In the Wake of the Bounty

Most reviewers seem to have the wrong idea about this film, it's not meant to be a version of 'Mutiny on the Bounty' or even a feature film! It's basically a doco/travelogue, with a few 'flashbacks' enacting a few scenes of the Bounty 'drama'. The main interest is the scenes filmed on Pitcairn Island, probably the first, and the far from ideal living conditions of the inhabitants. Of the 'dramatic' scenes spliced in, considering the lead was most likely a seasoned 'stage' actor, and hammy as they come, the young, totally inexperienced Errol Flynn, signed for his looks alone, probably comes out best of all? It wasn't this film that Jack Warner signed him on, it was a 'lost' movie called 'Murder in Monte Carlo' he made in England about a year later that got him to Hollywood, and the rest as they say, is history! Incidentally, the derogatory remarks made about Australia by another reviewer, are nonsense!

...that's a mix of poor historical reenactments and documentary footage, from writer-producer-director Charles Chauvel. A crusty old sailor tells some other crusty old sailors the story of the HMS Bounty and the mutiny, led by Fletcher Christian (Errol Flynn), against the tyrannical Captain Bligh (Mayne Lynton). The second half of the 1-hour movie is documentary footage of Pitcairn Island in contemporary (1932) times, showing the society that has evolved there descended from the mutineers and their Tahitian wives.

This picture is most notable for being Errol Flynn's movie debut, but he, like the rest of the reenactment section, is terrible, offering no hint at his future star quality. These passages are cheap looking, poorly staged, and almost comically inept. The documentary footage is excellent, though, and I especially liked the brief glimpses of what remained of the Bounty's hull at the bottom of the bay at Pitcairn. If any of this second half of the movie looks familiar, it was later bought by MGM and edited into a pair of short subjects that ran with the 1935 Mutiny On 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.

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.