Tortillard pour Titfield

This was one of only two Ealing comedies to be made in colour, the other being "The Ladykillers" from two years later. Although railways play an important part in both, the two films are very different. "The Ladykillers" is an urban black comedy which was made in dull, muted colours but could equally well have been made in black and white. "The Titfield Thunderbolt", by contrast, is the sort of film that needs to be in colour. It is a joyful comedy, celebrating English rural life, and was shot against the background of beautiful, verdant West Country landscapes in late summer. (The wild flowers in the hedgerows suggest a date rather later than the June/early July when the story is ostensibly set). Appropriately for a film which opened in Coronation year, it has a notably patriotic tone.

The theory has been put forward that the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on "Attlee's Britain", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. Although Churchill's Conservatives had returned to power by the time "The Titfield Thunderbolt" was made in 1953, I think that the theory still applies to it because the new government accepted many of the reforms made by its predecessor and did not attempt to reverse them. One of the things that Attlee's government had done was to nationalise the railways, and the plot of the film revolves around an attempt by the new, nationalised British Railways to close a branch line between the (fictional) towns of Titfield and Mallingford.

A group of local people campaign to prevent the railway from being closed, and, when it becomes clear that BR will not listen to local opinion, decide to take over the line and operate it themselves. The leading lights in this campaign are the local Squire, whose great-grandfather originally built the line, and the eccentric local Vicar, who also acts as engine-driver. (A rascally local poacher is his fireman). The money for the enterprise is provided by a wealthy and hard-drinking landowner, Mr Valentine, whose main motivation is the idea that he can get a drink whenever he wants one. (In the 1950s the law imposed stringent closing-times on licensed premises, but licensing hours did not apply to bars on trains). The best performances come from Stanley Holloway (who also had important roles in "Passport to Pimlico" and "The Lavender Hill Mob") as Valentine, George Relph as the Vicar and Hugh Griffith as Dan the poacher. Those familiar with the "Carry On" films will recognise Sid James as a steamroller driver.

Like two other Ealing comedies, "Whisky Galore" and "Passport to Pimlico", this one deals with the theme of a small, close-knit community taking on the forces of bureaucracy. The film's satire, however, is not directed just at the bureaucrats of British Rail and the Ministry of Transport. As in "The Man in the White Suit" there are also satirical digs at the trade unions, portrayed as being more concerned with their own narrow interest than with the wider public good, and at business. The local bus company welcome the closure of the railway, which they see as an opportunity to increase their own profits. Much of the humour in the film derives from the bus company's increasingly frantic efforts to sabotage the railway, and the attempts of the railway enthusiasts to fight back. After their only steam engine is put out of action, they decide that the only way of keeping the railway in operation is to steal a veteran locomotive (the "Thunderbolt" of the title) from the local museum.

"The Titfield Thunderbolt" was, at one time, often regarded as one of the weaker Ealing comedies. It briefly became topical about a decade later when British Rail, under the chairmanship of Dr Richard Beeching, and with the encouragement of the notoriously pro-road and anti-rail Minister of Transport Ernest Marples, closed many branch lines across the country, but following the "Beeching Axe" and the growth of the "car economy" in the sixties and seventies, it began to look outdated. Enthusiasm for steam trains was seen as mere sentimental nostalgia. Today, however, the film looks very different in the light of modern concerns about global warming, congestion and the loss of countryside to the motorway network. There is a growing desire for local, community-based solutions to local problems. A film which once seemed like a reactionary fantasy of a Merrie England which never existed now seems far-seeing. Contrary to what Beeching and Marples might have thought, public transport, including the railways, still has an important part to play in the twenty-first century. "The Titfield Thunderbolt" is not just one of the most amusing of the Ealing series. It might also turn out to be one of the most prophetic. 9/10

This was Ealing's first Colour film, and was a great achievement for the small independent film company which was struggling to keep up with the big guys. I agree that Alec Guiness should have probably played the reverend, but the film is a magical and wonderful addition to the Ealing Collection. I think that it is one of their best features in its field. There is no other comedy that captures the nostalgia and charm of a small English village. It is filled with an excellent script, a solid cast and physical commedy. Plus, "The Lion" the original 1800 locomotive which the film revolves around shows the ingenuity and the long lasting construction of British Locomotives. A must see on anyone's list!

For my money this is the best and funniest of all the 'Ealing Comedies', it is so quintessentially post war British that it could not have been made by any other than Ealing Studios. The plot is simple - British Railways decide to close a local branch line and a group of villagers led by the local squire and vicar battle government red tape and the local bus company to run their own railway, eventually using an ancient locomotive (Thunderbolt) from the museum to pull their train. The character acting is superb as is the beautifully photographed scenery, but what makes this film stand by itself is that it does not rely on sex and violence (well only hammed up - such as the unforgettable joust between a railway locomotive and Sid James's steam roller)and no bad language. It is a reminder of a long departed much simpler and more idealistic age where its message of right would eventually overcome wrong, was almost believable. It is a very gentle film, an innocent film, and despite its age still manages to deliver a feel good factor of 10/10.

I remember seeing this many years ago on a TV broadcast and was delighted with that inimitable brand of English wit that transported me to a countryside and a wonderful group of people who were so uniquely British and so utterly fascinating to a young American who was (and is) unendingly interested in what else there is in the world beyond the borders of the continental U.S.A. Now at last viewers in the U.S. can obtain this film as part of a DVD collection, amidst a few other British comedy classics, redeeming its from its long neglect in the vaults.

Reading the other comments that have been posted by those who reside in Great Britain, it's distressing to read that the depredations of the big money men laid waste traditions and conveniences that at one time so enhanced daily life there. You probably know about the parallels here where vast networks of rail communications and transport, including many minimally polluting streetcar lines in many U.S. cities were intentionally destroyed by those whose motive was short-term profit and the enrichment of the Detroit automakers and their nefarious bedfellows, the oil company executives, who even today are assisting in embroiling both of our nations in horrendously costly and destructive conflicts (notwithstanding that there may, indeed, be some reasons for protecting ourselves against the mounting threats of technologically-assisted terror.)

One thing I do recall about this film was the incredibly beautiful use of "Colour by Technicolor." Hollywood cinematographers, at their best, rarely matched what their English counterparts often achieved. (Was there something about the addition of the letter "u" in that first word?) I've seen many others of the most famous Ealing comedies and every one of them was an entertainment experience that I savored then and to which I often return on those preciously available VHS tapes in my library (which can be slipped into my non-PAL format equipment). Cheers! and Thanksalot!

If you havn't watched this delightful piece of fun, just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's a great film. If you don't like railway locomotives, don't worry, there's so much more to it all than that. The story is a touch daft but very likeable, the characters are much the same as the story in that respect.The scenery is utterly gorgeous and the trains and buses take on a charming human aspect that makes this a kind of prototype, live-action THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE ! The comedy is typical of the Ealing studios at their very best.It's subtle, it's warm, it's wry and it's ironic.The script allows for suitably eccentric characterisation while remaining very British and amusingly restrained. However the premise of a village about to be cut off from it's railway lifeline is only too real. This film actually forecast the dreadfull effects of the Beeching railway massacre a decade later in Britain. Then, a whole century of incredible development in public transport was literally wiped out at the whim of the infamous government hit-man, Dr Beeching. A notorious character who slashed away the infrastructure so carefully created by men of vision as a sop to political morons unable to see beyond the bottom line of a balence sheet. At the time THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT was filmed the full effects of line closures on rural hamlets was still some way in the future and perhaps now, in hindsight,having seen the truth of it all, the film gains an ironic and touching element that it probably never had on release. I have heard that the film has only gained it's cult status in later years, and didn't actually do that well at the box office when released. Perhaps the story simply rings more truly now than it did then, or maybe it's simply the glorious look of rural 1950s England that has increased it's appeal over the decades? The central concept of the entire village pulling together - and paying - to keep the line open by running it themselves is sadly one quite alien to the rural England of the 21st century.Todays villages are part holiday-haven, part dormitary. The people who live their often can't find work nearby and many of the houses remain empty much of the time, used only as holiday cottages. The spirit of togetherness seen in the mythical Titfield has ebbed very quickly in the decades since the movie was made. I know, I have lived all my life in an area that suffered badly from 1960s railway-destruction! Back in the 1950s one could almost imagine the village spirit seen in the film, a peacetime spirit-of-the-blitz in fact. But not now. That adds yet more layers of whistful whimsy to the story, more concentration to the serious shot of nostalgea it supplies. Forget the petrol rationing and hardships of real life at the time,watch this film and you can't help wanting to live there! Charles Crighton's loving direction certainly makes the most of the rural locations in South Western England.Little vignettes of white horses frolicking if the fields and chaotic country stations suddenly taken over by runaway livestock give a honey tinted picture postcard vision of the English countryside. Pre-supermarkets and road-humps a more perfect place is hard to imagine. It's almost a visual cliche and yet I know the actual locations still exist today and look very much the same. There is still a railway running through the valley and a canal that still carries boats.Maybe the picture postcard is not quite so unbelievable as it might seem? Say what you like about the film from a technicians or drama critics point of view, it's simply wonderfull to sit through as a human being. Enjoy.