200th Post

So it's time once again for me to celebrate a new milestone on my blog and what better way to do that than with a movie that made a significant impact on my life. Now I imagine you're all left wondering what the secret movie is this time. It seems I've been going back a decade with each passing milestone. For my 50th post I did a a film from 1964, for my 100th post I wrote about a film from 1954, so naturally why not go back another decade with a movie from 1945? This time I settled for an exciting swashbuckling tale of piracy. It's the classic adventure film Captain Kidd.

As far back as I can remember, this was the first fully-black and white movie I ever saw from start to finish. I'll confess that I've always had a soft spot for pirates. In fact back in July I wrote an entire article about the subject of pirates on film comparing the myth to history. I first encountered Captain Kidd years ago, back when I was somewhere in Grade 4 or 5. I was big on the subject of pirates at the time and I had been exposed to a handful of older movies. If I recall correctly it was in a Wal-Mart my mom managed to find the "Hollywood DVD Classics" edition of the film.

We watched it about a week later, and it was a bit jarring at first because I had never seen a full black and white film before. Sometime later, maybe a week or two (I don't remember precisely) I talked myself into giving it another chance and found I appreciated it a lot more. Before long it quickly became one of my favourite movies (though granted it has been outranked by several other films since then) and I found myself watching this exciting adventure again and again. I wanted to go out and find other films in the "Hollywood DVD Classics" series, though I never did until a few months ago when I found one of their discs compiling two episodes of Bonanza.

I was literally obsessed with Captain Kidd, that's how much I loved the film. The impact it had on me was unbelievable. In between classes at school, I used to make arts and crafts projects imitating the case (which unlike your standard DVD case is much smaller and more flexible). Of course, none of my classmates ever understood quite how much this film intrigued me and instead would make fun of these projects jokingly showing them off as my "fake I.D." (something I did not understand the meaning of at the time, which didn't help much).

While this wasn't the first old movie I ever saw, it was one that certainly opened a door down a winding corridor that would allow me greater exposure to other things. If 2001: A Space Odyssey was sealed my fate to be a film student, it was Captain Kidd that first set me on that path. In addition to opening my mind to Classical Hollywood, it introduced me to a name that I would come to know very well in the following years: the great actor Charles Laughton. Since this occasion calls for me to discuss something special I decided to dig out that old DVD and see if it was as good as I remembered. So after all these years and now looking at it again with a broader understanding of film history, how does it hold up?

Well, I'll confess, it isn't the greatest thing I've ever seen. It did feel a bit like a b-movie, and its story certainly had flaws I would not have noticed when I was younger, though I can certainly see how I would have enjoyed it. Laughton himself has done some far better projects such as Mutiny on the Bounty (which curiously enough, was also a nautical adventure in which he plays a nasty sea captain) That does not, however, mean that this was in any way a bad movie. While it may not be any grand cinematic achievement it is still an enjoyable little adventure story.

I should explain that this isn't exactly a historical film. Captain William Kidd was a real pirate who buried a small stash of treasure before he was hanged... and that's about the extent of the history you'll get here. The actual Captain Kidd was something of a real-life tragic hero, a man who got mixed up in piracy because of circumstances beyond his control and executed for it when he tried to get out. The movie's Kidd is instead treated as a despicable and scheming villain, so aside from sharing his name with a real person he's pretty much a fictional character.

Captain William Kidd (Charles Laughton) is a respected sailor in England with the popular image of being an honest shipmaster. In actuality, he is a ruthless double-crossing, backstabbing, and greedy pirate. He is recruited by King William III (Henry Danielle) to lead an expedition into African waters to rendezvous with an English vessel loaded in treasure and escort it safely back to London. What the King doesn't know is that Kidd has no intention of seeing the ship return safely and in fact wants to keep the riches for himself.

To accomplish this end, he recruits a crew of convicted pirates who are offered a pardon for their services. As the voyage gets under way, Kidd begins to put his dastardly schemes into action, which result in various members of the crew dying in "accidents". Unfortunately for him one officer by the name of Adam Mercy (Randolph Scott), starts to figure Kidd's intentions and with help from the few trustworthy people aboard, becomes determined to expose his captain's treachery and see justice prevail.

So as you can imagine, this is a pretty straight forward swashbuckling adventure, something not too unusual for the 40's. In that sense it may at first feel like a typical b-movie, but even so it is still nonetheless an enjoyable story. Laughton makes an intimidating villain as you can normally expect from his roles, possibly channelling a bit of his more famous role of William Bligh. Scott's character of Adam Mercy is a fairly likable character, one who you can find yourself rooting for and hope to see triumph in the end.

There isn't a whole lot to be said about much of the supporting cast, and if I had to point out any flaws in the movie I could argue that they are underdeveloped. Only a few people really stand out from the crowd, though out of the ones that are present the most interesting has got to be Orange Povey. This is a character who steals the show in his scenes, and the tension between him and Kidd is very strong, with the former trying to find a way to get rid of him by way of an "accident" and the latter finding clever ways to talk him out of it.

So after all these years does Captain Kidd still hold up as a great film? Well, it does have its narrative flaws and underdeveloped characters. I don't know I would consider it a masterpiece and I will confess that Charles Laughton has done a lot of far better work. However, it is still a fun and enjoyable little movie with a straight forward plot and some exciting sword fights. It is worth giving a watch if you get the chance, though perhaps not one you will need to put as a top priority.

Against the Crowd Blogathon: Is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Really that Bad?

So it's a bit late to participate in Wendell Ottley's Against the Crowd Blogathon but I've only contributed half of what he asked for. I did a long-winded rant about John Carpenter's Halloween, but I also needed to find a movie everybody else hated that I actually liked. I could certainly find a few just by browsing John Carpenter's filmography. Even if they had their flaws I personally enjoyed Escape From L.A. and Ghosts of Mars and I even found thought The Ward had some good scares. Still, I wanted to find something a bit different.

I recall I was just getting back into the Indiana Jones franchise when I heard the news of a fourth movie in production. LEGO was producing sets based off the films and I had started to watch the original trilogy for the first time in years and quickly got hooked. There was a lot of hype for the plans to make a fourth Indiana Jones movie but like The Phantom Menace and Prometheus it received a whole bunch of negative backlash upon release. The strange thing is I actually kinda liked it, and I don't think a lot of the negative criticism is entirely fair.

First off, it was definitely a smart move to change the time period. I mean even if Harrison Ford agreed to dye his hair brown I don't think there would be any way they could make him look exactly like he did 33 years ago, so updating the setting to reflect the actor's aging makes perfect sense. Furthermore, the original trilogy was based on 1930's adventure serials. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull updated the time-frame to the 1950's, by which point those had gone out of style and been replaced by science fiction serials, so it's not too great a stretch to look at those for inspiration instead.

This gives me the perfect opportunity to address one of the biggest complaints about this film: the aliens. A lot of people have criticized the film for featuring aliens for various reasons. The biggest one is that supposedly it conflicts with the previous installments, specifically because of the presence of the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark which implies the Judeo-Christian God exists in this universe. 

The part that they overlook is that three different religions are "validated" in the original trilogy: Raiders of the Lost Ark draws from Judaism, The Temple of Doom draws from Hinduism, and The Last Crusade draws from Christianity. The films have never been fully consistent about what (if any) religious figures exist in this universe, so really there's no reason aliens couldn't be present either. You could also make the case that the "religious" artifacts featured in the previous films were also the products of these aliens and they're just sufficiently advanced as appear "magic" and inspire various religions.

I will also go ahead and address the other big criticism, which is the infamous "nuclear fridge" sequence. It is a bit of a strange choice on the part of Spielberg and Lucas but a lot of people insist that this scene is too unbelievable to be taken seriously. While I can see where they are coming from, I feel it is worth pointing out that the previous films weren't exactly grounded in reality.

Raiders of the Lost Ark had Indy getting dragged along a road by a fast-moving truck and still being able to beat up a bunch of armed men with only a few bruises to show for it. The Temple of Doom has an equally unrealistic scene where Indy his companions escape from a plane by jumping out in a life raft while at a high altitude (the Mythbusters even tested this and proved it to be impossible; it could be done with an escape slide but that's not what was used in the movie). 

That same movie also featured a man ripping out a prisoner's still-beating heart with his bare hands. The Last Crusade had Indy stop a pursuing Nazi by jamming a flagpole into the wheel of his motorcycle causing it to flip into the air (also tested and proved impossible by the Mythbusters). While it's still a strange idea, by Indy's standards the fridge scene really isn't that far-fetched.

A lot of people also complained about Indy having a son, but I didn't think Shia LaBeouf was that bad in the role. (Yes, I'm defending one of his movies. You can start pelting me with rotten fruit now) The idea of giving Indy a son was actually an interesting choice, especially given the last film was about Indy's relationship to his father. 

That's actually another thing, a lot of people have criticized the choice to kill off Henry Jones Sr. because it supposedly conflicts with the events of The Last Crusade, even though it was addressed in that movie. While the Holy Grail has healing powers (even healing what might otherwise have been a lethal gunshot wound), the only way to get eternal life from it would require you to remain in its presence (as that knight had done), which means staying in those ruins because the grail isn't allowed leave.

Now one choice that I think was a very good one was the decision to bring back Marion Ravenwood, Indy's original love interest, instead of trying to find him a new one like The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade did. Marion was probably the best of the various love interests. She had the right balance of qualities. Willie Scott was too much of a damsel in distress, always screaming and finding ways to cause lots of trouble (even Indy got fed up with her at times). Elsa being a femme fatale was an interesting turn but Marion was the most complex. She was strong and certainly capable of being tough but also had her limits, and that made her the best fit for Indy. 

Now, is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark? I don't know if I'd go that far, but I personally think it's a fun little adventure movie that really doesn't deserve a lot of the backlash it's gotten since its release. It's got some great action, takes the franchise in a few interesting new directions, and even addresses some of the issues of the previous installments.

Pirates: History Vs. Hollywood

We all enjoy pirates, those lovable swashbuckling scoundrels who sail the seven seas under a skull and crossbones in search of gold. At least, that's the image we're familiar with. Pirates have become an icon of Hollywood for decades and even I enjoy a good swashbuckling adventure now and then, but like many periods in history Hollywood has distorted their image a great deal from the reality. They've created stereotypes which, when you get down to it, are pretty insane. In fact part of the fun of The Pirates! Band of Misfits is in how they poke fun at a lot of conventions and emphasize the absurdity of them.

Back in Grade 5 I was such a nerd. I'd decided to dress up as a pirate for Halloween but rather than just donning my costume the same way any other kid would have I actually took the time to do some research, first exposing me to the truth and allowing me to see beyond the stereotype. Some of that knowledge still remains with me, and while I'm no scholar I'm certainly able to discuss the issue at length, but that question remains: where does Hollywood end and history begin?

Well, let's start by pulling the curtain right off of Hollywood and say that real pirates were hardly the swashbuckling buccaneers we've come to know and love. There was nothing romantic or adventurous about being a pirate. In fact, the basic definition of "piracy" entails criminal activity performed at sea, and that is something that still happens today. Try romanticizing anything you've heard on the news about Somali Pirates and you'll quickly get into trouble.

The life of a real pirate during the 18th century was actually quite a bit different. Let's start with the basics: this was back in the days when profit was considered more important than safety, so conditions aboard any sailing ship of the time were horrific. There were over 1000,001 (probably more) different ways you could end up being disfigured, and that's not even getting into all the diseases that were common at sea. In that sense, there is some truth to a few of the Hollywood images. After all three things often associated with pirates are peg legs, hooks for hands, and eye patches and there is a reason for that.

I personally don't buy into the myth that eye patches were used as a way of adjusting one eye to seeing in the dark to make it easier to navigate below deck (who came up with that one, anyway? It's ridiculous) but you could lose just about any part of your body at sea, including your eyes and to be fair most people have an easier time looking at someone with a piece of cloth over one eye than at the scarred tissue where an eye used to be. In theory it also wouldn't be too hard to improvise, since if nothing else you could make a patch out of what's left of your worn clothes.

Similarly, legs weren't too hard a thing to loose either. In fact, one of the most iconic fictional pirates of all-time, Long John Silver, is first identified by the fact that he only has one leg and has to hop around on a crutch. Wooden legs weren't too far-fetched an idea at all, given that sailing ships of the time usually had a fair bit of wood on hand and the crew often included a carpenter. If someone lost a leg, whether it be due to it getting caught in ropes or crushed by a falling mast or even just being infected to the point where it requires amputation (something that tended to happen quite often back then), the carpenter could use whatever wood is available to improvise a prosthetic.

Now I'm not 100% certain of the validity of hooks for hands. I'm not personally aware of any cases of it happening although if it did it certainly wouldn't just be something for Captains (you don't see many crew with hooks for hands in the movies, do you?). In theory this wouldn't be too great a stretch, since hands could easily be lost as well as legs and eyes, and a hook would be something that could still allow you to perform tasks that are required aboard the ship.

So let's move on from the more gruesome aspects of being a pirate and look at some of the other facts. What are pirates normally seen to do? You're probably thinking of treasure, and lots of it. You might be thinking of pirates obtaining treasure maps and finding some island where "X marks the the spot" and digging up chests full of gold and jewels. That's all well and good but couldn't be further from the truth.

In reality, assuming that the ships they attacked even had any gold to begin with, it would probably be the lowest priority. Traditionally when it was obtained it would be divided equally among the crew, but usually pirates would be more interested in the stuff that was essential to surviving at sea. Gold is all well and good but there's not much you can do with it in open water. They'd have been more likely to steal food, clothing, weapons, tools, anything that they needed to survive. Money would have come last if at all.

Also, pirates weren't normally known to bury their treasure. There are a few real-life cases: Captain William Kidd buried some of his treasure and supposedly Blackbeard has a stash still hidden somewhere, but ordinarily any money that was collected was divided equally (or at least as equally as possible) among the crew and quickly spent on grog whenever they were in port.

Another issue that tends to pop up quite a lot is the "Jolly Roger". There is a very specific image that likely pops up into your head when I mention that name: a black flag depicting a skull above (or sometimes in front of) two crossed objects, usually either bones or swords. It's often assumed in the media that all pirates sailed under this flag but the reality is that every pirate had a design of their own, and most of them were drastically different from that traditional image. In addition, since clothes were usually stolen and not made with the intent of being worn by pirates, you would never see a captain wearing a hat with a skull and crossbones on it.

The flag flown by Blackbeard, one of the most famous real-life pirates.

One of the other big myths that tends to pop up is the idea of "Walking the Plank". We've all seen this one before: the pirates have captured our brave hero and decide to execute him/her by forcing him/her to "walk the plank", by extending the gangplank over the edge and forcing the victim to walk along it until he/she falls into the water, presumably to drown. As far as I know this is more or less complete fiction.

First off, the gangplank would have been designed to assist in getting on and off the ship while it's in port, not so it could be used as a diving board. I'm not sure if it would be capable of holding a person on one end like you often see without snapping. Second, the preferred means of punishment was an entirely different process called "marooning".

This one does pop up in movies from time to time (in fact it's used as a plot point in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl). The details may vary but the way it works is basically a troublesome pirate is brought onto a deserted island and left to their own fate. In some cases they might be given a pistol or a flask of water or some other form of minimal provisions that will be quickly used up. There's a few rare cases of people managing to survive (including Alexander Selkirk, the inspiration behind Robinson Crusoe) but most castaways would die after a short period of time.

Now let's move on a little bit and look at some of the few more positive aspects of being a pirate in those days. For one thing while there was no global pirating community as claimed by Pirates of the Caribbean, there was a degree of equality among pirate crews at least compared to those of "honest men". This would have been an issue of practicality, as when you're a fugitive at sea you got to take all the allies you can get, but this was also back in the days when misogynistic white men considered slavery to be morally acceptable and there were virtually no opportunities for women to be anything other than their husband or father's property.

Historically, pirate crews were often democratic in nature, and loot would have been divided equally among the crew but here we get into an interesting image. One archetype that tends to pop up from time to time in pirate films is the "Pirate Girl", a woman (usually the only one aboard) who is a fully capable pirate in her own right. Morgan from Cutthroat Island is a good example, as is Elizabeth and Anamaria in the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Surprisingly this one actually does have its roots in truth.

While in those days sailors were usually uneducated and extremely superstitious, with one traditional belief being that having a woman aboard was bad luck (this is even discussed in Pirates of the Caribbean), there were several female pirates who gained notoriety. The most famous would probably be the duo Anne Bonny and Mary Read who served under John "Calico Jack" Rackham and were said to have been the fiercest members of his crew. There are even accounts of women who managed to take command of a pirate ship.

So where did this romantic image come from? That's a good question and I've got two possible sources of where many of the stereotypes may have originated or at least were popularized: the novels Peter Pan and Treasure Island. The former certainly popularized the concept of a hook for a hand, but the latter may have helped to cement the romantic image.

Long John Silver is one of the most iconic fictional pirates of all time, and one of the first things we learn about him is that he has only one leg. He is also a fairly complex and lovable character. While technically the pirates are the antagonists and Long John is leading them, at least at first (he changes sides toward the end) Long John is a very likable person. He may be planning a mutiny but he's also human. He has a genuinely touching friendship with the protagonist, Jim Hawkins, whom he obviously cares about and never wants to see come to any harm at the hands of his crew.

In fact the character is so lovable that the novel even has him secretly leave the ship at the very end just so he can survive (the heroes promise him a fair trial, but it's made clear the odds of him escaping the gallows aren't exactly in his favor). He may have also helped to popularize the "pirate voice", something that seems especially evident when you watch Robert Newton's wonderful performance in the 1950 adaptation.

Now I won't claim to be an expert. I'm not a scholar. If I made any mistakes don't hesitate to point them out, but I can tell you that Hollywood's image of the swashbuckling buccaneer is drastically different from the reality of life as an 18th century pirate. It's fascinating to try and strip apart the fabrications and to study the reality.

One idea I've expressed interest in for a screenplay is to write a film that would cast aside the stereotypes of Hollywood and show the rather dull, grim, terrifyingly short life of an actual pirate (sort of a pirate-themed equivalent to Unforgiven). I haven't gotten anything solid enough to work with yet but feel free to give it a shot if you can find a good story.