Director: Jack Gold
Cast: Peter O'Toole, Richard Roundtree, Peter Cellier

I want to temporarily stop talking about movies, and for a bit talk about books. You know, what we all used to indulge in frequently before television came into existence (and when we turn on the television and see a Canadian movie playing.) There's absolutely no question that books have played a major development into how mankind has evolved in its thinking and beliefs to this very day. The inevitable question that comes from that realization is which books in the history of mankind have been the most influential. I think that the one book that is on top of that stack has to be the Bible. It's the most published and most read book ever, and it doesn't take much thinking to realize how in many ways it has shaped everyone from figures in governments to regular people. The list of other most influential books is quite long, including Plato's The Republic, On The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin, and The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. There is one particular book, however, that I feel gets kind of overlooked among all the most influential books ever written, and that is the 1719 book Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe. There are several things about this book that I feel are significant. One such aspect is that it is considered one of the first, if not the first, novels that was written in the English language. Another attribute that this book can boast is that it is considered one of the first examples of what has been called "realistic fiction"; before the novel was first published, the focus of storytellers were of legends and supernatural elements. The publication of Robinson Crusoe inspired many subsequent writers then, and in the future, to write of ordinary people in situations full of adventure that very well could happen, not just stories of castaways like the title person.

Despite Robinson Crusoe being of such a great influence on people over the centuries, as you no doubt know, being well-know and a part of history doesn't necessary make someone or something completely palatable - or even a little palatable. In recent years, there has been controversy about the book that bubbles up every now and then. Maybe the best way to explain it is with my personal experience with the book. When I was about ten years old, I read Robinson Crusoe, specifically an edition that had been abridged for people in my age group. Although I had known the basic plot of the novel before reading it, and the book had been dumbed down for kids, there was something about the novel that, well, didn't seem right to me. It started when the character of Friday was introduced into the narrative. As I kept reading of Crusoe's actions and conversations towards Friday, I got a strange feeling that I couldn't quite explain immediately. Continuing on, I eventually realized what it was, and that was while Friday was a grown man, Crusoe's attitude towards him seemed like that of a no-nonsense parent towards a naive child. Even when Crusoe was doing things towards Friday such as discouraging cannibalism, Crusoe's attitude to Friday didn't seem right to me. Keep in mind that this was years before political correctness came into our world. So why were my thoughts ahead of the time? Well, it may be that even at my age, I relished to have intelligent dialogue with adults and kids my age, and not dwell in simple-mindedness too much. I wanted to respect others, and get the equal amount of respect in return.

Yes, yes, I know that Robinson Crusoe was written over 300 years ago, when attitudes of everyone were radically different than those of today. If you can keep that fact in mind, you may be able to get through the often condescending attitude towards the Friday character and appreciate the rest of the novel, including the confusing part of the novel when a naked Crusoe swims to his wrecked ship and a few minutes later is filling his pockets with supplies. But there's no question that Robinson Crusoe is badly dated in some respects. If anyone were to film the novel today with exactly the same attitude it has towards Friday and his society, understandably there would be a lot of protest by everyone, from minorities to the direct descendants of the audience the novel was originally written for. You may then understand my intrigue and interest when I first learned about the movie Man Friday, which was advertised to have a revisionist look at Robinson Crusoe, where the shoes (characters and their attitudes) were swapped. To explain this further, I will get into the plot. When the movie has started, the character of Robinson Crusoe (Peter O'Toole, Caligula) has already been stranded on his desert island in the Carribean for many years. One day, a small group of natives canoe to Crusoe's island, and the sight of what he considers "savages" scares him so much that Crusoe quickly kills all but one (Richard Roundtree, Crack House). Crusoe takes the lone man prisoner, gives him the name "Friday", and proceeds to make Friday his slave. Crusoe gives Friday English lessons, and soon the two men can have conversations. Though instead of being in awe of Crusoe and giving him complete respect, Friday makes it clear that he doesn't see Crusoe as superior at all. Rather, the very intelligent Friday sees Crusoe as just a mean slaver whose western attitudes and customs seem positively bizarre and illogical. In fact, the more time that passes with the two stuck on the island, Crusoe in Friday's eyes becomes more distasteful, even during occasions when the two must work together to survive.

As you read the above plot synopsis, you probably saw that Man Friday shapes up to be more of a kind of psychological exercise between two men than a story where the characters are influenced by outside events - or influence events happening outside of themselves. I had no problem with the movie deciding to go along those lines, but I did have a number of issues with how the movie decided to go along those lines. My first objection was how in the first few minutes we get a flash-forward that shows one of the two men discussing his experience, meaning the bulk of the movie is essentially one big flashback. I've always disliked this device, because its consequence is showing that the teller survived his experience, and that lessens any tension regarding if he'll escape unscathed. It turns out that there are more flaws than just that with the narrative. There are a number of moments between Crusoe and Friday that don't make a lot of sense, like how later in the movie it's established they have been together for years, but one day Crusoe shows Friday some unfinished boat constructions that he never bothered to show before. Also, there are long moments that serve absolutely no purpose at all except to extend the running time. There's one lengthy interlude when British slavers lead by Peter Cellier (The Chosen) and Christopher Cabot land on the island, and when they exit the movie, nothing about their visit seems to have changed or planted seeds for later regarding Crusoe and Friday. Even worse is another lengthy sequence where Crusoe and Friday get into their heads to try and fly like birds. They construct a ludicrously professional wood runway off a cliff, and there is a montage of them running with homemade wings off the cliff but landing in the ocean below. Eventually, they manage to construct a hang glider (!), and they cruise around in the air for a while. While you may think that this would lead to them leaving the area to find friendly fellow humans, guess what? The scene ends, and the hang glider and their flying efforts are instantly forgotten and are never brought up again.

I guess I can understand why the producers of Man Friday thought these and other inconsequential scenes were necessary - they may have feared that had the movie been totally about Crusoe and Friday talking and debating, the audience might have been quickly bored stiff. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if the movie had essentially been one debate after another, as long as the dialogue was interesting and well-written. But how are the verbal interactions as they are, sometimes with lengthy breaks between them? Sometimes they get to be mildly amusing, such as an early scene when Crusoe tries to get Friday to understand the (English) concepts of "mine" and "yours". Other times, when both characters are calm and engaging in mild chitchat such as when Crusoe talks about England, you do get a little sense of the characters' desires and needs. And there are a few times when Friday tries to get into Crusoe's head to show that his beliefs of everything from erotic dreams to soccer don't seem logical, giving him rational food for thought but getting dismissed all the same, that do generate some interest. But all the same, better moments like those in the movie never quite hit the bulls-eye. I think this is mostly because there is never any real evolution with the two men's relationship. Crusoe starts off and pretty much stays for the entire movie as a very angry man who is extremely stubborn. I could accept him being that way for a while after enslaving Friday, but it's quite hard to believe that he manages to keep up that entire front for years and seldom showing off a softer side. As a result, he doesn't become an interesting unlikable man, as the characters were in That Championship Season, but instead just plain unlikable. Friday does show his intelligence on many occasions, but he suffers from a problem the Crusoe character also has - no real background. The movie seems to assume for the most part that you know where both men came from and what happened in their past, but even then, they still come across as shallow in this particular narrative.

When talking about the two characters, I'm not by any means knocking the actors who play Crusoe and Friday by any means. With what they are given, both O'Toole and Roundtree give the best professional performances anybody could give in the circumstances. Roundtree gives his words a convincing intelligence when stating his cases, and O'Toole makes Crusoe a very convincing assh*ole when he needs to be one (which is very often). But while director Jack Gold (The Medusa Touch) had the chops to get his actors to the best of their games (even the best actors need good direction), he doesn't manage to do much more for Man Friday. Shot in Mexico, the movie never satisfies visually. More often that not it has a kind of flat and shot for television look and feel, including lousy day-for-night photography. More often that not there are dreary backdrops, save for Crusoe's home, which looks so elaborate and professionally made that it is ludicrous to think one man did all that. The often-annoying musical score by Carl Davis (Roger Corman's Frankenstein Unbound) adds further irritation to what's presented. But I think the biggest problem director Gold gives Man Friday is that the movie often has a real inconsistent feeling. Sometimes the movie tries to be funny, sometimes it tries to be dead serious. Nothing is immediately wrong with a movie that decides to be alternately funny and serious, but the problem is that the two extremes don't fit together in this particular effort. When the movie changes from one extreme to another, it more feels like two very different movies edited together with a staple gun. As a result, I really couldn't get invested into Man Friday. While the movie had a great revisionist idea to work with, it seems that it was made by people who were recently rescued after each being stuck on a deserted island alone for decades, and as a result lost the ability to recognize how a society - any society - really works as a whole or with the individual members in it.

(Posted September 19, 2026)