Colonialism's comeuppance

Directed by the legendary John Huston, the 1975 adventure epic The Man Who Would Be King brings Rudyard Kipling’s classic novella to life, exploring the intoxicating and destructive nature of colonial ambition. The narrative tracks the exploits of two rogue former British soldiers – the charismatic Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) and the pragmatic Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) – as they journey beyond the borders of British India to the remote, primitive wilderness of Kafiristan. Their goal is to exploit local tribal warfare to establish themselves as god-like rulers and plunder the region's legendary riches; however, their grand scheme begins to unravel when Dravot starts to believe his own myth of divine kingship. This shift leads to a tragic collision between their misplaced hubris and the cultural realities of the land they sought to conquer.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of The Man Who Would Be King, conducted last week, click here.

This is a great buddy picture, in the tradition of masterful movie pairings like Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster, and Paul Newman and Robert Redford – all of whom were originally considered for these roles. Some believe that the casting should have been reversed: that Caine should have played Daniel and Connery would have been a better Peachy. Others suggest that the casting was appropriate because it enabled these actors to slightly play against type.

Thematically, this film fits neatly into Huston’s filmography – another example where he explores the different sides of morally shadowy characters, as evidenced in earlier pictures like The Maltese Falcon, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Asphalt Jungle, and Prizzi's Honor. Huston – and source author Kipling – present Peachy and Daniel as likable underdogs and clever entrepreneurs of adventure, personalities we are supposed to identify with and root for. But their avaricious objectives, devious maneuvers, and manipulative ulterior motives can turn modern audiences off and put us firmly on the side of the natives.

Due to the numerous unbelievable close calls and strokes of good fortune that the duo experience – from sneaking past the Khyber Pass, avoiding a snow avalanche, and surviving a deadly arrow, to the opportune presence of English interpreter Billy Fish and the coincidence of Daniel wearing a pendant with the same Freemasonry symbol that matches the stone carving the high priest reveals – it can be difficult to take this narrative seriously. In some ways, it feels more like a karmic farce or a comedic cautionary tale.

Interestingly, Kipling himself serves as a framing device. Films like The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Words, Adaptation, The Princess Bride, and Finding Neverland also utilize the original author as a framing character who directly narrates or participates in the unfolding of their own creative work.

The Man Who Would Be King is a classic cautionary tale about the repercussions of exploitation, arrogance, and hubris. While Daniel and Peachy are ultimately punished for their actions, this is, however, a story that was written during a time when the British Empire was still a powerful force driven by colonialist and imperialist aims – a mindset that motivates the two main characters. Their greedy and opportunistic ambitions, which might have been more embraced by the mainstream in the 20th century, play as corrosively dated today. The duo’s attempts to kill, conquer, subjugate, and plunder from the indigenous peoples of a third-world country make them far less sympathetic characters nowadays.

The narrative also explores the risks and rewards of casting your fate to the wind. Peachy and Daniel completely abandon their previous lives in Britain and agree to embark on a perilous adventure filled with dangerous obstacles and a low chance of success. Their role of the dice eventually pays off, but their fate turns sour; Daniel is killed, and Peachy barely survives. If we are reminded that there’s no such thing as a free lunch in this world. Daniel and Peachy learn the hard way that some things are too good to be true, and you can’t get something for nothing.

It’s a fine line between civilized and savage, this picture would have us believe. Daniel and Peachy are educated, sophisticated, articulate, and well-mannered Brits, a contrast to the often shocking barbarism exhibited by the natives. Daniel exercises what many would believe to be a fair form of social justice as king. But their condescending attitudes and self-superiority toward the people of Kafiristan demonstrate that they possess an intellectual savagery that can be just as harmful.

Similar works

• The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1935)
• Lost Horizon (1937)
• Gunga Din (1939)
• The Four Feathers (1939)
• Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
• The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
• Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
• Zulu (1964)
• Lord Jim (1965)
• The Wind and the Lion (1975)
• Fitzcarraldo (1982)
• Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
• Mountains of the Moon (1990)
• Three Kings (2000)
• The Lost City of Z (2016)

Other films by John Huston

• The Maltese Falcon (1941)
• The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
• Key Largo (1948)
• The Asphalt Jungle (1950)
• The African Queen (1951)
• The Misfits (1961)
• Prizzi's Honor (1985)
• The Dead (1987)