|
Title:
The Four Feathers
Director: Shekhar Kapur
Screenplay: Hossein Amini/Michael Schiffer
Production: Miramax Films/Jaffilms Productions
Runtime: 125 minutes
|
|
|
The character of Abou Fatma is likeable but quite shallow[3]. The other Muslim characters are portrayed in a much worse light.
|
Don't
be fooled by the fact that there is a Muslim listed in the
screenwriting credits for The Four Feathers. Despite Hossein
Amini having collaborated on the screenplay, this movie still fails
to portray Muslims with any depth, accuracy or dimensionality.
The
Four Feathers is the seventh, and hopefully last, film
adaptation of A.E.W. Mason's epic novel of courage and cowardice set
against the backdrop of British imperial exploits in the Sudan circa
1880. Starring Heath Ledger and Djimon Hounsou, the film follows
Harry Faversham (Ledger) as he struggles to regain his honor and the
woman he loves by proving himself on the battlefield.
Faversham
is the son a decorated British general and is predictably betrothed
to a young woman of class, standing and beauty. His days are filled
with military drilling while his nights are occupied with social
gatherings.
When
one-day word of revolution in the Sudan reaches Britain, Faversham's
company is called to action. It is at this point that Faversham
begins to reevaluate his motives for being in the military. Weighing
his desire to wed his love and his desire to fight for crown and
country, Faversham chooses marriage and thus resigns his commission.
Feeling
betrayed, three of Faversham's comrades send him three white
feathers to signify their belief that he is a coward. The message
hurts Faversham deeply, but not as deeply as the feather he receives
from his fiancée. Emotionally devastated, Faversham vows to travel
to the Sudan where he plans to assist his company in whatever way
possible.
The
film then shifts to the Sudan, where we see Faversham wheeling and
dealing and making his way across the desert. By a twist of fate
though, he is left abandoned. Enter Abou Fatma (Hounsou), who
rescues the dehydrated and delirious Faversham and takes him to the
British encampment.
Once
nursed back to health, Faversham disguises himself as a local Arab
peasant and goes to work doing menial labor for the British.
Realizing
the Sudanese freedom fighters have spies in the camp, Faversham
endeavors to see what they are up to. He follows them to a British
fort their compatriots have taken and does spying of his own. He
fails, however, to warn the British of the fort's capture and the
Sudanese plan for an ambush, resulting in British defeat.
Faversham
then treks to the prison where the British prisoners have been taken
and manages to free one of his old friends, escaping into the
desert.
All's
well that ends well. Faversham regains his honor and wins back his
girl.
This
summary of the film does not mention Muslims for a reason – the
film itself fails to mention much about Muslims. Moviegoers are
taken from one British exploit to another, with little notice of all
the dark-skinned characters around them.
Abou
Fatma for instance, simply appears out of nowhere; and although he
is a major character in the film, audiences never learn anything
about him other than what relates to his relationship of service to
Faversham. With the name Abou, it is clear that he has or had a
family somewhere. But even that isn't explored.
As
for the rest of the Arabs and Muslims, they are simply nameless and
faceless characters covered in dust and clothed in rags. On the odd
occasion that there is any dialog or major action from another
Muslim, the characters typically speak in either Arabic or Sudanese
dialect and act as snarling enemies or impediments of the British.
For
instance, there are the North African looking Arabs who speak with a
French accent and act as overseers for the rest of the Muslim
workers. They are harsh overlords with bad manners and not an ounce
of compassion or any other emotion. Then there is the Sudanese
military commander/prison warden who is characterized by his
perpetual facial scowl and sadistic treatment of prisoners.
But
even more disconcerting is the fact that there is not even the most
cursory treatment of the Sudanese liberation movement of the late
1800s. There is regular reference to "The Mahdi" and his
forces, but never once do audiences see him or hear about his
movement and their reasons for fighting the British. They are simply
an ominous yet nebulous enemy "out there somewhere" to be
feared. It isn't all the dissimilar the current media and government
portrayal of the terrorist threat, which is just as nebulous.
And
as for the Queen's Empire, there is barely any examination of what
imperial British rule was really all about. It is portrayed as one
big, noble adventure that turned boys into men and serviced the
rightful needs of the crown. Never is there much exploration of the
British god complex that led the empire into Africa and Asia,
suppressing the legitimate rights of indigenous peoples.
Of
course some would argue the being an adaptation of a novel, there
wasn't much that could be done about providing balance in the
portrayal. That's ridiculous. Screenwriters quite frequently take
liberty with original stories, and shame on Hossein Amini for not
doing so with The Four Feathers.
At
this particular time of sensitivity in America towards anything and
everything related to Islam and Muslims, a lopsided, stereotypical
portrayal was the last thing anyone needed. For what will stick with
audiences after the film is not the shallow characterization of the
likeable Abou Fatma, but rather, the sword-wielding hordes that
overran the British.
Shame.
Shame. Shame.
|
