Characters and themes in Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange"

 

Reflections on “A Clockwork Orange”

Scripted and directed by Stanley Kubrick

Based on a work by Anthony Burgess

Starring Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee and Warren Clarke

 

Often summed up as a damning indictment of the State’s willingness and capacity to exercise control over its citizens, “A Clockwork Orange” is that but is also so much more in that it invites its audience to consider or reconsider some fundamental truths about society and human nature…

Peaceful co-existence in society is dependent on showing consideration toward others, recognising that our actions have an impact on others and accepting responsibility for that. This is instilled by parental nurturing and enforced by state-sponsored rules and laws.

Of course, man is not necessarily a disciplined or moral organism on whom it is easy to impose constraints and direction, as is suggested by the film’s title. There is always the potential for conflict as a result of individuals exercising their self-serving free will, poor or weak parental nurturing, governmental policies developed for political effect rather than societal benefit, and subjective or corrupt enforcement by officers of the law. Indeed, in this film we are presented with a somewhat pessimistic series of characterisations and events that may lead us to question whether man is truly capable of achieving conduct in line with principle and idealistic values.

It is in this context that “A Clockwork Orange” takes place and the film can usefully be divided into three parts for our consideration: conduct and crime, punishment and treatment, and consequences and repercussions.

At the very start of the film, we are presented with a group of four self-centred, indulgent and amoral juvenile delinquents, led by Alex DeLarge, who bolster one another’s egos and sense of self-worth through bluster, acts of assault, rape and theft, and through shared moral indifference. Yet these adolescents are dependent on the very social order and conventions they wilfully scorn and mock for their self-absorbed and hypocritical survival and upkeep.

Alex’s ineffectual parents seek a quiet and easy life without conflict, question or responsibility, and more or less turn a blind eye to his undisciplined and narcissistic attitudes and conduct because that is easier than trying to assert themselves or impose authority. As a result, Alex and his cronies appear to have determined that within society there is little real resistance to their use of brute force and the childlike and manipulative imposition of their wills, leading to an excess of confidence and shows of bravado.

There are ironic disputes within our band of young delinquents as they expect, with a considerable degree of hypocrisy, respect and loyalty among the group members, but Alex, their de facto leader, wishes to exercise his authority and exert control, so he follows the successful pattern of violence he has been in the habit of pursuing and beats his “friends” into submission to his will.

Beyond sharing experience, principles and aims, social groups appear to require common respect and consideration to create a bond and be successful, and in denying this honourable concept and indulging his own ambitions, Alex sows the seed of discontent among his “friends”, leading to revenge and betrayal…

A planned break-in goes awry and Alex kills his victim. He is then betrayed by his friends and is arrested for murder. This apparently crosses a moral line, even for Alex, though he may be more concerned about the consequences for himself than the fact he has taken a life…

Up until now, the only figure of authority we have seen is Alex’s social worker who is presented as corrupt, abusive and self-serving. Now the police officers who arrest Alex are portrayed as judgmental, brutal and manipulative, imposing personal evaluations and means of meting out punishment rather than being impartial instruments of seeking justice.

In prison, strict discipline is imposed and it is clear that the authorities are in favour of vengeful punishment rather than expend time and effort on rehabilitation, though the prison pastor makes some attempt at reforming inmates’ souls and responds favourably to Alex’s efforts to ingratiate himself and thus ensure he has a relatively easy time in prison.

So far, we have encountered few positive role-models or examples of upright and responsible behaviour in society.

After two years, Alex claims to have seen the error of his ways and wishes to undergo a new state-sponsored treatment which will allow him, if successful, to go free in two weeks. It is fairly clear he is motivated by the prospect of early release rather than truly believing in the apparently noble purpose of the programme, to “cure” delinquency and violent behaviour.

This miracle cure is to be achieved not by the high-minded raising awareness of the consequences of our acts on others and development of a sense of responsibility and accountability, but rather by means of brutal and invasive brainwashing and aversion therapy which will condition Alex to feel physically ill at the thought of violence, sex and, as an accidental by-product, his beloved Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony.

The powers that be are willing to resort to extreme and dehumanising methods to achieve their aim, using science to deprive individuals of personal freedom and natural instincts and training them to respond to others in what they judge to be a more society-friendly way.

This is all politically motivated as the government wishes to be able to claim reduced levels of criminality in order to attract votes. This scurrilous and manipulative purpose is confirmed and enhanced by a theatrical performance designed to gain positive government publicity during which Alex is summarily humiliated and debased, and actors and models happily participate in an attempt to develop their own careers.

Having paid the price of humiliation and character-changing treatment, Alex gains that which he had schemed to attain – his freedom.

On his release, Alex learns something of the consequences and cost (to himself) of his previous actions and conduct, a lesson that will have a more personal, emotional and immediate effect than his social conditioning.

When he returns to his parental home, Alex is rejected by his parents who have all but replaced him with a considerate and appreciative lodger. This rejection causes Alex some emotional distress and reveals a certain lack of awareness of the effect of his conduct while he lived at home, and a depth of feeling for his parents and the stability they provided, factors he had taken completely for granted and whose deprivation he has brought about through his own actions and attitude.

He has thus begun the process of sharing and understanding the consequences of his past actions and discovering man’s capacity and predilection for vengeful acts rather than idealistic acts of charity and understanding.

He next encounters the old man he and his “droogs” or friends beat up viciously near the beginning of the film. Taking advantage of Alex’s state of bewilderment and hurt at his parents’ rejection of him, the old man hauls Alex before his friends and invites them to give him a good hiding.

Alex is saved, somewhat ironically, by the authorities in the form of a couple of policemen, but it transpires these policemen are none other than two of Alex’s former “droogs” and they proceed to beat him in revenge for his abuse of them…

It appears that talk of principle, social understanding and forgiveness is just that – talk. When presented with an opportunity for old-fashioned revenge, the scale is tipped by human nature in favour of brute vengeance.

This is reinforced and clarified by Alex’s next encounter…

Still suffering physically and emotionally from his experiences at the hands of his parents, the old man and his former friends, Alex ends up seeking help at the door of another of his former victims.

Alex has returned, inadvertently, to the scene of a rape and assault he and his friends inflicted on a couple in the opening part of the film. Although the now wheelchair-bound writer and owner of the house is initially willing to show sympathy and understanding to Alex (whose rehabilitation by dubious means has gained considerable publicity), when he realises Alex was responsible for his own life-changing assault and the brutal rape of his wife, personal reaction overwhelms him and he abandons his liberal and well-intentioned principles, and he sets about torturing Alex psychologically, driving him to attempt suicide and completing the vicious circle of violence.

Alex survives and his story is simplified and manipulated for political and commercial gain by the press. His attempted suicide is presented as the result of his misguided medical treatment and political ambition, and certainly not the result of his own actions and Alex is treated well in order to buy his silence and avoid further negative political publicity.

Thus, the press will benefit with an attention-grabbing story, the politicians will benefit as they focus on Alex’s rehabilitation and, of course, Alex will profit, while the full sordid and brutal truth of his past remains concealed or ignored.

Indeed, at the end Alex experiences dreams and sees images that suggest he has reverted to his natural inclinations…

Perhaps human nature cannot be overcome despite our façade of civilisation…  

 

This may be viewed as a representation of the eternal conflict between social responsibility and the exercise of personal freedom, but I think it is much darker than that. There are no heroes in this story. No-one comes out well as no-one has behaved in line with the principled and idealistic values we like to think are at the heart of society. It may be that morality, principle and justice do not exist and life is what we in society choose to make of it and accept. We set our own standards and live by them, or not…

 

Although presumably conceived as a satire to shock viewers out of their complacent negligence or indifference regarding the direction in which society was going, something misfired in the perception of this film and its import in some quarters.

Rather than be sensitised to, or concerned and sickened by the violence and consequences on display, certain youthful elements in the seventies took inspiration from it and this led to a spate of violent incidents which eventually caused Kubrick to withdraw his film from presentation for a number of years.

This may have been due to the fact that in this rather bleak tale most of the characters are less than admirable and, perhaps because there are no heroes on display, Alex appears more positive and dynamic than was anticipated as he shows a degree of challenge and integrity by remaining largely true to himself. This was enhanced, of course, by Malcolm McDowell’s supremely confident, composed and charismatic performance.

Perhaps the theatrical, staged style also led to a lack of clarity in the goals of the film. This “detached” style actually suited and enhanced some of his other films such as “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Barry Lyndon”, but here I wonder if it may have contributed to the fundamental misapprehension of the film by some on its release.

 

 

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

 

Reflections on “Night Moves” as a film noir and Harry Moseby as an existential hero.

 

Reflections on “Night Moves” (1975)

Directed by Arthur Penn

Written by Alan Sharp

Starring Gene Hackman, Jennifer Warren and Melanie Griffith

“Night Moves” presents the tale of L.A.-based Private Investigator Harry Moseby and his relatively straightforward search for Delly, a 16-year-old runaway, missing for two weeks, who is the daughter of a former actress. However, complications and repercussions abound when, having found the girl and returned her to her mother, Harry learns Delly has been killed in a freak accident on a film set and he feels compelled to investigate the circumstances of her death, unearthing deception, theft and murder in the process.

This film is regularly billed as a neo-noir and in the first half it incorporates many noirish elements, with dubious and potentially damaging parenting skills, Delly’s precocious and promiscuous behaviour (suggesting social and psychological issues), several predatory male characters willing to take advantage of Delly’s lack of moral direction and self-respect, some lovely lines of dialogue suggesting disillusion, and Harry Moseby’s vague rectitude in the midst of this moral malaise. In the second half there are considerably more obvious noir elements as we are introduced to deceit, theft and murder.

That said, until toward the end of the film, it doesn’t really play like a film noir in that despite events, circumstances and occasional lines of dialogue, the general atmosphere or mood is not especially downbeat or pessimistic, and if Harry Moseby is the central character in a film noir, he doesn’t seem to know it.

Most film noir detectives display a knowing understanding of character and plot, and exercise a degree of control through that understanding gained by hard-won and sometimes bitter experience. Harry Moseby is buffeted on a sea of events and is pushed by the tide to make discoveries and connections rather than uncover them by intelligence, reason or perception. He is curiously idealistic and sensitive while virtually all those around him are tainted by selfishness or disillusion, yet they remain relatively positive and seem willing to adapt to their circumstances in order to make the best of their lot, though this may lead to disharmony, conflict and perhaps even criminality.

Harry holds on to integrity and a desire to help others by disentangling the complexity of their lives and providing some beneficial understanding, clarification and a possible way forward. This may be embodied by his devotion to chess with its reliance on planning and strategy to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Of course, success in chess, and by extension in life, depends on a clear overview and perception of pathways and opportunities, and the title of the film may cleverly refer to reduced vision and understanding of what is going on in life while trying to apply strategies. In short, Harry seeks order in life even though ultimately it may be random and unfathomable.

We may engage with the characters, their relationships and themes of social morality, but the storyline in the first half unfurls at a fairly leisurely pace and there is little real drama or sense of urgency and peril. However, it undoubtedly also pursues existential themes, especially in the evolution of Harry Moseby. Harry is frequently reminded that as a Private Detective he simply follows the instructions of his clients. He plays a part in others’ lives but largely as an observer or an extension of his clients and as such he bears no real personal responsibility for his actions.

Harry gathers information and makes plans for returning Delly to her mother but even there he considers bringing in the police, thus avoiding personal involvement, though in the end Delly volunteers to return, much to Harry’s relief.

There is also a subplot involving Harry’s marriage, the upshot of which appears to be that meaningful relationships require emotional investment and are worth more than relatively frivolous dalliances.

However, things change dramatically after Delly’s death. Harry becomes more focused and purposeful, perhaps because he feels he has contributed to the circumstances surrounding her death and he bears a degree of responsibility. He will now become an active participant and will conduct an investigation into Delly’s death.

Harry abandons his professional neutrality to tell Delly’s mother exactly what he thinks of her and then pursues his inquiries in the best existential tradition, discovering he has been manipulated and deceived by just about everyone. Largely by chance (another theme often pursued in existential films), Harry uncovers a complex web of lies, theft, smuggling, jealousy and murder.

As most people would do when faced with the myriad of potential motivations of the characters and the complex links between them, he displays fundamental human limitations and fallibility as he fails (along with the audience) to pick up on a variety of clues dropped in the course of the film, largely because things often fall in to place only in retrospect or when we have access to the full picture, though he remains driven by his desire to understand and help.

The storyline and script by Alan Sharp are often accused of a lack of clarity but I consider it a finely crafted and deliberately nebulous piece of work that reflects the lack of order, precision and clarity in life in general.

Harry has evolved from an observer who tries to make sense of things for others to an active participant willing to express himself and take action. However, in the end Harry can exercise little or no control as he is overwhelmed by events and he passes out while his boat circles endlessly and ineffectually around the sinking plane which may serve as a symbol of human chicanery that Harry, and perhaps mankind in general, is incapable of resolving despite his idealistic desire for solutions or justice.

“Night Moves” incites distinctly different responses from viewers but I think its real strength is in the humanity of its characters. Noir themes are explored but the film is not cynical, glib or stylised. It is a nicely observed study of human imperfections, relationships, responsibility, morality and, eventually, existential nihilism, with a commanding and engaging central performance from Gene Hackman and purposeful direction from Arthur Penn.

 

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

Reflections on character and themes in “Lonely are the Brave” (1962)

 

Reflections on “Lonely are the Brave” (1962)

Directed by David Miller

Script by Dalton Trumbo

(from “The Brave Cowboy” by Edward Abbey)

Starring Kirk Douglas, Gena Rowlands, Walter Matthau and Michael Kane

This is a deceptively straightforward tale of pursuit in which the very nature, framework and direction of our constantly expanding, increasingly complex and, perhaps, ever less compassionate society, are examined.

The main character is Jack Burns, an itinerant cowhand who objects to any infringement of his right to wander where he chooses and to any regulation he considers unreasonable and which impinges on the lifestyle he has chosen. Other characters are explored to some degree but they remain largely secondary in that their principal purpose is to shed light on or draw comparison to Jack Burns. That said, Sheriff Morey Johnson, unlike several of his robotic or seemingly dim-witted colleagues, offers an interesting juxtaposition to Burns’ calm and individually anarchic attitude in that while he enforces the laws to which Burns objects, he displays sympathy, understanding and humanity in his dealings with others, thus making for a more interesting and less unequivocal clash, and even adding a touch of pathos to the proceedings.

From the outset, our view of Jack Burns is one of a man of modest means at peace with himself and at one with nature. As he relaxes in the company of his frisky but friendly young horse, Whiskey, his reverie is disturbed by the noise of military jets flying high overhead. This image gently and rather poetically introduces us to one of the main themes of the piece – the conflict and contrast between the old and the new, or working with nature and attempted technological mastery of it. The fact these are military jets may also have served as a reminder of the influence of the military in society at that time.

Shortly after this introduction, we see Jack, astride Whiskey, try to cross a tremendously busy highway, a short journey that almost ends in disaster. Once again, this invites comparison between the relative simplicity of the old and the complexity of the new, with Jack and Whiskey’s old-fashioned, close and co-dependent partnership almost losing out to the fevered, relentless and ruthless modern traffic as Jack insists on going in the direction he has chosen in spite of the obvious danger and threat.

These scenes give us essential information about Jack’s determined yet modestly content character while also providing a broader comparison between the relatively calm and gentle world as it was, and the noisy, pressurised and mechanical world as it is. This is a theme that will be revisited, and we will return to the image of the highway at the end of the film.

After a considerable absence during which he has exercised his freedom to go where he wished and found transient work as a cowhand to earn his living, Jack pitches up at the home of his friends Jerry and Paul and receives a warm welcome from Jerry. When he discovers that Paul is in jail because he offered help to some illegal immigrants, Jack leaves half his money for Jerry and hatches a plan to get himself arrested in order to see and assist his friend. Values, friendship and self-respect appear to be more important to Jack than financial gain or personal ambition and security.

It becomes clear in the course of conversations with Jerry and Paul that Jack is a man who dislikes boundaries and laws that interfere with his view of natural order and justice. He is happy to lead a simple life and show respect and consideration to others if these qualities are reciprocated. However, it may be that as society has grown and developed, and as members of it have become increasingly self-absorbed and callous, they have distanced themselves from natural justice and have had to impose extensive rules to try to ensure order and fairness, rules Jack sometimes finds questionable. For example, he admires Paul’s attempts to lend a helping hand to illegal immigrants because he does not recognise such a categorisation, saying we are all human beings and implying we should all be humane, sympathetic and helpful to one another.

He sees and reluctantly accepts Jerry and Paul’s argument that Paul’s capacity for defiance is impaired by family commitments and responsibilities, but Jack is unburdened by such restrictions. He sets about manipulating situations and rules to his own ends in order to get himself arrested and then refuses to accept legal and physical constraints by breaking out of jail. He does all this out of loyalty and devotion to his friend but also because he feels rules and laws may not always serve the ends of natural fairness and justice, leading to personal doubt over their authority.

While in jail, Jack provokes the ire of a deputy sheriff as he advises against allowing anger and negativity to dominate the officer’s outlook. This officer abuses his position and authority to exercise dominance, covering, as we shall learn, fear and personal cowardice, and he takes revenge by beating Jack but Jack remains unbowed – he has been beaten physically but not spiritually. He rather calmly accepts his fate, offers no complaint and sets about his business of escaping. This episode reveals or confirms an inner strength and conviction in Jack. He expects trouble from others but he displays tolerance and understanding as he accepts their decisions and actions but he is quite undeterred from his path to personal freedom and independence. It seems that each person must follow his or her own existential path.

As Jack and Whiskey climb a mountain, beyond which lie Mexico and freedom, there is a series of pursuits and confrontations which underline the contrast between the old and the new, or nature and technology. The terrain is ill-suited to four-wheeled vehicles so Sheriff Johnson calls in a helicopter which all concerned rather smugly assume will bring Jack’s escape bid to an end. However, Jack cleverly manages to bring down the helicopter without overly endangering the pilots’ lives, emphasising his self-control and humanity, in contrast to the increasingly desperate and often undisciplined efforts of the authorities to catch him. Jack even shows restraint and self-discipline when he outwits Gutierrez, the officer who beat him in jail, leaving him unconscious but not seriously wounded when Gutierrez tries to capture him.

Jack limits himself to self-defence. He does not carry the fight to his pursuers as he merely seeks to exercise his freedom to go where he wants and do as he pleases, so long as no-one else is harmed. However, he is somewhat hampered in his efforts by Whiskey and her difficulties in climbing the steep mountainside. At one point he considers leaving her behind but his sense of loyalty and partnership overwhelm him. Just as Whiskey has helped him get this far, he feels he must help Whiskey get even farther. Again, this contrasts markedly with the cold technological efficiency (or inefficiency) of his pursuers.

Toward the end of the film, Jack and Whiskey once more arrive at a busy highway which they must cross in symbolic darkness, suggesting lack of clarity and hope, if they are to gain their freedom. The road itself may be viewed as a symbol of time and change and the heart-breaking collision between Whiskey and a noisy, speedy and stress-inducing truck may represent the clash between Jack’s old world and the new order of things.

When Whiskey is put out of her misery, Jack is traumatised. He is physically injured but more importantly, he has lost the tender and caring partnership he had formed with his horse and, by extension, with nature itself, and he is stunned and disorientated.

The old, represented by Jack’s hat, is being swept away in doom-laden darkness and a flood of relentless rain and change while in the last shot, Jack is carried off to hospital for treatment and, perhaps, rehabilitation.

In an act of compassion that gives us hope for humanity, Sheriff Johnson decides not to delve into the identity of this injured and traumatised cowboy, perhaps because he knows that the cowboy has lost everything that was of value to him.

Sheriff Johnson appears to be a reasonable and professional man who shows understanding and patience and we can’t help but feel he and Jack share certain traits and would get along perfectly well together. The essential difference between Jack and Johnson is that while Jack questions society’s rules, Johnson sees purpose in the rules he upholds, and uses them as a means of protecting people. It should be noted that Johnson and his assistant are also used quite effectively for comic relief.

Kirk Douglas stated he was drawn to make this film, which he proclaimed to be his favourite of all the films he made, because he was fascinated by issues and conflicts surrounding the place of the individual in society, an interest he pursued the following year when he played McMurphy in “One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” on Broadway.

 

With a literate script, engaging direction and winning performances, this absorbing and touching film explores themes of conformity, individuality, principle, friendship, loyalty, freedom and the sense of no longer fitting in society or the time in which one lives, themes also usefully explored by Sam Peckinpah in his series of westerns.

Although “Lonely are the Brave” is well regarded and appears in a few lists of “cult classics”, it appears to have largely and undeservedly disappeared from sight – a real shame as it remains a most rewarding and worthwhile modern western, and certainly merits inclusion in lists of most-appreciated films.

 

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 channel

 

Discussion of characters and themes in "In the heat of the night", focusing on Tibbs and Gillespie

 

Reflections on “In the Heat of the Night” (1967)

Directed by Norman Jewison

Screenplay by Stirling Silliphant

Based on a novel by John Ball

Starring Sidney Poitier, Rod Steiger, Lee Grant and Warren Oates

A video presentation of this material is available here.

Industrialist Phillip Colbert was due to invest a small fortune in the construction of a factory in the small town of Sparta in the southern American state of Mississippi, but his dead body is discovered in the street late one night by police officer Sam Wood as he is doing his rounds. While seeking the person responsible for this crime, Wood checks the local train station and comes across a black man waiting for a connecting train. The colour of his skin appears to be reason enough to arouse Wood’s suspicions and Wood arrests the man who, answering a few simple questions from police chief Gillespie, reveals he is Virgil Tibbs, a homicide detective in Philadelphia. Gillespie verifies this, considers him above suspicion and, angry and frustrated, declares he is free to go.

These opening scenes, embellished by a wealth of visual detail and strong characterisation, are sufficient in themselves to underline the consequence of misguided and hasty conclusions based on prejudice and racism. However, this is only the beginning of a tale whose murder plot may be viewed as little more than a device to explore underlying themes of racism, justice, principle, social justice and friendship, achieved in good part through a study of the characters of Tibbs and Gillespie and their burgeoning if somewhat forced relationship.

Police chief Bill Gillespie has many characteristics in keeping with his upbringing and his social environment, but he is a fundamentally good man who is perhaps out of his depth. He cares about his position and seeks to protect the inhabitants of Sparta. He takes responsibility seriously and appears to be aware of the shortcomings of his department and staff. Gillespie tries to set standards but seems to be fighting something of a losing battle as several officers are complacent and idle, though they do not appear to be corrupt or malicious, leading to frustration for Gillespie and displays of short temper and anxiety or nervousness as he tries to exercise control but finds no real solution to his problems.

Gillespie is not complacent and is aware of his own limitations and perhaps even his prejudices which he is willing to try to rise above.

He is unaccustomed to being tested professionally and he recognises a murder investigation is probably beyond his scope – he is used to minor infringements of the law and has a relatively simple or blinkered view of procedure. He lacks sophistication, instruction and experience but he is honest, direct and firm but fair. He is certainly able to recognise the valuable contribution Virgil Tibbs can bring to the investigation even if it hurts his pride and he is uncomfortable with what he regards as Tibbs’s haughty involvement.

Gillespie’s intensity and his determination to question and gently challenge traditional environmental and social outlooks and attitudes, until now focused on the complacency and attitude of his staff and already the cause of frustration and loneliness, is brought to a head by the arrival of black detective Virgil Tibbs. This event will put Gillespie’s underlying and perhaps even subconscious sense of principle to the test and will bring about something of an evolution in his character.

Virgil Tibbs works in Philadelphia and his big city background suggests he is accustomed to a broader, more liberal and tolerant outlook than that displayed by his fellow police officers in Sparta. Tibbs is reasonable, intelligent and educated, and he is invited by his superior to share his skills and prowess with those colleagues in Sparta who are willing to dismiss him based merely on the colour of his skin.

He investigates using evidence, facts and scientific knowledge, jumping to no hasty or unsubstantiated conclusions, unlike his fellow police officers in Sparta, but he is treated with scant regard and respect due purely to his ethnicity. Unaccustomed and tired of this misplaced professional and personal antipathy, Tibbs decides to leave Gillespie and his officers to their own bumbling conclusions, though he insists on passing on essential evidence to higher authorities to ensure justice is done.

It is at this point that Gillespie is first put to the test. He knows he needs Tibbs and his expertise and he is willing to put principle above self-regard, position and the local mindset to solve Colbert’s murder. He also applies intelligence and a keen understanding of human nature in his attempt to persuade Tibbs to stay. He appeals to or challenges Tibbs’s vanity and a natural desire for retribution by pointing out the satisfaction Tibbs will derive from proving himself superior to those who have treated him and his conclusions as unworthy of consideration, a challenge Tibbs reluctantly recognises and accepts.

At one point, Tibbs extends this frame of mind and displays personal prejudice and a blinkered view not entirely dissimilar to that shown by the local police as he is determined to find evidence to support his desire to depose a local businessman whose wealth has been built on the backs of black employees and who displays condescension toward African-Americans while also displaying immense pride, arrogance and a sense of superiority. Gillespie is quick to point out this chink in Tibbs’s armour of apparent infallibility and reason and his human desire for retribution, summed up by Tibbs’s historic retaliation when he is struck by the businessman, and he reminds Tibbs, almost ironically, of the need for a solid case built on evidence and fact.

Tibbs may be feeling somewhat overwhelmed and is left a little out of his depth as he comes face to face with blatant, vicious and unreasonable racism which has evoked resentment and diverted him from the path of reason and truth, while Gillespie’s historically prejudiced and biased mind has been focused on evidence, fact and deduction by the reasonable and intelligent Tibbs. It seems that in these circumstances each man finds direction and benefit from the other’s presence and input.

Tibbs solves the murder case after further focused investigation and he and Gillespie end up sharing a drink and a revealing conversation in Gillespie’s apartment. It transpires these apparently very different men have much in common from a personal and social perspective, though Gillespie reacts badly when Tibbs offers a well-intentioned sympathetic comment which perhaps trespasses into the realms of familiarity and friendship. Gillespie interprets this as pity rather than friendship and closes down the conversation.

It appears that each has focused on career and professionalism to the detriment of building a network of friends and relationships and while each is willing to take steps toward friendship, neither is socially skilled enough or comfortable enough to know how to readily develop their budding friendship. They are drawn together by common experience and vaguely similar character traits such as professionalism and belief in principle, yet they are divided by other vaguely similar traits such as independence and pride.

In the end, after a perfunctory and polite exchange of good-byes, Gillespie, upon reflection, appears to offer not just respect but a sense of gratitude and even warmth as he smiles and tells Tibbs to take care, a gesture Tibbs is happy to reciprocate.

Each man has been challenged by the situation and each has derived strength and encouragement from the presence and actions of the other. Tibbs’s calm reason and deduction were tested by emotion, prejudice and racism while Gillespie learned to appreciate the advantages of principle, reason and deduction and to place them above personal or professional expediency and prejudice. Reason and principle are seen, then, as superior to rash and emotional judgment and are a means of professional and social advancement.

 

There were two sequels, both significantly less successful than “In the heat of the night”, perhaps because they focused on plot and crime rather than character development and conflict focused on social and cultural themes.

In terms of performance, Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger are simply superb as the dignified and reasonable Tibbs and the distressed and even tormented Gillespie. Each endows his character with humanity and interest and each ensures total audience engagement.

The script and direction bubble along at considerable pace with wonderful characterisation and tremendous atmosphere, using the murder plot as a context for sometimes explosive conflict and character development.

Special credit should go to Quincy Jones for his music, especially the catchy and oh-so memorable theme song.

At times deliberately uncomfortable to watch, this is a gripping, entertaining and thought-provoking film that delivers with every viewing.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

Style, Character and themes in "The League of Gentlemen" (1960)

 

Reflections on “The League of Gentlemen” (1960)

Directed by Basil Dearden

 Script by Bryan Forbes (from the book by James Boland)

Starring Jack Hawkins, Nigel Patrick, Roger Livesey,

Richard Attenborough, Bryan Forbes et al.

 

A video presentation of this material is available here.

What really distinguishes “The League of Gentlemen” from other caper films is its style. Despite being in existential and film noir territory, the audience is never in any doubt that this is an intriguing and engaging piece of entertainment. It is written and made with a lightness of touch which lends charm, and it is peopled by sympathetic, if deeply flawed, characters who ensure audience empathy and even complicity.

After some 25 years of faithful, dutiful and unblemished service in the British Army, Lt-Col Hyde is somewhat unceremoniously made redundant and this unleashes a tidal wave of disillusion, bitterness and resentment. Feeling not just unappreciated but betrayed by the very establishment he served and protected all these years, he doubts and rejects the moral code by which he has lived and worked, and Hyde decides to plan and execute a daring bank robbery with his customary military precision. This outrageously self-serving and uncharacteristic act will not only fill his coffers but will constitute his revenge on an establishment that has disrespected him and turned its back on him.

This transformation could have been depicted in an intense and introverted manner, focusing on Hyde’s deteriorating mental health etc., but instead we are presented with a positive and confident outlook honed by a determination to see his plan through. We see he is pained and wounded by the way he has been treated, but he has channelled his feelings into a plan for amoral revenge and because we understand the injustice of his situation, admire his spirit and may even sympathise with him, we are happy to go along with him and his plan.

To bring his plan to fruition, Hyde enlists the aid of seven former army officers, chosen with great care and attention to detail, whose skills and training will contribute to the success of the mission. Of course, they all have at least one other thing in common, apart from their military background – they are all crooks to one degree or another.

We are shown a series of vignettes which indicate that each “Gentleman” is struggling with his circumstances and each has a reason to seek change or escape his present situation. Again, each man’s tale is potentially gloomy but melancholy is avoided in favour of a reasonably positive attitude, especially as Hyde offers them a path to financial independence and freedom.

We learn more about their dubious backgrounds at the first meeting arranged by Hyde at the Café Royal. It is clear we are not dealing with murderers or criminal masterminds, but rather a group of guys who, by and large, simply refuse to accept restrictions imposed by social propriety, customs and laws as they try to make their way in life. They may even be regarded as nice guys capable of loyalty and hard work, if the situation benefits them, but they appear to have lost their moral compass and indeed may have lost much direction and control of their lives, leaving them rather downtrodden and perhaps demoralised, a position they seem to have more or less accepted as they show little ambition or spirit.

However, Hyde provides stimulus, purpose and a sense of self-worth when he invites them to join him in his daring bank raid. Hyde offers leadership, spirit and direction, qualities the other “Gentlemen” are lacking, while the group offers Hyde hope, purpose and a chance of achieving vengeful satisfaction.

Each man gains from his participation, and not just financially. Making a valued contribution to their common objective within a framework of discipline and careful planning brings out the best in each and they develop considerable camaraderie and fraternity which may even be said to extend to the audience as we feel complicit in their scheme.

I would point out that this is a format and strategy used most effectively in later films such as “Ocean’s Eleven”, “The Dirty Dozen” and “The Italian Job”, but their origins seem to lie in this much more modest British film.

Scenes of practice and preparation emphasise the care and precision with which the operation is mounted, but these scenes also serve to underline the fraternity and sense of common purpose of our “Gentlemen”. They also provide amusement, entertainment and a sense of connivance and even conspiracy for the audience. We know that what they are doing is wrong, but we have shared their at times affecting, morally ambiguous and emotionally challenging background stories, and we have witnessed their efforts and burgeoning fellowship, with the result we are actually rooting for them as they swing into relatively non-violent action.

If an acceptable definition of film noir is one that invites the audience to challenge the traditional and accepted perception of morality, I can’t help but feel this film fits the bill despite its positive and amusing style and, as I suggested at the beginning, its style is what sets it apart. Amusing and lightly told films noirs are rare and hard to achieve and I find their combination of light comedy and moral challenge quite irresistibly entertaining.

In the end, we are somewhat disappointed and saddened when our “Gentlemen” are defeated by chance and the innocent actions of a child, the true and quite unpredictable enemies of professional planning.

All in all, this is a playful, amusing and thoroughly engaging piece of knowing entertainment in which the characters are endowed with sufficient individuality, personality and flaws to make them dubious and intriguing, yet touching and involving at the same time. Add to this a deft humour and self-awareness and you end up with an engaging confection intelligently and skilfully crafted for our enjoyment.

 

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