The Punch and Judy Man

I am still trying to decide which one I like the most - this one certainly made me laugh out loud more than once - the scene in the ice-cream parlour is a brilliant example of comic timing at its best, the illuminations going wrong has that bizarre inevitability that all spectators know and love - but, yes, it is a strange and ultimately sad little film. And for that, with its well-observed little cameos and support parts, and its little gems of scenes, it just scores over Tony's other film. If you like The Rebel and the half-hours you'll probably like this cos you're won over already. This one just stands on its own and is all the better for it. It's also an interesting snapshot of a more innocent Britain which has gone for good, and it's very well done.

This is a strange film. Hancock wanted to do something different and hoped he could have an international film career. It's hard to see exactly what Hancock was trying to achieve in this film. In some ways it feels like a film from earlier era. It would have sat more comfortably in the 1950s. Although there are elements of the early 1960s kitchen sink dramas. The character Hancock plays in the film, Wally Pinner, is hard to quantify. It's obviously not the same Hancock of the TV series and the film The Rebel but his performance isn't strikingly different. Hancock had carved out a career playing a deluded pompous and tragic figure. He understandably wanted to get away from that and show that there was more to him. With the character Wally I get the feeling he was trying to create a gadfly. Unfortunately the over all feeling of the film was depressing and Wally's attempts at being a local chirpy character don't really work for me. Another odd aspect of this film is the ending. Suddenly the film flips from a downbeat slightly tragic comedy to complete slapstick.

This film just didn't know what it wanted to be. It veers between being a 1950's British comedy, a 1960's kitchen sink drama, a social commentary, a downbeat gentle comedy and a slapstick without doing any of them particularly well. Part of the problem for Hancock was that the world and particularly Britain had changed enormously in a very short space of time and I doubt Hancock understood those changes. Ironically the people he had shed from his career along the way including Kenneth Williams, Sid James and his writers Galton and Simpson all went on to huge success in the 1960's.

I still like this film though and consider it an interesting part of British film history. However I'm not sure I would recommend it to a non Hancock fan.

When 'The Punch and Judy Man' was released Tony Hancock had been one of Britain's favourite radio and television comedians for about seven years. His work was brilliantly written by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson who worked many of Hancock's own quirks into his screen character.

Unfortunately Hancock's intellectual pretension came to the fore as he began to feel limited by Galton and Simpson's writing and decided he would try more serious comedy on the lines of Chaplin and Jacques Tati. We can see this ambition in the film's titles: starring Tony Hancock, screenplay by Tony Hancock (and Philip Oakes), based on an idea by Tony Hancock. Apparently Hancock also wanted to direct and photograph the film but Associated British vetoed this.

Ultimately Hancock lacked the intellectual depth and discipline of his heroes and his public didn't want to see him in an unfamiliar role. The result was a box office dud.

Forty years later we can see the film more objectively. The frustration is that the viewer can sense what Hancock was aiming for: a satirical look at celebrity and snobbery within the confines of a fading marriage. For example, the name of the fictional location - Piltdown - suggests the intellectual fraudulence of the town's middle-classes, being based on a faked primitive man which fooled the scientific establishment for half a century.

Unfortunately other elements creep in, such as the pathos of a little boy slipping his hand into Hancock's as they walk along a rain drenched sea-front. Until this point their relationship has been one of mutual irritation (the boy attends all Hancock's Punch and Judy shows and corrects him when he gets the plot wrong) which is much more satisfying.

The best moments occur with Hancock's gleeful anarchy as he annoys the 'Yaks', self-serving members of a secret society who dominate local business and politics. The ice-cream eating scene is excellent. The final scene with the wife is quite touching a we see them reach new understanding and mutual respect.

Despite good things the film never quite comes to the boil, but the good things are worth watching the film for, such as Lady Jane Caterham's speech to the good people of Piltdown - as wicked an impersonation of the Queen's delivery as I've ever heard.

A last word. For some reason the video release I have cuts two short but crucial early scenes: Hancock shoving a bunch of artificial flowers up the rear of an ornamental china pig to show his frustration with his marriage, and of him raising his hat to the Mayor while actually giving the 'V'-sign with his fingers. Perhaps this was to ensure a 'U' certificate but it seems a poor reason to chop a film.

A more serious effort from the star of the classic sitcom "Hancock's Half Hour". The boastful exuberance of his radio and TV days has been toned down.

Roundly panned at the time of release, the film looks better (though not perfect) today. "The Punch And Judy Man" sometimes stumbles in its attempts to play off scenes of gentle whimsy with those designed to show the lead character's life of quiet desperation, but the attempt to place Hancock's familiar persona in a more realistic (even somewhat grim) setting will be of interest to devotees of the lad from East Cheam.

This was supposed to be Tony Hancock's breakout role to world stardom. It did not pan out that way and Hancock would take his own life less than 5 years after this was released. The irony with this movie is how much better the supporting cast comes across than the star who cowrote the script. Mario Fabrizi, Hugh Lloyd, Ronald Fraser, John Le Mesurier all have a bigger collective impact in their scenes than Tony Hancock. Hancock has been accused of firing all his costars in Hancock's Half Hour because they either upstaged him or practically shared billing like a double act.

What is apparent when comparing this to The Rebel is how well Galton and Simpson wrote to Hancock's talents as a performer than Hancock could. Granted the comparisons between the two should end there since this is not a screwball comedy like The Rebel was. I think the writing team were mocking Hancock a little with that script. His artwork being the metaphor for his own talent and how well he ends up promoting someone else's hard work and talent that he just happens to be the face of by chance. The fact that it happens abroad instead of England is even worse since it mirrors Hancock's ambitions to be an international success. Galton and Simpson's script of The Rebel sounds like a vicious attack on Hancock if analyzed in that way.

The movie has nice scenes. It doesn't have a particularly severe plot. A man with a wife desperate to achieve status in the community demands her husband make an effort to do so with disasterous results. Others have noted that the movie can't decide what it is. Dark comedy, screwball comedy, drama etc. It feels like it drifts from time to time.

I love the location shooting the most but I still hoped this movie were set in the winter months. Della Pinner's motivations would be better understood during the cold slow months at the shore. I can image Wally and Edward's Punch and Judy act would be pushed indoors to different functions and schools. Community becomes all the locals and their focus shifts to each other when the tourists are not around. Everything makes much more sense off season. They try to make up for that with the town anniversary event bringing the locals together. Off season at a shore town can be extremely dreary so trying to be comic in that setting might be asking too much of anyone.