Talk:The Small Back Room

Image listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

copied from my talk page Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Boffin

Removing the statement The book and film are credited for popularising the term "boffin" and "backroom boys".

This is not supported by the reference given, and the term "Boffin" does not appear in the book. . . Rcawsey (talk) 10

31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The book

In the article on Nigel Balchin, "The Small Back Room" in the booklist redirects here. But this article does not even mention the ways in which the film differs from the book. I have never seen the film, but the summary makes it clear that there are considerable differences in both content and tone. --MWLittleGuy (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The book was a best-seller, and is still in print. I feel it deserves an article of its own.

ChengduTeacher (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So write one -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There is one enormous difference between the book and the film which is much more important than those listed below, and in my opinion makes the book a much better work of art. In the book, Sammy is not strong enough to turn the wrenches needed to defuse the bomb, and needs to call on the brute strength of a sergeant (who thus shares the risk). Thus Sammy's 'triumph' in defusing the bomb is only a partial and ambivalent one, and its effect on his daily life is partial and ambivalent also - his demons are far from being completely conquered. ChengduTeacher (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As it says below "There aren't too many huge differences" (my emphasis). There are differences sure. There were some things that were cut from the film for various reasons. Write an article about the book or one about the differences between the book & the film -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There aren't too many huge differences. The film is faithful to the spirit of the book. It differs in some aspects that would have been difficult to film and added in a few more scenes that were more visual. Check out On The Small Back Room: Comparing the book to the film by Raymond Durgnat.

The main differences I remember are:

* Sammy's bemedalled fighter pilot brother. Sammy is a bit jealous of him

* The young girl they interview who survived when her brother picked up a booby-trap. Apparently this was filmed but didn't make it through the final cut

* The DTs sequence with the giant whisky bottle wasn't as graphic in the book

But I always thought that some of the dialogue in the film was typical of Pressburger. Especially scenes like the one on the embankment.

Susan: Where were you going Sammy?

Sammy: I don't know.

Susan: A woman?

Sammy: Maybe.

Susan: How about me?

But when I read the book I was surprised to see that that exchange is straight out of the book -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Big plot hole?

I just watched the film on Australian free-to-air TV. There’s a big plot hole that I don’t understand.

Clearly you could make those bombs safe, by surrounding them with explosives and blowing them up. An unskilled person could do that using a simple remote-control rig of some kind, with little or no risk to themselves.

You can only do that if & when they are identified. The film makes the point that most weren't identified as explosives until they exploded -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

How does that change what I say? The film depicts them disarming bombs they *had identified* - not being blown up by those they hadn’t. 15:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC) TC

So what’s the point of defusing the bombs? All I can think of, is to determine exactly how they worked, and how to disassemble them. But how does that help? The subsequent disassemblers would still have to be experts, and would still put their lives at risk. So even if you knew how the bombs worked, and how to disassemble them, you’d still just use a remote control rig to blow them up!

In other words, what was the point of disassembling the bombs? I realise the film is not a documentary, but it just seems like a huge plot hole. Any ideas?

07:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)TC

Some of these bombs landed in homes, factories, etc. and on major roads. You're suggesting they should have just blown up these facilities? The Germans would have loved that. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting any such thing, please don’t try to put words in my mouth. The film depicted them disarming a bomb on a beach, not one in a house. Did you not see that? 15:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC) TC

Don't be obtuse. What do you suggest they do with bombs that aren't in convenient places? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

They wanted to disarm them & disassemble them to find out as much as possible about them, especially how they were triggered to explode. They weren't bombs, they were booby-traps looking like a European thermos flask -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I’m trying to speak Japanese to people who only speak German! I said in plain English that the only reason that *I myself* could think of for them trying to defuse those bombs, booby traps, or whatever you want to call them, *was indeed to find out they worked*.

But my fundamental question was, ***WHY***? Even if they knew exactly how they worked, and exactly how to disassemble them, that would still require experts to perform, at significant risk to those experts’s lives. Surely better to surround them with explosives and blow them up remotely?

I’m not sure how I can put that question more clearly...

11:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC) TC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.105.118 (talk)