The Buccaneer

This was the third version I watched of the exploits of French pirate Jean Lafitte, but the first that was made; the others were LAST OF THE BUCCANEERS (1950) and the 1958 remake of the film under review. Interestingly, while De Mille himself produced the latter, he relinquished the directorial reins – presumably because he was too ill for the task – to his son-in-law, actor Anthony Quinn (who had a supporting role in the original!), whose only effort in this capacity it proved to be. For the record, two other cast members were similarly featured in both i.e. Douglass Dumbrille and Jack Pennick.

Anyway, this was also the third in my Fredric March epic viewings (with one more to go): it is telling that the star's tendency towards ham (not helped by his adopting a foreign accent – which did not really come into play when he interpreted an Italian in THE AFFAIRS OF CELLINI or a Russian in WE LIVE AGAIN {both 1934}!) was brought out by the director's idiosyncrasies (including a frequent resort to collective singing – albeit of patriotic American songs rather than the usual salty ditties!) that, evidently, were not restricted to his frequent religious ventures. While fine in itself, then, the movie emerges as perhaps the least of De Mille's 1930s spectacles. Incidentally, it had been planned for a local TV broadcast in the mid-1980s which never materialized!

As expected, the settings, crowd scenes and action highlights are elaborate as can be; the cast list, too, is extensive – peppered with familiar faces and even a few award-winning actors (a delightful Akim Tamiroff as March's sidekick and a grumpy Walter Brennan, who enters late into the proceedings as his counterpart to General and future American President Andrew Jackson). The latter is effectively played by one Hugh Sothern, who reprised the role a year later for the two-reel short OLD HICKORY. On the other hand, the major female presences (one spunky and the other stately) are decorative more than anything else – the former, Hungarian Franciska Gaal (here being groomed for U.S. stardom but which did not happen), is rather overbearing under the circumstances.

The narrative sees privateer Lafitte side with the Americans against the British in the war of 1812; traitorous Senator Ian Keith does his best to make him look bad in the eyes of the people of Louisiana, even having the Navy massacre the pirate band intending to support them!; ultimately, they face-off in a swordfight inside a jail. Eventually, the "boss" reaches an agreement with Jackson, and his contribution (led by former Napoleonic cannoneer Tamiroff's expertise) is vital in repelling the much larger enemy forces. However, when all differences seem to have been settled, an old crime – which a rogue section of Lafitte's men were responsible for but not he personally – resurfaces, so the buccaneer is forced to go into exile, forever roaming the seas…

Despite its historical pedigree, the film stands as an example of what used to be branded "enjoyable hokum", of which De Mille was a prime exponent; that said, its professionalism is undisputed and, in fact, Victor Milner's cinematography (which, for one night-time rallying sequence, turns sepia) garnered the movie its sole Oscar nomination. By the way, the "Leslie Halliwell Film Guide" erroneously lists this as having a mere 90-minute duration – when, in fact, the TCM-sourced print I watched (exhibiting some picture instability halfway through which, however, were smoothed over upon being replayed!) lasted a good deal more at 126!!

I caught this movie on TCM today and found myself throughly entertained. To my knowledge this was my first ever viewing. The cast was simply superb.....practically everyone. Fredric March was so dashing and effective, I had never realized what a talent this guy was. He even pulled off a French accent flawlessly....whoa! This version of The Buccaneer is simply far superior to the 1958 film which I've seen a couple of times. There was real magic in Hollywood during the 1930s, I'm not sure that town has ever totally recaptured what they had back then. This movie definitely belongs in there with the A list that includes Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Captain Blood, Beau Geste, Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Gunga Din, King Kong and all the rest. The script was by a GREAT historical novelist named Harold Lamb. This was a huge bonus for this movie. The story sticks fairly close to history and has a terrific pace. My only complaints are relatively minor....the battle at the end didn't quite live up to my expectations(though it probably did realistically portray the excitement and confusion of the participants) and Lafitte could have simply told the truth about the ship Corinthian which was sunk on the orders of another Pirate, not Lafitte. This was the reason Lafitte got chased away from New Orleans (according to the movie at least) Great movie, great leading man, great writing, great cast, great direction, great sets.....a classic. Oh yes, the actor portraying Andrew Jackson was dead on.....not that I have actually met Old Hickory mind you!

An excellent action movie with good pacing and development. There is never a dull moment. The movie shows more of Laffite's business dealings than with his pirate actions. In actual fact Laffite was quite a businessman that the governor did want captured and did put a price on his head of $500. Laffite did respond to that but not for the $10,000 the movie stated. One must never accept a movie's version of history but "The Buccaneer" does a quite credible job of drawing you into life in 1814 in New Orleans. Laffite was offered $30,000 and other inducements by the British and the Americans did not believe him (this was very accurate). His base in Barataria was destroyed though at a later time. When the battle was over he did go back to sea as a pirate. His days in New Orleans were indeed over. So, sit back and enjoy a movie that is good entertainment and is also pretty good history. This movie is proof that you can learn history from the movies.

This a classic swashbuckling film....seemingly a film very typical for Cecil B. De Mille. Fredric March is superb in his role as Jean Lafite....also interesting to see Anthony Quinn as early as 1938. Do enjoy this piece of cinematic artwork. One must also remember that historically Andrew " Old Hickory " Jackson was eventually a U. S. President. Personally...I feel that March, Errol Flynn and Burt Lancaster (The Crimson Pirate) are the actors that best typified " Pirates " in classic Hollywood. Although today credit must be given to Johnny Depp in both of the Pirates of the Caribbean pictures which I thoroughly enjoyed and which of course reminded me of the above-mentioned actors and their films

This film was pretty much what I expected from Cecil B. DeMille. In almost all of his films, you have a huge cast (this time in the thousands), elaborate sets and props, a rather silly romance and a desire for action and expense over realism and historical accuracy. Many love his films, but I find most of them time-passers.

As for the romance, this film features two for Jean Lafitte (Frederic March), though the dominant one involves Franciska Gaal. She's rather a comic book-like figure--more a caricature than a believable person and this is pure DeMille, as is the romantic dialog. At least it was much better than the lines uttered in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS by the Princess, but this isn't saying much. DeMille just had no ability to convey real people and real romance--he was more the epic action and spectacle sort of director.

Action-wise, there are some very long and well made scenes, though oddly, the naval sequences were awfully tepid. The battle scenes on land were handled much better and the costumes looked very nice.

Historically speaking, this isn't a bad film but it does contain many inaccuracies. Apart from glamorizing Jean Lafitte (who was a smuggler and total jerk), it seemed to exaggerate his importance to the Battle of New Orleans. While he did "rat" on the English by telling the Americans of their invasion plans, most accounts place the number of troops he sent to fight to be just a few dozen at most (though they were gunners--a welcome addition). Also, the fact that this battle actually took place a month AFTER the peace treaty was signed wasn't mentioned--as communication was such in 1815 that the British and Americans could not let the troops know that the war had ended for several more weeks. This made the outcome of the battle unimportant (but certainly not to the soldiers involved) and would have taken away from the excitement of the film, so it was simply omitted.

While I am complaining, I should also point out that the film never seemed to end. While it logically should have ended when this battle concluded, it continued and greatly lessened the film's impact and made me fidgety.

Overall, there's a lot of action (I'd give this an 8), some dopey romance and dialog (I'd give them a 3), some good and bad historically speaking (I'd give it a 5) and the movie was overly long. Overall, I think a score of 5 is merited. A decent time-passer but that's about all.