O Grande Motim

Wow. I haven't seen this movie for many years and it turned out to be even better than I'd remembered it. I really have to admire this film, as the acting and entire production are top-notch. I rarely give 10s, but this one comes very close--oh, heck...the more I think about it, the more I realize it does deserve it.

As far as the historical accuracy of the film goes, while it isn't perfect (after all, Bligh's exact role in starting the mutiny is tough to determine), it did get most of the points of this true tale correct--showing a rare reverence for the source material. All too often, history takes a back seat to making a marketable film. The only major thing the film got seriously wrong were the mutineers themselves. However, this is because only recent excavations have shown that the men who mutinied in effect killed each other off--as they apparently WERE scum after all. But, based on material available at the time, it was pretty good. As to Bligh's temperament, the British admiralty found Bligh completely blameless. However, later as governor of Australia, Bligh alienated everyone and was, by most accounts, a real jerk. So, the essence of the film appears to be true. Hmm...for once I have no serious complaints about the accuracy of a historical film--that's pretty rare.

The best part of the film, however, is that the actors were absolutely on top of their game. Charles Laughton, though prone to overacting by all accounts, was exceptional here. Clark Gable was in his element--and simply one of his best film roles. The same can also be said of Franchot Tone--here, he has a much deeper and meatier role than usual. In fact, the three came off so well that all three were nominated for Best Actor--necessitating the creation of Best Supporting Actor and Actress categories. The rest of the cast, the supporting journeymen actors, were great--with Donald Crisp (with hair!!) excellent as a troublemaker, Dudley Diggs as a very sympathetic drunkard and many others in top form.

The direction by Frank Lloyd, the cinematography, music, sets and location shooting were also wonderful. So why, if this film was so perfect, would they try remaking it?! This is a great example of a film whose remakes definitely pale by comparison. A perfect or at least near-perfect film in every way.

By the way, if you are curious about the real life Bligh, after both this mutiny and the rebellion in Australia (that he appeared to instigate), he was rewarded with the rank of Rear Admiral! Who says life has to be fair?

When watching this great motion picture keep in mind that it is now over sixty (60)years old! Even through the passage of time it provides for entertaining viewing. Charles Laughtons performance as William Bligh captain of the Bounty basically set the standard as how Bligh is pictured and thought of when his name is mentioned. Other actors have portrayed Bligh but it is Laughtons portrayal that is remembered most. The 1984 version with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson is probably a more historical version of actual events but this 1935 classic will most likely always be the sentimental favorite.

It's fair to say you are a Captain disciplined, and you like to see subordinates lose skin, the cat o' nine tails is a smash, as they're beaten, whipped and slashed, filling your sails with such an overwhelming wind. If all else fails you go the distance and keelhaul, dragging the guilty of just what on a long trawl, prevents the crew from going soft, like rotten food they have to scoff, although you never hear the sounds, of their death squall. Although this time it seems you've pushed the boat too far, Fletcher Christian takes his chance to fight and spar, your ejected and cast-off, mutinous rabble will pay the cost, as you're left to drift for weeks, under the stars.

Charles Laughton is sublime.

Clark Gable and Franchot Tone received Oscar nominations in this excellent early Best Picture winner. But it is Charles Laughton (also Oscar-nominated) who gives his greatest performance as the captain who is harsh, strict and unforgiving. However, his true skills are shown when he is thrown off the ship, but never gives up and returns to safety in a small boat with limited men and supplies. The primary actors are solid and the shooting locales are breath-taking. Frank Lloyd's direction lifts a somewhat questionable screenplay to safer waters and the film turns into a Hollywood classic by its final act. 5 stars out of 5.

With three fine leading performances, lavish settings and scenery, and an engrossing story, the 1935 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" is certainly the best cinema version of the familiar story, whether or not it is historically accurate. The 1962 version had some quality aspects, but it seemed to suffer from some odd casting and from over-extending itself. The revisionist 80's version made claims to being more historically accurate than the others, which may or may not be the case, and it was interesting for Anthony Hopkins's distinctive portrayal of Captain Bligh, but it was otherwise an unremarkable and not especially creative film.

The trio of Charles Laughton, Clark Gable, and Franchot Tone set a standard that none of the rest could come close to equaling. Laughton is perfect as Bligh, or at least as the kind of captain that Bligh is/was commonly assumed to have been. Gable does very well in adapting Fletcher Christian just enough to fit his own strengths - Gable is not quite what you expect of a British naval officer, but if he had tried to force himself into that mold, it probably would have been rather unconvincing. In themselves, Gable's charisma, decisiveness, and energetic personality seem just right for Christian. Tone also fits smoothly into the role of Byam, giving it the right combination of earnestness and restraint.

Their performances are set off nicely by the carefully detailed and interesting settings, and by a supporting cast that gets its share of good moments. The historical truths of the Bounty incident can be fairly debated, since it's unlikely that anyone now knows the inside story. But setting aside those questions, and purely as a movie, it would be hard to argue the virtues of this version of the story.