3

Angel On My Shoulder

 

One of my favorite actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood is Claude Rains.  Throughout his career he brought vibrant intelligence and a world weary cynicism to his roles.  From his screen personae, it might be assumed that Rains was an English aristocrat educated at elite English “public” schools.  Actually he was London Cockney, and had a very pronounced Cockney accent and a speech impediment as he was growing up.  He served gallantly in World War I in the British Army in the London Scottish Regiment, rising from private to captain, and being blinded in one eye as a result of a gas attack.

He quickly achieved post war success in England as an actor.  He began acting in American films and became an American citizen in  1939.  His first big hit was the title role in The Invisible Man in 1933.  He went on to achieve stardom with unforgettable roles, such as Prince John in Robin Hood (1938), Senator Joseph Paine in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and, doubtless the role he is most known for, Captain Renault in Casablanca (1942):

In 1946 Rains appeared in probably the most unusual role in his career as Satan in Angel On My Shoulder.  The plot involves Satan’s attempt to use a deceased gangster, Eddie Kagle, played by Paul Muni, to discredit a living judge the gangster resembles.  The film is filled with bon mots by Rains, including him asking “What in my domain is that?” in reference to a ruckus caused by Eddie Kagle after he arrives in Hell.  The film has a rather profound sequence where Satan, or “Nick” as he is referred to in the film, expresses his exasperation with God for taking such concern over mortals.  He cannot understand why he loves them.  I suspect that is the case with the real Devil, and that the love of God is a complete mystery to him.  As CS Lewis noted in his The Screwtape Letters:

I have been thinking very hard about the question in your last letter. If, as I have clearly shown, all selves are by their very nature in competition, and therefore the Enemy’s idea of Love is a contradiction in terms, what becomes of my reiterated warning that He really loves the human vermin and really desires their freedom and continued existence? I hope, my dear boy, you have not shown my letters to anyone. Not that it matters of course. Anyone would see that the appearance of heresy into which I have fallen is purely accidental. By the way, I hope you understood, too, that some apparently uncomplimentary references to Slubgob were purely jocular. I really have the highest respect for him. And, of course, some things I said about not shielding you from the authorities were not seriously meant. You can trust me to look after your interests. But do keep everything under lock and key.

The truth is I slipped by mere carelessness into saying that the Enemy really loves the humans. That, of course, is an impossibility. He is one being, they are distinct from Him. Their good cannot be His. All His talk about Love must be a disguise for something else—He must have some real motive for creating them and taking so much trouble about them. The reason one comes to talk as if He really had this impossible Love is our utter failure to out that real motive. What does He stand to make out of them? That is the insoluble question. I do not see that it can do any harm to tell you that this very problem was a chief cause of Our Father’s quarrel with the Enemy. When the creation of man was first mooted and when, even at that stage, the Enemy freely confessed that he foresaw a certain episode about a cross, Our Father very naturally sought an interview and asked for an explanation. The Enemy gave no reply except to produce the cock-and-bull story about disinterested love which He has been circulating ever since. This Our Father naturally could not accept. He implored the Enemy to lay His cards on the table, and gave Him every opportunity. He admitted that he felt a real anxiety to know the secret; the Enemy replied “I wish with all my heart that you did”. It was, I imagine, at this stage in the interview that Our Father’s disgust at such an unprovoked lack of confidence caused him to remove himself an infinite distance from the Presence with a suddenness which has given rise to the ridiculous enemy story that he was forcibly thrown out of Heaven. Since then, we have begun to see why our Oppressor was so secretive. His throne depends on the secret. Members of His faction have frequently admitted that if ever we came to understand what He means by Love, the war would be over and we should re-enter Heaven. And there lies the great task. We know that He cannot really love: nobody can: it doesn’t make sense. If we could only find out what He is really up to! Hypothesis after hypothesis has been tried, and still we can’t find out. Yet we must never lose hope; more and more complicated theories, fuller and fuller collections of data, richer rewards for researchers who make progress, more and more terrible punishments for those who fail—all this, pursued and accelerated to the very end of time, cannot, surely, fail to succeed.

Angel On My Shoulder is one of the few examples of comedy film noire and is not to be missed by anyone who enjoys comedy, well written and witty dialogue and big issues presented in an entertaining package.  The film is not under copyright in the US and may be legally viewed in its entirety here.

 

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

3 Comments

  1. Love your blog! I have been lurking here for some time and enjoy the intelligent discussion it engenders. However, having seen a minor error repeated, I thought I might offer a clarification.
    The UK does not have a “Royal Army,” though it has royal regiments and other institutions attached to it. The British Army is a Parliamentary establishment, a consequence of the English Civil War, and that body has never acknowledged that the Army is the monarch’s; it is theirs…well, Commons’ anyway!
    Thanks again for this great forum you provide, not only for us Papists but for all reasonable people!

  2. Thanks Don! If you’ll forgive my own patronizing story….As a frustrated historian and first generation American of Geordy English/Scottish descent on me late Da’s side, who received his citizenship upon discharge from the US Army Engineers by the way, while his older brother served with Monty’s 8th Army in the Royal Signals, I have a great interest in the history of the British Army, though my former study and reading concerned the 19th century German states and that last bastion of catholic culture, Austria-Hungary, inspired in my college days by my late first wife of Hungarian descent. Anyway, a great uncle served in the Great War in eastern Europe with the Royal Scots/No.British Fusiliers (the old 21st Foot), and his brother in the Royal Navy, who lost a leg in the sinking of one of those mine-sweepers in the Dardanelles campaign. The naval service for him was fitting, since my great uncles and their brother-in-law, my grandfather, were all ship wrights in the New Castle area, where, in Hartlepool, they survived the bombardment by the Kaiserliche Marine. The fact that I’m a Papist is due to me Irish American Mum, my father having converted in the late 40’s though he made his confirmation after me; I’m a pre-Vatican II catholic, well just, while he was post.
    My own life has not compared to those of my forbears…bitterness in not getting that ROTC sholarship? St.Crispin’s Day sadly comes to mind….Did I say too much? Ah, what the hell…

    I should add, let’s all pray the right person gets elected today!!!

    Thanks again for a great blog!!!

Comments are closed.