Most Prisoner of War films pivot on some element of planned escape. The protagonists’ goal usually entails attempts to elude their captors through clandestine collaboration and elaborate preparation. British director Bryan Forbes’ 1965 picture King Rat deviates sharply from that plot pattern, presenting a population of prisoners who concern themselves with trying to simply stay alive and sane, and for whom the notion of escape never enters the mental equation. Emancipation eventually comes, but its arrival is anticlimactic and carries with it negative implications along with the obvious positive ones. The story’s de facto polestar is Corporal King, played with vernal brio by George Segal, still two years away from his Oscar nod for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? King takes his surname seriously and is respected (often grudgingly) as the go-to-man: the guy who can get anything for a price and pocket a profit in the bargain. Within the constricted and hierarchical economy of the camp, his gift for graft has blossomed. He’s charismatic, but not sympathetic, a self-serving chiseler who usually has a half dozen schemes operating at any one time.
The camp itself presents a fascinating social ecosystem. Situated in a rural region of occupied Singapore, the natural topography of jungle and ocean serves as an intangible set of stockade walls. British, American and Australian officers occupy shanty huts outside a walled compound where their Japanese jailers and enlisted internees reside. Free to wander about the rocky terrain, none of the officers sees the relatively lax security as a reason to flee. The system of segregation is almost a reverse of the usual penal configuration and the Japanese are barely visible at all through the first two thirds of the film, their presence mainly felt in the despairing countenances of the captives. A hill littered with corporal punishment devices termed “boar holes” hints at off-screen brutality, but is never elaborated. Forbes and his production team do an excellent job conveying the demoralizing nature of the surroundings from the oppressive sun and humidity to the filth and disease that invests the camp. The men are clad in a disheveled and sweat-stained mixture of uniform remnants, subsisting on shark meat soup and generally displaying a realistic degree of misery through a profusion of perspiration. Only King stands out with his pressed pants and starched shirt, implicit symbols of his disparate wealth. Still, a sense of military decorum endures, however pliable to the realities of the camp.
Co-star James Fox plays Marlowe, a British officer invited into King’s inner circle by virtue of his fluency in Malay. The two strike up a friendship that takes on vaguely homoerotic overtones in the film’s second act. Tom Courtney is Colonel Grey, King’s adversary, an officer who chafes repeatedly at his transgressions and cannot condone the corruptions and hypocrisies that are so ingrained in daily camp life. Despite a deft portrayal, his behavior veers very close to caricature in his blind obeisance of military code. When alerted by a superior to his own contradictions in comportment he very nearly short circuits from the moral strain. A series of vignettes illustrates King’s con skills, among them the titular swindle of raising and selling rodents disguised as Malay delicacy meat to unsuspecting officers in the camp. Another involves a boiled dog stew made from a fellow prisoner’s executed pet. It’s a wonderfully telling scene as the men are initially repulsed by the meal, but eventually acquiesce when exposed to the savory odors and set about devouring the food with Bacchanalian relish. The series of sharply edited close-ups reveals both the depths of their hunger and a renewed sense of camaraderie that results from the feast. As with the best prison films, Forbes excels at exposing how the men make do with so little and how each tiny luxury, from a fried egg to a cigarette can mean the difference between solace and despair.
Various other British and American character actors supplement the cast, among them Denholm Elliott as a good-natured member of King’s coterie and Patrick O’Neal as his hapless lackey. There’s even a cameo by a pre-Family Feud Richard Dawson as a paratrooper sent to “liberate” the camp. The film falls apart somewhat in its final segment, resorting to a sermonizing comeuppance for one of the characters, but it also has the courage to take the viewer through the consequences of the camp’s dissolution. Despite their newly gained freedom, the men of the Changi Jail exit the bamboo gates of the prison far from intact.
Posted by derek on February 8, 2007 1:20 PMOh dear, yet another movie? Do I have to write Bagatellen off? I used to come here for the music. Movies are such an infinite bore.
Posted by: Graham L. Rogers at February 8, 2007 2:18 PMyou're just full of complaints, Graham. why don't you write something up yourself and submit it to Derek, if you're so unhappy with the content here? talk about an infinite bore...
Posted by: jon abbey at February 8, 2007 2:21 PMbarring that unlikely turn of events...
I know I've already pointed you to IHM at least once, but there are at least three current threads that I'm sure would be of interest to you, the 'most memorable live shows' thread is almost too much to keep up with, a lot of meat there.
http://ihatemusic.noquam.com/viewtopic.php?t=5891
http://ihatemusic.noquam.com/viewtopic.php?t=5896
http://ihatemusic.noquam.com/viewtopic.php?t=5889
barring that unlikely turn of events...
I know I've already pointed you to IHM at least once, but there are at least three current threads that I'm sure would be of interest to you, the 'most memorable live shows' thread I started in reaction to the lame Wire one in the current issye (Dan and Brian, where were you guys on that one?) is almost too much to keep up with, a lot of meat there.
(direct links deleted, because Bags didn't let them through, but not too hard to find yourself, if you can be bothered...)
Posted by: jon abbey at February 8, 2007 4:28 PMGood ideas, Jon. Not sure what’s up with Bags not allowing direct links. Let me do some digging, with the caveat that my spade is notorious for sometimes puncturing buried cable.
Graham, you’ve got to rid yourself of that unseemly aversion to cinema. There are so many fantastic films out there awaiting your consumption. I’ve taken to writing about a few lately partly because it’s a painless way to fill this blog space. For me, music is a first love, but cinema is a close second.
Fear not though, the music-related content will continue, though you’re certainly welcome to write this place off if you wish.
Anyone seen King Rat or any of Forbes’ other films & care to comment?
Posted by: derek at February 8, 2007 4:36 PMHaven't seen 'King Rat' in a good long time, maybe 20 years, but I remember enjoying it. It's based on James Clavell's first (?) novel, actually a very good, tight one before he went on to the relative bloatedness of 'Taipan' and 'Shogun'.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at February 8, 2007 6:18 PMthere's always the new 'listen' piece for music content.
Posted by: al at February 8, 2007 8:35 PMIt's very easy, Graham - if you don't want to join a discussion on cinema, just don't click on "post a comment", simple as that. Don't see why you have to moan about it. I don't have much to say about Metal, so I just leave it to others.
Personally I'm quite happy to discuss films. Thanks to Marie, who's developed a serious addiction to DVDs, we get to watch two or three a week. (Since last weekend the Warby home cinema has shown Elia Kazan's A Face In The Crowd, Polanski's Cul De Sac and (for lite relief last night) Pulp Fiction (for the 4th time and still enjoying it). Next week David Lynch's Inland Empire hits France, so I'll be off to see that right away.
Jon thanks for the link to your IHM thread. Mighty Clouds of Joy, eh? Now ya talking! To be honest I still haven't read that section in the latest Wire. I was more interested in the Bert Jansch Jukebox. I was invited to take part, and half intended to write something about a Misha Mengelberg quintet concert I saw here back in 90(?) (w/ Bennink, Reijseger, Lacy & G Lewis) but it sort of slipped my mind. Alan Licht and Marc Masters do that "I was there" kinda thing better than I do. I preferred the Remake Remodel feature in Nov 2005.
But anyway, it's a damn good thread (the one at IHM), so why don't you go and read it Graham instead of moaning here :)
Alright chaps!! I shall moan no more ... (but to hell with movies!)
Posted by: Graham L. Rogers at February 8, 2007 11:13 PM"(Dan and Brian, where were you guys on that one?)"
In my case, faulty memory would have rendered useless any contribution I might have cared to make. I saw some wonderful 1970s gigs by Beefheart, Iskra 1903, The Mothers of Invention, etc., but in writing about them I would have had to (re-)invent most of the details. It would have been an exercise in creative writing rather than reportage, an idea that, quite frankly, bored me.
Posted by: Bryan Merely at February 9, 2007 3:39 AMA Face in the Crowd is one of my faves. The DVD has a nice featurette revisiting some of the cast & crew incl. Kazan who speaks candidly about his (largely unrepentant) side of the McCarthy hearings controversy that so sullied his career. Interesting also to learn how large a role Jack Daniels played in Andy Griffith’s portrayal of Lonesome Rhodes.
Took a half-hearted stab at Sam Fuller’s Shock Corridor last night, but I couldn’t make it past the first 15-minutes. The script is rife with gassy pulp clichés & the acting is worse than Reefer Madness. My rosier memory of the flick definitely needs revising.
On a far more positive note, I’m currently a single episode into the the first three Prime Suspect series and my regard for Helen Mirren continues to rise. There’s a small stack of Naked City discs that’s on deck for after those. Three cheers for the omniverous scope of DVD!
Posted by: derek at February 9, 2007 5:50 AMDamn, I wish I had the version of the Kazan you do, Derek - no bonuses at all on the disc I have (a box set with Baby Doll & America America). Tell us more about Jack Daniels! (Thought you were a Makers Mark man instead :))
Mixed feelings about the film: a bit unsubtle, and Patricia Neal isn't always all that convincing (but the script's a bit clunky and she did the best she could with it). Matthau is good, as always. But compared to a Mankiewicz - All About Eve, for example - I thought it a bit clumsy. Baby Doll is terrific though.
Shock Corridor - have to give that a spin again. Haven't seen it for a couple of years, but the same reservations apply, as I recall. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest did it more effectively, I think.
Helen Mirren.. ah, saw her in Webster's Duchess Of Malfi at the theatre in Manchester when I was a kid and fell in love at first sight. Haven't seen The Queen though, and not in a hurry to do so.
Do they have Netflix across the pond, Dan? Iirc, Kazan encouraged Griffith to swill copious amounts of Jack in prep for his more unhinged/libertine scenes as Rhodes. You’re absolutely right: if it were me, I would’ve demanded the production team spring for a case of Maker’s ;)
I hear you on the film’s flaws, but what I like most about it is the willingness to wallow in the stupidity of the masses/media, a big reason it supposedly tanked at the box office. There’s also some great scenes that border on the surreal, specifically the Vitachex commercials & the baton twirling contest. Griffith talks about Kazan’s coaching during that latter segment & how he was advised to imagine ravishing Lee Remick in every way possible to conjure just the right lewd looks.
Matthau can pretty much do no wrong in my book, though I’ve made a point of avoiding the Grumpy Old Men franchise. Flicks like Charlie Varrick and Fail-Safe are so great. And even serious flawed ventures like The Laughing Policeman and Survivors are worth seeing thanks to his performances.
No argument here on All About Eve- classic!
I haven’t seen The Queen either, but I’ve heard/read good things about it. She was pretty terrific in the recent HBO mini-series Elizabeth and Prime Suspect definitely has me hooked. A look at her filmography over at AMG is pretty enlightening. For instance, I didn’t realize she had parts in 2010, The Long Goodbye and Caligula
Posted by: derek at February 9, 2007 1:36 PMThe Queen would have been fine on TV as a BBC special imported onto PBS. As a film, I found it pretty trite; nice impersonations of the various public figures but so what. The Queen's moment of lonely psychic communion with a deer when her van is mired in a river is oddly reminiscent of Princess Mononoke.
Off tonight to see Paris Nous Appartient.
Posted by: nd at February 9, 2007 1:44 PMOh dear, The Queen. Nothing much of interest to report on that; Nate has it stitched up nicely. But Helen Mirren is a superb actor. My advice: close your eyes and listen to her delivering lines - her modulations are so eloquent you'll be amazed by what you hear.
Posted by: Bryan Merely at February 11, 2007 9:41 AM(With apologies to Graham for mentioning film, a debased and inconsequential medium, at all.)
Posted by: Bryan Merely at February 11, 2007 9:44 AMI owe you a beer, Brian. Come down to the Med. to collect it, and there'll be more.
Posted by: Graham L. Rogers at February 11, 2007 1:07 PMSome interesting comments on The Queen here -- mostly favourable, though really it shows that it's a well-made film rather than all that good a film. Still, the remarks on the use of a classical style vs handheld to convey the contrast of royals vs Blair's government are useful.
Posted by: nd at February 15, 2007 10:20 AMFace in the Crowd is worth watching in the context of the rhetoric and image-manipulation of Ronald Reagan's presidency or Richard Nixon's (e.g. the smarmy Checkers speech) alone.
I'm always impressed by films that in retrospect are ahead of their time - and Face in the Crowd dealt with issues of politics/marketing and media manipulation of audiences in a way that films largely didn't contend with until the 60s/70s (e.g. Putney Swope, Network). Sullivan's Travels is another good one is this regard, if memory serves.
Posted by: Sarah Lockhart at February 15, 2007 1:30 PMissues of politics/marketing and media manipulation of audiences in a way that films largely didn't contend with until the 60s/70s (e.g. Putney Swope, Network). Sullivan's Travels is another good one is this regard, if memory serves.
Hmmm. Are you thinking of Meet John Doe maybe?
No, Sullivan's Travels - the main character as Hollywood pabulum producer seeing how manipulative and unreal his products are.
Posted by: Sarah Lockhart at February 16, 2007 1:04 PMYes, the film nicely satirizes politically/socially conscious filmmaking of the period; that said, since it ends up not in a plea for more realism but instead for more entertaining films (the final sounds are the laughter of an audience watching a Mickey Mouse cartoon) I'm not sure it's so straightforward.
Posted by: nd at February 16, 2007 1:52 PMit ends up not in a plea for more realism but instead for more entertaining films (the final sounds are the laughter of an audience watching a Mickey Mouse cartoon)
I'm not sure that should be read as a plea for more entertainment rather than a cutting remark about what audiences want and filmakers give them. I do think, though, that for a critique of political marketing, it's tough to beat Capra's take on Stanwyck's job-saving newspaper prank and her ubermeister's use of the "clubs."
Posted by: walto at February 17, 2007 3:58 AMGood points, all. I'm just trying to recover from the disappointment of Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE, which I went to see last night and was totally underwhelmed by. Any other Baganauts been out Lynching lately?
Posted by: Dan Warburton at February 17, 2007 9:35 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................