Here's a film that will transport you back to another time and place – for better and for worse. It's not really a better time and place. It's a time and place in which racism and misjudged ideas about courage and conquest were rampant. Most of you will need to set aside your moral sensitivities while watching this film, but you'll find it worth it for the value of the aesthetic experience. The time and place in question is mainly the Sudan of 1898.

Historical Background: The Sudan – What we now call Sudan was part of the powerful Arabized Negro nation of Funje from the 15th century until 1820, when the region was conquered by an Egyptian army. Egypt was part of the Turkish empire, at the time; thus, the northern Sudan (then called Nubia) became a province of the Turkish empire. The region was highly unstable, however, due to the slave trade, tribal rivalries, and sloppy Turkish administration. The Turks were in nominal control of Egypt and the Sudan until 1881, when the British moved in to crush a general uprising. Egypt and the Sudan were thereafter British colonies in all but name until the intervention of the U.N. Security Council in 1947.

Turkish administration of the Sudan was extremely incompetent in the 1870's, so in 1877, British general Charles George Gordon took control, as Governor of Egyptian Sudan. Since Britain had outlawed slavery forty years earlier, Gordon set out to end the slave trade. The effect was similar to the current efforts to suppress cocaine trafficking in Colombia, because the respective economies, in each case, were so thoroughly tied to the unconscionable activity that suppression of it would result in widespread poverty for all. Godon had to resign in 1880 and a general uprising followed in 1882, led by Mohammed Ahmed, leader of the dervishes. Ahmed (c. 1845-1885) declared himself the Mahdi (the prophesized second coming, in Islam). Under Ahmed, the fierce rebels won a succession of victories, annihilating the Egyptian army in November, 1883 and capturing Khartoum from the British in January, 1885. During the capture of Khartoum, General Gordon was killed, badly stinging British pride.

The triumph of Ahmed was no general triumph for the Sudanese people, however. Conditions in the Sudan grew worse under Ahmed. Ahmed's successor, The Khalifa, Abdullah et Taaisha (c. 1843-c. 1899), reinstated the slave trade and waged war against the Nilotic Negroes and even invaded Egypt in 1889. It was in such circumstances that the British, in cooperation with the Egyptians, launched an expeditionary force under General Horatio Herbert Kitchener (1850-1916) in 1898, at which time the main portion of the story of The Four Feathers takes place. The Anglo-Egyptian forces routed Khalifa's army at Omdurman on September 2nd of that year, reestablishing joint British and Egyptian sovereignty over the Sudan, which lasted until the end of World War II. Winston S. Churchill, who witnessed the battle at Omdurman, later described it as an instance of "victory snatched from the jaws of peril!" Kitchener, a brilliant career soldier to the end, died at sea when the cruiser Hampshire, on which he was traveling, struck a mine and sank.

Historical Background: The Korda Brothers – The foregoing historical context was what the Korda Brothers set out to commit to film in the epic The Four Feathers, made on the eve of World War II. It was brilliant timing, from a propaganda standpoint, exciting British pride at the very moment of their greatest peril. Ironically the Korda brothers were a trio of Hungarian-born assimilated Jews. They had grown up in poverty after their father died suddenly. Alexander Korda (1893-1956), the eldest brother, entered the Hungarian film industry as a publicist and caption translator. He began directing films in 1914 and made a large number while still in Hungary, but none of those have survived down to the present time. He launched his own production company as early as 1917, but the political instability in Europe forced him to flee Hungary for Vienna, then to Berlin, and on to Hollywood, where he enjoyed only modest success. He found his ideal niche when he settled in Britain in the early thirties. He founded and ran London Films and brought new energy to the British film industry. His film The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933) was the first commercially successful British film of the sound era. Alexander gradually transitioned from directing to producing. He was ultimately knighted for his contributions to British cinema.

Middle brother Zoltán (1895-1961) fought in World War I and was exposed to poison gas, leaving him susceptible to lung problems for the rest of his life. He joined his brother's studio company in 1918, first as an editor. Later, he followed Alexander to Vienna, Berlin, London, and Hollywood. He directed The Four Feathers in 1939, earning his trip to Hollywood, where he made films throughout the forties and as late as 1955. His most successful Hollywood films were Jungle Book (1942), Sahara (1943), and The Macomber Affair (1947). Zoltán was one of six directors who worked on The Thief of Bagdad (1940).

Youngest brother Vincent Korda (1896-1979) was a gifted artist and collaborated with his brothers as art director for many of their films. He also worked with other directors. He won an Oscar for his sets for The Thief of Bagdad and Oscar nominations on three other occasions. The brothers had to move to America in the middle of working on The Thief of Bagdad because of the outbreak of World War II.

The Story: As the film opens, Harry Faversham is still just a lad of fifteen (Clive Baxter). He hails from a long line of military heroes and his father, General Faversham (Allan Jeayes), expects the lad to continue the family tradition. Young Harry, however, has more of a taste for poetry – and Shelly no less! General Faversham is hosting a party of some of his old comrades-in-arms from the Crimea, including Dr. Sutton (Frederick Culley) and General Burroughs (C. Aubrey Smith) and has invited young Harry to join the dinner party for the first time, with the hope of toughening the boy up. The terrible war stories recounted by the old-timers, rife with maiming and death, have quite the opposite effect on the lad. The topper comes from General Burroughs, who recounts a battle in the Crimea, complete with walnuts as the stand-ins for the Russians, a streak of port wine for his thin red line, and a pineapple for himself at the head of his company. "War was war in those days," he concludes, "And men were men." As Harry heads off to bed, he dolefully studies each of the portraits of his gallant ancestors that comprise the family escutcheon. Already Harry worries about whether we can, or even wants to, live up to the family tradition.

Flash forward ten years, and the now twenty-five year-old Harry (John Clements) is with his best friends at the military academy, John Durrance (Ralph Richardson), Arthur Willoughby (Jack Allen), and Peter Burroughs (Donald Gray). They are preparing to celebrate the completion of their training. The conversation between the young men is animated with talk of a possible expedition to the Sudan. Harry has even more reason to celebrate than the others. Tonight, young Arthur Willoughby's father will be announcing the engagement of Arthur's sister, Ethne (June Duprez), to Harry. Only John Durrance finds little to celebrate in the news, since he had been a rival to Harry for Ethne's hand.

Shortly after the announcement of the engagement and the lively military ball, brightly sprinkled with the colors of British uniforms and the young ladies' gowns, word comes that the Sudan campaign is official and that the 68th East Surrey Regiment will be a part of it. For young officers eager for glory, this is good news indeed – but not for Harry. Harry would prefer to remain in England and tend to his family estate, which has been too little cared for by his long string of ancestors, preoccupied as they were with military activities throughout the Empire. Deep down, Harry also believes himself to be a coward who might endanger his comrades-in-arms. Hoping that Ethne will understand his decision, Harry resigns his commission, on the eve of his regiment's transfer overseas. His three angry erstwhile friends give him a parting gift of three feathers, a symbol of cowardice in the British military tradition. Ethne, who is also thoroughly bound to a family tradition of military valor, adds the fourth, and their engagement is broken off.

Harry, full of self-loathing after disgracing himself in the eyes of all who are dearest to him, embarks on a drastic course of action, aimed at redeeming his honor, pride, and self-esteem. With only Dr. Surrey in the know, he heads to Egypt as a civilian. There, he undertakes a startling transformation, having his skin died a deeper tone and his forehead branded with an "S," the mark of a tribe that had their tongues cut out by the dervishes after a thwarted rebellion. Harry then sets out, disguised as a mute native, to return each of the feathers left him by his comrades, through acts of courage and bravery on each man's behalf. Harry's activities and those of his comrades are set in the context of the larger military engagement between the British forces and the army of Khalifa.

Harry succeeds in recovering his honor and then some, but there still remains the business of returning the fourth feather given him by his beloved Ethne. When the campaign in Sudan is consummated successfully and the young officers are back in England, the story closes with a brilliant final flourish, among the finest I've ever encountered in film. It would be unfair for me to give it away, so I'll only say that it involves, in sequence, pathos, recovered romance, and an incredibly humorous and conclusive closing joke.

Themes: This film is a marvelous work of art but it is also, frankly, even more overtly racist and militaristic than another film I reviewed recently about British colonialism, Zulu (1964). It is certainly true that the attitudes in relation to racism and imperial conquest were quite different in 1939 (and through most of history, for that matter). One could argue that we should not apply current standards of political correctness to works of art produced years ago and I accept that argument, as far as it goes. On the other hand, when a film or another art work is viewed at the present time, one has every right to be concerned with whether the values conveyed by that work of art have the potential of reinforcing defective thought patterns that played a role in maintaining such historical phenomena as racism, slavery, colonialism, suppression of women, homophobia, or warfare. My policy, therefore, is to comment explicitly on the values and assumptions underlying a film to which I take exception, but to rate a film mainly aesthetically and largely separate from the values it articulates. Apart from the fact that values change over time, another reason for not weighing value considerations too heavily in rating a film is that those reading my reviews may or may not share my values or prioritize them in the same way as I do.

From a values viewpoint, much of what this film expresses I find deplorable. To start with the film's core issue, the concept of courage is as generally laudable to me as it is to others, but only in relation to just causes. Courage, valor, and glory are not ideas to be valued when applied to immoral undertakings. Valor in murder or conquest, for example, is not something I admire. I will say, in fairness, that the British preoccupations with a code of honor and with military conquest are no more deplorable than the similar mentality depicted in many epics set in Japan. Secondly, this film basically assumes the white man's imperative and the inability of dark-skinned and heathen people to manage their own affairs. The fact that Khalifa was as bad or worse, in his own way, as the British is beside the point. This film even resorts to racist language, such as referring to the dervishes as "fuzzy-wuzzies." From a values standpoint, this film would actually work better set in "Middle Earth" where we don't have to concern ourselves with racism in relation to the likes of orcs and ringwraiths. Thirdly, I personally would have applauded Harry had he stuck to pursuing life in accordance with his own proclivities, rather than toeing the line of family tradition. I would have been delighted to see him discard both Ethne and his comrades, who disloyally refused to support him in pursuing life in accordance with his own nature, especially given the fact that the campaign in Sudan was simply a continuation of colonial oppression. The only aspect of this film's value foundation that I find attractive is the general idea that one has to do whatever is necessary to preserve one's integrity as a person, as defined by one's own values, regardless of the danger that might entail.

Production Values: The script of The Four Feathers was based on a novel by A.E.W. Mason, which is actually a rather light-weight piece of literature. There's good reason for that, however. Mason wrote the flimsy work around the time that World War I was beginning and he was engaged in espionage work in North Africa. The pretext of writing a novel became the cover for his espionage work, more than an earnest literary endeavor. The Four Feathers is one example of a film adaptation that clearly exceeds the quality of the book on which it was based. The story has proven so appealing that it has actually been filmed at least seven times.

Among the wonders of this film are the rich Technicolor images, most shot on-location in the Sudan. The battle scenes are magnificent and thrilling, but there are also beautiful sunsets, rolling dunes, and river rapids. The interior shots are every bit as intriguing. There's a series of impressive oil paintings hanging in young Harry's home, for example, near the film's beginning. The elaborate military ball is another gem, but every one of the interior rooms has been meticulously constructed to provide authentic mise-en-scene. It's very hard to believe this lush color film was made way back in 1939. MGM's DVD transfer looks great, overall, though there are minor flaws here and there. The vibrant film score was the work of Miklos Rozsa, a talented composer, especially for movie soundtracks.

John Clements was better known as a stage actor than a film star, but he did have commendable appearances is such works as Rembrandt (1936), Knight without Armor (1937), and Oh! What a Lovely War (1969). He did a great job, here, managing two almost separate roles, as the young officer and as the mute native. It is also he who delivers the film's picture-perfect punch line. Ralph Richardson had the second most crucial part and was superlative. Richardson developed into a consummate professional with a long resume of film appearances, including Things to Come (1936), The Citadel (1938), Anna Karenina (1947), The Fallen Idol (1948), The Heiress (1949), Richard III (1955), Our Man in Havana (1959), Long Day's Journey into Night (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965), Khartoum (1955), The Bed Sitting Room (1969), Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), Watership Down (1978), Dragonslayer (1981), Time Bandits (1981) and Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984). June Duprez was an exquisite creature in 1939 and virtually glows in her scenes, near the beginning and end of the film. Her other appearances included The Thief of Bagdad (1940), None but the Lonely Heart (1944), and And Then There Were None (1945). Among the supporting roles, C. Aubrey Smith was extraordinary as the gruff old General Burroughs. His film credits include Cleopatra (1934) and The Prisoner of Zenda (1937), just to name a couple.

Bottom-Line: There are no extras with the DVD and even the plot synopsis on the back of the cover appears to have been written by someone who had not seen the film, as it states that Harry resigned his commission in the midst of battle. The film's length in this version is 115 minutes. There's a longer British version that clocks in at 130 minutes. This film is a magnificent work of art, notwithstanding the value system from which it springs. Just as we must sometimes suspend disbelief to enjoy a great story, here we must also suspend our sense of values, but the lofty aesthetic payoff makes that worth doing.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older