Call Me Genius (1961) User Reviews

Hilarious Hancock

[m0rphy · 7/10 · 3 September 2003]

I am 57 now and was weaned when I was a lad on the various BBC tv series of "Hancock's Half Hour in the 1950's.I became an addict there and then.In later life I carefully recorded the repeats on my vcr (not invented when I was a lad), and purchased cassettes of Tony's earlier radio shows whenever a new volume was available for sale.I have read his biography (1924 - his suicide in Australia in 1968), so he was only 44 when he died.Forget he had a drink problem and could be violent.

Yes, he considered he had outgrown his tv series with Sid James (and Kenneth Williams earlier) and even his later solo "Hancock" tv series from 1959 onwards.As a previous literate reviewer has rightly remarked, he hankered after a wider international audience for his comic abilities and appeared in later films like "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" even trying his hand in Hollywood with Walt Disney but I consider "The Rebel" from 1961 as his funniest film.It incorporates many characters like the existentialist lady on the big screen who have been heard before, e.g. Fenella Fielding in the radio show "The East Cheam Poetry Festival" from 1954.John le Mesurier often played "establishment" figures in his half hour shows and was a personal friend and here he plays Hancock's authoritarian boss in the dreary office where we first see him in an almost synchronised early scene where the clerks all do a similar computation function simultaneously.How we office workers with aspirations of individual creativity empathise with him in his rebellious behaviour!!

A new "Mrs Cravatte" in the shape of Irene Handle (not Patricia Hayes who was merely a char lady in the tv series), provides a female comic foil as Tony's landlady.It is interesting he retains his real name in this feature film, presumably he considered he could effectivly develop his bohemian character from the tv onto the broader canvas.I revisited this film after 20 years or so and laughed out loud in several places.The point already made that American/overseas viewers may be perplexed with his humour is easy to understand and our current UK generation may be left cold by it.My generation however which was reared on a diet of post war food rationing, spivs, watching wealthy Americans in the media, the McMillan type establishment figures in politics and industry, trends in fashion, pop music etc; can so empathise with his humour.I gave it 7/10.

Tony Hancock's first film and a very good one.

[alexanderdavies-99382 · 8/10 · 15 July 2017]

It was a natural step for Tony Hancock in attempting to become successful in the medium of cinema. He longed for success in America and the only way he might have achieved this, was by making tailor-made films. "The Rebel" was the result. The year of the films release - 1961, saw Hancock at the peak of his popularity in Britain. At one stage, about 27% of the British population were either tuning into his radio series or were watching him on television. Such an achievement is seldom. "The Rebel" is a very good effort and I always enjoy the film. For the first time in his distinguished career, Hancock appeared in technicolour after four years of performing in black and white. I shall forever recall my inital surprise and slight bewilderment at seeing this comedy legend in colour. It took me a while to adapt to seeing Hancock in anything except monochrome. The story wisely has the comedian playing the same character of 23 Railway Cuttings and with the identical character traits. Hancock is wanting to better himself after feeling he has denied himself his true potential and calling in his life. He has endeavours in wanting to become a painter and so, he leaves his job as an office clerk and moves to Paris. Whilst there, "The Lad Himself" meets a fellow struggling artist and they share digs, hoping that success might beckon. It does but in ways Hancock never expected...... I am glad that Ray Galton and Alan Simpson wrote the script as who better to write for Hancock than those two individuals? The comedian collaborated with the writers on the story and whose name is listed during the opening credits under story. There are some great scenes here, such as watching Hancock attempting to paint various buildings around Paris, befriending the Avant Garde characters, getting mixed up with a criminal mob and other highlights. Watching "The Rebel," I sense a kind of loneliness with Hancock in his character. The way he has no family to speak of, not many friends, feeling somewhat dissatisfied with his lot in life, embarking upon his adventures in Paris alone and not knowing a single soul in France anywhere. However, he comes across as self-reliant, independent and determined to realise his dream as an artist. This film would mark the final time that Tony Hancock worked with Ray Galton and Alan Simpson. One of the most talented and successful collaborations in British comedy history would draw to a close. The film did respectable business at the British box office and a Gala reception was held in London for the films release. Unfortunately, America took little notice. Their loss! I highly recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Hancock or of British comedy in general.

A witty and funny film!

[fiddle01 · 8/10 · 28 February 2005]

For anybody with a love for Handcock this film is a must see. For those who really know Handcock it is also a farewell as in many ways it could be seen as his last true work? Coming at a time when Handcock was desperately trying to re-invent himself and re mould his style whilst fighting off the blackness of depression the film is a mixture of hope and sadness. If you look behind the laughter and mirth you can see Hancock as he really is - a one of genius never to be repeated. Hancock plays a struggling artist who leaves his London office job to seek his fame and fortune in Paris. Look for the great line between himself and his Landlady Mrs Cravat when Hancock exclaims "Its a self portrait" Mrs Cravat looks and him and asks "Of who?" Handcock is at the end of his line "Who do you think Laurel and Hardy" Lol The film has the usuall Galton and Simpson tight story line and the action is very funny. In my opinion a film which in ever way is on a par with the carry on style genre. Enjoy you wont see the likes of Tony again!

"The Art of Making Money"

[JekyllBoote-1 · 29 November 2002]

Tony Hancock was the biggest British comedian of the late 50s and early 60s. Viewing his two (not entirely representative) films and watching (and listening) to his "Half-Hour" comedy shows (running separately, if concurrently, on BBC television and radio), young people (those under 35 or so) will probably find this fact baffling unless they are extraordinarily well-informed about social conditions in immediately postwar Britain. There also seems to be a kind of gender barrier. Women of my acquaintance, even those that satisfy the fairly stringent criteria I detail in my previous sentence, seem to have found Hancock uniformly unfunny.

Hancock's humour, it must be said, was unconventional. It is entirely driven by the dialectic, if you will, between character and situation. Hancock loathed gags, and forbade his scriptwriters (usually the brilliant duo of Ray Galton and Alan Simpson) to indulge in them. It is also exceptionally restricted in time (late 50s), social class ("shabby-genteel" lower-middle) and place (the south-east of England). Yet Hancock, who bestrode Britain like a colossus in his heyday, nurtured the powerful delusion that he could succeed in America.

It would take an amazing act of empathy on the part of an American to penetrate Hancock's humour as displayed in his radio and TV shows. As a technician he was flawless, possessing a sense of comic timing unequalled by anybody in Britain except the probably equally unexportable Kenneth Williams (perhaps best known outside the UK because of his strong involvement in the "Carry-On" series of films). Needless to say, Hancock and Williams, the two greatest British comedians of all time, loathed and vilified each other.

"The Rebel" (pointedly re-christened "Call Me Genius" in the America Hancock was desperate to impress) was released to great disappointment in 1961. In hindsight it has gained in favour, its initial cool reception a matter of some puzzlement.

Hancock, in the film, is an office drudge who harbours artistic ambitions way beyond his hopelessly limited technical skills. However, he jettisons his boring day-job to share an artistic garret in Paris (only 200 or so miles from London) with a frustrated, but genuinely talented, young artist (Paul Massie). Hancock's infantile daubs are hailed as works of genius in the pretentious circles he inhabits. Galton and Simpson's screenplay wastes no opportunity to satirise the credulity of the modern-art world, and its unfailing capacity to court lucrative charlatans.

Can those outside the British Isles understand this film? I hope so. The office environment and lodgings Hancock occupies are stultifying, but the artistic world of Paris is shown to be as corrupt and foolish in its own way (NB. the identically uniformed "Existentialists", indistinguishable, in a sense, from their bowler-hatted counterparts with whom Hancock works in central London). Art does get a slightly better press in this film than commerce, since the possibility of genuine artistic talent (i.e. Paul's (Hancock's young flatmate and protégé)) is acknowledged. Nevertheless, the presence of trend-hungry buffoons within the artistic world (e.g. George Sanders' art dealer) indicates the interpenetration of the commercial and artistic worlds. Is art-dealing George Sanders any less a despicable entrepreneur than Hancock's erstwhile manager in his City of London counting-house, John le Mesurier?

Although we speak essentially the same language (I think the differences are often over-stated), cultural barriers remain between the UK and the US. However, Americans would do well to look closely at Tony Hancock, partly for his intrinsic value, and partly for the huge influence, conscious and unconscious, he has wielded over the British psyche (here I controversially include Ireland, which remains culturally close to the UK). His second feature-film ("The Punch And Judy Man"), while telling in its own way, is less valuable overall, both inside the UK (and its satellites) and beyond.

Undervalued

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 28 March 2015]

Hancock, fed up with office routine and given notice by his landlady, takes his artistic ambitions to Paris where, despite a complete absence of talent, he is mistaken for an artistic genius.

First on radio, then on TV, Tony Hancock established a persona in which bombast, arrogance, ignorance, vulnerability and hopelessness mixed to great comic effect. Ray Galton and Alan Simpson provided wonderful scripts, and Hancock's delivery was sublime. The Rebel takes that character - still called "Tony Hancock" and clearly in continuity with his TV existence - out of his familiar surroundings. But the words are still by Galton and Simpson, the delivery is still sublime, and everything which made the character great on TV is still in place.

Plotwise it is a bit silly, although it nicely lampoons artistic pretensions. It is also a pleasure to see a host of UK comic talent being put through their paces in support.

The film was not a great success. Hancock, always uncertain of his great talent, cannot have taken this well.

"....and who painted the rubbish?"

[brogmiller · 6/10 · 9 May 2020]

Tony Hancock made his film debut in the truly abysmal 'Orders are Orders' in 1954 playing a bandmaster and he was simply dreadful in it. Seven years passed before he again assayed the silver screen but during that time he had the great good fortune to meet the brilliant writing team of Galton and Simpson and with television experience under his belt and his persona as Hancock firmly established he was far better equipped. Making the transition from small to large screen is fraught with danger but here it pretty well comes off. Here Hancock is a totally talentless and worthless painter who feels that it is only in Paris that he will be appreciated. This gives Galton and Simpson ample opportunity of having a dig at Existentialists and pseudo-intellectuals and the 'Emperor's new clothes' culture that exists in the world of modern art. These are by far the most inventive scenes in the film. Although it beggars belief Hancock's 'Infantile School' of painting is considered revolutionary and he is hailed as a genius. It is then that art dealer Sir Charles Brewer, played by the immaculate George Sanders, comes to call and makes him an offer he can't refuse....... Good support here from Paul Massie, Gregoire Aslan, the sensuous Margit Saad and the incomparable Irene Handl. Despite its weaknesses it is well-nigh impossible not to like this gentle comedy and the way in which it lampoons the gullible and the pretentious.

Surely the greatest movie ever made

[jago_turner · 10/10 · 9 March 2001]

Of course I am aware that huge numbers of people will see this movie as mildly diverting, an interesting off shoot of a TV character, or a strained attempt to translate a mythic television talent to a medium he wasn't suited to. I know some will find the plat slight. Some may enjoy it but simply feel it isn't all that impressive. Well, this is fine. But I believe that The Rebel is quite simply the finest movie ever made, and I've seen a lot of movies.

What is so great about it ? The colours. The lush score moving from the comic to the romantic with ease. The array of great comic performances. The script which ranges from the profoundly comic to the comically profound.

The struggle of the individual to express his individuality in a world that prefers conformity has been the subject of countless numbers of films. The Rebel is the only film I can think of to mock this tradition while also celebrating it. The character of Hancock drifts between lies and truth while carving out a reputation for himself among the Parisian avant garde. His never reflects on his complete lack of noticeable talent and inability to dedicate himself to the craft but instead creates something of a stir with his infantilism. His bluster is only ever a whisker away from the despair he shows on his opening train journey.

Comedies are often treated as somehow inferior to dramas. It's much more important to treat human suffering with a straight face than take life for the comedy it undoubtably is. Hancock's suffering may not on the face of it seem important or noble, but it is the despair of the insignificant man who wants to be outside of the machine, wants to be important and creative. But despite dealing with this theme the comedy never drifts into pathos. Hancock covers the sadnesses with a jaunty self involvement in which he can place himself securely among the great artists whose every brush stroke is torn from their body.

The satire on modern art may seem a bit obvious but it is never played on for serious effect.

The sideline characters are all magnificent from John Le Mesurier as Hancock's completely unimaginative boss, through Irene Handl on top form as Mrs Cravat who regards all Hancock's efforts as a load of miscellaneous rubbish, to Dennis Price's Jim Smith, eccentric French millionaire.

"Jim Smith ?"

"Oh. You're surprised. I always feel an English name sounds so much more mysterious."

"Oh yes. I knew a Bert Higgins and a Harry Trubshaw once. They were dead mysterious they were."

But it's not just the plotting, the comedy, the acting, and the dialogue that strike me as perfection. The design of the movie. The contrasting of Parisian styles with the bowler hat and umbrellas of Waterloo Bridge. The interior of Paul Ashby's room. The paintings themselves. All these elements compound the sense of joy that watching this film brings.

And for those who watch this film and think that I am talking nonsense. All I can do is to re-iterate Hancock's cry to the elite of the art scene "You're all raving mad. None of you know what you're looking at. You wait til I'm dead. You'll see I was right."

It had promise

[leavymusic-2 · 6/10 · 7 October 2019]

The film starts off with great promise, Hancock is on great form and so his co-stars, direction and cinematography is all great, but for me the story goes dry when he elopes to Paris. It loses much of its humour and becomes a art piece, most of the humour of the hard bitten Londoner Handcock is devolved Into the strange world of young eccentric Paris artists and painters., a long cry from the writers Galton & Simpsons Railway cuttings, Eastcheam adventures of the Hancock Tv series. A lost opportunity, the first half is great, what a shame it didn't stay in London and employ a certain Sidney James to further the plot.

Brilliant Stuff

[andy-782 · 10/10 · 15 February 2004]

This superb film features Tony Hancock quitting his boring office job for the artist's life in Paris. Despite the fact that he can't paint or sculpt (his 'Aphrodite At The Waterhole' is excrutiatingly awful) he thinks he is a genius and soon gets a reputation as such. He wins fame and fortune with the paintings of Paul Massie who had given up art and moved back to England for a boring office job. The early part of the film features a cameo by Oliver Reed as one of a group of artists arguing drunkenly about what is art in a Parisien cafe. The script was written by Galton & Simpson and draws heavily on some of the excellent Hancock's Half Hour radio series (particularly the Poetry Society) which they wrote. Irene Handl is superb as Mrs Crevatte, Hancock's London landlady (also Paul's when he leaves Paris) and the film is full of some of the best British actors of the day (George Sanders, Peter Bull, John Le Mesurier, Dennis Price etc.). This is one film I was itching to see come out on DVD and it has, paired with The Punch & Judy Man. Wonderful stuff indeed.

What a beautiful green those Southern Region trains are

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 22 October 2019]

I have always liked this film and presented now on Blu-ray it shines as new with its wonderful late 50s, early 60s colour film. What a beautiful green those Southern Region trains are for the great opening gag while the advertising posters look almost unreal. Hancock is on top form, certainly in these early scenes with minimal dialogue and a hint of slapstick. Indeed for a good half the film is a joy to behold with marvellous photography and splendid exchanges between Hancock and, as good as she has ever been, Irene Handl. The film looses much in the scenes with the Greek millionaire, even if Margit Saad does as well as possible, as his wife and Hancock's prospective model. Everything returns to top form as we return to London and Handl does a complete reversal of her earlier part.

Le Mystere Hancock

[richardchatten · 5/10 · 18 April 2021]

When my sister first saw Chrissie Hynde on TV singing 'Kid' in 1979, she remarked "It's Nanette Newman!" The reason for this unlikely observation was that she'd recently seen Ms Newman with matching blue lips and nails as a West Bank existentialist in this film, who declares "Why kill time when you can kill yourself?" (An unbilled Jean Marsh is also in it, but sadly Marianne Stone isn't present to complete a gothic threesome.)

The biggest challenge the makers had was probably coming up with paintings that were supposed to be the work of an individual genuinely without talent, since inevitably they'd look like the work of SOMEONE (to me the daubs they came up with resembled Matisse; the genuinely gifted painter played by Paul Massie plausibly claiming to be influenced by Cezanne).

As befits a film about the corrupting influence of money upon the art world, the film's real star is probably Gilbert Taylor's pristine Technicolor photography. The producers even splashed out on genuine Parisian locations; but it would probably have been funnier had he remained in East Cheam.

Considering that the film mentions the empty years of wage-slavery that lay ahead of his character in a job he'd already been doing for fourteen years, it's sadly ironic watching Hancock to know now how little future actually lay ahead of him (he even says "You wait until I'm dead. You'll all know I'm right!). Ditto George Sanders, who nearly two decades earlier had taken the Gauguin route himself in 'The Moon and Sixpence'.

"How do you mix your paint? " "In a bucket with a big stick!"

[ShadeGrenade · 9/10 · 15 August 2010]

Tony Hancock's screen debut was in a frightful 1954 'comedy' set on an army base entitled 'Orders Are Orders' ( it also squandered the talents of Peter Sellers and Sidney James ). 'The Rebel', however, was by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson and marked the one and only outing on the big screen for 'Anthony Aloysius St.John Hancock' from Railway Cuttings, East Cheam. Hancock is trapped in a dead end 9-5 job, having to commute to work each morning by train ( shades of 'Reginald Perrin' ) in the company of men in bowler hats who have nothing to say to one another. He dreams of being a great artist in spite of having zero talent, and is currently working on a grotesque sculpture of Aphrodite back at his digs, much to the disgust of landlady Mrs.Crevatte ( Irene Handl in a role played previously by Patricia Hayes ). He decides to go to Paris to become a great painter. Moving in with a young Englishman named Paul ( Paul Massie ), Hancock charms the locals into thinking he is some kind of genius. When a disillusioned Paul moves out, he leaves his paintings - which are brilliant - behind. Art critic Sir Charles Brewer ( George Sanders ) mistakes these for Hancock's work, and suddenly our hero is the toast of Gay Paree...

In their book 'Sunday Times Guide To Movies', Angela and Elkan Allan said that one of the tragedies of Hancock's life was that he never met a director who could take his particular brand of comedy and distill it for the cinema. 'The Rebel' was directed by Robert Day, whose other credits include several 'Tarzan' films and episodes of 'The Avengers' series. He does a fair job on the whole, but it would have been interesting to see what Ronald Neame or Charles Crichton might have done with it. Hancock dominates every scene he is, and projects more personality than a lot of other television comedians turned movie stars. The script is good, making digs at the pretentiousness of modern art and art lovers, although there are some longueurs here and there, most notably Jim Smith's ( Dennis Price ) party, and Hancock's problems with the sex-mad wife ( Margit Saad ) of millionaire Carreras ( Gregoire Aslan ). In the 'beat generation' you can see the beginnings of what ultimately became the hippie movement ( how chilling is it now to hear Josey ( Nanette Newman ) say: "why kill time when you can kill yourself?" in the knowledge that Hancock did just that only seven years later ).

Good supporting cast, many of whom had worked with Tony before such as Hugh Lloyd, Liz Fraser, Mario Fabrizi and the peerless John Le Mesurier. Peter Bull and Mervyn Jones play art gallery managers. A young Oliver Reed is one of Paul's friends. The writers wanted to give Sid James a cameo but Hancock vetoed it because he wished to prove he could work on the big screen on his own.

'The Rebel' was a success, and Hancock planned to make more films, but in the event only one - the marvellous 'The Punch & Judy Man' ( 1963 ) - materialised.

Enjoyable

[rattyrat · 6/10 · 4 May 2021]

I don't mind admiring it's humour is a bit lost on me but it's enjoyable to watch as a time capsule ,the premise of the film seems just as relevant today when it comes to art and pretentiousness of its admirers .one for a lazy Sunday maybe .

Horrible

[flange-47562 · 2/10 · 6 July 2018]

I've never been a fan of Hancock. Bluster overacted unfunny bombast. It was only after I started watching this that I remembered what awful work he did in the 60's. Take a straw man, a caricature, two dimensional, ridicule it then ridicule the next subject, exaggerate some feature then ridicule that. It was never very good and it has not aged well.

great fun

[didi-5 · 8 October 2001]

This one is a long-time favourite for its great one-liners, its wit, its bright colours and the sheer joy of its performances. George Sanders plays the creepy critic with the same finesse he'd done many times before, Hancock as the leader of the Infantile school of painting is so preposterous its hysterical, even a very young Oliver Reed appears briefly in the cafe scene. The writing of Galton and Simpson is as sharp as ever but gets to take more detours and turns than it ever could in the Half-Hours ... a brilliant film. I particularly love the pathetic painting of the foot which crops up at the art exhibition and that hideous sculpture. Excellent.

Stuffed full of pathos by an unremarkable comic

[ouzman-1 · 6/10 · 13 June 2020]

This is more about the script and the direction, the editing and the noble cast that provides something of a foil to Hancock's overstated pathos. Sure the man died and his last years fuelled by drink and depression. That we feel sorry for him, is a given, but to use that sympathy to increase this film to 10/10 is naive - like the unfunny situation comedy this tried to be. Great though to see amazing actors about him. The spiv, Sir Charles, is more remarkable as the opportunistic expert trying to work a trick and disadvantage the struggling artists. Some thing to hang over an American's bbq? A million francs, "Good day Sir Charles", good day for Hancock? Non.

Stands the test of time

[wilvram · 9/10 · 7 April 2020]

This is one of those films I watch every few years and which seems funnier on every occasion. There are those who cannot connect with the Hancock of the TV shows, their grainy black and white images seemingly confirming him as a fixture from a period long ago, a world of men with cloth caps on football terraces, smoky pubs and adverts for Capstan Full Strength. Seeing him in colour in more glamorous surroundings can make him more relevant to a modern age, not least because the digs at a world of art, widely suspected as having its share of pseuds and hucksters, still ring true. These scenes came in for criticism for taking Hancock out of his usual context, but I find them among the most amusing viewed today. The film's only weakness is the encounter with the vivacious Margit Saad, though only because it is allowed to prolong.

Hancock was never going to attain the success he craved in the US of his day, because his comedy in whatever milieu, like that of his predecessor Will Hay, was essentially about failure, and in his case of being a social misfit in a specifically British context. With an excellent supporting cast, and first-rate script from the peerless Galton and Simpson, he proves again that if not exactly a genius, he was one of the most original and funniest comedy actors Britain has produced.

Silly and wonderful

[waynepenner · 9/10 · 23 March 2005]

If you love Hancock, as I do, you will love this silly film too. The plot is as thin as Twiggy and the acting equally as sparse. At times it plods ...

So why would I give this a "9"? Because its 'Ancock, and there are so many moments when the cockney genius shines through, despite the script. For example, the beautiful moment when 'Ancock orders a cup of coffee, "... with no froth, please", and the enraged cafe owner yelling about how much he paid for a froth machine, "... and you don't want any froth!". Only Hancock can get into an argument about the froth on a cup of coffee.

A hopeless artist gets lucky, then unlucky

[pdapollo · 8/10 · 8 May 2007]

Tony Hancock is brilliant as an artist who gets lucky in the snooty world of early '60s art.

Acclaimed by many as Britain's greatest comic genius, this film, still strangely underrated, is a great vehicle for Hancock's droll quips.

He plays a character, Anthony Hancock (!), who is frustrated by his boring life, and who wants to be a successful painter and sculptor.

He goes to Paris and meets up with fellow artists, including one character played by a very young Oliver Reed. Hancock's best friend is Paul Ashby (Paul Massie), who introduces his English friend to the Bohemians and beatniks of Paris. Despite saying to a white-faced, blue-lipped Nanette Newman, "You do eat food, don't you?", and, on seeing an action painting, sneering "Who's gone raving mad here", the arty types think he's a genius. But, he's not too proud to adapt, and creates an action painting himself, partly with a bicycle, with his newly acquired, beautiful brown cow, Ermintrude, a bemused onlooker. After finishing the painting, he's not humble: "That's worth two thousand quid of anybody's money, that is." When Hancock's friend, and really talented artist Paul leaves Paris - as yet another disillusioned artist - he leaves Hancock his work, and tells him he can do what he wants with the pictures. Hancock looks at Paul's work, and says, with hilarious ignorance, "It's just not there, is it?" Snobby smug art dealer Sir Charles Broward (George Sanders) gets to hear of the new 'genius (Hancock)', pays him a visit, and makes a beeline for Paul's art, despite Hancock's attempts at telling Broward they're not his (Hancock's), and tries to interest Broward with his own stuff, which includes the classic foot painting! Broward thinks Hancock's just trying to help a friend, and organises an exhibition of Paul's art under Hancock's name, before our Tone can say 'no'.

Hancock soon gets into the the swim as the celebrity artist, swanning into 'his' exhibition dressed up to the nines. But things go wrong when he does a rather unflattering sculpture of a rich shipping magnate's wife - who tries to seduce the innocent Hancock.

Having enough of the limelight, and the pitfalls of fame, and feeling he should help his friend, Hancock finally tells Broward, at an exhibition of his 'new' work, supplied unknowingly by Paul, that Paul did all the good stuff on display, and that he, Hancock, did all the rubbish. Realising this, Broward sweeps past Hancock, and sucks up to Paul - in a hilariously outrageous, but typical example of the shallow falseness of showbiz, and the artistic world.

Hancock returns to his former landlady, Mrs. Crevatte (mischievously played by Irene Handl), and uses her as his model, as he attempts to improve on his dreadful sculpting skills. He sculpts another 'Aphrodite at the Waterhole' in an attempt to prove the critics wrong. Let's hope so...

• Paul Rance/booksmusicfilmstv.com.

This article was originally published here: http://www.booksmusicfilmstv.com/TheRebel.htm

Underrated Hancock

[spointon · 1 February 2001]

An often overlooked and underrated Hancock vehicle as the Lad from East Cheam inadvertently becomes the toast of the art world when his flatmate's paintings are accidentally attributed to him instead of his own primitive childish daubs.

Great ensemble cast with John Le Mesurier as his boss, the sublime Irene Handl as his landlady Mrs Cravat and George Sanders as his pompous artistic agent.

At the films' centre is a sharp and nicely played critique of the hypocrisy and snobbishness of the art world with the usual taut Galton and Simpson script full of smart one liners.

"What's that?" asks Mrs Cravat looking at a bright pink picture of a man in a beret. "It's a self portrait" replies Hancock. "Who of?" counters Mrs Cravat.

Look out for a very young Nanette Newman as an Existentialist acolyte in the party scene and also Oliver Reed as a cafe artist.

8/10

Rebel without applause.Distance has lent enchantment to flop.

[ianlouisiana · 9/10 · 29 March 2006]

The irony of ironies here of course is that Mr Tony Hancock's created character,the one he had built up over ten years on radio and television was in fact a rebel.Not a "rebel" - but a genuine 24/7 "What are you rebelling against?" -" What have you got?"-type rebel.He had a bad word for everybody,he was a Victor Meldrew 30 years before his time. So in the movie "The Rebel",we have a man whose great comic creation was a rebel playing a man who was playing at being a rebel(stick with me,all this rebel stuff will be over in a minute). Eric Midwinter in his fine book on comedians "Make 'em Laugh" likens Hancock to Jimmy Porter,and he is absolutely right.In the comparison of a passage from "A Sunday afternoon at home" with a speech from "Look back in anger",the similarities are obvious. Mr Hancock had all the lower middle class awareness of not actually belonging anywhere.He resents those socially superior to him because he aspires to join them but never can and he resents those socially inferior to him because they also belong to a club he can never join. Mr Sid James and Mr Kenneth Williams represent those enemies. He is ever-so-slightly upmarket in the film,an office worker with a bowler hat rather than an astrakhan coat and a homburg.With absolutely no justification he believes himself to be an artist and takes off to Paris to be discovered.The satire is laid on a bit thick here,the targets a bit obvious,but 45 years later Britart is thriving,which rather proves the point of the movie. A perpetual argument rages over whether Mr Hancock was the first comic genius (arguably the only one) of the TV age or whether he was just a fine comedian blessed with comic writers of genius."The Rebel" does not further that argument one way or the other.What it does do,in my opinion,is show that he needed the smaller parameters of his radio/TV days to restrain him in one sense but to liberate him in another. He is frankly not believable in a Parisian milieu.Within the confines of Railway Cuttings he is ,conversely,freer to explore the true depth of his character. Because his film career was disappointingly short we must seize on "The Rebel"as a chance to see Mr Hancock and some of his favourite cohorts on a big screen in colour and not in fuzzy black and white.Therein lies most of its pleasure for me. One of the last of the great "Windmill" comics,the era and surroundings that enabled Mr Hancock to evolve his persona have long since faded away.TV itself is the only path to TV stardom,which seems a bit sad.

The Shapist School

[lucyrf · 8/10 · 14 June 2020]

The rubbish Hancock improvises while trying to explain his art to Paul is drawn almost word for word from the effusions of pre-World War One abstractionists like Kandinsky. The artists arguing in the cafe (including Oliver Reed) have also lifted their dialogue from genuine art theories of the past.

Tony is a naive artist suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. He just has no idea how lousy his paintings are. But he manages to convince the Parisian art crowd of blank-faced Existentialists that he is a genius. I love this chorus of white faced, black-clad women with their lank, straggly hair. The hairstyle became mainstream ten years on, but in the late 50s it was really revolutionary - see the ladies who come to Tony's private view (wangled by passing another painter's work off as his own). The late 50s was an awful moment for "proper" fashion.

Once Tony becomes famous, the film begins to drag, and there's a tedious scene on a millionaire's yacht that I fast-forwarded over. Tho Hancock really can dance, can't he? The fictional Tony's paintings, though naive, are not thaaaaat bad. Couldn't he have become a Douanier Rousseau? I wouldn't mind hanging that painting of the Parisian skyline on my wall.

I'd love to know who painted the "rubbish", and who produced Paul's paintings, which are not bad either.

"I'm miles ahead of the time, casting pearls before swine"

[ygwerin1 · 10/10 · 9 December 2020]

I am a huge fan of Antony Alouishus Ancock on both radio TV and film, and this film is a brilliant vehicle for the lad from Railway Cuttings East Cheam.

I have the film set with The Rebel and The Punch And Judy Man, but I can never resist the chance to watch it on the box.

The journey of the struggling artiste commencing as the, office wage slave trapped in daily drudgery.

Barely surviving in his lowly garret, contending with the ultimate philistine landlady Mrs Cravat.

She is personified by the simply Inimitable Irene Handl, who is fantastic with brilliant lines.

Our hero escapes the rat race for Parisian art nouveau, bistros, fellow struggling artistes, and similar ratty land lady.

The Art World is personified by George Sanders pompous and priggish, Sir Charles Brewer.

A bloke who's artistic sensibilities rely solely on financial considerations, and my total lack of knowledge leads me to consider.

That these characters help determine what passes for public opinion, on all things artistic.

I can't help thinking that Tubs line in the art gallery is very apposite, regarding attitudes towards art in particular what's 'Good or Bad'

"You're all Mad non of you know what you are looking at. You'll miss me when I'm dead"

Tony Hancock misfiring is still a funny film

[bob the moo · 16 March 2002]

Tony is trapped in the drudgery of a 9-5:30 office job. But at night he is an artist who has great talent and vision (he believes). When he decides to quit his job and move to France he falls in with a group of artists who admire the `childlike' quality to his work. However when he passes another artists work off as his own and gets signed by a major agent he begins to get over his head in trouble.

For fans of Hancock's Half Hour on the BBC this film will represent strange new ground – an extension of the short concise stories with depression being the overriding source of Hancock's comedy. Here the story sees him less put down and more of a winner – this removes a lot of what made him funny.

However the story still has wit as Hancock makes fun of the pretentious art crowd and makes fun of his own inability to paint. However the running time is perhaps too long to sustain and much of the comedy is such that it could easily have been done by anyone – rarely is Hancock's unique style allowed material to work with.

Hancock is still good though, and him misfiring is still funny. George Sanders has an interesting role and it's always good to see John Le Mesurier in anything. However at times you can't help feeling that Sid James could have been added somewhere. In fact the whole film would have been better modelled around the format of the TV and radio shows.

Overall this is the film failing – it is stretched and, for most of the second half, it's comedy is not the usual Hancock fare that so many loved. It's funny but it'll make you seek out tapes and videos of his classic shows.

His Own Worst Enemy

[joachimokeefe · 8/10 · 4 December 2020]

The cliche goes that the funniest comedy goes hand in hand with tragedy. Hancock's tragedy is that he wasn't satisfied with an early '60's TV audience in the squillions, wasn't satisfied with the collaboration of the best comic actors and writers of his generation, and plainly wasn't satisfied with anything, even national treasurehood. That was the core of his comic character as well as of his own nature.

This was his second attempt at the big screen after 'The Punch And Judy Man'. The story is of a desperately bored office clerk who labours under the belief that he's a great painter and sculptor. All he has is the gift of the gab.

The problem with the film (for me), even though it's mostly very funny - Irene Handl steals it as Hancock's landlady - is that Hancock doesn't have anyone in it (apart from Irene Handl) who plays the Sid James sidekick role of trying, and always failing, to deflate his pomposity. The result is that Hancock clearly takes himself too seriously, doing various would-be Chaplin, wannabe Tati routines. Genius? Too much like hard work.

I'm afraid also that Paul Massie was obviously under instruction to play it completely straight, ie 'don't try to be Sid', so that his pivotal character is forgettable, and the lovely Margit Saad, who attempts to seduce Hancock the artist, just seems to scare him.

Spot Oliver Reed as a struggling artist. Good luck finding it, it's worth a watch.