L'affaire de la mutinerie du Caine

And so it ended. With a career that comprehends more than 60 years in the film business behind classics such as "The French Connection", "The Exorcist" and "To Live and Die in L. A." William Friedkin was a towering expressive voice just as much as Coppola, De Palma, Scorsese and many others that revolutionized the world of cinema. At age 87, he still managed to get behind camera, gather up talented actors to appear in his film and deliver a quite masterful work worthy of appreciation. He puts to shame many young filmmakers out there who probably just watch films made in the past 25 years or so, but never beyond that to actually learn the craft of filmmaking and how to tell a story.

"The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial" it's Friedkin's final work, not exactly the send-off he deserved but it's the one he needed since it was a passion project and he knew his reasons in bringing an updated version of Herman Wouk's classic novel and play that had two filmed versions before: Edward Dmytryk's in 1954 which presents the whole action on board of vessel Caine and later on the trial; and Robert Altman's version in 1988, of which this film owes it a lot since they just cover the trial. All great films on their own; if compared with each other the criticism can affect the experience, of which I won't do all that much because others already did that, and one must think about the audience who haven't seen those other films and might want to see this new take and they must see it.

It'll be a mystery as to why Mr. Friedkin wanted to retell this classic ethical battle of a lieutenant (Jake Lacy) on trial for mutiny after relieving his commanding officer (Kiefer Sutherland) after considering that the man was out of his right mind as a typhoon approached their ship.

And most important, why updating it - the original story takes place during WWII and it makes more sense there than in a context of peace times of 2022.

Anyway, he had his reasons and there's also the factor of attracting new audiences to a highly important story so you have to make things a little flexible. It works in a way because the material is strong enough while addressing topics such as ethics, moral, the judgments on people and their actions in stressful difficult times and also how fallible and frail the men of force can be. It's never a high criticism on the institution (the Navy, here) but of the people in charge. And it also deals with the value of discipline and how the power of questioning authority can be used and enforced when one has a total understanding of discipline.

Friedkin's "The Caine..." is thrilling, with many edge of the seat moments and you never feel distracted or out of the story. It's quite fast-paced despite it's claustrophobic settings and wordy dialogues. I didn't agree with some of his choices, at times things make some abrupt transitions unlike Altman's patient work that gives you some time to breathe in between the cross-examinations of the witnesses. Small criticism, almost pointless.

And as usual, the director extracted great performances from his cast, being the highlights coming from Jason Clarke as the defendant's lawyer, and Kiefer Sutherland as Commander Queeg, a role previously played by Humphrey Bogart (Oscar nominated performance) and Brad Davis. Unlike the other two performers, as great as they were, his take on the delusional captain made the character more challenging for audiences to find out if he's really insane or not whereas with the other two I always knew what went on because it's a role that can easily go to an over-the-top direction. With Kiefer I had to give him the benefit of the doubt and sort of erase my memories of the previous films.

My take is based solely on the film alone and that kind of view must come sometimes, without judging a career as a whole or what came before with the same material. It's a highly commendable work by a master storyteller, it certainly has a great deal of importance with the themes worked and I had a great time with it. For a final film, it was really impressive and knowing that very few directors can pull it off with an outstanding final work, the man did it. Au revoir, Mr. Friedkin. 10/10.

Without revealing spoilers (the ending spoils things quite well enough all on its own), let's just say you'd be much better off reading the 1954 novel "The Caine Mutiny" instead...

This film adaptation attempts to modernize the book's story, which was originally set in WWII era, Pacific Theater, whereas the film is current time, Middle Eastern seas. The modernization itself wasn't really the problem per se, but it definitely didn't help that some of the events differed too much to properly illustrate the characters' mental states and reasonings behind their actions/behaviors.

The main problem with the adaptation arises from the fact that it only covers the court martial trial, cutting out huge chunks of the story both before and after the trial in the book...

This robs the film of the contextual explanations necessary to fully make sense of the ending; which, in the novel, are revealed by the cut story sections, as the reader is led to compare and contrast the different events that occur for the key characters (Queeg, Keefer, Maryk, etc).

Without the rest of the book's story, the conclusions drawn by and the actions of defense attorney Greenwald (in the film's ending) seem way out of line with what appears to have been the truth, as is revealed to viewers during the film version's trial-only storyline.

The result, in my opinion, is an ending that feels confused and disjointed; and ultimately stains an otherwise great courtroom procedural drama...

I liked this movie, not as much as the 1950's version starring Humphrey Bogart or the original Herman Wouk novel, but I liked it.

Yes, this version is brought forward out of the WWII genre to 'present day', and yes, that pulls a little wind out of its sails, but it is also more 'iffy' on the occurrences and situations which means the viewer has more responsibility or chance to agree or disagree with what happened, i.e., was it a mutiny or a lawful act?

In the original movie, Bogart was shown to be pretty much off his rocker or at least sliding down the slope to being unhinged, but Kiefer Sutherland in this movie does not show much of that behavior which is why I say the viewer is left with the decision.

Yes, the ending could have been lengthened and strengthened a bit to really let the viewer know, but then again, here we have a Captain that does some outlandish things but was that enough to justify a mutiny? You have to really decide the verdict.

The actors were all pretty good in the film, Maryk was good as a po'd "I was right" type guy (that really fits in with the way people are these days), Queeg was more "I been doing my job for 20 years and have never had a complaint and by goodness I am the captain and I am the one who decides what goes on in my ship, this ain't no democracy", Greenwald was a bit sleazy or at least took that approach to a difficult case, the prosecutor was one of those "you violated the code of conduct and by goodness you are going to pay for it" zealots which was perhaps a bit too strong, the ordinary seaman was actually pretty sublime by showing how nervous he was, and the Chief Judge was very strong in his portrayal.

Some people may have problems with the way The Navy is portrayed in this film in that they don't understand that as the captain of a US Navy vessel, one is completely and ultimately responsible for every little thing that happens on or to that boat, good or bad, and that as a result, discipline, rank, and orders must be maintained otherwise the captain effectively becomes meaningless and we're at "who votes for sailing to Italy for some spaghetti and who votes for cruising to Greece for some souvlakia?"...

In well-cast Naval court-room drama "The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial" Executive Officer Jake Lacy is accused of a mutiny against overbearing (and unhinged?) Captain Kiefer Sutherland. Set almost entirely in the court-room Lacy is defended by Jason Clarke (terrific) & prosecuted by Monica Raymund, all before judge Lance Reddick (and his unspeaking peers) with summoned witnesses like Jay Duplass. Despite the stark unchanging setting, tv-standard production qualities, & some dodgy support performances, veteran writer / director William Freidkin summons some decent buzz & tension... though this will def'ly go down as a poor man's "A Few Good Men".

The original novel and movie took place during WWII. The play now takes place during the Gulf War, but it doesn't lend itself to modernization. Kiefer Sutherland does a credible job as Captain Queeg, but lacks the depth that Humphrey Bogart gave to the character in the original movie. Jake Lacy, however is a bit shallow in his characterization of Lt. Maryk. I liked the acting by Jason Clarke as Barney Greenwald, but the gray hair on a fairly young Navy Lieutenant was a bit too much. I also thought Monica Raymond's portrayal of the JAG prosecutor was over the top. Yes, prosecutors have to be zealous in their duties, but...

Quartermaster 3rd Class Urban's character was clearly miscast. First, while it's not unusual for a 20-year-old to be an E-4, it would be virtually impossible for a sailor of his age to have been in the Navy for four years.

Now, to the makeup of the officers on the board. As far as I can remember, flag officers do not serve on courts martial boards for decidedly junior officers. Dale Dye's portrayal of an "Admiral Dewey" was not only farcical, but his uniform decorations were way over the top. There were also several incidents where Navy uniforms were not worn properly, although I can imagine that the short shooting schedule was a major cause of continuity errors.

Navy courts martial don't have Chief/Senior Chief Petty Officers as court MP's. Those duties are handled by U. S. Marines, especially at larger Naval facilities.

In all, the entire play would have been much better had more time been taken to "get it right".