The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
5th July 2003	A little piece of trivia about Pte. Henry Hook By Martin Heyes Just discovered this excellent website! Many years ago, when I was young subaltern with the 1st. Bn Cheshire Regt, I was told an amusing story by a Major who had recently been transferred to the Bn. from the 1st. Bn RRW. He told me that in 1964 he was a subaltern with the South Wales Borderers - which of course the 24th Regt became in 1881 - and who later amalgamated with the Welch Regt to become the Royal Regt. of Wales in (I think)1969. Anyway, when "Zulu" was being premiered in the Odeon, Leicester Square in 1964 the 1st Bn. SWB officers attended. Somebody had the bright idea of inviting one of Henry Hook's daughters to the premiere - I believe he fathered 2 late in his life and as he died in 1907 they wouldn't really have got to know him. Apparently the old lady was absolutely devastated to see him portrayed as he was in the film - a Cockney thief; drunkard; womaniser - and everything else that we all know (and love)! According to my informant she staggered out of the cinema and never really got over the shock! Does anyone know anything about Hook's offspring?
Date	Replies
7th July 2003	Simon Copley Some of Hook's descendants live in Cwmbran, South Wales (also home of John Williams Fielding who is buried in the parish church at Lantarnam.) One was Stuart Cameron who was formerly Mayor of Torfaen's pa. Another was a cashier at the Shell garage on Llantarnam Road (now demolished)
9th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Martin, I have no information about the historical Hook's children, unfortunately...but wanted to respond to your characterization of the filmic Hooky as a "thief, drunkard, womaniser." I enjoy this character's picaresque charm as much as the next person (to say the least) but find your labels unsupported by the film. Hook is accused of being a thief, and has been punished for his alleged crime, but he never admits to it and we never see him steal anything (unless you count the brandy, which had been abandoned anyway…and which Hook had earned by that point). As for being a drunkard, though Hooky talks a lot about the brandy, he drinks very little of it when he finally gets ahold of the bottle. He never becomes intoxicated and we never see the bottle again. Finally: womaniser? The only thing we know for sure about Hooky’s sex life is that he's married. He’s sort of flirtatious with Miss Witt at first (just as he’s sort of respectful toward Surgeon Reynolds at first) but he’s sort of clowning, too. At no point is Hook's behavior toward her anything less than proper. He greets her courteously, calling her Miss, and he has the decency to wait till she’s left the room before giving his opinion of her. When he calls her “a dry one, very cool” and says “Know what she needs,” he isn’t saying that he’s dying to have sex with her; he’s saying that she needs to get in touch with her sexuality (which is true, and something the audience has known since the Zulu wedding dance.) Ironically, Miss Witt seems to be attracted to Hook, which the other guys pick up on and tease him about after she leaves (“Play your cards right, Hooky, it could be you.”) But the character you call “a womanizer” does nothing to exploit the situation. He doesn’t touch her or proposition her (unlike other guys in the film). On the contrary, he tells her a story that makes it clear he’s married. (If he were trying to score with someone like Miss Witt, would he mention his wife?) But if Hooky finds Miss Witt less than irresistable, there is a character whom he can’t stop touching: Maxfield! Maybe this is because Maxfield subjected Hook to *twenty-eight days of bondage*. (And maybe Hook objected to Maxfield’s gift of money to Mrs. Hook because he didn’t want her to know about his relationship with Maxfield. This *would* explain his anger.) The hothouse atmosphere of the hospital, with its beds and bodies and boiling confrontations, is all very Yukio Mishima. Not to suggest that Hooky’s gay (actually, I think the movie Hook is bi)…but in any case he doesn't seem like much of a “womanizer” to me.
9th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Sorry about all the extraneous characters throughout the above! I don't know where they came from.
9th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Sorry about all the extraneous characters throughout the above! I don't know where they came from.
10th July 2003	Martin Heyes Diana Thank you for your reply - which admittedly took some time to read with all the pound signs and numbers thrown in. Lot to be said for proof reading. I'm afraid I disagree with nearly all of your points. There is little doubt in my mind that Cy Enfield wished to portray Hook as a thief - evidenced by the fact that he had Maxfield call him such whilst lying on his hospital bed in a delirious state. Remember: "you're no good Hook?" I cannot remember the exact words, nut he goes on to use that old saw about the only alternative to going to prison (on a theft charge) for Hook was to join the Army. Actually that was not a typical alternative for the Regular Army of 1879 and it certainly was not true in Hook's case. I also disagree with you with regard to Hook portrayed as a drinker. Think about it. There they are, in the blazing hospital, when you would think that having got his mates out all that would be on Hook's mind would be to save himself. But oh no, Enfield has him going to the medicinal brandy cupboard, risking his lfe, smashing the top off the bottle and swigging from it! And look at the lingering look on his face after he drimks - as if it is a great pity he can't stay lomger and finish the bottle! And "that's Company punishment!" All the more ironical, don't you think, considering the real Hook was a life-long teetotaller and a member of the Temperance Society! And as for the portrayal as a womaniser - well, I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, on the surface he does speak politely to Miss Witt - and pulls his braces back up when he walks into the "hospital ward" and unexpectedly finds her there - but I don't think anyone seriously doubts that there is some sexual "frisson" there. You make the point yourself; "she's a cool one," "you know what she needs," "play your cards right and it could be you Hooky," etc. No, Endfield wanted to portray Hook at the very least as a rogue and a cad - and at worst as a lecherer. Oh, and what on earth does "all very Yukio Mishima" mean? No, I don't think Miss Witt is in the least bit attracted to Hook, and I don't think Enfield portrays him as "bi" - unless you read something into him (Hook) smacking Maxfield's backside when he picks him up from the floor and throws him over the shoulder. Have we watched the same "Zulu" I wonder? Oh, and finally, fortunately by the time I joined the British Army the authorities had abolished Field Punishment No.1. Not too sure about the military authorities replacing it with "bondage" though.........
10th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Martin, You make some good points, and I realize my take on "Zulu" is nonstandard. Of your three epithets, "thief" has the strongest support in the film: chiefly one remark by Bromhead and several by Maxfield. My point was just that not everyone who's accused of (or punished for) a crime is guilty. The brandy scene is, I think, not really about the alcohol. When Hooky first grabs the bottle, his grin of satisfaction is ignoble enough, but when Williams comes back and reminds him of the potential punishment, Hooky's spirit blazes up and he purposely lingers there in a defiant celebration of his own heroism Focusing on ordinary drunkenness during this scene trivializes its noble beauty. Yes, there is undoubtedly a sexual tension in the scene between Hooky and Miss Witt. (Actually, I think I can claim the distinction of being the first to mention it in these pages--way, way back.) And yes, Hooky would probably sleep with her if he had the chance. But if this vague potentiality is enough to make him a "womanizer" or "lecher" then half the guys at RD could be so described. I don't see how his characterization of Miss Witt as "dry" and "cool" is an indication of desire; most guys would prefer a woman who's "hot and wet." Again: if he wanted to score with Miss Witt, would he mention his wife? Hmmm, you don't think Miss Witt is the least bit attracted to Hook? I think it would be a miracle if she weren't. (You might not have noticed this, being a guy and all--but Hooky's sexy.) When she announces the coming evacuation, she looks mostly at Hook, and her expression suggests that she hopes to impress him. When he responds with mild sarcasm, she's obviously disappointed. (Hook has zero authority at RD, so his opinion should carry no weight with her.) When she stares up into Hook's face as he stands masterfully astride Maxfield's body, her expression betrays not only alarm but a "take me now" kind of softness. When she swishes out of the room, she tarries outside the door to eavesdrop. Why would she do this, other than to hear what Hook says about her? And why does she caress the wall when the men tell Hooky "it could be you"? Sorry, Martin, but I think a careful viewing of the film supports my interpretation. As for Maxfield...yes, Hooky smacks him on the bottom. He also puts him into bed and kisses him. The relationship between Hook and Maxfield is obviously complicated and emotionally intense, from virtually their first screen moment together till Maxfield perishes in the fire. Where does all this intensity come from? You could argue that this is just a normal personality conflict between a strict disciplinarian and a rebel. But then there's that underlying love, shown verbally ("I'd help you," "That's my boy, Hook," "Where's my bloody sergeant?") and through actions (Maxfield sends money to Hook's wife; Hook risks life and limb to rescue Maxfield, and griefs over his death). Yukio Mishima is a 20th C Japanese novelist (widely considered that nation's greatest) whose sadomasochistic homosexuality led him to eroticize the military. My information on Field Punishment Number comes from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfield.htm and includes a diagram of a soldier tied to a cross. That source says Field Punishment was adopted as an alternative to flogging in 1881. This is two years after RD, but "Zulu" is full of minor inaccuracies. (I do proofread my entries. The substitution of garbage for punctuation marks was not apparent until the message came up on the RDVC board. Again, my apologies.)
10th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Martin, You make some good points, and I realize my take on "Zulu" is nonstandard. Of your three epithets, "thief" has the strongest support in the film: chiefly one remark by Bromhead and several by Maxfield. My point was just that not everyone who's accused of (or punished for) a crime is guilty. The brandy scene is, I think, not really about the alcohol. When Hooky first grabs the bottle, his grin of satisfaction is ignoble enough, but when Williams comes back and reminds him of the potential punishment, Hooky's spirit blazes up and he purposely lingers there in a defiant celebration of his own heroism Focusing on ordinary drunkenness during this scene trivializes its noble beauty. Yes, there is undoubtedly a sexual tension in the scene between Hooky and Miss Witt. (Actually, I think I can claim the distinction of being the first to mention it in these pages--way, way back.) And yes, Hooky would probably sleep with her if he had the chance. But if this vague potentiality is enough to make him a "womanizer" or "lecher" then half the guys at RD could be so described. I don't see how his characterization of Miss Witt as "dry" and "cool" is an indication of desire; most guys would prefer a woman who's "hot and wet." Again: if he wanted to score with Miss Witt, would he mention his wife? Hmmm, you don't think Miss Witt is the least bit attracted to Hook? I think it would be a miracle if she weren't. (You might not have noticed this, being a guy and all--but Hooky's sexy.) When she announces the coming evacuation, she looks mostly at Hook, and her expression suggests that she hopes to impress him. When he responds with mild sarcasm, she's obviously disappointed. (Hook has zero authority at RD, so his opinion should carry no weight with her.) When she stares up into Hook's face as he stands masterfully astride Maxfield's body, her expression betrays not only alarm but a "take me now" kind of softness. When she swishes out of the room, she tarries outside the door to eavesdrop. Why would she do this, other than to hear what Hook says about her? And why does she caress the wall when the men tell Hooky "it could be you"? Sorry, Martin, but I think a careful viewing of the film supports my interpretation. As for Maxfield...yes, Hooky smacks him on the bottom. He also puts him into bed and kisses him. The relationship between Hook and Maxfield is obviously complicated and emotionally intense, from virtually their first screen moment together till Maxfield perishes in the fire. Where does all this intensity come from? You could argue that this is just a normal personality conflict between a strict disciplinarian and a rebel. But then there's that underlying love, shown verbally ("I'd help you," "That's my boy, Hook," "Where's my bloody sergeant?") and through actions (Maxfield sends money to Hook's wife; Hook risks life and limb to rescue Maxfield, and griefs over his death). Yukio Mishima is a 20th C Japanese novelist (widely considered that nation's greatest) whose sadomasochistic homosexuality led him to eroticize the military. My information on Field Punishment Number comes from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfield.htm and includes a diagram of a soldier tied to a cross. That source says Field Punishment was adopted as an alternative to flogging in 1881. This is two years after RD, but "Zulu" is full of minor inaccuracies. (I do proofread my entries. The substitution of garbage for punctuation marks was not apparent until the message came up on the RDVC board. Again, my apologies.)
10th July 2003	Jim Bricket Diana- does it matter if hooky is bi? I mean there are some nice people that are BI
10th July 2003	Jim And then there are jerks like a few people who i will leave out
10th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Jim, I hope you didn't take my comments to be a slur of any kind. I emphatically don't think there's anything wrong with being bi (or gay or straight). There are indeed nice bi people...and, for the record, I consider myself to be one of them. I mentioned the possibility of Hooky's bisexuality in specific response to a theory of him as "womanizer," because I think "Zulu" has a homoerotic element that is powerful but seldom discussed.
10th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Jim, I hope you didn't take my comments to be a slur of any kind. I emphatically don't think there's anything wrong with being bi (or gay or straight). There are indeed nice bi people...and, for the record, I consider myself to be one of them. I mentioned the possibility of Hooky's bisexuality in specific response to a theory of him as "womanizer," because I think "Zulu" has a homoerotic element that is powerful but seldom discussed.
11th July 2003	Martin Heyes I confess to being somewhat puzzled as to why Diana's replies are nearly always duplicated!! I guess there must be a reason. But no matter; I think we have somewhat strayed off my original topic, but Diana's response has engendered an intersting discussion. But it all comes down to one simple, irrefutable fact. The life of Pte. Henryo Hook of the 24th Regiment has been documented to an amazing degree - probably far more than any other ordinary, mid-19th Century lower middle-class Gloucestershire man who became a private soldier in Victoria's Army and served in the Colonies. And the fact is he was portrayed in the film "Zulu" in a manner TOTALLY different to what we knnow of the man. Many would say that there is nothing wrong with this; it certainly was not (and is not) illegal for this to happen. The point I was making is I just think it was pity this had to happen - but then perhaps something of the film's appeal would have been lost had he been portrayed "true to life." And perhaps the same could be said if Frank Bourne; Dalton; Bromhead, Chard et al had been portrayed accurately. I just think that I can somehow empathise with Hook's daughter, if my informant's story is true - and I am sure it is. One of the most hackneyed expressions in the British language must be the term "the understatement of the year." I'm afraid Diana makes herself a candidate for making not the under....year but probably of the century, by her assertion that "Zulu is full of minor inaccuracies." Don't get me wrong - it is a rattling good yarn and I can remember getting into a great deal of trouble in 1964 when I made my younger brother and 2 younger cousins sit with me for a second - consecutive - showing in the cinema! I made them snuck down when the lights came on at the end of the first show, and we watched it thro" again. We exited the cinema to find 2 sets of very irate parents - and a police car! (The latter had been called because they were so worried about us). I have loved watching it many times since then - but we have to keep things in perspective - it is VERY FAR REMOVED from reality!
12th July 2003	Joseph The reason for double postings is this... If you hit the browser BACK button after posting your message and pass back through the page where the message was typed to get to the list... the system registers that as another pressing of the add reply button. So, when you post a reply... DO NOT use the back button on your browser to return to the topic list. Simply click the return to the topic list button that is on the page after posting your message. cheers, Joseph
12th July 2003	Hohn Sukey Pte. Hook was known as a good soldier and he was a teetotlar. Contrary to the movie, in his own words he said "I believe I'll have a drink" and that was AFTER the battle. It was most likely that was the first and last one he ever had! One glaring mistake was that the real Pte. Hook, like most of the men in the army at that time, had a rather large moustache.
14th July 2003	richard All ranks in the British Army had a moustache in the Victorian army. This was due to it being compulsory in Queens Regulations.As for Hooky smacking Maxfields bottom this was just a friendly pat,and ive seen the film loads of times and Hook does not kiss Maxfield!!
14th July 2003	CHRISTY Bluewell I cant believe anyones would call Hooky gay!!! Just thinking about him turns my green light on!! I dont think hes gay, hes to SeXaY to be gay. Guys are always touching each others butts, BUTT(but) it doesnt mean there gay. Maybe its cause their butt heads lol. JOKING! Guys rule. I cants live with em and i cants live without em. I dont think i could live without HOOKY! Soz for ramblin on and on. Christy B.
15th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Richard, When Hook puts Maxfield into bed after he faints, he says, "What do you want me to do, cry me heart out? Give him a big kiss?" And then he takes Maxfield's head in his hands and plants a kiss on it. This is easy to miss because of the angle of view. Christy, I never said Hooky was gay. I explicitly rejected that. What I said was that I think he's bi. It's quite possible to be bi and attractive at the same time.
15th July 2003	Martin Everett Let us stick to the facts. Pte Henry Hook VC is the only Rorke's Drift defender apart from Gonville Bromhead VC to have a brass memorial tablet in Brecon Cathedral. He is the only private soldier to be honoured amongest the plaques dedicated to officers of the 24th/South Wales Borderers. This suggests to me that he was highly respected by his comrades over and above the norm. Remember the movie 'Zulu' is only a piece of entertainment and as such does does not come near to replicate the horror of the situation and courage displayed by the men on 22/23 January 1879.
15th July 2003	Christy Diana- Ops Soz! I thought u meant he was Gay! I guess i got confused in your post cause it was long and sooooo informative! I learned lots that i never learned about ZULU! And stuff i never wanted to know(at 1 time lol) Its definately pos to be bi and attractive. and HOOKY is that!!!!!!!!! if he is bi, which i doubt. BUTT(but lol) thats my opinion!
16th July 2003	Martin Heyes Well said Martin!
16th July 2003	Christy Martin E.- Yes facts are always true to their word. :) But I have got a fact about Zulu movie. HOOKY IS FINE!!! And the other (real) Hook is great. He well deserved his VC!
18th July 2003	Edward Bear Please do remember that Diana is the absolute expert on everything to do with the film Zulu, and could not possibly be wrong - ever.
18th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Edward, Why so snippy? I've never made any extravagent claims about being an authority. If you disagree with my ideas about "Zulu," why don't you explain why they are wrong instead of attacking me personally?
18th July 2003	Ina Essex Well said Diana!
18th July 2003	Peter Ewart I've been astonished at some of the remarks posted during this thread. Being a "wrinkly" who can remember my fascination for this film over nearly 40 years now, I am no doubt occasionally gulity of succumbing to lazy, narrow-minded ("reactionary"?) views which can easily descend into blinkered opinions & even intolerance. But I try very hard not to and am puzzled by some of the above! As far as the film "Zulu" itself goes, reading the postings on this forum over the last year or so have informed me enormously, as there have been contributions from those who've studied the technical details such as weapons & uniforms; those who've written about the various actors; those who've considered the aims of Endfield & Baker; those who've studied the actual making of the film in S Africa; those who collect advertising posters; those who have analysed the script or screenplay; those who've tried to get inside the actors' and actress's parts and those who've wondered why so many departures from fact were introduced, etc etc. I have particularly admired the contributions of, among others, Sheldon Hall and Diana Blackwell. I wonder if it is sometimes overlooked that when Diana discusses the parts played by, for example, James Booth or Ulla Jacobssen, she is (as far as I can see) explaining how she understands the way THEY have decided to portray the parts. If we accept that Baker and Endfield have, to all intents and purposes, served up a work of near fiction, why should we be surprised that the actors and actress involved decided (within whatever licence they were granted) to do likewise? We know that Pte Hook was not a reprobate, but that many soldiers at R/Drift were & why the role was thought appropriate. We know that Dalton was not a fop, that Cetshwayo didn't exult in the coming engagement, that Witt was neither at Ulundi nor present when the battle started, nor did he have an adult daughter, that there were only a dozen or so Taffs on site, that Ivor Emmanuel's contribution was hilarious if nothing else, etc etc etc. Look at Hawkins' performance - he decided to create (out of nothing, it should be said) what he thought would be a very moving role & was aghast at what he saw on screen & hated the film and blamed the director! But so what? We have a film depicting events so far removed from what actually happened and the cast playing parts as they saw fit, that simply anything goes - both in the film AND in considered criticism or comment on it. Now, I'm pretty sure that when Diana makes a contribution on this forum about, say, "Hookie", she's analysing what Booth intended to introduce to the role, not whether Pte Hook himself was this, that or the other, and then how the role inter-acted with the others. She means the film not the actual event, surely. I have to confess to never having dreamed of analysing the parts in such minute detail, nor noticing half of what she sees, but why shouldn't someone who is interested in cinema do so? It's made me rethink at the very least. I have found any factual comments Diana has made about the film AND the actual battle to be entirely accurate and, where any slip-up has occurred, she has retracted immediately. Like most Anglo-Saxons (I suspect), I thought the smack on Maxfield's backside was just a bit of light hearted slapstick, giving the Sgt a mild wallop while he was unconscious, rather than anything more subtle or sexual. Might not happen in real life but looked good in the film, that sort of thing. On the other hand, how do we know what Booth thought, and why should we not reconsider what other little nuances (obvious to Diana but missed by us) might have a meaningful impact. On the other hand (you might say!) when did you last see a private slap the arse of his NCO! My point being: if someone volunteers his or her opinion which happens to be "new" or somehow different to ours, why descend to personal abuse? I have yet to see anything Diana has contributed to be in the least objectionable but I've read plenty that she has written which has stimulated informed discussion. Apologies for being so long-winded and also to Diana for what is probably a rather clumsy defence! Peter
18th July 2003	Samel Smithington Well Said Peter and Diana and Martin and Christy and everyone. Its always good to contrubitions
20th July 2003	Diana Blackwell Joseph, Thanks for the tip about the double postings. Very helpful. Ina and Peter, Thank you very much...the both of you! :) Just to clarify, though: none of the "Zulu" cast has said anything to affirm or deny the ideas I've proposed (so far as I know).
20th July 2003	Martin Heyes Peter Thank you for a most interesting post. I must disagree with you, however, in one area; surely you are underestimating the power of the director in the making of the film? The actors may or may not have known something about the actual characters they were playing. I feel sure that Stanley Baker knew a fair bit about Chard before filming started, and Michael Caine states in his autobiography that he modelled his playing of Bromhead on his platoon commander in the Fusiliers during his National Service - BUT surely most of the others would have just played their roles as the director told them? I am mindful, though, that you have used the expression "within whatever licence...." You have accepted that the actors were not given carte blanche to portray a character however they wanted him/her to appear. Most of us seem to be agreed that the film is loosely based on the events which occured on that January night in 1879. On a completely different subject; based on your surname are you in any way related to the NCO who captured the French Eagle at the Battle of Waterloo?
21st July 2003	Peter Ewart Martin Yes, I suppose it depends on the director and, to a certain extent, on the experience and standing of the actor. Hawkins, for example, was the most prestigious name in the film up to then (I'm sure I'd seen him in far more really big & famous parts in British films, especially war films, then Baker at that time) and so it would be ridiculous for Baker not to allow him to play the part almost exactly as he wished, given his reputation - but again, within whatever scheme Endfield and Baker had in mind. According to his memoirs, Hawkins decided himself upon a pacifist role - exactly in tune with the times of the production? - although he didn't write the script and must have been controlled by that to an extent, I accept. He felt he had brought a very moving performance to the part but, in the event, was apparently outwitted by Endfield as Hawkins felt he'd been "set up" competely and been made to look a fool by other actors or events in the background - or that's how I read his argument. Personally, I don't know what he was worried about as I thought he played the (fictional!) part brilliantly & can only think that he felt Bourne and the private outside his lock-up were taking the mickey, but then that & the drunkenness were part of the story. Anyway, Hawkins was virtually spitting blood at the pemiere & attempted to storm out. With Hook, I take your point - he was a much more junior actor than Hawkins, but then, anyone would have been. I simply don't know how much licence he'd have had. Certainly, if it had been a stage part, I think he'd have had a fair bit. I don't know if Hook has spoken publicly on this? I suspect most of us had never previously considered any of the points Diana has raised on this forum over the last year or so, including me, but it tends to make one reconsider Miss Witt's role. I had previously thought she was as uptight in the hospital as had been in the opening scene! But being a feature film and not a documentary allows us all to interpret it as we see it, doesn't it? As for Sgt Ewart, I wish there was a connection! I have relatives who insist there is, but being more interested in the facts than claims to fame, I'm afraid I have to admit defeat. Ensign Ewart came from the same part of the world (Dumfriesshire/Kirkudbrigfhtshire/Lanarkshire, where most Ewarts appear to have emanated) and quite a number of generals and diplomats were scions of these famiies, but as the surname was so very common in those counties and my lot were rather humble, I have to be happy with just the same surname! (Tho' this didn't stop me having my picture taking outsuide the "Ensign Ewart" pub in Edinburgh!) Incidentally, William Ewart Gladstone, who took office once more soon after the AZW, was named after his godfather. Peter
21st July 2003	Peter Ewart I see I've slipped into the film versus reality trap - for Hook read Booth!!! PE
22nd July 2003	Martin Heyes Peter Very interesting! I didn't know that Hawkins was so angry at the premiere, (never having read his memoirs). It seems that (the real) Hook's daughter was not the only one who left the cinema somewhat upset after the premiere!! (And that point was, after all, what this thread was meant to be about when I started it). Martin