“Soldiers
Three” is a British colonialism film that was inspired by the success of “Gunga
Din” (1939). LIke that smash hit, it was based on Rudyard Kipling. It was
directed by Tay Garnett (Bataan, One Minute to Zero). One of the three
screenwriters was Marguerite Roberts. She was the rare female screenwriter back
then. She was complimented for being a ballsier writer than most of the males.
She got caught up in the Red Scare of the 1950s. She refused to name names
before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Her career was blacklisted
for nine years as a result.
During WWI, a retired Col. Brunswick is reminiscing about his past career as a commander of a regiment in India. He flashes back to a trio of soldiers that were the bane of his existence back then, but now he can laugh about their antics. Privates Ackroyd (Stewart Granger), Sykes (Robert Newton), and Malloy (Cyril Cusack) were noted for their hard drinking, womanizing, and gambling. Naturally, their insubordination was balanced by their being great soldiers when it came to combat. We are introduced to them via a slapstick bar fight with appropriate music. This scene sets the tone for the rest of the movie. It is an comical adventure tale. When Col. Brunswick is replaced by the less-understanding Col. Groat. He assigns Capt. Pindenny (David Niven) who decides the best way to deal with the terrible trio is to break them up. He promotes Ackroyd to Sergeant. I don’t need to tell you he hates officers and hates being one. When the unit goes on a dangerous mission to occupy a fort that is targeted by Indian rebels led by chieftain named Manik Rao (Syrian-American Michael Ansara), Ackroyd goes AWOL to reunite with his buddies. This leads to a big battle at and in the fort. This is the part of the movie that resembles a Western.
MGM was hoping for another “Gunga Din” and the movie has similarities to the earlier film, starting with the rambunctious trio. But this movie was not nearly as successful. Or good. Part of the blame went to the casting. Garnett attributed the failure to one miscasting. In his autobiography, Granger revealed the problem was Newton. Newton was a drunkard and not capable of practicing his profession in a coherant manner. Garnett tried to overcome the one weak leg of the tripod by ramping up the hijinks. He sat in his director’s chair and laughed at the scenes, but he must have had a undiscerning sense of humor because it is hard to imagine the audiences finding much mirth and certainly 21st Century viewers won’t find it funny. For instance, when their patrol crosses a river and loses their clothes, Ackroyd goes to a lady friend who lends them women’s clothing. (Hey, ladies, this might not be hilarious, but you do get to see the bare-chests of some movie stars!)
The
film gives off the aura of trying too hard. There is a lot of mugging in place
of acting. None of the actors has anything to be proud of. Granger later admitted
the movie threatened to derail his career. Roberts might have been a good
screenwriter, but she and her two male partners were not able to create a plot
that did not pale in comparison to “Gunga Din”. Because it borrows so much from
that much superior film, it is predictable. This includes the final battle
which substitutes dynamite for good combat choreography. It is staged with the
typical rousing movie of the subgenre. The deaths are theatrical. The good guys
win, of course. But let me argue once again that these British films that laud
their military as it protects the Empire, are actually making the villains the
heroes. Manik Rao was a native Indian fighting against a colonial oppressor. So
don’t hiss when he appears on screen.
There are much better films from the colonial adventure subgenre besides “Gunga Din”. Here are a few ranked:
1. Beau Geste (1939) = A
2. Gunga Din (1939) = B
3. The Four Feathers (1939) = B-
4. Lives of a Bengal Lancer = C+
5. The Lost Patrol = D
6. Soldiers Three = D
