Skip to main content

Went the Day Well





Jack Higgins in writing the novel (and subsequent film): 'The Eagle has Landed' was being, in the words of Monty Python, 'a very naughty boy' as his essential conceit (and many details of plot) had been lifted from Graham Greene's story, made into a film in 1942, 'Went the Day Well'.

German paratroopers occupy an English village disguised as Allied troops on an exercise: in the former case they are there to assassinate Churchill, in the later case to interfere with British radar ahead of a planned German invasion. In both the villagers discover the German plot, which is assisted by a fifth columnist - a respected member of the village, are confined to the church but manage to alert the outside world, and are rescued by outside military intervention.

But watching 'Went the Day Well' yesterday, I was struck by the real differences between the two films. In 1942, the Germans are needless to say bad and we discover nothing about them as individuals. There is no back story. Whereas in 1976, we are treated to an extensive back story that locates this particular group of Germans as 'decent' (They are from an elite parachute group sent to work on dangerous experimental work on Alderney because their commanding officer has tried to save a young Jewish woman).

In the 1942 film the villagers are much more proactive in liberating their village - they take to arms indeed the postmistress hurls pepper into the eye of her guard and then lets him have it with her wood chopper. It is somewhat unrealistic and yet strangely stirring - we will fight them on the beaches and up every lane and into every cranny of the kingdom (This is 1942 after all).  In 1976, the villagers are much more passive victims of the plot - the background against which the conflict unfolds between the German paratroopers and the nearby American forces (I suppose the film had to be sold to the States so they get to rescue Churchill).

Though the actual resistance is melodramatic in 1942, however, it does capture the reality of the Second World War more closely than the 1976 version. The war's casualties were overwhelmingly civilian. This was a war fought against 'civilisation' not within it.

The other striking difference is class. In 1976, all the people we are meant to identify with are 'posh' - German and English (oddly though the Americans are critical to the outcome, they singularly fail to take root as people, except a tragi-comic turn from Larry Hagman as the combat frustrated and incompetent US commanding officer). The only working class character from the village who emerges into any reality is boorish and surly. In 1942, the whole village is in this together and all emerge with equal credit. Class differentiation is inescapably there (and referred to) in 1942 but does not matter when the chips are down. It is unconsciously there in 1976 and does appear to matter to who is heroic and who is not!

This strikes me as an inversion of what we might imagine - though Cavalcanti the 1942 film's Brazilian director was a communist, and Greene was a sympathiser, I do not think it wholly accounts for the very real difference in spirit between the two films. Class is much better addressed when we recognise it exists than when we pretend it does not (a reality that especially applies I think to America where they pretend it does not and end up significantly more hierarchal, not less, than the British).

For all its obvious propaganda elements, Went the Day Well, is a wonderful film - intelligent, literate and beautifully made - and its value as propaganda, I expect was enhanced by the detail of its observation, its strands of humour in diversity, and the glimpsed vision of precisely, in some of its complexity, what was being defended.

It, also, has the final touch of beginning and ending at the memorial to the German fallen, buried in the graveyard. We might be fighting (and when the film was made at our most precarious and desperate) but we would still bury our opponents decently. We are apt to be cynical at such observations but that rebounds to our discredit. Better to have ideals, and fail them, than not to have them at all!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Buddha meets Christ in embrace

Reading Lama Anagarika Govinda is proving nostalgic on a number of fronts. I recall my first reading of it in my first year at university, bought at Watkins, the famous 'esoteric' bookshop in Cecil Court in London. I sat in my hall of residence room transfixed by a world made familiar; and, it was deepening of a commitment to contemplation (which has been observed fitfully)! I remember returning, at the time, to my school to give a talk to the combined fifth form on Buddhism and using Govinda as the backbone of my delivery (both this book, and his equally wonderful, the Foundations of Tibetan Buddhism). I was voted (I immodestly remember) their best invited speaker of the year. I had even bought a recording of Tibetan music as opener and closer! He reminded me of how important Buddhism was (and is) to my own thinking and comprehension of my experience. The Buddha's First Sermon in the Deer Park was the first religious text I read (of my own volition) at the tender age

Searching for paradise in the hidden Himalayas

At moments of dislocation and intense social uncertainty people will appear offering the possibility of another land where people will be blessed, liberated and genuinely at home. In this case, it was not 'Brexit' but a hidden land of actual immortality, enfolded within the mountain ranges around Mt Kanchenjunga on the Nepalese/Sikkim border. Unlike Shangri-la, Beyul Demoshong was not simply a physical space, carefully hidden (as imagined in Hilton's Lost Horizon) but an occulted place spiritually hidden. The person offering this journey and opening the way to it was the 'crazy lama', Tulshuk Lingpa. Lingpa was a 'terton' a finder of 'terma' which were texts magically hidden until discovered at the right moment for them to be of maximum usefulness to people's spiritual development. They were often hidden by Padmasambhava, the robust wonder-working bringer of Buddhism to Tibet; and, Tibetan Buddhism is alive with such discoveries (though und

Parzival and the neutral angels

Fresh from contemplating 'Lost Christianity', I read Lindsay Clarke's fabulous re-telling of Wolfram von Eschenbach's poem, 'Parzival and the Stone from Heaven' from which 'Christendom' is lost! Von Eschenbach was a sacred poet but one of ecumenical sympathies where not only is Parzival's final battle (unknowingly) with his brother, the piebald Saracen, Feirefiz, essential to his self-discovery but the two of them enter the Grail castle together and are granted together a vision of the 'stone' that is the Grail. When Feirefiz asks whether it is permitted to see this Christian  mystery, Parzival answers (in Clarke's version) yes for, "all Nature's increase is there, so I think that this stone from Heaven must be a living emblem of the earth itself, which is mother and father to us all." There are knights, ladies, sorcerers, hermits and wise old hags abounding in Eschenbach's world but interestingly for a mediev