FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 09/29/2002 11:05:02 PM PDT by SeenTheLight
The Four Feathers: Colonialism Unplugged
Having heard that liberal film critics were panning the film 'The Four Feathers” for being political incorrect, I immediately rushed off to see it and am happy to say that they were right! “The Four Feathers” is an adaptation of the 1902 British novel by A.E.W. Mason, which centers on a group of British officers who are sent off to fight in the Sudanese War. They must fight the followers of the Mahdi, Islamic warriors who are bent on ousting the Brits and imposing an Islamic state in Sudan.
The story revolves around a love triangle between two of the officers and a young woman at home, as well as the question of honor and sacrifice for God, Queen, and Country. One of the young men goes off to war, eager to defend the interests of the British Empire, while the other gives in to fear and resigns at the last minute. He is presented with four white feathers, the symbols of cowardice, and from there he embarks on a mission to try and redeem himself. It’s an epic film that brings to mind such classics as “Lawrence of Arabia” and “The English Patient.”
Liberal film critics were particularly uncomfortable with the film’s portrayal of unabashed colonialism. The Englishmen are presented as the heroes of the film, gentlemen to the end, while the natives aren’t terribly noble. In fact, for the most part, they’re downright savage, and are referred to as such many times in the film. At one point, in a speech sending the British soldiers off to war, a priest describes their foes as “fanatical Mohammedans.” You could almost hear the liberals squirming in their seats!
Liberal film critics apparently had a similar reaction. They tend to favor films that verify their own political prejudices, and in the case of colonialism, this means that the white guys have to be evil, and the natives righteous. Because the film didn’t meet their expectations, they mostly gave it the thumbs-down, although they couldn’t completely knock it because the director, Shekhar Kapur, is Indian. It seems that Kapur is something of an Anglophile (his previous English-language film was “Elizabeth”), a fact that makes liberal critics decidedly unhappy.
Roger Ebert of the Ebert and Roeper Show on ABC, was disappointed with the film, although Roeper didn’t have a problem with it. Ebert felt that the film didn’t provide the kind of message that he was looking for. The film’s undisguised admiration for its colonial heroes didn’t sit right with Ebert’s revisionist sensibilities. He also objected to the character of Abou Fatma, the typical “noble black man,” as Ebert put it, who befriends the white hero and protects him. This is ironic because this character provides the kind of balance to the film that Ebert criticizes it for lacking. Fatma is an independent tribesman who finds kinship with a stranded Englishman. But according to Ebert, a black man and a white man can’t be friends under such circumstances. Now who’s being racist here, the filmmakers, or critics like Roger Ebert?
Mick LaSalle of the Chronicle couldn’t handle the film either. His review in the Sunday Datebook (9/22-9/28) is squeamish at best. He describes the book “The Four Feathers” as a “British imperialist novel.” Then bizarrely, he goes on to say that the film “suffers from an ambiguity about British imperialism.” Actually, the film suffers no ambiguity about colonialism at all. In contrast, it’s completely in favor of it! Perhaps this is what truly bothered LaSalle about the film, not its supposed ambiguity.
He concedes that the film is okay as far as “sheer spectacle” is concerned. This is an understatement. Both the scenes in Victorian England and in the Sudanese desert were beautifully shot and if you’re in the mood for action, look no further. The battle scenes were gripping and quite grisly. Indeed, it was a little difficult for me to watch the Mahdi’s army slaughter the outnumbered British in one such scene. The film also contains harrowing depictions of what it was like for prisoners of war, scenes that will stay with me for a long time.
Liberal critics can’t accept that “The Four Feathers” presents the point of view of the British colonisers with unqualified success. If the filmmakers had decided to soften the tone of the film’s politics or alter the language of its protagonists, it would not have been historically accurate. But that doesn’t seem to matter to liberal film critics, who simply demand that a film meet their preconceived political notions. The only problem is that what they’re looking for isn’t filmmaking, it’s pandering.
I look forward to seeing the film.
I like the sound of this.
Sound familiar?
"Elizabeth" was a great film, I highly recommend it to anyone. Don't let the fact that it's a "historical period film" scare you off. Unlike a lot of films in that genre, it's not at all a snoozer.
It tells the story of Elizabeth I, who was unexpectedly catapulted as a young woman from obscurity to the throne, at a time when England was in bad shape, and several factions were vying for control. Few expected her to last a month, including herself. But through a combination of brains, guts, a few loyal supporters, and at times sheer luck, she prevailed and became one of England's greatest queens -- and this film makes it obvious why.
I'd say "they don't make great women like that anymore", were it not for the fact of Margaret Thatcher, who sort of reminds me of Elizabeth.
Then bizarrely, he goes on to say that the film “suffers from an ambiguity about British imperialism.” Actually, the film suffers no ambiguity about colonialism at all. In contrast, it’s completely in favor of it!
Translation: "It didn't unambiguously condemn colonialism, therefor it was disturbingly ambiguous."
However, Ebert had no criticisms for the major-media talking heads who incorrectly awarded Florida to Gore, when the polls in the Panhandle had more than an hour yet to operate.
Clearly, this is a man whose politics influence his ability to see the objectively verifiable world around him.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Possibly so, although a more recent version was made in the '60s with Charlatan Heston as Chinese Gordon and Sir Laurence Olivier as The Mahdi.
Talk about role reversal.
In spite of a lavish production shown in Cinerama offering "you are there" realism as the horses come galloping oat you out of the screen, Khartoum dodged the bullet and received but one Academy Award nomination. My date and I saw it on a Friday night in a half-filled Cinerama Dome in LA.
The images of an uneven horseback battle at daybreak stick in my mind after all these years almost as much as those hideous close-ups of Richard Harris in Camelot, another unforgettable epic of the '60s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.