583 The Four Feathers

[Jeff]

The Four Feathers



This spectacular Technicolor epic, directed by Zoltán Korda, is considered the finest of the many adaptations of A.E.W. Mason’s classic 1902 adventure novel about the British Empire’s exploits in Africa, and a crowning achievement of Alexander Korda’s legendary production company, London Films. Set at the end of the nineteenth century, The Four Feathers follows the travails of a young officer (John Clements) accused of cowardice after he resigns his post on the eve of a major deployment to Khartoum; he must fight to redeem himself in the eyes of his fellow officers (including Ralph Richardson) and fiancée (June Duprez). Featuring music by Miklós Rózsa and Oscar-nominated cinematography by Georges Périnal, The Four Feathers is a thrilling, thunderous epic.

Disc Features

- New high-definition digital restoration (with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition)
- Audio commentary by film historian Charles Drazin
- New video interview with David Korda, son of director Zoltán Korda
- A Day at Denham, a short film from 1939 featuring footage of Zoltán Korda on the set of The Four Feathers
- Trailer
- PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Michael Sragow

DVD
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Blu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

[colinr0380]

DVD Beaver comparison of the Criterion Blu-ray with the MGM DVD of The Four Feathers

[James43]

Could anyone comment on this film? I might get it during the current sale but don't feel like completely blind-buying...

[matrixschmatrix]

It's very much a Korda production- it's a lot of very reserved British actors having a grand adventure, some really distasteful imperialistic politics, some gorgeous exotica, and a resolution where somebody does something terribly noble. It's a lot of fun if you can get past the politics of it (or if, like the guy doing the commentary, you can pick out the mild strain of rebellion against them woven into the film itself) and Ralph Richardson is fantastic. Broadly speaking, I can't imagine someone disliking it if they like any of this sort of thing.

The commentary and extras are great, some of the best of any set I've seen this year.

[Matt]

How's the Technicolor? Eye-popping, or just alright? Gary's caps are mostly bland and it looks like the registration is slightly off.

[swo17]

I think it looks very good in motion, better than the caps might suggest, though I wouldn't call it eye popping. I mean, it's not reference quality but it's probably the best this film can look.

[Matt]

Basically I just want some Technicolor eye candy and this doesn't look like it fits the bill more than The Jungle Book, which looked amazing on TCM the other day.

[swo17]

Yes, I watched that airing of The Jungle Book and it's not up to that level. (A pity that one didn't come out on Blu-ray.)

[cdnchris]

It looks fine, but no, not eye-popping. I think the DVD for Jungle Book was more eye-popping honestly.

[domino harvey]

Basically I just want some Technicolor eye candy and this doesn't look like it fits the bill more than The Jungle Book, which looked amazing on TCM the other day.

You should get your hands on some of these musicals the Warner Archives are putting out without passing them through their bland desaturation process-- Small Town Girl and Two Tickets to Broadway sport some of the most vibrant colors in recent home video memory

[Napier]

I wouldn't take anything away from this release. A beautiful transfer, and a great way to spend a quiet Sunday night.

[Tommaso]

I have very mixed feelings about this film. As has been pointed out, it still works very well as an adventure movie, and its visuals are fantastic, but I'm not sure whether I can ignore its politics. It's not so much that it seems to favour colonialism (after all, it's a story set in colonialist times and seen from a British point-of view), and one could even argue that it's the characters who hold certain condescending views rather than the film itself, though one would have a hard time to explain why not only the characters talk about "fuzzy-wuzzies" but there's also an intertitle with that word.

What I find appalling is that whole idea of honour vs 'cowardice' which is brought so much to the forefront, and also a certain conservative anti-intellectualism (our 'coward' reads Shelley, after all) which is not so much an expression of old imperialist ideals of the years around 1900, but seems to be clearly directed at the British audience at the time, and against the pacifist ideas coming up in the 1930s. In this respect, I can see the film as not much more than a clever, but not particularly subtle propaganda film, and actually I couldn't help thinking of certain German productions of the time, most notably probably Harlan's "Der große König" and "Kolberg". It's a difference of degree, but the method is similar. And the reason why I find the Harlan films perhaps even easier to swallow is that they were made under/for a dictatorial regime, whereas "The Four Feathers" was made in a democratic country of which I would have expected better. Good entertainment, but it leaves a sour taste.

[Jonathan S]

one would have a hard time to explain why not only the characters talk about "fuzzy-wuzzies" but there's also an intertitle with that word.

"Fuzzy-wuzzies" is a racial slur many Britons are still familiar with, due to the endless prime time re-runs of the 1960s-70s sitcom Dad's Army (about the Home Guard in World War 2). The elderly Corporal Jones frequently uses it when reminiscing about the Boer War and his preference for the bayonet ("they don't like it up 'em" is a much-repeated catchphrase). I suppose it was intended to emphasise his great age and eccentricity and - unlike the authorial voice in the intertitle of The Four Feathers - it can be attributed only to his character. But it still leaves a sour taste when employed so frequently and it's hard to imagine this series still being televised (presumably uncut, though I haven't watched it for many years) if certain other derogatory racial terms were used!

[MichaelB]

The elderly Corporal Jones frequently uses it when reminiscing about the Boer War

I wouldn't normally quibble about this, but he's actually reminiscing about Sudan - presumably exactly the same 1895 conflict dramatised in The Four Feathers. Which may well be where Jimmy Perry and David Croft picked up the phrase - they'd have been in their teens when the film came out, and it's not at all unlikely that they'd have seen it then (it was a massive hit).

Come to think of it, there's another direct link between The Four Feathers and Dad's Army in the form of John Laurie.

[Jonathan S]

Well, you're not quibbling at all - I mentioned the wrong war completely for the "fuzzy-wuzzies" but Jones claims to have fought in so many (including the Boer War and even the 1880s Sudan campaign) his confusion has spread to me!

[John Edmond]

Fuzzy-wuzzy hung around until the at least '40s - in WW2 American and Australian troops referred to Papuan stretcher bearers as fuzzy-wuzzy angels.

[colinr0380]

It has been a while since I have seen the film but the whole 'white feather to signify cowardice' (an utterly hideous concept) was still in practice during the First World War.

[Mr Sausage]

And the reason why I find the Harlan films perhaps even easier to swallow is that they were made under/for a dictatorial regime, whereas "The Four Feathers" was made in a democratic country of which I would have expected better.

Really? Because the fact that it would be anti-pacifist propaganda directed against Hitler and fascism saves it for me far more than any propaganda for Hitler's side. Hard to argue with anyone that opposing Nazism was a necessary thing to do.

[matrixschmatrix]

I would also say that it effectively punishes the by-the-books military man (Richardson's character) far more than it punishes our 'coward'- it may be anti-pacifism (though as I recall, Faversham's own reasoning that leads him to conclude he is a coward is complex enough that it slightly mocks the bullying feathers his friends give him) but I don't think it's at all anti-intellectual. Our hero is an intellectual, and it is with his wits and individualism he redeems himself in his own eyes, while his more conformist and unthinking comrades all get themselves screwed.

[knives]

I would also say that it effectively punishes the by-the-books military man (Richardson's character) far more than it punishes our 'coward'- it may be anti-pacifism (though as I recall, Faversham's own reasoning that leads him to conclude he is a coward is complex enough that it slightly mocks the bullying feathers his friends give him) but I don't think it's at all anti-intellectual. Our hero is an intellectual, and it is with his wits and individualism he redeems himself in his own eyes, while his more conformist and unthinking comrades all get themselves screwed.

I'm sure that was Zoltan fitting what little subversive material he could into the film against his brother's wishes. from my understanding they never got along with directing just being a job for Zoltan who hated the politics of many of the works he was asked to do. The film is problematic for me for the reasons already stated, but it seems to at least be trying to work against that in the small measures you've outlined.