The Four Feathers (2002)

 

                        “The Four Feathers” is the latest attempt to bring A.E.W. Mason’s novel to the screen.  It was directed by Shekhar Kapur.  The screenplay was by Michael Schiffer (who also writes for video games – foreshadowing) and Hossein Amini (who was nominated for the Adapted Screenplay for “The Wings of a Dove”).  These are the three people to blame for this movie. 

                        Let’s concentrate on how it differs from the the original version.  The movie leads with a brutal rugby match that establishes the rugged camaraderie of the quintet of Faversham (Heath Ledger), Durrance (Wes Bentley), Willoughby, Trench, and Castleton.  The ball includes the engagement announcement between Harry and Ethne (Kate Hudson).  They kiss right in front of Durrance to establish the awkward love triangle.  Word of the regiment’s deployment arrives during a regimental dinner and Harry resigns his commission the next day.  This scene is a replica of the 1939 version.  When the other mates learn of Harry’s action, Durrance refuses to believe he is a coward, but the other three send the feathers.  Harry tells Ethne he resigned because of his father, but does not go into detail.  He says he did not do it for her.  She is left with the clear impression that he is simply a coward.  The quartet goes off to the Sudan and they are together all the time.  Harry follows in a lame disguise as a swarthy Arab.  He is not mute.  He hooks up with a Muslim named Abou Fatma (Djimon Hounsou) who saves his life and become his protector.  They attempt to warn the British column of a Mahdi ambush, but can’t prevent the destruction of the British square.  Willoughby (Rupert Penry-Jones) survives to return his feather to Ethne.  Durrance is blinded by a misfiring musket and saved by Harry.  Trench (Michael Sheen) is captured and put in Omdurman prison.   Harry allows himself to be captured and makes contact with Trench.  Abou helps them escape. 

                        Let’s explore the reasoning that went into Schiffer and Amini’s screenplay.  They must have known that the 1939 version is well-respected.  They also could have assumed most of the public were unfamiliar with the earlier version and the book.  The logical thing would have been to remake the movie with Heath Ledger playing Harry Faversham.  Clearly, there was pressure to tone down the anti-Muslim portrayal which was understandable.  Abou does appear in the book so it is not like they were forced to invent a character so there would be a reason to cast Hounsou.  However, the Harry/Abou arc is so ludicrous, you have to ask what they were thinking.  It exists primarily to show that Christians and Muslims can work together.  The pendulum has swung too far from the 1939 version here.  An evil jailer is added so Harry can have a cinematically cathartic fight.  Speaking of fights, it was a dubious decision to put the story in the Gordon Relief Expedition leading up to the Battle of Abu Khea, instead of the aftermath of Khartoum and the Battle of Omdurman. 

                        The battle scene is pretty intense, but not graphic.  With plenty of slo-mo, naturally.  It is far from a realistic rendering of the battle.  In reality, a British square that was moving was assaulted by Mahdi cavalry which nearly broke the square.  Unlike the movie, the Brits won the battle, but reached Khartoum too late.  The movie has a stationary square and features so much cinematic bullshit that you almost have to laugh.  Somehow Harry is part of Mahdi horsemen disguised as British soldiers.  Instead of being imprisoned, he was conscripted!   This is how classics are improved upon, by assuming the audience are morons who are mesmerized by Heath Ledger’s handsomeness.  The movie certainly could care less about war movie fans.  Christ, the small British cavalry unit that leaves the protection of the square to chase the huge Mahdi army is referred to as “skirmishers”!

                        The movie wastes a good cast.  It must have been determined that Ledger was not capable of playing a mute and Bentley is given little to do as the blind Durrance.     Kate Hudson is lovely to look at, but Ethne has no depth.  She is appropriately harsh with Harry when he tells her of his resignation, but almost immediately after he leaves, she is morose about her treatment of him.   There is little of the torment she is going through when she decides to nobly wed Durrance in spite of her feelings for Harry.  Willoughby and Trench get more screen time and Castleton is considerably beefed up and gets a death scene not afforded in the book.

                        Look, I know the 1939 version is old and has actors you may not have heard of, but it is in color (very vibrant Technicolor), so you don’t have the excuse that you don’t watch black and white movies.  There is no reason to watch the 2002 downgrade instead of the much superior earlier version.  Both improve on the mediocre novel, but 2002 does not improve on 1939 in any way.  It could and should have.  The 1939 movie is far from a great movie, but dumbing it down and making it politically correct did not result in a better film.

GRADE  =  C