Four Feathers (1939). The movie takes place during the years of 1885 to 1898. The movie is based on historical fact though the story itself is fiction. In 1885, a British general by the name of Charles Gordon is killed defending the city of Khartoum against the Mahdist army. I don't know all the background history here, but based on Wikipedia it sounds like he's the British version of General Custer. He was told not to defend the city of Khartoum, but defied the British government and stayed behind. With that background, this British movie starts with a young child named Harry Faversham. His family has a long history of military service and his father is worries that his son is a coward.
The movie then jumps forward 10 years. Per Wikipedia, the British decide to go back into Sudan due to concerns about French expansion into Africa. At this point, Faversham has joined the military due to family pressure, but has anti-imperial views. Also in the military are three other friends: Durrance, Burroughs, and Willoughby. They're all about to be deployed to the Sudan. At the same time, Faversham is getting married to Burroughs' sister.
Faversham decides that instead of going to the Sudan, he will resign his commission. His commanding officer is furious, but accepts the resignation. His three friends send him three white feathers, pinned to their calling cards. The white feathers indicate that he is a coward. The fourth white feather comes from his wife -- though technically she doesn't give him a white feather.
His military unit has already left, but he decides he will join up with them by taking a route through Egypt. Most of the movie occurs during this period of time between around 1895 - 1898. He slowly is able to make his way down to Sudan by joining the Mahdist. Meanwhile, his three friends are sent on a diversionary tactic against the Mahdist army. They are spotted by the Mahdist and a significant military force (with Faversham tagging along) heads towards the British forces. The British forces have superior weapons, but are quickly overwhelmed due to being highly outnumbered.
This is where Faversham redeems three of his feathers. Earlier in the movie, Durrance becomes blind due to sunstroke. During the fighting, he is left for dead. Faversham comes to him and leads him back to an area that is under British control. During this whole time, he does not say a word, therefore not revealing himself to Durrance. Instead, when he finally delivers Durrance to the British, he tucks away the calling card and feather into Durrance's personal belongings.
Somehow he learns that Burroughs and Willoughby have survived the battle, but are being held in a prison camp. He also is able to rescue them. There is a whole storyline there that I won't go into.
The movie ends with him coming back to England and winning back the love of his wife.
The historical context here is that this British movie was released in 1939 just as the drums of World War II were starting to beat. To me, this movie takes a very philosophical approach to war. You have the three friends who are very gung ho about going to war and don't question the dynamics of the UK's empire. Meanwhile, Faversham takes a more philosophical approach and has serious reservations about it. Even though he does head down to join the British forces, I argue that in the end he still keeps to his belief system. His involvement in this war is to rescue his friends, not to defeat the Mahdist. Just two years later, the British were making what I would call seriously ideological (or one might call propaganda) movies like the 49th Parallel. That movie has an interesting plotline, but the ideology is overwhelming and to me makes them nearly unwatchable -- I would say especially when you compare the British World War II movies to similar movies made by America during the war.
Home from the Hill (1960). The movie is about a wealthy family in Texas. It seems like the father owns a significant amount of the town's land. The story revolves around that family of four. The father is a womanizer. The wife wants nothing to do with him, but they stay under the same roof to avoid embarrassing the family name. The son has grown up largely under the care of the mother, but at the start of the movie the father starts to get move involved with the 17 year-old son's life, teaching him how to hunt, as an example. What about the fourth individual? The fourth individual is an out of wedlock son (older than the 17 year old) who isn't recognized as a son, but the family provides for him (the mother had died years before). The out of wedlock son isn't allowed to stay in the house, but is provided servant quarter lodging.
The movie sets things up at the start. The father is shot at by an angry husband who found out that his wife cheated on him with the father. The father survives the gunshot wound, but he is warned that if he keeps up this cheating, he might not be so lucky in the future. And well, the movie ends with him getting shot to death. Interestingly, he is shot due to mistaken identity.
His 17 year old son gets a young lady pregnant. He doesn't realize this -- though he figures it out later. Meanwhile, the young lady approaches the out of wedlock son. The out of wedlock son figures out the situation. To save the young lady embarrassment of having of child without being married (the setting of this movie is probably the 1950s), he tells the young lady he'll marry her. Flash forward a few months and the child is baptized. The father of the young lady over hears some gossip where no one is really fooled by the timeline between the marriage and the birth of the baby. Instead of the finger being pointed at the 17 year old son, the finger is pointed at the womanizing father. You know the ending at this point. The womanizer is shot dead in his own house.
One thing I found interesting in terms of American history: there is a scene where the town goes out to garden the cemetery. I got the impression it was an annual event. Maybe this is still done across small towns in America. I don't know, but I don't think I've ever heard about communities going out to garden cemetery grounds. If anything, in Los Angeles, I've read about cemeteries that end up in ill repair.
No comments:
Post a Comment