Back in August, I did a post on the Charlton Heston movie 55 Days at Peking, I think for Ava Gardner's day in Summer Under the Stars. It's a movie that I couldn't help but think of as I was watching another Heston film, Khartoum.
Khartoum is the capital of modern-day Sudan, but a bit of a history lesson is in order. Back in the 1880s much of what is now Sudan was a sort of protectorate under Egypt since the two countries were both Muslim, although of different ethnicities, causing no end of friction. Meanwhile, Egypt wasn't particularly strong itself, being more or less a vassal to the Ottoman Empire. Egypt, however, was home to the Suez Canal, completed about a dozen years earlier and a vital transport link. So the British had troops stationed in Egypt to keep the Suez Canal open and the Egyptian government stable.
Further south in what is now Sudan, a man named Muhammed Ahmed (played in the movie by Laurence Olivier) claimed that he had been called upon by the original Muhammed to be the Mahdi (this is how I'll refer to the character for the rest of the post since that's also how he's referred to in the movie), which is a sort of Islamic version of the Messiah that to Christians is supposed to come in the end times. Further complicating matters is that other branches of Islam certainly weren't about to believe that this upstart from backwater Sudan was a Mahdi. So the Mahdi needed to assert absolute political power able to drive out the Egyptians to get the other Muslims to notice. As the movie opens, a former English soldier leads an Egyptian army south, only to get ambushed by the Mahdi's men.
This is a problem for the government of the day back in London, led by William Gladstone (Ralph Richardson). They can't really let the Mahdi overrun Sudan, or even worse get farther north. But there are a whole bunch of Egyptians stuck in Khartoum, and the British can't really let them get stranded to their fate. The fact that the ambushed Egyptians were led by a Briton makes action more necessary, at least for domestic political purposes. An envoy returned from Sudan, Col. Stewart (Richard Johnson), comes up with an idea which is to send Major-General Charles Gordon (Charlton Heston) back to Sudan. Gordon is known among the Sudanese people, and has a good reputation there as a more honest broker who helped destroy the slave trade. Perhaps Gen. Gordon can get the Egyptians out of Khartoum. If not, the British can wash their hands of the whole thing because Gordon's reputation means there's not a need to send the British army yet, which would provide its own set of political difficulties for the Gladstone government.
Gordon decides to accept the mission, but Gladstone, not trusting him, requires that Col. Stewart go along as an attaché. When the two finally get to Sudan, they realize that the Mahdist army has advanced farther north along the Nile than anybody knew, and that they threaten to surround Khartoum and besiege it. Gordon, with his reputation, is able to go to the Mahdi alone and unarmed, which creates a degree of trust between Gordon and the Mahdi to the point that the Mahdi reveals his true intentions.
So a war of waiting ensues, as the Mahdi waits for the right conditions to begin the final assault on Khartoum with Gordon figuring out a way to defend the city long enough for another way to get the Egyptians out besides sending them straight down the Nile which isn't an option. Political pressure mounts on Gladstone back in London, and he finally relents and allows the creation of a relief force under Maj. Kitchener, although he doesn't imbue the force with any urgency. Since all of this is based on real events, you can look up the history yourself to find out how it ended if you want to know going into the movie.
Khartoum is the sort of movie that I don't think could really be made today, at least certainly not in the form that it was made back in the mid-1960s. Modern sensibilities in the filmmaking community would probably insist on the portrayal of the British as unambiguously villanous. As for the film that we have, it's certainly competently made, and well acted, but the screenplay is the weak point here. It's slow, with a story that's more character driven than plot driven, and runs too long at over two hours (the exact running time will depend on whether the print includes the overture and exit music).
