Before Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003),
pirate movies were considered to be box office poison and with good reason.
High profile efforts like Yellowbeard
(1983), Roman Polanski’s Pirates
(1986) and the most notorious of them all Cutthroat
Island (1995) were financial flops. In 1983, Nate and Hayes attempted to fuse the sensibilities of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) with the
pirate genre to predictable critical scorn and lackluster box office returns.
The movie is significant for two reasons: the screenplay was co-written by John Hughes and starred Tommy Lee Jones. Yes, the man responsible for classic 1980s
teen movies like Sixteen Candles
(1984) and The Breakfast Club (1985)
wrote a pirate movie. I remember when Nate
and Hayes came out and the trailers made it look like a fun,
action/adventure romp, but for some reason I never got around to seeing it.
Decades later, I decided to check it out and see if it was as derivative as its
reputation would suggest.
We meet Captain Bully Hayes
(Tommy Lee Jones) and his crew hacking their way through a jungle not unlike
the opening scene in Raiders of the Lost
Ark. This will be the first of a few nods to that film. They cross a dodgy
looking rope bridge (that oddly anticipates Indiana
Jones and the Temple of Doom by a few months) and arrive in a village
populated by spear-wielding natives. Hayes is a cocky and confident smuggler
trading rifles for gold. Predictably, the deal goes bad and he barely escapes
with his life in an exciting chase sequence only to be caught by Ben Pease (Max Phipps), a rival now working for the Spanish who charge him with treason. He is
thrown into prison where he recounts the story of how he got there.
Hayes is taking a young
missionary couple – Nathaniel (Michael O’Keefe) and Sophie (Jenny Seagrove) –
to an island mission somewhere in the Pacific Ocean where they plan to get
married and convert the local natives to Christianity. Hayes is smitten with
Sophie who invests the money she inherited from her dead father in his “trading
company” unbeknownst to Nate. Unfortunately, on their wedding day the mission
is attacked by a ruthless gang of slave traders led by Pease. They burn the
village to the ground, kidnap Sophie and leave Nate for dead. Hayes rescues him
and together they devise a plan to rescue Sophie.
Tommy Lee Jones doesn’t have
matinee idol good looks and this works in his favor as Bully Hayes. The actor’s
rugged features are a good match for his character. The actor tempers his
trademark stoicism with a mischievous roguish glint in his eye. Hayes may have
disreputable standing, but meeting Sophie awakens good tendencies within him.
Jones is a physical actor and he uses that quality effectively in Nate and Hayes to play a man of action.
The actor is also smart enough to realize that he’s starring in a pulpy genre
movie and adjusts his approach accordingly by playing Hayes as an unrepentant adventurer
as he says at one point, “I never flew the skull and crossbones, but I have
sought pleasure and profit all my life at sea without regard for any man’s
law.”
Michael O’Keefe plays Nate,
the uptight missionary who learns to loosen up once he hangs out with Hayes and
his crew. It’s a thankless role that the actor commits to fully, but doesn’t
succumb to simple caricature. Nate isn’t an idiot; he’s just naïve and quickly
learns a thing or two about the world under Hayes’ guidance. Jones and O’Keefe
play well off each other, their characters start off loathing each other and
then bond over confronting a common foe and achieving the same goal. At times,
it looks like the two actors are having a blast playing heroes in a pulpy
action/adventure movie in the way they exchange good-natured looks while
pursuing the bad guys.
The casting of Hayes’ crew is
spot-on. They really do look like a group of grungy buccaneers out for a good
time and to make some money, not above killing anybody that gets in their way. Ferdinand
Fairfax’s direction and Tony Imi’s cinematography is a little on the flat side,
giving Nate and Hayes a
made-for-television quality with the occasional cinematic flourishes, which is
a shame because the pirate movie is a genre crying out for flashy style as the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise
demonstrate so amply.
David Odell wrote a
screenplay entitled Savage Islands,
which he based on an actual Pacific pirate in the 19th century.
Jeffrey Katzenberg greenlighted the film over at Paramount Pictures with Tommy
Lee Jones cast as the pirate. According to Odell, as they were in
pre-production building ships, director Ferdinand Fairfax wasn’t happy with the
ending of the script. Odell rewrote it several times but Fairfax “couldn’t
decide what he wanted.” John Hughes owed the studio a commitment and they sent
him a copy of the script. He did a rewrite in three weeks, transforming a
105-page script into a 250-page one, and then left the project. A week before
principal photography began the filmmakers were not satisfied with Hughes’
revisions and, according to Odell, tossed them out. Odell handed in another
draft and went off to work on Supergirl (1984).
The filmmakers were still unhappy with the third act and Fairfax rewrote it
himself.
Nate and Hayes received mostly negative reviews from critics.
Roger Ebert gave it one out of four stars and wrote, “The movie is a loud,
confusing, pointless mess that never seems to make up its mind whether to be a
farce of an adventure.” In his review for The
New York Times, Vincent Canby wrote, “Ferdinand Fairfax, the director,
allows the actors to strain for comic effects that aren’t there.” The Los Angeles Times’ Kevin Thomas felt
that the movie “could easily have been terrific … But Nate and Hayes drowns in excessive violence and Trevor Jones’ loud,
bombastic score.”
At the
end of the day, Nate and Hayes starts
off as an extended riff on Raiders of the
Lost Ark and then mutates into a pirate movie that plugs in all the right
elements: fist fights, gun battles, chases, swordfights, angry natives, a
lovely damsel in distress, dastardly villains, and loveable rogues – what more
could you want? Nate and Hayes is
saved from being simply another genre exercise by Jones’ appealing performance.
The obvious comparisons to Indiana Jones probably hurt the movie’s commercial
prospects, but over time it has aged surprisingly well, coming across as a
lean, swashbuckler as opposed to the unnecessarily overstuffed, plot-heavy Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
SOURCES
Helford, Ross. “A
Conversation with David Odell.”
This sounds kind of cool and I might have to track it down, inveterate hunter for adventure films that I am. But man a lot of these early '80s Raiders cash-ins just demonstrated how rare the talent working on the real deal was. At least this could only be better than Swashbuckler, which I was long dying to catch -- Robert Shaw in a pirate movie? Score! -- and then sat in anguish watching for about ten minutes before sadly turning off the DVD.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fun movie with nothing else on its mind but to entertain, which it does.
DeleteBummer about SWASHBUCKLER. Yeah, there were a lot of RAIDERS wannabes out there with very few of them any good.
Fine review, J.D. Haven't seen this one in ages. You made me want to go looking for it again. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteJust want to say I have one that was a truly terrible pirate movie. Worse than all others I've seen. Saw it first-run, too, Though thankfully I didn't have pay for it (I projected it). 1976's SWASHBUCKLER, starring Robert Shaw (a year after JAWS). God was that awful.
I'm glad! I hope you give it a go.
DeleteHeh. Good to know about SWASHBUCKLER!
Finally caught up with this one––your assessment is spot-on. Found myself fumbling for the DVD cover to double-check the release date when the rope bridge setpiece happened: incredible for a movie derivative of a series (INDIANA JONES) to so specifically predict a happening in a future installment (TEMPLE OF DOOM). As you say, the release dates are only a few months apart––I have to wonder if if it's a MISSING IN ACTION/RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II situation where the screenplay was well-known and in circulation among studio heads, and the longer production schedule of the flagship property allowed a scrappier flick to use a common element first, or if its purely coincidence. And obviously this is a huuuuuge inspiration on the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movies, especially the first one.
ReplyDeleteYES! My thoughts exactly. I love its scrappiness and willingness to go for it on what I'm sure was a small budget. This might be my fave Tommy Lee Jones performance. He looks like he's having so much fun in the role.
Delete