Skip to main content

You crazy bastard! You’d prop up dead men and inspect them if you was ordered to.

The Hill
(1965)

(SPOILERS) The kind of movie that gives you faith there are positives to star power. The Hill wouldn’t have been made if not for Sean Connery’s Bond cachet, and if it failed to create any waves at the box office, it still ranks one of the very best things most of its cast did. Which also goes for director Sidney Lumet and cinematographer Oswald Morris (who won a BAFTA for his efforts).

It’s also the kind of picture where, when confronted by the empty fireworks of an awards favourite like 1917, serves as a reminder that intelligent, thought provoking war pictures can be made. Albeit, this one’s battlefield is far from the front line. I first saw The Hill several decades ago and was hugely impressed by its raw intensity; Connery and Lumet would reteam four more times, but only The Offence (also featuring The Hill’s Ian Bannen) would come close to matching the quality of their first collaboration.

Connery’s a former squadron sergeant major, stripped of his rank and sent to a military prison camp in the Libyan desert during WWII; he’s been accused of cowardice, but he attacked his commanding officer for refusing to lead his men into a slaughter (having already led them out of one). As such, he’s the “good guy” but he’s also not necessarily helping matters for those sharing his punishment detail, marked out as he is for particular attention. “Oh, I can do without it, sir, but I think you’ve got other plans for me” he tells Harry Andrews’ RSM Wilson. Connery had been angling for Andrews’ role, curiously enough – grittier as his Joe Roberts is, he isn’t that much of a leap from Bond. Connery would make that break in The Offence. As Lumet put it, he’s “real and tough and not at all smooth or nice. In a way he’s a ‘heavy’ but the real heavy is the Army.”

Because The Hill is about discipline above all else, and the sadism and brutality that come with it. Lumet, working from a screenplay by Ray Rigby (who also co-wrote the first episode of The Avengers, Hot Snow), based on his and RS Allen’s play, isn’t simply looking at those being brutalised, however, but interrogating the whole system. As much attention is paid to the fractured psyches of those inflicting the punishment (“We’re all doing time here, even the screws”), with Andrews’ veteran running a ship so tight he cannot admit to leaks, and his psychotic Staff Sergeant Williams (Ian Hendry) taking full advantage of the fact.

Both are shown occupying a very thin line of comfort, which proceeds to disintegrate as the ground is pulled from under them (“You ain’t running this place, Bert, Williams is! Look at him! He took over days ago! You still haven’t caught on” implores Bannen’s sympathetic Staff Sergeant Harris). The Medical Officer (Michael Redgrave) is desperately weak, bullied into providing the diagnoses the RSM wants, such that the final wrestling match is over whether or not he will make a report highlighting Williams and Wilson’s punitive actions. Harris must navigate the treacherous territory of not appearing to Wilson as too soft, arguing for better treatment of the men while secretly enraged by his RSM’s callousness.

All those performances are riveting, but it’s probably Hendry who is most noteworthy, relentlessly cruel and twisted in his disciplining of the prisoners. He continually sends them up the titular hill (which he himself can barely even cross three times, and then during the cool of night) while inflicting all manner of additional punishments. Hendry rightly gets great notices for his seedy villain in Get Carter, but this earlier incarnation is just as memorable. Particular focuses for his attention are naturally Roberts, but also Ossie Davis’ Jacko King, forced to endure an unremitting wave of racist invective, to the degree that he eventual strips off his uniform, refusing to recognise the army or its officers (when he is eventually summoned before Norman Bird’s commandant, he relaxes on a couch and smokes his superior’s cigarettes, much to Bird’s confusion; Harris’ barely suppressed mirth is highly amusing).

But the worst impact of Williams’ behaviour is reserved for Alfred Lynch’s Stevens. He’s too sensitive for the army, as Harris tries to tell him early on: “You’ve got to learn how to survive”. Haranguing him for his weak character (“One of these shy lads are you, Stevens? I haven’t made my mind up if you’re fish or fowl yet, Stevens”), Williams ignores warnings that he’s in no fit state to go back to the hill so soon after a punishment detail; later Stevens, in an already confused state, collapses and dies.

Lumet and Rigby’s most fascinating choice here is that no one really gets on with each other or bonds; Roberts is sympathetic because he’s reasonable, Harris because he has the men’s welfare at heart and King because he’s so likeable, but this is nevertheless a den of strife, sweat and oppression. Roy Kinnear’s Monty Bartlett (funny as he is) and Jack Watson’s Jock McGrath are respectively trying to get out of anything at all and tiresomely belligerent.

Lumet returned to Rigby’s screenplay when he took the job, which had been heavily rewritten, and it seems he and the writer honed the original draft, excising a hundred pages; it duly won (shared) Best Screenplay at Cannes. What really impresses is that The Hill is two hours of, essentially, drilling – “There isn’t a lot of story” as Lumet put it – but it’s entirely taught, bouncing back and forth between the men in cell and their warders; you could cut the tension with a knife.

The masterpiece central scene has Wilson take Roberts out of earshot of the men, following the King’s Rules and Regulations (“An officer will not reprove a warrant officer or an NCO in the presence…” “or hearing of a private soldier”). Roberts’ attempts to explain why Wilson, “a good toy clockwork soldier”, is wrong falls entirely on deaf ears (he accuses Roberts of treason). There are waves of hope (the near riot over the death of Stevens is abated by Wilson’s shrewd manoeuvring), not least the white-knuckle climax, as first it looks as if the MO is resolute. But then Williams goes to work on his resolve, and then the MO parries. And then, “Bang! No they don’t. The ending was deliberately caustic”. Thelma Connell’s editing is masterful, matching the sudden brutality of language and violence, while the photography carries a similar punch, utilising closeups and distorted wide-angle lens for maximum impact; the effect is claustrophobic and unremitting, unsettling the viewer.

Christopher Bray, in Connery: Measure of the Man, suggested The Hillfails to ever quite shake off its stage origins” but I disagree; I don’t think that, if you didn’t know it had been a play, it’s something you’d consciously contemplate while watching it. It’s too taut, too immediate, too concentrated in energy. Admittedly however, it is a very written piece in dialogue terms, deliciously so, and that makes it enormously meaty actor fodder. It’s an absolute treat to see every one of the thesps here digging in. The Hill’s a three-course feast in that regard.

As noted, the picture wasn’t a hit, with the suggestion in Aubrey Malone’s Sidney Lumet: The Actor’s Director that its US failure was because of unintelligibility of the dialogue. I doubt that, however. It may not have helped, but the picture is too unwelcoming, bleak and stinging a prospect for audiences wanting more Bond (and in black and white too). Nevertheless, it amounted to a critical success for Connery, receiving six BAFTA nominations including Best Film (and Best Actor for Andrews). It was also seen as troublesome in its attitudes to the military, such that Cannes jury member Rex Harrison, troublesome himself, wired the Queen to let her know The Hill was in danger of winning win first prize. Fortunately for the monarchy and the British Army, it had to settle for a forgettable screenplay award.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.