East of Elephant Rock (1978) User Reviews

Attractive scenery and cast, but it fizzled out

[Marlburian · 6/10 · 18 February 2016]

With so few reviews and no comments so far here on IMDb, EoER would appear to be an obscure film, which I came across on one of the lesser British TV channels.

Very handsome scenery, a good cast and a reasonable plot. John Hurt impressed and Judi Bowker - whom I can't recall seeing before - shone. But in the last quarter of the film some of the changes in characterisation did not convince, and it all rather fizzled out.

When EoER first came out, it attracted some controversy and hostile criticism and with the passing of years some of the racist language and "white" attitudes can make one wince. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Elephant_Rock

The prurient might like to note that we get a brief full-frontal view of John Hurt as he jumps out of bed, whilst Judi Bowker's modesty is ensured by a sheet.

The dark, forgotten days of the colonial British Empire

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 5 December 2015]

This tale of murky deeds in the British colonial era is no WHITE MISCHIEF, although it'll do as a warts-and-all retelling of life, love, and deceit during that era. It benefits hugely from casting the ever-great John Hurt in the leading role. Hurt plays an idealistic young man who discovers himself fighting racism and intolerance in an unnamed colony in the Far East, while at the same time falling in love with a forbidden woman.

EAST OF ELEPHANT ROCK is a virtually forgotten film today although it's not all that bad. The Sri Lankan filming locations are fantastic at least and there are numerous familiar faces in the cast list, all of whom contribute decent performances. I would've preferred a little more Anton Rodgers, but Jeremy Kemp (DR TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS) is fine as the blustering old timer. Best of all is Judi Bowker, who manages to capture something oddly ethereal in her character.

The plotting is a little slow and stodgy, and it's clear that Don Boyd was just starting out on his directing career because his direction is pedestrian. But for those who enjoy dark tales of murder and betrayal in the long-forgotten days of the British Empire, you might just like it.

The Letter in all but name

[malcolmgsw · 5/10 · 19 November 2016]

It is difficult to understand why the credits did not acknowledge the strong connection with Somerset Maughns The Letter.This of course was a vastly superior film starring Bette Davis.So when you watch this all you can do is to compare Judy Bowler unfavourable with her.Despite the fact that the earlier film lacks the sexual explicitness of this film and that it has an ending dictated by the Hays Office it is superior on every level.Even then you can say that it means this film ending on a dramatic note whereas this just ends like a damp squid.The fact that this film was shot on location does not really benefit it much.Little surprise that this film is totally forgotten.

Little to celebrate here.

[rsoonsa · 3/10 · 21 August 2003]

An obvious but unreined adaptation of Somerset Maugham's play "The Letter", directed in far more satisfactory fashion by William Wyler in 1940, this film features John Hurt as a First Secretary to the British Embassy in an unnamed East Asian British colony of 1948, manifestly patterned after post-war Malaya with its massive rubber plantations of that era. Hurt plays Nash, a randy office holder whose ruth for the King's misused Colonial subjects is hailed with a deafening thud by the plantation elite, chiefly embodied by Harry Rawlins (Jeremy Kemp), and who in addition finds time to languorously woo the young wife (Judy Bowker) of another plantation owner (simultaneously keeping a native mistress), all of which leads to murder and other unpleasantness. A strong impression is given that this is a work in progress, with director Don Boyd not knowing or caring quite what to make of the material at hand, with editing flaccid at best, a consistently obtrusive soundtrack (including some unintentionally humourous placement of songs), conventional handling of critical scenes, and with abrupt modifications upon characters' personalities enfeebling any logic which may be hiding within the script. Filmed entirely in Sri Lanka, much resembling Malaysia, which latter is laden to this day with East Indian workers imported by the English, the work is adequately cast, although Hurt is hindered by his lines, Bowker is far too unseamed and seraphic for her bitchy role, and perhaps the best actor of the cast, Anton Rodgers, has but sparse opportunity during his brief appearances to utilize his pungently dry manner.

Deep, moody and delightful!

[crystalart · 8/10 · 12 January 2010]

I don't know when I first encountered this excellent film. Over the years I've been able to buy two VHS copies, but DVDs have proved elusive.

John Hurt and Judi Bowker are both personal favorites and they act well together. She's one of those underrated actresses that's little known.

In "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" she delivers a wonderful performance as Clare. I totally disliked "Clash of the Titans" in spite of her inclusion in the cast.

In "East of Elephant Rock" she delivers another excellent performance in a totally different role.

Yes, it's another film without heroes, but those are sometimes the best, even if they are the most difficult to watch.

It's worth watching

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 13 February 2021]

EoER is not exactly a remake of THE LETTER since it does not really follow Maugham's play. Instead it is based more directly on the news accounts of the Ethel Proudlock story. In this version Ethel's name has been changed to Eve, and her last name has been changed to Proudfoot. But all the main aspects of colonial life are present, as well as the details surrounding the murder.

I would go so far as to say EoER, while it has its flaws, is much better in its depiction of colonial life and the culture of the natives. One, it was directed by Don Boyd who grew up in a British colony in Africa. Second, it features Judi Bowker in the lead role and she was also brought up in a British colony in Africa. So Boyd and Bowker have an understanding of this particular way of life, which comes across on screen. Third, EoER was filmed entirely in Sri Lanka so unlike the U.S. versions that were done on studio sound stages, this one benefits from being filmed on location where the incidents actually transpired. Filming in Sri Lanka provides us with authentic atmosphere and Boyd uses a lot of native people for background characters which helps.

Other differences-- the murder in EoER does not take place until 70 minutes into the film (and it's a 93 minute film). This means the lover's role is greatly expanded, and he's played by John Hurt. We get a chance to see a more fleshed out portrayal of the lover and learn how he was ensnared by her.

The lover's native mistress is played by someone named Vajira, who has no other credits on the IMDb and comes across as a non-professional actress. This means her role is largely background, quite reduced from the 1940 version; and she is certainly not menacing like Gale Sondergaard's take on the character. The native mistress is depicted as being the murder victim's housekeeper. So she is not his wife and she does not have a business in an ethnic part of the city.

The mistress has an uncle who aids her in getting a form of "justice" against Mrs. Proudfoot. In this scenario, "justice" comes in the form of being paid off by the Proudfoots.

Interestingly, there is no letter in EoER, which proves Boyd was not using Maugham's material as his source. On the day of the murder, Mrs. Proudfoot makes several urgent calls to her lover. We find out that she's begged him to come see her while her husband's away, so that she can confront him about the native mistress whom she had met a few hours earlier.

Mrs. Proudfoot is not incriminated by a letter since there is no letter. However, she may be incriminated by an audio tape in which the lover has relayed his thoughts about their ongoing affair and how Mrs. Proudfoot wants him to see her later.

Since there is no production code hanging over this version, part of her defense after she murders him is that he raped her...which may or may not be a lie. There is some ambiguity. Also Mr. Proudfoot the husband knows full well that his wife was unfaithful and yet he purchases the audio recording to keep it from being introduced in court. His goal is to punish his wife his own way after the trial ends.

There are no courtroom scenes. We only see her talking with her husband and her lawyer in a prison visiting room when court is in recess, where she is told about the existence of the tape. And then after the husband makes the purchase, it flash-forwards to her being released from prison since the trial ended and she got off the hook.

Anyway, EoER is not a perfect version and it lacks some of the punch that the 1929 and 1940 versions have, but it feels more authentic in presenting the situations the actual story is based upon. Plus, without the constraints of the production code it's freer to tell the story in a more liberated way without some of the unnecessary stereotypes we find in the 1940 version.

Our flawed female character gets away with murder and we are even meant to sympathize for her! As she and her husband leave at the end to return to England, they take a boat down a river and she looks wistfully at the countryside whizzing by...as if she is leaving the place where she had true love, before everything went wrong.