Les racines du ciel

This is not a classic film, but I found it very worthwhile to make the effort to find it and watch it.

The issues of wildlife conservation, specifically African elephant conservation, that it raises are still very relevant. The film seems at least 30 years ahead of its time in this respect, as we are still struggling to find ways for elephants and humans to co-exist. The conflicts between poachers, elephants, and well-meaning people trying to make the world better for humans AND elephants depicted here are playing out in the real world very much as depicted here.

John Huston made several timeless movies. While this is not one of his best movies, it is an interesting companion piece to "African Queen" and is thought-provoking about issues of wildlife conservation and the effects of colonialism on African and world politics.

"Turgid philosophising"... "raddled Flynn"... no-one seemed to have a good word for this film, known chiefly for the number and variety of ailments suffered during its filming, and I certainly wasn't expecting much.

Nobody told me "The Roots of Heaven" could be funny.

Nobody told me the script was ironic and self-aware, knowing what to say and what to leave unspoken and when to wear its passion on its sleeve with the straightforward and very English eccentricity of its leading character; tinged with idealism, with heroism, and with cynicism alike. No-one ever mentioned, oddly enough, that there were even any environmentalists in the 1950s -- with uncannily accurate prescience, the plot even ties in the anti-nuclear cause. Greenpeace would have had a retrospective field day!

And as for Flynn, he is having the time of his life stealing every scene he is in, whether with a quizzical eyebrow or a moment of sudden intense sympathy; the part is a gift, but he makes it something more, with the old expressiveness that always underpinned the laughter and heroics of his days as Warner Brothers' leading man. His late-career performance in "The Sun Also Rises" (which, for my money, really is turgid philosophical stuff) has been proclaimed as 'Oscar-worthy' by those eager to prove he had straight acting talent, but to my mind he shows greater depths here.

Trevor Howard is the undoubted star, carrying much of the film single-handed. He is superbly convincing in the linchpin role of the Englishman who sets out on an unfashionable one-man crusade, and -- in a tale whose wry sensibilities would not be out of place at Ealing Studios -- finds himself inadvertently the victim of human nature's instinct both to canonise and to desecrate. The character has convictions, but he is neither unworldly nor a fool, and Howard makes us believe against the odds that this unassuming type can change people. His performance is absolutely central to the film's credibility, and he makes Morel not only believable but likable.

The main flaws of which I was aware are the way that several strands seem to disappear abruptly unexplained at the ending (what of all those journalists who were about to arrive? What of the American's photographs, surely valuable evidence?) and a handful of blue-screen shots against poorer-quality backgrounds that are very obvious when viewed at cinema scale -- it might have been better to have used quick cuts back and forth between the characters and the action, rather than attempting to project them into the picture.

So far as the overall standard of the film was concerned, however, I was extremely favourably surprised; I've seen several turgid, would-be meaningful African epics, and this certainly isn't one of them. Intelligent, humorous, lightly ironic, but also genuinely stirring and mythical, the end product may have disappointed John Huston, but it was far better than I had been given -- even by the cinema's own programming material! -- to expect.

It's really amazing that the film crew went to so much trouble to make this movie. After all, they went to the hellishly hot and rather primitive country of French Equatorial Africa and filmed it on location- -and because of this the film looks great. Yet, inexplicably, at the same time the movie looks so incomplete and sloppy at times-- particularly when it came to many of the characters. As a result, the film's great message is muted and far less effective.

When the film begins, a hunter has already killed four elephants and is about to kill more when he is attacked and beaten up by Morel (Trevor Howard). It seems that Morel is outraged by the wholesale slaughter of African animals (in particular, the elephants) and he's sick of sitting back and doing nothing. Soon, he goes to see the governor and begins circulating a petition to stop the slaughter--mostly to no effect. So, he and a few followers decide to take the law into their own hands. They burn ivory warehouses and attack hunters--shooting them in the butt! And, in one of the few funny scenes in the movie, they storm a ritzy party and deliver a well-deserved spanking to a society dame who delights in talking about all the elephants she's slaughtered.

All this sounds very timely and important, right? Well, yes...but the film manages to take a great idea and make the least of it. While Trevor Howard is fine in the lead (though he's billed third!), many of the other characters are underdeveloped and wasted. Instead of seeming like real folks, they seem like they are doing a walk-on--like many celebrities that appear and disappear in a Muppet film! Flynn got top billing though he was barely in the film at all. And, when he was on camera, he pretty much played himself--a dying alcoholic (he died a year after this film was made). Orson Welles is an interesting character-- yet his change of heart from hunter to conservationist seemed bizarre and confusing--again because his part was severely under-written. Eddie Albert appears out of no where late in the film--and has a few good moments but is otherwise quite out of place. And, the same can be said about MOST of the rest of the cast! You would have thought that the writer, director and producer would have noticed this big problem. With better writing and directing, the film SHOULD have earned an 8 or 9. Instead, it's just an overly long and forgettable film.

By the way, I found this film of particular interest because I just got back from a photo safari in South Africa. In my trips to this country, I was surprised how few animals remain and how those that do are confined mostly to game reserves. Also, while the elephants are the subject of "The Roots of Heaven", the biggest problems today are the poaching of the rhinos and the near-extinction of species such as the African Wild Dog. My advice is go soon to visit Africa soon as some of these animals simply might not be there in the near future.

Based on a novel by Romain Gary (who was Jean Seberg's husband ;she was the star of one of his obscure works "Les Oiseaux Vont Mourir Au Pérou" ),"Roots of Heaven " is generally dismissed ,even by Huston's buffs.And nevertheless....

It was an ecological movie,at a time it was not trendy :as Nicholas Ray ,at about the same time,was filming "wind across the everglades" ,a heartfelt plea for the defense of Florida 's wildlife,Huston did the same for the elephants ,victims of the poachers .THe odd couple,who is one of Huston's recurrent features is present:Morel ,who is championing the elephants cause ,is joined by a prostitute (played by glorious actress/chanteuse Juliette Greco).

"Roots of Heaven" was a definitive improvement on "the Barbarian and the Geisha " and paved a reliable way to works to come such as "the unforgiven" , "the misfits" and the highly superior "Freud" and "Night of the Iguana" .This is an overlong movie,but even if it cannot be ranked among the director's best ,it's worth at least a watch .

It's about an ex-soldier, Morel (played by Trevor Howard), who has come to Africa to protect elephants against extinction. He sees them as noble animals and as 'roots of heaven', that is creatures made by God. First, no one is on his side, but later he manages to find some supporters. The authorities are after them, and they also have to defend themselves against some hunters who want to kill a large herd of elephants.

It was interesting to see how and for what motives some of the characters change their attitudes towards Morel. Some of his pursuers stop pursuing him or even start to help him, and some of his followers leave him and take part in hunting the large elephant herd. I found the character Waitari, an African freedom fighter, to be especially interesting. He has many difficulties. The French colonial authorities are after him, he wants to protect the elephants because they are a symbol of African freedom, he needs money for weapons, and he has to try to control his followers, who want to start an armed fight against the French although it is (probably) too early for that.

At first I didn't like Morel very much. I thought that the priest was right who scolds him for loving animals more than human beings, who need help more than animals. (And as far as I know elephants can be very dangerous. I've seen a documentary about that. When you are in a forest that they see as their territory (that you have trespassed on), they first approach you, and you can't hear them because their feet are so soft. Then they grab you with their trunks and hurl you through the air. A few people die that way every year.) But later in the movie one learns how Morel came to love elephants so much: he was a soldier in WW II, and during the years he had to spend in a prison camp, he read books about elephants. They became a symbol of freedom for him. So I understood and liked him better, and there's nothing wrong about protecting animals anyway (although I think that fighting hunger in the world is still more important.) Plus Howard acts really well in my opinion.

The main reason I watched this movie is that I have been a fan of Errol Flynn ever since I first saw him in 'The Sea Hawk'. In this one, he gets top billing, but he is a supporting actor only. (As I've said before Trevor Howard plays the hero, but the producers probably thought he was not famous enough to get top billing). I think his acting is good. But I think some scenes were very easy to play for him anyway; he plays an alcoholic, and in some scenes he looks as if he was really drunk (when he arrives, with Greco, at the tribal village). (That's what's called 'method acting' ;)

I also usually like films starring or directed by Welles or Huston. Welles only has a small part and I think he overacts, but that doesn't matter because he is really funny in my opinion. The direction is mostly good, as far as I can tell, but some of it could have been done better: there are some long shots of elephants that don't seem to fit in very well with the other shots. Or is this perhaps the editor's (not the director's) fault? I don't know. (There are also some blue-screen shots that don't look very good.)

All in all, I really liked this movie. I think it has some minor flaws, and I didn't like it as much as, for example, 'The Sea Hawk' and 'The Maltese Falcon'. But, as I've said before, I liked both the story and the actors, so I have given this one eight points. I also liked the music (by Malcolm Arnold).

If you like this one you might also try 'White Hunter Black Heart'. It stars Clint Eastwood as John Huston (although he's called 'John Wilson'). I liked it, too, but I liked 'The Roots of Heaven' better. And if you also find the character Waitari interesting, try 'Queimada'. It has a similar character and he's more central to the story. It's not as unknown as 'The Roots of Heaven', but still rather unknown, which is a mystery to me. It stars Brando, has music by Morricone, is directed by Gillo Pontecorvo (of 'La Battaglia di Algeri' fame), and, most importantly, its story is extremely interesting in my opinion.