After the success of Captain Blood, Warners reteamed Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in another historical action romance, only it's not as good, mainly because the story is a such a dog's breakfast. They obviously started with the charge, and went "well what a great ending - but how do you fill up time before then?" The Crimea wasn't a very glamorous war, mainly lots of suffering and stuff up after stuff up - so instead most of the film is set in India, a lot more glamorous then the flavour of the month thanks to Lives of a Bengal Lancer. Russians were involved in skullduggery on the frontier, so that's how the two are connected.
The guts of the plot involves a nasty Indian prince who massacres a garrison (based on the Cawnpore massacre of 1857), then flees to the Crimea, so the English chase him. It doesn't come across any less silly on screen: Errol Flynn forges an order so the charge can go ahead so he can get the baddy which when you think about it is really quite fanatical (oh, they throw in the reason the charge is needed to save Sebastopol - the charge is shown to important for the war, just like Little Big Horn was falsely shown to be in a good cause in They Died With Their Boots On). But you know - in real life an officer making a mistake was responsible for the charge so maybe that's not that much of a distortion. Another less endearing quality about Errol's character is in India when there are tense times with the Indian prince and he goes "well let's attack him, then" - steady on, Errol!
The second major problem of the story is the "romance" plot consists of Olivia de Havilland being engaged to Errol but loving Patric Knowles - and she doesn't change her mind. This is irritating because Knowles is a bit wet and useless, and his character is a wanker (he never does anything brave, he thinks Errol won't mind the fact de Havilland falls for him then goes into a sulk when Errol gets p*ssed off). When de Havilland kisses Knowles you really feel she's cheating on Errol. I guess the reason they did this was because they knew Errol was going to die in the final charge and wanted to have him do some noble gesture - but couldn't they have made Knowles a bit more admirable? Or maybe have Errol love Olivia secretly or something Incidentally, Errol has far more rapport with David Niven, who plays one of his solider mates than Knowles.
On the positive side there are three top notch action sequences: an ambush where Errol saves the day, the siege and massacre (very effective), and the final charge (Tennyson's poem superimposed over the top, which is a bit distracting but you get used to it). Errol also has a great death scene, getting shot and throwing a lance into the baddy but lingering long enough to see the baddy get totally skewered. The production values are great, black and white suits it, the support cast has plenty of Brit actors. Michael Curtiz's direction ensures plenty of shots of shadows and marching troops. But too much of a mess for me to class as top notch Flynn.
2 comments:
"The second major problem of the story is the "romance" plot consists of Olivia de Havilland being engaged to Errol but loving Patric Knowles - and she doesn't change her mind. This is irritating because Knowles is a bit wet and useless, and his character is a wanker (he never does anything brave, he thinks Errol won't mind the fact de Havilland falls for him then goes into a sulk when Errol gets p*ssed off)."
In other words, you had expected the movie to adhere to Flynn's other movies in which he always got the girl - or Olivia de Havilland. It's a pity you were too myopic to really appreciate this aspect of the story. In fact, it's a pity you weren't able to really appreciate this movie.
I didn't have a problem with Errol not getting the girl - it's great that he dies at the end - I just had troubles with Knowles' character. I felt the filmmakers should have given Knowles something more to work with - the character isn't really sympathetic at all, doesn't get to do anything heroic.
Post a Comment