Eshin Direct

I was watching Around the World in Eighty Days with David Niven on Cinemax last night, and was reminded of what a great childhood film it is. I never read the book by Jules Verne so I have no idea what the actual author intended the story to be. But I felt the film, watching it again yesterday, was somewhat Western-centric and yet also ground-breaking at the same time.

When I say Western-centric, I mean the fact that there are a number of instances where one would be shocked at attitudes portrayed in today’s touchy feely culturally sensitive world. For example, Passepartout, being the non-Anglo-Saxon turns into the comical character and gets none of the credit. I mean he’s actually the one who saves the Indian princess (played badly by Shirley Maclaine) yet it is Phileas Fogg who “gets the girl”. In the context of the film, where part of her love is the gratitude for saving her, it is all directed in the wrong place. Another example is the comical stereotypical portraying of the Native Americans who raid the train in the American leg of the journey. While I’m sure they were using bows and arrows in real life, I’m sure they had sufficient contact with the US to be able to use rifles, especially in a time when the locomotives were running. Of course, none of the film Native Americans were shooting any guns.

At other times, it gives some hint to progressiveness. In one scene, Passpartout scares away a bull matador style as he did in Spain earlier in the voyage. However, he doesn’t understand the sacredness of cows in India and spends his time there being chased by angry locals. In another scene, which had me in stitches, was where Phileas Fogg attempts to talk to an old Chinese man in the streets of Hong Kong.

“Is boss-man here? When he come backee?” says Fogg is in loud, slow tones.

To which the old Chinese man, in traditional wear, replies in a flawless American accent. That had me laughing that one, which is probably the intent of the dialogue rather than any attempt at changing people’s perceptions.

Anyway, the best part of the film was when Fogg and company are debating whether or not to rescue the Indian princess from the ritual sacrifice. Aside from the obvious debate whether of whether or not impose Western moral standards on Indian religious debates, it’s all rather nicely summed up by Fogg in one bit of dialogue that is both comical and insightful.

Indian Servant Boy: “Princess not want to be burned. She study in Britain.”

Fogg (imagine David Niven at his best): “Well, that settles it. We must save her then.”

I thought it was a hilarious commentary, in fact much of the film was, on the virtues of an English gentleman. Although for a more serious discussion about British Education go to Glutter’s post – Hidden Curriculum -Mine was all about the Greatness of Britain.

Anyway, the film was probably Hollywood made and the book by an author who was French, so I imagine that the characters would be develop into characiatures of actual people. Of course, now I can’t get “Rule Britiannia” out of my head as it was ladled onto the film’s score like honey. I seriously hope they don’t remake this film and try to make it serious, taking into account cultural sensitivities and stuff. The original is still great enough to be a classic.