Master & Commander

[Jonno]

Anyone both seen and read it ?

I'm a big fan of O'Brian and have mixed thoughts about going to see it. The first thing that strikes me from the advertising is the use of 2 book titles (the 1st & 10th books in the series) in the film title.

How faithful to O'Brian's exacting historic detail, the characters, also his style and plot is it ? .... after all, it's those elements that make the books what they are ....


Any comments ?

 

[phil_t]

Yeah from what ive heard they are merging the plots of the two books for the film .... you said that they are the 1st and 10th books!!! Oh well, thats Hollywood for you!!

Phil

 

[Jonno]

Oh dear ... what have they done ???

Without giving anything away the main plot is taken from Far Side Of The World with incidental scenes taken from various other books (the complete series is of 20 books). But given the largely unnecessary ommisions & departures from the plot, an unconvincing Jack Aubrey & Stephen Maturin, and inter-relationships between these and other characters not worked upon nearly enough the film lost much of the O'Brian substance. There was also a complete absence of one or two characters, quite important to the background, which could only leave the main characters somewhat hollow. Some good individual details were given to life onboard a 19th century warship but the day-to-day humdrum existance involved in sailing a ship 1000's of miles wasn't explored and so it lacked the real atmosphere.

The storm scenes were quite good though as were some of the action scenes, particularly in the first 15 minutes when the film promised great things. And the weevil joke came across better on film than in the text.

As a Saturday afternoons easy movie entertainment ...7/10, but as an O'Brian adaptation .... 3/10.

Anyone else seen it ?

 

[J_D]

oooooooh Jonno bad review. I really liked it, and not in a Paul Ross 38 thumbs up kindova way, but because I thought it was an excellent adaptation of O'Brian. I thought R Crowe made for a pretty good Captain Aubrey, the Maturin character did feel a little week but that said he doesn't really have much to do in FSotW but moon over wildlife. The weevil joke is gloriously appalling and I don't think you can really flaw the movie as a slice of Navy life. Although I did feel that the little vignettes on the humdrum nature probably could've done with being longer and more integral to the film, instead of the little snippets that kept popping up every now and again. Mind you, that said, I've only got time for one 4 hour film this year and thats gonna be LOTR
The reason I differ with you on the adaptation front is that while the film doesn't follow the plot of any of his books to the letter it felt very much like an O'Brian novel to me. The same interjections of violence, drinking, seamanship, ornithology etc... I think they kept to the essence of the books very well, altogether a v.adult interpretation of a collection of grown up reads. Mind you if they make another I'll eat my hat.
Movie entertainment 71/2
O'Brian adaptation 71/2
I knocked off half a point on the adaptation because a hobbit played Barret Bonden! Why?

 

[Jonno]

Hi JD, nice to see another reply. Obviously I don't share your opinion but I wouldn't necessarily describe it as bad. As a film it's watchable enough .... ships, cannons, fighting, wildlife, bit of a twist at the end.

For me it didn't reflect O'Brian but I do concede there have been several good reviews and if (??) that translates to introducing more people to Patrick O'Brian then all well & good.

As for another film who knows but If I were to choose then perhaps a faithful (!) adaptation of M & C itself would be good or alternatively Desolation Island ...? , which incidentally gets better and better every time you read it.

 

[J_D]

Can't see how they'll make enough money to do another. All movies involving the sea/water get hugely expensive real quick. And as O'Brians books aren't really blockbuster material, a little too intricate for the smash bang whallop that usually equals the big money. Perhaps thats the reason they didn't start with M&C which would be the natural place for a series to start, also it would have let eceryone in on Maturin's more clandestine activities. As I said I don't think you need to translate a single book to be true to the author, I thought they got the essence of the series as well as a film could, still they could just do a biopic of Lord Cochrane...