‘The Good
Companions’ is the earliest film that I have tackled so far. Made in 1933, it stars John Geilgud. To someone of my generation, the fact that he
was once so young is quite astounding!
If his name had not appeared in the opening titles, I would have had no
idea that it was him.
The film is
based on the 1929 book of the same name by J.B. Priestley, one of my favourite
20th Century writers (anyone wanting insight into pre World War Two
England should read his “English Journey”).
It is about a troupe of entertainers, initially called The Dinky
Doos. They wisely change their name to
The Good Companions and proceed to wow English theatres with their variety
show. Jessie Matthews plays the singing
sensation, Susie Dean, with a lot of the story revolving round her quest for
fame. Another Priestley book that I
enjoyed reading is entitled “Lost Empires” and is a story based on old music
hall theatres. He clearly had a huge
affection for such places and ‘The Good Companions’ as film records something
of what life was like for the performers.
Because when the film was made, this kind of entertainment was still
very popular. All those involved in
making the film would have been familiar with how variety theatre worked, the
actors would have begun their working lives in itinerant repertory
companies. There must therefore be some
authenticity in what we are seeing.
What the film
shows us is that those who felt the urge to perform, who wanted to spend their
working lives acting or singing, faced a long, hard climb. ‘The Good Companions’ are shown living hand
to mouth in seedy pubs as they travel from one provincial town to another. They take the train between a Midlands
manufacturing town and a northern mining town.
They lug around their own props and costumes and somehow or other have
to find time to write routines or songs and rehearse them. It is anything but a glamorous lifestyle.
.jpg) |
| A Lost Empire |
My viewing of
‘The Good Companions’ coincided with the much hyped launch of yet another
series of a well known TV talent show.
The winner of the show gets to perform at the Royal Variety Show – one
of the few live variety shows still going.
Now that we can flick between a comedy show or a music show at the touch
of a button from our own front room, we don’t need to go out and see this sort
of thing anymore. The success of this TV
programme shows that overall, tastes for entertainment have not changed, just
the way that they are consumed. But, I
wonder, have things changed for the performers?
It would be glib to say that they have it easy these days, that young
people now expect fame to be handed to them overnight and that they are not as
good for not having worked their way up through a variety or repertory
circuit. But this isn’t strictly
true. It takes courage to go on one of
these shows and face an audience of millions who are waiting eagerly for you to
fail or make a complete tit of yourself.
Before mocking a contestant, members of this audience should ask
themselves if they could stand on that stage.
No matter how much I would like to be an acclaimed writer, the very
thought of reading something out in front of an audience of just a dozen people
fills me with panic. It’s much easier to
just post things up here under the name of a film character, and then read any
comments through my fingers. I’m sure I’ll never get anywhere! In addition to
courage, serious contestants will still have put in the rehearsal time and made
some study of their chosen field.
Having
defended the modern route to fame though, I think I prefer the Priestley
way. It seems a more honest way to
achieve fame somehow, I couldn’t begrudge any old variety star their fame and
fortune in the same way that I begrudge pop muppets One Direction theirs. As Mother would say, “They just don’t make
‘em like they used to.”
No comments:
Post a Comment