Two Years Before the Mast (1946)

Copyright 22 November 1946 by Paramount Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Rivoli: 24 September 1946. U.S. release: 22 November 1946. U.K. release: 15 April 1946 (sic). Australian release: 20 December 1946. Sydney opening at the Prince Edward: 20 December 1946 (ran six weeks). 10 reels. 8,903 feet. 99 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Ladd is the spoiled son of a ship-owner who, while drinking in a waterfront dive in Boston one evening, finds himself the victim of Bendix and his gang and wakes up shanghaied, on board the Pilgrim bound for the California coast and back. Conditions on the ship are appalling, and the captain, da Silva, drives the men ruthlessly.NOTES: The movie was actually shot in 1944, but fearful of its adverse propaganda, Paramount delayed release until well after the end of WW2.COMMENT: Director John Farrow's penchant for long takes and elaborate technical effects is well illustrated in this film. Particularly effective is the opening take with Collins in his counting house. Also, as an experienced seaman himself, Farrow was the ideal man to handle this subject. Acting is of a very, very high standard indeed, but Da Silva's impersonation of a Bligh-like Captain and Bendix's well- rounded study of his first mate, deserve special mention. Screenwriters Seton I. Miller and George Bruce have done a first- rate job of transferring Richard Dana's novel to the screen.Yes, the atmosphere and action on shipboard is most effectively conveyed in this creditable costume picture. True, it does seem a little dated by the fact that for all its sweep, it was obviously filmed entirely in the studio — even if the studio sound stages were rather capacious. However, Farrow's aggressive direction and convincing performances by Da Silva, Bendix and even Donlevy more than make up for any slight shortcomings in verisimilitude. Stockwell is compelling too, whilst Fitzgerald (whose inability to remember his lines proved a thorn in Farrow's side during the shooting of "California") seems able enough here in a smallish part. The climax is maybe too fast and perfunctory. On the other hand, a bit of love interest supplied by Esther Fernandez does slow the action slightly. But both Miss Fernandez and Mr. Ladd are strong enough to shoulder this burden. On addition to its solid support cast, the whole movie is lovingly photographed and set.

This is a pretty fair movie about the mistreatment of seamen during the early 19th Century. However, it bears almost no resemblance to "Two Years Before the Mast". For a start, the credits say that the film is "based upon the novel by Richard Henry Dana". That, alone, is a pretty clear indication that nobody involved in the production of the movie had ever read the book because it was definitely NOT a novel. Dana was a college student at Harvard who took a sabbatical to ship out on a vessel belonging to the father of a friend of his in order to regain his health. The book was an account of his experiences, and it was NOT a work of fiction. There was no mutiny nor was anybody on board murdered. As a matter of fact, Dana did not even return on the ship started out on but on another ship that was homeward-bound, because the ship he sailed over on remained in California. Dana returned to Harvard, where he completed his studies and became a lawyer. During the course of his career he not only became an outspoken advocate not only for the rights of seamen, but for freedmen and fugitive slaves as well. For the benefit of those who may wonder about the peculiar title, the term "before the mast" is an old term used on merchant ships to denotes sailing as a member of the crew, rather than as an officer or a passenger. The officers and passengers lived aft, in cabins. The crew lived up forward , not in cabins but in a single compartment that was originally called the "fore castle", but which was generally shortened to "focs'l". The "focs'l" was located at the forward end of the ship, forward of the masts, so that to sail "before the mast" was to be a seaman. Incidentally, although modern seamen live in individual staterooms, to this day many still refer to their stateroom as their "focs'l". Of course, none of the above applied to Navy ships, in which the officers lived in a "wardroom" and where there was no such thing as a "focs'l". As a swashbuckling adventure movie "Two Years Before the Mast" compares favorably with others of that genre. However, those interested in the contents of Dana's book would be recommended not to take anything from this movie as representative of it.

In the 1830's, the foppish son of a ship owner is shanghaied aboard his father's ship where he experiences the harsh realities of a brutal captain.Leonard Maltin gives the movie a 1 & ½ out of 4. Shame on him. Sure, the film is no Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), and the script could be sharper. But, it's still a riveting shipboard drama, thanks to a fine cast, a good story, and a strong moral lesson. In the movie's pivotal role, Ladd transitions from a spoiled fop to a man among men in convincing fashion. The actor was never one to emote; at the same time, his low-key manner blends in well with the macho crew. And a heckuva crew it is—such forceful types as Dekker, Bendix, Donlevy, and, of course, a fearsome Howard DaSilva as the brutal captain. Mix and stir and you've got the ingredients of a highly combustible drama.Of course, old Hollywood always created its own version of history. It's no secret the studios habitually bent fact in return for commercial appeal. So its not surprising that Paramount took liberties with the Dana book. For example, the script works a woman (Fernandez) onto the ship, which is not in the book. I expect they did that to burnish Ladd's appeal as a leading man and to widen audience appeal to include women-- never mind the facts of the book. As some anonymous wag put it-- never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.Fortunately, it is a good story, even if the ship never leaves the sound stage. However, I wish director Farrow had made better use of close-ups to underscore dramatic high points. He's too impassive in what amounts to a very involving story. That aside, the movie certainly rates far better than a 1 & ½.

I am disappointed to see the sparsity of votes for this very-of-guys movie. This box-office smash of 1946 which is a sly attempt to invoke the more academy award favored Mutiny on the Bounty. Obviously, this movie was made to win awards and to give prestige to the studio, producer and actors involved. It did not garner a single nomination. Based on a true story and a best-selling non-fiction book from the 19th Century, it details the kind of cruelty and inhumanity that was used back then to run a ship. The stand-out of many fine performances is Howard da Silva as the captain Thompson who is more interested in breaking arrival records than in keeping the health, morality or moue of his crew in a flush of pink. Alan Ladd is the somewhat lead for make no mistake, this is no Ladd piece but an ensemble of Paramount's finest and great character actors. William Bendix, an actor who puts to shame the theory that real acting began with those "method" actors of the fifties with everything he does, is perfect as the first mate Amanzine. Shot strictly on studio sets, it does have the necessary realism of the open seas and azure skies that could give it the needed extra texture but it tries and works all the same. Unexpected events happen and formula is avoided until a rushed third act and ending that feels to hurried to resonate. That is why I voted it an 8/10. It is just too flat, as if the producers were late for dinner or something and slapped something together. Surely, events you want to see resolved is giving the sleight of hand and the picture is only 98 mins, so why the hurry? A good guy's movie with fine performances. It could have been a classic but it's just a good movie. P.S. I cannot believe Da Silva was not nominated for his performance. That is just a plain travesty.