Sturdevan's character change (SPOILERS)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Sands of the Kalahari
hobnob53 — 13 years ago(September 05, 2012 10:15 AM)
A weakness in the script is the depiciton of the pilot, Sturdevan (Nigel Davenport). At first he seems like a regular bloke, if a bit too cocky and anxious for money. After the crash, he takes charge rationally and even-handedly.
Then suddenly, out of nowhere, he turns vicious and brutal against Mrs. Munkton (Susannah York), trying not only to rape her but pushing her around physically, even threatening twice to hit her savagely. He only desists when she begins weeping and tells him he can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't hurt her. Even then, he stops, not out of remorse, but because her reaction takes all the "fun" out of his assault. It's an exceedingly nasty and unpleasant scene, in many ways the worst in the movie.
And yetsoon after, he has another abrupt change of character, returning to his former self, volunteering to march off into the desert to get help. We see his hardships throughout his trek, and when he finally arrives in the gold field, and is beaten and brutalized by the company police, he still tries to convince them that "There are five people out there, starving to death" his only concern, even in his misery and now being beaten by a bunch of thugs, to save those people. He's now seen as sympathetic, noble and steadfast, risking even beatings to get his passengers rescued.
Which is why his brutality toward the woman is so shocking and seemingly out of place. It would be one thing if he had simply made a pass at her (as she leaves the cave, just before he goes after her, he strokes her on her rear end), but the brutality of his attack on her seems wholly out of line with the character we've seen thus farand afterwards. And it can't simply be a case of the desert getting to him even O'Brien (Stuart Whitman) hasn't gone off the deep end yet. This sweeping change of character, from good, solid, realistic, in-charge figure, to violent and repugnant rapist, then back to self-sacrificing, noble hero trying to save the rest, is too abrupt and inexplicable to be really convincing. -
Altho73 — 12 years ago(June 17, 2013 01:48 PM)
Referring to Sturdevan -
This sweeping change of character, from good, solid, realistic, in-charge figure, to violent and repugnant rapist, then back to self-sacrificing, noble hero trying to save the rest, is too abrupt and inexplicable to be really convincing.I wouldn't agree with you there Hobnob, people are not always what they seem to be. For example would you be surprised to find out that -
The pleasant, friendly and soft-spoken guy who lives in your street who is everybody's friend and who will go out of his way to help you when you have a problem, who never has an unkind word to say about anyone was once a sergeant major in the army who regularly reduced grown men to tears with his loud, barking voice, sharp tongue, sarcastic manner and his unbending rigidity and demand for perfection.
The harmless looking nice guy in your workplace who keeps himself to himself, avoids social events and seldom talks about himself was once an undercover agent who risked his life (and killed people) in order to gather intelligence that prevented terrorist outrages.
Or you may perhaps have come across people who seem like regular guys when you see them for a few minutes at a time on two or three occasions a week. Yet when you have to work with these guys, eight hours a day, five days a week it is only then that you find out what filthy, unpleasant, disgusting people they are.
I would consider Sturdevan to be a macho man, a male chauvinist pig who appeared to be okay during the normal day because he hid his animal instincts away behind a veneer of respectability yet when he was placed in a situation outside the norm his fake mask of decency was stripped away revealing the animal within hence his attempted rape of the girl. -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(June 17, 2013 03:34 PM)
Of course people have many sides to their characters, and some have quite extreme variations between different aspects of their personalities.
We see this in a lot of movies, including this one, where each person's character varies to some extent under the pressure of circumstances. And I agree with your description of Sturdevan's character.
But in my view the problem with Sturdevant's change in personality is that it veers from a solid, rational one to an extreme, violent one with virtually no transition stage. It would have been far more realistic to see some gradual deterioration of his sanity or personality before he attacks Mrs. Munkton (York), or to see him unsettled and frantic immediately or soon after the crash.
But more not only doesn't the abrupt swing from one extreme to another work it's compounded by his equally abrupt swing
back
again, from one extreme to the other, as though nothing had happened.
If, for example, he'd come upon York nude by the water and was suddenly overtaken by lust, that would have been credible. But he simply swung instantly and without reason from one mood to another at the opposite end of the spectrum, then completely back again, also without reason. It just doesn't ring true. -
toshguy — 12 years ago(December 28, 2013 08:30 AM)
The way I interpret his behaviour is thusly:
Sturdevan takes charge and starts dispatching orders. He is the captain and that's what's expected of him in such extreme circumstances. However, the extremety of the situation and the heat probably get to his head and he is unable to hold back his primal urge to ravish Grace.
He feels like no woman should be able to resist him. He is, after all, the alpha male of the group. This brings us to the underlying theme of the movie - human nature and how it can resemble animal nature. That is extensively examined with the O'Brien character later on. The attempted rape is very early on in the ordeal so Sturdevan's humanity prevails and he backs off.
Note that he sees Mike Bain has apparently witnessed the whole thing. Just as their awkward conversation is about to turn to the rape attempt, Sturdevan changes the topic and tells Bain of his plan. Perhaps he feels too ashamed and embarassed to stay on and face Grace, Mike and the others which are bound to find out about it eventually.
They would not relent to him as leader if they despise him and he would be deposed by another male (like the doctor character says happens with a baboon leader), so I infer that Sturdevan voulntarily steps down and goes off instead of staying there and being shamed. He tells Mike that he was thinking his plan over for a while, but I suppose he would not have ventured into it unless he felt pressed by circumstance, which is what happens.
Regardless of the reason he has undertaken his daring journey, he probably feels that his main objective is getting help for his passengers. At the point when the patrolmen start harassing him, he is beside himself because of the ordeal he has undergone and that is likely why he doesn't stop and think about his personal safety.
In my opinion this movie warrants repeated viewings to truly put the events and behaviors into perspective, since they are part of a broader implication about people, humanity, society, instict and nature. We are given hints along the way, most notably by the doctor when he discusses human society and baboon society, as well as by O'Brien when he is in the pit and asks a rhetorcal question about whether we are so different from animals. -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(December 28, 2013 09:32 PM)
I don't entirely disagree with much of what you say, but I still have a problem with the manner in which Sturdevan's emotions simply pop in and out with no sign of emotional transition or an underlying predilection toward his wildly shifting behavior. He's good; he's bad; he's good again. The audience is given no hint or understanding of his ongoing emotional upheavals and mood swings that suddenly arise and subsequently disappear just as abruptly. The fact that his "lapse" happened early on makes it even less convincing, since as a figure of command he would be expected to remain in control of himself longer.
I don't agree that Sturdevan's "humanity" prevailed when he desisted from raping Grace. What affected him was disgust at her weeping, as evidenced by his scowling remark that he wouldn't do anything to her simply because it was no fun to attack a submissive victim. There's nothing remotely "humanitarian" about that sentiment. Nor do I think he felt any shame at having his act witnessed, though at some level he may have realized that this would undermine his authoritythough as the plane's pilot, by law he was the one in command. But clearly at some point he regained control of himself to the point where he chose to take action to try to rescue them all.
I don't think he refused to think of his own safety and stuck to his plea to save those lost in the desert because was so far gone mentally after his trek. On the contrary, he was plainly trying to get them to stop beating him by repeating that there were people dying out in the desert. Nothing he said would have caused the police goons to stop assaulting him: that was their mindless M.O. Trying to keep getting his message across was the only logical way out for both him and the passengers.
But I do agree with your statement about why this film needs repeated viewings. It's surprisingly complex in its characterizations and events, right up to its bizarre finish.