Serious Charge

Another interesting film shown recently on Talking Pictures was the drama Serious Charge starring Anthony Quayle as a newly arrived vicar in a suburban parish. Released in 1959 it maintains the conservative outlook of the time, but boldly addressed the controversial themes of false sex crime accusation and what is now termed homophobia.

The newly arrived vicar is a handsome, earnest and sensitive man in his early thirties. Before too long his high mindedness creates a couple of dangerous enemies who come together to bring about his downfall. The first is a spinster, also in her early thirties, who is the daughter of the previous vicar, and a pillar of the local church community. She is conscious that time is passing and that if she is not married soon she will be left on the shelf. She forms a strong attraction to the new vicar, and very quickly she impetuously throws herself at him declaring that she loves him. Alas for her, the feelings are not reciprocated, and the vicar rebuffs her advances, albeit with some sensitivity. The spinster considers that she has been scorned and is on the lookout for a means of revenge.

The second enemy is a loutish youth in his late teens, the ringleader of a bunch of local delinquents. He has been dating a girl who has become pregnant by him. He evades his responsibilities towards her, and the girl becomes fearful about what will happen if her father finds out. She informs the vicar about the situation, but in a rather contrived situation she is then hit and killed by a car, distracted when she observes her boyfriend canoodling with another young woman.

The vicar is aware that the youth is responsible for the pregnancy, and after the inquest they both attended, the vicar accuses him of being responsible for the death of his girlfriend through his selfish and inconsiderate behaviour. The youth takes great offence at this, and observing that the spinster has just entered the vicarage on parish business, he rips open his shirt and runs to the spinster maliciously accusing the vicar of ‘interfering’ with him.

The police become involved and, as the only witness, the spinster backs up the youth’s accusation. The vicar soon starts to receive poison pen letters, rocks thrown through his window, his parishioners desert him, and he gets into a brawl with the father of the youth, vociferously encouraged by his braying pub mates.

The vicar’s mother returns to the vicarage after a few days away and is shocked by what has happened. She is sure that her son must be innocent of what he is accused of, and confronts the spinster as to what really happened. After this emotional encounter the spinster gets some pangs of conscience and she contrives a situation whereby the youth’s lies are exposed. Hypocritically, the parishioners all start to return, and the film ends with the vicar agreeing to stay on, with a strong hint that he will probably marry the spinster, as in reality they are well suited.

The film was released at a time when traditional morality was still upheld. Nevertheless, the first stirrings of the new permissiveness were beginning to emerge, and so it must have been a novel experience for cinemagoers to be confronted with the previously taboo subject of homosexuality.

In a sense the film was more progressive and open minded compared to what would be permitted today, since we are now all subject to the straitjacket of the broad PC commitment to ‘believe the victim’. Additionally, it would now be considered judgemental to portray a non-consensual homosexual encounter. There would not be a happy ending either, the vicar would be denounced as a paedophile (a term now very broadly defined), using his respected position in society as a cover for his predatory behaviour. His guilt would be assumed since it is an article of faith that children and young people would never lie to gain revenge.

The story line was happy to confirm society’s then abhorrence of homosexuals, particularly those who tried to corrupt youths into entering what was then regarded as a deviant lifestyle. None of the characters questioned the consensus as to whether homosexual activity was acceptable, and in the brawl scene involving the vicar the pub regulars voiced their contempt towards him in no uncertain terms.

It should be remembered that during this era the now saintly Alan Turing was convicted of the same offence as the fictional vicar was accused of, namely propositioning a teen youth to engage in what society considered to be deviant sexual activity. This was a crime which until the early nineties was regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment, until it was suddenly decided that such behaviour should no longer be a crime at all. However, this law was not repealed in a new wave of permissiveness, since the same cohort who brought about this change was more than happy to start jailing men for a variety of sexual activities which had previously never been criminal.

This all goes to show that what constitutes a sexual offence can be highly subjective. So involving the law minutely in the sexual behaviour of its citizens is dangerous for both individual liberty and personal responsibility. Thus the use of the criminal justice system in this area should be confined to instances where genuine harm has occurred, which is most certainly not the case at present.

Flame In The Streets

An interesting film Flame In The Streets has recently been shown on the TV channel Talking Pictures. This relatively obscure British release starred John Mills as a trade union representative in a London furniture factory. Also starring is Sylvia Syms as his daughter, who is a teacher in a relationship with a Jamaican, a recently arrived supply teacher in her school. It dates from 1961 and has racial prejudice as its main theme, covering much the same ground as the later and much better known Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner starring Sidney Poitier (reviewed here http://bit.ly/1XFhUnV).

This film is both entertaining, thought provoking and allows different perspectives to be voiced. Nevertheless it is a piece of liberal propaganda, albeit one that communicates its message in a much more subtle way than the TV dramas of today, which all signal their virtuous politically correct message in a more blatant and heavy handed manner.

The film begins with another West Indian, who is acting as a temporary foreman in the factory. His promotion has caused some trouble among some of the white workmen who resent being ordered around by a ‘spade’ (in the parlance of the time). The factory owner has some reservations about giving him the foreman role on a permanent basis as he fears that it might provoke some unrest amongst the mostly white workers. He discusses the matter with the union rep John Mills who assures him that he can convince the workers to accept the West Indian’s permanent promotion at a branch meeting that is to be held to discuss the issue that evening.

During the well attended branch meeting a number of workers question the West Indian’s suitability for the supervisory role, claiming that it would cause resentment amongst ‘our people’, by having to take orders from a ‘coloured’. There is clearly an undercurrent of bigotry here as none of them could argue that he had not fulfilled the temporary position competently. In a barnstorming response John Mills calls out their prejudice by correctly identifying what they are unwilling to admit openly, that their objections are motivated by ‘nothing more than skin colour’, thus shaming them for their unwarranted prejudice against a well respected workmate. As a result, the opposition collapses and the meeting votes to confirm the West Indian as the permanent replacement foreman.

After the meeting John Mills is informed by his wife that his daughter has just announced her intention to marry the Jamaican teacher. She is absolutely horrified by this turn of events and urges her husband to fulfil his role as father by persuading the daughter to abandon her plans as it would bring disgrace on her family through such an unsuitable match. Some of the language which the mother employs to express her outraged feelings are clearly offensive and are based on generalised stereotypes which would hardly be likely to apply to an educated teacher. Hearing such ignorant and prejudiced opinions, as being representative of what many white people might be thinking about them, must have worried many black people watching the film at the time it was released.

John Mills is much more restrained than his wife in condemning the daughter, but he is nevertheless very concerned about the situation, being torn between his desire to avoid racial prejudice to ensure fair play, and his clear distaste for such a marriage. They return home to discuss the matter with the daughter, pointing out all the problems and societal pressures she would face that would likely last for the rest of her life. However, the daughter rejects all of their arguments and states categorically that as she loves the Jamaican she is happy to face whatever the future might bring. The film ends when the parents enter the room to meet the Jamaican suitor for the first time.

This is a rather ambivalent ending but it suggests that the parents have reconciled themselves to the inevitable despite their clear distaste for their daughter’s relationship. The underlying message however is that racial prejudice, whether in the workplace or in the family, is something which is always wrong and must be faced up to.

As in the Sidney Poitier film the Jamaican teacher is presented as a paragon of virtue. He is well mannered, polite, sensitive and caring, normally just the kind of man parents would be happy for their daughter to marry. However, in comparison with the white characters he appears a little two dimensional with no real personality or apparent sense of humour. These are the kind of characteristics one might expect a young professional woman to look for in a potential suitor. So it is highly improbable that rationally, she would have chosen a black man, when there are so many white men available on her cultural wavelength, many of whom have the added advantage of possessing the kind of personal qualities more likely to make the relationship a success.

The film also raises some deeper concerns. At the branch union meeting the workers raised the issue of ‘our people’, by which they meant the white British. Governments of the time had defended the introduction of immigrant labour on the grounds that during a period of labour shortage British people were unwilling to accept the kind of menial jobs that black immigrants were happy to take. By promoting one of them to a supervisory role over white people the goalposts suddenly appear to have been moved decisively against the interests of the white workers.

One of the arguments used by the mother to dissuade her daughter against the proposed marriage was to point out that her children would be black. This raises the issue of whether racial identity is something that should be cherished and preserved, or whether it is evidence of odious bigotry. It is a debate that has never openly been allowed to take place in this country, despite it being a matter that many people have an instinctive view about. Another interesting point is that none of the characters in the film gave any thought to what the West Indian community might think about such a mixed marriage, the assumption being that they could not possibly have any objection, an attitude that demonstrates a rather condescending double standard. Liberals are invariably hyper sensitive about the feelings of black people but they are not necessarily always well tuned in to their real opinions.