Film Fun Facts

[philcom55]

As well as the strips in the weekly comic Reg also did two lovely 4pg Hancock strips for the final Film Fun Annual in 1961.

Good aren't they? For those not fortunate enough to own the Annual in question here are the first three pages from one of those strips:





The thing that particularly impresses me is the effortless way in which Reg seems to capture the distinctive feel of a time and place I'm just about old enough to remember from personal experience. As a matter of interest, Kashgar, do you know who drew the other Hancock story in that Annual? And for that matter, who drew the three comparatively old-fashioned Hancock strips in the previous year's edition (which actually featured 'the Lad Himself' on its cover)?

- Phil Rushton

[Peter Gray]

Could you put up the last page as well..yours cheekly..

anyway lovely penmanship...it did remind me of my Dad that period.my Dad loved Jazz and Hancock..

Also all that smoking makes it look a world away...

just put a link back here and put up your scans of Hancock and Sid with credit to you...thanks for the scans...very nice to see..
http://petergraycartoonsandcomics.blogs ... rlett.html

[NP]

Good aren't they?
The thing that particularly impresses me is the effortless way in which Reg seems to capture the distinctive feel of a time and place

Now I'll have to go and dig out my copy to see how it ends! (horribly, I suppose as Sid is involved!)
The more I look at these the more I agree with meself, a fab book!!

[philcom55]

...OK! OK! Here's the conclusion:



- Sid strikes again!

Incidentally, it occurs to me that the transition from 50s to 60s art styles is nowhere more startling than in the sudden change that took place between the Film Fun Annuals for 1960 and 1961. Just compare Reg Parlett's slick pages above to this one from a Hancock strip (sans Sid) that had appeared only one year earlier:



- Phil Rushton

[Peter Gray]

I'm glad you put up the last page.very funny..

[Kashgar]

Incidentally, are some of those annual strips comprised of reprints from the weekly? It seems odd that a three page story for example seems like three separate stories edited together, (each page begins a totally different situation) - or is that just a technique AP used back then?

Lew

There are indeed a number of cobbled together reprints in the annual strips Lew which is why so many of them were still the work of Harry Parlett even though they were published in annuals some years after he had actually retired from cartooning in 1950.

In fact Harry Parlett was one of original Film Fun editor Fred Cordwell's original gang of East End artists who he had working for him from the very early days. The other three being the Radford brothers Tom and Bill and most significantly, in Film Fun terms at least, Billy Wakefield.
Cordwell, who was the son of a solicitor, had been born in the suburban oustskirts of the great metropolis but always had a fascination and love for the East End and its working class occupants. Four such artisans being the artists named above, all of whom Cordwell had had working for him in his pre Film Fun comic title Merry & Bright.
He had a particular affection for the work of Billy Wakefield who became the mainstay of much that is remembered as the Film Fun in-house style today. A style that was carried on, after Wakefield's untimely death, by his own son Terry and the likes of Geordie born Norman Ward.
The eldest of the four, Harry Parlett, who was nearly 40 when Film Fun first appeared had a softer more rounded style to his drawing than the other three and as such provided a pleasing contrast.
Interestingly Bill Radford was a great keeper and collector of all things connected with his working life in comics and as such amassed a huge collection of comics containing his work as well as reams of editorial letters and files full of pencil roughs of strips that did, or in some cases, didn't make their way into publication. On his death in 1975, this catalogue of his working life in comics was sold at Sotheby's for something over £6000.

[Lew Stringer]

There are indeed a number of cobbled together reprints in the annual strips Lew which is why so many of them were still the work of Harry Parlett even though they were published in annuals some years after he had actually retired from cartooning in 1950.

Still haven't had chance to read it properly but I'm wondering if some of the "Frank Randle" strips from annuals are in fact doctored George Formby strips. The phrase "Turned out nice again" appears at least twice.

Lew

[Digifiend]

Incidentally, it occurs to me that the transition from 50s to 60s art styles is nowhere more startling than in the sudden change that took place between the Film Fun Annuals for 1960 and 1961. Just compare Reg Parlett's slick pages above to this one from a Hancock strip (sans Sid) that had appeared only one year earlier:



- Phil Rushton

That looks older than the other one, judging by the captions under each panel, which were going out of fashion by then. But they were still in fashion ten years earlier. I don't think I need Kashgar's confirmation to know that that's a reprint.

[philcom55]

I don't think I need Kashgar's confirmation to know that that's a reprint.

I think that's pretty clear, though the header and Tony Hancock's likeness must have been added since he'd never appeared before this date. The point is that the editor of the 1960 Annual obviously felt that this style of art and story (which is used throughout the book) was still perfectly acceptable to the readership at the beginning of the 1960s. By contrast it rarely appears again in any subsequent Fleetway publications (with the possible exception of The Big One). It's notable that the Lion, Tiger and Knockout Annuals also underwent similar rehauls at about the same time.

- Phil Rushton

[Kashgar]

The third Hancock strip in the 1961 Film Fun Annual is also the work of Reg Parlett Phil. From memory I had only remembered there being two Hancock strips in the book and not three.
The Hancock strips in the 1960 book are reprints of earlier non-Hancock strips with 'the lad himself' added in the place of whoever the original star or stars might have been. Terry Wakefield was responsible for the addition of the Hancock character while the reprinted artwork was either the work of Wakefield or Norman Ward.
This of course also answers Lew's query as to whether Frank Randle could have replaced George Formby in a reprinted strip. Yes, he could. Film Fun annuals were often peppered with hybrid reprints like this.

[Lew Stringer]

This of course also answers Lew's query as to whether Frank Randle could have replaced George Formby in a reprinted strip. Yes, he could. Film Fun annuals were often peppered with hybrid reprints like this.

I remember reading about this strange practice in the book on Film Fun (which I've still misplaced and can't bring to hand at present). Seems a very odd policy to save money as presumably an artist would still have been paid to redraw the characters (eg: changing George Formby to Frank Randle, updating any glaring anachronisms etc) and staff time would be taken up by making changes to the dialogue and story.

Admittedly in some cases it's just the faces that are redrawn but it still seems a case of saving pennies rather than pounds. Still, I suppose it must have made sense though back then or they wouldn't have bothered.

It's a shame the compilers of the "Frank Randle's Film Fun" book didn't know that some of the strips are "forgeries" of a sort.

Lew

[Lew Stringer]

Keeping on topic, here's the ad for the very first issue of Film Fun, from the Daily Mirror 13th January 1920:



More vintage comic ads on my blog:
http://lewstringer.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... -past.html

Lew

[Kashgar]

Nice ad Lew.
Tony Hancock was rather unique in Film Fun history in that his film career as a star, such as it was, post dated his arrival in the comic. The character part he played in the 1954 film 'Orders are Orders' hardly counts but the brilliant 'The Rebel' and the disappointing 'Punch and Judy Man' were both released during his tenure as a Film Fun regular. (The Punch and Judy Man's lack of box office success, which Hancock not only starred in but co-wrote, showing how far apart what he, as a performer, wished to be and what his audience wanted him to be).
In Film Fun terms though he was certainly the most successful and longest lasting star turn of the comic papers final years. Clocking up more appearances than other late arrivals Ronald Shiner, Tommy Cooper, Harry Secombe, Terry-Thomas, Peter Sellers, Ken Dodd and Bruce Forsyth.
He even mentioned Film Fun in the classic episode of his TV show 'The Economy Drive'
in which he relates to Sid the items on their Railway Cuttings paper bill, thus displaying to the audience, who would have for the most part known that he appeared in the comic, the vanity of him being a regular subscriber.

[philcom55]

One interesting thing demonstrated by that first issue advert is the fact that most of Film Fun's original stars tended to be American (though Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel admittedly started out on this side of the Atlantic), whereas they were almost all British by the end. I'd have to check to be sure but it may be that in the early days Radio Fun was seen as the natural venue for homegrown celebrities.

- Phil Rushton

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I bought a book on Tony Hancock's life story a few months back: fascinating stuff, and a real tragic waste of talent in the latter years.

PS: I always appreciated Reg Parletts' ability to effectively caricature young women, like in the above pages: never easy at the best of times, but easy as pie for our Reg.

If any one element makes me want to be a cartoonist, it's by seeing great works like the above.