Apart from being completely illogical at times, it has some interesting ideas.
The story begins with a man (Stu Irwin) about to be sentenced for leading a mutiny. An idealistic crew member, Martin (Glenn Ford), stands up and announces that he has evidence which could exonerate the accused. But, inexplicably, the judge, prosecutor and EVEN THE LAWYER FOR THE DEFENSE refuse to hear Martin. This seemed odd to say the least.
In the next scene, Martin storms a fancy party being held by the head of the shipping company he and the convicted man worked for during the mutiny. He demands that the owner listens to him...which he seems reticent to do. But a famous author is at the party as well as a young lady...and they leave with Martin to hear his evidence. The evidence is Martin's own diary...which makes you wonder if the diary is important at all, as Martin could just as soon could have testified what he knew instead of insisting folks read his diary.
Martin then reads the diary and there is about a 15 minute flashback scene. In it, the captain of the ship is shown as a cruel man. He's violent, physically and verbally abusive and feeds the crew literal garbage. It's not at all surprising when the crew rebels after the captain ended up killing a young mate aboard the craft. Yet, inexplicably, no board of inquiry investigates the case (or at least it's never mentioned in the film). Surely, in 1942 a captain killing a crew member would have necessitated SOME sort of hearing!! And, with the crew insisting the captain was a murderer...well that couldn't just be swept under the rug in the 20th century! This wasn't the 1700s and the famous Mutiny on the Bounty!! And, the court refusing to hear testimony from the crew in the trial simply made no sense. But the famous author apparently never thought of any of these things and he encourages Martin to forget about everything and try writing fictional stories that make people feel happy!! Huh?!
This story apparently was INSPIRED from a Jack London novel...the same guy who wrote "The Sea Wolf". Perhaps this story, at least in its original form, might have made sense. In fact, I read a summary of London's serialized story...and NONE of this that I mentioned above was in his story!!!! The screenplay just left me asking too many questions...and the plot simply resembled Swiss cheese since it had so many holes! I am sure many watching it in 1942 also felt the same way...and despite some good acting and Columbia Pictures' polish, the script isn't even second-rate...that would be an improvement. It's simply illogical. So illogical that the love story and Martin's writing career just didn't seem important.
In the next scene, Martin storms a fancy party being held by the head of the shipping company he and the convicted man worked for during the mutiny. He demands that the owner listens to him...which he seems reticent to do. But a famous author is at the party as well as a young lady...and they leave with Martin to hear his evidence. The evidence is Martin's own diary...which makes you wonder if the diary is important at all, as Martin could just as soon could have testified what he knew instead of insisting folks read his diary.
Martin then reads the diary and there is about a 15 minute flashback scene. In it, the captain of the ship is shown as a cruel man. He's violent, physically and verbally abusive and feeds the crew literal garbage. It's not at all surprising when the crew rebels after the captain ended up killing a young mate aboard the craft. Yet, inexplicably, no board of inquiry investigates the case (or at least it's never mentioned in the film). Surely, in 1942 a captain killing a crew member would have necessitated SOME sort of hearing!! And, with the crew insisting the captain was a murderer...well that couldn't just be swept under the rug in the 20th century! This wasn't the 1700s and the famous Mutiny on the Bounty!! And, the court refusing to hear testimony from the crew in the trial simply made no sense. But the famous author apparently never thought of any of these things and he encourages Martin to forget about everything and try writing fictional stories that make people feel happy!! Huh?!
This story apparently was INSPIRED from a Jack London novel...the same guy who wrote "The Sea Wolf". Perhaps this story, at least in its original form, might have made sense. In fact, I read a summary of London's serialized story...and NONE of this that I mentioned above was in his story!!!! The screenplay just left me asking too many questions...and the plot simply resembled Swiss cheese since it had so many holes! I am sure many watching it in 1942 also felt the same way...and despite some good acting and Columbia Pictures' polish, the script isn't even second-rate...that would be an improvement. It's simply illogical. So illogical that the love story and Martin's writing career just didn't seem important.
- planktonrules
- Oct 17, 2020