While
Shekhar Kapur's Academy award winning Elizabeth (starring
Cate Blanchet) was about as good a English language feature debut
as one could ask for, Kapur's followup The Four Feathers
left me looking for something more and somewhat confused by the
filmmaker's intentions. The look of the film is spectacular, and
the sweep and scope initially promise much, but fall short as the
story unfolds and the film's central character, Harry Feversham
(Heath Ledger) proves to be so ambivalent that we wonder if half
his performance ended up on the cutting room floor. Having not read
the novel, I'll assume the Harry's ambivalence is true to his character;
but yet, Kapur's choice of how to portray Harry visually -- literally
as a Christ-like image in the desert -- seems to run counter to
the films ostensible themes of "love, honor and passion" and gives
the film an thematic undertow that never is fully realized.
The
story, which takes place in the early 1900's, revolves around Harry's
essential cowardice in the face of war, as Harry decides to bow
out of the military, abandoning his best friend Jack (Wes Bentley)
in order to marry the beautiful Ethne (Kate Hudson). Ethne, faced
with the social shame of his cowardice, calls off the wedding and
Harry is left without fiance and friends, as well as disowned by
his father, also a military man. Three military friends, plus Ethne,
give Harry four white feathers to symbolize his cowardice.
I'll
argue that the main theme the film maybe be one of cowardice, but
not on screen, as the filmmaker decides to pull a punch after leaving
us to believe that Harry is either a closet pacifist or philosopher
who questions the moral authority of the British Empire. Kapur reveals
Harry as neither: he was simply afraid, and shame forces him to
seek redemption. The soul of the film proves to be unsatisfactory
because it forsakes a great opportunity to make a statement, and
misses the mark, questioning the value of statements, it seems,
over the importance of the literal narrative -- even if that narrative
screams out many levels of social realities. A more thoughtful analysis
in the screenplay would have revealed a multi-leveled theme more
interesting than what plays out here. It's as if the film both wants
greatness but shies away from it, fearing its own power. In fairness
to the film's creative team, this flaw could indeed be traced back
to A.E.W. Mason's original novel, on which The Four Feathers
was based.
This
kind of self-castration happens all the time in Hollywood films,
perennially afraid of upsetting the masses. In this time of wars
and wars alarms, perhaps Paramount and Miramax didn't want to push
out a pacifist message, which is what The Four Feathers seems
yearning to speak, but somehow can't.
--
Diana Takata
|