The Man Who Would Be King

What most viewers do not realize about The Man Who Would Be King (1975) is that it is not about a legendary place, although Rudyard Kipling may have thought so when he wrote the story, because no white man had ever been there and returned to tell about it.

The place was then known as Kafiristan and is now known as Nuristan. It is in Eastern Afghanistan next to Chitral, which is in Northwest Pakistan.

Place names in the movie, such as Kamdesh and Bashgal, are real places in Nuristan. The explorer Robertson, whom Billy Fish reports has having died, did not die in real life but was rescued by a British military force in 1895, after Kipling wrote his story.

The people of Nuristan are believed to be descendants of Alexander the Great, who came there in 328 BC, just as the movie states. They had a pagan religion as the movie describes until they were forcibly converted to Islam in 1892. There are still some believers of the old religion in the Kalash Valleys of Pakistan.

For more about these people see http://www.samsloan.com/damik.htm

I know about all this because I have been there and I married a woman named Honzagool there. She did not bite me as did the wife of Sean Connery in the movie, however.

Sam Sloan

The greatest "buddy film" of all time. What makes this so? First off, casting two real life friends, Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Second, all other "buddy films" are simply comedies. And while the Man Who Would Be King has some laughs in it, and Connery and Caine bounce off of each other almost as good as Abbott and Costello, the story itself is a drama. And what a drama it is. Two English soldiers set out to be the rulers of a country, but can anyone who was a grunt one day, and a king the next, become a King without getting an inflated ego? The answer is no and that becomes the ultimate test for these two friends. Terrific performances by Caine, Connery and even Christopher Plummer, who gives a brief, but good performance as Rudyard Kipling, the man who wrote the short story this film was based on. This film features perhaps the greatest ending to a movie ever made. You will never forget it, and you will wish that you had a friendship as strong as these two individuals.

It's interesting to look through the negative reviews of The Man Who Would Be King. Those submitted twenty years ago reflect the range of subjective response you might expect from any film. Move forward to those submitted in the last few years and a common theme arises. The film is "unwatchable" because it portrays people in a colonial era with a colonial perspective. Somehow it's assumed that the writer casting forth this judgement somehow from birth knew all that is right and just and can, without a shred of arrogance or hypocrisy, see clearly the sins of the past and guide the rest of us as to what is correct and incorrect for us to allow our weak eyes and ears to take in or avoid so that we can also live a similarly enlightened life.

Someday I hope those who so arrogantly seek to cancel or at least condemn any film from an earlier era that did not by some miracle anticipate what would be politically correct in 2022 will gain some humility. Hopefully they will then finally come to recognize that they too suffer from the flawed human condition and are blind to what the next generation will someday condemn them for.

If you want to see how great filmmaking was done before digital technology made it easy to create any setting, this is a great film to watch. If you want to see how people viewed the world in the colonial era - and - of you want to understand how those who lived through the Great Depression and WWII sought to portray the colonial era, this is a great film to watch. It's also a well told story if you have the ability to follow a story that unfolds slowly and doesn't flash from one action scene to another.

However, if you are like those who led the cultural revolution in China and believe that history must be eradicated or revised, I guess this is one of the cultural artifacts that must be destroyed. If that's you, I'll save you the time. You can add this to your censor list.

Danny and Peaches are two officers in the British army who find themselves at a loss when their services are no longer required in Asia. While blackmailing a local Raj, the pair are exposed by author Rudyard Kipling and brought before an officer. They are warned but released. Later the visit Kipling to get him to witness a contract for their latest plan – to become kings of a small country by training a village to conquer the rest of the villages and then leave months later with riches. The conquest begins in earnest, but when Danny's vigour in battle makes him appear to be a god to the villagers new dangers are introduced.

I have seen two interviews recently with the two leads (separately) and both time clips of this film were shown that made me think `I must watch that again'. Come Christmas and the repeats on all channels gave me the chance to see it. I had forgotten just how funny the film is and it really helps the film to be an enjoyable adventure to add to the dark edges. The plot is from a Kipling story so it is of a good stock and stands up well. The addition of humour is well pitched and really helps.

It is a great adventure story, with a cautionary twist in the tale and can be enjoyed on all levels. The directing is as good as you'd hope from Huston but what really made the film for me was the two leads on top form. Both Connery and Caine have a great chemistry and totally convince as the old school military types. They bring the roles to life and make them enjoyable and get us behind them effortlessly. Admittedly most of the support cast are only jabbering natives who aren't allowed characters with the odd exception. Plummer is good in a minor role but this is the Connery/Caine show all the way.

Overall this is a great story that is well told by director Huston. The film is made even better by the gentle camaraderie between Connery and Caine and the good vein of humour that underpins the strong story and quite downbeat climax to Caine's story.

Why is this film not given more recognition? It was one of those films that I had always heard about but had never seen. Well, I saw it the other day and I am shocked that I wasn't forced to watch this years ago. It is an amazing film. I have a hard time coming up with something that was wrong with it. The highlights, of course, were the performances of Caine and Connery. Nearly every user comment for this film has said how good their chemistry was, well I read all these comments before seeing the film and was still blown away by how good the chemistry was. Connery in particular was a surprise to me, even though Caine probably gave the better performance of the two.

As a Brit living in the US, it is hard to get Americans to really understand subtle aspects of British life (the optimism, the humour, the strength of character)... so I now have three movies that I tell people to watch in order to get a better idea of what it means to be British: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, and The Man Who Would Be King.