The Man Who Would Be King

Why is this film not given more recognition? It was one of those films that I had always heard about but had never seen. Well, I saw it the other day and I am shocked that I wasn't forced to watch this years ago. It is an amazing film. I have a hard time coming up with something that was wrong with it. The highlights, of course, were the performances of Caine and Connery. Nearly every user comment for this film has said how good their chemistry was, well I read all these comments before seeing the film and was still blown away by how good the chemistry was. Connery in particular was a surprise to me, even though Caine probably gave the better performance of the two.

As a Brit living in the US, it is hard to get Americans to really understand subtle aspects of British life (the optimism, the humour, the strength of character)... so I now have three movies that I tell people to watch in order to get a better idea of what it means to be British: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, and The Man Who Would Be King.

No director ever personalized a genre the way John Huston could. While some critics have claimed his style was a 'lack' of style, the opposite is actually true; his sense of irony, love of the absurd, respect for personal codes of honor, and twist endings that always remind us that the true value of a journey is not arriving at a destination, but in the 'getting there' all set apart his best work from that of his contemporaries. Even his lesser work has value, and his best films, which certainly includes THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, are unforgettable.

The tragicomic tale of two ex-Sergeants turned confidence men with a grand scheme to fleece a near-legendary kingdom had been a 'pet' project of Huston's since the forties, and he'd spent years tinkering with the script, planning to film it with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart in the leads. With Bogart's death in 1957, he'd considered various other match-ups (including Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole), until he found the ideal pair, in Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Connery had just finished the spectacular THE WIND AND THE LION (in which Huston played a small, but memorable role), and the Scot had often been compared to Gable with his dark good looks, machismo, and lack of pretense. Michael Caine, a long-time friend of Connery, was one of the industry's busiest actors, and had already proved himself adept at playing both soldiers and con men. Together, Connery and Caine had a camaraderie and chemistry that even Gable and Bogart couldn't have equaled, and Huston was "quite pleased".

Christopher Plummer was another inspired piece of casting, as the legendary author Rudyard Kipling. Bookish, with a keen intellect and rich sense of humor, Plummer's Kipling, sharing Masonic ties with the future 'Kings', is the perfect foil for the duo, offering sound advice which they totally disregard, with a wink and a smile. As Dravot (Connery) tells him, "We are not little men", and India, bound up in British bureaucracy (as well as becoming too 'hot' for them) could never provide the immensity of riches they dreamed of.

Huston eschewed the 'traditional' approach to adventure films, with cardboard heroes performing near-impossible deeds until the inevitable 'happy ending', and grounded his story in reality, which disappointed any viewers hoping KING would simply be a variation of GUNGA DIN. But in not romanticizing the story, he gives it a sense of immensity and the exotic, a richness of character, and an understanding of human frailties that far surpasses a typical Hollywood product. While Dravot orchestrates the pair's ultimate ruin by taking his 'godhood' too seriously (as he turns 'noble', trying to bring order to his 'kingdom', and decides to start a dynasty by taking a wife), you can understand why Carnehan (Caine), seeing their 'get rich' scheme disintegrate, would be anxious to leave, but also why he would forgive his friend, when they face torture and certain death. Loyalty, to Huston, is not lip service, but a true measure of a man. While Dravot and Carnehan are certainly not role models, their love and respect for each other transcends their faults, even their lives, putting the film's final scene, as a physically crushed Carnehan leaves his 'bundle' for Kipling, into perspective. It is a moment you won't soon forget.

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING proves, yet again, why John Huston, as he once described his friend, Humphrey Bogart, is "irreplaceable".

It's interesting to look through the negative reviews of The Man Who Would Be King. Those submitted twenty years ago reflect the range of subjective response you might expect from any film. Move forward to those submitted in the last few years and a common theme arises. The film is "unwatchable" because it portrays people in a colonial era with a colonial perspective. Somehow it's assumed that the writer casting forth this judgement somehow from birth knew all that is right and just and can, without a shred of arrogance or hypocrisy, see clearly the sins of the past and guide the rest of us as to what is correct and incorrect for us to allow our weak eyes and ears to take in or avoid so that we can also live a similarly enlightened life.

Someday I hope those who so arrogantly seek to cancel or at least condemn any film from an earlier era that did not by some miracle anticipate what would be politically correct in 2022 will gain some humility. Hopefully they will then finally come to recognize that they too suffer from the flawed human condition and are blind to what the next generation will someday condemn them for.

If you want to see how great filmmaking was done before digital technology made it easy to create any setting, this is a great film to watch. If you want to see how people viewed the world in the colonial era - and - of you want to understand how those who lived through the Great Depression and WWII sought to portray the colonial era, this is a great film to watch. It's also a well told story if you have the ability to follow a story that unfolds slowly and doesn't flash from one action scene to another.

However, if you are like those who led the cultural revolution in China and believe that history must be eradicated or revised, I guess this is one of the cultural artifacts that must be destroyed. If that's you, I'll save you the time. You can add this to your censor list.

What most viewers do not realize about The Man Who Would Be King (1975) is that it is not about a legendary place, although Rudyard Kipling may have thought so when he wrote the story, because no white man had ever been there and returned to tell about it.

The place was then known as Kafiristan and is now known as Nuristan. It is in Eastern Afghanistan next to Chitral, which is in Northwest Pakistan.

Place names in the movie, such as Kamdesh and Bashgal, are real places in Nuristan. The explorer Robertson, whom Billy Fish reports has having died, did not die in real life but was rescued by a British military force in 1895, after Kipling wrote his story.

The people of Nuristan are believed to be descendants of Alexander the Great, who came there in 328 BC, just as the movie states. They had a pagan religion as the movie describes until they were forcibly converted to Islam in 1892. There are still some believers of the old religion in the Kalash Valleys of Pakistan.

For more about these people see http://www.samsloan.com/damik.htm

I know about all this because I have been there and I married a woman named Honzagool there. She did not bite me as did the wife of Sean Connery in the movie, however.

Sam Sloan

Based on a short story by Rudyard Kipling, The Man Who Would Be King tells the story of two friends; Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) and Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) that go to Kafiristan in order to rule the country as kings and become rich in the process. The tale itself if relatively simple, but through great storytelling, the film is lifted into the realms of the masterpiece. The Man Who Would Be King tells a story on two levels; on the one hand, it's an epic masterpiece, spanning across Asia and embracing the Eastern culture, but on the other hand; it's a simple tale of two friends that are out for all they can get. The film switches between the two sides of it's story with great ease, and the smaller, more intimate side of the story is actually complimented by the epic battle sequences that run alongside it.

This movie is headed by two of the very finest actors of all time - Sean Connery and Michael Caine (both British too, I might add). The two have a great chemistry, and seeing them on screen together is an absolute treat. Both actors have a very defined style as to how they act and how their lines are delivered; in fact, they're perhaps two of the most defined styles ever, and they play off each brilliantly to give fantastic performances in this movie. Michael Caine always seems to be more willing to give a better performance when he is on screen with another fine actor, and they don't come much finer than Sean Connery. The great John Huston directs the movie, and this is easily one of his best movies. In fact, I rate it as his number one colour film. He's got a good story to work with, and he makes the best of it, not to mention that he gets the best from his cast. Many of the locations are fabulous and the battle sequences, although not on the same scale as some other films of the same nature, are well choreographed and an epic sense is captured through the utilisation of many extras.

This film is a masterpiece. All the players have come together to create a film that is both intimate, intelligent, interesting and on a massive scale all at the same time. A must see.