Of all the stories that could be told of the Royal Navy in the 18th and 19th centuries, one seems to have captured the popular imagination more than any other; the tale of Captain William Bligh and the infamous mutiny on HMS Bounty that saw him put off in a small boat in the middle of the pacific.

It’s a strange choice, as there are far more exciting stories, and it’s not such a remarkable occurrence as it might seem. Several mutinies happened onboard sailing ships during the period, and the tiny Bounty wasn’t a big deal. It’s probably got something to do with the way the story compounds popular myths about the cruelty of captains at the time, the overuse of flogging, the suffering of men before the mast.

It’s been brought to the screen several times, but the most recent came in 1984 when Roger Donaldson made it into a film starring Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson.

The story is more or less as is historically known, with some liberties taken and interpretations made. In 1787, Lieutenant William Bligh was sent aboard HMS Bounty, a former collier ship which used to transport coal and would be ideal for travelling through the shallow straits of Pacific islands. His mission was to collect breadfruit plants from the island of Tahiti and transport them back to the Caribbean where they would provide food for the slaves on plantations there.

He chose his friend Fletcher Christian to sail with him as Master’s Mate, and the voyage commenced. There were problems caused by Bligh attempting to travel around Cape Horn, hoping to circumnavigate the globe, which he failed to do. When they arrived late at Tahiti, they had to stay while the breadfruit came into season and could be taken away. This meant that the crew got used to their easy lifestyle onshore, passing the time with the island woman and not being subject to any real discipline. On the return voyage, tensions grew between Cristian and Bligh, ending with a mutiny where Bligh was placed in a boat with his loyal crewmen and Cristian took the Bounty.

With any adaptation like this, historical accuracy is one of the most important considerations (for me, at least), as it’s easy to destroy the reputations of honest men. In this case, it seems fairly reliable. The exact details of the Mutiny on the Bounty are, as most things are, conflicted, with different accounts from the men involved. The way this film works is to make Bligh more symathetic. He’s certainly no tyrant (and neither was he in real life), while placing some blame on Fletcher Cristian for being antagonistic towards his commander. As far as I can see, there’s some truth to this. I don’t think either man was blameless, but it has to be remembered that Cristian initiated the mutiny. Look up the records of real flogging captains to see how lenient Bligh really was and you’ll see he was quite average, even benign, by the standards of the day.

This film gives the sense that Bligh was on a bad footing from the start, with his failed attemts to travel by Cape Horn fraying the crew’s belief in him, then their extended stay at Tahiti where they weren’t subjected to much regimentation giving them too much of a taste of freedom.

For anyone still wanting to pillory Bligh, it has to be remembered that he sailed his honest crew through horrible conditions before bringing them safely into port, and that alone is a sign of how good he was both as a seaman and as a commander. It’s also interesting that any men decided to stay with him when there was no reason to do. If he was a tyrant, they would surely have deserted him.

As a film, it’s entertaining enough. It’s relatively tame for an 18th century naval story, There’s no big action, and most things are over quickly with the mutiny. It’s more a tale of the two main characters, which is where it fails. Anthony Hopkins is excellent as Bligh. He has a certain old fashioned quality that a lot of classically trained actors possess. He knows how to say the dialogue, knows how to behave properly, and he has restraint when it comes to showing emotion, as you expect from an officer of the Royal Navy.

Mel Gibson is the complete opposite of that. He’s not British enough. He does his usual over-the-top breakdown scenes, and doesn’t possess the kind of charisma that’s needed for such a character. He’s far too modern, and feels like one of the biggest anachronisms in the film.

There’s a solid supporting cast, thankfully, with the likes of Edward Fox, Liam Neeson, and Wi Kuki Ka bringing a certain quality to the film that makes it feel in place and time as it should.

It’s also largely proper in its use of props, costumes, and the like. The ship is a genuine replia of HMS Bounty made specifically for the movie, which also appeared in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, before being tragically lost in Huricane Sandy in 2012.

As someone who enjoys Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin novels, I’m always on the lookout for interesting films set in this era, and as far as this film goes, it’s OK. There’s a lot to recommend it, but for me Gibson’s inclusion feels like an irritating attempt to appeal to an international audience at the expense of realism. There’s nothng to recommend him for the role, and he feels so out of place that’s it’s hard to take any scenes with him seriously. If this were a modern film, the play off between the two main characters would work much better. There’s definitely something there, just not an 18th century something.

On balance, it’s entertaining as a character study, watching the two men fight it out between them as their opposing personalities and ideologies clash, and for me Fletcher Cristian comes off as the villain here. If you want a really good vision of life in the navy at this time, I’d recommend 2003’s Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, but for what it’s worth, Bounty has its moments and probably comes closer to revealing the truth about these two historical characters than any other adaptation.

Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed reading this and want to support my writing, you can do so by clicking the link to my Buy Me A Coffee page below.