|
Post by geode on Apr 18, 2018 6:45:23 GMT
This one and me go way back. I saw it in first release back in a July, 1968. I will be honest, my opinion was the same as several reviewers at the time in being negative. I said something like "That is the most revolting thing I have ever seen." I found it too graphic and violent. My memory is good enough to remember seeing it one very warm night in a drive in in Phoenix, Arizona with I think "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
Three months later I had moved to California and started college. I was hanging out at a theater where I was learning to be a protectionist. "Dark of the Sun" was coming to this place and I denounced it, only to change my tune when it opened and I watched it a couple of times. I became a fan.
A few years later it was running on TV for the first time, and I think Judith Crist wrote in TV Guide that it was "as enlightening as a trip through a slaughterhouse" even though it was edited for that run to tame it down.
As its director, Jack Cardiff, would write decades later it is rather restrained by the standards that would soon follow. I think this has helped fuel the fires of those claiming that the releases on home video are heavily edited. Read user reviews on the WB site where the burn on demand DVD is sold, or on IMDb and many are screaming for an uncut version and listing cut scenes they claim were in the theatrical cut. But an uncut version is what they got, but they have been led to think otherwise. Some cite choppy editing and missing lines of dialogue as evidence of cuts. The editing is just fine in the places they claim are affected.
Apparently Quentin Tarantino may have added fuel to the fire in mentioning a cut scene with nuns being fed to crocodiles. Whoever started that rumor probably is laughing his head off that so many believe this crock of bull. Was it Tarantino himself? WB even wrote an explanation of the version they mastered being the same as the original release. You can find it on Facebook. I have done my own comparison to an original release print from 1968. It is the same as the DVD.
Martin Scorsese listed it as a guilty pleasure in an issue of Film Comment many years ago. For me it has never been a guilty pleasure, but I have found in humorous to find it rise in critical esteem over the years. It has been unfavorably compared to some other war-themed movies of its era, particularly "The Dirty Dozen" with some calling it a weak copycat effort. I have always found it vastly superior to these others. Why? It was sold as an action film, but I find it an interesting treatise on friendship in trying circumstances and a moral commentary on the human tendencies towards violence and racism, and rising above them.
Rod Taylor has long been justifiably praised for his performance, but the real surprise for me was how good Jim Brown was in his role. His performance is also spot on. A long time ago I said if I could have a friend from the big screen it would be Rod Taylor due to the personas he assumed.
One strange thing I discovered decades ago was that when I was slipping into a depressed mood that watching this movie would help lift me up. I used to think it was living through the vicarious violence. I'm not sure why it works for me this way. It is one of a group of movies that I have seen several times that still works for me as an "experience" that I sort of live while watching. I go in one end at the beginning and come out the other at the end feeling different or changed in some way for having done so.
It has a marvelously effective music score and some fine cinematography. Although you will find criticism of the ending in some "user reviews" it is one of my favorites of all movies. It was about the only thing I said I liked in my first viewing in July, 1968. Another was the character played by Kenneth More.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 18, 2018 7:38:17 GMT
Good score.
Along with Zulu, this is a good film to demonstrate the progress of Hollywood's SJW or anti-European propaganda.
At the time the slaughter of the people on the train (including a young infant--but we do not see this depicted) would likely have been a considerable negative and still is, but they throw in a blonde Nazi bad guy (Peter Carsten made a career of it I think) with a hatred for blacks (as I have pointed out, in the Goebbels' supervised Munchhausen of 1943, there are black folk in the cast--they are unmolested). Jim Brown, an American black, is not really convincing as a Congolese native--but he isn't supposed to be. He is the 1960s version of the magic negro--the noble sage-like black man who teaches Rod Taylor about the world and saves his life. Taylor gets revenge on the Nazi white man for his Congolese brother.
Very heavy-handed. I also read that the Soviet Union were heavily involved in arming the violent rebels--and I do not recall that mentioned in the film. Nazis bad, Commies good. A very Hollywood kind of message.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 19, 2018 6:40:47 GMT
Good score. Along with Zulu, this is a good film to demonstrate the progress of Hollywood's SJW or anti-European propaganda. At the time the slaughter of the people on the train (including a young infant--but we do not see this depicted) would likely have been a considerable negative and still is, but they throw in a blonde Nazi bad guy (Peter Carsten made a career of it I think) with a hatred for blacks (as I have pointed out, in the Goebbels' supervised Munchhausen of 1943, there are black folk in the cast--they are unmolested). Jim Brown, an American black, is not really convincing as a Congolese native--but he isn't supposed to be. He is the 1960s version of the magic negro--the noble sage-like black man who teaches Rod Taylor about the world and saves his life. Taylor gets revenge on the Nazi white man for his Congolese brother. Very heavy-handed. I also read that the Soviet Union were heavily involved in arming the violent rebels--and I do not recall that mentioned in the film. Nazis bad, Commies good. A very Hollywood kind of message. You raise some interesting points. I guess we are all a product of our own experiences that shape our perceptions of everything we encounter, including movies. I have lived for the most part in places that were multicultural and multiracial, with comparative harmony among those I have come in contact. Perhaps as a result I don't look to find things that are not apparent. Like many movies that are based upon real events, "Dark of the Sun" is not particularly concerned with historical accuracy. For one thing it conflates two uprisings in the Congo. It is true that the Soviet Union was involved in aiding the Simba Rebellion but as you stated you would not realize this watching "Dark of the Sun" as there is only one oblique reference from Captain Curry, Rod Taylor's character: "The gun's Chinese Ruffo, paid for by Russian rubles. The steel probably came from a West German factory built by French francs. Then it was flown out here on a South African airline probably subsidized by The United States. I don't think he got very far." I think this sums up the film's attitude about politics. It perhaps is ahead of its time in implying that all characters playing politics have the same motivation of greed or lust for power. For a movie made during the Cold War at least its main character takes a stance that appears to be negative towards the countries on both sides. But in doing this he also is discounting a sacrifice by Dr. Wried (Kenneth More) that Sgt. Ruffo (Jim Brown's character) finds noble. This leads to a falling out between Ruffo and Curry, with Ruffo asking if Curry stands for anything outside of himself. Ruffo's principal motivation throughout the film is patriotism. He is from the Congo. But you seem to have an advantage on me, as I do not know what a typical Congolese native of the 60's was like. However, Ruffo is hardly typical of most people of that era no matter what country they came from. He is better educated, having been an exchange student at USC, who knows four languages. I guess that experience would make him more of a combination of attributes, some similar to Jim Brown than the average person from the Congo. But I do not see him fitting into the mold of a "Magic Negro" as far as I understand the concept. To be honest I think people have had to emphasize some aspects of characters and deemphasize other aspects to make claims of this "fly"... Here is a description of the idea. "Here are what I call the Five Points of the Magical Negro; the five most common attributes: He or she is a person of color, typically black, often Native American, in a story about predominantly white characters. He or she seems to have nothing better to do than help the white protagonist, who is often a stranger to the Magical Negro at first. He or she disappears, dies, or sacrifices something of great value after or while helping the white protagonist. He or she is uneducated, mentally handicapped, at a low position in life, or all of the above. He or she is wise, patient, and spiritually in touch. Closer to the earth, one might say. He or she often literally has magical powers. The archetype of the Magical Negro is an issue of race. It is the subordination of a minority figure masked as the empowerment of one. The Magical Negro has great power and wisdom, yet he or she only uses it to help the white main character; he or she is not threatening because he or she only seeks to help, never hurt. The white main character's well-being comes before the Magical Negro's because the main character is of more value, more importance. The Magical Negro is like the happy slave, glad to sacrifice himself, his happiness, his time, something of value to him, in order to help the white character. And at end of the story, many audiences often end up quietly wondering, "Well, why'd she do that?" That is, if they remember the character at all." Magic Negro ArticleThis doesn't fit Sgt. Ruffo very well. The film is not predominantly about white characters, but more of a split between them and black characters. Sgt. Ruffo has much more to do than just personally help Curry. His stated mission is to help his country, and he would be willing to fight Curry over this. He does not make a sacrifice by dying to help the white protagonist. He does not really "save his life"... he is anything but uneducated, mentally handicapped. or in a low position in life. He is wise, patient and apparently spiritually in touch, but the film reveals Dr. Wreid & Claire (Yvette Mimiuex) to be the same. He has no magical powers. "At the time the slaughter of the people on the train (including a young infant--but we do not see this depicted) would likely have been a considerable negative and still is, but they throw in a blonde Nazi bad guy (Peter Carsten made a career of it I think) with a hatred for blacks (as I have pointed out, in the Goebbels' supervised Munchhausen of 1943, there are black folk in the cast--they are unmolested)." I think we see an infant on the train who presumably meets a bad fate. and a blonde bad guy who presumably has Nazi proclivities having either been one or agreeing with the on some things. He is basically a self-centered narcissist.He most likely is a white supremacist but his opinion of blacks may not be an overall hatred. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make with "Baron Munchhausen"... I don't see much if any of "Hollywood's SJW or anti-European propaganda" in this film. I think that although racism is brought up, the film itself makes a case that there is perhaps a balance of prejudiced characters of different colors. I suppose there is an intent in the film to say Nazis are bad, but where is there any message that "Commies are good"...?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 19, 2018 7:26:32 GMT
I think we see an infant on the train who presumably meets a bad fate. and a blonde bad guy who presumably has Nazi proclivities having either been one or agreeing with the on some things. He is basically a self-centered narcissist.He most likely is a white supremacist but his opinion of blacks may not be an overall hatred. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make with "Baron Munchhausen"... I don't see much if any of "Hollywood's SJW or anti-European propaganda" in this film. I think that although racism is brought up, the film itself makes a case that there is perhaps a balance of prejudiced characters of different colors. Re: Munchausen--the perception given with the Nazi character-as well as films like Sahara, is that the Nazis were so racially fixated as to be dismissive of other races..ignoring their alliance with the Japanese, the inclusion of blacks in Munchausen suggests that they did not have a hellbent hatred of blacks (like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazi officer calls the ship captain a savage). The film also has criticism of Hitler which one doesn't expect from a Goebbels film either but anyway, Dark of the Sun chose to make the Heinlein character an ex-Nazi and then chose him to be Ruffo's killer. What if the killer was a Simba rebel? How would that have changed the story had Rod Taylor's character went for revenge in the same fashion? Movies are about creative choices and their thematic consequences. As Sydney Pollack said, every movie has a political POV. I think the meaning of the Ruffo death and Curry's response is on one hand the idea that anyone can be a savage, but also the white man's debt to the black--as well as getting in a little revenge on the Nazis (there were not many anti-German films after WW 2 until the 60s--I assume because the US had a large number of people of German ancestry). I agree that Ruffo is not the magic negro of the 1940s, but he still serves as a moral guide for Rod Taylor, and the classic magic negro also represented a force of morality for the white protagonist. Present day, Morgan Freeman often portrays that role.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 19, 2018 20:00:12 GMT
Great war flick. @gruffimus Prime, the Peter Carsten character was based off a real Nazi turned mercenary nicknamed "Kongo-Muller".
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 21, 2018 19:06:46 GMT
I think we see an infant on the train who presumably meets a bad fate. and a blonde bad guy who presumably has Nazi proclivities having either been one or agreeing with the on some things. He is basically a self-centered narcissist.He most likely is a white supremacist but his opinion of blacks may not be an overall hatred. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make with "Baron Munchhausen"... I don't see much if any of "Hollywood's SJW or anti-European propaganda" in this film. I think that although racism is brought up, the film itself makes a case that there is perhaps a balance of prejudiced characters of different colors. Re: Munchausen--the perception given with the Nazi character-as well as films like Sahara, is that the Nazis were so racially fixated as to be dismissive of other races..ignoring their alliance with the Japanese, the inclusion of blacks in Munchausen suggests that they did not have a hellbent hatred of blacks (like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazi officer calls the ship captain a savage). The film also has criticism of Hitler which one doesn't expect from a Goebbels film either but anyway, Dark of the Sun chose to make the Heinlein character an ex-Nazi and then chose him to be Ruffo's killer. What if the killer was a Simba rebel? How would that have changed the story had Rod Taylor's character went for revenge in the same fashion? Movies are about creative choices and their thematic consequences. As Sydney Pollack said, every movie has a political POV. I think the meaning of the Ruffo death and Curry's response is on one hand the idea that anyone can be a savage, but also the white man's debt to the black--as well as getting in a little revenge on the Nazis (there were not many anti-German films after WW 2 until the 60s--I assume because the US had a large number of people of German ancestry). I agree that Ruffo is not the magic negro of the 1940s, but he still serves as a moral guide for Rod Taylor, and the classic magic negro also represented a force of morality for the white protagonist. Present day, Morgan Freeman often portrays that role. Yes, there certainly were stereotypes lacking in subtlety in films during WW II. I have wondered for many years about the relationship between Germany and Japan during that war. It seemed that the leaders of both countries thought that they belonged to a superior race to others, yet they were not of the same race. I don't think race is central to the relationships in "Dark of the Sun" and Henlein's murder of Sgt. Ruffo really has nothing to do with race. He simply was in the way. If he had been killed by a Simba rebel it may have changed the plot because Curry already had reasons to hate Henlein, who seemed intent on killing Curry earlier. A Simba rebel would simply be an outsider and probably not generate quite the same passion. He may have not thought it worth tracking him down.Curry seeks revenge because of friendship magnified by the guilt in that his last words with Ruffo were not kind. He probably also is mad that he didn't either leave Henlein behind or get rid of him earlier in some fashion. I saw a textbook about Political Science about the time the film came out titled "Man is a Political Animal" which I guess is correct and virtually none of our activities are totally devoid of politics. However, although there is a political backdrop with a rebellion and transition from colonialism, there is not much political conflict in "Dark of the Sun" as it is more of a commentary on mankind in general, or as you have put it that anybody can be a savage. I do not really see a theme about "white man's debt to black" as Curry's actions are motivated by personal friendship. I think he would have acted the same way if Ruffo had been white. I think Henlein being German with Nazi proclivities was convenient to allow him to be shown to have prejudice and be capable of savagery just as the rebels are. The Nazis as Ruffo would describe them were a tribe that could abandon civility just as his own tribe was capable of doing. Henleins teeth were filed by his parents and tribe, but Ruffo's were not. There are multiple moral guides in the film, not just Ruffo, and ultimately Ruffo is not the only influence to bring Curry towards more moral, civilized behavior. Claire failed on her own, Dr. Wreid failed, and Ruffo on his own had failed. The spark that starts the process is a speech by Corporal Kataki.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 21, 2018 19:30:16 GMT
I don't think race is central to the relationships in "Dark of the Sun" and Henlein's murder of Sgt. Ruffo really has nothing to do with race. He simply was in the way. In general yes, I think that was how it plays out (as I remember it). Even the killing of the two African kids was not done strictly out of hatred, there was a strategic-survival reason for it. But, I suspect from the POV of the studio financiers, there is a political motivation. How much creative freedom do the filmmakers really have? I used to assume there was a fair bit but not convinced now. In Jason and the Argonauts there is a bizarre scene where the king of Colchis arrives with 4 black body guards. They appear behind him as he is speaking in a temple. They are then present when a banquet is taking place. When Jason is arrested, it is the 4 unarmed black men who grab Jason and remove him from the foreground of the scene. They are never seen again. Not in the prison, not in the dining hall--not even when the captain of the guard informs King Aietes that Jason has escaped. Why were they there? Unless there is some aesthetic reason, I do not know what that could be--since they appeared to be important guards for the King and then they are absent. I assumed diversity in movies happened to reflect the demographics of the filmgoers, but I dont think that example fits.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 2, 2018 19:22:19 GMT
I don't think race is central to the relationships in "Dark of the Sun" and Henlein's murder of Sgt. Ruffo really has nothing to do with race. He simply was in the way. In general yes, I think that was how it plays out (as I remember it). Even the killing of the two African kids was not done strictly out of hatred, there was a strategic-survival reason for it. But, I suspect from the POV of the studio financiers, there is a political motivation. How much creative freedom do the filmmakers really have? I used to assume there was a fair bit but not convinced now. In Jason and the Argonauts there is a bizarre scene where the king of Colchis arrives with 4 black body guards. They appear behind him as he is speaking in a temple. They are then present when a banquet is taking place. When Jason is arrested, it is the 4 unarmed black men who grab Jason and remove him from the foreground of the scene. They are never seen again. Not in the prison, not in the dining hall--not even when the captain of the guard informs King Aietes that Jason has escaped. Why were they there? Unless there is some aesthetic reason, I do not know what that could be--since they appeared to be important guards for the King and then they are absent. I assumed diversity in movies happened to reflect the demographics of the filmgoers, but I dont think that example fits. I guess you see more political motives in films then I do. In Jason and the Argonauts I have no idea why the black guys were included, but I doubt it was a nod to diversity to satisfy either the people who made the flick or the intended audience. My guess is that they were included to make Colchis appear more exotic by adding an African touch. But would body guards be unarmed? I think they hold ceremonial fans at one point. Were they slaves? If so perhaps there is either a conscious or unconscious political motive.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 2, 2018 19:59:30 GMT
My guess is that they were included to make Colchis appear more exotic by adding an African touch. But would body guards be unarmed? I think they hold ceremonial fans at one point. Were they slaves? If so perhaps there is either a conscious or unconscious political motive. No, they have no fans. I have seen other 1960s peplum films with black slaves like that, but it wasnt in this case. I suppose there could have been a cinematographic reason to do it--perhaps they felt using the regular guards made the shot too busy and took the focus off the main actor, I am skeptical about that explanation and it still wouldnt explain their absence later in the film-- but it's not the only example of such subtle presentation. In Fantastic Voyage when Stephen Boyd is entering the facility, a black guard clears him through but his face remains hidden to the camera. That really appeared deliberate to me. A black control room worker is shown on a black and white tv monitor but there are no other black people present anywhere else in the rest of the film. By this time black actors were featured in films, so it was kind of strange they were so subtle about it. Unless there was some distribution issue in the South and it affected certain kinds of large attendance films. I was watching a cheap Columbia Whistler series movie from the mid 40s and there is a doctor office scene--with a black boy as one of the waiting patients. Two characters are talking behind a glass window and at the end of their talk, the black child appears, pressing his face against the window and making funny faces. That certainly felt injected into the scene for reasons other than dramatic necessity!
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 3, 2018 9:46:34 GMT
My guess is that they were included to make Colchis appear more exotic by adding an African touch. But would body guards be unarmed? I think they hold ceremonial fans at one point. Were they slaves? If so perhaps there is either a conscious or unconscious political motive. "No, they have no fans." Then what would you call the things they were holding if you don't call them fans?
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on May 3, 2018 12:03:40 GMT
Big fan. Wish it had been a 3 hour epic. Jim Brown's best performance, And a chainsaw wielding Nazi. What's not to love.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 3, 2018 16:23:30 GMT
Then what would you call the things they were holding if you don't call them fans? In the film during the temple scene they just stand there. There is no fanning. And then when Jason is taken prisoner they have nothing in their hands--not even weapons. If you watch the scene where Aeetes is speaking in the temple, a black guy is standing in frame to the right of him with arms folded.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 4, 2018 4:42:46 GMT
In the film during the temple scene they just stand there. There is no fanning. And then when Jason is taken prisoner they have nothing in their hands--not even weapons. If you watch the scene where Aeetes is speaking in the temple, a black guy is standing in frame to the right of him with arms folded. I didn't say they were "fanning" I said they were holding what appeared to be "ceremonial fans"...do they not in fact have such?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 4, 2018 5:54:02 GMT
I didn't say they were "fanning" I said they were holding what appeared to be "ceremonial fans"...do they not in fact have such? Only in stills. In the actual movie they keep their hands folded with nothing in them, except for a couple in back in the banquet scene who appear to have spears. Watch the Temple of Hecate sequence and you see the four enter with their arms folded, no weapons.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 5, 2018 9:12:21 GMT
I didn't say they were "fanning" I said they were holding what appeared to be "ceremonial fans"...do they not in fact have such? Only in stills. In the actual movie they keep their hands folded with nothing in them, except for a couple in back in the banquet scene who appear to have spears. Watch the Temple of Hecate sequence and you see the four enter with their arms folded, no weapons. I would suggest you watch the banquet scene again. Behind Jason and King Aeetes are two of the black guys holding the fans. The poles are golden colored with blue and turquoise plumes.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 5, 2018 16:38:02 GMT
I would suggest you watch the banquet scene again. Behind Jason and King Aeetes are two of the black guys holding the fans. The poles are golden colored with blue and turquoise plumes. I guess I was distracted by the other two who have their arms folded and that they take Jason away, not the guards. It still doesnt explain why the fan bearers would be designated to do that task, why they never appear again, or why they first appear in the temple with no fans and are so prominent next to Aeetes while doing nothing. I still have to chalk it up to some quota weirdness.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 6, 2018 15:33:29 GMT
It was a good film, if not perfect. I saw it as a child in the 70's but missed the ending. Then I saw all of it in the 80's. That train was cool.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 8, 2018 3:05:39 GMT
It was a good film, if not perfect. I saw it as a child in the 70's but missed the ending. Then I saw all of it in the 80's. That train was cool. Yes, the train has always been one of the main draws for me. Apparently the availability of the steam locomotive used was a main reason to film in Jamaica rather Africa.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 16, 2019 19:45:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 13, 2019 4:25:44 GMT
I've always thought that the trailer misrepresents the film as an exploration action movie.
|
|