GeoPierpont I read Melville's novel in High School and recall being extremely affected by the comparison of evil vs innocence as one and the same menace. After watching the film adaptation, I have even stronger feelings of the incompetent writing which may or may not be Melville's. With only one witness to the death of the 'Evil Grinch', and a committee very willing to corroborate evidence and a 'Get Out of Jail Card', how does the Law and Justice speech make any sense? The Captain leaves it solely to the 'Man from Uncle' to justify bending the rules, but the entire film does just that, beginning to end. How can you support such weak characters when there were limited repercussions to the acquittal vs high mutiny potential?Of course this alternate version of Karma and dying for someone else's sins may have a corollary or two in literature, but the figures just don't add up. First, this lovely lad was not trying to take over the ship, judge or insult anyone, or scare them into fear mongering morons. When really bad things happen to extremely good people you can only empathize with the scenario in a non-fiction setting. Otherwise, the constant sadistic behavior rewarded in the end is most annoying and irrational. Rate Melville as a rank amateur if you will, but decidedly not a Spielberg emotionally manipulating hack.I had to prepare a report on this book so long ago and I asked my sweet boyfriend to write it for me while I attended to other higher priority projects. I got into a lot of hot water for that stint as he just copied the Cliff notes. I sadly lost an opportunity to express many personal observations that I experienced several times in my life. Apologies, mostly to myself.High recommend for Terrence Stamp's enduring portrayal of love, trust, forgiveness, and joie de vivre.

bkoganbing This adaption of Herman Melville's unpublished novella served to introduce Terrence Stamp to the movie-going public in his breakout part in the title role. It's one of the great portrayals of innocence in a cruel world on the big screen. And it's also one of the great portrayals of unsatisfied homosexual desire in the person of Billy Budd's great adversary, Master-At-Arms John Claggett as played by Robert Ryan.Melville as a New Englander knew full well about English impressment of seaman. And in 1797 after the mutinies in the fleet at Spithead they were needing sailors worse than ever. The Royal Navy had no compunction about taking seaman from their own civilian merchant ships as well as American ones. A press gang comes aboard the merchant ship and takes young Billy Budd of striking looks and undetermined origin for service in His Majesty's Navy.On board the British warship, Stamp's happy go lucky attitude makes friends among the crew, but arouses the enmity of Ryan who just has it in for him from day one. He's a cruel and sadistic sort in any event, but Stamp arouses something special in him and the word arouse can have several meanings in this context.I don't want to give too much away, but if one is familiar with Herman Melville's slightly better known work of Moby Dick you will find certain parallels. The great white whale that everyone is conscious of is the French enemy and their fleet. When they attack the problems of the ship and its discipline seem petty indeed.Between the two poles of good (Stamp) and evil (Ryan) is the captain Peter Ustinov and the rest of the crew. From Ustinov on down they watch the drama played out between Stamp and Ryan, knowing who was in the right, but also knowing what the rules, in this case the Articles of War call for.Terrence Stamp in his second film and in the title role got an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor, the only nomination the film received. He lost to Ed Begley for Sweet Bird Of Youth. But his performance wouldn't be possible without the excellent and unrecognized one of Robert Ryan. The two play off each other so well.The story of Billy Budd lay undiscovered after Melville's death in 1891 until 1924. It's been made both a play and an opera, but this film version is a most satisfying piece of cinema.

T Y As far as I can tell, whatever themes are professed to be inside any and all nineteenth century seafaring adventures, they're really just about styles of leadership. The nautical adventure always devovles into some nasty, neurotic hardass envying some younger more attractive, more mild and likable sailor and a battle of wills follow (See Master & Commander, Mutiny on the Bounty, Moby Dick, Mr Roberts). Some authority figure always turns out to be a sadist. Ahab, Bligh (and more generally in nineteenth century fiction; Soubeyran, Squeers, Javert) and here Claggert (played by Robert Ryan). Their villainy is signified by their sneering smiles, their craggy faces, their peg-legs, and their bottomless cruelty. Audiences then mentally substitute previous bosses, bad parents, the jerk cop who pulled you over last weekend as the nasty abuser. The merits are rather slight.The argument, that no one seems able to come up with, for not hanging Billy is that the brass will lose the faith of the crew. The point is made by the films own obvious and acceptable dramatic conclusion (which is followed by a cheap bait and switch distraction).

PWNYCNY When Hollywood attempts to tackle complex issues such as ethics or morality, then look out! Journey with caution. Remember, it's Hollywood, where the bottom line ultimately dictates quality. Yet this movie manages address deeper, more profound issues without sacrificing quality. The black and white cinematography was excellent. The performances were superb, especially Robert Ryan's and Peter Ustinov's. Issues were candidly discussed. The conflict between morality and duty, the issue of life an death, the question of justice versus injustice are presented with clarity. The movie gives a negative and disturbing portrayal of late 18th century life in the British navy, especially its apparent policy of inflicting wanton and arbitrary punishment by an uncaring and abusive officials who have to compel the crew to perform through threats. This is a period of history that perhaps requires further discussion.