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)
No comments:
Post a Comment