54. The Man Who Would Be King

John Huston, 1975

Now this, sir, is an adventure movie. The story, adapted from a story by Rudyard Kipling, is about to British soldiers who head into the far reaches of India in search of gold. They are promptly mistaken for gods, specifically the successors of Alexander the Great. Set in the later half of the nineteenth century, the story really has the makings of a great adventure. There is potential for several exotic locales and snapshots of exotic cultures as our heroes walk the road to riches. I’m thrilled to say that John Huston takes every opportunity. Ranging primarily from Indian deserts to snow covered mountain peaks, the scenery is a joy to watch. It is not as lush as the scenery in, say, Lawrence of Arabia, but, then, it isn’t meant to be. After all, this is not meant to be the sweeping epic David Lean’s classic film is, but good old fashioned ripping yarn, with all the pulp and dirt that implies. And these Indian deserts definitely are dusty and dirty, constantly covering our heroes, Daniel and Peachy, in blankets of sand. Huston also doesn’t shy away from foreign customs, such as native dance (nudge, nudge). He does, however, stay true to the ripping nature of the story here, too, forgoing the more civilized and beautiful customs one might see in films, again, like Lawrence of Arabia, favoring instead more barbaric customs, like the natives’ insistence on playing polo with the heads of defeated war chiefs. Fun stuff.

Best of all, though, the film features the two most perfect leads one could ask for in such a yarn. Sean Connery is Daniel and Micheal Caine is his mate, Peachy. That’s mate in the buddy sense, of course. Get your heads out of the gutter. Connery and Caine are perfect together, playing off each other in a way most buddy movies only dream of. It’s a wonder the two only ever made one other picture together. They’re that good. Connery turns in his usual, “I’m cooler than you’ll ever be and I’m from Scotland,” performance, which works damn well for the ex-soldier. I feel I should point out, though, that, while cool, Daniel is a much more rough around the edges, fisticuffs, hard drinking character than Connery’s usual suave types. Caine’s Peachy is equally rough and comes complete with an effective Cockney accent and sensibility. The two men are bound together throughout the film by honor and friendship in a way that, thanks to their screen chemistry, is wholly believable. I would honestly kill to see these two return in similar roles (they were in A Bridge Too Far Together, but its hardly the same thing, too many other characters for one thing). Anyway, what I’m saying is, they’re that fun to watch.

Over the course of the two hours and change, you really, really bond with these characters. True, when they let their “god hood” go to far, you lose something, but their realization that they’ve gone to far makes it all okay. I wish I could say that there’s a happy ending, but that isn’t the case. I get the feeling that most of the people reading this thing (all six of you) haven’t seen the picture, so I’m not going to give away the ending, except to say that what happens and what it says about the bond between the two men. . . well, it’s a hell of a thing. This is one of those endings that really stays with me.

Still, it’s a damn fun movie, despite the tragic end and I feel weird ending an appreciation of such a ripping adventure on a down note, so I’m going to leave you with a quote from Peachy about Daniel. It’s a fine quote, expressing his admiration for his friend and one I would be proud, proud I say, to have said about me, “Danny’s just a man, not a god. He can break wind at both ends simultaneously - which is more than any god can do.”