The London Nobody Knows

20080319thelondonnobodyknows.jpg
We’re losing our cultural backwaters: those undefinable nooks, crannies and dead ends, the quirks of our national existence that only ever gained our attention as a source of low-level irritation until we began to notice them by their absence. The deadbeat, knackered parts of town to whose alien strangeness we had become contemptuously familiarised. The empty, crap Sundays that spread before us, as bland and dissatisfying as a potted meat sandwich (white sliced bread obligatory). Thin, yeasty beer sold in plastic bottles and metallic cans. Television test cards. Co-op stamps.
Slowly but surely these eccentricities became homogenised, commercialised, gentrified, monetised – all in the name of progress. Now every day is the same, every hour is the same, every town is the same. This relentless surge forward frequently feels like the adrenaline-crazed, sugar-fuelled rush of a sub-adolescent society uneasy in its own skin; scared to be without anything to do, driven mad by the sound of silence, taunted by the subliminal, corrosive crackling of time moving ceaselessly onwards to the ticking accompaniment of the death watch beetle’s mating call.
Back in a distant era of three TV channels and four national radio stations, the quantity – if not quality – of original broadcast material was much lower than today. Endless classic film repeats jostled in the off-peak TV schedules with quirkier fare like the slapstick of Sykes’ The Plank and the whimsy of Betjeman’s Metro-land. I fancy that I also once saw the infinitely stranger spectacle of an intriguing, almost hallucinatory late 1960s documentary about aspects of post-war London that were even then disappearing. This might be a false memory*, but even so it’s a fitting one.
Fronted somewhat incongruously by James Mason, The London Nobody Knows has finally received its debut release on DVD. Unavailable commercially for many years, the film developed a cult following. You could only see it by booking a private showing at the BFI, or cadging a video copy from one of its many aficionados. Until recently, it too seemed to be destined for the very same fate as many of the obscurities whose disappearances it had described so vividly: a slow decline in the collective memory and a final passing into folklore upon its dissolution and disintegration.
Beginning with the striking image of a pickaxe head sinking into the ground, the documentary slips behind the Swinging London of thronging shopping streets (which look predictably quaint to modern eyes) and sleek new tower blocks, to portray an older, more arcane city whose sprawling, depressive anarchy is as pervasive as the murky, black Thames at its heart. Surveying a cast of comedy buskers, mournful lamplighters, budget Houdinis, pie & mash eaters and eel skinners, this London seems populated entirely by grotesques. Even its children have a baleful, demonic presence.
The film depicts much for urban historians to savour. The Roundhouse in Camden was at this point purely a piece of decaying railway architecture – derelict and empty since before the Second World War – and had yet to stage its legendary concerts by Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin or The Doors. Reference is made to the demolition of the old Euston station a few years previously, but the new station is still unopened. Broad Street is mentioned in passing as just another London rail terminus, although by this time it was already in decline and would close for good within twenty years.
Footage taken by the Thames shows a working river of docks and wharves. A visit to an East End funeral parlour looks more like a scene out of a Dickens period drama than a functioning business of the late 1960s. Pubs serve draught pints of Watney’s Red Barrel. Head-scarved women and flat-capped men eat plates of indefinable greyish-brown sludge in backstreet cafes. At Islington’s Chapel Market, the crowd members’ nervous glances at the camera betray an unease light-years away from today’s ethos of constant surveillance and incessant YouTube self-promotion.
Invoking the spirits of Marie Lloyd and Walter Sickert, Mason stands in the decaying ruins of the Bedford Theatre in Camden, his habitual clipped tones observing that the building’s tragedy was not that it had fallen into disuse, but that it had remained standing, unloved and decrepit, for so long. This attitude – possibly characteristic of the generally modernist spirit of the film’s times – sets up a paradox that the documentary never quite resolves. Is this a loving homage to the remnants of a dying era, or merely a gleeful dance on its rotting cadaver before the bulldozers move in?
Mason clearly approves of “seedy terraces [that] are coming up in the world, after years of neglect”, though only minutes later he warns against falling for the curious appeal of these “crumbling images of the past… we’d be foolish to mourn them too readily”. Yet the film is continually haunted by the spirit of the music hall, which recurs in its choices of the music, architecture and performers that it depicts. The narrative tone is similarly ambiguous; is it jokey and familiar, or elegaic and nostalgia-tinged? Its occasional flashes of exasperated impatience never make this entirely clear.
A visit to a Salvation Army hostel appears more socially concerned. Accompanied by beautiful and melancholic photography of its occupants, Mason seems genuinely to share in the frustration of men unable to gain employment simply because of their address. However, when the camera moves on to cover those less fortunate – a reminder that you rarely see tramps drinking bottles of purple meths these days – the scenes of confused, piss-soaked and clearly mentally ill homeless Londoners seem altogether more exploitative; an apparently spontaneous fight scene looks suspiciously staged.
Towards the end of the film, as he visits Spitalfields, the biggest difference between late 1960s and mid 2000s attitudes to the urban environment becomes apparent. In Fournier Street, older neighbours of the woman whose house he enters – in all its shocking, black, bleak squalor – can still remember the later Jack the Ripper murders. He describes these terraced streets as “out of date, inefficient, taking up too much space” and contrasts them with the concrete tower blocks that provide outdoor, green space for a notably multi-racial gaggle of young children to play in.
In mock-lamenting the decline of the older streets, he makes what is probably the most telling observation of the film:

“… there’s no need to be too sad about it because, after all, most of Victorian London was fairly hideous. And we can also console ourselves with the knowledge that the same fate attends our least favourite modern monstrosities.”

And there you have it. This blunt attitude is anathema to the modern way of thinking, in which the reverential and occasionally fetishistic preservation of “period features” is generally the over-riding consideration where Victoriana is concerned. These days Fournier Street is lovingly restored and priced out of the reach of mere mortals, whereas the tower blocks that Mason admired are now reviled, their once shiny futures tarnished by the realities of gritty economic conundrums never factored into the lofty ambitions and idealistic dreams of their original planners.
If this film has any underlying philosophy, it seems to be sic transit gloria mundi: thus fades the glory of the world. How very appropriate. Fashions ebb and flow like the tides on the banks of the Thames and the only constant is change. The tranquil obscurity of the backwaters has had its day and now the spirit of the age is for commonality and motion, for stirring things up, for getting them out into the open, for speed and display. I might mourn what we’ve lost with a little more sentimentality than Mason, but at the same time I can’t deny the thrills that this age of constant stimulation provides.
For every music hall that falls to rubble and dust, a mythology of ghosts arises. For every filled hour in the TV schedules, a new strand of tradition is woven. What now seems commonplace – mundane and ugly, even – will one day be strange and fantastic; in a hundred years’ time, my spiritual successors will no doubt lament the destruction of the superb 1960s architecture of the second Euston station. I hope that they too will have access to the fascinating historical jetsam of The London Nobody Knows, which provides an enduring reminder of the ephemerality of much that surrounds us.
* possibly as a result of reading this four and a half years ago

This entry was posted in Favourites, Popular. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The London Nobody Knows

  1. John says:

    What a fantastic review of this curious film, which I’ve just seen on DVD for the first time.
    Funny when you google something that’s just baffled you, looking for some sort of explanation, and you come across something that seems to echo exactly what you’re thinking. That’s just good writing, I guess.
    This piece perfectly describes the film, which is excellent, paradoxical, modernist, confusing, but basically fairly fascinating.
    James Mason is so classy as he wanders in and out of frame, casually strolling through the streets of London with his brolly, but you’re never quite sure what his position is on all he sees. It’s like a walk as a child with an old uncle around town, where you never quite knew how he’s feeling, but you know he’s feeling something.
    Obviously a fairly cutting edge documentary for it’s time, it has dated in the same charming way our host’s views and opinions have, twice removing us from what we’re seeing on screen, but nonetheless engaging anyone who has an interest in the great city, and doubly so if you happen to be a fan of James Mason, as I am!
    Great film, and great review of it.

  2. Hg says:

    Thanks John, glad that my words struck a chord. It’s such a good film, I can watch it again and again. One of my idle fantasies is to film a follow-up, documenting the everyday quirks of contemporary London for posterity… I find myself considering lists of what would need to be included.
    I also kick myself for not having been into photography when I first moved to London in the mid-80s. A friend and I used to wander around the Docklands, watching the area being demolished and re-built. The significance of what i was witnessing didn’t hit me until several years later.

  3. John says:

    You should try living in Dublin! Which was systematically destroyed during the recession of the 1980s by unscrupulous property developers, who used to let their Georgian properties (bought up for a song in the 70s), fall into ruin so as to be condemned. That, or burning the buildings down during the night. The whole of our north-side quays were destroyed in this way, and rebuilt during the early nineties- probably the worst decade for architecture in Ireland, leaving the entire quays looking like a sort of weird toy town. Some little footage of the city remains, and I’ve often thought of doing a doc on old Dublin, as I’m a film maker myself. In fact, when I look back on my own early footage of Dublin from when I was starting shooting on VHS, it’s amazing how much the city has changed, even in the last twenty years. I now sound like my own father, bemoaning the Dublin of the 1950s! History just keeps repeating itself I guess.
    Anyway, thanks again for your insightful words on the film, both of which I’ve been circulating amongst my friends.
    (And doing a follow up film, is a great idea, and you should most certainly go ahead with it!)
    John.
    P.S. As a matter of interest, what is the “green-roofed” building beside St. Paul’s that James Mason writes off with a “Yik!” in the film??

  4. Hg says:

    Aha… Dublin has a special place in my affections. Dunno if this name means anything to you, but I’ve been a Virgin Prunes fan since my mid-teens and the place held a mysterious allure for me. I first visited it in 1989 and have been back numerous times since, watching it change over the past couple of decades in exactly the way you describe.
    You might be interested in this.
    No time right now, but I’ll try and check out the green-roofed building for you over the next few days.

  5. Hg says:

    OK, this was fun. I used a mixture of Flickr pics and Google Maps (both in satellite mode and using street view) and eventually tracked it down… it’s the Faraday Building at 160 Queen Victoria Street. Here’s a fairly good picture.

  6. John says:

    The Green-Roofed building!
    That’s exactly it!
    I must check it out the next time I’m in London. It hasn’t dated quite as badly as James Mason might have imagined, perhaps… (?)
    Thanks for looking it up.
    And yes, indeed, I know the Virgin Prunes, as I used to play in a band myself, called The Frames. (much later- in the early 90s.)
    I don’t know any of them personally, but they’re somewhat of a legend here still, and were great, though somewhat of a best-kept secret. So many interesting Irish bands from that era that were all dwarfed (unintentionally, of course), out of popular memory by U2.
    Most of the allure of the 80′s you mention is sadly fading here, (did you visit the Dandelion Market when you were here?), but there are still pockets of it left, on the North side of the city more than the south. Though most of the faded dance halls, reconverted into rock clubs of the seventies and eighties are pretty much all gone without a trace! Sad. And no iphones, or digital camera footage to remember them by.
    If you’re a Prunes fan, then, you will surely love the Undertones, and more obscurely, The Blades, who were from Ringsend? Or the Golden Horde?
    All worth a look, for nostalgia, if nothing else!
    Regards,
    John.

  7. Hg says:

    I quite like that Faraday building, to be honest. It seems to be quite plain and classically styled. I suppose if you were being critical, you could say it was bland minimalism. As I said in the review, that’s the conundrum with Mason’s commentary – you never really seem to know where he’s coming from. (And how much of it is his own viewpoint, as opposed to a script that he was provided with.)
    I know of The Frames but don’t really know much about them/you. I’ll do a bit of research. This clarifies your “I’m a film maker myself” comment above… assuming I’m on the right lines, I’ve seen one of your films (at least once!) and it was lovely.
    Never heard of The Blades, but I know the Golden Horde. Not really my kind of thing, but I checked them out when Gavin Friday did some stuff with Simon Carmody in the late 80s. And as for the Undertones… my wife’s from Derry, so say no more :-)
    I think the Dandelion Market might have been before my time, or at least if it was still going when I first visited Dublin I had no clue about it.
    Gone without a trace and no documentation… yeah, I don’t really know how I feel about that. See a few of my blog posts around the start of this year, in which I was pondering this theme. Should we document everything (the instinctive assumption of the writer, film maker, photographer, and so on), or is it actually healthier to let things slip away and not try to hold onto them? After forty years, I still really have no clue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>