As I am sometimes less than kind in my comments of the Archers, it was a pleasure to rediscover the other day "The Small Back Room" , a film I had not seen since its original release. Although this is generally regarded as one of their minor works, presumably because of its lack of flamboyance, it takes for once a very serious theme and treats it in a thoroughly mature way; that of the psychologically flawed individual and how he reacts when faced with possibly the greatest challenge in his professional career. Two of Sidney Lumet's finest films, "Equus" and "The Verdict" have the same subject. Sammy Rice, the boffin of "The Small Back Room", is struggling with alcoholism and the mental as well as the physical pain of coping with an artificial foot when he is called upon to discover the way to dismantle one of several booby-trap explosive devices dropped by the Germans over Britain in 1943. The casting of the two central characters is perfect. Although the part of Sammy calls for someone with a James Mason like authority, a much lesser actor, David Farrar, rises to the occasion particularly as he has the advantage of a large lumbering frame that conveys a certain physical awkwardness. As his sympathetic ladyfriend, Susan, Kathleen Byron drops her "Black Narcissus" melodramatics to give the performance of her lifetime as the woman who really knows how to handle Sammy when he is at his lowest. Add to this the fine camerawork of Christopther Challis, particularly liberal in its use of huge closeups that significantly heighten the psychological tension of the narrative, and you have a film well worthy of attention. In only two scenes does it falter. Unfortunately by conforming to the tiresome custom of British films of the period of sending up the Establishment, it presents Robert Morley as a rather silly senior minister. Although this would have probably fitted in the context of a comedy it is out of place in a film as darkly toned as this. Then there is the melodramatic lapse of resorting to Teutonic Expressionism when Sammy is fighting his alcoholism. In this nightmarish sequence he is physically dwarfed by a giant whisky bottle and an alarm clock. This is one of only two scenes to use background music. For the rest, untypically for this period, it does without. It makes for a stronger, more hard-edged experience.
45 Reviews
I must have a drink. Ask me to have a drink woman.
hitchcockthelegend2 July 2015
The Small Back Room (AKA: Hour of Glory) is directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, with both adapting the screenplay from the Nigel Balchin novel. It stars David Farrar, Kathleen Byron, Jack Hawkins, Leslie Banks and Michael Gough. Music is by Brian Easdale and cinematography by Christopher Challis.
As the Germans drop explosive booby-traps across coastline England, Sammy Rice (Farrar) will be tasked with learning the secret to disarming the deadly devices. But first he must beat his private battle with alcohol, his form of self medication due to the loss of one of his feet.
The Archers produce what is in essence a tale of redemption, it's a superbly mounted drama dripping with realism and infused with atmospheric black and white photography. It somewhat divided critics back on release, but that tended to be customary where Powell was concerned, who himself wasn't sure about the validity of this particular piece. Yet it finds Pressburger and himself on sure footings, returning to more grounded human dramatics, their willingness to explore the murky fallibility of mankind is a thing of bold and effective cinematic beauty.
The by-play between Farrar and Byron is sexually charged, but heart achingly poignant as well. The pic is at its best when these pair share scenes, the back drops to their troubled courting veering from vibrant (hope) to dour (despair), the latter always staged at Sammy's gloomy flat and the scene of a brilliantly filmed expressionistic nightmare that he suffers. Elsewhere various military types either stand tall or sit behind desks speaking in correct literary tones, their collective problem being that the pesky Germans have come up with a vile bomb tactic that needs addressing ASAP.
Can Sammy come through for not only the war effort, but also for his sanity? Watch and see, it's great film making across the board. 8/10
As the Germans drop explosive booby-traps across coastline England, Sammy Rice (Farrar) will be tasked with learning the secret to disarming the deadly devices. But first he must beat his private battle with alcohol, his form of self medication due to the loss of one of his feet.
The Archers produce what is in essence a tale of redemption, it's a superbly mounted drama dripping with realism and infused with atmospheric black and white photography. It somewhat divided critics back on release, but that tended to be customary where Powell was concerned, who himself wasn't sure about the validity of this particular piece. Yet it finds Pressburger and himself on sure footings, returning to more grounded human dramatics, their willingness to explore the murky fallibility of mankind is a thing of bold and effective cinematic beauty.
The by-play between Farrar and Byron is sexually charged, but heart achingly poignant as well. The pic is at its best when these pair share scenes, the back drops to their troubled courting veering from vibrant (hope) to dour (despair), the latter always staged at Sammy's gloomy flat and the scene of a brilliantly filmed expressionistic nightmare that he suffers. Elsewhere various military types either stand tall or sit behind desks speaking in correct literary tones, their collective problem being that the pesky Germans have come up with a vile bomb tactic that needs addressing ASAP.
Can Sammy come through for not only the war effort, but also for his sanity? Watch and see, it's great film making across the board. 8/10
Overlooked Gem From Powell
Theo Robertson25 July 2013
The films of Michael Powell feature quite prominently in the list of greatest British films list . BLACK NARCISSUS , THE RED SHOES , THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP and A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH all feature there somewhere . This film called THE SMALL BACK ROOM is constantly ignored for some reason , perhaps the fact it's in black and white might have a lot to do with it but is certainly of the best films in Powell's resume
Perhaps this fact that it is shot in black and white works in its favour ? In some ways it's a different take on film noir . David Farrar plays Sammy Rice a scientist working for the war office and finds himself besieged on all sides by marketing agents who want to win government contracts for new weapons even though these weapons are nowhere near as effective as the marketing men claim . What the film does brilliantly is taking us in to the tortured psyche of Rice who knows fine well that this will cost the lives of young men who have to fight the war against Nazi Germany with these weapons
In film noir the protagonist is portrayed as a flawed anti-hero and in the case of Rice he's flawed both physically and mentally . He has a foot missing which has been replaced by a tin one that causes him pain which has led to an addiction for pain killers which don't work except to feed his addiction . Rice also has a sometimes addiction to alcohol and Powell shows his expressionistic influences by a quite breath taking sequence where Rice has to literally fight his addiction . The entire film benefits greatly from the cinematography of Christopher Challis that any director of film noir would kill for
One other overlooked aspect to THE SMALL BACK ROOM that you would never get in an American movie is the " joint effort " portrayal of the allies . Churchill summed up allied victory as being won by " American money , British courage and Soviet blood " a somewhat simplistic sound bite but the fact is it was a broad coalition of many countries and of many brave young people who can claim the victory for defeating Nazi Germany and it's nice to see a film open with a British officer finding himself surrounded by servicemen from America , Poland and France . Believe me you wouldn't get that in a 21st Century American film
THE SMALL BACK ROOM remains one of the best films Powell made . Like the cosmopolitan coalition who beat the Nazis there's a lot of factors as to why it's a good movie . If you're expecting a war film then that's not what you're going to get because it's a journey through the psyche of a tortured man with the burden of a world at war on his shoulders and the film is good at portraying this on screen and contains some excellent cinematography
Perhaps this fact that it is shot in black and white works in its favour ? In some ways it's a different take on film noir . David Farrar plays Sammy Rice a scientist working for the war office and finds himself besieged on all sides by marketing agents who want to win government contracts for new weapons even though these weapons are nowhere near as effective as the marketing men claim . What the film does brilliantly is taking us in to the tortured psyche of Rice who knows fine well that this will cost the lives of young men who have to fight the war against Nazi Germany with these weapons
In film noir the protagonist is portrayed as a flawed anti-hero and in the case of Rice he's flawed both physically and mentally . He has a foot missing which has been replaced by a tin one that causes him pain which has led to an addiction for pain killers which don't work except to feed his addiction . Rice also has a sometimes addiction to alcohol and Powell shows his expressionistic influences by a quite breath taking sequence where Rice has to literally fight his addiction . The entire film benefits greatly from the cinematography of Christopher Challis that any director of film noir would kill for
One other overlooked aspect to THE SMALL BACK ROOM that you would never get in an American movie is the " joint effort " portrayal of the allies . Churchill summed up allied victory as being won by " American money , British courage and Soviet blood " a somewhat simplistic sound bite but the fact is it was a broad coalition of many countries and of many brave young people who can claim the victory for defeating Nazi Germany and it's nice to see a film open with a British officer finding himself surrounded by servicemen from America , Poland and France . Believe me you wouldn't get that in a 21st Century American film
THE SMALL BACK ROOM remains one of the best films Powell made . Like the cosmopolitan coalition who beat the Nazis there's a lot of factors as to why it's a good movie . If you're expecting a war film then that's not what you're going to get because it's a journey through the psyche of a tortured man with the burden of a world at war on his shoulders and the film is good at portraying this on screen and contains some excellent cinematography
Dark and modern view of wartime UK
raygirvan3 December 2001
This is a wonderful movie, ahead of its time. The filming has the intense chiaroscuro of monochrome at its best, Kathleen Byron is astonishingly beautiful (even more so than in Black Narcissus), and the undertones are dark and very modern. Susan and Sam (the pain-ridden hero) have no idealised relationship; the film is uncompromising about Sam's alcoholism and, remarkably for its time, clear in its implication that Sue and Sam live together despite being unmarried. There are also many nice well-observed details, such as the scientist who embarrasses a visiting minister by knowing the answer to a sum faster than the calculator they are supposed to be demonstrating, the snoozing officer in the War Room, and the laid-back Strang who clearly is intensely attracted to Sam. I just keep watching this and finding more to see.
It's All A Bit Hush-Hush
strong-122-4788857 June 2014
Not really knowing what to expect from The Small Back Room, I'm glad to say that I found myself pleasantly surprised by this 1949, British production. It was one of the best character studies that I've seen (from that era) in quite a long time.
Set in 1943 (in war-torn London), this beautifully restored, b&w drama held my undivided attention from start to finish.
Featuring a good cast (headlined by David Farrar) and impressive camera-work (there's lots of great close-ups), The Small Back Room's story concerns the professional and personal conflicts of Sam Rice, a troubled research scientist and bomb-disposal expert with a "tin leg" and a weakness for whiskey.
This solid, intense (and somewhat depressing) story even contains a scene filmed at Stonehenge. As well, there's a rather strange & surreal sequence involving clocks and a distorted whiskey bottle that gets thrown into the mix which may puzzle some viewers.
All-in-all - This WW2 drama was well-worth a view.
Set in 1943 (in war-torn London), this beautifully restored, b&w drama held my undivided attention from start to finish.
Featuring a good cast (headlined by David Farrar) and impressive camera-work (there's lots of great close-ups), The Small Back Room's story concerns the professional and personal conflicts of Sam Rice, a troubled research scientist and bomb-disposal expert with a "tin leg" and a weakness for whiskey.
This solid, intense (and somewhat depressing) story even contains a scene filmed at Stonehenge. As well, there's a rather strange & surreal sequence involving clocks and a distorted whiskey bottle that gets thrown into the mix which may puzzle some viewers.
All-in-all - This WW2 drama was well-worth a view.
Brooding Tale of Redemption
chazzy-324 August 2000
This film is an interesting return to the general subject matter of Powell and Pressburger's black and white war films (49th Parallel, One of our Aircraft, etc..), but, made four years after the end of the war, it is a moody piece that focuses on a man disabled by the war. It is typical of their work in that it features brilliantly well-rounded, truly adult characters without easy answers or one-dimensional poses; it is also a departure from their other films of the period in its lack of flamboyance and otherworldly flair. The gritty style - no music, for example, and wonderfully spare dialogue by Pressburger - is perfectly echoed by the intense performances of Kathleen Byron and David Farrar. As always, Powell's keen visual sense is paramount to the brilliance of the Archers' films, and the bomb-defusing scene on the beach makes great use of the setting in its compositions and editing. Although it is not the best introduction to the work of Powell and Pressburger, this film is a keen testament to the capacity of their storytelling abilities in weaving a tale of a man who finds redemption through work and love. Whether their films are explorations of the power of art or the effects of war, I consistently find their work profoundly moving. Let's hope that it is FINALLY released on video or, better still, DVD. (Attention, Scorcese!!!!)
The Archers
gavin69422 May 2017
As the Germans drop explosive booby-traps on Britain in 1943, the embittered expert who'll have to disarm them fights a private battle with alcohol.
While this film is about World War II and a man's struggles with alcohol (as noted in the plot summary), this is not what I particularly enjoyed about the film. I thought it was most interesting because it showed the scientists behind the scenes. Whether it was isolating a gas or something else, it was nice to see this aspect.
The point is made that a politician had never seen an adding machine before. This could be taken in many ways, but for my purpose I think it is neat to focus on these men because their creations are what move war (or society) forward. Countless movies depict war, but very few show the men and women who design the airplanes or other devices.
While this film is about World War II and a man's struggles with alcohol (as noted in the plot summary), this is not what I particularly enjoyed about the film. I thought it was most interesting because it showed the scientists behind the scenes. Whether it was isolating a gas or something else, it was nice to see this aspect.
The point is made that a politician had never seen an adding machine before. This could be taken in many ways, but for my purpose I think it is neat to focus on these men because their creations are what move war (or society) forward. Countless movies depict war, but very few show the men and women who design the airplanes or other devices.
One of the finest films of the 1940s
paul-19834 February 2006
I have often sought out black and white films from the British cinema and was not disappointed when I came across The Small Back Room. Now possibly one of my favourite films of all time, the very good, simple underlying plot is overtaken by the principal characters, played by David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. An excellent supporting cast, including Michael Gough, Jack Hawkins and Leslie Banks enables the viewer to pull the curtains on a rainy afternoon and to lose themselves in a world that is not quite the 1943 in which the film is set and in in some ways is much later than the 1949 in which it was made. The relationship between Sammy and Susan is a deep and powerful, but secret one and is more curious when one has time to reflect and put it into its (early or late) 1940s context. The fact that they keep their feelings from their colleagues is endemic of the times but is a little curious nonetheless. A friend who knows about such things immediately latched onto the way that another male character fixes his intense gaze upon Sammy Rice to the extent that it now makes me a tiny bit uncomfortable in a non-21st century way. Keep watching this film and you will see more and more interplay between people that implies a further raft of professional and social relationships that the film never actually explores or explains. My verdict: Catch a stinking cold and take a day off work. Curl up on the sofa with a hot drink and lose yourself in a world that you will want to keep coming back to.
Minor Archers, in my opinion
zetes31 August 2008
Newly released by Criterion, The Small Back Room was made by the Archers right after The Red Shoes. I had never even heard of it, and it's definitely a less well known film by the directors. In my opinion, it really is a lesser Archers movie. It reunites two of the stars of Black Narcissus, David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. Farrar plays an explosives expert during WWII who works for the government as a scientist. He and his team are on the case of a booby trap that's being dropped by the Germans from planes. He has lost his right foot in an explosion, and he's being driven crazy by phantom limb syndrome. He's also a recovering alcoholic. The only thing keeping him away from the booze is the love of his girlfriend, played by Byron. The love story is involving, and the bomb stuff is quite suspenseful. Both of the lead performances are excellent (although Byron is definitely the kind of actress I have a hard time separating from her most famous role the sharpness of her features definitely gives off a wicked vibe to me). So why was I not blown away by this one? The major reason is that it's just too talky. There are sequences where the dialogue just goes on and on, and I found my attention wandering. There are many sequences where I could tell there were experts behind the camera, but not a lot jumped out at me. Sure, there's that one fantasy sequence with the clock and the bottle, the showiest bit of the movie, but that felt to me a bit amateurish. It's also reminiscent of two famous dream/fantasy sequences from famous movies that had been made in recent years, Spellbound and The Lost Weekend (and I would also call those sequences in those two movies overly showy, as well). The best sequence in the movie is when the scientists get a visit from a governmental minister in their lab. They hope to show him all the exciting projects they're working on, but he becomes obsessed with their calculator. All in all, I'd say this is a good movie, and one that any Archers lover will want to get a hold of, but it's a lesser work, for sure.
This is from a time when writers still roamed the earth
benoit-312 January 2008
A fine terse drama like this one is inconceivable today for many reasons, most of them having to do with market forces which dictate that only films about superheroes in long underwear and adolescent revenge fantasies are to get financing and international distribution. But the main reason why it can't be duplicated today is the quality of the writing by Emeric Pressburger, an innovative genius who wasn't afraid to leave his mark on material adapted from another medium and to use his imagination to keep things vivid at all times. The film shines in its production values, photography, art direction, casting but most of all in its details and its capacity to involve the viewer in a subject that would seem almost repellent today, a complicated and imperfect man's devotion to his work in time of war. If a film's success is to be measured by its capacity to take the viewer out of the ordinary, this film is certainly a hit. Its success is helped by the talent of the principals, a wise woman every warrior would like to return to (Kathleen Byron) and the most gorgeous hunk of uncompromising masculinity ever to grace a British screen and titillate the female viewers, David Farrar.
Don't Touch That Tremblor Pin!
rmax30482318 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It's a movie about war-time Britain released in 1949 but it's in no way a typical "British war movie". (Some of them were real gems.) This one has David Ferrar as an anti-demolition expert, part of a team that operates in a small room in the back. He doesn't wear a uniform. He has a tin leg. And he's in a state of constant torment.
I had no idea where the movie was going. At first, I expected a kind of British "Hurt Locker," with Ferrar going about an dismantling bombs one after another, always cursing and wondering if he should cut the red wire or the green wire. It's not like that at all. Ferrar only disarms one booby-trapped device in a tense scene at the end. It's well done.
But then if Ferrar doesn't constantly investigate and defuse bombs, what's the movie about? Well, it's like this. He has a slight problem with the bottle in that when he gets juiced up he's mean and destructive. He also has a problem with the bureaucracy of which he's part -- mostly incompetent, groveling, and designing. Then there's this woman, Kathleen Byron, who loves him and maybe he loves her but he's too sour to admit it. It doesn't even help when he dresses him down for his bitterness and shouts at him to "stop feeling sorry for yourself!" He finally gets his act together after removing the fangs from that beachfront booby trap while hung over and shaky.
At the beginning, to demonstrate their relationship, Byron and Ferrar are alone in his apartment, they have an expositional conversation about his tin leg and what he does to ease its discomfort. The scene ends with Byron running to him and their clasping each other in their arms while lying on the couch. Dissolve. When I was a child I always thought that she returned to her own apartment across the hall when a scene ended like this.
Byron has haunted eyes that stare out from under her upper lids and her other features -- her jaw, her nose, her tiny lips -- all seem to point to a particular spot in front of her mouth, about a cigarette's length. If you haven't seen Kathleen Byron go mad in "Black Narcissus," you might want to try it.
The same writers and directors -- Powell and Pressburger -- are responsible for this film and it shows. There are more than the usual number of dramatic close ups. And when Ferrar is alone in his dark apartment, trying to fight the desire to hit that bottle of Scotch on the table, the camera angles and lighting first get weird and then hallucinatory.
The imagery gets too bizarre in that scene. Also they've done a little miscasting. Jack Hawkins is a grinning, glad-handing, money-grubbing phony -- a repulsive character. But Jack Hawkins is no phony. He's a voice of authority and a paragon of common sense. Don't try to pull the wool over this boy's eyes. But those two points aside, it's put together well considering the multiple sub plots. And that bomb being emasculated is a teeth grinder.
I had no idea where the movie was going. At first, I expected a kind of British "Hurt Locker," with Ferrar going about an dismantling bombs one after another, always cursing and wondering if he should cut the red wire or the green wire. It's not like that at all. Ferrar only disarms one booby-trapped device in a tense scene at the end. It's well done.
But then if Ferrar doesn't constantly investigate and defuse bombs, what's the movie about? Well, it's like this. He has a slight problem with the bottle in that when he gets juiced up he's mean and destructive. He also has a problem with the bureaucracy of which he's part -- mostly incompetent, groveling, and designing. Then there's this woman, Kathleen Byron, who loves him and maybe he loves her but he's too sour to admit it. It doesn't even help when he dresses him down for his bitterness and shouts at him to "stop feeling sorry for yourself!" He finally gets his act together after removing the fangs from that beachfront booby trap while hung over and shaky.
At the beginning, to demonstrate their relationship, Byron and Ferrar are alone in his apartment, they have an expositional conversation about his tin leg and what he does to ease its discomfort. The scene ends with Byron running to him and their clasping each other in their arms while lying on the couch. Dissolve. When I was a child I always thought that she returned to her own apartment across the hall when a scene ended like this.
Byron has haunted eyes that stare out from under her upper lids and her other features -- her jaw, her nose, her tiny lips -- all seem to point to a particular spot in front of her mouth, about a cigarette's length. If you haven't seen Kathleen Byron go mad in "Black Narcissus," you might want to try it.
The same writers and directors -- Powell and Pressburger -- are responsible for this film and it shows. There are more than the usual number of dramatic close ups. And when Ferrar is alone in his dark apartment, trying to fight the desire to hit that bottle of Scotch on the table, the camera angles and lighting first get weird and then hallucinatory.
The imagery gets too bizarre in that scene. Also they've done a little miscasting. Jack Hawkins is a grinning, glad-handing, money-grubbing phony -- a repulsive character. But Jack Hawkins is no phony. He's a voice of authority and a paragon of common sense. Don't try to pull the wool over this boy's eyes. But those two points aside, it's put together well considering the multiple sub plots. And that bomb being emasculated is a teeth grinder.
(crippled) Boy Meets (transcendent yet withholding) Girl
antcol89 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Between Film Noir and Cassavetes lies...not much. But definitely both this film and Nicholas Ray's In A Lonely Place. Those couples! Their tension stretched to - and almost beyond - the breaking points. That's the mastery: those who find this film dull just...haven't been there. Rarely has a film been so well titled - it's so claustrophobic!And how it all connects: the crippled Sammy with his temper and his drinking problem, and at the same time, with his ineffable mastery. What a great character - so modern in his total impossible - ness.The luminous Sue, photographed so artificially, with the light shining on her face like in some early Sylvia Sidney movie where she's working in a luncheonette, or something like that. And how can you not love those touches of looming surrealism - Teutonic? I don't think so. It's more like Powell saw Chien Andalou right after it came out and was marked forever - besides the clocks and bottles in the "surreal" sequence, that close-up of the bomb on the beach. And I love all those "exotic" (for Great Britain) locales when the film finally opens up - I'm reminded of I Know Where I'm Going. The relentlessness of this film is its genius. But would you say this film looks forward to things like This Sporting Life? I wouldn't, because there's plenty of humor in this film. Powell and Pressburger understand that rubbing the viewer's faces in non-stop misery can just create numbness, and that the humor creates a space of something like distance, where we relax for a moment before plunging again into the gloom of people who obviously love each other, but who have great difficulty in communicating. Oh, that moment when Sue takes both her photo and her kitty away! If that doesn't create an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach...well, maybe you're lucky.
Interesting but minor
nqure8 April 2002
An interesting film, ahead of its time in its depiction of the relationship between Sam (Farrar), the alcoholic, embittered bomb disposal expert looking for a purpose, and Susan (Byron), the woman who bears much of the brunt of his despair.
There are good dramatic scenes in this film, some comic such as the visit by a silly minister (Robert Morley in excellent form), the meeting where Sam goes against his dept. and supports the Army's doubt about a key weapon, the hallucination scene (surreal & gripping) and Sam's final confrontation with his nemesis (the crafty Nazi booby-trap) on the beach.
The film also includes Powell/Pressburger's characteristic send-up of British manners/society, such as buffonish Ministers, slightly creepy/ambitious Civil Service men, and gruff soldiers.
Well-acted and filled with many good supporting performances such as Cyril Cusack as an insecure bomb disposal officer and Michael Gough as a colleague of Sam's. I particularly liked his scene where he shouts in desperation at a dying victim of a booby-trap; it comes across as cruel but it highlights the sheer desperation of the experts as they try to solve a deadly secret.
On the whole, I enjoyed it but it is mostly a character study with the plot perhaps acting as secondary interest. It's on a smaller scale to other P & P classics such as the breath-taking melodrama of 'Black Narcissus' and perhaps lacks the heightened drama of that film.
There are good dramatic scenes in this film, some comic such as the visit by a silly minister (Robert Morley in excellent form), the meeting where Sam goes against his dept. and supports the Army's doubt about a key weapon, the hallucination scene (surreal & gripping) and Sam's final confrontation with his nemesis (the crafty Nazi booby-trap) on the beach.
The film also includes Powell/Pressburger's characteristic send-up of British manners/society, such as buffonish Ministers, slightly creepy/ambitious Civil Service men, and gruff soldiers.
Well-acted and filled with many good supporting performances such as Cyril Cusack as an insecure bomb disposal officer and Michael Gough as a colleague of Sam's. I particularly liked his scene where he shouts in desperation at a dying victim of a booby-trap; it comes across as cruel but it highlights the sheer desperation of the experts as they try to solve a deadly secret.
On the whole, I enjoyed it but it is mostly a character study with the plot perhaps acting as secondary interest. It's on a smaller scale to other P & P classics such as the breath-taking melodrama of 'Black Narcissus' and perhaps lacks the heightened drama of that film.
Archers Miss the Bulls Eye!
spookyrat121 February 2020
If they'd concentrated on the main game with The Small Back Room, The Archers (British producer-writer-director team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger) might have made another, memorable addition to their very well known anthology of eminent work, perhaps in the vein of a post WW2 Hurt Locker. But we don't get that; at least not until the final 20 minutes of this sadly unbalanced effort.
Instead of focusing the story on Sammy Rice (David Farrar), a British scientist working with a specialist "back room" team in London as a bomb disposal expert in 1943 and his relationship with the alluring Susan (Kathleen Byron - a huge positive for the movie), we are given something different.
The first 15 minutes of the film are actually seen through the perspective of Captain Dick Stuart (Michael Gough), an interesting supporting character, who then disappears for much of the rest of the film. This sets something of a pattern, as for much of the long second act, instead of concentrating on the physical and mental challenges facing Rice in carrying out his work, we kind of get a sketchy situation comedy-drama involving the whole "back room team" and the demands made upon them, both individually and collectively to succeed in their work. This culminates in an overlong and entirely unneeded near skit, involving a deliberately mis-credited Robert Morley, playing a clueless War Secretary making an observation visit to the facility. Imagine if you will, the above-stated very serious minded Hurt Locker, suddenly going the way of MASH for 15 minutes or so. The tone of the film is turned temporarily upside down.
Tossed into this potpourri, we also bear witness to a really odd test fire of some new cannon shells, adjacent to Stonehenge, of all places. Then, a chaotic high-level meeting (again played for laughs) to evaluate the results of the test fire. We even are treated to 2 characters in the third act having a brief discussion of surfing (of all things). This is the UK in 1944 (by now), when I can't imagine surfing was a number one topic of conversation.
There is some great black and white camera work, courtesy of cinematographer Christopher Challis. Particularly noteworthy are some of the head-spinning images seen during one of Rice's alcoholic binges. The performances, especially those of Farrar and Byron, who display a real sultry chemistry together, almost make watching the rest of this rag tag movie worthwhile. But I for one, found the disproportionate narrative lacking in any overall cohesion to the movie's detriment.
Instead of focusing the story on Sammy Rice (David Farrar), a British scientist working with a specialist "back room" team in London as a bomb disposal expert in 1943 and his relationship with the alluring Susan (Kathleen Byron - a huge positive for the movie), we are given something different.
The first 15 minutes of the film are actually seen through the perspective of Captain Dick Stuart (Michael Gough), an interesting supporting character, who then disappears for much of the rest of the film. This sets something of a pattern, as for much of the long second act, instead of concentrating on the physical and mental challenges facing Rice in carrying out his work, we kind of get a sketchy situation comedy-drama involving the whole "back room team" and the demands made upon them, both individually and collectively to succeed in their work. This culminates in an overlong and entirely unneeded near skit, involving a deliberately mis-credited Robert Morley, playing a clueless War Secretary making an observation visit to the facility. Imagine if you will, the above-stated very serious minded Hurt Locker, suddenly going the way of MASH for 15 minutes or so. The tone of the film is turned temporarily upside down.
Tossed into this potpourri, we also bear witness to a really odd test fire of some new cannon shells, adjacent to Stonehenge, of all places. Then, a chaotic high-level meeting (again played for laughs) to evaluate the results of the test fire. We even are treated to 2 characters in the third act having a brief discussion of surfing (of all things). This is the UK in 1944 (by now), when I can't imagine surfing was a number one topic of conversation.
There is some great black and white camera work, courtesy of cinematographer Christopher Challis. Particularly noteworthy are some of the head-spinning images seen during one of Rice's alcoholic binges. The performances, especially those of Farrar and Byron, who display a real sultry chemistry together, almost make watching the rest of this rag tag movie worthwhile. But I for one, found the disproportionate narrative lacking in any overall cohesion to the movie's detriment.
minor Powell and Pressburger
didi-518 December 2001
After the wild fantasies of Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, Matter of Life and Death (and to a lesser extent Canterbury Tales, Colonel Blimp, and Spy in Black) this was a quiet Archers film, but one I enjoyed very much. David Farrar and Kathleen Byron are fine, well-cast, adequate - the supporting players (including Cyril Cusack and a youngish Sid James) are good, and the story, although slight, keeps the interest and is done rather well. Not entirely sure about the hallucination scene, although that in itself is well-done. I prefer the wild colours and textures of other films by the same team, but this is one I'd recommend for a look.
Uneven Powell-Pressburger war film.
mgodwin-218 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Low key war film focusing on scientists unravelling the secret of booby traps being dropped by the Luftwaffe. David Farrar plays a boffin in constant pain with an amputated foot who takes to drink. Kathleen Byron is his long-suffering girl, Michael Gough, Cyril Cusack, Milton Rosmer, Jack Hawkins, Geoffrey Keen, Bryan Forbes, Robert Morley (anonymously as "a Guest"), Sid James as pub landlord refusing to serve the drunk hero and last but not least Renee Asherson in the climactic bomb defusing sequence tasked with relaying David Farrar's narrative as he carefully dismantles the explosive device. Apart from this effectively tense scene on Chesil Beach, the only sequence identifying this as a Powell-Pressburger film is where David Farrar experiences a brainstorm surrounded by an increasing number of alarm clocks ticking ever louder. And did I hear a theremin on the soundtrack, or was it just a musical saw? Oh and the Hammer employee Freddie Francis was credited as Cameraman.
Quality
alan-morton28 May 2004
Quite apart from its wartime themes, this is the best introduction I know to the world of office politics and power broking. Fans of Ricky Gervais are advised to give this little film a viewing. It has enough story lines to keep everyone happy and the cast is mighty fine at playing a variety of individuals. It's hard to think of a better supporting-role performance from Jack Hawkins, and anything with Kathleen Byron in it always has to be watchable.
I've only just read the novel of the same name, on which it's based (still in print and available, and strongly recommended by the way). Comparing the two, it's easy to see how so much of the film derives from the novel; but this is far more than a film of the book. Powell and Pressburger have done a superb job of focusing and concentrating the novel's strengths.
I've only just read the novel of the same name, on which it's based (still in print and available, and strongly recommended by the way). Comparing the two, it's easy to see how so much of the film derives from the novel; but this is far more than a film of the book. Powell and Pressburger have done a superb job of focusing and concentrating the novel's strengths.
Lost Weekend meets World War Two
st-shot19 July 2023
David Farrar battles the bottle and the Bosch in this sober Powell-Pressburger production about a bitter WW2 explosives expert. Adroit and dry without a music score, it has a hard time balancing itself with each of the demons getting in the way of the other.
The Germans are dropping small thermos like explosives along the coast and kids are picking them up and dying. Cynical Sammy Rice (Farrar), a bomb expert is faced with attempting to diffuse these things properly but suffers from dreadful pain due to an amputated foot. Battling alcoholism he finds himself faced with more than one dark night of the soul.
Hour of Glory (aka The Small Back Room) is an off beat war story on the home front with a very flawed protagonist. Farrar is outstanding as is Kathy Byron, his suffering savior but the two pressing issues they are dealing with serve only to interrupt each other.
There are some outstanding surreal moments as Rice struggles with his alcohol addiction and the pair get some severe digs at pretentious bureaucrats (an absolutely hilarious uncredited cameo from Robert Morely) at those living on the comfy home front, slurping soup in private clubs while boorishly trying to protect their turf in meetings that go nowhere. Watering each situation down with interruption, though, Hour seems like hours.
The Germans are dropping small thermos like explosives along the coast and kids are picking them up and dying. Cynical Sammy Rice (Farrar), a bomb expert is faced with attempting to diffuse these things properly but suffers from dreadful pain due to an amputated foot. Battling alcoholism he finds himself faced with more than one dark night of the soul.
Hour of Glory (aka The Small Back Room) is an off beat war story on the home front with a very flawed protagonist. Farrar is outstanding as is Kathy Byron, his suffering savior but the two pressing issues they are dealing with serve only to interrupt each other.
There are some outstanding surreal moments as Rice struggles with his alcohol addiction and the pair get some severe digs at pretentious bureaucrats (an absolutely hilarious uncredited cameo from Robert Morely) at those living on the comfy home front, slurping soup in private clubs while boorishly trying to protect their turf in meetings that go nowhere. Watering each situation down with interruption, though, Hour seems like hours.
An absorbing, if at times very depressing, character drama
GusF14 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Based on the 1943 novel of the same name by Nigel Balchin, this is an absorbing, if at times very depressing, character drama. As I have come to expect from Powell and Pressburger's films, the duo's writing and direction is excellent. Both are very effective in communicating the struggles that a person goes through while dealing with alcoholism and depression and the negative effect that they can have on relationships. This is certainly helped by the moody, atmospheric cinematography of Christopher Callis. I loved the interaction of light and shadow throughout the film. When it comes to the treatment of the World War II material, the wonderful bomb disposal scene towards the end of the film is the most tense scene of its kind that I have ever seen. In contrast to the duo's earlier films, this was a bit of a flop at the box office. Powell attributed this in part to its extremely gloomy tone, which he did not think sat well with postwar British audiences.
The film stars the sorely underrated David Farrar in a first rate performance as a military scientist named Sammy Rice, who is assigned to a "back room" think tank in London which is run by his friend and mentor Professor Mair. Sammy is a bitter, morose man who has a low opinion of most things in life, including himself. He has an artificial foot which is extremely painful but which he refuses to take off while in the company of other people, even his girlfriend Susan. The doctors have naturally given him painkillers but he finds them largely ineffective. He has instead turned to the "noble remedy" of alcohol, which is not much better when it comes to dulling the pain. However, it is effective in dulling his other senses, at least for a few hours at a time. There is a sense that Sammy is merely going through the motions when it comes to his life and, if there had not been a war on, he would probably do nothing more than shut himself away and drink. He is severely depressed, something which is not helped by his heavy drinking, and these feelings have manifested themselves in the form of self-pity.
While Susan is more loyal and supportive more than most people would be in those circumstances, she eventually has enough of Sammy's attitude and the fact that he is neglecting her. She tells him that losing his foot means that he can't be a professional footballer but it does not mean that his life is over as he still has a great deal to live for. It becomes clear to Susan that he has no ambition to better himself and she breaks up with him. This sends him on a downward spiral. His drinking becomes even more pronounced and he starts a fight in a bar but is thrown out before it can escalate any further. He even cracks open the bottle of whiskey that he and Susan had been saving for V-E Day. This is followed by an excellent fantasy sequence in which Sammy is almost crushed against a wall by a giant bottle. This symbolism is not exactly subtle but it is extremely effective. The fact that the beginning of the fantasy sequence is accompanied by an extremely loud ticking sound is representative of Sammy's realisation that he is wasting his life. After this, he manages to sober up and begins to get his life back together. The role of Susan could have been a rather thankless one but Kathleen Byron delivers an extremely good performance, her best moment being the breakup scene, and the character always seems like a real person.
In one of his first film appearances, Michael Gough is very strong as Captain Stuart, a young officer who comes to Sammy in the hope that he can help figure out the workings of small booby traps which the Germans have recently begun dropping on Britain during raids. This investigation of the booby traps, disguised as thermos flasks, forms a major backdrop to Sammy's struggles with alcoholism and is ultimately one of the reasons that he is able to overcome it. Jack Hawkins is excellent as the think tank's smarmy, sleazy, obnoxious and condescending administrator R.B. Waring, whom both Sammy and Susan feel like punching at different points during the film. I admire their restraint. In a small but uncharacteristically serious role, Sid James is great as the sympathetic bartender Knucksie Moran. The same is true of Cyril Cusack as Corporal Taylor, who is trying to save his deteriorating marriage. Robert Morley, credited as "A Guest," has a fantastic cameo as the incredibly dimwitted Minister in one of the film's only light-hearted moments. The film also features nice appearances from Geoffrey Keen as the civil servant Pinker (who is a bit of a stinker), Michael Goodliffe as Till, Renée Asherson as an A.T.S. corporal, Walter Fitzgerald as Professor Brine, Anthony Bushell as Colonel Strang and, in one of his final film appearances before his death in 1952, Leslie Banks as Colonel Holland.
Overall, this is an excellent film, even if it isn't on the same level as the Archers' best work.
The film stars the sorely underrated David Farrar in a first rate performance as a military scientist named Sammy Rice, who is assigned to a "back room" think tank in London which is run by his friend and mentor Professor Mair. Sammy is a bitter, morose man who has a low opinion of most things in life, including himself. He has an artificial foot which is extremely painful but which he refuses to take off while in the company of other people, even his girlfriend Susan. The doctors have naturally given him painkillers but he finds them largely ineffective. He has instead turned to the "noble remedy" of alcohol, which is not much better when it comes to dulling the pain. However, it is effective in dulling his other senses, at least for a few hours at a time. There is a sense that Sammy is merely going through the motions when it comes to his life and, if there had not been a war on, he would probably do nothing more than shut himself away and drink. He is severely depressed, something which is not helped by his heavy drinking, and these feelings have manifested themselves in the form of self-pity.
While Susan is more loyal and supportive more than most people would be in those circumstances, she eventually has enough of Sammy's attitude and the fact that he is neglecting her. She tells him that losing his foot means that he can't be a professional footballer but it does not mean that his life is over as he still has a great deal to live for. It becomes clear to Susan that he has no ambition to better himself and she breaks up with him. This sends him on a downward spiral. His drinking becomes even more pronounced and he starts a fight in a bar but is thrown out before it can escalate any further. He even cracks open the bottle of whiskey that he and Susan had been saving for V-E Day. This is followed by an excellent fantasy sequence in which Sammy is almost crushed against a wall by a giant bottle. This symbolism is not exactly subtle but it is extremely effective. The fact that the beginning of the fantasy sequence is accompanied by an extremely loud ticking sound is representative of Sammy's realisation that he is wasting his life. After this, he manages to sober up and begins to get his life back together. The role of Susan could have been a rather thankless one but Kathleen Byron delivers an extremely good performance, her best moment being the breakup scene, and the character always seems like a real person.
In one of his first film appearances, Michael Gough is very strong as Captain Stuart, a young officer who comes to Sammy in the hope that he can help figure out the workings of small booby traps which the Germans have recently begun dropping on Britain during raids. This investigation of the booby traps, disguised as thermos flasks, forms a major backdrop to Sammy's struggles with alcoholism and is ultimately one of the reasons that he is able to overcome it. Jack Hawkins is excellent as the think tank's smarmy, sleazy, obnoxious and condescending administrator R.B. Waring, whom both Sammy and Susan feel like punching at different points during the film. I admire their restraint. In a small but uncharacteristically serious role, Sid James is great as the sympathetic bartender Knucksie Moran. The same is true of Cyril Cusack as Corporal Taylor, who is trying to save his deteriorating marriage. Robert Morley, credited as "A Guest," has a fantastic cameo as the incredibly dimwitted Minister in one of the film's only light-hearted moments. The film also features nice appearances from Geoffrey Keen as the civil servant Pinker (who is a bit of a stinker), Michael Goodliffe as Till, Renée Asherson as an A.T.S. corporal, Walter Fitzgerald as Professor Brine, Anthony Bushell as Colonel Strang and, in one of his final film appearances before his death in 1952, Leslie Banks as Colonel Holland.
Overall, this is an excellent film, even if it isn't on the same level as the Archers' best work.
Powell and Pressburger - nothing more needs to be said
blanche-23 September 2019
The Small Back Room, also known as Hour of Glory, is a Powell-Pressburger production about a scientist, Sammy Rice (David Farrar) who during World War II works in a back room as a bomb disposal expert.
The Germans are dropping bombs - probably land mines - that appear to be booby-trapped and look like large flashlights. So far the bombs have killed three children. It's and it's up to Rice and his team to figure out how to defuse them.
Rice, however, is a troubled man. He is in terrible pain from an artificial foot, and the painkillers are no longer effective. By turning to drink he has become an alcoholic.
He is dependent on his girlfriend, Susan (Kathleen Byron) who lives across the hall. She spends time with him and tries to keep him off of the alcohol. However, his bitterness, anger over the way his department is being managed, and his lack of self-worth is discouraging her.
There are some stunning scenes in this film. To name a couple: Sammy's hallucination/dream sequence where he is surrounded by ticking clocks and a giant liquor bottle; the scene questioning a dying man who was near the bomb; and the end - a complete nail biter - are just a few.
David Farrar gives a tremendous performance as a man suffering from pain, addiction, and frustration, and Kathleen Byron is lovely as his girlfriend, who attempts to encourage him and let him know she wants more than just a man who can dance.
Beautifully photographed in black and white and very uplifting.
The Germans are dropping bombs - probably land mines - that appear to be booby-trapped and look like large flashlights. So far the bombs have killed three children. It's and it's up to Rice and his team to figure out how to defuse them.
Rice, however, is a troubled man. He is in terrible pain from an artificial foot, and the painkillers are no longer effective. By turning to drink he has become an alcoholic.
He is dependent on his girlfriend, Susan (Kathleen Byron) who lives across the hall. She spends time with him and tries to keep him off of the alcohol. However, his bitterness, anger over the way his department is being managed, and his lack of self-worth is discouraging her.
There are some stunning scenes in this film. To name a couple: Sammy's hallucination/dream sequence where he is surrounded by ticking clocks and a giant liquor bottle; the scene questioning a dying man who was near the bomb; and the end - a complete nail biter - are just a few.
David Farrar gives a tremendous performance as a man suffering from pain, addiction, and frustration, and Kathleen Byron is lovely as his girlfriend, who attempts to encourage him and let him know she wants more than just a man who can dance.
Beautifully photographed in black and white and very uplifting.
B&W character study from Powell and Pressburger
AlsExGal22 December 2022
The film is a character study of Sammy Rice (David Farrar), an alcoholic scientist who specializes in explosives. He's part of a small contingent of scientists, engineers, and munitions experts tasked with developing weapons and defusing those of the enemy during WW2 circa 1943. Sammy, filled with self-loathing due to an injury that has left him with a prosthetic foot, is asked to help solve the mystery of a new type of booby-trap bomb that the Germans are dropping around the country, blowing up anyone unlucky enough to pick one up. Sammy must face his drinking problem and other personal troubles, such as his emotionally abusive relationship with co-worker Sue (Kathleen Byron).
A change of pace after the Technicolor beauty of Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes, the Archers instead opt for B&W cinematography and gloomy desperation. There are a lot of striking scenes, interesting camera shots, and unique directing choices. But there's a lack of momentum, a listlessness that undermines the film's flabby middle section. The performances are reliably good. Farrar's alcoholic isn't quite the unshaven wreck of most movie drunks, but he puts across the self-destructiveness and the hopelessness one feels when they realize that they're in the grip of something that they can't control. Byron's character is both enabler and victim, and she plays her as the quiet victim. Other standouts include Cyril Cusack as a mild, stuttering mechanical genius, and Leslie Banks as a Colonel Blimp-esque military commander.
A change of pace after the Technicolor beauty of Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes, the Archers instead opt for B&W cinematography and gloomy desperation. There are a lot of striking scenes, interesting camera shots, and unique directing choices. But there's a lack of momentum, a listlessness that undermines the film's flabby middle section. The performances are reliably good. Farrar's alcoholic isn't quite the unshaven wreck of most movie drunks, but he puts across the self-destructiveness and the hopelessness one feels when they realize that they're in the grip of something that they can't control. Byron's character is both enabler and victim, and she plays her as the quiet victim. Other standouts include Cyril Cusack as a mild, stuttering mechanical genius, and Leslie Banks as a Colonel Blimp-esque military commander.
YES, back at it again!
Polaris_DiB26 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Master filmmakers Powell and Pressburger return from their much-more-famed stint to make their much-more-underrated "smaller" film "The Small Back Room", a combined thriller/romance in heady expressionistic tones. Emphasis put on the last phrase-work there, this movie is GORGEOUS. It's not really noir, but the lighting and staging put the genre to shame.
Among many surprises here are some of the actors of Black Narcissus taking on new amazing roles, a mysterious German boobie-trap, and an expressionistic interlude that matches the opera from Red Shoes but is structured more like The Life and Death of 9413, a Hollywood Extra. The timing of this movie is great, too, as long involved sequences showcasing Sammy's alcoholism and doubt stretch to painful lengths, whereas his technically much longer scene defusing a bomb is so tense that it seems to whip by in a second.
Fans of the Archers should pretty much make it a point to see this. People unfamiliar with them could possibly get overwhelmed by all the promises of Black Narcissus, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The Red Shoes, and A Matter of Life or Death, but could start here for something considered a bit smaller but just as good. A Small Back Room may not have quite the credentials, but it has all of the quality of the Archers' oeuvre.
--PolarisDiB
Among many surprises here are some of the actors of Black Narcissus taking on new amazing roles, a mysterious German boobie-trap, and an expressionistic interlude that matches the opera from Red Shoes but is structured more like The Life and Death of 9413, a Hollywood Extra. The timing of this movie is great, too, as long involved sequences showcasing Sammy's alcoholism and doubt stretch to painful lengths, whereas his technically much longer scene defusing a bomb is so tense that it seems to whip by in a second.
Fans of the Archers should pretty much make it a point to see this. People unfamiliar with them could possibly get overwhelmed by all the promises of Black Narcissus, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The Red Shoes, and A Matter of Life or Death, but could start here for something considered a bit smaller but just as good. A Small Back Room may not have quite the credentials, but it has all of the quality of the Archers' oeuvre.
--PolarisDiB
Very low-key....and that's good.
planktonrules6 September 2012
"Hour of Glory" is a very nice war film but it's not the sort of film that most would like. That's because if you are looking for action, suspense and the like, this film won't work for you, as it's focused more on creating a portrait of an individual instead of on events. I like this, but realize some people just want to see stuff happen--not look inside a person's character.
This film is about a very odd man. He's a sort of engineering genius--a guy who knows about bombs, guns and the like--and he and his co-workers are not strictly part of the military or government. Here is makes him interesting--while you like Sammy Rice and can't help but admire him, he's a very screwed up man. He has a drinking problem that helps him cope with the rigors of the job as well as some vague leg injury. He is a valuable man to the war effort--but also a mess. It creates a very odd portrait--and also SEEMS to say that the best way for his lover to help him is to encourage or at least ignore the drinking! Odd--but also compelling and worth your time.
By the way, if you do watch it, look for the surreal withdrawal scene--it's pretty amazing.
This film is about a very odd man. He's a sort of engineering genius--a guy who knows about bombs, guns and the like--and he and his co-workers are not strictly part of the military or government. Here is makes him interesting--while you like Sammy Rice and can't help but admire him, he's a very screwed up man. He has a drinking problem that helps him cope with the rigors of the job as well as some vague leg injury. He is a valuable man to the war effort--but also a mess. It creates a very odd portrait--and also SEEMS to say that the best way for his lover to help him is to encourage or at least ignore the drinking! Odd--but also compelling and worth your time.
By the way, if you do watch it, look for the surreal withdrawal scene--it's pretty amazing.
Well-meaning but dull drama that doesn't come alive until the end.
mark.waltz18 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I certainly can see why some people refer to this movie as a small masterpiece. I did not go into it expecting big things like the previous Powell/Pressburger classics "Black Narcissus" and "The Red Shoes". However, rather than find this to be an interesting psychological drama about one man's battle with alcohol due to pressures in his professional life and a handicap that has obviously made him bitter, I found a rather claustrophobic, talkie drama that for the most part failed to hold my interest and left me scrambling to find my way back when all of a sudden things began to really happen. The sudden appearance of a giant booze bottle overshadowing its leading man (David Farrar) reminded me of things that audiences had already seen on screen in films prior to this: Ray Milland's withdrawal in "The Lost Weekend" and Gregory Peck's nightmares in "Spellbound". Having been bored for 90 minutes when this came up, I found myself chuckling at it. But then it got serious when the film began to deal with Farrar's profession and all the chat that had gone on before: defusing a bomb found on the beach. This comes in the last ten minutes of the film, and is as nail biting as everything else before was sleep inducing. Had the first 75% of the film been more like this and filled with less exposition, I would certainly find it a masterpiece.
The Archers in decline, but still a film worth watching
Terrell-46 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Sammy Rice (David Farrar) is a first-rate scientist and something of an expert in defusing bombs. The year is 1943 and the Germans have starting dropping a new kind of terror weapon on Britain. It's something small, evidently attractive to children, and explodes either when it's picked up or just touched. No one is sure because the three children and one adult who did touch the things were killed. Rice is asked to investigate by the Army. He says he has to have an unexploded device to work on; that he'll come as soon as the Army calls him. Rice, it happens, has also lost his foot and wears a metal one. He suffers pain from it and is well into a self-pitying meltdown fueled by alcohol. Susan (Kathleen Byron), the woman who loves him, understands what he's going through but sooner or later will have enough of his self-involvement. "Sue, you'd have such a good life without me," he tells her in a nightclub. "I take things from you with both hands. I always have. I always will."
Sammy Rice has to deal with his self-imposed isolation, his drinking and his unwillingness to face up to the fact that he has an artificial foot. Through all this, the group of scientists and managers Rice works with has come up with an anti-tank gun some feel is ready to sell to the government. He doesn't, but he's not willing to go against the consensus. Then, deep in an alcoholic haze, he gets the phone call. Two devices have been discovered. One is now being worked on by the Army captain who first asked him to help. It probably goes without saying that soon there is no Army captain and only one remaining device. Rice leaves for the English coast where the device is half buried in the sand. What he does with it will determine not only his life, but will affect his whole outlook on himself, his worth and his willingness to accept responsibility.
Sound a little...well, uninvolving? The Small Back Room features some very good acting, excellent dialogue, one of Michael Powell's quirky internal surrealistic scenes (as Rice fights his compulsion to have a drink) and an extremely well-handled and tense final twenty-five minutes as Rice works to defuse the bomb. On the whole, though, it seems to me that Powell and Pressburger, after such a run of great movies they created in the Forties, used The Small Back Room as a way to step back and let out a long breath. The movie is by no means a let- down, but the sulky self-pity of Sammy Rice leaves little room for us to get willingly involved with him. This is a problem because the movie, despite an exciting premise with the new- type of German bomb and the excitement of the last third of the film, is essentially a character study in Rice's self-pity. Sammy Rice starts out gloomy and unhappy, and he stays that way throughout the movie until he walks across the sand to see if he can defuse the bomb. Powell and Pressburger's subversive humor (a dolt of a governmental minister, a glad- handing arms manager) is amusing but we still wind up with Rice feeling sorry for himself.
I think it's fair to say that The Small Back Room marks the coming decline of Powell and Pressburger. The Tales of Hoffmann was still to be made, but with that exception every movie following The Small Back Room marked a decline in the kind of original, unusual cinematic storytelling that was the hallmark of The Archers. They had to deal with studio moneymen who gradually assumed control over the freedom that they had enjoyed with J. Arthur Rank and Alexander Korda. They, especially Powell, found it increasingly difficult to find subject matter that exited them. At one point four years elapsed before they took on a new project. The Archers last movie turned out to be something Powell swore he'd never make after all those Quota Quickies in the Thirties, a programmer. They drifted apart, still friends, and went their own ways.
For those who admire Powell and Pressburger, The Small Back Room is well worth having. In addition to Farrar and Byron, both of whom were in Black Narcissus, there are a number of fine actors to enjoy, such as Jack Hawkins, Cyril Cusack, Sid James, Leslie Banks, Michael Gough, Robert Morley and Renee Asherson.
Sammy Rice has to deal with his self-imposed isolation, his drinking and his unwillingness to face up to the fact that he has an artificial foot. Through all this, the group of scientists and managers Rice works with has come up with an anti-tank gun some feel is ready to sell to the government. He doesn't, but he's not willing to go against the consensus. Then, deep in an alcoholic haze, he gets the phone call. Two devices have been discovered. One is now being worked on by the Army captain who first asked him to help. It probably goes without saying that soon there is no Army captain and only one remaining device. Rice leaves for the English coast where the device is half buried in the sand. What he does with it will determine not only his life, but will affect his whole outlook on himself, his worth and his willingness to accept responsibility.
Sound a little...well, uninvolving? The Small Back Room features some very good acting, excellent dialogue, one of Michael Powell's quirky internal surrealistic scenes (as Rice fights his compulsion to have a drink) and an extremely well-handled and tense final twenty-five minutes as Rice works to defuse the bomb. On the whole, though, it seems to me that Powell and Pressburger, after such a run of great movies they created in the Forties, used The Small Back Room as a way to step back and let out a long breath. The movie is by no means a let- down, but the sulky self-pity of Sammy Rice leaves little room for us to get willingly involved with him. This is a problem because the movie, despite an exciting premise with the new- type of German bomb and the excitement of the last third of the film, is essentially a character study in Rice's self-pity. Sammy Rice starts out gloomy and unhappy, and he stays that way throughout the movie until he walks across the sand to see if he can defuse the bomb. Powell and Pressburger's subversive humor (a dolt of a governmental minister, a glad- handing arms manager) is amusing but we still wind up with Rice feeling sorry for himself.
I think it's fair to say that The Small Back Room marks the coming decline of Powell and Pressburger. The Tales of Hoffmann was still to be made, but with that exception every movie following The Small Back Room marked a decline in the kind of original, unusual cinematic storytelling that was the hallmark of The Archers. They had to deal with studio moneymen who gradually assumed control over the freedom that they had enjoyed with J. Arthur Rank and Alexander Korda. They, especially Powell, found it increasingly difficult to find subject matter that exited them. At one point four years elapsed before they took on a new project. The Archers last movie turned out to be something Powell swore he'd never make after all those Quota Quickies in the Thirties, a programmer. They drifted apart, still friends, and went their own ways.
For those who admire Powell and Pressburger, The Small Back Room is well worth having. In addition to Farrar and Byron, both of whom were in Black Narcissus, there are a number of fine actors to enjoy, such as Jack Hawkins, Cyril Cusack, Sid James, Leslie Banks, Michael Gough, Robert Morley and Renee Asherson.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
