King Rat from Columbia Pictures, 1965, 134 minutes, and directed by Bryan Forbes is the kind of film that delivers its message well. The nominations it received for Art Direction, and Cinematography are deserved in the way they show war-time prison camp conditions.
As the title card at the beginning of the film reads it is a story of survival, not escape, and the film shows us how communities form around common needs as exemplified in the relationship between Corporal King and the other prisoners in a World War II Japanese camp.
James Clavell used many of his own experiences as a British soldier in a POW camp to write his novel on which the film is based. King Rat is a study of personal prisons that we all construct around ourselves with a Japanese prisoner camp as an overriding metaphor.
It feels like a typically British film in part for the way the script presents the character of King, the American who lives the American Capitalist dream by taking advantage of his fellow prisoners. George Segal in the title role turns in one of his best performances as the shallow, boastful American who profits from those around him.
I wish there was more of the actor playing the subtext in the role. The director underlines many moments of the actor mugging the camera, as compared to many of the English actors whose scenes seem to focus on text and character. This is an interesting biased view of the American philosophy of financial success.
It would be great to have seen a greater arc of story with King's arrival at the camp and his ultimate rise in power. We don't know if he was always this successful, if he was a regular fighting soldier, if he was captured in battle, or if his ability at scamming was present when he came into the Army. These kinds of scenes would give the film more depth and impact.
Segal performed excellently in a small film entitled Born to Lose in which he played a drug addict, a perf right up there with Al Pacino's in Panic in Needle Park. In King Rat Segal plays the smug demeanor and cocksure attitude of Corporal King in a role that makes the best of the actor's off-handed delivery and character.
Some of the credit has to be given to James Fox and Tom Courtney in scenes that develop the plot and show character but do not clunk as they move forward. The American Segal contrasts well with the other actors and their techniques in the film, and this combines well with the theme and overall visual of the movie.
We always see King well-dressed, groomed, and clean and this is in clear contrast to the other men in the camp who are a rag-tag collection of half-dressed, unshaved group - a real collection of les miserables. King also transmits clarity of purpose by boastfully admitting that he gets what others need and sells it for a percentage.
The opening of the film makes a point of the difference between King and the other prisoners when the camp police man Grey summons him to turn out his pockets, and submit to questions about where he has gotten his money and valuables. The scene caps with an officer letting King go but cautioning him to consider his appearance, as if just looking successful in such a situation could be considered a crime.
The film at one level can be read as anti-American. King relates to virtually all English soldiers, in fact the film focuses on the concept of class and how money transcends the smudgy lines that separate officers from enlisted men and by extension the community leaders from those that rely on them for philosophy to live by.
In subtle scenes we learn how the hierarchy of the camp operates. Marlowe refuses money from King as payment for translating with a Japanese soldier in a deal to sell an expensive Omega watch. When King asks him to deliver 'wages' to Col. Smedley-Taylor (John Mills), Marlowe begins to see the truth of all men living in desperate situations. The scene is well structured because we as viewer understand with Marlowe the basic sense of commerce involved in such a relationship- we follow the money.
The film also allows us to dynamically interact with the plot by presenting us with problems to solve along with the characters in the tale. When Lieutenant Grey (Tom Courtenay) investigates the skewed weights used in rice rationing, we discover the crime at the same time that Grey does, and this lets us into the film to see the machinations of the Officers from the characters point of view.
Later when Grey presents his suggestion to Court Marshall those involved in the rice theft and Col. Taylor orders him to drop the case, we see the corruption at work in this community. This breech in the code of conduct in Grey's eyes begins from the top down and King and his honor of money is the heart of the issue.
At the basest level the film is about the male code of conduct and how this is interpreted by representative characters in the story. The individual code does allow the characters to escape to a mental state where they can coexist with others in this oppressive world they have been delivered to, and the film clearly makes a point of showing us the American values and how they support a character through difficult times.
Knowing what we do about the Military Industrial Complex that the Eisenhower period revealed to us, the film can be seen as a political commentary on how the American attitude toward war and its results damage international relationships, and by extension how this philosophy has expanded into the postmodern age to affect commerce among the nations of the world.
As the title card at the beginning of the film reads it is a story of survival, not escape, and the film shows us how communities form around common needs as exemplified in the relationship between Corporal King and the other prisoners in a World War II Japanese camp.
James Clavell used many of his own experiences as a British soldier in a POW camp to write his novel on which the film is based. King Rat is a study of personal prisons that we all construct around ourselves with a Japanese prisoner camp as an overriding metaphor.
It feels like a typically British film in part for the way the script presents the character of King, the American who lives the American Capitalist dream by taking advantage of his fellow prisoners. George Segal in the title role turns in one of his best performances as the shallow, boastful American who profits from those around him.
I wish there was more of the actor playing the subtext in the role. The director underlines many moments of the actor mugging the camera, as compared to many of the English actors whose scenes seem to focus on text and character. This is an interesting biased view of the American philosophy of financial success.
It would be great to have seen a greater arc of story with King's arrival at the camp and his ultimate rise in power. We don't know if he was always this successful, if he was a regular fighting soldier, if he was captured in battle, or if his ability at scamming was present when he came into the Army. These kinds of scenes would give the film more depth and impact.
Segal performed excellently in a small film entitled Born to Lose in which he played a drug addict, a perf right up there with Al Pacino's in Panic in Needle Park. In King Rat Segal plays the smug demeanor and cocksure attitude of Corporal King in a role that makes the best of the actor's off-handed delivery and character.
Some of the credit has to be given to James Fox and Tom Courtney in scenes that develop the plot and show character but do not clunk as they move forward. The American Segal contrasts well with the other actors and their techniques in the film, and this combines well with the theme and overall visual of the movie.
We always see King well-dressed, groomed, and clean and this is in clear contrast to the other men in the camp who are a rag-tag collection of half-dressed, unshaved group - a real collection of les miserables. King also transmits clarity of purpose by boastfully admitting that he gets what others need and sells it for a percentage.
The opening of the film makes a point of the difference between King and the other prisoners when the camp police man Grey summons him to turn out his pockets, and submit to questions about where he has gotten his money and valuables. The scene caps with an officer letting King go but cautioning him to consider his appearance, as if just looking successful in such a situation could be considered a crime.
The film at one level can be read as anti-American. King relates to virtually all English soldiers, in fact the film focuses on the concept of class and how money transcends the smudgy lines that separate officers from enlisted men and by extension the community leaders from those that rely on them for philosophy to live by.
In subtle scenes we learn how the hierarchy of the camp operates. Marlowe refuses money from King as payment for translating with a Japanese soldier in a deal to sell an expensive Omega watch. When King asks him to deliver 'wages' to Col. Smedley-Taylor (John Mills), Marlowe begins to see the truth of all men living in desperate situations. The scene is well structured because we as viewer understand with Marlowe the basic sense of commerce involved in such a relationship- we follow the money.
The film also allows us to dynamically interact with the plot by presenting us with problems to solve along with the characters in the tale. When Lieutenant Grey (Tom Courtenay) investigates the skewed weights used in rice rationing, we discover the crime at the same time that Grey does, and this lets us into the film to see the machinations of the Officers from the characters point of view.
Later when Grey presents his suggestion to Court Marshall those involved in the rice theft and Col. Taylor orders him to drop the case, we see the corruption at work in this community. This breech in the code of conduct in Grey's eyes begins from the top down and King and his honor of money is the heart of the issue.
At the basest level the film is about the male code of conduct and how this is interpreted by representative characters in the story. The individual code does allow the characters to escape to a mental state where they can coexist with others in this oppressive world they have been delivered to, and the film clearly makes a point of showing us the American values and how they support a character through difficult times.
Knowing what we do about the Military Industrial Complex that the Eisenhower period revealed to us, the film can be seen as a political commentary on how the American attitude toward war and its results damage international relationships, and by extension how this philosophy has expanded into the postmodern age to affect commerce among the nations of the world.