Skip to main content

Strange how an unpleasant child can make a decent dog!


The Thief of Bagdad
(1940)

A renowned classic, of course, numbering amongst its biggest fans the likes of Scorsese and Coppola. Its troubled production (shifting location to Hollywood due to the outbreak of WWII, three different credited directors - Michael Powell, Ludwig Berger and Tim Whelan - due to the exacting demands of producer Alexander Korda) belies the supreme confidence of the finished film. But, for all the artistry involved, this is little more than a 70-year old blockbuster; its plot is as straightforward as its characters, lacking finesse but serving to move us from one set piece to the next.

The one conceit the storytelling, adding a layer of trickery, is the initial use of a flashback structure. Blind beggar Ahmad (John Justin), brought to Jaffar’s (Conrad Veidt) mansion, tells how he fell from the lofty status of King of Bagdad. This occurred through the machinations of Jaffar himself; he has magically blinded Justin and turned his friend Abu (Sabu, playing the titular thief) into a dog. Jaffar has arranged to marry the sleeping Princess (June Duprez), who fell in love with Ahmad. Ahmad awakes her but is lured onto a ship that sets sail. The Princess agrees to succumb to Jaffar’s wishes on the promise that Ahamd’s sight will be returned, which it is. But by this point he and the reconstituted Abu are separated and shipwrecked.

If this sounds like an involved narrative, it is less so in the watching. More problematic, the tale unfolds in a halting manner. The characters are established entirely in broad strokes, from which Veidt’s Jaffar suffers the most. His is an evil of the most banal kind (this is not really the fault of Veidt, a fine actor). Justin fares better, while Sabu makes an appealing rascal. British comedy regular Miles Malleson plays a typically silly old fool as the father of the Princess (he effectively sells her hand in marriage for a mechanical horse).

In general, the film lacks the narrative drive to make it truly timeless; rather, it is fitfully impressive. Korda productions were no stranger to overblown production at the expense of dramatic heft; 1936’s Things to Come is a particular chore to get through, despite its ambition (Korda was outspoken about his dislike for Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, and made the film as something of a rebuke; tellingly, no one much remembers Korda’s film).

That said, the signature scenes and effects are generally very special and it’s quite clear why the Thief made an indelible impression on the young wunderkind directors who ascended to power in the ‘70s. Abu’s encounter with Rex Ingram’s Djinn remains a quintessential genie moment (this section was apparently directed by Powell), employing prototype blue screen effects and a giant model foot and hand. Even Abu’s battle with a giant spider (guarding a gem, the All-Seeing Eye) holds up reasonably well. Elsewhere, the lift-off of the magic carpet is downright magical.

Best of all is the sequence in which Malleson is overcome with desire for (and then overcome by) an animated Shiva statue (one of two roles played by Mary Morris, who would later appears as Number Two in The Prisoner TV series). It’s a very suggestive scene (Jaffar informs the Sultan, “She can embrace you” and the Sultan responds that with he will no longer have any need for his wives; it’s pretty clear what is on his mind). There’s also a less successful moment when a stuffed dog is thrown off a ship, which at least pre-dates Hudson Hawk and There’s Something About Mary.

It’s easy to admire The Thief of Bagdad, but harder to wholly engage with it. As a spectacle the film retains much of its power, yet the human element is stiff and mannered, reliant on Sabu to bring sufficient energy to combat the formality and staidness.  Recommended, nevertheless, as one of cinema’s defining productions.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?