"Screen One" Hancock (TV Episode 1991) Poster

(TV Series)

(1991)

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Vivid Dramatization of Tony Hancock's Tragic Decline and Fall
l_rawjalaurence9 March 2016
Tony Hancock's fall from grace during the Sixties has been well documented. From the heights of HANCOCK in 1961, including such classics as "The Blood Donor," he made two indifferent films (THE REBEL and THE PUNCH AND JUDY MAN), abandoned his regular script- writers Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, moved from the BBC to ITV, made a series of abortive comebacks on stage and television, and eventually committed suicide at the age of forty-four in Australia.

Throughout that period he had become a hopeless alcoholic, repeatedly going on and falling off the wagon, and in the process being abandoned by two wives, Cicely and Freddie. In the end he was almost completely self-destructive in his fruitless search for more "truthful" forms of comedy.

William Humble's script chronicles this process of decline in faithful fashion. As portrayed (quite uncannily brilliantly) by Alfred Molina, Hancock comes across as a thoroughly dislikeable person blessed with phenomenal talent but pathologically unable to relate to those around him. Even his closest friends such as John le Mesurier (portrayed rather inaccurately by Malcolm Sinclair) can do little or nothing to help him. It was as if Hancock had a mental self-destruct mechanism inside him; dissatisfied with his almost continual run of success from the mid-Fifties until the early Sixties, he was always looking for the unreachable.

Tony Smith's SCREEN ONE production vividly represents the televisual and cinematic worlds of the time, especially in Britain. Most of the productions were relentlessly small-scale, appealing to local audiences (or audiences with some British blood in them); they were hardly likely to exert transatlantic appeal. Hancock was well aware of such limitations, but possessed neither the personality nor the staying-power to build himself a reputation in America. Cast as the third lead in a Disney production as an aging actor, he was summarily replaced during filming, on account of being perceived as being an alcoholic and proving "difficult" on set. As portrayed in this film, there was a considerable amount of truth in both charges: Hancock behaved rather like a spoiled child, unaware (or perhaps unwilling to acknowledge) that he was working in a foreign country.

The production ends with Hancock, increasingly isolated and bereft of hope, answering questions in desultory fashion from the Australian press, on arrival for his last (and unfinished) television series in 1968. As he burbles on about future plans, including pantomime, summer seasons and (most ludicrously) a version of KING LEAR, we understand just how desperate he had become; well aware of his shortcomings, he could see no other course but to end his life.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Powerful and Affecting Portrait of a Lost Talent
JamesHitchcock23 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The end of the BBC's long-running "Play for Today" series in 1984 did not mark the end of its commitment to one-off dramas. "Play for Today" was replaced by "Screen One" and "Screen Two", intended (as the names suggest) to compete with the rival Channel Four's "Film Four" series. Whereas most of the "Plays for Today" had been shot in a studio and averaged between 60 and 90 minutes in length, "Screen One" and "Screen Two" dramas- the name varied according to whether they were shown on BBC1 or BBC2- were, like their "Film Four" equivalents, television films rather than television plays, making greater use of location shooting and longer, of a comparable length to feature films.

"Hancock", a Screen One production from 1991, is a biopic of the English comedian and actor Tony Hancock (1924 -1968), and concentrates on the last few years of his life, when his career was in decline. Between 1954 and 1961, when he was the star of the highly popular BBC series "Hancock's Half Hour", broadcast first on the radio and then on television, he was one of the best known and best loved entertainers in Britain. This series came to an end in 1961, and he never found anything to replace it. He starred in two British films, but neither was a great success, and his attempt to break into Hollywood ended in failure when he was sacked from his role in "The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin". He moved to work in Australia but, disillusioned with the way his career was going, committed suicide in Sydney in June 1968.

The film portrays Hancock as an essentially self-destructive figure. His two main problems were alcoholism and a tendency to fall out with those around him, even if they had played an important part in his success. He broke with his comedy partner Sid James (later to find fame in the "Carry On" films) who had co-starred in the earlier episodes of "Hancock's Half Hour" and who had previously regarded him as a personal friend. In career terms Hancock survived this rupture, as some of the episodes he made after James's departure (such as "The Blood Donor") are regarded as comedy classics, but the real setback came when he broke with his scriptwriters Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, a breach which brought "Hancock's Half Hour" to an end.

According to the film, the cause of the breach was Hancock's dissatisfaction with the sort of comedy he was producing, which he saw as too characteristically British and too provincial, revolving as it did around a character who lived at "23 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam". (The character was tellingly a struggling comedian and actor named Anthony Hancock). He had ambitions to produce what he described as "universal comedy" which would have more international appeal, but he never seemed able to work out what this "universal comedy" would look like. His heavy drinking and quarrelsome nature also affected his personal relationships; both his marriages ended in divorce.

I am too young to remember Hancock in his prime, and he has never been a figure in whom I have taken a great interest, although I have occasionally seen some of the surviving episodes of "Hancock's Half Hour" when they have been repeated on television. (Many were destroyed under the BBC's short-sighted policy of "wiping" the tapes of old TV programmes). I was therefore surprised by how strongly affected I was by this film when I recently saw it for the first time. (I evidently missed it in 1991).

The strength of the film is largely down to the powerful central performance from Alfred Molina, who brings out both sides of Hancock's personality. On the one hand, he must have been absolutely exasperating, difficult either to work with or to live with. On the other, we realise that, if not quite the genius he believed himself to be, he was a man of great talent whose tragedy was that, after a period of success, his talent was largely wasted. Molina seems to have a gift for portraying real-life individuals; the other two films in which he greatly impressed me were "Prick up Your Ears!" in which he played Joe Orton's lover Kenneth Halliwell and "Frida" in which he played the Mexican painter Diego Rivera.

Not all the contributions were in the same class; Malcolm Sinclair never seemed convincing, in looks, voice or manner, as Hancock's close friend the actor John le Mesurier (Sergeant Wilson from "Dad's Army"). Overall, however, I found this a powerful and affecting drama. 8/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good for Molina Bad for Hancock.....
jefadlm-111 March 2021
To his credit Molina did not attempt the voice ,! I am not so sure about his body language either ! In short, the actor did a good albeit forgettable job. The incidents and discussions may have been true in their telling ? Frankly this film was, fo me a failure as it is so minimal and weak as to not worth testing my patience . In his time he had been a very funny man, as in his numerous 30 minute radio B X s when his brilliant actors voice flexibly gave us the comical voices from audible amazement, stress, horror, abject fear and humorous compassion for the underdog, which inevitably was always his situation ! This film displays none of those important elements all of which brought him the fame and fortune which he never acknowledged as of any significance ! He also had a long running tv series which again left him unconvinced , irrespective of his utter brilliant portrayals of his unique world with which in all those series he was the butt of everyones major joke ! This film fails for any viewer hoping for any happy reminiscences of those long lost days of mirth.

At this point I profusely apologize to IMDB for this lack of a true review . As we can all see, there are only 3 previous reviews all correctly claiming their individual interests and valid opinions . Clearly any Brits may like myself have viewed this film for about 15 or 20 minutes and given up for the reasons mentioned above . I do genuinely appreciate Molina and have seen many examples of excellence from him, which this is also in terms of good acting, which personally , had I been asked would have advised his agent to dissuade him from this role . In conclusion, British film makers have either bravely or stupidly attempted to revive many media artists , after they had past and in my opinion inevitably failed to truly capture any of them giving their audience something of historic accurate value ? Even on the rare occasional look alike with a reasonably acceptable well mimicked voice , or if not using the real artist which very often had copyright problems banning that solution, leaving either another to do the voice if the actor failed to get it the way producers required . A very sensitive and challenging heart rending time for all concerned . Michael ....BOOKMAN ........
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Molina is superb
nova-6330 July 2011
Now as far as film making goes this made for TV drama is quite exceptional. Molina is brilliant playing one of Britain's most famous comedians. However, the fans of Tony Hancock should be warned, this film is a portrait of the troubled man behind the legend. I have no idea how close to the truth this films is, but Hancock is not portrayed in a favourable light. This film suggests that Hancock had a drinking problem and that the talent of the famous TV show was in the scripts. These points of view are sure to anger some of Hancock's fans.

We have a TV movie biography of one of Britain's famous funny men. A viewer might expect a light-hearted romp. That is the furthest from the truth. One may not like the approach of the film makers, yet there is no denying that this is a compelling show, well above the average.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
no actor could emulate Hancock's genius
davidxryan12 November 2003
This was a failure because of (i) the join-the-dots script, (ii) Alfred Molina's valiant but doomed attempt to recreate a comedy legend and (iii) the hilariously bad portrayal of the inimitable John Le Mesurier. Read the biographies instead.
7 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worth it to see Molina, not to learn about Tony Hancock.
vonnoosh15 August 2021
Alfred Molina managed to convincingly play a comedian who died 25 years earlier and was more than a half a foot shorter than him. I like the blend of humor and drama and in a purely fictional sense, this is a good movie to watch if you want to understand clinical depression which is the most accurate thing about this biopic. I remember reading that Spike Milligan once said of Tony Hancock that he was a man who got rid of everyone in his life and that eventually he was going to get rid of himself. No truer words sum up severe depression. That is why group therapy is key for treating the illness instead of just drugs , people who are sick tend to isolate themselves and it's better they share their ordeal if only to remember they're not unique with it. Misery doesn't necessarily love company, many prefer to cut themselves off and suffer alone until they can't bear it anymore.

The tv movie gets several things wrong while trying to be totally accurate in other ways. It starts with a good rendition of the Blood Donor, a snippet of Hancock's standup act, a scene from the Punch and Judy Man. It misrepresents The Festival Hall show which implies he forgot the whole thing and did his old stuff to fill time. The biggest issue people have with this is how it implies Galton and Simpson quit working woth Tony Hancock when the truth was Hancock fired them. There is a scene in a cab toward the end which sounds like it came entirely from a line from the one man play The Last Half Hour. I picked up a few other things that originally was in the one man play but in a different context.

Biopics are lousy if you think they are faithful interpretations of reality. I remember Harold H Corbett's daughter's reaction to the Steptoe and Son biopic. Again, it was hardly a faithful interpretation of reality. Dramatic license gets stretched a little more every year for the sake of sensationalism and laziness on the part of the script writer.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed