Howard Spring (1889-1965) was one of a number of British novelists from the early twentieth century who were regarded as literary heavyweights in their own day but who are today largely forgotten; this film is based on one of his novels. It is the biography of a fictitious politician named Hamer Radshaw, born into a working-class Manchester family around 1860. It follows his career first as a Labour party activist, then as an MP and finally a Cabinet minister. Intertwined with his story are the stories of two of his boyhood friends, Arnold Ryerson and Tom Hannaway. Ryerson also becomes involved in Labour politics, but Hannaway, starting off as the proprietor of a small greengrocer's shop, eventually becomes a wealthy businessman and a leading light in the Conservative Party.
Ryerson, who shares his friend's views but lacks his charisma and gift for oratory, can be seen as Radshaw's political conscience. At first it is Ryerson who is the more moderate of the two; during a miners' strike in South Wales Ryerson tries in vain to tone down Radshaw's fiery rhetoric which he believes (with good reason) is likely to incite violence. Later, however, Radshaw abandons his radical principles for more centrist ones, while Ryerson remains true to his original ideals. Radshaw opposes the idea of votes for women, although his wife Ann is a fervent supporter, supports Britain's entry into the First World War, something to which Ryerson is strongly opposed, and in 1931 follows Ramsay MacDonald into the National Government with the Conservatives and Liberals. This last is seen by Ryerson as the ultimate betrayal which finally ends the friendship between the two men. After losing his parliamentary seat in the 1935 election, Radshaw ends up accepting a peerage. The title "Fame is the Spur" is a quotation from Milton's "Lycidas", but Spring may have chosen it to indicate that his hero was spurred on by a desire for fame rather than by genuine idealism.
The conflict between the radical and moderate wings of the Labour Party has been a constant factor in British politics in recent years; think of the breakaway SDP in the eighties or the struggles between "Old" and "New" Labour in the nineties. This film shows that this conflict is nothing new and was going on even in the early twentieth century. Even in his later years Radshaw continues to think of himself as a Socialist rather than a Conservative or Liberal, and he firmly believes that everything he has done has served to further the cause of the common man.
The film is notable for a striking performance from Michael Redgrave, one of Britain's leading stars during this period, as Radshaw. Redgrave, who was 39 at the time the film was made, was required to age from a young man of 20 to an old man in his seventies, and manages to portray both with equal skill. He is also well able to convey Radshaw's charisma and skill as an orator. Spring's novel was said to be based on the career of Ramsey Macdonald, and in the later scenes Redgrave does indeed bear a certain resemblance to that statesman.
Not all the acting performances are as good as Redgrave's. Bernard Miles, for example, seems to have had as much trouble with a Lancashire accent as Hannaway as he did with a Kentish one in "Great Expectations". (Here he sounds more like a Geordie and in "Great Expectations" more like someone from the West Country).
The main problem with the film, however, is that it is too episodic. Some of the episodes, indeed, are well done, particularly the scenes of the by-election and of the riot during the miners' strike, but there are too many gaps in the hero's career for the narrative to flow at all smoothly. For example, the story leaps forward from the 1890s, when we see Radshaw as a young, newly elected MP, to 1912, without any explanation of what has happened in the intervening twenty years. During this period Radshaw appears to have become not only influential but also wealthy, but we are never told how he acquired his wealth. In this era of the overblown blockbuster it might seem strange to complain that a film is too short, but "Fame is the Spur" is one that might have been improved by the insertion of some extra material. This could have been the great British political epic, but falls just short. 6/10
A strange coincidence. In Spring's novel, written in 1940, the hero was named Hamer Shawcross. By the time this film was made in 1947 a real politician named Hartley Shawcross- not a common surname in Britain- had been elected to Parliament, so the film-makers decided to change the name of the central character. In many ways, however, Hartley Shawcross's career paralleled that of his fictitious namesake. His Lancashire constituency was named St Helen's; the fictional constituency in the novel, also in Lancashire, was named St Swithin's. Hartley Shawcross started off as a left-wing Socialist but became disillusioned with left-wing politics, moving steadily to the right, and was nicknamed "Shortly Floorcross" because many expected him to join the Conservatives. In the end he did not do so, but resigned from Parliament in 1958. He later joined the centrist SDP and, like Hamer Shawcross, ended his days as a peer.
A goof. Radshaw is shown as a Labour government minister in 1927. The Labour Party, in fact, was in opposition in this year, during the period of the 1924-1929 Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin.
Ryerson, who shares his friend's views but lacks his charisma and gift for oratory, can be seen as Radshaw's political conscience. At first it is Ryerson who is the more moderate of the two; during a miners' strike in South Wales Ryerson tries in vain to tone down Radshaw's fiery rhetoric which he believes (with good reason) is likely to incite violence. Later, however, Radshaw abandons his radical principles for more centrist ones, while Ryerson remains true to his original ideals. Radshaw opposes the idea of votes for women, although his wife Ann is a fervent supporter, supports Britain's entry into the First World War, something to which Ryerson is strongly opposed, and in 1931 follows Ramsay MacDonald into the National Government with the Conservatives and Liberals. This last is seen by Ryerson as the ultimate betrayal which finally ends the friendship between the two men. After losing his parliamentary seat in the 1935 election, Radshaw ends up accepting a peerage. The title "Fame is the Spur" is a quotation from Milton's "Lycidas", but Spring may have chosen it to indicate that his hero was spurred on by a desire for fame rather than by genuine idealism.
The conflict between the radical and moderate wings of the Labour Party has been a constant factor in British politics in recent years; think of the breakaway SDP in the eighties or the struggles between "Old" and "New" Labour in the nineties. This film shows that this conflict is nothing new and was going on even in the early twentieth century. Even in his later years Radshaw continues to think of himself as a Socialist rather than a Conservative or Liberal, and he firmly believes that everything he has done has served to further the cause of the common man.
The film is notable for a striking performance from Michael Redgrave, one of Britain's leading stars during this period, as Radshaw. Redgrave, who was 39 at the time the film was made, was required to age from a young man of 20 to an old man in his seventies, and manages to portray both with equal skill. He is also well able to convey Radshaw's charisma and skill as an orator. Spring's novel was said to be based on the career of Ramsey Macdonald, and in the later scenes Redgrave does indeed bear a certain resemblance to that statesman.
Not all the acting performances are as good as Redgrave's. Bernard Miles, for example, seems to have had as much trouble with a Lancashire accent as Hannaway as he did with a Kentish one in "Great Expectations". (Here he sounds more like a Geordie and in "Great Expectations" more like someone from the West Country).
The main problem with the film, however, is that it is too episodic. Some of the episodes, indeed, are well done, particularly the scenes of the by-election and of the riot during the miners' strike, but there are too many gaps in the hero's career for the narrative to flow at all smoothly. For example, the story leaps forward from the 1890s, when we see Radshaw as a young, newly elected MP, to 1912, without any explanation of what has happened in the intervening twenty years. During this period Radshaw appears to have become not only influential but also wealthy, but we are never told how he acquired his wealth. In this era of the overblown blockbuster it might seem strange to complain that a film is too short, but "Fame is the Spur" is one that might have been improved by the insertion of some extra material. This could have been the great British political epic, but falls just short. 6/10
A strange coincidence. In Spring's novel, written in 1940, the hero was named Hamer Shawcross. By the time this film was made in 1947 a real politician named Hartley Shawcross- not a common surname in Britain- had been elected to Parliament, so the film-makers decided to change the name of the central character. In many ways, however, Hartley Shawcross's career paralleled that of his fictitious namesake. His Lancashire constituency was named St Helen's; the fictional constituency in the novel, also in Lancashire, was named St Swithin's. Hartley Shawcross started off as a left-wing Socialist but became disillusioned with left-wing politics, moving steadily to the right, and was nicknamed "Shortly Floorcross" because many expected him to join the Conservatives. In the end he did not do so, but resigned from Parliament in 1958. He later joined the centrist SDP and, like Hamer Shawcross, ended his days as a peer.
A goof. Radshaw is shown as a Labour government minister in 1927. The Labour Party, in fact, was in opposition in this year, during the period of the 1924-1929 Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin.