SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 142 - The Bounty

[europe1]

NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info!

Here's a quick list of all movies watched by the SMC. Or if you prefer, here's a more detailed examination.

Our Director
Roger Donaldson

​

Roger Donaldson was born on November 15, 1945 in Ballarat, Australia. He is a director and producer, known for The World's Fastest Indian (2005), Species (1995) and Cocktail (1988). He is married to Marliese Schneider. He was previously married to Susan Hockley.

Our Stars
Mely Gibson

Anthony Hopkins

Premise: Fed up with their captain's harsh discipline, a sailing ship's crew decides to take action.

Budget: $20 million

Box Office: $18.3 million



Trivia
(Courtesy of the IMDB)
​

* This movie is generally regarded as the most accurate depiction of the actual mutiny.

* The re-creation of the "Bounty" specially built for the movie had, for many years, been used as a tourist cruise ship at Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia, until 2007 when it was sold to HKR International Limited. The ship is now on Lantau Island in Discovery Bay, Hong Kong, and continues to function as a tourist cruise charter.

* Captain William Bligh's later career was peppered with further mutinies and complaints about his "oppressive attitude". His tyrannical nature later sparked the Rum Rebellion in New South Wales in 1808, which led to his being forcibly deported.

* Sir Anthony Hopkins, who had battled with alcoholism until becoming abstinent in 1975, was worried about Mel Gibson's heavy drinking, saying, "Mel is a wonderful, wonderful fellow with a marvelous future. He's already something of a superstar, but he's in danger of blowing it, unless he takes hold of himself." Gibson, who likewise self-identified as an alcoholic, agreed with this concern, and added his admiration for the Welsh actor: "He was terrific. He was good to work with, because he was open, and he was willing to give. He's a moral man, and you could see this. I think we had the same attitudes."

* Mel Gibson has expressed a belief that this movie's revisionism did not go far enough, believing that his character should have been portrayed as the antagonist. He praised Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance, as Lieutenant William Bligh, as the best aspect of the movie.


Members: @europe1 @MusterX @Scott Parker 27 @Cubo de Sangre @sickc0d3r @FrontNakedChoke @AndersonsFoot @Tufts @chickenluver @Coolthulu @OMGstreetfight @Yotsuya @jei @LHWBelt @moreorless87 @ArtemV @Bullitt68 @HenryFlower @Nailgun @Rimbaud82 @BeardotheWeirdo @Zer

 

[BisexualMMA]

Good choice. Great score by Vangelis. Very good early performances by Daniel Day Lewis and Liam Neeson as well.

 

[Tufts]

Argh! I'm behind again this week. We just finished watching the Planet of the Apes trilogy (the modern one) and I'm throwing a bday party tonight. Will get to is as soon as I can after that....

 

[Yotsuya]

I just got back from a Helsinki cinemateque screening of a rare German 1941 war movie Stukas. I’ll watch The Bounty tomorrow.

 

[Zer]

Something about a bunch of British dudes in uniforms standing around arguing gets my juices flowing. Even though Mel would probably claw my eyes out for calling him British

 

[mb23100]

Something about a bunch of British dudes in uniforms standing around arguing gets my juices flowing

 

[Coolthulu]

Something about a bunch of British dudes in uniforms standing around arguing gets my juices flowing. Even though Mel would probably claw my eyes out for calling him British

 

[HARRISON_3]

NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info!

Here's a quick list of all movies watched by the SMC. Or if you prefer, here's a more detailed examination.

Our Director
Roger Donaldson

​

Roger Donaldson was born on November 15, 1945 in Ballarat, Australia. He is a director and producer, known for The World's Fastest Indian (2005), Species (1995) and Cocktail (1988). He is married to Marliese Schneider. He was previously married to Susan Hockley.

Our Stars
Mely Gibson

Anthony Hopkins

Premise: Fed up with their captain's harsh discipline, a sailing ship's crew decides to take action.

Budget: $20 million

Box Office: $18.3 million



Trivia
(Courtesy of the IMDB)
​

* This movie is generally regarded as the most accurate depiction of the actual mutiny.

* The re-creation of the "Bounty" specially built for the movie had, for many years, been used as a tourist cruise ship at Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia, until 2007 when it was sold to HKR International Limited. The ship is now on Lantau Island in Discovery Bay, Hong Kong, and continues to function as a tourist cruise charter.

* Captain William Bligh's later career was peppered with further mutinies and complaints about his "oppressive attitude". His tyrannical nature later sparked the Rum Rebellion in New South Wales in 1808, which led to his being forcibly deported.

* Sir Anthony Hopkins, who had battled with alcoholism until becoming abstinent in 1975, was worried about Mel Gibson's heavy drinking, saying, "Mel is a wonderful, wonderful fellow with a marvelous future. He's already something of a superstar, but he's in danger of blowing it, unless he takes hold of himself." Gibson, who likewise self-identified as an alcoholic, agreed with this concern, and added his admiration for the Welsh actor: "He was terrific. He was good to work with, because he was open, and he was willing to give. He's a moral man, and you could see this. I think we had the same attitudes."

* Mel Gibson has expressed a belief that this movie's revisionism did not go far enough, believing that his character should have been portrayed as the antagonist. He praised Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance, as Lieutenant William Bligh, as the best aspect of the movie.


Members: @europe1 @MusterX @Scott Parker 27 @Cubo de Sangre @sickc0d3r @FrontNakedChoke @AndersonsFoot @Tufts @chickenluver @Coolthulu @OMGstreetfight @Yotsuya @jei @LHWBelt @moreorless87 @ArtemV @Bullitt68 @HenryFlower @Nailgun @Rimbaud82 @BeardotheWeirdo @Zer

Always great movies in here-many I've seen, many I've been meaning to see (like this one.)

Add me to the list of you can, next time, sherbro.

Thx

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Seen this one already, but I was on a mutiny on the bounty binge so I can't remember too much about it specifically. I'll re-watch it tomorrow

Great story, right up my alley.

Pitcairn Island is the least populous national jurisdiction in the world. The Pitcairn Islanders are a biracial ethnic group descended mostly from nine Bounty mutineers and the handful of Tahitians who accompanied them, an event that has been retold in many books and films. This history is still apparent in the surnames of many of the islanders. Today there are approximately 50 permanent inhabitants, originating from four main families

They're accepting immigrants now.

Pitcairn Islanders (1916) (after religion)

Pitcairn Islanders (1790 (as depicted in 1984)) (pre-religion)

In this case I'm not going to criticize the inaccuracy, I'll forgive Hollywood for it's shallow ways. (side-note) It was really hard to find a non-nude photo of the women from this movie.

The movie is a glorious tale of rebellion, freedom, sex and fun in paradise. One to celebrate.

The rest of the story is really interesting too, but not nearly as fun

In 1790 nine of the mutineers from the Bounty, along with the native Tahitian men and women who were with them (six men, eleven women, and a baby girl), settled on Pitcairn Islands and set fire to the Bounty... Although the settlers survived by farming and fishing, the initial period of settlement was marked by serious tensions among them.

Gradually, tensions and rivalries arose over the increasing extent to which the Europeans regarded the Tahitians as their property, in particular the women who, according to Alexander, were "passed around from one 'husband' to the other". In September 1793 matters degenerated into extreme violence, when five of the mutineers—Christian, Williams, Martin, Mills, and Brown—were killed by Tahitians in a carefully executed series of murders. Christian was set upon while working in his fields, first shot and then butchered with an axe; his last words, supposedly, were: "Oh, dear!". In-fighting continued thereafter, and by 1794 the six Tahitian men were all dead, killed either by the widows of the murdered mutineers or by each other. Two of the four surviving mutineers, Young and Adams, assumed leadership and secured a tenuous calm, which was disrupted by the drunkenness of McCoy and Quintal's after the former distilled an alcoholic beverage from a local plant.

Some of the women attempted to leave the island in a makeshift boat but could not launch it successfully. Life continued uneasily until McCoy's suicide in 1798. A year later, after Quintal threatened fresh murder and mayhem, Adams and Young killed him and were able to restore peace. John Adams and Ned Young turned to the scriptures, using the ship's Bible as their guide for a new and peaceful society. Young eventually died of an asthmatic infection.

For the men it turned into the lord of the flies.

All but one man remained, with 9 nude women (and 19 children) on a tropical island... And he turned to the scriptures. Funny how priorities can change so much. The sex freedom and booze drove the others nuts though, so I guess he made the right call, if you believe his version that is.

As the last remaining man in a society, in that era, that made him the victor that gets to write history. The surviving women contradict his story. Even on the official Pitcairn Islands government website it says the truth will never be known about what really happened. Everyone contradicted each other with their stories.

Apart from Bligh's journal, the first published account of the mutiny was that of Sir John Barrow, published in 1831.The book instigated the legend that Christian had not died on Pitcairn, but had somehow returned to England and been recognised by Heywood in Plymouth, around 1808–1809.

If he couldn't hide on Pitcairn island, then where else could he hide? I doubt anyone would've recognized him so maybe.

Or maybe it was just another Elvis spotting.

Traditionally, Pitcairn Islanders consider that their islands "officially" became a British colony on 30 November 1838, at the same time becoming one of the first territories to extend voting rights to women

Ha, I wonder if the men all killing each other had anything to do with that.

48 years of independence. 7% survival rate for males.



Boys will be boys

In 2004, charges were laid against seven men living on Pitcairn and six living abroad. This accounted for nearly a third of the male population. After extensive trials, most of the men were convicted, some with multiple counts of sexual encounters with children. On 25 October 2004, six men were convicted, including Steve Christian, the island's mayor at the time.

They took their quest for freedom too far.

Power corrupts, and having freedom means having power... it's an interesting dichotomy.

 

[europe1]

Something about a bunch of British dudes in uniforms standing around arguing gets my juices flowing.

 

[Yotsuya]

1962 Mutiny on the Bounty is one of my favorite movies ever and that’s a hard act to follow. The true story is pretty damn amazing and this 1984 remake of it has a perfect cast and there are some great moments. Also, on the plus side I have to mention, that native boobs were bigger and more plentiful than in previous versions.

Overall I found the movie a bit flat. Script was just ok, direction hasty and production values merely adequate. I had hoped more from a Dino De Laurentiis -production. After all, the Italian mogul had before this been involved with movies like Conan the Barbarian and Flash Gordon.

I wish Mad Mel had been released more than once. Fletcher Christian should have oozed charizma as the mutiny leader, but he seemed more like a romantic hero. Then again, stepping into Marlon Brando’s boots with only 5 years of acting experience is really tough.

Still, I hope people like this. The story is thrilling, there’s a strong 80’s vibe with the Vangelis score and the brilliant cast with Mel on lead. 7.1 IMDB rating suggests, that it has a pretty strong following and is very likable if you don’t have previous leanings on how the subject should be handled or just prefer the 80’s variables.

 

[Yotsuya]

Mel Gibson has expressed a belief that this movie's revisionism did not go far enough, believing that his character should have been portrayed as the antagonist. He praised Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance, as Lieutenant William Bligh, as the best aspect of the movie.

Interesting. I agree. He seemed a bit passive and had too few actually good lines. The ”I am in hell” bit was best moment of the movie.

 

[Yotsuya]

Seen this one already, but I was on a mutiny on the bounty binge so I can't remember too much about it specifically. I'll re-watch it tomorrow

Great story, right up my alley.



They're accepting immigrants now.

Pitcairn Islanders (1916) (after religion)

Pitcairn Islanders (1790 (as depicted in 1984)) (pre-religion)

In this case I'm not going to criticize the inaccuracy, I'll forgive Hollywood for it's shallow ways. (side-note) It was really hard to find a non-nude photo of the women from this movie.

The movie is a glorious tale of rebellion, freedom, sex and fun in paradise. One to celebrate.

The rest of the story is really interesting too, but not nearly as fun





For the men it turned into the lord of the flies.

All but one man remained, with 9 nude women (and 19 children) on a tropical island... And he turned to the scriptures. Funny how priorities can change so much. The sex freedom and booze drove the others nuts though, so I guess he made the right call, if you believe his version that is.

As the last remaining man in a society, in that era, that made him the victor that gets to write history. The surviving women contradict his story. Even on the official Pitcairn Islands government website it says the truth will never be known about what really happened. Everyone contradicted each other with their stories.



If he couldn't hide on Pitcairn island, then where else could he hide? I doubt anyone would've recognized him so maybe.

Or maybe it was just another Elvis spotting.



Ha, I wonder if the men all killing each other had anything to do with that.

48 years of independence. 7% survival rate for males.



Boys will be boys





They took their quest for freedom too far.

Power corrupts, and having freedom means having power... it's an interesting dichotomy.

Thanks for digging this up! I read about this stuff way back and had forgotten most of it. These tales about what happened on Pacific during this era are often really macabre!

 

[europe1]

Not sure which version I like better, this one or the 1963 iteration. Haven't seen the one from 1935 (yet).

I guess the easiest way to talk about movies is in comparisons. In the 1963 version, the conflict between Christian and Bligh was more black-and-white. Blight was this crusty and inhumane old-timer who represented "the man" in service of the establishment, while Christian was this more humane, forward-thinking guy who was after that sweet paradise and freedom.

The Bounty is more about tropical madness, that way your mind can start to boil if the temperature and lushness of your surroundings run to high. Your bad qualities are brought to the forefront while your virtues are snuffed out. It's about how the men's personalities are taken into the extremes when normal-life collapse.

I agree with Mel Gibson that Hopkins is the best thing in this movie. Therefore, I am going to make him the protagonist of my write-up. Let's assess his character.

• He's ambitious and glory-seeking. Being not from a wealthy family (unlike Christian) he aims to accompany his mission in record time by rounding the horn of South America.
• He displays suspicion, doubts and low-opinions towards others. Like firing his second-in-command for his protest concerning rounding the Horn (a protest which turned out 100% correct, btw). Hopkins claims that this man was a coward even though we see him hauling ass to save the ship when the storm was going on. Or -- more tellingly -- his blatant lies to gain the favour of the Cheif. Judging by the Cheif's expression, you can kind of tell that he knows Hopkins is bullshitting him to gain favour, but he goes along with it anyway to remain on amicable terms with the British (whom he knows can annihilate them, not to mention customary hospitality for one's guests). Even the admiral-judges remark at the strangeness of Hopkins lies. Likewise, Hopkins motivations for these lies seem to be entirely his own conjecture. It is never a belief that we see the Tahitians express themselves. Why all this pilfering of the truth? I think it points to Hopkins internal self-doubt and suspicious nature and his instinct to project these negative attributes onto others. "People won't believe/agree with me if I'm up-front and telling the truth -- so I have to lie. The Tahitians won't grant my requests unless I lie. The second-in-command complains due to being a coward, not because he thinks my plan is vainglorious foolishness."
• Notice how queasy Hopkins gets during their stay on the island. Anything that breaks rank, protocol, or norms makes him uneased. During the feasting, he's regularly seen rejecting food, sitting stiff-backed and sulking while the expeditions hands are having the time of their life. It drives him to anger and madness. I think the root of this is his ambitious nature. Unlike Christian, Bligh wasn't born to status and wealth. In his mind, status is something he has to fight for. Any lapse in hierarchy is a threat to his prospects of climbing the social ladder. And he's already under a lot of pressure for having botched the time-schedule by trying to round the horn of America.

In the minds of Hopkins Hands, Tahiti represents freedom to indulge. They live brutish, underprivileged lives -- which has made them quite gruff and animalistic. Tahiti is escape from the hardship that is their existence. Of course they wish to stay! Christian, likewise, loves the place. We see him introduced at some rambunctious fraternity, that's how he likes to spend his time. Unlike Bligh, Christian has never had to fight for his position in life (being born to wealth), so he's a lot more chill about it. But for Hopkins, Tahiti a threat to his dreams and ambitions of becoming a renowned officer (unlike in the 1963 version, where the threat was more about their duty to their Crown, it was more non-personal).

Bligh isn't a bad man. Normally he is well-meaning, principled and virtuous. It's ironic that Bligh scolds the men for succumbing madness -- when it's clearly he who has caught the most dire mental illness. A sombre Bligh could come to understand that rounding the Horn of America was a terrible idea. While a Bligh who has had his authority constantly challenged by the sensual indulgences of Tahiti wishes to return to the Horn so to crush his sailors' newfound spirit. Not to mention seeing filth everywhere and making Mel Gibson constantly re-clean it -- no doubt a psychotic mirage brought on by his feverish hatred of the man.

Only when he's stripped of command, the means of his ambitions, does his virtuous side return again.


On a craftsmanship note: The 1963 version was a lot more panoramic. It focused more on the lushness of the environments, the blue of the ocean. Everything was always baked in the sun and colours pop. This production has a much more realistic, grungy, lived-in vibe. The camera often focuses much more close-in on the actors instead of standing back so to highlight the quality of the scenery.

 

[Bullitt68]

I really hope people like this!

I hate to disappoint the week's picker, but I most certainly did not like this movie. It's never a good sign when you have a huge cast and a well-known story with multiple film iterations and you literally never hear it talked about. I mentioned that I'd been avoiding this movie for years for fear that it'd suck. That was the main reason. And, at this point in my moviegoing life, I know myself well enough to trust that instinct, and very rarely am I wrong about what I'll like versus what I'll dislike. This was not an exception.

First and foremost, despite the stellar cast, the acting in this movie was pretty bad. I wouldn't have been surprised if there was a shit script and uninspired direction but some decent scenes from the likes of Hopkins, Mel, and DDL. I was very surprised, however, to find that there were no redeeming qualities to this movie, not even in the cast. Hopkins was a cartoon, I never got the sense of a real human being there. He had a cardboard personality and when he'd yell it was just hollow affectation. I could see the technique, but I couldn't feel the reality. As for Mel, he was just Mel, though without the same charm and energy that he'd develop in years to come (never mind that his character was the most poorly written, with absolutely no coverage of his transformation and hence no reason provided to care about his wants versus Hopkins'). The standout was actually DDL. Even though he was young, he was the only one who was serviceable and believable in his role.

And then the narrative choices were just fucking terrible. The courtroom conceit was a TERRIBLE idea. Aside from the fact that Olivier was basically just reading copy (though I did get a kick out of seeing The Jackal as the inquisitor) it's an obnoxious device because it removes us from what should be an intense confrontation of personalities and its obnoxiousness was compounded by how frequently they were cutting back-and-forth. We should be stuck with those guys on that boat, we should feel the sweltering heat of the island. But when we keep jumping back to the courtroom, there's no time to really inhabit those places and feel among the crew. Added to which, knowing Hopkins stands trial removes the stakes. And before anyone says "But it's a true story, so you know how everything turns out" the point is that it's impossible to get sucked into the conflict; it's impossible to wonder "How far is this going to go? What's going to happen? Where will this particular film take this story and these characters?" because of how artificial it all feels (and despite the relentlessly melodramatic music that made me want to mute the film so many times and the actiony editing) as just a bunch of flashbacks that'll invariably be interrupted anyway, so why bother investing in any of it?

So yeah, pretty terrible movie. Both the 1935 version and the 1962 version are light years in front of this turd.

 

[europe1]

I liked small moments in this movie. Like when Gibson returns to Tahiti and the Natives being dismayed that they have become outlaws and renegades. It really crushes the illusions they've been living under. Drives home the reality of the situation. They think Tahiti is the Garden of Eden but it is as interconected as the rest of the world.

Also, on the plus side I have to mention, that native boobs were bigger and more plentiful than in previous versions.

I googled after some gif where a guy just says "Boobs!" that I could use as the introduction of my post.

With that search-word, you'd think I've just started using the internet yesterday...

Overall I found the movie a bit flat.

I thought it was one of those moves that on the surface maybe can seem a bit flat -- but if you can dig somewhat in the characters there is some juiciness to be found.

. I had hoped more from a Dino De Laurentiis -production. After all, the Italian mogul had before this been involved with movies like Conan the Barbarian and Flash Gordon.

Yeah it did feel a bit un-Dino-esque. Solid for a budget of 20 million though considering how ungodly expansive that ship must have been. I think the decision to shoot more in-close lent to this impression, instead of pulling back the camera more and focusing on the scenery.

Scenes like the natives attacking Hopkins and band of drifters, Dino probably wanted more pulpy stuff like that.

Fletcher Christian should have oozed charizma as the mutiny leader,

But... why? The men only resided in him because he was of the officer class. His uprising wasn't due to some great injustice -- more the nature of the situation having unravelled everything they've known (the Hands and the Officers). They're left in limbo, numbed to the responsibilities and lives they've had before landing on Tahiti, brought to madness due to the downfall of their hierarchy. It seems fitting that they should all be in a state of confused flux rather than being force-of-personalities.

I wish Mad Mel had been released more than once.

Wide-eyed Mel as I came to call him.

 

[Yotsuya]

I hate to disappoint the week's picker, but I most certainly did not like this movie.

I admit, I was pretty sure you would hate The Bounty and in this case I admire you for your high standards.

 

[Yotsuya]

Not sure which version I like better, this one or the 1963 iteration. Haven't seen the one from 1935 (yet).

I guess the easiest way to talk about movies is in comparisons. In the 1963 version, the conflict between Christian and Bligh was more black-and-white. Blight was this crusty and inhumane old-timer who represented "the man" in service of the establishment, while Christian was this more humane, forward-thinking guy who was after that sweet paradise and freedom.

The Bounty is more about tropical madness, that way your mind can start to boil if the temperature and lushness of your surroundings run to high. Your bad qualities are brought to the forefront while your virtues are snuffed out. It's about how the men's personalities are taken into the extremes when normal-life collapse.

I agree with Mel Gibson that Hopkins is the best thing in this movie. Therefore, I am going to make him the protagonist of my write-up. Let's assess his character.

• He's ambitious and glory-seeking. Being not from a wealthy family (unlike Christian) he aims to accompany his mission in record time by rounding the horn of South America.
• He displays suspicion, doubts and low-opinions towards others. Like firing his second-in-command for his protest concerning rounding the Horn (a protest which turned out 100% correct, btw). Hopkins claims that this man was a coward even though we see him hauling ass to save the ship when the storm was going on. Or -- more tellingly -- his blatant lies to gain the favour of the Cheif. Judging by the Cheif's expression, you can kind of tell that he knows Hopkins is bullshitting him to gain favour, but he goes along with it anyway to remain on amicable terms with the British (whom he knows can annihilate them, not to mention customary hospitality for one's guests). Even the admiral-judges remark at the strangeness of Hopkins lies. Likewise, Hopkins motivations for these lies seem to be entirely his own conjecture. It is never a belief that we see the Tahitians express themselves. Why all this pilfering of the truth? I think it points to Hopkins internal self-doubt and suspicious nature and his instinct to project these negative attributes onto others. "People won't believe/agree with me if I'm up-front and telling the truth -- so I have to lie. The Tahitians won't grant my requests unless I lie. The second-in-command complains due to being a coward, not because he thinks my plan is vainglorious foolishness."
• Notice how queasy Hopkins gets during their stay on the island. Anything that breaks rank, protocol, or norms makes him uneased. During the feasting, he's regularly seen rejecting food, sitting stiff-backed and sulking while the expeditions hands are having the time of their life. It drives him to anger and madness. I think the root of this is his ambitious nature. Unlike Christian, Bligh wasn't born to status and wealth. In his mind, status is something he has to fight for. Any lapse in hierarchy is a threat to his prospects of climbing the social ladder. And he's already under a lot of pressure for having botched the time-schedule by trying to round the horn of America.

In the minds of Hopkins Hands, Tahiti represents freedom to indulge. They live brutish, underprivileged lives -- which has made them quite gruff and animalistic. Tahiti is escape from the hardship that is their existence. Of course they wish to stay! Christian, likewise, loves the place. We see him introduced at some rambunctious fraternity, that's how he likes to spend his time. Unlike Bligh, Christian has never had to fight for his position in life (being born to wealth), so he's a lot more chill about it. But for Hopkins, Tahiti a threat to his dreams and ambitions of becoming a renowned officer (unlike in the 1963 version, where the threat was more about their duty to their Crown, it was more non-personal).

Bligh isn't a bad man. Normally he is well-meaning, principled and virtuous. It's ironic that Bligh scolds the men for succumbing madness -- when it's clearly he who has caught the most dire mental illness. A sombre Bligh could come to understand that rounding the Horn of America was a terrible idea. While a Bligh who has had his authority constantly challenged by the sensual indulgences of Tahiti wishes to return to the Horn so to crush his sailors' newfound spirit. Not to mention seeing filth everywhere and making Mel Gibson constantly re-clean it -- no doubt a psychotic mirage brought on by his feverish hatred of the man.

Only when he's stripped of command, the means of his ambitions, does his virtuous side return again.


On a craftsmanship note: The 1963 version was a lot more panoramic. It focused more on the lushness of the environments, the blue of the ocean. Everything was always baked in the sun and colours pop. This production has a much more realistic, grungy, lived-in vibe. The camera often focuses much more close-in on the actors instead of standing back so to highlight the quality of the scenery.

Excellent break-down of Blight. For me he was more of a straight forward bad guy in 80’s version, because he was so driven by his ambition and became quite mad. On 60’s version Blight was someone who did disiplinary measures by the book to the extreme and his unability to be flexible and consider the circumstances made him an pedant monster serving a system that was very prone of becoming monsteous. It felt like a shared responsibility so to speak. As you mentioned, 60’s version was more against the system and that worked like a miracle with Marlon ”The Wild One” Brando playing the virtuous and almost unhumanly charismatic Christian and that’s what made the movie larger than life along with the glorious production values and stunning cinematography.

Btw, I agree much of what you say except that I don’t have anything good to say about cinematography, set design or general look of the movie. It wasn’t rugged for me, it was just bad.

 

[Yotsuya]

It's never a good sign when you have a huge cast and a well-known story with multiple film iterations and you literally never hear it talked about. I mentioned that I'd been avoiding this movie for years for fear that it'd suck. That was the main reason. And, at this point in my moviegoing life, I know myself well enough to trust that instinct, and very rarely am I wrong about what I'll like versus what I'll dislike. This was not an exception.

First and foremost, despite the stellar cast, the acting in this movie was pretty bad. I wouldn't have been surprised if there was a shit script and uninspired direction but some decent scenes from the likes of Hopkins, Mel, and DDL. I was very surprised, however, to find that there were no redeeming qualities to this movie, not even in the cast. Hopkins was a cartoon, I never got the sense of a real human being there. He had a cardboard personality and when he'd yell it was just hollow affectation. I could see the technique, but I couldn't feel the reality. As for Mel, he was just Mel, though without the same charm and energy that he'd develop in years to come (never mind that his character was the most poorly written, with absolutely no coverage of his transformation and hence no reason provided to care about his wants versus Hopkins'). The standout was actually DDL. Even though he was young, he was the only one who was serviceable and believable in his role.

And then the narrative choices were just fucking terrible. The courtroom conceit was a TERRIBLE idea. Aside from the fact that Olivier was basically just reading copy (though I did get a kick out of seeing The Jackal as the inquisitor) it's an obnoxious device because it removes us from what should be an intense confrontation of personalities and its obnoxiousness was compounded by how frequently they were cutting back-and-forth. We should be stuck with those guys on that boat, we should feel the sweltering heat of the island. But when we keep jumping back to the courtroom, there's no time to really inhabit those places and feel among the crew. Added to which, knowing Hopkins stands trial removes the stakes. And before anyone says "But it's a true story, so you know how everything turns out" the point is that it's impossible to get sucked into the conflict; it's impossible to wonder "How far is this going to go? What's going to happen? Where will this particular film take this story and these characters?" because of how artificial it all feels (and despite the relentlessly melodramatic music that made me want to mute the film so many times and the actiony editing) as just a bunch of flashbacks that'll invariably be interrupted anyway, so why bother investing in any of it?

So yeah, pretty terrible movie. Both the 1935 version and the 1962 version are light years in front of this turd.

I can’t really dispute any of this. I didn’t hate The Bounty, because I can see how it seemed like a good idea and there’s nothing there that I’m against on principle, but I do think it fails to be a quality movie on several levels.

 

[Yotsuya]

I thought it was one of those moves that on the surface maybe can seem a bit flat -- but if you can dig somewhat in the characters there is some juiciness to be found.

Yeah, the characters were there with great potential. I'm happy you got into the zone regardless of the bumps. I was too hung up on 60's version and also duties as the nominator tend to get one too analytical. I usually need a relaxed, neutral attitude for that kind of digging. I remember getting an impression that maybe you had similar problems with 5 Element Ninjas, but I could be wrong of course.

Scenes like the natives attacking Hopkins and band of drifters, Dino probably wanted more pulpy stuff like that.

Hah, I had the same thought!

But... why? The men only resided in him because he was of the officer class. His uprising wasn't due to some great injustice -- more the nature of the situation having unravelled everything they've known (the Hands and the Officers). They're left in limbo, numbed to the responsibilities and lives they've had before landing on Tahiti, brought to madness due to the downfall of their hierarchy. It seems fitting that they should all be in a state of confused flux rather than being force-of-personalities.

Again, I'm just hung up on the Brando version and had imagined possibilities of seeing the same Gibson who did the manically charismatic Hamlet few years later.