We all appreciate a solidly made, well-constructed adventure film. Hollywood was well-aware of this fact, with the classical era being filled to the brim with stories that take place in the furthest corners of the world (the more exotic, the better), and focus on valiant heroes that overcome every obstacle without acquiring so much as a scratch, in their efforts to defeat the maniacal villains that seek to challenge them. Whether in the traditional swashbucklers that dominated in the silent era, to the rise of the western in the decades that followed, right until the outset of the Second World War when stories of soldiers on the frontier began to infiltrate the genre, Hollywood adored a good action-packed adventure – and as we’ve learned over time, when the industry finds something that audiences respond to, there will be very little chance that we aren’t bombarded with as many films from within this particular genre as they can produce. Yet, between the conventional, run-of-the-mill productions, there are some true gems, and finding them can be quite a rewarding experience. Rope of Sand is one such film – by no means a perfect film, or one that is in any way immune to many of the flaws that are associated with the genre (especially at a time when it was reaching the point of over-saturation), there is something profoundly compelling about this film, a visceral aspect that is difficult to describe, which is often the case with well-made, interesting adventure films. I have grown quite fond of the very particular sub-genre of film in which its charms are impossible to explain, since it suggests a very atmospheric, complex sense of filmmaking prowess that is absolutely remarkable. William Dieterle, who was undeniably one of the most versatile filmmakers to work in the Golden Age of Hollywood, follows his masterful Portrait of Jennie with this film, one that could not be any more different in plot, style or intention – and proves that his skillfulness is not something that should ever be underestimated.

The spectre of Casablanca looms heavily over many films produced in the late 1940s, since the phenomenon inspired by that story of Rick and Ilsa set to the gorgeous landscapes of Morocco struck a chord, to the point where many films tried to replicate the same formula, very rarely to much effect. The process was simple – choose a location as far from the United States and Western Europe as possible (it helps if the ocean is nearby, since something is fascinating about films set around the sea), add a dashing hero and a demure love interest, a malicious villain and a few peripheral side characters, who are usually the comedic relief, and then half the work is done. To criticise Hollywood for following such a strict formula is almost hypocritical, because it is common practice, and it is just far easier to notice such traits when they are this obvious. However, unlike many pale imitations, Rope of Sand is not merely standing in the shadow of Casablanca, but has quite an impressive set of components brought over from that film. Unfortunately, these are not enough to make it anywhere close to that film, especially in terms of how it views culture. Hal B. Wallis (the producer behind Casablanca) commissioned this film, which is set in Southern Africa, and focuses on the diamond trade that brought the country to global attention in the early parts of the 20th century. Ultimately, this is a film driven by the desire to explore the exotic parts of the world, viewing South Africa and Angola as uncharted territory, ripe for Western influence. There is not a single notable character of South African descent in this film – the protagonist is American, the villains are British, and the love interest is French. There are a few moments when local languages are spoken, but these are almost done to show the supposed unsophistication of the natives, in comparison to the eloquence of the Western world. The film does very little to explore South African culture, which becomes a major source of contention, since there is something slightly unsettling about a film that doesn’t put in the effort to explore the culture in significant enough detail.

One aspect that Rope of Sand does get right is the ability to attract a very strong calibre of stars. Perhaps at the time choosing the young and relatively novice Burt Lancaster (who had appeared in a few great films, but was still quite new to the industry) would have been seen as slightly disappointing, especially since he was in the era where he was being fashioned as the next Humphrey Bogart, with this film not doing much to dissuade us from this line of thinking – but he proves the detractors wrong by delivering a strong, spirited performance that reminded us of the reasons behind his ascent to stardom. He was someone who could play heroic, dashing characters, but in a way that was far more complex and interesting than many would expect, and his ability to look internally within each of these characters, shading them in with nuance and complexity, is incredible, and anchors the film. Wallis brings over three of his stars from Casablanca to appear in this film – Claude Rains is the ever-charming and slightly sinister mining magnate who sets the entire plot in motion, Peter Lorre is the mysterious, vaguely repulsive drifter who finds his way into the main character’s path, and Paul Heinreid is the sadistic soldier tasked with bringing Lancaster’s character to justice. These are stock characters, but they are so well-performed by the trio of actors, we are reminded of their brilliance and why they were considered amongst the finest character actors in the history of the genre. The only instance of a weaker performance comes on behalf of Corinne Calvet, who is certainly not bad in the film, but rather slightly underwhelming in a way that perhaps could have been rectified with a little work and more development around her character as more than just a femme fatale. It would have been appreciated if the very few native South African actors were given the chance to have bigger roles, but for what it’s worth, Rope of Sand does the best with what it had, which is the most important aspect of them all.

Much like the performances that ground the film and allow it to move past the small but still notable flaws, the filmmaking in Rope of Sand is strong enough to justify the fact that there are a few major issues with the narrative and how it approaches the cultural and historical aspects of the story. Dieterle was an interesting director purely because he was someone whose sensibilities always combine strong filmmaking with excellent writing – he wasn’t just a good visual stylist, but an excellent storyteller. Both of these elements are present in this film, which is especially notable in his collaboration with some of the finest artists in their respective disciplines. Even if we can’t fully embrace the storyline itself, it is delivered so beautifully, in terms of both visual and aural aspects. The film is photographed by Charles Lang, whose cinematography is gorgeous – the scenes set in the desert (filmed in Arizona, but you would not be able to tell by how it’s framed) are stunning, and set the standard for the rest of the film. The film works with shadows fascinatingly – there are moments in which they have narrative importance, but even when they are only incidental to a particular scene, they create a sense of foreboding danger, reflecting the protagonist’s descending mental state, and his efforts to survive through what is a very dark chapter in his life, reliving those awful moments in the past, which are captured beautifully on screen. Dimitri Tiomkin is tasked with composing the score, and there is very little doubt that he was one of the best when it came to film scores – working in many different genres, he was always able to put together compositions that fit perfectly into whatever era and setting in which they took place, which is a very impressive achievement and not something particularly easy to do, especially with as expansive a body of work as he had. Artistically, Rope of Sand is very strong, and while those who seek a solid, consistent story before any aesthetic aspects may be slightly disappointed, there is a strength to how this film approaches its fundamental issues that is difficult to overlook, even if a stronger story would have only enriched the experience.

Rope of Sand is a decent effort – there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about this film on a conceptual level, and the fact that it develops quite slowly and without a lot of tension doesn’t work well in its favour – it doesn’t hold our attention as much as it should, and it is far more verbose than many similarly-themed films, choosing dialogue over action in many moments, which is not something we’d expect from a cursory glance, and an aspect that seems to work against the film in many ways. There’s a quietness to the film that is difficult to appreciate unless you can be fully on board with the storyline, and the constant questioning of certain issues without actually offering much of a resolution can cause some confusion. Yet, this is still a very strong film when it comes to some of the more compelling aspects, such as the visual scope and delivering very strong performances from an effortlessly gifted cast. Dieterle is not a forgotten director, but he is frequently cited under the almost derogatory classification of “director-for-hire”, which is an admirable job, just not one that always applied to him, since he was extremely creative and had a strong set of talents that allowed him to elevate even the most paltry of material. Rope of Sand is a good entry into his expansive and impressive body of work, and the very detailed sense of direction he brings is difficult to ignore. There are moments when this film seems quite cheap, but it makes up for it in pure artistic value, something that may emerge only later as the film progresses, but which is worth our time and patience. Not a masterpiece, but rather a well-made, compelling adventure that delivers everything we expected from the genre, Rope of Sand is a terrific film, and well worth seeking out, especially as one of the better entries into this era of adventure dramas that offer thrills and provocative discussions in tandem.