CAN HIERONYMUS MERKIN EVER FORGET MERCY HUMP AND FIND TRUE HAPPINESS?

UK, 1969, 107 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Newley, Joan Collins, George Jessell, Milton Berle, Bruce Forsyth, Patricia Hayes, Alexander and Tara Newley.
Directed by Anthony Newley.

A fantasia-autobiographical film with an irony that Newley and Joan Collins were divorced not so long afterwards. However. the film has many interesting aspects including George Jessel as the Devil. It probably was a bit ahead of its time in its use of fantasy and invention. It does not have universal appeal but is an interesting example of popular experimental film-making and throws light on the work and career of Anthony Newley, his performances (since his childhood) and the musicals, Stop the World I Want to Get Off and The Roar of the Greasepaint.

I. How enjoyable was this comedy? The various facets for interesting audiences? Was it entertaining? For what kind of audience was the film made? why was it made?

2. The impression of the title,. it's style and meaning? The use of the language? The use of names and their sexual overtones? This as a basic expectation for the film? How appropriate, enjoyable, thematic?

3. How important was the film’s use of colour, location photography, fantasy styles, the use of songs and the lyrics for themes, the musical background, the musical kinds of comedy and patter? How well did they all combine? Was the film stylish or pretentious?

4. The device of a film within a film? How well-used? How involving of the audience in Hieronymus's life and its meaning? The fact that it was a process and more reels were needed before it ended? The distancing technique, the audience knowing they are watching a film? The use of techniques of film-making to highlight themes? was this unobtrusive, too obtrusive, just right for this kind of film ?

5. The film was autobiographical in style. How did it retain interest in its central character? Was he a hero? Anthony Newley and his personality? The cover of Hieronymus Merkin? What type was he? Did the film justify his right to show us his life? Justify interest in his life for an audience? The value of his life? The device used was very much like a sex movie. The implications of this?

6. What kind of personality did Hieronymus Merkin have? As he showed it? What were the positive attitudes? How could he be condemned? How much self-criticism? The use of the clown, the mime, the Everyman figure, the Everyman in the rather confused 20th century? The man who has some kind of meaning but is unable to find it?

7. The man who continually makes mistakes and hurts others? Was this well communicated? Which devices helped particularly?

8. Hieronymus as explained by his past? The presence of his mother and her adulation? Her uncritical praise and the memories of the past? The influence and significance of Uncle Limelight? The gradual build-up of life as burlesque, modern morality play? The significance of Eddie Filth and the devil figure? How evil was Filth? His being a procurer? Was this the appropriate emphasis on the devil and his evil? The contrast with the presence and his humour? Was he an angel figure? The angel of death and fear? The function of temptations for Hieronymus? An adequate symbol for life?

9. Audience sympathy for Filigre? Her marriage to Hieronymus? The shot-gun marriage and the repercussions? Children? Hieronymus and responsibility and shirking responsibility?

10. Polyester as attractive? (Anthony Newley's actual wife?) Polyester as a temptation, as an alternative to Filigre? What attracted him? His sense of responsibility and selfishness?

11. Mercy Humpe as a symbol of young sexuality? The picturing of her in fantasy? What did this reveal about Hieronymus and his drives and ambitions? his selfishness, his capacity to relate? Would he find true happiness with her?

12. The role of the children in the film? A sense of reality and responsibility? The fact that they are watching the film? The presence of the grandmother, Filigre? Polyester?

13. The significance of the writers and the critics present at the film? Satire on their protestations? The type of dialogue, the type of caricature? Their influence on Hieronymus? As temptations for his art and work against reality and responsibility?

14. The quality of the dialogue, the quality of the songs and their significance, their staging? The use of circus and clowns?

15. The comparison is made with Fellini. Is this adequate? The fantasy devices for film as introduced by Fellini? Their use here? Original or derivative? Does this matter?

16. The critics were strongly against the film, condemning it as pretentious. They said Anthony Newley was self indulgent. How true is this?

17. What possibilities did the film open up in terms of fantasy and autobiography: realistic presentation of life, the use of cinema techniques for realism and fantasy and their intermingling? The fact that the film was unfinished and more life had to be led?

18. Was this a valid means of insight into modern people and their predicaments?