The Mick Travis... Trilogy?

Cinema history is full of trilogies, from the "Godfather" trilogy and the "Star Wars" trilogy, to the more erudite obscurities like Satyajit Ray's "Apu" trilogy" and Krzysztof Kieślowski's Colors trilogy. Part of the ongoing fascination with them and other series of films is that it's difficult to maintain a high level of quality through multiple pictures. I recently finished a British film trilogy that has been described as almost one of the greats, the three films that Lindsay Anderson made starting in 1968, which were all written by David Sherwin and starred Malcolm McDowell as Michael "Mick" Travis: "If...," (1968) "O Lucky Man!" (1973) and "Britannia Hospital" (1982). Two are great films, considered British counter-culture classics, and the last, unfortunately, is a dud.

In "If..." Travis is a rebellious schoolboy caught in the sadistic world of a tyrannical educational institution. After being subjected to various indignities, he and his fellow troublemakers end up leading a violent insurrection against the staff and faculty. "O Lucky Man!" is a sprawling tale where Travis, who begins the film as a traveling coffee salesman, journeys all over Britain and has encounters with people from all walks of life. However, as he moves in and out of different social circles and runs afoul of oppressive institutions and authorities, he becomes more and more disillusioned. "Britannia Hospital" is a much broader spoof than either of the others, about a British hospital preparing for a visit from the Queen. However, they have to contend with protesters out front, striking workers, and a mad scientist conducting strange experiments behind the scenes. Travis appears this time as a reporter, trying to film an expose on the hospital's inner workings.

But should the Mick Travis trilogy really be considered a trilogy? Or have they just been lumped together for categorical convenience? Mick Travis has been called an everyman character, and he changes with every appearance to suit the needs of each film's story. There's no evidence that any of the films share continuity otherwise, aside from a few other recurring characters and the involvement of many of the same actors. All three films are dark satires with fanciful elements, but they don't quite match up thematically or stylistically. "If..." is a very personal memoir of the screenwriter's school-going experiences, that takes a detour into surrealism, like a darker, more cynical version of "Zero for Conduct." "O Lucky Man" has been compared to Voltaire's "Candide," a far more ambitious and allegorical narrative, interspersed with musical numbers written and performed by rock musician Alan Price.

"Britannia Hospital" is the easiest to split off. "If..." and "O Lucky Man!" placed Travis at the center of their stories, documenting his abuse by the education system and the larger forces of society respectively. In "Britannia Hospital" he has a prominent role, but he's also part of a larger ensemble, and his thread of the plot doesn't have much of an effect on how events play out ultimately. Far more time is spent with a group of hapless hospital administrators who are trying to contain the growing chaos, so it's hard to think of it as a Mick Travis movie. Moreover, the first two films were largely concerned about portraying social ills and injustice. These elements appear in "Britannia Hospital," highlighting class divisions, bureaucracy, the media, and so forth, but they're largely subsumed in the absurdity of the farce. Or maybe the weakness of the message was just a reflection of the weakness of "Britannia Hospital" as a movie.

After watching "O Lucky Man!" and "Britannia" back to back, I find myself extremely unsatisfied with how we left Mick Travis if we are to consider the three movies as one whole work. And the more I read about the character and Linsday Anderson's unrealized plans for another follow-up film, this time a direct sequel to "If...," the less I feel like accepting "Britannia Hospital" as the last word. "Britannia" seems to have sealed Travis's fate, but it's also a movie with mad scientists and giant brains quoting Shakespeare, and I don't think a little resurrection would be too much to ask in that universe. Anderson passed away some time ago, but McDowell's still around and working steadily, so why shouldn't there be another Mick Travis film, this time about Travis confronting life in Britain as a senior citizen?

Then again, the story of Mick Travis already has an ending. "O Lucky Man!" had a perfectly satisfying conclusion to his adventures, which showed Travis coming to terms with his place in the world. Just because it didn't come as the capper to the third film Travis appeared in doesn't make it any less effective. It's fun to speculate, but I don' think there was ever a need for a third Mick Travis film at all, and there's definitely no need for another attempt at one now. The first two movies stand alone perfectly well, and I think may be better not to treat any of the Mick Travis films as related at all.
---