Despicable characters - The Man Who Would Be King (1975) Discussion

[–] Nikon11 15 years ago

apparently so.

reply

[–] syntinen 15 years ago

I wouldn't say so, exactly. There are in many respects despicable and meant to be so - blackmailing minor Indian rulers and setting out into Kafiristan starting wars just to make themselves rich - and yet they have great admirable qualities.

If the OP is saying that s/he only found them despicable and didn't find anything admirable about them at all, then I guess s/he is in a fairly small minority.

reply

[–] bj_arni 12 years ago

Nothing admirable about pushing people out of trains, blackmailing your way to riches, using people's ignorance to pretend you are a god to steal more riches and force a women into marriage.

The only decent thing that happened was when Daniel was trying to make a democracy out of the rural tribes, but right away he got mad with power.

"Don't look down on yourself, just because other people do."
youtube.com/morbidchid

reply

[–] Royalcourtier 8 years ago

They were more moral and principled than the rulers they displaced.

reply

[–] bj_arni 8 years ago

nothing moral about sex slaves.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] rosihanhadi 15 years ago

Nope. They were cool.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] finnegansword 14 years ago

They were opportunists. Nothing more, nothing less.

(like many of our politicians today).

reply

[–] org1andrew 11 years ago

Boys will be boys.

reply

[–] Alphonse_van_Worden 14 years ago

In 97 % of all adventure movies we suffer main characters that are dull heroic superman types. Thank heavens that there are at least some exceptions.

reply

[–] Dan1863Sickles 13 years ago

They are complicated men -- and they ask themselves the same question in the scene when they are trapped in the avalanche. "Peachy, in your opinion, would you say our lives have been . . . misspent?"

The fact that they ask is in itself proof that they are not completely despicable. Also the way they accept their tragic fate is admirable and even heroic, since to the very end they remain loyal to each other.

"Your next challenge is always your biggest." Joe Namath

reply

[–] ARadicalAliensNoun 13 years ago

Interesting comment. But to me, they are not complicated. They are ambitious, lower-class superimperialistic Brits, inventive, adaptative, rebelious, and loyal to each other.

Ok. The conflict between these very readable traits complicates things.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 13 years ago

In many ways they are symbolic of the British Empire in general.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoultersCanary 12 years ago

In many ways they are symbolic of the British Empire in general.

Which is at least part of the point of both the original story and the film.

The church may shout but Darwin roars

reply

[–] eamonn_keane 13 years ago

Not really. They're not supposed to be admirable or heroes, just amoral opportunists

reply

[–] maeaculpa 13 years ago

Indeed - the whole "fire at will" bit does not seem to bother people who see them as loveable rogues. They are despicable murdering scum. What's a bit of murder in a light hearted comedy, especially when the victims do not speak English...

reply

[–] imdb-287-803196 12 years ago

as are all soldiers

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"I guess I must be the only one that found the two leading characters despicable."

I didn't find them despicable, but at the same time I didn't find them in the slightest bit appealing.

reply

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 years ago

Indeed - the whole "fire at will" bit does not seem to bother people who see them as loveable rogues.

---

"Loveable rogues" -- that's what they are for "fun." But remember, this movie came out in the 70's, when the movies could take a more hard look at "anti-heroes." It was also the time of the Vietnam War and Watergate in America, and movies like The Godfather and Chinatown suggested that "the bad guys could win." John Huston had been trying to make the movie since the 50s(with Bogart and Gable first) but maybe it took that many years for the movies to "catch up to the cynicism of the plot." The movie "stands outside" Danny and Peachy to see them as warriors who can't survive without a war; scoundrels out to pull off a caper against their "lessers", and macho men of a certain honor when everything fails.

"Everything fails" is another quality of 70s movies.

And this was also the decade of "the buddy movie"(launched by Newman and Redford in 1969 with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, continued with Newman and Redford in The Sting, Gould and Sutherland in MASH, McQueen and Hoffman in Papillon, Hackman and Pacino in Scarecrow, Newman and Marvin in Pocket Money, and arguably McQueen and Newman in The Towering Inferno -- and ALSO arguably, the three guys in "Jaws.")

reply