Every Good Boy Deserves Favor and Professional Foul (9 page)

MCKENDRICK:
Good morning! You've got together then?

ANDERSON:
A colleague. Mr McKendrick …

MCKENDRICK:
You're Crisp. (
He takes
CRISP
'
s hand and shakes it
.) Bill McKendrick. I hear you're doing some very interesting
work in Newcastle. Great stuff. I still like to think of myself as a bit of a left-winger at Stoke. Of course, my stuff is largely empirical—I leave epistemologial questions to the scholastics—eh, Anderson? (
He pokes
ANDERSON
in the ribs
.)

ANDERSON:
McKendrick …

BROADBENT:
Did you say
Stoke?
(
The lift arives at the ground floor
.)

MCKENDRICK:
(
To
BROADBENT
) We've met, haven't we? Your face is familiar …
(
BROADBENT, CRISP
and
MCKENDRICK
in close attendance leave the lift
.
ANDERSON
is slow on the uptake but follows
.)

ANDERSON:
McKendrick—?

MCKENDRICK:
(
Prattling
) There's a choice of open forums tonight—neo-Hegelians or Quinian neo-Positivists. Which do you fancy? Pity Quine couldn't be here. And Hegel for that matter.
(
MCKENDRICK
laughs brazenly in the lobby
,
BROADBENT
and
CRISP
eye him warily
.
ANDERSON
winces
.)

5. INT. THE COLLOQUIUM

The general idea is that a lot of philosophers sit in a sort of theatre while on stage one of their number reads a paper from behind a lectern, with a
CHAIRMAN
in attendance behind him. The set up however is quite complicated. To one side are three glassed-in booths, each one containing ‘simultaneous interpreters'. These interpreters have earphones and microphones. They also have a copy of the lecture being given. One of these interpreters is translating into Czech, another into French, another into German. The audience is furnished either with earphones or with those hand-held phones which are issued in theatres sometimes. Each of these phones can tune into any of the three interpreters depending upon the language of the listener. For our purposes it is better to have the hand-held phones
.

It is important to the play, specifically to a later scene when
ANDERSON
is talking, that the hall and the audience should be substantial
.

At the moment
ANDERSON
is in the audience, sitting next to
MCKENDRICK. MCKENDRICK
is still discomforted
.
CHETWYN
is elsewhere in the audience
.

We begin however with a large close-up of the speaker who is an American called
STONE.
After the first sentence or two of
STONE
'
s speech,
the camera will acquaint us with the situation. At different points during
STONE
'
s speech, there is conversation between
ANDERSON
and
MCKENDRICK.
In this script, these conversations are placed immediately after that part of
STONE
'
s speech which they will cover. This applies also to any other interpolations. Obviously
,
STONE
does not pause to let these other things in
.

STONE:
The confusion which often arises from the ambiguity of ordinary language raises special problems for a logical language. This is especially so when the ambiguity is not casual and inadvertent—but when it's contrived. In fact, the limitations of a logical language are likely to appear when we ask ourselves whether it can accommodate a literature, or whether poetry can be reduced to a logical language. It is here that deliberate ambiguity for effect makes problems.

ANDERSON:
Perfectly understandable mistake.

STONE:
Nor must we confuse ambiguity, furthermore, with mere synonymity. When we say that a politician ran for office, that is not an ambiguous statement, it is merely an instance of a word having different applications, literal, idiomatic and so on.

MCKENDRICK:
I said I knew his face.

ANDERSON:
Match of the Day.

STONE:
The intent is clear in each application. The show ran well on Broadway. Native Dancer ran well at Kentucky, and so on. (
In the audience a Frenchman expresses dismay and bewilderment as his earphones give out a literal translation of ‘a native dancer' running well at Kentucky. Likewise a German listener has the same problem
.)
And what about this word ‘Well'? Again, it is applied as a qualifier with various intent—the show ran for a long time, the horse ran fast, and so on.

MCKENDRICK:
So this pressing engagement of yours is a football match.

ANDERSON:
A World Cup qualifier is not just a football match.

STONE:
Again, there is no problem here so long as these variations are what I propose to call reliable. ‘You eat well' says Mary to John, ‘You cook well' says John to Mary. We know that when Mary says ‘You
eat
well' she does not mean that John eats
skilfully
. Just as we know that when John says ‘You cook
well' he does not mean that Mary cooks
abundantly
.

ANDERSON:
But I'm sorry about missing your paper, I really am.

STONE:
I say that we know this, but I mean only that our general experience indicates it. The qualifier takes its meaning from the contexual force of the verb it qualifies. But it is the mark of a sound theory that it should take account not merely of our general experience, but also of the particular experience, and not merely of the particular experience but also of the unique experience, and not merely of the unique experience but also of the hypothetical experience. It is when we consider the world of
possibilities
, hypothetical experience, that we get closer to ambiguity. ‘You cook well' says John to Mary. ‘You eat well' says Mary to John.

MCKENDRICK:
Do you ever wonder whether all this is worthwhile?

ANDERSON:
No.

MCKENDRICK:
I know what you mean.
(
CHETWYN
is twisting the knob on his translation phone, to try all this out in different languages. He is clearly bored. He looks at his watch
.)

STONE:
No problems there. But I ask you to imagine a competition when what is being judged is table manners.
(
Insert
FRENCH INTERPRETER
'
s box—interior
.)

INTERPRETER:
… bonne tenue à table …

STONE:
John enters this competition and afterwards Mary says, ‘Well, you certainly ate well!' Now Mary seems to be saying that John ate
skilfully—with refinement
. And again, I ask you to imagine a competition where the amount of food eaten is taken into account along with refinement of table manners.
Now
Mary says to John, ‘Well, you didn't eat very well, but at least you ate well.'

INTERPRETER:
Alors, vous n'avez pas bien mangé … mais…
(
All
INTERPRETERS
baffled by this
.)

STONE:
Now clearly there is no way to tell whether Mary means that John ate abundantly but clumsily, or that John ate frugally but elegantly. Here we have a genuine ambiguity. To restate Mary's sentence in a logical language we would have to ask her what she meant.

MCKENDRICK:
By the way, I've got you a copy of my paper.

ANDERSON:
Oh, many thanks.

MCKENDRICK:
It's not a long paper. You could read it comfortably during half-time.
(
MCKENDRICK
gives
ANDERSON
his paper
.)

STONE:
But this is to assume that Mary exists. Let us say she is a fictitious character in a story I have written. Very well, you say to me, the author, ‘What did Mary mean?' Well I might reply—‘I don't know what she meant. Her ambiguity makes the necessary point of my story.' And here I think the idea of a logical language which can
only
be unambiguous, breaks down.
(
ANDERSON
opens his briefcase and puts
MCKENDRICK
'
s paper into it. He fingers
HOLLAR
'
s envelope and broods over it
.
STONE
has concluded. He sits down to applause. The
CHAIRMAN,
who has been sitting behind him has stood up
.)

ANDERSON:
I'm going to make a discreet exit—I've got a call to make before the match.
(
ANDERSON
stands up
.)

CHAIRMAN:
Yes—Professor Anderson I think …?
(
ANDERSON
is caught like a rabbit in the headlights
,
MCKENDRICK
enjoys his predicament and becomes interested in how
ANDERSON
will deal with it
.)

ANDERSON:
Ah … I would only like to offer Professor Stone the observation that language is not the only level of human communication, and perhaps not the most important level. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we are by no means silent.
(
MCKENDRICK
smiles ‘Bravo'
.)
Verbal language is a technical refinement of our capacity for communication, rather than the
fons et origo
of that capacity. The likelihood is that language develops in an
ad hoc
way, so there is no reason to expect its development to be logical. (
A thought strikes him
.) The importance of language is overrated. It allows me and Professor Stone to show off a bit, and it is very useful for communicating detail—but the important truths are simple and monolithic. The essentials of a given situation speak for themselves, and language is as capable of obscuring the truth as of revealing it. Thank you.
(
ANDERSON
edges his way out towards the door
.)

CHAIRMAN:
(
Uncertainly
) Professor Stone …

STONE:
Well, what was the question?

6. EXT. FRONT DOOR OF THE HOLLAR APARTMENT

The apartment is one of two half-way up a large old building. The stairwell is dirty and uncared for. The
HOLLAR
front door is on a landing, and the front door of another flat is across the landing. Stairs go up and down
.
ANDERSON
comes up the stairs and finds the right number on the door and rings the bell. He is carrying his briefcase
.

All the men in this scene are Czech plainclothes
POLICEMEN.
They will be identified in this text merely by number
.
MAN
3
is the one in charge. Man I comes to the door
.

ANDERSON:
I'm looking for Mr Hollar.
(
MAN
1
shakes his head. He looks behind him
.
MAN
2
comes to the door
.)

MAN
2: (
In Czech
) Yes? Who are you?

ANDERSON:
English? Um. Parlez-vous francais? Er. Spreckanzydoitch?

MAN
2: (
In German
) Deutch? Ein Bischen.

ANDERSON:
Actually I don't. Does Mr Hollar live here? Apartment Hollar?
(
MAN 2
speaks to somebody behind him
.)

MAN
2: (
In Czech
) An Englishman. Do you know him?
(
MRS HOLLAR
comes to the door. She is about the same age as
HOLLAR.
)

ANDERSON:
Mrs Hollar?
(
MRS HOLLAR
nods
.)
Is your husband here? Pavel…

MRS HOLLAR:
(
In Czech
) Pavel is arrested.
(
Inside, behind the door
,
MAN
3
is heard shouting, in Czech
.)

MAN
3: (
Not seen
) What's going on there?
(
MAN
3
comes to the door
.)

ANDERSON:
I am looking for Mr Hollar. I am a friend from England. His Professor. My name is Anderson.

MAN
3: (
In English
) Not here. (
In Czech to
MRS HOLLAR
.) He says he is a friend of your husband. Anderson.

ANDERSON:
He was my student.
(
MRS HOLLAR
calls out
.)

MAN
3: (
In Czech
) Shut up.

ANDERSON:
Student. Philosophy.
(
MRS HOLLAR
calls out
.)

MAN
3: Shut up.
(
MAN
3
and
MAN
2
come out of the flat on to the landing, closing the door behind them
.)

ANDERSON:
I just came to see him. Just to say hello. For a minute. I have a taxi waiting. Taxi.

MAN 3:
Taxi.

ANDERSON:
Yes. I can't stay.

MAN
3: (
In English
) Moment. O.K.

ANDERSON:
I can't stay.
(
MAN
3
rings the bell of the adjacent flat. A rather scared woman opens the door
.
MAN
3
asks, in Czech, to use the phone
.
MAN
3
goes inside the other flat
.
ANDERSON
begins to realize the situation
.)
Well, look, if you don't mind—I'm on my way to—an engagement….