Kingsley Amis might not had liked the adaptation of his novel set in a redbrick university in 1950s Britain when university education started to expand and took on some working class students. The Boulting brothers film comes across a little too much of an Ealing comedy for my liking with slapstick and loses the novel's edge.

Ian Carmichael is the northern grammar school boy made good but looking for a permanent teaching job at the university. To do this he has to toady to Professor Welch and his family and every task he is entrusted to do ends in disaster sometimes due to Jim's shortcomings.

As a lecturer Jim is passionate with a leftist slant on history in contrast with Professor Welch dull and old fashioned musings which we see when Jim has to deliver Welch's lecture.

In between we have Jim getting into escapades with Terry Thomas and his Canadian girlfriend and a slapstick scene involving a parade with flowers on the quadrant of the university.

However whilst Carmichael is spirited as Jim he looks too old, even worse Terry Thomas looks too old as the son of the Professor Welch.

The film is episodic and although starts promisingly enough it tries too hard to be an Ealing style comedy rather than a satirical adaptation. The redbrick university never convinces maybe I have seen too many of these places that were built in the 1960s.

Planned as a follow-up to PRIVATE'S PROGRESS (1956),the Boulting Brothers' version of the Kingsley Amis classic substitutes physical comedy for much of the novel's satire. Ian Carmichael plays Jim Dixon as an amiable dolt, well-meaning but hopelessly lost in a faculty world of would-be Oxbridge dons. Professor Welch (Hugh Griffith) comes across as forgetful yet obsessive; his wife (Jean Anderson) as an incorrigible snob; and their son Bertram (Terry-Thomas) as a pretentious layabout. They inhabit a world of the past, dominated by images of 'Merrie England' - an idealized version of history that in Dixon's view never existed. By contrast Dixon tries to inspire his learners by encouraging them to speculate on alternative versions of the past. The film's enduring theme ("Oh, Lucky Jim!") by John Addison offers an ironic counterpoint to many of the protagonists' misadventures; he is clearly NOT lucky in many of the things he does - for example, bringing a bulldog into the Welches' front room to disrupt their evening concert, or creating total anarchy in the middle of a procession dedicated to the new Chancellor's (Clive Morton's) inauguration. Carmichael possesses a certain degree of comic talent as the innocent lost in a world of pseudo-sophisticates, but the Boultings' attempt to turn him into a Keatonesque figure, complete with a repertoire of India-rubber facial expressions, falls rather flat. The film ends happily with Dixon getting the girl (Sharon Acker),but only after a chase-sequence involving a series of unconvincing studio shots that seems out of place in terms of the film as a whole. It's nice to see him get the better of the Welch family, but we don't get the sense that he is in any proud of his grammar school education which (in terms of the novel at least) is particularly important at the time of the film's original release, when redbrick universities were offering greater opportunities to people from all social backgrounds to advance themselves. The Welch family might not like these social upstarts invading their intellectual space but, in terms of British history as a whole, they were the future while the Welches represented the past.

It's hard for me to be objective about this film, as it is adapted from my favorite novel--which I've read eight or nine times. Also, I waited so long to see it that it may have been inevitable that I would ultimately be disappointed. Ironically, I first heard about the film some years before I read the book, and it was only after I read the book that I made the connection between it and the description my brother had once given me. It would be about 20 years (no kidding!) before I finally saw the film myself. I've now seen it twice and mostly hated it both times.

Kingsley Amis's LUCKY JIM was obligatory reading among history students when I was in grad school 30 years ago. The story about an unhappy history instructor in a crummy British provincial university expressed a lot of the angst that we felt as grad students, and it was funnier than heck as well. I loved the book then, and still love all these years later. Why, then, was the film such a disappointment? Mainly because the script muted much of the savageness of Amis's humor, and because it tacked on an idiotic chase scene at the end that has nothing whatever to do with the original story--or even with what goes before it in the film. (Even Ian Carmichael--who played Jim--hated that ending. He told me that the people making the film didn't seem to have any idea of what they were doing--and it shows.)

The producers also added a very unsatisfactory and irrelevant academic procession in them middle of the film--evidently for the sole purpose of making Carmichael look like a klutz by having him tripping over flowerpots and dropping things in the middle of the solemn affair.

Nevertheless, the film does have its virtues, chief among them is excellent casting. Ian Carmichael was born to play Jim. Terry-Thomas was properly unctuous as Bertrand; Hugh Griffith certainly looked the part as Professor Neddy; Maureen Connell looked like I imagined the neurotic Margaret Peel; and Sharon Acker made a fine-looking Christine Callaghan.