Lord Jim is a strange specimen of a film, as it was composed of a wide range of very promising aspects – it featured Peter O’Toole’s first epic after his star-making turn in Lawrence of Arabia and a clear attempt to capitalize on the cultural zeitgeist his revolutionary performance inspired in both the industry and with global audiences, it was helmed by Richard Brooks, one of Hollywood’s most interesting directors who was at his peak during this period (with masterpieces on both sides of this film, such as Elmer Gantry and In Cold Blood, two of the most interesting social dramas of their respective years) and a story adapted from a novel by Joseph Conrad, whose work always lent itself to the cinematic form in some way, most notable through the perpetual use of Heart of Darkness as an inspiration for innumerable works, whether through direct adaptations or being the baseline inspiration for future works. Naturally, this was a film that should have succeeded, and while I am reluctant to imply that it was some kind of failure (since it actually wasn’t, since it delivered everything it promised), it’s very easy to be disappointed by this film, particularly if you’re expecting something a bit more exciting. Conrad’s novella is a sprawling adventure pulsating with action, and an uncurrent of human drama flows throughout the film. Brooks’ adaptation tries to meet both sides of the story, but ultimately comes up slightly short, being just a few steps away from being brilliant most of the time, and rarely hitting the mark in the way it believes it should. Naturally, its a film that carries a lot of heft, both narratively and terms of how its executed, so there should be some merit embedded in the film (which we will discuss). The problem comes in realizing not only was it very easy for this film to have gone in the other direction and been a defining work of postwar adventure cinema, based on the elements it had in its favour, but also because there are moments of genius scattered throughout, it just doesn’t always manage to pick up on it, and ultimately just becomes something of a chore to get through, which is the exact opposite of what it should’ve been.

Jim (Peter O’Toole) is a hard-working seaman who finds himself thrust into a precarious position when the boat he is working on is caught in the middle of an enormous storm. Betraying his moral grounding, Jim decides to escape with the rest of the crew, as they know for sure that the ship is doomed. However, their expectations were wrong and the passengers survive, which launches an enormous inquiry that strips Jim of his hard-earned naval titles. He decides that he is going to lead a simple, anonymous life by doing menial work in Asia. This plan is disrupted by the arrival of Mr Stein (Paul Lukas), a wealthy merchant who knows about Jim’s past, particularly his skills when it comes to navigating difficult terrain. Stein convinces Jim to help him transport a delivery of weaponry and ammunition to a small community in the East Indian country of Patusan, where a group of natives are fighting against an insurgent group of rebels, led by a belligerent and violent general (Eli Wallach), who is willing to go to any lengths to retain his dominance. Jim finds himself caught in the middle of a gruesome civil war and believing this to be the chance to atone for his own moral misdemeanours, elects to remain and help fight against the rebels, bringing his expertise and military skills to prevent his new community from being annihilated, and who, in return, give him the honorary title of “Lord Jim” for his bravery and valour. However, there is an even darker side to this conflict, and Jim soon learns victory should not be celebrated, as there are always bigger enemies to face, in this case the oxymoronically-named Gentleman Duncan Brown (James Mason), a cold-blooded killer who is employed to bring an end to the rebellious Jim, with the jungles of Patusan becoming the location of numerous battles of both strength and wit.

Lord Jim is caught between genres – on one hand, its a very traditional adventure film, clearly inspired by the swashbuckling epics that dominated the first half of the century. On the other, its an attempt to capitalize on the more brooding, serious epics made when filmmaking was coming out of the Golden Age, where directors were more intent on pushing the envelope than ever before. The result is a film that feels slightly too muddled to reach its full potential, which isn’t entirely a problem since audacity often cancels out incoherency. The major obstacle is that Lord Jim didn’t seem to know quite what it wanted to be – Brooks was a notoriously diverse filmmaker, having made numerous works across different genres, and thus a particular style wasn’t always present in his work, which made some of his films masterpieces, as he was able to work within an entirely different genre rather than becoming complacent in one or two, but a shortcoming in Lord Jim, a narrative almost entirely built around a set of ideas that would have been better had this film been shepherded by someone with more experience working with such an enormous scope (the obvious choices logically being David Lean and John Ford, both of whom would’ve found the perfect balance between scope and story). However, while hypotheticals aren’t all that helpful, it does give us insights into where Brooks faltered with this story. Ultimately, he attempted to make something broad without taking into account the necessary elements that make even the most towering epics successful. While he did touch on broader genres in some of the westerns and war films he made at MGM earlier in his career, Brooks’ vision for Lord Jim seemed to be too intimidating, and his authorial voice, while impressive, was too subdued by a film that always seemed to be on the verge of enveloping everyone involved, rather than bolstering their more positive qualities – Lord Jim isn’t bad, but rather a bit too uneven around the edges.

Arguably, one of the reasons Lord Jim is remembered at all is through the occasional mention of the film as one of the more interesting performances in the career of Peter O’Toole, who was at the peak of his stardom by the time the film had gone into production. Looking back at Lord Jim, its clear why O’Toole was cast, but also somewhat bewildering, since structurally the role makes perfect sense for who he was and what he was capable of doing, but lacks the nuance he would acquire in later years. O’Toole performance as the titular character is a very interesting one, and he’s certainly very good, being one of the few truly remarkable aspects of an otherwise forgettable film. However, this is a performance clearly made as a way of trying to capture the spirit of Lawrence of Arabia, which is singularly impossible considering how much of a moment in artistic history that film was. There’s labour to this performance, no doubt the result of a script that didn’t give O’Toole much to work with, and seeing him fall victim to a story is a very rare event, and not a welcome one. He normally acted with such ease, and brought a natural charm to all of his roles, regardless of the film around him, so for him to be so singularly plain is quite disconcerting. It was likely because O’Toole hadn’t yet found his niche – he’s playing a very conventional hero here, right before flourishing into the massively successful actor he was about to become, where he would blend traditional movie star charm with the roguish wit and immense dedication normally reserved for committed character actors. Lord Jim is a film that doesn’t quite know what to do with O’Toole, built on the assumption that his iconic timbre and striking blue eyes would be enough to convince audiences to the merits of the character when in actuality, he was tragically miscast – and the fact that he managed to still give a good performance is testament to his great skills as an actor, but not enough to compensate for a script that didn’t give him anything by way of meaningful characterization.

However, one area in which Lord Jim does succeed is arguably its most important, insofar as it does manage to capture the essence of Conrad’s work. Lord Jim is ultimately a story of redemption and often works alongside the similarly-themed Heart of Darkness, operating from the inverse of being centred around a man in search of atonement, which is a fundamentally internal process. It takes quite a simple approach to this side of the story, and the most moments of the film come in the more quiet sequences of introspection, in which the characters can actually benefit from the more subtle execution, where the humanity underpinning the story can be made clear. It doesn’t execute the idea perfectly, but its good enough to give the film the chance to get by without too many obstacles. Brooks’ best work always tends to be more intent on exploring the humanity embedded in a story as opposed to the spectacle, so it only makes sense that Lord Jim would work best when the director was giving the necessary attention to the characters. The theme of redemption is explored well, and there are some heartbreaking moments – consider Jim’s final scene, in which he admirably resigns to his fate and accepts the consequences of his actions, not seeing it as a punishment, but rather as the final act of contrition for his misdeeds. O’Toole sells every moment with great authenticity (the same can’t be said for Eli Wallach and James Mason, who seem to think they’re appearing in a comedy, which is the only want to justify these broad, unsubtle performances), and the film as a whole does well in evoking the emotion in these moments. The problem is, there become increasingly rare, appearing in between elaborate action sequences that may be visually stimulating, but are otherwise missing the human element needed to elevate them from merely being derivative.

Lord Jim achieves exactly what it sets out to do, which is to tell a compelling story about redemption, set in the beautifully exotic locations of oceanic Asia, during one of history’s most interesting periods. Unfortunately, it doesn’t manage to do much more than that, and ultimately ends up being an uneven attempt to take advantage of a more mature form of adventure epic, the kind where violence is more acceptable, but not at the expense of the human element, which is where this film struggles. Ultimately, it’s not a film without merits – Peter O’Toole is always a magnetic presence, and there are some moments of genuine tender emotion, peppered in amidst the excessive actions sequences that all begin to blur into one, especially considering the only character in the film that is worth any attention is the one who is clearly demarcated as such, with the villains being one-dimensional, and the supporting characters simply being peripheral. Taken for what it is, Lord Jim is perfectly adequate, as long as the viewer doesn’t yearn for anything more than the average, run-of-the-mill adventure epic. It is an entertaining film on the surface, and maintains a steady tone throughout, only faltering when it comes to giving more insights into the more interesting aspects of the story. It’s a decent film, just one that requires more patience and effort, while still being relatively entertaining, which is perhaps the best we could hope for a film that seems to be out of its depths throughout. There are some merits, and the film does its best to navigate some major obstacles, succeeding in some and failing in others, making Lord Jim a divisive, but still fascinating, work of adventure storytelling that does its best, even when it knew it could do much better.