Glue Man...
Who was he and what was it about - the ending didn't seem to explain either?!
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > A Canterbury Tale (1949) Discussion > Glue Man...
The Glue Man was the Magistrate Thomas Colpeper as was confirmed in the train carriage on the journey to Canterbury. He was putting the glue in the local girls' hair to deter them from 'stepping out' with uniformed soldiers. He wanted said soldiers to attend his lectures on all things Chaucer and the Pilgrims' Road to Canterbury; the war provided him with the ideal opportunity to relay his historical musings to a wider audience.
shareAh right!!!
Thank you very much :oD
(sorry for the delayed thanks)
I think he also didn't want the local girls going out with soldiers when their own men were away in the Forces.
shareWhat would we think of someone pouring glue on people's hair today? An activity worthy of the Nazis or the Taliban!
shareIf it was super glue probably, anything else would wash out.
Remember,you don't have to be smart if you can pretend to be someone else who is...
If it was super glue probably, anything else would wash out.
by - Apophos on Wed Sep 5 2007 16:13:33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you even see the movie? Washing it out is covered explicitly. And superglue wasn't invented till around 1970.
In other news, the vikings didn't have iPods.
Spoilers ahead.
I have a bit of a problem with 'Glue Man'. When he is revealed, he says he is doing it to stop girls stepping out with other men and to attract people to his lectures.
A highly dodgy premise IMO - using threatening behaviour in order to coerce people into the 'right' behaviour; and the film seems to condone this in the end because the sergeant doesn't denounce him in the end.
Is Glue Man supposed to represent some kind of supernatural sense of morality, the social and moral 'glue' holding us in place, or have I just misunderstood?
No, the glue isn't meant to be a metaphor for the glue holding society together or holding anyone in place. You're reading too much into it. It's just meant to be a way to make the girls scared to go out so that they won't distract the soldiers.
Remember that it was made over 60 years ago. Society has changed quite a lot since then. Don't just look at it from a modern point of view.
The discussion on the train shows that Colpeper was misguided, severely misguided, but his intentions were good. After meeting the three pilgrims he does change his ways. As the credits are rolling we see the soldiers attending his lectures - with their girlfriends.
The original script called for Colpeper to slash the girls' dresses. It was felt that this was too aggressive and too weird, even for a Powell & Pressburger film. So they settled on someone who deposited sticky stuff in the hair of the local girls. No moral ambiguity there
Steve
There's a glue bandit loose in Pasadena CA. Squirting glue into girls hair.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=146208 18&src=news
I don't feel like it was sufficiently clear that Colpeper repented of his actions and realized how screwed up they were. Alison says, "Surely you aren't going to defend putting glue in people's hair!" and Colpeper says No, he won't do that. But then he basically goes on to give all his reasons for doing it, and both Alison and Bob seem to think them legitimate. And when Denis Price still maintains it was wrong, it feels a little awkward and everyone's happy that he doesn't actually turn Colpeper in.
Now, I understand not wanting to spoon-feed your audience and the value of offering them a moral choice, but come on! People won't come to my lectures so I ran around at night and put glue in their hair and blamed it on soldiers?? Obviously this is a screwed up and morally wrong idea, even if his lectures are truly valuable. I don't feel there was that much more for the audience to judge--Colpeper should have made a clear commitment to not doing something so weird and stupid again and admitted it was wrong before. He didn't have to say those words exactly, but I never got any sense he was sorry, just sorry to be caught. When the British sergeant asked if he would have convicted himself, he seemed to imply he would not because of extenuating circumstances. The movie should have been slightly clearer on this point.
The reasons he gave on the train were to defend his attempting to pour knowledge into people's heads. The glue was just a means to that end. The glue was weird, but wasn't too terrible a crime. Nobody seems to have been hurt by it.
Check the scenes under the closing credits. We see the boys playing with the new football that they bought with the money that the soldiers gave them. We also see people going to Colpeper's lectures - soldiers going along with their girlfriends.
One of Colpeper's other problems was that he was a misogynist and only wanted the young men to attend his lectures. It was only after talking to Alison in the long grass that he began to realise that women could be interested in the things he wanted to lecture about.
On the train into Canterbury Alison asks him if he'd ever thought of asking the girls to his lectures and he replies with a totally dismissive "No". To that, Alison just replies "Pity". But it seems to have sown the seed of an idea in his head.
Steve
But the ends don't justify the means. (At least in this instance; I guess I know some times where I would argue the opposite, but whatever.)
Here he is in a situation which is basically fine, though not ideal. The little town is idyllic, the soldiers are working hard and seem fairly happy, the war is being won. All that's wrong is that the soldiers, worrying about girls and war, don't seem particularly interested in medieval history. So what does he do? He hides out at night, sneaking around girls in a profoundly creepy manner, pours glue in their hair which takes hours to get out, and then lies about it. This doesn't cause any physical pain or damage, but it apparently is effective in keeping the soldiers and women apart, breaking up relationships that might have been very lasting and beautiful. He is also an elected government official whose duty is to enforce justice, committing a crime, covering it up, and lying about it, a certain grounds for public shame and dismissal for office. And all because he wants more people to come to his lectures. I have no problem with encouraging love of history--I'm a history major myself--but I think there's a lot more selfishness in his motives than he lets on. He believes he is right, and he wants everyone to listen to HIM, instead of doing what they want to do. That's just screwed up.
So in the end, I don't feel this film is fully morally satisfactory on this point, though it is beautiful and I liked it in most other ways.
Does it have to be morally satisfactory? British films didn't have things like the Hayes Code to contend with where the villain was never allowed to profit from his actions. British films were allowed some moral ambiguity, even in 1944.
There is a moral resolution, but it's a subtle one. It's only from what's shown under the end credits that we see that he's realised the error of his ways. Not everyone notices that. But The Archers always assumed an intelligent audience and didn't feel the need to spell out every little detail. They liked to leave some things ambiguous for the audience to think about.
Yes, Colpeper is selfish. But Fee Baker, the girl in the hop field, also points out that soldiers going out with girls while their boyfriends, husbands and fathers may be away fighting in other theatres (North Africa, the Far East or at sea) would upset a lot of people. Fee Baker seems quite happy with the situation where the soldiers aren't dating the girls - and she's fond of dancing
Steve
I always thought that he would turn himself in.
Remember Colpeper's line at the end of the train ride;
"A pilgrimage can be to receive a blessing, or to do penance".
You can do penance in many ways. Not all of them involve the constabulary.
When he met up with Alison at the garage where she was feeling so sad that the caravan was so dilapidated and moth-eaten it looked like he was going to console her and be supportive to her. But then the news arrived that Alison's fiancée had survived and she rushed back into the caravan to clean it up. When she looked for Colpeper again - he was gone.
When they all go into the Cathedral we see Colpeper and he sees Alison arm-in-arm with Geoffrey's father. The same man who she had said was dismissive of her because she was a shop-girl.
There are many things that aren't explicitly shown in this film that we can assume from the effects and the end results.
Colpeper's penance and realisation that he wasn't doing things the right way are just one of them
Steve
Well, I don't think characters in movies have to be morally right all the time obviously, but I think the movie itself should generally have a clear position on right and wrong. (Sorta. Not sure where I'd The Godfather in there, but.... The Godfather Parts 2 and 3 both have clear moral stances!) That doesn't mean the movie has to have bad guys punished, good guys win, etc., every time, but it does mean a certain sense of proper judgment expected from the audience. I don't know if I'm putting this very well, but I know when I see it.
Anyway, I felt like this movie's moral judgment was expressed clearly by the way the three young people all gave Colpeper a pass on his actions. I feel like the message was sort of: We just spent a long time trying to figure this crime out, but now we realize the crime was justified in the first place, so it's all OK. I felt like I would have been more like the British soldier who was going to turn him in--I don't know that I would have been quite that angry and judgmental sounding, but I still would have said, "What you did was wrong. It was silly, and not all that awful, and you thought you were doing the right thing, but you still had no right to do what you did and you need to admit it and make it up somehow." The fact that movie seemed offended by the British soldier's angry judgment and then had him forget about it seems to me to be sort of a condoning of crime, suggesting that maybe it was alright after all. And I just didn't like that.
There's an interesting theory to suggest that Colpeper is, in fact, a repressed and suppressed gay man with a hint of misogyny thrown in.
He lives alone with his mother. He wants absolutely nothing to do with any other women and is quite vocal about this (at the beginning of the film at least). He pours 'sticky stuff' onto the hair of women in order to keep them away from the men that HE wants to have all to himself, alone in a room where they pay exclusive attention to him as he speaks. Also, although we know that the 'sticky stuff' is glue, it could be read as being something else of a more bodily nature.
Now, that interpretation will not be for everyone, but is an interesting one nonetheless. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but that's the nature of theorising on film. :)
...and really maybe the Sgt is indubitably a spy for the Wehrmacht..I mean why is he asking so many questions and hanging around especially in an area like Canterbury????..........;-).....guess with theories there's always a "meta-story" underneath the one you see.
shareI agree. I'm surprised that the repressed sexual ambiguity of Colpeper hasn't been commented upon. He is single and lives with his mother - a reliable cinematic euphemism for homosexuality 70 yrs. ago.He wants the men to himself and concocts a story to justify his actions of scaring away the women from the American soldiers by symbolically masturbating onto them. The censors must have been very naive back then.
shareColpeper has often been commented on
The censors might not have been all that naive - but there was nothing explicit in there so there was no reason to cut anything
Steve
Blimey! I think I must be naive as well, I saw Colepeper as a sort of guardian angel! He goes with them to Canterbury and they all receive their miracles. I like living in my head!
It will happen this way
Try to keep that innocence, it's a beautiful thing.
Colpeper does go with them to Canterbury, and he confesses his sins along the way. The other three all receive their blessings, but Colpeper doesn't. His penance is the acknowledgement of his crime (to himself and to the 3 pilgrims) and a mending of his ways by encouraging the soldiers to bring their girl-friends to his next lecture (seen under the final credits)
Steve
I have to say something about Colpeper. One has to agree that fellows like him need to be around to make the modern world honest. I think we get too caught up in "modernity' at the risk of not knowing and finding out where we came from. He,in a way, is a sentinel to remind us of a past still coursing in its way through each of our lives. At bottom, we're really all "pilgrims."
shareColpeper's intentions were good - but his methods were very suspect
Steve
I hope you dont mind if I ask you a question but you seem a bit of an expert on P&P, i saw A Canterbury Tale years ago and the other week rented it from Lovefilm (and watched it 4 times that weekend!) so I was thinking that I would love their other films but no!!!!! I saw A Matter of Life and Death and didnt like it at all, it was just too 'floaty' for my liking (does that make any sense? Im no Dilys Powell I know!) But it cant be a fluke that I absolutely loved A Canterbury Tale can it? Sooooooo, I was wondering if you could recommend any other films for me? Thanks ever so!
It will happen this way
You don't like my favourite film of all time? But I'll still help you
My first suggestion would be I Know Where I'm Going! and some of their other more realistic and less "floaty" films. Maybe also Contraband (aka Blackout in the States). These are all B&W films
From their colour films, try The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp or Black Narcissus.
What about the more "arty" films like The Red Shoes or The Tales of Hoffmann?
One of the many joys of P&P films is the variety of styles and genres means that there's something for everyone, no matter what their tastes.
Steve
I Know Where I'm Going is an excellent suggestion and my very favorite Powell-Pressburger movie. I love everything about it. A Canterbury Tale is wonderful, a definite standout but I Know Where I'm Going is a masterpiece.
shareAw, Im sorry I didnt like your favourite film, tell you what, as youve been so kind I'll watch it again with a more open mind. I think I was expecting something along the lines of A Canterbury Tale. I shall order the films you mention from Lovefilm forthwith!
Thank you!
It will happen this way
That's all right, I can live with people not thinking that it's the best, most amazing film ever made by anyone
Do try a few of their others. Another thing about P&P films is the variety between them. That's why they are so hard to categorise. They didn't do any particular genre or style, just quality.
Steve
Hmm, there was me thinking Rear Window was the best film ever ever made (cos it is ) Tell you what though, even though I was underwhelmed by A Matter of Life and Death I was surprised by how different it was from A Canterbury Tale considering it was made by the same people, that was impressive.
It will happen this way
That's why it takes a while for many people to realise how good P&P were. They know and appreciate some of their films but don't realise that they're all made by the same people.
A Matter of Life and Death (AMOLAD) is very different from A Canterbury Tale. They are both also very different to The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus and The Battle of the River Plate.
Hitch wasn't bad as a director () but he did get stuck in the one genre.
BTW it was Hitch who suggested that P&P use Kim Hunter in AMOLAD. Micky Powell had worked on a few of Hitchcock's films while he was serving his apprenticeship and they stayed in touch over the years
Steve
He lives alone with his mother. He wants absolutely nothing to do with any other women and is quite vocal about this (at the beginning of the film at least). He pours 'sticky stuff' onto the hair of women in order to keep them away from the men that HE wants to have all to himself, alone in a room where they pay exclusive attention to him as he speaks. Also, although we know that the 'sticky stuff' is glue, it could be read as being something else of a more bodily nature.
Not every man (or woman) who live alone with their mothers are gay.
The fact that he doesn't appear to like women does not mean he is gay and neither does it mean he's a misogynist as is commented on the thread either.
He wants an audience and to his mind that equals men, which would not be atypical of much of society at the time, which was very slowly allowing women more place in society. In fact he hadn't cionsidered inviting the women which suggests a general view rather than a particular one towards women as members of the audience.
I can subscribe to the glue as representing a bodily substance 'excreted' by men and find that quite amusing. The fact that he wants to do this to women suggests to me another sexual persuasion and he seems genuinely sorry for his actions at the end, his regret being coupled with admiration and liking for Alison who wasn't wanted as a land girl by the farmer precisely because she was a girl. It's society's views towards women as much as Colpeper's character being exposed.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
I think there's a difference between justice and mercy and my experience of Powell and Pressburger films is they are very much in the mercy camp. Theer's no doubt from the British Sergeant's reactions on the train that what Colpeper did was wrong and Alison also points out that it was terrible trying to remove the glue from her hair. As with most crimes when the context and person engaging in the crime is known it becomes more difficult to remain closed off from them. The British Sergeant softened only after he received his blessing. The person who passes judgement on others reveals something of themselves too and to remain stony-faced upon hearing Colpeper's tale takes a hard heart.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
And what would their boyfriends/husbands have been doing?.Think.they kept away from.the local tarts?
shareI thought that after the conversation on the train, Glue Man went to the cathedral to do penance as it is mentioned in the film (that you can make a pilgrimage to Canterbury to seek blessing or to do penance). To me that meant he understood he had done wrong, and repented. I think anything more overt would have been quite unsubtle and taken away too much from the things that happen to the young people.
I thought that his "penalty" was that the growing intimacy between him and the Land Girl, is abruptly shattered when her fiance turns out to be alive. The others receive their blessings, Glue Man walks away alone.
I like your idea of the glue as metaphoric as well as literal. The sense I had of Colpeper was that he had supernatural abilities; he seemed in touch with the dead, and also, at the end, in his last shot where he has his eyes closed as Alison and Jeffrey's father pass him - that he might be supernatural too.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
[deleted]
He said, "If it was superglue probably, anything else would wash out." in response to the previous comment, which asked, "What would we think if someone poured glue in people's hair today?"
His comment made perfect sense. Yours did not.
The glue man is clearly a pervert, I hate to think of what he would be up to in the movie theater.
I've always been told that the best way to deal with paint, gum, tar, and glue in the hair, is to keep the hair dry, not wash it. Rub vaseline over the area, then let it soak in for a half hour or more to let the mineral oils penetrate the goo, then comb and brush it out.
The glue could be washed off. Not really the same with acid burns to the face or having your school burned down or worse. Taliban is a whole different creature.
shareMy interpretation of Culpepper as the Glueman: Culpepper is the magistrate. He feels a paternalistic duty to take care of the people in his village- to look out for their safety. He also wants to teach the locals about the history and beauty of his corner of England. Using the glue to "encourage" girls from going out with the soldiers stationed near by accomplishes two of his goals. He keeps the girls in his charge safe, and he is able to teach the men about all things Canterbury.
He did not hurt anyone, his motives were not cruel, he felt like he was doing what was best for everyone concerned. Perhaps he did not go about things the right way, after all, he should have invited the girls to his lectures, too. But he is certainly no villain.