In my last post I mentioned National Service. Following World War Two, UK males were subject
to being called up to carry out compulsory military training, a practice which
lasted until around 1960. One film immediately
springs to mind when National Service is mentioned – and that is Carry On Sergeant.
This was the very first Carry On and it
was made in 1958. Many of
the Carry On regulars are there, along with famous faces such as William Hartnell,
Bill Owen and Bob Monkhouse. I really
don’t like Bob Monkhouse I’m afraid, he sits firmly in my personal category of
smarmy git, but his appearance is more than made up for by a delightful turn
from one of my film heroines. Dora Bryan
plays Naafi Nora, who inexplicably falls desperately in love with lovely Kenneth
Connor’s hypochondriac Horace. Her
attempts to woo him are the hilarious highlight of the film, especially her
line where she describes her love as “painful, yet exquisite” in her inimitable
style. Oh and the bit where she corners
him with her tea urn…I could go on – it’s a fantastic part.
The storyline follows one company of misfits
through their 10 week training under Sgt. Grimshaw (Hartnell). I mentioned in my previous post that troop
movements continued to put pressure on the railways after World War Two and an
early scene demonstrates this. Monkhouse
and Connor’s characters first meet on the train as they make their way to camp –
taking the form of transport that most would have done in an age before mass
car ownership. How far the rest of the
film can be used as historical evidence is difficult for me to say. National Service is something that I know
little about. It has never been a part
of any syllabus that I have studied formally, it’s not really turned up in any
of the books that I’ve read and I don’t know anybody who was called up to serve
it. It’s quite a mysterious subject to
me, so what can be gleaned from the film?
In order to engage and entertain the first Carry On
audience, then the film has to include elements that were recognisable to an
audience that would have been familiar with National Service. It’s also a fair assumption to make that
several people involved with the making of the film had done their own
spell. So there has to be some real
history in here somewhere. If I had to
pick out one element of the story that rings with the most truth, that had been
the catalyst for the original storyline, then it would be the character
mix. It would have been difficult to
gain exemption from this conscription – only a handful of professions were
exempt, including coal mining and farming.
It would have therefore brought together men from various walks of life –
one of those acts of social levelling that World War Two is credited with in
continuation. The characters found in
the film’s Able platoon may not be all that exaggerated, you may well have
found the academic, the factory worker and mollycoddled mummy’s boy all in one
barrack room. This can only have led to
friendships and changes in outlook that have lasted a lifetime. But it is obvious that rose tinted spectacles
have been put onto the camera lens. In
the film, differences and weaknesses are overcome to succeed – the required view
of the era. In my many years of
observing human nature, I’m sure that this wasn’t always the case. I expect that there were many fights,
prejudices re-inforced and bad examples set.
The film also shows us the types of activities
carried out by National Service soldiers – the sort of activities that you
would expect. How to put a gun together,
running at the enemy with a bayonet and taking part in obstacle courses are
probably basic soldiering skills and so fairly accurate. I also wouldn’t be surprised if some of the
characters were based on real people encountered by the writers or the actors
interpreting their words. It’s a taste
of National Service that we should take with a pinch of Naafi Nora’s table
salt, and use as a stimulating starting point for further study.
No comments:
Post a Comment