Establishment and early years.

Forti was founded by Italian businessmen Guido Forti, a former driver, and Paolo Guerci, an engineer, in the late 1970s and was based in Alessandria in northern Italy. It was registered as a "Società a Responsabilità Limitata", or Limited liability company. It was initially run in lower motor racing categories such as Formula Ford and Formula Three, both at Italian and European levels. The team was well equipped and soon became a regular winner. Forti drivers Franco Forini, Enrico Bertaggia, Emanuele Naspetti and Gianni Morbidelli (who would all go on to drive in Formula One) won Italian Formula Three titles in 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. In addition, Bertaggia won the prestigious Macau F3 Grand Prix and the Monaco Grand Prix F3 support race in 1988, and Morbidelli won the FIA European Formula Three Cup in 1989. Teo Fabi and Oscar Larrauri also raced for the team in its early years, the former winning the Italian FFord 2000 championship in 1977, and the latter racing as far afield as South America, in the Argentine Formula Three Championship. Forti continued racing in Formula Three until the end of 1992, when it quit the formula in order to concentrate solely on International Formula 3000.

Formula 3000.

For 1987, Forti moved up to International Formula 3000 with less immediate success than experienced in Formula Three. The main reason for this was the chassis the team chose to compete with. Instead of using customer Lolas, Marches or Ralts, all of which were produced by established companies who had many years' experience of designing and building such cars, Forti stuck with their Italian Formula Three chassis supplier Gian Paolo Dallara, who had just designed his company's first F3000 machine. Forti was the first team to use this machine, which was dubbed the Dallara 3087 (a chassis which later would make a single appearance in Formula One for the BMS Scuderia Italia team, as that team's car was not ready for the first race of the 1988 season). This combination of an inexperienced team and an untested car did not score any points in its first F3000 year, nor did the team attend every race on the schedule. Forti used 1988 to gain valuable experience in F3000, and this helped the team to perform better in following seasons, as did a change to more competitive Lola and then Reynard chassis.  After a full season in 1988 and the team's first championship points, courtesy of Claudio Langes in 1989, it became apparent that Forti was improving as a competitive force. In 1990, Gianni Morbidelli scored Forti's first victory in an F3000 race, and although no Forti driver won a championship title in this category, the team established itself as a frequent front-runner, scoring nine wins and five pole positions in International F3000. From 1993 onwards, Forti concentrated solely on F3000, and ran drivers such as Naspetti, Fabrizio Giovanardi, Andrea Montermini and Hideki Noda. 1991 was Forti's most successful season in F3000, with Naspetti finishing third in the Drivers' Championship, ten points behind champion Christian Fittipaldi. Although the team's form dipped over subsequent years, by 1994 Forti was the most experienced team in the championship, employing Noda and Pedro Diniz as drivers.

Formula One.

Preparation.

As his team became more successful, Guido Forti started to think about a move upwards, into Formula One. However, there had been several discouragingly recent examples of teams, such as Coloni and Onyx, which had graduated from F3000 into Formula One and failed more or less immediately due to a lack of finance. Conversely, Eddie Jordan had shown that the move could be made successfully, with an impressive performance in with his Jordan team, which had finished fifth in the Constructors' Championship with a total of seven points-scoring finishes. Forti considered a solid financial base to be the most important factor for success. In 1991 he therefore started working on his Formula One project. At the end of, he signed a deal with wealthy Brazilian driver Pedro Diniz, whose personal fortune and sponsorship connections proved invaluable in increasing the team's budget. Diniz's father, Abílio dos Santos, was the owner of the large Brazilian distribution company Companhia Brasileira de Distribuição and the supermarket chain Pão de Açúcar. By offering companies preferential product-placement in the Brazilian market, the Diniz family was able to obtain personal sponsorship deals with brands such as Arisco, Duracell, Gillette, Kaiser, Marlboro, Parmalat and Sadia, in addition to backing from Unibanco, to fund Pedro's career. By, through Abílio dos Santos, Forti met Carlo Gancia, an Italo-Brazilian businessman. Gancia became a co-owner of the team, buying Guerci's shares, and started working on the team's Formula One project. He finally managed to ensure a respectable budget for Formula One by late, which was "effectively underwritten by the Diniz family". He also hired several experienced personnel, including designer Sergio Rinland and former Ferrari team manager Cesare Fiorio. Furthermore, retired driver René Arnoux was employed as a consultant and driver coach for Diniz. Guerci remained with Forti as one of its race engineers.  This securing of financial assistance and recruitment of staff meant that Forti's ability to participate in Formula One for was assured. Financed by the companies brought in by Abílio Diniz, the team was guaranteed financial stability in the short term, with a claimed first year budget of around $17 million. In addition, this was only the first year of a planned three-year contract with Diniz and his backers.

Forti FG01 car.

The hardest task for the team was designing and building its own car for the first time, instead of buying one from a general supplier such as Dallara or Lola, as was required by the Formula One Technical Regulations. Guido Forti's first attempt at an F1 chassis, the Forti FG01, resulted in an outdated, overweight and very slow machine, and has been described as nothing more than "a revised F3000 car" and, more harshly, "a fearful pile of junk".  The FG01 had many influences. Design consultant Rinland had previously worked on the Brabham BT60 chassis in and Fondmetal GR02 chassis in, the latter under the auspices of his own company, Astauto, before moving to the United States to work on a Champ Car project. In late 1994, Forti bought the remaining assets of the now defunct Fondmetal team, including the remaining GR02 chassis, and requested Rinland's assistance in developing the bespoke Forti chassis based on a planned Fondmetal chassis for the season. Rinland thus provided a great deal of input on the FG01 chassis, assisting experienced Italian engineers Giorgio Stirano and Giacomo Caliri in designing and building the car. The car's aerodynamics were completed by former Brabham, Fondmetal and Astauto employee Hans Fouche using wind tunnels in South Africa, and composite work was done by the Belco Avia company. However, it was rumoured that the FG01 was little more than a re-working of the GR02.  Thus the FG01 did not promise much in terms of performance. It was angular and bulky, with poor aerodynamic performance negatively affecting grip and handling; it had a plump nose, initially no airbox, and was overweight and under-powered, using a small Ford-Cosworth ED V8 customer engine largely financed by Ford do Brasil, which developed an estimated 100 bhp less than the most powerful engine in the field, the Renault V10 supplied to the Benetton and Williams teams. It was also the only car to have a manual gearbox in the 1995 F1 season. The car was liveried in a distinctive yellow-and-blue colour scheme accompanied by fluorescent green wheel-rims, illustrating the team's Brazilian influence in its first year. The precise hue of each colour was chosen as a tribute to Ayrton Senna, who had been killed at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix; the cars were liveried in identical shades to those used on the Brazilian's helmet design.

1995 season.

Forti's number one driver for the season was rookie Pedro Diniz who had raced for Forti in F3000, but without much success. However, he was guaranteed a seat as his family and sponsors were paying a significant amount of the team's budget. The second driver was later confirmed as his more experienced compatriot Roberto Moreno, who had last competed in F1 back in when he had a disastrous year driving for the infamous Andrea Moda team. However, his seat was initially only guaranteed on a race-by-race basis, as Portuguese driver Pedro Lamy, in addition to the team's former F3000 drivers Emanuele Naspetti and Andrea Montermini, were also considered. It was speculated that whoever joined the team would be contractually bound to be number two to Diniz and that his father had insisted on an all-Brazilian driver line-up. A Forti spokesman indeed confirmed that Moreno's nationality, in addition to his experience, was the main reason for his selection. The team later attempted to enter its former F3000 driver Hideki Noda for the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, but he was refused an FIA Super Licence.  Unlike some of the existing teams, Forti was able to test its chassis extensively prior to the start of the season. However, Diniz proved to be around seven seconds per lap off the pace of the leading runners in group testing at the Estoril circuit in March, indicating that the team was likely to be mired at the back of the field. Diniz finished 10th in the season-opening Brazilian GP, but was seven laps down on winner Michael Schumacher. In Argentina, this situation became worse, as, although both drivers finished, they were both nine laps down on winner Damon Hill at the end of the race (with Diniz ahead) and neither were classified, as they had failed to complete 90% of the race distance. The drivers' similar fastest laps during the race were over ten seconds slower than Schumacher's fastest race lap, and almost five seconds slower than the next slowest runner's fastest lap (Domenico Schiattarella in the Simtek). Imola was similarly poor, as both drivers finished seven laps down (with Diniz again ahead) and again failed to reach the 90% threshold for classification. Forti was already the butt of paddock jokes, and were far slower than the other (and financially poorer) backmarkers: Pacific, Simtek, and Minardi. However, the budget enabled improvements to be made to the car. During the season, its weight was reduced by a significant 60 kilograms (approximately 10% of the F1 minimum weight limit of ), and a semi-automatic gearbox, an airbox and redesigns of the front wing, sidepods and monocoque were introduced. The personnel count also doubled during the course of the season. This resulted in a gradual improvement in pace throughout the year, and there were no more non-classified finishes.  In between the Brazilian and Argentine Grands Prix, Rinland returned to Europe full-time to take the official post of the team's Technical Director. His long-term task was to establish an English-based design office for the team, but his initial job was to improve the competitiveness of the FG01 through a series of technical upgrades. However, Rinland subsequently left the team after a few weeks, after falling out with the team's management over the car's lack of competitiveness.  Indeed, Forti's finishing record was good for rookies at 50% (excluding the non-classifications), helping Diniz to establish a reputation as a steady, dependable driver. Forti were then elevated when Simtek folded after the Monaco GP, and Pacific's lack of finance and development enabled Forti to start matching them from the half-way point of the season. At the German GP, both Fortis outqualified both the Pacifics for the first time, and this happened on two further occasions during 1995. Forti's improvement was also aided by Pacific taking on two slower pay drivers, Giovanni Lavaggi and Jean-Denis Délétraz, to ensure that the team finished the season. At the final race of the season, in Adelaide, Forti seemed to have established a firm base for the season, emphasised by Moreno qualifying within 107% of pole position for the first time - a crucial result, as this percentage of the pole time would be used to determine non-qualifiers in 1996 - and Diniz scoring the team's best result in F1, with a reliable run to seventh place, ahead of Gachot in the Pacific. This was only one position behind the points-scoring placings. Nevertheless, despite not scoring any points, Forti finished a "de facto" 11th in the Constructors' Championship, ahead of Pacific and Simtek by virtue of better finishes outside of the points.  Post-championship, Forti took part in the 1995 Bologna Motor Show, where three FG01s—driven by Montermini, Lavaggi and Vittorio Zoboli—raced against, and lost to three Minardis in the Formula One Indoor Trophy.  Despite the progress made by Forti during the course of the season, 1995 was still regarded as a failure. The team had spent more money than its immediate rivals in designing, building and developing a fundamentally inefficient car. Diniz and his sponsors were described as "throwing their money away", and the Brazilian's reputation as a serious F1 driver was damaged, as it took him several years to prove that he was not just in the sport because of his funding. In addition, Moreno's participation with Forti was lamented by many observers, who felt that the experienced driver did not deserve the ignominy of such an uncompetitive car. The only positives were the reasonable reliability record and the fact that the Diniz family were contracted to fund the team for the next two years.

1996 season.

With a solid base to build on and a healthy budget, looked promising for Forti. The team negotiated for the most powerful and expensive Cosworth V8 engines in late 1995 to replace the outdated and underpowered ED models, and its financial security was demonstrated by rumours during the 1995 season that the more competitive but less well-funded Minardi team was considering a merger with Forti as a means of maintaining its own presence in the sport. However, these aspirations were dealt a devastating blow when Pedro Diniz signed for the more competitive Ligier team, taking Martin Brundle's vacated seat as the latter moved to Jordan. Forti's sponsors brought in by the Diniz family, including Parmalat and Marlboro, all left; the budget was significantly dented. For a time it seemed that the team would not compete in 1996 at all, and its survival was constantly questioned. The new car was delayed, and the team was forced to use the uprated FG01B car for the start of the season with the only slightly more competitive Ford Zetec-R V8 engine (instead of the "JS" unit it had been negotiating for), and to rely on temporary sponsors. Nevertheless, Forti remained in the sport for the 1996 season. Moreno was not retained; the team signed Minardi and Pacific refugees Luca Badoer and Montermini to take the two empty seats (although Hideki Noda was also considered), both drivers bringing a small amount of personal backing. Frenchman Franck Lagorce was also signed as a test driver. Pacific had folded during the off-season, and it was clear that Forti would be some way behind the rest of the field in the slow FG01B. Badoer and Montermini failed to make the new 107% cut in qualifying for the Australian Grand Prix and thus did not start the race, but both then managed to qualify for the Grands Prix held in Brazil and Argentina, scoring a 10th- and an 11th-place finish between them in the races. Badoer, however, attracted attention in Argentina for a different reason. As Diniz attempted to lap him, the two collided and Badoer's car flipped over; the Italian escaping injury. Both cars then failed to qualify at the Nürburgring.  Forti produced a new chassis, the FG03, for the next race of the season in Imola. It had been designed by the same personnel as the previous year, with further work carried out by George Ryton after the latter moved to the team from Ferrari and took up the post of Technical Director mid-season. Both drivers judged it a significant improvement over the old car, with increased aerodynamic downforce and directional sensitivity, but there was only one FG03 available, and Montermini failed to qualify in the old car. Badoer, however, qualified last, but comfortably within the 107% cut-off, and only 0.7s behind Ricardo Rosset in the Footwork. Badoer finished 10th and last, but had suffered reliability problems in the new car and was two laps behind Pedro Lamy's Minardi. Both drivers qualified in Monaco, but Montermini crashed in the wet warm-up session and did not start the race, whilst Badoer struggled in the slippery conditions and took out Jacques Villeneuve as he was being lapped by the Williams. He was fined $5000 and received a two-race suspended ban.

Deal with Shannon Racing.

After the Monaco GP, there were rumours that Forti would not survive the season without some form of takeover. In the period before the next race, the Spanish GP, Belco Avia boss Arron Colombo announced that a deal had been reached between Guido Forti and an entity known as Shannon Racing for the latter to buy a 51% share of the team. The deal was concluded later in the month, on June 30. Shannon Racing and its parent company FinFirst were Irish-registered sections of a Milanese financial group, and had already established teams in various Formula Three championships and in International Formula 3000 in 1996. The group was keen to move into Formula One, and Forti provided an opportunity for this to happen. It was believed that Colombo had organised the deal, which was scheduled to continue throughout 1996 with an option for, because Belco Avia was owed money by Forti. As part of the management change, Cesare Fiorio left the team to join Ligier and was replaced by Daniele Coronna, whilst designer George Ryton joined from Ferrari.  For the Spanish GP, the cars therefore appeared in a new green-and-white livery, apparently confirming Shannon Racing's acquisition of 51% of Forti. This financial boost appeared to ensure the team's survival. With the off-track confusion, both drivers again failed to qualify. Nevertheless, at the Canadian and French Grands Prix, both Fortis made it to the grid, Badoer even outqualifying Rosset in Montréal. However, Forti had lost its good 1995 reliability record, as these starts only resulted in four retirements. By this time, Forti's financial problems, caused by a conflict of team ownership between Guido Forti and Shannon Racing, were becoming increasingly urgent in nature. Both cars retired with "engine problems" at the French GP, although it was widely rumoured that this was due to the team running out of engine mileage as it went into debt with engine suppliers Cosworth.

Bankruptcy and withdrawal.

Guido Forti alleged that Shannon Racing had not paid him any money within the stipulated six-day deadline after the deal was concluded and refuted the claim that it now owned 51% of his team. As the team ran out of money, it was doubtful whether it would turn up at the British GP. In the end, Forti took part, only for the cars to complete a mere handful of laps each in practice and thus failing to set a time quick enough to qualify. This was because it was becoming increasingly in debt to Cosworth and was running out of engine mileage for its cars, only having enough to make a token effort at participation. The team made it to the next race - the German GP - but both cars remained unassembled in the pit garages throughout the weekend after the engine supply was finally cut off.  Guido Forti, after discussing the matter with commercial rights-owner Bernie Ecclestone, had decided to withdraw the team from the German GP as negotiations over the team's ownership between himself and Shannon continued, despite the threat of the FIA (F1's governing body) imposing a fine on the outfit for missing the race. Following the failure of these negotiations, he then announced that Shannon's deal had fallen through and that he was back in charge of the team. He hoped to finalise some more sponsorship deals which would allow Forti to compete in the Hungarian GP. Shannon responded by claiming it still owned 51% of the team, and that it intended to solve Forti's financial problems itself, in addition to replacing Guido Forti as Team Principal. He duly took the company to court over the matter, an arduous process in the Italian legal system.  With the team in limbo whilst the ownership dispute was judged, Forti's situation was bleak. The team faced the prospect of further heavy FIA-imposed fines for missing races if the situation did not improve, or even exclusion from the championship for bringing the sport into disrepute, as had happened to the Andrea Moda team in. Forti withdrew his team from the sport; it did not make an appearance at the Hungarian GP, the Belgian GP, nor at any further point in the championship. Badoer and Montermini were left without drives, and the promising FG03 chassis would no longer race. By the time Shannon Racing won the court case in September, Forti had ceased to exist. Shannon Racing's teams in the lower motorsport categories also closed down. Coincidentally, Guido Forti had signed the 1997 Concorde Agreement shortly before his team's demise, which could have given his team a chance of surviving if it had made it into that year due to the extra television revenue that was duly granted to each of the teams under the terms of the agreement.

Legacy.

Forti's withdrawal marked not only the end of its participation in Formula One, but also terminated a team which had enjoyed success in International Formula 3000 and other minor categories. It is generally agreed that Forti may have succeeded if it had its 1995 budget and the FG03 car at the same time, and that Diniz's departure meant that it stood little chance of survival, but the team has become another example of a small, backmarking team unable to finance its aspirations; one of the final "privateer" teams to enter the sport in an era of increasing influence and participation from the large car manufacturers. Forti is often cited along with Pacific and Simtek as prime examples of this tendency. It was also argued that the increasing amount of money involved in financing an F1 team which was forcing many of the smaller teams to withdraw in the early to mid-1990s was a long-term threat to the future of the sport. Alternatively, some saw Forti and similar tail-enders as undeserving of a place in F1, and it has been suggested that the imposition of the 107% rule by the FIA in 1996 was a move to force them to raise their game or leave the sport altogether.  However, the Forti F1 cars have since been used for other purposes. Examples of the FG03 are currently being used as part of F1-themed track days in the United Kingdom at motor racing circuits such as Rockingham.

Forti Corse, commonly known as Forti, was an Italian motor racing team chiefly known for its brief and unsuccessful involvement in Formula One in the mid-1990s. It was established in the late 1970s and competed in lower formulae for two decades. The team's successes during this period included four Drivers' Championships in Italian Formula Three during the 1980s, and race wins in the International Formula 3000 championship, in which it competed from 1987 to 1994. From 1992, team co-founder Guido Forti developed a relationship with the wealthy Brazilian businessman Abílio dos Santos Diniz that gave Diniz's racing driver son, Pedro, a permanent seat in the team and the outfit a sufficiently high budget to consider entering Formula One.

Forti Corse, puis Forti, est une ancienne écurie de sport automobile italienne qui s'est notamment engagée en Formule 1 lors du championnat du monde 1995 puis du championnat du monde 1996, qu'elle ne termine pas. Créée en 1978, l'écurie a participé à différentes formules de compétition pendant près de deux décennies. Forti Corse a décroché quatre titres de champion des pilotes de Formule 3 italienne obtenus pendant la seconde moitié des années 1980 et quelques victoires en championnats de Formule 3000 auxquels elle a participé entre 1987 et 1994.


Career.

Joel was born in Paris, where he studied. In 1973, he was hired by the Opéra du Rhin in Strasbourg as assistant director and remained until 1978. In 1976, Patrice Chéreau brought him in as an assistant for the production of the "Jahrhundertring" for the centenary of the Bayreuth Festival. In 1979, he began his own directing career with a production of Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen" for the Opéra du Rhin and the Opéra de Lyon. In 1981, he directed "Samson et Dalila" at the San Francisco Opera, with Shirley Verrett and Plácido Domingo in the leading roles, and Verdi's "Aida" at the Lyric Opera of Chicago, with Luciano Pavarotti.  He directed a second "Ring" for the Hessisches Staatstheater Wiesbaden, "Aida" at the Vienna State Opera in 1984, Verdi's "Ernani" and Wagner's "Parsifal" in San Francisco, Wagner's "Lohengrin" in Copenhagen, Tchaikovsky's "Eugene Onegin", Mascagni's "Cavalleria Rusticana" and Leoncavallo's "Pagliacci" in Amsterdam and Gothenburg, Verdi's "Rigoletto", "La traviata" and "La forza del destino" at the Opernhaus Zürich, "Salomé" by Richard Strauss in Essen, and Mussorgski's "Boris Godunov" and Bellini's "I Capuleti e i Montecchi" at the Theater Bremen. He also directed Puccini's "Tosca" in Lausanne for José van Dam's debut as Scarpia. In 1994, he made his debut at La Scala in Milan with Puccini's "La rondine". He staged Gounod's "Roméo et Juliette" at the Royal Opera House in London, and Bizet's "Carmen" at the Teatro Colón in Buenos Aires.  Joel made his debut at the Metropolitan Opera in New York in 1996 with Giordano's "Andrea Chénier", again with Pavarotti. In 1998, he directed "Aida" for the reopening of the Teatro Massimo of Palermo, and he staged "Lucia di Lammermoor" at the Metropolitan Opera. In 1999, he directed a new production of Massenet's "Manon" at La Scala.  In France, he directed Puccini's "Turandot" and Massenet's "Thaïs" in Nancy, Ponchielli's "La Gioconda" and Verdi's "Les Vêpres siciliennes" at the Opéra national de Montpellier, Debussy's "La Damoiselle élue" and Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" with Jessye Norman at the Paris Opera, Gounod's "Faust" and the world premiere of Marcel Landowski's "Montségur" in Toulouse, and "Andrea Chénier" at the Opéra du Rhin and the Opéra de Lyon. At the Paris Opera, he staged a new production of "Un Bal masqué" in 1992. He directed Wagner's "Parsifal" in Nice in 1994.  From 1990 to 2009, Joel was artistic director of the Capitole de Toulouse. For the reopening of the Théâtre du Capitole in 1996, he presented Charpentier's "Louise" and Massenet's "Werther". Among his productions in Toulouse were Wagner's "Ring", "Boris Godunov", "Louise" and "Hamlet". He reopened the Théâtre du Capitole, after the renovation of the stage cage, in October 2004, with a new production of Janáček's "Jenůfa".  He staged "Daphne" by Richard Strauss at the Vienna State Opera in 2004, Puccini's "La rondine" at the Metropolitan Opera in 2008, and "Faust" at the Vienna State Opera the same year.

Paris Opera.

From 2009, Joel was director of the Paris Opera, succeeding Gerard Mortier.  In 2011, the institution recorded an attendance of nearly 800,000, 94.1% and 1.7% higher than in 2010. While standard repertoire was performed, contemporary opera appeared in Bruno Mantovani's opera "",'s ballet "La Source", Alexei Ratmansky's ballet "Psyché", which was also shown in New York City, and Wayne McGregor's ballet "L'Anatomie de la sensation".  In October 2012, Joel announced that he would not stand for another term, after learning of the Opera's budgetary planning for the coming years. In September 2013, he tendered his resignation, one year early, effective August 2014. He was succeeded by Stéphane Lissner.

Family.

Joel was the brother of conductor Emmanuel Joel-Hornak. He died on 18 June 2020.

Awards.

Joel received the Drama and Music Critics Award for his lyrical productions twice, as well as a Victoire de la Musique in 1996, in the category "Best Lyrical Production" for Poulenc's "Dialogues des Carmélites".  Joel had been a chevalier (knight) of the Legion of Honour since 2004 and became an officer in 2014.

Nicolas Joel or Joël (6 February 195319 June 2020) was a French opera director and administrator of opera houses. He was general manager of the Théâtre du Capitole de Toulouse from 1990 to 2009 and of the Paris Opera from 2009 to 2014. He directed operas internationally.

Nicolas Joel (ou Joël) est un metteur en scène et administrateur français de théâtre d'opéra né le à Paris et mort le.


Early life and career.

John was born in New York and he studied at Union College. He planned to be a physician like his father, but he changed his mind after reading George Gaylord Simpson's book "The Meaning of Evolution". He enrolled at Columbia University and studied with Edwin H. Colbert. The type species Utahraptor ostrommaysorum was named in his honour. In 1952 he married Nancy Grace Hartman (d. 2003) and they had two daughters: Karen and Alicia.  Ostrom taught for one year at Brooklyn College and then spent five years at Beloit College before going to Yale. Ostrom was a professor at Yale University where he was the Curator Emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Natural History, which has an impressive fossil collection originally started by Othniel Charles Marsh. He died from complications of Alzheimer's disease at the age of 77 in Litchfield, Connecticut.

Key Discoveries.

In the field of paleontology, Ostrom is responsible for the following key discoveries:

Warm-blooded "Deinonychus".

His 1964 discovery of additional "Deinonychus" fossils is considered one of the most important fossil finds in history. "Deinonychus" was an active predator that clearly killed its prey by leaping and slashing or stabbing with its "terrible claw". Evidence of a truly active lifestyle included long strings of muscle running along the tail, making it a stiff counterbalance for jumping and running. The conclusion that at least some dinosaurs had a high metabolism, and were thus in some cases warm-blooded, was popularized by his student Robert T. Bakker. This helped to change the impression of dinosaurs as the sluggish, slow, cold-blooded lizards which had prevailed since the turn of the century.  This changed how dinosaurs are depicted by both professional dinosaur illustrators, and in the public eye. The find is also credited with triggering the "dinosaur renaissance", a term coined in a 1975 issue of "Scientific American" by Bakker to describe the renewed debates causing an influx of interest in paleontology, which has lasted from the 1970s to the present and has doubled recorded dinosaur diversity.

"Archaeopteryx" and the origin of flight, and hadrosaur herds.

Ostrom's interest in the dinosaur-bird connection started with his study of what is now known as the Haarlem "Archaeopteryx". Discovered in 1855, it was actually the first specimen recovered but, incorrectly labeled as "Pterodactylus crassipes", it languished in the Teylers Museum in the Netherlands until Ostrom's 1970 paper (and 1972 description) correctly identified it as one of only eight "first birds" (counting the solitary feather).  Ostrom's reading of fossilized "Hadrosaurus" trackways also led him to the conclusion that these duckbilled dinosaurs traveled in herds.

Cultural Influence.

John Ostrom's work on the functional morphology of dinosaurs found that the claws and tendon scars in the tail would indicate a running position. And so the whole posture of bipedal dinosaurs changed to one of agile, fast-running, fearsome predators. This inspired a new generation of dinosaur movies and also museums worldwide changed their dinosaur bone displays.  In 1966 John H. Ostrom was instrumental in the establishment of Dinosaur State Park in Rocky Hill, Connecticut ("because the governor was besieged by letters from schoolchildren swayed into dino-mania by Ostrom").

Dinosaur Dig Sites.

John Ostrom set up a full-time dig site at the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming in the 1960s, as well he spent a lot of time digging at Rocky Hill.

John Harold Ostrom (February 18, 1928 – July 16, 2005) was an American paleontologist who revolutionized modern understanding of dinosaurs in the 1960s.

John Harold Ostrom est un paléontologue et un géologue américain, né le à New York et mort le à Litchfield.


Biography.

Raffet was born in Paris.  At an early age he was apprenticed to a wood turner, but took up the study of art at evening classes. At the age of 18 he entered the workshop of Cabanel, where he applied his skill to the decoration of china, and where he met Rudor, from whom he received instruction in lithography, in the practice of which he was to rise to fame. He then entered the École des Beaux-Arts, but returned to lithography in 1830 when he produced on stone his famous designs of Lützen, Waterloo, "Le bal", "La revue", and "Les adieux de la garrison", by which his reputation became immediately established.  Raffet's chief works were his lithographs of the Napoleonic campaigns, from Egypt to Waterloo, vigorous designs inspired by ardent patriotic enthusiasm. In this endeavour he was a contemporary of other French artist-lithographers of Napoleon and the French army including Hippolyte Bellangé, Horace Vernet, and Nicolas Toussaint Charlet. As an illustrator his activity was prodigious, the list of works illustrated by his crayon amounting to about forty-five, among which are Béranger's poems, the "History of the Revolution" by Adolphe Thiers, the "History of Napoleon" by de Norvins, the great "Walter Scott" by Auguste Defauconpret, the French Plutarch and Frédéric Bérat's "Songs".  He went to Rome in 1849, was present at the siege of Rome, which he made the subject of some lithographs, and followed the Italian campaign of 1859, of which he left a record in his "Episodes de la campagne d'Italie de 1859". His portraits in pencil and water-colour are full of character. He died at Genoa in 1860. In 1893 a monument by Emmanuel Frémiet was unveiled in the Jardin de l'Infante at the Louvre, Paris. The statue was removed and melted down during the nazi occupation of Paris.

Denis Auguste Marie Raffet (2 March 180416 February 1860) was a French illustrator and lithographer. He was a student of Nicolas Toussaint Charlet, and was a retrospective painter of the Empire.

Denis-Auguste-Marie Raffet né à Paris le et mort à Gênes (Italie) le est un dessinateur, graveur et peintre français. Il est réputé pour son rôle notable dans la diffusion de l'épopée napoléonienne.


Plot.

Ten years after the events of the first film, Dante (Brian O'Halloran) opens the Quick Stop convenience store to find that it is on fire; Randal (Jeff Anderson) had left the coffee pot on after closing the night before. As a result of the destruction of Quick Stop and the adjacent RST Video, Dante and Randal begin working at a Mooby's fast food restaurant along with Elias (Trevor Fehrman) and their manager Becky Scott (Rosario Dawson).  A year later, Dante is planning to leave his minimum wage lifestyle in favor of a family life in Florida with his fiancée Emma Bunting (Jennifer Schwalbach), whose father will provide them with a home and a business to run. Fearing the loss of his best friend, Randal becomes resentful towards Dante and Emma. Jay and Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith) have since followed Dante and Randal, and now loiter outside of Mooby's. Jay and Silent Bob no longer do drugs after they were arrested for possession and were sent to rehab, and become devout Christians after their release. However, the pair continue selling drugs.  Dante eventually confesses to Becky that he is worried about dancing at his wedding, so she takes him up onto the roof of the restaurant to teach him some moves. Dante soon lets go of his inhibitions and learns how to dance. When the song ends, Dante, caught up in the moment, tells Becky he loves her, and she reveals to him that she is pregnant; Dante and Becky had a one night stand on the prep table a few weeks before. Becky tells Dante not to tell anyone about the baby; however Dante tells Randal, and an angered Becky leaves when she learns that Dante told Randal.  Randal encourages Dante to leave Mooby's in search for Becky, and in the meantime, sets up a surprise going away party for Dante. Randal hires "Kinky Kelly and the Sexy Stud," a donkey show with a fog machine. When Dante comes back, he mistakes the fog for a fire and calls the fire department, but upon discovering that it is not a fire, he proceeds to watch the show with Randal, Jay, Silent Bob, and Elias. The group soon discovers that "Kinky Kelly" is, in fact, the donkey, while the man (Zak Knutson), whom Randal thought to be the pimp, is "The Sexy Stud". When Becky returns, Dante confesses his love for her. As they kiss, Emma arrives. She throws her engagement ring at Becky, dumps a cake she'd made for Dante over his head, and angrily walks off.  The fire and police departments soon arrive and discover the show. Dante, Randal, Elias, Jay, Silent Bob, and The Sexy Stud are detained and jailed. Although they are informed they will soon be released, Dante blames Randal for ruining his life and expresses his eagerness to start a new life without him, while Randal condemns Dante for his willingness to live his life under the standards of others and for walking out of their friendship. Amid the argument, Randal proposes that they buy the Quick Stop and re-open it, although Dante says that neither have the money to reopen the store. Jay and Silent Bob offer to lend them some money (from the royalties they collected following the events of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back") on the condition that they can hang out outside of the Quick Stop anytime they want without the police being called. Randal accepts their offer, but Dante is uncertain, prompting Randal to emotionally confess his fear of losing Dante. Moved by Randal's confession, Dante agrees to the proposition, and after his release, he proposes to Becky, who accepts. After the Quick Stop and RST Video are rebuilt, Elias applies for a job and is hired at RST Video. In the very last scene, with the store open, Dante tells Randal, "Can you feel it? Today is the first day of the rest of our lives."

Production.

In 1999, the original title was slated to be "Clerks 2: Hardly Clerkin" (cf. Jerry Lewis's "Hardly Working"), as seen in the credits of "Dogma". Smith later modified the title to "The Passion of the Clerks", lampooning the title of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". According to the DVD documentary, the title was changed to simply "Clerks II", due to negative reaction to the "Passion" title. The film was shot September–November 2005. It was originally scheduled for a 2005 release, and then a January 2006 release, but the production was pushed back due to other projects and Kevin Smith's involvement in the romantic comedy "Catch and Release".  Smith released production diaries on the "Clerks II" website (see links below). They chronicle the entire making of the film from the first rehearsals all the way through to the final release. Some of these web diaries are also available on the two-disc DVD of the film. Smith released a Web-only teaser trailer on the "Clerks II" website on January 9, 2006, and a web-only trailer on April 2, 2006. Smith also released several shorts featuring action figures from his previous films to promote the film.  Before the release of the film, Smith had mentioned releasing an MP3 file commentary to be downloaded and listened to in movie theaters via iPod. Ultimately, theater owners and exhibitors objected, and the plan was scrapped. The abandoned commentary, featuring Smith, Scott Mosier and Jeff Anderson, is included on the DVD.  The bookend Quick Stop scenes are in black and white (to simulate the original visual style of "Clerks"), while the rest of the film is in color. Smith has said that much of the film's color was desaturated almost to the point where the film had a similar texture to the first film. The contrast in color saturation used can be seen in the "ABC" sequence in which a more vibrant and saturated color temperature is used to give a warm and sunny look that adds to the playful nature of the piece.  On the film's MySpace account, a contest was held in which the first 10,000 MySpace users who added "Clerks II" as a friend would have their name in the theatrical and DVD end credits; the list follows the View Askew and Weinstein Company logos. The names are not present in the credits on the Region 2 DVD.

Locations.

The Mooby's restaurant was a shut-down Burger King at 8572 Stanton Ave in Buena Park, California, (near Knott's Berry Farm), which has since been demolished. The final days of principal photography were filmed at the Quick Stop and RST Video store in Leonardo, New Jersey, with some exceptions, the most notable being the go-kart scene, which was shot at Speedzone in Industry, California. The opening sequence where Randal and Dante are driving to work is a montage of Route 35, mostly in Middletown, New Jersey.

Casting.

Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Jason Mewes, and Kevin Smith all reprised their roles from the first film.  According to the DVD commentary, Kevin Smith originally wanted to cast his wife Jennifer Schwalbach Smith as Becky. Executive producer Harvey Weinstein objected, however, wanting a known actress to play the role for marketing reasons. Other actresses that Smith had met with were Sarah Silverman and Bryce Dallas Howard who both declined. Smith recalls having lunch with Howard who said she was interested in the film but ultimately passed in order to do "Lady in the Water". Silverman said she didn't want to play the Becky character as she had been cast as girlfriends in numerous other productions and feared type-casting, but loved the script and would have been more than willing to play the part of Randal Graves. Rachel Weisz was another name the studio considered, but Smith figured she would turn the role down and never offered her the part. Ellen Pompeo expressed an interest but could not commit due to scheduling difficulties with "Grey's Anatomy". Finally, the role was offered to Rosario Dawson who loved the script. She later said that reading the "donkey show" scene sealed the deal for her. Schwalbach Smith was given the secondary female role of Emma. Smith also cast his daughter Harley Quinn Smith as the little girl Dante waves to in the window and his mother Grace as the Milk Maid, reprising her role from the first film. Walt Flanagan makes a cameo appearance as a customer who asks for a "pack of cigarettes" (after the scheme changes from color to black 'n' white), in a nod to the first film as well.  The character of Elias was played by Trevor Fehrman who had previously worked in Anderson's film "Now You Know". Smith saw him in the film and was impressed enough to give him a part. In keeping with Smith's tradition of casting actors that he has previously worked with, both Jason Lee and Ben Affleck had parts in the film. Lee played Lance Dowds and Affleck played a random Mooby's customer. After finding no one else who could pull off being the Sexy Stud, Smith turned to crew member Zak Charles Knutson to fill the role.

Release.

Rating.

The film was originally planned to be released without an MPAA film rating, in order to avoid receiving an NC-17. Smith claimed "If we put it in front of the ratings board they'd be like, 'You're insane. We have to create a new rating for that.'" However, he later submitted it, and it received an R rating without any edits.

Box office.

The film opened in 2,150 theaters and grossed $10.1 million domestically in its first weekend. The film's theatrical gross was $24.1 million domestically, plus an additional $2.8 million from other territoires foreign, against its production budget of $5 million.

Critical response.

, the film holds a 64% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 165 reviews with an average rating of 6.07/10. The website's critical consensus reads, ""Clerks II" dishes up much of the graphic humor and some of the insight that made the 1994 original a cult hit." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 65 out of 100, based on 29 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A-" on an A+ to F scale.  In a review for "The New York Times", A. O. Scott wrote that "What makes "Clerks II" both winning and (somewhat unexpectedly) moving is its fidelity to the original "Clerks" ethic of hanging out, talking trash and refusing all worldly ambition. If anything, the sequel is more defiant in its disdain for the rat race, elevating the white-guy-doing-nothing prerogative from a lifestyle choice to a moral principle." Justin Chang's review at "Variety" called it a "softer, flabbier and considerably higher-budgeted follow-up to Kevin Smith's 1994 indie sensation that nevertheless packs enough riotous exchanges and pungent sexual obscenities to make its 97 minutes pass by with ease."  At an advance screening for critics, Joel Siegel walked out of the film approximately 40 minutes in, during a scene in which the characters attempt to procure a donkey for sexual purposes. Smith claimed on his website that Siegel "bellowed" the phrase "Time to go! This is the first movie I've walked out on in thirty fucking years!" "TV Guide" film critic Maitland McDonagh, who said she was sitting next to Siegel, largely confirms Smith's account but insists that Siegel did not curse or "bellow." However, she reports that he left from the farthest possible exit, thereby making sure everyone noticed his departure. On his blog, Smith criticized Siegel for unprofessional conduct, in a profanity-laced tirade in which he referred to the critic performing sexual acts on director M. Night Shyamalan in regard to his praise for "The Village" before having seen it. Smith later confronted Siegel in a live interview on "Opie and Anthony"; Siegel apologized for cursing and causing a scene, and told Smith that he thinks he is a "fine filmmaker," while still defending his decision to walk out.  British entertainer and film-critic Jonathan Ross has been largely critical of the film, saying he disliked it even more than the first film; he expressed distaste that the film was voted by viewers of his "Film 2006" show into the top ten of the year, in which it ranked sixth. It made other Best of 2006 lists, including being named movie of the year by MTV India, being voted the 3rd funniest film of 2006 by IMDb users and the 9th best reviewed comedy by Rotten Tomatoes.  The film received an eight-minute standing ovation at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival.

Soundtrack.

"Music from the Motion Picture Clerks II", the soundtrack to the film, was released on August 22, 2006 by Bulletproof Records. It includes songs from the film, which are of various artists and genres, as well as many soundclips of dialog from the film. One notable exception is that The Smashing Pumpkins' "1979", which was featured in the film, is not included. It has been replaced by All Too Much's "Think Fast", which was not featured in the film.

Home media.

The "Clerks II" DVD was released on November 28, 2006.  "The Hollywood Reporter" reported that the film opened to #4 in terms of rental and DVD sales, and made approximately $6 million in rentals, or a quarter of the total box office gross of $24.2 million.  "Clerks II" was released on HD DVD on January 16, 2007. The release featured the film in 1080p high definition on one disc and the same extras as the DVD, also presented in 1080p, on a second disc. After the conclusion of the high definition optical disc format war in February 2008, "Clerks II" was released on Blu-ray Disc on February 3, 2009 with two additional special features.

Sequel.

On February 9, 2017, Smith revealed on Facebook that although a script had been completed, "Clerks III" had been cancelled as "one of the four leads opted out of the flick". He later revealed that Jeff Anderson was the one who opted out. On October 1, 2019, Smith announced on Instagram that "Clerks III" was happening and that Anderson agreed to reprise his role as Randal. "It’ll be a movie that concludes a saga. It’ll be a movie about how you’re never too old to completely change your life. It’ll be a movie about how a decades-spanning friendship finally confronts the future. It’ll be a movie that brings us back to the beginning - a return to the cradle of civilization in the great state of #newjersey. It’ll be a movie that stars Jeff and @briancohalloran, with me and Jay in supporting roles. And it’ll be a movie called CLERKS III!"

Clerks II is a 2006 American comedy-drama film written and directed by Kevin Smith, the sequel to his 1994 film "Clerks", and his sixth feature film to be set in the View Askewniverse. The film stars Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Rosario Dawson, Trevor Fehrman, Jennifer Schwalbach Smith, Jason Mewes, and Smith, and picks up with the original characters from "Clerks": Dante Hicks, Randal Graves and Jay and Silent Bob ten years after the events of the first film. Unlike the first film, which was shot in black-and-white, this film was shot in color.

Clerks 2 ("Clerks II") ou Commis en folie 2 est une comédie américaine réalisée par Kevin Smith, sortie en 2006. C'est une suite de "", sorti en 1994. Il s'agit du long métrage du View Askewniverse.


Overview.

Business process reengineering (BPR) is the practice of rethinking and redesigning the way work is done to better support an organization's mission and reduce costs. Organizations reengineer two key areas of their businesses. First, they use modern technology to enhance data dissemination and decision-making processes. Then, they alter functional organizations to form functional teams. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic goals, and customer needs. Basic questions are asked, such as "Does our mission need to be redefined? Are our strategic goals aligned with our mission? Who are our customers?" An organization may find that it is operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms of the wants and needs of its customers. Only after the organization rethinks what it should be doing, it does go on to decide how best to do it.  Within the framework of this basic assessment of mission and goals, re-engineering focuses on the organization's business processes—the steps and procedures that govern how resources are used to create products and services that meet the needs of particular customers or markets. As a structured ordering of work steps across time and place, a business process can be decomposed into specific activities, measured, modeled, and improved. It can also be completely redesigned or eliminated altogether. Re-engineering identifies, analyzes, and re-designs an organization's core business processes with the aim of achieving improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.  Re-engineering recognizes that an organization's business processes are usually fragmented into sub-processes and tasks that are carried out by several specialized functional areas within the organization. Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Reengineering maintains that optimizing the performance of sub-processes can result in some benefits, but cannot yield improvements if the process itself is fundamentally inefficient and outmoded. For that reason, re-engineering focuses on re-designing the process as a whole in order to achieve the greatest possible benefits to the organization and their customers. This drive for realizing improvements by fundamentally re-thinking how the organization's work should be done distinguishes the re-engineering from process improvement efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.

History.

BPR began as a private sector technique to help organizations rethink how they do their work in order to improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus for re-engineering has been the continuing development and deployment of information systems and networks. Organizations are becoming bolder in using this technology to support business processes, rather than refining current ways of doing work.

Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate, 1990.

In 1990, Michael Hammer, a former professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), published the article "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate" in the "Harvard Business Review", in which he claimed that the major challenge for managers is to obliterate forms of work that do not add value, rather than using technology for automating it. This statement implicitly accused managers of having focused on the wrong issues, namely that technology in general, and more specifically information technology, has been used primarily for automating existing processes rather than using it as an enabler for making non-value adding work obsolete.  Hammer's claim was simple: Most of the work being done does not add any value for customers, and this work should be removed, not accelerated through automation. Instead, companies should reconsider their inability to satisfy customer needs, and their insufficient cost structure. Even well-established management thinkers, such as Peter Drucker and Tom Peters, were accepting and advocating BPR as a new tool for (re-)achieving success in a dynamic world. During the following years, a fast-growing number of publications, books as well as journal articles, were dedicated to BPR, and many consulting firms embarked on this trend and developed BPR methods. However, the critics were fast to claim that BPR was a way to dehumanize the work place, increase managerial control, and to justify downsizing, i.e. major reductions of the work force, and a rebirth of Taylorism under a different label.  Despite this critique, reengineering was adopted at an accelerating pace and by 1993, as many as 60% of the Fortune 500 companies claimed to either have initiated reengineering efforts, or to have plans to do so. This trend was fueled by the fast adoption of BPR by the consulting industry, but also by the study "Made in America", conducted by MIT, that showed how companies in many US industries had lagged behind their foreign counterparts in terms of competitiveness, time-to-market and productivity...

Development after 1995.

With the publication of critiques in 1995 and 1996 by some of the early BPR proponents, coupled with abuses and misuses of the concept by others, the reengineering fervor in the U.S. began to wane. Since then, considering business processes as a starting point for business analysis and redesign has become a widely accepted approach and is a standard part of the change methodology portfolio, but is typically performed in a less radical way than originally proposed.  More recently, the concept of Business Process Management (BPM) has gained major attention in the corporate world and can be considered a successor to the BPR wave of the 1990s, as it is evenly driven by a striving for process efficiency supported by information technology. Equivalently to the critique brought forward against BPR, BPM is now accused of focusing on technology and disregarding the people aspects of change...

Topics.

The most notable definitions of reengineering are:  BPR is different from other approaches to organization development (OD), especially the continuous improvement or TQM movement, by virtue of its aim for fundamental and radical change rather than iterative improvement. In order to achieve the major improvements BPR is seeking for, the change of structural organizational variables, and other ways of managing and performing work is often considered insufficient. For being able to reap the achievable benefits fully, the use of information technology (IT) is conceived as a major contributing factor. While IT traditionally has been used for supporting the existing business functions, i.e. it was used for increasing organizational efficiency, it now plays a role as enabler of new organizational forms, and patterns of collaboration within and between organizations.  BPR derives its existence from different disciplines, and four major areas can be identified as being subjected to change in BPR – organization, technology, strategy, and people – where a process view is used as common framework for considering these dimensions.  Business strategy is the primary driver of BPR initiatives and the other dimensions are governed by strategy's encompassing role. The organization dimension reflects the structural elements of the company, such as hierarchical levels, the composition of organizational units, and the distribution of work between them. Technology is concerned with the use of computer systems and other forms of communication technology in the business. In BPR, information technology is generally considered to act as enabler of new forms of organizing and collaborating, rather than supporting existing business functions. The people / human resources dimension deals with aspects such as education, training, motivation and reward systems. The concept of business processes – interrelated activities aiming at creating a value added output to a customer – is the basic underlying idea of BPR. These processes are characterized by a number of attributes: Process ownership, customer focus, value adding, and cross-functionality.

The role of information technology.

Information technology (IT) has historically played an important role in the reengineering concept. It is regarded by some as a major enabler for new forms of working and collaborating within an organization and across organizational borders.  BPR literature identified several so called "disruptive technologies" that were supposed to challenge traditional wisdom about how work should be performed.  In the mid-1990s especially, workflow management systems were considered a significant contributor to improved process efficiency. Also, ERP (enterprise resource planning) vendors, such as SAP, JD Edwards, Oracle, and PeopleSoft, positioned their solutions as vehicles for business process redesign and improvement.

Research and methodology.

Although the labels and steps differ slightly, the early methodologies that were rooted in IT-centric BPR solutions share many of the same basic principles and elements. The following outline is one such model, based on the PRLC (Process Reengineering Life Cycle) approach developed by Guha. Simplified schematic outline of using a business process approach, exemplified for pharmaceutical R&D  Benefiting from lessons learned from the early adopters, some BPR practitioners advocated a change in emphasis to a customer-centric, as opposed to an IT-centric, methodology. One such methodology, that also incorporated a Risk and Impact Assessment to account for the effect that BPR can have on jobs and operations, was described by Lon Roberts (1994). Roberts also stressed the use of change management tools to proactively address resistance to change—a factor linked to the demise of many reengineering initiatives that looked good on the drawing board.  Some items to use on a process analysis checklist are: Reduce handoffs, Centralize data, Reduce delays, Free resources faster, Combine similar activities. Also within the management consulting industry, a significant number of methodological approaches have been developed.

Framework.

An easy to follow seven step INSPIRE framework is developed by Bhudeb Chakravarti which can be followed by any Process Analyst to perform BPR. The seven steps of the framework are Initiate a new process reengineering project and prepare a business case for the same; Negotiate with senior management to get approval to start the process reengineering project; Select the key processes that need to be reengineered; Plan the process reengineering activities; Investigate the processes to analyze the problem areas; Redesign the selected processes to improve the performance and Ensure the successful implementation of redesigned processes through proper monitoring and evaluation.

Factors for success and failure.

Factors that are important to BPR success include:  The aspects of a BPM effort that are modified include organizational structures, management systems, employee responsibilities, and performance measurements, incentive systems, skills development, and the use of IT. BPR can potentially affect every aspect of how business is conducted today. Wholesale changes can cause results ranging from enviable success to complete failure.  If successful, a BPM initiative can result in improved quality, customer service, and competitiveness, as well as reductions in cost or cycle time. However, 50-70% of reengineering projects are either failures or do not achieve significant benefit.  There are many reasons for sub-optimal business processes which include:  Many unsuccessful BPR attempts may have been due to the confusion surrounding BPR, and how it should be performed. Organizations were well aware that changes needed to be made but did not know which areas to change or how to change them. As a result, process reengineering is a management concept that has been formed by trial and error or, in other words, practical experience. As more and more businesses reengineer their processes, knowledge of what caused the successes or failures is becoming apparent. To reap lasting benefits, companies must be willing to examine how strategy and reengineering complement each other by learning to quantify strategy in terms of cost, milestones, and timetables, by accepting ownership of the strategy throughout the organization, by assessing the organization's current capabilities and process realistically, and by linking strategy to the budgeting process. Otherwise, BPR is only a short-term efficiency exercise.

Organization-wide commitment.

Major changes to business processes have a direct effect on processes, technology, job roles, and workplace culture. Significant changes to even one of those areas require resources, money, and leadership. Changing them simultaneously is an extraordinary task. Like any large and complex undertaking, implementing re engineering requires the talents and energies of a broad spectrum of experts. Since BPR can involve multiple areas within the organization, it is important to get support from all affected departments. Through the involvement of selected department members, the organization can gain valuable input before a process is implemented; a step that promotes both the cooperation and the vital acceptance of the re engineered process by all segments of the organization.  Getting enterprise-wide commitment involves the following: top management sponsorship, bottom-up buy-in from process users, dedicated BPR team, and budget allocation for the total solution with measures to demonstrate value. Before any BPR project can be implemented successfully, there must be a commitment to the project by the management of the organization, and strong leadership must be provided. Re engineering efforts can by no means be exercised without a company-wide commitment to the goals. However, top management commitment is imperative for success. Top management must recognize the need for change, develop a complete understanding of what BPR is, and plan how to achieve it.  Leadership has to be effective, strong, visible, and creative in thinking and understanding in order to provide a clear vision. Convincing every affected group within the organization of the need for BPR is a key step in successfully implementing a process. By informing all affected groups at every stage, and emphasizing the positive end results of the re engineering process, it is possible to minimize resistance to change and increase the odds for success. The ultimate success of BPR depends on the strong, consistent, and continuous involvement of all departmental levels within the organization.

Team composition.

Once an organization-wide commitment has been secured from all departments involved in the re engineering effort and at different levels, the critical step of selecting a BPR team must be taken. This team will form the nucleus of the BPR effort, make key decisions and recommendations, and help communicate the details and benefits of the BPR program to the entire organization. The determinants of an effective BPR team may be summarized as follows:  The most effective BPR teams include active representatives from the following work groups: top management, the business area responsible for the process being addressed, technology groups, finance, and members of all ultimate process users' groups. Team members who are selected from each work group within the organization will affect the outcome of the re engineered process according to their desired requirements. The BPR team should be mixed in-depth and knowledge. For example, it may include members with the following characteristics:  Moreover, Covert (1997) recommends that in order to have an effective BPR team, it must be kept under ten players. If the organization fails to keep the team at a manageable size, the entire process will be much more difficult to execute efficiently and effectively. The efforts of the team must be focused on identifying breakthrough opportunities and designing new work steps or processes that will create quantum gains and competitive advantage.

Business needs analysis.

Another important factor in the success of any BPR effort is performing a thorough business needs analysis. Too often, BPR teams jump directly into the technology without first assessing the current processes of the organization and determining what exactly needs re engineering. In this analysis phase, a series of sessions should be held with process owners and stakeholders, regarding the need and strategy for BPR. These sessions build a consensus as to the vision of the ideal business process. They help identify essential goals for BPR within each department and then collectively define objectives for how the project will affect each work group or department on an individual basis and the business organization as a whole. The idea of these sessions is to conceptualize the ideal business process for the organization and build a business process model. Those items that seem unnecessary or unrealistic may be eliminated or modified later on in the diagnosing stage of the BPR project. It is important to acknowledge and evaluate all ideas in order to make all participants feel that they are a part of this important and crucial process. The results of these meetings will help formulate the basic plan for the project.  This plan includes the following: The business needs analysis contributes tremendously to the re-engineering effort by helping the BPR team to prioritize and determine where it should focus its improvements efforts.  The business needs analysis also helps in relating the BPR project goals back to key business objectives and the overall strategic direction for the organization. This linkage should show the thread from the top to the bottom of the organization, so each person can easily connect the overall business direction with the re-engineering effort. This alignment must be demonstrated from the perspective of financial performance, customer service, associate value, and the vision for the organization. Developing a business vision and process objectives rely, on the one hand, on a clear understanding of organizational strengths, weaknesses, and market structure, and on the other, on awareness and knowledge about innovative activities undertaken by competitors and other organizations. BPR projects that are not in alignment with the organization's strategic direction can be counterproductive. There is always a possibility that an organization may make significant investments in an area that is not a core competency for the company and later outsource this capability. Such re engineering initiatives are wasteful and steal resources from other strategic projects. Moreover, without strategic alignment, the organization's key stakeholders and sponsors may find themselves unable to provide the level of support the organization needs in terms of resources, especially if there are other more critical projects to the future of the business, and are more aligned with the strategic direction.

Adequate IT infrastructure.

Researchers consider adequate IT infrastructure reassessment and composition as a vital factor in successful BPR implementation. Hammer (1990) prescribes the use of IT to challenge the assumptions inherent in the work process that have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and communications technology. Factors related to IT infrastructure have been increasingly considered by many researchers and practitioners as a vital component of successful BPR efforts.  These are vital factors that contribute to building an effective IT infrastructure for business processes. BPR must be accompanied by strategic planning which addresses leveraging IT as a competitive tool. An IT infrastructure is made up of physical assets, intellectual assets, shared services, and their linkages. The way in which the IT infrastructure components are composed and their linkages determine the extent to which information resources can be delivered. An effective IT infrastructure composition process follows a top-down approach, beginning with business strategy and IS strategy and passing through designs of data, systems, and computer architecture.  Linkages between the IT infrastructure components, as well as descriptions of their contexts of interaction, are important for ensuring integrity and consistency among the IT infrastructure components. Furthermore, IT standards have a major role in reconciling various infrastructure components to provide shared IT services that are of a certain degree of effectiveness to support business process applications, as well as to guide the process of acquiring, managing, and utilizing IT assets. The IT infrastructure shared services and the human IT infrastructure components, in terms of their responsibilities and their needed expertise, are both vital to the process of the IT infrastructure composition. IT strategic alignment is approached through the process of integration between business and IT strategies, as well as between IT and organizational infrastructures.  Most analysts view BPR and IT as irrevocably linked. Walmart, for example, would not have been able to reengineer the processes used to procure and distribute mass-market retail goods without IT. Ford was able to decrease its headcount in the procurement department by 75 percent by using IT in conjunction with BPR, in another well-known example. The IT infrastructure and BPR are interdependent in the sense that deciding the information requirements for the new business processes determines the IT infrastructure constituents, and a recognition of IT capabilities provides alternatives for BPR. Building a responsive IT infrastructure is highly dependent on an appropriate determination of business process information needs. This, in turn, is determined by the types of activities embedded in a business process, and their sequencing and reliance on other organizational processes.

Effective change management.

Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000) suggest that BPR involves changes in people's behavior and culture, processes, and technology. As a result, there are many factors that prevent the effective implementation of BPR and hence restrict innovation and continuous improvement. Change management, which involves all human and social related changes and cultural adjustment techniques needed by management to facilitate the insertion of newly designed processes and structures into working practice and to deal effectively with resistance, is considered by many researchers to be a crucial component of any BPR effort. One of the most overlooked obstacles to successful BPR project implementation is resistance from those whom implementer believe will benefit the most. Most projects underestimate the cultural effect of major process and structural change and as a result, do not achieve the full potential of their change effort. Many people fail to understand that change is not an event, but rather a management technique.  Change management is the discipline of managing change as a process, with due consideration that employees are people, not programmable machines. Change is implicitly driven by motivation which is fueled by the recognition of the need for change. An important step towards any successful reengineering effort is to convey an understanding of the necessity for change. It is a well-known fact that organizations do not change unless people change; the better the change is managed, the less painful the transition is.  Organizational culture is a determining factor in successful BPR implementation. Organizational culture influences the organization's ability to adapt to change. Culture in an organization is a self-reinforcing set of beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Culture is one of the most resistant elements of organizational behavior and is extremely difficult to change. BPR must consider current culture in order to change these beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors effectively. Messages conveyed from management in an organization continually enforce current culture. Change is implicitly driven by motivation which is fueled by the recognition of the need for change.  The first step towards any successful transformation effort is to convey an understanding of the necessity for change. Management rewards system, stories of company origin and early successes of founders, physical symbols, and company icons constantly enforce the message of the current culture. Implementing BPR successfully is dependent on how thoroughly management conveys the new cultural messages to the organization. These messages provide people in the organization with a guideline to predict the outcome of acceptable behavior patterns. People should be the focus of any successful business change. BPR is not a recipe for successful business transformation if it focuses on only computer technology and process redesign. In fact, many BPR projects have failed because they did not recognize the importance of the human element in implementing BPR. Understanding the people in organizations, the current company culture, motivation, leadership, and past performance is essential to recognize, understand, and integrate into the vision and implementation of BPR. If the human element is given equal or greater emphasis in BPR, the odds of successful business transformation increase substantially.

Ongoing continuous improvement.

Many organizational change theorists hold a common view of organizations adjusting gradually and incrementally and responding locally to individual crises as they arise Common elements are:  In conclusion, successful BPR can potentially create substantial improvements in the way organizations do business and can actually produce fundamental improvements for business operations. However, in order to achieve that, there are some key success factors that must be taken into consideration when performing BPR.  BPR success factors are a collection of lessons learned from reengineering projects and from these lessons common themes have emerged. In addition, the ultimate success of BPR depends on the people who do it and on how well they can be committed and motivated to be creative and to apply their detailed knowledge to the reengineering initiative. Organizations planning to undertake BPR must take into consideration the success factors of BPR in order to ensure that their reengineering related change efforts are comprehensive, well-implemented, and have a minimum chance of failure. This has been very beneficial in all terms

Critique.

Many companies used reengineering as a pretext to downsizing, though this was not the intent of reengineering's proponents; consequently, reengineering earned a reputation for being synonymous with downsizing and layoffs.  In many circumstances, reengineering has not always lived up to its expectations. Some prominent reasons include:  Others have claimed that reengineering was a recycled buzzword for commonly-held ideas. Abrahamson (1996) argued that fashionable management terms tend to follow a lifecycle, which for Reengineering peaked between 1993 and 1996 (Ponzi and Koenig 2002). They argue that Reengineering was in fact nothing new (as e.g. when Henry Ford implemented the assembly line in 1908, he was in fact reengineering, radically changing the way of thinking in an organization).  The most frequent critique against BPR concerns the strict focus on efficiency and technology and the disregard of people in the organization that is subjected to a reengineering initiative. Very often, the label BPR was used for major workforce reductions. Thomas Davenport, an early BPR proponent, stated that:  "When I wrote about "business process redesign" in 1990, I explicitly said that using it for cost reduction alone was not a sensible goal. And consultants Michael Hammer and James Champy, the two names most closely associated with reengineering, have insisted all along that layoffs shouldn't be the point. But the fact is, once out of the bottle, the reengineering genie quickly turned ugly." Hammer similarly admitted that:  "I wasn't smart enough about that. I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension. I've learned that's critical."

Business process re-engineering (BPR) is a business management strategy, originally pioneered in the early 1990s, focusing on the analysis and design of workflows and business processes within an organization. BPR aimed to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors.

La réingénierie des processus d'affaires (RPA), également connu en anglais sous le nom "business process reengineering" (BPR), est une approche qui vise à repenser les processus d'affaires de l'entreprise et à les rendre plus efficace.


The carnival sense of the world.

Bakhtin's four categories of the carnival sense of the world:  The primary act of carnival is the mock crowning and subsequent de-crowning of a carnival king. It is a "dualistic ambivalent ritual" that typifies the inside-out world of carnival and the "joyful relativity of all structure and order". The act sanctifies ambivalence toward that which is normally considered absolute, single, monolithic. Carnivalistic symbols always include their opposite within themselves: "Birth is fraught with death, and death with new birth." The crowning implies the de-crowning, and the de-crowning implies a new crowning. It is thus the process of change itself that is celebrated, not that which is changed.  The carnival sense of the world "is opposed to that one-sided and gloomy official seriousness which is dogmatic and hostile to evolution and change, which seeks to absolutize a given condition of existence or a given social order." This is not to say that liberation from all authority and sacred symbols was desirable as an ideology. Because participation in Carnival extracts all individuals from non-carnival life, nihilistic and individualistic ideologies are just as impotent and just as subject to the radical humour of carnival as any form of official seriousness. The spirit of carnival grows out of a "culture of laughter". Because it is based in the physiological realities of the lower bodily stratum (birth, death, renewal, sexuality, ingestion, evacuation etc.), it is inherently anti-elitist: its objects and functions are necessarily common to all humans—"identical, involuntary and non-negotiable".  Bakhtin argues that we should not compare the "narrow theatrical pageantry" and "vulgar Bohemian understanding of carnival" characteristic of modern times with his Medieval Carnival. Carnival was a powerful creative event, not merely a spectacle. Bakhtin suggests that the separation of participants and spectators has been detrimental to the potency of Carnival. Its power lay in there being no "outside": everyone participated, and everyone was subject to its lived transcendence of social and individual norms: "carnival travesties: it crowns and uncrowns, inverts rank, exchanges roles, makes sense from nonsense and nonsense of sense."

The carnivalization of literature.

Bakhtin's term "the carnivalization of literature" (which Morson and Emerson point out could also be called "the literization of carnival") refers to the transposition of the essential qualities of the carnival sense of the world into a literary language and a literary "genre".

The seriocomic genres.

The ancient seriocomic genres initiated the "carnivalistic line" in Western literature. Of these, the most significant were Socratic dialogue and Menippean satire.  According to Bakhtin, the seriocomic genres always began with "the living "present"". Everything took place "in a zone of immediate and even crudely familiar contact with living contemporaries." Unlike the "serious" genres (tragedy, epic, high rhetoric, lyric poetry), the seriocomic genres did not rely on "legend" or long-held tribal belief and custom for their legitimacy. Instead they consciously relied on "experience" and "free invention", often manifesting a critical and even cynical attitude toward conventional subjects and forms. They eschewed the single-voiced, single-styled nature of the serious genres, and intentionally cultivated heterogeneity of voice and style. Characteristic of these genres are "multi-toned narration, the mixing of high and low, serious and comic; the use of inserted genres – letters, found manuscripts, retold dialogues, parodies on the high genres... a mixing of prosaic and poetic speech, living dialects and jargons..." Thus in the ancient seriocomic genres, language was not merely that which represents, but itself became an object of representation.

Socratic dialogue.

Originally a kind of memoir genre consisting of recollections of actual conversations conducted by Socrates, the Socratic dialogue became, in the hands of Plato, Xenophon and others, a freely creative form bound only by the Socratic method of dialogically revealing the truth. Bakhtin lists five aspects of the genre that link it to carnivalization: (1) The Socratic notion of the dialogic nature of truth and human thought, posited in opposition to "official monologism, which pretends to "possess a ready-made truth"" (Bakhtin notes that this is a "formal" quality only, and that in the hands of a dogmatic school or religious doctrine the dialogue can be transformed into merely another method for expounding a ready-made truth); (2) "Syncrisis", the juxtaposition of differing perspectives on an object, and "anacrisis", the elicitation or provocation of a full verbal expression of the interlocutor's opinion and its underlying assumptions; (3) The protagonist is always an "ideologist" and the interlocutors are "made into" ideologists, thus provoking the event of the "testing" of truth; (4) a tendency to create the "extraordinary situation" (e.g. Socrates on the threshold of an impending death sentence in "The Apology"), which forces a deeper exposition through the loosening of the bonds of convention and habit; (5) It introduces, in embryonic form, the concept of the "image of an idea" (which will later attain full expression in Dostoevsky): "the idea is organically combined with the image of a person... The dialogic testing of the idea is simultaneously also the testing of the person who represents it".

Menippean satire.

The tradition known as Menippean satire began in ancient Greece with Antisthenes, an author of Socratic dialogues, and the Cynic satirist Menippus, although it first became recognized as a genre through the first century B.C. Roman scholar Varro. According to Bakhtin, the roots of the genre "reach "directly" back into carnivalized folklore, whose decisive influence is here even more significant than it is in the Socratic dialogue." Its characteristics include intensified comicality, freedom from established constraints, bold use of fantastic situations for the testing of truth, abrupt changes, inserted genres and multi-tonality, parodies, oxymorons, scandal scenes, inappropriate behaviour, and a sharp satirical focus on contemporary ideas and issues. Despite the apparent heterogeneity of these elements, Bakhtin emphasizes the internal integrity of the genre and its thorough grounding in a carnival sense of the world. He notes its unparalleled capacity for reflecting the social and philosophical ethos of its historical setting – principally the epoch of the decline of national legend, which brought with it the gradual dissolution of long-established ethical norms and a concomitant rise in free interaction and argumentation over all manner of "ultimate questions". The internal dialogical freedom of the genre is coupled with an equally free external capacity for the absorption of other genres, for example the diatribe, the soliloquy and the symposium.

Dostoevsky and polyphony.

The tradition of Menippean satire reached its summit in the nineteenth century, according to Bakhtin, in the work of Dostoevsky. Menippean satire was the fertile ground on which Dostoevsky was able to grow his entirely new carnivalized genre—the polyphonic novel. According to Bakhtin, Dostoevsky was familiar with works by Lucian (such as "Dialogues of the Dead" and "Menippus, or The Descent Into Hades"), Seneca ("Apocolocyntosis"), Petronius ("The Satyricon"), Apuleius ("The Golden Ass"), and possibly also the satires of Varro. He was also probably influenced by modern European manifestations of the genre in authors such as Goethe, Fénelon, Diderot and Voltaire. Bakhtin observes that although Dostoevsky may not have consciously recognized his place as the heir of the tradition, he undoubtedly instinctively adopted many of its carnivalistic forms, as well as its liberated approach to the use of those forms, and adapted them to his own artistic purposes. The dialogic sense of truth, the device of the "extraordinary situation", the unencumbered frankness of speech, the clash of extreme positions and embodied ideas over ultimate questions, the technique of "anacrisis", "threshold" dialogues in extreme or fantastic situations: present in Menippean satire, these qualities are given a new and more profound life in Dostoevsky's polyphonic novel. In this "carnival space and time", a reality beyond the quotidian fog of convention and habit comes to life, allowing a special type of "purely human" dialogue to occur. In polyphony, character voices are liberated from the finalizing and monologizing influence of authorial control, much like the participants in carnival revel in the temporary dissolution of authoritarian social definitions and "ready-made" truths, and a new "dialogical" truth emerges in the play of difference: a ""plurality of consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own world", combine but are not merged in the unity of the event."

Carnivalesque is a literary mode that subverts and liberates the assumptions of the dominant style or atmosphere through humor and chaos. It originated as "carnival" in Mikhail Bakhtin's "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics" and was further developed in "Rabelais and His World". For Bakhtin, "carnival" (the totality of popular festivities, rituals and other carnival forms) is deeply rooted in the human psyche on both the collective and individual level. Though historically complex and varied, it has over time worked out "an entire language of symbolic concretely sensuous forms" which express a unified "carnival sense of the world, permeating all its forms". This language, Bakhtin argues, cannot be adequately verbalized or translated into abstract concepts, but it is amenable to a transposition into an artistic language that resonates with its essential qualities: it can, in other words, be "transposed into the language of literature". Bakhtin calls this transposition the "carnivalization" of literature. Although he considers a number of literary forms and individual writers, it is Francois Rabelais, the French Renaissance author of "Gargantua and Pantagruel", and the 19th century Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky, that he considers the primary exemplars of carnivalization in literature.

Dans un sens courant, l'adjectif carnavalesque désigne ce qui a trait au carnaval : « un défilé carnavalesque ». Ce terme est cependant aussi employé en sciences humaines comme concept d'analyse de certains phénomènes sociaux.


Education and early life.

Brockhouse was born in Lethbridge, Alberta, and was a graduate of the University of British Columbia (BA, 1947) and the University of Toronto (MA, 1948; Ph.D, 1950).

Career and research.

From 1950 to 1962, Brockhouse carried out research at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory. Here he was joined by P. K. Iyengar, who is treated as the father of India's nuclear program.  In 1962, he became professor at McMaster University in Canada, where he remained until his retirement in 1984.

Awards and honours.

Brockhouse was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1965. In 1982, Brockhouse was made an Officer of the Order of Canada and was promoted to Companion in 1995.  Brockhouse shared the 1994 Nobel Prize in Physics with American Clifford Shull of MIT for developing neutron scattering techniques for studying condensed matter.  In October 2005, as part of the 75th anniversary of McMaster University's establishment in Hamilton, Ontario, a street on the University campus (University Avenue) was renamed to Brockhouse Way in honour of Brockhouse. The town of Deep River, Ontario has also named a street in his honour.  The Nobel Prize that Bertram Brockhouse won (shared with Clifford Shull) in 1994 was awarded after the longest ever waiting time (counting from the time when the award-winning research had been carried out).  In 1999 the Division of Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (DCMMP) and the Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) created a medal in honour of Brockhouse. The medal is called the Brockhouse Medal and is awarded to recognize and encourage outstanding experimental or theoretical contributions to condensed matter and materials physics. This medal is awarded annually on the basis of outstanding experimental or theoretical contributions to condensed matter physics. An eligible candidate must have performed their research primarily with a Canadian Institution.

Bertram Neville Brockhouse, (July 15, 1918 – October 13, 2003) was a Canadian physicist. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics (1994, shared with Clifford Shull) "for pioneering contributions to the development of neutron scattering techniques for studies of condensed matter", in particular "for the development of neutron spectroscopy".

Bertram Neville Brockhouse CC, Ph.D, D.Sc, FRSC ( à Lethbridge en Alberta, Canada – ) était un physicien canadien. Il est colauréat du prix Nobel de physique 1994.


Plot.

Former Confederate soldier and highwayman-turned-marshal Jake Wade (Robert Taylor) breaks his former partner, Clint Hollister (Richard Widmark), out of jail in the small western town of Morganville. The men have not seen each other for over a year, since the bank robbery and murder that resulted in Jake's arrest. At that time, Clint rescued Jake and the men separated with an agreement to reunite later. Instead, Jake buried the $20,000 from the robbery in the desert and decided to go straight. Believing that he has now repaid Clint by freeing him from jail, Jake refuses to tell Clint where the money is buried and advises him to leave the territory. Disgruntled and disturbed by what he considers Jake's betrayal, Clint vows vengeance. Carefully covering his trail, Jake returns to Cold Stream, where he serves as marshal. That evening, Jake dines at the home of his fiancée Peggy (Patricia Owens), and asks if she would consider relocating after their upcoming marriage. Startled, Peggy asks for an explanation, but when Jake hesitates, then flatly refuses to explain, Peggy angrily sends him home. Returning to his office, Jake is confronted and knocked out by a stranger, Rennie (Henry Silva). Upon reviving, Jake discovers Clint and the rest of his old gang and army comrades, Ortero (Robert Middleton), Wexler (DeForest Kelley), Burke (Eddie Firestone) and newcomer, the hot-headed Rennie. When Jake expresses amazement that Clint was able to track him, Clint reveals that he set loose the horse Jake had brought for him and followed it to Cold Stream. Clint then demands that Jake take him to the buried money and when he refuses, Clint has Burke and Rennie bring in Peggy, whom they have abducted.  Clint then announces that to assure Jake's compliance, Peggy will accompany them to the money. The next morning, on their way into the desert, Clint forces Jake to ride with his hands tied behind him, as Clint did when he was arrested. When the men set up camp that night, Clint tells Peggy about Jake's disloyalty. In a private moment later, Jake apologizes to Peggy for causing the dilemma and warns her that they may have only one opportunity to escape. The next day, after the bound Jake falls off his horse repeatedly, the gang protests and Clint reluctantly agrees to untie Jake's hands. Jake immediately snatches Wexler's pistol and grabbing Peggy, tumbles down a sand dune into a canyon with her. Although the couple take the long way out of the canyon, Clint guesses Jake's plan and recaptures them. That night, Clint goads Jake into telling Peggy about their past. Jake explains that they were part of a Southern guerrilla outfit during the war, conducting looting raids that Clint insisted they continue after the war. Jake admits that during a bank robbery, a teenage boy was caught in the crossfire, prompting him to go straight. Clint scoffs, then demands to know when they will reach the buried money, and Jake promises they will be there the next day. The following afternoon the group meet a cavalry patrol and the commanding officer advises them to turn back because of the danger of Comanche attacks. Using Jake's identity as a marshal, Clint invents a story for them being in the area and the lieutenant reluctantly allows them to proceed. The men are uneasy about riding into Indian territory and when Rennie shoots at coyotes, Wexler is outraged, certain that the shots will surely attract the Comanche. The group then arrives at a ghost town, where Jake reveals he has hidden the money here. Jake spots three Indian scouts, telling Clint of one. After killing the 1st, Jake informs Clint of 2 other scouts. Enraged, Clint declares that he must go after the others in order to stop them from revealing their location, telling Rennie that he can have Peggy if he doesn't return. The remaining gang along with Jake and Peggy take shelter in the deserted saloon, tying Jake to a chair.  While the men take turns keeping guard, Jake pleads with Ortero to save Peggy and return her to Cold Stream. As night falls, several calls are heard outside and Jake tells the men they are surrounded by Indians who will attack soon. When the others dart outside, Ortero tells Jake that he was not responsible for the teenager's death at the bank, but Clint allowed him to believe it in hopes of binding Jake to him. As the Indian calls intensify, Rennie anxiously tells the men they should flee as it is apparent Clint has abandoned them. The men return to the saloon and are bickering about escaping, when Clint abruptly returns. As Burke hysterically announces that they must go, he is killed by an Indian lance. The building is quickly surrounded by Indians and a vicious fight breaks out. Clint runs outside to fight and soon after, Wexler and Rennie are killed by Indian arrows. When an Indian breaks in, Jake distracts him and Peggy kills him with a lance. Peggy then cuts Jake's ropes, and as Clint and Ortero fight off the last of the Indians, they attempt to escape, but are caught by Clint. After Ortero buries the others, Clint asks Jake to take him to the money, and Jake reveals it is in a saddlebag, buried three feet deep in the cemetery. Jake digs up the saddlebag, then surprises Clint by pulling out a pistol from it. Although Clint suspects the gun will not function after spending a year underground, he eventually surrenders his gun as does Ortero. Jake then asks Ortero to take Peggy away and he agrees, they two ride out of town despite her protests. After Ortero and Peggy depart, Jake gives Clint an opportunity to settle the score by tossing his gun several yards away. Frustrated, Clint dashes for the gun, while Jake hides among the dilapidated buildings, forcing Clint to search for him. After a tense game of "cat-and-mouse," Jake and Clint confront each other in the street and Jake kills Clint. Hearing the gunshots, Peggy and Ortero return for Jake.

Box office.

According to MGM records the film earned $970,000 in the US and Canada and $1,825,000 elsewhere, resulting in a profit of $87,000.

The Law and Jake Wade is a 1958 Metrocolor western released by MGM in CinemaScope, based on the 1956 novel by Marvin H. Albert and directed by John Sturges.

Le Trésor du pendu (titre original : "The Law and Jake Wade") est un western américain réalisé par John Sturges, sorti en 1958.