Hawaii (1966)

Admirable film.

A Disappointing Continuation

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Outstanding version of the James Michener novel.There is a monumental non-Oscar nominated performance by Max Von Sydow as a minister, who brings his wife (Julie Andrews) Jerusha Bromley to Hawaii in an attempt to convert the natives there.This is a story of social mores. Cold and seemingly uncaring to the needs of the people, Von Sydow, as Abner, etched an unforgettable character. He comes to Hawaii hell-bent on converting the natives. He doesn't understand or refuses to understand their customs and traditions as he tries to impose Christianity on them. He is quick to condemn cultural traditions in his never ending devotion to the Lord.Julie Andrews is wonderful as Jerusha, his long-suffering wife. She comes to realize that the goodness of people counts more than the religious life itself.The irony in the movie is that the church, that institution that Von Sydow would fight for, literally turns its back on him at film's end.Jocelyne LaGarde, as the queen, was nominated for best supporting actress. Firm in her beliefs, but unwilling to accept cultural changes, her performance was simplistic but truly memorable and believable.A great film.

I watched Hawaii to see Max Von Sydow. I was surprised to see that he seemed as miscast in Hawaii as Gregory Peck was in Moby Dick.Yet it seems an absurdity to have a 'miscast', because a good actor should be able to play any part. I guess it wasn't truly a 'miscast' but more of a 'why the heck did Sydow take that part?!".Sydow's pedigree is beyond the scripted Abner Hale. The part of Hale was shallow in its overbearing nature, lazy in its development, basely barking unrealistic condemnations, and lacking any human substance---and in effect, overplayed. Sydow had fewer than 10 "human" lines in the entire film, leaving viewers to listen to elementary prattle. Abner Hale had the potential to be a very powerful character. The writers simply failed to provide dialog with depth.Comparing Hawaii to Capote where the viewer is allowed to freely dislike Truman Capote because of his nature, the words spoken by Hoffman were believable giving depth to his character and grounds for the viewer's emotion. That depth was never achieved in Hawaii, offering instead preposterously hollow, ridiculously vacant lines. Directing Sydow to play Hale in an exaggerated fashion only made it worse. His religious fanaticism was not buy-able; he appeared more of a lunatic.Having seen Sydow's acting in numerous works, he has proved capable should he be given something to work with. But the script is dull, reads like a dime-store children's novel, and in effect lent nothing to play.Julie Andrews stayed in the shadows the entire film, suggesting that was also her role in the church/relationship, but she was the only character that had any depth. Her lines were few but solid and she had a believable countenance.The Hawaiian characters were written stereotypically, speaking w/ broken English but apparently understanding all of Hale's embellished sophisticated condemnations. The Queen seemed jovial and bossy; she was the most natural of the Hawaiians on camera, earning LaGarde the only acting award for the movie. The rest of the Hawaiian actors (both speaking and extras) seemed stiff and comparably makes Keanu Reeves look like a Larry Olivier.I can appreciate the attempts to keep the natives natural (and by default, topless) but because the movie lacked substance not provided by the script, the semi-nude natives are reduced to gratuitous fodder. It's as if the producers knew the movie was a stink-bomb and put a lot of breasts on camera to distract the viewer from the stench. The cinematography of Hawaii was very basic and this movie was one of the last of Russell Harlan's career. Though the movie is credited as being filmed in Hawaii, most often the scenes looked like they were shot on sets. Interior ship scenes were done cleverly and the editing was tight. The musical score was sterling. Though I have enjoyed George Hill's later directorial efforts, I believe that problems with the script and loss of the original director resulting from such problems left Hill with less to work with than what he should have had. Comparably, Val Lewton's films often have better screenplays and believable characters, tighter shooting schedules, lack of lush locations, and they are done on inconceivably low budgets.As for the religious theme and the resulting troubles the Hawaiians ensued as a result, the theme is interesting and worthy of exploration. I do understand the nature of the missionaries giving up their lives and going away possibly never to see their families again, as my father was a minister. I understand the fanaticism implied by Hale's character, as well as his close-mindedness to the concept of God being not only a vengeful God but also one of love, patience and understanding. But my understanding of the concepts of the movie do not excuse the fact that it was very poorly written.I, for one, do not believe that I should have to read the book to make allowances for a poorly made movie. The movie should be strong enough to stand on its own. It isn't necessary for one to read Gone With The Wind to understand why Scarlett will never go hungry again, nor any of her folk.

I was originally attracted to this film by the magnificent sets. I have always been fascinated by the islands of Hawaii, by their music, their women, their vegetation and would one day like to visit them ! Unfortunately, at present, that is a privilege reserved for very rich people ! I read and found most amusing and predictable some of the comments in IMDb about the film written by politically correct, holier-than-thou people, who are trying to pretend to be shocked by they way that missionaries from USA spread Christianity across the world, and of course making innumerable references to racism ! Of the Christian religion myself though far from devout, I have nothing but admiration for these missionaries who helped to spread our religion across the world in savage places and under conditions which cannot have been easy. Since time immemorial religions of all sorts have been spread across the world in this fashion, you have to show that your religion is better than the one already in place in order to convert the locals. So what's new. Obviously there are bound to be frictions and the film shows up this very well. But we see there were evil practices of incest and killing babies which the natives found normal but which Christianity tought them was wrong, fortunately !Von Sydow's character may come over as a little austere in some fields, but true religious talents sometimes require hard-headedness and not-always-popular stances. Julie Andrews comes across as milder and not so austere, but I question her religious integrity. She seems to put love for her husband more important than love for God which seems strange ( but will no doubt satisfy the anti-religion crowd !! )Away from the politics of the film, she music and shots are superb. I did find it a little overlong and the last half hour or so a little botched. I loved the performance of the Hawaian queen Malama, I thought she was superb !! The film has strenghthened my desire to know this people but unfortunately in Europe we don't see any of them. I suppose that the isolation of their islands precludes them from being able to travel easily.So all in all a reasonably good film. WHen I saw Dalton Trumbo ( subversive communist ) in the line-up, I did have some doubts prior to viewing but his views don't seem to have rubbed off too much on the film.

From the day Captain Cook arrived on those beautiful islands, Hawaii like Poland was cursed because of geography. Poland situated between two gigantic European powers just became a pawn in the eternal military and diplomatic chess game.Hawaii located where it is between North America and the Orient, when sea travel improved it was only a matter of time before the big powers came a-callin'. And they came from both directions. Not shown in the time frame this film covers, but soon after, waves of Japanese and Chinese immigrants landed on the shore. Hawaii was coveted by all and America got it.Max Von Sydow plays a young New England minister out to bring the gospel to the heathen as he sees them and has been taught to see them. His church won't send him out to the south seas without a wife, lest he be tempted by sins of the flesh, so on a short acquaintance he marries Julie Andrews. She in turn has been home pining away for whaling captain Richard Harris. When Von Sydow and Andrews get to Hawaii over the course of their story Harris would reappear.Naturally its quite a culture shock for the New Englanders when they get to Hawaii. The film's story covers about a quarter of a century of Hawaiian history and the history of the changing attitudes of Andrews and Von Sydow. James Michener's original novel was of War and Peace duration and I suppose the final script was as best they could get it and cover what he was trying to convey. Despite the obvious racist feelings that Von Sydow has, he's a basically decent man who does do some positive good.His problem is that everything with him has to be filtered through the Bible. There's a lot of incest going on in Hawaii when he lands there. Reason being is that these are islands with a limited number of mating partners. Now incest is bad as we know because it does eventually weaken the gene pool. But Von Sydow hardly takes a scientific approach, how could he, he doesn't know it, he hasn't been taught it.Julie Andrews is a far cry from the perky Mary Poppins. She develops quite an attachment to Hawaii and its people and her approach with them is fundamentally different than her husband's. It's not a bad performance.Richard Harris is the lusty whaling captain of Andrews previous affections. I tend to think his part might have been edited down. In a recent biography of Harris, it was stated he and Andrews did not get along at all on the set. Harris in those days was a whole lot like the characters he played like this one in Hawaii.Of course when you've got Hawaii as a subject for a camera, the photography could not be anything but gorgeous.Hawaii covers a period not well known to most Americans except Hawaiians. And indeed they are Americans and have been since 1959. I think people could learn something from this film even with the script flaws.