I’m going to admit upfront that I don’t know if I have all that much to say about this film. It’s not a bad film, per se, but it’s the sort of film that just makes you go “yep, it’s that kind of film, alright.” Very of its time and reflective of the style and issues that were going on back then, yet not necessarily the most interesting film to watch of said time-frame, at least my eyes. However, that doesn’t mean that the film offers nothing at all, and there are some aspects worth discussing, so without further ado, let’s get into it.
The film takes place in a boy’s boarding school in England during the late 60’s. The school is very much your classic austere British school, extremely strict and regimented. Plus, the prefects are often given free rein to assert their dominant and, in some cases, semi-sexual authority over the others, mostly because the teachers and headmaster aren’t particularly involved with the day-to-day goings on (or, in the case of the priest/teacher, are rather “touchy” themselves). Travis and his buddies Wallace and Knightly are rebellious boys who often find themselves at odds with the prefects. They drink alcohol on campus, discuss war and rebellion, sword fight in the gymnasium, and even steal a motorcycle from a dealership at one point. At first, the prefects only punish them with a cold shower, but as things come to a head, they resort to caning the boys, with Travis receiving the brunt of the abuse. This pushes the boys to fight back, so during a sort of military simulation (in which the students act as soldiers in a mock battle), the three fire upon and bayonet the “general” of the army, who’s really just the priest/teacher. The headmaster gives them the typical “I understand what you’re going through, but this is unacceptable” speech, and sentences them to work to pay for their indiscretion. They’re sent to clean out an under-floor storeroom, in which they discover various guns and mortar grenades. This seems to give them an idea, and with the help of a girl they met in a café during their motorcycle ride as well as Philips (an underclassmen who acted as a worker and seemingly sexual servant for the prefects), they make a very “loud” statement to the higher-ups on the following assembly day (though I won’t spoil it).
If… is very much a youth rebellion movie from the 60s, but in this case from a British perspective. It tackles the harsh, disciplinarian aspect of the country’s schooling at the time, and the enforcement of conformity and “keeping in line”. Travis and his friends are repeatedly punished for not going along with the crowd and supposedly bringing down morale. The latter statement is telling, given the militaristic element also present within the film. The regimented nature of the school was already rather army-like, but it becomes much more overt when the instructors have the kids act out an actual army battle. Plus, the firearms in the storeroom and the visiting General during the climactic assembly also feed into this idea. I have noticed that there does seem to be an aspect of “discipline through military” in British schooling, at least at the time. I do wonder if this idea was a holdover from the days of the Empire, or possibly a fallout from WWII, but as an American, I probably don’t have the cultural perspective that an English person does, so I’m speculating mostly. Whatever the reason, this film does seem to question this older, lingering mentality, or at least show the youths’ struggle and dissatisfaction with it. It does show, however, that not every higher-up follows this idea, as one scene highlights a teacher that wants to challenge the students with new perspectives or concepts. Specifically, he discusses Europe’s faith in or indebtedness towards the progression of technology and how the ensuing uncaring indulgence makes one question whether it’s a result of an inherent negativity in man. The film also seems to bring up the homosexual undercurrent of these sorts of schools. In addition to the aforementioned touchy priest-teacher and the prefects’ treatment of the juniors, the character Phillips develops something of a relationship with Wallace. It’s kept somewhat vague, but considering what’s already been shown, I wouldn’t doubt the implication. Now, in terms of production and filmmaking, I wanted to note the style of the film as well as the almost avant-garde choices in certain scenes. This film is part of a group that I like to call “life movies,” by which I mean films that don’t have a traditional story and feel more like watching a series of events in a person’s life (ex: Easy Rider, Alice’s Restaurant, the early Ralph Bakshi films). Granted, this film does lead to more of a climax than others of this type, but it still very much fits within that world. More interesting than that, though, is the alternation between color and black-and-white between scenes. I’m not quite sure why they chose to do this, but it does catch your attention. Perhaps it was just meant to be a film experiment, but it’s interesting none-the-less. Also of note is the animalistic fight that Travis imagines having with the café girl. It seems random at first, but it’s actually set up rather neatly. Earlier in the film, Travis is seen looking at African wildlife photos while listening to some sort of tribal chant, so in the café scene, he puts this same chant track on the jukebox which leads into an imaginary fight scene where he and the gal tear at each other like wildcats. This could be meant as an expression of his inner want to violently act out and let go, which ties into the final scene, but it does throw you for a loop for a second, though there’s nothing wrong with that. Overall, this film does definitely live up to the rebellious and experimental period of the late 60s, questioning the status quo and showing the results of the rigid enforcement of said status.
As for my general impression this film, I have to say I wasn’t as interested in it as I’d hoped I would be. It might be difficult for someone from this day and age to look back on films like this and find as much in it as audiences found back then. I’ve seen many a rebel story in my time, as well as several films from this time-frame with this sort of style, so it doesn’t feel quite as striking to me just viewing it on its own. I could see it as being shocking back then, especially if this was one of the first films to really broach these sorts of ideas, but I’m just not sure I found much more within it to really make it interesting beyond that. It could also be just a presentational thing, maybe the style or delivery didn’t hit me right, but whatever the reason, I was somewhat let down. However, that doesn’t mean that I think you shouldn’t see it. You might see more in it than I did, and at the very least, it does act as a good time capsule of the period and the issues that were being dealt with back then. Plus, it is rather humorous to see Malcolm McDowell in this, playing a loose predecessor to a role he would later become more famous for in A Clockwork Orange. Travis is obviously not as crazed and violent as Alex, but the change he goes through could almost lead him to being like Alex in some ways. Anyhow, give it a watch and see what late 60s British schooling can do to a person.