SANDS OF THE KALAHARI
A film review by Shane R. Burridge
Copyright 1996 Shane R. Burridge
119m.
A chartered plane makes a forced landing in the Kalahari desert, stranding its six passengers (five men and one woman) on a rocky outcrop in the middle of nowhere. Gripping, existential adventure borrows from Nietzsche and Darwin - it is unlike any other survival story you will have probably seen. It seems at first that the survivors in this case will not have to struggle too hard to stay alive - they find shelter, food, and water less than a day's hike from the downed plane. Nor do they seem concerned about possible search parties or rescue attempts. But then the group dynamics set in. Susannah York, the only female, is the most obvious catalyst for unrest among the other survivors. In a godless world a leader must emerge to take charge - and a mate. It's plain that we're meant to make the connection between the group of people huddled together among the rocks and the tribe of baboons that also colonize the outcrop. The survivors are back at the dawn of humanity (this film will make you think of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), living in a cave (with pre-supplied paintings), hunting animals, and competing for dominance in their habitat. That they have intruded upon the baboons' domain is clear: the apes are always seen from high up on the rocks, staring at the people below, barking harshly and baring their fangs. Humans are right back down near the bottom of the food chain. As O'Brien (Stuart Whitman), the most energetic of the group, tells them, they are nevertheless equipped for survival because they are more intelligent. But O'Brien has a feral quality that doesn't stay hidden for long. "He's the only one of us who belongs here," York says early in the piece. It's a signpost remark, and a little too pat, as are other observations tossed off by the characters, who voice ideas and themes in the movie as if they were supplying answers to an essay question on it.
There is still plenty to think about afterwards, nonetheless: are characters meant to be thought of as villains because they are more capable of survival than others? Sturdevan (Nigel Davenport) behaves like an absolute pig mere moments before he casually decides to undertake a dangerous journey that may save the others; the oldest member of the group (Harry Andrews), whose scientific knowledge provides much reassurance for the others, turns out to be have been a soldier working for the Nazis; and while we condemn O'Brien's cold-blooded, methodical exploitation of the everyone else in the group it's easy to forget that it was he who rescued their only survival equipment from the burning wreckage of the plane. Lastly, there is York, the character we associate most strongly with civilization (she's even named Grace), who at first only wants love but then gives in to her sexual desires. She doesn't become as independent and assertive as we would hope. Theodore Bikel and Stanley Baker round out the rest of the survivors. With so much individual discrepancy it's not surprising that we rarely see the same two characters playing scenes together. Their constant interchange is a useful device to keep the pacing of the film brisk. This, and the effective location shooting, makes the story very watchable - you won't be expecting the provocative ending.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews