BP Schulberg did everything possible
to elevate the artistic power of film to the level
of theatre and literature. It was due to some
embarrassment about working in films, and having
a good deal of admiration for novel writers, that
he adapted some of the best literature while VP
in Charge of Production at Hollywood's Paramount
Studios. Not wanting to be considered uncultured
by everyone in New York, he worked hard to make
sure his films were ambitious, and reflected the
high standards of those he knew might be turning
their noses up at him.
Faversham with
Colonel Trench. |
|
Schulberg brought in Merian C. Cooper—who
had previously produced two documentaries in remote
parts of the world—to direct the 1929 silent
version of The Four Feathers.
The highly regarded novel by A.E.W. Mason had
seen earlier adaptations to film, however, this
is the only one known to still exist.
It was Cooper's first purely
fictional film with professional actors. Shooting
in both Hollywood and the Sudan, Cooper knew how
to realistically capture bold adventures on film,
as he was a man who had relished extraordinary
adventures in his own life. In 1916 he chased
Pancho Villa back to Mexico as a member of the
National Guard. In World War I he was a bomber
pilot, shot down and captured by Germans. Later,
he fought for the Poles against the Soviets and
was shot down a second time, resulting in nine
months as a POW to the Russians. Thus, a grand
adventure, which questioned the courage of men
found itself in his well-placed keep. His fearless
and lusty personality always revealed itself in
his films, and The Four
Feathers was no exception.
Hippos falling
down around Faversham. |
|
Cooper could startle viewers with
his camera. To this day, some shots elicit jaw-dropping
awe in their ability to put viewers under the
trampling hooves of a stampede or into the mouths
wild beasts. There is an unbelievable rescue sequence
with monkeys and hippos that would seem to defy
possibility and yet it exits—long before
the days of CGI. The 1929 The
Four Feathers is a difficult to find film,
but a wonderful treasure if discovered. It contains
surprising moments of sensitivity for such an
audacious adventure. The story is set in a world
where the value of man is measured by his courage
to fight in war; it's a privilege to fight,
and all men should hope such privilege befalls
their fate. The protagonist, Harry Faversham,
played well by Richard Arlen, is set to marry
his childhood sweetheart when called to duty in
North Africa. He dodges, offending his military
father, his friends—who are all battle-ready
soldiers—and his bride-to-be, played by
Fay Wray (who would go on to work with Cooper
again in his better-known movie, King
Kong). Abandoned by those he loves, and
sent white feathers to symbolize his cowardice,
he decides to travel to Africa, disguise himself
as an Arab, and secretly fight for his country.
A.E.W. Mason did not invent the
idea of the white feather as a coward's
gift. This was part of the culture for some time
in England during the Boer Wars. The idea came
from cockfights. The white feather symbolized
a cock—turning tail from its enemy.
Ten years after Cooper's
film, the book was adapted again. Many silents
were remade in the thirties. The art of cinema
had not been improved with sound, but it had changed
dramatically. Therefore, remakes were welcome.
Also, without benefit of TV, many had missed these
stories when told as silents.
1939
version poster. |
|
The Four
Feathers can be counted as another one
of the many masterpieces of 1939. It was a British
film company this time—run by Alexander
Korda—that brought about the return of The
Four Feathers. Alexander's brother
Zoltan directed, and this Technicolor version
of The Four Feathers
stands up superbly today as a clear inspiration
to David Lean's Lawrence
of Arabia. Shot again in the Sudan, a burning
sun torments poor fighting souls like an angry
eye of God. Legions of camelback riding warriors
charge over miles of desert into battle—glorious
to look at, but painful in its complex portrait
of man. The story has essentially remained the
same. The differences that exist do little to
alter the primary theme of questioning the call
to war.
Like before, the main character,
Harry Faversham, comes from a long line of military
heroes and is emotionally burdened by his father's
unwavering expectation that his son follow in
his footsteps. In the silent version, when the
father learns of his son's resignation from
duty, Harry is handed a revolver with the clear
insinuation that, in the face of such shame, he
commit suicide. In the Korda brothers version,
the father has passed away before the film starts,
but Harry's father-in-law (played by the
ever-reliable C. Aubrey Smith) was a comrade of
Harry's father and has the same expectations
on young Harry. The idea of the father as former
soldier, following in the footsteps of his father,
who followed in the footsteps of the father before
that, is a wonderful idea—not only in that
it puts such pressure on poor Harry, but it also
reminds audiences that there has always been war.
John Clements
as
Harry Faversham. |
|
The cast is perfect. John Clements
reels viewers into his emotional turmoil while
he is still in England and then seems almost a
different actor when disguised in Africa. Ralph
Richardson offers the perfect counterpart with
his easy acceptance of sacrifice. Incidentally,
Richardson would go on to play a role in Khartoum
in 1966, which fits historically as a prequel
to this The Four Feathers,
as this version begins with the death of General
Gordon. The reward for having redeemed himself
is a little greater for Harry in this version.
The scars of sacrifice are a little less apparent
(perhaps without coincidence, the year was 1939).
It is to the earlier, silent version's credit
that all is not as well resolved when Harry returns
home from North Africa—which is not to reveal
the outcome of the plot; The
Four Feathers is not so simplistic a story
as to have a resolution where all ends happy.
Both films take viewers on an extraordinary adventure.
Both films ask questions along the way. Both films
leave viewers torn by the complex nature of man
and the terrible trials faced in this world. Anyone
who believes that The
Four Feathers story is about a coward turned
hero is engaging in oversimplification.
On the surface, the Technicolor
version may seem to offer more of an unwavering
devotion to the British Empire, but the centerpiece
to the film shows a coward—Harry Faversham—leading
a blind man away from battle. The coward is a
redeemed coward, but a self-proclaimed coward
nonetheless, while the blind man never once questioned
his duty. Earlier in the film, Harry's war-loving
father-in-law gets teary-eyed watching soldiers
march off to war, showing he is not some brute
who relishes death and dying, but just believes
passionately in the honor of fighting for his
country. The story in both films is executed with
tremendous sympathy for the coward without degrading
those who want to fight down to the level of barbarians.
In other words, there is no ham-fisted condescension
which tries to bully viewers into believing one
man's path is absolutely right while another's
is absolutely wrong. Both of these versions of
Mason's novel are great cinematic triumphs
of adventure while also heartbreaking views of
humanity.
2002
version poster. |
|
In 2002, The
Four Feathers returned (again) to movie
theatres—sort of. It is exactly where the
previous versions succeeded in resonating most
effectively that this one fails. Whereas previous
versions offered sympathetic portraits of those
who answered the call to duty, as well as the
one who resisted it, this version tips the balance
necessary for intense emotional conflict by instilling
more wisdom than guilt in the Harry Faversham
character.
Harry's best friend is the
fearless Jack Durrance. Despite their close friendship,
Durrance has always supported the story's
central conflict by illustrating the mindset of
one who walks in line with expectations. He is
unflappably patriotic and considers it a great
honor to carry out his duty. In earlier adaptations
of the story, a white feather from him was perhaps
the most devastating. However, in this most recent
version, Durrance actually supports Harry and
offers no white feather.
Heath Ledger
as
Harry Faversham. |
|
Motivational problems hinder the
film as well. In leaving out Faversham's
history of multi-generational military service,
the pressure on him to not resign his commission
is diminished. In fact, there was no internal
conflict about his service—until the announcement
of the Sudan mission. In previous versions, the
news came heartbreakingly because we already knew
Faversham was conflicted about going.
Clearly the effort on the part
of Indian director Shekkar Kapur was sincere.
Great care went into the look of the 2002 film.
The end result is thoughtful, yet unfocused. You
wish BP Schulberg could have been around to be
potentially embarrassed. Schulberg could have
warned Kapur against trying to provide answers
to impossible questions. He would have reminded
him that, in art—agendas have nowhere near
the power of ambiguity.
(Stephen Jared) |