"King Solomon's Mines 1950" Topic

I just watched this Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr film today. It is a classic of safari cinema that I have never seen before. I am in the middle of reading H. Rider Haggard"s 1885 novel. The movie departs from the novel in many respects, though most changes do not detract from the spirit of the novel. This type of film would be impossible to make these days. Some parts were bit shocking even to my jaded old eyes, such as an early scene involving elephants. One part that amused me is when Kerr's character Beth, an uptight Victorian of the better class," has to give up and adapt her clothing and hair to the reality of the bush.I would recommend it.

Terrific film, I've seen it many times. Yes, it does vary from the novel more than a little.

Make sure you watch the 1950 version. The 1985 version is not so good.

Try watching the Paul Robeson version 1937. The best of the lot and the battle scene is great right from the book.

Thanks Richard, I'm planning on watching the 1937 version next. One weak omission in the 1950 version is the absence of Gagool, the witch-finder. Her creepy presence made an impression on me when she appeared in the novel. Withered, menacing, crawling on all fours, crouching at the feet of King Twala. A sinister figure that would add atmosphere.

By all means, go ahead and vidi the 1937 version with Sir Cedric Hardwicke (before his title), and Paul Robson.

Exteriors filmed on location (without sound, dubbed in during post production), the battle scenes are impressive, if only for the sheer number of extras hired locally.

But, for me, the film was a great letdown for all of its positives. Paul Robson, a fine actor and one of the greatest singers of the 20th Century, steals the show, but not in the way I most wanted him to.

He sings.

Which would be fine in concert, but here his songs (pseudo-spirituals) are so frequent and not plot developing, it's as if the rest of the cast thought they were making an adventure film, but he thought it was a musical. This makes the final product seem like a bizarre graft of the two types.

Yeah, I was disappointed.

Watch it for your full appreciation of the original material, but I think you'll quickly go back to the 1950 version.

As for the 1985 version--it was the only movie I ever paid to see which after the first 15 minutes or so, I asked the lady I was with if she wanted to leave. She said, "No. It might get better."

It didn't. That version has likely killed any chance of there being any new versions for the foreseeable future.

TVAG

The 1950 version is one of my go to films. Beautiful locations, actors and decent script. That was before Ruanda became a h+#* hole.

The 1950 version is the best in my opinion. Even though it varies quite a bit from Haggard's book.

The 1950 version is outstanding. Great acting from a stellar cast from that era.
BobTYW

I am planning to do a game using Congo, based on this story. Sort of combining movies and book. I am doing this for a Last of Mohicans game, again where the movie deviates from book.

KSM is great novel, and somewhat well adapted to screen. In the 1950 and 1937 ok, with caveats by VAG. Wikipedia says the Richard Chamberlin version "was a more tongue-in-cheek parody of the story," There were later versions. See here for all link