...it is a misguided venture in desperate need of a clear purpose.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
"The Four Feathers", the oft-adapted (at least seven times!) novel by A.E.W. Mason probably praised British imperialism and lamented the end of the same. Curiously, the 2002 film version, directed by Shekhar Kapur ("Elizabeth") does the same things, despite the fact that it was directed by an Indian (India was once subjected to British rule) and despite the fact that British imperialism is now considered one of the worst instances of European colonialism. The movie never really seems to find its own voice, and conflicting messages make it seem as if the story is about nothing rather than about a lot of things. Perhaps the review in "The New York Times" said it best, describing "The Four Feathers" as "half-hearted about ambivalence". Sure, the director wants us to see that it´s better to be ruled by your own despots rather than by outsiders, but when British officers are given the best speeches in a film, you´re also told that being conquered isn´t always that bad.
On the eve of war in Sudan, Harry Feversham (Heath Ledger) resigns his commission in the British army. There are many reasons why Harry may have chosen for leaving military service, including his wedding engagement with Ethne (Kate Hudson), cowardice, being a conscientious objector, not wanting to be a soldier in the first place, etc. However, the film never makes it clear why Harry goes his own way. There are times when the script seems to indicate that Harry is a coward, but there are also times when it seems to indicate that he´s brave in his own way. So which is it--is Harry a coward or not???
Harry´s resignation from the army compels three former colleagues to send him three feathers, a sign of their disdain for his cowardice. Since the script refuses to let Harry know why he left the army, he can´t quite find the words necessary to explain to his fiancée why he doesn´t want to fight. Therefore, Ethne also gives him a feather. Harry´s own father, a great general, disowns him. The only one who keeps silent about Harry´s situation is Jack (Wes Bentley).
At any rate, Harry decides to go to Sudan in order to disguise himself as a native and to keep an eye on his friends. When his friends come close to being killed, he sweeps them to safety with the help of Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou), an African native who appears out of nowhere and decides to help Harry because the screenwriters told him to help Harry. There´s also a love triangle involving Harry, Ethne, and Jack, and there´s also a lot of talk about helping the man standing next to you, even if he´s in Africa in the name of oppressing people so that his queen can wear a big diamond on her head that was dug up by the enslaved working in stifling mines.
The actors and the characters that they play are two of the film´s three biggest problems. Kate Hudson, who looks like a flower child, doesn´t look or sound like a lady of the British Empire during the 19th Century. Wes Bentley does a fine acting job, but his British accent comes and goes. Djimon Hounsou has to play a character who helps Harry for no discernible reason, so Hounsou can´t do much but appear "dignified" (i.e. act as if a stick has been shoved up his rear). Then again, all of the characters, even the main one, have been underwritten.
...which leads us to the third big problem with the production - its lack of a clear sense of purpose. Is the movie for or against colonialism and British imperialism? Is Harry a coward or not? Isn´t Abou Fatma "selling out" because he helps a white man save white soldiers to live another day to oppress more Africans? The film and its makers don´t have a clue, so the audience doesn´t know what to think, either.
Video:
The vibrant cinematography on display is the best thing about the movie, and the DVD does justice to the 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen video transfer. Rich hues, from the red of the British uniforms to the yellow of the desert sands, will tickle your eyes´ fancy. Deep blacks and great shadow detail give the video a sense of depth, and the source print is basically clear of any debris. However, I think that the video is also a little too sharp, so watching the movie on DVD doesn´t feel quite right, as if the frames had been juiced with steroided pixels.
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]10768[/release]