This is, perhaps, the best analysis of that character, played by William Holden, that I have ever read.
Sefton is intelligent; that’s why he acts as he does. For the first time in films the philosophy of the solitary man is elaborated; this film is an apologia for individualism. (Certainly, the solitary man has been a theme in films, as with Charlie Chaplin and many other comedians. But he has usually been an inept person whose only desire was to fit into society.) Sefton is alone because he wants to be alone. He has the qualities of leadership, and everything would tend to establish him as the barracks’ trusted leader. After the deception has been uncovered by Sefton himself, and the leader the man trusted has been unmasked and convicted, we may wonder if Sefton escapes in order to avoid being named to take his place, knowing his fellow prisoners would do exactly that, both to exonerate themselves and because they finally recognize him as their only possible leader.
What’s sure is that Sefton escapes to get away from the companions whom he despises rather than from a regime he has come to terms with and guards he’s been able to bend to his needs.
Sefton needs those whom he despises to despise him in turn. If he remains, he will be a hero – a role he rejects no matter what the cost. Having lost his moral solitude, he hastens to regain it by becoming an escapee, with all the risk that entails.
The rest of Truffaut’s essay on Stalag 17, especially his thoughts on the danger of majorities, is well worth looking at. But Sefton is one of my favorite fictional characters ever, borne out of a sincere and unshakable cynicism. It is this cynicism I think makes him great, and something that I think many people miss in him. They assign hidden altruism and heroism to him, because that is what they need from him – but remember his last line of the film, remember it – and I would suggest that you don’t look at that line as Sefton being your typical tough-guy making a joke in order to hide the fact that he is deeply moved at the goodbye moment. No. I would suggest that you take him at his word. He never wants to see any of those men again. He means what he says. He would cross the street if he saw them. But he doesn’t say the line with viciousness, he says it with a little grin, and a cocky look on his face.
Terrific moment because of all of those contradictory (and confronting) levels.
“Sefton is alone because he wants to be alone.”
Sefton is akin to Rick in Casablanca saying “I stick my neck out for nobody”, only Rick has a long (albeit secret and somewhat shady) past of running guns for people on the “right” side of the ongoing worldwide conflict. You get the sense, through a comment here, a comment there, that once upon a time he really was involved in the fight, he was committed enough to the fight of the little guy against tyranny that he risked his own neck, time and time again. He doesn’t make a big deal about it, but it’s there in his character, and we know that it is there. He can tell us “I stick my neck out for nobody” as much as he wants, but he obviously has convictions. Sefton has none, except that he might as well participate in the flourishing wartime black market, because why not – and also that he is innocent of what the bastards in his barracks accuse him of. Take away Rick’s secret political convictions, and you will find a deeply cynical man. But Sefton really doesn’t stick his neck out for no one. You’d never catch him running guns for freedom fighters or the political underground in France, no way, not unless he could make a buck off of it.
Great great character, and fascinating analysis by Truffaut.
— From The Films In My Life
Fascinating. I like it!
It also helps me make better sense of the grin at the end. Critiques I’ve read have always interpreted it as a softening of the harsh words he just got through spouting, as a kind of “aw shucks, you know I’m kidding” kind of grin. But personally, I never got that vibe from Sefton. It always hit me more like, “nothing personal against you guys, but I am soooo out of here.” And that fits perfectly with Truffaut’s commentary.
Kind of puts him on the other end of the spectrum of a guy like Glen Ford in The Big Heat, who tries so very hard to be a loner but by the end finds himself firmly woven into the mesh of interconnecting personal relationships with the rest of humanity, who cheerfully all stick their necks out for each other.
Critiques I’ve read have always interpreted it as a softening of the harsh words he just got through spouting, as a kind of “aw shucks, you know I’m kidding” kind of grin.>i>
Me too! It just doesn’t feel right to me. It’s too cutesy. It certainly isn’t the kind of thing Billy Wilder is known for – and it’s telling that his favorite character in all of his movies, the one he felt closest to, was Sefton.
I think it’s way more interesting to really see him as solitary – not just a gruff type who underneath it all is an old softie. No, no no.
His heroism at the end is not out of altruism – or who knows what it’s about, he never says – but we DO know that the guy he escapes with has a rich mother and maybe Sefton’ll get a share of the reward money.
Classic!
It’s beautifully complex – really fun to talk about! Holden was never better – born to play such a part!!
I need to watch this one again. It’s got one of my favorite curtain lines too, “Maybe he just wanted to steal our wire cutters, didja ever think of that?” Classic Wilder.
Hmmm… I knew Truffaut was a critic but i’ve never read anything he’s written. But reading this actually has me excited about the prospect of buying this book next time i’m out!
Also this gets up the urge to re-watch some Wilder which is always a great idea.
Patrick- you are definitely in for a huge treat with Truffaut’s criticism! He never ever forgets that he is a FAN. yet his knowledge is also encyclopedic. his stuff is great. Enjoy!
You know the first time I watched Stalag 17 was with my dad around 1969. As a 7 year old, I remember feeling sorry for Sgt. Sefton because I just KNEW he wasn’t that bad of a guy and that he couldn’t possibly have sold out his fellow prisoners and his country for money. Was I just naive (living on AFB’s I was pretty much insulated from the anti-war/anti-government protest movements), or was that subtle direction of Wilder that ensured this underlying feeling?
Earlier that year, I had befriended a “bully”, who, it turns out wasn’t a really bully, it’s just other kids assumed he was because he was so much bigger than everyone else and was not comfortable with others. (I happened to be the smallest in the class, which would be my fate for all my life). He was a loner and misunderstood, perhaps this is why I “understood” Sgt. Sefton.
I think Truffaut is spot on when he states that “this film is an apologia for individualism”. Obviously, it’s impossible for me to try to review the movie as an adult without avoiding my initial impression as a young child. That said, I think the William Holden’s performance DOES have that nuance of “honor” early in the film.
Ironically, the revelation of who the REAL traitor was a much bigger shock than it should have been for an adult in the 50s, compared to a child in ’69. After all, we’re talking about JIM PHELPS being a nazi!!!
JFH, I don’t know what the antiwar movement has to do with this movie.
He WAS innocent of what he was accused of. He knew it – there’s that great line, “Only two people in this barracks know I didn’t do it. Me, and the guy who DID do it.” There’s no doubt on that.
I don’t think Wilder is doing a sucker-punch wiht us – making us THINK that Holden did it – even with the voiceover you get the sense that no, Sefton didn’t do it, and the tale that will be told will vindicate him.
But Sefton has no interest in the group – NONE – and he certainly doesn’t go out of his way to ease his fellow prisoners minds. He remains apart and the more they suspect him the more he despises them. He is a deeply contemptuous character – remember, this is Billy Wilder directing – one of the most cynical men to ever walk the planet. All those Austrian/German/Jewish directors of that time who basically took over Hollywood were deeply cynical men, suspicious of groups in general (and for good reason, seeing as what they came from).
I think Sefton is deeply likeable – I actually LOVE him – but not because deep down he is good and honorable, because I don’t believe he is. I love him because he sticks to his principles, he will not be bullied, and he knows what is fair and what is not fair. But other people’s problems are not his business. He’ll negotiate with the Nazis, of course he will. Why shouldn’t he, while he is in that situation? If doing some wheeling dealing with Nazis will get him some face-time with the hottie Russian female prisoners, then hell yeah he’ll wheel and deal with the enemy, and he does. He gets away with murder in that camp.
I think perhaps you need to see honor there – whatever that means.
If by honor then you mean doing something for the greater good, or having a sense of altruism, or idealism – or something LARGER than himself – then I would suggest you need to see the film again – because I don’t think that’s supported at all.
I also think it’s less interesting. Just my opinion. It’s a less interesting interpretation of this guy.
I would say he’s just HUMAN. He maintains his humanity (meaning, in Wilder’s world, his sense of himself as an INDIVIDUAL) and he knows what he did do, what he didn’t do, what he wouldn’t do, and fuck everyone who thinks otherwise.
Great great character.
He could have been played with TOO hard of an edge, and then he wouldn’t have been as effective or as likeable. But Holden gets just the right note. His sense of betrayal and personal pain when the baracks gang up on him and beat him up – those scenes after they ambush him … Man, is he good.
Role of a lifetime.
With all that being said, I do think he’s a hero.
But not because he does something brave in service of his fellow man. No. Because he maintains his sense of self in a crazy situation and he is not swayed by consensus politics or the pressure of the group. He has no affiliations. None.
This was Holden’s stock in trade – he did it again in Bridge on the River Kwai – a similar character. Who of course ends up being the most heroic and brave of all – but not because he suddenly realizes the greatness of the cause, or the worthiness of the war being fought, blah blah, yawn yawn.
It’s PERSONAL for him. It’s always personal. Never abstract.
He has that great monologue in Bridge on the River Kwai about how stupid war is, how angry he is about it, how he doesn’t respect the rules of the game in the FIRST place – and how he thinks the most important thing is to remember “how to live like a human being”.
That’s why he’s heroic.
He’s complicated and – as I have written about before – I think Holden’s parts in Kwai and Stalag 17 are confrontational to those who enjoy black and white morality. Or, not enjoy – but only recognize black and white morality.
Holden plays deeply selfish people. There was something about him. It just got interesting and more tragic as he got older (Network, for example) – because now he knows it’s a race against time.
I love Holden. :)
Here’s Billy Wilder on Sefton:
“I liked having him around … The idea of making him a braggart … then we find out slowly that he is really a hero. As he pleads there with that lieutenant at the end, he tucks his head out again, from the hole they have there in the barracks, and says, ‘If I ever see any of you mugs again, let’s just pretend that we don’t know each other.’ And off he goes. And he only does it because the mother of the lieutenant who is captured is a rich woman, and he’s gonna get ten thousand dollars. He’s no hero, he’s a black-market dealerâa good character, and wonderfully played by Holden.”
And here’s that wonderful monologue from Bridge on the River Kwai – which I think pretty much sums up Holden’s “thing” as an actor – the thing he could tap into like nobody else:
“You make me sick with your heroics! There’s a stench of death about you. You carry it in your pack like the plague. Explosives and L-pillsâthey go well together, don’t they? And with you it’s just one thing or the other: destroy a bridge or destroy yourself. This is just a game, this war! You and Colonel Nicholson, you’re two of a kind, crazy with courage. For what? How to die like a gentleman… how to die by the rulesâwhen the only important thing is how to live like a human being.”
So I wouldn’t say he has honor – that doesn’t quite fit.
But I would say that he has something better: Integrity. Personal integrity.
BUT he also wheels and deals with the Nazi guards to get what he wants while he is imprisoned.
Wonderful contradiction!!
Patrick – not sure if you’ve read Truffaut’s book-long interview with Hitchcock – but I can’t recommend it highly enough!
From the very first time I saw “Stalag 17” and Holden’s Sefton, I thought to myself: this character would be perfect in a film noir.
George – absolutely. A guy who understands darkness because it’s all around him.
Went and saw Nicholas Ray’s In a Lonely Place last night at the Film Forum here in New York (they’re having a Ray retrospective) – Bogart in that is another character who kind of messes with our preconceived notions about him (both Bogart the actor, and who we expect Dixon Steele to be). I certainly think it is Bogart’s best and most vulnerable performance.
But I would say that he has something better: Integrity. Personal integrity.
Yes…absolute honesty, I say. He makes no bones about who and what he is. He doesn’t lie about it to gain advantage. You know exactly who you’re dealing with, and on what basis.
Heck, give Sefton more angular features and a penchant for 60-page speeches, he’d be an Ayn Rand hero.
I personally would love to see a story with Sefton in some sort of romantic situation. I think it could be quite unexpected. I think you anticipate who he is and how he would behave at your peril! Anyway, I have always thought it would be interesting to see him in that context – just set him down in the middle of it and watch what happened.
I think there are a lot of comparisons to Bogart, which is why I keep mentioning him – who also had that sort of solitary cynical non-romantic pose. So to see that type of guy let a woman into his universe – and not a floozy dame, because he knows how to deal with them – but someone who kind of trips him up a bit (calling Howard Hawks??) – I think it would have been really interesting.
Like I said in an earlier comment:: this is not a man who has any love for the the abstract, meaning: concepts. He gets that they exist but they do not work on him AT ALL as motivating factors. “Love of country”? Don’t make me laugh.
So someone who has no love of CONCEPTS is always interesting in a love situation. Because “love” (to my mind) is rather abstract, it’s an “idea”.
That’s what so many of Hawks’ movies are about – I am thinking now of Only Angels Have Wings. Those guys are pilots in the early days of aviation. they are men that DO, they have no time for concepts or abstractions – when Joe dies by crashing his place, what does Cary Grant say in response? “He wasn’t good enough.”
That’s the only possible answer – the only way you could do such a job and not run screaming into the night. HE wasn’t good enough, but I AM.
So. To add Love, in all its abstractions and it’s IDEAS, into this mix is a verrrry interesting thing. Hawks was a master at that kind of dynamic.
Sefton is as solitary as they come.
He doesn’t go to have sex with one of the Russian hotties. he basically goes and has an orgy with the whole damn barracks. This way his solitude remains intact.
…when Joe dies by crashing his place, what does Cary Grant say in response? “He wasn’t good enough.”
Key theme in The Right Stuff (the book, anyway) as well.
YES!! Integrity was the word I was looking for, not honor. But, as you say, Sefton would have no interest in a discussion of these “concepts” that try to explain his behavior.
BTW, my definition of honor, or at least the one drilled into me by Annapolis has nothing to do with altruism or the “greater”, but has to do with personal integrity (not lying, cheating or stealing). In fact, one of the dictionary definitions of honor IS “integrity”, but because honor has a whole bunch of other definitions, your word fits SO much better.
But the best part is is that Sefton DOES cheat and steal, if you look at it in a certain light – like most businessmen. He doesn’t “stand up” to the enemy out of some love of country – he wheels, deals, negotiates. Even his escape is a total cynical negotiation and we are left to make up our own minds about it. He takes advantage of the war in order to make a buck. Many would judge him for that, many who have “principles”.
Sefton doesn’t get worked up about concepts.
I don’t know – I don’t feel like these contradictions need to be ironed out. It’s really why he’s so awesome, and a great and memorable character.
He’s definitely someone I would like to meet!!
stalag 17 is one of my top two faves and sefton is just amazing.
I believe one of the keys to understanding sefton is that he’s personality type is an INTJ which would explain a lot of his traits.
http://similarminds.com/jung/intj.html
one interesting bit is when he is accused and gets “nervous indigestion” he gives away his fried eggs to joey, this would seem unrational as the eggs could easily be traded for goods or favors with another POW, instead he gives it to the only person he can expect nothing from, this shows us how he would run the world if he had the power, he is cynical because the he sees the world as unfair.