
<p>In theory, dry British humor and satire should go hand in hand. There are many satirical films from the United Kingdom that work to great effect, like <em>Monty Python’s Life of Brian</em> (1979). However, there are different forms of satire; some rely on subtlety and subversion, while others rely on overt caricature and exaggeration. The stereotypical “dry British whit” fits in nicely with the former, but often falls flat on its face with the latter. Unfortunately, Malcolm Mowbray’s<em> A Private Function</em> (1984) tries to blend dry humor and exaggerated satire with little success.</p>



<p><em>A Private Function</em> is set in 1947, in the weeks leading up to the marriage of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. Food-rationing laws make it difficult for people to get their hands on delicacies, especially high-quality pork. However, members of London’s high society have no intention of celebrating the royal union without an impressive feast. Thus begins a race to acquire, fatten, and serve a pig at “a private function.”</p>



<p>Dr. Charles Swaby (Denholm Elliott), Henry Allardyce (Richard Griffiths), and Frank Lockwood (John Normington) acquire a pig through the black market. However, they must work in secrecy to avoid arousing suspicion from inspector Morris Wormold (Bill Paterson). As it turns out, the inspector is the least of their worries, as mild-mannered Gilbert Chilvers (Michael Palin) learns of the pig’s existence while passing through the farm. ;</p>



<p>Gilbert’s wife, Joyce (Maggie Smith), urges Gilbert to steal the pig so that they can enjoy the spoils. Despite nearly getting caught, Gilbert is able to take the pig from the farm, leading to a city-wide “pig-hunt” led by Dr. Charles Swaby and his aristocratic colleagues. As the celebratory dinner looms, Gilbert and Joyce work frantically to conceal the pig from authorities and the wealthy men who’ve promised their guests a royal feast.</p>



<p>It goes without saying that <em>A Private Function</em> (1984) satirizes the class disparities in London. The film puts particular emphasis on aristocrats and their general disregard for the law. In this way, the film works as a mildly entertaining comedy founded on class struggle. We get to see the world from two completely different lenses. Actually, we really see it from three perspectives: the wealthy, the working class, and the filmmaker. Like just about any satire, <em>A Private Function</em> relies on these stark contrasts to make an unspoken point about its subjects. </p>



<p>What’s interesting is that the filmmakers display the struggles of both the wealthy and the working class in a brutally honest way. Food-rationing only affects a rich citizen by making it difficult for them to show off to their peers. On the other hand, the working class literally doesn’t have enough food to eat and will go to desperate measures to claw their way up the social ranks. </p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img src="https://philosophyinfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apf-image-1-1024x573.png" alt="A Private Function (1984)" class="wp-image-2105"/><figcaption><em>A Private Function</em> (1984)</figcaption></figure></div>



<p>Perhaps I need to loosen up, but it doesn’t seem like the right narrative for a borderline slapstick comedy. Is <em>A Private Function</em> satirical? Yes, but it does very little with the material at its disposal. Instead, it goes for cheap laughs based on miscommunication, goofy characterization, and relatively low-brow humor.</p>



<p>My view of the film would be much more positive if it weren’t for the ending. It’s impossible to spoil the finale of <em>A Private Function</em> because it doesn’t exist. The film simply ends without any kind of humorous send-off. Sure, the narrative builds comical tension as the titular function draws closer, but once the payoff arrives, nothing really happens. Viewers are left thinking, “well, ok&#8230;I guess it’s over now.”</p>



<p>So, while the first two-thirds of <em>A Private Function </em>is entertaining enough, it just doesn’t feel like a film that lives up to the sum of its parts. It has an interesting historical setting, a seemingly funny premise, and more than enough talent to make it shine. However, much like <em><a href="https://philosophyinfilm.com/2019/11/23/review-the-missionary-1982/">The Missionary</a></em> (1982) — which features some of the same key players — <em>A Private Function</em> just feels completely underwhelming and forgettable. </p>



<p>As previously mentioned,<em> A Private Function</em> has no shortage of talent. Michael Palin is perfect as the bumbling pig thief, bullied by his wife, Joyce. Meanwhile, Maggie Smith works well as the overbearing wife, desperate to climb the social ladder. The remainder of the cast performs admirably in their respective roles. Denholm Elliott is particularly enjoyable as the unofficial “leader” of the wealthy clique. </p>



<p>While most critics have praised <em>A Private Function</em> (1984), I simply cannot look past its many faults. It does little to elevate itself above a plethora of British satires that have been lost in film history. In fact, it seems to rest completely on the talent of its cast, with a dull and tedious script that ultimately goes nowhere. </p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img src="https://philosophyinfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apf-image-2-1024x574.png" alt="Michael Palin 1984" class="wp-image-2107"/><figcaption><em>A Private Function </em>(1984)</figcaption></figure></div>



<p>There’s also something about British films of the late 1970s and early 1980s that is somewhat depressing. The visual style is often dull, with standard, by-the-books film practices that don’t take any risks. To make things worse, the colors are drab, with nothing more than dull grays and browns to fill the screen. While this may be an overgeneralization, it’s certainly true of <em>A Private Function</em> and similar comedies starring cast members from <em>The Monty Python</em>.</p>



<p>If you’re a fan of Michael Palin or Maggie Smith, there might be enough here to keep you entertained. It could also satiate your desire for old-school British satire. I found <em>A Private Function</em> to be exceedingly mediocre, which to me, is even worse than being outright bad. A bad film can be enjoyable to watch in the it’s-so-bad-it’s-good kind of way. However, instead of making a dreadful film that could join the ranks of horrible cult classics, Malcolm Mowbray made a completely average and generic comedy that never takes full advantage of its cast, setting, or story. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">A Private Function Movie Rating: ★★½ out of 5</h3>



<p>If you’d like to watch <em>A Private Function</em> (1984), it is currently available to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JL44OO/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&;tag=mjones34880c-20&;creative=9325&;linkCode=as2&;creativeASIN=B004JL44OO&;linkId=4e146f882523bd2c81f6426f333176eb">stream via Amazon Prime</a>. For more film reviews like this one, check out the <a href="https://philosophyinfilm.com/">Philosophy in Film Homepage</a>!</p>

Review: A Private Function (1984) ★★½
