I wouldn't have expected this film to be very historically accurate and a number of other reviewers on this board confirm that. The print of the movie I viewed had terribly muffled dialog so I wasn't really able to follow along too well, though the various locales of London's life and adventures were adequately portrayed. I don't know very much about London's real life at all, though the referential scenes that hinted at some of his well known books like "The Sea Wolf" and "The Call of the Wild" even I was able to pick up on. I quickly pulled up London's page on Wikipedia and sure enough, as others have mentioned, the actor Michael O'Shea bears a strong resemblance. Not having seen him before I had to wonder whether someone like Cagney might have made more of an impression with the character. For what it's worth, Susan Hayward was gorgeous, and Virginia Mayo spiced up her much too brief scene. If anything, I came away from the picture feeling that a modern day treatment of London's life could really be interesting if it did a better job of melding his writing career with his travels.

No need to repeat consensus points—the movie's clearly compromised by its clumsy propaganda segment. Also, it's a shame more time is not given to the rigors of the Yukon, the real basis of London's powerful prose. I wouldn't be surprised that budget constraints cramped this key phase of his life. Too bad, because London was an outdoor writer who wrote powerfully about the outdoors—something you don't get from the movie.One scene, I think, is worth noting. That's where Prof. Hilliard ridicules student London's uncompromising literary realism. Though the screenplay doesn't elaborate, there's a background assumption to Hilliard's point of view. Namely, that American literature is dominated by the standards of its gentile, well-to-do class with refined tastes and the leisure time to both read and write. Thus, London's raw depiction of life at the bottom comes across as offensive for a number of reasons. It's that impossible leap from the immiserated bottom to the refined top that London's trying to navigate. But more importantly, he's doing it without compromising the integrity of his work.Now, the screenplay softens this conflict by casting the kindly Davenport as the professor and having him pay tribute to London's "courage" as a budding writer. As a result, hostility to the upsurge of blue-collar writing that London represents is seriously underplayed. Perhaps that's not surprising. After all, WWII was a great national effort where class differences were submerged to the common interest. O'Shea and Hayward are fine in their roles. However, I agree that a more honest depiction of the great writer's life awaits production. Given the richness of the material, I wonder why that hasn't happened.

Jack London is one of my favourite writers and the life he lived was so large - his books seemed almost small in comparison. "Jack London" was based on the book "The Book of Jack London" by Charmian Kittredge, his second wife. She had a thirst for adventure almost as strong as Jack's, so she was not going to dwell too much on his younger days. His first wife is not mentioned in this movie, she was older than him, they had 2 children together and she really encouraged him to pursue his education and writing. But they were very mismatched and he eventually left her to pursue his own interests.The film begins with Jack's (Michael O'Shea, who looked rather like him) time as an oyster pirate (he was only a teenager when he became one in real life). His best friend, Scratch Nelson, (you can barely make out Regis Toomey) is killed by the Fish Patrol and that event causes Jack to sail out on a sealing schooner for the Bering Sea. The trip is long and harsh (again, in real life, Jack wrote the book "The Sea Wolf" based on some of the characters). After the voyage he enrols at the University of California where his tutor (Henry Davenport) sees greatness and courage in his rough stories. Jack then decides to go to the Yukon and while there he begins to write stories about the miners and the girls who live in the camps. While in pursuit of a gold strike he finds himself snowed in with a dog and writes the book that made him famous - "The Call of the Wild" (in real life Jack London believed Huskies made wonderful pets and helped make the breed popular.)He returned to America to great acclaim and his life became more meaningful when he met his soul mate Charmian Kittredge (Susan Hayward). She has already fallen in love with him through his books but is afraid she will be disappointed in him as a man. After that small scene, Hayward definitely takes a back seat to his adventures - not at all the way it was in reality. He is asked to cover the Boer War with a London newspaper - even though he has never done any reporting before (again, in real life Jack, who was very passionate about reporting, covered an assignment about poverty in London's East End).I agree, after the first hour the film quickly descended into a message of propaganda (according to this movie, even back in the early 1900s Japan wanted world domination). The real Jack London deserved much more than this - he did much more. He and Charmian had their own boat and they intended to sail around the world. He explored Tahiti and the Hawaiian Islands and he introduced surfing to California. He covered the San Francisco earthquake and was on one of the last boats out of the harbour. He also introduced organic farming. It is unfortunate that so much time in the film is given over to the Russian Japanese War of 1905 - there is hardly any mention given to his many books.Louise Beavers had an excellent part as Mammy Jenny, the only mother that Jack really knew. Her best scenes were early in the movie and she gave her part real feeling but by the end she just seemed to be in the background as a family retainer. Beautiful Virginia Mayo had a small but attention getting part as Maimie, the oyster pirate girl. Osa Massen was Freda, the dance hall girl he met in Alaska.

Jack London's life was certainly colorful enough for a dozen films about different aspects of him. Sad to say though that what his life was used for in film was some wartime propaganda that put the best face on some of the least attractive parts of his character.Jack London who barely saw the age of 40 when he died wrote some of the best stories around. He wrote on what he knew, but he also wrote as does everyone else bringing the baggage of his own life experience with him. Some of that experience in another day and time would have been condemned as racism. But this was World War II and London was a big believer in the 'yellow peril' as it was called back in the day.Two thirds of the film covers his life as author, we see his years as a seaman from where he got the inspiration for The Sea Wolf. We see him up in the Yukon in a miner's cabin with a dog that was no doubt his inspiration for The Call of the Wild. London was able to capture the spirit of adventure that his own life was all about right on paper for the world to enjoy ever since.The final third dealt with his time as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War. London was a socialist, but his socialism did not encompass folks who were Oriental. Like a few million others he saw the rising immigration of the Chinese and Japanese to our Pacific coast as a threat to jobs for the white people. He advocated strict immigration policies for Orientals.The film puts the cart before the horse. London is presented as a man who saw because he was on hand at the Russo-Japanese War what Japan's ambitions were and for that reason was as xenophobic as he was. Actually the kind of atrocities present in World War II were not existent during the Russo-Japanese conflict. Japan had her imperial ambitions, but so did everyone else including the USA at that time. But our immigration policies caused by pressure from our West Coast politicians was a big contributing factor to the deterioration of relations with Japan over a couple of generations. London was part of the cause not a prophet crying in the wilderness.This film was the first independent production of Samuel Bronston who later did some films with a bit more budget than Jack London. Had he a bit more money Bronston might have gotten James Cagney or Spencer Tracy, both who would have been right for the role. Instead they got Michael O'Shea who was making his second film after Lady of Burlesque. O'Shea is fine in the part, but certainly was no box office.As London is covering the war, he meets up with a Captain Tanaka who is played by Leonard Strong, an actor who specialized in Orientals and played a ton of them in World War II. From the vantage point in 1905 Strong outlines in the best Fu Manchu tradition Japan's imperial aims right up to taking on the USA eventually. Must have gone over great with the swing shift crowd. A lot of course is left out of London's life including a first wife. Playing the second and only wife in this film is Susan Hayward who only comes into the movie when it's half over. I wish we'd have seen more of her. Charmian Kittredge London survived her husband by almost 40 years dying in 1955.O'Shea in fact met and married the leading lady of his life in Jack London. Virginia Mayo has a small role in Jack London and they married for 30 years until O'Shea died in 1973.Maybe one day we'll get a view of Jack London that will be a lot better than this one.