MARIO GAUCI It is very odd that this prestigious 1949 Technicolor production should emanate from Britain – dealing as it does with the Italian explorer who discovered America, a nation which had to fight the very British monarchy to attain its independence! Perhaps it was bankrolled as a token of appreciation towards the U.S. for having joined the Allied Forces in WWII; if so, I cannot say that it was particularly appreciated at the time as it was a resounding box-office flop. In fact the film is often dismissed as a tedious costumer but, while no classic for sure, I found it to be a well-crafted and engrossing picture buoyed by a good cast and fine production values.Since Columbus was 41 when he set sail for The New World, the casting of 52-year old Fredric March to portray him here may seem to have been a strange choice; indeed he is fitted with a most unbecoming white-haired wig for the film's entire duration but one cannot deny the fact that he gives the role his utmost in stature and dignity – after all, Columbus was firstly an inspired cartographer then a swaggering adventurer. Indeed, March's real-life wife Florence Eldridge is also present here as Queen Isabella of Spain who, after the initial but long-winded skepticism, lends a sympathetic ear to Columbus' pleas for funding his exploratory marine enterprise (though what ultimately propels this is pure movie fabrication!). The rest of the cast list is peppered with familiar faces from post-WWII British cinema: Francis L. Sullivan and Linden Travers (as Columbus' major opponent in the Spanish court and his attractive scandalous cousin who tries to ensnare the former); Derek Bond and Niall McGinnis (as Columbus' companion and navigator – his major allies during his tumultuous sea voyage); Felix Aylmer and Abraham Sofaer (as the Queen's former confessor and Chancellor – Columbus' first champions who were instrumental in obtaining him royal favour); James Robertson Justice and Edward Rigby (as the ambitious and ultimately treacherous Captain Pinzon and a perennially grumpy mutineering sailor).Needless to say, the producers' aim here was less to instruct than to entertain and, as such it may seem surprising today to find that half of the film's relatively trim 104-minute length is spent in court intrigues that dissipate Columbus' energy but not his spirit. The initial sea voyage that almost ended in mutiny and failure takes up the next quarter of the film while the arrival on land, the meeting with and subsequent colonization of the natives, Columbus' first triumphant return to Spain and his disgraceful second one in chains (at the behest of incoming governor Sullivan) and eventual disillusionment and abandonment by the Spanish crown are crammed into the last quarter of an hour! Although the TCM-sourced print (which cut off rather too abruptly during the end credits!) I watched was hardly pristine, with the colour looking especially insipid, I still managed to enjoy Stephen Dade's cinematography and Arthur Bliss' rousing score.For the record, this is the fifth movie about the Italian explorer I have gotten under my belt, following the star-studded eponymous 1985 partly-shot-in-Malta Italian TV mini-series and the 3 disparate but simultaneous cinematic renditions made in time for the 500th anniversary of the historical event: George Pan Cosmatos' CHRISTOPER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY (also partly shot on our shores), Ridley Scott's 1492: THE CONQUEST OF PARADISE and the spoof CARRY ON COLUMBUS (a one-off revival of the popular comedy franchise). Apparently, Anthony Dexter also played him in Irwin Allen's infamous historical charade THE STORY OF MANKIND (1957) and I also have a four-part Italian TV mini-series from 1968 directed by Vittorio Cottafavi and starring Spanish actor Francisco Rabal in my unwatched pile.

MartinHafer As a history teacher, I generally avoid film depictions of Christopher Columbus because they bear little similarity to real life. The biggest problem is that although he became famous, little is actually known about the man--especially before his famed voyages to the New World. So, much of the 'fact' in the film is fiction. In addition, the films also perpetuate myth--stories often retold so many times people just assume it to be true. THe sad fact is that we have no idea what he looked like and aren't even positive about where he was born. When the film begins, it says that during Columbus' time people assumed the world was flat--something practically no sane person at the time thought! They could see that the Earth had a curved horizon and the reason few traveled across the Atlantic had to do with a previous lack of navigational tools as well as it being completely unknown. People just did NOT think they'd fall off the world--a myth perpetuated by a mostly fictional history book by Washington Irving that purported to be a biography of the man.Today we are in an age of deconstruction of Columbus. Whereas in 1949, he was practically depicted as super-human, today he's seen as a genocidal maniac. Neither depiction is quite correct. There is a lot to admire as well as dislike about the man--and it's a darn shame that no film I know of even tries to give a balanced account of what we know about this skilled sailor.So why, then, did I watch this film? Well, I like Frederic March and think he's a bit underrated as an actor. Even a second-rate film (which this clearly is) with March is worth watching. There are some nice qualities about the film--the costumes and sets are reasonably accurate. As for the acting, it is a bit stilted and dull. Perhaps they talked this way back then, I am no expert on this, but the people seemed a bit too constricted and formal throughout. There were a few exceptions--the jolly fat guy was pretty cool. But even with a few decent performances, nothing can change the fact that the film is wildly inaccurate and rather dull. Plus, it perpetuates the idea that Columbus discovered America--omitting the fact that natives had discovered it first and the Vikings had been there several centuries earlier. Of course, there are several other possible expeditions that MIGHT have made it there before Columbus as well, but there just isn't enough space here to discuss the recent Chinese claim or other ideas that most likely will never be proved.By the way, the print shown on Turner Classic Movies is strongly sepia-toned. I am not sure if this was intentional--it might just need restoration!

bkoganbing I'm not sure what compelled Fredric March and Florence Eldridge to do this British film for J. Arthur Rank based on the life of Christopher Columbus. Or at least an interpretation of that life as come down in popular culture. It didn't add much to either of their reputations, but I suppose did no harm.March is in the title role of the intrepid Genoese sea captain who is credited with the discovery of America. By America of course we mean the western hemisphere and not the USA. Columbus never did make it in any of his four voyages to the lower 48. One thing that is a weakness of this film for American audiences is that this it is not made clear that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were joint rulers, she was not just a consort Queen. Earlier in Spanish history, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile married and that marriage unified Spain as a nation. But both were monarchs in their own right. It's clear to me, but I fear not to others as to why Florence Eldridge as Queen Isabella can in fact act independently as she does. Francis L. Sullivan is Count Bobadilla who became Columbus's enemy at court and he plays it in the grand and florid Sullivan manner. He's always a joy to watch in any film, no matter how good or bad it is.The greatness of Columbus lies in two things, the fact that he had an idea about sailing west in an effort to find a shorter route for trade with the Orient. He was in fact, wrong as you can be on that score. He based his calculations on the fact that he thought the earth much smaller than it really was. But he persisted and eventually sold the notion to the Castilian Queen.Secondly though, whatever else he was, Columbus was one incredibly good sea captain. In a voyage into unknown territory he kept his crew together for about two months until land was sighted in what is now the Bahamas. The film itself has quite a few dry patches. It's dull retelling of an exciting adventure. For their time, the special effects are good, but are pretty dated now. It's obvious the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria are all models in a tank.A couple of films were done in time for the 500 anniversary of the first voyage that were more accurate in the detail. You probably are better off seeing either of them.

calvertfan Being an Aussie, I don't know the story of Christopher Columbus in much detail, so I was able to enjoy this movie as a Fredric March fan first and foremost. Just one question - were the natives *really* that accommodating? Definitely an engaging tale, and not all set on the high seas. The first half hour or so, in the Queen's court, had some of the best scenes, though the ending fell flat and just kinda "happened". All up - a jolly good show!