The opening music sounds so much like the Tara theme from "Gone with the Wind" that I have to wonder if this movie had the same composer.
As my username suggests, I am something of an age of sail enthusiast. I have read most of the book "Two Years Before the Mast" and will begin by saying that there is very little resemblance between it and this movie. This makes sense, I suppose, since the book is an account of a man's real experiences on board a merchant vessel and thus has no plot or theme, which a movie must have.
Still, I had hoped for a fascinating psychological drama exploring the question of what might drive a merchant captain to actually use flogging against his crew, which, contrary to what this movie would have you believe, was NOT common on board merchant ships; but instead the movie attempts to set up a situation that could only have truly existed in the navy and is completely ridiculous outside it.
Had this movie been set in the navy, I would have said that the captain was a perfectly capable and even kind-hearted officer as shown by his remittance of one of the punishments and treatment of the stowaway. Until scurvy started to spread through the crew; at that point, his unbending refusal to get fresh supplies just so that he could beat his record was a little hard to believe, particularly considering his earlier signs of being a very reasonable man. Had more been riding on his success, his resolve would have made more sense, but since his motivations were never explored, it made him seem rather bizarrely flat after all the effort to humanize him in the beginning.
I really liked the first mate, whose name I never quite caught. I wish more time had been spent on his internal journey, since at the beginning he is extremely loyal to the captain and obviously admires him immensely. Though it's made clear the captain's actions affect his perspective over the course of the movie, I would have liked a bit more time spent on his internal process as the captain becomes more and more unwilling to see to the men's needs.
The opening scroll of text is hogwash. The idea of merchant sailors being slaves to their officers is beyond silly (it applies extremely well to the position of boys on board many a naval and merchant vessel, though). Yes, officers were to be obeyed in most instances, but on board a merchant ship sailors grumbled freely and let it be known when they were dissatisfied. Merchant sailors could desert a ship they didn't like without any repercussions except losing their pay and did so very frequently for any number of reasons. It was only in the navy that desertion carried a steep penalty, and no merchant captain would have dared flog his men unless in very specific circumstances, as occurred in Dana's actual experience.
I like that when we are first introduced to the ship, the mate punches the fellow instead of using that rope's end that he would NEVER have carried or dared to use against any of the sailors. I have never heard an account of a sailor being given a rope's ending outside the navy except for twice: once in Dana's narrative (note that in reality there was no cat of nine tails on board the Pilgrim), and a second time in a case that was infamous in its day in which merchant captain James Lowry flogged a man to death with the bite of a rope (this occurred in the 1750s) and was convicted of murder for it. However, though sailors could expect a rope's end to be brandished over their heads only in the navy, boys could expect it in any vessel they sailed in as shown by poor Bullen's experiences.
Merchant officers were indeed known to use physical force, but it was always of the sort that meant a fight between the sailor and officer, and no officer would have dared it unless they were certain of their superior strength. In "The Log of a Sea Waif", a real-life account of Frank Thomas Bullen's first four years at sea in the early 1870s, he tells of several officers who, thanks to their strength, would challenge sailors who grumbled against them to fights. But these officers were strong men known for their physical prowess.
Other officers who weren't as physically strong put up with all kinds of grumbling and attempted to placate the men rather than deal with an uprising or the crew leaving the ship. Indeed, in one very memorable instance, a thoroughly exasperated sailor dumped an entire pot of boiling-hot pea soup over the captain's head, and though the captain called for the mate to put him in irons, the mate didn't dare because, as was usual on merchant vessels, the crew far outnumbered the officers, and putting the man in irons could have been the spark that finally ignited the simmering resentment of the crew. You see, the captain had sold the ship's stores to line his own pockets and bought the cheapest food he could find to feed the crew. Half starved, the men had finally had enough. Still, they didn't mutiny, much to young Bullen's mystification. The sailor returned forward, the crew had a great laugh at the captain's expense, and nothing more was said about the incident. In the navy such a thing would certainly have got the man flogged, but in the merchant service, captains didn't have enough power to do any such thing.
I like that the movie at least acknowledges that sailors were avoiding the Pilgrim thanks to the captain's reputation. However, his being able to kidnap his entire crew is just silly. Pressing was common enough in the navy in the early 19th century (though it was falling out of favor by the 1830s), but a merchant captain didn't have the authority to carry it out, and every one of those sailors could have brought a legal action against the captain for it upon returning to port, not to mention the outcry from the many businesses that relied on the sailor's actually being able to spend their advance notes.
Also, where is the money coming from to pay the hooligans to kidnap the men?
In the end, my feeling is that this movie would have been much, much more believable if they would have had the Pilgrim be a navy vessel rather than a merchantman. Some of the perfectly ludicrous plot elements (kidnapping the crew, the flogging, the idea that mutiny would lead to death, having cannons taking up valuable space and practicing with them for no reason) and behavior would have actually made sense in the context of the navy, though...
***SPOILER***
Why the crew returns to the ship at the end is beyond me. Had they been in the navy, returning would have been a total and complete death sentence. Since they are in a merchantman, the fact the captain was willing to MURDER his own officer would have been ample reason to run as fast and as far as possible, and then return home to bring charges against the man, which would have been VERY EASY to do with so many witnesses. Their behavior was, I am sorry, so completely ludicrous to me that I had a hard time finishing the movie. They would NOT have been forced to turn pirate, nor menaced with hanging. They would have been perfectly safe to return home and would have had a very easy time of proving the captain in the wrong.
***END SPOILER***
As my username suggests, I am something of an age of sail enthusiast. I have read most of the book "Two Years Before the Mast" and will begin by saying that there is very little resemblance between it and this movie. This makes sense, I suppose, since the book is an account of a man's real experiences on board a merchant vessel and thus has no plot or theme, which a movie must have.
Still, I had hoped for a fascinating psychological drama exploring the question of what might drive a merchant captain to actually use flogging against his crew, which, contrary to what this movie would have you believe, was NOT common on board merchant ships; but instead the movie attempts to set up a situation that could only have truly existed in the navy and is completely ridiculous outside it.
Had this movie been set in the navy, I would have said that the captain was a perfectly capable and even kind-hearted officer as shown by his remittance of one of the punishments and treatment of the stowaway. Until scurvy started to spread through the crew; at that point, his unbending refusal to get fresh supplies just so that he could beat his record was a little hard to believe, particularly considering his earlier signs of being a very reasonable man. Had more been riding on his success, his resolve would have made more sense, but since his motivations were never explored, it made him seem rather bizarrely flat after all the effort to humanize him in the beginning.
I really liked the first mate, whose name I never quite caught. I wish more time had been spent on his internal journey, since at the beginning he is extremely loyal to the captain and obviously admires him immensely. Though it's made clear the captain's actions affect his perspective over the course of the movie, I would have liked a bit more time spent on his internal process as the captain becomes more and more unwilling to see to the men's needs.
The opening scroll of text is hogwash. The idea of merchant sailors being slaves to their officers is beyond silly (it applies extremely well to the position of boys on board many a naval and merchant vessel, though). Yes, officers were to be obeyed in most instances, but on board a merchant ship sailors grumbled freely and let it be known when they were dissatisfied. Merchant sailors could desert a ship they didn't like without any repercussions except losing their pay and did so very frequently for any number of reasons. It was only in the navy that desertion carried a steep penalty, and no merchant captain would have dared flog his men unless in very specific circumstances, as occurred in Dana's actual experience.
I like that when we are first introduced to the ship, the mate punches the fellow instead of using that rope's end that he would NEVER have carried or dared to use against any of the sailors. I have never heard an account of a sailor being given a rope's ending outside the navy except for twice: once in Dana's narrative (note that in reality there was no cat of nine tails on board the Pilgrim), and a second time in a case that was infamous in its day in which merchant captain James Lowry flogged a man to death with the bite of a rope (this occurred in the 1750s) and was convicted of murder for it. However, though sailors could expect a rope's end to be brandished over their heads only in the navy, boys could expect it in any vessel they sailed in as shown by poor Bullen's experiences.
Merchant officers were indeed known to use physical force, but it was always of the sort that meant a fight between the sailor and officer, and no officer would have dared it unless they were certain of their superior strength. In "The Log of a Sea Waif", a real-life account of Frank Thomas Bullen's first four years at sea in the early 1870s, he tells of several officers who, thanks to their strength, would challenge sailors who grumbled against them to fights. But these officers were strong men known for their physical prowess.
Other officers who weren't as physically strong put up with all kinds of grumbling and attempted to placate the men rather than deal with an uprising or the crew leaving the ship. Indeed, in one very memorable instance, a thoroughly exasperated sailor dumped an entire pot of boiling-hot pea soup over the captain's head, and though the captain called for the mate to put him in irons, the mate didn't dare because, as was usual on merchant vessels, the crew far outnumbered the officers, and putting the man in irons could have been the spark that finally ignited the simmering resentment of the crew. You see, the captain had sold the ship's stores to line his own pockets and bought the cheapest food he could find to feed the crew. Half starved, the men had finally had enough. Still, they didn't mutiny, much to young Bullen's mystification. The sailor returned forward, the crew had a great laugh at the captain's expense, and nothing more was said about the incident. In the navy such a thing would certainly have got the man flogged, but in the merchant service, captains didn't have enough power to do any such thing.
I like that the movie at least acknowledges that sailors were avoiding the Pilgrim thanks to the captain's reputation. However, his being able to kidnap his entire crew is just silly. Pressing was common enough in the navy in the early 19th century (though it was falling out of favor by the 1830s), but a merchant captain didn't have the authority to carry it out, and every one of those sailors could have brought a legal action against the captain for it upon returning to port, not to mention the outcry from the many businesses that relied on the sailor's actually being able to spend their advance notes.
Also, where is the money coming from to pay the hooligans to kidnap the men?
In the end, my feeling is that this movie would have been much, much more believable if they would have had the Pilgrim be a navy vessel rather than a merchantman. Some of the perfectly ludicrous plot elements (kidnapping the crew, the flogging, the idea that mutiny would lead to death, having cannons taking up valuable space and practicing with them for no reason) and behavior would have actually made sense in the context of the navy, though...
***SPOILER***
Why the crew returns to the ship at the end is beyond me. Had they been in the navy, returning would have been a total and complete death sentence. Since they are in a merchantman, the fact the captain was willing to MURDER his own officer would have been ample reason to run as fast and as far as possible, and then return home to bring charges against the man, which would have been VERY EASY to do with so many witnesses. Their behavior was, I am sorry, so completely ludicrous to me that I had a hard time finishing the movie. They would NOT have been forced to turn pirate, nor menaced with hanging. They would have been perfectly safe to return home and would have had a very easy time of proving the captain in the wrong.
***END SPOILER***