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 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

Versions françaises d’articles initialement publiés en anglais sur mon blog

All intellectual property rights reserved

Reflections on “The Dirty Dozen”

 

Reflections on “The Dirty Dozen”

Directed by Robert Aldrich

Written by Nunnally Johnson and Lukas Heller

Starring Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson,

John Cassavetes et al.

 

Often much admired for its depiction of male bonding, The Dirty Dozen is equally often dismissed for its so-called macho posturing and as a rather nasty glorification of violence.

In my humble opinion, in places this is a challenging existential anti-war film that dips into film noir territory as it presents an uncomfortable case for the use of amorality as a defence against amorality. It also invites viewers to reflect on the nature and importance of society, social structure, humanity, justice and the very existence of morality.

Our film may usefully be divided into three sections, exposition, training and the execution of the mission.

The Dozen are not misunderstood or hard-done-by heroes. They have all committed crimes and are about to pay the price for them, by hanging or long-term imprisonment. The legal system that found them guilty may be imperfect and may not have taken compassionate account of all the circumstances leading to their crimes – the men may show regret, the circumstances of their wrongdoing may not be as clearcut as we might expect, with undoubted extenuating circumstances in some cases, and their backgrounds may have made their choices virtually inevitable, but these are not innocent men who have been wrongly convicted. They are flawed human beings, some of whom may elicit a degree of audience sympathy while others may provoke disgust, but they are being used (or abused) in a scheme in which they are being invited to risk their lives for the greater good, though their alternative is certain death or a life of permanent hardship and imprisonment.

So, we have an imperfect system of justice casting judgement on imperfect human beings who are to be exploited at the behest of and for the benefit of others. It is clear that mankind is responsible for its own existential system of rules and conduct, not a higher morality. This is made plain when Major Reisman rolls his eyes and treats a man of God dismissively at a hanging he is invited to witness.

The Nazis set aside niceties of order and principle to assert themselves and establish a somewhat prejudiced and skewed order in their favour. So, to ensure victory, the Allies are equally willing to set aside such niceties. All is fair in love and war, so they say, and it is decided to adopt what would normally be regarded as unscrupulous and unprincipled tactics to ensure an early end to the war. Amorality will be used to defeat amorality.

The Dozen are to be sent on a suicide mission to attack a château near Rennes in Brittany in which numerous senior members of the Nazi command spend time for rest and recuperation, and quite simply, they are to eliminate as many as possible. In return, at Major Reisman’s insistence, those who survive may receive remission or commutation of their sentences. So, they have nothing to lose and something to gain.

Fundamentally, the military is more than willing to take advantage of the precarious situation of our “heroes” to do dirty deeds but this time for the greater good, though “innocent” lives will be lost, but this is considered collateral damage, again for the benefit of the greater good.

It is clear we are in existential territory in which so-called normal standards of morality do not apply, especially since these standards have been rejected by the enemy and it seems that the best way to eliminate the enemy is to apply their own standards to them. Morality, standards and rules are social niceties that apply only if or when everyone accepts them and submits to them.

After the somewhat sombre exposition, there is a positive, even uplifting, period of training which forms the entertaining and heartening bulk of the film.

Our “heroes” undergo and respond well to a form of what might be termed socialisation during which they are reminded they have a common purpose and are responsible not just for themselves but for one another. They learn that co-operation and discipline with purpose are better than individual attempts at chaotic survival. They make a practical choice to collaborate since it is to the advantage of all concerned – this is a form of social contract, and not for high-minded or moral reasons.

Gradually, through common purpose, trust in one another and hope, they start to bond and become a team. They are dependent on one another and are united against a common enemy and perceived unfair treatment. This is achieved, largely, not by way of heartless discipline and authority, but by mutual dependence, esteem, a degree of sympathy and understanding, and of course a heartwarming camaraderie that has evolved in the course of their training. This may fairly be judged to reflect the situation in society at large in which people showing respect and consideration, not religious codes of belief or strict discipline, ultimately impact, inspire and shape the lives of others.

Having established that man can be influenced positively by circumstances and direction, reality encroaches and our “heroes” must undertake their mission. They have been training for a purpose and their pasts catch up with them – there is a price to be paid for this fresh opportunity to rebuild themselves.

During the last part of the film and the execution of their mission, the true underlying purpose and themes of the film are explored.

This is not an action film set in WW2. It is an anti-war film in which violence is used to depict the horrors of war, and these horrors are not limited to one side. Brutality is used to combat brutality, and the images are all the more striking because we have built a sympathy, even an empathy for our “heroes”. However, all the characters – Allies and Nazis – are presented as human. Not all those in the château are Nazis or deserve to die and, in much the same way as we were invited to reflect on the fates of our Dozen, we are invited to consider the purpose of their mission and to balance it with thoughts of justice and fairness. The pain is real and death is equally final no matter which side you are on, and the cruelty and brutality are all the more stark because here the Allies are responsible for them. The audience feels a certain ambivalence as we support those who attack the Nazis, yet we are horrified by the brutal acts inflicted on relative innocents undertaken in the name of Allied forces. We are presented with realities of war in which pain and suffering are real and are used by both sides to gain victory, with both sides convinced of the righteousness of their perspective. We may understand and accept the premise of the mission but the harsh realities are hard to bear.

This is surely an existential slant in which principle, values and morality are set aside to cause maximum damage to one’s enemy, and in which collateral damage is accepted as part of the price to pay.

Reisman, who has been presented as a tough but human officer willing to question and test military convention and authority, is a professional soldier who does what is necessary to complete the mission. Despite his apparent humanity and compassion, he will focus on the mission and apply brutal determination as and when is necessary.

Do fairness and justice exist? It appears to boil down to individuals and what they are willing or unwilling to do according to perspective and circumstance, to defend their society and attack their perceived enemies.

 

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

Reaction to Megalopolis

 

Brief reflections on Megalopolis

Written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Starring Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel et al.

I truly hate to be negative, but I fear Francis Ford Coppola (for whom I have great respect as a director) has tried too hard to make a work of art with this film.

It seems to me that in making Megalopolis, Mr Coppola has sacrificed clarity, substance and engagement for style, symbolism and indulgence. There is a lack of engagement with the characters because they are clearly representatives of attitudes and outlooks rather than fleshed out, believable and affecting, while the plot is a contrivance to make social and political points. The characters are tools in a mechanism created by Mr Coppola to say something about American society, politics, ambition and family, but also to show how clever and artistic he is.

At its core, I think this is probably a good story regarding the condemnation and demise of a society built on money-making corruption and the ever-increasing gap between the very wealthy (or “haves”) and the poor (or “have nots”). However, that is buried, along with clarity, somewhere beneath the mass of unpursued plot threads, the myriad of inconsistent or underdeveloped characters who make occasional appearances, pass comment and move on, bloated set pieces and clunky, forced dialogue which, in places, seems to aspire to Shakespearean tones. The style and self-awareness of Mr Coppola’s direction and script do nothing to engender sympathy, compassion or even intellectual satisfaction while in terms of performance, I am not convinced the actors always knew what purpose their scenes served or where these scenes fitted in the story arc.

On the positive side, the film is beautifully mounted with some dazzling and spectacular sequences and individual moments of brilliance, but overall its individual parts are greater than the whole. I’m afraid that, for me, it’s an exercise in cinematic posturing whose self-awareness condemns it to fail and I suspect Mr Coppola recognised these issues as he has labelled his film “a fable”, emphasising the artistic distance between his film and its audience.

Many reviewers have lauded the film’s ambition and I have to agree the film is astonishingly ambitious, but that alone does not make it worthwhile. Ambition must be tempered by respect and regard for those at whom the film is aimed, and I’m afraid it seems to me that Mr Coppola became so absorbed in his own thoughts that he failed to consider his audience.

The Godfather films and Apocalypse Now worked, along with many other Francis Ford Coppola films, because of the fundamental humanity of the characters and the effort to produce a coherent, well developed and natural plot which suggested respect for the audience and recognition of the need to involve it rather than patronise it as is the case with this artificial and contrived effort.

 

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

Some reflections on Critical Thinking, what it is and when to use it

 

Some reflections on Critical Thinking, what it is and when to use it

 

Much is made these days of the term “critical thinking” and it is frequently used to suggest gullibility or naïve acceptance on the part of those who appear to put little thought into perspectives and perceptions.

So, what is “critical thinking” and why should it be considered important?

Before studying the operation of critical thinking, let us consider a few potential consequences of not applying what is, after all, merely a system of verification or checks and balances.

In the modern age when communication is easy and pressure to make commercial, legal or social decisions can be insidious and immediate, whether over the phone, via email or in a sales environment, it is essential to be able to verify or assess identity, figures, facts and reliability. Otherwise, you may enter into a contract with hidden clauses, false figures or disreputable partners. You may accept financial or business propositions over the phone from people falsely claiming to belong to a reputable organisation. You may hire dubious tradesmen to work on your home who fail to provide adequate documentation or guarantees. You may even be persuaded to vote for a politician who bombards you with general promises and statements of intent without furnishing details of just how his/her promises will be achieved and what he/she is likely to obtain personally from securing an elected position.

These (and many others) are all situations that may be avoided through use of critical thinking, which is merely the exercise of care and attention through application of reasonable doubt and verification. It is in your own best interests, indeed I would go so far as to say you owe it to yourself, to think critically.

At the heart of critical thinking is respect for objective truth.

Respect for truth must surpass opinion (which may consist of unsubstantiated thoughts or views), ambition (a prejudiced desire for a particular outcome to be the case), advantage (an unwillingness to accept a challenge to your belief if it weakens that belief) and pride (a stubborn refusal to change your mind despite clear and persuasive evidence).

Statements should not be accepted at face value. Corroboration or validation is required and may reasonably be expected. The proposer of a statement or contract should be able to provide clear evidence to support their claims.

Corroborated or validated accounts and evidence may be gathered to support or deny an affirmation (using facts, witness statements or accounts, images, sound recordings etc.). No extraordinary deductions should be reached – conclusions should be supported by facts, evidence and reason.

Recognition or acknowledgement of facts is essential, even (and especially) if the facts and evidence contradict previous statements or views. The overriding factor is a desire to reach the truth, not provide support for a particular standpoint.

Denial of facts or evidence, and conclusions drawn from them, is unreasonable and unacceptable as it is tantamount to setting subjective interpretation or insistence on a chosen viewpoint above objective evidence. Refusal to accept evidence and fairly-drawn conclusions will render a counter-argument invalid.

That said, some statements and evidence may be open to interpretation. Context and precision should be applied to reading of language or interpretation of evidence, and conclusions should be reached only if supported by reason and facts.

There may be insufficient evidence to support a conclusion but reasonable inferences may be drawn (clearly labelled as such), or there may be sufficient evidence to cast doubt on another assertion without necessarily proving a case.

Recognition of ignorance is essential – there should be no assertion of knowledge based on mere supposition or belief.

Insistence on a view despite counter-argument involving the presentation of facts and evidence suggests dependence on personal conviction rather than a pursuit of objective truth, and that view should be considered subjective or invalid.

 

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

BLOG                                                   YouTube