The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view

Although I have never seen the completed Man to Man film, only the trailer, I know, hand on heart, for me, this was one of the greatest films ever written. Why? because I was there! Every picture tells a story and behind the scenes some stories never get told. I only joined the "Man to Man" crew at the later stages of filming in Scotland but living the life of a nomad on the road was a fantastic, once in a lifetime experience and comes highly recommended to any mere mortal who gets the slightest chance. Circus comes to town, Circus leaves town, all the locals get back to normal and the actors take their leave to go away, or do they? One day we found a secret rock pool not far from a film location. (I say we, I suppose it was one of the actors who first discovered it.)I thought later of burying some treasure there, it just had some magic about it. Anyway it cleansed my thoughts and all those who sailed through it I guess. One day perhaps I'll get to see the whole film and take myself back to the scene where the rock pool began. xx-xx Excert from the script..."I wanted to go into the forest with her and continue to protect her... but she made me understand that our journey together had come to an end, there, at the border of her land, the very frontier of her world... adieu, adieu, adieu!

In 1969,Truffault made a movie about a wild child: a brat who,since he was a baby ,used to live in the woods.People took him to a hospital,where people would pay to see him like a queer animal.A doctor ,Itard knew that this child was a human being.He took him to his home and began to "tame" him.He realized that his protégé could tell right from wrong:he had proved he was a human like you or me.Regis Wargnier tells a similar story with his couple of pygmies .He pits a loyal scientist (Fiennes) against the old guard who is still thinking that those natives are the missing link between the big apes and Lucy .Nowadays scientists tend to think that there is actually ONE race but it was the nineteenth century then.The story is never boring and features some good scenes: the natives in front of the sea saying "this is our river" ;the male pygmy climbing on the mast of the ship;the scene in the zoo where Fiennes "tames" his protégés and thus reveals they can think.The main problem is that the movie is too "Hollywoodian" .Truffaut's work was produced by an American firm ,but he remained himself and his film was austere,realistic and accessible though.Wargnier's work is too flashy ,putting the emphasis on the good guy /"villains" fight and not giving enough time to Fiennes /the pygmies relationship.A firm friendship/ communication cannot be established overnight.It took time to Itard to gain Victor's trust (the wild child) ,and Annie Sullivan ("the miracle worker")had to fight (physically) to be able to communicate with Helen Keller.When Scott- Thomas tries to teach arithmetic (or tries to communicate through arithmetic:I've read that pygmies know only two numbers :one and many)to the pygmy woman ,the sequence is much too short.This is those scenes the film desperately needs.Entertaining,but Regis Wargnier got caught up into the Hollywood machine.

Yes, this film is perhaps a tad "worthy" and it certainly does aspire to be bigger and more important than it is, however, it is, for all that, vastly more interesting than most Hollywood high street fodder. The film presents some interesting observations on societal issues as well as the central humanistic drama. It excoriates the notion of man's inhumanity,or humanity, towards his fellow man. It is clear from the voting thus far that this film's appeal is largely to the female audience. No bad thing either as it didn't do "The English Patient" and several others any harm did it? I do find the other comments on Joseph Fiennes rather unfair. He plays the character with aplomb. Perhaps that viewer has forgotten the manners and behavioral traits of the period? Whatever it failings, this film is well worth watching. It is well made, looks fine, the acting and script are fine. Just because a few male attendees at the Berlin Film Festival miss the point, don't be swayed. Take a look at this film. Oh yes,I almost forgot... some of the supporting cast are excellent.