The Four Feathers (2002)

Another lousy remake of a classic movie, The Four Feathers (2002) is a woeful miscalculation. Shekhar Kapur's take on A.E.W. Mason's book is handsomely mounted, but warps everything that made the 1939 Korda production so enjoyable into wretched nonsense.

British Army officer Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) resigns his commission after becoming engaged to Ethne (Kate Hudson). Unfortunately, Harry's decision comes on the eve of the Mahdist War, when Muslim fanatics threaten to overrun Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Harry's friends (Michael Sheen, Rupert Penry-Jones, Kris Marshall) and Ethne deem him a coward, giving him feathers to symbolize his shame. Only Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley) sticks up for him, even though he has eyes for Ethne. A chastened Harry must redeem his honor, joining friendly native Abou (Djimon Hounsou) on a death-defying mission into enemy territory.

The Four Feathers certainly looks good. Kapur and photographer Robert Richardson deliver a visually lush film, every frame a delight. The period detail is perfect, the costumes beautiful (though inaccurate - the Brits had switched to khaki uniforms by 1885), the Moroccan locations breathtaking. Best of all is the set-piece battle towards the halfway point (supposedly Abu Klea, though not very accurate). Despite some egregious slow-motion, Kapur stages it with verve, excitement, and a genuine sense of scope. The lack of obvious computer effects is really refreshing in a modern film. Aesthetically, it's an accomplished film.

Otherwise, the film gets everything wrong. Kapur queasily vacillates between modern sensibility and imperial adventure, satisfying neither approach. A particularly stupid scene features Jack trying to disarm a Mahdist sniper, a bit more appropriate to modern policemen than Victorian soldiers. The racial politics are all over the place. The '39 film's charming Arab doctor is replaced with a sleazy slave trader. Abou comes from the original book but seems dumb for helping Harry; all he gets for his trouble is repeated beatings. The Brits treat their servants harshly, but since most of the non-white characters are murderous fanatics who cares?

There's also a baffling lack of context. Having read Michael Asher's Khartoum: The Ultimate Imperial Adventure I know the rough outline of the Mahdist Wars. Can most audiences say the same? Will they have seen earlier Four Feathers films or Khartoum as a guide? Even I had a hard time following what the hell was going on. A single fleeting reference to General Gordon is all we have to go on. Geography and strategy are a complete mystery: what are the British doing in Sudan? Where are they going and what do they hope to achieve?

Harry's heroics are toned down considerably. He's an inveterate coward in this version and frankly, we feel his peers right for judging him. Nor is his redemption very convincing. In the '39 film, he goes deep cover as an Arab, singlehandedly saves his friends and helps rout a Mahdist army at Omdurman. In this version, he more or less blunders into the Sudan and achieves little beyond his own survival, needing Abou even for that. Instead of an improbable hero, we get a sunburned git wandering around the desert.

Worst of all, though, is Kapur's unaccountably somber tone. Earlier versions knew the material was ridiculous and had fun with it. The remake's seriousness is wholly inappropriate for such lightweight material, lacking the original's humor or flare. Moving the story to the Gordon Relief Expedition allows Kapur to depict the British expedition as a failure. This bleakness jars badly with the story: Harry is redeemed, most of the protagonists survive and all should be right with the world.

The cast is the final insult. Heath Ledger showed some talent in his later films but he's an unemotive stump here. Wes Bentley made a splash in American Beauty before mostly disappearing, while Kate Hudson vanished into Romcom Hell by mid-decade. Both make game tries at English accents but can't overcome weak characters. Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator) seems lost in a pointless role, lacking his usual intensity. Pros like Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon) and Tim Piggot-Smith (V for Vendetta) don't fare much better.

More than anything, The Four Feathers seems superfluous. True, the 1939 film's unabashed imperialism wouldn't go over well with modern audiences. But when a perfectly good version exists already, why bother?