Opiniones de usuarios

Jack London's life was certainly colorful enough for a dozen films about different aspects of him. Sad to say though that what his life was used for in film was some wartime propaganda that put the best face on some of the least attractive parts of his character.

Jack London who barely saw the age of 40 when he died wrote some of the best stories around. He wrote on what he knew, but he also wrote as does everyone else bringing the baggage of his own life experience with him. Some of that experience in another day and time would have been condemned as racism. But this was World War II and London was a big believer in the 'yellow peril' as it was called back in the day.

Two thirds of the film covers his life as author, we see his years as a seaman from where he got the inspiration for The Sea Wolf. We see him up in the Yukon in a miner's cabin with a dog that was no doubt his inspiration for The Call of the Wild. London was able to capture the spirit of adventure that his own life was all about right on paper for the world to enjoy ever since.

The final third dealt with his time as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War. London was a socialist, but his socialism did not encompass folks who were Oriental. Like a few million others he saw the rising immigration of the Chinese and Japanese to our Pacific coast as a threat to jobs for the white people. He advocated strict immigration policies for Orientals.

The film puts the cart before the horse. London is presented as a man who saw because he was on hand at the Russo-Japanese War what Japan's ambitions were and for that reason was as xenophobic as he was. Actually the kind of atrocities present in World War II were not existent during the Russo-Japanese conflict. Japan had her imperial ambitions, but so did everyone else including the USA at that time. But our immigration policies caused by pressure from our West Coast politicians was a big contributing factor to the deterioration of relations with Japan over a couple of generations. London was part of the cause not a prophet crying in the wilderness.

This film was the first independent production of Samuel Bronston who later did some films with a bit more budget than Jack London. Had he a bit more money Bronston might have gotten James Cagney or Spencer Tracy, both who would have been right for the role. Instead they got Michael O'Shea who was making his second film after Lady of Burlesque. O'Shea is fine in the part, but certainly was no box office.

As London is covering the war, he meets up with a Captain Tanaka who is played by Leonard Strong, an actor who specialized in Orientals and played a ton of them in World War II. From the vantage point in 1905 Strong outlines in the best Fu Manchu tradition Japan's imperial aims right up to taking on the USA eventually. Must have gone over great with the swing shift crowd.

A lot of course is left out of London's life including a first wife. Playing the second and only wife in this film is Susan Hayward who only comes into the movie when it's half over. I wish we'd have seen more of her. Charmian Kittredge London survived her husband by almost 40 years dying in 1955.

O'Shea in fact met and married the leading lady of his life in Jack London. Virginia Mayo has a small role in Jack London and they married for 30 years until O'Shea died in 1973.

Maybe one day we'll get a view of Jack London that will be a lot better than this one.

For the first hour or so, this fictionalized biography of "Jack London" is not bad. Michael O'Shea brings some energy to the role, and in general it conveys some of the basic characteristics of its subject's life reasonably well. The last part of it was heavily tailored to the time in which it was filmed, and unfortunately it is now only of interest as an example of how badly a movie can become dated when it tries to do that.

Most of the movie is a collection of distinct experiences in London's life, tied loosely together. It works all right, and it effectively conveys the irregular nature of his lifestyle, with some courageous acts being mixed in with his involvement in disreputable and even illegal activities. The low budget nature of the production occasionally keeps some of these sequences from being more effective, but it's not bad, though it would have benefited from giving Susan Hayward and some of the other supporting cast members a little more to do.

In the last half hour or so, the story shifts its focus to a lengthy sequence that has London in Japan, reporting on the war between Japan and Russia in the early 20th century. The overt and sometimes forced condemnations of Japan make the sequence now look labored and a bit frantic, though in its time the message may have seemed to be appropriate.

There was surely a middle ground that would have allowed for brief wartime message to be inserted without getting things completely off-track. Many movies of the first half of the 1940s, in fact, do just that, and are able to hold up perfectly well today even when there are a handful of scenes or quotes that were clearly intended to have wartime significance. Jack London was a fine writer and an interesting person, but this movie ends up taking the focus too far away from him and from his life.

In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!

Aside from the fact that the actor, Michael O'Shea, looked a lot like Jack London, there is nothing positive I can say about this monstrosity of a film. It purports to be a film about the life of London, but frankly it bears about as much similarity to his life as it does Foghorn Leghorn's or Lassie's! Plus, the real reason for this film is a thinly disguised anti-Japanese rant.

As far as London's life goes, aside from a few sketchy details, most of his life is unrecognizable in the film. In real life, he was married twice, ran about with prostitutes and died quite young--none of which are even alluded to in the film! Instead, it mostly fictionalizes his life up until he became a war correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War (shortly after the turn of the century). And, while London was really a correspondent at that time, the film is basically an anti-Japanese picture--taking the worst of London's experiences and adding a lot of 'we will one day rule the world' thrown in to boot. Now I DO understand why this was done--after all, the Japanese and US were fighting a war against each other in 1943. And, it was true that there were militaristic forces that felt exactly like the characters in the film--but the film was about 1903-1904--not 1943. And so, to make the Japanese look terrible, the film took many liberties. This is funny, as during the actual Russo-Japanese War, American sentiments were mostly pro-Japanese! The bottom line is that the film makers should have either made a real biography of London or they should have made an anti-Japanese propaganda film. Propaganda films have a positive place if done correctly and reasonably accurately (this IS possible and the US made many such films during the war). Because the film tries to be both, it does a terrible job of both--and completely sanitizes and obscures London's real life exploits (which WOULD make for a fascinating film) and comes off as preachy and fake. Bad propaganda and even worse history--even O'Shea's good acting and the presence of a young Susan Hayward could do nothing to overcome a crap script.

By the way, if you'd like to see a Japanese movie about a real life person that is filled with anti-American propaganda due to it being made during WWII, try watching Akira Kurosawa's film from his Judo series--"Sanshiro Sugata Part Two". While the film was set during the 1800s, an evil American was randomly thrown into the film to get beaten up by the hero of the story and to bolster anti-American sentiments in the audience! It manages to be even more superficial than "Jack London" in this regard.

When making a historical biopic, it's important to keep the dramatics up. "Then this happened, then this happened, etc." gets pretty tedious after a while. Jack London is one of the more boring biopics to avoid.

Michael O'Shea plays the title character, and while he seems to have had an eventful life, Ernest Pascal's screenplay managed to make his life look like a series of disjointed episodes. First he works in a factory, then he's falling in love with Virginia Mayo, then he's a sailor, then he's at war, then he's getting a college education, then he's writing, then he's falling in love with Susan Hayward. . . There's no linear connection to anything, and Jack London isn't really given enough character development to make the audience root for him and therefore overlook the bad screenplay.

Unless your favorite book is Call of the Wild, I wouldn't recommend watching this movie. For an interesting historical biopic, try The Adventures of Mark Twain or The President's Lady instead.

Jack London died in 1916 due to various illnesses and severe alcoholism. This heavily fictionalised movie opens in 1943 with the launch of the liberty ship Jack London.

This is a world war two propaganda movie rather than a warts and all biopic of a notable writer.

Jack London (Michael O'Shea) is an adventurer but the movie is really more interested in Jack London the war correspondent in the early 20th century. The war between Russia and Japan and more importantly the rise of Japan as a force to be reckoned with.

London sees at first hand of the brutality of the Japanese, some prisoners are gunned down. He hears from a Japanese commandant, of Japan's expansionist policies such as conquering China.

London wants to warn the American people about Japan's true intentions.

The movie is not very compelling. The acting is not that great, the purpose of the movie was to sell war bonds.

Beginning and ending with the launching of the battleship Jack London. This is one of numerous films made by the combatant nations during the Second World War posthumously enlisting an eminent countryman of the past in support of the present war effort.

In this case it's author Jack London who in the second half of this highly romanticised biopic, after witnessing the Japanese denying water to prisoners and machine-gunning civilians is transformed into a two-fisted action hero grimly determined to spread the word about the need to stop the continued imperial ambitions of the Land of the Rising Sun.

Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting.

** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo

The most interesting part of the film is the last half hour in Japan, where he worked as a war correspondent in the war against Russia with Richard Harding Davis, the most famous American journalist at the time, who died the same year as Jack London but earlier on at only 51 of a surprise heart attack - Jack London died at 40 of uraemia aggravated by an accidental overdose of morphia. The film glorifies and romanticises his life somewhat, showing some of his main globetrotter activities but far from all - there is nothing here about his sailing around with the "Snark", for instance. His wife is played by Susan Hayward in an early role, and she is excellent here already - she always was, and the role suits her. The real Mrs Charmian London was still alive when the film was made, but we don't know how she felt about it, while the film is based on her book about him. The most interesting part of the film is the Japanese adventure, when Jack London goes there to document the war in Korea and meets a megalomaniac Japanese officer, who prophesies about the grandiose future of Japan conquering the world. It is important to bear in mind that the film was made in the middle of the war with Japan, and you can smell some anti-Japanese propaganda here, which partly degrades the film. It is interesting as a kind of newsreel entertainment with snapshot glimpses out of Jack London's life, showing very little off his drunkenness and suicidal almost destructively foolhardy ventures - his important sojourn in Alaska and Yukon is but fragmentary, while Michael O'Shea at least makes an honest impression of Jack London's best sides only. It's not a great film, but it is an honest tribute to Jack London.

This movie covers some highlights of the writer's life, and shows the variety of his encounters.

There's one point of interest that stands out. He is on assignment to report of the outbreak of a war, and using a combination of methods, gets into areas unapproved for correspondents. About 75 min. into the movie the script follows a Japanese military officer describing a haunting plan for his country to take charge to rule of all the world. It would be a step at a time, involving china, etc. and finally the USA. he states that it may take " a hundred years, but it will be done".

Well, it hasn't been carried out as they had it down. But it seems to becoming as such, as they are buying and moving into America more as time progresses. It's eerie this movie made in 1943 predicted this similar outcome!!

This is a dog and I don't mean "White Fang". What could have been a low budget, puckish travel adventure is hijacked and turned into a strange yellow peril piece. After enduring an hour of unadventurous travelling and business details about journalist London (we don't get much of him as a novelist other than an opening montage of a shelfful of books) we are introduced to a little costume piece about his travails in Japan, and internment under what seems to be a pseudo concentration camp for Russian soldiers. We are informed that what makes London such a patriot is the apparent revelation by a Japanese host that Japan has a master plan of conquest because they do not have an empire and cannot survive on trade.

Truth told, especially during the depicted Russo-Japanese War, is that all the great powers had the same attitude. And London probably owes his survival to Teddy Roosevelt's negotiation of the peace (only TR's anger over London is shown).

London was also a white supremacist and anti semite,whose obsession with adventure sounds like misanthropy. If analogized to his similar contemporary Rudyard Kipling, we might have seen the characterization of a dashing poet, ironist, and visionary of human nature, and not a Bowery Boy. Some poetry does seem evident in the script at the very end.

O'Shea struggles mightily as the lead, but he is no Spencer Tracy and has none of the Irish charm or humorous physicality. And how about Hayward as his beau? 'Oh yes! I already know you are going to leave me for nine months to cover the war because I love you that much!' After scripts like that, you'd be known as the foulest mouth in Hollywood too, and get the inclination to tear the eyes out of every studio exec you meet.

"Jack London" (1943) is a film that tells some of the life of author and news correspondent, Jack London(1876-1916). His work; fish cannery, fishing boat. Jack's adventures; Alaska gold rush, educational advances, etc. are somewhat documented, but not as well as I would have liked. The script dwells on the Japanese treatment of Jack London and Russian prisoners prior to WWI. There's true information on London there, but it could be more accurate. Much of it is weak and doesn't include his political stands.

Since this movie was scripted and filmed in 1943 (mid-WWII), we need to know it was a quickly made WWII film that showed what was going on during a before WWI time. I saw it referred to as 'Japanese bashing' but we must remember we were at war and the Japanese were using their own forms of propaganda for 'America bashing'; remember their famous cartoons and 'Tokyo Rose'. Whether we agree or disagree it is in the past.

And the director, Alfred Santell, and writers, Charmian London(book) and Isaac Don Levine(script) put together a movie that they hoped reflected the spirit of "Jack London".

Michael O'Shea (born: 1906) did a great job of portraying the part of Jack. He did 19 more movies and several TV roles passing away in 1973 of a heart attack.

But a true visual treat was seeing Susan Hayward in the role of Charmian Kittredge London. She added beauty and a fiery loyalty to Michael's temperamental Jack.

Susan (born: 1918) died in 1975 of brain cancer. Susan was a great actress and you can't help but wonder what she would have contributed to the movie world had she been able to continue on.

Tedious and talky, this small scale biopic about the famed author lacks an anchoring point instead meandering around the world as the intrepid seaman and then war correspondent ends up on the wrong side of the Japanese plot to overthrow China (and then USA).

O'Shea is a bit one-dimensional as the eponymous adventurer, confident and self-assured but generally a bit dry and unmoving. Hayward seems largely wasted as his romantic distraction, initially unable to coax him from a life of adventure into the relatively safety of marriage and comfortable domesticity.

Virginia Mayo (later Mrs O'Shea) has a small supporting role in her first credited feature film role, and Leonard Strong is prominent playing his ubiquitous Oriental villain warning London of the planned world takeover, however long it takes to achieve.

Disparate themes presented on a B-grade picture budget fail to create a continuous storyline, the result an uneven, melodramatic list of encounters that don't do the author's colourful life justice.

Here's a movie, which manages to make a writer's life fascinating to viewers. It accomplishes the task even better than Miss Potter. Maybe not as well as Life of Emile Zola. Still, a lot of action and discussion of politics and writing are condensed into about 90 minutes. This film is a triumph for Michael O'Shea. His performance gets you rooting for Jack London, whether you agree with him on everything or not. The story lays out Japan's aggressive expansionism coupled with Totalitarianism in the first half of the Twentieth Century. About the score, one reviewer incorrectly stated composer Freddie Rich is the same person as jazz drummer Buddy Rich. They're different people.

Freddy Rich's score is a lush, exciting, melodic treat for Jack London. Freddy was also known as Buddy Rich, a jazz artist. Here, though, he shows his versatility as a symphonic composer, and he was very talented in this realm. Listen to the music when he is working in the Yukon and is alone with his dog in the cabin. Very descriptive of the intense cold and his inspirations. The martial music for the Japanese march is also very impressive. There are other favorite parts for me--like when the police fight it out with the smugglers on the Oakland waterfront. This is a great score; it was nominated for an Academy Award. I think you might enjoy concentrating on the score the next time you view the film.

No need to repeat consensus points—the movie's clearly compromised by its clumsy propaganda segment. Also, it's a shame more time is not given to the rigors of the Yukon, the real basis of London's powerful prose. I wouldn't be surprised that budget constraints cramped this key phase of his life. Too bad, because London was an outdoor writer who wrote powerfully about the outdoors—something you don't get from the movie.

One scene, I think, is worth noting. That's where Prof. Hilliard ridicules student London's uncompromising literary realism. Though the screenplay doesn't elaborate, there's a background assumption to Hilliard's point of view. Namely, that American literature is dominated by the standards of its gentile, well-to-do class with refined tastes and the leisure time to both read and write. Thus, London's raw depiction of life at the bottom comes across as offensive for a number of reasons. It's that impossible leap from the immiserated bottom to the refined top that London's trying to navigate. But more importantly, he's doing it without compromising the integrity of his work.

Now, the screenplay softens this conflict by casting the kindly Davenport as the professor and having him pay tribute to London's "courage" as a budding writer. As a result, hostility to the upsurge of blue-collar writing that London represents is seriously underplayed. Perhaps that's not surprising. After all, WWII was a great national effort where class differences were submerged to the common interest.

O'Shea and Hayward are fine in their roles. However, I agree that a more honest depiction of the great writer's life awaits production. Given the richness of the material, I wonder why that hasn't happened.