Search

» » Se.... (1968)

Short summary

In an indictment of the British public school system, we follow Mick and his mostly younger friends through a series of indignities and occasionally abuse as any fond feelings toward these schools are destroyed. When Mick and his friends rebel, violently, the catch phrase, "which side would you be on" becomes quite stark.

Mick and the Girl rolling on the café floor naked and making love was Malcolm McDowell's idea (because he wanted to see his attractive co-star, Christine Noonan, for whom he admitted having a crush, in the nude.) However, when Lindsay Anderson accepted his star's suggestion, the director required McDowell to ask Noonan if she was willing to do so. (Her reply, according to McDowell, was "I don't mind.")

Contrary to the story that says some scenes of the film are in black-and-white instead of color because the production company was running short of money and saved money by having some scenes processed in monochrome, according to interviews with Malcolm McDowell, Lindsay Anderson and the cameraman, they first shot the scenes in the school chapel in monochrome because they had to use natural light that came in through the big stained-glass window, requiring high-speed film. The high-speed color stock they tested was very grainy and the constantly-shifting color values due to the angle of the light through the stained glass made it impossible to color-correct, as well. So they decided to shoot those scenes in monochrome, and, when he saw the dailies, Anderson liked the way that it "broke up the surface of the film", and decided to insert other monochrome scenes more or less at random, to help disorient the viewer as the film slipped from realism to fantasy.

A British ambassador called the film "an insult to the nation". The then Lord John Brabourne read an early draft and called it "the most evil and perverted script I've ever read. It must never see the light of day".

Malcolm McDowell's film debut.

Paramount hated the film when they saw it and tried to dump it from cinemas. However, one of their tentpole films, Barbarella (1968), turned out to be a spectacular flop so they needed to replace it in cinemas with something else. Reluctantly, they wheeled out "If..." and were astonished to see it turn into a big critical and commercial success.

Features the first instance of a full-frontal female nude passed by the British Board of Film Classification. Previously there had been instances of flashes of nakedness - notably in Michelangelo Antonioni's Blowup (1966) - but "If..." had a prolonged shot of featured nudity.

Malcolm McDowell was reportedly paid £90 a week for this role.

The final shot actually repeats the same short bit of action backward and forward several times (smoke can be seen rising and then going back down, for instance) before finally going to a freeze frame

Widely regarded as one of the films that captured the great counterculture movement of the late 60s, shooting actually began several months before one of the most significant events of that movement - the student riots in Paris in May 1968.

The scene of the beating in the gym was completely adlibbed.

The film was shot at director Lindsay Anderson's actual old school in Cheltenham, as well as Aldenham School, England.

Although the film was shot at Cheltenham Boys' College, the script "Crusaders" was based on the authors' old school Tonbridge School. Tonbridge was the original choice for the outdoor shots, but the school declined believing it would bring bad publicity. All-boys boarding schools were receiving quite unfavourable press at the time, which might explain Tonbridge's decision.

One of the provisions that Paramount made about the film was that it should be shot in a UK studio with a wholly British cast and crew. To keep costs down, Lindsay Anderson largely recruited from the theatrical world.

Earned Malcom McDowell the part of Alex in 'A Clockwork Orange' (1971)

Based on Jean Vigo's short film, Zéro de conduite: Jeunes diables au collège (1933)

In order for the full-frontal nude scene of Mrs Kemp to be passed in the UK chief censor John Trevelyan asked Lindsay Anderson to remove shots of male genitals in the shower scene. Anderson agreed to this and the film was released uncut with an X certificate. For its 1971 cinema re-release a 'AA' (no under 14) certificate was given after some trims to nudity during the coffee shop sex scene, though all later 15-rated video and DVD releases have featured the original uncut cinema print.

One of the photos in Travis' study is a portrait of V.I. Lenin in makeup and wig. The photo was made for a fake document in August 1917 when Lenin was hiding from the police.

The driver of the red car stopped by Mick on the roundabout in Cheltenham was Michael Medwin, the film's producer.

The title of the film was suggested by the secretary of Memorial Films when she overheard Lindsay Anderson and David Sherwin endlessly debating possible titles.

Very early in the film the viewer is given a hint of the counter-cultural themes the film revolves around when in the young boys' dormitory there are posters of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (man of revolution) and Geronimo a.k.a. Goyathlay (man of rebellion).

The female nude whose magazine picture Mick and his friends admire early in the film is Victoria Vetri (aka Angela Dorian) in her Playmate of the Year pictorial from the May 1968 issue of Playboy magazine.

The Packhorse Cafe doesn't exist anymore. It was on the Tewkesbury Road about four miles outside Cheltenham. The road in the film is lined with Elm trees and most of them vanished in the mid-70s because of an outbreak of Dutch elm disease, they've been replaced by another type of tree.

The BFI voted this the 12th greatest British film of all time.

Lindsay Anderson and Malcolm McDowell would revisit the character of Mick Travis in two later films in - O Lucky Man! (1973) and Britannia Hospital (1982). Although he has the same name, he is a different character in the films.

At the time of Lindsay Anderson's death he had completed a final draft of a proper sequel to the film, but it was never made. The sequel takes place during a Founders' Day celebration where many of the characters reunite. Mick Travis is now an Oscar-nominated movie star, eschewing England for Hollywood. Wallace is a military major who has lost his arm. Johnny is a clergyman. Rowntree is the Minister of War. In the script Rowntree is kidnapped by a group of anti-war students and saved by Mick and his gang, though not before Mick crucifies Rowntree with a large nail through his palm.

Included among the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", edited by Steven Schneider.

Malcolm McDowell, David Wood, Richard Warwick, Robert Swann and Christine Noonan all receive "introducing" credits

The painting in the dining hall is Richard Platt from Aldenham School. The Hall scene was an amalgamation of the school halls at Cheltenham and Aldenham.

David Sherwin's original title for the screenplay was "Crusaders", during the writing of which he drew heavily from his experiences at Tonbridge School in Kent. In 1960, he and his friend and co-writer John Howlett took it to director Seth Holt. Holt felt unqualified to direct but offered to produce the film. They also took it to Sherwin's hero, Nicholas Ray, who liked it but had a nervous breakdown before anything came of it. Holt introduced Sherwin to Anderson in a Soho pub.

The motorbike shop was filmed at the Broadway Motor Company on Gladstone Road, Merton, London SW19. The garage is now a Wetherspoons pub.

The Speech Day interior was filmed inside St John's Church on Albion Street, Cheltenham. The church was later demolished.

The motorcycle stolen by Mick is a 1968 BSA A65L Lightning (654cc parallel twin).

The Packhorse café doesn't exist any more. It was on the A5, a few miles south of Dunstable near Kensworth. The white railings just before they pull into the café are still there. Where J&H Packhorse café was is now a petrol station.

The first film of Simon Ward.

The jukebox in The Packhorse Cafe is a 1958 Rock-Ola 1464 Music Vendor which was the first ever wall mounted jukebox, although here it is seen as a floor standing version. Unfortunately it is not clear which selection number plays "Sanctus".

Some scenes were shot at the former Trinity School of John Whitgift in central Croydon before it was demolished to make way for the Whitgift Centre; pupil extras from Whitgift School were engaged at £5 per day.

Rupert Webster was dubbed by Robert Langley.

David Wood, who played Johnny, has written an insightful book entitled FILMING IF.... in which he documents the pleasures and challenges of working as a young actor on the film, and includes lots of personal anecdotes, plus previously unpublished exclusive photographs. It is available to purchase via Amazon. There is also a digital download version.

This film is part of the Criterion Collection, spine #391.

The filmmakers sent the school a fake script omitting the students turning on the staff and parents with guns.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Chillhunter
    'If...' is a fascinating and powerful film set in an oppressive and archaic public (that's private to us non-Brits) school. It is one of the most original and innovative of all British movies of the 60s, a decade which began in some ways with 'Peeping Tom' and ended with 'Performance', two much maligned movies which in hindsight are astonishing achievements. 'If..' is equally as striking (and disturbing) as those two criminally underrated movies, but in contrast actually achieved quite a level of popularity on its original release. Even so I don't believe the movie gets the attention it deserves. Hopefully it will be rediscovered by a new generation of movie lovers as it is still very relevant and powerful even now, thirty five years later. Malcolm McDowell (his film debut) stars as the ring-leader of a small group of dissatisfied students who don't fit in with their ultra-conformist contemporaries. His performance is first rate, and in several scenes you can almost see Alex, his droog to be ('A Clockwork Orange'). The movie mixes documentary like realism with fantasy sequences involving "The Girl" (Christine Noonan), and eventually violent rebellion. A movie very much of its time it still is very watchable today and has lost little of its power and ability to surprise. Lindsay Anderson, arguably Britain's most underrated director, continued to expand upon McDowell's Mick Travis character in two subsequent movies, but 'If..' has a very different feel from those "sequels", if they can truly be termed that, and can be watched as a stand alone movie. I was impressed with this movie when I first saw it on black and white TV as a young lad, and I was still impressed when I watched it again the other week. And I will guarantee it will not be my last viewing of this brilliant film! A must see for anyone with any interest whatsoever in 1960s pop culture or film.
  • comment
    • Author: FRAY
    This glorious 1968 film is a document not just of its times but of the eternal and mysterious communion between two enormous artists. Lindsay Anderson, the director, the mentor, the older man and Malcolm McDowell his young, brilliant, loving disciple. The trust between this two men is overwhelming and the results are in every frame in every nuance. For me, to see this film after many years was a remarkable emotional experience. Daring, visionary with a Malcolm McDowell that broke new ground with the fearlessness of an explorer venturing into totally virgin territory. Brilliant, beautiful, unique. Lead by the magical hand of Anderson and McDowell we confront the anger of the artists with their love for each other. Wow!
  • comment
    • Author: Mr_Mole
    I was in a sort of daze for hours after seeing If...for the first time in 2017. A work of art? Certainly but also a poetic historical document. After all the film dates back to 1968. 1968! when things were really changing and youth was taking a step forward, reminding the older generation that we'll be suffering the consequences of your thoughtlessness. So move over or else. I remember my father despising this film, he call it, propaganda. Propaganda?Maybe that's why I never saw it, until now. I was really moved by the film. Malcolm McDowell is the perfect man to incarnate the revolution that was about to come. It also made me look for all of Lindsay Anderson films - Just half a dozen feature films but my God! What an extraordinary director.
  • comment
    • Author: romrom
    My word!

    "If.." has always been a firm favourite of mine, particularly as I have been in much the same situation (minus B+W/Colour changes, and gun battles, naturally), and indeed still consider myself a hair rebel. It captures perfectly the horrors of public shool-The fawning, smarmy head-master, the rigors of cadet training and founder's day, it's all drawn from horrible reality.

    Saw a late night showing yesterday, and on the cinema screen the fabulous direction and power of the photography- so still and unobtrusive, yet so iconic-becomes apparent. That final looped shot of Mick firing the brenn Gun is just stunning! I left the cinema feeling so goddamn moved!

    At times the sheer 60s-ness, and random dialogue ("I like Johnny") can seem to undermine the viewing experience, but the spirit of bold rebellion which saturates this marvelous film wins you over. A favourite joke which I had never spotted before, is near the start, where the whips tick off a list that goes something like "Measles, tape worm, conformation class"..marvellous..

    GO SEE!!
  • comment
    • Author: Thofyn
    The best film ever made about school life; the rituals, the drudgery, the humiliation and ultimately the excitement. Anderson's masterpiece works on a number of levels, not least as one of the cinema's great pieces of surrealism. It's a state of the nation movie, a fantasy, an account of public school life told with an almost documentary-like precision and it's as fresh today as it was when it first appeared, (hard to believe that was almost 40 years ago or that Malcom McDowell was ever this young).

    Using Jean Vigo's "Zero De Conduite" as a template, (it's not a remake), Anderson's movie is quintessentially youthful and so accurately does it depict its milieu as to appear almost arrogant. He handles revolution with a grandstanding authority and homosexual, (and heterosexual), schoolboy yearning more romantically than any other film I can think of, (Wallace's display in the gymnasium as blonde, beautiful, tousle-haired Bobby Phillips looks on is blissfully homo-erotic), and he does this with a masterly control of the medium. (His comments about financial restraints dictating the fluctuations between black-and-white and colour photography may well be true but the choices seem inspired, nevertheless and the great Miroslav Ondricek's camera-work is superb).

    He was also a great actor's director, often working with many of the same actors both in theatre and in cinema and he extracts marvellous performances from the likes of Arthur Lowe, Peter Jeffrey, Mona Washborne and Geoffrey Chater representing the Establishment as well as pitch-perfect performances from David Wood, Richard Warwick, Rupert Webster, Robert Swann and Hugh Thomas, all new to cinema, as the students.

    The film made Malcom McDowell a star and for a few short years, (here, in "O Lucky Man", as Alex in "A Clockwork Orange"), that star burned brightly before he sold out to Hollywood and his career began to flounder in a series of mediocre American movies, reaching a nadir with "Caligula". But his performance as Mick Travis is a marvel and both it and the film that first encapsulated it remain among the finest achievements in British cinema.
  • comment
    • Author: Chuynopana
    To get the most out of this film you have to be English, male and a teenager; in 1979 when I first saw it I was all three. In the years that followed I would catch it wherever I could, be it on television, in the college bar or in some local, flea-ridden rep cinema. Now, of course, I own the video. Every few months I dig it out and watch it, and more than any other film or book it reminds me what it was like to be young and rebellious and have my whole life ahead of me.

    This was to England what The Wild One or Rebel Without A Cause was to America. Show it to your teenage sons; they'll remember it for the rest of their lives, and one day they might even thank you for it.

    To dispel an old myth, while I'm here. Some scenes in the film are in black and white while most of the film is in color. The reason for this has nothing to do with art; they were short of money, and black and white was cheaper in those days.

    Enjoy.
  • comment
    • Author: Naktilar
    The first entry to the Mick Travis trilogy ("If...", 1968, O Lucky Man, 1973, and "Britannia Hospital", 1982), "If.." is a surreal black comedy about an English private boys' school and a student rebellion. In his three films, Anderson had covered all aspects, politics, and institutions of British Society from 1968 to 1982 with its complex system of class differences and privileges. "If..." which was released in 1968 at the peak of youthful rebellion in Europe and USA, received BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations and won the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival where it competed with 27 films from all over the world.

    Anderson was in part inspired by Jean Vigo's 41 minutes long "Zero for conduct" (1933) about the similar to "If..." subject. Like in Vigo's film, Anderson inserts some surrealistic episodes shot in black-and-white and according to him, it was driven by budget rather than style. Malcolm McDowell in his first big screen role and the first of three Mick Travis' movies is a charismatic leader of the rebel students who call themselves the Crusaders and like to break the rules. The cruel corporal punishments from the faculty and the older students provoked a bloody uprising against the school system.

    Made almost 40 years ago, "If.." still has a power to shock as well as to entertain and it remains an outstanding and controversial depiction of the problems that have not disappear from the English public school system or from any school system as well as from society in general.

    I am sure that Stanley Kubrick saw "If..." and was impressed by McDowell's debut performance, by his charisma that shines through his close-ups and especially in the final shot of "If...", and by his face that strangely combines innocence and youthful openness with cynical scornful almost reptilian contempt for humanity. I believe that "If..." was the reason Kubrick offered the part of charming psychopath Alex to the young actor.
  • comment
    • Author: Keel
    A strange film from 1968. A film on education in Great Britain. The education of the middle class or what could be called the bourgeoisie, second social stratum after the aristocracy. Education in a boarding school, with prefects, whips, and everything like corporal punishments and mean nasty segregational attitudes towards those who have too much personality or do not accept to be wimps marching along to the dictatorial rule of the prefects, whips and other real or false headmasters. It is all wrong from the very start. It represses originality, initiative and creativity and develops the desire to be on top one day to become the torturer who will be able to impose on smaller ones what they have been imposed by bigger ones when they were small. Democratic slavery. You have to submit to the system totally in order to become the slave master later on and compensate your frustration when you were a slave on the slaves under your control. This is no education, this is taming. This is not teaching morality but teaching savage displaced vengeance. Of course the film is showing exactly what may happen when you victimize the more brilliant, the more original because they are more brilliant and original than you are (two meanings intended). It is the survival of the old feudal education system that was making all children who were to be in the superior class later on be pages or chambermaids, as soon as they had crossed the first year or so of puberty, in the hands of aristocrats. They just had to do what they were told to do, including personal service to their masters and mistresses, or they had to suffer punishment that could be of the most violent type. To educate the future leaders of our society by making them go through the false and fake choice of submission or rebellion, being used in the most debilitating ways or being punished with the most vicious means, being humiliated or being violently broken. It cultivates rebellion without a cause in these young people, and we say it is without a cause without any clue at all about what it is really, because to be humiliated, victimized, brutalized, and even violated is the best cause to be rebellious, though it is not rebellious they should be but plainly advocates of the violent change of this society. It is that survival of feudal customs and methods that produced the revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, whose leadership had been too often forced to go through this process of humiliating the future master out of the humiliation itself. The end of the film then is purely phantasmagoric but it is exactly what this society deserves: good old strong deadly bullets right in the center of the forehead. This film is the British pioneering version of the American "Zabriskie Point", just a few years later. We are coming back from deep deep under in the dark realm of Hades and we are far from the clear and trans-lucid target of total transparency and honesty. This film, in its way is just as powerful and brain raking as "Clockwork Orange" or "The Dead Poets Society".

    Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
  • comment
    • Author: Coiron
    I first saw this movie when i was 15 and it shook up my world. I was aware of Malcolm McDowell having previously seen him as Alex delarge in Clockwork Orange. This film is a perfect surreal study of teenage rebellion and should be seen by everyone who is able. The direction is brilliant the supporting cast shine (Arthur Lowe etc)and the film as a whole is made up of memorable images that you'll take to the grave. Lindsay Anderson is one of the most important director geniuses of an era and i was very sad to hear of his demise. The memory of him lives on through this film and its two "Mick Travis" sequels!!
  • comment
    • Author: Haal
    I first watched "If…" about thirty years ago on a black and white TV. I'm not sure whether the sensors had been active or my memory has faded. Probably the first option although the second option is also valid as many movies can and have been watched in the space of thirty years. The film struck me at first as having a strong resemblance to the school that I attended ie. A Certain College which was an ultra conservative military type school run in the old English style where there was no room for individuality. Having attended there in the same time-frame as "If…", both Malcolm's and my headmaster's comments and policies were of a not so convincing attempt to be cool and trendy. The hair cut rules, uniform rules, and the underlying fear of homosexuality were all present. The pecking order where the seniors or "whips" could have a free run with any lad who they fancied or abhorred by piling pleasures or punishments on them was something I also lived through. If fact the film "If.." was not all that far fetched. Upon seeing the film after a thirty year lapse and then being asked to write a report for my daughter who is at the age that I was when I left the establishment I mentioned was certainly a treat. After seeing the film again, I believe the sensors did have a field day in 1975 as they did in many films of that era. Most of the gun-play in the final scenes was cut out as were Malcolm's dalliances with the young lady. Some of the scenes depicting homosexual innuendo were also missing although, as I mentioned earlier, my memory could have something to do with that. The switching from colour to black and white was something that went unnoticed the first time I saw the movie. Upon discussion with my daughter I was relieved to find it was a financial shortage rather than some sort of intense flashback that I missed or didn't understand. I was thrilled at the opportunity to see the movie again. It was everything I remember it as being and more. The cast was great and the plot was realistic until the end when all hell broke loose. I'm sure I will enjoy it again next time.
  • comment
    • Author: Eng.Men
    I have just watched this film for the first time and I thought it was excellent. The plot of If... was it was set in a English Public School where senior students ruled and the younger students had endure a harsh regime. The teachers were not much better giving out harsh punishments including cold showers and caning. Malcolm McDowell plays Mick Travis who along with his friends refuse to conform to the system. The films shows how they resist and how the teachers and follow students are unable to deal with them. The films ends with Travis and his friends taking violence action against the school.

    The film was influenced the counter-culture movement of the 60s. It also would have been influenced by youth movements such as the Mods and Rockers. Politically the film was also Left-Wing, showing photos of Marxist leaders such as Mao, Lenin and Che Guenna and Travis practising shooting on photos of the Queen and Politicians. Travis and his friends are shown to be intellectual, reading and coming up with statements such as 'Revolution is the only pure act.' If... also coinsided with the Paris riots and has been mistaken for being influenced by the events.

    The film also combines a grim and stark view of the Public School system which was a target of the film, and shows things that possibly really did happen, but it also has surreal dream sequences. I feel the two together worked very well. If... also reminded me of A Clockwork Orange, which also started Malcolm McDowell. This was because of the idea of show a dystopia society (on a smaller scale) and the idea of youth running wild and uncontrolled. I would say if you liked A Clockwork Orange then you would like If...
  • comment
    • Author: Connorise
    Lindsay Anderson's 1968 film If... is a beautiful film with a simple message, yet the director's touch and the performances take it to entirely different level.

    If... takes place in all boys boarding school and stars Malcolm McDowell as

    "Mick" (McDowell in his first screen role). Mick and his two friends feel

    somewhat distant from their peers, school, and society. Their general attitude towards such things as sex, war, and authority could be call revolutionary. With surrealistic touches such as unexplained occurrences and changing between

    color and black and white. Lindsay Anderson paints a vivid picture of "teenage alienation" before there was a term for such a thing. McDowell would later reprise his role of "Mick" in two other Anderson pictures O' Lucky Man and Britannia Hospital. A must see for fans of McDowell. Just a great film with a message that sparks positive, pro-active thinking. An important film that makes you remember to question authority instead complying to it rules. Sadly If... is not available on DVD at this time.
  • comment
    • Author: Makaitist
    I first saw 'If...' in April 2001, when shown by RTE (Irish television). Set in a fairly typical British public school during the 'Swinging Sixties', the repressive atmosphere of the school creates tension and resentment, particularly among the seniors. Three of the seniors, Michael Travis (played by Malcolm McDowell) and his two study room-mates begin to defy the authority of the 'whips', an elitist group of four sixth-formers headed by Rowntree (Robert Swann), the head of college house. Power-games and petty bullying by the whips is the order of the day, meanwhile Travis and his friends leave college buildings and go into town without permission from the whips, and they get drunk in the study. Eventually, their rebellious behaviour is no longer tolerated and they are brutally caned by Rowntree - Travis' roommates get four strokes each, but Travis, saved until last by the sadistic Rowntree, gets ten. The entire school has been sent either to the 'Sweat-Room' (juniors) or their studies (seniors) so that they can hear the noise of the canings, in the expectation that any displays of rebellious activity,on the part of any other students,will be similarly dealt with.

    The canings prompt Travis to declare war on society, and the three initially disrupt Founder's Day ceremonies with smoke bombs in the assembly hall. The congregation rush outside to be met with mortar bombs and automatic gunfire from the rooftops around the quadrangle. It is to be pointed out that these scenes are fantasy, a product of Travis' fertile imagination. Filmed on location, partly at Cheltenham College, Gloucestershire, England - where the director of 'If...', Linsday Anderson, was himself a student- the authentic setting instils a very real feeling of a repressive public school in the viewer's mind, as does the dialogue and portrayal of the hierarchical structure of British society, represented by the school.

    While 'If...' was a significant product of its time, it still nonetheless has the power to shock the viewer, particularly if they are survivors of the public school system. While violent and amusing at the same time, both of these aspects being very well balanced, it is a very enjoyable movie. Highly recommended.
  • comment
    • Author: Akelevar
    And it's not Travis! I've always hated the type of public school rebel portrayed by Travis. The finest rebels are those who stick with but subvert the system they despise. George Orwell (Eton) was such a person, who made fun of those who claimed to have been scarred by public school, or 'four years in a tepid bath of snobbery' as he called it. I admire far more the character of Mike (?) who finds release in his astronomy.

    Having said that, I did find the film an excellent satire on the type of person who loves rules and regulations for their own sake - these people exist in every walk of life. But attempting to defeat these people by hysterical overreaction such as that of Travis merely results in them clamping down further.

    I also realised how much Monty Python's Meaning of Life draws on the film - during the chapel scenes I could have sworn Arthur Lowe was going to stand up and intone 'Oooooh God you are so big!'

    What we don't see from the likes of Lindsay Anderson is a similar satire on state schools, with their equally vicious and degrading practices. The nearest I've come to seeing this is the excellent 'Kes'.
  • comment
    • Author: Gerceytone
    This is one of the greatest films ever made, period! I've seen it at least 10 times, and it still manages to captivate me. The theme of trying to break away from the establishment is universal. This is also the pinnacle of the British "angry young man" films. This surrealist wake up call is not to be missed.
  • comment
    • Author: Ganthisc
    When If.. was re-released at the end of the 1990s, it came with the slogan: 'An Anarchist's Punk Dream!' This certainly summarises the film's main ethos, in which revolution and the dream of blowing up the old school master is a dream of every anti-social English school boy. MacDowel is superb in this film, and he apparently landed the gig for A Clockwork Orange through Kubrick watching this film several times. The direction is also brilliant by Lyndsey Anderson, who unfortunately never amounted to much after this. If you're interested in the changing attitudes of English society during the 1960's then watch if..., as there's no better illustration. One of the all time British classics, with a bizarre sequel called 'Oh Lucky Man'.
  • comment
    • Author: Zbr
    This movie about how three rebellious teens in a British boarding school react to a hidebound society is difficult to analyze. The theme of revolt of the free-spirited against a repressive society is there, but what is real or imagined, what is fantasy or fact is not clear. In the final analysis I came just to accept this as a work of art whose qualities I came to appreciate.

    There are many memorable scenes, some of exquisite beauty, some of harsh cruelty. The scene with the riders on the motorcycle is one of the purest representations of freedom ever recorded on film. But, don't break it down or it loses its effect. The motorcycle was stolen, someone stood to lose money on the deal, the pristine grass they were on was being torn up, the machine was polluting, standing on a motorcycle is dangerous, and so forth. So, just ignore all of that and appreciate the artistry of it - this goes for the movie in general.

    No matter what you think of the film, it would be difficult not to be captivated by Malcom McDowell's magnetic performance. He had quite a run there, what with this film, "O Lucky Man!," and "A Clockwork Orange," in a period of five years. And who will be able to forget the scene in the Packhorse Cafe between McDowell and Christine Noonan - it has to be one of the greatest sex scenes ever filmed. And in black and white no less.

    I think it is misguided to compare the revolt of these three students with the school shootings in recent years. The school shootings have been committed either by highly unstable individuals or by those desiring revenge for personal slights. Here I see the motivations as a revolt against a repressive society - the educational system, religion, the military, you name it - and not against individuals per se.

    The filming is quite accomplished and the music compelling, particularly the excerpt from the Missa Luba.

    The effect the final scenes had on me completely typifies my reactions to the movie in general. On the one hand I was horrified, but on the other I was laughing. I found the scene with the priest and the knight in armor running for cover disturbing on a personal level, but gleefully humorous on the level of the idea of upending dogmatic religion and centuries old traditions. And how realistic are those final scenes? The headmaster gets shot in the head, but in the very next scene there is no evidence of his being where he was standing. I imagine the final scenes had an appeal to the "don't trust anyone over thirty" generation at the time.

    The fact that you can take this for real, for absurdest comedy, for satire, or in many other ways, speaks highly of it.

    You are disposed to answer the questions, "What is freedom and how much does it mean to you?"
  • comment
    • Author: Balladolbine
    Made in 1968, this film still made me shiver even though I started at public school in 1977. Things had changed somewhat by then, but not beyond recognition, and for sure I felt powerful echoes in this movie. By the time I left, the country was steeped in Thatcherism, and the style of self advancement that came with it was replacing the old guard watchers of 'If....' would recognise. The housemaster and headboy were 2 characters I can especially recall, but there are flashes of others in many of the characters.

    When you see this film, see it as a historical satire, with first the historical atmosphere of a public school being accurately recreated, then second the satire taking form just in time to administer the purgative judgement of the surreal denouement.

    There. Spoken like a public schoolboy.
  • comment
    • Author: Doriel
    Lindsay Anderson's "if...." presents a fable disguised (most of the time) as a slice-of-life set in a British upper-class boarding school. Bouyed by the twin-barreled audacity of Anderson and the film's breakout star, Malcolm McDowell, "if...." fiercely, timelessly encapsulates the spirit of 1960s rebellion even as it threatens to go off the rails every five minutes in the second half.

    McDowell is Mick Travis, a returning upperclassman at College House, one of several houses that constitute a British boarding school. While other older boys, called "whips", enforce a nasty form of discipline on their juniors, called "scum", Mick and two friends contemplate an act of revolution to disturb College House's rigid hierarchy once and for all.

    "Violence and revolution are the only pure acts," Mick declares.

    In case one doubts his cold-blooded dedication and impatience for change, his next line sends Columbine chills up your spine. Told someone dies of starvation in Calcutta every eight minutes, his reply is a succinct: "Eight minutes is a long time."

    There are points where one can't help feeling the script needed another round of polishing, like the way it introduces characters like the teacher Mr. Thomas and the "scum" Biles and Jute only to drop them in the second half as Mick's story takes over completely. But Mick's hardcore attitude of radical chic and the surreal nonsense that spurts out now and then before taking over entirely actually give "if...." much of its rich, iconoclastic majesty. With its attention to institutional detail, the sound of boyish babble echoing off the linoleum, you really feel yourself another inmate in College House, and are eager for Mick to effect your escape as well as his.

    For me, that's why the first half works so much better than the second half. It sends up the public-school culture in such a way that its actual demolition later on seems unnecessary. Robert Swann sets the right tone as the head whip Rowntree, a toffee-nosed princeling who carries his thrashing cane like a kingly scepter and tells one young scum: "Markland, warm a lavatory seat for me. I'll be ready in three minutes." Swann's as brilliant a villain as McDowell himself would be in many later films.

    Watching McDowell here is to see his Alex from "Clockwork Orange" in embryonic form, his simpering smile, his animalistic fury, his waggish ease-putting charm. A case can be made that Mick is a more disturbing character than Alex, since he is presented so much more sympathetically and acts out even more violently by the film's end.

    Ah, the end, what can be said about that that hasn't been said. I won't spoil anything, but I do think the film's surrealism needs to be factored in more than it has in considering the moral implications of Mick & Co's final act. Logic seems to flee from the corners of the screen long before. One long sequence features Mick and friend Johnny stealing a motorbike without consequence and Mick coupling on the floor of a coffee house with a town girl, who later waves to him when he spots her with a high-powered telescope. If you can't see the madness in moments like that, then maybe you deserve to think the end of the film was played straight.

    I'm not much for the ending of the film. "Do you find it facile?" asks the History Master played by the marvelous Graham Crowden, and my answer would be yes. As I said, I think it's a flawed finish, not just for its unpleasant resonances but the way nothing is resolved, no narrative or character arc.

    But "if...." is still bracing, still tough, and still refreshing in the way it presents McDowell in raw, undistilled form, in a setting fully deserving of his visible scorn. Anderson makes you want to lash out, too, making the most of "if...."'s enigmatic tagline: "Which side will you be on?"
  • comment
    • Author: Vetitc
    (It's hard to "spoil" a movie whose denouement is the main thing everyone knows about the movie, but marking this as "spoiling" allows me to mention whatever I please.)

    I missed this film when it first came out, so I am now seeing it on DVD after nearly 50 years. Possibly it seemed totally daring to the critics of the time, a harbinger of youth revolution. Today, to me, it seems dated, narrow, and sad.

    Time hasn't served it well, and I don't refer only to the fact that we have now seen a lot of actual mass school shootings and are less likely to get excited about them. Nor to the fact that repression of the children of the elites and wannabes in UK "public schools" is not so much a contemporary issue.

    Possibly the world of 1968 was not so quick as we are now to notice that, hey, every named character in this film is an obnoxious misogynistic white male twit! I can testify personally that there was a period of a few years when misogynistic white male twits could get a lot of attention leading protests on US campuses. Actually one could take this film as a warning that people like Travis and his followers are to be shunned by persons serious about change, but if that was its message it gets lost.

    Particularly in the second half a lot of apparently surrealistic elements start to appear. When a clergyman who also leads military training was produced from a large drawer, this set me wondering about other events and images. Did an instructor's wife actually wander naked through the halls? Did Travis actually steal a motorcycle at all, or throw a crocodile on a bonfire? Or are these Travis's fantasies? And if so, is the whole concluding scene of violence maybe really just another fantasy, something that might happen "If...." ? (This would explain how the nameless "The Girl" ends up on the scene. I'm not confident that she even exists.) No doubt all these questions are answered in commentary or interviews somewhere, and if I were a professional I would look them up, but I'm only an amateur reporting on my impressions.

    But it doesn't terribly matter whether these are Travis's fantasies or the filmmakers' fantasies. The question is how revelatory or instructive or inspiring or artistically attractive they are. And frankly after it all I'm not terribly impressed.

    I would be more impressed if the 13-year-old enslaved "scum" had picked up arms to defend themselves against their manifest oppression, torture, and degradation, but that isn't the story. Instead, you have Travis. We learn nothing of his family or backstory. He is contemptuous of the whips and faculty, who deserve contempt, but what has he to offer himself other than some tired snippets of laziness passing for anarchism, about how "war and violence are the only creative acts" and "one man with a gun can change history", and a blood pact with his mates which is about what you would expect of Tom Sawyer playing Red Indians. Why does he stay in the damned school at all? If he left and tried to deal with the issues of his actual life that would also be more impressive. But he strikes me as someone with a sense of ruling- class entitlement just as monumental as that of any of the oppressors, who feels that he should be allowed to just wallow in inaction and play on someone else's dime, and, when he gets whacked on the bum a few times (not exactly the worst thing to happen to anyone in the year of the My Lai massacre), wants to just kill everyone in sight for it.

    So, to be fair, maybe the makers are entirely aware that Travis's "Crusaders" are as horrible examples as the powers and principalities of the school. Maybe they know that the dilettantish so-called resistance grounded in pique of these children of the ruling class is as much a target for "satire" as the institutions of privilege. Maybe. But they don't make it clear to me that they do. The Monty Python troupe satirized this whole ground a lot better, and apart from satire, what's left here?
  • comment
    • Author: Saberblade
    The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer "Town" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his "Gannex" mac,Lindsay Anderson's "If" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called "summer of love" was followed by the "October Revolution" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous "Them" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the "October Revolution" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his "State of the Country" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of "Stalky & Co."written by the man whose much-maligned poem "If" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.
  • comment
    • Author: Buridora
    I just saw "If…" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

    I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

    Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

    If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

    Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.
  • comment
    • Author: Meztihn
    When "If..." came out, it was the right sort of film at the right time. However, when seen today, the movie looks terribly choppy, lacks focus and especially humor. Like a gallon of milk, this film does not get better with age! Roughly first half of the film is like a documentary--a recreation of the horrid life in a British public college (to translate into American, a 'private high school'). It appears to be a fascist system where there are many rules just for the sake of rules, abuse of arbitrary power the norm and a rather homo-erotically charged atmosphere predominates--and it was both interesting and a bit said. However, when it came to the actual story, this is where the film really let me down. Despite setting up a horrid atmosphere where the plot should have been easy to construct, the plot just seemed, at times, irrelevant and very episodic....and often incoherent and meandering. I know many consider this a classic and it's achieved a level of respectability now that it's part of the Criterion Collection, but the movie just seemed cheaply made and incomplete---and not just because random portions of the movie are in black & white. While controversial and counter-culture back in the 60s, now it just seems bad.

    Who was Malcolm McDowell's character and who were his very nameless and faceless friends? We never know anything other than very superficial things about them--like Malcolm's character steals a motorcycle. But WHY did he do this? And, why wasn't there any follow up on this? And what about the naked lady towards the end the film who walks through the dorms?! What's all this about--what is going on and why? It just seemed random and pointless. And why did a few scenes seem funny and surreal...and yet NOTHING was done with this and it was never exploited!?! For example, I loved seeing the minister in the drawer---but with nothing preceding or following it, what was this?! And, with 95% of the film very serious, this seemed out of place and irrelevant. And, for that matter, the entire ending was that way. While having the four problem students (though at times they are only three--did you notice that one appeared and disappeared in scenes?!) destroy the big ceremony was potentially a great idea (like the ending of "Animal House"), it was a lost opportunity for me because instead of ruining things, they started killing people. Killing people in a mass murder like the Columbine Massacre didn't seem funny...just awful. Nothing's funny about mass murder (I know, I know...I am quite a prude in this department).

    Had this film appeared in 2010, critics would have rightfully torn it apart for being incomplete and incoherent. Yet, oddly, it's a classic!
  • comment
    • Author: Mitynarit
    They don't make'em like they used to. Maybe soon it will be on DVD. I'm just done viewing the copy I purchased by special order when I was fifteen years old (1986). It's an 'R' rated US copy. Cant help but wonder what was cut from the original issue (can some kind person fill me in?). It's the same deal with Kubrick's 'Clockwork' -- something has been left out over the years. What a tease. Anyway, back to 'If....'.--Brilliant isn't the word. The end is almost a tribute to Dada. It's wonderful. It's a fantasy thought of by all in their secret heart and not carried out (thankfully). Of course here in the US we've had a few terrible incidents that might sour many people to this film. This is most awful, on both counts. It's too bad we don't live in a better world. Anyway, I love the movie and can't wait to find out what my young daughter makes of it when she's old enough.

    cheers and warmest regards,

    Steve Honchell Sycamore, IL USA
  • comment
    • Author: Shomeshet
    The other movie staring Malcolm McDowell as an angry young man hyperviolent anti-authoritarian figure, Lindsay Anderson's "If..." is just that, a question into the possibility of a figure, so in love with the idea of the romantic mix between Eros and Thanatos, combined with a certain amount of repressive environment characterized by a very classic English private school, may not just snap and...

    Of course school shootings have a little different meaning today, but a marked difference between what this film is expressing and what school shootings have come to express is the very act of expression itself: McDowell is quixotic, an hopeless romantic that poises himself and acts out his rebellion into the very physicality of his being. The real-life school shooters are mostly repressed quiet kids unable to handle stress. How "If..." differs is expressed in its title and the sequence where the scientific boy shows McDowell the stars: what alternate universe is this film, what sequence of events could occur, that eventually a boy could lead a fully loaded arsenal into direct combat against a similarly aggressively armed school faculty? What sort of religious, moral, and ethical grounds creates these institutions, and will they ultimately lead to their own destruction?

    It is important to notice that the movie is surreal, and pointedly so. The end scene could be argued away as a fantasy, but for moments such as the bishop sitting up out of the drawer, the sudden black-and-white, the full acceptance of McDowell's character's dreams by other angry young men. Is it so hard to accept that a cache of weapons could have been forgotten in a school attic when that very school contains weapons and trains its children in soldiering itself? The Institution in this film is its own destroyer, so that the warning extends just beyond the idea of a single kid breaking (McDowell doesn't break down, he actualizes) to simply assuming that this may be what the purpose of the school is for, in the end, anyway.

    --PolarisDiB
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Malcolm McDowell Malcolm McDowell - Mick: Crusaders
    David Wood David Wood - Johnny: Crusaders
    Richard Warwick Richard Warwick - Wallace: Crusaders
    Christine Noonan Christine Noonan - The Girl: Crusaders
    Rupert Webster Rupert Webster - Bobby Philips: Crusaders
    Robert Swann Robert Swann - Rowntree: Whips
    Hugh Thomas Hugh Thomas - Denson: Whips
    Michael Cadman Michael Cadman - Fortinbras: Whips
    Peter Sproule Peter Sproule - Barnes: Whips
    Peter Jeffrey Peter Jeffrey - Headmaster: Staff
    Anthony Nicholls Anthony Nicholls - General Denson: Staff
    Arthur Lowe Arthur Lowe - Mr. Kemp: Staff
    Mona Washbourne Mona Washbourne - Matron: Staff
    Mary MacLeod Mary MacLeod - Mrs. Kemp: Staff (as Mary Macleod)
    Geoffrey Chater Geoffrey Chater - Chaplain: Staff
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com