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)
No comments:
Post a Comment