Like some other reviewers I first saw H and C at the now long-forgotten Saturday morning pictures and it was thoroughly enjoyed by just about everyone there. Such a refreshing change from the usual feature films they dredged up for us, most of which seemed to date from the early thirties and to be based om motor racing.
Having seen it many times since it's difficult now to know what I remember from that first time but I do recall the remark of the sadly missed Joan Dowling when they first descended into the sewers, "Coo, dunnit pong", causing great hilarity. Easily pleased or what?
Much as I enjoyed reading the reviews here I have to take issue with some. One claims that the lack of swearing among the boy gang indicated some sort of superior morality back in 1946. Actually it was because bad language was simply not permitted in films then and I can assure everyone that in real life there would have been plenty. Another stated that Anthony Newley was in it. He wasn't. I think the reviewer was fooled by the Newley-like looks of Roy, played by Stanley Escane. And a third thinks that jumping on the stomach of the chief villain and killing him was a bit strong. I saw the film recently and there is no indication that he was killed, merely winded. It was perhaps unpleasant but if anything the scene where the bent cop was catapulted and stunned was worse. That could have killed or blinded him.
I was more interested in the review by Robert Temple. I have nothing against the gentleman and he is entitled to his opinion but I feel that some of his comments are misguided and on occasion just plain wrong. He seems for example to read into H and C, with its use of bomb sites and derelict buildings, some sort of metaphor for WWII but I think he's reading too much into this. The film was made on location in London in 1946 when the makers would have been hard put to it not to include bomb sites. They were an unavoidable backdrop to the action, not a part of it, though as they existed use was made of them. The film is simply no more than what used to be called a rattling good yarn and thankfully does not contain any 'messages'.
Further, amid what I have to say is a welter of name dropping, Mr Temple not only (wrongly) thinks that some of the action takes place in Tilbury but also makes a glaring geographical error in placing Tilbury in the East End despite its position in Essex some 12 or 13 miles from the fringes of the East End at East Ham. While there is certainly a Chadwell (St Mary) in Tilbury this is similarly miles from the scene of the action at the end of the film which is, officially at any rate, at Wapping and I suspect that Mr Temple has confused Chadwell with Shadwell, which is next door to Wapping and therefore does come within the East End.
Having seen it many times since it's difficult now to know what I remember from that first time but I do recall the remark of the sadly missed Joan Dowling when they first descended into the sewers, "Coo, dunnit pong", causing great hilarity. Easily pleased or what?
Much as I enjoyed reading the reviews here I have to take issue with some. One claims that the lack of swearing among the boy gang indicated some sort of superior morality back in 1946. Actually it was because bad language was simply not permitted in films then and I can assure everyone that in real life there would have been plenty. Another stated that Anthony Newley was in it. He wasn't. I think the reviewer was fooled by the Newley-like looks of Roy, played by Stanley Escane. And a third thinks that jumping on the stomach of the chief villain and killing him was a bit strong. I saw the film recently and there is no indication that he was killed, merely winded. It was perhaps unpleasant but if anything the scene where the bent cop was catapulted and stunned was worse. That could have killed or blinded him.
I was more interested in the review by Robert Temple. I have nothing against the gentleman and he is entitled to his opinion but I feel that some of his comments are misguided and on occasion just plain wrong. He seems for example to read into H and C, with its use of bomb sites and derelict buildings, some sort of metaphor for WWII but I think he's reading too much into this. The film was made on location in London in 1946 when the makers would have been hard put to it not to include bomb sites. They were an unavoidable backdrop to the action, not a part of it, though as they existed use was made of them. The film is simply no more than what used to be called a rattling good yarn and thankfully does not contain any 'messages'.
Further, amid what I have to say is a welter of name dropping, Mr Temple not only (wrongly) thinks that some of the action takes place in Tilbury but also makes a glaring geographical error in placing Tilbury in the East End despite its position in Essex some 12 or 13 miles from the fringes of the East End at East Ham. While there is certainly a Chadwell (St Mary) in Tilbury this is similarly miles from the scene of the action at the end of the film which is, officially at any rate, at Wapping and I suspect that Mr Temple has confused Chadwell with Shadwell, which is next door to Wapping and therefore does come within the East End.