Honestly, everything I know about boarding schools, I learned from movies, and they don't seem like great places. The one in If.... allows an elite class of student to disciplines the others, leading to systemic bullying, while the faculty are jolly good chaps disconnected from reality. It's a portrait of Western (esp. British) society circa 1968, and Malcolm McDowell, in his first film role harking forward to A Clockwork Orange, leads a few rebels against the forces of conformity. The film has an anarchic spirit, from its title (FOUR dots?!), to its initially mysterious but ultimately random use of color and black and white, to its editing in fantastical or absurdist realities. But while I don't dispute its portrait of the Baby Boomer generation - privileged conformists and hippie rebels alike - up to and including the its pointless "rebel yell", I feel like it's extremely dated. It's a shout in the void, anarchy for its own sake, but with no solutions at the end of it. Does that make it universal to all teenagers in all times? Maybe, but the film further loses points for its facile violent ending. It just doesn't play very well for a modern audience, especially a North American one, where the ending is too real and not as funny as the movie wants it to be. It's undoubtedly better and more relevant than the score I give it would indicate, but I don't connect with it and wish it had been at once more subtle and less cryptic in its approach.
The film begins baring resemblance to Dead Poets Society, but gradually descends to a much darker (and perhaps more realistic) place. The latter half of the film gets increasingly more peculiar and fascinating, presumably as we delve into the 'If....' possibilities of Travis' anarchic anti-establishment psyche.
case in point being the final scenes laden with discontinuity - lack of blood, lack of on screen wounding
Throughout we are treated with alternating black and white and colour scenes that distance us from the film's reality. The black and white scenes appear to serve as the fulfillment of Travis' fantasies, and as such also frame the immorality and decadence bursting from the seams of College House, the archetypal British private school, of course preaching the exact opposite principles - religion, discipline and respect. McDowell is effortlessly cool in the anti-hero role, and the acting across the board is strong. Oh yeah, it's pretty funny at times too.
I just re-watched it, and had forgotten how funny certain parts of this are. Anderson really goes out of his way to mock nearly everyone in the film (each representing a certain segment of society.) There's Travis' platitudes about violence and war, the headmaster who thinks he knows what the boys are going through, the general's speech that manages to completely miss the point, the militarist minister, the whole playing "dress-up" aspect of the military training sequence, the prat whips, etc.
In spite of his ridicule, he never falls into the trap of so much satire of making the characters one-dimensional - they're fleshed out, and we care about what happens.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 9 of 9
Siskoid
Honestly, everything I know about boarding schools, I learned from movies, and they don't seem like great places. The one in If.... allows an elite class of student to disciplines the others, leading to systemic bullying, while the faculty are jolly good chaps disconnected from reality. It's a portrait of Western (esp. British) society circa 1968, and Malcolm McDowell, in his first film role harking forward to A Clockwork Orange, leads a few rebels against the forces of conformity. The film has an anarchic spirit, from its title (FOUR dots?!), to its initially mysterious but ultimately random use of color and black and white, to its editing in fantastical or absurdist realities. But while I don't dispute its portrait of the Baby Boomer generation - privileged conformists and hippie rebels alike - up to and including the its pointless "rebel yell", I feel like it's extremely dated. It's a shout in the void, anarchy for its own sake, but with no solutions at the end of it. Does that make it universal to all teenagers in all times? Maybe, but the film further loses points for its facile violent ending. It just doesn't play very well for a modern audience, especially a North American one, where the ending is too real and not as funny as the movie wants it to be. It's undoubtedly better and more relevant than the score I give it would indicate, but I don't connect with it and wish it had been at once more subtle and less cryptic in its approach.shitmovies
If what?CorPse
The Ur-text of Taps (1981)?nicolaskrizan
well, what if?http://1001movies.posterous.com/1046
marioracing89
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEbdNvdhpUA&feature=relateddchauvin
The film begins baring resemblance to Dead Poets Society, but gradually descends to a much darker (and perhaps more realistic) place. The latter half of the film gets increasingly more peculiar and fascinating, presumably as we delve into the 'If....' possibilities of Travis' anarchic anti-establishment psyche.NuclearPlanet
Mick reminds be of Myself at parts, espcially how he Interacts with People.Timec
I just re-watched it, and had forgotten how funny certain parts of this are. Anderson really goes out of his way to mock nearly everyone in the film (each representing a certain segment of society.) There's Travis' platitudes about violence and war, the headmaster who thinks he knows what the boys are going through, the general's speech that manages to completely miss the point, the militarist minister, the whole playing "dress-up" aspect of the military training sequence, the prat whips, etc.In spite of his ridicule, he never falls into the trap of so much satire of making the characters one-dimensional - they're fleshed out, and we care about what happens.
Kamrado
It's so crazy I love it!