Fri 3 Nov 2017
A Movie Review by David Vineyard: THE ADVENTURES OF JANE (1949).
Posted by Steve under Films: Comedy/Musicals , Reviews[12] Comments
THE ADVENTURES OF JANE. Eros Films, UK, 1949. Christobel Leighton-Porter, Michael Hogsworth, Peter Butterworth, Sonya O’Shea, Ian Colin, Stanelli, Sebastian Cabot. Screenplay by Alf Goulding, E. J. Whiting and Con West, based on the comic strip “Jane” created by Norman Pett. Directed by E. J. Whiting and (uncredited) by Alfred Goulding and Norman Pett. TV series: BBC, UK, 1982-84 (reviewed by Michael Shonk here ).
Jane, that grown up Little Orphan Annie in and out of lingerie, wasn’t the first glamor girl to strip down in the comic strips on either side of the Atlantic, but her predecessors like Fritzi Ritz, Dixie Dugan, Blondie (before marrying Dagwood), and Frank Godwin’s Connie were modest in comparison to the British Gypsy Rose Lee of the news kiosk.
Jane lost more clothes, showed more skin, and outlasted the best of them. She has hardly been out of the papers since her creation and even managed two movie outings over forty years apart.
That’s not bad for a lass and her pet dachshund Fritz, especially since Jane’s chief talent was a gift for getting caught out after spectacular costume failures.
Jane put the strip in comic strip.
She was created by artist Norman Pett as a morale booster, a bit along the lines of Milton Caniff’s “Male Call,” but Jane ran in the daily papers and fairly soon, unsatisfied with simply finding ways for Jane to lose her clothes, Pett decided there should be a bit of plot to go with all that skin, so Jane got involved with smugglers, spies, saboteurs (certainly a fifth column was involved in sabotaging her costumes), and kidnappers. Across her career she would veer into a soap opera for a while and even acquire a daughter just as prone to losing her clothes as Maman.
There is a whole school of British comic strip inspired by Jane and Pett, including Romeo Brown by Peter O’Donnell and Jim Holdway, who soon got more serious with Modesty Blaise.
Here we have the original Jane, Christobel Leighton-Parker, in the flesh, the model whose photos often accompanied Pett’s annuals and collections of Jane’s adventures, cast as Jane, a show girl who gets involved with smugglers when a seeming nice old man, Sneyd (the name should have been a clue) gives her a fake diamond bracelet.
It’s all part of a dastardly plot to get past British customs with the stolen Bulawayo Diamond by the handsome criminal Cap, but bound to be foiled by Fritz and Jane’s less than bright policeman boyfriend Tom, and Jane herself, because Jane is never just a victim to be rescued by a man.
That’s it folks. There is a swimsuit contest Jane judges, Jane shuts doors, and other things, on her clothes and loses her skirt while only wearing scanties, Jane changes her clothes, Jayne wears lingerie, a comic drunk climbs in bed with Fritz in her room, Jane goes to sea, gets wet and changes out of her wet clothes… It pretty much is the same formula as the comic strip in action.
A young Sebastian Cabot even shows up in a comic bit about a Frenchman going through British customs.
If you haven’t guessed how The End flashes on screen you aren’t trying.
But it is fun in the same way as the strip was, plus under the titles we get to see Pett drawing his most famous Jane picture as Leighton-Porter and Fritz pose. You can catch it in two parts on YouTube if you want, and it is currently on Amazon Prime.
It’s all fun and tease, and Jane, for all her innocence of her various states of undress, is a surprisingly smart and capable heroine who as often as not rescues herself. It’s no wonder she has survived the ravages of time and changes of custom.
Jane is a force to reckon with.
A naked force at that.
November 3rd, 2017 at 8:18 pm
Delightful review! Another one for my get-it-and-watch it list. Thanks!
November 4th, 2017 at 11:26 am
So Many movies, so little time!
November 4th, 2017 at 12:27 pm
That makes two of us, Randy, but I will have to make time for this one.
November 4th, 2017 at 4:10 pm
I would love to read here what a woman thinks of Jane. I have read she was not a favorite of Glynis Barbera who played her for TV.
Considering what is happening to the older male figure with power in today’s world in re. to this behavior I stand by my comment in my review of the TV series that Jane is dated.
Not that dated is bad. Burlesque may be dead but it will always appeal to some men and women. Some women will notice Jane is the only smart one in the story. While men forget God and country at the sight of a pretty woman in her underwear, Jane has her priorities right.
Jane also exposes the stupidity of judging people by looks or sex. Jane saves the day but would never have gotten the chance if she had not been a pretty woman without the burden of modesty (that is also where the comedy comes from).
November 4th, 2017 at 5:55 pm
I really don’t know what women think about Jane, and like you, Michael, I’d be interested in knowing.
The fact is, very few women ever leave comments on this blog, and I have no way of knowing if women even stop by. I wish I could say otherwise, but my sense is that very few women do.
Personally, even though I’ve seen only short snippets of the TV show, I think your assessment of Jane in the various media she’s appeared in are right on target.
November 4th, 2017 at 10:21 pm
I can’t speak for the movie, but at one time Jane was held up as an early feminist icon because she was independent and lived life on her own terms neither relying on a man for a living or rescue (more often than not she rescues hapless boyfriend Georgie).
Today she might be frowned on as an objectified figure, but then look how popular Wonder Woman is and Norman Pett is a far more wholesome character than Wonder Woman’s creator.
No one ever took Jane for reality. Neither she or her adventures were ever portrayed as anything but innocent fun with a bit of nudity. There is no Jane philosophy or Jane way of life. Other than knowing a few attractive women casual about nudity and prone to sometimes dramatic costume failures I don’t think anyone will see anything in Jane beyond the of not so dumb blonde stereotype of Blondie, Maisie, and others.
I really don’t think most women expect or even want to cure men of looking at naked women. More serious issues like respect, unwanted sexual advances, unrealistic expectations, and abuse of power are the real issues.
That’s a lot of responsibility to put on Jane’s slender paper shoulders. Since Jane is her own woman and usually wins out over the men opinion could as easily go the other way. In any case she is a symbol of the past, nostalgia for more innocent times. There are more disturbing targets , some beloved in our own genre, to worry about.
November 5th, 2017 at 7:52 pm
David, I am not a woman so you may be right. My feelings are different women will see this differently. But I doubt today’s young woman would be happy to read or watch a story featuring old men with power abusing pretty women. I doubt they see what Jane is put through as ok.
Today’s Playboy may be a clue to the changing opinions of men staring at naked women.
I have no problem with nudity or Jane’s story. I also don’t have a problem with blackface scenes in films but I accept such entertainment is not accepted everywhere today and thus dated. Heck, I have lived long enough in Los Angeles and in Louisiana to understand how opposite our own culture has become.
As for Wonder Woman, Frank Cho lost his job doing the comic’s covers because he exposed too much skin and wouldn’t cover her up. He also has a very popular statue of her for sale. DC has had serious backlash from animated show where Batman and Batgirl have sex.
It is a confusing time and hard to figure out what is going to offend next.
November 5th, 2017 at 8:55 pm
Michael, who cares what will offend next as nearly everything offends someone. We now have multiple genders. A racial divide that was, if not gone, certainly dampened. We have boys and girls, which is what they are, living together, not only in dormitories, but the same rooms, and then we wonder what has gone wrong. Plenty is the answer, and the world we are living in, one in which Yale University has just eliminated a course study in the works of William Shakespeare because it offends. Too much sensitivity training and not enough brain work.
November 5th, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Barry, I am not talking about what offends people as much as I am wondering how others see this type of movie/comic/TV series.
Since I am not a woman I wonder what they think of this. I am sure some would be offended, some wouldn’t, and others would want to be Jane. But I remain curious to learn rather than assume their point of view or force my view on them.
You are right times are changing which is why I am curious. I am watching anime on Netflix. There is a series called Seven Deadly Sins. The male hero character has a panties fetish and often was found with his head under the Princess’ dress. Curious to the reaction to this series I looked up a review by a guy. He found the fetish bit to be the worse part of a good series and wished the artists involved would grow up. He was right because unlike Jane the anime character actions had nothing to do with the plot.
I like discussing life with those of different opinions but it is getting harder as each side is showing less and less tolerance to the other side. Life through just my point of view is a boring one…in my point of view.
November 6th, 2017 at 8:44 am
Barry, did I miss a meeting? The story I read said Yale had loosened requirements and offered alternatives, but they did not eliminate the Shakespeare course.
November 6th, 2017 at 9:25 am
If Shakespeare is not front and center at Yale, or other glamourous institutions as the consequence of political correctness and the absurdity of white privilege, then my point stands, not as an exaggeration but a critical reflection or our witch hunt mentality — going after dead witches that never did exist.
November 6th, 2017 at 9:28 am
And are we all ready for a chorus, or two, of ‘swing the shining sickle…’