My Boy Jack
“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind—
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.
Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!
Rudyard Kipling was a staunch supporter of British imperialism, who advocated the philosophy of “The White Man’s Burden”, a belief that it was the duty of first world nations to form a system of satellite countries which would be under the care and administration of the parent country. This, Kipling and other imperialists believed, was of benefit to both parent and child, bringing stability to both. In practice, the policy of imperialism served as a way for military powers to exploit the resources of weaker nations. Nevertheless, many men considered it their duty to go abroad and advance the interests of their empire (in this case, the British Empire). From that mindframe, it was not surprising that Rudyard Kipling supported England’s entrance into World War I, nor is it surprising that he had a high expectation that his son John would play a pivotal role in that war, thereby distinguishing himself to a degree commensurate with his station.
My Boy Jack, adapted by actor David Haig for television from his stage play of the same title, focuses on the Kipling family during the First World War. John Kipling was rejected by the army and the navy on account of his extremely poor eyesight, but his famous father used his considerable influence to get him in. Because of his father’s high status, John was placed in charge of a company of men, most of them older than he. By 1915, John was preparing to take his men to see real combat in the fields of France, where he would fight in the Battle of Loos just one day after his eighteenth birthday.
As Jack, Dan Radcliffe effectlively conveys both the uncertainty of inexperience and the determination to distinguish himself apart from his famous father. Several of his scenes stand out vividly, like his departure from home, when he articulates his fears regarding the war for the first time. There’s also a scene later on when he powders a soldier’s infected feet, soothing them so that the soldier may enter battle more comfortably. This soldier later returns to describe Jack as “gentle”, and the same could be said of Radcliffe’s performance. He is not commanding attention by barking orders or making grand speeches. His characterization is quiet and unassuming.
Kim Catrall and Carey Mulligan play the ladies of the Kipling family: Mrs. Carrie Kipling and Bird Kipling. Both women, though supportive of the war effort, disapprove of Rudyard’s decision to send Jack into active combat. They fear for the boy’s safety in light of his vision problem, and hold Rudyard personally responsible for anything that might happen to Jack on the front. Catrall brings a quiet intensity to the role which is completely engrossing, slowly growing from soft-spoken wife to a woman determined to find her son and bring him home. She could easily have gone overboard, with tears, with rage, with frustration, but she doesn’t, and her quiet anger and resentment is more effective and more realistic than any more overt show of emotion. Carey Mulligan (who was wonderfully featured in the critically-acclaimed “Blink” episode of Doctor Who), does similarly wonderful, heartbreaking work, but with very limited screentime. Since Bird is established early on as the person closest to Jack, it doesn’t make sense that her character is so ill-explored.
Of course, the play and the film are mostly centered on Rudyard Kipling himself, and David Haig does a wonderful job of writing and portraying the conflicting emotions that Kipling felt during this difficult period of his life. It would be too easy to make Kipling an overbearing, tyrannical father who sent his son as a sacrificial lamb to WWI. The truth of the matter was, Kipling loved his son, and Jack was as keen to join the army as his father was to see him there. Even after he learns of the tragedy of the Battle of Loos, Haig’s Kipling still fervently tries to hold on to his belief that the war is glorious, despite the obvious coflict going on in his heart at the thought of his son’s presence there.
Ultimately, My Boy Jack offers no easy answers, beyond the fact that the British were woefully ill-prepared to go to war when they did. In fact, the movie is not really about Jack, but about his family’s reactions to his absence. On this level, the film feels incomplete. It ends during the war itself, with no time to establish the long-term tensions that would exist in the Kipling home. The play has an additional act which takes the story into the beginning of World War II, placing the sacrifices of the first war into a greater perspective. This serves also to explore the changed relationships in the Kipling home, to give us a more complete telling of the tale, as it were. Since the television adaptation lacks this third act, it seems unfinished, a great set-up without a sense of resolution. Nevertheless, it is worth watching for its great performances and writing.
My Boy Jack is available in DVD.
Leave a Reply