-->
Showing posts with label Graham Greene. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graham Greene. Show all posts

Monday, July 1, 2019

Something Old



 Not everything worth reading is hot off the press. In this section, we recommend "something old" that is still well worth reading. "Something Old" can mean anything from a venerable and antique classic to a good book first published four or more years ago. 

GRAHAM GREENE’S “ENTERTAINMENTS” (five novels and two novella published between 1932 and 1958)

As novelist, journalist, controversialist, playwright and short-story writer, Graham Greene (1904-1991) attracted both admiration and hostility, especially with regard to his left-wing views and his on-again, off-again relationship with Catholicism (see earlier posts on this blog about The Man Within; The End ofthe Affair and The Quiet American; and Journey Without Maps). Once established as a writer, from the 1940s onwards, he always had a huge readership, and nearly every one of his novels was at some time filmed. I’m fairly sure that the only ones never to make it to the screen were It’s a Battlefield and A Burnt-Out Case.

One minor cause for comment, however, was the distinctive way Greene used to categorise his work. The fly-leaves of his books would list his full-length fictions as either “Novels” or “Entertainments”. The suggestion was that the “Novels” were serious literary works, whereas the “Entertainments” were simply for fun. (The only other writer I know who did something similar was Georges Simenon, who would list his Maigret detective novels – in fact the most enduring part of his output – separately from his “romans durs”, or “serious novels”.)

Greene kept up this categorisation of his fiction until the publication of his novel The Comedians in 1966, where “Novels” and “Entertainments” are still listed separately. But then he appears to have changed his mind, and from the publication of his next novel Travels With My Aunt, in 1969, he dropped the distinction. The term “Entertainments” disappeared and now they were all listed as “Novels”.

At one time or another, I’ve read nearly all Greene’s “serious” work but – apart from two of them – I had not read most of his “Entertainments” until a couple of months ago, when I decided to read them all in the order they were written. I wanted to see why or how they could be considered as different from his other novels. Beginning with Stamboul Train in 1932, and ending with Our Man in Havana in 1958, five of the “Entertainments” are thrillers and two are (more-or-less) comedies. I introduce you to each of them below, before closing with some comments on how, in spite of everything, their settings, themes and characterisation are as typical of Greene as his other works are. As they were all filmed, and as I have seen most of those films, I append to each comments on how the “Entertainment” appeared on screen. And after all, as has often been pointed out, Greene, the one-time film-reviewer, was very influenced by film in his writing and often used quite cinematic techniques in his prose.

So here goes.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Stamboul Train (1932) is midway between murder mystery and pure thriller. On the Orient Express (Ostend to Istanbul) various characters struggle with their own problems and become linked by circumstances. An aggressive English woman journalist (surprisingly for a popular novel of this vintage, she is explicitly identified as lesbian) wants to get a scoop by interviewing a Communist politician who may be plotting revolution in his East European country. The politician is wracked with thoughts of his own inadequacy and wonders whether his apparent idealism is just pride. A handsome young Jewish merchant (there seems to be a soupcon of anti-semitism in the way Greene describes him) worries about business affairs, but on the train becomes sexually involved with a chorus girl, down-on-her-luck and on her way to fulfil an engagement in Istanbul. Again – surprisingly for a novel of this vintage – the sex is quite explicit. Under a false identity, a German thief and murderer is on the run from police. The connections made between characters are quite convincing, and it does come to a violent climax, although the ending is more downbeat and dispiriting than most thrillers are. Basically, the good guys don’t win.

Stamboul Train is both a competent and still readable thriller, even though Greene himself came to despise it and later said he wrote it only for the money (see review on this blog of JourneyWithout Maps). In retrospect, it is notable for two things. First, it includes the (very minor) character of a smug popular novelist called Q.C.Savory, who wants literature to be cheery and uplifing with none of this sordid modernist stuff. Informed readers immediately understood that this was a caricature of the popular novelist J.B.Priestley, who threatened to sue, insisted the publishers remove a few phrases clearly linked to him, and wrote a “revenge” review panning the novel. Second, Stamboul Train (first publshed in America as Orient Express) was probably the first modern thriller to take the Orient Express as its setting. Agatha Christie’s more formulaic Murder on the Orient Express was first published two years later (in 1934) and Ian Fleming’s James Bond thriller From Russia With Love, mainly set on the Orient Express, 24 years later (1956).

Film: Stamboul Train was promptly filmed by Hollywood, under the title Orient Express, in 1934, with a second-string cast. The film was hardly noticed, and has not been seen for years. I have not seen it.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

After two “serious novels” came A Gun for Sale (1936), a really down-and-dirty thriller. James Raven is a hired hit-man, recognisable by his twisted hare lip, who has killed a government minister, but who soon discovers that his contact man has paid him with stolen and marked bank-notes, easily traceable by the police. So we have the double-chase. The police are after Raven, and Raven is after the man who cheated him. En route Raven kidnaps as “cover” the chorus girl Anne, and they are together for much of the novel. The complication (read “bloody big coincidence”) is that Anne’s boyfriend is the police detective who is on the trail of Raven.

As a thriller, this is a big step-up from Stamboul Train, with a far more straightforward and urgent plot. You do, however, have to swallow the implauibility of the character of Anne, who stays with Raven even though she has many chances to escape him, and who rather too easily comes to see Raven’s point of view. The milieu is seedy, sordid London, and then the seedy, sordid northern industrial city of Nottwich (Greene’s fictitous combination of Norwich and Nottingham). Appearing in 1936, A Gun for Sale very much reflects a Europe already gearing up for another major war. The real villains are wealthy industrialists and arms traders, implicitly contrasted with the wretched of the earth like the tormented Raven; and there is a crucial scene involving a mass air-raid drill in which gas masks are distributed.

Film: A Gun for Sale was first published in America as This Gun for Hire. It was a bestseller, a number of film studios vied for the film rights, and it was eventually filmed by Hollywood as This Gun for Hire in 1942, directed by Frank Tuttle. I have seen this film a number of times, and think it is one of the best of its type. The story was Americanised, with the setting switched to wartime San Francisco and the enemy, in cahoots with the corrupt industrialist, clearly identified as Japanese. In his starring debut, Alan Ladd was excellent as the stone-faced, homicidal Raven, although the film gave him a broken wrist in place of a hare lip (we can’t have our star looking too grotesque, can we?). Veronica Lake’s character was upgraded from struggling chorus girl to star of a number of production numbers; but Laird Cregar stole some crucial scenes as the double-crossing “finger man” who gives Raven the dud banknotes. The first twenty minutes are a master class in setting up character and motive and – despite many changes to plot – crucial episodes survive, such as the gas-mask drill. The film was very popular. Apparently there was an inferior remake, under the title Short Cut to Hell, in the late 1950s – but it bombed and I have never seen it.

*    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Greene’s next “entertainment” was The Confidential Agent in 1939, a thriller that again reflects a contemporary political situation. A civil war is going on in an unspecified country, although it is clearly modelled on the Spanish Civil War, which was in its dying days when the novel appeared. Main characters are not given full names, perhaps to avoid using clearly Spanish names. Our hero, called only D., has been sent to England by his government (read the Spanish Republic) to negotiate over crucial supplies with an important English industrialist. But in England he is dogged by L., an agent for the other side in the civil war (read the Francoists). D. is hunted through foggy England – but D. in turn becomes the hunter.  He has to track down some of L’s agents. They have murdered a little girl who witnessed something that they did not want reported to the police. So again, as in A Gun for Sale, there is the double-chase. Given that this is a novel in which Greene was politically “engaged”, it is odd how flat much of it is, including the cliché of a final romantic clinch. For en route, D. becomes involved with some romantic relief from “the other side” in the (most improbable) form of an aristocratic young English beauty, the daughter of the industrialist forsooth. Nevertheless, there are some moments of waspish humour, as when the “cover” for a group of nasty foreign agents is an Esperanto club and when Greene pokes fun at a group of “Buchmanites” or “Oxford Groupers”. Greene is said to have dashed this novel off in six weeks.

Film: The Confidential Agent waited six years to be filmed by Hollywood, and when it appeared (as Confidential Agent) at the end of 1945, it was able to refer directly to the Spanish Civil War and to its hero as Spanish. The trouble was that said hero was played by the very French Charles Boyer, while his aristocratic English girlfriend was played by the very American Lauren Bacall. This caused much mirth among reviewers, the lead performers were ridiculed and the film was not a hit. Oddly enough, Greene himself liked the film and praised the actors. But his main motive was that, unlike many other adaptations of his work, the film actually followed his plot closely and kept its English setting.  I saw Confidential Agent once only, as a teenager, on old black-and-white television. I remember the sequence in which the child was killed as genuinely terrifying (I wonder how I would react to it now?). But, apart from its caricature villains (Peter Lorre, Katina Paxinou), it did not make a big impression.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In 1943 came Greene’s next “entertainment”, The Ministry of Fear. It reflects the London of the Blitz, and of ongoing fears of Nazi agents, as clearly as The Confidential Agent reflects the Spanish Civil War. Topicality was one of Greene’s things. Arthur Rowe - mentally fragile after a spell in a psychiatric hospital and still wracked with guilt after mercy-killing his sick wife - manages by pure chance to stumble onto a ring of spies. At a church fete, he is accidentally given a cake which, it transpires, happens to contain vital microfilm. He is framed for murder and chased by enemy agents intent on retrieving said microfilm. In turn, he is intent on exposing the spies, with the help first of a private detective and then of the police. Yet again we have the double-chase. Lively enough, and working through a pattern of events with sufficient suspense, The Ministry of Fear is an acceptable thriller but with an oddly surreal tone. There is a scene in which a house is destroyed in a credible air-raid, but many events and characters seem to belong to a dotty alternative universe – a fey second-hand-book dealer; a séance involving eccentric (and very gullible) people; the hero’s incarceration in a mental hospital, run by spies, where his memory is taken from him. Add to this the nightmarish depiction of London and the narration of the hero’s dreams as he shelters in the Tube, and you have what sometimes amounts to hysteria – perhaps a real reflection of a popular mood when England was under siege.

By this time, in my sequential reading of all Greene’s “entertainments”, I was getting a little weary of what was becoming a formula – in A Gun for Sale, The Confidential Agent and The Ministry of Fear there is the double-chase; the flawed hero who so both hunter and hunted; big industrialists or respectable people in the community eventually exposed as the true villains; and a sympathetic young woman who gets attached to the hero and comes to see his point of view. (In The Ministry of Fear, she is the sister of a foreign agent.) Dare I say, they sometimes sound as if they were written for the movies.

Film: Which brings me to the disappointment that was the film version of The Ministry of Fear – doubly disappointing because it was directed by the illustrious Fritz Lang. By this stage, Greene was prominent enough for film studios to snap up the rights to his novels. Ministry of Fear appeared in 1944, the year after the novel was published. It is set in a Hollywood-studio version of England, and stars the uncharismatic (read “dull”) Ray Milland and the forgettable Marjorie Reynolds. It more-or-less follows Greene’s plot, but softens everything and withdraws all nuance. In the novel, when Arthur Rowe (given a different name in the film) finally pairs with the Nazi agent’s sympathetic sister, it is clear that their’s will be a very rocky and probably unhappy partnership. But in the movie it is all sweetness and light and a cliché fadeout on a lame wisecrack about wedding cakes. Again watching it as a teenager, I can remember being disgusted by how unmemorable even the cackling villains were.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 

In complete contrast, the next “entertainment” begat what is still probably the best-known movie to be adapted from a work by Greene. It is sometimes cited as the best British film ever made. This is The Third Man – but it has a unique relationship with its film version. This novella was first published in 1950, the year after the film was released. At the urging of the director Carol Reed, Greene wrote the novella specifically so that it could be filmed. It is dedicated to Reed. Reading it is a little like reading a slightly expanded film treatment.

Because this short book has been so overwhelmed by the film version, and because the plot is so well-known, I will not insult you by giving you a plot summary. You already know it is set in post-war battered Vienna, it concerns the flashy criminal Harry Lime and his innocent friend Holly Martins, there is a bogus funeral, a ride on the Prater fairground wheel, a chase through the sewers and a famously downbeat fadeout – not to mention the zither music of Anton Karas.

My own view is that the film is much superior to the novella.

For the record, however, here are a few things that surprised me when I recently re-read it. Disconcertingly, the novella is told in the first-person by the English policeman Calloway (played in the film by Trevor Howard). Even more disconcertingly, the novella’s Harry Lime and Holly Martins (called “Rollo” in the novella) are both Englishmen of public school background. Given that they were memorably played by the Americans Orson Welles and Joseph Cotton in the movie, this is the hardest thing to take. In the novella, Harry Lime does not get to make his famous speech about cuckoo clocks (apparently this was inserted into the film by Orson Welles). Also in the novella, there is a repeated running gag about Martins, the hack-writer of Westerns, being mistaken for a serious intellectual literary star. In the film this becomes one single – very amusing – sequence in which the British Council representative (played by Wilfred Hyde-White) forces Martins to make a disastrous appearance before a group of literati.

The Third Man was Greene’s last “entertainment” to be a thriller.

His final two “entertainments” were essentially comedies.



*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  

Loser Takes All (1955) is a very short novella – even shorter than The Third Man.

A middle-aged clerk unexpectedly gets to honeymoon with his young wife in Monte Carlo. He becomes addicted to gambling and wins. But the more he acts like a boorish rich man, the less his young wife likes him. To test him, and make him more agreeably humble, his young wife goes off with another man. It has a cutesie happy ending.

A forgettable piece of fluff, this is very atypical of Graham Greene. Acceptable as light rom-com, it is probably the most trivial thing he ever wrote and certainly the most forgettable. It was made into a British film in 1956, and re-made as an American film under the title Strike it Rich in 1990. Both films flopped. I have not seen either of them.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Finally, the last novel Greene designated as an “entertainment” – and it is a good one. Our Man in Havana (1958) concerns Wormold, a humble English vacuum-cleaner salesman in pre-Castro Havana. Middle-aged, divorced and rather morose, Wormold makes a precarious living at best, but has a demanding teenaged daughter, Milly, who goes to an expensive private school. Wormold desperately wants to send her to an even more expensive finishing school in Europe – but he doesn’t have the funds. Enter an English MI5 recruiter, who thinks Wormold would make a good spy. He commissions Wormold to gather information on government officials and military movements. But Wormold is not a spy and knows nothing about these things. Solution? To earn his pay, he sends totally fabricated reports to MI5 in London. They are so convincing that Wormold is soon regarded as a top agent. MI5 even believe him when he sends them a blue-print for a vaccum cleaner, claiming it is a secret weapon. And to increase his pay, he fabricates a cohort of non-existent local agents and informers.

Of course it all unravels eventually (and farcically).

There’s an interesting element to this novel. Greene was often seen as forseeing events that only later were to become major news. For example his The Quiet American was written years before American military involvement in Vietnam, but it clearly suggested that it was on the way. Our Man in Havana was written when Batista was still in power in Cuba, and when rebels in the mountains could still be depicted largely as “noises off”. Yet Havana is depicted as a place of sleaze (brothels, strip clubs, porn movies) and of official corruption, especially in the character of the police chief Captain Segura. There is a sequence where Wormold is beaten up by police for breaking a curfew. And one of Womold’s fabrications is that the Cuban government is installing huge secret weapons in the hills, which can be observed only from the air. To readers of a later date, this sounds eerily like the observation from the air of Russian missiles in Cuba, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis four years after this novel was written – but in this case, I think Greene’s version was just a lucky coincidence, not a prophecy.

As Greene had himself been in Britain’s secret service during the Second World War, Our Man in Havana must in some part reflect his amusement with the ineptitude and the willingness to believe tall stories of his former employers – and perhaps their credulous acceptance of bogus spies.

Film: Like The Third Man, Our Man in Havana was made into another very good British film, again directed by Carol Reed, in 1959. In fact, the film was shot in Havana just after Fidel Castro’s rebels had taken over, and Castro paid a visit to the film’s set. Alec Guinness is perfectly cast as the humble-but-devious Wormold, and there are good performances by Ralph Richardson (a pompous chap at MI5 HQ in London) and Noel Coward (the arrogent recruiter), although the scene-stealer is Ernie Kovacs as Captain Segura. The film follows the novel’s plot, but plays up the comedy and plays down the sleaze. Graham Greene himself wrote the screenplay. It was good box-office, was praised by the critics, and I remember enjoying it on the one occasion I saw it.



*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Well here endeth my round-up of Graham Greene’s “entertainments”, but what conclusion can I reach about them? How are they distinguishable from Greene’s other “serious” novels?

First and obvious point – the “entertainments” are all genre works, either thrillers or comedies, with not too much nuance in the characterisation, and little of the psychological probing or analysis of social and political matters found in his other novels. As I read my way through the “entertainments”, I found many of them dated in their formulas, although they might have seemed startlingly modern when they first appeared. Early in the 20th century, British spy-novels and thrillers tended to have upper-crust toffs as heroes (the John Buchan school), but Greene, along with Eric Ambler, was one of the first to make his leading characters middle-class or working class. Note the chorus girls in both Stamboul Train and A Gun for Sale, and the middle-class hero of The Ministry of Fear.  Reading the “entertainments”, I couldn’t help thinking of them in terms of the movies that were made from them, no matter how many differences there were between text and screen.

On the other hand, there is in these “entertainments” much that puts them at one with Greene’s other work. Most obviously A Gun for Sale (1936), with its killer Raven who has had a horrible, brutalising childhood, is very much like a first run at Greene’s next “serious” novel Brighton Rock (1938), with its killer Pinky who has had a horrible, brutalising childhood. Then there is the matter of the man on the run. A Gun for Sale, The Confidential Agent and The Ministry of Fear all turn on a main character who is somehow on the run (from police, spies or other enemies). But then some of Greene’s “serious” novels have the same narrative arc. The Man Within has its main character on the run from the smugglers he has betrayed. The Power and the Glory has the Mexican “whisky priest” on the run from violently anti-clerical forces.

And so we come to religion, which upsets some readers of Greene’s works. Novels like Brighton Rock, The Power and the Glory, The End of the Affair and (especially) The Heart of the Matter turn on theological questions and serious cases of conscience. There is no such religious matter in the “entertainments”. But only Graham Greene could have dropped into his “entertainments” the religious asides that are found in them. The Communist politician in Stamboul Train wants some form of absolution for his failures in life, and wonders if there might have been something in the Catholicism he abandoned in his youth. In A Gun for Sale, Raven thinks of his horrible childhood in a reformatory, and wonders why there isn’t more true Christianity in Christians. (The novel also features a pathetic defrocked clergyman.) The Ministry of Fear has no overt religious references, but Arthur Rowe’s mercy-killing is a big moral question and there is a scene in which Arthur sees and admires a missal and approves of the truthful things it says about war. (Stretching a point, one could also note that when Arthur is forced to lose his memory, he feels inanely happy – but once a remembers who he is, he feels a crushing weight of guilt. This could square with Greene’s idea that Original Sin is part of being truly human.) In The Third Man (both film and novella), Harry Lime and “Rollo” (Holly) Martins have a discussion on where God fits into a horrible world.

Certainly the “entertainments” are (often formulaic) genre works and not as serious in intention as Greene’s other work. But in setting, narrative arc, and some of the religious asides, they are as clearly the work of Greene as anything is.

After a couple of months (April and May) reading all Greene’s “entertainments” for my evening diversion, I could only classify them as “Graham Greene Lite”. Greene was quite right to abandon the system of segregating them from his other novels.


Monday, November 26, 2018

Something Old


 Not everything worth reading is hot off the press. In this section, we recommend "something old" that is still well worth reading. "Something Old" can mean anything from a venerable and antique classic to a good book first published four or more years ago.

“JOURNEY WITHOUT MAPS” by Graham Greene (first published 1936)



            At one time or another I have read most (but not all) of the novels of Graham Greene (1904-1991) and, given that most of his works were filmed, I have seen many of the films associated with him. (See my post on The End of the Affair and The Quiet American). But quite a bit of Greene’s ouevre has sat unread on my shelves for years and every so often I will take down and read a work by Greene that I haven’t previously cracked. Most recently it was not a novel, but his first travel book Journey Without Maps.

In early 1935 young Greene, than aged 31, chose to make his first trip outside Europe. He had already visited places like France and Berlin and Lithuania but, though he was later to become a compulsive globetrotter, the rest of the world was unknown to him. So he chose to visit the small West African republic of Liberia.

Why Liberia?

Apart from Abyssinia (Ethiopia), which was just about to be overrun by Mussolini, Liberia was then the only state in Africa that was not colonised and ruled by whites. This intrigued Greene. But I’m fairly sure there was another motive. As I noted in my posting about Greene’s first published novel The Man Within (1929), the shadow of Joseph Conrad still hung over him and influenced his way of looking at the world. Africa to him was the Africa of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, cruelly conquered, administered and exploited by Europeans, but primitive and daunting, perhaps a place of nightmares and perhaps an archetype of the murky human soul. Three times in Journey Without Maps, Greene uses the phrase “heart of darkness”, once he directly cites that novella by name, and he also refers to a character from Conrad’s little-read Arrow of Gold. The title Journey Without Maps can be taken literally – in 1935 much of Liberia was unmapped and unexplored by Europeans. But Greene also gives a metaphorical explanation of his chosen title and of the meaning of his journey: “The method of psycho-analysis is to bring the patient back to the idea which he is repressing: a long journey backwards without maps, catching a clue here and a clue there, as I caught the names of villages from this man and that, until one has to face the general idea, the pain or the memory.” (Part 2, Chap. 1) Travelling through Liberia is travelling through the dark places of his own psyche.

It’s easy enough to convey the literal course of his journey.  Greene sailed from Liverpool, via Madeira and the Canaries, to the British West African colony of Sierra Leone. He comments a little dyspeptically on boozy and hearty English passengers on the ship before he reached Freetown. He crossed the border from Sierra Leone into the north-west part of Liberia, having, naturally, to bribe corrupt border guards.  This was the beginning of a three hundred mile trek through country in which many of the local Africans had either never seen a white man before or at least had not seen one for decades. It was far from comforts and conveniences because “in the climate of West Africa books rot, pianos go out of tune, and even a gramophone record buckles”  (Part 1, Chap.3)  First he journeyed from village to village through Liberia’s northern provinces, where the sun beats down through sparse bush. At one stage he crossed through a chunk of neighbouring French Guinea (now called just Guinea). Then he turned south towards the coast, now going through dense and quite trackless rainforest, where it often poured down.  He notes the differences between tribal groups but especially notes how different Liberian indigenes are from the Muslim, fez-wearing Mandingo traders across the border in Guinea

And what does he encounter and describe on this journey? Dark and tiny villages in thick bush;  guinea worms in streams, choking dust on the track, cockroaches, jiggers digging under toenails and laying eggs, ants everywhere, rats swarming down the walls of huts at night, snakes, and fear of elephants in the rainforest. He suffers fever in the last leg of his trek and declares, with a typical echo of youthful melancholia: “The fever would not let me sleep at all, but by the early morning it was sweated out of me. My temperature was a long way below normal, but the worst boredom of the trek for the time being was over. I had made a discovery through the night which interested me. I had discovered in myself a passionate interest in living. I had always assumed before, as a matter of course, that death was desirable.” (Part 3, Chap.4)

He finally makes it to the coastal area of Grand Bassa and then takes a boat to Liberia’s shabby little capital Monrovia, where he spends nine days. He makes small and telling comments on the general politics and culture of Liberia in the course of his bushwhacking. But it is only in the last chapter, titled “Postscript in Monrovia”, that he takes general stock of the country’s status.

As he sees it, despite being governed by black Africans, Liberia is as much a Western colony as any other African country at that time. It was, after all, an artificial creation, founded in 1847 as a settlement for former slaves from the United States of America. Greene waspishly suggests that part of the motive for the nation’s foundation was that American slaveowners were getting rid of their “bastards” – that is, the offspring they had fathered on slave women. He also notes that the freed slaves who settled Liberia were descendants of people who had been dragged from West Africa over two centuries previously, and they were therefore not people who thought as Africans, but as Americans. They were Westernised. In effect, though they were black, the ruling elite of Liberia, living mainly in the coastal areas, looked down on the peoples and tribes in the interior of the country in exactly the same way that white colonisers would have done. The people in the interior regarded them as alien, and as worse than the French or British imperialists in nearby countries. Greene remarks at one point  “Everywhere in the north I found myself welcomed because I was a white, because they hoped all the time that a white nation would take them over.” (Part 2, Chap.2) To make matters worse, at the time Greene was travelling there, the American Firestone corporation had gained an exclusive concession in Liberia to exploit its rubber. Therefore vast tracts of land were given over to latex extraction, with the result that relatively little agriculture could be undertaken in the interior.

Journey Without Maps is a vivid and robust travel book, but of course there are things that mark it out as a book written over 80 years ago. Not on every page, but frequently enough, young Greene unselfconsciously uses racial epithets that would now be frowned upon. An African woman flirting with a drunk European is a “stout black bitch”; African children are called “piccaninnies”; the porters Greene hires are “boys”. He has a total of 25 African porters carrying his baggage through the jungle, one in particular, called Amedoo, becoming his personal servant. At one point Greene bargains his porters out of getting higher wages and he sometimes has to sort out quarrels between porters of different tribes, like a colonial administrator. In his long journey, it is Greene’s habit to walk ahead of his large team of porters, but sometimes, when he is feverish, he is carried by the porters in a hammock. Add to this the solar topee that he wears and the huge load of luggage his “boys” have to carry - including his indispensible supply of whisky and quinine – and inevitably, to modern eyes, this evokes the stereotypical image the “Great White Hunter” who lounges and adventures while the Africans work.

Yet this is far from being the main effect of Journey Without Maps for, like Conrad, Greene sees a moral equivalence between African and European and whenever he mentions something primitive, bizarre or disgusting in Africa, he is quick to point out that it is no stranger or unnatural than European norms. Masked “devils” (shamans) conduct “bush schools” in which young initiates are scarred with knives in a primitive form of tattooing, and the “devil” strikes terror in the village even if the villagers are fully aware that behind the mask there is a village elder. Greene encounters an Alligator Society, a Terrapin Society, and a Snake Society for those who worship these animals as fetishes. There are people who claim to be able to make lightning with malign intent and there are rumours of cannibalism and human sacrifce deeper in the rainforest. But Greene reminds us that the masked shaman is very like the traditional British Jack-in-the-Green from an earlier pagan age; and at one point he likens the protean and apparently changing nature of this “devil” to a character in Franz Kafka’s Das Schloss. He also uses the technique of inserting into his text flashbacks to England where he recalls the “seedy” (one of his favourite words) side of English life -  the army officer with a penchant for brothels; the genteel old woman revering the crazed “prophetess” Joanna Southcott; the verminous English gypsy buried in rock-hard coldness of winter; the old pervert eyeing up young children in a Kensington Park, as grotesque and strange as anything seen in Liberia.

His comments on Christian missionaries in Liberia are a little more positive, but they also have their ironic edge as he encounters a convent of Episcopalian nuns, a whiny American Lutheran woman, a German Seventh Day Adventist missionary, a very practical Methodist medical missionary, and a black Catholic convert who brings a boy to recite the Catechism to Greene. [In this book Greene gives a rather dispirited account of his own conversion and baptism, saying he accepted Catholic teaching intellectually. but not emotionally.]

In many respects, then, Greene’s view of African society is very akin to that of Chinua Achebe’s Nigerian novel ThingsFall Apart. Greene is sceptical of any benefits (black) American colonisation may have brought to this country. For all its strangeness and even horrors, indigenous ways are seen as being coherent and cohesive in their own terms. But they are not idealised and there is no hint of the “noble savage”. Original sin is universal.

Despite its unfortunate racial epithets noted above, Journey Without Maps is an enlightened book for its age.

There are, however, two things for which I would criticise it.

First, I believe Greene sometimes shows false modesty. Early in the book, he claims to be embarrassed when he finds a film made of his thriller Stamboul Train (the American film was titled Orient Express) playing in a dingy local cinema in Tenerife in the Canaries. He says his novel was written only for money and the film was rubbish.  I wonder, was he really embarrassed? Remember, Greene was only 28 when he wrote Stamboul Train and this was the first time one of his novels was made into a movie. At that age, I’m sure he would have been very happy with the royalties he got.

Second, and with the deepest of regret, I have to note a habit of Greene’s that was later in his life to become an abiding failing. In his journey, Greene meets the African-American mercenary Colonel Elwood Davis, who had been under investigation by a commission of the League of Nations for atrocities he carried out against the Kru people. Greene talks with Davis and is basically charmed by him, depicting him more-or-less as an interesting buccaneer and gifted raconteur. (Later, he has a similarly over-positive assessment of his meeting with Liberia’s President Barclay). I believe this was the first time Greene was taken in by a lethal criminal or rascal. Later in his life, Greene served in the British secret service (three years stationed in Sierra Leone in the Second World War) and became friends with Kim Philby. He would never shift from his favourable assessment of Philby, even when the man proved to be a Soviet “sleeper”. Indeed he wrote an admiring preface to Philby’s KGB-blessed autobiography My Secret War after Philby defected to the USSR. Similarly, late in his life, Greene wrote a painfully hagiographic book Getting to Know the General (1981) about Panama’s strongman General Omar Torrijos Herrera. It would seem that the writer who was so disenchanted with “seedy” middle-class British (and American) democracy could persuade himself that nearly any alternative was good. The atrocity-committing Colonel Davis was the first major criminal to be depicted favourably by Greene.

By the way, from our perspective eighty years later, there is a grim footnote to all this. Between 1989 and 2003, under the notorious Charles Taylor, civil war ripped Liberia apart. Between 500,000 and one million Liberians were slaughtered. Charles Taylor is still serving out the 50-year prison sentence he was handed by the International Court of Justice for all the atrocities he approved. Compared with Taylor’s, Davis’ atrocities are small beer. Gosh, how we have progressed!



*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  *   *   *   *   *   *    *   *   *   *   *

So far, I have given you an honest reaction to Greene’s book as I read it.  There is, however, one very important footnote that has to be added, and it concerns the way a writer can, by omission, distort the very nature of the things he is reporting. In Journey Without Maps, Greene very occasionally notes that throughout his whole Liberian trip he was accompanied by “my cousin”. He mentions “my cousin” fleetingly only four or five times in the whole book, once noting that “my cousin” is a woman and having only one brief passage in which he gives her some part in the story –  he reports their shared misery when he had fever (Part 3, Chap.4).  If you weren’t reading closely, you could easily miss that she was even there. She is never given a name.

After reading Journey Without Maps, I waded through the two chapters (57 pages) that Norman Sherry devotes to Greene’s Liberian trip in his biography of Greene (Norman Sherry, The Life of Graham Greene Volume 1 – 1904-1939, first published in 1989, when Greene was still alive). The unnamed cousin was Barbara Greene. She was even younger than Greene when they undertook this journey. She was 23, and basically came with her cousin on a whim and because she was bored with London. Norman Sherry – who retraced Greene’s Liberian journey in 1980, and found the country now ridden with violence – makes it clear that Greene made some elementary mistakes in his journey. He thought his trek through the interior of Liberia would take two weeks. It took four weeks. This was in part because he did not take advice from both a more experienced traveller and his African porters, and he insisted they take what turned out to be the wrong track.

More important, in his account Greene omitted the fact that it was his young cousin Barbara who nursed him when he had fever and was apparently near death. Both Barbara and Graham kept diaries throughout their journey. Norman Sherry quotes from both diaries, which are sometimes more frank than Journey Without Maps is. In her diary, Barbara Greene noted that one of the village chiefs they met ogled her extensively and seems to have asked Graham how much she would cost.

Barbara Greene wrote her own account of the journey called Land Benighted, later re-published under a different title as Too Late To Turn Back. I have not caught up with this book, but apparently it gives a very different perspective on some of the events that appear in Journey Without Maps.

Why did Graham Greene basically cut his cousin out of his story – especially as she was the only person who shared with him the whole expedition from England to Liberia and back again? There seems to have been no animosity between them (Sherry quotes from friendly letters they were still exchanging years later). My guess is that to mention her in any detail would have destroyed the illusion Graham Greene wanted to create of being the solitary European traveller cleansing his soul in the trackless African wilderness.



Lesser footnote: For the record, two of Greene’s later novels are set in Africa, but neither is set in Liberia. The Heart of the Matter is set in Sierra Leone (where Greene worked for three years in the 1940s) and A Burnt-Out Case is set in what was then the Belgian Congo. The only fictitious use Greene made of Liberia was in one of his short stories, “A Chance for Mr. Lever”.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Something Old


 Not everything worth reading is hot off the press. In this section, we recommend "something old" that is still well worth reading. "Something old" can mean anything from a venerable and antique classic to a good book first published four or more years ago.

 “THE END OF THE AFFAIR” by Graham Greene (first published 1951) and “THE QUIET AMERICAN’ by Graham Greene (first published 1955)

            Famously England’s best-known novelist from the 1940s to the 1970s, and just as famously the man who never won the Nobel Prize for Literature although he should have, Graham Greene (1904-1991) had an odd mix of Catholicism and Marxism that managed to rub many people up the wrong way. Once he’d brushed off the heavy influence of Joseph Conrad (see the post on his first novel, The Man Within) he produced novels that were either straight thrillers – which he called “entertainments” – or were serious novels always with contemporary settings and with heavy theological or political overtones, but also with the narrative pace and briskness of thrillers. For such a serious novelist, then, it was no fluke that he was also a big bestseller. The fact that he had been a film critic, and learnt much from the pacing of films, probably also helped.
In saying all this, I am probably saying nothing that most readers of this blog do not already know. What amuses me, however, is the way the theological element really irks some people. One of Greene’s greatest admirers is the novelist and travel-writer Paul Theroux. I remember once hearing Theroux, on a radio documentary about Greene, saying how much he admired Greene for his vivid sense of place, pacing and awareness of the contemporary world – but then adding that, whenever the matter of God cropped up in Greene’s novels, he simply skipped a few pages in his reading. This is more than a little absurd in that God is so central to many of Greene’s works, especially the three that are widely regarded as his best, Brighton Rock (1938), with the furious (and therefore religious) blasphemies of its young thug anti-hero; The Power and the Glory (1940), with the paradoxical salvation of its “whisky priest”; and The Heart of the Matter (1948), with its colonial policeman deliberately courting God’s damnation by suicide.
Where these novels are concerned, Theroux’s statement is a bit like saying you like Dickens, but can’t stand his caricatures, comedy and sentiment.
God is part of the deal with much of Greene. And it makes not the slightest difference that (as three or four biographies have already told us in detail), Greene’s desertion of his family and his disorderly and active sex-life (many mistresses and prostitutes) did not add up to what would commonly be seen as a devout Christian life.
And then there is the Marxist side of Greene, which tends to rub up a different set of people. Greene was no Communist (despite having flirted with that secular religion in his student days), but he did often give Communist regimes more benefit of the doubt than some would approve. He had worked briefly for Britain’s spy service in the Second World War and annoyed many by writing sympathetically of his former colleague Kim Philby, even after the man had defected to the Soviet Union. (The title of Greene’s novella The Third Man [1948] was often invoked when people were looking for “the third man” who had helped two other Soviet spies, Burgess and McLean, to defect. Philby was that man.) Greene produced positive portraits of many people who stood in the way of American foreign policy, notably General Torrijos of Panama, about whom he wrote the memoir Getting to Know the General (1984). For some Americans, Greene was a dangerous leftist and definitely “anti-American”.
Add to these objections those fastidious English souls who didn’t like the sordid element in many of Greene’s novels and invented the term “Greeneland” to ridicule Greene and protect their own delicate sensibilities.
So at last to the two novels which I have chosen as this week’s “Something Old”. I choose them because they neatly illustrate how people have reacted to Greene’s religious views and to his political views.
Published in 1951, The End of the Affair is set in London in the war years. It has a complex time-scheme which skips between a time late in the war when London is being bombed and discoveries which the main character makes two years later. The main character is the first-person narrator, the novelist Maurice Bendrix, a bit of a cynic and a libertine as well as a non-believer in God. His affair is with the married woman, and Catholic convert, Sarah Miles. Her husband is the dull, complacent and implicitly impotent civil servant Henry Miles. The novel follows the course of Bendrix’s and Sarah’s guilt-ridden affair. Bendrix asks Sarah to divorce her husband and marry him. As a Catholic, she refuses to contemplate divorce. Then Bendrix is nearly killed in a bomb blast (this is wartime, remember). When Sarah discovers he is slightly injured, but still alive, she immediately gives up their affair and never sees Bendrix again.
Why is this?
Because of a number of the sort of things which made some of Greene’s critics very annoyed.
Sarah dies of a lung infection. As Bendrix discovers only two years later, and while he is reading the pages of her diary which he has acquired, Sarah made a bargain with God at the time of the bomb blast. Real love led her to plead that if God would allow Bendrix to live, she would abandon her adulterous affair with him. Bendrix had been jealous enough to suspect her of abandoning him for another lover, but God was the third partner of their love triangle. At the time of her death, Sarah was widely reputed to be a devout and pious person by people who knew nothing of her love-life. Bendrix is therefore very cynical when he eventually reads her diary. But then, after her death, apparently miraculous “coincidences” happen, including the disappearance of a birthmark from the face of the atheist ideologue Smythe with whom Sarah sometimes conversed. We are, by the novel’s later sections, presented with a Bendrix who is drawn kicking and screaming towards belief in God, even if he still hates God. Yet Greene is a subtle enough psychologist to leave open the possibility that this form of “belief” is simply the result of his imaginative guilt and grief.
There is one obvious background fact about this novel, which it is now de rigueur to mention.
The affair of Bendrix and Sarah Miles was clearly based on Graham Greene’s ongoing affair with his longest-term mistress Catherine Walston. Maurice Bendrix is a novelist, like Greene. Sarah Miles is a Catholic convert, like Catherine Walston (and Greene). Greene and Walston began their liaison during the war and Greene survived a near-miss when a house he was renting was destroyed by bombing. The first (1951) edition of the novel was coyly dedicated “To C.” The first (1952) American edition of the novel was openly dedicated “To Catherine”. It strikes me as a bit on the nose that Greene chose to call the novel’s cuckolded husband Henry, as this was the first name of Catherine Walston’s cuckolded husband, the Labour Party peer Baron Henry Walston. (On the other hand, Henry was also Greene’s first name – he dropped it when he starting publishing novels so that he would no be confused with the older established novelist Henry Green.)
I first read this novel – missing much of what it was about – when I was a teenager. I can remember even then finding it a bit of a cheat that the narrator was a novelist, allowing him to make neat novelist-like character analyses of other characters. I was also irritated by the device of having Bendrix read about all Sarah’s inner feelings in her diary. Somehow, I intuited that this was a structurally-crude way of giving us, all in one lump, Sarah’s view of the same affair which we had hitherto seen only from Bendrix’s viewpoint. On the other hand, I found the guilt and the greyness and the distress of wartime London very convincing.
But it was the God part that got Greene’s harshest critics down.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
            At which point, but with reason on my side, I cut crudely to another matter.
At one time or another, nearly all of Greene’s novels were filmed. The only ones I can think of that were never filmed were It’s A Battlefield (1934) and A Burnt-Out Case (1960), but all the others got the business. Wikipedia informs me that, exclusive of TV adaptations, 29 films have been made from Greene’s novels and stories. Greene had a very pragmatic attitude to these films. On the whole, once the screen rights were sold, he allowed the filmmakers to do whatever they pleased – although he reserved the right to criticise the results. (I have this information from Quentin Falk’s guide to Greene-based films, facetiously entitled Travels in Greeneland, published in 2000.)
Five of Greene’s novels have been filmed twice. They include The End of the Affair, and to compare the two films tells us much about how attitudes to Greene changed.
The first film version was released in 1955, directed by Edward Dmytryk and filmed in black and white. I have only the vaguest recollection of this film, which I saw on television years ago, although I have subsequently seen a few short clips from it on Youtube. It starred Deborah Kerr as Sarah Miles but, to woo the American box-office, it cast the American Van Johnson as Bendrix. Greene was appalled by this casting and said very rude things about the film. I cannot imagine the under-talented Van Johnson as a hard-bitten and cynical novelist. Apparently the 1955 film left much of the God stuff intact, but (given the censorship of the day) toned down the nature of the affair so that audiences could almost believe it was a passing flirtation.
Having read the novel as a kid, I re-read it in 1999 when I was a film-reviewer and ahead of the release of Neil Jordan’s re-make. The re-make made the fullest of the affair and Ralph Fiennes was perfectly cast as a cynical Bendrix. But – oh woe! – the American box-office still had to be placated, so this time it was an American, Julianne Moore, who played Sarah Miles. Her acting was adequate, but with the novel fresh in my mind, I noted how the story had now been skewed another way. To extend the sex stuff, the film had Bendrix and Sarah getting together for another fling once he learns the news that she is dying. There is no such reunion in the novel, but the director was able to have Sarah state her motives in dialogue rather than having Bendrix discover them in her diary. The 1999 film missed the novel’s touching scenes between Sarah and the atheist Smythe, because it eliminated Smythe from the story and merged his character with the novel’s quite separate character of a priest. This meant there could be only very abridged discussions on theological matters. Also the birthmark “miracle” was presented more peremptorily and crudely than it is in the novel, and transferred to another minor character.
My chief impression was that the theological element embarrassed those who produced the re-make. What they wanted was a doomed love story in a wartime setting, and that essentially is what they produced.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Now for the Greene novel that offended another group of readers.
The Quiet American (first published in 1955) is one of Greene’s most overtly political novels. Again its main character is the novel’s first-person narrator and again he is transparently based on aspects of Greene himself. Between 1951 and 1954, Greene spent part of each year in Saigon, reporting for The Times and Le Figaro on France’s Indo-Chinese war. The novel’s narrator, Thomas Fowler, is a cynical British journalist stationed in Saigon during France’s Indo-Chinese War.
From the opening pages, we know that the American “aid worker” Alden Pyle, the eponymous character, is dead. Going into flashback mode, the novel tells us how Fowler came to hate Pyle, and eventually how Pyle died. Apparently idealistic and naïve, Pyle claimed that Vietnam could be saved from both the colonialism of the French and the Communism of the insurgent Viet Minh if only a democratic “Third Force” could be found. Or manufactured. For it is soon evident that, far from being an innocent “aid worker”, Pyle is really an operative of the OSS (i,e, the earlier form of the CIA). Pyle becomes actively involved in terror activities in order to provide provocations. He arranges for bombs to be set off, so that the destruction they cause can be blamed on the Viet Minh and used in anti-Communist propaganda. In the event, the bombs cause many civilian deaths. Pyle brushes this off as collateral damage in a good cause.
Fowler is disgusted in this foolish, self-righteous and deluded American college boy. In retribution he arranges for Pyle to be killed by some real communists.
At least, that is the skeleton plot if we miss out half of what happens in the novel. For the fact is that Fowler’s real motives are as murky and questionable as Pyle’s. At first Pyle had got to know Fowler as a source of information. But then Pyle moved in on Fowler’s Vietnamese mistress Phuong and took her away from Fowler. A selfish revenge motive taints the murder, which Fowler might otherwise delude himself is an act of political justice. There are also intimations that in some ways Fowler, like the French, represents the older European colonialism as opposed to the new American variety.
The novel really does work as a condemnation of America’s covert involvement in other nations’ affairs, and the naïve American belief that America itself is not a colonial power. It also condemns the belief that American forms of democracy can be instantly re-planted in other nations which have their own traditions. There are many swings at the type of sententious American journalism which passes as informed commentary. (Pyle is always quoting from a hack called York Harding.) For these reasons, The Quiet American was seen as an extraordinarily prescient novel, especially as it was written years before America was fully involved in Vietnam or fighting its own war there. I recall once hearing a left-wing journalist (it may have been John Pilger, but I’m not sure) saying that to understand the causes of the Vietnam War, all you had to do was read The Quiet American.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Once again, like The End of the Affair, The Quiet American is a Greene novel which has been filmed twice.
The first filming was in 1958, directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. This black-and-white production had what could have been excellent casting in the two leading roles, with Michael Redgrave supercilious, cynical and patronising as Fowler and Audie Murphy (despite being middle-aged and a much-decorated war hero) still looking appropriately boyish and gee-whizz as Pyle. (The role of Phuong was played, ridiculously, by an Italian actress).
            Unfortunately, this film is notorious as an absolute travesty of Greene’s novel. It half-heartedly follows parts of Greene’s plot, but turns Pyle into a hero – a genuine aid worker who has nothing to do with terrorism, but who is doing his best for the Vietnamese people. The bombs really were set by the Communist Viet Minh, and it is the Communist Viet Minh who murder Pyle for their own motives. The film ends with a title praising the Republic of (South) Vietnam and its great leader Diem.
Greene thought the film ridiculous and said so.
            So why was this travesty created? For the obvious reason that no American film made in the Cold War was going to criticise American foreign policy – or raise the topic of covert ops. But why would Hollywood film the novel in the first place? Because Joseph Mankiewicz (who was advised about the script by the CIA chief Colonel Lansdale) realised that with a few tweaks of the plot it could become good anti-Communist propaganda – and counter the effect of Greene’s original novel. There’s the additional silliness that Audie Murphy refused to play the character of Pyle as anything other than an American hero.
            Flash forward 43 years later to the re-make of The Quiet American directed in very different circumstances by the Australian Philip Noyce. It starred Michael Caine as Fowler and Brendan Fraser as Pyle (and a Vietnamese actress as Phuong). The film was made in 2001 but not released until 2002 because, when “9/11” happened, American distributors were jumpy about a film condemning American involvement in terrorist activities. As with the re-make of The End of the Affair, I re-read the novel in my capacity as film reviewer ahead of the release of the new Quiet American.
            I regret the casting of Michael Caine, who does not have the same sort of cynical condescension that Michael Redgrave could muster. Otherwise, the re-make follows Greene’s political plot fairly closely. Pyle is revealed as a CIA operative responsible for a terrorist act. The three-way romantic entanglement is still there, but Fowler is let off the hook somewhat in the eventual killing of Pyle.
Bearing in mind that the novel was written when America was only beginning to be involved in Vietnam, we have to remember that this re-make was made decades after the whole debacle of the Vietnam War. It is therefore very much an after-the-event film, playing up the political aspects at the expense of Fowler’s inner life. It fades out on Fowler (the journalist) writing despatches over the years as US involvement becomes more and more fatal. He is, in effect, elevated to the status of prophet.
What I did notice about the re-make is that, despite its early 1950s setting, Christopher Hampton’s script plays down the presence of French colonials. Greene’s novel doesn’t focus on theology, but it does have the police inspector reading Blaise Pascal and wanting to talk about his theology. And the novel does end with the atheist Fowler, after having Pyle murdered, saying “I wished there existed someone to whom I could say sorry”, as if he is groping his way towards God. None of this survives in the re-make. It does follow Greene’s ideas and political perspective closely, but at the expense of characterisation – leaving it as something of a tract.
No film ever follows a novel exactly. Film and novel are different media after all. But the four films I have discussed do illustrate how, for commercial as much as political reasons, films have sometimes distorted or neutered what Greene was saying.