Les racines du ciel

"Turgid philosophising"... "raddled Flynn"... no-one seemed to have a good word for this film, known chiefly for the number and variety of ailments suffered during its filming, and I certainly wasn't expecting much.

Nobody told me "The Roots of Heaven" could be funny.

Nobody told me the script was ironic and self-aware, knowing what to say and what to leave unspoken and when to wear its passion on its sleeve with the straightforward and very English eccentricity of its leading character; tinged with idealism, with heroism, and with cynicism alike. No-one ever mentioned, oddly enough, that there were even any environmentalists in the 1950s -- with uncannily accurate prescience, the plot even ties in the anti-nuclear cause. Greenpeace would have had a retrospective field day!

And as for Flynn, he is having the time of his life stealing every scene he is in, whether with a quizzical eyebrow or a moment of sudden intense sympathy; the part is a gift, but he makes it something more, with the old expressiveness that always underpinned the laughter and heroics of his days as Warner Brothers' leading man. His late-career performance in "The Sun Also Rises" (which, for my money, really is turgid philosophical stuff) has been proclaimed as 'Oscar-worthy' by those eager to prove he had straight acting talent, but to my mind he shows greater depths here.

Trevor Howard is the undoubted star, carrying much of the film single-handed. He is superbly convincing in the linchpin role of the Englishman who sets out on an unfashionable one-man crusade, and -- in a tale whose wry sensibilities would not be out of place at Ealing Studios -- finds himself inadvertently the victim of human nature's instinct both to canonise and to desecrate. The character has convictions, but he is neither unworldly nor a fool, and Howard makes us believe against the odds that this unassuming type can change people. His performance is absolutely central to the film's credibility, and he makes Morel not only believable but likable.

The main flaws of which I was aware are the way that several strands seem to disappear abruptly unexplained at the ending (what of all those journalists who were about to arrive? What of the American's photographs, surely valuable evidence?) and a handful of blue-screen shots against poorer-quality backgrounds that are very obvious when viewed at cinema scale -- it might have been better to have used quick cuts back and forth between the characters and the action, rather than attempting to project them into the picture.

So far as the overall standard of the film was concerned, however, I was extremely favourably surprised; I've seen several turgid, would-be meaningful African epics, and this certainly isn't one of them. Intelligent, humorous, lightly ironic, but also genuinely stirring and mythical, the end product may have disappointed John Huston, but it was far better than I had been given -- even by the cinema's own programming material! -- to expect.

This John Huston's movie is maybe not his ever best, but for me it is definitely one of my favourite from the ASPHALT JIUNGLE director. It is so dark, gloomy, even if it remains more or less underneath. And of course the last role of Errol Flynn is the highlight, even very sad, distrubing for his herds of fans, of this gem. I have not read the Romain Gary's novel, but this film produced by the mogul Daryl Zanuck is a turn in Huston's filmography. It is in the mood of the sixties, more than the fifties, the end of a world. And animal lovers, elephants in particular, will be enchanted, moved by this bittersweet story. I definitely love this film, so awesome for my taste.

Based on a novel by Romain Gary (who was Jean Seberg's husband ;she was the star of one of his obscure works "Les Oiseaux Vont Mourir Au Pérou" ),"Roots of Heaven " is generally dismissed ,even by Huston's buffs.And nevertheless....

It was an ecological movie,at a time it was not trendy :as Nicholas Ray ,at about the same time,was filming "wind across the everglades" ,a heartfelt plea for the defense of Florida 's wildlife,Huston did the same for the elephants ,victims of the poachers .THe odd couple,who is one of Huston's recurrent features is present:Morel ,who is championing the elephants cause ,is joined by a prostitute (played by glorious actress/chanteuse Juliette Greco).

"Roots of Heaven" was a definitive improvement on "the Barbarian and the Geisha " and paved a reliable way to works to come such as "the unforgiven" , "the misfits" and the highly superior "Freud" and "Night of the Iguana" .This is an overlong movie,but even if it cannot be ranked among the director's best ,it's worth at least a watch .

It's about an ex-soldier, Morel (played by Trevor Howard), who has come to Africa to protect elephants against extinction. He sees them as noble animals and as 'roots of heaven', that is creatures made by God. First, no one is on his side, but later he manages to find some supporters. The authorities are after them, and they also have to defend themselves against some hunters who want to kill a large herd of elephants.

It was interesting to see how and for what motives some of the characters change their attitudes towards Morel. Some of his pursuers stop pursuing him or even start to help him, and some of his followers leave him and take part in hunting the large elephant herd. I found the character Waitari, an African freedom fighter, to be especially interesting. He has many difficulties. The French colonial authorities are after him, he wants to protect the elephants because they are a symbol of African freedom, he needs money for weapons, and he has to try to control his followers, who want to start an armed fight against the French although it is (probably) too early for that.

At first I didn't like Morel very much. I thought that the priest was right who scolds him for loving animals more than human beings, who need help more than animals. (And as far as I know elephants can be very dangerous. I've seen a documentary about that. When you are in a forest that they see as their territory (that you have trespassed on), they first approach you, and you can't hear them because their feet are so soft. Then they grab you with their trunks and hurl you through the air. A few people die that way every year.) But later in the movie one learns how Morel came to love elephants so much: he was a soldier in WW II, and during the years he had to spend in a prison camp, he read books about elephants. They became a symbol of freedom for him. So I understood and liked him better, and there's nothing wrong about protecting animals anyway (although I think that fighting hunger in the world is still more important.) Plus Howard acts really well in my opinion.

The main reason I watched this movie is that I have been a fan of Errol Flynn ever since I first saw him in 'The Sea Hawk'. In this one, he gets top billing, but he is a supporting actor only. (As I've said before Trevor Howard plays the hero, but the producers probably thought he was not famous enough to get top billing). I think his acting is good. But I think some scenes were very easy to play for him anyway; he plays an alcoholic, and in some scenes he looks as if he was really drunk (when he arrives, with Greco, at the tribal village). (That's what's called 'method acting' ;)

I also usually like films starring or directed by Welles or Huston. Welles only has a small part and I think he overacts, but that doesn't matter because he is really funny in my opinion. The direction is mostly good, as far as I can tell, but some of it could have been done better: there are some long shots of elephants that don't seem to fit in very well with the other shots. Or is this perhaps the editor's (not the director's) fault? I don't know. (There are also some blue-screen shots that don't look very good.)

All in all, I really liked this movie. I think it has some minor flaws, and I didn't like it as much as, for example, 'The Sea Hawk' and 'The Maltese Falcon'. But, as I've said before, I liked both the story and the actors, so I have given this one eight points. I also liked the music (by Malcolm Arnold).

If you like this one you might also try 'White Hunter Black Heart'. It stars Clint Eastwood as John Huston (although he's called 'John Wilson'). I liked it, too, but I liked 'The Roots of Heaven' better. And if you also find the character Waitari interesting, try 'Queimada'. It has a similar character and he's more central to the story. It's not as unknown as 'The Roots of Heaven', but still rather unknown, which is a mystery to me. It stars Brando, has music by Morricone, is directed by Gillo Pontecorvo (of 'La Battaglia di Algeri' fame), and, most importantly, its story is extremely interesting in my opinion.

This movie, about a lone man's quest to save the African elephants from extinction at the hands of big game and ivory hunters, undoubtedly suffered when it was initially released due largely to the fact that it was at least 30 years ahead of it's time. In the 1950s nobody gave a thought to things things like ecology, conservation and endangered species; let alone considered them to be causes worth fighting for. The fact is that, while it would be perfectly natural for modern-day audiences to recognize Morel as a heroic character, in the 1950s he would have been regarded as merely eccentric. That simply goes to show that, while it takes a long time to change peoples' minds, they do change nonetheless.

I understand that Trevor Howard was actually given the role of the central character, Morel, after William Holden dropped out. Frankly, Howard was probably the better choice to play the part in the first place, since he does a good job of keeping the attention of the story grounded where it should be. The film itself is somewhat uneven and episodic, with some interesting character actors making periodic appearances revolving around Morel. Orson Welles, in particular, makes a conspicuous appearance as a larger-than-life American television broadcaster who was probably modeled on Lowell Thomas.

All in all, "The Roots of Heaven" represents a good effort at tackling a subject that probably didn't attract it's initial audience anywhere near as much as it would undoubtedly attract audiences today. Given the change in the public's appreciation of environmentalism, it definitely rates a fresh look by young, contemporary audiences.