MovieChat Forums > Lord Jim (1965) Discussion > Lacks that special something

Lacks that special something

posted 16 years ago by Hancock_the_Superb
11 replies | jump to latest

I watched this film over the summer. I enjoyed it a good deal but it lacks that something special that would make it a truly great film.

The movie has many good attributes. The cinematography by Freddie Young is absolutely stunning. The acting is very good for the most part. Peter O'Toole is pretty good, basically playing T.E. Lawrence without the sense of humor, but the best performances come from the trio of villains: vicious Eli Wallach, sleazy Curt Jurgens, and James Mason, who shows up out of nowhere in the last fifty minutes and completely steals the show as the amusingly misanthropic cutthroat Brown. Some actors (namely Jack Hawkins) are under-used, but most do a very good job. And the action scenes are superb throughout, particularly the clash between the General and the tribesmen.

I don't know if there's just one flaw that can be pin-pointed. I didn't care for the first half-hour or so; way too much exposition, poorly done by weak narration at that. The movie picks up at the Patna incident and remains entertaining, but I find myself unsatisfied with the anti-climactic ending. The movie's pacing is off; it's not so much that it's long as it is slow and draggy (and yet at other points it seems to move at a brisk clip). Some of the character development is kind of skimmed over and thus not really convincing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems a bit too literary; the story doesn't quite work as a movie.

So, I enjoy Lord Jim, but I wouldn't say it's a truly great film It gets a 7/10 from me.

REPENT, you son of a bitch!

[–] plwblj 15 years ago

Yes,it does,as much as i like this film & the story is indeed a classic !

The parts are there but the cohesion is trailing behind.

Why does this pix lumber ? Is it Brooks ? Does it reverence Conrad's original novel,too much ?

There is a lot to recommend this epic ; but pacing & crispness is the order of the day if you wish not to get bogged down in the details-or fine print-and just let the story unfold ...

However,to be fair,i believe that Lord Jim back in '65 might have had logistical problems w\the weather(inclement)and the budget also could have spiraled out of control ; i'm basing this on my obscure remembrance of the Life magazine article or spread w\O'Toole on the cover "way back then" >>>

[–] heyuactor 15 years ago

A 7/10 from me, too. Why? What is lacking? Unfortunately I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" first, so this can't be as good, compared to that classic. I think the director did a less-than-great job. O'Toole is not as good, either. It's weaker than the book, of course, but that's normal.

"I can understand it, but I don't like it none!"--Cheyenne.

[–] artisticengineer 15 years ago

My opinion. Peter O'Toole portrays a Jim who is somewhat weak to begin with. Therefore, his desertion of the Patna is not a great surprise or mystery. What is a mystery is why such a man goes out of his way to redeem himself. In the novel Jim seems to be a stronger person, mentally and physically. His leaving the Patna is seen as a simple mistake of an otherwise strong man; not all of his own doing (he was, after all, only following his Captain). He receives harsh condemnation for his actions. We understand why he does what he does to be redeemed. He is not and does not want to view himself as somebody who is an outcast from society.

Because his actions on the Patna were an atypical mistake on his part he feels that all outcasts simply want another chance. That is an error on his part (arranging for the crooks to leave the village alive).

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

What I don't get, even after a second viewing, is why he fell apart during Brown and Company's attack on Patusan. This is something I don't understand at all; I can understand feeling guilty about the death of the tribesmen up to a point, but given how many must have died during the battle with the General, surely two deaths wouldn't be particularly trying in comparison? He can hardly be blamed for their murder anyway, it's not like he let them walk into Patusan (I'm of course referring to the first attack, not the second).

I checked out the book from my local library today. I tried reading it last summer but ran out of time, hopefully I'll have better.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

why he fell apart during Brown and Company's attack on Patusan

He fell apart because he was a flawed character before his fall and thereafter; consequently his decision at critical moments were wrong decisions. Stein warns him not to meet with Brown and when Jim does and returns with Brown's word regarding their departure, Stein questions how the word of such a man can mean anything. Stein is proven right. But even when Jim is given the chance to leave Patusan alive and with his female companion he refuses, against the advice of Stein once more.

The problem of the film was how the character of Stein was adapted. Stein in the book is, by default, the commentator on Jim's character because of the comparison between the two. He's very much watered down and somewhat pedestrian in the film and this disappointed me greatly. I wavered between a vote of 6 or 7/10 but went for the latter because there were many good things about the film too.

The distance is nothing. The first step is the hardest.

[–] ilovetxf2 14 years ago

Wow! You've completely articulated my exact thoughts on this movie. It definitely had 'classic' potential but something was off, just as you said.

Perhaps if they had dropped the Marlow narration and just played Jim's story straight, linearly, without any flashbacks to the Patna incident, it would have improved the film greatly.

What in the name of all that's gracious is a semi-virgin?

[–] Tashtago 14 years ago

Very acute observation Hancock the Superb. It could have been a great film , tries to be a great film but the narrative is somehow rambling and incoherent at times. Similar to the novel actually. One thing I did enjoy very much was the use of sound. The Bhuddist monks chanting and the continous jungle bird calls. They lend a truly exotic feel to the movie.

[–] artisticengineer 14 years ago

Yes, all of Joseph Conrad's novels have a confusing narrative. Though, in the novel he (Conrad) seems to be able to straighten it out. In the film; much more difficult due to the limitations of time.

[–] gittes98 13 years ago

Another reason this movie fails to achieve classic status may be in the presentation itself. Columbia was obviously hoping this would be a follow-up to the success of Lawrence of Arabia. Many of the same elements remain. But, Lord Jim is a fictional character and a rather weak one at that. Compared to Lawrence, he really doesn't 'do' much.' Peter OToole mostly just walks through this role. And as good a director as Richard Brooks was, he was no David Lean. Brooks was probably out of his element with this epic tale.
The other main problem may be in the movie's scale. Taking what was basically an intimate character study and turning it into a full-scale 70MM roadshow epic was probably not the right approach. The movie is just to 'big' and way too long with many drawn-out scenes (especially in the second half.)
However, it would be very interesting to see this movie in all its 70MM glory at a rarely-shown (very rarely-shown, that is) presentation at Seattle's Cinerama Theater during their 70 MM festival

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

The good scenes compensate for the bad, as far as I'm concerned!



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"