It's been a few weeks since I did a "Film Friday" post...today it comes back with a vengeance! I recently finished reading The Man Who Would Be King by Rudyard Kipling, a book I'd been tempted to pick up several times because I love the film by John Huston, but I never did until last week (yay for free Kindle books!). This, of course, lead me to re-watch the film, and present it here for Film Friday.
The book is very brief -- more of a short story than a novel -- but Huston stretched it and fleshed it out into a
two-hour epic adventure of two English rogues (Sean Connery and Michael Caine) whose sense of imperialism and self-righteousness leads them to the distant reaches of the desert in an attempt to subvert the natives and make themselves kings. After roping in an innocent newspaper correspondent (Christopher Plummer, playing the author, Rudyard Kipling) into witnessing their solemn oath, they set out for the uncharted territory known as Kafiristan, and their fate is subsequently decided.
John Huston could not have made a feature-length film without taking some artistic liberties with the script. What's remarkable about the film is that there is nothing taken away -- only added. Huston plays up the symbolism and the brotherhood of the Masons -- Peachy Carnahan (Caine) stumbles upon Kipling only after he picks his pocket in a railway station, and, upon noticing the symbolic square and compass on the watchfob, decides he must return it. It is in this manner that Kipling becomes part of the rogues' future games.
The major difference between the book and the film is the unspoken moral of the tale. Kipling leads his characters into danger and destruction as a passive reminder that the English sense of imperialism will eventually bring their ruin. Although he shows the natives of Kafiristan to be ruthless and vengeful, he ultimately places the blame upon Peachy and Danny, the antiheroes of the tale. Huston takes a different approach in making the audience sympathetic to these tragic men. In choosing two extremely affable actors (Connery and Caine), Huston leads the viewer to a place where one can only sit and watch the story unfold -- and in spite of knowing that the outcome is richly deserved, one can't help wishing that it could all have been avoided.
The book is very brief -- more of a short story than a novel -- but Huston stretched it and fleshed it out into a
 |
| Kings of Men: Plummer, Connery, and Caine |
John Huston could not have made a feature-length film without taking some artistic liberties with the script. What's remarkable about the film is that there is nothing taken away -- only added. Huston plays up the symbolism and the brotherhood of the Masons -- Peachy Carnahan (Caine) stumbles upon Kipling only after he picks his pocket in a railway station, and, upon noticing the symbolic square and compass on the watchfob, decides he must return it. It is in this manner that Kipling becomes part of the rogues' future games.
The major difference between the book and the film is the unspoken moral of the tale. Kipling leads his characters into danger and destruction as a passive reminder that the English sense of imperialism will eventually bring their ruin. Although he shows the natives of Kafiristan to be ruthless and vengeful, he ultimately places the blame upon Peachy and Danny, the antiheroes of the tale. Huston takes a different approach in making the audience sympathetic to these tragic men. In choosing two extremely affable actors (Connery and Caine), Huston leads the viewer to a place where one can only sit and watch the story unfold -- and in spite of knowing that the outcome is richly deserved, one can't help wishing that it could all have been avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment