Conflict of Wings

It looks as if the producers of this film were borrowing liberally from Ealing films.The two that come to mind being Passport to Pimlico and The Titfield Thunderbolt.However those two films chose the comic route and are classics,this chose the dramatic route and is forgotten.Lots of reliable character actors .Muriel Pavlow and Johnn Gregson doing the sort of roles that were their forte in the fifties.Kieran Moore jutting his jaw out as far as it will go.Some fine Eastman colour cinematography,although the constant shots of aircraft and flocks of birds is strictly for the enthusiast.Not a memorable film or an awful one either.

While I am a fan of British movies, particularly comedies of the 1950s and 1960s, I was not familiar with this movie. However I had warm expectations given the cast led by the usually dependable John Gregson and Muriel Pavlow. The movie concerns a British air force base that is activated as a training facility. Requiring a target range the government conscripts a nearby marsh, the Island of Children, for that purpose. The marsh is a wildlife habitat principally for birds (hence title Conflict of Wings between birds and aircraft). Obviously the local inhabitants, led by native daughter Muriel Pavlow and an assortment of colorful character actors (i.e. Niall MacGinnis, Frederick Piper), lead a fight to save the marsh. This leads to conflict with her boyfriend, airman John Gregson, as well as the base commander Kieron Moore. Combining comedy and drama is difficult and here it doesn't really succeed. There is almost a sub-genre of British comedies about colorful locals rising up (i.e. Passport To Pimlico, Titfield Thunderbolt). However, in all instances, the enemy are incompetent bureaucrats or buffoons. Here the air force is shown as capable, concerned but committed to their responsibilities. Periodically Kieron Moore is required to look out into mid-space and give a speech about the need for military preparedness, with appropriate references to just past crisises in Korea and Malaysia. The fact that decent people have to make difficult choices may be more representative of real life but it is less satisfying in reel life. Here the shifting between comic efforts and near tragic efforts by the the local population results in an uneven and ultimately unsatisfying cinema experience. Acting is generally good and technical credits, including color photography of the marsh, are also good.

Not many films stick with me for years but this one did and now that I've just watched it again I think the same will happen for the next few years.

It is a lightweight, afternoon type of film with no stand out performances (John Gregson is standard Jon Gregson - not to my taste, Muriel Pavlow doesn't get a chance to act much and so on), no stand out dialogue, no wow plot. But what it does have is bags of sense of time and place and a unique (as far as I've seen) social documentary type quality look at the RAF in the mid 1950s and conflict with conservancy. I think the quality of light, the locations chosen and the soundtrack (not music but ambient) are what do it for me.

There is annoying animal sub plot sewn in, I would guess for kids' interest, that is weak.

If the acting, dialogue or plot had been distinctive this could have been an 8 or 9 for me.

This is one of my favourites because it contains a glimpse of the Royal Air Force at the time I had my first flight as a schoolboy in a Meteor Mark VII (which was the RAF's first jet trainer) and which appears in the film.

The film also displays the Norfolk Broads where I grew up and, apart from some rather dodgy Norfolk accents, show something of its splendid scenery.

It is also a good story, well told and, apart from 'Perdita' - a seagull, with British actors and actresses who are well-chosen and know how to assume the characters they portray.

It is a great pity that no copy is yet available on DVD.

A number of comments have been made about the film being a sub-par knock-off of an Ealing comedy, despite a promising cast list. I have to agree but what has been overlooked is that this is the first film concerned about environmental issues that I can think of. Rather surprising considering that the primary audience for this film had only shed their ration cards months earlier.

Apparently there was an awareness that an ever expanding economy could impinge too much on the natural surroundings and people felt well off enough to forgo some of the advantages of progress. Maybe the writers and producers of films were better off than most so it is not surprising that they would be at this level of awareness in 1954 but for most of the paying filmgoers things were still a bit tight.