Kim

"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.

When KIM came out (1950) I was 10 years old. I was fascinated with the intrigue of a boy like me getting involved in a spy situation. Dean Stockwell was 12 or 13 at the time. The film stuck so close to me over the years that I wrote about it later in high school and remember it well to this day some 54 years later.

Yes, there is action but not the usual, now-a-days blood-and-guts for two hours. In between the chilling scenes were the spy intrigues of the British trying to hold on to their empire. It was easy to tell the good guys from the bad. I admired the skill of Stockwell then and still do. His career has spanned nearly 60 years now.

Watch KIM -- again and again. I still get something new every time I see it.

A faithful rendering of Kipling's exciting tale, together with fine production values and an all-star cast, makes for great entertainment for young and old.

I remember being read Kipling as a young boy, and while the animated Disney bowdlerization of the Jungle Book is unwatchable for anyone who knows the book, this rendering of Kipling's other great adventure is in a class with other great "exotic" tales like The Four Feathers and King Solomon's Mines.

While some may fault the rather unconvincing casting of an over-the-hill Flynn, as a dashing thief, and Paul Lucas as an aging lama, these great professionals soon overcome that liability and assume their characters successfully. Stockwell credits Flynn for "opening the door" to manhood, something Flynn's character did For Kim.

Dean Stockwell was at his peak as a child star. His impishness, as a white boy gone native, anticipates his screen persona after a successful transition to adult roles.

Imagine a young boy (in a non politically correct era) being read or watching Kim just before bedtime. What dreams he'll have!

By the way, while parts of the film were made on a sound stage or back lot - like all films with decent sound - much of it was shot on location - in India.

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.

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.