My Favorite Of The Three


Of the 3 versions of this movie the Brando one is my favorite. While not the most historically accurate, that goes to The Bounty, this version is the most scenically beautifully among other reasons. Many of the locations I have personally been to. It was shot on Tahiti itself and some other scenes were shot on Bora Bora and Moorea. Right after Brando says good bye to Maimiti there is a scene where they are on a hilltop with Moorea on the horizon. That exact spot was the location of the then Hotel Taharaa on One Tree Hill overlooking Matavai Bay. I stayed there at least 4 times. Very historic spots where most of if not all of the famous names who visited Tahiti anchored. When they land on "Pitcairn" it's actually Tahiti, then Mooreaas they reach the hilltop and look at distant mountains. The scene when Brown wants help with the breadfruit but the guys want to help all the women in the lagoon fish, that's Bora Bora. I went to Tahiti 7 times in the 80's. Sadly now it's way too expensive and ruined by honeymooners. That spot on Bora Bora is now riddled with over water bungalows. The Laughton and Gable version did have some location shots, all on Tahiti. South Sea locations for Hopkins-Gibson version were Moorea. Great flick, seen it many many times and fianlly on DVD!!

reply

I agree, markslezak, the 1962 version is the best one. I was watching it just today on TCM. The photography was great, as was the music. The acting was for the most part superb.
I liked Brando's Fletcher Christian. A bit foppish in the beginning...but that was to make a point I think. The point being that Bligh would dislike him immediately and add to the already mounting tension as the mutiny approached.
Trevor Howard's Captain Bligh is also the best. He leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that he IS the notorious Captain Bligh. He played it wonderfully.

reply

I wish I could add something original here but I cannot. Just want to say I agree that this is the best version. There are things I like about all three, however, I just can't get away from the fact that Brando as Christian and Howard as Bligh ultimately make this "The One".

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

Even given that all three versions are excellent, ultimately I prefer the 1984 one.The crew are nearer their true ages (as are the two main characters). The portrayal of Bligh is more accurate and less black and white and perhaps Christin is better to - as a more flawed hero. I love this version but it is slightly spoiled for me by the 'hey look at me' attitude of Brando which one suspects the other cast members had to live with.

reply

Boll, I agree but still love it.

reply

The 1984 version was the accurate one, but this one and the Laughton-Gable version feature THE definitive movie performances of Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian.

Let's put it this way: when you ask someone who likes movies to conjure up a picture of Captain Bligh, won't he think of Laughton or Howard, and not Hopkins' more amiable, benign version of the character?

And when you say Fletcher Christian, whoo thinks of Gibson? Gable but especially Brando come to mind. Fletcher Christian in the 1984 movie came out bland, and since Bligh doesn't come out as a real bad guy, it makes it strange that he would lead mutiny while still coming out as a hero. There is not charisma emanating from either chaaracter.

The 1935 movie seemed to be a more polished film, but I prefer this 1962 one since it is more epic, is in color, with better location shots and native actors, and wow, that great musical score. But the 10935 version is really a classic, admittedly.

Laughton > Howard (slightly)

Brando > Gable (by a bit larger margin)

1962 > 1935 (small margin)

But Laughton-Howard and Gable-Brando completely take it over Hopkins-Gibson and so do the first two movies.

reply

I agree with the OP. I have always liked the 1962 one more.

I think it is heavier, more epic, more majestic, and more magical than the 1935 original.

reply

This is just an overlong and boring remake, and Trevor Howard was far too old to play Bligh. The 1935 version is by far the most entertaining.

reply

Although I find the 1935 Mutiny a tad more "entertaining" (Gable is, after all, Gable) I agree that the 1962 Mutiny is a vastly superior film. The characters are far more interesting and complex, the tragedy played out beautifully.

And that soundtrack. . .

reply

I enjoyed the Gable/Laughton version but do find it over-rated and not nearly as enthralling as some of the other 'classsic' adventure films of the same period. It's considerably shorter than the 1962 version but feels longer to me.
I suppose one of the reasons the remake is overlooked by a lot of people is because it's famous for having a notoriously troubled production and a huge budget. Some films that were regarded as critical or commercial flops on first release get re-appraised over time and I think this is happening to Mutiny On The Bounty but it's still not as widely praised as it should be.
Brando's performance was initially puzzling but makes perfect sense once you realise he is playing "career fop" who cares nothing about the mission. The clash between the contemptous, 'gentleman' Christian and the captain who was not born into privilege and has spent years working his way up the chain of command is well played and written.
I also like the way Bligh was portrayed-in this film he wasn't a sadist, just a misguided, short-tempered leader who was convinced the best way to control his crew was to make them fear him. Not remotely accurate historically but certainly more believable than Laughton's Bligh. The one weakness I found in the script(or perhaps it was deliberate) is when Christian accuses Bligh of relishing punishing the crew-I didn't get that impression at all, Bligh was increasingly out of control but even when he had a crew member keel-hauled it seemed to be more about his desire to make the crew fearful of how he would handle dissidents than sadism. It's as if the first half of the film is all about depicting Bligh as a harsh captain but not a sadist only to change tack and decide he was a sadist after all and that's what provoked the mutiny.

reply

The 1935 version is insipid because of its cheerful apologetics for British imperialism and its naive depiction of good authorities and bad. At least this one focuses on disillusionment.

But the natives are still mere backdrops. You'd never imagine that native men could be jealous of white men running off with their women. Tahiti is portrayed as a kind of sexual fantasy island for white men, much more so in this version than in the older one.

As for The Bounty, it's a floundering mess pushed to extremes. It goes nowhere and attracts no sympathies. So yes, if I had to choose among them, I'd opt for the Brando version as well.

reply

Hm, I do like it, and I think there's definitely some stunning imagery in there, but overall I'd probably place it last of the three.

___
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb74/iyb/dacrew.jpg

reply

Sorry, but 1935 version is better written and climax is more engaging. Though I enjoyed 1962 too.

reply

All a matter of opinion but for me this version is superior to the 1935 version.

The ending is flawed and I believe one of the numerous problems during filming was coming up with a climax to the movie that satisfied Brando(the terms of his contract gave him script approval.)

For me this movie shares the classic Hollywood adventure aspect of the 1935 version but is better written with more believable characters-Bligh is depicted as a pantomime villain from the outset in the earlier version and Christian is a typical 'whiter than white' hero. Even though the earlier version is shorter in length it seems to me poorly paced in comparison to the Brando version.

reply

Maybe you saw 1935 version after you saw 1962.
To be honest I saw 1935 first.

reply

This is my favorite version of this story as well, and IMO it's almost entirely due to Brando's performance.

reply

[deleted]

I tried watching this last night--was really looking forward to it--but was HUGELY disappointed. I could not even force much attention on it from the actually mutiny scene on--and it had been a struggle up to that point.

It ambled and took forever. The colors were beautiful, but the 1935 version was beautiful too--some of the best b/w photography around. The 1935 also had more gusto and better performances.

What a weak sister.

reply

A great film.

reply

Yes, a very good film, and one that took a semi-satirical view of the times, the characters, and even - a little bit - of itself.

Christian's character arc alone is entertaining and complex. He is first presented as a highly cultured, educated fop, whose ironic mannerisms would annoy any number of people other than the vitriolic Bligh. For example, he asks another character sarcastically if the seaman would like to discuss the virtues of early Renaissance art, knowing full well that this uneducated fellow would have no means to do so. Christian is arrogant and self-satisfied. His clothing and manner are deliberatly presented to make the audience squirm a little - I know I did - because the representation broke all preceding "Fletcher Christian is a great guy" characterizations. He is not a pure knightly, heroic figure. Quite the contrary, he is somewhat self-absorbed and one gets the idea that he probably prefers his own comfort very highly and that his cultural status imbues him with a perhaps overly-estimated sense of self-worth. Fletcher Christian, as this film first presents him, is an unlikely hero, unusual in his foppery, and a source of some discomfort and possible mockery for the audience - as in, "I myself doubt that I would want to sail halfway around the world with this icon of haute culture".

Christian does have an innate streak of decency, however, as when he complains to Bligh of the captain's excessive punishment of a sailor over the man's accusation that Bligh had pilfered some cheese for his own use. Additionally, Brando-Christian constantly ruffles and subtly harrasses Howard-Bligh. When Bligh refuses justice to some crew members as they stand outside Christian's door, Christian pipes up with, "Oh ... I thought I heard your voice, sir!", a sarcastic way of telling Bligh that Christian is "on to" his mistreatment of the crew. And in the formerly-referenced cheese incident, as Bligh cuts a piece of cheese, Christian scolds Bligh by indirection, telling the captain that he may not want to eat the cheese, telling him that "it may be ... tainted". Scenes like these establish a real humanity under the encrustation of Christian's high societal status (of course this is not historical; whereas Christian was a "gentleman" from a successful family, he himself was not wealthy, because his family's resources were poured into educating his brothers, and he essentially had to beg Bligh to hire him for the Tahiti voyage).

Christian's basic decency and his personal revulsion toward his captain perfectly dovetail in the mutiny. No more the fop, Christian has now been shaped by his love for Maimiti, and by a growing humanitarian resentment against Bligh's injustices and cruelty. His opposition to Bligh is no longer solely about their class differences but about Bligh's personal abuse of Christian individually, and his abuse of the crew generally. Christian's righteous anger combines with his contempt for Bligh's excesses, and in a single flaming moment, he takes over the Bounty.

As Christian orders Bligh off the ship, he drapes a cat-o'-nine tails over the captain's shoulder, saying, "... And take your flag with you", to which Bligh replies, "I don't need a flag, Mr. Christian. Unlike you, I still have a country".
An excellent line, perfectly expressing the utter horror of Christian's new position as mutineer. And Christian takes it to heart, believing that his only hope is, somehow, to get back to England, tell his own side of the story, and charge Bligh. He broods over the new situation, telling some of the crew that he did as his conscience dictated, and that he is satisfied with that, "except for a slight wish to be dead, which I'm sure will pass..."

These vignettes are only a few which make this incarnation of the Bounty story such an excellent and exceptional epic of "Fletcher Christian: from dandified fop to fiery and conscience-stricken mutineer". And this, of course, is not even to mention the scenery, the overall production values, and Bronislau Kaper's remarkable musical score.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]