I am disappointed to see the sparsity of votes for this very-of-guys movie. This box-office smash of 1946 which is a sly attempt to invoke the more academy award favored Mutiny on the Bounty. Obviously, this movie was made to win awards and to give prestige to the studio, producer and actors involved. It did not garner a single nomination. Based on a true story and a best-selling non-fiction book from the 19th Century, it details the kind of cruelty and inhumanity that was used back then to run a ship. The stand-out of many fine performances is Howard da Silva as the captain Thompson who is more interested in breaking arrival records than in keeping the health, morality or moue of his crew in a flush of pink. Alan Ladd is the somewhat lead for make no mistake, this is no Ladd piece but an ensemble of Paramount's finest and great character actors. William Bendix, an actor who puts to shame the theory that real acting began with those "method" actors of the fifties with everything he does, is perfect as the first mate Amanzine. Shot strictly on studio sets, it does have the necessary realism of the open seas and azure skies that could give it the needed extra texture but it tries and works all the same. Unexpected events happen and formula is avoided until a rushed third act and ending that feels to hurried to resonate. That is why I voted it an 8/10. It is just too flat, as if the producers were late for dinner or something and slapped something together. Surely, events you want to see resolved is giving the sleight of hand and the picture is only 98 mins, so why the hurry? A good guy's movie with fine performances. It could have been a classic but it's just a good movie. P.S. I cannot believe Da Silva was not nominated for his performance. That is just a plain travesty.
19 Reviews
Mutiny on the Pilgrim
dbdumonteil26 June 2010
By several respects ,some kind of updated "Captain courageous" (Victor Fleming ,1937).The rich kid (Alan Ladd) has grown up and he is still frivolous ,part of the young jet set ,drinking and picking up girls in the low dives of the harbor.When dad learns that his boy is on his own ship,in the clutch of a -rather sadistic- captain ,he does not panic and wisely mumbles something like " it 'll make a man of him" ;which is not entirely false.Not only ,the boy born silver spoon in hand will learn the harsh realities of life ,but he'll also feel for his unfortunate shipmates (many of them poor press-ganged aboard victims like himself ).
Although the movie is centered on Ladd's misadventures ,it actually depicts "Henry Dana's crusade to expose mistreatment of men at sea" (Maltin).But the reviewer is wrong when he writes that it is a "badly scripted story":in fact only the female character gets in the way and the ending is botched.All that remains is absorbing ,the standout being for me the ship's boy.Farrow was better at film noir ,but his attempt at an adventures movies is recommendable.
Like this ? try these ....
"Mutiny on the Bounty" (Frank Lloyd's 1935 version is still the best) "Captain Courageous" (Fleming,1937) "Down to the sea in ships" (Henry Hathaway,1949) "Ghost Ship" (Mark Robson/Val Lewton,1943) "White squall" (Ridley Scott,1996)
Although the movie is centered on Ladd's misadventures ,it actually depicts "Henry Dana's crusade to expose mistreatment of men at sea" (Maltin).But the reviewer is wrong when he writes that it is a "badly scripted story":in fact only the female character gets in the way and the ending is botched.All that remains is absorbing ,the standout being for me the ship's boy.Farrow was better at film noir ,but his attempt at an adventures movies is recommendable.
Like this ? try these ....
"Mutiny on the Bounty" (Frank Lloyd's 1935 version is still the best) "Captain Courageous" (Fleming,1937) "Down to the sea in ships" (Henry Hathaway,1949) "Ghost Ship" (Mark Robson/Val Lewton,1943) "White squall" (Ridley Scott,1996)
Marry Those Pelican Hooks And Be Quick About It!
rmax30482317 June 2017
It's been years since I read the book but as I remember it there was no Allan Ladd figure in it, a ne'er do well who is shanghaied aboard the cargo ship Pilgrim. There was just Richard Henry Dana who had dropped out of Harvard because of faulty vision and signed aboard because he thought it might help clear his sight. He didn't go back to college but he left an enduring and compelling account of his trip in the 1840s from Boston to the California coast, and his return aboard the Alert.
The record wasn't only accurate. It was colorful and even lyrical. Herman Melville acknowledged it as an inspiration for Moby Dick. It's an amazingly evocative narrative. Dana Point in southern California is named after him. He and his mates stood atop the cliffs and flung cow hides down to the sailors below, to be loaded aboard the ship.
California at the time was a province of Mexico, and places like San Francisco ("Yerba Buena") and Los Angeles were villages surrounded by large Spanish land grants and ranches. Dana was a humanitarian and, coming from New England, an anti-slavery activist. His purpose was to leave an accurate record of the life of sailors aboard American ships, documenting their characters and their mistreatment.
That's about what I remember from the book. The 1946 movie with Allan Ladd seems to owe a good deal to Jack London's "Sea Wolf", the story of a wealthy young shipwreck survivor picked up by a ship and coerced into working as a members of the crew by a captain who was a madman. This skipper, Howard Da Silva, isn't nuts but insists the men carry out his wishes as if they were the word of God. Maybe Captain Bligh was the inspiration here.
Life on the Pilgram is a rough life. Ladd is assigned the most menial of duties on the deck force while a very young stowaway is appointed cook's helper. In terms of working hours, cooks have one of the roughest jobs of all. They don't strain their muscles, as we had to on the deck force of a Coast Guard cutter, USCGC Gresham, but they have to get up before any of the rest of the crew and start preparing breakfast. And they don't stop working until they've finished cleaning up after the last meal of the day, hours after the day workers have stopped.
The deck force is no picnic either. Everyone on my ship knew the story (possibly "fake news") of the boatswain's mate on a neighboring ship who slapped a seaman across the face and gave him a bloody nose, then made him get on his knees and holystone the blood off the wooden deck. The Chief BM on the Gresham went no farther than raising fist over me and threatening to belt me. Oh, it was rough duty. The blond young Swedish maids helped ease the pain.
Where was I? Yes, no sea duty today compares to what these guys go through -- twenty lashes for looking cross-eye at an officer, and so forth. What's always puzzled me is, if they're going to administer lashes, why do they always rip the shirt down his back? Why not ask him to take it off? Brian Donlevy plays Richard Henry Dana, writing the book in his spare time.
The book, as I say, was a literary gem. Dana captured the experience of working on a sailing ship, including the floggings and the scurvy. (Viz: "Limeys.") Beyond that he gave us treats on landfalls, storms, and ice bergs. Da Silva is the uncompromising and humorless captain. William Bendix is the brutal First Mate Amazeen who gets to belt Ladd on the face. If the producers needed someone to beat hell out of Ladd, more than once it was Bendix. The two men were friends, despite a temporary falling out over Ladd's lack of interest in enlisting during the war.
In Pernambuco, the Pilgrim acquires a passenger -- a beautiful young woman, what else? Compare this to The Sea Wolf, which also picks up a pretty young girl and Jack London's prose turns to mush. Actually, here, Esther Fernández as the requisite romantic role, is quite attractive and gives a respectable performance. Her career flourished in her native Mexico.
I don't think I'll give away the ending except to say there is a violent clash, some deaths, and a victory of sorts. You'll probably enjoy the move. It's aglow with resentment and tension.
The record wasn't only accurate. It was colorful and even lyrical. Herman Melville acknowledged it as an inspiration for Moby Dick. It's an amazingly evocative narrative. Dana Point in southern California is named after him. He and his mates stood atop the cliffs and flung cow hides down to the sailors below, to be loaded aboard the ship.
California at the time was a province of Mexico, and places like San Francisco ("Yerba Buena") and Los Angeles were villages surrounded by large Spanish land grants and ranches. Dana was a humanitarian and, coming from New England, an anti-slavery activist. His purpose was to leave an accurate record of the life of sailors aboard American ships, documenting their characters and their mistreatment.
That's about what I remember from the book. The 1946 movie with Allan Ladd seems to owe a good deal to Jack London's "Sea Wolf", the story of a wealthy young shipwreck survivor picked up by a ship and coerced into working as a members of the crew by a captain who was a madman. This skipper, Howard Da Silva, isn't nuts but insists the men carry out his wishes as if they were the word of God. Maybe Captain Bligh was the inspiration here.
Life on the Pilgram is a rough life. Ladd is assigned the most menial of duties on the deck force while a very young stowaway is appointed cook's helper. In terms of working hours, cooks have one of the roughest jobs of all. They don't strain their muscles, as we had to on the deck force of a Coast Guard cutter, USCGC Gresham, but they have to get up before any of the rest of the crew and start preparing breakfast. And they don't stop working until they've finished cleaning up after the last meal of the day, hours after the day workers have stopped.
The deck force is no picnic either. Everyone on my ship knew the story (possibly "fake news") of the boatswain's mate on a neighboring ship who slapped a seaman across the face and gave him a bloody nose, then made him get on his knees and holystone the blood off the wooden deck. The Chief BM on the Gresham went no farther than raising fist over me and threatening to belt me. Oh, it was rough duty. The blond young Swedish maids helped ease the pain.
Where was I? Yes, no sea duty today compares to what these guys go through -- twenty lashes for looking cross-eye at an officer, and so forth. What's always puzzled me is, if they're going to administer lashes, why do they always rip the shirt down his back? Why not ask him to take it off? Brian Donlevy plays Richard Henry Dana, writing the book in his spare time.
The book, as I say, was a literary gem. Dana captured the experience of working on a sailing ship, including the floggings and the scurvy. (Viz: "Limeys.") Beyond that he gave us treats on landfalls, storms, and ice bergs. Da Silva is the uncompromising and humorless captain. William Bendix is the brutal First Mate Amazeen who gets to belt Ladd on the face. If the producers needed someone to beat hell out of Ladd, more than once it was Bendix. The two men were friends, despite a temporary falling out over Ladd's lack of interest in enlisting during the war.
In Pernambuco, the Pilgrim acquires a passenger -- a beautiful young woman, what else? Compare this to The Sea Wolf, which also picks up a pretty young girl and Jack London's prose turns to mush. Actually, here, Esther Fernández as the requisite romantic role, is quite attractive and gives a respectable performance. Her career flourished in her native Mexico.
I don't think I'll give away the ending except to say there is a violent clash, some deaths, and a victory of sorts. You'll probably enjoy the move. It's aglow with resentment and tension.
Life at sea as it really was, not just the romance and glory
mgm-423 December 1998
This is a movie to see to get a feel for what it must have been like back in the "good old days" of tall ships and iron men. Lemme tell ya, the cruise ships of today are as far from "sailing" as a toy poodle is from a wolf.
This is one of my favorite movies, Alan Ladd is wonderful as the spoiled rich boy, while Howard Da Silva as the ruthless captain only interested in setting a new record around Cape Horn creates a new high-water mark for callousness. (What's with sea captains in Hollywood movies, anyway? If it's not the bumbling incompetence of Bogart's Queeg it's the cold heartlessness of Trevor Howard and Charles Laughton's Captain Bligh.) The stowaway kid (Darryl Hickman) is a bit over-the-top I admit, but it seems they all were in movies made back then. Speaking of back then, this baby is in black-and-white, and although some of the scenes in the various waterfront bars and in the hold of the ship benefit thereby, the outdoor scenes suffer a bit because of it. And speaking of outdoor scenes, they really didn't put much of the budget into special effects, as the boat looks exactly like what it is, a toy bobbing around in someone's bathtub.
Still, that's not why people love this movie. It's the fascination of watching Alan Ladd's Charles Stewart transformed from rich, obnoxious playboy into deeply affected human being as he watches the massive cruelty and abuse around him. The cruelty and virtual slavery of these sailors is portrayed with an unflinching eye, and you're cheering along with them when the final confrontation unfolds. As someone wiser than me observed, "Going to sea is going to jail, with a chance at drowning besides."
This is one of my favorite movies, Alan Ladd is wonderful as the spoiled rich boy, while Howard Da Silva as the ruthless captain only interested in setting a new record around Cape Horn creates a new high-water mark for callousness. (What's with sea captains in Hollywood movies, anyway? If it's not the bumbling incompetence of Bogart's Queeg it's the cold heartlessness of Trevor Howard and Charles Laughton's Captain Bligh.) The stowaway kid (Darryl Hickman) is a bit over-the-top I admit, but it seems they all were in movies made back then. Speaking of back then, this baby is in black-and-white, and although some of the scenes in the various waterfront bars and in the hold of the ship benefit thereby, the outdoor scenes suffer a bit because of it. And speaking of outdoor scenes, they really didn't put much of the budget into special effects, as the boat looks exactly like what it is, a toy bobbing around in someone's bathtub.
Still, that's not why people love this movie. It's the fascination of watching Alan Ladd's Charles Stewart transformed from rich, obnoxious playboy into deeply affected human being as he watches the massive cruelty and abuse around him. The cruelty and virtual slavery of these sailors is portrayed with an unflinching eye, and you're cheering along with them when the final confrontation unfolds. As someone wiser than me observed, "Going to sea is going to jail, with a chance at drowning besides."
Pretty good "Bounty" ripoff
HotToastyRag22 June 2021
Ah, another "I wasn't in Mutiny on the Bounty" movie: Two Years Before the Mast. As countless tough guy actors got their chance to play a Captain Bligh ripoff, tons of leading man actors got their chance to play a Fletcher Christian ripoff. If you want to see a perpetually shirtless Alan Ladd in the Fletcher Christian part, and Howard Da Silva in the Captain Bligh part, rent this one.
Alan is young and inexperienced, and while in a tavern, he gets knocked over the head and kidnapped to work as a crewmember on an imposing ship. Back in the 1800s, things like that did happen, and it was pretty scary. Especially since the reason the sailors needed to kidnap their crew was because their captain was so tyrannical, no one in his right mind would volunteer.
As evil as Howard Da Silva is, Alan does have one friend aboard the ship: Brian Donlevy. Ironically, if you want to see Brian as a tough captain, check out the following year's The Song of Scheherazade. Brian is sympathetic and keeps a diary of all the atrocities committed aboard the ship. William Bendix is the first mate, torn between his loyalty to his captain and the horrors he sees. Roman Bohnen, Barry Fitzgerald, Ray Collins, and Darryl Hickman can also be seen in the supporting cast. Although you can tell the quality isn't A-tier, this one is still entertaining, so you can check it out if you're an Alan Ladd fan.
Alan is young and inexperienced, and while in a tavern, he gets knocked over the head and kidnapped to work as a crewmember on an imposing ship. Back in the 1800s, things like that did happen, and it was pretty scary. Especially since the reason the sailors needed to kidnap their crew was because their captain was so tyrannical, no one in his right mind would volunteer.
As evil as Howard Da Silva is, Alan does have one friend aboard the ship: Brian Donlevy. Ironically, if you want to see Brian as a tough captain, check out the following year's The Song of Scheherazade. Brian is sympathetic and keeps a diary of all the atrocities committed aboard the ship. William Bendix is the first mate, torn between his loyalty to his captain and the horrors he sees. Roman Bohnen, Barry Fitzgerald, Ray Collins, and Darryl Hickman can also be seen in the supporting cast. Although you can tell the quality isn't A-tier, this one is still entertaining, so you can check it out if you're an Alan Ladd fan.
Bad conditions at sea
AAdaSC3 July 2010
The press gang of the "Pilgrim" recruits a crew and the ship sets sail. Captain Thompson (Howard Da Silva) is only concerned with breaking speed records and has First Mate Amazeen (William Bendix) and Second Mate Foster (Luis Van Rooten) as his side-kicks to run discipline with a rod of iron. There are floggings, rations, neglect and heartless sea burials on his journey. The crew who suffer include Charles Stewart (Alan Ladd), Henry Dana (Brian Donlevy) and Brown (Albert Dekker). Dana keeps an incident log which will change merchant sea law forever. It becomes published and is called "Two Years Before The Mast"
This is a true-life account of conditions at the time and is based upon a book that introduced maritime law. The cast are all good - Howard Da Silva makes an excellent bad guy. I don't usually like children in films but the stowaway Sam Hooper (Daryl Hickman) isn't as annoying as I feared he might be, and his inclusion in the story has relevance in how the crew relate to Charles. Indeed, he also brings out a human side to Mr Amazeen. However, I am not sure what the point of having the 2 passengers was - the film dragged whenever Maria (Esther Fernandez) was on screen. It was good to watch Charles's transformation from a dislikeable oik to a man with a conscience. There were also some humorous moments thrown in, eg, when Charles goes back to eat the chicken he has stolen in front of the crew that hate him. It's a good film but I never understand the point in scrubbing the decks. What's that about?
This is a true-life account of conditions at the time and is based upon a book that introduced maritime law. The cast are all good - Howard Da Silva makes an excellent bad guy. I don't usually like children in films but the stowaway Sam Hooper (Daryl Hickman) isn't as annoying as I feared he might be, and his inclusion in the story has relevance in how the crew relate to Charles. Indeed, he also brings out a human side to Mr Amazeen. However, I am not sure what the point of having the 2 passengers was - the film dragged whenever Maria (Esther Fernandez) was on screen. It was good to watch Charles's transformation from a dislikeable oik to a man with a conscience. There were also some humorous moments thrown in, eg, when Charles goes back to eat the chicken he has stolen in front of the crew that hate him. It's a good film but I never understand the point in scrubbing the decks. What's that about?
One of Alan Ladd's best
bkoganbing31 March 2005
This film rather than Shane marks the high point of Alan Ladd's golden Paramount years. By the time Shane was made, Ladd and agent/wife Sue Carol had made the decision to leave Paramount.
Sue picked a good one for her husband in Two Years Before the Mast. It's based on a book of the same title by Richard Henry Dana about his experiences aboard a typical American merchant vessel during the 1840s. Dana is played by Brian Donlevy and it is through his eyes that we see the action unfold.
As the film opens Ladd is the spoiled son of a rich merchant family. While out slumming with some of the 19th century brat pack he hangs out with, Ladd gets shanghaied aboard one of his father's own ships. That ship is commanded by an American version of Captain Bligh in Howard DaSilva.
DaSilva, who's career was to be interrupted by the blacklist shortly, is maybe the best one in this fine cast. He's a career naval officer who was cashiered and he runs his ship that way. Has the crew take gunnery practice even. The essence of that part is that he doesn't see himself as cruel. This is just the way things are at sea.
Barry Fitzgerald, like in the Sea Wolf, plays the ship's cook. But Dooley is 180 degrees different from the weasel Fitzgerald portrayed in The Sea Wolf. Shows his versatility as a player.
Bill Bendix was someone Ladd liked to have in his films if he could get him. He plays the tough, but respected first mate Amazine here. Bendix was in a different class than other character actors. He was a star on radio's and later television's Life of Riley and usually because of that, got roles with some depth. Even when the roles didn't, the talented Mr. Bendix put some depth in them.
The rest of the cast assembled to support Alan Ladd is a good one. Familiar folks like Albert Dekker, Frank Faylen, Luis Van Rooten, Ray Collins fill out their roles nicely.
One part is particularly poignant. Young Darryl Hickman is an office boy in Ladd's father's company and he stows away because he's filled with dreamy adolescent notions about life at sea. Despite all he sees around him and even what happens to him, young Hickman never loses sight of the fact that he's on a great adventure.
Considering the studio origins of the film, Paramount does a very good job in a realistic portrayal of life at sea. If you like sea stories, this one's a must.
Sue picked a good one for her husband in Two Years Before the Mast. It's based on a book of the same title by Richard Henry Dana about his experiences aboard a typical American merchant vessel during the 1840s. Dana is played by Brian Donlevy and it is through his eyes that we see the action unfold.
As the film opens Ladd is the spoiled son of a rich merchant family. While out slumming with some of the 19th century brat pack he hangs out with, Ladd gets shanghaied aboard one of his father's own ships. That ship is commanded by an American version of Captain Bligh in Howard DaSilva.
DaSilva, who's career was to be interrupted by the blacklist shortly, is maybe the best one in this fine cast. He's a career naval officer who was cashiered and he runs his ship that way. Has the crew take gunnery practice even. The essence of that part is that he doesn't see himself as cruel. This is just the way things are at sea.
Barry Fitzgerald, like in the Sea Wolf, plays the ship's cook. But Dooley is 180 degrees different from the weasel Fitzgerald portrayed in The Sea Wolf. Shows his versatility as a player.
Bill Bendix was someone Ladd liked to have in his films if he could get him. He plays the tough, but respected first mate Amazine here. Bendix was in a different class than other character actors. He was a star on radio's and later television's Life of Riley and usually because of that, got roles with some depth. Even when the roles didn't, the talented Mr. Bendix put some depth in them.
The rest of the cast assembled to support Alan Ladd is a good one. Familiar folks like Albert Dekker, Frank Faylen, Luis Van Rooten, Ray Collins fill out their roles nicely.
One part is particularly poignant. Young Darryl Hickman is an office boy in Ladd's father's company and he stows away because he's filled with dreamy adolescent notions about life at sea. Despite all he sees around him and even what happens to him, young Hickman never loses sight of the fact that he's on a great adventure.
Considering the studio origins of the film, Paramount does a very good job in a realistic portrayal of life at sea. If you like sea stories, this one's a must.
Pretty Good Story Made Illogical by The Setting
NauticalNarratives25 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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***
This turned out to be far better than I ever expected.
planktonrules27 November 2020
When the story begins, a merchant ship has just arrived in Boston and the Captain of this ship has a reputation as a real jerk. That same night, the ship owner's son, Charles (Alan Ladd), is knocked out by a press gang and later awakens on this same ship...forced to become a crewmember on this ship of the damned.
Through the journey, the Captain (Howard De Silva), is a real monster--treating his crew with little respect nor dignity. Over time, the crew begin to die off from scurvy...and yet the captain does nothing to remedy the situation. His only desire is to complete his round the world journey as fast as possible. Eventually it gets so bad that mutiny seems to be the only alternative. What's next?
This film surprised me. At first, I thought it was going to just be another Alan Ladd featured adventure flick...the sort of thing Paramount churned out again and again once he became a star. Instead, I was taken aback by two things. It really was NOT an Alan Ladd film but much more a film with an ensemble cast. It did not rest solely on Ladd's shoulders and the film allowed for several really good performances. De Silva was at his evil best but kudos also to William Bendix, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker and young Daryl Hickman. In addition, the film had real depth to it....and was very exciting. It was not just another programmer. Overall, a surprisingly good and exciting adventure film...one I really enjoyed.
Through the journey, the Captain (Howard De Silva), is a real monster--treating his crew with little respect nor dignity. Over time, the crew begin to die off from scurvy...and yet the captain does nothing to remedy the situation. His only desire is to complete his round the world journey as fast as possible. Eventually it gets so bad that mutiny seems to be the only alternative. What's next?
This film surprised me. At first, I thought it was going to just be another Alan Ladd featured adventure flick...the sort of thing Paramount churned out again and again once he became a star. Instead, I was taken aback by two things. It really was NOT an Alan Ladd film but much more a film with an ensemble cast. It did not rest solely on Ladd's shoulders and the film allowed for several really good performances. De Silva was at his evil best but kudos also to William Bendix, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker and young Daryl Hickman. In addition, the film had real depth to it....and was very exciting. It was not just another programmer. Overall, a surprisingly good and exciting adventure film...one I really enjoyed.
They threw away everything but the title
edalweber17 November 2010
As a lurid melodrama I suppose that this is OK,provided that you do not take it seriously.It may seem'realistic" because it is so grim and gritty, but it will not stand up to close examination.The producers were shamelessly trading on the reputation of one of the greatest books about the sea for a contrived soap opera. It would have been far more honest to make up their own title.
Virtually nothing about the movie bears the slightest resemblance to the book. I saw the movie,and have read the book several times. It is a great account full of details, very well written which deserves repeated readings, to get the most out of it.Seeing the movie once was quite enough.The only real characters were Captain Thompson, and Dana himself, who is of course the narrator of the book which is the true account of his own experiences.The real Dana actually was more like the fictitious Stewart than the ordinary seaman he is in the movie. He was from an upper class family, and a student at Harvard who was making this trip to "toughen up" and repair his health.The part about his brother dying from abuse as a seaman was total fiction.The real Captain Thompson was a hard and sometimes brutal man, who abused his authority by flogging two seamen without just cause,although apparently it was a case of loosing his temper. Apparently he secretly regretted it, because later he controlled his temper under much more trying circumstances,and even refrained from flogging the carpenter after he had urged the mate to seize command from the captain.Flogging was apparently much rarer than legend has it;when the ship arrived in California, and word of the flogging spread among the other ships in the hider trade,the seamen on the other ships at first thought it was a joke, and then were very shocked and surprised when they found out that it actually happened, indicating that it was far from normal.Thompson and the "Pilgrim" rapidly got a very bad reputation.The scurvy incident, intended to show the callousness of the captain, actually, if it had happened, would indicate that he was insane.No captain would have done that.Regardless of his lack of humanity, he needed the crew to work the ship,and scurvy would render them helpless.In fact, scurvy did strike during the trip home, and the captain desperately sought out any ship that had fresh provisions, which he found.
Actually, Dana was not trying to lessen the authority of the captain in law.He didn't even want to remove his right to flog disobedient seamen;he said that if he ever went to see as a captain, he would want to have the authority to flog,though he would hope that he would never have to use it, because of the unruly elements represented among common seamen.He felt that it was essential as a constant threat to maintain discipline He did say that captains should be held accountable for abuse of their authority,and that courts were far too lenient on ones convicted of abuse.In the book he said that at the time of the floggings he swore to bring Thompson to justice;whether he actually did or not is unclear.His family was friendly with the senior partner of the firm that operated the ships he sailed on in the California hide trade.
Virtually nothing about the movie bears the slightest resemblance to the book. I saw the movie,and have read the book several times. It is a great account full of details, very well written which deserves repeated readings, to get the most out of it.Seeing the movie once was quite enough.The only real characters were Captain Thompson, and Dana himself, who is of course the narrator of the book which is the true account of his own experiences.The real Dana actually was more like the fictitious Stewart than the ordinary seaman he is in the movie. He was from an upper class family, and a student at Harvard who was making this trip to "toughen up" and repair his health.The part about his brother dying from abuse as a seaman was total fiction.The real Captain Thompson was a hard and sometimes brutal man, who abused his authority by flogging two seamen without just cause,although apparently it was a case of loosing his temper. Apparently he secretly regretted it, because later he controlled his temper under much more trying circumstances,and even refrained from flogging the carpenter after he had urged the mate to seize command from the captain.Flogging was apparently much rarer than legend has it;when the ship arrived in California, and word of the flogging spread among the other ships in the hider trade,the seamen on the other ships at first thought it was a joke, and then were very shocked and surprised when they found out that it actually happened, indicating that it was far from normal.Thompson and the "Pilgrim" rapidly got a very bad reputation.The scurvy incident, intended to show the callousness of the captain, actually, if it had happened, would indicate that he was insane.No captain would have done that.Regardless of his lack of humanity, he needed the crew to work the ship,and scurvy would render them helpless.In fact, scurvy did strike during the trip home, and the captain desperately sought out any ship that had fresh provisions, which he found.
Actually, Dana was not trying to lessen the authority of the captain in law.He didn't even want to remove his right to flog disobedient seamen;he said that if he ever went to see as a captain, he would want to have the authority to flog,though he would hope that he would never have to use it, because of the unruly elements represented among common seamen.He felt that it was essential as a constant threat to maintain discipline He did say that captains should be held accountable for abuse of their authority,and that courts were far too lenient on ones convicted of abuse.In the book he said that at the time of the floggings he swore to bring Thompson to justice;whether he actually did or not is unclear.His family was friendly with the senior partner of the firm that operated the ships he sailed on in the California hide trade.
A totally different story from the classic novel, but better.
clanciai1 August 2017
The novel is all realism with no real plot and drama of an almost documentary character, while the film is more like the stuff of Jack London, Wolf-Larsen, Nordhoff & Hall and Kipling's "Captains Courageous". The most important feature of the book is also in the film, though: the humanity on board in spite of all the hard knuckles of inhumanity.
Richard H. Dana is in the film on board the ship all the same, and his part is no less interesting than in the book but taken from another angle, which makes his part even more interesting. He is the only one to enlist on the "Pilgrim" voluntarily while many of the others are shanghaied, and he volunteers for a very specific purpose.
Howard Da Silva plays expertly the part of the cruelly insensitive captain provoking a mutiny at any cost, it would seem, sacrificing sailors' lives for the sake of sailing records, William Bendix is always fascinating and raises every film some points, but here he is the brutal first mate with a double edge. Brian Donleavy is Dana and perfect together with Alan Ladd, who makes the main character and a very interesting one. To all this comes Victor Young's irresistible music, always golden, and the splendid thorough hands-on realism all the way, with fascinating insights into life on board. Barry Fitzgerald is the cook, directly out of "Wolf-Larsen" it would seem, and supplies a portion humour and lyricism. There are even some ladies, more prominent and attractive than in the book. The scurvy problem, which is not in the book, brings the drama.
Richard H. Dana is in the film on board the ship all the same, and his part is no less interesting than in the book but taken from another angle, which makes his part even more interesting. He is the only one to enlist on the "Pilgrim" voluntarily while many of the others are shanghaied, and he volunteers for a very specific purpose.
Howard Da Silva plays expertly the part of the cruelly insensitive captain provoking a mutiny at any cost, it would seem, sacrificing sailors' lives for the sake of sailing records, William Bendix is always fascinating and raises every film some points, but here he is the brutal first mate with a double edge. Brian Donleavy is Dana and perfect together with Alan Ladd, who makes the main character and a very interesting one. To all this comes Victor Young's irresistible music, always golden, and the splendid thorough hands-on realism all the way, with fascinating insights into life on board. Barry Fitzgerald is the cook, directly out of "Wolf-Larsen" it would seem, and supplies a portion humour and lyricism. There are even some ladies, more prominent and attractive than in the book. The scurvy problem, which is not in the book, brings the drama.
Not at all like the book
davidveeneman7 March 2020
If you are expecting a faithful adaptation of the Richard Henry Dana book, you'll be sadly disappointed. Dana's chronicle of shipboard life, rounding the Horn, and his adventures in 1830's California are nowhere to be found. Instead, we get a ridiculous story where a ship owner's son is press-ganged onto one of his father's ships, a tyrannical captain, floggings, and a mutiny--in other words, typical Hollywood.
I happen to be a big fan of the book, and I live in Dana Point, California, the scene of one of Dana's best-known adventures. Even so, I recognize that a certain amount of dramatic license is to be expected. But not completely changing the story.
Richard Henry Dana was a well-to-do child of privilege in Boston. He dropped out of Harvard in the early 1830s for health reasons and signed onto a merchant vessel as an ordinary seaman. Apparently, he thought the fresh air would do him good. He discovered how tough a seaman's lot was, but he toughed it out and made it to California, where he discovered a whole new world.
There was a flogging in the book, but no mutiny. The captain was what the British call a , but that is as far as it went. The experience left Dana a changed man. He went back to Harvard, got a law degree, and became a prominent maritime lawyer. And he did fight for the rights of the common seamen of the day.
I recommend the book; it's far better than the cheap theatrics of this movie.
I happen to be a big fan of the book, and I live in Dana Point, California, the scene of one of Dana's best-known adventures. Even so, I recognize that a certain amount of dramatic license is to be expected. But not completely changing the story.
Richard Henry Dana was a well-to-do child of privilege in Boston. He dropped out of Harvard in the early 1830s for health reasons and signed onto a merchant vessel as an ordinary seaman. Apparently, he thought the fresh air would do him good. He discovered how tough a seaman's lot was, but he toughed it out and made it to California, where he discovered a whole new world.
There was a flogging in the book, but no mutiny. The captain was what the British call a , but that is as far as it went. The experience left Dana a changed man. He went back to Harvard, got a law degree, and became a prominent maritime lawyer. And he did fight for the rights of the common seamen of the day.
I recommend the book; it's far better than the cheap theatrics of this movie.
Certainly Better Than a 1&1/2 out of 4
dougdoepke3 June 2012
In the 1830's, the foppish son of a ship owner is shanghaied aboard his father's ship where he experiences the harsh realities of a brutal captain.
Leonard Maltin gives the movie a 1 & ½ out of 4. Shame on him. Sure, the film is no Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), and the script could be sharper. But, it's still a riveting shipboard drama, thanks to a fine cast, a good story, and a strong moral lesson. In the movie's pivotal role, Ladd transitions from a spoiled fop to a man among men in convincing fashion. The actor was never one to emote; at the same time, his low-key manner blends in well with the macho crew. And a heckuva crew it is—such forceful types as Dekker, Bendix, Donlevy, and, of course, a fearsome Howard DaSilva as the brutal captain. Mix and stir and you've got the ingredients of a highly combustible drama.
Of course, old Hollywood always created its own version of history. It's no secret the studios habitually bent fact in return for commercial appeal. So its not surprising that Paramount took liberties with the Dana book. For example, the script works a woman (Fernandez) onto the ship, which is not in the book. I expect they did that to burnish Ladd's appeal as a leading man and to widen audience appeal to include women-- never mind the facts of the book. As some anonymous wag put it-- never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.
Fortunately, it is a good story, even if the ship never leaves the sound stage. However, I wish director Farrow had made better use of close-ups to underscore dramatic high points. He's too impassive in what amounts to a very involving story. That aside, the movie certainly rates far better than a 1 & ½.
Leonard Maltin gives the movie a 1 & ½ out of 4. Shame on him. Sure, the film is no Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), and the script could be sharper. But, it's still a riveting shipboard drama, thanks to a fine cast, a good story, and a strong moral lesson. In the movie's pivotal role, Ladd transitions from a spoiled fop to a man among men in convincing fashion. The actor was never one to emote; at the same time, his low-key manner blends in well with the macho crew. And a heckuva crew it is—such forceful types as Dekker, Bendix, Donlevy, and, of course, a fearsome Howard DaSilva as the brutal captain. Mix and stir and you've got the ingredients of a highly combustible drama.
Of course, old Hollywood always created its own version of history. It's no secret the studios habitually bent fact in return for commercial appeal. So its not surprising that Paramount took liberties with the Dana book. For example, the script works a woman (Fernandez) onto the ship, which is not in the book. I expect they did that to burnish Ladd's appeal as a leading man and to widen audience appeal to include women-- never mind the facts of the book. As some anonymous wag put it-- never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.
Fortunately, it is a good story, even if the ship never leaves the sound stage. However, I wish director Farrow had made better use of close-ups to underscore dramatic high points. He's too impassive in what amounts to a very involving story. That aside, the movie certainly rates far better than a 1 & ½.
Another must-see movie from John Farrow!
JohnHowardReid7 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Copyright 22 November 1946 by Paramount Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Rivoli: 24 September 1946. U.S. release: 22 November 1946. U.K. release: 15 April 1946 (sic). Australian release: 20 December 1946. Sydney opening at the Prince Edward: 20 December 1946 (ran six weeks). 10 reels. 8,903 feet. 99 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Ladd is the spoiled son of a ship-owner who, while drinking in a waterfront dive in Boston one evening, finds himself the victim of Bendix and his gang and wakes up shanghaied, on board the Pilgrim bound for the California coast and back. Conditions on the ship are appalling, and the captain, da Silva, drives the men ruthlessly.
NOTES: The movie was actually shot in 1944, but fearful of its adverse propaganda, Paramount delayed release until well after the end of WW2.
COMMENT: Director John Farrow's penchant for long takes and elaborate technical effects is well illustrated in this film. Particularly effective is the opening take with Collins in his counting house. Also, as an experienced seaman himself, Farrow was the ideal man to handle this subject. Acting is of a very, very high standard indeed, but Da Silva's impersonation of a Bligh-like Captain and Bendix's well- rounded study of his first mate, deserve special mention.
Screenwriters Seton I. Miller and George Bruce have done a first- rate job of transferring Richard Dana's novel to the screen.
Yes, the atmosphere and action on shipboard is most effectively conveyed in this creditable costume picture. True, it does seem a little dated by the fact that for all its sweep, it was obviously filmed entirely in the studio — even if the studio sound stages were rather capacious.
However, Farrow's aggressive direction and convincing performances by Da Silva, Bendix and even Donlevy more than make up for any slight shortcomings in verisimilitude. Stockwell is compelling too, whilst Fitzgerald (whose inability to remember his lines proved a thorn in Farrow's side during the shooting of "California") seems able enough here in a smallish part. The climax is maybe too fast and perfunctory. On the other hand, a bit of love interest supplied by Esther Fernandez does slow the action slightly. But both Miss Fernandez and Mr. Ladd are strong enough to shoulder this burden.
On addition to its solid support cast, the whole movie is lovingly photographed and set.
SYNOPSIS: Ladd is the spoiled son of a ship-owner who, while drinking in a waterfront dive in Boston one evening, finds himself the victim of Bendix and his gang and wakes up shanghaied, on board the Pilgrim bound for the California coast and back. Conditions on the ship are appalling, and the captain, da Silva, drives the men ruthlessly.
NOTES: The movie was actually shot in 1944, but fearful of its adverse propaganda, Paramount delayed release until well after the end of WW2.
COMMENT: Director John Farrow's penchant for long takes and elaborate technical effects is well illustrated in this film. Particularly effective is the opening take with Collins in his counting house. Also, as an experienced seaman himself, Farrow was the ideal man to handle this subject. Acting is of a very, very high standard indeed, but Da Silva's impersonation of a Bligh-like Captain and Bendix's well- rounded study of his first mate, deserve special mention.
Screenwriters Seton I. Miller and George Bruce have done a first- rate job of transferring Richard Dana's novel to the screen.
Yes, the atmosphere and action on shipboard is most effectively conveyed in this creditable costume picture. True, it does seem a little dated by the fact that for all its sweep, it was obviously filmed entirely in the studio — even if the studio sound stages were rather capacious.
However, Farrow's aggressive direction and convincing performances by Da Silva, Bendix and even Donlevy more than make up for any slight shortcomings in verisimilitude. Stockwell is compelling too, whilst Fitzgerald (whose inability to remember his lines proved a thorn in Farrow's side during the shooting of "California") seems able enough here in a smallish part. The climax is maybe too fast and perfunctory. On the other hand, a bit of love interest supplied by Esther Fernandez does slow the action slightly. But both Miss Fernandez and Mr. Ladd are strong enough to shoulder this burden.
On addition to its solid support cast, the whole movie is lovingly photographed and set.
One of Ladd's best films
coltras3518 July 2022
Aspiring writer Richard Dana volunteers to join the crew of the notorious brig
Pilgrim determined that the death of his brother in a previous voyage shall not be in vain. His meticulous journal is soon full of the cruelties of the tyrannical Captain Thompson. Enough to begin to change for ever the conditions of men of sea.
Though Alan Ladd is on the top billing, other actors like William Bendix and Brian Donley are just as important characters. It's an excellent sea adventure film but don't expect loads of action or pirates. It's an in-depth film about the mistreatment of the sailors in the 19th century. It's a gripping film with superb acting and great plot. Definitely one of Ladd's best films.
Though Alan Ladd is on the top billing, other actors like William Bendix and Brian Donley are just as important characters. It's an excellent sea adventure film but don't expect loads of action or pirates. It's an in-depth film about the mistreatment of the sailors in the 19th century. It's a gripping film with superb acting and great plot. Definitely one of Ladd's best films.
It was okay
WankerReviews16 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A group of men are taken against their will to sail at sea, and face abuse from the captain.
I was looking forward to this but it wasn't executed in an exciting way. The climax felt anti climatic. It was over before it begun, yet all the abuse lasted over an hour, but the revenge was short lived, and it felt like a waste of time. I think it should be remade.
I was looking forward to this but it wasn't executed in an exciting way. The climax felt anti climatic. It was over before it begun, yet all the abuse lasted over an hour, but the revenge was short lived, and it felt like a waste of time. I think it should be remade.
A great adventure; Alan Ladd's best non-noir.
mark.waltz6 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
The novel by Richard Henry Dana Jr., written over a hundred years before this movie, stands the test of time in its tail of brutality and corruption on a cargo ship sailing from Boston to the unsettled California in the early days of the United States, going around Cape Horn in Chile. So it covers several oceans and two years, with a captain (Howard da Silva) who proves to be very brutal during that time, especially with Alan Ladd, shanghai'd on the ship against his will and ironically the son of the ship's owner.
Ladd and da Silva are adams from the very beginning, with Ladd getting ten lashes early on, and increasingly incuring da Silva's wrath constantly. William Bendix plays an equally horrid crew member, cast against type, and silently plotting like the snake in the grass he is. There's also the idealistic Brian Donlevy, incompetent cook Barry Fitzgerald and stowaway Darryl Hickman whom Ladd initially hides and feeds.
While out in the middle of the sea, they rescue Esther Fernandez and her servant which creates tension as any female presence would. The compassionate Fernandez is aghast of the treatment of the crew, especially the horrible unhealthy food they have to eat, so it's no surprise when Ladd and others plot a mutiny. While on the surface, da Silva comes off as a complete brute, he shows occasional humanity such as what happens when Hickman is discovered. It's a great performance, standing out in a terrific ensemble. Excellent photography and a nice musical score are other high marks. Definitely one of the best obscure films of the 40's, completely riveting.
Ladd and da Silva are adams from the very beginning, with Ladd getting ten lashes early on, and increasingly incuring da Silva's wrath constantly. William Bendix plays an equally horrid crew member, cast against type, and silently plotting like the snake in the grass he is. There's also the idealistic Brian Donlevy, incompetent cook Barry Fitzgerald and stowaway Darryl Hickman whom Ladd initially hides and feeds.
While out in the middle of the sea, they rescue Esther Fernandez and her servant which creates tension as any female presence would. The compassionate Fernandez is aghast of the treatment of the crew, especially the horrible unhealthy food they have to eat, so it's no surprise when Ladd and others plot a mutiny. While on the surface, da Silva comes off as a complete brute, he shows occasional humanity such as what happens when Hickman is discovered. It's a great performance, standing out in a terrific ensemble. Excellent photography and a nice musical score are other high marks. Definitely one of the best obscure films of the 40's, completely riveting.
A fair movie about the mistreatment of seamen but NOT 'Two Years Before the Mast"
robertguttman20 May 2017
This is a pretty fair movie about the mistreatment of seamen during the early 19th Century. However, it bears almost no resemblance to "Two Years Before the Mast". For a start, the credits say that the film is "based upon the novel by Richard Henry Dana". That, alone, is a pretty clear indication that nobody involved in the production of the movie had ever read the book because it was definitely NOT a novel. Dana was a college student at Harvard who took a sabbatical to ship out on a vessel belonging to the father of a friend of his in order to regain his health. The book was an account of his experiences, and it was NOT a work of fiction. There was no mutiny nor was anybody on board murdered. As a matter of fact, Dana did not even return on the ship started out on but on another ship that was homeward-bound, because the ship he sailed over on remained in California. Dana returned to Harvard, where he completed his studies and became a lawyer. During the course of his career he not only became an outspoken advocate not only for the rights of seamen, but for freedmen and fugitive slaves as well.
For the benefit of those who may wonder about the peculiar title, the term "before the mast" is an old term used on merchant ships to denotes sailing as a member of the crew, rather than as an officer or a passenger. The officers and passengers lived aft, in cabins. The crew lived up forward , not in cabins but in a single compartment that was originally called the "fore castle", but which was generally shortened to "focs'l". The "focs'l" was located at the forward end of the ship, forward of the masts, so that to sail "before the mast" was to be a seaman. Incidentally, although modern seamen live in individual staterooms, to this day many still refer to their stateroom as their "focs'l". Of course, none of the above applied to Navy ships, in which the officers lived in a "wardroom" and where there was no such thing as a "focs'l".
As a swashbuckling adventure movie "Two Years Before the Mast" compares favorably with others of that genre. However, those interested in the contents of Dana's book would be recommended not to take anything from this movie as representative of it.
For the benefit of those who may wonder about the peculiar title, the term "before the mast" is an old term used on merchant ships to denotes sailing as a member of the crew, rather than as an officer or a passenger. The officers and passengers lived aft, in cabins. The crew lived up forward , not in cabins but in a single compartment that was originally called the "fore castle", but which was generally shortened to "focs'l". The "focs'l" was located at the forward end of the ship, forward of the masts, so that to sail "before the mast" was to be a seaman. Incidentally, although modern seamen live in individual staterooms, to this day many still refer to their stateroom as their "focs'l". Of course, none of the above applied to Navy ships, in which the officers lived in a "wardroom" and where there was no such thing as a "focs'l".
As a swashbuckling adventure movie "Two Years Before the Mast" compares favorably with others of that genre. However, those interested in the contents of Dana's book would be recommended not to take anything from this movie as representative of it.
Not a Bounty ripoff.
rfarabee-129 January 2022
Criticized by one reviewer as being a ripoff of The film Mutiny on the Bounty.
Introduced my kids to both films, all three as a matter of fact.
Two Years is the one they liked and remember most.
And Alan Ladd takes no back seat to the stars of the Bounty films.
The Mutiny on the Bounty took place in 1789. The Book was written in 1932.
"Two Years Before The Mast" was written in 1840.
And made a far superior film.
Bounty? It Took them three tries and Mel Gibson to get it right.
Introduced my kids to both films, all three as a matter of fact.
Two Years is the one they liked and remember most.
And Alan Ladd takes no back seat to the stars of the Bounty films.
The Mutiny on the Bounty took place in 1789. The Book was written in 1932.
"Two Years Before The Mast" was written in 1840.
And made a far superior film.
Bounty? It Took them three tries and Mel Gibson to get it right.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
