Possible Spoilers
In August 1963 a gang of London criminals robbed the Glasgow to London mail train and stole about £2,500,000 in used banknotes, in what became known as 'The Great Train Robbery'. This film tells the story of Ronald 'Buster' Edwards, one of the gang- not just his part in the robbery, but also his life on the run afterwards. Although most of his accomplices were quickly arrested, Edwards initially escaped to Mexico, but later returned to Britain where he was imprisoned for fifteen years.
The film was advertised under the slogan 'He'll steal your heart', and the character portrayed by Phil Collins is, if not exactly a lovable character, certainly a likable one. Whatever his other faults may be, Edwards is shown as a devoted family man, and the most important relationship in the film is that between him and his wife June. When he goes to Acapulco to live a life of comparative luxury on the proceeds of his crime, June and their young daughter Nicky accompany him. June, however, loathes life in Mexico, where she cannot speak the language and hates the food, and returns to England, taking Nicky with her. Buster is forced to choose between his family and his freedom, as he knows that if he goes back to join them he is likely to be betrayed and arrested.
Both the main roles are well played. Phil Collins amply refutes the prejudice that singers cannot act and should not be allowed to try, and he receives excellent support from Julie Walters as the narrow, insular June, quite unable to adapt herself to the culture and lifestyle of any part of the world located more than about two miles from the Elephant and Castle. (For non-British readers, this is a working-class district of South London). There is also a good deal of nostalgic sixties detail- the fashions, the flickering black-and-white televisions, the garish geometrically patterned wallpaper, and the music. (Several pop songs of the era feature on the soundtrack).
The Great Train Robbers all received heavy sentences (some of thirty years in jail), and the film suggests that this was as a result of political interference in the judicial process. This may be true- the robbery certainly came as a great embarrassment to Britain's Conservative government. The government prided itself on a strict stance on morality and on law and order, but two months previously it had been involved in a major scandal when one of its senior members, John Profumo, had been forced to resign as a result of sexual impropriety. The punishments doled out to the robbers may have been a way of demonstrating to the nation that the government was winning the fight against crime.
Insofar as the film shows that all the robbers were punished for their offence, some possibly more severely than they deserved, it cannot be said to glamorise crime, unlike some fictitious 'heist' movies which show the criminals getting away with it or which, like 'The Italian Job', add an artificially moralistic ending to an otherwise amoral film to keep the censor happy. Nevertheless, I was still unhappy with the way in which some of the aspects of the robbery were treated in 'Buster'. In the actual robbery the train driver, Jack Mills, was beaten over the head and seriously injured when he tried to resist the robbers. This incident is omitted from the film. Buster complains that he and his accomplices have been treated more harshly than Profumo was 'for sleeping with a tart who gave all our secrets to the Russians', implying that the authorities are more lenient towards upper-class wrongdoers than towards working-class ones. (In fact, Profumo was not charged with any criminal offence, and neither he nor his mistress Christine Keeler was ever involved in espionage). The Great Train Robbers may not have been engaged in an 'act of organised banditry' or 'warfare against the community' (as a judge said about them in a fine example of judicial hyperbole), but neither were they working-class heroes putting one over on the establishment, as the film likes to imply. They were simply petty criminals who got lucky and pulled off a big one.
The fictitious Buster Edwards as portrayed by Phil Collins might have been capable of stealing hearts, but I doubt if his real-life counterpart was quite so engaging. 'Buster' may not glamorise the life of the criminal but it does, I feel, gloss over the more sordid aspects of a real-life crime story by turning it into a romantic comedy. As I watched it I felt that if June had really loved Buster she would have tried harder to overcome her aversion to eating chilli con carne rather than fish and chips. And if he had really loved her he would have found a more honest way of earning his living. 7/10
