MovieChat Forums > Wake in Fright (1971) Discussion > No comments on Jock Crawford and Chips R...

No comments on Jock Crawford and Chips Rafferty? (spoilers)

posted 10 years ago by PoppyTransfusion
2 replies | jump to latest

When we first meet Jock I thought he might develop into a lunatic who would stalk Grant until death. He turns out to be no such character but he, like the Doc, does take pleasure in Grant's descent in Yabba. Unlike other Yabba residents Jock's drinking seemed in control and we only ever see him well turned out in his uniform. At the end he helps Grant by covering up his suicide with the aid of the Doc. The director described Jock as "king of an infernal kingdom". I think that's a good description but he seemed to be a moral force as well and a sober one.

Great performance from Chips Rafferty. As good as Pleasance IMO.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] parisionescu 10 years ago

Moral force maybe. Seemed more like there was a code of conduct in Yabba which he represented and enforced on occasion. Though I'm sure things would've been much worse with no sheriff. But a sober one? I know you mean sober in the moral sense, but I think Jock was slightly insane, clearly an alcoholic by non-outback standards, and probably knew more than he let on given the den of iniquity that Yabba was. Also, unless you're remembering something I'm not, we aren't told explicitly that Jock helps cover up the attempted suicide - it is entirely possible that he is just going on what Doc has told him (although wouldn't the doctors have been able to tell?) Doc had a reason to lie, because if he had admitted that John had attempted suicide, it would've led to questions, which could've potentially led to John bringing up the sexual assault/rape. But correct me if I'm wrong on that part.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

we aren't told explicitly that Jock helps cover up the attempted suicide - it is entirely possible that he is just going on what Doc has told him

We aren't told explicitly but it's implicit in the way he reinforces the account John will give of what happened to him. I don't think the cover-up was for the doctors but the education authorities to prevent him getting the sack. There's some debate here as to whether or not a sexual assault occurred though.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.