If there are really only seven basic plots or stories then that probably explains why remakes, which are practically as old as cinema itself, are so common. From a business perspective, something that has proven to be successful once may well do so again so the temptation is always there to take another trip back to the creative well. In among the virtual ocean of remakes there is to be found a more exclusive subset, that of a director redoing his own earlier films. Filmmakers as diverse as Alfred Hitchcock, Raoul Walsh and George Marshall did this over the course of their careers. In two of those cases ,The Man Who Knew Too Much and Colorado Territory, I know I like the later films better and if I wouldn’t go quite so far with Marshall’s Destry, I still feel it’s a worthwhile movie. In 1956 John Farrow remade his own Five Came Back (1939) as Back to Eternity, but I can make no comment on how it stacks up against its first iteration for the simple reason that I’ve not seen the earlier version.
The “stranded in the wasteland” story is one which is ripe with possibilities. It promises danger, excitement and suspense, it allows for drama to grow out of shifting group dynamics, it acts as a platform for endurance and ingenuity, and it can also easily blend in themes of spirituality and even notions of redemption. Back from Eternity manages to combine all of those elements in its sub-100 minute running time. The first half hour or so is given over to the kind of character introductions that are necessary. Thus we see the eager new pilot (Keith Andes) and the older flyer (Robert Ryan) weighed down by the accumulation of a lifetime’s emotional baggage as well as a fondness for the whiskey bottle. There is a glamorous refugee (Anita Ekberg) now discarded by her shady lover and on her was to an even shadier future in what sounds like a South American bordello. Among the others there’s a brace of couples, one young and contemplating marriage (Gene Barry & Phyllis Kirk) and the other old and devoted (Beulah Bondi & Cameron Prud’homme), and a political assassin on his way to face execution (Rod Steiger). When a violent storm forces their plane down in the middle of an unexplored jungle in headhunter country, the real drama kicks in. They say that a crisis brings out the best and the worst in people and that is seen to be so here, selfishness and selflessness clashing like a couple of ethical knights in a jousting match of the conscience. Casting people back into a primal landscape and circumstances peels away their civilized veneer and reveals the true characters beneath. Everything comes to a head when the plane has been patched up but only to the point where it is capable of safely taking off and staying in the air with just five people on board. The question naturally arises as to who will go and who will stay, and all the while the unseen threat in the jungle inches ever closer.
Back from Eternity was scripted by Jonathan Latimer, a man who wrote a good many screenplays which John Farrow directed. He was a fine novelist too and his Bill Crane mysteries are a real delight and are highly recommended. As a novelist he was adept at weaving a rich thread of humor into his hard-boiled setups, however there is none of that on display here. Instead, there is a strong flavor of what I think of as Farrow’s influence. He was a director who frequently evinced a noticeably spiritual side to his work and it is clear to see in this movie. Aside from one overtly religious scene, there are the allied themes of sacrifice and redemption coursing through the fabric of the narrative. This is placed front and center in the decisions taken and the character arcs traced by the elderly Spangler couple and Rod Steiger’s Vasquel. It can be glimpsed too in the change of heart experienced by Jesse White’s former hood, in the renewed hope and motivation which stirs in Ryan’s disillusioned pilot, and also in the maternal protectiveness that a new found sense of responsibility draws forth in Ekberg.
All of this lends substance to the story, although it should be noted that it doesn’t arrive at the expense of the tension or danger that sustains the interest of the viewer. William C Mellor does some fine things with the lighting in the airplane and jungle scenes and I feel Farrow was wise to keep the headhunters off screen throughout. We only see the results of their handiwork on a couple of occasions and the rest of the time their oppressive presence is indicated only by the softly ominous beat of drums and a brief glimpse of a hand brushing aside some vegetation – out of sight yet very much on our minds.
What then of the acting? Rod Steiger is nothing if not interesting, a performer steeped in the Method and one who has garnered both fulsome praise and scathing criticism. Humphrey Bogart said his technique was of the “scratch your ass and mumble” variety, yet he was nominated for an Oscar in On the Waterfront, won one for In the Heat of the Night and did some remarkable things on screen in The Pawnbroker. Like him or loathe him, he was a talent, but he too often abandoned all restraint and seemed to tear movies apart with the sheer artificiality of his work. Fortunately, he holds himself in check in Back from Eternity, operating within his boundaries instead of trashing them. His one indulgence is his adoption of a frankly bizarre accent, a weird type of strangled German or middle European effort that calls unnecessary attention to itself. Robert Ryan is very subdued as the pilot, disenchanted and with a cool noirish cynicism, but never despondent. Anita Ekberg is largely decorative, a pleasingly pneumatic presence and Phyllis Kirk comes over rather starched and stuffy in comparison. Gene Barry is pretty good too as a slick type who quickly sees the polish wear off when he’s in jeopardy – it’s not at all a sympathetic role and I always admire actors who have the guts to take on that kind of part. Generally, the cast turn in professional work and all of them have their moments.
Back from Eternity was released by Warner Brothers on DVD as an Archive title. It looks solid throughout, presenting a crisp widescreen image which is in good shape overall. As I said at the top of this piece, I’m not in a position to draw comparisons with Farrow’s first go at telling this story, but I hope to get to that movie at some stage. Anyway, I’m a believer in taking films on their own terms and merits, and I can only say that I enjoyed this one.
Riding the High Country 
I enjoyed this film and reading your thoughts about it too. You’ve reminded me that I need to revisit the original. It’s always fun to see the changes that were made, especially when it’s the same director remaking his own movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
I, on the other hand, need to go in the opposite direction and get round to the first movie. And yes, there is something more compelling about seeing how filmmakers decide to reshape their own work as opposed to their reinterpreting that of others. I think it says something about how they viewed the evolution of their own career.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, once you’ve seen both movies, one can ‘t help but compare the two. I guess when thinking about the two, it’s the 1939 original that first comes to my mind. I found it to be very atmospheric and feeling of confinement in regards to the jungle and natives closing in. It all moves at a rapid pace with a snappy dialogue of the era that keeps the viewer intensively pulled into the drama.
In 1939, FIVE CAME BACK was a box office success and continued to linger in the mind of audiences for years. So, it’s no wonder we have the 1956 version. However, IMO the earlier 1939 version just comes off more believable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting. Clearly, I’ll have to make an effort to see the 1939 movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Colin, like you I too have not seen the 1939 movie. With Ryan and Steiger, I expected something more thrilling and exciting and ended up quite diappointed.
LikeLike
I felt better about the film than you did, Chris. There are some big names involved on both sides of the camera and it’s quite true that the movie is nowhere near the best of any of their work. I came away broadly satisfied but I’d seen it before and had set my expectations accordingly, which always helps.
LikeLike
Farrow remains a firm favourite and his long series of collaborations with Latimer are I think among his best (especially THE BIG CLOCK and ALIAS NICK BEAL). Farrow and Steiger seem to have got on as they immediately after made THE UNHOLY WIFE together (with Latimer). Good timing on this review by the way as the premise was just used by Anthony Horowitz for his latest TV serial, Nine Bodies in a Mexican Morgue. Will you be able to get that in Greece?
LikeLike
PS If you want you watch the 1939 version:
“http://ok.ru/video/1601761577691”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you – shall check that out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Farrow and Latimer worked well together. I’d like to see a restored/spruced up version of The Unholy Wife at some point as all I’ve ever come across are decidedly poor copies.
Re Nine Bodies in a Mexican Morgue, I’m really not sure how to go about viewing that – hopefully, I will get to see it at some point. I’ve read a few comments on it, a few incredibly sniffy and frankly miserable dismissals and at least one very positive take. Personally, I think the premise sounds great and like something I’d enjoy watching.
LikeLike
With the huge exception of Foyle, I am mainly a big fan of Senor Horowitz
LikeLike
I’ll admit I didn’t get on with the two follow ups to Magpie Murders, but I do quite like his Daniel Hawthorne novels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I admit, only read MAGPIE (loved it). Read all the Hawthornes though!
LikeLike
In general I avoid Farrow’s movies. The Unholy Wife is worth seeing purely for Diana Dors who at that stage of her career could do no wrong. Steiger is atrocious as usual. And as usual Farrow relentlessly belabours us with his religious message.
I reviewed this one years ago and I noted that it’s a movie that tries to warn us of the dangers of sin and depravity but it made me feel that I would definitely choose sin and depravity in preference to what Farrow is offering.
I’m afraid I found Alias Nick Beal to be an ordeal. I think I actually dislike Farrow as a director more than I dislike Nick Ray.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the words of Randolph Scott: “My sentiments, exactly.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Each to their own of course, but I can only say that my own view of pretty much everything in that comment is the complete opposite.
LikeLike
Excellent review. Ryan and Steiger are favorites. Steiger’s performances as Napoleon in ‘Waterloo’ and Juan in ‘Duck you Sucker’ are some of my all time favorites. Ryan’s work is untouchable. Most might not know he did excellent voice over work too in the CBS documentary on the First World War from 1964. Excellent series and he is key to it like Olivier in ‘World at War’.
LikeLike
I’ll own up to not knowing about Ryan’s voicing of that documentary.
LikeLike
I have not seen BACK FROM ETERNITY but I have seen FIVE CAME BACK an excellent little RKO Programmer.
Farrow really packed a lot into his 58 years.
His last picture was JOHN PAUL JONES a Warner Bros big budget picture which I have never seen. A most interesting cast I might add.
Oddly enough I have never seen Warner Bros other tentpole picture of 1959 THE FBI STORY and I have no doubt Blu Ray releases will follow sooner rather than later.
HONDO was Farrow’s best Western by far and a box office smash. His other Westerns are a tad overblown for my taste especially CALIFORNIA.
Farrow made some very fine Noirs, my personal favourite WHERE DANGER LIVES.
LikeLike
I don’t think you’re missing much with The FBI Story, John. I’ve only seen it once and that was years ago, but I recall it being a pretty routine affair and I’ve never felt inclined to seek it out again.
As for Farrow, I agree that Hondo is his best western, and by some distance. I like all his noir movies and would be hard pressed to choose a clear favorite, but there’s no real need to do so.
LikeLike
‘Hondo’ is excellent. Recently watching ‘Plunder of the Sun’ really enjoyed the on location footage.
LikeLike
It’s years since I last watched Plunder of the Sun, but it’s a very agreeable if minor film. You’re right about the attractive locations, and the cast are pleasant to spend a bit of time with.
LikeLike
‘FBI Story’ is interesting at times but flat. Stewart makes it watchable.
LikeLike
I’m starting to rather like Anita Ekberg. I hadn’t noticed her much as an actress until recently. An Anita Ekberg movie I definitely recommend is Screaming Mimi. As the story unfolds it become more and more obvious that Miss Ekberg’s slightly odd performance is in fact absolutely perfect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure that it’s ever a good idea for a director to remake one of his own movies.
Remakes can be worthwhile when it’s a different director taking a totally fresh approach to the same material. The 1931 Maltese Falcon was a fine movie. John Huston’s 1941 remake was great because Huston’s approach was totally different from Roy del Ruth’s.
The 1942 Cat People was a great movie. Paul Schrader’s 1982 remake is an equally great movie because Schrader’s approach was radically different from Tourneur’s.
LikeLike
Walsh’s re-run of HIGH SIERRA, COLORADO TERRITORY did not turn out too shabby, some folks prefer it to the original.
The game of the film’s third run ’round is raised by the beautiful new restoration of I DIED A THOUSAND TIMES it looks sensational.
Nice combo of veterans (Mae Clarke, Lon Chaney,Dub Taylor….) with young up & comers, Nick Adams, Dennis Hopper…….) Chaney and James Millican are wonderful.
I was goaded to watch Warners other 2.55 widescreen gangster film HELL ON FRISCO BAY and it looked pallid by comparison.
LikeLike
Walsh’s re-run of HIGH SIERRA, COLORADO TERRITORY did not turn out too shabby, some folks prefer it to the original.
I certainly do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both versions are pretty strong, but put me down in favor of the McCrea variation.
LikeLike
Colin, seems to be many parallels between Hitchkock’s LIFEBOAT and Farrow’s BACK FROM ETERNITY (and Five Came Back). And because of those parallels, it seems that it may of been natural for you to slide right in from one review to the other. Just thinking.
LikeLike
Brain fog typo – I mean Hitchcock.
LikeLike
You’re right about there being some thematic parallels with Farrow’s film and Hitchcock’s movie. I won’t say I put up the two posts close together deliberately as there was a longer space between the actual watch times. However, it is possible I had something in mind, albeit subconsciously.
LikeLiked by 1 person