Dark of the Sun (1968)

Mercenaries in the Congo

By Kevin  Mar 21, 2001

I'm always amused when people compare a book and a movie: "but the book was different/better/etc." They are two different things, and while there are some differences between the film and Wilbur Smith's novel (variously published as "Train to Katang...a" and "Dark of the Sun", a trend that continued with the film being either "The Dark of the Sun" or "The Mercenaries" which is the way I first saw it in 1970) Smith's novel took place in Katanga, a breakaway province of Congo, around 1963, while the film is about a mission for the government of Congo, and includes the Simbas, taking place in 1965 or so. But films and books are different art forms, and in this case, the film is brilliant. Rod Taylor, who plays Captain Bruce Curry, is cold and tough and mean, and you believe it. Jim Brown, as Sgt. Ruffo, is the soldier who does a job, but has ideals; he isn't fighting for money: he's fighting for his country. The terrifying trip through hostile jungle (it was filmed in Jamaica, but looked like Africa to me) to rescue the inhabitants of Port Reprieve, and the diamonds that are there, as well as the side trip to a mission without a doctor, the even more terrifying trip out of the jungle, the brutality and fear and violence - this is a very true to life movie of what life was like in the turbulent sixties in the "third world." Kenneth More, as the ex doctor, now alcoholic Haigh, is wonderful, showing the pain of a man with an addiction and a secret pain, and the honor and bravery to rise above it at a crucial time. And Yvette Mimieux is not only believable, but quite beautiful. I saw this as a child in Pakistan in 1969-70; what were my parents thinking is one thought that comes to mind. At the time, there was a war between East Pakistan (now Bengaladesh), West Pakistan and India and there was much anti-American feeling, with riots, cars burned, etc. The way this film portrays that feeling, of a land gone out of control, is almost unmatched - "Missing" also captures that very well. But I'm glad my parents let me see this, and it has has stayed with me, and I watch it at least once a year. (I also reread the book every couple of years.)In some ways the book is more brutal (a rape is one incident that springs to mind) in others the film is (I won't say what; if you see it, you'll know what I mean). The ambiguity of morality in warfare is handled well, and the ending, rather than being hokey, or flat, shows that a man brutalized by the war was finally able (okay perhaps a little hokey, but all good things: love, family, children, are hokey) through the love of a good woman, and of his best friend, acknowledges his own brutality, and responsibility for his actions, however justified they might seem at the time, however much the audience might have cheered when Curry (Taylor) gains his revenge. Watch out for a fight with chainsaws, which has also left it's mark on me. The filming, the direction, the acting, all are top notch!All in all, this is an excellent film; no less a film buff than Martin Scorsese rates it as one of his 10 favorites. It's one of mine, too. Read more Less