The Man Who Would be King (1975)
Stepping into CUE 318 for our extra credit movie I know we
all were thinking ‘ah crap another weird old movie we have to watch for
English’. But then the names Sean Connery and Michael Caine come into play and
we all know this is going to be one kick ass movie. At first I couldn’t stop
thinking about how bloody young Michael Caine looked and how much he is one of
my favorite actors, with Sean Connery coming in at a close second. When
considering the cinematography, the movie includes quite a high amount of white
and light coloring; from outfits to walls and scenery. The lightness of the
colors could easily represent the light colors of India, which is where the movie is set.
The matching white suits that Michael and Sean wear in the beginning of the
film seem to make them even more of a duo, as well as their interactions with
one another. The two seem to have a brotherly bond that keeps them going
throughout their journey to India.
One scene I did not understand though was when the two
characters were hidden on the side of a hill, shooting at a tribe of people,
women and children included, who were enjoying their own festivities below.
Leading up to the scene, there seemed to be no pre-cursor to this massacre and
it came off completely unnecessary. After killing several people, the two walk
up to the village and are strangely accepted. They are accepted into the
community and there they teach them to fight and during this time, the people
of the village come to the conclusion that the two men are ‘Gods’ and are
worshiped as such. When they are summoned to the high priest, the white motif
is used again with the light clothing of the priest and the other monks that
are included in the scene. These
religious figures plan to kill Daniel until they see his Mason's pendant around
his neck. After this he is crowned.
There are many elements that confuse me about this story and
the movie. First of all is the idea that the village in which they attacked
accepted the two killers as their own. Why would they accept two men into their
territory who just slaughtered many of their own men? Not only did they accept
them into the community, they gave them essentially a position of power and put
them at the head of their army. Secondly, the high priest plans to kill Daniel
until his pendant is shown; it is after this that he is crowned, but why? After this instance, it becomes
apparent that Daniel and Peachy's relationship begins to waiver, and it becomes
obvious that Daniel begins to believe he is high and superior and that he is
indeed a God. Daniel is giving orders and Peachy is simply sitting behind him
listening. Daniel comes to the conclusion that he is King and Peachy is merely
a subject. Overall, Daniel is completely overcome by his newfound authority and
is consumed.
In the end, Daniel is made a fool when he is discovered to be
human rather than a god and is sent to his death. Peachy is crucified but
escapes and returns the head of Daniel to the journalist.
Overall I enjoyed the film very much. I mean come on, Michael
Caine and Sean Connery? And how about Sean Connery’s mustache!
I'm not sure if I am right or not but what I was thinking was going on during that seen was that they were killing enemy soldier; I thought the men they were shooting were attacking the women and children. I also felt really sorry for Peachy because he was the one wanted to leave while they still could yet in the end he almost seemed to get the worse fate of the two. You're right thought, it was a good movie!
ReplyDeleteKara's right. Danny and Peachey see some peaceful women and children washing clothes and then see attackers in masks. They assume (correctly) that if they kill the attackers they'll be greeted as heroes by the town on the hill, since it's logical to assume that the women and children live in the town. The Masonic emblem is important because it confirms for the priests that Danny is the son of "Sekundar" or Alexander the Great, who said many centuries before that he would send his son back there. And yes, that was a serious mustache!
ReplyDeleteLauren: I’m going to try and answer some of your questions. Even though Kara and Dr. Campbell already answered two of them, I’ll see if I can expand on their answers. First of all, about Daniel and Peachey are accepted by a town they just massacred not only because they correctly assumed acts of others, but also because of their weaponry. I’m not sure about you, but if someone came into my home with a gun after killing people outside my home, I would listen to them. Glorification of the two comes from killing the town’s enemies. You point out that Daniel and Peachey “…seem to have a brotherly bond that keeps them going throughout their journey to India.” Why do you think this brotherly bond is important in the movie/context of the poem?
ReplyDeleteOn a completely different note, I enjoyed your film analysis approach in that you provided a unique explanation for motifs throughout the film.
Lauren: I really enjoyed your interpretation of the movie we watched for extra credit. I also found a lot of the things confusing, but I think the movie followed the text very closely. If you closely analyze the text, I think you can find a lot of the answers to your questions.
ReplyDelete