Kim

I've always thought that Rudyard Kipling's Kim might very well have been influenced by Charles Dickens and his creation of those street urchins in London led by that young survivor, the Artful Dodger. Certainly Kim as portrayed by Dean Stockwell in this film is every bit as resourceful in his way as the Dodger is in Oliver Twist.

The Dodger had the advantage of growing up poor, but growing up in his own culture in 19th century London. Kim is short for Kimball O'Hara who's growing up on the mean streets of India. Kim's dad was a British soldier and in this film, the mother who died in childbirth is also white. Kim learned the way to survive real fast.

Which makes him of great use to British Intelligence ever worried in the 19th century about Russian designs on India. Of course what they were doing in India is a question not asked in these films.

This is Dean Stockwell's film, maybe the best he did as a child actor. He's appealing as all get out in Kim. Adults like Errol Flynn as the horse trader Mahbub Ali who's really a British agent, Robert Douglas as the colonel in charge of British Intelligence, and Paul Lukas as the lama on pilgrimage who befriends young Kim are clearly in support of Stockwell.

This is familiar territory for Flynn back in his salad days he had just such a role in The Prince and the Pauper supporting the Mauch twins as Miles Hendon. By the way you might get confused a bit when you hear Flynn's character referred by name in Kim. They pronounce it in the film as one word, Mahbubali.

Flynn was loaned to MGM from Warner Brothers for That Forsyte Woman and a second film. He was given a choice of Kim or King Solomon's Mines, each film being shot on location in India and Africa respectively. Flynn opted for the Indian story although he got to Africa later in The Roots of Heaven.

Kim is still a fine boy's adventure story, should appeal to the twelve year old boy in all of us.

I saw the movie just after I had read the book and I realized that while some dialogue was copied verbatim, the end had been changed and the character played by Erol Flynn was given a greater role than in the book while the importance of some female characters that existed in the book was actually obliterated. Of course the movie cast the English as good and the Russians as bad as the book did and had all the trappings of the mythology of British imperialism as it would have been obvious in a book based on a Kipling novel.But the experience of watching it on screen was fine, since the movie had simplified some of the more esoteric meanderings of the book focusing on action or on the making a man- Kim- that is in character building, as the moral was that an essentially kind-hearted but mischievous oriental had to acquire the manners of an English gentleman-the role St Xavier's was preparing him for, and which he found difficult to follow-but at which he returned in the end through the guidance of the horse trader, a model of faith to the British. The role of he Lama was downplayed in the sense that the actions of his that the movie retained were only the ones that related with Kim's development as an individual and not the ones that had to do with his own spiritual quest. In the book, the Lama is just after Kim the second most important character while in the movie he is overshadowed by the horse trader played by Erol Flynn.Also importance is attached in the training Kim received in order to enter British Intelligence, an ambition that judging from the movie seemed to be what natives considered a crowning achievement. But still it is an enjoyable movie provided you agree with it's premises i.e. that the east is the playground of Westerners whose ways the natives would do well to emulate as Kim did or otherwise they would appear at best as well meaning but essentially exotic eccentrics as the Lama, or otherwise as dangerous criminals as all the opponent of British rule appeared in the film. The movie is really fun if you are a young westerner or someone who in latter life still retained this outlook but I suppose the same prerequisites apply to all Kipling's work- original or subject to adaptation.

When KIM came out (1950) I was 10 years old. I was fascinated with the intrigue of a boy like me getting involved in a spy situation. Dean Stockwell was 12 or 13 at the time. The film stuck so close to me over the years that I wrote about it later in high school and remember it well to this day some 54 years later.

Yes, there is action but not the usual, now-a-days blood-and-guts for two hours. In between the chilling scenes were the spy intrigues of the British trying to hold on to their empire. It was easy to tell the good guys from the bad. I admired the skill of Stockwell then and still do. His career has spanned nearly 60 years now.

Watch KIM -- again and again. I still get something new every time I see it.

A faithful rendering of Kipling's exciting tale, together with fine production values and an all-star cast, makes for great entertainment for young and old.

I remember being read Kipling as a young boy, and while the animated Disney bowdlerization of the Jungle Book is unwatchable for anyone who knows the book, this rendering of Kipling's other great adventure is in a class with other great "exotic" tales like The Four Feathers and King Solomon's Mines.

While some may fault the rather unconvincing casting of an over-the-hill Flynn, as a dashing thief, and Paul Lucas as an aging lama, these great professionals soon overcome that liability and assume their characters successfully. Stockwell credits Flynn for "opening the door" to manhood, something Flynn's character did For Kim.

Dean Stockwell was at his peak as a child star. His impishness, as a white boy gone native, anticipates his screen persona after a successful transition to adult roles.

Imagine a young boy (in a non politically correct era) being read or watching Kim just before bedtime. What dreams he'll have!

By the way, while parts of the film were made on a sound stage or back lot - like all films with decent sound - much of it was shot on location - in India.

I watched this film on Turner Classics as I had been entranced by it as a child, and wanted to see how it stood up to today's expectations. I was very pleasantly surprised to see that it was a rolicking good adventure yarn, that would be an ideal film for the family to watch together after a holiday dinner. As I had a tape of the TV version, with Peter O'Tool as the Llama, I was able to compare the two, which is why I felt that the 1950 version has worn well.

The colour is excellent, the acting is very good, and the locations shots in India lend a great deal of authenticity to the production. I realise that many of today's audience will find the lack of sex and violence make for a tedious film, but it is precisely the lack of obvious sex and violence, it is implied rather than overt, which makes for a good family film. In fact it was a relief to see a film that did not include the obligatory chase and fisticuffs that we have seen in every film and TV series in the last 50 years.