For some reason I decided to watch Khartoum last night. Well, anything to take a break from the John Le Carre-fest we've been through this week. I'm sure those stories are accurate representations of the espionage trade, but I don't particularly enjoy watching a bunch of pompous old Englishmen sit around and spout off about how cleverly they've turned an asset or whatever.

So Khartoum instead, with Charlton Heston as Charles Gordon, sent up the Nile to try and protect the English and Egyptian citizens at Khartoum from the forces of the Mahdi (Laurence Olivier). Gordon, in his obstinate way, decides to try and save everyone. Once he learns the Mahdi is not going to stop, and will kill all the unbelievers, Gordon realizes the British military must get involved. Which is exactly what Prime Minister Gladstone doesn't want to do, which is why he sent Gordon alone, save one Colonel Stewart who was there as much to spy on Gordon for Gladstone as to help Gordon. So Gordon stubbornly refuses to leave Khartoum, though he does evacuate the European citizens. In this manner, Gordon essentially holds himself hostage to try and force Britain to act, since it's well known they sent him there, and if the movie is to be believed there was great outcry to send help in the public.

I need to stop watching movies when I'm tired. The first hour breezed by, but the second hour dragged, probably because I wanted the film to end so I could go to bed. In a way, it works well with the film since the Mahdi has placed Khartoum under siege by that point. I imagine that would be a tense situation, with thousands of people outside waiting to kill you. Never knowing if help is on the way, or how close it is. But there'd would also be a boredom to it also. Day after day, trapped within those walls, unable to risk much of an excursion, food being rationed to make it last.

I don't think the movie was going for that effect, since it frequently cuts to Colonel Stewart heading downriver, the British troops flailing about on their camels, or Gladstone trying at all times to distance himself from the situation. If the movie had stuck with events within the walls of Khartoum more consistently, it might work. As the movie actually played out, it's really just a way for me to excuse my boredom. "Hey, the movie wanted me to be nodding off, so it's OK!"

Early on, Gordon travels to meet with a former slave trader. The man was a big shot in the Sudan before Gordon's first visit, when Gordon stopped the slave trade, and by his reckoning brought peace to the land. Now he wants this man to go back and try and bring the tribes under his control, thus robbing the Mahdi of his power base. Considering Gordon killed this man's son and took away his livelihood, I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn the former slaver declines.

What I was left wondering is if the Mahdi is Gordon's fault. By removing the slave trader from power, did he create a local vacuum that the Mahdi was able to rise and fill? In theory the Egyptian and British troops are the power, but I think the situation for them is much as it was for the French as described in The Conquest of the Sahara. Where there are troops, they're in control. Where there aren't troops, they control nothing. Sometimes, even where there are troops, they don't control anything, because they're on the Mahdi's turf.

I have to figure the slaver wouldn't have allowed a religious fanatic to get started in his territory, as it would likely disrupt business. I don't know if the Mahdi cared about the evils of slavery, but I imagine many of the people buying slaves would be unbelievers, and it's rather hard to run a business if all your customers keep getting killed. I guess it would depend in part on whether the Mahdi was genuine, and that's something I'm not clear on. Did he really believe he was receiving visions, or was he a charlatan? I think it's the former, because Gordon regards the Mahdi as someone with as much faith in his god as Gordon has in his, and I suppose Gordon's meant to be perceptive enough that someone faking it wouldn't fool him. If the Mahdi was a faker, and the slaver was there, he wouldn't have tried it, because it wouldn't have seemed a prudent course. If he is genuine in his beliefs, then I imagine he would have emerged whether the slave trade was there or not, but I still think he'd have been cut short before he could rally much support.

Of course, that leaves them with a still-thriving slave trade, which is bad. I'm not certain how it compares to a man who plans to sweep all the way to Constantinople, putting to death any unbelievers he finds in his path. His plan seems to be that if he kills everyone within the walls of Khartoum, everyone will get the point and clear out of the way. In that way, it serves as a lesson to prevent further bloodshed, much like how Gordon killed the slave trader's son as an example. The problem is, there will be people with no place else to go, and would thus be stuck in the path, and someone would feel bound to defend them. The Mahdi was never going to have an easy trek to where he wanted to go.