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 advice and questions to assist in the writing of essays about films, thoughts on "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 Miserables" below.

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

Other blogs available:

French Support Pages

Discussion of “Les Misérables”

Tales of teaching – memoirs of a former French teacher

All intellectual property rights reserved

Characters and themes 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

Reflections on Danny Boyle’s “Trainspotting”

 

Reflections on “Trainspotting”

Directed by Danny Boyle

Screenplay by John Hodge (from the novel by Irvine Welsh)

Starring Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Jonny Lee Miller

and Ewen Bremner

On a personal note, this article marks 25 years of posting material online.

It is very difficult to accurately characterise or adequately describe “Trainspotting”. It is a gritty, dynamic, entertaining, insightful and thought-provoking mix that is part social commentary and part fantasy with, quite unbelievably, given the setting and subject matter of the film, an enormous dose of humour and fun woven into its various elements. As well as touching on perceived negative aspects of society, why people turn to drugs and the potential consequences of addiction, the film explores the nature of relationships and the impact relationships can have on one’s life.

That said, it does not present its characters’ stories as relentlessly miserable or tragic – lighter moments are emphasised as characters make their choices and we explore reasons for and consequences of their actions, making the characters all the more engaging, relatable and human. It is perhaps because of this quality that many dismissed the film at the time of its release as glorifying drug use but I would suggest these people may not have actually seen the film or confused sympathy and accessibility with approval.

The way scenes are filmed undoubtedly creates a sense of collusion or complicity with audiences. We virtually share the sensations of the characters as they fall 90 degrees to the floor, crawl into a toilet, sink uncontrollably into a bed or pass through a tunnel at speed while under the influence of drugs, but we also share the impact and emotion of other very touching scenes. These highly sensorial, personal and intimate scenes, combined with unpredictable sharp dialogue and excellent performances, serve to engage the senses and the minds of the audience, provoking a range of reactions from profound sympathy to repulsion.

So, why do Renton, Sick Boy and Spud turn to drugs?

They appear to be either unable or unwilling to comply with or conform to social conventions and expectations. In good part, it seems they are driven by a desire to avoid or seek an alternative to what they perceive as a banal social contrivance that involves making a dull, repetitive and soulless contribution to their community. They do not experience fulfilment in social reality so they seek it, in terms of sheer pleasure and indulgence, within their own minds.

Of course, we are invited to judge whether or not this dream world or escape from perceived drudgery is worth the shabby, grim reality and its consequences, and we are left in no doubt as to the horrific results of addiction as Renton’s life literally goes down the worst toilet in Scotland, a metaphor that is brilliantly conceived and realised through a mixture of horror and humour, making the whole all the more arresting, engaging and provocative.

The film explores a number of relationships and friendships.

Renton’s parents treat him with love, affection and sympathy despite his failure to resolve his problems and Renton clearly depends on them for support. Ultimately, their son must follow his own nature, make his own choices and make his own way but as his parents, they wish to be there for him, no matter what.

The friendship shared by the main characters appears to be based largely on common experience and sharing childhood development, casting doubt on the importance of values in their relationships and emphasising the influence friends have on one another, especially the loyalty expected of a friend. These pals bolster and validate one another to the point of impeding personal and social growth and as such they fail to grow out of self-indulgence or accept the challenges of adulthood, maturity and responsibility.

Begbie, Sick Boy and Spud are well drawn and are of interest in themselves as they develop to some extent and contribute to the storyline and Renton’s evolution, but they remain largely as they are when we first meet them;

Begbie remains a narcissistic psychopath throughout, though his mental state seems to deteriorate and his actions are ever more unhinged (though highly entertaining at the same time!), while Sick Boy is self-indulgent but seems to lose his moral compass after the death of his baby in a drug den. Spud is a harmless loon lacking in self-esteem and purpose who follows his pals and seeks merely to please and accommodate his friends.

Renton, however, evolves. He is intelligent and articulate but he does not see fulfilment in society as he perceives it though he makes some effort to conform as he gets clean and finds work in London. However, he is drawn back to the shadowy world of drugs and minor crime through attachment and loyalty to his friends but also, more importantly, because that is the life he chose and he is attracted to it. Indeed, it might even be suggested that the film is the story of Renton’s coming to terms with and accepting his own nature.

He is no master criminal or drug lord but, having been part of a minor drug deal, he yields to temptation and steals the £16,000 proceeds from his friends who have used and abused him but who were willing to exploit their bond of friendship. A pang of conscience ensures he leaves Spud his share as Spud never did anyone any harm but otherwise Renton seems genuinely happy as he leaves London. Having recognised the insubstantial nature of his friendship with the others, he turns his back on his childhood friends and perhaps any remaining delusions he had of loyalty and conformity. He has, perhaps, finally given in to his nature and seems relieved as he saunters off with his ill-gotten gains. He has grown up, become independent, and has turned his friends’ standard of morality on them, leaving them to face the consequences of their actions. It would be nice to think that Renton learned a life lesson and started afresh but his history and implied nature suggest otherwise…

It seems to me that “Trainspotting” is that rare thing in cinema – an at times entertaining and amusing film noir or existential drama. The film casts doubt on the existence of morality or providence as, in bleak circumstances, the characters do what they must do to survive while following their natures and display few signs of control over their destinies. Of course, our film represents a major variation on film noir in its enormous energy and the sheer fun to be had while viewing it.

Danny Boyle’s focused direction offers eye-catching and stunning moments that serve the storyline and ensure audience engagement without slipping into self-indulgent or vainglorious strategies and techniques, while John Hodge’s screenplay (from Irvine Welsh’s original novel) captures the humanity, vulnerability and above all the relative innocence (despite the circumstances) of the characters.

As for the performances, I thought all were quite stunning. Ewan McGregor was, of course, quite superb as the tortured Renton and special mention needs to be made of Robert Carlyle’s sheer heartfelt energy, Ewen Bremner’s comic but poignant performance and Jonny Lee Miller’s almost perfect Scottish accent...

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 Sidney Pollack’s “Three Days of the Condor”

 

Brief reflections on themes and characters in “Three Days of the Condor”

Directed by Sidney Pollack

Written by Lorenzo Semple Jr and David Rayfiel

Based on a novel by James Grady

Starring Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Cliff Robertson and Max von Sydow

 

Entertaining, thought-provoking and occasionally humorous, “Three Days of the Condor” is a spy story that reflects the disbelief, disillusion and moral morass that existed in the wake of the Watergate revelations, as the film focuses on the enforced rapid moral maturation and loss of trusting innocence of principal character Joe Turner.

Among other themes, the film explores the relationship between the individual and the State, and the lengths to which the State will go in the name of preserving and protecting its interests, even showing willing to sacrifice a few individuals for the perceived overall benefit of the State. Beneath a façade of co-operation, humanity and diplomacy, the powers that be are ready to protect their interests using whatever unscrupulous and vicious methods are necessary.

Of course, when exposed to such underhand and potentially brutal tactics, innocent people may be transformed or mutated by the situation they face as they fight for survival.

Joe Turner is relatively innocent and happy-go-lucky. He is content to work for the C.I.A. in the American Literary and Historical Society where he indulges his imagination and plays a game of seeking plots, messages, strategies, codes or intrigues in modern literature that might reflect government policies or inspire them. He does not take his work too seriously and is happy and willing to pander to the C.I.A.’s almost whimsical search, as he sees it, for information and intelligence, and his attitude may well reflect the trusting faith of the American people in its political and security organisations prior to Watergate.

The sole survivor, by pure luck and circumstance, of a merciless and brutal attack on his workplace, Joe soon learns to suspend trust and question everything and everyone. His loss of confidence in colleagues and surroundings combined with his determination to survive in the face of extreme danger transform or perhaps even corrupt him to some degree, causing him to abduct and abuse another innocent, Kathy, whose relatively humdrum life is suddenly modified by danger and excitement.

The lives and outlooks of these two “innocents” are changed forever by these challenging events. As they fight for their lives, a contagious amorality and questioning of dull social convention add purpose, excitement and a savouring of life to their existence. The façade of civilisation has slipped and they have been exposed to an underlying reality of amorality where people in positions of authority act as they see fit to advance or protect whatever position they adhere to, and where people like them do what they must to outwit their pursuers and survive.

There is a suggestion that there are secretive and discrete layers of government and security, and responsibility and accountability seem to take second place to the exercise of power, authority and personal perception. It appears that one may lose perspective and abuse authority if actions are not overseen or restricted by legality or morality, often at the expense of others’ possessions, freedom or even their lives.

Joubert is perhaps the ultimate example of adaptability to this morally fluid situation. He takes pride in the standard of his work as an assassin but has learned not to question or doubt the motives of those who pay him. He recognises no moral hierarchy and he simply does what he must do to survive and be paid. He even suggests that Joe could do worse than follow his example since, having seen the reality behind the façade, he can never return to “normality”.

In the end, however, Joe puts his trust in humanity, common decency and the press. He does not believe the people or the government would sanction possible military intervention in another nation to ensure access to precious resources (a situation that may resonate with observers of modern political reality), and he threatens to expose the plan he has uncovered inadvertently and cause huge embarrassment by having his account of events printed in a newspaper.

However, this stand for principle in what is essentially a modern film noir is challenged as Joe is faced with two questions; will the press show the independence of spirit and integrity necessary to print his story, and will a relatively apathetic and self-centred public put legality and morality above its own comfort and interests? Interesting questions that cast doubt on the tenets of our civilisation and which underline the film noir roots of our film and it is left largely to the audience to consider which direction events would take…

In interviews, Sidney Pollack and Robert Redford claimed they only wanted to make a spy thriller and they objected to various readings of their work but the storyline and characterisations invite thought-provoking interpretation and I have to say I think they were being somewhat disingenuous in their protests.

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 themes and characters in “Spotlight”

 

Brief reflections on themes and characters in “Spotlight” (2015)

Directed by Tom McCarthy

Written by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy

Starring Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams,

Liv Schreiber, Stanley Tucci et al.

 

Our film takes the form of a journalistic procedural and the story itself is the star. Characters are well defined and are broadened in the course of the film but they always serve the development of the story. We witness the painstaking research and investigation required to uncover the truth behind sexual offences committed by priests in the Boston area in the early 2000s, but also the systematic efforts to ignore the roots of these crimes and to protect priests and the Catholic Church from full disclosure.

The film is constructed in much the same way as a good newspaper article, offering various points of view which are balanced to some degree though we are never in any doubt as to which standpoint will win out.

The extent of the abuse is gradually revealed to both the journalists and the audience, growing from an apparently isolated case to a virtual pandemic involving some 87 priests in Boston alone, with the suggestion that this is a recognised global phenomenon affecting some 6% of the priesthood.

It becomes clear that the Catholic Church is aware of the problem but has failed to take definitive or preventative action, opting to transfer those priests involved rather than dismiss them, enabling them to continue their practices in other dioceses. Each case is handled discreetly in order to protect the priests involved and to protect the reputation and standing of the Church in the community, with minimal compensation offered and use of emotional blackmail and false assurances to ensure families’ silence.

Thus, further victims are sacrificed on the altar of Church protection and social “responsibility”, but this seems to be a price devotees of the Church are willing to allow others to pay for the sake of social position and standing as they turn what is effectively a blind but knowing eye on these wretched goings-on, even attempting to gently pressure our journalists to abandon the piece for the greater good of the community.

We are privy to emotional and harrowing accounts of how innocent youths are inveigled into situations that left them open to abuse, both physical and emotional, and which left psychological scars and long-term effects on self-respect, relationships and general outlooks as they felt shame, embarrassment and guilt.

We even gain some insight into the minds of the abusers through a brief interview with one of the abusive priests, a seemingly harmless and forthright old man who appears to recognise no accountability for his actions, vaguely dissociating himself from guilt and responsibility while claiming his abuse of innocents gave him no pleasure. This is not developed but perhaps he and the others rationalised their position while failing to perceive their victims as feeling human beings who would be traumatised by their violation of them.

The journalists are methodical, painstaking and professional but they are also emotionally affected by the facts and deeds they uncover. They are all too aware of the potential consequences for the Church and community as pressure is brought to bear in the form of emotional blackmail, haughty refusal to co-operate, probable family conflicts and vague threats concerning social standing and job security, but all are determined to seek justice for those abused in the past and also in the present since ineffective official action has resulted in continued abuse that is going unchecked.

Systems of checks and balances in society exist to ensure standards and to protect against abuse of any kind. However, if individuals, groups and society at large are willing to ignore or turn a blind eye to abuse, amounting to the betrayal of those abused, we require an external or objective source of investigation interested in truth and if ever there was a film that justified the existence of quality journalism as a tool to ensure accountability in society, this is it.

We assume a level of decorum and propriety in society, so we are shocked and dismayed as, through the eyes of our high-minded and principled journalists, we discover the nature and extent of essentially unchecked abuse as it is gradually and cleverly unveiled. The strength of the film is certainly in the performances but also, and more importantly, in the measured divulgence of the facts and magnitude of the case which ensure audience engagement and emotional investment.

 

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 “Good Night and Good Luck”

 

Brief reflections on themes and characters in

“Good Night, and Good Luck” (2005)

Directed by George Clooney

Written by Grant Heslov and George Clooney

Starring David Strathairn, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr.,

Patricia Clarkson, Frank Langella et al.

 

Our film touches on themes such as friendship, relationships in the 1950s workplace, pressures (financial and political) involved in operating a television channel, the potential effects of maintained criticism based on vindictive character assassination rather than reasoned disagreement, and the place of television as a tool for informing the watching public and even inspiring it to think, rather than simply produce bland entertainment. However, at its core, this is the story of the discord between respected TV journalist and presenter Ed Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy who led the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s.

Ed Murrow and his small team of journalists present fact-based, coherent programmes of compassionate integrity that investigate and challenge topics of social and political interest.

In one broadcast, they challenge the precision, veracity and methods of Senator McCarthy who responds by levelling various defamatory accusations at Murrow rather than respond to the points made in the offending programme. Murrow is able to refute each point made by McCarthy and in so doing reveals and highlights McCarthy’s tactic of using lies, insinuation and baseless accusations, offering no proof or evidence to support his assertions, as he depends on the creation of anxiety and fear, and appeals to a sense of national pride in order to gain political influence.

With heartfelt, convincing performances and carefully constructed script and direction, George Clooney delivers an intelligent plea for integrity, principle and standards in public life and politics. As I write this, I hear Mr Clooney has adapted his film for a theatrical run on Broadway. Perhaps he feels the themes and purpose of his film remain as relevant now as they were in the 1950s…

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 the 2024 French film version of “The Count of Monte Cristo”

 

Reflections on “The Count of Monte Cristo” (2024),

focusing on elements to do with the Enlightenment Movement and Existentialism

Screenplay and Direction by

Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière,

based on the classic tale by Alexandre Dumas

Starring

Pierre Niney, Bastien Bouillon, Anais Demoustier, Laurent Lafitte et al

Somewhat condensed and altered from the original highly complex tale, with some events, actions and characteristics transposed to different characters, the 2024 French film version nonetheless remains faithful to the intentions and spirit of the original. It explores themes such as justice, revenge, fate, love, identity, education and hope without sacrificing elements of action and adventure.

Underpinning everything, however, are the precepts of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment Movement which influenced thought, society and politics in the nineteenth century by casting doubt on the existence of God and morality and demanding accountability from those responsible for government, law and order. These concepts are fundamental to the storyline and the principal theme of revenge (or justice) in “The Count of Monte Cristo”.

Edmond Dantès is imprisoned not as a result of immorality or even a crime against French law, but as a consequence of human jealousy, spite and ambition with three men conspiring to sacrifice his remaining life, and potential deeds and influence to benefit their own interests, desires and aspirations. Dantès has no recourse to natural justice (or God’s law), French law or common humanity. These three men have colluded to deprive Edmond of what we would nowadays see as his human rights and this act, taken to extremes, emphasises the possibility that if God and morality do not exist, all that remains is what men are capable of doing to one another if they are unwilling to show common respect and compassion, and if they are willing to place their own interests above the needs and rights of others.

Edmond holds on to hope in the form of his memories of and love for Mercédès, the woman he was about to marry when he was abruptly arrested and condemned to a life of isolation and misery in the Château d’If, though even that begins to wane and he starts to despair.

However, hope and even society are restored when the Abbé Faria, a fellow prisoner also condemned to rot in the Château d’If, makes contact by accident as he attempts to tunnel his way out of the formidable prison.

The Abbé is an intelligent, wise and learned man who is willing to share not just his efforts to tunnel and escape but also, and perhaps more importantly, his knowledge, wisdom and intelligence. He provides Edmond with an education as they study and contemplate truth, maths, languages, philosophy and reasoning. This has a twofold effect on Edmond. It effectively releases his mind from physical captivity by giving him purpose and a sense of spiritual achievement, and it enables Edmond to consider matters with discipline and understanding, calmly calculating responses and actions rather than responding emotionally and in haste.

Of course, the Abbé’s death allows Edmond to make a daring escape and the Abbé has shared with him the whereabouts of a vast fortune, here the lost fortune of the Templars. The Abbé has, then, a huge impact on Edmond, both in life and in death, and it could be argued that God sent the Abbé, a man of God, to Edmond as a means of evolution and escape. Fate sees to it that Edmond crosses paths with numerous other characters essential to his story and while a case may be made for divine intervention or the hand of fate, it should be recognised that the Abbé’s impact was due to his personal qualities rather than because he was a man of God, and Edmond advances due to his determination, the choices he makes and the actions he takes.

The fortune he has accessed may also be viewed as the result of divine intervention, fate or luck, but the point is Edmond does not use it for self-indulgence or to abuse the power and influence his wealth affords him. He restricts himself to his own affairs and uses the money as a means of rewarding those he sees as deserving, though also as a means of fulfilling his dream of vengeance, but he is in control. He is disillusioned by society, its laws and its officers and recognises no other authority but his own. Indeed, at one point in the film, Edmond enters a church and speaks directly to God, telling Him that he, Edmond, will take responsibility for his actions and the punishment he will mete out on those who wronged him. Edmond has seen little evidence of God’s justice and so he declares he will impose his own brand of justice, though questions will eventually be raised concerning the difference between justice and revenge.

This existential solution, with Edmond taking moral matters into his own hands because he fails to perceive any divine influence or input, leads eventually to the whole matter of the impact of our actions on others…

Edmond, along with Andrea, Angèle and Haydée, wish to see retribution for what they have suffered at the hands of Danglars, Villefort and Morcerf, and Edmond has concocted a plan by which these men will suffer and lose what they gained through their mistreatment and abuse of others. However, pain, suffering and death are wrought upon innocents, or at least those not directly involved in the original wrongdoing, leading Haydée and Mercédès to point out to Edmond the potential injustice in terms of consequences for others of his plan and actions.

Indeed, if he persisted in blindly actioning his plan without regard for the fate of those involved collaterally, he would be little better than those who originally betrayed him for their own advantage. Account must be taken of the effects of our actions on others and this involves an appeal to humanity and conscience.

Edmond brings about the carefully orchestrated downfall of his wrongdoers but he is now no longer the same idealistic, positive and sweet man of his youth. Identity is governed principally by character and experience. Edmond was betrayed, sacrificed and forgotten by those he trusted and loved, and while resentment and thoughts of revenge provided purpose and fuelled determination, allowing him to survive, escape and evolve into the Count of Monte Cristo, they came close to overwhelming him and transforming him into the type of creature of which he so rightly and heartily disapproved.

Mercédès and Haydée manage to rekindle or recall his humanity and Edmond limits himself, choosing to avoid killing Albert in a duel and advising Albert and Haydée to run off and be happy together, thus choosing life over revenge, recalling a choice made by Angèle earlier in the film.

In at least one other film version, Edmond reconciles with Mercédès and lives happily with her and Albert who may or may not be his own son… In the book, Haydée declares her love for Edmond and they set off for the Orient together. In this film, Albert and Haydée find love together and Edmond writes to Mercédès, telling her that while he still loves her, he is too scarred by his experiences to be able to fulfil their love. He is seen on board a ship, essentially alone, coming to terms with his past and seeking a new future, and I consider that an apt and fitting ending in keeping with the existential precepts expressed elsewhere in the film.

I must say I found this version a pleasant surprise. I liked the balance between action and plot and I enjoyed the well-developed characters and brisk direction. It had enough depth to engage and enough style to entertain with strong performances all round, but especially by the villains 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)

 

YouTube                                     Blog

Advice and questions to help in the analysis or discussion of films and in the production of essays

 

 

Advice and questions to help in the analysis or discussion of films,

and in producing an essay

 

During my thirty-five years in teaching, I helped a number of pupils prepare essays, principally on films but occasionally on plays and books, usually by asking questions that would elicit reflection and help build their essays.

I thought young students setting out on essay-writing might find the following advice and questions of some help in responding to a film and in constructing an essay about it.

 

Useful definitions

Principal and secondary characters

Very roughly, principal characters may drive change and plot while secondary characters are affected by plot or add to our understanding of principal characters, theme and plot.

Themes

Themes are underlying universal concepts or ideas that may have relevance to readers’ own lives, e.g. love, compassion, freedom, justice, morality, responsibility.

 

Advice

In writing a general discussion of a film, one possible framework is:

Overview   Give a brief outline of what the film is about, mentioning storyline and substance.

Characters    } Discuss the principal characters and their traits while linking them

Themes        } to themes you may have identified.

Conclusion  Give your considered assessment of how successful the film is.

 

Consider how the film (and its characters) make you feel and try to explain why.

 

In writing your essay, try to be relevant, reasoned and concise.

 

Overview

Can you encapsulate what the film is about without reference to detail?

Did the producers have a purpose in mind when they made the film?

Can you identify any themes?

Is attention drawn to a particular character or issue?

Is there clarity in the ending or is it ambivalent?

 

Characters

Can you differentiate between principal and secondary characters?

What do you make of the characters? Are they sympathetic, unpleasant, comical or do they have a mixture of traits?

Is there a conflict between characters? If so, what is the source of the conflict?

Do the characters change in the course of the film? Do they evolve, remain largely the same or deteriorate?

Are ideas expressed by any of the characters, and how are they expressed?

What can you deduce about the characters from their words and actions?

Are there consequences of verbal exchanges or actions?

Do characters challenge others, conventions or traditional thought?

Does one character influence others?

Is there a collision between points of view?

 

Themes

Do any of the characters support a particular position or stance?

Does the author/screenwriter seem to favour a particular point of view?

What themes can you identify, and are they presented positively or negatively?

Are characters being used to illustrate certain themes? If so, how?

Does the film challenge conventional views or stances?

 

Conclusion

Did you find the story and characters engaging? Why or why not?

Was the ending satisfying? Why or why not?

Did the production flow or were there inconsistencies?

Were you struck by the style of the making of the film? Did this contribute positively or negatively?

Was the storyline strong throughout or was the film padded?

Did the production have integrity or was it self-indulgent?

Can you identify particular strengths or weaknesses (pace, rhythm, performance, direction, script, music, production values, photography, length)?

What do you feel about the film? Did you find it entertaining, engaging, thought-provoking, amusing, confusing, intriguing, touching, clear-headed?

 

If you have been asked to write on particular aspects of the film, consider definitions of the terms used in the question and think of ways in which the storyline, characters and themes meet the criteria set in the question.

At least some of the questions above may assist you in this task.

You should assume the reader of your essay knows nothing about the topic so you need to convince the reader of your views by constructing a reasoned and clear essay in support of your observations.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found these notes of some benefit.

 

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

BLOG                                         YouTube