|
Fatal
Flaws in the 'Four Feathers'
When
I heard that there was a new film out on Sudan, The Four
Feathers, being set as it was in the dramatic time of the
British Expeditiary Force of 1884 to 1885 when General Charles
Gordon was being besieged in Khartoum, I was most eager
to see it.
I've travelled and ministered throughout Sudan, and have
intensively researched the history of Sudan, writing extensively
on it. There most certainly is a great need for films to
be made of this dramatic and vital period of history. A
tremendous amount of heroism was displayed by British forces
in the Sudan as the film so effectively shows.
However, despite many positive features of this spectacular
redemptive film, I was most disappointed at The Four Feathers.
The film had much promise, it presented a powerful, personal
drama and romance story, but it was fatally flawed by missing
the main point of the military expedition. The central focus
of the film is that there was no reason for the British
forces to go to what the lead character, Harry, calls "a
God-forsaken desert," except for "her majesty
the Queen" and for the
glory and honour of the Empire.
That is just not true. Far from being "God-forsaken",
Sudan has the oldest community of Christians in Africa,
dating all the way back to AD37 and Acts chapter 8. For
a thousand years, Christianity was the majority religion
of Northern Sudan. For nine centuries these Christians of
the Kingdoms of Nubia, Alwa, and Dotawa, resisted the Southward
expansion of Islam, defeating the Muslim armies and sending
them retreating back to Egypt. There are numerous Scriptures
(Isaiah 18, Psalm 68:31, Zephaniah 3:10, etc.) which confirm
that God has a plan for Sudan. It is most certainly not
"God-forsaken"!
General Charles Gordon, the Governor-General of Sudan, was
a dedicated evangelical Christian who had gone to Sudan
to eradicate the slave trade. After succeeding in setting
many slaves free and eradicating the slave trade, he was
faced with a great rebellion by Muslim slave traders, led
by the Mahdi.
The Four Feathers suggests that the British forces went
to Sudan for "the Empire." However, Sudan never
was part of the British Empire. Sudan later became a British
protectorate. The primary reason for British involvement
in the Sudan was to eradicate the slave trade there. The
capital city, Khartoum, was built upon the twin evils of
the slavery and ivory trade. By the time General Gordon
went to Sudan, seven out of every eight Black people in
Sudan were slaves. The Nile River was being used as a highway
of slavery. Villages throughout Equatoria were being pillaged
by slave raiders and since William Wilberforce had ldd the
British Parliament to outlawing the slave trade, the British
government had dedicated their Navy and military to the
eradicating of the slave trade worldwide.
The British Military expedition to the Sudan in 1884 was
to relieve General Charles Gordon, who was trapped in Khartoum
on a mission to end the slave trade in Sudan. However, The
Four Feathers makes no mention of the Islamic slave trade
or of the primary British objective of the establishment
of justice and freedom for the Sudanese.
The film does portray the tremendous public enthusiasm and
support for the relief column, but does not explain that
this came from the overwhelming evangelical support for
the anti-slavery work of General Charles Gordon.
Another fatal flaw of The Four Feathers is how they depicted
the British victory at Abu Klea as a British defeat. The
Battle of Abu Klea, on 17 January 1885, was an overwhelming
victory for the British. A small British relief column,
made up largely of the Camel Corp, smashed the Mahdi's force
of 10 000 Dervishes.
There was also no garrison of British forces wiped out.
The only two British soldiers in Sudan were General Charles
Gordon and his adjutant, Colonel Stewart. They were commanding
Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers.
Nor was the Officer Commanding the British Camel Corp killed
in action at Abu Klea. Nor did the British forces flee.
If they did, they would have been completely annihilated.
Vastly outnumbered, far behind enemy lines, facing a numerically
overwhelming enemy, sounding the retreat was not an option,
nor was it considered.
In fact, no British regiment was ever wiped out in Sudan.
(Could the film makers have confused Abu Klea with the Battle
of Isandlwana in South Africa (1879) where the Zulus wiped
out a British regiment who stood firm and fought to the
last man? Zulu Dawn depicts this battle). Nor is there any
record of the Mahdi's dervishes putting on British uniforms,
either at the Battle of Abu Klea or anywhere else, nor would
it have deceived the Camel Corp at Abu Klea, as they knew
that they were the only British forces in the entire region.
It
was also most strange that The Four Feathers would depict
the Black Sudanese hero, Abou, who assisted Harry as a Muslim!
If he was a Muslim, why did he oppose the Mahdi? It is outrageous
that The Four Feathers found it impossible to portray the
dynamic Christian faith of the Black Christians in Sudan,
and chose rather to restrict religious devotion only to
the Muslims. The Evangelical fervour of the British soldiers
of that time is also ignored.
The Four Feathers effectively portrays the severe dangers
in Sudan at that time, and the courage and dedication of
many of the British forces there. However, it is not credible
to me that Harry could pass off as an Arab, especially in
appearance and language. It is also highly unlikely that
a mere Lieutenant would be sent back to Britain for a public
relations meeting during the expedition. Nor that he would
leave the sniper's rifle on the ground in the market place
and simply walk away. Also, the British army separated the
camel forces from the cavalry on horseback and from the
infantry. They also wore different uniforms. Yet, the central
characters seemed to vary from riding camels to riding on
horseback to commanding infantry. This would not be possible.
There was also absolutely no warning before the assault
on the British forces at Abu Klea, it was a complete surprise
attack. Yet
it was completely repelled by the vigilant British forces.
(The Battle of Abu Klea was more accurately portrayed in
Charlton Heston's film Khartoum).
The Four Feathers had much promise, but it is fatally flawed
by missing the main point of the British expedition and
by portraying a major British victory as a total defeat.
The film is wrong, not in peripheral areas, but in the central
focus and facts.
When I was doing the research for my book Faith Under Fire
in Sudan, which also focuses on General Charles Gordon,
his eradication of the slave trade and war with the Mahdi,
I was most impressed by the dynamic Christian faith of so
many Black Christians in Sudan. I think it is most
sad that this Hollywood production ignores the courage and
resilience of these Black Christians, and chooses instead
to portray one of their victims as a Muslim himself. This
is a distortion of both the history and the present reality
of Sudan - where Christians continue to fight, an island
of Christianity is a sea of Islam, fighting for survival
and for their faith.
Faith Under Fire in Sudan is available from Christian
Liberty Books (or in the USA from ITMI) at $10 a copy
(240 pages with 140 photographs and 7 maps)
For
film reviews from a Christian perspective subscribe to Movieguide
2510-G Las Pasos Rd, CAMARILLO, CA. 93010 USA
Dr. Peter Hammond
Frontline Fellowship
P.O. Box 74, Newlands, 7725
Cape Town, South Africa
Tel: +27-21-689-4480; Fax: +27-21-685-5884;
Web: www.frontline.org.za
top
|
