MovieChat Forums > The Caine Mutiny (1954) Discussion > The 'Red River' syndrome ...

The 'Red River' syndrome ...

posted 11 years ago by ElMaruecan82
6 replies | jump to latest

Both "The Caine Mutiny" and "Red River" suffer from the same syndrome, both are men's movies with rich and multi-layered interactions, yet for some reason, the writers felt the need to inject some random/artifical romantic subplot while it had nothing to do with the main story.

I understand that "The Caine Mutiny" is an adaptation and the romance played a significant part of the novel's plot, I understand it's supposed to highlight Keith's maturation BUT that's why we say 'adapted screenplay' and that's why "The Godfather" was a masterpiece, had it kept all the novel's sleazy details, I doubt the film would have been so highly regarded, this is why "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is a masterpiece, it chose to focus on McMurphy instead of telling the story from the Chief's perspective.

Keith might have been the central character of the film, but the story inside the Caine was so thrilling that anything happening outside would have distracted from the film's entertaining value. I can't believe such a wonderful screeplay with so many three-dimensional and ambiguous characters could indulge to such artificial clichés. How can a film so great have so many weak parts? Especially since 'Keith' isn't quite the flamboyant character, not with a cast that includes Humphrey Bogart, Jose Ferrer or Fred McMurray.

Robert Francis is not to blame though, his performance is quite all right given the kind of character he plays, he's supposed to be the passive observer, the obedient ensign whom we can identify with. Keith embodied our viewer's position, he was like the journalist in "Das Boot", a neutral character whose judgment can only be based on what happens during the film (since it was his first mission) and then we're tempted to feel and think his way.

So, I agree with those who can't stand the romantic subplot, but I don't hate it because it's bad, but just because without it, "The Caine Mutiny" would've been one hell of a masterpiece, now, I think it's one of the greatest dramas of the 50's, but only because the little twist at the end, and the extraordinary performances of Bogart and Ferrer redeem these flaws.

"Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather"

[–] jbaddock 11 years ago

You've hit the nail on the head - Keith's romance has nothing to do with the mutiny at all. It plays a bigger part in the book (which spends a lot of time detailing Keith's story both before and after the mutiny) and I suspect that the producers were reluctant to make a high-profile film without a romantic sub-plot in there somewhere, so they kept it in. To be fair, how many films from the early Fifties didn't have a romance for the leading man, whether it was necessary or not? However, it is true to say that the sub-plot is often a distraction in the film - the Yosemite sequence interrupts the main plot at a time when tension on the ship is increasing, for example, and, frankly, I never get to the stage of caring whether he marries May Wynn or not (also the case in the book, btw).

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

Yes, you wonder how the two ever got together . . . they don't match . . .

[–] TorontoJediMaster 11 years ago

Agreed.

In the book, it's revealed they met while Willie was trying to make it as a professional piano player. (Versus going into teaching literature, which was what his Princeton degree was in.) It's while working at a cheap night club that he meets her.

[–] the-spy 11 years ago

Robert Francis is not to blame though, his performance is quite all right given the kind of character he plays, he's supposed to be the passive observer, the obedient ensign whom we can identify with.

robert francis gets a lot of flak for his performance. i agree with you, he was ok in the role; just a clean-cut, rather naive guy thrust into a bad situation.

i think van johnson was outstanding in the film, he doesn't seem to get as much credit as he deserves.

So, I agree with those who can't stand the romantic subplot, but I don't hate it because it's bad, but just because without it, "The Caine Mutiny" would've been one hell of a masterpiece, now, I think it's one of the greatest dramas of the 50's, but only because the little twist at the end, and the extraordinary performances of Bogart and Ferrer redeem these flaws.

once, when asked about "the caine mutiny", humphrey bogart said "i didn't think it was that great - they crapped it up with an unncessary love story".

back around 1990 at a classic movie convention, i had a chance to briefly talk with director edward dymtryk about this movie. i asked him about directing bogart, and he said "i didn't direct him at all, i just gave him the script and he took it from there". dymtryk also said bogart tossed off almost all of his scenes in the first take, including the courtroom scene.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

Agreed . . . Robert Francis is superb in the role he has--young ensign, just starting out . . . he fits perfectly . . . he is not the lead (as Keith is in the novel) . . .

[–] TorontoJediMaster 11 years ago

As well, as Robert Francis played him, Keith never really matured or developed into the highly competent officer he was in the novel.

Keith becomes an officer Maryk completely trusts and reflects on how well he's developed since coming aboard. In the film, he never seems to be more than the new ensign.