These roots of heaven convey an ecological message, precursory, with the defense of the animals. This is the subject of the novel from which the screenplay is inspired.
Otherwise, the film is a bit strange. The character of Juliette Gréco is insipid and only functional. Errol Flynn spends his time drinking; other than that, he is useless; pathetic to watch a star killing himself with alcohol; although his one scene where he has some dialogue is strong and makes his character believable: he explains his supposed betrayal and why he is a banished military man.
Trevor Howard is good, but his character is still a bit hermetic and doesn't necessarily inspire empathy. And to have a French character played by an Englishman is always strange.
We remain hungry, because the dramatic arc, and finally the story does not contain a main character, a hero in the dramaturgical sense of the term. And it is not a choral film. But it does have one or more villains in a way: the hunters, French colonialists, journalists. Orson Welles' character is uninteresting, appears and is quickly forgotten: incongruity of the film.
The film as a whole does not seem mastered. But the film wins for its settings and landscapes, partly shot in Africa, and for its avant-garde subject in 1958.
All in all, the spectator leaves the film saying that there are interesting things, but that it is possible to do better. John Huston is dependent on the story and its scenario, here the story has a strong potential, the scenario is not perfect, far from it; and it is not helped by the cast. Even if it is cosmopolitan, it could have produced a different result. This is a story that could be remade and would be very trendy.
Otherwise, the film is a bit strange. The character of Juliette Gréco is insipid and only functional. Errol Flynn spends his time drinking; other than that, he is useless; pathetic to watch a star killing himself with alcohol; although his one scene where he has some dialogue is strong and makes his character believable: he explains his supposed betrayal and why he is a banished military man.
Trevor Howard is good, but his character is still a bit hermetic and doesn't necessarily inspire empathy. And to have a French character played by an Englishman is always strange.
We remain hungry, because the dramatic arc, and finally the story does not contain a main character, a hero in the dramaturgical sense of the term. And it is not a choral film. But it does have one or more villains in a way: the hunters, French colonialists, journalists. Orson Welles' character is uninteresting, appears and is quickly forgotten: incongruity of the film.
The film as a whole does not seem mastered. But the film wins for its settings and landscapes, partly shot in Africa, and for its avant-garde subject in 1958.
All in all, the spectator leaves the film saying that there are interesting things, but that it is possible to do better. John Huston is dependent on the story and its scenario, here the story has a strong potential, the scenario is not perfect, far from it; and it is not helped by the cast. Even if it is cosmopolitan, it could have produced a different result. This is a story that could be remade and would be very trendy.