Fires Were Started

Fires Were Started has no stock footage. However, it is similar to such in that an ignorant 1990s eye risks being unable to see through the strangeness of 1940s Britain to the lives and tensions portrayed in this film. Fires Were Started is a witty, poetic account of the war effort understood as the acts of everyday Londoners. You can work hard watching it dissecting the poetic sequences of imagery; you can take it easy and enjoy the people we meet or you can follow the exciting narrative of 24 hours during the bombing of London. Poetry.

Although I do watch a terrible load of rubbish at times, I do also make a bit of effort to make sure my viewing has a bit of rounding and significance to it. It was for this reason that I searched out a film by Humphrey Jennings. The first I found was the documentary drama looking at the service of the civilian firemen who defended London during the Blitz. The film is a mix of drama and documentary, with the story essentially being a typical day and night in the life of the crew but it is delivered with the civilians themselves rather than professional actors. The risk of this is clear but, aside from some very wooden performances, mostly it works because the majority of them are quite natural and convincing in how they are.

Jennings' approach to the telling was also a bit of a risk because the film is not just a glowing presentation of these people as flawless heroes so much as quite a realistic presentation of them and their role. The risks they take and the price some of them pay is clear from the film and it is well presented as such, even though it could have been seen as demoralising in the way that Jennings didn't glamorise them or put much more of a patriotic gloss on them. It does work really well though and I was impressed by how professional and well made the film was. The images are sharp and even the recreations of the fires look convincing.

I don't know enough to say where Fires Were Started sits in regards Jennings work but from my limited point of view it is an impressive film. By modern standards it isn't great of course but this is one of those films that can be viewed in context because it was made for a certain time and reason. This doesn't mean that if it were a bad film that I would be blind to those weaknesses though because it is still effective in what it sets out to do and is worth watching today.

TV decision-makers have developed such a low opinion regarding the viewer's intelligence that even the well-meaning and insightful reality "immersion" programs (24 hours in the hospital, police, fire brigades or airport custom services) must rely on fast-paced editing, on-the-nose voice-over or intrusive background music to overemphasize the heroism of their subjects.

One can easily diagnose it as TV symptomatic mimicry of cinema driven by an unfair assumption about reality's appeal (or lack thereof). Just as if the camera wasn't effective enough a window on the real, producers need to make their docs as thrilling, suspenseful, emotionally engaging and ultimately as entertaining as movies or series... and that's why today, documentaries show and tell, tell what to know and how to feel; that should be useful for National Geographic but when It deals with humans, what these programs show should be telling enough.

"Fires Were Started" is such a program.

The documentary (or film shot documentary-style) was released in 1943 and consists on a day's work in a firemen unit at the height of the Blitz, from the phone operators to the dispatching and logistics. The closest to a 'central' protagonist is a rookie, a young volunteer named Barrett. Before we get to the action, in intimate scenes shot in studios, we see firemen as relatable average Joes, enjoying leisure time, drinking tea, playing ping pong, snooker, having fun with an improvised piano session with the "Mow Meadow" song that sets the well-times mood whiplash occurring shortly before the end of the first half.

Indeed, when the alarm rings and a building neighboring the London harbor is under the flames, we're taken to the second half that has nothing to envy from the punchiest reality program. Naturally the film is closer in spirit with movies like "Battle of Algiers" (with a naturalistic approach that could have inspired Altman and oddly enough, I even thought of "Car Wash"). It's interesting that it used real firemen (quite good actors) and reconstructions over already destroyed buildings instead of simply shooting the real thing, the result is a successful "entertainazation" of reality and without the constant reliance on these hyperbolic effects (narration, voice over, etc.) music is sporadically used, there's no flooding of emotions (Spielberg should take notes) and that the film ends up affecting you with its poignancy says a lot about the storytelling talent of Humphrey Jennings.

Jennings doesn't go for effects, he lets the camera rolls at every department and inflicts us many unglamorous sequences about fire hydrants, assignments and the same order being repeated five times, we're not supposed to get everything, except the essential: efficiency-driven processes, organization, and men and women working together. Once we gather that, we get to a lengthy leisure sequence culminating with "Mow at Meadow" song and I could see why director Lindsay Anderson called Jennings a poet. Anyone can make a 'propaganda' film showing brave firemen defeating fire, climbing unsteady ladders, under the pressure of backdrafts or lack of water pressure, watching their comrades hurt or dying but it takes a certain coolness to show these men having fun and enjoying their time before the call of duty, highlighting their humanity before their vulnerability.

Jennings is a poet of the everyday folks showing us that heroes are nothing but ordinary guys, jeopardizing their life for principles, but not acting like holy sacrificial lambs. And once again, British cinema prove its capability to display the upper lip spirit less through the characters' bravery or courage but their stoic attitude under the fire. Although I doubt everyone would have stayed that cool under German bombings (some smiles might strike as a tad unrealistic given the film's context).

There's one image that speaks a thousand words though, when Barrett finds the crushed and burnt helmet of a partner in the ruins and that image symbolizes the ultimate bravery of men whose job consists as facing the very fire and ashes Winston had promised. It's a sad irony that Jennings died in 1950 after an accident while looking for locations as if embodied the very courage he showed in his film. "Fires Were Started" is a rather minor propaganda film but I mean it as a compliment, it's a great tribute to men who fought the big fight and to a director who could have given a little more and who certainly inspired the New British Wave of he 1960s with Anderson, Reisz, Schlesinger.

So, don't let its short runtime and lack of juicy casting fool you, if you admire firemen and their heroic sacrifices all through history, this is a film you can't refuse.

As in 'The Silent Village' Jennings is here experimenting with improvised dialogue (there was no proper shooting script) and an amateur cast (who were all serving London firemen). However, the result has been expanded into what is virtually a full-length drama.

Again, there are haunting images. But the whole thing is played in such a low-key fashion that everything looks natural. (One of the fireman who took part said that it was an accurate representation - apart from the omission of the universal swearing!)

The most famous scene is the group preparing for the nights work. Each enters to a verse of the old counting song 'One Man Went To Mow', which is being accompanied on the piano. How many will be left by morning?

The film was released in two versions - hence the two titles. It was very well received, but eclipsed by the release of another (more conventional) film about the fire service called 'The Bells Go Down', starring the popular comedian Tommy Trinder. (This is not to disparage this feature film, which was also realistic in its approach.)

This is among the best "British Home" movies I know. I'm watching a few of these because I'm involved with the 7-up series and am fascinated by how the Brits like to define themselves in film.

This has a lot that recommends it in that way. It was made about the war during the war. Nearly all films of that period focused on the elements of being English that the citizens themselves wanted woven into their story.

It is about firefighters, a sort of military type but placed in the middle of lives. At home, not abroad. So they dance and joke as men in their native land, not in an alien place. Its defense in the purest of senses. The story in fact involves the Germans trying to bomb the docks to prevent war materiel from embarking. And you see valiant acts to protect the ships from the burning warehouses.

But most of all, it employs non-actors, real firemen of the time in their real firehouses and suits, more or less acting as they would (but we discover, with no swearing).

The whole thing is amazingly engaging. Sure the story is trite; nearly all are. Sure the actual cinematic values are ordinary. But it gobsmacks you to know that you are not seeing a set with actors. This is the real destruction. These are the real men.

Its no slick "Ladder 49" or "Private Ryan." Its far better.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.