The Gentle Gunman (1952)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Powerful

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This is a truly woeful effort from Ealing.So much about it is wrong.Most of the actors are ill suited to their roles and end up speaking like Barry Fitzgerald.Characters are underwritten.John Mills part in particular.Also the action is ridiculous.IRA men are taken to serve a sentence in Belfast!When the guards discover an intruder in the docks they don't guess what he is after.John Mills is allowed on a navy ship without question and then gets away.Naturally unshown as the writer could not dream up a plausible way of showing this.Despite the fact that the 2 prisoners have escaped the prison van still shows up at the yard.Difficult to know who the studios were aiming at with this film and little surprise that it had only a short time left of its existence.

... would have been a more appropriate title for this dire effort in which even genuine Irishmen like Joseph Tomelty contrive to sound 'stage' oirish and the majority of the cast including the two leads are from Canada, Scotland, USA and England. In 1952 the IRA were relatively 'quiet' so it's difficult to know exactly who the film was targeting. Bogarde and Mills are about as convincing as Irishmen as Morecambe and Wise would convince as Latvians and as for accents Arthur Mullard could get closer to Noel Coward than they do to Barry Fitzgerald. Elizabeth Sellers was a fine actress on both stage and screen and this has to be without doubt the worst project in either medium with which she was ever associated. Should it ever be remade the only possible title would be Carry On Freedom Fighting.

Two reasons for picking it up, Gilbert Harding in a film (my only knowledge of him was Whats my line and the Face to Face), and an Ealing film.I had known the IRA had bombed London in the war, and it was an interesting take on the story. The IRA cell get sprung (but are chased by the police in an unresolved plot end) but for the time it is even handed. I cant imagine Hollywood making a film that has sympathetic Al Qaeda characters.Yes it is wooden acting, but it passed an evening, I also picked up two Will Hay Ealing films at the same time, which I have yet to watch. The connection being that Oh Mr Porter! is a film about IRA gunrunning.

As fate would have it, I bought a low price DVD with this movie shortly before the bomb attacks on the London underground on July 7th, 2005. I suppose the story is based on real facts. Members of the IRA planted bombs in London's underground system during WW II. This is what happens in the first part of this movie anyway, and an amazing amount of footage seems to have been shot on real locations. Dirk Bogarde plays the young Irishman who deposits the suitcase with the time bomb on a station platform full with families and children who are bedding down for a night during the Blitz, John Mills is his older brother, also a member of the terrorist gang but beset by moral qualms. He follows the Bogarde character and manages to throw the bomb into the tunnel just before it explodes.Basically this is a story about the questioning of causes and of the justification of terrorist acts, specially in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland. In this aspect it is not unlike Carol Reed's Odd Man Out, made a few years earlier. The main character takes a critical view of the actions of the terrorists who in turn suspect him of being a traitor (not without reason). The action soon moves to an isolated road house on the Green Island, the base of the gang, and the point is clearly made, that all the actions of the terrorist are senseless and just cause harm to many innocent people without achieving anything but generating more suffering and hate.What is really interesting for a viewer of our days about this movie is how the issue of terrorism is treated. The terrorists are basically presented as misguided dimwits who will never be able to shake the system. Compared with how terrorism is regarded today this treatment struck me as being a very mild and strangely relaxed view of people ready to commit atrocities. But then I came to understand that even terrorism and its impact have to be relativised. Compared with the surface bombings by German planes during the Blitz (a memory certainly still very fresh in 1952), the damages caused by a group of terrorists must have seemed very limited indeed.