The Amorous Prawn

Joan Greenwood is at her plummy best as "Lady Fitzadam", wife of a British army general who is sent on an overseas mission. She has a grand house and, quite literally, an army of servants at a time when such facilities are at a premium. So, having established that there is a small fortune to be made, she is soon in cahoots with Ian Carmichael "Cpl. Green" and Liz Fraser "Suzie" and opens up their Scottish home to wealthy Americans who want to come and try their hands at salmon fishing. It's all going quite well, money is rolling in and they are successfully fleecing their visitors - including Robert Beatty "Hoffman" and Robert Nichols "Goulansky" - until her husband (Cecil Parker) makes an unexpectedly early return bearing a letter than confirms his imminent retirement - much to their chagrin. Irked at his disgraceful treatment, the two expand their money-making scheme and even manage to rope in the visiting Minister for War (Dennis Price). It's good fun for about an hour. The the humour is gentle and subtle, the wheezes are engaging and Beatty makes for quite a fun mark, but Anthony Kimmins drags out the story for too long and by the time the usually reliable Price (and his moustache) makes his appearance, I was just a bit bored with it all. It's still a good fun adaptation of the play, but is maybe just ten years too late...?

I first saw this film at the Odeon Temple Fortune in 1962,when I thought it be funny with a silly ending. Now it's no laughing matter. Difficult to realise that the play upon which this film is based fan for 900 performances in the West End.

Sadly not a Twitter despite a very strong cast. Cecil Parker at his dithering best. Joan Greenwood with her voice which just oozes sex. Ian Carmichael in an unethical role.as a corporal and butler. Dennis Price,with his handlebar moustache. He should have been a big star but his alchoholism meant that would never happen. Finish Currie,into his eighties,being a typical Scottish character,but alas all in vain.

For some reason I must admit to having a soft spot for old English movies. All terribly "pukkah" and stiff upper lip, don't you know! This description even applies to the British comedies of that era, funnily enough. Which is to say that they are principally designed to appeal to the British of that era. I have to say that even if I enjoy such a movie, I mostly do not like these comedies for their humour as such. What humour there is, is all so gentle as to be practically non existent - or perhaps it only works if one is an initiate to some secret society.

This movie is like that - a kind of social history of its times. It's a rather unfunny but somehow sweet movie (all the characters are so inoffensive) that I do not regret watching it, perhaps because I am a bit of an Anglophile at heart. But I certainly would not recommend it to anyone raised on a diet of Jim Carey or Adam Sandler for example, (not that I think they are funny either...........)

It's a movie that is typical of its type and if you are into that type you may enjoy it as a way to pass a pleasant unchallenging 90 minutes.

And like most people, I am totally mystified by the title. I can only presume that "prawn" had some specific vernacular meaning back when this was made. (I have heard the term used to describe what Americans call a "patsy" but don't think that really works in this context.

The title has very little to do with anything. The "amorous prawn" is a character who appears late in the story and acts as a catalyst to solve the rather silly plot strands. The film probably kept the title because the comedy had been a long-running West End hit. The plot is quite thin: a general's wife, desperate to raise a few hundred to buy a retirement cottage, takes advantage of her husband's absence on official business to take in two Americans as paying guests. Her military staff dress up as butlers, maids etc and remove giveaways like the sentry box at the gate. The Americans are caricatured: though friendly and warm, they molest the staff and hand out huge tips and even require (the cads!) central heating. There's a lot of running about, giggling and flashes of underwear. The real enjoyment is provided by the comic skills of Ian Carmichael doing a butler act, Liz Fraser as his girlfriend, Cecil Parker and Joan Greenwood as the general and wife, and Derek Niimmo as a less than 100 per cent he-man chef. Back in 1962 homosexual acts were still criminal and gay characters were a big joke. When Niimmo gets engaged to one of the girls, Carmichael shakes his hand (which is obviously limp) and says "I didn't think you were the marrying kind!" Mr Prawn is another "comic" stereotype of the time: ex-RAF with bristling moustache, well-off, dressed smartly in blazer and gold cufflinks, middle-aged but still chasing young girls. It's all a bit naughty, ho ho! The shenanigans end abruptly with the help of some Scots waving salmon. Well, the West End audience must have had trains to catch. xxxxx

With General Fitzadam's retirement approaching, Lady Dodo Fitzadam has her heart set on them buying a lovely little cottage to spend their years together. Sadly the cottage is beyond their means and the General vetoes it just before he sets off to carry out orders on another placement. Leaving his wife in charge of the men must have made sense, but the General was not to know that Dodo would hit upon a money making idea that runs rather contrary to the military's rules. Ordering the soldiers to dress as butlers, Dodo sells the base as an idyllic holiday villa in remote Scotland – drawing paying American tourists. However, keeping the ruse quiet is more difficult than they suspected, not to mention the loud and fun-seeking American guests.

The title makes little sense and bares little relevance to the story but it is better than the cash in American title, which sought to increase its audience by claiming some relation to the infamous Profumo sex scandal of the period. With such a nonsensical title it was no surprise to find a rather simple and uninspiring comedy that is pretty bland and has no real appeal other than a collection of famous faces being present and some limited appeal to fans of the period. The plot is simplistic and merely a thin excuse for a lot of sudden costume changes and harmless flirting – can they keep the ruse hidden? Can they keep the flirting from becoming something more serious? Can I manage to keep watching long enough to find out? The answer to the final question is 'yes', but only just. Without any laughs to really speak of it was hard to find a reason to keep watching other than sheer bloody-mindedness, which unfortunately I have! The plot goes exactly where you'd expect it to but it does so without really ever being interesting or entertaining.

The cast don't have the material to work with and it is only really their recognisable faces that have value. Ian Carmichael is OK and does OK with a much different accent from normal. Greenwood is unconvincing and her lack of real fight in her marriage makes the plot a bit more sobering than funny.

Cecil Parker is as strong as he usually is but has limited time, as indeed does the instantly recognisable Dennis Price. Liz Fraser plays on her looks as ever, but she is good looking and has a great figure here – who can blame the film for taking the chance to get her down to her underwear, shame that her flirting and giggling actually isn't funny at all. The support cast all do their bit without really shinning more than once or twice, the only real surprise being a very young looking Derek Nimmo in a typically camp role.

Overall if someone can explain the title to me then I will not have totally wasted 90 minutes but as it stands I probably have done. The plot is pointless and the material gives the well-known cast nothing to really work with. The poor script and sub-par flirting all act to produce a laugh free event, which is something of a problem in a film that is selling itself as a comedy. Might appeal to fans of the actors but more than likely many viewers will have given up on this lame product before it has even reached the halfway point.