The Man in The White Suit Film Analysis Beyond The 1950s: The Legacy of The Man in The White Suit

3

Beyond the 1950s: The Legacy of The Man in the White Suit

Critical reception of The Man in the White Suit was warm in the early fifties, the aforementioned Monthly Film Bulletin review continues that “the picture is very enjoyable. Its observation of people, its carefully sustained tempo, its apt incidental thrusts have real individuality and distinction. More ambitious than some recent Ealing comedies, its best sequences are more memorable: it will certainly remain one of the liveliest and most interesting experiments in British films this year. The acting – notably Alec Guinness, Joan Greenwood, Ernest Thesiger and Vida Hope – is exceptionally good.”[1]  Guinness’ 2nd place nomination for a New York Film Critics Circle Award that year for his acting in both The Man in the White Suit and The Lavender Hill Mob may have been in recognition more so of the latter as it is seemingly held in generally higher regard, appearing at number 17 on the BFI’s 1999 list of 100 British films, The Man in the White Suit down at 58.  Philip Kemp writes “the public … have never taken it to their hearts … it may be that for some tastes the snarl shows too clearly beneath the grin.”[2]  Nevertheless two BAFTA wins and an Academy Award nomination for Roger MacDougall, John Dighton and Mackendrick’s screenplay ensured the film’s international presence and box office viability for Ealing even if it was a “more ambitious” “experiment” of a film.

Further note of the film’s ambition to stretch beyond what the Tribune described at the time as “The Ealing Slapstick”[3], Cahiers du Cinema writer Jean-Louis Tallenay wrote that Mackendrick’s film is an “English comedy” in which the comic effect is not at the expense of the protagonist who is “funny because he doesn’t conform to social norms”; instead, “it’s society that’s funny, because it’s at odds with itself.”  The film thus works to unsettle the audience because the humour “lies in seeming to agree with those who are wrong, thus making their error all the more obvious,” thus the ultimate subversion of society and indeed the Ealing studio system if you’re inclined to read it that way.

Whilst one critic at the New York Post hailed the film as a “new yardstick of comic perfection … the funniest picture he has seen in the last ten years,”[4] published the very same day Bosley Crowther of the New York Times noted its significant satirical slant referring to it as a “deft and sardonic little satire on the working of modern industry” continuing that “although the subject is obviously serious and the moral may be a trifle sad, the prevalent spirit of the screenplay is mischievous, impudent and droll.”  It’s most interesting to note that, when Crowther goes on to describe the context of the film, he surmises that it “provides a solemn reflection of the jitters of the economic state – or ‘the delicate balance of the market,’ to use a pretty oft-repeated phrase.”[5]  Since the economic crash in 2008 “the delicate balance of the market” has been a matter of global interest and its indicative of how such little has changed if a “little satire” film made over 60 years ago brought about the seldom same system into question.  The lasting impression of the system that Mackendrick satires predates the film too, trade press before the film’s release indicate that “the plot is a variation of an old theme, but it comes out with a nice fresh coat of paint”[6] in the film, highlighting satire as a necessary tool to question the recurring negative aspects of society.

A more recent Time Out review describes how that Stratton incurs “the wrath of both management and labour, satirically depicted as being hand-in-glove in their conservative reliance on restrictive practices,” however “the Ealing formula for good-natured whimsy prevents Mackendrick from pushing the darker aspects of the theme (eminently present in Thesiger’s brooding old vulture of an industrialist) to their logical conclusion.”[7]  Laurence Kardish writes that Michael Balcon was uneasy and “mistrusted” works like The Man in the White Suit stating that he was equally “fascinated and repelled at the same time”[8] by works that dealt with such levels of sophisticated satire, thus pictures directed by the likes of Robert Hamer and Alexander Mackendrick working within his own organisation, directors that were diametrically opposed to that very organisation.

Despite the whimsy nature of the Ealing Studios and the suppression of their more maverick renegade directors the subversive satire in The Man in the White Suit does enough to raise questions of the social system’s disorder, and is a common theme running through Mackendrick’s work as “David Thomson acutely observed, in a note about the extent to which the acid disenchantment of Sweet Smell of Success was already apparent in Mackendrick’s earlier work, there is enough of Kafka in the film to lift it right out of the Ealing comedy tramlines.”[9]  Professor and screenwriter Howard Rodman cites the film as a “critique of commodity capitalism,” a precursor to Mackendrick’s later work that would later include “The Sweet Smell of Success … a devastating critique of people in power and success,” commending the director for having “the courage to look at the world as it really is.”[10]  It is only with the retrospective view of looking back over Mackendrick’s canon can we begin to construct a perspective with which viewed the world and presume he projected onto his work.  Presumptions are all they can be, with the support of as much or as little evidence as possible.

More recent reviews seem to side with Stratton and are against the suppression of his “great invention,” understanding that it would be “beneficial to mankind”.  Some even evoking a relationship between Stratton and Nikola Tesla whose discoveries were suppressed by a growing self interested establishment within industry based upon the oil economy.  As to be expected with continued revisionism of 20th century history and changing perspectives on science and technology, and the realisation of the damaging nature of said oil economy.  Although, and perhaps more amusingly, Sidney’s plight is likened to Victor Frankenstein and the paralleling of his story as villagers set to the streets to destroy his discovery.  The question of scientific ethics is most definitely more subtly evoked in Mackendrick’s The Man in the White Suit than Mary Shelley’s tale of recycling body parts but nonetheless it is present.

Raising the question then of genre, whilst not quite the horror of Frankenstein, the film encroaches science fiction territory for sure.  At a time when the cold war was gently getting underway the global feeling of threat and dread being foreign or extra-terrestrial Mackendrick understood the more nuanced societal maladies that were more ever-present and needed to be addressed.[11] [12] [13]

Discussing scientists in work of popular fiction in the middle of the twentieth century Nicholas Russell writes “The Man in the White Suit is perhaps the major representation of a scientist in mainstream British films of the post-war period” and still counts its influence today.  His paper raises “the question of whether the apparent innocence of the scientist in these films is seen as admirable or reprehensible”[14], thus in line with Philip Kemp’s discussion of Sidney Stratton as the epitome of “Lethal Innocence” in his Mackendrick book of that same title.[15]  Russell, in an attempt to further the study of the image of scientists in the post-war period, compared Stratton to another of Alec Guinness’ 1950s performances in The Horse’s Mouth in which he plays an artist, thus comparing the image of the scientist and the artist concluding that many similarities can be seen between the characters presented in these films.  Discussing the origin of the artist in the Romantic period of the nineteenth century Russell applies this model to the Scientist and because of the lack of familiarity with the nature of scientific creativity; artists and scientists may be treated similarly because both are seen as existing and operating outside of the British class system.[16]

The notion of scientists’ similarity to Romantic artists wasn’t lost on Amy Sargeant who, essentially lifting from DC Coleman’s study on the Courtauld textiles family[17], identified romantic character archetypes and themes within the film and related them to historical themes and figures within the film and textiles industries set against a backdrop of industrial change.  “Stratton, in The Man in the White Suit, is one such romantic, possibly tragic, ‘struggling hero’; in retrospect, perhaps, we may now say that Ealing was another.”[18]  Suggesting the lasting impression of The Man in the White Suit and the omnipresence of its themes, she states that “the Ealing films have often been lambasted for being little and parochial – not least by those directly involved in their making.  Indeed, it may be argued that the product of the studios matched Balcon’s limited aspirations and ambitions.  But the themes of The Man in the White Suit, as recent history has shown have larger ramifications.”  The film, she says, by meditating upon “workers’ and industrialists’ anxieties concerning the introduction of new fibres” engenders “fears regarding lower wages in other parts of the world” that Sargeant asserts are as common in the world today as they were in the 1950s, referencing “the shoe and bra wars between the EU and China and Burberry’s departure from Rhondda.”[19]  Also, assimilating cultural and social aspects of the 20th century and 21st century eras, she brings in a comparison of the contextual “promotion of Britain in 1951 as both modern and traditional” which culminated in the Festival of Britain and the “1990s initiative ‘BritainTM’” [20] [21]  The issues highlighted by Amy Sargeant have been touched upon by Charles Barr who points out that at the time of the film’s release even, pointing out “a topical parallel: the manufacturers’ cartel against long-life light bulbs, on which the Monopolies Commission reported in 1951”.[22]  And there are countless examples of industry suppression through the years: the electric car, alternative fuels, digitalisation, free energy, more efficient carburettors, nuclear thorium plasma batteries, electric mass transport, aquaponic and hydroponic farming, etc. etc.  This kind of industry and governmental suppression has been written about extensively by numerous scholars and academics.[23]

Whilst the basis of industry may have changed the ideologies they perpetuate remain the same, planned obsolescence, nationalism and militarism, industrialism, market economics and individual and corporate competition.  The very same industrial and commercial practices regarding textiles are an intrinsic part of the syllabus for Design and Technology at GCSE level in conjunction with multiple examining bodies and the national curriculum.[24]  It could be argued that the nature of industry today is very different than in the 1950s: the shift from a manufacturing base to a service economy, for example. But, to avoid the danger of making an a-historical analysis, but I would argue that the growth of the service industries is a continuation of the outdated industrial and economic model, with suppression of automation as a means of keeping the population in employment rather than seeking alternate means of human endeavour.

Class is a prominent indicator and tool of social stratification in British society, one that is ever-present in Mackendrick’s film, to the extent that self appointed members from the different classes convolute to preserve the present system with a unified mob mentality; the same mentality that has been at the fore in Britain since times of feudalism.  W.G. Runciman writing on the changes of capitalism in Britain since the First World War; or, essentially, the system that incorporates politics, industry, society (class structure inclusive) concludes that commentators have a tendency to exaggerate changes to the capitalist mode of production and operation, and changes “changes are too often interpreted as trends when they are in fact only phases of a cycle.”[25]  The “boom and bust” cycle, to be put into layman’s terms, has all too often and obviously played itself out since the first world war, through the implementation of Keynesian economics, the second world war, post-war rationing, the subsequent rise of trade unionism, then Thatcherism, New Labour and the current milieu of economic collapse.  Whilst attitudes towards and perceptions surrounding class in Britain may have changed in the ensuing years following The Man in the White Suit, the actual class structure and social stratification that natural occurs and is inherent to a system that is intrinsically based upon structural classism remains the same.  One is reminded of the adage filled John Lennon meditation on class ‘Working Class Hero’ – “they hate you if your clever yet they despise a fool” – it’s hard for a scientist or artistic character to be a hero to the working classes when you attempt to operate outside of the class and monetary systems.  The restricted and short time frame of many of Mackendrick’s films would suggest the cyclical nature of sociological trends present in British, American and western society, the issues and social problems presented by films such as The Man in the White Suit and The Sweet Smell of Success by the short span of their timeframe alone suggest that the conflicts and drama they present will be recurring.

The political and economic practice and problems of The Man in the White Suit have been touched upon by academic studies within those particular strands of academic writing and study.  Peter L. Swan writes in “Market Structure and Technological Progress: The Influence of Monopoly on Product Innovation” that “the topic has even been the subject of a feature film: The Man in the White Suit.”  Perhaps a passing reference, however the viewpoint reflecting the “influence of monopoly” and its detrimental effect on product innovation clearly indicates the viewpoint that writers can take, and have taken, since 1970 even.[26]  Don Leet and Scott Houser writing and presenting a course on economics more recently have referred to Mackendrick’s 1951 film The Man in the White Suit as a representation of an inherently unfair market structure.   The crippling effects of oligopoly and its inherent nepotism within industrial firms and market powers are hinted at again highlighting the continued influence of the film in a new decade / century / millennium.  And finally introducing ideas of game theory exposing the way industry is set up to be executed exactly the way it is: as a game.[27]  To read commentary upon politics and society referring to The Man in the White Suit giving prominence to the maladies that come through Mackendrick’s satire is most noticeable in supporting the theory of the continuing relevance of the film.

The “game” is central to Mackendrick’s film; it seems to show that the mere act of picking sides purely serves to perpetuate the status quo.  Implicit within the narrative is a deeply satirical swipe on the political system, an increasingly binary choice between left and right, a growing illusion of democracy.  The entire spectrum of political ideologies is lambasted as a self-perpetuating process where the integral players appear to be, what I would term, ‘self appointed guardians of the status quo’.  The participants are, therefore, taking part in a grand self congratulatory charade masquerading as democracy that relies on the need to maintain scarcity and the need to maintain establishments.  Mackendrick’s direction and storytelling in The Man in the White Suit courageously displays my own personal belief that all political systems are merely humanism corrupted.  In all cases represented in the film, and can be found, there is a core belief that the idea and principal ideas inherent in each system will benefit the human race; or in this case, facets of British 1950s society, entirely.  However, it is often the case that each idea, like religious doctrine, can be dogmatic and therefore antagonistic creating a hostile environment that has an adverse effect on human relations.  Mackendrick seems to employ a more delicate political, but still as hard hitting and revelatory, rhetoric as George Orwell two masterworks on socialism and social structure from the previous decade.[28] [29]  The subtlety with which Mackendrick conveys his message is the most important thing to be highlighted.  When a film’s contexts have been established, discussed and expounded I believe it is integral that academics look again to them as artefacts of history and attempt to expose ideas, lessons and warnings they divulge in the hour and a half they are up on the screen.

The satire and politics Alexander Mackendrick employs is clearly of the left leaning liberal socialist perspective, as in line with the general political positioning of many of the Ealing ‘academy’; however Mackendrick’s work raises more questions than it answers, and this is a criticism often levelled at Orwellian socialism.  It is commendable though for sure to question the system and any alternatives brought forward.  The villain of the piece is then presented as monopoly capitalist who suppress progress and development and a submissive and apathetic society who comply with the hierarchical class system and antiquated structure of the society in which they live, but also, any overzealous narrow minded followers of alternative political or societal approaches without consideration or a willingness to co-operate with others therefore perpetuating a status quo and consensus that is easily controlled and manipulated by those who wish to guide it; those who, as I have pointed out, could be termed ‘the self appointed guardians of the status quo’.  Mackendrick calls for clearer channels of communication, better education and awareness for all concerned quarters and a more methodological communicative approach to science and the future.

[1] “Man in the White Suit, The (1951)” in The Monthly Film Bulletin, Volume 18, No.212, September 1951, p. 326.

[2] Kemp, Philip, Lethal Innocence: The Cinema of Alexander Mackendrick, London, Methuen, 1991, p.67.

[3] Tribune, 26th August, 1951.

[4] New York Post, 1st April, 1952.

[5] Crowther, Bosley, New York Times, 1st April, 1952.

[6] Variety, 1951.

[7] Pym, John (Ed.), Time Out Film Guide, London, Time Out Guides, 2006.

[8] Kardish, Laurence and Geoff Brown, Michael Balcon: The Pursuit of British Cinema, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1984, p.45.

[9] Pym, John (Ed.), Time Out Film Guide, London, Time Out Guides, 2006.

[10] Rodman, Howard, “Howard Rodman on The Man in the White Suit” from Trailers from Hell, http://www.trailersfromhell.com/trailers/214, 24th February, 2009.

[11] http://homepages.sover.net/~ozus/maninthewhitesuit.htm

[12] http://www.dvdjournal.com/quickreviews/m/maninthewhitesuit.q.shtml

[13] http://www.thefilmyap.com/2011/05/23/the-man-in-the-white-suit-1951/

[14] Russell, Nicholas, “The New Men: Scientists at Work in Popular British Fiction Between the Early 1930s and the Late 1960s” in Science Communication, vol. 31, 1st September, 2009, pp. 29-56.

[15] Kemp, Philip, Lethal Innocence: The Cinema of Alexander Mackendrick, London, Methuen, 1991, pp. 45-67.

[16] Russell, Nicholas, “The New Men: Scientists at Work in Popular British Fiction Between the Early 1930s and the Late 1960s” in Science Communication, vol. 31, 1st September, 2009, pp. 29-56.

[17] Coleman, D.C., Courtaulds: An Economic and Social History, vol. II, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1969, p.1.

[18] Sargeant, Amy, “The Man in the White Suit: New Textiles and the Social Fabric” in Visual Culture in Britain, Volume 9, Number 1, June 2008, pp. 27-54(28)

[19] Sargeant, Amy, “The Man in the White Suit: New Textiles and the Social Fabric” in Visual Culture in Britain, Volume 9, Number 1, June 2008, pp. 27-54(28)

[20] Leonard, Mark, BritainTM: Renewing Our Identity, London, Demos, 1997.

[21] Sargeant, Amy, “The Man in the White Suit: New Textiles and the Social Fabric” in Visual Culture in Britain, Volume 9, Number 1, June 2008, pp. 27-54(28)

[22] Barr, Charles, Ealing Studios 2nd Edition, London, Studio Vista, 1993, p. 137.

[23] Dunford, Richard, “The Suppression of Technology As a Strategy for Controlling Resource Dependence” in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, Dec., 1987, Ithaca, New York, Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University pp. 512-525.

[24] AQA, GCSE Specification Design and Technology: Product Design, For exams June 2010 onwards, For certification June 2011 onwards, Qualification Accreditation Number: 500/4481/3, 2008.

[25] Runciman, W. G., The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 53-67.

[26] Swan, Peter L., “Market Structure and Technological Progress: The Influence of Monopoly on Product Innovation” in The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1970) 84 (4): 627-638, doi: 10.2307/1880843, p. 2.

[27] Leet, Don & Scott Houser, “Economics Goes to Hollywood: Using Classic Films and Documentaries to Create an Undergraduate Economics Course”, The Journal of Economic Education, 34:4, 2003, pp. 326-332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220480309595226

[28] Orwell, George, Animal Farm, London, Secker and Warburg, 17th August 1945.

[29] Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, London, Secker and Warburg, 8th June 1949.