Posts
The Day of the Jackal (1973) follows the planning and progress of a killer who is hired by the terrorist O.A.S. to kill President Charles de Gaulle. Although the movie has some mannered moments it holds up well to the test of time and remains rivetting even though the ultimate outcome is perforce known.
The scenematography did well in capturing the ambience of a post war Europe that was becoming modern while still having a foot decidedly planted in the old world. It was refreshing to see memories of a France that was not yet Global.
The old ways were interesting for another more relevant and non-nostalgic purpose as well; they teach us what exactly is involved in “fighting terrorism.”
Although, in the wake of 9/11, there was a certain amount of confused palaver among the ignorant, the definition of terrorism is and always was rather simple. It is the unofficial resort to violence for political purposes. Violence is resorted to by different actors for different purposes. The execution by the state of a convicted criminal is a homicide as much as that criminal’s killing of another human being but it is not murder because it is undertaken in accordance with the law and not against it. It is not merely the official status of the executioner that distinguishes the homicide from murder or terrorism but also the fact that the act is done according to law. In contrast, the violence of the criminal is, by definition, undertaken contrary to law. Traditionally, therefore, the terrorist has been regarded as a criminal because he acts in no official capacity, on behalf of no State, and contrary to law. For this reason, terrorists have been pursued and punished like criminals and have not been treated with that deference accorded to soldiers and other agents of a government.
However, in terms of addressing the causes of terrorism, it has always been recognized that the difference between an ordinary criminal and a terrorist criminal lies in their respective motivations. The typical criminal acts for private motives of gain, vengeance or satisfaction. The terrorist criminal on the other hand acts pursuant to a political agenda and perceived political wrongs. In a sense, the terrorist is “altruistic” whereas the criminal is merely “selfish”.
These distinctions were always understood well enough until a sociologically debased education hopelessly addled the minds of most people and of the more educated the most.
In the early 1960’s the O.A.S. was a terrorist organization comprised of former French colonialists, renegade members of the army and ultra right nationalists. They were bound and determined to de-legitimise the De Gaulle government on account of the fact that it had recognized the inevitability of Algerian independence. In addition to various bombings undertaken to supposedly “prove” that the government could not maintain law and order, the O.A.S. also undertook to assassinate Charles de Gaulle. In response, the French Securité undertook to infiltrate and incapacitate the O.A.S, and it was here that The Day of the Jackal began.
In order to assassinate DeGaulle, the O.A.S. leaders resolved to hire an “untraceable” foreign killer. Enter Edward Fox as Her Majesty’s not-so-loyal subject, Charles Calthrop. For the astronomical sum of $500,000.00 dollars [ah those innocent times!] Calthrop undertakes the murderous task. What the movie traces, in fascinating detail, is the multi layered deception Charles Calthrop -- Cha-Cal -- undertakes while playing chess with the multi-level investigation of the French security service. It is classic Mouse and Cat.
What is remarkable today is the ease with which Calthrop can obtain multiple fake identities, the sine qua non of his game-plan. Equally fascinating is the difficulty the security services have in detecting anything in the pre IBM 8088 era. We are in a universe where a birth certificate can be obtained merely by rummaging around in the musty library of the Civil Record Section and where the Homeland Securité is reduced to rummaging through 3x5 inch index cards, calling up other police departments to rummage through their index cards and asking train-station police to keep their eyes open. We are taken, in short, to a world which is primitive and charming.
An example will suffice to illustrate the point. In Europe, in those days, it was customary for the police to pick up daily hotel registration cards. Just as the paper boy daily delivered his papers, so the police couriers daily picked up the registration cards which were then filed away somewhere and, typically, forgotten. Thus, part of the drama, in Jackal, is the extent to which Calthrop can keep ahead of the daily pickups and, conversely, how quickly the police -- all over France -- can gather them up, spread them out on a table, rummage through them and call up the results to inspectors in Paris who then pass on the information to Chief Inspector.
Within this retro fitted world, the movie treats us to the multifarious minutiae of crime. To carry out his assignment, Calthrop needs a made to order weapon, which can be disassembled and concealed in such a way that it can be stuck into the underbelly of a car and not be detected while crossing a border. For this alone he needs: a special (“non commercial”) gunsmith, the materials for the special ammunition, and a place to modify the chassis of the car unbeknownst to anyone else.
Of all this, Securité knows absolutely nothing and in the days before EFT’s and X-ray scanners can know nothing. There are 300 million European denizens “out there” anyone one of whom could be the terrorist in the crowd. Securité suspects something is afoot, but a suspicion is all it has. To get a grip on things, it resorts to torturing the life out of a “likely” suspect. From the garbled groans and shrieks of the "interrogee” our intrepid pain inflictors gleen the sound of “Jackie...” And on that slim reed, index card by index card, they build a likely identity of the likely “suspect”.
Although it was not the movie’s intent, the immense difficulty of building a profile was illustrated by scenes depicting the delivery of intra-ministerial messages. Because the French government cannot be sure that it is not being spied upon (i.e. “leaked”) it eschews the phone wires for ultra sensitive communications. There is a kind of irony here; but in all events we are treated to scenes of motorcycled couriers managing Parisian traffic to deliver an “eyes only” envelope from Minister A to Minister B. It is utterly charmant; and we have to remark here, although it is beside the point, that apparently the French moto-couriers all used BMWs. Pas des deux chevaux, hein?
What all this too’ing and fro’ing shows is how complicated and difficult it is to “combat terrorism”. At the same time, by illustrating the impediments then the movie shines a light on the dragnet means available now. Scene by scene, the viewer in 2010 cannot but be “critiquing’ the past with his present knowledge of data mining, full body scanning, electronic snooping, and multiple layers of barriers and impediments to obtaining any information, including one’s own birth certificate. Thus, what the movie ends up illustrating, in an inverse way, is the depth and pervasiveness of the police surveillance and control needed to combat terrorism and how pervasive and all encompassing our Security State has become.
The movie deals with ferreting out one man. Our present security forces must deal (so they say) with the task of ferreting out any number of men anywhere, any time. To do that they need and want total surveillance of all movements in life.
For Charles De Gaulle, Richard, for Charles de Gaulle?
.
The scenematography did well in capturing the ambience of a post war Europe that was becoming modern while still having a foot decidedly planted in the old world. It was refreshing to see memories of a France that was not yet Global.
The old ways were interesting for another more relevant and non-nostalgic purpose as well; they teach us what exactly is involved in “fighting terrorism.”
Although, in the wake of 9/11, there was a certain amount of confused palaver among the ignorant, the definition of terrorism is and always was rather simple. It is the unofficial resort to violence for political purposes. Violence is resorted to by different actors for different purposes. The execution by the state of a convicted criminal is a homicide as much as that criminal’s killing of another human being but it is not murder because it is undertaken in accordance with the law and not against it. It is not merely the official status of the executioner that distinguishes the homicide from murder or terrorism but also the fact that the act is done according to law. In contrast, the violence of the criminal is, by definition, undertaken contrary to law. Traditionally, therefore, the terrorist has been regarded as a criminal because he acts in no official capacity, on behalf of no State, and contrary to law. For this reason, terrorists have been pursued and punished like criminals and have not been treated with that deference accorded to soldiers and other agents of a government.
However, in terms of addressing the causes of terrorism, it has always been recognized that the difference between an ordinary criminal and a terrorist criminal lies in their respective motivations. The typical criminal acts for private motives of gain, vengeance or satisfaction. The terrorist criminal on the other hand acts pursuant to a political agenda and perceived political wrongs. In a sense, the terrorist is “altruistic” whereas the criminal is merely “selfish”.
These distinctions were always understood well enough until a sociologically debased education hopelessly addled the minds of most people and of the more educated the most.
In the early 1960’s the O.A.S. was a terrorist organization comprised of former French colonialists, renegade members of the army and ultra right nationalists. They were bound and determined to de-legitimise the De Gaulle government on account of the fact that it had recognized the inevitability of Algerian independence. In addition to various bombings undertaken to supposedly “prove” that the government could not maintain law and order, the O.A.S. also undertook to assassinate Charles de Gaulle. In response, the French Securité undertook to infiltrate and incapacitate the O.A.S, and it was here that The Day of the Jackal began.
In order to assassinate DeGaulle, the O.A.S. leaders resolved to hire an “untraceable” foreign killer. Enter Edward Fox as Her Majesty’s not-so-loyal subject, Charles Calthrop. For the astronomical sum of $500,000.00 dollars [ah those innocent times!] Calthrop undertakes the murderous task. What the movie traces, in fascinating detail, is the multi layered deception Charles Calthrop -- Cha-Cal -- undertakes while playing chess with the multi-level investigation of the French security service. It is classic Mouse and Cat.
What is remarkable today is the ease with which Calthrop can obtain multiple fake identities, the sine qua non of his game-plan. Equally fascinating is the difficulty the security services have in detecting anything in the pre IBM 8088 era. We are in a universe where a birth certificate can be obtained merely by rummaging around in the musty library of the Civil Record Section and where the Homeland Securité is reduced to rummaging through 3x5 inch index cards, calling up other police departments to rummage through their index cards and asking train-station police to keep their eyes open. We are taken, in short, to a world which is primitive and charming.
An example will suffice to illustrate the point. In Europe, in those days, it was customary for the police to pick up daily hotel registration cards. Just as the paper boy daily delivered his papers, so the police couriers daily picked up the registration cards which were then filed away somewhere and, typically, forgotten. Thus, part of the drama, in Jackal, is the extent to which Calthrop can keep ahead of the daily pickups and, conversely, how quickly the police -- all over France -- can gather them up, spread them out on a table, rummage through them and call up the results to inspectors in Paris who then pass on the information to Chief Inspector.
Within this retro fitted world, the movie treats us to the multifarious minutiae of crime. To carry out his assignment, Calthrop needs a made to order weapon, which can be disassembled and concealed in such a way that it can be stuck into the underbelly of a car and not be detected while crossing a border. For this alone he needs: a special (“non commercial”) gunsmith, the materials for the special ammunition, and a place to modify the chassis of the car unbeknownst to anyone else.
Of all this, Securité knows absolutely nothing and in the days before EFT’s and X-ray scanners can know nothing. There are 300 million European denizens “out there” anyone one of whom could be the terrorist in the crowd. Securité suspects something is afoot, but a suspicion is all it has. To get a grip on things, it resorts to torturing the life out of a “likely” suspect. From the garbled groans and shrieks of the "interrogee” our intrepid pain inflictors gleen the sound of “Jackie...” And on that slim reed, index card by index card, they build a likely identity of the likely “suspect”.
Although it was not the movie’s intent, the immense difficulty of building a profile was illustrated by scenes depicting the delivery of intra-ministerial messages. Because the French government cannot be sure that it is not being spied upon (i.e. “leaked”) it eschews the phone wires for ultra sensitive communications. There is a kind of irony here; but in all events we are treated to scenes of motorcycled couriers managing Parisian traffic to deliver an “eyes only” envelope from Minister A to Minister B. It is utterly charmant; and we have to remark here, although it is beside the point, that apparently the French moto-couriers all used BMWs. Pas des deux chevaux, hein?
What all this too’ing and fro’ing shows is how complicated and difficult it is to “combat terrorism”. At the same time, by illustrating the impediments then the movie shines a light on the dragnet means available now. Scene by scene, the viewer in 2010 cannot but be “critiquing’ the past with his present knowledge of data mining, full body scanning, electronic snooping, and multiple layers of barriers and impediments to obtaining any information, including one’s own birth certificate. Thus, what the movie ends up illustrating, in an inverse way, is the depth and pervasiveness of the police surveillance and control needed to combat terrorism and how pervasive and all encompassing our Security State has become.
The movie deals with ferreting out one man. Our present security forces must deal (so they say) with the task of ferreting out any number of men anywhere, any time. To do that they need and want total surveillance of all movements in life.
For Charles De Gaulle, Richard, for Charles de Gaulle?
.
