Spot on! I always bring up 'The Offence' when someone's talking about his films and not one yet has known of it until I've mentioned it which, to me, is a travesty. Soraidh slàn, Sir Sean 🏴
One of Connery's Top 5 acting performances!! Criminally underrated at the time, because the studio was hardly even promoting it, only pushing their latest Bond production! Thank God, Connery was one of the few actors who are determined enough to escape their claws, go their own way and push beyond typecasting until he eventually got his overdue recognition as a truly gifted, versatile actor.
Brilliant film, I've heard people speculate their theories on the answers to the many loose ends left by this film. One of them being that Johnson assaulted the girl and has repressed the recollection of it and now vents his self hate onto Baxter. I dispute this theory for two practical reasons at least 1) the man the girl wanders off with is wearing different clothes to Johnson and 2) that scene cuts to Johnson in the pub with a colleague wearing the same clothes he's worn from the start and suggesting he's been there for a while which would mean his whereabouts were accounted for. Does Johnson possess the impulse to offend in that manner? Yes, the conclusion of the film tells us this; also his unhappy marriage and the fact he has no children. Couple this with his sexual frustration and aggressive behaviour and morbid obsession toward death and violence he comes across as someone repressing himself but drawn to his desires through his chosen profession. The tete a tete between him and Baxter is what films are all about, the talent of actors as artists, with the aid of a few props. Be it two chairs, a table and a great script to bring a story to life and enthrall the viewer. Imagine this in today's conveyor belt of CGI, identity politics, PC, trans agenda garbage. The libtard populous of today wouldn't be able to comprehend the fact that every angle of the story isn't answered definitively and resolved in a way that helps us say to ourselves "it's ok, those type of people always get caught and dealt with". Did Baxter do it? Johnson pulls him in for decent enough circumstantial evidence e.g he's covered in mud and what appears to be blood, the girl was found by a river bank and trees. He can't account for his whereabouts at the time and is evasive of Johnson's often perfectly relevant questions "you've got a family haven't you, won't they be worried where you are?" He's not very sympathetic to what's happened to the victim, in fact he's quite dismissive. There seems to be two main things he responds to in this film, the most obvious one being the threat of violence from Johnson; but also the vulnerability displayed by Johnson. He taunts and provokes and belittles him. This is what leads to Johnson killing him, the doctor/patient role is reversed and Johnson has to reestablish dominance; but also I think he feels betrayed, because he confides in Baxter unwittingly, feeling that he'll be understood whereas Baxter merely scorns him for being the messed up person he is. To conclude, I personally think Baxter done it, his wife knows something's not right about him at least but doesn't ask. He sees the vulnerability in Johnson and exploits it, feeling he can outsmart him and talk his way out of it. Both force an unwilling accountability for the same crime.
It sounded like you were going for an intelligent analysis for a moment there until you started frothing about "libtards" "PC" and "trans agendas". I don't think this film is aimed at the gammon mindset and its definitely not a whodunit
@@voiskumbeaver3285 obviously it's not a whodunnit, I would imagine that by your instant dismissal of my analysis that you consider the derogatory terms I've used aimed at yourself. You now consider yourself superior and say to yourself "I can't possibly compliment anything because everything in life is either one way or the other." Compare this film with idiotic garbage of nowadays that excites no debate but only serves to grossly sexualise all ages young and old and has a dialogue for the lowest IQs in society.
No, the suspect was a nonce and this film was more of a character study of a cop who has reached his breaking point. 20+ on a job where you see almost ever dark facet of the human condition isn't something you can just turn off when you clock out and go home.
Ian Bannen was the foil for Connery in this scene. The production where Bannen shone was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Specifically the scene where Jim Prideaux is ambushed and hunted down by Spetznatz, & the scene where Prideaux executes Bill Haydon.
@@neilrafferty2097 Actually it's left ambiguous whether the guy is innocent or guilty, while Connery's character admits to wanting to do sex crimes himself.
The best acting performance of his career. RIP Sir Sean.
Spot on! I always bring up 'The Offence' when someone's talking about his films and not one yet has known of it until I've mentioned it which, to me, is a travesty. Soraidh slàn, Sir Sean 🏴
One of my alltime faves.
Incredible performances by Sean Connery,Ian Bannen, Vivien Merchant and Trevor Howard.
Ian Bannen 🎉Excellent Actor🎉 GRH👍Both From Scotland 🏴
One of Connery's Top 5 acting performances!! Criminally underrated at the time, because the studio was hardly even promoting it, only pushing their latest Bond production! Thank God, Connery was one of the few actors who are determined enough to escape their claws, go their own way and push beyond typecasting until he eventually got his overdue recognition as a truly gifted, versatile actor.
No movie captured rage like this did, an unknown masterpiece.
The Hill and The Offence were both directed by Sidney Lumet and they feature the greatest performances of Sean Connery's career.
yes.
And both had Ian Bannon too. Another great actor.
@@UKSCIENCEORGand Scotsman
What a deep movie
Brilliant film, I've heard people speculate their theories on the answers to the many loose ends left by this film. One of them being that Johnson assaulted the girl and has repressed the recollection of it and now vents his self hate onto Baxter. I dispute this theory for two practical reasons at least 1) the man the girl wanders off with is wearing different clothes to Johnson and 2) that scene cuts to Johnson in the pub with a colleague wearing the same clothes he's worn from the start and suggesting he's been there for a while which would mean his whereabouts were accounted for.
Does Johnson possess the impulse to offend in that manner? Yes, the conclusion of the film tells us this; also his unhappy marriage and the fact he has no children. Couple this with his sexual frustration and aggressive behaviour and morbid obsession toward death and violence he comes across as someone repressing himself but drawn to his desires through his chosen profession. The tete a tete between him and Baxter is what films are all about, the talent of actors as artists, with the aid of a few props. Be it two chairs, a table and a great script to bring a story to life and enthrall the viewer. Imagine this in today's conveyor belt of CGI, identity politics, PC, trans agenda garbage. The libtard populous of today wouldn't be able to comprehend the fact that every angle of the story isn't answered definitively and resolved in a way that helps us say to ourselves "it's ok, those type of people always get caught and dealt with". Did Baxter do it? Johnson pulls him in for decent enough circumstantial evidence e.g he's covered in mud and what appears to be blood, the girl was found by a river bank and trees. He can't account for his whereabouts at the time and is evasive of Johnson's often perfectly relevant questions "you've got a family haven't you, won't they be worried where you are?" He's not very sympathetic to what's happened to the victim, in fact he's quite dismissive. There seems to be two main things he responds to in this film, the most obvious one being the threat of violence from Johnson; but also the vulnerability displayed by Johnson. He taunts and provokes and belittles him. This is what leads to Johnson killing him, the doctor/patient role is reversed and Johnson has to reestablish dominance; but also I think he feels betrayed, because he confides in Baxter unwittingly, feeling that he'll be understood whereas Baxter merely scorns him for being the messed up person he is.
To conclude, I personally think Baxter done it, his wife knows something's not right about him at least but doesn't ask. He sees the vulnerability in Johnson and exploits it, feeling he can outsmart him and talk his way out of it. Both force an unwilling accountability for the same crime.
It sounded like you were going for an intelligent analysis for a moment there until you started frothing about "libtards" "PC" and "trans agendas".
I don't think this film is aimed at the gammon mindset and its definitely not a whodunit
@@voiskumbeaver3285 obviously it's not a whodunnit, I would imagine that by your instant dismissal of my analysis that you consider the derogatory terms I've used aimed at yourself. You now consider yourself superior and say to yourself "I can't possibly compliment anything because everything in life is either one way or the other." Compare this film with idiotic garbage of nowadays that excites no debate but only serves to grossly sexualise all ages young and old and has a dialogue for the lowest IQs in society.
No, the suspect was a nonce and this film was more of a character study of a cop who has reached his breaking point. 20+ on a job where you see almost ever dark facet of the human condition isn't something you can just turn off when you clock out and go home.
Ian Bannen….great actor.
Ian Bannen(GRH) Tops🎉 Bravo 👏👏👏
There are things you do not want to say to an angry Sean
bet folk didnt leave the cinema smiling after it
Ian Bannen was the foil for Connery in this scene. The production where Bannen shone was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Specifically the scene where Jim Prideaux is ambushed and hunted down by Spetznatz, & the scene where Prideaux executes Bill Haydon.
That's a real kick !
Don't make them like this anymore.
Justified ? Probably .
Not justified when you know the context.
@@edeliteedelite1961 I think we have enough context . . . to know it's justified .
@@neilrafferty2097 Actually it's left ambiguous whether the guy is innocent or guilty, while Connery's character admits to wanting to do sex crimes himself.
@@azngf It's a good while since I watched it but I remember it being tough going.
@@azngfThe greek title of this masterpiece fits perfect:
Into the mirror, darkly ".
Both characters are guilty.
Ian Bannen….great actor.