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 discussion of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (2009), "American Gigolo"(1980), "Ace in the Hole", "Suite Française", elements of a good lesson (secondary level), "Sweeney Todd", "The Yakuza", using film and song in the modern languages classroom, "The Dirty Dozen", "Megalopolis", Critical Thinking, "the relationship between an artist, a work of art and the consumer of a work of art", "respect, self-perception and self-healing", "Sicario" (2015), Steve McQueen, "Dracula entre l'amour et la mort" (the French-Canadian musical), science-fiction films, films about teaching, "A Tale of Two Cities" (1958), "The Invention of Lying", the Arts, the James Bond films, "Sweet Smell of Success", "Rollerball" (1975 and 2002), "The Professionals" (1966), "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "The Name of the Rose", "The Man who would be King", "Mr. Holmes" (2015), "The Last Samurai", "Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961), "The Sand Pebbles", "Forrest Gump", "Gran Torino", "Gangs of New York", "Emperor of the North", "Five Easy Pieces", "Chinatown", "Casablanca", Blade Runner", "The Big Red One", early Luc Besson films, "Being There", "An Inspector Calls", "La Belle et la Bête", "The Searchers", "The Mission", "High Plains Drifter", "Nuremberg" (2025), "Prime Cut", the influence of existentialism in society today, anxiety, professional criteria and essential attributes in teaching, professionalism versus careerism, thoughts on the meaning of "success" and "worth", "Hobson's Choice", "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”. 

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 Misérables" 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

Version française d’articles initialement publiés en anglais sur mon blog

All intellectual property rights reserved

Reflections on “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (2009)

 

Reflections on “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (2009)

Directed by Niels Arden Oplev

Screenplay by Rasmus Heisterberg and Nikolaj Arcel

Based on the book by Stieg Larsson

Starring Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace et al.

 

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a Swedish neo-noir thriller that has two major assets – its storyline of topical relevance concerning the abuse and murder of young and vulnerable women by wealthy or influential men who operate apparently unchecked by law enforcement, and the film’s enigmatic heroine, or anti-heroine, who plays with convention and reverses stereotypes.

Wealthy businessman Henrik Vanger seeks information about the disappearance or, he suspects, murder of his niece Harriet some 40 years previously and he hires famed journalist Mikael Blomkvist to investigate.

Mikael is a man of integrity and principle who has been framed by a corrupt businessman and who is awaiting a prison sentence for libel. He pursued an investigation into mega wealthy businessman Hans-Erik WennerstrÖm but he is outplayed by WennerstrÖm who feeds Mikael false information that allows WennerstrÖm to take Mikael to court where he is sentenced to a few months’ imprisonment, though that is deferred for a short time. WennerstrÖm is clearly unscrupulous, devious and willing to sacrifice the freedom of others in order to further his cause and to protect himself, and this episode constitutes an introduction to the themes of abuse of power and the inadequacy of the justice system that will be further explored in the film.

Eventually, Mikael is joined in his investigation by Lisbeth Salander, a troubled, rebellious and intelligent young woman with a chequered past who has highly developed skills in the field of cyber security, poorly developed social skills and is utterly determined to see justice done, at least in her eyes.

Mikael’s investigation into Harriet’s disappearance quickly reveals Nazi connections within the Vanger family as well as links to unsolved murders. It transpires that Harriet was brutally abused by her father Gottfried and her brother Martin and she uncovered links to a number of murders, putting her own life in danger, so she disappeared or escaped, leading her uncle Henrik to believe she may have been murdered.

Many years later, and in a situation that echoes that of Harriet, Lisbeth is savagely abused and raped by a man in a position of trust and responsibility, her legal guardian assigned by the courts, who is willing to exploit his status and influence to indulge personal desires at the expense of those in his care.

It appears that despite the façade of civilisation, ideals and equality in society, misogyny, brutal abuse and criminality are alive and well across all strata of society, and this is confirmed and emphasised by the experience of both Harriet and Lisbeth Salander.

The clear implication is that morality and ethics need not apply as some rich men or some in positions of authority act as they wish, gratifying themselves without considering the consequences for or impact upon their victims, and the law, there to protect the innocent and the abused, applies only to those willing to conform or those not powerful or affluent enough to cover their tracks. Given this premise, our film may fairly be called a film noir with Mikael and Lisbeth representing conventional idealism and personal accountability respectively.

Lisbeth is an intriguing, unconventional and enigmatic heroine or anti-heroine. She has suffered in the past and is living with the consequences of trauma in her childhood. We see the result in her outlook, her relationships, her lack of trust and her almost total self-reliance, operating by her own judgment and certainly not confined by societal structure and legality. She is not defeated but she is damaged, with her traumatic experience, only really hinted at in this film, leading her to a dedicated pursuit of truth, principle and accountability, often at the expense of financial gain and personal comfort and without recourse to recognised institutional networks of protection and care. After she suffers severe abuse at the hands of her so-called guardian, she displays endurance, clarity of thought, resilience and intelligence in outwitting and gaining vengeance upon her abuser, all qualities the audience finds admirable.

Refusing to fall in love, though she feels affection for some, she insists on retaining control of her life. She gains by the proceeds of criminal activity, stealing from the corrupt businessman who targeted Mikael for seeking to denounce him, while clearing Mikael’s name and condemning WennerstrÖm in the process, and as such she is the perfect film noir heroine. She acts in accordance with her acumen and her own sense of justice, which may explain why she is drawn to Mikael who shares her belief in justice though he is more straightforwardly and conventionally idealistic.

Noir elements are further accentuated when there is something of a clash between Mikael’s idealism and Lisbeth’s personally principled revenge – she saves Mikael from Martin’s torture but chooses to allow Martin to die in a car crash. Mikael tells her he couldn’t have done what she did but rather than judge her by traditional standards, he is grateful for her existence and recognises the value of her actions despite the questionable circumstances that created her and led to her dubious deeds. There are times when moral judgment needs to be fluid.

Lisbeth Salander is the true star and point of interest in the film. She is enigmatic and there is a mystique surrounding her, a mystique and fascination that risk being eradicated if her character is explored and explained to any great extent. To make her back story the focus is, I think, a mistake, at least in film versions of her adventures. It is better to drop incidental hints about her past along the way, maintaining our intrigue, than to explicitly reveal her past which may satisfy our curiosity but which may also reduce our fascination with the character. Stieg Larsson constructed his trilogy around Lisbeth’s character and back story so that she is the element around which the themes pivot, but I would suggest that in the cinema the themes are the essential element, to be explored by a character made incidentally human and intriguing, rather than have the character become the focus. It seems to me that this mistake has been made with the James Bond, Doctor Who and even Jason Bourne franchises.

 

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

Brief reflections on "American Gigolo" (1980)

 

Brief reflections on “American Gigolo” (1980)

Directed and written by Paul Schrader

Starring Richard Gere, Lauren Hutton, Hector Elizondo et al.

 

“American Gigolo” is an allegorical tale cum thriller that is very European in style in that it focuses far more on observation of character and society than on plot, and as such it is much more insightful and successful as an allegory than as a thriller.

Julian Kay is a high-end male escort who is pretentious, materialistic and somewhat superficial, perhaps necessarily so due to his profession. We see him as he charms his way through his life, providing an attentive service to his clients but also grating on colleagues and business partners as he pursues his career and puts his ambitions above loyalty, gratitude or even true friendship.

His world is one of heartless transaction and reciprocation in which ambition and self-promotion are set above compassion and values, and I suggest this is to be seen as an allegory for American society at that time. Everyone, though especially Julian, appears to be content to be superficial and mercenary, committed to the principle of quid pro quo and cold-bloodedly using one another for personal benefit. As such, the choice of male prostitute as the central character is perhaps perfect as Julian uses others but is also used by others to achieve personal satisfaction.

However, Julian learns the disadvantages of this state of affairs when he is suspected of the murder of a former client and no-one is willing to support him or tell the truth about their involvement with him. He discovers that his entirely superficial existence, void of connection, depth and attachment, renders him entirely expendable. Indeed, he may be seen as the perfect candidate for a frame up exactly because no-one is willing to defend or support him, making him the perfect patsy, and the thriller element of the film involves his attempts to prove himself innocent despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

He meets socialite Michelle, with whom he starts a relationship and this relationship becomes essential both in terms of Julian’s personal development and the thriller aspect of the film, and it is Michelle’s involvement that I find particularly problematic. She invites compassion and represents genuineness and depth, and she is clearly the means of Julian’s spiritual salvation as she provides him with emotional closeness, spiritual depth, loyalty and sincerity. However, while I can see that she may not be receiving such relational features within her marriage and may seek them elsewhere, I fail to see why she would find Julian so spiritually attractive as he has displayed none of these qualities beyond the most superficial level.

Nor can I understand why he would abandon his carefully cultivated outlook on life all of a sudden and indulge in the kind of emotional attachment he has resolved to avoid and which has, from the evidence presented to us, held no interest for him.

I understand that for the sake of the storyline and the desired transformation, this shift in character is essential, but I find the rationale behind it quite unconvincing.

I understand that virtually everything in the film is about fakery and appearance and we, along with Julian, are being taught a lesson about the need for connection, honesty and sincerity, but ultimately, Julian’s alibi, provided by the loved-up Michelle, is also a fabrication. Granted, it reveals the depth of her feelings for Julian and the lengths to which she is prepared to go for him, but it is yet another lie in a web of fakery, appearance and reciprocity as opposed to integrity, authenticity and compassion hinted at as an alternative.

The film is stylish and beautiful to look at but it is quite uninvolving and unconvincing in terms of character development. Its strengths include its observations of character and society, its depiction of a spiritual and moral vacuum, and the plot device of the death of a former client, but the frame up is an obvious and clumsy attempt to introduce much needed threat and urgency while the genuine jeopardy created by the death of Julian’s business associate (and Julian’s direct involvement in it) is casually discarded on a legal technicality to allow for Michelle’s act of salvation!

Quite apart from these structural issues, I would say it doesn’t succeed terribly well as a thriller because we don’t really care about Julian’s fate. We may recognise the injustice of his situation but we are curious, not outraged, as we have remained emotionally unengaged by a character whose principal trait is lack of emotional engagement.

Somewhat ironically, if fittingly, I found it a beautiful but shallow and not very rewarding experience.

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

Brief reflections on "Ace in the Hole" (1951)

 

Brief reflections on “Ace in the Hole” (1951)

Directed by Billy Wilder

Screenplay by Billy Wilder, Walter Newman and Lesser Samuels

Starring Kirk Douglas, Jan Sterling, Robert Arthur, Porter Hall et al.

 

“Ace in the Hole” is an exploration of outlook and consequent actions that are self-serving to the point where the central character and a number of similar-minded opportunists are willing to use and abuse others to advance themselves, their careers and their profits.

Although ideally motivated to seek truth, facts and justice, journalists (like many other public service professionals) may lose sight of lofty objectives and use, abuse or influence events and situations to promote themselves, advance their ambitions or promote a cause in which they believe.

In this film, Chuck Tatum is such a journalist.

He seizes on an unfortunate circumstance (a man named Leo is trapped underground) to glorify and market himself, even causing life-threatening delays to Leo’s rescue in order to maximise his impact and influence, with tragic and unnecessary consequences as the trapped Leo dies when he might have been saved days earlier without Tatum’s manipulation and self-serving intervention.

The film’s premise and storyline were criticised on its release on the grounds of lack of realism in terms of the reaction of others involved in the situation. Would onlookers, officials and other journalists not have taken issue with operations and timescale to ensure Leo’s timely and effective rescue?

Of course, or at least we’d like to think so, but to make this criticism is to somewhat miss the point of this whole cinematic exercise. This is an exploration of the depths of the human soul and the extent to which ambition, ego and self-promotion can outweigh compassion and humanity, and that is not restricted to Tatum. Others also seize on the opportunity to profit from the situation.

To make its point, the film offers an exaggeration, but that can be the legitimate basis for drama as directors and writers invite the viewer to be outraged and thus be sensitised to the values and “decency” that are lacking in the main character and others. Billy Wilder was renowned for his at times cynical and disillusioned view of human nature but it should be recognised that in presenting this negative view, he is not condoning such conduct – if anything, this conduct is being condemned as outrageous and unacceptable.

By raising awareness of potential consequences of selfish actions, Wilder is demanding reflection on the part of the audience and is seeking a positive response in terms of outlook and action. A carefully orchestrated negative example can be just as effective a teaching tool as a positive or heroic example, especially if heightened for dramatic effect and uneasy impact.

Given recent clear and distinct distancing from conventional views of truth, decorum, morality and respect in the fields of journalism, politics and social intercourse, the film’s essential warning may be considered more apt today than even at the time of its release as today’s news agencies, politicians and social media outlets often peddle opinion and manipulate perception with scant regard for truth, facts and ethics.

The tragic ending and the fact there was no hero to root for left the audience somewhat deflated, and our film was a critical and commercial failure. An upbeat and hopeful tale of rescue in the face of adversity would doubtless have met with commercial success but here Billy Wilder is tapping in to what may be an uncomfortable but familiar recognition of dubious perspective. He is challenging conventional romanticised heroic projections and is inviting recognition of the dark side of human nature in the hope it will lead to rejection and appreciation of honesty, compassion and values.

The film’s core message is summarised at the end with the juxtaposition of idealism and disappointing reality when Tatum dies beneath a sign saying “Tell the truth”.

It has been suggested that this is a film noir and while I can see a certain argument for that contention, I would suggest it does not meet the criteria of a general lack of a moral code and characters doing what they feel they must do in order to survive - a great many characters act altruistically as they make a huge effort to save Leo and I would say that Tatum needs this conventional societal order and morality to achieve the success he craves. This is rather an exploration of one man’s self-interest and self-promotion while hypocritically depending on and manipulating the higher feelings of others for his own ends.

 

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 “Suite Française” (2014)

 

Reflections on “Suite Française”

Directed by Saul Dibb

Screenplay by Saul Dibb and Matt Charman

Based on the book by Irène Némirovsky

Starring Michelle Williams, Kristin Scott Thomas, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ruth Wilson, Sam Riley et al.

In wartime, we see people at their best but also at their worst.

Set during the German occupation of France in WW2, “Suite Française” is a study of some of the consequences of the occupation, political, social and moral, for the residents of the small town of Bussy.

In places, our film is vaguely similar in tone to “Le Corbeau” and “La Rafle” as it reveals some uncomfortable truths regarding reaction to the occupation in this small community. There are clashes between politics and humanity, social position and compassion, and spiritual rapport and duty, with some characters prioritising position and survival while others eventually make a stand for freedom and principle.

Mme Angellier, proud local landowner and mother-in-law to Lucile, shows scant regard or compassion for those fleeing Paris and the occupation, is hard-hearted toward her tenants who are in financial difficulty, and is rather authoritarian, condescending and insensitive toward Lucile (whose soldier husband, Gaston, is eventually reported to have been taken prisoner by the Germans). When forced to accept the presence of a polite and respectful German officer in her home, she is determined to show her displeasure by offering a minimum of co-operation or even recognition of his presence. She is clearly immensely proud of her social status, appears self-centred and unbending, and is critical of just about everyone.

The young and thoughtful Lucile, who loves music but is discouraged from playing her piano by her mother-in-law, is drawn to Bruno von Falk, the well-mannered German officer billeted in her home, as he plays her piano and composes his own music. After initial resistance, Lucile is able to see beyond Bruno’s official status and sees him as something of a kindred spirit. Bruno reveals a sensitivity at odds with his official duties and he and Lucile establish a rapport, to the disapproval of Mme Angellier and several local residents.

Bruno receives numerous letters of denunciation from the locals (in return for German favours or leniency), indicating blatant self-interest and immediate gratification on their part, and a failure to grasp the broader perspective of fighting for French freedom and values. This practice was indeed encouraged by the Germans who gained information on criminals, Jews and resistance fighters as well as engendering disunity among the local population.

Bruno clearly disapproves of the practice but he does learn that Lucile’s husband has been consistently unfaithful to her, though he keeps it to himself. When Lucile does finally learn of her husband’s infidelity, she feels utterly betrayed and this revelation drastically alters her worldview, including her view of her mother-in-law’s haughty moral position, her marriage, her relationship with her judgemental and only-too-well-informed neighbours, and especially her stance with regard to the occupying forces. She decides to abandon her role of dutiful wife and obedient daughter-in-law to follow her instincts and defy the occupation forces’ control, even reluctantly and with regret sacrificing her nascent but deeply-felt relationship with Bruno out of indignation and integrity.

She has seen that not all the German forces are as principled and considerate as Bruno and she sees that several neighbours are effectively collaborating, redoubling her resolve to make a stance against the invaders and help a neighbouring tenant who is in trouble.

Tenants Benoît and Madeleine are in trouble on two counts; firstly, unprincipled German officer Kurt wishes to sleep with Madeleine, Benoît’s wife, and he belittles Benoît while pressurising Madeleine; secondly, and perhaps more crucially, out of desperation Benoît has been stealing chickens from the local aristocrat’s farm and when he is caught by the Viscountess, who shows no compassion or understanding, he treats her with disdain and contempt. Offended, she lies about his conduct and sees to it that the German forces hunt him down.

This episode highlights a social system dependent on the view that the aristocratic class was superior to the working class. The Viscountess is more concerned with position and insult than with helping a fellow human being and is willing to turn to her country’s enemies to help her fulfil her goal of maintaining pride and social position, displaying little evidence of character, worth or principle.

However, the whole affair backfires as, in the course of his escape from justice, Benoît kills German officer Kurt and, because the Germans do not follow the same code of conduct and responsibility as the French, when Benoît manages to avoid capture the Viscount is held responsible for Kurt’s murder and is executed. The Viscountess has ample opportunity to tell the truth but she places pride and self-preservation above consequence, especially when it is a matter of consequences for others…

Lucile and even Mme Angellier both abandon the roles they have been playing in society and recognise they must make a stand against oppression and the Germans’ dismissive overturning of French freedom, society and rules. Their eyes are opened and they see the bigger picture beyond the petty vicissitudes of their village life and the places they hold within it, and they fight for the freedom and values they have previously taken for granted by helping Benoît make his escape and, in Lucile’s case, going on to Paris to help resist the occupation.

Bruno is assigned the task of executing the Viscount, counter to every fibre in his being, but he does his duty. He sacrifices his genuine feelings to conformity and survival though, perhaps as a result of this act, he goes on to help Lucile escape as she aids Benoît evade German authorities. Thus, he makes a stand for values and principle, putting his own safety and life at risk.

Ultimately, it would appear that if we are to achieve inner peace and feel at ease with ourselves, we may have to act according to our conscience and oppose subjugation or coercion, though first we may have to reflect on and recognise the values that are truly important to us.

This relatively obscure film is, on the face of it, deceptively “small” but it deals with themes of considerable depth and value as it offers a highly perceptive and searingly honest account of the occupation and its challenging consequences and choices, political, social and moral, as experienced by the inhabitants of this small town, a town that may well be symbolic of the experience of the whole of France. Often billed as a romance, it offers much more than that and is a fitting tribute to the unfinished work of the tragic author of the piece.

 

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

Personal thoughts on elements of a good lesson (secondary level)

 

Elements of a good lesson in brief

These suggestions, which are certainly not comprehensive, were written with Modern Languages in mind but I hope that some elements may be applicable across the range of subjects taught in schools.

In something of a departure from my usual fare, I present a few of my own thoughts on elements of a good lesson. Clearly, every teacher must find his or her own way, but these ideas worked reasonably well for me and my pupils and I thought they might be worth sharing.

Firstly, I suggest you greet your pupils at the door as they enter. Saying hello and offering personal greetings will help establish a friendly rapport and create a spirit of collaboration.

A brief recap of what was studied or learned on the previous occasion will be helpful in focusing the attention of your charges on your subject. Judicious questioning will allow students to contribute and provide the essential information rather than simply hear a recap from their teacher, building pupils’ confidence and a willingness to participate in the business of the lesson.

Explain the objective of the lesson but you may wish to do so in a light-hearted manner. It was my experience that pupils often disliked learning French, largely because they were afraid of the enormity of the task and failure, so it seemed a good idea to play to their reluctance and jovially tell them why they would love this lesson, supplying a few fun examples of how they could use whatever skill or knowledge they were about to learn. Remember, the lesson might be serious but the class can be fun.

In terms of maintaining engagement, small and manageable chunks are more effective than lengthy exercises that sap energy and enthusiasm. Adapt to the atmosphere in the classroom – be aware if something needs to be explained further, is proving more difficult than foreseen or needs to be lightened to stimulate interest. Sometimes a little humour or personal interaction will be enough to carry what might be perceived as dull content.

Link whatever is new in the lesson to material students already know through rapid revision of what is familiar (and will be useful to the task in hand), be it grammar-based or vocabulary.

If dealing with a grammar point, it may be worth drawing comparison to structures in English (which will be familiar to pupils but which may not have been clarified in the English class).

Provide a structure or formula for the new element while emphasising what is familiar. This structure or formula may be built with the class by asking pointed questions or inviting the class to recall previously learned elements, to which the teacher may add new material.

If dealing with vocabulary, remind the class of words and phrases they have already encountered and see if students can work out meanings of new words through context or analysis of the new word to find connections with what is familiar.

In any case, it is advisable that the class or students should feel a sense of “ownership” or feel that they have participated in and contributed to what is learned.

I have often thought that a good lesson bears a certain resemblance to a conversation between pupils and teacher.

In a conversation, one participant may have considered what is to be said, how it is to be said and the information to be imparted, but the conversation will only work if spontaneous elements are accepted and taken in to account.

Each participant should respect the others but all should be allowed or invited to contribute. Recalling familiar information or contexts is essential to enabling comprehension of what is new or if information is to be amended.

Similarly, just as students should listen to the teacher, teachers should listen to the students to ensure engagement and understanding. As a result of this ongoing “conversation”, it may be necessary to adapt objectives and respond to comment or question – this is an essential element of engagement. Attention is more likely and retention more probable if students feel involved in the process and if their contributions are heeded.

At the end of the class, after reinforcement exercises and group revision, a pupil or student might even be invited to recap the important elements of the lesson, with the opportunity for the others to ask questions.

 

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 “Sweeney Todd: the demon barber of Fleet Street” (2007)

 

Reflections on “Sweeney Todd: the demon barber of Fleet Street” (2007)

Directed by Tim Burton

Script by John Logan

Music and book by Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler

Starring Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall

Musicals can unfold at a somewhat leisurely pace and can be rather self-indulgent, but here director Tim Burton has created a cinematic version of Stephen Sondheim’s famous musical that keeps things tight and compact, advancing storyline or characterisation with every scene while building emotional understanding and tension where appropriate.

Fundamentally, this tale of Sweeney Todd is an exercise in existential amorality involving the implementation of an obsessive and vengeful agenda. It suggests there can be no U-turns on the road to amorality and there are tragic consequences for all concerned. However, and quite remarkably, this is all achieved with a degree of sympathy, understanding and even humour.

In 1831, naïve and idealistic London barber Benjamin Barker is found guilty of a trumped-up charge and is transported so that guileful and Machiavellian Judge Turpin may have his abusive way with Barker’s wife. Now returning some fifteen years later as Sweeney Todd, disillusioned and cynical as the result of his experience, he seeks revenge on those who did him and his family wrong in order to further their own agenda. His profound sense of injustice and his obsessive desire for vengeance have affected his perception so that he focuses on the negative in people and he takes a dim view of what people are able and willing to do to one another to gain their way or even just to survive.

When this pessimistic world view is confirmed by an encounter with fellow barber Pirelli who tries to blackmail him, Sweeney Todd is driven mad and is propelled down the path of amorality to become the renowned serial killer of myth and legend.

The audience is cleverly made to feel quite conflicted as we sympathise with Benjamin Barker due to the injustice done to him, and we understand Sweeney Todd’s lust for vengeance, yet we are repelled by (if also fascinated by and perhaps vaguely envious of) his extreme reaction and direct actions, even if we recognise and condemn Pirelli’s amoral motives. We want Sweeney Todd to have justice and revenge on Judge Turpin and his acolytes but we are left to wonder at what price this will come…

There is no such conflict with regard to Judge Turpin and his bailiff (or enforcer), Beadle Bamford, who are the irredeemable antagonists of the piece. Turpin is a perverted hypocrite who hides his disdain for morality and his willingness to use and abuse others for his personal gratification behind a façade of law and order. He is unconcerned by any injustice in his judgements as, undoubtedly reflecting his own amoral outlook, he declares quite casually that no-one is innocent – everyone is guilty to some degree, even him… So, in an amoral world, he is merely asserting himself as he also protects himself by way of high position in society.

Bamford is equally grotesque as he uses and abuses his position to serve himself and his master without challenge or thought, effectively operating as Turpin’s enabler.

Mrs Lovett is a survivor willing to do what it takes to get by, but she is a realist. She will bend the law and cheat a little but does nothing serious enough to put herself in danger. At least, not until she meets Sweeney Todd to whom she is drawn quite implacably. She balances amorality with conformity and, swayed by her feelings for Todd, she directs him away from excess and protects him from himself until Pirelli pushes him overboard. In a way, she becomes Todd’s enabler just as he then becomes hers – he opens her eyes to what is possible through the lens of amorality and they encourage and support one another to their mutual advantage, but she also wants Todd for herself and manipulates him by omission, an act she will come to regret…

Through brilliant crafting of plot and character, Stephen Sondheim produced a highly engaging but blood-soaked horror story that warns of the dangers of conceding to dark thoughts of revenge and the consequences of selfish and blinkered amorality, but above all invites us to see that our actions have consequences for others and we should perhaps consider the consequences of these actions before undertaking them.

The stroke of genius, of course, is in appealing to our emotions and our sense of fairness and justice. Benjamin Barker, his wife Lucy and daughter Johanna are all maltreated and we want to see justice done, but what if there is no recourse to justice in terms of the law of the land? What if there can be no appeal to humanity or compassion? What if there is no alternative but to take matters into your own hands, if you seek some form of retribution?

This is the situation faced by Sweeney Todd and we explore his reactions to it. We witness how easily we can go from targeted and justified anger to frustration, to self-absorbed tunnel vision, and then to cynical hatred of all mankind. Hatred overwhelms and will not allow you to see the bigger picture as you lose sight of values and principles, indeed any alternative to your hate-filled course.

Even the audience is swept up in Todd’s madness as the outrage at the original injustice, the humour and the casual blood-letting have their effect, though the turning point comes when Todd is willing to kill the pure and principled young Toby. That leads to loss of sympathy and compassion, and a realisation of just how far Todd has gone.

In the end, his blind rage and devotion to revenge cost him the very thing that drove him to these acts. He has lost his humanity and his capacity for love. Even Sweeney recognises what he has become and what he has lost, and he is willing to die, rather poetically, at the hand of principle.

I thoroughly enjoyed all the performances and all credit to the cast members not known for their singing prowess but who proved application and determination can go a long way.

So often, especially in the musical genre, indulgence can overtake the storytelling, with padding or showboating as a result. Here, however, it seems to me that Mr Sondheim’s music ebbs and flows quite magisterially as it conveys the narrative. The songs are used to advance the story or understanding of a character in an entertaining but concise and economical way, and not without considerable humour – a remarkable feat given the subject matter!

 

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