Hudson's Bay

First of all, I tracked down this film because of the cast. This film boasts Vincent Price, Gene Tierney, Paul Muni, and Nigel Bruce, which sounds like a great treat. Unfortunately, the film fails them. You can see each of them struggling to bring this movie to life with each line they deliver, but it just isn't enough. Although I was happy to see these stars, the film in its entirety isn't worth watching for most.

The film tells the story of an Englishman from the courts of King Charles II, who is exiled to Canada, and meets up with fur traders in jail. He bands together with them to hatch a scheme that will get him back in good standing with the king and his friends back home. This involves a lot of hard work, and some meddling in their business by the French government in Canada who want their cut of the money. They find their way to England and explain to the king what their idea is. Eventually, he agrees to their plans, although there are still some squabbles and fights along the way. I wont tell how it ends, but it isn't hard to tell whether or not they succeed.

As you may have guessed by my description, this is a fictionalized account of the history of fur traders. If you aren't interested in Canadian, Indian, or American history of this time period, or maybe even if you are, this is going to be a boring movie to watch. Many times, there are scenes of exposition to explain what was going on in history at the time. Either that, or characters sit around and talk for a long time about laws, rules, and their future plans. There just isn't enough action for a film that is supposed to have adventure as well as history.

The only reason why I didn't give this film a lower score was the actors. They really tried their hardest. Even those who played the Indians and the French gave better performances than they needed to. I was happy to see that each nation was represented fairly as well. Other films around this time period might not have shown as much respect, or would have used stereotypical behavior. So, that was a plus.

Overall, it isn't one of the worst historical adventure films I have seen. It certainly isn't a good one either, unfortunately. Because it is stuck in that limbo of 'just okay' films, it's been forgotten about by audiences for a long time. I'm not saying that this is a forgotten gem we need to resurrect, but if you are a die hard fan of these actors, like me, you should check it out if you can.

Fox continued their run of pioneering biopics (that is to say, depicting the life stories of notable historical figures as opposed to the films themselves being particularly groundbreaking!) by recruiting the actor who had been most renowned for this type of fare, i.e. Paul Muni, albeit at another studio (Warners). In fact, Fox had earlier made LLOYD'S OF London (1936), SUEZ (1938), STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE (1939) and THE STORY OF Alexander GRAHAM BELL (1939) in this vein, whereas Muni had starred in THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR (1936), THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA (1937) and JUAREZ (1939). Though HUDSON'S BAY more or less maintained the standard of both parallel cycles, it proved to be Muni's last such vehicle.

Anyway, this revolves around French fur-trapper Pierre Esprit Radisson's opening-up of Canada (at the time mostly populated by Red Indians and referred to as "New France") to do business with Europe and his dream of giving an identity to the still-untamed country. Muni (who actually looks quite a bit like director Pichel, himself an imposing character actor with a somewhat sinister countenance and a distinctive deep voice to match!) was once considered the greatest thespian of his generation, but his hammy acting style – rendered even more ludicrous by a variety of 'funny' accents – has dated badly in hindsight. Mind you, he is still a compelling screen presence and, in this case, he comes across as something of a man of action (whereas he had usually been restricted to presiding over laboratory flasks, books – of both literature and law – and the political arena in defence of the oppressed)!

Typically, the production values and supporting cast are impressive: the latter includes Laird Cregar as Muni's equally uncouth sidekick; Gene Tierney (wasted in a smallish part – despite being second-billed – as the obligatory romantic interest of John Sutton, yet another of the protagonist's companions!); Vincent Price as the British King Charles II (to whom Radisson turns – thanks to banished subject Sutton's influence – when his request of an official Canadian expedition to the rightful French ruler falls on deaf ears and, having ventured forth solo, his prized pelts were subsequently appropriated by the State and himself thrown into prison!); and Nigel Bruce as an aristocrat (who, persuaded as to the benefits that could be reaped by England from the establishment of a Hudson Bay trading-post, vouches for Muni with His Majesty).

Radisson emerges here a man who is able to elicit confidence from the savage people he deals with but, more importantly, he respects them in return – even making it a point to get to know them (so that he can then react accordingly to their unpredictable nature). For one thing, he notices the Redskins cannot withstand alcohol, and that its intake yields unbridled violence – when such an episode occurs, he does the right thing and condemns the man responsible to death by firing squad (even if, being Tierney's layabout brother, he is the prospective in-law of Muni's own pal Sutton!). This form of instant justice is not appreciated by Price (by the way, the King's infamous mistress Nell Gwynn, also puts in an appearance here: for the record, I recently acquired but have yet to watch her own 1934 biopic with Anna Neagle and Cedric Hardwicke as her sovereign lover) on their return, but eventually both he and Tierney resign themselves to the fact that Radisson acted in the best interest of all concerned.

After Paul Muni left Warner Brothers by mutual consent he was at liberty and took this one picture deal with 20th Century Fox. After playing such varied people as Louis Pasteur, Benito Juarez, and Emile Zola it was thought another biographical film was just the thing for him at Fox.

In Cecil B. DeMille's autobiography he mentions that at one time he was considering a Hudson's Bay type story as a project at Paramount. When he heard Darryl F. Zanuck was doing one at Fox he abandoned his film and instead did Union Pacific. It might have been interesting how DeMille would have done the story of the founding of the Hudson's Bay Fur Company.

Muni as he usually did played the role of Pierre-Espirit Radisson with gusto and bravado and he was probably a whole lot like Radisson really was in life. He's a curious figure in Canadian history, he was certainly the ideal that the French Habitants have as the men who pioneered and settled Canada. But he was also a rogue who dealt back and forth with the English and French as it suited him.

In this film he and partner Laird Cregar have been cheated out of their furs by the governor of New France, Montague Love. Not taking this lying down, Muni, Cregar, and their new partner Englishman John Sutton who has been exiled to the New World by the king, go back to the old country with a proposition about a vast new colony based at the end of Hudson's Bay. After all it was an Englishman named Henry Hudson who discovered the bay and was left to die there by mutineers.

Vincent Price who is Charles II is interested if he's brought proof of the riches. Sutton reunites with Gene Tierney and she persuades him to bring her brother along who is played by Morton Lowry and is a representative example of a Restoration fop. That causes trouble all around.

A lot of the criticism that Paul Muni is subjected to today is that he does ham it up on occasion. He certainly does so here, but if he didn't we'd have been left with one ponderous and dull film. Certainly if DeMille instead of Irving Pichel directed Hudson's Bay it would have moved as all DeMille films did. Whatever life Hudson's Bay has is what Muni breathed into it. I should also add that he and sidekick Laird Cregar are a delightful pair of rogues.

Hudson's Bay is a must for Paul Muni fans, I'm not sure how others will take to Hudson's Bay.

During his career, Paul Muni was a solid and well respected actor. After all, he won the Oscar for Best Actor and was nominated for an Oscar five other times! This is a most impressive record considering he only made a few films...and he was nominated more than 25% of the time he appeared in a movie!

I mention this because I was incredibly suprised by his performance in the movie "Hudson's Bay". He was terrible playing a French fur trapper. Why? Because the performance was so broad and dopey...almost like seeing Huntz Hall playing a Frenchman! According to this performance, French guys roll their eyes or open them wide as saucers and make goofy faces and he is about as subtle as a nudist showing up at a Baptist barbecue!

In this highly fictionalized account of 17th century Canada, fur trappers Pierre and Gooseberry (Muni and Laird Cregar) partner up with a Brit, Lord Crewe (John Sutton) and they plan on making a killing trapping and selling furs. The local native tribes are very willing to work with them because Pierre and Gooseberry respect these people and deal with them fairly. But what is NOT fair is the new governor of French Canada is a crook who tries to steal their furs...especially the prized beaver pelts. The governor claims it's for 'taxes and various fines'...but he's clearly a crook.

The trio manage to escape and son Lord Crewe introduces them to the British king, Charles II (Vincent Price). He turns out to be a bit of an imperious butthead--which is actually pretty historically accurate. He was an inept king in many ways. And, the various folks they meet as they try to start a trading company are greedy and plan on cheating the tribes...to which Pierre (Muni) is appalled! So what's next for our eager beaver-loving heroes?

When it comes to historical accuracy, this film really has nothing to do with the British settling Canada. And, I can find no record of French governors in Canada abusing their power like the guy in this one. So, it's best to assume the film is just a story...not a history lesson. And, as such it is watchable and is worth seeing...at least as a time-passer.

One thing that is very true in the film is the value of beaver pelts. Beaver pelts and beaver hats were the rage and a person could get very rich trapping them...which led to over-hunting.

HUDSON'S BAY is a costume adventure of the era that tells of the founding of the famous trading post. You get the impression that everything is simplified here and what in actuality involved hundreds if not thousands of different people is condensed down into a dozen or so. I found Paul Muni's protagonist slightly irritating if I'm honest, as he has a certain campness that sits at odds with his supposed prowess. The best thing about this production for me was the opportunity to see some big genre names popping up in supporting roles; for example, it's a hoot to see Nigel Bruce and Vincent Price interacting in one scene.