The Four Feathers (1939)

But reviewing the film on a newly restored and enhanced print was nothing short of a revelation. It was frequently gorgeous to look at, and the high quality of the print allowed me to focus on the story. Many of the scenes were filmmed on location in the Middle East, which greatly added to the appeal of the movie (in American epics of the thirties, even the Crimea and India ended up looking like the Mojave Desert for obvious reasons--reminds me of the funny scene in the second Austin Powers movie, where Austin casually remarks while driving down a road that is clearly on the California coast, "Isn't it amazing how much the coast of England looks like California?").

In 1939, the British film industry still lagged far behind the American film industry in technical proficiency. Alfred Hitchcock, who left England in 1940 to work in the US for the next 25 years, managed to succeed despite the studio shortcomings, but even in his British films of the thirties the gap in sound and basic photographic techniques is all too apparent as we watch the films of that time. One of the great achievements of Producter/Director Alexander Korda (his brother Zoltan directed THE FOUR FEATHERS while Alexander produced and owned the studio that made the film) was making the first films in Great Britain that rivaled the technical (as opposed to cinematic) accomplishments of Hollywood. THE FOUR FEATHERS holds up admirably with most of the big budget films made in Hollywood in 1939. The color is perhaps not as vivid as in GONE WITH THE WIND or THE WIZARD OF OZ, but it nonetheless is quite good for the time. And this film is thoroughly convincing as an epic. Thousands and thousands of extras were used, but unlike Hollywood, where whites were made up to look like Native Americans, Asian Indians, or Arabs, the extras in THE FOUR FEATHERS clearly hailed from one or another part of Africa or the Middle East.

The cast is solid, but two performances stand out. C. Aubrey Smith made a career out of playing bombastic and self-important British Colonels or Generals. And he never performed that role better than in this film. But the best performance was by the always spectacular Ralph Richardson (does anyone else find a stunning physical resemblence between him and Kevin Spacey?). No one ever stole a scene from Ralph Richardson. Even in small roles he could dominate the action. Tragically, his film opportunities rarely took advantage of his gigantic talent. His technique and voice were the equal of Olivier and Alec Guinness, yet he never quite matched their film success. He did, however, manage to excell on the stage. In this regard, Richardson's career mirrored that of John Gielgud, whose screen career was equally paltry compared to his stage successes. Apart from THE FOUR FEATHERS, my favorite Ralph Richardson performances are an amazing film version of A LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT and Q PLANES (AKA CLOUDS OVER EUROPE). His character in the latter was the direct inspiration for "John Steed" in THE AVENGERS on TV in the sixties.

Now for the scary news. This marvelous film is being remade starring Heath Ledger (from A KNIGHT'S TALE--medieval history reborn as an MTV inspired movie) in the Ralph Richardson role and Wes Bently (from AMERICAN BEAUTY) in the John Clement role. Kate Hudson from ALMOST FAMOUS takes the female lead.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this | Permalink Comment Comments (2)

As for the history, the Madhi was hardly some kindly fellow from the desert. He was a fanatic murderer, bent upon distorting Islam for his own purposes. ...The Madhi sought merely to remove the Anglo-Turkish influences from the region and replace it with his own religeous terror. He managed to kill Gordon at the epic siege of Khartoum in 1885, and it took the British 10 yrs to muster the inclination to go back to the region and defeat the Mahdist movement.

It is interesting to point out that the fanatic swine Bin Laden was inspired by the Madhi, and no doubt sees himself as one and the same. There is not much difference between them really. Of course then we had the redoubtable British Empire to crush such vermin, whereas today we don't. The Mahdi's successor, The Khallifah was hardly much better. For 10 yrs he ruined the Sudan and Ethopia with famine and war before the Britsih crushed him at Omdurman, as related in the movie. There was no such prison break inspired by a Faversham character, nor is this shown in the book, but Korda put it in to liven up the novel which it surely does. The prison conditions shown in the movie are accurate as to the way the Madhist treated "infidels" and other prisoners. Make no mistake about it, neither the Madhi or Khallifah were nice men. They were not patriots in the name of Islam, but cruel religeous leaders who killed and exploited for their own gain. The Madhi died of sexual exhaustion in his harem after the fall of Khartoum in 1885, so much for being the pure hero of Islam. Viewers should check out the movie "Khartoum" to get a better perspective of historical events in the Sudan during this period.

This is a wonderful movie which will inspire the viewer with how such pretending murderers were dealt with in Queen Victoria's time. Enjoy.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this | Permalink Comment Comment