Republished from the show notes of my other site, Fuds on Film.
Set in the late 1800’s, we find journalist and baker of exceedingly good cakes Rudyard Kipling, played by Christopher Plummer, being regaled with the tale of a now wild-eyed, half crazed ex-soldier, Michael Caine’s Peachy Carnehan, relating what he and his fellow lovable rogue Sean Connery’s Daniel Dravot have been up to since they last met, and it’s quite the shaggy dog story.
See, Dravot and Peachy had been bouncing about India since leaving the army, with a variety of petty criminal schemes that sees them on the verge of being kicked out of the country. However, they have one last gambit in mind, an audacious trip to head far to the north into what I think would be modern day eastern Afganistan, here called Kafiristan, with as many rifles as they can smuggle over the border. They intend on getting an in with a local tribal chief, training them in the art of war, and superior firepower, and fashioning their own nation state, once they’ve usurped the chief.
It’s a perilous journey, over treacherous mountain paths, but they make it and start their plan. Surprisingly this seems to be going much better than modern nationbuilding attempts in the area, but business really picks up when an arrow strikes Dravot, but doesn’t penetrate his bandolier. Because this film treats Afgans like they are credulous toddlers, they all now believe Dravot is effectively a God, Sikander, or the second coming of Alexander the Great. Hmm.
At any rate, this godhood supposition is confirmed by the high priests when they see Dravot’s Masonic necklace, Alexander the Great apparently having been a founding member of the mountaintop Afgan Lodge #69. Nice. With Dravot set as king and God, and full access to the treasury, it would seem that all they need to do is wait until winter passes and they can ride out with all the gold they can carry. That is, as long as Dravot doesn’t let the adulation goes to his head, and push the boundaries of what’s acceptable.
I watched this before, I now realise about a quarter of a century ago, and inasmuch as I can remember anything about it I thought it was a fun, Boy’s Own adventure, with spectacular scenery, and two of my favourite actors bouncing off each other in a yarn that’s not credible, but is entertaining. A sort of low-brow take on Lawrence of Arabia it was in my head. Now, on revisiting, all of that is still there, and I still enjoyed this.
However, it’s tough not to reappraise this somewhat now I’m older and have a rather clearer idea of the effects of British colonialism in the region, most of which we’re still dealing with today. That said, I’m just some goon on a film podcast, so I’m not going to get into that too much, other than to say if you start down that path of thought you’d be forgiven for wanting to sit The Man Who Would Be King out. Surprising, I know, what with it being a Kipling adaptation and all.
Separating that, if you can, you’re left with another solid adventure backbone elevated by Connery and Caine’s performance, although again they’re somewhat broad, but this feels more in keeping with the spirit of the thing than in The African Queen. Also, you may have noted that this podcast is prone to lapsing into the sort of Michael Caine impression that’s more of an impression of Mike Yarwood’s impression in the 70’s, or at best small parts of The Italian Job. Well, actually, no, this film has reminded me that it’s a highly accurate impression of Caine at all points in The Man Who Would Be King.
So, a somewhat caveated recommendation, but I’m still quite fond of it.