Film Review - Mutiny on the Buses

The 1972 British feature film Mutiny on the Buses has long been regarded as essentially a post-Existentialist re evaluation of the major theories of Jean-Paul Sartre that simultaneously presented a neo-Marxist critique of contempary British society. This however is a gross over simplification of the film’s true worth and now almost all critics recognise the essential Post-Modern influences upon it.

The original basis for the film was of a modern setting for one of Euripides Greek tragedies. In Mutiny on the Buses true empathy is felt for the character of bus driver Stan Butler whose forlorn attempts to marry his fiancée Susy, represents the classic tragedy. Stan’s Brother-in-law, Arthur of course represents Stan’s mirror image in a true Lacanian psychological interpretation of the film.

The essence of the film is the questioning of the very existence of humanity itself and the audience is always left wondering if Stan is really just imagining the character of Inspector Blake and if so is he really a bus driver at all.

Many symposia have since been organised by Feminists with the aim of discussing whether or not the character of Stan’s sister Olive is actually a second wave feminist or a third wave feminist. No definitive conclusion has ever been reached on this point although it is almost universally agreed that Stan’s Mother is essentially to be regarded as being influenced by second wave French Feminism.

However a feminist critique of Mutiny on the Buses has always been considered as largely secondary to an essentially Existentialist examination of it. Most Existentialist critiques focus on the fire drill scene in which Blakey falls into an inspection pit that he was unable to see because it was covered with foam from a fire extinguisher. This is the crucial point of the whole film. If Blakey did not exist then how could he fall into the pit? However, a deeper reading is required to examine the alluded to though never specified question of whether or not the pit existed. Post –Existentialists will point out that Blakey may have been unaware of the pit’s existence and therefore fell into it but if the pit did not exist then he could not have fallen into it. We are therefore left with the only logical conclusion the Blakey took the original Existentialist position that the pit did not exist but that Stan Butler was aware all along of the reality of the pit. Unless of course (as has since been extensively argued) Blakey was merely a figment of Stan’s imagination and thus neither he nor the pit ever existed at all. This also calls into question whether or not Stan was even a bus driver. (However, we are now getting into deeper waters than this review is intended for).

Of course it goes without saying that the pit is intended to be merely allegorical and is a representation of Dante’s Inferno and was interpreted by Marxists as a fundamental critique of early 1970s Capitalism. It is also taken for granted that Blakey’s oft repeated utterance “I hate you Butler” is a classic example of Freudian Displacement Behaviour and that Blakey is really consumed by self loathing as a result of premature exposure to cats as an infant.

The film’s follow up Holiday on the Buses (1973) is regarded as a counter argument against the Post-Modern neo-culture of the time. For many the appearance of Arthur Mullard as Wally Briggs was a subtle nod in the direction of a post-constructionalist dialogue initiated with the audience by the film’s makers. Mullard had long been established as a preeminent critic of Jacques Derrida the French deconstructionist philosopher. The scene where Briggs (Mullard) emerges from his chalet toilet and announces to his wife that smoke is emerging from the lavatory pan represents the denouement of all Derridas’s ideas and constructs. This is because the audience know what Briggs does not – namely that the reason for the smoke was Stan Butlers dropping of a lit cigarette down his own chalet toilet which contained petrol. It is also no coincidence either that Blakey was walking past a drain cover at the time which exploded.

Debate about these films will rage on for decades and no doubt academics will never truly reach a consensus. We must alas content ourselves with the knowledge that such an iconoclastic example of cinematography is ours to cherish.

I just thought it was cack.

Arthur............:hihi:Bob Grant,what alooker.

Arthur............:hihi:Bob Grant,what alooker.

be careful his big toothed spirit might be paying you a visit when your in bed with the lights off:D

I 'ate you Butler errrrr

http://astro.ic.ac.uk/~mortlock/remnants/2005/2007/blakey_big.jpg

My Ma took me to see it at the pictures. I feel it had less transitional form than the Steptoe and Son film out at the same time.

What about the even more highbrow Carry On films?

any film that has Reg Varney as a sex symbol must be really scapping the bottom of the pile

any film that has Reg Varney as a sex symbol must be really scapping the bottom of the pile

A sex symbol who is old enough to be the father of the objects of his affection, and still lives with his mum and sister!

Great review Sid!

Brilliant write-up! Really made me giggle.