Reflections
on “Midnight Express”
Directed
by Alan Parker
Screenplay
by Oliver Stone
Based
on the book by Billy Hayes
Starring
Brad Davis, John Hurt, Randy Quaid,
Irene Miracle, Bo Hopkins et al.
While “Midnight Express”
is the film version of Billy Hayes’ account of arrest and imprisonment in
Turkey in 1970, I think it is fair to say the film offers a somewhat modified
version of events. Director Alan Parker and scriptwriter Oliver Stone have used
the base material to convey and study issues and themes that are valid,
compelling and even essential in terms of discussion of what constitutes a just
and caring society, but the details of Billy’s cinematic story are not
necessarily historically accurate. Of course, that in no way diminishes the
film’s effectiveness as a work of art and may even have allowed the film makers
greater freedom to express their ideas and concerns in the course of the film, and
while the producers may be accused of taking things to extremes, that is often
the basis of drama as it leads to clarity of conflict, consequences and
feelings.
Billy Hayes is no
criminal but, through youthful indiscretion, he is tempted to sneak two kilos
of cannabis through Turkish customs on his way home to America. He is caught
and, as the authorities wish to make a daunting example of him, he is
eventually sentenced to thirty years in prison, in particularly harsh and
difficult conditions. The film examines his experiences but also begs questions
and invites reflection on a number of issues and matters of social relevance
and concern.
The first issue to be
raised is that of cultural and legal differences between nations and the impact
these can have on attitude, conduct and punishment. Although Billy is aware
that he is breaking the law, he gives in to temptation in his desire to share
cannabis with his friends. This may be at least partially due to youthful recklessness
and a more liberal attitude at home, but he does not appear to view this as a
major crime and he misjudges and underestimates the attitude and approach of
the Turkish authorities. He and his father do little to help the situation by
treating officials with a degree of casual disrespect. This highlights
incongruities and friction that may arise due to disparities and contrasts in
cultural and legal divisions.
That said, it is often difficult
to alter one’s ingrained perceptions to accommodate a fresh and radically
different outlook, and our film seems to imply that perhaps authorities could take
this all too human failing in to account in terms of sentencing depending, of
course, on the gravity of the crime. However, it is clear that Billy is a
little man being used as a pawn by authorities in a bigger game of setting an
example to discourage similar acts, and his case is seen by the prosecutors
purely in terms of legality and punishment with little or no heed given to
background, circumstances, character and rehabilitation. Indeed, Billy’s
situation begs questions about justice and the proportion of the punishment to
fit the crime. Should the criminal justice system, whether in Turkey or
elsewhere, not be governed by considerations of fairness and compassion?
Our film effectively presents a plea for common humanity and it also invites the audience to consider the purpose of incarceration in the broadest terms. Is the objective merely to punish, humiliate or even take revenge, or is there room for rehabilitation and reform, taking account of remorse and the capacity to change? At one point, Billy intimates that he has learned his lesson (suggesting recognition of guilt) and that rather than make an example of him, the prosecutor and the courts would be more laudable or admirable if they showed mercy in his case. I think it was Dostoevsky who suggested (and I am paraphrasing here) that one can measure the worth of a society by the way it treats its criminals.
If a man is deprived of
hope, a sense of value or individual worth, and he has no recourse to natural
justice, what does he become? Billy is reduced to a shell operating on the most
basic level, lost in this prison labyrinth in which conventional social
structures and humanity do not apply as civilisation appears to turn its back
on the abuse and wretched destinies of those incarcerated.
A visit from his former
girlfriend provides a glimmer of hope as he is reminded of self-worth and the
existence of life outside his prison, and this much-needed wake-up call provides
the impetus to survive and form a plan to escape. With no prospect of release
or humane treatment, Billy will no longer meekly accept the brutal authority of
his captors as he realises he has no option but to take his destiny in his own
hands and make a bid to escape, or slowly die…
The setting of this film
is Istanbul and while it may be viewed simply as a modified recounting of
Billy’s experiences, the universal themes explored here have been examined in a
number of films set in a variety of countries including Britain, France and
America. Nor should these themes be regarded as relatively recent. In 1844 and
1862, writers Alexandre Dumas and Victor Hugo published “The Count of Monte
Cristo” and “Les Misérables” respectively and each examined the consequences of
unjust imprisonment, disproportionate sentences and the psychological harm done
by brutal and inhumane treatment.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
