Lucky Jim

Moviecut—Lucky Jim

Lucky Jim_720p(480P)

source: Lucky Jim

Lucky Jim

We have recently read the book and watched the movie in our English class and we feel that the movie is not a faithful adaptation of Kingsley Amis' novel. The most critical aspect is that the movie is a series of scenes that don't really connect, creating a confusing idea of what the story is about. For instance, in the novel the romance between Jim and Christine isn't the main focus of the author but in the movie it is even more incomprehensible and surprising. We also believe that the movie has considerably lost meaning by cutting out all the drama of Margaret Peel and the affair between Bertrand and Carol Goldsmith, which changes the feeling towards Bertrand from the movie to the book. All that said we think that the cast was good and the film portrays very well that post-war period.

LUCKY JIM is a likable and lively British comedy from 1957 and an adaptation of the Kingsley Amis novel of the same name. It stars Ian Carmichael - then at the height of his new-found fame - as a man driven out of his mind by the dryness of academic life and driven to exasperation by the characteristics of his colleagues. The academic setting is a great one for the farcical comedy portrayed here. If you've ever seen the Mr. Bean episode in which he creates havoc in the quiet library then you know the type of humour to expect; it essentially sees the well-cast Carmichael upsetting everyone in sight. The direction, by John Boulting, is classy and good enough to keep even the romantic scenes light and airy and above all interesting. Supporting Carmichael is a great cast including a typically caddish Terry-Thomas, Hugh Griffith as the stuffy professor, and Kenneth Griffith as the sneering colleague, but it's the lovely bulldog who proves the real scene-stealer.

It defies belief how dreadful this film is given that it comes from the Boulting Brothers and stars Ian Carmichael and Terry-Thomas. Dreadful script, desperately unfunny supporting cast - particularly Hugh Griffith and Kenneth Griffith who can suck the joy out of any comedy - and woefully inept direction. No redeeming features whatsoever. Avoid at all costs.

The main ideas of the book are portrayed in the film. However, I think that some relevant aspects of the book were not mentioned. The way that Dixon sees his job, for example. The book shows clearly that he doesn't like teaching and doesn't take his job seriously. The instability of Margaret Peel is another example. In the book, she acts in a more hysterical way. We also noticed that Profesor Welch was not as snobbish and dreamy as in the book. In addition, we think that the movie's humour is far more straightforward and obvious than the one in the book. We can see that in the final scenes, with the silly chase. And why is Bertrand a novelist rather than a painter? Nevertheless, there are some good aspects of the film worth mentioning. The actors were very good. For example, Ian Carmichael, who plays Dixon, and Sharon Acken, who plays Christine, were very successful in their roles. On the whole, despite having some silly, over-the-top moments, it was worth watching.