The Ghost and the Darkness (1996, R)

Directed by: Stephen Hopkins

Grade: B—

The Ghost and the Darkness is rather nimble entertainment that, for its own benefit, thinks it is something heavier.  At its best, the Ghost and the Darkness is a viable historical picture, with a lot of imprecision but enough value in its system to be successful as a leisure activity.  At its worst, it’s a total offshoot, unwilling to take anything fresh out of the freezer.  The Ghost and the Darkness can fairly be taken as either of these for the fact that it takes a real sliver of history and prefers to use that sliver as an excuse for making a feasible Hollywood film.  But please, there’s no need to fuss.  That was expected anyway.  What is unexpected is that, as a Hollywood film, the Ghost and the Darkness actually manages to pull itself together on able-bodied terms.    

The film recounts the events in 1898 at the Tsavo region of Kenya, East Africa, where construction of a bridge is severely put behind schedule by repeated attacks executed by two lions that have resulted in a loss of human life.  The first lion is named ‘the Ghost’ by the locals.  The other, not to be taken as a surprise, is called ‘the Darkness’.  The lead military engineer, John Patterson (Val Kilmer) promises to end the situation by conducting a hunt for the animals, but it soon becomes apparent that these lions are no ‘ordinary’ wild animals.  They don’t kill and eat; they kill for pleasure.  Isn’t the law of the wild, according to Jack London from White Fang, to eat or be eaten?  Apparently, nature may have found a new, atrocious course.

There’s nothing wrong with the production value of the film.  Actually, the production value captures the beauty of Africa: striking photography of the savanna, exotic wildlife (both predator and prey) and a stirring composition of music to accompany the theme.  However, once the human blood starts to be spilt, it’s not too long to figure out that this is not a lovely, sweeping African adventure yarn of custom, untainted tradition.  Therefore, it becomes necessary to accept the entire motion picture as a movie echoing back to the Jaws era where the ravenousness, carnivorous beast strikes during the most unforeseen time at the most unanticipated prey (namely, man).  Okay, so there isn’t the Jaws music gaining resonance as the lion stalks through the tall blades of grass against a lone, separated individual who’s last thought is to make sure that they are in the ‘safe zone’.  Only there are no safe zones in the Ghost and the Darkness: take it for granted that the lions will strike anywhere, anytime, at will. 

The sequences when the lions do attack are frightening (if we allow them to be) and are conducted in a realistical manner.  Should it be an unlucky guy being dragged away into the night by an unknown force, or another unfortunate victim having his bloody flesh ripped from his bone by a ferocious lion: these scenes look very real!  Up until that, I really didn’t have much of an idea has to how vicious a lion, or any animal for that matter, attack could be.  The lion attack scenes are not necessarily ‘fun’ or ‘amusing’ to watch, and I can understand as to why those scenes may force someone’s stomach to twist in abhorrence.  I don’t blame anyone that that happens to.  Clearly, this proves that the Ghost and the Darkness is not a film for everyone, or even for a preponderance of people, and therefore, I can find no way as to saying that the Ghost and the Darkness is a crowd pleaser.  To me, this is actually invigorating.  This is a kind of movie where Hollywood isn’t as so focused about making the big bucks and satisfying all who come around to watch it; to a certain extent, the Ghost and the Darkness can be observed as a break from usual Hollywood antics, in this way.

Are there any laughable moments to talk about?  A couple for sure, but the one that I would say is severely worth mentioning is the one where the lions are captured in a crate.  The crate is designed as a trap, with a few armed men sitting behind bars at one end of the crate.  When the lions enter for another eating-fest, a trap door shuts behind them, leaving the ferocious carnivores at the mercy of those armed with the guns.  The men become so frightened with terror that when they do fire their rifles, all the bullets strike the bars and not the lions!  And somehow, the bullets didn’t ricochet back and hit the men either.  Ah well.  It’s Hollywood. 

Things fortunately gain impulsion after this incident, once big-game hunter Remington (Michael Douglas) arrives on the scene.  Researching into the film, I was quick to learn that the character of Remington is fictional, just like much of the film.  Therefore, I assert that his presence in the film is done to make the project seem at least a little more interesting.  I wouldn’t exactly say that either Kilmer or Douglas administer their direct control over the film; rather, they might have as well had to cope with their roles. 

So, is the ending of the film open to interpretations?  The closing of the film states how the two lions responsible for the attacks are now on display in Chicago.  Samuel, the African guide to Patterson and who also serves as the film’s narrator, assures us that “if you dare lock eyes with them, you will be afraid”.  That practically sums everything up, right there on the spot: the film shuts off any elucidation we possibly could have made.  It's not saying that we 'might' or 'could be' afraid.  It's saying that we 'will be' afraid.  However, the fact that the Ghost and the Darkness is relatively close minded isn’t a new concept to movies in general.  This is still a frustrating maneuver undertaken by the filmmakers, and it ultimately undermines a good part of the film.  For the meantime though, I'll take the Ghost and the Darkness as a creditable slice of cinema, no matter how flawed it may be.

As a reliable account of important, past events, the Ghost and the Darkness is almost insignificant.  But as a Hollywood flick, it got some things right. 

B—