With Charles Laughton and Clark Gable no longer living in 1962, and Franchot Tone's health in severe decline, it made sense to produce a remake of Mutiny on the Bounty. Fresh blood, updated effects, and a lack of censorship. However, the 1962 version is universally hailed as the worst one because it doesn't take advantage of any of those opportunities. Lloyd Bacon's direction in 1935 was top notch, the scantily clad Tahitians weren't any naughtier than they were thirty years earlier, and Fletcher Christian was impossible to root for.
While he does say expressions like, "Indeed," and "Oh, isn't that jolly?", the expressions that come out of Fletcher Christian's mouth still sound silly because it's Marlon Brando saying them. He gives a good college try on his accent, but I was still waiting for him to start laughing. His character wasn't given any roots for him to grasp onto, and he didn't seem to have any motivation behind his lines other than to just say them. I know that sounds harsh, but when you watch him, you'll understand.
Marlon Brando isn't the only difference to be found in this Technicolor remake. Trevor Howard's Captain Bligh is about as different as you can get from Charles Laughton's interpretation. While Charles took every disobedience as a personal insult, Trevor simply prioritized his orders over the welfare of his men. In fact, he delivers a line stating that as a captain, he doesn't expect to have any friends aboard the ship. In essence, how can a drinking buddy carry out an unpleasant order in the morning? Charles punished the men out of revenge and personal inadequacies, but Trevor wants to instill order in the men and carry out his mission from the Admiralty.
Whether or not the titular mutiny was justified has always been a debatable point, but in this version, it's quite obvious that Marlon is in the wrong - which I don't think is the goal. In 1935, Charles Laughton allowed the audience to choose sides. Since he was so internally emotional, one could argue that his "torture" of the men was retaliatory. If you were on Clark Gable's side, he needed to save the men from such an imbalanced captain. But when Trevor rations water because he wants to save the breadfruit plants, he's completely sane and logical. When Marlon "saves the men," Trevor merely smiles and says, "What a big price to pay for a little show of temper. I pity you." In taking away the debate, the crux of the movie feels anticlimactic.
If you do decide to revisit this remake, it won't hurt you. It's still a good story, and you'll see a solid performance from Trevor Howard. There is no equivalent to Franchot Tone's character, but instead the third lead is played by Richard Harris, who, similar to Marlon, is given hardly any character to work with. Richard Haydn arbitrarily narrates the film, taking some of the teeth out of Marlon's mutiny. If we're being told how terrible Captain Bligh is, but what we're seeing isn't that bad (with exception to Richard Harris's whipping, of course); why mutiny at all?
DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. Since the movie takes place on a ship, the camera bobs up and down a lot, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"
While he does say expressions like, "Indeed," and "Oh, isn't that jolly?", the expressions that come out of Fletcher Christian's mouth still sound silly because it's Marlon Brando saying them. He gives a good college try on his accent, but I was still waiting for him to start laughing. His character wasn't given any roots for him to grasp onto, and he didn't seem to have any motivation behind his lines other than to just say them. I know that sounds harsh, but when you watch him, you'll understand.
Marlon Brando isn't the only difference to be found in this Technicolor remake. Trevor Howard's Captain Bligh is about as different as you can get from Charles Laughton's interpretation. While Charles took every disobedience as a personal insult, Trevor simply prioritized his orders over the welfare of his men. In fact, he delivers a line stating that as a captain, he doesn't expect to have any friends aboard the ship. In essence, how can a drinking buddy carry out an unpleasant order in the morning? Charles punished the men out of revenge and personal inadequacies, but Trevor wants to instill order in the men and carry out his mission from the Admiralty.
Whether or not the titular mutiny was justified has always been a debatable point, but in this version, it's quite obvious that Marlon is in the wrong - which I don't think is the goal. In 1935, Charles Laughton allowed the audience to choose sides. Since he was so internally emotional, one could argue that his "torture" of the men was retaliatory. If you were on Clark Gable's side, he needed to save the men from such an imbalanced captain. But when Trevor rations water because he wants to save the breadfruit plants, he's completely sane and logical. When Marlon "saves the men," Trevor merely smiles and says, "What a big price to pay for a little show of temper. I pity you." In taking away the debate, the crux of the movie feels anticlimactic.
If you do decide to revisit this remake, it won't hurt you. It's still a good story, and you'll see a solid performance from Trevor Howard. There is no equivalent to Franchot Tone's character, but instead the third lead is played by Richard Harris, who, similar to Marlon, is given hardly any character to work with. Richard Haydn arbitrarily narrates the film, taking some of the teeth out of Marlon's mutiny. If we're being told how terrible Captain Bligh is, but what we're seeing isn't that bad (with exception to Richard Harris's whipping, of course); why mutiny at all?
DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. Since the movie takes place on a ship, the camera bobs up and down a lot, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"