THE TERRORISTS (RANSOM)
UK, 1974, 98 minutes, Colour.
Sean Connery, Ian Mc Shane, Norman Bristow, Robert Harris, Isabel Dean.
Directed by Casper Wrede.
The Terrorists is an underrated thriller, unfortunately lumped with the disaster epics because it focuses on a hi-jacking. However, the emphasis is not on the disaster, but on the terrorists, ruthless idealists, who create such situations. The film traces the efforts (and devious governmental deals and tricks) to capture the terrorists, a battle of wits among the hijacker, played with intensity by Ian Mc Shane, the terrorist leader waiting to be reused by the hijacked plane, and the head of security, played with convincingly gruff strength by Sean Connery. The settings are Scandinavian. A good thriller, generating step-by-step suspense on one special day at a modern airport.
1. The focus of the title? Original title was "Ransom". A better title? The terrorism behind the credits?
2. The interest in topical problems? How well used? For suspense, entertainment?
3. The importance of the Scandinavian atmosphere? The airport, winter, mountainous terrain? The contrast with Britain? The political atmosphere, the police and security methods?
4. The importance of the suspense in the plot, the twists, the detailed building up of suspense, the character clash, the threat to people's lives, the political and moral overtones?
5. The morality of the British holding a country to ransom? How well explored? Its plausibility and possibility? The decisions of government, police and security? The value of human lives?
6. The modern audience's attitude to terrorists and their holding the ambassador, to their hijacking the plane? Where did sympathies lie? How were these sympathies used for the momentum of the film?
7. Audience attitudes to politicians for example, Bernard?
8. Audience attitudes to the police, to the ordinary policeman, to the British, to Scandinavian security? How important for the audience to be on side?
9. The importance of Tahlvik? Sean Connery's performance? The explanation of his background for example.. the television programme, in the cafe, his attitude to surrender. his strengths. his ingenuity for example, in picking the spotter, the plane? His personality? His work with the police? That so much depended on his voice? His relationship to the terrorists?
10. How wise were his decisions? His obedience to orders? To his security chiefs, to the army. to the police, to the politicians, to the people on the plane? Did he make the right decision going on the plane in the end?
11. The enigma of Petrie? The impact of his hijacking the plane. the aspects of his personality revealed. his skill in handling the hijacking job. in rescuing Shepherd? In handling the people on the plane? Negotiating with Tahlvik? Audience response to his true identity? His right to hijack the plane? Relationship with Barnes? The retribution of his death?
12. The portrayal of Shepherd and the terrorists? Their ideology? Their escape? Their violence? Waiting with the ambassador? The encounter with the ambassador, the play of nerves? Shepherd and his dependence on Petrie? His death?
13. The portrayal of the pilots? Their landing the plane? Delaying tactics? Calm and handling of the situation?
14. The film's attention to detail to build up suspense and atmosphere: the courier on the plane, the pilot of the small plane and the scenic chase? His capture, the minor police. the prevention of Bernard entering for Tahlvik, his comment over the loudspeaker, the detail of the switch of vans?
15. Comment on the major issues of life and death. threats, decisions, playing games on an international scale? A modern drama in exploring modern situations?
