Reflections on characters and themes in Callan (TV series 1967 - 1972)

 

Reflections on “Callan” (TV series 1967-1972)

Created by James Mitchell

Starring Edward Woodward, Russell Hunter,

Anthony Valentine and Patrick Mower

“Callan” takes place in the Cold War era and this series portrays with quite overwhelming realism the grimy, dirty and often painful business of undercover operations intended to ensure national security.

According to the premise of this show, assuring the safety of the nation when normal legal and diplomatic channels have failed, can involve underhand and amoral activities such as fraud, theft, blackmail and murder. Authorities working in a group referred to as The Section, under the command of a man whose title is Hunter, have to be cold, calculating and somewhat amoral themselves as they make frequent use of unprincipled and unscrupulous means toward the pragmatic end of protecting the nation’s security, and of course it is implied that every developed nation will have such a service.

To help achieve their end, these authorities are willing to turn to less respectable or honourable members of society who may have developed skills and talents The Section might find useful. Of course, they also recruit “professional” agents such as Meres and Cross but they appear to be chosen on the basis of their devotion and ambition, and perhaps their traits of psychopathy. They will tend to follow orders unquestioningly and kill with little reflection or consideration.

David Callan, as we know him - this is not his original name - is quite different though at first glance he may appear to fit the authorities’ criteria. He has developed skills and cunning that allow him to survive in an unpleasant and dangerous world.

Having lost both parents in the London Blitz, Callan displayed the intelligence, determination and spirit required to survive and become self-reliant, but he has retained humanity, curiosity and a sense of fairness. Doubtless lacking direction and purpose, Callan joined the army, serving in Malaysia, and his energy, spirit and survival instincts were channelled to help him become a highly effective soldier both in terms of tactics and his ability to kill, if required. He has problems with authority and, though he saved an officer’s life, he also argued and fought with others of higher rank, perhaps reflecting independent thought, humanity and intelligence.

After leaving the army, undoubtedly unable to settle for a prosaic and mundane career in book-keeping, and perhaps missing the visceral excitement of military sorties and combat, Callan resorts to a life of crime, though he is rather unsuccessful and spends two years in prison.

It is on his release that The Section approaches him, clearly wishing to take advantage of his skills and character flaws for their own ends.

However, Callan brings not just military fighting and survival skills, but also his fundamental humanity, independence and questioning intelligence. He asks questions and seeks to understand when he is expected to obey orders. He may even doubt the wisdom of his instructions and follow his own instincts and common sense, though generally he achieves the mission set to him, but on his own terms and having satisfied his own desire to understand, even if he doesn’t always like or approve of the result, reflecting a moral dilemma.

Rather like many who fulfil roles they don’t particularly like in society, he grudgingly recognises the need for what he does and his own talents and abilities within that context, but he can rue certain decisions and actions that have led to this juncture in his life and the fact he feels trapped as he cannot simply change direction since his departure would have security implications, possibly threatening his own survival.

What makes “Callan” such gripping viewing is the existential nature of the world in which these agents work, with little consideration of moral niceties, and the conflict, inner and outer, Callan brings to the piece as he wrestles with his sense of duty and purpose, and the nagging and questioning humanity he demonstrates as he carries out his duties.

Callan’s one good friend is Lonely, a skilled small-time thief, forger and informer, who regularly helps Callan in the course of his work without fully knowing Callan’s background or situation. In circumstances that rather mirror his own relationship with his superiors, Callan regularly applies bullying tactics in his relationship with Lonely, though he often shows regret at having to resort to such methods which he uses to ensure control of Lonely and to maintain his compliance, but also to protect his friend by keeping him out of the loop and open to pressure and threat.

Another reason for the show’s success is the realism of the stories and characters themselves. Made at the height of the Cold War, many of the storylines and settings were vaguely familiar to audiences and it was intriguing to see headlines brought to life in believable, if sometimes grimy and painful, plots. Characters were always well fleshed out and drawn and it was rarely a simple case of “goodies versus baddies” as all had reasons, valid or otherwise, for their actions and we as an audience were invited to share in the complexity, pain and consequences of the situation, and sympathised with Callan as he had to act as judge and occasionally executioner, often contradicting his orders, and as he paid a heavy personal price in terms of relationships and personal life for his efforts.

 

This was not the first time in cinema and TV history that those of dubious background or character were used for the purpose of national security. “The Dirty Dozen” was released in 1967 and there had been numerous Cold War spy films with characters whose motives and backgrounds were a little murky, but I think that “Callan” was the first to properly delve into the murky existential waters of the Cold War on TV and fully explore characters, motives and especially consequences for all those involved. In so doing, a unique and almost melancholic atmosphere and mood were created, summed up beautifully by the opening titles and the haunting theme tune, and I think the creation of that atmosphere and indeed the premise itself played a huge part in the success of the series.

Of course, this premise has been used many times since, in a number of variations of the theme, notably in Luc Besson’s “Nikita” which itself spawned a TV series and a Hollywood remake.

All who wrote, directed, produced and acted in the four series, film and TV film deserve much praise, but special credit must go to Edward Woodward and Russell Hunter who created indelible characters still worth seeking out and watching more than fifty years after they first played them.

 

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

 

 

Reflections on themes and characters in The Hill (1965)

 

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