Skip to main content

Now that I've had a taste of it I don't wonder why you love boating.


The African Queen
(1951)

The film that bagged Humphrey Bogart his Oscar, and generally regard as an unqualified classic. I’m not sure its reputation is really justified, however. The African Queen coasts along happily enough under the star power of Bogart and Katherine Hepburn but the construction is so lightweight it would float away without them.

Nevertheless, John Huston received dual Oscar nominations (for directing and co-adapting C. S. Forester’s novel with James Agee). On neither front is it the director’s most memorable work. The story takes place at the beginning of WWI, and the opening section suggests a film with a bit more bite than transpires. Hepburn’s Rose and Robert Morley’s Samuel are British missionaries working in German East Africa. When German soldiers burn down their village, Samuel’s mind is afflicted and he dies. It’s interesting to see Huston taking in the bored villagers attending the missionaries’ church service, and Samuel’s preoccupation with a colleague who has climbed the Methodist career ladder more quickly than he.

But that wit soon absents itself; Rose is bundled aboard Charlie Allnut’s (Bogart’s) titular boat, ostensibly heading for safe harbour. But she hatches a hare-brained scheme to destroy a German gunboat, the Queen Louisa. To reach it downriver, they must negotiate treacherous waters. During which time romance inevitably blossoms.

As soon as Rose’s plan is revealed, it’s clear that this is going to be a fantasy romance set against an unlikely (for Hollywood) real location. The events of Forester’s novel are very loosely based on a true story, but the function of the attack on the Louisa in the film is purely to provide a trajectory for the narrative and a source of conflict between the odd couple; there is little weight given to the dramatic moments; even when rapids are surfed, the boat comes under fire or execution is imminent. There’s a knockout line at the climax, from the extremely dry Louisa captain (Peter Bull, who was most memorable as the Russian Ambassador in Dr. Strangelove), but mostly the dialogue lacks sparkle.

And, it has to be said, Rose and Charlie are much more interesting characters when they’re at loggerheads. Once they are canoodling the boat trip becomes almost insufferably sweet. There’s some enjoyment in seeing Hepburn essay Rose’s midlife sexual awakening, and Bogart slightly at a loss without the crutch of hardboiled cynicism to rely on, but it only stretches so far.

Huston meanders with the film as much as the featured river. Consequently, the jarring mismatches between the location filming in Uganda and the Congo (problematic and eventful, eventually inspiring Clint Eastwood’s White Hunter Black Heart) and the studio work in England, replete with ropey rear projection (highlighted all the more by the choice to shoot in colour), distract the attention. It may seem like a shallow criticism (and it probably is), but it’s inevitable if the romance between Rose and Charlie fails to completely captivate you.

Although an atypical role for Bogey, this is far from the best of his six collaborations with Huston. Likeable but inconsequential, it says something that giving The African Queen only faint praise seems tantamount to slaughtering a sacred cow. I always laugh heartily at the clip of Charlie used in Road to Bali, however.

*** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.