Introduction

                              Welcome to Stuart Fernie’s Blog

Please scroll down or find on the right links to articles, pages of reflections on films, books

and occasional pieces of short fiction.

These include thoughts on "Heaven's Gate", "Civil War", "The Ghost and Mrs Muir", "Ad Astra", Duality in 19th century literature, "Living", "Hell in the Pacific", "Point Blank", "Vera Cruz", "Dr Strange in the Multiverse", my interpretation of "Il faut cultiver notre jardin", "Jean de Florette" and "Manon des Sources", "Drive my car", "The Batman", the place of acting in society, thoughts about religion and fate, "The Banshees of Inisherin", "Full Metal Jacket", "The Bishop's Wife", "Moliere", "Les Fleurs du Mal", "Soylent Green", "Bad Day at Black Rock", "The First Great Train Robbery", The Dreyfus Affair, "Persona", "The Seventh Seal", "A Clockwork Orange", "Night Moves", "Lonely are the Brave", "In the heat of the night", "The League of Gentlemen" (1960), thoughts on the nature of film noir, "Star Trek", "Seven Days in May", "Dead Poets Society", "Good Will Hunting", "Callan", "The Hill", "Cool Hand Luke", "The Hustler", "Road to Perdition", "The Verdict", "Three Colour Trilogy", "Jojo Rabbit", "Jeremiah Johnson", "Collateral", "Joker", "Barry Lyndon", "The Bridge at Remagen", "Le Mans '66 (Ford v Ferrari)", Charles Foster Kane ("Citizen Kane"), "The Deer Hunter", "Highlander", "No Country for Old Men", "Gattaca", "The Adventures of Robin Hood"(1938), "Apocalypse Now", "Spartacus", "The Bridge on the River Kwai", "The Long Good Friday", "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood", "The Third Man", "Finding Forrester", "The Outlaw Josey Wales", "Untouchable" (2011),"Unforgiven", "The Manchurian Candidate", "The Wild Bunch", "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", "Papillon" (1973), "Public Eye", "Existentialism in society today", "Seven Samurai", "It's a Wonderful Life", "Don Quixote", "We're No Angels", "The African Queen", "Babette's Feast", "War for the Planet of the Apes", "Dunkirk", “Dances With Wolves”, “Inherit The Wind” and “The Prisoner”. 

A link to my YouTube channel with video presentations of a number of my pages.

After I retired from teaching, I thought I’d write my memoirs, “What have I done?”, and present them online. Please find links to these memoirs, some French support pages and reflections on "Les Miserables" below.

I can be contacted through the comments sections or at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk

Other blogs available:

French Support Pages

Discussion of “Les Misérables”

Tales of teaching – memoirs of a former French teacher

All intellectual property rights reserved

Characters and themes, and strengths and weaknesses in "Heaven's Gate"

 

Reflections on “Heaven’s Gate”

Written and directed by Michael Cimino

Starring Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, John Hurt et al.

 

The following article is based on a viewing of the 2012 216-minute Blu-Ray version of the film.

The 19^th century is renowned for its gradual move toward social understanding, compassion and accountability among those in authority. In contrast, “Heaven’s Gate” demonstrates the consequences if authorities (right up to government level) are willing to put the narrow and ruthless interests of the influential wealthy, here in the form of stock and landowners, above principle, law, order and the aspiration to justice, all at the expense of humanity.  

At its heart, “Heaven’s Gate” explores a most worthy main theme or cause as it presents the story of the persecution and assassination of a large number of immigrants in the Wyoming of the 1870s by an association of wealthy stock owners who, tired of seeing some of their stock stolen and killed to feed starving immigrant families, hire some fifty men to kill those on a 125-strong death list in the hope of discouraging further theft. It is suggested that this course of action gained approval in the upper echelons of government as these businessmen are legally entitled to protect their property and there is no consideration of the situation or rights of poor citizens who set out to build homes for themselves while contributing to the development of their adopted country.

Plenty of scope, then, for the defence of humanity, principle and justice, and the engagement of emotion and intellect on the part of the audience, if only through the incitement of indignation and outrage. However, this opportunity is largely squandered through issues of pace, purpose, clarity and self-indulgence.

There are many positives. The sheer scale is quite breathtaking in terms of the natural vistas and the numerous crowd scenes. Atmosphere and tension are established. The conflict is at times quite visceral. There are divisive characters and the appealing premise of a threat to justice. There are sympathetic immigrant characters who display admirable qualities and intriguing if questionable main characters. The central theme of power and wealth versus principle and humanity is highly attractive, and the performances are by and large perfectly acceptable, even good. Sadly, however, writer and director Michael Cimino appears to have written a script and produced a film that he wanted to see and understood, but he failed to respect the needs and understanding of his audience.

In later versions of the film, numerous lengthy scenes were cut altogether but I would suggest nearly every scene is needlessly and indulgently long, thus losing engagement and patience on the part of his audience.

The script needed to be reviewed and edited before shooting began. There are regular issues of clarity in terms of character identification and background, as well as pace and purpose. Attention is drawn to certain reactions or events and this is not followed through. We may reach the end of a scene and not really understand its import or why a character responded or didn’t respond in a certain way. Conclusions may be reached that are not well supported by previous dialogue. There are inconsistencies in character development or changes and attitudes that beg questions which remain unanswered. The tone is almost universally downbeat, even gloomy, apart from one relatively upbeat and comic sequence – Mr Cimino might have raised the spirit of the piece and the audience if he had incorporated some comic relief at various points in the film rather than restrict it to one anachronistic sequence.

Of course, these issues may have come about as the result of losing two full hours of material from the original five-and-a-half-hour version.

Another element that contributed to the downbeat tone and lack of engagement is the lack of hero-figures. Jim Averill is the obvious candidate but his conduct falls far short of hero status and I’ll return to him shortly.

The only other character I think we’re supposed to view as vaguely heroic in terms of development and evolution is, surprisingly, Nate Champion. Presented as a cold-blooded killer, we are supposed to gain sympathy and perhaps some respect for him when he spares a young cattle-thief and then displays apparently genuine feelings for Ella, the local brothel keeper and occasional prostitute, even asking her to marry him. It seems to me that we are eventually to believe he has had a change of attitude and mind when he turns on one of his employers as a result of Ella’s rape, but this is a personal reaction and not because he has developed any understanding of or compassion for his victims. We do not feel any particular sympathy or sense of injustice when he is pursued by his former employers. He remains the same ambiguously conflicted but fundamentally heartless man who now exercises his capacity to kill coldly as a result of following his feelings rather than orders. He has not had a change of heart, expresses no regret and displays no heroic qualities as such.

Another recurring character originally presented as potentially influential and even, perhaps, heroic, is Billy Irvine, first seen with Jim Averill at a Harvard graduation ceremony in 1870.

I would suggest that this whole lengthy Harvard section is largely unnecessary except to imply that Jim and Billy come from wealthy backgrounds and to draw attention to the idea of mixing the cultivated with the uncultivated in the hope of raising standards, a premise proposed by the reverend doctor which is rapidly and quite eloquently dismissed by Billy Irvine in his address to those gathered for the graduation. Twenty years later, we learn Billy has joined the stock owners’ association and offers only meagre and ineffectual opposition to their plans to kill a large number of immigrants before conceding and accepting them. In the end, the audience may even be forgiven for wondering what useful role Billy plays in the proceedings except, perhaps, to boost Jim Averill’s standing by comparison.

In 1890 it appears that Jim is a respected marshal. However, he does little to merit this position or the audience’s respect, at least initially. When entering a store in Casper, he does nothing to help an immigrant who is being badly beaten, though he stops the beating as he leaves the store, telling the man’s aggressor he has won and advising the immigrant’s wife and family to move on. Shortly afterward, Jim comes across the same family and discovers the husband has been shot dead. After exchanging a few words, he drives on, leaving the newly widowed immigrant to struggle with her wagon as she drags it toward their land. These are not the actions of a committed or principled lawman or even a caring human being.

Although he was moved by the plight of the immigrants, Jim did little to help them until he was stirred to take a stance against the forces of wealth and power by the brutal rape of his girlfriend Ella by members of the association’s gang of hoods and killers. Even then, he appears to hesitate but finally throws in with the immigrants who, facing destruction, make a stand against those willing to casually wipe them out. In the end, however, they lose the battle and Ella is killed in an ambush during which Jim kills the cattleman responsible for the attack and then he mourns Ella.

In one or two other places, there are nods to existentialism as Jim suggests each of us must make our own decisions and make our own way. I wondered if this was at the core of Jim’s lack of action in the face of injustice and his refusal to marry or take responsibility for Ella, but the scenes at the end of the film caused me to review these thoughts.

Some thirteen years later, we find Jim living in opulent luxury on board a yacht. He is accompanied by the same beautiful girl he pursued in Harvard at the start of the film and we realise she may be his wife.

He looks around and appears tearful, disappointed, regretful and perhaps even embarrassed or ashamed by his surroundings. Was Jim a rich man playing at being poor (as was stated at one point in the film)? If he had another life to which he could return, was this Harvard-educated man (who used his knowledge of Roman battle tactics to help the immigrants in the final battle) ever truly committed to his work as a marshal? Does this explain his unwillingness to take action? Was he married while he was seeing Ella and does that explain his lack of commitment to her?

As he looks upon the opulence and security that surround him and he appears upset, is he doubting the value he has given to his life? Is he troubled by his conscience? Did he simply and too easily give up the worthy cause of defending the poor from self-serving rich people who effectively run the country? Did he take the easy option of rejoining the rich set after his adventure in Wyoming?

There is much that could have been great about “Heaven’s Gate” but the audience should not have been left to interpret scenes or input motives, background and character. It is reasonable to expect guidance, pace and purpose from the director and writer.

Apart from structural issues, the film may have fared miserably at the box office because ultimately there is no-one to root for, not even a tragic hero to support, and the film offers no positive outcome or hope, and that is hard to swallow having invested three and a half hours in the film.

Of course, there is always the possibility that this negative outlook was just what Mr Cimino was aiming for as a reflection of society and its infrastructure.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

YouTube                                               Blog

Reflections on characters and themes in “Civil War”

 

Reflections on “Civil War”

Written and directed by Alex Garland

Starring Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura

and Stephen McKinley Henderson

 

A video presentation of this material is available here.

Intense, unidirectional, visceral and graphically violent, “Civil War” presents us with a warning of potential consequences of political, social and moral division, taken to extreme yet ominously plausible.

In the context of the film, we learn that the President of the USA is dictatorial and has acted outwith the terms of the Constitution in that, among other things, he is serving a third term, has disbanded the FBI and has fired upon his own citizens to bring them under control. We hear the President claim democratic authority under the Constitution and the broader legal system yet he appears to be undermining and spurning restrictions and regulations set out in the same Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

It is implied the President has abandoned rule by law and principle in favour of personal entitlement, judgement and preference. He applies personal perception and acumen rather than apply a considered overview in which varying points of view are respected.

As a result of this attitude at the top of government, numerous blinkered, narrow-minded and self-serving individuals are willing to act on their own beliefs and convictions and they rationalise positions and manipulate situations and language to justify dubious, amoral and criminal behaviour.

The President and his supporters are opposed by the Western Forces, a coalition whose intention it is to remove the President from power. Opposition appears to be based on democratic order and principles but in the face of amoral, brutal and remorseless attacks and attitudes, they must engage the enemy using similar tactics.

Eventually, divisions have become so deep and entrenched, and experience and pain so overwhelming, that each side has lost sight of argument and reason and resorts to action without recourse to discussion. It becomes a matter of shoot first and ask questions later as all participants seek to survive and impose their view.

There are shocking, awful and disquieting scenes in which victims are tortured, beaten and murdered, often without hesitation or consideration on the part of the aggressor. This, we may assume, is the consequence of the abandonment of objective justice and laws, replaced by partisan beliefs and skewed views, including personal acts of revenge and retribution, now apparently validated by manipulation and simple dismissal of principle and values at the top of government.

This may also suggest that “civilisation” may be little more than a high-minded façade behind which lie profound selfishness and self-indulgence that require little encouragement to come to the fore.

We witness unbridled and brutal destruction and devastation and thus become aware of the fragility of the order, culture and even the very buildings that we take to be established and eternal, yet here we see and understand how easily and quickly these pillars of progress and society can be undermined and destroyed without due care and attention to their maintenance.

The events of the film are seen through the eyes of and conveyed by a party of journalists. Presumably journalists have been chosen as our eyes and ears because, at their best, journalists seek and promote the apportioning of responsibility and accountability based on truth, fact and balanced investigation.

Lee, Joel, Jessie and Sammy represent varying ages, experience and reactions to what they witness but all are committed to the cause of truth and accountability as they set out to interview the President before he is besieged by the Western Forces who are making rapid progress and are closing in on Washington.

All are determined and hardened to some extent, though Lee appears disillusioned and even slightly detached, that is until they become personally involved in events and go through horror and distress first hand, as opposed to maintaining a professional distance.

They lose friends and witness brutal and terrifyingly casual executions of colleagues, and in a sense we in the audience share their horror and loss as we have developed a rapport with and an understanding of these characters and, though we have already witnessed dreadful events and cruelty, the victims in these events were unknown to us while now we share the loss of friends and colleagues and the pain that inflicts.

Lee is particularly traumatised and her detachment crumbles as she is forced to live the pain and loss she has for so long merely reported, but previously she was able to hide behind a façade of professionalism and professional application.

Indeed, there may even be doubt as to her desire to go on in this messed-up cauldron of misery as she saves young Jessie but fails to apply the very advice she gave to her protégée regarding keeping low when under fire.

Perhaps she had lost hope in humanity.

Curiously, despite all the gruesome and heartless violence, the film ends on a note of political hope in spite of the dystopian atmosphere and the crushing indictment of man’s inhumanity to man, a trait which may lie beneath our fine aspirations to principle, values and humanity.

Fast-paced with exceptional performances and gripping direction, “Civil War” is something of a concept film which drives hard and fast toward its destination and leaves its audience virtually beaten into submission. Perhaps the producers hoped this tactic would prove all the more effective in persuading its audience of the dangers and consequences of the path of division and conflict we appear to be following at present.

Of course, the ultimate irony is that this film is likely to appeal only to those already convinced by the observations and viewpoint behind its premise. Sadly, while art may capture truth, reality frequently resists learning from it.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

BLOG                                     YouTube

Reflections on characters and themes in “The Ghost and Mrs Muir” (1947)

 

Reflections on “The Ghost and Mrs Muir”

Directed by Joseph L Mankiewicz

Screenplay by Philip Dunne

(from a novel by Josephine Leslie (as R A Dick))

Starring Gene Tierney, Rex Harrison and George Sanders

 

“The Ghost and Mrs Muir” is a film I watched and enjoyed in my youth and at that time I accepted it as a charming, pleasant, romantic comedy. I viewed it again a few years ago, somewhat half-heartedly and interrupted by a variety of events and other distractions, but I enjoyed my nostalgic return to a happy memory from my youth and jotted down the following somewhat romantic notes:

This is a film that presents a feminist-minded homage to spiritual love that can reach across the divide between physical and spiritual existence, across time and across social divisions.

Daniel Gregg and Lucy Muir appreciate and complement one another. She supplies pensive devotion and affection while he, rather ironically, supplies life, dynamism and unguarded humour. He treats her with respect but not with kid gloves or as a possession. They form a team in which a meeting of minds and an appreciation of nature and beauty is the essential trait rather than physical passion.

Although Lucy concedes to physical and emotional temptation and has her heart broken, Gregg knows that time is irrelevant and waits until she can join him in spiritual happiness, unburdened by mere physicality.

However, recently and quite by chance I came across an online article discussing the film and it presented a quite different theory regarding the underlying themes of the film. I have to say I found the conclusions of the article quite unconvincing but it was enough to make me want to view the film again and possibly review my thoughts about it, and I’m certainly glad I did as I found a further and this time more attentive viewing most rewarding.

Lucy Muir is a free-spirited, independent-minded young widow and mother who struggles with the somewhat restrictive mores in vogue at the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th centuries. She rejects and defies the perceptions and societal norms applied to women of the period, is determined to maintain self-respect and aspires to a sense of fulfilment, i.e. not conceding to others’ views, plans and wishes, but leading a life on one’s own terms.

Having married when young and in a romantic daze, she is now a thoughtful and resolute widow with a daughter. She is reasonably self-assertive and reveals a desire for independence and self-reliance quite regularly in her dealings with others, but she is equally frustrated in that, largely due to the fact she is a woman, she now feels badgered to be conformist and goaded into pleasing others rather than follow her instincts.

In search of a new home, she views Gull Cottage, the former residence of the now deceased Captain Daniel Gregg whose portrait dominates the main room and whose ghost is reported to haunt the building. Lucy is quite taken with the house, the portrait and the Captain’s “presence”, and is inspired to rent the property. She is also more personally inspired by the Captain’s spirit as she engages in conversation with his ghost and, as they find one another intriguing and perhaps admirable, they come to a mutually acceptable agreement. She may live in the cottage and she will write up the Captain’s memoirs under a pseudonym, an endeavour that will lead to success and financial independence for Lucy.

In reality, I would say that Captain Daniel Gregg is an alter ego who allows Lucy to live vicariously and is a conduit or cipher who enables Lucy to express herself and, more importantly, assert herself. She has adapted to the man’s world around her and projects her innermost feelings and ambitions through the persona of Captain Gregg.

In a sense, this is a modified version of duality popular in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, but here, rather than being torn between good and evil, Lucy is conflicted by acquiescence, as expected of her by society, and assertiveness as she follows her natural instincts.

Fundamentally, Gregg’s existence as a “ghost” is a tool in Lucy’s quest to gain respect from others while at the same time achieving self-respect. Gregg offers a channel for Lucy’s feistiness and she admires and profits by his spirit (no pun intended), yet she also appreciates his willingness to reason with her and to compromise. Beneath his bluster, Gregg listens to and respects Lucy, qualities he displays with no-one else, while also offering her objective advice that reveals common sense and affection. Essentially, Lucy projects on to Gregg the qualities and traits she most admires in herself and which she aspires to see in and share with society. She is effectively externalising inner thought as she reasons with herself and uses Gregg as a sounding board and a means of expressing herself.

Although she finds this exercise in spiritual self-respect rewarding, she recognises her physical and social needs, and the validation of being loved and valued by another, and so she gently sets aside Gregg (who takes on the mantle of the pained lover who sacrifices his spiritual love to physical and emotional need) in favour of romance and reality.

Ultimately, however, she is disillusioned and dissatisfied by romantic love and in the end she is released from expectations, social restraints and conventions and once again turns inward to Captain Gregg for self-respect and fulfilment, not dependent on the views, actions and judgments of others.

I have no doubt that holes will be found in my reading of the film but I suspect they will be found in whichever interpretation you opt for – the literal one or the psychologically figurative one.

I found this a touching, thought-provoking and entertaining piece with highly engaging performances which brings in to focus and questions socially accepted injustices and inequitable attitudes toward women at the time, but does so playfully and with humour. It also accentuates the importance of self-respect and integrity in one’s outlook and self-perception.

It is also worth mentioning that the author of the original novel published under a pseudonym whose initials (R A) represented her sea captain father…

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

BLOG                                      YouTube

 

Reflections on characters and themes in James Gray's "Ad Astra"

 

Reflections on “Ad Astra” (2019)

Directed by James Gray

Script by James Gray and Ethan Gross

Starring Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga and Donald Sutherland

“Ad Astra” is a tale of ambition, science, faith, the existential impact of our actions on others, family and compassion, and how the pursuit of ambition and achievement may cause conflict and may require us to prioritise and make choices, sometimes at the expense of humanity. It also begs questions about whether mankind is really ready for and capable of advanced space exploration.

The film may be viewed as a psychological and existential thriller in the guise of a science-fiction film whose story is almost told in the first-person singular as everything is recounted from the point of view of main character Roy McBride. Indeed, the style and spirit of the piece rather suggest that Roy is sharing his memories with us as he provides a voice-over and his occasional narration contains reflections, wisdom and lessons learned. There are some jumps in time so he may be sharing selected memories as one does when giving autobiographical accounts, and there is little or no external input – we are dependent on Roy and his perceptions for our tale.

At the start, Roy is focused, calm and devoted to his mission, almost to the point of being robotic. He is emotionally detached but professionally engaged and this has had a negative impact on his personal life and especially his marriage. His work and his job are the most important things to him. His feelings and emotions are held in check to allow him to focus on the job in hand. He has devoted his life to the expansion of scientific knowledge and to being an astronaut or space pioneer like his father before him.

His father, Clifford McBride, is a renowned scientist and space explorer who abandoned his family to extend the limits of experience and knowledge in outer space. Although Clifford is presented as a heroic, ground-breaking figure, his abandonment of his family has had a profound but deeply buried effect on Roy and his life, career and professionalism, but also, and perhaps more importantly, on Roy’s inability to develop and maintain relationships and come to terms with emotion.

As for Clifford, he was able to cast aside his familial responsibilities with remarkable ease to focus on what he perceives as a far greater scientific task and responsibility, though this single-minded lack of consideration will eventually lead to conflict and confrontation…

Clifford had total belief in the purpose and righteousness of his mission, the Lima Project, to seek signs of life elsewhere in the universe. Indeed, his conviction in the sanctity of his work appears to have transformed into faith as scientific evidence mounts that there is no life to be found, but Clifford holds on to his purpose-giving conviction and at one point declares he is doing God’s work.

However, his co-workers do not share the depth of his conviction and, after considerable physical hardship and disillusion based on experience and disappointment, they wish to abandon their mission and return home. When faced with Clifford’s stony refusal to accept both their scientific findings and their desire to head for home, they mutiny. Clifford’s desire to find extraterrestrial life has become his purpose and the driving force in his life and, forsaking whatever humanity remains to him, he kills his fellow crew members because they threaten the sanctity of his mission.

Shortly after this event, due to damage incurred in the mutiny, surges of anti-matter start to emanate from the ship and they threaten all life in the solar system. These surges may also be interpreted as a threat in terms of loss of hope and faith, loss of hope in finding intelligent life, but also, perhaps, loss of faith in man’s purpose and even the very existence of God. Clifford felt he was doing God’s work and failure may cause him (and others) to consider the possibility we are entirely alone in the universe, and such thoughts may lead to despair and social breakdown.

The authorities are aware of the mutiny and the situation concerning the Lima Project, and they wish to terminate Clifford and the anti-matter surges or threats to social order and welfare. However, they do not know Clifford’s exact whereabouts and they concoct a plan to send his son Roy on a rescue mission, hoping Clifford will respond to his son’s messages and therefore reveal his position.

The authorities have, of course, built Clifford into an iconic hero and have lied to and manipulated Roy to gain his co-operation. The truth would indicate failure and they need to maintain a façade or image of heroism and devotion to duty in order to maintain their own positions and protect the righteousness of their enterprise and public confidence in it. They are guilty of underhand and dishonest manipulation of Roy (and the rest of humanity, come to that), exploiting emotional attachment while encouraging emotional detachment, which reduces chances of dissent or challenge, to serve their purpose.

Roy is on the way to becoming his father. He is calm and detached, and has learned to follow orders and set aside emotional complications. However, his mission to find his father will rekindle feelings, emotions and resentment. He may even rediscover the value of reflection, humanity and compassion on his journey.

His journey to the outskirts of the solar system (and, we might say, to the depths of his soul), begins with a trip to the moon.

The point of establishing a facility on the moon (in keeping with the purpose of space exploration in general) is to start afresh and to improve life, but those in command have created a facsimile of Earth and have imported man-made mistakes and flaws, encapsulated by moon pirates setting out to capture or steal resources, suggesting problems lie in human nature and they will not be easily solved through space exploration.

This point is further demonstrated when Roy and his crew respond to a mayday on their way to Mars. They dock with a vehicle which is presumably a base for conducting biological experiments, illustrating man’s desire to manipulate and control nature and his surroundings. However, ego and ambition have outstripped man’s knowledge and capacities and the experiment has gone badly wrong, resulting in violence and death.

The ropey landing on Mars further demonstrates the potential consequences of our human failings and the need and value of keeping a cool, focused head. We are all fragile and vulnerable and the captain of the ship concedes to fear, emotion and circumstance but Roy applies his training and lands the ship safely. Roy may be experiencing doubt about his life and his past but he will not simply indulge emotion. A balance is to be maintained, tempering emotion with self-control or discipline in order to make progress.

On Mars, Roy grapples with emotions, feelings and bitterness that he has buried for years. The whole purpose of this mission has brought to the fore challenging thoughts and memories that he has concealed from himself most of his adult life. He now wants to find his father in order to gain closure – be that in the shape of confrontation or simply to be able to forget him. This is no longer just a military operation to find and aid a fellow space explorer, but a personal quest to seek and confront a failed father who put work and ambition above family and responsibility.

The authorities show something of their true colours and purpose and decide to remove Roy from the mission now that he has served his purpose and they have been able to ascertain Clifford’s whereabouts, causing Roy to question the purpose and validity not just of his mission but of his place in the grand scheme of things.

A colleague on Mars, Helen Lantos, reveals the truth about Clifford’s actions on the Lima Project to Roy. Her parents were among those killed by Clifford and she seems to think Roy shares some kind of responsibility as Clifford’s son, if only to face his father and learn the truth. Once again, the impact of one person’s actions on many, and in many ways, is emphasised.

Roy appears to agree with her and he sets off to stow away on the vehicle about to take off in pursuit of his father. His presence is detected immediately and the crew treats his presence as hostile to their mission and their lives, so set out to eliminate him. This leads to something of an existential conundrum as Roy insists he is no threat but his action, in climbing aboard, leads to violence and death, eventually leaving Roy alone on the ship to find Clifford. He expresses profound regret for the crew’s fate but he concentrates on the task at hand, putting regret and emotion to one side in order to fulfil his mission. He may be motivated by emotion but he can contain it and act coldly and rationally to achieve his objective.

En route to Saturn and Clifford’s ship, Roy reflects further on his father and his wife, Eve, rediscovering and appreciating the importance of humanity and love.

When Roy eventually finds Clifford, there is something of a showdown in which the painful truth is revealed. Clifford did indeed kill his co-workers because his work was all-important and his sole source of fulfilment. He was devoted to his cause and because his co-workers threatened it, they had to be eliminated. This was a purely logical decision based on the sanctity of his mission, as he saw it, with no room for humanity, compassion or sympathy.

As for his family, they were rejected with ease and with no regret or second thought. Clifford has rejected humanity to devote himself to the pursuit of knowledge and as such serves as a warning to Roy and, indeed, all humanity.

In response to Clifford’s confession, Roy tells his father he still loves him. Roy has made a choice. He has learned to appreciate humanity and compassion, and will put that above the cold and perhaps empty pursuit of knowledge.

Humanity was not enough for Clifford. He sought higher purpose and validation. Thus, when Clifford failed to find extraterrestrial life, he lost faith, God and himself.

Roy studies Clifford’s research and concludes we are alone, but he determines that we can and should make the best of it and build on what is available to us, primarily by appreciating relationships and compassion, but also, perhaps, by learning from mistakes, keeping a cool head and developing possibilities of evolution on other worlds.

Roy is a better man for his experiences and what he has learned from them, and this is encapsulated in receiving and accepting a helping hand as he sets foot once again on Earth. He also displays a renewed desire to build a relationship with his wife.

It is notable that, like his father, Roy is treated as a hero on his return. Doubtless the authorities will have concocted a positive tale around his exploits which will avoid mention of negative aspects of his actions.

I found this film dark, contemplative and thought-provoking, with excellent performances from all concerned and brisk, engaging direction that was effective in both action sequences and more intimate and brooding scenes.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

BLOG

YouTube

Reflections on duality in 19th century literature, the Enlightenment, Existentialism and beyond

 

Reflections on duality in 19^th century literature and

its philosophical forebears and successors.

 

When Plato differentiated between the body and the soul, he laid the foundations of most religions and belief systems that continue to this day, based on a supreme being whose standards of spiritual morality we humans may aspire to but frequently fall short due to our bodily desires, weaknesses and limitations.

Religions and churches based on faith and ecclesiastical hierarchy were developed to help us chart a way through life but by the end of the Middle Ages, they had grown in authority and influence to the point where they exercised control over many aspects of life and discouraged challenge or dissent.

Bolstered and promoted by the advent of the printing press and the consequent sharing of ideas, education and independent thought developed and became more widespread. Focus on mathematics, science and logic became more prevalent and thinkers or philosophers such as René Descartes and John Locke emphasised the place of reason, evidence and proof rather than blind faith and dogma, though their logic was often applied to proving God’s existence.

This intellectual movement grew steadily and its proponents grew more daring in terms of conclusions and more challenging to the ecclesiastical and political status quo. In the course of the 18^th century, a series of philosophers (including Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and Hume) effectively offered reasoned challenges to the authority of those in religion-based power. Their argument ran (in a VERY simplified and condensed form!) that God and therefore morality may not exist, therefore those in authority, who generally ruled in the name of God, had to justify by reason their policies and should be held accountable for their actions as all men were to be considered equal. This came to be known as the Enlightenment Movement and its intellectual, political and practical repercussions (including, indirectly, the French Revolution) cannot be overstated.

This represented a revolution in thought but also in political and practical consequence. Equality, responsibility, accountability and justification were now expected and this new outlook had enormous repercussions in the 19^th century, politically, socially and economically in terms of democratic government, social unrest and even, perhaps, the ban on slavery as individuals gained the inspiration and confidence to challenge the status quo and demand fairness for all.

Philosophically, and in terms of our perception of ourselves as functioning human beings, these ideas also had something of an impact and this is perhaps best illustrated through examples of the literature of the time and the concepts of duality they present.

Initially convinced by Plato’s distinction between the body and the soul, then influenced and directed by religious elements before having his beliefs upended by philosophical claims that God and morality may not exist, mankind was in something of a moral and philosophical quandary by the mid-19^th century.

Beneath the façade and veneer of respectability, social tolerance and conformity, is there a raging cauldron of desires, impulses and ambitions held in check by the distraction of work and routine, the common acceptance and expectations of social groups, and limitations for the common good set by law, morality and religion?

What if theses limits have no sovereignty and are merely social conventions?

Circumstances can cause a person to recognise and possibly embrace man’s baser instincts, and the consequences of succumbing to the temptation of conceding to impulse and desire are explored in the five works to which I will refer.

In “Les fleurs du mal” (1857), Charles Baudelaire presents a collection of poems that describe and investigate conflict between nature and social conformity or expectation within the individual. Baudelaire encapsulates a desire for spiritual purpose and buoyancy but this is punctured and deflated by the prospect of the non-existence of God and morality as proposed in the principles of the Enlightenment. Spurred on by the inevitability of death and the apparent pointlessness of life, he supports (indeed, promotes) physical gratification and indulgence as a consequence of this turning away from the spiritual and the more elevated purposes of the mind. The division between the body and the mind or soul is clearly made and Baudelaire is overwhelmingly of the opinion that our bodily needs and desires will always win out over our spiritual attempts to impose control or discipline, and any short-lived regrets we may experience following our adventures.

That said, his contention does not seem to extend to matters of criminality but is rather focused on physical indulgence and pleasure without oversight.

However, in “Les Misérables” (1862), Victor Hugo makes a clear case for the capacity of man to rise above his base desires and social conditioning and to impose a form of moral order by way of compassion and understanding.

Having served 19 years in penal servitude for a relatively minor crime, Jean Valjean becomes the very creature he was accused of being all these years before – a self-centred opportunist thief. However, as a result of kindness and generosity shown to him, he realises there is a choice to be made and he abandons his outlook of personal survival at the expense of others in favour of compassion, tolerance and dignity.

The division or conflict between the two pathways is therefore drawn but Valjean displays the spiritual determination and strength to put humanity and compassion for others above his personal needs and ambitions, whether God and morality exist or not. Although Valjean is inspired by a Bishop, it is the Bishop's kindness and concern that motivate him, not his faith or position, emphasising the importance and accessibility of humanity as a source of motivation.

In “Crime and punishment” (1866), Fyodor Dostoevsky juxtaposes apparent freedom to put one’s own best interests above those of others (ultimately leading to murder) with the consequences, moral and practical, of these actions.

Nihilism resulting from the affirmation that God and morality do not exist may lead to egotism and a sense of social superiority. Some individuals may appear to lead lives that are worthier than others and it takes little rationalisation to convince poor student Raskolnikov that he is entitled to commit the murder of an elderly pawnbroker for his advantage.

However, an underlying compulsion toward humanity and compassion affect him and, despite his attempts to rationalise the situation and appeals to nihilistic reasoning, he is dogged by guilt and conscience which cause illness and out-of-character responses. Eventually, obsession and paranoia lead to confession and punishment, and this leads to a form of social rehabilitation by virtue of a friend whose love and guidance allow him to appreciate the value of humanity.

Dostoevsky focuses on the spiritual or psychological aspect of man, having had Raskolnikov stoop to the depths of murder. God and morality may not exist but there remains a common bond of life among people, one that requires respect for the existence of others and that lends limits to our actions and attitudes toward others, though this respect needs to be cultivated and protected to be fully effective.

In “The strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde” (1886), R L Stevenson makes the division of the two aspects of man’s nature all the more effective by way of a physical transformation between the two. One presentation is the law-abiding, principled and outwardly virtuous Dr Jekyll while the other is the self-indulgent and narcissistic Mr Hyde.

Jekyll’s aim in separating these two facets of his character is to allow each to fully blossom and not to encroach on or impede the other. Although we are given scant detail of Mr Hyde’s misadventures, we are assured of their awfulness, but also of Jekyll’s pleasure in being guilt-free and in being able to focus on good and charitable works.

However, Jekyll starts to take pleasure in Hyde’s conscience-free indulgences and this allows the Hyde side of his character to develop beyond his control and to take precedence over his civilised and principled self.

The essential notion is that by separating and indulging the two sides of our nature, we free ourselves of internal conflict and may focus our efforts with greater purity and therefore greater success. That said, it is strongly implied that indulgence of our base desires without limits set by concepts of compassion and morality would be disastrous. We may even conclude that each side of our nature may be necessary to man’s survival but a balance between the two is essential, with the “dark” side providing motivation, desire and enthusiasm but held in check by compassion, empathy and humanity.

In “La bête humaine” (The beast within) (1890), Emile Zola seems to suggest that work and routine provide distraction, therapy and stability which allow us to control or ignore our base desires and personal ambitions. Scientific and technological advances (in the shape of the railway system, transport and communication) may have had a profound effect on the shape of society but society’s component parts retain age-old problems regarding passion, self-control and respect for others.

Here, there is little attempt to exercise control or respect society’s conventions and principles as our protagonists or antagonists concede to emotion and instinct as they have affairs, seek revenge and plot murder. They display intelligence and cunning only in how to achieve their aims and evade punishment. There is a casual acceptance of lack of consideration for others and indulgence of one’s own desires and sense of fulfilment. Caution is exercised only in the pursuit of self-protection, not in the effect of actions on others, to the point of deprivation of life, suggesting that “spirituality” or morality have diminished and people simply follow their feelings or impulses. This represents a significant development and departure from the previous entries in that consideration for others, or common humanity, now appears to hold little appeal.

Readers see also that the actions of the main characters impact many innocent lives, drawing attention to the existential premise that our actions exercise an influence on others and we should perhaps take that influence into account when considering our plans and deeds.

These existential concepts will be greatly developed and expanded with the advent of the World Wars and the ensuing political and social change while duality will be explored, explained and given psychological validation by Sigmond Freud in 1920 and again in 1923.

Interestingly, Freud suggests the two conflicting elements, the “id” being our base or inner instincts and the “superego” being external forces of control and social limitation, are balanced by the “ego” which acts as an arbiter and judge in terms of how best to proceed in the situations we face.

In the course of the 20^th century, existentialism rather overtook the concept of duality, or perhaps it grew out of the casual acceptance of our moral dilemma, as suggested by Zola. Whatever its roots, with its insistence that God and morality do not exist and its affirmation that we are morally free to act as we wish, existentialism apparently does away with justification and moral conflict – we simply do as we feel.

Many seized on these contentions to support nihilism but they failed to take into account the second part of the existential doctrine, that if freedom is the only truth, and if we are entitled to that freedom, it is “wrong” to deprive others of it. Indeed, the whole basis for much mid-century existential literature is the exploration of the impact and influence we have on one another and the extent to which we should feel responsible for any impact or influence.

In the 21^st century, rather than pursue concepts of responsibility, common humanity and empathy, there appears to be a development of casual acceptance of our moral freedom and a turning away from compassion, conformity and even definition. There is a move to simply be, recognising no social restrictions, limits or even, some would argue, objective truth, and the focus seems to be on egotistical assertiveness and self-indulgence, and this has led to an increasingly fragmented and divided society.

It is interesting to note that religion played little or no part in the evolution of these ideas, perhaps reflecting man’s desire to find a cohesive base for “morality” based on humanity and common experience rather than nebulous beliefs and man’s potential manipulation of such beliefs.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

Blog                     YouTube