"You would say that both these characters were derived from the single character of Colman?"
"Well," Ralph said, and hesitated. "Finlay was a composite."
"Of whom?"
"Of Colman and several other characters in the book."
"Which other characters?"
"Characters who were dropped from the film."
"Which?"
"Well, I would have to think for a moment."
"Yes, please do."
"There were a lot of soldiers in the platoon. % m
"Yes…"
"… and we obviously couldn't use all of them in the film, or we'd have had a picture that ran for six hours."
"Yes, I understand that."
"But many of these were minor characters, and I sort of bunched them together to create the single character called Corporal Finlay."
"Yes, but from which characters besides Colman was this character derived?"
"I don't recall their names offhand."
"Can you remember their characteristics?"
"Not offhand."
"Would you say that Corporal Finlay was derived primarily from Colman as he appeared in the novel?"
"Yes, primarily, I suppose."
"In that Colman in the novel became two characters in the film: Colman and Finlay."
"Correct."
"Are you familiar with the character named Colonel Peterson in Catchpole?"
"No, sir."
"The character description of him states that he is a tall, slender, frail-looking man. Would you say that the man who played Corporal Finlay in your film — what was his name?"
"John Rafferty played the part."
"Would you say that he is a tall, slender, frail-looking man?"
"I don't know what you might consider tall," Ralph said.
"Well, I'm a short man, Mr. Knowles, and you're a tall man. Is John Rafferty more your size or more mine?"
"He's about as tall as I am, six feet give or take an inch."
"Is he slender?"
"I would say so."
"And he does, does he not, give an impression of frailty?"
"Well, I don't know about that."
"We have all seen the film, Mr. Knowles, and I think you will have to agree that John Rafferty gives an impression of frailty on the screen."
"All right, all right."
"In Catchpole, Peterson is a psychopath. Would you say that Corporal Finlay is a psychopath?"
"No, sir."
"Would you say he is a neurotic?"
"I don't know the distinction."
"Would you describe Finlay as being disturbed?"
"He is disturbed, yes. But you're forgetting that the character in the book was disturbed, too."
"Which character? Private Colman, do you mean?"
"Yes."
"Yes, and you've testified that Private Colman was divided to form two separate characters in the film."
"Correct."
"One who was still called Private Colman, and the other who became Corporal Finlay. I'm a little puzzled by this, Mr. Knowles, because it was my impression that in writing a screenplay the idea was to eliminate extraneous characters, tighten the action, generally bring a novel — which can be loose and sprawling — into sharper focus. Why then did you choose to make two characters out of what was a single character in Mr. Driscoll's novel?"
"I must have had reasons, though I'm not sure what they were right now. This may have been a suggestion from Olin, who played the part of the troublemaker, I'm not sure. Actors do have a say, you know."
"Yes, of course. Can you remember what it was he might have objected to in the character Colman as presented in the novel?"
"No."
"But whatever it was, it caused you to invent another character, the one you called Finlay."
"I would suppose so."
"Mr. Knowles, do you remember a scene in which you have Lieutenant Cooper requesting Corporal Finlay to assist him with some paperwork, and Finlay replies, 'I can't sir. Paperwork is for sissies,' and the other soldiers burst out laughing, do you remember that scene?"
"Yes, I do."
"If you'll look at this…"
"What is that?"
"… in reel 3, page 4…"
"Oh, yes. What page was that?"
"Page 4."
"Thank you. I have it."
"Would you look at the dialogue there, please?"
"Yes?"
"Where, right after the speech I just quoted to you, Private Colman says, 'Why don't you give him a hand, sweetie?' And then Kenworthy says, 'You could work in his tent, honey,' and Colman shouts, 'You'll enjoy it!' Do you see those speeches?"
"I do."
"What do they mean?"
"They mean, Oh boy, here comes the lieutenant with some more paperwork, everything according to the book. These men are joking, they're trying to make a fool of the lieutenant."
"How about the words 'You could work in his tent, honey'? What do those words mean? These are men talking, you understand."
"Of course. That simply means they consider paperwork to be sissy work."
"Is Corporal Finlay a sissy?"
"No, but he feels the way the others do, that paperwork is sissy work. And the men pick this up and make a big thing out of it, the way they do with everything throughout the film, badgering the lieutenant and trying to make him feel ridiculous, the idea that paperwork could be even remotely enjoyable to this soldier…"
"Enjoyable?"
"Yes."
"In what way?"
"Just the suggestion that it could be enjoyable, the suggestion Colman makes, you'll enjoy it."
"Enjoy it?"
"All right, I see where you're going, why don't we put it right on the table?"
"Sir?"
"Homosexuality."
"Yes, what about it?"
"That's what you're driving at, isn't it? You're trying to say there was a homosexual implication in this scene."
"Was there?"
"Certainly not."
"The words 'sweetie' and 'honey' used between men do not suggest homosexuality to you?"
"No, sir, they do not. Lieutenant Cooper is not supposed to be a fairy."
"Is Corporal Finlay supposed to be a fairy?"
"No, sir."
"And yet, he is based on Private Colman in the book, isn't that what you said?"
"That's what I said."
"Isn't Private Colman a homosexual?"
"No, sir."
"Not in your movie, I realize that. But how about the book?"
"I don't know what he is in the book."
"Surely you read the book?"
"Yes, of course I read the book."
"Then surely you are aware of the stream of consciousness passage — it is seven pages long, Mr. Knowles — wherein Private Colman clearly remembers and alludes to a homosexual episode with the dead major. Surely you remember reading that?"
"If I read it, I automatically discarded it as possible movie material. There is no homosexuality in any of my films, or even suggestions of homosexuality."
"But we do have a disturbed corporal whom the men rib about doing sissy work."
"Yes."
"Calling him names like 'honey' and 'sweetie'…"
"Yes."
"And suggesting that going into the lieutenant's tent might prove enjoyable."
"I didn't say that. Nobody says that. They only say he might enjoy the paperwork."
"Is that what they actually mean? Paperwork?"
"Yes. They're kidding the lieutenant about the paperwork, about how he thinks it's enjoyable, they're belittling his idea of enjoyment."
"I see. And you intended no homosexual reference, either concerning the lieutenant or the corporal."
"Absolutely not."
"Let's get to the girl in your movie, shall we, Mr. Knowles?"