MovieChat Forums > Kim (1951) Discussion > A question + some comments

A question + some comments

posted 12 years ago by jcravens42
5 replies | jump to latest

Where was this filmed? One of the IMDB reviewers says it was mostly filmed in India, but I'd like confirmation on that. It certainly doesn't look like the USA, but Hollywood has fooled me before!

Also, I know a lot of people say Errol Flynn's hair and beard color is outlandish, but having been to Afghanistan, I can confirm I saw a lot of men from the region that had died their hair and beards this color. Some had very short cropped hair as well.

I thought Errol Flynn was terrific in the role. Would love to have seen him in more such understated roles. I wonder - when he's disguised as the goat trader, is that his voice, or is it dubbed?

Anyway - super fun film, good for kids that love adventure stories.

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

Much of it was actually filmed on location in India. At the start of the film, there is a written message in which the producers thank the government of India, as well as the Maharajahs of Jaipur and Bundi, for their assistance in making this film.

Also, be aware that many of the films (and in many cases TV shows, too) listed on IMDb have a link on their home page for "Filming Locations," which will provide a list of filming locations - or, at least those locations that some user or contributor has added to that page. Here is the "locations" page for "Kim":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042644/locations

Hope this helps.

[–] hugo91 12 years ago

As 'Eric' suggested a lot of the filming was done in India. The campaign books at the time all proudly boasted that 30,000 miles had been travelled in the making of the film.

A lot of the interior scenes were done at the MGM Hollywood studios, however. This was common, also occurring in films such as 'Around the World in 80 Days'. The prop master spent quite a lot of time in India gathering materials for these scenes.

Some contemporary reviewers felt that the intermeshing of these two elements was slightly jarring. Others thought that although the filming in India was an impressive feat, it had not quite been 'pulled off'. The British 'Monthly Film Bulletin' in February 1951 commented that "MGM have used Indian locations ... but in spite of this the film's background seems artificial - ornate, lavish, but curiously lacking in genuine atmosphere, vitality or period sense." (18:205, 215.)

Anyway, hope that's helpful.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

... but in spite of this the film's background seems artificial...

I like the story about Errol Flynn signing on for this movie and looking forward to travelling to India, only to find that all of his scenes, that weren't filmed with a double, were filmed in Hollywood. Sucked in big time.

There are plenty of obvious staged scenes that are Hollywood, as is all the Khyber Pass stuff, which was filmed in California.🐭

[–] pt100 9 years ago

Yeah, he was given the option of doing this film or going to Africa w/Deborah Kerr to film King Solomon's Mines. He chose this. 😭

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]