Gunga Din

In the most general of terms Gunga Din not only qualifies as a classic but more or less defines the term "classic" in every respect. I wouldn't know how to fault this film, as it succeeds on every level.

You begin with a workable idea for a story. Then you follow that up with superb script writing, direction and photography, and wonderful performances by the entire cast. The end result of that collaboration of successful effort is, as it must be . . . a classic.

And not only does Gunga Din succeed as a mere action adventure, which would be impressive enough, but it's comedic relief serves as a virtual workshop for aspiring directors who, lamentably today, just don't seem to get that part of the equation in all too many cases--you know, as in movie-making is an art? Or at least it used to be.

There's seems to be a gap in our society's culture when it comes to the enjoyment of art which attempts to communicate on various intellectual levels. I would put this down to dubious education all around if I had to pick just one culprit, but I don't know, maybe that's too simplistic. I experience fear, though, when I read negative comments from viewers of films as rich in various, and to me obvious, qualities as is Gunga Din. All I hear in these cases, at best, is a fundamental lack of artistic appreciation at base.

Well, for these people I imagine that all that's left is to simply go out and buy the cheap remakes of the classic films, which are, of course, a dime a dozen nowadays. And then I suppose they will get what they need: presumably a package of questionable casting, incompetent direction, in many instances virtually no attempt at intelligent character development whatsoever, along with x-many minutes of gratuitous violence and endless smash-ups, replete, of course, with plenty of LFE icing for this new-age filmic cake.

Meanwhile, I hope that my daughter will come to appreciate the great films such as Gunga Din for the classic productions they were upon release, and which they certainly remain today.

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.

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.

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.