The First of the Few

The late Gordon Mitchell told me that he was on the film set at Holmsley (New Forest) on quite a few occasions that summer and I’m pretty sure he said that was during his summer holiday from school.

A year or so later he worked on a Dorset farm and when he was old enough went in to the RAF Air Sea Rescue. So he also flew in his father’s other creation the Walrus!

Missed it, not on the I-player.

Reasonably easy to pick up on DVD.

Should be tomorrow ! 😉

Missed it, not on the I-player.

Very enjoyable viewing.

Not credited, so we can assume it was an extra / bit part, rather than a cameo.

Moggy

Apparently Gordon Mitchell had a cameo in the film; don’t remember who he plays.

It was rejected because, I believe, it wasn’t long enough for an LP to be released, so was mostly rejected.

Apparently Walton who was a very difficult composer to deal with composed the music ignoring the producers’ instructions on the length required. This is what led to its removal.

As for First of the Few it was never anything more than a wartime propaganda film. Much of the detail needed to make it historically correct would have been, in any case, probably subject to security conditions.

Having listened to the “alternative” sound track I can only be grateful that it was rejected; the downbeat darker feel that it gives the film, would have caused any young boy playing with his meccano (in front of the telly) on a Sunday night, to have an early night and, as such it probably wouldn’t be discussed here now ,the true sound track by Ron Goodwin has inspired another generation (my son) all over again.

It’s also on the alternative soundtrack on the DVD.

William Walton’s piece “War in the Air” was the only piece used in the film “Battle of Britain”, however, his complete score for the film, most of which was rejected, is now available on CD.

It was rejected because, I believe, it wasn’t long enough for an LP to be released, so was mostly rejected.

William Walton’s piece “War in the Air” was the only piece used in the film “Battle of Britain”, however, his complete score for the film, most of which was rejected, is now available on CD.

The film left an enduring piece of classical music; William Walton’s (later Sir) Spitfire Prelude and Fugue. A wonderfully evocative piece which is still perfomred occasionally. He was commissioned to write the music for the BoB film but for some reason they didn’t use it. The only other music inspired by an aircraft type, is, as far as I know, the Czech composer Bohuslav Martinu’s Thunderbolt P-47 (sic). Am not very impressed with this one. There is also the howling Stukas passage in Shostakovich’s Symphony No 7, the Leningrad.

The film was also released as “Spitfire” , possibly to the American market, ,its even edited (censored ) in places!; Henry Royce fails to remember that the Merlin was named after a bird of prey , and opts for the more predictable “mythical wizard” Didn’t Michell ,visit a clinic in Viena ,Austria after the reocurrance of the Cancer ,only to be told that it was inoperable; whilst not exactly Germany,it was a sort of annex ,if I remember correctly!!

My gripe is that things that do not affect the plot and main theme of the film are often changed, seemingly arbitrarily. I agree with you, Dave, that there seems often to be a lack of research which results in small nut niggling inaccuracies.
On a slightly different tack, I recently bought “The Aviator” DVD and have consigned it into the “twaddle” pile along with the “Pearl Harbour” remake. In fact I fell asleep halfway through!

Dave, as much as there are probably several inaccuracies in this film, I think we have to take into consideration that it was made during the Second World War (over sixty years ago) and things that nowadays are common knowledge would have been sensitive back then. That aside it would be an ideal film to remake using cgi and real aircraft, of course the real problem would be trying to make a truthful film and keep the average (non enthusiast) punter interested.

I recently saw the film The First of the Few, about Reginald Mitchell, for the first time in many years. I did a search here for the title and was amazed that it doesn’t come up. Surely it must have been discussed before?

I am very sceptical about the film. Lots of it does not add up.

For a start, am I right in thinking that Jeffrey Crisp was a completely fictional character? After all, Mutt Summers was the first person to fly the Spitfire but in the film Crisp does, and Crisp also races the Schneider Supermarines and much more, including fighting in the Battle of Britain. Surely he was just a conglomeration of several real people?

The scenes dealing with Mitchell’s illness are rubbish too. They give the impression he died from getting tired after working too hard. The word cancer never came into the script yet he suffered twice from the affliction, the second lot killing him. Were they not allowed to say the ‘c’ word then in films? Most people would have been left wondering how he actually died.

The film omitted to mention Mitchell wanted to call the plane the Shrew.

It never mentioned that he got his pilot’s licence in 1934 after his first brush with cancer, which is interesting.

The negotiations with Sir Henry (Royce?) from RR about a new engine was laughable, all the way through saying it can’t be done then agreeing as he’s seeing Mitchell out the door. Then saying “Don’t worry about the money, it always seems to come from somewhere…” or words to that effect… What? I’m sure it never happened that way. Did it? Was Sir Henry Royce barking mad?

Also regarding the aircraft, were they real Supermarine S.6’s seen in the film? I realise the flying was models but on the ground?

I liked the acting, and don’t dislike this film, but it seems wholly innaccurate and I sincerely wish someone would come along and make a new film about the life of Mitchell, without twisting facts, does anyone else agree?

Yes, Dave, you are right, the film is almost totally innaccurate in a lot of repects. However, you have to remember when the film was made and what the film’s purpose was to put it context! It was made in 1941-42 and it was primary a propaganda film, Hence, do not expect any historical accuracy. Its real purpose was to put across a message on how everybody should pull together and make every sacrifice to win the war. As for a remake, go for it. however, lets get the facts right to fit the title, which will mean some changes. Firstly the name of the Company will have to be changed to Hawkers, the name of the designer will have to be changed to Camm and we will have to call the new fighter, the Hurricane and have it win the Battle of Britian, WHICH IT DID IN REAL LIFE! (abet assisted by the Spitfire) .

For a start, am I right in thinking that Jeffrey Crisp was a completely fictional character? After all, Mutt Summers was the first person to fly the Spitfire but in the film Crisp does, and Crisp also races the Schneider Supermarines and much more, including fighting in the Battle of Britain. Surely he was just a conglomeration of several real people?

‘Geoff Crisp’ is an amalgam of the various characters who were involved in the Schneider races and the Spitfire’s development, to make the story flow easier and also not confuse the audience – although it’s not actually said whether he takes the prototype Spitfire up on its first flight (although we’re led to believe that).

Also regarding the aircraft, were they real Supermarine S.6’s seen in the film? I realise the flying was models but on the ground?

The S6 is the real thing, but the S5 is the S6 mocked up for the role.

The scenes dealing with Mitchell’s illness are rubbish too. They give the impression he died from getting tired after working too hard. The word cancer never came into the script yet he suffered twice from the affliction, the second lot killing him. Were they not allowed to say the ‘c’ word then in films? Most people would have been left wondering how he actually died.

It seems wholly innaccurate and I sincerely wish someone would come along and make a new film about the life of Mitchell, without twisting facts, does anyone else agree?

You leave out the fact that Mitchell visits Germany in the film, along with Geoff Crisp. NEVER happened – that’s confirmed by his own son in a documentary on the VHS copy I have.

The public wouldn’t be interested in all the specification/development stuff that fascinates the vast majority of us on here (IOW, what really happened). What they want is a story that excites and interests them! We could all band together nowadays and write a more accurate movie, but would it get made the way we want it? NO!

You forget that Leslie Howard not only starred in the film, but directed it, too. He would have seen fit to tell the story in a way that the public would like, not what the aviation enthusiasts want.

It’s only a film… 😉

I believe the director usually has a good hand in what the script writer does, and the producer (ie the one holding the purse strings) has an influence over everyone else in the crew. These twists happen in all such biographical films, very few escape merging of characters, or brushing over or making up of facts. I have studied a paper on this very thing at uni. Even the briliant Ghandi film had a few twists to make it more cinematically easy.

But in the case of The First of the Few, to me it seemed simply a case of they couldn’t be bothered researching the facts, and wanted instead to present some fictional romantic account of how the famous fighter came about. It’s probably good Mitchell never lived to see it.

I have always wondered whether it is the writer, producer, director or all three who tend to distort the facts in such films, where (although perhaps not a true documentary), such distortion infuriates the knowledgable and does not really seem necessary, even to entertain the general public.
While realising that films are made to make money, there seem to me at least to be many occasions when true facts are brushed aside when there is no need, and they do not affect in the least the dramatic effects obtained.
I think I’ll stick to watching proper documentaries – although they also have shortcomings!