55 días en Pekín

A top-notch cast recreates a portion of the so-called "Boxer Rebellion" at the turn of the twentieth century, when Chinese reactionaries (a group called "Boxers"), opposing westernization, tried to drive western traders, missionaries and diplomats out of China.

Though "55 Days at Peking" is extremely simplified, since its history is probably unknown to most movie buffs, there is a lot of exposition, which means a lot of talk. The best epics (such as "Lawrence of Arabia") allow the images to do most of the talking. But the necessity of setting up the dilemma of western diplomats trapped in their compound by the hoards of reactionary Boxers requires a history lesson.

It also tends to dilute the tension. Unlike a similar film (and slightly later) film "Zulu", "55 Days at Peking" tends toward the "Grand Hotel" or "Ship of Fools" style of movie-making that would be pursued in the '70s disaster flicks, making it more study of soap-opera characters than about the tension of events. Though most viewers will not know the fictional characters, there are far too many (characters and fictional characters), which diffuses the interest in them too far (does anyone feel much sympathy for diplomats, in any case?), even though Heston, Niven, Harry Andrews and the rest act their hearts out. And there are many cloying sub-plots.

While it's the foundation of a pretty good (if superficial) story on the Boxer Rebellion, it never quite achieves its promise. It's too bad a movie can't be made about the Rebellion in these highly charged times in the early twenty-first century, when moviemakers seem to think all westernization is wrong.

I was happy to see this film since it was about the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. To put it in perspective, in the 19th century, various European powers began forcing their way into China--literally threatening the weak Chinese to accept their presence or else! The lowest point was the Opium War where the British forced the Chinese to accept opium into their nation as payment for their goods. The government, for some odd reason, didn't want to see all their people become drug addicts but had to relent when the British massacred the Chinese army and navy. Following this war, EVERYBODY seemed to flood into China--Russians, Germans, Austrians, Americans, Belgians, French and even the Japanese (who'd only recently opened up to the West). All of them carved out sections of China (such as Hong Kong and Macao as well as foreign enclaves in the major cities)--further weakening the Imperial authority. And the Emperor could do nothing or face the further reprisals of these countries.

With the Boxer Rebellion, the Chinese government was in an advantageous position. When these peasants rebelled, the Empress claimed that the Chinese army was NOT responsible for this anti-foreigner uprising--it was 'the people'. It was ironic, because since the government had been terribly weakened by these foreign powers, the Empress said she was thereby unable to stop these people--all the while encouraging the rebels on the side. Across the countryside, foreigners (especially missionaries) were slaughtered--and the weak Empire suddenly became stronger. This film finds the foreign section in Peking surrounded by the Boxers--and certain death seems likely. It's based on actual events, though most of the names have been changed.

The foreigners represented several nations and are made up of mostly British and American actors (such as Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner and David Niven). Now here is the interesting part. Since Communist China wasn't about to open up to foreign movie companies (especially when the Boxers' views on colonialism were identical with the Peoples Republic's views), the film had to be made somewhere else. And so, this saga about China was actually filmed in Spain! How they were able to get all these Asian-looking extras is pretty funny (see the IMDb trivia)! Although I must admit, the sets were quite impressive--though I wondered why they didn't film it in Taiwan.

So is it any good? Well, yes and no. The fight sequences are nice and I loved seeing this war dramatized. But on the other hand, the film does seem to be a bit overly long and had one serious problem--changing times. This film does not age well, as the world's views on colonialism have changed. In 1963, the world was changing--French and British colonies were gaining their independence right and left. But films STILL had a bias towards colonialism and expected audiences to root for countries that were occupying land abroad. Today, however, I would think a very, very high percentage of the viewers would sympathize with and/or root for the Boxers. They wanted their nation back--and an end to enforced contact with the outside world. Unfortunately, killing ALL foreigners (including children) ultimately just brought on significant reprisals.

Another thing that doesn't age well is seeing the main Chinese characters all played by folks who clearly AREN'T Asian. Today, the notion of having Brits like Flora Robson and Leo Genn play Chinese people is pretty nasty and paternalistic. Of course, seeing Johnny Depp playing Tonto in the upcoming "The Lone Ranger" isn't exactly enlightened! So, I guess some things never change!

Overall, the film is moderately interesting and worth seeing from a historical perspective. However, I'd really love to see it remade in China and showing BOTH sides of the issue and having actors playing the correct ethnic groups! Until this happens, this film is all we've got and is worth a look--provided you think it's worth 156 minutes of your life when the film is only fair to middling.

The fifties and early sixties were the golden age of the large-scale historical epic. Most of these dealt with either Biblical, Classical or Mediaeval history, but there was also a fashion for making movies on a similar epic scale dealing with more recent historical events. Many of these dealt with some aspect of European colonialism or with relations between Westerners and the inhabitants of some other part of the globe, such as "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Khartoum" or "Fifty-Five Days at Peking" which relates, from a Western viewpoint, the story of the Chinese Boxer Rebellion. My thanks are due to T R P Dean for his helpful review setting out the historical background to this event.

The film narrates the story of how the foreign residents of the Legation Quarter of Peking (it was obviously not the fashion to call it "Beijing" in 1963) managed to hold out for a siege of nearly two months in the summer of 1900 before being relieved by a multi-national expeditionary force. The main characters on the Western side are Major Lewis, the commander of the small detachment of American marines in Peking, and Sir Arthur Robertson, the British ambassador. The main characters on the Chinese side, although we see less of that side, are the Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi and her counsellors, the devious and anti-foreigner Prince Tuan and the more liberal General Jung-Lu, who favours rapprochement with the foreigners.

There were a few things about the film that I did not like. Like a number of others, I felt that it would have been an improvement if the leading Chinese characters had not been portrayed by Western actors. I do not hold to any principle of political correctness that states that a character should not be portrayed by an actor of a different nationality, but in this particular case I felt that Chinese actors would have been more convincing. The action in the second half of the film tended to drag a bit, especially the episode where the Westerners make a raid to destroy the Boxers' arsenal. The decision to add some love-interest in the form of a romance between Lewis and a Russian princess was definitely a mistake. Charlton Heston was generally fine as an action hero but less convincing, as here, as a romantic one. Ava Gardner's performance as Princess Natasha was very much below par; there is little passion in the scenes between her and Heston.

I do not, however, agree with the criticism that the film should have showed more of the historic background to the Boxer Rebellion. The aim was to make an epic adventure story about one particular episode during that rebellion; to have attempted to explore the complexities of Chinese politics during the years leading up to it would have resulted in a very lengthy and tedious film, especially if the filmmakers had tried to include reference to events as remote in time as the Opium Wars, as some have suggested. In the main, that aim was a successful one. At the centre of the film are two fine contributions, particularly from David Niven as Robertson. Robertson is the Westerners' equivalent of Jung-Lu, a liberal by the standards of his period who (unlike many of the other Europeans) hopes to avoid war by taking a conciliatory attitude towards the Chinese. When war comes, he is forced to look inside himself to find reserves of courage and stoicism. Apart from his scenes with Gardner, Heston is also good as Lewis, the tough man of action. Although he is a very different character from Robertson, the two men discover a respect for each other as the crisis brings them together. The spectacular action scenes were mostly well done, and the costumes and architecture of this period of Chinese history were reproduced on a grand scale. Despite a few faults, this was a film that I enjoyed. 7/10

55 Days at Peking is directed by Nicholas Ray and Andrew Marton and collectively written by Philip Yordan, Bernard Gordon, Robert Hamer and Ben Barzman. It stars Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, David Niven and Flora Robson. Music is scored by Dimitri Tiomkin and cinematography is by Jack Hildyard.

1900, Peking, China. The Boxer Rebellion. 13 of 18 provinces are under foreign rule and the Chinese have had enough. With Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi secretly supporting the Boxer societies, the foreign powers come under attack and are forced to defend the legations' compound until reinforcements from the military arrive. The defence would last for 55 days.

Lavish, full of pictorial scope, often stirring, yet it's saggy in the middle, too long, killed Nicholas Ray's career (and nearly himself since he collapsed on set) and apparently offensive to some with its imperialistic trumpeting. It has been called the magnificent failure, and in truth that's about as apt a tag line as you could get. For production value it's up with the best of them as producer Samuel Bronston oversees the building of the wonderful Peking sets (Veniero Colasanti & John Moore) at his Madrid base, and it is a joy to behold. Tiomkin's score pings around the locale with aural pleasure and when the action does come it considerably raises the pulses.

Acting performances are mostly OK, especially when Niven and Heston share scenes as it's great to see a genuine screen presence playing off of classy elegance. Gardner, whilst not in any shape or form bad, gets one of those annoyingly dull romantic interest roles that a film of this type didn't need. It doesn't help that there is zero chemistry between Gardner and her "borderline" beau, Heston. It's no surprise to find that Heston thought Gardner was a pain during the shoot!

As for the troubling thematics? Where the Chinese are portrayed as Christian slaughtering savages and the foreign imperialists as noble defenders of the right to take over China? Well the picture does come off as trying to excuse foreign imperialism in China, but it helps to note that this is merely a movie about one event in that part of history. With that in mind, anyone viewing it expecting anything other than the 55 day siege told from the legation's viewpoint is always going to be in for a let down! And right from the off we are shown and told with a tint of sarcasm that all these "foreign" countries want a piece of China as they raise their flags and trundle out their national anthems.

The Peking Alamo? Well maybe? Best to go into it expecting your eyes and ears to be dazzled rather than your brain. 7/10

I am commenting on the DVD version that I have now and I have not seen since 1963. There is a very big difference as in 1963 not only I was much younger but Cinema has changed. 55 Days was a Large Screen Movie compared with the Ten Commandments, Cleopatra of the same year 1963 and The Sound of Music and many others at that period. In those days of Cinema Hollywood convinced people to go to the Cinema with Movies that are not the same on Black and White TV on Small Screen. Watching it on DVD is not the same. Technirama an Advanced Technicolor, Dolby Stereo not as big as Cinerama. I specifically remember sitting in the cinema and the sound moved behind us. For example the Musical Bands in the opening scenes playing the anthems. About the History of China read the other comments. Still a very exciting Movie where a minority overcomes the Mass's winning at the end. David Niven does an interesting part that reminds me of the Guns of Navarone. Heston and most other actors do it very well too. Nine out of Ten in Sam's Scale.