The Long Duel (1967)

In the dying days of the Raj, a tribal leader struggles for freedom against the Imperial Indian Police forces. The man charged with the task of apprehending the rebels sees things differently from his superiors, who wish to use the blunt instrument of force alone to suppress the insurgents.Ken Annakin knew how to make a good movie and here he had the undoubted talents of Yul Brynner, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews, Charlotte Rampling, and Edward Fox to hand, amongst others. Behind the camera Oscar-winner Jack Hildyard was DoP.Given the cast and crew, one would expect a movie that looks great and holds your attention. Those with short attention spans may disagree, but I think they did that, and (in a recently broadcast version which appears to have been restored) this movie still looks stunning. The problem perhaps is that the script is not quite up to the same standard as the rest of the film, or that it superficially resembles something else.Superintendent Harry Andrews is well-cast as the blunt instrument of Imperial Power, leading a force that look more like regular soldiers than policemen. Yul Brynner does a competent job too.However Trevor Howard looks somewhat out of place, and unrealistic as love interest for Charlotte Rampling. But to my mind, both these things are quite deliberate; Rampling's character is attracted to Howard's personality, which contrasts with that of her father and (presumably) the others in the police force; of those that inhabit her insular world, she is drawn to him because of this, and despite the obvious age gap.Howard's character looks out of place and it is meant to; not everyone could the job that is asked of him. His humanity and compassion underlie the dilemma he faces, the conflict within, between his idealism and his sense of duty. I thought this a very good performance from Howard; he spends much of the film looking both world-weary and internally riven.Some aspects of this film are well-founded in fact; very many administrators in the days of the Raj loved the country and the people, yet felt deeply conflicted in the course of their duties. For example Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell) served in the Imperial Indian Police force in the 1920s, reaching the rank of Assistant District Superintendent in Burma.He said that, on the one hand, seeing "the dirty work of Empire at close quarters" (which included being hated by much of the local populace) had affected his outlook on almost every aspect of his life; on the other hand he also wrote that "I loved Burma and the Burman and have no regrets that I spent the best years of my life in the Burma police.".This film is not meant to have a happy ending, any more than 'Bridge on the River Kwai' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' (both also psychological studies of the lead character) are meant to. Those that might naively suppose that a younger man could have played Howard's role and then swanned off into the sunset with Rampling or something are completely missing the point. In what may be an allegory of Indian independence itself, no-one involved comes out of it very well; all that remains is a little hope for the future, as symbolised by Sultan's son.

THE LONG DUEL is a British adventure film about an Indian uprising in the 19th century presided over by a bandit leader played by the inimitable Yul Brynner. Watching it these days, it's clear that this is a very dated production, and perhaps the film was picked out for merciless spoofing in the excellent CARRY ON UP THE KHYBER.However, it isn't a bad film, just not one of the best of the genre. It suffers from being overlong and too slow, with long scenes that drag out between the important bits. Still, the viewer is treated to the spectacle of Brynner doing his patented action man routine and Trevor Howard acting against him as the classic stiff-upper-lip Brit with a heart. Supporting actors include Harry Andrews as the idiot in charge, more minor roles for Hammer players including Andrew Keir, George Pastell, and the lovely Imogen Hassall, and the appearance of a surprisingly young Charlotte Rampling.The action elements of the film are handled pretty well with the usual excitement. A set-piece attack on a train is a highlight here, as is the fiery ambush on the British barracks, but the film only really kicks into top gear at the excellent large-scale climax. Moments of occasional heart and poignancy make this worth a watch, meanwhile.

This has simply been unfairly misunderstood. It's a great romantic adventure story exposing conflicting mentalities in the last days of the Indian Raj, when some British already started to doubt their presence there. Harry Andrews is the hopeless imperialist who knows only one way to govern and that by force, while Trevor Howard tries the other way: dialogue and understanding. Yul Brynner is the freedom fighter with a just cause who knows he is right and struggles against opposition in his own camp to achieve it with tragic results, due to the hardcore inflexibility of the British military authorities (Harry Andrews). Charlotte Rampling plays an unusual part as a female diplomatic intermediary, and her character is the only one who is not quite convincing, which unfavourable impression is worsened by her horrible hair style - utterly impossible in India.Additional merits of the film is the overwhelming sweeping landscape scenes catching the wilderness of the Himalayas, and the music, which underlines and augments the romantic character of the film. Yul Brynner is always interesting and makes memorable characters, and also Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews are well up to their ordinary excellent standard, while the story and its lesson of experience, wisdom and humanity is the main importance of this very underrated film.

Run of the mill historical adventure yarn set on India's North-West Frontier during the British Raj. Yul Brynner plays rebel tribesman Sultan who is pursued by Brit copper Freddy Young (Trevor Howard), who while chasing down the enigmatic rebel comes to respect him and is unwilling to execute the justice requested by his superiors.The intent to make an historical epic of some worth, that is based on facts, is honourable. It looks nice with an authentic feel to the surroundings of the story, if only it wasn't so laboured, so full of inane posturing and poorly scripted characters, then it might just about crawl its way to being just above average.It rarely excites, director Ken Annakin unable to inject life into the more perkier aspects of plotting, and a cast that also features Harry Andrews, Charlotte Rampling, Virginia North and Andrew Keir, aren't tasked with much more than reading their lines efficiently. All in all, not very convincing away form the location photography and costuming. 4/10