We're going to discuss a French film, right Greg? You're ashamed to hear people. We, we, we. Just because today I've got a bit tough on the game.
What are you doing with the animals in here? We're doing a movie tonight and we have a couple of our good friends on. And so maybe we should get down to it. The film is called A Man Escaped or The Wind Goes Where It Wants To Go.
Right. This is how it is. And we're talking to old friends Tom Cleveland and new old friend James Guest. Tell us about our guest tonight, Alex.
Our guest? You got Tom, Tom, you got a new title. What's your title over there? James C.
It is. Hold on. I got to look right up. He's got it right here.
It's the executive director. Alex just never, he refuses to do anything. He's just his own man. He's a man escaped.
He does what he wants. It's an run of show. Oh, he's run of show. He's not even the executive director of the American political tradition project at the Jack Miller Center.
He's been on the show three, four, five times now. We've done the metaphysics. A bunch of stuff too many things. You're not even American.
You're a stratia. What does that mean? How much do you also? I was about James Guest as a friend of ours as well.
He's got a PhD in politics from the University of Dallas. He's an unaffiliated scholar, which means he no longer teaches virtue for pay like we saw this. And instead he actually has a real job making real money, producing real things. Tom, James and I are actually a really good with another guy on air cell logical writings.
And occasionally we talk about things that we should talk about on the show. And James has mentioned this movie a few times. And so we sat down and watched this weekend and thought it'd be fun to talk about. I think that's amazing.
I'm glad to be here. Yeah. Glad you're here. Maybe you can tell us first place we'll be to talk about not the film itself, but maybe the director.
Robear Bresson. Can you tell us about him, James? Sure. So, Robear Bresson is a French filmmaker.
He made about 13 feature films over a four year career. So, so pretty slow by a lot of standards. He himself lived a very long life. He was born in 1901 and didn't die until 1999.
This film that we're discussing, a man escaped one, him a prize at Cannes in 1957. So it's one of his most well known works and almost this one include as well, even though in that prize, like all his work was a giant commercial failure. So almost nobody saw his movies when they came out, but critics tend to like a number of them pretty well. This movie is about a man who escapes from prison.
And Bresson himself was captured in prison by the Nazis. So there's a little bit of himself in the movie too, for that reason. And then I guess the other thing to say about Bresson to start off is just that he was very outspoken about what he thought film could be in contrast to what was going on in the contemporary situation was still happening today. So he had a strong view of what he called the art of cinematography, which was to be distinguished from cinema or the films that we're familiar with.
So he very eloquent on this, aphoristic in nature and said a lot. Yeah. He thought there was should be more explosions than bikini games, right? Yeah, mostly.
There was this distinction between cinema and cinematography. Lots of long question. I guess we could say the first thing is he defines it in this way. Cinematography is a writing with images in movement and with sounds.
And he wanted to contrast that from cinema, which he thinks of as filmed theater. So one big contrast we could draw is that when you go see a play on a stage, you have actors and those actors learn their lines, they learn their movements, they create a character, and they project that character out onto the audience. And Bresson wants to go the opposite way. He wants to start with the surfaces of things with exteriors.
And he wants to take the viewer inward into a person. And that means like he wants no acting at all. So one of his famous things was to just push people to be automatic in their responses to his directions and to just say the words in this kind of flatly affected way. It's sort of strange when you watch it.
It's like they aren't trying to produce emotions when they're talking to you, but he's getting some kind of emotion out of them through the way he directs them. So he's kind of the consummate bought tour in this way. Everything is under Bresson's control in the image. I was going to like respond.
So Alex, you were saying he likes explosions and bikini paves. But I would say I'd like to think of him in a way as an action director. Right. As he just films actions and he's very precise about the actions which he films.
It's often there's lots of close up of someone's hands doing something and they are sequenced with each other such that you have just through the filming of particular actions, you get some notion of the inner world and also some of spiritual themes somehow. That seems to be his aim at least. Two small things. One is James is one of the actors.
He went so far. I watched an interview that you guys sent as well along with Bresson. And one of the things he says is he was apparently famous for infamous for not hiring actors, in fact. He mostly used folks who didn't have the experience acting.
And for folks at home, I would encourage you to watch this film. Like it sounds therefore like this movie could be very boring, not a lot is happening. And yet strangely enough, less is more significantly more. It's gripping.
I think even we maybe even said in texts, which is sort of probably countable because of this emphasis on hands like Tom just mentioned. But there's such a such an intense focus on small actions that it really does run. Even my wife and I watched it together and I had read about beforehand. So which unfortunately kind of spoiled it for me.
But she didn't know the ending. And so she was on the edge of her seat the entire time wondering what was going to happen next. And so despite this kind of deliberate workman like sort of featured what's going on, it is it's obviously not the explosion scene and the sort of thing, but it's still extremely intent on action like the two you guys are saying, Alex and James. Thank you, Greg.
There's a it's certainly almost like a silent film. Like obviously there's a lot of conversation in it. But in the moments where this guy is trying to get out of prison, we should probably give a spot somewhere at some point. But yeah, I got a very like powerful sense of the space of the cell and if the prison where things are, even as he was manipulating objects like the wires of his bed frame, I really felt like I understood how things were moving, which as a matter of drama is incredibly powerful because you start to understand where he is better in a more visceral way.
And it felt in many ways like watching an old Buster Keaton comedy or in the visual aspect, it almost felt like a Murnau silent film where you do feel like it's almost like a painting that's moving in a sequence of shots more than it is about a character and an actor's brilliance and portraying it. It did feel like more embedded and artistic in that way. Just I want to add just respond to Alex. I think you're right about the intensity of the visuals.
But what I would say is he makes a big, there's a big emphasis on sound in it. There is there a lot of things that you don't see, but you hear. And so it is it's it's definitely filmic in the focus on visuals. And there's not too much dialogue, though.
There is some. Well, he says at one point that he'd rather have you hear something than see it or interview with him. Yeah. Yeah.
So we can talk about this, but there is a train you hear. There are church boats that you hear. There are gunshots that you hear. None of these things that you see, but are essential to like the spiritual geography of the film.
But I know James, you want to add something? Yeah, in all his films, there's something very precise and very minimal about what he's doing, too. Like he wants to strip things away so that you have the least amount of things, making the statement that he wishes to make. And so that means he doesn't use music to like guide the viewer to what they're supposed to be feeling or to underline a point or something like the music when it comes in is usually in contrast to something else.
And then he only uses as much dialogue as he needs to convey a point and the images themselves tend not this. These are not the kind of movies where you freeze the frame and just marvel at the beauty of the image. Like instead, his images are quite simple. They're still nice in a way.
But they're flat, like there's not a lot of depth of field. And you know, when the film school one on one thing is that he in every film, he uses only a 50 millimeter lens. That's it. No other lens is no switching.
And it so happens that the 50 millimeter lens is one which is closest to our natural eyes. Like what I think is part of why you feel like you're in a room and things when the way he shoots to. That's the way we tend to see the world is roughly that perspective. So at this point, I don't know if you guys object.
I think it's worth giving some introduce the film a little bit and we can start talking. Yeah, please, please. I was going to begin with the title and Greg, you're mentioning you didn't know the ending or maybe you didn't know the ending or what didn't. The ending is stated very clearly in the title, which is not.
I mean, the English title is a man escaped. The French original is longer than that. A man who's condemned to death as a skate. So there's there's there's an interesting thing about this gripping movie.
It's kind of a thriller on one hand. On the other hand, if you trust the title, which it turns out you can, the guy gets out. There should be no if you trust the title, there should be absolutely no doubt about it. Now, there is a second part of the title or an alternative title, you could say, which is the wind blows where it wants, which is a reference to John 3 8.
And that starts pointing a little bit more to the away from the mundane facts of the matter, which again is very keeping with Brisson's method to somehow the spiritual undergirding of it. That's maybe someone else can say more about that biblical verse, but it points in the direction of the question of, you know, being born again. That's maybe enough of the title. I'm only going to say a very I think we can talk more about the plot, but I think it's important that the plot is relatively simple.
There is a French resistance fighter who is captured. He, the opening shot, you have him in a car. He takes a moment to notice that he can get out. He tries to run away and they capture him again.
And the rest of the film, he is in this prison and there's multiple stages in the action, but he's in this prison trying to discover a way to escape. And he does. That's my very simplistic. Now, maybe there's more to say about that.
I know James, you had something to say about the the characters. Did we want to reflect on the title first? Oh, yes. Yes.
You sort of said that, but did you have something James? I thought you were champing it that they're jumping otherwise I can give it crack. No, go ahead. Let's start with the title and then the first thing is, I guess the first thing is Tom indicated is that the title indicates, I mean, just like in English and with some of the great works of the philosophy or can be, I don't know, precise, grammatical term, but it can be like, it's either this or that.
It could be another way of saying the same thing. That's one possibility for or right. Another is actually more of a clear dichotomous alternative. It's either X or Y.
And if I said, in other words, the two alternative titles could be saying the same thing or they could be too alternative. I take the title to be too alternative. I'm happy to push. You know, I'm happy to take your push back in a moment.
But the first is that the first title will be a man who's been condemned to death as a skate. And that would seem to imply that this man by his own agency, by his own authority, by his own will, by his own efforts has managed to affect his own escape or the wind blows where it wants would imply that it somehow is accidental or chance or providential or the work of God that has allowed this to happen. And so the and as you see throughout the film, the main character of Fontaine, who is the man who ultimately does escape, he does seem to have a sort of spiritual effect on those around him. And so there is some indication, maybe, that the more spiritual meaning is there.
Now, as Tom already alluded to, the wind blows where it wants is a reference to John 3, chapter 3, verse 8, which is in the midst of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. So the second alternative title is actually words uttered by Jesus Christ. That's probably very significant as well. I took a lot of Christian imagery.
I thought I saw a lot of Christian imagery throughout the film. And I don't really know what to do with what's going on there, because even then in Jesus's response to Nicodemus, Nicodemus, Jesus has just told Nicodemus, you have to be born again if you want to go to heaven. And Nicodemus, what does that mean? I'm going to climb back up to my mom's womb.
And Jesus was like, no, no, the wind goes where it wants. The world is at me. Again, I guess I could raise the logical question of whether or not one's spiritual salvation is the result of something you've done on your own or whether or not your salvation is just the wind blows where it will go. Yeah, I wanted just to say before we get into some gills, what I have found appealing about the movie.
Yeah. And some of it is just that it's an escape film. Yeah. And like it's similar to like a heist film, you're like, what's he going to do?
What tricks does he have up his sleeve to figure it out? It reminds me of Shawshank Redemption with like deliberate sort of cat like very, very long, like he's weeks and weeks doing a project. So yeah. And just as you were saying, one admires as though you had read this story in a newspaper, which I think is maybe where it's not heard about it.
You're like, wow, that's really cool. This guy did clever stuff to do it. And a lot of the film is him using his eyes to observe things that are in his cell. There's only so many things.
There's like a mattress, there is like a lantern, there is a door, there are, he discovers more things. He's just using his natural faculties. And then he finds a way, uses his mind, not relying on any other person to find a way to transform those with things into something he can use to escape. And that is a kind of enchanting idea.
Yeah, sure. That like, especially like dudes, like how if I was in prison, one is like on those thoughts. On the other hand, as you were saying, a theme in the film is that he has an effect on others and others have an effect on him. And you know, eventually we're going to talk about it.
Certain points, he has to make a choice to depend on another human being. Yeah. Not end on his own faculties. And those are, that's, or to go any further, either depend on another human being, on one hand is one choice or to murder that person.
Yes. I was glad you guys said that. That's what I was going to say that to make. So there is this independence that's in the forefront, but then there is his dependence or his connection to other human beings that comes.
One small point on the, I'd like to just one caveat on the notion that the material objects are sort of under his control. He depends on chance for the proper spoons, right? So like he kept saying, if I get a spoon made out of this material, I won't be able to do it. And so he had to keep, there are these occasional chance encounters even there that sort of, OK, I finally got an iron spoon.
And then someone else mentions to him the prospect of turning the lantern into something that can be used for the hooks, right? So that's not his own, that's not his own, but that's not to disagree with anything you just said. It's a wonderful film, but there's a really good scene that compliments this alternative in the title, I think, where it's towards the middle of the film when he's in the yard. And the priest that's one of the inmates has been, has been wanting a Bible.
And that priest can, conveys that he has now gotten a Bible somehow. And Fontaine says to him, it's a miracle. And then the priest says, I was lucky. Yeah.
That's interesting. Yeah. And immediately after this happens, Fontaine finds sitting on a ledge the second spoon that he needs, right? That he has to have in order to properly get the slats of the door out from the frame.
He can't do it with the one broken spoon he has. And it's he just happens to find the second one after this exchange, which is interesting. Yeah, and that brings up another size. And so we have a Providence slash chance, the ambiguity between the two.
And then there's the guy is escaping through his own sort of abilities, right? And there's one boy where he's talking and they're talking about prayer. And he mentions like praying to the spoon or something like that, right? Or there's a suggestion, right?
He looks to the spoon or something like that. It comes to the spoon. Is that right? I might be forgetting the details of that.
I mean, no, it's I think what you're thinking of is he's talking to his sort of despondent neighbor who's an old man. He says, Fontaine says to the neighbor, will meet again. And the neighbor is this old man and he doesn't think it's going to happen. And so he says, maybe in another life to which Fontaine then replies, I have to believe that we'll meet again in this one.
And then to that, his neighbor, Blanchett is his name says, believe in your hooks and in your hopes and in yourself, you have doubts. And then Fontaine says the hard part is to set out. Yeah. And that that theme brought in another point, which is that it's very rudimentary, but there seems to be a theme of technology as well, right?
Inventiveness, taking the resources, the scarce resources that are given you in the cell. And if you take the cell as representative in some way of a kind of pessimistic view of the world that you have to take what little things are built and turn them there is that reliance though, though, as you know, the theme of chance or providence underscores that as well, right? Like you have what you have, you know, in the world around you, even if it's smaller, if it's large, thanks to chance or thanks to God's gift, right? And it's it there is a kind of ambiguity as he goes through the film.
For instance, when he's leaving and his cellmate, Joe's leaves behind their shoes and jackets, you're really worried for them. And it turns out not to matter. And it turns out that the guy's presence, while it brings some, you know, bad things with it also brings him good, right? And it ends up saving him that he has a second guy out there, right?
But then ultimately when they leave and they're like, sorry, we're running the movies too bad. But as they're like screying down the street, you notice they seem a little cold and they don't have shoes. And you're like, they're going to find out these guys have no jackets, no shoes. They're going to think, Oh, these guys must be put now.
Maybe they have a place to go. You have zero context and that ambiguity serves the film well because I personally, even though they escaped, I was like relieved that they got past the guards, but I was not by any means like relieved simply, right? I was very much like, I wanted to know, I was hoping he made a man escaped to like escape harder or something like that. But I was not.
I was not feeling great at the end of the movie. Yeah. I did read that actually in real life, the guy that this is based on to get recaptured effect. So the movie actually ends on a much more optimistic.
But I was here at a silly idea. There's shoelessness at the end. I'm only reminded of this because of the very cover of Abbey Road by the Beatles, that when you're buried, they typically will not put shoes on the corpse. And I do wonder if there's, I mean, I kept trying to think through this, like the whole idea is to be born again, right?
So when you're born again, then you go to heaven, it's almost like the jail, I mean, this is obvious, not at all in cycle, but the jail is kind of a metaphor and allegory for our lives. That's how we are. We're actually in this prison. We have limited resources available to us.
There are all these problems and how does one get out of it? And it's almost like the escape is into heaven. And there is this sort of foggy mist that they retreat to in the very end. I don't know if it's like they've gone on to another life.
Yeah. There's something nice here too that there's there's kind of this old teaching that God helps those who help themselves. Right. Things like that might be the theme of the movie and what my favorite one of my favorite things about that just aside, no, by the way, is when I was a young man, the child, one of my favorite books was Where the Red Ferns Throw.
You may remember this novel. And in that book, the kid is praying for he wants a hunting dog so bad. And his grandpa finally pulls my side and says, look, kid, as it says in the Bible, God helps those who help themselves. And the kid then goes and he raises the money and buys the dogs.
And like for me, as the empress like, this is one of the greatest lessons ever. I told it. It wasn't until I was in the Doloh, I was like, that is not in the Bible. Yes, it's from Benjamin Franklin.
Our great. Yeah. Right. That's that comical.
So it's also an Aristotle in my monadies though. Right. Yeah, of course. Probably is interpreted by them.
And the man with intellect applies it and gets along pretty well. Yeah. But I think it's a thing like the thing that makes me reticent to go all the way in the direct direction, which is possibly impious or something is I think Reliance on God or something is not so clear, but reliance on other human beings whom you do not have reason to trust is like a gen team. And I want to suggest also that's like genuinely Christian, which is there's not good reason to trust other human beings without some underlying like he trusts our main character, Fontaine, he trusts at the very beginning, he trusts the old guy before we go through the work.
It would be a moment to like introduce the characters. Oh, yeah, please, please, please talk about the characters in those. And James had done this ahead of time. So maybe James wants to go through the main characters.
Yeah, or at least a couple of them. The old man we just mentioned is Terry is what he's called and he's an old man who's sort of pacing back and forth. And each time he comes close to Fontaine's window on the ground floor, they can exchange some words and Fontaine is able to get from Terry his first tool. So he gets some twine that he can use and he also gets a pin from the women who are being held in a different part of the camp and that pin allows him to get his handcuffs off.
So very important. And he passes some letters to Terry who is apparently in charge of getting things in and out of the prison. So there's some good trust there that's developed between those two. And then ultimately Fontaine's moved to the top floor and he can't talk to Terry anymore.
I want to add just about the that first stage is that he gets the safety pin so he can take his handcuffs off. He takes his hands off cost off for no other reason than it feels good. And it feels physically good and it feels good to know that you have tricked your guards into taking your handcuffs off and then moved into a new place where he doesn't have to wear handcuffs anymore. Nevertheless, the ability to take his handcuffs off just by itself is is a morale booster is like good.
Yeah, and that's that's a part of his character that I think is worth noting. Same thing happens when they're collecting pencils, right? They say if you don't give him your pencil, you're fine. If we find it later, you know, you're you're going to be put to death and he's going to give it in.
It makes abundant sense, but there's a kind of willfulness about him that refuses. And even though this is, yeah, no, I'm not sure he was going to give it back. Actually, I think because he just says he's going to give it back to the other guys. He could be being dishonest to them so that they think he's giving it back.
But doesn't he say to himself or think to himself like, is this stupid? But I just wanted to resist or something like that. In any case, did you find just on this thing before you go on to the other characters, do you find that he becomes as he becomes gets closer and closer to his goal, he becomes less and less trusting, right? Because he somehow gets more and more confident in his abilities over and against people's doubts.
It feels like initially what he does with Terry is very risky. And then as he goes along further, he's increasingly an island or increasingly isolated. And people trust the guy across the wall who's going to alert him. He trusts his neighbor not to rat him out.
He says that every day, right? Like I'm just trusting that nobody's going to say anything. But yeah, I think I still take your point. I just I was just to just to follow it as we keep going.
Yeah. All right. So we got Terry and the other two guys who remain unnamed and they walk with him, but he doesn't talk to them. So, right.
Yeah, we never hear anything from them. And then I guess one of the rhythms of the movie is that he is in his cell doing things. And then there's a kind of ritual of them carrying the slot pails down and emptying them out. And then he gets a few moments at the trough where he can talk to the other man.
Alex, what's a slot pale for the folks at home, Alex? So you do business, my friend. Gotcha. Thanks.
Sorry. Keep going, James. Yeah. And so one of the characters this way.
Yeah. One of them is named Hey, Broad, I think. I'm not sure how you pronounce that, but this man is sort of a pessimist. And one of the key scenes with him is a word starting to spread around camp that Fontaine is going to be executed soon, like sentences been passed and it could come at any time.
And the priest, another character we meet wants to warn Fontaine to get a move on. And how broad position is what will happen will happen. It doesn't matter. He doesn't want to be involved.
Now, the pastor, on the other hand, has his very close connection to Fontaine. He's trying to get a Bible most of the time. He settles for a pencil initially, because at least then he can write. He passes the verses that we already discussed onto Fontaine at some point.
And he's the neighbor across the way that actually is keeping lookout for him. And this is just great sound design too for the film, which is so quiet in many places. And you just hear the signaling that there's no one watching. You know, it's fascinating.
So I like the priest a lot. There's some pretty good scenes with him. Then directly next door to him is a man named Blanchett. And this is an old man who got wrapped up through evidently no fault of his own and then thrown in prison.
And he's convinced he's going to die there. He refuses to communicate so that the prisoners tend to knock on the walls to communicate to each other. And he won't respond at all to Fontaine initially. And this is a great cause of fear for Fontaine because he doesn't, you know, he's scratching at the door trying to get these planks whittled down.
And he has no idea that this guy's going to rat him out at any point. So that's another very interesting character in a relationship develops there. Maybe we can come back to a couple more characters or Cini is a man who was betrayed by his wife. And most of the inmates take great pity on him.
Like this is a catastrophe that his wife turned him in. And you know, there's a question around the camp like he didn't manage to kill her before he got here. It's like, pretty brutal. And or Cini desperately wants to get out as well.
So he gets brought in on Fontaine's plan and ultimately concludes Fontaine's plan is too difficult. So he's going to go his own way. Just a small point. I mean, this is maybe ridiculous, but sort of Machiavelli in the back of my head.
His name is related to the word for bear right from Latin. So is he just not is he like bearing bear like rushing into his escape? He doesn't do the thing that our main character does. I'm saying that he's not thinking it through.
I don't know. I just I was trying to the whole time to think of any of these names and that couldn't really make sense of any of them. But I think that's plausible that he's driven by passion and he's he is impatient. Right.
That makes some sense. And then finally, there's the character of Jost who after Fontaine is condemned to death after he is prepared entirely to make his escape. Suddenly, the prison is filling up. Everyone's two to a room now and he is given this 16 year old boy who has lice and smells and is wearing a German coat with his French pants.
And so this is a source of great fear for Fontaine as well. Like is this an informant that they've put in with me? And then that leads to the decisive action or the decisive moment is the decision whether to kill Jost or to take him along because it's got to be one of the other. So I think we should like return to Jost, but a couple of things on another character, the the neighbor who is not responding initially to our hero.
And he's worried about him. It turns out in a conversation that stated later that he was about to commit suicide or in fact, he had the news around his neck when he heard the tapping. And this also gets to the like sound design that's they don't see each other. They know nothing about each other or their intentions.
They can only guess about each other. He was about to kill himself and he heard some tapping and that tapping saved him or gave him the little bit of competency needed not to kill himself. And that's like a pin broke or something like it failed. That's what he said.
Yeah. Like he tried to hit himself, which I thought was interesting because the one guy is using technology to sorry, the one guy is using technology to escape prison. The guy's like, what can I use in this place to off myself and escape? He could have gotten really good hook technology from the other guy.
Yeah. Yeah. I thought that it might have been ambiguous too that Blanchett might have already tried to kill himself and his method failed and then he heard the tapping. So I wasn't perfectly clear on which way that was.
Yeah, I wasn't either. The tendency in case the trajectory is one of utter despair, right? Slowly through at first he complained saying like he doesn't tell on him. I was like, I can tell that you're trying to use something to carve up your door and get out.
You're going to get the whole block in trouble. Yeah. And then by the end of this progress, he is offering him advice or even hope or encouragement. And he I mean, by his aspect or his statements, he his actions.
It's clear that he is no longer as despondent. Now it was not primarily that the main, you know, character's intention to give this fellow hope. That's not his the only thing he's doing. But he finds that he's giving someone hope and that becomes part of his plot.
It's not part of his plot initially to give hope, but but but it becomes part of his plot. I mean, I think there's a similar question there with his relation to other characters. Yeah. Well, we've gone through the plot fairly.
It's a simple plot. I would try to hit it why this movie is so gripping. We've talked about some of the main characters. We've talked a lot about sound.
And I mentioned this quote from Brisson in this interview that I saw where he says he would prefer to sort of show things through sound rather than through sight. One of the interesting things right at the start when it's doing the credits, it mentioned that all the music was from Mozart. I found that interesting. It really attracted my attention.
I was just wondering if either of you had any comments about the music and Mozart as a choice. And at one point, actually read one of the interviews or I was watching the interview with him and he said something about one of the scenes he played highly religious piece by Mozart that contrasted, he said greatly with the action that was happening on scenes, but it wasn't meant to actually compliment it, but rather to contrast. I don't know if you guys have any further thoughts. I know that Alex and Tom know a lot more about Mozart than I do.
So I mean, it's from it's one of my favorite Mozart pieces, the great mass and C minor, which is I think Mozart. So I mean, my mind, instead of my thoughts were, OK, it's a mass also. But I saw it was a fantastic piece. I mean, it's very moving from very beginning of the mass to and he just plays the one theme over and over again, right?
I think that's right. There's I think two versions. So in the opening credits and in the closing credits and then in the central of seven uses of the music, there's there's a wire and then the other ones are all just like a phrase that repeats and it tends to repeat somewhere in proximity of them doing the ritual with the pales. It's either just before or during or just after.
That's what I know. You cannot you cannot mention numbers on this podcast. It means it's like it's like it's just horrible. Listen, he mentioned breast one to 13 films and I didn't say word.
OK, I just put that away. I didn't say word. I wanted to, but I didn't. Well, actually, but this is the seventh of the 13, right?
Is this? Yeah. The I mean, you were saying that it happens. The music tends to occur when they go out.
I don't know how often it is, but it is one time to say like once a week. I'm not sure of that's case, but it plays the role of like church somehow that they gather together during that time. Oh, that was good. A terrible, it's a terrible, they are they are pouring out slop buckets, which is not great.
And it's also they tend to function as a kind of transition moment. I don't know if you followed more closely than I did James, whether what the character of those transitions are, but the music that there's there's internal sound in the movie that is very important that the character is hearing it. And that's part of his world, how he positions himself. I don't know how to characterize this mode start, which is not supposed to be heard by the characters, or I don't know, even supposed to be representative of the inner life of the characters.
I think it might have a different role, but I don't have trouble articulating what that is. I get a sense of hopefulness out of the music. And that seems related to when it plays as well, that there's it doesn't ever play when there's cause for despair. It seems to play when there's cause for hope.
And so in of the seven times it plays in between the beginning and the end. So it's like nine times total. But the one time that there's vocals is when or seen he makes his run for it. That's when you get the vocal version again.
He takes off and there's a longer version that plays with the vocals and he tries to make his escape, which ultimately fails, but that's when the music plays. Well, and I would say about the failed escape as something worthy of celebration is sort of in the spirit of the film anyway, as I said, like the opening scene is a failed escape. The next day when he gets his handcuffs off, which does absolutely no good, but you know, is a spiritual release or something. And or see any escaping is is you know, he gets caught, doesn't end up well for him.
Now it's good in itself. It also turns out that he sends a message, I think, maybe can someone learn about the hooks. Yeah. Yeah.
He's going to need two sets of hooks to get out of here. And he comments like it's a piece of luck or more than luck that this first attempt was made because otherwise I would not have discovered the truth or no one would have discovered the truth, namely that you need to make some more hooks. So like, would you need two hooks? But you actually need three.
Yeah, three. Get away with two because he has two guys. Right. Isn't that the thing that so the guy didn't get far enough to realize how many hooks?
So it was fake news, right? And so he needed to get a Joe's involved. That's the Joe's to leave something behind, but he helps them recover something as well. Right.
One thing about the Joe's by the way, so we've kind of alluded to this already, but really so our protagonists has been in solitude the entire time. He spends the first two weeks or so. He says 15 days, but I don't actually know in sort of solitary. If I'm in the basement by himself, then he's moved upstairs into a nicer place where he's by himself.
And for the duration, the almost the entire duration of his planning and executing of everything that's necessary for the escape. But then right as he has everything readied, he's he's saddled with a roommate, just. And so I realized we said sort of tongue in cheek that the title of the film gives away the plot of the movie, a man condemned to death as escape. But there is now the ambiguity that maybe only one of the two of them will escape in fact.
And so there's, I mean, at least in the audience's mind, I guess, Yost has also been condemned to death. Is that right? You don't know, but it seems like if you OK, well, if you haven't, then I guess, sure, sure. Yeah, that's fine.
We're all condemned to death for this. Isn't that part of the plot anyway? But I'm actually somewhat serious about that. But so there is another person on movies.
So definitely the right track. No, I don't know. I guess just I forgot where I was going there, but just how the ending it's still somewhat open ended. And Yost how central was he?
I had picked up on that that actually helped him to escape versus as Tom alluded to our protagonist does actually wrestle with the question of whether or not he should kill this guy, Yost. Yeah, I guess I would. I think some of this is like logistical what role does he play in it? Some of it is not merely logistical.
What is the grounds on just not kill this man? We see in the itself he's willing to kill a human being. He kills German guard because that becomes necessary. That is off screen is a small technicality.
It's left to our imagination. But yes, it's terrible. It's terrible to kill a person. I think it's like underlying a thought in the movie.
But so all I'm there to say is that why doesn't he kill this man? Yeah. Does he have good reasons or does he have? I mean, what are his reasons if we can discover?
In my view, the cinematography seems to be implying that our hero wouldn't do that out of moral concerns. Because it's not it doesn't strike me as rational. Like a strictly calculating escapee. It's not clear why he would bring him in to help.
When he can't know, he can't help to help. Yeah, when he puts the question to himself, he asks if he would have the courage to kill this kid in cold blood. Right. Which kind of speaks to both sides, right?
Because like he might consider it courage to do what has to be done. But on the other hand, it's in cold blood and that seems shameful. Right. And this kind of indecision of Fontaine seems to be a thing in a way.
Oh, because no, the longer he's waiting to execute this plan of his, he's losing the confidence of the men around him as well. They've invested so much in him. But he's for some reason finds it hard to act to begin the escape. So I ask a related question to Tom's question, which I think might help not answer it maybe, but at least help us think about it, which is why does he want to escape?
Does he want just to have his freedom or does he want to help the resistance more? And might it be that killing this is how I think it might relate? That killing him would ultimately be a blow the resistance. And it might be worth taking the risk of bringing this kid.
If indeed at such a young age, he's done what he seems to have done, which is, you know, turned to code on a German. Right. In that case, in that case, it would suggest that there is a deeply moral motive rather than a sort of self-interested motive in getting out of prison. Right.
It's not just his own freedom, but it's somehow to fight the Germans. Right. They continue the resistance. Did you see the audience for that long?
No, I'm just asking, do we get any sense of what he wants to do? I didn't. There's the scene with Blanchett, like one of the early ones where the issue of breaking out comes up and Blanchett's worried about getting the whole floor punishment stuff and he says, you know, why bother? Why are you bothering with this?
And Fontaine tells him to fight to fight the walls, to fight myself, to fight the door. And Blanchett says, what are you hoping for? And Fontaine, I guess, gives the answer we're looking for. He says he wants to go home and he wants to be free.
So by extension, I think he's going to have to keep fighting the war to make that happen as well. That's going to be a necessary step. There is a discussion about who will win the war at one point, right? Two.
And he's the one that expresses optimism that they'll win. So one of the things in my head was he must be wanted to is like, I can see myself saying, you know, our side's going to win when I just waited out in jail, but he does know that there's a prospect that he'll have a trial and be condemned to death, but he doesn't know when it's coming. And so I just imagine that's a huge threat, right? For him, his own mortality.
He remembers escaping death. He's not escaping. The title is not a man escapes prison. But yes.
Well, I think though I want to come back to I think Alex's point, which is that if he just wants freedom, if the only thing he cares about freedom, there would be not much preventing him from murdering this boy, I think. Right. So if he wants to continue fighting, maybe there's the consideration steams was having, but I also think that the murder killing someone without a trial, you know, is a pretty bad thing. Let's say it's even a question whether he was intending to turn to the other side.
He's not been given a trial. You're going to murder this man. Now, if you have someone who was a German guard, it's clear they are the enemy and you're justified in killing them. So I mean, I think I think that's maybe part of the consideration.
All that this is this is someone that has presumably sinned in some way, but they are deserving of forgiveness and it would be wrong to murder them. You know, you've probably factors in here too, right? Like he's seen he's presented this young and innocent, not fully knowing what he's doing. It's a small point, but I was like, how did he kill how did Fontaine kill the German guard?
Because he has the one weapon. He's like, this won't work. He puts it down and then he just goes at him with his bare hands. So this movie, which has been all about weapons and tools and manufacturing things.
He just goes at the guard with his, like, I thought it was very, I assume it was very intentional, right? Both hands lifted up in the air. He turns the corner to try and go after him. And as we've mentioned, it's off screen too.
So you don't know. You don't know. You see, you see a part of the body as they're moving away towards the wall and but not the act itself. And that parallels the beginning when Fontaine makes his escape attempt out of the car.
You don't see what happens there. Either you hear it non shots and then he gets dragged back and the camera stays steady on the prisoner that was next to him in the car. The whole time. The limps is what's happening outside the window.
It's kind of amazing. But I wondered about that. Like there's these two shots at the beginning and the end of the movie where the main action is off screen, right? Everything else you're like with Fontaine the whole time.
And that seems very deliberate, but you know, why? I thought so too. I just want to make one more point about the murder. He murder kills a man.
We'll say that. He puts down the hook he has on hand. Either. I think the statement is because it's unreliable, but I can't help.
That's what he said. Something like it is if you're going to kill someone, you need to do it honestly. And you're so you're going to face them and you're going to use your hands rather than I mean, all the other murders we hear with guns off screen and the person is going to get away. This is two human beings facing each other.
I always say away from him. You think he's. We don't know. Yeah, we don't know.
Yeah, we don't know. I would be interesting to follow this because you can. I guess we are. I mean, you don't see him.
You hear him walking back and forth and you can imagine which direction he is facing. I think well, you can imagine he turns around. So imagine why is it could be he was facing their face. They're facing each other or he's already turned around.
He got him as he turned back away. But then if I recall properly, when we see we pan back and see the guard dead, he's lying on his back feet up. Right. And it seems like therefore from that angle that it would have been face to face.
You're right. And I had that wrong. I mean, couldn't he I mean, it's not around. But it could also be that it's quieter to choke someone than to flack him in the head or something.
You speak from experience helps? Yeah. Anyway, can I ask another sort of question? So he's wearing the same shirt the whole time and there's some clear blood marks from being beaten or gondos what right.
And at one point he gets a package of clothing and he immediately slices it with a blade to turn it into a right with the wires from his bed. So the one of the interesting things I think about this film, this detail really powerfully reveals is that you would think the guards would be like, hey, we just gave him new clothes that he got a package. Why is he still wearing this? Obviously the same shirt you see it all the time.
And that's very risky. Why not put on a new shirt and then tear up the old one? Maybe it's not as strong, but at least it's it gives him plausible deniability, whereas this is like very strange that he wouldn't wear this. And there's not a single, even though he's so deliberate and so careful, there's no reflection on this possibility.
I'll say one thing. I'll say one thing in defense of him and then one to amplify yours. One is that one is that one is that on the one hand, he's deliberate and he's very careful and he's reflecting on on possible flaws. On the other hand, there are clear places where he's not reflecting on that.
And yet it seems to be his two judgment. And I wonder if in those moments, there's something like those are a good hinge point into getting into the chance and the Providence thing, right? Well, to the chance technology slash chance products. Well, the chance point, I mean, it comes out of nowhere.
It's not by his own doing that these clothes arrive. I mean, I guess unless you want to trace it to the letter that he managed to get out early on. That's right. That is what I had.
OK, OK, but then the second point, only one guard sees what's in the box and he spends a split second. Just making sure it's not weapons. Yeah. So I mean, it's just the one guy and if that's his job is like, you know, maybe you're relying on him not keeping track very close track of what people actually get.
But yeah, I thought the same thing about the clothes. Let me turn to the final question, then, unless you guys have any other thoughts about Prasan and cinematography we've already talked about. But this is a podcast in political philosophy. The four of us are all really interested in questions of political philosophy.
Why will I enjoy this film? You guys, I think, rightly diagnosed this would be a film that I would enjoy watching and talking about. Why? What questions of political philosophy does this film raise that make it of interest to someone like us?
So why should students of political philosophy watch a man escaped? The question threw me for a loop initially because on the one hand, it's sort of contrary to Prasan's intention to watch his films and come away with ideas about political topics like war and nobility and self-sacrifice or the kinds of things that we've drawn out of the film. Instead, he doesn't want to communicate things about those ideas. He wants to allow something transcendent to express itself via these aesthetic plots and minute images of tools and hands doing their work and so on.
He wants something to express itself through that to us. And so he wants to transform us in some way by feeling something. And so I guess for me, what I love about this film is just how successful it is. And for we who study political philosophy and are moved by risk and nobility and justice and the problems of war and peace and our relation to our political community, those feelings are important.
And so I like having the chance to feel them in Prasan's films. I think we introduced this name at the top, which is between relying on oneself or depending on chance or trusting in providence. There's something like I said very enchanting about this, that a man uses his own faculty to understand the world and then find his way out of it. And then on one hand, on the other hand, he becomes aware of his reliance on other human beings and perhaps some duties he has other human beings and further beyond that, I don't even know if clearly this is in the mind of the character, per se.
There seems to be it seems to me that it's Prasan's opinion that the world has a kind of providence or order that can be revealed through just observing these actions. That's something that's demonstrated, approved, but it is a work of art that that paints a picture of what it would like would be like to imagine you lived in such a world or what it would be like to come to think that the world was so ordered. So from that point of view, it's very interesting to themes that are related to philosophy. I would not say I would not say I would call it a philosophic film.
I would say it's a work of art by a Christian or believing filmmaker that is apt for reflection. Sorry, just to ask you to clarify that point, is it something like through the observation, if you were in his place and the film really encourages you to be in his place, and if you were in this place taking these deliberate steps and noticing that things tend to work for you, it would all seem like a divine plan, where you'd be convinced, or persuaded, that's maybe that's like a little too crude from like how subtle the film is, but yeah, something like that is what I have in mind. And I mean, the obvious things is like he gets out, he gets out after he doesn't murder a guy and therefore one might conclude that when you don't murder people, you get out. But it's far too crude, a representation of the film.
I think it comes out in much more subtle ways than that simple reason. I find that my experience of the film has changed since I've watched it in, you know, every couple of years for 20 years or so. At first, I was very struck by Fontaine's sensuality, as it were, his dedication to just working with his hands to solving this practical problem of getting out of the prison step by step. And this last time I watched it, I'm now much more struck by the role that chance and or providence plays in him being able to execute the plan as he wished.
Like so many things had to go his way in order for it to work. Like he had to be near Terry at the beginning when he's up on the top floor. Like he had to get things from other people that were volunteered. He had to find the spoon by chance.
There's a lot of things that are he they got given the extra mattress when Joe's moved into and it turns out they really needed that rope. Like if he didn't have that rope and then when he gets taken off to be condemned, he's he is sweating bullets that they're not going to put him back in the same room where all his stuff is. Yeah. They do put him back in the same room.
So there's a lot of these chances which you'd be able to do. There was a hand guiding these chances. Right. Well, even if there was a lapse at all between the sentencing and the execution, like that, like how many days?
Why is that? So many days because it's I couldn't quite count. I probably should have gone back. But several days passed between the sentence and when he escapes.
They don't I mean, he has no idea when the execution is planned. So any. All right. I did find a quote from Bresson on this that he says, in a man escaped, I tried to make the audience feel these extraordinary currents, which existed in the German prisons of the resistance, the presence of something or someone unseen, a hand that directs all.
Well, there's your authorial intent intent. The title has wind in it and then his name is water. I guess I sort of got the same kind of. I don't know if that's probably another bridge to farm.
Yes, I'm sorry. This is something that I find often happens in any kind of like heist or escape movie or anything that the more brilliant the main character becomes, though more they rely on external causes or external resources, precisely because if you're going to be brilliant, you need to draw on things and show your ingenuity. But then that means that you need to have those things available to you. Right.
And there's a certain moment where this just trying to speak to your sort of changing relationship to the film, James. But there's a sort of moment where you look at and you're like, yeah, this guy's smart, but fundamentally, he's no different from like Mr. But do right where he's about to walk off the ledge and then a beam comes and he just happens to walk onto it and he's nature's not to be OK far more self aware, but you're never so self aware and never so cunning that you can overcome your reliance on people and things. Yeah, maybe just as a final thought, I would encourage folks to watch the movie.
You can rent it on Apple TV or Amazon Prime or if you happen to have the criterion channel, you can watch it there for free. It's a fantastic film. I probably will watch it again. I learned a lot.
I enjoyed our conversation. James, I think this was originally your idea. So I appreciate the suggestion. This was a good episode.
I think folks will enjoy it. Any last remarks, folks? Other breast on films. I want to know what to watch next.
Right. Pickpocket. I read of a country priest is very, very good. Diary of a country priest and pickpocket.
Tom recommended pickpocket. But both those available. The option there will find them. Cool.
Maybe we'll do another episode on those. Well, folks, don't forget like rate subscribe. If you like what you hear, if you don't like what you hear, send twice as much money and we'll try to get better. It's true.
Yeah. We'll see you next time on the new thing for you, folks. Do do do do do do do do.