Tony Hancock’s film “REBEL” was made in 1961.
Hancock played a clerk in London, who imagined himself a sculptor in the mould of Rodin, if you’ll forgive the pun. So he puts away his striped trousers, black coat and bowler hat and takes himself off to Paris, adopts a bohemian lifestyle and imagines himself leading the avant garde.
The scene I most enjoyed had him explaining to his new (younger) friends how restricted was his former existence in conservative, conformist London. Those friends professed themselves shocked. And all of them were dressed in identical black polo-necked sweaters, and their haircuts were also identical. It was the existentialist mode of the apostles of Jean Paul Sartre.
Some years later the scene flashed upon my inward eye when reading a piece, penned with no appreciation of irony, by Michael Foot. THE GUARDIAN was celebrating one of its anniversaries, and Foot was commissioned to pat it on the back.
Foot obliged, with a story of a nineteenth century Nonconformist preacher, pounding his Pulpit and invoking the highest authority for his Sermon – “and The Manchester Guardian says.”
Perhaps the doctrine of the paper’s infallibilty was accepted by Nonconformists before the First Vatican Council of 1870 defined Papal infallibility. I use the word “defined” becausethe Vatican Council put limits on the Pope’s powers, which are not put on those of editors or journalists.
I can remember only one occasion when a pope invoked Infallibility. It was in August 1950 when Pius Xll required Catholics to accept as doctrine the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. Roman Catholics and other Christians had believed in the Assumption for many centuries and the Pope cited Scripture to justify the belief. He wasn’t going out on a limb.
It’s not my intention here to convert anyone to Catholicism or any other Christian denomination. But I would contend that many professed Nonconformists, secular and religiousare a damned sight more credulous than the most pious Papists.
I suppose Hancock, aided and abetted by those great comedy writers Galton and Simpson was having a bit of fun , poking a sharp stick at conformity of every kind in Hancock’s fine performance in this classic film. The pinstriped , bowler hats and the peas- from -a- singular- pod of polo-necked existentialists too were getting a right old sticking as were all the pseudo-intellectuals wittering on about Naieve Art and Action Painting. It’s a classic anti-authoritarian comedy of its time but I always preferrred their work on the later “Steptoe and Son” .Hancock soon ran out of comedy steam . It did lay some of the groundwork for the Pythons to follow alright.I was miffed that nobody picked up on my recent Python reference in my title-piece…”DO CHIMPANZEES BELIEVE IN GOD OR ARE THEY JUST NAUGHTY BOYS ?”…at least no one commented on this reference to the Messiah. As for Pius Xll requiring Catholics to accept as doctrine the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven in 1950. That might have the very moment when that timely reminder allowed cynicism to begin to leaking in……just in time for me to catch that wave .Some things are beyond even the reach of comedy.