Copyright 31 May 1944 by Independent Film Distributors, Ltd. Made by Archers Film Productions, Ltd. London. Released in the U.S. by Eagle-Lion Films, Inc. New York opening at the Beacon on a double bill with The Woman in the Hall: 22 January 1949 (sic). U.S. release: 13 May 1944. U.K. release through Eagle-Lion: 1944. Australian release through G-B-D/20th Century-Fox: 13 February 1947 (sic). Running times: 124 minutes (U.K.), 93 minutes (U.S.A.), 91 minutes (Australia). The full U.K. version is available on both a Criterion and an ITV DVD. Criterion has a number of extras.SYNOPSIS: "The Glue Man" is on the rampage, terrorizing young women in a small village near Canterbury. He is finally brought to book through the efforts and resourcefulness of a furloughing U.S. army sergeant.NOTES: Only movie appearance of John Sweet, a real wartime army sergeant who presumably went back to his peacetime job as a schoolteacher in Ohio. According to Powell, the U.S. version — unlike the Australian — was not just a cut-down of the English release print. Additional sequences — there was one on a skyscraper — "were put in afterwards as a desperate attempt to sell it." This film seems to have disappeared. The review below is based on the complete Criterion DVD print. COMMENT: Unsuccessful in its day — even though made by Britain's top box-office production team — "A Canterbury Tale" is definitely one for indulgent, or should we say "sentimental" or perhaps "historically inclined" and certainly "nostalgic" connoisseurs. There is so much in it that would irritate or put off your average moviegoer or even your dedicated film fan. The corduroy set and the cultists are advised to give the movie a big miss. Many will see the film as an uneasy compromise between Art on the one hand, Propaganda and Entertainment on the other.My own problem with "A Canterbury Tale" is that the blatant propaganda is laid on with far too heavy a trowel. However true-to- life he may be, Sweet emerges more as a caricature than as a real human being with real human feelings. He's basically a comic cliché. Yet we are asked not to laugh at him, but to sympathize. I sometimes found this hard to do, partly because of over-heavy writing and partly because of over-heavy acting. Fortunately for me, the other players struck the right chords — particularly Sheila Sim, who never gave a more engaging performance. Also the film is nothing if not beautifully made. Superbly photographed, atmospherically scored and often strikingly directed.

https://trappedinthecinemablog.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/a- canterbury-tale-1944-%E2%98%85%E2%98%85%E2%98%85%E2%98%85/Very loosely inspired by Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales', Powell and Pressburger's wartime drama 'A Canterbury Tale' (1944) was made during one of the most extraordinary consecutive directorial 'runs' ever: 'One of Our Aircraft Is Missing' (1942), 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' (1943), 'A Canterbury Tale' (1944), 'I Know Where I'm Going!' (1945), 'A Matter of Life and Death' (1946), 'Black Narcissus' (1947), and 'The Red Shoes' (1948). All seven of them are British classics. And A Canterbury Tale is no different.The film opens with a Chaucerian knight, trekking through a forest on horseback, who lets free a bird of prey. And then, in a truly extraordinary moment of cinema, the swooping bird becomes a WW2 aircraft, and the knight becomes a tank. Technology and people have developed and 600 years of history have past.It is a remarkable moment of both magic and originality. It is also indicative of how under-appreciated Powell and Pressburger are. This scene has been forgotten from the public consciousness – never even remembered in the first place – yet when Stanley Kubrick referenced this moment in '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) with a bone spinning in mid-air and becoming a spaceship (similarly indicating the passage of time and the development of technology), he is acclaimed as a genius for his originality.The rest of the tale leaves behind any Chaucerian plot, but does keep the tendency for eccentric characters. A small town near Canterbury is being terrorised by "the glueman", a mysterious man who pours glue over women's hair at night. There is probably a reference to a particular Chaucerian character here, which sadly went straight over my head.Into this town arrives a US soldier who gets off at the wrong station, and a British woman from the city who has come to work as a land girl for the war effort. And as they begin to turn their attention to investigating the Scooby Doo-esque glueman, they find themselves caught up and encapsulated in the nature of English rural life.The film is a love letter to the English countryside, landscape, and pastoral life. Characters regularly take walks up hillsides, just to admire the views. The film shows rural life and its traditions in great detail, and with great affection. And we see Canterbury Cathedral, a permanence in the country for so many centuries.The war, meanwhile, is relegated to a mere subplot. This indicates exactly what Powell and Pressburger are trying to say. The war is an incidental feature. It does not obstruct any of the characters' lives. It is a mere passing inconvenience. In one hilltop scene characters discuss a remarkable view, but do not mention the dozens of barrage balloons which litter the sky. P&P – which they should never be referred to as – are telling us that England and English life will continue as it always has done, from 600 years ago in the medieval era, through the present era unaffected by world war, and forever into the future.On a side note, for those worried about their ignorance of Scotland and Scottish life, they dealt with that in their following film, I Know Where I'm Going! And for those worried about their ignorance of Wales and Welsh life, as far as I can tell, they didn't give a sh*t.Perhaps A Canterbury Tale lacks the same magical spark as the greatest of their works, A Matter Of Life Or Death, or The Red Shoes, for instance. But this in no way should be seen as a dismissive comment. A Canterbury Tale still contains some remarkable moments from a pair of remarkable directors, especially the moment that Stanley Kubrick clearly thought so highly of.

I was a bit surprised by "A Canterbury Tale", as it obviously was well made (after all, it was a Powell/Pressburger Production--having both written and directed it as well)--and this team made marvelous films. Yet, despite all its good parts, the whole picture just didn't work for me--mostly because it lacked a good story and some of the acting was downright embarrassing.The film is set in the English countryside during WWII. An occasionally dim-witted American bumpkin (sort of like a slightly smarter version of Gomer Pyle--terribly overplayed by an amateur American actor in his only film) gets off the train bound for Canterbury at the wrong stop. As a result, he's stuck in a country town until he's able to find his way to his destination. In addition, an English soldier and young lady also get off the train there. Soon they are embroiled in a rather irrelevant plot involving a weirdo who runs around throwing glue in ladies' hair in the darkness of the blackout! Talk about a stupid plot. But, as the plot really was seemingly unnecessary for the film and it's all just an excuse to make a film about the war effort, the wonderfulness of country life, camaraderie with the Americans and the similarities of all good people. Frankly, this was VERY frustrating as the film was wonderfully made in so many ways--great direction, lovely music, terrific camera work and a nice feel for the heartland of England...but no real story...none. So, I guess for a film with no real plot, a score of 6 is actually very good!I see that most reviewers really liked this film and some even adored it. Because of that, I felt pretty awkward about not liking the film, though Bob the Moo's usually thought-provoking review gave me some consolation--at least Bob saw some of the same problems I saw with the film! And, considering his excellent reviews, that puts me in pretty good company.

Hardly anyone can miss the immensely strong sense of place in the film. Whether it was all shot there or not, the beauty of the unspoiled country outside Canterbury and the desolation of the bombed city around its towering cathedral must strike everybody. What some previous reviewers are less sure on is the equally strong sense of time.Most people pick up the almost mystical links with the Iron Age track, the Roman military road and the way of the medieval pilgrims. The two young people from London and the third from distant Oregon are clearly following an ancient trail towards revelation. What is equally important, to my mind, is an understanding of the exact period in which the story unrolls.The photography gives us endless clues of late summer in the south of England: cut corn in sheaves, hops being picked, long grass going dry on the downs, blackberries to eat. In fact, we are given precise dates: it is the end of August 1943. First meeting at the railway station on the night of Friday 27 August, the three young people join up there again on the morning of Monday 30 August to complete their pilgrimage.What was hanging over the protagonists at the time? On various fronts, the Germans and Japanese were being pushed back: the Russians were winning the huge tank battles around Kursk while the western Allies were victorious in the Solomon Islands and in Sicily. Both the young sergeants knew that they were likely to be fighting on the mainland of Europe soon.By the time the film was released in England, a year later in August 1944, the picture was very different: British and American troops were racing towards the Rhine, the Russians had broken into Germany and the Japanese were retreating in the East. Some of the huge tensions facing the people in the film were eased. As invasion was improbable and air raids unlikely, the Home Guard would soon be stood down and the blackout relaxed. The US soldiers had crossed to France, never to return. So the rich slice of rural and urban life caught in the film was already historical, but still worth treasuring as a lyrical evocation of a place and a time. Under the surface of its relatively simple story, deep currents run.