If you want to get into a heated argument at a party, try defending Julien Temple's film version of Absolute Beginners. Trust me.
It was a few months ago; me and Dr Mandi Martin braved the wind and rain to attend the launch of the Ivy Look...
...an amazing homage to the British take on classic mid-century American menswear.
It mentions Garmsville and I was curious to meet the guys who compiled the book and of course thank them.
I was nervous. Cynically, I’d imagined a gathering of well-groomed, badly dressed men, like in one of those blogs you come across with guys wearing flashy waistcoats going to great lengths to explain the correct way to button a shirt or loosen a tie.
You know the type.
But I was wrong. There was John Simons, John Rushton, Paul Simons -John’s son, Jeff Garet - a gathering of really great people.
Along with the guys who wrote the book, there was an assortment of other people whom I’d never met before or who I’d last seen maybe ten, fifteen years ago at John’s store in Russell Street.
No flashy waistcoats, just very understated and broad variations of a great look.
I felt extremely shabby, but glad to be there.
Initially everyone was incredibly welcoming and approachable. There was wine and some jazz being played in the background and a really warm atmosphere surrounding this intimate, pre-Christmas book launch.
It’s only now in hindsight that I can see where it all started going wrong.
A group of us – about five – were discussing style influences. I said books like On The Road and Absolute Beginners had a big impact on me as a kid – that in fact, I wrote my dissertation on them at college.
One of the guys said he felt a little embarrassed - he hadn’t read Absolute Beginners yet…But I hear the film is really, really bad, he went on to say
Everyone else agreed and laughed at what a disaster the movie turned out to be. I actually liked it: I said. One of lost great British films to be made, I said, flippantly. I think there’ll come a time when people will revisit that film and see how great it was.
Silence.
It was as if someone had pressed PAUSE on the whole proceedings, while everyone took stock of my bombshell.
Then someone elected to press PLAY and turn the volume up: What part of that film was good? And what do you mean, great British movie? -
It was a very tall, immaculately dressed guy, who, it turns out was a university lecturer - history and popular culture, I think. I realised then that my casual remark was not going to go unchallenged.
So I said, I hated it when it came out too! - trying to prove that I wasn’t completely nuts. But I saw it again on TV when I was in New York a few years ago and had to completely rethink it.
Why was that? He said, sharply.
I realised that the film wasn’t just about the summer of 1958 and the first ever Notting Hill riots; it was also a celebration of British culture – the diversity which began to develop after that point.
Go on, someone else said.
Well, it featured so many people – real people who weren’t involved in making films but came from club or street style culture – people like Chris Sullivan who did a lot of the casting, Mark Powell who did so much of the wardrobe, dance sequences from The Jazz Defektors. Loads of guys you’d see in clubs at the time were actually in the film – people like Slim Gaillard, Christo Tolera, Masha from Torso. Most of these people were real beneficiaries in a way of the diversity that came about post 1958, post the black shirts, post the riots.
But what has that got to do with the film itself? he said.
When I realised that what Temple was trying to do was celebrate a very British culture and movie tradition – one which had nothing to do with Hollywood and everything to do with stuff like Tin Pan Alley, British Variety, Ealing Comedies and our fascination for American culture - then it became easier to understand why people hated it so much at the time; the film was going against the tide. Remember by the time it came out the British film industry was on it’s knees – Goldcrest – the production company went bust soon after this film release.
He said flatly: People hated the film because it was badly directed, badly acted and was a musical.
People at the time hated it because we as an audience were better versed in American style humour and drama. In that respect it totally failed to meet our expectations. But what he was trying to recapture was the humour and aesthetic of Elstree and Pinewood, not Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox… I said.
And how did you figure that? he said, still way off satisfied.
For me the clue was all these actors and cameos – people like Lionel Blair, Sylvia Syms and Una Stubbs - they connect the film to other movies like Summer Holiday, the Ladykillers, St Trinians and Passport To Pimlico – films which share a uniquely British, post-war identity. You know, the soundtrack was another clue – Paul Weller, Jerry Dammers, Ray Davies, David Bowie, Sade – even Smiley Culture – real exponents of a kind of Britishness.
But the main character – the guy who played Colin was shit, he said, obviously frustrated by this point.
Maybe – or maybe he was just playing the common man, the boy next door and we expected much more than that at the time. Cliff Richard, Billy Fury, Tommy Steel – they weren’t great actors either, but that’s not what it was about.
He was still cool to the idea, but I could see he was at least beginning to give it some consideration – so I figured I'd quit while I was ahead…
Hey, I’m not saying I’d want to watch it again, I lied, I’m just saying the things which made it seem so bad at the time could in fact be what makes it great now…But I could be wrong…
Maybe I should look at it again, he said, also I suspect lying.
...
...Homeward.
You had to mention Absolute Beginners! laughed Dr Martin as we left.
I know; I just couldn’t help it, I said, deciding there and then never mention the film again.
