The Shooting Party

I cannot believe how badly the point of this film must have been missed! I am no snob, but people can't have understood the core ideas behind the film as otherwise it would be regarded as a classic.

I thought the film was very sad and a great reflection on a English time and traditions passing. The time of drinking fine wines and eating fresh game will be shortly over with the pending war.

James Mason is just perfect in this film! He represents the "good old boy" with principles and values that the younger more competitive Edward Fox misses. This partnership is a beautiful juxtaposition, both understated and acted masterfully.

ANyway, slight rant over but please watch again if you were not sure one way or the other

gareth

Frankly, much of this movie is all but indecipherable to the American ear, with much muttering done in what we deign to call a heavy English accent. However, if you keep your fingers over the remote volume control and the rewind button, you can stay with the story. Whether you do or not is up to you, but DON'T leave before you enjoy one of the greatest scenes in all moviedom.

There comes a time during the shooting when John Gielgud, as an anti-hunting pamphleteer, marches boldly into the line of fire and disrupts the hunt. James Mason, as the Lord of the manor, takes him aside. The conversation they have is delightful, amazing, perfectly written, perfectly acted. It is a joy. (Mason, "Ahhh, special terms.") It is the only portion of this film I have on tape!

If you enjoy movies for the magic moments they contain, as Yogi Berra once said, "Don't miss it if you can."

If you remember Upstairs/Downstairs on PBS about the two different worlds in one house in London before the Titantic sailed and barbed wire and mass slaughter decorated the landscape of Europe,then this is a perfect accomplishment. Gordon Jackson who played the butler in the series is cast here as a poacher who gets hired to become a beater, someone who rouses the targeted wildlife in this case grouse I believe into the gunsights of the "swells". The English have a love- hate relationship with that time of determined inequality; James Mason in his last role, plays the lord of the manor,an intelligent patriarch of his ancestral holdings,several steps above the stereotype of a haughty inbred weasel satirized memorably by the Monty Python crew in their "Upperclass Twit of the Year" sketch. Mason is an aristocrat with a capital A who feels it is his DUTY to be the best not an entitlement. The others in this film range from starcrossed lovers he doomed to be a casualty of 20th Century warfare,the others representing snobs,fools, frivolous yet empty souled individuals who actually believed a little bloodletting would revitalize their spirits during the hunt and the subsequent war. While they may resent the foreigners for calling the ir English lackeys peasants it is how they treat them. Except for James Mason they are his yeomen the family's men at arms who probably followed his ancestors into battle when they raised a regiment of horse or foot for whatever struggle be it against the rival Europeans,killing rebel Scots or Irish ,or tangling with those American Cousins. Watch this film and see the difference between being a star and being an actor

If you like Merchant/Ivory films, then you will also enjoy this one. It moves slowly but surely as we witness the sun setting on the aristocracy and on the British Empire, set in the microcosm of an English country estate. These people are doomed, in various ways, but, more than that, a way of life that flourished for centuries is about to be extinguished by the slaughter of WWI. James Mason is the lord of the manor and plays the part as if he were born to it. This was his last film and it makes you realize how much he is missed. Edward Fox has a field day playing the weak, tradition bound guest who can't abide being bested and Cheryl Campbell is terrific as his wayward wife. There are many good supporting roles but Gordon Jackson, as one of the "beaters" is a stand-out; his final scenes are brilliantly done. Sir John Gielgud walks through as a protester against the hunt and sparkles in that small role. It is sometimes difficult to figure out who is related to whom since there are a lot of characters, all of whom have some interrelationship. This is a beautiful film, rich in scenary and it captures a time and life that died in the trenches of the Great War. Highly recommended.

The Shooting Party is set in 1913, which is not very long ago, and yet is another world. This was the last year of the old world, and the start of the modern world. The opening narration by James Mason sets the theme: that the world of the haves and have-nots is doomed, and that the future holds great change.

This was Mason's last film, and his was a part very well suited to him. He is the great patriarch, head of the family, and benign chief of the great estate. He is not a soppy fool, but he is kind and means well to all. He invites many aristocrats to his estate for a few days of shooting, and these arrive, with their servants.

In the house, then, are representatives of much of the world at that time: the upper classes, some British, some foreign, and the lower classes, some servants, some local rustics who will be the beaters for the shoot. The film then shows us how they are all behaving.

Both the upper and the lower classes are stuck in their ways, though if anything, it is the upper class which questions whether this is the way things should be. When the shooting pauses for tea, the posh folk sit elegantly but uncomfortably in a clean white marquee, and drink from china, while the beaters look far happier drinking from mugs from a communal urn and chatting amongst themselves.

The foreign aristocrats are haughty, and annoy the British by referring to the beaters as "peasants". The British aristocrats are not happy. Two young idealists are in the agony of a forbidden love, others have sham marriages or petty rivalries.

The world is one full of love, but much of it frustrated. A boy has a pet duck, which he fears will be shot. Mason has a liking for a local poacher whom he hires as a beater, despite the contempt which the hunt master has for the man. By the end of the film, you feel great liking and sympathy for many of the characters.

To get the most from this film, some knowledge of history and British culture is required, but there is much to like in this film without these. The acting and dialogue are good, the setting atmospheric, and what is being said about the people of the time is so very fair. This film does not hammer home any of its points, but shows both the good and the bad in the characters, and lets the viewer decide.

All through the film, our present-day knowledge of the slaughter to come in the churned mud of the Somme, Ypres, Paschendale and the Dardenelles stays with us, affecting the way we perceive every nuance. The film makers were clearly aware of this, and take full advantage of it.

The ending is one of the most moving I know from any film. Simple, yet very effective.