Mandingo (1975) User Reviews

Good movie about the darkness of slavery

[Vartiainen · 6/10 · 28 August 2015]

Quentin Tarantino has called Mandingo one of the few big budget exploitation films Hollywood has ever produced, and you can definitely see a lot of this film in his Django Unchained. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling this an exploitation film, but it's certainly startling at times and deals with the subject of slavery without backtalk or ambiguity.

The movie takes place in Deep South prior to the American Civil War. Slavery is at its highest bloom and it's just as bad as you've probably heard. First night rights are freely exercised, slaves are just one step above animals, sold like cattle and while they're not beaten daily – they still need to work, and it's not like you beat your cows daily, either – it doesn't take much for them to incur the wrath of their masters.

The movie is also notable in that it uses the term 'mandingo' somewhat correctly. The term referred to any slave of the highest quality and not just to those who fought against one another. Though even that fighting might be a myth. The movie tells the tale of one particular manor, its owners and the pair of mandingo slave that were brought there, one of them to be trained as a fighter.

It's a tough movie to sit through if you're squeamish and while it's not overly gluttonous in its depictions of violence, like Django Unchained is, it doesn't shy away from them either or pull its punches. A very good movie to check out if you liked Django and/or are looking for a darker historical piece.

Unsurprisingly divides audiences, but Mandingo is at least a film worth seeing

[The_Void · 7/10 · 15 April 2008]

Mandingo seems to divide it's audience strongly between love and hate and that's not really surprising; the film features some real nasty elements and the way that it's all done with a highly quality 'period drama' sort of style means that it will likely miss it's supposed intended audience - although it seems to have found a good fan base among exploitation fans. The film is liable to shock modern audience for its racial themes and strong racial tone; it didn't bother me all that much to be honest as it suits the film within it's context and helps to enforce its exploitative nature, which in turn makes Mandingo more powerful. The film takes place in the south of America during the 1840's and the main focus of the plot is on slavery. White farm owner Hammond Maxwell one day discovers the fighting talent of one of his black slaves and soon decides to toughen him up for battle with other slaves. He's sympathetic with his slaves and soon becomes affectionate with one of the women, which doesn't sit well with his wife Blanche who, for revenge, forces the top fighter to sleep with her.

Anyone going into this film expecting a serious look at slavery will be either disappointed or annoyed (maybe both), but if you go into it expecting some nasty exploitation, you might find a lot to like. The film gives an unflinching look at a more primitive society and it actually more shocking for its tone and implications than the events that take place in it (although the film does include plenty of racism, torture and rape scenes). The way that the film depicts the black slaves as animals makes for uncomfortable viewing and the way that society was segregated into 'white masters' and 'black slaves' is always enforced on the viewer. The performances sit better with the exploitation side of the film rather than the serious drama side as none of them are particularly brilliant; although the three leads do fit into their roles well. Overall, this is clearly not a film for everyone and I'm not in any way saying that the film's bad reputation is in any way undeserved; but Mandingo is certainly an interesting film and I would say it is at least worth seeing.

The Exploitation's Exploitation

[cultfilmfreaksdotcom · 7/10 · 1 January 2013]

What makes this an infamously guilty pleasure, and an extremely politically incorrect movie, might not have been intentional. Perhaps the writers wanted to show slave owners in the deep South exactly how they were, or how they hadn't been betrayed in other films or TV shows – as completely unapologetic and comfortable with their lifestyle.

For instance, James Mason's plantation owner Warren Maxwell laying his feet on a slave kid's chest to get rid of his rheumatism. This is but one example of how MANDINGO takes racism to a completely new level – since owning slaves was legal, it's shown in a workaday fashion.

But after the first fifteen minutes of blunt dialog there's a pretty decent story involving Warren's son Hammond, played by Perry King, who reluctantly marries his cousin Blanche, brought to life with vicious melancholy by STRAW DOGS ingénue Susan George. Blanche is jealous of her husband's slave "wench" and, basking in rueful isolation within the dilapidated mansion, she throws a violent tantrum that's quite chilling.

The real stuff occurs when Hammond purchases a Mandingo Fighting slave, Mede. Real life boxer Ken Norton proves his worth as an actor and is especially good in the intense fight-to-the-death scenes that make you forget about all the other stuff, unfairly categorized by film historians as camp cinema… Perhaps they were just too stunned to take this seriously, and too ashamed to really enjoy it.

Either way, this is a film that could have only come out of the 1970's. That alone makes it truly worthwhile.

For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com

Disturbing and unsatisfying

[FilmFlaneur · 2 January 2003]

Mandingo is one of those films like Birth Of A Nation, or Triumph Of The Will in which one is forced contemplate objectionable content all the while reluctantly allowing mitigating qualities. That's not to say that Fleischer's exploitative film, hardly an artistic landmark, is at anything like the same level as those masterpieces, although he had an interesting and varied career. He was responsible for low budget noirs (Armoured Car Robbery, 1950), Disney classics (20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, 1954), intelligent biblical drama (Barabbas, 1962), war epics (Tora! Tora! Tora!, 1970) as well as science fiction (Soylent Green, 1973) each made with equal professionalism. These are films that are still a pleasure to re-encounter, and continue to hold up as solid entertainment. Mandingo stands out as his most controversial work, and in these politically correct times is seen infrequently, even more so the sequel Drum, 1976 - not by Fleischer.

For those used to the cosy image presented of the old American South, Mandingo will come as a slap in the face. Falconhurst, where most of the action takes place, is far removed from the comforting, romantic world of say, Gone With The Wind (1939). So inflammatory is the subject matter of this film that Fleischer apparently refused several times when Dino de Laurentiis asked him to direct. It is reported that Fleischer finally decided to accept the job only on the basis of his film 'telling the truth'.

With, or without, the salve of supposed historical accuracy, Mandingo was a huge hit when it came out, although few critics liked it and tellingly it was never reissued. It still retains a strong camp reputation, dividing audiences between those who value its revisionism and those who smell exploitation. None of the director's initial hesitation is apparent on the screen, as his work plunges into the excesses of slavery with gusto. On one level Mandingo is a racist, sexist, violent melodrama. But it is also one of the first films supposedly to show the slave-south as it was: as a casually cruel society harbouring an odious institution, one that debased human relationships at every level. (Interestingly, there's an echo of such a slave-based society in Soylent Green, where women are commonly sold as part of a rich apartment's contents and termed 'furniture'.)

Starring as the grouchy patriarch Warren Maxwell, James Mason appears uncomfortable both in and out of character. Playing Maxwell as afflicted with a rheumatic foot, the actor also suffers professionally, being handicapped with a dubious southern accent. More familiar in suave, dapper and civilised roles, Mason here plays a shabby bigot who meets an abrupt end. Although he makes the best of it there is a distinct feeling that he is playing beneath himself, a star at the dog end of an illustrious career, as the opening 'haemorrhoid scene' only serves to illustrate.

Less can be said for Susan George, called upon to play a frustrated and vengeful wife. For those with a nose for such things, her eventual dalliance with Mede (pronounced 'meat') is an all too-predictable event, their climactic miscegenation amongst the most exploitative elements in the film. George pouts and plots appropriately, but her sensuality is overwhelmed by the brutality that surrounds her and her nudity is mild.

Perry King, who plays Mason's son Hammond, had a brief career in films before he disappeared into anonymity and television in the 1970s. Interestingly, in the same year he also appeared in another cult flick, The Wild Party. In the present film as the conscience-stricken offspring, he manages competently enough, without making much of an impact. Impaired by a limp, his physical handicap suggests something of his inner doubts - although in terms of sexual morality, at least, he is as hypocritical as everyone else.

As Mede, the 'mandingo' in question, ex-boxing champion Norton is at the centre of the film, brooding darkly at the injustices around him. Is he secretly hatching plots against his white masters we wonder? For a long time his motives and potential are in doubt. At first, the humiliation he experiences at the slave market (the old lady scrabbling in his loin cloth a defining moment) and later his involvement with the secretly literate blacks suggests that Mede is a dynamic character, even a black Spartacus. He takes obvious pride in the fighting skills, which allow him a limited sense of independence, although his self-contained rage and violence is continually understated. Even when upbraided by Cicero for "killin' another black man" he seems more sheepish towards his accusers than angry at the system. His continually postponed revolt is what gives the film much of its tension. It is unfortunate then that Mede's ultimate "No, Masser." at the end, although expected, is less a long-awaited declaration of rebellion than a resigned withdrawal from service into self-defence. The older Cicero, a supporting character, is noticeably angrier and more radical. One need only recall a film like Schepsi's The Chant Of Jimmy Blacksmith, where the revolt of the repressed is made explicit, to see how restrained the lead in Mandingo is. Mede's final violent acts, done almost in sorrow at his master's failings, are ultimately much less cathartic than natural justice and the audience demands.

In short, Mandingo posits a society worthy of overthrow and then denies the audience the satisfaction of seeing it effectively opposed. While this allows scope for exploitative images of lust, humiliation and punishment, the final result is curiously inconclusive and gives the film a disturbing nature. One is left with a rush of dead and dying bodies, resolving nothing outside of plot strands. The big boiling cauldron into which Mede topples, pierced with a pitchfork epitomises his constant agony. It also stands as representative of the hell the film has represented so excruciatingly for its participants, while offering no immediate prospect of salvation. Mandingo's audience are left contemplating the need for real justice, or face having blithely enjoyed the degradation on its own account. No wonder this uncomfortable film is rarely seen today.

A True Grit Film

[kevinkishin · 7/10 · 5 May 2020]

This film is not for the faint of heart, this film is for hardcore truth viewers who aren't squeamish, the film may be dated but the essence is truthful & too the point, this film should be "Mandatory" for students taking a U.S. or African American history course.

Whoops! Thought this was a camp classic.

[Don-94 · 10/10 · 29 August 1999]

I just saw this film on the big screen (the only surviving 35mm print in the world). I had never seen it on video, so seeing it in a crowded theater was my first experience with the film. As a bonus, the director, Richard Fleischer, the star, Perry King, and Brenda Sykes, who plays King's slave "wench" in the film, spoke before the screening.

The audience alternated between gasping and roaring with immediately regretted laughter throughout the screening. Nobody laughed for a moment at Susan George's supposedly over-the-top performance. And at the climax -- there were astounded gasps all over the theater. Afterwards, once the applause had died down, the audience filed out, stunned. Everyone looked shell-shocked. I wandered around for a while listening to people murmuring: "I told you guys..." "Best I've seen..." "Totally uncompromising..." "That's how it was..." "Didn't pull any punches..." "Amazing..." "Where did you hear about it?..."

We had one big advantage over most people who see the film. Most viewers go rent the tape because they read about it in, say, Edward Margulies' and Stephen Rebello's BAD MOVIES WE LOVE (which is how I knew about it). MANDINGO has a huge reputation as a camp classic, so people seek out the video where it can be found. Then they take it home and watch it alone, or with a friend or two, pre-primed to laugh.

The audience I was sitting with at the American Cinematheque theater had, first of all, read the sober, favorable description in the Cinematheque schedule. Then we'd listened to Fleischer himself talk about how he had refused ten times when Dino de Laurentiis had asked him to film the novel, only to finally accept when he realized how he could do it: "By being totally honest and straight with it." And he was, if you view it without a laugh ready. King and Sykes also spoke calmly and soberly about how hard the shoot was, and how the cast considered it an important film but still had trouble handling the emotions it stirred up.

Fleischer is hardly a symbolic director, although there's a lot of "found" symbolism in 10 RILLINGTON PLACE, for example. But MANDINGO was an obvious statement of the inhumanity of slave-OWNing, and it constantly used the setting and characters to emphasize the moral and physical disintegration of the Deep South under the self-imposed yoke of the slave culture. That sounds pretentious, but in MANDINGO it's totally straightforward. Moral disintegration leads to moral disintegration. The crime is its own punishment. MANDINGO is an antimatter GONE WITH THE WIND.

MANDINGO, as Fleischer pointed out, was a huge hit on its initial release. It was also viciously attacked by all but two critics in the United States. (Fleischer admitted that he saved all his reviews, and pointed out mildly that those two reviewers -- who were the only critics to go into the film in depth -- pronounced the film a masterpiece. "I don't know if it's that," he said, "but those two were certainly a breath of fresh air.")

Because of all the controversy, the film was never rereleased. Nobody at the screening could think of a single time it had been screened between 1975 and August 28, 1999. Perhaps it was screened once or twice, but my point is that essentially no one since 1975 has seen this film with an audience, to feel the reactions of those around the room, to see it on the big screen.

I think it's really unfortunate that MANDINGO has gotten locked into this "camp" label. The film contains so much depravity that I can certainly see why it was selected as a "camp classic". But that wasn't the intent at all. I've heard this film compared to SHOWGIRLS. But SHOWGIRLS was directed by the bizarre Paul Verhoeven (ROBOCOP, TOTAL RECALL, BASIC INSTINCT). Of course he was going for camp; he always does camp. But Richard Fleischer? He did 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, MR. MAJESTYK, 10 RILLINGTON PLACE (a real gem), THE BOSTON STRANGLER, FANTASTIC VOYAGE, SOYLENT GREEN. He is one of the most mild-mannered directors alive. He's done bad stuff -- CONAN THE DESTROYER and RED SONJA come to mind -- but in the seventies he was doing his best work. And that would have to include MANDINGO -- to my complete amazement.

I can't believe how different my experience with this film was from its usual "cult" interpretation. Now I wonder if Otto Preminger's HURRY SUNDOWN is as bad as the Medveds said it was in 50 WORST FILMS OF ALL TIME. I'll have to try to see it for myself.

Love and hate on the plantation.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 10 October 2008]

Richard Fleischer directs a hot-blooded drama set in the Deep South circa 1840. Warren Maxwell(James Mason)lords over a rundown plantation and his son Hammond(Perry King)travels to New Orleans in hopes of purchasing a top-of-the-line fighting slave, a Mandingo. Hammond finds a real gem in Mede( boxer Ken Norton)at an auction and plans on making a fortune by way of his fighting prowess. Back on the plantation, Master Maxwell puts the pressure on his son to produce an heir. He has his dark winches, but is all but forced to marry an alabaster-skinned Blanche(Susan George). When Hammond discovers she is not a virgin the marriage is a sham. Love, hate, deceit and murder.

Very provocative for the mid '70s and a very talked about film. A little over two hours in length with some very sordid and graphic scenes. MANDINGO is based on the novel by Kyle Onstott and produced by Dino De Laurentiis. Also in the cast: Brenda Sykes, Lillian Haymann, Ben Masters, Paul Benedict and Richard Ward.

Exploited and Enslaved Black Bodies

[Cineanalyst · 5/10 · 1 September 2018]

"Mandingo" is a mainstream, big-budget exploitation film obsessed with black bodies. Almost everything is about this fetish, which through enslavement, is principally sadomasochistic. There's the sex scenes, which are always interracial, always focused on the black body, whether male or female, and always under the power dynamics of them being raped. There are the examinations of them during slave trading, their beatings, the belly of the boy being stepped on for the supposed curing properties, the mulatto offspring, and the prize-fighting, too. The marriage of the white masters and, indeed, almost all of the white characters' conversations are focused on black bodies--the control, jealousy, raping and selling of them. There's very little here that subjects the slaves to anything beyond objectification of their bodies. Meanwhile, those of the white masters tend to be perceived as crippled in some way--the rheumatism of the father, the bum knee of the son, the loss of virginal purity of the wife. Through this system of voyeurism and the cinematic gaze, the spectator is forced into the uncomfortable position of identification with the white masters.

It's no wonder so many people find it offensive. It's as though we're co-conspirators in the exploitation of slavery--crippled by the fetish. Perhaps, it's even disconcerting that so many continue to defend the picture, whether gleeful from the outrageous excess of it all, or ignoring the narrative's soap-opera histrionics to consider it realistic because slavery was brutal, after all, or somehow ignoring the narrow focus and positioning of the spectator within the sadomasochistic fetishizing to consider this the 1970s version of "12 Years a Slave" (2013)--it's not. There are only fleeting moments where Agamemnon, Ellen and Mede assert or begin to discover their subjectivity by defying the "peculiar institution," but for the most part they comply with their stereotypical, subjugated roles as toms and "wench." "Mandingo" is obscene, but it's interesting to consider why we feel the way we do about it, whether or not we enjoy it and what that may say about us.

Shamefully underrated film.

[gridoon · 8/10 · 20 August 2002]

This unflinching, hard-hitting look at slavery is a severely underrated and misjudged film. That's probably because it sheds light onto a tough, painful subject that many people would prefer to ignore or forget; if you're expecting a "slaves-and-masters-are-all-a-big-happy-family" depiction of the life in the mid-19th-century Southern plantations, then this simply isn't your movie.

"Mandingo" was followed, one year later, by "Drum". They are both far better films than their reputations might make you believe, and they are also handsome, almost sumptuous productions with a far lower "sleaze" quotient than many reviews seem to indicate. They are both worth seeing - preferably as a double bill. (***)

Unflinching look at 19th century race relations that could only have been made in the 1970s

[kevinolzak · 7/10 · 24 July 2022]

1975's "Mandingo" earned much scorn from such highbrow critics as Roger Ebert, such was its unflinching look at slave relations in the Antebellum South, including numerous interracial couplings featuring full frontal nudity. The series of Falconhurst novels began with Kyle Onstott's original 1958 publication of "Mandingo," named for a specific type of fighter from the West African Niger region, also known for its later use by Alex Haley in his largely fictional yet compelling family history "Roots," the miniseries still two years away from its debut broadcast. Producer Dino De Laurentiis spent a number of years trying to finalize a deal, and with the relaxation of the old ratings system could never have filmed such a sordid tale until the 70s, a decade of untold exploitation where 'anything goes,' and often did. Director Richard Fleischer initially turned the assignment down but finally relented, James Mason earning top billing as plantation owner Warren Maxwell, in a role rejected by James Cagney and Charlton Heston, Perry King as son Hammond in place of Jan-Michael Vincent, Jeff Bridges, Beau Bridges, and Timothy Bottoms. Hammond is mostly portrayed as a sympathetic figure toward his slaves, often at odds with his harder edged father, his subsequent marriage to cousin Blanche (Susan George) soured on their wedding night by her less than virginal countenance under the sheets (as was so often the case, the girl was deflowered by her own brother). Hammond's purchase of new 'bed wench' Ellen (Brenda Sykes) does not go unnoticed by an increasingly irrational Blanche, eventually taking revenge on her faithless spouse by summoning Mandingo fighter Mede (Ken Norton) to her bed, producing a non white child that is quietly allowed to bleed to death, poor Blanche poisoned and defenseless Mede shot, scalded, and butchered by pitchfork. Critics were appalled by the brutality of Norton's no holds barred fight scenes, and the nihilistic climax left audiences appropriately stunned, a game cast putting forth a great effort to bring such unhappiness to vivid life. Interiors are effectively dark and gloomy, furniture sparse and guests rarely in evidence, slaves variously bought and sold to keep the rundown plantation afloat (location shooting in Louisiana). Susan George gives an uncanny rendition of Bette Davis in a part that few actresses would brave, and even at the end still earns sympathy making tearful entreaties to her unfeeling husband. James Mason and Perry King also acquit themselves well, as does Richard Ward as the intelligent Agamemnon punished for being able to read, and Ji-Tu Cumbuka, later Kunta Kinte's Wrestler on ROOTS, making the strongest impression as a runaway slave who prefers death to a life enchained. Personal preference impacts how one sees this picture, slowly gaining increased stature over the years, and certainly better than its immediate sequel "Drum," Ken Norton returning as a new character.

Unwatchable

[bgmagic22 · 1/10 · 9 August 2021]

I can't believe this is listed as romance. Romance implies consenting participants. This film is deplorable, offensive, & outright disturbing....yet based in so much truth.

Excellent disturbing film that violently polarizes audience

[chrisdfilm · 10/10 · 3 June 2003]

This is an underrated, truly great film on the subject of slavery, sexual hypocrisy and the haunted, hothouse atmosphere of generations of white bad karma in the 19th century deep south. There are some who've commented here who get it, others who don't want to get it because it's just too truthful and disturbing. These folks undoubtedly would prefer a TV sanitized version of slavery as in ROOTS. It's a testament to Richard Fleischer's integrity that he was able to pull this off. All performances are excellent (well, that's not strictly true as Ken Norton stumbles his way through but Fleischer, through his direction and editing gets an adequate job from him), including superb James Mason (one of his most brutally fearless roles as opposed to the nadir of his career as one IMDB commentator puts it). One of the things that's most disturbing about the film is the depiction of the consequences of slavery, racism and hypocrisy on the white race, how it warps son, Perry King's natural tenderness towards Brenda Sykes into a horrifying insecure paranoia that evolves into aberrantly exaggerated jealousy and sexually motivated violence by the climax. And poor Susan George's character is driven totally mad by her husband King's neglect and jealousy and the semingly contradictory tender erotic ministrations of slave, Norton. Mason reaps what he sows at the end and King's upbringing (and inferiority complex) is ultimately too much for him in the end, taking him down the same road to hellish oblivion.

If one wants to see a truly lurid, exploitive treatment of the same subject (although very entertaining also with a great cast -- Warren Oates, Isela Vega, Yaphet Kotto, et.al.) one should look no further than MANDINGO's sequel, DRUM. However, MANDINGO is different. It does contain some lurid, super charged sexual images and shocking cruelty and violence -- but Fleischer's treatment is matter-of-fact, in-your-face and ultimately totally unpretentious. It walks a tightrope but courageous director Fleischer never stumbles. The gritty, extremely realistic location and production design add to the disturbing ambience. Unflinching, beautifully shot (I saw this in the theater when it was released and at a rare revival screening in 2000) and undeserving of it's pariah reputation.

Top contender...

[poe426 · 6/10 · 6 March 2009]

When heavyweight boxing champion Joe Frazier was preparing for his first fight with Muhammad Ali, one of his sparring partners was an up-and-coming contender named Ken Norton. Norton gave Frazier fits. One observer at the time suggested that Frazier's braintrust(s) might want to consider getting behind Norton as a title contender. In March, 1973, Norton was selected as another stepping stone in Ali's return march to the throne. By the time of this fight, Ali had been mercilessly hammered in a loss to Frazier (in March, 1971) and Frazier had, in turn, been dethroned after sitting on the title for two years by George Foreman (in January, 1973). Norton had been knocked out by unknown Jose Luis Garcia, so he wasn't considered much of a roadblock on Ali's way back up the ladder. Not only did Norton break Ali's jaw, he pitched a shutout. Norton won 12 out of 12 rounds. In the rematch 6 months later, Ali eked out a narrow win (I gave him the fight by a single point).

It was because of his shocking win over the self-professed "Greatest" that many of us queued up to see MANDINGO (and the sequel, DRUM). While Norton had proved himself capable enough in the ring, it was clear that he wasn't exactly a natural when it came to acting (not that his role in either film stretched the boundaries of the craft in any way, shape or form). The sordid storyline, with its roots in Reality, was likewise less than compelling, but we were there to see Norton, after all (those of us who followed The Sweet Science, anyway). The highly-touted fisticuffs the promoters had promised were too few and much too far between for some of us.

What prompts all this? Just last night, on MSNBC's COUNTDOWN with Keith Olberman, Right Wing Racist Rush Limbo referred to the current President of the United $tate$ as "a Halfrican." Thus far having proved himself a politician of uncommon Common Sense, Barack Obama labors to set right what the Republican Reich has undone over the past 45 years (today's jobless rate stands at a whopping 15%). For Limbo to take the same old road tred by so many lacking even marginal Common Sense in this country, it points up just how far we've really come, after all these years. Which is not very far at all.

A masterpiece???? Come on!!!!!

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 4 February 2002]

A very sick, very disturbing movie about what the Old South was (purportedly) like. This movie took an actually OK book (which is nowhere as offensive as the movie) and played up all the sex and violence and pushes it as far as an R rating would allow. I realize some people view this as a masterpiece, but I find it hard to believe that anyone thought this was made as a serious movie.

**WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!**

It has constant utterances of the "n" word; a long, bloody and disgusting fight between two black men for the pleasure of the whites; a woman basically raping a black servant; many disturbing, bloody whippings; torture etc etc. The list goes on and on. Somehow, they got respectable actors to appear in this. James Mason (Why? He must have been desperate for work) is as good as he can be. He completely covers up his English accent with a believable Southern one. Perry King is also pretty good as his son who's in love with a black servant. Susan George plays his sex-starved wife--she's over the top, but that's the only way her part could have been played. She also deserves credit for maintaining her dignity when she rapes Norton. As for Ken Norton...he's handsome and muscular but the poor guy can't act. He's the only bad one in the cast though. Also there's a strong homoerotic bond between King and Norton--believe me, it's there.

Still, this is a slow, sick and very depressing film to watch. It's NOT camp--I found nothing in this film even remotely funny, even in a bad/good way. It's basically a major film studio doing an exploitation film. View at your own risk. It's followup "Drum" (which is NOT a sequel) was even worse.

Utterly brutal

[Undead_Master · 10/10 · 21 August 2006]

I have heard this film described as campy... I don't see it that way...

I found it incredibly disturbing because i believed every bit of it. I'm no historical expert, but this had the ring of truth to me. Human nature combined with the institution of slavery would inevitably lead to these exact kinds of situations. When one population completely dehumanizes another population, every excess and taboo becomes acceptable in their eyes. If this kind of stuff (specificly the use of female slaves as sex objects) is not well documented in the history books, that shouldn't surprise anyone. You can bet your bottom dollar that in those male dominated times, such practices were commonplace and probably considered relatively normal.

Despite the fact that I think this is a great film, I can see why many people would want to bury it or dismiss it. It's just too difficult to accept and it doesn't even have a happy ending. There is no sense that the situation will change in any way.

I almost wish i had never seen it so i can't really recommend it despite the fact that it's great. Very few people will watch this movie and take it the right way. Many will laugh at it and assume it's a big exaggeration others will find it mean spirited or racist and despicable.

If it has any flaw, it's that it's too honest. People don't like to watch a movie and be bludgeoned by it. There is no attempt to appease an audience. There is a bit of melodrama, but it's surrounded by so much evil that you can't care about it and I don't think you're meant to. This movie is a slap in the face... Take that into account before you watch it if you choose to.

On another note... Based on other descriptions, it's possible that I saw a slightly edited copy of this film... Differing versions of the film apparently exist and some have edited scenes. That may account for some of the different opinions expressed in regards to the movie. If there is a more graphic version out there, I doubt my opinion would change. Making it more graphic would not necessarily reduce it's greatness, but on the same note, the version i saw was plenty graphic enough to get it's point across.

This may be a case (unprecedented??) were the edited version of a movie is actually the better version. I can say for certain that the movie i saw was a great film, and I'll leave it at that.

Prepare yourself for the full force of the truth!

[dorozco028-847-359337 · 17 November 2013]

I just watched Mandingo and can't for the life of me figure out why this film would get any critical reviews. You can't criticize the truth unless you yourself are part of the lie or involved in hiding the truth or you just want to ignore the truth and live in a fantasy world. Like those freaks that refuse to acknowledge the holocaust really happened or say it wasn't that horrible. This film hits you with the truth about 1840ish slavery with a vengeance, shocking, sickening, and uncomfortable as it should be. It doesn't sugar coat the South and especially the Deep South with shades of romantic Gone with the Wind feel sorry for us we lost our culture nonsense, but shows in detail all the dehumanizing, sickening, savage racist attitudes that existed in the south at that time. The buying and selling of human beings should be as sickening and repulsive as it gets and left to me this film would be mandatory viewing by all high school students in this country to help them understand the barbarism of slavery and how it's residue still affects and infects this country to this day. If you get a chance to rent or view this film a note of advice, be prepared for the truth!

yowza - this one is a keeper!

[rchabot-2 · 1/10 · 1 February 1999]

Although it might seem illogical that I rate this movie a "1" _AND_ I claim it is a "keeper" ... I stand by my position.

This movie is not very good. In fact, it is bad ... very bad. The acting is way over the top. Historically, many of the events seem to be quite far-fetched and not based in reality. There are actors and actresses in the movie that you recognize and realize, after seeing the movie, why this movie was not mentioned on their resume. But that is why I have seen the movie more than once. It both repulses me and enchants me. And I seek it out any time I find a friend who has not seen it. It is a CAMP CLASSIC, in my humble opinion. I wonder aloud how this movie was ever made. In the end, I don't care how it was made. I am just glad it was made and that there is a recording of it for posterity.

Extremely powerful 70's movie!

[Coventry · 9/10 · 29 March 2009]

To be (a nasty, mean-spirited exploitation flick) or not to be (a nasty, mean-spirited exploitation flick): that is the question! "Mandingo" is pretty much a mystery of cinema on its own. Did the prominent Hollywood crew, with names like Richard Fleischer, Norman Wexler and Maurice Jarre, intend to produce a trashy & sleazy picture … or was it really their intention to bring a harsh yet realistic portrait of the slavery business in Southern America around the year 1840? Either way it was meant, "Mandingo" is a truly impressive and unforgettable film that totally represents the 70's decade! Wexler's screenplay – adapted from a novel by Kyle Onstott – is definitely not meant for squeamish or easily offended people, as it is an honest depiction of how awful and disrespectful the wealthy white "masters" treated their black servants AND considered their behavior to the most normal and common thing in the world. The movie revolves on the plantation-owning Maxwell family, Warren and his son Hammond, and their main occupation is the "breeding" of slaves. Hammond hits the jackpot when he buys a pure Mandingo on the market. This is a physically strong black male he uses for reproducing and trains to become a bare-knuckle fighting champion. Meanwhile, father Warren insists on having a son of his own with the distantly related Blanche, but Hammond is far more sexually aroused by his collection of black "wenches". "Mandingo" is a very powerful film, despite the large amount of exploitative sex and violence, and Richard Fleischer's like-it-or-not narrative style is ultimately confronting! Particularly the harrowing yet accurate little details will have a severe impact on you. For example, the sight of rich white bastards resting their legs on black children or the endless images of obedient slaves being exhibited on markets and getting inspected like ordinary farm animals. Much rather than a sick exploitation film, I think this is a truly insightful and fundamental portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages. Naturally, this film got boycotted due to its explicit content and I can easily understand why most film-committees chose to ignore a production that deals with topics like racism & sadistic rape, but it's a great film that needs to be seen by wider audiences. Just to prove that it's more intelligent than the majority of 70's exploitation films, there's the compelling sub plot of a courageous slave (Cicero) who tries to mobilize his companions in misfortune to revolt against their masters. Richard Fleischer, one of the most underrated filmmakers ever, assures a tight directing and most of the players deliver excellent performances, which isn't so obvious seeing the insane lines they sometimes had to say. The n-word dominates pretty much every dialog and everyone talks with a heavy Southern accent. Ken Norton (as the Mandingo) isn't much of an acting talent, but physically speaking he's definitely the right man for the job. What a handsome fella, he is! The music, cinematography and use of rural filming locations are all splendid as well. In conclusion, "Mandingo" is a fabulously curious 70's highlight and recommend to open-minded lovers of cinema.

* Note: this comment got deleted once after a complaint raised by another user. Can somebody please tell me what's so offensive about this write-up??

Brutal and upsetting

[HotToastyRag · 3/10 · 2 July 2018]

Maybe in 1975, we still needed to make movies about how terrible slavery was, but nowadays, we're pretty saturated with that genre. If you don't like those movies, don't even think about renting Mandingo, because it's very upsetting.

James Mason is the head of the plantation, but his son Perry King takes over the management when he's old enough. Perry seems to be nicer than his father, but as the movie continues, it's pretty clear he's even worse than James. Perry marries his cousin Susan George, who was abused in her childhood by her cruel brother Ben Masters. In the 1800s, it was extremely difficult, risky, and dangerous to confess something like that, but rather than have sympathy with his wife, Perry responds by buying a slave for the sole purpose of taking her for a mistress. You can call it a love triangle if you want to, between Perry, Susan, and Brenda Sykes, but it's not a very conventional one.

The second plot in the movie is after Perry purchases another slave, Ken Norton. He trains Ken to be a fighter and also breeds him with other slaves for more workers. This is not Gone with the Wind; this does not glorify the South. This movie shows rape, violence, emotional abuse, and pretty much every other horrible treatment you can imagine. Even Susan, who could have been written as a "long suffering wife" character, turns out to be an abusive slave owner. If you really want to watch this upsetting drama, just know what you're getting into.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, racial language, and sex scenes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. Also, there may or may not be a rape scene.

Underrated and Important

[jcnsoflorida · 8/10 · 16 November 2013]

I can see why this was controversial, and no doubt it would be if it were released now (2013). It's stunningly unlike Gone with the Wind. The style is extreme Southern Gothic, (not to be confused with camp). Some shades of Tennessee Williams but goes beyond where he dared. The dialogue is a bit difficult, and DVD has no English subtitles, but you'll be rewarded if you stick with it. (No need to understand every word). I agree that Tarantino was influenced by it but his approach to the subject matter is very different. Mandingo stands on its own as a major work of the 1970s and it's certainly a film that deserves to be better known. Striking photography and music throughout. This film panders to no one, nor does it simplistically tell the viewer what to think about anything. We have the feeling we're on our own with this. Maybe it's no accident that that feels liberating. Fasten your seat belts and see it.

Mandingo: A History Student's Review

[TheExpatriate700 · 4/10 · 4 January 2011]

When it was first released, Mandingo was promoted as the one movie willing to tell the truth about American slavery. It features graphic depictions of every horror that slavery inflicted upon African Americans, ranging from brutal punishments to rape. In many respects, it is an antidote to the benign depictions of slavery in films such as Gone with the Wind and Birth of a Nation.

It is also just as gross a distortion of slavery as they were.

First of all, missing from the film is the most fundamental aspect of the slave experience: labor. Slaves were first and foremost used as workers. Based on this film, one would get the impression that slaves served no other purpose than to be beaten by or have sex with their masters and mistresses.

More damning, despite the film's appeal to an African-American audience, Mandingo strips its black characters of all dignity. Yes, black slaves were subject to horrific abuses. However, they were also able to maintain their own religious practices, and formed families of their own. They were not simply the helpless victims Mandingo depicts them as.

Furthermore, the film fails on a basic cinematic level. Most of the acting is downright terrible, with Susan George giving a histrionic, career ending performance.

The only good things about this film are an opening theme by Muddy Waters and the atmospheric sets, which capture the dark, grim reality of a plantation house before the gaslight era.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[swillsqueal · 10/10 · 25 October 2009]

In this film, the masterful James Mason plays the plantation patriarch, a Big Daddy you wouldn't want to be owned by. This is undoubtedly THE BEST Film made about the era of slavery in the USA. It puts the sanitised, romantic "Gone With the Wind" to shame. "Mandingo" will make you uncomfortable even in your most comfortable seat. "Mandingo" is a mirror. See your reflection; it will scare the living bejeezub out of you.

This is a film about power. Racism is about power. When some people have absolute power over other people, they become sadistic and sometimes, the objects of their sadism become masochistic. Absolute power is always justified with ideological rationalisations become dogma, in this case the the dogma that black skin makes a person less than human. Power corrupts the individual's sense of morality. With power over others, one becomes more or less immoral, hardened to a subordinate's suffering. Self-esteem is generated by putting down the one perceived to be inferior and slaves were considered less than human, a notch or two down on the food chain. Slaves were treated as objects of power, like the organic results of animal husbandry, like the commodities you purchase and eat: cattle, pigs or sheep. Thus, having sex with a slave for a 'white' male owner was like breeding new animals for sale with a view to profit. 'White' females, of course, were not allowed to engage in this sort of animal husbandry with slaves. The patriarchal whisper one hears in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" becomes a murderous roar in "Mandingo".

In "Mandingo" we see realities of absolute power's affect on the social psychology of a society. Even after more than a century of time, American society, especially the South is still scarred by the psychological damage which simmers under the surface of smiles, whiskey fueled tears and freshly mown lawns.

"Mandingo" is a must see. It's better than "Glory", although "Glory" would be an appropriate second on a double feature bill with "Mandingo". "Mandingo" is even better than "Burn" and much better than "Roots". The acting is superb. The screenplay is magnificent. The cinematography is choice. Yes, this movie is violent; but slavery was a daily violence on the lives of those who suffered it. Face it. Yes, there is sex in this movie: squirm in your seat as you feel a touch of titillation. Yes, there is abuse on all levels from pedophilia to outright murder. But the abusers aren't comic book level bad guys; they aren't Jokers on the set of "Batman". They are the ruling class of the Old South. Sometimes their humanity shows through. Sometimes bad guys are ever so well ensconced in the the rituals of polite society that they come across as the upholders of civilised behaviour. That they are also enmeshed in a daily life organised around the exploitation of those who produce their wealth speaks volumes about the quality of their humanity and our own social relations of power today.

Get "Mandingo" however you can. Show it to your friends. Discuss it after you see it. Get ready for the movie experience of a lifetime. Forget about "Basterds"; forget the demented, ultra-violent comic fantasies of Quentin Tarintino. Forget about the sanitized films of the Antebellum Age. See "Mandingo". See the hard truth about chattel slavery and then do some reflection about how power over others functions to generate a generalised state of dominance and submission in the social relations of the here and now, wherever you live on this planet.

major studio film looks like low-budget exploitation

[thomandybish · 19 January 2001]

This film, despite some controversy about it's biracial sex scenes when it was initially released, seems to have faded from memory. Given the degree of sex, violence, and unadulterated exploitation of slavery in the antebellum South, that's a surprise, because I saw this flick nearly ten years ago and STILL can't forget it! Those whose image of the old South has forever been defined by GONE WITH THE WIND as romantic and chivalrous and pick up this movie in the video store(the cover art on the box resembles that famous pose with Gable and Leigh)thinking they're about to be trasported to Tara ought to run like Hell! James Mason and his lame son Perry King live on a plantation and own slaves body and soul. Well, at least the body part, as we see when Mason strings an errant slave upside down, strips him, and pattles his butt with a perforated paddle. Son King takes a more tender approach, as he sleeps with the female slaves, especially Brenda Sykes, whom he takes as his mistress. However, he marries Susan George to provide an heir, and presents her with a ruby choker. He also gives Sykes the matching earrings. When George learns of the relationship(Sykes wears the earrings while she serves dinner to George and King on their first night at the plantation), and Kings learns George has slept with her brother, the marriage hits the skids. George drowns her sorrows in lots of sherry and lots of Ken Norton, a slave Perry has purchased specifically for fighting other slaves for betting. George becomes pregnant, and when the baby comes, it hits the fan! It's hard to believe that anyone in 1975 could see this film as anything but exploitation of a very dark period in American history. Didn't anyone cringe at the sight of King going in to "take pleasure" from a female slave in a bed and the woman groans, "I too black for you", or Ken Norton standing stoically on the auction block of a slave sale while an old woman gropes around inside his loincloth? The video edition of this film I saw was from the early eighties, when movie studios did their transfers from the first worn-out prints the could grab, and may have had a muddy, faded look because of this, but it's hard to believe this thing came from a major studio. You'd certainly wouldn't know it from the production values, because the film looks as if the filmmakers didn't spend a penny more than they had to(we're treated to interior scenes inside a plantation house curiously devoid of furniture). With all these setbacks, it's hard to understand why this movie hasn't garnered even a semi-cult following. If you're in the mood to be offended on all levels and don't treasure some romanticized Hollywood image of the old South, grab MANDINGO.

All these years later and it still turns my stomach

[solitaire-77488 · 4/10 · 14 July 2022]

I was a very young 14 when this movie came out and I first watched it. The actions of the white slave owners - both husband and wife - was so appalling to me that it moulded how I treated others to this day. I'd already been colour-blind...was raised to recognise the soul within the person...so that didn't change. What changed was the way I viewed other white people - being a white-skinned person, myself. I spent my life observing the actions of people to one another and it's still heart-breaking to see b/c there has been a resurgence of overall hatred of one another rather than simply of one's colour. But that ending...it has been emblazoned on my memory for all time. That horror will never leave me. I hope people will learn that Love is the key and stop allowing hatred to rule their actions.

ahead of its time

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 26 July 2018]

In slave-owning Louisiana, Hammond Maxwell (Perry King) is a dutiful son managing his family's rundown plantation and its slaves. He is considered kind compared to other slave owners but he is still fully involved in the institution. He has sex with his slave Ellen and takes a liking to her. He marries his cousin Blanche but their marriage is troubled from the start. From his father, he gets obsessed with purchasing a Mandingo, a slave gladiator. He buys hulking submissive Mede (Ken Norton) who he hopes to turn into a fighter.

It's fascinating how times have change. This is comparable to 12 Years a Slave. While 12 got Best Picture, this got panned. The violence and brutality is matter of fact. There is nothing special in the whipping and the raping. They are everyday occurrences. Even Hammond is not out of the ordinary. He still has some of his humanity which only makes this even darker and more real. Back in '75, this brutal depiction of slavery was probably too much for many and was ahead of its time. It doesn't turn it into melodrama. It lets the audience exist in the dark times. Tarantino sees this as influencing his Django Unchained. It is missing more from the slaves' side of their existence. It would probably be better to have both Hammond and Ellen as protagonists. It needs to get inside the slaves' mind. Despite that, this is still a shocking and compelling movie.