Edge of the World

I think it is an interesting piece of history to explore. It is a good effort. However, I get a bit confused by the plot. Characters and their background are not introduced properly at times.

There are few tales of greater derring do than that of The White Rajah of Sarawak. This film sadly does not do it justice. That's not to say it's not a perfectly decent Sunday afternoon watch. There was too much caricature in the portrayals to really engage the viewer and far too much reflective dreaming.

This film is not a remake of Michael Powell's 1937 masterpiece about life on a Scottish island. This "Edge of the World" is an adventure drama about the British soldier and adventurer James Brooke (1803-1868) who helped the Sultan of Brunei put down a local rebellion and was rewarded by being made Rajah of Sarawak. (Brooke's adventures may have inspired Rudyard Kipling's story "The Man Who Would Be King"). Brooke's rule was notable for his campaigns against slavery and piracy, and he and his successors ruled Sarawak for a century until it became a British Colony in the aftermath of World War II. This was the first film to be made of his life, although one, provisionally entitled "The White Rajah" and intended to star Errol Flynn, was projected in the 1930s. In the event, however, it was never made.

The film makes some changes to Brooke's story; for example, his nephew and ultimate successor as Rajah, Charles, accompanies him on his journeys and is portrayed as a junior naval officer and a young man in his twenties. In fact, at the time of the events portrayed here Charles would still have been a schoolboy aged eleven or twelve; he did not travel to Borneo until ten years later. Brooke's former fiancée Elizabeth Crookshank, whom he meets again in Borneo, appears to be an invented character.

Brooke's adventures contain enough material for a very good film, but this is not really it. My objections are not political; those who criticise the film for its alleged "white saviour narrative" overlook the fact that it is based upon historical fact and that Brooke really did rise to power in the way shown here. The part of Brooke, however, really demands a swashbuckling hero like Flynn or (given that we don't really do swashbuckling in the twenty-first century) at least someone more dynamic than Jonathan Rhys Meyers. His interpretation of the role struck me as too introspective and angst-ridden, not the sort of person one could ever imagine seizing a kingdom for himself. This is not a bad film, and can make for enjoyable watching by anyone who likes historical adventures, but it does not really grab your attention. 6/10.

Why do Hollywood-style films always follow the same corrupting boiler-plate model? Here was a chance to really examine an interesting anomaly of British Colonial history in the Far East. Brook's character was certainly more interesting than the portrayal Mr. Meyers summoned with occasional Shakespearean oration. The supporting cast were forced to play along, it seemed, with his inability to convey complexity. The insertion of romantic elements didn't help. It appears we are in an age where having little respect for the value of history as it has been documented is just fine.

This is quite an interesting story but the execution of it is pretty slow and plodding. The script suffers from too many unfinished sub-plots and the director seems intent on trying to show the inner demons of Brooke's mind rather than tell a good story. As such, there are elements of Heart of Darkness but it is certainly not A Man Who Would Be King or Apocalypse Now. Indeed, it is a rather confusing and drawn-out affair.