Khartoum (1966)

Khartoum is an account of the 1885 massacre of British General Charles (Chinese) Gordon (played by Charlton Heston) and British Egyptian troops in Khartoum in the Sudan by the hard-line Muslim forces of The Mahdi (The Chosen One), played by Sir Laurence Olivier--good make-up job.

This is an even-handed job (meaning, of course, all the favorable sides of things might have been assumed to be with Gordon, but they are not)--the views of both sides of the struggle are sympathetically represented, and Gordon's vanity is not spared. Nevertheless, he clearly has heroic stature, embellished by dramatic flourishes and some historical bending. Indeed, there is substantial historical detail in the tradition of epic films, much of it basically true, but certain parts are pure fantasy. In a film like this, neither is a problem for me--after all, isn't the point of this event its sheer drama, a white man mystic hero being massacred in a lonely outpost and achieving martyrdom? And I am one who is all for the historical stuff, and a checker of detail. The cadences of the screenplay and the swirling climax are entirely appropriate and make for great entertainment. Although Gordon's conduct in handling the situation was less unobjectionable than presented here (and not to say that there were no criticisms brought to the forefront in the film), it is likely his passion for the Sudan and the Sudanese and his desire for martyrdom are not much exaggerated. One of my favorites.

Fmovies: Considering recent events in Afghanistan (the Taliban) as well as in Syria and Iraq (ISIS), the events in the Sudan in the 1880s are resonate remarkably today. Once again the world finds itself confronted with Muslim fanaticism, and once again, seemingly, the world replies with little more than "gestures".

This movie has been appreciated rather less than it deserves, probably due to the presence of Charlton Heston in the lead role. His English accent does leave something to be desired, especially when surrounded by such notable British actors as Richard Johnson, Nigel Green and the great Ralph Richardson. I won't even mention Sir Laurance Olivier in that regard since, in his remarkable performance as The Mahdi, he rendered himself almost unrecognizable.

The one indispensable aspect Charlton Heston does bring to this film is his remarkable ability to stand out in an epic scene as few other actors can. When one produces an epic motion picture, the sort filmed on a grand scale with a cast of thousands, it is imperative that the central character should be the sort who can stand out among the multitudes. Few actors have been able to do that the way Charton Heston could. It was no accident that he was repeatedly cast as characters such as Moses, Ben Hur, El Cid, Chinese Gordon, etc.

However, in spite of the epic scale and the cast of thousands, "Khartoum" is a battle of wills between three powerful individuals. The first is The Mahdi, a militant Muslim religious fanatic. The second was William Gladstone, the British Prime Minster who tried vainly to keep steer his country away from what he perceived as a disastrous foreign military entanglement in Africa. The third was General Charles "Chinese" Gordon, the unconventional soldier sent, as a gesture, by Gladstone to try to save the situation in the Sudan.

It's a compelling story, and one that still resonates today more than ever. After seeing Khartoum, one can only hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

I just now saw this movie on television for the first time. Somehow I missed it in 1966. I have always been interested in "Chinese Gorden" and they seemed to do his character quite well, though somehow I thought he was a "Teatotaler"! What surprised me about the movie was the flat out way it was admitted that his government abandoned him, expected him to do the job with no support, only caring that "people in the street" didn't know what they had done. In 1966, we didn't yet know that governments did such naughty things. In those days we still believed that the government was still the "good guy". That people liked the movie in spite of that amazes me----5 or 10 years later it would have been a "given".

Khartoum fmovies. As a writer and actor, I found "Khartoum" to be a fascinating project. And even if the producers never solved all of the fictionalized biography's inherent questions and problems entirely, the resulting cinematic feature came out I suggest as intelligent, literate, thoughtful, a film very much worth seeing more than once. The chief question about George Gordon, a pseudo-religious colonial general, administrator and enigmatic character is whether he really championed the subjects of Britain's evil Empire or whether he just wanted them quietly subjected; there is much evidence on both sides of the question. In the film, for filmic purposes, we assume he is genuine; that he is in fact jeopardizing his own life at low odds doing something most political experts consider impossible because he cares about the Sudanese and their (we assume) more-hopeful future under British rule than under that of a pseudo-religious murderous and highly-intelligent zealot. Nothing, I suggest, could be more timely for men to consider not long after the 9/11 attacks staged by the Mahdi's equally-repulsive spiritual brethren than the real attitude of the imperialist power of the last century targeted by a rival imperialist have-not Musilim fanatic. If we assume, as the screenplay's author Robert Ardrey would have us believe, that the core truth about Gordon was that he cared about responsibility more than about playing Establishment politics, playing leader or staying alive, then the man is definitely worth making a film about, and worthy his place in history. After an interesting but leisurely exposition of the region and the background to the Nile, the Sudan and its peoples, replete with lovely scenes, and a narration read by the great actor Leo Genn, we witness the destruction of an ill-officered British army by the forces of The Expected One, a dangerous new religious rebel. Back in England, Horace Gladstone, Prime Minister and Machiavellian politician, is appalled. There seems to be no solution to his problem of what to do next, until someone suggests getting General "Chinese" Gordon to risk his life opposing the new fanatic. They believe he would have to be crazy to do so; they tell him so. He agrees to go. So with no plan and what he discovers is a pat hand dealt by Fate against him, he heads to Egypt. He tries to get the slaver whose son he killed and whose power he reduced to be governor of the Sudan; the man refuses, angrily. He finds the Mahdi making headway, but he is received by the British in Khartoum and the populace as a savior. "It's good to be home," he tells them. But in truth, he is in a hornet's nest. Eventually, he has to pack all the foreigners out, and then he must fortify the city on the Nile; wait out the flood season while its heights keeps the invaders away, and eventually also he must conduct a great raid 1. to deprive the Mahdi of supplies; and 2. to provision the city. Then there is a wait--as a relief army by a reluctant Gladstone is trained, and straggles up the Nile to relieve him--three days too late. The film is beautifully-made. My only complaint is that we hardly see Khartoum at all after the initial welcoming scene. Every other scene in the film is to me like seeing history brought to life. The two great invented scenes--a meeting between Gordon and Gladstone and a meeting between the Mahdi and Gordon are the best dramatic scenes in the film in my judgment; if they did not happen, they certainly should have. Basil Dearden's direction to me is admirable in every resp

It has been argued that films dealing with historical subject matter always make for bad history. The pedants complain that the historical element has been simplified, or worse changed and therefore because it is bad history it is a bad film. But is it? By that standard Shakespeare's historical plays are bad plays. No one has ever argued that these kind of films can ever take the place of a well-researched book. That is not the point. Both mediums are subject to their form. Books can provide a wealth of information and detail that can and should demonstrate the complexity of history. Film on the other hand is essentially a visual medium, and subject to the demands of dramatic form and structure. The question should rather be, is it a good film even with the simplification of history? The Chorus from Shakespeare's "Henry V" actually provided the best justification for these historical epics; "Can this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France? Or may we cram into this wooden O the very casques that did affright the air at Agincourt? O, pardon! Since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million; and let us ciphers to this great accompt, on your imaginary forces work, turning the accomplishment of many years into an hour glass..." The best historical films, of which "Khartoum" is one, do just that, they fire the imagination, however condensed and simplified the history, and hopefully inspire the viewer to delve deeper into the subject by purchasing a good book on the matter.

Robert Ardrey's screenplay is wonderfully literate and "Khartoum" is a pleasure to listen to as well as watch. The disaster that befell Col. William Hicks in 1884 and would set in motion the chain of events that would culminate in the confrontation between Mohammad Ahmed, called The Mahdi, (Laurence Olivier) and British General Charles George Gordon, called "Chinese Gordon", (Charlton Heston) are quickly detailed in a brief prologue featuring an uncredited voice-over by Leo Genn, and the first of several stunning battles staged by the great Yakima Canutt. Ardrey maintains the essential aura of mystery that surrounded these two fascinating enigmatic individuals. Gordon was nothing if not a very complex man. A solitary non-conformist who craved and despised public adulation, a devout Christian that never allied himself to any church, a reluctant empire builder more often sympathetic to those he had to oppose. Suggesting complexity of character, however was not one of Charlton Heston's strong points and he cannot begin to suggest Gordon's contradictory traits. He is too solid, too commanding, too physically heroic. But he does bring those qualities to the character, and he is an impressive physical presence, unlikely to get lost in the epic production of the film. One only needs to see Colin Ferrell flounder as Alexander the Great in Oliver Stone's "Alexander" to appreciate how important a charismatic presence in an epic film can be.

On the other hand, Laurence Olivier as The Mahdi is marvelously equipped as an actor to suggest the subtleties and nuance of his character. With far less screen time he makes every gesture, every vocal intonation, every flicker of the eye suggest layers of depth. He is holy man and realist, opportunist and idealist. His scenes with Heston are among the best in the film. Heston, a more natural film actor, wisely leaves the pyrotechnics to Olivier, and skillfully underplays, so when his big emotional moment finally arrives, it is all t

Charles George Gordon was one of those eccentric individualists like Lawrence of Arabia who spring up in British history. He was a deeply religious man who spent most of his hard-earned salary (he often accepted *less* pay than he was offered) on charitable work. He helped the poor, educating destitute boys and providing pensions for the elderly. The grafitto 'God Bless the Kernel (Colonel)' was often seen scrawled on walls near his home.

He was also distrusted by the Establishment. A brilliant tactician and commander of troops he was constantly passed over for postings abroad because he was unpredictable. When he was asked to report on the grievances of the Basuto people by the British administration in South Africa, he sided with the Basuto and was shipped home very quickly. As Captain Willard says in 'Apocalypse Now': "They didn't dig what he had to tell them." You have to remember, too, that Gordon was a national hero. This was like firing Norman Schwarzkopf after the Gulf War.

The film fails to touch the depths of Gordon's character and in some cases is well off the mark (Charlton Heston seems far too interested in that Egyptian dancer!). We are shown that Gordon could be ruthless in the pursuit of justice (he executes a servant for theft, regardless of any personal feelings).

The fact remains that Gordon was a man of enormous moral and physical courage. He would not desert Khartoum and leave the people to be slaughtered. It now seems likely (and more in character) that he died fighting to the end.

The film is a tribute to that courage and some of the best moments occur when we are allowed to see the twinges of self-doubt and anxiety that Gordon suffered and overcame. The well-staged action scenes are like decoration on the moral diemmas at the heart of the film. Charlton Heston is physically wrong for the part but gives one of his best performances. He isn't outclassed by Olivier in any way, an achievement in itself.