Tuesday, 12 August 2025

Introduction

                              Welcome to Stuart Fernie’s Blog



Please scroll down or find on the right links to articles, pages of reflections on films and books, and occasional pieces of short fiction.

Articles include thoughts on the meaning of "success" and "worth", "Quai des Orfèvres", "Le Corbeau", "The Wages of Fear", advice and questions to assist in the writing of essays about films, thoughts on Proportion and Self-respect, "The Offence", "Trainspotting", "Three Days of the Condor", "Spotlight", "Good Night and Good Luck", "The Count of Monte Cristo" (French version, 2024), "Midnight Express", Jason Bourne, Advocating Arts and Humanities, "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”. 

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:








All intellectual property rights reserved

Thoughts on the meaning of “success” and “worth”

 

Notes on the meaning of “success” and “worth”

 

Some years ago, I saw a reality TV programme in which a former popular singer seemed to suggest that the only way to measure success in life was to measure one’s financial wealth. I was stunned that any experienced, reasonably intelligent and now ageing man of the world (he was mid-seventies at the time) could be so obtuse, blinkered and limited in his outlook.

If the sole purpose of a venture is to make money, this may be viewed as a rather shallow and mercenary affair whose primary aim is self-advancement, often using the labour and efforts of others to succeed in this venture. Pride may be taken in quality of product or service but ultimately it may remain somewhat self-serving and short-sighted in scope.

Success can also take the form of realising a burning ambition or attaining a coveted position. Ambition may allow an individual to overcome challenges and achieve great things, and ego may play a healthy part in attaining success, but concentration on a particular outcome and excessive focus on how to achieve that outcome can lead to a blinkered or short-sighted view of life and may not lead to ultimate fulfilment.

A broader perspective may allow an individual to maintain a sense of proportion and to rethink priorities.

Is it truly fulfilling to achieve a goal set merely for personal benefit? Is this the act of one who is ego-driven and narcissistic to the point of failing to consider effects or impact on others? Of course, ego must play a part and respect should be given to one who shows the determination and skill to succeed, but if an act is completely self-serving, does it have the same value as an act that benefits or pleases others as well as oneself?

Equally, if an individual acts purely for the benefit of others, his/her actions will lack value and appreciation as this individual is not making a choice based on the worth of his/her contribution or perhaps he/she has so little self-respect that he/she may feel obliged to serve others.

It appears we may wish to distinguish between “success” and “worth”. Success on its own may be measured in purely financial or business terms, or in terms of personal achievement, while worth may be at least partly defined as a recognition of personal qualities and contributions to a greater whole, or a willingness to help others or perhaps please others in some shape or form.

There are all manner of ways in which to help someone; physical aid, emotional support, revealing a truth or possibly hiding a truth, influence through education and thought, encouragement to aspire to something, and financial support, to name but a few…

In general, the investing of one’s own time, effort or material goods to bring about a positive change in the circumstances, outlook or development of another individual may be considered worthy.

Of course, ego and self-respect must play a part in all of this. Selfless devotion to others may not be appreciated or truly valued. All must learn the value of helpful acts, even those who engage in the acts. Kindness should not be taken for granted and while those receiving kindness should indicate appreciation, those offering kindness have the right to expect it. A simple, sincere “thank you” is perfectly sufficient but the value of kindness should be recognised as such acts are not obligations. They are the result of choices made out of freedom and should be all the more respected and valued for that.

Respect and especially self-respect are essential elements of worth. If a person acts for selfish motives or, indeed, purely to please others, their acts may reasonably be considered less worthy than one who acts to help others but upon reflection of various aspects of the case and upon evaluation of them. An individual should judge the merits of a particular case and any action should be based on reason and consideration of motivation and impact. This process is what gives value to support or action – it is a choice and not an obligation, and should be appreciated all the more because of that.  

 

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

BLOG                                                   YouTube

Wednesday, 16 July 2025

Characters and themes in “Quai des Orfèvres” (1947)

 

Reflections on “Quai des Orfèvres” (1947)

 directed and written by H.G. Clouzot

starring Louis Jouvet, Suzy Delair, Bernard Blier and Simone Renant.

Ostensibly an investigation into a murder in post-war Paris, “Quai des Orfèvres” is rather an investigation into human nature, character, motivation, responsibility and guilt (or lack of it), morality (or lack of it), justice (or lack of it), ambition, love and survival.

While the immediate context is post-war Paris and a murder in a fairly seedy and run-down area littered with entertainers trying to make a living and underworld figures also trying to survive, the broader thematic context is, in fact, far more telling.

“Film noir” is a term often used to define detective thrillers which challenge or flaunt the traditional view of morality and right and wrong. However, this film is part of a much broader challenge to the traditional view of the fabric of society – existentialism, and Clouzot’s film certainly contains many observations on relationships, human nature and responsibility which entitle it to be considered an existential work.

We are not dealing with high-minded social values in this film – the police are less concerned with justice, than with simply solving another case. There is little or no regret or outrage over the murder of Brignon – he is considered a dirty old man by both the public and the police investigating his death, who may even have deserved his premature end. Characters do what they can to survive and remain fairly detached from the murder and the subsequent investigation, feeling little remorse or involvement.

Jenny Lamour is an ambitious but small-time singer and entertainer who is clearly willing to use her feminine charms to flirt and manipulate her way to success. She is knowing and uses flattery to play on men’s weaknesses, but she discovers she cannot cross a line. She treats life and her career rather like a game or a performance, willing to use a variety of tactics to succeed, but is unwilling (in the end) to do any real harm to achieve success.

Jenny’s husband Maurice is immensely jealous and disapproving of Jenny’s game – he is a straightforward and uncomplicated fellow who sees (along with others) potential risks and dangers that Jenny fails to recognise as she does not take the “game” seriously enough.

Dora Monier is a professional photographer who is a good friend of Maurice, but who clearly has romantic feelings toward Jenny.

Dora does occasional work for Brignon, a dubious character who has many suspicious business interests and who has a liking for semi pornographic photos of young ladies, photos taken by Dora. Jenny sees Brignon’s connections as a means to furthering her career, while Brignon clearly hopes to gain his own advantages from working with Jenny. Understanding Brignon’s intentions, Jenny’s husband Maurice warns Brignon off, threatening him in the process.

The scene is then set for a complex series of interrogations and revelations as Inspector Antoine investigates Brignon’s murder, and we discover the motivations, actions and their consequences of these three main suspects, as well as a car thief named Paulo.

As they are questioned, we see that none of the various characters is keen to inform on the others, accentuating the existential point that each person is entitled to their freedom to act as they wish, provided they do not infringe the freedom or rights of others. Even Brignon, though considered low and unpleasant, is entitled to act as he wishes if others are willing to go along with his schemes. To inform would be to contribute to judgement and perhaps condemnation, something all appear keen to avoid.

Having said that, the main characters’ stories are all interconnected as each character acts to help or protect another and the “truth” would only cause harm to the one they love or care for. The objective truth, and therefore responsibility or guilt, is barely recognised or even considered as each character shields another. Love and friendship, then, count for considerably more than morality and fact.

People simply try to get by or survive in this world. Many of those we encounter belong to the world of the theatre or entertainment – actors who set out to please or appeal to people in order to make a living or get by. Could this be extended to include other members of the community? Do we not all try to please others in order to get by, whether in our everyday jobs or in our lives in general?

Another group of people focused upon are numerous shady underworld characters, people who reject society’s laws and mores to live by their own wits and skills. All appear to be following their natures and do the best they can to survive, using the character and skills with which they were born.

Everyone is innocent and guilty – no-one is seen as outright evil, but each may be open to human weakness, vanity or emotion, all of which cloud reason and clarity of mind leading to muddled or confused acts which they may regret.

In any case, there is no recourse to God, morality, right and wrong or even plain truth – all are willing to twist stories to suit their own ends. Perhaps as a result of this, there appears to be a global dislike and distrust of the police who seek to identify criminals and bring them to “justice”. Not that the police themselves appear devoted to the ideal of justice – Antoine thinks little of the murder victim, but pursues the murderer anyway as he wades through complex layers of lies, deceit and protection. Although hardly fulfilled by his job (he has not been promoted because he has a big mouth and is unwilling to go along with superiors merely in order to gain advancement, thus displaying the socially unpopular trait of independent thought), Antoine persists in seeking the truth – perhaps he also is merely following his nature and is doing what he needs to do to survive.

Everyone is connected as lives and events cross one another and impact on one another, usually because of emotion and humanity.

Even the hardened detectives encourage Maurice to plead guilty and claim a crime of passion, thereby diminishing the gravity of the offence (or at least offering compassion and understanding). They all understand his motives and want to close their case – they just want to go home and get on with their lives.

All appear worn down by life, yet retain the capacity for humanity. Antoine is “humanised” and fulfilled by his son, the result of his time in the colonies, yet he appears to hold Jenny in contempt for her uncontrolled ambition and the resultant consequences for all involved. He walks past a semi naked show girl without batting an eye, but appears to hold Dora in high regard. When Maurice is at his lowest ebb and chats with a girl in the cell next door, she seems hardened, uncaring and disillusioned, yet screams when she realises he has attempted suicide. Maurice and Dora acted to protect Jenny despite being treated relatively badly by her – we are all capable of acts of humanity and kindness despite being worn down by life, but ultimately it is our humanity that motivates us, not thoughts of religion, morality or God.

In the end, we discover the truth behind the murder but in fact we have discovered a great deal more about human nature, relationships and motives along the way.

 

 

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

 

Characters and themes in "Le Corbeau" (1943)

 

 

Reflections on “Le Corbeau” (1943)

 directed by H. G. Clouzot

starring Pierre Fresnay and Ginette Leclerc

This is the story of poison pen letters revealing the “truth” about numerous inhabitants of the French township of St Robin, centring on Dr Germain and his supposed affair with Laura, the young wife of the elderly Dr Vorzet.

The letters of denunciation become ever more frequent and have grave consequences (sometimes deserved, sometimes undeserved) for some of the population, so we follow the townspeople’s attempts to identify and stop the author of the letters.

Made during the German occupation of France (released in 1943), the film attracted considerable notoriety and disapproval from all political sides, yet was a great success with the public.

The Nazis encouraged letters of denunciation (revealing criminals, Jews and members of the Resistance among others), inviting collaboration and creating informers to further their own ends and allow the Nazis to tighten their grip on the country. This is now a source of considerable embarrassment, but at the time it was fairly common practice and it seems that Clouzot set about making a film that would increase awareness of these acts and their potential consequences.

Of course, the film is certainly not restricted to the more obvious criticism of informers, but is also a cutting look at human nature, petty jealousies, unfulfilled desires and ambition, flighty feelings and actions leading to despair, remorse and vengeance.

The film does not paint a particularly pretty or sympathetic picture of the townsfolk of St Robin, but it does give rise to reflection on various aspects of human nature and society.

Dr Germain is depicted as serious, principled, aloof and unafraid to assert himself. He does not bend to suit others, yet others set out to make him bend. Having said that, he clearly has a relationship of sorts with Laura and although he resists Denise at first, he goes on to sleep with her only to reject her again later. He accepts willingly his own capricious nature and is unapologetic.

But then all the characters are similarly two-sided. We see their public faces only to be told of their “transgressions” by Le Corbeau (the name used by the author of the letters).

Denise is married but has regularly been unfaithful to her husband, yet now she claims to be in love with Germain.

Laura appears chaste and sincere yet is in a relationship with Germain.

The male figures of authority all act with pride and confidence, yet they are denounced as incompetent by Le Corbeau.

The list goes on – it appears that nearly every member of the community has something to hide, secrets revealed by Le Corbeau which lead to distrust and conflict in the community.

Truth hurts, and society and good relationships between fellow members of the community are dependent on turning a blind eye to certain truths. In many ways it is easier to go along with a pretence or performance than to seek the truth as truth will affect everyone since society creates a web in which everyone’s lives touch everyone else’s.

In a very famous scene between Germain and Vorzet, Clouzot cleverly points out the subjective nature of truth as Vorzet swings a light bulb, thus shedding different light and offering a different perspective on what is visible, so even “truth” is dependent on many factors open to personal interpretation.

In the end we discover the identity of the author of the letters, who has acted out of jealousy and a desire for revenge, but these feelings and actions have been made public, leading to interference in others’ lives rather than simply playing a passing role in them.

Clouzot appears to be suggesting that in society we generally rub along together and maybe we should not let certain truths get in the way of our relative contentedness. Although it is tempting to give in to human nature and seek revenge for some slight, perhaps the indulgence of feelings is a luxury we cannot always afford.

Clouzot, in his customary fashion, shows contempt for just about all his characters and shares his cynicism equally. It is then perhaps only just that he caused offence to both the German and French authorities with his film – the Germans because of the implied criticism of denunciation and informing, and the French because of his depiction of the French townsfolk. However, the result was a two-year ban from film-making, principally due to the fact that Continental Films (the production company) was German-led and so Clouzot was accused of collaboration, the very thing he attacked in his 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)

 

BLOG                                                   YouTube

Reflections on characters and themes in "The Wages of Fear" (1953) and "Sorcerer" (1977 remake)

 

Reflections on “Le Salaire de la Peur” (The Wages of Fear)1953

directed by H. G. Clouzot

screenplay by H. G. Clouzot and Jérome Geronimi

starring Yves Montand and Charles Vanel

 


“The Wages of Fear” is very much a film of two halves, with the first half seeing the establishment of the characters and the situation (and observations on society and human nature) followed by the suspense-filled second half which develops the characters and the testing situations in which they find themselves, and which will keep you on the edge of your seat as two pairs of drivers set out to transport highly unstable explosives across some 300 miles to extinguish a fire at an oil-well.

In the little South American town of Las Piedras, several “losers” desperate for work and a way out of the nowhere they find themselves, take on a suicide mission for an oil company less interested in the men’s safety than in maximising profit (or in this case, minimising loss). Desperation forces them to accept conditions considered by most as unacceptable, but circumstances are such that they willingly submit to the dangers involved in the mission, all in the name of money which will give them their freedom.

Although apparently very specific, the situation these “losers” face rather sums up life for many who may have lost control of their lives and have ended up in dead-end jobs and situations. Apart from Jo, who is implied to be a known “tough guy” with a murky past, these people are not criminals but have failed at various points in life, perhaps due to weak character, poor judgement or bad luck, and while they may be desperate and disillusioned, they retain humanity and our sympathy.

As with most Clouzot films, the amount of detail that is provided almost incidentally, it seems, is phenomenal, but each piece adds cleverly to our understanding of the characters, their situation, and the kind of society we have built for ourselves.

The first hour or so is largely about their relationships – there is much macho posturing and a total lack of appreciation of tenderness, love and devotion, all preferring to test themselves or prove themselves heroic or worthy in some way (at least in the eyes of the others), perhaps reflecting societal habits and conventions, particularly between men.

The opening shots of the film actually sum up beautifully what Clouzot goes on to say in the course of the film. Cockroaches are linked or tied together by some kind of cord, and are the playthings of a little boy who is then distracted by his desire for some ice-cream. When he returns to the cockroaches, he finds a vulture watching over them. Are we to impute that we (humans) are like the cockroaches, linked inescapably to one another by action and influence, manipulated by those who are easily distracted and who hold us in little regard, and threatened by others who hold us in even lower regard?

Within seconds, Clouzot goes on to make a point about human nature when one of our desperadoes throws stones at a dog, causing it distress and pain, presumably in an attempt to make him feel better about his own life by making another being feel worse about its life!

The losers (or tramps, as they become known) are all quite unpleasant to one another, suffering one another’s presence but fundamentally uninterested in one another except as a means of advancing their own cause, perhaps reflecting a fundamentally existential view of society and the world in which we use one another for company and survival without having to develop affection or concern for one other.

Women are treated no better, indeed Linda (general skivvy in a local hotel and lover of Mario, one of the losers, but who is also expected to satisfy her boss) is maltreated even by Mario, who pets her like a dog as she kisses his hand! Curiously, Mario seems willing to protect her from a beating, but not to save her from her life of sexual drudgery, perhaps because to do so might imply some form of commitment or responsibility toward her.

It is interesting to note the use of a variety of languages (used by each character) to emphasise the unbiased and global nature of these problems – they apply to everyone, wherever modern commercial society exists.

We see various other examples of corruption and unpleasantness, building a picture of an uncaring and unsympathetic society in which men will do what they must to survive and others will not interfere provided they are not directly involved.

At the heart of this uncaring and unpleasant society in microcosm is the oil company willing to risk the lives of “tramps who will not be missed” for its own ends, and which is keen to avoid responsibility only to shift it on to its “victims”. Clearly, profit and money are everything. Much was made at the time of release of the fact this is an American company (21 minutes of “anti-American” footage were removed from the American version of the film), but history has shown that it is not the nationality of the company but the very nature of commerce itself that may be viewed as at fault.

In the second half, we witness testing times for our “heroes”. Luigi and Bimba shine and set an example in terms of co-operation, sharing problems and working as a team while setting aside personal feelings or preferences, but the same cannot be said for Mario and Jo. Mario is quickly disillusioned by Jo who, after his bluster in town, now displays a distinct lack of courage and determination when tested by trials and real danger, while Mario grows and rises to the challenges before him, only to mock Jo. Curiously, they appear to swap roles as Jo is reduced to a nervous wreck and Mario loses the little humanity and compassion he had as he shows himself willing to sacrifice Jo in his attempt to fulfil his mission, and then goes on to hold Jo responsible for the wounds he, Mario, has inflicted. Mario has certainly developed – into the hard and abusive character he attributed to Jo and which he admired so much before setting out, though we may detect the remains of some humanity and regret, and therefore some hope for Mario’s future.

Life remains fundamentally unpredictable and inexplicable, however, as Luigi and Bimba’s lorry is completely destroyed in an explosion which is never clarified. Despite all their best efforts to take care and succeed, Luigi and Bimba’s lives are snuffed out in a second, suggesting that life cannot be truly controlled – we may take precautions and exercise great care and thought in all we do, but we will never master life and its fickle nature.

Mario’s success (and life-changing sum of money) goes somewhat to his head on his return journey as he drives wildly and dangerously on the very road for which he had so much respect and fear, perhaps suggesting a sense of smugness and vanity. He appears to have lost respect not only for the dangers on the road, but for life itself and he will pay the ultimate price for his overconfidence.

At the end of this gripping film, we have lost our four “heroes” who have sacrificed their lives to the only element to come out of the venture in profit – the oil company. Perhaps Clouzot is inviting us all to consider not just the value of our own contributions to society and the values we hold dear, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the general direction we are allowing society to take.

 

“Sorcerer” (1977) and comparison to “The Wages of Fear”

directed by William Friedkin

script by Walon Green

starring Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer et al.

 

I have seen a number of articles suggesting that William Friedkin’s “Sorcerer” is some sort of overlooked masterpiece which failed at the box office largely because it was released at the same time as “Star Wars” and because audiences found the title misleading.

I’m afraid I think there are more concrete or artistic reasons why the film failed at the box office and a brief comparison to the 1953 version may be helpful as it was a resounding success both commercially and critically, and continues to be highly regarded today. I should say that I have not read the original novel by Georges Arnaud but I note the author disliked the 1953 Clouzot version and was happy to agree to Friedkin’s production.

First and foremost, the main characters in Clouzot’s 1953 existential drama are what might be termed “losers”, not criminals (with the possible exception of Jo). They may have made poor choices and are down on their luck, but they are fundamentally honest and gain the sympathy and perhaps even the compassion of the audience, while in the Friedkin version our gang of four are criminals, killers or robbers who fail to inspire affinity or empathy in the audience. Points can be made regarding the nature of justice, humanity and fate without resorting to use of amoral characters to prove it. Here, Friedkin seems to have set out to make a film noir rather than an existential drama and in so doing he may have reduced his film’s audience base and appeal.

While the characters in the 1953 version can be unpleasant to one another, there is also humour, affection and some hope which foster engagement and warmth toward the characters, and this contrasts with the relentless misery and negativity of Sorcerer.

In the 1953 version the setting reeks of excessive heat, blinding sunlight, poverty and discomfort, but in the 1977 version we have squalor, filth, destitution and miserable weather, making it an unpleasant watch.

In “The Wages of Fear” (henceforth known as WoF), the oil company is depicted as heartless and profit-driven but this is taken to a level of serious criminal abuse in “Sorcerer”, stretching credibility and tolerance for the audience.

There is considerable contrast between the journeys in the two films – in WoF, scenes are bathed in dazzling light and tension is built through our regard for the characters’ welfare, while in “Sorcerer” these scenes are miserable, dirty and wet, and tension is built through situation rather than real regard for the fate of the characters.

In both films the value of co-operation is emphasised but this is more effective in WoF because characters develop and relationships are born and put to the test in challenging circumstances. In “Sorcerer”, there is working together, anger, relief and frustration but no relationships or friendships are formed. This may be true to the film noir ethos of the film, but because the characters remain detached and are tested rather than develop, this has an impact on audience engagement.

In WoF, we witness Jo and Mario’s steady deterioration leading to Mario’s corruption while in “Sorcerer”, Jackie Scanlon barely changes, though he kills to survive but he kills those who threaten his life. This hardly demonstrates the same moral degradation and inner conflict undergone by Mario, so there is hardly the same audience involvement or interest.

At the end of WoF, the audience is left with a sense of loss, pointlessness and waste (in keeping with the existential premise of the piece), while at the end of “Sorcerer”, there is something of a poetic irony but no real sense of loss or upset, perhaps because the audience failed to fully engage emotionally with the characters, despite the visceral nature of the film.

Having said all that, I must say “Sorcerer” is extremely well made and the action scenes are gripping. The film’s faults lie not in its realisation but rather in its conceptualisation and poor emotional engagement with the audience.

 

 

Reaction to “The Wages of Fear” (2024)

Directed by Julien Leclercq

Script by Hamid Hlioua

Starring Franck Gastambide and Alban Lenoir

 

This is a loose adaptation whose primary (and perhaps only) link to the book and previous cinematic versions is the plot device of transporting explosives across dangerous terrain in two trucks to extinguish an oil-well fire.

It is a well-made attempt to exploit the classic tale while appealing to modern sensibilities, but in so doing it does away with virtually all the qualities, characterisations, observations and depth that made the first adaptation so successful.

I have frequently wondered if producers of remakes and sequels always understand what was appealing about original films, and this film only confirms my suspicions… Formulaic action sequences, violence and sex do not compensate for lack of characterisation, substance and pace.


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

Wednesday, 2 July 2025

Proportion and self-respect through insignificance and equality

 

Rough thoughts on proportion and self-respect through recognition of 

insignificance and equality

Pressure to do everything perfectly and appease others may begin as external but will quickly become internal. This striving for perfection in order to please or satisfy others may create anxiety, overthinking, overplanning and may lead to self-inflicted imperfections and perceived inadequacies, occasioning disappointment in how one is perceived by others and confirming a sense of failure in oneself. Seeking and focusing on minor defects and self-doubt rather than positive outcomes can engender feelings of personal incompetence, inevitability and catastrophising.

All of this is predicated upon the concept of the significance of one’s actions to others, a significance that is often out of all proportion with reality. Most interaction with others is transitory, often transactional, and rarely of any lasting significance.

The desire or need to please or impress everyone you meet is nonsense - people generally use one another to simply get by in life. Most people you meet will be unimportant to you, just as you will be inconsequential to most people you meet – the impression you make will not be retained by most, and even if it is, so what? Why should their thoughts be important to you? Will you remember these people in the future? You need to get people and their actions and reactions in proportion so that you do not allow a fundamentally insignificant interaction and a desire to please to take on a value and significance they do not warrant. This exaggeration may lead to an unmerited attribution of superiority to others and an equally undeserved sense of personal inferiority. Treat others with respect and be polite but there is no need for anxiety – nature’s rules apply to us all equally and you have no reason to assume others’ superiority or your own inferiority. You may not know them, they are unlikely to mean anything to you and, in any case, based on fleeting and relatively unimportant encounters, they are unlikely to remember you, just as you need not remember them.

Significance and worth should be weighed up and not be assigned automatically – do not be swayed by position or reputation, but rather consider what others say and do and, using balanced and reasonable judgement, attach the value you think appropriate. Wisdom may come from even the lowest echelons of life, just as ineptness and ignorance may spring forth from those in authority and power.

Nor should you allow yourself to be swayed by the confidence of others. Confidence does not necessarily imply ability or validity, indeed overconfident and highly assured people may lack the intelligence or will to recognise their own weaknesses, failings or poor judgement, so do not assume inferiority to someone who merely projects confidence. Bear in mind also that this confidence may even be a façade to obscure their own feelings of inadequacy.

Be yourself. If others take something positive from your presence or contribution, that is good but it is up to them, not you. You are not obliged to seek their approval. If you get on well with someone and the relationship is natural and unforced, then this is a solid basis for future development. If a relationship is forced and unnatural, ultimately this is likely to cause friction and it will fail. There is no need for anxiety as you don’t need to set out to appease others. Be respectful, give praise where it is due but be willing to recognise what you consider to be failings in others as well.

Do not try to adapt to others’ company beyond the norms of politeness and respect. In so doing, you may be debasing yourself. It is essential to maintain self-respect if a relationship is to have any lasting value. Bear in mind that we are all in the same position. We all share fleeting interactions, moments and memories, and we should treat one another with proportionate respect, and that includes ourselves.

You do things on your own terms. You can only be yourself, not a puppet to please others, and it is only by being yourself that your contribution will have value and you will gain self-respect. There is no need for anxiety as you are expressing and pleasing yourself. Do not be unnecessarily hard on yourself and recognise your own worth, just as you are willing to recognise the worth of others.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read these notes. I hope you found them of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

BLOG                                                   YouTube

 

Thursday, 26 June 2025

Characters and themes in "The Offence" (1973)

 

Reflections on characters and themes in “The Offence” (1973)

Directed by Sidney Lumet

Script by John Hopkins (also the original play)

Starring Sean Connery, Ian Bannen, Vivien Merchant and Trevor Howard

Following sexual assaults on a number of young girls, a man named Kenneth Baxter is detained for questioning as a suspect and is treated brutally by Detective Sergeant Johnson. “The Offence” presents a vivid picture of a police officer driven to depression and excessive reaction by accumulated experience of death, violence, despair and misery. The film depicts the potential, if extreme, consequences on the human psyche of constant emotional bombardment and frustration.

However, I would say that much more lurks beneath the surface as existential angst and lack of personal fulfilment play their parts in the psychological deterioration of Detective Sergeant Johnson. Johnson is, as are we all, the product of his character, his encounters and his environment. Although ultimately we must accept responsibility for our own actions, we all impact or influence one another and as social creatures we seek to make connections and build sympathetic relationships with others while trying to achieve balance and keep a sense of proportion in our lives and outlooks. However, if that balance is skewed by experience and social dissatisfaction, the consequences can be catastrophic…

In the original play the action revolves around three dialogues, one between Johnson and his wife Maureen which offers insight into Johnson’s personal life and his social environment, one with Johnson’s superior in which we gain understanding of his professional position and tensions, and then there is the key exchange between Johnson and suspect Baxter in which we discern vital indications as to Johnson’s declining state of mind and his resultant actions.

There are several nods to existentialism as we are offered regular insights into Johnson’s personal issues and we witness reminders of his solitude and his insular nature. He doesn’t share his thoughts and feelings with his wife of some 16 years, which might have afforded him some degree of catharsis. Indeed, a barrier has formed between them, leading to resentment on both sides, a lack of emotional fulfilment and even a sense of mutual rejection.

Thinking he may have killed Baxter, and desperate to be listened to (a theme that will be revisited several times), Johnson tries to open up to Maureen. Almost by way of rationalisation of his treatment of Baxter, he sets out to express his thoughts and experiences in an attempt to gain a sympathetic understanding of the personal torment he is undergoing, yet he is hesitant to discuss such matters with Maureen, emphasising the emotional distance between them.

On hearing some of the gruesome detail he shares with her, Maureen is physically sick and Johnson, feeling rejected, withdraws emotionally from the discussion, saying he won’t open up again. This provokes an impassioned and bitter response from his wife which encapsulates their relationally barren marriage and highlights his sense of personal isolation and his perceived lack of sympathetic understanding regarding the torment he is experiencing.

Even worse, however, he is deliberately hurtful toward his wife, passing vicious comments on her appearance and his disappointment with her in their marriage. He appears to recognise this moment as a turning point in his life and is taking stock of how he arrived at this point, apparently blaming Maureen for his lack of emotional and, importantly, sexual fulfilment.

He has repressed so much horror, pain, bitterness and anger that now, some twenty years later, his feelings are starting to overflow and affect his professional conduct. He has allowed his feelings, including, we learn, personal disappointment and sexual frustration, to overwhelm his judgement and conduct.

In his interview with Detective Superintendent Cartwright, Johnson seeks reassurance and understanding from his superior. Again, Johnson asks repeatedly to be listened to as he tries to fathom what is going on inside his head, but Cartwright is concerned only with regulation, convention and legality, none of which is useful to Johnson who is effectively having a breakdown. In the end, Johnson is once again left feeling rejected and not understood so he becomes confrontational, a reaction that leads only to further isolation.

Johnson comes closest to achieving understanding and empathy in his conversation with suspect Baxter.

Assuming Baxter’s guilt, Johnson tries to provoke or goad Baxter into a confession by discussing his feelings and motivations for the attacks, but it becomes reasonably clear that in so doing, Johnson may be revealing some of his own dark thoughts and desires…

When searching for missing girl and probable latest victim of sexual assault, Janey, Johnson breaks with convention and heads off alone. When he finds her, he doesn’t call out or seek support. He tries, somewhat awkwardly, to comfort her and there is a vague suggestion of attraction. He also appears surprised and slightly disappointed at the arrival of his colleagues.

The matter of Baxter’s guilt or innocence is not resolved. The fact is, however, that Baxter is used to being bullied and he considers himself something of a manipulator of those who set out to bully him. He plays Johnson at his own game, eventually leading Johnson to recognise his own desires and motivations.

Stunned and almost grateful for this breakthrough in communication and understanding, Johnson actually asks for Baxter’s help, but in so doing, and reflecting the immense pain and desperation he feels, Johnson unwittingly causes pain to Baxter and Baxter breaks the spell of complicity and understanding by breaking free from Johnson’s grip and turning on him.

Baxter feels he has broken Johnson and prepares to leave but this act provokes a number of responses within Johnson – deep hurt at having finally found understanding only to be rejected by the only person who appears to have any degree of comprehension of what he is suffering, loss of pride and position, and a sense of defeat in that this suspect has turned the tables on him and is taking control as he prepares to leave.

He may also have recognised that he is essentially no better than this suspect for whom he has nothing but contempt.

As a result, Johnson loses control and lashes out at this embodiment of all the perversions and social ills he has encountered over the years, but he may also be lashing out at himself as he furiously seeks to destroy that dubious part of himself that he has just been forced to acknowledge.

Shortly after mortally punching Baxter, Johnson returns to his senses, sees what he has done and declares, “Oh God, oh my God…” Whether this is solely in recognition of what he has done or is also an acknowledgement of what he has become is left to the audience to decide.

I found “The Offence” intense, powerful and thought-provoking, but also relentlessly bleak and dense. If I’m being honest, I’d have to say I found some of the dialogue clunky and unconvincing but this was offset by excellent performances all round, especially from Sean Connery and Ian Bannen who complemented and enhanced one another perfectly.

 

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