Menu

Cries & Whispers (1972)

Cries & Whispers, a movie by Ingmar Bergman, would have been a good one for Mystery Science Theater 3000 to take up. After all, if this movie is going to have characters stand around not saying very much, and then have them sit around not saying very much, and then have one of them lie in bed dying of cancer and not saying very much, and then have two women talk to each other without giving us the benefit of hearing what they are saying, the MST3K team might just as well have supplied some dialogue and commentary.

I can just imagine Joel Robinson, Crow T. Robot, and Tom Servo giving us the benefit of their riffing.

Two sisters seem to have a thing for each other.

[Joel:  Lesbian incest!  My favorite.]

A man plunges a dagger with a six-inch blade into his abdomen because his wife has humiliated him by having sex with another man.  Then, with the blade still in his gut, he asks his wife to help him.

[Crow:  “Could you give me a hand, Dear?  I’m stuck.”]

A woman tells her maid to quit looking at her just before she gets completely naked while her maid looks at her.

[Tom Servo:  “She’s just begging me to watch.”]

The maid gets half naked, gets in bed with the cancer victim, and holds her head to her breasts.

[Joel:  But she doesn’t do windows.]

A woman picks up a piece of broken glass and shoves it up her vagina.  Then she goes into the bedroom, gets in bed, raises her nightgown, spreads her legs wide open so her husband can view the bloody vulva, while she smears blood all over her smiling face.

[Crow:  “You don’t mind making love to me while I’m having my period, do you?”]

It would be just another fun-filled episode on the Satellite of Love.

Sanders of the River (1935) and Wee Willie Winkie (1937)

In the 1930s, the movies were doing their part to take up the white man’s burden, depicting the way that various parts of the world were benefiting from being colonized, in spite of their objections.  A couple of movies in this genre are notable for being rather ludicrous in the way they justify imperialism, one produced in the United Kingdom, another here in the United States.

In 1935, London Film Productions came out with Sanders of the River, in which the title character is Commissioner R.G. Sanders (Leslie Banks), a British officer who has made Nigeria a better place for the Africans that populate it. We know they are happy, because they are always singing. The British do not sing, however, because running an empire is serious business.

Bosambo (Paul Robeson) is a good African chieftain who loves being ruled by Sanders and the British Empire.  He sings a lot.  Mofolaba (Tony Wane) is an evil African chieftain who hates being ruled by Sanders and the British Empire. He doesn’t sing at all.

When Sanders goes on vacation, Mofolaba spreads a rumor that Sanders is dead.  Apparently there is a cult of personality surrounding Sanders, because the place just falls apart as a result.  We see lots of animals running about, so even they are upset.

War breaks out, and Sanders has to return. (See what happens when the British step away for just a moment.)  While Sanders was gone, a couple of smugglers had been selling gin and rifles to the natives, which is against the law. But the rifles don’t seem to do the natives any good, because they continue to use spears. Bosambo is captured by Mofolaba.  As the boat Sanders is on races to save Bosambo, an officer commands an African worker who is operating the boiler to put more wood on the fire for more speed. The African replies that the boiler will blow. But the British officer is not cowed by mere physics, and he contemptuously dismisses the warning. The boiler backs down and humbly submits to British authority, just like everything else.

Thanks to British assistance, Bosambo is able to kill Mofolaba.  Sanders names him King of the Peoples of the River, and they all sing happily ever after.

Set in northern India in 1897, Wee Willie Winkie is a movie directed by John Ford and based on a story by Rudyard Kipling, in which Shirley Temple picks up the white man’s burden and brings peace to that part of the British Empire. She plays her usual role of warming the hearts of almost everyone she comes to know; and, of course, the movie is filled with the usual silliness that is supposed to pass for humor in a John Ford movie.  Most of that can be left to the imagination.

Shirley Temple plays Priscilla, and is later given the nickname in the title.  She and her mother travel by train to stay with her paternal grandfather, Colonel Williams (C. Aubrey Smith), commanding officer of a British outpost.  Their reason for doing so is that it has been a struggle for them financially ever since Priscilla’s father died.  Her mother is beautiful and becomes the love interest of one of the officers.  That too can be left to the imagination.

When they arrive, they are greeted by Sergeant MacDuff (Victor McLaglen).  While waiting for MacDuff to help her mother with her luggage, Priscilla witnesses the arrest of Khoda Khan (Cesar Romero).  He is the leader of the Pathans, with whom the British are at war.  He was caught when some of the British rifles he was smuggling out of the village fell off the camel that was transporting them.  She sees Khoda Khan accidentally drop something, and she picks it up. Her mother explains to her that it is a talisman, a sacred charm, and MacDuff says it is supposed to protect the person who wears it from harm.  They, of course, regard that as just silly superstition, but Khoda Khan believes in its power, and is upset when he finds he no longer has it.  Later, inside the compound, when Khoda Khan is being put in jail, Priscilla returns it to him, for which he is grateful, asking Allah to bless her for that.

Mohammet Dihn is Colonel Williams’ parlor maid.  I didn’t know such a term could be applied to a man, but so it is. But then, he doesn’t come across as being much of a man either.  He is funny-looking and irritating, played by Willie Fung, whose role in most movies is to be the butt of some ethnic humor, usually as a Chinese character. In any event, he is also a spy.  He gives Priscilla a message, which he says is a prayer, to take to Khoda Khan, saying he is always glad to see her. Actually, it is a message telling of the plan to free Khoda Khan that night, with an attack on the arsenal being used as a diversion.

The plan works, and Khoda Khan escapes, but a tribal chief is captured.  They bring him to the colonel’s office. Mohammet Dihn translates for the colonel, telling the chief he will be given the lash if he refuses to give them the information they seek.  The chief says something, and Mohammet Dihn tells the colonel he refuses to speak.  They take the chief away to be whipped, as expected.  But then something strange happens. MacDuff grabs Mohammet Dihn and throws him rudely out of the room. Now, we know Mohammet Dihn is a spy, but MacDuff doesn’t.  So, why would he treat Mohammet Dihn as though he was a worthless human being?  Well, he is a Muslim, after all.

Shortly after, the colonel tries to explain the Priscilla and her mother the need for strict discipline:

Priscilla, up in those hills there are thousands of savages, all waiting for the chance to sweep down the pass and ravage India.  Now, it’s England’s duty—It’s my duty, dear—to see that they don’t.

It is indeed fortunate for the people of India that they have the British there to protect them from the likes of Khoda Khan, especially now that hostilities are breaking out. When a patrol is sent out, they are ambushed, and MacDuff is mortally wounded.  On his death bed, he reminds Priscilla of the recruiter’s motto:  “Fear God, honor the queen, shoot straight and keep clean.”  Words to live by, for sure.

Priscilla becomes upset.  She goes to the colonel to find out why MacDuff had to die. The colonel tells her he died for his queen.  But that only leads her to puzzle over the war in general:

Priscilla:  Why is everybody so mad at Khoda Khan?  Why do they all want to shoot him?

Colonel Williams:  We’re not mad at Khoda Khan.  England wants to be friends with all of her people.  But if we don’t shoot Khoda Khan, Khoda Khan will shoot us.  Now come here. Let me try and explain it to you. It’s our job to keep the big pass open so that trade can flow through it. You know what trade is?

Priscilla:  Yes, Grandfather.

Colonel Williams:  Good. And bring peace and prosperity to everybody, even to Khoda Khan.

Priscilla:  Couldn’t you go and explain all that to him?

Colonel Williams:  It wouldn’t be much use.  For thousands of years, these Pathans have lived by plundering. They don’t seem to realize they’d live much better if they planted crops and traded and became civilized.

But all Priscilla knows is that she wants the killing to stop.  She decides to go see Khoda Khan. She runs into Mahommet Dihn, who agrees to take her to to him.  He brings Priscilla to Khoda Khan, who is with his men in their rebel fortress in the mountains, which is impregnable, owing to the narrow pass that must be crossed to reach it. Khoda Khan is ecstatic. He realizes that the colonel will bring the entire regiment to try to rescue his granddaughter, and the British soldiers will be slaughtered to a man. It’s the chance he has been waiting for all his life.

So, he has two of his men throw Mohammet Dihn off a cliff.

You see, although Khoda Khan is glad that Mohammet Dihn helped him escape from jail, and then brought Priscilla to him as a hostage so that he can have complete victory over the British, Mohommet Dihn had served his purpose, and Khoda Khan didn’t need him anymore. Perhaps you are wondering why anyone would be loyal to such a leader, why it doesn’t occur to his other followers that one day they may be of no further use and be thrown off a cliff.  But empathy is not to be expected from a Pathan.  That is precisely why they need to be ruled by the British, which in the end they are, because Priscilla warms the heart of Khoda Khan, bringing about an end to the war. Well, she was an adorable little girl.

Women in Love (1969)

Women in Love is one of those movies that under normal circumstances I would have quit watching after about twenty minutes. But since it was based on a novel by D.H. Lawrence, I persuaded myself that it must be important somehow, and since I had not read the book, I thought maybe I could get myself a little culture on the cheap.

Eleanor Bron as Hermione does her usually marvelous job of playing a woman you could not stand to be around even if she were rich, which she is. This is important, because the other characters in the movie are the sort you would not want to be around either, but compared to Hermione, they seem fairly tolerable.

But not very. In addition to being an all-round unpleasant fellow, Gerald (Oliver Reed) enjoys being cruel to his horse, whipping him furiously and digging his spurs deep into the animal’s flesh, simply because the terrified creature refuses the cross the railroad tracks while a freight train speeds by. Gerald has a bisexual friend named Rupert (Alan Bates) with whom he wrestles, all naked and sweaty, but Gerald is not quite ready to put Rupert in that special hold Rupert longs for. Rupert does not do mean things like torment horses, but he does have some irritating personality traits, such as acting as if anything he does is justified because it is spontaneous.

Central to the movie are two sisters, Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) and Ursula (Jennie Linden). They witness Gerald’s mistreatment of his horse and seem horrified at the time, but they continue to socialize with him as if nothing is wrong, and so it is hard to like these women after that, especially Gudrun, who ends up having sex with him. Ursula takes up with Rupert, and she has the naïve idea that marriage should simply be based on the love between a man and a woman, and she never does quite understand why Rupert thinks it should involve other people as well, especially men.

The four of them take a vacation to Switzerland, where Gudrun meets a German artist. The artist tells of how he brutally beat a woman to make her pose properly for the picture he was painting. Women are like horses in this movie: you have to beat them until they submit to your will, which is what turns Gudrun on, because she soon decides to go live with him. This makes Gerald homicidal, and then suicidal, wandering off into the snow so he will freeze to death. Rupert’s thoughts upon looking at his dead friend was how Rupert had offered himself but never had a chance to have that special experience with him. Ursula still does not quite know what to make of Rupert’s strange ideas.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

There are people who will respond to criticism of a movie they like by saying, “Well, it’s just a movie.” Rather than answer the criticism, they indicate their lack of interest in discussing the movie with that dismissive remark. But then there are those who will respond to criticism of a comedy by saying, “Well, it’s just a comedy.” Somehow, this seems to be a more defensible position, for they are saying that serious criticism may be appropriate for serious movies, but a comedy, by its very nature, is not serious, and thus is exempt.

In reality, the only thing that makes a comedy immune from criticism is laughter. When a comedy makes us laugh, no criticism can touch it; when a comedy does not make us laugh, however, it deserves all the criticism we care to bring against it, even though the absence of laughter says it all. And Shakespeare in Love is just such a comedy.

The Academy is hesitant about handing out the award of Best Picture to a comedy, because that would seem to be beneath the dignity of the institution. Shakespeare in Love, however, being about the title character, insulates the Academy from being thought lowbrow, thereby permitting its members to embrace such a comedy. The fact that the movie is not really funny did not bother them. All that mattered was the glow of culture that radiated from the Academy when they voted for this film. In short, a movie about Shakespeare is Oscar bait, and the members bit.

Nietzsche once said that Homer would never have created an Achilles, nor Goethe a Faust, had Homer been an Achilles, or Goethe a Faust. This goes contrary to the way a lot of people think. They like to imagine that an author must be like the characters he creates. Shakespeare in Love plays off this notion, for it would have us believe that Shakespeare’s inspiration for Romeo and Juliet was that of a real life love affair that he had, with all sorts of parallels, balcony scene included, between what happened to him and the play he finally wrote. But to paraphrase Nietzsche, Shakespeare would never have created a Romeo had he been a Romeo.

The movie dares us not to be amused, even if we cannot bring ourselves to laugh. Bits and pieces of Romeo and Juliet, along with some of Shakespeare’s other plays, are strewn throughout the movie in a disorganized way, the idea being that the elements of all these plays just need to be put together in the right way, as we know they eventually will. Every such reference flatters us for catching the allusion, and we can display our sophisticated familiarity with these quotations from plays not yet written by chuckling, whereas if we merely sit there in the movie theater without exhibiting the slightest bit of mirth, others may think us lacking in culture and refinement.

When we watch a Shakespearian comedy being performed today and find ourselves not laughing, we are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. We allow that it might have been funny when it was first performed four centuries ago. With Shakespeare in Love, we know better.

Speaking about the Speaker

With all the turmoil in the House of Representatives over who will be the next speaker, several journalists and politicians have referred to the Speaker of the House as being third in line for the presidency.  That didn’t sound right to me, because that would mean that Barack Obama is first in line for the presidency, which makes no sense, because he is the president.  After hearing that expression, “third in line for the presidency,” again and again, I finally looked it up and assured myself that I was right, that the speaker is second in line for the presidency.

You might think that would be the end of it, that I would simply accept the fact that I was right and all those journalists and politicians were wrong.  But now I face the question as to how I will characterize the speaker’s position relative to the presidency should I happen to find myself in a conversation on that topic with others.  If I were sufficiently disdainful of the opinion of others, I would say it correctly, that the speaker is second in line.  But I am not, for as much as I hate to admit it, I do want the good opinion of others, and I would hate to have them talk about me after I was gone, saying, “He thinks he is so smart, but he doesn’t even know the speaker is third in line for the presidency.”  On the other hand, if I say it the way everyone else seems to, that the speaker is third in line, I might lose the good opinion of those few who know that is incorrect.  In other words, it is not enough to know the proper way to say something. You then have to decide what to do with the knowledge once you have it.

It should be noticed that this is not a dispute as to the facts, though it might appear that way at first.  The people who say the speaker is third in line are not mistaken as to the order of succession.  They know as I do that should the president die, he would be succeeded by the vice president, and should he be killed or incapacitated, the speaker would become president. This is a difference of opinion as to how to characterize the order of succession, not a difference as to what that order is.

One approach would be for me to announce that the speaker is not third in line, but only second in line, thereby making sure that everyone understands that I know the difference and that I am right.  But then I would be acting like a know-it-all, presuming to instruct others, hardly an endearing trait. Consider the case of Chris Matthews.  At some point along the way, he discovered that the correct way to pronounce Dick Cheney’s last name was \chee-nee\.  Now, I have seen Dick Cheney on television shows for years, and everyone always pronounces it \chay-nee\, and he never corrects them, either on the air or, presumably, before the broadcast.  So, Matthews apparently cares about this more than Cheney does.  But more to the point, Matthews did not have the courage to simply pronounce Cheney’s name the way he believed it should be pronounced, for fear we would all think he was an ignoramus.  Instead, he opted to instruct people on his show as to the proper pronunciation, even going so far as to express exasperation when they had the temerity to continue to pronounce it the way they wanted to.  In the end, Matthews, in his effort to display his superior knowledge on the subject, has only managed to make himself look ridiculous.

In short, instructing others first as a way of preempting criticism is a bad idea. It only makes things worse.  Matthews should have either pronounced it \chee-nee\ without apology, or he should have gone along with the way everyone else pronounces it and been done with it, which would by far have been the better choice.  After all, I’ll bet he pronounces Cicero \si-suh-ro\ and not \ki-kuh-ro\, regardless of how the famous orator actually pronounced his name.

In general, the dilemma is between being an elitist and capitulating to the masses.  There is a time to be pure and say the speaker is second in line for the presidency, and there is a time to capitulate and pronounce Cicero \si-suh-ro\. In the case of coup de grâce, for example, I do not hesitate to pronounce this \koo-duh-grahs\, even though most people pronounce it \koo-duh-grah\, leaving off the “s” sound.  I suppose they are misled in two ways.  First, their mispronunciation rhymes with coup d’état and foie gras.  Second, when they see the French word grâce, it reminds them of the English word “grace.” And they say to themselves, the French usually don’t pronounce the last part of their words, so the “s” sound should be dropped. However, they overlook the fact that in English, we have already dropped the last part of the word, known as the silent “e,” and so no more needs to be omitted in the pronunciation.  In any event, I pronounce the word correctly without hesitation or apology.

With the word “forte,” however, I begin to lose my nerve.  Back when I was in college, some fifty years ago, I learned that the word “forte” had two different pronunciations, depending on the meaning.  When the word means “strong point,” it comes to us from the French language, and thus should be pronounced \fort\; when the word means “loudly,” as a direction in music, it comes to us from the Italian language, and thus should be pronounced \for-day\.  In the last twenty or thirty years, however, I have noticed that most people pronounce the word \for-tay\ when using it to mean “strong point.”  I confess cowardice at this point.  I cannot bring myself to pronounce it that way for that meaning, and I haven’t the courage to pronounce it the way I originally learned to, for fear of sounding dumb. And so, I have dropped the word from my oral vocabulary. And would you believe, I just about cannot use it in my writing either, where you would think it wouldn’t matter, because as I write the word, I cannot help but struggle with the pronunciation in my mind, and I end up using some other expression instead.  In a similar way, I have struggled with “dilettante” and “archipelago,” for the etymology suggests one pronunciation while common parlance suggests another.

Now, there are language nihilists who say, “Languages change all the time, and so it really doesn’t matter.”  Well, the way I see it, speed limits continually change too, but that doesn’t mean we can drive at any speed we like.  At any given moment in time, there is a speed limit beyond which we are not supposed to go.  And so, at any given time, there is a right way and a wrong way to speak.  On the other hand, there is the old debate as to whether you should never go over the speed limit, or whether you should keep up with the prevailing traffic, even if that traffic exceeds what is posted on the sign.  I am a purist who says, “All those other people are going too fast, and they are in the wrong.”  People tell me that I probably cause traffic accidents by refusing to keep up with the prevailing traffic. And maybe they are right. I have heard a lot of tires squealing and metal crunching as I drive along the road, keeping to the speed limit, and I have seen the wrecks piling up in my wake. But that’s just too bad.  What’s right it right.  And so it is with my attitude about language. Still, there are times when I wonder if I should be keeping up with the prevailing ways of speaking, despite the rules.

I was at a country-western night club one night, doing the twostep.  On leaving the dancefloor, my dancing partner asked me, “Is that Jim over there?” to which I replied, “That’s he.”  I was immediately ashamed.  Sure, my answer was grammatically correct, but totally inappropriate. First of all, if I was going to be that formal, I should have said, “That is he.”  The informal contraction just did not go with putting the predicate nominative in the subjective case. More to the point, I should have said, “That’s him.” There is a way to dress and a way to dance in a country-western night club, and there is a way to speak in such a place as well, and formal English ain’t it.

A special case in the question as to whether to remain pure or to capitulate is when your teacher or your boss mispronounces a word.  When I was a junior in high school, my history teacher was talking about the Boston Massacre, which she pronounced \mass-uh-kree\.  I looked over at my friend Charles, and he looked back at me.  Other surreptitious looks were being passed back and forth around the room.  I went home and looked it up in my dictionary. Sure enough, that pronunciation was not even listed as an option.  But now I faced the dilemma: how should I pronounce the word if called upon to talk about the famous massacre in class? Fortunately, I was able to go between the horns of that dilemma by keeping my head down whenever the topic was being discussed.  One girl, however, gave a report on the subject, which she read to us while standing in front of the classroom.  The little ass-kisser pronounced it \mass-uh-kree\, no doubt scoring brownie points with the teacher, but earning the contempt and derision of everyone else in the classroom.

There is also the special, very special case of one’s significant other.  A long time ago, my then girlfriend was telling me about a friend of hers, who had impressed her with her impeccable English.  As an example, she said the woman referred to herself as an alumnus instead of “an alumni,” which some people mistakenly do.  Now, I would have been happy to let that pass, but I could look ahead in anticipation of the how the discussion would develop, and I could see that I needed to make a decision.  If I referred to the woman’s status regarding her having a degree in a different way, my girlfriend might think I was trying to correct her in a sly manner.  So, I decided to get it over with and said, “Actually, she would be an alumna.”  Big mistake.  It was the better part of a week before she would let me kiss her again, during which time I had ample opportunity to reflect upon the fact that that my love life would have been much better had I simply capitulated and referred to the woman as an alumnus the way she did.  It was better than “an alumni,” after all.

I could go on with a multitude of other examples that plague me, but you get the idea. Knowing the proper way to speak is only half of it. Knowing when to stop being pure and just go with the flow can be the more worrisome half of the problem.  Regarding the proper way to characterize the order of succession, however, I have definitely decided to remain pure.  If someone asks me who is third in line for the presidency, I’m going to say Orrin Hatch.

Rise of the Dead (2007)

Though there is no such thing as karma in real life, yet there is plenty of it in the movies. In a typical movie, the good are rewarded and the evil punished, each to the extent that they deserve. In some cases, however, movie karma goes a little overboard, and people are punished way in excess of what little faults they may have, and that is what we have in Rise of the Dead.

When the movie starts, a couple is having dinner, with the husband, Sam Sherman (Patrick Pope), saying grace. He makes a semi-blasphemous remark about how God let their baby die. Uh oh. Sure enough, he must be punished, and the instrument of death is his own wife, Sally (Brooke Delaney). She goes all zombie on him and kills him with a fork. Zombies don’t usually use weapons, however, so this is our first clue that this is not your typical zombie flick.

Actually, just before the baby died, Sam and Sally were having an argument. He criticized her for not changing the diaper on the stinking baby, and she said it was his turn to do his part and change the diaper himself. So, maybe that’s it. Sam is being punished for sexism, imagining that diaper changing is woman’s work.

But there’s more. Sam had left his pistol on the table where the baby could get to it. As a result, while Sam and Sally are arguing, the baby puts the barrel in his mouth and pulls the trigger. And thus we have to wonder if Sam was punished for being negligent in leaving a handgun around where a baby could get to it.

It turns out that the baby was adopted, and the baby’s birth mother, Laura Childs (Erin Wilk), is being besieged by zombies, whom she manages to fight off or, in some cases, kill with the help of her boyfriend Jack (Stephen Seidel) or Sheriff Brown (Peter Blitzer). Her roommate gets killed, probably punishment for making a move on Jack. A sheriff’s deputy is killed as punishment for being a jerk. And so on. When her own mother turns on her and is put in an insane asylum, Laura notices that Sally Sherman, whom she knows to be the adoptive mother of her baby, is also a patient. Laura slips into her room, and Sally tells her that the baby’s ghost is inhabiting people as a way of inflicting punishment on those who wronged him, and Laura is big on his list of those on whom he wants to inflict vengeance.

You’d think Laura would get credit for having the baby and giving it up for adoption instead of aborting it the way her previous boyfriend wanted all along. Well, said previous boyfriend does get punished for that, right after the ghost baby inhabits the body of the woman he was bitch-banging and lets him have some axe in the face. But Laura still did her baby wrong by not keeping him, so he is still after her as his main target.

Somewhere along the way, we find out that a fanatical Christian couple were the baby’s first adoptive parents, and when Child Protective Services took the baby away, this first adoptive mother cursed it. Actually, the movie is thick with Christianity, and we regularly see crucifixes hanging on the walls of the rooms of different characters in the film. And thus it is that while ghost baby is going around wreaking death on those who wronged him, we sort of get the feeling that some of these people are being punished for excess of religion.

Anyway, Laura’s mother escapes from the insane asylum, and, finding Laura at home, tells her that the ghost baby just wants to be with his mother. But then ghost baby inhabits Laura’s mother again, and Laura has to handcuff her to the oven. Then Jack comes over, and he gets possessed by the ghost baby too.

But now Laura knows what ghost baby really wants. She tells him to come to Mommy, lays him on the floor and has sex with him. So, spiritually speaking, she has sex with her own son, through the body of her boyfriend, resulting in impregnation. Talk about returning to the womb. Anyway, it does the job. Ghost baby is satisfied and he waits inside his mother to be reborn. Presumably, she intends to keep the baby this time.

It looks as though everything has ended happily, but I have to wonder what movie karma thinks about incest.

Dirty Harry (1971)

The title character of Dirty Harry, Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood), is a well-known cliché in the movies: a police detective who chafes under all the rules and regulations that get in the way of his catching criminals. For example, in the movie Dragnet (1954), Officer Frank Smith (Ben Alexander) asks his partner Sergeant Joe Friday (Jack Webb) why the laws always protect the criminals, to which Friday responds, “Because the innocent don’t need them.” This attitude is rather widespread, unfortunately. An innocent man, the thinking goes, would never insist on having an attorney present while being interrogated by the police, would never demand to see a warrant before letting the police into his house, and would never plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify at his own trial. Only criminals do that sort of thing.

For people who think that way, Harry Callahan is their kind of cop, because he never lets something as fussy as a bunch of rights get in the way of catching the bad guys. In one scene in the movie, the district attorney tells Harry he violated several of the suspect’s rights, namely the ones embodied in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Harry says, “I’m all broken up about that man’s rights.” The district attorney responds that he should be, because the man will have to be released as a result, none of the evidence collected without a warrant being admissible, because that is the law. Harry says, “Then the law is crazy!” Harry then asks of the deceased victim, “And Ann Mary Deacon, what about her rights?” Thus does Harry give voice to much of the frustration felt by the audience that criminals have rights at the expense of the rights of their innocent victims.

The district attorney in that scene refers to the Miranda ruling, which requires that a suspect be informed of his rights to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Before the Miranda ruling it used to be habeas corpus that conservatives hated. In the movie Scarface (1932), for example, Tony Camonte (Paul Muni) is arrested and then released on what Tony jokingly refers to as a writ of hocus pocus.

The circumstance in which Harry violated all that suspect’s rights involved torture, and this movie brings out all the necessary conditions for torture to be justified in a movie. When depicted in film, torture is usually portrayed as something evil, something done by Nazis, for instance. But Dirty Harry is one of the first movies to present torture as being good. Early in the movie, the “Scorpio Killer” has buried a little girl alive with only enough oxygen to last her a few hours, and then demands ransom for her release. Harry agrees to deliver the money. When he does, the serial killer announces that he intends to let the little girl die. When Harry catches up with him, he tortures the killer until he tells him where the girl has been buried.

Even if we disapprove of torture in real life, we cannot help but approve of Dirty Harry’s actions while watching the movie. And this is for five reasons: (1) We are certain the man is guilty. Dirty Harry knows, as do we, that the man he is torturing is the Scorpio Killer. (2) The punishment fits the crime. The Scorpio Killer is evil, and clearly deserves the pain Harry inflicts on him. (3) There is a time element. In just a few hours, the girl will die, so the information must be extracted from him immediately. (4) The situation is ad hoc. Although early in the movie a doctor jokes about Harry beating a confession out of a suspect, it is our sense that he does not routinely torture criminals. (5) The torture is effective. We find out later that the girl was already dead, but Harry does get the information concerning where she is buried.  More on this topic is covered in my essay “The Evolution of Torture in the Movies.”

A few years before Dirty Harry was produced, another movie employing a similar type of police detective was Madigan (1968). Early in the movie, another detective says of the title character (played by Richard Widmark), “Madigan doesn’t always go by the book, but he’s a good cop,” thereby spelling out the cliché referred to in the opening paragraph, which is inept, dramatically speaking. Fortunately, Dirty Harry does not tell us Harry is that kind of cop. It shows us through his words and actions. That is just one of the reasons why Dirty Harry is a great movie, while Madigan is just second rate.

But it does raise the question, will we ever see a movie about a police detective who never violates a suspect’s rights, who never uses undue force, who never enters a suspect’s house without a warrant, and who believes that it is more important to obey the law than catch the bad guys, and as a result, the criminals often escape justice? In other words, will we ever see a movie in which someone says, “Detective Fussbottom is a bad cop, but at least he always goes by the book”? Probably not, but if we ever do see such a movie, it will have to be a comedy.

Cimarron (1931 and 1960)

In 1930, Edna Ferber wrote Cimarron.  The title comes from the Spanish word “cimarrón,” which has a variety of meanings, but principally that of “wild” and “untamed.”  More specifically, it refers to the parts of Oklahoma that had belonged to the Indians; but upon reflection it was thought better to think of it as being land that had been given to the Indians, owing to the generosity of the white man; and then it was thought better still to rescind that act of generosity and give the land to white people.

And thus it was that in 1889, the Unassigned Lands, consisting of 2,000,000 acres in central Oklahoma, were to be opened up for settlement.  In a rational world, there would have been a lottery, the winners of which would have been given title to the 160 acres that they had won, after which they could then make their way to that plot of land at a leisurely pace, thereby taking possession of it in a civilized manner.  But such thinking on my part betrays a failure to understand the pioneer spirit that made this country great. Instead, there was a free-for-all, every-man-for-himself, pell-mell rush of 50,000 people, in wagons, on horseback, on bicycles, and on foot, unleashed on this territory precisely at noon on April 22.  In the novel, reference is made to men being trampled on by horses or shot by Sooners.  It is with this land run that the 1931 movie based on this novel begins.  If you want to visually represent the idea of Manifest Destiny, you might show covered wagons or railroad trains moving from right to left on the screen, but nothing can compare with such a spectacle as this.

Among this horde is Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix), who embodies the pioneer spirit in a big way.  In fact, some people call him “Cim,” indicating that he personifies this wild and untamed land.  On horseback, he is the first to arrive at the plot of land he had already picked out, but Dixie Lee, who pretends to be a damsel in distress, manages to cheat him out of it.  Thus thwarted, he returns to his wife Sabra (Irene Dunn) in Wichita, Kansas, to take her and their son, whom he officially named “Cim,” to Osage, Oklahoma, where he plans to start up a newspaper.

Throughout this movie, I kept wondering if Yancey was supposed to be an admirable character portrayed by a bad actor, or an irritating character excellently portrayed by a good actor. By the time the movie was over, I had concluded that it was the worst of both worlds. Richard Dix gives a hammy performance of a someone we are supposed to like, but who is in fact an insufferable jerk.  And this notwithstanding the fact that the movie won the Oscar for Best Picture and Dix was nominated for Best Actor.

In other words, this movie would not be so bad if it wanted us to regard Yancey as obnoxious, and Richard Dix merely overacted the part as if he were performing on the stage, where a loud, resonating voice and sweeping gestures are needed for the benefit of those sitting in the back rows. But the movie goes to great lengths to get us to admire Yancey, and the dissonance between what the movie expects of us and what we are actually feeling as we behold this preposterous character is grating.

Irene Dunne, who was nominated for Best Actress, does a decent job of playing Sabra, for whom we have some sympathy, given all she has to put up with, even though the movie really does not want us to like her very much, because it is continually showing her as lacking the virtues that Yancey possesses. In reading the novel, too, it does not take long to get tired of how Yancey is always right, and Sabra is always wrong, which is especially exasperating on those occasions when it is clear that Sabra is right, and Yancey is wrong.  At one point in the movie, when she tries to advise him on some matter regarding the newspaper, he tells her, “Don’t you be worrying your pretty head about that.”

In the novel, Yancey lies to some United States marshals.  They are looking for some men that robbed a bank and killed the cashier.  Yancey knows where they are, but pretends he hasn’t seen them.  After they leave, Sabra says that the person that shields a criminal is just as bad as the criminal himself.  The text continues as follows:

Yancey looked back at her….  His smile was mischievous, sparkling, irresistible.  “Don’t be righteous, Sabra.  It’s middle class—and a terrible trait in a woman.”

Apparently, this novel is in the thrall of some romantic notions about outlaws, and we are supposed to like the way Yancey can move freely among such men.  The novel apologizes for outlaws such as these, saying it’s the government’s fault.  It has taken the free range away from the cowboys and given it to the homesteaders, leaving them no option but a life of crime.  If you’re thinking they could have gotten a homestead themselves, or a job in a store, you just aren’t in the spirit of this novel.

Yancey is a lawyer, but the novel is at pains to make us aware, again and again, that Yancey has all the cultural refinement of a professor of literature, so many are his allusions to mythology and quotations of verse, all of which are unrecognized by Sabra, who is portrayed as an ignoramus.  In other words, Yancey excels in masculine virtues, swaggering around like a pirate or a cavalier, while at the same time showing off his brilliant intellect and sophisticated ways, in contrast to little, narrowminded Sabra who hasn’t a spark to her soul.  Given this depiction of Sabra, it is hard to believe this movie was based on a novel written by a woman.

Sabra is a racist who dislikes the “dirty, filthy Indians,” while Yancey is respectful of Indians and regrets the way they have been treated by white men.  In the novel, she thinks it absurd that Yancey regards them as human beings.  There is the suggestion that Yancey is part Indian himself.  In the movie, her mother believes that he is a half-breed.  Speaking of her mother, Sabra is from the Venable family, first introduced to us in the novel with the adjective “inbred.”

Sabra does not, however, express quite as much animosity toward the black race, because, as she puts it in the novel, “Niggers are different.  They know their place.”  As for the movie, it embraces the stereotypes common to when it was made. Unbeknownst to Yancey or Sabra, Isaiah, a black servant, stows away on one of the covered wagons they use on their trip to Osage.  He is a young boy, part coon and part Tom, who loves watermelon.  Yancey does not express the same sympathy for Negroes that he does for Indians, or talk about how they were mistreated by white people.  Edna Ferber says Isaiah has a simian appearance.

In the movie, when some outlaws begin shooting up the town, Isaiah runs out into the street to get little Cim, who is in danger.  He saves Cim’s life, but ends up getting shot and killed in doing so.  In the novel, however, Isaiah is not vouchsafed a hero’s death. Quite the contrary.  When he is a few years older, Isaiah gets an Osage Indian maiden pregnant.  When she has the baby, it is clearly a “negro child.”  The Osage Indians don’t allow this form of miscegenation, so the girl, her baby, and Isaiah are put to death by slow torture, which lasts several days.  That’s right, the baby is tortured for several days right along with his mother and Isaiah.  It’s easy to see why that never made it into the movie.

To round out the prejudices considered here, we now turn to antisemitism.  Sol Levy is the “town Jew.”  He walks down the street leading a mule that carries the merchandise he is selling.  The town’s riffraff start bothering him, finally shooting near his feet to frighten him.  He falls back against a cross-shaped structure, with his hands extended so that they rest on each of the arms of that cross. He is the stereotypical Jew, one who is a helpless victim, which allows Yancey to play the savior, protecting him from the bad guys.

And this is ironic, since Ferber was a Jew herself.  In describing the incident where the ruffians are shooting at Sol’s feet and other parts of his body, often missing him by only a fraction of an inch, she says:

He had no weapon.  He would not have known how to use it if he had possessed one.  He was not of a race of fighters.

Come again?  Did she never read the Tanakh, more commonly known as the Old Testament, about the massacres of the Amalekites, the Amorites, and the Midianites, culminating in  Joshua’s genocidal slaughter of the Canaanites, followed by years of warfare where the Hebrews vanquished the Philistines, the Moabites, the Aramaeans, the Edomites, and any other tribe that happened to be in their vicinity?

Anyway, Yancey comes to Sol’s rescue:

At that first instant of seeing him as he rushed out of his office, Yancey thought, subconsciously, “He looks like—like—“  But the resemblance eluded him then.  It was only later, after the sickening incident had ended, that he realized of Whom it was that the Jew had reminded him as he stood there, crucified against the scale.

This image of Sol and the cross, establishing a connection between him and Jesus, puzzled me.  Later in the movie, when Yancey is giving an ecumenical sermon inclusive of all varieties of Christianity, Sol asks, with a pitiful look in his eyes, if it is all right for him to be there.  Yancey assures him that it is. Further on in the movie, Yancey defends Dixie Lee at her trial. At the moment where Yancey is quoting Jesus, the camera focuses on Sol.

My guess is that this all this is a way of apologizing for Jews, saying that deep down they are really Christians.  They just don’t realize it yet. So, we should forgive them.  Perhaps this is what Ferber had in mind when she said Sol was not of a race of fighters:  she was not thinking of a Jew like Joshua or David, but rather a Jew like Jesus.

In the 1930s, Richard C. Kahn directed a lot of B Westerns with an all-black cast, but other than that, African Americans were not featured in Westerns as gun-toting cowboys.  Starting in the 1960s, however, perhaps as an effort on the part of Hollywood to make amends, African Americans began showing up in mainstream Westerns as men that were good with a gun.  But have you ever seen a Western in which a Jew strapped on a gun, killed the bad guy, and then got the girl?  There were a lot of Jews in the Old West, many of whom, I have no doubt, were good with a gun and fully capable of defending themselves.  But you would never know it from watching the movies.

There was one movie, The Frisco Kid (1979), a silly comedy, where Gene Wilder plays a dimwitted Polish rabbi in the Old West.  He does manage at one point to shoot and kill a bad guy, after which he does get married.  But he mostly has to be protected by Harrison Ford, the real Western hero, while the movie makes Wilder’s character the butt of its dumb jokes.

Getting back to the movie Cimarron, in 1893 the Cherokee Strip was to be opened up, which would be even bigger than the land run of 1889.  In the novel, Yancey argues that if they participate in the run for the Cherokee Strip, they can get 160 acres and start a ranch.  Sabra points out that if it’s a ranch he wants, he can just buy a plot of land right near Osage.  Leave it to a woman to take all the fun out of something.  But we know what his real problem is:  Yancey is bored with the newspaper he started, and he is bored with Sabra.  Early in the novel, Ferber mentions that there were not only rumors that Yancey had Indian blood in him, but also that he had a squaw and lots of papooses somewhere that he had abandoned.  That being the case, it should come as no surprise that he is willing to abandon Sabra and their two children as well, just so he can have some fun pioneering again.  The movie, however, wants us to think it is Sabra’s fault for not being willing to go with him.

Five years later, he shows back up, wearing a Rough Rider uniform.  In the novel, he is on his way to fight in the Spanish American War; in the movie, he just got back from the fighting.  The reason for the difference is simplification, often necessary when bringing a book to the big screen.  In this way, Yancey abandons Sabra only twice in the movie, whereas he deserted her three times in the novel.  In any event, his interest in getting some land in the Cherokee Strip so he could start a ranch must have quickly lost its appeal, for we never hear another thing about it.  In the novel, Sabra falls into his arms, unable to resist the charms of the man she so dearly loves.  When Yancey has a look as his son, who essentially has feminine features, he is disappointed.  “’Gods!  How the son degenerates from the sire!’’’ Yancey says to him in exasperation, while no doubt pleased at being able to cite that line from The Iliad, once more showing off his impossible erudition.

But he’s not through doing that.  When Sabra recovers from her thrill at seeing Yancey again, she remembers that he had deserted her.  When she expresses her anger at the thought of this, he responds by referring to her as Penelope.

“Who?” she asks.

He then quotes from The Odyssey:

“Strange lady, surely to thee above all womankind the Olympians have given a heart that cannot be softened.  No other woman in the world would harden her heart to stand thus aloof from her husband, who after travail and sore had come to her … to his own country.”

“You and your miserable Milton,” she replies.

You see, once while they were walking down the street, he started reciting the poem “Delilah,” which sounded to her like a bunch of nonsense, and then heard him refer to Milton, it’s author.  So, she figured this must be another quotation from that same guy.

A few pages later, Ferber refers to Yancey as Odysseus.  The comparison is not only absurdly romantic, but completely inappropriate.  Yancy can’t wait to go fight in the Spanish American War, but Odysseus was the world’s first draft dodger.  When Palamedes came to get him to fight in the Trojan War, Odysseus pretended to be crazy, hoping to get out of it.  The ruse didn’t work, but the point is that unlike Yancey, Odysseus did not want to leave his wife and son to go fight in some pointless war.

Shortly after his reunion with Sabra, Yancey finds out that Dixie Lee is about to go on trial for being a public nuisance (i.e., a prostitute).  Sabra, it seems, is a heartless prude, who wants to run her out of town.  Yancey realizes that Dixie Lee is more to be pitied than censured, and successfully defends her in court against the legal action brought against her by Sabra, thereby humiliating his own wife.

The misogyny in this movie is recapitulated in their children. Their daughter Donna is a shrew.  She is fed up with the way everyone else is oil rich, while her family is just getting by on what comes in from the newspaper.  She declares she is going to find a rich man and marry him.  Apparently, she does, since we later see her with a man old enough to be her grandfather. Their son Cim, on the other hand, is such a nice guy that he even intends to marry an Indian. But why stop there? The whole town is like that. With the exception of a few scoundrels, the men are genuine and likable, while the decent women of the community are snobs and prudes.

When Yancey abandons Sabra again, the movie sees no need to belabor this second desertion of her, but merely mentions it in an intertitle. Many years go by, during which time Sabra becomes a United States Representative, her reward, presumably, for finally realizing how enlightened her husband had been all along. At a political banquet in her honor, she gives credit to the contribution women have made in civilizing Oklahoma. Given all the sexism we have seen up to this point, this belated tribute to women sounds like an apologetic afterthought.

Sabra barely manages to fight back the tears as she tries to tell herself that Yancey is still alive somewhere. But then it turns out that some old roughneck working on an oil rig nearby has been severely injured because he used his body to shield the rest of the crew from some exploding nitroglycerin; and Sabra, hearing that the man’s name is Yancey, rushes to him, where he dies in her arms while blathering about what a loving wife and mother she is. Of course, we cannot help but think that even though he was working right there in the local oil fields, he apparently did not want to have anything to do with her, because he never even let her know he was in town.

And then the cover is removed from an obscenely huge statue of Yancey in honor of the pioneers who made Oklahoma what it is. There is another figure, somewhat smaller in stature, standing behind him, but it is not Sabra. It is a generic Indian.

The run for the Unassigned Lands in 1889 is just the sort of spectacle that begged to be filmed in a big way, in Cinemascope and in color, and with more carnage.  But that is about the only justification for the 1960 remake.  Characters in this movie have different relationships with one another, and events that take place are changed around a bit, but none of it seems to matter one way or the other.  Glenn Ford, who plays Yancey in this version, is a better actor, but the character he plays is just as irritating as ever, if not more so.

Some of the misogyny is expunged by simply eliminating Yancey’s bigoted daughter and by eliminating the persecution and trial of Dixie Lee (Anne Baxter) by the women of Osage, although we are still expected to think Sabra (Maria Schell) is to blame whenever Yancey deserts her.  The African American stereotype is avoided by eliminating Isaiah.  However, Sol Levy is still depicted as the helpless victim, placed in a crucified posture.  In that way, Yancey can once again be seen coming to the rescue of this Jesus avatar.

Being There (1979)

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think the movie Being There is funny and those who do not. They should probably not be friends, and they definitely should not marry each other. The gulf between them is just too immense to be bridged.

It is worse than that. Those of us who do not think this movie is funny can barely stand to watch it. The movie consists of one joke, of which there are countless variations. A man, Chance (Peter Sellers), who is mentally retarded, is mistaken by everyone he meets as being important, wise, clever, funny, romantic, etc., depending on the circumstances. But for those of us who despise this movie, this one joke is not funny, not even in the first instance. In fact, it is irritating.

And it is still worse. Not only are there people out there who think this movie is funny, but many of them also think that it tells us something profound about human nature. But the human nature in this movie has no connection to reality. It is obvious to us from the very beginning that Chance is a simpleton, and that means everyone else in the movie has to be something of a simpleton not to realize it.

And because the movie hits us over the head by having Chance walk on water, I guess we are supposed to discern a spiritual message as well. I hate to think what that message might be.

Vanity Fair: The Book and the Adaptations

Three years ago, I wrote an essay on Vanity Fair and its adaptations.  My main reason for doing so was to address the subject of the murder of Jos Sedley.  Of all the movies or television series based on this novel that I have seen, not a single one ends with Becky’s murder of Jos.  In fact, Jos is always still alive in the end, usually happily married to Becky.

Well, that’s the movies.  But then there are my friends and casual acquaintances.  Most have not read Vanity Fair, and of those that have, when I ask them their opinion about Jos Sedley’s death, they say they don’t remember, having read the novel so many years ago.  But some do remember, and they invariably balk at my suggestion that Jos was poisoned.

This resistance on the part of the readers of that novel, as well as on the part of those that have produced movies based on it, intrigued me to the point that I took the subject up in my original essay.  Then, having said my piece, I figured that would be the end of it.

Shortly thereafter, I read the novel again for a fourth time.  It was then that something I had never paid much attention to before struck me as a clue provided by the author.  It was the chapter in which there is an allusion to Philomela.  Instead of dismissing this as an obscure reference to a woman in Greek mythology, as I had previously, I decided to look into the matter and find out just who she was.  In so doing, I discovered her importance.  I did some quick research on the internet, and while most literary critics agree that Jos was murdered, I could not find a single one that saw any significance in the story of Philomela.

But as important as this discovery was, in my humble opinion, I had already published my essay, and now it was too late.  Off and on since then, I have been tempted to republish the essay again anyway, this time with the material on Philomela added in, and each time I resisted, for I thought it would be unseemly.

But I can hold out no longer.  And so it is that I beg the reader’s sufferance, asking him or her to forgive my own vanity on this matter, presuming to present a revised version of my original essay.    What follows, then, is the original essay, plus added material:

____________________________________________

There have been many movies or television dramas based on the novel Vanity Fair, not all of which are available for viewing today.  Of those I have been able to see, though some are more faithful to the novel than others, none are faithful in the most critical sense.  In fact, even the memories of those who have read the novel often do what the movies do, which is to change the story and the character of Becky Sharp into something different.

At the end of the novel, Jos Sedley is dead, on account of his having been poisoned by Becky for the insurance money. She had gotten him to take out a life insurance policy naming her as one of two beneficiaries, his sister Amelia being the other.  And this was after she had siphoned off all his wealth through phony investments in a tangle of bubble companies, allowing Becky a lavish life style.  Also, her son, whom she never loved and whom she treated badly, has become wealthy; and though he won’t have anything to do with her, yet he nevertheless gives her a liberal allowance.  Furthermore, Becky has managed to find a secure place for herself in society, going to church and participating in all sorts of charitable enterprises.  When her old friend Amelia and her husband, William Dobbin, see Becky in a stall at one of the Fancy Fairs, they recoil in horror.  Becky merely looks down demurely and smiles. William Makepeace Thackeray, the author of the novel, also provided illustrations for it, the last one of which depicts the scene just described.  The caption below the illustration reads, “Virtue Rewarded:  A Booth in Vanity Fair.”

As far as I know, not a single movie or television drama ends the way the novel does.  The oldest movie version that I have seen is Vanity Fair (1932), starring Myrna Loy as Becky.  Being only seventy-eight minutes long, it could not possibly be faithful to the lengthy novel in all its details.  But while we may excuse that as owing to the exigencies of bringing any novel to the screen, it also deviates from the spirit of the book.  Jos Sedley is still alive at the end of the movie.  He becomes fed up with Becky and leaves her.  Now alone, and worried about losing her looks, she is unhappy.  The other movies and television dramas I have seen end differently.  There is Becky Sharp (1935), starring Miriam Hopkins; a television mini-series, Vanity Fair (1998), starring Natasha Little; Vanity Fair (2004), starring Reese Witherspoon; and another television mini-series, Vanity Fair (2018), starring Olivia Cooke.  When I heard about this last adaptation, just after I had published my first version of this essay, I thought, “With all the previous adaptations that have been made, surely this one will show some originality and be faithful to the novel when it comes to the demise of Jos Sedley.”  Nope.  In all of them, Jos is still alive in the end; and in each one save the first, Becky and Jos live happily ever after.

There are other versions of Vanity Fair, too numerous to list them all.  A few of them are apparently available on DVD or video tape, but I cannot bring myself to shell out the money to buy them, and they are not available for rent from Netflix.  If anyone reading this has seen any of these versions and knows the fate of Jos Sedley therein, I would appreciate having that information passed on to me.  Just having Jos be dead at the end would be close enough to the novel for that version to win the award for “Most Faithful Adaptation.”

Some people argue that the murder of Jos Sedley at the end of the novel is out of character with the Becky that we have become used to in the earlier pages.  But that is only because we have made excuses for Becky’s behavior throughout the novel.  I have already mentioned the way she neglected her son when she wasn’t being mean to him.  But right from the beginning, we are given indications of her spiteful nature.  Though Miss Pinkerton may have treated Becky badly at the academy for young ladies, yet her sister, Miss Jemima, was always sweet to her.  And even though Miss Pinkerton refused to bestow upon Becky the traditional parting gift of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, Miss Jemima sneaks a copy to Becky just before she gets on the carriage to depart.  And yet, Becky flings the dictionary out the window as the carriage drives off, not only hurting the feelings of the kind Miss Jemima, but undoubtedly getting her in trouble with Miss Pinkerton, who had already told Miss Jemima that Becky was not to get a copy under any circumstances. Not only that, but Becky uses a doll to represent Miss Jemima so as to ridicule and belittle her for the amusement of her father and his friends.  This is mean-spirited to say the least, and yet we tend to forget about the cruel treatment of poor Miss Jemima, and remember instead her sister, Miss Pinkerton, who deserved Becky’s contempt and ridicule.  In other words, right from the beginning, though we are shown Becky’s dark side, yet we seem determined to construct a sympathetic portrait of Becky, which requires us to overlook and forget about anything that contradicts it.

The movies do all the hard work of overlooking and forgetting for us.  Save for the 1932 version of the novel, which was mild in its treatment of Becky in any event, the subsequent versions suppress these dark aspects of Becky’s character altogether, guaranteeing that we will see in her a strong, resourceful, admirable woman who may be a little ruthless at times, but always justifiably so, given what she is up against.

One of the reasons that even people who have read the novel either forget or deny that Becky murdered Jos for the insurance money is that Thackeray does not explicitly say she did, but only hints at it.  First, we are informed that Becky has in her possession a bottle of laudanum, and at one point she thinks about using it to commit suicide.  In this way, Thackeray lets us know that Becky has at her disposal an instrument of death.  Second, Becky has been nursing Jos through a series of “unheard-of illnesses.”  One can almost picture Becky making sure Jos drinks his medicine, which we suspect is laced with increasing amounts of the laudanum.  Third, Jos is afraid of Becky, but even more afraid of trying to leave her, telling Dobbin that she would kill him if she knew he had spoken to anyone about leaving her, saying, “You don’t know what a terrible woman she is.”  Fourth, after Jos has died, the solicitor of the insurance company “swore it was the blackest case that ever had come before him,” and the company refused to make payment on the policy.  Fifth, Becky hires lawyers Burke, Thurtell, & Hayes, who force the insurance company to make payment.  The names of the lawyers allude to actual criminals who were notorious at the time:  the first, a body-snatcher; the second and third, murderers.  Finally, all this is accompanied by an illustration depicting the scene in which Jos pleads with Dobbin to save him from Becky, while she hides behind a curtain, a sinister smile on her face, appearing to hold something in her hand, presumably the bottle of laudanum.  The caption under the illustration reads, “Becky’s Second Appearance in the Character of Clytemnestra.”  However, Thackeray acts as though he is not sure himself exactly what happened.

In fact, at several points in the novel, Thackeray feigns ignorance as to what Becky has done.  For example, when her husband Rawden catches her alone with Lord Steyne and becomes outraged that he may have been cuckolded, Thackeray says:  “What had happened?  Was she guilty or not?  She said not; but who could tell what was truth which came from those lips; or if that corrupt heart was in this case pure?”

The subtitle of this book is A Novel without a Hero.  Heroes and villains are complementary characters:  where you have one, you tend to have the other.  And so, a novel without a hero should also be a novel without a villain.  Had Thackeray made Becky’s guilt explicit, she would have undeniably been a villain, throwing the novel out of balance, owing to its lack of a hero.  By leaving us in doubt as to her sins and crimes, he makes it possible for us to deny her villainy altogether.

It is not uncommon for an author to avoid being the omniscient narrator, as a way of making the story more interesting by leaving some things to the imagination of the reader.  And this is believable, because in telling a story, it is often the case that we do not know everything that happened, but can tell only the parts we are actually sure of.  Before the story proper begins, however, Thackeray refers to the characters in his novel as puppets, and he ends the novel by saying he is going to put his puppets away.  In other words, he is making it explicit that he not only knows what the characters in his novel are doing, but as the puppeteer, he is also the one making them do those things.  What, then, are we to make of his pretense of ignorance regarding Becky’s actions?

Actually, it is not so much a matter of ignorance as it is one of delicacy.  As Thackeray notes toward the end of his novel, it would be inappropriate in Vanity Fair to put words to many things we know exist, to discuss various matters we know are taking place:

…it has been the wish, all through this story, deferentially to submit to the fashion at present prevailing, and only to hint at the existence of wickedness in a light, easy, and agreeable manner, so that nobody’s fine feelings may be offended.  I defy anyone to say that our Becky, who has certainly some vices, has not been presented to the public in a perfectly genteel and inoffensive manner.  In describing this siren, singing and smiling, coaxing and cajoling, the author, with modest pride, asks his readers all round, has he once forgotten the laws of politeness, and showed the monster’s hideous tail above water?  No!  Those who like may peep down under waves that are pretty transparent, and see it writhing and twirling, diabolically hideous and slimy, flapping amongst bones, or curling round corpses; but above the water line, I ask, has not everything been proper, agreeable, and decorous, and has any the most squeamish immoralist in Vanity Fair a right to cry fie?  When, however, the siren disappears and dives below, down among the dead men, the water of course grows turbid over her, and it is labour lost to look into it ever so curiously. They look pretty enough when they sit upon a rock, twanging their harps and combing their hair, and sing, and beckon to you to come and hold the looking-glass; but when they sink into their native element, depend on it those mermaids are about no good, and we had best not examine the fiendish marine cannibals, revelling and feasting on their wretched pickled victims. And so, when Becky is out of the way, be sure that she is not particularly well employed, and that the less that is said about her doings is in fact the better.

The Clytemnestra illustration referred to above deserves further analysis.  Becky’s first appearance as Clytemnestra takes place in Chapter LI, which has the following heading:  “In Which a Charade Is Acted Which May or May Not Puzzle the Reader.”  That title alone should have alerted me that something of significance was being attached to one of the charades being acted out by Becky as entertainment at a party.  The first of the two is the one depicting the woman in Greek mythology that murdered her husband Agamemnon.  That story is well known and readily understood by all.  It is the second charade that Thackeray is suggesting may puzzle the reader.  In this one, Becky plays the part of Philomela (Philomèle in the novel), the woman in Greek mythology who was raped by her sister’s husband, King Tereus.  Afterwards, he threatened Philomela, telling her not to say anything to anyone about what happened.  When Philomela remained defiant, Tereus cut out her tongue to keep her from talking.  So that her sister would eventually find out who raped and mutilated her, she wove a tapestry depicting the rape.  In other words, just as Philomela drew a picture to tell what she could not say, so too did Thackeray draw a picture to tell what he could not write, the picture of Becky in her second appearance as Clytemnestra.

The first time I read Vanity Fair, it was in a book that did not have any illustrations.  I have since found that several other editions have left out Thackeray’s illustrations as well.  Perhaps the publishers thought them unimportant and wished to save the expense of including them.  That may be one more reason why many readers of this novel remain oblivious to Becky’s murder of Jos Sedley.

In addition to those given above, another reason that so many readers of the novel are wont to forget or forgive the murder is that in a novel where so many characters are portrayed in a less than flattering light, Jos is the most unappealing of the lot.  His physical appearance, his manners, and his personality are such that we really don’t care what happens to him.  Of course, since most movies and mini-series have Jos and Becky as a couple at the end, his character is improved right alongside Becky’s.

Throughout this novel, Becky has, like a siren, tricked and seduced many of the people she has encountered.  But her greatest accomplishment is the way she seduces us, the reader of this novel.  We are loath to look below the water line.  We want to sympathize with Becky.  We want to admire her.  In fact, we want to be seduced.  And so, we refuse to see the evil that has been there throughout the novel, up to and including her most wicked deed.

By the time we see a movie or television version of this novel, however, the siren’s tail has been replaced by a nice-looking pair of legs, to spare us the effort of having to excuse or ignore much of Becky’s behavior, as we are wont to do when reading the book.

___________________________________________

Since writing the above review, I have been able to see the 1987 television series. Much to my surprise, the murder of Jos Sedley is actually depicted, and in a manner similar to that in the novel.

Unfortunately, the quality of this television series is only fair.  Still, given that it is the only version I have seen in which Becky slowly poisons Jos to get money from his life insurance policy, so it deserves credit for doing what all the other versions have failed to, either out of the need to comply with the standards of censorship at the time, or owing to a failure of nerve.  Therefore, this 1987 version wins the award for The Most Faithful Adaptation.