The movie "Gunga Din" (1939), an adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's poem, is a corny but fun-filled buddy film. Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. were cast perfectly as three British soldier buddies fighting in colonial India. Cary Grant was funny and lovable as a Cockney sergeant. Victor McLaglen portrayed his two-fisted soldier role perfectly. (McLaglen was an ex-pugilist and ex-British colonial soldier in real life.) Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. almost outdid his legendary, swash-buckling father in this film. Although he was too old for the role, Sam Jaffe in his heavy make-up was excellent as the native water-boy, Gunga Din. Even Joan Fontaine, in her thankless role as a meddling fiancee, shined. (It was strange that Joan Fontaine, who in real life is related to the British nobility, sounded rather American.) Some of the conversations were very amusing. Recall Grant's remark about the jail being made of pudding when Gunga Din brought him a fork as a breakout tool. This action film, with its competent direction by George Stevens and effective film score by Alfred Newman, was so fun-filled that negative things like soldiering for British imperialists and killing human beings looked deceivingly fun and exciting.
Also, making the thugs into the film's villains is an excellent and cunning choice. Many Indians who fought against the British were legitimate freedom fighters and deserve lots of our sympathy. However, the thugs deserve no sympathy whatsoever. They were incredibly vile men who make the crimes of crazed serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy look like child's play. Thugs were members of a demented cult of Hindu and some Muslim thieves who tried to justify their numerous robbery murders by claiming that their criminal acts were justified by the Hindu goddess Kali. In the 19th century, tens of thousands of innocent travelers in modern day India, Pakistan and Nepal were strangled and robbed by groups of thugs every year. When asked if they felt any guilt about killing innocent men, many thugs boldly stated that they felt nothing but pleasure. One thug even bragged about killing more than one thousand men during his murderous career. Some IMDb commentators surprisingly compared the thugs to Mohandas Gandhi, an advocate of non-violence, and French freedom fighters of W.W. II. These comparisons are outrageous and nonsensical to say the least. Just because the thugs wanted the British to get out of India does not make them into freedom fighters. If the thugs did indeed advocate the expulsion of British from India, it was for their own vile, self-centered interest. The thugs hated the British because it was the British who persistently suppressed the thugs from 1830's to 1850's. Before the British suppression, thugs were allowed to murder and rob undisturbed possibly for two thousand years. (Herodotus mentions a thug-like cult in his book.) Although some Muslim rulers tried to suppress the thugs, very few other Indian rulers did anything about the thugs. In fact, some Indian rulers were active supporters of the thugee cult. Moreover, the statement that the thugs murdered as a way to fight the British colonialism makes no sense whatsoever. Thugs had been robbing and killing thousands of victims long before British came to India. Moreover, if thugs were indeed anti-British freedom fighters, why were so few victims of the thugee cult British soldiers? Almost all thug victims were native Indian travelers. In fact, thug murders were rarely politcally motivated. They murdered for financial gain and for the sake of satisfying the vile pleasure of murdering another human being. Even if, arguendo, we labeled the thugs as freedom fighters, their methods are totally demented. Does robbing and murdering tens of thousands of people per year constitute acceptable acts of freedom fighters? French partisans did indeed kill many collaborators, but their killings were much fewer as compared to the thugs' carnage. The only other people, who were equally crazed and murderous, were the Mayan and Aztec priests. Just like thugs, they murdered thousands of innocent victims without any scruples whatsoever. Even if I had quite a corny fun with this film, I do not agree with its approval of British imperialism. I was also disappointed with Gunga Din's misguided loyalty to British imperialism. The film's insidious pro-British political message was highly relevant when it was made because Britain was indeed controlling many oversea colonies-including India--in 1939. Until recently many Hollywood movies wholeheartedly supported British imperialism. Many of them overlook the historical fact that British government and its officers were brutal and immoral exploiters of its colonies. Many dwellers of British colonies greatly suffered from this exploitation. Maybe the American movie audience forgot about it, but there is a former British colony which was so infuriated by the conducts of British government and bureaucrats that it revolted against the British. This former colony fought the British Army and Navy and killed thousands of British soldiers--just like those Asian and African anti-British rebels who are portrayed as villains in numerous Hollywood movies. The colony eventually won its independence from Britain. Its name is the United States of America.
Also, making the thugs into the film's villains is an excellent and cunning choice. Many Indians who fought against the British were legitimate freedom fighters and deserve lots of our sympathy. However, the thugs deserve no sympathy whatsoever. They were incredibly vile men who make the crimes of crazed serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy look like child's play. Thugs were members of a demented cult of Hindu and some Muslim thieves who tried to justify their numerous robbery murders by claiming that their criminal acts were justified by the Hindu goddess Kali. In the 19th century, tens of thousands of innocent travelers in modern day India, Pakistan and Nepal were strangled and robbed by groups of thugs every year. When asked if they felt any guilt about killing innocent men, many thugs boldly stated that they felt nothing but pleasure. One thug even bragged about killing more than one thousand men during his murderous career. Some IMDb commentators surprisingly compared the thugs to Mohandas Gandhi, an advocate of non-violence, and French freedom fighters of W.W. II. These comparisons are outrageous and nonsensical to say the least. Just because the thugs wanted the British to get out of India does not make them into freedom fighters. If the thugs did indeed advocate the expulsion of British from India, it was for their own vile, self-centered interest. The thugs hated the British because it was the British who persistently suppressed the thugs from 1830's to 1850's. Before the British suppression, thugs were allowed to murder and rob undisturbed possibly for two thousand years. (Herodotus mentions a thug-like cult in his book.) Although some Muslim rulers tried to suppress the thugs, very few other Indian rulers did anything about the thugs. In fact, some Indian rulers were active supporters of the thugee cult. Moreover, the statement that the thugs murdered as a way to fight the British colonialism makes no sense whatsoever. Thugs had been robbing and killing thousands of victims long before British came to India. Moreover, if thugs were indeed anti-British freedom fighters, why were so few victims of the thugee cult British soldiers? Almost all thug victims were native Indian travelers. In fact, thug murders were rarely politcally motivated. They murdered for financial gain and for the sake of satisfying the vile pleasure of murdering another human being. Even if, arguendo, we labeled the thugs as freedom fighters, their methods are totally demented. Does robbing and murdering tens of thousands of people per year constitute acceptable acts of freedom fighters? French partisans did indeed kill many collaborators, but their killings were much fewer as compared to the thugs' carnage. The only other people, who were equally crazed and murderous, were the Mayan and Aztec priests. Just like thugs, they murdered thousands of innocent victims without any scruples whatsoever. Even if I had quite a corny fun with this film, I do not agree with its approval of British imperialism. I was also disappointed with Gunga Din's misguided loyalty to British imperialism. The film's insidious pro-British political message was highly relevant when it was made because Britain was indeed controlling many oversea colonies-including India--in 1939. Until recently many Hollywood movies wholeheartedly supported British imperialism. Many of them overlook the historical fact that British government and its officers were brutal and immoral exploiters of its colonies. Many dwellers of British colonies greatly suffered from this exploitation. Maybe the American movie audience forgot about it, but there is a former British colony which was so infuriated by the conducts of British government and bureaucrats that it revolted against the British. This former colony fought the British Army and Navy and killed thousands of British soldiers--just like those Asian and African anti-British rebels who are portrayed as villains in numerous Hollywood movies. The colony eventually won its independence from Britain. Its name is the United States of America.