I recently read "Kim" by Rudyard Kipling. Amazing. I'll have to check this movie out. I just saw The Italian Job with Michael Caine for the first time.

Great write up on this film here:
http://stuartfernie.org/king.htm


"Huston very cleverly managed to make the racist element amusing yet at the same time critical - it is accepted because we find our heroes likeable, while recognising their negative qualities. I suppose the character of Kipling represents the audience to some extent, and he seems to share our admiration while knowing that we shouldn't really admire them. Their arrogance is to some extent countered by their sincerity and their willingness to treat everyone in the same way - note the way they treat Kipling himself, the Commissioner and even their soldier colleague (met at the pass). They undoubtedly feel superior, but they are superior to all because they have total belief in themselves and their cause, symbolising, perhaps, the entire British colonial attitude.

Notice how the film opens with scenes from the marketplace, then cut to the opening credits. In other words, the market place was meant to act as a way of setting not only location but also tone. How does the 'exotic' act as an aesthetic category in other parts of the film?
The whole film is quite "exotic" - it is immensely popular, and that can't be due simply to the performances. There must be something about the subject matter, though also the way the whole is treated, with a subtle mix of drama and comedy. But beyond that, the very subject and time seems to inspire interest, mixing complete self assurance with the unknown, vaguely religious mystery and even fate. India remains largely unknown to most, and our knowledge of it is littered with the potential for spiritual mystery, as opposed to our high-tech, materialistic and skeptical society (in the West). I think people like to believe in what is possible, and "The Man who would be King" provides an escape from our rather dull and repetitive lives where character is perhaps not tested as it used to be.

Which brings up the notion of hubris, which is an important one in understanding Kipling's story, as well as Huston's film.

Firstly, about the bridge being a metaphor. I see the bridge as a metaphor which the locals used to "sever all ties" with Daniel Dravot.

I also feel that the bridge represents the imaginary connection that Dravot tried to build with the people of Kafiristan, by lying to them that he was a God. Given that their relationship was founded on deceit, it was only natural that it would crumble once the truth surfaced. Therefore, it was almost as if Dravot had come full circle when he died on the very bridge that the people whom he had falsely ruled constructed, i.e. his own deceitfulness led to his downfall.

My question is can the bridge be seen as a symbol of hubris? Taken to another level, could the empire itself be seen as hubristic?

I hadn't really thought about the bridge as a metaphor but I think you are right, and about hubris - their arrogance leads them to come to believe their own tale (at least in Dravot's case), but the Kafiris are, in a sense, equally guilty in that they are very keen to accept Dravot as a God, vindicating their long-held faith. Clearly religion and deeply held faith are not things to be tampered with lightly.
"

Love the grain on the film, the look of all the location shoots, and the period sound quality.