I cannot believe the number of people who wrote favorable reviews of this movie. I rented it for Sophia, but even with her I barely staggered through to the end of what seemed to be an interminable movie. Nothing worked - there was no timing, no chemistry between the stars, and one wasn't happy at the end because the characters didn't seem happy. As others have noticed, Brando was terribly miscast. As great an actor as he could be, he never came across as just -likeable-, and this would have been needed to make the film work.
About the only enjoyable note was struck by the delightful Patrick Cargill as Brando's man Hudson. Of course, today we would have a better idea why the idea of marriage to the Loren character made him cringe so (hint: rhymes with "say.")
It was suggested by some other poster that this is a commentary on Puritan America. But it seems Chaplin, in making Natascha the stereotypical prostitute = miserable, exploited drab, had some of the Victorian puritan to him as well. Why does Natascha want to leave Hong Kong? Is she tired of dancing with sailors? -Why- is she doing so? A woman who looks like Loren, can make herself up as well as Natascha and who can flatter men, ought to be doing far better in terms of clientelle, even in Hong Kong. If she's dancing with sailors, they ought to have admiral's bars. Not only that, if Natascha had more of the joie de vivre of the Shirley MacLaine character from Irma La Douce, one would see the attraction of the Brando character as more than just horniness, and understand his willingness to throw his political career away.
What particularly stood out for me was the set design. Did anyone ever think to look at a real cruise ship? Even luxury suites on actual liners seem a little cramped by land standards. But Brando's stateroom was bigger than my high school auditorium. Nor did Chaplin think to tell any of the characters or the extras to use crouched, 'hug the walls' walk non-sailors use at sea.
About the only enjoyable note was struck by the delightful Patrick Cargill as Brando's man Hudson. Of course, today we would have a better idea why the idea of marriage to the Loren character made him cringe so (hint: rhymes with "say.")
It was suggested by some other poster that this is a commentary on Puritan America. But it seems Chaplin, in making Natascha the stereotypical prostitute = miserable, exploited drab, had some of the Victorian puritan to him as well. Why does Natascha want to leave Hong Kong? Is she tired of dancing with sailors? -Why- is she doing so? A woman who looks like Loren, can make herself up as well as Natascha and who can flatter men, ought to be doing far better in terms of clientelle, even in Hong Kong. If she's dancing with sailors, they ought to have admiral's bars. Not only that, if Natascha had more of the joie de vivre of the Shirley MacLaine character from Irma La Douce, one would see the attraction of the Brando character as more than just horniness, and understand his willingness to throw his political career away.
What particularly stood out for me was the set design. Did anyone ever think to look at a real cruise ship? Even luxury suites on actual liners seem a little cramped by land standards. But Brando's stateroom was bigger than my high school auditorium. Nor did Chaplin think to tell any of the characters or the extras to use crouched, 'hug the walls' walk non-sailors use at sea.