Kim de la India

"Kim" is a Hollywood attempt at a literary adaptation that doesn't quite come off: on re-reading the book I was surprised at just how much is lifted directly from Kipling's original dialogue, albeit not always in the original context, and many of the familiar images are there even where the plot strands that were attached to them have been omitted. The little boys still ride astride the great gun in Lahore, the smashed water-jar reforms itself on the floor of Lurgan's shop, and the old woman from Kulu peeps shamelessly from the corner of her curtained cart.

A great deal has been condensed in order to meet the requirements both of length and of the cinematic form; the most memorable parts of Kim's adventures, like those of Mowgli, occur before he is 'civilised', and the film does a good job of trying to reduce the strung-out remaining two thirds of the novel into a reasonably short timespan. Many of the added scenes, such as the one where Mahbub Ali cheerfully dispatches a would-be assassin and Kim tries for equal equanimity but fails, Creighton's device for helping Kim escape his pursuers at Ambala, and the boy's hard bargaining with the disguised goat-herd in the mountains, are true to the spirit of the book. Someone clearly did try hard on this.

But what I would guess that MGM were hoping for was another Kipling-cribbed adventure story along the lines of "Gunga Din", and "Kim" simply doesn't come to life in the same manner. British-made films of India such as "The Drum" or "North West Frontier" capture the local colour better, but they also have the advantage of more sophisticated political dialogue and a more inherently cinematic plot. Ironically, "Kim" probably sticks too close to source: Kipling's novel was never intended as a conventional thriller, and once you take out the philosophy, description and the unequalled ear for the demotic that conjure up the author's India at such length, there isn't that much actual action in the book. The screenplay supplies some extra thrills to take the place of the novel's ignominiously simple defeat of the Russians and adds a couple of rooftop chases earlier on, with the somewhat creaky device of a narrator used to fill in the gaps, but it didn't really catch my imagination.

Dean Stockwell is no Sabu, but he acquits himself well in a film that absolutely depends on its central child actor. He handles Kim's long streams of abuse or cajolery with aplomb, and looks if anything more convincing in Indian clothes than European costume, where he seems more the 1950s schoolboy than a child of the nineteenth century.

Casting Errol Flynn as Mahbub Ali, the Afghan horse-trader 'as prompt as he was unscrupulous', was clearly a publicity coup for MGM, who awarded him top billing for what is really only a supporting role, and rewrote the story to give the character a more heroic place in the action. For his part, Flynn sacrifices not only his trademark pencil moustache, but his entire head of hair to the studio, appearing at one point with a shaven scalp and at another with a bizarre ginger stubble that suggests someone had misunderstood the concept of a crimson-dyed beard... He wears his costumes well, and the script adds in a couple of winking nudges to Flynn's image as a screen Lothario that aren't really an improvement; but on the whole he plays it straight, although relatively uninspired. There's nothing wrong with the performance but nothing really memorable about it either, although there is a visible rapport between Mahbub and the boy.

Paul Lukas gives a good performance as the holy man whom Kim loves and protects, once you've got over the fact that he looks nothing whatsoever like a Buddhist monk -- more like an elderly Cardinal! The fact that he is supposed to be Tibetan is perhaps wisely glossed over in the script, and Lukas brings out the quiet steel behind the old man's unworldly determination, as well as his affection for Kim.

Ultimately, however, I felt this film neither had the depth of character of its source nor the magic and excitement of the type of adventure it's trying to be; it reads as a tea-time adaptation rather than a film in its own right. I'd rank it as a 7 on my personal scale: worth recommending if it's on, but not worth going out of one's way to see.

I watched this film on Turner Classics as I had been entranced by it as a child, and wanted to see how it stood up to today's expectations. I was very pleasantly surprised to see that it was a rolicking good adventure yarn, that would be an ideal film for the family to watch together after a holiday dinner. As I had a tape of the TV version, with Peter O'Tool as the Llama, I was able to compare the two, which is why I felt that the 1950 version has worn well.

The colour is excellent, the acting is very good, and the locations shots in India lend a great deal of authenticity to the production. I realise that many of today's audience will find the lack of sex and violence make for a tedious film, but it is precisely the lack of obvious sex and violence, it is implied rather than overt, which makes for a good family film. In fact it was a relief to see a film that did not include the obligatory chase and fisticuffs that we have seen in every film and TV series in the last 50 years.

I saw the movie just after I had read the book and I realized that while some dialogue was copied verbatim, the end had been changed and the character played by Erol Flynn was given a greater role than in the book while the importance of some female characters that existed in the book was actually obliterated. Of course the movie cast the English as good and the Russians as bad as the book did and had all the trappings of the mythology of British imperialism as it would have been obvious in a book based on a Kipling novel.But the experience of watching it on screen was fine, since the movie had simplified some of the more esoteric meanderings of the book focusing on action or on the making a man- Kim- that is in character building, as the moral was that an essentially kind-hearted but mischievous oriental had to acquire the manners of an English gentleman-the role St Xavier's was preparing him for, and which he found difficult to follow-but at which he returned in the end through the guidance of the horse trader, a model of faith to the British. The role of he Lama was downplayed in the sense that the actions of his that the movie retained were only the ones that related with Kim's development as an individual and not the ones that had to do with his own spiritual quest. In the book, the Lama is just after Kim the second most important character while in the movie he is overshadowed by the horse trader played by Erol Flynn.Also importance is attached in the training Kim received in order to enter British Intelligence, an ambition that judging from the movie seemed to be what natives considered a crowning achievement. But still it is an enjoyable movie provided you agree with it's premises i.e. that the east is the playground of Westerners whose ways the natives would do well to emulate as Kim did or otherwise they would appear at best as well meaning but essentially exotic eccentrics as the Lama, or otherwise as dangerous criminals as all the opponent of British rule appeared in the film. The movie is really fun if you are a young westerner or someone who in latter life still retained this outlook but I suppose the same prerequisites apply to all Kipling's work- original or subject to adaptation.

Excellent rendition of the Rudyard Kipling novel! True to the book, and preserving the nuance and subtleties of the original. A must see for any one and highly recomended for children. A great stocking stuffer, or gift for any child as an opening to the great writing of Kipling.

I've always thought that Rudyard Kipling's Kim might very well have been influenced by Charles Dickens and his creation of those street urchins in London led by that young survivor, the Artful Dodger. Certainly Kim as portrayed by Dean Stockwell in this film is every bit as resourceful in his way as the Dodger is in Oliver Twist.

The Dodger had the advantage of growing up poor, but growing up in his own culture in 19th century London. Kim is short for Kimball O'Hara who's growing up on the mean streets of India. Kim's dad was a British soldier and in this film, the mother who died in childbirth is also white. Kim learned the way to survive real fast.

Which makes him of great use to British Intelligence ever worried in the 19th century about Russian designs on India. Of course what they were doing in India is a question not asked in these films.

This is Dean Stockwell's film, maybe the best he did as a child actor. He's appealing as all get out in Kim. Adults like Errol Flynn as the horse trader Mahbub Ali who's really a British agent, Robert Douglas as the colonel in charge of British Intelligence, and Paul Lukas as the lama on pilgrimage who befriends young Kim are clearly in support of Stockwell.

This is familiar territory for Flynn back in his salad days he had just such a role in The Prince and the Pauper supporting the Mauch twins as Miles Hendon. By the way you might get confused a bit when you hear Flynn's character referred by name in Kim. They pronounce it in the film as one word, Mahbubali.

Flynn was loaned to MGM from Warner Brothers for That Forsyte Woman and a second film. He was given a choice of Kim or King Solomon's Mines, each film being shot on location in India and Africa respectively. Flynn opted for the Indian story although he got to Africa later in The Roots of Heaven.

Kim is still a fine boy's adventure story, should appeal to the twelve year old boy in all of us.