Lord Jim

Peter O'Tooles eyes are disturbingly blue. Lots of visual detail, good cinematography, cheap special effects. It moves slowly and doesn't really explain the motivations of the main character very well. O'Toole is good but oblique. The movie doesn't really pick up until Eli Wallach shows up. He is quite good, cheerfully cruel and sadistic, and I think he may have taken things from this role that he later expanded on in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Curt Jurgens is delightfully seedy, a sweaty and cowardly drunk who needs a haircut. I don't know anything about the rating system here but I'm giving it a seven for just for watchability.

I have seen the film three times over the past thirty years and each time I loved it. The subject of the film must have attracted director Richard Brooks who was essentially a screenplay writer who later became a director. He knew the merits of a strong script with philosophical lines from Conrad. Coppola was to use the related original material (Conrad's) in his "Apocalypse Now" for the Brando scenes several decades after this film was made and mostly forgotten.

What Brooks does not realize is that lines like "it only takes a split second to make a coward a hero or turn a hero into a coward" and "every sinner wants a second chance at redemption, without realizing he is damned for ever" are philosophical lines that one expects to hear from very literate individuals. Here, in "Lord Jim," the lines are often spoken by the dregs of society. Jim, of course, we are told by the narrator (Jack Hawkins' Marlowe) was philosophical, dreamed of heroism, and was a gentleman.

The film is made up of three distinct segments: 1. the "sinking" of SS Patna 2. The liberation of Patusan ("Patna" + "us" make up the name Patusan, remarks Jim to his love) and 3. The battle with a group of scoundrels (led by James Mason's 'Gentleman' Brown) with some fine speeches on honor, death, and fear.

Each segment could stand alone but together the film adds considerable worthiness that exceeds the action and plot, the elements that most viewers use to judge a movie. The lesser characters in the film add color and counterpoints to the script. Christian Marquand's French Captain who defends Jim's "cowardice" with the words "fear can make us do strange things" or Paul Lukas' Stern who compares his dead butterfly collection with the "wonderful, perfect human beings that God created" or the native who wonders why some pray to one god instead of a host of Gods are a few examples of dialogs that force you to reflect on what you heard.

The film's subject covers several religions. The fervent Muslims on the way to Haj survive the storm. The Christian Jim prays to his God. The Buddhists pray to Buddha. And the natives pray to their array of gods (a touch of Hinduism?). Yet, the film is not a religious film. But faith in God is underlined at every stage.

Conrad was Polish and a seaman before he became a writer. Brooks is an American. O'Toole leads a cast that is predominantly British. Daliah Lavi is Israeli, Marquand is French, Jurgens is German...The film is truly international.

Brooks not only wrote and directed the film but this was the first film that he produced. The film proved to be ideal for O'Toole reprising his roles of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Becket", roles that draw thin lines between cowardice and heroism and consequent attempts to redeem oneself. The film is not great cinema--but will remain for me cinema based on related major literary works ("Lord Jim" and "Heart of Darkness", both narrated by the fictional Marlow) adapted for the screen with some delightful performances from O'Toole, Mason, Wallach, and Marquand and commendable photography by Freddie Young.

Exciting and brooding picture based on the complex novel written by Joseph Conrad (who also wrote Darkness heart) and brought to the screen in lavish budget and colorful visual style .After being discredited as a coward, a 19th century seaman (Peter O'Toole) in British Merchant Marine lives for only one purpose : to redeem himself. As he suffers a deep scar and pain for the rest of his life . But then , he becomes leader of a Southeast Asia village in spite of his past clouded by allegations of betrayal and cowardice . Meanwhile , the native villagers are being slavered by a group nasty cutthroats led European thugs (Eli Wallach , Curt Jurgens) . As the belief shown in him by the villagers is put to the test .

This is a thought-provoking and intelligent story based on Joseph Conrad's novel written in 1900. This prestigious novel has been simplified for easier compression , appreciation and nicely developing . This adventure flick contains , thrills , action , intrigue and wonderful outdoors . Excellent acting by Peter O'Toole in the title role , he is a sailor in Souteast Asia who is adopted by a suppressed village as its leader . After the film's tepid reception, especially for his own starring performance, a once-enthusiastic Peter O'Toole declared, 'It was a mistake and I made the mistake because I was conservative and played safe and that way lies failure'. Movie's biggest moments provided by strange acting by the great Peter O'Toole . Supporting cast is frankly sensational such as Curd Jürgens , Eli Wallach , Jack Hawkins , Paul Lukas , Daliah Lavi , Akim Tamiroff , Andrew Keir , Jack MacGowran ,Ric Young , Noel Purcel , Walter Gotell , among others .Evocative and exotic cinematography by Freddie Young , shot on location in Malacca, Malaysia Lantau Island, Hong Kong, China and Angkor Wat, Siem Reap, Cambodia. Although the Cambodian government never demanded any script approval, one condition of its agreement to allow on-location shooting in the troubled nation was for the production company to build a lot of rooms addition to an existing hotel near the famed Angkor ruins .

Directed and screen-played with awesome style by Richard Brooks . He was a fine writer/director so consistently mixed the good and average which it became impossible to know that to expect from him next . Firstly he worked regularly as a Hollywood screenwriter . After that , his initial experience of directing was one of his own screenplays called ¨Crisis¨. The Richard Brooks films that have the greatest impact are realized during the 50s and 60s as ¨Cat on a hot tin roof¨, ¨Something of value¨ , ¨Elmer Gantry¨, ¨Sweet bird of youth¨, ¨In cold blood¨ , ¨Lord Jim¨. Brooks was a writer and director of Chekhovian depth , who mastered the use of understatement, anticlimax and implied emotion . His films enjoyed lasting appeal and tended to be more serious than the usual mainstream productions . Richards formerly directed two good Western titled ¨Bite the bullet¨ and ¨The professionals ¨ with various tough stars as Burt Lancaster , Lee Marvin , Jack Palance and Robert Ryan , including the same musician , Alex North , and similar outdoors . The ¨Lord Jim¨ is an authentic must see , not to be missed for buffs of the genre . A magnificent movie , hardly noticed for its theatrical release ; however , being nowadays very well considered . Rating : Above average because of its awesome acting , dialog , score are world class.

Based on the novel, this movie is not only representative of the period piece that Joseph Conrad's story was, but also of movie-making at that time (1965). It's an epic story told in the way that they did back then --sweeping landscapes, exotic locales, hundreds of extras, good performances and many questions regarding philosophical and practical values. At times a bit clunky and unexplained, the movie is a study in movie-making during that era.

It brings up the same issues that Conrad did in his book, sometimes so much so that the dialog feels as though it is dragging. O'Toole's character emotes plenty, despite acting flat for a good portion of the first third. The scene between him and James Mason is the spark of the piece. At 2:34, this movie flounders and drags in the middle. Still, it's a good piece to watch.

Lord Jim is one of those great works of fiction that is best watched after having read the novel, or at least a solid summary of the book. Without this background, the movie could be hard to understand. I also found that it was helpful to watch the film twice. Since some of the details of the movie do not square with those of the novel, it was a bit confusing at times to follow the sequence of the movie, and a second viewing brought all of that into focus. In my opinion, the motion picture does capture quite well the spirit of the book, if not the absolute letter.

I actually found Peter O'Toole's depiction of the lead character to be a quite good representation. He is just as naive and disoriented a character in the movie as in the book. His heroics in the movie are appropriately tempered with self-doubt, and his ultimate fate squares with the novelist's intent for his hero/anti-hero.

I enjoy watching movies of this kind to see how a director and actors visualize the plot of their respective novels, and to me Lord Jim was not a disappointment.