In the Wake of 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 is a documentary about the people of Pitcairn Island. In among what is straight documentary, there are a few scenes which acts out the mutiny on the Bounty. If that were not bad enough, the action opens with a few old tars telling yarns in a tavern. And if that were not bad enough, the acting in these scenes (Errol Flynn excepted) is really, really bad.

It is worth watching as a documentary of Pitcairn Island. It is also worth watching to see the germs of stardom in Errol Flynn.

I have never ever seen another film quite like this one - which is just as well.

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.

In the Wake of the Bounty (1933)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Errol Flynn made his debut in this film, which is an early version of Mutiny on the Bounty as well as a travelogue. The old sailor sits at a bar and tells the story of Fletcher Christian (Flynn) and that infamous journey where he helped lead a mutiny. This footage is told via a story but half of the film uses narration to talk about the Pitcairn Island, which is where the travelogue stuff comes from. For some strange reason it was this film, which made Warner sign Flynn, which is rather shocking because he is very wooden in his few scenes here but I guess the studio could have been going on his looks. The film contains quite a bit of female nudity from the locals on the island but these seem more like models due to their looks. This is a really strange film but thankfully it just runs 60-minutes but in the end this is just for those wanting to see a young Flynn before fame.

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!