Gunga Din

I have seen "Gunga Din" several times. It is not a strict re-telling of the Kipling work but a studio era take on it. It is jingoistic and hokey but it is an entertaining and uplifting film.

Those that bemoan the "un-PC" tone of the film need to look at it in context. The underlying theme of the piece is that these British soldiers come to hold a member of a group of people they had (until that time) regarded as savages, in higher regard than most of their compatriots. The ideas of universal human qualities and nobility are driven home in a very emotional, if a little ham-fisted way. Considering the racial atmosphere in America at the time, this was not exactly a statement without some daring.

To condemn this film or the original story for racism is to miss the point entirely. That was the time and for its time, the messages here are incredibly progressive. Besides, even if the film were racist, only a fool discards a classic piece of art because he or she disagrees with the content of the message. Pretty much all critics and film historians list Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" somewhere in the top 3 films of all time, regardless of the fact that the heroes of the picture are the KKK. The message was wrong but the film transformed the whole of film-making forever. Do we discard that too? Do we burn all copies of Joseph Conrad's novella "Heart of Darkness" because some perceive the narrator to be a bigot? To do so would be robbing generations of a classic example of well crafted storytelling at its best. Such behavior is ignorance in its basest form.

But, you know, that's just what I think.

While it is fashionable in too many circles to condemn anything which portrays European colonialism generally, and the British Empire specifically, in a favorable light, a little historical knowledge will show that Kipling's story, as well as this superb film, are hardly the reactionary racist screed some would like to demote them to. Gunga Din is a regimental bhisti - a water carrier - and in 19th century India that meant that he had a job which guaranteed a place to sleep and food in a very brutal society. Considering that he was also an "untouchable" - a member of India's lowest caste - this was something. Colonel Weed is correct in saying "he had no official status as a soldier" - bhistis were non-military auxiliaries. As for his loyalty to the British, there were many Indians who clearly preferred British rule to that of their fellows - and not just the maharajas and princes.

If you read the story - and watch the movie with an objective eye - at the end, all the major characters have nothing but respect for Gunga Din. Sergeant MacChesney (Victor McLaglen) is clearly shamed by the fact that Din, in the end, was not only the better soldier but the better man - he sacrificed himself to prevent the ambush and massacre of the British column. The most telling example that the movie doesn't "put down" Gunga Din is at the end when Colonel Weed posthumously appoints the former regimental bhisti as a Corporal in the regiment. Corporal was a BRITISH rank - the equivalent Indian rank was Havildar. So, he was appointed as a BRITISH non-commissioned officer who could command British troops - hardly an example of political incorrectness.

Yes, this is "men-as-buddies" flick. However, this movie has a special appeal to anyone who has actually served in the military - those are the types of friendships you make (you'll share your last drop of water with your mess mate) and keep for the rest of your days. It acknowledges that. So enjoy it - it is a rousing tale - and keep the PC-nonsense out of it. The bad guys lose in the end while the best man is recognized for his virtues - you don't even get that it in real life.

Among my father's favorite movies that I remember were High Noon, Four Feathers (both Korda's and the silent version), and this one. Not surprisingly they've all become favorites of mine. They are certainly the "guy flicks" of their day that wouldn't stand a chance of being made that way today. But I guess that's what makes them classics never to be forgotten, because, although all are classic stories, destined to be told again and again, they'll never be recreated in the original ways that made them classics.

Gunga Din has it all, and all, although dated and unapologetically un-PC, great stuff. To all the on target comments written about this movie, let me just add, the scenes leading up to and including the final battle are among the most moving in cinema. A gem of a movie. I can't hear the stir of (undeservedly unappreciated and maligned) bagpipes without remembering the thrill of this picture. It's timeless and wonderful.

This old film just has some important elements the bulk of current films seem to lack: strength of character, genuine heroism and an understanding of what true altruism and sacrifice mean. And Sam Jaffe, a terrific (now-unfortunately-deceased) character actor breaks the viewer's heart as the "regimental bhisti, Gunga Din," who takes constant abuse and gives his all, including his life, to carry water to the men of the Queen's regiment even in the thick of battle.

Funny, I don't remember it as a comedy, though I think there may have been some spots of humor in it, but then, I was rather young the last time I saw it on the Late, Late Show... too many years ago to even want to think about.

It's a wonderful movie and I hope the animated version, coming out next year, does the poem and story the same good service the 1939 film managed to do.

Highly recommended.

'Gunga Din' is the kind of film you cherish after the first viewing and then want to revisit from time to time. It stays in the memory and for valid reasons--the casting is perfect with the three buddies entering into the spirit of the whole thing--the perfect buddy movie. Cary Grant gave many fine performances on film but this is one of his greatest--heroic and funny at the same time. Sam Jaffe is excellent as the water carrier who eventually saves the regiment in what has to be one of the most thrilling endings ever conceived for an action movie. Today some of it is politcally incorrect but this is a minor flaw in a great movie. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Victor McLaglen and Eduardo Ciannelli are all perfectly cast. Joan Fontaine has a couple of brief scenes as the only femme in the story--but fails to ignite any interest in her bland role. Based on the famous Rudyard Kipling poem, it deserves a place at the top of the list of great adventure films produced in the 1930s. I'd love to see a technicolor version today with someone like Brendan Fraser leading the "musketeers". A real gem.