Revisiting And Revising A Cinematic Tyrant

“The Bounty” (1984) – movie review
Today’s review is for the historical maritime drama “The Bounty” (1984), directed by Roger Donaldson and starring Anthony Hopkins as Lieutenant William Bligh (the disciplined and ambitious commanding officer whose reputation has swung between capable navigator and legendary tyrant);  Mel Gibson as Fletcher Christian (the charismatic but increasingly strained master’s mate whose loyalty erodes under pressure);  Daniel Day-Lewis as John Fryer (the resentful sailing master whose friction with Bligh shapes the ship’s internal tensions);  Liam Neeson as Charles Churchill (a brooding seaman drawn into the mutineers’ orbit), and Laurence Olivier as Admiral Hood (presiding over the court-martial that frames the narrative).  With this cast and a more restrained approach than earlier versions, the film tries to retell the “Bounty” story without the usual hero-villain simplifications.
Background:  This is the third of the three “Bounty” films I’m familiar with.  I hadn’t seen this one before, and with Hopkins and Gibson both early(ish) in their careers, it seemed like a good time to fill the gap.  Released in 1984, “The Bounty” was conceived as a corrective to earlier Hollywood versions of the mutiny — the 1935 (review here) and 1962 (review here) films — both of which leaned heavily into the “tyrant Bligh vs. noble Christian” myth.  Donaldson’s film, drawing on Richard Hough’s book “Captain Bligh and Mr. Christian“, aims for something closer to the historical record.  While the film did not win any Academy Awards, it was noted for its authenticity, its location shooting in the South Pacific, and its attempt to restore complexity to figures long flattened by legend.  Its historic significance lies in being the first major cinematic treatment to depict Bligh as an extraordinarily capable (and lucky) navigator and Christian as a man unraveling under pressure, rather than a simple clash between good and evil.
Plot:  Told through the framing device of Bligh’s court-martial, the film recounts the ill-fated voyage of HMS Bounty in the late 1780s.  Tasked with transporting breadfruit from Tahiti to the Caribbean, Bligh pushes his crew hard — first through the failed attempt to round Cape Horn, then across the vast Pacific.  The long stay in Tahiti loosens discipline and deepens personal entanglements, especially for Christian.  Tensions rise as Bligh’s strict expectations collide with a crew that has grown comfortable and resentful.  The mutiny itself is quick and brutal, leaving Bligh and his loyalists cast adrift in an open boat.  The film follows both paths:  Bligh’s extraordinary 3,600-mile navigation to safety, and Christian’s doomed attempt to build a new life on Pitcairn.  The court-martial scenes bookend the narrative, forcing the viewer to reconsider where blame — and tragedy — truly lies.
For me, one of the most interesting differences between the three films is the initial relationship between Bligh and Christian.  In the 1935 version, Christian is portrayed as an up-from-the-ranks professional sailor, who has been assigned to the voyage, but doesn’t really want to be there.  In the second (1962), Christian is an aristocrat who has been assigned by the Admiralty and who is hoping for some professional fame / “reputational profit” from the voyage.  It seems as if Bligh wishes to take him down a peg or two.   In the 1984 version (this one), Christian is a “friend” of Bligh’s who has been requested (BY Bligh).  Christian has sailed with Bligh before and is aware of Bligh’s character traits.  Bligh signals he wants Christian along because he (Bligh) has more confidence in Christian as Master’s Mate than he does in his assigned Master (Fryer).  Once at sea, Bligh gives Christian a “sea commission” to acting Lieutenant, which puts Christian over Fryer in shipboard rank.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  immersive and convincing;  a few;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Bounty” works as a thoughtful, character-driven retelling of a story focused on clashing personalities, expectations, and pressures instead of the story earlier films turned into a morality play.  Its strength lies in its restraint — the film trusts the viewer to sit with ambiguity rather than forcing a moral verdict.  It is not a swashbuckler;  it is a study in leadership, pride, and how quickly order can fall apart when trust erodes.
Acting:  Anthony Hopkins delivers a strong performance as Bligh — stern, ambitious, wounded by slights real and imagined, yet undeniably competent.  He avoids the sadistic stereotype of the prior versions and instead portrays a man whose rigidity becomes his undoing and which helps the film’s more balanced approach.  Mel Gibson’s Christian is equally layered:  charming, uncertain, and increasingly overwhelmed by the weight of command as the voyage wears him down.  Their dynamic is the film’s emotional core, built on mismatched expectations and a slow breakdown in communication.  Daniel Day-Lewis, even in an early role, brings simmering resentment as Fryer, while Liam Neeson adds physical presence and quiet menace.  Laurence Olivier lends gravitas to the court-martial scenes, grounding the film’s historical framing.  The ensemble works with each performance contributing to the film’s moral complexity.
Filming / FX:  Shot on location in Tahiti and aboard a full-scale replica of the Bounty, the film’s visual authenticity shows.  The cinematography captures both the beauty and isolation of the Pacific, while the shipboard scenes feel lived-in and practical.  The storm scenes, the failed rounding of Cape Horn, and the longboat voyage rely on physical effects that hold up remarkably well.  Vangelis’ score adds a steady, atmospheric layer without overwhelming the film.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing can feel uneven, particularly in the transition from Tahiti’s slow rhythms to the sudden eruption of the mutiny.  Some supporting characters are sketched lightly, leaving motivations that aren’t always clear – basically unexplained.  The film’s commitment to ambiguity — which is one of its strengths — may frustrate viewers who want a firmer stance on who was right or wrong.  But these are minor issues in a film that aims for realism over melodrama.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “The Bounty” is a rewarding watch if you’re interested in a more grounded version of the story rather than the older Hollywood myth.  The performances are strong, the atmosphere is convincing, and the film treats the mutiny as a human failure rather than a simple tale of good and evil.  It sticks with you because it doesn’t oversimplify.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong recommendation.  “The Bounty” is a thoughtful, well-acted, and historically grounded retelling of one of maritime history’s most famous mutinies.  While it did not win Academy Awards, its significance lies in its corrective approach — restoring complexity to Bligh and Christian and show the mutiny as a complicated breakdown, a tragedy of human frailty, rather than a simple tale of good and evil.  If you appreciate films that blend historical authenticity with character-driven drama, this one is worth your time.
Final Note:  The HMS Bounty was too small a ship to justify a full ranked “Captain” in the British Navy.  Lieutenant William Bligh was the commanding officer of the ship and therefore, by naval tradition, would be addressed as “Captain” by the ship’s crew.  Given the films’ notoriety, “Captain Bligh” is now a part of popular culture and in the films.
.
Click here (15 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

You Eat Life Or Life Eats You

“Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical adventure “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962), directed by Lewis Milestone and built around three central performances:  Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian (the aristocratic first officer whose idealism and polished manners slowly give way to frustration and rebellion), Trevor Howard as Captain William Bligh (a rigid disciplinarian whose command style pushes his crew to the edge and then past the breaking point), and Richard Harris as Seaman John Mills (a voice of the lower deck caught between duty, survival and conscience).  Supporting roles include Hugh Griffith as the ship’s perpetually drunken ship’s doctor, Richard Haydn as the fussy Purcell, and Tarita Teriipaia as Maimiti, whose presence symbolizes the seductive pull of Tahitian life.  With its massive sets (a full-size Bounty replica), Ultra Panavision 70 photography, and Brando’s famously idiosyncratic performance, the film attempts to retell one of maritime history’s most mythologized uprisings.
Background:  Released in 1962 by MGM, this version of “Mutiny on the Bounty” was conceived as a prestige epic — lavish, expensive, and intended to rival the studio’s earlier 1935 adaptation (review here).  The production became notorious for delays, rewrites, and Brando’s on-set eccentricities, ultimately ballooning the budget to one of the largest of its era.  Despite a mixed reception, the film earned seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Cinematography, and Best Music Score, though it did not win in any category.  Over the years, it has settled into a reputation as a visually impressive but uneven retelling of the Bounty story, notable for its scale and for shifting the focus from simple tyranny to a broader clash of values.
Plot:  Set in the late 1700s, the story follows the HMS Bounty as it sails from England to Tahiti to collect breadfruit plants for transport to the West Indies.  Captain Bligh, obsessed with efficiency and discipline, imposes increasingly harsh measures on the crew.  Fletcher Christian, who starts out detached and aristocratic, becomes disillusioned with Bligh’s cruelty and increasingly sympathetic to the men under his command.  When the Bounty reaches Tahiti, the crew experiences a level of ease and freedom that stands in sharp contrast to life aboard the ship.  Christian’s loyalties shift, and when Bligh’s punishments escalate, Christian finally leads a mutiny.  The aftermath includes Bligh’s long open-boat journey, Christian’s attempt to build a new life with the mutineers, and the eventual collapse of their fragile settlement.  The film ends on a sober note:  rebellion solves one problem but creates others.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  committed but uneven;  spectacular;  several;  mostly.
Any Good?  Yes — mostly.  The film aims high and delivers a large-scale adventure with clear themes about authority, conscience, and the appeal of a simpler life.  It isn’t as tight or focused as the 1935 version, but it tries to give the mutiny more psychological weight.  The pacing can drag, especially in the middle, but the overall story still works.
Acting:  Brando delivers one of his most unusual performances — mannered, eccentric, and at times bordering on parody, yet undeniably compelling as the film progresses.  His Fletcher Christian is less a rugged seaman (than Clark Gable’s version) than a conflicted aristocrat, torn between privilege and principle he becomes a reluctant rebel.  Trevor Howard is excellent as Captain Bligh, portraying him not as a cartoon tyrant but as a man whose rigid worldview blinds him to the humanity of those he commands.  Richard Harris brings energy and frustration to his role, grounding the lower-deck perspective.  The Tahitian cast, particularly Tarita, adds warmth and authenticity, though their roles are shaped more by the film’s romanticism than by historical nuance.  Overall, the acting is strong, but Brando’s choices dominate the film and throw the tone off balance.
Filming / FX:  The film’s biggest strength is its look.  Shot in Ultra Panavision 70, the widescreen vistas of the Pacific are breathtaking — emerald islands, turquoise waters, and the imposing silhouette of the Bounty under full sail.  The ship itself, a full-scale reconstruction, is a marvel of production design.  The storm scenes, Tahitian sequences, and open-sea shots are staged with grandeur and precision.  Bronislau Kaper’s score supports the film well, mixing orchestral sweep with lighter island material.  There are no modern visual effects, but the practical scale and location shooting give the film a physical authenticity rarely matched today.
Problems:  Several.  The pacing is uneven, particularly in the second act, where the film lingers on Tahitian idylls which slows the story down;  Brando’s performance, while interesting, sometimes clashes with the rest of the cast;  the script softens some of the harsher historical realities and leans into a romantic view of both the mutiny and Tahitian life;  Bligh is written as more complex than the usual absolute villain, which is good, but it occasionally weakens the dramatic pressure leading up to the mutiny;  and, the final act feels rushed compared to the long middle stretch.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Mostly.  “Mutiny on the Bounty” is long and occasionally slow, but it’s also impressive to look at and has enough character conflict to stay interesting.  The themes about leadership and responsibility still land.  Brando’s performance is uneven but memorable, and the production values alone make the film worth watching.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong recommendation.  “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) is a large, ambitious, and sometimes frustrating epic, but it’s also a distinctive entry in Hollywood’s widescreen era.  It didn’t win any of its seven Oscar nominations, but its scale, its cast, and its place in the long line of Bounty adaptations give it lasting interest.  If you enjoy maritime history, character-driven conflict, or Brando’s experimental period, this version is worth your time.  It isn’t a definitive telling of the story, but it remains a striking and memorable one.
.
Click here (14 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »