I feel sorry for this film, because - although you could quibble on specifics - it's basically Mutiny on the Bounty without the innocent islander interlude. And it came out in 1962, the same year that the big budget overblown and just awful MGM remake came out because MGM was in its death throes, out of ideas, and had taken to recycling Irving Thalberg material from the 20's and 30's since the 1940s. If they could have gotten a voodoo priestess to get Irving Thalberg to rise from his grave at this point, MGM would have done just that. But it was Bounty that probably dominated the public interest because it was MGM and Budd was just a little old Allied Artists product. But I digress.
Budd (Terence Stamp) is literally the fair haired boy of a British ship in 1797. So, after just having their collective butts kicked out of the now United States, I imagine the British navy in 1797 felt much like the MGM I just described. Although pressed into service - that is shanghaied for all you landlubbers out there - and although he is under the discipline of a depraved and sadistic Master-at-Arms John Claggart (Robert Ryan), Budd has an unbridled optimism and selflessness about him which just annoys Claggart even more. Unlike "Mutiny on the Bounty", the captain (Peter Ustinov) seems a fair and honest man. However, given past mutinies on his ship prior to his command, he probably gives Claggart more leeway than he deserves. Plus the captain feels he must hold to strict naval discipline or risk another mutiny. Also, when emotionally overwrought, Budd is given to stammering, making him unable to verbally defend himself at times. All of these facts come together for a tragic ending that gives the captain the very mutiny that his steadfast adherence to naval law had been employed to prevent. But then along come the French... So what happens? Watch and find out.
A little factoid I got on the Turner Classic Movies presentation of this film last night. Ryan was deliberately unfriendly to Stamp during filming so that their antagonism would be more realistic. He knew that Stamp was new to film acting and didn't want any real friendliness to leak through into their performances.
Terence Stamp's performance will seem all the more remarkable when you realize that 19 years later he is Superman's arch enemy in Superman II and looks and acts every bit as ruthless as he looks and acts angelic and innocent here. Recommended, just have patience with the pacing, because it could have used some work, particularly towards the end.
Budd (Terence Stamp) is literally the fair haired boy of a British ship in 1797. So, after just having their collective butts kicked out of the now United States, I imagine the British navy in 1797 felt much like the MGM I just described. Although pressed into service - that is shanghaied for all you landlubbers out there - and although he is under the discipline of a depraved and sadistic Master-at-Arms John Claggart (Robert Ryan), Budd has an unbridled optimism and selflessness about him which just annoys Claggart even more. Unlike "Mutiny on the Bounty", the captain (Peter Ustinov) seems a fair and honest man. However, given past mutinies on his ship prior to his command, he probably gives Claggart more leeway than he deserves. Plus the captain feels he must hold to strict naval discipline or risk another mutiny. Also, when emotionally overwrought, Budd is given to stammering, making him unable to verbally defend himself at times. All of these facts come together for a tragic ending that gives the captain the very mutiny that his steadfast adherence to naval law had been employed to prevent. But then along come the French... So what happens? Watch and find out.
A little factoid I got on the Turner Classic Movies presentation of this film last night. Ryan was deliberately unfriendly to Stamp during filming so that their antagonism would be more realistic. He knew that Stamp was new to film acting and didn't want any real friendliness to leak through into their performances.
Terence Stamp's performance will seem all the more remarkable when you realize that 19 years later he is Superman's arch enemy in Superman II and looks and acts every bit as ruthless as he looks and acts angelic and innocent here. Recommended, just have patience with the pacing, because it could have used some work, particularly towards the end.