"Master and Commander" Review
Master and Command: The Far Side of the World is not only based on a book, it's based on a series of twenty books, so to folks who've read the entire set (I did, too) there's probably an even higher level of expectation than the usual adaptation. While I found it enjoyable to watch, and will watch it again, it isn't a very good movie because it doesn't tell a very good story. Usually a fatal flaw, every now and then a film can be so visually appealing or so unusually original that the viewer can be entranced in spite of themselves.
The books are based in large part on the dynamic relationship between the two very different main characters, Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey and his friend, surgeon, naturalist and spy, Dr. Stephen Maturin. Unfortunately, the movie had no idea how to deal with anything approaching as subtle as friendship and rapport and their casting and characterization of Paul Bettany is perhaps the greatest offense to lovers of the books.
Now anyone expecting a faithful motion picture version of any books is a cuckoo who should save his Thin Mint money and re-read the book(s). It is fair, though, to expect either a direct correlation in some number of major points or else a complete reworking of the book into something wholly new. In the latter case, it's best if the fimmakers change the names of the characters, and anything else they can, so that the ready made fan of the book (whom they're trying to entice into seeing the movie) won't feel so blatanty abused. Either deliver the essence of the book(s) or something new, but don't mangle and transmogrify the core of those things that make the book(s) so justly popular.
Which is what they did in the movie with the annoying, whiny character of Maturin. In the movie he and Aubrey profess to be friends yet every scene of moment is a grating clash with no basis of the friendship ever made evident. And since he's not a spy in the movie version, he doesn't serve a purpose in the film other than an annoying foil whose illogical presence serves as more of a distraction to the action of the film than anything else. When he's shot in the hip I couldn't help but wish the bullet struck higher up and a bit more in the center. His character does not belong in this version of the Aubrey/Maturin saga.
Russell Crowe as Captain Aubrey was, I thought, brilliant as usual. Crowe may have issues with telephones and desk clerks but he is every bit as charsimatic and captivating as the character of Aubrey in the Patrick O'Brian books. Along with the shots of life on the ship, the HMS Surprise, Crowe's performance keeps the viewer engaged in the movie, at least long enough to realize that you really don't mind that you're not seeing any real plot unfold before you.
Ostensibly the crew of Surprise is under orders to pursue and sink or take a French ship, the Acheron, before she can join Napolean's war effort and cause havoc to the British. You never feel this in the movie, however. There are a few scenes here and there where some of the characters tell some of the other characters what's going on. Without this exposition we the viewer would be clueless. There's no unfolding plot to propel us through the vision of the film. What we're offered instead are sets of confusing battle scenes where one ship fires (which one?) and the other suffers the damage (which one?); we don't know who's winning, how the battle's going, who's suffering, or anything until after it's over. It takes further exposition between the characters to let us know the Surprise's cannons could do no damage to the Achernar's hull. Huh, is that so? You couldn't tell from watching the movie.
The film was written and directed by Australian Peter Weir so both the bungling with Maturin's character and the lack of plot or driving story can probably be laid at his feet. The lack of clarity in the battle scenes may lie with him, the editing, or perhaps some notion of an attempt to show the confusion of battle as just that. I'd buy the latter for the fighting that takes place on the Achernar herself but not the shoot unidentified cannons show unidentified decking splintering and sailors torn apart.
But for all its faults as a vehicle of story the movie itself is eminently watchable. Crowe is Aubrey event though for this voyage he should have sailed without any thought of the distraction of Maturin. Show me some urgency in the war and the motivation of the nemesis ship Achernar, show me Aubrey's response and how he uses his unique talents, force of will, and ability to lead his men into an unlikely triumph. That's the kind of story that made Luck Jack lucky, and that I'd like to see. This movie is a pleasant distraction, like the theater snacks in the lobby, but its misfires are too great to be anything more, which is a pity. There is great material here.
Unfortunately this is simply a one dimensional, one sided depiction of a two sided conflict. This is the Captain Jack show fighting against a ghostly enemy mostly unseen, and it's too unbalanced to stand alone. The books work because of the complex relationship and companionship of a man wholly different yet completely complementary to himself, the character of Doctor Maturin. This is the main failure of the movie.
For more consistent Napolean era nautical adventures, check out A & E's Hornblower series with Ioan Gruffudd; they're every bit as gorgeous to look at and they tell their stories in a much better way. They should be must-sees for fans of Patrick O'Brian's as well as C. S. Forester's anyway, much as readers of one series shouldn't miss the other.
The books are based in large part on the dynamic relationship between the two very different main characters, Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey and his friend, surgeon, naturalist and spy, Dr. Stephen Maturin. Unfortunately, the movie had no idea how to deal with anything approaching as subtle as friendship and rapport and their casting and characterization of Paul Bettany is perhaps the greatest offense to lovers of the books.
Now anyone expecting a faithful motion picture version of any books is a cuckoo who should save his Thin Mint money and re-read the book(s). It is fair, though, to expect either a direct correlation in some number of major points or else a complete reworking of the book into something wholly new. In the latter case, it's best if the fimmakers change the names of the characters, and anything else they can, so that the ready made fan of the book (whom they're trying to entice into seeing the movie) won't feel so blatanty abused. Either deliver the essence of the book(s) or something new, but don't mangle and transmogrify the core of those things that make the book(s) so justly popular.
Which is what they did in the movie with the annoying, whiny character of Maturin. In the movie he and Aubrey profess to be friends yet every scene of moment is a grating clash with no basis of the friendship ever made evident. And since he's not a spy in the movie version, he doesn't serve a purpose in the film other than an annoying foil whose illogical presence serves as more of a distraction to the action of the film than anything else. When he's shot in the hip I couldn't help but wish the bullet struck higher up and a bit more in the center. His character does not belong in this version of the Aubrey/Maturin saga.
Russell Crowe as Captain Aubrey was, I thought, brilliant as usual. Crowe may have issues with telephones and desk clerks but he is every bit as charsimatic and captivating as the character of Aubrey in the Patrick O'Brian books. Along with the shots of life on the ship, the HMS Surprise, Crowe's performance keeps the viewer engaged in the movie, at least long enough to realize that you really don't mind that you're not seeing any real plot unfold before you.
Ostensibly the crew of Surprise is under orders to pursue and sink or take a French ship, the Acheron, before she can join Napolean's war effort and cause havoc to the British. You never feel this in the movie, however. There are a few scenes here and there where some of the characters tell some of the other characters what's going on. Without this exposition we the viewer would be clueless. There's no unfolding plot to propel us through the vision of the film. What we're offered instead are sets of confusing battle scenes where one ship fires (which one?) and the other suffers the damage (which one?); we don't know who's winning, how the battle's going, who's suffering, or anything until after it's over. It takes further exposition between the characters to let us know the Surprise's cannons could do no damage to the Achernar's hull. Huh, is that so? You couldn't tell from watching the movie.
The film was written and directed by Australian Peter Weir so both the bungling with Maturin's character and the lack of plot or driving story can probably be laid at his feet. The lack of clarity in the battle scenes may lie with him, the editing, or perhaps some notion of an attempt to show the confusion of battle as just that. I'd buy the latter for the fighting that takes place on the Achernar herself but not the shoot unidentified cannons show unidentified decking splintering and sailors torn apart.
But for all its faults as a vehicle of story the movie itself is eminently watchable. Crowe is Aubrey event though for this voyage he should have sailed without any thought of the distraction of Maturin. Show me some urgency in the war and the motivation of the nemesis ship Achernar, show me Aubrey's response and how he uses his unique talents, force of will, and ability to lead his men into an unlikely triumph. That's the kind of story that made Luck Jack lucky, and that I'd like to see. This movie is a pleasant distraction, like the theater snacks in the lobby, but its misfires are too great to be anything more, which is a pity. There is great material here.
Unfortunately this is simply a one dimensional, one sided depiction of a two sided conflict. This is the Captain Jack show fighting against a ghostly enemy mostly unseen, and it's too unbalanced to stand alone. The books work because of the complex relationship and companionship of a man wholly different yet completely complementary to himself, the character of Doctor Maturin. This is the main failure of the movie.
For more consistent Napolean era nautical adventures, check out A & E's Hornblower series with Ioan Gruffudd; they're every bit as gorgeous to look at and they tell their stories in a much better way. They should be must-sees for fans of Patrick O'Brian's as well as C. S. Forester's anyway, much as readers of one series shouldn't miss the other.
posted by Rick Ollerman at 3:23 PM
2 Comments:
Yeah - I'm only to the Nutmeg of Consolation, but by the fourth book in the series I had turned from enjoying the movie to despairing of having seen it. A few ideas:
1) It should have been (should be) a BBC series. Since their series frequently run only 6 - 12 episodes, each book could get its fair treatment.
2) Maturin should have been played by someone shorter, darker and angrier. His true character displays the foppery of the English Gentleman and the lethality of the Irish duelist in equal measure.
May I suggest Gary Oldman?
3) Much of the stories happen on Land. It is cheaper to film on land. I notice the Sharpe's series is doing ok. Don't waste millions using real boats - show the stories properly and use sets. It worked for 80+ years in hollywood.
1) Or by A & E, a la Hornblower, but then again they've stopped doing those. Dummyheads.
2) Maturin should have been played by someone actually playing Maturin. Gary Oldman might be a good choice but at least in my mind he only plays bad guys; that would be difficult for me to set aside, I think. But maybe not. I'd kind of like to see a good buddy rapport, say like Newman and Redford's Butch and Sundance. Two different sorts of people but thick as brothers and loyal to the end.
3) Excellent point. The land action sets up the sea action, and it opens up to the story the rest of the characters in the milieu.
Post a Comment
<< Home