I'm an English teacher, and it is one of the very few films that is better than its source material. I show this instead of reading the original novella as a result.
Hi Gregg, Thanks for taking the time to get in touch. I believe John Huston developed the original, improved it and made a superior film. I was a teacher of French for 35 years and I frequently used film to initiate discussion and to inspire reflection on various topics.
I'm not an expert in literature or film, but I enjoyed the film clips that I have seen more than I enjoyed the audio version of the book. With the film, we don't have to memorize names. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a film clip is worth a thousand clips. I consider the characters to be evil, but enjoyable. The film portrayed them in a similar manner, but made them more respectable.
It’s always easier to watch a film but the original book echoes far better the attitudes of the times in which it was written. It’s politically correct nowadays to applaud anything that denigrates the British Empire but why shrink from fact ?
Daniel starts to believe his own propaganda, and to become vain and delusional, but his delusions are somewhat plausible- he did practically found a nation, after all. He united the tribes, brought peace, improved infrastructure, dispensed justice... (He didn't really deprive his subjects of their 'rights' because they didn't exactly have rights under the warlike petty chieftains they had previously, and they had far less security). Had things gone differently the nascent nation could potentially have flourished, with conditions further improving for the inhabitants of that region. The film leaves one wondering about what could have been, without detracting from the 'pride goes before a fall' theme. I agree that the film improves on the book while still being quite faithful. That is a rare accomplishment indeed. The film does more with the Alexander the Great-related theme. Things also happen that could be taken as providential- which makes it more understandable that Daniel would come to believe in his regal/divine destiny (the life-saving discovery of the masonic medallion which Kipling happened to give him, for example, which isn't in the book, and the encounter with another Roxanne, whereas the book has an unnamed bride who is only encountered at the wedding and not before).
Fabulous film! Thanks for your review. It does serve as a metaphor for colonialism/British Empire, and it’s not all negative. Admittedly they are driven by a desire to enrich themselves, but it also shows the courage and supreme confidence of the British Empire builders, their skill in exploiting divisions among the natives to achieve power, the use of superior technology and discipline to defeat their enemies, respect for local customs, unifying the people under one banner, improvements in justice, development of superior infrastructure, and sadly failure due to a loss of face. Anyway, as a history postgraduate, it’s one of my favourite films. 👍🏻
The Son of God Goes Forth to War (1812) is a hymn by Reginald Heber[1] which appears, with reworked lyrics, in the novella The Man Who Would Be King (1888), by Rudyard Kipling and, set to the Irish tune The Moreen / The Minstrel Boy, in the film The Man Who Would Be King (1975), directed by John Huston.[2] In religious use it is more often sung to Henry Stephen Cutler's 1872 tune "All Saints New", which was written for it.[3] The Son of God goes forth to war, a kingly crown to gain; his blood red banner streams afar: who follows in his train? Who best can drink his cup of woe, triumphant over pain, who patient bears his cross below, he follows in his train. That martyr first, whose eagle eye could pierce beyond the grave; who saw his Master in the sky, and called on him to save. Like him, with pardon on his tongue, in midst of mortal pain, he prayed for them that did the wrong: who follows in his train? A glorious band, the chosen few on whom the Spirit came; twelve valiant saints, their hope they knew, and mocked the cross and flame. They met the tyrant's brandished steel, the lion's gory mane; they bowed their heads the death to feel: who follows in their train? A noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid, around the Savior's throne rejoice, in robes of light arrayed. They climbed the steep ascent of heaven, through peril, toil and pain; O God, to us may grace be given, to follow in their train.
That line about Danny being a god "But he break wind at both ends simultaneous - which is more, I reckon, than any god can do." may be the best piece of dialogue ever written. 🤣
Absolute classic, it looks like they had a great time filming, the only downside is Connery never seems to get serious in the role, he keeps it quite lighthearted all through, whereas Caine does put across the seriousness of their predicament in short bursts
As always, your analysis is insightful and accurate. This film is a personal favorite that first saw as a teenager. It took me many years and a trip to University and Graduate school to fully grasp the deeper meaning you discuss. What Houston does is similar to John Ford's films, he presents us with a entertaining adventure that seems simple, but is not. The images and imagery often undermine the lighthearted nature of the adventure, but is never overbearing. Which it what makes the film so great. Thanks for your analysis, it always stimulates my own thinking.
Thank you for your kind words - I totally agree with your summing up. You may be interested in the video I made about The Searchers. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Yesterday, BBC Radio 4 transmitted a sixty minute play, based on the story. In its own, modest way it was a fitting tribute to the haunting yarn; and makes me want to see the memorable film again. By the way, did you know that John Houston was meant to have approached Paul Newman, with the idea of casting both Robert Redford and himself as the likeable rogues? No doubt, this was on the commercial strength of their appeal in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". Fortunately, Newman had the more perceptive mind, in terms of being a casting director, and recommended Caine and Connery instead. Thus, two vital ingredients for a classic movie were put into place.
I wonder if there is any connection between this story and the expression “you’ve got a bloody cheek”? The symbolic significance of his bride biting his cheek is already very strong.
Interesting... I know that usually by cheek they refer to one someone is joking around and being "tongue in cheek "... and of course the English expression of something being bloody.. to imply the expression damn , " you bloody damn well "... Or a substitute for the f word type of expression . But now this gives a nice new twist... what you are saying .
Although Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart are well respected actors, both of them attempting to play British former soldiers would have not have worked. Instead Connery and Caine fit these characters like a glove.
@@HonoredGeneral I didn’t realise others had been approached for the principal roles - how interesting. I still think Connery and Caine fit their parts like gloves!
@@fernie150 Fine Actors and Director who chose well. I could not imagine ANYONE else but these two. An adventure classic finally realized by the acclaimed director, Huston!
@@fernie150 …The roles were pitched to Paul Newman and Robert Redford after the success of Butch Cassidy and The Sting. Newman knew it wasn’t a good choice but suggested Connery & Caine. What a keen eye P Newman had, thank God.
Somehow, i feel that the Peachy & Danny- type charlatans of this world would smile wryly at " commoner's" Caine & Connery being knighted for, well, play acting!
You said something like that they didn't intend to do harm . . . but they went with a couple crates of rifles to steal the Crown Jewels of a nation . .. . that sounds like intending to do harm. But this movie does seem to be a great and true representation of the British attitude during their Empire. But the Mongol, Mogul, Roman, Ottoman, Zulu, Aztec, Cherokee, Japanese, Assyrian and all other Empires in history likely walked around the conquered peoples with the same arrogance and disregard for their lives depicted in this truly great movie.
I agree about doing harm, but I doubt if they perceived their actions in those terms. I agree also about empires and the disregard they engender toward conquered peoples, and the fact this is a great film. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Thank you. At the time of making the video I thought the Freemasonry aspect had been discussed more than adequately elsewhere, but I should probably have said more.
They DID do the people of Khafiristan a service! They united them, ended the petty wars between the warlords, brought justice to them, and a general increased prosperity. But, they're white, so oppressors... *sigh* . The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard - The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah slowly !) towards the light:- "Why brought ye us from bondage, "Our loved Egyptian night ?"
So now South Africa is going to seize land from white farmers--I guess motivated by how well that has worked out in Zimbabwe. Perhaps the Rwandan Genocide would be a better example of the magnanimous nature of native rule in Africa; ask a Tutsi, if you can find one. Oops! Maybe we should look to Sudan or Ethiopia--ah shit! I give up.
Oh, wait! I know a solution. We'll just throw open our borders and welcome all comers. We wouldn't want anyone to think we're bigoted. Doesn't matter if they don't treasure our national and cultural values, or if they speak English, or have a useful trade or profession; for we value diversity. Surely everyone, well at least the working class, is willing to pay more taxes to support such "refugees," no?
@@willong1000 So you're all for us invading and colonising other nations, but not a fan of people from other nations coming here. You do see the irony in that don't you?
What I find ironic, Matt Robbo, are the non-linear, fallacious conclusions you draw from my intentionally ironic commentary. My comments were, by the way, directed at "Owais" (The Helper), whose own foully racist commentary was ironically not helpful at all!
anyone out there who has the "lost" VC my mum's gg father earned please find. was Indian mutiny. Miller. (James). might be in a collection somewhere. not a big deal, just want to know it's safe. saved officer in field. best way to get one of these......
Before you criticize Peachy and Danny for "tramping over the rights..."... consider what Khafiristan was like prior to their coming. In my opinion, Kipling is more likely saying "the barbarism of barbarians is inherent; you cannot civilize them to western cultural standards. At most you can cause them to go through the motions without them really understanding or embracing superior western cultural values".
No meaning it was just an adventurist movie and a good one. I was told at the music studio when Houston came in with a bandage on his head that his wife had hit him with something. One of the music production guys told me Houston was gay and had 'been out and about' and his wife had bashed him!! Don't know if it was true but that is what I saw!!
The only "Higher authority" which they respected was FREEMASONRY, so any "implied criticism"of their actions should bewith regard to FREEMASONRY rather than to Colonialism I don't consider that they are motivated by Queen and Country
@@fernie150 The fellow with the white turban facing the camera the same guy at 2.22 that seems to be directly under Sean Connery's right hand but isn't. Sean Connery is listening to a translation of what the guy is on trial for and I don't think the guy did what they're saying. What other translation would I be referring to if you've seen the movie and remember this part Stuart Fernie?
Sorry - I assumed the time reference referred to the film, not my video. I see what you mean - he does look somewhat bemused, but I suspect he was a local resident and not an actor.
