Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueThe efforts of test pilot John Mitchell to make a better life for his wife Mary and their two children seem doomed to failure and he blames himself.The efforts of test pilot John Mitchell to make a better life for his wife Mary and their two children seem doomed to failure and he blames himself.The efforts of test pilot John Mitchell to make a better life for his wife Mary and their two children seem doomed to failure and he blames himself.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nomination aux 1 BAFTA Award
- 1 nomination au total
- Ingrams
- (as Howard Marion Crawford)
Avis à la une
Made in the days when Sonic Booms were called 'Bangs' and the make-or-break sum in a house purchase was £500; it has a contemporary resonance in the cynical response of a newspaper editor that "If he doesn't crash there's no story".
Recommended.
Britain had developed quite a lead internationally in aero engine design in the mid-late 1950s, and the air industry's export earnings were vital to the country's economy to help repay the massive overhang of WWII debts not finally repaid until 1996.The film mentioned a sobering statistic one out of three test pilots lost their lives flying new aircraft being produced at this time.This is another Jack Hawkins Ealing film classic is his portrayal of captain Ericcson in "The Cruel Sea" (1952).Look out for John Stratton who also appeared in the latter film and who this time plays the number two test pilot.
The best reason to watch the film is the fine performance by Jack Hawkins. He gives a wonderful portrayal of an ordinary man called on to go above and beyond the call of duty, and he manages to maintain a stiff upper lip throughout (call it what you will, that's a compliment, not a slur).
The film essentially is a character study, both of the Hawkins character and of the people flying with him and watching on the ground, and of his quite ordinary family. We get a range of emotional reactions, all rational but some diametrically opposed to each other. Everybody has a different interest in the outcome, some venal. I particularly liked how the children were handled, that is a tricky situation. And how do you tell your wife when you come home quite normally, to whom you have not spoken since breakfast, that you almost died today? The shots of the plane in the air are fabulous if you like classic airplanes, and the suspense is maintained until the very end of the flight.
The scene I like the best is one in which Hawkins makes a long, strained walk to the aviation office, barely maintaining his composure after all the stress he has faced. I know what that is like, and Hawkins does a fabulous job of showing how built-up pressure becomes hardest to control only after the difficult task is done. A very human way to react. A brilliant acting job.
Notable also for being one of Donald Pleasance's first film roles - he always looked basically the same throughout his long career! - and the fact that this is a purely British film, made at Ealing, featuring British actors who fit their roles nicely. No false Hollywood touches. Recommended.
Unlike most of the famous Ealing films (such as PASSPORT TO PIMLICO and THE LADY KILLERS), this one is not a comedy but a rather tense drama. However, when I read the TCM plot summary of the film it was very inaccurate. It read "a test pilot thinks back on his past as he fights to survive a burning plane". However, this film is NOT a series of flashbacks (thankfully) and exactly what the pilot (Jack Hawkins) is thinking isn't really investigated until the last few minutes or so of the film! So what is the film all about, then? Well, Hawkins is a test pilot and the plane does catch fire, but once the fire is extinguished it's difficult to control the plane and he circles for about a half hour to burn up fuel. And during all this time the film is told in real-time and shows how many members of the crew (who had parachuted to safety), the airplane company's owner and others react to impending doom for Hawkins--as it appears that successfully landing the craft is a fool's errand! Despite this very simple plot, the film earns a lot of respect and a high score on IMDb because of exquisite acting and especially writing. For the subject matter, the absolute most is squeezed out of the plot and the tension is amazing. It's a great film fill of wonderful character studies and is a whole heck of a lot better than many of the more recent and special effects intensive films we've gotten from Hollywood. Acting and writing--that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAlthough the flying scenes were filmed at Wolverhampton, practice for the single-engine landing was carried out at Lydd Ferryfield in Kent (now London Ashford Airport). Filming was not without problems and on 15 May 1956 the aircraft overshot the runway, causing quite extensive damage to the nose and wing sections.
- GaffesThe cockpit scenes show the port engine propeller slowly turning. The outside scenes show the propeller in a stationary position.
- Citations
[John Mitchell has successfully landed the stricken plane that he was test-flying, despite being urged by senior management to abandon the plane and save himself by bailing out]
Mary Mitchell: You didn't *have* to do it. They didn't *want* you to do it. They even begged you not to *try* to do it, and *still* you did it. Why? What in heaven's name were you thinking about? Didn't you give a single thought to what it would mean to us if you were killed? Didn't you *care* whether you were killed? Were you trying to kill yourself?
[Mary runs out of the room and John follows her]
John Mitchell: For thirty-five minutes. For thirty-five bloody minutes I sat up there thinking of *nothing* but you and the boys, and saving my own skin so that I could go *on* having you and the boys. How *dare* you say a thing like that to me! Now listen to this. I admit it was stupid to try to pretend it wasn't bad. In fact I'll tell you how bad it was. It was the worst thing I've ever known. I've never wanted anything so much in this life as I wanted to get out of that aircraft. For the last ten minutes I thought that the chances were a hundred-to-one against pulling it off. The instant I touched down, I felt only one thing: surprised at being alive. You asked me if I thought of you and the boys. I only *did* it for you and the boys. Now listen to this. Let's get this clear. There were plenty of reasons for me to stay with that aircraft - good reasons. It was my duty to try that landing so long as there was a chance in a hundred. I don't give a *damn* what any other man would have done. It was a question of loyalty, of loyalty to Reg, the company and a hundred and twenty other people who've built the aircraft. And I didn't stay with it for those reasons. Not for *any* of those reasons. I stayed with it because the alternative was to come home and tell you I'd got into trouble in the air today so I'd abandoned the aircraft, and the company's out of business. Is *that* what you would have had me do? Well that would have been the end. I should have spent the rest of my life never quite looking you or the boys in the face again - or myself, that that matter. A man who quit when there was still a chance - that's what I would have been. And that's what you and the boys would have had. If I had been killed, it would have been better for the three of you than if I'd bailed-out and quit. Can't you understand that? The man who said "better a live coward than a dead hero" *was* a live coward. Can't you understand that?
- ConnexionsReferenced in Hancock's Half Hour: The Alpine Holiday (1957)
Meilleurs choix
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Decision Against Time
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 486 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 27min(87 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.75 : 1