MovieChat Forums > The Winslow Boy (1999) Discussion > Len Rogers: the book Catherine is readin...

Len Rogers: the book Catherine is reading

posted 14 years ago by pmvk
3 replies | jump to latest

In the first scene of the film Catherine carries a book with her, and her father asks her what she is reading. The book is called "The social evil and the social good" and it's the memoirs of a man named Len Rogers, a trades union leader, a "radical" as Catherine confirms. Her mother asks Catherine if John knows of her political beliefs and "still wants to marry" her. Her father takes a look at the book and starts reading in it (which shows how much he respects his daughter).

Many months later the same book is still present. When Catherine goes to the garden with Desmond who is about to propose to her, she leaves the book on a table on the way to the garden.
In the last scene of the film Sir Robert asks Catherine to "show [him] out another way" and she shows him the same way she went with Desmond (quite a symbolism, by the way). Sir Robert notices the book and takes a look at it. Then he looks at her but doesn't say anything.

So this book could be interpreted as a symbol of Catherine's political beliefs (radical left-wing literature) that interfere with her private life (the book is always present when a man shows a certain interest in her).

But there is another signifigance about this book:
When Catherine first speaks about Sir Robert she says to her father: "He is the best if one happens to be a large monopoly attacking a Trade Union."
In his office she tells Sir Robert (in a rather aggressive mood): "I was in Court during your prosecution of Len Rogers in the Trade Union embezzlement case." And she reproaches Sir Robert with the fact that Len Rogers committed suicide and that many people believed him innocent. Obviously Sir Robert prosecuted the same man who wrote the book that Catherine appreciates so much. Because of Sir Robert's "magnificent" skills the trades union leader was found guilty and committed suicide.
Besides the fact that Sir Robert spoke against women's suffrage his prosecution of Len Rogers seems to be the main reason why he inspires such antipathy in Catherine.

What significance does Len Rogers have? Did she have a weakness for this man? Is this the reason why she was in court when he was prosecuted and why especially this book is so important to her that she keeps it and carries it around for months? Or do Len Rogers and his book only represent her political ideas?
And what does it mean that on his way through the garden (entering Catherine's private life) Sir Robert comes across this book?

[–] rebkad 13 years ago

Surely its related to the idea of 'let right be done'?

Is it right that Rogers was basically set up, accused of something he was guilty of to discredit the overall movement? Yes, as an individual he was guilty, but as a body his work and fight as a social campaigner was finished. Sir Robert's motivation to prosecute 'right' over justice gets results - its apotheosis was the Winslow case, his refusal to allow a young boy to suffer a wrong. Its worse aspect was the Rogers case, when he exposes a man's weaknesses, his 'wrongs', but also destablizes the greater good.

In a way, the book symbolizes the thing that Sir Robert and Catherine will have to get over before they could consider marriage. They will have to agree to differ, to support each other in their mutually antagonistic causes. Eventually, the Winslow case proves Robert has a heart - but Catherine's heart thinks in terms of the group, of the tribe, more than the individual case. She stands by her family, but she also stands by her 'Left' ideals as much as Sir Robert stands by his 'right'. She seems to be using the book as a shield to signal her ideals without having to engage with real individual people. They are literal opposites, who attract but who also may never align unless, as Sir Robert suggests, someone decides to yield. He is going to by continuing to pursue her.

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Surely its related to the idea of 'let right be done'?

I agree. When Catherine reproaches Sir Robert that many people believed Len Rogers innocent, he answers: "As it happened, however, he was guilty." What does this mean? Was Len Rogers in fact guilty or was he guilty in the sense of the Constitutional State: because he was found guilty by a judge? The fact that Sir Robert's prosecution was successful doesn't necessarily mean that Len Rogers was in fact guilty. Did Sir Robert do right or justice in the Len Rogers case or neither of the two?

Sir Robert's motivation to prosecute 'right' over justice gets results

I am not sure how to interpret the term right in Sir Robert's definition.

In the end Sir Robert says about the Winslow case that right, not justice has been done:

(Sir Robert) "No, not justice. Right. Easy to do justice, very hard to do right."

I suppose that to him "to do right" means to defend the right of the powerless against the powerful - which is very difficult, because it means that you have to resist the temptation of corruption. In the Len Rogers case he sided with the powerful (the rich, the establishment) against the powerless, the Winslow case was probably the first time he did otherwise.

Eventually, the Winslow case proves Robert has a heart

It depends whether Sir Robert was convinced of the boy's innocence or not. The final dialogue casts a different light on the whole story. What if Sir Robert didn't believe the Winslow boy to be innocent, but accepted the brief for very different motives? The film raises many questions and doesn't give definite answers. That's what makes it such an intriguing piece of art.

In any case the Winslow case proves that there are things that are of more importance to Sir Robert than power and social prestige. Otherwise he wouldn't have resisted the attempted bribery.

She seems to be using the book as a shield to signal her ideals without having to engage with real individual people.

This is an interesting thought. Thank you for sharing it.

They are literal opposites, who attract but who also may never align unless, as Sir Robert suggests, someone decides to yield. He is going to by continuing to pursue her.

I am not sure if his intention to pursue her means that he is prepared to yield or rather that he still hopes that she will yield. On the other hand he knows her well enough to take for granted that she of all women won't give up her ideals for a good match.

[–] rebkad 13 years ago

'"As it happened, however, he was guilty." What does this mean? Was Len Rogers in fact guilty or was he guilty in the sense of the Constitutional State: because he was found guilty by a judge? '

I feel at the beginning of the play Catherine takes it that he was only proved guilty by a judge ie only justice was done to him as a matter of process. This is perhaps what he means as opposed to 'right', which is the 'true' verdict and can be reached after a few minutes, as in the 'plainly innocent' dialogue. Catherine believes his victories come from tricks and stratagems, a thorough knowledge of the process of justice rather than a real connection with the truth. But we see Sir Robert doggedly pursuing the Winslow case because he has decided the boy really is 'rightly' innocent, or at least that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and found innocent. This suggests that his methods are to decide on the defendants guilt, and then work to support or undermine them 'at all costs'. He will make any argument - supporting the weak against the powerful, Nelson and the Bible - to achieve it. This does not prove either way that Rodgers or the Winslow boy really 'was' guilty or innocent of course, only that Sir Robert claims he believed him to be. In fact, such a process of prejudice could be clearly destructive of 'right' if Sir Robert got it wrong, as Catherine may still believes he did with Rodgers. We may decide to believe even this discussion of integrity, indeed the whole case, is in itself a trick, a stratagem to impress Catherine. I would suggest it is probably both, that we are ultimately left to question the honour and motivation of pursuing truth and its potential consequences.

Indeed, it is difficult to suggest that the Rodgers case is a simple matter of the weak against the powerless - what about all the workers in an impoverished and damaged social condition that Rodgers might have embezzled from? Surely right and indeed justice would be served by exposing corruption within the labour movement should it have existed? If Sir Robert believes ultimately in the importance of the 'right', he may have reasoned this is what he was doing, but has ultimately allowed himself to be open to the charge he has been manipulated by greater conglomerated interests.

"Eventually, the Winslow case proves Robert has a heart"
as in, that he has an emotional basis for his decisions as well as a logical one. We are at liberty to put a romantic construction on his actions, see it as an ultimate act of integrity or simple stubborness - but it is not the simple act of self interest we might have thought it. Of course, they will both have to yield to a certain extent to marry - it is only that Sir Robert has chosen to yield first by continuing to pursue her rather than continuing to insist this was a purely logical, only 'just' transaction. Catherine will have to accept marriage on his terms as much as her own - if not ultimately more than her own - and this is something she has only admitted to her father that she might be willing to do.

Thanks for the thanks, and thank you for starting such an interesting topic. I love this play and movie, and you definitely brought up a really interesting point about Rodgers I hadn't really noticed.