University of Virginia Library

'if'

symbolic fantasy,
not real portrait

by thomas walshe

—ed.

In his recent review of the
movie "if" The Cavalier Daily
reviewer missed the point of
this excellent movie, failing to
realize that the story is a
fantasy or wishful dream, to be
taken symbolically rather than

The film is a microcosm of
life, using the drab boys'
school merely as a launching
pad for its satire and symbolism.
The film does not primarily
convey the seriousness of
student revolt: our newspapers
have done this already. Rather
it gives insight into the motives
of the persons who become
involved in rebellion. Its meaning
applies to those who
rebelled in 1776 as well as our
current student rebellions or
that of the Negro. The motive
for rebellion is not merely an
infringement on the individualism
of the three protagonists:
they are stripped of their
dignity and they are enslaved
by rigid and thoughtless authority.
For instance the boys
in charge are superior only by
age and by rule, not by merit
or worth.

Unfortunately the film does
not explain the means for
avoiding student crisis for, alas,
the problem is already with us.
Rather the film explains the
causes of the tense relationship
between youth and established
society, or more generally the
relationship between oppressor
and oppressed. Furthermore
the film is not a threat: one
realizes (when the general calls
for more ammunition) that the
rebels can not last long. The
final scene is a reaction to the
problem not a final solution.

It is a naive critic who must
identify with the protagonist in
order to appreciate a work (One
does not have to be a schizophrenic
to appreciate the merit
of Hamlet, although we certainly
sympathize with the
"Hero.") The chief appeal here
is in the vicarious experience,
in becoming aware of the
motives and feelings of the
young men in the film.

One need not agree with
their action, but must realize
their predicament and their
response and then react to it.

To accuse the film of "slow
pacing" is another error. The
film develops the character of
young, unconcerned adolescents.
There are only three
important figures and these are
developed as exemplary of a
type rather than individuals.
These are really generalized
characters and the story is a
symbolic, generalized story
rather than the story of an
individual. What is important
here is the change that occurs
in the boys. They begin as
carefree and creative (the significance
of "Ritual and Romance":
the motorcycle and
truck stop scene). Later they
become united in a severe
blood trust; they have lost
their joviality. This character
change is crucial in the film
and the meaning revolves about
it.

Finally the boys strike out
in the way they have been
taught, with guns and with
hate. Their first attempt is
rather mild revolt easily
quelled. Their activity is not
understood and the headmaster
assigns the three boys to a
worthless task of cleaning out a
storeroom full of the residue of
the past. While searching in he
reservoir of the past the boys
find the very tools of their
revolution. Also the rebellion is
taken on by the female member
of the group when she
rejects the fetus, thus rejecting
married life and the role of a
mother. Instead they choose to
fight.

The role of the church is
pointed out when the headmaster
pulls the clergyman out
of the drawer, to pay
lip-service to him and his
organization, and then
promptly puts him conveniently
out of the way.

The killing at the end comes
as no real surprise — it even
comes as a relief.

The film tells us that
meaningless words (the headmaster)
cannot fulfill the need
of the troubled youths.
The boys need worthy models
to follow, men whom they can
trust and admire. The boys
want to establish their own
dignity and worth as significant
human beings. In these things
they were stopped and the
dreamer sees one way out as
mass murder.

Much more could be said
about the symbols and irony of
this film but suffice it to say
that I agree with the reviewer
that this outstanding film deserves
more attention that a
"Jerry Lewis comedy." But it
seems puerile to contend that
this film is not a significant
artistic achievement worthy of
praise.