"Their Use is Not to Inquire for Good Books, But New Books"

The Archers

Watching CONTRABAND last night made me wonder why Powell and Pressburger films are not more popular. There is no lack of incentive to try them -- after all, countless hordes of critics, along with directors like Scorsese, Romero, and Coppola, have raved about these films for decades. Nor, thanks to home video, is there any lack of access.

CONTRABAND is not what I would call a great film, but in writing and direction, it shows more creativity, more energy and passion, than all too many acclaimed films I've seen from the past few decades. These "big" films come and go, are deservedly forgotten: who talks about THE ARTIST nowadays, or THE KING'S SPEECH, or (to look further into the dead past) CHARIOTS OF FIRE?


I would argue, too, that in terms of cleverness and drive, CONTRABAND is a better film than most of the stuff I've regretted watching from Marvel or Disney -- and CONTRABAND can't even begin to compare with BLACK NARCISSUS, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP, THE RED SHOES, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, or I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING.

Then again, I could raise the same points about films by Carné and Prévert, by Renoir, Keaton, Lloyd, Lubitsch, von Sternberg, Lean, Sturges, Aldrich, or even (to my astonishment) by Sirk; I could talk about any number of demotic, accessible, delightful, and thrilling movies that repay a viewer's time with qualities impossible to calculate, films readily available and ready to be watched.

In his preface to THE WHITE DEVIL, John Webster compared the theatre-goers of his time to those readers who, "visiting stationer's shops, their use is not to inquire for good books, but new books."

I could ask the same question of movie watchers. With so much gold from the past recovered and readily available, why do people allow themselves to settle for the latest corporate products with a shelf-life of months? Why not look around for films that can last a lifetime?