In the Wake of the Bounty

I bought this 1933 picture because I was curious to see the first Errol Flynn movie role. He is playing Fletcher Christian in the historically based Bounty mutiny. He is supposed to be himself a descendant of Christian, which gives an added interest. If you expect a good adventure movie, a kind of an Australian Captain Blood, then you'll sure be disappointed. Better see the Clark Gable or Marlon Brando versions. This is more like a Flaherty documentary, although more amateurly delivered. Image quality is quite defective, specially at the beginning, and rythm is sometimes boring. Real sequences depicting places where the Bounty left its trace constitute the majority of the picture, and between them the dramatised story is now and then added (and abruptly ended). An ancient mariner (Victor Gouriet) remembers the adventure and tells it to a tavern audience. Captain Blight (Mayne Lynton) figures in only a couple of scenes, but Flynn hasn't got much more; the detailed story of the breadfruit plant is left aside. The characters are superficially approached, but this seems to be the producer's intention, giving more time to show Tahitian habits and life at Pitcairn at the time. And it's in this sense that it's worth viewing. Many descendants of the mutineers are shown, as well as community-based island life and their struggle against the wild sea. The alleged remains of the Bounty can still be seen through the clear waters in the natural bay where it lays. I guess the real adventure was in fact lived by the film crew.

Funny is to notice the fact that the picture consistently anticipates producer Charles Chauvel & wife future style, which would develop between long-feature and documentary films.

This film is a documentary. In approaching it, it helps to make allowances for the early date. But its age is also a benefit, as it is presumably the first film that was ever made of Pitcairn and shows it at perhaps its prime. I have read that the island now suffers from even fewer vessel visits and a declining population. This movie could not be replicated today, and I am glad it exists and glad to have seen it (which was quite accidental!).

Movie techniques were primitive in 1933, and the film's master is not in good physical condition. The acting is (as others have commented) abysmal, with the exception of the mother towards the end of the film. I agree that the future greatness of Errol Flynn would not be guessed from this. On the positive side, the scenery is spectacular and the story is exciting.

Try accepting the movie on its own terms, and you will enjoy it. I would give it more than 6 points, but have to round the number off. It is better than I expected from the average score.

This is a documentary about the people of Pitcairn Island. In among what is straight documentary, there are a few scenes which acts out the mutiny on the Bounty. If that were not bad enough, the action opens with a few old tars telling yarns in a tavern. And if that were not bad enough, the acting in these scenes (Errol Flynn excepted) is really, really bad.

It is worth watching as a documentary of Pitcairn Island. It is also worth watching to see the germs of stardom in Errol Flynn.

I have never ever seen another film quite like this one - which is just as well.

I have to admit that I was not sure of what I would be seeing when I finally got a copy of In The Wake Of The Bounty. The Australian film is noted today for being the debut of Errol Flynn in motion pictures is mostly a fine documentary about the lives of the folks on rugged Pitcairn Island, the descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the women they took with them from Tahiti.

When MGM did it's grand scale production of Mutiny on the Bounty in 1935, Louis B. Mayer bought all the rights to this film and it was never shown in America intact. Pieces of it were seen in short documentary subjects about Pitcairn Island.

The producer/director/writer of In The Wake Of The Bounty was Charles Clauvel who some would credit with being the father of Australian cinema. He and his wife and baby girl took motion picture cameras and a crew to Pitcairn Island and put together a fine feature film documentary. And he had about 15 to 20 minutes of acting.

It's a technique that Americans will be familiar with if they watch the History Channel. It calls for the use of some brief live action sequences interspersed with documentary footage and voice-over commentary about whatever event the program is talking about. This is the function of Errol Flynn and the small cast who reenact the Bounty mutiny in microcosm.

Certainly Charles Clauvel did not have the facilities that Louis B. Mayer had so reviewers should go easy on this intrepid Australian who went out to a rarely seen part of the world. Instead of comparing In The Wake Of The Bounty to it's later and more known successors, it might better be compared to some of the documentaries of Frank Buck or Martin and Osa Johnson.

To be sure the acting isn't of the best caliber, I've seen worse however. The film really didn't need the actors, it should have been much better as a straight documentary.

On the other hand Errol Flynn might then have toiled in obscurity and who knows who would have played all those swashbuckling heroes at Warner Brothers.

Description of the film didn't inspire me but decided to watch it simply because it was the film debut of a Hollywood great, Errol Flynn. On that basis I wasn't expecting much and I wasn't disappointed as a result.

It bears little resemblance to later, more popular, successful versions of the story. If you like Errol Flynn, watch it. If you like curious old films, watch it. If you want to compare it against other versions, watch it. Otherwise give it a miss.