Report by Rita of the film group meeting on June 3rd.

There were 8 of us at the session.

General discussion
Overall, the women in the group felt the film was not very enjoyable and engaging.
We could see that the Margaret Rutherford character, Miss Robin Hood was a strong female character, active, and in control but many of us felt that she was also a figure of fun and stereotyped, in keeping with the slapstick and light comedy. Many of the other characters eg policeman, Mr Wigley and the daughter’s boy-friend, were also cardboard cut out figures of fun, so the Miss Robin Hood character was no different in this respect.
We did appreciate some of the photography and cinematic techniques.
Although we had the volume sufficiently loud, the dialogue was not always very clear – some intelligibility problems.

Gut reactions to the film, as written immediately afterwards

So absurd, difficult to know what to say.
Did it inspire St. Trinians?
Margaret Rutherford a parody something to laugh at

Hopelessly dated and a silly plot, hopeless acting, stereotypic characters, boring and infantile. Suitable for 10 year old in 1952 but would not be given house room now.

Lots of stereotypes – not particularly funny – didn’t appeal to my sense of humour.

Found it quite boring and the ridiculousness of the plot didn’t appeal to me.

I don’t know what to make of this film. It seemed like a forerunner of Disney films for slightly older children. Could not really make sense of Margaret Rutherford’s role  an active, purposeful older woman, also a faintly ridiculous figure with outrageous clothes and mannerisms, inciting young people to behave as they did.

Not my style of humour. Just silly. Would have enjoyed it in 1952, if I’d seen it then as a 10 yr old at Saturday morning pictures!!
Was falling asleep towards the end.
The older woman character was an object of fun, not admirable. Intended to be positive of course. Terribly dated.
Some good photography, eg the spiral staircase shot.
Harmless melodrama.
Over-acted. No memorable characters.

If it had been written in 2016 and was meant to be ironic, it might have been funny – but it was not.
We were not teenagers – we were ‘bobby-soxers’.