I was compelled to watch the movie since I had read so much about it from reading Keith Moon's bio. I was not overly impressed. Ringo Starr basically had a 70's shag throughout the whole movie and so did David Essex. I think it could have reflected the fifties better. I liked the story, everyone performed pretty well but if you want to see an authentic film about the fifties see "American Grafiti"
"Ya makin' fun of me Riz?"
Well, after all these great reviews here at imdb, I watched this movie and I was really disappointed. I really don't see what was so great about it.
Sorry. Subtitles for Americans (like me) who really find the accents and British slang hard to follow would have REALLY helped.
Having been just about been around at the time this film portrays, I couldn't agree less. It gives a very accurate picture of fifties provincial life, though it might have been more accurate if the film had been in black and white, 'cos thats what life was in those days! As to Starr and Essex's "shag" (I hope you are referring to their hair), yes that was not wholly right, but I doubt the the actors (particularly Essex) would have consented to a short back and sides, given that Essex was already making his name as a pop star at the time. As to saying that "American Grafitti" is more authentic, it might be if your idea of authenticity is a bunch of clean-cut (and entirely caucasian) Americans with bleached teeth driving around in their own cars, but it wasn't like that in Britain at the time, and I don't even think that it was wholly representative of American youth. Having said that, I like watching both films, but "That'll Be The Day" just shades it for me.
shareI should have been more specific. I am a child of the 60's-not the 50's what do I know? BUT your right, I am sure American Grafitti isn't authentic either but maybe one day someone will get it right. Retro movies are difficult you are always going to find something that doesn't seem right.
"Ya makin' fun of me Riz?"- Sandy
This is true, but sometimes, as you say, it has to "seem" right, without actually being factually correct. 'Quadrophenia' is full of anachronisms, but still manages to evoke the right time period.
shareI agree and what is funny is that I almost mentioned Quadrophenia to you!
"Ya makin' fun of me Riz?"- Sandy
not the production design. Trends in cinema being what they are, the standards for getting a "period film" to look right have evolved since the early 70s. The reason Harrsion Ford's character in AG wears a cowboy hat is because he made a deal not to have to cut his hair for the role, which was considered a small part by the film's standards.
TBTD is a film influenced by the "kitchen sink realism" of the time, and AG is all about mythologizing a time and place. But both are obviously coming of age stories set in the 1958-1962 period in different countries. The hollywood version is always easier to digest... but perhaps the Brits weren't afraid to dig a little deeper into the material. The sadness and sense of loss in this film is almost overwhelming at times.
I saw the film when it first came out. I was spending the summer in Dublin and saw it with all my cousins. I am American born and raised but I really feel this film captured that feeling for England at that time period. They did have small production cost so I know large sums of money were not available to them. David Essex was filming and I believe still performing on stage in Godspell where he was playing Christ and could not cut his hair.
I think if you can get past the look at times and just let yourself get caught up in the emotions and the feeling of desperation that must have been prevalent at that time (England was still recovering financially from WWII unlike the U.S. who came back strong). Some of the great Rock legends from the late fifties and early sixties all have that need to escape from the bleak out look the entire country shared.
Give Stardust a try if you can get a hold of it.
Am I imagining this or did Mike Meyers copy his Austin Powers accent off David Essex's character in this movie.
shareBy the way, "Shag" means sexual intercourse in English slang, nothing to do with hair..
I'm off to work on the dodgems..:)
I have said this afew times.I think British films are more down to earth than American films,more realistic.Of course,i love alot of American films,but i also love alot of British films.You have to admit,alot of American films are glamourized.I am from Britian,but i'm not being biased because the films were made in my home country,that's my honest opinion.
I saw this film for the first time tonight.I loved it.
I agree!
I'm an American, and I love British movies.
My dad prefers Hollywood movies, and seems to think they're the only ones that count.
But I agree with you, BethH24, although I do like a lot of American movies, I really like British movies!
-Amanda
"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"
I'm another Yank who loves British films, particularly the working-class ones like this.
As for authenticity, the look seemed more of a '70s version of the '50s, but the music seemed pretty genuine -- with the exception of that weird rockabilly version of "Long Live Rock," which seemed pretty hard-edged for the era.
The hair bothered me a little too. They could have put just a little effort into giving him a more 50's hairstyle. No need to cut it, a little grease in his hair and slicked back would have done the trick.
shareIndeed. Like they say (or used to say): "A little dab'll do ya."
shareMaybe not authentic but an enjoyable film.
Its that man again!!
Very good movie. If your into music history, modern music rock and roll, the you'll like this film. It has charm about it. I watched it first in the early 80's and liked it then. Just taped it off the telly early this morning and still think it's great.
shareFilm's got its share of flaws, make no mistake about that, but minor stuff like this should be like, in the triple digits of things on which to pick nits, as it were.
shareFor a period movie to work, period authenticity is important. The problem with this movie is foremost that the story... well, there really isn't one. And it doesn't work as a 'coming of age' film because the central character ends the film pretty much where he starts, with just a few insignificant adventures along the way. As a viewer I didn't feel the character had actually learnt anything.
But to the issue of authenticity, there are a lot of things that are either anachronisms or at least out of kilter. Ringo's star ear ring stood out for me because a man wearing that in 1959 would have needed balls of steel to get around because he would have been ridiculed every minute of every day. And that definitely isn't the character. Which leads us to the why the character would have that ear ring. Well the answer is obvious: Because he is Ringo, and that is, or was in the 70s, Ringo's style.
The film is as much a vehicle to get Ringo, Keith and David up on the big screen. It is in large part a 100 or so minute promotional vehicle in the days before MTV. And that's why we have 70s 'intrusions', but only really for the two principal males, scattered throughout. They had images to maintain.
When production standards pander to this sort of thing it isn't ok to just write it off. That's an artistic compromise done for entirely personal, selfish, off screen reasons, and deserves harsh criticism.
David Ringo Keith and Billy - anyone think of turning them into a group?
shareIf there's one thing you can say about this film it's that it feels very authentic. It's quite gritty and subtle with some excellent performances I was particularly impressed with Ringo Starr. I'm surprised the rating is so low as I'd say this is one of the best British films of the 70's.