Le Knack... et comment l'avoir

A young and sexually frustrated school teacher rents out a room in his old house to a hip drummer with a motorcycle who is an expert at seduction in the hope of learning how he does it. Crazy editing and a haphazard style make it a challenge for those of us brought up on westerns and film noirs. A youth movie for the 60's with Rita Tushingham who seemed to embody that period of youthful British cinema, with a decidedly British humor and a take on society and sex, all wrapped up in the anarchy of free form movie making. Similar in style to Lester's "Hard Day's Night" but without the Beatles to carry it, this film relies more on the patience of the viewer, as it has a nice little story within the chaos.

'Richard' Lester (as he was then billed) had just scored a huge hit with 'A Hard Day's Night' and before he moved on to 'Help' indulged himself with this raucous adaptation of Ann Jellicoe's play which today looks more of a museum piece than either of the films he made with the Fab Four (compounded with a light-hearted attitude to rape that certainly won't sit well with today's #MeToo generation).

Set off by a snazzy score by John Barry, in it's frantic desire to be 'with it' it gets rather tiring and it's sobering to reflect that most of the bright young things that inhabit it are now in their eighties; but if you look fast you'll spot a wetsuited eighteen year-old Charlotte Rampling who still looks just as icily handsome in her late seventies.

A steady stream of very attractive and nearly identical manikins come to life and march starry-eyed around the block and up the stairs to a flat where they briefly meet the object of their desire before dutifully signing his guest book on the way out. The man they came to see is the suave Lothario who will try to mentor the socially awkward teacher living downstairs in the "knack" of seducing women. As so often happens in situations like this, they will eventually end up competing for the affections of the same intriguing ingénue.

This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.

Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.

The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.

One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.

There are lots of things to like in this movie: glimpses of London, black and white photography, likable young actors, old fogies, fast pace, great music, but one gets the impression that the original play was cut, and there is nothing that would have interested me more than the uncut play, flaws and all. That would have been more interesting than the touches from Max Sennett and Jacques Tati.

The play's central message seems quite conventional: nerd gets the best girl, playboy overwhelmed with his mannequins. For all the mockery of the old folks, the values permeating this plot are old folks' values. The view of women is passive. They don't swing, they are merely "taken advantage of", and the nicest girls is the most virginal, as if sexual activity were incompatible with niceness, and virginity were incompatible with napalm. But that's movies for you: always asserting the unassailable, rocking the cradle instead of the boat.

Tushingam steals the show. She has more screen presence than Garbo.

Reviewers fell all over themselves to praise this film when it came out. I personally tend to be a sucker for good, wild British comedy. I wanted to believe the reviews.

Why did they lie to me?!? Oh, have no doubt that at the time this was wild and crazy and totally unlike just about anything out there. I can see that in the film and I can also see the whole generation gap thing playing itself out in there as well. I see all that was said to be in there, except for great performances and the wacky comedy.

I shall not try to comment on story or plot. This film doesn't even pretend that those elements matter, and they certainly don't if you should happen to see this movie. You're there for the "event" of the film itself. Other than Rita Tushingham's heavenly eyes and lips, there IS no "event" worth hanging around to see.

This is one of those films that should be viewed only in the context of its place in film history. It fails to survive the passage of time on its own merits. It is merely an interesting curiosity from the 60s.

On another, short note, the soundtrack is incredible. It makes the film worth sitting through.