IMDb > Fires Were Started (1943) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Fires Were Started (1943) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 8 comments in total 

8 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Poetry, 28 October 1999
Author: danbpear from London, England

Fires Were Started has no stock footage. However, it is similar to such in that an ignorant 1990s eye risks being unable to see through the strangeness of 1940s Britain to the lives and tensions portrayed in this film. Fires Were Started is a witty, poetic account of the war effort understood as the acts of everyday Londoners. You can work hard watching it dissecting the poetic sequences of imagery; you can take it easy and enjoy the people we meet or you can follow the exciting narrative of 24 hours during the bombing of London. Poetry.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Another Masterpiece from Humphrey Jennings, 19 May 2004
Author: john-harry-adams from London, England

This film is a remarkable document. Jennings extracts actor-quality performances - plus that bit extra from using actual firemen and firewomen - from the cast. Add a good story, quality editing and Jennings' eye for a scene or situation and you have a real masterpiece.

Most of the East End of London has now been more successfully bombed by Hitler's successors - the planners and developers - but, miracle of miracles, the fire station at Wellclose Square is still there, back as a school again. Go there!

With respect to other reviews, stock footage IS used - but it doesn't detract. As for the reviewer from New York. I wonder if he can see this film in a more charitable light since 9-11?

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
A realistic drama documentary about the blitz., 3 February 2002
Author: Dr. Barry Worthington (shrbw) from dundee

As in 'The Silent Village' Jennings is here experimenting with improvised dialogue (there was no proper shooting script) and an amateur cast (who were all serving London firemen). However, the result has been expanded into what is virtually a full-length drama.

Again, there are haunting images. But the whole thing is played in such a low-key fashion that everything looks natural. (One of the fireman who took part said that it was an accurate representation - apart from the omission of the universal swearing!)

The most famous scene is the group preparing for the nights work. Each enters to a verse of the old counting song 'One Man Went To Mow', which is being accompanied on the piano. How many will be left by morning?

The film was released in two versions - hence the two titles. It was very well received, but eclipsed by the release of another (more conventional) film about the fire service called 'The Bells Go Down', starring the popular comedian Tommy Trinder. (This is not to disparage this feature film, which was also realistic in its approach.)

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Not the film I was expecting - but superbly made, 1 February 2006
8/10
Author: MrGeorgeKaplan from United Kingdom

I'd been trying to track this movie down for a while so I had high expectations of it, and on some counts it disappointed and on others it actually excelled. I was expecting a propaganda film with a plummy BBC voice-over intoning: 'Here we see the lads of Heavy Unit one, sector c 14, enjoying a pint of bitter and a sing song before their shift.' Instead, I was presented with a proper film with characters and a plot and everything! This struck me as particularly extraordinary having seen the first film on the DVD which was a motley collection of clips of Britain at work for the War Effort, inter-spliced with a lunchtime concert (blitz spirit etc.) featuring Myra Hess wearing what looked like a lab-coat playing piano rather animatedly.

To make a film with such high production values in wartime, with everything seriously rationed is quite extraordinary. Okay, it portrays the firemen as heroes, but it presents them in a light that is far from uplifting. They are men who work tirelessly and they take great risks, and then they go and do it all over again the next night – none of this wandering off into the sunset with a girl on your arm. By 1943, when the film was made, the blitz was pretty much over, but the horror and uncertainty of the V1s and V2s was yet to come and although the tide seemed to have turned, there was no end in sight at this point. Jennings' stroke of genius was to create a film that identified with its audience and was honest with them, while actually having the humour to keep morale up.

The use of actual firemen for the characters has its pros and cons – some of them are decent actors, others are very poor, but I should imagine that in 1943 people in possession of an equity card were rather few and far between. There is obviously some stock footage used in the long shots of the burning warehouses, giving a broader picture of what the crew of one pump were up against, which is no bad thing. The stock footage is actually pretty important as it gives a reality that would otherwise be lacking (see also Malta Story).

All in all this is a triumph of realistic, humanist film-making from the darkest days of our darkest hours.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Professional and well made docu-drama, 15 June 2008
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Although I do watch a terrible load of rubbish at times, I do also make a bit of effort to make sure my viewing has a bit of rounding and significance to it. It was for this reason that I searched out a film by Humphrey Jennings. The first I found was the documentary drama looking at the service of the civilian firemen who defended London during the Blitz. The film is a mix of drama and documentary, with the story essentially being a typical day and night in the life of the crew but it is delivered with the civilians themselves rather than professional actors. The risk of this is clear but, aside from some very wooden performances, mostly it works because the majority of them are quite natural and convincing in how they are.

Jennings' approach to the telling was also a bit of a risk because the film is not just a glowing presentation of these people as flawless heroes so much as quite a realistic presentation of them and their role. The risks they take and the price some of them pay is clear from the film and it is well presented as such, even though it could have been seen as demoralising in the way that Jennings didn't glamorise them or put much more of a patriotic gloss on them. It does work really well though and I was impressed by how professional and well made the film was. The images are sharp and even the recreations of the fires look convincing.

I don't know enough to say where Fires Were Started sits in regards Jennings work but from my limited point of view it is an impressive film. By modern standards it isn't great of course but this is one of those films that can be viewed in context because it was made for a certain time and reason. This doesn't mean that if it were a bad film that I would be blind to those weaknesses though because it is still effective in what it sets out to do and is worth watching today.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
A documentary made as a movie or a movie made as a documentary?, 26 November 2008
9/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands

Seems strange that this movie is being listed as a documentary, fore this movie is made as a real movie, with scripted dialog and situations. Nevertheless it still can be seen as a docudrama, which concentrates on the London civilian fire brigade during the bombings of WW II.

The movie gives a real insightful look in this little unknown piece of history. It shows under what circumstances the men and women involved with the fire brigades had to work. It shows the whole organization behind it all and how things got communicated. It of course also shows how the actual fires were being fought by the brave men. Just like most British young men were fighting elsewhere in Europe, these men fought they own wars against the fires in the big cities.

What surprised me was that this movie was not a typical British war time propaganda piece. This is a bit odd, since the production company Crown Film Unit, was a movie-making propaganda arm of the Ministry of Information at its time. It doesn't try to glorify anything and just show things as they are. The movie also doesn't have an annoying all knowing voice-over, who comments and the 'brave' actions and all. The movie is actually pretty straightforward and raw shot. Although everything in this movie is being scripted it still feels all very real. It's a true engaging- and therefore also really powerful and effective movie.

Yes, it's truly being shot as a movie. I was actually quite impressed by some of its camera-work and editing at times, which seemed to be decades ahead of its time in certain sequences! Not that I have ever seen anything else by Humphrey Jennings but I'm definitely interested now to see more by him. Unfortunately he died very young in 1950, when he fell of a cliff while he was scouting for locations in Greece for his new movie. Still a total of 33 directed movies are behind his name, so more than enough stuff to still check out!

A real unique classic within its genre!

9/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
War at Home, 10 November 2006
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

This is among the best "British Home" movies I know. I'm watching a few of these because I'm involved with the 7-up series and am fascinated by how the Brits like to define themselves in film.

This has a lot that recommends it in that way. It was made about the war during the war. Nearly all films of that period focused on the elements of being English that the citizens themselves wanted woven into their story.

It is about firefighters, a sort of military type but placed in the middle of lives. At home, not abroad. So they dance and joke as men in their native land, not in an alien place. Its defense in the purest of senses. The story in fact involves the Germans trying to bomb the docks to prevent war materiel from embarking. And you see valiant acts to protect the ships from the burning warehouses.

But most of all, it employs non-actors, real firemen of the time in their real firehouses and suits, more or less acting as they would (but we discover, with no swearing).

The whole thing is amazingly engaging. Sure the story is trite; nearly all are. Sure the actual cinematic values are ordinary. But it gobsmacks you to know that you are not seeing a set with actors. This is the real destruction. These are the real men.

Its no slick "Ladder 49" or "Private Ryan." Its far better.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Very Boring, 23 April 1999
Author: estott from Albany NY

A typical documentary of its type - earnestly made, but tiresome. Consists primarily of stock footage separated by talk.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Main details Your user comments Your vote history