User reviews

More so than with any other film I've watched in recent memory, I rather don't entirely know what to say after watching this. There's a stark, jolting precision and brutality to much of the movie, even well preceding the abject violence, yet also a weirdly poetic beauty at many points. This is as true for Lindsay Anderson's direction as it is for David Sherwin's screenplay, in all ways, but also for the acting. Performances are exact and practiced, but also fluid and natural. Whether presented in pure black and white, or in color under drab skies or sunny blue, the very image before us and cinematography is rich and lush. For viewers such as myself whose perspective on schooling in the United Kingdom is informed wholly by cinematic exhibition and not personal experience, the strict regimentation and forced social arrangements are both fascinating and uninviting - to say nothing of what embellishments the movie makes in imparting its tale. When all is said and done, the result is that for any similarities one could find to this, that, or the other thing in more than 50 years since, 'If....' still feels quite unlike anything else.

For all the pomp and circumstance and plays for power and social position, and the inherent fictional nature of the feature, there's an earnestness to every aspect - characters, dialogue, scene writing, narrative, direction, performances - that comes off as very real, organic and relatable. It's an enticing balance maintained at all times between various moods and tones, with the interactions between characters taking foremost precedence as a focal point and anchor, whether trending toward antagonism or camaraderie. And with that said, not to belabor the point, but the contributions of the actors seems particularly essential in 'If....' to cementing the picture. As I've suggested, I think everyone on hand does a fine job of helping to bring the story to life with portrayals of nuance, poise, and personality, yet this goes above all for those whose characters are ultimately dubbed the "crusaders." While credited alongside those more prominent, Rupert Webster and Christine Noonan have little more than bit parts as Philips and "the girl"; we know so little about their characters, and one wishes they could have been fleshed out more at least to solidify motivations. Still, Webster and Noonan make strong impressions despite their limited time on screen. David Wood and Richard Warwick are decidedly more visible as Knightly and Wallace, and both actors do well in embodying the sneering disregard of the boys. But of course it's unmistakable Malcolm McDowell, starring as protagonist Mick Travis, who stands out most of all. There are subtleties in McDowell's distinct vocal timbre, and in his expressions and body language, that communicate definite confidence, defiance, and attitude, and just as it's hard to imagine anyone else as Alex DeLarge in 'A clockwork orange,' he is a perfect fit to depict the boiling malcontent of young Travis.

I don't feel that it's perfect. As well made as it is, and as enjoyable as the viewing experience is, there's a part of me that think maybe my perception of shortcomings is actually just an inability to glean the artistic choice behind certain inclusions. Again speaking to the characters of Philips and the girl - we're given minimal information of them generally, and little or nothing that would meaningfully serve to explain their participation in the finale. Jute is given a fair amount of screen time early on, then wordlessly fades from the narrative. One could infer to a reasonable certainty the significance of a specific scene featuring Mrs. Kemp, but in the end it just seems superfluous to the whole. Broadly speaking, it just seems like the writing could have stood to be a little tighter and more concrete; by no means does this completely dampen the value, but it's a notable aspect of the production.

Subjective faults notwithstanding, however - by and large, 'If....' is pretty fantastic. I'm not sure that it totally met my expectations based on what little I had read of it, but for the most part, I'm glad to have been surprised. It's a wonderfully subversive story of individuality and discontent set against the rigidity and corruption of the establishment, and it's presented with a refined touch behind almost every element. Even if something about the feature feels a little off, and not fully copacetic, that sense is minor in comparison to the engrossing drama to play out. Minding content warnings for violence and nudity, this isn't going to be for everyone, but I think it's solid enough that I'd have no qualms about recommending it to just about anyone. Though perhaps not altogether essential, 'If....' is an excellent, satisfying picture that's worth checking out if one has the opportunity.

Lindsay Anderson's "if...." presents a fable disguised (most of the time) as a slice-of-life set in a British upper-class boarding school. Bouyed by the twin-barreled audacity of Anderson and the film's breakout star, Malcolm McDowell, "if...." fiercely, timelessly encapsulates the spirit of 1960s rebellion even as it threatens to go off the rails every five minutes in the second half.

McDowell is Mick Travis, a returning upperclassman at College House, one of several houses that constitute a British boarding school. While other older boys, called "whips", enforce a nasty form of discipline on their juniors, called "scum", Mick and two friends contemplate an act of revolution to disturb College House's rigid hierarchy once and for all.

"Violence and revolution are the only pure acts," Mick declares.

In case one doubts his cold-blooded dedication and impatience for change, his next line sends Columbine chills up your spine. Told someone dies of starvation in Calcutta every eight minutes, his reply is a succinct: "Eight minutes is a long time."

There are points where one can't help feeling the script needed another round of polishing, like the way it introduces characters like the teacher Mr. Thomas and the "scum" Biles and Jute only to drop them in the second half as Mick's story takes over completely. But Mick's hardcore attitude of radical chic and the surreal nonsense that spurts out now and then before taking over entirely actually give "if...." much of its rich, iconoclastic majesty. With its attention to institutional detail, the sound of boyish babble echoing off the linoleum, you really feel yourself another inmate in College House, and are eager for Mick to effect your escape as well as his.

For me, that's why the first half works so much better than the second half. It sends up the public-school culture in such a way that its actual demolition later on seems unnecessary. Robert Swann sets the right tone as the head whip Rowntree, a toffee-nosed princeling who carries his thrashing cane like a kingly scepter and tells one young scum: "Markland, warm a lavatory seat for me. I'll be ready in three minutes." Swann's as brilliant a villain as McDowell himself would be in many later films.

Watching McDowell here is to see his Alex from "Clockwork Orange" in embryonic form, his simpering smile, his animalistic fury, his waggish ease-putting charm. A case can be made that Mick is a more disturbing character than Alex, since he is presented so much more sympathetically and acts out even more violently by the film's end.

Ah, the end, what can be said about that that hasn't been said. I won't spoil anything, but I do think the film's surrealism needs to be factored in more than it has in considering the moral implications of Mick & Co's final act. Logic seems to flee from the corners of the screen long before. One long sequence features Mick and friend Johnny stealing a motorbike without consequence and Mick coupling on the floor of a coffee house with a town girl, who later waves to him when he spots her with a high-powered telescope. If you can't see the madness in moments like that, then maybe you deserve to think the end of the film was played straight.

I'm not much for the ending of the film. "Do you find it facile?" asks the History Master played by the marvelous Graham Crowden, and my answer would be yes. As I said, I think it's a flawed finish, not just for its unpleasant resonances but the way nothing is resolved, no narrative or character arc.

But "if...." is still bracing, still tough, and still refreshing in the way it presents McDowell in raw, undistilled form, in a setting fully deserving of his visible scorn. Anderson makes you want to lash out, too, making the most of "if...."'s enigmatic tagline: "Which side will you be on?"

Lindsay Anderson's "If...." begins rather slow, establishing itself as a typical boarding school drama, as students arrive and get into routine at a 500-year-old public school in Britain. In the second half, though, the film takes a turn for the surreal, becoming a dreamlike dark comedy with cultural relevance and artistic wonder.

Watching "If...'s" first few scenes, we expect that the main character will be a first-year student at the school who adapts to the institution's rigorous standards and social hierarchies. However, it slowly becomes apparent that our protagonist is actually an upperclassman named Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell).

With his two loyal friends Johnny (David Wood) and Wallace (Richard Warwick), Mick refuses to conform to the school's conservative agenda. Late in their academic career, the trio decides to give into their rebellious desires, relishing in rule breaking and defying the school's snootier patrons.

The film is thus a commentary on 1960s British counterculture just as much as it itself is a product of that revolution. Mick, Johnny, and Wallace reflect the time's rebellious youth as the rock-n-roll generation turning against society's archaic norms. Meanwhile, the movie partakes in the same counterculture as a piece of subversive art. The surrealist sequences, experimental editing, sexual undertones, and nudity all go against traditional British cinema to offer something novel, and perhaps even appalling for the formalists.

One of the most blatantly defiant methods that Lindsay Anderson endorses is the use of both black-and-white and color film in the same movie. Timing and lighting restraints initially forced Anderson to use black-and-white when filming in the school's chapel. Allegedly, he liked the effect so much that he decided to shoot additional scenes in the outmoded style. There's no telling why Anderson chose certain scenes for color and others for black-and-white, but the nonconformist blend aids the movie's dreaminess. The audience wonders what is real and what is depraved fantasy.

Malcolm McDowell certainly stands out for his performance as Mick. In fact, McDowell is so convincing as a rebel that this performance led to Stanley Kubrick casting him as the lead in "A Clockwork Orange." McDowell also reprised Mick in two additional Anderson films: 1973's "O Lucky Man!" and 1982's "Britannia Hospital." The character has been hailed as an "everyman," and he certainly has our attention, empathy, and support all throughout "If...."

An unfortunate outcome of that support, however, comes at the film's ending. The finale is climactic and in an odd way satisfying, but has aged horrendously. Without giving too much away, I will say that the denouement involves Mick, his friends, the school, and some guns. In the current age, it is hard to cheer the characters on through such a conclusion, given the real-world relevance of gun violence in schools.

None of this is to say that Anderson is at fault for finishing the movie in this way. In 1968, he could not have imagined the weight this ending might someday carry. Also, the conclusion is not necessarily inappropriate watching it today, but it is definitely darker. We can no longer champion Mick's rebellion in its entirety, but must come to terms with its limits and morality after the screen goes black.

Regardless of the lens we see it through, "If...." is an overlooked movie in British (film) history. While it might retain interest from scholars and critics, the general public - at least in America - has sadly forgotten it. Such is a shame, for it is a brilliant piece of cinema that acutely captures the light and dark sides of a pivotal transition in modern Western civilization.

'If...' is a fascinating and powerful film set in an oppressive and archaic public (that's private to us non-Brits) school. It is one of the most original and innovative of all British movies of the 60s, a decade which began in some ways with 'Peeping Tom' and ended with 'Performance', two much maligned movies which in hindsight are astonishing achievements. 'If..' is equally as striking (and disturbing) as those two criminally underrated movies, but in contrast actually achieved quite a level of popularity on its original release. Even so I don't believe the movie gets the attention it deserves. Hopefully it will be rediscovered by a new generation of movie lovers as it is still very relevant and powerful even now, thirty five years later. Malcolm McDowell (his film debut) stars as the ring-leader of a small group of dissatisfied students who don't fit in with their ultra-conformist contemporaries. His performance is first rate, and in several scenes you can almost see Alex, his droog to be ('A Clockwork Orange'). The movie mixes documentary like realism with fantasy sequences involving "The Girl" (Christine Noonan), and eventually violent rebellion. A movie very much of its time it still is very watchable today and has lost little of its power and ability to surprise. Lindsay Anderson, arguably Britain's most underrated director, continued to expand upon McDowell's Mick Travis character in two subsequent movies, but 'If..' has a very different feel from those "sequels", if they can truly be termed that, and can be watched as a stand alone movie. I was impressed with this movie when I first saw it on black and white TV as a young lad, and I was still impressed when I watched it again the other week. And I will guarantee it will not be my last viewing of this brilliant film! A must see for anyone with any interest whatsoever in 1960s pop culture or film.

This glorious 1968 film is a document not just of its times but of the eternal and mysterious communion between two enormous artists. Lindsay Anderson, the director, the mentor, the older man and Malcolm McDowell his young, brilliant, loving disciple. The trust between this two men is overwhelming and the results are in every frame in every nuance. For me, to see this film after many years was a remarkable emotional experience. Daring, visionary with a Malcolm McDowell that broke new ground with the fearlessness of an explorer venturing into totally virgin territory. Brilliant, beautiful, unique. Lead by the magical hand of Anderson and McDowell we confront the anger of the artists with their love for each other. Wow!

I was in a sort of daze for hours after seeing If...for the first time in 2017. A work of art? Certainly but also a poetic historical document. After all the film dates back to 1968. 1968! when things were really changing and youth was taking a step forward, reminding the older generation that we'll be suffering the consequences of your thoughtlessness. So move over or else. I remember my father despising this film, he call it, propaganda. Propaganda?Maybe that's why I never saw it, until now. I was really moved by the film. Malcolm McDowell is the perfect man to incarnate the revolution that was about to come. It also made me look for all of Lindsay Anderson films - Just half a dozen feature films but my God! What an extraordinary director.

"If" offers a compelling depiction of life in what appears to be an upper class British boarding school for boys. Unfortunately, in the end, I also found it somewhat unsatisfying and largely unresolved, leaving too much open-ended. This is reflected, I suppose, in the title itself. I'm not quite sure what "If …" is supposed to suggest. If what?The story revolves around the character of Mick (played by a very young Malcolm McDowell in a memorable performance.) Mick is a bit of a rebel, whose rebelliousness grows as he's exposed more and more regularly to the harshness of life in this place, culminating in his being caned along with several others for having a poor attitude. It's also at that point when the movie begins to break down a bit, though (the caning being what I thought was the climactic scene of the movie.) The downward spiral began immediately after with the scene in which the naked woman walks through the dorm (for no apparent reason that I could see) and then descends through increasingly bizarre scenes, culminating in a very violent ending which really didn't resolve anything because we don't know how the confrontation depicted ended.

There were other factors that made this movie a bit difficult. Chapter numbers and titles may work well in a novel, but not quite as well in a movie. The scenes in this are separated by those divisions, and the end result was that the story was a little bit rough and lacking in flow. Director Lindsay Anderson also used a strange blend of black and white with colour throughout the movie, and, again, there didn't seem to be any clear reason for why certain scenes were filmed in B&W. Again, it was ultimately distracting and took away from the flow of the movie.

Even with those weaknesses, though, this was a very interesting and watchable movie. Whether it's an accurate depiction of what life in such schools was like in 1968 is an open question. If it was, then it's surprising that such things didn't happen more often in real life! It's well worth watching, and offers a clear reflection on the rebellious nature of the 1960's in general. 6/10

The best film ever made about school life; the rituals, the drudgery, the humiliation and ultimately the excitement. Anderson's masterpiece works on a number of levels, not least as one of the cinema's great pieces of surrealism. It's a state of the nation movie, a fantasy, an account of public school life told with an almost documentary-like precision and it's as fresh today as it was when it first appeared, (hard to believe that was almost 40 years ago or that Malcom McDowell was ever this young).

Using Jean Vigo's "Zero De Conduite" as a template, (it's not a remake), Anderson's movie is quintessentially youthful and so accurately does it depict its milieu as to appear almost arrogant. He handles revolution with a grandstanding authority and homosexual, (and heterosexual), schoolboy yearning more romantically than any other film I can think of, (Wallace's display in the gymnasium as blonde, beautiful, tousle-haired Bobby Phillips looks on is blissfully homo-erotic), and he does this with a masterly control of the medium. (His comments about financial restraints dictating the fluctuations between black-and-white and colour photography may well be true but the choices seem inspired, nevertheless and the great Miroslav Ondricek's camera-work is superb).

He was also a great actor's director, often working with many of the same actors both in theatre and in cinema and he extracts marvellous performances from the likes of Arthur Lowe, Peter Jeffrey, Mona Washborne and Geoffrey Chater representing the Establishment as well as pitch-perfect performances from David Wood, Richard Warwick, Rupert Webster, Robert Swann and Hugh Thomas, all new to cinema, as the students.

The film made Malcom McDowell a star and for a few short years, (here, in "O Lucky Man", as Alex in "A Clockwork Orange"), that star burned brightly before he sold out to Hollywood and his career began to flounder in a series of mediocre American movies, reaching a nadir with "Caligula". But his performance as Mick Travis is a marvel and both it and the film that first encapsulated it remain among the finest achievements in British cinema.

There are at least half a dozen moments of inspired surrealism, or at least, something that comes very close to surrealism without crossing the line. A pity I can't tell you what they are; it's best if they take you by surprise.

A pity also that the film as a whole is such an incoherent jumble. Surrealist or semi-surrealist moments can give a coherent film a real kick - consider the giant face that suddenly appears on the skyline in "Brazil", or the ballet sequence in "The Red Shoes". Here, they do little more than keep us hoping against hope.

You might have heard the film flits between colour and black and white in the most perplexing way. You may also have heard that the director, Lindsay Anderson, claims this is was done for purely economic reasons. Oh - so that makes it okay? I wasted a lot of time because I was under the impression that colour represented one thing, and black and white another; once that idea is abandoned, all that's left is to absorb the overall effect of semi-random alternation. It's like flicking through a scrapbook. This is appropriate, given the disorded nature of the film, and not ENTIRELY a bad thing. The best that can be made of this film is a kind of demented school yearbook, which is certainly better than nothing.

The first entry to the Mick Travis trilogy ("If...", 1968, O Lucky Man, 1973, and "Britannia Hospital", 1982), "If.." is a surreal black comedy about an English private boys' school and a student rebellion. In his three films, Anderson had covered all aspects, politics, and institutions of British Society from 1968 to 1982 with its complex system of class differences and privileges. "If..." which was released in 1968 at the peak of youthful rebellion in Europe and USA, received BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations and won the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival where it competed with 27 films from all over the world.

Anderson was in part inspired by Jean Vigo's 41 minutes long "Zero for conduct" (1933) about the similar to "If..." subject. Like in Vigo's film, Anderson inserts some surrealistic episodes shot in black-and-white and according to him, it was driven by budget rather than style. Malcolm McDowell in his first big screen role and the first of three Mick Travis' movies is a charismatic leader of the rebel students who call themselves the Crusaders and like to break the rules. The cruel corporal punishments from the faculty and the older students provoked a bloody uprising against the school system.

Made almost 40 years ago, "If.." still has a power to shock as well as to entertain and it remains an outstanding and controversial depiction of the problems that have not disappear from the English public school system or from any school system as well as from society in general.

I am sure that Stanley Kubrick saw "If..." and was impressed by McDowell's debut performance, by his charisma that shines through his close-ups and especially in the final shot of "If...", and by his face that strangely combines innocence and youthful openness with cynical scornful almost reptilian contempt for humanity. I believe that "If..." was the reason Kubrick offered the part of charming psychopath Alex to the young actor.

(Warning: I mention parts of this film's plot in the comments below)

Well after 17 years I recently saw this film once again and to be honest it just doesn't seem as memorable as I remember it. Maybe it's because of all that has happened the past few years but this film's ending seems just plain cruel, out of place and unnecessary.

It's also odd but the last time I saw this film I could have sworn its title "If..." didn't pop up at the very end but was right before an ending that showed the school on a typical day as if nothing had happened and the violent ending was only a possibility (hence "If...."). I must have dreamed that ending.

It's still a well made film with a provocative title and good original music by Marc Wilkinson (a song called SANCTUS from the African mass "Missa Luba" is also used).

Unfortunately -- at least for me -- there's only one memorable scene in the entire film and it's a turning point in it. It occurs in section #6 (called "Resistance"). While Mick (another Mick?) the amateur astronomer gazes into the night sky with his telescope he tells Mick Travis "Space you see Michael is all expanding at the speed of light...". Mick Travis asks if Mick is with them in the planed rebellion by handing him a bullet. Mick (probably one of the few normal older students) hands the bullet back and offers Mick Travis a glance through the telescope. Mick gazes into the sky and lowers the telescope to see his girlfriend in a distant window. She waves back. (She either has very good eye sight or he adjusted the telescope's view while scanning down?). It's a well made scene that I still remember from 17 years ago. It's also funny but this time I noticed on this latest viewing how much the music in that section sounds like something off of The Moody Blues' "Days of Future Past" album (you remember: "Breath deep the gathering gloom...").

If this is basically just an all boys high school in England like you would have in the U.S. (Is it just a high school? Am I correct about that?) then most students would be between 14 and 18 years old. Maybe it's because most of the older students at this school are played by actors in their twenties (Malcolm McDowell was 25 at the time) and the fact that most of the younger students look like they're about 11 years old, but for the older students it looks like the greatest sadness in their lives isn't the regimented environment they live in at this school but that they are basically treated like children or same as the youngest students. Sure the older ones have additional responsibilities but they are basically treated like they're 11 -- they can't go into town (it's off limits) and everyone must be inside by 5 PM, etc.

One final thought: There are a few quotes mentioned under this Web page's "Memorable Quotes" section but not listed are the ones I always thought were this film's most unique, which are:

Headmaster: Work, play, but never mix the two.

Headmaster: Those given most, have most to give.

Made in 1968, this film still made me shiver even though I started at public school in 1977. Things had changed somewhat by then, but not beyond recognition, and for sure I felt powerful echoes in this movie. By the time I left, the country was steeped in Thatcherism, and the style of self advancement that came with it was replacing the old guard watchers of 'If....' would recognise. The housemaster and headboy were 2 characters I can especially recall, but there are flashes of others in many of the characters.

When you see this film, see it as a historical satire, with first the historical atmosphere of a public school being accurately recreated, then second the satire taking form just in time to administer the purgative judgement of the surreal denouement.

There. Spoken like a public schoolboy.

The student are returning to a British boarding school. Mick (Malcolm McDowell) and his friends are the constantly chaffing at the Whips, the upper classmen in charge of the students. The adults defers to the Whips. The lower classmen or Scums are menial servants for the Whips. It culminates in Mick and his friends being canned by the Whips. Mick gives his friends some bullets. Together they go on surreal shooting sprees.

I have never been in a boarding school and it's a little tough to get a feel for this movie. This seems more like 'Lord of the Flies' with rules and traditions. Then it throws in some surrealism. This seems very unreal but I can't tell what's reasonable and what's not. I was actually glad when the movie goes fully surreal in the last act. The last half is definitely shocking and takes a left turn somewhere.

My word!

"If.." has always been a firm favourite of mine, particularly as I have been in much the same situation (minus B+W/Colour changes, and gun battles, naturally), and indeed still consider myself a hair rebel. It captures perfectly the horrors of public shool-The fawning, smarmy head-master, the rigors of cadet training and founder's day, it's all drawn from horrible reality.

Saw a late night showing yesterday, and on the cinema screen the fabulous direction and power of the photography- so still and unobtrusive, yet so iconic-becomes apparent. That final looped shot of Mick firing the brenn Gun is just stunning! I left the cinema feeling so goddamn moved!

At times the sheer 60s-ness, and random dialogue ("I like Johnny") can seem to undermine the viewing experience, but the spirit of bold rebellion which saturates this marvelous film wins you over. A favourite joke which I had never spotted before, is near the start, where the whips tick off a list that goes something like "Measles, tape worm, conformation class"..marvellous..

GO SEE!!

To get the most out of this film you have to be English, male and a teenager; in 1979 when I first saw it I was all three. In the years that followed I would catch it wherever I could, be it on television, in the college bar or in some local, flea-ridden rep cinema. Now, of course, I own the video. Every few months I dig it out and watch it, and more than any other film or book it reminds me what it was like to be young and rebellious and have my whole life ahead of me.

This was to England what The Wild One or Rebel Without A Cause was to America. Show it to your teenage sons; they'll remember it for the rest of their lives, and one day they might even thank you for it.

To dispel an old myth, while I'm here. Some scenes in the film are in black and white while most of the film is in color. The reason for this has nothing to do with art; they were short of money, and black and white was cheaper in those days.

Enjoy.

(55%) A bad tempered poke in the eye towards not only pubic school, but the British ruling class. This is a very well made, well acted, and well written look into a part of the world that so few films ever tread, but for me it was just a little too barren in what it had to say. Most of the time the characters are just plain bored (which is at least true to what school was mostly like), so a need for surrealism to keep the picture going comes into play leading to a weird feeling of what is real and what is fantasy, as it becomes increasingly intermixed. The ending is beyond manic, and sadly no longer a twisted fantasy of angered youth. Very much an acquired taste, and it's not really for me, but I can understand the fondness many have towards it.

I first saw this movie when i was 15 and it shook up my world. I was aware of Malcolm McDowell having previously seen him as Alex delarge in Clockwork Orange. This film is a perfect surreal study of teenage rebellion and should be seen by everyone who is able. The direction is brilliant the supporting cast shine (Arthur Lowe etc)and the film as a whole is made up of memorable images that you'll take to the grave. Lindsay Anderson is one of the most important director geniuses of an era and i was very sad to hear of his demise. The memory of him lives on through this film and its two "Mick Travis" sequels!!

1968, then If .. was disruptive for the subversive charge it described, in line with the historical-social period. Expression of a British cinema that sought new stylistic forms, in what was identified as free cinema, of which Anderson was the main component. The considerable interest that aroused, translated into a Palme d'Or in Cannes. But (re) seeing it today especially for the new generations, which have a vague echo of the period, proposed by parents if not by grandparents, that subversive charge appears completely tarnished if not obsolete. And also from the stylistic point of view, with some naivety such as the random change from color to b / w, he cannot grasp what the director wanted to affirm with difficulty. Paradoxically (being the Italian director) an Antonionian Blow-Up, shot a few years earlier, is more coherent in representing a boiling English company (London) and with a stylistic result that will remain forever. So going back to If ..., it remains a filmic expression more crystallized than ever in the release period, useful for students in the history of cinema!

I just saw "If…" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.