Well meaning double speak

There are many, many books, tutorials, courses and study guides on how to create that one in a million plot line for a novel or movie.

The following is not, I stress, any of my doing but has been the backbone of a long running series of British Films over the last six decades.

It goes like this.

A rag tag group or people, earnest and well meaning find themselves confronted by very trying circumstances. They are pushed to the absolute limit, they almost give in but eventually come through, excel in what they are doing and then walk away modestly.

You may have a strange feeling of familiarity, deja-vu and a warm feeling of fondness for the emotion and sentiment that such a human struggle engenders. Have a good long search into your brain hard drive in search of an explanation for this. You may be shocked and dismayed when I tell you that if you indeed experience such things it distinguishes you as an officianado, albeit subconsciously of the Carry On movies which this August (2018) are 60 years old.

Since 1958 this plot construct has been adapted, turned upside down and back to front, ignored, revitalised and re-invented but with the same broad outcome of rip-roaring comedy.

Add in a bit of fun, risque subject matter, double-entendres and stereotypical behaviour and you have an enduring set of 30* movies over the following 20 years that continue to be broadcast and enjoyed on a multi-national and multi-generational scale and globally.

The writer behind the first six Carry On films, Norman Hudis was the person who devised the classic story framework before handing over to Talbot Rothwell and other writers and the constants of Gerald Thomas and Peter Rogers as Director and Producer respectively.

The films have assumed a sort of cult status today and it is possible to study at notable seats of education and learning the social, political, economic and gender messages that emerge amongst the raucous, randy and riotous scenarios.


In fact the films are now regarded by academics as being a record or social commentary of their times although in a subsequent interview Hudis was sceptical about a deeper meaning and message rather stating that he had just referred to real life situations and experiences and their value in spinning a good tale.

There have of course been ardent critics and cynics of the long running franchise but the box office figures tell a contrasting story of acceptance and appreciation by the general public.

!958 was still a period of austerity in Britain, accentuated by a very monochrome imagery in film and television with smog filled streets, a persistence of rationing of staple goods and a rigid social order of deference and subservience.

An evening or matinee screening of a Carry On at the local picture house will have been a real treat for a good proportion of the downcast nation.

Society was however about to change dramatically with the optimism and freedoms of the swinging sixties and the Carry On story lines were able to take up and run with the trends and popular attitudes but cloaked in historical spoofs, parodies of other genres and generally taking a good old poke (ooh-err Matron) at national traits and characteristics.

I have just realised that I have, over the last four sentences been guilty of over-analysing and over-thinking the whole Carry On ethos giving it an aura of sociological and anthropological importance when in fact it was only ever intended to make people laugh and have a good time.



*not forgetting the 31st film, Carry on Columbus in 1992