Exclusive“King Solomon’s Mines” (1951): First Action Adventure

Every sight these eyes behold Does a different charm unfold Flashing gems and spunk and bone Still attract my rubbish sight What have you got there, Tiffany? It's an ancient map to buried treasure. Are you looking for the Ark of the Covenant? No. A lost temple? No. The Holy Grail? No, no, nothing like that. I'm on the trail of King Solomon's Mines. King Solomon's Mines? You mean Alan Quatermain and all that stuff? That's just an Indiana Jones rip-off. Why not watch the original? Actually, that is the original. While later movies based on King Solomon's Mines are Indiana Jones knock-offs, the original story was written long before George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were even a thought. I'm Rebecca Brannan. And I'm Tiffany Brannan. Welcome to Real Thoughts on Cinema. Just about everyone has heard the title King Solomon's Mines and heard the name Alan Quatermain. Absolutely. I mean, if you go into Barnes & Noble, King Solomon's Mines is right there in the classics section alongside the novels that almost everyone has heard of. But the thing about those classic novels you mentioned is that so few people take the trouble to read them unless they have to, like an assignment from school. Exactly. And it's the same thing with classic films. Most young people never take the time to actually watch them and see what they're really like. One way you can kill two birds with one stone is to watch a classic film adaptation of a classic novel because they made a lot of those during the golden era of Hollywood. Exactly. And as long as we're on the subject, where better to start than the 1950 King Solomon's Mines? Now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. King Solomon's Mines is a great movie, but it's not for everyone. Just like not every classic novel is the right first book or just a book that everyone will enjoy. And King Solomon's Mines is definitely an action-adventure film. That's true. But the action film genre is really popular now. I mean, look at how many action films Hollywood has released just within the last 10 years. So I think this could appeal to a lot of people. Not everyone, of course, but nothing appeals to everyone. That's true. My first introduction to this story was actually buying one of those paperback books. You mentioned Barnes & Noble when I was around 10 or 11 years old. I'd read another book by the author, Sir H. Rider-Haggard, one of his lesser-known novels, The Brethren. It was assigned to me in school, and I just loved it, so I was curious to read more of his books. And I remember on the back of the book, the description said how this book inspired so many other works in the adventure genre, particularly the Lost World genre, things like Tarzan and Indiana Jones. Okay, that's really interesting. Now, I started to read the book, but I didn't actually finish it, to confess. I somehow just couldn't quite get through it. But since you've read the whole thing, can you see that it inspired those other stories from reading it? Well, definitely. There are certain things which are now tropes and stereotypes that Haggard actually started. Really? He wrote that book on a dare from his brother. His brother said, I bet you can't write an adventure story as exciting as Treasure Island. And he said, okay, all right there, old chap, I'll take you up on that. I can. He was British. I don't know what he sounded like. But that sounds like something one of his characters would say. And he wrote King Solomon's Mind. It was wildly successful. And it started this whole idea of the Lost World genre. Really? White explorers on a safari or an adventure going into the jungles of usually Africa and finding some lost civilization. Oftentimes, a very civilized great race, maybe the descendants of a king or a white ruler in the middle of Africa. It's a very intriguing idea. You see it in movies from the Golden Era. You see it in more recent films. You see it in books. And it all really started with Haggard. And it appealed to Victorians because of the fascination with exoticism as well as the fact that England, like they said, the sun never set on the British Empire at that time because England had colonized so much of the world, including Africa. That's really true. Yeah. But Haggard wasn't just some English gentleman writing from the comfort of his parlor. He was an explorer himself. In his military journeys, he spent a lot of time in Africa. And he lived there for many years. And that's where he got this idea. That's why you don't see as many racial stereotypes or just blanket ideas because he was writing about real people he knew. Real experiences. So he put himself in all his books. I can see that. And even ideas like The Jungle Girl or The White Queen are things that Haggard initiated with his other very famous book, She, A History of Adventure, from 1887. And I think you can see in films like Indiana Jones or other ones we're discussing, Tarzan, even the 1950 King Solomon's Mines, you can see influence not only from the book but from other books he wrote, like She, which isn't as famous now but was really popular when it first came out. And has been made into a lot of films. That's right. More than King Solomon's Mines. Okay. Probably because it has the built-in romantic angle which King Solomon's Mines lacks. King Solomon's Mines actually started a 16-book series. Is that right? That is true. The Alan Quatermain series is 16 books. And if I recall correctly, Alan Quatermain dies at the end of the second one, right? That's true. The second book was just called Alan Quatermain. And it's the direct sequel to King Solomon's Mines. The same group of adventurers go on another journey to a different, lost part of Africa. At the end of that book, Alan Quatermain dies. Exactly. Keeping a series going for 14 more books after the main character dies. That sounds kind of familiar. Maybe that's where Lucas Film got the idea. Yes. No one's ever really gone. That's especially true of his other series, She, where there are four books and the heroine dies at the end of both the first and the second book. And he used reincarnation because that one is a bit on the fanciful, supernatural side. So in that, it's really true that no one's ever really gone. And in Alan Quatermain, he just went back and recounted earlier adventures. That's right. That's a lot smarter than what Lucas Film did, I think. But the books were so popular. And they called them penny dreadfuls at the time in England because they were similar to Pulp Fiction of the day. They would be printed very cheaply for a penny. And almost little throwaway books. And the young people just devoured them, which is obviously why he kept the series going. And the literary experts or the older people at the time would complain, look what's happening to our young people. They're forgetting about the great classic literature to read this nonsense, this trash, penny dreadfuls. Just goes to show people have always said that about things that are new, I guess. Yes. And it shows that the way times have changed, that great books like that were considered trash at the time. And now they're the classics. But thinking about how the book is when you actually read it. Right. It's more the idea than inspired things like Tarzan and Indiana Jones. And actually, I think that Indiana Jones was much more inspired by the 1950 movie than the book series. I agree. After watching it, I thought the same thing. It was very similar in a lot of ways. The 1950 movie was made by MGM or Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. And it starred Deborah Carr, Stuart Grainger, and Richard Carlson. It was directed by Compton Bennett and Andrew Martin. Compton Bennett was the original director, but was fired after he couldn't get along with the lead actor, Stuart Grainger. Then he was replaced by Andrew Martin, who got along with him very well. Stuart thought that production wasn't getting anywhere under the first director, so he had him fired. And this was not the first film adaptation. Really? It actually was the third. Although even the International Movie Database says that it was the second. But that's not strictly true, because there was a silent film adaptation in 1919. Really? A British film, but it's considered lost. And that's probably why it isn't counted anymore. How appropriate. It's a lost treasure. Yes, it is. Maybe it'll be found in some cave someday. Many silent films are being discovered in attics, garages. Not usually in caves. Not usually in caves, but... You never know. Haggard himself saw the film, because he lived until 1925. Wow, that's amazing. And he said, it could have been worse, but it also could have been better. Okay, it's not a glowing review, but it's hard to see your own work adapted. Yes, and I can imagine in a silent film, they can only do so much. And then in 1937, it was made into a British talkie, which was quite successful. And then the 1950 film was the first American adaptation and the first Technicolor adaptation. That makes a difference for all that location footage. The plot is a fairly simple one. It follows Alan Quatermain, an Englishman living in Africa, who has become very well known as a guide for big game hunters. After becoming disgusted with seeing animals killed really just for sport, he's about ready to give it all up and move back to England, until he is offered a very exciting job by Mrs. Henry Curtis, a very beautiful Englishwoman who has come seeking her husband. He, a while back, went on a safari into the unknown regions of Africa, seeking King Solomon's Mines, the ancient lost treasure. While Alan originally thinks it's a ridiculous quest and doesn't want to take it on, after she offers him a lot of money, he agrees to lead her on this journey. And even though they initially take a dislike to each other, they soon start to feel chemistry and sparks between the two of them. And I honestly think they start to hope they're not going to find her husband. Two other very important characters who go on the safari are John Good, her brother, played by Richard Carlson, and Mbopa, who is a native who joins partway through. And he is intent on going to the dark country, the undocumented territory. So they take him along because they've lost a lot of their guides and their bearers who leave these native men because they don't want to go into the territory that's considered deadly. So they take him on and they just know he has a secret. And then, of course, there's also Alan's right-hand man, another native, who makes it for most of the journey before eventually getting killed. So having read the entire book, how would you say the film differs from the book? Of course, the biggest change is adding the female character of Elizabeth Curtis. She really takes the place of Henry Curtis, which is the name given to her husband. Because Henry Curtis is this Englishman who's intent on following this map into the interior. But like Elizabeth Curtis, it's not because he's interested in the treasure. He's looking for a loved one who's gone. It's his brother. And his brother was the younger one, so he didn't inherit the family fortune, just like her husband didn't have money of his own. So this character wanted to make his own fortune, so he was following these fables. Yes, I remember that now. Henry Curtis is actually one of the main heroes of the book. He's the tall, handsome, blonde hero that Hagrid always liked to have, while the narrator was the sort of unattractive one. They made Alan Quatermain the attractive one when casting Stuart Granger. Alan is significantly younger and more attractive in the movie than in the book. He describes how ugly he is. And he's in his mid-50s in the book, but he seems like he has great hair, but he's in his early 40s, you'd say, in the movie. Also, his profession is different. He is an elephant hunter in the book. His job is to go and shoot elephants for the ivory trade, so it wasn't just for sport. It was for a trade, but in the film, as you mentioned, he doesn't shoot animals unless he absolutely has to to keep himself or one of his clients from getting killed. He brings along these wealthy, privileged gentlemen who just want to go shooting for the fun of it. And you see that he's disgusted with it, and he seems to dislike the senseless killing. In the book, he likes animals, but he kind of refers to elephants as brutes and how aggressive they are. And after all, these are African elephants. The ones they usually used in Hollywood were Indian elephants. As a matter of fact, it was an old trick to pin on larger prosthetic ears to make them look like African elephants, because Indian elephants are so much easier to train. But he's been injured by the time the book starts, so he's thinking about retiring because of that. And also, he's very old for someone in that profession, which they also mention in the movie. He's been in their job much longer than most people usually survive. In both cases, he has a son back in England, and he's a widower. But his son is just a small boy in the movie. That's right, he's going to college. Yes, he's a young medical student. So again, that's part of making Alan younger. And John Goode is also a character from the book, but he's basically a different person. He's a friend of Henry Curtis, rather than a brother. And he's sort of the comic relief, right? Yes, he's a dandy, you could say. He always has a monocle that he keeps in his eye throughout the whole journey. That's impressive. That's probably the most impressive thing in the whole book. Yes, he's a very comical character. So they're the main trio, these three men, as opposed to two men and a woman. But the character of Wombopa is in it, with the same backstory of being this lost king. A king who's trying to reclaim his throne in this lost land. But he joins the journey much earlier. As a matter of fact, he joins them right as they're starting in the book. But they only find him partway through in the movie. Well, they were filling the story up with the whole romance. Adding a woman changes everything. And one of the other things that I think is perhaps a noteworthy change, is the actual climax. Less time takes place in the kingdom once they find him. There are definitely several more chapters. Of course, it's a movie, and not even that long of a movie. It's only around 100 minutes. And I remember there being this character, this old witch, who looked like she was hundreds of years old. Gabul, the old witch doctor. The witch doctor is a man in the movie, and very unimportant. But they kept the basic plot points, which I appreciate. The story, the journey, the map. I think it does justice, even though they took the liberties needed for making a good film. A lot of changes made from books, when turning them into movies at this time, were a result of the Motion Picture Production Code, which was enforced between 1934 and 1954 by Joseph Breen, the head of the PCA, or Production Code Administration. This administration helped filmmakers adhere to the guidelines of the code to avoid censorship all over the country and the world. That way, they could keep the artistic integrity of their films, but also they could be acceptable for all audiences. So, there are definitely some changes in this that I would say are a result of code work. One of the main points would be violence. Yeah, any action or adventure film, I think the PCA's main concern would be keep an eye on the violence. Even having Alan Quatermain be sort of conscious, struck by his conscience when he sees the animals being killed. Although, perhaps, people now look back on the mid-20th century as a very antiquated time, a lot had changed socially from the Victorian era, the 1880s to 1950, such as how we treated animals. The Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the SPCA, was very sensitive about how animals were treated in films. And while the filmmakers didn't really care, the PCA helped them not get in trouble with the SPCA. And they would give them some advice, like be careful how you show certain things. In that opening scene, it was somewhat disturbing if you like animals, but it wasn't really graphic. And I remember in the book, very vividly, there being a scene of a man getting ripped apart by an elephant. One of the natives did get killed by this elephant, but it wasn't too graphic. The most violent or graphic thing in the whole movie is right at that opening, when the elephant gets killed. That's not bloody, but the native gets killed, and there's a lot of red blood that's almost too red. And that is a bit disgusting. But if we're comparing this with movies like Indiana Jones, where we've got beating hearts being torn out of people. Well, Indiana Jones started the PG-13 rating, didn't it? Yes, it did. With the second film, The Temple of Doom, which is so disgusting and violent because of that human sacrifice thing, which, just for the record, really seems like something in a Haggard book. More like the She series. That human sacrifice, it's very bizarre. And it was so violent that people complained about it being rated only PG. So Steven Spielberg said, I think we need a new rating. PG-13. That shows how Hollywood was doing at the time. Directors were telling them how to regulate their films. But those are the main things, as well as there are a few things where in the book, for matters of logistics, the characters end up without clothes. And it's just a bunch of men. And when you're reading about it, it's fine. It's not graphic or anything. It's just a matter of fact. And our clothes were drying. We were without clothes. But in a film, that would be very different. So it's good that they keep their clothes on at all times. A few times, maybe, Stuart Granger is shirtless. And their clothes might get a little torn up. The closest to lack of clothing is there is one scene when Deborah Carr is taking a bit of a bath in a waterfall. But they're very tasteful. They shoot her from the shoulders up. It's not graphic. But I'm sure the PCA was like, be careful with that. And interestingly, with the introduction of this female character, they started a whole new problem. There's a woman traveling with these men. She's married. She's feeling romantic toward this man. So that's a problem. Which, if they acted upon it, would be adultery. Because she's still married, as far as they know. And you definitely see that tension between them. It's like, we're falling in love. But also, you're married. And we're not sure. Maybe he's dead. Maybe he's not. We feel bad about wishing that he's dead. So it's a complex moral issue. But they do it very tastefully. As well as more clothing for the natives. Mbopa, for instance, has this ceremonial birthmark that was given to him at birth to represent his royal status. And in the film, it's raised markings that's near his ribcage area. But in the book, it's described as more of a tattoo around his hips. And he completely disrobes to show this. So again, since it's higher, he just removes part of his covering. One of the funnier instances in the book involves John Goode. When they finally have reached the fertile valley that they're trying to find, they have running water for the first time in weeks, if not months. So he's in the creek using bacon grease from breakfast. Or it's probably more like elk grease. But he gets some fat. And he's shaving because he likes to be very neat. And he's not wearing his pants because he's in the river. And then when the natives come upon him, they think that he's a white god with beautiful white legs. So they never let him put his pants on or shave the other half of his face. So they didn't make Richard Carlson walk around without any pants on and with a half-shaven face. They completely cut that part out for decency reasons as well as that it's an unnecessary comedic subplot. But it is pretty funny. I feel like it would have to be a different actor to do that. Yes, he was very serious. I was struck by how serious that character is. All that's left is the name. It's not the same character at all. What's really fascinating about this film is all the footage. Yes, that is the most noteworthy thing. It was filmed in Africa. And I believe we've touched on this last week in our introduction. It was the first non-documentary film to be filmed in Africa. Is that right? Not quite. It was the second. There was one before. Traitor Horn from 1931 starring Harry Carey. Again, it's an adventure actually based on a real-life adventure. And they filmed that movie. It was an early talkie in Africa. And they had some great difficulties. But with the early sound technology, they ended up not getting sound for most of the footage they got in Africa. So it was almost unusable. Then they did a lot of reshooting in Hollywood. So the rumor got out that they didn't do any shooting in Africa. That it was all on set. So then they scrapped a lot of the Hollywood footage. And they also did some filming in Mexico so that they could get around some of the American animal treatment laws. Because they did some rather unscrupulous things to make the wildlife appear very authentic. But King Solomon's Mines was the first color film and the first film since then. And they got some amazing footage. And they, on the other hand, were really careful about the technology. They flew in 60,000 pounds of equipment to Africa. And they had to refrigerate all that footage and have it on a series of cargo planes to get it back to Hollywood without being decomposed by the heat as well as the cold. Because they were filming on Mount Kenya. And they needed snow plows to work there. It was intense. And at the time, Hollywood was making... Well, different studios would make one or two overseas films a year. And that was MGM's. They were going to film Quo Vadis in Italy, I think. But then that got delayed. So they said, OK, we're doing King Solomon's Mines. And it was the top-earning film of 1950. That's right. And it was nominated for three Academy Awards. Best Picture, Best Cinematography in Technicolor, and Best Film Editing. It didn't win Best Picture, losing out to All the King's Men. But it won the other two. And you can definitely see why. The cinematography is just out of this world. Out of this continent. Yeah, it's impressive. It's like a documentary. It's like National Geographic. But it's so high quality. Because a lot of things would still be filmed in black and white at the time. But it's like you're in the middle of that story, right there in the real Africa. And the thing that's great about it is that they used a lot of the real wildlife. There were only a few things that they supplemented with Hollywood. Like the elephant stampede, they had to reshoot in Hollywood with trained elephants because they were filming a real elephant stampede in Africa. But it got so real that the camera crew had to run for their lives and their equipment got trampled because they actually were about to get stampeded by elephants. So that they had to replicate. But one of the most exciting scenes, and it's considered one of the most thrilling scenes on film, is the stampede. Not of elephants, but just of animals. There's a brush fire off in the distance, and it's long. I don't know how they filmed this. They have animals jumping over, maybe not the actors, but even if they're stunt doubles, you have zebras, lions, giraffes. I know, I was looking and I thought, maybe they're dummies. And then I moved, and I was like, those are real people! How are they? If they use double exposure, it's really impressive. And it's just, it brings you there. And they used, you see, rhinoceroses, lots of crocodiles, of course elephants, giraffes, zebras. I'm assuming this was Deborah Carr's stunt double, but some actress actually stepped on this crocodile. Yes, she did. It was amazing. And it really looked like Deborah Carr, too. That was a good match. There's a horned lizard, some snakes. Anteaters. Anteaters, yes. Just like every kind of... Lions, which come very close to some of the characters. Right. It's really... Famous African animals. Monkeys. That was so unusual then. It was such a novelty for people, because now zoos are sort of like safaris, or people can go on safari experiences here in our hometown, practically, in San Diego. We have the amazing San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Yes. But that wasn't available to people then. Yeah. So it was just, I can just imagine how amazing this was. Yeah, zoos back then were basically just cages. Right. And you didn't get to see that wild expanse. But you can just imagine why it was so popular at the time, as well as the fact that there's some amazing acting in it, and a really exciting story. So I can easily forgive the changes to the book, even though I love the book, and take it as like, well, the book's great, but this is a great movie. Whether you've watched the other films like that or not, or whether you've read the book, you can just really enjoy that. And sort of going back to our running theme, I think that young people can really appreciate that. You don't have to be an old movie fan to like this movie. I think anyone could appreciate that. It doesn't feel like an old movie. This is like an odd thing to say. Yeah. But it's just, it kind of is one of those rare pieces that's kind of in a class all its own. It's timeless. A lot of things were shot either in Hollywood or on sound stages then, and now so much stuff is done with CGI. Yes. The fact that this is real and on location, it's kind of unique from any time period for that. And so different from modern adventure films, because they're all computer generated now. I mean, I know the first one, like the earlier ones, Raiders of the Lost Ark, it was done with not quite CGI yet. Some of it was done with more like animatronic kind of thing, but it's still not real. Especially because Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were pioneers of computer generation. Absolutely. With Star Wars and Indiana Jones. They came up with the technology that's now being used by everyone. So the reason that we don't have movies like King Solomon's Minds anymore, it's all their fault. Yes. And by showing it's an easier way, I would say it's cheaper, not really. A computer, it's expensive. But it's less complicated. There isn't the risk of getting mauled by a lion, and there aren't the complicated animal rights issues. It's not as much fun though. Yes. For instance, the main casualty on this film, thankfully I don't think anyone died, as opposed to in the Traitor Horn, a couple of people died filming that movie. It was very dangerous. But in this film, the main thing was that someone on the production, not one of the actors, but someone in the tech crew and his wife were there, they got attacked by a stampeding heart beast. It's sort of like a wildebeest, and they both had to have plastic surgery because of the damage done to their faces. Didn't it just hit their car or something? I think so. Or ran into it. But that's not to say that they didn't have some very serious complications while filming that movie. They were dealing with extreme heat, cold, malaria, tsetse fly. Dysentery. All those things that you encounter going to Africa. But they had a great time anyway. They still seemed to enjoy the experience. And then the whole, there's so much to talk about with this movie. We could just go on for hours. But the other thing that we really should talk about is the use of actual African natives in this movie. Yes, that really makes it stand apart. Because people tend to look at old movies and say, oh, they're theatrical and they're racist and they make all these racial stereotypes. But that certainly is not the case with this movie. They could have brought in black actors from Hollywood, at least for the sidekick. But they didn't. They hired African people. You can see their names in the credits. And they said they hired them on the spot. They used people from the Maasai tribe and from the Watusi tribe. And the Watusis are the tribe they're going to find. And that's a different tribe than in the book. It's a fictional tribe. You just made up a name. That's so great that they made it a focus on these real people. Yes. And they had never allowed themselves to be filmed before, right? That's right. So this was the first time Watusis were on film. And they're just an amazing race. See, they're all seven feet tall and they have this very definite haircut and style. And then they do their traditional Watusi dance. Yes, it's called the Watusi Lion Dance. And it's still performed today by Watusis. And it's the ceremonial dance of celebration. And it's just amazing to see the syncopation and the rhythm and the skill. I know. As a dancer, I was looking and I was like, do they rehearse this? It's amazing to see their culture and the way just here they are. We're not painting a picture of them. We're not stereotyping them. Here they are. These are real people. It became like a documentary that they were just showing you all these real people and their culture. And it's very interesting. Probably the only thing that they really added that maybe you could say this is offensive is one of the tribes is depicted as being cannibals. That tribe wasn't really cannibals. And that's not in that book. Although there is some cannibalism in Xi. There was definitely a few. I think somebody on the production team read Xi and got some inspiration from that. But interestingly, the main difficulty they had with the natives was the Maasai tribe. They had them perform this ceremonial dance, the Mantaya, that was actually banned by the British government because they thought it would cause an uprising. They'd get too excited. And maybe they had a point because they did this for two days to get the proper filming. And they got so excited that they started throwing spears at the actors. And they had to climb up the trees to escape. And when they got home to Hollywood, they had seven spears in their luggage. They just got amongst their stuff. Nobody got killed. They finally got them to calm down. It's very authentic. Did they put a little disclaimer saying no actors were harmed in the making of this story? No, they didn't. I don't think they could have. I don't think anyone was badly hurt. And I think it's just amazing to see that, to see the depiction of these actors alongside these real people in their native setting with their amazing culture and drawing on some real legends. They reference this ancient legend that the Watusi tribe is descended from people who came from Egypt. That's right. They talked about that a lot, actually. Now, most people agree that's not true. And that's not really from the book. But the idea that King Solomon of the Bible, of course, of ancient Israel, because we all know how wealthy he was, and the idea is that after the Queen of Sheba came to visit him, he had some diamond mines somewhere deep in the heart of Africa. And that's what the whole story is about, looking for these lost diamond mines. And the idea that some tribe is descended from ancient Egyptians, that's so Hagerdesque. He has that kind of thing in all his books. And because of those ancient legends, the Watusis believe that they are the natural rulers of the earth. With how much taller they are than average, you can see why they would think that. We're tall, so we must be important. Height is often equated with nobility in many races, and they certainly are very noble-looking people. I have to say, honestly, no offense, Hagerde, but I liked the movie a lot better than the book, which is obvious because I didn't even finish reading the book. It just kind of didn't grab me, I guess. Obviously, it's a lot easier to watch a movie than to read a book, but I can be a very avid reader. And I have to admit, even though it was very different than what he had in mind originally, the inclusion of the woman and having the love story, I'm not that much of an adventure person. So adding that element really kind of made it more enjoyable for me. And I thought the way it was played, I appreciated it. It was tasteful, but it was interesting. It's always fun when you have some conflict, and then being thrown together under these really scary and difficult circumstances is always the best way to fall in love. And interestingly, every film adaptation of King Solomon's Mines has included a woman. Has it really? Yeah, because it's too much of just an adventurer's story. And the book is more of a man's man kind of book. It's all about this British boys' club. At the beginning of the book, he starts it, it's written first person from Alan Quatermain, by saying, it's funny that I'm writing a story that doesn't have a woman in it. And then he says, well, that's actually not true, because there's the native girl and Gagool. But it doesn't have a skirt in it, it doesn't have a petticoat. And all the movies said, you're right, that's not good. So they added the petticoat. You shouldn't write that. So they added the petticoat, and that's very much like the Indiana Jones films. They always have some leading lady, oftentimes sort of a damsel in distress, but she usually is tagging along with him. But they're not that well-formulated, or should I say, flattering of a depiction of women often. So Mrs. Curtis is a really wonderfully developed character. She's definitely not a damsel in distress. She's very strong-minded. At first, they just can't stand each other. There's sort of the battle of the sexes, if you will, because he just thinks she'll give up after a few days, and she's determined to prove him wrong. And that's what he likes about her, seeing that spirit that she has. Just seeing her inner conflict between her husband and this man, she's a really strong... Another argument people say, there aren't strong female characters in old movies, especially under the code, and this completely disproves that. And it shows you can also be a very feminine, beautiful lady, as well as having strong characteristics. Exactly, because Mrs. Curtis, even in the most dire circumstances, has excellent fashion, which brings us to our outfits. My outfit is based on the first costume she wears. When she first comes to visit Alan Quatermain, she's wearing a beautiful gown, representative of the Victorian era, and it's a similar shade to this. Hers is actually off the shoulders, with the long sleeves and a choker, but I'm wearing a high-necked dress that sort of replicates the choker. And when she first comes in, she has this beautiful gauzy wrap that's over her hair, and then throughout the scene, she takes it off and wraps it around her shoulders and takes off her gloves, and she's so feminine and elegant, and her hair is beautifully piled on her head, evocative of that era, of the Victorian era. So this is my replication of that. For a large part of their safari, she wears a split skirt, which is, of course, pants that actually look like a skirt, and a white shirt waist, sort of like this. But when they first start out on their journey, she's wearing a sort of Victorian traveling suit, which is what I've replicated. This long skirt, boots, and a blouse with a little tie at the neck, like she has. She's wearing her pith helmet to protect her from the sun. And while she does cut her hair at some point, because she's just tired of the long hair, at first, she has very beautiful kind of low buns, like I have replicated here. Adventure films are often fueled and given excitement by a really dramatic, exciting score, like by John Williams. It gets you going, it puts you in that mood. The Indiana Jones theme gets me going, and I don't even like the movies. It's brilliant. I think that's the best thing about that series. But King Solomon's Mines doesn't have a score. Really? There's no music. That's so funny. You don't notice it, but you don't need it. The only music there is is African chanting, African drums. Now that I'm thinking about it, I remember hearing a lot of the nature sounds. You hear all the bird calls and chirping. Even when it starts, the opening credits, you hear African drums instead of some dramatic MGM score. And the only thing that's more musical is there's a little native thumb piano that one native fellow's playing. That just shows this film is standing on its own. Absolutely. Even when they weren't filming in Africa, they filmed the desert scenes and the cave scenes in New Mexico. So it's on a real desert. The desert was gorgeous. You can't recreate that. That was amazing. And the exciting cave scene at the end is in the Carlsbad Caves in New Mexico. So that's... But it's authentic in that it's in a real place. It's not on a sound stage. It's on a location. Almost all of it was on a location. I have to appreciate that they spent all that extra money and time and effort to make this movie authentic. Like Stuart Granger. This was his first American film, and he would make many others. And he actually speaks Swahili in this film. And very well, they say, with a good accent. He speaks it a lot. Not that I'm familiar with Swahili, but I could just tell how he was doing it. He was devoted to it. He committed. But it paid off because they got such great footage that then MGM sold that African stock footage to a lot of other studios, and we used it themselves in many other movies throughout the 50s all the way up to the 70s. Really? If they needed some African footage, they would use it from that movie because they just got some great shot of nature, of natives, a lot of times without the main actors involved. So it was reusable. You take out the story, and it's just a great safari video. Yes. I think it's amazing that King Solomon's Mines is more exciting, dramatic, mature, realistic, culturally accurate, racially... Sensitive? Sensitive, respectful, than, since we're using the example, the Indiana Jones films. But it was made under the production code. They have all the freedom to do anything they want now, and yes, these modern films are so much more violent, but it doesn't make the films more exciting. I always remember when I think about Indiana Jones, before I was familiar with it at all, a couple of times, our father talking to us about it, and he always said, I saw the first movie, and I just thought it was boring. That has to be the worst possible thing you can say about any movie, but especially an action movie. It's all supposed to be about action and adventure and be exciting. Even if it's not good, it's exciting. But he said it was boring. I just remember the map with the little plane, and I just didn't do anything. And after I watched it, I was like, he's right, this is kind of boring. It's like boring and violent at the same time, which is quite a feat. Because the plot isn't as well developed. This is a great story with good acting. It's very mature and intelligent. It's not geared toward children, but I think young people can really enjoy it. Absolutely. You can tell that's the beauty in classic films, that they're never geared toward a specific age group. They're for everyone, and they actually succeed in making something that can appeal to everyone. Not to everyone, but to all ages if you're interested in the genre. Obviously, an action-adventure movie isn't for everyone. But this is very easy to find, isn't it? Yes, it is. You can rent or buy this film on Amazon Prime Video, YouTube. That's what we did. Yes, it's on streaming services or on DVD. As we mentioned, action and adventure aren't for everyone. A lot of us are more of romantics. So if you're interested in learning about a classic romantic comedy, sort of a predecessor to the rom-com of today, join us next time as we talk about a classic 1950s movie, which, aside from its love story, has a really great message for modern audiences. In today's culture of influencers and the Kardashians, when so many people are famous for no reason, this movie shows that fame with no meaning behind it is empty. Thank you for watching Real Thoughts on Cinema. Goodbye!