The Man Who Would Be King - Beige in 2 Parts

The Man Who Would Be King

Director: John Huston

I'm the correspondent of The Northern Star! –Kipling

Therefore we are going away to another place, where a man isn't crowded and can come into his own. We're not little men so we're going away to be kings. Kings of Kafristan. –Peachy Carnehan

If a king can't sing, it ain't worth being king. –Daniel Dravot

I wouldn't say the world's a better place for our having lived it int. Nobody's gonna weep their eyes out at our demise. We haven't many good deeds to our credit. But how many men have been where we've been and seen what we've seen?
–Peachy Carnehan

You call it luck; I call it destiny. –Daniel Carnehan

The Netflix envelope, aside from warning me that the disc is double-sided (oh dear), the movie was made in 1975 (umm…) and the presentation is 2hrs and 9min long (oy), describes the show I'm about to watch:

Legendary director John Huston adapts Rudyard Kipling's short story about Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, two bored British soldiers stationed in India who travel to a mountainous Middle Eastern kingdom in search of riches and power. Embarking on the adventure of a lifetime, they con their way into becoming deities in Kafiristan before losing it all. The film earned four Oscar nominations.

I watched this movie in two parts… Disc Side A and Disc Side B in separate sittings. It's not that 2 hours is outlandishly long for a flick, it's just that this movie didn't captivate me the way other equally long or longer films do. It's a good movie, don't get me wrong. But it just didn't grab me the way I'm sure it's grabbed other people. I mean, it DID earn four Oscar noms!

What I liked about the movie:

Rudyard Kipling. I think it's quite grand that he was a character in this movie which was based on a short story he wrote. I don't intimately know any of Kipling's work, and so couldn't tell you if he included himself in his story or merely narrated it as a removed party. But either way, I enjoyed that the author made an appearance as a writer and "brother" of the two main characters.

Michael Caine & Sean Connery. I enjoyed seeing these two fine actors – who I really only know as older gentlemen – as younger versions of themselves. They were delightful! I thought they had great chemistry with each other and they did a good job of balancing the humor with the gravity.

The concept. A man pretends to be a god and achieves great power and wealth from his people… until his very blood reveals his falsehood. Two friends make a pact to rule the far-off land and gain its riches… until one becomes too big for his britches.

So I liked the concept and the characters, yet I wasn't really pulled in to the movie. So what didn't I like, then? I'm actually having a hard time pinpointing it. I think the movie lost me a couple times, between accents and translation and quick-talking. And I think the underlying story was something I’d seen done better: two friends set out on a quest & their friendship crumbles when one of them outshines the other; they eventually make up, a lesson is learned, and they part as equals again. Or perhaps it’s just that there was too much beige in the movie for me, on top of the '70s film quality color. I think I have some sort of aversion to movie monotony, even if on a purely visual level. Never could bring myself to watch Cast Away… just seemed like too much water.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that this was an overall good movie, I know that. It just wasn't really my thing. Perhaps it's yours.

My takeaway: True friendships will survive egotistic episodes, if and only if, the episodes don't last forever. And the best proof of your bff's kingship and death is his severed head, still crowned of course.