The Naked Prey

The Naked Prey is on my short list of the best films of all time. After a very few minutes, the viewer will sit on the edge of his seat for a full hour where there is virtually no dialogue. When this movie was first released 35 years ago, I drove 30 miles across town to find and see it. It was worth the trip. Years later, watching it on TV, they omitted (so as not offend the viewers' sensibilities) what was one of the most effective moments in relieving the tension in an action film I have ever seen - the burp! The next time it was shown, I had to watch and was pleased to see it was back in. Watch for it, and you will know what I mean. All of the comments by naysayers about racism should be ignored. If anything, it is one of the most anti-racist films ever made, much credit to Cornel Wilde who made, directed and starred in the film with outstanding achievement in all three areas. Previously known for his role as Fredric Chopin in "An Affair to Remember", this was also one of my favourite films. As "the prey" Wilde shows the battle not only of man against man, but man against nature in the fight for survival and in a triumphal moment at the end he salutes his pursuers who, in mutual respect, return his salute. What more egalitarian gesture can one ask for in a pursuit and a fight to the death? Recommended for all adults but for those with a weak stomach.

The Naked Prey is one of my favorite adventure movies. It is pure visual cinema. By that I mean the film can be shown anywhere in the world to any age audience without translations or sub-titles. Everyone viewing the action will understand everything that is happening on the screen whether they understand the languages or not. Like the movie Zulu, the antagonists are African tribesmen, but in both films, I never had the sense the natives were evil villains. Rather, the story is about the clash between two alien cultures, a life-or-death struggle that keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. Like Psycho, The Naked Prey should be taught in every film class around the world. It is perfect and pure just the way it is.

I saw this movie when I was 16 (1966) and it has remained with me since. Upon viewing it in later life, it is still as good as it was then. This film has very little speaking in it, but the action will keep the viewer sitting on the edge of his seat until the climatic end. In short, this is a GREAT movie. It is about man's struggle against man and man's struggle against nature. It is about the fragility of man, whose arrogance and brutality lead him to believe he is superior to other men and nature. Enough philosophizing. Watch this on as large a screen as possible. By the way, Cornel Wilde was reportedly an expert swordsman.

Way back in 1932---around the same time that Director Ernest B. Schoedsack was involved in production of the original classic "King Kong"----he also made another classic film entitled "The Most Dangerous Game (MDG)." Based on a famous story by Richard Connell, MDG tells the tale of a megalomaniac hunter who lives on a remote island. Ships would regularly end up wrecked on reefs near the island. Their passengers and crew would be rescued by our hunter----enjoy his sophisticated hospitality for a time---and then end up as prey as our crazy hunter indulges in his very perverse "sport." MDG starred a very young Joel McCrea and two members of the original "King Kong" cast----Fay (I never met a scream that I didn't like!) Wray and Robert Armstrong. At 63 minutes in length, MDG is the model of an exciting and compact thriller film.

Since the basic idea of someone being forced into the totally unexpected role of an innocent victim hunted down with the intention of becoming another's trophy kill is pretty powerful-----it has been remade into numerous films ("Game of Death," "Run for the Sun," etc.).

The plot device is essentially the same one that Cornel Wilde employed in his variation on MDG entitled "The Naked Prey" released some 34 years after the original film. Wilde makes his movie interesting by having a big game hunter becoming the hunted, and changing the megalomaniac hunter into a band of African tribesmen determined to chase down the Wilde character and do him in.

Wilde also indulges his film with numerous symbolic devices and sub-plot lines---but remains true to the basic premise of MDG. Survival is a battle of wits between the hunter(s) and the hunted, and only the most resourceful of preys can make it alive to the end of the tale.

Viewers who like "The Naked Prey" ought to seek out MDG to recognize yet again the practice often used by Warner Brothers in the 1930s: if the original film tells a good story, it is worth remaking----and remaking----and remaking......

A lot of comments hear say that this movie is obviously racist.

I think this an nervous knee jerk reaction. It definitely dose not put a phony PC spin on colonial Africa but that doesn't mean it is racist.

Certainly the racism of the safari leader who refuses to respect the tribe with a gift is portrayed and is most likely accurate. It should be noted that the rest of the movie is a direct result of this racist white mans ignorant arrogance and that the hero knows better and tries to warn him. It is improbable that one man, out of his element, could over come his pursuers who must know the terrain better and have more experience hunting and fighting with spears, however I think this is not an attempt to portray the white man as superior but a convention of action movies (heroes can always dodge bullets). The idea that this movie portrays all Africans as savages is based on the assumption that the pursuers are representative of ALL Africans which is a bit racist in itself. They are a particular tribe. Africa is a big continent full of many different nations and tribes. There are other Africans present including those in the safari party, who are not shown to be savages. There are also two other tribes depicted towards the end. One is the village that the man comes upon. These people wear dyed clothing and seem to have a more advanced, structured, and less violently primal, society. The white mans life is saved by a child from this more peaceful tribe. They are attacked by another tribe, obviously working for colonial slave traders, who wear more modern clothing and have guns. This really happened. Some Africans at war with other Africans would sell their conquered foes to the white slave traders.

When will people learn that portraying racism in all its ugliness and complexity is not equivalent to being a racist. The man who plays the hero was also the director. he is a white man and the story is told from his perspective but not exclusively. Part of the films context is that of cultures colliding, both European with African, and African with African. Another important point to this movie is that this is an educated, civilized man who is (literally) stripped of all the trappings of his civilization and thrust into the primal, and universal, struggle of shear survival. Im no expert on Africa but from what little I have read about its history, the movie, while a simple tale in itself, did not seem to over simplify its portrayal of Africa. I suspect that, quite far from being racist, the makers of this film probably had a respect for African culture. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Over all I found it to be well acted. Even though the film makers did not have had a big Hollywood budget and may have used some stock wild life footage, it seemed to blend seamlessly. As far as the chicken chasing scene, I liked how comic it was. In reality a starving man, desperately chasing a chicken around with a spear would probably look pitifully comical and I believe the irony is intentional.

I recommend this film. I found it to be very original but if forced to describe it I would say its a mixture of Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout (though not as pretentious) and Conrad's Heart of Darkness.