Talk:The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

Good
This is a good article! I especially like the critical quotations.Rayray 09:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent film! I will definitely attempt to turn this article into featured (once I get the time). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2005-09-13 20:17

Copy edit and cleanup of Synopsis
I've done a copy edit and cleanup of the synopsis, which I believe clarifies some aspects of the story which were somewhat muddy in the old version. In the process, I moved a couple of commentary passages and asides to footnotes. These either really don't belong in the body of a synopsis or impeded the flow of the story. They can stay in footnotes, or be moved elsewhere in the article if an appropriate place can be found. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Boer War/Duel
I've made some more changes to the Boer War duel section, because it wasn't quite accurate the way it was. *"All parties" don't agree to pretend that the duel is about Edith's honor. We only learn about this once in the film, when one of the British officials tells Candy "It's generally assumed that the duel was ..." something or other about Edith (I'm semi-quoting from memory), and that's the only time it's mentioned. We never know if the Germans deliberately bought into this subterfuge, only that "It's generally assumed" and the British want it to go on being that way -- so we can't say anything about what "all parties agree". *I like the addition of Theo's objection to dueling, but it's important to keep in that he was put into the position of dueling because he was chosen at random, and that the reason he volunteered was that the duel would uphold the honor of the Army -- very important at the time. I know that the wording theree wasn't the best, but it's a bit better now, I think. It could possibly be improved, but I'd like not to muddy the two points above. Also, I removed "major" from diplomatic incident. Clearly, from the behavior of the 2 German officers when they come to the embassy (consulate?), it's not a major incident at all -- or else it would be being dealt with at a higher level. It's merely another blip in the continuing disintegration of relations between England and Germany prior to WW1. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Churchill and Blimp
One thing I've never understood was Churchill's attempt to if not deep-six the filming of Blimp, at the least to put hurdles in its way. From our point of view, looking back, the film is so clearly pro-British that it seems amazing that Churchill would be worried about it. Let's face it, if P&P had actually made a film that showed the jingoistic Blimp character from the cartoons, that might have been the case -- and perhaps that's what Churchill feared, that such a film would hold British ideals and the military up to scorn and ridicule. The film they made, though, is so obviously sympathetic to Candy, who is shown as something of a "great man" -- a bit thick, perhaps, but honorable, resourceful, energetic, etc. etc., that I have to think that Churchill never saw it (who can blame him -- did he really have *time*?) or read a script, and was simply acting on the *possibility* of what the film might turn out to be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "A bit thick, but honourable", a lovely description of Clive Candy :)
 * The trouble was that Churchill didn't even see a script. He was sent a report by one of his ministers (Sir James Grigg, the Minister of War) which summarised the script that had been submitted - not for approval, just as a courtesy. P&P had already been in discussion with the War Office and the Ministry of Information. All the government people asked them not to make the film. P&P reminded them that even during a war we were still a democracy (Powell's version) and the government refused them access to army vehicles and uniforms, so they "borrowed them" i.e. stole them. And refused them the use of Olivier who was in the forces so they used Roger Livesey. Probably a blessing in disguise.
 * See 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' reconsidered. By James Chapman and Christie, Ian. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (script) by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger. London: Faber & Faber, 1994. ISBN 0-571-14355-5. Ian's book includes all the government papers and memos that showed them trying to stop the production - but the reason as to why is still speculative.
 * Winston Churchill met star Anton Walbrook when Anton was appearing in the stage play "Watch on the Rhine" while the film was still in production (he had to leave Denham studios early on matinée days) and Churchill was trying to get it stopped. A blustering, red faced (Blimp like?) Churchill proceeded to berate Anton saying "What's this supposed to mean? I suppose you regard it as good propaganda for Britain?" Anton calmly replied "No people in the world other than the English would have had the courage, in the midst of war, to tell the people such unvarnished truth."
 * Even after the film was made, and Churchill had seen it, he still didn't like it. The government withheld a license to export it for some time which is why it wasn't released in the States until March 1945.
 * Was it because it held up the Army, especially the "top brass" of the old school, to ridicule? Was it because the most intelligent person, the one that got the best speeches, was a German while we were in the middle of a fight for survival against Germany? Did Churchill fear the "Blimp" character, thinking that they were having a dig at him? That must all remain speculation -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All good points, and some that I hadn't considered. My other thought was just that the moment in time was so utterly different from ours that it really is difficult to see things through their eyes.  Probably it seemed to them (the officials trying to stop the film) that what they couldn't ensure was absolutely going to be helpful in some way (i.e. official propaganda, morale boosting, keep your chin up stuff) was therefore best to consider harmful -- it's a wartime POV: if you're not with me (100%), you're agin me. That's all understandable, what makes it ironic is that things have changed so much that most people now, I believe, would look on Blimp as a blatant piece of wartime proganda in itself!  (Not that I think it is -- but they certainly trod lightly over the British behavior in the Boer War, which was in some ways fairly reprehensible.) Certainly Churchill, as great a man as he was, was not one without {significant) flaws. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Churchill occasionally had to be reminded that although he was a great, much needed and much admired war leader, he wasn't a dictator.
 * P&P films, even up to this point had always been a bit odd, different to most British films of the time and were already attracting puzzled comments from the critics who thought that all British films should be realist. The Spy in Black and 49th Parallel had already had Germans in significant heroic roles.
 * And P&P had already declared their independence. They worked with the government (especially the Ministry of Information - the propaganda branch) but only to discuss ideas and to keep them informed. Never to get permission to make a film. The Ministry initially sponsored 49th Parallel. When it went over budget, Rank paid the rest.
 * They would follow the Ministry's guidelines for propaganda films, but in their own peculiar way -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine that Churchill hated the idea of the film because he thought it was poking fun at the idea that old men were running the war. Remember that Blimp was a creation of David Low, who was fairly merciless as British cartoonists went (in fact he was from New Zealand but he was far further to the left than Churchill).  I have or had a pamphlet called This England, a collection of quotes from the British press, published in 1940 and edited and illustrated by Low.  It's pretty savage stuff, especially when you consider that it was put together in the darkest period of a global war.  Churchill would have known Low's cartoons much better than P&P's stuff and could have had no way of knowing where they were going to go with the story.  It's not surprising that even when Churchill did see the film he didn't like it, because film strongly suggests that the values that Clive stands for (honour, decency, fair play, right conquering might) are lovely, but tragically obsolete.  These were the values that Churchill always invoked whenever he was doing his best speeches.  He would not have liked to have it implied that they were not enough to see Britain through.  This is what made the film so radically untimely for the early 1940s; it was partly because of Churchill's rhetorical appeal to these very old-fashioned myths of Britishness that he was able to galvanise the population to the extent that he was able to.  So, the film is in part very pro-British, and in another way not at all.  That's why it's wrong to see it as blatant propaganda, and also wrong to see it as uncomplicatedly pro-British.  (Think of the South African officer in the WW1 sequence who, it's implied, is either torturing his prisoners or scaring them with the threat of torture.  Back then, South Africa was a dominion of the Empire and the Empire had not begun to fall apart.) Lexo (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Typically British
Should we point out how "typically British" this film is? Written by a Hungarian, filmed by a Frenchman, music by a Pole, design by a German with an Austrian as one of the leads. The other leads were Scottish and Welsh. Still, the editor and director were English :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit like the trial scene in A Matter of Life and Death, when the jury is changed to one of "Americans" -- the same nationalities as the previous jury (more or less), only American citizens. Jeez, who makes films like that any more? That's a serious question, is there any filmmaker you would see as in some way -- stylistically, whatever -- the modern equivalent of Powell and Pressburger? Because if there is, and I don't know about them, I want to.  Mike Leigh? Who? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, to answer your question, I think it would be interesting to include that somewhere -- just the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know anyone who manages to do everything they did. Some, like the Cohen Brothers or Scorsese do parts of it. But remember that P&P had a very strange setup with Rank and then with Korda where they were given total freedom and control over their films. I don't know anyone else who has had such freedom before or since. -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was think about the Coen Brothers as well, especially when they get somewhat whimsical, as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is the "written by a hungarian..." section a direct quote from Powell, or a summary of what he said. I'm thinking that if it's a quote, it should probably be in blockquotes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a direct quote (or very close to it) but I can't remember where he said it. I'm fairly sure it was at the NFT or a similar on-stage interview before an audience. But he did quite a few of those in his later years -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz
Isn't it worth mentioning the references to The Wizard of Oz in the Miscellany section? I attempted this before but it was declared 'non-notable'. Strange then that the mention of Conan Doyle and The Hound of the Baskervilles is permitted. According to the Internet Movie Data Base this is one of the earliest films to allude to The Wizard.

Absurdtrousers (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, then re-insert it with that information, which I think would make it notable. However, the discussion of the color usage of "A Matter of Life and Death" is not appropriate. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S-centric writing style?
"One day, he receives a letter from Edith Hunter (Deborah Kerr) who is working in Berlin, Germany as an English teacher." Yeah, well, which other Berlin than "Berlin, Germany" might it be in a film of this kind -- "Berlin, Iowa", "Berlin, Missouri", "Berlin, East Hillbillia"...? I suggest editing this to just "...working in Berlin as an...".--CRConrad (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations of the film
"It suggests that Britain needs to 'fight dirty' in the face of such an evil enemy as Nazi Germany."

This is a theme of the film, but I don't think it's what the film is ultimately saying. This theme is represented by the character of Spud, the eager young Home Guard officer who takes Clive prisoner on the eve of the exercise, instead of waiting for the exercise to begin. Spud is brave, enterprising, savvy, energetic and well aware of the fact that he is fighting Nazi Germany. On the other hand he is also arrogant (he disregards orders because he has a better idea), ignorant (he doesn't know anything about Clive's distinguished career) and disrespectful to Clive.

A.L. Kennedy's BFI Film Classics book on the movie is pretty good about this stuff: you couldn't really get a film made in wartime Britain unless there was some obvious propaganda point to be made, and Blimp's obvious propaganda point is that the Blimps of the world did not really understand what kind of war they were fighting. However, most of the film is not set in WW2; the bulk of it is about Clive's hopeless romanticism, and how he keeps falling in love with the same woman over and over again without realising it. Clive's tragedy is that he never really understands himself, whereas Theo understands him very well. From reading Pressburger's biography, I think that what P&P really wanted to do was make a film about what made England (and Scotland, and Wales) worth defending. They were saying, in effect: Yes, we may have to borrow dirty methods in order to defeat the Nazis, but what kind of damage will that do to us? P&P were, in a way, making a film in the spirit of George Orwell's "As I Please" column, trying to remind people about the value of what they were fighting for, rather than making the whole movie about the need to win by any means necessary. "By any means necessary" is totally against the spirit of this movie and, indeed, of all the Powell & Pressburger movies.

I recognise that this is all me arguing, and I have no published sources for my arguments, because they're basically mine. But they may provoke somebody else to find support for them. Lexo (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good analysis. Is Spud the young Clive all over again: impulsive, fearless, not very bright? The Lawless One (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Spud is very much like the young Clive, and Clive recognises this at the end of the film when he invites Spud & Johnny to dinner
 * Lexo, you say "you couldn't really get a film made in wartime Britain unless there was some obvious propaganda point to be made". That's not true. This film was made in the face of official opposition. P&P initially wanted Olivier for the leading role but as he was serving with the Fleet Air Arm and was refused leave to make the film. The authorities also forbade the cooperation of any of the armed forces - although The Archers still managed to get enough uniforms and army vehicles for what they wanted. But it was mainly Churchill himself who tried to get the film stopped and who had to be reminded that we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship.
 * This film is one of a series they made showing people "How we fight" and "What we are fighting for". These include A Canterbury Tale (1944) and I Know Where I'm Going (1945) as well as some shorts like The Volunteer (1943) which was more of a pure propaganda film. They were doing this from 49th Parallel (1941) up to A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
 * P&P did do propaganda, of course they did. But they did it their own way. They did it honestly showing the country and the people, warts & all. But showing that the country & the people were still worth fighting for. They talked to people in authority and in the government to get ideas, but they were never under the control of those people. After 49th Parallel they never got any funding or any direct support from the government and they certainly didn't let anyone in the government tell them what to do in any way. But the government wasn't the only group who wanted to win the war or the only group that wanted to create propaganda to show people what was going on
 * -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Plot" tag
The "Plot" tag was added recently by someone who neither leaves edit summaries nor has worked on the article to speak of. I don't think the plot summary is currently too long, considering this is an epic 2-3/4 hour film which encompasses 41 years, three major romances, three major wars, and numerous flashbacks or changes in narrative, not to mention an abundance of different themes. The WP:FILMPLOT guidelines read:

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)"

The cited plot summary for Pulp Fiction is 1177 words -- 38 words longer than the current plot summary for Blimp. The plot for Gone with the Wind is 1751 words.

Therefore I propose that the "plot" tag on this plot summary be removed. It's hard to find a decent summary for this film, and the one here leaves out a number of key points already. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree: the plot can be adequately summarised in under 700 words in this case and I'd advise against removing it: try re-writing the section instead. The BFI, who manage to do these things rather well, have produced an 800-word summary, which you may wish to look at first. Could I also add that you may wish to concentrate on the edit, rather than the editor in future? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 02:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: the editor above is the editor who placed the tag and who has not worked on the article to speak of and who never gives an edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'll ask again: could you please address the edit and not the editor. Please see WP:ETIQ for clarity. I'm really not sure what either of those points has to do with the poorly written summary. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked on this article before, and I agree that it can be trimmed down without too much trouble. I've got it down to about 900 words so far. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was 780 words when I started editing it. It is now just 723 words which I think is enough to remove the "plot" tag -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Barbara Wynne-Candy used in The League of Gentlemen
The final paragraph of the section on Production has the tag "Citation Needed" for the claim that the picture of Barbara Wynne-Candy was used in the file The League of Gentlemen. This claim was originally inserted by me and is an observation of both films - you may classify this as original research but read on...

The claim was later modified by someone else (name unknown) to suggest the painting used in The League of Gentlemen was a close copy of the "Blimp" painting. I have not examined the relevant scenes in such close detail but have no doubt the paintings are either the same or very similar - I had no reason to change the modified claim.

The result of all this is that I cannot see how one can provide a citiation for a claim (or a modified version of it) when it is undeniably true but, as far as I know, undocumented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Then I've removed it. WP:OR is not permissible. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I said you may classify this as original research. Original research refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" - wikipedia's own definition. There is a reliable source. The film "The League of Gentlmen" is the source. Furthermore, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." That is the case in this instance. The picture in question is either identical or a close copy.

I suggest you restore the original statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable secondary source then of course it can go back in. Without a source it's OR - and fails WP:TRIVIA too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your approach is incorrect.

If you want to exclude that paragraph then you need to change the editorial policy so that it can be excluded.

If the film had contained (say) a defamatory statement no secondary source would have been required to verify the presence of that statement in the film. The only requirement for a secondary source might arise if it was desired to establish the statement's truth. The film itself is the documentary source as to its existence.

Presumably your approach requires quotes from the film (if used in the article) to be reliably sourced from somewhere other than the film.

As for the WP:TRIVIA remark. My statement about the portrait is indeed trivia. But the wikipedia editorial policy does not give this as grounds for its removal per se. I quote, "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia."  So if you want to exclude the statement on the grounds that it is trivia you need to procure a change to this policy to read, "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with, whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, and whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia."

As it is, I can see a reason to include the qualifier, "...the picture (of Barbara Wynne) or a close copy" but no reason to exclude the statement altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Then find a reliable source. If this piece of trivia is, in your mind, notable enough for inclusion, then it will be notable enough to have been included in a reliable secondary source. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Try http://www.britmovie.co.uk/forums/general-film-chat/107211-paintings-films.html although I expect it doesnt qualify as reliable. Though the author does not obviously copy the WP comment and, in fact, verbalises my own speculation as to how the painying came to be used again - it was lying in a store room and found to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether true or not (and I have no difficulty believing it is), the reuse of props, which happened all the time in film studios, is just not encyclopedic material. Once you start down that road, you'll never stop. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia should not be confused with IMDb. DonIago (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well... nobody has complained about this item for over 5 years. And as the correspondent in the above link pointed out, the picture is an important (fairly important, I'd say) plot point in both films.


 * The problem is that fancruft is tucked away in a number of film articles, especially those that haven't been given a make-over to GA level. Just because unsupported material has been present on a page for a while, does not mean it should remain there indefinitely, unless a reliable source can be added. As to it being "an important plot point", again we need that from a reliable source, other wise it simply the opinion of a blog writer, which means little, when anyone can write a blog. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Conon Doyle
When Clive fights his duel in 1902 mention is made of a author writing of the Hound of the Baskervilles. Of course that is Sir arthur Conon Doyle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually when Clive is talking to Col. Betteridge in London before he goes on his Berlin adventure. He mentions Conan Doyle and The Hound of the Baskervilles by name -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

--- In the meeting with Col. Betteridge Candy, holding a copy of The Strand magazine, mentions that he knows Conan-Doyle. Betteridge, a Sherlock Holmes fan, asks Candy if he can find out details of the upcoming episode of Holmes in The Strand magazine. 31.125.76.2 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124053222/http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/bfi100/41-50.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/bfi100/41-50.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)