Orders Are Orders

Incredibly enough this was the second film version of an ancient army farce 'satirising' the film business. It's one of those rare films with an Introducing credit that actually counts for something, since it's Tony Hancock who's being introduced; and he gets the final close up. However, it was not an auspicious film debut since when he took his wife to see it at the Astoria in Charing Cross Road and asked if he'd be able to get in, was told "Get in? You can have the whole circle if you want it"! Hancock's future TV co-star 'Sidney' (as he was then billed) James playing yet another of the Americans he was then typecast as himself dismissed it as "a bit of a stinker".

It's more interesting to watch now than it was at the time since in addition to Hancock & James so many of the cast later made their mark on TV, including Bill Fraser, Gerald Campion and Eric Sykes (whose only screen credit is for additional dialogue). Maureen Pryor is memorably laconic as the gum-chewing continuity girl in trousers; and even Donald Pleasance puts in a fleeting appearance.

And of course there's a plump young Peter Sellers who a dozen years later reprised this film's plot for 'After the Fox' as well as guesting in Hancock's final completed film, 'The Wrong Box'.

I saw this film in the cinema with my parents in 1954 and I'm obliged to confess that we thought it quite funny at the time. Tony Hancock's voice was familiar to us, but it was the first time we'd ever seen him on screen; apart from the Goon shows, Peter Sellars was best known to the general public for a variety of characters he played in the radio series 'Ray's a Laugh'. They both came across as quite amusing. The tastes of the viewing-public are now far more sophisticated, and it is easy to berate the director for not having made better use of the (potentially) huge pool of talent he had at his command. Hindsight is a wonderful thing! Sixty-six years ago, it wasn't such a bad comedy as all that

This a fairly unremarkable film from the era except for the presence of the two (later) major stars - but well worth seeing for the jewel of a performance from Sellers. Both went on to make their names in comedy but this meeting on film was to be the one and only. Did each or either sense that the other was a potential rival? Their parts here are completely without interaction. Thereafter their paths diverged, Sellers became a bigger and bigger name in cinema and Hancock instead found success on television. Very interesting to compare and contrast the two performers and performances.

Both had had success on radio playing a wide range of characters (voices). Sellers though excelled as comic character actor of chameleon like abilities as can be seen here but was never a comedian with his own comic personna. Hancock however was more comedian than character actor other than briefly burlesqueing a range of (much) earlier British film star performers. With the aid of comedy writers Alan Simpson and Ray Galton Hancock did go on to establish a comic personna - not apparently too far away from his real self - but in time became uncomfortable surrounded by a regular cast and finally - but most memorably and successfully - became the sole star of his show. The demons however did not stop, he became dissatisfied with the character and format but was tragically unable to find a successor. Hancock was an acknowledged genius but with an elusive ill-definable talent. Here he looks uncomfortable and uncertain unsupported by a hit and miss script. He was never to find his feet in films, perhaps the validation of a live audience had been essential to calm his insecurities.

In contrast Seller's performance was as complete and brilliant as it ever was, unsurprisingly he became a film star in his own right within a few short years. Few could have failed to notice his talent here as half of a crafty fiddling duo of barrack orderlies (the other half the excellent comic character actor Bill Fraser). Their short scene together about 50 minutes in, with Brian Reece as the amorous Captain, is a jewel and as complete, self-assured and accomplished as anything Sellers subsequently did for Ealing, with this part of the script at least fitting like a glove.

Some reviewers scoff at the threadbare nature of the supposedly big American Sci-Fi feature shot at the barracks but this is to misunderstand almost everything. Clearly the fictional production was a very very budget affair, actual manned space flight was then still 3 years away. And Britain itself in 1954 was threadbare - rationing had only finished 2 years earlier and the film markets and actual budgets were around 10% of their American equivalents. That being said, the biggest grandest pre-war science fiction film of all "The Shape of Things to Come", was British, born apparently of a highly advantageous tax arrangement. Again, oddly, American budget sci-fi and pot-boiler feature films of this era were very adept at looking far grander than their actual budgets.

For fans, watch this film to see the earliest appearance of the mega-star Sellers was to become. Either sit through or skip through the mainly "chaotic and shouty" parts another reviewer nicely describes.

*Sellers had made 3 earlier films, zany unsuccessful very low budget affairs with his then {radio) "Goonshow" comrades, remembered now more for their names than the merits of the films.

ORDERS ARE ORDERS is another army-focused British comedy from the 1950s and another let down. CARRY ON SERGEANT is still the best that I've seen from this era while all others feel somewhat strained and clumsy, not to mention dated. This film has a good story but not many good jokes unless exaggerated character humour is your idea of a good time.

The story is about a film crew who arrive at an army barracks to shoot a science fiction movie and have various run-ins with the soldiers there. The wobbly special effects we see them filming with are funny and reminiscent of an Ed Wood movie. There's a lot of skirt-chasing and various encounters on and off the base between the characters. One of my main problems is that the film crew characters are exaggerated buffoons while the soldiers, in particular the officers, are all prim and proper and dull. The ensuing situations simply aren't all that funny in the face of it.

While the likes of Margot Grahame and Raymond Huntley bag the dull lead roles, it's the supporting players who are the most interesting. Tony Hancock bags an 'introducing' credit and is his typical world-weary character. Sid James is the brash film director but struggles with his unconvincing American accent throughout. Peter Sellers plays his usual part in this and the best I can say about him is that he's better than he was in DOWN AMONG THE Z MEN. There are nice cameos for young 'uns like Donald Pleasence and Eric Sykes. The best participant is the gorgeous Maureen Swanson whose eye-popping introduction scene is the highlight of the whole movie.

Having visited a plague upon us called 'Keep it Clean', director (I use the term loosely) David Paltenghi has again committed celluloid crime with 'Orders are Orders'. This is the film that introduced Tony Hancock to the silver screen. Based upon this performance he was lucky to work again. Thank God for Galton and Simpson! Sid James, who was destined to play such a pivotal role in Hancock's career has the worst American accent I have ever heard whilst Peter Sellers is simply underwhelming. What is amazing about Sellers is how he transformed himself physically in his perverse desire to be a sex symbol! Where on earth Brian Reece came from and where he went is of little or no interest. Stalwarts Raymond Huntley and Clive Morton are among those taking the money and running. The ghastliness of the female contingent beggars belief. It is now my avowed intention to avoid this dreadful director's output entirely or I shall be carried out screaming and not with laughter!