Why didn't they just shoot Bligh? - Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) Discussion

[–] slokes 18 years ago

No question the restraint shown about Bligh is the second-least probable element of the 1962 film, second only to the fact anyone else opts to go on the longboat with him. Bligh is so over-the-top awful in this film, he boggles the mind.

1. Steals cheese from the crew's hold, and then punishes the entire crew for the theft.

2. Has the one man who knew Bligh took the cheese flogged when he denies having stole it and tells the truth about what happened. Further insists on the flogging done with maximum effort.

3. Allows a crewman to die by refusing to hold the ship steady during a storm so loose cargo could be secured. This is done to make time that will be lost anyway because of Bligh's folly.

4. Berates his first mate for giving the order to hold the ship steady during the storm the crewman died in.

5. Mocks the first mate for the idea of holding a burial ceremony for the same dead crewman, again out of concern for making time.

6. Blames the entire crew for his ship's inability to accomplish a feat only one other sea captain ever accomplished to that point in history, and that in a bigger ship with the reported loss of half his crew.

7. Forces a junior officer to sit on the mainmast overnight for making light comment about the way Bligh walks.

8. On journey to Jamaica, won't allow crew normal water ration because of his concern about losing the excess number of breadfruit he has growing on the ship.

9. To taunt the crew further in this regard, has water ladle tied to rigging above water barrel, to force thirsty sailors to risk death. Won't allow more agile sailors to fetch water for others too parched for such stuntwork.

10. Willing to allow dehydrated crewman to die rather than drink fresh water to clean out system.

I haven't even mention the keelhauling episode, which was against British navy law. Of all the above offenses, the only one the real Bligh did was limit the water ration in order to keep his breadfruit alive. There are films about Hitler more humanizing than this. I can't believe the Charles Laughton portrayal of Bligh is even nastier than this.

reply

[–] Altho73 18 years ago

A very good summary slokes, excellently done. Very true, I don't think that ANYONE would have gone in the longboat with Trevor Howard's Bligh. I have no doubt that in reality they would not have cast him adrift in a longboat, but would have killed him, long before the incident with the water rations.

I have seen all three versions and NO, Charles Laughton's Bligh is not nastier than Trevor Howard's. Laughton's Bligh had some humanity, he did keelhaul one sailor, but there were few instances of flogging. He was not a monster, but was arrogant, self important and superior.

reply

[–] slokes 18 years ago

"Arrogant, self-important, and superior" was just what was said of the real Bligh, nothing much more. He alienated his crew by his personal style and not by thievery and cruel punishment. The real problem as I see it was that the Bounty crew had too good a time in Tahiti and Christian owed a lot of money back home.

It's an interesting fact that the one guy on the ship who had a real bone with Bligh, the pilot, who was demoted in favor of Christian when he clashed too much with Bligh, opted to go with Bligh on the longboat. It wasn't that Bligh was a bad guy, but he was a thin-skinned middle manager type, of the sort all too prevelant in corporate America today.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

That is one way of characterizing Bligh.
What is not usually mentioned about the historical Christian is that he was probably a "psycho neurotic" or some such disorder of that sort. In other words, he had not lost contact with reality, but certainly perceived reality much differently and omniously than most people. Not the sort of person you want on a Navy ship!

reply

[–] TorontoJediMaster 18 years ago

They couldn't have just shot Bligh and reported it as an accident. There would have been no way to have kept the incident totally quiet.

Now, as for the real Bligh, a recent history of the Royal Navy describes Bligh as a flawless navigator and seaman who lacked people skills. I think that sums it up. Bligh wasn't a cruel man -especially not when compared to the standard of the Royal Navy at the time. However, he wasn't a good people manager. On a small ship on a long voyage, that was a bad thing.

His only real mistake was letting discipline go slack when they were anchored at Tahiti. That was what started the real chain of events leading to the mutiny.

I agree that this film showed Bligh to be a complete monster and made you wonder why anyone would go with him in the longboat. I think the line that sums it up best is that some of the men say they have families in England. They knew that if they stayed with Christian they'd never be able to return home again.

reply

[–] halfmanhalfpc 18 years ago

"Why didn't they just shoot Bligh?"

someone should have just stabbed him at night and thrown him overboard and that would have been it! "what happened to him?" "dunno', he disappeared!" "oh well, good riddance, let's have some water now"

...

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

I am sure somebody would have reported this to the Admiralty. Also, on ships it is just about impossible to keep such a thing hidden or secret. Believe me when I say that you would be better off taking your chances with Bligh living than murdering him.

I knew such men when I was in the service. I speak from experience. We never did kill our bad commanders; which is why I am still a free man. Now, during the Vietnam War some officers (non-com and commissioned) were killed by their men and usually those killings resulted in more killings.

reply

[–] Altho73 18 years ago

We are not talking about the Vietnam War in the 1960's, we are talking about sailing ships in the eighteenth century, a period when whole ships foundered, sank and disappeared off the face of the earth (or the sea at any rate) without explanation. During that time ship's crew and officers being killed by tropical diseases, accidents, being eaten by cannibals being blown overboard etc, etc, etc were commonplace and to be expected. And yes there were incidents where ship's captains and officers were killed by their crews and some died in unexplained incidents that were never solved, not surprisingly, after all there were no forensic evidence etc at that time.

It would have been possible to have killed the Trevor Howard monster version of Bligh and got away with it. For example if the ship's doctor had collaborated the whole thing would have been cut and dried, and even if some seaman had secretly witnessed it and reported it to the Admiralty, why would the Admiralty believe the word of an uncouth seaman against a respected doctor and officer?

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

In theory the elimination of Bligh, without reprecussions, could have occurred as you stated. In pratice, very difficult. There is ALWAYS an investigation and even in that day and age investigations were very thorough. Just read or read of the real life Bounty investigation (conducted after Bligh arrived back in England) and you will see what I mean. Anyway, during an investigation people become nervous, and.......most anything can happen.

Just my advice. After all, we are just talking about a movie that depicts Bligh unrealistically. In fact, most of the men on the Bounty thought highly of Captain Bligh, and they said that AFTER they had arrived back in England. In other words, at the point where there was nothing to keep them from denouncing him; had they wanted to.

Actually Bligh was a good Captain. When the relatives of Fletcher Christian were notified that he had committed the unthinkable crime of mutiny they came up with the idea that by denouncing Bligh as an unthinkably mean Captain then the crime of Christian could be explained and perhaps excused. That is why the family started a smear campaign on Bligh's reputation, and why he got such a bad reputation. The 1984 movie, with Anthony Hopkins portraying Bligh, is much more realistic.

In real life nobody wanted to kill Bligh;not even Christian. In real life I had a couple of military commanders EVERYBODY want to do away with; but being charged with murder looks bad on your military record. Makes it real hard to get a promotion ;-).

reply

[–] Altho73 18 years ago

Trevor Howard's portrayal of Bligh is probably the most over the top travesty of a historical character every portrayed on film. It makes the story all the more flawed because the totally sadistic nature of this character lacking even a shred of humanity would have made him so hated by everyone on the Bounty that they would have shot him. After all the penalty for murder would be no greater than for mutiny.

reply

[–] taiaha 18 years ago

What is often not mentioned either is that Bligh lent Fletcher Christian 500 pounds (there were a number of connections between their families) whilst on the voyage. His log also spoke highly of Christian.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] captlupin 15 years ago

Piss easy to get rid of him. Alcohol and slippy wooden deck in a storm at night pretty easy to miss somone falling over board

reply

[–] krueger95 18 years ago

You should be aware that museums often tell just the official story. And the Royal navy couldnt tell, that this man was a bastard.

So indeed you will find lies like that Bligh was a nice captain and that Fletcher was a psychotic. Anything else would destroy the appearance of the institute which is reponsilbe for this monster in the role of a captain.

And when I read here postings that Blighs barbaric actions arent the reason for this mutiny, but instead the crews missing discipline at Tahiti, then its obvious that too many people still like bastards like him!

And BTW Indeed parts of the crew of the Bounty gave Bligh a postive reputation. Cause otherwise they would have hang for mutiny too! Unbelievable how unsmart some users are!

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Bligh was NOT the monster portrayed in this film. A much more realistic portrayal of him is the one done by Anthony Hopkins in "The Bounty".

BTW krueger95, when the crewmembers of the Bounty gave Bligh a positive reputation they do so AFTER they were back in England. This was during the hearing and there was no way they could have been charged with mutiny at that point (Bligh was no longer their commander and they were not at sea so the Admiralty could not have charged them with mutiny at that point even if the Admiralty had wanted to). It was the family of Fletcher Christian who were libeling Bligh after news of the mutiny had been brought back to England. They wanted to somehow justify Christian's actions- and to justify such an extreme action as a mutiny they had to portray William Bligh as an extremely difficult commander. Bligh was not a bad commander; in fact, a lot of British naval commanders at that time felt the mutiny had occurred because Bligh was NOT hard on his men. Captain Cook had been to that area some years before and had not experienced a mutiny because he was a real SOB who rode hard on his men. Hence, the belief that Bligh may have been too "easy".

In the mid 1980s I was in the military and stationed overseas. Our environment was actually somewhat like what the men on the Bounty had - friendly natives! I will let you fill in the blanks about what that means. But, our commander was a real SOB. Hated by most people; including the officers (like me). We were hoping that he would DIE somehow, but, alas, he served his full tour there and made life miseraable for most of us. Nonetheless, there was no mutiny. Totally unthinkable. Fletcher Christian simply committed the unthinkable.

reply

[–] Altho73 17 years ago

I think that the story of what happened during the mutiny provides strong evidence that Bligh was not as bad or sadistic as has been stated. Had Bligh been really sadistic as portrayed by Trevor Howard or unreasonable as portrayed by Charles Laughton then the mutineers would not have put him afloat in the longboat but they would have shot him. After all the penalty for murder would have been no greater than for mutiny.

Also if Bligh had been really evil why did 17 of the crew go in the longboat with him?

reply

[–] TorontoJediMaster 17 years ago

Bligh was neither a bad commander or a cruel man. Yes, as captain, he had to enforce discipline, but that was part of his job.

Bligh's only real flaw, personality wise, was that he had a short fuse and a tendency to use foul language (even by standards of the Royal Navy at that time). His general pattern was to scream at someone and hurl abusive language at them over fault, but then he would move on and consider the matter done.

I think it's safe to say that Bligh simply lacked people skills. The problem was that Christian was a very melancholy man who brooded over things. Putting the two of them together on a small vessel for such a long time was a bad match.

The crew who followed Christian were mainly desiring a return to an idyllic life on Tahiti.

This film was surely the most slanderous in how it depicted Bligh. Even the 1935 version showed his skill in getting the launch to Timor safely.

reply

[–] aciolino 15 years ago

Realism NEVER makes a better movie.

reply

[–] streetlegal 15 years ago

I thought the portrayal of Bligh in this film was interesting-I know it wasn't historically accurate but he doesn't come across as a sadist who enjoys making the crew suffer(despite Christian's accusatoin that Bligh relishes inflicting punishment). Bligh is portrayed as a harsh disciplinarian(again not historically accurate) but that's the result of a character flaw and his plan to make the crew fear him. As the story unfolds he becomes more and more obsessed with using punishment to control his men. Contrast that with the ludicrous 1935 version where even before the ship sets sail Bligh openly enjoys seeing a dead man being flogged!

reply

[–] dalbrech 13 years ago

For the record, although both are historically inaccurate,Howard's Bligh is not quite as over the top as Luaghton. Laughton's Bligh is just an out and out sadist from the word go,whereas Howard's honestly believes that Harsh Discipline is the only way to control his crew. As the voyage goes on and things go wrong ..largely because Bligh makes some bad decisions..partiuclarly trying to go around Cape Horn (which did NOT happen in real history) Bligh takes it out on his crew,and becomes borderline psychotic in his obssesion with making a huge sucess of his mission. Somewhat more believable then Laughton's Being evil for the sake of being evil.
Agreed that the 1935 film did try to show Bligh's good points in the scenes on board the open boat. The 1962 film mentions it in passing in the scene where Bligh is acquitted in his court martial for losing the Bounty. Showing is always better then just describing.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

[–] TorontoJediMaster 10 years ago

Actually, Bligh DID attempt to round Cape Horn. However, it was not his independent decision. He had Admiralty orders to go by that route. In fact, it was only a last minute amendment that gave him the leeway to go by Cape Good Hope if Cape Horn proved untenable.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

It's impossible for us to know for certain what happened.

Going to the OP's question, as presented in this film I still believe Cristian's logic in not killing him, he didn't want to taint to credibility of the principle behind their actions by inflicting the same barbarism on Bligh.

In the film the chief motivation for Bligh's action was a fear of failure, it perhaps a worse punishment for him to live with the ultimate failure of losing control of his own ship.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

reply

[–] dalbrech 13 years ago

Sorry, but we have enough accounts of what happened on the Bounty to know that however effective as Drama, the 1962 film is wildly inacccurate as to what really happened, as is the 1935 film

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WWu777 9 years ago

So did Bligh really keel haul a crew member until he died? If so, isn't Bligh guilty of murder too? And what about the incident where he made a crew member stay on top of the mast all night just for making fun of the way he walks? Did that really happen? Which of Bligh's unnecessary cruelties in this film were true and which weren't?

http://www.HappierAbroad.com - Discover a better life and love beyond America!

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

They didn't shoot Bligh for the very important reason that they weren't murderers. That's the significance of Christian's line to Bligh; he and the mutineers, by default, were better men than their captain and would not murder or kill someone. Christian ensures that Bligh and the men who go with him have food and the means to navigate to the nearest land.

Away with the manners of withered virgins

reply

[–] Cosmonican 10 years ago

To overtly kill Bligh, they would have to cross all the ship's officers, who like it or not, did not want to go back to a court martial in England, whether or not they supported Bligh.

Most of the crew was illiterate, and had no navigation skills. Without any officers they would be doomed on the wrong side of the world, with no way to get back, and they knew it.

Without a navigator like Christian, they probably could have found land, where they would be arrested, killed, or simply marooned, as they were on Pitcairn's Island; but that is not assured. They were not idiots.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 9 months ago

Problem that not.all the crew,were anti-Bligh.

reply