Les turbans rouges

The adventure yarn as it used to be a long long time ago.There's the proud rebel "Sultan" (Brynner) who's fighting against the English (represented by a loyal brave generous officer-Howard- and a villain one -Andrews-).And Andrews looks the part ! As the case often happens,to hear the scenarists ,if a father is wicked,then the daughter is adorable:she's played by a decorative Charlotte Rampling ,who tells Howard -whom she's in love with of course-:"one day ,Sultan and you ,you will meet".Main interest remains the splendor of the landscapes.

This has simply been unfairly misunderstood. It's a great romantic adventure story exposing conflicting mentalities in the last days of the Indian Raj, when some British already started to doubt their presence there. Harry Andrews is the hopeless imperialist who knows only one way to govern and that by force, while Trevor Howard tries the other way: dialogue and understanding. Yul Brynner is the freedom fighter with a just cause who knows he is right and struggles against opposition in his own camp to achieve it with tragic results, due to the hardcore inflexibility of the British military authorities (Harry Andrews). Charlotte Rampling plays an unusual part as a female diplomatic intermediary, and her character is the only one who is not quite convincing, which unfavourable impression is worsened by her horrible hair style - utterly impossible in India.

Additional merits of the film is the overwhelming sweeping landscape scenes catching the wilderness of the Himalayas, and the music, which underlines and augments the romantic character of the film. Yul Brynner is always interesting and makes memorable characters, and also Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews are well up to their ordinary excellent standard, while the story and its lesson of experience, wisdom and humanity is the main importance of this very underrated film.

I saw this as a boy on its first release. It was supported by Eric Sykes' much shorter, mainly silent comedy, THE PLANK, still recalled today while DUEL soon vanished into obscurity. I enjoyed it at the time, but then all the scenery and action in colour on the big screen seemed marvellous in those days of black and white TV.

This is similar to several films of a decade earlier, notably Terence Young's ZARAK (1956) which had stony-faced Victor Mature playing the titular rebel, though Yul Brynner and his gang of mostly 'browned-up' British character actors generally do a more efficient job than their counterparts in the former production. DUEL is also set in a later period, the 1920s, reflecting a time in which the futility of British rule was becoming more apparent, but there is little that is overtly political here. Instead we get the collision of attitudes between hard-line authoritarian Harry Andrews and the liberal Trevor Howard, a familiar theme in everything from prison dramas to westerns. Both actors give their usual authoritative performances, all the more impressive given some of the uninspired writing. I always like Charlotte Rampling, but her appearance seems too modern for the time. There are lots of fights, ambushes and shoot-ups and it works on the level of a run-of-the-mill western, but who on earth came up with the idea of the cheesy pop song for the closing credits?

THE LONG DUEL is a British adventure film about an Indian uprising in the 19th century presided over by a bandit leader played by the inimitable Yul Brynner. Watching it these days, it's clear that this is a very dated production, and perhaps the film was picked out for merciless spoofing in the excellent CARRY ON UP THE KHYBER.

However, it isn't a bad film, just not one of the best of the genre. It suffers from being overlong and too slow, with long scenes that drag out between the important bits. Still, the viewer is treated to the spectacle of Brynner doing his patented action man routine and Trevor Howard acting against him as the classic stiff-upper-lip Brit with a heart. Supporting actors include Harry Andrews as the idiot in charge, more minor roles for Hammer players including Andrew Keir, George Pastell, and the lovely Imogen Hassall, and the appearance of a surprisingly young Charlotte Rampling.

The action elements of the film are handled pretty well with the usual excitement. A set-piece attack on a train is a highlight here, as is the fiery ambush on the British barracks, but the film only really kicks into top gear at the excellent large-scale climax. Moments of occasional heart and poignancy make this worth a watch, meanwhile.

UK film industry, before the late sixties, has always showed this tradition of adventure films related to the British colonies, nearly in every continent. It is in the British cinema DNA, I mean IT WAS. This film is a real good one, splendid picture. You also had Basil Dearden's KHARTOUM, one year earlier. I don't forget CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE from director Tony Richardson, the most outrageous film ever made against the British establishment in colonies, showing the sumptuous parties from the British gentry, military high rank officers whilst poor soldiers are slaughtered on the battle ground...Yes, adventure films belonged, were a trademark, of the UK film industry, not only the Hollywood one, but I repeat, only, till the end of the sixties decade. The other fashion was the social, kitchen sink dramas; and of course comedies, war - which also finished in the late sixties - horror movies - thanks to Hammer films. Not westerns and a bit crime films, excellent ones. So, back to this one, the prestigious cast - Yul Brynner and Trevor Howard - helped to the success of the film, but the production design too. It is a must see in the genre, as was GUNS OF NAVARONNE. I prefer this one, because it was brave, daring from the British cinema to criticize its own colonialism system. Yul Brynner, the rebel, gets more empathy than Trevor Howard's character. One last thing, Harry Andrews has played in so many British movies of the fifties and sixties, even later, that when you did not see him in only one, you had the feeling he was dead.... Or in a very bad condition. Ha ha ha.