Skip to main content

He wants to know if you are gods.


The Man Who Would Be King
(1975)

John Huston spent more than two decades trying to get Kipling's tale made, first with Bogart and Gable, then with Lancaster and Douglas, before Paul Newman (Huston had seized on the idea of Newman and Redford, no doubt impressed by Butch and Sundance) suggested Caine and Connery. And it's difficult to conceive of a better combination; really this does deserve the accolade of the all-time best "buddy" movie. The chemistry between the two is vibrant and, as it's their friendship that endears the audience to them in spite of their many less admirable traits, vital to the success of the film.


The themes of imperialism and values of Freemasonry, both dear to Kipling, are foregrounded throughout but Huston's presentation of the story is self-aware and thematically dense. It’s something of a rarity to see Freemasonry’s presence in a film where it is not criticised, even blamed for a full-blown conspiracy to rule the world, but here the warmth the author feels towards the Order carries over into the camaraderie between the two ex-soldiers. If not for their roguishness, one might see it as unreserved promotional material.


Kipling's story, however consciously, concerns the imperialist impulse misused. There is no idealism in Danny and Peachy's quest for dominion over Kafirstan, so the author’s less palatable views are shielded by a cautionary tale of greed and hubris.


Danny: In any place where they fight, a man who knows how to drill men can always be a King. We shall go to those parts and say to any King we find, "D'you want to vanquish your foes?' and we will show him how to drill men; for that we know better than anything else. Then we will subvert that King and seize his Throne and establish a Dynasty.

This is, in part, what the two achieve. Except that being a god isn’t the same thing as being a king, and the plan agreed between the two of them (they will leave Kafirstan in four months with their treasure, when the weather has turned) is ultimately rejected by Danny.


Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan are amoral and thoroughly unscrupulous, and in no doubt of their superiority to others. They are both disrespectful towards their English superiors and dismissive and shrewdly manipulative of the "heathens" they encounter.


Danny: Detriments you call us? Detriments? Well I want to remind you that it was detriments like us that built this bloody Empire AND the Izzat of the bloody Raj.

Because they are from the lower classes they are enabled a degree of cynicism about their role and function as part of the British Empire, but there is never any doubt that they identify themselves as British; it is a badge of pride as much as belonging to the Brotherhood (“Not gods – Englishmen, the next best thing”, they announce early on). They are seized by an adventuring spirit, and a sense of pride. The fate of an ex-soldier, wearing “a porter’s uniform outside a restaurant and six penny tips from belching civilians for closing doors on their blowsy women” is not for them.


Unlike Plummer's Kipling (“Once a Mason, always a Mason”), they use their membership to turn circumstances to their advantage (“Ow was I to know you were a Mason?” asks Peachy, having returned Kipling’s stolen watch). Freemasonry’s roots are emphasised as aged and honourable. King Solomon’s Temple is name-checked but, more significantly to the narrative, Alexander the Great (Sikander) was a practiser.  He brought this wisdom to Kafirstan, and it is the recognition of the common Masonic symbol that saves Danny from being shot with an arrow to prove his godhood.


The duo also lack any romantic notions of the army that has made them who they are ("When we've done with you, you'll be able to stand up and slaughter your enemies - like civilised men").

Danny: You are going to become soldiers. A soldier does not think. He only obeys. Do you really think that if a soldier thought twice he'd give his life for queen and country? Not bloody likely.


But they do follow a sworn code in their mission (to make themselves kings in a foreign land, and to abstain from women and liquor until they have succeeded) and it is the breaking of it that results in their downfall.


While Huston’s film tackles some grand themes, it can’t be understated just how funny The Man Who Would Be King is.  The dialogue can only do so much, and it’s as much about the spark between Caine and Connery. Their hilarity in recounting the story of Pipe Major McCrimmon’ pursuit of his sporran is infectious, masterfully positioned at a point in the tale when they are facing certain death. Their attitude to the native population cycles through pretence of respect to mock outrage to genuine horror, such is the dangerous game they are playing.


Billy Fish: All town comes out and pisses downstream when we go bathing.
Peachy: Shocking!

The riffing on “Different countries, different customs” makes a neat underlining of the lengths they are willing to go to for their prize; they are only non-judgemental as far as it suits their purposes. Peachy pushing the watermelon-eating Indian out of the train carriage where he meets Kipling informs us of this early on.


Apparently Caine was criticised for playing too broad when the film first came out. I could see that argument if it had the effect of undermining the drama, but Caine calibrates his performance with an acute awareness of what the story requires and where. All the performances are quire broad, in truth, but this is never at the cost of verisimilitude.


Peachy is the more loquacious of the two in the first instance, and as such Danny is something of the straight man – particularly once the latter has been deified and is issuing edicts. But his concern over Danny’s increasing identification with his make-believe status is subtly played (“You ought to bow before me” advises Danny, strictly for appearances of course). Danny envisages meeting Queen Victoria as an equal. And Peachy’s alarm at Danny’s blinkered belief that he can make a fist of things in his venerated state (“You call it luck. I call it destiny”, says Danny), as unsettling cries are heard from without, creates a palpable shift in tone.


It’s appropriate that, hoisted by the presumption of their own cleverness, they (or rather, Danny) should slip up due to an inability to sustain the simple logic of their deceit. The pronouncement of being a god becomes merely a stay of execution, as the priesthood reacts badly to Danny’s announcement that he will marry Roxanne; a god cannot lie with a woman, they tell him. Even if Roxanne hadn’t scratched him and drawn blood (distraught that carnal relations with him would kill her), its unlikely that it would have taken the priesthood long to depose a god who no longer fitted their bill.


Their final reconciliation is unquestioning and agreeably matter-of-fact; of course Peachy forgives Danny. Their exuberance and capacity for accepting and dealing with whatever they encounter makes them such appealing characters to spend two hours with. That, and their rich repartee.

Danny: Peachy, I'm heartily ashamed for gettin' you killed instead of going home rich like you deserved to, on account of me bein' so bleedin' high and bloody mighty. Can you forgive me?
Peachy: That I can and that I do, Danny, free and full and without let or hindrance.
Danny: Everything's all right then.


While the film is very much a two-hander, with Plummer bookending events (his final scene with Caine is particularly touching), the rest of the supporting cast should be given their due. Saeed Jaffrey as ex-Gurkha Billy Fish wonderfully complements the comic timing between Caine and Connery. Jack May pops up early on as the District Commissioner. Shakira Caine is luminous, and was apparently cast at a late stage. Huston was unable to find the right Roxanne until someone had the presence of mind to suggest the wife of one of this lead actors. Most curiously, the 103-year-old Karroom Ben Boulh plated Kafu Selim, the high priest. The film’s contemporary Making Of… documentary sees the cast and crew relate how he was a night watchmen working at a nearby olive grove who for the first few days of filming, returned to his night job after he had finished. He would show up on set tired, until he was told he didn’t need to do both.  That particular documentary isn’t free from embellishment, though, as it is quite willing to allow the viewer to think that Connery himself performed the plunge into the ravine. It was actually stuntman Joe Powell.


That The Man Who Would Be King was finally made against landscape of '70s Hollywood seems highly appropriate, in particular that it was able to make use of the more naturalistic approach of Caine and Connery. It may not pay close attention to some of the details (for example, filmed in Morocco, it features Muslim prayers and Moroccan Arabic rather than reflecting the Kafirstanis of the storyline) but it never feels that it has succumbed to Hollywood fairy dust in place of telling its story. On the other hand, one only has to look at Huston’s The Treasure of the Sierra Madre to conclude that even in an earlier period the director could have made a finished film that would have been no less satisfying.

*****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

Do forgive me for butting in, but I have a bet with my daughter that you are Hercules Porridge, the famous French sleuth.

Death on the Nile (1978)
(SPOILERS) Peak movie Poirot, as the peerless Peter Ustinov takes over duties from Albert Finney, who variously was unavailable for Death on the Nile, didn’t want to repeat himself or didn’t fancy suffering through all that make up in the desert heat. Ustinov, like Rutherford, is never the professional Christie fan’s favourite incarnation, but he’s surely the most approachable and engaging. Because, well, he’s Peter Ustinov. And if some of his later appearances were of the budget-conscious, TV movie variety (or of the Michael Winner variety), here we get to luxuriate in a sumptuously cast, glossy extravaganza.

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…