LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER

US, 1935, 109 minutes, Black and white.
Gary Cooper, Franchot Tone, Richard Cromwell, Guy Standing, C. Aubrey Smith, Kathleen Burke, Douglass Dumbrill, Monty Blue, Colin Tapley, Akim Tamiroff, J. Carroll Naish, Lumsden Hare.
Directed by Henry Hathaway.

The Lives of a Bengal Lancer was nominated for best film for 1935 – losing to Mutiny on the Bounty. It is a rousing action adventure based on a popular novel of the time – reminiscent of Kipling’s Gunga Din, focusing on three officers on the north-west frontier. The north-west frontier of India has always been popular including a film of that title with Kenneth More in 1958. Kipling’s stories, including Kim, have been filmed several times.

Gary Cooper was a strong action hero at the time and Franchot Tone was emerging as a popular lead.

The strong British contingent in Hollywood, led by Sir C. Aubrey Smith, are in support with Akim Tamiroff once again a sinister character.

The film was directed by Henry Hathaway who was at the top of his form at this period, including the first colour Western, Trail of the Lonesome Pine. He was to continue directing for almost forty years more, especially with action films and period pieces. He directed John Wayne to his Oscar in True Grit (1969).

1. Was this an enjoyable adventure? It is considered an adventure classic. Why? What were its major adventure qualities? Its scope, it's production values, it’s entertainment value?

2. What were the chief conventions of the thirties that it used? How obvious were the techniques of the thirties? How good were they? The portrayal of India and Indians? Cinematic effects, the battles? The quality of the acting?

3. The portrayal of Bengal and India? The film’s attitude towards the British? Towards the British Empire? The background of Rudyard Kipling? The nature of British heroics in India? How does this seem now?

4. Comment on the film’s evaluation of the British and their traditions in India? The effectiveness, the bungling, the role of tradition? The army?

5. How accurate was the picture of the Bengalis and the Indians? Their style of living, their resistance to the British, their tricks and diplomacy? How does this seem now? How does it add to effective exciting adventure?

6. The central role of Mc Gregor: Gary Cooper's personality and style, the initial wanting of combat, his chafing under orders, the quality of his soldiering in action? His resenting of the older men, his Canadian background, his protectiveness towards Sloane, the quality of his adventures? The fact that he was captured and tortured? Heroics? His death? The thirties and a British Empire hero? The sequence of the medal and the horse? How good a portrayal of such a soldier was this? Insight into the beliefs of such a soldier in those times?

7. Forsyth: as a contrast with Mc Gregor, as cheeky, enjoying conflict? annoying Mc Gregor, the importance of the snake sequence, the comradeship, supporting Stone, his kind of heroism, his surviving? The popularity of a cheeky hero?

8. Stone, the pressures on him for his army career, put down by his father, the menial work, his taking to drink, the infatuation and its bad consequences? His causing Mc Gregor's death? His redeeming himself by heroics? How conventional a hero was he?

9. The importance of the portrayal of the two older men: Stone and Hamilton? Stone as the stern father, separated from wife and son, standing by tradition? The humanity of Hamilton? The clash of the two older men? Their ideas for the needs of India?

10.How interesting were the sequences with the Bengalis, the exotic way of living, the dangers?

11.The quality of the battle sequences and the heroics?

12.How enjoyable a film. how valuable a picture of a past age and its values?