In the dying days of the Raj, a tribal leader struggles for freedom against the Imperial Indian Police forces. The man charged with the task of apprehending the rebels sees things differently from his superiors, who wish to use the blunt instrument of force alone to suppress the insurgents.
Ken Annakin knew how to make a good movie and here he had the undoubted talents of Yul Brynner, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews, Charlotte Rampling, and Edward Fox to hand, amongst others. Behind the camera Oscar-winner Jack Hildyard was DoP.
Given the cast and crew, one would expect a movie that looks great and holds your attention. Those with short attention spans may disagree, but I think they did that, and (in a recently broadcast version which appears to have been restored) this movie still looks stunning. The problem perhaps is that the script is not quite up to the same standard as the rest of the film, or that it superficially resembles something else.
Superintendent Harry Andrews is well-cast as the blunt instrument of Imperial Power, leading a force that look more like regular soldiers than policemen. Yul Brynner does a competent job too.
However Trevor Howard looks somewhat out of place, and unrealistic as love interest for Charlotte Rampling. But to my mind, both these things are quite deliberate; Rampling's character is attracted to Howard's personality, which contrasts with that of her father and (presumably) the others in the police force; of those that inhabit her insular world, she is drawn to him because of this, and despite the obvious age gap.
Howard's character looks out of place and it is meant to; not everyone could the job that is asked of him. His humanity and compassion underlie the dilemma he faces, the conflict within, between his idealism and his sense of duty. I thought this a very good performance from Howard; he spends much of the film looking both world-weary and internally riven.
Some aspects of this film are well-founded in fact; very many administrators in the days of the Raj loved the country and the people, yet felt deeply conflicted in the course of their duties. For example Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell) served in the Imperial Indian Police force in the 1920s, reaching the rank of Assistant District Superintendent in Burma.
He said that, on the one hand, seeing "the dirty work of Empire at close quarters" (which included being hated by much of the local populace) had affected his outlook on almost every aspect of his life; on the other hand he also wrote that "I loved Burma and the Burman and have no regrets that I spent the best years of my life in the Burma police.".
This film is not meant to have a happy ending, any more than 'Bridge on the River Kwai' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' (both also psychological studies of the lead character) are meant to. Those that might naively suppose that a younger man could have played Howard's role and then swanned off into the sunset with Rampling or something are completely missing the point. In what may be an allegory of Indian independence itself, no-one involved comes out of it very well; all that remains is a little hope for the future, as symbolised by Sultan's son.
Ken Annakin knew how to make a good movie and here he had the undoubted talents of Yul Brynner, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews, Charlotte Rampling, and Edward Fox to hand, amongst others. Behind the camera Oscar-winner Jack Hildyard was DoP.
Given the cast and crew, one would expect a movie that looks great and holds your attention. Those with short attention spans may disagree, but I think they did that, and (in a recently broadcast version which appears to have been restored) this movie still looks stunning. The problem perhaps is that the script is not quite up to the same standard as the rest of the film, or that it superficially resembles something else.
Superintendent Harry Andrews is well-cast as the blunt instrument of Imperial Power, leading a force that look more like regular soldiers than policemen. Yul Brynner does a competent job too.
However Trevor Howard looks somewhat out of place, and unrealistic as love interest for Charlotte Rampling. But to my mind, both these things are quite deliberate; Rampling's character is attracted to Howard's personality, which contrasts with that of her father and (presumably) the others in the police force; of those that inhabit her insular world, she is drawn to him because of this, and despite the obvious age gap.
Howard's character looks out of place and it is meant to; not everyone could the job that is asked of him. His humanity and compassion underlie the dilemma he faces, the conflict within, between his idealism and his sense of duty. I thought this a very good performance from Howard; he spends much of the film looking both world-weary and internally riven.
Some aspects of this film are well-founded in fact; very many administrators in the days of the Raj loved the country and the people, yet felt deeply conflicted in the course of their duties. For example Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell) served in the Imperial Indian Police force in the 1920s, reaching the rank of Assistant District Superintendent in Burma.
He said that, on the one hand, seeing "the dirty work of Empire at close quarters" (which included being hated by much of the local populace) had affected his outlook on almost every aspect of his life; on the other hand he also wrote that "I loved Burma and the Burman and have no regrets that I spent the best years of my life in the Burma police.".
This film is not meant to have a happy ending, any more than 'Bridge on the River Kwai' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' (both also psychological studies of the lead character) are meant to. Those that might naively suppose that a younger man could have played Howard's role and then swanned off into the sunset with Rampling or something are completely missing the point. In what may be an allegory of Indian independence itself, no-one involved comes out of it very well; all that remains is a little hope for the future, as symbolised by Sultan's son.