Master and Commander | The Most UNDERRATED Cinematic Masterpiece | Film Summary & Analysis

one of the most overlooked masterpieces of all time is master and commander the far side of the world the film was released in 2003 to a fair amount of acclaim it was nominated for 10 academy awards including best picture and best director it was no mere popcorn flick it was a work of art the problem is it came out the same year as another heavy hitter you may have heard of it the lord of the rings return of the king the conclusion to peter jackson's lord of the rings trilogy scooped up most of those oscars along with the crowd at the box office which is really quite understandable the lord of the rings trilogy was a massive accomplishment big budget flashy epic amazing set pieces and incredible music it accomplished something no one thought was possible and has proven to be one of the most iconic trilogies of all time master and commander on the other hand feels like a much smaller film most of it takes place on board a relatively small navy vessel in cramped cabins in close quarters and the plot basically revolves around a simple chase story the hms surprise is assigned the task of chasing down a french privateer during the napoleonic wars and spoiler alert this is what they do without too many deviations in the plot it's not nearly as epic or frankly as memeable as lord of the rings it's really no wonder that master and commander fell quickly out of the public eye but even if it is understandable that doesn't mean i have to be happy about it and i assure you i'm not happy about it because if we compare the two films judging them not on spectacle or size but solely on the merits of a good film i think there's an argument to be made that master and commander is the superior film even the academy thought that this was true at least in terms of the visuals of the film awarding master and commander the oscar for best cinematography i personally love the way this film is shot please ignore the aspect ratios that you may be seeing now back in the day they used to cut films down to fit square tvs for the dvd releases but in the original aspect ratio every shot is a masterpiece the camera angles the shot compositions the photography just blow lord of the rings out of the water anyone can snap a shot of mountains or massive armies and impress people but mastering commander's camera work is pure art if you're one of those every frame of painting people watch this film on mute just for the visuals it's like a dance a ballet of moving paintings on second thought it would be an absolute crime to mute this film because the academy also awarded it the best sound editing go now get your best headphones your best speakers and just soak in these sound effects [Music] oh the editing is positively symphonic each shot is cut together like perfectly placed notes each supporting the other to create a violent melody with adagios and allegros and staccatos and nowhere is this better displayed than in the battle scenes they are chaotic and disorienting when the crew is disoriented and they are orderly incomprehensible when putting the discipline of the british navy on display and always through every moment intense and the cuts of the film capture and convey the intensity of battle the climactic battle scene in particular is one of the grittiest grimiest most realistic battle scenes in any black powder war film watching it again recently my mind was blown it has to be one of the most well-shot hand-to-hand combat scenes of all time not to mention one of the most accurate and speaking of historical accuracy it's pretty much universally agreed that this film is one of the most historically accurate war films ever made not portraying actual events so much as capturing the actual facts of that period and capturing what it was like to live on a naval ship during the napoleonic wars nowhere is this more true than in the script anyone can put prop replicas into their movies but writing an authentic script is difficult requiring a really deep historical knowledge of the period understanding how people really spoke back then not only is that hard to do but it's also a risk to actually put that in your movie because if you have your sailors talk the way the sailors actually used to talk there's a risk that your modern audience might not understand a word that they are saying she's more like a ship of the lion a true dagger and a frigate you have to wonder about the nature of a hull our shots wouldn't penetrate triple shotted at 200 yards and our guns had no effect we have to wear the gauge in a clear advantage in fire this is one of the reasons why the lord of the rings films decided to scrap a lot of tolkien's writing even though it's some of the most beautiful writing in the english language they got rid of some of his more archaic difficult words in order to have dialogue the 10 year olds can understand but mastering commander doesn't cut those corners the first time you watch this film you probably have no idea what anyone is talking about half of the time the dialogue is a historical education in and of itself all of the actors step into their lines and rolls like perfectly fitting shoes i swear there's not a bad or cringey performance in the whole movie to a man the acting feels natural and authentic which again is no easy thing to pull off in a historical film it's not very easy for modern people to act naturally as english gentlemen officers or lowly abel seamen from 200 years ago yet everyone does fantastic in this movie never once does the acting feel fake or forced or exaggerated or cliched as it does like in the pirates of the caribbean films or again even in the lord of the rings while acting awards do tend to go to the most charismatic performances there is something to be said for performances that are subtle and true to life when it comes to writing a screenplay something that's more important than capturing the way people talked and carried themselves is capturing the way that people thought about the world back then and mastering commander does all of this when it comes down to what the film is really about thematically it's more than just a david and goliath war story of a chase on the high seas it's about the nature of power and the place of duty tradition the rule of law questions that were as poignant then during the age of empires and revolutions as they are now if not more so half an hour into the film we are given a kind of dinner scene with the officers of the hms surprise up until this point the film has spent its time establishing the world that we're in and the mission that we're going to go on it's a world of violence uncertainty exploding shards of wood ghastly onboard surgeries and there's only more to come but it's at this dinner scene where the screenwriters set out the themes that are going to play out for the rest of the film themes that are masked in period-specific banter at the head of the table we have captain lucky jack aubry he is what you might call a conservative figure he believes in authority duty tradition and reverence for great men and heroes this is evident in his story of lord nelson a british naval hero who would actually die the same year that the film takes place although at this point in the film he's still alive and all of the officers idolized lord nelson as a living legend a war hero a great leader someone they all kind of aspire to be someday the second time the second time he told me a story about how someone offered him a boat cloak on a cold night and he said no he didn't need it it was quite warm his zeal for king and country kept him warm i know it sounds absurd and worked from another man would cry out or what pitiful stuff and dismiss it as mere enthusiasm but with nelson you felt your heart glow lord nelson serves as this example of someone who has a fervent love for his country and everyone just kind of holds this ideal in awe everyone except for one man stephen matron the ship's doctor he's kind of the opposite of lucky jack in many respects we can infer throughout the film that he is a liberal anarchic revolutionary type he's all about questioning authority and he's definitely not a fan of lord nelson though he doesn't come right out and say it he settles for a kind of backhanded insult well then he would seem to be the exception to the rule that authority corrupts instead of getting defensive aubry tactfully defuses the situation with a joke i do which would you choose i would choose the right hand weevil it has significant advantage in both length and breadth there i have you you're completely dished do you not know that in the service one must always choose the lesser of two weavers [Music] they all move on having a good old time it may seem like a dumb joke but beneath the surface aubrey is telling steven look no one is perfect you have to choose the lesser of evils even if power corrupts it is necessary it may be evil but it is a lesser evil and with that the scene gives us two of the main themes that are going to play out for the rest of the film the corruption of power and choosing the lesser of evils both of these will become deadly serious for captain jack as the surprise continues the chase they pursue the french privateer around cape horn a notoriously dangerous locale famous for its harsh weather worried that his prey might escape him in the storm aubrey makes the risky decision to leave up more sail so as to travel faster but this also puts the ship at risk of being manhandled by the wind and this is exactly what happens realizing he has put the ship in danger aubrey orders the top sails to be taken down but in the process part of the mizen mast breaks off taking a crew member with it they try to pull the fallen man back into the ship but aubry is ultimately forced to cut the man loose because the wreckage on which he is floating might sink the ship [Music] wreckage [Music] so aubry leaves the man to drown in order to save the rest of the ship the lesser of two evils all of this nasty business pretty well tears jack up stephen awkwardly tries to console him saying that you know things like this happen as he said yourself you have to choose a lesser of two evils but when jack asks how the crew is responding to the death of one of their own most popular shipmates steven says that maybe they should have turned back a long time ago it's starting to look like jack is looking out for his own pride more than for his men putting the lives of his men at risk just so that he can prove a point that he's a great ship captain naturally jack becomes defensive he claims he's acting on duty question of pride or anything like that it's a question of duty duty right yes i believe i've heard it well spoken of well you can be as satiric as you like viewing the world through your microscope is your prerogative this is a ship of war and i will grind whatever grist the mill requires in order to fulfill my duty whatever the cost whatever the cost here we see that jack is what we might call deontological he believes in duty and duty is absolute and it must be followed whatever the outcome stephen of course rolls his eye at the idea of duty not just because he thinks it's antiquarian but also because he thinks that jack may only be using duty as an excuse to cover up his own pride does jack really care about duty or is he looking out for his own reputation does he really just want to win like all of us jack is unknown to himself and his faults are best seen by others maybe steven is right about him or maybe he's wrong but one thing is always true when we appoint leaders we appoint fallible people they will always have to choose between the lesser of evils and they will always burn us eventually but what's interesting about human nature is that we don't always place the blame on the leaders who actually burn us especially if we really like that leader we find a scapegoat and this is how the crew of the surprise responds they don't blame jack for any of the bad things that have happened after all he's lucky jack aubry everyone loves him and trusts him they'd follow him anywhere so instead they put the blame on one of the midshipmen harlem and it's understandable why you see power and leadership and influence are not just about effectiveness but it's about image it's about optics from the very first scene of the film we are clearly shown that not only is harlem an incompetent leader he clearly looks incompetent lacking confidence or assertiveness he seems more of a timid mouse than a proud lion instead of leading with authority he tries to win the approval of the crew he submits himself to them for their approval not unlike the typical nice guy of course this does not have the desired effect in fact it has the opposite effect none of the crew like him or trust him and aubry tries to explain to him why this is you don't make friends with the former jack slad they'll despise you in the end think you're weak nor do you need to be a tyrant no sir i'm very sorry sir look harlem it's leadership they want strength now you find that within yourself and you will earn their respect without respect true discipline goes by the board is that strength respect and discipline sir good lord this boy is hopeless no one really believes that harlem is going to change and it's probably because of this that the crew come to blame all of the bad things that have happened to the ship on him giving way to superstition they believe hollam is cursed it's like killik says morning of the battle he doesn't have the guts to beat the quarters then his entire gun crews killed set for him as soon as he went up the miz and will falls and whose watch was it when we lost our wind one of the crew members this guy right here decides he's fed up and he's not going to have it anymore one day he pushes past harlem failing to salute him while it doesn't seem like the end of the world the penalty for this infraction is flogging and we might think that's a bit drastic we can understand how this crew member might be disciplined for failing to salute but flogging seems a bit harsh surely such an insignificant action doesn't deserve physical bloodying and scarring and that's exactly what stephen matron thinks jack the man failed to salute nagel was drunk when he insulted holland did you know that stephen approaches the situation from the personal experience of the offender he was drunk matron points out and this is a standard liberal approach to delinquency i'm using the word liberal technically not politically here a more liberal person tends to recognize and respect the personal experiences of people something that standpoint epistemology has taken to an absurd length nowadays but most of us recognize that hey if you're drunk you maybe shouldn't be held as accountable for your actions as a sober person from aubry's perspective however a heinous action is a heinous action if you kill someone driving drunk you are responsible for that not only are you a reprehensible person regardless of the degree to which your judgment was impaired but you should be punished not based on the freedom of your choice but on the nature of the action slash infraction committed at least we can assume that this would probably be his thought process based on how he deals with this lesser breach of discipline the rules are rules and if you break the rules you must be punished according to the traditional punishments we might be tempted to say again that aubry takes a day onto logical approach while stephen is more utilitarian but that wouldn't be wholly correct because for aubry the rules are absolute precisely because they serve a function tradition and rules are what hold the ship together without them everything falls apart do you not see it any things that keep this little wooden world together the hard work discipline stephen this hierarchy is even in nature as you've often said yourself there is no disdain in nature there is no humanity it must be governed often not wisely i will grant you but they must be governed nonetheless here again we have the lesser of two evils but is it really the lesser of two evils stephen argues that this is the excuse of oppressors that's the excuse of every tyrant in history from nero to bonaparte and we have to admit he's right around this time the british prime minister william pitt said in a speech to the house of commons that necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom it is the argument of tyrants it is the creed of slaves and this harkens back to some lines from john milton's paradise lost book 4 line 393 so spake the fiend and with necessity the tyrant's plea excused his devilish deeds tyranny and oppression is always always carried out in the name of the good and the necessary from nero to hitler to modern leaders everyone who uses power tries to argue that morality is on their side so steven is understandably kind of supportive of mutiny you see i'm rather understanding of mutineers men pressed from their homes their chosen occupations confined from unsupported wooden prisons and he makes a great point one that we could easily overlook if we don't know our history many of these sailors were pressed into service against their will during the 17th and 18th century sailing men would be kind of kidnapped in a way taken away from merchant vessels and forced to serve on royal navy vessels forced to put their lives at risk this also seems to have applied to fishermen as well who would be forced to leave their homes and families why shouldn't they rebel against this don't they have every right this question remains unanswered aubry simply says you've come to the wrong shop for anarchy brother and we cut to the punishment in question as with any good film mastering commander doesn't preach to us doesn't force one viewpoint on the audience at least not in the dialogue throughout the unfolding actions of the film however we do see a change come over captain aubry when his friend stephen is injured by a hunting accident we see aubrey give up his duty-bound and or pride-fueled chase of the french privateer in order to save his friend's life and i think it's also interesting how the victory at the end of the film is achieved on the one hand yes by strict discipline but also by bending the rules of discipline they disguise the surprise to ambush the enemy they cover up their uniforms and i think what's most important again a point which you might miss aubry tells the men not to salute right from now on no serves no salutes no whistles no bells and this is all the more meaningful when we hearken back to the big kerfuffle over the importance of saluting maybe there's a time when we need to break the rules or at least change the rules not every rule should remain chiseled in stone unchangeable till the end of time honestly i'm a bit surprised of some of the critical reviews i've seen at the screenwriting of this film people think that it's a poorly written script and a poorly written story not many but a few i think the script is genius not just in its historicity as i mentioned before but in its art its thematic connections its nods to different points in the film the problem is that it is extremely subtle it wasn't until i watched it for the bazillionth time that i made the connection between saluting and not saluting it's not spoon fed you and a lot of the greatness of this film is beneath the surface but at the same time even on the surface of the film there are several layers of social commentary that anyone should be able to see and appreciate the film makes a clear connection between the ship itself and england going so far as to say that the ship is england england is under threat of invasion and though we be on the far side of the world this ship is our home this ship is england this is more than mere symbolism it's literally a way of equating the place that you live and work with your nation i'll leave it for someone else to tease out all the implications here about how leadership on a small scale applies to leadership at the big scale how we should identify our country with our home how power corrupts how people in power almost always do the wrong thing eventually about how law and order and duty and discipline and patriotism are as necessary to the success of a ship as to the success of a community or nation i'll leave it there for now i completely understand why master commander isn't really that popular it's not for everyone but that doesn't mean it's not a masterpiece in fact there's something to be said for the fact that it took the high road instead of watering down its material like the lord of the rings or making a less substantial shallow piece of pure entertainment like pirates of the caribbean director peter weir opted to tell a story that is true to the life of men living at sea and fighting during the wars with napoleon it's a treasure of cinema and who knows maybe someday we'll be celebrated for the magnificent piece of art that it is [Music] so [Music] you

Channel: Empire of the Mind

Views: 606,465

Keywords: Film Summary, Scene, Master and commander scene, Master and commander review, Movie analysis, Film analysis, Master and commander battle, Master and commander music, Underrated movie, Movie review, Best movies, Greatest films, Top movies

Id: dMv_LOGMZN0

Length: 24min 54sec (1494 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 26 2021