The Gentle Sex

Read a review that said women will enjoy it better than men. Rubbish it's a nice story and a good watch. Just a story about people and their experiences. You warm to the ladies and there worries and fears and successes. I've watch it a few times, it's a great afternoon film. Spotting young versions of actors that you've seen as old men growing up, like the odd Dads Army actor looking very youthful.

So give it a try, good characters and enjoy a story from a simpler and more naive time. It will warm the cockles of your heart. I always enjoy an old black and white film, they're from a different world.

I saw this film recently on TV, and although social attitudes have changed drastically and is a tad patronising, it's still a worthy entry in the "soldiers going through training" film. What is unusual about it is that it concentrates on women rather than men. British films at the time (and for quite a few years afterwards) were male dominated. The recruits are a mixed bunch: Betty Miller (Joan Greenwood), the youngest, has never been away from home before or done anything for herself and is desperately homesick; Dot Hopkins (Jean Gillie)who wants to do something different; Erna the refugee (Lilly Palmer); Maggie Fraser (Rosamond John) the friendly Scottish girl, who never stops eating; Anne Lawrence (Joyce Howard) who is from a service family who knows what she has to do and is the beauty of the group. Joan Simpson (Barbara Waring), who is sharp tongued and stand-offish but who turns out to be as lonely as the rest of them and Gwen Haydon(Joan Gates) the cheery Cockney girl. Although I found the film enjoyable, I would like to have known more about the background of the recruits. Rosamond John's Scottish accent was unconvincing, though her performance was fine. And was Joan Simpson meant to be a lesbian? She showed her disdain for men throughout and the lady who saw her off at the railway station was very affectionate towards her, though she is listed in the credits as "Miss Simpson", although no reference to their being related was never made clear. Joyce Howard is lovely with a warm, friendly personality. I had never heard of her before and wondered if she was a relation to Leslie Howard, the director? And how any stretch of the imagination could John Laurie (the soldier who dances with Maggie) be referred to as "young", as Leslie Howard did in the final narration? He must have be 45 if he was a day. However, it was nice to see him with a smile on his face for a change. All in all, a good entry in the British wartime film genre.

Previous reviewers have commented on lack of character development and lack of action. While there is some truth in both assertions, I think we do have to look at the essential purpose of the film, which is to show seven very different young women (though these ones do tend to be above average in looks) being turned into soldiers.

An army in wartime is a great mincing machine, taking individuals from all walks of life in at one end and turning them out at the other as soldiers. By definition, they are then no longer individuals but a member of a team that has been trained to achieve objectives jointly. The common experience of first training together and then learning to do the jobs they are assigned means that not only do the young women in the film mature fast as people but also they cohere as soldiers. Loyalty to their mates and their unit overrides personal needs, with their own strengths and weaknesses evened out in the common effort. For example, Barbara Waring has no particular feelings about the Germans, seeing them merely as efficient, but Erna Debruski (who is probably meant to be not French but Czech) has seen their lethal efficiency at work in her country and is driven by violent hatred.

Of the tasks soldiers have to do, some are everyday and boring while others are unique and exciting. We see two young men doing very dangerous work, one a fighter pilot and one a commando, but our seven girls end up driving lorries and manning anti-aircraft guns. Even so, they are all put to the test. The lorry girls have to drive through the night to get their trucks aboard a ship sailing to the front, possibly North Africa, and then have to rush fresh ammunition to the anti- aircraft battery during a raid. There the AA girls bring an attacking bomber down in flames.

From the seven young strangers who shared a railway compartment at the start to the trained and dedicated women who are doing demanding, even hazardous, jobs to protect their country, surely there has been huge character development and surely there has been action?

PS As for that music hall sketch, should we judge it by professional standards? Isn't it meant to be an amateur, who has volunteered to amuse her chums?

This film follows the experiences of seven women who find themselves together in the Auxillary Territorial Services during the war. The film begins at a train station where the narrator picks out six young women at random. These six ladies - charming but indistinguishable to me - end up in the same carriage of a train on their way to their base. The seventh, Gwen Hayden, joins the others as the train is about to depart. It's a promising start - we eagerly anticipate what will happen to these seven ladies throughout the course of the war. We assume that they'll all end up going their separate ways, but will perhaps reunite at the end of the war, having each been through some unique and fascinating experiences.

Unfortunately, nothing much happens to any of them. They arrive at their base, engage in some vacuous conversation, and then it's on with the mundane duties of the Auxillary Territorial Services. The first fifteen minutes or so after they arrive is basically a montage of footage showing the ladies and their colleagues being regimented by their superiors, during marching practise and so on, and contains very little entertainment value, except for a couple of attempted visual jokes, including one lady soldier who turns the wrong way and ends up marching away from all the others.

Perhaps the problem with the rest of the film is that it's a little too honest. There's no drama and there are no complications - just a group of ladies fulfilling the mundane duties of lorry driving, drilling and manning ack-ack batteries, and prattling on in between. The almost complete lack of male characters makes the conversation even more intolerable. Occasionally the characters ponder the purpose of the war and what they're really fighting for, but their discourse fails to scale any great philosophical heights. There's a melodramatic spiel by a French woman in the middle of the film, in which she tells some of our British ladies about what the Nazis did to her father and brother, but it fails to stir us amidst the jollility of life in the Services. Rather, it seems like a contrived attempt by the scriptwriters to provide some semblance of drama.

The only other drama that occurs - in fact, one of the few events that occurs in this basically plotless film - happens towards the end of the film, but unfortunately it is too little too late. This film is nothing more than a slice of British life during the war. None of the seven ladies embark on any great adventures, they never experience the hardships of war and since the film only scratches the surface of its seven main characters, at the end one is left feeling as though we hardly know them any better than we did when we first met them at the train station. Women will probably enjoy this film more than men, but there is really nothing in it to make it worthy of recommendation.

My view is that this film has nothing to compare it with wartime productions like "Millions like us", let alone the Powell and Pressburger masterpiece, "A Canterbury Tale". While the production and acting standards are quite good, the whole thing simply lacks pace and sufficient development of either plot or characters to keep the viewer's interest. Rather than attempting to follow the fortunes of seven new recruits to the women's forces in the second world war, (and then dissipating the time covered by the film trying to keep up with all of them), Howard would have done better to focus, (as in the two afore-mentioned films), on a small number of characters and investigate the way in which the relationships between them develop and intensify and, in THESE ways, allow the message of "why we are fighting" to come through much more clearly than in the stiff upper lip, (except, of course, for Lilli Palmer playing "the excitable foreigner"!), rendering of patriotic platitudes which the film produces. A disappointment and, in my view, now mainly of interest only for what it conveys of "established" views of women's war time endeavours in 1943 rather than as visual entertainment which, while being revelatory of its own period, ALSO far transcends this and provides entertainment and reflection of a much deeper nature as well. Right, let's roll "A Canterbury Tale" again and see how it SHOULD have been done!