It's easy to criticise O'Brien and label him as the bad guy, but it is worth remembering that without him the stranded party would not have survived very long.
After the plane crashed it was O'Brien who stayed on board braving the fire to save the rifles, water and a lot of other equipment that enabled them to walk to the sheltered caves and survive from there on. All the others including the pilot immediately baled out taking nothing with them.
This merely demonstrates that even an evil person like O'Brien can still fulfill a useful function, at times. He's clearly the villain, and deserves to be thought of that way, yet never-the-less, he was a net plus at times. That hardly gave him the right to drive off other members of the party, engage in sexual slavery, etc.
shareHe also kept wasting his ammo shooting at the baboons.
i agree with you Altho73 - that to see O'Brien simply as a villain is to miss large aspects of the story - it was his hunting skills - primitive and brutal tho they may be - that help them prevail
however - in the dire situation they found themselves in - he became even more primitive and brutal - to the baboons which he correctly perceived as competitors to the humans - and eventually to the other humans which he correctly perceived as competitors to himself - and that is simply "not done"
if this story was supposed to be proof of the superiority of civilization - it failed - so i don't think it had such a cut-and-dried viewpoint
interestingly - the woman - to the end - is attracted to this dangerous creature
and eventually to the other humans which he correctly perceived as competitors to himself
interestingly - the woman - to the end - is attracted to this dangerous creature
have to wonder at a viewer who doesnt see the dire situation they are in - doesnt recognize their dwindling resources - and doesnt see that the humans are competitors as well as allies - and that each contributed in varying degress to the survival of all - and that ultimately - they would openly compete for resources
i don't know if the original author realized it - and i read his book - that his story is a litmus test - testing whether a reader/viewer recognizes the reality of the situation - or is blinded by illusions the communal harmoney of humans
I don't think O'Brien was an asset at all. He was literally a loose gun.
Humans - like the featured baboons - have evolved as a gregarious species, in which leadership works as cement not a cause of division. We each have different skills, abilities and aptitiudes, and they can complement each other more than conflict, otherwise we'd never have evolved as we have. O'Brien only saved his guns for himself. The water he saved was insignificant. And he was not instrumental in finding the spring.
He may have been a better shot, but he wasted plenty of ammo too. Bikel's character also demonstrated hunting skills by catching a big lizard by means of a drop-trap. That boded better than depending upon the rifle as ammunition muat eventually run out. Rather than slaughtering them indiscriminately; it would have made more sense to find out what the baboons were living on, as their calorific intake would have been about the same as humans. And they managed to thrive without firearms.
I thought the telling moment was when O'Brien's character - abandoned to his chosen fate - was finally confronted by the big baboon, which showed true leadership by attacking its enemy and not turning upon its own kind. That monkey was more `moral' than the man.
Finally, Ms York's character was true to form. It's because thousands of generations of women have chosen the strongest and most violent males as mates that there are so many violent men today, and so many wars.
O'Brien really didn't help the stranded party much. He didn't find the spring with the water that was the key to their survival, or the fruit they ate for moisture and some nourishment. He didn't go off into the desert to find help. And, as he killed one man outright and sent two others off to seemingly certain death (though it didn't work out that way), he can hardly be said to have helped them survive.
Yes, he did get some crucial supplies off the burning plane, and he did bag an antelope to eat when proper food was low, but even these acts were in part selfish. His hunting and shooting the baboons may have served a limited purpose in keeping them at bay, but most of this was clearly done for his pleasure and out of his own sense of dominance and machismo and was, literally, overkill.
He made no effort to get out, only to survive at the expense of all the others, except Mrs. Munkton (Susannah York) -- and even she seemed to be an afterthought, as he made no sexual moves toward her until she invited him to. It almost seems as if he wanted to remain in the desert, the dominant male with his mate, for the rest of their lives. Of course, what he would have done when the ammunition ran out is something he apparently gave no mind to.
Of course, what he would have done when the ammunition ran out is something he apparently gave no mind to.
screenman^
"Finally, Ms York's character was true to form. It's because thousands of generations of women have chosen the strongest and most violent males as mates that there are so many violent men today, and so many wars."
Well...
I wasn't a big fan of her character, but...
For one thing, many women haven't 'chosen' strongest/most violent males. Rape and pillage and all that...
And, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that, that is THE reason there are 'so many violent men today' (I don't even know what that means...) and so many wars...
Just sayin' ~
"Much communication in a motion, without conversation or a notion"