Jeff Miller
EMF 463
12/13/11
The last possible creative act: Lindsay Anderson’s if….
Every country that has a film industry eventually has a movement in which
younger filmmakers inject a new vitality into the country’s cinema. Experimental
techniques or narratives thrive, and new or controversial subject matter is addressed. if….
is a 1968 British film directed by Lindsay Anderson and written by David Sherwin about
a few rebellious students in a British public (read American private) school. Like the
Czech films Loves of a Blonde and Closely Watched Trains, the film showcases young
characters battling with authority. Like Antonioni’s Blow Up (and the earlier films of the
British New Wave) the film embraces sexuality, even going a step further in portraying
homosexuality. Like Fellini’s films, it relies on subjective realism for some of its most
important sequences. And like the films of François Truffaut, it includes many
autobiographical details.
Lindsay Anderson was one of the founders of the documentary movement in
England known as “Free Cinema.” A manifesto released by the main proponents of the
movement stated that their aim was “making films which share an attitude: a belief in
freedom, in the importance of the individual, and the significance of the everyday”
(Cowie 52). Many of the leaders of the Free Cinema movement would go on to become
important players in the British New Wave, which continued to champion the individual
and the clashes with authority. Though if…. was made and released after these
movements had lost much of their momentum, it still shares much of their spirit.
if…. started out as a forty page screenplay written by Sherwin and friend John
Howlett in 1960 called Crusaders, about their experiences at Dragon School and
Tonbridge School (Drazin 322). After unsuccessfully shopping the script for years,
Sherwin and Howlett finally got lucky when Seth Holt, a director at Ealing Studios,
suggested Lindsay Anderson to direct the picture (Lambert 163). Anderson and Sherwin
began collaborating on a new version of the screenplay that imbued the story with
autobiographical elements of Anderson’s life and increased the revolutionary themes. As
the collaboration resulted in a very different script than the initial one by Sherwin and
Howlett, Howlett and Holt disapproved and dissociated themselves from the production.
In their stead, another figure from the British New Wave stepped in. Albert Finney, star
of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, had recently started a production company
(Memorial Enterprises) which agreed to pick the film up (Gourdin-Sangouard 136).
The film was shot at Cheltenham College, Lindsay Anderson’s alma mater.
Fearing that the critical portrayal of the British schooling system would forbid them from
securing the location, Anderson and Sherwin delivered a dummy script to the headmaster
at Cheltenham and re-titled it if…. after Rudyard Kipling’s poem on youth and maturity
(Lambert 165). The new title stuck, not only as an ironic or sarcastic tribute to the values
instilled in public schooling, but also as a plea to the desires and possibilities found
within the subjective sequences of the film.
Like many of the most famous examples of “kitchen sink realism,” the film is
decidedly British. Public schools in England are very different from even the most
austere private schools in America. The concept of packing up and living at school for the
duration of the semester (starting at a young, pre-pubescent age) is unfamiliar to
American audiences. So too are the concepts of whips or prefects, students given
authority over other students to keep them obedient and compliant.
The senior whips in if…. are responsible for much of the criticism the films makes against
authority. The film also features several terms or slang exclusive to the British
vernacular, including “sweat room” (a room designated for free time and time not spent
studying), “shag spot” (either pimples or moles) and “scumming” (the act of being servile
or assistant to an older student, mostly in the form of menial tasks). Another subject the
film addresses is that of a homosexual flirtatiousness between boys within the school. A
friend of Anderson’s, Gavin Lambert, discusses the frequency of boy-boy relationships at
Cheltenham:
The school authorities emphatically warned against “unhealthy
attachments” between older and younger boys, but had no idea
how often they occurred. And I don’t remember that any of us
“Tarts,” as we were called, thought we were committing a
criminal offense, or performing “unnatural” acts. We saw
ourselves as playing forbidden games, like smoking cigarettes or
drinking alcohol (12).
This attitude, that affection is not detrimental, but rather experimental and in some cases
rebellious, is shared by the characters in if…. The film’s willingness to address what was
previously taboo subject matter stems from the fact that director Lindsay Anderson was
homosexual.
British public schools, with their strict dress codes, reliance on tradition and
subversion of individuality, provided Anderson and Sherwin with the perfect setting to
expound upon the feelings of independence and rebellion felt by youth. Rather than
opening the film with the three main characters, instead the first character introduced is
Jute, a first year boy unfamiliar with the rules of College House. By associating first with
a “scum,” the contrast between those with power and those without is most severe. Age,
experience and positions of authority all offer reasonable excuses to lord over others.
After Anderson shows how the move-in day routines should go via the juniors,
Mick Travis (a rebellious senior) arrives at College House. Mick (Malcolm McDowell)
embraces revolution and violence, and could be classified as an antihero. He arrives with
his face hidden beneath a bandana, and is compared to Guy Fawkes, who gained infamy
for his role in the attempt to blow up Parliament in the 17th century. When Mick takes off
the bandana in the privacy of his study, it is revealed that he has grown a mustache over
the summer holiday. The mustache is representative of Mick’s maturity (the process of
growing older, not so much the concept of acting older) and individuality. Of course,
before any of the whips or school officials see it, he must shave it off – one of the only
times in the film in which Mick willingly conforms to the school’s standards.
Following several more introductory scenes detailing life back at College House,
there is a scene in black and white in which Mrs. Kemp (a professor’s wife) shows the
new undermaster to his quarters. The use of black and white stems from the inability to
properly light the scenes inside the chapel in full color. To complement the scenes in the
chapel, Anderson decided to shoot additional scenes in black and white when it suited
him. Though the decision to shoot monochrome was initially economical, it had stylistic
implications. The breaks in color continuity give several sequences a dream-like quality,
which adds to the subjective realism during the second half. The differences in color also
provide another contrast for the film that already sets youth against age and individual
against authority, that of “two worlds co-existing in the name of education” (Johnson 49).
The first scene in black and white to appear in the film is the scene between Mrs. Kemp
and the undermaster, emphasizing that the world of adults is dissimilar from the world of
the youth. Lindsay Anderson felt that scenes like this, in addition to the chapel scenes,
wouldn’t have been able to convey the same “bleak uniformity” had they been shot in
color (Lambert 168). Anderson’s use of color and monochrome exhibit his ability to
adapt a technical problem into one of the most distinct stylistic features of the film.
Later in the film, Anderson uses softly lit black and white for a romantic scene
between Wallace (one of Mick’s friends) and the younger Bobby Phillips in the
gymnasium. In this case, the black and white isn’t being used to represent bleakness, but
instead is meant to be comforting. The use of slow motion, music and intercutting glances
between Wallace and Phillips contribute to developing a sense of affection between them.
From the very first appearance of Phillips, the attractive junior, he is seen as an object of
homosexual desire. Boys tell him they want to stroke him, and even the whips exhibit
jealousy with regards to who gets Phillips to scum for them. His relationship with
Wallace grows as the two are shown meeting clandestinely at night to talk and later as
they share a bed. Lindsay Anderson was homosexual, but he struggled with accepting it
throughout his life, “It seems then that I am homosexual. Oh God. It really is rather awful
and I suppose I shall never get rid of it” (Lambert 25). These feelings resulted because
Anderson resided in a British society that regarded homosexuals as criminals and sinners
(123). if…. allowed Anderson the opportunity to exorcise these demons while at the same
time highlighting that the same society condemning homosexuality was also predicated
on institutions which by nature encouraged affections among and between men and boys.
While Phillips’s relationship with Wallace allows him to subvert authority, the
three crusaders (Mick Travis and his friends Knightly and Wallace) find many more ways
to do the same. The crusaders talk back to the whips, grow their hair long and sneak
vodka in their study room to get drunk. They talk freely about sex and fill the walls of
their study with pictures of beautiful women as well as those of guerrillas and
revolutionary figures like Mao Zedong. Mick, the leader of the group, often acts as a
mouthpiece for revolutionary rhetoric (“There are no wrong wars. Violence and
revolution are the only pure acts,” “War is the last possible creative act”). Mick is not
political however; instead he adapts his affinity for rebellious ideology to his own battles
against older authority figures.
Mick and his friends’ actions are deemed dangerous to the morale of the school,
and for no specific misdeed the crusaders are punished. The whips lead the crusaders to
the gymnasium where the boys are to be flogged for their behavior. While Johnny and
Wallace receive four blows each, Mick is forced to suffer through more. After the
punishment is over, tradition requires that he shake the whip’s hand and thank him for the
discipline. The shame and undercurrent of rage are visible on McDowell’s face in the
scene. Mick is the victim of abused authority as well as outdated tradition, and this scene
is one of the main propulsions towards the violent ending of the film.
An example of the crusaders’ youthful rebellion occurs when Mick and Johnny
take a trip into town. After stealing a motorcycle from a dealership, the two go to a café
where they meet the beautiful waitress, credited as “The Girl.” After turning down
Mick’s initial advances, the Girl declares, “I’m like a tiger,” and engages Mick in a sort
of dance or mating ritual. The two wrestle to the floor, and Anderson utilizes a jump cut
to show them still wrestling, but now naked. This instance is one of the more certain uses
of subjective realism – it is more Mick’s desire than actuality in the film. The playful
rebellion of this sequence (with its focus on sexuality and non-violent crime) appeals to
the defiant qualities of youth culture the boys had already expressed, but elevates them
further. This defiance turns violent and murderous in the final scene with the help of
subjective realism.
Several moments in the film have a dream-like quality to them. Many of them use
black and white, but not all of them (and not every black and white scene is meant to be
fantasy). There is a scene early in the film featuring a history professor who bicycles into
the classroom, singing the hymn from the mass depicted in the previous scene. His tone is
joyous and playful, and he may even be singing the hymn ironically, since later in the
film he is shown yawning during a service. When distributing term papers, he throws
them back to the students, and he reclines at his desk with a relaxed posture as he
lectures. The professor’s relaxed and slightly irresponsible nature (he lost Mick’s term
paper) distinguishes him from the other adults, who are stern and uptight. Based on one
of David Sherwin’s professors at Tonbridge School, the character may be real in the
world of the film (Drazin 323). Or this could be the first example of a scene that plays out
not in reality but instead within the hopes and wishes of the crusaders. It is possible that
an easygoing history professor would be one of the desires for the students of a strict
public school.
Scenes later in the film most certainly favor the boys’ subjective reality. A scene
in which the students participate in a military training exercise is intercut with scenes of
Mrs. Kemp wandering the empty College House naked. Despite her plain features, Mrs.
Kemp is still the woman closest in age to the boys, so she is an object of sexual desire.
The scene could serve as a sexual fantasy distracting the boys during the drills (they are
visibly bored), or it could exist to display the consequences of a repressed lifestyle
(Johnson 51). The crusaders find a newfound interest in the military drills once they have
live ammunition (in an earlier scene, Mick proclaimed, “One man can change the world
with a bullet in the right place,” before producing a handful of real bullets). The boys
open fire on the camp, and apparently shoot the Reverend dead. Later the headmaster
scolds Mick, Johnny and Wallace before pulling out a large drawer to reveal the
Reverend, alive and uninjured. He then closes the drawer again, with the Reverend still
inside. The logic of this sequence (the Reverend in the drawer, the lack of discipline or
punishment) speaks to the idea that it is a glorified dream or fantasy of the crusaders. By
dreaming or imagining these events, the boys get the satisfaction of violently railing
against the disappointments and stresses that smother their individuality without being
responsible for any of the consequences.
The violent possibilities of this sequence are eclipsed by the final sequence, which
occurs on Founder’s Day, when all the parents come to visit the school. General Denson
(the father of Denson, one of the senior whips) delivers a paradoxical speech – freedom
requires fighting, fighting requires discipline, discipline requires the ability to obey
orders. As the General subverts the idea of freedom, he is oblivious to the smoke rising
all around him. The people inside the chapel are smoked out, and as they confusedly exit,
Mick Travis and his band of crusaders open fire on them from a nearby rooftop. The film
ends with the military, students and parents returning fire from the ground on the still
defiant crusaders. The title card if…. appears once more before the end credits.
The ending could be interpreted in multiple manners. The revolution could be
real, which would explain the violent response from the authority that had previously
been more complacent in the dream/fantasy scenes. This scenario (which would surely
end in the death of all the crusaders) is often considered unlikely because Mick Travis
returns in Anderson’s later films O Lucky Man! and Britannia Hospital. If the scene is
then fantasy, it is unclear why the fantasy leaves the crusaders’ situation unresolved. The
title suggests plausibility and considering the title card resurfaces at the end, perhaps the
final message Anderson conveys is that violent revolution is not the answer, or that it
would be futile against the existing power structure (this is what would happen if the
youth tried to revolt).
Rebellion and the struggle to retain individuality are frequent concerns to youth.
By embracing these themes, as well as sexuality, and by taking a youthful perspective,
the film appealed to the emerging younger film audience, despite the ambiguous ending.
Anderson, who was in his forties during production, was able to make the film with the
maturity and hindsight of someone who had already lived through his teenage years.
Aware of the consequences of violence, Anderson’s film both embraces young
revolutionary fervor while also admitting it is a troubling path to head down. Its stylistic
substance, autobiographical content, and use of subjective realism make it a valid (though
late) addition to the British New Wave.
Works Cited
Cowie, Peter. Revolution!: The Explosion of World Cinema in the Sixties. New York:
Faber and Faber, 2004. Print.
Drazin, Charles. "If... Before If.." Journal Of British Cinema & Television 5.2 (2008):
318-334. Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.
Gourdin-Sangouard, Isabelle. "Creating Authorship? Lindsay Anderson And David
Sherwin's Collaboration On If.... (1968)." Journal Of Screenwriting 1.1 (2010):
131-148. Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.
Johnson, Albert. Film Quarterly 22.4 (1969): 48-52. University of California Press. Web.
10 Nov. 2011.
Lambert, Gavin. Mainly About Lindsay Anderson. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2000. Print.