Product Details
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
On the whole, this is a compelling movie.
It's creators understood the value of embodying two polarizing forces within the same character or situation. By exploiting that tension, you create real drama. It's a simple formula, but easier said then done.
Fortunately both Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins are able to pull it off elegantly and seamlessly.
Gibson is simultaneously pulled by both the responsibility of loyalty and the passion that any vital man possesses.
Hopkins is divided by both the egoists desire to create a legacy and the LACK of male vitality that usually fuels such desires.
Of the two, Hopkins part is much tougher, yet he captures it in all it's poetic sadness.
In watching a conflict like this, everyone has to chose a side. I relate much more to Gibson, his disloyalty notwithstanding, as he allowed himself to be led more by power than form. (And I saw this before Mel became one of my all time great heroes for his phenomenal work in THE PASSION.)
Hopkins was an old man in the dark days of pre-Viagra civilization. He just didn't have any mojo left and his men sensed that.
Given that he was cooped up in a boat with ALL MEN for countless days, it boggles the mind that ANY man would not feel he had found absolute paradise when landing on Tahiti and all that it offered. And I mean ALL.
Mel of course understood exactly what they had swung into and, given his game, quickly began enjoying it to it's fullest.
That is essentially what this movie is about. The conflict between true, perhaps even raw passion and an old decaying passion limping along on it's last pathetic leg while attempting to provide some subtext for it's existence.
Two best scenes:
1) Mel and his Tahitian bride coming together for the first time.
2) The bitter tears shed by Mel's father-in-law as his daughter chose to go with Mel rather than remain with him.
BTW - I don't know why the last 3 reviewers of this film are all from the Ann Arbor/Plymouth Michigan area. Perhaps we just enjoy tropical climates more than others around the country!
Anthony Hopkins is Captain Bly. Perhaps the cruelty of the times caused him to treat his men so harshly, perhaps it was the code of the Royal Navy in order to maintain discipline, but either way Hopkins pulled it off perfectly. I thought how these early rolls gave him the power to play Hannibal Lecter so well in later films.
There is no way to judge the actions of a mutineer by today's standards, but I agreed with Fletcher Christion for the leniency toward the crew that would have kept the ship in tact and in the Master's command. Beatings, whippings, hitting a man on his bare buttox while is sprawled over a cannon, and depriving the men of the freedom they had been granted for over three months on Tahiti set the captain up for the mutiny.
How could men who had not been all that happy with a captain consumed to circumnavigate the globe on his personal quest, thereby bringing them in grave danger, be trusted? This was particularly true when this captain punished men for simply speaking out -- not against him -- but with questions about his command to return to Cape Horn where they had all nearly died in a bitter 31 day battle against the sea, which had won. They did not make it around Cape Horn the first time when their crew was full and energetic. Though he was warned privately by his First Mate, he still refused to listen.
This is also a love story about men who fell in love with their native wives and did not want to lose them. Had they not followed the captain's orders to return to the boat, without further shore leave, they would have been flogged or shot. Perhaps if Captain Bly had not been so rigid and Puritanical, this story would never have happened, but it is as alive and full of questions now as it was then.
This is a deep story. The acting is excellent. Five Stars.
Victoria Tarrani
There are a number of Great films that were commercial and critical failures upon release but were only recognized for their greatness after many years. Think of Intolerance (1916), Citizen Kane (1941), or Touch of Evil (1958). "The Bounty" certainly deserves a similar destiny and a position of honor amongst the great films of history.
|