Kidnapped

One gets a fuller and more rounded picture of the times that the famous Robert Louis Stevenson novel Kidnapped is set in with this version of Kidnapped. Not only is the famous Stevenson novel taken to David Balfour's return and vindication, but we go a bit farther with the story based on Stevenson's successor novel Catriona and we get the Kidnapped story firmly entrenched in the times it happened.

Those times being the days after the Battle Of Culloden where the Scottish people chose between the returning French speaking Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Hanover monarchy of George II in 1745. At Culloden the Stuart forces were destroyed and the Hanoverians firmly in control after that. Those were bad times to be a Highlander and a supporter of the Stuarts.

Lawrence Douglas plays young David Balfour and Michael Caine is Alan Breck his friend and rescuer during the kidnapping of young Balfour by Captain Jack Hawkins at the behest of Balfour's uncle Donald Pleasance.

I'll not say more as the story of Kidnapped is well known. As for the continuing material from Catriona, the differences between Alan Breck and David Balfour are brought out. Lawrence Douglas is a Hanoverian supporter and Breck a soldier in the army of Prince Charles. However Douglas is an honest young man and goes to bat for a Stuart accused of a crime he did not commit. That sets the rival Campbell clan against him and puts Advocate General Trevor Howard in a delicate position.

Howard's character is not in the first novel and he's a decent man in an impossible political position. It's Alan Breck however who sets things right in the end for all concerned.

Previous versions with Warner Baxter and Freddie Bartholomew and Peter Finch and James MacArthur only concentrated on the Kidnapped story. The Finch/MacArthur version was from Disney and marketed for kids. This film is more adult and firmly set in the politics of the time with a good ensemble cast. I'd check this out especially if I liked the work of Robert Louis Stevenson.

It is actually a bit of a testament to Michael Caine's charisma, that I didn't give this one star. As a Scot, I ought to have hated it. Oddly enough, though, it's not awful. Sure, his accent is all over the place but somehow the thrust of the story is reasonably handled. It all starts with "David Balfour" (Lawrence Douglas) trekking to his uncle "Ebenezer" (Donald Pleasance) to tell him his father has passed away. The venal old gent has no intention of sharing his meagre fortune and soon "Davie" in underway across the sea under the guidance of "Capt. Hoseason" (Jack Hawkins). That ship hits a smaller one which introduces us to the Jacobite, tartan-clad, Caine ("Alan Breck Stewart") who is on the run from King George's red coats. After literally having to fight their way off the brig they have some adventures, get caught up in an high level assassination and end up with both trying to achieve their objectives against the odds. The production is pleasing to look like, and the score sets up some lovely Scottish location photography. The cast? Well, Hawkins looks like he has had way too much port; Trevor Howard is quite effective as the duplicitous Lord Advocate and the young Douglas does fine as the naive but decent young "Balfour". It is all about Michael Caine, though - and for all it's many flaws, there is no denying that the solid underpinning adventure story serves as a strong enough bedrock for this not to end up the laughable nonsense it could have been. Not a patch on the Disney version from 1959, but I didn't hate it...

Actually, comparing with the many filmed interpretations it is a fair representation of Robert Louis Stevenson's grand story. At least it was filmed for the most part in Scotland and the lovely scenic shots add to the authenticity.

I think there have been some unfair comments made on this particular interpretation but in general I would say it deserves a far better reception than some have given.

I have no problem with the English actors playing Scottish characters, Caine here is a passable lowland Scots as Allan Breck. Actors after all are judged by their skills and interpretation of the character and that's all that matters, it would be a sad day if we have to be Scottish solely to play a Scottish character. However, I'm not sure that Caine's costume would be one anyone would be seen dead in, it was clearly awful, and hardly the sort of attire a rebel would be running around in.

What matters is, that it is a fine interpretation of Stevenson's story.

I enjoyed this movie very much. It is loosely based on two Robert Louis Stevenson novels, Kidnapped and its sequel Catriona. Those who would religiously stick to the contents of these novels will be disappointed in the adaptation. However, the film has, as it should IMHO, a world and plot of its own. Moreover, the plot is engaging and quite exciting.

The film movingly portrays a culture and political cause on the verge of destruction and the politics behind it. To a certain extent, it has to modify the plot of the two novels to effectively do so. Now it might have been nice if we could have heard the Scottish language spoken amongst the Highlanders. This absence makes it harder to portray the cultural conflict which was important both in the period and in the novels. However, we can forgive the film's makers by remembering that such was rarely done in the early 1970s.

The plot may not be entirely accurate in detail (the Appin murder, etc), but the portrayal of the Jacobite Rebellion is both very accurate and insightful, surprisingly so for a big-time film. The ending is a terrific and original attempt to convey the thoughts and psychology of a man through the medium of film.

All that aside, it is a historical adventure. One either likes that genre or doesn't. If the former, then the chances are you will like this.

May I take this opportunity to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen in connection with "Kidnapped". In doing so I shall not attempt a review of the film itself, other than to note here that it is reasonably well-made and entertaining.

Whatever the rights and wrongs (ethically speaking) of the breakup of the old clan system in the Scottish Highlands, and the claims of the Jacobite Succession, it is just plain wrong (factually speaking) to refer to the English as the "British" by contrast with the Scots. The term British refers to anyone who was a subject of the British Crown, subsequent to the Act of Union of 1707; it can refer indifferently to Scots, Welsh, English and Northern Irish, and historically (prior to Home Rule) to the Irish generally.

There may be some sentimentality on the part of American viewers who, mindful of their own War of Independence, wish to identify with others struggling against "British" rule. But the terms British and English are not, and should not be considered, interchangeable.

(There is great ignorance about this distinction in Continental Europe as well; I have had many animated discussions with German-speakers, who have failed to distinguish between "England" and "Grossbritannien", and with Francophones, who think that the whole of "Grande-Bretagne" is also "Angleterre". This may be politically comforting, but is culturally and historically WRONG!)