The Conversation

Winner of the Palme d’Or (golden palm) prize in the Cannes Film Festival for 1974, The Conversation (1974) was written, directed, and produced by Francis Ford Coppola; it was a film that he really wanted to make, whereas he had made The Godfather (1972) to make money. In both films, business comes to be something more than business. In The Godfather, Sonny tells Michael not to take being hit in the jaw by the corrupt police captain McCluskey personally. That Sollozzo expects Tom Hagen to objectively present a business proposal to Sonny after Sollozzo has had the Godfather gunned down with five shots and still he survived just shows how ludicrous it is to suppose that the consequences of the murderous tactics of that business would not be taken personally. Even so, the moral dimension does not enter into the considerations. In contrast, Harry, who runs a small business recording third-party conversations for clients in The Conversation, gradually comes to take his work personally in a moral sense. Whereas the murders in The Godfather are personal in the sense vengeance being part of the motivations, those in The Conversation are personal in the sense of moral responsibility being increasingly felt by Harry. Accompanying this realization of guilt, however, is a recognition of the extent of surveillance on him, and this too changes him. If the problem were just being morally responsible for what clients do with his tapes, then he could solve the problem by doing something else for a living. Being a target of surveillance himself, however, is something that he cannot change. Even in tearing his apartment apart, he does not find the “bug,” or listening device that his client’s assistant is using. By implication, we can reflect on just how much we are watched in the modern world—that is to say, how much the world in which we live has come to be characterized by surveillance. I contend that we are largely oblivious to it because it has encroached so gradually that its incrementalism is difficult to detect.

Harry repeatedly finds his privacy invaded throughout the film. He arrives at his apartment and finds that his landlady has left a birthday gift for him just inside the apartment. Concerned, he picks up the phone. “I thought I had the only key,” he tells her. “Well, what emergency could possibly . . . alright.” She has undoubtedly said, in case there is a fire, but would she really enter an apartment on fire? “I’d be perfectly happy to have all my personal things burned up in a fire because I don’t have anything personal, noting of value . . . no, nothing personal except my keys, which I would really like to have the only copy of.” The notion that she would enter his apartment during a fire to save his belongings is of course ludicrous. She would be on firmer ground citing a plumbing (water) emergency because of possible damage to the apartment below. Then he notices that she has written his age on the card accompanying the gift. “How did you know its my birthday?” he asks. She undoubtedly tells him that she had seen his birth date in his mail. Another invasion! “As of today my mail will go to a post office box, with a combination [lock] and no keys.” He is reacting to this extreme because her excuses don’t hold water, and thus support his view that she is abusing her authority as a property-owner. Anyone who has rented a room in a house being lived in by its owner knows that without any moral reservations, the roommate can change into the boss.

Of course, Harry exempts himself from the immorality of invading other people’s privacy. Asked by his assistant Stan, who is played by the actor who had played Fredo in The Godfather, about what the man and woman on the tape are saying, Harry dismisses Stan’s claim that curiosity is simply part of human nature. “I don’t know anything about human nature. I don’t know anything about curiosity. That’s not part of what I do,” Harry insists. Furthermore, what his client does with that tape is none of Harry’s business—it is literally not part of his business. In the confessional at his church, however, Harry admits to having some moral misgivings. “I’ve been involved in some work that can be used to hurt these two young people. This happened to me before; people were hurt because of my work. I’m afraid it could happen again.” But then his denial quickly returns for its last stand. “I was in no way responsible. I’m not responsible,” he tells the priest. Well, people were indeed hurt. The president of a labor union had thought that his accountant had talked, so the accountant, his wife, and kid were found naked, tied up in their house, with the hair on their bodies gone and the heads found in different areas of the house. Bernie, one of Harry’s competitors, reminds Harry of this during a post-convention party at Harry’s business. Harry blurts out, “Had nothing to do with me; I just turned on the tapes.” He insists that what his clients do with the tapes in their own business, but we know from Harry’s confession that the line of ethical responsibility is not so clear to Harry himself.

At the convention, Bernie had placed a microphoned pen in Harry’s suit pocket. Bernie records a conversation that Harry has with Stan, who is now working for Bernie, and a conversation that Harry has at the party with a woman who works for Bernie. At the party, with everyone listening, Bernie plays the emotionally intimate, and thus private, conversation that Harry has just had with the woman—the same woman who would steal the tape of the current project from Harry after sleeping with him that night. Bernie does not understand why Harry is so angry at him, and Harry does not indicate any awareness of this extent of his competitor’s invasiveness. These suggest that the extent of invasiveness in the society is more serious than even the practitioners realize. At the party, Bernie tells Harry, “There’s no moment between human beings that I cannot record.” This statement should be chilling for all of us.

After Harry realizes that Bernie’s employee has taken the tapes that Harry has been holding back from his current client, presumably out of fear that the client would kill his cheating wife, Harry calls Martin, his client’s assistant. “You don’t have my telephone number,” Harry says when leaving a message for Martin. When Martin calls back anyway, he tells Harry, “We prepare a full dossier of everyone who comes in contact with the director. You know that means we’ve been watching you.” Well, it doesn’t follow that having a dossier on someone also entails constant surveillance.

Fearing that the director will kill his wife and her lover, who works for the director, Harry gets a hotel room next to the one where the wife and her lover were scheduled to meet. He witnesses a murder there, and goes back to his apartment in fear, where Martin calls. “We know that you now. For your own sake, don’t get involved any further.” Harry then hears his own music playing on the phone, which suggests that Martin has a listening device planted in the apartment. Harry tears it apart looking for the bug, but he can’t find it.

The message of the film goes beyond the moral lesson that Harry is indeed morally responsible for what his clients do with his tapes, for without them the harm would not take place. Interwoven with this realization in Harry is also his gradual realization that his own privacy has been so utterly violated. Both realizations characterize his character-arc.

I submit that we, like Harry, are not aware of the extent to which we are subject to surveillance when we are in public. Indeed, the trend, at least in the U.S. since 2001, has been almost certainly been in the direction of increasing surveillance rather than more liberty from it. Just as Harry comes to realize that his own business activity has an ethical dimension, so too we may come to realize that being watched involves a harm, and so the perpetrators can be culpable ethically.

One example of unethical surveillance is the flawed theory that by intimidating people by maintaining a nearly constant visible stationary presence, whether on a street or in the produce section of a grocery store, police can use deter people from committing crimes. At what cost though? The increasing trend points to the absence of a check on the municipal employees with guns. Freedom from intimidation, and, moreover, from fear, especially in a society replete with instances of police brutality, is arguably an important part of political freedom in a democracy. The gradual depletion of that part of liberty can easily go unnoticed because the change is so gradual.

Receptionists in business offices are gradually replaced by security guards, who not only must check us into a corporate or bank building, but also check us out! In some cases, we can’t leave the building unless we stop by security. This becomes even more questionable legally where the security guards are replaced by police, who by law cannot stop anyone without probable cause, at least in the United States. It is in that country that I think the trajectory is perhaps especially evident. Security guards at the main doors of a grocery store get replaced by police, and they start wearing bullet-proof vests, and then they stand in the produce section as if customers should be shot if they put a cucumber in a pocket.

Security guards at (even small) colleges and universities have been replaced by, or, even worse, supplemented by private police departments, and those police employees can patrol off-campus to enforce the regulations of academic administrators, who don’t have democratic legitimacy. Yale is a case in point. The implication is that private organizations, in the case of private colleges and universities, have municipal police power. The sad thing is that students and faculty get used to being constantly observed, and even come to be oblivious to it. Yet the gradual psychological effects from the passive aggression, culture of paranoid distrust, and routinization of emergency lights on security and police cars that are stationary on a campus even on class days take their toll. In the film, Harry is surprised at the extent to which he has been under surveillance by non-state actors. Faculty, students, and alumni on campus may similarly be so oriented to their tasks, teaching and learning ideas, that the innocents are oblivious to the extent that they are being recorded by cameras and (yet, as if the cameras were not sufficient) watched by security and private police employees. Perhaps university stakeholders should have a conversation with university administrators about the extent of surveillance as being antipodal to academic culture and atmosphere, and thus with the free exchange of novel ideas. 

Surveillance at Yale

Students in Yale's film classes think they are the voyeurs without realizing that there are cameras pointed at the seats! Even so, some egg thought having a security guard in the lobby was essential. Essentially paranoid.

 

As a student, I had taken the documentary seminar. As an alum, I put what I had learned to use, unobtrusively holding my phone-camera once I realized that a virulent security employee was continuously eyeing me as I was innocently leaving a film screening in December, 2023. 

Students being watched as they enter a classroom building

Excessive presence? What would a young student feel?

In September, 2023, that security guard followed me inside. Profiling alumni. Not a good fund-raising strategy for Yale!

The security employee who had followed me inside the building continued to follow me around, even eves-dropping when I was in an office! 

Students being watched on Old Campus; A manned Yale police car on a walkway; An undercover, hostile Yale policeman at a reception. Chill, Yale. 

Police-state 101. New course! Surveillance by Yale's private police employees (and security guards!) takes place even off-campus, in spite of an obvious lack of democratic legitimacy.

A Night of Knowing Nothing

Diwali, or Deepavali, is one of the biggest festivals in India. More than a billion Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists in the world celebrate the festival of lights in which good triumphs over evil. “Despite its deep religious significance, Diwali today is also a cultural festival observed by people regardless of faith.”[1] In this regard, Diwali is like Christmas, which plenty of non-Christians celebrate as a day of giving complete with the secularized myth of Santa Claus, Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer, and Frosty the Snowman. To claim that Diwali is exclusively Hindu or Christmas is only a Christian holiday—and thus in resentment to ignore either holiday—violates the spirit that both share. The “Happy holidays” greeting is an oxymoron, given its underlying motive of resentment. Yet if this were the extent of human aggression, the world would be a much better place. The Indian documentary film, A Night of Knowing Nothing (2021), reveals much worse than the passive aggression of dismissing a national holiday as if it did not exist. The violence unjustifiably and wantonly inflicted by university police on students at several universities who are protesting caste discrimination and the politically partisan coup at the Film and Television Institute of India, goes beyond even the harm exacted by the discrimination by caste. A Diwali celebration is shown in the film, and this raises the question of whether we can of yet even assuming our species' “progress,” celebrate the victory of good over evil as long as human beings in power abuse their discretion with impunity.

The woman narrating the film reads from her letters to her estranged boyfriend, whose family has forbidden the relationship due to her lower caste. The film opens with a protest of students at the Film and Television Institute of India. The Hindu Nationalist Party had installed a second-rate actor as the director of the school, and students objected to the partisan nature of the appointment. Since the strike began, the school’s administration has responded by rule-making, doubtlessly as a means of tightening control. Five students were arrested in a midnight siege, undercutting the administration’s rationalist approach of rule-making.

The film then moves to a non-student woman giving a speech. She reports that police at Hyderabad Central University have been raping and beating students amid protests. That university’s upper-caste administration went after a Ph.D. student for protesting how untouchables were being treated in India. Prime Minister Modi’s government labeled the student an extremist. Other students were barred from the library (which reflects an administration’s lack of academic values) and their dorms. According to the speaker, “The students are on the front line against the fascist government.”

The woman narrating the film is left wondering about the victory of good or evil being celebrated at the festival. “I’m not sure which is which,” she says, doubtlessly referring to the caste system being used as a weapon by her ex-boyfriend’s parents. This line is like that by Gandhi in which he remarked that he used to think that the Vedas were truth but came to realize that truth itself is divine so unjust customs are not divine even if they are in the scriptures. I used to think that truth was God, but came to realize that God is truth.

The film then moves to New Delhi, to a student protest at Jawaharlal Nehru University. A speaker at a rally claims that for Lenin, democracy is necessary for socialism, and that social and political change are both needed. The presumption of egalitarianism in Soviet Communism is debatable, especially in practice, so the inclusion of socialism at an anti-caste protest may be problematic. What about the students who were against the injustices of the caste system but were not supporters of Lenin? It is perhaps not easy to keep a protest focused on its main point. The speaker is on firmer ground who argues that a low-caste person should be able to get a doctorate. Students chant, “Stop the violence against students.” The need for this slogan becomes clear when the film turns from the narrator’s empathy for the women police who are doubtlessly not wealthy. Are they really so different from the students? The narrator doesn’t think so, but then images of the police getting violent, even being joined by the military, saturate the screen as students chant, “A government of violence.” The narrator remarks that any ideology that opposes that of the Hindu nationalist government’s ideology is not allowed to exist. Campus police at JNU go on a rampage, behaving like wild animals under the cover of government. If the beatings and raping are to teach the protesting students a lesson, then what exactly is the lesson that is actually being “taught,” and how presumptuous is it for thugs to teach university students a lesson! 

The policemen on the right and left, respectively, are beating students. Actual footage!

The policeman in the foreground is about to destroy the security camera. From that act, it can be inferred that he knows that what he is doing is wrong. 

Clearly, university police are not members of a university community. I contend that the students should have shifted to protest universities having police at all. Organizations properly have security guards, who protect the property, whereas governments have police power. Indeed, the basis of a state is its monopoly of violence.

At Yale, a police state on steroids, on one corner on the night I saw the film on campus in 2023. An academic campus is no place for non-academic employees to impose passive-aggressive intimidation as a primitive and flawed deterrent through maintaining a saturated presence on campus (and even off campus!) on a routine rather than an as-needed basis. Amid such encroachments, Yale students knew that the campus had become a police state, and that the university administration was paranoid (or had succumbed to hyper-protective parents). 

Perhaps police who beat and rape students should be beaten and raped themselves; perhaps that would teach them a lesson. That goes for the government officials who give the orders in cases in which abuse of discretion by police employees does not account for all of the violence.

In the film, a student speaker claims that filmmakers should not think in black and white stark terms, but rather, in nuanced terms. Raping and beating another human being is hardly nuanced, however, and fortunately the film does not approach the heinous human beings who perpetrate such acts as such. Furthermore, given the government-sanctioning of the violence against non-violent students without the government being held accountable, can Diwali’s claim that good is victorious over evil be believed merely because it is so in myths? The violence shown in the film of police beating students and even taking out a security camera—hence evincing the arrogant presumption of being above being held accountable—makes clear that something more than protests is necessary for good to triumph over evil. It bears remembering that Thomas Hobbes asserts in his famous text, Leviathan, that a person can still act to protect one’s self-preservation even against the state. That right is not based on a state, but is inalienable because the instinct for self-preservation is for Hobbes the main human motive. In the film, the students should have had the means to protect themselves bodily, though of course Gandhi would rebuke this claim, pointing to the moral force in non-violent civic disobedience. Indeed, the moral depravity of the police (and the government) in the film, even more than the injustices of the caste system, should arguably have been the main point of the protests as they went on. The film makes this shift very well, and perhaps this is the main lesson from the film.

---

1. Harmeet Kaur, “What to Know about Diwali, the Festival of Lights,” CNN.com, November 11, 2023.