The Horse's Mouth

Ingenious, fun, silly, playful, entertaining, strange. All of these things represent not only the movie, but of Alec Guinness' portrayal of Gully Jimson, a grainy, foul mouthed old artist, trying to make it in life through his paintings. We're introduced to him from jail, and it unfolds in the sense where learning about him is also either liking or hating what life has brought him to be. Just make sure that you're not going to be an artist, or his protégé (who takes an awful lot of bullying). This is another forgotten film in time in that it's perfect casting, and perfect direction. It's an effortless viewing movie that will bring much satisfaction to viewers of any age, who aren't familiar with Alec Guinness' work besides the obvious. His passionate, sometimes surly characterization of a brilliant painter is one that should last for the ages.

This is probably my favorite movie. It may be overstatement to call a mere British comedy a timeless classic, but this outstanding movie, beneath its raucously madcap surface, has some very serious things to say about what it means to be an artist, to be driven by visions while living in a society that doesn't care. I think Guinness is the greatest actor of the century, and that his performance here as the maddening, irascible, impossible Gulley Jimson is the zenith of his movie roles. Kay Walsh, who partnered with Sir Alec in Tunes of Glory, is equally brilliant.

Having said that, I recently read Joyce Cary's novel, on which the movie is based, and I have to say that the book is much darker than the movie, which plays up the darkly comic scenes of the novel while diminishing - or even omitting - some of the darker moments. Still, the movie stands well on its own, even if it is a somewhat different entity than the book.

Confession time, I first saw 'The Horse's Mouth' around ten or twelve years ago, one afternoon on British television and hated it. Alec's "Gulley Jimson" seemed to me to be very un-likable and I found myself unable to get the point of the film. However, re-watching this on DVD, I found it to be far, far better than I remembered and something of a revelation.

I found myself identifying with "Gulley" this time around and appreciating Alec's subtle performance (to the extent that I was genuinely sad to see the film end). Guinness is backed by two astonishingly fine performances by Walsh and Houston (it's Rene's finest performance, for someone with a tendency to play 'broad' here she is remarkably subtle).

All in all, a wonderful if sadly under-rated film and one equal to Alec's best Ealing work.

Although most Americans have little knowledge of his work other than Star Wars, Alec Guinness produced an amazing body of work--particularly in the 1940s-1950s--ranging from dramas to quirky comedies. I particularly love his comedies, as they are so well-done and seem so natural and real on the screen--far different from the usual fare from Hollywood.

I first saw this movie when I was about 13 or so, and didn't appreciate it very much. Years later, when I became fascinated with Guinness' comedies, I decided to give it another chance. And boy am I glad I did!! The movie concerns the life of an extremely edgy and rather nasty artist. Guinness really plays this up and creates one of the quirkiest and funniest characters I have ever seen. In essence, the man is a rascal that is driven to create his art regardless of what it takes to get it done! What I missed the first time I saw the film were the extremely catchy music and the amazing art created for this movie. I am not the biggest fan of modern art, but the second time i saw the movie I really liked most of the works done for the movie--it just was a darn shame that much of it was destroyed in the course of the movie! In addition to music and art, the performances throughout of all the actors was nearly perfect.

Finally, the version of the movie I saw last was from the Criterion Collection. Get this version!!!! It had so much wonderful background information about the actual art, the making of the movie, and interesting background information--such as how they got the musical score WITHOUT having to pay royalties and the incredibly sad tale of a magnificent performance by a young supporting actor that did not live to see the finished product.

Alec Guinness wrote the screenplay. Already an actor of great repute, in doing so he was in a very dominating position. The film gives the impression of a much less collaborative affair - writer/director/star - than is usual, or successful. Very hard for director to question a portrayal when the star can truthfully say that he knows the character far better than does the director.

Guinness chose a deep croaky voice. He consequently lost all musicality - most obviously when he sings but throughout his voice is an inexpressive monotone. The dialogue lacks sparkle further dulled by his monotone. There is a problem in any case of portraying a talented but inarticulate artist - how do you indicate talent or even genius? Apparently based on the writer Dylan Thomas, whose drunkenness was companionable (Richard Burton once a companion?), there was no doubt wit in their conversation. Here the painter is mainly rascally, the paintings shown don't particularly impress either intrinsically or by the way they are treated. All that is left is the implication that for someone so badly behaved yet to still be sought after, must have a great deal of talent. The film fails to show people being won over by his pictures and forgive his trespasses - that's a failure of direction.

Given the great talents involved, it is less than it could have been. But given these talents, it should not in anyway be patronised. Even great artists get it wrong sometimes, it doesn't affect their greatness or my admiration.