Martín Eden

The first time I saw this movie was in the early forties, when I was fourteen years old, the part I remembered best was the line; you ask for a dime at a time, and then the fist fights as boy's and as men, life aboard a ship. And I always liked the acting of Ian MacDonald as a heavy.

Claire Trevor another favorite of mine, as the girl who was always faithful, and stuck with her man even though she was losing him.

Evelyn Keyes as the haughty rich girl as one reader said.

The girl who had everything, Stu Erwin is good too and the little boy whom I did not recognize,'till the closing credits rolled Dickie Moore. And Eden's goodbye to Raglan; he said a dime at a time and to me it looked like they parted as friendly enemies.

I had been looking for this movie ever since I got my first BETA-MAX VTR as they were first called(Video Tape Recoders)I got my copy last week and I've really enjoyed it. "Boompa" kingcody3@comcast.net

Glenn Ford is a sailor with literary ambitions. When fellow sailor Stu Erwin is found guilty of mutinying against skipper Ian MacDonald, the inhuman conditions which impelled the crime are not mentioned. McDonald goes to prison, while Erwin goes to jail. Ford quits the sea, to write, with the support of social activist Clare Trevor; meanwhile, the woman he loves, Evelyn Keyes, is the daughter of shipping line owner Pierre Watkin, for whom MacDonald works. Ford wants to become a successful writer, and Miss Keyes gives him a year to do so. But that's a tough course to manage, when he has no name, and tries to tell true stories that don't fit usual story-telling practices. He also tries to sell a manuscript about the mutiny to clear Erwin, to no avail.

Ford and Miss Trevor are terrific in this tale, even though the ending is unrealistically flamboyant. The copy I looked at was, alas, pretty poor, but through the murky print I could see that great care had been taken in art direction by Lionel Banks. With Dickie Moore, Heinie Conklin, Charles Lane and Charles Halton.

This certainly is as remote from Jack London's 1909 novel "Martin Eden" as the title - the novel's title doesn't promise an adventure - the movie's plot bears no resemblance to the novel - with the framing story of a brutal ship's captain seemingly borrowed from London's 1904 novel "The Sea-Wolf" - within that frame - the movie dwells on Eden's efforts to succeed at writing - but in the movie's case - it's a barely forgivable distraction from his real duty - to get his friend out of jail

the novel's fascinating recounting of Martin Eden's struggles to succeed at writing (based on Jack London's own journey) - lacks the high drama the movie has - which explains why the movie probably strayed so far from the novel - a faithful rendering of it would have been more quiet and intellectual - and probably would have drawn fewer paying customers

yet i fidgeted thru out the movie - it was too alien to my memories of the novel - i missed the early 1900s setting of the novel with its slower paced life - contrasting with the frenetic 1940's film noir milieu of the movie - and i missed the widening intellectual perspectives that Eden's' self-education brought about

in and of itself - the movie's okay - with a simple plot that's predictable all the way to the end - with an occasional fresh twist - and the actors are up to the script - but there's almost nothing reminiscent of Jack London or Martin Eden

The quasi-autobiographical Martin Eden by Jack London is a haunting novel. The issues that emerge in the book give credence to London's likely suicide, in spite of the several protests of his heirs. The film here remains faithful to the story, i.e., a young man struck with the desire to be a writer and struggling with his own feelings of inadequacy and economic struggles. Glen Ford is great as Martin Eden, the rough-hewn genius whose work is plagiarized by a well known writer, Ian MacDonald's Raglan, and whose claims of authenticity are doubted by the woman he loves. Claire Trevor is great as the haughty rich girl, Connie and Stu Erwin does well as her brother, Joe. The film ends on a bright note, with Eden's success taken as a matter of course. The book ends on a very pessimistic note with Eden's suicide and his quest for virtue terminated. London's message in the book is a confused one, i.e., how could anyone know the real person under all that success and fame? Sadly, we must conclude London didn't know that man under his celebrity. Eden's life, like that of London, smacks of tragedy, while the film goes on with Eden living happily ever after. This film was made just before WW2. Glen Ford went on to distinguish himself in the US Navy, although he was a Canadian.

The story begins with a man (Stu Irwin) about to be sentenced for leading a mutiny. An idealistic crew member, Martin (Glenn Ford), stands up and announces that he has evidence which could exonerate the accused. But, inexplicably, the judge, prosecutor and EVEN THE LAWYER FOR THE DEFENSE refuse to hear Martin. This seemed odd to say the least.

In the next scene, Martin storms a fancy party being held by the head of the shipping company he and the convicted man worked for during the mutiny. He demands that the owner listens to him...which he seems reticent to do. But a famous author is at the party as well as a young lady...and they leave with Martin to hear his evidence. The evidence is Martin's own diary...which makes you wonder if the diary is important at all, as Martin could just as soon could have testified what he knew instead of insisting folks read his diary.

Martin then reads the diary and there is about a 15 minute flashback scene. In it, the captain of the ship is shown as a cruel man. He's violent, physically and verbally abusive and feeds the crew literal garbage. It's not at all surprising when the crew rebels after the captain ended up killing a young mate aboard the craft. Yet, inexplicably, no board of inquiry investigates the case (or at least it's never mentioned in the film). Surely, in 1942 a captain killing a crew member would have necessitated SOME sort of hearing!! And, with the crew insisting the captain was a murderer...well that couldn't just be swept under the rug in the 20th century! This wasn't the 1700s and the famous Mutiny on the Bounty!! And, the court refusing to hear testimony from the crew in the trial simply made no sense. But the famous author apparently never thought of any of these things and he encourages Martin to forget about everything and try writing fictional stories that make people feel happy!! Huh?!

This story apparently was INSPIRED from a Jack London novel...the same guy who wrote "The Sea Wolf". Perhaps this story, at least in its original form, might have made sense. In fact, I read a summary of London's serialized story...and NONE of this that I mentioned above was in his story!!!! The screenplay just left me asking too many questions...and the plot simply resembled Swiss cheese since it had so many holes! I am sure many watching it in 1942 also felt the same way...and despite some good acting and Columbia Pictures' polish, the script isn't even second-rate...that would be an improvement. It's simply illogical. So illogical that the love story and Martin's writing career just didn't seem important.