A Canterbury Tale (1944)

I didn't know what to expect from A CANTERBURY TALE. I rather thought (oh oh, I'm starting to talk like a bloke now, I am), I rather thought that it would be more along the lines of one of the boisterous tales, but instead we get the pilgrimage.And a tale that begins as a wild boisterous tale turns into one of the darker tales, but never loses its cheerfulness.It's very difficult to talk about this film without a spoiler. It's a mystery that is not only before its time, but still before its time. Other such mysteries have been done, but none are as far in the future as this one is.But I don't mean to mislead you. It's still set in the late days of World War II, for all intents and purposes on the road to Canterbury. It begins as a whimsical Andy Hardy style mystery, but beneath, we suspect more, then the camaraderie and atmosphere of the folk people disarm us. And later our suspicions are aroused again.Portman, as the benevolent caretaker Culpepper character, plays the opposite character of the evil Nazi he portrayed so well in THE 49TH PARALLEL, and strangely enough, the fields and working people are very similar to the major part of the u boat film, in the Christian commune. Portman had great range as an actor. Here, he is a shepherd character.I would love to say more without spoiling the film, but don't dare. It flows very well, and has a magic quality about it.

I love Powell and Pressburger's films, especially Black Narcissus, A Matter of Life and Death, The Red Shoes, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp and The Thief of Baghdad. A Canterbury Tale is no exception, in fact it is every bit as wonderful as those films. Essentially it is gentle, it is sweet-natured and it is beautiful, but it is also thought-provoking and atmospheric with eerie tone shifts. As to be expected, the production values in this film is absolutely exquisite, as skilled as the photography is, it is the scenery that really delights, while Allan Gray's music is very nice. The script is good on the whole, and the story(a re-think of Chaucer?) may be peculiar on paper but actually it is nothing of the kind. Instead it is well-structured, beautiful and most importantly it impresses as a study of a community resistance to change, and I admit I was moved by this film. The direction is great, and the acting I had little problem with- excepting Dennis Price from Kind Hearts and Coronets and Charles Hawtrey from the Carry on franchise there was nobody I recognised straight away but the actors all played their parts well. The pace is perhaps meditative, but purposefully so to reflect the film's gentle tone. All in all, a lovely, thoughtful film and one of Powell and Pressburger's best. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Just who is the glue man and why is he doing it? The glue men were Powell and Pressburger rescuing British Cinema from the torpor of naturalism like a couple of Scarlet Pimpernels. This film may not be their most achieved, but it is certainly their most experimental and fascinating. The narrative drive takes a back seat to a rambling story that goes off in different directions, as it pleases. As far as I know it is not based on a novel, or short story. Just how unusual is that in British Cinema? It is Romantic in its use of landscape and has an innocence about it. It also has ideas, and the tale is told with Powell's remarkable sense of composition. You may not think it is having an effect on you when you are watching it, but its like a dream that will resurface again and again long after you have seen it.

What a pleasure it is to surf cultural tides. But when it comes to this material, I'm missing the most important part. That's because I wasn't born into the British class system, so cannot appreciate the subtle play with accents that films like this depend on. I would really like to have someone teach me about this before I die, even though I know it can never have the same deep visceral pull it must have on natives. So I know that even though this has plenty of universal charm, I'll never enter the inner circle of viewers. I suppose it is the same for any film. Of those who are touched, there will be some smaller group who understands the special language being used.I read of a recent Almodovar film, there was the matter of training a Mexican actor in Continental Spanish swagger. Its a different kind of bodily aggression, the subtlety of which eludes me. But what of these grammars that are not ethnically based? What of those that have to do with allusions to shared dreams and structures of imagination that very few share? Its absolutely fascinating, especially when the film has other attractions that makes people think they understand others that "like" it.This was created by a nation at war. There are all sorts of subtexts. The innate goodness of the people. The overlapping of class commitments to the common cause. The childishness of war. The recognition that the root of the society is in women, and sex. The celebration of a legacy. The intercession of God on the side of goodness. The acknowledgment of the importance and shared goodness of Americans. The journey, defined several ways, conflated.The structure of the thing is remarkable. There's a mystery film embedded inside. Its a strange token of the form because there is only one suspect; the question is why. We learn why before we get the basketful of other payoffs, with parades, restored loves, and God's smile. It has to do with dirty tactics in the name of saving a society. Dirty tactics like firebombing civilians.Archer projects are always worth watching, manylayered and deftly structured. This is among the best. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.