wrs10 I have just seen this film for the first time in years. It remains to me as interesting as ever it was. Maybe the story is banal but soap operas re-work the themes endlessly for a reason. Apparently critics, on release, panned it and it did poorly at the box office. I guess the lack of an on-screen romance failed to appeal to the ladies and the lack of blood and guts failed to appeal to the gents. Never mind, when the film reached the small screen it passed on down the generations! I suppose the post-war generation was comfortable with letting the children see this one! It also reminded people of what they did for the war effort. Very few reviewers here have commented on the mass takeover of traditional male jobs by females. It was simply a dramatised documentary at that level. (My mother thought that her Land Army work was the only really valuable job that she had done - although it was the poorest paid!) I am puzzled by the assumption by some reviewers of mass lesbianism - almost a million more of Britain's men had been killed in WW1 than women. That left a million women on the shelf, due to arithmetic, not lesbianism. And everyone smoked in those days! A few incongruities stuck out. No references to the food shortages, weird. Would someone really have drunk a whole pint of milk for lunch? "Foyle's War" and "Dad's Army" do not make that mistake. And where were the "Doodlebugs"? Of course, with the outdoor filming taking place in 1943 there would have been none but the lack of reality for the 1944 audience must have jarred. Agriculture was not as backward as shown, Michael Powell would have been referring more to his youthful experiences than to wartime practice. Also forestry during the war was handled on very short term considerations. No shipping space for the usual imports so just about everything was lifted without regards to "sustainability" or even mediocre management. A few lumberjills in the film would have been realistic. Leaving them out was a bit odd. They were not rare.(As an aside for a film released in May 1944 - was the army march through Canterbury a tiny part of the deception plan to deceive the Germans that the Allies intended to land in the Pas de Calais, not Normandy?) Other details stand out for me, such the sign of the bombed out Singer sewing machine shop stating where they had relocated to. When I was growing up I could see the largest Singer sewing machine factory in Europe from our living room window so the sign stood out. That scene also explained the slight disappointment I had with the shopping centre in Canterbury when I visited it for the first time - OK but it could have been anywhere in the country, nothing special about that 1950s rebuild. Canterbury suffered not just from the Baedeker air raids but also from the fact that any German bomber that did not think that it could reach London preferred to dump its load where it would do some damage other than churn up some fields. The cathedral was hard not to spot and there were (are) two important rail lines going through the town and were worth disrupting.It is a pity that the film has not been colourised. It would not make much difference to the indoor scenes but the outdoor scenes would be given a great lift. I did once walk from Dover to Canterbury. Pleasant if unremarkable for most part. Crossing the M20 and going alongside it for half a mile does dilute the magic somewhat but as one approaches Patrixbourne from above, the Cathedral comes into view and appears like an ocean going liner towering above a sea of green. It is easy to understand why a filmmaker would want to make something of it.Also worth noting is the long established pilgrimage from Winchester Cathedral to Canterbury (even medieval Italians have been recorded doing it!) Again, it is easy to understand why a filmmaker would want to play on its themes. Despite there being a "Pilgrim's Way" marked on the Ordnance Survey maps there was no one route - through Rochester Cathedral then along the straight Roman Road was just as popular a route as the "Pilgrim's Way" so it is easy for a filmmaker to contrive of different "ways" into Canterbury.

thetreacleman Just who is the glue man and why is he doing it? The glue men were Powell and Pressburger rescuing British Cinema from the torpor of naturalism like a couple of Scarlet Pimpernels. This film may not be their most achieved, but it is certainly their most experimental and fascinating. The narrative drive takes a back seat to a rambling story that goes off in different directions, as it pleases. As far as I know it is not based on a novel, or short story. Just how unusual is that in British Cinema? It is Romantic in its use of landscape and has an innocence about it. It also has ideas, and the tale is told with Powell's remarkable sense of composition. You may not think it is having an effect on you when you are watching it, but its like a dream that will resurface again and again long after you have seen it.

tedg What a pleasure it is to surf cultural tides. But when it comes to this material, I'm missing the most important part. That's because I wasn't born into the British class system, so cannot appreciate the subtle play with accents that films like this depend on. I would really like to have someone teach me about this before I die, even though I know it can never have the same deep visceral pull it must have on natives. So I know that even though this has plenty of universal charm, I'll never enter the inner circle of viewers. I suppose it is the same for any film. Of those who are touched, there will be some smaller group who understands the special language being used.I read of a recent Almodovar film, there was the matter of training a Mexican actor in Continental Spanish swagger. Its a different kind of bodily aggression, the subtlety of which eludes me. But what of these grammars that are not ethnically based? What of those that have to do with allusions to shared dreams and structures of imagination that very few share? Its absolutely fascinating, especially when the film has other attractions that makes people think they understand others that "like" it.This was created by a nation at war. There are all sorts of subtexts. The innate goodness of the people. The overlapping of class commitments to the common cause. The childishness of war. The recognition that the root of the society is in women, and sex. The celebration of a legacy. The intercession of God on the side of goodness. The acknowledgment of the importance and shared goodness of Americans. The journey, defined several ways, conflated.The structure of the thing is remarkable. There's a mystery film embedded inside. Its a strange token of the form because there is only one suspect; the question is why. We learn why before we get the basketful of other payoffs, with parades, restored loves, and God's smile. It has to do with dirty tactics in the name of saving a society. Dirty tactics like firebombing civilians.Archer projects are always worth watching, manylayered and deftly structured. This is among the best. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

be-good I have just brought this for my Uncle ( aged 78 ) who lived in Canterbury many years ago. Unfortunately he is very ill now after suffering a stroke, he has lost his memory, but ask him what he was doing 50 years ago and he remembers. After seeing him at the weekend, he was telling us how much he would like to see this film again, as he was in Canterbury Town whilst this was being filmed and he " thought it was very odd to see the army walking through Canterbury!" until he realised it was being filmed. i hope he enjoys this, as much as some as you have, but I think i will watch it too as i still live in Canterbury, so it would be quite interesting to see it!