Skip to content
The Four Feathers – 1939 Z. Korda
- Sadly it’s an overlooked and underrated film (not in the TSPDT top 1000 and it should be)
- A very British film
- Described accurately as a “ripping good yarn”. Solid adventure film
- Notable for the early use (any time we’re in the 30’s it’s early) of technicolor
- Best of the 3 versions of the film- the latest starred Heath Ledger and Wes Bentley
- A meditation on bravery and cowardice
- The red coast of the British troops absolutely pop here in technicolor
- More serious than Gunga din
- The two standouts in the cast here are Aubrey Smith (great shot of him waiving his son off to war with pride) who is a great storyteller and perfectly cast and Ralph Richardson. There’s a great scene of a blind Richardson touching the flame—he’s given the best role and knocks it out
- Notable for the scope- lots of extras—and location- shot on location in the Sudan
- The film really expands in these scenes – lots of long shots
- There is a long gorgeous river scene where Henry slips into the country
- A very large real rock mountain set piece is a highlight
- I see gunga din, but I also see the revenant as well (survival on your own) and a bit of Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia (extras and some long shot staging—I see it in Kurosawa’s Ran as well)—aerial filmmaking
- It’s a rousing call to your brother’s aid here in 1939 WW2
- The film is serious in tone throughout and there’s an unfortunate choice here by Korda to end the film with comedy (Henry spoiling the 3rd retelling of an old war story told by Aubrey Smith)
- HR- top 10 quality film
Drake2021-02-08T19:42:34-05:00
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
This is a great review on the 1939 The Four Feathers
https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2013-the-four-feathers-breaking-the-british-square
Like I said there is a ton of duality going on here between the two leads. Richardson at the beginning is confident, charismatic and full of life. He chooses the army life. Because it’s regarded as the right thing to do. While at the end he is relegated to waste away his life without any glory and also forced to read poetry and Shakespeare (no coincidence). While Clements at the beginning is reserved. He wants to read poetry, manage and develop his estate and basically advance the development of his country rather than relishing in fake glories and victories. But joins the army because of family obligations. He decides to quit after his father dies. But is branded a coward. Because he chose the life that is not regarded as the right thing to do. He takes initiative and goes on a quest to regain his honor. He does this by not joining the army again but by travelling in disguise. And proving himself to his friends and family. And ultimately it is he who chose the hard way trying to manage and develop his estate, develop his country is the one who ends up happy with the girl. While Richardson who chose the fake glory of the victories of the military is forced to live out the rest of his life in the dark.
This is basically a hidden message by the writer of the book/screenplay here for the British people to see through the fake glories of military victories and see its tragic side while encouraging them to embrace and contribute to the development of their country at the homefront. Outside of the depiction of the Mahdi/Senegalese army, this is a super intelligent film with a lot of subtext. It’s also very in line with the film that the C. Aubrey Smith character gets exposed of his fake heroics in his military days at the end. This film is made with anti-war subtext beneath it. And also not afraid to show the slave trade employed by the British military. Especially through that mind blowing sequence. This is a great character study/ies shown through an epic war backdrop. Both Clements and Richardson can carry a scene superbly. Actors with extreme confidence in what they are doing. Not only that but their physical acting and transformation here is incredible as well. It’s a highly memorable image of these two just surviving in the desert. One playing a mute and one playing a deaf. Especially Clements and the way he completely drops his shoulders and gets rid of all the elegant postures.
Plus Richardson literally gets blinded by war
It is also a film about growth for both characters. Gaining the qualities the other one had. Clements gains the qualities Richardson’s character had like confidence, wittiness, discipline, and physical courage. While the Richardson character is forced to gain the qualities the Clements character had like vision, education, and reflection. This is a Grade A example of disappearing into characters by the two exemplary British actors. You don’t see the actors. You see the characters. The conflict pass on from the Clements character to the Richardson character as well. Duality there as well. This is exemplified in the scenes at home. I like talking about this film. It is a very deep piece of work. That is given the complex treatment it deserves by the cast and crew. A ton of things to unpack here. One thing I noticed during my second viewing of this film is how long some of the takes are. There is only one cut in the scene between Clements and the doctor when he breaks down his mind. Ditto for the final scene of Richardson reading the letter. My earlier comment about having actors who can carry a scene so well come to the fore here. The same goes for C. Aubrey Smith in his few scenes here. The filmmakers are very precise and thorough in their execution of scenes and making the highest art possible and not concerned about just satisfying the audience by quick pacing. They want to educate as much as entertain the audience.
C. Aubrey Smith was a former professional cricketer who used to play for the England National team before becoming an actor.
Okay
There is a bit of a hammy theatricalness to the acting of Ralph Richardson in this film. He is a loud actor in general. A big personality. He is however truly great in his final scene. There is a ton going on in the John Clements performance here as well. The physical transformation is amazing. He is so rigid, the posture, the good manners, clean look in the earlier scenes at the Palace. Then in the Sudanese scenes his body drops, the head shake, the dirty look. It’s a wild and polar opposite physical transformation. The main thing I love about his performance here is the conviction he brings to all the words he speaks. Clements is an actor who is unafraid to come off cold and distant in front of the screen. Playing conflicted characters. This is the case with the working class angry man he plays in They Came to a City as well. He is fully in on the character arc. This is a man with his own unshakable viewpoint. The determination and clear mind he brings in the prison scenes. It’s the opposite of a bland lead performance. Everything is so convincing and I was unsure at one point if his character had truly gone mute. Given he didn’t even talk for a very long time period. I also love the little tic of his character being the one to put the fourth feather on the desk and not his female companion. Because he is pained by the action of his friends and the disappointment in his female companion, father-in-law. It’s a fascinating character study on an epic scale.
I actually do like the ending of this film. This film is British War Propaganda. But the focus of the film is not on that. That’s why I think it’s brilliant. From a character standpoint, the main character is constantly accused of cowardice (he isn’t a coward, just his interest is not in military) from childhood onwards. This type of familial obligation/duty towards your parent/s is a big feature of something like Fingers as well. Harry Faversham here goes to Sudan to regain his honor which he never had really. So after his act of bravery he can be charismatic. It’s an extremely well written conflicted character with a purpose until the end. When his conflict is basically over. Yes. This is spoiling the movie. But I wanted to clarify that. And I think bleak endings are not essential for a top level film. Also another shoutout to the the riverside ship pulling scene with the escape from the Sangali clan. That is probably the best scene/sequence I have ever witnessed in a film.
This film is also wrongly misinterpreted as being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography – it was not. Somehow this wrong misinterpretation even made it into the description of the film in its Criterion release. It only made it into a preliminary list but was not nominated.
This is an incredible film. It’s in many ways the opposite of Khartoum. The Four Feathers is more far-fetched, theatrical while Khartoum is more realistic, grounded. A big theme of Khartoum is the poor execution/saving face of the British government. As well as depicting the opposite side (The Mahdi army) as being led by an intelligent man who fully beliefs what he is doing. Blackface or not this film doesn’t work at all without Laurence Olivier’s great performance. The Four Feathers doesn’t do this and is more patriotic and forgiving towards what the British government is doing. While the Mahdi army is depicted as kind of faceless scavengers with no method. What The Four Feathers truly succeeds in is as a character driven film with two outstanding British actors John Clements and Ralph Richardson. A ton of duality going on here between the two. There was a different kind of duality in Khartoum as well with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. The film depicts them as equals. While in The Four Feathers John Clements and Ralph Richardson are polar opposites. They both go through character arcs. And kind of ends up in the same place the other one was at the beginning. This film is more gritty and a true physical challenge for both actors while Khartoum is focused on the upper hierarchy of this same war against the Sudanese Mahdi army. The Four Feathers is set 10-13 years later. Long epic shots galore in both films. Vast, wide landscapes. Both films also use dissolves as a frequent editing transition tool. Which is a perfect choice. There are some absolute transcendent scenes in both films. It’s the “Arrival in Khartoum” in Khartoum and the “Escape scene from the Sengali clan” here in The Four Feathers. Truly brilliant. Unbelievable number of extras, sumptuous battle scenes using practical effects in both films. Truly epic.
I’d like to see longer versions of both Khartoum and The Four Feathers. The films take over for a long period. And this passing of time sometimes feel rushed. It’s only a small nitpick though. Probably there is more detail in the Four Feathers novel.
The John Clements character in this film is often misinterpreted as a coward who is controlled by others. He isn’t. He is a noble man who wants to to be educated, manage his estate and care for his wife but was forced into military duty due to family tradition and is basically surrounded by military friends, gatherings of his father from childhood onwards. And was married into military as well. But the key here is the character has his own viewpoint and beliefs and stands by it. It’s a fascinating role. It’s a role that would easily fade into the background if it is misinterpreted as a coward or in the hands of a weak actor. He makes the key decision because he is hurt by the action of his friends and disappointment in his wife, father-in-law regarding his decision to withdraw from the military. It’s a very physical role as well. Clements is a very meticulous actor. Who is fully into the character transformation here. He isn’t afraid to come off cold when needed. Which must be an inspiration to someone like Dirk Bogarde who often did the same thing. Bogarde often leans into the camp side with a smirk when he does cold. Which is more enjoyable. This character Harry Faversham isn’t someone like that. It’s a classic case of an actor fulfilling the requirements of the role rather than changing the role to suit his style of acting. Clements often did that. A real actor’s actor. He has played other more enjoyable roles when needed as well. Like in Train of Events (where he plays a womanizing playboy composer) and They Came to a City (which is a completely against type role playing a working class angry man). This leans into the earlier Bogarde style cold leaning into camp I mentioned.
Wow. The escape scene from the Sangali clan by the John Clements’ character in The Four Feathers is just incredible filmmaking. The eerie song fills the atmosphere.
This film/story is another film about honor concerning soldiers like Ridley Scott’s The Duellists. But without the black comedic undertone of the latter film.
This film is set 10 years after the events at Khartoum. The great Ralph Richardson has prominent roles in both but plays different roles.
[…] The Four Feathers– Korda […]