought to an unexpected finish while camping outdoors in the atmospheric ruins of a crumbling, vine-covered castle. He is discovered there by a group of children frolicking in the ferns, who turn out to be from a nearby village on the edge of a loch; a village that’s been built especially for providing a home, deep in a ravine between two towering hills, for orphaned children, who come from all over the world having been rendered parent-less during the recent war. They immediately enthusiastically accept Jan – or Johnny -- as one of their own, and take him back to live as an equal among their family of displaced outsiders. This idealistically presented children’s utopia turns out to be modelled on a traditional British village -- with quaint thatched cottages, a village church, a lakeside boating jetty that flies the flag of each of the nationalities the village harbours, and a community school; but it is benignly supervised by one kindly Scottish couple, Mr and Mrs MacIntyre (Moultrie Kelsall and Jean Anderson): a gentle, pipe-smoking professorial type and a loving, motherly, cardigan-wrapped schoolmarm, both of whom are utterly loved and respected by their multiracial gaggle of dispossessed charges (this is one of that tiny number of British films from the 1950s that features black faces prominently amid its heart-warmingly impish child cast).
The MacIntyres designate
control of the running of village affairs to a Children’s Parliament that regularly
elects a new village treasurer to supervise the gathering of the proceeds made
by the community when it sells its home-grown vegetables in the nearby villages,
with the ultimate aim of one day collecting enough cash to build a proper
village hall. From this point, the film becomes all about Jan attempting to
deal with the idea of being loved and accepted after years of neglect and
dismissal; and about his learning to understand the growing sense of
responsibility for others that is now being kindled within him, and that comes with
being made such an integral part of a supportive community rather than relegated
to the fringes of society as a despised minority. The village children, perhaps
naively, happily show Janek their home-built wooden safe and entrust him with
its key soon after electing him their new treasurer -- unaware that the boy is
desperate to find the cash to fulfil his dream of escaping back to his homeland,
and that giving him such responsibilities also supplies him with an enormous
temptation to become the criminal he feels the rest of the world now believes
he intrinsically is. It’s one of the film’s peculiar ironies that Janek never
comes closer to losing his moral bearings than when he is surrounded by such
sympathetic and nurturing presences as his refugee friends, and while subject
to the trusting solicitude of Mrs MacIntyre.
The other village children are portrayed as utterly charming, unaffectedly guileless young tykes; excitable boys and cutesy girls each one without a bad bone between them … in stark contrast to the bullying racism demonstrated by the street kids Jan regularly had to deal with on the chilly city streets of Edinburgh. It might perhaps be rather too easy to mock the idealised portrayal of this not entirely believable community from a modern perspective, but Patricia Latham’s screenplay is so persuasively delivered by the young cast that one is prepared to go along with its idealised portrait of a childhood lived in this state or rural grace, untainted by poverty or human greed, long enough to see the final reel drama play out satisfactorily after Jan’s new friends rally round to support him during a cross-country paper chase that reaches its peak of excitement just as Jan’s foster mum comes back to claim him after being informed of his whereabouts by the Edinburgh constabulary, and the thieving duo Harry and Fingers turn up in the village after seeing Jan’s picture in the paper -- and still looking for the hidden broach the boy unknowingly continues to carry about his person.
With its beautifully
photographed images of Edinburgh’s Old Town and some utterly beguiling landscape
shots of the main Highland settings which were filmed around Loch Earn, this is
perhaps one of the CFF’s classiest looking titles, bolstered by fine art direction
from Hammer’s Bernard Robertson and a lyrical orchestral score by Anthony
Hopkins. It’s a far cry from director Lewis Gilbert’s previous outing, the
notorious British film noir thriller Cosh
Boy-- about a delinquent youth robbing
old ladies in the bombed out ruins of postwar London – but its comforting mixture
of comedy (courtesy of the bumbling adult thieves) and some tightly paced chase
thriller dynamics that eventually open out into an engaging slice of human
interest drama, succinctly anticipate the high points of Gilbert’s illustrious
career in the British film industry which spanned both the action and glamour
of James Bond thrillers You Only Live
Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me
and the down-to-earth working class humour of Educating Rita and Shirley
Valentine. The other village children are portrayed as utterly charming, unaffectedly guileless young tykes; excitable boys and cutesy girls each one without a bad bone between them … in stark contrast to the bullying racism demonstrated by the street kids Jan regularly had to deal with on the chilly city streets of Edinburgh. It might perhaps be rather too easy to mock the idealised portrayal of this not entirely believable community from a modern perspective, but Patricia Latham’s screenplay is so persuasively delivered by the young cast that one is prepared to go along with its idealised portrait of a childhood lived in this state or rural grace, untainted by poverty or human greed, long enough to see the final reel drama play out satisfactorily after Jan’s new friends rally round to support him during a cross-country paper chase that reaches its peak of excitement just as Jan’s foster mum comes back to claim him after being informed of his whereabouts by the Edinburgh constabulary, and the thieving duo Harry and Fingers turn up in the village after seeing Jan’s picture in the paper -- and still looking for the hidden broach the boy unknowingly continues to carry about his person.
While Johnny on the Run assumes the perspective of a protagonist whose
situation would likely have been unfamiliar to the vast majority of the film’s
viewers, in order to eventually allow them to better appreciate his humanity by illustrating his underlying similarity to them, both of the remaining films in
this volume start by establishing the point of view of one central child
character who comes from a stable, conventional lower middle class background,
with the intention of making him an instantly relatable identification figure
for most viewing children whose circumstances are assumed to mimic the same world of
stay-at-home-housewives/mothers and working dads with two children, that it
presents as the cultural norm. Each of the two films, in widely differing ways,
then works up its narrative from the introduction of this ordinary protagonist
to a secondary character who represents a set of social conditions and family
circumstances that are a great deal less salubrious than their own.
In the colourful 1972 film Hide and Seek the tone is still
generally a light one, at least to start with, with the usual CFF emphasis on comedy,
clowning and intrigue. Gary Kemp (the twelve-year-old child star who would one
day co-found New Romantic combo Spandau Ballet), plays Chris -- the film’s
‘good boy from a nice home’ identification figure: a well brought up, agreeably
romanticised version of an ordinary kid, who has a father who works as a
policeman and a mother who runs a corner shop in his stomping ground of
Deptford, South-east London (curiously under-populated and tidy in the film’s
numerous on-location street scenes). He’s resourceful, active and moral in that
he, along with his younger sister Beverley (Eileen Fletcher), uncomplainingly
devote a large part of their free time to making house calls on and delivering
shopping for a crotchety old man called Mr Grimes (Roy Dotrice,) whose exact
relationship to them is never established since he’s not an immediate
neighbour.
Because of this commitment,
though, Chris and Beverley are well aware of the existence of those less
fortunate than themselves. And when the circumstances of those unfortunates are
given a socially sanctioned outlet, such as the poverty-stricken, housebound
elderly represented by the likes of Mr Grimes (Dotrice gives a Steptoe-ish, comic
‘old fogey’ performance as the crotchety gent, but his shabby, stained clothing
makes clear the character’s reduced means), they are more than willing to help
out and, indeed, appear to see it as their duty to do so. But when it comes to youth
delinquency, though, the matter seems potentially more complicated. What are
they to make, for instance, of the petty crime wave currently sweeping across
their home turf: a cheeky small boy -- dubbed The Deptford Dodger by the local
paper -- has been spied stealing food and drink from general stores and small
market holders, and even Chris and Beverley’s mum has had bars of chocolate go
missing from her corner shop during this audacious reign of thievery. Beverley
speculates that this ‘Dodger’ must be hungry to be doing what he’s been doing,
but having a policeman for a dad makes both her and her brother less
immediately inclined to sympathise with the selfish motives behind such crimes.
This ‘Dodger’ turns out to be
hiding out in a derelict flat on the ground-floor of the same building that
houses Mr Grimes, which is where Chris encounters the boy after he attempts to
steal a loaf of crusty bread intended for the old man from the back of Chris’s
bike. It turns out that the boy, Keith Lawson (Peter Newby), has run away from
an approved school: a special type of residential reform institution for
children who have committed crimes or previously been deemed beyond parental control. They
were renamed Community Homes by the early 70s, around the time this film was
released. Keith has hitched his way to London in the hope of finding his Dad
after learning in a letter that his father is about to remarry and intends to
move away for good afterwards. Since Keith’s mum is dead and he hasn't seen his
father since he was a small lad, he can only remember vague details about the
house he grew up in (‘everything’s changed,’ he says of the Deptford location;
‘they’re pulling it all down!’), so Chris eventually agrees to help him find his dad so that the two of them can be
reunited. He smuggles food to the boy from the family table, while Keith
stays put in the derelict squat, since the Police are by now on to who the Dodger actually is.
The friendship is a
refreshingly spiky one (‘burn yerself a halo,’ comments Keith after Chris tells
him to lie low while he scouts out a potential location that might turn out to be his previous address; ‘but don’t expect any thanks from me!’), but each child, with their
respective long hair and outgoing personalities, are mirror images of the other
-- affording each a glimpse of the alternative life they could have been living under different circumstances. Chris’s investigations lead to the discovery that
Keith’s dad is in fact a career criminal, leading a gang who are plotting a
heist using as their cover work at a construction site across the road from a major
bank. Posing as the owner of a building firm, Lawson (Terence Morgan) and his
men are digging a tunnel that leads from the construction site straight up to
the bank’s vault. They have a fake police van to be driven by two accomplices
(Alan Lake and Robin Askwith) on hand to ferry the money away afterwards
without suspicion! After learning of his son’s escape from an initially unsuspecting
Chris, both Lawson and his grasping wife (played by Carry On star Liz Fraser) decide
they want the runaway out of the equation in order to preserve their own
criminal activity from scrutiny, and Chris eventually realises that the pair of
them would be quite willing to shop their own boy to the police in order to
achieve that aim.
In most ways the rest of the story plays out as a fairly standard CFF adventure drama that makes copious use of the usual tropes involving untrustworthy adults foiled by canny kids who see straight through them (Lake and Askwith play bumbling fake coppers with massive 70s sideburns and fags dangling nonchalantly from their mouths, who are instantly rumbled by Chris’s perceptive little sister); and the usual run of mistaken identities, captures and daring escape attempts emerge as the main set pieces of the plot (Chris is mistaken for their bosses son by Lawson’s two henchmen and imprisoned in a warehouse, leaving Beverly and Keith to rescue him). CFF director-veteran David Eady and art director George Provis (the latter sandwiching this in between working on British horrors The Fiend and The Creeping Flesh) paint everything in pillar box red and the same cheerful 1970s primary coloured shades as Chris’s rainbow-striped tank top, and there is a certain lightness of tone about proceedings (despite the unglamorous and amusingly dangerous-for-kids urban locations featured, consisting primarily of building sites, derelict houses and abandoned industrial estates) as evidenced by the irreverent opening titles sequence, in which Keith’s crime spree is montaged as a comic episode involving angry shopkeepers (including among their number Alfred Marks) trailing him as he escapes past a series of walls and hoardings over which the film’s credits have been colourfully sprayed as graffiti using red paint. Frequent Hammer Films composer Harry Robertson supplies an upbeat, sunny score that also often mimics the action-drama cues to be found in ITC series of the era, or that could be expected to occur in more serious police dramas then starting to make their way onto screens, such as The Sweeny.
But although the likes of
Alan Lake and Robin Askwith conform to the CFF stereotype that paints adult
criminals as harmless comic incompetents, Morgan, as Keith’s father Ted Lawson,
plays the part of their boss utterly straight while his number two, fake construction
site foreman Wykes, also looks like he’s strolled straight out of a
hard-hitting 1970s crime drama – which is hardly surprising as he’s played by
Johnny Shannon: an ex-heavyweight boxer and former associate of the Kray Twins
who was better known by this point as the gangster who turned to acting and
trained James Fox in the ways of the London underworld for Donald Cammell's and
Nicolas Roeg’s 1969 masterpiece Performance,
in which he also starred as crime boss Harry Flowers. This was an acquaintance
that young child star Gary Kemp would be making again eighteen years later when
he came to play Ronald Kray alongside his brother Martin, who played Reggie,
for Peter Medak’s 1990 biopic. That
strain of seriousness means that there is rather more at stake morally for
young Keith, who at one point must choose between loyalty to his father (and
therefore the life of crime he has always previously known) and his new
friends. Although Mike Gorell Barns’ screenplay manages to find the positive
outcome expected of all CFF produced features at the time, it doesn’t pull back
from portraying Keith’s likely choices and attitudes realistically, and neither
does it shirk realism when it comes to staging a emotionally blunt scene between
father and son, during which Keith asks his father outright: ‘do you want me?’
To which Mr Lawson has to admit, simply, ‘no!’In most ways the rest of the story plays out as a fairly standard CFF adventure drama that makes copious use of the usual tropes involving untrustworthy adults foiled by canny kids who see straight through them (Lake and Askwith play bumbling fake coppers with massive 70s sideburns and fags dangling nonchalantly from their mouths, who are instantly rumbled by Chris’s perceptive little sister); and the usual run of mistaken identities, captures and daring escape attempts emerge as the main set pieces of the plot (Chris is mistaken for their bosses son by Lawson’s two henchmen and imprisoned in a warehouse, leaving Beverly and Keith to rescue him). CFF director-veteran David Eady and art director George Provis (the latter sandwiching this in between working on British horrors The Fiend and The Creeping Flesh) paint everything in pillar box red and the same cheerful 1970s primary coloured shades as Chris’s rainbow-striped tank top, and there is a certain lightness of tone about proceedings (despite the unglamorous and amusingly dangerous-for-kids urban locations featured, consisting primarily of building sites, derelict houses and abandoned industrial estates) as evidenced by the irreverent opening titles sequence, in which Keith’s crime spree is montaged as a comic episode involving angry shopkeepers (including among their number Alfred Marks) trailing him as he escapes past a series of walls and hoardings over which the film’s credits have been colourfully sprayed as graffiti using red paint. Frequent Hammer Films composer Harry Robertson supplies an upbeat, sunny score that also often mimics the action-drama cues to be found in ITC series of the era, or that could be expected to occur in more serious police dramas then starting to make their way onto screens, such as The Sweeny.
The face childhood presents on film had changed yet again by the production of 1985’s Terry on the Fence. Based on former headmaster Bernard Ashley’s novel, this late period CFF feature grounds its depiction of the home and school life of its eleven-year-old protagonist Terry Harmer (Jack McNicholl) on the kinds of representations which had by then become standard thanks to popular shows such as Grange Hill – which were founded on broad attempts to tackle contemporary ‘issues’ through the medium of children’s drama. That meant no exaggerated comedy capers or heightened adult acting styles, and an increased emphasis on psychological realism. At the point director Frank Godwin adapted Ashley’s book for the screen, the CFF had recently become The Children’s Film and Television Foundation (CFTF) in an attempt to stay relevant by targeting its productions at the small screen, but it was still struggling to survive in an environment where children’s Saturday morning television had made the cinema film clubs of old look largely redundant and rather old fashioned. It was a battle the Foundation was very close to losing altogether by this point. Consequently, Terry on the Fence feels a great deal shabbier in terms of its overall texture, thanks to budgetary restrictions which led to its being shot on 16mm rather than 35mm film.
Looked at today, some of its attempts to depict childhood social delinquency quite unintentionally come across looking slightly laboured and at times almost comical; the gang featured here, hanging out on the common in their garishly graffiti-daubed vandalised den or traipsing through semi-derelict regions of docklands earmarked for redevelopment, look like an unlikely ragtag collection of problem types led by a scowling fifteen-year-old punk called Les (Neville Watson), who fulfils the by now stereotypical image of a glue-sniffing punk rocker to a tee (except nothing so controversial as glue-sniffing is ever suggested, of course), the type of presentation that was already being roundly satirised by the likes of The Young Ones through the character of Vivian, played by Adrian Edmondson. However, the cheaper, grainy film stock and the fact that a real school is obviously being used as the main location (the credits give thanks to the Headmaster, staff and pupils of Halstow School in Greenwich, London), results in the film managing to hang on to the sense that it is grounded in a kind of realism that would have been recognisable to its intended audience at the time.
There is even more of a focus in this film on providing a moral lesson in the narrative … an intent which had been there all along in the CFF’s work, as we’ve seen in the two other films included on this disc, but which here, in accordance with a common approach taken in the 1980s to drama aimed at children, feels like it is being earnestly foregrounded as a potential subject for debate in schools. Once can just imagine the film being screened in classrooms as an educational tool, its lessons and dilemmas to be discussed by the children afterwards; it even goes to a great deal of trouble, in its final ten minutes, to accurately depict the workings of a juvenile court, emphasising the guidelines that govern its decision making processes using a sombre, documentary-like aesthetic.
This downbeat, naturalistic, semi-documentary realist style is a far cry from the colourful urban capers of Hide and Seek or the romanticised, picaresque childhood wanderings of Johnny on the Run. The film does echo the approach taken by Hide and Seek, though, in seeking to establish its young protagonist as someone the viewer can identify with through recognition of its portrayal of a shared home life. It’s all too notable, of course, that all three films always turn to boys for their central audience identification figures: girls play important roles in all three dramas in different ways, but always in a supportive capacity, secondary to the schemes, concerns and problems of boys, who are presented as proactive and drive the plots forward, while girls are usually (intelligently) reactive. Terry on the Fence opens with scenes that believably depict a median income family happily enacting the daily domestic rituals of an average working life. Terry’s mum and dad (Susan Jameson and Martin Fisk) have bought their son a new black shirt from the mail order catalogue for his birthday, and allow him to try it on early as soon as it arrives in the post. But the mischievous lad sneaks out of the house the next morning (forgetting his dinner money) so that he can show off his flashy new apparel at school. These initial scenes at home, across the dinner and breakfast tables, and at school where Terry is shown to be an unexceptional though well-integrated member of his peer group, establish the sheer ordinariness of the world inhabited by its main character – an excitable, diminutive curly-haired eleven-year-old, who clearly at this stage knows nothing about youth crime, vandalism and violence.
A minor argument with his
older sister Tracey (Tracey Ann Morris) after school that afternoon, in which
Tracey’s simmering resentment and frustration about what she sees as the
leniency regularly exhibited towards her younger brother’s irksome rule-breaking,
boils over into a heated slanging match that feels like a believable catalyst
for what follows -- one that many children and parents would surely easily be
able to identify with. It also highlights a more nuanced approach to the
depiction of the relationship between children and their parents in this film, realistically
portraying how trivial incidents can escalate into behaviour both parties might
regret later. When Terry uses the word ‘bloody’ in answering back his at-the-end-of-her-tether
mother’s telling off, she impulsively slaps him in the face -- a spur of the
moment reaction after a long, stressful day. Both the inclusion of mild swearing
and the honest depiction of parents not as idealised authority figures, but as
human beings, who are subject to their own stresses and strains and liable to
make their own mistakes, is a new development in CFF/CFTF drama from the 1980s,
in line with the approach being taken by the modern early evening soap operas
that younger people were starting to watch more frequently around this period,
with the advent of Brookside and the
BBC’s then recently launched response Eastenders.
Terry then rehearses a
version of a scene that must have been played out in every family household
across the land at some point: storming out of the house shouting how he is
leaving home – ‘I’m going … for good!’ He ends up at the local common – a
nearby patch of neglected wasteland – which is where he falls into the clutches
of Les’s gang. Neville Watson affects not just the clothing and pimply
complexion, but the curled-lip snarl and threatening, aggressive posture
commonly associated with the punk rocker -- the icon of a youth movement which in
the popular mind had by now come to be associated with delinquency and drug
abuse, much as the bastions of earlier youth movements had before it. By the
mid-80s this idea of punk had become a cliché and something of a joke, and the
look was often exploited to sell an ‘edgier’ picture postcard image of London
to tourists. It was still a threatening enough image to young Terry, though –
now alone and out of his depth in an unfamiliar area of the city – for him to
feel obliged under verbal threat of violence to help Les and his gang of
younger offenders break into Terry’s school and steal some portable stereo
systems from the headmaster’s office. They recognise him as a privileged kid
from ‘those snobby houses’ – not someone like them from the poorer council
estates; and Les makes sure their reluctant accomplice is fully implicated in
the resulting crime by forcing Terry (whom he nicknames ‘Pig Face’) to hide one
of the stolen stereos at home in his dad’s tool shed.
As well as detailing Terry’s
plight as he is forced -- scared by what will happen to him if he refuses -- to
take part in a criminal act that goes against his character, the narrative also
follows the desperate search for him that is being simultaneously conducted by
Terry’s dad and his contrite sister while the lad’s regretful mother waits by
the phone at home. Les and his threatening gang of hangers on are initially
portrayed as a disruptive, corrupting force from the underclass of British
society, come to destabilise the cosy conformity of family life that has been
all Terry has previously known until taken by his new associates on this tour
around seamy rubbish-strewn alleyways and dockyard demolition sites in
Thatcher’s Britain. The significance of the opening scenes, in which Terry was
seen getting his new shirt, now become apparent: for as well as painting a
familiar picture of ordinary domestic life that is to be threatened later on, they also
provide a marker by which Terry is to be recognised and identified by the
school caretaker after he flees with Les’s gang across the school yard immediately
after the robbery, having to be hauled over the school fence by his older, taller accomplice. The focus of the film then becomes Terry’s battle to prove
that he isn't really one of the gang … that he was forced to carry out this
inside job against his will when, from the caretaker’s vantage point, he and
Les appeared to be the best of pals.
The interesting and
unexpected move made by Ashley’s story at this point is to show how the more
Terry seeks to extricate himself from any intrinsic blame for the school
break-in, the more closely the fates of the two boys are bound together. Hoping
to get back the other stolen stereo for the school (after returning the one he
was earlier made to hide) a shamed Terry manages to track down Les’s home
address. It turns out not to be some rundown sink estate in a deprived district,
but an ordinary suburban house furnished much like his own. The real contrast
in their lives is evident in the quality of their parental relations: having unwittingly
traipsed mud onto Les’s living room carpet, Terry overhears Les being shouted
at for the crime and beaten by his fed up mother while he hides in the adolescent punk’s bedroom. There
is an echo here of the moment Terry was slapped by his own mother, of course,
but that was clearly an aberration – for Les this type of parental relationship
appears to be the norm. The film is sophisticated enough to resist drawing any simplistic causal connection between Les’s home life and his aggressive loutish behaviour; his persistent criminal activity and frequent appearances in front of juvenile courts could be seen to account for his mother’s quick tempered resort to violence when dealing with his behaviour just as easily as her beatings might be thought to furnish an explanation for that recidivism in the first place. Neither does the film insult the intelligence of the viewer by having Les suddenly become rehabilitated the moment we get to see him as a human being rather than just the stereotype image of a delinquent that he himself exploits while he manipulates younger children to do his bidding: shades of grey define the approach to this troubled and troubling character throughout. What is important about the film is how subtly it conveys the process by which Terry’s attitude towards Les gradually changes, and how it deals with the younger boy’s newly conflicted, ambivalent feelings about the adolescent troublemaker.
Originally he was just terrified of this caricatured, snarling lout – an effect Les of course very much wished to cultivate for his own purposes. But later, Terry glimpses enough parallels with his own life to be able to empathise with his former persecutor to a degree –which puts him in something of a moral quandary after the two boys are picked up by the police while trying to steal back the remaining stolen portable stereo from the receiver of stolen goods Les had previously sold it to. Their ensuing appearance together, parents in tow, at a hearing before the juvenile court becomes an interrogation of Terry’s moral culpability which, despite the harsher more realistic terms in which it is presented, is in line with the upholding of the humanistic principles that are so evident throughout every phase of the CFF’s development, no matter how different the presentation style of the films it produced across the decades may seem when they are placed side by side.
As different as each of these little films from the ‘50s, ‘70s and 1980s undoubtedly are in tone, each of them demonstrate inventive strategies for dealing with the moral complexities of the adult world, presenting them to a young audience through a series of representations of childhood that continue to engage even today. Each film has been lovingly restored to splendour (Hide and Seek looks particularly gorgeous) and the BFI’s disc comes with an excellent booklet of essays and film overviews by Rachel Moseley (associate professor in Film and Television Studies at the University of Warwick), Robert Shail (senior lecturer in Film and Visual Culture at the University of Wales, Trinity St David), Michael Brooke (writer and DVD/Blu-ray producer) and Vic Pratt (BFI curator). Also included are some edited extracts from Gary Kemp’s autobiography I Know This Much, in which he talks about the making of Hide and Seek: having a crush on Liz Fraser and being given a ride in her new Lotus Elan; fighting off the local gangs hanging around the crew during shooting in Deptford; and having his prized feathercut hairstyle chopped off by the assistant director because it looked ‘too posh’. Author Bernard Ashley contributes a piece about the adaptation of his novel, and actor turned music producer Neville Watson discusses his casting as yobbish punk delinquent Les for Terry on the Fence. Interestingly, the film was given a U certificate by the BBFC when it was originally released, but has now been reclassified a PG because of a racist insult used by one gang member while talking to another; a close up of Les’s bleeding scar when he nervously scratches it while hiding from a policeman; and that previously mentioned instance of mild swearing used by Terry during an argument with his mother!