You start off watching this film, and see how well immersed it is in the atmosphere of the 1960's London, that you soon categorize it as a "historical document". So I was intrigued for the first part, even when Lynn sings her song and James presents her with his "contract".
However soon after that point, I saw the whole thing degenerating into an entertainment piece aimed at satisfying the hopes and also prejduces of the audience of the day. And, indeed, why shoudn't it? Why the hell not?
Since when should I, a watcher coming on the scene some 50 years later, prioritise what are, in effect, my own "hopes and prejudices" and want to see it as a historical document?
Even so, Alan Bates starts to get distinctly irritating in the second part and the scenes and situations start to take on more farcical turns. You could even call it slapstick in certain places. Another, more serious accusation is a mild form of bigotry surrounding Georgy's supposedly excessive size and tomboyishness. However, this too is a sign of those times. There's a short scene when even the father seems to readily scoff at Georgy's femininity.
So, should it really be called a good film? I don't think so, the themes are rather too trivial, and its social commentary is weak. And is it really so good as a historical document? I actually think it fails here as well. It's indicative perhaps, not of the situation in the 1960's, but of the aspirations that generation held.
But, also, let this be said, those aspirations did not have an only trivial impact, but a rather large one on the society of the day. I think once we can accept that, then we can begin to get the best out of the film.
