Reflections
on “The Hill”
Directed
by Sidney Lumet
Script
by Ray Rigby
Starring
Sean Connery, Harry Andrews,
Ian
Hendry, Ian Bannen et al.
Within a military
context, but equally applicable to a variety of social contexts, discipline and
rules promote order and are tools toward the end of achieving desired outcomes.
However, while seeking
compliance with rules, perspective and proportion in terms of seeing the bigger
picture and recalling their primary purpose may be lost, and insistence on
adherence to regulations may become an end in itself, with the result that some
rules may take on a greater weight and significance than they merit or, indeed,
a vital consideration or purpose in their enforcement may be overlooked.
A chain of command and a
system of rank may allow or even encourage the dodging of personal
responsibility as blame can nearly always be attributed to another of higher or
lower rank. This may also incite a certain lack of consideration for the
consequences of one’s actions or decisions.
Pride in a position of
authority may aggravate a situation as defiance or challenge may be taken
personally and emotions and tempers can flare with potentially explosive
consequences. Indeed, some may be so consumed by their position that they come
to virtually personify the rules they advocate and they may become protective
or even defensive of their position.
Of course, position and
authority are open to abuse through lack of professionalism, lack of
commitment, poor judgment or lack of compassion and humanity, especially when imposing
a regime on those who do not necessarily share enthusiasm for it.
One method of ensuring
compliance is to punish the many for the actions of the one, thus inviting
pressure from the many on the one to change his or her attitude. This tactic
demonstrates a disregard for the thoughts and grievances, justified or not, of
individuals, and emphasises the promotion of blind obedience and compliance.
Expectations of loyalty
and devotion accompanying compliance to authority and rank can lead to a sense
of kinship but also ambition and jealousy among those who wish to build a career
within such a structure, or outrage at those who reject this fraternity and its
implied values.
All of us contribute to social
systems and situations, if only through tacit approval. However, if we are
uncomfortable with a state of affairs or perceive what we regard as an
injustice, it is our duty to speak up and not allow the situation to continue
or develop.
These themes, and several
more, are explored in this underrated but excellent, if intense and painful,
WW2 drama.
The storyline of “The
Hill” is relatively simple. Five new prisoners arrive at a British military
stockade in North Africa, all found guilty of relatively minor acts of
indiscipline or insubordination and all sent to this facility to be broken and
rebuilt as soldiers worthy of their uniform, under the keen eye of military
martinet, Regimental Sergeant Major Wilson and his staff.
Staff Sergeant Williams,
also newly arrived, is very keen to make his mark and impress R.S.M. Wilson,
and he willingly takes on the task of instilling discipline and inflicting
punishment on his charges in order to bring about the desired change in their
attitude. However, he takes things too far and one of the new prisoners dies as
a result of his excessive regime of exercise and discipline.
This death brings into
sharp focus differences in attitude toward regulation, humanity and
responsibility on both sides of the prison population, and a clash becomes
inevitable.
Each character is
beautifully defined and drawn and each represents a variation in attitude
toward the military mindset and how best to survive such a regime.
R.S.M. Wilson is a proud
and tough non-commissioned officer who believes utterly in the sanctity of rank
and regulation. He is devoted to his profession and has total confidence in the
worthiness of his mission to transform weak or poor soldiers into real military
men worthy of the uniform they wear. He is proud of his position and his
authority which he guards with zeal, turning on anyone who offers challenge or
who shows perceived weakness in the carrying out of instructions and following
regulations. He may feel he belongs to an elite group of worthies and he
expects loyalty from and among his men. He does not doubt himself or the system
he represents and enforces by the book.
This is undoubtedly why
he takes against Joe Roberts, a former Sergeant Major dispatched to prison for
“rehabilitation” after he struck his commanding officer who had insisted
Roberts should lead his men on a suicide mission. Roberts refused to blindly
follow an order because he foresaw the consequences in terms of the bigger
humanitarian picture, and he will go on to point out the consequences on others
of orders while in prison. His faith in a system to which he adhered previously
was weakened by the prospect of a thoughtless waste of life and mindless
obedience to a chain of command. He appears to accept the need for discipline
in order to achieve things, but this must be tempered by reason and humanity, an
attitude that will surely bring him into conflict with Wilson and his staff.
Roberts does not lack
courage either physically or in terms of conviction, and is willing to fight
for a cause. He knew what the consequences would be when he struck his C.O. and
he is willing to put in a complaint about Williams, despite being fearful and
knowing the position in which this will leave him.
This is in direct
contrast to Williams who postures behind position and authority and displays
cowardice and a bullying viciousness when he is forced to make a stand. Like
many prisoners, Williams does not truly belong to the group in which he is
serving. Wilson and Staff Sergeant Harris may differ in temperament but they
share essential military values while Williams has merely found an outlet for
his sadistic character. In a way, Williams is the principal catalyst of the
drama and he poses a greater threat than the likes of Joe Roberts to the
sanctity of discipline and authority as he has no real regard for military
values and manipulates rules, regulations and people to indulge his passions
while covering himself and assigning responsibility to others.
He sought his current
posting in North Africa to avoid the Blitz in London and he appears to take
pleasure in tormenting and bullying men who would be persecuted if they
retaliated. He clearly has a healthy opinion of his own abilities as he sets
out to climb the hill, a sizeable mound of rock and sand that prisoners are
compelled to climb repeatedly in the searing North African heat, doubtless
hoping to brag to prisoners of his prowess. However, he disappoints himself and
loses self-esteem when he fares badly, despite making his effort in the
relatively cool night-time. This loss of self-respect is only reinforced when
he loses to Wilson in a drinking contest.
Thus, his insistence on
inflicting the hill as a punishment, especially to poor, exhausted Stevens who
is visibly at the end of his tether, only further diminishes our regard for him
as we know that he is aware of how painful and difficult this exercise is, and
he appears to wish to humiliate and demean his prisoners principally to boost
his own sense of position and self-worth.
Bartlett is a poorly
educated self-centred opportunist. To a degree, he provides comic relief but he
has little gumption and he is unwilling to make a stand and do what is right by
others when the situation demands.
Staff Sergeant Harris
shows humanity, compassion and cunning as he tries to manipulate Wilson into
showing consideration and leniency toward Stevens. He understands Wilson’s
military mindset and fans his ego to bring him round, but Wilson is too
self-important and proud to take advice on how to treat prisoners. Harris
recognises Williams for what he is but is persuaded not to take action by
Wilson’s rhetoric based on loyalty and accountability. However, after Stevens’
death, and bolstered by the efforts and suffering of Roberts and the Medical
Officer, he overcomes his fear and hesitation and he insists on an
investigation into Williams’ methods and actions, allowing humanity and
responsibility to take precedence over military organisation and command.
Jacko King suffers racist
abuse, largely with good humour, and displays much common sense. Toward the end
of the film, he makes a highly memorable stand against not just the racism to
which he has been subjected, but also against the inhumanity and abuse they
have all suffered in the name of military mentality, rules and regulations. He
removes his clothes and quits the army on the spot, refusing to recognise
military authority over him. He sees the Camp Commandant and, treating him as
an equal, effectively and brilliantly points out that regulations and authority
in the army, and in society in general, only apply with mutual consent. The
authority of one person over another depends on recognition and acceptance of
that authority. As if to emphasise this point, King picks up a number of the
C.O.’s cigars and nonchalantly saunters across the parade ground, to the
delight of his fellow prisoners.
In a democracy, those to
whom laws apply wish to see justice, fairness and transparency both in the
structure of the law and its application, otherwise it may be considered unfit
for purpose and inappropriate.
The Medical Officer is
probably a good man but he lacks commitment to his job and has become somewhat
casual and apathetic. His lack of attention and care may have contributed to
the situation but he is certainly not alone in creating an establishment and
conditions in which a man has died due to the treatment he received. He is
pushed into action when he is vaguely threatened by Williams and Wilson, who
are ready to pin responsibility on him to save their own necks. Once again,
humanity and responsibility are revived and placed above military organisation,
though in this case due largely to the threat of personal consequences.
McGrath, rather like the
M.O., is fundamentally a good man but he is principally concerned with his own
position and survival. When faced with overwhelming evidence and injustice,
McGrath opts to accuse Williams of misconduct and will go even further in his
condemnation of Williams….
The Commanding Officer
and Stevens share certain traits. Neither seems very strong, determined or
able, and each seems devoted to his wife. Stevens is a perfectly nice,
home-loving man not made for the rigours of military discipline, while the C.O.
appears somewhat ineffectual and leaves all the work and day to day
administration of the camp to his staff, principally R.S.M. Wilson who is very
happy to take on the duties, responsibility and position of running the camp.
In the end, Williams is
to be investigated and Roberts is vindicated and relieved, but when the badly
injured Roberts is threatened with a further assault by Williams, this proves
too much for King and McGrath who set about Williams.
Roberts begs them to
stop, insisting they have won and are now ruining everything. Reason and
humanity had won over regulation and regimentation, but that advantage will be
lost as King and McGrath resort to the kind of conduct they all fought to
condemn. It must be said, however, that Williams’ squeals of panic and fear are
most satisfying…
This is a superb,
intimate and intense drama well served by the constant development of the story
and the clearly defined characters. Sidney Lumet’s direction makes you feel
like you have shared this experience in both time and space and he manages to
lend dynamism and engagement to virtually every scene despite the confined and
claustrophobic setting.
Sean Connery is the star
whose presence undoubtedly allowed the production to go ahead but this is an
ensemble cast. The acting by each participant is outstanding and Sean Connery
was, I believe, rightly proud of this difficult but highly worthwhile film.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
HOME
BLOG
