Henri-Georges Clouzot’s The Wages of Fear (Le salaire de la peur, 1953) is well-known among cinephiles on several fronts. First, once its second half kicks into gear, and its protagonists are hurtling through the countryside in nitro-laden trucks, it is one of the most nail-biting exercises on film. Wages – along with Les Diaboliques — helped establish Clouzot as major director in international circles. He was at one time considered on a par with Hitchcock as a director of thrillers, and Hitch is said to have felt that his title as “Master of Suspense” was in danger.
In 1977, William Friedkin — following up his massive hit The Exorcist — remade the film as Sorcerer, with an international cast and a massive (at the time) budget. For various reasons — not the least of which was its opening concurrently with a little film called Star Wars — it became one of the infamous box-office failures of the ’70s, and took much of the polish off Friedkin’s boy-wonder image.
By the 70s, the country was in a post-Watergate mood; it had become fashionable to critique American foreign influence. In that climate, the story’s criticism of American corporate dealings wasn’t a big deal. This was not the case in the mid-fifties: Wages was released in the United States with significant cuts, designed to placate American audiences who would not take kindly to its heavy-handed treatment of American involvement in Latin American.
SOC corporate police
The film takes place in Las Pierdas, a fictional South American town populated by ex-pats with shady pasts, employees of the American oil company SOC, and locals seemingly of Native American descent. The latter are portrayed in a patronizing fashion, as a simple, not-entirely bright people. They like to dance outside the local bars and sit in sarapes beside the roads of Southern France, which doubles for South America.
SOC is depicted as a heartless corporation that is in Latin America to (a) steal its oil and (b) exploit the indigenous population for cheap labor to do so. That this has been unfortunately true of some corporate dealings is almost beside the point: filmically, it is not given the most subtle treatment by Clouzot and co-scenarist Jérôme Géronimi. The Americans are portrayed as cold-blooded money mongers, who care little about the welfare of their own workers, much less the impoverished people they use for the most dangerous work.
Buried in American oil
Liberal that I am, I was a little surprised at my negative reaction to Clouzot’s moralizing. After all, I have in my lifetime spent many hours in coffee-houses and bars doing much the same thing. Perhaps it is because the French know whereof they speak when it comes to exploiting foreign populations: just ask the people of Ghana or Cameroon. I have seen first-hand the after-effects of their colonialism in Cameroon, and it wasn’t pretty. And so that’s perhaps why the entire first half of The Wages of Fear left a sour taste in my mouth. The racist, patronizing treatment of the indigenous population is of a part with a colonial mindset, whether the colonialism is military or economic.
I had a similar reaction to The River, and those who’ve read this blog for a while know what a major fan I am of Jean Renoir. That tale of British colonialism reeked of condescension, and I was shocked at the evidence of my famously-humanistic hero’s frailty. Reviews of The River tend to rave about the extreme beauty of its Technicolor photography, just as pieces on The Wages of Fear concentrate on the hurtling suspense of its second half. Personally, I like my films to be more balanced in their thematic and narrative stances. But maybe that’s just me.
RSS 2.0
I totally agree with you about this film, Rick: I always thought I was alone on that one. The first half has always struck me as plodding, moralistic, and borderline racist, a strange and unpleasant combination. Of course, the second half is as taut and tense as everyone says, but I’ve also always been bothered by the arbitrary ending, which seems very contrived and O-Henry-esque.
The ending is indeed a bit arbitrary, Ed. But I was expecting nobody to survive, so I was surprised when Montand’s character survived the journey. I suspect it was a bit of irony, or heavy-handing morality again. The wages of sin, and etc: Mario wasn’t particularly an exemplary human being.
I totally agree with you about this film, Rick: I always thought I was alone on that one.
Ed, Rick, who have you guys been talking to? I’ve never come across a cinephile yet who doesn’t think the first half of this movie is a waste of time. Also, Bill and I discussed it about a year ago or more (before either of you commented on Cinema Styles I think) and we talked about how the ‘truck dancing’ scene at the end damn near sinks the whole movie.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, I believe Friedkin’s remake surpasses this one. Both films spend far too much time with the expository first half so neither I would rank very high as overall achievements but Friedkin’s film works better for me.
To set the record straight, I never thought I was alone, I just had heard a lot about the second half — and it is suspenseful — but not much about the first.
I wanted to see this flick totally on the basis of how much I enjoyed “Diabolique,” which was quite a bit, but also quite a product of its time as well.
And I don’t remember what was discussed on MY blog a year ago, much less yours …
I love Diabolique as well. And I do like the second half of Wages of Fear quite a bit even though unlike you, I didn’t think I was alone in not liking the first half. Like you. Who felt alone. In not liking the first half. You know, how you made it plainly and bluntly clear that YOU – RICK OLSON – FOR THE RECORD thought you were alone in not liking the first half. I’m just saying that unlike YOU, I never did.
Weasel.
Well, I must concur here with you Rick on this film (and with Ed in th ecomments section) The first half does moralize and I always found it rather tedious. DIABOLIQUE is a far better film, even though some critics and audiences are always seduced by the tension-packed second half.
And you the BIGGEST Renoir fan amongst us! He’s your guy, but I love him too, although again I agree with your take on THE RIVER.
Excellent work here.
I completely disagree with all of you.
THE WAGES OF FEAR goes on my short list of best films ever.
It’s bleak look at the life and the world had me hooked since my first viewing.
The cynical ending is the perfect capper. Every time I hear the siren go off over that image of the ticket in his hand I get a serious chill down my spine.
Wonderfull Clouzot, Les Espions, Le corve, greats films by a great director.
I like your blog and I have thought about put a link in mine, you can go and read it.
Greetings…
Sam, I am indeed one of the biggest Renoir fans, but everyone has their off-days … I’m not too fond of “The Golden Coach” either.
Joe,
Sorry ’bout that. But as I said, the last half I think is pretty good, and I can forgive a lot for that. But, I won’t watch it again, because the first half is so blatantly moralistic, and not in a good way.
Yeah, I wasn’t crazy about this. I don’t remember all that much about it, because it’s been ages (and I saw it on TV, with bright-white subtitles, many of which, in the first half, were lost against bright-white shirts), but that ending, which Greg referred to as “truck dancing”…God, it’s just AWFUL! It’s a joke, really, and I’ve been perplexed about the love shown for this film ever since. And I was also left cold by the one other Clouzot film I’ve seen, Le Courbeau.
I also agree with Greg that Sorcerer is better. It’s been a long time for me with that one, too, but I remember that one having all the white-knuckle suspense that I’d been told could be found in the Clouzot film.
troncha, greetings to you! Thanks for stopping by!
Bill, you’re absolutely right about the ending … it is godawful. Perhaps that’s the point — it’s a joke, maybe Clouzot was forced to do it to satisfy some fifties morality thing, as in if you are a bad person you get killed, or something. Or maybe it was in the book …
I saw it on Criterions new Blu-ray edition, which is very nice. I haven’t seen “Le Courbeau” myself, but as I said was quite taken by “Diabolique.”
I haven’t seen “Sorcerer” in ages, too long ago to comment.
IT’S NO JOKE! He’s feeling indestructible. There’s even a line where Jo tells him so. He gets to a point where he is so overjoyed, feeling that he has beaten this journey that nobody else has survived. In line with his character he is plain and simple cocky.
He starts driving erratically, almost as an in your face to the truck. Laughing to himself. Realizing that he’s finally going to escape the hell hole he’s been living in.
When he crashes, we understand, that the only real escape from this hell hole we call Earth is death.
To me this movie is about the fear of there being nothing better than this life. Nothing to look forward to. Just pain and suffering and then an end. And it’s horrifying.
The conversation Jo and Mario have in the truck about the fence pretty much solidifies this theme that Clouzout was trying to convey.
What was on the other side of the fence? “Nothing….nothing.” Such a chilling, cold brilliant film.
In regards to the beginning, I think you have to set up the desperation of these people because if they didn’t you would just have a bunch of guys going on this death mission and you’d ask yourself, why are they doing that?
Not to mention the cinematography and the editing in this picture are of the highest caliber.
Jeez Rick. This is turning into a TOERIFC-like thread! I missed the last session. I guess I have to make up for it. Stupid Netflix……
Joe, nice analysis, and I have no doubt you are right, about the ending that is. It just didn’t work for me, that’s all.
I think the first half is more unforgivable, though: it is patronizingly racist regarding the indigenous population on the one hand, and critical of the U.S. for exploiting said population on the other. Rather hypocritical, if you ask me, especially given France’s brutal history of colonialism.
He’s feeling indestructible. There’s even a line where Jo tells him so. He gets to a point where he is so overjoyed, feeling that he has beaten this journey that nobody else has survived. In line with his character he is plain and simple cocky.
Joe, I agree with that explanation but its presentation is so obvious. That’s my problem with it. The movie is jabbing you in the side, and hard, and saying, “Get it? Did you get it? Huh? Huh? Did you get it?” I think it could’ve been handled better, with more subtlety, that’s all.
Well, I am not one for subtlety. Perhaps that’s why I like it so….
Count me with those who liked the entire film. Certainly the first part could have covered the requisite stations of the plot in a quarter of the time, and the ending did seem a bit tacked-on (although I’m in sympathy with Joe Campanella above who sees it of a piece with the “nothing beyond the fence” exchange), but that first hour was marvelously atmospheric, and I don’t think Clouzot was singling out the Yanks for special Gallic hauteur–he seems to have been universally trenchant in his films, contriving, for example, to offend both the occupying Germans and the Resistance with his portrayal of provincial life in the 1943 Le Corbeau. On first viewing a few years back I felt that Wages of Fear fell only a little short of perfection, and after watching it again this afternoon I am reinforced in that impression.
I’m not so much concerned about singling out the Yanks, God knows we generally deserve it, so much as the general hypocrisy on display, and especially the racism of that first hour. I think it a very condescending portrayal of the locals.
Thanks for stopping by, Rand. Hope you do so again!
I just stumbled on this discussion and felt compelled to weigh in as ‘Wages’ is one of those few films for me that phrases like “profound influence” were coined to describe.
I’ve never really considered the first half of the film to drag though on reflection i can see how you might come to that conclusion. Certainly by contrast the 2nd and 3rd acts really wind up the tension. I’ve always thought of the the film as more about the harsh and sometimes brutal world of male bonding and the often illusionary persona of the macho male. The way weakness is sought out and punished. A kind of anti buddy film. Certainly the backdrop its set against portrays American exploits in a questionable light and there are many other countries who could have easily filled the role just as aptly.The hypocrisy implicit in the fact that the oil company is American given that the French are no Angels in the arena of exploitative historical activities is surely only a minor consideration. More importantly in the context of the film, the oil company is more of a mirror to the hard macho persona the men are all trying to embody as the film begins. The first act of the film is crucial to establishing the interpersonal dynamics between the various protagonists particularly Mario and Jo, that make the second half of the film so compelling.