MovieChat Forums > The Offence (1973) Discussion > Does anyone think ... SPOILER alert

Does anyone think ... SPOILER alert

posted 16 years ago by CalvinJarrett
33 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone think that Sgt. Johnson (Sean Connery) was the child molester? They never come right out and say it, but I think at first subtly and then not so subtly it appearsthere can be no other explanation. I didn't look closely at the posts or messages, but it didn't seem that this has been raised. So I'll go ahead and state the bases for my theory:

In the very beginning when Johnson is staking out the school he sees the 12 year old girl depart alone. Later, it is he who discovers her whereabouts in the woods after she is raped. A little too convenient I thought. Then when he goes to comfort her she starts screaming. Of course, she might do that because she would be afraid of any older man who approaches her thinking she would be raped again. But why couldn't she react that way because Johnson raped her and came back for more. When he tried to interrogate her in the ambulance she reacts similarly to him. Also the scene in the woods is very cryptic. I agree with another poster who stated that it looked like he was gaining some sort of sexual arrousal out of comforting the young girl. There is a particularly telling shot where you see both of them in fram from slightly afar and Connery is pretty much laying on top of her stroking her hair. Also he reacts with contrived outrage when the woman comes into the station hours after the rape. He would have seen the young girl depart alone long before this woman. His outrage at her was in my opinion an impromptu interview to see if she got a good look at the man accompanying the girl. I think he just wanted to make sure this witness could not identify him. Then of course during the interrogation of Baxter, Connery appears to be fantasizing about the girl. Lumet keeps cutting to shots of him looking warmly (yet provocatively) at the girl and stroking her cheek. I think he either had to find a patsy (Baxter) to avoid suspicion or subconsciously he couldn't accept that he did what he did so he had to conince himself that someone else (again, Baxter) did it. And then to seal it in his own mind he had to kill Baxter. He probably realized he needed to be punished but could not be punished for his more heinous sin so he killed Baxter to appear the vigilante as opposed to the pedophile he really was. And of course, the scene he has with long suffering wife, played by Vivien Merchant, indicates such a contempt for women. She's reaching out to him as any devoted wife would. He not only rejects her sympathy; he spews venom at her and all he says is that she's not beautiful and never has been. My impression was he was attracted to naive, female children because they did not have the sense and intelligence as his mature wife would. He could pretty much 'lay down the law' with these poor kids and have his way with them as he pleased.

Furthermore, there was no real evidence that Baxter was guilty. He certainly was no more of a suspect than any other man about London who did not have an alibi for his whereabouts for his afternoon-early evening. Indeed, it probably could have been verified that he was at the cinema as he stated. I think Trevor Howard cast grave doubt on Baxter's guilt in the follow-up interview he had with Johnson when he showed that Baxter had no prior record in that district or any other.

Let me know what you think.

[–] DC1977 16 years ago

In answer to your original question...

No.

[–] janx218 16 years ago

I just watched this film last night, and I had this very same discussion with the friend who watched it with me. My friend seemed convinced that Connery was not in fact the pedophile, but that he was starting to realize that his own mind had been corrupted by what he'd seen and done over the years. I, on the other hand, thought the evidence presented throughout the film (which you outline quite well) was hard to ignore. The one point I disagree with you on is the notion that Johnson killed Baxter to appear as a vigilante. I don't think it was anything nearly as calculated as that. My feeling was that Baxter made Johnson wake up to what he'd really become. Johnson, unable to cope with the realization, killed Baxter in a fit of rage. No pre-meditation or desire to appear as a vigilante. This is supported by the fact that Johnson fights the group of other policemen who rush into the room after they hear the commotion. He's obviously still blinded by his conflicting emotions at that time.

But anyway, to make a long story short, I'm not 100% convinced that it was Johnson all along, but I do think there is enough evidence throughout the movie to at least raise that question in viewers' minds.

[–] CalvinJarrett 16 years ago

Thanks, janx. What little time they devote to the who-dun-it aspect of the film seems to center upon Johnson's guilt. Conversely, there is no time or evidence attributed to Baxter being the guilty party. Baxter is just as guilty as that loser who bought the fish 'n chips Johnson grills and asks for chips. In other words he was no more likely the rapist than any other man walking about the London suburbs without an alibi. Meanwhile, Johnson is the only one who sees the little girl leave school alone. Then he acts as though the woman who comes to the station later should have been more vigilant. It was clear he just wanted to see if she could identify him, and he was covering his intent with 'righteoous indignation.' I mean he was right there in fron of the school in his shirlene coat observing. Then of course hours later, ho ironic, he's the one to discover the whereabouts of the raped girl and she reacts to his appearance with stark raving hysteria. As another poster mentioned in a different thread, she did not have that same reaction to the male paramedic in the ambulance. So there goes the 'she's so distraught she doesn't trust any men' theory. And if you really need more evidence, isn't he fantasizing about the rape (or what appears to be the foreplay if that word can be used) during the later stages of his 'interrogation' of Baxter?

As for the premeditation argument you raised. I don't think it was premeditated either. I think it was very, very subconscious. I don't think he mapped out his plan to play vigilante and have baxter take the fall. I think it was an extreme coping mechanism. i agree he couldn't comet o grips with what he'd done (i.e., raped that girl and the others) and so though he didn't consciously realize it he attempted to cleanse his sins by killing a scapegoat, Baxter. Since he was so outwardly convinced that he was ridding society of a contemptible rapist and since no one at the station caught on that he might be the culprit, he would go to jail not for the dreadful rapes, but for taking the law into his own hands. That's much more common among police than being the actual rapists of children. Also, Baxter, due to his perception, caight on that Johnson had something to feel guilty about and he was the only one who could key in the cops (and Johnson's longtime buddies). So I think his subconscious mind saw a two-for-one deal and snagged it. Not too hard to believe when you first accept that this guy is a brutal pedophile and rapist.

[–] bogwart-1 16 years ago

I saw this film at the cinema when it first came out, and now have the DVD. The reason why Johnson lost the plot with Baxter is that Baxter was mocking him, as a policeman and a man. I don't believe either man was guilty of the crimes, although Johnson was obviously sociopathic and possibly even schizophrenic at that stage. Although I have to say I wondered when Johnson found the raped girl, why he didn't say before anything else "I am a policeman".

What on earth is a 'shirlene' coat? Johnson wore a sheepskin coat, which was pretty much standard fare for a lot of people at that time.

[–] CalvinJarrett 16 years ago

Shirlene probably is sheepskin. It's basically the animal skin coat with the fur (wool) around the collar and sometimes cuffs. The interior of the coat is the wool or fur. My grandfather had one in 1976 which I now wear. It's amazingly warm and still very elegant while still being masculine.

[–] bogwart-1 16 years ago

They are warm, but no man would wear one with the cuffs. They've always been considered rather louche, and at one time were the mark of a second-hand car salesman. And there is no such thing as shirlene. It's a woman's name (American) so if you have such a coat that says 'shirlene' it's probably a trade mark.

[–] CalvinJarrett 16 years ago

You'll have to edify me on what the word "louche" means? That might be a British colloquialism with which that I am unamiliar?

[–] bogwart-1 16 years ago

It's actually derived from a French word. The Oxford dictionary defines it as: "disreputable or dubious in a rakish or appealing way". It's a bit old-fashioned, I'm sorry to say, because it's a great word. Trouble is, *nobody* understands it these days in England, let alone the Colonies. :)

[–] CalvinJarrett 16 years ago

The Colonies, huhh? Don't you think that's a bit of an antiquated/esoteric descriptor of the United States of America?

[–] bogwart-1 16 years ago

Yes.

[–] whraglyn-2 15 years ago

Cheers, bogwart! ;)

Scott Ragland
San Antonio, Texas

[–] Clemencedane 11 years ago

I 'm American and know the word "louche." It's not a British colloquialism. It was, however, the perfect word here. And I hardly consider "Shirlene" a normal American name. I've never heard of anyone with that name, let alone a coat ;-)

[–] GFantod 16 years ago

It's, "shearling" coat - as in, sheared sheep.

Apart from that, I agree with most of your theory about, "The Offence." Cheers!

[–] ContinentalOp 13 years ago

''although Johnson was obviously sociopathic and possibly even schizophrenic at that stage.''

Johnson was not sociopathic in one bit. Sociopathy is the absence of remorse, Johnson has remorse and guilt. And schizoprenia is condition which isn't anywhere near as bad as sociopathy. Johnson, however, might be schizophrenic because he certainly has poor emotional responses and negative thoughts. He also has delusions such as when he starts accusing his wife of being with someone like Baxter or Baxter himself.

''However, as to whether or not he is actually the rapist I think is rather moot.''

Johnson being the paedophile rapist would ruin the whole meaning and point of the actual film, which is a portrayal of a guy dealing with negative thoughts connected to all the things he has investigated. His mind is filled with rape, murder etc. but he is not a rapist or a murderer (at least not before he kills Baxter). He lets out of the negativity he has been feeling by beaten Baxter to death. He says so at the end of the film.

Johnson is definitely not the rapist. The actual rape plot is a McGuffin to cause a confrontation between Johnson (a policeman with a deeply disturbed mind) and Baxter (who might be the molester). People should watch the film, enjoy the nuances that are connected to his mind and ignore any notion that Johnson is the rapist when he clearly is not and the whole theme of the film would be ruined if he is. Baxter's guilt isn't important either, because he is only there to help the audience get inside Johnson's head.

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

[–] whraglyn-2 15 years ago

I posted on this thread,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070468/board/nest/151247164

arguing for Baxter as the perp.

Your argument for Johnson as the perp is much more in line with observations.

I concur in full with your assumptions, your observations, your reasoning, and your conclusions.

...and if you disagree with me you're a rascist homophobic baby-killer, so there!

Cheers!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

I don´t really think so - and it´s not a very fruitful line of thought to pursue to begin with since, after all, it´s not a whodunit. What the film scrutinizes - with considerable success - is how people who regularly encounter horrific things as a part of their line of work, cope with these horrors and what pushes some of them to their breaking point. Also, it hardly makes any sense psychologically for Connery being the actual culprit - for one thing, it´s hard to see why he´d suddenly become so unfazed by the suspects teasing. Killing Baxter seemed in no way premeditated (and to deflect suspicion by beating him to death in a supposed fit of righteous anger... I don´t see how that one would work in his advantage either. It´s not like it´d prevent the law to carry out a proper investigation & finding evidence against him - in case there was such evidence to be found).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] datsab 15 years ago

If Johnson had been the perpetrator,the girl would have told someone the moment he wasn't around anymore.
It's that simple.Any other theories don't hold water against this obvious fact.
Whether Baxter was he rapist or not,well that's a whole other can of worms.
I'm not sure one way or the other.

[–] greenmyrtle (2) 5 years ago

This response shows little or no understanding of how sexual assault survivors, especially children, behave. No the girl may not have told someone the moment he wasn't around. She has just had all sense of safety ripped out of her, how can she know who is safe to tell anymore?

[–] zaphod1957 15 years ago

It did occur to me during the period where Johnson is interrgating Baxter and you see these flashes of him stroking the girl's face and she smiling at him that perhaps Johnson was really the rapist. However, after seeing the whole film I think that was just Johnson starting to identify with the perp.. Part of his self destruction...

I couple things that seemed weird about the police investigation part of this (yes, I know its not supposed to be a who-dun-it, but...)

1)They have three previous victims and no description? The way Jenny is approach in the film - the guy just walking up to her - seem to imply that the victims should have seen the face of their attacker, but there never seem to be description or sketch of the man. Prehaps they do have one and it matches Baxter and that is why they are so quick to link him with the rapes, but if so, it is never mentioned it in the film.

2)Why are the police concerned about talking to Baxter that night? All they need to do is put him in a line-up the next day and have Jenny (and perhaps the other victims) ID him. (Of course today with DNA you wouldn't even need that, but this was in the pre-DNA days).

I'm not sure if we are meant to think Baxter actually did it, though he seems like he is slimey enough to be involved in something illicet.

[–] CalvinJarrett 15 years ago

I'm sorry I dropped out of this conversation. Although it was about a year before somebody came to my defense of my claim that Johnson was the rapist. I appreciate that from both posters. Of course, it's somewhat up to the viewer, but I think there is enough evidence to prevent my (our) conclusion from being dismissed out of hand.

[–] Dondi0 14 years ago

I agree with you to a certain degree. For all of the reasons that you stated, rather eloquently, above. The scene in which Johnson finds the girl makes it pretty implicit to me that his feelings are, at best, conflicted. When the torch lights of the other officers alight on Johnson he looks startled, guilty even.

However, as to whether or not he is actually the rapist I think is rather moot. The point is he COULD have been. It's in him. He knows this just as much as we do. His compartmentalisation process has gone horribly awry causing him to come apart at the seams and it appears to be instigating violent psychotic episodes that he has no control over and possibly only part recollection of (the interview with his superior makes many allusions to this). His beating to death of the suspect has many motivations, both conscious and sub-conscious. One of which is definitely a certain degree of self-loathing on his part.

Great flick, relentlessly bleak.
Just like it's New Town setting.

As a completely unrelated side note; this character's issues and Connery's performance and appearance very much reminded me of Timothy Olyphant as Sheriff Bullock in Deadwood. Wonder if Milch had him peep it prior in preparation...

[–] Ironman54 8 years ago

"Baxter actually did it, though he seems like he is slimey enough..."

I don't get your point here. Baxter spoke as if he was happily married and he and
his wife both felt too much emphasis was placed on sex. He was very clear about this
and also, if I remember right, he didn't say this t defend himself against the charges,
it came out when the Sgt. Johnson commented that he and Baxters marriages were similar.
Baxter clearly was happily married, loved his wife as she loved him and presumably, just a guess on my part, was satisfied with her company, maybe some hugs and handholding and the odd peck on the cheek or lips ? I know that he did say that he felt that these days too much emphasis was put on sex and a couples sex life to be happy.

[–] pmvk 14 years ago

Does anyone think that Sgt. Johnson (Sean Connery) was the child molester?

I didn't watch this film until the end, because I don't like it. I didn't buy the psychological drama, it felt artificial to me (I don't know if it was the script, the acting or the directing). However, I agree with you. The scene when he finds the child in the wood is indeed very strange. It was then, when it (first) occurred to me that he could be the child rapist himself.

So even if the director didn't want to answer this question, he gave enough hints to make the audience suspect that Johnson is either the criminal himself or at least not very different from the actual child rapist. He is the culprit anyway - he ends up as a killer after all. He probably wants to kill the pedophile in himself.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CalvinJarrett 13 years ago

That woman was an unreliable witness. I'll have to watch it again - especially the beginning, JohnRouse, but I think you're compressing the timeline a bit. Even if Janey was observed talking or walking with another man, that does not conclusively mean he molested her. The point if we never saw any other man molest janey. Certainly not the Ian Bannen character. The only man we saw behave quizzically around her was Connery. And then didn't she start screaming when she saw him again? She didn't just have a generalized fear/hatred of men at that point because she didn't react that way to the male EMT in the ambulance.

[–] sgcim 13 years ago

It was defintely not Connery. He had a tan jacket, and the man that approached the girl had a black jacket. If you notice, there were two kids walking towards her, and the man in black left them alone because they weren't alone.
Connery is in the pub with someone else when they report she's missing.
Connery turns off the flashlight and finds the girl, because he hears something and thinks it's the criminal; it turns out to be the girl.
She even screams when the EMTs rush her to the ambulance, so she's freaked out about any man right then, although she does scream a third time when Connery tries to interrogate her in the ambulance.
The EMT gives Connery a dirty look when Connery tries to stop him from giving her ether; Connery would rather let her suffer.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"It probably could have been verified that he was at the cinema as he stated".

How the hell could this "probably" be verified? There´s absolutely no basis for such a statement whatsoever.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] CalvinJarrett 13 years ago

You're assuming the man in the blue jacket had to be the assailant. Couldn't he had been a red (or 'blue') herring?

[–] joshwrevens 12 years ago

Talking of johnson's jacket I found the whole scene symbolically a lot like little red riding hood. The girl was in a red cloak and Johnson was like the wolf. Even though you say it was a sheepskin so maybe my theory was wrong.
I think the lines between good and bad have completely blurred for Johnson. I don't think he was the molester but he was becoming a lot closer to a bad man than a good cop. He doesn't want to hurt her but at one stage his hand went to her throat. He rides in the ambulance because he wants the killer but it means the girl can't escape into sleep. At the hospital a couple (presumably the girl's parents) even turn and run from Johnson.