The original for this film, Clouzot's "Wages of Fear," is one of the greats. It is not only a great thriller, but manages in the last minutes to tie a wide range of issues together and leave you thinking about all you've just experienced. In spite of excellent cinematography and first rate sound design, "Sorcerer" is a big bore that never adds up. The first half of the film spans the world and provides a sense of place worthy of Hitchcock. In fact, it really got me thinking about how the four apparently unrelated events might eventually fit together. Well, they don't It's sole purpose is to set out the back stories of the 4 main characters. Unfortunately, the 4 characters are never developed and what we learn here is largely irrelevant to the film's actions or themes.
When we get to the main story, we care little about the four characters and their fate. In fact you may have trouble remembering who two of the characters are and none of the characters ring true. Where does a guy who spent his prior life as a wealthy banker (or, in fact, any of the characters) get the skills to assemble and tune the engine, suspension, etc. of the trucks that he will use to transport the explosives? The back stories make up half the run time of the film but never answer such basic questions. As a result, we are left with a thin thriller about characters who behave in unbelievable ways and never arouse either sympathy or hatred. If well-shot thrill sequences are all you seek in a film, you may enjoy this. While it is true that there is something a bit Hollywoodish in Yves Montand's naiveté in "Wages," and that is contrasted with the grittiness of the characters in "Sorcerer," the ending of "Wages" gives that Hollywood simplicity just the right ironic twist.
In "Wages of Fear" Clouzot limits his focus to the backwater hell hole where everyone lives in poverty enslaved to the world oil market. Clouzot focuses much attention on making us feel how bad this place is. By the end of the film Clouzot has us thinking about the relation of the lives of these characters to our own. While I understand why Friedkin in "Sorcerer," might wish to show the global interconnectedness of the modern world, and that the whole world is now a mean and dangerous place, he never attempts to connect the meanness of that world to the poverty and brutishness of the oil backwater, the current lives of the characters, or our own lives. While he makes the squalor of the backwater convincing, it too has little connection to the world's meanness. Yes, the world is dangerous, revolution is always about to boil over, but what has this to do with us. Clouzot's characters learn and grow as the film accumulates ironies right to the final death waltz. Friedkin's characters barely exist and the film finds no thematic center to hold itself together.
When we get to the main story, we care little about the four characters and their fate. In fact you may have trouble remembering who two of the characters are and none of the characters ring true. Where does a guy who spent his prior life as a wealthy banker (or, in fact, any of the characters) get the skills to assemble and tune the engine, suspension, etc. of the trucks that he will use to transport the explosives? The back stories make up half the run time of the film but never answer such basic questions. As a result, we are left with a thin thriller about characters who behave in unbelievable ways and never arouse either sympathy or hatred. If well-shot thrill sequences are all you seek in a film, you may enjoy this. While it is true that there is something a bit Hollywoodish in Yves Montand's naiveté in "Wages," and that is contrasted with the grittiness of the characters in "Sorcerer," the ending of "Wages" gives that Hollywood simplicity just the right ironic twist.
In "Wages of Fear" Clouzot limits his focus to the backwater hell hole where everyone lives in poverty enslaved to the world oil market. Clouzot focuses much attention on making us feel how bad this place is. By the end of the film Clouzot has us thinking about the relation of the lives of these characters to our own. While I understand why Friedkin in "Sorcerer," might wish to show the global interconnectedness of the modern world, and that the whole world is now a mean and dangerous place, he never attempts to connect the meanness of that world to the poverty and brutishness of the oil backwater, the current lives of the characters, or our own lives. While he makes the squalor of the backwater convincing, it too has little connection to the world's meanness. Yes, the world is dangerous, revolution is always about to boil over, but what has this to do with us. Clouzot's characters learn and grow as the film accumulates ironies right to the final death waltz. Friedkin's characters barely exist and the film finds no thematic center to hold itself together.