There have recently been a lot of dramatised and documentary programmes on UK terrestrial and satellite TV on the pioneering polar explorers, erstwhile rivals and colleagues Scott & Shackleton so I was keen to view this British made dramatisation of the former's doomed 1912 expedition to the South Pole. I was not disappointed. It is obviously difficult to maintain cinematic excitement for the viewer of what is basically a long march (a similar problem as in "The Spirit of St Louis" and "The Old Man & the Sea"), but the true to life tragedy here proves compelling in the end. Jack Cardiff's colour photography is splendid and I was surprised to observe so few "process" shots for a film from the 1940s, given the scale of the task here. John Mills is excellent in the key role of Commander Scott but the supports are all excellent, many of them chosen for their physical similarity to their real life counterparts - Mills too bears a more than passing likeness of physiognomy to Scott. In the post - war climate, Britain obviously sought comfort and inspiration from past heroes as the country rebuilt itself in economic austerity and Scott must have been an ideal model for glorification. Regardless of sniping comments from historians about Scott's poor planning, the film quite rightly avoids judgements and asks the viewer to recognise and admire the human heroism of these gallant men. There is surely no more tragic sacrifice in all exploration than Oates' "I'm going outside, I may be gone some time" - exit and the movie captures this moment with the necessary pathos, later repeating the sensitivity as Scott and his last two colleagues expire with the so near and yet so far "11 miles" on their freezing lips. The Vaughan-Williams music is suitably sweeping and elegiac. One wonders why Hollywood ignored the film at the Academy Awards of 1948, certainly the acting, cinematography and music, to name but three, were worthy of recognition. I wonder if anyone would remake it in the modern era as we approach the centenary of the triumph and tragedy of Scott's expedition. Are you listening Peter Jackson...?
61 Reviews
A Great Film -- Flawed, But Great
jack_bagley21 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Sir John Mills is the quintessential Scott -- he even looks like the explorer in this film. The rest of the cast (Wilson, Evans, Oates, and Bowers especially) are also lookalike actors, similar to what was done in "Titanic" with the historic figures. Such movies have more "realism" to them if the actors resemble the characters they portray.
The movie is flawed in that it does not present what actually happened to Scott and his party all the way through, and does "hero-ize" the explorer and his polar party members more than they deserve. The death of Evans, for instance, is done far differently than what actually occurred, but has a true cinematic heroism to it. Evans did not die in Scott's arms, in the snow, as depicted -- he actually fell into a coma and died in the tent that night. And there is a bit of a fumble with Oates' dramatic last words, but only a slight one.
Scott as hero is evident in this film, and even though recent developments have reduced his stature in the eyes of the world, he should still be viewed for what he was -- a true explorer, alongside Shackleton (who does not get nearly enough of the credit he deserves), Amundsen, Peary, etc. Sure, they had their moments of being total jerks -- but don't we all?
For the last eighteen years, I have used this film in my middle-school classroom as a teaching tool during a unit on Antarctica. The story of the race between Scott and Amundsen is a classic tale and deserves to be told. There are probably much more useful films that students can see about the event, but for sheer beauty (yes, I know it was shot mostly in Greenland, but some scenes were indeed filmed down south) you cannot beat Scott of the Antarctic.
The movie is flawed in that it does not present what actually happened to Scott and his party all the way through, and does "hero-ize" the explorer and his polar party members more than they deserve. The death of Evans, for instance, is done far differently than what actually occurred, but has a true cinematic heroism to it. Evans did not die in Scott's arms, in the snow, as depicted -- he actually fell into a coma and died in the tent that night. And there is a bit of a fumble with Oates' dramatic last words, but only a slight one.
Scott as hero is evident in this film, and even though recent developments have reduced his stature in the eyes of the world, he should still be viewed for what he was -- a true explorer, alongside Shackleton (who does not get nearly enough of the credit he deserves), Amundsen, Peary, etc. Sure, they had their moments of being total jerks -- but don't we all?
For the last eighteen years, I have used this film in my middle-school classroom as a teaching tool during a unit on Antarctica. The story of the race between Scott and Amundsen is a classic tale and deserves to be told. There are probably much more useful films that students can see about the event, but for sheer beauty (yes, I know it was shot mostly in Greenland, but some scenes were indeed filmed down south) you cannot beat Scott of the Antarctic.
Beautiful movie
ubercommando4 April 2005
OK, we've heard a lot about the "real" history and the debate over whether Scott was a hero or a complete imbecile. Whatever the truth is and whatever revisionist or hagiography history is being peddled, "Scott Of The Antarctic" is a beautifully made film: One of the best looking early colour films which evokes a bye-gone era and is strangely compelling and haunting at the same time. The music by Vaughn-Williams, the greatest British classical composer of his time, is powerful and, again, haunting. In some scenes, they've recreated exactly some of the photos taken during the Scott expedition. The casting is spot on; look at the original photos and Millsy is uncannily like Scott, Kenneth More is Teddy Evans, Reginald Beckwith and James Robertson Justice do their real counterparts well and John Gregson, in one of his first film roles, captures Tom Crean perfectly (compare his performance with Paul McGann's Crean in "Shackleton", which was pretty good). Many film critics feel that "Scott of the Antarctic" was somewhat robbed at the 1949 Oscars.
An inspiring and timeless film
leonard-123 February 2003
The Ealing Studios production `Scott of the Antarctic' is a work of art and an inspiration to human achievement. The film depicts the polar explorers of the Second Scott Antarctic Expedition (1910-1913). They are portrayed first as pygmies against the terrible backdrop of the ice continent, then as dauntless giants within the enclosed spaces of their fragile tents as they await their certain death.
The mood of the film is High Victorian, although strictly speaking the setting is Late Edwardian. Edward Adrian Wilson, the artist, played by Harold Warrender, is the quintessential gentleman naturalist. As the film begins, Wilson is shown in the summery garden of his tranquil country homestead in England, meticulously creating a scientific illustration of a mounted bat. At the end, when Wilson is among the few remaining explorers who face frozen death in their wind-whipped tent, his spirit drifts away to his English home.
The Victorian faith in mechanisms is brought forth by close up shots of distance-measuring wheels that are attached to the backs of clumsy man-drawn sledges, and by the heroic but flawed powered tractors that break down in the awful cold.
The film invites the viewer to arrive at his or her own conclusions about the character of Captain Scott. The film makes no judgments - it merely portrays Scott through the superb acting of John Mills.
`Scott of the Antarctic' is a timeless film about eternal values: human endeavor, achievement and triumph.
The mood of the film is High Victorian, although strictly speaking the setting is Late Edwardian. Edward Adrian Wilson, the artist, played by Harold Warrender, is the quintessential gentleman naturalist. As the film begins, Wilson is shown in the summery garden of his tranquil country homestead in England, meticulously creating a scientific illustration of a mounted bat. At the end, when Wilson is among the few remaining explorers who face frozen death in their wind-whipped tent, his spirit drifts away to his English home.
The Victorian faith in mechanisms is brought forth by close up shots of distance-measuring wheels that are attached to the backs of clumsy man-drawn sledges, and by the heroic but flawed powered tractors that break down in the awful cold.
The film invites the viewer to arrive at his or her own conclusions about the character of Captain Scott. The film makes no judgments - it merely portrays Scott through the superb acting of John Mills.
`Scott of the Antarctic' is a timeless film about eternal values: human endeavor, achievement and triumph.
Compelling enough movie with great acting and special effects
TheLittleSongbird9 February 2010
Scott of the Antarctic is a flawed but compelling and beautifully made film, that is definitely worth seeing. The pacing is rather pedestrian in places, the film does sort of idealise the character of Robert Falcon Scott and there is one or two meanderings in the story. Flaws aside, the special effects are absolutely incredible, even for back then, the cinematography is very skillful, the scenery is splendid and the score is resolutely haunting. Also very well done is the focused direction and the compelling performances of John Mills, James Robertson Justice, Diana Churchill and Kenneth More. And there are excellent values portrayed throughout, achievement, triumph, friendship and endeavour, consequently the film's ending is quite moving to say the least. All in all, it isn't perfect but it is worth seeing for the acting and the effects. 7/10 Bethany Cox
One of Ealing's most overlooked efforts
tomgillespie200218 May 2014
Produced by Ealing Studios, Scott of the Antarctic is a stiff upper- lipped depiction of Captain Scott's infamous, ill-fated expedition to the South Pole. Facing freezing storms, starvation, lack of fuel, and having just digested the sobering revelation that Norwegian rival Roald Amundsen had beaten them too it, Scott and his remaining team of four settled and died just 11 miles from camp, where food, warmth and undoubtedly survival awaited them. Trading very much on the legend of Captain Scott, the film charms thanks to it's post-WWII optimism and gorgeous colour cinematography.
Beginning with a determined Scott, played heartily by John Mills, rounding up his crew, the film takes it's time to get to the Arctic. Relying on Captain Scott's beautifully written diary for its source of information, the film feels more documentary than straight feature. It is all the more detailed and authentic for it, but it comes at the expense of any real character development. By the time the credits roll, we know little more about Scott than when we started, apart from that he was obviously a determined and courageous man. But it makes up for this neglect with a startling final third, where director Charles Frend puts us through every step of Scott's exhausting final thrust to get back to civilisation.
Mills and the supporting cast (James Robertson Justice, Kenneth More, Harold Warrender et al) are excellent throughout, starting out as eager and boisterous, and later, as the last survivors wait to die in the tent that would become their tomb, withdrawn and contemplative. The setting plays as the main villain, and it's captured as both a place of isolated beauty and uninhabitable terror , thanks to Jack Cardiff's stunning cinematography, and it's the encroaching sense of doom that gives Scott of the Antarctic a raw power. Although it obviously ends badly, Scott's death proved to be the making of him. Amundsen was (somewhat cruelly) dismissed as a bad sportsman, and Scott was instantly labelled a hero for daring to stare such overwhelming odds in the face and hold his head high. For a country still recovering from the ravishes of war at the time of the film's release, it must have been a powerful sentiment indeed. One of Ealing's most overlooked efforts.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
Beginning with a determined Scott, played heartily by John Mills, rounding up his crew, the film takes it's time to get to the Arctic. Relying on Captain Scott's beautifully written diary for its source of information, the film feels more documentary than straight feature. It is all the more detailed and authentic for it, but it comes at the expense of any real character development. By the time the credits roll, we know little more about Scott than when we started, apart from that he was obviously a determined and courageous man. But it makes up for this neglect with a startling final third, where director Charles Frend puts us through every step of Scott's exhausting final thrust to get back to civilisation.
Mills and the supporting cast (James Robertson Justice, Kenneth More, Harold Warrender et al) are excellent throughout, starting out as eager and boisterous, and later, as the last survivors wait to die in the tent that would become their tomb, withdrawn and contemplative. The setting plays as the main villain, and it's captured as both a place of isolated beauty and uninhabitable terror , thanks to Jack Cardiff's stunning cinematography, and it's the encroaching sense of doom that gives Scott of the Antarctic a raw power. Although it obviously ends badly, Scott's death proved to be the making of him. Amundsen was (somewhat cruelly) dismissed as a bad sportsman, and Scott was instantly labelled a hero for daring to stare such overwhelming odds in the face and hold his head high. For a country still recovering from the ravishes of war at the time of the film's release, it must have been a powerful sentiment indeed. One of Ealing's most overlooked efforts.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
Great scenic propaganda; a great score
kyyankee73 September 2005
I'll not add to the lengthy and learned discussions already entered in regard to this film. It's pretty obvious that Scott's reputation has taken a severe beating since he was erected as the model for all English youth as the First World War was beginning. I will say that the British miniseries "The Last Place on Earth", based on Roland Huntford's book on Scott and Amundsen's race to the pole, is the best piece of television I've ever seen, one which I fortunately taped and have re-viewed several times.
The performances in this film are very sturdy and the cinematography outstanding as well. Most historical films have a biased viewpoint anyway, so this one is no more guilty than any other.
The one point I did want to make that I had not noticed in other comments is that the score for this film is by Ralph Vaughn Williams and is the basis for his "Symphonia Antartica", a beautiful and haunting piece, which deserves to be heard more often.
The performances in this film are very sturdy and the cinematography outstanding as well. Most historical films have a biased viewpoint anyway, so this one is no more guilty than any other.
The one point I did want to make that I had not noticed in other comments is that the score for this film is by Ralph Vaughn Williams and is the basis for his "Symphonia Antartica", a beautiful and haunting piece, which deserves to be heard more often.
Very well done film about Captain Scotts attempt to be the first to reach the South Pole
dgrahamwatson17 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have to pinch myself when I see this as I can't believe that it was made all the way back in 1948, almost 50 years ago. The cinema photography is surprisingly good and the music score is haunting and rousing at the same time. The ability to feel that you are with the ill fated team at the South Pole was an incredible feat in it self. The costumes were excellent and the props they used were authentic ones used in Scotts expedition. The outdoor scenes were very effective and the visible deteriaton of Scotts team was probably as good as you could expect from the make up department in the immediate post war years. The acting was very good and the cast were all very believable in their respective roles. The last 40 mins of the movie was the best and you really believed that they were at the South Pole in 1912 not some area in Greenland in 1948. Very absorbing viewing!
The only problem with the movie is that from an historical point of view is that it all paints a very romantic and heroic picture of Scott. Of course as time has elapsed, this view is not shared by everybody. Evidence has come to light, as well as expert opinion and analysis that calls into question this notion and that in fact it was a tragedy created by hubris and basic errors which could have been avoided. Also, were some of Scotts diaries carefully doctored by Scotts wife or things deliberately omitted ? Was the account on Scotts own request changed, or did his wife and relatives take it upon themselves to do this to enhance his image and keep his reputation intact? I've heard stories that raise these questions and seen the occasional documentary which is critical of Scotts actions. Was this all an early 20th Centuary variation on spin? I'll let others argue and speculate over that but I do have a few observations and opinions on this.
Revisionist history questions many things that we have taken for granted over the years and Scotts expedition is just one of many events that is being revised. The idea that people would distort the truth for commercial reasons i.e. to sell a book should certainly not put it past the realm of possibility, even back in 1912. What we do know is that when you just fall short from your objectives you question any number of things that might have made the difference! Man-hauling what was in all intensive purposes was a cast-iron bathtub stacked full of food and equipment over 800 miles was probably not the most efficient way of traveling. The weather conditions were so bad that apparently only three times since 1912 through the next 50 years was it as brutal and so cold. If they had made it to ONE TON base camp many of these questions would ever have been raised.
Remember, there was no satellite navigation, rescue vehicles, helicopters or aircraft and cell phones. These were explorers who were trying to get to the earth's South Pole and return for the first time, There was a lot at stake and risks had to be taken. Do people criticize Irving and Malory for failing to reach the summit of MT. Everest back in 1924. Nobody says that they should have waited 20 or 30 years until they had better equipment! You use the equipment and conditions that you have not the ones that you want! Was it really fair to use dogs, could this not be construed as cheating? Even after being beaten by Amudson by three weeks wouldn't have still been a greater achievement to have done it purely on there own without dogs? Did Scott deliberately just give up at the end, so disappointed at missing out after so much work? Did he think that his reputation would be enhanced if he died rather than make it back? Possibly, but the physical and mental state of Scotts party should not be easily be over looked or dismissed as a contributing factor to them succumbing to the unusually cold conditions. Also, after so many weeks in the bitter cold, under nourished, suffering from malnutrition, frost bite and hunger, 11 miles might has well have been 1100 miles! There are limits to human endurance!
Today, when you here of people dying of hypothermia after just 2-3 days lost in the wilderness, look at what Scott and his team had to put up with. It's not a bad film, you watch it and make your own judgment!
The only problem with the movie is that from an historical point of view is that it all paints a very romantic and heroic picture of Scott. Of course as time has elapsed, this view is not shared by everybody. Evidence has come to light, as well as expert opinion and analysis that calls into question this notion and that in fact it was a tragedy created by hubris and basic errors which could have been avoided. Also, were some of Scotts diaries carefully doctored by Scotts wife or things deliberately omitted ? Was the account on Scotts own request changed, or did his wife and relatives take it upon themselves to do this to enhance his image and keep his reputation intact? I've heard stories that raise these questions and seen the occasional documentary which is critical of Scotts actions. Was this all an early 20th Centuary variation on spin? I'll let others argue and speculate over that but I do have a few observations and opinions on this.
Revisionist history questions many things that we have taken for granted over the years and Scotts expedition is just one of many events that is being revised. The idea that people would distort the truth for commercial reasons i.e. to sell a book should certainly not put it past the realm of possibility, even back in 1912. What we do know is that when you just fall short from your objectives you question any number of things that might have made the difference! Man-hauling what was in all intensive purposes was a cast-iron bathtub stacked full of food and equipment over 800 miles was probably not the most efficient way of traveling. The weather conditions were so bad that apparently only three times since 1912 through the next 50 years was it as brutal and so cold. If they had made it to ONE TON base camp many of these questions would ever have been raised.
Remember, there was no satellite navigation, rescue vehicles, helicopters or aircraft and cell phones. These were explorers who were trying to get to the earth's South Pole and return for the first time, There was a lot at stake and risks had to be taken. Do people criticize Irving and Malory for failing to reach the summit of MT. Everest back in 1924. Nobody says that they should have waited 20 or 30 years until they had better equipment! You use the equipment and conditions that you have not the ones that you want! Was it really fair to use dogs, could this not be construed as cheating? Even after being beaten by Amudson by three weeks wouldn't have still been a greater achievement to have done it purely on there own without dogs? Did Scott deliberately just give up at the end, so disappointed at missing out after so much work? Did he think that his reputation would be enhanced if he died rather than make it back? Possibly, but the physical and mental state of Scotts party should not be easily be over looked or dismissed as a contributing factor to them succumbing to the unusually cold conditions. Also, after so many weeks in the bitter cold, under nourished, suffering from malnutrition, frost bite and hunger, 11 miles might has well have been 1100 miles! There are limits to human endurance!
Today, when you here of people dying of hypothermia after just 2-3 days lost in the wilderness, look at what Scott and his team had to put up with. It's not a bad film, you watch it and make your own judgment!
A Beautifully Shot Film
natnce28 October 2006
Although it verges on being a hagiography and cannot be considered to be historically accurate (what historical film is?), Scott of the Antarctic is a beautifully shot film with a great score and a solid cast. Some of the equipment from the actual expedition was used as props.
One of the other commentators on here makes mention of various failings of Scott's. Skis were depoted on the plateau due to poor surface conditions, as it was easier to haul without them and to carry them would have meant a considerable extra weight. Scott's own team depoted their skis, but went back for them when the conditions improved they did after all have an extra 200 miles to travel than Teddy Evan's team. Taff Evans wasn't abandoned on the Beardmore: he was suffering from possible brain damage and unable to pull the sledge. Considering that they all faced death if they didn't make the next depot in time, the other expedition members went on ahead with the intention of letting him catch up, whereupon he collapsed and died. Out of Teddy Evans's returning party only Evans himself came down with scurvy as he refused to eat either seal or pony meat for months. The other two members of his team, Crean and Lashly, didn't come down with scurvy and when the bodies of Scott and his men were discovered, the signs of scurvy were not visible on them either.
Nansen DID use dogs on his attempt at reaching the North Pole in 1893-95, although his earlier crossing of Greenland was done by manhaul. Scott already had decided to take skis on his expedition BEFORE he met Nansen in Norway, as he had gone there to buy the skis and test the motorised sledges. In fact it was he showed Nansen his locally purchased skis that the great man suggested Scott taking Gran with him. Gran DID teach Scott's men the basics of skiing on the pack ice on the way south. Scott himself was as good a skier as the average Norwegian. There is no evidence of an affair between Kathleen Scott and Nansen as on the occasion in question she was staying with American friends, not in the hotel with Nansen. According to the evidence they were good friends and nothing more.
One of the other commentators on here makes mention of various failings of Scott's. Skis were depoted on the plateau due to poor surface conditions, as it was easier to haul without them and to carry them would have meant a considerable extra weight. Scott's own team depoted their skis, but went back for them when the conditions improved they did after all have an extra 200 miles to travel than Teddy Evan's team. Taff Evans wasn't abandoned on the Beardmore: he was suffering from possible brain damage and unable to pull the sledge. Considering that they all faced death if they didn't make the next depot in time, the other expedition members went on ahead with the intention of letting him catch up, whereupon he collapsed and died. Out of Teddy Evans's returning party only Evans himself came down with scurvy as he refused to eat either seal or pony meat for months. The other two members of his team, Crean and Lashly, didn't come down with scurvy and when the bodies of Scott and his men were discovered, the signs of scurvy were not visible on them either.
Nansen DID use dogs on his attempt at reaching the North Pole in 1893-95, although his earlier crossing of Greenland was done by manhaul. Scott already had decided to take skis on his expedition BEFORE he met Nansen in Norway, as he had gone there to buy the skis and test the motorised sledges. In fact it was he showed Nansen his locally purchased skis that the great man suggested Scott taking Gran with him. Gran DID teach Scott's men the basics of skiing on the pack ice on the way south. Scott himself was as good a skier as the average Norwegian. There is no evidence of an affair between Kathleen Scott and Nansen as on the occasion in question she was staying with American friends, not in the hotel with Nansen. According to the evidence they were good friends and nothing more.
"Print the legend"
ianlouisiana19 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Mr John Mills is magnificent as Captain Robert Falcon Scott,a Victorian Gentleman Adventurer out of his time.Soon enough the world he occupies will be irrevocably changed on the killing fields of the Great War for civilisation.Expeditions such as his will no longer be redolent of the Wardroom vs the Lower Deck.What passes in the British psyche for egalitarianism will infiltrate all fields of endeavour.Mr Mills conveys courage without actually doing anything courageous,a challenge to the finest of actors."Scott of the Antarctic" was a prestigious production in 1948,in the twilight of the British Empire's last gleaming.Captain Scott was widely regarded as a worthy successor to Raleigh,Cooke,Stanley and Rhodes,adventurers whose names we hardly dare to speak in the 21st century.His brand of bloody-minded determination has been replaced by the "yeah,whatever...."culture. As expedition leader Scott was as much a victim of the hierarchical society as his humblest hewer of wood and drawer of water.Leadership was the prerogative of his class regardless of their abilities. In 1948 we watched the movie without the benefit of nearly sixty years of hindsight.It may be flawed as a historical document,but as a cinematic achievement it is worthy of a place in the top rank of British Cinema.Much of its impact is dulled on the small screen of course,you never get the sense of the futility of the small figures struggling across the ice,the insignificance of man in the face of raw nature yet at the same time his indomitability that can be conveyed in a movie theatre.If the truth about Scott does not live up to the legend perhaps,as a tribute to a brave man,we should as John Ford said in "The man who shot Liberty Vallance"....."Print the legend".
Gorgeous and attractive film about the epic feat of the British explorer Robert Falcon Scott and his long-suffering expedition
ma-cortes9 March 2020
The story of British explorer Robert Falcon Scott'CVO (6 June 1868 - c. 29 March 1912) , masterfully played by John Mills , and his 1912 expedition and his quest to be the first to reach the South Pole . It is magnificently adapted by means of a splendid cinematography, adequate make up , impressive exteriors and formidable effects . Dealing with his worried wife (Diana Churchil) and how Robert Scott enlists a motley and highy-prepared group (James Robertson Justice , Christopher Lee ,Kenneth More , John Gregson , Derek Bond , Clive Morton ,among others) to carry out the risked travel . But a rival team of Norwegian explorers led by Amundsen conspire against him.
The true story of how a hero attempts to be the first man to discover the South Pole, only to find that the murderously cold weather and far North Pole spoil their ill-fated expedition . To add to the authenticity of this near-documentary/drama movie , it had a lot of the Antarctic scenes that were filmed in Graham Land, Antarctica, , furthermore : Norway, Jungfrau, Kanton Bern, Switzerland , Falmouth Docks, Falmouth, Cornwall, England. Although there was about various weeks to get worthwhile filming locations , the vast majority of this picture was actually shot on studio , in Ealing Studios, Ealing, London. Breathtaking and overwhelming cinematography by three best cameramen of the British cinema : Osmond Borradaile , Jack Cardiff and Geoffrey Unsworth . Adding an impressive and rousing musical score by Vaughan Williams . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Charles Frend . Charles made his directorial debut in 1942 and turned out several low-budget dramas and documentaries. After the war he directed several critically acclaimed dramas, including Cruel Sea (1953) and Scott of the Antarctic (1948) at his best . His final film as director was The Sky-Bike (1967) and the film on which he ended his career was Ryan's daughter (1970), on which he worked as a second-unit .
Adding more biographic remarks , the deeds happened in the following way : Robert Falcon Scott was a Royal Navy officer and explorer who led two expeditions to the Antarctic regions: the Discovery expedition of 1901-1904 and the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition of 1910-1913. On the first expedition, he set a new southern record by marching to latitude 82°S and discovered the Antarctic Plateau, on which the South Pole is located. On the second venture, Scott led a party of five which reached the South Pole on 17 January 1912, less than five weeks after Amundsen's South Pole expedition. The temperatures recorded by Scott and his team on remain to this day some of the lowest ever recorded. A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, despite Scott's written instructions, and at a distance of 162 miles (261 km) from their base camp at Hut Point and approximately 20 km from the next depot, Scott and his companions died. When Scott and his party's bodies were discovered, they had in their possession the first Antarctic fossils ever discovered. The fossils were determined to be from the Glossopteris tree and proved that Antarctica was once forested and joined to other continents. Before his appointment to lead the Discovery expedition, Scott had followed the career of a naval officer in the Royal Navy. In 1899, he had a chance encounter with Sir Clements Markham, the president of the Royal Geographical Society, and thus learned of a planned Antarctic expedition, which he soon volunteered to lead . Having taken this step, his name became inseparably associated with the Antarctic, the field of work to which he remained committed during the final 12 years of his life. Following the news of his death, Scott became a celebrated hero, a status reflected by memorials erected across the UK. However, in the last decades of the 20th century, questions were raised about his competence and character. Commentators in the 21st century have regarded Scott more positively after assessing the temperature drop below , 40 °C in March 1912, and after re-discovering Scott's written orders of October 1911, in which he had instructed the dog teams to meet and assist him on the return trip that was flop . Scott is presumed to have died on 29 March 1912, or possibly one day later. The positions of the bodies in the tent when it was discovered eight months later suggested that Scott was the last of the three to die. The bodies of Scott and his companions were discovered by a search party on 12 November 1912 and their records retrieved. Tryggve Gran, who was part of the search party, described the scene as, "snowcovered til up above the door, with Scott in the middle, half out of his bagg ... the frost had made the skin yellow & transparent & I've never seen anything worse in my life". Their final camp became their tomb; the tent roof was lowered over the bodies and a high cairn of snow was erected over it, topped by a roughly fashioned cross, erected using Gran's skis . As an Observation Hill memorial cross, was erected in 1913 and Captain Scott's log and many of the personal effects of the explorers were loaned by The British Museum . Rating 7.5/10 . Better than average .
The true story of how a hero attempts to be the first man to discover the South Pole, only to find that the murderously cold weather and far North Pole spoil their ill-fated expedition . To add to the authenticity of this near-documentary/drama movie , it had a lot of the Antarctic scenes that were filmed in Graham Land, Antarctica, , furthermore : Norway, Jungfrau, Kanton Bern, Switzerland , Falmouth Docks, Falmouth, Cornwall, England. Although there was about various weeks to get worthwhile filming locations , the vast majority of this picture was actually shot on studio , in Ealing Studios, Ealing, London. Breathtaking and overwhelming cinematography by three best cameramen of the British cinema : Osmond Borradaile , Jack Cardiff and Geoffrey Unsworth . Adding an impressive and rousing musical score by Vaughan Williams . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Charles Frend . Charles made his directorial debut in 1942 and turned out several low-budget dramas and documentaries. After the war he directed several critically acclaimed dramas, including Cruel Sea (1953) and Scott of the Antarctic (1948) at his best . His final film as director was The Sky-Bike (1967) and the film on which he ended his career was Ryan's daughter (1970), on which he worked as a second-unit .
Adding more biographic remarks , the deeds happened in the following way : Robert Falcon Scott was a Royal Navy officer and explorer who led two expeditions to the Antarctic regions: the Discovery expedition of 1901-1904 and the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition of 1910-1913. On the first expedition, he set a new southern record by marching to latitude 82°S and discovered the Antarctic Plateau, on which the South Pole is located. On the second venture, Scott led a party of five which reached the South Pole on 17 January 1912, less than five weeks after Amundsen's South Pole expedition. The temperatures recorded by Scott and his team on remain to this day some of the lowest ever recorded. A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, despite Scott's written instructions, and at a distance of 162 miles (261 km) from their base camp at Hut Point and approximately 20 km from the next depot, Scott and his companions died. When Scott and his party's bodies were discovered, they had in their possession the first Antarctic fossils ever discovered. The fossils were determined to be from the Glossopteris tree and proved that Antarctica was once forested and joined to other continents. Before his appointment to lead the Discovery expedition, Scott had followed the career of a naval officer in the Royal Navy. In 1899, he had a chance encounter with Sir Clements Markham, the president of the Royal Geographical Society, and thus learned of a planned Antarctic expedition, which he soon volunteered to lead . Having taken this step, his name became inseparably associated with the Antarctic, the field of work to which he remained committed during the final 12 years of his life. Following the news of his death, Scott became a celebrated hero, a status reflected by memorials erected across the UK. However, in the last decades of the 20th century, questions were raised about his competence and character. Commentators in the 21st century have regarded Scott more positively after assessing the temperature drop below , 40 °C in March 1912, and after re-discovering Scott's written orders of October 1911, in which he had instructed the dog teams to meet and assist him on the return trip that was flop . Scott is presumed to have died on 29 March 1912, or possibly one day later. The positions of the bodies in the tent when it was discovered eight months later suggested that Scott was the last of the three to die. The bodies of Scott and his companions were discovered by a search party on 12 November 1912 and their records retrieved. Tryggve Gran, who was part of the search party, described the scene as, "snowcovered til up above the door, with Scott in the middle, half out of his bagg ... the frost had made the skin yellow & transparent & I've never seen anything worse in my life". Their final camp became their tomb; the tent roof was lowered over the bodies and a high cairn of snow was erected over it, topped by a roughly fashioned cross, erected using Gran's skis . As an Observation Hill memorial cross, was erected in 1913 and Captain Scott's log and many of the personal effects of the explorers were loaned by The British Museum . Rating 7.5/10 . Better than average .
magnificent bleak haunting film
dr-mtarver-884-78870130 December 2013
I wanted to say a few words on this magnificent film.
Firstly the acting was first-class. In no film have I seen an actor capture the look of terror that I man feels when he contemplates his death and suppresses terror because of his dignity. It is all in the eyes, and Evan's despairing gaze as he sinks to the snow lingers with the viewer long after the film has ceased to roll. Old as it is, it is a vastly more powerful and shaking film than 'Saving Private Ryan. The make-up and casting are first class. The fact that it was made only a generation after the expedition, gives the film a touch of verisimilitude that truly chills the blood.
Many of the comments here reflect a post-imperialist desire to deconstruct the heroes of the Empire of whom Scott was one. His diary apparently, reveals weaknesses of character. But this ignores that a man facing death, communicates to his diary the depths of his soul while he bears a brave face to his companions. Scott's errors can be seen as those of a man taking a gamble, underfunded, knowing the chances but believing that with ordinary luck, he should succeed. The polar winter closes early and at the end he acknowledges his defeat and imminent death.
If you want to see a film about men challenging the odds and facing death - this is the film.
Firstly the acting was first-class. In no film have I seen an actor capture the look of terror that I man feels when he contemplates his death and suppresses terror because of his dignity. It is all in the eyes, and Evan's despairing gaze as he sinks to the snow lingers with the viewer long after the film has ceased to roll. Old as it is, it is a vastly more powerful and shaking film than 'Saving Private Ryan. The make-up and casting are first class. The fact that it was made only a generation after the expedition, gives the film a touch of verisimilitude that truly chills the blood.
Many of the comments here reflect a post-imperialist desire to deconstruct the heroes of the Empire of whom Scott was one. His diary apparently, reveals weaknesses of character. But this ignores that a man facing death, communicates to his diary the depths of his soul while he bears a brave face to his companions. Scott's errors can be seen as those of a man taking a gamble, underfunded, knowing the chances but believing that with ordinary luck, he should succeed. The polar winter closes early and at the end he acknowledges his defeat and imminent death.
If you want to see a film about men challenging the odds and facing death - this is the film.
Woefully inaccurate
Gilly-134 August 2000
The movie is slightly redeemed by John Mills's performance, also a great team of cinematographers. This was done at a time when Scott was still considered, in England, to be something of a hero rather than the bungling martinet he was. The film is rife with romantic inaccuracies. E.g., the schoolgirl who makes the touchingly brave effort to contribute her pennies represented, in reality, a concerted campaign by Kathleen Scott to raise money for the expedition from English schoolchildren after Scott was snubbed by the Royal Geographical Society; Oates, the cavalryman, was disgusted with the condition of the Manchurian ponies purchased by Meares, the dog expert, who warned Scott he had no knowledge of horseflesh; Lieut. 'Teddy' Evans did not *ask* permission for his 4-man party to leave their skis behind, his party was singled out and *ordered* by Scott to depot their skis--an order which Lieut. Evans questioned vigorously; on the ill-fated return journey, Scott was not nearly so solicitous of P.O. 'Taff' Evans's weakening condition as is portrayed and essentially abandoned Taff at the foot of the Beardmore Glacier; and, no mention is made of the rampant symptoms of scurvy that affected the second return party and the polar party--a touchy subject with the Royal Navy.
Perhaps the most offensive inaccuracy is the portrayal of the great Norwegian polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen as a monosyllabic lout. "I like doogs", he repeats. In reality, Nansen never used dogs himself; it was Amundsen who learned to drive dogs from the natives of Arctic Canada on his Gjoa expedition through the Northwest Passage. What Nansen tried to impress upon Scott was: a) the foolishness of testing motor sledges in the relative warmth of a Norwegian snow field in spring; and, b) the importance of skis, which Scott, up to this point, had no plans to use. It was only by virtue of a demonstration staged by conspiracy between Nansen and Kathleen Scott (the two later had a brief affair), that Scott was persuaded to take the Norwegian skier, Gran, along to teach his men to use skis. Scott then equipped his expedition with skis, took Gran to Antarctica, but never gave him the opportunity to instruct his men.
For a more accurate and far less romanticized enactment, take the time to find and see "The Last Place on Earth", a 7-hour BBC documentary from 1985 based on Roland Huntford's book, "Scott and Amundsen".
Perhaps the most offensive inaccuracy is the portrayal of the great Norwegian polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen as a monosyllabic lout. "I like doogs", he repeats. In reality, Nansen never used dogs himself; it was Amundsen who learned to drive dogs from the natives of Arctic Canada on his Gjoa expedition through the Northwest Passage. What Nansen tried to impress upon Scott was: a) the foolishness of testing motor sledges in the relative warmth of a Norwegian snow field in spring; and, b) the importance of skis, which Scott, up to this point, had no plans to use. It was only by virtue of a demonstration staged by conspiracy between Nansen and Kathleen Scott (the two later had a brief affair), that Scott was persuaded to take the Norwegian skier, Gran, along to teach his men to use skis. Scott then equipped his expedition with skis, took Gran to Antarctica, but never gave him the opportunity to instruct his men.
For a more accurate and far less romanticized enactment, take the time to find and see "The Last Place on Earth", a 7-hour BBC documentary from 1985 based on Roland Huntford's book, "Scott and Amundsen".
Frosted Foolhardy Failure yet memorable story down under
thejcowboy2210 February 2020
I recall my first ever bicycle expedition as a youth. Growing up in Elmont, Long Island, where could I travel far enough away, yet be home in time for dinner? I chose the Atlantic Ocean and the Rockaway boardwalk. My two friends and I got on our stingray bikes and headed south following the jets toward John F. Kennedy international. Fourty five minutes later we arrived at Brookville Park where we saw two kid trying to fish. We stopped for water and rested for about an hour. Then we headed onward along a pot hole infested street toward Rockaway Turnpike. Then misfortune struck as my Friend's bike chain broke. There we were stranded along the marshlands adjacent to the airport as plane noise and frustration was on our minds. We never thought about the possibilities. what if we got a flat tire or broken chain or injury? Never entered our thoughts. Now came the painstaking task of walking our bikes back to Elmont on foot. Scott of The Antarctic was modeled in the same way as in most failed expeditions. A cinematic British production out of Ealing Studios and Directed by Charles Frend, you follow the story of an expedition to the South Pole. This film is considered a documentary for it's time yet critic alike tell a different story of tremendous inaccuracies. I was taken by the actual winter scenes. Film in Technicolor for a 1940's movies which is very rear for that cost and period. The story is simple yet very dangerous and unnerving. Sir Robert Falcon Scott (John Mills) and his crew fight their most vicious foe "The Elements" Unspeakable below freezing temperatures as they crawl toward civilization. I could speak about the failed expedition and dreary outcome. The important thing you should know is that I was riveted watching the struggling explorers with their frost bitten faces accompanied by a whiteout filled backdrop till films end. Notable supporting cast includes Derek Bond as Oates, Reginald Berkwith as Bowers, James Justice as Evans and the mostly cast actor on both sides of the pond the incomparable Christoper Lee as Day to complete expedition. As for my return to civilization some 3 hours later in the blazing sun, We did mange to stop for pizza which we enjoyed.
Gentle Error
tedg19 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I had a choice between seeing this and "300," and I chose this.
Its because there is a certain kind of movie story based on nobility. There are only a few ways to do it. All of them abstract reality in a dramatic direction. But you know, war isn't inherently dramatic. Deprivation is. Struggling against nature is. Being incredibly flawed as a result of cultural blindness could be, depending on how it is handled.
The story here is of two teams competing to be the first to the south pole. For reasons unexplored here, it really mattered in the popular imagination who got there first. It was a matter of national pride, akin to whether a team wearing your emblem wins a game. Socially, I think all the steam went out of the explorer hero with the man-on-the-moon adventure where the feat really was a demonstration of national strength, capability, will. But in those days as recently as a hundred years ago, national pride was bound in the last generation of individuals who could be called explorers.
The Brits were particularly keen on this expedition because it was exploration largely divorced from imperial landgrabs. As with the moon shot, it was wrapped in scientific clothing as a thin excuse. The events in this movie happened before the first world war and the film was made after the second, when England was a different place, eager to seize on old models of what made then Brits. And because they are highly introspective, they'd want to look at their own foibles together with their strengths.
The facts are damning. The Norweigian fellow got there first. He made every decision matter, and he made all the right decisions. The British team made huge errors and miscalculations. They did have bad luck with weather, but it has to be noted that Amundsen (the Norweigian) had precisely the same weather to deal with.
What we see it remarkable. All the mistakes are seen only as the trigger for noble response, because after all is done, the English mind likes to think of its heroes as gentlemen who responded to adversity as gentlemen. And gentlemen they were; they chose not to rely on dogs, instead pulled the sleds with their own bodies for hundreds of miles. The reason? Dogs are our friends. Amundsen used dogs exclusively for transport, eating them along the way. The Brits carried books and other tokens of civilization, a huge burden while the Norweigian cut and cut and cut to the bone.
It has to be noted that the party froze only 11 miles from a cache of stores, so even 2 pounds over 1800 miles would have mattered. In the final legs where ounces mattered and they were tossing items from the sleds, they kept 30 pounds of "interesting rocks."
The film turns all this into a celebration of Englishness. One man was injured before beginning the final, disastrous leg. He could have said something and been replaced, but he didn't. His act alone damned the party. But we remember him as a gent, because at the end he politely informed his partners that he was going out of the huddled tent into a blizzard "and would be gone a while," never to be seen again.
But the most gentlemanly affect was Scott's writing in the journals as he knew doom approached. All the men wrote dear letters; they and the journals were found later in the tent with the frozen bodies. What we have of the story, we have from those writings, which we see written throughout the movie. The device is amplified by us hearing narration from the three last members of the party.
If you are interested in how film affects national identify, forming and reflecting it, shaping history and remembrance, and you want to escape war pictures which, so far are dull with few exceptions, then try this. Its the gentle thing to do.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Its because there is a certain kind of movie story based on nobility. There are only a few ways to do it. All of them abstract reality in a dramatic direction. But you know, war isn't inherently dramatic. Deprivation is. Struggling against nature is. Being incredibly flawed as a result of cultural blindness could be, depending on how it is handled.
The story here is of two teams competing to be the first to the south pole. For reasons unexplored here, it really mattered in the popular imagination who got there first. It was a matter of national pride, akin to whether a team wearing your emblem wins a game. Socially, I think all the steam went out of the explorer hero with the man-on-the-moon adventure where the feat really was a demonstration of national strength, capability, will. But in those days as recently as a hundred years ago, national pride was bound in the last generation of individuals who could be called explorers.
The Brits were particularly keen on this expedition because it was exploration largely divorced from imperial landgrabs. As with the moon shot, it was wrapped in scientific clothing as a thin excuse. The events in this movie happened before the first world war and the film was made after the second, when England was a different place, eager to seize on old models of what made then Brits. And because they are highly introspective, they'd want to look at their own foibles together with their strengths.
The facts are damning. The Norweigian fellow got there first. He made every decision matter, and he made all the right decisions. The British team made huge errors and miscalculations. They did have bad luck with weather, but it has to be noted that Amundsen (the Norweigian) had precisely the same weather to deal with.
What we see it remarkable. All the mistakes are seen only as the trigger for noble response, because after all is done, the English mind likes to think of its heroes as gentlemen who responded to adversity as gentlemen. And gentlemen they were; they chose not to rely on dogs, instead pulled the sleds with their own bodies for hundreds of miles. The reason? Dogs are our friends. Amundsen used dogs exclusively for transport, eating them along the way. The Brits carried books and other tokens of civilization, a huge burden while the Norweigian cut and cut and cut to the bone.
It has to be noted that the party froze only 11 miles from a cache of stores, so even 2 pounds over 1800 miles would have mattered. In the final legs where ounces mattered and they were tossing items from the sleds, they kept 30 pounds of "interesting rocks."
The film turns all this into a celebration of Englishness. One man was injured before beginning the final, disastrous leg. He could have said something and been replaced, but he didn't. His act alone damned the party. But we remember him as a gent, because at the end he politely informed his partners that he was going out of the huddled tent into a blizzard "and would be gone a while," never to be seen again.
But the most gentlemanly affect was Scott's writing in the journals as he knew doom approached. All the men wrote dear letters; they and the journals were found later in the tent with the frozen bodies. What we have of the story, we have from those writings, which we see written throughout the movie. The device is amplified by us hearing narration from the three last members of the party.
If you are interested in how film affects national identify, forming and reflecting it, shaping history and remembrance, and you want to escape war pictures which, so far are dull with few exceptions, then try this. Its the gentle thing to do.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
It's just a waiting game in this very grim picture.
planktonrules5 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film stars John Mills and is about the Scott expedition to the South Pole shortly before WWI. It shows the preparations and actual expedition--mostly shot in Norway, as going to Antarctica would have been prohibitively expensive and difficult.
Although "Scott of the Antarctic" is a very well made film (after all, it's from Ealing Studios!), it suffers from two major problems. First, for the viewer to really get into the film and enjoy it, you need to buy into the notion that going to the South Pole is actually worth doing and is not a complete waste of time and lives. I hate to be a downer, but I clearly fall into that category and feel that people who attempted things like this were brave but also rather foolish--especially since the film shows many mistakes Scott made in planning the expedition. Sorry but I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. Second, anyone who knows history knows of the fate of Scott and his expedition--and so the film is extremely anticlimactic and you know it's just a matter of time until they all become human popsicles. For me, it was just a waiting game. Plus, their competition had already made it to the Pole before Scott-- making the entire expedition a waste of time and human lives.
If you can ignore all this, then yes, it is a very good film. Unusual for its time, the movie was shot in color and extensively followed the actual logs of events. The acting is lovely, as is the music and direction. All in all, it's full of all the glory and pomp you'd want in a movie that appears to glorify the British Empire and the 'can do' spirit. But, when you think about it, it's a great example of the 'can't do' spirit--and is, perhaps, a bit of a metaphor for the British Empire circa 1948.
Although "Scott of the Antarctic" is a very well made film (after all, it's from Ealing Studios!), it suffers from two major problems. First, for the viewer to really get into the film and enjoy it, you need to buy into the notion that going to the South Pole is actually worth doing and is not a complete waste of time and lives. I hate to be a downer, but I clearly fall into that category and feel that people who attempted things like this were brave but also rather foolish--especially since the film shows many mistakes Scott made in planning the expedition. Sorry but I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. Second, anyone who knows history knows of the fate of Scott and his expedition--and so the film is extremely anticlimactic and you know it's just a matter of time until they all become human popsicles. For me, it was just a waiting game. Plus, their competition had already made it to the Pole before Scott-- making the entire expedition a waste of time and human lives.
If you can ignore all this, then yes, it is a very good film. Unusual for its time, the movie was shot in color and extensively followed the actual logs of events. The acting is lovely, as is the music and direction. All in all, it's full of all the glory and pomp you'd want in a movie that appears to glorify the British Empire and the 'can do' spirit. But, when you think about it, it's a great example of the 'can't do' spirit--and is, perhaps, a bit of a metaphor for the British Empire circa 1948.
Custodian Of His Legend
bkoganbing13 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Captain Robert Falcon Scott of the Royal Navy became the second man by days to reach the South Pole. But it was the attempted return trip that made him a legend. That and the diary he kept of the journey.
When Scott and his four companions were found his diary among other effects were returned to his widow Kathleen. She carefully edited it and had it published. It became a popular literary classic, embodying all the best virtues the British like to see in themselves.
Kathleen Scott in her widowhood became a lot like Libby Bacon Custer, widow of George Armstrong Custer who survived him and the massacre at the Little Big Horn in 1876 all the way until 1932. She also jealously guarded the reputation of her husband. Kathleen Scott had the easier job, her husband's reputation even today despite some revisionist opinion has stood a lot better than General Custer.
Diaries are in and of themselves self serving, edited as Scott's was it made him out to be almost a saint. In fact even the film shows that Scott made several decisions that doomed his fate.
Whether he admitted it or not, he was in fact in a race with Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen to see who would be first to the South Pole. Scott insisted on preserving a certain fiction that this was in fact a scientific expedition right to the end, his men carried rock samples back from the pole to their deaths. I'm still trying to figure out why he didn't just leave them and mark the spot and go back for them.
He insisted on some motorized transport that broke down in the bitter cold. We have machines that operate in extreme cold now, we couldn't explore space if we didn't. Also anti-freeze had not been invented yet. Scott also brought some Shetland ponies who also broke down had to be killed. Amundsen brought only sled dogs and used valuable knowledge he gathered from the Inuit about polar travel.
Amundsen is kind of an unseen villain here and he certainly didn't help his historic reputation by leaving an in your face type of letter to be found by Scott on his arrival only days later. Still the plain fact is that he knew his job better than Scott which is why he made it and did survive.
John Mills both plays Scott and supplies the narrative from his diary. It was one of Mills's most popular roles and it's almost like he was playing two different parts. Both as husband and father and leader of the expedition he's in one character and the man narrating Scott's diary is another. He did both very well indeed.
Diana Churchill, daughter of another UK legend, is Kathleen Scott and Mills's companions on the final dash to the pole are Harold Warrender, Derek Bond, James Robertson Justice, and Reginald Beckwith.
Despite his flaws as a leader, Robert Falcon Scott was a courageous explorer into the unknown and this film does his historic reputation well. Despite revisionist opinion it too has stood the test of time.
When Scott and his four companions were found his diary among other effects were returned to his widow Kathleen. She carefully edited it and had it published. It became a popular literary classic, embodying all the best virtues the British like to see in themselves.
Kathleen Scott in her widowhood became a lot like Libby Bacon Custer, widow of George Armstrong Custer who survived him and the massacre at the Little Big Horn in 1876 all the way until 1932. She also jealously guarded the reputation of her husband. Kathleen Scott had the easier job, her husband's reputation even today despite some revisionist opinion has stood a lot better than General Custer.
Diaries are in and of themselves self serving, edited as Scott's was it made him out to be almost a saint. In fact even the film shows that Scott made several decisions that doomed his fate.
Whether he admitted it or not, he was in fact in a race with Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen to see who would be first to the South Pole. Scott insisted on preserving a certain fiction that this was in fact a scientific expedition right to the end, his men carried rock samples back from the pole to their deaths. I'm still trying to figure out why he didn't just leave them and mark the spot and go back for them.
He insisted on some motorized transport that broke down in the bitter cold. We have machines that operate in extreme cold now, we couldn't explore space if we didn't. Also anti-freeze had not been invented yet. Scott also brought some Shetland ponies who also broke down had to be killed. Amundsen brought only sled dogs and used valuable knowledge he gathered from the Inuit about polar travel.
Amundsen is kind of an unseen villain here and he certainly didn't help his historic reputation by leaving an in your face type of letter to be found by Scott on his arrival only days later. Still the plain fact is that he knew his job better than Scott which is why he made it and did survive.
John Mills both plays Scott and supplies the narrative from his diary. It was one of Mills's most popular roles and it's almost like he was playing two different parts. Both as husband and father and leader of the expedition he's in one character and the man narrating Scott's diary is another. He did both very well indeed.
Diana Churchill, daughter of another UK legend, is Kathleen Scott and Mills's companions on the final dash to the pole are Harold Warrender, Derek Bond, James Robertson Justice, and Reginald Beckwith.
Despite his flaws as a leader, Robert Falcon Scott was a courageous explorer into the unknown and this film does his historic reputation well. Despite revisionist opinion it too has stood the test of time.
When defeats are victories.
jromanbaker14 December 2020
I have just seen this film and reluctantly admire it. I saw it many years ago, but time has mellowed my response to it. John Mills I still think is too much of a star of the time for me to find completely convincing, but no doubt he signalled hope to an immediate post-War public living for the most part in genteel poverty, or confined again to slum buildings. Harold Warrender, a good understated actor, but more subtle, would have been my choice. He stands out in the film as having a quiet sense of presence and less ' heroic, ' and for me he should have been given the role of Scott. His scenes at the beginning of the film with his wife are played with a nuanced tenderness that won me over, and only in his performance do I feel an unspoken presentiment of defeat. But the film, well made and handsome to look at somehow transforms it into the sort of success that the British often attribute to noble failure. Vaughan Williams contributes with a fine musical score and the colour could not be bettered. The ending we should all know by now, and as a child Scott's name was spoken with reverence and he is undoubtedly still a tragic but great figure who failed in his objective, yet is somehow victorious. Both John Gregson and Kenneth More play suitably stiff upper lip roles, and somehow it seems irreverent to give the film a 7. I accept in tragic times it still holds out hope when so little is just over the horizon.
Still worth watching
Laakbaar15 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is a straightforward, competent telling of the story of Scott's ill-fated 1910-1912 expedition to be the first to reach the South Pole. We know what happened to the final five because they kept detailed diaries, which were recovered after their deaths.
The movie feels almost like a documentary, but one whose goal is to overtly emphasise the heroic virtues of the men involved. Once the movie gets to the scenes showing Scott's party in extremis, it becomes a gripping story of tough men -- without sufficient supplies -- dealing with unexpectedly brutal weather and an unimaginable physical effort.
It all seems so incredible now: walking and skiing with dogs, ponies and supply-laden toboggans for hundreds of kilometres in the freezing cold. And to do it for the glory of the British Empire? Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole, but how many of us know that factoid or even remotely care?
Yes, the cruel irony is that a Norwegian team commanded by Amundsen had already done the feat a month earlier, without loss of human life. I know some will disagree with me, but Scott's expedition turned out to be a pointless folly and a failure.
I wouldn't call this movie timeless. If this had been a modern movie or documentary, we would have wanted to know more about why things went wrong for the Scott expedition. We would also would have wanted to know more about the tension between the party members. In this movie we just see stalwart men and stiff upper lips. We would have insisted on being shown the killing of the dogs and ponies. The movie was made in 1948, so the story presented here is heavy on the heroism and light on the actual details of what went wrong.
Still, this 60-year-old movie was very well made and has a modern feel. It is still interesting to modern movie watchers. It's a good historical movie.
In the beginning of the film, the scenes in Edwardian England show with some detail and accuracy what this long lost, romantic and idealistic world was like. The scene that sticks in my mind is that of the crowd of well wishers at the dock as the Terra Nova sails off. Such a different world, yet only a century ago. The anguish on Scott's wife's face was moving.
The movie feels almost like a documentary, but one whose goal is to overtly emphasise the heroic virtues of the men involved. Once the movie gets to the scenes showing Scott's party in extremis, it becomes a gripping story of tough men -- without sufficient supplies -- dealing with unexpectedly brutal weather and an unimaginable physical effort.
It all seems so incredible now: walking and skiing with dogs, ponies and supply-laden toboggans for hundreds of kilometres in the freezing cold. And to do it for the glory of the British Empire? Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole, but how many of us know that factoid or even remotely care?
Yes, the cruel irony is that a Norwegian team commanded by Amundsen had already done the feat a month earlier, without loss of human life. I know some will disagree with me, but Scott's expedition turned out to be a pointless folly and a failure.
I wouldn't call this movie timeless. If this had been a modern movie or documentary, we would have wanted to know more about why things went wrong for the Scott expedition. We would also would have wanted to know more about the tension between the party members. In this movie we just see stalwart men and stiff upper lips. We would have insisted on being shown the killing of the dogs and ponies. The movie was made in 1948, so the story presented here is heavy on the heroism and light on the actual details of what went wrong.
Still, this 60-year-old movie was very well made and has a modern feel. It is still interesting to modern movie watchers. It's a good historical movie.
In the beginning of the film, the scenes in Edwardian England show with some detail and accuracy what this long lost, romantic and idealistic world was like. The scene that sticks in my mind is that of the crowd of well wishers at the dock as the Terra Nova sails off. Such a different world, yet only a century ago. The anguish on Scott's wife's face was moving.
I became invested in this tale
AlsExGal22 January 2023
Technicolor British true-life man-vs-nature adventure from Ealing Studios and director Charles Frend. The film tells the story of the 1912 attempt by the British expedition led by Captain R. F. Scott (John Mills) to be the first to reach the south pole. The crew deals with limited supplies, untested means of transport, a rival expedition led by Roald Amundson, and of course the severely harsh Antarctic conditions.
I've watched a lot of arctic and Antarctic stories in the last year, from the 1924 documentary The Great White Silence, to 1930's With Byrd at the South Pole, 1931's Dirigible, and the TV series The Terror. So I was doubtful that yet another telling of the same sort of tale would make much of an impact with me. But I was surprised at how much I became invested in this version as the film progressed, despite knowing the eventual outcome from the beginning. The cast is all fine, although this is the sort of ensemble piece that isn't about showy individuality. The filming is an interesting blend of obvious studio-bound artifice, complete with painted backdrops featuring clearly visible ripples, to elaborate miniatures, to on-location footage of icy waters and craggy glaciers. The cinematography by Jack Cardiff, Osmond Borradaile, and Geoffrey Unsworth is exceptional.
I've watched a lot of arctic and Antarctic stories in the last year, from the 1924 documentary The Great White Silence, to 1930's With Byrd at the South Pole, 1931's Dirigible, and the TV series The Terror. So I was doubtful that yet another telling of the same sort of tale would make much of an impact with me. But I was surprised at how much I became invested in this version as the film progressed, despite knowing the eventual outcome from the beginning. The cast is all fine, although this is the sort of ensemble piece that isn't about showy individuality. The filming is an interesting blend of obvious studio-bound artifice, complete with painted backdrops featuring clearly visible ripples, to elaborate miniatures, to on-location footage of icy waters and craggy glaciers. The cinematography by Jack Cardiff, Osmond Borradaile, and Geoffrey Unsworth is exceptional.
First rate film
1bilbo14 January 2013
This is a really good film.
The story is pretty accurate and the characters are played splendidly by people who could actually act.
The scenery is breathtaking – no CGI here and it shows! Real backdrops to go with the real actors. The music by Vaughn Williams ads to the sense of horror as these brave explorers venture to the "Worst place on earth" only to find the bitter disappointment when they get there.
One is left with a real sense of "Was it worth it" as the team are picked off one-by-one by the dreadful conditions; yet still carry on with determination.
Watch it in a warm room!
The story is pretty accurate and the characters are played splendidly by people who could actually act.
The scenery is breathtaking – no CGI here and it shows! Real backdrops to go with the real actors. The music by Vaughn Williams ads to the sense of horror as these brave explorers venture to the "Worst place on earth" only to find the bitter disappointment when they get there.
One is left with a real sense of "Was it worth it" as the team are picked off one-by-one by the dreadful conditions; yet still carry on with determination.
Watch it in a warm room!
A Technicolor Ealing (& not a Comedy)
tim-764-29185627 March 2012
Whilst more recent documentaries might be more accurate and better told, technically, this just-after-the-war Technicolor British 'Pride' docu- drama is both stirring and patriotic.
With one of the best cinematographers that ever lived behind the camera, the great, late Jack Cardiff, the snowy wastes (actually filmed in Norway) are a far cry from the cheeky, monochromatic East End comedies of other Ealing's.
The much-loved John Mills plays and narrates as Captain Scott, whilst there's rousing support from the familiar faces of Kenneth Moore, John Gregson and James Robertson Justice. The stiff upper lip is never far away as bravely, first Scott rallies for funds to pay for the trip and then undertaking it.
There's humour, comradeship, sadness and glorious spectacle in this and I'm sure the at-times dastardly and enthusiastic playing was more for cinematic appeal than the original trek must have been. When it was originally shown, the film must have seemed like a breath of fresh air, being so different to what was normally in the cinema. Location shooting being expensive, abroad more so and in such a hostile environment, a real achievement.
We all know the outcome but it's the journey getting there and this film, very well made and entertaining to watch, does the memory of Scott and his endeavours, proud.
With one of the best cinematographers that ever lived behind the camera, the great, late Jack Cardiff, the snowy wastes (actually filmed in Norway) are a far cry from the cheeky, monochromatic East End comedies of other Ealing's.
The much-loved John Mills plays and narrates as Captain Scott, whilst there's rousing support from the familiar faces of Kenneth Moore, John Gregson and James Robertson Justice. The stiff upper lip is never far away as bravely, first Scott rallies for funds to pay for the trip and then undertaking it.
There's humour, comradeship, sadness and glorious spectacle in this and I'm sure the at-times dastardly and enthusiastic playing was more for cinematic appeal than the original trek must have been. When it was originally shown, the film must have seemed like a breath of fresh air, being so different to what was normally in the cinema. Location shooting being expensive, abroad more so and in such a hostile environment, a real achievement.
We all know the outcome but it's the journey getting there and this film, very well made and entertaining to watch, does the memory of Scott and his endeavours, proud.
"I hope I don't wake tomorrow, Bill"
richardchatten13 May 2022
Only the English would make so unrelenting a film commemorating a great calamity and only the English would probably think of rendering the Antarctic in Technicolor; but it's actually a canny choice since it serves as a valuable reminder that in addition to the colours of the rainbow the process had also perfected rendering a pristine white against which the colours of their Union Jack vividly stand out.
Scott of the Antarctic
CinemaSerf5 January 2023
I found myself reaching for a blanket as I watched this on the telly the other night. A wonderfully evocative combination of sound effects (mostly a howling wind) and snowscape cinematography help give this epic tale of grit and determination a solid bedrock. Not being John Mills' biggest fan (I always thought David Niven would have made for a far better Robert Falcon Scott) I was prepared for his usual jolly-good-show performance; but not here - he does capture some of the character of the intrepid Antarctic explorer well. Along with a strong supporting cast - Derek Bond; John Gregson & a slimmed down looking James Robertson Justice we get a true sense of the teamwork and struggle as they face the dangers of the rugged continent, the fierce elements, hunger and deprivation racing Amundsen to the South Pole and, of course, to get home again.
Depressing film
jackbenimble21 March 2011
This film sucks in so many ways. As an Englishman I find this self conscious stiff upper lip acting style of Mills and his cohorts utterly embarrassing and stupid. That people seem to like this cartoonish drivel only makes it even worse especially when you see real adult English people trying to imitate it in real life. Then in this film we have the heroising of a man who led an expedition which was by all accounts a consummate failure. Why this perverse English need to make a hero out of a loser? Not only did Scott lose the race but all the loss of life, and suffering including the death of horses and dogs for what? Just to try to be the first person to stand on a bit of ice which is the south pole. Why? To satisfy a massive ego. You think it would all be forgotten as an embarrassing mistake in English history. But no. Back when I was young my school was divided up into four 'houses' named after famous explorers: Lawrence, Livingstone, Rhodes and Scott. I was in Scott. Ugh! The shame of it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
