Movie is untrue

[deleted]

[deleted]

"Outstanding performances?" Perhaps for the era. I'm sorry, but I spend a good deal of my time watching old "classics" laughing out loud at their stiff, emotive (and, in this film, grandiose would apply to Clark Gable) portrayals. Why on earth did actors of that era not ever stop to think "How would this person actually feel/think/act?" and then try to portray it? Surely it occurred to someone before Lee Strasberg? I'm just nonplussed at how long it took to protray people realisticaly, frankly.

I watched this movie for the first time tonight. I enjoyed it, but always with the proviso in the back of my mind "It's from 1935, don't expect much realism." When the film ended, I bounced around on cable and caught the last 10 min or so of "Fargo." Now, THAT's acting! (Francis McDormand)

I am certainly not an expert on any of this, but I have trying to get up to speed on the original sources, and

"Christine Alexander"

One critic of her book made a point which actually occured to me. Her argument is beside the point. Bligh was just an ordinary caption of the era, so the sailors should have been contented under his discipline.

That is somewhat like arguing that because this or that slaveholder was less cruel than the norm, his slaves should have been content. But were his sailors whipped? Were their rations cut? Did Bligh cut the rations of his men while not cutting his own? Was he arbitary and abusive to his subordinates? Off what I have read, these things seem to be true.

This was not the only mutiny in the British Navy of that era, so comparing him to other cruel captains seems beside the point to me.

**I don't expect "factual" history from dramas. Not from Richard III or Julius Caesar. Nor from historical films such as Spartacus. I think interesting the viewer in the drama of history is enough for a work of fiction. If the viewer is interested in a history lesson, he should seek out history books.

***As for the 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty, there are factual errors, such as Bligh coming back to Tahiti to chase Christian, being present at the court-martials, etc, off what I've read. But Bligh being a nice guy and good captain is certainly in dispute. It all depends on which sources you go to. Bligh and the records of the British Navy support Bligh. These are not disinterested parties. Edward Christian presents evidence drawn from interviews with surviving sailors that support the view that Bligh was an erratic and arbitrary captain who seemed to have a personal vendetta against Christian. Edward Christian was not a disinterested party either. It is interesting that the sailors who did not mutiny speak highly of Christian as a gentleman and shipmate and blame Bligh for the mutiny. I think this is evidence which should not be ignored.

****As for Bligh being a good sailor--of course, although he seems to have been better dealing with the sea than with men. But the 1935 movie explicitly credits his achievement in this regard.

Bottom line-I think the "historical" criticism of this movie is way overdone. With the entire weight of the traditions of the British Navy on his side, Bligh did not carry the day with his contemparies, and so the "legend" of the cruel Bligh has come down to us. I think there is enough Bligh was a bad captain smoke to conclude there might indeed have been a fire underneath it all.

*****

Yes- only a hero could have made that voyage. Bligh should have been knighted for it.

The site rather badly mischaracterizes the Rum Rebellion in New South Wales. Bligh was overthrown in a failed attempt to rein in corrupt rum traders. The ringleader of the rebellion was eventually court-martialled. It had little to do with Bligh's abusiveness or lack of it, and everything to do with rum trade profits.

[deleted]

In a book on the Royal Navy in the it briefly describes the Bounty incident. It sums up Bligh as a brilliant seaman who lacked people skills. He simply didn't know how to get the best out of his subordinates. Contrasting that was Christian who was a moody person unable to tolerate the slightest criticism. Putting them together on a small vessel for a long voyage was a bad recipe.

Christian really didn't have a reason good enough to justify committing mutiny -which was a hanging offense. All he wanted was to get away from Royal Navy discipline and the freedom of Tahiti.

An interesting comparison is how Bligh and Christian each handled things immediately after the mutiny. Bligh was able to navigate the launch with 18 men all the way to Timor. He was able to keep his men focused and healthy -the only exception being one man who was killed by natives when they went ashore to replenish their water casks. Christian, meanwhile, had discipline problems from the start. When looking for a permanent settlement (after leaving Tahiti) he almost had another mutiny on his hands until they found Pitcairn Island. And even then, the settlement fell apart soon after. The men wound up killing each other. Christian himself was murdered there. In fact, when the location of the mutineers was finally discovered in 1808, only one man was still alive from the Bounty crew.

Bligh, I think, was best suited to commanding a vessel in combat or some other type of emergency. It was clearly where his skills would be put to good use and the crew would be focused.

[deleted]

Most historical research agrees that Captain Bligh was much less tyrannical than he's portrayed in the film and Christian much more mentally unstable. By any standards Bligh was a courageous and brilliant navigator. In fact, he was part of the "scientific school" of navigators, including Captain Cook, who believed in using proper diet and exercise to keep men physically fit and free of scurvy. Comparisons of the punishments he meted out with those inflicted by other captains show he was actually less harsh than average. Those who have studied letters written by members of the Bounty's crew and sent from various ports of call on the outward voyage to Tahiti have reported an absence of criticisms of Captain Bligh. He was, in short, a much better man than Christian, and the historical record offers no justification for the mutiny.

I agree with you that the 1935 version of Mutiny on the Bounty is superb. But it is fiction, not fact. Bligh never put anyone to death. Christian was emotionally unstable; he led his men to doom and destruction. Although the film is based losely (VERY losely) on an actual event, it is clearly fiction, as was the novel on which it was based.

"This is truly one of the finest movies ever made a...done with an exact replica, (still in existance in St. Petersburg Florida) of the HMS Bounty, constructed specifically for this moving film!"

The St. Petersburg 'Bounty' was built for the 1962 version, not this 1935 version. The 1984 'Bounty' is now in Sydney.

The 1935 film did not use a specially built replica (see http://www.winthrop.dk/bounty/).

s_jlblackbur,

I agree with you.

I always take films based in true events with a pinch of salt, as I'm aware that the average Hollywood writer will add something extra just to make sure the audience stays watching the screen... hey, even documentary films have some degree of artistic licence!

I posted, not too long ago, and answer in the "Captain Bligh" thread of this Message Board, since the point of the differences between the fictional and historical Blighs were being debated there, I'll re-quote myself as my message there may have some points of interest in this thread:

I entirely agree with Devreser and, without being deconsiderate to the other film Blighs, I definitely root for Laughton's. He is gripping and hypnotic in the role.

for those who criticize the film's historical accuracy: yes, yes, I know that Bligh wasn't in the "Pandora" (It was Captain Edwards, Bligh was then sailing in the "Providence" in a second breadfruit voyage), Bligh wasn't the tyrant he is in the 1935 film, in fact, he was less harsh than many of his contemporaries... and the mutineers who rebelled against his tiranny enslaved , some of them tortured, and eventually slained their Tahitian friends who came with them to Pitcairn: from them the mutineers had received generous friendship in Tahiti, and they paid them back with bondage and killing.

Bligh was certainly a better person than the average Bounty mutineer.

But then...
a) the film was based in a trilogy novel about the Mutiny and not in the actual facts
...and b) I've never heard complaints about the historical innacuracies of "The Adventures of Robin Hood","Ivanhoe" or "Knights of the Round Table"... do they accurately portray Plantagenet, Norman and pre-Saxon England?

And though I think that Hopkins may be closer to the historical Bligh, bear this in mind:
1) Laughton was, among the actors who played Bligh, the one to play the role when he had an age closer to Bligh's... The rest of actors look like the historical Bligh's papas or grandpapas.

2) The historical Bligh felt alienated from his crew and officers, and ranted at what he felt as their incompetence. So does Laughton's Bligh.

3) The historical Bligh was a self-made man, in contrast to those born as gentlemen like Christian or Peter Heywood (disguised as "Roger Byam" in the film). Because of this, his promotion upwards, due to his certain merits as a seaman, was slower than if he had been born a gentleman. The untimely death of his mentor, Cook, kept him in a lower echelon of authority than he would have deserved, and had to sail in merchant -not Navy- ships for a while to earn his keep. When he sailed with the Bounty he was a Navy Lieutenant, not a captain. This class underdog aspect of Bligh is well represented in Laughton's performance, too.

3) Laughton's Bligh is presented as a villain, but also as an outstanding seaman. He shows courage, leadership and determination when he leads the launch to Timor. In the 60s version this episode is unexistant, and in the 80's version Hopkins looks a somewhat doubtful and insecure fellow throughout the film, and even more in the launch... What I can say is: If I was to be cast adrift thirty five hundred miles from a port of call, and I had to choose a film Bligh to carry me in safety to Timor, I'd jump into Laughton's Bligh's launch.

... and 4) the historical Bligh certainly had bushy eyebrows :p

And, lastly, it was watching, enjoying and loving the 1935 -enduring, abiding- film version which prompted me to do further reading of the actual historical facts... and probably many a professional historian, or indeed, the armchair historians who now are so angry at the historical innacuracies of the film, became interested in the story after having seen the film.

Just my two cents.