The New Classics: Master and Commander
Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 2:00PM Michael Cusumano here to explore what keeps fans returning for repeat voyages on Peter Weir's 2003 nautical adventure.
Scene: Exploring the Galapagos
Right before the climactic naval battle in Peter Weir’s Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, the story pauses to watch a scientist leisurely wander the Galapagos Islands, collecting lizards and measuring giant tortoises. How many modern adventure films would halt the action dead in its tracks like that? Hell, how many films from any era would resist relegating such a detour to the cutting room floor? I can imagine David Lean including the sequence, but then his version of Master and Commander would probably push the four hour mark.
This adaptation of Patrick O’Brien’s series of novels is less about narrative urgency and more about creating a world to get lost in. Sure, when the time comes to pay-off the naval duel at the center of the plot, Master and Commander delivers in spectacular fashion. But that’s not what keeps the devotees of the film returning over and over again...
It’s about the tangents and digressions more than the action set pieces. More about taking the time to show a canon-firing practice session than about watching the cannonballs fly in battle. Less about soaring speeches and more about the little peculiarities of language that co-writer Weir and John Collee take care to include. This movie deserves a place of honor alongside Anchorman and Princess Bride for its quotability. (“Clearly something nautical and fascinating just happened. I am at a loss.”)
Weir's film is positively Altman-esque in the way it drops the viewer the middle of the action, providing more detail than one can absorb on a single viewing. We learn indirectly, picking up everything from personalities to the hierarchies of command through the unhurried rhythms of life aboard the HMS Surprise. It’s more Gosford Park at sea than Captain Blood.
Russell Crowe’s Captain Jack Aubrey and Paul Bettany’s Dr. Stephen Maturin are set up as contrasting forces, the man of war vs. the man of science. But since the film doesn’t march them through the beats of a formulaic screenplay they are freed to be so much more interesting than this simple dichotomy. Captain Aubrey is militaristic and authoritarian, but, like the film itself, he is more thoughtful than we expect. When the doctor displays contempt for the Navy during one of their frequent debates, Crowe’s character remarks, “I hate it when you talk of the service in this way. It makes me feel so very low. “ Again I step back and marvel at the film finding space for such a moment: One of the biggest action stars on the planet lamenting that another character hurt his feelings.
Yes, the Captain cancels Dr. Maturin’s exploration of the Galapagos for the sake of military expediency (“I do not have time for your damn hobbies, sir!”) But when the doctor is unexpectedly injured and his survival depends on steady ground for surgery, Captain Aubrey is capable of putting the man ahead of the mission, docking the ship and allowing their foes to escape.
Likewise, Paul Bettany's Darwin-inspired doctor seems to view his presence on a vessel of war as a necessary evil in the pursuit of knowledge, using the mission to a hitch a ride to exotic, unexplored regions of the globe. Yet when the time comes he acquits himself surprisingly well in battle and in spite of being a fanatic in the cause of scientific discovery he is capable of putting the ship’s mission ahead of his own, cutting his study of the Galapagos short when he unexpectedly spots the enemy’s position. His sacrifice in this moment is surprisingly moving, a testament to how much weight the film affords a character who in a lesser film would be the egghead supporting player with no inner life, a Q to Crowe’s James Bond.
This film's reputation has flourished more than its reception back in 2003 might have led people to predict. Despite being a wide-release event film, its fans love it with a fervor normally reserved for cult items rescued from obscurity. But in a way Master and Commander is such a discovery. Only it’s fans aren’t discovering an overlooked gem, they’re discovering the contemplative art film hidden inside the big-budget prestige picture. Oscar Wilde once described “the ability to play gracefully with ideas”. It’s a phrase I think of often when I reflect on the special appeal of this film.
Previously on "The New Classics"
- Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001)
- Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001)
- Sexy Beast (2001)
- Before Sunset (2004)
- Collateral (2004)
- Eastern Promises (2007)
- Michael Clayton (2007)
- Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)
- The Hurt Locker (2009)
- In the Loop (2009)
- Meek's Cutoff (2010)
- A Separation (2011)
- Blue Ruin (2013)
- 20th Century Women (2016)
Reader Comments (17)
I ADORE this movie - it always has a place in my top ten. And yes, the Aubrey-Maturin relationship is what makes it worth revisiting again and again.
Wonderful tribute to a wonderful film.
I L O V E T H I S M O V I E
I wasn't really expecting much when I saw it, and I wasn't surprised how good it was - I was shocked at how great it was. A work of art hiding in plain sight.
A work of art hiding in plain sight.
I can't think of a better description of most of Weir's films. One of the best and most underrated directors of all time.
Wonderful film. To be watched on a big screen. Russel Crowe's stardom passed quickly but in the period he made a whole bunch of wonders.
I love this film. I thought it was a rich and incredible movie that had ambition but also explored the idea of conflict and exploration. I also loved how they used something as simple as nature to trick and defeat its enemy. It's a shame that a sequel never got made as if I was a billionaire. I would totally put the money for a sequel to be made.
This is a great move that should be better known
I love this movie, Peter Weir's direction is superb and surprising. Crowe and Bettany fill their roles perfectly as do all the other actors. I truly feel as if I am on this sea voyage with them. I love the way the film alternates between the beauty of exploration, and the tension of possible death.
Btw. I read the Patrick O'Brien series one summer and recommend it highly. Since they aren't going to make any more films, do yourself a favour and read the books.
I too love this film. The tenderness in it is quite something.
this film is awesome sauce. Weir + Crowe + Bettany are such an underrated trio, and this film is a terrific example of that.
the books are even better, probably my favorite.historical fiction series I’ve read and I read a shit ton of that genre.
I could never understand why this wasn't a bigger hit and why it didn't win every Award...
I never understaood why this didnt get a sequel. I get that it was expensive so the profit margins were probably slim but it was very well received critically and the film did big numbers at the box office. Seemed like it would have been a feather in a studio's cap to have this as a series.
And you picked my favourite scene from the movie to discuss.
The emotions that play across Bettany's face when he spots the enemy.
Just masterful screen acting.
Nat: $212 million worldwide, $150 million budget. That's not "slim profit margin" that's "darn, we lost money."
Beautifully written piece on a great film. I wish Weir would make another soon.
The O'Brian books are, agreed, far and away the best historical fiction. To say the series is immersive is a pretty paltry understatement - it's positively Dickensian in the breadth of characters and recreation of a period world in precise, unrelenting detail. IMO there's nothing else out there like it. Nothing comes close.
On the movie's plus side, it was kind of unbelievable to see Aubrey and Maturin on the screen after savoring those books. Crowe is a good Aubrey, although in the books the character was really larger than life, with an endearing sort of man-child naivete, in ways you don't see in Crowe's performance because of the script. Bettany's Maturin really takes the cake though. In the book the character is a little more forlorn and certainly uglier, but he pretty much nails the performance probably as good as anyone could have. The battle sequences are unbelievable. I second or third or fourth all the above comments about the interplay between the main characters' interests and how they provide really substantive contrast in the plot. Really nicely done. It's not a bad movie! It's good.
Sadly the film is also kind of a mishmash of moments and subplots taken from various of the books. It's a giant missed opportunity, in my opinion. They tried to make an action movie but in so doing sacrificed some of the really core bits about the characters, Maybe the most glaring omission is Maturin's side gig as an intelligence agent. It's (very!) subtly implied at the end of the movie, but it's so subtle probably anyone who doesn't know the books would miss it. He was also a laudanum addict. Those threads are essential to the books. I would have been happier with a little slower, marginally less action-oriented, and longer film for more character moments. In one sequence in the books, a less-than-fit Aubrey and Maturin have to escape from Boston during, IIRC, the War of 1812. The whole thing is a crazy nailbiter. That kind of action has more emotional resonance than the admittedly awesome naval battles in the film. I sort of wish they would have just made one of the books into the film and made it more of a classical drama. Why not start with book one.
LOVE this movie. Thanks for the write up.