The Man Who Would Be King

What most viewers do not realize about The Man Who Would Be King (1975) is that it is not about a legendary place, although Rudyard Kipling may have thought so when he wrote the story, because no white man had ever been there and returned to tell about it.

The place was then known as Kafiristan and is now known as Nuristan. It is in Eastern Afghanistan next to Chitral, which is in Northwest Pakistan.

Place names in the movie, such as Kamdesh and Bashgal, are real places in Nuristan. The explorer Robertson, whom Billy Fish reports has having died, did not die in real life but was rescued by a British military force in 1895, after Kipling wrote his story.

The people of Nuristan are believed to be descendants of Alexander the Great, who came there in 328 BC, just as the movie states. They had a pagan religion as the movie describes until they were forcibly converted to Islam in 1892. There are still some believers of the old religion in the Kalash Valleys of Pakistan.

For more about these people see http://www.samsloan.com/damik.htm

I know about all this because I have been there and I married a woman named Honzagool there. She did not bite me as did the wife of Sean Connery in the movie, however.

Sam Sloan

No director ever personalized a genre the way John Huston could. While some critics have claimed his style was a 'lack' of style, the opposite is actually true; his sense of irony, love of the absurd, respect for personal codes of honor, and twist endings that always remind us that the true value of a journey is not arriving at a destination, but in the 'getting there' all set apart his best work from that of his contemporaries. Even his lesser work has value, and his best films, which certainly includes THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, are unforgettable.

The tragicomic tale of two ex-Sergeants turned confidence men with a grand scheme to fleece a near-legendary kingdom had been a 'pet' project of Huston's since the forties, and he'd spent years tinkering with the script, planning to film it with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart in the leads. With Bogart's death in 1957, he'd considered various other match-ups (including Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole), until he found the ideal pair, in Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Connery had just finished the spectacular THE WIND AND THE LION (in which Huston played a small, but memorable role), and the Scot had often been compared to Gable with his dark good looks, machismo, and lack of pretense. Michael Caine, a long-time friend of Connery, was one of the industry's busiest actors, and had already proved himself adept at playing both soldiers and con men. Together, Connery and Caine had a camaraderie and chemistry that even Gable and Bogart couldn't have equaled, and Huston was "quite pleased".

Christopher Plummer was another inspired piece of casting, as the legendary author Rudyard Kipling. Bookish, with a keen intellect and rich sense of humor, Plummer's Kipling, sharing Masonic ties with the future 'Kings', is the perfect foil for the duo, offering sound advice which they totally disregard, with a wink and a smile. As Dravot (Connery) tells him, "We are not little men", and India, bound up in British bureaucracy (as well as becoming too 'hot' for them) could never provide the immensity of riches they dreamed of.

Huston eschewed the 'traditional' approach to adventure films, with cardboard heroes performing near-impossible deeds until the inevitable 'happy ending', and grounded his story in reality, which disappointed any viewers hoping KING would simply be a variation of GUNGA DIN. But in not romanticizing the story, he gives it a sense of immensity and the exotic, a richness of character, and an understanding of human frailties that far surpasses a typical Hollywood product. While Dravot orchestrates the pair's ultimate ruin by taking his 'godhood' too seriously (as he turns 'noble', trying to bring order to his 'kingdom', and decides to start a dynasty by taking a wife), you can understand why Carnehan (Caine), seeing their 'get rich' scheme disintegrate, would be anxious to leave, but also why he would forgive his friend, when they face torture and certain death. Loyalty, to Huston, is not lip service, but a true measure of a man. While Dravot and Carnehan are certainly not role models, their love and respect for each other transcends their faults, even their lives, putting the film's final scene, as a physically crushed Carnehan leaves his 'bundle' for Kipling, into perspective. It is a moment you won't soon forget.

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING proves, yet again, why John Huston, as he once described his friend, Humphrey Bogart, is "irreplaceable".

Outside of the obvious reflections on the immoral and absurdly hypocritical nature of early British colonialism, it's just a damn entertaining movie.

But you have to think that Rudyard Kipling, who grew up under British rule in India, was certainly trying to shake some sensibilities when he first wrote the story as part of an 1890 package called The Man Who Would Be King and Other Stories, nearly a century before it was made into a film and during an era when the British Empire was still very much a reality.

From the perceptive realization that even the staunchly important Masonic Lodge -- which had infilitrated every aspect of Britain's upper classes -- could be easily corrupted; to the arrogance as Sean Connery's character Daniel Dravot, who elevates what he sees as mere social superiority into a god-like status; to the inevitable humbling of both men at the hands of the 'savages' they profess to rule, the film is ultimately about the humility all men should exhude, particularly in the face of the unfamiliar.

Kipling's tale also preached tolerance, though you might not consider that to be the case based on the film's climax: consider that if Daniel and Peachy had shown an iota of respect for the religion that they instead decided to fleece, how differently the tale might have played out.

The film owes much of its success to the chemistry between Caine and Connery, who regardless of later plaudits, gave the finest performances of their careers. Connery is particularly nuanced, with Daniel Dravot starting the tale as a somewhat lackwitted second fiddle to the scheming Peachy but later seeing his limited vision help him surpass his friend in terms of villainy with an equally heavy price. Caine plays, to some degree or another, the same charming British sheyster/teddy boy he popularized in the Harry Palmer films. But without a backdrop of similarly disaffected cockney bad guys, it's stunningly effective.

John Huston's direction is among the best of his career, and in terms of his ability to use both sprawling vistas and tight, almost claustrophobic photography, owes a nod to his earlier work, including The African Queen, Night of the Iguana and the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. As examples, witness the zenith of Peachy and Daniel's hazardous trek through the mountains played out in full panoramic detail, only to be followed 90 minutes later by the tight shot of Kipling's face, the revulsion fairly etched into every crease as we reach the climax.

But perhaps the true hero of this film was Boaty Boatright, who also cast Connery's classic "The Wind and The Lion." He managed to take some of the most strident, forceful personalities in the film industries, threw them together and came up with a film about humility. Magic.

Why is this film not given more recognition? It was one of those films that I had always heard about but had never seen. Well, I saw it the other day and I am shocked that I wasn't forced to watch this years ago. It is an amazing film. I have a hard time coming up with something that was wrong with it. The highlights, of course, were the performances of Caine and Connery. Nearly every user comment for this film has said how good their chemistry was, well I read all these comments before seeing the film and was still blown away by how good the chemistry was. Connery in particular was a surprise to me, even though Caine probably gave the better performance of the two.

As a Brit living in the US, it is hard to get Americans to really understand subtle aspects of British life (the optimism, the humour, the strength of character)... so I now have three movies that I tell people to watch in order to get a better idea of what it means to be British: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, and The Man Who Would Be King.

Based on a short story by Rudyard Kipling, The Man Who Would Be King tells the story of two friends; Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) and Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) that go to Kafiristan in order to rule the country as kings and become rich in the process. The tale itself if relatively simple, but through great storytelling, the film is lifted into the realms of the masterpiece. The Man Who Would Be King tells a story on two levels; on the one hand, it's an epic masterpiece, spanning across Asia and embracing the Eastern culture, but on the other hand; it's a simple tale of two friends that are out for all they can get. The film switches between the two sides of it's story with great ease, and the smaller, more intimate side of the story is actually complimented by the epic battle sequences that run alongside it.

This movie is headed by two of the very finest actors of all time - Sean Connery and Michael Caine (both British too, I might add). The two have a great chemistry, and seeing them on screen together is an absolute treat. Both actors have a very defined style as to how they act and how their lines are delivered; in fact, they're perhaps two of the most defined styles ever, and they play off each brilliantly to give fantastic performances in this movie. Michael Caine always seems to be more willing to give a better performance when he is on screen with another fine actor, and they don't come much finer than Sean Connery. The great John Huston directs the movie, and this is easily one of his best movies. In fact, I rate it as his number one colour film. He's got a good story to work with, and he makes the best of it, not to mention that he gets the best from his cast. Many of the locations are fabulous and the battle sequences, although not on the same scale as some other films of the same nature, are well choreographed and an epic sense is captured through the utilisation of many extras.

This film is a masterpiece. All the players have come together to create a film that is both intimate, intelligent, interesting and on a massive scale all at the same time. A must see.