Hawaii (1966) User Reviews (56)

What do Hawaii and Poland have in common?

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 18 June 2006]

From the day Captain Cook arrived on those beautiful islands, Hawaii like Poland was cursed because of geography. Poland situated between two gigantic European powers just became a pawn in the eternal military and diplomatic chess game.

Hawaii located where it is between North America and the Orient, when sea travel improved it was only a matter of time before the big powers came a-callin'. And they came from both directions. Not shown in the time frame this film covers, but soon after, waves of Japanese and Chinese immigrants landed on the shore. Hawaii was coveted by all and America got it.

Max Von Sydow plays a young New England minister out to bring the gospel to the heathen as he sees them and has been taught to see them. His church won't send him out to the south seas without a wife, lest he be tempted by sins of the flesh, so on a short acquaintance he marries Julie Andrews. She in turn has been home pining away for whaling captain Richard Harris. When Von Sydow and Andrews get to Hawaii over the course of their story Harris would reappear.

Naturally its quite a culture shock for the New Englanders when they get to Hawaii. The film's story covers about a quarter of a century of Hawaiian history and the history of the changing attitudes of Andrews and Von Sydow.

James Michener's original novel was of War and Peace duration and I suppose the final script was as best they could get it and cover what he was trying to convey. Despite the obvious racist feelings that Von Sydow has, he's a basically decent man who does do some positive good.

His problem is that everything with him has to be filtered through the Bible. There's a lot of incest going on in Hawaii when he lands there. Reason being is that these are islands with a limited number of mating partners. Now incest is bad as we know because it does eventually weaken the gene pool. But Von Sydow hardly takes a scientific approach, how could he, he doesn't know it, he hasn't been taught it.

Julie Andrews is a far cry from the perky Mary Poppins. She develops quite an attachment to Hawaii and its people and her approach with them is fundamentally different than her husband's. It's not a bad performance.

Richard Harris is the lusty whaling captain of Andrews previous affections. I tend to think his part might have been edited down. In a recent biography of Harris, it was stated he and Andrews did not get along at all on the set. Harris in those days was a whole lot like the characters he played like this one in Hawaii.

Of course when you've got Hawaii as a subject for a camera, the photography could not be anything but gorgeous.

Hawaii covers a period not well known to most Americans except Hawaiians. And indeed they are Americans and have been since 1959. I think people could learn something from this film even with the script flaws.

Epic-scale adventure drama or history lesson?

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 16 March 2001]

Bumpy, overlong drama does have magnetic sequences that stay with you. New England reverend (Max von Sydow, who never elicits our interest or compassion) sails to the Hawaiian islands with his wife in 1820 to introduce the natives to Christianity. Soapy plot taken from James A. Michener's book tries to cram too many years into 170 minutes of screen-time. The task of adapting the mammoth bestseller was probably a bad idea right from the start, and the picture is certainly a botch, but I did enjoy Julie Andrews as von Sydow's wife and the early scenes have atmosphere and tension. But Max von Sydow is a real problem: he's so overly-pious he's pathetic, which is probably not the effect hoped for. Look fast for real-life Hawaiian resident Bette Midler on the Eastern ship as it arrives to the island. **1/2 from ****

This is more a defense than a review, but whatever

[MissSimonetta · 8/10 · 28 August 2020]

I have no love for the bloated epics which were in vogue in the 1950s and 1960s, so color me shocked when I realized how much I enjoyed HAWAII. The culture clash between the Calvinist missionaries and the traditional islanders was fascinating, and presented in a more nuanced manner than one might expect. Spectacle is on display of course, and the undercooked subplot with Richard Harris is a bit soapy, but it is the clash of wills between the two groups which makes the movie so compelling.

Regarding comments which claim the movie is anti-Christian-- it's not. It is sharply critical of the way religion was used to justify the exploitation of the natives for financial profit and the eradication of their culture. It also points out the hypocrisy of the missionaries even within the context of the Christian religion: within Christiantiy, all people are to be considered equally loved by God and thus all Christians must view others as their brothers and sisters (even enemies must be loved and forgiven), yet the missionaries like Max von Sydow's character view the natives with hostility and contempt. Christian values such as forgiveness and empathizing with the powerless and marginalized are celebrated.

And let me close out by discussing the most criticized element of the movie: Max von Sydow as Reverend Abner Hale. Hale is, to be frank, an asshat of the highest order: he's racist, he's quick to believe in God's wrath before God's mercy, he's vindictive, he's proud, he believes that even babies go to hell if they aren't baptized, he beats himself up for being sexually excited by his own wife. I do agree that Max von Sydow's performance gets to be "one note" as another reviewer observed-- he's only really three-dimensional in the first and last thirds of the movie. But I do think there are hidden depths to the character which elude most viewers.

The scene where Hale is eating dinner with his family before he goes out to woo Jerusha is telling. His father's prayer of thanksgiving is more a tirade against outsiders (atheists and Catholics, particularly) and the family all seem rather hard and cold, suggesting Hale's own discomfort with affection and even sexuality stem from a cold childhood. He cannot conceive of a loving God because his own father was not loving. (The guy even shakes his children's hands rather than hugs them at the end when they leave for New England!)

Both the memory of the awkward family dinner and Hale's sweetly awkward wooing of Jerusha are the two things which kept me from entirely writing Hale off in the scenes to come. They suggest past trauma and hidden warmth-- and ultimately it takes a total loss of control and the humbling of his ego for Hale to truly find that "state of grace" he only believed came with thinking the correct theological doctrines. His arc is incredibly powerful and I think Von Sydow is at his best in the final scenes, where he is a humbled, more gracious man, if still stiff and stubborn in certain ways. The problem is that he doesn't do much to play at these hidden reserves for much of the movie, making Hale a loudmouthed villain with a comical stovepipe hat rather than a layered person.

Regardless, this flaw is not enough to destroy the movie. It is very effective, packed with memorable characters and gorgeous visuals of the Hawaiian islands. I'd call it one of the last true Old Hollywood spectacles.

Where Is The Rest......

[tmsindc-2 · 6 April 2003]

After seeing the movie on cable a few months ago, I decided to read the book.

The movie is only about one-fifth of the whole book. Too bad. The movie leaves a lot of unresolved plot threads which are resolved later in the book. Subplots which seem inconsequential turn out to have major implications to the plot of the novel. Minor characters from the movie become more important as the story progresses. For example, Gene Hackman's Dr. John Whipple and Richard Harris' Raefer Hoxworth have only a few scenes in Hawaii, but their characters are perhaps the two most important characters in the book. Whipple and Hoxworth are the ones who challenge the authority of the missionaries and, in a sense, are the true foils to Abner Hale. They also are the ones who go into business.

As a result, the movie, standing by itself, tends to introduce characters and subplots with no relevancy to the main Abner-Jerusha-Malama-Keolo story line. Perhaps a sequel was planned? In short, Hawaii would have worked better as a mini-series.

********************* How the Novel Ends:

Abner Hale's son, Micah, who was last seen getting a boat to the mainland to attend Yale University, becomes a minister like his father. The sea captain, Raefer Hoxworth, marries Noelini, the daughter of the Alii Nui. Micah then meets and falls in love with Raefer's and Noelini's daughter. They get married. Abner Hale scorns Micha; claiming the Micah has gone "whoring with the heathens." Micah quits the ministry and becomes a partner in Raefer Hoxworth's shipping company - now called Hoxworth and Hale.

John Whipple and Retire Janders (the captain of the ship that brought the missionaries to Hawaii) are partners in Janders & Whipple. Initially a trading company, general store, and ship chandler, they start acquiring land and growing sugar. J&W eventually becomes a plantation company and needs cheap labor to work their fields. John Whipple imports Chinese workers.

A generation after the movie ends, the descendants of Hale, Whipple, Janders, Hewlett (the man who was kicked out of the church for marrying a Hawaiian woman) and the Hoxworth are the commercial, social, and political elite of Hawaii. Micah Hale leads the movement to have the United States annex Hawaii and serves as the first governor of the Territory of Hawaii.

The descendants of these families continue to build their businsses and develop the islands. In an ironic twist, the families, refusing to marry Hawaiians or Chinese, intermarry. Eventually cousins marry cousins - the very practices Abner Hale condemned from his puplit. You eventually get characters named: Whipple Hoxworth; Hoxworth Hale; Hewlett Janders; Bromley Hoxworth.

Finally, at the end of the novel the rich, post-WW II descendants of the missionaries talk about their "distinguished ancestors." Their descriptions and interpretation of events, differs from what it portrayed in the earlier chapters.

True to Spirit of Novel

[Mscellany · 7/10 · 9 December 2001]

Excellent performance by Max Von Sydow as the self-righteous missionary with a narrow vision of redemption and worship. This movie is almost as infuriating as Michenor's novel. You will not believe the horrible changes wrought upon these beautiful natives done with the best intentions. Sad and lovely film.

Despite some one-dimensional characters, a good film

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 13 July 2006]

This film is based on the first half of Michener's book, HAWAII. If follows the life of an initially self-righteous and cold missionary when he is one of the first Westerners to move to this exotic locale. This man is played by Max Von Sydow and he is about as fun to be with as a festering boil.

Later, partly because of his coldness, his vivacious wife, played by Julie Andrews, runs off and soon dies. Then, after this trauma, Von Sydow changes and begins to look on the natives in much less harsh terms and his heart softens.

The final portion of the film involves the massive influx in opportunists and land-grabbers. The once beautiful and proud nation the missionary once new is now quickly disappearing despite his best efforts.

Th irony in the film is that initially, Von Sydow so strongly tried to change the Hawaiians from their "heathen ways", only to eventually mourn the passing of their culture.

This was an extremely beautiful film and had a lot of fascinating insights into the old Hawaiian culture and royalty (though the whole business about the Queen's husband plucking out his eyes was a bit nasty). But, there was also a shortcoming in how it dealt with the characters. They tended not to be realistic, but more caricatures who were generally one-dimensional. The missionary was either cold and bad or open and sweet. The natives were allowed little depth as well and the Westerners were almost always bad.

Reflective film of how different cultures and worlds collide

[Ed-Shullivan · 6/10 · 20 March 2020]

The film's cinematography is exceptional and this film depicts the obvious and expected clash between a New England missionary Reverend Abner Hale (Max von Sydow) who takes his new bride Jerusha (Julie Andrews) to the exotic island of Hawaii in the year of 1818, in an effort to convert the natives. The film reflects how different the two cultures are and how rigid Reverend Abner Hale is in both his religious and culture beliefs whereas the native Hawaiians are at least open to understanding the very different culture that the Reverend Abner Hale and his wife Jerusha have introduced to their every day lives.

The year 1818 was a century and period with many hardships for all mankind and the Reverend Abner Hale believes that he alone is the answer to the savages of the island of Hawaii to bring them into the advances made in the 19th century by first building a church and home for his own growing family.

Julie Andrews who plays the Reverend's wife is expected to bear him children, teach the natives the good book and the way of the Americans, whilst she struggles with letting go of a young and virile love (Richard Harris) who broke her young heart before she was formally introduced to the Reverend Hale by her father.

It is an enlightening yet troublesome film which depicts the hardships of both cultures in the early part of the 1800's , and the evolution of love over the life span of the Reverend Hale and his wife Jerusha.

I give it a 6 out of 10 rating

Hawaii then, and Hawaii now....

[nammage · 6/10 · 14 March 2003]

This is an epic, it was meant to be an epic, and to me it still encompasses an epic. It is a story of, in my view, dictatorship. A harsh word to some I am sure, but, that is what it is. The missionary is the dictator, and what he dictates is his belief on others. Some call it brain-washing other's call it the correct way of living.

One way of living towards a different way of living. To say one is the incorrect way is not correct. The 'Christian' way of living is the 'correct' way of living for the Christian - the 'Hawaiin way of life is the 'correct' way of living for the Hawaiin.

I have not known any one religion that tried or have succeeded in forcing their beliefs on others, may be the Romans and/or Greeks (I think basically their belief structures at the time were of the same). That is the one doctrine that Christianity is about: converting. But, then as even now, they do it in a crude and callous manner. They do not let those they wish to convert - choose. They force their ideals upon others for the 'betterment' of 'their' religion and beliefs. Christians only believe that their religion is supreme and all other religions and God's must be false, and they succeed in their ego's.

This picture touches such matters. It shows from both sides. It shows how the Christians conquer their objective and how the Hawaiin's react to such conquering.

There is no 'good' in this epic yet at the same moment there is no 'bad'. It is just what it is - a story to be told.

The actors play well in their roles, Julie Andrews acts the same in my opinion as all the rest of the movies she has been in. Gene Hackman I think was good and Max Von Sydow who has played various roles (my favorite being the lawyer in Snow Falling On Cedars - and the worst being in Flash Gordon) plays this role to ease and temperment.

Tho, I do not agree with some aspects, as I am sure others do not as well as I have read in previous comments, this movie is well made and well put.

There is a story and the story is told.

Hawaii then, and Hawaii now - is it for the betterment? Or is it just a part of life where some nations conquer, some nations claim things that are not theirs for the betterment of their beliefs and the betterment of human kind?

6.5/10

Another under-appreciated epic from the 60's

[Ken K. · 10/10 · 14 July 2003]

This was another under-appreciated epic from United Artists in the year 1966 (the other was "Khartoum"). Taken from the center section (and the longest section) of James Michener's famous book, "Hawaii" is actually a rather intimate, incredibly tragic story despite its claim to "epic" scale. The performances are excellent, especially Max von Sydow as Abner, the stubborn, unyielding missionary. Special mention has to be made of Jocelyne LaGarde as Queen Malama. A woman who never acted before, Jocelyne gives a wonderful performance and will forever remain in your mind as the symbol of Hawaiian heart and warmth. The talent behind the camera is considerable: George Roy Hill as director, Russell Metty as cinematographer, and Elmer Bernstein as composer. (I do sometimes wonder if this film was planned to be a Cinerama presentation. Many of the scene setups and photographic tricks seem to be designed with that in mind.) Despite the length and the epic intentions, prepare yourself for an intimate film with an emotional impact not found in many films.

It's OK

[preppy-3 · 6/10 · 19 February 2005]

Movie based on part of James Michener's massive novel.

In the 1860s Father Hale (Max von Sydow) and his wife Jerusha (Julie Andrews) go to Hawaii to bring religion to the Hawaiian people. This movie follows their lives through about 20 years and involves rape, disease, death and incest (pretty taboo for 1966).

LONG, lumbering "epic". It's 3 hours but felt more like 30 hours! The pace is very slow and von Sydow's character is very annoying. He's always preaching and von Sydow overacts to an embarrassing degree. More than once I wanted to take his Bible and hit him over the head with it. Andrews is a wonderful actress--but not here. She seems to be constrained by her role and very muted.

The film has some good things about it. It is well-directed on location in Hawaii with beautiful cinematography. The score is very good too--it matches the images perfectly. And it's fun to see Carroll O'Connor and Gene Hackman in early roles. Also there's a superb performance by Jocelyn LaGarde (Oscar-nominated) as the island ruler. Also von Sydow's two real life sons play his sons in this movie! I watched to the end because I was interested in some of the characters and the scenery was gorgeous--but I was mostly bored by the slow pace and von Sydow's histrionics. I can only give this a 6.

2 Good Actors + 1 Poor Script = 3 Hour Underwhelming Epic

[oceanchick · 2/10 · 7 February 2008]

I watched Hawaii to see Max Von Sydow. I was surprised to see that he seemed as miscast in Hawaii as Gregory Peck was in Moby Dick.

Yet it seems an absurdity to have a 'miscast', because a good actor should be able to play any part. I guess it wasn't truly a 'miscast' but more of a 'why the heck did Sydow take that part?!".

Sydow's pedigree is beyond the scripted Abner Hale. The part of Hale was shallow in its overbearing nature, lazy in its development, basely barking unrealistic condemnations, and lacking any human substance---and in effect, overplayed. Sydow had fewer than 10 "human" lines in the entire film, leaving viewers to listen to elementary prattle. Abner Hale had the potential to be a very powerful character. The writers simply failed to provide dialog with depth.

Comparing Hawaii to Capote where the viewer is allowed to freely dislike Truman Capote because of his nature, the words spoken by Hoffman were believable giving depth to his character and grounds for the viewer's emotion. That depth was never achieved in Hawaii, offering instead preposterously hollow, ridiculously vacant lines. Directing Sydow to play Hale in an exaggerated fashion only made it worse. His religious fanaticism was not buy-able; he appeared more of a lunatic.

Having seen Sydow's acting in numerous works, he has proved capable should he be given something to work with. But the script is dull, reads like a dime-store children's novel, and in effect lent nothing to play.

Julie Andrews stayed in the shadows the entire film, suggesting that was also her role in the church/relationship, but she was the only character that had any depth. Her lines were few but solid and she had a believable countenance.

The Hawaiian characters were written stereotypically, speaking w/ broken English but apparently understanding all of Hale's embellished sophisticated condemnations. The Queen seemed jovial and bossy; she was the most natural of the Hawaiians on camera, earning LaGarde the only acting award for the movie. The rest of the Hawaiian actors (both speaking and extras) seemed stiff and comparably makes Keanu Reeves look like a Larry Olivier.

I can appreciate the attempts to keep the natives natural (and by default, topless) but because the movie lacked substance not provided by the script, the semi-nude natives are reduced to gratuitous fodder. It's as if the producers knew the movie was a stink-bomb and put a lot of breasts on camera to distract the viewer from the stench.

The cinematography of Hawaii was very basic and this movie was one of the last of Russell Harlan's career. Though the movie is credited as being filmed in Hawaii, most often the scenes looked like they were shot on sets. Interior ship scenes were done cleverly and the editing was tight. The musical score was sterling. Though I have enjoyed George Hill's later directorial efforts, I believe that problems with the script and loss of the original director resulting from such problems left Hill with less to work with than what he should have had. Comparably, Val Lewton's films often have better screenplays and believable characters, tighter shooting schedules, lack of lush locations, and they are done on inconceivably low budgets.

As for the religious theme and the resulting troubles the Hawaiians ensued as a result, the theme is interesting and worthy of exploration. I do understand the nature of the missionaries giving up their lives and going away possibly never to see their families again, as my father was a minister. I understand the fanaticism implied by Hale's character, as well as his close-mindedness to the concept of God being not only a vengeful God but also one of love, patience and understanding. But my understanding of the concepts of the movie do not excuse the fact that it was very poorly written.

I, for one, do not believe that I should have to read the book to make allowances for a poorly made movie. The movie should be strong enough to stand on its own. It isn't necessary for one to read Gone With The Wind to understand why Scarlett will never go hungry again, nor any of her folk.

Loved the movie and have so written below.

[hoogbest · 10/10 · 18 November 2005]

The movie was absolutely perfect in every way. The key to its power is that all viewers SHOULD have read the book at least once....ideally more than once, before seeing the movie. So many of the characters and story lines are much easier to comprehend and appreciate if one has read the book before even attempting to enjoy the richness and completeness of the epic story that Michner wrote, as it appears on the screen The book was glorious and fully half of it was not in the movie. As a result, many incidents that were shown in the movie were confusing because the book explained them in Michner's classic detailed style which ultimately created the outline that helped the story flow. Forget any misguided claims that the book was about dictatorship, etc. and READ THE BOOK.....only then will you understand that in the final analysis it simply is the story of a humble as well as stubborn and proud but frequently lonely and sad New England Christian Pastor's life and how he tried to do his best for the people that he touched and came to love, as he walked through that life with Jesus and God directing him. The ending of the movie was very touching and meaningful......those that read the book know why and understand. By the way, I have never heard a more thrilling and beautiful opening orchestral piece in any movie. I was fortunate enough to hear that song sung at one of Don Ho's shows many years ago.....the words of the song are as equally haunting and beautiful as the music when they speak not of the inhabitants of the island and their love for that paradise, but rather it is a song of the love the island of Hawaii has for the people who inhabit one of God's true Heavenly creations......the opening line of the song goes, "I am your island I wish you love....". See the movie again and revel in it's greatness and if you are really interested in enjoying the entire Mitchner experience please READ THE BOOK at least once before you attempt to do so. ALOHA!

Flat epic that's beautiful to look at

[jjnxn-1 · 6/10 · 11 October 2013]

Turgid, overlong epic has a story with possibilities-organized religion's arrogant assumption that what it believes is right even if it destroys a civilization. While it conveys that in many ways something is ultimately missing from the overall film that keeps the viewer at a distance making it less involving then it needs to be. Von Sydow is a fine actor but his Reverend Hale is such a pompous, small minded autocrat that spending over 2 1/2 hours with him is a trial. Julie Andrews is wasted, surely they could have found a way for her to sing more, although she does have one good scene near the end. The location filming is breath taking but that only will carry a film so far and this doesn't have enough else to make it worth seeking out.

disappointing (SPOILERS)

[emisue02 · 4/10 · 7 April 2003]

Okay, maybe I just need to see this movie again, but I hated it. SPOILERS AHEAD: I know it's part of the story, but why did Julie have to die? And why couldn't she have gone with the sea captain? I was so preoccupied with that aspect of the story that the rest was lost on me. I wanted to wring Abner Hale's neck all throughout the film, his and Jerusha's parents. (I hope people don't use this movie as the basis of all missionaries, because there are some missionaries in the world today who do wonderful things for the people they minister to.) I really just wish it could have been shorter-three hours of being driven crazy by the main character of a movie is just too much. I like movies that draw an emotional response, but really. I'm sure the book was better (haven't read it yet, but it has been highly recommended) and maybe the movie will be better if I watch it again...if I can bring myself to do it, that is.

Splendor in the Grace

[dweck · 19 March 1999]

"Hawaii," based on about one-third of the Michener novel, is one of those big, old-fashioned epics, full of wistful vistas, compelling performances, and casts of thousands.

Julie Andrews' acting abilities shine as bright as the tropical sun in this story of a New England woman who accompanies her stodgy husband to the islands on a mission to convert the heathens. Andrews' buoyant on-screen persona is held in check here (as it is in the overly criticized "Darling Lili"), making her Jerusha a quiet heroine. Her childbirth scene is effective for the visceral reaction it creates, and she's got one whopping good speech toward the end, where she finally gives her stick-in-the-mud hubby what-for.

Von Sydow, who would work with Andrews again later in "Duet for One," is all bluster and bellowing, condemning just about everyone he comes in contact with. I find the performance rather one-note; however, the opening scenes in which Hale tries to woo the lovely Jerusha are sweetly awkward.

Richard Harris shows up as a long-lost sea captain in one of moviedom's most impossible coincidences. Harris is all fire and passion, exactly the kind of third-party that a juicy love triangle needs.

George Roy Hill's direction keeps things moving at a brisk pace, despite the lengthy running time. He had a gorgeous palette to paint with, and he takes full advantage. The sea trek--complete with storms--suffers from some very obvious blue-screening, but Hill manages to build an appropriate sense of excitement.

I'm also going to carp with costumer Dorothy Jeakins. Andrews costumes are lovely (but consider what Jeakins had to work with), but Von Sydow goes running throughout the movie with his stove-pipe hat cemented onto his head. Works okay for the New England settings, but once the cast hits the beach, he ends up looking like some kind of absurd Dr. Doolittle (Hugh Lofting's, creation, not Eddie Murphy's).

Jeakins also makes a very brief appearance (her role was trimmed mightily) as Hale's mother.

While on the subject of the supporting players, LaGarde had no acting experience whatsoever (and, hence, drove the production schedule and budget way off base), but she's utterly charming. She more than earned her Oscar nomination.

Funny to see a pre-Archie Carroll O'Connor in the New England sequences. Also watch for Heather Menzies as one of Jerusha's younger sisters. Two years earlier, she had played Louisa von Trapp to Andrews' Maria. Gene Hackman's here, too, as a put-upon doctor.

One last note: If you're going to seek out this treasure, please, please, please opt for the widescreen version. The rocking of the boat sickened many of the passengers on their way to paradise, and likewise, the pan-and-scan version will sicken viewers of this terrific epic.

"A ministry in which love has no place"

[Steffi_P · 7/10 · 8 January 2011]

By this point, the mid-1960s, the old-style biblical epics had more or less died out completely, but epics of other kinds were still reasonably popular. This story of missionaries in the first half of the 19th century, adapted from a James A. Michener novel and made a year before the abandoning of the Hollywood production code, is in fact a polemic against rigid adherence to Christian scriptures. At its centre is an overly pious and sometimes hypocritical preacher, the kind of mind which would have believed in all those unswervingly self-righteous bible flicks of the previous decade.

But Hawaii is not some flagrant and roughshod denunciation of church and faith. The picture was adapted (quite liberally) from its source by acclaimed screenwriters Daniel Taradash and Dalton Trumbo, and it has in particular Trumbo's tendency to treat all his characters with respectful and human portrayals, in spite of what antagonisms they may have towards each other. Thus while Max von Sydow is seen at turns as a callous fanatic, a trumped-up fool and a general negative influence, we first see him as a shy yet well-meaning youngster, clumsily trying to woo Julie Andrews. In these early scenes he is somewhat endearing figure, and even though most viewers will not condone much of what he later does, this first impression sticks with us, preventing us from completely despising him and allowing us to believe in his wife's devotion to him.

Max von Sydow was an excellent choice for this role. Admittedly his Swedish accent is a bit of a non-sequitur, but he is perfect at bringing out both the sympathetic young lad and the unshakable preacher. His performance occasionally seems to border on the hammy, but this is acceptable because it fits in with his strength of character and the earnest manner with which he takes up his ministerial duties. Julie Andrews is great too. After having made her name with the more or less fantasy figures of Mary Poppins and Maria von Trapp there's a strange kind of poignancy seeing her suffer the strains of being a more realistic wife and mother. She seems sadly underused here however, although apparently she was the main victim of the cuts in the edited version I have, which is a real pity. Richard Harris and Gene Hackman bring their forceful presences to make some of the more powerful statements in the dialogue, while Jocelyn LaGrande makes a terrific impact with her full-of-life performance. Although she spoke no English and learned her lines phonetically, it's incredible the way she communicates meaning and emotion around those words.

Hawaii was the first large-scale picture directed by George Roy Hill, and by and large he handles the broad canvas well. Of note is that fact that he gives a constant life and rhythm to the island, often featuring a few figures working in the background or framing a character with gently swaying foliage. Hill was of course a child of the New Wave and this is evident in the occasional zoom or whip pan, but his touch is generally quite light and minimalist. Unlike some of the other younger directors around at this time he favours long takes with few close-ups. The only trouble with this is doesn't seem to quite have developed the knack of subtly making a point within the frame, sometimes using the camera to force our attention on something. An example is when Iliki runs to greet Richard Harris's ship, throwing off her western dress, a moment which seems rather contrived and clunky by the way the camera pans down onto the discarded garment.

Hawaii is a far from perfect picture, being neither quite the stunning extravaganza that epics are generally meant to be, nor the stirring human drama it also seems to aspire to. However, it has many moments which come close to both goals, and most importantly has a very honest humanity to it – something so many epics lack – and this allows it to speak its message directly without ever threatening to alienate its audience.

it's a long, long, looonnng life

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 30 June 2015]

Prince Keoki Kanakoa pleads for the promised word of God. Humorless stiff Abner Hale (Max von Sydow) and his newly married wife Jerusha (Julie Andrews) join him on the treacherous voyage to Hawaii. They meet the aliʻi nui, Keoki's mother Malama in Lahaina, Maui. She takes Jerusha to teach her writing. The permissive sexuality, native traditions on marriages and other practices cause a rift between Abner and the natives. Abner demands that Malama end her marriage to her brother which is the custom at the time. Capt. Rafer Hoxworth (Richard Harris) and his whalers cause disruptions. Rafer was actually Jerusha's love but she had assumed he stopped writing. He insists otherwise and vows never to pass on other women again. Malama installs strict new laws and the whalers riot. Brother John Whipple (Gene Hackman) leaves the church after marrying brother Abraham to a native which caused Abraham to be expelled.

This is one part of the James A. Michener's epic novel Hawaii. It's still too big and should have followed Jerusha instead. Abner is an unpleasant man to center a movie around. Her story is much more fascinating anyways. She's actually the center of every relationship in the movie. It would allow Richard Harris to be introduced earlier. She should not be reduced to a simple dutiful wife. It's more compelling to see her navigate her restricted roles in an expanded world. These are great actors and Jocelyne LaGarde is a real find.

Great -- Not Quite -- But Strangely Compelling All The Same

[Dan1863Sickles · 7/10 · 12 September 2012]

I first saw this movie (in snatches) when I was about 10 years old. I was totally captivated by the love story, because I could really relate to Max Von Sydow's performance as the stern, lonely Puritan Minister Hale. I got his anguish, his conflicting feelings, and his total inability to share. When Mrs. Hale (a prim but fetching Julie Andrews) gives birth and he starts sobbing and admits that he loves her more than God, I felt it like a punch in the stomach.

On the other hand, I couldn't help admiring the bold whaling captain played by Richard Harris too. When the minister falls in the water and the devilish whaler shouts, "shark! go get him, boy!" that really tickled my funny bone. I was ten years old, of course, but I totally understood what an amazing love triangle this was.

Well, the other day I finally got this movie on videotape, and after nearly forty years I was really curious to see if it would live up to my memories. I have to admit that there are some very, very long dull patches in this movie. Richard Harris never really cuts loose. Julie Andrews keeps slipping away just when she most needs to shine! So much of the movie is like a costume party, or a drinking game. Guess which famous character actor will bop in next wearing whiskers and a frock coat? There's Lou Antonio -- he played Coco in Cool Hand Luke! There's John Cullum! There's Gene Hackman! There's Carroll O'Connor! All these guys have major, major stories that have nothing to do with Abner and Jerusha. And the love story totally gets lost for about two thirds of the movie.

On the other hand, now that I'm grown up, I really appreciate what a classic American hero Abner Hale is, and how authentic Max Von Sydow makes him. You could teach a whole college course on American literature just with his influences! One moment he's Ahab, forging ahead with ruthless fury. Then he's Ephraim Cabot in Eugene O'Neill's Desire Under The Elms, mixing Puritan rage with burning lust. Then he's the young doctor in Hawthorne's story The Birthmark, shutting out happiness and totally ignoring his angelic, suffering wife. And then at the very end (this is spoiler territory) he finally gets his act together -- and suddenly he's doing a letter-perfect Mr. Scrooge.

It's amazing the way Hale's character evolves. When you watch him calling down God's wrath on the Hawaiians, it's almost dreamlike, like a silent film showing an Old Testament prophet. And you hate him so much. Yet at the end, when he *finally* gets how wise his wife really is, and how much she means to him, you want to stand up and cheer. And the fact that it's really too late only makes it more poignant.

You can't really call this movie a masterpiece -- but it's much more than just another overblown dud.

Some good writing/much bad acting (plus a continuity error)

[readinglips · 6/10 · 17 September 2005]

The film begins in 1819. When we first hear about Jerusha (Julie Andrews), she is a "Christian girl of 22." Later, her tombstone (the spoiler in this message) reads: "1799 - 1834". Do the math: she must have been 19 or 20 in 1819.

This film is an amazing hodgepodge of sometimes good writing and often bad acting. The pre-credit sequence, a narration of how people first came to Hawaii 800 or so years ("30 generations") before, is quite poetic and visually stunning. But much of the acting is stiff and passion-less. (Do look for Carroll O'Connor -– very good in a small part at the beginning as Jerusha's father.) The film uses one fascinating (and very effective) device: some scenes end with the first few lines of dialog of the next scene coming up "early", as a way of propelling the film forward. Considering how avant garde this is, it's surprising this has not been used in any other mainstream films -- at least none that I know of. (I recently purchased the DVD because I was interested in seeing the film with captions (CC). It is missing about 15-20 minutes, most of it from the ocean voyage towards the beginning of the film. No special features to speak of.)

christians: don't take it personally.

[aeon_nephesh · 10/10 · 3 February 2003]

i lived in hawaii for two years, and as a part of my standard elementary school curriculum, hawaiian history as taught by actual kapunas was always interesting. i didn't see "hawaii" until about ten years after living there. based on everything i was told while i was there, "hawaii" accurately describes the decimation of islands' tribal system by the onslaught of forced christianity.

if you're "offended as a christian" at this movie, you might want to question the virtues of selling or otherwise pushing a mythology on a society that's already had one for ages. the story of "hawaii" was never intended to be "anti-christian", or "politically correct" anymore than "jay and silent bob" was meant to be politically correct. not to be too glib, but one of the main points, especially with the character hale, is that people should have better priorities about themselves, such as mastering and resolving their own lives, sooner than worrying over, or assuming responsiblity for other people's dogmatic inclinations. this particular point has been made in countless stories since the beginning, but people always miss it because they're too busy doing their best to take the statements as personal attacks, whether against their religions, their lifestyles, or even in these inane days, the color of their socks.

if you're secure in your beliefs as a christian, you should have no reason to be offended as a christian at this or any other story. yes, this story states point blank that christian missionaries did their best to destroy hawaii's native beliefs, traditions, et cetera; and yes, it happened. it's also an accurate history-based depiction of events neither any of you nor i are held responsible. there's nothing that demands a christian viewer needs to have any particular "identity" with hale, or any other figure like him. if you were catholic, would you automatically identify with tomas de torquemada while watching "the pit and the pendulum"? the purpose of these characters is not only to recount history, but also to teach people what not to do, how not to do it, and to some extent, who not to be.

if, as christians, you should come away from this story with only one thought, it should be, "wow, that was unfortunate. i hope something like that doesn't happen again."

Marathon!

[wilson-strutte · 7/10 · 13 June 2007]

Beautifully made, wonderful music BUT gets very BORING mainly due to Von Sydow's character. It was an odd choice for Julie Andrews as she was the Queen of Hollywood at the time but, as usual, she gives a lovely performance. The other performances are good too, it is just Von Sydow's character constant bible bashing that simply starts irritating. Elmer Bernstain's music is superb and the photography visually stunning. Very long and obviously some omissions from the original Michener novel. Would have been interesting to see what Rodgers and Hammerstein could have done with it after their masterpiece South Pacific, based also on Michener novels. Worth watching if you can stay awake!!

Dull, unsympathetic, lifeless

[krj · 1/10 · 20 May 1999]

This movie is unwatchable. The characters are unsympathetic and boring. I found its depiction of Hawaiian history...well, "interesting" would be the charitable way to put it, I suppose. If you like to watch movies for the pretty pictures, this will probably be right up your alley. There are certainly pretty pictures in abundance. However, if you want something more than insufferable boors (the haoles) and cartoonish stereotypes (the Hawaiians), if you want a movie that has a plot that won't make you fall asleep, go somewhere else.

"We must convert these simple folk" and "I don't want these heathens touching my wife" got real old real fast.

For a much better movie about Hawaii, check out "Picture Bride". It's about a later period, but very well made, effective, and affecting. "Hawaii", the movie, is not worth wasting three hours of your life.

Hawaii is Paradise of a Movie ****

[edwagreen · 10/10 · 26 February 2013]

Outstanding version of the James Michener novel.

There is a monumental non-Oscar nominated performance by Max Von Sydow as a minister, who brings his wife (Julie Andrews) Jerusha Bromley to Hawaii in an attempt to convert the natives there.

This is a story of social mores. Cold and seemingly uncaring to the needs of the people, Von Sydow, as Abner, etched an unforgettable character. He comes to Hawaii hell-bent on converting the natives. He doesn't understand or refuses to understand their customs and traditions as he tries to impose Christianity on them. He is quick to condemn cultural traditions in his never ending devotion to the Lord.

Julie Andrews is wonderful as Jerusha, his long-suffering wife. She comes to realize that the goodness of people counts more than the religious life itself.

The irony in the movie is that the church, that institution that Von Sydow would fight for, literally turns its back on him at film's end.

Jocelyne LaGarde, as the queen, was nominated for best supporting actress. Firm in her beliefs, but unwilling to accept cultural changes, her performance was simplistic but truly memorable and believable.

A great film.

Not a perfect film, but incredibly interesting

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 20 April 2015]

My first bit of critiquing hit me within the first 20 minutes of this rather long film. They could have made Max von Sydow's character appear awkward. Unfortunately, they overdid it made him appear oafish. Come on fellas...a little restraint.

A warning -- if you're the evangelical type, you're not going to like this film. Its entire purpose seems to be to put down evangelizing...and rightfully so. There is a very powerful, though brief, scene where 2 ministers (including Gene Hackman) are disrobed from the ministry; it sums up in just a couple of minutes the sentiment of the overall film. Make no mistake, there is a theme of racial prejudice throughout the film. And, in fairness, the film does show the weaknesses of both cultures.

Overall this is a rather lushly filmed epic. An exception is the very fake appearing sailing though a straight (at the tip of South America?). They sure saved money in that segment! Julie Andrews is superb here; it is a part that fits her well.

Even beyond the previously mentioned comment about Max von Sydow, I have a bigger problem with his role here as Reverend Abner Hale. Don't misunderstand me; Von Sydow is a wonderful actor, and I have enjoyed a number of his performances in other American films. But here, he seems to have no sense of subtlety at all,, and thus the role becomes one of constant excess. His fault? The director's fault? I have not noticed such excess in other Ggeorge Roy Hill films, so I will have to place the responsibility here on con Sydow.

Jocelyne LaGarde, here as an Hawaiian queen, made only this one film, though she lived until 1979. She was Tahitian and spoke no English, and learned her lines phonetically. It's a remarkable and entertaining performance.

Gene Hackman's role is not large (as another minister), but it is interesting to see him at age 36. This was his first significant film role.

Richard Harris is here as the sea captain who once was in love with Julie Andrews' character. His role here -- as a seaman -- is to cause trouble. You know what they say about sailors! A major plot point is how far Andrews' character will fall again.

Carroll O'Connor has a small role here as Andrews' father. Nothing notable, although he was well into his career at this point.

Manu Tupou Despite the issues mentioned, this is a fine and entertaining film. There are many touching scenes, as well as many powerful scenes. Were it remade today, it would be a very different film; I think I'm glad it was made nearly half a century ago.

disappointing

[jpintar · 4/10 · 20 June 2005]

This movie is an expensive and overlong would be epic that was made in the 1960s. What holds this movie back is the annoying character Max von Sydow plays. This character is so self righteous and arrogant that a little of him goes a long way. Von Sydow plays this one note character like he doesn't change over the years. You have to agree with the scene when he is thrown overboard and the ship captain hopes the shark eats him!!!! I wanted the shark to eat him too. Julie Andrews is good and the woman who plays the head of the Hawaiians are very good and put von Sydow's character in his place at times. However, this movie shows how one character can undermine an entire movie. This is a movie that should have been better by telling the interesting story of converting Hawaiians into Christianity. But when you find the lead character so unwatchable, it undermines the entire story.