Film Feedback
New This WeekAround TownMusicFilmArtTheaterNews & FeaturesFood & DrinkAstrology
  HOME
NEW THIS WEEK
EDITORS' PICKS
LISTINGS
NEWS & FEATURES
MUSIC
FILM
ART
BOOKS
THEATER
DANCE
TELEVISION
FOOD & DRINK
ARCHIVES
LETTERS
PERSONALS
CLASSIFIEDS
ADULT
ASTROLOGY
PHOENIX FORUM DOWNLOAD MP3s

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
THE FOUR FEATHERS

What’s the point of Shekhar Kapur’s revisionist takes on British Imperial tradition when all he does is tell the same stories less well? His overrated, Oscar-nominated Elizabeth (1998) survived his excesses only through Cate Blanchett’s regal performance. His adaptation of the 1902 A.E.W. Mason adventure novel The Four Feathers distinguishes itself from the many previous versions by being the most expensive and incoherent.

Tightly wound British Army officer Harry Feversham (Heath Ledger) resigns his commission when his unit is called up for service in the war against the Mahdist uprising in the Sudan in, according to a title card, 1875. (This didn’t actually take place until 1885, but, like the colors of the uniforms, details, details . . . ) Is he a closet pacifist? Is he rebelling against tradition? Does he see this silly foreign adventure as unimportant next to his impending nuptials to lovely Ethne (Kate Hudson)? Does he fear fear itself? Or is he simply a coward, as three fellow officers and Ethne herself think when they present him with the four emblems of the title? Who cares? Certainly not Kapur, who is more concerned with filming battle scenes from overhead (he’s the Busby Berkeley of historical epics) and indulging in the suffering of Ledger as he disguises himself as an Arab and journeys through Northern Africa undercover to redeem his honor by saving the lives of his accusers.

True, Ledger’s Feversham does look at times like John Walker Lindh, but that coincidence is about as trenchant as Kapur gets on the issues of imperialism, loyalty, cowardice, and heroism. More to the point, he’s incapable of telling a tale as limpidly structured as this — the four feathers get blown away in a narrative designed for ADD victims. The eloquent 1939 Zoltán Korda version addressed a British people who opted to stay home and regretted it and who were about to endure six years of history’s most appalling war. The evanescent glitz and gratuitous spectacle offered by this featherweight concoction seem an all-too-appropriate preparation for America’s conflicts to come. (128 minutes)

BY PETER KEOUGH

Issue Date: September 19 - 26, 2002
Back to the Movies table of contents.
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

home | feedback | about the phoenix | find the phoenix | advertising info | privacy policy | the masthead | work for us

 © 2002 Phoenix Media Communications Group