Lord Jim (1965)

Three years after Lawrence of Arabia, the largely impressive Lord Jim (1965) finds Peter O'Toole again essaying a self-doubting but remarkable, white Englishman who leads a foreign people against their oppressor. Based on the Joseph Conrad novel, Lord Jim is the story of a British maritime officer, Jim (O'Toole), who takes a brief post on a tramp steamer and flees in terror during a storm at sea. Dogged by a reputation for cowardice, Jim attempts to reinvent himself in his own eyes, commanding an attack against a feudal warlord (Eli Wallach) in a distant, Southeast Asian village and basking in god-like glory afterward. A sinister plot by a gentleman pirate (James Mason) sets the stage for Jim's confrontation with his true destiny. Simplified and adapted by writer-director Richard Brooks (In Cold Blood), Lord Jim sometimes feels rushed and obvious, but O'Toole's golden performance and legendary cinematographer Freddie Young's 70mm footage are outstanding. --Tom Keogh Amazon.com essential video

An old friend

It was nice to watch this film again, an old friend from my teen years. Fans of the novel know the story so I won't repeat it here. The film is true to the book for the most part, with an altered ending that brings comprehendable closure. Brooks' screenplay allows Jim redemption and purification through death, suitably in the Malay ritual of his adopted people, a nice touch. I also took as a compliment to the story the stereotyped portrayal of the Malays, as a sort-of wallpaper for the European characters. This captures the essence of Conrad and it was refreshing to see this in this 1965 pre-PC film. I hate to think how a modern director would present this story; no doubt it would be transformed into "Apocalypto" or "Dances With Wolves", white-man-bad-brown-man-good. Very un-Conrad. I was struck by the similarities in music, set and overall feel to the Kurtz native army scenes from "Apocalypse Now", another Conrad-based story that obviously inspired Coppolla. Overall, a 4-star film with beautiful photography, a good pace and well-developed characters. A minor minus for me are O'Toole's effeminate mannerisms which I could accept in "Lawrence", true to the alleged sexual orientation of that character. Here, they're simply annoying.
April 9, 2008

Much better than I expected

I wouldn't have chosen this for myself, but a friend loaned it to me because the setting is Thailand, which is where we live. It's based on the novel by Joseph Conrad. Of all the authors I read in high school, I always considered him the most boring.

I haven't read this novel, however. And since it's a movie, and in Technicolor at that, why not start watching? There's no law saying I have to finish.

What we quickly learn is that Peter O'Toole, eyes so blue, is a hero wanting an adventure, Lord Jim who waits for something to happen. So he joins the merchant marine in search of adventure, holding himself above the anonymous human wreckage.

Idealism is contrasted with reality, using dry subtle wit. I love that.

Perhaps, in hindsight, that high school class made us read as much as possible in order to destroy my love of reading. If so, it failed. Or perhaps, since the movie stayed so true to the novel, this is one of those rare cases of a novelist whose work is better as a film.

The themes aren't happy here. Fear, hatred, honor, racism, trust. Until Lord Jim no longer wanted to dream at all, but only to forget. And then he moves beyond that, although it never ceases to haunt him. Lots of quotable nuggets of macho philosophy. It's a very male movie. How male? There's only one female in it, and she's billed in the credits as "The Girl." But fear not, she remains chaste AND does a hero turn.

We see all the people that Lord Jim meets and affects as he does, through the eyes of an outsider. This gives us a realism that Conrad probably felt was missing from adventure novels. Also, when faced with the unknown, it's easier to invent racial stereotypes. They belong in the context of this book/movie, but they also fed into Hollywood's "look at those crazy Asians" mentality. And hey, we can even view other westerners through the lens of the stereotype. Racism, sexism, ageism, alcoholism.

In the end, a very watchable movie, one that you can enjoy and think about, with a good old fashioned good vs evil war worthy of Rambo, minus the blood, and scenery that matches what I see when I look out my very own windows. I'm happy.

But wait! There's more!

I do enjoy a charismatic villain with screen presence. When our hero kills him off, and Conrad moves into one of the most ham-handed attempts at romance I've ever seen, the movie was only halfway over. Prequel and sequel packaged into one, with yet another charismatic villain, for 155 minutes of fun, with a good twisty plot to keep you alert.
November 8, 2007

Same class as Mutiny on the Bounty

As a child I was quite fascinated by this movie. It had all the ingredients to make it an excellent movie where one uses imagination. Made an impression on me as a boy and after seeing it again it is still enjoyable. They do not make movies like this any more. Those in the same ganre are based on special effects, this one (like Mutiny on the Bounty) are based on good story line. Gripping stuff. Highly recommended. January 10, 2007

lord jim

How thin the line between cowardice and honor? I think this DVD does a very good job of examining that question. A story of personal failure and the measure this one man was willing give to be able to feel his life had meaning and to find redemtion. What is your honor worth? I enjoy this movie each time I see it because it makes me ask some very tough questions. November 14, 2006

In Defence of Conrad

I saw this film, but didn't watch it; I was too busy marking the wild and incomprehensible mangling of the book's ideas and characters.
I should've been clued in to the direction the movie was taking when Brooks displays Jim's romanticism early on by showing the equivalent of a cinematic thought balloon: O'Toole grinning idiotically as a scene of him rescuing some shipwrecked vixen on a raft plays in the background.

Conrad's robust existentialism is probably impossible to convey in film, and the disclaimer, "Apapted From", while caveat enough, perhaps to some, should've read "Title Borrowed From"
since therein lies the only similarity. After the inquest scene the movie, already clumbsy, is a free and badly written improvisation. Think of an adaptation of 'Moby Dick' showing Ahab having a shoot-out with pirates in a saloon and then getting the girl. If the novel's ideas are like fully formed sentences, they are presented here as inarticulate half-words.

I know, the never was a movie made from a book that will please.
But this movie was not made from Conrad's novel, which really needs no defence as it, even with all its flaws, stands unassailable above this quotidian slander. So do yourself a favor and either don't read the book or don't watch the movie.
Apologies to Mr. Brooks, but this wasn't one of his better moments. September 3, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...