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
