7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Pragmatics

1. Definition of Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning of

utterances. According to Levinson (1983:24) pragmatics is the study of the relation

between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding.

Levinson also states that pragmatics is the study of the role of context which plays in

speaker of utterance in meaning (1983:24). Meanwhile, Leech point out that

pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to speech situation (1983: 6). It means

that pragmatics is concerned with the meaning of utterance, in which the meaning

depends on the situation where the utterance occurs.

With different term, Thomas (1995:22) defines pragmatics as speaker

meaning in interaction since it puts the focus on the speaker intention. In addition, it

focuses on the producer of the message, which involves the process of interpreting by

the hearer.

Meanwhile, Yule (1996a:3) divides four areas in which pragmatics are

concerned. Firstly, pragmatics is “the study of the meaning”. It means that pragmatics

concerns to what the speakers communicate and whether the hearers can interpret the

utterance of the speakers. Secondly, pragmatics is “the study of contextual meaning”.

It means that pragmatics requires the consideration of how the speakers organize

8

what they want to say in accordance with whom, where, when, and under what

circumstance they are talking. Next, pragmatics is “study of how to get

communication than what is said”. It means that pragmatics is dealing with

investigation of invisible meaning or what is unsaid by the speaker. Lastly,

pragmatics is “the study of the expression of relative distance”. The speaker tends to

consider how close or distant the listener is so that the speaker is able to determine

how much needs to be said. Yule also states that the advantage of studying language

via pragmatics is that one can talk about people‟s intended meanings, their

assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that they performing

when they speak (1996a:4).

From those definitions, it can be concluded that pragmatics is one of the

linguistics branches, which focuses on the meaning of utterances in which the context

influence the intended meaning whenever the conversation occurs.

2. Context

In understanding and interpreting the meaning of an utterance, one must not

ignore the context or situation surrounding. Levinson (1983: 24) points out the

importance of context. Here the language users must pair the sentences with the

context, in which they would be appropriate. Therefore the sentences should be

appropriate to the context. Leech (1983: 13) considers that context as the relevant

aspect of the physical or social setting of utterance. It is a background knowledge

assumed to be shared by speaker and hearer.

9

Meanwhile, Malinowsky (Halliday and Hasan, 1985: 7) suggests two kinds of

context. First is the context of situation and second is the context of culture. The

context of situation is the context in which the speech is uttered. It is an environment

of text, which includes participants people involved in speech, time, place, social

environment, etc. The context of culture is the context background or history behind

the participants. It covers norm, rule, tradition, belief, etc.

The other definition about context, Holmes (1992: 12) explains about the

helpful ways to reveal such a context in any situation linguistic choices.

- The participants: The participants are the speakers as addresser and their

interlocutors as addressee.

- The setting or social context of interaction: It means where the background

while the participants have a conversation is. It can be place, date, time and

situation at that time.

- The topic: The topic shows what are the speakers and their interlocutors talking

about.

- The function: The function describes the purpose of the conversation. It reveals

why they have such of that conversation.

There are four components that useful to strengthen the context in terms of

social dimensions (Holmes, 1992: 12), they are:

a. The Solidarity (social distance scale)

Based on Holmes (1992: 13), this scale is used to emphasize on how intimate

the relation between the participants (the speaker and the hearer) while they do a

10

conversation. This social distance is the factor which influences the speaker

consideration to use the particular language strategy towards the hearer. Language

choice is closely related to its factor, based on Holmes (1992:4), she stated that

language final choice reflects three factors, such as: the relationship between the

participants and the intimacy between them.

For instance, the choice of strategy in politeness is due to the social distance

scale. Though it is not the stagnant factor, it is the one which affects the use of

politeness. Here, positive politeness and negative politeness strategy have different

factors that affect the choice of the strategy. When the speakers use positive

politeness, it can be said that the speakers and their interlocutors are in a close

distance. It is because the speakers want to show solidarity to their interlocutors.

While for negative politeness, the speakers tend to have a less distance with the

interlocutors if it is compared to the positive politeness. The speakers who choose

negative politeness just want to fulfil the hearer‟s face wants. Thus, the speakers can

save their own face. (Brown and Levinson, 1987)

Intimate Distant

High solidarity Low solidarity

Figure 2.1. The solidarity-social distance scale

Taken from Holmes (1992: 12)

b. The Status Scale

This scale is used to show the people‟s status or power when they

communicate to each other. There are a lot of factors which affect this scale towards

11

the language choice, for example the status differences upon the gender, the degree of

education, the economic status, job status and others. For example, a boss who has

superior status than his staff has right to command the staff with the direct strategy

without any redress because he has a higher job status in the workplace, or it means

he has power over the others. The variation chosen by the speaker is based on the

status of superior or subordinate.

Superior High Status

Subordinate Low status

Figure 2.2 The status scale

Taken from Holmes (1992: 13)

c. The Formality Scale

According to Holmes (1992: 13), this scale is “useful in assessing the

influence of the social setting or type of interaction language choice”. It means that in

different context and setting, people will speak differently because both of two factors

above affect the choice of the strategy also. For example, even two persons have an

intimate social relation, but when they are on a meeting with other co-workers, they

should choose the language which is proper with a formal situation to express their

opinion. However, when they are not in the meeting, they can use informal language

outside.

Formal High Formality

Informal Low Formality

Figure 2.3 The formality scale

12

d. The Function Scales

Based on Holmes (1992: 14), there are factors which affect the differences of

language use: Referential and Affective function scale. This scale is used to measure

the information and the feeling which is expressed by the speaker. It can be said that,

the more speaker utters information towards the hearer, the less feeling the speaker

has to maintain the relationship. Here, Referential function is when the speaker gives

information to the hearer while Affective function is when the speaker has a good

willingness to create a good relationship towards his/her interlocutor, even there is no

important information. It can be said that both of the factors are contradictory.

Referential

High Low

information information

content content

Affective

Low High

Affective affective

content content

Figure 2.4 The referential and affective function scale

Taken from Holmes (1992: 14)

In conclusion, context has played a very important role, and it has also given

many contributions either in spoken or written language. By concerning the context,

speakers and hearers can understand the meaning of pragmatics utterance in

conversation so that they will not misinterpret the intended meaning.

13

3. Speech Acts

3.1 The Definition of Speech Acts

Yule (1996a:48) states that any occasion, the action performed by producing

an utterance will consist of three related acts; they are locutionary act, illocutionary

act, and perlocutionary act.

a. Locutionary act : the basic act of utterance or producing a meaningful

linguistic expression. It is an act of saying something that contains the speaker‟s

verbalized message.

b. Illocutionary act : it indicates the speaker‟s purpose in saying something. It

means the force behind the words. It specifies in what way a speaker is using the

locution.

c. Perlocutionary act : a simple utterance has a function to bring the effect from

that utterance. It is what a person does as the response of what we intend.

The example below will give a clear understanding about these acts above.

A: It is dark in this room. Can you turn on the lamp?

B: I will turn on the lamp

The act of saying “it is dark in this room” and “can you turn on the lamp?” is

the locutionary act. Then the illocutionary act is that A requests B. Finally, the

acceptance of the request by turning on the lamp is the perlocutionary act.

3.2 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts

According to Yule (1996) speech acts divided into two types, namely direct

speech act and indirect speech act.

14

a. Direct speech act

Direct speech act occurs when there is a direct relationship between a

structure and function. There are three structure forms (declaratives, interrogative,

imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement, question,

command).

b. Indirect speech act

Indirect speech act occurs when there is an indirect relationship between a

structure and function. For example, a declarative and an interrogative are used to

make commands in an indirect speech act.

3.3 The classification of Speech Acts

According to Searle (in Levinson, 1983) speech acts are divided into five

types of utterances based on its purposes, they are:

a. Declarations : kinds of speech acts that make a speaker declare something to

the hearer. For example: President : I declare war to England

b. Representative : kind of speech acts that states what the speaker what the

speaker believes to be the case or not. Acts of asserting, describing, concluding and

making a statement are the examples of the speaker‟s intention in uttering his/her

belief. For example: “The earth is round”

c. Directives : kind of speech acts which attempts by the speaker to get the

addressee to do something. Directive covers commands, orders, requests, and

questions. For example: “Open the window, please!”

15

d. Commisives : kind of speech acts which commit the speaker to some future

course of action. Commisive includes promises, threats, and refusals. For example:

“I‟ll be back”

e. Expressives : kind of speech acts which the word state what the speaker feels,

such as apologizing, praising, congratulating, deploring, and regretting. For example:

“I‟m sorry”

4. Speech Acts of Suggestion

4.1 Definition of Suggestion

Suggestion is an advice given to the hearer who has done something wrong to

make such fault not repeated again in the future. Suggestion is like request but

suggestion is not too strong like request and the power of necessity nuance is weaker

than request. Suggestion mostly uses „you should‟, „you can‟, „you need‟, „you

would‟, „you will‟, and often suggestion made softly and indirectly. The example is

you should find someone who is more knowledgeable in that area (Juwari, 2014: 21).

Verb „suggest‟ is closely similar to „advice‟ and „recommend‟ in English

language. Even in the researches on speech act have been conducted before, the term

“suggestion” and “advice acts” have been employed interchangeably to refer to the

same speech act (Searle, 1969; Wardhaugh, 1985; Wierbicks, 1987; Banerjee and

Carrell, 1988; Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1993, 1996; Tsui, 1994; Koike, 1996;

Hinkel, 1997; Mandala, 1999; Matsumura, 2001, 2003) as cited in Martinez-Flor

(2005).

16

According to Vanderveken (1991) (in Borderia-Garcia, 2006) states the „to

suggest‟ can have two illocutionary forces, an assertive force and a directive force. In

its directive use, the one of interest to this research, „suggest‟ makes weak attempt to

get the hearer to do something (Vanderveken in Juwari, 2014: 23). Vanderveken

(1991) in Juwari (2014: 23) says that “to advise is to suggest that a hearer do

something with the special preparatory conditions that this good for him or her,

whereas “to recommend is to advise with the additional preparatory condition than

the prepositional content is good in general (and not only for the hearer)”. From their

definition, he (1991) proposed that recommending entails advising, act advising

includes suggesting. Vanderveken (1991) in Juwari (2014: 23) concludes that

recommendation and advice are under the umbrella from suggestion. Therefore, in

this study sometimes the researcher uses „recommendation‟, „advice‟ and

„suggestion‟ interchangeably.

As directive speech act, act of suggesting belongs to a face-threatening act

since the speaker in some way impose the hearer to concern what the latter should do

although the speaker‟s intention do not hinder hearer‟s freedom of action. Face

threatening act means that if a speaker says something that represents a threat to

another individual‟s expectation regarding self-image, which refers to that emotional

and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize

(Yule, 1996a: 61). Brown and Levinson (1987) cited in (Jiang, 2006: 46) said that

although people who make suggestions often have good intentions, suggestions are to

some extent face-threatening.

17

Giving suggestion can be employed both in direct and indirect way. As in the

theory of directness, direct speech act means if there is direct relationship between a

structure and a function, while indirect speech act means there is indirect relationship

between a structure and function (Yule, 1996a: 44-45). Direct suggestions are

suggestions that are explicitly conveyed. Banerjee and Carrell (1987) as cited in Liu

and Zhao (2007: 64) defined direct suggestions as “those including the desired

action”. The structures used in direct suggestions can functionally and explicitly be

regarded as suggestion, as Vanderveken (1991) in Juwari (2014: 24) said, makes a

weak attempt to get the hearer to do something. In other hand, indirect suggestions

mean those whose structures function and explicitly cannot be regarded as

suggestions. There is no relationship between structures used and function of

suggestion. Banerjee and Carrell (1987) as cited (Liu and Zhao, 2007: 64) declared

that indirect suggestions are those that do have desired action

On the previous studies by experts, there are several classifications containing

the strategy of making suggestion. From the exploration, the writer found the

classification in Martinez-Flor (2005), Jiang (2006), Liu and Zhao (2007), and Bu

(2011) study. This study uses the classification of suggestion found in Liu and Zhao

(2007). Actually they borrowed Jiang‟s classification (2006: 42) and added the want-

structure as direct speech as an additional category. Liu and Zhao (2007) also

differential modals with direct addressee “you” as the agent from modals with agents

other than the direct addressee “you” because “the former structure is more direct and

imposing than the latter” (p.42).

18

4.2 Classification of Suggestion

Bellow is the classification of suggestion by Liu and Zhao (2007: 64-65)

Table 2.1 Classification of Suggestion from Liu and Zhao (2007)

No. Category Structure

1. Direct Suggestion Modals with you

2. Performatives

3. Pseudo cleft structure

4. Imperatives

5. Want-structures

1. Indirect Suggestion Modals with agents other than you

2. Wh-questions

3. Conditionals

4. Yes-no questions

4.2.1 Direct Suggestions

a. Modals with you

Suggestions in forms of “Modals with you” are suggestions that use modals or

semi-modal as, Banerjee and Carell (1985) named, “the illocutionary force indicator”

of suggesting force. This kind of form includes direct suggestions because the

suggestion reveals the agent given suggestion or recommendation.

Banerjee and Carell (1988) in Martinez-Flor (2005) said that the use of

modals in making suggestion is not direct as imperatives and performatives. Celce-

Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) in Jiang (2006) observed that speakers use

modals to perform a variety of social functions, one of them is to give suggestion.

19

The author (1999) ordered modals based on the speaker‟s degree of authority or the

urgency of the advice. Like in the following three examples: (1) You must see a

doctor, (2) You should / ought to see a doctor, (3) You might / could see a doctor,

show the decrease in speaker‟s authority or urgency of the message (Jiang).

Each modal has different imposing power in their usage in suggestion. As

explained before, speaker‟s authority and urgency of the message cause different

imposing power among the modals. It is clear that “must” and “have to” are the most

imposing modals since they have necessity power, higher than “should” and “ought

to” which have obligation power. Frank (1972) in Juwari (2014) said that “must” and

“have to” suggest more urgent course of action which does not allow for the

possibility of rejection, while statement with “should” and “ought to” suggest actions

which may possibly not be acted upon.

b. Performatives

Explicit performatives are associated with the performance of direct speech

acts, for example by saying “I suggest that you …” or “I advise you to …” in order to

perform the act of advising (Searle, 1969). Suggestion in form of performatives can

be characterized by the use of performative verbs and the use of noun. Regarding the

use of performative verbs, such as “I suggest that you change the date of the exam”,

several authors (Wardhaugh, 1985; Koike, 1994; Tsui, 1994; Koester, 2002) as cited

in Martinez-Flor (2005) have argued that this formula is not widely employed in

everyday life since it is regarded as very direct. Tsui (1994) (in Martinez-Flor, 2005)

20

also considers the use of the noun to be a very direct suggestion, as in the example

“My suggestion to you is to get into that”.

c. Pseudo-cleft structure

Pseudo-cleft structure is a form of suggestion which is characterized by a cleft

or What-cleft, as in “What you need to do is …” or “What I would suggest is …”

which function is emphasizing and drawing the hearer‟s attention to the most

important part of a suggestion (Jiang, 2006). Celce-Marcia and Larsen-Freeman

(1999) as cited in (Jiang, 2006) refer to Wh-clefts as important focus constructions

that give special emphasis to the constituent following some forms of the verb be.

There are some related structures regarded as this kind of form to make suggestion.

Jiang (2006) proposed some related structures included in the type of Pseudo-cleft

structures, which are:

a. What … is …

b. All … is …

c. One thing you could do is …

d. Another thing to keep in mind is …

e. One of the most important things to remember is...

d. Imperatives

Suggestion in the form of “imperative” is regarded as the most direct and

impolite forms of making a suggestion (Edmonson and House 1981; Koike 1994;

Hinkel 1997) as quoted in Martinez-Flor (2005: 174) because they have the most

21

literal pragmatic force, like in “consider those theories for your paper” or “Don‟t use

this book”.

e. Want-structures

Want-structures express very strong obligation and they can be more assertive

than imperatives (Liu and Zhao, 2007). This structure can be employed by using I

(the speaker) or you (the hearer) as the agent. Liu and Zhao (2007) gave example

“You want to have a paragraph just talk about one poem, its theme …” which uses

“you” as the agent and “I want you to do something” using “I” as the agent. Using

agent “you” in want-strucures sounds much less assertive as it acts an option for the

hearer, while using “I” expresses a strong request and gives the hearer no other

options (Liu and Zhao, 2007).

4.2.2. Indirect Suggestions

a. Modals with agents other than you

Modals with agents other than you is like modals with you explained

previously which is form of suggestion used modals as “the illocutionary force

indicator” in suggesting. The different is that modal with agents other than you

suggestion do not include into direct suggestion group because in this form there is no

agent (individual, people, institution, etc) directly given a suggestion

recommendation. There are some strategies to formulate this form like (1) passive,

(2) using other agent and (3) using “we” as the subject of sentences (Liu and Zhao,

2007).

22

b. Wh-questions

Wh-questions are as “What about / How about …?” and “Why don‟t you … /

Why not …?”. Jiang (2006) said that they seem to have acquired idiomatic status for

indirect suggestions. Although “Why don‟t you …?” appears acceptable. Banerjee

and Carrel (1988) as cited in (Jiang, 2006) argue that “it is probably less polite in that

in presupposes that the hearer knows that he or she should perform the desired action

and asks for the reason that the hearer has not. Moreover, it “… the hearer with few

options”, and as a result, “does not help to lessen the threat to the hearer‟s face”.

c. Conditionals

Conditional is a form of suggestion whose structures follow conditional

sentences. Jiang (2006) in his appendix mentioned two forms from which conditional

can be employed. Those are “if (I) were … and if (you) …”

d. Yes-no questions

Suggestion in the form of “Yes-no questions” is like “Have you thought of

about …? Would you consider …? (Jiang, 2006). Their structures require yes-no

answer.

5. Politeness Strategies

Politeness is a system interpersonal relation designed to facilitate interaction by

human interaction by minimizing potential conflict and confrontation inherent in all

human interchanges (Yule: 1996). Meanwhile, Holmes (1992) states that a polite

makes the other person comfort when he is making a conversation.

23

When we discuss about politeness, we deal with “face”. Face means a person‟s

public self-image. It refers to that emotional and social sense of a person, so that

every person has experts everyone else to recognize (Yule: 1996).

In order to reduce the possibility of damage another‟s face one may employ a

particular strategy. There are four strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987),

namely bald-on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record

strategy.

5.1 Bald on-record

These provide no effort to reduce the impact of the FTA‟s. It will most likely

to shock the hearer, embarrass them, or make them feel a bit uncomfortable.

However, this strategy is commonly found with people who know each other very

well, and are very comfortable in their environment, such as intimate friends and

family. The bald on record may be followed by mitigating devices to soften the

demand, such as “please” and “would you”.

An emergency: Help!

Task oriented or command: Give me that!

Request: Put your coat away please. Or put your coat away, would you.

Alerting or warning: Turn your headlights on! (When alerting someone to

something they should be doing)

24

5.2 Positive Politeness

It is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social

situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance

between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer‟s need to be

respected (minimize the FTA)

Attend to the hearer: “You must be hungry; it‟s a long time since breakfast. How

about some lunch?”

Avoid disagreement

A : “What is she, small?”

B : “Yes, yes, she‟s small, smallish, um, not really small but certainly not very

big”

Assume agreement: “So when are you coming to see us?”

Hedge opinion: “You really should sort of try harder”.

5.3 Negative Politeness

The main focus for using this strategy is to assume that the speaker may be

imposing on the hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these automatically

assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation.

Be indirect: “I‟m looking for a comb”. In this situation by using this indirect

strategy, speaker hopes that the hearer will offer to go find one for him.

Forgiveness: “You must forgive me that ...”

Minimize imposition: “I just want to ask you if I could use your computer?”

25

Pluralize the person responsible: “We forgot to tell you that you needed to buy

your plane ticket by yesterday”. This takes all responsibility off the speaker by

changing into “we”

5.4 Off-record

The speakers are removing themselves from any imposition whatsoever.

Give hints: “It‟s cold in here”

Be vague: “Perhaps someone should have been more responsible”

Be sarcastic, or joking: “Yeah, he‟s a real rocket scientist!”

6. Factor Influencing the Choice the Strategy

Besides finding the type of politeness strategy, this research also discusses the

factors of executing suggesting expression in conversations. According to Thomas

(1995:124), there are three factors which influence the use of politeness in

conversation

a. The relative power of the speaker over the hearer

People tend to speak more politely when they have conversation with a person

who has higher power. It difference when a person speaks to someone who has equal

power or has less power.

According to Spencer-Oatey (1992) in (Thomas 1995:126), power can be

divided into three types, which are legitimate power, referent power, and expert

power. Legitimate power is someone has power because of his role, age or status.

Next, referent power refers to someone has power because the other admires and

26

wants to be like him/her in some respect. The last, expert power means someone has

some special knowledge or expertise which the other person needs.

b. The social distance between the speaker and the hearer

It refers to the relation between the speaker and the hearer of conversation

because of their closeness influencing the way they choose words to utter. Social

distance is divided into two categories, namely close relationship (i.e. family

members, intimate friend) and close relationship (i.e. the strangers)

c. Size of imposition

It means the importance or degree of difficulty in the situation. High rank of

imposition tends to require more polite while low of imposition tend to require less

polite.

B. Review of Related Studies

Pishghadam and Sharafadini (2011) analyzes delving into speech act of

suggestion: a case of Iranian EFL learners. They focused on how EFL learners utilize

suggestion speech act. They found that discrepancy in three types of suggestion

samples between natives and non-natives, gender and language proficiency were

found to play a significant role in the production of suggestion strategies and the

result of the research were discussed in the context of language learning and teaching.

Liu and Zhao (2007) analyzes whether highly L2 speakers realize the speech

act of suggestion in the same way as native speakers and the reasons behind their

pragmatic choices. They compared suggestions provided by three non-native

speaking English Composition instructors and three native speaking Composition

27

instructors when they hold conferences with their American students. They borrowed

Jiang‟s classification of suggesting expression and they also added the want-structure

as direct speech. They found that the non-native speaking instructors were more

direct than the native speaking instructors.

Jiang (2006) analyzes the linguistic forms used to perform the speech act of

suggestions in both real language and ESL textbooks. He compared suggestions in

two authentic settings, professor-student interaction during office hours and student-

student study groups, and six popular ESL textbooks, three old and three recent. He

found that register differences between office hours and study group demonstrate the

contextual of certain linguistic forms and complexity of forming speech act. The new

generation textbooks are more linguistic structures for suggestions than the old

generation textbooks. He classified of suggestion structures into nine categories based

on grammatical features which are let‟s, modals and semi modals, wh-questions,

conditionals, performatives, pseudo-cleft structures, extraposed to-clauses, yes-no

questions, and imperatives.

Juwari (2014) examines suggesting expressions in the editorial of Jakarta Post

Newspaper. The research describes the kind of the structures of direct and indirect

suggestion used in the editorial. He also describes the dominant of the structure of

suggestion used in the editorial. He used Liu and Zhao‟s classification of suggesting

expression. However, this study is not analyzed using politeness strategies on

suggesting expression.

28

C. Synopsis of Film The Bank Job

The Bank Job is a film published in 2008 by Mosaic Media Group. This film

tells about a bank robbery by Terry and friends in Baker Street, London. The

complete story of The Bank Job is written below which is taken from

www.imdb.com.

Petty-criminal-gone-straight Terry Leather (Jason Statham) owns a failing

car-sales garage and feels harassed by two debt-collectors. His friend, the

photographer Kevin Swain's (Stephen Campbell Moore) ex-girlfriend, a former

model named Martine Love (Saffron Burrows) offers Terry a chance to earn enough

money to never worry about debt again: a bank robbery in Baker Street, London.

Leather gathers his petty-criminal friends, including Swain, a pornographic actor

Dave Shilling (Daniel Mays), a Cypriot mechanic named Bambas (Alki David), and

an elegant con-man "Major" Guy Singer (James Faulkner). While scouting out the

bank, Leather and Love enter and inspect the vault while Shilling poses for

photographs by Swain. The gangster Lew Vogel (David Suchet), who keeps records

of his pay-offs to police at Lloyds bank, happens upon Shilling and Swain.

They lease a shop named Le Sac two lots away from the bank and dig a tunnel

under The Chicken Inn fast-food restaurant to reach the underground bank vault.

Terry employs Eddie Burton (Michael Jibson), one of his garage workers, as a

"watchman" with a walkie-talkie to sit on a roof to keep look-out. Martine, once

caught smuggling heroin into Britain and wanting to avoid jail, set them up for this

job on behalf of MI5, which desires the contents of a certain safe deposit box, No.

29

118. This box contains sensual and compromising photos of a member of the British

Royal Family (in the film, Princess Margaret). The photos and box belong to a black

militant gangster who calls himself Michael X (Peter de Jersey); he uses the photos to

avoid trouble with the Metropolitan Police, and MI5 is charged with keeping the

photos out of circulation.

As Terry's crew digs, the radio chatter draws the attention of a local amateur

radio operator, who overhears the conversation and realizes a robbery is in progress.

He calls the police, who begin to search their ten-mile radius and listen for concrete

details to pin the robbery down. Terry's crew breaks through and loot the vault, as

Martine goes for the photo deposit-box. A suspicious Terry opens it with her and,

upon seeing the pictures, realizes Martine's hidden agenda. Among the photos are

many of high-ranking government officials, including a senior MP, in compromising

positions in a local S&M brothel. The robbers take these with money and other

valuables. Terry arranges for alternate transportation "to be safe", throwing off MI5

who had intended to intercept them. Guy and Bambas escape with their share and

Terry confronts Martine over the photos, who explain the unfolding predicament. The

robbery discovered, the police corrupt ones receiving payoffs and honest ones began

an investigation while MI5 continues their search. Also joining the search for Terry's

crew is Lew Vogel, an organized crime figure worried about the contents of his

ledger, which lists payoffs he made to police, which was stolen in the robbery. He

informs Michael X that the royal 'portraits' had gone missing and Michael X becomes

suspicious of Gale Benson (Hattie Morahan), a British spy who loves his American

30

colleague Black Power militant, Hakim Jamal (Colin Salmon), and has travelled with

him and Jamal to Trinidad.

Remembering the encounter with Shilling outside of the bank before the

robbery, Vogel has him tortured for information with a sandblaster. Shilling breaks

and Vogel goes to Terry's garage and kidnaps Eddie, the lookout. Meanwhile, a

senior minister in the government, Lord Drysdale, is shown photos of him in the

brothel run by Sonia Bern (Sharon Maughan) and agrees to help absolve the robbers

and secure them safe passage. Meanwhile, MI5 issues a D-Notice forbidding press

reports. Police simultaneously release recordings of the walkie-talkie conversations in

the hope that someone will recognize the voices. These recordings are heard on the

radio by Terry's family. Vogel's accomplice, corrupt Detective Gerald Pyke (Don

Gallagher), shoots Dave and threatens to shoot Eddie unless Vogel gets his ledger

back. Vogel agrees with Terry to meet him at Paddington Station in London. During

this time, Guy and Bambas are murdered by persons unknown, and Michael X has

Benson killed in Trinidad by an associates. Terry and Kevin give the same instruction

to Detective Sergeant Roy Given (Gerard Horan), the officer in charge of the

investigation, citing knowledge of corrupt officers under Vogel's control. Terry

convinces Vogel to go to Paddington Station at the same time, offering him the ledger

in return for Eddie's safe return.

Terry heads to the rendezvous while Martine meets up with Tim Everett

(Richard Lintern), her original contact in MI5, on a bridge overlooking the scene.

Vogel and his corrupt police arrive with the mechanic, but recognize the MI5 agents

31

and run. The deputy head of MI5 (with Lord Mountbatten) hands over the passports

Terry bargained for, in return for the photos of the princess. Terry then chases Vogel

and in a fight knocks out Vogel and his thugs, including corrupt Detective Nick

Barton (Craig Fairbrass). Detective Given, officer in charge of the investigation,

arrives to see the robbers arrested. He speaks with the MI5 officers present, who

direct police to let the robbers go. Terry gives the ledger to the police officer before

him, Kevin, and Eddie leave the scene. Vogel and the corrupt officers are arrested

instead. Everett personally supervises Michael X's arrest in Trinidad and Tobago and

has Benson's remains exhumed for reburial in Britain. The final scenes have Terry

and Martine saying good-bye, and Terry and his family enjoying a relaxed and

carefree life on a small motor yacht of their own, off a sunny beach.

The epilogue states that the revelations about the brothel forced many

government officials to resign. Scotland Yard begins investigating the corrupt

officers named in the ledger. Michael X was hanged in 1975 for Benson's murder and

his personal files are kept hidden in the British National Archives until 2054. Vogel is

imprisoned for eight years for crimes that were unrelated to the robbery. The

murderers of Guy and Bambas have never been found. About 4 million worth of

materials and money were stolen from the robbery. At least 100 safety-deposit box

owners did not claim insurance nor identify the items in the boxes.