Review of Scott of the Antarctic (1948) by Stuart M — 29 Aug 2018

The film has remarkable production values and feels genuinely epic for a British film produced so soon after the war. Many scenes were clearly shot in some pretty inhospitable regions and I would swear that there were times when the main cast, and not merely the second unit with their doubles, was placed into these extremes. It shows in their performances.

Unfortunately, the depth of their exploration is not matched by a similar depth of character. This is not a serious attempt at biography but a hagiography. Whether Scott was the saint depicted here is irrelevant: he is an affirmation of solid British values so recently questioned by six years of war and the erosion of the Empire. And as such there can be no conflicts, no disputes among any of these stiff-upper-lip paragons of English virtue. Which makes for pretty boring viewing.

Oddly, there isn't even a sense of doom or forboding, a suggestion that the elements truly had it in for our heroes and that their deaths weren't really their fault since they only lost to a vindictive nature. In fact, the film doesn't offer any explanation for their failure oddly enough. The practical observation that Amundsen had brought his dogs all the way to the Pole is about all we get. No acknowledgement of why that is a big deal.

It's only in the last half-hour as we watch the men slowly succumb to exposure and starvation that the drama really picks up and we start to feel something for the doomed expedition. This section is very gritty for a '40s film and captures the exhaustion and despair stalking the party. I do feel that some of the emotional moments could have been given a more dramatic presentation (Oates' "I'm leaving now. I may be gone for some time" seems rather mundane in context) but that's an issue with '40s English cinema in general.