55 días en Pekín

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

This movie fits comfortably in the epic category of the 1950s-1960s - historically based with exotic locales. Thus, we had Dr. Zhivago, Ben Hur, War and Peace, Lawrence of Arabia, Le Cid, Julius Caesar, Nicholas and Alexandra, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Taras Bulba, The Robe, Bridge on the River Kwai, A Man for All Seasons, The Sand Pebbles, Cleopatra, Spartacus, Samson and Delilah, The Brothers Karamazov, Becket. My guess is that if you like most of these movies, you'll like this one.

I'd like to correct some misstatements on this board about the setting of the movie.

Unlike most of the world, China was never a colony - nor part of any empire other than its own. (Do not confuse this with India or much of Africa - the situations were very different!).

The impetus from the West (until well into the 19th century, the West really meant Britain) was from the beginning simply a desire to trade freely with China. Free trade was seen by late 18th and 19th century Britain as far more than an economic benefit to the world - but one that promoted peace, progress, and international good-will. Moreover, China had for centuries been fabled for its wealth.

At first, the Manchu Emperors did not mind trade (from foreigners whom they very much regarded as inferiors - "monkeys" was a common term) - so long as the foreigners were kept strictly at a distance. Thus, for example, the British were strictly limited in where they could live (a tiny enclave in the city of Canton), they could not bring their wives (to make the stays temporary), they were barred from learning Chinese.

The British merchants (and Britain was the world's greatest trading nation) found the restrictions chafing, irrational, primitive and of course profit-reducing. There was little demand in China for British finished goods, but British merchants gradually found a product for which there was enormous Chinese demand -- opium, which the Manchu Emperors had banned. However, the Emperors did not enforce the ban very strictly - in part because they made money from all trade (there were heavy taxes on the foreigners) - thus the government officials would deliberately send out their coast guard boats long after the British ships had unloaded and sold the opium at the wharves, fire one or two cannon shots from out of range, and report that they had "scared the British ship away".

However, internal pressure from reformist groups in China caused the Manchu Emperors to feel they had to act far more forcefully against the trade - and they twice declared war against Britain (the two "Opium Wars" were separated by some 20 years) to "punish" them. In declaring war, the Manchus were entirely ignorant of how primitive the Chinese navy and shore batteries would be against the British Navy - who swiftly and crushed the Chinese forces.

The resulting peace treaties were disastrous to China's exclusionary policy - the wars' peace terms required China to open up four, and then nine, small separate enclaves within coastal cities (the "Concessions") for westerners to live, bring their families, police themselves within the enclaves under their own laws, begin their own industries in those enclaves - and permit foreign missionaries to enter, travel, proselytize freely and establish missions in China.

Moreover, the peace terms required that Britain be authorized to collect and turn over all the trade duties on behalf of the Chinese. (The last unexpectedly proved a boon to the Chinese Court - the efficient and honest British customs collections more than tripled the Court's revenues).

The loss of the wars obviously was a great humiliation to the Chinese who had always regarded China as the center of the universe (the "Middle Kingdom") and their emperors as appointed by Heaven to rule the earth. (Beijing for example has the "Temple of the Sun" at one side, the "Temple of the Moon" on the other, the curved "Temple of Heaven" to the south).

In the mid-19th century, a revolution began in the center of the country against the Manchus - in part due to the humiliation from the loss of the wars - it was savagely put down - and the Chinese massacres of the missionaries caused Britain to respond by burning the palace where the revolt began to the ground.

Meanwhile, other nations such as the U.S., France, Germany, Italy, Japan all began to compete with Britain in trading with China. Indeed, this was, for example the source of the wealth of the Roosevelt family in New York - and led to a great sentimental fondness for FDR during World War II. The China trade became one of the great romantic escapist careers for Americans seeking adventure -- the "China clipper" ships built in the U.S. became world-renowned - as did the courage and skill of their skippers.

America soon began to out-strip all other nations in sending missionaries to China - throughout the U.S., churches raised money and their prayers to support the Chinese missions where the congregants were assured the missionaries were doing God's work. And in fact, millions of Chinese were converted to Christianity and benefited from local charity provided by the missionaries.

Such famous Americans as Henry Luce (founder of Time, Life and Fortune), novelists John Hersey and Pearl Buck, the diplomats John Stewart Service and John Paton Davies - were all children of missionaries, grew up in China and were extraordinarily fond of the Chinese. Back home, Americans heard from those who visited the missions about all the wonderful work they performed, the need to continue their contributions for the Lord's work, and the gratitude of the Chinese.

By the late 19th century, Russia and Japan sought to carve areas out of the obviously weak China. In 1895, Japan crushed China in a local war - and took Korea, Taiwan, railroad and industrial licenses in Manchuria. Russia seized Outer Mongolia and demanded industrial concessions in northern coastal China. The British and other European nations failed to object - but the U.S., sentimental about the Chinese, reacted strongly to the foreign incursions - and Secretary of State John Hay pronounced the "Open Door" policy, insisting that no nation should obtain territorial advantages or further exclusive concessions in China. Popular sentiment in America was fiercely pro-Chinese and against the Japanese and Russian "brutes". Japan was finally forced by the American-led western powers to disgorge some of its gains from the war.

This was the situation at the time of the Boxer Rebellion - western powers were freely trading with China, and had begun great industries in their concession areas in nine coastal cities - meanwhile many Chinese were humiliated by their failure to have kept the foreigners completely out of China - yet many others flocked to the foreign concessions where they were employed in sweatshop conditions in foreign industry. The coastal cities exploded in population due to Chinese migration to work for the foreign industries.

Millions of other Chinese had very much grown up around the thousands of Christian missions situated throughout the country - and felt Christianity to be the more "modern" progressive religion because it was associated with the West which had proved itself more powerful and prosperous. This aroused equally hostile feelings among other Chinese toward the Christian religion and its missionaries, associating such "foreign" culture with Chinese humiliation at foreign hands and resenting the very implication from the missions' existence that the Chinese were backward and must be taught by the foreigner.

The Boxers were a fanatical and murderous semi-religious sect (best seen as like the Mahdi's Dervishes in Sudan or the Wahabbi sect of Islam that bedevils the Saudis today) so named by the westerners due to the closed fists of the sect's adherents. They swore to kill all the foreigners and to drive them out of the country. They were in no sense a positive force - merely a fierce and frenzied organization of hate for the West and all its ways.

Naturally, the Boxers' primary target was missionaries and the Chinese Christian converts -- they were defenseless and located throughout the country. The torture, rape and massacres of the missionaries and converts of course aroused outrage back in the U.S. and Britain - where tens of millions had contributed to "help the Chinese" all their lives -and now they and the charitable subjects of their savings - were being slaughtered.

The Western powers took no military action - but to evacuate as many missionaries as possible - and attempt to persuade/threaten the Manchu court to put down the rebellion itself. The Manchu court was undecided, split between those who believed the Boxers could throw out the foreigner and restore China's pride - and those who believed that if they sided with the Boxers and lost, the western nations would themselves take victorious action and the Manchu court would wind up paying a price in further concessions.

And so our movie begins!

Watching this film in a PC era like today you may find allegations of racism being made against it , but you have to remember that 55 DAYS AT PEKING was made in 1963 . The war in the Pacific had ended less than 20 years earlier and the horrors of the Burma railway and the Bataan death march were still fresh in the memory . Likewise the UN had fought a dirty and bloody war against North Korea and Communist China ten years earlier and 1963 was a year when America started committing ground troops to South Vietnam , so this was an era where many people were worried about " the yellow peril " . One thing you can't really accuse the film of being is geo-nationalist , a coalition featuring diverse nations like Germany , Russia , Italy and France fighting alongside Britain and America ! You can tell this was made a long time ago and if it was made today the Americans would have saved the day single handed while portraying everyone else as total cowards . At least the makers of 55 DAYS AT PEKING had the decency of showing a factual historical event without having to totally rewrite history . I do hope present day Hollywood producers will take note .

My only problem with this film is that the main story is held up with a romantic subplot featuring Charlton Heston who's not exactly romantic material , but this is soon forgiven when the battle scenes arrive and what battle scenes they are . Watching these scenes today I was struck as to how they were achieved by a combination of stuntmen and stuffed dummies . That's what I hate about modern day blockbusters that rely on cartoonish CGI figures running around . It's a lot more fun seeing a couple of man sized dolls falling a couple of hundred feet with dubbed screams on the soundtrack , Hollywood doesn't seem to do this type of action sequence anymore which is a great pity

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 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.